Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a stay against the Chrysler deal with Fiat.  The suit was filed by three pension funds in Indiana, saying that the Obama administration had among other, things changed the order of precedence in the bankruptcy illegally.  They also said that TARP funds were illegally used in the first place to fund Chrysler, something I've been saying for quite a while, despite assurances by Paul Ryan that a car company somehow is actually a bank.  It should also be noted that evidence is coming out that the deal with Fiat was forced upon Chryrsler by the Obama Administration, despite serious management concerns.  So much for Barack's statements that these companies are still "privately run".

Of course, this was all started by the Bush Administration, but the Obama Administration is all too happy to use all the same tricks... and in most cases these are the same tricks that they criticized the Bush Administration for.  For instance, when arguing against the Indiana pension funds, they said:

The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of "bailout" (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.

Sound like something Bush did?  So what does Michael Mathias say when bond holders actually challenge all this in court, and the Obama administration says that they aren't even allowed to?  Is the Obama Administration still not subverting the rule of law?(Reason has some good coverage on how the Bush Administration waffled back and forth on whether car companies were banks as well.)

It doesn't stop there either.  Remember how Bush loved to subvert the legislative process by issuing an unprecedented number of signing statements on laws he signed?  Remember how Democrats complained about this, and how Obama promised to return to the Constitution in this regard?  Guess what... Obama has so far outpaced him during even the early days of his administration:

For those of you keeping score at home, based on the listing of signing statements on coherentbabble.com (which includes both constitutional signing statements and uncontroversial rhetorical or laudatory signing statements), President Obama has issued more constitutional signing statements than President Bush had at this point in his presidency

But despite all this, at least we now have a President who doesn't go around the world like a Christian soldier, and using religion in any and all contexts imaginable:

He's done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches - something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.
...
At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he'd seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. "I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church but to be in the church," Obama said. "It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."

Damn.  I should point out, that I'm not offended by the President using religion in these contexts... only that he is doing it more than Bush did publicly, and yet Bush caught more flack for it.  As I've said time and time again, Republicans and Democrats are really no different.  They both want to control your lives through government power... they'd simply have you do different things.  Likewise, Obama is really the same as George W. Bush... except he can read off a teleprompter better.

Well, it’s official.  GM ceased to be General Motors and has now filed for bankruptcy, and will become Government Motors.  60% of this new entity will be owned by the U.S. Government, while another 12% will be owned by Canada.  The UAW will own 17.5%, while the paltry remainder (about 10%) will be owned by bond holders.  That’s 10% which will be owned by the people who invested the majority of the money in the company through it’s lifetime.

“But Nick!”, you cry, “we invested millions of dollars last year in GM and Chrysler! We deserve to control these companies now and make sure our money is well spent!”  Well let me ask you this, exactly what did your money get you in the last several months?  As I predicted months ago when Paul Ryan created this kludge, absolutely nothing!  The only thing it did was buy politicians an excuse to subvert the rule of law.

I want to be extremely clear on this.  This was not about saving jobs, or keeping a plant in Janesville alive.  Bankruptcy for GM was inevitable, and anyone, including Paul Ryan, who told you otherwise when they got this boondoggle of a bailout snuck through was lying… plain and simple.  This was about enabling politicians to have influence in yet another area where they have never had influence before. In short, it is about ignoring the rule of law.

Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself though. What do I mean exactly when I saw, “The Rule of Law”?  Simply put, Rule of Law is a concept where the law, as written, is applied consistently and equally for all parties, and is not at the discretion of any one individual.  In other words, the rules of the game are written down before everyone starts playing, and they are applied  fairly to everyone as such, no matter who the judge is.  As Aristotle so perfectly put it:

Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.

What’s important to realize here is that politicians are inserting themselves into a process that is well defined, and very orderly.  Bankruptcies are nothing new, and the rules for how they are structured, and how they proceed are well known to everyone.  In fact, the order in which parties are paid in a bankruptcy is in part used to determine the interest rates on loans to companies.  And when politicians insert themselves into the process, and subvert the rule of law, those people lose money in the end.

And we’re not simply talking about “speculators” and “corporate fat cats”… we’re talking about ordinary citizens and pension funds:

Remember how President Obama blamed Chrysler's bankruptcy filing last month on "a small group of speculators" who turned down Treasury's $2 billion final offer for their $6.9 billion in debt? Well, it turns out that hedge funds and other short sellers weren't the only secured creditors who got a raw deal from Uncle Sam.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock revealed this week that his state's police and teacher pension funds have lost millions of dollars in the Chrysler "restructuring." Indiana's State Police Fund and Major Moves Construction Fund, which finances roads and bridges, together lost more than $1 million. And the Teacher's Retirement Fund "suffered, at a minimum, a loss of $4.6 million due to the action of the Federal government," reports Mr. Mourdock.

Far from being speculators, these funds represent retired public employees, including cops and teachers. The funds paid a premium to buy "secured" status, only to discover that they were politically outranked by the United Auto Workers in the White House hierarchy.

Yes, that was an example using Chrysler, but don’t think that the same thing won’t happen with GM.  Those who have political pull will now win out, over those who invested according to the risk that normal bankruptcy laws created.

