In an homage to the old saying "don't just sit there, do something," today the Senate passed their own version of the hopelessly mislabeled stimulus package. The homily they should have considered instead is "first, do no harm." In their haste -- and that of the President -- to do something, anything, and quickly, they have put together a plan which is unlikely to stimulate anything but partisan debate during the 2010 congressional election.
What is apparent is even those most vehement supporters of the bill realize it is flawed. Really, the only argument is how deep and wide that flaw runs.
President Obama justified the package in a speech at George Mason University last Thursday, "There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all."
Senator Charles Schumer dismissed the excessive earmarks and unnecessary spending in a widely circulated interview, where he was quoted as saying "and let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments. The American people really don't care." He went on to say that the American people care about tax credits more than "some small provision in the bill that souldn't be there."
Well, with his express admission that there is pork in the bill that shouldn't be there shouldn't the answer be, say, to remove it? But Schumer, along with the rest of the Democrats are following their leader's mantra -- we won. So they will push through the most spending they can get away with, even as public opinion polls indicate that the pubilc is not in favor of massive spending and the more details they learn about the package, the less they support it.
President Obama frankly doesn't seem to care if this is the right move or not. He has painted a dire picture of an America on the brink and this legislation as the only salvation. And if he's wrong and the country does not recover or, worse, plunges deeper into economic despair? “I expect to be judged by results,” said the president at a town hall meeting in Ft. Meyers, Florida, on Tuesday. “I'm not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn't worked and people don't feel like I've led the country in the right direction, then you'll have a new president.”
Forgive me for being glib, but, easy for him to say. The worse that will happen to Obama is he'll go on the media circuit and help Jimmy Carter build houses (bashing Israel optional). But if this untested, rash approach to fixing the economy fails, the price the country will pay will be much greater.
We are not suffering from a lack of government spending and the answer to our current problem is not just more spending. But the Democrats just can't help themselves -- they spend, it's what they do. Having given the Democrats the keys to the car, as it were, with their overwhelming victory in November, the American people better hope they don't crash.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Obama's Partisan Politics
Last night in a speech to House Democrats, President Obama made light of the Republican's objections to parts of the stimulus package. In a fairly mocking tone, Obama said of the Republicans, "So then you get the argument, 'well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point." His receptive audience laughed along with him.
If Obama wanted to bring change to Washington, launching a partisan attack less than a month into his presidency isn't the way. The Republicans are not the enemy. As the minority party, they have a role as old as our country -- to provide a check on the unfettered power of the majority. The 58 million plus voters who voted for the Republican candidate should not be shut out of the discussion over the country's future. The 22 states whose voters preferred the Republican candidate -- the no longer have a voice?
This may have been a "decisive" Democrat victory, but it does not result in a dictatorship. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro don't have to listen to the opposition, but Obama does. The "we won" attitude is hubristic and short sighted. Four or eight years from now when the Republican revolution comes back around, as these cycles tend to do, will the Republicans similarly be allowed to simply shove their agenda down the Democrats' throats without discussion?
We are in a dire economic situation, but that does not mean we have to act hastily or rashly. If it takes another day, week or even a month to come up with a viable solution that does not put us even further in the hole, then we should take that time. Obama is letting his ego get in the way of good judgment. This isn't about his winning his first Congressional battle -- it should be about what's best for the US economy and the US taxpayer.
There is no disputing that the stimulus package has pork in it -- an amount conservatively estimated to be $100 billion, more than one-tenth of the entire package. That is not an insignificant amount and Obama seems to conflate spending with stimulus. Simply put, not all spending will stimulate the economy. And at a time of such great economic crisis, now is not the time to load up a bill with unnecessary spending. This should be a streamlined bill aimed precisely at the ways to get the economy moving. It shouldn't be the Democrats' opportunity to push spending programs they've had their hearts set on for the past eight years.
If Obama wanted to bring change to Washington, launching a partisan attack less than a month into his presidency isn't the way. The Republicans are not the enemy. As the minority party, they have a role as old as our country -- to provide a check on the unfettered power of the majority. The 58 million plus voters who voted for the Republican candidate should not be shut out of the discussion over the country's future. The 22 states whose voters preferred the Republican candidate -- the no longer have a voice?
This may have been a "decisive" Democrat victory, but it does not result in a dictatorship. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro don't have to listen to the opposition, but Obama does. The "we won" attitude is hubristic and short sighted. Four or eight years from now when the Republican revolution comes back around, as these cycles tend to do, will the Republicans similarly be allowed to simply shove their agenda down the Democrats' throats without discussion?
