The Legacy of George W Bush

The presidency of George W Bush will be written about and studied for decades to come and perhaps beyond. Whatever may be said of the man today will fall short to the judgment of history. Bush is an unpopular figure. It seems hard to believe that history could ever reverse his current standing however Harry Truman left office with only a 22% Gallop rating below Nixon's lowest at 24% during Watergate. Truman's achievements are many as a war time president and subsequent peace not to mention the policy of Soviet containment, the creation of NATO, CIA, National Security agency, Air Force the list goes on and on. But does anyone remember his attempt to take over the steel industry in order to break a strike, his opposition to tax cuts or the ending of wage controls or the endless corruption that infected his administration? Does it matter?

The troubles that drag on the Bush administration have more to do with the means and not the ends.
Bush will leave office with 50 million middle easterners living in a democracy in two countries with US forces routing their homelands of terrorists. If in 20 or even 10 years time those democracies hold and if America doesn't see another attack with the likes of 9/11, will Guantanamo, the Iraqi insurgency, Katrina, or the absurd Valarie Plume be relevant? The current book on Bush is written by and large by his detractors. The daily barrage of anti-Bush sentiment is the sign of our times. The apparent clumsiness in speech and folksy manner of George Bush only fuels the perception of a president that is aloof, unattached and worse incompetent. He seems to have little to no concern about how he is perceived and pays no mind, obviously, to his popularity. Contrast this with his predecessor Bill Clinton who has made it a career to build a legacy with little to no accomplishments. As with Bush history will make a final judgment on this point, however Clinton had forged no initiative or any legislation in the 6 of his last 8 years in office. In his defense Clinton presided over a nation in peace and and good economy times. Even if it wasn't of his making he had the good sense to not interfere.

Aside from matters of war the Bush presidency will also be judged on policy decisions that were may not stand the test of time. The vast expansion of the federal government and the enormous bail out plan that gives the treasury department broad powers over economic matters may set a bad precedent. On other fronts the expansion of NATO to the doorstep of Russia may have fueled its current authoritarian emergence and antagonism abroad.

Certainly there is a lot to look at and his tenure is not easy to assess. His policies could only be judged through the test of time. His prescriptions were for future generations not for the latest Gallop numbers. Bush's legacy will be a work in progress. Bush can only succeed, not now, but in many years to come.

The Terrible Problem with John McCain

During the Reagan years the mantra of cutting taxes wasn't a campaign promise but part of an overall philosophy. That philosophy was grounded in the proposition that individual were not only wiser than Washington when allocating resources in investing and spending but that the citizen was also more autonomous and self determined. Lower taxes will only sound like an empty campaign promise if it isn't proposed within the context of giving the citizen greater liberty and freedom. The free-market system after all is liberty and freedom in motion. The greater liberty a country has the better the economy, they go hand in hand. High taxes are a restriction on freedom and therefore stagnate economies.

John McCain doesn't understand this. When Barak Obama proposes that he would cut taxes on 95% of all Americans, this sounds great. What he doesn't tell you, and what John McCain ought to know, is that the remaining 5% pay over 50% of all taxes. When Obama says he will raise taxes on Americans in the 5% range what he will end up doing is raising taxes on most of the people who pay them. If McCain was grounded in free-market tax policy he could certainly counter the argument on the damaging affects of Obama's proposal but instead sounds like a "big business" Republican who favors the rich over the poor. He'll cut taxes on the business, Obama on people.

One of the great misconceptions about tax policy is that when taxes are cut the federal deficit will grow. This isn't true. When taxes are cut the economy grows and so do revenues. This happened during the eighties under the Reagan tax cuts when federal revenues nearly doubled. The reason for this is that revenues rise when the economy is doing well. Investors don't mind paying taxes if their after tax return higher, in fact it encourages investment into the economy. When president Bush cut taxes the same thing happened. John McCain opposed the tax cuts under the false premise that it would cause deficits.

McCain with all his talk about being a conservative and having Reagan as one of his heroes has some explaining to do. In fact when it comes to the details McCain his quick to tell us how he disagreed with Reagan from time to time and in fact considers one of his important virtues as being a person who bucks his party "reaching out" across the isle. His bipartisanship has more to do with capitulating to liberal idealism then it has to do with convincing Democrats to vote on Republican concepts. In the debate he mentions how he was able to work together with Democrats and cites senators Fiengold, Kennedy and Libermann. In all he enacted or failed to enact liberal ideas. When McCain says he's a conservative to what do we attribute this label? His latest proposal touted in the second presidential debate was for the government to buy out mortgages. Part of his "reaching" out supposedly. Certainly he would have bipartisan support for such an intrusive government proposal, hows that for being a maverick.

Abortion in the Case of Rape or Incest and One Pro-life Position

Now that the presidential campaign has started in earnest it is time to get down to the specifics. As is the case with most elections the group of voters who are undecided from the time of the conventions until election day will decide the outcome. One of the most contentious issue of the two parties is abortion. Vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is pro-life as well as her running mate John McCain. What has become contentious is the fact that Palin is pro-life in all instances including rape and incest. Cindy McCain the day after the Republican convention has weighed in with her opinion that although she is pro-life, she disagrees with Palin in instances of rape or incest.

