We live in a republic. A representative democracy.
America's founding was amidst dissent, debate and compromise.
It's in our blood..beginning with the blood of the Revolutionary soldiers and sailors that delivered us from British rule.
It took two tries to get our Federal government structure right.
Never, ever, outside of the limited domain of American support of our armed forces during declared wars, has there been "unity" in our country.
Even during the Civil War, Lincoln had to run for re-election and risked a real chance of defeat by George McClellan, the general whom he had fired in 1862. Elections were not suspended.
A need for "unity" did not result in non-military policies being coercively implemented during WWI or WWII. There was a temporary suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, along with some other fairly draconian suppressions of the press. But these were lifted at war's end.
Thus, when you hear a Presidential candidate, e.g., Obama, call for "unity" on any issue aside from war, beware. That candidate means to rule without dissent.
"Unity" means, in other words,
'When I become President, I will dictate, and, in the name of 'unity,' you will comply and there will be no dissent. Dissent goes against unity. And unity will be the mantra by which I lead and enforce all my demands of Congress.'
Even Reagan didn't appeal for unity with his economic rescue of the country after Carter nearly ruined it, economically and militarily. He simply appealed to Americans to back his push for more economic freedom, lower taxes, less government spending, and a stronger defense.
The siren song of never-before-realized 'unity' in America will bring unintended consequences. What begins as a naively-hoped-for single-mindedness on social issues like healthcare, race acceptance, etc., will soon become a coercive drive to demand group-think and univocal acceptance of one party's positions.
Rather than compromise, complete agreement will be demanded, and dissenting debate will be squelched.
There's no reason any Presidential candidate should ever be wanting to unify a country that has never, even in its most successful non-military eras, ever been unified for anything.
Why start now? Especially with a tax-and-spend liberal hack like Obama?
He's not a post-partisan politician. He has no magic elixir. He will not 'unify' anything.
If he does bring about any univocally-backed solutions, you can bet they'll be coerced, and not the result of debate and compromise.
My father warned me, and my brothers, long ago,
'Beware the loss of freedom in America. It won't come all at once, but slowly, step by step, down a slippery slope. FDR began it by requiring the withholding of income tax payments, removing your right to not pay, per civil disobedience. Further losses of freedom will come in equally small, sometimes unnoticed steps.'
Whenever I see or hear Obama, and hear the word 'unity' in conjunction with him, I shiver with fear at the coercive state I envision him creating to force the 'unity' that he decides we should all have.
He won't ask you for your opinion on what should be our unified position.
He'll just tell you.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
AG's on CNBC
Earlier this week, CNBC's morning program, Squawkbox, featured a state Attorney General as guest host. Due to proximity, I believe he was from Connecticut.
Along with him were two other AGs, including Iowa's Tom Miller.
The salient topic among the three was their drive, at the state level, to intervene in mortgage contracts and unilaterally attempt to force investors to adjust terms and avoid foreclosures.
My specific recollection is of Tom Miller describing his actions in Iowa as, and these are close paraphrases,
'doing what's best for all parties...trying to avoid foreclosures....helping investors.....just using Iowa common sense.'
Personally, I found Miller to be pretty disingenuous.
Essentially, he tried to paint his use of the state's legal compulsion with investors as 'helping them do the right thing for their own interests.'
Funny, but I'd rather think investors already know what's in their best interests. And don't need some public-payroll lawyer, who just happens to be Iowa's AG, to tell them what that would be.
I think what we're seeing is good, old-fashioned FDR-style, heavy-handed state intrusion into the sanctity of the private, legal contract.
The last time I saw anyone write about 'Iowa common sense,' it was Meredith Wilson's "The Music Man," and the portrait it painted of the corn state's residents wasn't all that flattering.
If Iowa's common sense is to force investors in mortgages on property within the state to take new terms as dictated by the state's AG, has all that much changed in the century that has passed?
Along with him were two other AGs, including Iowa's Tom Miller.
The salient topic among the three was their drive, at the state level, to intervene in mortgage contracts and unilaterally attempt to force investors to adjust terms and avoid foreclosures.
