Reading the news that General Motors and Chrysler are now lining up for another $20 billion or so in government aid — on top of the billions they’ve already received or requested — leaves me with the sick feeling that we are subsidizing the losers and for only one reason: because they claim that their funerals would cost more than keeping them on life support. Sorry, friends, but this is not the American way. Bailing out the losers is not how we got rich as a country, and it is not how we’ll get out of this crisis.
NYT Article
While I am not in 100% agreement with the rest of his analysis, Friedman makes a very good point. If you absolutely have to use taxpayer money to try and jump start the economy, which I am not sure you do, then why waste it on propping up failed companies? Rather than throwing away money on those who have already showed their propensity for failure, lets give new industries, with fresh new ideas, a chance to shine. If I HAVE to give my hard-earned money away, I would rather use it give an upcoming business a shot at making it, than hand it over to someone who has already flushed millions down the economic toilet. Just a thought.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama Pledges More Troops to Afghanistan
President Barack Obama has approved a significant troop increase for Afghanistan, Pentagon officials told CNN Tuesday.
Aside from a few of his cabinet picks, this is the first decision that Obama has made that I agree with. While I might have a few concerns regarding the troop withdrawal from Iraq, I have said many times that I would support troop reduction in Iraq if it is done properly. I will withhold judgment until I see more details to this plan.
Aside from a few of his cabinet picks, this is the first decision that Obama has made that I agree with. While I might have a few concerns regarding the troop withdrawal from Iraq, I have said many times that I would support troop reduction in Iraq if it is done properly. I will withhold judgment until I see more details to this plan.
Still a Manufacturing Competitor
Manufacturing in the United States isn't dead or even dying. It's moving upscale, following the biggest profits, and becoming more efficient, just like Henry Ford did when he created the assembly line to make the Model T. The U.S. by far remains the world's leading manufacturer by value of goods produced. It hit a record $1.6 trillion in 2007 — nearly double the $811 billion in 1987. For every $1 of value produced in China's factories, America generates $2.50.
MSN
Despite some pretty alarming drops in manufacturing, we still are doing well, depending on how you look at it. We are producing more in areas in which we excel, while other industries are losing to foreign competitors. Its all about specialization. Good for some, not so good for others. That's the market for you.
MSN
Despite some pretty alarming drops in manufacturing, we still are doing well, depending on how you look at it. We are producing more in areas in which we excel, while other industries are losing to foreign competitors. Its all about specialization. Good for some, not so good for others. That's the market for you.
Wall Street Crystal Ball
The stock market doesn't have much to hang its hat on. With the stream of corporate earnings reports waning and President Barack Obama preparing to sign the $787 billion stimulus package, investors this week will be looking for fresh clues about the economy. Wall Street has been busy focusing on companies' quarterly numbers and the developments in Washington. Now, investors are faced with finding less obvious answers to the question "What's next?"
MSN
Put simply: no one knows what to expect, so prepare for a bumpy road.
MSN
Put simply: no one knows what to expect, so prepare for a bumpy road.
Is There a Correct Mix?
Does the stimulus bill include the right combination of spending cuts and tax increases? The answer is actually very simple:
Stan wrote another interesting post last week, dealing with the gap between economic theory and political reality. However, Stan's entire argument depends on the assumption that a stimulus bill is necessary. I personally believe the right combination is tax cuts along with spending cuts, not increases. However, I am not in Congress, though even I understand cutting spending in the middle of a recession, regardless of the economic benefits, has too many political consequences. It is important to always remember every elected officials first job: to get reelected.
- There is no generally agreed-upon formula for combining tax cuts and spending increases in a stimulus bill.
- Economic policymaking is at least as much an art as it is a science.
- The right ratio of tax cuts to spending increases is whatever it takes to get the bill enacted.
- It looks like this bill is going to be enacted.
- Therefore, by definition, the mix in this bill is correct.
Stan wrote another interesting post last week, dealing with the gap between economic theory and political reality. However, Stan's entire argument depends on the assumption that a stimulus bill is necessary. I personally believe the right combination is tax cuts along with spending cuts, not increases. However, I am not in Congress, though even I understand cutting spending in the middle of a recession, regardless of the economic benefits, has too many political consequences. It is important to always remember every elected officials first job: to get reelected.
Only When it is Convenient
In the federal court suit filed last week, student Jonathan Lopez said that midway through his speech, when he quoted a dictionary definition of marriage and recited a pair of Bible verses, professor John Matteson cut him off and would not allow him to finish. He said Matteson also called him a "fascist bastard." A student evaluation form included with the lawsuit lacks a score for Lopez's speech, and reads "ask God what your grade is."
MSN Article
MSN Article
I am always amazed at how people claim to subscribe to certain ideologies and beliefs, and yet turn against their own tenets when it become less convenient. So called "liberal" academics claim to be all for diversity and open-mindedness, but as soon as someone expresses an opinion contrary to their own, that person no longer has the right to express anything. Now, I know that this is an extreme case, not necessarily representative of all liberal academics, but it just goes to show that no social, political, religious, or academic group is immune to hypocrisy. People need to learn that principles only mean something when you stand by them at all times, especially when it is inconvenient.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Gregg Withdraws His Nomination
Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary Thursday, the third Cabinet-level pick scuttled. The move left President Barack Obama without a full team to lead the government. He cited "irresolvable conflicts" with Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.
This is definitely a big loss for the Obama Administration. Gregg is long time budget hawk and would have brought a voice of fiscal responsibility to the White House. The President is not doing too well with his cabinet picks.
MSNB Article.
This is definitely a big loss for the Obama Administration. Gregg is long time budget hawk and would have brought a voice of fiscal responsibility to the White House. The President is not doing too well with his cabinet picks.
MSNB Article.
Hypocritical Nature on Capitol Hill
During yesterday's conference on H.R. 1, I was forced to sit and listen to conferees from both parties spew out more hypocritical rhetoric than I could handle. Rep. Camp (R-MI), Rep. Lewis (R-CA) and Sen. Grassley (R-IA) all complained about not having the opportunity to participate in the "real" negotiations on the stimulus conference report. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) responded by claiming to be much more open to bipartisan participation that the Republican majority.
