Our hapless President declares that we have no right to meddle in Iran's internal politics. Aside from the disgrace of not supporting the protesters the idea that we will not be accused of meddling is so preposterous as to be funny, if it wasn't so sad.
Does Obama really not understand that the leaders of Iran, and the third world in general do not actually rely on reality to make their pronouncements? They simply say what they want to regardless of the facts. Think Baghdad Bob.
The Iranians immediately do the obvious: Declare that we are meddling in their internal politics. Brilliant.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Giving away money with no spending instructions is not wise
I have read a lot of stories recently about cancelled junkets to Los Vegas and elsewhere. The cancellers are recipients of government bail outs and the public, rightfully outraged about the need for and/or usefulness of the bailouts, made a fuss about the lavish plans.
Our political class, which gave away the money with no restrictions that I am aware of, suddenly becomes outraged. Righteous indignation abounds.
Who doesn't know that if you give someone a bag of money with no instructions on how it is to be spent it may not be spent the way you might have hoped. Blame the givers, not the givees.
I would suggest that we all take a step back and ask ourselves what difference it makes how the money is spent. The point is, it has to be spent. Spending a few million in a Las Vega resort is a far better and more direct stimulus than keeping it in the bank's vault.
Our political class, which gave away the money with no restrictions that I am aware of, suddenly becomes outraged. Righteous indignation abounds.
Who doesn't know that if you give someone a bag of money with no instructions on how it is to be spent it may not be spent the way you might have hoped. Blame the givers, not the givees.
I would suggest that we all take a step back and ask ourselves what difference it makes how the money is spent. The point is, it has to be spent. Spending a few million in a Las Vega resort is a far better and more direct stimulus than keeping it in the bank's vault.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Confessing to Strategic not Moral Errors
Obama confessed to a "mistake" today. He will quickly learn that the leader of the free world does not make such confessions.
In reading MSM coverage of the Daschle debacle it is noteworthy that nowhere (as far as I have seen) is his "mistake" called what it is: A willing, knowing effort to illegally avoid paying income taxes. Can anyone really believe that after a million years in Congress he wasn't aware of the rules? Nonsense. How much time do Senators spend crafting ethics laws and dealing with what is and is not income to them so that they can endeavor to pay as little income tax as possible? How long was he a Senator. What a lying sack of crap.
Obama actually is admitting only to a strategic error, not the moral error of considering a tax cheat an appropriate candidate for a US cabinet position. Of course, we already knew that, didn't we.
Mr. Geithner also made a "mistake". Yes, of course he did. After having signed an agreement with his employer, IMF, that clearly stated that he understood he was being paid a sum that was to be passed on to the government in payment of Social Security and Medicare taxes he kept the money. His Turbo Tax error argument has been strongly rebutted by Turbo Tax and a zillion "experts".
Here too, Obama admits to a strategic error, not the moral error of considering a tax cheat an appropriate candidate for a US cabinet position. Irony of ironies, we now have a willful, knowing tax cheat as the Treasury Secretary.
Now that is Change!
In reading MSM coverage of the Daschle debacle it is noteworthy that nowhere (as far as I have seen) is his "mistake" called what it is: A willing, knowing effort to illegally avoid paying income taxes. Can anyone really believe that after a million years in Congress he wasn't aware of the rules? Nonsense. How much time do Senators spend crafting ethics laws and dealing with what is and is not income to them so that they can endeavor to pay as little income tax as possible? How long was he a Senator. What a lying sack of crap.
Obama actually is admitting only to a strategic error, not the moral error of considering a tax cheat an appropriate candidate for a US cabinet position. Of course, we already knew that, didn't we.
Mr. Geithner also made a "mistake". Yes, of course he did. After having signed an agreement with his employer, IMF, that clearly stated that he understood he was being paid a sum that was to be passed on to the government in payment of Social Security and Medicare taxes he kept the money. His Turbo Tax error argument has been strongly rebutted by Turbo Tax and a zillion "experts".
Here too, Obama admits to a strategic error, not the moral error of considering a tax cheat an appropriate candidate for a US cabinet position. Irony of ironies, we now have a willful, knowing tax cheat as the Treasury Secretary.
Now that is Change!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Stimulus - Not - Letter to Congressman Mitchell
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
The purpose of this note is to encourage you to vote against the "stimulus" bill.
To put it most simply, we have engaged in vast amounts of deficit spending over the last 8 years. It did not prevent a recession. More of the same will obviously not cure one.
As is well known, this manner of economic stimulation did not work in the 30's, 60's or 70's. Even Keynes said himself after the FDR effort in the 30's that massive government spending is not an effective way to stimulate an economy in severe downturn.
This bill has turned into a massive pork barrel and it will do no good to the reputations of any of you who vote for it.
We often make mistakes when we are in a hurry. This is no time for mistakes. A yes vote will mortgage the futures of our children to extent not previously seen.
As has been pointed out in the "disappeared" CBO report and is confirmed as less severe in the current one, a great deal of the spending called for will not be immediate.
I urge you to caution your colleagues that they are embarking on a catastrophic course from which recovery will be difficult.
The most likely solution to the current problem is to let the markets do their work. It is government interference in the mortgage markets that produced the problem we are dealing with in the first place. More government interference will only delay the market correction that is essential to the business cycle and recovery.
If we want to help those with mortgages they can't afford, let's do it. If we want to help the unemployed, let's support them. We don't have to spend a trillion dollars to do it.
Good long-term jobs come from the private sector, not government construction programs. Stimulate the housing industry with buyer tax credits. Support business friendly policies and tax cuts. They work.
Yours truly,
Michael Markowitz
The purpose of this note is to encourage you to vote against the "stimulus" bill.
To put it most simply, we have engaged in vast amounts of deficit spending over the last 8 years. It did not prevent a recession. More of the same will obviously not cure one.
As is well known, this manner of economic stimulation did not work in the 30's, 60's or 70's. Even Keynes said himself after the FDR effort in the 30's that massive government spending is not an effective way to stimulate an economy in severe downturn.
This bill has turned into a massive pork barrel and it will do no good to the reputations of any of you who vote for it.
We often make mistakes when we are in a hurry. This is no time for mistakes. A yes vote will mortgage the futures of our children to extent not previously seen.
As has been pointed out in the "disappeared" CBO report and is confirmed as less severe in the current one, a great deal of the spending called for will not be immediate.
I urge you to caution your colleagues that they are embarking on a catastrophic course from which recovery will be difficult.
The most likely solution to the current problem is to let the markets do their work. It is government interference in the mortgage markets that produced the problem we are dealing with in the first place. More government interference will only delay the market correction that is essential to the business cycle and recovery.
If we want to help those with mortgages they can't afford, let's do it. If we want to help the unemployed, let's support them. We don't have to spend a trillion dollars to do it.
Good long-term jobs come from the private sector, not government construction programs. Stimulate the housing industry with buyer tax credits. Support business friendly policies and tax cuts. They work.
Yours truly,
Michael Markowitz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)