I just returned from a few days of family time in Washington, D.C., and what a scene it was.
The place is booming! No sign of recession can be found. Shiny glass towers are springing-up everywhere; major road projects too; all the fancy restaurants were packed; empty storefronts and the otherwise-ubiquitous "Space for Lease" signs were rare. It felt a bit like it must have in Moscow during the Soviet era, when the elite nomenklatura lived like royalty and everyone else, out in the provinces, served as vassals.
Government is the only industry left in America. And it's booming.
Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts
Monday, February 7, 2011
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Air Farce One
It's certainly no vacation for taxpayers when the imperial president takes time for a little R & R, given the obscenely regal manner in which the First Family travels. But this is the first report I've seen of the First Pet flying solo, in a separate jet:
"Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass."
Don't know about you, but reading that sentence makes me want to woof.
"Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass."
Don't know about you, but reading that sentence makes me want to woof.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Acronym Soup
It's not exactly a confidence builder to see the newest federal agency stumbling out of the starting blocks. The Agency Formerly Known as the Minerals Management Service (or AFKMMS) can't seem to settle on the right acronym, according to The Washington Post. All the good ones seem to have been taken.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Obama's Flight of Fancy
Times are tough. The economy perches on a precipice. Everyone needs a bailout, but the fountain of hundies has been stopped-up at the source, as those rascal Republicans quibble about some of the lard padding the "stimulus" bill.
And so the CEO salary setter-in-chief, Barack Obama, felt compelled yesterday evening to join congressional Democrats at their lavish retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he harnessed all his rhetorical powers and moral suasion in an effort to turn a lemon into a Lamborghini.
CNN gave the episode breaking-news play, comparable to Reagan meeting Gorbachev in Reykjavik, but what stunned me the most was the background footage of that ungainly Goliath, Air Force One, lumbering across the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base, as Obama returned from his jaunt to Williamsburg (emphasis on the word jaunt).
Did Obama really take a jumbo jet to nearby Williamsburg, in order to pose for a few photos and preach to the choir? That's a 3 hour round trip by motorcade, or less than an hour by helicopter -- and he could have delivered the message by teleconference right from the Oval Office. An array of smaller aircraft sits at his disposal. Yet he felt compelled to travel there in the most expensive and ostentatious fashion possible, indifferent, apparently, to the jarring incongruities.
What kind of hypocrisy does it bespeak when he's setting executive pay scales for bailout beneficiaries and warning of economic hardship for average Americans if his plan isn't enacted, yet puddle-jumping with Air Force One? It's as outlandish, in its way, as Detroit auto executives flying Gulfstreams to Washington to ask for a handout. Yet none of CNN's talking heads even noticed how the scene played on a symbolic level.
The AP this morning touches on the privileged and perk-filled life of the economic stimulators and job creators in Congress, but one piece, focused on party retreats, can't do the subject, or the hypocrisy, justice. But credit ABC News, which just did a segment on Obama's perks, with recognizing that self-righteous Washingtonians are almost as pampered as Wall Streeters, even if their salaries aren't as astronomical.
And so the CEO salary setter-in-chief, Barack Obama, felt compelled yesterday evening to join congressional Democrats at their lavish retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he harnessed all his rhetorical powers and moral suasion in an effort to turn a lemon into a Lamborghini.
CNN gave the episode breaking-news play, comparable to Reagan meeting Gorbachev in Reykjavik, but what stunned me the most was the background footage of that ungainly Goliath, Air Force One, lumbering across the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base, as Obama returned from his jaunt to Williamsburg (emphasis on the word jaunt).
Did Obama really take a jumbo jet to nearby Williamsburg, in order to pose for a few photos and preach to the choir? That's a 3 hour round trip by motorcade, or less than an hour by helicopter -- and he could have delivered the message by teleconference right from the Oval Office. An array of smaller aircraft sits at his disposal. Yet he felt compelled to travel there in the most expensive and ostentatious fashion possible, indifferent, apparently, to the jarring incongruities.
