Monday, April 19, 2010
Two Drivers Asleep At The Wheel
Josh Marshall's TPM has the details on the SEC's inspector general report on the agency's handling of Texas billionaire Allen "Madoff of the Southwest" Stanford:
"[T]he SEC's Fort Worth office was aware since 1997 that Robert Allen Stanford was likely operating a Ponzi scheme, having come to that conclusion a mere two years after Stanford Group Company ('SGC'), Stanford's investment adviser, registered with the SEC in 1995. We found that over the next 8 years, the SEC's Fort Worth Examination group conducted four examinations of Stanford's operations, finding in each examination that the CDs could not have been 'legitimate,' and that it was 'highly unlikely' that the returns Stanford claimed to generate could have been achieved with the purported conservative investment approach."Over the next 8 years"!?!?!
Over two administrations, the Fort Worth office conducted these "investigations," and just concluded, nothing to see here, move along...Oversight, overlook? Same diff, right?
Labels: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Securities and Exchange Commission
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Totally Shocking!!!
Labels: 9/11, George W. Bush, war on terror
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Bush Years: Top -- and Bottom -- Ten
Fred Barnes identifies "10 Bush achievements."
Rich Lowry bemoans the "Ten Bush Mistakes."
Robert A. George would add one more accomplishment to Barnes' list -- Bush's Africa policy (more on this later).
Labels: George W. Bush
Monday, December 15, 2008
Quite A Feat!
Well, at least Iraqi journalists don't pretend to be "objective".
One serious thought though: This guy was able to throw a shoe at near point-blank range. Bush's rather remarkable reflexes (seriously) prevented him from being hit. But, if the president of the United States is visiting Iraq, shouldn't Americans be confident that he would be safe enough that he wouldn't potentially get beaned by a guy's shoes?
Or is it the case that Secret Service agents are expected to stop a bullet -- but not size 10s?
Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Deja Voodoo Times Three
2) John McCain abruptly threatening to pull out of a debate? Hmmm...
3) John McCain flying in late in sensitive bipartisan negotiations? Uh-oh.
Labels: Barack Obama, debates, George W. Bush, John McCain, Presidential politics
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Come Bail Away With Me, Love
Furthermore, Paulson and Co. were incredibly arrogant to go to Congress with a three-page paper that essentially said, "Give us $700 billion; trust us to spend it wisely" -- and then put the onus on Congress to "pass it quickly." Just from a political strategy standpoint, that's pretty dumb. It's even stupider when, according to a White House spokesman, the plan had been in the works for some time:
So, after being worked on as a contingency for months and weeks, a three page outline is the best the administration can do for a $700 billion bill? No wonder folks compare this to the PATRIOT Act which was a cobbling together of long-standing various intel agencies' wish-list items, but 9/11 produced the catalytic energy to get through measures that otherwise wouldn't have passed ideological muster from either the right or the left. Similarities such as this caused even Dick Cheney to get his hat handed to him by House Republicans on Tuesday.“It shouldn’t take much analysis to remember what happened last week, which was a very serious freeze-up in our credit markets,” Fratto said. “Our financial markets right now do not need uncertainty, they need increased certainty as to how this rescue plan is going to go forward — and that they can be sure that there is a plan to go forward — and that will begin the correction in our financial markets.”
Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.
In any event, one of the better substantive pieces I've found that outlines the need for skepticism over the bailout is by David Cay Johnston, a former New York Times tax policy writer. Johnston's questions are very straightforward, raising doubts that those on both the left and the right can find agreement:
Of course, there is the political component to take into account. Thomas Edsall notes Patrick Ruffini's call for a conservative revolt against what will be a Bush-congressional Democrats deal. Edsall likens it to Bill Kristol's torpedoing of the Clinton health-care plan in 1993. Actually, he's three years off. If anything, Ruffini's suggestion more resembles Newt Gingrich's breaking with George H.W. Bush in 1990 when "41"'s lips moved to agree to a deficit-reduction fueled by a tax hike. It' s not surprising that Gingrich is urging Republicans to reject the bailout now. Fresh from a clear victory over the Democrats on the issue of off-shore drillng -- led by Gingrich's online petition -- the congressional GOP may be more than willing to go along with the Ruffini-Gingrich strategy.
