Small businesses

The Economist this week argues that what small businesses need is credit. Wrong. What small businesses need is to be left alone and not to be penalized for success.

Reduce regulation. Simplify and cut taxes. Eliminate the estate tax. Eliminate wage and hour laws. Reduce the minimum wage.

More government, courtesy of Barney Frank

Thanks, Barney. Just what we needed. More rules and regulations, more hoops to jump through, more government, less freedom. The partisan legislation that the House passed yesterday without a single Republican vote likely will create more problems than it solves if it ever becomes law, which isn't likely. But something similar will.

It's what voters should expect when they elect Democrats to Congress.

Obama speaks as Bush

Most kids learns in the school yard that bullies will come and take your marbles unless you defend yourself. Bush knew that instinctively. Obama had to learn it. Yesterday in Copenhagen he spoke as if he had.

The alarming expansion of government

It's not just the Obama administration and the current Congress that are trying and generally succeeding in expanding government. California's legislature produced roughly a thousand bills in the recently concluded legislative year, most of which were signed by the governor. They did the same the year before.

The California legislature is dominated by Democrats, mostly liberal ones. The same is true of the current U.S. Congress and the Obama administration, as most everyone knows.

Liberals see the United States as needing a lot of work. Health care needs to be reformed. Energy policy is lacking. Americans pollute the atmosphere, forests and rivers. We're too bellicose. If we were kinder to Iran and North Korea we'd have less to fear. Our main enemies are on Wall Street. People who work there make too much money, and besides they're dishonest. Insurance and drug companies and banks make too much money, and their executives are way overpaid.

To correct these perceived problems, liberals think we need lots of new laws and regulations. Until the next election, expect more government.

TARP: Slush fund

TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, has become a $700 billion slush fund. Originally authorized by Congress to buy troubled assets from banks, it has transitioned to a fund to supply capital to banks, then to a source of capital for AIG, GM and Chrysler. Now people propose using the leftover funds for more stimulus, a jobs creation program and financing the war in Afghanistan, among other ideas.

Enough already. Return the money to the Treasury, from whence it came.

All in half way

Obama seems to be a man who can't make up his mind. Our security is at stake, he says. What if we're not done with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in 18 months? Do we bug out anyway?

And why address West Point cadets? They can't do anything. Why not talk to Congress?

Obama's speech

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban aren't the cause of the troubles in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama seemed to be arguing tonight. The enemies are Americans: Republicans and the Bush administration.

Donna Shalala on healthcare reform

On tonight's NewsHour, Shalala argued that the uninsured ought to get free health insurance but didn't say who should pay. She also argued that insurance premiums for those who are insured are too high because they include the cost of treating the uninsured. It sounded like she was arguing for a double dip: new taxes to pay for the uninsured but no offset for the cost savings resulting from not having to provide free treatment for the uninsured.

The Superbower

Mark Steyn has coined a new title for Obama: The Superbower. How appropriate.

Military and mental health

The LAT reports today on the mental health of troops in the military, and editorializes about it too. It beats dealing with the Muslim massacre of troops at Fort Hood.

But David Ignatius makes sense of the issue in a column in today's Orange County Register.

Crazy military

A caption under a picture on the LAT's front page today suggests that Major Nidal Hasan went on a shooting spree at Ft. Hood because he, like many in the military, was crazy. Being Muslim had nothing to do with it.

A piece inside the newspaper by Shari Roan reinforces the page one suggestion.

It's Not About Obama

On today's front page, the LAT has a picture of Obama saluting the casket of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan, obviously a photo-op. Disgusting!

Can't Obama do the right thing without a photo-op? The LAT says that Obama flew a hundred miles by helicopter to see the 18 caskets and visit with the families of the fallen. That doesn't seem like such a sacrifice. Yes, he did it in the middle of the night. But compare that with the sacrifice of the 18 and their families. It doesn't compare.

Bartiromo interviews Pelosi

Just watched Bartiromo's interview of Nancy Pelosi, who is at least loony.

Pelosi claimed that when the Bush tax cuts expire there will not be a tax increase. According to Pelosi, the people who got those tax cuts weren't entitled to them and besides the deficit increased because of them so a return to the tax rates that existed before the tax cuts will not be a tax increase but rather a mere resumption of the old rates. Taxes will increase but that is not a tax increase according to Pelosi-speak.

Bartiromo asked about a VAT. Pelosi denied that she had brought up the subject but spoke favorably about a VAT as part of a review and re-construction of the tax code, this to make the U. S. more competitive.

Likewise, cap and trade and health care reform will make the U. S. more competitive, according to Pelosi. These are necessary changes to make us more competitive, Pelosi says. U. S. businesses can't compete because of health care costs, according to Pelosi, which is why health care reform is necessary. In Pelosi-speak, therefore, spending more on health care will reduce the cost of health care and make American businesses more competitive.

TARP was a dog, according to Pelosi, but "we" had to do it. The $787 billion stimulus has kept the economy from getting worse. The stimulus is just kicking in so the economy should be improving, according to Pelosi. Cap and trade and health care reform are designed as "jobs" bills, which is why they're necessary, Pelosi says.

Pelosi isn't concerned about polls, she says. Congress has always rated low in polling but individual members do well in polls, which is why she isn't concerned.

Polls show that the American people support a public option and love health care reform and hate Republicans so Democrats need to keep doing what they're doing and they'll do well in November 2010. That's how Pelosi sees it, anyhow.

Marijuana legal; fast food illegal

The White House announced today that anti-marijuana laws will no longer be enforced. But cities, counties and states are threatening to outlaw fast foods and other stuff that may make us fat. Makes sense to some, apparently.

California's legislature is back in session

Having just completed one session, the product of which was more than 700 trashy bills, the California legislature is back in session, called by the governator to iron out some water problems. Sadly, that's the triumph of hope over experience. There's no reason to expect that the legislature will solve the water problem or any problem. More likely, they'll make matters worse. At least that's what Californians have come to expect from the legislature.

Better for all concerned if the governator sent the legislature home and told them to stay home. Then the governator ought to take some time off as well -- a trip to Austria, maybe, or perhaps Iraq or Afghanistan. California could use a lot less governing.

Governator signs lots of trash

He had until yesterday to dispose of more than 700 bills that the left-wing California legislature had passed. In the end, he signed some really trashy legislation, including a bill designating May 22nd each year as Harvey Milk Day. He had previously vetoed that bill. Why the reversal? Ask the governator.

That's not all. See the LAT's description of the trash that passed here. The LAT describes a few of the 229 bills he vetoed here.

Once again, it appears that the man who promised to blow up the boxes in Sacramento has caved to the left-wing. Arnold reminds one of another Arnold -- Benedict.

California's prolific legislature

California's governator has more than 700 bills on his desk that require action (veto, sign, whatever) by Sunday. At about the same time of the year in 2007, he had more than 900. That's progress but it's still far too many.

California has 40 state senators and 80 state assemblymen and women. If each senator authored one of the 700 bills, the senators would have authored more than 17 bills each on average during the legislative year. Assemblymen and women would have authored half that.

Who can find 700 reasons to write a new bill? It must be a community endeavor, the community being legislators and lobbyist. Shelf space for 700 to 900 new bills must challenge librarians each year. Law book publishers too.

California's tax commission

Last year, California's governator, with legislative heads, formed a tax commission whose assignment was to study California's tax system and try to come up with improvements. Specifically, the commission was to solve the boom/bust cycle of tax revenues which relied in large measure on about 150,000 individual California taxpayers to pay most of California's bills.

The commission announced its findings yesterday and today there are two op-ed pieces on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page reflecting positively on the commission's work. Californians should be so lucky.

Judging from the legislature's past work, it isn't likely that the commission's recommendations will be adopted. Lord knows, Democrats and Republicans in California's legislature can't seem to agree on the time of day. But Californians can always hope.

One thing that scares this Californian (formerly a Texan): The commission argued for a new 4 percent tax that would replace the sales tax. But 4 percent taxes have a way of becoming 5 percent taxes, then 6 percent, etc. Some way must be found to prevent this happening.

Goings on

Obama, Brown and Sarkozy paraded to the podium Friday to denounce Iran over the newly discovered or newly revealed installation that Iran is using to enrich uranium. The LAT says that Obama has had it up to here with Iran and will no longer negotiate but instead will enforce sanctions against Iran with European, Russian and Chinese help.

Which raises the question: Why is Obama so slow? Apparently the Bush administration knew about this secret installation. The Bush administration seemed to understand what kind of regime it was dealing with in Iran. Apparently it had no false hope, no false beliefs. But Obama always seems to assume that whatever the Bush administration did must have been wrong. It seems pretty stupid. Why not pick up where Bush left off instead of starting off all over from scratch? Fear of granting Bush any credit probably explains it.

Time Out

Having lost some of the old fire, this old fool took a little time off, but now intends to resume posts, not daily but perhaps once or twice a week. We'll see how it goes.

Meanwhile, little has changed. Obama, after a vacation, is back on television daily. It doesn't seem to help his popularity but it doesn't appear to hurt much either. Maybe people just tune him out.

Pelosi is on television nearly as often as Obama, and her remarks are as idiotic as ever. Her latest: she's concerned that someone will murder a gay San Francisco politician, as happened in the late 1970s. Wait! Maybe that's not what concerns her but isn't it her responsibility to make her concerns clear? Let's cut her some slack, though. She was bawling when she announced her concerns. Probably couldn't help herself. Is there no Democrat in the House who would make a more competent Speaker? If there is, why isn't that person Speaker?

Harry Reid isn't any better than he used to be. Actually, he's a laughing stock but a dangerous one. He's behind in the polls for re-election. Maybe Nevadans will solve our national problem by dumping Harry Reid. That's this old fool's fond hope, anyhow.

Then there's the Bozo who speaks for Obama before the press daily. And Ram-it-through Rahm. And a thousand czars -- well, thirty or so -- all unconfirmed. Are any better choices than Van Jones was? By the way, what does a green jobs czar actually do?

