Moved

As of the end of May, I moved out of San Francisco to the warm environs of the East Bay. What does that really mean? Well, at night I get to see a lot more stars, it's a lot warmer during the day, I have a pool, and I don't have to move my car twice a week to avoid parking tickets. Course, I'm driving everyday anyway to get to BART, go to the store or to take my daughter to get ice cream. All of this is to say that I know get to get involved in the issues of surburbia; yeah for you.

It also means that I no longer have a vested interest in the politics of San Francisco....course, I still work in San Francisco, and now BART into work everyday (or drive, depending on the situation- btw, time of use pricing for the Bay Bridge??? I'm all for it!) so I'm not completely immune to it.

So, what's the purpose of all of this? I could say 42, and many people would get it, but that's just a joke. I do hope to have time to delve into specific issues that I find interesting and important, and hope that I bring a unique point of view to it.

Obama Surrenders to the Mayor of Tampa

U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.

Poor Gavin, he feels so left out.

Maureen Dowd has an interview with Ess Eff Mayor Gavin Newsom in her article today. Here is where the wistfulness comes in:

Like many pioneers who go first — from the “Ellen” sitcom to the Hillary drama — the mayor who staked his career on giving equal rights to gays may have to settle for paving the way. The lawyers get praised, but he got pilloried?

“Grand understatement,” he said dryly, noting that he still remembers press coverage from before the 2004 same-sex marriage eruption about shooting stars of the Democratic Party.

“There were five of us,” he said, with a teasing nostalgia. “A guy named Obama. I’m like ‘Why is he in here? This is ridiculous. I mean, he’s a state senator. I’m kind of insulted.’ Life was really good, and then it came crashing down. ‘You’re not going to be speaking at the convention. We overbooked.’ And then it becomes the house of cards with the Democrats excusing themselves from visits to this city and being in the same room with me.

Even Gavin Newsom was insulted at being upstaged by a measly state senator from Illinois.

Oh, I'm getting sucked back in. . .

You know, it was kind of enjoyable pushing down the temptation to wield my keyboard and spout off online knowing that no one reads this and that I could basically get my point across using less verbiage on Facebook and . But with the Scott Brown victory last night and something I read in today's Chronicle (course, leave it to the Chronicle to do that), I will probably start writing again with a little more frequency. Plus, the primaries are 5 months away, and I most definitely will not be able to control myself.

So, what from today's Chronicle caught my eye? This article on a bill introduced by my State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. In the article, it talks about a bill to regulate tattoo and piercing parlors, which are not subject to state jurisdiction, rather, are left to local authorities. I don't disagree that some amount of jurisdiction needs to be had over these operations, as the article notes there are significant concerns regarding the safety and cleanliness of these operations. Tattoo needles do pose health concerns if not disposed of properly. Ok, that's all fine, be it the state or the cities, just pick one and be consistent.

No, what got me was this: "She also wants to ban the tattooing of anyone under age 18 - regardless of whether a parent consents." The article fails to dig into this any deeper, rather, focusing solely on the safety aspects of the bill. What is the rationale for this? The illogical and inconsistent treatment of those under the age of 18 in this state boggles my mind- if you're under 18, you must have a parent to get a piercing, to get a tattoo (for now), or to even go see a movie. No, the State of California has decided that all of those are decisions that must be made in consultation with a parent; yet, when asked to have an adult be notified about whether or not to have an abortion, well, of course you can't do that, think of the safety of the minor. If Fiona Ma wants to protect people under the age of 18 from getting Hep B by banning them from getting a tattoo, why can't the same logic be applied to underage abortions? I simply do not get it.

Now, while I voted for those propositions for adult notification, my analyses of those propositions were predicated on a sense of consistency; how can the state have laws requiring parental involvement for things like the above, but be insistent that having a similar law in place would be bad when deciding on whether or not to have an abortion? I'm asking for consistency and some logical reasoning. I, of course, realize that I'm talking about Democrats in the legislature, so consistency and logical reasoning are noticeably absent the vast majority of the time.

Nevertheless, I'd hope that saner heads prevail on the topic of banning people under the age of 18 from getting a tattoo. If, as Fiona Ma seems to argue, the point is to make these places safer, then make them safer, but there's no reason to simply ban a portion of the population from getting a tattoo if their parents are fine with it.

Gas up the truck!

Where's your editor?

From the San Francisco Examiner Parenting blog:

The best baby grinder.

Now, I know San Francisco isn't kid friendly, but I had no idea. But really, it's a story about making your own baby food, but I guess the title was just too good to change.

Long time gone

Was out on paternity leave. . .but, wanted to pose this question:

Perhaps this is the reason why Senator Kent Conrad is holding up health care?

Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

Conrad, hoping to get re-elected, is trying to make good with his constituents, who likely oppose government-run health care. If he can water it down enough to make them happy, perhaps they won't vote him out when he's up again. Sen. Dodd, on the other hand, has no idea what you are talking about ("Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.").