And exactly what makes people think that politicians know how to save this company from liquidation?  As Megan McArdle points out, the cars that politicians want to build aren’t the ones we want to buy:

The government is acting as if GM's main problem is that it stubbornly refused to enter the lucrative market for small, fuel-efficient cars.  But the market for small, fuel efficient cars is not lucrative--they're the cars with the thinnest margins.  And no one's making it up on volume, either:  at the height of last year's oil spike, when barrels of Brent Crude were being quoted in first-born sons, small cars soared to . . . 20% of the American market.  Yes, there was a glut of SUVs, but that's because American companies were making a lot of SUVs.  Foreign companies make money on small cars because they develop them for lucrative home markets before modifying them for American production.

GM's main problem is not that the market is unreasonably unwilling to finance a potentially profitable company.  Nor that it can't produce an awesome small car that shockingly few people want to buy.  (Believe me, as the owner of a tiny, ultra-efficient car, I would that there were higher demand for my rapidly depreciating asset).  GM's main problems are

1)  A terrible, bloated cost structure
2)  A terrible, bloated bureaucracy
3)  A bunch of meh car lines

Which of these is the government going to solve?  That terrible, bloated cost structure supports a bloated union whose jobs are the entire rationale for the government intervention.  Leaning on the parts suppliers just risks UAW jobs further down the supply chain.  Maybe we can take it out of the budget for copy paper and pencils.

And the reality is, not only do people not want their cars, they don’t want GM… period:

Only 21% of voters nationwide support a plan for the government to bail out General Motors as part of a structured bankruptcy plan to keep the troubled auto giant in business.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% are opposed to a plan that would provide GM with $50 billion in funding and give the government a 70% ownership interest in the company.

Even when presented with the stark choice between providing government funding or letting GM go out of business, only 32% of voters support the bailout. Most voters (56%) say it would be better to let GM go out of business.

So not only does this “bankruptcy” (and you can hardly call it that since it bypasses all normal court proceedings") destroy the rule of law, it is also not even wanted by any resembling a majority of the people.  Democracy at work, right Barack?

And the reality is, GM will never be successful as long as it is beholden to the whims and wishes of politicians, who’s aims are to be reelected by satisfying a special interest group, rather than selling cars at a profit.  And as long as the claws of government money are in that company, GM will never be free, and thus, is already doomed to fail.

What started under George Bush and Paul Ryan is now complete under Barack Obama.  As I have said time and time again, Republicans and Democrats are really no different.  This is about political control, plain and simple.

Obama asked for, and got passed, a $700 billion "stimulus" package.  We have also previously passed a nearly $1 trillion TARP bill, with the full support of Obama when he was in the Senate.  And now, he wants to cut $100 million from the budget?!  Does the phrase, "penny wise and pound foolish" mean anything to you President Obama? How about "publicity stunt"?  Alright... maybe just plain "insulting".  Why so concerned now?  He is supposedly concerned about a "confident gap" with the American people.  Now if you think cutting $100 million dollars from the budget will shrink that gap, perhaps you underestimate the American people's understanding of the difference between trillion, billion and million.

Scott Feldstein saw this Jon Stewart clip... and is almost ready to get cable because of it.  And I'll admit... I laughed pretty hard when I saw it myself.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Now then, predictably, Scott seems to enjoy this the most:

And while president Bush was the one who started the bailouts, nationalized an insurance company, added a $17 trillion dollar prescription drug entitlement program, had a government mandated public school initiative literally titled ‘No Child Left Behind,’ wiretapped citizens without warrants, created secret internment camps in international waters behind the reach of our justice system, allowed his vice president to live in a netherworld between the executive and legislative branch where his house did not exist on Google Earth, only now–with the advent of ‘Potato Day’–has tyranny come to our shores.

Not that I blame him mind you.  I've been complaining about how Republicans and Democrats alike have been trying to control us, and take our liberty for quite some time.  George Bush in fact did start us down the road that many Republicans are now complaining about since Barack Obama has taken office.  Of course, Jon then goes on to say the following, which I think really sums up the attitudes among both Republican and Democrats much better:

I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing.  And I feel for you, because I've been there.  A few times in fact,  one of them was a nail biter.  But you see, when the guy you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with.  He could cut taxes on the wealthy, remove government's oversight capability, or invade a country you don't think should be invaded.  But that's not tyranny.  That's Democracy.  You see, now you're in the minority.  It's supposed to taste like a shit taco.  And by the way, if I remember correctly, when disagreement was expressed about that president's actions when ya'll were in power, I believe the response was "Why do you hate America?  Watch what you say.  Love it or leave it.  Suck on my truck nuts."

When you suggest that being in the minority is supposed to hurt... that in fact is a tyranny.  It's called the "tyranny of the majority".  It suggests that you think Democracy means Life by Committee.  It seemingly doesn't matter that the "majority" only consists of a little over half the population... or that the "majority" flips every 4 to 8 years... apparently Democracy means that whoever is currently voted in gets to do practically anything.  This concept is actually more akin to that of the Roman Empire than to our modern Democracy which is founded on individual liberty and equal rights, not government control.

