Archive for the 'The President' category

The Trouble With Dem Messaging Against Romney

Jun 12 2012 Published by under Elections, Government, Greentech, Messaging, Technology, The President, Waste

David Roberts, who writes for leftist enviro rag Grist, has a recent post looking at the message challenges facing the Democrats.

In order to inoculate themselves against attacks on Solar Trust of America, Bright Source, Solyndra, LSP Energy, Energy Conversion Devices, Abound Solar, A123 Solar, UniSolar, Azure Dynamics, Evergreen Solar, and Ener1 (collectively, let’s call these “Obama’s green failure or OGF for short), the Dems have been using a “them too” attack that says Romney supported green tech, too.

That very act, says Roberts, is a bad move for the left.

When Konarka is called “Romney’s Solyndra,” I suspect political elites do not hear “Romney’s civic-minded attempt to support clean energy.” They hear scandal and vulnerability. They hear that funding clean-energy companies is a dark secret to be embarrassed about; that government support for clean energy is always cronyism; that solar is not a viable business, even with subsidies. [emphasis mine]

Roberts is exactly right on that point. The left has, with its rebuttal attacks, done two things.  First, it has authenticated the hits on OGF.  It has acknowledged that Obama has bet big on big losers and cost the taxpayers a staggering amount of money.  It gives full-throated support to the idea that they have tried to pick winners and failed.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, as Roberts suggests, it has made greentech investments by government the poster children for government waste.  It sets such investments up as a shining example of how both parties have pursued that idea, and both parties have failed.

If anything, Romney supporters (not the campaign, mind you) have a huge opening to make the case that Romney’s is the right message – “I tried greentech and found it wanting, so my position evolved into opposition.”  The President and his minions, however, will double down on the idea that more, not less, government dough should be dumped into the wastebin that is solar.

There is a big opening for Romney to focus on the laundry list of OGF. His supporters, in the meantime, could use the very investments Obama has attacked as a sign of a wiser, and more experienced politician – one who learns from his mistakes rather than doubling down on failure.

One of the biggest criticisms the left had of Bush was his insistance on staying the course in the face of abject failure.  Romney’s backers would be wise to make that the rallying cry against Obama’s tenure as well.  OGF are a great place to start.

Comments

That Depends on What the Definition of ‘Lobbying’ Is…

Apr 16 2012 Published by under Congress, Craziness, Government, In The Beltway, Legislation, Lobbying, Pandering, Politics, The President

When Bill Clinton famously justified his perjury by arguing the meaning of the word “is”, it took semantic nonsense to a whole new level. His whole statement, however, was more than the one sentence, and really captures the bizarre parlor games politicians and lawyers will try to play with words to avoid responsibility.

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

The lengths to which DC politicos will go to hide from the public is truly astounding, and today has seen a whole new level reached.  Consider the ridiculous semantic gymnastics on display here.

Business Forward and a similar group, the Common Purpose Project, say the meetings don’t violate any rules and aren’t even lobbying in the traditional sense. But the companies funding Business Forward and the wealthy donors that subsidize CPP ’s operation are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year in large part because of what they offer: special access. …

“Common Purpose Project was founded to support the progressive movement, and our outreach efforts to the White House are designed to promote the progressive agenda,” said Smith, who also sits on Business Forward’s board. “When a legislative issue develops some urgency, we’re positioned to convene key progressive players to focus on that issue and invite the White House to participate in a dialogue.”

I’ve been in DC for 12 years now, and involved in politics for 20.  I’ve been watching politics, thanks to my folks, for about 40.  In all that time, I have never seen a line of semantic nonsense this deep.

The definition of lobbying is pretty clear:

a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group’s special interest; to try to influence the actions of (public officials, especially legislators); to urge or procure the passage of (a bill), by lobbying.

Now it seems pretty clear that a legislative issue typically develops urgency when its passage or failure is about to be determined through either a vote or by being scuttled.  Should you convene a dialogue to discuss the passage or failure of that legislative issue, and invite both public officials and special interests to participate, you are lobbying, dammit.

