Travellinbaen

Entries tagged as ‘damn political post’

Guns, Pigeonholes and Intellectual Honesty

June 29, 2010 · 28 Comments

Quote of the Day:

“It is the spirit, and not the form of  law that keeps justice alive.” –Earl Warren

An interesting opinion was handed down yesterday by the United States Supreme Court. By a 5-4 margin, broken down along ideological lines, the Court ruled that Americans have the right to own a handgun which cannot be abrogated by Cities or States in the name of gun control. Conservatives are jubilant, liberals are angry, or so the drivel spewed by the American press would have us assume. Speaking for myself, a liberal thinker disinterested in cheap political labels, I think they got it right. Media, pundits and talkers…..you oughta know by now, you can’t pigeonhole me.

Because I agree with the Court that the law should have been stricken, don’t mistake me for a “pro gun rights” type. The truth is I hate handguns. From what I’ve read over the years handguns cause exponentially more deaths and injuries from accidental discharge and heat of passion killings by non-criminals than they save in crime prevention. And countries with handgun prohibitions typically have far lower murder rates. I think America’s handgun obsession is misguided at best. However I believe in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, and that includes the laws I don’t like.

All of our freedoms come with risk. The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures puts us at risk of a terror cell keeping itself hidden as it plans attacks. Freedom of speech allows all manner of hateful, traitorous personalities a chance to gain strength through recruitment and intimidation. Freedom of religion means groups like the Moonies and their wingnut newspaper the Washington Times can operate without fear of recrimination. And the right to bear arms allows us the means to go around killing one another in every manner besides self-defense or defense from tyranny. Why some self-professed liberals are able to stomach the risks of some civil liberties but not others is an inconsistency I can’t abide. Our only real option is a constitutional amendment changing the text of Number 2. And we all know that ain’t happening so let’s forget gun control. The people have spoken.*

Ahh, but those devoted acolytes of Limbaugh and Beck, they have their own inconsistencies. This decision was activist! It was an assertion of Federal Control and Superiority! It attacked States Rights! Where are the conservative complaints? One must not, if he is to be intellectually honest, only complain of an abrogation of states rights when the courts rule against their personal views. The decision reached yesterday was a classic case of activism. There has been no longstanding precedent on state action on gun control. The ruling was based mainly on a selective reading of history, a reading thoroughly and effectively challenged in the dissent.

As for those “originalists” among the conservative crowd, the ones who are often heard in times like now when a Supreme Court nominee is being vetted by the Senate, why these originalists and strict constructionists must decry this ruling most loudly. For they believe, unlike Elena Kagan and Thurgood Marshall, that the original Constitution was not a “flawed document.” Do they realize that the original Constitution applied only to the Federal Government and not to the States? That the States, under the original document, could in fact restrict freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms, for example, in any way they chose? This was a major flaw in the original document. The flaw was corrected not merely by the fourteenth amendment, but by an expansive, some say activist reading of the amendment, that forced the states to afford the same rights for its citizens which the federal government was precluded from restricting. The expansive, activist approach is responsible for the end of Jim Crow and many other forms of discrimination. It wasn’t “strict adherence” to the original flawed document, but it was right and it was just.

The court’s activism yesterday was likewise right, based on overwhelming public opinion in the U.S. and on a broad, expansive, activist view of the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment.

———————————————————

*I think it would be interesting if some politician came along who said, “I’m a strict constructionist and a patriot. I believe in the Second Amendment, as it is written. The government cannot restrict anyone from owning a gun, ever. However, if you own one you must sign up for the state militia and be subject to being called out for duty at any time.”

Categories: Law · Politics · current events
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

This Is My Stand

March 24, 2010 · 21 Comments

My friends,

TB had not intended to address this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about health care reform. Alright, here is how I feel about it.

