Internet Scofflaw

Not a Rick Perry joke, an embarrassing screwup at the State Department.

Or at least “swagga” is.  What changed?  Hmmm.

Boingboing takes a look at a gadget that the Census Bureau isn’t really using for the 2010 census:

They’re not making a whole lot of friends with this new device. Last year, the Government Accountability Office added the 2010 Census to a list of high-risk programs. Basically, it sounds like requirements changed several times, and Harris ended up very late to market, with a somewhat buggy device. This freaked people out, and the Census quickly announced that they wouldn’t actually be using the devices – they’d use them just to conduct the first stage of the census, checking addresses, while the actual census (conducted door to door, of people who hadn’t sent in the forms themselves) would take place using clipboards and paper.

In other words, the relatively lame device my friendly enumerator was carrying, which cost $600 million, doesn’t actually work well enough to use for its intended purpose.

(Via Instapundit.)

Just to put this in perspective: simply by not purchasing this “chunky crapgadget,” the Census Bureau alone would have saved the government six times the amount that President Obama is ordering his cabinet to trim from the budget.

President Obama’s nominee for HUD secretary lied to the press about his involvement in a lawsuit over his office’s failure to follow the state’s Public Disclosure Act:

When [King County executive and HUD secretary nominee Ron Sims] was interviewed by a television crew the next day about a $120,000 fine, Sims denied concealing any records or having any personal involvement in the case. He also claimed no records linked him with the case.

“I didn’t conceal anything, so you’re absolutely wrong on that,” he said. “I was not fined $120,000. As a matter of fact, it’s interesting because there is nothing in the court record at all involving me personally. I never was involved in that at all. There’s nothing—nothing regarding my conduct. I didn’t conceal a thing. I did order the release of documents after they were discovered, but I never concealed anything.”

But Washington state court records flatly contradict Sims.

“The office of Ron Sims, King County Executive” was listed as the respondent in a January court ruling. Writing for the majority in Yousoufian v. Sims, Justice Richard Sanders said requested information was withheld from the plaintiff and fines should be levied.

“The unchallenged findings of fact demonstrate King County repeatedly deceived and misinformed Yousoufian for years. King County told Yousoufian it produced all the requested documents, when in fact it had not,” the opinion said.

(Via Instapundit.)

A $123,000 fine was imposed on the county, and later rejected by a state appeals court as insufficient.

Reuters reports:

The U.S. economy contracted at a surprisingly sharp 6.1 percent rate in the first quarter as exports and business inventories plummeted.

The drop in gross domestic product, reported by the Commerce Department on Wednesday, was much steeper than the 4.9 percent annual rate expected by economists and followed a 6.3 percent decline in the fourth quarter.

(Via Instapundit.)

So the first economic report of the Obama administration is worse than expected, despite a Brobdingnagian “stimulus” package.  It’s almost as if throwing away government money to stimulate the economy doesn’t work.

POSTSCRIPT: Let’s not hear any nonsense about how the “stimulus” package was enacted too late (February 17) to have an impact in the first quarter.  Virtually all its spending is in the out years anyway, so clearly the theory underlying the stimulus package must be that prospects of future deficit spending stimulate the economy now. Sounds like nonsense?  Don’t blame me.

You would think this would be illegal, but in New Jersey, who knows:

Gov. Jon Corzine keeps saying he’s not running a campaign because he’s too busy governing. Apparently his staff didn’t get the memo. At 8:30 a.m. April 3, Corzine’s new deputy chief of staff, Mark Matzen, gathered a group of key agency staffers to go over ways to ensure their departments’ public statements and events were in sync with the governor’s (unofficial, so far) re-election campaign.

Matzen, according to two people familiar with what went on, told the group they need to keep in mind the campaign’s main themes and find events and programs that drive home those ideas. Matzen reiterated how important it is for commissioners and agency chiefs to stress the central plan of the Corzine effort to stay focused on the “Four Es’: economy, ethics, environment (and energy) and education. . .

“This meeting is for selected representatives from the departments. There are no substitutes,” Matzen wrote. He explained that he would “be briefing you on our budget communication plan and how each of you can help.”

(Via Campaign Spot.)

Ethics.  That’s a good one.

Fox News reports:

Veteran GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania intends to switch political parties and run in the Democratic primary in 2010, FOX News has confirmed.

Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.

It’s not immediately obvious that this changes much.  Democrats didn’t need his vote for the leadership, and he’s been voting more Democrat than Republican on legislation already.  But, this might change things if he has to move to the left to secure the Democratic nomination.  He says his vote against card check won’t change, but we’ll see.

On other hand, this helps us after the mid-term elections.  As much as I want to believe, Toomey isn’t likely to win statewide, which means Pennsylvania is probably electing a Democrat anyway. Better Specter than most other Democrats, I suppose.  Also, the GOP won’t be wasting any money defending Specter.

Bloomberg reports:

Travel restrictions under consideration by the U.S. to prevent the spread of a new flu virus may be influenced by politics more than science, the World Health Organization’s chief said today.

WHO doesn’t recommend closing borders or restricting the movement of people or goods, Margaret Chan, director-general of the United Nations agency told leaders from health groups around the world in a conference call today. The disease, which may have caused more than 100 deaths and sickened more than 1,000 people, has spread too far and would be impossible to contain by closing borders, she said.

(Via Instapundit.)

More politics than science?  How could that be?  Didn’t the president say he’d put a stop to that?