The Administration has scared the markets and some key legislative leaders, but it has not laid out a coherent, specific and compelling need for this enormous proposal, which is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge. (Instead the money will be borrowed, so ask from whom and how this much can be raised so quickly if the credit markets are nearly seized up with fear.)
Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up?
If they are then lots of business owners should be eager to tell how their bank is calling their 90-day revolving loans, rejecting new loans and demanding more cash on deposit. I called businessmen I know yesterday and not one of them reported such problems. Indeed, Citibank offered yesterday to lend me tens of thousands of dollars on my signature at 2.99 percent, well below the nearly 5 percent inflation rate. That offer came after I said no last week to a 4.99 percent loan.
If the problem is toxic mortgages then how come they are still being offered all over the Internet? On the main page AOL generates for me there is an ad for a 1.9% loan (which means you pay that interest rate and the rest of the interest is added to your balance due.) Why oh why or why would taxpayers be bailing out banks that are continuing to sell these toxic loans?How does the proposal help Joe and Mary Sixpack who can afford their current monthly payment, but not the increased interest rate that has been or soon will take effect? Every day bankers work out loans with customers -- so why are taxpayers being asked to act when banks are largely on strike, refusing to negotiate revised deals with many loan customers?
But what if? What if the ideologically (from both the far right and far left perspective) and politically correct position happens to be the wrong one? The Bush I tax hike didn't wreck the economy.
If Congress gets the bailout wrong -- i.e. doesn't authorize it -- the consequences could be trulyhat requires immediate action.
catastrophic. I was leaning toward being against it until I read two pieces by right/libertarian leaning peole whom I respect. Jim Manzi, who's written for National Review, the American Spectator and other outlets, makes a strong case for why this is an emergency t
Over at The Atlantic, Megan McArdle discusses how close the markets came to a catclysm last week -- which may have only been averted by Paulson stepping forward to present his bailout plan.Now consider the current situation on Monday morning. If “we” (i.e., the political leadership of the U.S.) go back on this commitment, then the loss of confidence will be even worse than it was last week. We are already trying to work around some of the inevitable inconsistencies that will be present in such an emergency action. As one example, consider that a federal guarantee for money market fund accounts means that they are suddenly much, much safer. Hence, Treasury has had to modify this guarantee over the weekend to apply only to pre-existing money market fund balances to prevent a massive flow of funds that could destabilize traditional commercial banks.
This is pure ad hoc economic management by government officials. It is a Hayekian nightmare on several levels, and as I said previously, its ideological consequences are likely to be substantial, long-lasting and negative. I can make the arguments as loudly as anyone, and I believe them, that the causes of this problem that can be laid at the feet of government are ill-advised market interventions and poor regulation, rather than insufficient controls on the market. The best long-term solutions, in my view, all involve less government intervention. It will be important to make these arguments. But the patient has been hit by a car, and is lying on the ground bleeding. It’s all well and good to discuss how irresponsible he was to wander drunk into the street, how we should better design our traffic control systems, and so on. But first we need to stabilize the patient and stop the blood loss.
Finally, Steve Pearlstein in The Washington Post has had a series of columns that make the case earlier bailouts and this one in particular, can actually make money for the taxpayer over time.
I remain a skeptic -- particularly given that hardly anything has gone as "planned" in this administration (when it bothers to "plan" at all).