We are in a dire economic situation, but that does not mean we have to act hastily or rashly. If it takes another day, week or even a month to come up with a viable solution that does not put us even further in the hole, then we should take that time. Obama is letting his ego get in the way of good judgment. This isn't about his winning his first Congressional battle -- it should be about what's best for the US economy and the US taxpayer.
There is no disputing that the stimulus package has pork in it -- an amount conservatively estimated to be $100 billion, more than one-tenth of the entire package. That is not an insignificant amount and Obama seems to conflate spending with stimulus. Simply put, not all spending will stimulate the economy. And at a time of such great economic crisis, now is not the time to load up a bill with unnecessary spending. This should be a streamlined bill aimed precisely at the ways to get the economy moving. It shouldn't be the Democrats' opportunity to push spending programs they've had their hearts set on for the past eight years.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
On a lighter note
The World Series of Poker announced its lineup for 2009 and there is something for everyone. This year there are 57 events, starting with the lowest buy-in event, the $500 casino employees Hold'em tourney starting on May 27th, and continuing until the Main Event which will start on July 3rd.
Commemorating 2009 being the 40th year of the WSOP, the first event open to the public will be a $40,000 buy-in event, starting on May 28th. They have added two more "World Championship" $10,000 events, for a total of ten in all, and there is the third annual $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event. If you're feeling flush (call me), that would be $190,000 to buy in to those twelve events.
For the rest of us -- those of us affected by the economy and who do not have sponsor's patches on our shirts -- there is a $1,000 buy-in "stimulus" Hold'em event on May 30th. There are also two other $1,000 events, one for Seniors and one for the Ladies (or any guy who wants to follow in Alan Jaffray's highheeled footsteps), eighteen $1,500 events, and a whole host of satellites with buy-ins starting at $330.
The biggest news out of this year's announcement may be the end of the rebuy tournaments. There have been mixed feelings in the poker community about rebuy events, some decrying the ability of those with deep pockets and no shame to basically buy themselves a bracelet (I'm talking to you Layne Flack), and others who are not necessarily opposed to them, noting that Michael Chu won a rebuy event in 2007 without ever making a rebuy or add on.
But even Daniel Negreanu, a notorious re-buyer, has indicated that he is happy with the decision to do away with the rebuy events. In an interview with PokerListings.com, Negreanu is quoted as saying, "When you are giving away a World Series of Poker bracelet I think everyone should have an equal chance to win it, not just a chance based on how fat their wallets are."
Like last year, the Main Event will be a seven day event (with multiple Day ones and twos) that will halt after the final table of nine is set and then recommenced in November for a four day, final table extravaganza. The November Nine experiment last year was a mixed bag -- while the nine did not receive the media attention the WSOP had hoped, ratings for the final table were way up. According to Jeffrey Pollack, there will be more of a push this year to get the enthusiasm revved up and you should expect to see the November Nine on more than just poker magazine covers next year.
Let's hope the powers that be decide to bring back the live, pay-per-view of the final table. No matter how good a job the folks at ESPN do in editing and presenting the final table, it is by its nature misleading to have a twelve, fifteen, maybe twenty hour final table compressed neatly into two 45 minute segments. Let the true poker fanatics follow the action -- all of it -- in real time. They'll still tune in two nights later to see the hole cards and find out if their reads were right and what was really going on.
Commemorating 2009 being the 40th year of the WSOP, the first event open to the public will be a $40,000 buy-in event, starting on May 28th. They have added two more "World Championship" $10,000 events, for a total of ten in all, and there is the third annual $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event. If you're feeling flush (call me), that would be $190,000 to buy in to those twelve events.
For the rest of us -- those of us affected by the economy and who do not have sponsor's patches on our shirts -- there is a $1,000 buy-in "stimulus" Hold'em event on May 30th. There are also two other $1,000 events, one for Seniors and one for the Ladies (or any guy who wants to follow in Alan Jaffray's highheeled footsteps), eighteen $1,500 events, and a whole host of satellites with buy-ins starting at $330.
The biggest news out of this year's announcement may be the end of the rebuy tournaments. There have been mixed feelings in the poker community about rebuy events, some decrying the ability of those with deep pockets and no shame to basically buy themselves a bracelet (I'm talking to you Layne Flack), and others who are not necessarily opposed to them, noting that Michael Chu won a rebuy event in 2007 without ever making a rebuy or add on.
