Extremes

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama gave an interview to the AP in which he described Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s positions as “extreme.”  Yet both Obama’s descriptions and his countervailing positions demonstrate pretty conclusively which of the two is extreme.

Obama had this non sequitur in his remarks about what he has “learned about [Romney] this campaign:

What we’ve also seen is Gov. Romney has not been willing to, I think, own up to some of the responsibilities that are required if you’re president of the United States. So there’s been obviously a lot of discussion about his unwillingness to release his tax returns.

Apparently honoring the law (here, concerning the required releasability of personal tax returns) is “not willing to own up to some of the responsibilities that are required if you’re president of the United States.”  But ignoring the law (vis., DOMA) is such a responsibility.  Ignoring the will of the Congress and implementing carbon cap-and-trade by Executive fiat is such a responsibility.  Ignoring the will of the Congress (the failed DREAM ACT) and implementing immigration parameters by Executive fiat is such a responsibility.  Refusing to enforce our borders while attacking states that do attempt to enforce them, using laws that ape Federal law, is such a responsibility.

Obama made this argument about Romney being short on facts in his campaign.

[T]he most prominent argument that he’s been making for why voters should vote for him is this notion that Obama took the work requirement out of welfare, and he’ll put it back.

Never mind that the explicit requirement for actual work has been withdrawn, and the states’ “flexibility” includes the option to not require work or work training.

And without a trace of irony, Obama had this to say:

Well, I think that if you don’t have a good argument for how you’re going to make things better, then you stay focused on how you can discredit the incumbent.

After accusing Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a woman (he did say in a separate interview that he didn’t really believe that, but in that same interview, he refused to repudiate the ad that made the accusation, or to call out the SuperPAC (run by his ex-Deputy Press Secretary) for having run it).  And after accusing Romney of being a felon over Romney’s position at Bain while rescuing the Olympics—stemming from Obama’s own “misunderstanding” of SEC filings.

On those extreme positions themselves, Obama had this:

[Romney] has signed up for positions, extreme positions that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken.

Obama then listed the Republicans’ $5 trillion tax cut proposal, the elimination of tax credits for wind energy, and an amorphous objection to the Republicans’ Medicare proposals as those “extreme” positions.

If I understand Obama aright, then, it’s extreme to cut taxes, especially in a recession: it’s extreme to leave more of private citizens’ money in the hands of the original private citizens instead of those of whom Obama favors.

It’s extreme, in a time of enormous government spending and debt buildup, to cut spending—especially to fringe energy sources like wind power.  Obama proudly pointed out that he’s doubled the output of wind-generated electricity with his tax credits.  Let’s see: total electricity generated in the US in 2008 was nearly 3.5 Terawatts.  Wind-generated electricity in 2011 was nearly 47 Megawatts.  Obama has pushed wind energy from nearly nothing to twice nearly nothing.  And that doubling came, as he so proudly said, only with the aid of government subsidy.  Wind-generated electricity is fringe not because it’s an idiotic idea, but because it cannot compete in the free market on its own; it needs a constant propping up.

Finally, it’s extreme to take steps to reform Medicare so as to preserve it for tomorrow’s seniors, while leaving it alone for today’s seniors and near-seniors (who have no chance of adjusting to any changes).

But what are Obama’s plans?  He’s carefully nebulous about those, but we can look to his record and see his plans.

Obama intends to ratchet up the taxes on Americans of whom he disapproves.  He intends to ratchet up his spendinginvesting in his favored companies and in his favored unions.  He already has taken the (not at all extreme, he says) measure of removing $700 billion from the present form of Medicare in putting it into his Obamacare to pay for that.

Who’s extreme?

A Modest Proposal for Financial Law

Standard Chartered PLC agreed to pay a $340 million “fine” for improper financial transactions amounting to $250 billion, a fine of just a tad over 1% of that total.  Judge Jed Rakoff, of the United States Federal District, refused to sanction a proposed settlement between the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets of a $160 million “fine” for an improperly handled billion dollar CDO fund, arguing in part that there was no basis for a punitive settlement when there was no allegation or admission of a wrongdoing.