President Obama is still not observing his “sunlight before signing” pledge:

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

According to the CATO Institute’s tally, President Obama has kept this promise on just one of eleven bills he has signed.  (That one was the DTV Delay Act.)  Five of the eleven were never posted at all.

(Via Tech Knowledge, via two other blogs, via Instapundit.)  (Previous post.)

The New York Daily News reports:

Mayor Bloomberg went ballistic Monday after the U.S. military – without any warning to the public – buzzed New York City with one of the presidential planes trailed by an F-16 fighter jet.

Flying in as low as 1000 feet to 150 feet above New York City and taking photographs along the way, the planes circled the Statue of Liberty and flew over Manhattan, Staten Island, and New Jersey – then vanished.

Before they were gone, hundreds of frightened people had jammed the emergency lines, thousands of terrified people evacuated from buildings in the city and across the river in Jersey, and many New Yorkers had flashbacks to the 9/11 attacks. . .

Angry that an unnamed but “dumb” city official failed to notify him of the Pentagon’s plans, Bloomberg said a flyover so close to Ground Zero was insensitive and showed “poor judgement.” He said the first he knew of it was when his BlackBerry began buzzing.

It “defies the imagination,” said Bloomberg, who insisted he would have tried to stop the shoot had he known about it.

The NYPD confirmed that it had been told of the Pentagon’s “aerial photo mission” last Thursday but ordered to stay quiet about it.

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has more:

The [FAA] email specifies that the information “only be shared with persons with a need to know” and “shall not be released to the public.” It also says that, “Due to the possibility of public concern regarding [Department of Defense] aircraft flying at low levels, coordination with Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies…has been accomplished.”

The email’s author, James J. Johnston, of FAA air traffic, declined to comment.

An Obama administration official said the mission was “classified” by the military and that the FAA, which controls much of the airspace over Manhattan, did what the military asked.

UPDATE:

(Via Campaign Spot.)

As of today, the federal government has spent its revenue for the year.

Four trillion dollars later, President Obama is calling for a return to PAYGO rules.

PAYGO won’t do anything about the deficit we already have.  The time to do this would have been before this year’s Democratic spending spree doubled the deficit.

The Washington Post reports that the current CIA director, Leon Panetta, and all of his last four predecessors strongly opposed the release of the interrogation memos.  A new Rasmussen poll says that a majority (58%) agree with them.  The poll also shows that 70% believe either that “the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights when national security is at stake” or that the balance is about right.

Paul Mirengoff points out that, according to the Washington Post’s account, the arguments in favor were all based on what would help President Obama politically.  If so, the Rasmussen poll suggests that Obama is making a big mistake.  I was particularly struck by this non-sequitur:

A source familiar with White House views said Obama’s advisers are further convinced that letting the public know exactly what the past administration sanctioned will undermine what they see as former vice president Richard B. Cheney’s effort to “box Obama in” by claiming that the executive order heightened the risk of a terrorist attack.

The one has no bearing on the other, does it?

The Obama Administration is stymied, politically and legally, from doing much to prevent legal gun ownership, particularly in the wake of the Heller decision.  But they have found one way to hurt gun owners, and never mind if it makes no sense.

For some time the military has sold its spent brass to the private sector, which reprocesses it into ammunition for civilians.  The military goes through a tremendous amount of ammunition in training exercises, and selling the spent brass recovers some of that cost. Also, of course, re-use is good for the environment.

The problem is, selling spent brass lowers the cost of civilian ammunition, and if you are an anti-gun ideologue, that’s a bad thing. So now, the DOD has determined that spend brass will be sold only as scrap, to be melted down for raw materials.  The Shootist has the details.  (Via the Corner.)

This decision costs the government money (the Shootist reports that shredding reduces the value of the brass by 80%), and it hurts the environment (it takes much more energy and resources to make a shell casing from scratch than to reprocess one).  And there’s no possible reason to do so other than to drive up the cost of civilian ammunition. But it seems that’s reason enough for the Obama administration, and if it wastes taxpayers’ money and hurts the environment, well those are costs that must be borne.  Priorities.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that this decision has been reversed. Good.

Good news, President Obama has elected not to initiate a trade war with our largest trading partner:

Three cheers for President Obama’s decision, announced quietly on Monday, to repudiate a campaign promise and not press for new labor and environmental regulations in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The last thing the Western Hemisphere needs are more trade barriers that would snarl supply chains and damage commerce.

Perhaps we should call this Austan Goolsbee’s revenge. Recall that last year the Obama economic adviser had told a Canadian diplomat to ignore Mr. Obama’s Nafta campaign rhetoric; the candidate was merely pandering to Big Labor. When that disclosure became news, Mr. Goolsbee was banished to the campaign’s isolation ward for imperfect spinners. Now we know Mr. Goolsbee — not the candidate — was the one telling the truth.

(Via Instapundit.)

This would be unremarkable, except that, amazingly, this is a change in his position.

President Obama is doing to the intelligence services what Democratic presidents always do, demoralize them and discourage initiative. David Ignatius writes:

President Obama promised CIA officers that they won’t be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don’t believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.

The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard. . .

For a taste of what’s ahead, recall the chilling effects of past CIA scandals. In 1995, then-Director John Deutch ordered a “scrub” of the agency’s assets after revelations of past links to Guatemalan death squads. Officers were told they shouldn’t jettison sources who had provided truly valuable intelligence. But the practical message, recalls one former division chief, was: “Don’t deal with assets who could pose political risks.” A similar signal is being sent now, he warns.

