Recently in Politics, Government & Public Policy Category

I'm not a fan of the "fact check" style, but it's fun when it's aimed at President Obama!

It was a wish list, not a to-do list.

President Barack Obama laid out an array of plans in his State of the Union speech as if his hands weren't so tied by political realities. There can be little more than wishful thinking behind his call to end oil industry subsidies - something he could not get through a Democratic Congress, much less today's divided Congress, much less in this election year.

And there was more recycling, in an even more forbidding climate than when the ideas were new: He pushed for an immigration overhaul that he couldn't get past Democrats, permanent college tuition tax credits that he asked for a year ago, and familiar discouragements for companies that move overseas.

I don't see any "facts" marked as "true" in the piece.

I didn't watch the State of the Union speech last night, but apparently I didn't miss much.

So organizers of online internet poker are going to jail while the Department of Justice is busy authorizing states to put their lotteries online.

This kind of double-dealing (ha!) is why many people don't respect the law very much. It's sad that our government looks more like a protection racket for favored groups than a protector of liberty and purveyor of justice.

Ok, so I like Ron Paul and I'm glad he's in Congress, but you've got to admit he's a little crazy. However he's not so crazy that he actually thinks he can win the Presidency, as his investment portfolio reveals.

Here at Total Return, we've looked at hundreds of the annual financial-disclosure forms in which the members of Congress reveal their assets and trades - and we've never seen a more unorthodox portfolio than Ron Paul's. ...

At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul's portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. "This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds," he says.

How would Ron Paul invest if he thought he would win? I don't know, but he would save the economy from the doomsday scenario he has prepared for, right? Or maybe he knows that his investments will be bad if he wins, and they're just a hedge against the off-chance that he won't be our next President.

I'll admit, I counted Rick Perry out after his big "oops" debate flub... but these two endorsements are pretty compelling. First, from Ace of Spades:

First, biographical and character details. Much of the More Informed cohort of the party seems to be giving these factors short shrift. I would suggest to such folks that a certain type of candidate tends to prevail in elections, and that type of candidate tends to have a positive narrative in biographical and characterological traits.

Rick Perry did not marry his high school sweetheart. He married his grade school sweetheart. He has never been divorced as as far as I know there haven't been any rocky patches in his relationship.

Those who discount the importance of that, especially to women voters, are making an error, I think. ...

The media and liberals (but I repeat myself) will attack Perry, predictably, as stupid, but there is a strong rebuttal to such a claim: If he can't perform the duties of Chief Executive, then how is he's been successfully performing the duties of Chief Executive?

America, and especially the Republican party, has long favored elevating governors to the presidency. Governors are, after all, the presidents of single states. They have nearly the exact same duties and functions (including even maintaining and controlling the state national guards). They have similar executive powers and set the agendas for their respective legislatures. In the case of border states such as Texas, they even require some foreign policy making duties.

No job in the world really prepares someone for the Presidency. But one job, more than any other, comes fairly close to doings so.

So Rick Perry cannot handle high executive office?

Then how is it he's been doing just that for 11 years? ...

I remember that, by the third debate, people were complaining that they were sick of hearing about Texas producing 45% of all jobs created in America the last two years, and sick of hearing that Texas has created one million jobs while America has lost two million plus in the last ten years.

I understand that High Information voters, who knew this before Rick Perry announced it, might be "sick" of hearing about it.

But the fact of the matter is: That should have been said more, not less.

Very good points.

Next, from Mike Flynn:

Supporters of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have to face one inconvenient truth; they both failed when given the chance to govern. Gingrich rode an historic GOP wave into the Speakership in 1994 only to be ousted by his fellow Republicans just four years later. It was one of the more spectacular flame-outs in political history. Hastert and Pelosi lost the Speaker's gavel when the voters rejected them and their parties. Newt lost his when his GOP colleagues rejected him. He was given an unprecedented opportunity to reform entitlements and reverse our nation's fiscal rot and...he blinked. His subsequent "consulting" for Freddie Mac, support for the largest expansion of entitlements since LBJ, an individual health insurance mandate and TARP, among other things, only further disqualifies him. I'm not at all certain that he has the core conservative convictions or beliefs that could withstand the daily dramas of the Presidency.

