Obama on the Nobel Prize

While I think this whole deal is absurd, I am always impressed at how classy Obama is. Here is the transcript:

Good morning. Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday!" And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." So it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy. We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.

We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for -- the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.

And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.

I am the commander-in-chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.

Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration -- it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.

And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity -- for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.

That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead. Thank you very much.

Nobel Peace Prize

Barack Obama won. I think he won because he is not George Bush. I suspect that the American voter was the original intended recipient until somebody in the Nobel Committee realized that George Bush was term limited.

Update: Maybe he is getting the Nobel for sending more troops to Afghanistan?

Update 2: Some will point out that when Obama was nominated that he had only been in office for 12 days. Well, maybe those were a very eventful 12 days?

Update 3: Mickey Kaus has a novel suggestion: decline it.

Obama's Speech

I didn't listen to the whole thing. There were aspects of it that were good, some that were innocous, some obnoxious. I love that health care reform is being billed as a free lunch. I actually agree to some extent, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare and there are substantial savings to be gained. I just don't think it will happen and even if they did the savings are likely to be substantially lower than predicted. Some of those savings, such as cutting Medicare Advantage, aren't really "waste, fraud, and abuse" but cutting seniors benefits. Which is fine with me, but it is a misleading argument. I think the president deserves some credit for putting the individual mandate in there. That is an important part of health care reform and it is an unpopular part. The pay fors are stupid. This tax on insurers is absolutely absurd. The tax will be passed on to the consumer, so you might as well place it on the consumer. What I am afraid of is that the since the tax is opaque that consumers, such as public sector unions, will still insist on cadillac coverage as they aren't exposed to the full cost of coverage (you don't see the employers contribution on your pay stub) and thus will not achieve much if any cost containment (while deriving little revenue). This is just a stupid idea.

Increasingly I don't think that universal health care reform will happen. That said it's interesting to think about what a smaller scale reform package would look like. You can't really do community rating without a mandate. You can't do a mandate without subsidies. One area where you probably could get wide agreement would be on the national exchange. This would benefit those who live in states where real insurance (catastrophic) has been regulated out of existence. This wouldn't increase coverage much but it would be a significant step in the right direction. I could also see a cap on the employer exclusion making its way back into the conversation. I think what you would see is that the cap would be fairly high but not obscenely high and the tax exemption would be extended to everyone. This would be far from optimal policy but it would be an improvement nonetheless. The other thing I suspect would be part of a scaled down bill would be some form of medicaid expansion (more limited) and maybe a very limited tax credit for folks up to 300% of the poverty line.

Things that would be left out from current bills are: mandates (employer/individual); insurance reform (maybe with the exception of recission; that is probably happening regardless); anything involving medicare; any substantial pay fors (income surtax, taxing benefits; the goofy insurer tax); malpractice reform.

ONE LAST NOTE: I hated when he said it costs three times as much to buy health care on the individual market than as when your employer provides it. One might pay three times as much as their employer is not providing an premium contributions, but the cost is the same. If I have a plan through my employer that is $100 a month and my employer pays 2/3rds of the premium, the cost of the premium is still $100 a month, I just happen to pay directly $33 out of wages and another $67 (potentially) out of foregone wages. If I pay for a policy on the individual market the cost could be the same- $100 a month- but I would paying the full cost from wages. The difference is not cost but rather whether the policy is being paid for in the form of after-tax wages in the individual market or pre-tax wages/employer contributions(foregone wages). What you could say is that it costs more in relation to the tax advantage. If my marginal tax rate is 25% and I buy a policy in the individual market with $100 I would need to make $133 in before tax wages to pay for the policy. If I get my insurance through my employer the policy is paid for in pre-tax wages so that is a a real bonus (thus I would only need to earn $100 to pay for the $100 policy).

Obama's Press Conference

My goodness what a change. Having a President who knows the English language is such a marked improvement. Helen Thomas just asked if any country in the Middle East has nukes, I think she was egging him on to acknowledge that the Israelis have nukes. I don't know why that is such a bugaboo.

Obama Possibly Close to Decision on AG

It looks like Obama will offer the position to Eric Holder.

Freak Show

Alan Keyes is suing to establish that Obama was not born a U.S. Citizen thus disqualyfing him from the Presidency.  I sort of thought this fever swamp issue was put to rest when Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii surfaced.  The Freak Show refers to Alan Keyes, not Dear Leader.

The Most Unconvincing Spin Award

Goes to Robert Novak.  I love this quote in particular:  

"He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities."

I think it is clear that Obama has a mandate, what he does not have is much fiscal room to maneuver.  