I know that I chose to enter into a field dealing with Congressional politics, but sometimes all the double-talk and finger-pointing gets to me. The fact is, the Republicans never cared about giving the minority a voice in negotiations on important pieces of legislation. And the Democrats are currently carrying on that proud tradition of excluding the lesser party. Of the more than 200 Republicans in Congress, only three have been involved in negotiations, because Democratic leaders know those three will vote with them. This "bipartisan" culture is nothing but a sham. The majority always controls the conversation (As it should be). But neither side will admit it publicly, because it is more important to them to simply bash the other side. It can be very aggravating at times.
I know that I chose to enter into a field dealing with Congressional politics, but sometimes all the double-talk and finger-pointing gets to me. The fact is, the Republicans never cared about giving the minority a voice in negotiations on important pieces of legislation. And the Democrats are currently carrying on that proud tradition of excluding the lesser party. Of the more than 200 Republicans in Congress, only three have been involved in negotiations, because Democratic leaders know those three will vote with them. This "bipartisan" culture is nothing but a sham. The majority always controls the conversation (As it should be). But neither side will admit it publicly, because it is more important to them to simply bash the other side. It can be very aggravating at times.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
This Ball Will Keep Rolling
Stan Collender, a federal budget guru and blogger, recently wrote an article for Roll Call in which he tries to point out that the economy needs steady recovery, not an ER style infusion. While I tend to agree with his assessment, I do not condone his acquiescence to the fact that Congress will (and seeming should, according to his tone in the article) pass additional "stimulus" measures. I cannot get on board with this point of view.
Congress already approved a $700 billion bailout for the financial sector. In effect, they approved an unreal amount of money to give to companies that drove themselves into ruin. Rather than allowing the market to weed out the unsuccessful, irresponsible market navigators, the government is giving money to companies that proved they don;t know how to properly use it. Now, Congress is in the final stages of approving an $800 billion "stimulus" bill, aimed at helping so-called "main street" recover. Despite the fact that CBO estimates do not show these "stimulus" programs as actually helping the economy in the immediate future (as Congress claims), Congress is already considering moving on with additional legislative measures.
Rather than waiting to see if their course of action is the correct one, and if their programs will have the desired effect, they go full speed ahead to the next disaster. Democrats went on and on during their time in the minority regarding wasteful spending, and sticking future generations with the bill for our mistakes. Now that they have control of he government, they are continuing the failed policies of the Republican majority. Rather than waiting to see if the $1.5 trillion that was approved over a 5 month period actually helps, they are setting to dig even deeper into the debt to thrown more money away. Unbelievable.
Congress already approved a $700 billion bailout for the financial sector. In effect, they approved an unreal amount of money to give to companies that drove themselves into ruin. Rather than allowing the market to weed out the unsuccessful, irresponsible market navigators, the government is giving money to companies that proved they don;t know how to properly use it. Now, Congress is in the final stages of approving an $800 billion "stimulus" bill, aimed at helping so-called "main street" recover. Despite the fact that CBO estimates do not show these "stimulus" programs as actually helping the economy in the immediate future (as Congress claims), Congress is already considering moving on with additional legislative measures.
Rather than waiting to see if their course of action is the correct one, and if their programs will have the desired effect, they go full speed ahead to the next disaster. Democrats went on and on during their time in the minority regarding wasteful spending, and sticking future generations with the bill for our mistakes. Now that they have control of he government, they are continuing the failed policies of the Republican majority. Rather than waiting to see if the $1.5 trillion that was approved over a 5 month period actually helps, they are setting to dig even deeper into the debt to thrown more money away. Unbelievable.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Administration Can't Stop Market Plunge
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner failed Tuesday to persuade Wall Street that he will succeed where his predecessor Henry Paulson failed. Geithner outlined the administration's plan to restart frozen credit markets and bolster the health of troubled banks. He said the economy will recover from its swoon only with the help of healthy financial institutions.
I agree that the economy will only recover with the felp of healthy financial institutions. I just don't believe there is anything Geithner, or anyone else in Washington, can (or should) do to speed up the recovery of those institutions.
Not Prepared for the Long Haul
Senators prepared for a vote Tuesday on the huge White House-backed economic stimulus bill, following a prime-time appeal from President Barack Obama Monday night to quickly approve the legislation and bolster the suffering U.S. economy.
What happens when the economy does not immediately bounce back in the miraculous manner that the President and Congressional Leaders claim it will? It took more than a year for us to realize how bad it would get, it will take just as long, if not longer, to realize that things are getting better. For those who are expecting a quick turn around, you should begin preparing yourself for disappointment.
What happens when the economy does not immediately bounce back in the miraculous manner that the President and Congressional Leaders claim it will? It took more than a year for us to realize how bad it would get, it will take just as long, if not longer, to realize that things are getting better. For those who are expecting a quick turn around, you should begin preparing yourself for disappointment.
To Stimulate or Not to Stimulate?
I am continually amazed at the way the federal government, the press, and the American public react to economic issues in this country. The entire cycle perpetuates itself. The press paints drastic pictures, designed to scare the public and keep the tuned in to the news networks. As the people get more worried, the polls show that they want action, which spurs Congress into action. But rather than put serious through into a measured response, lawmakers throw together over $800 billion dollars in unnecessary spending, just so they can be seen on TV as trying to solve the problem. The constant debating and bickering in Congress gives the media more to discuss, and more opportunity to spin the truth in a way that keeps the public scared...and the cycle continues.
It should come as no surprise that am firmly in the camp that believes the government does not NEED to do anything to pull the economy out of a recession. The market moves in cycles, and will eventually correct itself. Impatience and panic won't allow the more reasonable minds to prevail, and so Congress is working furiously to pass an "economic stimulus" package, aimed at helping speed up the recovery time. Despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a report that shows that most of the discretionary spending offered in Congress will not have the desired effect until 2011 (when many economists believe the recession would end naturally anyway), Congress is pushing on with a bill of a base cost of $838 billion (according to CBO estimates). Once you factor in estimated interest costs, the package comes in at over $1 trillion, despite the fact that the U.S. has debts totaling over $11 trillion.