What kind of hypocrisy does it bespeak when he's setting executive pay scales for bailout beneficiaries and warning of economic hardship for average Americans if his plan isn't enacted, yet puddle-jumping with Air Force One? It's as outlandish, in its way, as Detroit auto executives flying Gulfstreams to Washington to ask for a handout. Yet none of CNN's talking heads even noticed how the scene played on a symbolic level.
The AP this morning touches on the privileged and perk-filled life of the economic stimulators and job creators in Congress, but one piece, focused on party retreats, can't do the subject, or the hypocrisy, justice. But credit ABC News, which just did a segment on Obama's perks, with recognizing that self-righteous Washingtonians are almost as pampered as Wall Streeters, even if their salaries aren't as astronomical.
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Bigger the Badder
Robert Samuelson, an eminently sensible man, succinctly explains in today's Washington Post why little will change in Washington with the coming of the Obama administration, in terms of curbing K Street lobbyists -- and why their numbers and influence might actually increase in the years ahead, as Obama increases the size and scope of the federal government.
What self-styled political reformers rarely concede, or apparently refuse to understand, is that the real corrupting element in Washington isn't lobbyists or campaign contributions, but the power, control and money concentrated in the capitol city -- meaning that nothing will change there until we de-fund, de-power and downsize Washington. The more influence Washington exerts over our everyday lives, the more influence peddlers it will breed and attract. It's that simple. Samuelson also does a public service in this column by putting the much-vilified lobbying business in context, pointing out that lobbying, in its broadest sense, is democracy in action.
The entire column is worth reading, but here are the key paragraphs (the first sentences of which should be committed to memory by would-be reformers):
"The only way to eliminate lobbying and special interests is to eliminate government. The more powerful government becomes, the more lobbying there will be. So, paradoxically, Obama's ambitions for more expansive government will promote special pleading. You need only watch the response to the expected "economic stimulus" plan -- totaling perhaps $700 billion -- to verify this eternal truth. "A Lobbying Frenzy for Federal Funds," read the headline of one Post story.
There's more to come. Obama envisions refashioning a third of the economy: the health-care sector, representing about 16 percent of gross domestic product; the energy sector, nearly 10 percent of GDP; and the financial sector (banks, securities brokers, insurance companies), about 8 percent of GDP. There will be a vast mobilization of interests: from radiologists to renewable energy producers; from mutual funds to hospitals. Says Bara Vaida, the respected lobbying reporter for National Journal: "This will be a bonanza for K Street" -- the symbolic hub of Washington lobbyists."
What self-styled political reformers rarely concede, or apparently refuse to understand, is that the real corrupting element in Washington isn't lobbyists or campaign contributions, but the power, control and money concentrated in the capitol city -- meaning that nothing will change there until we de-fund, de-power and downsize Washington. The more influence Washington exerts over our everyday lives, the more influence peddlers it will breed and attract. It's that simple. Samuelson also does a public service in this column by putting the much-vilified lobbying business in context, pointing out that lobbying, in its broadest sense, is democracy in action.
The entire column is worth reading, but here are the key paragraphs (the first sentences of which should be committed to memory by would-be reformers):
"The only way to eliminate lobbying and special interests is to eliminate government. The more powerful government becomes, the more lobbying there will be. So, paradoxically, Obama's ambitions for more expansive government will promote special pleading. You need only watch the response to the expected "economic stimulus" plan -- totaling perhaps $700 billion -- to verify this eternal truth. "A Lobbying Frenzy for Federal Funds," read the headline of one Post story.
There's more to come. Obama envisions refashioning a third of the economy: the health-care sector, representing about 16 percent of gross domestic product; the energy sector, nearly 10 percent of GDP; and the financial sector (banks, securities brokers, insurance companies), about 8 percent of GDP. There will be a vast mobilization of interests: from radiologists to renewable energy producers; from mutual funds to hospitals. Says Bara Vaida, the respected lobbying reporter for National Journal: "This will be a bonanza for K Street" -- the symbolic hub of Washington lobbyists."
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
All Roads to Ruin -- and Perdition -- Run Through Washington
Can Washington save the automakers? Should Washington save the automakers?
Perhaps a better question -- one posed in the thought-provoking piece below -- is whether the Big 3 can survive Washington's "help," given the straight jacket of strings that will come attached. The piece also underscores a point I made last week: that a history of meddling by the Experts on Everything inside the Washington Motor Company contributed significantly to the industry's plight -- just as it contributed to the larger economic car crash that's unfolding.
