Yesterday, the House rejected the massive, irresponsible bailout that would transfer bad Wall Street debts onto the backs of the American taxpayer. The package reflects the typical attitude of Congress: throw money at the problem, but don't address the root causes of the problem.
This is like a bunch of inept doctors treating a gunshot victim. The victim comes into the ER bleeding heavily and the doctors rush around to stop the bleeding - the immediate problem that they see. After getting the bleeding under control, the doctors close up the wound without removing the bullet or treating the resulting infection. So, even though the doctors were able to keep the victim from bleeding out, he still dies.
Harvard economist, Jeffry A. Miron, has a great column on the underlying causes of the crisis and what should be done to solve the problem.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Fight the Wall Street Bailout
The good people at FreedomWorks are currently fighting the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street investors. Head on over to www.nowallstreetbailout.com and lend your voice to the cause.
Politico has an article featuring the work that FreedomWorks has been doing to stop irresponsible bailouts.
Also, Reason Magazine has an incredible article outlining how the current financial crisis is not a failure of the free market, contrary to the claims of those on the left and in the media.
Politico has an article featuring the work that FreedomWorks has been doing to stop irresponsible bailouts.
Also, Reason Magazine has an incredible article outlining how the current financial crisis is not a failure of the free market, contrary to the claims of those on the left and in the media.
Jonah Goldberg And I Are On The Same Page
Jonah Goldberg's column in today's L.A. Times highlights many of the same points as my recent post about the assertion that the only way Sen. Obama can lose is because of racism.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Biden Denounces Obama Ad
No, that title is not a mistake. In a recent campaign appearance, Sen. Barack Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, denounced a television ad released by the campaign as "terrible." The ad in question, which was paid for by the Obama campaign, mocked Sen. McCain as out of touch based on his admission that he is not good at using a computer and can't send an email.
Sen. Biden went on to say that "if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it." Maybe that's because Sen. Biden knows that the reason Sen. McCain can't send an email is because of the wounds that he received as a POW during Vietnam. The injuries, which prevent Sen. McCain from lifting his arms above his shoulders, make it painful for him to use a keyboard. Thus, Sen. McCain will often dictate his emails to his wife, Cindy, or a member of his staff.
Despite Sen. Biden's denouncement of the attack, Sen. Obama has yet to apologize for exploiting Sen. McCain's disability for political gain.
I can't help but wonder that if Sen. Obama were running in 1932, if he would have attacked FDR for not being able to walk.
Sen. Biden went on to say that "if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it." Maybe that's because Sen. Biden knows that the reason Sen. McCain can't send an email is because of the wounds that he received as a POW during Vietnam. The injuries, which prevent Sen. McCain from lifting his arms above his shoulders, make it painful for him to use a keyboard. Thus, Sen. McCain will often dictate his emails to his wife, Cindy, or a member of his staff.
Despite Sen. Biden's denouncement of the attack, Sen. Obama has yet to apologize for exploiting Sen. McCain's disability for political gain.
I can't help but wonder that if Sen. Obama were running in 1932, if he would have attacked FDR for not being able to walk.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Quotes of the Day - A New Kind of Politics
Barack Obama: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
John McCain: "One of the things Americans are tired of, one of the things they're tired of is people yelling at each other in America, have you noticed that? They want us to respect each other's opinions...Americans want a dialogue."
Which view represents a new, more hopeful kind of politics?
John McCain: "One of the things Americans are tired of, one of the things they're tired of is people yelling at each other in America, have you noticed that? They want us to respect each other's opinions...Americans want a dialogue."
Which view represents a new, more hopeful kind of politics?
The Race Card
Is the Barack Obama campaign laying the foundation to claim racism in the event that he loses the election on November 4? Based on the recent comments by many of his prominent supporters and members of the media, it would seem so. Here are a few examples:
- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius: “Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American? That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn't show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”
- Tom Brokaw, "Meet the Press": "if Senator McCain wins...does he win because of race and playing the race card?
- Jack Cafferty, CNN: "The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race."
-Chris Matthews, MSNBC: [discussing polling with Joe Scarborough the morning after Obama lost the New Hampshire primary] "Methinks Paleface speak with forked tongue."
