BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Barack Obama Archive

Tuesday

7

April 2009

0

COMMENTS

Gates Unveils Defense Budget With Big Cuts

Written by , Posted in Waste & Government Reform

The new budget proposal includes significant cuts and changes.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates outlined sweeping changes to the defense budget Monday that would shift billions of dollars in Pentagon spending away from elaborate weapons toward programs more likely to benefit troops in today’s wars.

…The effort to pare back weapons programs that Gates derided as “truly in the exquisite category” reflects a growing recognition in the Pentagon that the days of soaring defense budgets are over. And it highlights Gates’s long-stated desire to increase spending on surveillance systems and other relatively low-tech weapons that are best suited for guerrilla or irregular war, which has traditionally been an industry backwater. “I’m just trying to get the irregular guys to have a seat at the table and to institutionalize some of the needs they have,” he said.

…Among the weapons taking the biggest hits are the Navy’s DDG 1000 destroyer, a stealthy ship whose cost has ballooned over the past decade. The Navy will purchase only three of the advanced ships and then revert to building the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that have been a mainstay of the fleet for years.

Gates recommended halting production of the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet at 187 planes — four more than the current number — and killing the new presidential helicopter program.

Defense procurement procedures are typically riddled with wasteful spending.  Gates’ biggest foe in taming this beast will be Congress.  Congress critters benefit greatly by spending your tax dollars on systems developed in their home district, regardless of whether those systems provide any kind of strategic asset.  For instance, Joe Lieberman whined that halting the production of the F-22, “would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in Connecticut.” And he’s not the only one. But who cares?  Our defense budget exists to defend America, not redistribute the workforce.  I applaud Gates for taking on this establishment.

All aspects of our government need to be cut, and that includes defense.  Wasteful boondoggles like the F-22 need to be stopped when they balloon out of control.  That’s never happened in the past, but perhaps it will start happening now.  We also need to reassess our commitments around the world and ask just whether we really need to expend so many resources defending other countries that are perfectly capable of defending themselves.  I’m looking at you, Europe.

All that being said, it’s very unfortunate that defense is the only thing Obama can bring himself to cut.  In fact, he is doing to opposite in most cases as he massively expands spending nearly across the board, when he should be doing the same for domestic spending as he is on defense.

Wednesday

1

April 2009

0

COMMENTS

Holder Refuses To Adhere To Constitution

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

Left-wing advocates of granting Washington DC a seat in Congress were heartened by the election of president Obama, a strong supporter of such a move.  The problem?  It’s blatantly unconstitutional.

Article 1, Section 2 says, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.”  It further states, “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”

There is no ambiguity here.  States are represented in the House.  The District of Columbia is not a state.  It cannot be represented in the House.  Moreover, no individual meets the qualifications above to represent D.C., as one cannot reside in the state in which one is chosen if one is not chosen by a state.

But this isn’t stopping Attorney General Eric Holder.  When his own lawyers at the Justice Department concluded that proposed legislation to grant a House seat to D.C. would be unconstitutional, Holder basically told them to shove off.  He then took the time-honored, corrupt approach of asking the same question of different people until he got the answer he wanted.  This is disgraceful.

But the disgrace does not all belong to the administration.  Some RINO’s and misguided Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. The support of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch has been essentially bought with the inclusion of an extra seat for Utah.  He and many others from the state felt that Utah should have received an additional seat in the last census, so they are willing to support a blatantly unconstitutional measure in exchange for this redress.  But any seat would only last 2 years until the next census and apportionment, where Utah would likely have gained the seat anyway.

Others, such as Susan Collins, support the measure despite her own misgivings over its constitutionality.  Her reasoning for supporting it?  “I believed then, as I do now, that this question is best resolved by the courts and not by this committee.” This attitude reflects a gross negligence of her duties, as she is as equally bound to uphold the Constitution as the courts. That was the view of James Madison when he addressed the first Congress.  He said, “[I]t is incontrovertibly of as much importance to this branch of the Government as to any other, that the Constitution should be preserved entire.”

Whether it be Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Orrin Hatch or Susan Collins, all members of our government have an equal duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Passing blatantly unconstitutional laws, with the attitude of “let the courts sort it out,” is a repugnant abdication of that responsibility.

Monday

30

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

Government Motors

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets

President Barack Obama announced today that he had effectively fired the CEO of General Motors.  His announcement was nothing short of extraordinary:

GM has made a good faith effort to restructure over the past several months — but the plan that they’ve put forward is, in its current form, not strong enough.  However, after broad consultation with a range of industry experts and financial advisors, I’m absolutely confident that GM can rise again, providing that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring.  As an initial step, GM is announcing today that Rick Wagoner is stepping aside as Chairman and CEO.  This is not meant as a condemnation of Mr. Wagoner, who’s devoted his life to this company and has had a distinguished career; rather, it’s a recognition that will take new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future.

