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.

Is Obama Tilting Toward Free Market Solutions?

Talking heads are abuzz over what President-elect Obama might propose to fix the ailing economy -- and exactly how far left he might be willing to go (because, you know, deficits don't matter in a crisis).  With this discussion as a back-drop, the President-elect may be tipping his hand by the choices he is making to staff his economic team.  He's assembling a group of pro-free market thinkers.  Here's Larry Kudlow's take:

Here's my thought on his team. Summers, Geithner, and Romer will all recommend no tax hikes in a recession. Maybe for Keynesian reasons; maybe a nod to supply-siders. Obama talked about a liberal-conservative consensus. But what's especially encouraging is the appointment of Ms. Romer, who easily could serve as CEA head in a Republican administration (just like Geithner could have been McCain's Treasury man).

Based on my adage to "watch what somebody does, not what they say," these appointments, dare I say, suggest a center right economic strategy.  Can we expect more Laffer and less Keynes?

Update on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 02:43PM by Joe

Now the President-elect is suggesting that federal spending may be tight.  I like the sound of that, but remain concerned that the "stimulus package" will be loaded with unessential payoffs and goodies.  More likely than not, programs and spending favored by liberals will survive the "scrutiny" and remain protected -- or even enhanced.

The Polling Turnout Models Are Really On The Ballot

Like many McCain supporters, I'm preparing for the worst but hoping for the best.  This race will ultimately come down to turnout.  I agree with those who argue that, if the turnout reflects an historically high spread of Democrats over Republicans, it will be a bloodbath for the GOP.  If, however, the pollsters making assumptions based upon a six, eight, or even thirteen percent turnout advantage for the Democrats are wrong, look for an exceedingly close race, a potential McCain victory, and a lot of pollsters with egg all over their faces.  Also look for Chris Matthew's face to split right down the middle on national television.  

I'll make a prediction right now.  If the turnout models prove to have been way, way off, and John McCain wins, the hard Left and its allies in the MSM will assume that the polls were accurate and the election was stolen.  The wails of agony and cries of fraud will be shrill and plentiful.  There's simply no way the Left can lose this race and accept the outcome. Not a chance.

As for the United States Senate?  The GOP is going to lose some seats, possibly as many as seven or eight.  I don't think that the Democrats will get to sixty, but they don't really need to.  Anything less than sixty makes it impossible for the Dems to control a cloture vote, but they could probably pick off just enough Republicans to do it anyway.  As a bulwark against this, I'd like to see enough endangered Republican incumbents hang on to keep the Dems at no more than fifty-five or fifty-six seats.  Every vote in the Senate that puts the Democrats a little further from sixty is critical.  

The key race for me is up in Minnesota.  Al Franken is strikingly unfit for membership in the United States Senate. It would be nothing short of a travesty for a man as mean-spirited, bitter and uncouth as Franken to defeat an honorable man like Norm Coleman.  Coleman's work on exposing the corrupt UN "Oil-for-Food" program should be enough to earn him re-election.  If Franken were to win, it would be an embarrassing indictment of the intelligence of Minnesota voters.  In such an unthinkable scenario, every voter who cast a ballot for Franken, or helped Franken by voting for the third party candidate, would get what they deserve.  I'll happily remind them of this after Franken is hauled off the Senate floor after verbally and physically assaulting one of his colleagues.

It goes without saying that the GOP is facing a tough scenario in the House.  The Dems are going to pick-up quite a few seats.  The key race I'll be watching is the effort to unseat Jack "Haditha" Murtha.  Hopefully enough of his "racist" and "redneck" constituents rise up to summarily remove him from his seat. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Now Obama Wants Federal Police

Am I the only one who finds it chilling that Barack Obama is calling for what clearly sounds like a federal police force?  

From a policy standpoint, he would argue that he is protecting the homeland.  Politically, he would be able to appease big labor by using that police force as a means of expanding the number of unionized federal employees.  It's the other potential uses of federal police, however, that gives me great, great pause.  

