Monday, September 15, 2008
Michelle Malkin » The fit hits the shan on Wall Street
Michelle Malkin » The fit hits the shan on Wall Street
Things look bad on Wall Street.
Secretary Paulsen had sought to get control over mortgage regulation in April, but Democrats wanted to bail out the banks.
This mess seems to indicate that the Democrats have been in deep with these folks for a while. While the mess is not the Democrats fault, the depth of the problem seems to have been made worse because the Democrats cooperated in preventing real fixes to an existing problem.
Even more interesting is the candidates' reactions. O-Bomba wants to blame Republicans for laissez-faire economics for creating the problem without regard to the history of the matter. McCain addresses the corrective action of refusing government capitalization of struggling businesses and fix the regulatory scheme that favors Congressional meddling and dawdling. I don't know what he wants to do precisely, but fewer regulatory bodies allow greater coherence in operation with fewer political interference opportunities that can be hidden from view. Those make sense to me from my personal experience in business.
Things look bad on Wall Street.
Secretary Paulsen had sought to get control over mortgage regulation in April, but Democrats wanted to bail out the banks.
(Italics added for emphasis.)The plan, produced by a lame-duck Republican administration facing a Democratic Congress, would drastically expand the authority of the Federal Reserve to oversee financial markets. It would consolidate federal agencies that regulate the nation’s securities and commodities futures markets. And it would allow insurance companies, which have long been regulated by the states, to choose instead to have a national charter and be supervised by a new federal agency under the Treasury Department.
Mr. Paulson said on Monday that he did not expect the bulk of the plan to be adopted during the current administration — and he said Congress should not even consider adopting most of it until after the current housing and credit crisis ended.
“Some may view these recommendations as a response to the circumstances of the day,” Mr. Paulson said. “That is not how they are intended.”
Senior lawmakers, while praising the administration for raising important points for further discussion, said the odds were long for a major overhaul before Congress all but shuts down for the elections in the fall.
“Since this is opening day in baseball, I might as well make a baseball metaphor,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee. “This is a wild pitch. It is not even close to the strike zone.”
Mr. Dodd and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a telephone conference call with reporters that overhauling the regulatory structure was not a high priority. Instead, they said, they were hoping to quickly move legislation that would help homeowners facing higher mortgage rates and foreclosure.
The Democrats’ bill would provide an additional $200 million for counseling for homeowners in danger of foreclosure, would authorize $10 billion in bonding authority for housing finance agencies to refinance subprime loans, and provide $4 billion for local governments to purchase foreclosed properties.
The bill would also change the bankruptcy laws to allow judges to modify mortgages on primary homes — a provision opposed by Republicans who say it will only increase mortgage rates.
This mess seems to indicate that the Democrats have been in deep with these folks for a while. While the mess is not the Democrats fault, the depth of the problem seems to have been made worse because the Democrats cooperated in preventing real fixes to an existing problem.
Even more interesting is the candidates' reactions. O-Bomba wants to blame Republicans for laissez-faire economics for creating the problem without regard to the history of the matter. McCain addresses the corrective action of refusing government capitalization of struggling businesses and fix the regulatory scheme that favors Congressional meddling and dawdling. I don't know what he wants to do precisely, but fewer regulatory bodies allow greater coherence in operation with fewer political interference opportunities that can be hidden from view. Those make sense to me from my personal experience in business.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Other Thoughts on Earmarks
If an earmark is a procedural corruption of Congress, what would have the best chance of reducing the need for earmarks?
Many earmarks that get air play are research projects for strange subjects (academia), museums or special institutions of local interest (arts and humanist subjects), and questionable roadways (public works).
The first two examples are just questionable for national expenditure. Roadways are likely to be of more dubious value if paid for by the federal government rather than state or local governments. Why? Locals know local needs better. I would prefer that the federal government drastically curtail its taxation and involvement in federal highways. This is just an invitation to play legislative games. The bridge to nowhere is fine if Alaskans want it and pay for it. Why should the lower 48 contribute?
An empty highway across Arizona (which one I don't know, I am just trying to paint a mental image) from a town in New Mexico to California may make more sense for the federal government to underwrite, since Arizona gets little benefit. But if it is really that worthwhile to all but Arizona, couldn't a toll road solve the problem for Arizona's budgeting?