Lobbying, whether you approve of the practice or not, has been a part of our government since the beginning, and as long as we have underpaid and overworked staffers working for underinformed and overzealous legislators, we’re going to have people that want, and frankly need, to explain complex issues.  They are going to hear from people whose livelihood will be impacted by bad decisions in DC.

That’s a fact that all the denunciations of lobbying and all the effort to call it something else will never prevent.

Lobbyists are typically honest about their craft.  They understand their place in the world and the skills they have.  Think of Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking.

BF and CPP are right. We shouldn’t call them lobbyists.  To do so demeans the hard-working lobbyist. BF and CPP are a breed of animal that resides six levels deeper in the strata of prehistoric frog feces that is DC.

If lobbying is a game of whores and thieves, BF and CPP are little better than pimps who simply schedule the hotel rooms where the action takes place.  They willingly arrange “dates” between their upscale clientele and the low-dollar working girls (and boys) in Congress and the White House.

Shame on them for trying to hide what they are, and shame on the American people for continually letting people and groups like this foist blatant lies and verbal contortions upon them.

Comments

The Case for Student Loan Reform, But Not How You Think…

Oct 26 2011 Published by under Government, Jobs, The President

So President Obama is in Denver today talking about how to ease student loan debt.  In yet another example of the politics of big government, he’s expected to reduce the amount students would have to pay per year (implementing a cap at 10% of salary) and push for forgiveness of debt at 20 years rather than the current 25.

The amount of student debt in the US is massive; over a trillion dollars currently.  Americans currently owe more in student loan debt than they do on credit cards.  The Stafford Loan, for instance, allows students to borrow up to $57,500 as an independent (with no parental support).  Students often compound commercial and federal loans into enormous sums of money – often under the assumption that they’ll be able to find work upon graduation.

Now before you suggest that’s the problem, look again.  The Labor Department for September of 2011 shows an unemployment rate of only 4.5% for those with a college degree.  So an inability to find jobs doesn’t seem to be the norm for graduates.

So we have people investing in their education, and rightly finding work after graduation.  Should be no problem, right?

No.  The problem is two-fold.  The average student debt for 2011 graduates is $22,900.  Since many graduates will have less or even no debt, the numbers among those who took loans is likely significantly higher.

The average salary of 2011 graduates entering the workforce is only $36,866.  Payscale.com provides a handy list of the average annual salary by degree.  It shows the salary for history, sociology, anthropology and others typically starting in the mid-30s and topping out ‘mid-career’ around $60,000.  Based on regional differences, in reality, you have students graduating who may have more debt that they can possibly make – even at Payscale’s “mid-career” salary level.

If we’re going to make changes to how that debt is repaid, we should also make changes to how it is accumulated.  The entire practice of student loans should be reformed in two significant ways.

Capping Student Loans

First, student loans should be subject to the same earnings litmus test that applies to other credit, but more strictly.

Credit cards, home loans, and other consumer debt limits are typically predicated on your ability to repay that debt.  Amex doesn’t hand out black cards to college kids with no income for good reason – they have little ability to repay.  Home loans, at least in theory if not in practice, require you to prove income before you can qualify for more home than you can afford.

Student loans have none of that. Student loans rarely take into account the potential future earnings of the student.  As mentioned, students frequently compound loans.  The problem is it becomes very easy to accumulate more debt than your future earnings will accommodate.

Student loans should be capped at no more than the average annual salary for a student with that degree.  If a student is likely to make no more than $32,000 with a degree in social work, they shouldn’t be allowed to accumulate loans of $57,500 or more.  By capping total student loans for that degree at $32,000 (combining both direct federal and commercial) and applying the administration’s 10% annual limit for repayment, most student loans should be paid off in significantly less than the twenty years proposed for forgiveness (low-interest rates being assumed).