I truly believe that much of our partisan bickering is really over fear of what the other side will do to us when they're in the majority.  What shit will they put in our taco for us to eat?  Because Republicans and Democrats insist on sticking their noses in the private lives of individuals... because both Republicans and Democrats think that they have a right to control how people interact in society daily... government only continues to grow, and more power is centralized away from those who ought to have power... the individual.

If our society more closely resembled that which our Founding Fathers envisioned, then in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't matter very much which party was in power.  The majority wouldn't be able to change the course of our lives all that much... and that is the way it's supposed to be.

For my long time readers, you are very aware of my frustration during the election late last year.  As a Libertarian, an more importantly, a capitalist and one who loves freedom, I knew that no matter which of the two major candidates won, everyone would lose.  And of course, it wasn't limited to just those running for office last November.  George Bush destroyed much of our freedom, and allowed executive and federal power to run unchecked and control things that government has no business trying to control.

During the Presidential Debates, I saw much to fear in what both candidates were proposing to do.  I signaled warnings of Socialist ideals in many of their ideas.  But there were many who thought I was crazy.  I was distorting their ideas after all... and words have meaning.  I was "dumbing down the definition of socialism" according to our friend Jay.

After all, socialism is when the government controls the means of production and distribution.  And we're not doing that now... are we?  Well, the first thing that the government did was to take over the banking industry.  And I don't just mean propping up insolvent banks.  The Fed is aiming to take control of banks, both solvent and insolvent.  It started with Paul Ryan's boondoggle TARP bill, which allowed the Treasury Secretary to force all banks to take TARP funds, whether they wanted it or not.  This included banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America, neither of which wanted, nor needed the money.  The Treasury Department didn't care, and forced them to take the money anyway.  Unfortunately now, legislators are using this as an excuse to force banks to do their bidding.  It has started with controlling executive pay, but don't think that will be the last of it.  Banks that are seeing this are now asking to give back the money, so they won't be forced to abide by these new rules.  The Obama administration is refusing to allow them to do this without "serious political repercussions".

Of course, all of this is not simply limited to the financial industry.  Now the government is now running the auto industry.  Since Congress refused to stop President Bush from giving the auto industry a bailout, Obama has not taken advantage and is using this money as a means to control the Detroit companies.  It started when President Obama forced the CEO of GM to step down.  A more blatant, and naked use of power... more akin to that of someone who considers himself a King rather than a President, I have not seen.  After that happened, well... anything further seems paltry.

Now, the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for all of GM's warranty obligations.  Mind you, this was done as an executive decision... with no law passed, or even debated, by Congress.  Of course, the entire auto bailout itself was done as an executive order without consent of Congress as well.  The fact that Congress refused to step in and stop President Bush from performing that illegal maneuver surely spurred President Obama from going even further.

And so it goes as I knew it would months ago.  Every step that the new President and the new Congress take move us further and further down the road to outright socialism.  Congress' refusal to do anything meaningful to prevent President Bush from using executive power in unprecedented and unconstitutional ways has only given President Obama more opportunities to do the same.  I have no doubt in my mind that things will continue along this track.  Expect to see Nationalized Health Care to be enacted with just as little democratic debate... maybe without even passing a real law.  After all, if all that they've done thus far hasn't required it, why should anything else now?

Lately I've been watching more local news on television than I used to in the past.  And the more I watch, the more I tend to be annoyed.  Frankly, local news is very inefficient with its time.  There are really three things that I can easily think of that could improve local news.  First, cut the stupid banter between the local anchors.  Look guys... you're not stand up comedians.  You read news off a teleprompter. And your jokes that aren't on the teleprompter suck.  Get good at reading the news, and let that be it.  It shouldn't be that hard.

First, exactly how times do we need to hear the weather coverage?  There is usually a short weather segment in the first 10 minutes, followed by a longer segment in the middle of the program, and then finally one at the tail end.  The first segment is an absolute waste.  It's usually billed as a way to get your weather first in case that's all you wanted to see.  But the problem is, the first forecast is so vague (in order to get you watch the rest of the show), that you might as well not have bothered.  Then, when you finally get to the primary weather segment, they repeat the same information in about three different ways during the segment.  You can probably cut the time spent on weather easily by a third.

Alright... now to the ironic suggestion.  How much time during a news program is spent interviewing the "man on the street" for their reaction to a story?  It's an absolute waste.  I know... a blogger is probably the internet equivalent to the "man on the street reaction"... except... well... hopefully I actually provide interesting reactions.  I know this, because people voluntarily come to my blog over and over again to read.  The man on the street interviews are usually all the same... some guy talking about how he doesn't like the fact that a murder happened next door (shocking I know), or how someone who just lost his job is now going to have a harder time buying things for his family.

The reason I bring up these three examples is that local news programs, just like many local newspapers, are suffering from declining viewership (or readership as the case may be).  So what is the easiest way to increase interest in a commodity that is flagging in popularity?  How about giving people more for their money!  Give people more news in their 30 minutes worth of time.  If time is money, then giving people more news in their 30 minutes would go far to bring people back to television news.

Imagine how many more stories you could fit into 30 minutes if you cut the weather in half or more, got rid of the stupid interviews with the "man on the street" and cut the useless chit chat between stories!