One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called “risk of capture” interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and “pocket litter” were exploited quickly.

Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I’m told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn’t even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military.

Agency officials also worry about the effect on foreign intelligence services that share secrets with the United States in a process politely known as “liaison.” A former official who remains in close touch with key Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan warns: “There is a growing concern that the risk is too high to do the things with America they’ve done in the past.”

(Emphasis mine.) (Via Campaign Spot, via Instapundit.)

Some time down the road, we might wish we still had a counterterrorism program.

Anyone who exercises their right to carry a weapon in Milwaukee can expect to be roughed up by police.  It’s official policy:

Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said he’ll continue to tell officers they can’t assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

“My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Flynn said.

(Via Althouse, via Instapundit.)

Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Secretary Geithner may not know it yet, but his plan for resolving the toxic asset problem is dead.  The Treasury department killed it with this announcement:

Treasury Department lawyers have determined that firms participating in a $1 trillion program to relieve banks of toxic assets could be subject to limits on executive compensation, contradicting the Obama administration’s previous public position, according to a report to be released today by a federal watchdog agency. . .

Speaking last month about the initiative to buy toxic assets, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said, “The comp conditions will not apply to the asset managers and investors in the program.”

But Treasury lawyers have told the special inspector general for the federal bailout that executives involved with that initiative and another $1 trillion consumer lending program “could be subject to the executive compensation restrictions,” according to the report from Special Inspector General Neil M. Barofsky.

(Via the Corner.)

The Geithner plan isn’t even fleshed out yet, and it’s already dead. Healthy trading companies (the kind Geithner needs to participate) are never going to accept these limitations.  Even if the Treasury backtracks, no one will trust them now.  As the Economist notes:

Is it really that surprising? Banks were pressured to take TARP money last fall and were quickly dismayed when the government started calling the shots on pay and making it harder to hire foreign labour. Now they can’t give the money back.

If you’re against the bailout, the death of the Geithner plan could be a good thing.  But if you’re for it, as President Obama presumably is, then this is a disaster.  It’s a disaster that is the direct result of the irresponsible populist hysteria promulgated by the president’s party, and by the president himself.

The Democrats simply couldn’t help themselves.  They had an opportunity to meddle in private business, to stick it to the rich, and they just couldn’t resist.  They were warned of the consequences, but their ideology simply carried them away.

I’m undecided about whether the Geithner plan was a good idea, but I’m delighted by the teaching moment it’s given us.  It’s not often that the law of unintended consequences comes into play so quickly, with the same people in charge, and with the issue still fresh in the public’s mind.

(Previous post.)

POSTSCRIPT: Once you might have thought that the trading companies could be reassured by appropriate legislation to protect them, but no longer.  The AIG bonus confiscation fiasco saw to that.  The law is no protection any more.  Nothing short of a change in lawmakers will reassure them now.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin: “At this point any CEO who agrees to do business with the government should be fired.”  (Via Instapundit.)

The WSJ reports.  (Via the Corner.)  I think it’s safe to say now that the bailout was a failure.

Jim Lindgren observes that the states with the highest unemployment all have high marginal tax rates, or high levels of unionization, or (most of them) both.  Obviously, now is the time to hike taxes and pass card check, so that every state can enjoy Oregon’s economy.

IBD is praising President Obama for coming out in support of the Colombia free trade pact.  (Via Wizbang, via Instapundit.)  Obviously, I think that’s the right position, since the Democrats are opposing the deal for no reason whatsoever.

Still, I’m going to withhold my praise until I see that the president is willing to push congressional Democrats, who have gone so far as to change the House rules to avoid a vote on the pact.  Supporting the right position is good, but it’s not enough.  After all, President Bush supported the pact too.

Using (allegedly) illegally raised campaign funds to defend yourself against allegations of illegally campaign fundraising.  (Via Instapundit.)

Pittsburgh’s mayor, Luke Ravenstahl, is just too darn busy to debate. He had to cancel a debate due to the policy shooting tragedy, and he can’t reschedule it because of, er, all that other stuff he’s doing.  When asked if he would release his schedule, so we can see all the stuff he’s doing instead of debating, he refused to answer.  Given his predilection for going on junkets, I’m not surprised.

Frankly, Pittsburgh would be better off if the fools that run the city were all debating 24-7.

Human Events is reporting that the White House is refusing to accept the findings of the inter-agency review committee on Guantanamo detainees:

White House lawyers are refusing to accept the findings of an inter-agency committee that the Uighur Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo Bay are too dangerous to release inside the U.S., according to Pentagon sources familiar with the action. . .

After Obama’s promise to close Gitmo, the White House ordered an inter-agency review of the status of all the detainees, apparently believing that many of those held would be quickly determined releasable. The committee — comprised of all the national security agencies — was tasked to start with what the Obama administration believed to be the easiest case: that of the seventeen Uighurs, Chinese Muslims who were captured at an al-Queda training camp. . .

Reviewing the Uighurs detention, the inter-agency panel found that they weren’t the ignorant, innocent goatherds the White House believed them to be. The committee determined they were too dangerous to release because they were members of the ETIM terrorist group, the “East Turkistan Islamic Movement,” and because their presence at the al-Queda training camp was no accident. There is now no ETIM terrorist cell in the United States: there will be one if these Uighurs are released into the United States.

