Editorial

What Stimulus?

Remember the economic stimulus that Congress rushed through early in 2008 supposedly to head off fears of a slowing economy and possible recession?  The government dug $170 billion deeper into the already empty federal deficit purse. 

Foregoing the opportunity to provide tax cutting policies that would have provided long term impact and encouragement to investors, Congress instead chose to pass out one-time checks with minimal effect on family budgets or the national economy. 

Many (including ourselves) doubted the wisdom of the legislation and saw it for what it was – populist pandering to the masses in order to win political favor rather than sound economic policy.  Nonetheless, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “This package gets money into the hands of Americans struggling to make ends meet, helps families with children.” Ok.  She further claimed that, "[It] cuts taxes for small businesses that will create new jobs and stimulates our slowing economy."  Pelosi is becoming legendary for broken promises and failed predictions. She missed on this one, too.

We wish President Bush would have vetoed the measure, but lacking any other option, he signed it into law and the checks from the Treasury were soon in the mail. As of the August jobs report we now know that about 600,000 jobs have been lost so far this year including 84,000 in the month of August alone.  Although the economy has avoided falling into a technical recession (two consecutive quarters of negative growth), performance has been sluggish at best.

The Democrats took control of the majorities in Congress in January, 2007 with a flourish of idealistic promises.  They like to blame George Bush and the Republicans for the current challenges, but the record doesn’t back up their claim.  After the passage of the Bush tax cuts in 2003 by then Republican majority through 2007, approximately eight million jobs were added to the economy. 

And, as the Wall Street Journal reports, “At 6.1%, the (August) jobless rate climbed from 5.7%, thanks in part to a surge in the size of the labor force and an expansion of federal jobless benefits. In September of 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, the jobless rate wasn't much lower at 5.5%.”

The economic ship of state has taken on a little water, and it’s occurred during the Democrats’ watch.  The much touted Stimulus failed, so their new plan to invigorate the economy seems to be to raise taxes to record levels.  Anyone want to guess how good that will work?

All in the Family: Freddie and Fannie

The financial markets are whirling driven mostly by residential mortgage woes.   The Federal government was forced to step in and rescue (nationalize) the giant GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In exchange for the takeover, taxpayers tossed in about $200 billion more and will doubtlessly experience expanded bureaucracy – again. 

Put me down in the “deeply concerned” category whenever the government takes over even a quasi-private entity like the two troubled behemoths.  Is health care next as so many are suggesting?  Big Brother and the teachers’ unions already have a lock on most of education. 

We don’t need another bridge to nowhere, but we might need a bridge over troubled waters.

Lipstick on Obama’s Collar

Barack Obama was trying to be too cute by half with his now famous reference to putting lipstick on a pig just days after Gov. Sarah Palin all but patented the word.  He certainly didn’t intend to create the backlash that he did, but he most certainly knew how his flippant comment would be interpreted and his Virginia audience confirmed it. 

Everyone, politicians included, are entitled to make mistakes and use poorly chosen words.  The most troubling part of this episode is twofold.  First, he wasn’t smart enough, or man enough to admit it was a mistake.  That reveals something about his character.  Secondly, and more grievously, this juvenile blunder demonstrates Obama’s poor judgment.  He has made much about his intent to be Diplomat-in-Chief should he become President.  He’s the one who has suggested unconditional negotiations with foreign leaders including Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  One has to wonder if his language skills would be better chosen in such circumstances.

Putin: a growing problem

Elsewhere in this issue we refer you to David Price-Jones excellent essay from the National Review, Cold War II. Vladimir Putin and his increasingly heavy handed aggression, as demonstrated by Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of two provinces in the neighboring sovereign nation of Georgia, has alarmed NATO members and much of the world. 

In the midst of heightened tensions, Russia announced “it would send a heavily-armed nuclear-powered cruiser to the Caribbean for a joint naval exercise with Venezuela.”  Any alliance with Hugo Chavez is concerning enough, but this is also the first Russian maneuvers in close proximity to the United States since the Cold War.

Federal Judge Limbo

Nomination to the federal bench was once perceived as one of the highest honors in the nation.  Lately, sending a judicial nomination to the U.S. Senate for confirmation is like spending time in purgatory – long on frustration and punishment, and short on the ultimate reward.

A once timely and efficient process has deteriorated to trading of political favors and gamesmanship between Senators.  Colorado’s Ken Salazar has been involved almost since first elected. 

Citing statistics supplied by the Committee for Justice the Wall Street Journal reports that “the average number of days from nomination to confirmation for circuit court nominees has risen to 348 days during the Bush Administration from an average of 238 days under President Clinton. Nominations by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan made it through in an average of 69 days each.