In order for me to get through these tough times, I've had to watch a steady diet of John Stewart, and The Colbert Report.  But of course, I've found the reactions to two major stories in the last week to be rather curious.  The first story was the passing of last week's $410 billion omnibus spending bill.  That's $410 billion over and above the stimulus bill that was just passed not that long ago.  As per the Republican's usual playbook, they complained mostly not about the large amount of overall spending that was in the bill... after all... Republicans love large government spending as much as Democrats do.  No, they decided to complain mostly about "earmarks".  The only problem of course, and Democrats were happy to point this out, is that earmarks only account for less than 2% of the spending.  So what's the big deal?  Is 2% crap enough to condemn 98% of the bad?

This of course is the Republican mistake.  By concentrating on earmarks, they concede that the other 98% of the spending is somehow acceptable.  Every time this is done, it makes it harder and harder to reform the Federal Government.  More and more of the discussions that are had right now are about "earmark reform".  Earmark reform!  That's 2% of a massive, overbearing and unconstitutional spending level.

So how did people react most recently when it was announced that certain executives from AIG were going to receive $165 million in bonuses?  Well, it should be surprising that the overall reaction among pretty much everyone was that this was an outrage, that has to be stopped somehow.  After all, that bonus money is coming out of $170 billion in bailout money that was given to AIG in order to avert a financial crisis when AIG was deemed "too big to fail".

Hold on just a tick.  $165 million out of $170 billion?  Why, that's less than 1% of the bailout money being given as bonuses.  And when you think about it, that's really cheap.  After all, the typical finder fee is more in the range of 10-15%.  So those executives, who lobbied hard with the government to get that money, are actually taking a steep discount on their finders fee.  And honestly, just with the omnibus spending bill, why should we let less than 1% stand in the way of the good the rest of that money will do?  But of course, while some people (like our friend John Stewart) were willing to make excuses for the earmarks, nobody seems willing to make excuses for AIG.

The reality is, neither spending package is right... and although you can certainly argue that the "really bad" spending only accounts for a smaller percentage of the overall amount, it is a red flag that perhaps the rest of the money isn't being spent very wisely either.  Was AIG really too big to fail?  And if it was so poorly run that it got into those straights to begin with, then why do we seem ready to conceded that 99% of $170 billion is a "good investment"?  And when it comes to government spending, "earmarks" are really just the tip of the iceberg, as even "well run" government programs are generally run horribly... they are just well run by "government standards".

The problem is, we've become so used to bad government spending, that it hardly raises flags anymore.  The only thing left seems to earmarks, and even that is now being dismissed as just a "small percentage" of otherwise "good" spending.  It's time that people complain about the worst of the worst, but not to stop there.  If 2% is bad, then that ought to be a warning flag that the rest can't be that good either.

Last Friday at lunch, I headed down to Marquette University to hear Paul Ryan speak as part of the "On the Issues" series with Mike Gousha.  You can listen to the webcast, or watch the video here.  In fact, about 40 minutes into the video, you can even here me asking Paul a question... along with a couple follow up questions as he tried to politically maneuver around the inconvenient truth... that the economy is full of contradictions, and that nobody can have everything.

As I go through my notes from the event, I'm struck by the contradictions that filled the entire hour.  I don't Paul personally accountable for them, because... well... everyone seems to believe in these contradictions.  Here is a sampling of the contradictions we heard during the hour.

1.  First he said that the Fed's current monetary policy seems to be correct now. Later on, he talked about one of the causes of the crisis was that the Fed was giving away too much easy money.  So cheap money back then was bad, but all of a sudden even cheaper money is good now.

2.  Paul talked a lot about how he was against creating a Western European Style economy.  He later tried to justify his vote on the auto bailout.  He did this by talking about how he wanted to make sure the money didn't come out of TARP funds (which is illegal by my reading of the TARP law), but never spoke word one about how it was creating a dangerous government intervention in private enterprise like they do in Western Europe.  He also mentioned some sort of "secret" talks with GM.  It all sounded very cloak and dagger.  Of course, in the old fashioned United States of America, a Representative would have no say in how GM ran its business... it's a good thing we're not in a Western European Style economy.

3.  He talked extensively about how one of the current problem we have is a "Counter Party Trust Problem".  That means that there are many stable banks out there, and a few unstable banks out there, but nobody knows which banks are stable and which ones aren't, which keeps people from lending out of fear they might be lending to a bad bank.  He later talked about how it was not bad that Ben Bernanke forced banks that didn't want TARP money to take it, because if some banks took it, and other banks didn't, it would make people aware of which banks were good and bad.

4.  Of course, the funniest moment was when Paul used the line (and repeated it later) that Republicans were amateur big spenders, and that now the pro's were in charge.  Is that really true?  After all, Medicare Part D, the Iraq War, TARP and the Auto Bailout all came under Republican control, among other things.  Granted, the "Stimulus" is pretty damn big, but I wouldn't call the other things I mentioned to be amateur in any way.