According to Defense Department sources, the White House legal office has told the inter-agency review group to re-do their findings to come up with the opposite answer.

(Via Power Line.)

This is a little bit hard to believe.  If the committee did find that these people are too dangerous to release, and President Obama releases them into the United States anyway, he’ll be making himself a hostage to fortune.  If (when) they subsequently start killing Americans, there will be hell to pay.  It will be impossible for Obama to evade personal responsibility for whatever they do.

President Clinton would certainly never have allowed himself into such a situation.  I wouldn’t think that Obama would either.  If this report is true, he is actually enough of a true believer to bet his presidency that a bunch of terrorists won’t cause trouble.  Lord help us if so.

UPDATE (5/30): The Justice Department is now arguing in court that it need not release these people, so if this story were ever true, it’s not any more.

Greg Mankiw puts President Obama’s $100 million spending cut in perspective:

Just to be clear: $100 million represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion.

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks.

(Via the Corner.)

UPDATE: Even Paul Krugman is calling the president out on this:

$100 million here, $100 million there. “Pretty soon, even here in Washington, it adds up to real money,” says the president.

Except, you know, really it doesn’t. Let’s say the administration finds $100 million in efficiencies every working day for the rest of the Obama administration’s first term. That’s still around $80 billion, or around 2% of one year’s federal spending.

(Via the Corner.)

Krugman calls it theater.  That’s the polite word.

The Obama Administration is signalling that even healthy banks might not be permitted to repay the TARP “loans”, reports the Financial Times:

Strong banks will be allowed to repay bail-out funds they received from the US government but only if such a move passes a test to determine whether it is in the national economic interest, a senior administration official has told the Financial Times.

“Our general objective is going to be what is good for the system,” the senior official said. “We want the system to have enough capital.”

Analysis at Legal Insurrection.  (Via Jim Lindgren, who aptly likens the government to the mob.)

It’s obvious, I guess.  TARP has given the federal government power over the banks; why would they give it up?

CNN reports:

[Barack Obama’s campaign architect David] Axelrod was asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” about the “spreading and very public disaffection” with the president’s fiscal policies seen at the “Tea Party” rallies around the country last week.

“I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy,” Axelrod said.

(Via Don Surber, via Instapundit.)

A few short months ago, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Change!

BONUS: At least he didn’t say it was was racism.

Forgetting the first rule of holes, the White House is standing by President Obama’s citation of a bogus statistic on Mexican crime guns. The President said that 90% of guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States.  That isn’t remotely true, the real statistic is either 36% or 17% depending on whose analysis you use.  Either way, the 90% refers only to guns that are successfully traced, a sample that is heavily biased toward American guns.

The White House says that’s what he meant all along:

“By recovered he means traceable, guns traced back to the United States,” [NSC Spokesman Denis] McDonough said. “These are ATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) numbers. These are the guns submitted to the ATF for tracing. That’s what we mean by recovered.”

Oh, so “recovered” doesn’t mean “recovered”; it means “traceable.” Thanks for clearing that up; otherwise people might have assumed you were speaking English.

(Previous post.)

Reuters reports that President Obama would like to meet with Colombia’s President Uribe at the Summit of the Americas to discuss the stalled trade pact.  (Via the Corner.)  I wonder what he would say. All the agreement does is open Colombian markets to U.S. goods, and preserve Colombia’s access to U.S. markets.  What could Uribe possibly concede to get Democrats to approve the pact when all its benefits accrue to the U.S. already?  Democrats are opposing it for no reason.

ASIDE: Reuters suggests that Democrats want Colombia to harder to protect trade unionists from violence stemming from the civil war. That’s a strange requirement to place on a trade pact, particularly a one-sided one.  “You can’t open your markets to our exports unless you comply with our demands!”  But anyway, the best way to protect people from the civil war is to win it, and that’s what Uribe is doing.

Keeping all that in mind, read the article’s conclusion:

The U.S. failure to approve the pact is seen in Latin America as a sign of Washington’s indifference to one of its staunchest allies in the region.

I wonder if the Democrats see it that way.  Judging by their actions, it seems that Democrats see Colombia as an ally to Republicans, not to America as a whole.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check has taken on the “Mexican crime guns come from the U.S.” factoid and agree with Fox News that the 90% statistic cited by anti-gun politicians is bogus.  They back up Fox News’s central contention that the 90% reflects only the guns that are successfully traced, a sample which is very heavily biased towards guns from the U.S.  They estimate the true number at 36%, a bit higher than the 17% calculated by Fox News.  (Annenberg says one of the figures Fox was calculating from is wrong.)  Either way, it’s a long long way from 90%.

(Via Instapundit.)

President Obama is using the bogus 90% figure now:

“We have a responsibility to act, too. Some 90 per cent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,” he said in Mexico on Thursday, acknowledging a figure used by Mr Calderon.

The actual figure is 36% or less.

(Via Hit & Run, via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: The LA Times is reporting the story.  Amazingly, they highlight the fact that he’s wrong.  (Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: I revised the number to reflect the Annenberg calculation, rather than Fox News’s lower calculation.

Jonah Goldberg continues his quixotic battle to preserve the lexicon:

How do I say this so people will understand? Fascism isn’t a libertarian doctrine! It just isn’t, never will be and it can’t be cast as one. Anarchism, secessionism, extreme localism or rampant individualism may be bad, evil, wrong, stupid, selfish and all sorts of other things (though not by my lights). But they have nothing to do with a totalitarian vision of the state where individuals and institutions alike must march in step and take orders from the government.