If when you say health care reform you mean godless totalitarianism,  Hoffa-handed fascism, European inspired communism, that forces money from the hands of the people to the pockets of the insurance companies, that is overly complicated and inefficient, that is a boon to pharmaceutical companies and may overburden an already overstressed medical profession, yea that in point of fact abjectly fails to provide the universal care or cost controls that its proponents proclaim; if you mean the evil takeover of government bureaucrats from insurance bureaucrats of decisions better made by you and your doctor; if you mean toppling our great nation from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of the Joker’s lair, the witch doctor’s fire, and shame, helplessness and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But,

If by health care reform you mean beginning of a new conversation, a philosophy of the pursuit of health as a natural right of man, a tonic that alleviates, if admittedly fails to cure society’s ails, that puts life in the eyes of a young child with cancer and banishes bankruptcy from the fears of an old man with early Alzheimer’s, and replaces the mark of a c-section as a denial for preexisting condition with the warm glow of contentment of a new mother still insurable; if you mean projected budget deficit reductions; if you mean the increased rates of pay for Medicaid that will put a spring in the step of many physicians; if you mean the unexpected mechanism for handling student loans so that the bankers no longer take the profits while passing the defaults to taxpayers, the savings which will put billions of dollars toward actual medical treatment and even deficit reduction, which will be used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

—————————————————————————

Some of you will recognize my play on Soggy Sweat’s famous “Whiskey Speech” made by the Mississippi legislator many years ago during a debate on the legalization of alcohol. In reading reaction to the health care law all I have seen or heard is how great a triumph it is, or that it will ruin our country. I don’t believe either narrative. It will do a lot of good in my opinion, but it is imperfect in many ways that can be criticized by left or right. Certainly, there are provisions that few would argue with, such as banning the preexisting condition exclusion excuse for insurance companies. Similarly, the mandate that people must purchase insurance from a private company, few would argue, is offensive from multiple perspectives. I am sure I will regret even raising the subject as rational discussion of such things is difficult for most everyone; but I think most people who read here are up to the challenge.

Finally, I am copying the real Whiskey Speech and linking to one of many sites where it can be found, just for your enjoyment or interest.

The speech linked and reprinted below is the Quote of the Day:

“My friends,

“I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.

“If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

“But;

“If when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

“This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”

Categories: Politics · current events
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Travellinbaen’s Political Consulting Service, Bipartisan Edition

April 28, 2009 · 36 Comments

Quote of the Day:     “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”     –Mark Twain

TB’s been thinking about the state of politics in America lately, and trying to set aside my ingrained bias against the Republican Party to consider objectively what they can do to resurrect their fortunes. Today’s party shift by Senator Specter in particular got me thinking about what has become of the party that only six years ago was generally believed to be in the midst of an extended, if not permanent period of majority. My task as an uninvited, uncompensated and unsympathetic consultant is not to re-hash what led the GOP to this point, but to offer a blueprint for how they might regain relevance on the national scene. 

I start with the premise that current Republican leadership has revealed only one plan so far. That is to simplify their message, reinforce their traditional conservative tenets of fiscal responsibility and strong national security, and remain confident that the Democrats are screwing things up so badly that if they do nothing they will be perfectly placed to regain power in 2012. That may well happen, but (a) it may not and (b) it may not be as bad as what the Bush era is currently considered. It is natural that Republicans would favor this plan because it is essentially what Democrats did to take over in the first place. I don’t think the circumstances are similar enough between now and 2000 for that plan to succeed however, and so I offer an alternative that involves putting the “Old” back in GOP–a return to their roots.

Before determining where they should go, Republicans need to take a step back and see how the world has changed since 1980. First, there are a few issues that Republicans like to focus on that they have already won. Tax rates for the wealthy are not 70% or even 50% any more and have not been for longer than half the electorate can even recall, and are unlikely to ever return anywhere near those levels. The second amendment is safe. Really, it is. Probably a third or more Democrats in Congress are unelectable if they turn against the NRA. And finally, the whole country is now “pro-military” save for a few far left enclaves. There will be no drastic cuts to the military the way there were in the 1970′s. After these big generational victories, comes the stalemate issue–abortion. Neither the pro-choicers nor the pro-lifers are going to get the result they want so this battle has been reduced to small scale changes depending on who’s in charge at any given time. The changes do not justify the resources nor the political capital invested to fight for or against. Finally, the GOP needs to realize that they have lost the fight on what used to be called “family values”  but now is called “gay marriage.” There are still many battles left over gay marriage, but the same way I can tell you by late in the first quarter each year that Mississippi State is going to lose to LSU I can tell you this issue is lost. The other major lost issues for the right are keeping the status quo on health care and energy/climate change policy. Most people want health care and big business can’t compete internationally without it. And most people think global warming is a threat while virtually all Americans want to gain energy independence from the Arabs.