Earmarking this project is too much money, too poorly analyzed, and likely too expensive for the benefits obtained. Let's try a different way.
Many earmarks that get air play are research projects for strange subjects (academia), museums or special institutions of local interest (arts and humanist subjects), and questionable roadways (public works).
The first two examples are just questionable for national expenditure. Roadways are likely to be of more dubious value if paid for by the federal government rather than state or local governments. Why? Locals know local needs better. I would prefer that the federal government drastically curtail its taxation and involvement in federal highways. This is just an invitation to play legislative games. The bridge to nowhere is fine if Alaskans want it and pay for it. Why should the lower 48 contribute?
An empty highway across Arizona (which one I don't know, I am just trying to paint a mental image) from a town in New Mexico to California may make more sense for the federal government to underwrite, since Arizona gets little benefit. But if it is really that worthwhile to all but Arizona, couldn't a toll road solve the problem for Arizona's budgeting?
Earmarking this project is too much money, too poorly analyzed, and likely too expensive for the benefits obtained. Let's try a different way.
McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks - Yahoo! News
McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks - Yahoo! News
I really don't understand this logic. Governors used to have the ability to go to the legislature-appointed Senators for their states to request cooperation from Washington. Now, with popularly elected Senators, Governors mostly have to act like princeps maximus (in its original pre-Augustus meaning) - first citizen.
My problem with earmarks is not the citizen, governor, or business owner petitioning the Congress for help. My problem with earmarks is when the Senator or Representative buries the authorization for payment so no other member of Congress knows that it is there or puts it in the middle of a "must-pass" bill. These are sleazy tactics designed to do an end-run to debate and informed consent by the other legislators.
So why should governors not ask for Congress to do something for their home state again?
I really don't understand this logic. Governors used to have the ability to go to the legislature-appointed Senators for their states to request cooperation from Washington. Now, with popularly elected Senators, Governors mostly have to act like princeps maximus (in its original pre-Augustus meaning) - first citizen.
My problem with earmarks is not the citizen, governor, or business owner petitioning the Congress for help. My problem with earmarks is when the Senator or Representative buries the authorization for payment so no other member of Congress knows that it is there or puts it in the middle of a "must-pass" bill. These are sleazy tactics designed to do an end-run to debate and informed consent by the other legislators.
So why should governors not ask for Congress to do something for their home state again?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Why Should Palin and Voters Be Reverent Toward Obama's Community Organizing? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)
Why Should Palin and Voters Be Reverent Toward Obama's Community Organizing? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)
Not only is there a question on why to respect community organizing, but why should we respect socialist governments or overregulating governments with socialist tendencies, like Chicago?
A side question that arises is "Why is Chicago so in need of special agitation practices?"
My proposed answer is that Chicago is highly overregulated, leading to heavy reliance on politicians to constantly tinker with the rules. The greater need to change the rules, the greater need for political agitation (for the poor) or lobbying (for those better endowed with wealth).
My question for each politician that proposes change or even smaller changes: what is the ideal that you seek to implement? What example is closest?
If Chicago is the example that Obama intends to change Washington into (assuming that you don't believe that DC is already there), there will be greater need for Community Organizers also known as agitators.
If less government and fewer rules is what we seek, agitators and lobbyist will have less to do. There will be fewer opportunities for conflict and corruption.
Ironic, huh? Fewer rules promote legal compliance. Not just of the nature, if we removed the ban on murder, there would be fewer crimes reported. More accurately, an overeager land developer seeking to build his building will have less incentive to commit bribery or coercion to have ridiculous and arbitrary zoning rules lifted, amended, or ignored by inspectors.
Not only is there a question on why to respect community organizing, but why should we respect socialist governments or overregulating governments with socialist tendencies, like Chicago?
A side question that arises is "Why is Chicago so in need of special agitation practices?"
My proposed answer is that Chicago is highly overregulated, leading to heavy reliance on politicians to constantly tinker with the rules. The greater need to change the rules, the greater need for political agitation (for the poor) or lobbying (for those better endowed with wealth).
My question for each politician that proposes change or even smaller changes: what is the ideal that you seek to implement? What example is closest?
If Chicago is the example that Obama intends to change Washington into (assuming that you don't believe that DC is already there), there will be greater need for Community Organizers also known as agitators.
