by: Tad DeHaven

Huge deficit spending, a supposed stimulus bill, and financial bailouts by the Bush administration failed to stave off a deep recession. President Obama continued his predecessor’s policies with an even bigger stimulus, which helped push the deficit over the unimaginable trillion dollar mark. Prosperity hasn’t returned, but the president is persistent in his interventionist beliefs. In his speech yesterday, he told the country that we must “spend our way out of this recession.”

While a dedicated segment of the intelligentsia continues to believe in simplistic Kindergarten Keynesianism, average Americans are increasingly leery. Businesses and entrepreneurs are hesitant to invest and hire because of the uncertainty surrounding the President’s agenda for higher taxes, higher energy costs, health care mandates, and greater regulation. The economy will eventually recover despite the government’s intervention, but as the debt mounts, today’s profligacy will more likely do long-term damage to the nation’s prosperity.

Some leaders in Congress want a new round of stimulus spending of $150 billion or more. The following are some of the ways that money might be spent from the president’s speech:

• Extend unemployment insurance. When you subsidize something you get more it, so increasing unemployment benefits will push up the unemployment rate, as Alan Reynolds notes.”

• More infrastructure spending. This will lead to misallocation of resources since only markets can allocate resources efficiently. Governments allocate capital on the basis of politics instead of economics.

• “Cash for Caulkers.” This would be like Cash for Clunkers except people would get tax credits to make their homes more energy efficient. Any program modeled off “the dumbest government program ever” should be put back on the shelf. 

• More Small Business Administration lending. A little noticed SBA program created by the stimulus bill offered banks an “unprecedented” 100 percent guarantee on loans to small businesses. The program has an anticipated default rate of 60 percent. Small businesses need lower taxes and fewer regulations, not a government program that perpetuates more moral hazard.

• More aid to state and local governments. State and local government should be using the recession to implement reforms that will prevent them from going on another unsustainable spending spree when the economy recovers. Also, we need fewer state and local government employees – not more – as they’re becoming an increasing burden on taxpayers.

The president said his administration was “forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it to others to solve.” Mr. President, nobody has forced you to do anything. You’ve chosen to embrace – and expand upon – the big spending policies that were a hallmark of your predecessor’s administration.

by Mark Silva

The Obama administration is holding a workshop today on open goverment. It’s closed to the public and press.

The workshop is being held by the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy for the public liasons at federal agencies who field requests for records filed under the Freedom of Information Act. The administration, vowing greater “transparency” about government actions, is outlining procedures for working with a new U.S. Office of Government Information Services, set up to resolve disputes over information requests.

“If they’re getting marching orders, why shouldn’t the public be there?” asks Jeff Stachewicz, founder of the Washington-based FOIA Group Inc., which files hundreds of requests each month on behalf of companies, law firms and news organizations.

“We’d like to know, when they’re training agencies, are they telling them the same thing they’re saying in public, that they’re committed to making the Freedom of Information Act work well and make sure that agencies are releasing information whenever possible while protecting important issues like individual privacy and national security,” said Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government Initiative.

Melanie Ann Pustay, the official running the conference, says she wanted government employees to be able to speak candidly, and the conference is being held in an auditorium at the Commerce Department, where a government ID is required for admittance. The press, however, is routinely admitted to government buildings.

Pustay promises to say the same things at the workshop that she would say publicly, and is seeking to improve how the government responds to information requests, which cost roughly $400 million each year to handle.

As Obama’s first year in office ends, his record on issues surrounding the Freedom of Information Act — one of the principle mechanisms that citizens use to request information — is uneven so far, the Associated Press reports today, in noting the closed-door conference on open government.

“The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears,” Obama told government offices on his first full day as president.

Just last week, a State Department deputy assistant secretary, Llewellyn Hedgbeth, said at a public conference that “as much as we want to promote transparency,” her agency will protect classified materials that put the United States in a bad light.

by: Peter Suderman

The public option has been in critical condition all summer, but, like Jason Voorhees, it stubbornly refuses to stay dead. Indeed, in the last week or so, it's been gaining support. And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he's moving forward with a public option that allows individual states to opt out:

Reid announced this afternoon that he plans to push ahead with a public health insurance option that includes an opt-out provision for states—even though he's currently short several votes for passage, according to people close to the situation. 

"It's the fairest way to go," Reid said at a news conference, where he said he’ll send the state opt-out plan to the Congressional Budget Office. States would have until 2014 to opt out. 