Alas, however, I think the current situation is too precarious to be playing political games. It's enough that George W. Bush has destroyed any real sense that Republicanism or conservatism means small government (though, ironically, in taking over the finacial industry, the Bushies may prevent Barack Obama from taking over the health care industry). Even though the roots of this crisis predate this president, the complete collapse of the U.S. economy would be a mark on his legacy that would have tragic results for all of us.
Labels: financial meltdown, George W. Bush, Henry Paulson, Wall Street
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Thursday Shorts...
1) Despite everything, this remains a close race -- and not just in the national polls. New Quinnipiac survey of battleground states shows McCain doing very well. Usual caveats apply: This is a fluid situation; this doesn't include -- one way or the other -- impact of Obama's trip overseas and subsequent rhetoric on the surge, etc...Still, as of July 24, there is no reason to think that this will be anything other than another close election.
2) No, this is not a knee-jerk defense of my Newscorp corporate "cousin." However, I think Nas' outrage over Fox and its supposedly insulting depiction of black people would have had greater resonance coming from someone who didn't get into a snit-fit with his company because of the negative reaction associated with the original name for his latest album, which was "Nigger." Of course, this might have something to do with his -- who has previously sparred with Ludacris.
3) The battle between the White House and congressional Republicans over who can throw whom under the bus earliest and most-est -- begins in earnest.
4) Let's be clear: This McCain ad on oil drilling is very dumb. Blaming Obama for $4 gas prices just doesn't work. However, the broader issue -- Democrats seeming to want to block all exploration of domestic sources of oil -- may well be the sleeper issue of the year. Whether it's oil drilling (off-shore or ANWR) or nuclear power, if Democrats collectively (or Obama individually) doesn't figure out a way to finesse this issue, they will be giving McCain a great issue with which to run.
5) One major reason why black men of a certain age, class and verbal acuity -- regardless of their political beliefs -- have a warm spot for Barack Obama: After two decades where most black role models are either sports figures or rappers (see above), having Obama become president is like Revenge of the Nerds, Pt. VI for those articulate, eloquent brothers out there.
KnowhatI'msayin', G?
Labels: "N"-word, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, housing, John McCain, Nas
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thanks, George
Bush's "appeasement" statement helped add one smore stake in Hillary Clinton's campaign -- by pushing her even further off the front page and preventing much more media scrutiny of her impressive West Virginia. Instead, Bush helped identify Obama as, essentially, the new head of the Democrats. In turn, that gave Obama all the opening he needed to further hang Mr. 27-percent approval around McCain's neck. This is just the sort of fight Obama must have been praying for.
Even more, Bush did something that none of the Democratic primaries and caucuses have managed to to do: Unite them. Even Hillary rushed out to "defend" her rival against the president's words (and make sure she didn't get left out of the news cycle). Considering the communal headache Republicans got this week from losing the Mississippi seat, Bush's decision to jump feet first into the 2008 campaign may not exactly be met with universal acclaim from his party brethren.
Labels: Barack Obama, George W. Bush
Friday, February 29, 2008
The Bush Rejection Election
It can only help Obama. In fact, it's campaign gold. You can tell that Bush is really feeling the heat from this guy already. He senses that this movement is a massive indictment of him, his clumsiness in foreign affairs, and his rigidity. He's right. And the more Bush makes a vote for Obama a vote against Bush the more traction Obama will get.It's more than that. Even beyond Obama, this entire election is a "massive indictment" against almost everything Bush. Obviously, the entire Democratic Party is "fired up" and demonstrating it by coming out in hordes to vote in their primaries, while giving record amounts of money to both of the last two contenders, But, the anti-Bush sentiment is there on the Republican side as well.
John McCain has emerged as the de facto GOP nominee because he was the most vocal in-house critic of how the administration was executing the war. Meanwhile, the reason why Mike Huckabee is the second-to-last man standing among Republicans may also have something to do with broader "Bush fatigue."