I don't endorse all the writer's conclusions -- especially his view that the company's are owed a bailout because of the burdens Washington imposed -- but his analysis is otherwise sound.
But enough of my commentary. Here's the piece:
Can the Big Three survive a bailout?
By Jack Nerad
IRVINE, California (CNN) -- The Big Three automakers yesterday presented impressive plans to Congress that justified their need for bridge loans to help them regain their competitiveness in light of a vehicle market that has crashed into a wall.
Such loans won't simply help support a vital portion of American industry, they will help prevent a much greater potential economic disaster. The commercial and strategic importance of the auto sector simply cannot be overestimated.
That being said, we are reminded of the old phrase, "Watch what you wish for; you might get it." Because as we watched the chief executives of the Detroit automakers make their second trek to Washington to seek loans from the federal government that could stave off disaster, we have to ask the unexpected question, can the Big Three survive a federal bailout?
An undiscussed but critical part of whether government intervention will succeed is determining whether the inevitable strings attached to the federal funds will bind the Big Three into untenable positions like Gulliver in Lilliput.
Loan assistance from the federal government that tries to control the companies too tightly, that forces them to bring to market vehicles that the public may not want, might simply assure that they fail somewhat later rather than sooner. And in that scenario the American taxpayer and consumer is the biggest loser.
That question must be asked because the historical dynamic between the federal government and the domestic auto industry is a relationship that has been, at best, rocky and often openly antagonistic.
Jump back to 1975 and the institution of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements designed to limit our reliance on foreign oil in the wake of the Arab oil embargo. Instead of simply limiting foreign imports or adding federal taxes to fuel costs to give consumers an incentive to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, the government instituted byzantine regulations that required American manufacturers to build (or at least market) fuel-efficient cars just so they could continue selling the cars and trucks they were already known for.
Since the United States had always been a country of "cheap gas," (a tradition that continues, by the way) American car companies were not geared up to build small, fuel-efficient cars, but foreign manufacturers were. The result was that Americans were almost forcibly exposed to import vehicles, and many American consumers liked what they found.
The CAFÉ regulations accompanied by inexpensive gasoline were analogous to plopping consumers into the middle of a giant candy store and then forcing the candy manufacturers to somehow persuade a percentage of consumers to buy broccoli instead.
When all was said and done, the CAFÉ rules ended up giving a strong leg up to the Big Three's import competitors, putting their market share on an upward curve that hasn't ceased climbing.
Of course, having helped push American consumers into import cars, albeit inadvertently, the federal government then tried to reverse the trend through new intervention.
At the urging of the U.S. government, the Japanese manufacturers adopted "voluntary"
restraints on their exports of vehicles to the U.S. beginning in 1981. The goal was to give U.S. companies "breathing room" so they could catch up to the Japanese in producing small, fuel-efficient vehicles. (Sound familiar?)
Again, this might have seemed a worthy plan at the time, but it had several unintended consequences that ended up doing much more harm to the domestic manufacturers than good. In the short term it limited supply of popular Japanese-built vehicles, which resulted in windfall profits for the dealers of the top imports, helping those brands establish very strong dealer networks.
It influenced the import manufacturers to move up-market both by building more expensive vehicles and by establishing luxury brands like Acura, Lexus and Infiniti. And it gave strong impetus for the import manufacturers to build plants here in the United States. Today a large percentage of the "import brand" share of the U.S. market -- more than 50 percent of the total light-vehicles sold here -- are vehicles built by Americans in foreign-managed factories on U.S. soil. Ironically, to counteract this, the Big Three automakers have increasingly moved production from the U.S. to lower-labor-cost countries like Mexico.
So what are the implications of this history lesson? The first takeaway is that a portion of the woes the domestic Big Three are suffering today are the result of current and past federal government policies, so it seems fair that they be accorded government assistance now in time of dire need.
But equally important, while the Big Three automakers might well be accused of not correctly gauging the needs and desires of the American buying public, one group that is demonstrably much worse in that endeavor is Congress. If the U.S. government were a car company, it would not only be deep in the red, but also have miserable customer satisfaction scores.
