Random Thoughts

Here are some musings about a few things that have been in the news during the past week or so.


Is Obama A Centrist?

I have noted a widespread belief among self-proclaimed moderates and conservatives, that Barak Obama is going to govern from the center . They offer as "evidence" that he (1) "is smart", (2) "wants a legacy" (being the first black President), and (3) has picked "moderates" and "Clintonistas" for his cabinet.

I am not convinced. Mr. Obama is, after all, a liberal Democrat politician. He had the most liberal voting record of any Senator. He developed his political chops in Chicago. He campaigned on traditional liberal themes, like "sharing the wealth". I think those facts trump any evidence, so far, of any inclination to govern from the center.

I think I'll wait for 6-9 months and let Obama's actions speak for him.



Continuing Media/Obama Lovefest.

One thing is certain, Obama doesn't have to worry about the media throwing cold water on any of his positions. When George W. Bush had the temerity to suggest that the economy was weak in early 2001, he was immediately and thoroughly chastised by the NY Times, Washington Post, and other liberal media critics for his "talking down the economy". Fast forward eight years and we have Barak Obama speaking of the economy in the most dire terms, including calling the current economic situation "the worst in our lifetime", yet the media lauds his fearless willingness to tell it like it is.

Except, of course, it really isn't. The current economic crisis is bad, however, lest we forget, when Ronald Reagan took office, he inherited double digit interest rates, inflation, and unemployment. Today's unemployment number was bad news, but at 7.7%, it is still significantly lower than the rate when Reagan was inaugurated.

No, the media want this to be the greatest economic crisis of all time, so that when the inevitable recovery comes, Obama will be hailed as an unparalleled leader (whether or not his policy prescriptions are the source of the recovery). My prediction: soon after Obama takes office, the economy will begin to improve, at least from the perspective of the media's "spin" on the economic news of the day. And, as the Times and WaPo opined at the beginning of the Bush presidency, people's perceptions about the economy end up driving the economy.


Analog vs. Digital TV.

As long as we are speaking about Pres. Elect Obama and his policy pronouncements, I wonder if you noticed that he wrote to Congress and asked that they delay the end of analog TV broadcasting?

My brother Dave was all over this one. He told me more than a year ago that the changeover would be delayed. I disagreed. I guess I just didn't realize that the government under Obama will even make sure that everybody gets to watch TV.

No Thanks, I Need All My Fingers

Check out this this article on "sabering" champagne from Tuesday's Democrat & Chronicle. This is a method of opening a champagne bottle using a "sword" or other large knife.

I wonder how many Rochesterians will be "toasting" the New Year at a local Emergency Room because they decided to give this idea a try? I also wonder if they will sue the D&C for putting the idea into their heads?

I'm going to go with the safe old "cover the bottle with a towel so that the cork doesn't put someone's eye out" method. That way I won't have any blood or broken glass in my Dom Perignon (okay, my J. Roget's).

Any way you open it, have a Happy New Year!

He's Got A Friend

As noted in the Democrat & Chronicle over the past few days, Governor Paterson's budget proposal has been battered by criticism from all quarters.

In fact, after reading all of the stories trashing the budget, I'd say that there are only two people in the State who have not criticised the proposal; Governor Paterson himself and Caroline Kennedy.

End Of STAR?

Tucked away in the recesses of today's stories on Governor Paterson's budget proposal was a note that he wants to do away with the STAR real property tax rebate that has subsidized school tax payments for many New Yorkers.

I have always believed that STAR was the ultimate shell game. It amounts to being bribed with our own money. But, for many seniors, the STAR plan has meant little or no school tax expense. If STAR is really ended, there will be an outcry like New York politicians have not heard in a long time. I foresee a wheelchair and walker march on Albany to protest this program being cut.

Ending STAR will also put more pressure on School District budgets. Seniors, effectively bought off with their STAR rebates, have stayed home on school budget votes. Without STAR, they will swarm to the polls to vote no on school spending.

I don't think this cut will survive to become law. Seniors vote and legislators know it. They won't cross that interest group.

Better Start That Diet!

I am going to head back to the gym and start my New Year's diet a bit early.

I read the paper this morning and read about the "Obesity Tax". Yikes! Today a tax on sugary drinks, tomorrow a surcharge on KFC. I figure it won't be long before guys like me who weigh over 275 will start paying an income tax surcharge for every pound over a "healthy target weight".

