Castro Might Be Coming for Dinner

As the Obama administration considers a shift in the half-century policy of isolating Cuba, members of the Congressional Black Caucus returned from Havana saying the Castro brothers are eager to see a new day in U.S.-Cuban relations.

WSJ

Forgive me for seeming skeptical of of our foreign adversaries, but I question the motives of both the CBC and the Castro Brothers. I will not deny the economic opportunities that could result from better U.S.-Cuban relations, but we should not dive into this blindly. The Castro Brothers see new opportunity with the Obama Administration, and I am not sure I like what that says about Obama. Finally, the CBC is simply making a political move, trying to assert its own importance by being the first voting bloc within the Democratic party to hold open talks with Cuban leaders. But while they are getting their names in the papers, we might want to take another look at both Castro brothers and their ultimate motives and desires. Just my opinion.

Talk May Not Be Cheap

In a dramatic break from previous policy, the United States will join direct talks between U.N. and European powers and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, the State Department announced Wednesday.

CNN

I certainly do not oppose diplomatic solutions to problems. The danger here is that Iran, based on their President's public statement, is unlikely to take any talks seriously. They know that they want and feel we have no business in interfering. What are we going to have give up in order to get what we want? I am skeptical of the success of this shift in foreign policy.

Marriage Becoming Obsolete

Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.

CNN

Do you think it is a coincidence that the problem is that marriage is not taken as seriously as it once was. With all the changes, legal and otherwise, that are being made to the definition of marriage, no wonder most Americans don't take the concept as serious as they should.

Trouble in Paradise?

The lessons from the week: Members of the working group — like any small collection of Democrats — can make a difference whenever they’re ready to side with the Republicans. But the group seems to lack either the appetite or the ability to work in solidarity and undermine the agenda of a popular Democratic president.

Politico

I think what they should have said is that this group of Democrats lack the backbone to go against the President with any real force. I would still recommend reading the article, as it points out the political implications of a small voting bloc within the majority can have on the dynamic in the Senate.

We Should Hold Off on Repairing Certain Relationsips

On Tuesday the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who is accused of orchestrating a string of attacks in Pakistan, warned that Washington may be attacked for offering $5 million for information leading to his location or arrest.

Reuters

I understand that one Taliban leader may not actually be an accurate example of all Taliban leaders, but we may want to investigate further before Clinton continues offering this extremist regime an olive branch in Afghanistan.

Sure, Let's Listen to the French

Group of 20 leaders need to give regulators oversight of unregulated markets and products, such as credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, to prevent future systemic crises, according to Jean-Pierre Jouyet, head of the French market watchdog AMF and head of an international task force on unregulated markets.

WSJ

Since the French economy has done so well over the last decade, lets take their advice (please note the sarcasm).

Right Idea, Wrong Application

America is relearning an old lesson: Failure and bankruptcy are essential to capitalism.

WSJ

I am just glad somebody said it. I suggest reading the full article. I began reading it with high hopes, but this gentleman, despite having sound financial knowledge, still makes inconsistent conclusions. He has the right idea, but is using it to advocate for the wrong course of action.

Despite Funding, nature to Take its Course

The Obama's administration's leading plan to fix General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would use bankruptcy filings to purge the ailing companies of their biggest problems, including bondholder debt and retiree health-care costs, according to people familiar with the matter.

WSJ

Without a federal bailout, the auto industry may have been forced to deal with various bankruptcy filings. Thank God we decided to put billions into the auto industry, so they can declare bankruptcy. Wait, WTF!?!?! Once again, that is money well spent right there.

Doing a Bang-Up Job!

Stocks fell sharply as turmoil in the auto industry and depleted hope for financial and economic stability eroded much of the market's March gains.

WSJ

Despite all the talk about more government involvement being the key to quick recovery, all of the meddling in private industries led to yet another dive in stocks, led by the banking and auto industries. With the Administration talking about expanded authority to take over banks and non-banking financial institutions, and then forcing the current GM chief exec out on his ass, stock holders are showing little or no confidence in the government's ability to micro manage private industries...and so am I. So, we should all thank the Obama Administration for having the exact opposite effect they intended. Job Well Done!

No Real Change

Notably, Democratic leaders in both houses are pushing packages that call for narrower deficits and less spending than proposed by the White House. And those levels could go lower, especially in the Senate, where moderate Democrats from conservative states will be an important factor in the debate on the floor next week.

WSJ

Even OMB Director Peter Orzag is quoted as saying that the House and Senate proposals are 98% similar to the White House proposal. So much for Congress establishing its own independence. Our only hope now is for the 51 Blue Dogs in the House to jump ship and act reasonably. I am not holding my breath.