So a second takeaway is that doing the wrong thing -- and by the wrong thing we mean attaching assistance to a web of politically motivated strings to federal loans -- will only lead to a bigger catastrophe down the road.
If Congress acts to aid the ailing Big Three car manufacturers -- and I strongly suggest it should -- then it is equally important that the domestic carmakers be allowed the latitude to conduct their business based on the dictates of the American consumer, not the politicians.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Nerad.
Editor's Note: Jack R. Nerad is Executive Editorial Director for Kelley Blue Book and kbb.com, and co-host of "America on the Road," heard on more than 300 radio stations. In the 1980s he served as Editor of Motor Trend magazine. Nerad is the author of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buying or Leasing a Car," "Chevrolet Corvette: The Power & the Glory," and his latest book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles," published recently by Alpha Books.
Perhaps a better question -- one posed in the thought-provoking piece below -- is whether the Big 3 can survive Washington's "help," given the straight jacket of strings that will come attached. The piece also underscores a point I made last week: that a history of meddling by the Experts on Everything inside the Washington Motor Company contributed significantly to the industry's plight -- just as it contributed to the larger economic car crash that's unfolding.
I don't endorse all the writer's conclusions -- especially his view that the company's are owed a bailout because of the burdens Washington imposed -- but his analysis is otherwise sound.
But enough of my commentary. Here's the piece:
Can the Big Three survive a bailout?
By Jack Nerad
IRVINE, California (CNN) -- The Big Three automakers yesterday presented impressive plans to Congress that justified their need for bridge loans to help them regain their competitiveness in light of a vehicle market that has crashed into a wall.
Such loans won't simply help support a vital portion of American industry, they will help prevent a much greater potential economic disaster. The commercial and strategic importance of the auto sector simply cannot be overestimated.
That being said, we are reminded of the old phrase, "Watch what you wish for; you might get it." Because as we watched the chief executives of the Detroit automakers make their second trek to Washington to seek loans from the federal government that could stave off disaster, we have to ask the unexpected question, can the Big Three survive a federal bailout?
An undiscussed but critical part of whether government intervention will succeed is determining whether the inevitable strings attached to the federal funds will bind the Big Three into untenable positions like Gulliver in Lilliput.
Loan assistance from the federal government that tries to control the companies too tightly, that forces them to bring to market vehicles that the public may not want, might simply assure that they fail somewhat later rather than sooner. And in that scenario the American taxpayer and consumer is the biggest loser.
That question must be asked because the historical dynamic between the federal government and the domestic auto industry is a relationship that has been, at best, rocky and often openly antagonistic.
Jump back to 1975 and the institution of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements designed to limit our reliance on foreign oil in the wake of the Arab oil embargo. Instead of simply limiting foreign imports or adding federal taxes to fuel costs to give consumers an incentive to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, the government instituted byzantine regulations that required American manufacturers to build (or at least market) fuel-efficient cars just so they could continue selling the cars and trucks they were already known for.
Since the United States had always been a country of "cheap gas," (a tradition that continues, by the way) American car companies were not geared up to build small, fuel-efficient cars, but foreign manufacturers were. The result was that Americans were almost forcibly exposed to import vehicles, and many American consumers liked what they found.
The CAFÉ regulations accompanied by inexpensive gasoline were analogous to plopping consumers into the middle of a giant candy store and then forcing the candy manufacturers to somehow persuade a percentage of consumers to buy broccoli instead.
When all was said and done, the CAFÉ rules ended up giving a strong leg up to the Big Three's import competitors, putting their market share on an upward curve that hasn't ceased climbing.
Of course, having helped push American consumers into import cars, albeit inadvertently, the federal government then tried to reverse the trend through new intervention.
At the urging of the U.S. government, the Japanese manufacturers adopted "voluntary"
restraints on their exports of vehicles to the U.S. beginning in 1981. The goal was to give U.S. companies "breathing room" so they could catch up to the Japanese in producing small, fuel-efficient vehicles. (Sound familiar?)
