AP is actually fact checking President Obama’s nonsense about pork and earmarks.
Category Archives: Political Commentary
Can Obama Ban Space Weapons?
Some thoughts from (space lawyer) Glenn Reynolds.
Deprogramming Students
Thomas Sowell has some useful thoughts.
What Do You Think?
OK, so we have a bill that has passed both the House and the Senate, both of which are controlled by the Democrats. In both houses, they were rushed through with little debate, and in the House, it was almost entirely crafted by the Democratic leadership, without even significant input from the Blue Dogs, let alone the Republicans. It is hundreds of pages, and totals close to a trillion dollars (a mind-numbing number that may necessitate updating the old Dirksen quote) in new spending, paid for with money that the nation doesn’t have. It has many items in it that are not obviously aimed at stimulating the economy, but rather in advancing various social and political goals, but it’s hard to be sure because few have had the opportunity to even read, let alone comprehend the whole thing.
Now which is the more likely scenario?
A. It is the output of a sober, long-debated process that was totally focused on improving the American economy, carefully considering the potential unintended consequences of every item in the bill, with associated committee hearings and qualified witnesses, or
B. It is an overnight cut’n’paste concatenation of every item on pent-up Democrats’ wish lists going back to 1994, when they lost control of the Congress, because everyone wants to get a ride on the late-Christmas tree that is sure to go through via fearmongering by a popular new president.
Come on, folks. William of Ockham had just the tool for this conundrum.
I know where my money is.
Thoughts On Paul Krugman
From Will Wilkinson. They’re not pretty.
Straw Men
I’m listening to the president, and on the verge of throwing something at the flat screen. I’m very tired of hearing him make the vague “argument” that we can’t get out of this situation with the “same failed policies of the past eight years.” This is apparently an argument against tax cuts in the “stimulus” bill, though it’s hard to know, because it’s vague. Why won’t some reporter ask him what in the hell he’s talking about? To actually put forth his supposed theory of how we got here, and what “failed policies” caused it? Because if he’s arguing that we’re in trouble because of tax rate cuts, that’s a ludicrous proposition. He seems desperate, and has fallen back on the only thing he seems to know how to do — campaign with vague and misleading rhetoric.
Charles Johnson has further commentary on these Obama strawmen.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some questions that the president should, but probably won’t be asked tonight.
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson:
…things are upside down: The conservatives are mad that Bush over-spent, and suddenly when out of power want to restore fiscal sanity, while Obama says that the Bush borrowing brought on this mess and must be addressed by more borrowing. What is what? Conservatives suddenly are once again fiscal purists when out of power? Liberals blame Bush for reckless Keynesian spending and want to cure it by more of the same?
Few tell the truth: The conservatives should say ‘Mea culpa—our deficit spending and borrowing helped to get us into this mess, so we’ve seen the error of our ways, and want you liberals not to repeat our mistakes.’ And the liberals should say, ‘Bush on the budget was one of us in borrowing and spending and priming, so we can’t really trash the last eight years since we’re now advocating more of the same.’
Yes, few tell the truth. Including, foremost, the president.
[Update late morning]
“The worst bill since the 1930s.” An interview with economist Robert Barro.
[Evening update]
He’s doing the press conference now, and repeating the stupid, false history that we’ve done nothing in the past eight years except tax cuts. I want to throw a shoe at him.
[Bumped from this morning]
[Update a few minutes later]
He claims that he’s been “civil” and “respectable.” I don’t think that it’s either civil or respectable to set up strawman arguments based on a false history, and kick them down. And now he’s claiming that there are no earmarks in this package? Please.
This Is Stimulus?
One of the (no doubt many) economic time bombs in the bill could force employers to extend COBRA for decades. What’s the problem?
The HR departments for large employers are looking at this provision with great alarm, as indicated in this policy brief. PricewaterhouseCoopers produced an analysis which pegs the ten-year cost of this provision at $39 billion to $65 billion just for those current COBRA-eligible workers age 55 to 64. The estimated costs would be even higher if the analysis assumed, as is reasonable, that many more workers would elect early retirement if they were assured of access to group-rated insurance.
What would employers do if faced with the costs of implementing this provision? It’s fairly predictable. They would hire fewer workers, and pay their current employees less. Not exactly “stimulus.”
Indeed, this is exactly the kind of complex provision which should be considered by Congress only after careful study and a hearing or two to avoid unintended consequences. Certainly it has no business on a bill purportedly aimed at promoting short-term job growth. Unfortunately, logic and reason may not be enough to prevail in the current mad-dash rush to “pass something.”
I suspect that most of the bill is like that. This is madness. The Founders would be appalled at what has happened to the Republic.
Where’s The Hurry?
Ramesh makes a damned good point:
If time is of the essence and the bill has to pass right now, as Democrats keep saying, why should there be a conference committee at all? As soon as the Senate bill passes, Pelosi should just bring it up in the House and urge the Democrats to put the putative good of the country first. The bill could be on the president’s desk by Wednesday afternoon. If there’s time for the House Democrats to try to improve the bill/pork it up, why isn’t there time for anyone else to try to get a better product?
I guess because it can only be improved by House Democrats.
Everything You Know Is Wrong
…about the Vietnam War. The first in a series.
Is Space The Next Frontier?
Nader Elhefnawy remains skeptical. But I think he misses one of the strongest drivers, only mentioning it once, almost in passing:
Such miseries as famine, war, and persecution cannot be ruled out in the future, of course, but they are hardly a likely driver of space development. In fact, given the extraordinary economic demands that any space development effort will make, it may be much more practical for a prospering world than one suffering through such disasters to undertake such efforts in any foreseeable future.
Emphasis mine. One of these things is not like the other. One can have persecution in the midst of prosperity, and that combination may well result in emigration, just as it did from England to the Americas in the seventeenth century, and from the American east to Utah in the nineteenth. I think that a combination of a desire for freedom in concert with evolving technology is the most likely driver for human migration into space. Unless we’ve all uploaded ourselves first.
[Late morning update]
Clark Lindsey doesn’t buy Elhefnawy’s thesis:
If there existed large O’Neill habitats today, there would be no problem in attracting tens of thousands or even a few million people to move to them. The number will depend on the cost of getting there but when talking about a fraction of a percent of the world’s population, you can find that many people to do virtually anything. The excitement of building a new world in the new environment of space will be charm enough to attract large numbers of people.
Of course, the trick is finding a way of getting from where we are today to a point where building large habitats becomes feasible. I agree that such progress will not be attained by individuals heading out into the last frontier in their own spaceships. But that does not mean that individual action is not the essential element in making it happen. Even if one buys the revisionist view that the expansion into the American West was primarily due to “railroads and speculators, [] logging companies and mining concerns”, one should remember the fact that these organizations were made up of individuals who took huge personal risks. Many, if not most, of those companies and concerns failed and took down all the individuals involved with them. Similarly today the individuals involved in a private entrepreneurial space start-up are taking huge risks with their careers and investments. Many, if not most, of those firms will fail. The people involved know the risks but they make the effort anyway. That is the nature of tough endeavors on earth and it is the same for space.
Of course, perhaps the biggest question is whether modern culture and government will allow, let alone encourage, such risk taking.