Great Editorial Cartoon

Sometimes, a picture really is worth 1,000 words. This one says a lot about the reality of it:

Michael Ramirez does fine work. He appears in the Investors Business Daily, a fine newspaper if there ever was one.

(h/t Duncan Adams)

Poor Winners

I generally dislike end-zone celebrations after a touchdown. I can see some exuberance after a score, especially one to end a long drive, or on a play where several tackles were broken. In that case, go ahead- spike the ball.

I prefer guys like Barry Sanders or Steve Largent- pros who acted like they had been to the end zone a hundred times in their life. When they scored, they didn't taunt or do a dance. They handed the ball to the ref and trotted off the field.

Now that the Democrats have elected a President and re-elected a Democratic Congress, the gloves are off among leftward bloggers and pundits, revelling in the kind of infantile and mean-spirited name calling reserved those not used to winning. They not only have spiked the ball, but they're in the face of the other side.

It's hard to even read a left blog these days. Mostly, it's the followers and their comments, but sometimes the bloggers themselves. I've pretty well had it with anyone, left or right, who uses the terms, 'wingnut' (as though they could only be right-wing-nuts, and not left-wing-nuts), moonbat, righttard, lefttard, Paultard (or anything-tard, for that matter). You generally need not go more than two posts deep to see it. Shallow posts with ad hominem attacks and name calling, or even goofy pictures, rule the day.

There were many messages Obama put out, won support for, and was elected on. Apparently, his message of inclusive government was not one of them. It seems to have been ignored by the dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. It's too bad, because both Democrats and Republicans have something to offer. As a Libertarian, that's plain to see, because I share many things with each camp. Maybe that's what two party dominance has caused- a great 'my team's way or the highway' antipathy for the other side.

Obama's position is correct. I wouldn't mind seeing some display of it by his choir.

Podcast Update

I have now conducted two interviews for the Libertarian Party of Indiana's Weekly Podcast- one with LPIN Chair Todd Singer, and now newly elected Marion County Chair Timothy Maguire. Both had great insights to share, and I really appreciate their willingness to visit me in my 'home studio'.

Bugs are getting worked out. My recording of Singer is sub-par, in that his volume levels are far too low. That has been corrected with the Maguire interview. I am very satisfied with that latter recording, which is unusual for me. I usually am not comfortable with my newer productions until they've been tweaked for months. Chalk it up to old age and experience.

Here is the link to the podcasts. You can subscribe and have them automatically downloaded to your iTunes as new episodes are released. 

I have to say, as a subscriber to about a half dozen podcasts, I get a real kick out of seeing one I've produced line up in the 'Downloads' queue on iTunes.

I'm open to suggestion for interview subjects or topics to cover. Obviously, the news writes itself, and the bailouts and economy are on the top of my list. Where else should I turn?

Big Surprise

So, when the libertarians were saying that losers shouldn't be bailed out, because bailouts allieve them of pain, and cause them not to revise bad decision making, this is one of the things we were talking about. From the NY Post:

High-flying Citigroup executives, trying desperately to hang on to their new, $50 million luxury jet, took heavy flak yesterday from the White House and Congress after The Post revealed how the beleaguerred bank is blowing taxpayers' rescue funds.

What to say to the Congress and Obama? "Well, you voted for it!"

If they want to blame someone, they need to rush to the nearest mirror.

To repeat, if you want to stop bad decision-making, stop rewarding bad decision-making. It really, truly is that simple.

Legislative Review

The Libertarian Party of Indiana has been reviewing legislation being proposed in the state House & Senate for the past several sessions, and 2009 is no exception. A slew of bills have already been reviewed, and while the cynic might expect Libertarians to be opposed to all of them, there are several bills the Party backs.

I like the new changes. It is still a blog format, but includes room for comments, and also a quick checkoff for 'agree' or 'disagree'.

Check it out here.

One thing I am doing is adding the LPIN Legislative Review to my 'Hot Off The Press" item, at the right. Readers here can see the latest review, and click through.

New Podcast

I had been mulling about for sometime on what to do next in my effort to promote liberty, and rather than running for another office, I kept returning to broadcast media. Being in studio last week with Abdul-Hakim Shabazz on WXNT for the State of the State speech reinforced the idea.

