Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Dueling News Stories

Here are two dueling news stories that caught my attention today within seconds of each other. The first comes from MSNBC.com:

White House won't try to directly limit exec pay

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, which partly blamed out-of-whack executive pay for the nation's financial crisis, says it won't try to directly limit such pay, choosing instead on Wednesday to try to tame compensation through shareholder pressure.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the administration will ask Congress to give shareholders a nonbinding voice on executive pay and to require corporate compensation committees to be independent from company management. That second provision would give the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to strengthen the independence of panels that set executive pay.

Separately, the administration is preparing to issue new, more specific regulations governing pay at financial institutions that have received infusions from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Those regulations, following legislation already passed by Congress, would limit top executives at these companies to bonuses no greater than one-third of their annual salaries.

An official said the administration will appoint a "special master" to oversee compensation at firms receiving large amounts of government assistance. The pay overseer would have the power to reject excessively generous pay plans.

The second comes from the New York Times:

Overseer to Set Executive Pay at Rescued Companies

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Wednesday appointed a compensation overseer with broad discretion to set the pay for 175 top executives at seven of the nation’s largest companies, which have received hundreds of billions of dollars in federal assistance to survive.

The mandate given to the new compensation official, Kenneth R. Feinberg, a well-known Washington lawyer, reflects the federal government’s increasingly intrusive role in the corporate affairs of deeply troubled companies. From his nondescript office in Room 1310 of the Treasury building, Mr. Feinberg will set the salaries and bonuses of some of the top financiers and industrialists in America, including Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America; Vikram S. Pandit, the head of Citigroup, and Fritz Henderson, the chief executive of General Motors.

The compensation of executives at some companies receiving aid provoked a firestorm of political outrage earlier this year. In revising a previous proposal to set pay limits, the administration has decided to take an approach that will leave the success or failure of the effort to curtail high compensation at the assisted companies in the hands of Mr. Feinberg. (Mr. Feinberg himself will not receive any government compensation.)

So which is it? Is the Obama administration planning on overseeing executive pay or not? Just looking at the title of the MSNBC article, you'd come away with the idea that the White House is not limiting exec pay, but the third paragraph puts the lie to the title. The New York Times title and article are in complete agreement. For this article at least, the Grey Lady is reporting the news, while the MSNBC article is spinning the news. Shame on MSNBC for attempting to deceive their readers. And shame on the Obama administration for their heavy-handed actions. So, what's the correct term to describe government control of business?

When I read the two headlines in my RSS news feed, I recognized instantly that they couldn't both be true, and in my mind's ear I heard the Dueling Banjos tune, so here's a good rendition you can listen to while rereading the two dueling stories.

Posted by Captain Midnight | 6/10/2009 10:40:00 PM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Cuteness Timeout

This is what I found in my front lawn as I arrived home today.

Bunny! KAWAIIIII!

I knew there was a reason why I hadn't mowed the lawn yet.

Posted by Captain Midnight | 6/3/2009 9:15:00 PM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Monday, May 25, 2009

Memorial Day, 2009

Today is Memorial Day, the day set aside to remember those who died while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Since the birth of our nation in armed conflict and again in each generation, brave men and women have stood "Between their loved home and the war's desolation" to keep our nation and its people free. So as you enjoy your vacation from school or work, your barbeques, or your fun times today, remember that you are free to do so because millions of American men and women served in the armed forces to keep our nation free, and too many of them gave the ultimate sacrifice while serving.

Don't mistake this day for Veterans Day, which honors all veterans, not just those who died. But nothing says you can't (or shouldn't) thank any member of the military you encounter today.

Here are several good Memorial Day links well worth visiting:

Michelle Malkin

Gateway Pundit

Hot Air

Below is a wonderful National Geographic special about Arlington National Cemetery hosted on Hulu titled "Arlington: Field of Honor".

And to finish off this post and to list out their sacrifice, here is a table taken from the Wikipedia article on American casualties of war. I have edited the list to enumerate only the dead, not the wounded.

