Category: Politics

Is it November 2006 yet?

Only in a country that loves David Hasselhoff as a singer would anyone consider this economic reform:

Ms Merkel has emphasized that the flat tax is a distant dream, a vision for how taxes could be simplified and lowered. Her short-term goal is to raise the value added tax by 2 per cent and use the extra revenue to stimulate the jobs market.

I strongly support the flat tax (more to come on this), so I don’t want to belittle too much what she’s trying to accomplish. But in no way is a country attached to reality when government tells business “give us your money and we’ll create jobs within your companies”. Here’s an idea: outlaw Germans from working more than 5 hours per day. The work will still exist, so more people will no doubt need to be hired. Ignore the man behind the curtain saying that more people will be underemployed.

Which leads me to today’s economic stupidity from an American. By now, everyone’s read House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s stupid quote declaring an “ongoing victory” on cutting fat from the federal budget. The statement is ridiculous in a way so obvious that further comment specific to that quote is pointless. I do think it important to highlight this quote, as well.

CAGW [Citizens Against Government Waste] and the Heritage Foundation also suggest rescinding the 6,000-plus earmarked projects in the recently passed highway bill.

But Mr. DeLay said those projects are “important infrastructure” and eliminating them could undermine the economy as Congress tries to offer hurricane relief.

“It is right to borrow to pay for it,” he said. “But it is not right to attack the very economy that will pay for it.”

Mr. [Tom] Schatz [president of CAGW], though, said the highway bill included projects such as flowers for the Ronald Reagan freeway in California, which he said aren’t essential spending.

The pork in the Transportation bill, and presumably most other pork spending, is essential to the economy. The wise, benevolent capitalists in Congress must take money from everyone named “Joe” in Kentucky so that 50 Alaskans can have a bridge. Otherwise, the economy is under attack. I guess the only reason those 50 Alaskans didn’t build the bridge connecting their tiny island with the rest of Alaska is because they’re stranded, with no method to return and no materials to build the much-needed bridge. And the increase in interest rates caused by an additional $2,000,000,000,000 in federal debt in the last five years is inconsequential to the economy.

This is the best representative the fiscally conservative Republican Party can find in Congress?

I’m dreaming; forgive me my delusions

Rogier van Bakel, guestblogging for Radley Balko, offers this analysis of President Bush. Consider:

Five years ago, it looked as if putting a guy with a business degree in charge might at least have the benefit of a certain level-headedness. The MBA President! No ordinary POTUS, but a hardbitten, dyed-in-the-wool Executive-in-Chief! A results-oriented fighter with a penchant for hacking through red tape!

Today, that notion, that promise — along with the expectation of a certain competence-under-pressure — lies buried beneath millions of gallons of oily, snake-infested water, unmoored from reality, gone forever.

I don’t think President Bush’s specific failure with regard to Hurricane Katrina nullifies the promise of a “results-oriented fighter with a penchant for hacking through red tape”. President Bush may not be that guy, but it’s still possible. Where the dream went awry is that we don’t specifically need an MBA president. Having an MBA doesn’t make a person qualified to be president; leadership does. The idea of a business-oriented president mentally geared to produce positive, identifiable results is worthy. But it can’t come from just any business person. It must come from someone who thinks like an entrepreneur. Ideally, we want Ross Perot without the “he’s nuts” factor.

The entrepreneur looks to grow a business. We don’t want a president to grow the government, per se. If that’s the goal, President Bush succeeded admirably in his first four-and-a-half years. In relation to government, I take that to mean the government does what it’s supposed to do. He (or she, if you like) forces the government to find its niche (what the private sector can’t/shouldn’t do) and excel at it. His government would shed responsibility to those better able to accomplish them (the private sector) the tasks government can’t/shouldn’t do. For example, the entrepreneurial president wouldn’t wait for political pressure to fix obvious holes in FEMA’s response. (The entrepreneurial president wouldn’t give a vital position as a political patronage, either, but I’m trying to deal with where we are.) The entrepreneurial president would expect the government to improve at what it does, even when it succeeds. “Great job. How can we do this even better next time?” becomes the motto.