What will emerge is a weekly podcast for the Libertarian Party of Indiana. It will be available on the Party's website, www.lpin.org, and on iTunes, as well as here via the Kole Hard Facts.

I will be the host of the podcast, interviewing others promoting liberty in more meaningful ways than me- candidates, authors, researchers, and LP leaders- to get their takes on the events of the day, and what they are doing to advance their cause.

I sat down with LPIN State Chair Todd Singer tonight to record the basic interviews for a couple of podcasts. The finished product will be available next week.

This blog will continue, with all the wit and verve readers have come to expect. But I'm looking forward to being involved with regular broadcasting again. It's been more than six years since I had the opportunity, but podcasting makes it easy to do.

Never Wonder How We Got Soft

It starts with school, or, in this case, lack of school. It's -10 degrees out there, and I say, "BIG DEAL". Get in the classroom and learn. 306 school closings in Central Indiana? There isn't even any snowfall!

They don't even walk to school anyhow. They ride a bus, or parents drive them in. The kids face the onerous task of going from house to vehicle, then vehicle to school. Wow, that's rough.

The lesson we teach with these school closings is this: It's cold? Give up. Don't bother. Education certainly isn't worth overcoming predictable circumstances. Just give up.

Think the kids in Winnipeg stop going to school as soon as the temps fall below zero? No. they attend. They cope. They overcome.

That would be a good lesson for our kids.

State of the State Reviewed

The speech sounded like one delivered by a governor re-elected to his final term by a landslide percentage. In fact, he sounded rather like a libertarian, sounding the call for tighter budgets as the only common sense approach to tough economic times.

It was certainly music to my ears. I have been calling here for a 5% across-the-board budget cut for the last three years. Although such cuts would have done even more good in positioning our state better than New York or California, it's better late than never, and all to the good.

The real question I have is how effective Mitch Daniels can be in lashing the legislature on to do his bidding. Republicans like to spend tax dollars just as surely as Democrats. Daniels did the Reagan thing by going to the public with his strong appeal for cuts. Was the public listening? Will the public assert to their representatives in the Indiana House and Senate their desire to implement the governor's call for cuts?

Here are some lines from the Governor's speech that could have as easily come from a Libertarian governor:

First, no tax increases. A state striving for economic greatness should constantly be looking for ways to reduce its burden on workers and enterprise. A time of recession is the very last time at which government should add to the struggles of the citizens for whom it works.

Preserving government intact at the expense of families and businesses would be wrong in human terms and backwards in economic terms. The dollars claimed by higher taxes would come from families who need them more than ever to get by. They would come from businesses which would otherwise use them to keep someone on the payroll, or add a new job. Let's agree right now that, whatever course we take this budget year, higher taxes will play no part in it.

Bravo! Could have been written by Andy Horning or Kenn Gividen. Excellent!

The other good news was that Daniels urged the shelving of funding for full-day kindergarten and guaranteed college tuition. The budget can't be maintained if this bloat is added.

There was no word about the State's legacy costs, beyond a promise not to rob the pension fund in order to suppliment the budget. That's a glaring omission in light of the wreckage legacy costs have visited upon Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Governments give the fattest benefit packages in the country. This will come home to roost, and should be dealt with now, before we have the kinds of problems California is already beginning to experience.

Daniels continued to push for his consolidation plan. I'm just not sold on it because it looks merely like a panacea for those who want smaller government. For those who have wanted it and never seen it, smaller government includes smaller budgets, eliminated departments, and significantly fewer bureaucrats. So, let's look at one area of proposed consolidation, from the Kernan-Shepard recommendations:

Consolidation of Township Assessors. Property is still going to be assessed, because it is still going to be taxed. In a county with 9 townships, consolidating to the county level doesn't mean that one person is going to do the work of 9. It means that those who did the work will simply be housed in one location. Ok, that yields the savings on office space, and that shouldn't be overlooked. But that's nipping at the fringe of the cost.

Worse, it will make assessment less accountable, not more. Currently, the resident of the township can go to the Township Assessor's office if there is a dispute over the assessment. One-ninth of the County elects the Township Assessor, so if the township's people are dissatisfied with the work of that official, they can back a candidate and run them in the next primary. Under consolidation, if the citizens of one township are completely dissatisfied with the work of the County Assessor, they not only have to win their township, they have to win the votes of the other 8 townships with their candidate at the primary. In fact, a County Assessor can screw one township completely and be re-elected comfortably, if that screwed township generally votes for the minority party.