War or conflict	Date	Deaths
		combat	other	total
American Revolutionary War	1775–1783	8,000	17,000	25,000
Quasi-War	1798–1800	20		20
Barbary Wars	1801–1815	35		35
Other actions against pirates	1800–1900	10		10
Northwest Indian War	1785–1795	1221+
War of 1812	1812–1815	2,260	~17,000	~20,000
First Seminole War	1817–1818	30		30
Black Hawk War	1832	60+
Second Seminole War	1835–1842	328		~1,500
Mexican–American War	1846–1848	1,733	11,550	13,283
Third Seminole War	1855-1858	26		26
Civil War: total	1861–1865	212,938		~625,000
Union		140,414	224,097	364,511
Confederate		72,524		~260,000
Indian Wars	1865–1898	919
Korean expedition	1871	3		3
Spanish–American War	1898	385	2,061	2,446
Philippine–American War	1898–1913	1,020	3,176	4,196
Boxer Rebellion	1900–1901	37		37
Mexican Revolution	1914–1919	35+
Occupation of Haiti	1915–1934	146
World War I	1917–1918	53,402	63,114	116,516
Northern Russian Expedition	1918-1920			424
American Expeditionary Force Siberia	1918-1920			189
China	1918; 1921; 1926-1927; 1930; 1937	5
US occupation of Nicaragua	1927-1933	48
World War II	1941–1945	291,557	113,842	405,399
China {Cold War}	1945-1947	13
Berlin Blockade	1948-1949		31
Korean War	1950–1953	30,880	2806	36,516
Russia {Cold War}	1950-1955	32
China {Cold War}	1956	16
Bay of Pigs Invasion	1961	4
Vietnam War	1957–1973	47,424	10,785	58209
Invasion of Dominican Republic	1965-1966	13
El Salvador Civil War	1980–1992	9		20
Beirut deployment	1982–1984	256		266
Persian Gulf escorts	1987–1988	39	0	39
Invasion of Grenada	1983	18	1	19
Invasion of Panama	1989	23		40
Gulf War	1990–1991	148	151	299
Somalia	1992–1993	29	14	43
Haiti	1994–1995	1		4
Bosnia-Herzegovina	1995-2004	1		12
Kosovo	1999	1	19	20
Afghanistan	2001–present	463	214	677
Iraq War	2003–present	3,760	540	4,300

Posted by Captain Midnight | 5/25/2009 2:00:00 PM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Inexperience in the White House

Whenever I was engaged in a political discussion with supporters of then-candidate Barack Obama, I always asked them to list the things he had done that showed he was ready for the job of President. It was depressing how many people were ready to vote for him, but who couldn't name one accomplishment off the top of their heads. A few pointed to his Senate election as a qualification, and more than one flatly stated that they were voting because of his race. During these discussions of qualifications, I always pointed out his lack of executive experience. Why should anyone place a neophyte with no executive experience into the role of the top executive? I compared it to taking a military officer with little to no leadership experience and placing him in charge of the entire military. It made as little sense then as it does now. The job of President is too important to trust to on-the-job training.

On his third day in office, President Obama signed an executive order stating that the facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba would be closed within a year. Bye-bye, Gitmo. I laughed at the time because I saw it for what it was: a bone tossed to the rabid anti-war branch of his party. And they dutifully gnawed on it and rejoiced. Less than two weeks later, he admitted that even he was worried that released Gitmo prisoners "might resume attacks on the United States." Maybe his announcement to shut down Gitmo was a bit hasty.

While many countries in Europe had been calling for the U.S. to shut down Gitmo, when it came time for them to step up to the plate and take back some of the detainees, they began to balk:

Germany's interior minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has suggested publicly that if Guantánamo detainees pose no security risk, there is no reason the United States should not take them.

When the administration suggested that the detainees could be released in the U.S. and given welfare, Obama found out that the NIMBY principle was just as active in the U.S. as it was in Europe. I guess the decision to foist off the detainees was too hasty.

Then on May 15th, President Obama announced that he was restarting the military tribunals he had shut down at the beginning of his administration. Could it be that his decision back in January to stop the Gitmo tribunals was too hasty?

On May 4th, 2009, the House dropped the funding President Obama had requested in order to close Gitmo. And today, the Senate did the same:

In a major rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the administration the millions it sought to close the prison.

The 90-6 Senate vote -- paired with similar House action last week -- was a clear sign to Obama that he faces a tough fight getting the Democratic-controlled Congress to agree with his plans to shut down the detention center and move the 240 detainees.

Holy cow! What a resounding defeat for President Obama's plan, mustering only six Democrat Senators to vote for it. Judging by these acts from the Legislature, I guess that both the House and Senate think Obama's plan was too hasty.

But it's not just me, or Europe, or Americans, or the House, or the Senate who think this decision was too hasty. Even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says this decision was too hasty, and he thinks President Obama will say this as well tomorrow. Skip to the 2 minute mark to hear it:

"Uh, and I think he'll say this tomorrow that, uh, we've made some, uh, hasty decisions that, uh, are now going to take some time, uh, to unwind. And, uh, closing Guantánamo Bay obviously was one of those decisions."

