Dan Rather: Our Least Appreciated Constitutional Scholar

Speaking on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program last Friday, Dan Rather volunteered to act as an unelected editor of the Constitution.  According to Rather, the nation would be better served by ignoring the Twentieth Amendment to allow President-elect Obama to take the office early.

Rather said (transcript carried by the Media Research Center web site):  

"What we need out of the President is focus on the job at hand. We can't afford to waste an hour, much less a day or a week or a month. ... I'd be in favor of moving [the inauguration] up to December 1st. Get the election over. Get a new president in December 1st."

"But, we're in possibly, possibly the biggest crisis we've been in since December 7, 1941 and maybe since the time of the Civil War. So, we can't afford to have this interregnum. The old order is gone. The new order is not yet in place."

Perhaps Rather did not study his U.S. history thoroughly.  The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution has established the inauguration thus:

Amendment XX.  Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Is Rather suggesting that we amend or suspend the supreme law of the land?  Someone should tap him on the shoulder and remind him that there has never been a national emergency - even those cited, World War II and the Civil War - in which the nation found any justification to alter the time table for the lawful succession of the office of President.

I'm certain that Rather is anxious to get President Bush off-stage as quickly as possible.  Maybe then his shame for the collapse of his professional ethics in the Air National Guard letter scandal can begin to dissipate.

The strength of our system comes, in part, from its yeoman-like dependability.  When we begin pulling, tweaking and skewing our laws to fit the circumstances of the moment they lose their meaning and cease the reflect a solid framework from which we can all determine how to behave in society.  A learned man like Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski, sitting near Rather on the Morning Joe panel, should leaned over and smacked Rather as a proxy for the nation.

###

Technorati Tags: Civil War,Dan Rather,Zbigniew Brzezinski,financial crisis of 2008,Pearl Harbor,World War II,presidential inauguration

Speaker Pelosi's Regime, Combined with 'Kitchen Sink' Proposals, Will Extend Detroit's Decline

Maybe in all of the bluster and fluster surrounding the pleading - nay, begging - from the chief executives of America's automotive manufacturing firms the quid pro quo being proffered will seem reasonable. After all, the symbolism of discarding corporate jets and forgoing high salaries seems like a step in the right direction. But symbols are just that, and they masquerade as a panacea, obscuring the need for real organizational reform that must be undertaken to save America's automotive industry.

It would appear that Ford CEO Alan Mulally pulled the short straw for the role of Detroit's lead beggar. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi sits on her throne in this time when President Bush has no power and President-elect Obama has yet to be crowned, the rush of adrenaline must be sublime. Mulally, a man who actually does things, knows things, risks everything, comes to her Congress, begging for intercession. Her staff must have to conduct a morning wardrobe check and confiscate her tiara and ruffled collars before Madam Speaker enters the public sphere.

The kind of power-mad arrogance we have come to expect from Pelosi is trivial under ordinary circumstances. It provides a lot of wonderful material for political writers to show their comedic chops, but does not translate to having a real effect on public policy. Now, she is truly a gatekeeper and the politics of her party have shaped Ford's plan for revival in ways that will reduce the company's chances for survival.

In the interest of presenting a $9 billion loan request (the lion's share of the combined $34 billion requested by Chrysler, General Motors and Ford) that would get speedy Congressional approval, Mulally has proposed the following:

• Mulally will work for $1 per year (methinks there is fine print therein)
• Cancellation of all management bonuses for 2009
• No merit increases for North American salaried employees in 2009
• Ford will sell all five of its corporate aircraft
• Acceleration of plans for plug-in electric and gas-electric vehicles

In the Democrat vortex that is now our federal government, the forces that govern a capitalist economic system - freedom of choice and the supply-demand curve - are going to begin clashing violently with the forces that govern the Democrat party - the Green cabal and the labor unions.

