BERNANKE ON THE NATION'S ECONOMIC FUTURE

Today, Fed Chairman Bernanke explained that by the year 2020, the federal debt ratio to GDP could exceed 100%. The debt could be larger than the entire U.S. economy at that time, unless there existed the political will to do things necessary to avoid this result.
Don't worry, though. Treasury Secretary Geithner said that President Obama's budgetary measures will prevent that outcome. The Congressional Budget Office agrees with the secretary. They say that if things go as well as President Obama predicts, the debt to GDP ratio will only go to 90% by 2020.

WHEW! That was a close one.

DRILL, OBAMA, DRILL!

Everyone has known for a long time that the only way in the world that California can hope to ever balance its budget is to expand off-shore oil drilling, and get healthy on the royalties that it would receive.

Now recall Candidate Obama deriding Sarah Palin's "drill, baby, drill" slogan, saying that off-shore drilling would not save Americans any money. Now he has changed his mind about this, and will support drilling in the Gulf and the east coast, and in Alaska. Great. Look for Arnold to press for drilling off the California coast. This could easily be done using parallel drilling from existing platforms.

Now recall Teddy Roosevelt and his successful efforts to acquire lots of land in the western states, creating lots of national parks, reserves, and monuments. He was a great progressive. Let's just say, without cynicism, that this was his only motivation in buying up the western states. The federal government owns virtually all of Nevada and Utah. The government owns a great deal of Colorado and Wyoming. It's true that there is great natural beauty in the west. But that's also where the nation's natural resources exist, including oil. The government owns very little land east of Colorado.

Now recall Maxine Waters threatening the nations oil execs by saying that she would not be opposed to nationalizing all the oil companies in the country. Recall Hillary Clinton screaming about the oil companies' "obscene" profits, and calling for a large tax increase on their "excess" profits.

Recall that a lot of countries have nationalized their oil resources. These include not only the OPEC countries, but also Mexico and Venezulea, among others.

Although President"s plan for drilling is quite modest, it is a sign that something else is afoot: A plan to gain additional federal revenue from oil. Not by nationalizing the industry, at least not at first, but to gain revenue from royalties by expanding drilling on federal lands, and taxing the increased profits of oil companies.

Only a Democratic president can get this off. The environmentalists will be quieted by the fact that this kills two birds with one stone: Decreasing reliance on foreign oil, and solving the federal government's deficit problem. And throw in "job creation" as a rationale.

President Obama reluctantly got in the automotive business, the student loan business, the insurance and banking industries. Now watch him get in the oil business. Why would he do this? For the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks, and that middle-class tax increases are inevitable: Because that's where the money is.

PRESIDENT OBAMA SAYS RIDICULOUS THINGS ABOUT HEALTHCARE

President Obama, in his remarks following the House vote on the Senate healthcare bill said that that this bill was a "common sense" reform. If this was the case, why did it take more than a year to get it done? Why was it is so contentious? Why was it passed without a single Republican voting in support? Had it been a "common sense" reform, none of this would have been true.
He also said the passage of the bill was not a "top-down" effort, but came from the bottom up. How can that be said when every poll taken reflected overwhelming opposition on the part of the American people? This was most definitely a top-down process involving pay-offs and arm-twisting like we've never seen.

OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATIVE FIAT

Several days ago, a bill was defeated in Congress by a bi-partisan majority which would have allowed President Obama to appoint a commission that would recommend specific spending cuts and tax measures that bring the budget down, and help control long-term government debt. The bill was offered as a solution to these problems because of Congress' demonstrated unwillingness to confront them.
But the bill was defeated. There were a couple reasons. First, the Congress was unwilling to convey their constitutional responsibilities to a presidential commission, although some Republicans, in the past had favored the idea. Secondly, legislators were unsure if the the commission would truly be a bi-partisan group. In the end, the bill was defeated, and even co-sponsors of the bill (Democrats and Republicans) voted against it, even though congress would have had to approve its recommendations in an all-or-nothing, up-or-down vote.
What was President Obama's response to the congressional rejection of the commission? He said that he would appoint one anyway by executive order.
When it became clear that Obama's Cap-and-Trade legislation was dead in the water, how did the president respond? He said that he would just have the EPA regulate CO2 emissions and achieve his energy policy in this way.
President Bush was widely (and rightly) criticized after 9-11 for trying to unconstitutionally consolidate governmental power within the executive branch. Now where are the critics when President Obama does the same thing?

