You can't win the war until you win the battle

Over at PajamasTV they're calling a cautious victory for the health care and budget protesters.

Color me jaded, but I can't believe it was that easy. I still hear lots of rhetoric from the White House about pushing Health Care through. If they're pulling back at all it's just to try their next favorite tactic: stall and hope everyone forgets about it.

I don't think the Administration has learned anything yet. I don't think they're listening yet. I think they're only pretending to listen. They're appearing to change their minds, but at the same time they still protest about the protests. That doesn't appear to me to be a concession. I think it's more like the kid to, when mom says no, goes and asks dad.

So what is America to do now? Keep up the pressure. We've got their attention, at least, and that's more than we've been able to do previously. It's a start. But we need to keep holding their feet to the flame, and we need to stay vigilant. They are going to try an end-run at least once before they actually concede any kind of defeat.

In the mean time, we can also raise the level of discourse:

- No more shouting matches, please. That's so "Bush Era". We're different. Let's show it. Be respectful, but don't be a push-over.

- No more guns at protests. That was stupid, even for a radio show stunt. It distracts from the real message we're trying to send. Stop it.

- No more "Kill Obama, his wife and kids" signs. That person got detained--and quite frankly, should be arrested. That's beyond the coverage of the First Amendment. I wouldn't be surprised if they were an Obama-backer hoping to do their man a favor by discrediting the legitimate protesters.

- Do not forget. Those of you in areas where your elected officials have been hiding from you or talking down to you--remember that. They're counting on our faulty collective memory to kick in before the next election. Do not forget. Vote them out. Support the reps. who are listening and get it. I don't usually vote Democrat at the national level, but right new we've got a Democratic representative in our area who is listening, is talking sense, and largely voting the way I would like. If he keeps it up I will vote for him next time. People like that deserve our support.

- Stay informed. A vigilant populace is our only guard against unresponsive and oppressive government. And it's not just this administration. Though I agreed with some of what the previous administration did, they were just as deaf when it came to listening to the people. I understand what some of you were feeling back then a little better now. Whether we agree on the issues is irrelevant. We need to join together to force our government to start listening again.

- Do the "reaching out" that they refuse to do. Remember all of that talk of bi-partisanship, post-partisanship, and reaching across the aisle? It didn't happen, did it. But let's not let them drive a wedge between Americans. Let's show them a good example. Let's start talking to each other. Let's start working out problems ourselves. Let's start treating each other with respect, try to understand where each other is coming from, and see if we can't find a third option that moves us in a better direction.

- Turn off the Professional Outrage Squad. Both sides have them. They're not doing us any favors. Their jobs, as they see it, is not to bring people together. They're to stir up the flock to keep sending them drawing a paycheck. As much as I like Glenn Beck's "Common Sense", I still will not listen to his shows. He always sees the worst in everything the other side does. We don't need that.
< >< >< >< >It's like my kids when they get in these moods where they are constantly watching each other to find something to tattle about. No one is giving anyone even the slightest bit of room for error. Everyone is holding on to every little piece of ammunition they can get. We're still hearing about Michelle Obama's "For the first time I'm proud..." speech. I think she misspoke then, and I don't care to keep hearing about it now.

It's not too late to turn America around. It's not too late to return decency to our national dialogue. It's not too late to build bridges so that even when we don't get our way on issues we don't start reaching for the torches and pitchforks. Wouldn't it be nice to feel like we were at least heard first, and that perhaps the result we disagree with was at least modified out of respect for our point of view?

It can happen. But We The People have to make it happen. Our government won't do it for us. We have to make them. And that starts with re-making ourselves.

Media still doesn't get Tea Party Protests

My local paper did a very good article on the local Tea Party protests, but not all media are getting it. The majority of headlines I've seen--when I even see headlines--have read something like "Tea Party Protestors demonstrate against taxes".

That's both oversimplifying the issue and diverting it at the same time. I think most of the people at the protests were not protesting taxes as a concept. Most of us understand that there must be some means of providing for the national government to operate.

No, the issue is how BIG the national government should be allowed to get, and how far in debt they should be allowed to go. The issue is how both parties seem to have either lost all sense, or lost their sense of responsibility to their constituents. Perhaps both.

It's not just an anti-Obama movement, though contrary to campaign promises, he's certainly exacerbated the problem. And no, we don't forget the role the Bush administration played in this mess. We don't forget the role both parties played in this mess.

