Regarding the President's reelection prospects: "Right now it looks like a bloodbath."
Poll: Americans, 2-1, Fear Obama's Reelection
You heard it here first...
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Who are the Real Rug-Pullers?
This article by Thomas Edison's great-grandson is one of the silliest manifestations of the my-famous-dead-relative-would-have-agreed-with-me genre in recent memory. David Sloan presumes to speak not only for Edison's environmental views, but his political views as well. This paragraph in particular is stunning:
There is further irony in Sloan's question, "How can inventor-entrepreneurs like Edison make a profit if every time they try to make a technological advance some nut in Congress pulls the rug out from under the them and their breakthroughs?" Ask the energy industry. Except it's not Congress, but the Executive Branch pulling rugs.
Sloan is right about one thing. The success or failure of inventor-entrepreneurs should not be dependent on the whims of politicians. But the path Sloan advocates would only lead more would-be Edison's into the black hole of bureaucratic obstructionism, and the bulb that could light the way out of that abyss has yet to be invented.
UPDATE: I wonder if Thomas Edison would have endorsed this?
Edison would have spurned the recent sleight of hand by Congress that leaves the new lighting standard -- under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007-- on the books but takes away its funding for nine months. How can inventor-entrepreneurs like Edison make a profit if every time they try to make a technological advance some nut in Congress pulls the rug out from under the them and their breakthroughs? And if investors are going to put their bets on more efficient technology, they have to know that a congressional holiday on common sense will not come along to undercut demand for their product.Correct me if I am wrong, but Congress did not outlaw candles, tax the sale of wax, or do anything remotely similar to boost demand for Edison's inventions. His inventions that succeeded did so because they were great inventions that could be manufactured and marketed profitably. Other ideas (such as rubber from goldenrod) were impractical and were abandoned. The rug-pulling by Congressional nuts to which Sloan refers took place in the passing of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 itself, which pulled the rug out from under Edison's original invention and the industry that manufactures it. The defunding of the law was pulling the rug out from under the rug-pullers. Anyone investing in new lighting technologies should be patient enough for the technology to win in the marketplace and not be relying on a governmental decree to "make a profit."
There is further irony in Sloan's question, "How can inventor-entrepreneurs like Edison make a profit if every time they try to make a technological advance some nut in Congress pulls the rug out from under the them and their breakthroughs?" Ask the energy industry. Except it's not Congress, but the Executive Branch pulling rugs.
Sloan is right about one thing. The success or failure of inventor-entrepreneurs should not be dependent on the whims of politicians. But the path Sloan advocates would only lead more would-be Edison's into the black hole of bureaucratic obstructionism, and the bulb that could light the way out of that abyss has yet to be invented.
UPDATE: I wonder if Thomas Edison would have endorsed this?
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Watchdogs and Predators
The sad story of William and Endia Eason was tailor-made to justify the President's ostensible recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB.) No doubt this is why the White House chose to highlight it on their blog. There appears to be little doubt that the Easons were taken advantage of and, in combination with unwise decisions on their part, this led to a serious personal financial crisis. Ironically, however, their crisis was resolved with the help of an existing non-profit with no cost to the taxpayers. Would the CFPB have prevented the crisis in the first place, or even have done as good a job of helping the Easons once the crisis began? There are many unasked and unanswered questions here.
First, the story states that city officials in Cleveland "issued the couple a citation to make repairs to bring their home up to code," apparently to their "steps, garage, and roof." As a homeowner living in a city, I am well aware of the nature of such citations, and the selective application of codes. Is there a federal agency to guard homeowners against rogue housing inspectors? The story goes on to say that "the repairs were never done." So did the city fine the Easons? Are there currently pink "Pending condemnation" notices posted all over their front door? No? Was it government harassment that precipitated the crisis in the first place?
Next, how did the mortgage broker just happen to knock on their door? Perhaps he was attracted by the pink notices (my city uses pink) all over their door. Or was there some other public record that "predatory" mortgage brokers troll for victims? Did government not only open the chicken house door, but then whistle for the wolves also?
And then, assuming the mortgage broker lied as extensively as it appears, why wasn't he standing on the other side of the President from the Easons in an orange prison jumpsuit? He made $4,000 on an $8,000 loan by committing fraud and he walked away? Has he gone into hiding, on the lam with his $4,000 windfall?
Further, what about the two heroes of the whole affair? The non-profit who helped the Easons resolve the crisis and the mortgage company who took a loss on a loan that they had purchased in good faith are unnamed. Two members of the private sector, a for-profit and a non-profit, working together to keep an older, needy, disabled man and his wife in their lifelong home.
