If you’ve never seen it, visit The Long War Journal – in my opinion the best and most nonpartisan site for information about the War on Terrorism. There is no left/right commentary, just the facts.

Front and center on its homepage is a breakdown of how well the Afghan National Police are doing. Recall that Obama is sending at least 17,000 more Americans to that country this year. The situation is not good. 85% of the police units are at their lowest level for capability and training. The NATO-U.S. alliance has finally gotten around to addressing the problem with its “Focused District Development Program”, which began only a year ago.

The key point here is that NATO and the U.S. are going to be in Afghanistan for quite some time. While Iraq’s security turnaround was stunningly quick (about 12-18 months for a massive reduction of sectarian warfare and anti-Coalition attacks), Afghanistan, the consensus goes, will take longer. Obama should put his “new face of global diplomacy” to the test and ask our NATO allies to surge their forces – or at least their investments in Afghanistan’s fledgling government – concurrently with ours. It’s the least they could do.

To those of you who cared enough to vote and stay informed (regardless of how you voted), many thanks.

Total vote count: 3, 786. That’s about 10% turnout. It’s pretty bad news for us on the anti-Recall side. We’ll know the final results (not including, of course, any lawsuits or campaign violations) sometime later next week.

President Obama recently unveiled his $3.6 T budget for the 2010 Fiscal Year, which begins in September, and does not include the massive spending on economic “stimuli” or bailouts.  His office predicts a $1.75 T deficit. Included in the budget, along with the usual wasteful military, entitlement, and regulatory expenses, are $634 B for “healthcare reform” and $250 B as a preemptive reserve for future bailouts. He then promised to cut the deficit by half by the end of his term.  Apparently, fiscal responsibility comes down to spending only half again more than you have, rather than spending twice what you have.

On the plus side, Obama has “already identified $2 T in deficit reductions that will help us cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term”.  Based on Obama’s record (the man has never seen a spending bill he didn’t like), it seems probable that just about all of that is going to be in the form of tax hikes.

He further promised to increase taxes on companies that move overseas, reacting to the symptom rather than the disease.  US companies are moving abroad because labor costs are cheaper.  Labor works for mutually agreeable compensation, rather than by unilateral contracts imposed by unions or laws.  Regulations are less prohibitive.  And perhaps most importantly, the tax code is more favorable to economic actors (whether individuals or corporations).  If we truly want to keep jobs in the US, we should be deregulating labor, expanding freedom of contract, and lowering the tax rate to competitive levels, rather than punishing companies who cannot turn a profit by staying in the country.  Studies of corporations have indicated that overwhelming numbers would flock to the US, moving both manufacturing and headquarters here, if we abolished the corporate income tax (which incidentally raises far less revenue than comparable rates on other economic activities).

He then went on to dismiss opposition as coming from “special interests,” a catch-all populist term which has power because it has no distinct meaning.  But if we think about it, everyone is a special interest in some way.  Maybe that just means everyone opposes his wasteful spending – everyone except the Congress, the people who actually create the budget.

Prayer Request for Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum

Mrs. Schlafly left by ambulance shortly after her lecture on feminism and conservatism at UC Berkeley Tuesday evening. Our understanding is that shortly after the event she accidentally fell, injuring her hip. To the best of our knowledge, she underwent surgery Wednesday and will be recovering at a local hospital for the next few days. We wish the best for Mrs. Schlafly and her family and pray for her speedy recovery.

The ever-rising deficit seems not to worry enough people, especially those whom the voters have supposedly demanded meaningful change from. I refer, of course, to the sitting Administration. President Obama has not only inherited a massive debt, but must oversee the expenditure of far more resources than the government has marshaled through taxation thanks to former President Bush’s unconscionable expansions of government power. Yet Obama, like his fellow Democrats in Congress, has no intention whatsoever of reducing government to a morally and economically sound level. Only days after the passage of a nearly $800 billion “stimulus” bill, the Congress was already considering spending over $400 billion in a third “stimulus” package. The fiscal irresponsibility extends further: even assuming that these economic “stimuli” work (which they probably will not, given that they are among the most doctrinally unsound policies proposed in recent years), full employment is reached quickly, and asset prices reflate, analysts have estimated the deficit to remain at least $1 trillion annually for the next decade. It cannot be said that this money is coming at the expense of the taxpayer, simply because taxes are not being levied in proportion to the spending. Rather, this spending is coming at the expense of anyone who holds idle cash balances or owns debt.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Clinton has taken back her rhetoric of the primary season. Whereas before she appealed to voters with the populist argument that “we are borrowing from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis,” she is now desperately petitioning the Chinese government to continue absorbing our eternally rising expenses by buying bonds at low interest rates, saying “We are truly going to rise and fall together.” As a political observer and economic hobbyist, this writer cannot help but think of the many fallacies inherent in both statements.

