About Me

Name: Kenneth Hanson
Location: Atlanta, GA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

NYT's Toes White House Line on Daschle

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:11:38 AM
As I write this, the NYT's headline regarding the Daschle scandal is "Use of Free Car Lands Tom Daschle in Tax Trouble".  This is the White House "spin" on the scandal, dutifully repeated by the NYT's.

But if you dig into the article, even the NYT's cannot hide the fact that the car and driver are just the tip of the icebergy.  Of course any thoughtful person can figure this out without reading the article.  Daschle had to pay $128,000 in back taxes, PLUS interest, to the IRS.  Now there is no way that a car and driver for a couple of years can accrue that type of tax liability.

The real story is that he had a very substantial consulting income that he hid from the IRS, and therefore did not pay taxes on.  Not only that, he was required to register as a lobbyist for some of his activities, which he also did not do. 

I wonder how President Obama's strict new ban on lobbyists working for his administration apply if a person was a lobbyist but just didn't bother to register as one.  Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter.  A waiver would be issued anyway, just like for the Raytheon lobbyist who has been nominated for Deputy Secretary of Defense.

The Obama transition team trumpeted the most thorough vetting process in the history of the country.  But that just makes it even worse.  Team Obama obviously knew about these issues but didn't care.  Like so much of Obama's new presidency, it is all about appearance over substance.

The fact that in spite of the vetting process one nominee that has withdrawn due to corruption charges, and two more have egregious tax evasion problems, shows a cynical and arrogant side of Barack Obama that is disheartening.

It is Chicago-style Democrat machine politics on a national level.  Only one week into the job, President Obama is already dangerously close to confirming to even his most adament supporters that he is a smarmy and conventional politician, and no agent of change.
Tags: obama   daschle  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Non-Partisan Nancy!

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:00:19 PM

From the NYT's "The Caucus" political blog:

When Mrs. Pelosi was asked whether the vote — 244 to 188 without a single Republican’s approval — represented a failure on her part to advance President Obama’s desire for a broad bipartisan bill, she practically snapped:

“I didn’t come here to be partisan. I didn’t come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest."

*****

I guess from now on we'll call her "Non-Partisan Nancy". 

Obama can't afford to admit weakness, but he has to realize that letting Ms. Pelosi write the bill instead of having the White House staff draft it was a mistake of epic proportion.  Obama campaigned on eliminating special interest pork, but the House bill is a 40 year wish list of every possible Democrat special interest.  

It is so partisan, and so absent in it's stated purpose of economic stimulus, that leaves you shaking your head.

President Obama earned a large measure of deference in his impressive election victory.  But some of that deference was just wasted on a very poor effort.  The whole reason for bringing Rahm Emanuel on-board as White House Chief of Staff was because of his ability to work legislation through Congress - and be "the hammer" when necessary.

I hope that Obama seizes the initiative and takes back ownership of the stimulus bill.  President Obama won the election and won the right to take a more liberal approach to economic stimulus.  But this is only plausible if the bill emphasizes actual economic stimulus - liberal or otherwise.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chris Dodd Hard At Work Making It Worse

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:04:14 PM

Too many people overreached and bought houses during the lending bubble that they can not afford, betting that continued rapid appreciation would bail them out of a dodgy transaction.  Since many of them obtained no downpayment loans they have no skin in the game.  They really aren't homeowners, they're renters.  

Dramatically lower home prices that are continuing to fall means they are underwater so it make sense for them to walk away.  For many of these tenents, even if they can afford to make the payments it may make sense for them to turn in the keys and walk away.

Now Senator Chris Dodd wants to suspend all foreclosures for 90 days.  How does this help?  What will be different in 90 days?  The economy will not have turned around and the the houses will be worth even less - the "homeowners" will be even more underwater and will still walk away from the loans.  

These foreclosures need to be allowed to take place.  The faster foreclosures take place and work their way through the secondary market, the faster home prices will bottom and a turnaround can begin.  Having greatly helped to create the mortgage mess with his Fannie and Freddie shennanigans, Senator Dodd's foreclosure moritorium will only make the recovery process take longer.