The idea of federal police is disturbing on its face.  Excuse me for being somewhat concerned when the proposal comes from Barack Obama.  The Obama campaign has thus far shown no hesitancy in using strong-arm, intimidation tactics.  They blackball critical media despite operating in the most favorable media environment ever enjoyed by a presidential candidate. They bully radio stations that dare to interview Obama critics.  They don't condemn the harassment of average people who ask pointed questions of the Senator.  

Add to this behavior the reality that some Democrats appear giddy at the idea of bringing back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as a tool to muzzle conservative opposition to their policies.  Depending on what happens with the economy in the coming months, a President Obama, emboldened by sizable majorities in the House and Senate, may claim that a national economic emergency justifies draconian policy changes and a re-organized, expanded federal government.  We may find out that opposition to these changes is individualistic, "selfish," and part of the "old politics." 

Voters may very well get the "Chicago Way" as the methodology of achieving the Obama vision of "hope and change."

The specter of a federal police force should raise serious red-flags among freedom-loving Americans.

Obama's Mixed Messages

Let me make sure I understand.  Barack Obama thinks I'm selfish if I want to keep the government from giving away my hard-earned money, but he doesn't think its selfish if a woman elects to have an abortion because she doesn't want to be punished with a baby.

Great values, Senator.

Obama's Global Ideology

Here's another op-ed that was forwarded by my former professor, Dr. Bom:

Obama’s Theo-Ideology 

Philip C. Bom

Much discussion has swirled around Senator Obama as the first African-American president. He is not, however, in the tradition of African-American politicians like New York Governor Paterson. If elected, Obama will make history with his Third World-ism perspective. His agenda will include sharing human, natural and financial resources as well as intellectual property rights with developing countries. His Africa-centered framework for development and his social gospel faith, which shape his agenda, warrant examination.

Historically, American presidential foreign policy has been so-called “euro-centered” based on a Judeo-Christian perspective of politics, law, and economics. President Obama will continue to enhance relations with Europe but will strategically seek to bring about an inter-connectivity between America and Africa and an integral partnership of the continents.

Obama’s whole-world view is different. He sees America and its place from his Leftist ideology and black liberation theology. If the late European socialist Olof Palme was radicalized merely by his travels in Asia and Africa, you can image how Obama’s outlook has been shaped by his roots in Africa and early education in Asia. 

Obama is not un-American; he is simply non-American in his global outlook. His views are not racist, but class based. From his left-of-liberal ideology, he envisions the transformation of the world and of America. He will move beyond the Clinton-Bush agenda for African development and will seek a transcontinental American–African partnership.

From a trans-Africa global perspective, Obama does not merely want to help develop democratic states but to invest in constructing new economic democracy in Africa and “building just, secure, democratic societies” on all continents. (Foreign Affairs July/August 2007)

His approach to human rights reflects a leftist perspective in the tradition of the 1981 African Charter a declaration of “Human and Peoples’ Rights.” While African civilization cherishes tribal community rights, the promotion of peoples’ rights is an import by African Marxists educated abroad. The Charter proclaims that “the satisfaction of economic, social and cultural rights is a guarantee for the enjoyment of civil and political rights….”

Obama agrees with the above Leftist ideology. From his perspective, “freedom from want and freedom from fear – are prerequisites for all others.” (The Audacity of Hope, 317 AH) He turns President FDR’s priorities upside down, as President Roosevelt believed that the fundamental freedom of religion is the cornerstone of social–economic opportunities and cultural expressions.

An ideological bridge between continents is already provided by the Leftist TransAfrica Forum, a liberation movement which seeks to promote political and economic democracy in Africa and the Americas. More accurately, the movement is active in the Americas, including Columbia and Venezuela. According to the Forum’s website, “We believe the success of Afro-Americans is bound up with the emancipation of all African peoples and also other dependent peoples and laboring classes everywhere.” (www.transafricaforum.org/about-u)

In order to achieve this “emancipation,” the movement promotes “progressive viewpoints in the United States foreign policy arena, … advocates justice for the people of Africa and the African Diaspora … [and] promotes solidarity with the oppressed … where people of African descent reside.”

