Go Bucks!

I am certainly not a presidential historian but Obama is likely to be noteworthy as one of the most – if not the most – disengaged president in history. He was chided for playing golf, hosting a private Stevie Wonder concern in the White House and leaving for a trip during the Libyan revolt and the Japanese earthquake. One wonders about the quality of his advisors or if he is even heeding advice. Of course his advisors are arguably among the worse who have occupied those positions. Austan Goolsbee, Valarie Jarrett, Hilliary Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano and Stephan Chu are all less able than their predecessors in the prior administration. Perhaps only Susan Rice is up to the task. Obama was also roundly chided on the talk shows for filing out an NCAA bracket as well. Personally, if he played golf, hosted a concert and filed out a bracket as respites for working hard no one would take him to task. But no one could accuse this president for working hard. Its more like hardly working. It is hard to find even one example of presidential leadership. Even the health care bill is attributed to Henry Waxman. There was even fodder for criticism in his NCAA brackets – although this is a point missed by the talk show hosts. Obama always picked the higher seeds! Who does that? Obama is supposed to be an expert on basketball, yet all of us know that there are always spectacular upsets during the tournament. In fact, only in 2008 did all first seeds make it to the men’s final four. Yet this is the second year that Obama has predicted no upsets. It is as if the president did not want to get fan bases mad. In a way this is also indicative of his lack of leadership.

Think he's been reading my blog?

Dear Harold,

We face many challenges as a country, but after four years in Washington and a lifetime in business, I believe unsustainable spending habits and fiscal insolvency pose the greatest threat to our economic stability, freedom, way of life and future as a nation. We are in real danger of becoming the first generation of Americans to leave our country in worse shape than we found it. Consider:

· In 2009 the federal government spent $1.4 trillion more than it took in, borrowing nearly 40 cents of every dollar.
· The gap between spending and revenue is almost four times the historical average. Even when we reach historical revenue levels, we are still projected to be spending nearly six percent more of our gross domestic product than we take in, and the gap will continue to widen.
· By 2035, on our current trajectory, our debt will reach 185 percent of GDP, a situation that economists and analysts of every persuasion deem as disastrous. If this occurs, interest payments on our debt, half of which goes to foreign countries, will reach nearly nine percent of GDP – as much as we currently spend on national defense, education, roads, and all government agencies combined.
In 43 presentations throughout Tennessee during the fall, I presented this information and shared my plans to introduce legislation to cap spending at a sustainable level, force Congress to make tough choices and incentivize economic growth. The result is the Commitment to American Prosperity Act, the “CAP Act.”

The CAP Act, cosponsored by Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), would:
(1) Put in place a 10-year glide path to cap all spending – discretionary and mandatory – to a declining percentage of the country’s gross domestic product, eventually bringing spending down from the current level, 24.7 percent of GDP, to the 40-year historical level of 20.6 percent, and

(2) If Congress fails to meet the annual cap, require the Office of Management and Budget to make evenly distributed, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget to bring spending down to the pre-determined level. Only a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress could override the binding cap, and

(3) For the first time, eliminate the deceptive “off-budget” distinction for Social Security – providing a complete and accurate assessment of all federal spending.

Washington continues to borrow and spend, and despite the pleas of the American people, there is no end in sight. As we approach our debt limit of $14.29 trillion and more and more Americans – Republicans, Democrats and Independents – call on Washington to get spending under control and reduce our deficit, I see no better time to change course. What Senator McCaskill and I are offering is a legislative straitjacket, a way of forcing Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years. The beauty of the CAP Act is that it imposes fiscal discipline and smaller government, while incentivizing lawmakers to pass policies that promote economic growth.

Cutting trillions of dollars from the federal budget in the coming years won’t be easy or painless; it will require backbone and discipline on the part of policy makers and shared sacrifice for the country. I believe Americans are willing to make short-term sacrifices for the long-term good of our country and demand commensurate actions from their elected officials.

To find out more about the CAP Act, please visit my Web site at www.corker.senate.gov. If you have any questions for me on this or another topic, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Bob Corker
United States Senator

El Heat?

The other night there was an NBA game between El Heat and Los Spurs. Aside from showing no knowledge of Spanish it was part of an NBA promotion called Noche Latina. The objective is to increase marketing to the Hispanic communities in selected NBA markets. The first question is why? There are relatively few Hispanic players. Pau Gasol and his brother Marc are from Spain but in this country "Hispanic" generally refers to a person from Latin America. This should rule out the Lopez brothers (Brook and Robin) who are Californians. I seriously doubt if there are even enough Latinos to make up an NBA team. But marketing never sleeps so we have Nueva York, Los Spurs, El Magic, Los Bulls, Los Mavs, El Heat,Los Lakers, Los Suns, Los Bulls and Los Rockets. Why leave the last name English? This really escapes me and the jerseys simply look like a product of our public school system. So I was thinking that since most of the NBA players are black, that we should market to black communities during black history month with black slang. We could have the New York Crooklyns, the San Antonio Roosevelts, The Orlando Twights, the Boston Redbones, the Chicago Bangers, the Miami Benz, the Dallas Crew, the Los Angeles Booyas, the Phoenix Grills, the Houston Buttas, and the Atlanta Playas.