Mitt Romney only served one-term as Governor of Massachusetts because he wasn't going to win reelection. Keep in mind that Romney's term followed twelve years of GOP rule on Beacon Hill. Massachusetts voters were in something of a habit, since 1990, of voting for Republicans for Governor. That streak ended with Mitt. And, there were fewer Republican state legislators when he left office than when he entered it. ...

There is also a fundamental political problem with either a Gingrich or Romney nomination. The GOP wouldn't be able to campaign against the Wall Street bailouts nor the individual health mandate. They both supported these at one time or another. Does the party really want to remove those arrows from its quiver? Those two issues are a large reason why 60+% of Independents align themselves with the GOP now. I know people joke that the GOP is the "stupid party", but really? They really don't want to make those arguments against Obama? Aren't these two issues the defining issues of the upcoming election? ...

Perry has clearly been a good Governor. He has not, however, been a great candidate. His early campaign was too Texas-centric. We all know about his debate performances. He has positions I disagree with. And his campaign has made some steps I also disagree with. But, I believe he could be a great President. He understand the limits of government, the power of the private sector to create prosperity and the dangers government policies pose to that. And, I believe he understands these principles in a more fundamental way than the other candidates.

Read the whole things to get all the arguments for Perry. These endorsements changed my mind to the extend that they've put Perry back on the map for me.

Just because proportions and probabilities are measured with the same units (percentages) does not mean that they're equivalent or convertible. A proportion is a measurement representing the size of a subset relative to its whole. A probability is a measurement of the likelihood that a given event will occur. If you flip a coin ten times and get four heads (proportion = 40%) that doesn't mean that the probability that the next flip will be a head is also 40%, or 60%, or any other percent.

I say all that to point out the shoddy analysis of a recent Associated Press poll about President Obama by Ken Thomas and Jennifer Agiesta. The key offense is here:

Entering 2012, President Barack Obama's re-election prospects are essentially a 50-50 proposition, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. It found that most Americans say the president deserves to be voted out of office even though they have concerns about the Republican alternatives. ...

The poll found Americans were evenly divided over whether they expect Obama to be re-elected next year.

For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves another term.

1. There's a huge difference between (a) "Americans say the president deserves to be voted out of office" and (b) "Americans were evenly divided over whether they expect Obama to be re-elected". (A) is a question about what should happen, in the mind of the individual being polled, while (b) is a question about what the person believes will happen based on the votes of millions of people. For example, it's very possible to think that Obama should win re-election but will not.

2. 52 percent to 43 percent is not "evenly divided" by any stretch of the imagination. If there is any 50/50 data in the poll that the "evenly divided" is referring to the authors never mention it. A 52%-43% election would be an historic landslide for the victor. (In 2008, Obama beat John McCain 52.9% to 45.7% in the "popular vote", a seven-point spread.)

3. If 52% of people really think that Obama should not be re-elected and 43% think he should be, that doesn't mean that Obama has a 52% probability of losing the election and a 43% probability of winning. If the poll response accurately represents the view of the people who show up to vote, then Obama has a 100% probability of losing the election. If Obama gets 50% of the votes minus one, and his opponent gets 50% plus one, Obama will 100% lose.

4. Journalists really need to understand statistics before they "analyze" them.

I'm sure the #OCCUPY people will love President Obama's elitist perspective on his children:

Our kids are going to be fine. And I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don't worry about you -- I mean, I worry the way parents worry -- but they're on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful. But that's not our vision of America. I don't want an America where my kids are living behind walls and gates, and can't feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot.

