Obama the 'Bad Negotiator'

There is a metanarrative being spun by the liberal media -- by which I mean the solid majority of mainstream newspapers, online sites, networks, cable news outlets and NPR -- that president Obama is something of a pansy, a capitulator, a bad negotiator, and one who generally kowtows to the Republican party (who narrowly controls one house of Congress). It's a fanciful suggestion with virtually no basis in reality, but it has been hammered on so relentlessly by the most influential parts of the leftist media, such as The Daily Show and Bill Maher's show, as to actually have gotten a purchase in the minds of the masses.

It's also something of a masterstroke. When liberal policies are massively failing before the world's eyes, when Keynesian madness is being exposed as the fraud that it is, what is the best way to divorce the results of the policies from the policies themselves? By pinning the problem on a personality.

Of course, the (sane, blessed) reality of the American political system is that power is kept in check, and no one branch can become too powerful. Thankfully the Constitution isn't yet so passe for this to not be the case. And, of course, this often means that the President isn't free to simply do as he pleases, which in turn means that (as always) there's some degree of truth to this lie. But what is actually happening is:

1. Obama is sometimes forced to negotiate in order to get any kind of change, not because it's his desire to give up ground, but because he has no other choice given the confines of the system. But it's no more true of Obama's situation than any president with split Houses of Congress, and it was even less true during his first two years in office when the Democrats controlled both Houses.
2. More often than not it's the right who gets the worst end of every deal, but the status quo is so strongly leftist that any small concession to the right looks rather massive to someone who doesn't recognize the standing  imbalance. A continuation of the extant policies of Washington is virtually always a continuation of strongly liberal policies -- and this has been true since FDR, with only a semblance of a reprieve under Reagan -- so that any modest deviation in a rightward direction appears, understandably, massive. In reality, the concessions to the right are always minuscule or imaginary (such as 'cuts' in the budget which are actually budget increases slightly lessened, say from 9 trillion to 8 trillion). 
3. Obama actually did campaign on a promise to compromise and 'reach across the aisle' etc., so, to some extent, if he does look to make deals and give up some ground, he's simply keeping a campaign promise. Progressives voted for him knowing this was at least one element of his platform, and so they can't rightly complain even if he was often giving up ground (though he isn't). 

By complaining about Obama's negotiating skills and Republican obstructionism ad nauseum -- despite the relative irrelevance (or non-existence) of both -- the left gives itself what we call in the gambling world a 'freeroll'. If leftist policies and Democrat rule continue to result in predictable calamities, then the problem was Obama's personal flaws -- too willing to negotiate, too deferential, too weak etc. -- George Bush's legacy, and the Tea Party, not the actual policies of the left. If, however, we start to see some miraculous recovery in the economy, the narrative can quickly switch back to the soundness of the left's policies that have been implemented. With the latter being extremely unlikely to happen, it's wiser for the talking heads to focus on the excuses of the former.

In any case, none of this has any effect on how we conservatives view Obama. His policy agenda is disastrous, no matter how efficient he may or may not be at implementing it. It's just amusing the contortions the left will go through in order to retain fidelity to their obviously wrongheaded ideals.

By the left's own current refuse-to-give-ground-at-all-costs standard, Bill Clinton should be considered a terrible Democratic president, yet the left champions his record every chance they get (to some extent, rightly). Why? Because by giving ground, by being forced to work with a Republican Congress, by having his more progressive agenda somewhat thwarted, he actually got results. This is what happens when Democrats are actually forced to compromise and capitulate (or, better yet, when they're kept from doing anything at all), and this is precisely what is not happening today.

The Shared Blame Fallacy

In these politically tumultuous times you will often hear it asserted, in reference to certain problems, that "both parties are to blame". Very often this is a true statement. Sometimes it's not, but my interest is unpacking those instances when it is true. Does it then follow that some "sensible", centrist, non-partisan stance is optimal?

Not at all, and most often the opposite is the case; when there is a problem where both parties are to blame, it is usually a result of Democrats and Republicans both behaving like liberal Democrats. A good example is the housing market collapse, caused and underwritten by decades of federal government interventions in the market, starting with the Carter administration and spanning the course of several Democratic and Republican administrations that did nothing to stop the ruinous policies.

Were both parties at fault? Yes; they were equally guilty of behaving like liberals.

The solution, then, is obviously not  modest centrism, but calling on conservatives to actually act like conservatives, while voting liberals out of office. Yet the rhetoric of "blame both parties" obscures this fact for those who don't bother to think through the implications.

Buffet, The Super-Rich and Taxes

After reading a recent New York Times article by Warren Buffet (whom I like to affectionately refer to as Warren Buffoon) titled Stop Coddling the Super-Rich, I immediately thought "Yes, please do stop coddling super-rich tax-policy dilettantes by giving them platforms like the NY times to vent their opinions on matters which they demonstrate not the slightest understanding of."

If that sounds harsh, it's meant to be. After all, Buffet possesses no credentials on this particular subject that would render his opinion any more valuable than some member of the super-poor who thinks the super-rich should pay even less in taxes than they do. But because he's a prominent figure, and because he's advocating a policy that goes against his own self-interests, it's imagined that his opinion should be given special consideration. And I might even agree with this, if the substance of what he had to say wasn't so absurd. For starters:

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.

Frankly, this demonstrates clearly that Buffet doesn't even understand what the theory in question states. The theory is not that they'll cease investing completely, but that higher tax rates on gains will affect the risk/reward calculus and will render certain investments (not all of them) unprofitable that otherwise would have been. This is not really a contested theory so much as a completely obvious fact, despite Buffet's encyclopedic knowledge of all the investments that people he knows didn't make -- which he doesn't actually have. His assertion as to the behaviors of he and his peers is anecdotal and irrelevant, not to mention very likely not even true.