- Jacob Weisberg, columnist for "Slate": [title of column] "If Obama Loses: Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him"
- Howard Dean, DNC Chair: "folks of color, and even women, are more successful in the Democrat Party than they are in the white, excuse me, the Republican Party."
- Sen. Barack Obama: "They're going to try to say, 'well, you know, he's got a funny name' and 'he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five-dollar bills.'" [he said this comment in several stump speeches until it became an issue]
While I believe that voting against Sen. Obama simply because of his race is deplorable, I am insulted by the insinuation that the only way Obama can lose the election is because of racist voters. Yes, racism still exists and is a problem. However, the United States has come a long way and those individuals who will cast their votes based on race are a very small minority of the population.
Elitists in the Democratic party and the mainstream media are essentially suggesting that I am a racist because I will not be voting for Sen. Obama. In their minds, there is absolutely no way that anyone could [or should] disagree with his big government, boarder-line socialist policies. Therefore, if I dare to disagree with the enlightened one, then I must be a racist - a sad relic from a bygone era who just can't seem to get with these modern times.
It's interesting that most of the comments listed above (in addition to countless others I found) came after Sen. McCain overtook Sen. Obama in the polls. To the Obama campaign and its surrogates in the mainstream media, this was unthinkable - Obama's victory was a foregone conclusion. Faced with the reality that this is going to be a tight race and that Sen. Obama very well could lose in Novemer, the DNC has resorted to scare tactics and name-calling in order to shame people into "falling in line" behind Sen. Obama.
Is this the "new" kind of politics that we were promised?
- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius: “Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American? That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn't show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”
- Tom Brokaw, "Meet the Press": "if Senator McCain wins...does he win because of race and playing the race card?
- Jack Cafferty, CNN: "The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race."
-Chris Matthews, MSNBC: [discussing polling with Joe Scarborough the morning after Obama lost the New Hampshire primary] "Methinks Paleface speak with forked tongue."
- Jacob Weisberg, columnist for "Slate": [title of column] "If Obama Loses: Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him"
- Howard Dean, DNC Chair: "folks of color, and even women, are more successful in the Democrat Party than they are in the white, excuse me, the Republican Party."
- Sen. Barack Obama: "They're going to try to say, 'well, you know, he's got a funny name' and 'he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five-dollar bills.'" [he said this comment in several stump speeches until it became an issue]
While I believe that voting against Sen. Obama simply because of his race is deplorable, I am insulted by the insinuation that the only way Obama can lose the election is because of racist voters. Yes, racism still exists and is a problem. However, the United States has come a long way and those individuals who will cast their votes based on race are a very small minority of the population.
Elitists in the Democratic party and the mainstream media are essentially suggesting that I am a racist because I will not be voting for Sen. Obama. In their minds, there is absolutely no way that anyone could [or should] disagree with his big government, boarder-line socialist policies. Therefore, if I dare to disagree with the enlightened one, then I must be a racist - a sad relic from a bygone era who just can't seem to get with these modern times.
It's interesting that most of the comments listed above (in addition to countless others I found) came after Sen. McCain overtook Sen. Obama in the polls. To the Obama campaign and its surrogates in the mainstream media, this was unthinkable - Obama's victory was a foregone conclusion. Faced with the reality that this is going to be a tight race and that Sen. Obama very well could lose in Novemer, the DNC has resorted to scare tactics and name-calling in order to shame people into "falling in line" behind Sen. Obama.
Is this the "new" kind of politics that we were promised?
Quote of the Day
"Obama’s plan of huge spending and tax increases, less free trade, and gas prices that could hit $10 a gallon (while we build windmills) is just what’s needed to turn the current financial crisis into another Great Depression."
-Steven G. Calabresi, Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
-Steven G. Calabresi, Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
They Think You're Stupid - Democrats Push Hoax Energy Bill
On Tuesday, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed new energy legislation meant to fool the American people into thinking that they are actually doing something about the high price of gas. In fact, the bill will likely do more to raise the price at the pump because of the $30 billion in new production taxes it contains.