With all of the above in mind, here’s my advice to the plank writers of the Republican platform:

  1. Take a few pages out of the Democratic plan. The Democrats engage in internecine warfare on a regular basis and it often weakens them on certain issues. However they seldom spend more than a few days beating wayward Dems or even Blue Dogs over the head, and they are strengthened in the long run. They have a bigger tent. They may resent their conservative leaning brethren, but they don’t crucify them the way the Republicans do their dwindling number of left leaning members. Republicans need a few yankees, even if they have little in common with the southern base of the party. And they need to put California or New York back in play in presidential politics if for no other reason than to cost the Democrats a little money in exchange for all those electoral votes.
  2. Collect their winnings on the issues on which Republicans have traditionally excelled. Drop guns down a few notches in importance. Re-focus on national security by advocating smart spending on new technology and a smaller, more mobile and efficient force. Highlight programs that need to be canned and others that are underfunded. Push for the establishment of a commission similar to the one that closed bases all over the country in the 1990′s to lead this effort. Try to make defense spending have a greater positive impact on domestic stimulus. And establish a civilian jobs division under the control of the Army. One of the undeniable modern uses of military force is to stabilize and rebuild conquered states, what used to be called “nation building”. One of the lessons of Iraq is that it cost too much to pay Halliburton to do all the building, cooking, public relations, teaching, and whatever other non-fighting tasks were necessary. Use the pool of Americans who want to serve their country or even those that just want military benefits but don’t want to carry a gun. It will make the military more cost effective and during times of peace this civilian force can be deployed in areas of need in the US or abroad. And though part of what I’m describing involves fiscal discipline, take that a step further and drastically limit earmarks from your membership. Set a cap, like the salary cap in the NFL, per Representative or Senator. Do this and either the Democrats follow suit and the whole country benefits or they don’t and you have a great issue for the next election cycle.
  3. Take their lumps. The religious right ain’t goin nowhere. It’s time to embrace civil unions for gays if not marriage outright. In fact, if enough states hurry up and pass civil union legislation it might be enough to stop the gay marriage momentum. And figure out a way to support universal health care. Maybe let the government pay for new medical educations or pay off student loans of doctors in exchange for a set number of pro bono days in service of the poor. Maybe push for dollar for dollar tax credits for all medical expenses for everyone making less than $250,000 a year. Maybe shorten the amount of time a drug company or medical device manufacturer can hold a patent. Hell I can’t do it all for them, but all of these ideas at least in some way are consistent with traditional conservative values and I’m sure the think tanks could come up with some more. On global warming, just ignore it and focus instead on alternative energy business stimulation. Business support is where Republicans are best. Help people and companies make money in wind and solar and be amazed at the way the climate issues will resolve on their own.
  4. Finally, get out front on a couple of things. Neither party wants to really address immigration, for different reasons. The left is afraid of alienating minorities and the right doesn’t want to deprive business of the benefits of cheap labor. It will hurt, but this issue is waiting to be won and all it will take is support for enforcement of existing laws and harsh penalties for businesses that exploit this illegal labor supply. Success for corporate America is good, but it must not be seen to come at the expense of citizens and with the help of politicians. Republicans also need to dust off the old Teddy Roosevelt model and update his trustbusting ways to address the problem of overly powerful multi-nationals. They need to drop the mantra that all government is bad and recognize areas where it can be used wisely and with restraint. Bring back the Bull Moose, I say, and save the Gipper for when he’s needed again.

There are plenty of other issues that are important, but my research shows these to be the ones with the most potential to recapture the portion of the electorate turned off by niche wedge issues, religious hypocrisy and profligate spending by both parties. Maybe Republicans are right in their current policy positions. At the very least maybe they won’t change their feelings on the inside. But to regain their lost stature, this is a blueprint, errr redprint for success.