It is inexcusable that students are allowed to graduate carrying debt nearly as high as, or higher than, their ‘mid-career’ earnings.

Restrictions on Student Loan Usage

Often students take out more loan than they need for tuition and books in order to cover living expenses and other incidentals.  Any credit expert will tell you that putting meals and perishables on a credit card is a terrible idea as the interest increases the cost of those items many times over by the time it is paid off.  Student loans have no such restrictions, and unless things have changed dramatically, there are no caveats against using loans this way.

Stafford Loans, as just one example, carry restrictions that the money is too be used for tuition, books, room, board, or “other education related expenses.”  So what qualifies, exactly?  It’s hard to say.  A search for “Stafford Loan Eligible Expenses” turns up absolutely nothing from the Department of Education on the subject, and the FAQs many schools host have that vague “other” language.  Apparently a used car is an education related expense, as are sneakers, iPods, or anything else.

Since the schools typically hand you a check or direct deposit the funds, there is really no telling what those expenses might be.

If we want to help students who are looking at debt based on future earnings, the least we should do is bring these restrictions in line with sound financial advice.  Allowing students to rack up debt on things Big Macs and tennis shoes is ridiculous.  The education system should limit the way these funds are expended so they cover actual school expenses.  The school should not be in the business of doling out excess funds to 18 year-olds for discretionary spending.

Just recalling my own college experience, I can tell you the day loan excess was disbursed was like a Roman orgy.  The only thing “school related” about the spending were the excuses for why you couldn’t make it to that 8 a.m. class the next morning.

By making these two simple changes, student loan debt might actually be used in accordance with the goal of getting an education.  It would, at the very least, ensure that degree in social work doesn’t come with a debt you’ll never be able to repay.

Comments

To Be Clear About McClellan…

May 29 2008 Published by under Government, Operatives, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans, The President

First, I have to give HuffPo credit. I exchanged e-mail with Sam Stein shortly before walking out the door to lunch, and before I had finished my brisket at Capitol Q (just six blocks from my office) my e-mail started buzzing with questions/comments about this post. They work fast.

As for the content, let me expand on what I told Sam.

I have no idea what Scott did or did not experience in the White House and have no way of knowing whether his specific accusations are true or false.

My point to Sam, and the point to my Twitter comment last night, was that Scott has written a book about the nastiness of politics in general and the notion of the permanent campaign specifically, that is right on the money. The excerpts I have read of the book make a very salient and very meaningful point – this town and the culture of constant political battle, do great harm to the process of actually governing.

When you are unwilling to admit a mistake for fear of creating an opening your opposition can exploit for partisan gain, you create a cycle where bad choices become compounded upon one another. I think that is a syndrome that we saw emerge from the Clinton years and grow worse during the Bush years. There is simply no room for honest discussion anymore. There is merely partisan scorekeeping and score settling.

I also believe, as Matthew Dowd noted in the New York Times, that Bush has squandered the second term that 62 million people gave him.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

Believe it or not, there are more than a handful of people who work in politics and become involved because they fundamentally believe that we can change the world we live in. Matt referred to the idea in his NYT interview.

“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”

I think McClellan’s interview on Today this morning echoed much of that same sentiment. These are people who worked tirelessly to elect a President in which they saw so much more than what was to come. McClellan says they got caught up playing the Washington game. I believe that is true, and I believe almost everyone recognizes that is true.

As I told Sam, I think McClellan’s book should be viewed through that prism. The media and the Administration may portray this as a gotcha perpetrated by Scott, but I think that discounts the larger message. It is that message that I agree with. For that reason, I fear the typical Washington response to discredit the messenger will force us to lose sight of the message.

I am a believer. I think people can change their world by getting involved. Unfortunately, this town tests my faith in that idea every day. Watching Scott being savaged for fighting for that ideal is testing it again today.

Comments

A Fundamental Debate: Which Came First, Federalism or Religion?

