Obama's Stimulus Package

President-elect Obama has unveiled his almost $800 billion federal economic stimulus proposal.  While the devil is always in the details, I'll take this as a positive sign:

Obama's proposal to stimulate the economy includes tax cuts of up to $300 billion — including $500 for most individuals and $1,000 for couples if one spouse is employed — as well as more than $100 billion for businesses, an Obama transition official said. The total value of the tax cuts would be significantly higher than had been signaled earlier. 

Of course, a big caveat for me will be whether the tax cuts are extended to individuals not paying income taxes. That wouldn't be a tax cut, but would instead be a "spread the wealth" income tax redistribution program.  Still, I'm pleased to hear that tax cuts will be a significant portion of the stimulus plan.

I also like this:

At his meeting with bipartisan leaders of Congress, Obama said he would make his stimulus proposal available on the Internet, with a Google-like search function to show each proposed project or program, by congressional district, according to three people who attended.

Nothing like a little disclosure.

Republican leaders are right to gripe about the overall price tag affixed to the package, but it must be remembered that the Democrats prevailed at the polls and the GOP doesn't have the right to expect the Dems to pursue an agenda whose cornerstone is limited government.  We GOPers will have to fight for and win those policies at the ballot box.

The politics of the moment make a federal stimulus package inevitable.  Tax cuts to businesses and individuals make it a little more palatable to swallow.  Let's just hope that there's not too much heartburn with the rest of the package, particularly if the House and Senate Democrats work to sweeten it.

Will Partisan Rage Sink The Democrats?

I like to consider myself a calm and reasonable participant in the political process.  Despite having deeply-held values and philosophies that shape my political beliefs, I refuse to allow myself to descend into the pit of the vicious, bitter partisan.

I voted for John McCain, but I don't wish President-elect Obama ill.  As I see it, President-elect Obama has two choices before him.  He will either govern as a centrist or govern as a liberal.  If he chooses the former, he will likely have some success while significantly boosting his chances for re-election.  If he moves to accommodate the far left-wing of his party, he will invite the scorn of the majority of the voters that make this a center right nation.  Simply put, if Barack Obama heads left, the GOP can expect a fair number of congressional gains in 2010.  The American electorate will correct what it perceives as an extreme policy agenda. That's politics, plain and simple.

As a reasonable and responsible member of the center right, I'm willing to give Senator Obama the benefit of the doubt. Should he move left, I will actively use this blog to offer criticism of his policies.  Obama Derangement Syndrome, should it emerge among my political allies, will not be welcome here.

Having said that, I'm disturbed to find a teaser on Drudge New York Times story suggesting that the Democrats are planning on launching robust investigations into the Bush administration after the current President's term expires.  I had always believed that the demands for such investigations, having been frequent and vigorous over the years, were just the shrill bellowing of a committed group of extremists on the left who were frustrated and angry because their ambition for power was thwarted at every turn.  Surely, I believed, the most bitter and partisan among them would cast aside their anger with glee upon having finally gained the full measure of political influence in Washington.

It looks like my assumption may have been dead wrong.  It may not be enough for the Democrats to see George W. Bush leave office at the end of an eight-year run.  It may also not be enough for President Bush to be succeeded by someone whose track record suggests that he is a serious and committed man of the left.  No, it appears likely that the radical left will have to scratch its itch.  Having been unable to remove the vilified Bush through political means, they are determined to unleash years of pent up rage and bile over his policies by pursuing political investigations of his administration.

If the Democrats choose this path, you can bet that many of us on the center right, who were willing to be respectful while fulfilling our role as the "loyal opposition," may have a change of heart.  I can assure the left that, should it direct the energies of the next Congress on a perpetual witch-hunt to uncover the "evils" of the Bush administration, they will draw the ire of those of us on the center right who were open to giving the President-elect a chance. 

Oh, but the Democrats would have bigger problems than that.  America is beset with many challenges, both at home and abroad.  There's the threat of a worsening recession, further losses in the stock market, businesses demanding bailouts, terrorism and a Russian bear pushing to find out just how far the international community, particularly the United States, will let it go.  Here's a stark warning to the left -- if American voters believe that the Congress is more interested in wasting time and resources in pursuing investigations of the previous administration rather than getting serious and addressing the real problems, the GOP will win back both houses of congress and the presidency.

The biggest challenge facing President-elect Obama will not be how he chooses to address the pantheon of problems confronting the United States.  Senator Obama's biggest challenge will be whether he can restrain the ugly anger and hatred in his own party before its venom is allowed to wholly consume the very movement that President Obama is trying to build.

As President, Barack Obama needs to look the partisans in his party in the eye and remind them of the oft-repeated line he delivered on the campaign stump -- it's time to turn the page.

Dems At Root Of Subprime Loan Debacle

Stanley Kurtz on the complicity among Democrats that helped fuel the sub-prime mortgage problem and today's financial crisis.

An Opportunistic Poseur

I'll be the first to admit that I have mixed feeling about the mortgage bailout package. 

