No Blood For Oil?

     [Before we get started in earnest today, we here a the The New Invisible Hand would like to take a moment to thank all of our service men and women. Without whom we would not have the freedoms we cherish including the freedom to speak out on blogs such as this.  Thanks and God bless!]


     In the latest example of Obama's stunning lack of leadership, his administration has punted any decision on the Keystone oil pipeline until 2013, which is conveniently after the election.  This decision, or decision not to make a decision, is troubling for several reasons. Not only is it harmful to our economy and harmful to our energy security, but it displays a profound lack of courage and an easy willingness to put politics ahead of what is best for our country.

     Obama has paid a lot of lip service to creating jobs and lowering unemployment. At various time he has promised a "laser focus" on jobs and later tried to sell another massive Keynesian spending plan (See our post on "Stimulus Redux") as a jobs bill.  And yet even with all this supposed concern about job creation Obama blithely shelves a "shovel ready" project (yes, we hate that phrase too. But when in Rome...) for several years saying further study is required.  This is a project that would have created in the neighborhood of 20,000 jobs. And these would have been good paying jobs, not low end service industry stuff.  So much for concern about employment.

    Some will say that we must be careful and safe with a project such as this and that therefore more study is warranted. This is an appealing argument to people new to the issue and of course we do need to be careful and safe with projects such as this.  The problem is that there have already been YEARS of study, planning and precautions.   And no matter how much study there is, those opposed to the project will always argue for more delays, more study and continued inaction.  Make no mistake, the goal of those arguing for further study is not to get the project right, it is to make the process so expensive that the project is abandoned.  So far, they are winning.

       The second profoundly bad impact of this "lack of decision" is the effect it will have on our energy security going forward.  This pipeline would have provided a significant amount of oil from a friendly neighbor with a stable government.  Now rather than dealing with Canada, we will be even more reliant on oil from the Middle East and if the pipeline is cancelled, it is entirely possible that this oil will be sold to China or other less than friendly nations, not exactly positive for our nation's security.  You may also remember the protester chants from the both the first and second gulf wars of "NO BLOOD FOR OIL."  By punting on this project, Obama has made it more likely that we will have to trade our soldier's blood for Oil. So long as we are dependant on the Middle East, we will continue to have to protect that supply with our blood and treasure. And that apparently is fine with Obama. He had a chance to reduce that dependence and he chose not to do so.

     Finally, just as concerning as the negative impacts of Obama's delay is what this type of politically motivated maneuvering says about our Chief Executive.  Had Obama intervened and said the project will not go forward, we would have been outraged but at least we would know where he stands.  Instead we get this limp procedural move designed let Obama try to be all things to all people.  He will tell the environmentalist loons circling the White House that he stopped the pipeline and he will tell the rest of the country that he is being judicious and thoughtful in insisting on further study.  All while having put off making any real decision until after the next election.  The truth is Obama has again displayed the troubling lack of leadership that has been a hallmark of his administration. Rather than coming out for or against this project, he has tried to finesse the situation to avoid having to lead.  We deserve and should expect more from the leader of the free world.  Hopefully we will not have to endure 4 more years of this leadership vacuum. 
 
     Thanks for reading.                                                              - Hand

Where there is no vision, the people perish.
- Proverbs 29:18

    

Obama's Dirty Little Trick

     Under the guise of a debt reduction proposal President Obama unleashed the opening salvo of his 2012 reelection campaign.  And from the looks of it, things are about to get nasty.  Sadly, we are in for more than a year of vitriolic class warfare the likes of which we have not seen in a long while. His supposed debt reduction plan is actually a prolific series of tax increases combined with dubious future savings and next to no concrete spending cuts.  Obama's "plan" perverts billionaire investor Warren Buffet's statements regarding taxation of the super rich into wide ranging tax increases on people, businesses and job creators earning as little as $200,000 a year.  But perhaps even more disturbing than the giant tax hikes to fund further wasteful spending is the intentional obfuscation and trickery used by the President to attempt to dupe the American people into supporting his tax and spend agenda.   

     We won't belabor our first point because it is all over the news and even the AP has reported the fact that people with higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes to the federal government.  In fact the top 1% of wage earners pay about 40% of ALL Federal income taxes while approximately the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 0 dollars of Federal income tax.  Don't take my word for it, check the numbers, they are easily available from the government itself.  So the general notion that the "rich" don't pay much is taxes is nothing but a political device perpetuated to drum up support for higher taxes. 
      What about the much hyped "Buffet Rule" to make those rich people pay their fair share you may ask.  Lets consider Warren Buffet, the billionaire investor who famously said he pays a lower percentage in taxes than his secretary (or words to that effect).  Buffet is a member of a very small class of super rich investors that make the overwhelming majority of their money from their securities and/or real estate investments, the gains on which are taxed at a lower rate.  The reason these "capital gains" are taxed at a lower rate is that we want to encourage people to invest their money in companies so that those companies can access capital to grow and CREATE JOBS.  We need more of this, not less.  If the Buffet Rule were enacted and applied as Obama seemed to suggest, the rule would apply to only about 22,000 people in the whole country (about a third as many people as attend one NFL game).  This is simply too small of a group, rich although they may be, to make much of a difference.  So the the purpose of  Obama's Buffet Rule is not debt reduction but to sew anger at this tiny group of super rich such that Obama can take that anger and channel it into support for much broader tax increases. 