The entrepreneurial president also understands that spending the nation into bankruptcy is stupid. He’d cut costs where they can and should be cut. He’d hold spending down when the government’s financial position doesn’t support more spending. If new spending needs arose, say from a natural disaster, he’d find a way to allocate that money, but he’d cut something else less essential. Perhaps a pork-barreled bridge in Alaska, for example. And he’d certainly not fall over himself trying to hand it out without any accounting of where it’s going and what it will buy. Necessity beats political urgency.

Last, and most important, the entrepreneurial president raises “revenues” responsibly. He’s already accepted the government’s legitimate role and shed everything else. He’d expect the government to assess and collect only the taxes necessary to meet that goal. He’d leave the private sector to fund everything else. In establishing that tax policy, he understands that fair is fair. Every citizen, according to his means, pays his share. No progressivity, no redistribution. (Two words: flat tax) The entrepreneurial president knows that government’s role in the economy is to get out of the way. To do this, the government must not tax like a monarch seeking tribute. He also understands that government can’t incentivize “proper” actions because proper actions are subjective and ever-changing. Think not subsidizing the portable cd player because the iPod made it obsolete.

The entrepreneurial president understands all of this. He isn’t in the middle management business. In the end, he is concerned with success, both for the nation and all of its citizens. He measures that through results, accountability, and action. That’s the “businessman as president” dream I’m keeping alive.

There’s a cool breeze below

I’ve been sick the last few days, so I didn’t have the concentration needed to blog. I’d planned to catch up today with commentary on former FEMA Director Brown’s resignation, but new information makes it less useful for me to comment directly on that story. Yes, Brown was effectively fired, but President Bush’s role on the sideline of Brown’s downfall remains as Brown effectively “fell on his own sword” to protect the president. Ultimately, it’s about responsibility and action. President Bush didn’t pursue the (symbolic) action and fire Brown himself. Whatever; Brown is gone and we can move forward. In an uncharatersitic move, though, President Bush made this statement today:

Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong. I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government, to be able to answer that very question that you asked: Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm. And that’s a very important question. And it’s in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on and — so that we can better respond.

Yeah, that’s close to right. I’m surprised but willing to give him time to do exactly that. My interest has always been to see the government succeed at what it’s supposed to do, regardless of who is president. Again, I don’t hate President Bush. I want him to succeed because that means we’re all better off. Those using governmental failure during Hurricane Katrina to score political points reveal themselves as partisan hacks and should be ignored.

I had an interesting exchange in the comments section regarding (former) Director Brown and a commenter’s defense using examples of Einstein and Edison. I disagreed with my sentiment of where President Bush needs to focus the government in learning from this failure.

…none of the examples you provided are relevant to Director Brown. He’s not working independently on a hobby (Einstein, Edison), nor has he already learned the skills he needs for his job (Johnson). Director Brown is showing specific incompetence in the job he currently possesses. That’s why he should be fired.

Another red herring thrown about is that FEMA always responds this poorly to disasters. I don’t disagree with that, but I am saying it’s no longer acceptable. We’ve never had a test run for a real, unexpected catastrophe of this magnitude before, a magnitude akin to a man-made (terrorist) catastrophe. Now that we have, we see (or will discover through later analysis) exactly where the system failed. However, Director Brown showed he can’t even grasp how bad the situation is to understand how to respond. Perhaps that’s just his inability to manage perceptions, but it’s still incompetence. Is that acceptable?

For President Bush to hire Director Brown as head of FEMA is politically negligent, magnified by his campaign promise to keep us safer and to offer better response through the behemoth that is DHS. To leave Director Brown as head of FEMA after he exposed his incompetence is criminal.

Now that Brown is gone, President Bush is merely politically negligent. But the uncertainty of our government’s ability to respond to the next disaster, natural or not, remains. We have to do better. I think we can, so I hope President Bush is sincere in his apology and promise to fix the situation.

There is one general rule about solutions I can offer President Bush, which I hope is obvious to him. I suspect it isn’t, though, so I’ll offer it here. The governmental failures, at all levels, show we need better government. It does not show that we need more government. Early results show that to be the cause. Perhaps some real conservatism, as opposed to this big government nonsense, could push our response to better results in the next crisis.

