Democrats throwing Obama under the bus?

With very interesting timing, the Democrats are now starting to talk about how Obama should be listening to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

But a contrarian narrative is emerging: Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.

It's been a long-held opinion of those opposed to Obama's agenda that either Obama failed to recruit the right people for his staff, or that he simply refuses to listen to them. It looks like the Democrats feel there is political capital to be gained by claiming the latter.

A fascinating development, to be sure. I'm sure this is just the beginning of...something. I wonder where this is headed.

Obama, the State of the Union, and the Bully Pulpit

Is there anyone Obama didn't attack? He continues to pummel away at the financial sector, as if they weren't a large part of the key to getting the economy back on track. He took a stab at the Supreme Court, eliciting a mouthed "not true" from Justice Alito.

He blasts Washington, seemingly without realizing that he is Washington now. He controls Washington. He took a stab at "climate change deniers" even while the IPCC is falling apart from its own bad science. He took an off-handed swipe at middle-America for not being smart enough to recognize how wonderful his health care reform was. And he sends a warning to Congress members who are starting to think that listening to their constituents instead of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi might be a good idea after all.

He continues to insult our intelligence by promising more of the same, tired "we will go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year" rhetoric. He spent $700 billion on a questionable Recovery Act, and he expects us to get excited about $20 billion? We're not stupid. We have been paying attention.

Oh yeah, and he takes a stab at the oil companies. Of course there's the obligatory attack on "the right" using staw men and subverted logic. He continues to blame Bush for everything, as expected.

Oh, this was a good line: "Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense."

In short, he wants to undo the last year of his administration while making it all sound like someone else's fault. He wants to hang on to his horrible ideas for America because that's what he was elected on, regardless of how people feel about his policies now. In short, he's still not listening.

Ah, and of course he punches the lobbyist button. That's like only blaming the drug dealers, Mr. President. It takes politicians who allow themselves to be bought to make lobbying worthwhile. I seem to remember Nancy Pelosi promising to clean up that swamp when the Democrats took over three years ago. You know, the last three years of the eight years that supposedly brought us where we are today? You'd like us to think that you've only had a year to undo the past eight, but the reality is your team was at bat when the problems began. Some could even say you helped cause it.

And why are you so bent on making lobbyists disclose everything when you and your party have not only NOT kept your campaign promise of greater visibility, but actually gone the opposite direction? You promised us no legislation going to a vote without being published online five days before the vote. Secret debates and secret guest lists is what we got. Thousand-page bills voted on after mere hours is what we got. You want to keep your faith with the people who got you there? That's a good place to start. Open sesame, Mr. President!

Another gem: "Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era." Really? So that's why you rubbed the Republicans' nose in it with the "We won" Crack? That's how you work to bring about post-partisanship? You let your Congressional leaders exclude the Republicans time and again and call that working toward peace and harmony? No sir, you either expected exactly what you say you didn't, or you simply didn't think you needed the other side's cooperation. Not give up on changing tone? No sir, you have not even begun. Get to work already.

Ah nice, he blames all our cynicism and disappointment on business, media, and lobbyists. The finger always points everywhere but at himself. It's our cynicism that's the problem, not his bad policies. If we weren't so cynical we'd see how wonderful his policies are! Stupid people!

Well, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. He intends to keep hammering away at the same ol' same ol'. Heaven help us all because he knows better than all of us what we want.

I think Chris Muir puts it best: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/012610.jpg

Sting drinks the Obama kool-aid

Sting is going down on record as an Obama devotee:

"In many ways, he's sent from God," he said in an interview, "because the world's a mess."

Huh? The world is a mess, and Obama is elected in the middle of it, so that means Obama is sent from God? By that rationale, Putin's sent from God, Chavez is sent from God, Sarkozy is sent from God, and on and on. Why exactly is it Obama's job to fix the world? At what point does the World become responsible for itself.

At any rate, I'm not likely to take Sting's word (he's agnostic at best) on who is or isn't sent from God. I'm a fan of his music, and this won't change that. And, unlike many famous people with political opinions, Sting has actually done something to try to improve the world. But reading his biography is enough to convince me I don't want to take his word on what is right or wrong without question.

At any rate, he's obviously not open minded when it comes to those of us opposed to Obama:

The British singer, who released the seasonal album "On A Winter's Night" this week, said he's fascinated by American politics, Obama, and also by Obama's opponents on the right.

"It's aggressive and violent and full of fear," he said of the backlash against Obama. "They don't want change, they want things to feel the same because they feel safe there."

If the opposition is aggressive it's because the left taught us that's what protesters need to be before anyone will pay attention to them. As for the violence, I wish he's cite an example. If he's referring to the Tea Party protests this year then he's way off base. By and large, the only violence at those protests came from the counter-protesters.