Capitalist markets operate organically, more like forces of nature than machines, and they do not make special accommodations for special interest politics. 'Green' economics is just another word for higher cost of production, resulting in higher prices. Research and development will eventually produce an affordably-priced vehicle fueled by some alternative source of energy, but mass-producing such technology is still expensive. All costs are passed along to the consumer in one form or another. 'Green' cars cost more, and unless the federal government is going to the next step of banning gasoline-powered automobiles, lower prices will tip the vast majority of buyers toward old-fashioned petro-cars

Given enough time, Detroit will get alternative-fueled cars to market, but it should not be a priority or condition at a time when simply surviving is the first priority.

Still, looking ahead to the probable realization of President-elect Obama's heavy-handed “New Energy for America” plan, Mulally has little choice but to play the hand he has been dealt, if only to buy a little more time. So, toss a promise to build 'green' cars in the plan even though following through will hinder the company's chances. In the current political climate, Ford really has little choice.

Most dangerous, though, are the concessions proposed by Mulally on the issue of employee compensation. Capitalism thrives on the concept of reward for merit, and Mulally intends to place a moratorium on pay increases given for good work? In a company with depressed morale, what will be the driving force to move ahead, to innovate? The effect of removing incentives is what occurs as a result of communism. Work hard, don't work hard; your value will always be the same as your co-worker. More to the point, who wants to stick their neck out and break a sweat if there will be no marginal reward?

In a company that suffers from a lack of innovation and low morale, incentives can provide a useful engine for the creation of new ideas. A company such as Ford should not be doing away with salary increases and bonuses, it should be finding ways to target them to enhance the effort of becoming relevant to consumers again.

But, white-collared workers voted too fervently for Republicans in the past few elections. So, throw them on the fire. Only a worth sacrifice will earn Ford the grace of Congress.

Perhaps more destructive than the salary concessions themselves is the decision to impose these restrictions only on white-collared, non-union jobs. Unions are not being encouraged (or coerced) by representatives of Pelosi's Congress to participate in the life-saving operation of employers of union labor. When labor unions ask their rank and file to strike, members understand the concept of shared sacrifice for the greater good, but not when the Man is the one with whom the burden is being shared.

For more than a decade, jobs have been lost overseas as a result of high labor costs at American auto plants. Union self-interest will eventually kill the host, thus depriving their membership of their livelihood. When that happens, there won't be enough fingers on the hands of union bosses for all the finger-pointing that will ensue.

In the meantime, Ford's white-collared sacrifices, unmatched by comparable offerings from the United Automobile Workers union (gathering today for an emergency meeting), are almost certain to create animosity and resentment between the working classes. Just what a failing company needs - more internal dissension and factional politics.

Even after the political tsunami in November, there are still a few conservatives and pro-business Republicans who either clung to the palms (congratulations to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)) and fingers remain crossed for Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)) or stand safely on high ground. Now is the time to start performing the role of the opposition party that the Republicans will be for the next two years. Make the case that there are options, not a single way of resolving this, and thereby give Detroit a little political cover to avoid the groupthink that will doom their chances for survival.

Or don't. After all, the economy isn't going to be an issue with voters in the next election. Right?

###

Technorati Tags: Nancy Pelosi,Big Three,Ford,General Motors,Chrysler,bailout,Mulally,UAW,defense of capitalism,financial crisis of 2008

When Times Are Tough, the Obama Campaign Wants to Sell You Another Campaign Tee-Shirt

David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Obama for America, just sent me an email to make sure I send him $30 or more to refill the DNC coffers. (In exchange, I will receive a tee-shirt that, we assume was made with union labor.  So the net to the DNC should be around $5.) 

So, despite Obama's record-shattering fundraising, and the absence of any need to fund a legal defense against campaign fund-raising violations, the DNC is bankrupt.  Where did all of the money go?