The glad-handing begins…

In a not-really-surprising-when-you-read-the-details move, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff removed FEMA Director Michael Brown from onsite relief efforts pertaining to Hurricane Katrina. Bravo should be in order, but it’s not since Director Brown is still Director Brown instead of Former Director Brown. Better to push the offending mess into the background than to fix it. Lazy, one-armed bachelors have work harder to sweep up potato chip crumbs than the Bush administration works at enforcing any form of accountability. And yet, in something that comes as no surprise, Michelle Malkin wastes no time in praising President Bush. Consider:

Question #1: Does this make President Bush a member of the “bed-wetting right,” too?

Answer: No. It makes him someone who has put accountability over cronyism in a time of crisis. Good for him.

How does it make President Bush “someone who has put accountability over cronyism”? Director Brown is still in charge of FEMA. As Secretary Chertoff stated, Director Brown will “oversee the government’s response to other potential disasters.” I don’t want Director Brown in charge of the government’s response to Hurricane Terrorists Bomb the Fuck Out of an American City. Do Ms. Malkin and the other Bush-apologists who will no doubt come out swinging for their man want Director Brown in charge of the government’s response to that?

But as long as we pat ourselves on the back and pretend like the president listened to our concerns, we can ignore this:

Earlier, Brown confirmed the switch. Asked if he was being made a scapegoat for a federal relief effort that has drawn widespread and sharp criticism, Brown told The Associated Press after a long pause: “By the press, yes. By the president, No.”

Director Brown not only screwed up FEMA’s response to Hurricane Katrina (even if it’s nothing more than creating poor public perception with idiotic statements – idiotic statements in times of crisis worsen said crisis), he appears to have fudged his resume. Does removing him from the current relief effort while keeping him in his position seem like it came from a president “who has put accountability over cronyism”? Anyone? Anyone?

More cheap political sniping

In case anyone is still not convinced, how is this relevant?

Referring to large numbers of poor and black New Orleans residents who were dispossessed by the storm, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said earlier in the week the disaster underscored “the glaring economic disparities facing our citizens.”

“As a nation, we must be sensitive to this inequality, sensitive as we respond to Katrina, and sensitive, too, as we select now justices for the Supreme Court,” he said. “That’s a critical question for Judge Roberts. Can he unite America for the future?”

Because a hurricane caused foreseeable damage, Judge Roberts is now responsible for uniting America? How does Senator Kennedy keep getting elected? This is at least where, if the Democrats had any competent leaders, someone would have muzzled the Senator before he could offer such ammunition to the “they just hate conservatives so I don’t need to listen to them” people. If nothing else, this proves why presidents rarely come from the Senate.

Are you listening, Senator Clinton?

My pointer-finger is broken

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the race to pin blame on preferred targets began quickly, in a race to seemingly jump ahead of people’s perceptions so that those perceptions could be forged. Facts be damned, of course. There’s plenty of blame to go around, and I hope everyone who failed in this catastrophe ultimately pays the appropriate political price. My biggest fear, though, is that no one will pay.

As the most obvious example (and don’t worry, I’m not going to be one-sided in my criticism), President Bush made supportive comments about FEMA Director Michael Brown. I don’t need to rehash the facts of Mr. Brown’s incompetent handling of his agency’s response to Katrina, but it’s clear that President Bush is off-base. The President appointed an inexperienced, ineffective individual into the agency mandated to respond to the very type of crisis President Bush has repeatedly warned us could happen: the destruction of an American city. In this case, it doesn’t matter that the cause was a hurricane rather than a terrorist weapon. The result is still devastation. President Bush failed at what he promised he’d do and now seems inclined to avoid any accountability for himself or his appointees. Since that’s no different than most other failures in his tenure, an appropriate response should come from the country, whether through its representatives or the represented.

What we’re seeing instead is little more than politics as usual for the last half-decade. (Longer, really, but I’m focusing on President Bush’s time in office for this specific example.) Consider:

In a letter to one Republican, Reid pressed for a wide-ranging investigation and asked: “How much time did the president spend dealing with this emerging crisis while he was on vacation? Did the fact that he was outside of Washington, D.C., have any effect on the federal government’s response?”

Wonderful. Our country faces arguably the worst natural disaster in our nation’s history, the president’s administration botches the federal response, despite years of rhetoric to the contrary, and the best the opposition party can do is to attack the president’s inability to manage public perceptions? Pathetic.