If you want to see how this plays out, a nice parallel exists in Hamilton County, where the County Commisioners members ostensibly represent a district, but are voted on at-large countywide. They sometimes lose their districts while winning on the backs of the areas they do not represent.

If you want smaller government, don't goof around with consolidation. Cut a department. Cut budgets by 20% instead of 5%. That's the real deal.

Bottom Line: Good speech, with nice substance for libertarians, even if it doesn't go nearly far enough towards more appropriately sized government.

Text of the speech.

For Your Listening Pleasure

...Or discomfort. I'll be on a special edition of WXNT's "Abdul in the Morning" show, this evening at 7pm, to discuss the governor's 'State of the State' speech. I will represent the Libertarian Party, alongside the other guys. Tune in to 1420-am, or listen online at www.wxnt.com.

Many thanks to Abdul for having me again. I was on a similar special show two years ago with him.

We Vote With Our Feet

This is a theme I have returned to many times over the years, because I myself have done it a few times.

I once lived in Cleveland and worked in suburban Parma, OH. Each city had a municipal income tax of 2%. When I finally gave up on my rough, decaying Cleveland neighborhood and moved to Parma, I gave myself a 2% raise. I got to thinking that I had to be an idiot to stay where the schools sucked, the crime rate was high, my auto and homeowners insurance rates were higher, and my commute was longer besides.

Later, I moved to Indianapolis. The Indiana tate income tax was lower than Ohio's, 3.1% to 7%; the sales tax was lower, then 6% to 8%; the property taxes were then about a third of what Ohio's were. Again, I thought what an idiot I would have to be choose Ohio.

Then we moved to Fishers. Again, the schools are better, the crime lower, the property taxes lower, the county income taxes lower, the insurance rates lower. Yet again, the thought of what kind of idiot I would have to be to choose Indy over Fishers came to mind, and continues to every time I learn of a violent crime in our previous neighborhood.

I expect to see a lot of migration in the next few years, as high tax jurisdictions are exposed for their empty rewards. From an AP report:

The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.

The state with the next-highest net loss through migration between states was New York, which lost just over 126,000 residents.

Two high-tax states lose population- before the economy really began to tank! It isn't news to me. We're going to see a lot more of it. Just wait until the legacy costs of those states and their cities do to them what they've done to GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Among other things: California's unemployment rate hit 8.4 percent in November, the third-highest in the nation, and it is expected to get worse. A record 236,000 foreclosures are projected for 2008, more than the prior nine years combined, according to research firm MDA DataQuick. Personal income was about flat last year.

With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates. A multibillion-dollar plan to remake downtown Los Angeles has stalled, and office vacancy rates there and in San Diego and San Jose surpass the 10.2 percent national average.

What I observed first-hand about Cleveland seems to hold true anywhere: The combination of high taxes and lousy schools is lethal. People of means and high values flee. Cities become magnets for the poor and the stupid.

In 1950, Cleveland's population was a shade under 915,000. By 2006, Cleveland had lost more than half its population. Chart.

Cities don't learn. Rather than lowering the taxes so as to attract people of means, they are wed to the glories that are their 'services', so they raise taxes evermore in order to keep revenues up, thereby chasing evermore people from their jurisdiction. The population gets poorer and dumber.

There are exceptions. Places like New York can get away with it because of the incredible cultural offerings. But, Detroit? Cleveland? Indianapolis? I think when the legacy costs come home to roost, you will see an exodus from NYC as well.

Blame the highways. Blame 'white flight'- although blacks with means flee all the same. Blame anything, but unless you start looking at tax policy and ask people of means just how much they value the 'services' provided by government, you're going to miss the mark. Notice that people of means leave the places with the most services, and taxes. They prefer to leave what they built behind for others, starting completely new in another area, just to be left alone, away from the greedy hands that gobble taxes.

I will probably vote with my feet again, if Fishers continues to grow, and add services, and employees, and legacy costs. I don't want any of that stuff, but the Bigger Brains create it and fatten it, so I'll eventually flee it.

It should become an environmental cause to lower taxes. Hey- it would prevent sprawl!

