Brown v. Vallas

Mark Brown is miffed at Paul Vallas’ turning Republican to run for county board president.  He concedes that V. might reform county government, as he says he would, and that there’s “nothing wrong with dumping Stroger,” which I call an odd way to put it.  I would have said there’s nothing right about keeping him.

But after quoting V. extensively (to good effect for V’s cause) and conceding that it’s “tough” for a Dem reformer to get nominated, he still wishes V. hadn’t switched.  For one thing, and I thought at first it’s the main thing, it’s to oust a black.

Astute readers will have already picked out [I didn’t] the key common denominator among these three Democrats-turned-Republicans [whom Brown cites as losers], and I’m not talking about their short-lived tenures with the GOP.

In each case, they made the switch to outflank an African-American politician, trying to gain some advantage in Chicago’s race-based politics.

That’s bad on its face, Brown implies, his knee jerking as it has in the past, especially in the matter a few months back of Dems not voting for Obama in the primary.

However, Patrick Hickey Hickey [sic] cites another root cause for Brown’s adversary position, a sometime-back dustup with the irate father of a 19th ward candidate opposing Brown’s main man (source) Mike Quigley of the county board.  The father “had words for Mark Brown,” and it got “ugly – for Mark Brown,” says Hickey.

Don’t know what that’s about, but the Quigley connection is something to keep in mind, and I thank Hickey for alerting me.

Any real good $500G-a-year men around?

New boss, new rules:

WASHINGTON — In announcing executive pay limits on Wednesday, President Obama is trying to hold the financial industry accountable to taxpayers while aiming to change an entrenched corporate culture that endorses outsize bonuses and perks that often bear little relationship to corporate performance.

Hey, he’s providing the capital, he calls the shots.

It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand

TV newsman Warner Saunders, who is black, after blasting retired Sun-Times radio and TV writer Robert Feder, who is white, for race prejudice:

“I simply wanted to confront him, face to face,” Saunders said. “I just spoke my truth in front of a person who I felt has been unfair to me and to black journalists in this city. … Very few people who are not in our skin can understand this.” [Italics added]

So he can’t blame Feder, and most whites won’t get it?  What is it, some kind of freemasonry?  If most whites can’t understand, why bring it up?

How’s he doing?

Here’s a site dedicated to Obama as promise-keeper or not:

PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in politics.

Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times examine statements by members of Congress, the president, cabinet secretaries, lobbyists, people who testify before Congress and anyone else who speaks up in Washington. We research their statements and then rate the accuracy on our Truth-O-Meter – True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True and False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

All right.  Not just Obama.

He’s the man with the plan

Rush Limbaugh’s “bipartisan stimulus”:

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%.

As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

It’s a way to find out what works:

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

Time to stop being narrowly partisan.

Birds of a feather

We compare, you decide.  The month’s Wed. Journal column is about O. and FDR as peas in a pod.

It’s a shame our first black president is a liberal. He appoints a few center-leaners here and there but has very crazy people at EPA and Labor, to name two Cabinet posts. . . . .

The comparison:

In some respects, O. [O’ in the online version, unfortunately] is like Franklin D. Roosevelt. He arrives trailing clouds of glory — to adapt Wordsworth — at a time of crisis. He’s popular, has a way with words, and plays the electorate like a violin. . . . .

There’s more more more . . .

Catholics once came to the rescue

To market, to market, to save us all:

* WSJ today, p-1, has “Price cuts spur home sales.”  Biggest monthly gain in almost seven years. What? Market correcting itself? It does that? Not for those whose mantra is market-bad-government-good. Holy Mother the State we believe in, not in any stinkin’ market!!!!

* Cardinal Cajetan, Dominican, 1468-1534, upheld the market as arbiter of justice in pricing and even endorsed upward mobility as individual goal. Saw money as a commodity, and so favored foreign exchange — francs for dollars, etc. — and lending at interest: usury, they called it in those days, regardless of rate.

There were statists among them, one of them fellow Dominican DeSoto, as in Rothbard, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, 1995.

* As for statism and its presumed role in bringing us together in a spirit of community, fellow 16th- (& 17th-) century commentator, Sir Thomas Smith chimed in (from England) on the role of self-interest in running things, within a property-rights framework:

It’s “a natural fact of human life to be channelled by constructive policy rather than thwarted by repressive legislation.” It’s better that people be “provoked with lucre [money]” than have governments “take this reward from them.”

Better too that entrepreneurs with their virtues and faults and their track record be the engine of change we can believe in than politicians with theirs.

* Also in the 16th, the papal bull “Cum Onus” condemning “usury” — lending at interest whatever the rate — issued in 1569 by Pius Fifth, came too late in the debate to quell lending at interest. Too many theologians (philosophers) had OK’d it.

In fact, four years later the Jesuits, forget their special vow to obey the pope, OK’d the mutually redeemable census contract — selling of annuities, whereby a price is put on delaying of money-use — in a general congregation and eight years after that, in 1581, all census contracting.

Some German Jesuits complained about such liberalism, and Jesuit Genl Claude Aquaviva told them to suck it up. “So much for the Pope’s census prohibition,” commented Rothbard, about whom one may look here.

Requiem for an industry

A book you all might want to own.

From the day Barack Obama announced his candidacy to the moment he took the oath of office, the mainstream media fawned over him like love-struck school girls. Even worse, this time they went beyond media bias to media activism, says CBS veteran and #1 bestselling author Bernard Goldberg.

In his most provocative book yet, A Slobbering Love Affair, Goldberg shows how the mainstream media’s hopelessly one-sided coverage of President Obama has shredded America’s trust in journalism and endangered our free society.

Depends what you intend to shovel

In Connecticut “shovel-ready” is drastically in need of clarification.

The stimulus package is intended to provide new money for projects, not replace existing funding. That creates another problem, local leaders said. Any project within 90 to 120 days of starting – the common definition of shovel-ready – would already be permitted and into the bid process.

”Most towns don’t do that until the funds are already in place,” Mark Oefinger, Groton Town Manager, said.

Or, as Richard Guggenheim, assistant director of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, said during an interview Thursday: “It’s the ultimate Catch-22 on steroids.”

Wait a minute.  That is not the spirit.  Any more remarks in that vein, and you don’t get anything.

And what about this guy?  Is he out of it, or what?

Oefinger, like others, expressed concern that the stimulus will not provide long-term benefits or jobs.

”I think it’s going to be dumping a lot of money down the rat hole and not have a lot to show for it,” he said.

Rat hole, eh?

Yes, rat hole.

 

They be smitten

Tom Roeser disagrees with Charles Krauthammer, whom he rates highly, in the matter of Obama’s being blamed if the economy continues bad.

I don’t believe [it] for a moment. Amity Shlaes shows how the FDR’s wild experimentation convinced the voters that at least he was trying. The compliant, supine media will be in Obama’s corner throughout and even if nothing is accomplished, his sunny visage of hope-hope-hope will be portrayed in Rooseveltian style.

They loved FDR too, of course, as John T. Flynn says in his 1948 Roosevelt Myth.  Reporters “played along with this maker of news” as he pulled rabbits from hat, ex-Rooseveltian Flynn wrote.