The quest for stimulus money

The S.F. Chronicle has an article today that notes that if California, in attempting to close a $16-21 billion deficit cuts too much funding from education and health care programs, it will lose additional stimulus money.

How ironic.

The stimulus bill requires that state spend a minimum amount of money on certain projects, and if the state cuts spending below that amount, they will have violated the terms of the stimulus agreement, and will have the money taken away. So, California, trying to cut spending in the face of a dramatic deficit, will be punished for trying to do what Washington can't do: live within their means. The states are required to have a balanced budget, Washington is not. Congress passed a stimulus bill earlier this year that directed funds to states and cities for specific purposes, which was the first mistake of this whole mess. Instead of directing the money to be used for specific purposes (and threatening states and cities to abide or else), Congress should have just given each state a lump sum and let them decide what's best. Instead, we get Congress dictating to states how to use the money, which ends up causing a big mess. From labor groups lobbying the Administration in protest of previous wage cuts, to not allowing cities to swap transportation funds, even if they have no projects to fund, to governor's rejecting stimulus money because it creates a future unfunded mandate on certain programs.

The OMB has noted that stimulus money cannot be used to pay down debt, but only for spending on specific programs as directed by Congress and the Administration. So, what happens if a state has to cut money from these programs below the requirement set by the legislation in order to balance their budget? Will the Federal government really take away that stimulus money because states are bound to balance their budget?

California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has already said that she doubts this deficit can or will be met through tax increases, and she also notes that spending cuts will be severe, especially if Propositions 1A through 1E fail next week, which is likely. Instead, Bass was in D.C. to get the Federal government to provide a guarantee on new "Revenue Anticipation Notes" that she hopes will get the state through whatever length of time is needed.

What in the world is going on here? California needs to make spending cuts to balance their budget. Those spending cuts, however, may impact the ability of California to receive stimulus money, money that is being relied on by California to help off-set that budget deficit; if the stimulus money gets pulled, that would make the deficit situation even worse. So, California wants to issue short-term borrowing notes, backed by the Federal government, so that it can borrow even more money, at much higher interest rates than before, to balance the budget today but at at the likely loss of revenue in the future due to interest payments. This is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

You know what, screw the stimulus money- it's a sham anyway that is not even coming close to meeting anything that this economy is "so urgently" needing. Furthermore, the Administration has admitted that unemployment will still likely rise this year, even if the economy meets the Administration's wildly optimistic and unlikely growth expectations this year. Even before the stimulus was passed, the Administration said that unemployment without the stimulus would hit near 8.8% by the end of next year, guess what, we're at 8.9% right now. California should just reject all of the stimulus money, and be thankful that it will not be beholden to the wishes and whims of this Administration as it dictates to states how to run their own business. After all, it's worked so well for the auto industry and their creditors.

Someone will pay for this

This is amusing.

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that could lead to regulating the gases blamed for global warming will prove costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions, according to a White House document. ... The document, labeled "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege," says that if the EPA proceeds with the regulation of heat-trapping gases, including carbon dioxide, factories, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulation.

"Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide ... for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the document reads.

Someone, somewhere inside the Administration apparently didn't get the memo that the Federal Government must step in do something about this, costs be dammed. According to the Administration, that view came from an unnamed agency inside the Federal government.

I'm guessing that whoever wrote that memo is not long for his job. After all, who cares about science when there's a special interest group to cater to; I mean, look how the Administration caved in on Yucca Mountain- I'm gonna bet that the Administration has no plans of reimbursing ratepayers for those lost costs that were recovered from ratepayers to fund studies and move forward on building the repository at Yucca Mountain. It's only about science when they agree with the science.

Update- Environmental Capital has more on the memo and EPA's new position on carbon (endangerment doesn't mean regulation). It also notes that the Administration admitted that the document was prepared by someone at OMB and is based on a multitude of opinions from throughout the government. According to the post, the memo notes: “The amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty." In other words, the EPA, and by extension the Administration, went ahead with a policy based on politics.

There is a word for this type of activity

It's called extortion.

From the L.A. Times:

"The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget."

As part of the budget deal passed earlier this year, the legislature cut
$74 million from its budget that would have helped pay workers that care for low-income and elderly Californians. The Department of Health and Human Services, at the request of, surprise, the SEIU, sent a letter to the Governor saying that if he didn't reinstate those lost wages, California would see $6.8 billion less in stimulus money. Nevermind that the state is already facing a $23 billion shortfall in revenues this summer and could go "broke."

Yes, this is nothing short of extortion- the Federal government, at the request of the union, is threatening the state to comply or else. The Federal government is threatening to withhold a significant amount of money to the state, all to show how far this Administration will go to bend at the will of the unions, the economy be damned. They've already catered to the unions on Chrysler, so it's no surprise that they would cater to the unions on this.