As for the "full of fear" part, that's pretty rich coming from someone who is seldom exposed to the fears most of the rest of us have. It's not likely any change in government policy is going to put him out of his many homes. I suspect he's not concerned about extended periods of not working.

Perhaps we are full of fear, Mr. Sumner, but that's because we live in the real world, not the jet-setting world of the hyper-rich-and-famous. And unlike you, no journalists are asking us for our political opinions. If we were to call the Iranian government to request the release of political prisoners I wouldn't even get through, though I'd probably be taken no more seriously if I did.

You see, the rest of us--who you are usually quick to dismiss as "medieval", fearful, and unwilling to talk about real issues--actually have to worry about such mundane matters as food and clothes. We have enough trouble paying for one house, let alone several mansions. We're tired of rich well-to-dos telling us WE are the problem and that we should just shut up and let the smart people fix us.

So thank you for your lovely opinion, but no thanks. I'm not convinced that I, in my opposition of Obama, am making the world a worse place than are the Sudanese government or Al Qaeda. Perhaps super-smart Obama and you might want to focus some attention on those problems instead of how to silence Fox News or how to cram yet another bad idea bill down the American throat.

Or how about dealing with AIDS and other diseases in Africa? Oh wait, that was Bush who did that. And we don't like to talk about him. He wasn't sent from God to clean up the mess, and so everything he DID do to help clean it up should be ignored. It's much better to back a president who gets awards for the mere potential to solve problems.

Sting, you are more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than Obama, and I don't say that lightly. I know at least some of what you've done to try and make the world better. Perhaps in four years Obama will deserve it. But for now, his getting the award just makes light of the real efforts you and thousands of others have made since before Obama was out of high school.

Obama should be singing your praises, not the other way around. But then you've got a new album to promote, so I guess whatever it takes to grab a headline, right?

More on Obama v. Fox News

From Jennifer Rubin at Commentary Magazine:

It’s a cringe-inducing moment, both for those who oppose the White House on policy grounds and those who cheer its every move. As surely as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton allowed their personal flaws to erode the office of the presidency, Obama seems bent on allowing his own flaws (thin-skinnedness, hubris) to do potentially grave damage to the office as well. And over what? Not some grand policy matter or some key personnel matter, but over the desire to exclude a news network that has criticized him.

Read the whole thing.

If Europe wants him, they can have him

Joel Kotkin poses an interesting explanation of Obama's popularity in Europe:

Barack Obama's seemingly inexplicable winning of the Nobel Peace Prize says less about him than about the current mentality of Europe's leadership class. Lacking any strong, compelling voices of their own, the Europeans are now trying to hijack our president as their spokesman.

I can't quite agree with him that Europe's health care system is better than ours without some clarification of criteria, but his overall premise is sound.

And it's just in time for Oscar season...

President Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize?

I'd say they had better do something about their flatulent moose up there in Norway. It's obviously effecting the prize committee's ability to think clearly.

I predict an Oscar win for Obama at the next Academy Awards, even though he's not been in any movies...or was he shown somewhere in Michael Moore's latest dorkumentary?

Well, the world has never really listened to a US president. Perhaps they'll listen to the Nobel committee.

UPDATE: A couple thoughts about what Obama should do about this award:

1 - Decline it, as others have already suggested. He can announce that while he's flattered by the award, and appreciates the vote of confidence, he represents America, where results--not ambitions--define who we are. He can then decline the award, asking that they judge him at the end of his tenure based on his actual accomplishments.

2 - Accept the award on behalf of everyone in the world who hopes and works for peace, even if they have yet to achieve their dreams. Paint himself as no more deserving than the Iraqi shop-owner who has reopened his shop in spite of continued violence, or the Peace Corps volunteer helping immunize children in Africa. Something that both honors others who have done more in a less visible way, while politely showing the committee that he thinks they're full of it.

If he accepts the award as is he'll do himself no favors. Sarkozy's recent criticisms will be validated. Rogue-state leaders will look down their noses at him even more and do everything in their power to undermine his new status as a peacemaker. The Muslim world will laud him publicly and oppose him every step of the way.

This award is the last thing Obama needs if he is to be at all effective in the world.

It's not whether you are loved, but who loves you

The Telegraph, a British paper, offers the following analysis of Barak Obama on the international stage:

Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack.

As we saw last week with his shameful surrender to Moscow over missile defence, the president is perfectly happy to undermine America’s allies and gut its strategic defences while currying favour with enemies and strategic competitors. The missile defence debacle is rightly viewed as a betrayal by the Poles and the Czechs, and Washington has clearly give the impression that it cares little about those who have bravely stood shoulder to shoulder with their US allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider war on terror.