With Obama’s encouragement, doors could open for the African Diaspora to find solidarity with indigenous peoples in the Americas. In South America, African-Venezuelans could seek solidarity with indigenous peoples in Bolivia and Columbia. Together, they could liberate themselves from the oppression by European Americans. In North America, those of African descent could stand in solidarity with First Nations and take steps to suppress the old Anglo-Saxon power structures.

It is revealing that the progressive Obama downplays national sovereignty, but his Party’s platform promises almost full political sovereignty to our “First” Nations peoples. It affirms “tribal sovereignty” and pledges to host “an annual summit with Indian leaders,” as if these leaders were a third federal level of “government-to-government relationship….” This plan to expand their sovereignty opens the door to potential civil war, as in the case of Bolivia.

With such threats in mind, President Obama will pursue a rights and duty strategy by seeking to unite peoples into “a world that stands as one,” a world that transcend races, religions, and regions. He has religious roots in three continents, but his political ideology is grounded in a “global faith” in world humanism and human development.

Reflecting on his religious experiences, Obama recalls that in “our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology.”  He grew up in “a country that easily blended its Islamic faith with remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions.” (AH,203,204)

Unlike most liberal democrats, Obama takes religion seriously. In Indonesia he was educated in an Islamic public school and can still recite parts of the Koran and say Islamic prayers. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim in America, provided one believes in the constitutional separation of state and mosque. He was attracted to his church in Chicago by its involvement in community organizing and its teaching of “collective salvation.” (AH,207) Under the preaching of his pastor, Obama was steeped in black liberation theology which is not a typical American social gospel.

Obama is defined by his left-of-liberal ideology which provides him with an authentic identity. This ideology has given him a bona fide identity as a “global citizen.” He may not envision a religious syncretism, but all religions must be synchronized before the world can “stand as one.” He envisions one broad social gospel as the spiritual foundation for global community-building and global civilization.

Obama is a man of many religious traditions but one ideology. His presidency may be faith-based, but his fundamentalist faith is in global humanism. He is a global shaman whose mission is to unite everyone, every people group, every country and continent. He proudly proclaimed at the mass rally in Berlin: “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand.  These now are the walls we must tear down.” (Berlin speech July 24, 2008) To tear those walls down, citizens of the world must become one in global outlook.

In his global presidency, there will be no Western or Eastern civilization – no sovereign America – just one great human family on planet earth.

Philip C. Bom is a professor of International Politics at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA.

Anyone interested in reading more of Dr. Bom's keen insights into international relations should purchase his 1992 book entitled, "The Coming Century of Commonism:  The Beauty and the Beast of Global Governance."

Palin Outdraws Obama Big Time in Indiana

Is there an effort afoot to overestimate the strength of Senator Obama while underestimating the strength of the Republican ticket?  Both the Obama campaign and the media have been pushing the meme that the race is all but over because Obama is campaigning in traditionally Republican states.  The latest fuel for this storyline is the claim that Indiana is up for grabs.

Indiana should be a solid Republican state anyway, but how unusual is it for a vice presidential candidate to draw substantially more people to a rally than showed up to hear the opposing ticket's presidential candidate the previous week? Perhaps it's not so unusual when the vice presidential candidate is the popular Sarah Palin.

One other interesting note.  Both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune covered the October 17 Palin rally.  The Sun-Times estimated the crowd at 24,000.  The Indianapolis Star estimated that about 20,000 attended.  Let's split the difference and say the crowd numbered 22,000. 

The Chicago Tribune, on the other hand, pegged the Palin rally at only 10,000.  That's an awfully big disparity for a simple mistake, but it plays well into the "Indiana is a toss-up" theme.  The story reports that a compilation of polls has Obama down by only three points in the Hoosier State.  I'm simply not buying it.  I have no doubt that Obama probably leads nationally at this point, but I also believe that many polls over the last few weeks have overestimated the sampling of democrats.