Not to mention allowing GM to simply stop the Saturn line, which, as the Newsweek article explains, was once the next big step in U.S. automaking, but soon found itself mired and stuck in union anti-competitiveness assurances (or, as Mickey Kaus puts it, "Could it have been that Saturn's success--in a plant where workers traded inflexible work rules for responsibility and job satisfaction--threatened the hide-bound Wagner Act rulebooks of all of the UAW's other locals? So that the UAW pressured Saturn to build cars outside of its Spring Hill, Tennessee home--while it supported GM in systematically starving Saturn of new products? Just asking!"). Once GM announced the end of the Saturn line, as part of their post-bailout plan, the Administration quickly bestowed upon them another batch for federal funds to keep GM going.

Again, not that the Administration really cares about the viability of the automakers, all the Administration cares about is the continued support of the unions, at the expense of the automakers, and the American public at large, who will be on the hook for all of this.

Street sweeping leads to drop in revenues

Earlier this year, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency decided that a good way to save some money would be to change the street sweeping rules in parts of this city. What that meant was that some neighborhoods would start seeing their streets swept twice a month, instead of every week. Muni projected roughly $1 million in savings by not sweeping as often. Plus, as a resident of one of those neighborhoods, it was quite tiring to have to move your car twice a week just to avoid getting a ticket- couple that with limited street parking and tourists taking up those spots over the weekend, I would spend upwards of an hour sometimes just driving around trying to find a parking spot.

Well, it turns out that by not sweeping and not issuing parking tickets to those unlucky people who forget to move their car is costing the city $3.8 million a year in lost revenue from parking tickets. As usual, the geniuses that make up the Board of Supervisors want Muni to go back to revisit this decision, noting the loss of revenue.

Just so I'm clear here- Muni made a decision that it could save some money by not running street sweepers as often, not to mention that some streets just don't need to swept every week. Case in point- the numbered streets in the Inner Sunset went from every Monday and Wednesday to the 1st and 3rd Monday and Wednesday's of the month (except for 9th, which is a business district; they still sweep twice a week), but streets like Lincoln and Irving kept their sweeping schedule. So, Muni appeared to have done some amount of homework on what streets were being over-swept. But, due to the lost revenue from parking tickets related to street sweeping, the city wants Muni to go back and see if they should re-institute some of these inefficient sweeping schedules, solely because of the lost revenue.

I don't know, but I was unaware the certain municipal activities, like street sweeping, were supposed to be revenue earners for the city. I thought street sweeping was supposed to, you know, clean the street of debris and other safety-related reasons. But the city, never missing an opportunity to reach into the pockets of its residents (who, pursuant to City housing rules, likely do not have adequate on-site parking), want to figure how Muni can recover that lost revenue, and potentially re-institute Muni's otherwise wasteful and inefficient use of its property and personnel.

Since I no longer have to drive around twice a week to find a parking space, I can only wonder how much emissions I'm no longer emitting due to these new rules. Not to mention the emissions from the street sweepers and the little parking ticket vehicles that fan out in front of the street sweeper, writing $50 tickets. You'd think that if the City truly did care about emissions, these rules would be welcomed; instead, all the city really cares about is money. And if an otherwise good program ends up costing the city in lost parking ticket revenue, well, by-golly, that can't be right.

My random baseball suspension post

Josh Beckett had his 6 game suspension for throwing at Bobby Abreu reduced to 5 games today by Major League Baseball. It means that Beckett won't miss his next start.

Forgive me, but what's the point of suspending him in the first place? He is a starting pitcher, which means he only plays every 5th to 6th day in the first place, all those other days he's sitting on the bench or doing his otherwise scheduled workouts. So, he's suspended for 5 games, which doesn't mean anything to him because he's a starting pitcher, and we're supposed to assume that that taught him a lesson? It didn't teach him anything, as the article notes, Beckett didn't think he deserved even a game suspension.

If an everyday player gets suspended for 5 games, he misses 5 games (unless you're Milton Bradley who tends to get hurt and wasn't going play in those games anyway); if a starting pitcher gets suspended for 5 games, he doesn't miss anything. How does that make any sense? Baseball needs to figure out this suspension policy as it affects starting pitchers, because if the goal is to show how a starting pitchers' actions can harm a team, then they need to tie it to starts and not to games. As the Beckett example shows- 5 games is still a serious suspension, for an everyday player, but it doesn't harm a starting pitcher who doesn't miss a turn in the rotation.

Challenges ahead

In a surprise move that has basically been telegraphed since the day after he said it last year, President Obama said they he will not re-open talks on NAFTA. In the Democratic primary debate on February 16, 2008, Obama was crystal clear on his view of NAFTA:

"I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA], in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. ... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far."

It didn't take long for the campaign to offer whispers to Canada that Obama didn't really mean what he said about NAFTA. In fact, members of the campaign allegedly met with Canadian officials 8 days before the debate to re-assure Canada that whatever candidate Obama said publicly about NAFTA was simply for show to get nominated.