My specific recollection is of Tom Miller describing his actions in Iowa as, and these are close paraphrases,
'doing what's best for all parties...trying to avoid foreclosures....helping investors.....just using Iowa common sense.'
Personally, I found Miller to be pretty disingenuous.
Essentially, he tried to paint his use of the state's legal compulsion with investors as 'helping them do the right thing for their own interests.'
Funny, but I'd rather think investors already know what's in their best interests. And don't need some public-payroll lawyer, who just happens to be Iowa's AG, to tell them what that would be.
I think what we're seeing is good, old-fashioned FDR-style, heavy-handed state intrusion into the sanctity of the private, legal contract.
The last time I saw anyone write about 'Iowa common sense,' it was Meredith Wilson's "The Music Man," and the portrait it painted of the corn state's residents wasn't all that flattering.
If Iowa's common sense is to force investors in mortgages on property within the state to take new terms as dictated by the state's AG, has all that much changed in the century that has passed?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Power To The 'Independents!
The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal featured a long passage from the book "Pennsylvania Avenue, Profiles In Backroom Power," by John Harwood and Gerald Seib.
I paid particular attention to some data that the authors provided on party registrations.
According to them, New Hampshire registered voters went more than 4 in 10 as independents. They note this is slightly more than double the 20% in 1992.
They add that nearly a quarter of California's voters are now registered as independent, and the fastest-growing segment, as well.
I don't know how much these numbers were affected by the current campaign's tendency to attract crossover voters from the other party. If a state allows independents to choose, on the day of the primary, in which party's primary they will vote, then these numbers might mean less.
Where I grew up, in Illinois, you could be independent, but I don't recall whether you could vote in primaries as one, or whether you simply changed party affiliations.
In any case, the general thrust of the article was that there is real growth in the non-partisan middle of the electorate, represented by independent voters registering in neither major party.
I think that's a great sign. It has, no doubt, led to McCain's nomination, but it wouldn't seem to be doing anything to influence the Democrats. As usual, recently, they are deciding between two pretty liberal candidates.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every state allowed voters registered as independents to simply walk into the polls on election day, choose their preferred primary, and vote in it without party affiliation?
I paid particular attention to some data that the authors provided on party registrations.
According to them, New Hampshire registered voters went more than 4 in 10 as independents. They note this is slightly more than double the 20% in 1992.
They add that nearly a quarter of California's voters are now registered as independent, and the fastest-growing segment, as well.
I don't know how much these numbers were affected by the current campaign's tendency to attract crossover voters from the other party. If a state allows independents to choose, on the day of the primary, in which party's primary they will vote, then these numbers might mean less.
Where I grew up, in Illinois, you could be independent, but I don't recall whether you could vote in primaries as one, or whether you simply changed party affiliations.
In any case, the general thrust of the article was that there is real growth in the non-partisan middle of the electorate, represented by independent voters registering in neither major party.
I think that's a great sign. It has, no doubt, led to McCain's nomination, but it wouldn't seem to be doing anything to influence the Democrats. As usual, recently, they are deciding between two pretty liberal candidates.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every state allowed voters registered as independents to simply walk into the polls on election day, choose their preferred primary, and vote in it without party affiliation?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Real Conservatism in Louisiana
Kim Strassel wrote a wonderful piece in her 'Potomac Watch' column in Friday's Wall Street Journal entitled "A Louisiana Lesson for the GOP."
In her piece, Ms. Strassel contrasted two Republican House candidates in the state. Both ran as 'conservatives,' but Strassel's column explains how misleading this name can be.
The losing candidate, Woody Jenkins, is described as,
"By the lazy standards of the GOP, Mr. Jenkins should've been a cinch to win a Baton Rouge district in Republican hands for 34 years, and that President Bush won with 59% in 2004. Their candidate was a rock-solid social conservative who, in 28 statehouse years, had never voted for a tax increase, and who wanted to erect a U.S.-Mexico wall.
Yet Mr. Jenkins was also a divisive firebrand. He was infamous for carrying around plastic fetuses, to demonstrate his opposition to abortion. He'd previously landed in a weird entanglement with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. This history made even conservatives fidgety, and crowded out anything Mr. Jenkins had to say on issues.