Still Slipping

Mr. Geithner's proposal, which could be modified amid congressional debate, would allow the Treasury and FDIC to jointly determine—after consulting with the Federal Reserve—if a company needed to be seized.

WSJ

I really cannot believe we are even considering this. We may not be a pure capitalist society, but we are a country with capitalist roots, and a free market core. The fact that we have an administration that is actually suggesting giving giving the government the power to take over private firms scares the crap out of me. If we keep going down this path, "socialism" is going to be an all too common term.

Budget Brings Out the Hypocrites

Stan Collender, in his most recent column in Roll Call, calls out many of those Democrats who are complaining about the way Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), and other lawmakers are handling the President's Budget Proposal for fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The every same Democrats who accused the Republican-controlled Congress of merely rubber-stamping President Bush's fiscal and legislative initiatives are now criticizing Conrad for establishing Congressional independence in regards to the budget.

As with most political pundits and so-called advocates, principles only factor into decision-making when it is convenient. Now, I don't support Conrad's budget either (which should be released on Thursday), but at least it is a step in the right direction when compared to the Obama proposal.

Slippery Slope

The U.S. government needs to be able to take over and wind down a broad range of economically important non-bank financial institutions, top economic officials told Congress Tuesday, though who will get that authority was left as an open question. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told House lawmakers the government's experience with American International Group Inc. highlights the need to deal with increasingly complex and systemically important institutions.

WSJ Online

The way to deal with the institutions is to let them succeed or fail on their own mertis, and not bail out failing industries with taxpayer dollars. But instead, this slope keeps getting even more slippery.

Dodd Double Talk

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

CNN

I am not going to comment on whatever reason Dodd claims to have included the language, or even if the language should have been in the bailout. Instead, I want to focus on how just one day after telling CNN that he had nothing to do with inserting the bonus language, Dodd admits to be the main architect of the provision. Did he really lie to CNN yesterday, or is he lying today? Did he refuse to admit to his stupidity only after getting caught, or is he protecting someone in the Administration? Either way, I hope this adds to his political troubles so he will lose his Senate seat in 2010.

Not in My House

Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

WSJ

There had better be some damn strict, rigid levels of proof required to release any of these bastards. I, for one, am not comfortable with this at all.

Socialist Administration

President Barack Obama said he will seek legal authority over the financial system that will give the federal government power to step into contract issues, such as the one that has allowed American International Group Inc. to pay out $165 million in retention bonuses to employees of the tottering insurance giant's financial products group. The president said he spoke with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank this morning about granting him "resolution authority" similar to the power the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has over the thrifts it regulates. That would allow his administration to potentially abrogate contracts that it can show does not serve the good of newly regulated entities like AIG.

WSJ

This is exactly why I was against the bailout plan from the start. Not only did the government give taxpayer's money to companies that already proved they cannot be trusted to use capital in an intelligent manner, it gives the government a foothold in private companies. This type of government involvement goes against the fabric of the free, capitalist ideologies that our country was founded upon. Once Obama beings involving himself in the operations of "newly-regulated" companies, what is to stop him from applying this authority to even more private entities. The term "slippery slope" was coined for precisely these kind of situations.

Update:

Obama is taking responsibility for the bonuses, not because he was invovled, but because he believes a leader should keep things like this from happeneing. This false sense of humility is simply another ploy to lend credibility to his efforts to place private businesses under governmental control.

Bipartisan?

"I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy," Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, said during his daily briefing to journalists at the White House. "So they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal."
Washington Post

I understand why Gibbs was trying to downplay Cheney's credibility and relevance, but his wording did little to help the Administration's facade of bipartisanship. If Obama want sto pass himself off as a unifying force in Washington, his spokesman should not be making comments about the "Republican cabal." Partisan shots like that should be left to liberal pundits or members of Congress.

That being said, the GOP needs to start putting muzzles and leashes on "members" like Limbaugh and Cheney. Most of America looks on both of these men in a negative way, so as long as they are associated with the party, the party is not going to rebound from the last 3 years. They really need to start making better decisions.

Jindal's Response Was Lacking Credibility

It was billed as a "coming out party" for one of the GOP's most promising young stars. But after nearly universal criticism was heaped on Gov. Bobby Jindal's high-profile response to President Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night, the Louisiana Republican may be wishing he had stayed home.

CNN

The delivery was too reminiscent of a Saturday morning PSA. He seemed like he was auditioning to do books on tape, or to be the voice over on a History Channel programs on geographical phenomenon. Some if the substance of his speech was on point, but the overly corney delivery took away from his argument and soured his national debut.