If Congress absolutely has to get involved, they should limit themselves to creating tax incentives for businesses and individuals, the only proven way to truly stimulate the economy. Less taxes means more money in the market, which can lead to greater revenue, more jobs, and higher salaries and benefits. Now, both the House and Senate proposals include a number of tax incentives, but they are buried under billions in discretionary spending. This does not even include the billions that will go out through the annual appropriations process when Congress finishes work on fiscal year 2009 (FY09) spending. Much of this spending may not have the desired effect, which President Obama admitted in a public address yesterday, but it will continue to drag the country farther down into debt.
During their time spent in the minority, the Democratic party went on and on about how deep the President and his Republican majority was going into debt. I agreed fully with their assessment. The Republican Congress abandoned their conservative ideologies and let their spending get out of control. However, now that the Democrats have regained control of both Congress and the White House, they seem content to continue this culture of irresponsibility. As a result, we will go deeper into debt (a debt that is owned by China and other foreign powers) and the economy is not likely to recover any quicker than if it had been left to the natural forces of the market.
To give the Senate some credit, they were able to cut about $110 billion out of the proposal, cutting much of the funding that is not directly related to stimulating the economy. However, that is like ordering the triple cheeseburger, with extra grease, but taking off the mayo. It might be a little less unhealthy, but will still clog your arteries. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will vote with the majority, giving them the votes needed to pass this farce. They claim a victory because they pushed through the cuts. All they did was trim some of the fat, ignoring the real problems associated with the bill.
Resources:
CBO Stimulus Reports
Stan Collender Coverage
It should come as no surprise that am firmly in the camp that believes the government does not NEED to do anything to pull the economy out of a recession. The market moves in cycles, and will eventually correct itself. Impatience and panic won't allow the more reasonable minds to prevail, and so Congress is working furiously to pass an "economic stimulus" package, aimed at helping speed up the recovery time. Despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a report that shows that most of the discretionary spending offered in Congress will not have the desired effect until 2011 (when many economists believe the recession would end naturally anyway), Congress is pushing on with a bill of a base cost of $838 billion (according to CBO estimates). Once you factor in estimated interest costs, the package comes in at over $1 trillion, despite the fact that the U.S. has debts totaling over $11 trillion.
If Congress absolutely has to get involved, they should limit themselves to creating tax incentives for businesses and individuals, the only proven way to truly stimulate the economy. Less taxes means more money in the market, which can lead to greater revenue, more jobs, and higher salaries and benefits. Now, both the House and Senate proposals include a number of tax incentives, but they are buried under billions in discretionary spending. This does not even include the billions that will go out through the annual appropriations process when Congress finishes work on fiscal year 2009 (FY09) spending. Much of this spending may not have the desired effect, which President Obama admitted in a public address yesterday, but it will continue to drag the country farther down into debt.
During their time spent in the minority, the Democratic party went on and on about how deep the President and his Republican majority was going into debt. I agreed fully with their assessment. The Republican Congress abandoned their conservative ideologies and let their spending get out of control. However, now that the Democrats have regained control of both Congress and the White House, they seem content to continue this culture of irresponsibility. As a result, we will go deeper into debt (a debt that is owned by China and other foreign powers) and the economy is not likely to recover any quicker than if it had been left to the natural forces of the market.
To give the Senate some credit, they were able to cut about $110 billion out of the proposal, cutting much of the funding that is not directly related to stimulating the economy. However, that is like ordering the triple cheeseburger, with extra grease, but taking off the mayo. It might be a little less unhealthy, but will still clog your arteries. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will vote with the majority, giving them the votes needed to pass this farce. They claim a victory because they pushed through the cuts. All they did was trim some of the fat, ignoring the real problems associated with the bill.
Resources:
CBO Stimulus Reports
Stan Collender Coverage
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Hope and Opportunity
Yesterday, the country celebrated the peaceful transition of power, from one president to another. Although I reside in the Washington Metropolitan Area, I chose not to attend the Inauguration of the 44th President, Barack Obama. This had nothing to do with the fact that I did not vote for him, and more to do with the crowds and the cold. I have found that as I get older, my tolerance for crowds decreases annually.
I did, however, watch the event on CNN, from the warmth and comfort of my own home. Despite my misgivings regarding President Obama, I could not help but feel pride and admiration at being a citizen of a country that celebrates this peaceful transition of power. I am very proud to live in a country than can elect a man President, regardless of his race (even though I fear many people voted for Obama simply because of his race).
Amid these feeling of patriotism, I am also troubled by the very real possibilities of failure facing this new administration. President Obama enters his first term with more than a 70% approval rating of his transition (although I find it amusing that a man has an approval rating without having actually done anything yet). With this widespread popularity, domestically and internationally, President Obama was an unprecedented opportunity with his first term. He faces very troubled times, but history always remembers those who thrive despite such tribulations.
If Obama can preside over a government that sees an end to the current recession, an effective transfer of authority and withdrawal of troops from current war zones, and lower the national debt significantly, he could be considered one of the greatest presidents in our nation’s history. Sadly, the practical realist inside of me does not see this happening anytime soon.
The market is a living organisms in its own right. Left to its own devices, it will find an equilibrium that benefits the majority of society. However, our government has a history of meddling with the market, trying to help those who do not help themselves. As such, our involvement may lead to an immediate result, but furthers market instability in the long run. If the Obama administration works to undo much of the deregulation that is demonized by the leftists and pseudo-Marxists, the market will be too constrained, unable to rectify itself.
The debate over the effectiveness of a truly free market still rages on amongst economists, so Obama has taken a middle of the road approach (which, on some levels, should be commended). In his Inauguration speech yesterday, Obama mentioned that the market has an unparalleled propensity to do good, so long as the government keeps a watchful eye. This kind of talk worries free market economists, who feat that a watchful eye will lead to overbearing actions on the part of a government that does not truly comprehend the forces that are at work in the market.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama would like to see a true transfer of responsibility from U.S. forces to Iraqi control. I commend this distinction. The United States has shoveled billions into Iraq, and while there have been remarkable improvements since the surge last year, our rising national debt will not allow us to keep this kind of pace for much longer. If Obama is truly able to broker a deal that the Iraqi government fully supports, then I am in favor of such a withdrawal of U.S. troops. Those troops, it seems, will then be headed to Afghanistan, to secure the situation that has deteriorated over the last five years.
