My good Internet buddy Bill Barker of Usually Right e-mailed me this link. In it, Professor Willem Buiter of the London School of Economics questions the proposed stimulus plan.
Bill (both Barker and Buiter) is preaching to the choir here. President Bush is afraid of being accused of doing nothing like Herbert Hoover. Of course, Hoover did actually do lots of things, mostly what President Bush is trying now, a stimulus package and loans to industry. They did not work and when tied with the 1930 Fed's decision to tightened credit, turned a bad recession in the Great Depression.
The problem is bad debt which is causing a lack of confidence. If I was in charge, I would have not done the bail out. I would keep interest rates moderately low and allow the banks liquidity, but put the worst entities into bankruptcy. They could have then restructured if they had value in an orderly fashion.
With respect to the debt crisis, I would recognize the problem is too much debt and bad debt at that. Again, no bail out, but as necessary loosen up laws to make it easier to renegotiate the debt, or write off debt in bankruptcy equal to collateral. Spend the money assisting those in greatest difficulty due to the financial crisis.
But no one listens to me (or Bill for that matter). So we will have more bail outs and a "stimulus" plan we cannot offer which will have dubious value. Speaking of which Barrack! Where is my check!
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Monday, December 22, 2008
I for one . . .
Welcome our new socialist overlords!
Back in the dying days of the election, I posted about whether I thought Barack Obama was a socialist (a question which gained traction after the "Joe the Plumber" incident). At the time I said that I doubted he was, but thought Obama was more of a managerial state type. Obama's picks so far seem somewhat centrist, so I still feel the same way. Even his proposed stimulus plan seems more like a conventional Keynesian program, writ large.
In any event, given that President Bush seems content to nationalize the economy, even without Congressional approval, there may be nothing left for President Elect Obama to nationalize, once he gets into office. So the question is somewhat moot.
So in the spirit of Christmas Nationalized:
I have been warning for years that the cats are plotting against us!
Back in the dying days of the election, I posted about whether I thought Barack Obama was a socialist (a question which gained traction after the "Joe the Plumber" incident). At the time I said that I doubted he was, but thought Obama was more of a managerial state type. Obama's picks so far seem somewhat centrist, so I still feel the same way. Even his proposed stimulus plan seems more like a conventional Keynesian program, writ large.
In any event, given that President Bush seems content to nationalize the economy, even without Congressional approval, there may be nothing left for President Elect Obama to nationalize, once he gets into office. So the question is somewhat moot.
So in the spirit of Christmas Nationalized:
I have been warning for years that the cats are plotting against us!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Bush takes on the Zombie Threat
It is my belief that for too long, the government is ignoring the threat of zombies. This has required the citizenry to take matters into our own hands.
At last, President Bush is taking action. Is it any coincidence that the Navy shot down that failed satellite today?
(HT: The Anchoress)
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The State of the Union
I avoided it and watched "Advise and Consent" instead. Frankly, I am tired of George Bush and want him to go away. After January 20, 2009, he can retire to Florida and write his memoirs.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
My E-Mail to the President on Pakistan
I e-mailed the president earlier today on Pakistan. It will not do any good, but it will make me feel better.
Subject: Pakistan
To: comments@whitehouse.gov
CC: vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Dear Mister President:
I am writing to express hope that you will speak out forcefully and quickly against the declaration of emergency in Pakistan. According to press reports, you have called President Musharraf and pushed for elections. You must go further. On places like Lebanon, Ukraine and most recently Burma, you have spoken out eloquently in defense of liberalization and democracy. Pakistan's struggle is no different. While realpolitik might call for continued support of the Pakistani regime in the fight against terrorism and to help Afghanistan, that is short sighted thinking.
No matter what course is taken, Pakistan is going to explode. Speak out against the emergency and in support of those demonstrating for the return of the constitutional order. They are not only fighting for democracy against a military government, they are also under threat of Islamic terrorists who wish to turn Pakistan into a rerun of Taliban run Afghanistan. They need and deserve our support. Their fight is our fight, both short term and long term.
I know you face difficult choices each day I can only imagine. Please know that my prayers are with you.