SKEPTICS AND DENIERS

I'm not big on conspiracy theories. I believe, for example, that the U.S. really landed a man on the moon. I don't think that the film of the landing was shot in the Arizona desert. I think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I don't think that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked, just to get into WWII. I don't think that Bush stole the election from Gore. (However, everyone knows that Mayor Daley stole the election for JFK in 1960.) I don't believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9-11 attacks, or that the Jews were behind it. I believe that the Rosenbergs were guilty as sin. The Holocast is not a hoax. There was no UFO at Roswell.
There is only one thing in history I'm not sure about. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson might have actively tried to throw the 1919 World Series. I hope it ain't so, but I don't know.
Conspiracy theories abound. For every true believer you can name, there is a skeptic or denier. I am always among them. This goes for global warming being a "man-caused" phenomenon. It also goes for the claim that President Obama's stimulus package created a single, solitary job. Or "saved" one. Nor do I believe for a second that the stimulus package prevented a national economic melt-down or prevented a second Great Depression as the president asserted yesterday.
I'm skeptical about any numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I have no faith in the numbers released by the Obama administration regarding the U.S. GDP. I find it odd that our economy can be growing while energy consumption and gasoline prices are not increasing. Shell and Chevron have both reduced personnel, citing low demand as the reason. That make any sense to you?
What really bothers me, as a denier and a skeptic, is that the true believers think that I am stupid or crazy. President Obama has no patience for those that think the stimulus package has been an overall bust, or that Cash For Clunkers was idiotic. Now we go on to his "Jobs" bill, which is nothing more than another stimulus bill we can't afford. Does anyone think an employer will be motivated to hire an employee for $40,000 a year just to get a $5000 tax credit? Not lately.
I just don't believe a word of it.

WHERE ARE THE SANCTIONS ON IRAN?

Almost a month ago, I commented on President Obama's delinquency in imposing sanctions on Iran for its refusal to negotiate an end to its nuclear program. The deadline was supposed to be January 1, 2010. There still have been no sanctions imposed. While the U.S. has done nothing, Iran has:
1. Said that it has no intention of allowing Russia or France to receive its nuclear material, and return it to them in a form that can be used for medical or other non-military purposes.
2. Has launched a missile in as part of its emerging "space program" that can be tipped with a nuclear payload.
3. Has assured the world that it has begun to enrich uranium to beyond 20%, a level that is obviously consistent with a nuclear weapons program.

Meanwhile, President Obama announces that it remains his policy to pursue a dual-track policy toward Iran, which includes seeking international sanctions while being open to negotiations. Hillary Clinton has, of course said that the purpose of sanctions would be to force Iran into negotiations. Very simply, this means that there is only a single track being pursued, and that is negotiation.

Where will the sanctions, if any (if ever), come from? Not the U.N. Security Council. China will veto it. From NATO? Only France, the U.K., and Germany would be interested, and without Russia signing on to a serious set of sanctions (which is unlikely), any sanctions President Obama achieves may be puny.
Of course, the government of Israel is watching closely. They have said that their expectation is that any sanctions imposed would be "crippling" to Iran.
We continue to watch and wait .

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION PROMISES

President Obama, being the free-trader that he is, promises to get the free-trade agreements with Columbia and Panama approved. Wow! What has been taking so long? Nancy Pelosi?
Now the president also wants to pursue nuclear power and off-shore drilling for oil. What has been the hold-up on this? Nancy Pelosi?
Let's see who wins these arguments. And let's find out if the president really has his heart in these things, or is just appearing to shift to the Republican positions. President Obama had no interest at all in any of these things as a candidate.