5.  Paul talked about the Democrats were being dishonest in their budgeting of the Iraq War.  He talked about how they have declared that they are going to budget the war at surge levels until 2012, but then draw down troops over the next 18 months.  They'll then take the the difference, call it a surplus, and spend it on other things.  Of course, Republicans were just as dishonest about Iraq War spending.  They had budgeted almost the entire war using "supplemental emergency funds" which encourages pork, allows the Pentagon to spend even more during its normal budgeting because Iraq wasn't included, and the use of emergency funds no longer requires cuts in other parts of the budget to offset them since the Budget Enforcement Act expired in 2002.  You can read more about that here.

The list goes on and on.  Everyone complains about how housing prices keep going down, unless you're trying to buy a house, in which case it's great.  Perhaps that's not right.  Everyone loves affordable housing right... well... except for the house I'm trying to sell.

The myth that anyone in Washington has all the knowledge necessary to solve any of these problems through some sort of law boggles my mind.  The only thing they can do is continue to distort the markets, so that nobody in this economy will have any confidence that a deal they make might hold, or that a business they start won't come under fire from Washington.  The surest way to a stronger economy is for Washington to stop messing with things... whether it's "Green Stimulus", or bailing out auto companies.

On the plus side, after the talk, I had a chance to speak with John McAdams from the Marquette Warrior blog.  It's always great to have a chance to connect with a blogger in real life.

The stimulus still hasn't passed, and the opposition to it is growing.  This is a good thing, though I doubt opposition will grow enough to derail it, but there is always hope.  In the mean time, some people are rather upset regarding the new announced limits on executive pay for banks that took bailout money earlier (Owen and Patrick among others).  Their main concern seems to be that if we limit executive pay, then it will be hard to get top talent.  There may be something to that.  Capper seems to think that if you're going to take government money, you should also accept the government's conditions.

The problem of course is... what if a bank didn't want to take bailout money, but was forced to?  I actually talked about this when the TARP program was originally announced:

Nine major banks will participate initally including all of the country's largest institutions. Some of the big banks had to be pressured to participate in the program by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who wanted healthy institutions that did not necessarily need capital from the government to go first as a way of removing any stigma that might be associated with banks getting bailouts.

One such bank was Wells Fargo, and you can read more on that here.  Who knows how many other banks would have likely refused to take money as well, but saw the precedent set with Wells Fargo, and decided not to push their luck with the Fed.  And so now, the TARP becomes a thin vale for nationalization, where companies are forced to take money, and then that money is used as an excuse to control aspects of the company's operation.  That actually is leading quite nicely into socialism.  I mean hell... we don't even stop people on welfare from blowing their checks on lottery tickets and gambling trips.

But if that wasn't bad enough, Congress can't even control itself while it's trying to commit $1 trillion to the national debt:

The House Democratic Caucus spent more than $500,000 in taxpayer money over the past five years for its annual retreats at resorts in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

On Thursday, Democrats will head to the Kingsmill Resort and Spa in historic Williamsburg, Va., for the three-day planning powwow. The resort boasts multiple championship golf courses, a full-service spa and six restaurants.

Individual lawmakers pay for most of the expenses related to retreat lodging through their campaign committees, but the Democratic Caucus subsidizes some of the costs for what aides consider "official business" -- to the tune of nearly $100,000 each year, according to a Democratic aide involved in retreat planning.

As Megan pointed out, we give these people their own huge building with security, their own staffs, and they try to escape on the taxpayer nickel to a resort to do "the real business".

Stimulus - Because All Economies Have Performance Issues:

I've been meaning to blog about this for a little while now, but I really haven't really had the time until now.  It seems that Obama has quickly backtracked on one of his executive orders, as shown by Boots and Sabers.  On January 23rd, he ordered a ban on torture and rendition, and closed down the secret CIA prison network overseas that we really know nothing about.  On the 31st, he re-authorized renditions.  Everybody seems confused... mostly the liberal organizations who backed Obama's stance on the torture, like Human Rights Watch.  They've gone from saying that any use of rendition and torture under the Bush Administration was bad, to saying that under limited circumstanced, it's OK to use rendition under the Obama Administration.

Glenn Greenwald even went out of his way to explain the nuance of the situation.  You see, now we find out that there are actually two different types of renditions.  Really, the liberals were only against extraordinary rendition, not plain old ordinary ones.  Though the definition of what makes something extraordinary is somewhat vague.  More importantly, Greenwald doesn't think its appropriate to bash Obama for the rendition program when we don't know he's actually done it!  Granted, he's authorized it, but apparently that's not important.  Why would he authorize it if he didn't intend to do it, especially when he promised to stop the program?  That doesn't make any sense.

But then Greenwald does the amazing.  He says:

Second, I have a question for those who believe that rendition, in all cases (even when it's not used to disappear individuals or send individuals to countries where they will be tortured), is inappropriate and wrong:

Suppose (for the sake of discussion) that: (a) the U.S. learns exactly where Osama bin Laden is located in Pakistan; (b) there is ample evidence that bin Laden (i) perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and (ii) is in the advanced stages of planning new imminent attacks on the U.S.; and (c) the Pakistani Government is either unwilling or unable to apprehend bin Laden in order to extradite him to the U.S. for trial.  Further suppose that efforts to compel the Pakistanis to do so through the U.N. are blocked (because, say, China or Russia vetoes any actions).