I am, again, in full support of bringing stability to the area, and hopefully locating and apprehending Osama bin Laden. If Obama’s planned surge in Afghanistan accomplishes these goals, then he will likely have my support for a second term. However, he needs to pull off both troop movements in a way that does not leave Iraqi forces in an unwinnable situation. We gave them their own government, it is our responsibility to make sure we leave them with the stability that is required to maintain the freedom our soldiers fought and died for.
Finally, the one concern that will ultimately affect all other aspects of government action, Obama and the 111th Congress must work on bring down the national debt. According to TreasuryDirect.com, the national debt, as of Monday, is roughly $10.6 trillion. This is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, rather than tackle the problem right away, President Obama has warned the public that the government is going to operate under nearly $1 trillion deficits over the next couple of fiscal years. He claims this to be a necessary evil in order to bring the economy out of the current recession. Having already dismissed that as a falsehood in the above paragraph, I am forced to move on to the wasteful government spending.
President Obama has promised to study the current programs operating out of the many executive agencies, eliminating funding for those that are deemed ineffective. Rather than relying on the disputed Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), that the Bush Administration championed, Obama is appointing a Chief Performance Officer (CPO) to assess the various government programs. The precise formula that the CPO will apply remains unclear, but I am less than enthusiastic about her chances at making any real headway in the matter, especially in light of all of the new spending that Congress is working to authorize under the economic stimulus package.
So, as I have pointed out, President Obama was an amazing opportunity to prove himself as the leader that at least 70% of the country believes him to be. I, for one, hope he lives up to the hype. Even though I did not vote for the man, he is my President, and I wish him nothing but success, as much for my sake as for his. The country is looking to him for answers and for relief, now we will see what he does with the faith the majority of the country has placed in him.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Obama Shows His Convictions...Or Lack There Of
The Obama Trasition team announced that Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay minister ordained by a major church, will deliver the invocation at the kickoff event of inauguration week. gay rights activists were overjoyed to hear that President-elect Obama chose an openly gay minister to deliver the opening invocation, especially in light of who he chose to deliver the invocation at the actual inauguration. Rick Warren, the pastor of the evangelical megachurch, Saddleback Church.
Rev. Warren angered gay rights groups when he came out in support of California's Prop. 8, which would overturn California's law allowing same sex marriage. The fact that Obama would choose such a pastor to preside over his swearing in ceremony shocked and angered gay rights groups all over the United States. After 8 years of George Bush, the gay and lesbian community thought they were finally going to have a friend in the White House, only to have the man ask a man who opposed gay marriage to preside over his inaugural ceremony.
To be honest, this was the first decision Obama made that I thought should his individuality and willingness to follow hos own convictions rather than play to the crowd. Rev. Warren holds true to his faith, which does not condone same sex marriage. I love how people champion diversity, and freedom of expression, until someone expresses and idea or belief that they don't like. Well, enough of the left-wing activists made enough noise about the matter to convince the Obama team to balance Warren's invitation by selecting someone more palpable to that constituency to kick off the whole week's festivities.
Gene Robinson's 2003 election as a Bishop in the Episcopal church caused a rift in the denomination, provoking several dioceses and dozens of parishes to secede in protest. So while gay rights activists may still be angry with Warren's involvement with the inauguration, Robinson's selection is meant to placate them and give them an excuse to celebrate Obama's ascendancy, along with everyone else. All this did was prove to me that Obama is exactly what I thought he was: a politician, just like everyone else in Washington (including Bush).
Obama only chose Warren because his campaign actively worked to attract evangelical voters, and he wants to continue that effort in preparation for the 2012 election. Then, as damage control over the Warren fallout, his team chose Robinson in order to make sure he had appeased all groups involved. I applaud his effort as admirer of astute political maneuvering, but I am saddened as a man who was hoping for a new kind of leader, who governed by principle (much like I had hoped Bush would be). Even if I do not agree with your principles, I am usually impressed with any man who holds true to whatever principle he claims to hold. However, as is the case with most politicians, principles are not the commodity they once were. It appears that the ever dwindling optimist in me will continue to fade away due to continual disappointment.
Rev. Warren angered gay rights groups when he came out in support of California's Prop. 8, which would overturn California's law allowing same sex marriage. The fact that Obama would choose such a pastor to preside over his swearing in ceremony shocked and angered gay rights groups all over the United States. After 8 years of George Bush, the gay and lesbian community thought they were finally going to have a friend in the White House, only to have the man ask a man who opposed gay marriage to preside over his inaugural ceremony.
To be honest, this was the first decision Obama made that I thought should his individuality and willingness to follow hos own convictions rather than play to the crowd. Rev. Warren holds true to his faith, which does not condone same sex marriage. I love how people champion diversity, and freedom of expression, until someone expresses and idea or belief that they don't like. Well, enough of the left-wing activists made enough noise about the matter to convince the Obama team to balance Warren's invitation by selecting someone more palpable to that constituency to kick off the whole week's festivities.
Gene Robinson's 2003 election as a Bishop in the Episcopal church caused a rift in the denomination, provoking several dioceses and dozens of parishes to secede in protest. So while gay rights activists may still be angry with Warren's involvement with the inauguration, Robinson's selection is meant to placate them and give them an excuse to celebrate Obama's ascendancy, along with everyone else. All this did was prove to me that Obama is exactly what I thought he was: a politician, just like everyone else in Washington (including Bush).
Obama only chose Warren because his campaign actively worked to attract evangelical voters, and he wants to continue that effort in preparation for the 2012 election. Then, as damage control over the Warren fallout, his team chose Robinson in order to make sure he had appeased all groups involved. I applaud his effort as admirer of astute political maneuvering, but I am saddened as a man who was hoping for a new kind of leader, who governed by principle (much like I had hoped Bush would be). Even if I do not agree with your principles, I am usually impressed with any man who holds true to whatever principle he claims to hold. However, as is the case with most politicians, principles are not the commodity they once were. It appears that the ever dwindling optimist in me will continue to fade away due to continual disappointment.
Senate Republicans Dropping Like Flies
Senate Republicans watched as yet another of their colleagues announced his intention not to run for reelection in 2010. At a time where public support continues to sway towards Democrats (largely as a reaction to the Bush Administration), the thought of losing 4 more incumbents in the next elections cycle is very disheartening for the minority party. While I have tended to support the Republican party in the last few elections, my concern here is not what party is in control, but how much power that party is going to have at their disposal.
