Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

For today's primary reading assignment, I encourage you all (in the strongest way) to read this truly fantastic speech by the Rev. Robert Sirico, President of the Acton Institute, which he gave at Acton's annual dinner in October.

Despite Acton's overtly religious overtones, and despite the speech being given by a Catholic priest, this non-religious Jewish blogger found Sirico's speech to be something which would have made James Madison proud and which recharged my batteries to continue the quintessential American fight for liberty.

http://www.acton.org/commentary/486_the_way_forward.php

Although he didn't have a lot of experience, Brian Owens was selected to be the new CEO of an expansion NFL franchise. The good news was that the team owners had plenty of money and Owens could hire almost any head coach he wanted. Owens' favorite team in his youth was the Detroit Lions, a team which despite occasionally having good talent was almost never able to hire a coach which could turn that talent into a playoff contender. Still, Owens approached the current coach of the Lions and hired him for the new team, despite the Lions having at that time the worst record in the NFL, not having won a game more than halfway through the season and despite that coach not having done anything memorable in football prior to his job with the Lions. Football experts just scratched their heads at the decision, predicting the new team would have a losing record for several years to come if the decision-making at the top were to remain that bad.

While Bernie O'Brien had a law degree, he had very little business experience. Still, his charisma was seen to be a valuable tool for the company which was in need of a turnaround specialist, so they hired O'Brien at interim CEO despite his thin resume. The company seemed to have the necessary pieces to be a success, but it hadn't been successful for a few years. The owner of the company had very deep pockets (it was thought that the money might have come from many years of white collar crime, but that was never proven), and O'Brien was told that he could put together a Board of Directors of his choosing. Over recent years, O'Brien had become friends with Joan Grandy, who had become President of O'Brien's kids' favorite toy company. It was a company which had a long history of making great toys but which had fallen on hard times for many years, for a few decades even, because their dated toys came to have limited appeal for modern tastes and because the company was never able to lower their costs, making the toys more expensive than many of the alternatives. Grandy, unfortunately, was so concerned with making sure the employees loved her that she never made any hard decisions and simply let the company continue to do what it was doing, causing the grand old toy brand to now be on the verge of bankruptcy after a century of history. Maybe Grandy's failure shouldn't have been a surprise since she had no prior business experience. So, it was seen as somewhat odd by stock analysts when O'Brien chose Grandy to be one of the members of the company's new Board of Directors. After all, they wondered, how could someone who has never demonstrated an ability to improve the financial situation she was in charge of be expected to do so for a much bigger company just because a friend asked her to?

And so it is with the remarkable inclusion of Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm in the economic advisory team for President-Elect Barack Obama.

Michigan is an economic basket case. The state has been in recession for far longer than the rest of the country, with unemployment persistently higher than the national average during Granholm's tenure. According to the Detroit News, "Metro Detroit now stands as the only major metropolitan area in the country where average home prices have fallen below their 2000 levels." Of course, tax-and-spend Granholm almost always sees the answer in higher taxes (HERE, HERE, HERE) , even though it should be clear to a blind and deaf person that Michigan's already high taxes are a main cause of the problem.

Jennifer Granholm has presided over, and continues to preside over, one of the great failures of an American state and American industry. So what is she doing on Obama's economic advisory team? Representing labor unions is my guess, as well as generally receiving payback from Obama for her support during his campaign. If this is the sort of "hope and change" we can expect from Obama (and I believe it is), he will soon prove right those of us who said that he should not be allowed to run a small company, much less the nation. Truly, I can not imagine a worse economic advisor than a failed governor with no experience in the business world. But then what do you expect from a President-Elect with no experience in the business world?

What's worse, I would not be surprised to see Granholm offered a cabinet position or maybe an appointment to the federal bench as a judge. After all, they're birds of a feather: They are both graduates of liberal colleges (Columbia for Obama, Berkeley for Granholm) and Harvard Law School, they both love unions, taxes, and government spending, and they both have exceptionally limited understanding of economics...and the little they do know they learned on the job while making terrible economic decisions.

An interview of Barack Obama in January was just unearthed in which Obama expresses his desire to bankrupt the coal industry. This is a massive threat not just to the cost of energy in America but also to the economies of several states, including Colorado.

For more on this very important issue which I believe should be in the front of people's minds as they decide whom to vote for tomorrow, please see my article at RedState.com:

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/ross_kaminsky/2008/nov/03/looking-at-obamas-plan-to-bankrupt-the-coal/

If you haven't already participated, I'd like to ask you to take my election survey.