In an attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes, the bill touted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as a "solution" only authorizes drilling that takes place 100+ miles off the coastline (50+ miles with state approval). There's just one tiny problem: according to industry experts, the vast majority of the offshore oil reserves exist within 50-miles of the coastline. Thus, if any drilling occurs at all, it is likely that the rigs will be pumping dry holes or produce barely enough to cover costs. Practically, this means that costs to oil companies will increase without a corresponding increase in supply - costs that will inevitably be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy prices.
Further increasing the cost of energy is a provision in the bill that increases taxes on energy companies and redistributes that revenue to finance the development of alternative energy. Now, I fully support the development of alternative sources of energy, but increasing taxes on energy companies and redistributing that money is not the way to accomplish this goal. Again, the short-term result is an increase in the cost of doing business for energy companies, which will be passed along to consumers in the form of - you guessed it - higher prices. This provision is essentially a socialist policy and will do more to prevent the economy from progressing toward alternative energy than move it toward that goal. The free-market system has consistently been proven to spur innovation through the incentives that it provides and should be allowed to work. The solution is simple - energy companies are in the business of producing energy and know better than anyone that oil is a limited commodity. Thus, it is in the interests of the energy companies to pursue economically viable alternative sources of energy. However, the world economy currently runs on oil and production must continue in order to prevent the economy from stalling. Rather than telling the energy companies that we are going to increase their tax burden and cost of doing business, we should be promoting market-based policies that would increase the incentive for energy companies to be the first to produce an economically-viable replacement to petroleum.
Finally, the Pelosi package requires that 10% of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be released into the market. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency supply of oil reserved for catastrophic events and crippling disruptions in supply. By law, any oil that is removed from the reserve must be replaced. Since oil is rarely removed from the SPR, the oil that is being released was put in at a lower cost than that which exists in the current market. Thus, the 10% that would be released under this bill would have to be replaced - likely at a much higher price.
Although Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats claim that their package is meant to encourage alternative energy it completely ignores nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power is the only alternative energy source that has proven to be both completely clean and economically viable. It is not often that I look to the French for inspiration. However, this is one area where they have gotten it right. Nearly 80% of all electric power in France is produced by nuclear power. This seems to not matter to the Pelosi-wing of the Democrat party, which seems to prefer to play politics than find real solutions.
The bill will now head to the Senate where it will compete with three alternative proposals. Senators have a very limited time frame in which to take action because the current Congressional ban on offshore drilling is set to expire on September 30. Given the alternative, it seems that allowing the ban to expire will do more to increase domestic supplies of oil and ease the pain at the pump.
In an attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes, the bill touted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as a "solution" only authorizes drilling that takes place 100+ miles off the coastline (50+ miles with state approval). There's just one tiny problem: according to industry experts, the vast majority of the offshore oil reserves exist within 50-miles of the coastline. Thus, if any drilling occurs at all, it is likely that the rigs will be pumping dry holes or produce barely enough to cover costs. Practically, this means that costs to oil companies will increase without a corresponding increase in supply - costs that will inevitably be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy prices.
Further increasing the cost of energy is a provision in the bill that increases taxes on energy companies and redistributes that revenue to finance the development of alternative energy. Now, I fully support the development of alternative sources of energy, but increasing taxes on energy companies and redistributing that money is not the way to accomplish this goal. Again, the short-term result is an increase in the cost of doing business for energy companies, which will be passed along to consumers in the form of - you guessed it - higher prices. This provision is essentially a socialist policy and will do more to prevent the economy from progressing toward alternative energy than move it toward that goal. The free-market system has consistently been proven to spur innovation through the incentives that it provides and should be allowed to work. The solution is simple - energy companies are in the business of producing energy and know better than anyone that oil is a limited commodity. Thus, it is in the interests of the energy companies to pursue economically viable alternative sources of energy. However, the world economy currently runs on oil and production must continue in order to prevent the economy from stalling. Rather than telling the energy companies that we are going to increase their tax burden and cost of doing business, we should be promoting market-based policies that would increase the incentive for energy companies to be the first to produce an economically-viable replacement to petroleum.