     If you look back at Obama's speech you will see that he slides seamlessly between those making $1 million a year (Buffet Rule candidates) and those with a worth $1 million (someone who might own a small business or a couple of houses).  Turns out there are many more people that are "worth" $1 million than make a million a year.  Enough that raising their taxes could help fund Obama's insatiable spending habit (never mind the negative effects on the economy).  It also turns out that this group of people already pay a lot higher percentage in income taxes that the middle class and they are a major driving force in small business job creation.  So Obama's dirty little trick is to sew anger at a very few super rich investors and use this anger to raise taxes on the job creating sector which already pays higher taxes than anyone else.  Quite a class warfare gambit, I hope it fails.

Thanks for reading:

                                            --Hand

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
 
                                       Thomas Jefferson

Stimulus Redux

     Last night President Obama proposed a new "job creation" bill and is now on the road trying to sell it and himself to the American people.  According to numerous news outlets the proposal has a price tag of about $450 Billion. So maybe this is stimulus light after the $700+ billion already spent in the name of boosting the economy.  The "new" plan includes extension of the payroll tax cut, "targeted" tax cuts for hiring workers, billions for infrastructure construction, billions for remodeling schools, further extension of unemployment benefits, money to local governments to keep government employees from being fired as well as litany of other piecemeal proposals.

     First off, much of this ought to sound very familiar. More money for "shovel ready" infrastructure projects, an umpteenth extension of unemployment benefits, a temporary payroll tax cut that is already in place and some targeted tax breaks for hiring.  Not much new there.  We all know the lackluster results created by the last round of these sorts of measures, which probably gives us a pretty good idea of the results this round will bring.  So why are these alleged economic stimuli unlikely to produce significant results?  Never fear, we here at the New Invisible Hand have  a theory:

     The first reason that Obama's "new" plan will fail even if enacted is the plan itself. The small piecemeal tax cuts for hiring are awash in red tape. The effort it takes for an employer to document how long a new employee has been unemployed and comply with all the criteria required to get the tax break eats away much of the benefit of the tax break. Second, the extension of unemployment benefits will act to keep unemployment high.  Whenever you subsidize something, you will get more of it.  Unemployment is no different. Some people will choose to remain unemployed and collect a check from Uncle Sam.       

    The overarching reason that Obama's "new" stimulus package will fail just as the last one did is Obama himself.  Fairly or unfairly (We happen to believe fairly), Obama is viewed by the business community (the actual job creators) as anti-capitalist and therefore anti-business.  So even when Obama proposes "pro-business" items such as tax breaks for hiring, there is a sense that he is only doing this out of desperation and does not fundamentally believe in these sorts of policies.  And further, once there is some improvement in the economy, he will go back to his actual agenda that focuses on more taxes, more government spending, more redistribution of wealth and more regulation.

   So long as Obama is in office, it will be difficult to convince job creators that they should take risks to expand, hire, start new businesses and otherwise engage in job creating activity because they don't believe that they will be rewarded for taking those risks.  In fact with the anti-business Obama in office, taking such risks is a lose lose proposition for business. Either such risks will fail and their business will be damaged or they will succeed and then be faced with higher taxes and more regulation. 

If we want job creation we need to elect a President that wants business to succeed and prosper.  Voting Obama out of office in 2012 will do far more to spark job creation than any stimulus plan proposed in the interim.

Thanks for reading

                    -Hand

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

             -- Benjamin Franklin

Obama's ATM Economics

     President Obama's commentary on the economy has grown so out of touch that we felt it deserved additional discussion.  Here is a quote from our President from a recent interview with NBC:
 
"There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers... " 

"You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

     The President actually seems to be suggesting that our unacceptably high unemployment rate is due to our businesses being too efficient.  This mentality speaks volumes about Obama's economic views and how he views job creation.  Rather than embracing innovation, productivity gains and technology as ways to improve our economy and spur job growth, he laments the loss of bank teller positions.  This is the same tired (and wrong-headed) thinking that warned of economic disaster resulting from the industrial revolution, the automobile (goodbye buggy whip makers), computer automation and every technological innovation in between.  Yet time and again, the American workforce has proven its ability to adapt and capitalize on innovation to create jobs and improve standards of living.  