Sep 20 2007 Published by under Candidates, Congress, Government, Legislation, Politics, Republicans, The President

I have argued for some time now that the Republican Party was coming to a point of conflict between the factions that comprise her.

In one corner we have the libertarian wing – the get government off my back and out of my life crowd. They want nothing more than an exceedingly limited federal government with the bulk of important decisions made by the branch of government closest to them.

In the other corner, we have the religious wing of the party. They claim the title “conservative” but there is nothing restrained in their pursuit of public policy based on their theology. They say they want government out of their lives, but then they use the power of the fed in an attempt to legislate everything from government mandated a la carte television to right to die issues dragged up from lower courts simply because the original verdict offended some religious sensibility.

These two factions have been clashing of late because the former holds the latter somewhat to blame for the party’s losses in 2006. The rabid pursuit of a gay marriage amendment and the circus that was the Terri Schiavo case, the argument goes, drew negative attention to the party in a way unseen since Pat Buchanan’s bigoted speech at the 1992 convention. Not in 14 years had the religious right done so much to harm the GOP.

The religious wing fires back that it was the heathens among the GOP (Mark Foley being one) that cost us the election. They believe (despite polling to the contrary) that the country yearns for the same sort of theologically pure government not seen since the Taliban was routed in 2001.

Now the debate is playing out in the politics of the Presidential contest. This morning, Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost took aim at Fred Thompson for his support of Federalism.

Now I’m not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order…

Federalism also can disappoint those who believe that justice trumps ideological concerns. One of the most disheartening and shameful scenes of the last decade was to see so-called conservatives claim that the Terri Schiavo case should have been left solely to the state of Florida. The charitable view is to assume that had they known that a woman was being killed by the state without due process of law, they would have sided with justice over judicially mandated involuntary euthanasia. The less generous opinion is that they simply haven’t considered how federalism relates to conservative principles.

For if conservatives are willing to give the state the power to kill an innocent woman, willing to let adherence to procedure trump our dedication to justice, willing to put the rights of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, then we have lost all sense of what it means to be conservatives.

Federalism can be useful in drawing legitimate lines of Constitutional authority. But when it is allowed to transfer power to the states from other societal spheres, the philosophy merely creates 50 separate laboratories of liberalism.

A Fundamental Question

Carter makes an argument that Federalism is not a conservative position. It raises an interesting topic of debate. He gets into theoretical discussions about various interpretations of the ideologies that shape society, but suffice it to say he does not adopt a Federalist viewpoint. The basics of his argument are the government of Massachusetts could, if it wanted, assume a totalitarian position and define all aspects of society. They could enforce not only their own views of religion, definitions of marriage, etc, but they could prohibit all others.

Well, yes. Exactly. That’s essentially the theory of Federalism. If the majority of the people of Massachusetts, who elect the governing bodies of the state, felt that was acceptable, they could do just that. His argument is rather simplistic as he describes a more dictatorial regime, and seems to ignore that Federalism still begins and ends with the role of the people being governed in setting the course of their life. If you include that, he’s pretty much right on. People can, if they choose, set their own rules and live by them.

So which is the conservative position? Should Conservatives resist the encroachment of the Federal Government into the most private decisions of our lives?

To explore that, let’s return to the Schiavo case. What we see in her situation is exactly that. A state, based on the laws enacted by the duly elected representatives and the adjudication performed by its judiciary, made a decision to let a woman die. States do this routinely. States choose not to admit evidence in cases that could exonerate innocent people wrongly convicted and slowly dying in an 8×8 metal cage. We acknowledge the injustice, but there it is. The fact is the rule of law, for all its power to manage society, is an imperfect machine that is occasionally greased with the blood of the innocent.

Does that justify the federal government forcing its nose into the tent and demanding a different set of laws (laws of its choosing) be applied because the citizens of California, Washington, DC, or Illinois were bothered by the rules set forth in Florida? Does it justify the expansion of the federal government’s role to interfere with the laws of a state?