It is, in fact, routine for supposedly misbehaving financial entities and their Federal regulators to negotiate such chump change fines, whether or not actual wrongdoing is conceded or alleged.  This disconnect between the sanction and the (phantom) misbehavior generally is not the result of cronyism; all the players are, say I, fundamentally honest.  No, such settlements are driven by the complexity of our financial laws, of which Dodd-Frank is only the latest addition.  The defendant financial institution usually finds it cheaper to pay the government’s vig than to defend itself, even when innocent, and the government usually finds it cheaper to charge only a taste and make no demand for admission of wrongdoing than to prosecute a case.

As a result of this unnecessary complexity, the government simply continues to hector the financial institutions and the financials simply continue to misbehave (my remark about honesty not withstanding) with the settlements just part of the cost of doing business.

Accordingly, a modest proposal.  Get rid of the financial laws and the regulations.  Replace them with a few simple laws (which, in their simplicity will need no implementing regulations) to the effect of honoring freely signed contracts, the products sold having to be openly and clearly described, all parties to the contracts, and their roles, having to be clearly and openly described.  There might be one or two others, but you get the idea.

Then get serious about cases.  If these laws are violated, hale the miscreants into court and go for serious penalties.  No more “negotiating” pocket money payments.  That’s like negotiating with Willie Sutton over his “community service.”  $250 billion in illegal trades ought to get that much as the floor of a fine.  If that puts the misbehaving company out of business, I suggest that a criminal organization won’t be missed.

Subsidy and Food

Here are some minor facts concerning a particular subsidy, courtesy of an The Wall Street Journal op-ed.

USDA lowered its 2012 corn forecast by 13% from last year’s, to 10.8 billion bushels, the shortest harvest since 2006, even though the planted acreage is the highest since 1937 and 4% more than last year.

only 24% of the corn crop is in good or excellent condition in the 18 major corn belt states, down from 72% just since June.

USDA’s world agricultural outlook board estimated that global corn consumption will be reduced by 38.9 million tons, with US problems responsible for ¾ of the shortage.

As a result,

Corn futures are up nearly 50% over the last six weeks.  The US accounts for 60% of global exports, and corn feeds cows, pigs, chickens, and humans through its role as a key ingredient in a broad range of foods.

Those corn futures will be realized as actual, sharp price increases that consumers will pay.  The price increase wouldn’t be so bad, but for a certain Federal subsidy.

The food-to-fuel mandate, Renewable Fuels Standard, requires 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended into the gasoline supply this year, rising to 36 billion gallons by 2022.  Fully 40% of 2011’s corn production went to ethanol, and courtesy of our EPA (though the subsidy originated in an earlier administration), and now more corn is devoted to fuel than to livestock or other foods.

But not to worry.  Despite the drought, the resulting corn crop failures, and the succeeding price increases driven by the crop failure, despite all of these hardships and negative impacts on the food supply, the ethanol makers got theirs.  The Renewable Fuels Association put out a statement, without a trace of irony, that there’s no danger of an ethanol shortage:

obligated parties under the RFS will have every opportunity to demonstrate compliance this year.

Helps to have your priorities straight.

More on the Integrity of the Left

Here are some of the more egregious examples.  The primary Obama-supporting SuperPAC, Priorities USA, is planning to run an ad—an ad that’s already on the Internet—that accuses Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney of being personally responsible for an ex-steel worker’s wife’s death from cancer.  The ad itself is dishonest:

  • The man’s wife died five years after GST, the steel company for which the man worked, filed for bankruptcy.
  • Romney had long since left Bain Capital at the time of her death.
  • His wife had her own health insurance after the man had left GST.
  • The man’s wife died at a time when Bain actually was being run by a major Obama bundler.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has been dishonest in connection with this ad:

  • Obama denied, through his Deputy Campaign Manager, Stephanie Cutter, that he “doesn’t know the facts” about the steelworker or his story, doesn’t know when the man’s wife became ill or anything about the man’s insurance coverage.  Yet last May, Cutter hosted a conference call in which the man detailed his story, including the specifics now appearing in this ad.
  • Obama, through his campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt, insisted that “we can’t coordinate with super PACs and didn’t produce” the ad.
  • Obama has given the green light for members of his cabinet to attend fundraisers for his political action committees.
  • The existence of the conference call, followed by its information appearing in Priorities USA’s ad, together with the SuperPAC fundraising efforts, demonstrate that all of this has occurred: coordination, the Obama staff’s role in the ad’s production, and active Obama White House participation in the “independent” SuperPACs’ efforts.
  • As recently as Friday, Obama still was denying, through his press spokesman, Jay Carney, any involvement or knowledge of the sordid affair.