   It is not entirely surprising that Obama does not embrace efficiency and innovation as leading to economic gains.  Innovation and efficiency are the hallmarks of the private sector, an area with which Obama has next to no experience, understanding or esteem.   Consequently he focuses on what he knows and believes in... GOVERNMENT.  Government projects, Government programs and Government spending are the centerpieces of Obamanomics.  If you doubt this, just take a look at our deficits and the number of government jobs created at all levels of government under this administration.  All of this sucks resources out of the private sector, away from innovation  and efficiency and redirects it to government. And what are the hallmarks of government?  Bureaucracy, inefficiency and inertia.  If there had been a government bureau of buggy whips, it would still be with us today! 
     To make matters even worse, this administration has spent trillions of dollars on these government initiatives without paying for them. So now in the name of being "responsible" he will seek tax increases (more of our limited resources being siphoned away from innovation and efficiency toward bureaucracy and inertia).  He'll try to sell this as the "rich paying their fair share" but the result is fewer resources being used to create, innovate, and compete , which is our best hope for better economic times ahead.   Continued innovation and creativity have been the keys to the unprecedented economic success of our country and these are characteristics that government, by its nature, cannot possess.  Sadly we have a leader that does not recognize this and blames our current economic problems on technological advances such as ATM's while stifling future innovation with reckless spending and higher taxes.  A change of leadership is badly needed in 2012.

                                                                                                                 --Hand

"A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one."
                                                                   --Benjamin Franklin

Sandbag Your Friends, Encourage Your Enemies

    Obama's weakness on Middle Eastern policy is something to behold.  Consider the developments in the last few weeks:

    On the eve of a visit from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama takes the opportunity to undermine one of Israels primary negotiating tools with the Palestinians by saying that the 1967 Israeli borders should be the basis for the borders of a Palestinian State. Yeah, Yeah, he mentioned "land swaps", but does anyone seriously believe this after thought changes his overall meaning?  Rather than praising the only functioning democracy in the Middle East and one of our closest allies in the world, Obama sandbags its Prime Minister by suggesting that Israel should give up land.  Keep in mind that the only reason Israel has this land is because IT WAS THE VICTIM OF AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK!  Our President seems to want Israel to give back land to those that attacked them in exchange for... (wait for it) NOTHING.  This is a shabby way to treat any friend but it is especially shabby in this case because by suggesting concessions from Israel, you are necessarily supporting the other side. And who is on the other side? Well as of a few days ago Hamas (you remember them, the bus bombing, kidnapping, "Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth" folks) is back in the fold with Fatah, and that is just the Palestinians.  The other side also includes Hezbollah (those guys in Lebanon that periodically lob rockets at school children), and Hezbollah's masters in Damascus and their masters in Tehran.  So by sucker punching our ally rather than praising them as the only beacon of freedom in the entire region, our President has sided with some of this country's worst enemies.

     Not only did Obama criticize a friend, he essentially failed to offer any meaningful support for the courageous protesters in Syria that are being slaughtered.  Obama's policy of bombing Libya for threatening civilians while offering up only limp-wristed sanctions against Syria for the same thing is at best incoherent but is likely worse.  Libya, by all accounts, had pretty much given up on getting nukes and on terrorism. We are not saying Gadhafi is a great guy, but he was probably not a big threat to the U.S. or our allies (including Israel).  Syria, on the other hand provides massive support to Hezbollah and Hamas (the bus bombing rocket lobbers for those of you with a short attention span) and is essentially a client state of Iran.  It is through the Syrian regime that Iran supports both Hamas and Hezbollah (they send the rockets to lob at school children and the explosives to blow up the buses) and foments instability in Lebanon.  Rather than focusing on toppling the Syrian regime in support of the protesters and thereby dealing a serious blow to our enemies in Tehran as well as the bus bombers and rocket lobbers, Obama decides to bomb Libya.  As if this is not bad enough, he bombs Libya but fails to remove the regime so we are left with either an expensive stalemate enforced by a no fly zone or a dictator that has renewed interest striking back at this country and our allies. 

     Last but not least Obama addressed Egypt, a country in flux after successfully ousting its longtime ruler in favor of a temporary military government.  It is difficult to know what to do with Egypt because it is impossible to know whether its eventual government will be pro-western and a potential ally or if the Muslim Brotherhood will take power and drag Egypt down the road of Islamic extremism.  Faced with this difficulty, Obama followed his instincts.... SPEND MONEY.  He proposed an additional 2 billion dollars of on top of the existing 2 billion we provide to Egypt annually.  Given our country's financial condition and uncertainties in Egypt, this hardly seems like a good idea but it does provide further evidence of one thing:  With Obama in charge you are better off as an unknown or an enemy of the U.S. than as a dictator that poses no threat to us in Libya or as a steadfast friend in Israel.  