I know that a lot of you who read my blog are either conservative or lean conservative and I’m interested in your thoughts on how the Republicans can regain their strength. I genuinely tried to brainstorm a new course that I thought upheld conservative values while moving them a bit toward the center. My bias is acknowledged from the start, but I endeavored to approach the issue as objectively as possible. 

So let’s hear it. Am I completely off base or on to something? Is it the prevailing view that the Republican Party is handling things well already or do you agree they need a new game plan? Are you at all concerned, as I am, that the GOP is becoming a regional party and entrenching themselves as a solid bloc in opposition to the rest of the country? Or is this just a swing of the pendulum which is reaching its zenith to the left?

Categories: Politics · current events
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Travellinbaen’s Political Consulting Service (spreading the acorns edition)

October 28, 2008 · 4 Comments

Quote of the Day     “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”     –Barack Obama to Joe the Plumber

Only one more week to go before the Presidential election and it seems we’re down to just a few talking points. For Obama, its “vote for me or get four more years of Bush.” And for McCain, it’s “Obama wants to spread the wealth”, “ACORN” sux, and “Joe the Plumber knows as much about the economy as me and that diva backstabbing bitch Sarah.”  I don’t think the Obama campaign really needs Travellinbaen’s advice. In a year that saw possibly the worst campaigns in history run by Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giulliani, only to be topped by the McCain debacle, I think they’ve been magnificent. (Yes, I’ve mentally chalked it up, and yes, I realize how “the Power” might react.) But I’ll advise them anyway. As for McCain, I don’t even know where to start–maybe get a time machine and go back to 2000 to remember who you really are, then jump back ahead to August 2008. Short of that, hell maybe your race baiting will carry the day. Anyway, I’m ignoring plumberjoe because I don’t think people are falling for that gimmick, but here’s TB’s easy solutions to the ACORN and Wealth Spreading issues.

It seems ACORN pays the otherwise unemployable contractors to go around signing people up to vote. These folks get paid for each registration form they submit. It is apparently difficult to get strangers to write down their personal information and hand it back to you, so these guys just go find a phone book and start copying names. The more enterprising contractors have found that by watching football and cartoons you can kill two birds with one stone–enjoy some quality entertainment and get ideas for names to write in to registration forms. Unfortunately, this freaks some people out. I did not know this, but apparantly the USA has been plagued for many years by people electing liberals by voting numerous times under such names as Mickey Mouse, Roger Staubach and Smily, without ever being suspected of such perfidy by our crack poll volunteer staffs. It’s a real problem, and once again, TB’s PCS has a simple solution. Outlaw voter registration altogether. Seriously. If you are a citizen of the United States, you vote and your social security number is noted in some great computer in a bunker in Nebraska and you can’t vote again. It’s done. What’s the point of registration anyway? We all ostensibly believe in democracy and we all ostensibly want voter turnout to be high. So just make everybody eligible. I’ll take it one step further, let them vote online and do it anytime within a couple of weeks of the election. This should be especially popular with conservatives because it will obviate the raison d’etre of ACORN (blank stare–French thrown in just to offend the freedom fry crowd).

As for spreading the wealth, TB doesn’t understand the uproar mild public discourse this issue has caused. All politics is about spreading the wealth. Generally liberals want it spread more evenly, like a peanut butter sandwich that is tasty from first to last bite, while conservatives want all their peanut butter straight off the spoon so it doesn’t get sullied by the proletariat favoring white bread. Obama campaign, you need your pithy talking point. TB’s peanut butter sandwich is all made up and ready for you to savor. Warn the people that if you eat all that peanut butter straight off the spoon, its hard to swallow and they will probably have to bail out their mouth with a big jug of milk that’s liable to spill everywhere when you rush to prevent yourself from choking. You could even offer a bite your sensible tasty sandwich to Joe the idiot plumber out on the campaign trail. Maybe then he’d understand what you’re advocating….that what this whole campaign really boils down to how you like your peanut butter.