And there’s this.

Lauren Gray is a dancer who turned 21 last Wednesday and has lived in the US as a legal resident alien since she was 4 years old, having come here when her parents came from England on work visas.  As an adult in her own right, she now must get her own visa in order to stay.  She was on track to get her green card when her priority was dumped, without explanation, into a two-year wait—which means she would have had to return to England—a nation that’s hers by birth but not by loyalty, life, or anything that matters.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Obama’s immigration fiat, though, gives those who are in the US illegally a prompt stay—they have only to aver having themselves come here as children and having stayed out of trouble since, and they get, promptly, documents allowing them to continue staying in two-year increments.

Gray has been working with “her” Congressmen (Senator Claire McCaskill, D; Senator Roy Blunt, R; and Congressman Sam Graves, R) from Missouri, the state in which she’s been living her life, seeking assistance, and at the last minute Senator McCaskill was able to get permission for Gray to stay in the US legally until her green card request works its way through the system.  Gray will get a work visa, renewable every two years.

But why did a United States Senator have to get involved?  How many others here legally are being forced out—because they’ve outgrown their parent’s visas, or their student visas or their H-series visas have expired, or…?  This is an outcome of Obama’s immigration amnesty by fiat program—as Obama knew when he issued his “Dream Act” edict; he is, after all, a highly intelligent man and a Harvard-trained lawyer.  He knew full well what the results of his Presidential Bull would include.

Finally, there’s this:

The law breakers that were in the defunct Occupy Wall Street crowd are getting a pass from the Democratic Candidate’s White House.  Emails from the General Services Administration (remember this gang of partiers?) obtained by Fox News indicate that, on orders from the White House, the GSA instructed Federal law enforcement in Portland, OR, not to enforce curfews on protesters camped out on Federal property.  This exchange between DHS’ National Protection and Programs Directorate Chief of Staff, Caitlin Durkovich, and GSA’s Public Buildings Service Commissioner, Robert Peck, illustrates:

Durkovich: They have chained themselves to a large drum filled with concrete. GSA controls the permits and has asked [Federal Protective Services] not to enforce the curfew at park and the prohibition on overnight encampments…. Our FPS Commander in Portland says they are standing down and following GSA’s request to only intervene if there is a threat to public safety.

Peck: Caitlin: yes, that is our position; it’s been vetted with our administrator and Michael Robertson, our chief of staff, and we have communicated with the [White House], which has afforded us the discretion to fashion our approach to Occupy issues….  The arrests last week were carried out despite our request that the protesters be allowed to remain and to camp overnight….

Never mind that “the arrests last week” were these:  25 demonstrators arrested after they refused to leave Jamison Square in the Pearl District after the park was closed after “an intense standoff.”  And never mind the impact that waiving the law and letting lawbreakers, en masse, go free has on “public safety.”

You Can’t Build This, Either

Paul H Rubin, Professor of Economics at Emory University, had some thoughts on President Obama’s “You didn’t build that” oratory.  After giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and allowing that he really meant, without denigrating the accomplishments of entrepreneurs and other businessmen, that government needed to help private enterprise with infrastructure, Professor Rubin added a few items of interest in the infrastructure milieu.

  • the Obama administration, in its first three years, adopted 106 major regulations that cost over $100 million, compared with 28 such regulations in the Bush the Younger administration, and it has 144 more in the pipeline.

Of more immediate impact, with regard to the infrastructure of roads and bridges, the administration’s attitude toward other necessary components of our transportation infrastructure is clear.  It has

  • refused to allow a private company to build the Keystone XL pipeline
  • reduced permits for offshore drilling
  • slow-walked permits for drilling on Federal land
  • increased EPA regulation of pollutants, well past the point of diminishing returns, yet
  • committed to spend billions on California’s riderless bullet train to nowhere

Concerning another area of necessary infrastructure, access to capital, there’re these:

  • regulations needed to implement Dodd–Frank are not even being written, negatively impacting business’ ability to reasonably predict their fiscal future—so some won’t lend, and others won’t borrow.
  • increased minimum wage discourages hiring entry-level workers, or older workers into low-value jobs
  • Obamacare increases uncertainty regarding future labor health-related costs

And so on.  RTWT.