Thoughts by Cincinnatus

Paul Volcker? Is This The Carter Administration Revisited?

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:22:00 +0000

So far, I have more impressed than not with President-Elect Obama's appointments to his incoming administration. There are those I am not quite certain of, such as Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but that I'm willing to give a chance to see if they succeed or not.

This morning, as I read that Mr. Obama had selected Paul Volcker to head the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, I must admit that I was less impressed with this selection than any previous selections to this point.

Do we really need to reach back to a Carter administration appointee to advise Mr. Obama on the current economic crisis? Does anyone remember the economy under President Carter? Can you repeat the word, Stagflation?

Paul Volcker's greatest achievement as the head of the Federal Reserve was to attempt to stem inflationary pressures by ratcheting up interest rates to usurous levels. The Prime Rate reached into the double digits. This ultimately did bring inflation into check, but also resulted in a significant recession in the early 1980's and some of the highest unemployment rates since the Great Depression.

While watching a debate the other evening over the role of the Federal Reserve in the current economic crisis, the economists noted that the role of the Fed used to be to use interest rates to keep inflation levels low. Now, in our current situation, the old rule book (Paul Volcker's rule book, as it were) has been thrown out the window and the Fed is not having to create a new rule book on the fly.

So the question is- Is the appointment of Paul Volcker to head the Economic Recovery Advisory Board for Mr. Obama the wisest of choices? Definitely not. The only sense of relief I have with Volcker's appointment is that he wasn't tapped to be the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Guantanamo Bay: Where We Kicked the Tiger in the Ass

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:34:00 +0000

Even if, by some political miracle, Guantanamo Bay was shut down tomorrow, where would we put the prisoners? Imprisoned without trial, we couldn’t possibly confine them to a regular prison, and yet to release them freely onto America’s streets would be political suicide, not to mention extremely dangerous. International law forbids America from repatriating them and it is likely, anyway that they’d be tortured no matter where they ended up. The Economist asks the pertinent question, “Dare you let a 9/11 mastermind walk free?” -Nouse

Guantanamo Bay. Gitmo. It is the symbol around the world for what has gone wrong in the United States over the last seven years. It is one of the legacies of the Bush administration.

Billed as a necessity to fight the war on terror and keep the homeland secure, detainees have been thrown into legal limbo for years. Habeas Corpus was suspended. Interrogation techniques verging on torture, or crossing that line completely, depending on what side of the debate on which you fall, were used.

With roughly 250 detainees remaining (one being sent back to Yemen as of today), the Bush presidency winding down, and President-Elect Obama vowing to close this detention center, we have a looming problem. What do we do with the remaining prisoners?

While I feel that Mr. Obama is correct in wanting to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the question of what happens to these prisoners is concerning. Some will certainly have charges brought against them and be placed into U.S. prisons for trial. Some will be tried in military courts and therefore continue to be held by the military at detention centers on military bases. But what of the rest?

It is the policy of the United States not to release these prisoners back to their countries of origin if by sending them there, there is reason to believe they will be tortured. Yet, if we can't bring sufficient charges against them to keep them in jail until a court proceeding, and we can't send them back to their country of origin, and other countries don't want them, do we release them to the streets of America?

Whether or not all these individuals carried out, or helped to plan terrorist attacks against the United States, it is virtually certain that they have no love for the United States. If they were terrorists, or potential terrorists before being detained in Guantanamo Bay, imagine their hatred for, and the motivation to harm the United States now. While we may not have created the monster, we fed and nourished him. As Tom Clancy once wrote, "If you want to kick the tiger in his ass, you'd better have a plan for dealing with the teeth." We seemed to have kicked the tiger without a plan.

So what now?

If there are charges to be brought, bring them. Charge them and put them through the courts- military or civilian. Then, depending on the trial, jail them, or set them free. Yes, that means some of them may just end up on the streets of America. That means we may have to pay for years of watching them closely, but we kicked the tiger in the ass. But, dealing with the teeth legally and fairly made us what we once were, and what we can be again, as President Regan said, "a shining city on a hill."

Is It Possible They Could All Break Their Jaws?

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:32:00 +0000

It seems that Ann Coulter has broken her jaw and consequently had it wired shut.

Is it possible to also wire shut Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olberman, and Al Franken's mouths?

Imagine the peace and quiet and the rational, reasonable political conversations we could be having if the extreme elements of the media all broke their jaws. I hear strains of John Lennon's song "Imagine."