 


Categories: Humor · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Fly in the Ointment of Conservative Theory

October 27, 2008 · 20 Comments

Quote of the Day     “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”     Alan Greenspan, last week

Henry Waxman asked former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan last week if his conservative ideology pushed him to make decisions about the economy he now regrets. Greenspan said “yes, I’ve found a flaw.” The flaw is astoundingly well summed up in today’s quote of the day. It seems so simple, yet very few of us saw it, and even though the great Warren Buffett DID see it and told us about it, none of us listened. The individuals running our great financial institutions were looking out for themselves, and did not see their interests as aligned with those of their companies. They made deals to create short term wealth and illusory wealth to appear on balance sheets. In return, they received millions of dollars in bonuses. What happened after they cashed their checks was none of their concern.

This is the achilles heal of conservative economic theory. Conservatives, including TB in past times, have always believed that if the top echelon of wealth holders were doing well, it was in their interest to keep a well funded underclass to keep the machine churning out ever more wealth. The middle class would benefit from successful American businesses by buying their stock and getting an ownership interest in the economy they were supporting. Too much regulation by government, often derisively termed “interference”, would simply siphon off corporate profits, leaving less for the middle class to share. So the interference was removed over the course of thirty years or so, bit by bit, piece by piece. Even most Democrats went along with the effort, notably Bill Clinton. 

But we all overlooked the most obvious pitfall. We equated the businesses themselves with the individuals who run them. The businesses, in the end, have failed–GM, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Bear Stearns, and so many more. The men who ran them have not failed. Like DB Cooper, they jumped out of the planes with all the cash and a golden parachute. But DB at least had the courtesy to leave the plane functional when he leapt. These guys destroyed the engines, then jumped.

Someone once famously said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We ignored the lessons our grandparents and great-grandparents learned back in 1929, and now history is repeating itself to a large degree. There is a reason for government regulation. Sure, it slows down business growth to some extent. But it stops many of those individuals who would loot businesses and their shareholders in their tracks. It shines light on their schemes. Just like a football referee, the government is never popular, especially when its presence in the game is obvious. No one likes a game marred by too many holding flags, and its often said there is holding on every play. Similarly, in regulating business, the government will undoubtedly throw too many flags sometimes, and miss other times it should’ve thrown one. But without the refs, the game is just a street fight over a ball. And without government regulation, our economy is just a street fight over control of wealth. It’s time all conservative thinkers admit their flaw in philosophy. 

There is common ground between American liberals and conservatives. That is that most everyone agrees the ultimate goal is to make increased wealth available to all. There is legitimate difference of opinion on how that should be accomplished. Conservatives must first admit, like Greenspan, that all of their assumptions are partially based on a faulty premise. And liberals, poised to have a chance to implement their own ideas, must remain aware that a faulty premise most likely lurks inside their own ideology. Both sides must learn to concede the points on which they have been obviously wrong and use the other side’s ideas to improve the collective action our government must take. I haven’t seen that in many years. I hope the next administration controls its hubris enough to remember this lessen from the dying conservative movement.

Categories: Philosobaen · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Last Debate

October 15, 2008 · 5 Comments

Quote of the Day     “I don’t know what they call themselves doing but it ain’t debating.”     Smily in the previous post (here)

Does anybody need to watch this “debate” tonight? Are you undecided? If so, please respond to this post and explain what you are still waiting to find out and if you expect to (or do) hear it in the debates. I’m really curious. SC addressed the question of who is left that’s undecided a few weeks ago here, but what I want to post about this afternoon is what would make the debates worth watching. Here are my questions. I haven’t heard them asked in the first two, or anywhere else for that matter.