Why is Obama angry at the American people? He isn't? He appeared angry during his non-SOU speech to a joint session of Congress. Can't remember the exact words but he seemed to say that none of us is sincere when we oppose his policies and none of us is very smart, otherwise we'd do what he tells us to do.

Poor Joe Wilson, Republican Congressman from South Carolina. His party leaders forced him to take one for the team and apologize to Obama, who really did lie about health care for illegals and lots of other things. Joe got even though, by filling his re-election coffers with money, lots of it. Good for Joe.

Obama lies almost daily. You'd need a truth squad to counter all his lies. His biggest lie: We must reform health care to save money. Then we learn from the CBO that Obama's reform will cost $1 trillion in the first 10 years and more after that.

Another lie: We need a government plan to increase competition. Come again?

More later.

LAT: Blame governator for CA budget deadlock

According to LAT editors today, California's budget deadlock is the fault of Arnold the governator. Forget that Democrats in California's legislature repeatedly submitted budget proposals they knew Republicans would not approve -- they need Republicans because of the two-thirds requirement -- and/or the governator would veto, including an attempt to pass tax increases illegally, that is, without the required two-thirds of the legislature approving them.

LAT: Sotomayor stands up to GOP grilling

That's the headline from today's LAT. Impartial, no?

Obama at the All-Star game

Obama throws the first pitch at the All-Star game. He winds up to do it. Who is he imitating? His pitch barely reaches home plate, though he practiced before the game. What a fraud. Surely he used Air Force One to get to St. Louis from Washington. Surely he took the Secret Service with him. Surely, St. Louis police helped insure the president's safety. It was expensive and it accomplished nothing except it got the president on television again. He could have gotten on television from Washington, though the All-Star game probably drew a larger audience than he could have drawn alone..

Lexington's leaving, thank God

The Economist's Lexington columnist is leaving America after 13 years. Good riddance. In his final column, Lexington passes on his observations about America's pluses and minuses. It appears he has learned a little but fails to understand some aspects of America's culture. See the column.

Meanwhile, a new Lexington takes his place. His first (presumably) column is about Sarah Palin, wouldn't you know. Lexington admits he lives and socializes with "highly educated liberals" who call Palin “moron”, “idiot”, “megalomaniac” or worse. Then he proceeds to offer "expert" testimony about the kinds of people who support Palin. They're uneducated, he says, and the job market has been unkind to them for years. Too often they're white and male, they're under privileged and they object to reverse discrimination. They make up the Republican base and there aren't enough of them to elect a candidate. Republican Party bigwigs don't want Palin as a presidential candidate, Lexington argues. They're too smart for that. They want someone who is less polarizing and more competent.

Which raises the question? How does Lexington know these things. From talking with his liberal friends?

Too much Obama

On July 4th, Obama appeared on television during the Capital Fourth progam on PBS. Apparently he is to appear during the Baseball All-Star game tonight. Wonder why he wasn't at Michael Jackson's Memorial. The guy is a media hog. It takes a huge ego to appear on television as often as he does.

California's budget crisis

Nothing has changed. California's legislative Democrats still refuse to offer a budget that Republican legislators and the governator will approve. The Democrats can't do it without them, though the lower house tried -- passing illegal tax increases just days ago.

How will this end? Only God knows. Ultimately, California's voters are responsible for this mess, having put these immature, idiot legislators into office. (A legislator, who shall remain nameless due to a senior moment, has advertised lately on the radio for a constitutional amendment that would end the citizen initiative process, arguing that only the legislature is qualified to submit issues to voters. Meanwhile, the governator has rightly criticized the legislature for holding hearings on cow tails while the budget crisis remains unsolved.) A court, perhaps a bankruptcy court, may eventually be saddled with solving this crisis. God help that poor court.

California legislators: same game, same result

California's legislature passed a deadline yesterday without acting. They were told by the state's controller that the state would run out of cash in July and would be $2.78 billion in the red by July 31st.

According to the LAT, state Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, a Democrat from Los Angeles, responded yesterday by announcing that she intends to push for $1 billion in new taxes on tobacco and oil. State Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg, also a Democrat, said yesterday, according to the LAT, that the Senate next week will take up the issue of whether to postpone $2 billion of tax breaks for corporations that were passed last February but that haven't taken effect yet.

We've been down this road before. Democrats don't have the votes to raise taxes. Republicans won't help them. Why waste time negotiating over something that isn't going to happen?

The legislature has been fiddling around with the budget deficit, currently $24 billion, for more than a year, refusing to face up to its responsibilities, refusing to face facts. Legislators need to quit fiddling and solve this problem -- now.

LAT: N. Korea has U.S. in tight spot

"The imprisoned journalists face a harsh fate if not freed. But Pyongyang may demand nuclear concessions to do so." That is the LAT's take on North Korea's treatment of the two woman journalists, U.S. citizens, who were tried, convicted and sentenced to 12 years in jail by a North Korea court.

The Obama administration ought to take the opposite tack: Warn North Korea that their actions have consequences. Demand that the two women be released immediately. Don't threaten North Korea but inform them clearly that the U.S. will act boldly to protect its citizens. Show some backbone, in other words.

The U.S. is a superpower. It has nothing to fear from a penny ante dictatorship that can't feed its own people. It's time the U.S. behaved like a superpower.

California government doesn't stop growing

The Orange County Register told us last Friday that California's government added 1,362 full time positions in the first quarter of 2009, this while the state was near bankruptcy. Go figure.

Update bankruptcies

The Chrysler bankruptcy isn't a done deal. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has put a stop to it temporarily. Good. The proposed deal with Fiat needs to be examined.

To the question where the Obama administration will get $30 billion for post-bankruptcy GM financing, the answer is that it's TARP money. But TARP money was intended for banks. Is it legal to use it for Chrysler and GM? We'll see.

After Government Motors, Government Healthcare

Obama expects to install a government run healthcare system this year. If he doesn't get it this year then he will not get it at all, some say. If he does get it this year, or any year, we're all in trouble.

But here's an idea: Why not form a government conglomerate? Call it Government, Inc. Make Government Motors a wholly-owned subsidiary. Make Medicare a subsidiary too and offer government health insurance to all. Throw in energy and the environment. Call if Government Energy and Government Enviro. Appoint Rahm Emanuel as CEO. Larry Summers could be chairman. Plug Geithner in there somewhere.

Sounds workable. No?

LAT: Bin Laden is scared of Obama

A headline on the front page of today's LAT suggests that Osama bin Laden's message yesterday was issued out of fright of what Obama would say in Cairo. Dream on.

The Economist: Obama no true leftist

The Economist argues this week that no true leftist would be as reluctant as Obama to nationalize banks or as coldly calculating as Obama in letting Chrysler and GM sink into bankruptcy. Accordingly, The Economist judges, Obama is not a leftist.

It seems a stretch. Citibank has been nationalized, effectively, as has AIG. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae certainly have been nationalized. Bankruptcy has not been especially painful for either Chrysler or GM. Chrysler is already out. The administration expects that GM's bankruptcy will last only 3 months. At worst, the two companies have dumped or will dump some dealers and some vehicle lines. But they also will have been relieved of much debt and all shareholders. The UAW has escaped nearly unscarred.

Add GM

The president isn't being honest when he says his administration has no wish to run GM. They already are running GM. They negotiated the arrangement with creditors and the UAW. They're promising to finance GM post bankruptcy. They're helping to pick the board of directors. Rest assured that no director will be chosen who is not acceptable to Obama. The president's suggestion that these things aren't happening or don't amount to running GM is just false.

More GM

What did Obama's administration accomplished with the GM bankruptcy? Couldn't the same objectives have been accomplished through the regular Chapter 11 process? Answer: No, the UAW would have had to give up more in a normal Chapter 11 proceeding. As it is, the UAW gave up very little. That was Obama's aim.

GM bankruptcy

The Obama has promised to provide $30 billion of post-bankruptcy financing. Query: Where is Obama getting that money? The president doesn't have the power to commit the government to expenditures not appropriated by Congress. When did Congress appropriate the $30 billion? Or is this something Obama believes he is sure to get from Congress but hasn't got yet? For that matter, has Congress approved Obama's guarantee of automobile warranties?

Tax facts -- California

Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee columnist, has a piece in today's Orange County Register that debunks arguments concerning California tax revenues made by both liberals on the left and conservatives on the right. Conservatives, including this one, argue that California's taxes are the highest anywhere. Liberals argue that California needs a tax increase both because there's a huge budget deficit and because California's taxes are only average among the states.

Walters explains that liberals have a point. Californians' overall tax burden is not the highest in the nation. Actually, California was only 6th in the nation in 2008, relative to personal income, before the recent tax increases.

But that's a little misleading. As Walters explains, Californians' overall tax burden is more volitile than most states' because of California's tax structure. In better economic times Californians' relative tax burden rises faster than other states. In poor economic times, it drops faster.

The data Walters uses comes from The Tax Foundation, which is critical of California's tax structure. The Foundation argues that California's sales tax would yield more income if the rate were lowered and the application broadened. It argues that California relies too much on revenue from high bracket individuals and businesses, whose income is more volitile than that of lower bracket taxpayers, causing the income yielded from those sources to be more volitile. Finally, the Foundation reports that expenditures from California's general fund increased by 31 percent from 2003 to 2007, a period when inflation increased 12 percent and the population grew just 5 percent.

Clearly, California's budget crises is self-imposed. Raising tax rates isn't the answer; changing the tax structure may be a partial answer. Most clearly of all, California's legislature must stop spending. Spending is out of control.

California's fiscal crisis

Everybody has a brilliant idea about how to solve California's budget crisis. Nearly every body's brilliant idea involves higher taxes. Californians are under-taxed, some argue. Proposition 13 is the real culprit, others argue. Nearly everybody ignores the geometric increases in expenditures and the unending increases in state government employees. The state has a budget deficit but is still hiring. Makes sense to some.