Again, this might have seemed a worthy plan at the time, but it had several unintended consequences that ended up doing much more harm to the domestic manufacturers than good. In the short term it limited supply of popular Japanese-built vehicles, which resulted in windfall profits for the dealers of the top imports, helping those brands establish very strong dealer networks.
It influenced the import manufacturers to move up-market both by building more expensive vehicles and by establishing luxury brands like Acura, Lexus and Infiniti. And it gave strong impetus for the import manufacturers to build plants here in the United States. Today a large percentage of the "import brand" share of the U.S. market -- more than 50 percent of the total light-vehicles sold here -- are vehicles built by Americans in foreign-managed factories on U.S. soil. Ironically, to counteract this, the Big Three automakers have increasingly moved production from the U.S. to lower-labor-cost countries like Mexico.
So what are the implications of this history lesson? The first takeaway is that a portion of the woes the domestic Big Three are suffering today are the result of current and past federal government policies, so it seems fair that they be accorded government assistance now in time of dire need.
But equally important, while the Big Three automakers might well be accused of not correctly gauging the needs and desires of the American buying public, one group that is demonstrably much worse in that endeavor is Congress. If the U.S. government were a car company, it would not only be deep in the red, but also have miserable customer satisfaction scores.
So a second takeaway is that doing the wrong thing -- and by the wrong thing we mean attaching assistance to a web of politically motivated strings to federal loans -- will only lead to a bigger catastrophe down the road.
If Congress acts to aid the ailing Big Three car manufacturers -- and I strongly suggest it should -- then it is equally important that the domestic carmakers be allowed the latitude to conduct their business based on the dictates of the American consumer, not the politicians.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Nerad.
Editor's Note: Jack R. Nerad is Executive Editorial Director for Kelley Blue Book and kbb.com, and co-host of "America on the Road," heard on more than 300 radio stations. In the 1980s he served as Editor of Motor Trend magazine. Nerad is the author of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buying or Leasing a Car," "Chevrolet Corvette: The Power & the Glory," and his latest book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles," published recently by Alpha Books.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Federal "Help" Becomes Election Hindrance
Talk about a letdown.
One of the top stories in today’s New York Times takes you from 60 to 0 in about 11 seconds, by promising much more than it delivers -- which might create misperceptions for people who glance at a headline, gasp at the implications, but don’t bother to actually read the story.
“States' Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal” is how the story is headlined. And the lead promises something big: "Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times."
There’s a qualifier in there, the word “appear,” which might make one wary of jumping to conclusions. But otherwise, this seems like dynamite in print. Yet in the story’s second paragraph, for those who get that far, the dynamite turns into a dud, as the Times explains that this isn’t the result of some dark partisan plot, or a dirty tricks operation run out of RNC headquarters, but due to bureaucratic errors and – ironically -- the convolutions of a 2002 effort by Congress to improve elections integrity!
“The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run,” concedes the Times – leaving this reader feeling mislead, but also enlightened.
The real story here is that the so-called “Help American Vote Act of 2002" (passed by Congress in an overreaction to the Florida voting debacle), by trying to create a federal fix for a state-administered voting system that wasn’t, by and large, broken, is creating more problems than it solved. Far from “helping” America vote, the act has become a hindrance. And if the outcome of this election ends up in court, Washington's meddling, not hanging chads, will be to blame.
Washington, in trying to “help,” made our lives a little harder.
But that isn’t news, is it?
One of the top stories in today’s New York Times takes you from 60 to 0 in about 11 seconds, by promising much more than it delivers -- which might create misperceptions for people who glance at a headline, gasp at the implications, but don’t bother to actually read the story.
“States' Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal” is how the story is headlined. And the lead promises something big: "Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times."
There’s a qualifier in there, the word “appear,” which might make one wary of jumping to conclusions. But otherwise, this seems like dynamite in print. Yet in the story’s second paragraph, for those who get that far, the dynamite turns into a dud, as the Times explains that this isn’t the result of some dark partisan plot, or a dirty tricks operation run out of RNC headquarters, but due to bureaucratic errors and – ironically -- the convolutions of a 2002 effort by Congress to improve elections integrity!
“The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run,” concedes the Times – leaving this reader feeling mislead, but also enlightened.