What's amazing to me here is this is just the sort of case that people make for torture.  They create a wild set of facts that won't happen in order to justify something that is actually used much more commonly for ordinary people.  I've talked about these people before.  For instance, there was this Canadian gentleman.  He was disappeared to Syria, where some pretty horrific things were done to him, and that's just one example.

And that phrase right there is a pretty scary thing.  Disappeared.  You see, people seem to automatically argue about rendition, and go straight to torture.  But let's leave torture out of it completely.  Let's just say we grab a guy off the street and throw him in a locked room forever.  No torture, just no escape.  You've been found guilty by someone with no defense, and we're just going to lock you away.

The problem with rendition, as I've argued before, is innocence.  The entire reason for most of our basic judicial rights, is to protect the innocent, and guard against mistakes.  It gives a person to stand before a neutral party, declare their innocence, and force the jailer to prove their guilt.  When someone is disappeared somewhere though, none of that applies.

Now then, if someone wants to argue that we should be able to go into another sovereign nation, and extradite a person we believe to be guilty to stand trial here in the United States, I think a good argument can be made.  But what Obama re-authorized was the rendition of persons to other countries, where no such judicial protections may occur.

Somehow, as long as these people never step foot on American soil, even if we do the taking, that absolves us of any guilt we may have about not honoring what we have always considered inalienable rights that belong to all men.  It was wrong to have rendition under Clinton, Bush, and it is wrong to have it under Obama.

But first a caveat.  I disagree with the premise of the stimulus, and don't think it will work.  In fact, I'm very afraid that this sort of action will lead us down the same road as Japan in the 1990's... what is known as the lost decade, where they faced a 10 year recession.  However, there are a lot of people who seem convinced that the stimulus will rescue us.

Fine.  The problem of course, is that the majority of stimulus money won't even be spent in 2009.  So to allay the fears of misspent money... why not create two separate bills?  Why not have an "Emergency Bill" for the funds to be dispersed this year, and a second bill that can be diliberated over more time (a couple months maybe) for funds that will spent afterwards?

Of course, this is a preposterous notion on its face, because the reality is that the Democrats are using the stimulus as their version of the Patriot Act.  Pass something really quickly, which nobody will have the time to read (just like nobody actually had time to read the Patriot Act), so that we can put in all the things we've wanted for a long time, but could never pass because it can't withstand debate on its merits.

But if that's not true, then you shouldn't mind waiting... right?  So why not pass two bills?

There's been a bit of a scuffle going around the Wisconsin editorial community regarding teaching "right and wrong" at MPS, and whether religious teachings should be included.  I've been sitting on the sidelines of this one since it started, always having it on my list of blog topics.  This was one of those ones that I didn't want to jump in on right away, because its one of those topics where opinions can be easily misconstrued.  It all started with this editorial in the Journal by Willie Hines, the Milwaukee Common Council President.  Overall, its a good essay, including this bit:

Whenever a teacher ignores destructive behaviors, a certain morality (or immorality) is left unchecked. A clear message is sent: "The behavior is OK." Whenever scholastic schedules progress without reserving any forum or venue for ethical discussion, a message is sent that morals do not matter. When we neglect to highlight what is right in the world, we unwittingly endorse what is wrong.

Simple enough.  But as soon as you talk about teaching a topic (any topic), the next obvious question is of course, "How do you intend to teach it?"  This is not a problem limited to ethics, or even sex education, where debate rages rampant.  Ask any grade school teacher who has been teaching for more than 15 years about the number of different methods they've had to learn regarding how to teach basic arithmetic, and you see that this problem plagues all of education.  And of course, when teaching about "right and wrong", many people will of course jump into a discussion about religion in public education.  It started with Patrick McIlheran, lamenting that too few parents have the option of sending their children to private schools where religious teaching would be allowed.  Of course, he also said:

Frankly, I think it would be hard to teach morals and ethics without some reference to God, however understood. That's why I send my kids to a school that’s free to mention Him. It’s wonderful that about 20,000 Milwaukee children can do so under the school choice program.

That still leaves 80,000 in MPS which, because of a certain narrow-minded secularity in American political culture, can’t mention God. Pity, but still this shouldn't stop the schools from teaching behavior ranging from common courtesy to a deeper right-and-wrong based on the Judeo-Christian ethics that have prevailed for the majority of this country’s history.

Jay Bullock had a one liner on the topic (in a post that really talks about much larger issues with MPS), and Patrick has responded as well.  They're all interesting reads, as are these posts by Rick Esenberg (I, II, and III).  Personally, I like Rick's moderation on the topic.  I think Patrick just suffers from a lack of imagination, as do many commentators who add a religious bent to everything they write.  He just can't imagine a way to teach morals without referring to God.  Of course, many people like Jay tend to go too far, and suggest that any mention of God is some form of religious indoctrination.  He answers that to a certain degree this morning.

Of course, the reality is, there is no simple answer.  What we need to know is... What exactly do you want to teach?  Do you want to teach basic morals, or do you want to teach ethics?  Just as you can teach basic mathematical concepts quite adequately without ever mentioning names like Diophantus, or Newton (though it is hard without mentioning Pythagoras if for no other reason than the theorem which bears his name), you can teach about moral behavior without mentioning Moses or Jesus.  Many societies have risen with similar moral tenants as ours, and without Christianity.  Some things are simply more transcendent.  Likewise, some societies have risen and fallen with Christianity that were far less moral than ours, at least by our definition today.