There is a problem of consistency here. A pregnancy as a result of rape and incest is still a pregnancy. Pro-choice advocates would argue that an unwanted pregnancy causes a measure of undue hardship and perhaps psychological pain. The pro-life argument is the pregnancy is the act of carrying a human life and to abort is ending that life, no hardship is worth taking a life. Perhaps this is Cindy McCain's position, certainly she considers abortion the termination of life however if she qualifies her position to say that it is okay to end a life in the case of rape and incest the question becomes at what point?

Is there a distinction between life in the womb and outside of it? To Cindy McCain there is. Put it this way, if a child were born and it was the result of rape or incest, does that child have a right to live? What is it about a fetus conceived due to rape and incest and one that is not? If she would agree, and we are sure she does, that taking a life of a child already born has a right to live no matter the circumstance, then why is it suddenly okay if the life were taken inside the womb in the case of rape and incest. The qualifier is incongruent with her overall pro-life position. Her position is thus that any pain, no matter the circumstance
is not a reason to take a life, unless the pain is as great as rape and incest. So therefore it is not so much as taking a life to Cindy McCain, she disagrees with pro-choice position on the measure of pain and hardship a woman should bear. In this instance she doesn't have a right to determine what is real hardship and what is not.

If there's no difference between life in or out of the womb to pro-lifers unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, then it ought to be alright to terminate a life already born for the same reason, there is no other way around it. Pro-lifers with this position have a lot of explaining to do.

A Watershed Election

During the Democratic convention the big story was unity, or the lack thereof. The forces of Hillary Clinton were not happy about their candidate being passed over, not only for the nomination, but far more important, vice president. This is conventional wisdom, we happen to think that it wasn't a bad decision considering Clinton's high negative ratings (mid 40's) and the baggage of husband Bill. Having said that Hillary Clinton did have a constituency of female voters who had to witness the appearance of a glass ceiling in their own party. Compound this appearance with the pick of Joe Biden as VP. If Barak Obama had picked a woman he would have at least dispelled the notion of discrimination, an ongoing infatuation within the Democratic party. A pick of a woman would have mitigated the gender conscious forces confining the shafting of Clinton to Clinton herself and not her gender.

With John McCain's pick of VP going to Sarah Palin, not only has he exasperated the disgruntlement of the gender conscious woman vote within the Democratic party but has brought about the real prospect of taken away a large section of voters who would've gone Democrat. Add to this is the possibility of re-aligning the woman vote to the Republican party and the prospect of women taking a look at conservative philosophy as a whole viewing it on its own terms and not through a charactered depiction from Democrats.

We have opined that this election is an up or down vote for Barak Obama. A popular and groundbreaking figure that has shown that there is hope for Americans of all races to reach high office. For this reason we have said that if Obama lost in the general election it could only be attributed to his liberal philosophy. A loss for Obama would cause the Democratic party to re-think its positions. A mistake would be to attribute his loss to something other then his positions, the pick of Sarah Palin could do just that. If that's the case expect liberalism to be shut out of national politics for another generation.

Dissecting Obama's Saddleback

This years presidential election has the potential of reshaping the Democratic party. Ever since the candidacy of George McGovern Democrat's have nominated a candidate with political principles and world views that don't connect with the voters. The two exceptions Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton became default candidates due to failure or corruption and by not portraying themselves as liberal standard bearers, Clinton after all ran to eliminate welfare “as we know it.”

In this current race for high office Barak Obama is set to replace an unpopular administration much the way Clinton and Carter had. Add to this is Obama's popularity with young voters and great communication skills. If Obama were to lose, to what can we point to as the one element that brought him down?

To kick off the general election John McCain and Barak Obama faced off in a quasi-debate in California (Saddleback) answering questions on policy and morality. No other forum before has ever given voters a more stark contrast of both candidates. Voters could see that more then anything else they are voting for different visions. If Obama were to lose with all of his popularity it can only mean that his outlook or the principles of the liberal wing of the Democratic party have been rejected. Unlike other rejections, this one in particular could be a watershed moment for the Democrats because if Obama can't win as a liberal, no one can.

Just what are the tenets of liberalism and why are they not palatable? The more identifiable is the one that cherishes welfare. Since the advent of Linden Johnson's Great Society program of the mid 1960's the United States has spent trillions on social programs on all levels of government. Programs in area's of standard cash handouts to families with dependent children to health care, education, food, hosing assistance, and unemployment. One of the first questions asked to Barak Obama in Saddleback was what if anything does he see as America's failure. His answer was providing for the poor. After all the years and funds directed to do just that why such an indictment? It's not enough to say that welfare is well funded, there is strong evidence that it is destructive. It's not a new argument or hard to understand. Either it is right or wrong voters at least have an inkling that it is true. But putting the affects of welfare aside, with all that has been redistributed from one class to another, does Obama have enough grounds be ashamed of America? Obama does mention the need and dignity for work but this is short lived. He also gives somewhat of a contradiction when he mentions that he was against welfare reform under Bill Clinton and subsequently saw that it was beneficial and he was wrong to oppose it. If Clinton was right to cut welfare then why be ashamed that we haven't done enough over the years to “provide for the poor”?