The real story here is that the so-called “Help American Vote Act of 2002" (passed by Congress in an overreaction to the Florida voting debacle), by trying to create a federal fix for a state-administered voting system that wasn’t, by and large, broken, is creating more problems than it solved. Far from “helping” America vote, the act has become a hindrance. And if the outcome of this election ends up in court, Washington's meddling, not hanging chads, will be to blame.
Washington, in trying to “help,” made our lives a little harder.
But that isn’t news, is it?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
John McCain: Motor City Madam
It’s strange what a visit to a swing state can do to a politician’s willingness to stand on rock solid principle.
It seems only weeks ago that Sen. John McCain, the anti-Washington, anti-Big Oil, fiscally-responsible reformer, was vowing to oppose “corporate welfare” wherever it reared its ugly head. The panhandlers in pinstripes would hold no sway in a McCain administration. Beltway bandits beware: There's a new sheriff coming to town.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the auto factory.
Speaking Wednesday at a General Motors plant in the swing state of Michigan, McCain said this:
"I'm here to send a message to Washington and Wall Street: We are not going to leave the workers here in Michigan hung out to dry while we give billions in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street. It is time to get our auto industry back on its feet. It's time for a new generation of cars and for loans to build the facilities that will make them."
Loans from whom, one might ask? Loans from Uncle Sam, of course. The corporate welfare-fighter supports giving $25 billion in federal loans to domestic automakers, ostensibly for development of "advanced vehicle technology" which constitutes a bat-turn, since McCain formerly opposed such a bailout. And who will eat the $25 billion if the companies go belly-up, or can't repay? We assembly-line taxpayers, that's who.
The companies are seeking $50 billion in loans, so, according to Washington math, and Washington "logic," McCain the fiscal conservative might argue that he supports a 50 percent “cut” in the all but inevitable bailout package. He might also argue that it’s a loan, not a grant, so doesn't technically count as welfare.
But this sort of inside-the-beltway "reasoning" (or is it rationalizing?) will quickly undermine McCain's already tenuous claim to being a Washington outsider. Such obfuscations are one sure way to derail the "Straight Talk Express.” And such pandering, while it may help McCain carry Michigan, makes one wonder how much backbone he would have as president. It all makes McCain look like just another assembly-line politico.
For what does it profit a man to gain Michigan and lose his soul?
It seems only weeks ago that Sen. John McCain, the anti-Washington, anti-Big Oil, fiscally-responsible reformer, was vowing to oppose “corporate welfare” wherever it reared its ugly head. The panhandlers in pinstripes would hold no sway in a McCain administration. Beltway bandits beware: There's a new sheriff coming to town.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the auto factory.
Speaking Wednesday at a General Motors plant in the swing state of Michigan, McCain said this:
"I'm here to send a message to Washington and Wall Street: We are not going to leave the workers here in Michigan hung out to dry while we give billions in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street. It is time to get our auto industry back on its feet. It's time for a new generation of cars and for loans to build the facilities that will make them."
Loans from whom, one might ask? Loans from Uncle Sam, of course. The corporate welfare-fighter supports giving $25 billion in federal loans to domestic automakers, ostensibly for development of "advanced vehicle technology" which constitutes a bat-turn, since McCain formerly opposed such a bailout. And who will eat the $25 billion if the companies go belly-up, or can't repay? We assembly-line taxpayers, that's who.
The companies are seeking $50 billion in loans, so, according to Washington math, and Washington "logic," McCain the fiscal conservative might argue that he supports a 50 percent “cut” in the all but inevitable bailout package. He might also argue that it’s a loan, not a grant, so doesn't technically count as welfare.
But this sort of inside-the-beltway "reasoning" (or is it rationalizing?) will quickly undermine McCain's already tenuous claim to being a Washington outsider. Such obfuscations are one sure way to derail the "Straight Talk Express.” And such pandering, while it may help McCain carry Michigan, makes one wonder how much backbone he would have as president. It all makes McCain look like just another assembly-line politico.
For what does it profit a man to gain Michigan and lose his soul?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
A Tale Half Told
I haven't read this book. And based on this review, and what I know of the author's previous work, and my years living and working in the city about which he writes, I probably won't.