More debilitating to the Jenkins campaign was a strong whiff of the ethical problems that have plagued Republicans. A labor union ran ads noting Mr. Jenkins's had seen 19 tax liens filed against him and his broadcasting company since 1990. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pointed out that a murky Jenkins charity had paid him consulting fees, paid rent to his company, and paid more than a half-a-million dollars to his wife. He'd been in hot water over campaign contributions, and voted against financial disclosure.
Democrats, meanwhile, have realized it's more important to win than to impose liberal litmus tests on candidates. Mr. Jenkins's opponent, Don Cazayoux, was pro-life and pro-gun. He had nice things to say about John McCain, and rarely mentioned Mr. Obama or Hillary Clinton. A self-styled "John Breaux Democrat," he focused on education and health care."
As more independent than Republican, and more conservative fiscally than socially, I think I'd probably have voted for Cazayoux, too, were I a resident of that district.
Jenkins impresses me as the type of 'conservative' that gives the movement a bad name. Rather than focus on operational issues over which there is now wide disagreement, such as healthcare, what, if anything, the Federal government should do about energy policy, and the economy, Jenkins seems to have clung to old emotional issues like abortion.
In contrast, Ms. Strassel described another Louisiana House candidate for the GOP, Steve Scalise. About him, she wrote,
"The 43-year-old Republican, Steve Scalise, had pinpointed today's GOP vulnerabilities, and ran an anti-status-quo campaign. His focal point was wasteful spending, and he touted his legislation to reform Louisiana's earmark process. Another hallmark was ethics reform and his fight against public corruption. He talked up competitive private health care, lower taxes and school choice.
Republicans looking for an Obama doppelganger would have been better served by his Democratic competitor, Gilda Reed. She campaigned on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and "universal" health care. Trade came in for a bashing, as did secret ballots in union-organizing elections. Ms. Reed explained she was personally pro-life, but felt abortion needed to remain legal. Her cause became that of the liberal left, with the Daily Kos hosting an online fund-raiser on her behalf. Mr. Scalise won 75% of the vote."
This makes a lot of sense to me. Scalise focused on the issues that make a difference in his constituents' everyday lives. To me, that is espousing workable, salable conservatism to voters.
Strassel's column ends with the warning,
"With Democrats actively recruiting conservative candidates, it's no longer good enough for the GOP names to fall back on cultural credentials, to demagogue immigration, or to simply promise lower taxes. Voters care about the size of government, but they are equally worried about the cost of doctor visits and gas prices. The winners will be those who explain the merits of a private health-care reform, who talk about vouchers, who push for energy production. And given its reputation on ethics, it's clear the GOP has to recruit Mr. Cleans, who also make voters believe they are more interested in solving problems than bringing home pork.
Mr. Jenkins's defeat says little about how Republicans will fare in defining Mr. Obama or local competitors this fall. It says plenty about how the GOP continues to define itself, and why it remains in trouble."
I think she's right on target. Conservatism is not, or doesn't have to be, about party or historic affiliations. It's about preferring sensible, less-government solutions to pressing social and economic challenges.
For what it's worth, this article sparked in me the hope that now, with some real choices on the table this year, and upcoming ones, about economics, defense, foreign policy and healthcare, the conservatism of Ronald Reagan can make a comeback.
I don't personally fault George Bush for failing as a President. I don't think he has. But the time hasn't been ripe for the idiots running the GOP to realize that people want solutions more than postures on single issues like abortion.
Now that the White House is up for grabs in a way that it hasn't been since 1952, perhaps conservatives and their typical partisan affiliation, the Republican party, can gain seats in Congress based upon their approach to problem solving, rather than grandstanding on issues that are more theoretical and less-impacting on a daily basis in most voters' lives.
In the end, perhaps more crisis, not less, is going to open the door to a resurgence of conservative values and legislators at the national level.
In her piece, Ms. Strassel contrasted two Republican House candidates in the state. Both ran as 'conservatives,' but Strassel's column explains how misleading this name can be.
The losing candidate, Woody Jenkins, is described as,
"By the lazy standards of the GOP, Mr. Jenkins should've been a cinch to win a Baton Rouge district in Republican hands for 34 years, and that President Bush won with 59% in 2004. Their candidate was a rock-solid social conservative who, in 28 statehouse years, had never voted for a tax increase, and who wanted to erect a U.S.-Mexico wall.