But providing for the poor is one of his missions as president as though this is a new idea put upon a rich and selfish nation. This he sees as America's greatest failure. And he doesn't stop there. He was asked whether or not he believed in evil to which he said he did. In identifying where evil lies he sites Rwanda genocide as one and the other the streets of America. No mention of Islamic terrorism, none. Not just Islamic, but terrorism of any stripe. Wasn't 9/11 an more poignant example of evil? Has he forgotten? Not only does he not see Islamic terrorism as evil but we should be “humble” about it when recognizing it in others. We are reminded of the arguments of moral equivalence during the cold war years when the left would excuse the faults of the old Soviet Union by pointing out our own. Not only moral equivalence but moral relativism, where there is no right or wrong short of genocide or, for that matter, “American Streets.” As an aside, if genocide gives America a need to intervene in other nations as Obama has hinted in Darfur and Bosnia, then why is it not okay to topple Saddam Hussain for that very reason? Why is Iraqi genocide ignored totally? Couldn't he say he was against the argument of Weapons of Mass destruction because of faulty intelligence, but glad we went in if only to remove a genocidal regime?

If there is a defeat of Barak Obama it is time for the Democratic party to shed it's postmodern, class struggle outlook. They are not ideals rooted in reality, as pointed out in providing for the poor (been there done that) and the need to give America's enemies the benefit of a doubt by drawing attentions to our shortcomings. The one thing about Obama is that there is nothing unique in his politics and has given the voters a chance to once and for all make clear what they think of liberal politics. Democrats would be wise to retool in the event of a vote of no confidence.

Let Them Eat Inflated Tires

Aside from Barak Obama's missteps and associations his biggest problem is the same as other Democratic predecessors who ran for top office and that is his political principles.

National campaigns, unlike the primaries, must appeal to the undecided vote, a group that is apolitical with an open mind that would vote for either party. The problem with Democratic presidential candidates is that they don't seem to have a handle on what it is middle America wants in a president and liberal policies are not it. They at least recognize that the word “liberal” is an albatross so they stay clear of the label but not the ideals. Never will it be heard in a general election, or even in the primaries, a candidate say that he or she is a liberal standard bearer. Republicans have the opposite problem in that everyone says they're a conservative when running but seldom are in governing. Democrats never say they're liberals but almost always are when in office.

When it comes to the electorate anti-conservative are liberals but anti-liberals are not always conservative. The reason being is that liberalism is expensive. Certainly a centrist could be apprehensive about conservative tax policy citing deficits in government ledgers but thats government ledgers, not their own. which is more immediate. Another problem with liberalism is the propensity to come up with government run solutions to big problems. All one has to do is run over a pot hole to distrust government to solve big problems. For Democrats to have broad appeal as a governing party it's going to have to retool. Since a liberal message doesn't get them to the white house they must rely on bad news in order to win.

Which leads us to Barak Obama. Would he even have a chance if it were not for bad news? Note how as the war becomes more and more successful with lowering gas prices and 3% growth in the economy his star seems to be fading. He's certainly is not helping matters in his recent tactic of defining his opposition as racist, a much overused liberal devise. No popular conservative has ever escaped this charge. With the current run up in oil his response has been 1. higher prices are okay only it happened too quickly. 2. replacing oil with “green” energy and other technologies that don't exist 3. inflate your tires. 4. confiscate money from oil producing companies put it all in an airplane and dump it out over populated areas (well not quite but not that much different). You don't have to be conservative to recognize that none of these so-called solutions will lower the price of gas anytime soon. Add to this is his high sense of himself. He seems to believe all the hype saying that he is what the world has been waiting for. This is a bit much. This is not to say that Obama cannot still win. McCain is not only running a hapless campaign but he is unable to coordinate a message that resonates with the voters mostly because he doesn't have one. McCain is a typical senator in that his line of work is to compromise and see different sides to an issue, a virtue important in legislating but out of place in leading or formulating a message. Only two senators have ever been elected president.

Its been said countless times before but it is worth repeating. The election is a referendum on Barak Obama. But not Obama only but the political philosophy of liberalism. A much unreported story in the campaign is the defection of Joe Lieberman the former Democrat vice presidential candidate in supporting McCain. Most Americans would like to see a black president. If Obama loses it will be because of his politics and if that happens liberalism is all but finished.

The Business of Waterbury Golf Courses

Waterbury golf courses are losing money and the mayor along with the Board of Alderman are going to meet to see how this could be reversed. The courses do not pay local taxes so as a business it has an advantage. Both have had major renovations done within the last ten years which include irrigation, cart paths, redesign (East Mountain), state of the art equipment; most of which have been paid for by government grants from the state. The courses are in better condition then they were over a decade ago when they operated profitably so what happened?

For the most part golf courses are tough businesses to run. Pro-shops, carts, green fees pay for equipment, maintenance and employees. The difficulty comes from year long expenses paid for with seasonal income. Even though private courses don't have the advantage of an operating budget stemming form city hall or renovations from state grants not to mention running tax free, for the most part they are profitable and in better shape.

What troubles the operation of Waterbury courses is its business structure. Each course has a manager (foreman) that oversees the daily maintenance. Both managers answer to a general manager. The general manager answers to a committee which sets policy and a mayor who is in charge of the city. To qualify to be a foreman the individual has to have knowledge of golf course maintenance. To be the the general manager the qualifications are more extensive which includes the knowledge of different types of grass how it grows, what inhibits its growth, how to treat it. Along with this knowledge comes chemicals and its application. Here is where the problems arise. Take a car dealership for instance; who would be better to run such a business the person who knows how to fix even to build a car or someone who knows how to sell them? In Waterbury the business of selling fees is the guy who has the knowledge of grass, so if new equipement is needed the likely way to pay for it is to charge more in fees. In 1992 to play eighteen holes cost $13, today it is more then doubled. With each increase in fees comes the likelihood of less business. Today the courses have less business, better shape, less business.