Just say no

This appeared in the Knoxville News-Sentinel March 6, 2011

Congress Must Mind Debt Ceiling

We have been witnesses to our government behaving badly.

First, there has been the threat of a government "shutdown" that is not really a shutdown. Then there is the haggling over this year's budget with $4 billion in spending cuts for two weeks and a $61 billion cut for the rest of the fiscal year.

Even my students who struggle with math can figure that with a federal budget of $3.8 trillion, our Congress is debating rounding errors. We all grow tired of hearing that seemingly all government spending is somehow essential. Then comes the report from the Government Accountability Office that the federal government is replete with duplicative programs (as if we didn't know this already) wasting at least $200 billion.

At a minimum, members of Congress should propose eliminating all duplicative programs. Then the real job should begin. I think that a modest proposal should be to not raise the debt ceiling. Currently the ceiling is set at $14.294 trillion and government spending has pushed the debt to only around $150 billion less than the cap.

Estimates are that government borrowing will hit the ceiling around April 15 - the irony of it all. What Congress always has done in the past is to raise the ceiling and has done so at least 77 times just so it can keep spending. The "ceiling" was intended to limit government spending by limiting the amount it could borrow.

Allowing the ceiling to rise is fiscal irresponsibility. Of course, there are those who always want to spend more and who forecast doom and gloom. Two of the administration's spokesmen, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and chief economist Austan Goolsbee, have warned that a failure to raise the ceiling would precipitate an economic crisis with catastrophic effects on the economy. However, I have found few statements by either that are trustworthy.

No crisis would occur. The United States would not default on its obligations. April 15 reminds us that the government still will be receiving monies that can be used to pay on the existing debt. U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., recognizes this and has introduced legislation to that effect. What not raising the ceiling actually means is that the Treasury could no longer borrow additional funds to cover expenditures appropriated by Congress.

Unlike American households who have a budget constraint, despite the debt ceiling Congress does not.

Congress was aware of the ceiling when it appropriated the expenditures in the first place and knew it would broach the limit. Yet it did it anyway knowing that the ceiling is symbolic and not real. Well, it is time we made it real. We have to get our fiscal house in order and the first step is letting the debt ceiling be the budget constraint for Congress. Just say no.

Dr. Harold Black is the James F. Smith Jr. Professor of Finance at the University of Tennessee. He may be reached at hblack@utk.edu.

© 2011, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.

Opportunity lost

Has anyone noticed how rapidly Obama is aging? It was the same with George Bush and Bill Clinton before him. Perhaps it is the weight of the office. However, it is not obvious to us that the aging has been due to any major decisions that have had to be made - unless no decision is a decision. First, the president sat idly by and let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed dictate his agenda. He let the democratic leadership initiate and write all the major pieces of legislation while sitting on the sidelines. Then after the legislation was crafted, he adopted them as his own and gave endless speeches upon speeches. He did this for health care, cap and trade and financial reform never taking the leadership on any. He did the same when the Bush tax cuts were expiring choosing to let the Republicans take the initiative and then crafting a compromise that could get past enough democrats for passage. Now that the Republicans control the House, he is again sitting on the sidelines. Here is the first major opportunity lost for this year. The debt commission co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson gave the president cover. Yet instead of bringing a fiscal 2012 budget to the congress that incorporated the recommendations of the commission the president's budget maintains the unacceptable status quo. Why doesn't the president or the president's advisors recognize that instead of giving lip service about moving to the center, the president would have enhanced his re-election chances if he introduced a budget that showed an indication to deal with federal spending and the deficit? He could have said, I do this with reluctance but as I have said "federal spending is on an unsustainable path so I have adopted the commissions recommendations". The second opportunity lost was to embrace the GAO's report on government duplication. This is really puzzling since the president had given a speech the month before on government waste and duplication citing the number of agencies involved in the regulation of salmon. One agency dealt with them in salt water. Another agency dealt with them in fresh water and several others were also in the food chain. This was the chance to say that the GAO gave credence to a recommendation to cut $200 billion in spending by eliminating overlaps. This would shift the focus from the president to others and lessen the pushback by special interests but again an opportunity lost. The third opportunity lost is with the embarrassing lack of leadership in the middle east. The state department and the White House have uttered conflicting statements, retrenched, put their fingers in the wind to see what their statements should be that day. Instead of having a well thought out plan, they have seemed like rank amateurs. The fourth opportunity lost has been in not responding to the run up in gas prices due to the middle east. The president could have come out and said "we will lessen our dependence on foreign oil." Yes the president is a greenie weenie choosing to focus on "renewable" energy sources - whatever that means. But those sources are all much more expensive than fossil fuels. It seems that the president wants gas prices to go up to the point where other energy sources become competitive. This is ass-backwards. Rather he should adopt a strategy of all in: alternative fuels yes but also full exploitation of American oil, gas and nuclear. As modest proposal would be to have the vast majority of our electricity from coal and nuclear freeing up oil for transportation. Instead we are poorly led and the president is poorly advised. If he is being advised differently and chooses another course then that is another matter. However, given the statements from those in the administration, it seems to me another repeat of the amateur hour we saw with Jimmy Carter.