Occasionally, we see a murder case where the outcome of the trial is so horrific it appalls us as a people. Take a look at O.J. The overwhelming majority of this nation was horrified that these two lives were taken. The country watched in shock as the joke that is the California judicial system let the killer walk free.

Yet nobody demanded that the federal government intercede on behalf of “the innocent”. Nobody staged protests to demand that the rights of Nicole and Ron be heard and the murderer be dragged to Washington for justice. We understood that there was an imperfect trial, in a flawed court system, and a travesty occurred.

If you really want to see this argument on display, suggest to someone who is pro-life that a Constitutional amendment banning abortion is completely contrary to Conservative beliefs. Abortion is murder! They will claim. We need to protect life at the federal level!

But this ignores the fact that murder is tried as a local crime. It is left to the local courts to determine whether a murder was premeditated or a crime of passion. It is left to the states to decide which homicides can be justified and which cannot. It is left to the states to decide what level of punishment is applied to a crime. Why then, is abortion, or right to die not afforded the same level of local discretion?

Federalism and Marriage

Now I can jump on my other favorite “federalist” soapbox, again. If you consider yourself Conservative, the idea of a federal amendment “protecting” marriage should make your skin crawl.

The debate over marriage, as I have often been known to rant about, is not about the “definition” of marriage. It is not a question of whether marriage is one man and one woman, two men, two women, or a human being and a goat. The real debate over this issue must, and I believe eventually will, come down to what is the basis for marriage.

Is marriage a contract between two people and God? Or is a marriage a contract between two people and the state? In computer security terms, who, in this arrangement, is the certificate authority? Who ultimately sanctions the marriage?

If marriage is a contract between the united and their God, then the government has absolutely nothing to say about it. The Constitution is quite specific on that point. Churches, then, should be the ultimate arbiters of what “defines” marriage for their parishioners.

If marriage is a document legally binding two parties for the purpose of legal assets and legal protections, then the contract should be gender neutral as is every other contract drawn between consenting parties. I can sell my car to a man or a woman. Homosexuals can trade real estate under the same rules that govern such transactions for heterosexuals. Marriage, if it is a contract with the state, should be no different.

It is that debate, and that question, that must ultimately be decided before any law to define marriage can be written.

So Who Is Conservative?

Now I have been called a “squishy” Republican because I pursue the principles of my party before the principles of my faith. I have had my conservatism challenged by those, like Carter, who ignore the very meaning of Conservatism. Conservatives adhere to tradition and the continuance of trusted methods. The very word conservative implies that change to the existing structure of society should be measured and tempered.

By comparison, liberal ideology stresses the rapid adoption of new laws and the imposition of the federal government’s authority to address any perceived situation. Think there might someday be a problem with discrimination on the Internet? Legislate the solution before you have ever seen a problem. That’s the liberal way.

I am terrified because it seems, increasingly, to be the way adopted by the religious wing of the GOP. It is a disturbing trend, and one that threatens to rip the very fabric of the GOP coalition. If religious conservatives abandon the detente that exists with fiscal conservatives in pursuit of their ideology, they are threatening the ability of either of us to be successful.

However, a rift between the two factions of the GOP could be a good thing. It may bring about a fundamental realignment of electoral politics. The religious right and the tax-and-spend liberal left would unite in pursuit of a federal government that not only mandated the “right” way to live (be it through edicts on smoking or worship), but they could enforce it through taxation.

On the other side, the fiscally conservative Democrats, the libertarians in the GOP, and the moderate centrists, fearful of an all-powerful government and distrustful that it’s one-size-fits-all solutions would be either cost-effective or successful, would stand in opposition.

If anyone thinks that a Federal government empowered to weigh in on religious decisions will always weigh in on the side of the religious, they are sorely mistaken. If anyone believes that a government big enough to tell you what to do with your womb, your choice of mate, or your right to die will practice restraint in telling you what to do with your wallet, you’re high as a kite.

Comments

Older posts »

Livefyre Not Displaying on this post