Current Events

Another round of news:

The Good

Obama makes his picks. (Though not for Geithner's top help.)http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney09/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3991859

I'll say it again. Barack Obama knows how to say and do the right superficial things. I refuse to let any biases I have allow me to fault him for "being cool," though. I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due.

Publicly displaying your March Madness selections as President is downright ballsy. I'm incredibly impressed. I'll enjoy beating Obama in the challenge, but I give him credit for being there to beat.

Take a look at his picks, though. His Elite Eight includes all four 1 seeds, three 2 seeds, and one 3 seed. That is not gutsy at all. Take a risk, Mr. President.

Some people may deride the Commander-in-Chief for sticking his nose in the BCS stuff and taking time for March Madness. I like it, though.

As a side note, I have 3 teams from the middle coast in my final four. You can't call me biased, either. All 3 teams are rivals of my favorite 3 teams. (Texas, Wisconsin, and Marquette.) I won't tell you who they are, though. Michigan State or Purdue? Lousiville or Syracuse? Oklahoma or Missouri?

The Better

Monetary policy in action!http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_interest_rates

Good to see some moves that actually make sense. This is a key concept a lot of people should work to understand. Monetary policy is a whole lot more effective than fiscal policy. Here's a quick macroeconomics lesson indirectly courtesy of Ken Dobbs, MSOE Professor. If I'm correct, he'll be pleased. If not, they can't take my degree back.

Monetary policy is the set of tools that lawmakers use to govern the supply of money. Fiscal policy is government spending. While both have substantial effects on the economy, there are two main differences between them.

First and foremost, fiscal policy is political. At the core, conservatives tend to shy away from spending money while liberals want to spend it. We're conservative, and I think it makes sense. Whether you're making a lot of money or a little money, spending less money means good things. The point remains; changing the economy through government spending is a heated proposition. What programs do you spend on or cut? Who gets the final say? Fiscal policy is what sold newspapers before they got all biased.

Monetary policy is not political. Most people don't care. Those is charge of our federal reserve system can focus on results instead of feelings. There's little political bias tied up in what the reserve ratio should be. Put it this way; the fact that you're bored reading this shows how little anyone cares.

So the economy can be molded, shaped, and winnowed with little fear of making the electorate angry. (Unless the media has decided you're George W. Lucifer.) That's a good thing, too. I'm going to step away from textbook reading and add my own view here. (There goes ethos.)
Monetary policy is more effective than fiscal policy. Let's say the government spends 10% of the nation's GDP. One out of every ten dollars comes from the government. That one dollar can then be spent on more things. Next, let's say 25% of that money is invested further. After two "rounds," that one dollar turns into $1.37. This is inexact, but go with me.

Monetary policy effects the whole money supply. Every dollar saved can turn into more money. Every loan made goes further. Credit is easier to get. Rather than affecting 13.7% of the money supply, monetary policy effects the majority of it! And everyone can gain access to that money. It's not limited to those with government contracts. (A sketchy group in Madison, WI.)

So, to wrap up a long explanation succinctly, it's nice to see the right things being done in one sector.

The Best

AIG Execs prove they're not all murderous.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_co/aig_outrage

I'm not even gonna comment a lot, except to say two things. One, which liberal wackos are going to admit that not all AIG execs are Lucifer's minions? (or Bush's, if you're in the media) Two, proof that the government does not have to be the ethical jury of the business community. This isn't all played out, yet, but I imagine the government's self-righteous stance will look pretty done in a few weeks or months.

The Moral of the School Story

After a day to stew on it, for the two of you who read it, it's time for the "moral of the story" regarding the educational blurb I posted yesterday. Here's what we can take:

Lesson 1: Jurisdiction

Who's responsibility is it to punish an irresponsible student? In some ways, it is the school's responsibility. In others, the parents must step up. The school cannot, however, replace the parents. In no way should the school have authority to take Billy's allowance. Let the parents rule their side.

Lesson 2: Proper Punishment

The school has an avenue to pursue in the matter; they can take away free lunches. Instead, the school decides to take his allowance. I don't think anyone would dispute the absurdity of such an action, even in a made-up story.

Lesson 3: Foresight and Rapid Reaction

You don't know from my story, but isn't there a chance the school could have found out about the Johnsons' financial prowess before being suckered? What if I told you the school offered the free lunches within minutes of hearing about Mr. Johnson's job situation? Sure, it's possible the school could have done the proper research and thought things through and still have been burned, but it's much less likely.