Don't think for a moment we're not suspicious of GOP attempts to embrace the Tea Party platform. While we'd love to think they've come to their collective senses we've been burned before. GOP, if you really mean it, stop talking and act. We're tired of talk. Give us action.

We're even more concerned, however, about the Democrats. They're the ones with both hands firmly on the wheel. That they continually dismiss, demean, and denigrate the protest shows that they just don't get it. That they can't stop talking about it shows that they do recognize it as a threat.

The funny thing is that, had this happened during the Bush administration, the Left would be lauding the movement as an amazing bi-partisanship grassroots effort in which every-day Americans exercise their First Amendment rights to speak truth to power. But there's been a changing of the guard, and now such efforts are painted as "despicable", "Shameful", and little more than a Republican front. (This from an Illinois congresswoman whose husband just plead guilty to tax violations and bank fraud.)

No, the Liberals just don't get it. Instead they use misdirection to obfuscate the message:

"It's despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians."

What is particularly significant and honorable about this moment in history? Oh yes, that Obama-first-black-president thing. I have three words for the Left:

GET OVER IT

It's great we elected a black president. But since when does being black preclude him from criticism? Does he somehow deserve special treatment for being black? Is a black president somehow more sensitive to criticism? Is a black president incapable of doing wrong? That's the most racist implication I've heard in a long time, and it's coming from the LEFT!

No, black, white, or polka-dotted, Obama is the president now. He should be subject to criticism. To imply otherwise is borderline facist.

So what, then, is particularly shameful about Americans of all political persuasions coming together to express concern about the future? THAT is what the moment is all about, no matter how Democrats and media try to paint it otherwise. It's not about taxes this week or this year. It's about the enormous deficits that have been run and are being escalated by someone who pledged to end them.

Perhaps we should have had enough under Bush, but the fact remains, we've had enough. We've lost control of government, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to regain control again. That's what the protests are about. It's about a government--both sides--that no longer represents its people.

And, to a degree, it's about a mainstream media who have willfully become the government's propaganda arm. How else can you explain this outburst from CCN's Susan Roesgan at the Chicago Tea Party:

CNN’s Susan Roesgen, an alleged “reporter” covering the Chicago Tea Party, lashed out at the participants like an angry MoveOn.org member. “What does this have to do with taxes?” she demanded of one attendee, as he held his 2-year old and spoke of personal liberty. “Don’t you realize you’re eligible for a tax credit,” she shouted at him. “Don’t you know that Illinois is getting stimulus money?”

Unable to get the participants to join her in support of Obama-nomics, Roesgen dismissed the event as “anti-government and anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by right-wing, conservative network, Fox.”

I may be old fashioned, but my high school journalism teacher told us journalists were just supposed to get the facts and report them. They are not to render judgments, and they are not to attempt to persuade the subjects they are covering. They are to report the story, not become the story.

Add to this a government agency that preemptively tried to head off the protest by branding as right wing extremists pretty much anyone who supports certain issues:

The Department of Homeland Security released a pre-emptive “assessment report” on the dangers of “right-wing extremists” just a week before the tax protest rallies. According to DHS, these potentially include pro-lifers, supporters of border security and that notoriously unstable group - U.S. military veterans.

To conclude, I'll draw on Michael Graham of the Boston Herald:

And I can report that there were, in fact, quite a few vets at our Tea Party at Long Wharf. But other than their crazy notion that spending our kids into an $11 trillion hole is wrong, they didn’t appear to be unhinged.
...
Agree or disagree with the estimated 250,000 people who showed up at Tea Parties across the country, they deserve respect, not abuse. Declared suspect by their own government, targeted for insults from the “unbiased” media, they still showed up. They organized. They spoke out. And they did it without any free-speech bailouts.

It was true democracy in action. And that’s why liberals find it so scary.

Tea Party Protests Today

All across America today thousands of citizens will be gathering at Tax Day Tea Parties to protest the out-of-control spending of the Federal Government. Critics (usually on the Left) claim that non-partisan protests are really backed by the Republican Party, but such protests are disingenuous.

True, the Republicans would like to use these protests to hammer home their opposition to the current administration, but it wouldn't be nearly so easy for them if the Democrats hadn't surrendered the budgetary high ground so completely. Rather than show themselves the very models of fiscal restraint like President Obama promised in his campaign, the Democrats have spent money like it grows on trees--no, like it runs like rivers from the snowcaps. They opened themselves wide to this.