(h/t: Duncan Adams, for the California article)

Obama Takes Lesson From Bush

Change? Seriously, when will we be seeing some of this change Obama spoke of for about a year?

We can split hairs on this down the page, but the bottom line is this: Obama criticized outgoing President Bush for tax-cut-and-spend policies. Now Obama proposes massive tax-cut-and-spend policy. From CNN:

President-elect Barack Obama launched his campaign Monday for a massive package of tax cuts and spending proposals aimed at reviving an economy mired in recession.

...

Middle-class tax cut: Obama would offer a tax cut equal to $500 a year for individuals and $1,000 for couples. The credit would work essentially as a payroll tax credit, meaning the money could be delivered fairly quickly. Companies could simply reduce the tax they withhold from employees' paychecks.

The tax credit is likely to be offered only to those below a certain income level, but the Obama team hasn't specified where the cut-off point would be. The credit also would be refundable, meaning that even tax filers without any tax liability -- typically very low-income workers -- would receive one.

The credible criticism of Bush was that cutting taxes while drastically increasing spending will bring a deficit. This is something Obama was correct in identifying. Now that he is The Office of President Elect, it is suddenly something that works?

"We're working with Congress to develop a tax-cut package based on a simple principle - what will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class. We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests," an Obama spokesperson told CNNMoney.com in an e-mail.

So, tax-cut-and-spend now works, with the difference being that the right constituent group are the recipients of the tax break. Some change. The math is exactly the George W. Bush same. Democrats were complaining that Laffer was wrong, and that marginal tax cuts do not yield higher returns. Is Laffer suddenly right? Is George Bush? Is there really a substantial difference in letting the middle class be favored to keep a slice of their earnings versus the highest wage earners?

I think tax cut and larger spending cut is the right recipe for this economic climate. Tax cut and spending freeze comes in second. Tax cut and spending spree comes in a very distant third.

Going to be a long 2009.

When Idealism Becomes Realism

Many of the things that have come home to roost lately are things libertarians have been warning against for years. Back then, it was the stuff of conspiracy, of loony tinfoil hat wearing eggheads, studying things that looked like such minutiae in the glory days of the 90s bubble.

So, let's look at some of the things that we are doing now, and consider that we were right on our predictions then, so we might just have a grasp on what to expect with what is being done now. We looked idealistic then. Applying our principles now would be a good, necessary dose of realism.

The bailouts are a disaster. It is said that these businesses being propped up are too big to fail, or too important to just stand back and do nothing about. So, our federal government, with bi-partisan Republican and Democratic support, is giving them money.

If the problem is that President Bush approved budgets submitted by Congresses that had majorities from each party that were characterized by deficit spending, and much of our economic distress can be traced to our deficit, does it make sense to expand or contract the size of government, and therefore the cost of the government?

If the problem in lending is that lenders made bad, greedy decisions in making certain loans, which would correct the problem most swiftly? Letting them fail on the outcome of those decisions, or rewarding them?

If the problem is that borrowers took loans that they had no hope of repaying, or put them in a situation that they were one hiccup from foreclosure, which would correct the problem most swiftly and make sure it doesn't happen again? Letting them fail on the outcome of having extended themselves dangerously, or forgiving that behavior?

If the problem is that some automakers have legacy costs so severe that they cannot compete with others, will they be inclined to address their legacy cost issues if they are flush with cash, or if they are on a tight budget?

If the problem is that companies' executives lavish themselves with outlandish compensation packages, will that problem be best corrected by giving the companies free money, or if they have just enough to continue operations?

We can look at some local issues, too.

If the problem is that citizens of Indianapolis feel unsafe because of violent crime in the city, will they feel safer if they, as law abiding citizens, are stripped of their guns? Or, will they simply move out of Indianapolis for the suburbs, leaving the criminals who are not inclined to follow the law to remain, making the city even more violent and criminal?

If the problem is that employers leave the city for a rural area because of high taxes, will more businesses stay or leave if taxes are raised?

How is additional regulation supposed to fix these problems? Why are we putting our faith in more government? Americans have looked to the past for clues, and are convinced that we 'did nothing' about the problems that led to the stock market crash of 1929, and therefore created the Great Depression. Whatever the merit to that argument, it does not correspond to today's situation, where doing nothing would be exactly the right tonic for bad lenders, bad borrowers, and bad business leaders. It would be corrective, and instructive. It would also be just.