Greed Is What Started This Financial Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:51:00 +0000

Everyday, we hear about more money being thrown at financial institutions to prevent them from failing. It is disconcerting to see how much money is being given to banks, insurance companies, and mortgage companies. Unfortunately, we have to prevent the problem from becoming worse and taking down the entire financial system. Whether throwing billions of taxpayer dollars into these companies is a good idea or not, we may not know for some weeks or months, perhaps even years.

The issue that has me even more concerned than the billions we are spending to keep these companies afloat, is, what was the root cause of the problem in the first place. If we don't address the primary cause of the issue and continue to throw money at the problem, then the money is ultimately wasted.

We've all heard, at least somewhere in the debate, that the subprime mortgage market was to blame for triggering this whole financial crisis. There have been accusations of deals taking place in the gray markets of unregulated credit default swaps that ultimately came back to bite financial institutions on their rear ends. It has been reported that people were overstating their incomes in order to obtain larger mortgages than they could afford and banks and mortgage brokers weren't verifying the information. In reality, there were a lot of things going on that caused this financial crisis.

But, I think it all boils down to one thing: GREED.

Individuals and companies were overextending themselves to get more and more and more. Mortgage companies were handing out loans right and left, to people who shouldn't have gotten a mortgage, so they could collect more fees, more interest. Banks were jumping in on the rush, lest they be left out of the finanacial windfall. Individuals were buying homes with overstated values so they could not only get a home they couldn't afford in the first place, but get a bunch of extra cash at closing. Meanwhile, CEO's were raking in hundreds of thousands, if not millions upon millions of dollars for making their companies ever more money. They would do anything to make more money, even to the point of putting their companies in danger of failing. Think Enron. Think Worldcom.

Our common sense has been muted by greed, by the lust for more money. To the point that CEO's and their companies were dealing in legal gray areas, or even crossing the line into the dark. People were lying about incomes and the value of their homes. Just for more money.

Now, there is nothing wrong with money. We have to have it to survive. To have a good life. To enjoy life with our families. But, when the uncontrolled pursuit of money- greed- replaces the honest day's work for an honest day's pay philosophy, we have a problem. And now we have a huge problem.

We can throw all the money we want at the financial crisis in our attempt to fix it. Individuals who lied about their incomes to get bigger houses and cash back, should lose their homes. Those CEO's who broke the law because of their greed need to go to jail. Those who dabbled in the legal gray areas, the unregulated markets, the "I'll do it, because I can" areas, should be tossed from their companies. And maybe, just maybe, they need to contribute parts of their multi-million dollar salaries to bail out their own companies, rather than expecting me and my children to do it for them.

Let the Big 3 Make It, or Break It, On Their Own

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:43:00 +0000

Everybody wants a piece of the action- the bailout action. Banks, insurance companies, home builders, states, cities, and of course, the automakers.

Why, I ask, should we be bailing out GM, Ford and Chrysler? Should we offer a bailout to every company that manages their business poorly? What about the bakery down the street whose bread prices are too high, or the bookstore chain that can't bring in enough customers? Should we save them too?

I agree with Mitt Romney's op-ed piece in the New York Times the other day. Let the automakers go into bankruptcy rather than simply throw more money at them. We've thrown money at them before and we seem to be right back in the same position- bending over and holding our ankles.

If a company cannot react to changes in the marketplace, then it is not the taxpayers obligation to assist them in continuing in the same damaging practices that got them to the brink in the first place. It is extremely rare that we throw billions of dollars at any corporation in order to save their business, so why should the auto companies be any different?

Congress made the right choice the other day by sending the auto executives away until they came up with a better plan than, "Give us 25 billion dollars." Handing them the bailout money does nothing to cause introspection on their part. It just lets them know that anytime they get between a rock and a hard place, they can run to their favorite Uncle, Sam, for some help. We can only hope the next time these CEO's coming begging for money, that Congress just sends them away.

Bankruptcy might just get them thinking- thinking about what it is going to take to run their companies successfully and profitably. It might get them to understand that they need to know their customers better- react to their needs in a quicker fashion.

But what if they ultimately fail? Then they do. Another company will pick up the slack. Perhaps a new car company will be created that can react to market conditions more quickly and deftly. What about all the lost jobs? That will be painful, but, why not use the 25 billion dollars that the automakers want right now, to provide for unemployment, education and retraining later on? Another car company may see the failure of one of the Big 3 as an opportunity for them to expand their position into the marketplace, which means they will need to make more cars, and therefore, hire more people to make more cars.