Cutting the state payroll is nearly impossible. Employees have unions. Unions have money to spend on elections. Candidates for legislative office need money for their campaigns. Unions provide it. Following their election, legislators are beholden to the unions who financed their campaigns. They will not buck the unions. Unions need more members. They press legislators for more hiring. Legislators comply. Taxpayers pay or the state has a deficit it must find a way to close. Brilliant idea: raise taxes.

Government ownership of GM increases

Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that the share of GM that the U.S. government will own under the latest proposal has increased from 70 percent to 72.5 percent. That's the wrong direction.

U. S. to become 70 percent owner of GM

The Wall Street Journal reports today that GM and the UAW have agreed to an arrangement under which the U. S. government would become a 70 percent owner of GM, with the union taking a 17.5 percent stake.

This is precisely the wrong outcome but it or something like it was inevitable once the government began advancing TARP funds to GM. According to the Journal, Treasury has no intention of "directly guiding" GM once it emerges from bankruptcy. Who then will guide GM?

The government has no business owning a private company and no expertise. Liquidation of GM would be a better outcome.

LAT honors Souter

LAT reporter David Savage, who covers the Supreme Court, reports today on Souter's speech yesterday before a gathering of roughly 300 lawyers and judges for the 3rd Circuit's annual conference.

Savage reports that "no one at the Supreme Court is said to work harder than Souter" and "he was known by his colleagues for carefully studying and weighing the record in each case. He has been less interested in applying broad principles to all cases than in finding the right result in each case."

If that smacks of editorializing it's because it is.

"Torture" memos

The LAT reports this morning on the "torture" memos and their authors, saying the authors, specifically John Yoo and Jay Bybee, possibly should be disbarred. The arguments used in the memos were so poorly reasoned, the LAT suggests, that the authors could not have made a serious effort to describe the applicable law and express well reasoned opinions. Instead, the LAT suggests, the authors seem to have cooked up opinions that would support the practices being followed by CIA, which amounted to torture.

Sadly, the LAT's report is based on interviews with anonymous sources who acknowledge that they weren't authorized to divulge the information to the LAT because it is classified. Accordingly, the LAT's report was based on information obtained from people who broke the law by supplying it.

The LAT report includes a paragraph claiming that "the U.S. government for decades had prosecuted and convicted people for using waterboarding" yet that fact "was given little mention" in the "torture" memos. The LAT cites no such case and fails to define "little mention" or to explain why that was insufficient.

Empathy

The LAT argues that "empathy" is key to Obama's Supreme Court pick to replace Justice Souter. Obama, the LAT says, is looking for someone who isn't so much concerned with justice as with empathy. Presumably, that means that Obama will pick someone based on how that person feels about the law and the constitution and about people who have violated one or the other.

Presumably, if an Obama nominee feels good about a precedent then he or she will follow the precedent. If not, the precedent will, presumably, be ignored.

Presumably, an Obama nominee's view of a founder's opinion will depend on how the nominee feels about the founder. A nominee, for example, might ignore whatever Jefferson may have said about an issue because Jefferson was a slave owner and may have raped Sally Hemmings multiple times. Likewise, an Obama nominee might ignore whatever Hamilton might have said or written because Hamilton was a right-winger. And old Ben Franklin was a known womanizer. An Obama nominee might properly ignore the writings of Ben Franklin.

Besides, all the founders were, presumably, straight, white men. They could not have known how women, blacks and other minorities might react to issues. Under the circumstances, an Obama nominee might legitimately ignore the opinions of all the founders.

LAT offers advice to GOP, unsolicited

The LAT advises this morning in an editorial that the GOP heed Arlen Specter's parting words. As if Republicans needed or wanted advice from a left-wing newspaper that does its best to sink the GOP whenever it gets an opportunity. The GOP has no use for a Benedict Arnold whose central focus is reelection.

People should be curious about a 79-year-old cancer victim who is so concerned about the next election that he would change political parties to avoid a certain loss. If reelected, Specter will be 80 when his new term starts. The odds are he will not survive long enough to finish that term. If he does survive, he could well reach senility during the term.

There are other things an 80-something person can do besides serve as senator. For example, such a person could become an elder statesman, speaking and writing on issues that are important to the nation and the world. Speaking and writing might be very profitable and might help build an estate that would benefit heirs.

It makes you wonder if Specter is not already senile.

Lexington's straw man

Lexington, columnist for The Economist, offers an argument concerning interrogation of terrorist prisoners, claims conservatives make it, then conveniently refutes it.

Here's the argument.

"But it is equally idiotic to argue, as a fair few conservatives seem to, that tough-minded policies are meritorious simply because they are tough-minded."

The argument is phony. Lexington doesn't identify the conservatives who make that argument because none do.

Lexington goes on to argue that Bush interrogation policies served no purpose because they were not effective. Not even the Obama administration makes that claim, though Lexington claims there are "legions" of high-ranking commanders, military lawyers and intelligence operatives who do.

Lexington names only one: Torin Nelson, who Lexington claims is a veteran interrogator. Well, perhaps. Apparently, Nelson reached the rank of sergeant in the U.S. Army. Nelson claims to be president of The Society of Professional Human Intelligence. Nelson seems to be the Society's only member.

Lexington, finally, argues that what he claims is true actually is true because Mr. Obama was cheered "to the rafters" by CIA agents when he visited Langley on April 20. Rafters? At Langley? Where Obama spoke? Probably not.

Treasury's rescue plans

The Treasury's plans to rescue General Motors and Chrysler rest on the proposition that unions need to be bailed out, whatever the consequences to taxpayers, creditors and investors.

Under the General Motors plan, the government will own 50 percent of the new GM while the UAW will own 39 percent. The new board of directors will consist of government appointees and people appointed by the UAW. The government's appointees will be union sympathetic because the Obama administration is union sympathetic. GM's plan is union sympathetic. GM's reason for being will be to provide work for UAW members and health care and retirement benefits for retired union members.

Under the Chrysler plan, the UAW will own 55 percent (a controlling interest), Fiat 35 percent and the government 10 percent. Like GM, Chrysler will serve to provide work and fringes for UAW members and retirees.

All this has been tried before, without success. Unions do not make good business managers or investors. Their goals do not include business success but better pay, benefits and working conditions for members. Union managers keep their jobs by keeping their members happy. Growing the business, offering products customers will buy at prices customers can afford, satisfying customers, making a profit, offering investors a return equivalent to the risk they accept ... these are foreign concepts to unions and union members. If that were not true, GM and Chrysler would not now be insolvent, as they clearly are.

Chapter 11 is inevitable for both GM and Chrysler, if not now then in a few months or years. Despite the roughly $20 billion that Treasury has advanced from TARP funds, the situation now is the same as it was last December -- only now taxpayers stand to lose $20 billion. GM's plan, and Chrysler's, will only postpone the inevitable and increase taxpayers' loss.

U.S. to become 50% owner of GM

The WaPo reports today that the U.S. government would take a 50 percent ownership interest in General Motors under a plan announced today. The union, UAW, would get a 39 percent interest, GM creditors would get 10 percent and shareholders would get 1 percent. That's the kind of plan that the Brits used to rescue British Leyland, manufacturer of Jaguars, Austins, Rovers, Land Rovers, Triumphs, Minis and MGs, before Margaret Thatcher came to power. The British government's plan to save British Leyland didn't work. That company doesn't exist an longer. The plan announced today will not solve General Motors' problems. Only Chapter 11 can do that.

Lexington laments "Obama hatred"

Lexington, left-wing columnist for The Economist, writes that "Obama hatred" is "not healthy for American politics." Lexington found no such unhealthiness for Bush hatred, instead taking part in and encouraging it.

"Unfortunately," Lexington writes, "the Glen Becks of this world are more than just a joke." Sadly, Lexington offered nothing similar about Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and a flock of other Bush haters.

LAT reports on Homeland Security's warning about the right wing

The LAT reported on Homeland Security's warning that "right-wing extremist groups" could become violent and threaten national security. Conservatives shouldn't be concerned, the LAT says. The Homeland Security's warning is just common sense, the LAT argues.

Perhaps it looks like common sense from the far left, where the LAT is perched. But Homeland Security offers no proof, no facts, no justification for its view that "right-wing extremist groups" endanger the rest of us.

LAT reports on "tea parties"

Well, sort of. The LAT didn't so much report on "tea parties" as try to blunt the effect of them. The LAT advised Republicans not to get too involved with "tea parties" and not to expect they'll have much effect. Besides, the LAT says, the "tea parties" "offer a fresh display of upheaval with the Republican Party" because the demonstrators in California called for the governator's recall and were opposed to the tax increases that were approved by the legislature and signed by the governator recently.

Such reporting helps to explain why each day fewer and fewer buy newspapers.

Noonan on bland affluence

Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal columnist, writes today describing a lifestyle she says will end and will be replaced by a non-affluent, down-to-earth, religious, smoking and drinking lifestyle. But the lifestyle she describes, the one she says is ending, characterized by Botox, face lifts, brow lifts, dyed hair for both women and men, thin hard bodies, gyms and personal trainers, is a lifestyle that never was except perhaps in New York, where Noonan lives and works, and among the very rich elsewhere. How many of us know people who have had Botox treatments, face lifts or brow lifts?

Noonan has a tendency to write about stuff she knows little about. Last week, she passed judgment on people who work on Wall Street, as if all were little Bernie Madoffs. She must come up with a column each week. Maybe she's running out of material.

Dealing with pirates

The Navy Seals deserve great credit for executing their assignment efficiently and effectively. In fact, everyone involved, including the Maersk Alabama's crew, the captive Captain Phillips, his family, the officers and crew of the U.S. destroyer Bainbridge and the other U.S. Naval ships on scene, behaved perfectly. What a relief.

There is much discussion now on television and in newspapers about what should come next. Everyone seems to agree that piracy must stop but there is little or no agreement on how to stop it. Some are suggesting that the Marines be sent into Somalia to clean out the mess there, but that seems unnecessary. Others are suggesting that ships plying the waters around Somalia carry armed guards to protect them against pirates, which seems obvious but insufficient.