1. Of course the President's kids are on a path to be wealthy and famous -- their father is the President of the United States! Without President Bill Clinton, do you really think Chelsea Clinton would have gone to Stanford and Columbia, or serve on two boards of directors, or be a "special correspondent" for NBC News? Do you think Hillary Clinton would have been elected Senator from New York or appointed as Secretary of State? Duh, no. Ex-presidents use their power and fame to make tons of money and share their prestige with their family members.

2. How could "the country as a whole" not be successful? Isn't Obama President of it? If Obama and his family will be fine regardless, does that mean he doesn't have any "skin the game" as he is fond of saying?

3. Whether America as a whole is "successful" or not, I predict that Obama and his family will continue to live behind walls and gates long after his term as president ends.

4. The last sentence doesn't really make any sense. Why wouldn't his kids feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot? Does Obama "feel a part" of America now? Or is he worried that his kids won't because they'll be so wealthy and famous? Is Obama poised to renounce America if it doesn't meet his standards for "giving everybody a shot"?

(HT: James Taranto.)

Why are there so few blacks at the #Occupy camps?

Many a brow was furrowed in concern, many a chin was earnestly wagged on the subject of Tea Party racism. Did Blacks avoid Tea Party events, the press wondered, because racist Tea Partiers kept them away, or because Blacks were smart enough to realize that the Tea Party agenda was a racial hate and oppression agenda?

Here at Via Meadia we have been noting the relative plenitude of palefaces at the OWS protests and the protesters we personally know have tended to be of the upper middle class white liberal artsy type. We have waited for the wave of investigative journalism seeking the reasons for Black absenteeism -- but so far we have been disappointed. Black failure to attend right wing demonstrations appears to be a mysterious matter demanding detailed investigation, but there is nothing to discuss when they shun left wing ones. Moreover, a relative absence of Black faces in right wing crowds clearly demonstrates the racism of both the protesters and their ideas, while an absence of Black faces in left wing crowds means -- absolutely nothing.

The gulf between blacks and elite whites does not bode well for the Democrats' 2012 election strategy.

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment -- professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists -- and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

No wonder the Left sees separateness and inequality everywhere they look... they're the heart of it. Perhaps this gulf is not a problem, but is actually essential to the Democrats' plan?

One meme that I've been hearing a lot recently is that Congress is "dysfunctional", but I don't agree. Let's look at some evidence though:

• Congress hasn't passed a budget since 2009
• Supercommittee superfails to make even superficial budget reforms
• Obamacare enacted using procedural gimmicks and against public will
• No ability to tackle soaring "entitlement" deficits
• No Congressional authorization for Libya war

These aren't even complaints about good versus bad policy... they're evidence that Congress is completely and hopelessly gridlocked. However, I don't think think that this gridlock is a sign of dysfunction... I think Congress is working as intended.

What? Yes, that's right. Our Constitution separates powers in the government to purposefully make it hard to do stuff. That's a feature, not a bug. Congress is gridlocked because the electorate is gridlocked: we don't want to give up our "entitlements", but we're also slowly realizing that we can't keep borrowing to pay for them.

Either taxes go up a lot, or entitlements get slashed. Which will it be? Congress can't act until there's a relatively broad mandate for one road or the other. Until that time nothing will happen, and it's not Congress' fault.

Here at Master of None we always give people the benefit of the doubt and never question their sincerity. President Obama has given numerous speeches showing that he takes our debt and deficit very seriously, and we believe him! Just as a fun counter-factual though... what would the President have done differently if he didn't really want to reduce the deficit but only wanted it to appear that he did?

The President's press secretary tells us that the President and his Treasury Secretary have "been very engaged with their European counterparts" in addressing their debt crises, but it appears the President's involvement in the American Super Committee was to set a proposal on the table and then leave.

Mr. Carney points to the President's September proposal to the Super Committee, and to the negotiations with Speaker Boehner over the summer, as evidence that the President is trying to reduce the budget deficit. For balance I think it's important to point out five deficit reduction opportunities the President missed.

Ann Coulter describes how David Axelrod secured a Senate seat for Barack Obama by digging through Obama's opponents sealed divorce records.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

The same people frowned on these sorts of allegations when the target was Bill Clinton....