Now, apply these lessons to the AIG Bonus stories that are floating around.

Startling Education Story

The Johnsons are a hard-working family. Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson lost his job in the recent economic downturn. They lost a valuable source of income.
To help the Johnsons, their son, Billy Johnson, got help from his school. The school decided to help the Johnsons pay for Billy's school hot lunch. He got lunches at a very reduced rate.
One week, Billy was not a good student, though. He was disruptive and needed harsh discipline. His grades suffered and he made life miserable for his teachers and fellow students. The school did not doubt their decision to help Billy with his lunches even though he was taking their help for granted.
Then the school changed their mind. They found out the Johnsons were giving Billy $30 each week in allowance money. Frustrated both that Billy did not deserve the allowance and that the allowance could have easily paid for lunches, the school took Billie's allowance from him.

________________________________

What is the theme of this story? How does it apply to today's political landscape?
I'll explain later.

President Obama is feeling some pressure from both sides of the aisle today. Conservatives are pressuring him for his socialist tendencies in the new budget. Democrats have their own gripes, most notably disappointment in environmental issues and the outrageous cap on charity spending tax deductions. Obama has managed to disappoint both sides of the aisle.

I'm ok with that. I lauded President Bush for sticking to his guns no matter who agreed with him. My only disappointment with Bush was that he bended to Obama's desires in order to create a smooth transition and only managed to give Obama more leeway to blame inherited circumstances for the terrible condition of our economy. The point is, there is some validity to standing up for beliefs.

In fact, causing concern on both sides of the aisle can mean a 50% chance of doing something great; rising above party lines often offends both sides. In this case, though, I think the action falls in the other 50%. Obama has created a bill so bad, it helps noone.

In response to criticism, Obama released a statement. Let's go through what he said paragraph-by-paragraph and see what it entails:

__________________________________________

Good morning. With the budget committees hard at work this week, I wanted to meet with Chairman Conrad and Chairman Spratt to talk about the progress they're making on this budget resolution.

(I don't mind delegation. Some have murdered Obama for this, and he may go too far, but I'll grant him an ok for including experts.)

Because these are no ordinary times, I don't just view this budget document as numbers on a page or a laundry list of programs. I see it as a economic blueprint for our future -- a foundation on which to build a recovery that lasts.

(OK. Semantics, but I'll go there.)

Now, this budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. Because of the massive deficit we inherited and the enormous costs of this financial crisis, we have made some tough choices that will cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term and reduce it by $2 trillion over the next decade. That will bring discretionary spending for domestic programs as a share of the economy to its lowest level in nearly half a century.

(Two problems here: First, can he deflect anymore? Yeah, there's a crisis. Stop blaming other people and fix it. You ran for change. Let's see some change.

Second, how do you cut a deficit by spending trillions of unecessary dollars and creating socialism? You don't. His models are wrong. Ironically, those models also showed the Republican stimulus solution still worked better than Obama's.)

What we will not cut back, however, are those investments that are directly linked to our long-term prosperity. As I said last week, we can't go back to a bubble economy -- an economy based on reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; on bad credit and inflated home prices; and some of the shenanigans that have been taking place on Wall Street. Such activity does not lead to the creation of lasting wealth. It leads to the illusion of prosperity and, as we're finding out, it hurts us all in the end.

(I actually like what he says here. Semantically, he tends to be logical. Then his actions go against his words. He is a true politician.)

And that's why this budget makes the investments that will lead to real growth and real prosperity -- investments that will make a difference in the lives of this generation and future generations because it makes us more productive.

Because so many Americans are just one illness or medical emergency away from bankruptcy, we have made a historic commitment to health care reform in this budget -- reform that will finally lower costs for families, businesses, and state governments; reform that's not a luxury, but a necessity if we hope to bring down the cost of Medicare and Medicaid so that we can reduce our deficit in the long run. And this is a fight that Kent Conrad and John Spratt have been fighting for a long time. The two gentlemen standing with me today, they've been leaders in efforts to get these entitlement programs under control, and they understand that if we don't solve the problem of health care costs now, we are not going to be able to get a handle on entitlements down the road.

(Don't skewer me, but I am applauding these statements. Ending entitlements is utterly necessary for our economy to ever recover. We spend massive amounts of money on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare. Those are mostly dollars that do not come back to the economy. This path is the right path.

Now, when universal health care comes up, I will lose the happy demeanor. I'm crossing my fingers that this means universal health care is out; how do you decrease entitlements by increasing enrollment? I'm not holding my breath, though.)