Bank of America has been piloting an interesting program in Florida.  Instead of foreclosing, they allow the "homeowner" to sell the house at a loss and BofA will then foregive the amount of principal that comes up short in the sale.  Whereas the bank usually takes a 40-50% haircut on a foreclosure, they only take a 20-25% haircut with this approach - plus the bank did not have to worry about selling the foreclosed property.

The current tennant gets out from underwater, the bank gets rid of the property at less of a loss, and a home is off the market - a win, win, win.  Senator Dodd's approach, not so much.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Hollow Victory

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:42:30 PM
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/01/29/hollow_victory_republicans_deliver_slap_in_the_face_to_barack_obama

This bill is so bad that in spite of Obama's enormous popularity, and a White House cocktail party last night,  every single Republican in the House voted against it, plus 11 responsible Democrats.  Obama/Pelosi didn't put in a single GOP "ask".  So much for Obama's promise of post-partisanship.  Obama/Pelosi just crammed it down the Republican's throats.

It turns out that Republicans actually read the bill and firgured out that there was almost nothing stimulative about it.  

Many believe that the stimulus bill is about infrastructure: bridges and roads.  However, out of the $825B in the bill, only $30B is for that.  In contrast, in inflation adjusted terms, the country spent more than $500B on the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration.  Of the $30B, only $10B will be spent in the next 18 months.  The vast majority of the bill is just a Democrat wish list of social spending for their special interests.

The GOP offered an alternative stimulus bill.  Using the same multipliers that the Democrat bill did, it creates twice as many jobs at half the cost.  Of course, the Democrats voted it down today.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How To Destroy An Auto Industry - Democrat Style

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:14:43 PM
President Obama has instructed the EPA to allow California and 13 other states to set their own emission and fuel mileage standards.

So how will this work?  Will California also impose a surcharge on any cars that operate in California that don't meet the new standards?  I think they'll have to.  Otherwise, it'll take people about 5 minutes to figure out that they can drive to Reno, buy a car that does not meet the newer, more expensive standard, and take it back to California - auto regulation arbitrage.

So let's review how the Democrats are doing with their Soviet-style industrial policy for the auto makers.  CAFE standards force the Detroit 3 to build small cars that no one wants using expensive UAW labor.  Cars the companies build overseas in less expensive locations and import are not allowed to be counted toward CAFE fleet requirements.  They have to dump these small UAW-built cars on the market at a huge loss to get rid of them.  By doing this, the Democrats then allow the car companies to make a certain number of larger vehicles, that are profitable and where they have some competitive niches.

CAFE has been a disaster for the car companies.  Now Obama, using his superior judgement, determines that the next step is to expand CAFE so that there are 15 different standards instead of one, imposing a huge regulatory burden on the car companies right at the point where they are struggling for survival.  

To compensate for the Democrat's disasterous auto industry policies, they now have to "loan" the auto companies billions of dollars  But the Democrats only agree to do this after requiring them to make electric cars that most people can't afford and are not particularly practical.  

In order to further placate the Democrats, GM has also promised to manufacture its own plug-in car batteries at a plant in Michigan, a decision that cannot possibly make business sense for GM.  Meanwhile, Chrysler who took a bunch of the taxpayers money to stay afloat "sold" 35% of itself to Fiat last week for $0! 

This is all a great example of the tangled irrationality of many Democrat policies.  A simple way to achieve the same result would be to get rid of all this nonsense and impose a variable tax so that gas always costs $4.  Have a payroll tax credit for people under a certain income so that it is not overly punative for poorer families.  Then let the market work on its own.  The Democrat's "push" model (forcing the car companies to make cars the market doesn't want) just makes everything worse and worse.

