Almost Classical

Putin, at 85 percent approval (or higher, depending on source), is the most popular leader in Europe among his voters. Though we know he controls the media and crushes opposition, he really doesn't care what the West does or doesn't do. He's even used the sanctions as proof that the West is out to destroy Russia. It wouldn't matter who sat in the Oval Office. Putin's Russia is, as he says, "Trying to right a horrible wrong." Pride and honor are at stake, not international norms. And, in the end, Russian oil and gas are needed by many nations in the region -- at least for now -- and that gives Russia leverage. The sad reality... there is not much Pres. Obama or anyone can do to change Putin's worldview. Sanctions, harsh words, none of those things will matter to Moscow. And China will be more than happy to support Putin's Russia. When we try to understand the world through "American" or "Western" eyes, we miss that other ec...

This is fairly revealing of how things work: Barack Obama’s new ‘grass-roots’ group isn't quite - Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti and Byron Tau - POLITICO.com In its first days, Organizing for Action has closely affiliated itself with insider liberal organizations funded by mega-donors like George Soros and corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Citi and Duke Energy. … Dubbed the “Road Ahead” meeting, the conference was sponsored by a White House-allied trade association called Business Forward, which is funded by major corporations including Microsoft, Walmart and PG&E – each of which sent senior executives to participate in a panel on how to boost American economic competitiveness. Yep, change you can believe in, right?

The Inaugural Address reveals a lot about Pres. Obama. President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address - Washington Wire - WSJ :  Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character. I wish I could believe he meant those words, but too often it seems Pres. Obama has faith in central planning, that bureaucrats do know best what is "right" for the rest of us. He is insufficiently skeptical of government, its expertise, and its power. The next section is more along the lines of "You didn't build that…" (a statement I and many others have explored in context of his full campaign speech). The president reminds us that "collectively" we stand. A false argument, since nobody is arguing against all gov...

Congress has a long history of ceding power to the executive branch. The arguments for this, that administration requires expertise and efficiency, do little to justify the surrender of Constitutional authority. Sadly, this surrender of power to unelected and too often unaccountable bureaucrats shows signs of accelerating. Review the administrative expansion under Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and the number of regulations issued are depressing. President Obama has a penchant for the expensive, too. The Daily Caller In his 2012 State of the Union speech, Obama claimed, "I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his." Obama's statement was true, but skewed, because he's far outpacing Bush in the production of "economically significant" regulations, each of which imposes costs of more than $100 million per year, said Wayne Crews, a vice president for policy and director of...

There have been a great many blog posts and columns written since President Obama spoke on July 13, 2012. Many of his defenders have tried to "correct" any confusion about what his words meant, arguing that his statements were misinterpreted by the press and taken out of context by opponents. As Charles Krauthammer rhetorically asks, "Did the state make you great?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-did-the-state-make-you-great/2012/07/19/gJQAbZOiwW_story.html The problem for Pres. Obama and his supporters is that his argument is deeply flawed. We do succeed with the help of friends, family, church, non-profit organizations, and, yes, government (generally of the local variety). But, many people have the exact same access to all these various supports… yet some succeed and some fail. Also, a simple point of fact: government is the people, not something outside and above the people. Without successful people paying taxes, there would b...

On February 2, 2012, President Obama spoke at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. This event dates back to Eisenhower, and is generally used to talk about unity and shared values. Not this year. Instead, Obama used the opportunity to promote his tax policies. I do not mind a politician being guided by his or her ethical foundation, including religious beliefs, as long as those beliefs do not infringe upon my freedom. However, politicians of all types tend to misquote scriptures and misrepresent them. I'd rather politicians not attempt to be theologians. Keep religion out of politics. Period. (I also dislike ending every speech with "God Bless America!" If there is a Creator, the entire world needs some blessings about now.) I wrote this blog entry less than a year ago: http://roguerhet.blogspot.com/2011/05/wwjd-rhetoric-scripture-and-taxes.html The president's speech is filled with misrepresentations of the Bible, selective readings that do not reflect the ...

I've been reading a lot about the end of the American Dream. Class mobility? A myth. The idea that hard work and good choices lead to success? A lie meant to placate the masses. Yet, as I've written before, there is ample evidence that hard work, a stable family, and some relatively simple choices do lead people in the middle class. See: http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/wealth-disparity-myths-and-realistic.html As I wrote in that post: 86% of the wealthiest households are married couples. 20% of the poorest households feature a married couple. $56,000 is the median income for a person with a bachelor's degree. $19,000 is the median income for someone without a high school diploma. $36,000 is the median income for someone with a two-year college degree or technical certification. The basic formula for reaching the upper-middle class (or better): get a degree, get married (and stay married), exercise, and avoid "bad" habits (smoking, drugs,...

Republicans are shouting that President Obama has acted "unconstitutionally." The Democrats respond that the GOP merely dedicated to obstruction. And the truth is… (in my opinion) they are all schmucks. President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Board are legally questionable, but the real problem is that the appointments continue an already lousy practice that is outdated. This week the President is claiming that he can make recess appointments because the Senate session is currently a "sham" procedural move by Republicans. The Senate, we all know, is really on vacation. But, only weeks earlier, the non-present Senate conducted serious business and he was more than willing to accept arcane Senate parliamentary tricks. In December of 2011, the U.S. Senate and House approved a two month extension to current payroll deduction rates. Only a handful of legislators, not even a third, were in ...