Because we know that the countries who out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, this budget also invests in a complete and competitive education for every American -- in early childhood education programs that work; in high standards and accountability for our schools; in rewards for teachers who succeed; and an affordable college education for anyone who wants to go. That's the reason the three of us are standing here today. None of us were born with a silver spoon in our mouths -- but we got a great education. And if we combine additional resources with a commitment to reform, then I think we can deliver that for every American child.

(Two great ideas in a row! I'm so happy to see two things in this paragraph. Our teachers need to be held accountable and our good teachers deserve rewards. The teachers' unions have held us captive far too long. This is an enormous leap in the right direction.

Obama is right on about needing to educate to compete, too. It looks like he's not going to make the huge liberal mistake and just throw more money there. Yes, money will be thrown, but the hypocrisy of the teaching monopoly may finally die! I'm willing to overlook the humorous silver spoon statement and ignore the idea of college for idiots. Let's take what we can get (just for now). )

Because we know that the new jobs and new industries of tomorrow will involve harnessing renewable resources -- renewable sources of energy, this budget will finally spark the transformation we need to create those jobs and those businesses right here in America. It makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy, and it invests in technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

(Two logical fallacies rear their ugly heads in this section. First, the only reason industries of tomorrow will surely involve renewable energy is because the government has decided that's the case. The government decided to reward renewable energy because it's definitely the cornerstone of energy in the future. That, my friends, is circular logic at its finest.

More importantly, it's ridiculous to state that clean energy is or will be the profitable kind of energy. Clean energy has proven to be massively unprofitable thus far. What Obama means to say is clean energy will be the less financially damning form of energy when they're done destroying oil companies and ruining the power system we have in place. You can't simply raise taxes to the point of insolvency and call another industry profitable.)

And because millions of Americans are already struggling under the weight of their monthly bills and mortgage payments, this budget does not raise the taxes of any family making less than $250,000 a year by a single dime. In fact, 95 percent of all working families will receive a tax cut as a result of our recovery plan.

(Nope. Liar. Unfortunately, this is one of those lies that won't be exposed until we already have to pay massive taxes again.)

Now, there are those who say the plans in this budget are too ambitious to enact; to say that -- they say that in the face of challenges that we face, we should be trying to do less, than more. What I say is that the challenges we face are too large to ignore. The cost of our health care is too high to ignore. The dependence on oil is too dangerous to ignore. Our education deficit is growing too wide to ignore. To kick these problems down the road for another four years or another eight years would be to continue the same irresponsibility that led us to this point. That's not why I ran for this office. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next President or the next generation -- I came here to solve them.

(So, we should take big problems, and they are big problems, and respond with big, irrational actions? No way. Let's not throw good money after bad money. The only reason Obama wants big action is so he can push through his agenda. The worst thing to do here is make the wrong decisive action. Obama is right that action is necessary, but the wrong action would be terrible.

And eight years of inaction? Please. If Bush did nothing, the enormous bias wouldn't exist against him. He'd be milktoast in the eyes of his detractors. He's hated because of his action. Also, funny how Obama enjoys implying Bush was wrong when, in fact, Democratic leadership blocked things like, say, regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.)

I know that there are some on Wall Street and in Washington who've said that we should only focus on the banking crisis and one problem at a time. Well, we're spending a lot of time focusing on this banking crisis, and we will continue to do so because until we get liquidity flowing again, we will not fully recover. But the American people don't have the luxury of just focusing on Wall Street. They don't have the luxury of choosing to pay either their mortgage or their medical bills. They don't get to pick between paying for their kids' college tuition and saving enough money for retirement. They have to do all these things. They have to confront all these problems. And as a consequence, so do we.

(I'll give him this one. I agree.)

Now, there's been a lot of discussion about this budget already, and I hope we engage in a healthy debate going forward. The challenges we face are not partisan. We're going to get some numbers with respect to the budget that may make this even tougher in the coming couple of weeks. The answers don't have to be partisan, and I welcome and encourage proposals and improvements from both Democrats and Republicans in the coming days.

(Nothing much here. Funny, though, how suddenly it's "answers don't have to be partisan" instead of "answers cannot be, in any way, partisan or the earth will explode.")

But the one thing I will say is this: With the magnitude of the challenges we face right now, what we need in Washington are not more political tactics -- we need more good ideas. We don't need more point-scoring -- we need more problem-solving. So if there are members of Congress who object to specific policies and proposals in this budget, then I ask them to be ready and willing to propose constructive, alternative solutions. If certain aspects of this budget people don't think work, provide us some ideas in terms of what you do. "Just say no" is the right advice to give your teenagers about drugs. It is not an acceptable response to whatever economic policy is proposed by the other party.