Finally, the Easons did not call the non-profit until foreclosure proceedings had begun. What are the chances the Easons would have called the CFPB any sooner? And if they had, what are the chances the CFPB, an agency of the federal government (think IRS,) would have responded more propitiously than the local non-profit? The White House blog helpfully states that "the Bureau will forward each issue to the proper financial institution for review and resolution. And if the institution doesn't resolve the issue, CFPB will investigate the complaint directly and make sure that the financial institutions are held accountable under Federal law." How long exactly would such a process take? Would the Easons have learned about the resolution of their crisis from their cots at the homeless shelter?
Will a new government 800-number be the panacea so glibly promised by the White House this week? I wouldn't bet the house on it.
First, the story states that city officials in Cleveland "issued the couple a citation to make repairs to bring their home up to code," apparently to their "steps, garage, and roof." As a homeowner living in a city, I am well aware of the nature of such citations, and the selective application of codes. Is there a federal agency to guard homeowners against rogue housing inspectors? The story goes on to say that "the repairs were never done." So did the city fine the Easons? Are there currently pink "Pending condemnation" notices posted all over their front door? No? Was it government harassment that precipitated the crisis in the first place?
Next, how did the mortgage broker just happen to knock on their door? Perhaps he was attracted by the pink notices (my city uses pink) all over their door. Or was there some other public record that "predatory" mortgage brokers troll for victims? Did government not only open the chicken house door, but then whistle for the wolves also?
And then, assuming the mortgage broker lied as extensively as it appears, why wasn't he standing on the other side of the President from the Easons in an orange prison jumpsuit? He made $4,000 on an $8,000 loan by committing fraud and he walked away? Has he gone into hiding, on the lam with his $4,000 windfall?
Further, what about the two heroes of the whole affair? The non-profit who helped the Easons resolve the crisis and the mortgage company who took a loss on a loan that they had purchased in good faith are unnamed. Two members of the private sector, a for-profit and a non-profit, working together to keep an older, needy, disabled man and his wife in their lifelong home.
Finally, the Easons did not call the non-profit until foreclosure proceedings had begun. What are the chances the Easons would have called the CFPB any sooner? And if they had, what are the chances the CFPB, an agency of the federal government (think IRS,) would have responded more propitiously than the local non-profit? The White House blog helpfully states that "the Bureau will forward each issue to the proper financial institution for review and resolution. And if the institution doesn't resolve the issue, CFPB will investigate the complaint directly and make sure that the financial institutions are held accountable under Federal law." How long exactly would such a process take? Would the Easons have learned about the resolution of their crisis from their cots at the homeless shelter?
Will a new government 800-number be the panacea so glibly promised by the White House this week? I wouldn't bet the house on it.
Friday, January 6, 2012
"Recess", "session", and other vague Constitutional language
In all the arguments over the meaning of “recess” in the Constitution, little attention is being paid to another fairly mundane word: “session.” Neither word is well defined in the text of the Constitution and is therefore subject to interpretation based on three criteria: House and Senate rules (“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”, Art. I, Sec. 5,) historical precedent, and in the current situation, politics. President Obama has declared the first two to be inapplicable regarding “recess” in this case and has skipped directly to the politically advantageous interpretation, even ignoring prior interpretations of his own Justice Department. This is obviously shortsighted in a number of ways, but it certainly opens the door to novel interpretations of other words and concepts in the Constitution.
The sentence in the Constitution relating to recess appointments is “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session [emphasis added.]” But what is a “session?” Article I, Section 4 states that “Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year [emphasis added.]” There is nothing to preclude Congress from simply declaring a “session” has ended and another has begun once a year or multiple times, even more than once a day if they so desire. The end of the “next session” would immediately cause the recess appointments to expire, reopening the need for confirmation. This would set up a ridiculous situation where the President could try to declare more recess appointments in the split second after the first recess appointments expire and before the “new” session of Congress begins, but does anyone doubt that this President would take up the challenge?
Granted, without control of both Houses of Congress, the Republicans could not pull off this “gimmick” as the President might say. But if the President survives the November elections while Republicans maintain their majority in the House and take the Senate, the President’s second term could set a new record for (successful) recess appointments: zero.
The sentence in the Constitution relating to recess appointments is “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session [emphasis added.]” But what is a “session?” Article I, Section 4 states that “Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year [emphasis added.]” There is nothing to preclude Congress from simply declaring a “session” has ended and another has begun once a year or multiple times, even more than once a day if they so desire. The end of the “next session” would immediately cause the recess appointments to expire, reopening the need for confirmation. This would set up a ridiculous situation where the President could try to declare more recess appointments in the split second after the first recess appointments expire and before the “new” session of Congress begins, but does anyone doubt that this President would take up the challenge?