If less government and fewer rules is what we seek, agitators and lobbyist will have less to do. There will be fewer opportunities for conflict and corruption.
Ironic, huh? Fewer rules promote legal compliance. Not just of the nature, if we removed the ban on murder, there would be fewer crimes reported. More accurately, an overeager land developer seeking to build his building will have less incentive to commit bribery or coercion to have ridiculous and arbitrary zoning rules lifted, amended, or ignored by inspectors.
The Strata-Sphere » Anyone Still Believe The Liberal Propaganda About Being For The People?
The Strata-Sphere » Anyone Still Believe The Liberal Propaganda About Being For The People?
Strata-Sphere quotes an interesting liberal critique of Gov. Sarah Palin:
Frankly, we see in this quote that "ignorance of world affairs" is defined as a "need to repair America's image abroad." By this definition, a foreign policy that is based on treating America as in the wrong is indicative of knowledge in world affairs. Rejecting this premise is by definition ignorant. The logical consequence of this definition and its application is that any assertion of American propriety and power, regardless how long its proponent has studied the issue, will leave the proponent ignorant and unqualified in foreign affairs.
Further, any person willing to kowtow to foreign powers to raise "America's image" is intellectually enlightened. No study. No writing. No reflection. This person is intellectually adept. Add a Columbia undergraduate degree and a Harvard Law degree to the mix and the proponent is absolutely infallible in foreign policy.
I have looked for stories on Palin's interaction with other countries on these issues and have little to nothing.
Let us extrapolate for a moment, though. Suppose you live near the border of another country or two. Suppose you are involved in an industry that often is affected by international treaties. Suppose that industry is heavily regulated as result of those treaties and other domestic laws. Suppose that those treaties deal with those neighboring countries. As a result, coffee shop conversation between you and your compatriots in that industry are going to have a higher dose of international relations discussions than in my home state of Indiana. Does that qualify you as a stateman? No.
In the shadow of William F. Buckley, I would suggest, though, that you might be more qualified than a few of the names in the State Department's phone directory. I would also hazard a guess that you are going to learn issues related to those countries with interest if you are playing in politics, even at the state level. Does the state's National Guard have a role in Northern Command's defense of the homeland? I should hope. The governor, by her own Commandant's interview with Greta van Sustern, has been active in pushing legislation through the Alaska legislature to address troop and support concerns. She has been involved in budgeting for the Guard. I presume that part of the governor's training in transition into the office involves some orientation from the Guard and the Pentagon. This does not make her a strategic or tactical genius, but it is experience.
So poor definitions of what constitutes experience does not take into account both passive and active sources of information about international issues and command decisions.
Historically, our best presidents have had gubernatorial experience. Admittedly some of our worst were also governors (Carter, for instance).
For that I would merely turn to a lesson that I learned in a sales training class a few years back. The lesson focused on the salesman that had 10 years experience and his fellow salesman in the next cubicle with 2 years experience. If the veteran has bad results because he is using poor technique with no system for self-improvement and attempts to address new challenges, is he truly more experienced than the young whipper-snapper? Does your answer change if the younger salesman routinely studies is efforts and adapts his methods to increase his chances for success? What if the younger salesman keeps seeking different experiences: first with young clients, then older ones, then sales to groups of people, then to businesses directed by boards of directors?
The moral of the lesson: if you keep doing things the same old way, you don't have 10 years experience; you have one year's experience 10 times.
Studying Biden v. Palin, Obama v. McCain, or even Obama v. Palin, I keep hearing this thought in the back of my head that Biden has zero years of executive experience and zero years of real involvement in international affairs (albeit with 100.000 pages of briefing books). Obama has zero years of executive experience and 10,000 pages of briefing books. McCain, well, does 5 years in a foreign country as an adult and officer of the United States count as foreign policy experience, when you are negotiating with your own bones, skin, and blood?
Palin, no documented negotiation experience, but 2 years of supervision of negotiations with international oil companies, several Canadian provinces, and the Canadian federal government. What briefings has she receive from the US State Department on this matter? She has served in a legislative capacity at the most personal and brutal level, where the players can know your kids and see them at a basketball game or a restaurant. No threats suggested, but the politics of the personal is pretty tough. Ask any middle school girl.
Palin does not have the ideal resume. I like it far better than the entire Democrat ticket.