(HT: NC, RC, The Blaze.)

Herman Cain says that sexual harassment claims against him are "baseless".

"I have never sexually harassed anyone, let's say that. Secondly, I've never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, and I say falsely, because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless. The people mentioned in that article were the ones who would be aware of any misdoings, and they have attested to my integrity and my character. It is totally baseless, and totally false, never have I committed any sort of sexual harassment," Herman Cain told FOX News about claims from Politico that he was involved in the sexual harassment of two former employees.

Anonymous sources, nameless accusers, zero evidence. Is a black conservative man so dangerous to the Left that they're willing to attack him with such insubstantial claims?

Bonus question: Cain and Clarence Thomas... why are black conservative males always hit with dubious sexual harassment accusations? Isn't this racist?

Are the politicians and union bosses who lie to their constituents about their broken pensions really friends of the working class?

In Rhode Island, it is Democrats, not nasty union-hating Republicans, who are doing the dirty work. Democratic mayors are telling their unions that there isn't any money -- not because they are vicious corporate stooges who hate working people and want to see them suffer, but because There. Isn't. Any. Money.

Let's be crystal clear about this. To tell a 50 year old pretty lies about the soundness of a pension plan is one of the most wicked and irresponsible things you can do without actually shedding blood; people who believe these phony promises will not make the extra savings, work the extra years or otherwise take steps to protect themselves until it is too late. Telling those pretty lies is exactly what Rhode Island's establishment has been doing for some time; it is what Ostrich Party legislators, trade unionists, journalists and governors are still doing across much of the country.

Reasonable reforms could have made things much less painful, but the unions typically threaten to destroy the careers of any politician who tampers with the pension system until the truck actually starts falling over the cliff. Now the long fall has begun and Rhode Island and its retirees are caught in a cascade of bad news, lawsuits, and financial crisis. No Rhode Island retiree can rely on getting the benefits promised; nobody can predict how this will all work out.

The fundamental flaw of democracy: people vote for what they want to hear, not what is actually true.

Strange that I was at McPherson Square just last week, right before these protests in support of the most powerful man on earth started.

(HT: James Taranto.)

Using discriminatory bake sales to advocate against affirmative action isn't a new tactic... I remember similar events when I was at UCLA.

Exit question: why do leftists gladly accept affirmative action in education but bristle at lower prices for baked goods?

More here.

Obviously the President's extremely urgent new spending jobs bill -- that must be passed right now! -- won't even be considered in the Democrat-controlled Senate until sometime next month (maybe).

The president was in such a hurry to get this new spending going, everyone remembers, that during that address he said the phrase "right now" seven times. He didn't actually mean right now that night because the NFL season was opening a few minutes after his remarks.

But Obama did want to show how really urgent he said the situation was, even though it had taken him 961 days as president to say them. And even though from Day #1 of the brief Obama Era polls had shown jobs and the economy were the No. 1 priority among voters but he pursued healthcare and financial reforms first. And even though unemployment had been at or above 9% for 26 of the last 28 months.

So, given the president's professed urgency, the next day, Sept. 9, everyone asked where was his jobs legislation?

And, well, it seems the urgent jobs bill hadn't actually been written yet but should be ready in a week or two. When the laughter died, the White House said on second thought the legislation would be ready for a photo op the next Monday.

Well, here we are on the next Monday after that next Monday and we've just learned from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, that actually it seems that body won't really be seriously getting into the legislation for a while yet. The Senate has some other more important business to handle. And then there's this month's congressional vacation, which in Washington is called "a recess," like elementary school.

Also obviously, the new "jobs bill" would simply be a money laundering scheme to pass taxpayer dollars to unions which then pass the money to the Democrat party. Also also obviously, the "jobs bill" has zero chance of ever passing, and everyone in DC knows this.

I hope everyone is enjoying the show that Obama is putting on, because it's costing your kids trillions of dollars.

Jeremy Walker writes about why he thinks America is in deep trouble.