Subject: Pakistan
To: comments@whitehouse.gov
CC: vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Dear Mister President:
I am writing to express hope that you will speak out forcefully and quickly against the declaration of emergency in Pakistan. According to press reports, you have called President Musharraf and pushed for elections. You must go further. On places like Lebanon, Ukraine and most recently Burma, you have spoken out eloquently in defense of liberalization and democracy. Pakistan's struggle is no different. While realpolitik might call for continued support of the Pakistani regime in the fight against terrorism and to help Afghanistan, that is short sighted thinking.
No matter what course is taken, Pakistan is going to explode. Speak out against the emergency and in support of those demonstrating for the return of the constitutional order. They are not only fighting for democracy against a military government, they are also under threat of Islamic terrorists who wish to turn Pakistan into a rerun of Taliban run Afghanistan. They need and deserve our support. Their fight is our fight, both short term and long term.
I know you face difficult choices each day I can only imagine. Please know that my prayers are with you.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Why a Clinton Presidency is all but Inevitable
Robert George on his blog had something quite interesting to say about the GOP nominating process:
"The double-curse that Republicans bequeath the country is to elect a Bush, who they believe will govern as a Reagan. When that Bush fails, the country responds by electing a Clinton -- who inevitably manage to make the country learn to love government."
I believe there is truth here. As a young GOP true believer, I worked on Bush's campaign in 1988. I thought it would be "phase II" of the Reagan Revolution -- following through on reducing government and the growing deficit but taking off the hard edges. That of course was not to be.
We then ended up with Bill Clinton, who promised that the days of big government were over, then immediately introduced socialized medicine. Learning his lesson, for 8 years he played the Democratic desire for government solutions against the Republican distrust of big government.
So hoping for a Reagan Revival, the GOP looked to the Bush Family again. And we ended up there with big government conservatism.
Which makes a Hilliary Clinton presidency all but inevitable. I wonder if First Lady Bill will look good in a dress.
"The double-curse that Republicans bequeath the country is to elect a Bush, who they believe will govern as a Reagan. When that Bush fails, the country responds by electing a Clinton -- who inevitably manage to make the country learn to love government."
I believe there is truth here. As a young GOP true believer, I worked on Bush's campaign in 1988. I thought it would be "phase II" of the Reagan Revolution -- following through on reducing government and the growing deficit but taking off the hard edges. That of course was not to be.
We then ended up with Bill Clinton, who promised that the days of big government were over, then immediately introduced socialized medicine. Learning his lesson, for 8 years he played the Democratic desire for government solutions against the Republican distrust of big government.
So hoping for a Reagan Revival, the GOP looked to the Bush Family again. And we ended up there with big government conservatism.
Which makes a Hilliary Clinton presidency all but inevitable. I wonder if First Lady Bill will look good in a dress.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Bush Speech on Iraq
I did not see the speech but read it on Instapundit. The speech was as expected, especially following the Petraeus Report. Namely, the surge will now be wound down.
Looking at this from afar, my concern is that once US troops leave, the violence begins again. But keeping a large army in Iraq indefinitely is not an option. The real issue is whether the Iraqi government is serious enough to take control. It seems at times that the Iraqi government is not really interested in getting their country in order. n While I think it was good to give Iraq breathing space, it is now time to give the government there a timetable. We keep some troops behind to help train the Iraqi Army and to hit back at al-Qaeda is they get active, but otherwise get ready to turn the country over to the Iraqis.
Yes, this sounds a lot like the Obama plan.
One change I would make though is to also keep some presence in the Kurdish territories. The Kurds are the largest "nation" without a state and the victim of a great historical wrong after World World. After being essentially promised a state in return for rising against the Turks, post war political considerations intervened. The Turks make a stronger play once the war ended so the much of northern Kurdistan ended up in Turkey. As France and Persia had been promised concessions, some Kurds ended up in those countries. And finally, the Kurds of Iraq were scarified to British concerns, especially articulated by Gertrude Bell, that the Kurdish oil fields be assigned to the new nation of Iraq.