Strata-Sphere quotes an interesting liberal critique of Gov. Sarah Palin:
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.(Emphasis added.) The whole liberal motif that Sarah Palin is not qualified because she has no foreign policy experience is exposed in this quote. By inference, the same motif suggests Sen. Obama's supposed qualification on foreign policy with the same or less experience (e.g., Palin's involvement with natural gas pipeline through Canada; fishing ground issues with Russia, Korea, Japan, etc. as a commercial fishing family if not at a policy level) because he has been editing and reading policy papers on the subjects for 18 months.
Look at what she stands for:
* Small town values — a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
* Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.
Frankly, we see in this quote that "ignorance of world affairs" is defined as a "need to repair America's image abroad." By this definition, a foreign policy that is based on treating America as in the wrong is indicative of knowledge in world affairs. Rejecting this premise is by definition ignorant. The logical consequence of this definition and its application is that any assertion of American propriety and power, regardless how long its proponent has studied the issue, will leave the proponent ignorant and unqualified in foreign affairs.
Further, any person willing to kowtow to foreign powers to raise "America's image" is intellectually enlightened. No study. No writing. No reflection. This person is intellectually adept. Add a Columbia undergraduate degree and a Harvard Law degree to the mix and the proponent is absolutely infallible in foreign policy.
I have looked for stories on Palin's interaction with other countries on these issues and have little to nothing.
Let us extrapolate for a moment, though. Suppose you live near the border of another country or two. Suppose you are involved in an industry that often is affected by international treaties. Suppose that industry is heavily regulated as result of those treaties and other domestic laws. Suppose that those treaties deal with those neighboring countries. As a result, coffee shop conversation between you and your compatriots in that industry are going to have a higher dose of international relations discussions than in my home state of Indiana. Does that qualify you as a stateman? No.
In the shadow of William F. Buckley, I would suggest, though, that you might be more qualified than a few of the names in the State Department's phone directory. I would also hazard a guess that you are going to learn issues related to those countries with interest if you are playing in politics, even at the state level. Does the state's National Guard have a role in Northern Command's defense of the homeland? I should hope. The governor, by her own Commandant's interview with Greta van Sustern, has been active in pushing legislation through the Alaska legislature to address troop and support concerns. She has been involved in budgeting for the Guard. I presume that part of the governor's training in transition into the office involves some orientation from the Guard and the Pentagon. This does not make her a strategic or tactical genius, but it is experience.
So poor definitions of what constitutes experience does not take into account both passive and active sources of information about international issues and command decisions.
Historically, our best presidents have had gubernatorial experience. Admittedly some of our worst were also governors (Carter, for instance).
For that I would merely turn to a lesson that I learned in a sales training class a few years back. The lesson focused on the salesman that had 10 years experience and his fellow salesman in the next cubicle with 2 years experience. If the veteran has bad results because he is using poor technique with no system for self-improvement and attempts to address new challenges, is he truly more experienced than the young whipper-snapper? Does your answer change if the younger salesman routinely studies is efforts and adapts his methods to increase his chances for success? What if the younger salesman keeps seeking different experiences: first with young clients, then older ones, then sales to groups of people, then to businesses directed by boards of directors?
The moral of the lesson: if you keep doing things the same old way, you don't have 10 years experience; you have one year's experience 10 times.
Studying Biden v. Palin, Obama v. McCain, or even Obama v. Palin, I keep hearing this thought in the back of my head that Biden has zero years of executive experience and zero years of real involvement in international affairs (albeit with 100.000 pages of briefing books). Obama has zero years of executive experience and 10,000 pages of briefing books. McCain, well, does 5 years in a foreign country as an adult and officer of the United States count as foreign policy experience, when you are negotiating with your own bones, skin, and blood?
Palin, no documented negotiation experience, but 2 years of supervision of negotiations with international oil companies, several Canadian provinces, and the Canadian federal government. What briefings has she receive from the US State Department on this matter? She has served in a legislative capacity at the most personal and brutal level, where the players can know your kids and see them at a basketball game or a restaurant. No threats suggested, but the politics of the personal is pretty tough. Ask any middle school girl.
Palin does not have the ideal resume. I like it far better than the entire Democrat ticket.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Obama's "community organizer" phase was about political power, not soup kitchens | The Windy Citizen
Obama's "community organizer" phase was about political power, not soup kitchens | The Windy Citizen
This is the first explanation of what "community organizer" means in practice.