(OK. Once again, good semantics, and I hope Obama's actions support these words. I will say, though, he has ignored the many alternative solutions Republicans come up with. Two way street, Mister Messiah.)

The American people sent us here to get things done. And in this moment of enormous challenge, they are watching and waiting for us to lead. Let's show them that we're equal to this task before us. Let's pass a budget that puts this nation on the road to lasting prosperity. I know Kent Conrad is committed to doing that; John Spratt is committed to doing that; I'm committed to doing that. We're going to need everybody working together to get this thing done.
All right? Thank you, everybody.

______________________________________________________

All-in-all, I'm actually pretty ok with what Obama said. I think his actions won't mirror his words, but he's convinced me to give him the rope to hang himself.

There are some major problems with what Obama is attempting, to be sure. He's looking to make a splash when he should focus solely on the problem at hand. You make a name as President through the honest action you take and not by playing a game. Obama is also doing a lot of deflecting. Both constitute the political tactics he specifically derided.

I'm more impressed by some positives I did not expect, though. I sincerely hope we will see things like education reform and reduced entitlements. Until Obama's words here become lies, I'm willing to hold out hope for his change.

We're back!

Hello folks,
Horns and Heifers is back. It turns out finishing college and working nearly full-time don't allow much time for blog writing. I have graduated, though, so let's get the ball rolling.

Susie and I will have a nice post for you later this week. The topic is government intervention in private business.

For now, let's check out some links with a new format...

The Good:

Obama and Courts Disagree
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html?hp

The New York Times, doing what comes naturally to non-journalists, gave this article the headline "U.S. Won’t Label Terror Suspects as ‘Combatants’," ignoring the meaty portion of the article. Before we get to the good, I should point out that Obama's stance is both worthless and superficial. It will become worse than worthless if/when Guantanamo detainees are moved to US Soil. Until that day, store these jerks where you'd like and call them what you want; I just want them locked up.

The good is the court ruling. First, it's nice to see the courts get it right. The Guantanamo detainees were fighters. We wouldn't give individual trials to Nazi soldiers, Japanese Kamikazes (if alive), or British troops in the Revolution. Why allow terrorists to roam free?

The popular answer has been "because it wasn't a war." In other words, because these fighters did not fight under a country's flag, they should get a pass. By that logic, we couldn't detain Jewish fighters or Gypsy terrorists. After all, diaspora lack their own land. Woe to the Jewish fighter who takes up Israel's flag, though; you become a soldier instantly. (Not to mention you associate yourself with Israel. For shame...)

The good goes beyond the court getting the ruling right, though. It also shows a sliver of light. Maybe our judicial system won't bow and bend to accomodate Obama. Maybe legislating from the bench is out and the courts will do their jobs. This is one battle won, and it shows we may be able to win the war.

Plus, this show's true idiocy. I'll take a president who mispronounces "nuclear" and tries to walk through a fake door over one who doesn't understand the law and tries to get into the Oval Office via a window. At least a fake door looks like a door.


The Bad:

Obama Camp Tactics
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/gibbs-responds-to-cheneys-remarks/

Another Times article. This article shows the wonderfully tactful methods White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is using. Here's the gist:

- Dick Cheney criticizes Obama plan to shut down Gitmo
- Gibbs gets angry
- Likens Cheney to Limbaugh, though he means it as an insult
- Uses sarcastic tone and caustic intention
- When confronted, Gibbs claims to sometimes "ask forgiveness rather than permission."

What doesn't happen:
- Personal attack by Cheney
- Logical argument or forethought by Gibbs
- Actual apologies or request for forgiveness by Gibbs

The whole event is a microcosm of the liberal portion of America. Rather than respond to legitimate criticisms, Gibbs simply reverted to name calling. How effective would it have been for Gibbs to simply say "here's why Cheney is off-base..?"

Answer. Still not overly effective. At least he wouldn't have been rude and disrespectful, though. This is the type of response I would expect from a small child.


The Ugly:

Obama Finds Respectable Forum
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1653321120090316

Obama's schedule for further serious discussion includes an education summitt led by Big Bird at Sesam Street, an automobile industry conference at Funland Go-Karts, and a seminar on censorship as part of this week's episode of Saturday Night Live.

Speak for yourself. Don't use a fake, humorous forum to demean others.