When the Mayor and Board meet they may get bogged down on the wrong side of the ledger. That is to say expenses could be trimmed, altered, put off budget, blaming managers etc. None of this will serve the long term financial health of the parks. The courses could run in the black if the analysis of the operations are done from the perspective of business, not accounting practices or blame or politics. The qualification of a general foreman seems to be the crux of a solution however essential knowledge of maintenance is, it does not include what it takes to run a business. It is not practical to ask for a business degree along with the necessary horticultural training for a position, but without it there is a void that needs to be filled.

Politics is not the same art as business and it is in the sphere of the latter that will determine the fate of the former. That is not to say that a solution could not be found. The decision makers have taken a step to look at the problem and not let it deteriorate. That this is being done when the town is running a surplus is politics at its best, the mayor and the board ought to be commended.

The War is Over and We Won

As in all wars the Iraq war has been a rough ride. While the invasion and ousting of the Saddam Hussein government was not difficult, the aftermath came close to making the campaign a failure.

The war can be divided into two phases, the first that of toppling the government and the second the installation of stability. The first phase of the war was executed successfully. Once Saddam Hussein was removed from power this should have been the end of what it is that is traditionally called war. Everything that transpired afterwards ought to have been nothing more then an installment of order and a democratic society. It was the second phase of the conflict that disaster struck. The US did not anticipate the magnitude of the insurgency and when news story after news story of bombings and body counts started climbing so did the second guessing of the Bush administration and dissent.

The dissenters could be split into two factions. The first being the group who did not want to invade in the first place. In this group there are those who would be against the war on strategic grounds or simple pacifism. The other group of dissenters are political opportunists. In this group the war became a vehicle of attacking the Bush presidency for political reasons. If truth is the first casualty of war it is apparent in the protagonists of a conflict also, in this case, the political adversaries of the war. During the second phase there was a drumbeat of charges of lying and incompetence. That Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or that he had nothing to do with 9/11 became a rallying cry to foster dissent. This group would have us believe that if a Democrat were in office they would make the same arguments. This is a canard. This is apparent due to their own rhetoric. They would have us believe that president Bush was the first to mention weapons of mass destruction when he was not. It was also the position of the Clinton
administration as well as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and foreign intelligence agencies. More important was the use of wmd's as a means of genocide. If wmd's were not found by the time of invasion it did not matter. Hussein could have stayed in power and while there could have accumulated a fresh stockpile with the intent on using them for another round of genocide or in another conflict with it's neighbors and if not Saddam then certainly his sadistic sons who would have eventually taken power.

As for culpability in 9/11 Hussein had no direct involvement, no one ever made the case that he was. However it was the policy of the Iraqi government to harbor terrorist and export terrorism abroad. Whether or not he was culpable the fact that he was a terrorist enabling nation made Iraq a rouge and dangerous presence especially post 9/11.

The political dissenters while ignoring past arguments of nefarious behavior of Iraqi made by their own side in the past are now denying the successful strategy of the surge and the growing stability of the Iraqi nation now. Nothing could assuage the dissenters other then the installment of a Democratic president. If the current policy is unchanged in the event of a Democratic administration and stability continues, look for this crowd to take all the credit.

At no time from now till January 2009 will our involvement in Iraq be labeled as anything but war. The fact is the war is over and we won, not only the in the first phase but also in the second. The Iraqi government is democratically elected with a governing body of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. There does not exist any enemy combatant with anything resembling an army or insurgency. The only true battle that is left to be fought is one of perception. It is a battle that will be lost in the short run pace the political success of the Democrats in congressional seats and their current lead in the run towards the white house. When the dust settles the world will have over 30 million middle-east citizens living in Democracy in regions unthinkable less then a decade ago while America has been safe of
terrorism. The Republican party is inept in regards to winning the current debate on Iraq. It will be left to History to have the final say.

The End Of Oil

The sudden jump in gas prices with no end in sight has many people coming up with explanations as to why. Could it be price gouging by the oil companies? By oil producing states? The fashionable explanation are speculators, aha that's the culprit. With hefty profits these are the fast and easy answer yet when there is a real estate boom there are no such charges brought upon agencies or mortgage companies. Same could be said in any market where there is a sudden run up in price. The problem with oil companies are its historic reputation of robber barons or foreign sheiks living lavishly beyond imagination. Oil companies "big oil" as it's called are a favorite whipping boy in politics. When we pay more for oil there never seems to be a market explanation. Greed is the first to blame.

But where was the greed when oil was $11 a barrel. Since deregulation in the early eighties and the sudden drop in oil it stands to reason that if the sheiks and the barons could profit enormously now it could have done so all the time. Why not be greedy all along?

Although profits by all the market players, to them, are a good thing in the short term it could only spell disastrous in the long run. For some reason Europe has had higher then average fuel prices yet they seem to bear it. America is another story.
The US has an historic propensity towards market efficiency and invention for alternative products. We invented fuel cells and electric engines not to mention speed of light communications with information exchange where good ideas are hatched and shared across the electronic spectrum in an instant.

If there is a market reason for the sudden jump in oil prices it could be that countries in eastern Europe and Asia that have shed their state run economies towards
free enterprise has put a heavy demand on oil. We have mentioned that easy money policies always precede high commodity prices and with a dollar losing value it takes more of them to buy precious metals and oil. The former scenario is welcomed the latter is an anomaly.

