A week ago, in the Friday edition of the Wall Street Journal, Arthur Herman wrote a very descriptive review of Michael Ledeen's book, "The Iranian Time Bomb."
What we learn from this article is that Mr. Ledeen's book provides us with evidence of the shocking decline of Iran's economy. And that the country's nuclear weapons program is no longer a comforting decade, or even five years from fruition, but, rather, possibly as close as two years to producing a working device.
From the evidence, Iran is to be taken seriously as both a regional and, consequently, due to the region affected, global threat.
Ledeen personally prefers diplomacy and funding of those who would overthrow Iran's government, to military action by the US and its Western allies. While that's not a moot point, for me, the more interesting information in the article reviewing the book is how tenuous Iran's own supply of gasoline is. They have virtually zero refining capacity, so any confrontation in which they attempted to shut down the Straits of Hormuz and their own oil shipments, would rapidly drain their own gasoline supplies faster than the world would be affected by a shortage of crude oil.
The nuclear weapons threat, of course, makes the potential to force such a standoff earlier, rather than later, all the more pressing.
Mr. Herman, the reviewer, notes Ledeen's own flip-flop on the diplomacy vs. aggression question. Too, he notes that few revolutions have occurred without a foreign military presence causing the fall of the unpopular, current regime.
I found the review to be very eye-opening, particularly as the US, thanks to our fortuitous presence in Iraq, has troops, aircraft, naval and logistical assets at hand in the region, should armed intervention in Iran be appropriate within the next year or so.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
CAFE Kool-Aid
Last week's Wall Street Journal carried an excellent editorial co-authored by Bob Crandall, retired CEO of American Airlines, now a Brookings senior fellow, and Hal Singer, president of Criterion Economics.
The authors convincingly demolish any reason for legislating vehicle fuel economy standards. To begin with, they note,
"To bolster support for these new rules, CAFE proponents have issued two studies that purport to show that increasing the CAFE standard to 35 miles per gallon would generate fuel savings for car owners in excess of the admittedly higher costs of automobiles; increase carmakers' profits; and generate nearly a quarter of a million U.S. jobs.
A study by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute supports the first two alleged benefits of increasing CAFE, and the third alleged benefit is touted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unfortunately, elementary economic principles require one to conclude that the directional change of more stringent CAFE standards on consumer welfare, carmakers' profits, and jobs is exactly the opposite of what these studies suggest."
Having introduced such 'evidence, they continue by analyzing the context in which the new CAFE standards would be applied,
"Ask any economist and he'll tell you that estimating the private costs and private benefits of increasing fuel economy is a fool's errand. This is precisely the job of a well-functioning market. For example, if there was fuel-saving technology out there that cost $1,000 but generated $2,500 in the discounted present value of fuel savings over the life of the vehicle, carmakers would surely voluntarily embrace that technology. The carmaker could split the net benefits (equal to the difference between the discounted fuel savings and the cost of the technology) with the car buyer such that both parties to the transaction would be better off.
No need for regulation there. With large numbers of vehicle producers and well-informed consumers, the market is so efficient, in fact, that it ensures that all such transactions will occur, generating the socially optimal level of fuel economy. Markets may generate too little fuel economy if there are social benefits not captured fully by private parties, but CAFE proponents have failed to demonstrate such external benefits. Indeed, external benefits are not even part of their argument.
According to our preliminary estimates, every new GM customer would incur a net loss of several hundred dollars under the newly proposed standard, as the higher cost of the car would exceed the discounted fuel savings. Multiply this loss per vehicle by the number of new vehicles sold and you arrive at annual welfare losses in the billions of dollars."