If you think shrinking government and getting it less involved in your life is a hallmark of tyranny it is only because you are either grotesquely ignorant or because you subscribe to a statist ideology that believes the expansion of the state is the expansion of liberty.

He’s right, of course, but what of it?  Has an inconvenient definition ever survived?  If liberalism can be redefined from individual autonomy to state nannyism, as it has, then why can’t fascism be redefined from totalitarian statism to individualism?

The front-page story of today’s Washington Post is glaringly obvious:

Six months after Washington rescued Wall Street, exasperated banks insist they want to leave the lifeboat.

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase, said yesterday that he regrets accepting $25 billion in federal aid. He called the money “a scarlet letter,” pledged quick repayment and renounced further borrowing from the government, saying, “We’ve learned our lesson about that.”

But the company, which announced a $2.1 billion first-quarter profit yesterday, has not entirely had it with Washington. J.P. Morgan said it plans to continue using a separate federal aid program through which it has borrowed more than $40 billion.

Other large banks are attempting the same combination of breakup and embrace. Even as they clamor to exit the most prominent part of the bailout program by repaying government investments, firms continue to rely on other federal programs to raise even larger amounts of money. . .

The chief executives of several large banks at a meeting last month urged President Obama to accept repayments. But no company has similarly pledged to leave the government’s other aid programs.

The explanation appears to be simple: Only the capital investments by the Treasury require the companies to make significant sacrifices, such as restricting executive pay.

(Emphasis mine.)

Of course!  Despite their proclamations of virtue, big businesses are happy to take money from the government, when there are no strings attached.  But when the government starts mucking with their business, they want out.  This is a front page story?

ASIDE: It is worth noting, however, that there’s a big discrepancy in size between the two programs.  According to the article, the $40 billion in loan guarantees have a value of $400 million to JP Morgan (and cost the government nothing if they stay afloat).  That’s a tiny fraction of the Treasury’s $25 billion equity investment.  The story doesn’t say what the value is of taking emergency loans from the Fed rather than the market, but with interest rates so low, I bet it’s fairly small too.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Steven Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration’s auto task force, was one of the executives involved with payments under scrutiny in a probe of an alleged kickback scheme at New York state’s pension fund, according to a person familiar with the matter. . .

A spokeswoman for the Treasury, which is in charge of the auto task force, said that “during the transition, Mr. Rattner made us aware of the pending investigation.”

(Via Hot Air.)

Well, I guess the thief category was a little thin in the administration of liars, (tax) cheats, and thieves.

Michael Hayden (the previous CIA director) and Michael Mukasey (the previous Attorney General) have an op-ed shredding any case for releasing the OLC interrogation memos.  They make excellent points including (1) the lack of any necessity to release them, (2) the damage done by releasing them, and (3) the fact that coercive interrogation really is effective, notwithstanding claims to the contrary.  But I think their conclusion is the most important:

In his book “The Terror Presidency,” Jack Goldsmith describes the phenomenon we are now experiencing, and its inevitable effect, referring to what he calls “cycles of timidity and aggression” that have weakened intelligence gathering in the past. Politicians pressure the intelligence community to push to the legal limit, and then cast accusations when aggressiveness goes out of style, thereby encouraging risk aversion, and then, as occurred in the wake of 9/11, criticizing the intelligence community for feckless timidity. He calls these cycles “a terrible problem for our national security.” Indeed they are, and the precipitous release of these OLC opinions simply makes the problem worse.

(Via the Corner.)

Think back to the summer of 2002.  With elections approaching, the Democrats needed to bring down President Bush’s stratospheric approval ratings.  They decided to take on their problem directly and accuse the Administration of having been insufficiently vigorous in protecting the United States from attack.  It didn’t work, in part because the Democrats were seen as unserious on the issue (particularly once Republicans fought back), but they did succeed in politicizing the war on terror.  Over the following years, when no additional attacks occurred, the national consensus faded, and the campaign against terror became a Republican thing.  It wasn’t long until Democrats were accusing the Administration of being excessively vigorous in protecting the United States from attack.  Democrats have been back to September 10 for some time, but now they’re in ascendance.  This is very dangerous.

The Wall Street Journal notes:

IRS compliance employees have reported that taxpayers occasionally are citing the Geithner case when asked to pay their tax bills. “It’s making the compliance conversation harder,” she said.

(Via Instapundit.)

Gee, do ya think?

Fox News reports:

Georgetown University hid a religious inscription representing the name of Jesus during President Obama’s address there Tuesday, FOXNews.com has confirmed, because White House staff asked the school to cover up all religious symbols and signs while the president was on stage.

The monogram IHS, whose letters spell out the name of Jesus, and which normally perches above the stage in Gaston Hall where the president spoke, was covered over with what appeared to be black wood during the address.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg adds:

I don’t know that the Georgetown flap is that huge a story, but what I find most striking about it is how unnecessary it was. D.C. is chock-a-block with venues for speeches. American University and The George Washington University are five minutes away from G-town (at least by presidential motorcade). If Obama doesn’t want to give a speech with a (vaguely) religious backdrop, he shouldn’t speak at Georgetown. If Georgetown wants to be a Catholic university, maybe that should mean losing a forgettable presidential speech every now and then if the president refuses to be seen at a podium with Christian symbols on it.