Yet Mr. Jenkins was also a divisive firebrand. He was infamous for carrying around plastic fetuses, to demonstrate his opposition to abortion. He'd previously landed in a weird entanglement with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. This history made even conservatives fidgety, and crowded out anything Mr. Jenkins had to say on issues.
More debilitating to the Jenkins campaign was a strong whiff of the ethical problems that have plagued Republicans. A labor union ran ads noting Mr. Jenkins's had seen 19 tax liens filed against him and his broadcasting company since 1990. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pointed out that a murky Jenkins charity had paid him consulting fees, paid rent to his company, and paid more than a half-a-million dollars to his wife. He'd been in hot water over campaign contributions, and voted against financial disclosure.
Democrats, meanwhile, have realized it's more important to win than to impose liberal litmus tests on candidates. Mr. Jenkins's opponent, Don Cazayoux, was pro-life and pro-gun. He had nice things to say about John McCain, and rarely mentioned Mr. Obama or Hillary Clinton. A self-styled "John Breaux Democrat," he focused on education and health care."
As more independent than Republican, and more conservative fiscally than socially, I think I'd probably have voted for Cazayoux, too, were I a resident of that district.
Jenkins impresses me as the type of 'conservative' that gives the movement a bad name. Rather than focus on operational issues over which there is now wide disagreement, such as healthcare, what, if anything, the Federal government should do about energy policy, and the economy, Jenkins seems to have clung to old emotional issues like abortion.
In contrast, Ms. Strassel described another Louisiana House candidate for the GOP, Steve Scalise. About him, she wrote,
"The 43-year-old Republican, Steve Scalise, had pinpointed today's GOP vulnerabilities, and ran an anti-status-quo campaign. His focal point was wasteful spending, and he touted his legislation to reform Louisiana's earmark process. Another hallmark was ethics reform and his fight against public corruption. He talked up competitive private health care, lower taxes and school choice.
Republicans looking for an Obama doppelganger would have been better served by his Democratic competitor, Gilda Reed. She campaigned on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and "universal" health care. Trade came in for a bashing, as did secret ballots in union-organizing elections. Ms. Reed explained she was personally pro-life, but felt abortion needed to remain legal. Her cause became that of the liberal left, with the Daily Kos hosting an online fund-raiser on her behalf. Mr. Scalise won 75% of the vote."
This makes a lot of sense to me. Scalise focused on the issues that make a difference in his constituents' everyday lives. To me, that is espousing workable, salable conservatism to voters.
Strassel's column ends with the warning,
"With Democrats actively recruiting conservative candidates, it's no longer good enough for the GOP names to fall back on cultural credentials, to demagogue immigration, or to simply promise lower taxes. Voters care about the size of government, but they are equally worried about the cost of doctor visits and gas prices. The winners will be those who explain the merits of a private health-care reform, who talk about vouchers, who push for energy production. And given its reputation on ethics, it's clear the GOP has to recruit Mr. Cleans, who also make voters believe they are more interested in solving problems than bringing home pork.
Mr. Jenkins's defeat says little about how Republicans will fare in defining Mr. Obama or local competitors this fall. It says plenty about how the GOP continues to define itself, and why it remains in trouble."
I think she's right on target. Conservatism is not, or doesn't have to be, about party or historic affiliations. It's about preferring sensible, less-government solutions to pressing social and economic challenges.
For what it's worth, this article sparked in me the hope that now, with some real choices on the table this year, and upcoming ones, about economics, defense, foreign policy and healthcare, the conservatism of Ronald Reagan can make a comeback.
I don't personally fault George Bush for failing as a President. I don't think he has. But the time hasn't been ripe for the idiots running the GOP to realize that people want solutions more than postures on single issues like abortion.
Now that the White House is up for grabs in a way that it hasn't been since 1952, perhaps conservatives and their typical partisan affiliation, the Republican party, can gain seats in Congress based upon their approach to problem solving, rather than grandstanding on issues that are more theoretical and less-impacting on a daily basis in most voters' lives.
