A Presidential Molehill - Mountains Need Not Apply

So my social media is being infested with stories about President Obama granting a large number of pardons and clemencies yesterday.  It made me a little curious, so I did a little digging.

First, it is useful to know the difference.  A "pardon" essentially sets aside all of the facts of the case as well as the verdict and punishment.  It is a complete forgiveness that erases the act from the criminal record.  A pardoned person recovers all of their rights and is no longer considered convicted of any crime.

Clemency involves ending or reducing the sentence of a convicted individual.  Their crime remains a matter of public record.  However, their punishment, typically confinement, is reduced or terminated.  This is frequently granted to individuals where the President (or state Governor) feels that the sentence imposed by the court far exceeded what the conditions of the crime merited.

Mr. Obama apparently did set a record for the number of combined pardons/clemencies granted by a President in a single day.  But what is the larger context?  (Special note, the statistics on the site were last updated in October and therefore do not reflect actions since then.)

Mr. Obama has been quite frugal with respect to granting pardons.  Prior to yesterday's actions, he actually had granted the fewest pardons of any President dating back to the 19th century.  Now he is just at the low end of the range.  He has granted a little over 100 full pardons.  As a comparison, Richard Nixon granted 863 full pardons and Dwight Eisenhower granted 1110.

Mr. Obama has been far more generous with granting clemency.  Given how much our legislatures have taken to creating statutory sentencing minimum, it is no surprise to learn that we are giving lengthy prison sentences to people who either cannot afford a good attorney or who simply are not able to assist in other prosecutions.  Essentially, these people cannot get the sort of "deal" that is routinely offered to other defendants.  Also, Mr. Obama has correctly questioned the results of a system that offers disparate punishments for the possession of powdered cocaine and the possession of crack cocaine.  The drug is the same in both cases.

And so he has been far more generous in granting clemency.  Properly so.

There is a bit of hypocrisy here as one might expect.  One of the sentencing modifiers created by the Congress is the presence of a weapon; specifically some sort of gun.  The intent is to give prosecutors the ability to put extra bad people in prison for extra long periods of time based on factors that have little to do with the actual crime that was committed.

For example, the DEA busts into an apartment and arrests everyone on drug charges due to the boxes of criminalized drugs stacked up along the walls.  The find a gun and are able to add more prison time onto the sentence(s).  People who intend to do bad things being kept in prison for a longer period of time is probably better for society.

Unfortunately, such laws get twisted into serving injustice.  For example, someone hides a gun in their girlfriend's apartment.  She smokes some weed from time to time and gets busted.  The cops find the gun and multiply the girlfriend's sentence.  The result is certainly more expensive for society but in a non-trivial number of cases it probably doesn't make society better as a result.

So where is the hypocrisy?  Most of the folks that are appalled at Mr. Obama's use of his clemency powers for cases involving gun possession would probably be apoplectic at the prospect of someone in possession of a couple of ducks/fish/etc. over the legal limit being given an extra long sentence due to the presence of a gun.  Yet that can and does happen just as well.

Correcting prosecutorial indiscretion is an appropriate use of Presidential powers.

In any case, this really isn't that big of a deal.  Mr. Obama has granted far fewer pardons that most Presidents.  When you take it down to a per-year and per-capita consideration, he has been downright stingy in his use of that Presidential prerogative.  He has granted clemency at a much higher rate.  Combining pardons with clemency, he isn't really doing anything that differs from other Presidents.

The Local School Superintendent

There are two types of school administrators.

There is the type that plans for the future and controls costs.  This is the person that sets money aside for major renovations like a new roof.  They plan for growth by saving money for the new school that will be needed in 10 years.  They control costs by negotiating aggressively with every vendor and every labor resource.

And their districts have what they need.  They are trusted by the local community if a need for a additional funding comes along. 

And then there are the ones that spend it all.  These are the administrators that look at cutting school buses whenever local residents decline to support additional funding.  Their first tactic is to cut the things that inconvenience residents the most instead of economizing to minimize the impact of any cuts on the district.

Now those tactics are being writ large at the federal level due to the minimal reduction to the increase in federal spending by the "sequester".  As was reported elsewhere, the Department of Homeland Security released thousands of illegal immigrants and blamed the sequester.