Given regional politics, a true Kurdish state is not possible now. It would cause too many problems with Turkey and also cause problems in Syria and Iran. But the Kurds seem more interested in cleaning up their little patch of land rather than killing each other and assisting them now could right this great wrong. It also may cause problems in Turkey, but hopefully not. One civil war at a time.
The Shia and Sunni Arabs of Iraq will finally need to figure out how to live together. The strife goes back to the days of Mohammed's successors, but the immediate cause again has its genesis in post World War I politics. When the British found themselves in control of the region, they looked around for local leaders to take control., As the British were comfortable with monarchies, they supported and built up the various emirs and tribal leaders. In the case of Iraq, the British looked to Prince Faisal, one of the leaders of the desert revolt made famous by Lawrence of Arabia. Faisal initially was to head a pan-Arab government based in Syria. That would have put him (and the British) in conflict with the French, who expected to receive Syria as the fruits of victory. So they killed two birds with one stone.
The problem was that as a Hashimite, Faisal was a Sunni Arab in a country where Sunni Arabs were a minority. Besides the Kurds, then as now, the largest ethnic group were the Shia Arabs. Also, at the time, the largest Jewish community of Baghdad was influential, due to their location in the capital and importance to the economy. Add the various Christian sects and the odd Turk, and Iraq was already an ethnic stew. The Shia for various reasons refused to join in the government, so Iraq early on was hobbled by the fact that a significant portion of the population (the Kurds and Shia) were not actively engaged in the process of government.
While the Jews were pushed out of the country following the Arab-Israeli wars, the remaining ethnic complexity remains. Sunnis fear retribution for 90 years of control, the Shia finally have control, and the Kurds seem to be interested in staying out of the way of the Shia and Sunni. Hence, the Iraqi government is afraid to tread into the stew and to reach a solution. For that reason, a timetable needs to be in place. The Iraqi government need to be forced to get its act together. Right now, with US troops patrolling their country, it is unnecessary for them to act. During the Desert Revolt, Lawrence of Arabia rejected the offer of British combat troops (though he accepted specialists). His reasoning was so long as there were British troops to do the fighting, the Arab army would let the British do it. Then as now, the only way to get the Iraqis to take control is to make it clear that they will have to, that once a certain date comes, we leave.
Looking at this from afar, my concern is that once US troops leave, the violence begins again. But keeping a large army in Iraq indefinitely is not an option. The real issue is whether the Iraqi government is serious enough to take control. It seems at times that the Iraqi government is not really interested in getting their country in order. n While I think it was good to give Iraq breathing space, it is now time to give the government there a timetable. We keep some troops behind to help train the Iraqi Army and to hit back at al-Qaeda is they get active, but otherwise get ready to turn the country over to the Iraqis.
Yes, this sounds a lot like the Obama plan.
One change I would make though is to also keep some presence in the Kurdish territories. The Kurds are the largest "nation" without a state and the victim of a great historical wrong after World World. After being essentially promised a state in return for rising against the Turks, post war political considerations intervened. The Turks make a stronger play once the war ended so the much of northern Kurdistan ended up in Turkey. As France and Persia had been promised concessions, some Kurds ended up in those countries. And finally, the Kurds of Iraq were scarified to British concerns, especially articulated by Gertrude Bell, that the Kurdish oil fields be assigned to the new nation of Iraq.
Given regional politics, a true Kurdish state is not possible now. It would cause too many problems with Turkey and also cause problems in Syria and Iran. But the Kurds seem more interested in cleaning up their little patch of land rather than killing each other and assisting them now could right this great wrong. It also may cause problems in Turkey, but hopefully not. One civil war at a time.
The Shia and Sunni Arabs of Iraq will finally need to figure out how to live together. The strife goes back to the days of Mohammed's successors, but the immediate cause again has its genesis in post World War I politics. When the British found themselves in control of the region, they looked around for local leaders to take control., As the British were comfortable with monarchies, they supported and built up the various emirs and tribal leaders. In the case of Iraq, the British looked to Prince Faisal, one of the leaders of the desert revolt made famous by Lawrence of Arabia. Faisal initially was to head a pan-Arab government based in Syria. That would have put him (and the British) in conflict with the French, who expected to receive Syria as the fruits of victory. So they killed two birds with one stone.