As Tony Blankley tips his hat to Obama's main strength:
[After] seven years of Bush's verbal infelicity, there is a hunger for eloquence. Moreover, eloquence is good. Consider Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Reagan -- even Bill Clinton in a cheesy, insincere way.) Obama must have been tempted to use that old Humphrey Bogart line, when Bogart asked of someone who couldn't keep up with him: "What do you want me to do, learn to stutter?"Huckabee has a similar mix of high rhetoric and easiness with popular culture language that Obama possesses. They may come from different oral traditions, but Obama and Huckabee connect with people because they communicate with them. They talk to them, entertain them (intentionally) and make them feel like they live in something of the real world.
George W. Bush may have been the easy-going, "guy you'd wanna grab a beer with" candidate seven years ago. But, now, the electorate has tied his malapropisms and, as Tony says, "verbal infelicity" with an administration whose policies are either failures or haven't lived up to their billing. And this administration literally cannot explain itself.
No wonder significant numbers of people in both parties like hearing a candidate who can actually "talk the talk" -- in English.
Labels: George W. Bush
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Hey, Big Spender
Hint: It don't look good:
UPDATE: It slipped my mind when posting this earlier, but thanks to long-time regular commentator, Moose, for bringing the Hassett piece to my attention.If Bush had promised in January 2001 that the baseline of government spending that he inherited when he took office would be the cap during his term, then we would have a big budget surplus today. It would have been easy to do. He just had to say: ``I will not spend one penny more than President Bill Clinton planned to. I will veto any bill that tries to.''
....
To see how different the world could have been, I gathered data from a number of sources and ran an alternative history. In that wishful place, government spending was set equal to the spending envisioned by the Congressional Budget Office in the January 2001 long-run forecast, plus the spending for the war in Iraq and to fight terrorism. This simulation assumes that the war would have happened in spite of Bush's spending promise, and wouldn't have induced him to seek cuts elsewhere.The difference between that spending path and the one we are on is huge. Today, we expect federal spending in 2008 will be $2.9 trillion. According to the alternative history, spending would be $2.5 trillion.
Labels: George W. Bush, spending
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
That Darn Month Again!
I'm stunned: There's no way that the president of the United States would receive critical intelligence data in August and not attach much importance to it for months, right?
Labels: George W. Bush, intelligence, Iran
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Everyone Agrees
Or has the potential to be!
Consensus at last!
Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq War
Monday, August 13, 2007
What If?
Just about any political strategist would be happy with a resume that includes two winning presidential campaigns (the first, admittedly, being attained in some weird circumstances), does Karl Rove perhaps now think his reputation (objectively speaking) would have been better if he had left the Bush operation in early or mid 2005 -- with his legacy as being "the architect" or "Bush's Brain" secured?
Now, instead, he leaves with congressional subpoenas waving in the air and his "client" mired in the low 30s approval ratings.
What if?
UPDATE: Rove's exit interview with the Wall St. Journal's Paul Gigot.
Labels: George W. Bush, Karl Rove
Friday, July 13, 2007
Noonan Hits The Bush Wall
Americans hire presidents and fire them. They're not as sweet about it as they used to be. This is not because they have grown cynical, but because they are disappointed, by both teams and both sides. Some part of them thinks no matter who is president he will not protect them from forces at work in the world. Some part of them fears that when history looks back on this moment, on the past few presidents and the next few, it will say: Those men were not big enough for the era.
But this is a democracy. You vote, you do the best you can with the choices presented, and you show the appropriate opposition to the guy who seems most likely to bring trouble. (I think that is one reason for the polarity and division of politics now. No one knows in his gut that the guy he supports will do any good. But at least you can oppose with enthusiasm and passion the guy you feel in your gut will cause more trouble than is needed! This is what happens when the pickings are slim: The greatest passion gets funneled into opposition.)
We hire them and fire them. President Bush was hired to know more than the people, to be told all the deep inside intelligence, all the facts Americans are not told, and do the right and smart thing in response. That's the deal.