On the one hand, I have no desire to see Wall Street bailed out for what appears to be reckless lending practices and rank corruption.  I also don't want to advocate on behalf of any policy that aggregates additional power to the federal government (and it's vast and corrupt bureaucratic structure). I'm also disconcerted by the idea of accumulating taxpayer debt to cover for the myriad of government and corporate screw-ups that contributed to this mess.

On the other hand, I don't want to take the risk that the American economy might descend into a deep and painful recession...or worse.   Too many of the people who make responsible decisions and play by the rules would be impacted.

As for now,  I consider myself an agnostic on the mortgage bailout issue.  I know that sounds evasive, but I sincerely don't believe I have enough of an understanding of the details of the pending bailout legislation to render an intelligent opinion at the moment.

What I do understand, though, is how thoroughly ridiculous it is for Senator Obama to try and claim that he, and not John McCain, deserves credit for the final legislative product that will be voted on by the Congress. 

McCain is the one who, to much ridicule on the Left, announced that he was suspending his campaign to steep himself in the mortgage bailout negotiations.   McCain is the one who spent most of the last several days in Washington working on the problem.  Meanwhile, Senator Obama was continuing his campaign while saying that he would be called if needed in Washington.

It's therefore a bit galling for Senator Obama to now argue that, not only should Senator McCain receive no credit for the pending agreement, but that he, Senator Obama, actually had significant influence over "shaping the provisions" of what appears to be the final product.  This is despite the fact that Senator Obama didn't commit to spending much time in Washington.  It's despite the fact that Senator Obama's Party controls both the House and Senate and should therefore have been able to push through whatever bill they wanted.  It's despite the fact that the crucial negotiations that brought about the pending agreement were largely brokered with the involvement of skeptical Congressional Republicans...the same Republicans among whom Senator McCain would carry far more influence than Senator Obama. 

In the end, both Democrats and Republicans were involved in crafting this pending bill.  If the bill helps to stabilize the economy, both parties can rightly take credit for an act of bipartisanship.  Should the bill do more harm than good, both parties should shoulder the blame.

Senator McCain's steady presence in Washington may or may not have helped move the parties toward an agreement.  The fact that Senator Obama largely stayed away, but now feels compelled to announce that Senator McCain should get no credit, is indicative of a very small man with exceedingly parochial interests.  The United State Congress is on the verge of approving a bill that was crafted with the intention of saving the U.S. economy and all Senator Obama can do is demand that voters not give Senator McCain any credit.  Way to show that class, Senator Obama. 

Now that's change we can believe in.

McCain Warned Congress About Fannie and Freddie

It turns out that one presidential candidate predicted the fallout from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and actually tried to do something to prevent it.  That candidate is John McCain.

Back in 2005, Senator McCain co-sponsored legislation know as the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  Senator McCain's statement at the time indicated his concern with "illusions," "scandal," and "manipulation" on the part of management.  He also expressed concerns with an insufficient regulatory structure.  Senator McCain stated the following back in 2005:

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

Despite his urgings, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act didn't garner enough support to pass out of committee.

Senator McCain also spoke on the harmful and destructive role of lobbyists in corrupting Fannie and Freddie:

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems.

Ahh, those pernicious Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists.  Could they be the same lobbyists who gave Senator Obama $126,349, making him the second largest congressional recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money between the years 1989-2008?  That's a pretty hefty amount of money considering Obama has only been in the Senate for four years!

Accepting huge amounts of money from entities regulated and bailed out by the Federal government sure doesn't sound like the kind of change for which we've been waiting.

Who Didn't See This Coming?

With his party taking a beating because of its recalcitrant refusal to accommodate the growing wishes of the American people to begin drilling for oil off of the U.S. continental coastline, Barack Obama has flipped his position once again.   But wait...he argues that he really hasn't changed his position.   Nope!  He now claims he only wants to make certain that the United States considers a broad energy strategy that embraces multiple solutions:

Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.

But on Saturday morning, Obama said this "wasn't really a new position."

"I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral.

"What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems," Obama added.

Not so fast there, Bucky!  Let's compare this latest policy "nuance" to his previous statement, made as recently as June, on offshore drilling:

"When I'm president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida's coasts," Obama told reporters in Jacksonville in late June. "That's how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good."

That sounds like an absolute prohibition to me.  Following the latest "evolution" of Senator Obama's position, it actually sounds more like downright pandering to the hard-left Sierra Club-types among the Florida electorate, a group none to enamored by his latest bit of "nuance."  Truth be told, I'm not seeing much room for nuance or wiggle room in his statement to Florida voters.  But, then again, I'm not nearly as intellectually capable or inspiring as the Gifted One, the symbol of America's latent greatness about to emerge from its long, cold hibernation.  Oh, if we will only have the courage to embrace his ways!

Obama's transparent position flip will be seen by the American electorate as a cynical ploy by a candidate who is revealing himself to be way over his head.  Any ground Obama tries to make-up by seeking to convince the American public that he supports offshore drilling will be drowned out by the refusal of congressional Democrats, led by Nancy "I'm going to save the planet" Pelosi, to even allow an up-or-down vote on drilling.