What is most shocking is not the panhandling after an election; Robert Duncan - RNC chair - sent me a plea for dollars two and a half hours earlier in the day.  What is stunning is that from a campaign that owes their victory to an economic crisis, they become suddenly tone-deaf about what is truly important to the voters.  In his words:

We'll get to work transforming this country. But first, we need to take care of the DNC.

Are we to assume that if the DNC remains broke, the country will just have to wait?  Leave it to the party of the donkey to put the cart ahead of the horse.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,David Plouffe,DNC,financial crisis of 2008

Hank Paulson is On the Loose and We Were Concerned About Palin's Wardrobe Expenditures?

The era of 'I told you so' is about to commence, but for now let's just deal with the facts.  Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has just side-stepped the portion of the $700 billion bailout package that we were told was its central reason for being made into law.  As reported by CNNMoney.com [bold added]:

NEW YORK(CNNMoney.com) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Wednesday that the government would broaden the reach of its $700 billion bailout plan to support non-bank financial institutions that provide consumer credit, such as credit cards and auto loans.

In this second stage of the bailout, officials also hope to attract private capital, possibly through matching investments, to give the government's injections more heft.

Paulson also said the government is no longer planning to buy troubled mortgage assets, the original goal of the plan. And officials are continuing to examine ways to help homeowners and slow the tide of foreclosures.

Having read the entire piece of legislation, I can state equivocally that the only boundaries placed on what kinds of asset purchases the Treasury can make with its largesse will be decided by whoever occupies the seat as Treasury Secretary and the president who appoints them.  That means that in late January, when Paulson is sent packing and Obama is sworn in, the Treasury will have the authority to buy just about anything it wants.

I won't even begin to make the arguments about economic and fiscal vulnerabilities inherent in this type of policy.  Only one argument needs to be made.  When the government begins taking ownership in private companies, those companies fail to be private.  This country's political future rests on principles that lie diametrically opposed to what the Treasury is now capable of doing.

Pick your favorite ideological hero from early United States history.  Unless you happen to be one of those odd fans of Alexander Hamilton's desire for a powerful national bank, you will find that your American idol was sharply opposed to the formation of a central bank controlled by the government.  The rationale for this among the founders was diverse but among many it was the fear that a national bank would have direct involvement with businesses and thus force the free market a political actor instead of a purely economic one.

In the bulk of our human history we have seen what occurs when governments become owners in industry individuals and, more importantly individualism, suffers.  A new argument for capitalism must emerge just as Hayek's Road to Serfdom did in the era when socialism was in its ascendancy and posed a great threat to free societies and the free people within them.

Technorati Tags: financial crisis of 2008,Henry Paulson,Treasury Department,threats to capitalism,threats to free market

Is Biden Freelancing at CNN?

Someone needs to remind CNN that in 1933 the US still had yet to experience the worst of the Great Depression.

Should this be filed under "Failed Education System" or "Media Ineptitude"?

First person to comment to the post with even a vague understanding of why this style of reporting is dangerous in a time of economic volatility wins my everlasting respect.

Act I in the Theater of the Grand Inquisition of Socialism

"Torquemada" Pelosi Fans Flames of Class Warfare

One might expect to hear Madame Congresswoman Pelosi screaming, "Repent!  Repent your capitalism and accept socialism as your savior!"  Her dogmatic passion for the big government solutions embedded in the Paulson plan and her flaming rhetoric set up the quickening of the financial crisis through the failure of the vote yesterday.  In the rush to speed track a plan that Republicans and economists were suggesting had serious flaws, all doors of opportunity for competing ideas was shut off and opponents of the weak loan guarantee and securities purchase scheme were branded by Pelosi as "unpatriotic" heretics.

I believe the message Americans were sending to their elected representatives was as follows:

'Give us back our meritocracy.  Bailouts, rescue plans, guarantees, for which we all pay, but to which we did not all contribute, are not in the long-term interest of our economy and our nation.  The foundation of our country is the idea that each person, each entity, must evolve to succeed by experiencing the consequences of failure and the rewards of success.  Let us have our way of life back.'