I cannot think of anything more unjust than what we are doing right now- taking from everyone to reward failure. It's just as wrong as wrong can be. It's wrong from an idealistic standpoint, and from a realistic standpoint.

Well, maybe we could do something. Our leaders could be leaders, and send the right signals to the people, by browbeating all these groups in public forums.

Smoking, Again

It appears that Indiana is poised to consider a statewide ban on smoking in places of public accommodation. No sir, I don't like it.

I don't smoke. Never have. I detest the smell of tobacco smoke. What I do like are property rights.

There's no doubt that smoking can kill you, and that secondhand smoke can also kill you. I'm not advocating smoking or hanging around in smoky bars. But people engage in this behavior, using a legal product, for a variety of reasons, none of which especially needs to be justified to me.

I trust business owners to set their own policies. Some restaurant owners long ago set smoke-free policies as a matter of their business plan, hoping to attract a clientele that prefers a smoke-free atmosphere. But there is clearly also a market for restaurants that permit a post-meal smoke. If the owner permits it, and you chose to walk in, who is harmed?

Some say that the people who work there are harmed. Sure they are, if they choose to work in a smoky environment. Who is taking what gun and pointing it to their heads, forcing them to be there? But, it's their job!

Well, no. It isn't their job. The job, like the building, belong to the employer. The employee is one who agrees to be there, on an agreed-to set of terms. Now, there may be some stupid employees out there, who didn't bother to discuss the terms, or who were somehow non-observant of the conditions of the workplace when they accepted the job of their own volition.

If the employer permits smoking by employees, the smoker isn't 'intervening' into the non-smoker's space. He is smoking in the space provided by the employer. The life, liberty of the property owner comes before the non-property owner who is invited into the building. It's the primacy of the property owner over the visitor that is important.

Consider your home for a minute. Would you not consider it absurd to invite guests over and then have them determine the policies of your home? So, why is a place of business any different?

America is really losing its' way with regards to freedom, and understanding freedom. When anybody but the property owner can dictate the policies affecting that property, there is no freedom, but fascism.

But, since it's clear that there are health risks associated with the use of tobacco, it seems prudent for those offering smoking policies to warn their potential guests. We have warning labels on cigarette packages. There is no reason why we can't have the smoking policy of various establishments clearly posted at all entrances so that informed choices can be made. This way, those who hate smoke, like me, can figure out if we want to enter or not. those who smoke can go where they want to as well.

Seems like a nice, King Solomon compromise solution- One that respects freedom.

And, Here's The Inflation

Well, I guess the rate can't be cut much lower than 0.5%, so what's left to do? Fire up the printing presses! Make some of that 'money' out of thin air! From CNNMoney:

...the Fed will likely continue to use its new favorite tool, quantitative easing, "Fed-speak" for pouring new money into the economy.

In addition to lowering rates, the Fed has increased its lending to financial institutions and foreign central banks throughout the year to ease the credit crunch. But when the financial markets exploded into crisis-mode in mid-September, the Fed's reserve of Treasurys to support its lending began to run low. As a result, the central bank began firing up the printing presses, financing drastically increased lending to banks, purchases of corporate debt and bailouts of troubled institutions like AIG.

So, I hope you did invest in gold, or some other commodity that can hold its' value. Your currency isn't going to be worth anything.

"The end result of all of this could be the next major problem: the crisis of confidence in the dollar," said Baumohl. "At some point, foreign investors are not going to come to the table to buy U.S. debt, leading to a dollar decline."

I'm more worried about by purchasing power, although to hear the disciples of FDR, a body blow to my purchasing power is a blessing.

I can't wait to watch the left struggle to explain itself. How is it that the Clinton era was so prosperous under the anti-inflationary eye of Alan Greenspan, and we are to return to prosperity with Obama under an inflationary course?

I get to thinking about my favorite stories of Weimar Germany, hoping it never reaches us. From a nice, short history via PBS:

Pianos, wrote the British historian Adam Fergusson, were bought even by unmusical families. Sellers held back because the Mark was worth less every day. As prices went up, the amounts of currency demanded were greater, and the German Central Bank responded to the demands. Yet the ruling authorities did not see anything wrong. A leading financial newspaper said that the amounts of money in circulation were not excessively high. Dr. Rudolf Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank (equivalent to the Federal Reserve) told an economics professor that he needed a new suit but wasn't going to buy one until prices came down.