The problem was that as a Hashimite, Faisal was a Sunni Arab in a country where Sunni Arabs were a minority. Besides the Kurds, then as now, the largest ethnic group were the Shia Arabs. Also, at the time, the largest Jewish community of Baghdad was influential, due to their location in the capital and importance to the economy. Add the various Christian sects and the odd Turk, and Iraq was already an ethnic stew. The Shia for various reasons refused to join in the government, so Iraq early on was hobbled by the fact that a significant portion of the population (the Kurds and Shia) were not actively engaged in the process of government.
While the Jews were pushed out of the country following the Arab-Israeli wars, the remaining ethnic complexity remains. Sunnis fear retribution for 90 years of control, the Shia finally have control, and the Kurds seem to be interested in staying out of the way of the Shia and Sunni. Hence, the Iraqi government is afraid to tread into the stew and to reach a solution. For that reason, a timetable needs to be in place. The Iraqi government need to be forced to get its act together. Right now, with US troops patrolling their country, it is unnecessary for them to act. During the Desert Revolt, Lawrence of Arabia rejected the offer of British combat troops (though he accepted specialists). His reasoning was so long as there were British troops to do the fighting, the Arab army would let the British do it. Then as now, the only way to get the Iraqis to take control is to make it clear that they will have to, that once a certain date comes, we leave.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Iraq Now
Obviously, Iraq has been and will continue to be the big issue for the remainder of the Bush presidency. I supported the invasion (for what my support is worth). I also think the Bush Administration has completely mishandled everything from the day US troops entered Baghdad. Why is it that 4 years after the invasion Iraq still has a barely functioning government and hardly an army? Why is it that it took this long to pass the oil law? President Bush during the 2004 debate stated that "as Iraqis step up we step down" so why 3 years later are more US troops being sent in?
Why has it taken so long to change tactics?
Some say Hussein was not a threat to the US, but considering the importance of oil to the world economy, he was. I also feel that Bush was essentially saying the same thing the Clinton Administration was saying about Hussein and about his supposed WMD program.
But the WMD program was not really the reason I supported the invasion. One reason was that bin Laden was driven crazy by the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. These troops were there to protect the Saudi oil fields from Iraq. With Hussein gone, the US troops could leave, and that point of contention would disappear or at least be reduced (for fanatics like bin Laden of course, though, he would just find something new to complain about).
The second reason was to right a wrong that began with the post-World War I settlement in the region. The Kurds were promised their own state after World War I, but the resurgence of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal ended that dream. Gertrude Bell also feared that an independent Kurdistan would be landlocked and would economically weaken the new Iraqi state, so what is now Iraqi Kurdistan (and its oil fields) were included in Iraq. If Michael Totten is to be believed, the Kurds are trying to build a society while Baghdad and the rest of Iraq burns.
So much has gone wrong, but at least for the Kurds it has gone right.
Why has it taken so long to change tactics?
Some say Hussein was not a threat to the US, but considering the importance of oil to the world economy, he was. I also feel that Bush was essentially saying the same thing the Clinton Administration was saying about Hussein and about his supposed WMD program.
But the WMD program was not really the reason I supported the invasion. One reason was that bin Laden was driven crazy by the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. These troops were there to protect the Saudi oil fields from Iraq. With Hussein gone, the US troops could leave, and that point of contention would disappear or at least be reduced (for fanatics like bin Laden of course, though, he would just find something new to complain about).
The second reason was to right a wrong that began with the post-World War I settlement in the region. The Kurds were promised their own state after World War I, but the resurgence of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal ended that dream. Gertrude Bell also feared that an independent Kurdistan would be landlocked and would economically weaken the new Iraqi state, so what is now Iraqi Kurdistan (and its oil fields) were included in Iraq. If Michael Totten is to be believed, the Kurds are trying to build a society while Baghdad and the rest of Iraq burns.
So much has gone wrong, but at least for the Kurds it has gone right.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Pardon Me
Or at least pardon Scooter Libby.
