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.