Yet now we learn that the same agency is looking to hire close to 2,600 new federal employees.  Which leaves the reasonable suspicion that the release of illegal immigrants was more about political posturing than containing a bloated federal bureaucracy.

Economics, Like Gravity

What do you do when the price of gasoline rises?  Do you adjust your driving habits?  Do you consider purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle?

If you are a normal person with a normal budget, then you do some combination of the above.

Why should we expect normal people running normal businesses to behave any differently?

If government regulations impose additional costs for people that work more than twenty nine hours a week, then normal people will limit employees to twenty nine hours.  If government regulations impose additional costs if you have fifty employees or more, then normal people will limit their number of employees to forty nine.

These are the normal, predictable consequences of poorly developed government policies.  Courtesy of Mr. Obama and the Democrats, a whole lot of people who are already struggling to survive will find themselves less able to find full time employment at wages that will allow them to live something close to a normal life.

A Great Place For A Gun Free Zone

Around any politician.

If gun free zones are really such a great idea, then shouldn't we demand that every politician eschew any sort of armed security? 

Before the government subjects the rest of us to any regulation, tax, or other legal intrusion, shouldn't they all apply to our government employees first and foremost?

The Record

I try to keep the titles for each entry by turns entertaining, obscure, and tempting in case that is all someone gets before they visit.  By the time some folks are done, I image that some will think of "record" as in a "broken record" that skips will think of a "record" as in a "broken record" that skips will think of a "record" as in a "broken record" that skip.

Ahem.  Where was I?

My digital basket of interesting items includes some things from before the election.  With Mr. Obama's second inauguration barely a day a way, I thought this might be an interesting time to look at his justification for re-election.

An article from Investor's Business Daily lays it out pretty well.  In summary:

1) He claims that Bush era tax cuts and deregulation caused the 2008 recession.

The record would suggest otherwise.

2)  His policies stopped another Great Depression.

Again, the data suggests that the recovery started before his policies were enacted.  Heck, the worst of the damage occurred before he was sworn into office!

3)  His policies are working.

Except, they aren't.  The economy is still sluggish.  His policies discourage investment in the U.S. that is needed to get us going full tilt again.  I talk to business owners and managers all the time and hear how they could be doing more, but won't until the current tax and spend environment ends.

4)  A slow recovery was inevitable.

Except that historically, the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery.  Given how deep the recession was....and it was very deep....we should have zoomed out of it by now.  It is hard to zoom when you have an anchor shackled to your ankles.

5)  Nobody could have done better.

See item 4.  Every President coming out of a recession has done better.

One hopes that Presidential hubris will not delay a strong recovery any further.  That would represent real change, and progress to move us....forward, Mr. President.

Real World Translation

While this might seem like political "red meat", I do think this is a great summary of Mr. Obama's recent pronouncements on executive orders regarding gun sales.  I could summarize the summary as being multiple instances of:

• Tell government officials and agencies to do their jobs
• Waste money doing things that private agencies already do, and do better than government agencies.
• Spend money, sometimes without an obvious benefit
• Pretend that the ACA doesn't say what it actually says

The first one on the list is really very frustrating.  We have plenty of gun laws.  But they are not enforced.  We have plenty of policies.  But government agencies elect not to follow them.

Yet when a tragedy occurs, all we hear is a hue and cry for more gun regulations.  Why?

Or better yet, why not try using the current regulations and laws to do what we said needed to be done after the previous incidents?

One of the tools that federal prosecutors have is the ability to get felons convicted of gun crimes sentenced to facilities that are no where near their families.  I read about a prosecutor in either West Virginia or Virginia (I think) that was making full use of that law.  As as result, crimes committed with guns were down in this individual's area.

It seems that while the criminals were willing to commit crimes, they were unwilling to commit crimes that would keep them far from their families for extended periods of time.

Which might also suggest that we inconvenience them in other ways while they are incarcerated, but that is probably a discussion for another day.

Wire Suppliers Rejoice

This is being written on the 30th of December, 2012.

On this morning's talking heads show on CBS, Peggy Noonan offered the following observation.  Paraphrasing, she was a bit disappointed that Mr. Obama has not shown any interest in building bridges with the Republicans in Congress.  She indicated that Mitch McConnell, a leader of the GOP in the U.S. Senate had spoken with the President a few days prior and that this was the first conversation between the two since late November.