Why not reward each act of piracy with an air attack on or shelling of the pirates' home ports? No U.S. personnel would be endangered and the message to pirates would be clear: Stop the piracy or lose your life. The bombing or shelling would need to be effective, and that would require intelligence about where the pirates are located. The U.S. likely has that intelligence now.

Surely, allowing the piracy to continue and paying ransom for return of the ships and crews should not be an option.

KNBC TV embarrasses itself over "first dog"

Hard news took a back seat last night to frivolous, gushing coverage of the Obama family's "first dog," which hasn't been chosen -- or if it has, the choice hasn't been announced. So what was newsworthy about the "first dog" story that KNBC TV aired last night? Nothing. Was airing the piece a political decision? Certainly.

LAT: Stevens guilty

The LAT today takes up the case of former Senator Ted Stevens and declares him guilty, though the Justice Department canceled the prosecution and conviction and the judge accused prosecutors of the worst mishandling and misconduct in 25 years. Stevens is guilty, the LAT suggests, even if he was railroaded. But how would they know if the trial wasn't fair?

The LAT seems to think that Stevens didn't deserve a fair trial. After all, he's a Republican from Alaska. That's two strikes against him, trial or no trial.

The LAT wasn't satisfied today with declaring Stevens guilty. They brought Sarah Palin into the mix too. She's a Republican from Alaska, which means she must be guilty of something. The LAT charges her with having an opinion and voicing it. She's guilty as charged.

Obama-Brown v Sarkosy-Merkel

Not long ago, the LAT was reporting that European countries were lined up against Bush and his policies. (Of course, the Brits' government never was. Tony Blair was called Bush's poodle.) Today, the LAT reports that Britain and the U.S. are opposed by Germany and France. It used to be Bush-Blair v Chirac-Schroder. Now it's Obama-Brown v Sarkosy-Merkel. What's changed? Only the names.

Anti-Bush protests no more

The LAT today chronicles the riots in London but no longer calls them "anti-Bush." Now they're "catchall" protests, "examples of the populist unrest sweeping Europe."

Republicans voting with Obama

Roughly half of House Republicans voted in favor of the punitive 90 percent tax on AIG bonuses. Many of them must have heard from their constituents because the number voting in favor of today's "Pay for Performance Act" totaled only 10. Michelle Malkin lists the 10 on her website but of particular importance to this old fool was the vote of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who represents parts of Orange County, California. Usually, Rohrabacher is a safe conservative vote. He has not explained either his vote in favor of the AIG 90-percent-of-bonus tax or today's vote, but needs to.

Michelle Obama

According to Lexington, columnist at The Economist, Mrs. Obama ought to give some serious speeches on policy instead of working on or displaying her "perfectly toned" arms.

Lexington mentions the collapse of black families and the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks, apparently suggesting these as issues Mrs. Obama could speak about. Lexington suggests that the causes of these are job losses, drugs, crime and family breakup.

All these are self-inflicted except one: job losses, and that may be self-inflicted too in some or most cases. (If you don't show up for work then you'll likely lose your job.)

If Mrs. Obama has solutions for the out-of-wedlock birth rate or the collapse of black families and chooses to speak about them, chances are her words will be well received. If she speaks instead on subjects or issues about which she has little or no knowledge -- like the economy or foreign policy -- then her words probably will fall on deaf ears.

Government versus non-government workers

Hardly any federal, state, county, city or school employee ever loses his or her job. They're civil service. Their jobs are guaranteed, if not formally then practically. Meanwhile, non-government employees lose their jobs all over.

That used to be a grand bargain. Government workers were paid less but their jobs were secure and they got good fringe benefits. Non-government ones made more but their jobs were at risk and their fringes were not as good.

No more. Government workers now are unionized. Their pay is as good as or better than non-government workers. Government workers' jobs still are secure and their fringes are outstanding.

Where's the bargain?

More thoughts on bonuses

Congressional behavior last Friday was not merely an exercise in poor judgment, it was vindictive, malicious and petty, all of which proved one thing: those who voted for the 90 percent tax on bonuses aren't nice people. You couldn't afford to consider any of these congressmen or women personal friends, even if you knew them well. They couldn't be trusted to do the right thing most of the time. (None of us does the right thing all the time.) You'd have to watch your back. Yet these people help to govern the United States of America. It's a wonder our nation has lasted this long.

Thank God our founders set up two houses of Congress, neither of which can act alone. Thank God there is an executive branch and a judicial branch, all of which are, in theory at least, independent. If not for this division of authority and responsibility, our nation would have been toast long ago.

Poor judgment

The action Congress took last Friday to tax AIG's and other bonuses at 90 percent is wrong on so many fronts that it's hard to decide what argument against them to bring up next. Here's one that hasn't been been discussed in newspapers and blogs so far.

It's poor judgment to select someone to take charge of an organization and then nitpick or second guess his or her decisions. Instead, the selected person should be judged on results -- did sales increase, is the company more profitable, is there less employee turnover, have contributions increased, are patients happier, are fewer lawsuits filed against the entity, etc. -- depending on what the selected person was hired to do.

In the case of AIG, Edward Liddy was hired to shut it down, with minimum loss to the government and minimum disruption of the financial system. He hasn't yet done that but we knew it would take a while. AIG is large and has tentacles all over, so its liquidation will take time. While Liddy is engaged in doing what he was hired to do, he must be given the authority to make decisions. What he decides must be final, otherwise all the people he deals with will know he's powerless. A powerless CEO is worse than no CEO.

It's counter-productive to countermand a CEO's decisions. If Liddy approves of bonuses, those bonuses must stand. Liddy weighed the arguments for and against paying the bonuses before he approved them. (AIG was legally obligated. AIG needs the people who got the bonuses to help with the liquidation. The bonuses are a lot of money but the cost of not paying them would be more.)

Obviously, if Libby's overseer loses confidence in him, Liddy has to go. Apparently that hasn't happened. If it does, the debate should be over whether to keep Liddy or fire him, not whether this or that Liddy decision should be reversed.

In Congress, irrationality trumps thought and common sense. It shouldn't but it does. Capricious, ever-changing, ex post facto rule-making makes people nervous and destroys their confidence in government, besides which it's unjust.

Irrational rage

Members of the House of Representatives engaged yesterday in irrational rage when they voted a 90 percent tax on some people who have received bonuses, especially highly paid people who work at AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's irrational because it does more harm than good. The head of Fannie Mae came out this morning and said as much. AIG CEO Ed Liddy told congressmen and women that when he testified on Wednesday. At the least, Congress should wait until AIG has been liquidated and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are on sound footing before trying to satisfy its rage.

Further, behavior of the kind Congress is engaged in affects markets. The behavior is interpreted as anti-business and it scares investors. A natural response to such behavior is for investors to become more risk averse. They will seek minimal-risk investments like U.S. Treasury Bills. They will not borrow and they will tighten the belt. Speculators will become short-sellers.

Is that what Congress wants? Whether it wants that or not, that's what it's going to get. The result will be fewer new jobs, more unemployment, higher federal outlays for unemployment benefits, smaller tax revenues and bigger deficits, all to penalize a very few people who make more money than Congress thinks they should.

Why governments shouldn't nationalize

If the AIG fiasco teaches us anything it should teach us why governments shouldn't try to own or manage businesses.

As should be obvious by now, a bureaucrat is different from a business person. Their training is different and their motivations are different. They have different objectives and they have different points of view, which is why a bureaucrat shouldn't be assigned the job of managing a business.

By now, it also should be obvious that government ownership inevitably becomes political. The hearings yesterday in which congressmen and women beat up on AIG's CEO demonstrated the idiocy of combining politics and business.

Still not convinced. Read up on Britain's experience of nationalizing businesses starting in the 1940s, Britain's near bankruptcy in the 1970s and Margaret Thatcher's denationalization in the 1980s. The latter resurrected Britain's economy.

Bonus outrage

One thing that characterizes the bonus outrage is ignorance. No one knows who gets the bonuses or anything about AIG's obligation to pay them -- no one but insiders. That doesn't prevent people from going ballistic about the bonuses. Everyone has an opinion, even if they're ignorant.

Ignorance doesn't stop people writing to the LAT, nor the LAT publishing their letters. A case in point: An ignoramus named Braverman wrote recently in the LAT about the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer confrontation and made the following idiotic points:

-- CNBC "missed" the "financial tsunami."

-- Most people believe what they see on television.

-- "Corporate-owned CNBC's only real goal is" to make money.

-- CNBC allows "experts" to say anything they want.

-- "We" really need to "reign these guys in."

LAT intervenes for Planned Parenthood

On the editorial page today, the LAT blasts Orange County supervisors for cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood, which had a contract with the County to counsel and educate pregnant teens until one of the supervisors learned they offer abortion services. The LAT says the supervisors "should know that this attack on Planned Parenthood fails every test of logic, reason and responsible public policy." How so?

LAT takes on CNBC

LAT writer Matea Gold ridicules CNBC and "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer today over Cramer's appearance on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show." The only thing interesting about Gold's piece is why she would write it and why the LAT would publish it.

Gold takes sides, saluting Stewart for disrespecting Cramer. Both are entertainers trying to raise their ratings. If Stewart got a boost at Cramer's expense good for Stewart, bad for Cramer. But neither is the good guy and the other bad.

But Gold also takes a swipe at CNBC. Apparently it covers Wall Street too well or too often or too fervently. Or she hates CNBC because she hates Wall Street. It makes you wonder about Matea Gold and the LAT.

The Economist tilts left

The Economist this week is chock full of praise for Obama, and denial. Obama is working wonders in foreign policy and with the economy, The Economist argues. Give him time, they plead.

Obama isn't trying to do too much and isn't advocating European-style socialism, the magazine argues. It's just that the mean old Republicans are distorting Obama's policies. Blame Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and the "firebrand" Mike Pence. Obama could learn from Europeans, The Economist argues.

What he's likely to learn from Europeans isn't likely to appeal to Americans.