The Obama administration is now overseeing and implementing the biggest decline in American global power since Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately it may well take another generation for the United States to recover.

I feel safer already.

What was the big deal?

I just finished listening to the President's speech to schoolkids. It was a good speech. I enjoyed it. I got some positive things from it. Is there room for disagreement on what he said? Sure there is. A lot of the disagreements in this country stem from how we define a lot of the terms he spoke about. But chances are each kid that listened is going to define those terms the way their parents do.

I didn't see anything I'm going to have to sort my kids out on tonight. It was a good speech. I hope all you screaming radicals who kept your kids home today are embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for you.

UPDATE: It seems that the screaming radicals are always with us: When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

Parental responsibility and Obama's school speech

My first grader informed me today that his class will be watching Obama's address to schoolchildren on Sept. 8th, and that if we don't want our child to watch we need to notify the teacher. Frankly, I'm embarrassed that this is what our country is coming to.

I remember a lot of people on the right promising to do for Obama what the left were unwilling to do for Bush: respect the office, if not the occupant. That has all been forgotten, evidently, as a hear a lot of people encouraging us to keep our children home that day. I repeat, this is embarrassing.

The man is the President of the United States, whether we like it or not. Let him talk to our kids. He's not likely to say anything too complicated anyway. These are schoolkids, after all.

That night be sure you talk to your kids about the speech. Find out what they got out of it. Find out how they feel about it. Then offer counter-arguments as needed. I learned last year around election time that my opinion still hold sway with my kids. They still trust Mom and Dad over teachers and presidents.

But they won't for long if they feel like you are hiding things from them. Pulling them out of school because the President is speaking is going to spark their curiosity and make them want to find out just what is so bad about what he said. Then they'll wonder why Mom and Dad were afraid of it. You will lose credibility by avoiding issues like this, where you will gain trust and respect if you meet the challenge head on.

My wife just found in the school newsletter that only six classes out of at least fifteen will be showing the broadcast. That is rather sad, but I can understand why the teachers would want to avoid the hassle. It makes me wonder if there are parents out there who burn their children's Presidential Health and Fitness Award certificates when they bring them home from school.

Give your president a little respect and your kids a little credit. I understand the speech will also be broadcast online, so watch it yourself so you know what to discuss with your kids. But for pity sake, people, let's stop acting so suspicious and fearful. Obama does not have a mind control ray. He's not going to tell our kids to join his Obama Youth Brigade and refuse to eat their vegetables until you give in on health care and cap-n-trade.

I do not fear Obama using the schools for a bully pulpit. I have a much more effective vehicle when it comes to ensuring my children are taught correctly. It's called the dinner table.

Rewriting Godwin's Law

"Godwin's Law" is an observation made by attorney and author Mike Godwin, which states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I believe that the law needs a corollary to fit the Obama age: "In discussing any political issue the probability of anyone who disagrees with views held by the current administration being a racist is automatically 1."

Disagree with the Health Care overhaul? It's because you're racist. Disagree with the stimulus bill? You're racist. Disagree with the government take-over of the auto industry? You're a racist.

Those on the left are incapable of believing anyone could disagree with them, and they are afraid that anyone else might listen to those who disagree with them. Rather than admit disagreement can exist based on the logical, political, social, economic, or historical merits of an issue, the only possible reason anyone could have for disliking current policies or legislation is because there is a black man in the White House. They know it is a difficult charge to defend against, so they invoke it early and often to quickly drag any discussion away from the actual merits of an issue.

I am not saying there is no racism in America, nor am I saying that there aren't people who disagree with Obama solely because of race. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who would support the administration heart and soul if there just weren't a black man at its head. But people like that are the exception, not the rule.

Meanwhile, the real cases of racism in this country are being overshadowed by this pathetic excuse for a debate technique, which is in reality the same thing as wrapping up your opponent in boxing so they can't punch you with any effectiveness. It's illegal in boxing, and we should not allow it in discussion or debate.

In fact, it's time to strike back. Why do we accept the charge of racism as the end of discussion? Is this not America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty? Next time someone calls you racist you have every right to insist they offer proof. They can't, and they know it, so they will likely attempt to point out some latent racist leanings in your past or some other nonsense.

But don't accept that. Reframe the argument. Ask them if what they are really saying is that there is no other possible reason for someone to be against issue X. If they say yes then you may now accuse them of prejudice and ignorance. If they say no, ask them why they would automatically assume racism is your motivation when there is no proof that you are racist. Does that not prove that they themselves are prejudiced?