Finally, the Pelosi package requires that 10% of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be released into the market. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency supply of oil reserved for catastrophic events and crippling disruptions in supply. By law, any oil that is removed from the reserve must be replaced. Since oil is rarely removed from the SPR, the oil that is being released was put in at a lower cost than that which exists in the current market. Thus, the 10% that would be released under this bill would have to be replaced - likely at a much higher price.
Although Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats claim that their package is meant to encourage alternative energy it completely ignores nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power is the only alternative energy source that has proven to be both completely clean and economically viable. It is not often that I look to the French for inspiration. However, this is one area where they have gotten it right. Nearly 80% of all electric power in France is produced by nuclear power. This seems to not matter to the Pelosi-wing of the Democrat party, which seems to prefer to play politics than find real solutions.
The bill will now head to the Senate where it will compete with three alternative proposals. Senators have a very limited time frame in which to take action because the current Congressional ban on offshore drilling is set to expire on September 30. Given the alternative, it seems that allowing the ban to expire will do more to increase domestic supplies of oil and ease the pain at the pump.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Congress is Back, Dems Soften on Drilling
Good news from Capitol Hill - Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in the House have softened their position on energy legislation.
Prior to the August recess, Speaker Pelosi had blocked any discussion of opening up Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to exploration and drilling, saying that such proposals were a "hoax." This prompted Republicans, who had been silenced by the Speaker's dictatorial tactics, to stage an historic protest by refusing to leave the House floor for recess until a vote was allowed on an "all of the above" energy package. The tactic aroused public support for the Republican position and opposition to the strong-arm, partisan tactics of Speaker Pelosi.
Pelosi, however, continues to misrepresent the Republican position, calling it a "drill-only" policy. Apparently she hasn't learned much over the past month. Her attitude seems to indicate that she thinks the American public is stupid. Anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention is aware that House Republicans are not pushing for a "drill-only" solution, but for a position that increases domestic supplies of oil in the short term while promoting the development of renewable sources of energy.
The debate over energy policy should never have reached this point. Whether we like it or not, the economy still runs on oil and an economically viable alternative does not exist (that is, an alternative that is affordable for the majority of the population). As I have said many times before, the best solution to the current energy crisis is to open up the OCS (85% of which is still off-limits to exploration and drilling) to lower the price of petroleum in the short term while simultaneously promoting the development of alternative fuels.
The question is not one of oil vs. alternatives, but how do we move the economy towards alternatives in a way that both protects the environment and maintains growth. An "all of the above" solution seems is the best way to accomplish this goal.
Prior to the August recess, Speaker Pelosi had blocked any discussion of opening up Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to exploration and drilling, saying that such proposals were a "hoax." This prompted Republicans, who had been silenced by the Speaker's dictatorial tactics, to stage an historic protest by refusing to leave the House floor for recess until a vote was allowed on an "all of the above" energy package. The tactic aroused public support for the Republican position and opposition to the strong-arm, partisan tactics of Speaker Pelosi.
Pelosi, however, continues to misrepresent the Republican position, calling it a "drill-only" policy. Apparently she hasn't learned much over the past month. Her attitude seems to indicate that she thinks the American public is stupid. Anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention is aware that House Republicans are not pushing for a "drill-only" solution, but for a position that increases domestic supplies of oil in the short term while promoting the development of renewable sources of energy.
The debate over energy policy should never have reached this point. Whether we like it or not, the economy still runs on oil and an economically viable alternative does not exist (that is, an alternative that is affordable for the majority of the population). As I have said many times before, the best solution to the current energy crisis is to open up the OCS (85% of which is still off-limits to exploration and drilling) to lower the price of petroleum in the short term while simultaneously promoting the development of alternative fuels.
The question is not one of oil vs. alternatives, but how do we move the economy towards alternatives in a way that both protects the environment and maintains growth. An "all of the above" solution seems is the best way to accomplish this goal.
Friday, September 5, 2008
As If I Didn't Need Another Reason to Hate Oprah
As most of you know, I am not exactly Oprah's biggest fan. Yes, I know that she does a lot of good with her money. The problem is that as soon as she does it she turns around and has a special program about how much good she just did. Plus, it's just annoying the way many of her viewers blindly believe her every word.