"Any call for regulation must be based on a market "failure" -- that is, failure of private markets to provide the proper incentives for contributing to social value. In the case of the current call for increases in CAFE, the market failure is generally identified as global warming or national security. But CAFE is a horribly inefficient mechanism for reducing carbon emissions because it does nothing to reduce emissions from power plants, older vehicles, home furnaces or industrial facilities. Nor would it apply to any emissions outside the U.S. Even if one accepts the debatable proposition that less reliance on oil would improve our national security, we should focus our attention on all oil consumption, not just that used in new vehicles. The cost of trying to reduce the harmful external effects of any form of consumption by arbitrarily taxing just 5% of it is extremely costly. A smaller tax on a much wider tax base always reduces the distortions caused by the tax.
When exposed to the piercing light of economic analysis, the alleged benefits of more stringent CAFE standards burn away. Too bad these proposals will not be subjected to economic scrutiny before they become law."
Worth reading the entire piece. But I've captured the essential elements here. I find virtually everything that Crandall writes or says (periodically as guest host on CNBC's morning program) to be sensible, correct, and notable.
Too bad he's too wise, plain-spoken and intelligent to become the Commerce or Treasury Secretary he could easily, and effectively, be.
The authors convincingly demolish any reason for legislating vehicle fuel economy standards. To begin with, they note,
"To bolster support for these new rules, CAFE proponents have issued two studies that purport to show that increasing the CAFE standard to 35 miles per gallon would generate fuel savings for car owners in excess of the admittedly higher costs of automobiles; increase carmakers' profits; and generate nearly a quarter of a million U.S. jobs.
A study by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute supports the first two alleged benefits of increasing CAFE, and the third alleged benefit is touted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unfortunately, elementary economic principles require one to conclude that the directional change of more stringent CAFE standards on consumer welfare, carmakers' profits, and jobs is exactly the opposite of what these studies suggest."
Having introduced such 'evidence, they continue by analyzing the context in which the new CAFE standards would be applied,
"Ask any economist and he'll tell you that estimating the private costs and private benefits of increasing fuel economy is a fool's errand. This is precisely the job of a well-functioning market. For example, if there was fuel-saving technology out there that cost $1,000 but generated $2,500 in the discounted present value of fuel savings over the life of the vehicle, carmakers would surely voluntarily embrace that technology. The carmaker could split the net benefits (equal to the difference between the discounted fuel savings and the cost of the technology) with the car buyer such that both parties to the transaction would be better off.
No need for regulation there. With large numbers of vehicle producers and well-informed consumers, the market is so efficient, in fact, that it ensures that all such transactions will occur, generating the socially optimal level of fuel economy. Markets may generate too little fuel economy if there are social benefits not captured fully by private parties, but CAFE proponents have failed to demonstrate such external benefits. Indeed, external benefits are not even part of their argument.
According to our preliminary estimates, every new GM customer would incur a net loss of several hundred dollars under the newly proposed standard, as the higher cost of the car would exceed the discounted fuel savings. Multiply this loss per vehicle by the number of new vehicles sold and you arrive at annual welfare losses in the billions of dollars."
Thus, Crandall and Singer debunk the idea that there's even a direct, otherwise-unattainable economic resource allocation benefit to CAFE standards. They continue to dismantle the other two 'conclusions' noted in their first paragraph- employment and corporate profits.
For the former, they note that employing more people to create inefficient products is irrational, and a senseless method by which to allocate society's scarce resources. It's something akin, they, I am sure, would agree, to pointing out the economic benefits of rebuilding parts of Florida after a major hurricane causes billions of dollars of damage. Better that the damage had never occurred. It's a net loss to society.
As for corporate profits, they argue that those are better earned by adding value for which consumers will pay of their own volition. Regulatory fiat is not necessary, and, again, distorts basic societal resource allocation.
The authors conclude, pointedly, by noting,
"Any call for regulation must be based on a market "failure" -- that is, failure of private markets to provide the proper incentives for contributing to social value. In the case of the current call for increases in CAFE, the market failure is generally identified as global warming or national security. But CAFE is a horribly inefficient mechanism for reducing carbon emissions because it does nothing to reduce emissions from power plants, older vehicles, home furnaces or industrial facilities. Nor would it apply to any emissions outside the U.S. Even if one accepts the debatable proposition that less reliance on oil would improve our national security, we should focus our attention on all oil consumption, not just that used in new vehicles. The cost of trying to reduce the harmful external effects of any form of consumption by arbitrarily taxing just 5% of it is extremely costly. A smaller tax on a much wider tax base always reduces the distortions caused by the tax.
