TARP accounts status

One of the things that the Democrats ought to do is make up something as simple as a TARP accounts status website that gives a simple balance sheet on the status of the TARP funds. Something like the debt clock does for the national debt. I think that most people think that our costs on that program have been enormously greater than they have been.
The media has been very helpful in that particular misinformation. If you recall they made no distinction about whether the TARP funds were:
1. given to some corporation or
2. loaned to a corporation or
3 used to buy part of the corporation.
Just call them all bailouts.

If there is one already would someone let me know. I couldn't find it.

Credit Crunch?

“Ninety-one percent of small business owners surveyed in August by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said all their credit needs were met. Only 4 percent cited a lack of financing as their top business problem. Plans for capital spending were at a 35-year low.” http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100925/D9IEME2G0.html

A common amateur mistake is to solve the wrong problem. The quote above from an NFIB survey would indicate that the problem is not that banks lack funds to lend, but that too few want to borrow.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

"A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.(March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935)

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The US has placed Anwar Awlaki on a kill or capture list. His father is sueing to have him removed from it. Obama's people will probably use a variation of the title in their arguments in court.
The expression "suicide pact" was first used by Justice Robert H. Jackson in a dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago, in 1949.
The sentiment had been expressed earlier but not that concisely.
Thomas Jefferson: Changed his mind about how much power the Federal Government had when he got the chance to make the Louisiana Purchase. In justifying his actions, he later wrote: "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."[1]
Abraham Lincoln: Suspended habeas corpus (a congressional power) as a wartime measure to maintain order and when criticized he responded: “ … Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
Later in the war, after being criticized for the arrest and detention of Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, Lincoln wrote that he was arrested "because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army,. . . Must I shoot a simple-minded deserter, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?"

NPV 4b is NPV Compact the best alternative? 1

The last comment on this thread was by Wayne at 9:30 Pm Sept23 as follows:
Each and every one of those elections mentioned in toto’s 9-23-6:15 note as well as all of the other 48 presidential elections that we have held have one thing in common. Winning of the popular vote was not the candidates’ primary objective. Whether we like the structure or not the name of the game was electoral votes. In each and every case the winning candidate won a majority of the votes that determined the election. (That includes the 1800 and 1824 in the House of Representatives.) The popular vote data begins with 1824, because until then they didn’t even record the popular vote. Popular vote is a wonderful thing. But when looking at elections which did not use that system it is strange to talk about those elections as if they did use that system. So perhaps Americans do not view the absence of runoffs as a problem in the present system because the present system always gives a winner who has a majority of the determining votes.

But NPV would change what the determinative votes are. In their system it is popular votes that count. OK but isn’t NPV then obligated to provide a method for dealing with a situation in which the votes are scattered among several candidates? The Bayh-Cellar amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#The_Bayh-Celler_Amendment gave a way to do that. It required that the plurality winner have at least 40% of the vote or hold a runoff. A system doesn’t have give a majority winner but please spare us a 27% president (see 8-7-10 post).

NPV 4a - keep or drop the electoral college

This is one of the continuations of the comments on the 9-22-10 post National Popular Vote 4. This one concerns whether we should keep the electoral college. The other continuation deals with whether, if we change, the NPV Compact is the best way to go.

The last comment on this aspect of the thread was by toto on 9-24 at 4:27 PM as follows:

In FairVote's study of 7,645 statewide elections in the 26-year period from 1980 through 2006, the average change in the margin of victory as a result of a recount was a mere 274 votes. The original outcome remained unchanged in over 90% of the recounts.

A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility. A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections). All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election. The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state. A state's ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.

If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.

The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December). This sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal "safe harbor" statute to mean that the deadline for the state to finalize their vote count is 6 days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

Rules of engagement

My understanding of the rules of engagement in Afghanistan is this. To have a chance to succeed we must have the support of the people. To get that you have to keep civilian casualties low. That means that you have to have very restrictive rules of engagement. That is, you must limit our people’s responses in various situations. That increases the chances that our people will get killed. What it would come down to is deciding how many American lives you would give up in order to keep the collateral damage (= civilian casualties) low enough to have a chance for success. That would be a tough decision.