  • “Name three issues typically associated with the other party that you agree with?” If they can’t come up with them, follow up with, “how are we supposed to believe you are going to do anything in bipartisan manner if you can’t name three things of substance you have in common?”
  • To McCain, “what do you have to say to the people who think Obama is Muslim or a terrorist sympathizer.”
  • To Obama, “what do you have to say to the people who think McCain is morally deficient as evidenced by his involvement in the Keating 5 scandal and committing adultery while married to his first wife?”
  • “Is there a percentage of the overall Federal Budget that you think Military spending or Entitlement spending should not exceed, and if so, what is it?”
  • “Name your biggest three errors in judgment in your political careers on policy matters.” Follow up with either “what did you learn?” or “if you can’t recall a mistake of substance, how are we to believe you will recognize and correct future mistakes and be honest about addressing them?” This was asked of Bush in ’04 (not the follow up) and he famously and idiotically was unable to name anything he’d take back.
  • “What percentage of all taxes paid do you believe the group of people making over one million dollars a year should pay and the group of people making under seventy-five thousand should pay?”
  • “What will you do, if anything, to collect taxes from large corporations?”  Here’s the link to the article stating most corporations pay nothing.
There’s a lot more I’d ask if they’d ever turn the moderatin over to TB, but this is a start. I also think there ought to be a BS panel to make the telecast more interesting. Every time they start to use talking points, obvious scripted lines or over-generalizations, we’d buzz them–the first time gives the candidate a minor shock, number two mutes them for five minutes, number three drops them through a trap door into a pool of water. Really, they ought to put me in charge.
Y’all let me know what happens. I’m decided, they won’t ask my questions, and I ain’t watchin. I’ll be working on the Thursday pick’em post.

Categories: Politics · current events
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

GOP = Big Government, Big Spending, Socialists

September 22, 2008 · 34 Comments

Quote of the Day      ”As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for socialism is its adherents.”      –George Orwell

It can’t be plausibly denied any longer. During the Bush administration it started with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This new cabinet level department was a massive increase in the size of government. What have we gotten from it? Record breaking duct tape sales, secret government wiretapping and a botched hurricane rescue and recovery effort. Speaking of Katrina…Because of Republican success in stripping the courts of fair minded judges and replacing them with Chamber of Commerce politicians, and because of Republican laissez-faire regulations toward insurance companies, and because of lax Republican enforcement of antitrust laws, and Republican financed propaganda attacking lawyers, all of which occured over most of the last thirty years and accelerated over the last eight, the insurance companies were allowed to pay only a fraction of the cost of recovery. They denied claims where they could find or manufacture an excuse and when flood insurance was available they allocated most of the damages to that program, financed by the government. The insurance cabal had record profits that year, and throughout the first seven Bush years. Since there was no private entity to absorb the losses that come as the natural risk of obtaining those profits, the Republicans passed a huge homeowner bailout program that sent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to fill the gaps left by State Farm and Allstate. It was socialism. 

And now this. Seven Hundred Billion dollars (insert pinky into side of mouth while reading that number). Maybe more. Eliminate regulatory rules and oversight, install political hacks to the positions where minimal oversight could still be done in order to ensure that it was not, ignore predatory lending schemes and destroy the legal recourse that lawyers were using to keep the mortgage companies reined in, and you end up with a mortgage bubble. Bubbles burst. Conservatives are all for bubbles–that’s what happens in what they inaccurately describe as free markets. Years of prosperity followed by years of panic. From 1800 through 1930, there was a “Panic” about once every 18 years, almost always instigated by real estate speculation and during a time when there was very little government oversight of markets. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it. But these days, Socialists insure the investors when the bubble bursts by using their government power to buy up worthless stock and loans. Big government to the rescue–don’t conservatives hate that? Republicans don’t.

So what has eight years of George Bush has done for us in the realm of the economy? After spending almost two trillion dollars on the Iraq war and financial bailouts, your taxes and mine are going up. It doesn’t matter who is elected. That money has to be paid back, or at the very least the debt must be substantially reduced to restore our economic prosperity. So vote Republican if you have some other reason, just don’t tell me it’s because you are conservative, you want lower taxes and you are saving us from socialism. Because the GOP has firmly established that they are a party of bigger government, runaway spending, and socialism.

Finally, enjoy this humorous take on the same subject from Time Magazine.

USA = France

Categories: Money · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Premature Jocularity?

September 9, 2008 · 26 Comments

Quote of the Day    “It’s not so important who starts the game as who finishes it.“      –John Wooden

In college basketball, sixty-four teams have a theoretical shot to win the national championship by winning the tournament held at the end of the season. Other than seeding, going undefeated until the first game of the tournament gains you nothing. What often occurs, is a team goes on an extended winning streak in the middle of the year, winning smaller tournaments, their league title or even a conference tournament championship, only to lose in the early rounds of the national championship tournament. They peak too early. The most successful teams manage to let their seasons build gradually, saving their best play for the last six games.