When exposed to the piercing light of economic analysis, the alleged benefits of more stringent CAFE standards burn away. Too bad these proposals will not be subjected to economic scrutiny before they become law."
Worth reading the entire piece. But I've captured the essential elements here. I find virtually everything that Crandall writes or says (periodically as guest host on CNBC's morning program) to be sensible, correct, and notable.
Too bad he's too wise, plain-spoken and intelligent to become the Commerce or Treasury Secretary he could easily, and effectively, be.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Has Peggy Noonan Been In Politics Too Long?
Over the past week, many pundits, including the inestimable Peggy Noonan, have weighed in on Fred Thompson's candidacy.
Larry Kudlow, editorial writers on the Wall Street Journal staff, and Noonan all decry Thompson's lack of 'new positions.'
To a person, they express something like the following:
'Nice try, Fred. Sure, you're folksy and charming. You have great visibility and name/face recognition from your films and Law & Order role. But do you have anything new to say? Any new, untaken positions to add to the Republican Presidential race? Being charming and folksy just won't cut it. You might shove McCain out, finally, and elbow past Romney. But why are you doing this? Finally, do you have the money and ground troops to actually win primaries?'
Honestly, when I read this sort of thing in Noonan's latest columns, I sighed to myself and wondered whether she's been in the political wars so long she's no longer capable of identifying with the average conservative voter.
True, Ronald Reagan had new ideas when we ran, and won, in 1980. And, now, Thompson's appeal, in part, is a return to Reagan's values and orientations.
What Noonan, Kudlow, and others, miss, in my opinion, is Thompson's character. Apparently, Bill Clinton was so effective at brainwashing Americans that Presidential character doesn't matter that even these conservative, Republican pundits have forgotten the concept.
I have not.
What I see in Thompson is the character I want in the Oval Office when the unexpected occurs. It's an often-overlooked fact that what a President focuses on in his/her campaign is rarely what s/he actually finds is the salient issue and crisis of her/his term in office.
For example, our current President ran primarily on domestic issues in 2000, but the salient issue of his two terms has been foreign-sourced terrorism's attack on our country, throughout the world.
Further, as a conservative friend reminded me yesterday at my health club, the President can only suggest and offer legislative expressions of his/her platform. Congress must pass it. Thus, the candidate's own agenda does not necessarily become his/her actual focus in office.
That said, two of my conservative friends agreed with me- the professional pundits seem to have forgotten that who says what is important in Presidential campaigns.
Thompson has been crystal clear from the beginning, as has Newt Gingrich, that if certain issues and positions are not appropriately handled or represented by the current crop of Republican candidates, then he will run. And he has decided to do so. Is that so hard for Peggy Noonan and Larry Kudlow to grasp?
Giuliani is suspect on two aspects of his candidacy. First, he's a social liberal among conservatives. No question. Are we getting the latest genetic product of the old Rockefeller wing of the party? Probably so. Second, why is he running? I don't hear Noonan screaming about Giuliani's reasons for wanting to be President, but they are, if anything, more suspect than Thompson's. I would venture that Rudy wants to be President as the crowning feather in his public service cap. Sure, he has good intentions, and is a desirable candidate on many bases. But he wants this. Really wants it.
Romney even more so. For Mitt, it is a sort of grand coronation to conclude his logical, Hooverish progression from successful private businessman, public servant for at the Salt Lake City Games, and governor of a blue state. Plus, to attain the office his father could not.
McCain is, quite simply, cut from the old Bob "It's My Turn" Dole cloth. He's been a wheeling-dealing, hacked up Senator long enough. By God, it's payback time for his years in the Hanoi Hilton.
Sorry, John, but that's not how it works.