Cuban layoff

Headline: CUBA LAYS OFF 500,000 GOVERMENT WORKERS
Apparently there is trouble in the Socialist Paradise, too.

debt and taxes

I think it is generally agreed that if the tax rate is too high then it will be a growth killer. Sometimes reducing the rates can be stimulator. Kennedy reduced the highest marginal rate (from 91% to 70%)and Reagan reduced it again to about 50. In both cases it spurred growth. You hear a lot about that from the right side tax cutters. But they usually don't mention what the numbers actually are. So what happens when you get down into the thirties? Will things go better with an even lower rate? On Sunday Sept. 19, I heard Bill Clinton say on Meet the Press that in the 12 years before he took office they (Republicans) quadrupled the national debt. His tax program eliminated the deficit and reduced the debt by about 700 billion. After he left office they lowered taxes and doubled the national debt. I think that that was roughly true.
PS The highest marginal income tax rate under Clinton's tax regime was just under 40%. Given how well the economy performed in the nineties and how not so well it did in the next 8 years perhaps we can conclude that that 40% was not a high enough rate to be a disastrous drag on business.
PS (15 hours later) Leaving them down for awhile may still be necessary because of the "great recession". But long term I think that is not too high.

National popular vote 4

In the post number 3 on this topic (8-7-10)I promised another argument against NPV. This is not it. This is a response to one of the main arguments in favor of NPV. That argument goes like this: Most states know which candidate is going to win the electoral votes of their state because each state runs a plurality winner take all system. That is, Texas will vote Republican and California will vote Democratic. So the election will come down to a few close battlground states like Florida and Ohio which are tossups. Everybody else is "left out".
The problem with this argument is that it is not the electoral college that causes a state to be taken for granted. It is the way the state chooses to assign its electoral votes. Most states use a "winner take all" method which assigns the electoral votes of the state to whoever gets the most popular votes - regardless of how close the outcome is. To become battleground states all Texas and California have to do is allot their electoral votes proportionately based on the split of the vote. That is, if you get 43% of the popular vote then you get 43% of the electoral vote. That will eliminate their being taken for granted. If they want to they can choose to become a battleground state.

Freedom of Speech vs Religion

Most of us in what is called the West have agreed that a religion has the right to demand a code of conduct and behavior by its followers. For about five centuries we have also agreed that a religion does not have the right to impose its code of conduct and behavior on those who do not follow that religion. In this country this is enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution.
Suppose we have a religion that is outside of this tradition and in certain foreign countries has (in varying degrees) merged itself with the power of the state which it uses to force all persons in those counties to abide by the code of that religion.
As long as these two principles are operating in different areas of the world, then the problems are resolvable.
What happens if some of this other religion’s practitioners decide that they have the right to demand that nonbelievers “respect their religion”? What if “respect their religion” means following a part of their code? What if they decide that this applies to Americans? What if that part of their code is in conflict with another part (speech) of that first amendment?
Even without going any further it seems to me that there is a real problem here.
But there is more. What if there is an element in that religion that is prepared to enforce that part of the code by assassination?
Does that religion have the same rights as other religions?
Do the adherents of that religion have a responsibility vis-a-vis the new Assassins?

Islamic dna

Norman Benotman is a former associate of Osama bin Laden who published an open letter (9-10-2010) urging Osama bin Laden to call off his attacks. His perspective was that of a Muslim who believes that the attacks have been harmful to Islam. He said "‘Your actions have harmed millions of innocent Muslims and non-Muslims alike. How is this Islam or jihad? For how much longer will al-Qaeda continue to bring shame on Islam, disrupt ordinary Muslims’ lives, and be the cause of global unrest?"
I particularly liked an expression that he used in his interview with Fareed Zakaria which aired on CNN's GPS Sept. 19, 2010. To underline his point he said:

"Al-Qaeda is messing around with the dna of Islam itself."
.

perspectives

If you ask what caused the current financial breakdown you will generally get two answers: deregulation and subprime mortgages. If you ask which was the more important problem you will still get two answers: those generally tending to the left will say deregulation those generally tending to the right will say subprime mortgages. Is this an objectively answerable question and if so where do you go to find that answer?