It's the real "grand bargain." If you are a midlevel Verizon executive who lives in New Jersey, this is what you do: You hire a president and tell him to take care of everything you can't take care of--the security of the nation, its well-being, its long-term interests. And you in turn do your part. You meet your part of the bargain. You work, pay your taxes, which are your financial
contribution to making it all work, you become involved in local things--the boy's ball team, the library, the homeless shelter. You handle what you can handle within your ken, and give the big things to the president.And if he can't do it, or if he can't do it as well as you pay the mortgage and help the
kid next door, you get mad. And you fire him.Americans can't fire the president right now, so they're waiting it out. They can tell a pollster how they feel, and they do, and they can tell friends, and they do that too. They also watch the news conference, and grit their teeth a bit.
Labels: George W. Bush
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Why Commutation...
Makes sense to me.
Ah, July 8, 2003. Such memories.
By the way, for those truly obsessing over the Libby matter, Andrew Sullivan has gone 24/7 on the issue.
Labels: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Scooter Libby
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Immigration "Reform", R.I.P.
Immigration supporters couldn't even register a majority!
This front-pager in today's Times actually did a good job of intimating the tough road the bill faced in the Senate. Three moderate-conservative freshman Senators -- Jim Webb of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Claire McCaskill voiced their opposition -- in ways that echoed conservative Republican concerns (not the liberal Democrat view that the bill was too harsh on undocumented workers); meanwhile socialist independent Democrat Bernie Sanders' had a unique take:
The three lawmakers, who find themselves in similar political situations after close election victories in states carried by Mr. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, compare notes on a variety of issues.
“I will confess I check Tester’s and Webb’s vote before I check Harry Reid’s,” said Ms. McCaskill, a former prosecutor and state auditor.
Of these three freshman Democratic senators, Mr. Webb has shown the most willingness to
entertain the idea of supporting the measure if it were revised to his liking.
“There is a lot of good in this bill,” Mr. Webb said Wednesday. But his proposal to limit the opportunity to gain legal residency to immigrants who have been in the country for at least four years was soundly rejected by the Senate, 79 to 18, making it unlikely that backers of the measure can count on his support.
“To include every single person who, with a few exceptions, was here in this country as of the end of last year I think violates the notion of fairness among a lot of people in this country,” Mr. Webb said. “And it’s one of the reasons why we have had such a strong surge of resentment toward the legislation.”
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading Republican opponent of the bill, said it was telling that some of the Democrats who had just won their seats were those pushing most strongly against the legislation.
“Some of the new members looked their voters in the eye and said they were not for amnesty and were for stricter enforcement,” Mr. Sessions said. “Now, if they don’t honor that, it is going to poison their relationship for some time.”
And that is just what the three lawmakers are determined to avoid, even though they will not be back on the ballot until 2012. “This was a big issue in Missouri,” Ms. McCaskill said. “I had a consistent and clear message during the campaign, and I feel obligated to act on that.”
Other Democratic freshmen like Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island have been supporting the bill. Senator Bernard Sanders, a newly elected independent from Vermont who usually sides with Democrats, has been opposing the measure, arguing that it could be detrimental to American workers.
Anyway, today's vote means the immigration bill is dead for this year -- and most likely for the remainder of Bush's term.
Labels: George W. Bush, immigration, Jim Webb
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Are Republicans Revolting?
Of course, what I mean is the break from George W. Bush on Iraq by people like Richard Lugar of Indiana.
George Voinovich (he of the crying on the Senate floor over John Bolton) wavering on Iraq isn't big news. Lugar peeling away is.
Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq War, Richard Lugar
Monday, June 25, 2007
Nancy Reagan Was Right...
... to have hired an astrologer.