Backing down from this promise is good news for markets and for all three countries involved. The article also notes that there are positive steps in getting the free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia moving forward, after the Democratic congress shamefully refused to hold an up or down vote on these agreements solely for political posturing on behalf of labor unions during the final days of the previous administration.

There is an interesting article from Yahoo news today talking about whether couples who make $250K a year are rich. The conclusion: probably not. The problem, the article finds, is that as these couples' wealth have increased, education and health care costs have skyrocketed beyond their income growth. The article notes "data show that over the last 10 years, education costs have risen 5.91% annually, and health- care expenses have gone up 4.16% annually, while wages and income have risen only 3.7% over the same time span. That means many families are seeing a greater percentage of their income going toward those two areas." Additionally, that wealth may also be tied up in their house, and with falling housing prices, their wealth may also have suffered as a result. Then there are those who live in states with high costs of living and high tax rates, such as California. That is to say, the tax code does not take into account standards of living. As San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said, "a family earning $250,000 a year can't buy a home in Silicon Valley." Yet, the Obama budget plan seeks to increase taxes on just those people, based on an arbitrary definition of "rich."

One can only wonder what other tricks this charlatan has up his sleeves in his attempt to pull another fast one over on the American people? Carolyn Lochhead at the Chronicle has an idea: "Obama hopes we can't count."

Why am I not surprised

So, the San Francisco City Council wants to pass an ordinance that would require businesses to turn off all non-essential lights at night. The idea behind this is to not waste energy and, ostensibly, to show just how gosh darn green this city is. The legislation would give building owners one year to upgrade their facilities to make them more energy efficient, but after that, they would be subject to fines for keeping on unnecessary lights in the building at night.

San Francisco BOMA is opposed to the legislation as currently written because 1) city buildings have already done a lot towards reducing lighting at night, and 2) thinks that building owners don't need more onerous rules put upon them by the city council.

I have my own reasons- California is night-time wind peaking state. In other words, the majority of our wind blows at night, thus, most of our wind-based generation occurs at night. The goal of this ordinance, as well as the other stupid idea Earth Hour, where everyone turns off their lights for an hour, is to show how green they are, how much they care about the environment and other such smuggery. The problem with it, as it pertains to California, is that the majority of electricity you are most likely consuming at night comes from non-GHG emitting resources, like hydro, nuclear and wind. For all the carbon savings you'd like to go out and claim for this, I'm sorry, but this little stunt isn't likely to produce very much in California.

The "Earth Hour" nonsense makes even less sense to do since it is occurring in winter/early spring when there's no benefit to the grid, rather, the grid operator will have to deal with a sudden drop in usage, causing frequency variations, then have to deal with a sudden increase in usage as everyone turns on their lights again. To me, this simply shows that the people who dream up these fantasies have no idea how electricity actually works. Not to mention is a terribly inefficient way to run power plants, which increases emissions.

On the other hand, if these events were marketed as a way to show businesses how they can save money on their electricity bill, that would be a far different case and easier to sell, in my opinion. By simply not consuming, that customer is going to be saving money from their electricity consumption. If turning off some lights reduces that company's consumption, that is an economic benefit to the customer- and is good. We should be encouraging energy efficiency, not threatening or forcing energy efficiency upon customers- this simply leads to opposition, foot dragging and, worse of all, increased costs to customers to comply.

Instead, the folks above don't care that you save money, they want to bash you over the head, call you names, and threaten you with fines if you don't agree to their environmental mandate of reducing emissions from power plants. It is a huge irony of environmental and energy policies in this state that we a) don't want to argue that doing simple things like turning off the lights can save people money, b) don't want new sources of cheap and clean power like hydro or nuclear to meet the expected load growth in the state, but, instead, wants to c) fine you, threaten you and harass you into not consuming because of environmental concerns and d) instead wants to build exceedingly expensive power projects like solar, wind, and tidal energy.

In other words, California policy is to increase the costs of electricity then force businesses to reduce for environmental reasons. But not residential customers. The legislature refuses to remove a rate cap that has been in effect since 2001 upon residential customers; thereby removing an economic incentive for residential customers to reduce their consumption. That is, since half of all residential customers in this state do not consume above a certain amount to trigger higher rates, they still see 2001 rates, and only have a reason to not go above their baseline. If the rate cap were lifted, then residential customers would be able to see a more accurate cost of electricity, and have an economic incentive to reduce and/or change their usage patterns. Ironically, it's the state's electricity goal to push consumption to off-peak hours where power is cheaper and potentially cleaner (nights and early mornings), yet we end up with stupid ideas based on environmental policy to show how much we care about the environment by turning off power at night. This stuff just boggles my mind.