Yes, I’m much more offended by Georgetown than by the White House, of which I expect little in the first place.  However, this is a reminder that, despite claims to the contrary, President Obama is not a Christian.

The DHS was warned of problems in their “rightwing extremism” report, but it was issued anyway:

Civil liberties officials at the Homeland Security Department flagged language in a controversial report on right-wing extremists, but the agency issued the report anyway. . .

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the report was issued before officials resolved problems raised by the agency’s civil rights division about analysts’ definition of right-wing extremism.

(Via Instapundit.)

Why let civil rights issues get in the way of demonizing conservatives? Priorities, you know.

(Previous post.)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky thinks it’s wrong to protest Democratic fiscal policies:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) blasted “tea party” protests yesterday, labeling the activities “despicable” and shameful.”

“The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs,” Schakowsky said in a statement.

“It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt,” she added. “Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year.”

ASIDE: Her statement that no one’s taxes will go up this year is both false and irrelevant.  It’s false because Obama has hiked taxes already, and that’s before cap-and-trade or health care “reform”.  It’s irrelevant because the tea parties are protesting runaway spending, which is to say future taxes, not current taxes.

Meanwhile, her husband has a simple strategy for dealing with taxes, don’t pay them:

The husband of an Illinois congresswoman pleaded guilty Wednesday to tax violations and bank fraud for writing rubber checks and failing to collect withholding tax from an employee.

Robert Creamer, a political consultant married to four-term U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, could face four years in prison on the two felony counts when he is sentenced Dec. 21. . .

The indictment alleged Creamer caused a series of insufficiently funded checks and wire transfers to be drawn on accounts he controlled as executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund. According to the indictment, he allegedly then used the inflated balances to pay the group’s expenses and own salary.

Incidentally, the Chicago Sun-Times (story excerpted here) calls the Illinois Public Action Fund the state’s largest public interest group, with strong ties to labor and Mayor Daley.

(Via Instapundit.)

Ezra Klein, associate editor at the American Prospect, fails inequalities. (Via Instapundit.)  It turns out that 25.8 > 17.6, even when that contradicts your point.

The Department of Homeland Security is being justly savaged for their recent report warning of the rise of “rightwing extremism” as a likely source of domestic terrorism.  What is striking about the report is its vagueness.  It reads as though some leftists sat back in their chairs and made it up after watching Keith Olbermann.  The DHS concedes that it is has no intelligence to support its warning:

“DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues,” [DHS spokeswoman Sara] Kuban said.

and the report casts its net amazingly wide to identify extremists:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.

That’s right, if you support federalism, you may be a terrorist.  (Like these guys.)

The DHS argues that they’re not singling out conservatives for suspicion:

Some critics have said the DHS is equating conservative views to right-wing terrorism, but a DHS official countered that earlier this year, the department issued a mirror intelligence assessment of left-wing extremist groups.

But, as Michelle Malkin points out, the DHS’s bulletins on leftwingers have specifically identified particular terrorist groups (e.g., the ELF), not labelled all Americans of a particular political bent as potential terrorists.  And Fox News points out that even those particular groups are marked as threats to cyber infrastructure, not to human life.

BONUS: Not only does the report list no intelligence supporting future threats, its research regarding past incidents is shoddy.  At least one of the very small number of incidents they cite is basically an urban legend.  (Via Hot Air.)

UPDATE: DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has issued a partial apology for the report, apologizing for singling out veterans as potential terrorists, but she stood by the rest of the report:

“Let me be clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States,” Napolitano said in a statement. “We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.”

It’s interesting that she has rediscovered the word “terrorism,” which she previously refused to use, preferring the peculiar term “man-made disasters.”  Apparently the word is more appropriate when applied to hypothetical right-wing extremists, than when applied to real terrorist networks actively plotting attacks against the United States.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg weighs in.

Restrictions on bailed-out banks is causing them to lose their top talent:

The turning point for Stephan Jung came in February, around the time bonus checks were slashed. A veteran of UBS, one of many banks tarnished by the financial crisis, Mr. Jung realized that the old Wall Street would not be bouncing back any time soon. It was time to head for the new.

“After 10 years, I did not see a future for myself,” said Mr. Jung, 42, who quit to parlay his sales expertise into a career at Aladdin Capital, a small but rising investment firm run by others who had also left some of the most venerable names in finance.

There is an air of exodus on Wall Street — and not just among those being fired. As Washington cracks down on compensation and tightens regulation of banks, a brain drain is occurring at some of the biggest ones. They are some of the same banks blamed for setting off the worst downturn since the Depression.

Top bankers have been leaving Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and others in rising numbers to join banks that do not face tighter regulation, including foreign banks, or start-up companies eager to build themselves into tomorrow’s financial powerhouses.

(Via Instapundit.)

The populists will no doubt proclaim that these banks are getting their just deserts.  Non-idiots, on the other hand, will remember that the point to the bailout was to strengthen the banking system, which is hardly accomplished by driving its major players into the ground. Besides, we the taxpayers own those banks now, so it would be better if they succeeded.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

The Rendell administration appears to be going out of its way to block public access to government documents. At least that is the impression left on the state’s new open-records czar.

Terry Mutchler, executive director of Pennsylvania’s Office of Public Records, has written to Gov. Rendell questioning whether top administration officials share the view that government should be open and transparent.