Ms. Noonan suggested that this is part of a larger pattern of behavior by Mr. Obama to prefer brinksmanship over building relationships that permit cooperation.  Other panelists largely agreed with that perspective.

I hope that as you are reading this, we have some sort of real solution that includes much needed spending cuts.

However, given Mr. Obama's lengthy history, I am sure that wire suppliers have no need to doubt their profitability for the next four years.  We will be "down to the wire" on some other issue in short order.  Courtesy of an intransigent President.

They Just Are Not Serious

Recently, Mr. Obama signed a presidential order ending a current presidential order that freezes pay for all federal civilian employees.  As a result, federal wages will go up in April.  The cost per year is roughly US$1 billion.

And yet our federal deficit is running well past US$900 billion per year.

Apparently he is still not serious about solving our nation's deficit spending problems.  I'll start to take his proposals more seriously when he starts addressing the problem in a serious manner.

Predictable Results From Obamacare

It seems that Walmart has decided that future new hires that do not work at least 30 hours a week will no longer be eligible for the company's health care plan.  Currently that is not the case.

Instead, those people will have to apply to the newly expanded Medicaid program.

Anyone that has watched the last 80+ years of American history should not be surprised.

We passed Social Security.  Employer pensions steadily declined.

We passed Medicare.  Employer paid health care for retirees is now nearly non-existent.

At each step of the way we have separated those with money from their moral obligation to assist others.  They figure that having paid their taxes, that they have have discharged their civic duties.

Why should anyone be surprised that CEO salaries have skyrocketed in the wake of the government assuming (illegitimately) the civic responsibilities of corporations?

Just Piss On That!

You may have heard about Glenn Beck's recent kerfuffle.  It seems that he took a figuring depicting Barack Obama as Jesus Christ and put in in a jar.  He then filled the jar with urine.  It turns out that the fluid was actually beer, which is pretty humourous for what should be obvious reasons.

Now I don't watch or listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.  Primarily because I find some of their attempts at sarcastic criticism to cross lines that I am unwilling to cross.

But this particular stunt is perfect.

A few years back, an artist by the name of  Andres Serrano created a bit of a kerfuffle with his "art" image of a plastic figurine of Jesus on the cross submerged in a yellow fluid that Mr. Serrano claimed to be his own urine.  The piece won an award that was funded in part by the National Endowment of the Arts and became yet another in a series of incidents that suggest that the NEA is wasting our tax dollars.

Fast foward to today, and we have folks that are supportive of Mr. Obama's agenda making favorable comparisons between Jesus and the President.

Mr. Beck then takes that near-religious fervor and criticizes it a way that mimics that of Mr. Serrano's artistic criticism of Christianity.

We end up with the folks that thought that Mr. Serrano and the NEA had done nothing wrong now being outraged when similar contempt is expressed towards one of their icons.  Apparently, do as they say, but not as they do?

It most certainly is not a step in the right direction with respect to comity and tolerance between different points of view.  But it a timely reminder that if one expects a certain amount of deference toward one's icons, then perhaps one should demonstrate a certain amount of deference towards the icons that are important to others.

Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Hikes Explained

link

This pretty well encapsulates the current "negotiations" on our deficit spending problem.

2012 Elections - Presidential Edition

My absentee ballot is already in.

I voted for Mitt Romney.  I voted that way for a few good reasons.

I really would have preferred to vote for Gary Johnson.  But due to vagaries in Michigan's election laws, Mr. Johnson's appearance on the Michigan GOP primary ballot made him ineligible to run in the general election as anything other than a write-in candidate.  So the value of voting for Mr. Johnson went way down.

The three issues that matter most to me are fiscal responsibility, the U.S. Supreme Court, and national defense; specifically winning the War on Terror against Al Qa'ida, Ansar al Islam, and their fellow travelers.  While Mr. Romney is not perfect on either of these issues, he is better than the alternatives.

Gary Johnson wants to bring the troops home before the war is won.  That's called surrendering.  It is the wrong course of action.

