$500B for defense but not $0.1B for bribes

In 1800, the US government paid huge bribes to the Barbary Pirates. Then the newly-elected President Jefferson, with Congressional support, directed the US Navy to fight and defeat the pirates (hence the Marines hymn’s reference to ‘the shores of Tripoli’).

The Obama administration should order an attack on the Somali pirates currently demanding ransom for the $100M Saudi oil tanker. After all, American drivers will be the ones really paying the ransom even if the Saudis are ones peeling off the crisp ‘Benjamins’. No need to occupy anything and it would deprive Islamists of major revenue (Hitchens likens pirates to terrorists.) What better use for our 10 aircraft carriers? Maybe a good, bipartisan opportunity to throw some work Colin’s way.

R.I.P. GOP

Reagan led the Grand Old Party makeover with his illusory "morning in America", which featured 'trickle-down' a.k.a. “voodoo” economics. W is the Omega man with his all-too-real "mourning in America", featuring 2 wars-without-end and the worst financial crisis in 2 generations. The most educated Americans have left, leaving behind a party with a disproportionately dumb and poor 'base' leavened with a disappointing number of greedy and manipulative super-rich.

The last Republican president with brains was Nixon (there's a trifecta: pacify Russia, 'open' China, abandon gold). Despite his obvious personal flaws, Nixon had a rational, often bipartisan approach to many problems, including illegal drugs, criminal sentencing, biological weapons, poverty, etc. In the Bush administration, we have all of Nixon's disregard for rights and process with none of his intelligence.

Now reinvent yourself GOP with real, thoughtful leaders instead of pandering poseurs.

Paulson 'Plan' B

Secretary of the Treasury Paulson seems incapable of explaining his ideas for rescuing the economy. Originally, he proposed to buy devalued debt so that the current holders of the debt, the banks, could resume lending. Unfortunately, he could not describe even broadly who would set the price for the debt. The market price was obviously very low, arguably too low, and that is why the banks are in trouble. But why should we taxpayers pay more than the fair price – i.e., market price – for the debt?

Today, he proposed a fundamental change, let's call it Plan B (though calling the first proposal a 'plan' is being charitable). Now he proposes that we taxpayers buy parts of the troubled banks. This is essentially the British plan they announced to broad acclaim over a month ago, back when the stock market was considerably higher. At least with this plan, we can purchase those assets at well-established, market prices and share the potential gains in the future, not just buy the losses already incurred.

The simple way of determining if any plan is working is to ask: is lending increased? The answer is apparently “no”. If the rescue plan did nothing better than simply dump money into the credit markets, then lending should have increased by the amount we invested. A good plan would leverage our investment so that it stimulates more than dollar-for-dollar lending.

I think the plan was flawed because it broke the market. Government has a crucial role in managing the economy and we are suffering the consequences of 8 years of profligacy, ignorance, and incompetence. We need to let the market determine the real price – the real value – of debt, banks, and auto companies.

1M+1W@1X

'One man and one woman at a time', that's the goal of California proposition 8, which its proponents claim is to protect the sanctity of marriage. If they really wanted to protect the 'sanctity' of marriage, why don't they try to make divorce illegal? I'll tell you why: because it's really an anti-gay law masquerading as a pro-marriage law.

It is ironic that blacks, who might be especially sympathetic to the gay community's demand for their rights, voted strongly against recognizing gay marriage.