But make no mistake. Most everyone out there protesting today is just as fed up with the Republicans, especially those who switched sides to pass the Stimulus Bill and the Federal Budget. We feel the government in general has betrayed us and sold out our future.

The Democrats would prefer to--and have tried to--redirect the frustration and rage toward Wall Street in general, and AIG and GM specifically, but while they're part of the problem, they are not the problem. The problem is a government that doesn't do what it is supposed to do, and does what it shouldn't to make up for it.

Does the government really have the moral high ground to lecture Wall Street on poor business decisions? How can they be upset with AIG for over-leveraging themselves when the government turns right around and over-leverages itself? The only difference is that while AIG's customers and investors can take their money and go elsewhere, the government's customers and investors (ie. taxpayers) can't. We don't even get to attach condition on how our tax contributions are used.

Today is especially poignant. It's the day we're all forced to pay up, whether we like it or not, while a large number of our public officials have not paid up for years, and only do so when it appears their illegal activities may interfere with securing the posts they seek. Why do they get a pass and a cabinet seat, when the rest of us would get fines and jail time?

No, the Tax Day Tea Party protests are not about which party is right. It's about both of them and the government they have built being wrong. There's plenty of blame to go around. This is a warning shot across the bow. We want the mess cleaned up, and we don't care who does it, so long as someone does.

By downplaying, criticizing, or outright ignoring these protests the democrats and the media risk appearing as if they deserve the blame. Rather than oppose the protests as "GOP manipulation" the Democrats should jump on the bandwagon. There's room. Rather than sending out MoveOn and ANSWER to counter-protest they should join in and make sure the protest stay generalized. If they feel they're innocent they have nothing to fear. By getting defensive they risk painting themselves as the target.

Like I said, I don't care who cleans up this mess. Just clean it up. NOW!

How To Discourage Government Intervention

I'll give Obama this: his administration is quickly curing corporate America of its desire for public assistance. In the aftermath of the bank bailout and the auto industry bailout the lesson is quite plain: take government money and you'll never have control of your organization again.

What most of these companies probably didn't realize is that with government money comes government tactics. Reality, facts, and business acumen have nothing to do with government. Once public money is involved the government can at any time stir up public outrage over standard business practices and bludgeon you into submission.

The law has nothing to do with it. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal recently admitted on Glenn Beck's television show, the AIG bonuses were not against the law. The closest he could get was "against public policy...and it is unsanctioned by law."

Get that? AIG should not have done what it did because it was not approved by law. Let's ignore the fact that, thanks to Sen. Dodd, it was approved by law. They are saying that the moment a company takes public funds it should not be allowed to do anything unless it is approved by law. In short, if you take taxpayer funds the government now controls you.

In fact, in asking GM CEO Waggoner to step down, President Obama is finally being honest. The only way he could be more honest about this is if he were to step into Waggoner's position himself. If you take federal funds you are now under government control and subject to the Administration's capriciousness. If Obama wants to show America he's tough, well, it sucks to be you. Because you're in the government now, and the government doesn't run on reality, but on the illusion of reality.

So let that be a lesson to corporate America. The ideal relationship between government and business can be best summarized by an exchange in the musical "Fiddler on the Roof" when someone asks the rabbi if there is a proper blessing for the czar. The rabbi replies "If course", and then demonstrates: "May God bless and keep the czar...far away from us!"

AIG Employee Resigns

Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president for AIG's notorious financial products unit, has resigned. His resignation letter was sent to CEO Edward Liddy and the New York Times. Some highlights:

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

If true, he's hardly a greedy, taxpayer-bilking con artist. He's not getting rich from any of this, and killing himself in the process. I'd quit, too.

I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

Hmmm... you mean AIG employees are taxpayers, too? Unlike Geithner, Dodd, and many others who are calling foul over this man's bonus. They're allowed to "forget" to pay their taxes.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

Ouch. That's just poor leadership. Leaders shield their people from the crap that rolls downhill toward them. Liddy's not alone. Many, many people who knew the truth of the situation sat on the sidelines last week and let good people get beaten up. It's disgusting, really.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise... You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

They kept their part of the deal and are not being fed to the wolves for their efforts. And the wolves are people who should be upholding the law, not giving in to posturing vigilantism. I've held that this whole "outrage" is counterproductive, but after reading this I can't help but be ashamed of my government. This is just plain ridiculous. The pompous jerks who are screaming the loudest are the ones who knew all along what was going on. Despicable.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

He's voluntarily providing more visibility and accountability than our foolish government ever thought to ask for. This man shouldn't be punished by our government. He should be running it.