While I was surprisingly pleased with Mr. Obama's continuing prosecution of the War on Terror during his first couple of years in office, he has continued to demonstrate that he really does not believe that we are in a war.  Either that or, he doesn't believe that winning this war matters.

Mr. Obama's response to the recent, planned terrorist attack against our facilities in Benghazi, Libya seem to represent his distilled perspective.  When he could have responded, he didn't.  Instead, is swallowed the terrorists' propaganda and regurgitated it for American consumption.

That is not the sort of leadership that I can support.

On the economic front, it is crystal clear to me that Mr. Obama does not know how anything about real world economics.  He knows how he wishes economics works, but he knows nothing about how economics actually work.  His continuing threats to increase income taxes have needlessly slowed our recovery.  While some of his stimulus spending was worthwhile, a lot of it was not.  Finally, the significant tax increases that are coming next year due to the ACA will put a further damper on the economy.

I would add that Mr. Obama has been a pretty good "friend" of Wall Street.  He elevated "corporatism" or "corporate-capitalism" far beyond anything Mr. Bush did.

That doesn't make Mr. Bush "good"... just not as bad in that category.  "Too big to fail" is a problem.  We need to stop using privatizing profits while we leave losses to the public budget.

Mr. Obama had an opportunity to do something about the structural problems with our federal budget.  Specifically, Medicare and Social Security (along with other social spending) are crippling the federal government.  They need to be reformed.  Fixing our spending problem would have gone a long way towards creating a strong recovery.

Instead, he created even larger structural problems for the federal budget.

The final issue is the Supreme Court.  As above, I don't think Mr. Romney is going to nominate great Supreme Court justices.  I think Mr. Obama has and will continue to nominate lousy ones.

I believe that the U.S. Constitution is our "social contract".  It empowers the federal government to undertake certain actions.  It leaves any other powers with the states or with the people.  It also guarantees individual liberty.  The entire purpose behind the words in the Constitution was to place limits on the size and scope of the federal government.

As I was reading on a legal blog last week, conservative justices and judges have continually given a comfort and counsel to libertarian leaning law students.  They accept those students as clerks, thereby giving them invaluable experiences.  And while they have not ruled in favor of the Constitution over "precedent", they are not hostile to the concept.

Left wing justices and judges have been continually hostile to libertarian leading law students.  They never accept them as clerks.  They rarely listen to their thoughts.  Left wing justices and judges have a history of ignoring the plain language of our Constitution and instead seeking extra-Constitutional "guidance" when writing their rulings.

So while conservative judges are unlikely to support the plain language of the Ninth Amendment regarding gay marriage, they are equally unlikely to support the next power grab that comes out of Congress and/or the administration when it comes to further nationalizing parts of our economy.

So I voted for Mitt.  Not because he is a great candidate.  Just because he will do less harm than the other options.  Had Gary Johnson been on the Michigan ballot, I might very well have voted for him as he would have been correct on two out of the three issues that I care most about.

Not exactly one of the great electoral moments in my life.

Apologia

Surprisingly, I did not bother to watch any of the Presidential debates.  Quite frankly, I won't be voting for Mr. Obama and my political junkie genes must be fading.  Add to that the fact that none of my issues will be seriously debated and the candidates that I want to hear, Gary Johnson chief among them, were excluded from the event.

One example of a personal issue that will be safely ignored is the global implications of America's "War on Drugs".  While the US deals with an array of mafiosi, gang bangers, and other reprobates, nations throughout Central and South America deal with the private armies of drug dealers that undermine the ability of those nations to foster civilization and progress.  Decades of failed drug policies have funded drug dealer backed dictatorships in response to America's demand for drugs and motivated other dictatorships that rise in response to America's demand for drug policy compliance.  This problem is compounded when you remember that the Taliban uses money raised from the sale of heroin products to fund their efforts to oppress or re-oppress vast swaths of the Middle East.

Money fuels these tragedies.  Drugs have such a high "street value" precisely because their are illegal.  Legalizing, regulating (and taxing) currently illegal substances would be the best way to foster civilization and progress among our friends and allies within the western hemisphere and to de-fund our Jihadist enemies.

But of course, Central and South America barely got the briefest of mentions.  The foreign policy implications of our failed War on Drugs were simply never on the table for discussion.