As an advocate for smaller government, by favorite term regarding Congress is logjam. This is when legislation cannot move through because the majority party in Congress cannot get enough support amongst their fellow lawmakers and/or the White House. This keeps legislators from passing potentially burdensome bills, at least not without additional consensus which will water down the legislation. If I ever find myself unfortunate enough to work for a member of Congress, especially if they are in the majority, I am sure I will find this concept incredibly aggravating. As a private citizen that does not trust the judgment of those in power, I continue to support logjam.
That is why I was happy to see Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) win his bid for reelection in Georgia. His victory guaranteed the minority party would retain 41 seats in the Senate, giving them enough votes to sustain a filibuster attempt. The filibuster is the only tool that allows the minority party to kill a bill that they feel is against the public interest. As it stands now, the Senate consists of 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats) and 2 Vacancies. These vacancies, however, should both be filled shortly, giving Democrats 57 seats. The thought of a 63-37 majority scares me, regardless of which party is in power.
The fact is, I don't like veto-proof majorities, filibuster-proof majorities, or unified government (when one party controls Congress and the White House). As such, the ability of the House and Senate minorities to force the majority to work in a bipartisan manner is key to making sure one party does not run the country into the ground (the way critics claim the Republicans did firm 200-2006). So, I can only hope that Republicans are able to get their game plan together and keep all 4 seats. However, now that Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) announced his intent to retire in a swing state that has drifted Democrats over the last couple of years, the GOP certainly has an uphill climb to 2010.
As an advocate for smaller government, by favorite term regarding Congress is logjam. This is when legislation cannot move through because the majority party in Congress cannot get enough support amongst their fellow lawmakers and/or the White House. This keeps legislators from passing potentially burdensome bills, at least not without additional consensus which will water down the legislation. If I ever find myself unfortunate enough to work for a member of Congress, especially if they are in the majority, I am sure I will find this concept incredibly aggravating. As a private citizen that does not trust the judgment of those in power, I continue to support logjam.
That is why I was happy to see Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) win his bid for reelection in Georgia. His victory guaranteed the minority party would retain 41 seats in the Senate, giving them enough votes to sustain a filibuster attempt. The filibuster is the only tool that allows the minority party to kill a bill that they feel is against the public interest. As it stands now, the Senate consists of 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats) and 2 Vacancies. These vacancies, however, should both be filled shortly, giving Democrats 57 seats. The thought of a 63-37 majority scares me, regardless of which party is in power.
The fact is, I don't like veto-proof majorities, filibuster-proof majorities, or unified government (when one party controls Congress and the White House). As such, the ability of the House and Senate minorities to force the majority to work in a bipartisan manner is key to making sure one party does not run the country into the ground (the way critics claim the Republicans did firm 200-2006). So, I can only hope that Republicans are able to get their game plan together and keep all 4 seats. However, now that Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) announced his intent to retire in a swing state that has drifted Democrats over the last couple of years, the GOP certainly has an uphill climb to 2010.
Bush Legacy?
With only 8 days left until president-elect Obama takes office, President George Bush held his final press conference today, attempting to defend his record, and ultimately his legacy. With abysmal approval ratings, it is difficult to think of the Bush Legacy in a positive light. The only two issues most people will recall of the Bush Years are the Iraq War and the current recession. In the end, when I look on the Bush Administration, I see potential that never came to fruition.
The firs thing to mention, even if people are tired of the references, is that President Bush did bring this country through the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. While he failed to catch the man behind the attacks, he did not fail to act against those that were protecting him. It is only a matter of time before bin Laden is found and brought to justice, because the Bush Administration made it evident what will happen to any government that harbors terrorists like him. However, I mean to look at Bush's entire Presidency, not just his first two years.
The first major push by the Bush Administration were the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Americans were able to keep more of their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, the tax cuts were not accompanied by significant spending cuts, as is necessary to avoid excessive deficit spending. In addition, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required billions each year, further increasing the deficit. Tax cuts are a sound economic policy, giving consumers more money to circulate back into the market. Unfortunately, there were too many external factors to allow this to show positive returns in a short time frame. In a few more years, we may see the true effect of these tax cuts, much the way the effects of Reagan's economic policies did not return benefits until the Clinton years.
After the tax cuts, the biggest domestic priority of the Bush Administration was getting all public students to proficient levels in reading and math by 2014. To accomplish that goal, we saw the creation of No Child Left Behind. The idea was noble, albeit incomplete. NCLB was the first real push to hold schools all across the county accountable for the performance of their students. Unfortunately, the program focused too much on federal micro-managing of assessment standards. In stead of simply requiring states to meet certain benchmarks, NCLB was too prescriptive, attempting to force states to reach the benchmarks through specific courses of action. Between 2010-2011, the program will receive a major overhaul, but it was the Bush Administration that laid the groundwork for school accountability.
The first official failure of the Bush Administration came in the form of entitlements. President Bush pushed for Social Security reform in 2005, and was met with unparalleled resistance in Congress and a very scared senior generation. Groups like the AARP engaged in scare tactics to ignite a fire under the retired class of citizens who were afraid of any changes that might affect their Social Security payments. Despite the fact that the Bush proposal would have had no adverse effect on current recipients, the push back was enough to get Congress to shut down this attempt at meaningful reform. Instead, they chose to leave the problem for future generations, who will not see a dime from the doomed program.
Finally, it is not practical to ignore the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these wars have cost the United States thousands of American lives, and billions of dollars. The fact that no WMD's were found in Iraq certainly work against the President, who assured the nation, and the international community that they were there. While I do not support the amount of money that has been thrown into Iraq, I do believe the world is better place with Saddam Hussein out of power. However, now that we have given Iraq the opportunity to make a new nation, based on new principles, I do believe it is time (or close to it) to allow them to take the reigns, and provide for their own destiny. If the Iraqi government truly wants to transition authority from the U.S. to local forces, I believe we should oblige them, in a practical manner.