If outrage where monetizable our government would have fumed us out of the recession already. It's ironic that the king--I mean president of outrage last week is asking us all this week to calm down. You stoked this fire, Mr. President. We hired you to fix this mess, not to spend one week working on fixing it and the next week trying to widen it. Get your head in the game and stop grandstanding to get your socialist agenda passed before we come to our senses.

Some of us already have, and we're telling you to stop. Enough of this irresponsible behavior. Good and decent people are paying the price for your arrogance, hubris, and manipulation. No one can be this clueless by accident. Just stop.

Just Who IS In Charge?

President Obama is scheduled to give his State of the Union address tonight. I will probably watch, but I'm not sure why. He is not in control of the economy. He wants everyone to think he is. He talks like he is. The reality is different.

If Obama were really in control then careless posturing by Sen. Chris Dodd about privitizing banks wouldn't send stocks into a tailspin.

If Obama were in control they wouldn't have passed an enormous spending bill so complex that no one was able to read it before having to vote on it.

If Obama were in control his administration wouldn't feel the need to respond to criticism from Rick Santelli.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have to hit the road to drum up support for his programs. The press would be doing it for him.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have been caught off guard by so many of his cabinet picks being sunk by various corruption charges.

If Obama were in control we would not have so many Democratic members of Congress under investigation for various corruption scandals.

But the fact of the matter is either that the Obama who we voted into office in November is NOT the Obama who took office, or he is completely unable to do his job. Neither one is acceptable.

But the fact of the matter is this: there is no one clear voice from Washington calling the shots. There is no clear leadership. Obama is going one way, while Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Schumer are going their own ways. Tim Geithner is falling flat.

It's almost as if none of these people have met to come up with any coordinated plan. No one is in control of the message. It's almost as if they are purposely trying to break the economy down further.

I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists who believes that they're doing this on purpose in order to keep us scared enough to accept further hidden social restructuring (even Schumer was surprised by some of the provisions in the stimulus bill and vowed to roll them back). The thought has crossed my mind, but 2010 is not that far away. If they don't want to get thrown out of office they need to show clear progress by then. They would be foolish to dig themselves too deep of a hole.

But if they don't get their act together that is precisely what they will do. And they can ignore or belittle Santelli as much as they like, but they're failing to recognize what he started. Yes, HE may be a former commodities trader--a so-called poster boy for everything that went wrong with the economy--but his frustration is universal. There are a lot of people who are upset with how things are going and what the Administration is doing about it.

I am one of them. I am NOT a commodities trader. I'm a business systems analyst. I bought a house three years ago right before the top of the bubble. I had mortgage brokers encouraging me to buy bigger houses, but I knew what I could afford. I didn't bite. I didn't gamble on an adjustable rate mortgage to get more house. I knew what my budget was, and I knew how much of a house payment I could handle. I paid 20% down.

I save close to 15% of my income each year. I pay my taxes without complaint. I do not carry a balance on my credit cards. I live within my means. In short, I am responsible.

And I've had it with the government propping up all the irresponsible people. Because of all the irresponsible people I'll be losing my job soon. I am not happy about that. I am not happy to see nearly $800 billion dollars--only about 10-20% of which is actual stimulus--added to the public debt in my name, while the bulk of it is actually to appease Democrat supporters and advance socialistic agendas. Frankly, the mortgage rescue is the least of my concerns.

I'm concerned about a government that seems to have lost its mind. I'm concerned about an administration that can't control its message or its people. I'm concerned about a future that not even the people who sold us this stimulus mess will go on record saying will get better soon.

And that's probably why I don't want to listen to Obama tonight. I'm already depressed. I don't need to feel any worse.

Motivation, Efficiency, and Corruption

Ben Stein raises some good points about the "excesses" displayed by leaders of various companies in America:

We all want efficiency and frugality. But banning highly productive means of travel such as private planes is simply misguided. We all want people to work. But keeping them from having face time at large gatherings with their colleagues -- in essence, keeping them from being well-informed -- is a step away from productivity. And kicking the towns that accommodate these meetings is just plain cruel.

I hadn't thought about it from that angle where the automakers were concerned, but making Wells Fargo cancel its Vegas retreat for its top loan officers struck me as heavy-handed--and clueless about how business works. Did anyone stop to consider how much money those being rewarded made for the company in proportion to how much was being spent on rewarding them?