In the end, perhaps more crisis, not less, is going to open the door to a resurgence of conservative values and legislators at the national level.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Obama's Health Care Record
Given Obama's relative inexperience in things political, especially on the national scene, there isn't a whole lot to which one can turn to understand his true, underlying stance on most issues of importance.
But there is, as luck would have it, one. In Monday's Wall Street Journal, Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote an editorial entitled "Obama's Health Care Record."
According to Dr. Gottlieb, as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted for 18 different "new mandates on private health insurance."
Mandates for coverage, as we know, increases the cost of health insurance and, thus, healthcare. Forcing a man to pay for obstetrics, for example, when he's either single or past the age of starting a family, is needlessly expensive.
As Dr. Gottlieb writes,
"It doesn't have to be that way. If insurers were allowed to offer "bare-bones" plans – which would be cheaper because they would cover just essential care – many consumers who are priced out of health insurance now would likely buy these plans instead of living without insurance.
State mandates even hurt those who have insurance because they prompt insurers to cut back on coverage for catastrophic illnesses. This undermines the purpose of insurance by turning policies into prepaid health care rather than security from the economic consequences of serious medical problems. And because many mandates define the duration and scope of specific benefits, they lock in treatment standards that grow outdated as knowledge advances. That can diminish incentives to find more effective ways of delivering medical care.
Why, then, do we have mandates?
For the simple reason that each mandate has a powerful constituency – be it chiropractors, dentists or other groups – who benefit when their services are included on the list of mandated care. These groups pressure lawmakers to expand the list of mandates and, over time, the list grows to be very long and expensive. Often the care that is being mandated is for minor medical problems because small, routine ailments are suffered by more people and therefore have broader political constituencies."
As Dick Armey, retired House Leader under/with Newt Gingrich explained yesterday morning on CNBC,
'Beware of mandates. If it needs a mandate, that means nobody wants to buy it.'
Dr. Gottlieb goes on to inform us,
"Mr. Obama says people need more options to purchase insurance outside the workplace. He also says he can draw on his experience as a state legislator to lead a reform of the kinds of special interests that pursue these mandated benefits. Right now Mr. Obama's health-care proposal, like Hillary Clinton's plan, does the opposite by adding federal regulations on top of state laws.
"My plan emphasizes lowering costs," Mr. Obama says. If that is really what he wants to do, he can start by freeing consumers from forced subsidization of the pricey state mandates. Given a choice between the lower costs he promises and subsidized dental anesthesia he has delivered, some would opt for the affordable health insurance and make do with some extra Novocain."
More than anything else, Dr. Gottlieb's editorial helps shape Obama as both inexperienced and a poseur. He has done one thing, claims it as experience, but now says something different. It's so typical of Obama as he attempts to hide his lack of any significant experience, or his prior positions on so many vital issues.
This is not the sort of person you want in the Oval Office.
But there is, as luck would have it, one. In Monday's Wall Street Journal, Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote an editorial entitled "Obama's Health Care Record."
According to Dr. Gottlieb, as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted for 18 different "new mandates on private health insurance."
Mandates for coverage, as we know, increases the cost of health insurance and, thus, healthcare. Forcing a man to pay for obstetrics, for example, when he's either single or past the age of starting a family, is needlessly expensive.
As Dr. Gottlieb writes,
"It doesn't have to be that way. If insurers were allowed to offer "bare-bones" plans – which would be cheaper because they would cover just essential care – many consumers who are priced out of health insurance now would likely buy these plans instead of living without insurance.
State mandates even hurt those who have insurance because they prompt insurers to cut back on coverage for catastrophic illnesses. This undermines the purpose of insurance by turning policies into prepaid health care rather than security from the economic consequences of serious medical problems. And because many mandates define the duration and scope of specific benefits, they lock in treatment standards that grow outdated as knowledge advances. That can diminish incentives to find more effective ways of delivering medical care.
Why, then, do we have mandates?
For the simple reason that each mandate has a powerful constituency – be it chiropractors, dentists or other groups – who benefit when their services are included on the list of mandated care. These groups pressure lawmakers to expand the list of mandates and, over time, the list grows to be very long and expensive. Often the care that is being mandated is for minor medical problems because small, routine ailments are suffered by more people and therefore have broader political constituencies."