The argument is so easily turned on its head, but no one ever seems to try. One does not have to be racist to oppose the ideas of this administration. To assume one is a racist because they do is dishonest and morally bankrupt--and ultimately detrimental to the real fight against real racism.

Both sides should have a vested interest in removing this particular tactic from play as soon as possible before real damage is done.

Iconography and Obama

Bill Whittle is back with another thought-provoking segment on the power of iconography.

And while we're touting videos, here's Ed Driscoll's interview with Chris Muir, creator of "Day By Day", one of my favorite cartoons (Ed didn't ask the question I'd have asked, which is: Is Zed modeled after Muir himself?)

Muir just completed a fund-raising drive which evidently exceeded the goal, which I'm pleased to see. I'm also hoping to be in better financial shape (ie. employed) next time so I can contribute. He's certainly on my list of sites I would like to support.

And who would I like to support, you may ask? Well...in no particular order:

Michael Totten
Chris Muir (Day By Day)
Pajamas Media - Bill Whittle, Alfonzo Rachel, Glenn Reynolds, Ed Driscoll, et al.
Michael Yon
James Lileks

Do I think you should, too? Why yes, of course! If you have some spare change, check them out and leave a tip. Tell 'em Thom sent you.

Gates-gate: What can we learn?

A neighbor sees someone trying to force their way into a house and calls the police. The police show up and find that someone still in the house. They request to see ID. And things get fuzzy from there, turning into a national issue that helped the President of the United States stick his foot in his mouth at a time it should have been talking about his health care reform. The whole incident doesn't really end when the President invites both parties to the White House for a beer.

I'm not sure what we are supposed to learn.

The real loser in this is Lucia Whalen, the neighbor who called the police. She has been defamed far and wide by Gates' defenders. That is completely wrong. She should be applauded. If one of my neighbors saw me forcing their way into my house and called the cops I'd go right over there and thank them, because mistake or not, at least she was paying attention and willing to do something to protect my property.

Lucia Whalen, thank you! As a home-owner and home-owners association president I would like to say I wish there were more people like you.

Of course we can also learn that perhaps we don't do enough these days to get to know our neighbors. Perhaps if people were closer in Gates' neighborhood Whalen would have recognized him and not had to call the cops. That's not her failing. That's America's failing.

I shudder to think about what lessons we can learn about race and politics. All I know is that if I had just had difficulty getting into my home and the police show up investigating reports of a burglary I would 1) show them my identification immediately and without talking back, and once they are convinced I live there, 2) thank them for protecting my property and doing their (very difficult) jobs. I would not have ended up in jail, because I would have done nothing to get myself there. But if I had, you can bet the charges would not have been dropped, either.

I am concerned, any racial overtones aside, that our President admits publicly that he doesn't know the facts of the case but in the same breath passes judgment anyway. There was no reason for him to make a statement at that time and in that way. He deserves to get beaten up in the polls because of it. It was a foolish, easily-avoided mistake.

One final lesson, one of forgiveness and humanity:

Gates castigated Crowley in person and in the media, yet Crowley still helps him down the steps. He had every reason to dislike Gates, and to let him get himself down the steps. No one would have thought anything of it, likely. But he helped anyway. That, folks, is the measure of a man.

Obama wants to fix the economy, really!

According to the White House, in order to fix the economy we need to fix health care:

In excerprts released by the White House, Obama says that health insurance reform is central "as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis."

“This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance," Obama said. "Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job. It's about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive. And it's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

"So let me be clear: if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we're having right now."

That's fine, but isn't this also the president that misread the economy before creating his stimulus plan, had incomplete information in creating the stimulus, but can't think of anything he'd do to fix it? And even though he's not familiar with what's in the health bill, he's absolutely certain it'll fix the economy. But even assuming his guesses are correct, since most of the provisions in the bill wouldn't take effect until 2013, isn't it safe to say we can't wait that long?

We owe it to ourselves to defeat this health bill and force the administration to get serious about fixing the economy before they bankrupt the country. Not in 2013, but now. If the stimulus bill isn't working correctly, then cancel it and come up with a new plan. No more money for you, Mr. Obama, until you prove you really know what to do with.

It seems that 53% of Americans agree with me.

Three articles of interest

Which to talk about? All of them: Obama brings about watered-down change, unnecessary copyright protections, and our staggering national debt.

Is diluted change really change?
Clive Crook writes in the Financial Times:

Mr Obama aims to keep his promises, which is admirable. Unfortunately, there is a problem. This is not, as many Republicans argue, that neither issue requires forthright action. Both do. The problem is that the bills emerging from Congress are bad and Mr Obama does not seem to mind.

