Tales of Rhetorical Hypocrisy, Part 1: Bush and Diplomacy

From the International Herald Tribune, Adam Nagourney writes:

Without using Obama's name, President George W. Bush, at a White House news conference on Thursday, assailed his willingness to meet Cuba's new leader, Raúl Castro, without preconditions, saying that to do so would grant "great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."

What, you mean people like Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the Saudi Royalty, and the Communist Party leaders of the People's Republic of China? Yeah, Presidents should never meet with those dudes without preconditions. Who would even think of doing such things?

Hypocrite Conservatives Can't Adhere to Their Self-Proclaimed Principles

The Democratic House passed a new bill yesterday providing incentives to encourage the production of green energy technologies. Everyone in Washington seems to support the idea of encouraging the development of technologies. So why has President Bush threatened to veto the legislation? Well, to offset the increase in spending of approximately $17 billion, the bill cuts subsidies to oil and natural gas companies. Republicans in the house have been calling this "a tax on oil production." This is a shameless tactic that the Republicans have been using in spades: equating anything that increases the tax burden on any entity with a tax increase. It is false by definition. You see, all American-owned corporations are required to pay taxes. But if your industry just happens to be one that formerly employed the current president, turns out he's willing to give you a huge tax break, simply because you are already making such ridiculously large piles of money at the expense of the American consumer. Isn't that swell? It's not a tax increase - it merely requires that the fossil fuel empires who are currently trying to destroy our planet pay the same taxes as every other corporation or business. So where's the hypochrisy? In the NYT article, Republicans are quoted as saying that the bill would definitely pass (I guess they means it wouldn't be vetoed, since it has already passed) if only those restrictive "taxes" on oil companies were there. Why can't the Dems just pass legislation with the incentives for green energy, no strings attached? Apparently, the Democrats are adhering to a policy known as fiscal conservatism (that's right, conservatism), which requires the government to only spend as much money as it earns. Republicans have suddenly begun denouncing reckless spending, a phenomenon that manifested itself suddenly on a Tuesday night in November of 2006. I guess they felt that after six years of running up massive deficits, it was time for them to tighten their belt - if only the Dems would listen to them! The takeaway here is: House Republicans are full of sh*t.

Economists Thaler and Woodward Deride Clinton's Mortgage Fix Plan

Senator Hillary Clinton presents herself as a policy expert and declares her readiness to govern from "day one." But her recent prescriptions for the housing market should cause doubts for thoughtful observers.

University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Susan Woodward, a former chief economist at both the SEC and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, took a shot at Hillary Clinton's plan to freeze adjustable home mortgage rates yesterday. Highlights:

What would happen if scheduled rate increases were halted? Although it might make some borrowers happy, such a freeze could potentially poison the mortgage market and quickly exacerbate the slump in housing prices. If lenders and investors do not receive the interest payments they expected, they will be wary going forward. Should they avoid providing funds for adjustable rate mortgages, since the government would have just proven that the terms can be changed if difficulty arises? Should they avoid all mortgages, since the government now seems to prioritize short-term concerns for borrowers? Maybe they should avoid lending in the United States altogether? Such a policy would clearly send a dangerous message far beyond our borders. Two trillion dollars of U.S. national debt is held by foreign governments. Interest rates on this debt are low in part because foreigners trust the U.S. to pay back its loans as promised. The rates would surely be higher if its holders thought the U.S. could renege on its promises to pay. But this is precisely the expectation America would encourage by unilaterally changing the terms on $2 trillion in mortgages held by investors around the world... Senator Clinton's policy amounts to a command-and-control approach to economic policy in which the government announces prices and tells suppliers what to produce. Undertaking such an intervention can only raise interest rates on mortgages (and maybe other interest rates as well) as markets attempt to incorporate risk premiums to cope with possible future interventions. Promising the American people that you can fix things by just lowering their interest rates is dishonest, a fairy tale that won't come true.

Fairytale. Heh. Now where have I heard that line before...?