Tag Archives: government

This Is What A Progressive Government Stands For

Posted on by
Reply

Our illustrious Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner had this to say in a recent The Wall Street Journal op-ed about the role of government in private decision making.  In setting up his meme, he described Bear Stearns’ risky investments and our own risky mortgage borrowing behavior.

Neither the Fed, nor any other federal agency, had the necessary comprehensive authority over investment firms…or the government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Regulators did not have the authority they needed to oversee and impose prudent limits…. And they had no authority to put these firms, or bank holding companies, through a managed bankruptcy.…

Household debt rose to an alarming 130% of income, with a huge portion of those loans originated with little to no supervision and poor consumer protections.

Hmm….  He decries the lack of government control over our businesses and our personal borrowing.  He decries government’s inability to bypass the bankruptcy court system (except for two dinosaur car companies, whose government regulation he doesn’t mention).

He insists that  Government knows better the risks, government knows better the decisions that ought to be made.  His solution, thus, is increased intrusive government management of our decisions and our businesses.  As to the costs of this, he dismisses them:

Are the costs of reform too high? Certainly not relative to the costs of another financial crisis. Credit is relatively inexpensive….

He omits to add that cheap credit is due entirely to artificially suppressed Federal Reserve Bank rates—through which the Federal government is imposing an extreme inflationary risk on our economy.  He omits to acknowledge that the financial institutions are under resumed government pressure to quit sitting on cash and to lend—by lowering credit standards again—another government-imposed risk to our economy.

Are these reforms complex? No more complex than the problems they are designed to solve.  And, it should be noted, most of the length and complexity in the rules is the result of the care required to target safeguards where they are needed, not where they would have a damaging effect.

He chooses complexify a fundamentally simple problem: let the experts in business and business risk—businessmen themselves, exercise their own judgment, and suffer the consequences of bankruptcy if their judgment is faulty—or if they have bad luck.  He doesn’t mention the fact that the same government that wants to insert its own lending judgment in the place of our own and our business enterprises is the same government that is still owed tens of billions of dollars by those two American car companies that can never be paid back—and that one of those dinosaurs isn’t even American anymore; it’s Italian.  He also complexifies what is truly straightforward: get government out of the way, streamline regulations, and keep only those that are useful, with no overlap or conflicts.  He also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the problem: if the targets of the safeguards need “length and complexity” to address, it’s because the regulators don’t understand the targets well enough to articulate them simply and clearly, so that, if actually needed, they can be “targeted.”  The very complexity is another government-created risk.

Is there some risk that these reforms will go too far with unintended consequences? That depends on the quality of judgment of regulators in the coming months as they flesh out the remaining reforms.

Indeed.  That’s another enormous risk imposed by a Know Better government.  Look for instance, at the performance of the NLRB and the EPA, two example regulatory agencies devoid of objective judgment.  These are Progressive regulators, but there’s no reason to believe that “conservative” regulators wouldn’t wind up just as abusive, just as lacking in judgment, albeit in another direction.  The problem here is the existence of the regulators, not their political agendas.  Today’s problem, though, is compounded by so many of the regulators being subject to no oversight.

And then there’s our health.  Over in the legislative branch, Nancy Pelosi called the just-defeated Blunt Amendment a

“devastating legislation” and “the latest ploy in the Republican agenda of disrespecting the health of American women.” Planned Parenthood claimed the “dangerous proposal” would have allowed “your boss”—yes, yours—to decide “which prescriptions you can get filled and which medical procedures you can have,” including cancer screening, maternity care and AIDS medications.

Of course, it was nothing of the sort.  It was simply an effort to restore choice to women’s (and men’s) health decisions.  Yet, as the WSJ points out,

The fact that Democrats don’t dare to accurately describe their own positions, or the regulations that they want to foist on everyone else, shows how extreme those positions and regulations really are.

 

This is, then, what the Progressive government stands for.  A big, intrusive Federal government making business decisions for Americans and our businesses and deciding our health issues for us.  All, of course, with the best of intentions: to protect us from ourselves, and to protect us from our foolish decisions and their outcomes.  But at what cost?

At the cost of our freedom to make stupid decisions, our freedom to make decisions with which our governmental Betters might disagree, and our freedom to profit from risky decisions, or safe ones, of our choosing and not of our Betters’.  At the cost of our freedom to decide for ourselves what our health care might—or might not—entail..

At the cost of our ability to make any of our own choices.  At the cost of honoring our responsibilities ourselves, rather than having them surrendered to government to handle for us.

The Meaning of the Absence of Reasoned Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a sample of the kind of campaign that President Obama is running in his attempt to get reelected.

They’re obsessed

By Jim Messina, Campaign Manager on

In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers.

Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who bankrolled Tea Party extremism, and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.

So in the hours before Romney courts two men obsessed with making Barack Obama a one-term president, let’s see how many of us can chip in to the Two-Term Fund.

Here’s what Mitt Romney told his supporters just after his victory in the Florida GOP primary:

“We must not forget what this election is really about: defeating Barack Obama.”