Tags: EPA   cafe   obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Non-Stimulus "Stimulus" Bill

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:35:59 PM

Barack Obama swept into office promising to change how Washington works.  He swore that the stimulus bill would have no earmarks and no "pork".  But the bill so laden with pork, so completely unhelpful to the economy, and so inefficient on a cost benefit basis, that it makes you scratch your head.  Is this really what President Obama wants to spend his political capital on - a non-stimulus "stimulus" bill?  Is this really the best the new Democrat administration can do?

In total, the bill spends $825B to create or save 3.7M jobs.  That means the government will spend $222,972 per job.  In contrast, in 2007, the private sector created jobs at a cost of about $50,000 each.  As in most ventures, the government is woefully inefficient. 

There are 152 separate appropriations in the bill, but just 34 are related to creating or saving jobs. 

Examples of appropriations that have nothing to do with creating or saving jobs or otherwise stimulating the economy:

  1. $50M for National Endowment for the Arts
  2. $300M for family planning services and contraception
  3. $4.19B for ACORN
  4. $200B transfer payment to states
  5. $650M for digital TV coupons

Examples of appropriations that are not crucial to stimulating the economy - just extra spending on "stuff" that should be part of a normal budgeting cycle:

  1. $650M to repair Forest Service facilities
  2. $200M to spruce up the National Mall
  3. $276M to fix the computer systems at the State Department
  4. $400M for Social Security Administration computer systems
  5. $209M for facilities maintenance for the Agricultural Research Service
  6. $600M for the General Services Administration to buy new alternative-fuel cars and trucks

Of the 152 separate appropriations in the bill, just 11 generate over half the estimated jobs at a cost of just $65B:

1.     Highway Infrastructure Investment (835,000 jobs, $35,928 each) $30B

2.     Clean Water State Revolving Fund (282,000 jobs, $21,276 each) $6B

3.     Transit Capital Assistance (165,000 jobs, $36,363 each) $6B

4.     Child Care Development Block Grant (125,000 jobs, $16,000 each) $2B

5.     Weatherization Assistance (104,000 jobs, $59,615 each) $6.2B

6.     Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (94,000 jobs, $21,276 each) $2B

7.     Grants-in-Aid for Airports (75,000 jobs, $40,000 each) $3B

8.     Head Start (50,000 jobs, $42,000 each) $2.1B

9.     State Energy Program (41,000 jobs, $82,926 each) $3.4B

10.  Energy Efficiency & Conservation Grants (40,800 jobs, $85,784 each) $3.5B

11.  Capital Investment Grants (35,000 jobs, $28,571 each) $1B
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Beholden to Worn Out Economic Dogmas

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Monday, January 26, 2009 1:29:45 PM

On the Sunday talk show circuit Democrats were arguing that government stimulus spending was the "only tool left" to fight the recession.  It amazes me the way political partisans can go on TV and say things like this that are patently false and not smirk while they are saying it.

Even though the Fed cannot lower interest rates further, they have enormous power to affect the economy through monetary policy (verses interest rate policy).  Treasury can continue to bolster capital in the financial system.  Tax cuts that are actually stimulative haven't even been considered by the Democrats, even though they have a track record of working while their planned Keynesian spending does not.

What is frustrating as someone who actually understands a lot of this is the knowledge that most of Obama's economic team understands it too - Summers, Romer, Furman all know this - but are being overruled by democrat party dogma.  They have sold their intellectual souls for the patronage of their liberal benefactors.

In her pre-Obama life Ms. Romer, a highly respected economist, has published a study showing that every $1 in stimulative tax cuts produces $3 in GDP.  In contrast, the Keynesian multiplier theory, that $1 in government spending results in $1.50 of GDP, has been largely discredited.

In his classic 1974 article, "Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?", Harvard economist Robert Barro showed that for every $1 the government "injects," it must take $1 away from someone else -- either in higher taxes or increased debt. In either case this is $1 that is no longer available for private sector investment or consumer consumption.  If this where true, then the government could spend trillions more and we would have wealth beyond imagination!