I've noticed that. It's like he's still in the Illinois legislature and still trying to pad his resume. "Lets see, I promised to deal with Global Warming, revise our health care system, and get us out of Iraq. Okay, let's get Congress to pass some bills about those topics so I can check these off my to-do list." It doesn't matter if the bills are bad legislation. It doesn't matter if they actually accomplish what he promised. They just need to have the write terms attached to them.

I've seen very few who really like the Cap-and-Trade bill on either side of the issue. The Right feels it will have a terrible impact on business. The Left feel is won't actually accomplish anything. Does ANYONE like this bill besides Pelosi and Obama?

Should copyright law be used to protect certain business models?
Jeff Jarvis over at Buzz Machine calls out certain lawyers-cum-lobbyists for advocating bad copyright law:

Following the frighteningly dangerous thinking of Judge Richard Posner – proposing rewriting copyright law to outlaw linking to and summarizing (aka talking about) news stories – now we have two more lemming lawyers following him off the cliff in a column written by the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Connie Schultz.

...

Schultz says that David Marburger, an alleged First Amendment attorney for her paper, and his economics-professor brother, Daniel, have concocted their own dangerous thinking, proposing the copyright law be changed to insist that a newspaper’s story should appear only on its own web site for the first 24 hours before it can be aggregated or retold.

Incredible. So if the Plain Dealer reported exclusively that, say, the governor had just returned from a tryst with a Argentine lady, no one else could so much as talk about that for 24 hours. A First Amendment lawyer said this.

So this post would not be possible if Posner and company get their way. I have to wonder how many news organizations actually support this bad idea. If there is a problem on the internet, it's from bloggers, et al, not attributing/linking their sources. Do they realize that if the law is changed the way they want people will just start summarizing and not link to their sites? As long as they paraphrase carefully it will be difficult to prove they lifted it from their site.

And yes, Jarvis raises a good point. Would this inadvertently impact other news sources who develop the story independently? Would it impact the AP News Service in that the first newspaper that prints an AP story is the only one allowed to do so for 24 hours?

That these people appear to have thought this through so little frightens me.

Congressional Budget Office issues warning
The Washington Post has coverage on the CBO's latest warning to the administration:

Now comes the CBO with yet more news of the sort that neither Capitol Hill nor the White House is likely to welcome: its freshly released report on the federal government's long-term financial situation. To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO's most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 -- roughly double what it was in 2008. By 2026, spiraling interest payments would push the debt above its all-time peak (set just after World War II) of 113 percent of GDP. It would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.

This huge mass of debt, which would stifle economic growth and reduce the American standard of living, can be avoided only through spending cuts, tax increases or some combination of the two. And the longer government waits to get its financial house in order, the more it will cost to do so, the CBO says.

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

Presidential ice cream trips

I am not one of those questioning how President Obama could make a run for ice cream with his daughters while the people of Iran are fighting for their freedom. Not that the events in Iran aren't important, but there is only so much the president can do. You can argue all you want that he hasn't done enough, and I'd probably agree with you.

But leave the guy alone when he decides to spend time with his kids. Being President of the United States does not mean he can ignore his kids every time there is something important happening in the world--he'd never get to see them. Those of us with kids know that sometimes you have to squeeze in time with them when you can. And if they want to go out and do something instead of stay home just so you can protect your image what are you going to do? I think it's okay for even the President to say "Sasha, Malia... YOU are more important to me than the world. If you want ice cream, let's get ice cream."

He made the right choice. Iran is important, but nothing was likely to change significantly in an hour. Except his relationship with his daughters. In a few weeks we'll have forgotten all of this. There's a good chance his daughters won't. I may disagree with the man's politics, but I won't begrudge him time with his daughters.

I have no doubt that had something suddenly come up and his attention was absolutely needed right then and there he would have cut it short and hurried back.

The man has one of the most difficult jobs in the world--and he's President of the United States, to boot! Let's cut him some slack. Letting your children know that the world can wait a few minutes while you spend time together may not be popular with the world, but he'll be their father a lot longer than he'll be President. It's the right message to send.

Obama's regulatory overhaul - summary

I've been reading up on Obama's proposed regulatory changes lately and decided perhaps I should try reading the actual draft. Let me tell you, I'm so glad there are trained professionals with acute insomnia who are able to do these things for us. But here's the gist of what he wants to do:

Create a Financial Services Oversight Council
Purpose: Information sharing, coordination, risk identification, resolve jurisdiction disputes, advise Federal Reserve on "at-risk" companies.

Membership: Secretary of Treasury (chair), Chair of the Federal Reserve, Director of National Bank Supervisor, Director of Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Chair of SEC, Chair of CFTC, Chair of FDIC, Director of FHFA.