Habits and more important ideas will spell the end of oil as a major commodity. The worst thing that can happen to a product is if it pushes the consumer for its replacement. Many of the ideas that are being improved upon now were new during the last oil crisis when the world was less free. To be more precise it was a time when an individual had to be in a certain few places on the planet to put his or her
imagination to a test let alone getting people to fund it. Now that has changed. The only advise is to let it happen. Governments ought to resist the temptation of artificially lowering the price with regulation or legal fiat. Let the market (ie: free minds) do its job.

Appeasement Is Not The Worst Of It.

President Bush's speech to the Israeli parliament struck a nerve with Barak Obama even though he wasn't mentioned in his remarks. The president spoke of the shortsighted policy of appeasement and why it doesn't work. Obama never advocated appeasement and hasn't objected to the substance of Bush's point. Obama took the presidents words as a criticism of his idea that face to face meetings with our enemies, unconditionaly, is equal to appeasement. There has been criticism of this idea by his primary and Republican opponent, none of which mention the word appeasement. By taking offense to Bush's speech Obama becomes the first person to associate his proposal with the idea appeasement only to deny that it is.

So a firestorm has erupted kicking off the general election and with that the season of hypocrisy hunting. Democrats dug up a statement John McCain made in that the US is going to have to deal with Hamas whom at the time had been elected as the government of the Palestinian Authority. McCain's siding with Bush doesn't jibe with dealing with Hamas as he suggested, so they say. On the surface it looks like McCain has been bagged. That Hamas at the time became head of the Palestinian authority and still is, communications are inevitable. That is before they decided to launch missiles into Israeli civilian populated areas, a small detail the Democrats presumably would have us ignore.

To cut through the demagoguery and talking points the question that needs further analysis is that in talking to America's enemies; is it appeasement? It depends. The US communicates with its adversaries all the time. Not at the presidential level but at lower diplomatic levels even during war. What the Democrats are doing is trying to obfuscate the difference between the importance of the presidency and the white house with low level diplomacy. They are not the same thing, there is a vast difference. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, so they've said; support and arm terrorist organizations such has Hamas and Hezbollah while arming Al Qaeda in Iraq to kill US servicemen. Iran leadership denies there was a holocaust. With all this should they be given a seat at the table in the oval office? Venezuelan leader Cesar Chavez insulted the president at the UN. Aside from his lunatic socialist despotic rule and tough talk and hatred for the US, should such a man be invited to the White House as well? For the sake of argument lets say it isn't appeasement the problem with this policy is a matter of pride and prestige. Such meetings at this level gives lunatics a facade of reason, equates stupidity with misunderstanding. Is Obama going to change their mind about anything? Will he shake their hand in front of the camera? This is the problem. They will be elevated, in fact rewarded by their bad behavior but the serious danger is that we are being lowered by understanding to agree with cordial disagreement when their premise is our demise.

Obama's high minded idea was given during a primary debate. Let's hope he was just pandering to his far left wing base that see's nothing unique or exceptional about America other then being the focus of what is wrong with the world and in some corners find common ground with some of the worst dictators when it comes to their distorted view of America. This is the only constituency that see's the rationale to such mistaken feel good ideas. It may or may not be appeasement however it is not wise and disasterous just the same.

Economic Distortions

The Federal Reserve has once again cut its prime lending rate and to date this will be the seventh reduction since September all in the name of easing what is considered a severe credit crunch. The danger in all this is the devaluation of the dollar which has caused the price of gold to shoot up but more importantly the price of imports are becoming more expensive especially oil. It could be that the Federal Reserves proactive course in correcting a perceived economic anomaly is a mistake. Something had gone wrong in the financial markets when home mortgages were made easy to consumers with little ability to pay. Now that bad loans are working there way into the system banks and investors are waiting for loses to cross over from perceived to actual, in other words things can only settle down when the markets shed their uncertainty. Just what is the value of a home now or two months from now? If loans are tied to value and value is elusive, then credit markets will suffer. The Feds can cut rates all it wants but no one wants to invest in the dark. A case could be made that none of this should have happened in the first place if state and federal governments hadn't strong armed lenders into loosening up its lending practices and create mortgages to consumers with little ability to make good on a note.
Whenever external forces (ie: political) interfere with the mechanisms of markets it's no surprise that distortions in prices and ultimately hardship ensures. It is not natural for gas to shoot up to close to $4.00 a gallon or homes to lose %20 of value when people haven't been driving more then usual or given up on buying homes, when prices change without the change in behaviour of the consumer then we smell a rat.

Party Of Farce. Bad Week For The Candidates.

As the primary continues so does the circus. Hillary thought it necessary to embellish her credentials by saying on three separate occasions that she was under sniper fire in Bosnia during her husbands presidency. When the comedian Sinbad, who accompanied the first lady, said it wasn't true she noted well, he's a comedian after all, they say things that are laughable, can't count on what he says, c'mon. Soon after CBS News dug up a video of the event and sure enough it was a festive and relaxed affair showing Hillary with her daughter greeting troops and civilians alike including an 8 year old child. Far cry from running from sniper fire. She quickly retracted, "misspoke" as she called it giving new meaning to misspeaking. Weeks go by and husband Bill thought to add to the story, on the one hand giving credence to Hillary's account citing General Wesley Clark who said it was dangerous here and there and the president of Bosnia who also said it was dangerous in some places then completely undermining his own excuses by saying she was giving a speech in the end of a long day (she was "fatigued") only to find out her misspeaking was late morning. Taking Hillary's account post the CBS archives one has to wonder why husband Bill would send his wife to a spot with a lot of sniper fire in the first place? Knowing it wasn't what she described, it assuages our worst suspicions of husband Bill's possible motives. He may be a lying cad but he's not a creep. We think it was Christopher Hitchens who said of the Clintons that they tell a big lie when a small lie would do and tell a small lie when the truth would do. Bill Clinton on the same day of his defence of Hillary had to retract even his own recollection of events because Hillary, who by now has had time to think things over and get plenty of sleep, told him he doesn't remember either. Why it is anyone would support this crowd, liberalism we can understand, barley, but is this the second best they can do?