It's not because he blames Republicans -- the "wrecking crew" of the book's title -- for everything that's screwed up and corrupt in the capital city's political culture. As the party largely in charge since 1994, Republicans certainly deserve plenty of blame, not just for falling prey to the city's many temptations but for abandoning what ideals they once had. And they'll face a well-deserved reckoning for that in just a few short months, when the Democrats take control of the White House.
No one's rougher on the party than those of us who at one time labored in the GOP vineyards, only to see the fruits of those labors turn sour. But I also lived in Washington long enough, and followed goings on there closely enough before plunging in myself, to put the issue into the context this book obviously lacks. All the corruptions the author decries or could decry -- fiscal irresponsibility, lobbyists, earmarks, abuses of office, patronage-building -- were pioneered (and in some cases perfected) by Democrats when they ran the show. Has the author so quickly forgotten names like Tony Coelho, Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright, to name just a few?
Republicans simply took things to the next level. And if the author imagines these things will vanish when Democrats are again completely in charge, he's imagining things. Has earmarking ended since Democrats regained control of Congress, promising to clean things up? Have lobbyists packed their bags and left town? Is Congress run by a bunch of rabidly partisan politicos, who will bend and break procedural rules, and throw basic fairness out a second story window, to get what they want? The correct answers are no, no and yes.
And none of this will change as long as so much power, money and regulatory clout remains centered in Washington. The corrupting influence of so much centralized power will eventually take root in whichever party is in charge at the moment. It was there before the Republican "revolution." It will continue during the Democratic "devolution" ahead. But will the author, 8 or 10 years hence, be penning "The Wrecking Crew Revisited"? Don't bet on it. His sort of "muckraking" conveniently ignores both sides of the pig sty.
The author takes shots at libertarians in the book, according to this review, but libertarians at least recognize that the only way to end power's corrupting influence in Washington is for states and people to take their power back, by returning to the limited government ideals the founders espoused. Liberals, like the author, fail to grasp that their own support for big government -- their Statolatry, as Von Mises called it -- creates the optimum conditions for abuses of power and corruption to flourish.
It's not because he blames Republicans -- the "wrecking crew" of the book's title -- for everything that's screwed up and corrupt in the capital city's political culture. As the party largely in charge since 1994, Republicans certainly deserve plenty of blame, not just for falling prey to the city's many temptations but for abandoning what ideals they once had. And they'll face a well-deserved reckoning for that in just a few short months, when the Democrats take control of the White House.
No one's rougher on the party than those of us who at one time labored in the GOP vineyards, only to see the fruits of those labors turn sour. But I also lived in Washington long enough, and followed goings on there closely enough before plunging in myself, to put the issue into the context this book obviously lacks. All the corruptions the author decries or could decry -- fiscal irresponsibility, lobbyists, earmarks, abuses of office, patronage-building -- were pioneered (and in some cases perfected) by Democrats when they ran the show. Has the author so quickly forgotten names like Tony Coelho, Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright, to name just a few?
Republicans simply took things to the next level. And if the author imagines these things will vanish when Democrats are again completely in charge, he's imagining things. Has earmarking ended since Democrats regained control of Congress, promising to clean things up? Have lobbyists packed their bags and left town? Is Congress run by a bunch of rabidly partisan politicos, who will bend and break procedural rules, and throw basic fairness out a second story window, to get what they want? The correct answers are no, no and yes.
And none of this will change as long as so much power, money and regulatory clout remains centered in Washington. The corrupting influence of so much centralized power will eventually take root in whichever party is in charge at the moment. It was there before the Republican "revolution." It will continue during the Democratic "devolution" ahead. But will the author, 8 or 10 years hence, be penning "The Wrecking Crew Revisited"? Don't bet on it. His sort of "muckraking" conveniently ignores both sides of the pig sty.
The author takes shots at libertarians in the book, according to this review, but libertarians at least recognize that the only way to end power's corrupting influence in Washington is for states and people to take their power back, by returning to the limited government ideals the founders espoused. Liberals, like the author, fail to grasp that their own support for big government -- their Statolatry, as Von Mises called it -- creates the optimum conditions for abuses of power and corruption to flourish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)