But even Daniel Negreanu, a notorious re-buyer, has indicated that he is happy with the decision to do away with the rebuy events. In an interview with PokerListings.com, Negreanu is quoted as saying, "When you are giving away a World Series of Poker bracelet I think everyone should have an equal chance to win it, not just a chance based on how fat their wallets are."
Like last year, the Main Event will be a seven day event (with multiple Day ones and twos) that will halt after the final table of nine is set and then recommenced in November for a four day, final table extravaganza. The November Nine experiment last year was a mixed bag -- while the nine did not receive the media attention the WSOP had hoped, ratings for the final table were way up. According to Jeffrey Pollack, there will be more of a push this year to get the enthusiasm revved up and you should expect to see the November Nine on more than just poker magazine covers next year.
Let's hope the powers that be decide to bring back the live, pay-per-view of the final table. No matter how good a job the folks at ESPN do in editing and presenting the final table, it is by its nature misleading to have a twelve, fifteen, maybe twenty hour final table compressed neatly into two 45 minute segments. Let the true poker fanatics follow the action -- all of it -- in real time. They'll still tune in two nights later to see the hole cards and find out if their reads were right and what was really going on.
Do you feel safer yet?
So Leon Panetta is facing questioning from the Senate on his nomination to be the next head of the CIA. According to reports from the AP, he said "he would come to the job with a list a questions he wants the agency to answer.
Where is Osama bin Laden?
When will al-Qaida next try to attack the United States, and where?
When will Iran have a nuclear weapon? How can it be deterred from getting one?
What will it take to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapon?"
Those don't exactly seem like shockingly unexpected questions -- nor, in fact, questions that probably haven't been asked during the past administration. It doesn't show any great insight to pose the most obvious questions about our national security. What concern me is that Panetta would be going into this job with no more knowledge of how to get those answers than anyone else.
Panetta has not worked in or around the area of national security before and would be in effect learning on the job (not unlike our even less-experienced President). He is neither an intelligence nor national security expert. He brings no significant, relevant experience in any of the issues that would be facing him in his new position.
What Panetta is is what the naive masses had expected not to see in an Obama administration and what it is teeming with -- another Washington insider who is expected to call in political chits to get Obama's policies pushed through.
As my alter ego said today, "The inexperience in Washington is matched only by the moronic masses who did not realize that change meant throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
Where is Osama bin Laden?
When will al-Qaida next try to attack the United States, and where?
When will Iran have a nuclear weapon? How can it be deterred from getting one?
What will it take to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapon?"
Those don't exactly seem like shockingly unexpected questions -- nor, in fact, questions that probably haven't been asked during the past administration. It doesn't show any great insight to pose the most obvious questions about our national security. What concern me is that Panetta would be going into this job with no more knowledge of how to get those answers than anyone else.
Panetta has not worked in or around the area of national security before and would be in effect learning on the job (not unlike our even less-experienced President). He is neither an intelligence nor national security expert. He brings no significant, relevant experience in any of the issues that would be facing him in his new position.
What Panetta is is what the naive masses had expected not to see in an Obama administration and what it is teeming with -- another Washington insider who is expected to call in political chits to get Obama's policies pushed through.
As my alter ego said today, "The inexperience in Washington is matched only by the moronic masses who did not realize that change meant throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Conflicting Rulings on Poker as a Skill: You win some, you lose some
Not more than two weeks after a Pennsylvania judge dismissed gambling charges against the organizer and dealer of a Texas Hold'em home game, finding that poker was not gambling under Pennsylvania law as it was a game of skill, a different Pennsylvania judge has reached a different conclusion.
Westmoreland County Judge Richard McCormick Jr., refused to dismiss charges against three men who ran a Texas Hold'em poker tournament at a local volunteer fire departments.
The defendants' attorney, David Millstein, had argued that the case against his clients should be dismissed on two grounds, that the state law prohibiting illegal gambling is vague and that poker is not gambling because it involves skill, not mere chance.
Judge McCormick, however, ruled against the defendants on both grounds.
Earlier last month, Columbia County Judge Thomas A. James saw things quite differently, writing a lengthy opinion discussing the nature of the game of poker and all the research and books which establish it as a game of skill.
Should the defendants in the Westmoreland County case appeal Judge McCormick's decision, this could pave the way for a final showdown on the issue in the state's highest court -- a chance to get a state supreme court to weigh in on this important topic. So far, the argument that poker should not be considered "gambling" as it is a skill-based game has not had a major platform. And a number of different decisions have recently come out with different results.
It is just this type of inconsistent rulings and lack of uniformity which makes it the right time to get poker once and for all ruled to be exempt from anti-gambling restrictions.