If you're not from Colorado (or you're from Colorado but not paying close attention), feel free to skip the last 3 or 4 questions.

Modification from the initial post: I'll put up the results fairly late on election day so that, as inconsequential as the blog's influence might be, I don't influence any potential voters simply by showing these poll results.

It will be interesting to see whether my readers and friends are more accurate or more naively optimistic than other polls.

Thanks for your participation.

Click Here to take survey

Also, please e-mail the link to this article or to the survey to anyone you think would participate!

You can send them this link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Wz0Wm98w_2bJSigp8ONESthg_3d_3d

In an interesting report Friday afternoon, Gallup argues that the turnout of voters between the ages of 18-29 does not seem likely to be substantially higher than it was in 2004 in terms of share of the total number of votes cast.

Although some Republicans will take this information as giving them stronger hope that McCain will win, I don't think it's very important...and I continue to believe this election will end up being a substantial blow-out for Obama in terms of electoral votes.

What's more important, in my view, is that the Obama campaign (in large part due to their huge money advantage) is "beating McCain on voter outreach."

I believe this election will be won (and lost) among suburban independent voters, particularly women, and that they'll break for Obama because he's more charismatic, younger, and better looking.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong, but as I've said a few times recently, the people are about to get the government they deserve.

They deserve it for not getting educated about economics, for letting Congress enact the Bush tax cuts as temporary rather than permanent, for not screaming at Republicans for spending like drunk Democrats, and for being so easily fooled by Barack Obama, described by ABC reporter Michael Malone as a man who is "essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography."

Unfortunately, the rest of us are going to get the government that Americans who are too lazy to care or, too stupid to see through the lies, deserve. Our economy, our liberty, our Republic will survive, but with great damage.

This morning, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama, continued the downward ratchet of the level of income at which Barack Obama intends to confiscate income.

Obama started at $250,000, then said $200,000.

Joe Biden then dropped the bar to $150,000 three days ago.

And now, Bill Richardson says that "there is a tax cut for those" making $120,000 and under, implying that anyone making over $120,000 will be penalized by an Obama administration.

I realize that liberals will argue with that conclusion. But what alternative is there other than a weak argument that Obama might lower taxes below $X of income, raise taxes above $Y of income, and do nothing in between. I believe that outcome is unlikely, and if he tries it, he'll blow a huge hole in the budget.

Since Obama is planning one of the largest expansions of government spending in history it will not be possible to cut taxes for people below $X without having to either raise taxes on people above $X or create a budget deficit which dwarfs even the worst of recent government profligacy. And, as the repeated lowering of that bar shows, the Obama campaign is realizing that their budgetary sleight of hand during the campaign is simply too large to be believed, even by gullible Americans.

Maybe anticipation of record-breaking deficits is the reason that Barney Frank has been out talking about why we should ignore the deficit for a while, but I don't believe the American public will stand for government spending citizens' money freely while we all have to cut back...indeed causing us to have to cut back more because the dead hand of government is that much deeper in our pockets.

Of course, the only people who would be surprised by this are people who have a "willing suspension of disbelief" about Obama's impossible promises.

As I mentioned yesterday, you know Obama's claims are truly outrageous when even the AP and CBS News all but call him a liar.

In case it's not clear enough from those articles, however, I'll say it: Obama is a liar. His claims about how much he plans to spend are directly contradicted by his own web site. And his suggestion that he can pay for his planned massive increase in the size of government by just taxing the rich is also a lie. To get even close, he'd have to define rich somewhere around where we now have the poverty line, and even that would probably not cover it.

As Obama gets closer to winning, he's lowering the expectations bar so that it will be hard for others to call him a liar later. But if you believe that even $120,000 is where the confiscation will start, you're fooling yourself. The only people who may do better under Obama are those currently at or below the poverty line. Unfortunately, the benefit to those will be more than offset by the increasing number of people who are moved from the middle class to poverty by his misguided "soak the rich" mentality.

I was tempted to put this in the other "Barack the Redistributor" posting, but it's such an important article I decided to post a separate link to it.

This article is by Don Boudreaux, Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University, one of the best economics departments in the nation, complete with Walter Williams, Bryan Caplan, Russ Roberts, and Nobel Laureate James Buchanan. Don is a non-partisan loather of politicians and does not write this article because he's promoting John McCain.

One of the main objections I get from liberals when I call Obama a socialist is that his explicit desire for redistribution doesn't fit precisely in the dictionary definition of the word which revolves more around ownership of enterprises. I have argued that redistribution is such a fundamental aspect of socialism that the liberals' argument is a distinction without a difference.