Bankruptcy isn't a panacea. It doesn't solve all the problems that the car makers have, but it will put a greater burden and a greater urgency on them to either redefine themselves or remove themselves from the landscape so that other players can fill the gap.

Sean Hannity, Please Answer The Question.

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:53:00 +0000

I don't often listen to Sean Hannity. Most of the time I have better things to do, but occasionally, I'll tune in to his radio show to listen to what or whom he is criticizing. It's not too hard too guess- it's usually anyone who doesn't agree with his opinion on the way the world should be.

Now before I get too critical of Mr. Hannity, let me just say, there are some things that I occasionally agree with him on. Don't let that surprise you. No one is always wrong, just like no one is always right. Both the left and the right, the Democrats and Republicans have good ideas, but neither side owns the patent on the well of good ideas. This is why I disagreed so much with James Carville's political book from late in the 1990's- "We're Right and They're Wrong." The idea that any side has all the answers is preposterous and arrogant. This is why I think we need to come at things a little more from the middle.

But, on Hannity's show today, the arrogance of his position shone brightly. A woman called his show and posed a very good question. In essence she asked,

Why do you and the Republicans attack the left and the Democrats so much, and why do the left and the Democrats attack the right and the Rebpublicans so much? Can't we find some common ground and work on the problems that we have in this country rather than screaming and yelling at each other about whose fault the problems are?

Being a moderate, a centrist, I thought this was a good question, and I eagerly awaited Mr. Hannity's answer. But, his answer, as he likes to put it, was a non-answer. His answer evaded the question completely. It went something like this:

In this country, we need more rugged individualism. When settlers were going west, they did it on their own. They didn't have health insurance. They didn't have Social Security, or want college tuition. We need to learn how to handle things on our own and not expect the government to step in and take care of everything for us.

That didn't answer the question- at all.

Here is what I find so disingenious about Mr. Hannity's answer. In the past few weeks, I have listened to his show a few times. In those instances, I have heard him replay press conferences, one in particular was with President-Elect Obama. When a reporter asked Mr. Obama a question, and he replied, Mr. Hannity began voicing over the press conference saying, "Answer the question." "That's not an answer." "He's avoiding the question." And to be fair to Mr. Hannity, Mr. Obama was skirting his way around the core issue of the question.

If you want to throw stones Mr. Hannity, be careful doing so inside your own glass house. If you want to criticize others for avoiding answers, then don't avoid answering the questions that your listeners ask of you.

It would have been interesting to hear Mr. Hannity answer the question of why the right and the left, the Republicans and the Democrats and all the talking heads in each corner can't find some common ground on which to operate, to compromise, to work together to find solutions for the problems which hound this country.

Let me answer the question, at least in the case of Mr. Hannity and all the other political pundits, both on the right and the left. They don't want to find the common ground. They don't want to work together or even acknowledge that the other side may have a good idea. Why?

If these people were problem solvers, they wouldn't have television and radio shows. Unfortunately, people enjoy confrontation and people like Mr. Hannity know this and they make millions of dollars by whipping people into a frenzy. If they tried to be moderate, to find answers to problems that both sides could live with, find the good in people who were on the other side of the aisle, they wouldn't attract viewers and listeners. And that would be bad for their wallets.

What Influences How You Vote?

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:44:00 +0000

Based on my previous post, "Alaska, I'm So Proud, Yet, So Disappointed," here is a poll question for readers to answer. Think this through carefully and answer honestly. Do you vote based strictly on your party affiliation, based on the candidates party affiliation, or based on the positions that a candidate has taken on issues, regardless of party affiliation?

View Poll |View Results

Polls PoweredBy MicroPoll

Thanks for your participation. Any thoughts? Leave a comment in our IntenseDebate format by clicking on Comments, below.

Alaska, I'm So Proud, Yet, So Disappointed

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:48:00 +0000

Oh, Alaska. I'm so proud of you, yet so disappointed- and it has nothing to do with Sarah Palin.

Ted Stevens, senator from Alaska, and the longest serving Republican senator in American history, conceded defeat this past week to Democrat Mark Begich.