Reid, who spoke with virtually every member of his 60-member caucus this weekend, currently has between 56 and 57 votes for a proposal to create a national insurance plan but allow states to opt out of it, according to Democratic aides. 

But Reid said he will not send the "trigger" option to the CBO—which endangers the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who has not signed on to the opt-out idea. Snowe wants a public insurance option to kick in only if private insurers don’t expand coverage fast enough. 

Asked about Snowe's lack of support, Reid said: "We are going to have to move forward on this." 

A month ago, I would have said there's no way any bill with a public option can pass. Now, I'm not so sure. This may simply be a way for Democratic leaders to appease the liberal base. But it also might be a serious attempt at passing a bill with a public option.

Strangely enough, however, one of the most prominent frustrations for Democratic leadership at this point appears to be... the White House. Yes, Obama has consistently had good things to say about the inclusion of the public option (though he's never demanded it be included). But lately, he's waffled about which particular flavor of public option he favors. According to Ezra Klein, that's proven irksome for Senate Democrats trying to figure out what, exactly, the administration supports.

I'm also hearing a lot of irritation from congressional Democrats at the mixed signals being sent by the White House. If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody.

...Since the administration is considered the most important actor here, no one knows quite how to structure their strategy so long as the White House refuses to fully show its cards.

The problem with this notion, it seems to me, is that it assumes the White House supports a very particular policy. But as I've pointed out before, what Obama really supports is the passage of a bill—any bill, just so long as it can more or less legitimately be called "health-care reform." Now, it's obviously impossible to know for certain what the White House's thinking is. But my guess is that what he supports isn't so much one version of the public plan or another, but instead, whatever flavor of the public plan is most likely to result in successful passage—and thus, political victory.

by: Harrison Price

He gave away SDI to the Russians for their “help” in getting sanctions passed against Iran.  The Russians gladly took the SDI concessions then said nyet on Iran.  Obama is delaying making a decision on Afghanistan saying the whole presidential “voting thing” needs to be cleared up first.  And he picked a fight with Fox News which David Carr of the New York Times warned:

that the White House war on Fox “may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling.”

“While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence,” Carr wrote over the weekend. “So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year.”

The question one has to ask themselves is: “What is Obama’s problem?”

This article clears up that question very nicely:

President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.

“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.

Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”

You may see the video here.

Sir Barack Obama, Imperial Leader cannot be questioned.  I think they do that in North Korea, too (and a few other places with whom Obama has opened up a “dialog”).

by: Johnny Locke

What He Said:

1.  “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this Presidency.”  He also said that as part of that transparency he will publish all pending legislature (except sensitive military, etc) on the web for five days before he puts his signature to a bill so the public has a chance to read what will be impacting them.

2.  “Public officials need to draw on what people know and that’s why as of today I’m directing members of my administration to find new ways of tapping the knowledge and experience of ordinary Americans.”

3.  “—because when I am president meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public.  No more secrecy.  That’s a commitment I make to you as President.”

What He Did

1.  Rushed the original Medical bill through the House and demanded a vote before any of the legislators had a chance to read it.  Later refused to put the bill up on the Internet for 72 hours for perusal by the public.  Is still refusing to put the legislative language version on the Internet.

2.  Showed absolutely no interest in tapping the knowledge and experience of “ordinary” Americans.  Ignored the townhalls that truly reflected the will of the people.  Polls showed that the majority of Americans are satisfied with their current insurance and DO NOT WANT A PUBLIC OPTION.  In addition the Democrats labeled those that attended the townhalls as “organized,” destructive, terrorists, malcontents and Nazis.

 3.  Increased the number of closed-door meetings.  In fact, the merging of the House and Senate medical bills is being done in complete secrecy behind closed doors yet this bill happens to impact the American public probably more than any other bill in recent history.

There is clearly a disconnect between what he says and what he does.   Just a reminder, Sir.  Half-truths, partial information and careful omissions are just as much of a lie as the big bold one.

Our President’s word should be good; and it’s not.  Our President’s intentions for this country should be clear and they are not.  I fear he is rapidly losing the trust of the people and it is, unfortunately, a deserved loss.

And I thought Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for advancing peace.  He won’t commit to Afghanistan, he makes distinctions between “good” and “bad” Taliban, he offers to meet with Iran but yet his spokespeople call Fox News the enemy.  Interesting times.