My take: Sounds like a Financial Dept. of Homeland Security. Not to be a pessimist, but how well did that work? Is there a need for better communication? Yes. Will this help? No. Information that goes up an organization to the top before going across to another a) takes too long, b) is subject to too much filter, c) is subject to politics, d) relies too much on an analyst in one group to recognize something important to another group, and e) does little to improve the actual act of regulation.

Implement higher level of regulation on large, interconnected financial firms (ie. the Too-Big-To-Fail).
Purpose: Set greater restrictions and add higher level of oversight on companies big enough to rattle our economy if they fail, including parent companies and subsidiaries, US-owned or otherwise.

Responsibility: Federal Reserve

My take: This seems like a decent idea. If they're that big they should be watched more closely, since they obviously don't want to watch themselves. This could discourage companies from getting into this category, though, which may have negative, unintended consequences. It may also make some companies find creative ways around this, as well.

Strengthen regulatory requirements
Purpose: Increase capital requirements, regulate executive compensation and incentives, review the accounting rules, strengthen separation between banks and their affiliates.

Responsibility: Various focus groups.

My take: This may not be a bad idea, either. They claim they want to change executive incentives to help them look after the company's long-term interests better, which I could support. However, this seems like veiled language for doing away with high pay for executives. I may disagree with the pay some of these people get, but it shouldn't be up to me--or the government. If the stockholders want it, then so be it. Our companies have to stay competitive. Also, capping pay in just one industry is not fair. Is anyone talking about capping pay in Hollywood? I don't agree with that either, but if you do it for one you have to do it for all.

Close loopholes in bank regulation
Purpose: Create a National Bank Supervisor to regulate all financial institutions. Close loopholes in regulations. Require further separation between companies and any bank affiliates.

Responsibility: National Bank Supervisor

My take: I'm not in favor or creating new government entities, but if there are loopholes to be closed, then close them.

Eliminate the SEC programs for consolidated supervision
Purpose: Move supervision in these cases under the Federal Reserve Board

Responsibility: Federal Reserve

My take: I can take this one on faith, though I'm not sure how this improves things.

Require hedge funds and private investment pools to register with SEC
Purpose: Provide some oversight into a group that has previously been immune--and may have helped bring about our financial collapse.

Responsibility: SEC

My take: I'm not sure what "registration" means and what that alone will do to make this group behave. But if it works, fine with me.

Reduce susceptibility of Money Market Mutual Funds to runs
Purpose: Provide some additional measures to keep the system from falling apart so easily.

Responsibility: SEC

My take: Probably not a bad idea, so long as it goes just far enough and no further. Can you tell I'm not a fan of government intervention?

Enhance oversight of insurance sector
Purpose: Set up Office of National Insurance to gather information, develop expertise, negotiate international agreements, and coordinate policy.

Responsibility: Treasury Dept.

My take: This is too vague. I know why it's in here, but what this will do to keep AIG messes from happening again is not clear.

Determine the future role of Government Sponsored Enterprises
Purpose: Maintain, stabilize, strengthen and propose recommendations on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank system.

Responsibility: Treasury and HUD

My take: May I make a recommendation or two right now? Clean all of these up and cut off their campaign contributions to Congress. Remove from oversight positions anyone who has taken money from these entities.

Strengthen supervision and regulation of securitization markets
Purpose: Keep companies from passing the risk off to others, make performance of loans a consideration in any compensation. Increase transparency and standardization of these markets. Increase regulation and integrity of credit ratings. Reduce government regulator dependency on credit ratings in regulatory efforts.

Responsibility: Federal banking agencies, SEC

My take: This one may be getting a little too paranoid. These companies should have known better. And if we increase the integrity of credit ratings, why shouldn't the regulators be able to rely on them more?

Create regulations around OTC derivatives
Purpose: Prevent markets in derivatives from creating systemic risk, promote transparency, prevent market manipulation and fraud, and make sure derivatives are not marketed improperly to inexperienced traders.

Responsibility: Unknown

My take: This does seem to be at the heart of the matter. And while it's probably a good idea to close the barn door after the horse has come home, the real problem is spotting new dangers from new financial instruments that the government is unfamiliar with, just like Credit Default Swaps were prior to the recession.

Harmonize futures and securities regulation
Purpose: Bring regulation of these two areas closer together.

Responsibility: CFTC, SEC

My take: I don't see how this could be a bad thing.

Strengthen oversight of systematically important payment, clearing, and settlement systems and related activities
Purpose: To bring oversight of these systems under government regulation.

Responsibility: Federal Reserve

My take: I don't know why this is necessary. I'm not aware of these systems breaking down or somehow adding to the financial problems we experienced. As one would expect, if it's not needed, I don't see a reason to change.