It only took two weeks following the election to get the results, once the absentee and questionable ballots had all been counted. In the end Begich won by 3, 724 votes, the remaining 2,500 overseas ballots are not enough to swing things in the direction of Stevens.

Alaska, I'm proud that you elected Begich, not because I necessarily espouse his views, or because he is a Democrat (I am personally an unaffiliated moderate). I am proud that enough of you cast your votes for him and avoided sending a felon, a convicted felon, to Congress.

Now on the flip side of that very same coin, Alaska, I am so disappointed that it was even this close- 3,724 votes. You came within a mid-sized town of sending Ted Stevens back to the Senate. Let me repeat myself- a convicted felon.

Now I am very aware that there are a number of Alaskans who voted for third party candidates- hats off to all of you for not simply going with the flow, with just picking between the two major party candidates, for having the determination to go another direction. Eight-hundred and seventy-one of you even wrote in a name on the ballot.

But, those of you who voted for Stevens, I have just one question- WHY?

Was there just no other choice? Yes, you had a few.

Here's my theory, and it applies to all Americans, not just Alaskans. Many of you just look for the R or the D after the name. "Oh, he's the Republican. Well, I guess I'll just vote for him." And, that, my friends is the problem with politics in America today. We're too lazy to do any work, any research on the candidates. We look for the Donkey or the Elephant, the D or the R and we pull the lever, punch the ballot, touch the screen, what have you. We vote for the party, not the man. Or do we vote for the man, because of the party.

The parties have gotten wise to this. They play you. They play all of us.

George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation warned us of the dangers of party politics. He said that it brings out the worst side of the political animal. The founders feared factions and that one or two factions could gain control. Factions, they said, gave bad government.

Well, we have factions. We have a system controlled by two parties who bicker and whine over everything. They play the politics of fear. If the party can scare you into voting for their man, they have won. And, in Alaska, the Republican party very nearly won, even with a convicted felon on the ballot.

Think for yourselves. Don't let the D or R blind you. Don't be bullied by fear-mongerers. Keep an eye on what your elected officials do. Keep their feet to the fire. They serve you. They work for you. Not the other way around. If you see a problem that develops into a pattern, throw them out at the next election. But, don't, just don't throw your vote to them because of the letter behind the name.

I'm interested in how you are influenced to vote. Participate in my poll on voting influences. Want to be part of the debate? Leave a comment by using IntenseDebate by clicking on comments below.

Obama is a Christian... But, What IF He Were a Muslim

noreply@blogger.com (Cincinnatus) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:26:00 +0000

You've seen them. Those cute little messages that churches display to get your attention; "Come On In, Take Out Your Fire Insurance," or "God Loves You- and God Approved This Message." Well, the Spirit One Christian Center Church in Wichita, Kansas put up a sign that has caught a lot of attention around the country, "America We Have A Muslim President, This Is Sin Against The Lord! Ex. 20:3"

Now, before we allow ourselves to get caught up in all the name calling, let's take a moment to acknowledge a couple of things.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press...." This means that we have the right to worship what we may, AND the right, as religious people (clergy or lay members) to express opinion.

What is wonderful about freedom of speech is that allows us to say nearly anything (not absolutely anything, but nearly) whether it is correct or not. If we were in danger of being arrested every time we uttered an incorrect statement, all of us would have spent some time in the slammer a few times in our lives. In other words, this Church in Kansas, has the right to claim President-Elect Obama is a Muslim, no matter how incorrect that statement is.

Was the Jeremiah Wright controversy during the election not enough to convince people that he is a Christian? He was a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for twenty years, and his long affiliation with Rev. Wright became controversial when Wright made inflammatory comments about the United States. Obama caught a lot of flack for attending this church for so many years, yet saying he didn't espouse these particular teachings of Rev. Wright.

But, even if the statement was correct, if he were a Muslim- so what? Again, the 1st Amendment gives individuals the right to worship whatever God they choose. Furthermore, Article Six of the Constitution simply states, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That is the beauty of this country ladies and gentlemen. There is no religious qualification to hold the office of President, Senator, Representative or any other elected office or appointment of public trust. We've had Presidents who were Deists, Quakers, and Roman Catholics, and guess what, we are still the United States, we haven't broken apart yet.

The Spirit One Christian Center Church in Wichita, Kansas may be using a bright neon sign to point out their ignorance (and their freedom of speech), but one thing is abundantly clear. They've made us realize what a great country we have, whether we are a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or what have you.