As Dick Armey, retired House Leader under/with Newt Gingrich explained yesterday morning on CNBC,
'Beware of mandates. If it needs a mandate, that means nobody wants to buy it.'
Dr. Gottlieb goes on to inform us,
"Mr. Obama says people need more options to purchase insurance outside the workplace. He also says he can draw on his experience as a state legislator to lead a reform of the kinds of special interests that pursue these mandated benefits. Right now Mr. Obama's health-care proposal, like Hillary Clinton's plan, does the opposite by adding federal regulations on top of state laws.
"My plan emphasizes lowering costs," Mr. Obama says. If that is really what he wants to do, he can start by freeing consumers from forced subsidization of the pricey state mandates. Given a choice between the lower costs he promises and subsidized dental anesthesia he has delivered, some would opt for the affordable health insurance and make do with some extra Novocain."
More than anything else, Dr. Gottlieb's editorial helps shape Obama as both inexperienced and a poseur. He has done one thing, claims it as experience, but now says something different. It's so typical of Obama as he attempts to hide his lack of any significant experience, or his prior positions on so many vital issues.
This is not the sort of person you want in the Oval Office.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Obama's Lingering Minister Problem
In this recent post, I discussed the visual and audible nature of Obama's recent attempt to distance himself from his hate-filled former minister, Jeremiah Wright.
In this post, I want to touch on the failure of the content of Obama's speech to explain his lingering problem- credibility.
As I, and many others, see it, Obama refuses to acknowledge that Wright's remarks last week contained no new hate speech- merely repetitions of hate-mongering comments which he has made over the past twenty years.
Viewed in this light, Obama's decision to 'throw Wright under the bus' becomes the height of political calculation. Despite the Senator's insistence that now he finds Wright's comments objectionable, he will not acknowledge that the statements to which he referred last week were not new, merely re-affirmations of old hate-speech.
If these statements did not necessitate Obama from referring to Wright as an 'uncle,' and refusing to disown him, a month ago in his speech in Philadelphia, then why would the same comments now force Obama to disown him?
That's the question those of us not already under the control of Obama pixie dust ask.
How can it be that Obama suddenly finds Wright's years-old statements, which were merely repeated last week in Washington and Detroit, now objectionable?
It all goes to judgment and maturity. This issue is not, and never was, strictly about Wright's hate-speech, but, rather, Obama's acceptance of it until it became a political liability.
Now that Obama has responded with last week's remarks which marked an about-face on this issue, it will remain with Obama until November's election. By reacting in so contrasting a manner to no new Wright statements, Obama has unwittingly played his hand as a politician seeking to appeal to all voter segments- radical blacks, moderate whites, and upscale, guilty white liberals. The very real possibility that the second group might bolt from Obama's voter base, especially in advance of the Indiana primary, forced him to bet that the first and third groups won't mind if he abandons his minister of twenty years.
All very indicative of the fact that Obama is no 'post-partisan' Presidential candidate, but just another typical, uber liberal Democratic Presidential candidate making fast and ever-changing political calculations regarding with whom he will still associate, as he seeks to assemble a voting coalition for November.
In this post, I want to touch on the failure of the content of Obama's speech to explain his lingering problem- credibility.
As I, and many others, see it, Obama refuses to acknowledge that Wright's remarks last week contained no new hate speech- merely repetitions of hate-mongering comments which he has made over the past twenty years.
Viewed in this light, Obama's decision to 'throw Wright under the bus' becomes the height of political calculation. Despite the Senator's insistence that now he finds Wright's comments objectionable, he will not acknowledge that the statements to which he referred last week were not new, merely re-affirmations of old hate-speech.
If these statements did not necessitate Obama from referring to Wright as an 'uncle,' and refusing to disown him, a month ago in his speech in Philadelphia, then why would the same comments now force Obama to disown him?
That's the question those of us not already under the control of Obama pixie dust ask.
How can it be that Obama suddenly finds Wright's years-old statements, which were merely repeated last week in Washington and Detroit, now objectionable?