Translation: “I just fired the CEO of a U.S. corporation.  No one is beyond my reach.”

Who are these “industry experts?”  What makes them more qualified to evaluate GM than investors who are willing to put their own money on the line? To put it another way, who do you think has more incentive to get it right: investors betting their own money, or “industry experts” betting yours?

In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days.  And during this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.  They must ask themselves:  Have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands?  Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can’t make future investments?  Above all, have they created a credible model for how not only to survive, but to succeed in this competitive global market?

Despite this announcement describing all the ways in which government is now dictating the direction of GM, Obama made sure to assure us plebes that, in fact, he really has no desire or intention to run GM from Washington D.C.

But that’s not all.  The government is now going to guarantee the warranty’s of GM and Chrysler.  This, The One proclaimed, will make your warranty “safer than it’s ever been.”  Well, isn’t that reassuring?  No.  To any person who has observed even a fraction of the history of government run anything, it’s not in the slightest bit credible.

What we’ve witnessed in the first few months of this Presidency is the opening stage of a war on capitalism, a blitzkrieg on free enterprise.  GM is just one battle in this war.  There will be more casualties and further government transgressions into the territory of freedom.  And make no mistake, freedom itself it what’s ultimately under assault.  Economic freedom is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for political freedom.  Or to put it another way, no people have ever had political freedom without economic freedom.  By doing his best to take away the latter, Barack Obama is undermining the foundations of the former.

Friday

27

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

Obama’s Web Townhall

Written by , Posted in Education

Yesterday President Obama hosted the first ever online town hall, where questions were submitted online, and voted on, by citizens across the nation.  I commend the President for attempting to bring modern technology into his government.  Sadly, he faced none of my piercing questions.  But here they are for you:

1. “Why do you believe that you can allocate resources in a manner that is not prohibitively wasteful when no government in the history of the world has ever been able to successfully do so? What makes your technocrats better informed than free markets?”

2. “How does an energy tax not equal a tax on middle and lower income earners? Do you think we don’t use any energy? It’s money out of our pocket just the same as an income tax increase.”

3. “How do you justify prosecuting Madoff for running a pyramid scheme while the federal government continues to force us into one (Social Security) at the point of a gun? At least Madoff’s was voluntary!”

They were particularly hostile to my swipe at their beloved Social Security, voting question 3 down at a 2:1 ratio.  Question 1 did surprisingly well at almost a 1:1 ratio, garnering 19 positives for 23 negatives.

As for the substance of the event, it was as disappointing as one would expect from President Obama.  The first question Obama took was on education, and his answer was dreadful.  He identified two problems with education: lack of resources and a 19th century education model.

On the first problem, he says that there “aren’t enough teachers,” that they “aren’t getting enough of the training they need,” and that there’s a “shortage of supplies.”  He adds, “There are schools that I’ve seen that were built in the 1850 that are still being used but haven’t been upgraded the way they need to.”  He uses all this as evidence that there aren’t enough resources.  But this does not follow.  He refers to the second problem as “one that money alone cannot solve,” giving the impression that he thinks the first problem can be solved by money alone.  But if that were true, the problem would have been solved already.  Spending on education has continuously risen, while the problems described by the president have not gotten any better.

The problem is not lack of resources, but how those resources are allocated.  Specifically, the government run system lacks accountability and has little incentive to spend money improving education instead of padding administrative salaries.  The only way to solve this problem of allocation is to move to a market model, where competition will reduce inefficiencies and spur innovation.

On the second problem Obama similarly misses the mark.  Yes, our system is outdated.  Yes, we still have time off during the summer, despite the fact that most students aren’t going home to help with the harvest anymore.  But what is the reason?  The reason we have a 19th century model still operating in the 21st century is because a government run system is necessarily going to be unwieldy and unresponsive to changing circumstances.  Until we break the government monopoly on education, we will continue to toil in educational backwardness.

I noticed from the online voting that the most popular questions all had to do with marijuana legalization.  Obama did not ignore these questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Three point five million people voted. I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy — (laughter) — and job creation. And I don’t know what this says about the online audience — (laughter) — but I just want — I don’t want people to think that — this was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy. (Applause.)

So — all right.

He did, however, dismiss them without satisfactory answer.  Treating this issue as nothing more than a question of economic recovery, he ignored the larger dissatisfaction with the failed drug war and its consequences.

Most of the other questions were stupid, but you can read the rest of them here.