Something else is a little unusual.  The Chicago Tribune story mentions that Palin outdrew Obama, who visited the state fairgrounds last week, by 3,000 people.  (In reality, we know that Palin outdrew Obama by at least 12,000 people.)  The Indianapolis Star reports that Obama drew 10,000.  The Tribune estimated the Palin crowd at 10,000.  Does this mean that the Tribune has estimated the Obama rally as drawing 7,000 people?  That certainly wouldn't be a number that inspires confidence in a democrat candidates chances at flipping a republican state.  Even so, it sure didn't stop the Tribune from pushing their story.

The Tribune story also mentions that the Obama campaign has 44 field offices around the state.  I wonder how many of those are just somebody's house?

The MSM and the "Republican Anger" Meme

I've been wanting to write about the emerging narrative among Democrats and MSM-types "concerned" with the rising level of "anger and rage" being stoked at McCain-Palin rallies. 

When I first heard some of these stories, I was skeptical.  Quite simply, I don't trust the opinions, perceptions and selective reporting that come out of the MSM tank.  Now I believe my skepticism has been validated.

First, here are some of the stories about this anger and rage from lefty media folks.  Here's Frank Rich.  Here's Maureen Dowd (although you'd probably have to be able to read Latin).  Here's Congressman John Lewis.  Here's an AP report.  Below is a video from a segment on Chris Matthews show:

Anyway, I think the point is pretty obvious. 

Rather than write about this myself, I wanted to link to some stories that pretty much say everything that needs to be said about the exaggeration and duplicity being orchestrated by the Left and its allies in the MSM.  Right Wing Nut House has a very comprehensive post.  Michelle Malkin points out that there has been and continues to be plenty of bitterness and rage being spouted from the supporters of Senator Obama.  Stephen Hayward at the Weekly Standard Blog illustrates examples of leftist rage.

I believe that the media is hard at work on constructing this narrative as a means of convincing undecided voters that Senator McCain, in an act of desperation to save his campaign, is resorting to vile and dangerous racial smears.  The subtext is that the Republicans are creating an atmosphere that is posing a grave threat to the personal safety of Senator Obama. 

The hope is that undecided voters will recoil at the perceived "ugliness" of the McCain tactics and flock to Senator Obama as a rational, mainstream candidate.

To make this case, the media must exaggerate occurrences at Republican rallies while ignoring years of vicious personal attacks and threats against President Bush on the part of Democrat extremists who have often accused the President of being a terrorist.

Update on Monday, October 13, 2008 at 09:54AM by Joe

Here are a couple more examples of leftist rage.  First an act of vandalism in New York.  Drudge posted a story about some men burning a McCain campaign sign, but the link to the story isn't working.

Conservatives Ought Not Despair

The race seems to have shifted to the benefit of Senator Obama over the last seven to ten days.  The Real Clear Politics average of polls has Senator Obama leading Senator McCain by six points with four weeks remaining. 

Senator Obama has benefited substantially from the roiling of the financial markets caused by the mortgage lending crisis.  That Senator Obama would benefit from the crisis is patently unfair by any objective standard.  The Democrats bear a substantial share of the blame for their mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It was also the Democrats who, in an effort to expand home ownership, aggressively pushed for loans to individuals who evidently couldn't afford them.

Still, it's not unexpected that voters instinctively, if not rationally, lay the blame for a crisis at the door of the incumbent party.  In this case, the perception among voters is that the incumbent party happens to be the one that occupies the White House.  Voters aren't rushing toward Senator Obama as much as they are recoiling from the immediate status quo.  An analogy would be the case of somebody with a foul taste in their mouth reaching for a pack of gum.  Voters badly want to cleanse their pallet of the awful taste, and they appear willing to grab for a pack of gum that they've never tried before.  