TB warned the Obama campaign back in early June about the risk of peaking too early in the “Advice for Obama” post. It seemed like he tried to lay low for a couple of months so as not to keep the energy from his primary campaign crowds at a fever pitch for too long.  I think that was wise, but now he has the difficult task of regaining the momentum. His speech in Denver was one of the best I’ve seen and really doesn’t even belong in the same discussion with Sarah Palin’s, much less McCain’s. But in the same discussion it is. Obama is a long way from regaining his peak form. His best hope is the primary excitement will come to seem like last “season” for voters and he can repeat the performance in this new “season.” He actually may have benefitted from the Palin hoopla toning down his “early season” victory by suffering an unexpected “loss.”

On the other hand, McCain’s campaign has been remarkable to this point.  In many ways, his nomination was even more unlikely than Obama’s. Just over a year ago he was being written off as a viable candidate after his campaign went broke and laid off almost the entire staff. Then, by process of elimination, he found himself virtually unopposed and the winner of his party’s nomination. Because it was less what he did and more how others screwed up, he did not have to peak to get that far. He was slow and steady. After closing the gap and lying low during Obama’s coronation, he sandbagged all of us by selecting Palin as his running mate. The media has gone nuts for her because they love a new story, much like they had gone nuts for Obama a year ago. He’s suddenly on a winning streak.

Now, McCain finds himself in the lead for the first time. But has he peaked?  My guess is the love affair with Palin will not endure for two reasons: one, I just don’t believe she’s as smart or charismatic as she is being portrayed, though we won’t really know until she’s off the leash and allowed to speak for herself; two, in the coming weeks, the focus will return to Obama and McCain.  But that doesn’t exactly answer my own question, does it?  The fact is I can’t answer it.  Eight weeks is an eternity in politics. There is no historical American race that compares with this one.  Is it a new era? Will all those new Obama voters remain excited and continue his unprecedented turnout? Have I underestimated the Palin effect on single issue women voters and/or a reenergized fundamentalist base? I’ll be anxiously and eagerly waiting to find out which side can perform best now that its time to play for the championship.

Categories: Politics · current events
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Spending Money

August 20, 2008 · 2 Comments

Quote of the Day     “It’s clearly a budget.  It’s got a lot of numbers in it.”     George W. Bush

Paul B. Farrell is a financial columnist with over 1000 articles to his credit.  He appears regularly on all of the major news networks as an expert in his field.  He has authored four books, worked as executive vice president for Financial News Network and was an investment banker with Morgan Stanley.  This is all I can find out about him, but it seems enough to be satisfied he’s a capitalist.  Here is a link to his article A Nation of Warmongers on marketwatch.com.

You can read it for yourself if you’re interested, but here are just a few of the assertions in it that TB finds meaningful:

Americans spend 54% of their tax dollars on the military.  This figure represents 47% of the total military spending of the entire world.  Is it really necessary to spend that much?  If we cut it down to 40% of the budget, what could we do with that money?  Many people who call themselves Conservative because they believe in balanced budgets and restrained government size and spending are deluding themselves if they think their goals can be met while continuing to fund the military at these levels.  And TB believes in having the strongest military in the world, believes that our military personnel deserve support, and even believes that its necessary to use them on occasion.  Wisely.  But clearly, an inordinate proportion of our national resources is devoted to war.

Farrell also asks why it is necessary to spend over $200 Billion on no-bid private war contractors numbering 180,000–more personnel than the entire allotment of enlisted soldiers in Iraq.  This is where a big chunk of that unnecessary military spending is being wasted.  Remember Gomer Pyle having to do KP duty?  Wouldn’t happen in this day and age because a contractor peels the potatoes.  And gets a lot of cabbage to do it.  There are also a bunch of Blackwater employees carrying guns and expecting immunity from prosecution when they misuse them.  And making our actual soldiers look bad far too often–these dudes ain’t building schools and hospitals.

Finally, Farrell asks why the President and party (and he didn’t mention McCain, but should have) associated with “supporting our troops”  opposed passage of a new GI bill.  He should also have asked why the same group has let health care for wounded vets be conducted in rat infested, overcrowded hospitals.  If it were me, I’d just as soon do without their so-called “support.”