The left castigated the Bush administration for what they perceived was a subjugation of science to political ideology.  How is this any different, except that the ideology is now liberal and the science economics?  The consensus regarding economics is certainly more unified than any scientific consensus regarding anthropomorphic global warming.  But Bush is the one ignoring science?

In his inauguration address Obama said that it was time to move past "worn out dogmas".  He has said repeatedly that he will be "pragmatic", considering any idea so long as it works.

I guess we've seen the first lies of the Obama era.  He is completely beholden to the worn out dogmas of liberal "economics", and refuses to consider ideas to help the economy that his economic team knows will help.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

George W. Bush's Wars Of Choice - Were They Worth It?

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:48:23 PM
As George W. Bush leaves office, the left is arguing that even though Bush turned around the situation in Iraq, the human cost was not worth what may have been gained.  I think that some reflection on past wars and their outcomes can provide some perspective on this question.

In Korea, after almost being pushed into the sea, we recovered to fight a brutal multi-year war that simply maintained the status quo along the 38th parallel - which continues to haunt us 60 years later.  The human cost?  The U.S. lost 36,516 lives, suffered almost 100,000 wounded, and had 8,176 MIA's.  North Korea lost 215,000 dead and had 303,000 wounded.  120,000 North Koreans were MIA.  China lost 400,000+ killed and 486,000 wounded.

In Vietnam, we lost 58,159 soldiers and suffered over 300,000 wounded.  North Korea lost 1.18M soldiers with 600,000 wounded.  Civilian deaths in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos totaled almost 6 million.  All this for a war where we lost our will and left our allies to defeat and to be subjegated by communism.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan we have lost about 6,000 lives, and those lives are dear. In exchange, 50M people have been freed from totalitarian regimes.  In Afghanistan, young girls are now going to school.  In Iraq, oil money will eventually offer Iraq the opportunity to be a wealthy country that can help its people.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammdd, the mastermind of 9/11, was captured and revealed new plans for attacks against our country.  We drew large numbers of radical Islamic fighters into Iraq and killed most of them, forcing al Qaeda, et. al. to expend enormous human and material resources in a losing cause.  We defined the battlefield in Afghanistan, limiting al Qaeda's operational effectiveness in the region and forcing them to focus on survival rather than attacking our country.

Assuming Obama does not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the U.S. will have a democratic ally strategically placed right in the middle of the Middle East.

If you asked the average Iraqi citizen if they would see the way forward as it stands today, or go back to the brutal rule of Saddam Hussain, I believe all but a narrow group of hard-core Baathists would take their chances with today's Iraq.

Was it worth it?  Time will tell - but it looks promising.  In fact, it has the potential to be the most positively consequential achievement for the fewest number of lives lost in the history of our country.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Over/Under On "Nay" Votes For Eric Holder

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:29:08 PM
Poor Barack.  In the past week he has been visited by 3 ghosts from his past.

First, America-hating Reverend Wright re-surfaced as a guest preacher at his old church.  It was on December 7th, and he claimed it was the anniversary of our country "murdering" tens of thousands at Hiroshima in 1941.  Hummm....the Reverend must be getting a bit confused about who attacked who on December 7th, 1941.  Plus, using the atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands of American lives by ending the war without invading the Japanese homeland.

Then, America-hating Bill Ayers shows up all over the media including an op-ed in the NYT's and an interview on MSNBC making the case that he was really never a terrorist.  The Weather Underground bombings were just "symbolic acts" against icons of imperialist empire.  Good grief.  He said that his goal was simply to trigger a communist movement led by the Marxist-Leninist party.  He seems to have forgotten that the bomb that accidentally went off in the Weather Underground Greenwich safe house, killing a number of people, was packed with nails for maximum human damage and was meant for a noncommissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey.  There were lots of other bombs and other deaths as well.  

Third, sociopath and self-loathing Blagojevich delivers the coup de' gras!  One of the oddities about Barack Obama is a complete lack of affect.  He is always the "cool cat" that never gets emotional.  Well he should be emotional, angry even, about the Blagojevich affair.  This is not some tangential ethical issue.  It is colleague that he has strongly supported over the years trying to sell his former senate seat.  But he just stands there and calmly says it is "unfortunate".