Last week I was thinking about all of the hype surrounding the debt-ceiling when it occurred to me that I haven't check the status of the Federal Reserve's Monetary Base lately. What follows is a lengthy post where I try to recapture all of my thoughts on this and various topics that I have written about over the course of the past few years.

Obama "paralyzed politically", refuses to lead.

Later, the White House press corps pressed spokesman Jay Carney on whether Obama would be unveiling a deficit reduction plan "in a form of being scorable by the Congressional Budget Office." When Carney demurred, Politico's Glenn Thrush asked: "You said he will be contributing to the process, talking about the super committee, but he won't be leading it. He is the leader of the free world. Why isn't he leading this process?" Carney responded: "Glenn. Look, this President, his leadership on these issues is quite established."

Quite established to whom? After Obama's statement, the markets fell another 210 points. Obama is unwilling to call Congress back from its August recess and push for a larger stimulus agenda because he fears alienating already skeptical independents. But he can't bargain constructively on deficit reduction with Republicans because liberals will abandon him if he pushes for real entitlement reform. As a result, Obama is paralyzed politically. All he can do is watch the market, and his reelection chances, drop.

Obama is a non-entity, and it seems like he isn't even trying.

President Obama: Please resign. It's obvious you don't really want to be president anymore, and we're pretty sick of you as well.

Update: Obama is so out of his depth.

Socrates taught that wisdom begins in the recognition of how little we know. Mr. Obama is perpetually intent on telling us how much he knows. Aristotle wrote that the type of intelligence most needed in politics is prudence, which in turn requires experience. Mr. Obama came to office with no experience. Plutarch warned that flattery "makes itself an obstacle and pestilence to great houses and great affairs." Today's White House, more so than any in memory, is stuffed with flatterers.

Much is made of the president's rhetorical gifts. This is the sort of thing that can be credited only by people who think that a command of English syntax is a mark of great intellectual distinction. Can anyone recall a memorable phrase from one of Mr. Obama's big speeches that didn't amount to cliché? As for the small speeches, such as the one we were kept waiting 50 minutes for yesterday, we get Triple-A bromides about America remaining a "Triple-A country." Which, when it comes to long-term sovereign debt, is precisely what we no longer are under Mr. Obama.

Then there is Mr. Obama as political tactician. He makes predictions that prove false. He makes promises he cannot honor. He raises expectations he cannot meet. He reneges on commitments made in private. He surrenders positions staked in public. He is absent from issues in which he has a duty to be involved. He is overbearing when he ought to be absent. At the height of the financial panic of 1907, Teddy Roosevelt, who had done much to bring the panic about by inveighing against big business, at least had the good sense to stick to his bear hunt and let J.P. Morgan sort things out. Not so this president, who puts a new twist on an old put-down: Every time he opens his mouth, he subtracts from the sum total of financial capital.

Our credit downgrade is pretty humiliating. The next 15 months will be spent affixing blame to "someone else". So, let's get started! I happen to think that "Cut, Cap, and Balance" was the only debt option on the table that could have prevented a downgrade.

Throughout the debate over the debt ceiling, the media did all of us a great disservice. They reported as though the Republicans were threatening to ruin America's credit unless they got their way.

Closer to the truth: If only conservatives like Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., had gotten their way -- i.e., huge spending cuts -- perhaps we wouldn't have just been downgraded by S&P. DeMint predicted ahead of time that none of the debt deals on the table except for "Cut, Cap and Balance" would prevent a downgrade. He has been vindicated.

The bond-rating houses kept saying all along that they weren't worried about the debt ceiling not being increased. Rather, they were worried about the long-term prospects of the U.S. government paying back $15-plus trillion, which is where our national debt (both publicly held and obligated to trust funds) will be shortly.

From Standard & Poor's downgrade announcement we see that they don't care how we reduce the deficit:

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

However, President Obama never presented a plan for reducing the deficit at all, with spending cuts, new taxes, or anything. All he did was give speeches. The only actual written plan that could have prevented the downgrade was the "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act".