As for the economy, as I stated above, the tax cuts were a sound idea, but did not produce an immediate effect that many Americans desired. The fact is, the economy moves in cycles, and while President Clinton was able to ride a wave of success for a number of years, Bush was left to fight against the current of a downward trend. Many people blame him for the rising gas prices over the last 8 years. However, if they have a grievance on the price of fuel, I suggest they take it up with the Chinese, whose excessive consumption had more to do with the price increases than any one else. My only grievance with President Bush is his failure to force Congress to significantly cut domestic spending. With increasing war costs, and a decrease in tax revenue, domestic spending needed to be reduced exponentially. The President, through the use of his Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), attempted to increase government efficiency by proposing the elimination of wasteful and inefficient government programs, but was ignored by Congress.
In my humble opinion, President Bush is not the monster that most Americans make him out to be, though he did fail to live up to his potential. Most of his true failures can be traced back to his divergence from true conservative principles. His failure to reign in federal spending and his push for greater federal involvement in education are just two examples of his departure from core conservative values. The rest of his failures come from an inability to control/convince/cajole Congress into passing his initiatives. However, the man did preside over the most powerful nation in the world for 8 years (meaning we elected him twice), and that is no simple task. He deserves our thanks and our respect, for the time and effort he put into the task, whether you liked the results or not. There are many things we may wish he did differently, just as I am sure there are things he truly wishes he had handled differently. In the end, he did the best he could with the time that was given to him.
The firs thing to mention, even if people are tired of the references, is that President Bush did bring this country through the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. While he failed to catch the man behind the attacks, he did not fail to act against those that were protecting him. It is only a matter of time before bin Laden is found and brought to justice, because the Bush Administration made it evident what will happen to any government that harbors terrorists like him. However, I mean to look at Bush's entire Presidency, not just his first two years.
The first major push by the Bush Administration were the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Americans were able to keep more of their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, the tax cuts were not accompanied by significant spending cuts, as is necessary to avoid excessive deficit spending. In addition, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required billions each year, further increasing the deficit. Tax cuts are a sound economic policy, giving consumers more money to circulate back into the market. Unfortunately, there were too many external factors to allow this to show positive returns in a short time frame. In a few more years, we may see the true effect of these tax cuts, much the way the effects of Reagan's economic policies did not return benefits until the Clinton years.
After the tax cuts, the biggest domestic priority of the Bush Administration was getting all public students to proficient levels in reading and math by 2014. To accomplish that goal, we saw the creation of No Child Left Behind. The idea was noble, albeit incomplete. NCLB was the first real push to hold schools all across the county accountable for the performance of their students. Unfortunately, the program focused too much on federal micro-managing of assessment standards. In stead of simply requiring states to meet certain benchmarks, NCLB was too prescriptive, attempting to force states to reach the benchmarks through specific courses of action. Between 2010-2011, the program will receive a major overhaul, but it was the Bush Administration that laid the groundwork for school accountability.
The first official failure of the Bush Administration came in the form of entitlements. President Bush pushed for Social Security reform in 2005, and was met with unparalleled resistance in Congress and a very scared senior generation. Groups like the AARP engaged in scare tactics to ignite a fire under the retired class of citizens who were afraid of any changes that might affect their Social Security payments. Despite the fact that the Bush proposal would have had no adverse effect on current recipients, the push back was enough to get Congress to shut down this attempt at meaningful reform. Instead, they chose to leave the problem for future generations, who will not see a dime from the doomed program.
Finally, it is not practical to ignore the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these wars have cost the United States thousands of American lives, and billions of dollars. The fact that no WMD's were found in Iraq certainly work against the President, who assured the nation, and the international community that they were there. While I do not support the amount of money that has been thrown into Iraq, I do believe the world is better place with Saddam Hussein out of power. However, now that we have given Iraq the opportunity to make a new nation, based on new principles, I do believe it is time (or close to it) to allow them to take the reigns, and provide for their own destiny. If the Iraqi government truly wants to transition authority from the U.S. to local forces, I believe we should oblige them, in a practical manner.
As for the economy, as I stated above, the tax cuts were a sound idea, but did not produce an immediate effect that many Americans desired. The fact is, the economy moves in cycles, and while President Clinton was able to ride a wave of success for a number of years, Bush was left to fight against the current of a downward trend. Many people blame him for the rising gas prices over the last 8 years. However, if they have a grievance on the price of fuel, I suggest they take it up with the Chinese, whose excessive consumption had more to do with the price increases than any one else. My only grievance with President Bush is his failure to force Congress to significantly cut domestic spending. With increasing war costs, and a decrease in tax revenue, domestic spending needed to be reduced exponentially. The President, through the use of his Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), attempted to increase government efficiency by proposing the elimination of wasteful and inefficient government programs, but was ignored by Congress.
In my humble opinion, President Bush is not the monster that most Americans make him out to be, though he did fail to live up to his potential. Most of his true failures can be traced back to his divergence from true conservative principles. His failure to reign in federal spending and his push for greater federal involvement in education are just two examples of his departure from core conservative values. The rest of his failures come from an inability to control/convince/cajole Congress into passing his initiatives. However, the man did preside over the most powerful nation in the world for 8 years (meaning we elected him twice), and that is no simple task. He deserves our thanks and our respect, for the time and effort he put into the task, whether you liked the results or not. There are many things we may wish he did differently, just as I am sure there are things he truly wishes he had handled differently. In the end, he did the best he could with the time that was given to him.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Performance Officer: A Rough Road Ahead
Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate Nancy Killefer as the federal government's first Chief Performance Officer. Just as I disagreed with President Bush creating an entirely new executive agency (DHS) to do what other agencies were already doing, I have some reservations about this new position. Each executive agency is held responsible for their own effectiveness. As such, the Secretary, Commissioner, or other chief operating officer of that agency is held accountable to their department's performance. Now, assuming Ms. Killefer is confirmed by the Senate, we will have one watch dog to police all of the other political appointees.
While I agree with the underlying desire to increase government efficiency, I am not convinced that creating yet another bureaucratic position is the best approach. Each Department, theoretically, policies itself for effectiveness. Under the Bush Administration, this has been done (theoretically) by using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Based on PART assessments, the Bush Administration has repeatedly suggested the termination of numerous government programs. Unfortunately, the PART has been largely ignored by Congress, and most of these programs are still in existence. Legislators have questioned the criteria that the PART uses to determine a programs effectiveness.