And that is why any good ethics class is really a history class.  More than a history class, a good ethics class is an investigation.  I'm talking about learning about the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, and maybe even Ayn Rand.  That list is by no means exhaustive... which is the point.  You can spend an entire semester in an ethics or philosophy class and barely even scratch the surface.  The goal is not to teach "the one true ethics" however, because there really isn't one.  The goal is, or ought to be, to teach critical thinking, so that the student comes away from the class with the ability to apply certain principles to an unknown situation, and hopefully make an "ethical" decision based on new situations.

Of course, religion can do the same thing.  But religion goes further than mere ethics.  It also delves into notions of faith, spirituality, and the afterlife, as well as to an adherence to a specific set of instructions that don't necessarily conform to any ethical standard.  I'm referring to requirements that are neither moral, nor immoral per se, but are requirements of the faith nonetheless.  And so while many would argue that it's hard to teach ethics without mentioning God, it is also just as easy to argue that its hard to teach about God without mentioning these other ideas.  And therein lies the true conflict.

My point is that its rather easy, and I would hope noncontroversial, to enforce basic moral standards, without the need for religion.  For that matter, you can enforce those basic moral standards without mentioning Plato, Aristotle, or any other philosopher or ethical teacher.  You can do these things just as easily as you can teach basic arithmetic.  Moral standards need no justification, just reinforcement.  But to teach ethics and critical thinking, you need to go further.  

I would still argue that if a school wants to cover ethics, that religion shouldn't be included in that discussion.  One primary reason for that is availability.  If one wants religious teaching to be included in a child's education, one has a multitude of places to go every Sunday for that extra instruction, even if it's not included every day in a child's learning of the "three R's".  A similar venue cannot be found outside of traditional schools that teach other ethical schools however (like those mentioned above).  This of course leads to another argument, which is leaving religious teaching out of a school's "ethical training" would create a conflict between differing views.  In other words, certain secular ethical doctrines may be in conflict with certain religious ones.

To that I say, "Welcome to the world".  Any ethics class worth their salt automatically presents a broad range of ethical schools of thought that are often times in conflict... and that's before religion is ever brought into it!  They argue with each other!  That is what develops critical thinking, and the ability for any one individual to evaluate a situation, and apply a certain moral code to new and changing circumstances in life.  People's views will often times be challenged, not just in an ethical world, but also a political one, as we're all doing right here and now.  Hell, even people's ideas on how the Bible ought to be interpreted are different between different arms of Christianity.  Teaching views that may be in conflict with your current ethical understanding will do one of two things.  It will either reinforce your current ethics as you find problems with opposing views, or it will make you reevaluate your current ethical views and change them.

Is that something to be feared, or something to be celebrated?  Perhaps that is the real question to be debated.

Today, the House passed a joint resolution which now goes to the Senate. The goal of which is to stop the second half of the TARP funds ($350 billion) from being distributed.  Paul Ryan is pushing hard to stop this money from being distributed:

My fear is that the second $350 billion in TARP funding will go far beyond the original mission of preserving overall financial market stability, and instead will be used to fund a heavy-handed, neo-industrial policy. Various industries have already marshaled their lobbyists for a claim on these public dollars. And with our Federal budget deficit expected to reach historic levels this year, we cannot risk more public funds to be squandered.

In light of the Fed’s vastly expanded policy options for addressing key sources of market turmoil going forward and their relative effectiveness – combined with the very real risk that more TARP funding will be used for an industrial policy – I am voting against the release of the second half of TARP funds. Although I am concerned about the Fed moving into new and expanded policy territory, that concern is tempered by the fact that the Fed is relatively insulated from politics and lobbyists and is more singularly focused on the stability and health of the financial system, which was my foremost reason for approving the original TARP funding last October.

There is all sorts of weird things going on.  First of all, it should be noted that not only did Paul Ryan vote for, but he also lobbied heavily to pass the first Economic Stabilization Act.  It's bad enough that they passed a bill which cost $700 billion... but it was written in such a way that the money was to be distributed in two halves, and Congress could only stop the second half from being distributed by an active vote on the floor.

It's bad enough that they voted to spend that kind of money, but they've set the precedent that more money will be spent unless they vote no.  That vote is also subject to a Presidential veto.  So even if the Senate passes the resolution, President Obama will more than likely veto it, and get his money anyway.  After voting for that original legislation, now Paul Ryan wants to complain?  The reality is that this resolution is meaningless because of the veto, and the odds of securing enough votes to override a veto are slim to none.

Of course, it gets worse.  Now Paul is claiming that he's voting for this "disapproval resolution" because it will use TARP money to fun "heavy handed neo-industrial policy", or as this press release from his site says:

Today's disapproval resolution (H.J. Res. 3) comes on the heels of yesterday's passage of H.R. 384, which shifted TARP’s original purpose from addressing the systemic risk in the financial system to picking the winners and losers in the marketplace.