Reliance on government

Despite government's track record, liberal,socialists and communists consistently argue for greater governmental control of institutions and people. A case in point: SEC regulators have been criticized for failing to stop Madoff from ripping off investors for $50 million. Liberals argue that could have been prevented by more regulation. But regulations and regulators will never be perfect. Often regulators are careless, lazy and unmotivated -- like the people you see at the DMV, the Post Office and Social Security offices. Or, the regulators at SEC.

What we need: Judges without judgment

That's the argument a guy from Glendora makes in a letter to the LAT, published today. The letter's closing sentence: "Cases should instead be reviewed individually, without any personal inclination or judgment."

The letter protests Clarence Thomas' consistent holdings supporting states' rights. Apparently, the letter writer is unfamiliar with the Tenth Amendment to our federal constitution, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Kerry exhibits his poor judgment, again

Senator John F. Kerry, known for idiotic remarks like "reporting for duty," once again displays his lack of judgment in a piece on Bloomberg published March 6th. At a time when Americans learn daily that the economy is in trouble and the stock market is crashing, Kerry thinks it's necessary to tell his readers how bad things are. When Americans need to be told something positive in order to raise their spirits, Kerry tells the banks that "Animal House parties" are a thing of the past and introduces legislation to penalize banks who entertain customers and potential investors. Kerry says "huge swaths of our banking system are insolvent." Thanks, Americans needed to hear that from John Kerry. Federal regulators ought to be able to remove bank management Kerry says. Right, let the bureaucrats decide. If a bank has assets of uncertain value, write then down to zero, Kerry says, unconcerned about the effects. Mark-to-market accounting is fool proof, Kerry seems to believe. Kerry is a fool.

Colombia free trade

A Colombian, Miguel Ricourte-Lombana, writes from Bogota in today's LAT "Letters" that many of his countrymen don't understand "why the U.S. government insists on dismissing our achievements and believes that restricting free trade could possibly lead to improving Colombia's performance." It isn't the U.S. government. It's only Nancy Pelosi and the people who pull her strings.

Gays unhinged

Prop. 8 supporters seem to have won the day yesterday before the California Supreme Court. Opponents' reaction: unhinged vitriol, the same as when voters passed Prop.8 last fall. Logic escapes them. Precedent escapes them. Gays want what they want. To hell with everybody else.

Shut down GM

General Motors is insolvent. That's clear from their financial statements, just published, which reveal that GM's liabilities exceed its assets by $86 billion. It's time to face facts. GM needs either to enter Chapter 11 or be liquidated. Giving GM more government billions before it enters bankruptcy would be like putting a match to those billions.

Creating a nation of slackers

According to the LAT, Los Angeles expects to receive $100 million of federal stimulus money and will put it to work offering welfare recipients entry-level temporary work. If you're out of work and would like one of these jobs, you'd better apply for welfare first.

Let them eat cake

Obama said yesterday in the Oval Office that the stock market engages in "fits and starts" and he suggested that he can't be concerned about such short range events because he's focused on the long range instead. But this bear market has seen a plunge of roughly 50 percent in value. The situation is critical because average people are seeing what little wealth they have evaporate. Rather than concern himself with Social Security or Medicare, the president would be well advised to show some concern for the markets. He ought at least to avoid making matters worse by, for example, appearing on television daily announcing a new idiotic plan or bad-mouthing a bank or CEO, or threatening a "stress test." He ought also not send out his tax-cheating Treasury secretary to do something similar. Markets react unfavorably to such things and it costs citizens money they can't afford to lose.

LAT gets sensible

The LAT and this old fool finally agree on something: that the Columbia free trade agreement should be approved. It's stalled in Congress by Pelosi and company. If Obama has any influence he should use it to get this thing done.

Obamanomics

The Dow was down nearly 300 today, more evidence that investors are worried about Obamanomics. Obama's "cures" for banks, the economy, health care, education, energy, the auto industry, etc. are scary because we don't know enough about what Obama plans but also because what we do know relies on people we don't trust -- like Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd and an army of bureaucrats. These people have never been helpful. Why should we expect them to be helpful now?

Lexington warns Republicans

According to Lexington, Republicans will lose their influence over policy and legislation unless they bow to Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Huh? What influence? The kind of influence they had over the "porkulus?" What can Lexington have in mind?

Lexington's point of view isn't unique. The LAT made the same argument the other day, claiming that if Republicans continue to oppose Obama, Pelosi and Reid they face exile to political wilderness.

So, liberals are concerned about Republicans and are trying to help them out by giving them good advice? Not likely.

Take 10

We see Obama on television daily, preaching catastrophe or threatening banks or announcing new spending plans -- $800 billion here, $410 billion there, $634 billion yonder. Each time he speaks, the stock market dives. Take a break, Mr. President. Go to Tahiti with Michelle for a couple weeks, or years. We'll be OK without you. We may even recover.

Right or wrong, LAT supports Obama

Obama made a forceful case for his agenda last night. Republicans need to get out of the way or face a long trip into political wilderness. That's the LAT's opinion, expressed in an editorial today. It's only an opinion, one the LAT may regret but never admit having.

Obama made clear last night his intention to take over nearly every important aspect of American life, except entertainment. Whether that was intentional or an oversight isn't known.

The government has a poor track record on most things it has taken over, leaving behind corruption, waste, ineptness, bloat, inefficiency and unmet goals. Obama has a poor track record from his first weeks in office, characterized by errors in selecting and investigating cabinet nominees, poor planning and execution of economic and financial undertakings, grossly excessive spending and a 15 percent drop in the stock market.

Obama's delivery last night was fine; what he said was scary.

Obama has another plan

According to today's LAT, Obama has another plan, this one to cut the deficit in half. Can't wait.

Skelton: Do it illegally

LAT columnist George Skelton writes this morning that if imprisoned Senate Republicans in California's legislature don't soon cave and allow $14 billion of tax increases then Democrats will use the nuclear option: Raise taxes illegally, in violation of California's constitution.

That's what it's come down to. If locking them in doesn't do it, ignore the constitution. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Castro, Ortega, Mugabe, Chavez and all petty dictators do it. How are California's Democratic legislators different?

LAT editors: Wipe out the Republicans

Democrats are taking over the state. Republicans are finished. People and businesses are leaving California because taxes aren't high enough and there's too little regulation. It's Armageddon all over again and it's Republicans' fault. Besides, Republicans are insincere. They don't care about California. They just want to make Democrats and the LAT squirm.

That's the LAT's point of view and it's stupid. Raising taxes is stupid. Making people miserable until they leave the state is stupid. Locking people in until they vote like you want them to vote is stupid. Threatening to act illegally if you don't get what you want legally -- as Democrats have tried to do and still propose to do by approving tax increases without the required two-thirds vote of the legislature -- is stupid.

Blame a Republican

A LAT editorial this morning singles out a Republican state senator and assigns him the blame for California's budget deadlock. The LAT writes that the senator isn't sincere, that he's only playing politics and preparing for his next election campaign. All this is based on the senator's opposition to $14 billion of increased taxes. If you oppose the LAT then you get what you deserve is the LAT's message.

The LAT's arguments are so one-sided that it's hard to believe they seriously think they're convincing. California already is tops in taxes. Further tax increases will only facilitate future spending. The state's spending is and has been out of control. That's what needs to be fixed.

Approving tax increases in California would be like offering dope to a junkie.

Under lock and key

Republican senators in California's legislature are being threatened with imprisonment in the capitol building again until at least three of them agree to violate the no-new-taxes pledge they took. Two have already agreed to do that so all the pressure, coming from Democrats and the governator, is on finding one more.

A better solution, one Democrats have within their grasp, would be to reduce expenditures to compensate for the absence of tax increases. That would yield a budget everyone could support.

Browbeating

Democrats, including the LAT, are browbeating Republican lawmakers in Sacramento -- actually imprisoning them in the capitol building -- in an effort to convince one to change his or her vote and approve of massive tax increases on California taxpayers. Why not instead browbeat some Democrats until they cut expenditures by an amount equal to the proposed tax increases? Maybe locking them in the capitol building would do it.

Lexington on Lincoln

The Lexington column in the latest issue of The Economist argues that Democrats have as much right to claim Lincoln as Republicans, though Lexington doesn't dispute that Lincoln was a Republican.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans, Lexington argues, believe in meritocracy. Republicans cut tax rates and widen the gap between rich and poor, Lexington argues. Lexington seems to argues for egalitarianism -- equality of outcome, without regard to merit.

Democrats, Lexington argues, are wedded to affirmative action that judges people on their race rather than individual merit. Democrats are in the pocket of teachers' unions which have fought against introducing competition and standardized testing, Lexington writes. Further, Lexington writes, Democrats oppose vouchers that would allow poor students to attend good schools.

On the latter points, Lexington is correct. But Lexington's tendency is to agree more often with Democrats than Republicans. Lexington's discovery of meritocracy should lead him or her in the opposite direction.

Free lunch

The LAT had a piece on Saturday's front page about how the "stimulus" will reach nearly all. The piece contained not a word about who will pay for it.

Obama's victory

It's hard to see how borrowing $800 billion can possibly be seen as a victory but that's what Obama is claiming.

The best we can expect

The LAT argues this morning in editorials that the rumored California budget "fix" is the best we can expect and, though it isn't what they would prefer, the federal "stimulus" bill ought to be approved and signed into law. On the front page, the LAT says that California will realize $26 billion from the federal "stimulus" but, in the piece that follows, says that $26 billion will not help solve California's budget crisis.

The California budget "fix" increases the tax burden of a state that was among the highest-taxed states before the "fix." Raising taxes doesn't solve anything because expenditures will continue to grow, exceeding whatever new tax revenue is raised. California's government continues to grow because it continues to hire. There seldom are terminations because the government workers' unions won't permit them. Unions provide the money to elect legislators who do their bidding. The unions effectively control California's government.

The $26 billion from the federal "stimulus" won't help to solve California's budget crisis because it will be spent as fast as the new tax revenue is spent. One of the justifications for the federal "stimulus" was to help the states crawl out of their budget crises but now it appears that at least $26 billion of that "stimulus" will have no effect.