OBAMA GIVETH, THEN TAKETH AWAY

The $787 billion stimulus package had a little provision called the "Make Work Pay" tax credit. This how President Obama gave a "tax cut" to 95% of Americans. It wasn't a cut in marginal rates, as tax cuts are commonly understood. It was a tax credit, but not as tax credits are commonly understood, either. Usually, if you get a tax credit, it doesn't come until you file your tax return, and then it is deducted from the amount you owe, or is added to the amount of your refund. That's not how this one worked.
This tax credit was given to tax payers in advance by a decrease in the amount of federal withholdings. For individuals, it amounted to about $400; for joint filers, about $800 over the course of a year.
But wait...
What if a person had more than one job? Or was drawing a pension or Social Security while still working? OOPS! In these cases, both paychecks had reduced withholdings. There was a double-dip when the worker was entitled to only one scoop of tax credit. What now?
They'll have to pay it back. It's like getting a loan that you didn't ask for, and didn't know you had received. But on April 15, the loan is due in full. Millions of taxpayers don't know what's in store for them.
That's the bad news. The good news is that the IRS expects that most taxpayers who will have to pay back their tax credit will not have to send in additional money with the amount they would ordinarily owe to pay their taxes. They will simply get a smaller refund than they were expecting.
Maybe that's bad news, too.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE SPECIAL INTERESTS

President Obama is always screaming about special interest groups, and how they are spoiling our political processes.He especially seems to detest Big Pharma and the health insurance companies. So why is it that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries signed on to the Democrats' health care bill? Because deals were struck. Big Pharma signed on when the president promised not to pursue legislation that would authorize re-importation of medicines from Canada. Why did the insurance companies agree to basically to be regulated like utilities? Because the health care bills contained a provision that would require everyone to buy a health insurance policy. In this way, the profits they might lose in margin would be made up for in volume. So the president isn't above deal-making with special interests, while at the same time blaming them for their influence.

PRESIDENT OBAMA, FACE THE FACTS!

President Obama has to face the facts. Although most people like him personally, the don't like his policies. His pursuit of health care reform has been a nightmare. He out-sourced the writing of the reform bill to Reid and Pelosi in an attempt to avoid a repeat of President Clinton's mistake of formulating a plan without the input of Congress. Since there was no congressional investment in Clinton's bill, Congress had no allegiance to it, and when the American people smelled a rat, no one was willing to support it. Now, no one in Congress is willing to walk the plank for health care reform since the people still smell that rat. President Obama has wasted a lot of time and political capital on an journey that was almost doomed from the start, an almost quixotic quest to where no president had gone before. There is a reason why other presidents have failed to enact health care reform: The American voters don't want anything that approaches a government take-over of the health care system!
Time to face the facts.

OBAMA GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT

In explaining Coakley's defeat in Massachusetts (and the Democrats' losses in the governors races in New Jersey and Virginia), President Obama says that that were so busy solving crises that they weren't able to get their message out to the American people. This "explanation" has become the refuge of every failed politician in recent history. Couldn't get his message out? He's on TV more often than Jay Leno.
He got the message out just fine. The voters simply rejected it.
But he continues to believe the American people acted stupidly, like a bunch of cops who would arrest someone in their own home. Maybe the president will announce a National Beer Summit Day so we can all hear him better, and he can get his point through our thick skulls.
Really now, who's the one not getting the point?

I THINK YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT

He didn't say anything about "carpet tacks". He said "CARBON TAX".

SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN

As noted previously, President Obama had given Iran only until the end of the year to make major concessions on their nuclear program, or they would face a new round of "tougher, smarter" sanctions than ever before. What's with that? Isn't Iran's time up?
Oh, wait. President Obama was really hoping that China would be on board with the sanctions program. And they're not. Security Council resolutions are out of the question So, now what? Will the president assemble a "coalition of the willing" to impose sanctions outside of the U.N.? Or will he do that cowboy thing and go it alone?
Probably not. Really, as Hillary said, the only purpose for further sanctions in the Obama foreign policy was to force Iran back to the negotiation table anyway. That's great. Everyone loves a good, tough negotiation. Especially when you have no leverage.
Lots of people have formed the opinion that the Obama administration has reconciled itself to Iran actually possessing nuclear weapons. They think that they can deter the actual use of the weapons just like the Soviets were deterred. Or in the way that North Korea has been deterred.
Hope has its place, but there is no hope that Iran will abandon its nuclear weapons program. My hope is that President Obama snaps out of it.