While I'm sure that level of productivity has its own rewards, I'll bet the yearly Vegas trip was at least part of the movitation for a lot of them. Take that away, and chances are they're not going to work as hard next year. How does that help the bank? How does that help its investors? How does that help its depositors?

I'm willing to bet that the amount of money they would have spent on the retreat is less than 10% of the value of the loans these people wrote. And yet if they're 5% less motivated to perform next year? In a year when people are less motivated to take out loans? It could spell the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Let's not forget that these people are the TOP money-makers. Not only do these people make money for the company, their example (and the subsequent rewards) also serve as a motivation for the other loan writers who didn't make the cut this year--but could next year if properly motivated. Cutting the rewards for the top loan-writers doesn't just demotivate them, but the entire company.

I'm against wasting taxpayer money as much as anyone. But micromanagement of bailed-out companies--by some of the most notoriously bad money-handlers in history--is not the way to economic recovery.

Such political witch-hunts are counterproductive. It also keeps attention away from the real perpetrators of this mess: the government. Every time we start figuring out who the real enemy is they simply point at Wall Street and yell "There's your enemy! Not me! They're wasting millions of dollars!"

And then they sit down to add billions more pork into the Stimulus Bill to help stimulate their next campaigns. And take retreats to Virginia and the Caribbean.

Patriotism Vs. Business

It's easy to be hard on companies who accept bailout money and still continue their lavish ways.

However, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there a bunch of other banks who were asked to accept bailout funds even though they didn't want them, just to help with a) protecting the anonimity of some of the other banks, and b) to stimulate the economy?

So if you're one of these banks that took money they didn't need, and now you're being told you have to abide by certain rules, including some that didn't exist when you accepted it, doesn't this actually interfere with their successful operation?

In other words, no good deed goes unpunished. This should make anyone else who wants to be helpful in the future think twice.

UPDATE: JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon criticizes the restrictions and makes a few good points:

“Pay got a little exuberant, and there were some legitimate complaints,” Dimon said. “But I don’t think the president of the United States should paint everyone with the same brush.”

New York-based JPMorgan, the second-largest U.S. bank, doesn’t have so-called golden parachutes or retirement packages, and all top executives must retain 75 percent of their stock- based compensation, Dimon said.

This is essentially government micromanaging businesses. Yes, there needs to be some concession from bailed-out institutions, but I don't think the Federal Government is a good candidate to determine how business should be run. After all, this is the group that has posted losses that make the banking sector look successful by comparison. And whose top officials don't feel obligated to pay taxes.

Good News? Maybe.

Daschle feels the heat, gets out of the kitchen. I'm still waiting for Geithner and Rangel. I'm not holding my breath.

And frankly I'd feel a bit better about all of this if it was Mr. "I will change the way Washington does business" Obama calling for their withdrawal. But no, he fully supports them. It's up to THEIR consciences to get the better of them. But I guess what likely got to Daschle was Nancy Killefer's withdrawal over a mere $1000 tax lien. His sin was 128 times that.

Republicans in the Senate at least managed to block $25 billion in more spending being added to the Stimulus, though I note the total has somehow grown to $885 billion. And this would be more comforting if Minority Leader McConnell hadn't pledged to make sure the bill passes in the end.

Audit Them All!

I'm not the only one upset by all the tax cheats in the administration. A comment on Instapundit is calling for a moratorium on audits for the middle-class for a year. Others are calling for an audit of all public officials.

That's a great idea! Just Geithner and Daschle owed more in taxes than I make in three years. You want to bolster the government coffers? Shake down the "public servants" who are obviously making boat-loads of money while dodging boat-loads of taxes.

Let's deploy our auditing assets where they can do the most good--and save a bundle on transportation costs!

Either that, or we launch a tax revolt. No taxation without reciprocation!

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules!

As mentioned before I will be laid off from my job in two months, so I've been doing a lot of thinking about how to further my career. And then it hit me--the one critical thing I can do to improve my marketability:

Don't pay my taxes.

It would be the first step in a glorious political career. Then I can join Geithner, Daschle, Rangel, et al, in running the country and making rules for everyone else to follow.

Is there anyone left in Washington with any moral fiber?

Why Yes, Yes I Do...

Richard Rahn at the Washington Times is asking "Feel like a chump?:"

While you may have thought you are required by law to pay taxes on all your income, you learn the "important" folks in Washington seem to think paying taxes is optional. Chairman Charles Rangel of the House Ways and Means Committee responsible for writing tax legislation has admitted he did not pay the required income taxes on some of his private income (Caribbean rental properties, etc.); and the proposed Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, did not pay the required income tax on part of his income from the International Monetary Fund, where he worked for several years.

I thought Obama was going to hold government accountable to higher standards. It turns out (surprise, surprise) a politician lied to us...again. Geithner gets excused for his "goof". Rangel and Dodd will not be investigated by their respective Ethics Committees. At least Bill Richardson had the decency to remove himself from consideration. He probably would have gotten a pass from the Administration as well. So ironically the one politician with some integrity will NOT be part of the administration.

If I failed to pay taxes the IRS would have me in jail. Ignorance of the law would not be a valid excuse. Why is it only the "important people" don't have to obey the law? And why aren't more people worried that the current Administration is filling up with law-breakers?

"Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!"

John Stossel has an article in the Weekly Standard making the case that there is no reason for the panic we're seeing over the economy right now:

But people are losing their jobs! President Obama frets that "the unemployment rate could reach double digits." Yes, that would be bad, but in the recession of '82, it reached 10.8 percent. Yet no one even remembers the "crisis" of '82. Today's 7.2 percent unemployment rate is higher than we've grown used to, but we've experienced that rate 16 times over the past 35 years. And it pales in comparison to the 25 percent rate of the Depression era.

"The bad news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government can do to fix it," economist Peter Schiff told the Wall Street Journal. "The free market does have a cure: It's called a recession."

Have we become so fragile that we can't handle any recession? The 11 recessions since World War II are part of the "creative destruction" that ultimately drives our economy, yet today politicians act as if they can insulate us from pain with bailouts and "stimulus packages."

Or, to quote from my favorite quotable movie: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

I don't want to make light of the problems many people are facing right now. And I say this as someone working in a company that has announced pending lay-offs. But the government has been throwing money at the problem with no visible result so far. I don't think solution at this point is "More cowbell!"

We're in this mess, as someone pointed out, because people have gone havily into debt to make questionable investments and spend as if the bill will never come due. So why would the answer be to go heavily into debt to make questionable investments and spend as if the bill will never come due? I've only got an MBA, mind you, so perhaps I'm just not smart enough to see it.

I don't mind the government putting out a safety net to help those in need. I may be relying on that net myself in the next few months. But as someone who has scrimped, saved, and spent responsibly I'm still waiting to see a reward for positive behavior. And I'm not seeing that much of a punishment for bad behavior, either. In a world of no consequences one should not hope for change.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

If you want taxpayer money, be prepared to grovel. Unless, of course, you're the government. First, we have this:

This week, the automakers are going out of their way to show deference to lawmakers and a willingness to flog themselves for past mistakes. “I think we learned a lot from that experience,” Ford CEO Alan Mulally told The Associated Press in an interview.

Mulally said he’d work for $1 per year if his firm had to take any government loan money. The company’s plan also says it will cancel all management employees’ 2009 bonuses, scrap merit increases for its North American salaried employees next year, and sell its five corporate aircraft.

So why shouldn't we have this?:

So in a show of good faith, I would like to see our federal leaders take the lead in fiscal accountability by refusing to accept a salary until, as they've demanded of the automakers seeking a bailout, they can demonstrate a plan to bring their enterprise into the black and repay their debt. Until then, Congress should just be grateful that, like the fat cat executives that they castigate, their pay is not determined by their performance, and avoid drawing undue attention to the fact with their hypocrisy.

I hadn't thought about it this way before, but I have to agree. If the Federal Government wants to lecture companies on poor performance, greed, and excess at the top, they should be required to look in the mirror and hold themselves to the same standards.

You Got a License For That?

Classical Values has some interesting thoughts on marriage and licenses that lends credence to the idea that government should get out of the marriage business in the first place:

Well, licensing is, after all, a government restriction. When people speak of marriage as a "right," they really are not speaking of a right to marriage, but a "right" to a marriage license. Yet true rights (such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion) are not -- and by their nature cannot be -- subject to licensing.

If marriage were treated as a right, it would not be subject to licensing.

In the normal scope of things, activities that are licensed -- cutting hair, flying planes, driving 18 wheelers, practicing law, medicine, etc. -- are not rights at all, but occupational choices that require training, which are regulated by the state.
...
I'd hate to think all this fuss is over a desire for official state imprimatur, but I worry that it is. Like almost everything else (soon including the auto industry), marriage is seen as something you get from the government. Maybe it would be better to see it as something that the government cannot interfere with, the way genuine rights are.