It all goes to judgment and maturity. This issue is not, and never was, strictly about Wright's hate-speech, but, rather, Obama's acceptance of it until it became a political liability.
Now that Obama has responded with last week's remarks which marked an about-face on this issue, it will remain with Obama until November's election. By reacting in so contrasting a manner to no new Wright statements, Obama has unwittingly played his hand as a politician seeking to appeal to all voter segments- radical blacks, moderate whites, and upscale, guilty white liberals. The very real possibility that the second group might bolt from Obama's voter base, especially in advance of the Indiana primary, forced him to bet that the first and third groups won't mind if he abandons his minister of twenty years.
All very indicative of the fact that Obama is no 'post-partisan' Presidential candidate, but just another typical, uber liberal Democratic Presidential candidate making fast and ever-changing political calculations regarding with whom he will still associate, as he seeks to assemble a voting coalition for November.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Hillary's Misguided Oil Solutions On The O'Reilly Factor
In this recent post, I wondered what Hillary would do as President to address the current high price of oil. As I quoted the Wall Street Journal, quoting Hillary's husband, Slick Willie, he alleged, referring to the oil situation,
"That's why we need Hillary."
Now, thanks to Bill O'Reilly's interview with Hillary this week on Fox News, we know just what Hillary plans to do. And, believe it or not, I correctly anticipated three of them.
First, she will levy a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Nevermind that these firms are investor-owned. And, being large, are held widely by Americans of all stripes, via pension funds, mutual funds or just simple index funds like the S&P500.
So not only does Hillary plan to punish the average American who holds these equities in a 401K or retirement fund, but she will also disincent the companies to produce, because they will only have to hand over more money to the spendthrift Federal Government.
Next, Hillary plans to lecture, cajole and otherwise make a pest of herself with OPEC.
Nevermind that these countries have legitimate financial needs and plans of their own for their petroleum assets. Nor that they do not 'set' prices- that's done by the interaction of supply and demand for oil.
Hillary will just go over to the Gulf and make everyone see that they must do as she says.
Uh huh.
Then there's a lawyer's favorite weapon- lawsuits!
In order to curry even more favor with those countries which supply oil to us, Hillary plans to sue them for anti-trust violations, after having Congress pass legislation to make that legal. Then she plans to go to the WTO to pursue them there, as well.
Of course, this is the same Hillary who blames our current President for what she feels is an unacceptably low level of regard in which various foreign nations hold America.
So, that's it. Those are our wonk-who-would-be-President's proposed solutions for the current price of oil.
She's going to penalize American companies for finding, pumping and refining the black stuff. Then she's going to go overseas and punish the countries who supply us.
Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
Does Hillary understand economics, or what?
"That's why we need Hillary."
Now, thanks to Bill O'Reilly's interview with Hillary this week on Fox News, we know just what Hillary plans to do. And, believe it or not, I correctly anticipated three of them.
First, she will levy a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Nevermind that these firms are investor-owned. And, being large, are held widely by Americans of all stripes, via pension funds, mutual funds or just simple index funds like the S&P500.
So not only does Hillary plan to punish the average American who holds these equities in a 401K or retirement fund, but she will also disincent the companies to produce, because they will only have to hand over more money to the spendthrift Federal Government.
Next, Hillary plans to lecture, cajole and otherwise make a pest of herself with OPEC.
Nevermind that these countries have legitimate financial needs and plans of their own for their petroleum assets. Nor that they do not 'set' prices- that's done by the interaction of supply and demand for oil.
Hillary will just go over to the Gulf and make everyone see that they must do as she says.
Uh huh.
Then there's a lawyer's favorite weapon- lawsuits!
In order to curry even more favor with those countries which supply oil to us, Hillary plans to sue them for anti-trust violations, after having Congress pass legislation to make that legal. Then she plans to go to the WTO to pursue them there, as well.
Of course, this is the same Hillary who blames our current President for what she feels is an unacceptably low level of regard in which various foreign nations hold America.
So, that's it. Those are our wonk-who-would-be-President's proposed solutions for the current price of oil.
She's going to penalize American companies for finding, pumping and refining the black stuff. Then she's going to go overseas and punish the countries who supply us.
Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
Does Hillary understand economics, or what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