This instinctive reaction to the mortgage crisis among the electorate actually holds a germ of promise for Senator McCain.  Why?  Because of the very nature of a visceral reaction.  I don't think that those voters whom polls show have suddenly swung to Senator Obama have actually made an affirmative decision to favor Senator Obama because of his politics and personal attributes.  Not by a long shot.  These voters turned to the Democrat as a way of registering their instinctive distaste with what was happening to the markets.  Things are messed up so let's give the new guy a chance!

Of course, this is a panic mentality.  Regardless of how one views the merits of the bailout plan approved by Congress and signed into law by the President, the perception among the electorate will be that something was done about the crisis.  If the markets show signs of settling in over the next week or two, the voters who swung toward Senator Obama while in a state of panic and disgust may very well take a step back and reassess the race.  I believe this is exactly what will happen, and it presents a significant opportunity for Senator McCain.

This renewed attention to the race means that the next month is absolutely critical to the McCain campaign.  They have to aggressively work to establish a narrative about Senator Obama that highlights his inexperience and radical leftist agenda.  It appears as if the McCain campaign intends to do just that.  Governor Palin is already hitting Senator Obama on his past statements indicting American troops fighting in Afghanistan.

My prediction is that the race will tighten substantially and that the campaigns will be locked into a statistical deadheat by election day.  This election has always been a referendum on Barack Obama.  A McCain victory will be wholly dependent on just how much he can reinforce the already existing doubts in the minds of voters about just how risky and radical Senator Obama and his policies really are.  Also, in a close race, don't discount the influence of the "Bradley Effect."

The Media And The Race

Here are some good thoughts from a friend on the current state of the presidential race:

McCain needs to make this election about Obama – his associates, his past (ACORN attorney), and his hard-left plans for the country. This is extremely difficult because the media is further in the tank for Obama than any subject in modern history with the possible exception of abortion. Case in point – in both her ABC & CBS interviews, Sarah Palin was asked an abortion question along the line of: “If a 15 year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion?" Now they can ask her that question, but when has anyone in the media asked Obama about his pro-partial-birth abortion stance or his voting against the Infant Protection Act in a similar manner?

And Rush is correct about one thing, the beltway conservative media is absolutely neutered. They defend this bailout proposal because ideology should not trump the needs of the nation (regardless of whether this bill will actually work, whether it is constitutional or whether it is leading us on a path to socialism), but then they bash Sarah Palin as unready while arguing that we need to be ideologically honest. This is extremely frustrating because it is manna for the Obamamania media to site conservative skepticism on Palin while painting her as a white-trash, rube, novice, who shouldn’t be taken seriously. Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee for Vice President. She is not going anywhere. If that is enough for them to support Obama, then they should say so. If not, they need to shut their mouths.

Once again, I hope we see tonight why Sarah Palin was able to successfully take on incumbent and former Governors and win in Alaska. But this is third time (her announcement and convention speeches being the others) she has been asked to save the McCain campaign. That is a lot of pressure on someone who has been on the national scene for less than two months. One thing I wonder is if Biden can check his ego at the door. Senators of 36-years don’t normally list humility as their biggest characteristic. If Palin hits him/Obama as I expect her to do, I wonder how he reacts without looking like an oaf.

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.

The Worm Is Beginning To Turn

Senator McCain is having remarkable success reaching out to his treasured independents.  Barack Obama would like to convince American voters that John McCain would be a third Bush term.  It won't work.  In a bizarre twist, McCain may well win the presidency by his willingness to criticize the Republican Party for its shortcomings.

With McCain running as a reformer willing to level complaints against his own party, it's no wonder why Senator Obama is getting frustrated.  The presence of Governor Palin on the ticket has surpassed his own celebrity star power.  Senator Obama is like last year's winner of American Idol.  Everyone's mostly tuned into this season and largely forgotten about him.  Meanwhile, the McCain-Palin strategy of running as real agents of reform has drowned out Obama's message.