It seems like a shell game that taxpayers can never win.

Depressing

The "stimulus" bill is on fast track. It likely will pass today or tomorrow at the latest. Probably not one in ten Congressmen or Senators has read it. It was written in secrecy in the first instance by Nancy Pelosi and her staff. Negotiations in the Senate between Democrats and the rebel Republican three were conducted in secrecy. The conference was conducted in secrecy. So, we have a nearly $800 billion bill that only a few know anything about. Nevertheless, it's so urgent that it must be signed by President's Day. Why?

There are so many things wrong with the "stimulus" bill that it's hard to list them. It's too big. It's loaded with pork. It will inflate the currency and increase our national debt. It will set baselines for future expenditures that will increase future deficits or require massive tax increases. It's conceived based on a false, unproven and misunderstood theory of a long-dead, homosexual, British economist named John Maynard Keynes.

The rumored budget settlement of the California legislature further depresses because it calls for massive tax increases that will add new tax burdens to an already overtaxed populace. Republicans are rumored to have agreed to the tax increases. Not all of them but enough for the legislation to pass with two-thirds majorities.

The federal "stimulus" had to have three turncoat Republicans to clear the Senate. California's tax increases require three turncoat Republicans in each house of the California legislature. Can't all Republicans stick to their guns? Evidently not.

Immaturity, incompetence

Yesterday's fiasco, in which Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented a new and "improved" solution to the nation's credit problems is a demonstration of what not to do. Here's what was wrong: First, an announcement like that needs to be done after the market has closed or on a weekend. Second, those responsible for making the announcement must understand how such an announcement might be perceived by Wall Street and the public generally. Third, a program like Geithner announced ought to be something that has been thoroughly worked out and tried before, successfully.

Geithner's announcement fails on all three. It is either incompetence or immaturity that explains the timing of the announcement, at mid-day when the market is still open. It is either incompetence or immaturity that explains why Geithner or Obama didn't anticipate that the market would drop precipitously after the announcement. It is either incompetence or immaturity, and perhaps arrogance, that explains the introduction of a plan that has never before been tried and found to work successfully.

Obama and Geithner are experimenting with the nation's economy and banking system. The "stimulus" isn't likely to do much other than increase the national debt. The banking system fixes aren't likely to fix the banking system. The constant flood of new, untried ideas, together with screw-ups like fumbled vettings of cabinet nominees and poorly timed announcements, have shaken the confidence of investors and nearly everyone else. Repeatedly overstating how bad the economy is and how dangerously under capitalized banks are aggravates the lack of confidence. Is it any wonder that banks won't lend and people won't spend?

Barack Obama is arguing that his administration can't just stand there, it needs to do something. It would be better for the country if the administration did the opposite.

Scolding the opposition

That's the headline on the Orange County Register's front page today. It's appropriate. Obama is a scold. Last night on television, he scolded people for not agreeing with him and for saying what they think. The debate is over, he keeps saying. He won the election and everybody ought to shut up and do what he wants because of it. It doesn't work that way.

Obama was elected president, not king. We have a bill of rights in this country that insures everyone has the right to think what they want and say what they think. The president doesn't have the right to tell people to shut up and he doesn't have the power to make them.

So far as the "stimulus" is concerned, it's still an abomination, designed by Nancy Pelosi and now amended several times. Without three soft-headed Republicans in the Senate, the bill would wind up in the trash can of history where it belongs.

The Geithner plan got a big raspberry today. As this is written, the market is down nearly 400 points. Geithner ought to be sent home to do his taxes using Turbo Tax.

Fear mongering

Obama: "It is inexcusable and irresponsible to get bogged down in distraction and delay while millions of Americans are being put out of work."

It is inexcusable and irresponsible to keep scaring people, something that seems to be Obama's specialty.

"And if we drag our feet and fail to act, this crisis will turn into a catastrophe," Obama said today. But he doesn't know that. No one can know it, no one who isn't clairvoyant. There is no evidence that Obama is clairvoyant.

The president needs to change his tone. He needs to stop scaring the American people. Instead he ought to put the fear of God into Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to produce a "stimulus" bill that is acceptable to the American people, one which is not loaded with left-wing pork like the present bill.

Inexcusable and irresponsible

Those are words Obama used to describe Senators who oppose his "stimulus" bill. "Distraction, delay or politics as usual" are unacceptable at a time when millions of Americans are out of work, Obama said.

But what if you truly believe, if your intellect tells you based on facts available, that this "stimulus" is an abomination? Aren't you then obligated to oppose it because it is harmful to the nation?

In truth and in fact, the "stimulus" is an abomination. Obama and Congressional Democrats are playing politics with it. Democrats have the largest majorities they've had in many years and they're using those majorities to put into effect all the items that have been on their wish list for many years. They're doing it at a time when the nation is vulnerable. People are scared and Obama is scaring them further. Nothing could be more cynical.

Lexington laments Barack's troubles

The Economist's Lexington columnist writes in the current issue that Obama promised too much during his campaign and that makes it hard to govern. But the main problem is that Obama talks too much and thinks he knows more that he does.

Obama is on television daily. No one has that much to say. He overstates when he keeps preaching that economic catastrophe will occur if he doesn't get the "stimulus" he wants. No one can know that.

There is no evidence that TARP has accomplished anything but Obama claims that the next $500 million will do the trick. The last "stimulus" accomplished nothing but Obama claims the next trillion will do it. His claims aren't credible.

The "stimulus"

It defies logic to think that the government can stimulate the economy by spending nearly a trillion dollars it doesn't have. If our federal government had an extra trillion dollars it didn't need then it could and should return it to the taxpayers from whom the government got the dollars. That would stimulate the economy.

But the federal government, any federal government, doesn't have an extra trillion dollars. It must borrow the money or create new money. By borrowing the money it's removing money from the economy, which is the opposite of stimulative. Accordingly, borrowing the money and then spending it on a "stimulus" package is a wash. The borrowing and the spending might not occur at the same time so there might be a time when more had been borrowed than spent or vice versa but otherwise the two things are a wash. Keynes had a theory about a multiplier effect but it was theory, not fact.

Suppose the government doesn't borrow the money but creates new money to spend instead. Obviously, that puts more money in circulation but it doesn't change the total value of all the money in circulation. It just makes each dollar worth less, which is known as inflation.

By insisting that our economy is headed for catastrophe if Congress doesn't give him a "stimulus" bill, Obama risks discrediting everything he says. If we can't believe Obama about the "stimulus," will we believe him when he says in the future something like "terrorists threaten the U.S. with catastrophic loss of life and property if we don't protect ourselves against them" or "Iran could cause catastrophic losses if it obtained nuclear weapons capabilities."

At war with Wall Street

The LAT argues, unsurprisingly, that Obama is right to crack down on Wall Street big wigs but it's hard to see how that will help. Left-wingers naturally dislike and disapprove of free enterprise and the people who engage in it, preferring instead socialism and big government. Both socialism and free enterprise capitalism are messy but free enterprise capitalism at least has a track record of producing prosperity and high living standards. Big government has a track record of producing stagnation and inflation. Socialism has produced economies like the one in East Germany which collapsed along with the rest of the Soviet bloc and was absorbed by democratic and capitalistic West Germany. Or the one in the United Kingdom, which was nearly bankrupt until it was rescued by Margaret Thatcher.

LAT columnists

Where would we be without LAT columnists? Answer: Better off.

Yesterday, columnist David Lazarus wrote negatively about health savings accounts, arguing that premiums might go up and people might use poor judgement when investing the funds in their health savings accounts. Lazarus prefers single-payer health care like Medicare or Medicaid -- for everyone.

Would we expect anything different from a LAT columnist?

LAT headlines are humorous, unintentionally

Yesterday's LAT headline said that Obama is frustrated, poor thing. But how would they know? Did he say he was? If so then shouldn't "frustrated" be in quotes? If not, wouldn't editorial writers need to occupy Obama's skin or mind to know he was frustrated? Maybe he just looks frustrated. Or maybe the LAT thinks he should be frustrated.

Today's headline reads: "Obama puts the heat on Republicans." The LAT apparently refers to remarks Obama made yesterday arguing that some changes to the "stimulus" that Republicans favor are like the policies that caused the current economic meltdown. It's all talk and incredibly biased news reporting.

The "stimulus" is in trouble and Obama knows it. It deserves to be. The House bill is an abomination that only a Nancy Pelosi could birth. Obama can't be seen as caving to Republicans but the "stimulus" must be made less disgusting if it is to clear the Senate.

What the world needs now: More government

Obama and Treasury secretary Geithner announced this morning new restrictions on executive compensation at banks receiving government aid under TARP. It was inevitable. With government aid comes government interference, administered by people who couldn't run a bank if their lives depended on it. Or any other kind of business for that matter.

There's no evidence that TARP has made any difference to the economy. Adding new restrictions makes the bailout more complicated without changing its true nature: A wasteful government program intended to fiddle with the economy hopelessly.

The so called "stimulus" package will be similar. The government will spend nearly a trillion dollars it doesn't have, more than a trillion if interest is taken into account. If you get your hands on some of that money then good for you. But there is no free lunch. The dollar will be devalued because more will be in circulation than before. If the borrowed money is ever repaid, it will be repaid by people who are not now living. Chances are, inflation will make the amount of the debt seem small in a few years. If the debt is repaid, it will be repaid with inflated dollars, which is about the only good thing you can say about the "stimulus."

Despite Obama's predictions of catastrophe if the "stimulus" is not approved, there is little chance it will make any difference. The same is true of TARP. You can be sure that government will be bigger after all this spending than it is now.

Trudy Rubin solves the Palestinian problem

In a column published in the Orange County Register over the weekend, syndicated columnist Trudy Rubin exploded five myths that she believes will prevent success in settling the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Her central thrust: the main impediment to peace is that Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank.