Points for honesty

The California Legislative Analyst's Office has released some updated budget numbers for California, and it's not good:

"[t]he state’s economic and revenue outlook continues to deteriorate. Even in the few weeks since the budget was signed, there have been a series of negative developments. Our updated revenue forecast projects that revenues will fall short of the assumptions in the budget package by $8 billion."

$8 billion!!!

But the state just passed a budget that dealt with these shortfalls, right?

"[t]he Legislature and Governor will need to adopt billions of dollars in additional solutions in the coming months to bring the 2009–10 budget back into balance. Moreover, a number of the adopted solutions—revenue increases and spending reductions—are of a short–term duration. Thus, without corrective actions, the state’s huge operating shortfalls will reappear in future years—growing from $12.6 billion in 2010–11 to $26 billion in 2013–14."

D'oh!

Also, let's not forget that the budget that was passed is contingent on a May special election where the voters will vote on several of the budgetary tricks used by the legislature to balance the budget; namely through creative borrowing from various programs. If those propositions fail (and I think at least one of them might), then it's back to the drawing board for the legislature and the Governor. However, the LAO did offer some advice- "While seeking to offset 2009–10 General Fund costs is the most immediate concern for the use of federal funds, the Legislature should also seek to preserve as many federal dollars as possible to help balance the budget in future years—as opposed to committing them now for augmentations."

What's that you say? We should use federal "stimulus" funds to balance the budget and not spend them on specific programs as demanded of us by the Federal government? Why shouldn't a state be able to, say, use the stimulus money to help balance their own budget? South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is preparing to ask the Administration that South Carolina be allowed to spend some of the stimulus money in other ways than as directed by the Federal government. The states most definitely should be allowed lee-way in spending this money in ways it sees fit, I mean, I am of the belief that the Federal government should just have given states a lump-sum of money based on population and let them spend it as they saw fit. Plus, states aren't allowed to run deficits, unlike the Federal government, so if they are forced to expand certain government programs in order to receive Federal funds, once the Federal funds are gone, their gone, and the states are left to fill the missing obligation.

There's an amusing story out of L.A. in regards to transportation-related stimulus funding. Apparently, the L.A. County transit authority is to receive $215 million in transportation funds and was going to split it up amongst the 88 cities in the county. However, many of the cities otherwise don't qualify for receiving funds for transportation because they are either too small or don't have qualifying transportation projects. So, some cities would be getting money to spend on transportation projects that aren't being built in their city; instead, the agency initially recommended that they swap transportation funds with other cities and use that money on other projects, according to that city's needs. As the City Manager of Irwindale, which does not have eligible transportation projects, put it, "we probably would have used it to avoid people getting laid off." But the transit agency clarified their position and said that all money must be used for transportation purposes. What's a city going to do with money for transportation projects when they don't have any qualifying transportation projects to begin with? I suppose they could just create a new project out of the blue solely for the purpose of not losing this funding- I don't think that's how government is supposed to operate.

Back to the LAO. Additionally, the LAO says-

"Our current economic forecast projects a recovery beginning in the first quarter of 2010. Over the next five years, however, our forecast projects relatively slow growth compared to past recoveries. In our view, weakness in the finance, housing, and export markets are likely to keep the national economy from expanding at rates that typically occur after a recession. While our forecast is similar to the economic outlook shared by many economists, some see recovery taking even more time."

Why you don't say. Recovery won't start until next year and will likely be slow? Furthermore, the LAO says that employment won't likely begin to increase again until 2011. Wait, 2011. . .Hey, that's when Obama's tax increases are supposed to take effect, along with a whole slew of other new government spending programs and regulatory regimes, like cap and trade. And that's supposed to be his second year of 4.5% growth in the economy. Raising taxes, increasing government burden upon businesses and individuals- hey, that's just what a recovering economy needs, more hurdles. And a barely recovering economy at that.

Yes, I realize that there's an abundance of sarcasm, but sometimes, it just has to come out.

Oh, I forgot to include a link to this story about how an increasing number of banks are looking at returning funds it received from the government due to the number of restrictions and requirements placed upon those banks in order to receive the funds. Specifically, there are requirements upon these banks to further certain social and economic goals of this Administration, like allowing people to re-negotiate their mortgages, put those banks into weaker positions- that is, the bank renegotiates a mortgage based on a lower value when the owner has already lost their equity. These policies simply force a bank to replace one bad mortgage with a worse one, from their extent; but since they continue to receive federal funds, they are able to remain in operation. As one of the people interviewed for that story put it, "keeping insolvent banks in operation does not benefit the system."

All of this is to say that there is finally a reaction to these policies put forth by the Administration to consolidate control at the federal level. The carrot of federal funding in return for increased federal oversight is becoming less and less appetizing.

Phony war

David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

The government is talking about sacrifice and solutions, but it hasn't yet made the tough decisions that will put the economy back together. Economist David Smick had it right in The Post this week when he said the administration had a three-pronged strategy: delay, delay and delay. The administration announces a rescue package but doesn't deliver details; it promises budget discipline but saves the hard decisions for later.