I am not here to defend the PART, but to use its failure as a warning for Ms. Killefer. The main reason that ineffective programs remain operational is because of the people that the program employs. No one wants to lose their job, so as soon as any talk of cutting funding occurs, those whose employment is in danger tries to scare constituents into believing that losing this program would be the worst thing that could happen. If their constituents do not want to see the program eliminated, then members of Congress will not vote to eliminate them. The Chief Performance Officer will run into this same blockade.
As an advocate for cutting federal spending, I hope she is wildly successful in her quest to root out programs that have outlived their usefulness. However, the realist in me is not very optimistic about her chances of success. If her efforts prove fruitless, then we will be paying yet another bureaucrat for a job that they cannot carry out in a satisfactory manner. That, in and of itself, is more wasteful government spending. I hope I am wrong. Time will tell.
While I agree with the underlying desire to increase government efficiency, I am not convinced that creating yet another bureaucratic position is the best approach. Each Department, theoretically, policies itself for effectiveness. Under the Bush Administration, this has been done (theoretically) by using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Based on PART assessments, the Bush Administration has repeatedly suggested the termination of numerous government programs. Unfortunately, the PART has been largely ignored by Congress, and most of these programs are still in existence. Legislators have questioned the criteria that the PART uses to determine a programs effectiveness.
I am not here to defend the PART, but to use its failure as a warning for Ms. Killefer. The main reason that ineffective programs remain operational is because of the people that the program employs. No one wants to lose their job, so as soon as any talk of cutting funding occurs, those whose employment is in danger tries to scare constituents into believing that losing this program would be the worst thing that could happen. If their constituents do not want to see the program eliminated, then members of Congress will not vote to eliminate them. The Chief Performance Officer will run into this same blockade.
As an advocate for cutting federal spending, I hope she is wildly successful in her quest to root out programs that have outlived their usefulness. However, the realist in me is not very optimistic about her chances of success. If her efforts prove fruitless, then we will be paying yet another bureaucrat for a job that they cannot carry out in a satisfactory manner. That, in and of itself, is more wasteful government spending. I hope I am wrong. Time will tell.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Landmines to Avoid in the Obama Administration
- Raising Taxes...Any Taxes: In light of the economic downturn, any action that would lead to less money in American pockets, which would lead to less money in the market, would be a critical mistake the country cannot afford right. This includes the capital gains tax, or any other taxes aimed at corporate executives. Any tax levied on that end will result in an increase in prices, cuts in labor wages and benefits, or even more layoffs. Every cost doled out by lawmakers always finds its way to the consumer, which is the last thing the market needs.
- Overall Increase in Domestic Spending: Leftist members of Congress are practically foaming at the mouth with thoughts of a unified Democratic government. With Bush out of the way, big spenders like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and David Obey (D-WI) think they will finally have their chance to provide significant increases to the areas that will benefit their "constituents." After years of accusing Bush of being the most fiscally irresponsible President, these geniuses want to turn around and start spending on all the areas they promised voters they would work on back in 2006. How do they plan to pay for it? Tax increases. See the previous point for why this is a bad idea.
- Immediate Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq: To be honest, I know Obama is not so naive to believe he can just yank the troops out in a few months. Despite what Democrats have promised worried loved one, they know the troops can;t just pack up and leave. However, for the ever ridiculous legislators like Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and John Murtha (D-PA), there will undoubtedly be repeated calls for an immediate withdrawal. If this were to go through, what little credibility the U.S. still has in the international community would fly right out the window. While I still believe Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, I also acknowledge the U.S.'s hand in the current train wreck that Iraq has become. If we were to simply pull out and leave them to their own devices, without the slightest mention of a well-thought, carefully planned transition, any further blood shed would still be on our hands.
- Reducing the Size of the Military: I want America out of Iraq just as much as most others, though my reasons are different. Spending in Iraq is what led to the increase in deficit spending, and the sooner we end it, the sooner we can stop send $100 billion over there annually. Unlike President-elect Obama, who is banking on a near 100% "peace dividend," I realize that at best, we can hope for maybe a $50 billion dividend from ending U.S. involvement in Iraq. But $50 billion is better than nothing. We just have to make sure that in the process, we don't forget the returning soldiers. Considering the amount of money that nearly 50% of the Department of Defense's Budget is spent on personnel, the only way to try and achieve a 100% peace dividend would be to bring U.S. military personnel levels back down to the 2001 numbers. At a time when jobs are being cut on a daily basis, unemployment would sky rocket with the infusion of forcibly retired veterans entering the workforce. They went over there and bled for us, I think we owe them more than that.
Latest Bailout Good for Citigroup, Bad for the Country
Regulators produced two sweeping plans to bail out banks in the last couple of months. And both times, stocks bounced up but dropped quickly because investors remained skeptical. The latest plan, which emerged Sunday night, involves the government’s backstopping a portfolio of assets for Citigroup, the financial conglomerate whose stock lost more than half of its value last week. Shares in other banks, like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, also lost significant ground. The question, as a new week begins, is whether this plan will produce lasting effects not only for Citigroup but also for the broader stock market.
NYT Article
If at first you don't succeed, why try again? Legislators are looking for that one magic pill that will bring the economy back to life. The problem is, that pill doesn't exists. Even if it did, I am sure it would not be FDA approved. Seriously, how many times will Congress stick its nose into the market, hoping to cure all that ails it, only to find that what they do is, at best, meaningless (and at worst, ultimately detrimental). After announcing the latest bailout for Citigroup, the DOW has jumped up about 300 points this morning. However, as noted above, stocks jumped the last few times, and then went right back down the drain.
Congress needs to learn that there may be nothing it can do to bring the economy back to where it was, at least not right away. The market moves in cycles, just like the weather. Right not, the weather is bad. But rather than try to control the weather, we should just find someplace warm and dry and ride out the storm, planning on what we want to do when the weather is better. Congress should be focusing on ways it can help prepare the nation for better times, like investing in infrastructure and education and looking into possible changes in the tax code.