Of all the Republican candidates, I personally find Thompson to be the most convincing, trustworthy, and credible. He'll decide among policy options using values I respect, often share, and trust. If the policies were devised by someone else, so be it.
Am I so unusual in recalling that it's the President's character, values and orientation which ultimately matter? What tests s/he will face are rarely known in advance. S/he can't control Congress- even his/her own party's leaders in those chambers. The only thing we elect, at the end of the day, is a President's values and capability to exercise power in a manner which is consistent with what s/he expressed during the campaign.
I'll discuss Thompson's one glaring weakness- executive experience- in another post.
Larry Kudlow, editorial writers on the Wall Street Journal staff, and Noonan all decry Thompson's lack of 'new positions.'
To a person, they express something like the following:
'Nice try, Fred. Sure, you're folksy and charming. You have great visibility and name/face recognition from your films and Law & Order role. But do you have anything new to say? Any new, untaken positions to add to the Republican Presidential race? Being charming and folksy just won't cut it. You might shove McCain out, finally, and elbow past Romney. But why are you doing this? Finally, do you have the money and ground troops to actually win primaries?'
Honestly, when I read this sort of thing in Noonan's latest columns, I sighed to myself and wondered whether she's been in the political wars so long she's no longer capable of identifying with the average conservative voter.
True, Ronald Reagan had new ideas when we ran, and won, in 1980. And, now, Thompson's appeal, in part, is a return to Reagan's values and orientations.
What Noonan, Kudlow, and others, miss, in my opinion, is Thompson's character. Apparently, Bill Clinton was so effective at brainwashing Americans that Presidential character doesn't matter that even these conservative, Republican pundits have forgotten the concept.
I have not.
What I see in Thompson is the character I want in the Oval Office when the unexpected occurs. It's an often-overlooked fact that what a President focuses on in his/her campaign is rarely what s/he actually finds is the salient issue and crisis of her/his term in office.
For example, our current President ran primarily on domestic issues in 2000, but the salient issue of his two terms has been foreign-sourced terrorism's attack on our country, throughout the world.
Further, as a conservative friend reminded me yesterday at my health club, the President can only suggest and offer legislative expressions of his/her platform. Congress must pass it. Thus, the candidate's own agenda does not necessarily become his/her actual focus in office.
That said, two of my conservative friends agreed with me- the professional pundits seem to have forgotten that who says what is important in Presidential campaigns.
Thompson has been crystal clear from the beginning, as has Newt Gingrich, that if certain issues and positions are not appropriately handled or represented by the current crop of Republican candidates, then he will run. And he has decided to do so. Is that so hard for Peggy Noonan and Larry Kudlow to grasp?
Giuliani is suspect on two aspects of his candidacy. First, he's a social liberal among conservatives. No question. Are we getting the latest genetic product of the old Rockefeller wing of the party? Probably so. Second, why is he running? I don't hear Noonan screaming about Giuliani's reasons for wanting to be President, but they are, if anything, more suspect than Thompson's. I would venture that Rudy wants to be President as the crowning feather in his public service cap. Sure, he has good intentions, and is a desirable candidate on many bases. But he wants this. Really wants it.
Romney even more so. For Mitt, it is a sort of grand coronation to conclude his logical, Hooverish progression from successful private businessman, public servant for at the Salt Lake City Games, and governor of a blue state. Plus, to attain the office his father could not.
McCain is, quite simply, cut from the old Bob "It's My Turn" Dole cloth. He's been a wheeling-dealing, hacked up Senator long enough. By God, it's payback time for his years in the Hanoi Hilton.
Sorry, John, but that's not how it works.
Of all the Republican candidates, I personally find Thompson to be the most convincing, trustworthy, and credible. He'll decide among policy options using values I respect, often share, and trust. If the policies were devised by someone else, so be it.