Even more interesting is the summary explanation of Alinsky and his methods at http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Saul-Alinsky-la-campagne.html. For those that don't speak French, a computerized translation is here.
Even Barry didn't believe in Community Organizing. He left its impoverishing and unfulfilling work for Harvard Law School.
This is the first explanation of what "community organizer" means in practice.
Even more interesting is the summary explanation of Alinsky and his methods at http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Saul-Alinsky-la-campagne.html. For those that don't speak French, a computerized translation is here.
Even Barry didn't believe in Community Organizing. He left its impoverishing and unfulfilling work for Harvard Law School.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Power Line: Shale Oil To Be Developed, But Not Here
Power Line: Shale Oil To Be Developed, But Not Here
I have a great idea for increasing our oil reserves 100-fold within 24 hours! Vote Republican in November. (Assuming that the weak-kneed Republicans vote correctly on January 4, 2009!!)
This is an important point: the US having 3% of the world's oil reserves is part fact (oil in ground) and part regulation (oil we are ALLOWED to access).
We know the oil is in the ground in many locations. The US Geological Survey has established that (even in its extraordinarily conservative methodology). Kudos for good science.
Now we just need to purge the Democrats from Congress that prevent us from being the Middle East Oil Supply Killer that we have the potential to be.
What would happen to world politics if the barrel price of oil fell to $45 with little chance Middle East politics would change that? What if most of the money for oil extraction stayed in the US? What if the Saudis, Venzeulans, and Russians made far less profit margins? What would the US State Department's job be?
Palestinian terrorists with less money. Poorer Wahabiists in Arabia. Impoverished Russian politicians. Chavez with no bank account. Wealthier Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Australians, Africans (outside of Nigeria), Dhubai subjects.
Which world would you prefer to live in?
I have a great idea for increasing our oil reserves 100-fold within 24 hours! Vote Republican in November. (Assuming that the weak-kneed Republicans vote correctly on January 4, 2009!!)
This is an important point: the US having 3% of the world's oil reserves is part fact (oil in ground) and part regulation (oil we are ALLOWED to access).
We know the oil is in the ground in many locations. The US Geological Survey has established that (even in its extraordinarily conservative methodology). Kudos for good science.
Now we just need to purge the Democrats from Congress that prevent us from being the Middle East Oil Supply Killer that we have the potential to be.
What would happen to world politics if the barrel price of oil fell to $45 with little chance Middle East politics would change that? What if most of the money for oil extraction stayed in the US? What if the Saudis, Venzeulans, and Russians made far less profit margins? What would the US State Department's job be?
Palestinian terrorists with less money. Poorer Wahabiists in Arabia. Impoverished Russian politicians. Chavez with no bank account. Wealthier Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Australians, Africans (outside of Nigeria), Dhubai subjects.
Which world would you prefer to live in?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency | U.S. | Reuters
Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency | U.S. | Reuters
This is an old story by this point, but it is enough to scare me off windmills as a good source of stable, steady energy source. I wouldn't mind if we have batteries or electricity storage capacity to even out the distribution of electricity. But we don't. Solar and wind have peak production times and no-production times. Not natural gas. Not coal. Just shovel more coal and you have more electricity. Regardless of the whims of mother nature.
The secret to wind power is that you need to have natural gas or coal on emergency backup. One estimate that I heard suggested that it needs to use nearly 90% of the energy that using natural gas and coal as the primary source.
Ten percent is nothing to sneeze at, but why waste billions of dollars to make low marginal savings that could be spent on increasing the fossil fuels efficiencies?
This is an old story by this point, but it is enough to scare me off windmills as a good source of stable, steady energy source. I wouldn't mind if we have batteries or electricity storage capacity to even out the distribution of electricity. But we don't. Solar and wind have peak production times and no-production times. Not natural gas. Not coal. Just shovel more coal and you have more electricity. Regardless of the whims of mother nature.
The secret to wind power is that you need to have natural gas or coal on emergency backup. One estimate that I heard suggested that it needs to use nearly 90% of the energy that using natural gas and coal as the primary source.
Ten percent is nothing to sneeze at, but why waste billions of dollars to make low marginal savings that could be spent on increasing the fossil fuels efficiencies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)