Strengthen settlement capabilities and liquidity resources of systematically important payment, clearing, and settlement systems
Purpose: Provide the above systems with access to Reserve Bank accounts, financial services, and the discount window.

Responsibility: Federal Reserve

My take: This seems like a move to make the Federal Reserve able to react more quickly to emergencies in the financial system. It may very well be that increased speed may have made a difference in the past financial crisis, but I've found that most computer systems are still hampered by the speed of the human decision makers. Is this component necessary?

Create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency
Purpose: Supervise and protect consumers of credit, savings, payment, and other consumer financial products and services, and to regulate providers of these products and services.

Responsibility: CFPA

My take: Do we need a new government agency for this? Isn't this just attacking the same problem from the other end? If the other regulators do their jobs properly no one will be selling fraudulent or misrepresented financial products to consumers. Why not just expand the mission of the Federal Trade Commission? We don't need more bureaucracy. We just need consumers who use their heads.

Reforms of Consumer Protection
Purpose: To promote transparency, simplicity, fairness, and access in financial products and services.

Responsibility: CFPA

My take: Any time the government gets involved you can forget about transparency or simplicity. And "fairness and access" is part of the reason why we're in this mess. Remember, the government is one of the main reasons why any mortgage requires you sign half a ream of paper. That was to make things simpler and more clear, remember? I also don't trust this administration to judge "fairness", as so far it seems rather one-sided and arbitrary in such decisions.

Strengthen investor protection
Purpose: Provide greater transparency in investor disclosures, increase fairness for investors, and increase accountability. Establish a Financial Consumer Coordinating Council. Create a permanent role for the SEC's Investor Advisory Committee. Strengthen employment-based and private retirement plans. Encourage saving.

Responsibility: SEC, FSOC

My take: Thank you, Bernie Madoff. This is all your doing, isn't it. Unfortunately a few bad apples have ruined for everyone. Lots of people got hurt, and whenever that happens they start looking to the government to save them from themselves. Look folks, the stock market is risky. People who promise you phenomenal returns at low risk are LYING! Avoid them! Report them! We don't need the government to do this!

Create a resolution regime for failing companies
Purpose: Provide for a resolution regime modeled on current Federal Deposit Insurance Act regimes to avoid messy failures of companies.

responsibility: Not known

My take: Uniformity could be good, unless the result is uniformly bad.

Amend the Federal Reserve's emergency lending authority
Purpose: Require written permission from the Treasury Secretary for extending credit to distressed companies.

Responsibility: Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary

My take: Sounds like a good idea to me. It might not hurt to give Congress some say, as well.

Strengthen the international capital framework
Purpose: Review, modify and strengthen existing international frameworks.

Responsibility: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision

My take: Probably a good idea, but this is rather vague. Do you have something specific in mind?

Improve the oversight of global financial markets
Purpose: Promote standardization and improved oversight over derivative markets.

Responsibility: Other nations

My take: Again, sounds good.

Enhance supervision of internationally active financial firms
Purpose: Establish and support international supervisory colleges to supervise global financial firms.

Responsibility: Other nations

My take: Sounds good. Just don't let the UN do it.

Reform crisis prevention and management authorities and procedures
Purpose: Improve resolution of global financial firms. Improve information sharing and implement FSB principles for cross-border crisis management.

Responsibility: BCBS

My take: Seems logical. I would hope that the international community do some sort of "lessons learned" from this mess.

Strengthen the FSB
Purpose: Further establish international standards.

Responsibility: FSB

My take: If this would have helped avert the crisis, then go for it.

Strengthen and expand regulations
Purpose: Improve liquidity risk management, improve oversight abilities, determine international requirements for large financial firms, and encourage other countries to monitor hedge funds.

Responsibility: BCBS, FSB, other nations

My take: Good idea.

Introduce better compensation practices
Purpose: Encourage other nations to regulate executive compensation and incentives to discourage risk-taking and look after long-term shareholder value.

Responsibility: Other nations

My take: If we can get everyone to do this, great. Otherwise we should not adopt this unilaterally and create a "brain drain". I don't see any other country agreeing to this, frankly.

Promote stronger standards in regulation, money laundering/terrorist financing, and tax information exchange
Purpose: Improve the ability to track financial crime internationally.

Responsibility: All nations, FSB

My take: It lack specific, but that it's in here at all suggests the administration is taking the War on Terror seriously.

Improve accounting standards
Purpose: Promote global accounting standards.

Responsibility: International standards groups

My take: I find it interesting that this is in here. This implies that accounting standards are...well, not standardized. I was not aware of this.

Tighten oversight of credit rating agencies
Purpose: Improve oversight in this area

Responsibility: Other nations

My take: Again, I didn't know this was a problem, but if we're doing it, so should everyone else.