Am I so unusual in recalling that it's the President's character, values and orientation which ultimately matter? What tests s/he will face are rarely known in advance. S/he can't control Congress- even his/her own party's leaders in those chambers. The only thing we elect, at the end of the day, is a President's values and capability to exercise power in a manner which is consistent with what s/he expressed during the campaign.
I'll discuss Thompson's one glaring weakness- executive experience- in another post.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Fred Thompson's Entry Into The Presidential Campaign
At long last, it is going to be official this week. Fred Thompson is declaring his entry into the Presidential race.
I heard a wide variety of views concerning Thompson's campaign on Larry Kudlow's CNBC program this afternoon. For the most part, Kudlow led his guests to dismiss Thompson's candidacy.
Maybe it's just me, but I think this is an example of how pundits can miss the essence of a candidate's appeal.
Among Thompson's sins were: a too-late entry; all the 'good positions' are already taken on key issues; Giuliani and Romney's numbers are already too high, and stable; he looks fickle.
How about this for an opinion? Thompson's entry brings a more natural, experienced, friendly, genuine face to some classically appealing conservative positions. In the new internet/YouTube age, along with compressed primary schedules, nobody really knows what will and won't work in a Presidential campaign.
It doesn't entirely surprise me that these commentators, with Kudlow at their head, dissed Thompson as a minor figure. They seem to discount the essence of the candidate's character and experience, preferring to reduce everything to poll numbers and position papers.
If you go to YouTube and search on "Fred Thompson," you'll see a fair collection of recent interviews featuring the new Presidential candidate.
As much as I like Romney, and would vote for either him or Giuliani, at this point, I'd still prefer Thompson to both of them. His genuineness, rich and varied career, and obvious passion and honesty for his positions seems, in my mind, to distinguish him from his competition.
I've written my own ideas for Thompson's campaign here, this past May. His strengths are clearly his Senate experience, honesty, and basic genuineness when he expresses his views. You don't get that whiff of a focus-group- or poll-based response.
My guess is that Thompson's greatest weakness is whether he has sufficient time to get fieldworkers going to get him into enough primaries, and represented in the field, to have a decent chance. Then again, his acting work gives him near-instant name and face recognition, unlike, say, Ron Paul.
I'm excited about Thompson's entry, and expect to write more about it in weeks to come.
I heard a wide variety of views concerning Thompson's campaign on Larry Kudlow's CNBC program this afternoon. For the most part, Kudlow led his guests to dismiss Thompson's candidacy.
Maybe it's just me, but I think this is an example of how pundits can miss the essence of a candidate's appeal.
Among Thompson's sins were: a too-late entry; all the 'good positions' are already taken on key issues; Giuliani and Romney's numbers are already too high, and stable; he looks fickle.
How about this for an opinion? Thompson's entry brings a more natural, experienced, friendly, genuine face to some classically appealing conservative positions. In the new internet/YouTube age, along with compressed primary schedules, nobody really knows what will and won't work in a Presidential campaign.
It doesn't entirely surprise me that these commentators, with Kudlow at their head, dissed Thompson as a minor figure. They seem to discount the essence of the candidate's character and experience, preferring to reduce everything to poll numbers and position papers.
If you go to YouTube and search on "Fred Thompson," you'll see a fair collection of recent interviews featuring the new Presidential candidate.
As much as I like Romney, and would vote for either him or Giuliani, at this point, I'd still prefer Thompson to both of them. His genuineness, rich and varied career, and obvious passion and honesty for his positions seems, in my mind, to distinguish him from his competition.
I've written my own ideas for Thompson's campaign here, this past May. His strengths are clearly his Senate experience, honesty, and basic genuineness when he expresses his views. You don't get that whiff of a focus-group- or poll-based response.
My guess is that Thompson's greatest weakness is whether he has sufficient time to get fieldworkers going to get him into enough primaries, and represented in the field, to have a decent chance. Then again, his acting work gives him near-instant name and face recognition, unlike, say, Ron Paul.
I'm excited about Thompson's entry, and expect to write more about it in weeks to come.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Kudlow's Interview with Mitt Romney
I happened to catch Larry Kudlow's interview with Mitt Romney on CNBC last week. Romney was very impressive.