Why did the German government not act to halt the inflation? It was a shaky, fragile government, especially after the assassination. The vengeful French sent their army into the Ruhr to enforce their demands for reparations, and the Germans were powerless to resist. More than inflation, the Germans feared unemployment. In 1919 Communists had tried to take over, and severe unemployment might give the Communists another chance. The great German industrial combines -- Krupp, Thyssen, Farben, Stinnes -- condoned the inflation and survived it well. A cheaper Mark, they reasoned, would make German goods cheap and easy to export, and they needed the export earnings to buy raw materials abroad. Inflation kept everyone working.

So the printing presses ran, and once they began to run, they were hard to stop. The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. "If you want to save money," he was told, "and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time."

and

The flight from currency that had begun with the buying of diamonds, gold, country houses, and antiques now extended to minor and almost useless items -- bric-a-brac, soap, hairpins. The law-abiding country crumbled into petty thievery. Copper pipes and brass armatures weren't safe. Gasoline was siphoned from cars. People bought things they didn't need and used them to barter -- a pair of shoes for a shirt, some crockery for coffee. Berlin had a "witches' Sabbath" atmosphere. Prostitutes of both sexes roamed the streets. Cocaine was the fashionable drug. In the cabarets the newly rich and their foreign friends could dance and spend money. Other reports noted that not all the young people had a bad time. Their parents had taught them to work and save, and that was clearly wrong, so they could spend money, enjoy themselves, and flout the old.

The publisher Leopold Ullstein wrote: "People just didn't understand what was happening. All the economic theory they had been taught didn't provide for the phenomenon. There was a feeling of utter dependence on anonymous powers -- almost as a primitive people believed in magic -- that somebody must be in the know, and that this small group of 'somebodies' must be a conspiracy."

When the 1,000-billion Mark note came out, few bothered to collect the change when they spent it. By November 1923, with one dollar equal to one trillion Marks, the breakdown was complete. The currency had lost meaning.

I hope it never comes to this. Perhaps we will only go as far as revisiting the 1970s economy. This crisis has all the markings of history repeating itself, though, by way of willful ignorance of economics, and a mindless scoffing at sound money as 'mere ideology'.

Best be prepared.

Recession Economics

When times are tight and money isn't a-flowing from your wallet, would you prefer that your dollar had greater purchasing power, or weaker? Would you prefer that your cost of living increased, or decreased?

With the economic in the tank, government intervention is seen by many as the best way to revive it. One person held as a hero to many for economic turnaround is FDR. One of the tools FDR used to try to revive the economy was inflation. One of the hallmarks of the prosperity of the 1990's under the Clinton Administration and Alan Greenspan's Fed was the very low rate of inflation.

These endless bailouts are going to generate inflation, whether that is the design or not, because the money being doled out doesn't exist. It has to be printed or borrowed, and with our borrowing capacity nearly tapped, it's going to have to be printed- created out of thin air.

Obama is in favor of the bailouts, so by extension, he is in favor of inflation.

Here's an interesting bit of propaganda from 1933, extolling the virtues of inflation, i.e.: the weakening of your purchasing power and the raising of your cost of living.



(h/t: Chris Spangle)

Actual Hope!

(Crystal Lake, IL)- Here in suburban Chicago, the scandal of their governor is everywhere. Through it all, I found the one thing I really hoped would come of it all: President-Elect Obama has called on Blagojevich to resign. From the Washington Post:

President-elect Barack Obama believes that Gov. Rod Blagojevich should resign, his advisers said on Wednesday. "The President-elect agrees with Lt. Gov. Quinn and many others that under the current circumstances it is difficult for the governor to effectively do his job and serve the people of Illinois," Robert Gibbs, the incoming White House press secretary, said.

Now, there seems to be no good reason why Obama couldn't have gotten in front of a camera and made the statement himself, but I'll take it on principle, which is that corruption cannot be tolerated, especially when it come from within your own party.

Maybe he can have someone speak for him against this auto industry bailout. That would bring hope in bushels.