I will wait and see how this epic battle between the capitalist ideas of Smith and Mill and socialism concludes.  I will pray for the preservation of a system that protects the opportunities and rights of individuals to economic choice, even if it means that we have to endure a period of hardship in the road back to equilibrium.

Massive Banking Bailout Will Be the Genesis of Big Government 3.0

Whether we call this $700 billion plan to preserve the financial system a bailout or a rescue is completely semantic. When the dust settles, we will have a plan that has the Treasury buying billions worth of risky assets with the prospect of reselling them at a profit once the market recovers and the assets regain their value.

Let's revisit that last point, because it will be at the center of what I want you to think about.

The Treasury will be buying assets and reselling them for a profit.

The fact that we, as real conservatives, are resigned to bite down and take this plan is an indication of just exactly the threat posed by the crisis. When the government enters into the financial sector as a buyer, it signals the beginning phases of socialism. In the battle between socialism and capitalism, capitalism is being painted as the flawed system and it is up to champions of the free market to make sure that it is protected from the obvious open door this change in philosophy that this represents.

If the plan is successful, the Treasury will use taxpayer dollars to buy assets low and sell them high. (Sounds a little bit like the kind of actions speculators and market shakers took to exacerbate this crisis.) We have to hope that Congress will be having the SEC remove or modify regulations governing how values of these assets are set once they are bought and sold for lower-than-market prices, or else this bailout could turn out to be a one-two punch on the banks. I mean, I'm sure they've thought of that. Right?

Even if the rescue plan manages to account for all of the booby-traps, set by regulators as though they were guarding Inca gold from Indiana Jones, it has a definite chance of succeeding. The economy will get back on its feet, and by buying assets at forty of fifty cents on the dollar, the Treasury will have a hard time not turning a profit. In the best projections, it could result in a net gain of $200 billion. (Will that be subject to capital gains tax, Senator Obama?) Jumping forward to 2011 or 2012, when the gains are realized, what does Uncle Sam want to do with its windfall? The best predictor of the future behavior is past behavior. We will see the greatest expansion of the federal government since the Johnson administration.

We can look at Social Security - another failing system - as an example of what this bailout could evolve to become.

When the Roosevelt administration devised of the Social Security program, it did not explicitly promised that it would be a fund to itself. We just remember it that way in our collective memory, polarized by so much rhetorical subterfuge. So, there were no stops to prevent politicians - always looking for a way to enlarge their own power - to see a pot of gold overflowing and ask, "Who would notice if I just took a few of these extra coins to do some good?"

Do we really think that the current government has developed restraint? When you and I spend too much the bank manager calls or the cashier tells us that our credit card has been declined. When the Congress overspends they seem to always find a way to avoid paying real consequences by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Democrats aim their cuts at Republican pet programs, Republicans call for slashing items that Democrats need for re-election.

The politicans would have us believe that the Republican taxpayer is Peter and the Democrat taxpayer is Paul. We are so mesmerized that we forget that we are all Peter and Paul and we share the same house. The Republicans and Democrats who are quick to always blame their opposition for tax increases are taking money from everyone when the day is done and nothing improves. Republicans continue finding ways to spend unneccesarily and so do Democrats, and the bill lands on our doorstep. The politicking is just a way of distracting us from the three-card Monty game.

The only way to insure against that possibility is for Congress to legislate a three-pronged set of conditions:

1. The rescue fund must be segregated from all other federal accounts. No intermingling. No "withdrawals" when Congress gets a little hungry from the belt-tightening that is right around the corner.
2. Profits are used to pay down national debt. This cannot be left to verbal promises and assurances. It must be part of the enacting legislation and it must be firm and impossible to circumvent. Congress must be treated as you would any compulsive; the vice must be locked away until the compulsion is dealt with.
3. Congress must agree to scour federal programs for pork to find as much of the $700 billion for the bailout from existing revenues. Tax increases should be as small as possible. The effect of tax increases will be economic contraction and a harsher environment for the struggling American family to find work and make ends meet.

If we don't take these steps, or children will be buried in debt and dealing with a declining economy. We've heard that before, but we fail to listen. Instead of 'paying it backward' it's time to do what is right, even if doing it is hard.

Stay tuned...

I'm preparing a complete response to the just-announced congressional bailout agreement, but don't believe the news bites. This is not a "done deal" as the reporting intends to have you believe.

McCain Makes Serendipitous Choice Heading to Join Bailout Debate

Commitment to Duty at Heart of McCain's Decision

Unintended Result Will Be "Checkmate" to Obama on Issue of Financial Crisis Recovery

Duty first has been John McCain's mantra since he made a fateful decision to refuse early release in Hanoi.  As a United States Senator, he still has a duty.  He took an oath to serve the people of Arizona, and the current financial crisis represents just the kind of situation in which no other obligations or pursuits should be placed prior.  He wants to be president, but he is a senator.  Duty first.

In contrast, Senator Obama seems content to tell his constituents that he's not needed in the effort to respond to the threat facing our country.  If he's not needed now, than when was he ever?  More importantly, if he sees fit to overlook his senatorial oath, what kind of value will he place on the oath he might take as president?

It is frustrating to listen to even certain conservative pundits and voices decry McCain's return to Washington as "weak", as encapsulated by radio host Laura Ingraham.  It shows that "beltway fever" can infect habitual observers so that even they become more concerned about the politics than what the politics are all about. 

We, Republicans, moan and complain about how President Bush has played politics in Washington and failed to fulfill the bulk of his promise of compassionate conservatism.  When a man steps forward who wants to set politics aside to do his job to help preserve the nation, elements within the party should not portray him as having misread the political landscape.  We should speak loudly about the correctness of doing instead of talking. 

Courage is doing what is right even when it will hurt you to do so.  Isn't John McCain demonstrating that he is a leader?  While Obama continues entertaining VIP donors and squawking about change as though he were some deranged panhandling parrot on a downtown street corner, McCain is working.  It's time that Americans remember that everyone has a job to do and talking isn't the same as working.

But there's a byproduct to this turn of events that the Obama camp is struggling to deal with.  With McCain back in D.C., debating the bailout package, and having made early statements opposing some of its measures, Obama has been sealed in the pickle jar. 

On its face, we would expect that Obama would be in favor of the plan proposed by the Bush Administration.  It has all of the elements of big government that comprise the stitching of the own economic parachute he has been promoting.  It actually goes farther than his proposals in the amount of unchecked authority it would give the Treasury Secretary.

If McCain debates against the Bush plan, in whole or in part, or introduces his own roadmap out of the crisis, Obama has three options:

1. Be a follower by standing on the same side as McCain.
2. Support the Bush proposal, which negates his mantra of change.
3. Abstain.  The McCain campaign will respond with a talking points and email campaign highlighting - again - the frequency with which Obama has chosen not to show up to work.

It seems the McCain has cornered your king, Mr. Obama.  Rematch in 2012?

If Obama was a leader, he would lead.  Instead, he sticks his finger in the wind while McCain works to help his neighbors find shelter from the hurricane to come.  Mr. Obama, your slip is showing.   Gradually, people are beginning to see that Obama is purely narcissistic in nature; consumed by his own desires and unable to reach beyond them.

Who do we want manning the Oval Office?  A effite snob who always has something better to do when there is work to be done, or a man who cancels their dinner party and heads to the river to pack sandbags?  Most real people don't even like having to sit next to the snob at the dinner party. 

Getting Americans to realize that that is the choice they are making in this election - an arrogant egocentric versus an unselfish leader - should be the focus of McCain's campaign staff while the senator is doing the work he was elected to do.

Obama can just keep eating rubber chicken for all I care.