One reason this season feels so political is that Obama has stacked his administration with politicians and former government officials. You might think that with the greatest financial crisis of his lifetime, the president would want a few business leaders with experience managing large organizations in crisis. But no.

Ignatius wonders why the Administration is so reliant on government officials instead of business, but stops short of the obvious answer: the Administration doesn't want to hear from business because it wants to impose more government onto business. This is an Administration that claims the cause of this current crisis is too much deregulation, ergo, the solution is to bring back more government regulation. The Administration doesn't care about the market, not that the previous administration did all that much for the market either. The administration's answer to nearly every question so far is that only government can solve these problems; that's why his administration is filled with career government officials.

Course, it doesn't help that he keeps having potential appointees withdrawing- today it's H. Rodgin Cohen, who was going to be nominated as Deputy Treasury Secretary. This is getting ridiculous.

By the way, this is awesome:

There is nobody there...

A lower British cabinet official succinctly summed up the actions of this Administration on the economy:

"There is nobody there. You cannot believe how difficult it is." (Or, as Camille Paglia puts it: the "dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.")

This quote was made in response to a meeting that is being planned for next month for countries to get together and figure out a way to fight the current economic situation. The British official quoted above expressed his frustration at being unable to find anyone at the U.S. Treasury to talk to about attending. This meeting is also important because this Administration is adamant that running up huge deficits and allowing government to run rampant over state governments and individuals is the only way to successfully combat this situation. In typical European technocrat speak, this suggestion was rejected: “The 16 euro-area ministers agreed that recent American appeals insisting that the Europeans make an additional budgetary effort to combat the effects of the crisis was not to our liking.” In other words, we don't need you to tell us how to spend our money. Mind you, there would be nothing more to my liking than having the Euro fail; but the gall of this administration to declare itself sole arbiter of all knowledge on how to respond is beyond belief.

In echoing a statement made in Obama's message to Congress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said: "We want to bring together a new consensus globally on how to strengthen this financial system, so that a crisis like this never happens again."

Two things- 1) Is this Administration saying that it can stop recessions from happening ever again? 2) I thought this Administration was also supposed to have a better and friendlier foreign policy. When 50 days into your Administration, you're already telling other countries how to handle their economy, I don't think you're likely to get a very positive response. Furthermore, when one of the balancing partners in moving a worldwide economy is the EU, running up deficits on purpose is not necessarily in their best interests. According to the Financial Times, "France, Germany and Italy, the eurozone’s three biggest countries, are anxious that the 16 countries sharing the euro should not run up ever-bigger budget deficits and public debt, potentially threatening the stability of the single currency area." I suppose it goes without saying that those countries also have center-right parties in power right now.

Additionally, these countries are increasingly concerned about this Administration's commitment to free trade and open markets. I don't know about them, but when the President wants to make sure that "this never happens again," that for sure means an increase in regulation. What is clear is that this Administration clearly believes that it is right in its response to this situation and is willing to openly criticize other countries for failing to respond to his directive. While Obama rightly observes that globalization has tied worldwide economies together, he fails to reckon that other countries might not want to (or are simply unable to) cobble together as large a "stimulus" package as passed by Congress to address the current economic situation. Certainly it's possible that other countries may not want to cripple future productivity and earnings with disastrous large-scale government run programs, or burden future budgets with large amounts of debt. That wasn't a leading statement at all.

My question is: why do we think we're doing it right? The stimulus package that was passed had very little to do with stimulating the economy, and was more about directing new money towards more government programs that won't encourage the economic response that's needed. If a county decides, hey, you know what- let's just see how our own response works, that is entirely within their rights as a sovereign country. I'm pretty sure this "you're with us or against us" mantra was ridiculed when George W. Bush was saying it in regards to fighting terrorism. Why shouldn't we ridicule it now when talking about a U.S. directive to other countries on economics?

More on that terrible SEIU contract

Ok, so I've already gone over the terrible job SEIU did on behalf of its members who are not covered under the Governor's furlough executive order, such as me. The proposed contract now subjects me to one day a month furlough to which that I was not otherwise subject. It has now come to our attention that not only are we now subject to the furlough, but it's retro-active to February 1, which means that since we weren't subject to the furlough, but for SEIU's crack negotiating strategy, we will have to give back 4.6% of our pay to cover those months where we were exempted. Please, please, please, someone explain to me how on earth SEIU adequately represented our issues?

SEIU blames the Department of Personnel Administration, who negotiates on behalf of the Governor's office. DPA says SEIU didn't bring it up- SEIU said that DPA was going to take care of it. What it boils down to is that SEIU, along with DPA, included a batch of employees that should have remained exempt from these provisions on the furlough- that SEIU failed to strongly advocate for a part of its membership is unsurprising. SEIU routinely fails to be a strong advocate for us in negotiating sessions with the Governor's office.