The notable cultural critic George Will said, during the 2008 primary season, that the Clintons were “genetically incapable of telling the truth.” It seems like ancient history, given all the heady change permeating every fiber in the country. Well, at least this is unchanged.

It looks like it’s happening. Barring a last minute intervention from the ASUC Judicial Council, voting will take place tomorrow (2/23) and Tuesday (2/24). Voting booths can be found on campus and you can vote online at election.asuc.org.

I predict that if turnout is high (which, by ASUC standards, is still pitifully low), Moghtader is safe. The Vote No people have had a wave of anti-recall submissions to the Daily Cal, and the Editorial Board is strongly against his removal. Non-aligned student groups are balking at the idea that $25,000 is going to come directly from their Spring Budgeting allocations.

Then again, if turnout is low, who knows. It’ll be Moghtader’s closest friends versus his staunchest opponents.  In any case,  turnout is going to be key here, just as in any other special election.

The Context of the Moghtader Recall – Recall Effort Against ASUC Senator Indicates Campus Intolerance to Dissenting Viewpoints

Caption Contest

Matier & Ross invite readers to caption this photograph. Send suggestions to matierandross@sfchronicle.com.

AP / Al Grillo

Posted By: Max Garrone (Email) | February 11 2009 at 01:30 PM

Listed Under: Caption This | Comments (0) : Post Comment

Cool.

What’s your caption?

If you pay taxes in Berkeley, you have paid for a depiction of dogs being naughty on a very visible sculpture on an overpass near the waterfront. And by being naughty, I don’t mean not fetching the newspaper. To see what you have paid for, click here, because I’m not about to post the doggystyle action on this family friendly blog.

Why did we pay for this? Because it’s what dogs do, of course. I have an idea. How about a depiction of old hippies panhandling and smoking a joint? Because it’s what they do.

Regent Monica Lozano, Professor Laura Tyson To Serve on Economic Recovery Advisory Board

But will Obama listen to them?

Regent Lozano and Professor Tyson will be joining Berkeley’s Professor Christina Romer and Lawrence Berkeley Lab’s Dr. Steven Chu, in the new administration. Tyson and Berkeley’s Professor Robert Reich both served with Romer as part of the new president’s transition team. In addition, Tyson and Reich served in Clinton’s administration as national economic adviser and secretary of labor, respectively.

Thanks to San Francisco Chronicle:

UC admits misleading public about buyout-take

A review of documents and e-mails obtained under the state Public Records Act showed Williams was well aware of the UC Berkeley job when she filed for the buyout on Jan. 22, 2008 – including talks with Birgeneau.

E-mails show she had been virtually assured by Birgeneau’s close aides that the job was hers and was even placed on a UC Berkeley organizational chart five days before she applied for the buyout.

Williams was one of 155 former employees in the UC president’s office to receive severance payments under a voluntary termination program designed to shrink the headquarters’ payroll.

Under the program created by then-UC President Robert Dynes, 16 headquarters employees got severance checks and landed other UC jobs. Williams collected the most.

She had previously come to the public’s attention during the university’s salary scandal in 2006 after Dynes waived some rules and gave her some benefits, including a $44,000 relocation allowance and a low-interest $832,500 home loan, for which she was not otherwise entitled.

In her new position at Berkeley, Williams oversees whistle-blower complaints and public records requests, along with crisis management duties as associate chancellor – government, community and campus liaison.

Five days after The Chronicle reported on the payout to Williams, the new president of the University of California system, Mark Yudof, announced that employees in his office no longer will be allowed to collect full severance checks and then be rehired at other UC locations.

Note:

-Williams earns the same $200,400 salary she received at the UC Office of the President, leaving any severance package besides a privately-funded going-away luncheon meaningless, extravagant, costly, and well, gosh-darned unfair to the people of California supporting the university.

-Williams, former UC President Dynes, UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau, UC Berkeley spokesman Mogulof, and likely other high-ranking UC officials were not only involved in the unethical deal, but clearly did nothing to prevent it–deliberately or accidentally.

-Williams “oversees whistle-blower complaints and public records requests” (much like Treasury Secretary and tax-fraud Timothy Geitner now oversees the U.S. Treasury and the IRS).

-Williams and former UC President Dynes and likely others were involved in a previous “salary scandal” (also like Obama’s Treasury, HHS, and chief performance officer nominees).

-And UC President Mark Yudof announced only five days after the Chronicle’s first headline on the topic that situations like this would no longer be tolerated, begging the question: why was this one?