Consider, relatively speaking, how the Reagan administration was ahead of the game in comparison to the current White House operation which repeatedly has problems with, shall we say, clairvoyancy:
*Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Hamas' electoral victory: "I've asked why nobody saw it coming." January 29, 2006 (noted by George Will last week)
*President George W. Bush, on Katrina: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will.", September 1, 2005
*National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, on 9/11: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that...they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.", May 16, 2002
Can't somebody buy these guys a Magic 8-ball?
Labels: Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush, Nancy Reagan
Friday, June 08, 2007
Border IN-Security
The collapse of comprehensive immigration revision in the Senate last night represents a political defeat for President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the bill's most prominent sponsors. More significantly, it represents a scathing indictment of the political culture of Washington.
The defeat of the legislation can be laid at the doorstep of opponents on the right and left, on congressional leaders who couldn't move their troops and on an increasingly weakened president and his White House team. But together it added up to another example of a polarized political system in which the center could not hold.
The partisan blame game was already at fever pitch as the bill was going down yesterday. But to those far removed from the backrooms of Capitol Hill, what happened will fuel cynicism toward a political system that appears incapable of finding ways to resolve the nation's big challenges.
But blaming "the culture" is like blaming "the system" or "The Man." It clearly manages to ignore the actual real-world factors that are at play. Real-world factors such as:
1) A president with a below-30 approval rating has no political capital with which to push a bill that he has considered a priority since his earliest days in office. He had no strength with which to bring along recalcitrant members of his own party.
2) With the narrowest possible majority in the Senate (essentially 51-49 Democrat), there could not be a worse "bipartisan" duo than Ted Kennedy and John McCain to have their names on the bill if the idea was to get Republicans and conservatives to sign on. For nearly four decades, Kennedy has been the poster child for liberal America. Amazingly, even with Hillary Clinton in the Senate, Kennedy likely retains the heavyweight championship belt of Most Hated Senate Liberal. John McCain (unfairly, in my view -- except for campaign finance reform) is the conservative base's most despised Republican.
3) Despite what they say for the cameras, Democrats had absolutely no reason to be supportive of this bill. They are confident that they will win the White House next year and get a bill more liberal and more to their liking. Far better to let this one collapse, blame it on the Republicans and the helpless White House -- and go for an even-greater-amnesty bill next time around.
Finally, conservatives and libertarians (as represented, in this case, by The Wall Street Journal's editorial board) need to have their own discussion on the issue immigration -- illegal and otherwise. Michelle Malkin's video exposes the truly raw sentiments within the right-wing base. Her "gotcha" on the, ahem, "diversity" at the WSJ ed. board is a cheap shot -- but quite funny.
I was mildly more supportive of this comprehensive bill. However, Malkin makes a number of fair points (memo to Michelle: for the love of God, lose the gorilla schtick) -- and the Journal shouldn't just dismiss the claims of "the right" as being purely cultural (though, yes, "fear of a brown planet" does factor into the immigration issue; it's not all just "law-and-order").
Labels: conservatives, George W. Bush, Illegal Immigration, liberals
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
FCC-'in A!
This point tickled me to no end:
But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”
Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator
Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.
I have a line in my stand-up routine where I point to Bush's vulgarity and pair it with Cheney's shooting incident and ask the question: When did the Republican Party become sponsored by Hot 97?
This blog occasionally uses one or two of those famous "seven words" George Carlin couldn't use on television (though most can be said on broadcast TV these days) -- though usually more in the Comments section than in the main posts. However, no one would confuse this blog with, say, a gangsta rap song. I try to keep something of a mature standard. Still, I don't try to censor myself or my colleagues. There are times when a coarse word or phrase is appropriate -- sometimes as punchline, sometimes as a way to emphasized a point.
Thus, I thought that the Federal Communications Commission was becoming a bit too much of a blue nose censoring body in going after broadcast networks for "incidental" airing of naughty words, supposedly to protect the sainted ears of our tender youth (many of whom are buying those aforementioned rap songs).
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court determines if the FCC appeals.
Labels: Censorship, Dick Cheney, FCC, George W. Bush