So, to sum up- the Governor ordered 2 days a month furloughs and layoffs for state employees at agencies under his direct control, but was forced to exempt state employees at certain agencies that were not under his direct control, i.e., those agencies that are created via the State Constitution (which is where I work). The Governor also ordered that layoffs would take place, with the same exemptions. The budget as passed by the legislature did not include layoffs or furloughs. SEIU reached an agreement with the Governor's office that would reduce furloughs to 1 day a month and not call for layoffs. This agreement, however, failed to maintain the exemption as included in the Governor's executive order. So, unless a complaint is lodged somewhere, we have had our exemption negotiated away by SEIU, without so much as a whisper as to our concerns, and will be forced to pay the state back for days we already worked. Yeah, that's some good negotiatin'.

Oh how I long for the day where state employees are not required to be represented by a union.

Who is running this thing?

Warren Buffet on CNBC (courtesy of Mickey Kaus):

But how fast we get there depends enormously on not only the wisdom of government policy, but the degree in which it's communicated properly. People--when you have a Pearl Harbor, you have to know the nation is going to be united on December 8th to take care of whatever comes up. And we have little squabbles, otherwise we put them aside and everybody goes to work on defense plans, we start building planes, we start building ships, even though they're not going to be ready tomorrow, people join. The Army doesn't blame the Navy because there were too many ships in Pearl Harbor, and it shouldn't have happened. The Army doesn't say, `Well, it was your fault, so we're not going to send our troops.' None of that sort of thing. We got united, and we really need that now.
...
if you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when--maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects,' and you didn't have congress people putting on 8,000 earmarks onto the declaration of war in 1941.
...
[y]ou can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would--I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would--you know, I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would--I would--I would--no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward.
...
It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things."

Jim Cramer:

President Obama's team, unlike Bush's team, demonstrates a thinness of skin that shocks me. When I somewhat obviously and empirically judged that the populist Obama administration is exacerbating the crisis with its budget and policies, as evidenced by the incredible decline in the averages since his inauguration, I was met immediately with condescension and ridicule rather than constructive debate or even just benign dismissal. I said to myself, "What the heck? Are they really that blind to the Great Wealth Destruction they are causing with their decisions to demonize the bankers, raise taxes for the wealthy, advocate draconian cap-and-trade policies and upend the health care system? Do they really believe that only the rich own stocks? What do they think we have our retirement accounts in, CDs? Where did they think that the money saved for college went, our mattresses? Do they think the great middle class banks at the First National Bank of Sealy and only the wealthiest traffic in the Standard & Poor's 500?
....
I am always glad to have any allies and defenders, but I do favor almost all of Obama's agenda, right down to having the rich pay more of their freight in this great country. It's just not the right time. We need to declare a war on unemployment and solve it before we let it get out of hand. We need to stop house-price depreciation. Neither the pork-laden stimulus plan nor the confusing mortgage proposal put forward by Obama will defeat either enemy. When Obama trounces both unemployment and house-price depreciation, he will have the power to enact anything he wants. But all the initiatives he wants to rush, like tax hikes, changes in health care, tinkering with the mortgage deduction -- good grief, right now in the midst of the worst housing downturn ever -- and the tough cap-and-trade rules, will derail any chance we have of turning this economy around. Instead, they put the Second Great Depression smack on the nation's table. The markets thought he could stop it; hence the giant relief rally when he was elected. But in fewer than 50 days of his ascendancy, the markets' hopes were totally dashed and the averages are now forecasting the worst decline since the Great Depression. As someone who listens to what the averages are screaming, I think they are accurately predicting the future.

Jonah Goldberg, who gets at the heart of the matter:

Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as ideological evidence that Obama's budget priorities are a great bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he's focusing on selling his long-standing liberal agenda on healthcare, energy and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some -- particularly on Wall Street -- would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.
...
Well, now we have the president, along with his chief aides, admitting -- boasting! -- that they want to exploit a national emergency for their preexisting agenda, and there's no scandal. No one even calls it a gaffe. No, they call it leadership.

It's not leadership. It's fear-mongering.
...
In other realms of life, exploiting a crisis for your own purposes is an outrage. If a business uses a hurricane warning, for example, to price-gouge on vital supplies, it is a crime. When a liberal administration does it, it's taking advantage of a historic opportunity.

Obama's defenders respond to this argument that Obama's motives are decent, noble and pure. He wants to help the uninsured and the poorly educated. He wants to make good on his vow to halt those rising oceans.

But this is just a rationalization. Every president thinks his agenda is what's best for the country; every politician believes his motives are noble. The point is that scaring people about X in order to achieve Y is fundamentally undemocratic.

This was transparently obvious to Bush's harshest critics, who alleged that 9/11 was merely a convenient crisis for devious neocons who wanted to topple Hussein all along. But it's now clear that many of these critics simply objected to the agenda, not the alleged tactics. Now that it's their turn, they see nothing wrong with doing what they so recently condemned.