In the three-page letter, obtained by The Inquirer, Mutchler revealed a list of her concerns over how the administration has dealt with her and her staff – as well as individual records requests – since she was tapped to lead the open-records office in June.

According to her letter, the situation has gotten so bad that lawyers in Rendell’s office have put representatives of every state agency on notice not to even take her calls. Everything has to be in writing, the lawyers insist.

(Via Instapundit.)

Mutchler, incidentally, is Rendell’s own appointment.

The war of words between Karl Rove and Joe Biden escalated over Biden’s tales of issuing courageous private rebukes to President Bush:

Republican strategist Karl Rove called Vice President Biden a “liar” on Thursday, dramatically escalating a feud between Biden and aides to former President George W. Bush over Biden’s claims to have rebuked Bush in private meetings. . .

Biden’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment, although Biden spokesman Jay Carney told Fox on Wednesday: “The vice president stands by his remarks.”

I suppose people’s opinions of the truth here will fall generally along partisan lines.  A few points from the story seem relevant though, like this:

Rove’s skepticism was echoed by a variety of other Bush aides, including former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, chief of staff Andy Card and legislative liaison Candida Wolff.

and this:

Carney declined to specify the dates of his boss’s purported Oval Office scoldings of Bush. Nor would he provide witnesses or notes to corroborate the episodes.

and of course this:

Throughout his career, Biden has often been accused of boasting about his accomplishments, embellishing his credentials and even stealing the words of others. He dropped out of the 1988 presidential race after being accused of plagiarizing British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Last July, Biden came under fire for telling a questionable story about being “shot at” in Iraq. When questioned by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled by saying: “I was near where a shot landed.” . . .

In September, Biden again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones — this time on “the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where my helicopter was forced down.” . . .  But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden’s visit to Afghanistan in February 2008.

POSTSCRIPT: On the topic of courageous stands that never happened, I’m reminded of this:

Go to your local used-book store and dig up a copy of Robert Reich’s Locked in the Cabinet. In his memoirs of serving as Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, Reich recounts his experiences fighting the malefactors of great wealth who were determined to undermine progressive policies. . .

It was all dramatic — nay, heroic — stuff. Except none of it happened — none of the drama or heroism, at least. Jonathan Rauch checked the videotapes of the meetings and hearings and it was all as real as a teenage boy’s tale of his super-hot swimsuit-model girlfriend who, alas, can’t make it to the prom because she lives in Canada. When confronted, Reich said, “Look, the book is a memoir. It’s not investigative journalism.” “Did you just make them up?” Rauch asked. Reich snapped, “They’re in my journal,” adding, “I claim no higher truth than my own perceptions.” 

It sounds like it from this editorial:

The civil action against Janssen [a division of Johnson & Johnson] is being prosecuted on behalf of the state by Bailey, Perrin & Bailey, a Houston law firm. And it turns out that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell’s Office of General Counsel was negotiating this potentially lucrative no-bid contingency fee contract with Bailey Perrin at the same time that the firm’s founding partner, F. Kenneth Bailey, was making repeated campaign contributions totaling more than $90,000 to the Democratic Governor’s 2006 re-election bid. . .

Asked about the timing of Mr. Bailey’s political donations, Rendell spokesman Chuck Ardo says Bailey Perrin was selected because of “their experience in these kinds of legal matters.” Mr. Ardo says the Governor was aware of the campaign contributions but “had nothing to do with the selection.” Asked why the Governor thought the case should be handled by his office rather than by the state AG, Mr. Ardo says, “the suit involves agencies directly under the Governor’s control, and the General Counsel’s Office believed it could eliminate a lot of unnecessary work by dealing with those agencies directly.” Readers can decide if they buy that one.

Under terms of the contingency-fee contract, Bailey Perrin receives up to 15% of any settlement or judgment. Even better for the lawyers, the state is barred from settling for nonmonetary relief “unless the settlement also provides reasonably for the compensation of [Bailey Perrin] by [Janssen] for the services provided by the law firm under this contract.” . . .

Mr. Rendell’s office insists that “we have nothing to hide in this matter,” but details of the contingency-fee arrangement were obtained by Janssen through a freedom of information request.

(Via Volokh.)

At the exact same time as Perrin’s founding partner is making large campaign contributions (the editorial lays out the timeline), Perrin is hired to prosecute a case that the state would ordinarily prosecute itself, and is promised one-sixth of the settlement.  Better yet, the state promises not to settle for nonmonetary relief.  Good return on a $90k investment.

A letter to the Southern Utah University campus newspaper:

In light of SUU officials plan to designate “Free Speech Zones” on campus, I thought I’d offer my assistance. Grab a map. OK, ready?

All right, you see that big area between Canada and Mexico, surrounded by lots of blue ink on the East and West? You see it?

There’s your bloody Free Speech Zone.

(Via Ezra Levant, via the Corner.)

I didn’t blog about President Obama bowing to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah because I didn’t see it as such a big deal.  There was certainly a time when Americans needed to make a point of not bowing to royalty, but today the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, so guarding our prerogatives doesn’t seem so essential.  I’d rather he hadn’t done it, but I’ll save my outrage for more important things.

But now, the White House is denying that Obama made the bow at all:

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah,” said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

(Via Hot Air.)

I can understand why the aide wants to be anonymous, because his explanation is ridiculous.  It doesn’t work at all if you’ve seen the video:

He bows, stands up, then grasps the king’s hand.