Oprah had never taken a public stance on an election until this year when she announced that she was supporting Sen. Barack Obama and had him as a guest on her show. Now, I am not begrudging her the right to support the candidate of her choice and have any guest she wants on her show. However, according to the Drudge Report, Oprah has refused to interview Gov. Sarah Palin on her show. The same Oprah who continually tries to empower women and young girls (a noble goal) has refused to interview the woman who could be our nation's first female Vice President. Regardless of your politics, this interview would be a great lesson in female accomplishment and empowerment for our nation's daughters.
In a statement released shortly after Drudge broke the news, Oprah decried the story as "categorically untrue." Her O-ness further stated:
Here's the problem: her claim that she "made the decision to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates" is, to use her words, "categorically untrue." First, Oprah interviewed Sen. Obama on her show in December of 2006. Then, in the November 2007 issue of "O Magazine" (when it was clear that Obama would seek the presidency), she interviewed Michelle Obama. Most recently, Michelle Obama was interviewed by Oprah's best friend, Gayle King, on XM Radio's "Oprah and Friends" channel on August 25, 2008 - the eve of Mrs. Obama's speech before the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, a visit to her website reveals a series of interviews and stories on Sen. Obama and his family.
While the interview with Sen. Obama on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" occurred at the end of 2006, before he had officially announced his run for President, the other interviews and feature stories on the Obamas have come since Sen. Obama became a candidate. So, although it is true that Oprah has not used her TV show as a platform for the candidates, she has used her media empire (magazine, XM radio channel, and website) as well as personal campaign appearances to promote the candidacy of Sen. Obama.
I am not saying that Oprah should be forced to interview Gov. Palin on her show. However, she can't lie to the American people by telling us that she has never used your show or empire to promote a particular candidate. It is Oprah's right as a businesswoman to use her business as she sees fit. Just be honest about it. If Oprah truly wants her show to be neutral, then she should give equal access to both sides and interview Gov. Palin. If not, she should be clear that she is supporting Sen. Obama and, because of that support, will be using her show to promote his candidacy alone.
Oprah had never taken a public stance on an election until this year when she announced that she was supporting Sen. Barack Obama and had him as a guest on her show. Now, I am not begrudging her the right to support the candidate of her choice and have any guest she wants on her show. However, according to the Drudge Report, Oprah has refused to interview Gov. Sarah Palin on her show. The same Oprah who continually tries to empower women and young girls (a noble goal) has refused to interview the woman who could be our nation's first female Vice President. Regardless of your politics, this interview would be a great lesson in female accomplishment and empowerment for our nation's daughters.
In a statement released shortly after Drudge broke the news, Oprah decried the story as "categorically untrue." Her O-ness further stated:
"There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At
the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to
take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not
to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin
would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the
campaign is over."
Here's the problem: her claim that she "made the decision to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates" is, to use her words, "categorically untrue." First, Oprah interviewed Sen. Obama on her show in December of 2006. Then, in the November 2007 issue of "O Magazine" (when it was clear that Obama would seek the presidency), she interviewed Michelle Obama. Most recently, Michelle Obama was interviewed by Oprah's best friend, Gayle King, on XM Radio's "Oprah and Friends" channel on August 25, 2008 - the eve of Mrs. Obama's speech before the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, a visit to her website reveals a series of interviews and stories on Sen. Obama and his family.
While the interview with Sen. Obama on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" occurred at the end of 2006, before he had officially announced his run for President, the other interviews and feature stories on the Obamas have come since Sen. Obama became a candidate. So, although it is true that Oprah has not used her TV show as a platform for the candidates, she has used her media empire (magazine, XM radio channel, and website) as well as personal campaign appearances to promote the candidacy of Sen. Obama.
I am not saying that Oprah should be forced to interview Gov. Palin on her show. However, she can't lie to the American people by telling us that she has never used your show or empire to promote a particular candidate. It is Oprah's right as a businesswoman to use her business as she sees fit. Just be honest about it. If Oprah truly wants her show to be neutral, then she should give equal access to both sides and interview Gov. Palin. If not, she should be clear that she is supporting Sen. Obama and, because of that support, will be using her show to promote his candidacy alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)