Barak Obama doesn't fair well this week either. In a speech to a San Francisco crowd Obama thought it necessary to tell his constituency just what is in the hearts and minds of simple folk in Pennsylvania saying they "..cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Now lets take these velcroniums one by one. Gun ownership is something people own out of fit of frustration? Hating immigrants and people "not like them" a common trait in small town America? They think protectionism is just the solution to their economic doldrums? Aside from the notion of what small town Pennsylvanians think, isn't stereotyping a big no no when attributed to people of color and those who want to redefine gender and sexuality? Why is it okay in this instance? But on his account one item sticks out in particular and that is religion. Is Obama telling us that a "clinging" to religion something other then a tradition of faith and, well, hope? Poor fools, can you believe they own guns and believe in God? Perhaps to Obama they believe in God when Jesus would do and believe in Jesus when the-government-is-drugging-African Americans-God-dam-America would do.

Waterbury's Dire State Of Affairs And Why It May Not Last

Every couple of years Waterbury will get a negative rating of best/worst towns in the country from a business or travel publication. This year Forbes magazine online edition rated Waterbury as a bad town to do business in calling it a dump and a corrupt one at that. What instigated all this was the appointment of former ex-con governor John Rowland to run economic development in an organization that does nothing of a kind. We extend compliments to Anita Bologna for sticking up for the city chastising Forbes and its columnist for its characterization in the Waterbury Observer also various commentaries on the Forbes web site, some of which are not native to Waterbury but happen to like our town.

Any politician that looks to the Waterbury Development Corp. to "develop" communities or to market the city ought to just come out and say that they are negligent, or incompetent as an elected official to do anything about the economic well being of Waterbury. It is the job of elected officials to improve the conditions the city finds itself. That they would look to John Rowland, or anyone for that matter, in an outside organization is washing their hands of the task. That Rowland is an ex-con detracts from the bigger picture and that is why is it that city hall can't do the economic development themselves? What brings the city in it's predicament, real or imagined, is the cost of government. High taxes (and they are) penalizes business and property owners.

We won't go over again just what it is that drives successful economies, previous posts have done that. Politicians like to think that "enterprise zones" and "tax abatement's" seem to work, and we agree, they do. We just can't understand why they have to be implemented in zones or for new business. If they see that these planes work then why do they have to be under special circumstances, why not extend the zone to everywhere and abatement's (we like to call this lower taxes, or outright elimination of some taxes) for everyone? If your outside the zone then your not in a very enterprising place are you, if you've been doing business for 35 years then your paying a business unfriendly tax. We're not saying it, the politicians are ADMITTING it. Just look at their solutions when it comes to business they want to attract or areas they want to enhance. As for the rest of us who've been here they scratch their heads and outsource the problem as if the problem is all of a sudden beyond their ability.

Waterbury is a beautiful city with alot going for it. It's greatest resource is not the highways, not it's medical services, manufacturing base, sports facilities, culture, shopping areas or it's housing prices. It's best resource is its people, enterprising, innovative and intelligent people. Waterbury may find its way higher on some list somewhere and we think it will improve because it has the talent to become the best town in the state. It isn't their yet, we want a hand in changing that.

Primary Circus

In what is suppose to be the year of the Democrats it is now turning out to be one of the most disastrous presidential campaigns not see since, well, probably ever. Why is this so? 1. the rules that give most states proportional delegation has prolonged the race to where no clear winner could ever emerge. 2. super delegates are party insiders that will determine the ultimate winner thereby rendering the whole process meaningless not to mention the specter of disenfranchising the voting of all the state primaries and Caucasus. 3. since there is virtually no philosophical difference in governing between Obama and Clinton the campaigns are stuck defending and making charges of racism, experience, lies and guilt by association and if this is not indicative of the campaigns themselves, campaign aids, surrogates and media pundits are making these issues front and center.

While either of the Democratic candidates has not gained much of an edge nationwide throughout this mess John McCain has been gaining when matched against both in nationwide polls. These sort of polls are meaningless this early on since there is a lot of campaigning to do between now and November but time is not on the side of the Democrats if no clear winner emerges by convention time. No sooner has Obama's pastor debacle ended, Hillary Clinton is caught in yet another lie, this one about evading gunfire in Bosnia as first lady when news footage shows that this simply wasn't true, an ongoing trait of Ms. Clinton. In fact the Democratic electorate has as much culpability in all this since it has given Ms. Clinton a free pass whenever these untruths are uttered. To give one example during the 9/11 atrocity Clinton stated that her daughter Chealsea was jogging in and around the Trade Center when they collapsed and was scrambling for cover all the while she was home in bed. Another example was lying about her name saying her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary the man who climbed Mt Everest when the climb happened years after Hillary was born. That she is immune to discredit within her own party (until now, presumably) it only enhances her negative ratings with the general population which hovers around 49%. She probably never should have gone this far to begin with.