Planned Parenthood is a predator: If it looks like a duck…..

The House of Representatives voting to defund Planned Parenthood pointed out an irony that somehow has escaped the media. The action has been decried as a “defunding rampage” and that “Family Planning not a GOP Family value” and called “an over the top right wing Republican antic”. Those comments are mild compared to some of the more extreme members of the left. The irony is that these same commentators routinely excoriate high rate lenders as predatory, preying on low income and minority communities. They point out that compared to low rate lenders such as banks, the clientele of lenders in subprime mortgages, payday lenders and even small consumer lenders are disproportionately low income and minority. I have always thought that this is a curious criticism and instead of stating that these lenders are serving minorities and urging other lenders to offer products to these customers, instead they have condemned them. Indeed one often cited source says “the financial institutions that do exist in minority areas are likely to be predatory—for example, pawn shops, payday lenders, and check cashing services that charge high fees and usurious rates of interest—so that minority group members are accustomed to exploitation and frequently unaware that better services are available elsewhere.” Also predatory lenders are said to aggressively market in minority communities. Of course, this seems reasonable that if minority communities provide the base of business that this is where the businesses should be located and where the advertising should be concentrated. However, the mere concentration of locations and advertising are enough to confirm predatory behavior.
What is ironic is that using the same criteria, Planned Parenthood is predatory, preying on low income and minority communities. The website of Blackgenocide.org points out that 78 percent of Planned Parenthoods clinics are in minority neighborhoods even though blacks make up only 12 percent of the US population. However, 35 percent of America’s abortions are on blacks. It seems reasonable to ask if Planned Parenthood is targeting black communities and poor women? Although the jaded may point out that targeting black women is consistent with Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger’s feeling that “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated”. She also gave speeches to women’s auxiliaries of the Ku Klux Klan. Sanger talks about purifying the human race and established a birth control clinic in Harlem in 1930. One of her letters says "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Thus, the same groups that urge the shutting down of high rate lenders because they are seen as preying on low income and minorities should be applauding the US House for moving to shutting off the funding of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is obviously preying on poor black women and should be funded only by racists like Planned Parenthood’s founder.

Testosterone anyone?

Previously I have written that the reason why so many black boys look like girls (with the girlie hairdos and the earrings) is that since 70 percent of black youth are born into single parent homes, the black boys want to emulate someone that they look up to. And who is this? Their mother. Then I have written that we will face a social crisis with 70 percent of black undergraduate students being women and 60 percent of white college students being women. Since women typically marry men with equal or higher education, the question is who will these educated women marry? Absent going to polygamy, the answer may lie in the fact that marriage is now occurring at later and later ages and family size is falling. On top of these two observations comes the article in the Wall Street Journal, “Where have the good men gone?” by Kay Hymowitz from her book “Manning up: How the rise of women has turned men into boys.” It’s a great article talking about how the rise of technology – videogames, the internet and satellite tv – have given young men a vast array of toys that prolong their pre-adulthood. Hymowitz says that girls get transformed into women upon maturity whereas boys go through a rite of passage. Boys need to show maturity and “prove their competence as protectors and providers.” However, today men are not necessary to either protect or provide. Women are then less likely to rush to marry men who are insufficiently domesticated. All of us men go through this rite of passage and the joke has always been “what do you call a guy who never matures – a redneck.” Now as Hymowitz notes “single men have never been civilization’s most responsible actors” and continue to drink beer, act rowdy and treat women like disposable estrogen toys. Let me tell you what Hymowitz misses and tie her musings into mine. It is not the rise of women that has turned men into boys, rather it has been the relentless feminization of the American male. Masculinity has been turned by modern society into an obscenity. We have denuded the language. We are now chairpersons. Workmen are now workers. Actresses are now actors. Waitresses are now waitpersons. Men now are peppered with commercials touting them to smell like women using something called “body wash”, aftershave and various other scents. We all know that real men have no scents. A real man does not want to smell like a woman and uses unscented toiletries. Men get berated as less than manly by women (usually with ample chests) for ordering a particular light beer when in fact all light beer is girlie beer. Traditional roles have been blurred with women pilots, women in combat zones and women submariners. Women soldiers, cops and firefighters are held to lesser physical standards than men yet are supposed to be equal. Strong men are now brutes while the new ideal man is sensitive. It is no surprise that the number of men who hunt has been falling. Masculinity is now being derided and demeaned. We have witnessed the rise of the metrosexual whose feminine side is prominently displayed. Men are now driving wimping cars like Priuses because the big pickup and SUV have been put down as insensitive to the environment. Giving in to all this nonsense is going to result in a social upheaval in this country. You read it here first.