That whole “reaching out” thing hasn’t done too well, not surprisingly.  Russia is very cool to the idea of sanctions against Iran, the Taliban have upped their attacks on civilians and troops in Afghanistan, North Korea continues to fire missiles off like it’s the 4th of July, and Obama, by giving away SDI to the Russians in Eastern Europe, has weakened relationships with our friends there.

But Fox News is a great threat!  Why is Fox News such a great threat?  They have the audacity to check facts that’s why!  Here’s why the White House Communication’s Director had to say about it on CNN:

In the round of Sunday shows, Chris Wallace from the Sunday shows. And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show, something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do, and Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks’ guests.

We asked Chris for example where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009, and we’re still waiting to hear from him. When they want to treat us like they treat everyone else — but let’s be realistic here, Howie. They are — they’re widely viewed as, you know, part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points and put them on the air. Take their opposition research and put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.

Well, it seems as though Ms. Dunn should have used Google because the answer to her question is right there:

Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace tried to pin down a straight answer on Palin’s bridge position from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. When Davis refused to acknowledge Palin’s misleading statements, Wallace detailed her support for millions of dollars in earmarks, including the bridge:

WALLACE: During her 1.5, 2 years as Governor, Alaska continued to get more federal money for pork-barrel projects per capita than any state in the country and…she supported the Bridge to Nowhere. And it was only after the federal government dropped it out, killed it, the Congress killed it that she then opposed it. And in fact she still got the money for the approach, the ramp to the Bridge to Nowhere.

So the Obama White House is upset that on a hard news show the moderator would actually do research before the interview to challenge guests should they provide inaccurate or misleading information.  We have an example as to when Fox’s Wallace tried to get a straight answer about Sarah Palin’s “Bridge to Nowhere” yet Ms. Dunn said no example of this existed.

And when Saturday Night Live ripped into Obama for not doing anything while he’s been president CNN devotes an entire segment on Wolf Blizter’s Situation Room to debunking the assertions.  CNN didn’t come to the defense of the Bush administration when they were mocked numerous times or when Tina Fey made fun of Sarah Palin.  What did the White House Communication’s Director have to say about the mocking of Obama?

I think the bigger point is that — and the president himself said this, that he was surprised, as I think most of the press corps was. He feels that he, you know, didn’t really deserve it, as I think there are many people who feel this is still particularly in terms of this presidency, it’s the first year.

So I think that those people who are saying this is really quite unusual. This really does seem to be, you know, a big surprise to everyone…

Too early in his presidency?  Was there a grace period during the last (Republican) administration?  No.

By “taking on” Fox News yet agreeing to talk to corrupt dictators bent on destroying the United States the Obama administration shows where its priorities are.  If anything, Obama should go on to Fox News Sunday to defend himself and answer the tough questions… but that’s what this really is about - not answering the tough questions combined with a “how dare you challenge me” attitude.

I know this will come as a surprise for some of you, but those of you who visit often know my opinion already on this subject.  First, allow me to say that I am not a homosexual and, in fact, a happily married man to a beautiful woman.  Next, I am 100% for gay rights.  My question is, "why are you not"?  I consider myself a true Republican and in being so, I believe that the Government should remain small and not infringe on our individual rights.  I have a hard time understanding Republicans who believe that the government has no right to enter your closet and tell you to get rid of your guns (which of course the Gov't has NO right to do), yet they believe that the government has a right to enter your bedroom and tell you who you are legally allowed to share your life with.  It makes no sense.  Whether homosexuality is right or wrong, the government should be the last one to tell law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens who they can or cannot marry.  That last point sometimes gets lost on many Americans.  Despite them being gay, they are STILL Americans and as such, they deserve every right that we enjoy.  There are people who disagree with inter-racial marriage, should that too be illegal?  Of course not.  Proposing that would be ridiculous. 
     The most tragic example of discrimination against homosexuals must be the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the Armed Forces.  Especially in this day and age, it is mind-boggling that good soldiers are being thrown out of the military because of their sexual preference.  I have met many homosexuals in my life and I promise you, they are not vicious animals who will kidnap and sodomize you in a dark alley.  They are people, the same as us, and they want the same goal as we do.  They want the government to stop desecrating their individual liberties.  I only hope that for once Obama has more to contribute than just a speech.  He has got it wrong so many times, but this is the one cause that he can prove himself a successful President by backing.

by: Paul

I find it very disheartening that our President continues to blow off his commanding General in the field, questions his judgment and plays politics with soldiers lives.