That's a lot to digest. . .I will only point out that when Warren Buffet is taking you to task for mis-handling this recession, then I think you better listen.

The British press take on Obama over something else:

British diplomats insist the visit was a success, with officials getting the chance to develop closer links with Mr Obama's aides. .... But they concede that the mood music of the event was at times strained. Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state."

Further on, the article notes:

"[An] American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

"That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they're finding it a hard thing to do everything." ....
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly."

Yes, what's the big deal about only our strongest ally for the past 150 years or so. I mean, really, we're already in the process of selling out Poland and the Czech Republic to Russia, so why not dump England along the way.

Yes, this post is quote heavy, and I apologize for that- but I think it far more important to use the actual words from the people above, instead of me summarizing and condensing their points. But, what is interesting is what all of the quotes above are talking about- Obama wants to move fast on a lot of issues. However, he does not seem to really want to take a lead on the financial situation in this country. I mean, he left the stimulus bill up to Congress to write, he's blaming the current stop-gap budget on the previous Administration and is letting Congress get away with runaway spending and earmarks, and he's blaming the previous Administration for what's happening in the markets since he's been elected. The market doesn't just react to numbers, they react to words just as much, and when the President, frankly, doesn't know what he's talking about, the market reacts. When the Secretary of Treasury offers more of the same solutions to new problems, the market reacts. He can say that this all 8 years in the making, but this sell-off over the past 2 months is all his. When his new budget gets roundly derided by both Democrats and Republicans, and offers no real concrete solutions to moving forward, other than taxing "rich" people, how does that help anything? When his budget says we're going to have 4%+ growth in 2010 and 2011, but when talking about current economic conditions, he's warning of depressions, how can anyone take what he says on this topic seriously? And that is without talking about cap and trade and the negative effects it will likely have on this economy- especially one that will have just come out of a recession.

Anyway. . .more on that topic for another post.

Update on Obama budget proposal

Two things-

1) This article from ABC News notes something that I noted in my previous post; that people are going to try to reduce their income to under $250,000 by reducing their productivity. As a dentist from Boulder, Colorado put it- "The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make. But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing." Remember, Obama's plan to cut the deficit is to increase taxes on those who make above $250,000 a year, or the "rich" people in Obama's lexicon, coupled with an absurd projection of 4%+ growth over the next two years. When the economy doesn't recover in two years, plus the damage that will be wrought on the economy from the stimulus bill, there will be only one way for Obama to meet his goal of reducing the deficit- dropping the floor on the tax increases. That means he will have to raise taxes on more than just the top 2%.

2) One way that people try to reduce their taxable income is by giving to charity, especially those who make more than $250,000. One aspect of the Obama budget is that he proposes to begin limiting the ability of people to deduct charitable donations on their taxes. The purpose of this is to reduce the amount of charitable donations from individuals so that the government will have a bigger pile of money to tax from to use it to pay for the Administration's goal of a government-run health care system. So, let me get this straight- we are in a recession, which means charitable giving is already down, the Administration proposes tax increases on those who make more than $250,000 a year, and who often give more to charity, and the Administration is proposing to limit the amount of money that people who make more than $250,000 a year can give to charities which would raise nearly $180 billion over the next 10 years (even though it wouldn't take effect until 2011). How does this help charities already struggling? It doesn't- it just makes the govenment a charitable organization.

Of course, this is just one of many terrible proposals by this Administration in the budget. Charities are important institutions in the United States, and this proposal by the Administration to cut off important individual donations simply so the government can take a larger slice of it is wrought with peril. What is clear in this proposal is that the Administration 1) could care less about the good work that charities do across this country (especially religious-based charities), and 2) whatever good work those charities do, the government should do instead. As OMB Director Peter Orszag noted, the government will make up the difference in giving. Why should the government be reimbursing charities for money it took away? How does that make any sense? Other than increasing the number of people and groups that will becoming increasingly reliant on the government. I don't seem to think that that is a good thing.

Anyway. . .I suppose this is my own little page where I can rant and rave all I want. Not that it does much good, which I can live with. Yes, I'd much rather write about bunnies and flowers, but I do need an outlet for my thoughts on this mess. And it is a mess.....I can't say that I have any confidence in this administration at this time. His economic proposals are a recipe for disaster- increasing taxes to pay for more government spending at a time when we are in a recession. And that's without mentioning the stimulus bill which will do almost nothing of the sort in the time-frame it's expected; instead, all it will do is take money from future growth and use it to pay down the deficit created by this incredible mis-use of government spending.

I'm borrowing this chart from Instapundit which shows how the market has responded since the passage of the stimulus bill:



That doesn't look good. At least baseball season is approaching, and I look forward to this summer when I get to take my newborn little girl to a day game.