Fumes from the Fever Swamp

The newest bat-shit crazy rumor is that Obama is the illegitamite son of Malcom X. Anyhow, it would be badass would if Obama opened his inaugral speech with: "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock - Plymouth rock landed on us."

Is Obama a Socialist?

So asks Scott Johnson at Powerline.  This shouldn't surprise me because the guys at Powerline do write some positively insane things and really do seem smitten with conspiracy theories. But, one way to determine whether Obama is a closet socialist is by looking at his proposed policies.  What do we find?  He wants to raise taxes!  Though, if we recall Milton Friedman's old saw, Spending=Taxes.  He wants to institute a pigovian tax on carbon emissions to correct for negative externalities, like that other well known communist Greg Mankiw, oh wait, he was Bush's CEA Chair.  He wants to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program inspired by Milton Friedman's proposal of a negative income tax.  These are all center-left positions, not the onset of a new wave of socialism.  If you want to see socialism in action just look at what's happening with the current administration and the financial bailouts, as Brad DeLong put it: 

"The Bush administration, having entered office as social conservatives, leaves office as conservative socialists, proprietors of the most sudden large expansion of the state's role in the US economy since mobilisation for the second world war."

But one could also look to the policy advisors Obama has surrounded himself by. Jason Furman's selection as Economic Policy Director drew lots of flak because the left views him as an apologist for Wal-Mart.  Here is an online debate between Furman and Barbara Ehrenreich on Wal-Mart.  I hasten to add that Furman has proposed using the same vehicle for reforming the Health Care system as McCain, as chronicled here and elsewhere. Jeff Liebman is the co-author of the LMS Social Security Plan, the M and the S in the LMS plan are Maya McGuineas (former McCain economic advisor) and Andrew Samwick (former member of the Bush CEA).  One of the central elements of the LMS plan is partial privatization.  Very socialist indeed.  And of course there is Austan Goolsbee, of that strong communist foothold in the midwest, the University of Chicago.

PeP Endorsement

As the only active contributor, I feel entitled to make the blog's endorsement.  The PeP blog is endorsing Obama, big surprise there.  

While a conservative, I simply cannot imagine McCain as President.  Or rather, I can, and this compels me to vote for Obama.  His impetuous nature simply renders him unfit to lead our nation in foreign affairs.  His unrivaled enthusiasm for war (read: singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran) is positively frightening.  His lack of knowledge on economic or other domestic matters is simply pathetic for a presidential candidate (such as the inability to credibly defend his health care plan) but also shows an alarming lack of intellectual engagement or curiosity. Such attributes have been in constant display by the current occupant of the Oval Office and to the nation's detriment.

I am not necessarily excited by the prospect of an Obama presidency combined with a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress.  However, he clearly has the character and intellect to be President.  He will raise taxes, but ultimately they must be raised.  He will spend a lot on infrastructure, but such investments are overdue, and at least with Obama there is a chance that such investments will also include mass transit, and heaven forfend, there might be a more rational process in how these investments are made.  His committment to enact a cap and trade is less than optimal, but his preference for auctioning off permits is vastly superior to McCain's proposal of allocating permits.  And most importantly, Obama's signature foreign policy proposal is to wind down an ill-conceived war instead of doubling down on the existing one and launching a new one.

But further, as a Republican, I believe a loss is deserved on our side for the horrible mismanagement of the nation's affairs from Iraq to Katrina, the scaling back of our civil liberties, the rampant cronyism, politicization of the federal agencies, and deterioration of the nation's fiscal position.  The conservative movement, and the Republican party to which it has become so intertwined as to the point of oneness, has become intellectually and morally bankrupt.  A relevant conservative movement will need to develop ideas beyond the current platform of tax cuts, the politics of denial (climate change, income inequality, and the state of our health care system), gay bashing and conspiracy theories.  The conservative movement has failed to embrace this reality, hopefully a loss will begin a process of reevaluation.

Stop The Presses

Barack Obama has conceded that in light of recent events his spending plans would have to be curtailed.  A dose of reality in a presidential campaign.  What a concept.

RE: Obam Race Speech

I just got done listening to Obama's speech and I have to agree with Xtra's critique.

What I thought was the most profound aspect of his speech was that it wasn’t political, it wasn't a stump speech, it wasn't a speech pandering for votes, but instead a speech that was intrinsically aspirational in its nature. He basically laid out what could be described as his national vision statement in a direct, personal, honest and straightforward manner.

It was a brilliant and inspirational speech.

Here's a link if you want to look at the transcripts or view the video.