General McChrysatal has made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that the US forces in Afghanistan are facing “mission failure” unless it quickly sends large number of forces there.  To use Obama’s catch phrase, “Let me be perfectly clear” - mission failure means more US soldiers dying.

As well as putting lives in danger, the weakness we are displaying in Afghanistan will undoubtedly have serious ramifications for the entire region.  The region will become more and more unstable as rogue states are embolden by our cowardice.  Even President Obama must realize that the chance of a major war in the Gulf next year is increasing rapidly to 100% --accelerated by the fact that the lunatic in Iran is going to have Nukes. 

It is looking more and more like Israel will be force to take preemptive action against Tehran.  So what is going to happen when Israel attacks Iran?  Well, you can bet that Ahmadinejad is not going to just take it.  He will undoubtedly retaliate, but the question is where?  He may be a lunatic, but even Ahmadinejad realizes that Israel is the best-defended state in the region, so he may very well direct his attack elsewhere.  There are plenty of less defended targets in the region well within the reach of Iran’s missile capability, including US troops in Iraq and in the Gulf.

Unlike Israel, the Arab states in the region rely on us to protect them. So, the US will be drawn into another Gulf war if these states are threatened or attacked.  There will be no way for us to stay out.  The Saudi oil fields are well within Iran’s reach, so if President Obama thinks we can stay out of a war that spreads outside of Israel-Iran he needs to think again.

So what does this all mean?  Well the the stability of the region is really dependent on swift and decisive US action in the region, undoubtedly what McChrystal has been telling President Obama.  We can surmise this by the fact that he has gone public, risking his career.  You can bet that for a General of his stature to risk his career his convictions are deep.

If the US pulls out of Afghanistan, you can bet that the flood gates will open and the oppressive regimes will again rule the region and we will be back where we started with some having bigger bargaining chips.

If President Obama decides to not head the warning of his commanders on the ground, you can bet the US will be back in the region in short order and fighting a more costly war and more soldiers will die.

courtesy of Breitbart.tv

by: Neoavatara

I have long said that if you are going to deal with Iran, you have to have at least the threat of serious repercussions on the table.

That ultimately is what Obama is lacking.  Does anyone, anywhere, believe that Barack Obama would launch any kind of military strike against Iran?

The answer is clearly no.  And that is why Iran currently is acting like a country without any fear.  Sure, Israel could hit them, but that isn’t necessarily a losing situation for them.  An Israeli attack against Iran would do something that no other action could ever do:  unite the Arab world.

Anyone looking at the middle east must understand a simple reality:  Iran is neither liked nor trusted in the region.  Simply put, there are many in the region that would be more than happy to allow Israel to attack Iran if the time comes.  The problem is with the Arab street.  Arab leaders have long instigated hatred toward Israel, and have blamed the Jewish republic for every ill that befalls the Muslim world.  This would not be any different.

So ultimately the only punishment that Iran is facing is harsh United Nations Sanctions.  These are similar to the sanctions placed on Saddam Hussein and Iraq…in which Saddam was able to sell billions of dollars of oil, and funnel it to his own pocket.

Iran also holds another card in its back pocket:  its economic relationship with both Russia and China.  Russia has billions of dollars of contractual agreements with Iran, for sales of everything from military goods to nuclear reactors to food products.  China, on the other hand, receives approximately 15% of its energy from Iran.  No matter how nicely we talk to those two world powers, they are unlikely to bend to the will of the international community.

Iran for its part has only one goal in mind:  to delay.  It has seen how successful North Korea has been.  They delayed for decades, and now are untouchable because of their nuclear deterrent.  Robert Gates, speaking on the Sunday shows, said he believes we have 1-3 years before Iran has a nuclear weapon.  That is not good.  12 months is not exactly what I consider to be a large margin for error.  Iran has stated that they will accept IAEA inspections of the newly publicized nuclear facility.  They know that the UN and the IAEA move slowly, and that it is unlikely that either organization would have any significant findings on the facility for at least 6 months.  Again, more time, the better.

In the mean time, Iran is more than happy to stick a needle in the eye of the international community.  They spent the weekend launching a new host of short range missiles; missiles, coincidentally, that are thought to be able to reach Israel.

October 1st brings the beginning of new talks with the Iranian regime.  I hope that Obama has a trick up his sleeve, because I frankly don’t see any endgame right now that works in the favor of the United States.