Some Random Observations and Questions Regarding The Political Class

The following news items have been sitting on my desk for a while. They do not fall into a particular category but they did raise my interest regarding the behavior and misbehavior of the American (and foreign) political class:

• How come we never see any caskets of America's war dead any more? Several years ago the Democrats and the mainstream press were indignant that the Bush administration would not allow pictures of American's fallen heroes when the returned from battle fields in caskets? A Washington Examiner article by Byron York recalled that "scores of critics insisted that the Pentagon's ban on such photos was part of a Bush administration plot "to hide the terrible costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." While Obama lifted the ban after he was elected, we never see any pictures even though it was such a big deal when Bush was in office. Given the widening of the Afghan war by Obama, it seems just as important as ever to see those pictures. Could it be that the Obama administration and the Bush administration are not that different in their desire to not have those pictures impinge on their war plans?
• Before the 2008 Presidential conventions, it was reported in the news and highlighted in "Love My Country, Loathe My Government", that many, many major banks contributed millions of dollars to the convention budgets of both major parties. Shortly thereafter, these same banks were given billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to bailout their banks and the poor decisions the heads of those banks made in the subprime mortgage market. We were told at that time, that the TARP payments, i.e. taxpayer bailouts of the private banks, were critical to keep those banks afloat in order to avoid a total meltdown of the financial system. These banks were "too big to fail." I was always suspicious of this arrangement, seemed too cozy. You (the banks) give us (the political class) millions of dollars and we (the political class) will give you (the banks)billions of dollars (in fact, we will give you hundreds of billions of dollars.) Funny thing happened after the TARP giveaway. The banks were not happy with the terms that Washington imposed after the payouts, most notably compensation limits. All of a sudden, the banks were able to raise capital from any number of different sources, e.g. selling additional shares, and within months were able to pay back their TARP funds. The big question is: why couldn't they have raised those same funds back earlier in the year, just several months ago, and not have taken taxpayer bailout money? Looks like they were not too big to fail, they were too lazy or scared to take the necessary and painful steps of getting their financial house in order. They expected their political friends to bail them out as a result of previous campaign and political contributions. Step 6 in "Love My Country, Loathe My Government" would eliminate these types of exchanges by preventing banks and all other groups from contributing to political parties.
• In the November 16, 2009 issues of Business Week, an article by Arlene Weintraub reviewed the current status of drug companies advertising their products on television. We have all seen the ads which are required to list out of the disclaimers and possible side effects of the drugs being advertised. According to Ms. Weintraub, the advertising may actually be counterproductive, not increasing sales by advertising but decreasing sales by scaring people about the side effects. If this is the case, good marketing analyses by the drug companies would would prove the ineffectiveness of TV advertising and they would move to other forms of advertising. Nevertheless, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has introduced a bill proposing that drug companies no longer be allowed to deduct marketing expenses from their taxes. Not auto companies, not oil companies, not fast food companies, just drug companies. He called their advertising "excessive marketing schemes." Who is to say if a company's marketing plans are "excessive" except for the board of director and shareholders of a company? Would Mr. Franken's efforts and the resources of his staff be better spent on such minor issues as Iraq, Afghanistan, soaring deficits, high unemployment, failing public schools, drug addiction, energy costs, and a pile of other issues more important than drug company advertising that does not even work? As with most politicians, Mr. Franken does not know how to solve the big issues and needs to prove his worth on these trivial issues (see other trivial issues in previous posts including the regulation of TV commercial sound volume, legislation to force a college football playoff system, etc.)
• Going overseas, it seems political classes are the same all over. In the November 20, 2009 issue of The Week (www.theweek.com) magazine, there was a summation of an article from Micheal Glackin who was writing in the Daily Star. His complaint and reporting was about Tony Blair and how he is using his position as "special Mideast envoy" to enrich himself tremendously. While not helping the impoverished Palestinians or promoting discussion of peace with the Israelis, his travels to the area have made him a millionaire through his company, Tony Blair associates. According to Mr. Glackin, Mr. Blair has made himself over $20 million since leaving office by representing JP Morgan and doing such deals as helping British retailer Tesco get established in the Middle East. Much like the use of earmarks, seems that politicians here and abroad are always able to use political cover to advance their needs.
• According to a short blurb in the February edition of Reason magazine (www.reason.com), Ronald Bailey writes about a new study published in Science magazine that finds that the use of biofuels could emit more global warming gases than burning gasoline. Makes you wonder while the government subsides the growth of biofuels, which may endanger the environment, while at the same time wanting an agreement on global warming
• And finally, I am continually struck by the hypocrisy of the Obama administration when it comes to the legal aspects of the war on terror. In the past few days, he has rattled his sword in light of the December Detroit airliner bombing attempt by saying that we are at war with terrorists. Okay, his words, we are at war with terrorists. Then why is he going to bring a handful of the terrorists in custody to New York City for a civilian trial? Shouldn't they be treated as prisoners of war and given military trials? And why only these few, why not all of the current prisoners we have at Guantanamo? According to an article in The Week magazine on November 27, 2009, some of the current prisoners will indeed by tried by military tribunals and some will have no trial at all. Both Obama and Attorney General Holder have already pronounced that the defendants will be found guilty, thus, voiding any administration claim of justice if you know the verdict already. Seems all very confusing and an administration that just keeps on fumbling. But again, they are part of the current political class, fumbling seems to be the status quo.

Just a few random thoughts and observations about the political class, wherever they may be and whatever money and time they may be wasting.


Visit our website at www.loathemygovernment.com to order an autographed copy of the book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government -Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class" and to sign up for the cause. The book is also available online at Amazon and Barnes And Noble.