But the same could be said of Barak Obama. Of the entire field of candidates before the primaries kicked in Governor Bill Richardson, senator Joe Biden, former VP candidate John Edwards or even Connecticut's Christopher Dodd had more knowledge and experience in Washington and governing. Why none had gained much traction could be attributed to the parties infatuation with race and gender as though these are defining attributes of character. It is abhorrent to judge a person on such criteria in a negative sense since it is racist and sexist, but isn't it equally wrong to judge positively because in both judgement is based on what a person is and not who?

Unless there is a resolution between now and convention time dark days lie ahead. Both candidates have little reason to drop out and so the circus will continue much to the delight of the media and Republicans. The downside is that McCain could win as the default candidate when victory could've been determined on the merits of party differences. Even after the convention is over and super delegates have had their say Obama and Clinton could split the party even further by not bowing out gracefully and making the case that a loss for either was hatched through non democratic means. After all that has happened till now far more trouble is yet to come.

Downtown Economics

Previously we opined about a plan by representative Jeff Berger to lure the film industry to make movies in Connecticut (Dec 10 07). In his plan we found a grain of truth. An idea within the idea that has escaped the planners. According to reports the idea had worked with movie and TV production increasing and thereby adding tax revenues to Hartford from those industries.

The truth within the idea was that tax revenues gathered from a business could be reaped by lowering taxes. When taxes are lowered a government will yield more of the stuff they are trying to get more revenues from. This ought to offset the initial lowering of taxes because not only will revenue be collected from the company doing business it will also produce more tax payers. Why is it that politicians realize that the idea of tax abatement will help and build an industry but an across the board tax cut or the outright elimination of certain taxes won't do the same for all industries doing business in the state?

What is objectionable about abatement plans is that those who are doing business in the state for many years have to pay the same old high tax while a new guy gets rewarded because politicians favor their business over others. We commented that this smacks at the principle of equal protection of the law because after all, tax laws are laws and the new guy pays one rate while the veteran pays another.

But Connecticut politicians must know that taxes are the solution to economic development because whenever all the hearings and committees are done with their analysis and speeches the solution is always the same, tax abatement. They look at the terrain, find out why there is no activity, talk to business. Hey what do you know, their paying too much in taxes.

This is the state of affairs with downtown Waterbury. For months and years city officials and property owners, Chamber of Commerce and the Waterbury Development Corporation have been scratching their heads to come up with a plan to "revitalize" downtown. About 20 odd years ago one plan was to tear up Bank street and put in new sidewalks, trees and new pavement. Once the trees went from saplings to beautiful green canopy's it was time to do it all over again, ripping out the sidewalks, repave the streets and taking out all the trees. In between all this the Palace theater was renovated, a college was added, Magnet school, ramp garages and once the last brick and sidewalk was installed planners, politicians and property owners are still scratching their heads holding meetings because downtown needs a revitalization plan.

Just what is downtown suppose to look at like once it is revitalized? Isn't one of the complaints about downtown is that there isn't enough parking? Do those cars just make their way downtown without people driving them? Downtown is busy with traffic and people, businesses, restaurants, schools, banks and on and on. What is it that we are missing here?

After all the analysis the city has come to a conclusion. People in the downtown district are paying too much in taxes and so the tried and tested solution to it all is "tax abatement". Not only tax abatement but an extension of an existing enterprise zone. If a business is in an enterprise zone does that mean the area outside of it is adverse to enterprise? If what hinders businesses downtown is high taxes doesn't that stand to reason that it also affects growth outside downtown?

It is just remarkable that lawmakers will find an economic problem, study it and come up with the correct solution but confine that solution to the specific problem that they are studying. If enterprise and low taxes are the solution to downtown, doesn't it stand to reason that it could work uptown as well?

Clinton Legacy

It comes as a big surprise that Hillary Clinton is about to be defeated in her quest for becoming the presidential nominee. Just as vice president Al Gore should have been a shoe-in in 2000 when the country was at peace and enjoyed prolonged prosperity and lost, Hillary is meeting the same fate. What happened?

The obvious common denominator in both is of course Bill Clinton. There are two narratives of his presidency one being the democratic success story serving two terms and leaving the ship of state in good working order and all that mess with Ken Starr the independent counsel investigating Clinton, well, that was all partisan Republican sour grapes who didn't "get it" that lying about sex is something understandable and Republicans found a reason to ostracize a popular democrat they hated for being successful.

The other narrative is that of the electorate. Since they have the final say on matters it could be that it wasn't just lying about sex. In fact the story was much more involved. Clinton didn't just lie under oath he tried to fix a civil action in the Paula Jones case by sojourning perjury. So not only was it perjury but also obstruction of justice. After all the fuss over impeachment was done Clinton still faced legal action in the whole mess once his term ended. It was then that Clinton struck a deal whereby he would forfeit his law license, admit guilt and quietly move on.

It could be that the public didn't quite grasp all the nuances of the legal entanglements but simply thought that no it's not okay to lie about sex and forget the lying but the act of adultery itself. Lewinski wasn't some contemporary of his but a intern young enough to be his daughter. Certainly this is a narrative that didn't escape the minds of what was once called the silent majority particularly in the bible belt. This moral backlash could have been a reason for denying Al Gore the presidency we may never know, but just two years after in the 2002 mid-term elections when a sitting president ought to lose seats for his party in congress actually gained seats and become the majority party in the senate. In the aftermath of that electoral trouncing it came as a surprise that what concerned the electorate most were "moral" issues. So the immediate legacy of Bill Clinton was the loss of the presidency and a majority of congress, if the later is attributed to morality (as a reaction to immorality) then it could be assumed that the presidency was lost for the same reason two years previous.