Pitch in $3 or more over the next 24 hours to show that, while that message may fire up two oil-industry billionaires, it’s also one that plenty of us are tired of hearing.

The Koch Companies’ President of Government and Public Affairs, Philip Ellender, responded to this in a well-publicized manner.  I won’t go into that letter; however, a copy of it can be seen here.

What’s interesting, though, is Obama’s response, through Messina, to the Koch Industries letter.  I’ll cite relevant parts; the whole letter can be read at the link.

I am writing in response to your letter, in which you portrayed the oil and gas executives you represent as average citizens trying to make their voices heard.

Of course, no such representation was made. They did mention the “tens of thousands of members and contributors from across the country and from all walks of life” with respect to Americans for Prosperity.  Of course Obama knows that there are not “tens of thousands” of oil and gas executives all across the country; this is deliberate, Alinsky-esque distortion.

But it is a cynical stretch to describe the political activities of your employers as furthering democracy when they are courting huge checks from special interest donors to pay for negative ads, with no public disclosure of the identity of those donors.

Hmm.  Obama claims to know of “huge checks from special interest donors,” but there is “no public disclosure of the identity of these donors.”  Which side of Obama’s mouth should we believe, here?  Or is Obama confessing to domestic spying on private American citizens?

You argue that Americans for Prosperity is a grassroots organization of everyday citizens. But its emphasis on rolling back environmental protections and blocking a clean energy economy appears to be nothing more than an effort to promote the corporate interests of your employers and others who lavishly, and secretly, fund its operations.

This is another deliberate distortion.  AFP doesn’t espouse rolling back environmental protections or blocking clean energy.  AFP, along with all thinking Americans, do espouse eliminating excessive EPA regulations that hinder business—of any type—with no discernible gain for the environment.  Nor do we Americans seek to block clean energy.  We do object to Obama wasting our money on the Solyndras of the nation, and we do object to Obama wasting our money on “green” enterprises whose product cannot survive in an honestly competitive free market without those props.

You note in your letter that Americans for Prosperity has tens of thousands of members and contributors from all walks of life across the country, suggesting that this is the source of AFP’s funding. There is one way to verify your point: disclose those donors for the public to make that judgment.

How very Axelrod of Obama.  He doesn’t have to supply any evidence.  He just has to accuse, and given the accusation, of course the accused is perforce guilty unless he can prove his innocence.

But, even though I’ve spent some time on this, it’s all just cynical distraction, which is Obama’s intent with his Messina letter.  What’s most important here is that at no time does Obama address the issues raised in the Koch Industries letter response to his original ad hominem attack.

If the President’s campaign has some principled disagreement with the arguments we are making publicly about the staggering debt the President and previous administrations have imposed on the country, the regulations that are stifling business growth and innovation, the increasing intrusion of government into nearly every aspect of American life, we would be eager to hear them.

and

It is understandable that the President and his campaign may be “tired of hearing” that many Americans would rather not see the president re-elected. However, the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.

and

I…hope the President will reflect on how the approach the campaign is using is at odds with our national values and the constitutional right to free speech.

Oh, yeah—Obama did pretend to address the nation’s debt explosion:

That is why the President introduced a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion and put us on a path to solvency.

Obama’s “plan” is two budget proposals so ludicrous that even the Democratic party voted it out of town unanimously, and the second proposal, just last month, doubles down on that bad joke.

But he carefully elided the Progressive regulatory environment and the increasing intrusion of the Progressive government into the lives of ordinary Americans and our businesses.

And on free speech,

When you attempt to drown out their voices through unlimited, secret contributions to pursue a special-interest agenda that conflicts with what’s best for our nation, you must expect some scrutiny of your actions.

Once again, cynically unsubstantiated accusations of secret donations (since you know of them, Mr Obama, provide the data), while continuing the free speech of ad hominem attacks.

Two reasons come to mind for such a campaign.  One is the naked intimidation of those with dissenting speech in which Obama is so plainly engaged.  He simply will not brook any disagreement with his own hallowed positions, and he attacks, personally and with demonization, all those who do disagree.  Is this the sort of President of which we want another four years?

The other reason is that Obama simply is incapable of forming an argument that defends his own position, and so he runs away from the issues at hand and dives for the cover of the ad hominem as a means of changing the subject.  He knows his policies have failed utterly, but he lacks the moral rigor to acknowledge that and change course: he is capable only of avoiding the issues and engaging in personal attacks.  Is his the sort of President of which we can afford to risk another four years?

Energy Policy and Government

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that not-yet-Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said in 2008

Somehow we have to find a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.

In light of rapidly rising gasoline prices in the last few weeks, now Secretary of Energy Chu testified before the House Appropriations Committee earlier this week.  In the course of that appearance, he answered a question from Congressman Alan Nunnelee (R, MI) about whether it “is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down.  “No,” answered Chu.  “The overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil….”