Westmoreland County Judge Richard McCormick Jr., refused to dismiss charges against three men who ran a Texas Hold'em poker tournament at a local volunteer fire departments.
The defendants' attorney, David Millstein, had argued that the case against his clients should be dismissed on two grounds, that the state law prohibiting illegal gambling is vague and that poker is not gambling because it involves skill, not mere chance.
Judge McCormick, however, ruled against the defendants on both grounds.
Earlier last month, Columbia County Judge Thomas A. James saw things quite differently, writing a lengthy opinion discussing the nature of the game of poker and all the research and books which establish it as a game of skill.
Should the defendants in the Westmoreland County case appeal Judge McCormick's decision, this could pave the way for a final showdown on the issue in the state's highest court -- a chance to get a state supreme court to weigh in on this important topic. So far, the argument that poker should not be considered "gambling" as it is a skill-based game has not had a major platform. And a number of different decisions have recently come out with different results.
It is just this type of inconsistent rulings and lack of uniformity which makes it the right time to get poker once and for all ruled to be exempt from anti-gambling restrictions.
Obama's Mea Culpa
From Yahoo News:
"President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."
The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.
Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."
"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News."
Now if he can explain why a woman with less than $1,000 in unpaid taxes had her White House appointment "withdrawn" almost instantly, but Geithner was approved and Daschle had the administration's full support. Perhaps there may still be two sets of rules -- one for men and one for women?
"President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."
The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.
Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."
"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News."
Now if he can explain why a woman with less than $1,000 in unpaid taxes had her White House appointment "withdrawn" almost instantly, but Geithner was approved and Daschle had the administration's full support. Perhaps there may still be two sets of rules -- one for men and one for women?
Tax Trouble Double Standard
Well, I was all prepared to write about the Democrat Tax Dodge Tango, how the rules that apply to the rest of us conveniently don't apply to them. Then I receive a New York Times Breaking News Alert -- Daschle withdraws. Now, if he were facing a criminal trial as well, that would be even better.
You had know that things weren't looking good for Daschle when even the NY Times called for his withdrawal. Yet, the President continued to stand by him, giving Daschle the ol' thumbs up just yesterday when questioned by the media. The President should have demanded the withdrawal as soon as the tax evasion was revealed, but had perhaps backed himself into a murky ethical corner with his support of another tax dodger -- Timothy Geithner.
It should go without saying that any Republican with the same baggage would have been pilloried and run out of town. But Democrats just have to duck their heads, say I'm sorry, and all is forgiven. How refreshing to see that this time, the "aw shucks, my bad" defense didn't work and one of them was held accountable. Bye bye Tom.
For those keeping score, that is one proposed Commerce Secretary, one Secretary of Health and Human Services, and one Chief Performance Officer who have had to withdraw their nominations for various ethical issues and one Treasury Secretary given a pass for his tax troubles.
In addition, there have been at least seventeen waivers to the no lobbyist in the White House rules in the first two weeks of the Obama administration, the latest being proposed Deputy Defense Secretary -- and former Raytheon lobbyist -- William Lynn. Correction, the latest being former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as Treasury Secretary Geithner's chief of staff.
Better post this before I have another former lobbyist/now White House insider to name.
This is the change we were promised?
You had know that things weren't looking good for Daschle when even the NY Times called for his withdrawal. Yet, the President continued to stand by him, giving Daschle the ol' thumbs up just yesterday when questioned by the media. The President should have demanded the withdrawal as soon as the tax evasion was revealed, but had perhaps backed himself into a murky ethical corner with his support of another tax dodger -- Timothy Geithner.
It should go without saying that any Republican with the same baggage would have been pilloried and run out of town. But Democrats just have to duck their heads, say I'm sorry, and all is forgiven. How refreshing to see that this time, the "aw shucks, my bad" defense didn't work and one of them was held accountable. Bye bye Tom.
For those keeping score, that is one proposed Commerce Secretary, one Secretary of Health and Human Services, and one Chief Performance Officer who have had to withdraw their nominations for various ethical issues and one Treasury Secretary given a pass for his tax troubles.
In addition, there have been at least seventeen waivers to the no lobbyist in the White House rules in the first two weeks of the Obama administration, the latest being proposed Deputy Defense Secretary -- and former Raytheon lobbyist -- William Lynn. Correction, the latest being former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as Treasury Secretary Geithner's chief of staff.
Better post this before I have another former lobbyist/now White House insider to name.
This is the change we were promised?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)