First Amendment

I did not participate on Draw Mohammed Day - see 5-20 but I think that we need another presidential speech on the 1st Amendment.
Note: Awlaki, who put Molly Norris on their assassination list, is himself on America's kill or capture list.

Molly Norris goes ghost

begin Jim Miller post:
My Sympathies To Molly Norris
For the record: I published two of the Danish cartoons, and would do so again. (One interesting detail about that controversy: The Danish imams who were trying to stir up violence against the cartoonists had little luck in the Middle East until they added some fake cartoons, fakes that were almost as bad as the cartoons that the UK Guardian routinely ran against George W. Bush.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Since the last thing Norris wants now is more publicity, I have closed the comments.
Posted by Jim Miller at September 16, 2010 09:01 AM | Email This
End of Miller post.

See also the WSJ article on this.

De-developed

You may add the term De-developed to your vocabulary - According to White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren the U.S. needs to be de-developed. Here is the CNS article http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75388

p.s. He also wants you to say “Global Climate Disruption” instead of “Global Warming"

Park 51- 7 – advertised review

Well I have had time to think it through. I think that these are hard questions and I don’t guarantee that I will still hold these views a year from now. We’ll see.
a) I still think Park 51 can be a good thing. If one really gets a bunch of interfaith folks to participate in it.
b) I will give Imam Rauf the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not making the remarks in Park 51 – 6 as a threat. (The remark was that if such and such happened, then “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.” ) However, it is so near to being a threat (see Park 51 – 8) that I don’t think it should be used as an argument. Even if Rauf is not the one who moves them to action (and it is not clear that he is not the one) his remarks would certainly be considered by the “Muslim radicals”
c) I do not think that those who worry about the possibility of Park 51 becoming some kind of “point of triumph” in celebration of the “Muslim Victory” on 9-11 are out of bounds. That is, I think that it is a valid position. Given a) I obviously disagree (I don’t think it likely.) but it is not irrational and it is not an indication of Islamaphobia.
d) Islamaphobia is likely to become the next ridiculously overused word. I expect it will continue to be used to attack anyone who “disagrees with any Muslim position”. Notice that the media has not coined an expression for Christianophobia or Americaphobia.
e) I think that the position that Park 51 ought not be built close to the former site of the WTC is reasonable position with which I disagree. I think we all agree that as a matter of law all religions are and should be treated equally. But when you are talking about the site of a horrible crime and the perpetrators committed the crime in the name of religion X, then, as a matter of civility, religion X should not claim the same access to the site of the crime as other religions could. Now, before you conclude that I’m equating the criminals with the religion that they were acting in the name of (which I’m not) I ask you to read about the convent at Auschwitz and then read this paragraph again.
f) Pastor bookburner (Why should we give him fame?) was going to burn the Quran to show that Islam was a violent religion. We implored him not to do it because it would surely “cause” death and destruction. Does that mean he won the argument? (Also see the last two comments to Liberty's Response on Sept 9.)

Fareed Zakaria

I would like to suggest to you Fareed Zakaria. In The Post American World he provides a view of a possible future which deals with the fact that, though America can be the first power in the world, it cannot be as dominant a power in this century as it was in the last. I expect that he would agree with Walter Lippman’s statement that Foreign Policy is “bringing into balance, with a comfortable margin of power in reserve, the nation’s commitments and the nation’s power.” He writes for Newsweek and has a Sunday talk show, GPS the Global Public Square, which gives you the opportunity to hear from foreign leaders themselves about their views so as not to hear only what our people think that the foreigners think.

Buckley

William F. Buckley was a silver tongued leader of the American conservatives who founded The National Review and had no chance of winning an election in the very liberal city of New York where he lived. However, in 1965 he did run for Mayor of NY on the new Conservative party ticket in order to attract votes away from liberal Republican John Lindsay. He responded immediately when he was asked what he would do first if he won: “Demand a recount.”

Tolerance

Is there a point at which the application of the tolerant mind set simply becomes nonsensical or possibly even absurd? As Americans we seem to be obsessed with being tolerant. Even to the point of feeling guilty if we are not more tolerant that those who we are being tolerant of.

If I ask “is it in my best interest” to always be tolerant will I be chastised for considering my interest and not the worlds interest? It has been a while since I read Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”. It’s short; perhaps I shall read it again.