My opinion on the entire draft: Individually most of these points make sense. Taken together I start to worry. My first question is "who pays for all of this?" We're creating several government agencies, placing more power in the hands of the government, and even expecting the government to police financial infrastructure. This won't come cheap. Is this coming out of taxes, or will businesses be expected to shoulder the burden?

Sarbanes-Oxley already placed a significant amount of extra overhead on companies for arguably little return. Heaping more regulations on business during a recession will make recovery all that much more difficult. The damage is already done, and most companies have already cleaned house on their own.

I am also concerned about the scope of the changes. Rather than focus in on a few key trouble spots, the administration is attempting to shotgun every economic component that may have played a part in our current financial woes. Everyone, that is, except the government itself. Even though the government arguably played a part in causing the crash, they show no interest in examining or regulating themselves.

The majority leadership, in spite of promises, refuses to investigate accusations of corruption among their own membership. The people who supposedly were supposed to see all of this coming failed to do so, yet retain their positions of oversight. Some of them even benefited from cozy relations with the very entities they were supposed to be policing. Yet the answer is more of the same government that failed to catch it last time. "You all screwed up," they seem to be saying, "but we get a do-over. You caught us off guard, but give us a bunch more people and regulations to enforce and we'll get it right next time."

I'm also worried about the amount of power being formalized and centralized by this proposal. The government has taken unprecedented steps in attempting to get control of the economy and steer us back on track. But rather than trying to put the genie back in the bottle, they trying to make those step the default position going forward. They also are trying to take some power away from the states. The states, most of which are cash-strapped at the moment, are likely to welcome temporary relief from some of these burdens. However, it will be difficult to get that control back down the road.

Are some of the proposed changes necessary? I think so. Is all of it necessary? No. Either this is an overkill strategy in hopes they at least get some of the things they wish for, or they want to put in place the mechanisms to micromanage the economy from here on. It's too much.

Media and politics

Remember the good old days when the role of the press was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? Boy, I miss those days...

(courtesy of "Day by Day" by Chris Muir)

Bigotry and prejudice in the gay movement

The Obama Justice Department filed a brief favoring the Defense of Marriage Act, and for now Obama seems to be backing away from his campaign promise of overturning it. So whose fault is it? The Mormons, of course. Why? Because one of the three attorneys who prepared the brief is evidently a Mormon.

In short, they are judging this guy based on his religion. They assume that because he is Mormon that he is full of hate and fear, and doing everything in his power to destroy the gay rights movement. He must have an awful lot of power if he can override two other attorneys!

I can speak from experience that not all Mormons believe alike. As much as the rest of the world would like to think so (it makes it easier to hate us), we do not all get our political beliefs surgically implanted by Salt Lake City HQ at baptism. If so, then how do you explain Harry Reid? It is not inconceivable that Scott Simpson, the lawyer in question, could have been in favor of overturning DOMA. The critics don't seem to be offering any evidence to the contrary other than "He's Mormon!"

But ultimately the gays are shooting themselves in the foot. For one, they are going after a religious group with hateful and vengeful attacks, showing just how nasty they can be. For another, they keep giving Obama a pass when he has repeatedly hung them out to dry since taking office.

They attack Carrie Prejean for her views while ignoring that Obama shares the exact save views. And when the Obama administration decides not to fight DOMA it's not because Obama is a traitor to their cause, it's because a single Mormon somehow cowed the entire administration into accepting his religious point of view.

Uh huh.

Pardon me, but your irrational hatred is showing.

Obama is Spock, and that's not good

Bill Whittle over at Pajamas TV takes on Maureen Dowd's premise that Obama is Spock. He doesn't disagree with her, but instead makes a strong case for having the intellectuals in charge is not a good idea. He also presents an interesting analysis of who "James T. Kirk" is and why that's important.

See the video here.

Making sense of the GM bankruptcy

Keith Hennessey has an excellent post on the GM bankruptcy and the government's role in it (hat tip Instapundit). He points out something I missed this time around, and in all fairness, I should bring it up:

The objecting creditors will now defend their rights in court. If the Chrysler precedent is an example, you should bet against them. It is interesting that the President did not attack them as “speculators” this time, so at least the rhetorical leverage against them is weakened.

It does seem that Obama has toned down his anti-investor, anti-business rhetoric lately. Could it be he's been listening to advisors who have been telling him "ix-nay on the ame-calling-nay, sir. We're going to need these people some day."

I hope it's because he realized he was doing more damage than good with such talk. I'm afraid it's just because that particular line of attack is currently needed. But even with the media in his pocket, you can only send the message of "we need to stimulate the economy so those greedy, filthy capitalists can put people back to work" so long before people catch on to the contradiction.