Upon reading Dana Milbank piece in the Washington Post, I was reminded of this infamous exchange between candidates Obama and Clinton. At the time, Senator Clinton received smattering of boos for her “change you can Xerox” quip - but recent events may just vindicate her.
At Democratic National Committee headquarters yesterday morning, party workers were loading minivans with Xerox boxes, each addressed to a different congressional office. It was a classic campaign canvassing operation — except that the next election is 19 months away. “Supporters of President Obama’s Budget to Hand Deliver 642,000 Pledges Gathered from Around the Country to Capitol Hill,” announced the Democrats’ news release.
—-
“We had one of the big printers downstairs smoking last night,” party spokesman Brad Woodhouse said.
In fact, the canvassing of Obama’s vaunted e-mail list of 13 million people resulted in just 114,000 pledges — a response rate of less than 1 percent. Workers gathered 100,000 more from street canvassing. The DNC got to 642,000 by making three photocopies of each pledge so that each signer’s senators and representative could get one.
I’m not at all happy about the the federal governments takeover of AIG. But my initial discontent has intensified since the outbreak of Bonus Mania on Capitol Hill.
This letter in the NY Times touches on many of the reasons why (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th).
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.
After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.
Despite the
“profound” impact of the economics stimlulus package highlighted here, it’s important not to overlook Doug Bandow’s insightful
post on Cato@Liberty this morning.
A note to repeat commenter Bill:
I’ll admit that site updates have been more than a little sporadic. My ideological bent however, while not comprehensively laid out here - is clearly out of step with your own.
This site is not the endorsement of class-based cannibalism that it may initially appear; it’s also not an ode to Aerosmith or Motorhead tunes. Instead it’s written in the same spirit as P. J. O’Rourke’s book of the same title. Stated plainly, my aim is to use this particular space to defend individual liberty, promote property rights, limited government, and free markets. You won’t find any listing of populist demands here.
I won’t whine about wealth disparities or thrust an accusatory finger in the face of those that achieve financial success by competing honestly in the marketplace. An important clarification, I’m deeply opposed to using political means to undermine competition or deprive others of what belongs to them. That applies equally to the wealthy and the destitute. Neither party has a legitimate claim to his neighbor’s things.
-k
Matthew Yglesias here confuses cowardice with pragmatism.
In response to a question about controversial Danish cartoons, he suggests that free speech is “a matter of principle… tied to practicalities.” He is entitled to his perspective, but its impossible to reconcile such nonsense with the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Taken together, they clearly identify freedom of speech as a fundamental component of man’s essential nature.
The Declaration of Independence declares that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Constitution goes further still, specifying that “Congress shall make no law…” —that is, not a single law— “abridging the freedom of speech.”
These provisions do not regard mens’ rights as a matter of conditional permissions granted by a government; they were forceful assertions of innate negative rights that aught be defended by, and from government.
I am a staunch advocate of free speech. I’m also plenty suspicious of anyone that would not only surrender their own liberties, but also cavalierly dismiss the rights of others in response to threats, real or hypothesized.
Yglesias’s position is not mere prudence or pragmatism. It’s a contemptible and unacceptable concession of essential liberties. If, upon reading a particular comic, you feel compelled to don a vest laden with explosives, may I suggest that you first take a very cold shower, and then cancel your subscription to the offending publication. Freedom of speech is a right, but you are not obligated to read or listen to what anyone else has to say.
I also can’t begin to understand how subverting liberties in order to satisfy some potentially murderous constituency wouldn’t serve as a clear example of the efficacy of such coercion.
You might wonder how the same progressives that rightfully criticized the Bush administration’s questionable actions throughout its prosecution of the “War on Terrorism” can so easily brush aside rights in this context. Apparently, utilitarian calculations can lead you to some bizarre places.
As for Matthew Yglesias, while I fully support his right to say what he likes, I’d much prefer that he hadn’t written anything at all.
-k
I was not at all surprised when I saw the following headline at WSJ.com: “Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions”.
The story reads much as you might expect. Congressman lobby hard to ensure that money from the hastily implemented TARP program is routed to favorite banks. While precise economic criteria for government handouts might be lacking, and the worthiness of the recipient may be in doubt, a tight geographic correlation between representative and recipient may be ominously present.
I did however find this gem pertaining to OneUnited Bank in the articles closing paragraphs:
[Rep. Barney] Frank said he didn’t try to interfere with the regulatory process. “We have never told the regulators that they should ease up on them or not order them to do this or that,” he said.
He cites the bank’s status as the state’s only financial institution owned by African-Americans. “We did say, yes, I thought it would have been a social tragedy if the one minority bank in Massachusetts that has been working so hard and had been overextended into housing was to be wiped out by a federal action, the Fannie-Freddie preferred [shares] thing, and that’s why I think it was important to try to help them.”
And thus, a new* category of distressed enterprises is created.
- k
Nicholas Kristof had this excellent op-ed in the New York Times last week. In it Kristof warns the incoming administration against pressing for labor standards reforms in developing countries. In short: sweatshops may not be ideal places to work, but they are often far better than the relevant employment alternatives.
Assuming reform minded politicians mean well (its possible that many know better, but misrepresent the issue for political gain), they would better serve the individuals for whom they advocate by liberalizing trade and hoping for the creation of even more sweatshops. In the United States, India, and China – competition for labor among sweatshops has inevitably lead to greater employment, improving labor conditions and increasing wages.
-k