This is a perfect example of why, despite thinking President Bush is mostly incompetent and voting for the other guy twice against him, I’m not a Democrat either. President Bush lacks any ability to imagine how his actions might be perceived. (The other explanation, that he doesn’t care, seems less plausible.) At a time of crisis, he stayed on his ranch and even engaged in a photo-op of him playing a guitar. While people died. Etc., etc. He’s clearly in a cocoon, which is a clear political fault in a time of crisis. But to spread the nonsense that he was “on vacation”, the implied meaning I read into Sen. Reid’s comment not unfounded based on other ramblings I’ve read from the folks who can think of nothing more than hating President Bush? That’s pathetic. The president is “on vacation” but he’s never not the president. He’s never not monitoring what’s going on in the nation. He’s never out of communication range for whatever is necessary. To pretend otherwise is either willful ignorance or blind disregard for reality. Neither is a winning strategy able to convince those who disagree that they should suddenly agree.

Ultimately, I don’t see anything changing after this colossal government failure (federal, state, and local – Democrat and Republican – blah, blah, blah). President Bush showed no intention of holding anyone accountable in his first term. I don’t see that changing. The voters will have to correct this at the ballot box, but since the next meaningful election is still fourteen months away, I have little faith that our collective memories will suffice the next time we pull the ballot lever. Perhaps some people feel safer with half-measures and showmanship, not to mention reduced civil liberties. I don’t. I want to be safer, not just feel safer. I’m not hopeful.

Um, the 7-Eleven, right? You take a penny from the tray.

I’ve written before of my “displeasure” with Yahoo. I stopped supporting them when they blatantly stole $5 from me and couldn’t make their technology work to acknowledge that they owed me another $5. Through my experience with Yahoo, I learned that I will abandon a company for $10. The real amount is probably lower, but Yahoo made me understand that the minimum is no higher than $10. Stupid companies should figure this out, because $10, and I would’ve settled for the $5 Yahoo promised to repay, is a ridiculous amount to keep to lose a customer. But Yahoo is perpetually stupid and I take glee in their disasters.

This story does not offer me glee; it offers pure outrage. Consider:

Internet giant Yahoo has been accused of supplying information to China which led to the jailing of a journalist for “divulging state secrets”.

Reporters Without Borders said Yahoo’s Hong Kong arm helped China link Shi Tao’s e-mail account and computer to a message containing the information.

…

Shi Tao, 37, worked for the Contemporary Business News in Hunan province, before he was arrested and sentenced in April to 10 years in prison.

According to a translation of his conviction, reproduced by Reporters Without Borders, he was found guilty of sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal Communist Party message.

Reporters Without Borders said the message warned journalists of the dangers of social unrest resulting from the return of dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in June 2004.

Yahoo can’t find any record that I canceled a trial membership, despite the confirmation I received, yet it can link Shi Tao to an e-mail about the dangers of social unrest and provide that link to prosecutors, which the Chinese government deems a crime worthy of ten years in prison? Yes, they’re in China so they must obey the laws. But doesn’t this travesty raise the more basic question of whether or not Yahoo should be in China while the communist government continues to oppress its people, at the expense of what should be a basic principle for a company founded around the Internet? Unbelievable. I guess the dollar yuan is mightier than principle.

I hear the “activist legislatures” chant

In a not particularly unprecedented move yesterday, the California Assembly did what legislative bodies have always done: it adapted to evolving definitions of personal liberty and passed legislation allowing same-sex marriage in California. The bill now goes to Governor Schwarzenegger for his input, which is where this gets interesting. He must decide whether to sign the bill or veto it. The bill’s supporters do not have the votes necessary to overcome a veto. Governor Schwarzenegger said he wants the court to decide the issue, based on Proposition 22, the 2000 ballot initiative defining marriage as one man and one woman.

We’ll find out soon, although I suspect he’ll take the easy way out and veto the bill. I obviously think he should sign it. It’s the right thing to do and history will ultimately reflect that. He has the chance to catch California up to a reasonable understanding of civil liberties and individual freedom, concepts that are supposedly dear to his Republican heart. If there is any doubt that that’s what this struggle is about, as opposed to some mythical “homosexual agenda”, consider this statement:

Hanus Jelinek of San Francisco said that far from threatening marriage, the bill would allow him to live the same life as anyone else.