The settlements apparently caused Hamas to attack Israel with rockets. Rubin must at least believe that because she didn't mention rockets in her column. It's apparently not a problem for Rubin that Hamas refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, though she doesn't mention that in her column. And Palestinians' insistence on a right of return apparently doesn't concern Rubin since she failed to mention that in her column.

If Obama will insist that Israel stop building settlements then peace can be had, Rubin seems to believe.

LAT reports on the "stimulus" package

This morning's LAT headline reads: "GOP set to carve into stimulus." Within the article, Janet Hook and Maura Reynolds write that "the Senate is likely to produce a bill significantly more expensive than the House's $819-billion version." Which is it?

Daschle withdraws

Tom Daschle has withdrawn from consideration as Secretary of Health and Human Services. So, he paid more than $100,000 in back taxes for nothing. Poor Tom.

California's government worker problem

Even though California's government is nearly bankrupt and must pay its bills using IOUs, its workforce continues to grow. A piece in today's LAT by Evan Halper explains how and why that happens. How the piece got published in the left-leaning LAT is a puzzle, but it shouldn't be missed. Meanwhile, California's financial meltdown continues, with union approval.

LAT: GOP a weakened party lacking consensus

A front-page piece in Friday's LAT written by Mark Barabak and Janet Hook argues that while GOP lawmakers in Washington have lots of ideas about how to stimulate the economy, they lack a leader and have not settled on a consensus plan. Besides, they are guilty of a dismal showing in last November's election and the GOP image in is tatters.

That GOP lawmakers have lots of ideas does not seem a bad thing. That they lack leaders doesn't seem that bad either. The Democrats are saddled with leaders like Pelosi and Reid, which suggests they have a bigger problem than the GOP has. Being the minority party, the GOP cannot govern. Consensus is important to the governing party, not so much to the minority party.

Query: Why did such a piece appear on the front page when it belongs on the op-ed pages because it primarily presents the opinions of the authors.

What stimulus?

The House passed the so-called "stimulus" package yesterday without a single Republican vote. Thirteen Democrats deserted their party. Judging from what is being written or said, by people such as Martin Feldstein and George Will among others, the package is in trouble.

Rightly so. Nancy Pelosi and her aides cooked up the "stimulus" package with some help from Obama people. No hearings were held, no outsider input was allowed. Arrogance ruled.

After observing Pelosi since the 2006 election, you have to begin to wonder about her IQ. Much of the stuff she has produced has been idiotic, like repetitive attempts to torpedo the Iraq war and now this "stimulus" package. (And who can forget her visit to Damascus to engage in a photo-op with Syria's dictator in a skirt that revealed her upper thigh.) Did she really think the "stimulus" package, which has only a little stimulus and mostly consists of spending only a left-wing Democrat could love, would pass muster? If she did, she's dumber than dirt.

Not that Harry Reid is much smarter.

LAT re-writes Bush history, daily

The LAT seems to have set upon an objective to discredit the Bush administration. At least a half dozen articles in yesterday's paper either were critical of things Bush did or didn't do or explained how the Obama administration planned to change something.

Expo and other losers

Home Depot yesterday announced the closing of its Expo stores, confirming a theory: When you're in a store in which employees outnumber customers, you can be sure that store will close before long. A variation: When you're in a store and that store has a lot of shoppers who aren't buying anything, that store will soon close. That was Circuit City.

The economy was to blame, some will say. Nah, both chains were poorly conceived and marginally profitable in the best of times.

Word polution

Obama's use of the word "invest" is fraudulent. Obama argues that the stimulus bill includes "investments," a large quantity of it, presumably. But most of the proposed spending in the stimulus bill is simply pork.

Unemployed

California just announced that the unemployment rate slipped to 9.3 percent in December from 8.4 percent in November. The December rate is the highest in 15 years.

So, 90.7 percent of the California workforce is still working. In the best of times, about 95 percent are. Put that way, the 9.3 percent doesn't sound so bad.

The stock market has lost about 40 percent of its value from its peak, and home values are down about that much. Who's suffering more? The unemployed or those who have lost 40 percent of their net worth?

Lexington: Law v common sense

Lexington's column in The Economist's Jan.17th issue rightly argues that we in the U.S. have too many laws, too many lawsuits and too many lawyers. Kudos to Lexington.

But the column was not without a flaw: In the end, Lexington shifted to Obama worship, suggesting Obama is a reasonable man who listens. We'll see. For the present, Obama is on television too much, he's sanctimonious and he's too sure of himself. Bush at least showed a little humility.

An affliction of the young

Barack Obama is beginning to show signs of suffering from being too young for his job. People afflicted by that tend to act too fast, to act before they understand the full significance of their actions, to fail to take into account all the factors that may affect the likely outcome of their actions, to be too sure, to fail to realize that a situation is not as simple as it appears.

John Kennedy suffered from the affliction and gave us the Bay of Pigs disaster. Bill Clinton was afflicted and produced gays-in-the-military, Hillary-care and Monica Lewinsky.

Obama is president. We can't undo the decision we all made last November 4th. We can suggest that Obama slow down. Nothing he has announced in the last two days had to be announced then. Obama could have waited 30 days, six months or a year. The announcements would have been just as effective then, perhaps more so. The actions he has taken would have been more likely to be right if taken later.

Cutbacks

Microsoft reported today that it plans to cut 5,000 jobs over the next 18 months. Intel announced yesterday it was cutting 6,000. Many others have announced cuts recently.

One thing you never hear is that government is cutting jobs.

California's government especially needs to cut but it just isn't done. California's government workers are unionized and they buy legislators by financing their elections. The legislators aren't about to fire them, which is why we always hear that taxes need to be raised.

Ditch the AMT

While Congress fiddles with the Obama stimulus bill, including tax provisions, one thing they ought to include is repeal of the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax.) Congressional Democrats and Republicans both have long agreed that the AMT ought to be repealed but both have argued that repeal would cause too big a hole in the budget. Instead, each year Congress modifies the AMT to keep it from applying to more and more taxpayers.

Deficits are no longer a concern, apparently. The stimulus will amount to at least $825 billion and will include a lot of things that easily could be put off until later but are being considered now to stimulate the economy. Congress might as well do something useful, like repeal the AMT, with a part of the $825 billion.

Telling the truth

The LAT's George Skelton finally gets to the bottom line in his column this morning when he writes: "Moreover, they [California's Democrat legislators] haven't been willing to buck public employee unions and support fewer paid holidays for state workers and a reform of overtime abuse. And they really don't want to get into scaling back public employee benefits -- pensions and retiree healthcare -- that in a rapidly changing world far exceed the private sector's and are ticking time bombs."

Skelton has long championed tax increases as the solution to California's budget crisis. It's good he's finally telling the truth.

Obama's inaugural speech

Barack Obama's inaugural address was good, not great, the LAT argued yesterday morning. It lacked soaring rhetoric but it struck the right tone.

The LAT was disappointed that Obama spoke the following words: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." That won't do. The LAT rejects the idea of a "war on terror" because that was a Bush concept.

Further, Obama has chosen the wrong side of the same-sex "marriage" question, the LAT argues. And, he's wrong to include tax rebates in his stimulus plan.

Other than that, ....

Obama president now

Barack Obama is president now. The nation needs him to do well. Let's assume the nation chose well last November 4th.

Bailouts for newspapers

Geneva Overholser and Geoffrey Cowan argue in today's LAT on the op-ed page for a government bailout for journalism. Newspapers need a new business model, they rightly argue, but a government takeover or government-supplied capital isn't it. Newspapers need to find a product for which people will pay, either directly or through advertising.

Sadly, people in the newspaper business seem to see themselves as victims (of President Bush and Sam Zell, many would argue.) They write and report as victims. Editorials and columns consistently and repetitively lambaste the Bush administration, free-market capitalism, open markets, free trade, etc. Too often, news reporting is biased. The treatment of Sarah Palin and her family is a case in point. That kind of commentary and reporting appeals to a segment of the population but that segment isn't large enough to make a profitable market for newspapers.

Even if newspapers did reduce biased commentary and reporting, they still would have a business problem. But a broader appeal to readers might make their situation a little less dire.

The LAT knows better

The LAT knows race discrimination when it sees it and it sees it in some parts of the U.S. Those parts shouldn't be allowed to decide where to locate polling places. Only the feds can make those decisions for such "bad" parts of the U.S., the LAT apparently believes.

It's OK to discriminate against some people in order to end discrimination against others. That's the essence of the LAT's argument. Liberals like the LAT editorial staff know a thing or two about other parts of the country even if they never leave their computer screens, and what they know is once a discriminator always a discriminator. Each of them should find a mirror and look into it.

Regurgitate

The fawning coverage of the upcoming inauguration in the LAT and elsewhere is affecting this old fool the same way okra does.

Mark Shields on wars, drafts and tax increases

Last night on PBS's NewsHour, Mark Shields claimed that America has never fought a war, before the Iraq war, in which neither a draft nor tax increases were utilized. It isn't the first time he has argued that.

The U.S. has had an all-voluntary military since 1973. Since then, we have fought wars in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans and arguably in Somalia. Obviously, we have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. Tax increases of one kind or another occur almost every year, including during the years of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Shields was referring to a general tax increase, which he probably was, we did not have that during the Persian Gulf war.

Shields shoots his mouth off a lot.

The Economist on Israel in Gaza

The Economist argues in its latest issue that Israel must end the war against Hamas in Gaza. It has already silenced Hamas's rockets. Hamas will think twice before it burrows under the border to capture Israeli soldiers or sets off rockets aimed at Israeli cities, The Economist says.

Why does The Economist believe these things? Hamas has not said it will stop terrorizing Israelis and their cities. If Hamas would, peace might be possible. If Hamas would recognize Israel's right to exist that would go a long way toward peace. Sadly, Hamas has chosen, alternately, either silence or belligerence. Hamas's behavior has not been promising.

Israel has killed about 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza so far in this war. By comparison with Russia, Syria and Hamas, Israel is a pussycat. But Israel is held to higher standards.

The Economist argues that Israel cannot afford to become a pariah state. The people it is bombing are the neighbors it must live with in peace. The war has done the cause of peace profound damage, The Economist says.