Congress already passed an "economic stimulus" package as well as a $750 billion bailout bill. Despite both of these bill, the economy has shown no signs of immediate improvement, as Congressional leaders were foolishly hoping it would. The sheer economic ignorance that lawmakers have displayed is terrifying. As a result of their lack of expertise, the U.S. Government is now billion of dollars poorer and no closer to economic recovery that before. It's true that President Bush supported the bailout efforts, but let's face it, President Bush has been a huge disappointment to true conservatives, especially in how high he has allowed the federal deficit to go. Tax cuts are great, but only if they are accompanied by a decrease in spending. Econ 101: If you decrease revenue, you need to decrease outlays. Instead, Bush allowed the continued increase or level spending on domestic affairs, and a sever increase in military spending due to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I can only hope that President-elect Obama, despite his proclivities, will implement a more intelligent fiscal policy. Oddly enough, I am slightly pleased to see the transition team looking to many former members of the Clinton Administration for high ranking positions in the new Administration. Say what you want about Clinton, he knew enough to ride Regan's economic wave for all it was worth, especially before the Dot.com bubble burst. I am hoping that, in light of the economic times, and staggering U.S. debt, President-elect Obama will wisely back away from his ridiculous campaign promises, and focus on fiscal responsibility. This means renewing the 2001-2003 tax cuts, accompanied by a decrease in federal spending. It is also my sincerest hope that Obama can take up efforts abandoned by the Bush Administration to reform entitlement spending.
NYT Article
If at first you don't succeed, why try again? Legislators are looking for that one magic pill that will bring the economy back to life. The problem is, that pill doesn't exists. Even if it did, I am sure it would not be FDA approved. Seriously, how many times will Congress stick its nose into the market, hoping to cure all that ails it, only to find that what they do is, at best, meaningless (and at worst, ultimately detrimental). After announcing the latest bailout for Citigroup, the DOW has jumped up about 300 points this morning. However, as noted above, stocks jumped the last few times, and then went right back down the drain.
Congress needs to learn that there may be nothing it can do to bring the economy back to where it was, at least not right away. The market moves in cycles, just like the weather. Right not, the weather is bad. But rather than try to control the weather, we should just find someplace warm and dry and ride out the storm, planning on what we want to do when the weather is better. Congress should be focusing on ways it can help prepare the nation for better times, like investing in infrastructure and education and looking into possible changes in the tax code.
Congress already passed an "economic stimulus" package as well as a $750 billion bailout bill. Despite both of these bill, the economy has shown no signs of immediate improvement, as Congressional leaders were foolishly hoping it would. The sheer economic ignorance that lawmakers have displayed is terrifying. As a result of their lack of expertise, the U.S. Government is now billion of dollars poorer and no closer to economic recovery that before. It's true that President Bush supported the bailout efforts, but let's face it, President Bush has been a huge disappointment to true conservatives, especially in how high he has allowed the federal deficit to go. Tax cuts are great, but only if they are accompanied by a decrease in spending. Econ 101: If you decrease revenue, you need to decrease outlays. Instead, Bush allowed the continued increase or level spending on domestic affairs, and a sever increase in military spending due to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I can only hope that President-elect Obama, despite his proclivities, will implement a more intelligent fiscal policy. Oddly enough, I am slightly pleased to see the transition team looking to many former members of the Clinton Administration for high ranking positions in the new Administration. Say what you want about Clinton, he knew enough to ride Regan's economic wave for all it was worth, especially before the Dot.com bubble burst. I am hoping that, in light of the economic times, and staggering U.S. debt, President-elect Obama will wisely back away from his ridiculous campaign promises, and focus on fiscal responsibility. This means renewing the 2001-2003 tax cuts, accompanied by a decrease in federal spending. It is also my sincerest hope that Obama can take up efforts abandoned by the Bush Administration to reform entitlement spending.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Brief Post-Election Thoughts
So, I know I have been fairly silent over the last two months, but iis the price I pay for working full time and going to law school. However, I would like to share a few post-election thoughts.
First of all, the election went the way I thought it would, though Obama did win a few more states than I originally predicted. What surprised me was how poor Republicans did in the Senate. Despite his troubles, I honestly believed Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) would get the 50.1% he needed to avoid a December run-off. I also thought Gordon Smith (R-OR) would win in Oregon, and I didn't think Norm Coleman (R-MN) would such a difficult time with Al Franken in Minnesota, but I guess that is because I was unable to take Franken seriously.
Despite his recent conviction on seven counts of making false statements, I expected Ted Stevens (R-AK) to keep his seat, just long enough for the Senate Ethics Committee to expel him from office. Three of these races remain undecided, but I am hoping at least one Republicans holds on, so the Democratic majority does not get the 60 votes necessary to block filibusters. With increased majorities, and control of the White House, if the Senate Republicans cannot filibuster, then the Democrats will be in complete, unopposed control.
While I did not vote for President-elect Obama, he won. As such, once he takes his oath of office, he will be my President. I do not take that distinction lightly. While I may not believe he is the best man for the job, he is going to be leading my country, and he has my support. I pray that he does a great job and that he leads our country through the tough times ahead. I plan to follow this up with a few thoughts on the new Congress and what I expect to come out of the new unified government, but with finals just around the corner, I cannot guarantee I will have time.
First of all, the election went the way I thought it would, though Obama did win a few more states than I originally predicted. What surprised me was how poor Republicans did in the Senate. Despite his troubles, I honestly believed Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) would get the 50.1% he needed to avoid a December run-off. I also thought Gordon Smith (R-OR) would win in Oregon, and I didn't think Norm Coleman (R-MN) would such a difficult time with Al Franken in Minnesota, but I guess that is because I was unable to take Franken seriously.
Despite his recent conviction on seven counts of making false statements, I expected Ted Stevens (R-AK) to keep his seat, just long enough for the Senate Ethics Committee to expel him from office. Three of these races remain undecided, but I am hoping at least one Republicans holds on, so the Democratic majority does not get the 60 votes necessary to block filibusters. With increased majorities, and control of the White House, if the Senate Republicans cannot filibuster, then the Democrats will be in complete, unopposed control.
While I did not vote for President-elect Obama, he won. As such, once he takes his oath of office, he will be my President. I do not take that distinction lightly. While I may not believe he is the best man for the job, he is going to be leading my country, and he has my support. I pray that he does a great job and that he leads our country through the tough times ahead. I plan to follow this up with a few thoughts on the new Congress and what I expect to come out of the new unified government, but with finals just around the corner, I cannot guarantee I will have time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