Hasty and unthought-out decisions like closing Gitmo and others are just what you get if you hire people for a job when they have no experience qualifying them for it. But there is good news from all this -- President Obama has been successful in uniting the people. The bad news is that they are uniting against him and his policies.

Face it, we have a n00b in the White House.

Posted by Captain Midnight | 5/20/2009 7:30:00 PM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Monday, May 18, 2009

Excellence Via Government Fiat

Tired of the poor gas mileage on your current car? Boy, do I have good news for you! All new cars in 2016 will have much better gas mileage than they do now, as reported in the news today:

New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday.

President Barack Obama was expected to adopt the higher mileage standards on Tuesday, administration sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the official announcement.

The new requirement will mark the first time that limits on greenhouse gases will be linked to federal standards for cars and light trucks.

While the 30 percent increase would be an average for both cars and light trucks, the percentage increase in cars would be much greater, rising from the current 27.5 mpg standard to 42 mpg starting in 2016. The average for light trucks would rise from 24 mpg to 26.2 mpg.

If I were the CEO of an American car company, I would write the following letter to President Obama:

Dear Mr. President:

I read in the news today that your administration will mandate that all automobiles manufactured in 2016 meet the new standard of 42 mpg. I have enclosed both a yellow highlighter pen and a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution with this correspondence. Please have one of your people highlight the passage in Article II of the Constitution that grants the Executive Branch the authority to tell me how to run my business.

Unless you can identify the section of the Constitution that grants your administration the authority to mandate the gas mileage of the cars manufactured by my company, I must respectfully decline to comply with the administration's mandate.

Sincerely,

Me
CEO, Hypothetical Motors

Go ahead and see if you can spot the part of Article II that grants the President the power to mandate the fuel efficiency of American cars. Go ahead. I'll whistle the "Jeopardy" theme to myself while you go do that.

 

 

 

Back? So, did you spot it? Me neither. The closest thing I could find was this part of Section 3: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," but this new standard is a mandate from the administration, not a law. Congress could pass a law requiring the higher gas mileage, but I would ask them the same question, pointing them to Article I which outlines the powers and responsibilities of the Legislature. The only section I can see that relates to the auto industry is the line of Article I, Section 8 which grants Congress the power "[to] regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

This is called the Commerce Clause, and it is the reason often cited by Congress as the basis of its supposed authority to regulate our lives. If you sell or buy something from another nation, state, or Indian tribe, then Congress has the authority to "regulate" that act of selling or buying. The Commerce Clause has been used as the rationale for Congressional meddling in our lives for many years. Wikipedia outlines some of the far-reaching nature of Congress' view of the Commerce Clause this way:

The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Court ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers; in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate Ollie's Barbecue, which served mostly local clientele but sold food that had previously moved across state lines; and in Daniel v. Paul (1969), the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Gonzales v. Raich takes the Commerce Clause one step further and says that Congress can ban marijuana even if individual states have allowed it. This ignores the fact that people growing medical marijuana for their own consumption are not engaged in interstate commerce, and since Congress has banned the interstate transportation and use of marijuana, local growing and consumption has zero impact on interstate commerce.

But government is all about power, and the people in government, whether elected or faceless bureaucrats, seem to have an insatiable desire for more power. They won't state it so boldly; usually they clothe these naked power grabs in language people have a hard time opposing:  they talk of the common good, or the environment, or the children. They have to pass laws or mandate regulations on every aspect of our lives; otherwise, how could puny Joe Sixpack possibly take care of himself?

The auto industry is already struggling as it is, so how do you think these tighter standards will affect the price of new cars in 2016? If you said it will make them more expensive, go to the head of the class. But I detect a whiff of arrogance in this new mandate. It is almost as if a voice were coming from D.C. saying, "Gas mileage will be 42 mpg in 2016 because I say it will be. Next, I shall command the tides and cool the sun because I wish it to be so!" As if simple fiat had the power to make it happen.

But in any case, the government has upped its standards. Now up yours!

Posted by Captain Midnight | 5/18/2009 7:00:00 PM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Monday, May 11, 2009

Random Thoughts

Some random thoughts that have been rattling through my head for the last few weeks:

---

If you are uncertain how the current administration will react to some situation, just identify the action most likely to increase the government’s size and power, and you will know exactly how the government will act.