In California’s current budget crisis–complaints about budget cuts to education we’ll especially never hear the end of, thank you Democrats/teachers unions/UC administrators–the expenses and business practices of some of the highest-paid quasi-government officials (in the sense that UC officials enjoy a plethora more perks than the rest of California’s state employees) should be scrutinized at least as much as Berkeley’s blind devotion to tax-and-spend liberals in the state legislature, Congress, and President Obama who’s already reminding us of Jimmy Carter.

Considering the state of the economy, our men and women abroad, the culture of our country, now is as important a time as ever to discuss, as conservatives, what the coming years, months, even days, mean to us and for the future. We already face liberal madness. We always have. But last November didn’t just guarantee two more years of Speaker Pelosi. November 4, the last half of 2008, even, reminded us just how important conservative principles are, how much better they serve the country, and how prosperous the Republican Party would be if it adhered to them.

Already, President Obama has overturned an eight-years-long limitation on abortion (under President Bush federal funding did not go to foreign pro-abortion organizations, now it does), blamed America in his first TV interview since becoming president (on an Arab network), and publicly dissed Rush Limbaugh (and his (more than 20 million) fans). Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have racketed up a startling $819-900 billion-and-counting “stimulus” bill for taxpayers, pledged to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, supported Al Franken’s shameless theft of a Senate seat, petitioned against Rush Limbaugh, and, in their most recent Orwellian attempt, tried to add funding for “family planning services” to the latest economic “rescue”, reasoning, “they reduce cost.”

But to think there’s sufficient opposition from Republican representatives on The Hill may very well be naiveté (or denial) on our part. Responding to Limbaugh’s criticism of Republicans in Congress, Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga, retorted, “I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach.” (In Hannity’s “Liberal Translation” segment (excepting the likelihood Gingrey is “conservative”), I would expect this to mean we “real” Limbaugh-listening, Coulter-reading, Reagan-quoting, common-sense conservatives had better just get used to trillion-dollar bailouts, “stimulus” bills, and the president’s and Congress’s chiding of private citizens for expressing their opinions.)

It should be noted, however, that Gingrey subsequently apologized for his comments and every Republican and eleven Democrats voted against Obama’s stimulus bill in the House. So far, perplexing as it may be here in Berkeley, there seems to be truth to the claim that this is still a center-right country. Who’d have thought? Well, Rush Limbaugh, for one. Matt Drudge, for another. Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, too. Matt Lauer, Harry Smith, Keith Olbermann, anyone at MSNBC, and anyone not at FNC, for that matter… Conservative pundits communicated this the moment it was clear Republicans stood no chance November 4. Today, in the second month of 2009, it is clear that Rush, Drudge, Republicans in Congress (if and when they are willing), get results.

Taking just the last few weeks’ colorful events, it could not be clearer that now is the time for principles, ideals, ideas, fortitude, and democracy. For years conservatism has struggled—in many cases, least of all because of the Left. Gingrey’s groveling to talk radio’s king—his 180 turnaround back to Limbaugh’s listeners—rather than a sad reminder of the state of our party, ought to be viewed as nothing short of inspiring in that it could be a preview of true Republican representation and opposition in the future.

We all know we need it, but only when we the people, the grassroots of true democracy in this country, speak up, take action, stick to our guns, do we surprise ourselves with what we are able to accomplish.

February is a new month; tomorrow is a new day—heck, today is a new day—this month a new month. With the latest (and possibly the most unpopular) spending bill heading to the floor of the Senate, remember this: conservatism is what we make of it. The success of conservatism depends upon us alone. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction, but it is still ours. And it is ours for the taking.

…from Obama and “change” that is. Expected to join House Democrats in support for yesterday’s stimulus behemoth, GOP moderates were unanimous, surprisingly, in their opposition to the bill. Despite Obama’s personal appeal, the vote was split along party lines (if you don’t count the 11 Dems who voted against it). The final vote was 244-188 in the House.

The situation is probably going to be much different in the Senate, where moderates have more sway and where the GOP leadership realizes it will have to compromise, albeit with a Senate version of the bill.

What are your thoughts about the stimulus? If you were a moderate Republican, from say Pennsylvania or Michigan, how would have you voted?

(And in ASUC Recall news: Set your calendars for February 23 and 24).

Sorry for the confusion, but it looks like we won’t be voting tomorrow. The J-Council has voided the election, meaning the Senate will have to set another date sometime within the next four weeks.

It’s probably for the better, as any election that would have taken place tomorrow would have been subject to numerous lawsuits. And it’s much more fair; it allows both sides to campaign, if they choose, and allows the ASUC/Daily Cal to publicize the election so that people actually vote.