Reactions To Blagojevich

First, the most predictable and unfortunate response, from the man himself, via his attorney, and via Politico.

The attorney for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich said the governor will be vindicated and has no plans to resign.

"He didn't do anything wrong," attorney Sheldon Sorosky told reporters after Blagojevich appeared in court on Tuesday. "A lot of this is just politics."

Blagojevich should be in the office on Wednesday, Sorosky added.

So, reporters asked, he doesn’t intend to resign?

"Not that I know of, no," said Sorosky, who added that the governor was "surprised" by the day's events, but his spirits are “good.”

It seems that Democrats never resign when caught seemingly red-handed. I can't remember the last who did. It's always, "I'll be vindicated" and a legal fight, clinging to that delicious power for dear life.

On the upside for the Democratic Party, Senate majority leader Harry Reid has said that he won't seat a Blagojevich appointee. That's a good first step in distancing the Party from the man.

I think it's time Obama calls for the man to resign. That would signal to skeptics like me that he is serious about a change in politics. It's safe enough for Obama to do. It's not like he has any other office to chase. It's one thing for him to have come out, as anyone would, to say that he has no ties to Blagojevich's alleged actions. It's another entirely to say that it isn't condoned, it isn't to be swept under the rug. It is to be called out and confronted, opposed and smashed. Anything short of a call for resignation by Obama is weak. You've almost certainly heard his initial statement, here via ABC News:

"Obviously like the rest of the people of Illinois I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the US attorney's office today," said President-elect Obama this afternoon in Chicago, speaking of the criminal complaint against Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich for corruption. "But as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time."

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

Distance yourself, make no statement on the content. That's pretty typical, and not much in the realm of change. I think a definitive statement of condemnation is not only appropriate, it's necessary.

A Corrupt Illinois Democrat

I know- Big surprise. It's just incredible though how brazen Illinois' soon-to-be-former Governor appears. From the AP:

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges he brazenly conspired to sell or trade President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder

and

Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in an attempt to strong-arm the newspaper into firing editorial writers who had criticized him.

The 51-year-old Democrat was also accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics - that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.

Well, this is what virtually all elected officials do. Not condoning. Oh no! In fact, it should be just the beginning of the witch hunt. Let's indict all elected officials who steer contracts in return for campagin contributions.

I love this one:

Prosecutors said Blagojevich also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.

In court papers, the FBI said Blagojevich expressed frustration at being "stuck" as governor. "I want to make money," the governor, whose salary is $177,412, was quoted as saying in one conversation.

Bwaahahaha! "Stuck" being governor! Sick of making a mere $177k! Oh, my side hurts! Bwaaaahahaha!

Ok, my ardent Democratic friends. It is time for you to condemn Blagojevich and his naked greed roundly. Demand his resignation. Today, he has made himself the face of the Democratic Party. If you fail to demand his immediate resignation, you condone his corruption.

Calorie Counting Report

Overall, I stuck to the plan of keeping at or under 2,000 calories/day, being greatly aided on Tuesday by intestinal flu, where the thought of food itself was nauseating. I lost eight pounds, going from 202 to 194. There were two cardio workouts and last night's hockey to boost the restraint.

On the downside, I was still quite drawn to the sugary stuff, and gave in to the temptation of soda three times. I'm weak! Once I saw that I was dropping pounds, it was very easy to allow myself to give in.

The main thing here is that putting the plan together and into action yielded results. Hmm. That's just like everything else in life.

Automaker Bailout Analysis

In a word? WRONG! But, here's a piece of what I've been thinking, from Russell Roberts at Cafe Hayek:

Why don't the Big Three save the money it takes to put together Congressional testimony and the time it takes for the people in charge to make the trip. Why don't they just take out ads in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times outlining what they're going to do with the money. Then they can try this really novel idea. They can sell bonds and borrow the money. If the plans look good, people might lend them the money. If the plans are lousy, they won't get the money.

This was the same advice I had for the funding of the then-proposed Lucas Oil Stadium. Alas.

Friend Michael Jarrell relates the automaker-Congressional begging to child-parent interaction, and to a drug addict intervention.

I doubt many of us would say yes to an alcoholic or drug addict when they asked for a fix, so why do politicians "have" to say yes when companies addicted to bad habits come begging for a fix from the "lender of last resort"?

Excellent.