Obama's First Address to Congress

I have very mixed feelings regarding Obama's first address to a joint session of Congress last night. However, when you factor in the realities we face with his political rhetoric, I am left with no real positive outlook on his Presidency. While I, like most of those present at the speech, agreed with certain priorities that the President listed, I am afraid we do not see eye to eye on how to get there.

A few points that the President brought up that I agree with in principle: lowering the deficit, cutting wasteful government spending, tax cuts, and education, health care, and energy reform. Above all else, the federal government's top priority should be paying down the national debt. The Republicans showed a complete lack of fiscal restraint when they held the majority. As the supposed party of "change," the Democrats should reign in government spending, and work at bringing down the national debt. If President Obama can pull that off without raising taxes, then I can almost promise that he will get my vote in 2012.

One way to help bring down spending is to eliminate inefficient, wasteful government programs. The President has appointed a federal official to oversee the investigation into program effectiveness. I wish her the greatest possible success. However, President Bush tried for 8 consecutive years to cut dozens of wasteful programs. His proposals would have increased federal funding for programs that were proven successes, without raising the overall bottom line, by redirecting funds from inefficient and unsuccessful programs. He could not get the Republican Congress to agree to eliminate these programs, and he could not get the Democratic Congress on board either. Hopefully, Obama can trade on his currently un-earned popularity and maybe get Congress to fall in line.

Finally, Obama mentioned a strong deisre to reform our nation's education, health care, and energy systems. I am all for reform, I just don;t believe the President and I agree on what kind of reform is necessary. I believe the only government involvement in these areas is to deregulate. That's right, I said the very unpopular phrase "deregulate." I think local educators have a much better idea of what their students need than a bureaucrat in Washington. I think that companies should be encouraged (though tax breaks) to provide health care plans for employees that are affordable and effective. I believe that the government should promote new research and production of alternative fuel sources, mainly through R&D grants and additional tax incentives. The key to success is getting government out of the way, not giving them more chains to tie down those in the field.

On other issues, such as pulling troops out of Iraq, I still have mixed feelings. Americans have been fighting and dying in an area of the country that seems less and less to appreciate what we have done. The cost of the ongoing conflict has brought out deficit up to unbelievable levels. The cost, both fiscal and human, is too high. However, we are over there, we have been involved, and therefore, we cannot just bailout and leave the region in a war-torn mess. We have to find a way to transfer authority gradually, helping to give the ungrateful bastards the best chance at a lasting peace.

In regards to taxes, I applaud an effort to give 95% of American tax breaks. However, that number is based on some very "fuzzy" math. The fact is, the so called wealthiest 1% of Americans are the ones paying the majority of our taxes. They are already shouldering the largest portion of taxes, and should not be subject to additional burden. Rather than taking more money from those who have it, lets focus on more efficient ways to spend the money they are already giving us. Besides, any increased costs are almost always passed down to the average consumer. that mean taxes on corporation eventually gets passed on to those consumers, who end up paying higher prices.

Speaking of corporate taxes, the President mentioned ending tax breaks for businesses that "ship jobs overseas." I agree, in general, with the premise that companies that outsource jobs should not be rewarded for doing so. however, increased taxes means those companies are more likely to ship all of their operations overseas. Rather than focusing on how to punish those companies, we need to work on ways to encourage domestic businesses to keep jobs in the country, as well as ways to entice foreign companies to bring their operations into the U.S.

In the end, I believe his speech was well written and delivered very well. however, it lacked in substance, and it points in a direction that will only further complicate things. We need reform, and we need change, but it needs to be the right kind of change. Instead of "Change We Can Believe In," how about "Change We Can Depend On," or "Change We Can Follow to Prosperity." I hope I am wrong, and I hope that the President does turn around the country. I am simply not convinces. My advice to the President and his supporters is to be very careful in how you chose to proceed, because the fate of the nation depends on the choices you make now.

Ulterior Motive

Jindal's party is putting him on a national platform, awarding the once little-known congressman the political plum of delivering the Republican's televised response to President Barack Obama's address to Congress on February 24.

CNN

I can't help but wonder if there is an ulterior motive here. I believe Jindal is qualified to give the response, and he is a very intelligent man. However, I can't help but feel that the GOP only picked him to deliver a response to Obama's speech because he is a minority member of the party. Moves like this are always a risk. It may have the desired effect of portraying the party as a new agent for change, or it can backfire if the normally oblivious voters recognize the move as a cheap attempt at picking up a few minority voters. Interesting move.