Coupled with the Obama administration’s slow-walking of permits—even after a Federal court had ordered the administration to quit stalling—for deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama’s killing of the Keystone XL pipeline, his refusal to allow drilling on Federal lands, and on and on, it’s quite clear the Obama has no intention of expanding America’s access to domestic oil and gas any faster than he absolutely has to, being dragged kicking and screaming to greater production.  He’s not at all interested in lower gasoline prices, or in lower energy prices generally.  Not at the expense of his (heavily subsidized) “green” energy projects.

Even knowing, as he surely does, that every 25₵ increase in the price of gasoline takes $35 billion annually out of the economy—out of the hands of Americans—he’s not interested.  Never mind the money taken out of Americans’ hands by higher home heating costs through higher oil and gas prices (which underlie the rising gasoline prices), or the higher costs of air travel from resulting higher jet fuel costs, or the higher cost of goods shipping, or the higher costs of production—and so higher end-product costs to us consumers—from higher energy costs to our manufacturers, and….

Later, at his daily mid-day press conference hosted by his Press Secretary, Jay Carney, Obama even tried to pretend he was unaware of his Energy Secretary’s testimony.

Reporters today asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s controversial statement about gas prices.

“I am not aware of that statement or the characterization that you have given it,” Carney replied.

Obama then claimed, through Chu’s follow-up Congressional testimony Thursday, that he really did want to lower the price of gasoline.  How, though, is it possible to believe him?

Contraception Coverage and Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Just to look at one small aspect of Americans’ liberties, here’s an item: mandated coverage of women’s contraception.

Senator Roy Blunt’s (R, MO) amendment was an attempt to restore a measure of liberty; a copy is here;  it said, in part [emphasis added]

(E) While PPACA provides an exemption for some religious groups that object to participation in Government health programs generally, it does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.

It also says

(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS.—A health plan shall not be considered to have failed…on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because—(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or (ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

The measure was voted down in the Senate on Thursday by a nearly straight party-line vote of 51-48.  In the run-up to the vote, Senate Democrats had cast it as an attempt to limit women’s access to birth control.  They also had claimed

[T]he bill is “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and may allow employers to exclude coverage for any conditions they find religiously or morally objectionable.

They say this could become a slippery slope, resulting in the exclusion of coverage for HIV & AIDS, mental health, hemophilia, STD’s and more

The Obama administration blasted Blunt’s amendment in a press release Wednesday, saying the president’s supporters need to “stand for a woman’s right to make her own health decisions.”

I certainly hope the amendment, had it passed, would have allowed exclusion—or a decision not to purchase—for “and conditions” that are “religiously or morally objectionable.”  This is an area in which our Constitution, so routinely disregarded by the Progressive administration, explicitly barred the Federal government from entering.  Furthermore, aside from the freedom of choice issues related to mandating coverage—and so paying for this coverage when it’s unwanted or unneeded—and the ludicrous “essential health benefits” aspects of contraception, what religious or moral grounds would be cited?  The Progressives have carefully declined to offer any examples.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) was especially disingenuous in his argument against this amendment.

I don’t want Republican politicians making decisions about my family’s health care.  Women are capable of making their own health-care decisions.

Except, no, they’re not.  Not after Lautenberg got his way: their decision is thrust upon them by this Progressive and his fellows.  Senator Lautenberg and the Federal government now will make health-care decisions in lieu of them.  Obama claimed to “stand for a woman’s right to make her own health decisions,” but with this vote, women are not allowed to decline to purchase a health-care service they do not want or will not use or find morally or religiously objectionable.  They must buy.  They cannot make their own health decision.  Read again the Section E quoted at the start.  See the freedom of choice that the Progressives voted down.

This is Stimulating

Posted on by
Reply

…on a couple of levels (but, no, it didn’t generate a tingle down my leg).  Paul Chesser, of the National Legal and Policy Center, wrote about a law firm and Fisker Automotive earlier this week.  Of particular interest to me in the article were two things.  One was this:

Debevoise & Plimpton LLC, received $1,842,180 in Recovery Act funds to provide legal advice, conduct due diligence, and review documents for two loans from DOE’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.  One $529 million loan award was to Fisker Automotive to develop and produce two lines of electric vehicles….

Debevoise provided the same services to DOE for its $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company, to convert five of its factories…so they can produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

That’s a potful of taxpayer money for what seems a straightforward legal task (I won’t go into the political donations employees of the firm made; there’s more of that in the article.  Besides, there’s no evidence of anything illegal having been done here).  Perhaps some of the lawyers reading this can weigh in on the actual costs and charges such analyses normally entail.  I also wonder how many jobs were “saved or created” by this particular Stimulus payout.  Oh, wait, Chesser addressed this:

At the height of its legal services activity for DOE, 1.25 jobs were created that were attributable to Debevoise’s work on the two loans.

The other thing is the quality of the due diligence and analysis provided.  Now it’s certainly possible that loans on which proper due diligence has been done will still fail.  But getting information about this particular loan analysis out of the Department of Energy has been like pulling teeth from a chicken.  Judicial Watch has been forced to sue in Federal court under the Freedom of Information Act to get any serious data concerning this loan of taxpayer money.  The cynic in me has to ask what information has the administration so nervous.