If you’re a die hard Republican who can’t figure out why TB went off the reservation and joined up with the lefties, read this article.  Even if you decide its all BS, it will at least give you a good idea of why TB and so many others are fed up with the neo-cons.

Categories: Money · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Let’s Build a Cabinet

August 1, 2008 · Leave a Comment

Quote of the Day      ”Only one man in a thousand is a leader of men.  The other 999 follow women.”    –Groucho Marx

The Democratic and Republican political conventions are coming up this month, and as I surf the web it seems the selection of a Vice-Presidential running mate for both candidates is the source of great speculation.  TB believes we’d all be better informed voters if the candidates would also announce their proposed cabinet appointees prior to the election.  Wouldn’t it be nice to have a few more targets at whom to aim the mud?  As you may or may not know, TB has officially announced he has no plans whatsoever to run for President.  However, in the spirit of setting a good example for Obama and McCain, here are the Cabinet members I’d announce during the conventions:

Vice President–Stephen Colbert–He already has a good bit of grassroots support due to his unsuccessful primary campaign.  Also, TB’s gonna need some help in Red States, and this guy has his finger on the pulse of the O’Reilly fan.  It would also keep me off the “dead to me” list.  

State–Angelina Jolie–An experienced world traveller, I believe she’d be a natural diplomat. An excerpt from a future summit with Iran:

AJ–Thank you for meeting with me gentlemen.

Iranians–Oh, any time Ms. Jolie.  In fact our schedules are pretty much wide open this year.

AJ–We demand you stop your uranium enrichment program immediately.

Iranians–That’s cool.  Let’s set up a date, errr timetable.  I think it would be good if you were on hand to verify our compliance. I’m wondering, if we didn’t comply, how would you punish us? By the way, what else are you in to?  Do you like falafel?

War–The Batman–First, you may have noticed we dumped the word “Defense” and brought back “War” from the good ol days.  People like the good ol days–they were good.  It also is part of a green initiative I think could take hold.  Shorter words, less ink, less cartridges in landfills.  As for my slightly unorthodox choice to head the War Department I can only ask, “have you seen Dark Knight?”  I went last night, and I tell you, that dude has access to some badass technology.  When he violates the constitution or some pissant nation’s sovereignty, I’ll be able to truthfully say, “Hey, we’d arrest him, but I don’t even know his real identity.  And he doesn’t keep an office in DC.  He’s in a secure, undisclosed location.”  And get this, he knows all about caves.  Bad news for Obama.

Treasury–Tiger Woods–Ok, this is Machiavellian.  He’s bi-racial (check), popular with country clubbers (check), and racist golf fans would love it if he missed some prime years on tour and couldn’t break Nicklaus’ majors record (check. mate.)  Plus he’s really good with money.  We might even be able to get some endorsement deals to help keep taxes down.  And the Saudi’s will pay a fortune to have him visit. 

Attorney General–Jackie Childs– A true friend of the consumer.  As for terrorists, while he’s not a proponent of torture, let’s just say interrogators will be encouraged to withold the balm.  Jackie will not tell them to use the balm.

Energy–T. Boone Pickens–First, I’d want him somewhere I could keep an eye on him and keep him from funding the Republicans’ “Dirty Tricks” committees.  And he wants to build a bunch of windmills.  This has been good for tourism in Holland and I think it could work here too.

Homeland Security–Jesse Ventura–This Republican Big Government Expansion has proved to be a waste of space and money and “the Body’s” political career exemplifies these traits.  He’ll make a great interview and we’ll all feel much safer hearing his deep resonant tones spouting non-sense and spittle on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Agriculture–Willie Nelson–Being President is probably pretty stressful.  I think it would help having Willie around.  And we could have Farm Aid right in the Rose Garden one year.

Transportation–Richard Petty–I’d really like to see some stretches of Interstate go to unlimited speed limits and I think the King is the man to implement my policy.  And we could re-paint Air Force One Red, White and Petty Blue and stick an STP sticker on the tail fin.  That would rock.

This is starting to look pretty good.  Maybe I should I reconsider my decision not to run?

Categories: Humor · Politics
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,