So now all of a sudden, picking winners and losers in the market is bad policy?  But a couple month ago, when Paul Ryan was arguing to give funds to the failing auto companies, that somehow wasn't "neo-industrial policy" and wasn't "picking winners and losers"?  We weren't taxing Toyota to save GM then?  And now Paul is suddenly concerned about executive control over funding, when he said not one word after President Bush unilaterally, and illegally used TARP funds to bail out the auto industry?  He's concerned about keeping the Fed focused on the financial industry, but he had no problem with the car czar that he proposed in his earlier legislation?

Look, I'm all for cutting off these funds, and perhaps I'm being stupid to continue to go after Paul Ryan like this.  But when reading these releases, you'd think that he was against these things the entire time!  But only now that a Democratic President is in office, is he all of a sudden for a more reasonable fiscal policy that didn't bailout industrial concerns.

Well you know what, that's what a straight partisan hack does.  He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don't see one bit of regret for what he did previously.  And I'll be damned if I'm going to let him get away with it.

Update:  I received an email from Congressman Ryan's Press Secretary.  He emailed me a link to a statement that Congressman Ryan made after Bush's decision to use TARP funds to bailout the auto industry:

As I've consistently argued, assistance for the domestic auto industry should come from funds that have already been appropriated. Last week, I voted for a bill that did just that: H.R. 7321 cut the bureaucratic red tape from previously approved funds, rather than divert resources from the financial rescue package or rely on additional taxpayer dollars.

I am deeply troubled by the precedent set by expanding the TARP into areas beyond its original intent. It was made clear to me two weeks ago that if the Energy Department funds were not released, they would be granting access to TARP funds for the auto companies. These were among the reasons why I supported expediting funds from the Department of Energy loan program. Allowing the Big Three to access funds from the financial rescue package creates a dangerous precedent for other corporations to lay claim to TARP funds. My concerns remain focused on retirees, workers, and families in Southern Wisconsin, but this form of assistance is the wrong way to go.

However, I would still like to point out that this really isn't good enough.  This seems to mostly be an argument over the source of the funds, and not the manner in which they were appropriated.  In fact, Congressman Ryan states that the reason he supported the auto bailout bill was because of the implicit threat from Bush to use TARP funds, which is clearly illegal under the TARP bill.

The Senate failed to pass the auto bailout bill, not just over a disagreement regarding the size or source of the fund, but because of the fundamental nature of bailing out those companies.  Bush did it anyway, without any legislative authority.  Why were no impeachment articles filed?  That is the ugly precedent here.

Today's Journal has a news item relating to some complaints that some people have, suggesting that more money is needed for the Wisconsin Covenant:

A new policy brief from the higher education research center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison says Gov. Jim Doyle's Wisconsin Covenant program needs to commit public funds to pay for four years of financial aid for low-income students to make a significant improvement in the enrollment of underrepresented students.

The program guarantees a spot in college for students who maintain good grades and take the right classes in high school, but it doesn't promise automatic funding for college costs.

The Covenant Scholars program and the privately-sponsored Fund for Wisconsin Scholars will use their combined $215 million to offer scholarships that complement the Covenant pledge, but that's not enough to cover all the Covenant Scholars' full need, according to the center.
...
The Covenant, introduced in 2006, aimed to increase college participation rates, especially among underrepresented groups. Under the program, Wisconsin eighth-graders sign a pledge promising to maintain a B average and take college-prep courses. If they follow through, they are guaranteed a spot after graduation in one of the state's colleges or universities - although perhaps not their first choice - along with a financial aid package based on need.

Some have questioned the program's effectiveness because students with a B average already are likely to be admitted to most colleges in Wisconsin.

Plus, Covenant Scholars must apply for federal and state financial aid, just as non-Scholars would. Current financial aid packages for low-income students fall thousands short of the cost of education in the UW System, even after the family's expected contribution.

As soon as I saw this, I tried to remember if I actually ever saw a bill in the legislature that passed regarding the Covenant.  I remember a big splash when Doyle proposed it, and I even remember some controversy when Doyle launched a website allowing kids to sign up before anything passed the legislature... but I don't remember it ever passing.

In fact, from the reading around I was able to find, it seems really that the Wisconsin Covenant never did pass (and if did, please someone point me to the story saying such), and that its simply a "public/private partnership" which is parading around as an official state sanctioned program.  The Journal article suggests that we need more state money for the program, but if it's getting any state money then it is completely illegal if it never passed the legislature.

Let's get one thing straight here.  Gov. Doyle (or any governor or president) may not just create a program out of thin air, fund it, and hype it merely because he thinks its a good idea. That's not how a representative government works.  In fact, I would say that even the Covenant website, which has a wi.gov domain is illegal, since that should only be used for official state programs, of which this seems to not be.

This type of executive action was illegal when Bush did it for the auto bailout, and it was illegal when Doyle did it for this.  If it didn't pass the legislature, then it didn't happen.  Period.

Update: Thanks to Noel from UW Madison for finding this link, which actually does show that it was slipped into a budget agreement a few months after Doyle started acting like it had already passed.  Of course, the whole program is still a sham, in that its pretty much still an unfunded promise to 8th graders, but at least the administration for that unfunded promise is legal.