He identifies Hillary Clinton as the economic numb skull that she is. His actual words were something to this effect,
'Based upon her comments and statements, she doesn't have any idea how our economy works. I do.'
Romney then continued to cite his impressive business experience, plus rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics, and governing Massachusetts.
Overall, I was extremely impressed with his easy, quick manner and explanation of economic and business concepts. Not that I am unimpressed or disappointed with President Bush. I'm not.
However, knowing Romney's history of co-founding Bain Capital, it's evident this guy really knows the business environment. And how macroeconomic policies on matters such as taxation will affect our nation's economic performance and overall well-being.
Further, I've read about his modified 'universal' healthcare prescription for the nation. It's quite different from what he compromised to install in Massachusetts.
Initially, the state plan had me very worried about Romney's commitment to conservative, free market principles on healthcare. Since his national plan takes into account his ability, as President, to effect changes he could not as a state governor, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
While I have doubts about his inevitable electability, I believe I would prefer Romney to Giuliani, were that the choice I had.
He identifies Hillary Clinton as the economic numb skull that she is. His actual words were something to this effect,
'Based upon her comments and statements, she doesn't have any idea how our economy works. I do.'
Romney then continued to cite his impressive business experience, plus rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics, and governing Massachusetts.
Overall, I was extremely impressed with his easy, quick manner and explanation of economic and business concepts. Not that I am unimpressed or disappointed with President Bush. I'm not.
However, knowing Romney's history of co-founding Bain Capital, it's evident this guy really knows the business environment. And how macroeconomic policies on matters such as taxation will affect our nation's economic performance and overall well-being.
Further, I've read about his modified 'universal' healthcare prescription for the nation. It's quite different from what he compromised to install in Massachusetts.
Initially, the state plan had me very worried about Romney's commitment to conservative, free market principles on healthcare. Since his national plan takes into account his ability, as President, to effect changes he could not as a state governor, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
While I have doubts about his inevitable electability, I believe I would prefer Romney to Giuliani, were that the choice I had.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
On Larry Craig
I like to believe that I am a non-partisan when it comes to scandal.
Thus, we have Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho. What an idiot!
I saw his televised explanation of his public restroom arrest the other day. I have to say, if this is what constitutes the decision-making process for this guy, Idaho voters need to get him out of the Senate at the next election.
Resign? Don't know yet. What he allegedly did was tasteless and disgusting, but Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank, to name just a few, have done much worse, and kept their jobs.
Should the voters of Idaho turn him out next election? Probably so. I suspect that I would. Including voting for a Democrat if Craig entered and won his primary.
My business partner and I were discussing this case earlier in the week, and he believes that Craig, contrary to his own public statement, had consulted his attorney before pleading guilty to the lesser charge. In my partner's view, this is a standard police/prosecutorial tactic- threatening a smear by reporting an arrest for soliciting sex (in this case, gay sex), but "allowing" an on-the-spot plea to a lesser charge, like 'lewd or indecent conduct.'
If Craig found himself between 'a rock and a hard place,' no puns intended, it's his responsibility and he has handled the entire matter ineptly. By seeking no 'counsel,' including that of an attorney, I believe he displays the sort of inept decision-making process that we cannot tolerate in the US Senate.
Nevermind that Craig apparently has a history of dabbling in matters gay. One search on YouTube turns up a video of then-Representative Larry Craig dealing with the matter some years ago. Craig defensively and pre-emptively publicly disavowed any involvement in the 1979-82 Congressional page sex scandal.
My point is that now, Craig is one of only 100 Senators, and his nearly-incoherent babbling about what he should have done, and what he did, and didn't do, what he is, and isn't, reflects poorly on our so-called 'deliberative' chamber. Surely there must be someone else in Idaho with conservative values who is more capable of effective decision-making than this buffoon.
Thus, we have Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho. What an idiot!