Tuesday

10

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

Obama Votes Present On Omnibus

Written by , Posted in Waste & Government Reform

“Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” – Barack Obama, presidential debate, 09/26/2008

Candidate Obama promised tough action on earmarks and wasteful spending.  In contrast, his attitude toward earmarks as President has been one of complete disinterest.

Facing criticism over the bloated omnibus bill being frantically championed by a swearing Nancy Pelosi, Obama’s lackeys have been completely dismissive of the idea that the President has any obligation to uphold his promise. Rahm Emanuel blithely declared it “last year’s business.” Peter Orszag, Obama’s OMB chief, used the exact same phrase and then went on to say, “We want to just move on. Let’s get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.”

There is clearly a coordinated campaign to dismiss criticism of the President’s backtracking on waste and earmarks.  Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates $7.7 billion from 8500+ in earmarks, though democrats have dishonestly put forth a lower estimate of $3.8 billion.  But whatever the exact figure is, it is clear that Obama thinks that, by portraying this as last year’s business that just needs to be passed without scrutiny, he can do on tough issues in Washington what he did in Chicago: vote present.

Monday

9

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

All Government Decisions Are Political

Written by , Posted in Waste & Government Reform

President Obama has, to much liberal fanfare, undone the Bush era decision not to prohibit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  He then, with a straight face, attacked Bush for putting politics ahead of science.

It’s laughable that someone could seriously claim that politics has no place in science when he just finished using a political act to influence science.  Yes, Bush made a political decision regarding science when he decided not to fund embryonic stem cell research (and he also made a moral decision – an issue which Obama and the left wants to pretend doesn’t exist).  But Obama is just as political when he decides to fund it as Bush was when he decided not to.

Government is inherently political.  If politicians are deciding what scientific endeavours deserve funds, those decisions will inevitably be political.  Federal funding is what brings politics into science. The only way to truly remove politics from science would be to remove government from science.  Every indication is that Obama wants to do the opposite.  He has all kinds of pet projects that he – based on his ideology – thinks are worthy, from embryonic stem cells to “green energy” and global warming research.  He wants to take more money from the private sector, thus diminishing the capital it has to allocate to research, and decide himself where it should go.   That won’t remove the influence of politics from science, it will enhance it.

Tuesday

3

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

Newsflash: Incentives Matter

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

ABC News has discovered that raising taxes* only on people making more than $250,000 harms more than just people making over $250,000:

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

So far, Obama’s tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all.

“We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00,” she said.

“We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama’s tax plan,” she added. “Why kill yourself working if you’re going to give it all away to people who aren’t working as hard?”

Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama’s plan.

“I’ve put thought into how to get under $250,000,” said Poczatek. “It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off.”

Generally it means being less productive,” she said.

Incentives matter.  Obama is creating disincentives to work and produce.  This is not a recipe for economic growth.

ABC News, predictably, tried to push a biased poll with the story, asking if it’s “fair” that people try and “sidestep” tax proposals.  The premise is stupid, because people have a right to decide how much and how hard they work, so of course it’s fair.  It’s called freedom, and nothing is more fair than that.  And despite stacking the possible answers, their agenda was thwarted.  As of now 5,137 out of 7,799 respondents agreed with that statement, “Yes. I also would find ways to decrease my salary to avoid taxes.” Only 714 agreed with the class warfare statements of “No. The rich have had too many tax breaks. They should be ashamed for finagling the system” or “No. I have to pay high taxes and so should that high-income bracket. They can afford it.”

*Actually, Obama’s energy and environment agenda will raise taxes on everyone, but he continously equates income taxes with all taxes.

Sunday

22

February 2009

0

COMMENTS

Wednesday

18

February 2009

0

COMMENTS

Another Day, Another Irresponsible Bailout

Written by , Posted in Big Government

Obama Pledges $275 Billion to Cut Mortgage Payments

U.S. President Barack Obama pledged $275 billion to a program that includes cutting mortgage payments for as many as 9 million struggling homeowners and expanding the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in curbing foreclosures.

The plan includes $75 billion to reduce monthly payments for borrowers, helps homeowners with loans owned or backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance at lower rates and promises incentives to industry. Obama will double to $200 billion funding available for Fannie and Freddie to buy loans.

Let’s break down the genius of this plan:

Reward speculators who thought house prices would never drop? – Check

Reward banks that made bad loans? – Check

Reward irresponsible borrowers who falsified loan applications and lied about assets, or just otherwise recklessly took on obligations they could not afford? – Check

Further intensify the problems of moral hazard and undermine the foundations of a responsible capitalist society? – Check

Leave to the next generation yet another bill to pay for the baby-boomer’s irresponsibility? – Check

Blame everyone and everything except for the government policies and failures actually responsible? – Check check check check check

Friday

13

February 2009

0

COMMENTS