My reading of Boudreaux's article is that he agrees with me.

I'd also like to emphasize a paragraph in the article:

Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas's words.

See "Is Barack Obama really a socialist?", Don Boudreaux, Christian Science Monitor, 10/30/08
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1030/p09s01-coop.html

By the way, Don writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper almost daily and distributes them to an e-mail list. They're short, to the point, and generally brilliant. If you're interested in being added to the e-mail list, please let me know by e-mail at rossputin@rossputin.com or by message or comment from this page.

On the increasingly prominent subject of Barack Obama's overt support for income redistribution (i.e. socialism), allow me to suggest the following three columns:

First, an excellent short piece by Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Salena Zito:

see "'Barack the Redistributor'", Salena Zito, 10/27/08
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/blogs/fortyfourthestate/show_comments.php?entry_id=3442

Second, from the Wall Street Journal, a broader take on the risk that an Obama presidency poses to our nation's judicial system and to the fundamental character of our Republic:

see "Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution", by Steven Calabresi, 10/28/08
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html?

Last, but not least, this editorial from Investors Business Daily:
see "The Real Obama", IBD Editorial, 10/27/08
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309999370915090

The LA Times' refusal to release a video tape they have which apparently includes Barack Obama heaping admiration and friendship upon Rashid Khalidi is just the latest in a frightening trend of the dominant liberal media becoming the propaganda wing of the Obama campaign, and the not-playing-along-with-Obama media being targets for censorship and attack. (The original LA Times story about the event is HERE.)

Khalidi, a vehement anti-Semite who worked with the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat, remains a leading hater of Israel while in his teaching position at my repugnant alma mater, Columbia University.

Then there's Joe Biden who was asked some hard questions by a TV interviewer in Florida on Friday, 10/24:

Liberals are going crazy about the hard questions. Remember, you're not allowed to ask hard questions of the Democrats...only the Republicans.

And the Obama campaign's response? To cancel all interviews with that TV station.

But what do you expect from a campaign whose MO is to try to shut down any and all voices which don't support their messiah?

They tried to shut down two Chicago radio interviews by overloading the station with phone calls. (First time and second time.)

That's a symptom of their disease, a desperate cult-like fear of criticism. And their proposed cure is likely to be the "Fairness Doctrine", simply an attempt to force conservative talk radio shows off the air.

A House vote on the Fairness Doctrine failed widely last year, but only because Democrats knew that they would not have enough votes to override a Bush veto. Their language, however, was clear: They want it back and expect to bring it back if a Democrat becomes president.

The arguments for the Fairness Doctrine are weaker than ever, with so many more media outlets than a generation ago. We now have the internet, cable TV, satellite radio, etc., the combination of which has massively multiplied information sources. If people want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, they can do so. If not, there are hundreds of other stations they can change to. There is a liberal radio network, Air America. It's not the fault of lack of airttime that it is a perennial failure. Apparently if people want news spun by leftists, they go to MSNBC or CNN or NBC News instead. The point is that they can do so, so there is no need for regulation muzzling talk radio simply because the conservatives are relatively dominant there. It simply comes down to the Democrats wanting to suppress anyone who disagrees with them.

Monica Crowley hit the nail on the head in a recent article for Human Events called "Watch What You Say":

Whenever confronted by difficult questions posed by people who haven't succumbed to the creepy Obama Hypnosis, the Obama Team’s reaction is to silence them. They did it to a Chicago radio station that dared to interview someone critical of Obama's past. They did it to Joe the Plumber, seeking to destroy him for daring to ask Obama a question about taxes. They are threatening to do it nationwide with the Fairness Doctrine.

You aren't allowed to raise Obama's middle name, Hussein. You aren't allowed to say that half of his family is Muslim. You aren't allowed to say that he was born to a Muslim father, which, under Islam, automatically made him a Muslim. You aren't allowed to discuss Reverend Wright. Or Bill Ayers. Or Bernardine Dohrn. Or Louis Farrakhan. Or Father Phleger. Or Tony Rezko. You aren't allowed to point out that so far, the Iranians, the Russians, the Syrians, Hamas, parts of al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, and Kim Jong Il have endorsed him. You aren't allowed to ask him about the vote fraud or illegal campaign contributions being done in his name. You aren't allowed to say he's lying about his tax plan. Or about his past associations. Or his past, period.

If you raise any of these issues, you risk being punished, smeared, and silenced.

If this is the chill that has set in already, just imagine what it will be like once they take the White House.

Watch what you say. Or else.