Considering that President Bush seems unwilling to use a veto pen, why is he in effect vetoing the conviction? To be truthful, I am not entirely sure what to think about the case. It seems to me that Libby probably did not technically violate the law by revealing Valarie Plame's identity. However, he did lie about it to a grand jury. Considering the importance of national security, I cannot see why Bush did it. While Libby MAY not have technically violated the law, the people at the CIA now think that the government will not protect them. These folks, even those technically not covert, rely on their anonymity to do their job. Libby has threatened that anonymity. In lying to a grand jury, Libby ignored the importance of the law.
Of course, National Review is pointing out that President Clinton granted clemency to Puerto Rican terrorists and that Senator Schumer called for clemency to Jonathan Pollard. None of the above deserved clemency, but that does not change the fact that the President Bush was wrong. It is also telling that Bush has rarely granted clemency, and when he has, it has been for actions that occurred long ago.
This is yet another example of President Bush's tone deafness. If there was any doubt, he is now a lame duck, and one that has stopped quacking.
Considering that President Bush seems unwilling to use a veto pen, why is he in effect vetoing the conviction? To be truthful, I am not entirely sure what to think about the case. It seems to me that Libby probably did not technically violate the law by revealing Valarie Plame's identity. However, he did lie about it to a grand jury. Considering the importance of national security, I cannot see why Bush did it. While Libby MAY not have technically violated the law, the people at the CIA now think that the government will not protect them. These folks, even those technically not covert, rely on their anonymity to do their job. Libby has threatened that anonymity. In lying to a grand jury, Libby ignored the importance of the law.
Of course, National Review is pointing out that President Clinton granted clemency to Puerto Rican terrorists and that Senator Schumer called for clemency to Jonathan Pollard. None of the above deserved clemency, but that does not change the fact that the President Bush was wrong. It is also telling that Bush has rarely granted clemency, and when he has, it has been for actions that occurred long ago.
This is yet another example of President Bush's tone deafness. If there was any doubt, he is now a lame duck, and one that has stopped quacking.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Bush's Political Capital
Instapundit thinks President Bush as squandered the last of his political capital on immigration. The immigration fight appears to be the last straw for many conservatives , and those that have not already deserted him, are on their way out. Many of the freshman Democrats are more of the conservative "blue dog" variety -- Senator Webb for example is more of an old time populist/economic nationalist and has little in common with the latte drinking yuppie liberals who dominate the Democrats today. They will not support this bill. But the real question should be did President Bush have any political capital left at all?
President Bush has thrown out a Hail Mary to try and salvage some legacy, and it looks like it will fail. The bill is extremely unpopular and even though I support it I can understand why. If you are a conservative, do you trust this president to follow up on the promised enforcement. Most likely the next president is a Democrat. If it turns out to be a liberal such as Obama or Edwards, will there be the follow through on enforcement? And if it is Hillary Clinton, considering that the Clinton years saw an explosion in the number of illegal immigrants, can she be trusted with enforcement?
For many conservatives, the answer seems to be no -- they believe that enforcement will not occur tomorrow, so they are refusing to support amnesty today.
And Bush has gotten very little for his gamble. The Democrats will not support him on Iraq of course and some Democrats are now calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Considering that Karl Rove is supposed to be some sort of super genius, one wonders if Bush was just lucky for all this time. The tone deafness, even to his own base, continues to be extraordinary.
President Bush has thrown out a Hail Mary to try and salvage some legacy, and it looks like it will fail. The bill is extremely unpopular and even though I support it I can understand why. If you are a conservative, do you trust this president to follow up on the promised enforcement. Most likely the next president is a Democrat. If it turns out to be a liberal such as Obama or Edwards, will there be the follow through on enforcement? And if it is Hillary Clinton, considering that the Clinton years saw an explosion in the number of illegal immigrants, can she be trusted with enforcement?
For many conservatives, the answer seems to be no -- they believe that enforcement will not occur tomorrow, so they are refusing to support amnesty today.
And Bush has gotten very little for his gamble. The Democrats will not support him on Iraq of course and some Democrats are now calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Considering that Karl Rove is supposed to be some sort of super genius, one wonders if Bush was just lucky for all this time. The tone deafness, even to his own base, continues to be extraordinary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