The flotsam and jetsam that follows from these debates can be entertaining.  The most recent bit to float my way has to do with whether or not Mr. Obama ever apologized on behalf of the US during his post election tour of the world.

The fact is that he never used the words "apology" or "apologized".

The other fact is that those are about the only words of atonement and humility he didn't use.  Those that followed the tour at the time widely noted his various pronouncements that were aimed at effectively saying "we in the US should learn our place".  Jennifer Rubin has linky article on the subject.  Follow her links for more.

This is an issue where I significantly differ from Mr. Obama.

The blood and treasure of the United States liberated over 15 million Afghanis from the oppressive imposition of Sharia law by the Taliban.  We gave them a chance to step out of the stone age and take a few steps forward.  Should we apologize?

The blood and treasure of the United States liberated roughly 30 million Iraqis from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.  We not only gave them a chance at have an Iraqi version of democracy, they accepted the opportunity and still hold competitive elections to this day.  How long they are able to hold their democracy may be a function of meddling by the mullahs in Iran, but Iraq has an opportunity at democracy and freedom while it lasts.  Should we apologize?

We were able to effectively bully Syria out of Lebanon a few years back.  Primarily because they saw that we were unafraid to spend our blood and treasure in defense of human rights and individual liberty.  The best way to keep U.S. Marines out of your cities is to not meddle in your neighbor's affairs.  Should we apologize to the Lebanese?

We spent some treasure and little blood helping the Libyans turn out Muammar Gaddafi's oppressive regime.  While I do have questions about our use (or non-use) of force in that conflict, I generally support our efforts....led by Mr. Obama....to foster individual liberty and democracy in that country.  It is my understanding that while the Libyans would have appreciated more support from us, they are grateful for the assistance that we did provide.  The recent terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate was not representative of Libyan sentiments.  Should we apologize to them for our recent assistance?

The punditry will bat this issue back and forth quibbling over whether the use of some variation of "apology" is required to make Mr. Obama's apology tour an "Apology Tour".  For my money, he sought to denigrate our past efforts and leadership on the world stage under the theory that reducing our leadership role would somehow transmute our enemies into friends.

As our ambassador to Libya briefly learned a couple months ago, that theory is misguided.  To put it politely.

Where We Were, Where We Are

The blogfather routinely publishes this chart for obvious reasons.

Click for the original.

I've heard the obvious rejoinder..."well they didn't know how bad Bush had made things"....far too many times.  Bullshit.

If they didn't know how bad it was, then they were obviously not competent to take the job.

I can clearly recall the CBO saying that the recession would only last to the end of 2009 at the worst if we did NOT pass the stimulus bill.  The economy would work things out and we would recover, just as we always have.

Instead, we got an orgy of spending and debt, followed by an expensive national health care bill driving us further into debt, followed by further threats to regulate and tax the very people with the means to create much needed jobs which retarded investment.  There are good reasons to understand why our recovery has been so anemic.  Mr. Obama and the Democrats have done everything in their power to undermine it.

There were some productive elements of the stimulus bill.  The highway construction and repair elements have been very productive.  Obviously the unemployment extensions were worthwhile.  But the rest was just a waste of time and money.

This is why Mr. Obama needs to go.  He has no idea how to create wealth.  He only knows how to consume it.

A Real Way 'Forward'

The Washington Post's Jonathan Rauch has suggested a path towards re-election for Mr. Obama.  While it isn't everything that I would hope for, it does represent modest real progress for the country.

The three elements that Mr. Rauch suggests are:

1.  Long term fiscal retrenchment - He suggests something along the lines of Simpson-Bowles; the national commission that Mr. Obama established to look at long term fiscal reform.  Given that he created the commission and established its objectives, it would be a pity to waste all that effort.

2.  Short term economic stimulus - Given the patronage and graft evident in the 2009 stimulus as well as the wholesale transfer of American funds to European banks, I have my doubts about Mr. Obama's ability to pull off a proper stimulus.  But if it were coupled with the other elements with an emphasis on the "fiscal retrenchment" now instead of in the ubiquitous "out years", then I am sure that we could survive another round of modest stimulus.