     Hats off to President Obama. Just when we thought our Middle Eastern policy could not get any worse, he manages to weaken our friends and encourage our enemies.  This will not help to bring peace to this troubled region. Well done Mr. President!

                                                                                                             --Hand

“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering.”
                                                                            -Barry Goldwater
   

Terrorists, Despots and Porn... Oh My!

     Some of the cable outlets are now reporting that among the treasure trove of documents and data taken from Bin Laden's compound was a fairly large stash of pornography.  Is anyone seeing a pattern here?What is it with fanatical leaders and porn collections?  Uday (or was it Qusay?) Hussein was reported to have a vast collection of porn and that little perv, Kim Jung Il in North Korea, is rumored to have the world's largest collection of porn (and nary a Korean "actress" in the bunch I'll bet).  Even the grand daddy evil despot of all time, Adolph Hitler, was rumored to have a soft spot for some pornographic movies among his many proclivities.   

     So what is behind this pattern of "perversion"?  Maybe these guys were just used to doing whatever they wanted and hey, if you just got done with a hard day of massacring your own people or starting a war, you may not be too concerned about the social stigma of watching porn.  Or maybe its as simple as dudes like porn.  After all, it is a multi-billion dollar business and seems to take up half the internet (you should have seen what we came across googling Hitler liked porn).  These explanations seem pretty satisfying for the Hussein boys, and Kim and Adolph but less so for Bin Laden.  Osama claimed to be all about spreading a strict brand of Islam where women and men can't even go out for a drink, much less make dirty movies. And women must be covered from head to toe when the leave the house.  If the guy likes a little skin, why is he willing to kill thousands to institute the burqa rule?  He clearly likes a little porn on the one hand but is ok with Taliban style public executions for adultery on the other? Maybe he thought those people in the movies were married.

     In the end this is just another example of the hypocrisy of the so called Jihad movement.  Hopefully Osama's stash will help to show others in the Muslim world just how bankrupt and empty Bin Laden's cause really is, but I'm not holding my breath. Now... what's on Cinemax later tonight?

                                                                                                  -- Hand

     "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious."
                                                 -Peter Ustinov

Bin Laden Success Overshadowing Libya Debacle?

 
     The situation in Libya is a disaster in the making and were it not for the Bin Laden success, this would be increasingly clear to the American People.  Lets recap what happened in Libya before our involvement. First there was the dramatic uprising of the Libyan people against a vile dictator, protests in Tripoli and rebel forces capturing important oil towns and facilities. The regime was teetering and the rebels had the momentum but could not quite force the dictator from power. They requested help from us and the West did nothing. If we were to lend our support, this was the time.  Sadly, Gadhafi regrouped and counterattacked, regaining lost ground and savagely beating back the rebels in a brutal crackdown.  A few days later Gadhafi was on the verge of crushing the uprising.  It looked as though the uprising would be put down and Gadhafi would survive.  Then in the 11th hour the ever mealymouthed U.N. passed a resolution for a "no-fly zone" to protect civilians.  Let the debacle begin!

     Just when Gadhafi was on the verge of regaining control, the U.S. and European forces move in with air power (and cruise missiles) to enforce the U.N. resolution.  At this point Obama begins making statements that Gadhafi must go.  Hmm, that is not what the U.N. resolution said.  Are we using force in Libya to protect civilians pursuant to the U.N. resolution or are we overthrowing Gadhafi?  At about the same time Obama announces that there will be no American troops on the ground in Libya and that the American military would be stepping back (taking our gunships and A-10's with us) to allow the Europeans to take the lead.  Hmm, Gadhafi must go but there will be no troops to force him out.  No troops? At this point Gadhafi must have been thrilled!  He knows we can't force him out with air power and the rebels are not very well armed or organized.  So all he has to do is wait us out.  And it is not as though Gadhaifi will have to wonder how long the U.S. will stay in the fight.  Just as he has done in Afghanistan, Obama undoubtedly will provide Gahafi with a timeline of just how long we will continue to harass him before giving up.

     So what's the endgame?  Well it is looking like either there will be a divided Libya maintained by ongoing expensive enforcement of  a no fly zone or Gadhafi will wait us out and retake all his lost territory.  Statements that "Gadhafi must go!" from the President of the United States will prove to be nothing but hollow rhetoric, and further establish Obama's weakness as a world leader.  Worse still, Obama will have managed to transform Gadhafi from a despot that had surrendered his nuclear research and backed off of terrorism to one that will likely redouble his efforts to attack our country.  So while we have taken out one terrorist leader in Pakistan, we may well be creating another, this time with the resources of an oil rich nation behind him. How long will our success against Bin Laden overshadow this disaster in the making?  Maybe Obama will give us a timeline. 

                                                                                                --Hand

        "Words may show a man's wit but actions his meaning."
                                                           -- Benjamin Franklin