In hindsight for the good of the country and the democratic party the best course of action would have been resignation once all the facts were in. Al Gore would have taken over and more than likely defeated the Republicans in 2000. Not knowing how he would have handled post 9/11, if for the sake of argument he had toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan at a minimum then Hillary would have a better chance as a successor. Why? Because a resignation would have given the country a sense of closure to husband Bills actions. Without it there is a perception of getting away with it. Martha Stewart could be sent to prison for lying under oath but the president of the United States who ought to be held to a higher standard shouldn't simply skate by because he's a big lovable lug of a guy.

As of this writing votes in Ohio, Texas and Vermont are being cast. The outcome looks grim for Hillary and to make matters worse she may never drop out of the race unless she is beaten by big margins and even then she may not leave. Democrats had defended Bill Clinton perhaps because it was a defense against Republicans whom they could not concede an upper hand. But Hillary is not up against a Republican this time around and it may be time for the Democrats to shed the excuses and once and for all not turn a blind eye.

Rowland Down the River

The debate on hiring former governor John Rowland to a quasi-government economic development company centers around the propriety of having a convicted ex-con in such an important position. On the one hand he's the former governor but on the other hand he just got out of prison not too long ago, humm. Boy are we torn.

We say let him have the job. The job as well as the organization itself, in spite it's many names and purposes doesn't develop economies nor communities. It is merely a facade for well meaning politicians that merely transfers taxpayer dollars to projects and businesses that may or may not fail. If it were 10 times its size it still wouldn't be an engine that grows, reforms, builds anything that has to do with economics or communities.

What we would like to see is that if the organization is going to exist then it ought to be more of a think tank that organizes conferences on local economics and questions of development. Certainly discussions on ideas in such matters would go farther towards the stated purpose then being an organization that is a mere conduit handing out money to projects of questionable viability

The Difference

It is an interesting contrast of Republicans and Democrats when it comes to how it is they regard their respective political philosophy's. Democrats never categorize themselves as liberals or have within their debates disagreements on just who is the true liberal and who is not. Certainly the question would've been redundant because from the start pretty much all candidates in the primaries were true blue liberals. But the tag of "liberal" is not a designation Democratic politicians want to be associated with or would want to demonstrate that such credentials in each were superior to that of other candidates. The word itself is seldom if ever used. On the contrary there are times when a Democrat will say they are a fiscal conservative or "conservative on some issues" which may or may not be the truth but never would a Republican say that they are liberal in anything at anytime. The irony is that Republican candidates look less and less conservative when each of their careers are scrutinized but Democrats seldom miss a beat in how they govern and govern or vote just as they say they would. It seems to be a liberal takes little to no effort but conservatism is something politicians are when running for office and not when in office.

Certainly politicians must compromise and ideological purity is all but impossible if a government of two parties is to get anything done. Conservatism may resonate well with the public with limited government and free market solutions but do we really want to re-elect the guy who says 'you know what, I did as little as I possibly could do in my first term and plan on doing little less in my next term'? Conservatism as a governing philosophy must be a dismantler of things, an un-doer hence the promise of cuts and de-regulate or dismantle, de-fund, scale down, eliminate, while the liberal is building new, expanding, creating, mobilizing, investing, increasing.

If a Democrat wins we would hope for someone aloof and lazy and for a Republican someone who can prove that government doesn't work and ineffective ,above all we would want the next president to have a boring uneventful job with no crisis to deal with no problems to solve

The Cry Card

The show of tears by Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire will be remembered for decades to come as the determining moment that saved her primary campaign for president. The conventional wisdom is that woman came out in droves and voted for her out of sympathy and put her over the top against the insurging Barak Obama. Some observations on that moment. 1. Was it fake? It may have not been but Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. makes the observation that no tears were shed during the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11, her husbands cheating, war in Iraq or Katrina. Why now with a seemingly innocuous question of "how you holding up?"? 2.To further the point, it worked which adds to the calculating nature of the Clinton mystique. 3.The crying moment came when she talked about how she didn't want to see the country "go backwards" and that she cared sooo much. Surly going backwards is an abstract idea about, what? Deficit spending, funding education, solving health care? Hardly nothing to get choked up about especially when you compare them to real tragedies that afflicted her and the country which not just hurt American pocket books but cost thousands of lives plus the public humiliation of her family.

But it may not have been. To this it can be said that the difference between this moment and other more dire events is that this affected her. After all it was a question about her and when it comes to Hillary Clinton she is suppose to win, it's her turn to be president, its suppose to be a democrat year, she was the front runner with little serious competition and after losing Iowa and being very much behind in New Hampshire it looked like it was all over. Sure her words initially were about the country and her concerns but what do we expect her to say? After the litany about going backwards she charged into the other candidates lack of experience. To be really cynical about the matter it could be said that what was really on her mind is that she wasn't getting what she wanted and that it was all no fair, why, these other guys don't deserve it, dam it why not me. So other historic considerations aside this time it was about her and her alone. Why shed tears for others when something really bad is happening such as the loss of power.