Now it is being reported that if Blagojevich does not resign or is not quickly impeached that the Illinois Attorney General is going to go to the state supreme court and have him declared "unfit" to serve in the office of the governor.  Is this actually in the Illinois constitution?  Is this like when Captain Kirk is possessed by an evil alien and Mr. Spock threatens to have "Bones" relieve him of command for acting irrationally?  Perhaps Blogajevich is channeling “The Caine Mutiny”. I can almost see Blagojevich rolling the ball bearings around in his hand now!

Oh, and as an aside, guess who the real estate agent for the shady Rezko/Obama real estate deal where Obama bought his Hyde Park house at a below market rate?  Yep, Patricia Blagojevich.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why the Obama Stimulus Plan Doesn't Make Sense

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Monday, January 19, 2009 6:03:00 PM

Christina Romer, who will chair the Council of Economic Advisors in the Obama administration, recently joined with Jared Bernstein, who will be the chief economic adviser to the Vice President, to detail the impact of Obama's stimulus plan.  The number of jobs created keeps being ratcheted up, from 2.5M to 3M and now up to 4M, even though the plan is essentially unchanged. 

Their analysis states that $1 in government spending will result in $1.50 in GDP, but that $1 in tax cuts will only result in $1 in GDP.  But several years ago Ms. Romer published an article that studied this very topic and reported that $1 in tax stimulative tax cuts (verses “transfer-payments”) produced $3.00 in GDP.  Ms. Romer, who is a respected economist, has always recognized the powerful stimulative impact of the right kind of tax cuts.

I find it interesting that the majority of economists agree with Ms. Romer's analysis of several years ago - and only deviate when they become the beneficiaries of liberal patronage. 

The current stimulus package has some infrastructure spending, although less than many people realize.  I'm all for accelerating the rebuilding and repair of bridges.  But there is also $50M for the National Endowment for the Arts, and that “Mob Museum” continues to hang on stubbornly in the bill.  

There are some business tax "cuts" which are really more credits for stuff that is in the past.  They are not supply-side tax cuts that will incent job creation.  The rest of the so-called tax cuts are merely transfer payments to people that are not in a position to create jobs and will have minimal impact to stimulate the economy.  

Transfer payments and middle class tax cuts have never produced a sustainable stimulative effect on the economy.  I challenge anyone to point to an example where Keynesian government infrastructure spending has worked.  But we know that certain types of tax cuts work - and that the effect on the economy is much more rapid at less cost to the government (read "taxpayers") than the alternative.  So why are the democrats so fixated on policies that have never worked when there are proven alternatives available.

Many of my liberal friends are quick to "appeal to authority" in a debate.  Ask about a scientific topic, and they will agree with what most scientists say is true.  But when it comes to economics, liberals abandon what most learned economists say is true and accept what liberal politicians say.  Now what liberal politicians tout as economic policies might be good politics, but those policies are not good economics.  For every Paul Krugman there are many Milton Friedman’s.

Although this week’s Barron’s magazine reported infrastructure spending is at a 27 year high, apparently with limited stimulative effect, some additional spending is useful so long as the pork is stripped out.  Essential is that this infrastructure spending should be on projects that make our country more productive – such as reducing traffic congestion, or creating a more efficient energy infrastructure.  I have no doubt that there are productivity enhancing projects that will have an economic multiplier effect – this does not include money for tennis courts and museums.

In addition, why not accelerate some military spending?  This also can have a multiplier effect as it ripples through the vast military-industrial supply chain.  I have no doubt that we need to replace equipment and munitions expended in Iraq, and that we will eventually need more F-22 to have parity the Chinese SU-35.

I am skeptical of spending a great deal of money propping up delinquent homeowners that are really renters (no money down, underwater).  In fact, I'm not sure that this won't lengthen the time for the housing market to bottom - with the associated deleterious effect.