What peace? Israel has been at war with its neighbors since 1948 because its neighbors refuse to live in peace. Instead, they continue attacking Israel in one way or another, always expecting a different result than the one they always get. Israel has no choice but to defend itself.

The Economist votes left

The latest issue of The Economist contains among its "leaders" (editorials) a screed against George W. Bush and irrational praise for a man almost no one knows, Barack Obama. The anti-Bush screed, which must have been supplied by the Lexington columnist, includes the following: "He wiretapped citizens without authority, secretly permitted the use of torture and dismissed prosecutors on political grounds." A recent appellate court decision held that the wiretapping was legal; torture was not a practice authorized by the Bush adminstration, as the administration has often said; and the dismissed prosecutors were political appointees who could legally be dismissed at the presidents whim -- something many presidents have done, including Mr. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton.

The Economist admits that Mr. Obama is inexperienced but claims he is respectful and thoughtful. How would they know? By his speeches? To quote the Bible, "charm is deceptive, beauty is fleeting."

How charming will Mr. Obama be and how will he look in 2, 4 or 8 years?

Going for broke

The LAT says today that everyone is responsible for California's budget crisis, especially the governator, but Republicans, who oppose tax increases, are mostly to blame. The LAT makes no mention of how California stacks up against other states in terms of tax burden. No surprise there.

LAT: Avoid military adventures unless victory assured

In an editorial today, the LAT offers unsolicited advice to the new president concerning military matters. Take no chances, the LAT seems to say, and don't go it alone. Insure you've got allies.

The LAT critiques President Bush, no surprise. There is no war on terror, the LAT argues. And Bush had no allies when he invaded Iraq. (The Brits, Aussies, Spaniards, Poles and others were figments of Bush's imagination, apparently.) Bush should have been more like Clinton, the LAT argues, although the LAT apparently wasn't referring to interns under the desk in the Oval Office. The Balkan war was a proper war, the LAT suggests. The U.S. had sufficient allies there, presumably. Can you name them?

LAT sensible about tax code, but inconsistent

In an editorial today, the LAT argues for a simple tax code that does only one thing: raise revenue. Good for the LAT.

The trouble is, the LAT is inconsistent. It wants simplicity but then advocates credits for energy-efficient cars and home improvements, for education, for child care, for low-income taxpayers who work, etc. These are the kinds of things that make the code complicated. The LAT can't have it both ways.

Bush bashing

In today's LAT, Bob Woodward reports on a Guantanamo official who, he says, determined that a detainee was tortured. It wasn't the techniques used that offended the official, Woodward reports, but the frequency and excessive application of techniques that amounted to torture. (Woodward reports that the detainee sometimes had to stand naked before a female interrogator, which raises the question who was being tortured, the detainee or the interrogator.)

Woodward's reporting is straightforward and accurate, presumably, until the end, when he closes with a quote from the official, as follows: "We learned as children it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is for permission. I think the buck stops at the Oval Office."

That suggests the official believes that the president should have been at Guantanamo overseeing interrogators to insure they didn't act excessively. The official probably thinks he should have been at Abu Ghraib too.

Another voice for repeal of California's supermajority requirement

On the LAT op-ed page today, Peter Schrag, former editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee, argues for one of the following: Brain transplants for Republicans in California's legislature, fewer Republicans in the California legislature or repeal of the provision in California's constitution requiring a two-thirds majority of legislators for raising taxes or approving a budget.

Republicans have approved tax increases in the past, Schrag points out. One was Governor Ronald Reagan; the other Governor Pete Wilson. Schrag is right about both but California now is one of the highest-taxed states in the union and expenditures have increased exponentially since Reagan and Wilson served.

Schrag supplies some interesting facts about the Democrats in the legislature but his arguments against the two-thirds requirement are not new and they are unconvincing.

Hanging offenses

LAT columnist Michael Hiltzik writes today that what America needs is a show trial in which Wall Street titans, a former Federal Reserve chairman, a former SEC chairman, former Treasury secretaries and anyone else still having a positive net worth are brought before a Henry Waxman tribunal and convicted of lying, fraud, poor judgment and bad hair, guilty or not. Hiltzik's 401(k) is down 40 percent and somebody must be made to pay.

The trial will require a prosecutor having no political ambitions, or else he or she must be a Democrat or a socialist or both. Lacking crimes to prosecute, the prosecutor must make stuff up. Judge Waxman will be helpful.

Hiltzik wants to be fair but he wants convictions more.

Keynesian economics

The LAT's Peter Gosselin today explained the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes in an unrecognizable way, describing it simply as timely deficit spending. Keynes must have rolled over in his grave.

Keynes argued that government spending is expansionary but that taxing and borrowing are contractionary. If spending equals borrowing then they cancel each other out. Maybe there's a new twist but Gosselin's isn't it.

What recession?

On Saturday at Fry's Electronics the parking lot was full and you had to be careful, otherwise you could be flattened by a shopping cart.People were hauling out televisions,computers and printers. Don't these people know the economy is poor? Aren't they unemployed?

At Stater Bros. today it was like Fry's yesterday but not as bad. The cashier said business was good and Staters is hiring.

Who do you believe, Barack Obama or your own eyes?

Hype

On today's front page, the LAT's headline reads: "Job losses highest since 1945." But in 1945 the population of the U.S. was half what it is today. So, for current year losses to equal 1945 losses proportionately, they would need to be twice those reported in today's LAT. The LAT headline obviously is hype. Why would they want to hype the jobs report? Not because they have high standards and seek to report the news objectively.

Overstatement

Is it a Democrat tendency or what? Do Democrats naturally overstate how bad things are or how good their policies will make them? Are Republicans inclined to understate except on national security issues?

Listening to Barack Obama's speech yesterday brought those questions to mind. Then Tom Daschle's testimony before Congress yesterday reinforced the curiosity. Daschle couldn't have portrayed a more negative image of health care in the U.S. and Obama couldn't have protrayed a more desperate picture of economic conditions in the U.S. and around the world. Do they believe in what they're saying or is this just salesmanship? Will they continue to exagerate or was yesterday a fluke?

What does he know?

Barack Obama claims the U.S. is in desperate economic condition and the situation is becoming more desperate. How does he know? Nobody can predict the future but Obama seems to think he can.

Obama is taking a huge gamble. If it turns out he's wrong, he will have cried wolf once too often. Even if he's right about how desperate economic conditions are, the results of his gamble could be disasterous -- the dollar may tank, the deficit certainly will mushroom, the economy may remain in the tank.

If nothing is done and the economy remains in the tank, Obama may get the blame. That's probably what he's trying to avoid.

Another voice for tax increases in California

LAT columnist Michael Hiltzik joins other LAT columnists and the editorial board in arguing for higher taxes and repeal of California's constitutionally required two-thirds majority in the legislature for passage of tax increases and budgets. He also argues for repeal of Prop. 13 and against budget cuts of nearly any variety.

Budget cuts aren't necessarily bad, Hiltzik seems to argue, but nothing California now spends money on should be cut -- like schools or welfare. A cut in military spending apparently would be OK with Hiltzik if California had a military budget.

Billions for boloney

California's governator wants $44 billion from Obama's $775 billion stimulus package. And the City of Los Angeles wants its share, according to its mayor. It's a feeding frenzy. Guess who the sharks are.

CBO projects $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year that ends in September. The projection does not take into account any stimulus measures that President-elect Obama and Congressional Democrats may propose. Which raises the question: Isn't $1.2 billion enough of a stimulus? Add to that the measures that the Federal Reserve has taken which have increased its balance sheet from $900 billion to more than $2 trillion. Surely enough has been done. Isn't it time to remain calm and let the stimulus work?

California's tax refund IOUs

The LAT reports this morning that it's getting more likely that Californians who overpaid their income tax for 2008 will get IOUs instead of monetary refunds. How much will the IOUs of a bankrupt state be worth? Not much. Will the state ever have enough cash to pay off the IOUs? Not so long as the legislature refuses to cut back expenditures sufficient to balance the budget.

Democrats in the legislature think Republicans in the legislature and the governator will be blamed for the IOUs. Therefore, they'll continue to do what they always do: try to raise taxes. They think it's a winning strategy. For them, not for California.

Regulation of financial markets

Lot's of intelligent people argue these days for additional regulation of financial markets. Former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, Jr. is one. His op-ed on the subject appears in Monday's WSJ. Levitt argues primarily for more people on the SEC enforcement staff and better risk management.

Fair enough, but is there any evidence that more regulation will do any good. Sarbanes-Oxley has been in effect since 2002 and it didn't stop the financial meltdown that occurred last year. Some would argue it did more harm than good.

Arguably, regulators spread themselves too thin, trying to regulate too much and therefore regulating very little. Levitt argues, for example, for regulation of hedge funds. This would do what? Protect wealthy investors and some banks and mutual fund companies from doing something stupid? Weathy investors can take care of themselves -- they can afford the losses -- and banks and mutual fund companies already are regulated.

Surely everyone will agree that banks, investment banks and nearly everyone else took on too much risk in recent years, and that contributed to the financial meltdown as much as anything. One reason why such risks might have seemed acceptable could be that such risk takers were pretty sure that the federal government would bail them out if push came to shove, which is what is happening. The risk takers might have been thinking that nobody ever fails in the U.S., they get bailed out instead.

Failure is a powerful teaching tool.

The LAT editorializes against disbelief

Saturday's LAT editorial, one of them, began by citing the case of Christine Maggiore, who was infected with HIV years ago and finally died recently of AIDS. While alive, Maggiore insisted that HIV did not cause AIDS and she refused treatment both for herself and for her infant daughter,likewise afflicted, who died at age 3.

That proves, the LAT seems to argue, that people who question whether global warming is caused by human activity and whether it will lead to catastrophic consequences are just plain nuts, like Maggiore.

It's a case of accepting or rejecting scientific wisdom, the LAT argues. But the chief proponents of global warming theory are people like Al Gore, who is hardly the next Albert Einstein.