It's highly doubtful that there exists a single super-rich person who will make an investment knowing that it is rendered unprofitable because of higher tax rates on the earnings. Granted, said super-rich person would probably never cite capital gains taxes as the reason for his not making the investment, and it's possible he might not even consciously consider them, but this doesn't mean they are not a factor in his decision. Because taxes are a variable that are out of his direct control, and because they remain fixed for extended periods of time, it's quite possible to never speak -- or even think -- of them and still have them affect your economic decisions and behavior. Buffoon is foolish enough to think that this lack of testimony amounts to a lack of influence on behavior, which is clearly mistaken.

And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Yes, 1980-2000 saw such an increase in job creation largely due to a historic reduction in taxes, primarily on the top earners, that took place when Reagan entered office in the early 80s. As opposed to the comparatively small decrease of the Bush tax cuts, and their continuation under Obama. Admittedly, though, tax cuts don't function properly when accompanied by out of control spending and debt, which are the actual culprit here.

The one saving grace of the piece is that Buffet has the decency to limit his proposal for increased taxes to the millionaire club, rather than Obama's quarter-millionaire club. Still, this isn't a feasible solution to our dilemma, and it's an unjust one.

Should rich people in this country, especially super-rich people, do even more than they are to help the poor? Certainly, and Buffet and all of his friends are completely free to give as much of their wealth to the federal government as they wish at any time. I understand Mr. Buffet is quite charitable with his money already, and God bless him for that. Why he would want to redirect his charitable efforts away from the needy, and away from reputable charities, to the federal government -- a most disreputable steward of his money -- is anyone's guess. But he's free to do so at any time. Your tax burden was only 17%? Increase it voluntarily, then, if it pleases you. Convince all your mega-rich pals to do the same. Please don't make it a requirement though, some people want to actually do productive things, possibly even good things, with their money.

On "Social Justice"

What is "social justice" and how does it differ from normal justice? Courts adjudicate matters between people living in a society under a particular social contract. Is this not "social" enough to be considered social justice? And if that is "social justice", then why even add the "social"? Why not simply talk about justice, since old fashioned formal justice is already inherently social? Why did someone feel the need to create this term?

Last year Ryan Messmore wrote an article on the origin of the term. The term and concept seems to have originated with the writings of Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio who was an Italian Jesuit scholar. What Taparelli meant by "social justice" was that governments should recognize and respect various spheres of social life --  families, churches, organizations -- without disrupting or usurping them. He held that these ground-level associations were of primary importance whereas formation of states and countries were of secondary importance, and  that the latter should be built upon the foundation of the more fundamental former. True justice only can come about when these social associations are preceding and feeding into the government. This conception of "social justice" I have no problem with, and it seems to me that he is completely right. I might quibble with his choice of words used to coin the phrase, but if this is what people meant when they said "social justice" -- which essentially entails government yielding much of its claimed territory to more intimate social entities -- then I would be entirely in favor of "social justice".

Though, the origin of the phrase doesn't interest me as much as its popular usage and what people mean when they use it today. All kinds of people use the phrase -- environmentalists, politicians, Christians -- and it means slightly different things depending on the context, but in almost all cases it doesn't mean what it originally meant nor does it seem to add anything to the cause that is being advocated, but rather is often just a rhetorical tool used to appropriate the moral or intellectual high ground by force.

For example, in American politics the term is used almost exclusively as a euphemism for wealth redistribution. This is by far the most prevalent use of the phrase today. When it's used in this way the term's literal meaning is inverted. It is not just for the government to use coercion and force upon one individual or group of individuals to benefit another group of individuals. This is unjust, and when it isn't the government that is doing it, we imprison individuals for it and call it theft and larceny.

Not only that, but this is in direct contrast to what Taparelli meant, as it steps upon all intermediate social spheres of life and appoints the government the final arbiter of "social justice". Friends, families, soup kitchens, churches, local health facilities, private charities etc. should be primarily responsible for administering "social justice" through their own free will as collections of individuals. It is lazy and an abdication of duty to prescribe this job to the government, and it empowers the government to use coercion and force on groups of individuals whom it should not be exercising force upon. This is literally the opposite of "social justice" in every conceivable sense.

Yet the left squawks about "social justice" 24-7 and the right -- who is actually in favor of formal justice (which is social), as well as the "social justice" that Taparelli advocated -- never uses the term. I see why they don't because it has been appropriated by the left to mean something alien, but we on the right would do well to at least make it quite clear, as often as we are able to, that there is no "social justice" in wealth redistribution or in the tyrannical usurpation of freedom. And if the left wants to advocate wealth redistribution, then make them do it using language that actually fits the deed. "Social justice" doesn't belong to the left. The left doesn't even know what it is.

Feds Shut Down Online Poker

The U.S. Department of Justice has brought indictments against all the major online poker site's owners and against 76 banks for processing payments to the sites. The charges are that they were acting in violation of the UIGEA of 2006. I thought that I wouldn't be able to cash out or deposit, but apparently I can't even play. Details are still emerging, but clearly this is not good. Even if this were not the complete end, this will crush the number of players who are willing to deposit and play and fuel the online economy. So even if the sites come back into operation the percentage of new players and fish will be a lot smaller than before, unless some drastic measures are pushed through Congress that will legitimize and legalize it.

Beyond the frustration as a poker player, this also adds to my disgust for the current size and content of our current government.

You can follow the latest discussions on this 2+2 thread .