Finally, there should be supply-side tax cuts.  At a minimum, the corporate tax rate should be cut to a more competitive 25%.  Frankly, even if the corporate tax rate was cut to zero profits would be taxed anyway when they were paid out as dividends.  This would have an immediate stimulative impact that can not be matched by Keynesian spending either in efficiency, speed or effectiveness.  Obama could also simply announce that he would maintain the current capital gains rate.  This would also be psychologically and economically stimulative and would not cost the taxpayers a dime.

Obama says he will be pragmatic rather than ideological - that he will use any idea that works.  But so far, the current stimulus plan says the opposite.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's "Team of Average"

Posted by Kenneth Hanson on Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:32:11 PM
Obama has succeeded in bringing Democrats and Republicans together in the first demonstration of "post-partisanship".  Both political parties are appalled by Obama's selection of Leon Panetta to head the CIA.  While Mr. Panetta is a smart and capable public servant, Diane Feinstein's (incoming chair for intelligence committee) reaction that it is essential to have someone in the position that is an intelligence professional was swift and unwavering.  

Obama is chosing political loyalty over competence in one of the most critically important positions necessary to protect our country.  At best, it appears that Obama will return to the Clinton mode of being deeply unserious about terrorism.  At worst, Obama will gut the CIA as was done in the Carter Administration, which set America's intelligence capabilities back for decades.

While I have to say that I like some of Obama's cabinet appointments - it is a very mixed bag in total.  It certainly is not an assembly of the "best and brightest" that many anticipated. There are a few bright lights with the rest being very average Clinton re-treads, Chicago Democrat machine hacks, and the like.  Obama has even guaranteed the inevitable drama that will result from having the Clintons in the cabinet.

I find it suprising that there are not more minority appointments.  George W. Bush did more to promote minorities at the most senior levels of government than any president in history, and I expected Obama to follow through with Bush's example.  The only minority of note seems to be the ethically and judgement challenged Eric Holder.  Democrats were fond of attacking Alberto Gonzalez as being to close to George Bush to be independent.  The same argument can probably be made regarding Holder/Obama.

So let's summarize the highlights.  You have the nasty partisan Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, whose language and demenor are in the Blagojevich mode.  You have Eric Holder as the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S.  Then there is the smart and hard working, but scheming and temper-tantrum diva, Hillary Clinton at State.  Joe Biden is the factually challenged gas-bag in chief.  Leon Panetta is a nice guy with absolutely no knowledge of what he is supposed to do running the CIA.  Bill Richardson, who was one of the capable ones, has now exited "stage left" to return to New Mexico and defend himself against "pay to play" allegations.  Secretary of Agriculture is the ethanol-promoting former governor of Iowa (yes, let's produce more ethanol).  Napolitano is an embarrasingly poor choice for Homeland Security with no qualifications whatsoever.  

The global warming alarmist and anti-nuclear Chu to run the Department of Energy is an unhelpful choice.  Obama's basketball buddy Duncan for Education has been described as a "reformer who does not offend the teacher unions".  That may be one of the great oxymorons of all time.  Carol Browner to be the Energy Czar is a horrible choice.  This is the Clinton EPA re-tread who made GE dredge the Hudson river for PCB's (because she could) even though environmental scientists universally said that leaving it undisturbed was by far the best answer.  Tom Daschel's recent book on health care is a roadmap to rationing.  And it goes on and on.  

If you look at the America's security troika of Napolitano, Holder, and Panetta, it leaves me deeply concerned about the safety of our country.  That is a very, very weak team.

I simply do not see evidence here of superior or even good judgement on the part of Obama.  The only area where there is real quality in the administration, besides Robert Gates, is the economic team.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid liberal dogma will trump the fact that the economic advisors are a smart and capable bunch.  

Combine Obama's "team of average" with the not so bright Nancy Pelosi running the House and the politically ham-fisted Harry Reid running the Senate and it not a recipe for optimism. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »