When things accuse other things of doing the same thing

The White House wrote a response to a New York Times article that accuses Bush and his governance for the mortgage meltdown. Now, Bush is NOT responsible for the mortgage and credit problem per se. He didn't make the bad loans. But the NYT article is correct in asserting that the Bush philosophy is part of the reason for the current debacle. He IS responsible for agreeing to remove much of the oversight that was meant to prevent gross abuses like this (along with the Republican controlled Congress from 2000-2006). He IS responsible for ignoring all the warning signs early on and sitting on his thumbs. He IS responsible for increasing national debt loads to the point where even U.S. debt spending will not have its usual anti-recession influence. But no one can or should blame him for actually making the bad loans. He helped make the situation easier to fall into. He didn't actually dig the entire hole.

The best part of the White House response was, and I quote, "The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view." Now, if you can't figure out why this is just the most horrific statement ever released by the current administration, then I can't help you. But I will make it easier- Iraq. The administration had plans in place to invade Iraq before the 9/11 incident. They've never made any bones about it. They ignored the evidence pointing to no WMDs. They ignored the people on the ground who best knew the situation. They ignored the domestic voices that questioned the policy and the data it was based on. They ignored the people that stood up and declared this to be a bad war on policy and humanitarian grounds. So the White House can just kiss the fattest part of my ass and I'm glad they will go down in history as one of the worst examples of American 'leadership'.

They've spent the last 8 years ignoring evidence and reaching conclusions they wanted. They've ignored privacy issues, energy issues, climate issues. They've ignored genocide. They've ignored the 70+ percent of Americans that have stood up and declared our national direction and foreign policy is wrong. So I don't want to hear a peep out of them declaring someone else is doing the same thing. Until you get your own house in order, you have no right, no basis, and no ethical ground to make these kind of accusations against someone else. Absolutely disgusting.

Wow...just wow

I want to get away from politics, but it keeps dragging me back. I saw this headline and almost had to change my underwear (not in a good way): Confiscating toy guns part of US mission in Iraq.

Let's make this quick or I might suffer death by idiocy.

1) We'll take away toy guns from children in other countries but raise ours to believe guns are the answer to problems - witness laxer rules about guns in national parks, war as a solution to political problems, and unflinching adherence to poor readings of the 2nd amendment, protections for gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and allow concealed weapons (possibly on college campuses soon).

2) We fought an entire revolutionary war because of rules handed down by external authorities abridging personal freedoms- now we are telling Iraqis what their kids can and can't play with. Next comes a sugar tax.

3) We are, ostensibly, aiming to make Iraq a less violent place by reaching out to the kids - at home sell all manner of guns aimed at children: cap guns, air rifles, compressed air guns, BB guns, and paintball guns.

One of the more violent nations (and the nation with the highest per capita rate of privately owned gun deaths) telling another nation not to let their kids play with guns is the epitome of hypocrisy. When people ask why the rest of the world doesn't like us, remember stuff like this. Also remember that the U.S. was one of only two countries that refused to sign the ban on cluster bombs and munitions this past month. Hooray for violence!

Panned for common sense

As a follow-up to my last post, during a radio address, Barack announced a major plan to use public works projects as a stimulus boost to get the economy rolling again. He never once used the word spend. Instead, he referred to the works and money as "investments". He was panned by the media for not saying "spend". To be fair, the truth is that money will be spent. Therefore, it is correct to call this spending. BUT, and this is a big but, these are exactly the kinds of spending projects that need to occur. Why?

1) Governments should spend money and lower taxes DURING RECESSIONS while NOT SPENDING and raising taxes during boom times. It's basic economic theory and good practice. Government spending helps jolt the economy during times when consumers are not consuming and pays for those projects via higher taxes when salaries, income, and spending are up.

2) The things bought with that money will provide services for the U.S. for the next 50 years. We are still using the original interstate system (albeit with normal maintenance and repairs) and much of the original electric grid. Now is the time to spend on getting those systems up to date while also supplying a broadband system (since we are in the information age and economy), better educational facilities, and improve alternative energy resources.

3) Invest is the correct word. Spending now in order to reap the economic benefits when the world economy picks up again is, by definition, investing. Investing in improved infrastructure is a good start. We also must invest in our human capital and resources- education and health care being the two biggest areas ripe for improvement.

4) At the end, when the spending is done, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO SHOW FOR THE EFFORT. We will have roads, bridges, hospitals, solar energy stations, fiber-optic connections, and schools. These are things that make life better for everyone now AND in the future. For comparison- nearly $1 trillion will ultimately (estimated as of today) be given to the financial sector. What will this bailout give? Tangibly...very little. The money being pumped in HAS NOT improved capital flows to the people that need it. If it had, Ford and GM would not be banging their tin cups on the Capitol steps. Maybe, eventually, at some unspecified time, the money will flow. But remember...hundreds of billions of that WILL NEVER BE SEEN BY US because it was used to pay off the people that lost the money. We subsidized their losses so they would have lower losses. We didn't subsidize our losses. That was left up to banks, mortgage holders, and insurance companies.

5) Public works projects provide employment. Giving money to Wall Street does not. At least, not in a direct proportion. These projects keep companies in business and keep people employed.

6) The subsidies already given to energy companies, telecoms, tobacco growers, farmers, and big business (typically in the form of tax breaks, but often via direct cash injections) are worth HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS over the life of the subsidies. Therefore, the government is already handing out this kind of money. Why not let some of that flow to the people at the bottom that are the people that will be employed on these projects? You can't give money to certain people and then tell others that giving them money would be socialism.

So yes, it's spending. Ultimately, it's good spending. Compared to 8 years of bad spending, this seems downright reasonable.