UPDATE: Amazingly, the White House is still denying the bow, and with a named official now.  (I guess Robert Gibbs doesn’t mind looking ridiculous.)  They haven’t a leg to stand on, so they ought to let this one go.  By continuing to deny the undeniable, they’re making something out of nothing.

According to Gallup.  (Via Instapundit.)

The trade war instigated by the Democrats is now under way:

Exports of Northwest pears to Mexico have ground to a halt because of a new tariff.

Mexico last week imposed tariffs of 20 percent on pears, cherries, apricots, Christmas trees, frozen potatoes and other products. The tariffs are in retaliation for the U.S. ending a pilot program that allowed some Mexican trucks to transport goods in the U.S. as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

(Via the Corner.)

A trade war during a worldwide recession.  This is just brilliant.

(Previous post.)

Barack Obama is the most polarizing president in the modern era, reports the Pew Center, eclipsing George W. Bush even without a divisive contested election.  (Via RCP, via Hot Air.)

Everyone knows now that his talk of bipartisanship and moderation was all just talk.

The Binghamton murders last weekend illustrate the folly of relying on the government to protect you.  The police arrived quickly, but took no action until well after the incident was over:

Police said they arrived within two minutes. . .

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers. They then spent two hours searching the building.

(Via Instapundit.)

While the victims waited for rescue and medical treatment, the police waited outside until they were sure it was safe for themselves.  How many people died because of the delay?

POSTSCRIPT: Calls for an investigation have begun.  (Via Instapundit.)

The Geithner plan has taken on a whole new complexion with this story from the Financial Times:

US banks that have received government aid, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, are considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals under the Treasury’s $1,000bn (£680bn) plan to revive the financial system.

The plans proved controversial, with critics charging that the government’s public-private partnership – which provide generous loans to investors – are intended to help banks sell, rather than acquire, troubled securities and loans.

Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the House financial services committee, vowed after being told of the plans by the FT to introduce legislation to stop financial institutions ”gaming the system to reap taxpayer-subsidised windfalls”.

Mr Bachus added it would mark ”a new level of absurdity” if financial institutions were ”colluding to swap assets at inflated prices using taxpayers’ dollars.”

(Via the Corner.)

Under this scheme, banks would drive up the prices of their toxic assets by trading them with each other, obtaining a taxpayer subsidy in the process.  On the face of it, this sounds like terrible use of taxpayer money.  If the Geithner plan admits this abuse, then that would seem like a serious problem.

But the Wall Street Journal reports that Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the FDIC, would be okay with it:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said Thursday she would be open to letting banks see some of the profits if they dump problem loans that ultimately recover some value. . .

The Treasury Department’s Public-Private Investment Program involves setting up investment funds to buy loans from banks. Ms. Bair said banks might be able to take an equity stake in those funds as partial payment for their loans, which would give them a payoff if the loans ultimately rise in value and would provide bankers with more incentive to sell troubled assets.

“We’d be open to comments on that,” Ms. Bair said.

(Via the Business Insider, via Contentions)

Moreover, it would be very hard to prevent this from happening, since banks could act through third-parties.  They might even do it unknowingly.  We might as well view it as part of the plan.

In fact, if the point is to prop up the value of the bad assets with government subsidies, how does it matter who owns the assets in the end.  Come down to it, maybe this doesn’t really matter.  Well, there’s moral hazard: it is offensive that the banks that created the problem should profit from its cleanup.  But with all the bailouts, moral hazard is pretty much institutionalized already.

In any case, as Yuval Levin points out:

It certainly sheds a different kind of light on the risks and costs to the taxpayer the plan will involve.

POSTSCRIPT: I’ll make another prediction, viz a viz my earlier post about political risk.  Recall there are two ways the Geithner plan can work out (if it’s implemented): either the private sector will make a lot of money or the government will lost a lot.  Either way, someone will be accused of wrongdoing.  I think we have here a glimpse of what the accusation will be.

This isn’t quite as good as SEIU, the union-busting union, but almost:

NYT editorial, Dec. 28, 2008:

The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the [card-check] bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.

There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.

Wash Post, today:

In a striking example of corporate hardball, the New York Times Co. has threatened to shut down one of its journalistic jewels, the Boston Globe, unless the New England paper’s unions agree to sweeping concessions.

It’s probably too much to hope that they’re not bluffing.

UPDATE APPENDED.

New York Governor David Paterson on the murder of 13 people of Binghamton, New York:

And now here in Binghamton we probably have the worst tragedy and senseless crime in the history of this state.

(Via Hot Air.)

Come again?!

The governor of New York is able to forget about 9/11.  We truly have returned to a September 10th perspective.

UPDATE: Other outlets are reporting that he said city, not state.  That’s a relief.

UPDATE: The LA Times has now retracted.

As part of an effort to drum up support for President Obama’s budget, the DNS rounded up 642,000 petitions in support.  Or so they claimed. But canvassing is hard work; it’s easier to lie:

The DNC arrived at its 642,000 figure by making three photocopies of each petition so that every signer’s senators and representative could get one.

DNC spokesperson Natalie Wyeth responded: “This effort was designed to give our supporters the tools to influence their elected officials. Of course we delivered a pledge to each of their members of Congress — 642,000 pledges. That’s what we said we were delivering and that’s what we did.”

When asked about the impression in the DNC press release that there were 642,000 unique pledges, she offered no response.

(Via Gateway Pundit, via Instapundit.)