I hesitate to suggest a book I haven't yet read, but I read Sean Trende loyally. The book, available today, is  The Lost Majority . A link to the introduction can be found at:  The Lost Majority . The introduction states: This book makes three interrelated claims. First, that the 2010 midterm elections were a result of Barack Obama and the Democrats misreading both their mandate and how they had been brought to power, imagining a realignment in 2008 when, in fact, none had occurred. Second, that the emerging partisan majorities described by theorists from both parties are mirages. Third, that the entire concept of realignments/permanent alignments, which underlay much of the misbegotten analysis of the 2008 elections, is bankrupt and should be abandoned. I wholeheartedly agree with these statements. The "swings" mentioned in the media, by historians, and by some political scientists are illusions. The swings are of a few percentages, generally in the...

This week, a CNN/Opinion Research poll found only 43 percent of potential voters favor Obama's jobs plan. That means 57 percent aren't convinced this plan will do much. In another poll, 51 percent of likely voters said the plan was likely to have no effect on unemployment. "But… but… but…" the President's people stammer. "Economists like Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi says it will create 1.9 million jobs!" That's the problem. The public is starting to realize that economists are "unexpectedly" useless when it comes to forecasting the economy. If you want evidence, do a search on the word "unexpectedly" and any combination of "unemployment," "housing," "prices," "wages," or "inflation." Today's top story on CNBC: The weekly jobless claims number, which is closely watched as an indicator for employment trends, unexpectedly rose 11,000 to 428,000, well ahe...

History is constantly rewritten and reinterpreted. Democrats and Republicans are both gifted at such rewrites. However, this isn't my rhetoric blog, this is an economics site. Let's take a look at the historical realities of claims by Democrats that the "Clinton Tax Rates" were responsible for boom times and a reduced annual deficit. A quick note: We did not have a surplus under Pres. Clinton. We had a projected surplus over a decade, but no actual surplus. Budget gimmickry likely overstated the ten year total, too, since that assumes no disasters, wars, or recessions. Good luck living in that fantasy land. For actual Clinton debt numbers, consider the following: Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion de...

Yesterday (June 22, 2011) on MSNBC's "Dylan Ratigan Show" David Stockman stood up to the nonsense of the left, in the person of Jonathan Alter. Read beyond my discussion of yesterday's debate for additional perspective on the debate participants. Alter's biases, in particular, were on fine display on MSNBC as he completely ignored facts and instead embraced the mythology of an Obama Miracle. (see http://vodpod.com/watch/11561241-david-stockman-on-the-dylan-ratigan-show ) My favorite moment was when Alter asked Stockman if he knew GE's business better than Jeffrey R. Immelt, friend and advisor to President Obama. "Yes," Stockman replied and proceeded to explain precisely how GE Capital was a financial mess, bailed out by the administration. Alter quoted Immelt as saying GE was near collapse. Well, duh? It was. But it was near collapse because of stupid choices made by Immelt and others within the company. GE was invested heavily in credit default swap...

One of the many aspects of our government that I dislike is the "pay to play" nature of influencing elected leaders. If you were idealistic enough to imagine President Obama would somehow be different, I could have proven you were wrong before election day. He received more donations from the top 1% of Americans than any other president. He also received more money from Wall Street than his opponent. By June of 2008, the Obama advantage on Wall Street was clear. (AP - June 2008) For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far. There is a commenter on DailyKos using the ID "Goldman Owned Party" as a dig at the Republicans. But, that's also far from accurate. Goldman Sachs has a history of connections to the Democrats in congress, especially the Senate. This makes sense, because the financial industry is in New York City, not a GO...

Beatable, And He Knows It - Investors.com : "'The other thing that happened,' the president claimed in an NBC 'Today Show' interview Tuesday, 'is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. 'You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM. You don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.'" I've written about automation and job changes in several blog posts. We gain from technology, particularly in terms of human safety and life expectancy. Automation in factories has made factories safer. Cars replacing horses made cities less prone to disease outbreaks. Factory medications are more controlled than the old "apothecary" mixtures. Generally, automation is a net positive. Also, there will always be a market for those things that are handcrafted by true artisan...

The following essay was one I read several times. It is interesting, regardless of one's particular biases because it does offer several important historical references to the nature of "progressive" political views. Obama and the Rhetoric of Progressivism December 10, 2010 By Peter Berkowitz It seems Berkowitz is associated with the Hoover Institute, as a foreign policy expert specializing in the Middle East. He is a political scientist, it appears, with an interest in Western democratic trends and history. His introduction, then, to progressive political rhetoric, correctly begins with an acknowledgment that the movement of the early twentieth century was in many ways a positive force for change. At their best, the original progressives responded to dramatic social and economic upheavals generated by the industrial revolution, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. They took the side of the exploited, the weak, and the wr...