Granted, without control of both Houses of Congress, the Republicans could not pull off this “gimmick” as the President might say. But if the President survives the November elections while Republicans maintain their majority in the House and take the Senate, the President’s second term could set a new record for (successful) recess appointments: zero.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Counting Our Chickens
In any election, overconfidence is deemed to be counterproductive and unseemly. However, where confidence ends and overconfidence begins is subjective. And surely unjustified angst and hand-wringing is not constructive either. Inhabitants of the politosphere, including bloggers, commentators, and campaign consultants, spend untold hours poring over election returns and voting trends in hopes of uncovering the magic formula that will propel their favored candidate or party into office in the next election. So what should the mindset of conservatives be as the 2012 election draws near?
I believe we can safely count our unhatched chickens. The chances of President Obama's reelection are so remote as to be virtually non-existent. Others may analyze electoral votes ad nauseam, but I believe it's much simpler than that. The number of votes cast in the 2008 presidential election was about 125,000,000. John McCain received 58,000,000 and Barrack Obama received 67,000,000. This is a difference of 9,000,000. Since a vote switched from one candidate to the other narrows the gap by two, only 4,500,000 voters could have made the difference. While that sounds like a lot, in reality it only amounts to about 7% of the total votes cast for Obama. And I ask you: Is there anything in the past three years that could lead anyone to credibly argue that less than 7% of Obama voters (1 in 14) have changed their minds? Of course I understand the mechanics of the electoral college. And certainly turnout (or lack thereof) will have an impact as well, but in 2012 there will be a dramatic decrease in pro-Obama sentiment from 2008, and anti-Obama sentiment will be running high. Many who turned out to vote for Obama in the historic 2008 election will have cooled considerably. And many others who could not bring themselves to pull the Republican lever for the terminally moderate John McCain will have seen the error of their ways. Empirical as well as anecdotal evidence abounds.
When President Obama was inaugurated, his approval rating was 69%. It is now 42% (as of 1/4/12.) Jimmy Carter was at 53% approval at this point in his presidency and went on to lose in an historic landslide. Obama is already 11 points down from Carter. Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare, is remarkably unpopular. As of today, 47% of those polled want it repealed, and that includes 21% of Democrats and almost half of Independents. And jobs? The president himself could only muster a weak "I think it's possible" when asked if unemployment will go below 8% by election day 2012. The president's original stimulus was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%; and of course even the current rate is deceptively understated.
On top of this, the president's first years in office have spawned two grassroots movements. The first, the Tea Party, led to an historic realignment of Congress, a devastating loss for the President's party. The second, Occupy Wall Street, not exactly pro-Obama either, has the potential to make the 2012 Democratic convention look like 1968.
I could go on, but by any measure, the president's prospects would have to dramatically improve to even be considered bleak. When the voters want to rid themselves of an unpopular president, they are not subtle. Carter won in 1976 with 50% of the votes, and lost in 1980 with 41%. Bush won in 1988 with 53% and lost in 1992 with 37% (although admittedly Perot helped exaggerate that gap.)
Does all this mean Republicans can just coast into November? By no means! We should define ourselves now while the attention brought on by the primaries is focused on us. Let the voters know what they can expect from a Republican president, House, and Senate come 2013. No pandering, but rather principles. Confidence in victory should give us the boldness to claim a mandate when that victory comes, a mandate that will be necessary to reverse the direction that Barack Obama has taken this country in his effort to "fundamentally transform America." Conservatives and Republicans must take heart and let our candidates battle it out here in the primary season with the confidence that whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be, he or she will win in November. Hands down. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Wait... did someone say "third party?" In that case, all bets are off...
I believe we can safely count our unhatched chickens. The chances of President Obama's reelection are so remote as to be virtually non-existent. Others may analyze electoral votes ad nauseam, but I believe it's much simpler than that. The number of votes cast in the 2008 presidential election was about 125,000,000. John McCain received 58,000,000 and Barrack Obama received 67,000,000. This is a difference of 9,000,000. Since a vote switched from one candidate to the other narrows the gap by two, only 4,500,000 voters could have made the difference. While that sounds like a lot, in reality it only amounts to about 7% of the total votes cast for Obama. And I ask you: Is there anything in the past three years that could lead anyone to credibly argue that less than 7% of Obama voters (1 in 14) have changed their minds? Of course I understand the mechanics of the electoral college. And certainly turnout (or lack thereof) will have an impact as well, but in 2012 there will be a dramatic decrease in pro-Obama sentiment from 2008, and anti-Obama sentiment will be running high. Many who turned out to vote for Obama in the historic 2008 election will have cooled considerably. And many others who could not bring themselves to pull the Republican lever for the terminally moderate John McCain will have seen the error of their ways. Empirical as well as anecdotal evidence abounds.
When President Obama was inaugurated, his approval rating was 69%. It is now 42% (as of 1/4/12.) Jimmy Carter was at 53% approval at this point in his presidency and went on to lose in an historic landslide. Obama is already 11 points down from Carter. Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare, is remarkably unpopular. As of today, 47% of those polled want it repealed, and that includes 21% of Democrats and almost half of Independents. And jobs? The president himself could only muster a weak "I think it's possible" when asked if unemployment will go below 8% by election day 2012. The president's original stimulus was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%; and of course even the current rate is deceptively understated.
On top of this, the president's first years in office have spawned two grassroots movements. The first, the Tea Party, led to an historic realignment of Congress, a devastating loss for the President's party. The second, Occupy Wall Street, not exactly pro-Obama either, has the potential to make the 2012 Democratic convention look like 1968.
I could go on, but by any measure, the president's prospects would have to dramatically improve to even be considered bleak. When the voters want to rid themselves of an unpopular president, they are not subtle. Carter won in 1976 with 50% of the votes, and lost in 1980 with 41%. Bush won in 1988 with 53% and lost in 1992 with 37% (although admittedly Perot helped exaggerate that gap.)
Does all this mean Republicans can just coast into November? By no means! We should define ourselves now while the attention brought on by the primaries is focused on us. Let the voters know what they can expect from a Republican president, House, and Senate come 2013. No pandering, but rather principles. Confidence in victory should give us the boldness to claim a mandate when that victory comes, a mandate that will be necessary to reverse the direction that Barack Obama has taken this country in his effort to "fundamentally transform America." Conservatives and Republicans must take heart and let our candidates battle it out here in the primary season with the confidence that whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be, he or she will win in November. Hands down. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Wait... did someone say "third party?" In that case, all bets are off...
No Joke
A study noted by Paul Bedard at Washington Whispers found that President Obama was the most popular political target of late-night comedians in 2011. Even though the President took top honors, the study notes that his total of 382 is far below the 500+ that Bush and Clinton routinely racked up. Is it possible that there is some trepidation about going after the President? Certainly lack of material is not an issue as is obvious to those of us who follow Hot Air's Obamateurism of the Day feature. What could the reason be? Hmmmmm...
As an aside, I read though the sample jokes at the end of the Washington Whispers column without even being tempted to use any of my facial muscles. Hopefully it was a random sample and was not meant to represent the best the late-nighters had to offer. Of course, if Robert Lichter (president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at GMU where the study was conducted) picked the jokes, that might explain it:
As an aside, I read though the sample jokes at the end of the Washington Whispers column without even being tempted to use any of my facial muscles. Hopefully it was a random sample and was not meant to represent the best the late-nighters had to offer. Of course, if Robert Lichter (president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at GMU where the study was conducted) picked the jokes, that might explain it:
Lichter noted that far down on the list were the winners of Tuesday's Iowa GOP caucuses, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. "This shows," he says, "that it's hard to vote for somebody while you're laughing at them."Does anyone even understand that?
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Anonymous sources
I began this post about a month ago, but this incident seems as good a time as any to publish it. Mike Allen's phrasing of his question to Rick Perry is similar to the oft used disclaimer that a reporter's source "spoke under conditions of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly" or some version of that. Here are the alternate translations I have developed for news stories when anonymous sources are quoted:
... because the source wanted to spew gossip and not be held accountable for it.
... because the source wanted to make things up for political purposes.
... because the reporter wanted to insert his own views in the story by inventing an "anonymous source."
... because the reporter has always wanted to sound like Woodward and Bernstein because they were so COOL!
... because the reporter was too lazy to actually interview anyone.
... because the reporter was too timid to ask a tough question.
Regarding the Allen/Perry exchange linked to above, why didn't Allen, a longtime experienced political reporter just ask Perry, a candidate whose campaign has obviously had some ups and downs, "It appears to me you ran this campaign as a gubernatorial campaign for too long and you didn't look big enough, get big enough, fast enough. Do you take responsibility for that?" Perry could still have refused to answer, but Allen would not have ended up with egg on his face.
This being said, I do not question Mike Allen's integrity. As far as I know, he's well respected and a straight shooter. At least that's what my sources say.
... because the source wanted to spew gossip and not be held accountable for it.
... because the source wanted to make things up for political purposes.
... because the reporter wanted to insert his own views in the story by inventing an "anonymous source."
... because the reporter has always wanted to sound like Woodward and Bernstein because they were so COOL!
... because the reporter was too lazy to actually interview anyone.
... because the reporter was too timid to ask a tough question.
Regarding the Allen/Perry exchange linked to above, why didn't Allen, a longtime experienced political reporter just ask Perry, a candidate whose campaign has obviously had some ups and downs, "It appears to me you ran this campaign as a gubernatorial campaign for too long and you didn't look big enough, get big enough, fast enough. Do you take responsibility for that?" Perry could still have refused to answer, but Allen would not have ended up with egg on his face.
This being said, I do not question Mike Allen's integrity. As far as I know, he's well respected and a straight shooter. At least that's what my sources say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)