TAXING THE BANKS

The federal government is beginning to think that they are not going to recover about $120 billion in TARP money that was used to bail-out American car companies and AIG. What's the surprise? GM never had any hope of repayment. So now, what to do? To get about $100 billion, President Obama is considering taxing what he believes are the windfall profits of the biggest banks in the U.S.
These are the same banks that themselves got a TARP bail-out, and have repaid the money with interest. Wasn't that the deal?
Now that the banks are in "bonus season", everyone is watching to see how huge the banks' bonus pay-outs will be. No doubt, they will be large. And a lot of people will be angry about this, President Obama among them. His rationale for taxing the banks will be based on their bonus payments, and his belief that the banks' accepting TARP money in the first place creates a social obligation on their part to pay the debts of other companies that cannot pay their own.
So what will be the consequence for large banks which will be taxed? Well, for one thing, they will have less money to lend. (I know they are not lending anyway. That's not the point. We've been over this before.) Secondly, President Obama's apparent hostility toward profit-makers will be demonstrated once again. This will create the suspicion among the business community that they will also be subject to new taxation in the future. This will contribute to the "uncertainty" that most people believe is causing businesses to avoid new hiring. And that defeats any jobs program you can name.

THREE WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT

The Obama administration has blamed Bush/Cheney for every problem under the sun. They want to constantly point out what a hole they started out in. Complain about what they inherited. Whine about the mess they have to clean up. In fairness, they are right about a lot of it. But, isn't it the height of audacity when they also justify their own mistakes by saying, "Well? Bush did the same thing"!
I think President Obama is nuts to want to close Gitmo. "But Bush wanted to close it, too"!
It's nuts to send detainees from Gitmo to Yemen. "But Bush did it, too"!
It's nuts to try terrorists in federal courts. "But Bush did it, too"!
Sure, Bush did these things, too. But we have to learn from mistakes, not willfully repeat them. President Obama will have to be held accountable for the results of his own decisions. It's not on Bush anymore.

TRIAL BY ERROR

John Brennan, President Obama's Assistant National Security Advisor, made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. He seemed to have two points to make. The first was that Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, is not the fool that she appeared to be when she said "the system worked" in the Christmas attack on a U.S. airliner. He assured us that the president has full confidence in her. I think at this very moment that Janet is evaluating whether she should be spending more time with her family back home.
Brennan's second message was that the terrorist, Abdulmutallab, (trained, armed, and directed by Al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula) was properly charged as a criminal defendant, rather than being detained as an enemy combatant. He acknowledged that this second course was available, but the administration's considered judgement was that the guy should be treated as a criminal with full constitutional protections. This must be a lie.
Abdulmutallab was immediately arrested by the FBI. There was no time for anyone to debate the issue, flip a coin, or bounce it by Barack. Clearly, it is the considered opinion of the president and Eric Holder that all terrorists who survive suicide bombing attacks deserve the constitutioonal protections we would grant a car-jacker.
Brennan was asked if it would not have been preferable for the terrorist to have been questioned by military or intelligence personnel to see what kind of exigent information he might have offered regarding other pending attacks, or his own contacts with Al-Qaida. Brennan allowed that the guy did start talking immediately, but after he was lawyered up, he stopped talking.
However, this did not mean to Brennan that the terrorist would never talk. No, Brennan felt that when the guy saw what kind of trouble he was in, he would start talking again in a plea-bargain scenario.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We already plan to negotiate with the terrorist? We think a would-be suicide bomber may be so afraid of a lethal injection that he will beg to snitch so that he can live for 50 years in a super-max prison?
So President Obama is compounding his mistake of trying Kaleed Shiek-Mohammad in federal court in New York. And he is doing it to show that, being a nation of laws, we are being true to our values. What a load of crap!

WATCHING IRAN

In his remarks today, President Obama "strongly condemned" the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the violence it is committing against its citizens who are in revolt against their leaders. He expressed his "deep admiration" for those who are involved in the revolution. He warns that the world will continue to "bear witness" to the events in Iran. So what?
We are continuing to bear witness to their quest for nuclear weapons, to their supplying money and weapons to the Taliban, and their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Does the president think that Iran's government is embarrassed by the spectacle of their repression, or their sponsorship of worldwide jihad?