---

Posters have appeared at my work telling us when and how to wash our hands. Since I work at a company that hires people for their smarts, this seems to be a bad sign.

---

The call to shoot the Somali pirates was the right call to make, and kudos to Pres. Obama for making that decision. But why is the President making such a tactical decision?

And speaking of the President making a tactical decision, the military once had Osama bin Laden in its sights, but because President Clinton stalled and didn't make the decision, that golden opportunity was lost. Read Dereliction of Duty for how that happened.

---

<joke> Pres. Obama didn't actually order the attack on the Somali pirates. What he called for was "a tax" on the pirates. </joke>

---

Why does Hollywood think it is a good idea to take a wonderful story and change it into a terrible movie? The Dark is Rising is a great book by Susan Cooper, but "The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising" is a trés crappy movie.

---

If the President asks a mix of Democrats and Republicans for their opinion, and their response comes along party lines, then the issue is a political one, and the President may respond politically. But if the response comes back unanimously, then it isn't a political issue and shouldn't be handled politically.

The current CIA director and five of the past directors, appointed by Republican and Democrat Presidents, responded unanimously to Pres. Obama that releasing the memos outlining the enhanced interrogation techniques would be a bad idea. Obama ignored their united advice and released the information anyway. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

---

I've noticed some people are saying that the recession is showing signs of bottoming out, and we may come out of it this year. If that's the case, can we please repeal all the "stimulus" sections of the budget that haven't even kicked in yet? There's no need to saddle future generations with debt over a stimulus package that is no longer needed.

---

The more I read about President Obama and what he says, the more I realize that this nation has elected a n00b.

---

People claim that President Obama is a skilled orator. I wouldn't know because I don't listen to him. In matters political I have long preferred to read, rather than hear, the things people say. After all, I'm much more interested in content than in form.

---

I delete any email I get that ends with a call to forward it on to everyone I know. I see that plea to forward it on as an acknowledgement that the content isn't worth forwarding on its own.

---

In other news, even though the depression in the yard has been filled in and no longer becomes a pond after a hard rain, the ducks returned once this week. And again the female duck was hogging most of the bread.

Posted by Captain Midnight | 5/11/2009 9:30:00 AM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Monday, April 20, 2009

A Second Amendment Poll Plea

I got the following email recently (formatting left intact):

Subject:  Gun Vote - USA Today

This takes literally 2  clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue  question with USA Today. It will only take a few  seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all  the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these  results will be published later this month. This  upcoming year will become critical for gun owners  with the Supreme Court accepting the District of  Columbiacase against the right for individuals to  bear arms.

First - vote on this  one.

Second - launch it to other folks and  have THEM vote - then we will see if the results  get published.

Vote in the USA Today poll -  click on the link below.

The  Question is:
Does the Second Amendment give  individuals the right to bear arms?

Vote  here: Yes!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

The correct answer to the question "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?" is no. The Second Amendment doesn't grant anyone the right to bear arms because our rights do not come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or even government. The Declaration of Independence states that the source of our rights is God, and the Bill of Rights only lists some them. It does not grant rights to the people any more than government may grants us our rights. Government's responsibility is to secure these rights for the people, not restrict them. Here's a snippet of what I wrote before about our God-given rights:

If there is no God, then who or what grants us our rights? They can't be "God-given" if there is no God to give them, right? Then this implies that the rights must flow from the government. And what the government gives one day, it can easily remove the next. You can see how this has happened in the People's Republic of China, and I do not wish to see it happen here in the United States. So I'll be keeping both my God and my God-given rights, thank you very much.

In any case, the quiz is from November of 2007, and the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller in June of 2008 that the Second Amendment applies to individuals. I don't put any faith in non-scientific polling like at USA Today. Heck, I don't put much faith in scientific polling because of how easy it is to manipulate people into giving the desired answers.

Sure, we may talk about how our rights come from the Constitution, just like we talk about the United States being a democracy. But in both cases, it's best to really know the facts behind the statements.

Posted by Captain Midnight | 4/20/2009 8:30:00 AM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Happy Tax Day 2009!

It's the day that everyone loves to hate, April 15th. If you haven't already filled out your 1040 tax form, there are only a few hours left to do so, or at least fill out an extension.

I have my 1040 form in an envelope right next to me ready to be mailed out today. Since we knew that we'd have to write a check this year, we didn't see any reason to give the government our money any sooner than it is required. Since we had sold some stock last year, we knew we'd need to pay taxes, so we took 20% of our stock sale and placed it in a savings account. It has been earning us interest since, so why would we send a check to the Department of the Treasury any sooner than is necessary? On the other hand, when we expect a refund, I like to get that submitted as soon as possible. After all, I earned it by working hard, so I'd like it back as soon as possible.