Seriously, there isn't much left between us and the nanny state. Everywhere we turn, we are being told what to eat, what to drive, where to set the thermostat, etc. I'm worried that the liberals who have taken over all the branches of government in Washington and Albany will have guys like me in their sights.

I mean, I put sugar and half and half in my regular coffee (that's three food police violations right there). I use butter instead of margarine and I love roast beef. I'm probably headed for a re-education camp where I'll learn to like whole grains, green vegetables and cottage cheese.

I may move to Canada after all. At least I can still get bacon and eggs there.

Big Three Bail-Out. First Step On Road To Government Managed Economy?

I am deeply troubled by the "bail-out fever" that has overcome Washington and, apparently, the nation. I don't have any facts or brilliant rationale behind this view, I just think it is a very serious mistake to give the government so much control over our lives.

Make no mistake, these bail-outs come at a price which is larger than the dollar amount involved. The government getting a stake in major industries means control over them. For example, if we bail-out the "Big Three", consumers will no longer decide what cars are made based upon which cars we want to buy, the "car czar" will decide what types of vehicles are made available to us based upon things like fuel economy and other things that are "good for us".

Frankly, I'm appalled at the spectacle of the Big Three CEO's begging for money. The pitiful scene was made worse by the fact that half the reason for their need for help is the regulations imposed on them by the Congress they were begging from.

As Holman Jenkins notes in this article from The Wall Street Journal, there is a big problem with the proposed rescue plan; to wit: "[t]o become "viable," as Congress chooses crazily to understand the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss". His article goes on to point out how CAFE standards set by Congress, along with the lawmaker's allegiance to (and fear of) the UAW, have been the catalyst for a great deal of the automakers' problems.

The more general problem is the fact that we are quite possibly seeing the first steps in the "nationalization" of the US economy. The free market, which has ruled in America since its inception, and which, I believe, is responsible for our prosperity, may be giving way to a state managed economy. Worse, business leaders, first in the banking industry, and now the auto industry are asking the government to take over. They should be fighting this, kicking and screaming; instead, they are begging for government "help".

Worst of all, President Bush is apparently going along with this plan. Why? Isn't it obvious to him that the Democrats just want him to sign off on the "first steps" down the road to this new economic reality? Thus, next year, when they make the really dramatic changes, they can say "hey, George Bush was behind it". He's giving them cover. Why?

The whole bail-out mentality really troubles me. Lenders, borrowers, businessmen, none of them want to be responsible for their plight. They all want someone else to rescue them from mistakes they made. Why should we do it? And how long can we afford to do it? I'm not an economist, but I truly believe that if we continue on this path, our economy will be ruined and our future will not be anywhere near as prosperous as our past.


UPDATE 12/13:

Check out this PowerLine article. It contains sentiments similar to mine regarding the way in which the Bush Administration has chosen to deal with the auto industry bail-out. The following lines from that article reflect my views completely:

"To me, the most disheartening aspect of the current bailout spree is the spectacle of executives from the banking, investment banking, insurance and auto industries begging the government for cash like teenagers who have blown their allowances and are abjectly asking their Daddy for more money. The government as Daddy--wasn't that supposed to be a liberal concept?"

Paterson, D&C Wrong on Court Picks

As you have probably read, Gov. Paterson indicated that he was "disturbed" by the composition of the list of Court of Appeals nominees selected by the Commission on Judicial Nomination. An aide indicated that Paterson was disturbed by the lack of diversity of the group, which included seven men, one of whom was African-American.

The D&C weighed in yesterday with and editorial stating that the Commission should go back and try again. Mr. Lawrence and the D&C Editorial Board also feel that diversity was not served by the nominations.

Well, I guess the notion that Barak Obama's election might usher in a period of post-racial politics may have been a little over-hyped. It appears that the Governor and the D&C think that diversity is the number one qualification for nomination to the State's highest Court. The complaints seem a bit hollow since the NY Court of Appeals is already a very diverse group, including four women, one of whom is Hispanic, as well as an African-American.

One would think that the most important criterion for elevation to the Court of appeals would be legal and judicial acumen. I guess I was wrong there. But if you carry the diversity argument to its logical conclusion, in a case where the seven most qualified nominees were all women or African-American or Hispanic, some of them would be expected to be left aside so that a mediocre white male could be nominated.

That would be disturbing. I know Justice is supposed to be blind. Doesn't that include color-blind?