“I can settle down with my beloved, and the government will just leave us alone,” he said.

The government will just leave us alone. Wouldn’t that be a glorious day?

One thing is not like the others

Many seem to be going bananas about FEMA’s decision to deny journalist requests to photograph corpses as they are recovered from New Orleans. While I don’t personally want to see any of that, I understand the journalistic push to capture the whole story. I don’t believe that’s all that’s driving it, of course, because photographs (and video footage) of corpses would be a ratings winner, but I’m going to believe the best about people right now. The ideals of journalism win out as their prevailing reason.

Yet, I genuinely believe that any censorship concerns are overblown. Recovery teams are searching through hazardous conditions and should not be hampered by taking care of journalists and photographers. I understand that journalists are embedded in war zones and that our government has experience with that. However, Iraq isn’t flooded. The journalists can’t move around by foot with the recovery team. They’ll occupy space in boats better served by individuals trained for this crisis. Also, the potential for spreading disease is obvious. The mayor ordered a forced evacuation of all remaining residents. Why should we exclude journalists from that evacuation? Ultimately, we know New Orleans is a wasteland. We don’t need further proof.

That’s my spiel on the FEMA censorship non-story. This is what I find fascinating. From the article, there is this basic statement:

An agency spokeswoman said space was needed on the rescue boats and that “the recovery of the victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect.”

“We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media,” the spokeswoman said in an e-mailed response to a Reuters inquiry.

Perfect, basic journalism works to get the story. So why does this next paragraph follow the above excerpt in the story?

The Bush administration also has prevented the news media from photographing flag-draped caskets of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, which has sparked criticism that the government is trying to block images that put the war in a bad light.

The Iraq war photography ban angle is suspect, at best, but it’s possible to see that as relevant. Strained logic because corpses and caskets aren’t equal in photography, but the connection is possible. “Which has sparked criticism…” is pure bias, though, attempting to frame the story to highlight that this isn’t the first time the “evil” Bush administration has screwed up and tried to hide it. It’s unnecessary, tiresome and distracting. No doubt this could (will?) be used as an example of the “liberal MSM”.

When I want facts, I read news. When I want opinion, I read editorials. Logic suggests the two should remain separate. I still contend that individual organizations perpetuate such bias, rather than some grand conspiracy. Regardless, today, Reuters failed in its journalism.

Minnesotans will find religion

Consider this, which should be a victory for boys, except it won’t be because of the ridiculous cop-out.

The state’s insurance programs for 670,000 low-income Minnesotans no longer include coverage of Viagra, sex-change operations or circumcisions, unless required by one’s religion.

This will never pass any form of challenge, of course, because of the religious exception. How is the state supposed to verify that? And I must ask, how does a religion “require” circumcision? Freedom of religion means the child has the same right to choose his religion. His parents may raise him in their religion, but they do not have the right to impose a severe physical mutilation upon him. We don’t let parents circumcise girls if that’s part of their religion. Why are boys exempt from such protection?

And there’s this:

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, a chiropractor and father of six boys, agreed. He added two exemptions, to allow payment if it’s medically necessary or part of someone’s “religious practice.”

Rep. Abeler is wise to include the medically necessary provision, but along with an increase in religion, I suspect there will also be a significant increase in “medically necessary” diagnoses in the future. American physicians already perform far too many circumcisions for grossly-misdiagnosed foreskin problems such as phimosis. This will only get worse when the incentive for the parent is to push the doctor for circumcision. I’m already momentarily pretending that the $54 average fee for performing circumcisions won’t factor into the decision. It’s shameful.

Every state should adopt this policy. With state budgets under constant scrutiny for cost-cutting measures, this is an easy, immediate solution, saving funds for necessary medical procedures. As the article states, Minnesota is the 16th state to eliminate state funding for routine neonatal circumcision. The other 34 states must follow suit, without the ridiculous exemptions.

For what it’s worth, insurance companies should eliminate funding for routine neonatal circumcision, the most performed surgery in America. Insurance companies justify funding circumcisions as a benefit that satisfies a customer demand. Insurance companies correctly refuse to pay for cosmetic surgery, such as breast augmentation, for adults. They shouldn’t pay for forced cosmetic surgery on infants.