I saw his televised explanation of his public restroom arrest the other day. I have to say, if this is what constitutes the decision-making process for this guy, Idaho voters need to get him out of the Senate at the next election.
Resign? Don't know yet. What he allegedly did was tasteless and disgusting, but Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank, to name just a few, have done much worse, and kept their jobs.
Should the voters of Idaho turn him out next election? Probably so. I suspect that I would. Including voting for a Democrat if Craig entered and won his primary.
My business partner and I were discussing this case earlier in the week, and he believes that Craig, contrary to his own public statement, had consulted his attorney before pleading guilty to the lesser charge. In my partner's view, this is a standard police/prosecutorial tactic- threatening a smear by reporting an arrest for soliciting sex (in this case, gay sex), but "allowing" an on-the-spot plea to a lesser charge, like 'lewd or indecent conduct.'
If Craig found himself between 'a rock and a hard place,' no puns intended, it's his responsibility and he has handled the entire matter ineptly. By seeking no 'counsel,' including that of an attorney, I believe he displays the sort of inept decision-making process that we cannot tolerate in the US Senate.
Nevermind that Craig apparently has a history of dabbling in matters gay. One search on YouTube turns up a video of then-Representative Larry Craig dealing with the matter some years ago. Craig defensively and pre-emptively publicly disavowed any involvement in the 1979-82 Congressional page sex scandal.
My point is that now, Craig is one of only 100 Senators, and his nearly-incoherent babbling about what he should have done, and what he did, and didn't do, what he is, and isn't, reflects poorly on our so-called 'deliberative' chamber. Surely there must be someone else in Idaho with conservative values who is more capable of effective decision-making than this buffoon.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Congressional Democrats Retreat On Earmarks
Not yet a year into their domination of Congress, House Speaker Frisco Nan and her Senate counterpart, Harry Reid, have already broken their promises to reform earmarks.
Reid has contrived the Senate processes to now require his, and only his, personal, unpublicized opinion as to whether a bill complies with the chamber's earmark rules. So much for sunshine as a disinfectant.
Meanwhile, over in the House, they passed a bill containing the word 'ethics,' but have left the earmarking process largely intact.
In fact, Fox News recently reported a story wherein Pennsylvania's pompous and arrogant member, John Murtha, Frisco Nan's failed candidate for House Majority Leader, inquired, in a debate concerning a spending bill, whether a Republican member had a preferred special interest who needed to be 'taken care of,' in relation to the bill at hand.
The subject was a military need for a special paint, which Murtha had arranged to have provided, sans competitive bids, by Sherwin Williams. Further, while the government paid for the experimental process, the vendor would hold title to any patents or assets resulting from the contract.
What was truly horrific was the Republican member's recounting of Murtha's presumption that the member must be opposing the bill because he had another special interest in whose pocket he was.
With shenanigans like this occurring, I continue to dispute those pundits who think that the House and Senate remain Democratic locks for 2008.
Reid has contrived the Senate processes to now require his, and only his, personal, unpublicized opinion as to whether a bill complies with the chamber's earmark rules. So much for sunshine as a disinfectant.
Meanwhile, over in the House, they passed a bill containing the word 'ethics,' but have left the earmarking process largely intact.
In fact, Fox News recently reported a story wherein Pennsylvania's pompous and arrogant member, John Murtha, Frisco Nan's failed candidate for House Majority Leader, inquired, in a debate concerning a spending bill, whether a Republican member had a preferred special interest who needed to be 'taken care of,' in relation to the bill at hand.
The subject was a military need for a special paint, which Murtha had arranged to have provided, sans competitive bids, by Sherwin Williams. Further, while the government paid for the experimental process, the vendor would hold title to any patents or assets resulting from the contract.
What was truly horrific was the Republican member's recounting of Murtha's presumption that the member must be opposing the bill because he had another special interest in whose pocket he was.
With shenanigans like this occurring, I continue to dispute those pundits who think that the House and Senate remain Democratic locks for 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