3.  A two-year extension on the debt ceiling - As with the stimulus, I think this is something that could be worked out if enough emphasis were placed on spending reductions.

But the problem is that Mr. Rauch has properly qualified his suggested course of action.

The president’s failure, so far, to show that he understands the scope of the economy’s problems and knows how to fix them does not stem from having nothing to say: investment in education, energy, innovation and infrastructure are reasonable things. But they are also slow-acting, small-bore stuff. Such talk does not include additional economic stimulus, an element that many economists, especially Democratic-leaning ones, consider crucial to prevent a double-dip recession. Nor does it deal realistically with long-term growth in spending.

Emphasis added.

The problem is that he does not understand how the economy works.  Instead he prefers to trade upon stoking class envy and the lust for unearned wealth. 

Unless that changes, Mr. Obama is doomed to be a one term President.

And Your Point Is?

I love this too much not to pump it a little.

Mr. Obama apparently has been making a big deal about Mr. Romney's Swiss bank account.  However, it has been observed that the money in that account was legally obtained and properly reported to the IRS.

So the problem is supposed to be that Mr. Romney has money?  Isn't part of the problem with the lackluster economic recovery the fact that Mr. Obama stokes class/wealth envy by demonizing the wealthy?

Obama In History/Obama Inhistory

It was noted a while back that someone on Mr. Obama's staff had apparently been mucking around in the official biographies of past Presidents as presented on the official White House website.  This unnamed person added little factoids to the biographies of past Presidents; Republican and Democrat alike.

While this episode was moderately interesting in the past, it really wasn't worthy of mention here until now.

When I found this website.  Enjoy!

It Didn't Work Then

Periodically, I have moments where I enjoy my online reading preferences.  One of those was a couple of days ago when Mr. Obama's campaign began pushing the idea that Mr. Romney favored fewer firemen, teachers, etc.

The Blogfather had the perfect quick take on the subject.

As my father-in-law once said, when they talk about taxes it’s always for teachers, firemen, and police — but when they spend your taxes, it always seems to go to some guy in a leather chair downtown you never heard of.

As Reason noted, a lot of the stimulus money was advertised as going to help local government jobs like teachers, cops, and firemen, but on those few occasions when the money actually supported those jobs, those people got laid off anyway after the gravy train ran empty.  Not exactly the sort of jobs program that was advertised up front.

From Mr. Romney's campaign:

“President Obama fundamentally believes in raising taxes to grow government. He believes that we must hire more government workers to fix the economy. Every day, we learn why President Obama has not been the leader to take us out of this economic crisis. President Obama wants to stimulate government, Mitt Romney wants to stimulate the real world economy.” 

It's good to understand the talking points before they come out so I can just bypass the conversation altogether later on.

NEWSFLASH: Stopped Clock Accurate Twice Per Day

For all the ball-busting that I give the New York Times' Paul Krugman, I feel obligated to highlight those rare moments when he is right.  As the recent US$2,000,000,000 loss by the bankers of JPMorgan suggests, there really are good reasons for our nation to have banking regulations.

Mr. Krugman is correct; regulating banks is generally a good idea.

That should not be taken to mean that I think that all of his ideas on banking regulations are good.  Some are.  Some aren't.

Also, the article belies his real intent; to criticize Mitt Romney.  The fact is that the recent US$2B loss can came after the enactment of banking reforms by the Democrats and theoretically enforced by Mr. Obama's team.  Those reforms and their enforcement failed in this case. 

Perhaps there is more to this issue than whether or not a politician has a "D" or an "R" behind their name.  Perhaps the kind of regulation that is enacted and enforced is more important that just having any old regulation on the books.

Rutherford B. Hayes

In case you missed it, Mr. Obama...or his speechwriters... flubbed a bit of history.

Speaking about the need to develop new sources of American energy in Largo, Md., Obama used our 19th president as a failure of forward-thinking leadership.

"One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: 'It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?'" Obama said. "That's why he's not on Mt. Rushmore."

"He's looking backwards, he's not looking forward. He's explaining why we can't do something instead of why we can do something," Obama said.

It fact, President Hayes was astonished and impressed with the telephone.  For his era, he was a bit of a technophile.

This whole kerfuffle has introduced some entertaining bits flotsam and jetsam.

Lots more here.