Berkeley Breathed summed up my feelings about income tax in a "Bloom County" comic from 20 years ago. Click the image to see it full size.

I wonder if the IRS will notice that my envelope is addressed to the "Infernal Revenue Service"?

Posted by Captain Midnight | 4/15/2009 10:00:00 AM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Friday, April 10, 2009

Spending Ain't The Answer

ReasonTV has posted a great video that brings our current spending into perspective.

Ask yourself: Reckless spending is what got us into this mess. Is more spending really the answer?

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this three minute video is a novel.

Posted by Captain Midnight | 4/10/2009 9:00:00 AM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

Monday, April 6, 2009

The Looming Threat

Thanks to government meddling in the free market and individual greed, we are living in serious economic times. During any economic downturn, the government has four basic options:

Reduce government spending - When a family has less money to spend, it just makes sense to cut back on the extra expenses. Yes, it might mean sacrificing your favorite morning pick-me-up, but do you realize that skipping your daily Starbucks drink could save you over $1,000 in a year? Do you have any other daily or monthly expenses that you could reduce? Not that the government lives in the real world. Can you remember the last time our government voluntarily cut back on its own expenses? Neither can I.

Raise taxes - Any time the government sees a need for more money, a cry will echo down the halls and rooms of D.C. to raise taxes, often targeting those evil, nasty rich. While campaigning, President Obama said that he'd only tax people making $250,000 a year, but that promise was quickly broken when he raised taxes on cigarettes. Most of the people who smoke make nothing close to $250,000 a year. Setting aside Obama's broken promise, raising taxes acts as a damper on whatever is being taxed, so raising taxes on income will have the effect of damping people's efforts to raise income. You can think of raising taxes as similar to placing a few stones into a hiker's backpack. It's unlikely that the extra pound or two will cause the hiker to give up altogether, but the added weight will make him work harder than he would have done. And that extra effort means less energy for other activities on the hike. That's similar to raising taxes in real life. When people are already burdened with bad economic times, it's a dumb idea to add to their burden with tax increases.

Borrow more money - The government can always raise more money by borrowing, but to do so, it would have to find someone willing to finance the debt by buying our bonds. In his excellent post, Peter Murphy explains that China, Japan, and Russia are not in the position to buy up our bonds. And as the economic problems echo around the world, the pool of people able and willing to finance our debt will shrink even more. But borrowing even more money while already deep in debt is foolish at best. If you are already maxed out on ten credit cards, will you be any better off financially if you max out another five? (And is it really all that wise to attempt to raise money from people who consider us their enemies?)

Print money - The government could just print more money. If the money were backed by something concrete like gold or silver, then producing more gold or silver would make it possible to print more bullion-backed bucks. But our money is fiat currency, meaning it isn't backed by anything tangible, just the full faith of the U.S. government. But what tangible items does the government actually produce? I see government producing laws, regulations, press conferences, and scandals, but I don't see anything of value actually produced by the government. It is the people of these United States that do all the real producing. So any additional money printed by the government is backed by the future productivity of the people, not the government. When borrowing money and raised taxes won't bring in the needed funds, the only option left to the government is to print more money. So get ready for the coming looming threat of inflation.

Americans haven't had to deal with high inflation since the early 1980s, so the coming inflation may be a nasty surprise to those who haven't been through it before. But it could be worse--we could experience hyperinflation, when the government shifts money printing into overdrive. The bill in the image above is a 100 quintillion Pengo bill, printed by the Hungarian National Bank in 1946 during its worst period of hyperinflation. Since there are no zeroes on the bill, allow me to make it clear just how much that bill is worth:

100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Pengos

That's 20 friggin' zeroes! It's no wonder they used text instead of numbers on the bill, or the peasant girl would have fled in shame. Unless our government reins in its rampant spending, we will see inflation hit the U.S. hard.

Hopefully, we won't experience hyperinflation like that experienced in the Weimar Republic of Germany, when it was cheaper to burn stacks of money than it was to buy firewood. Don't forget that the German hyperinflation damaged the Weimar Republic's reputation and left it impoverished and dispirited, allowing a certain poisonous charismatic leader to be elected. And don't forget the effort it took to remove him from power.

Posted by Captain Midnight | 4/6/2009 6:00:00 PM
Comment | Permanent link | Tags

 

View all comments