Carolina Review Daily

President Obama’s third State of the Union address sounded more like a campaign speech than anything close to a set of solutions to the problems Americans now face. Rather than focus on the mounting debt, now nearing $16 trillion dollars, or any real reform to programs such as Medicare or Social Security, the President used his time to call for more regulation, more spending, and more power for the federal government. Unfortunately, President Obama offered more of the same slogans and rhetorical games, rather than any tangible solution to the challenges that continue to grow under his leadership.

Only a few minutes into the debate, President Obama again fell back on his favorite one-liner, calling for more Americans to pay their “fair share.” He then goes on to blame the private sector for the housing crash in 2008, saying the real problem is that regulators didn’t regulate enough. Of course, the President fails to mention the government’s role in the crisis, while mentioning nothing about reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or any other agency of government. Yes, Mr. President, if only we’d had more government distortion of the marketplace and social engineering we would have been better off.

The President then goes to layout his blueprint for restoring the economy. He says we must focus on bringing manufacturing back to America and reforming the tax code, both of which conservatives have been proposing. However, the President’s plans are much different. His solution to manufacturing lies in getting the government more involved in bailouts and control, as he points to the bailing out of the auto industry as an example of this great success. What happened in Detroit, he says, can happen in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and even Raleigh. He may have a point, seeing how if things keep going like they are, there will be many more companies in need of a bailout.

When it comes to tax reform, he’s even further off the mark. Should we make it easier to invest in the United States? Well no, of course we have to make companies pay their “fair share” (he did it again), that’s the way to attract business to the US. He even goes further to say that MNC’s should pay a minimum tax? I can hear the new factories opening up as we speak.

The President is quick to take the populist stance toward China, saying his Administration has taken more trade cases against them than anyone else. He uses this as a springboard to call for a new trade commission with new regulations, because of course that’s exactly what we need. So we’re letting China slide on assisting Iran and blocking sanctions against them, but we’re supposed to believe the Administration is really sticking it to them over trade?

When it came to education, the President offered more of the same one size fits all solutions from Washington. He says he is working to model partnerships between the government, the private sector, and community colleges. This sounds promising. Going further, he says the federal government should require states to make every kid stay in school until they’re 18, rather than letting anyone slip out into the workforce. Wow, I couldn’t imagine any possible problems arising from the federal government inserting itself into education even further.

For immigration, we also heard the same tired talking points. Of course he pushes for comprehensive immigration reform, which would mean securing the border, expelling those who have committed crimes, and providing some pathway to citizenship for those who have built a life here, something most Republicans agree with. Immediately, however, the President pivots and recognizes this will probably not happen (in reality because of liberals standing in the way of any real border security), and says that we should go ahead and just pass the part that grants amnesty to those who are here illegally. Of course, this is the same failed position that has led us to where we are to begin with, when we grant amnesty while failing to secure our borders. Although it’s a great campaign line, it is no solution to the problem, because solutions aren’t what the President is interested in.

As if all this wasn’t enough, the President then moves on to make the case for more federal government subsidies for his failed energy policies. After going after big oil (once again, a great campaign slogan) he says that “some technologies don’t pan out, some companies fail,” when referring to government subsidized energy industries. To all of us who have watched our money go down the drain for his clean energy hoax, the word Solyndra was ringing in our heads. The problem is that when the companies the President is talking about fail, it’s our money that has been wasted. He says he won’t walk away from what his Administration has been doing with energy, which is why we need him to walk away from the White House.

The President goes on to call for more fees on financial institutions and more regulation from Washington. He says his new consumer watchdog is looking out for you, because we all know we feeble-minded folk can’t make responsible decisions on our own. Almost in the same sentence he says he wants to cut regulations, he says we must keep these regulations in place because they are protecting us. You know, keeping our water pure and our food safe, because if Republicans had it their way little Susie would be drinking swamp water and eating lead-based saw dust. The President is trying pretty hard, but the American people understand that this is smoke and mirrors, and what Washington is doing is standing in the way, not looking out for them.

After briefly discussing a new initiative to build another agency to look at the financial practices that led to the housing collapse (I wonder if Fannie and Freddie will be on that short list?), President Obama finally gets to the meat of his presentation: The deficit must be solved by raising taxes. With a straight face, he says that millionaires pay less than the middle class, while citing the Buffet rule for further tax increases. In the real world, this means raising capital gains taxes to over 30%. One would think with Obama’s vast private sector experience (does community organizing count?) he would know the difference between income and capital gains taxes, but I digress. So Obama has made his case, that the way to make America “built to last” is to raise taxes. If you don’t support this, you of course don’t support education, healthcare, or energy.

It is a sad fact that with $16 trillion dollars in debt, the unemployment still above 8% after the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, the failed ‘clean energy’ initiatives, and runaway entitlement spending, the President’s proposals are the same old failed policies. His philosophy has him grounded in the belief that the solution to every problem must come from straight from Washington. He says that those who tell you America is in decline do not know what they’re talking about. Well, Mr. President, according to the polls that’s the American people, and they are fully aware of what is going on. Thankfully, come November, they will get to let their voices be heard.

Over at Campus Blueprint, my friend Wilson Parker has a post about the recent hoopla over President Obama’s “recess” appointments: Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and appointments to the vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board.

I have to wish him the best on undertaking such a herculean task in defending the indefensible. But, unfortunately, this is much more than a “completely novel constitutional question.” A lot is at stake if we conclude that the executive branch has the power to determine when a separate and equal branch is or is not in session and can ignore constitutional precedent in order to make preferred appointments (also, it’s gotta be awkward for a party that, until recently, was denouncing the “imperial presidency” of George W. Bush).

The text of the Constitution granting the president the power to make recess appointments reads:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session (Article II, Section iii).

As Richard Epstein, a renowned legal scholar at the University of Chicago and NYU, points out, the key words are “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate [emphasis added].” He says:

What they mean is this: if the vacancy arises in the gap between terms, the President does not have to travel light just because the Senate is not in session.  In the founding period, Congress was not in perpetual session to say the least, so this provision meant that if there was no ability to go through the usual process of nomination and confirmation, the President could act on his own.

But that situation does not describe the situation with Cordray and the NLRB. Those vacancies existed prior to the “recess.” The NLRB appointments are particularly egregious because the Senate hadn’t even had time to set up hearings for the nominations.

Even if we accept the usual practice of recess appointments, Cordray and the NLRB appointments are unconstitutional. Wilson makes the point that the Senate was in pro forma sessions (which, ironically enough, were pioneered by Senator Harry Reid to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments) which aren’t actual sessions because- quoting from the Justice Department’s brief- the Senate cannot “receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.” He goes on to claim that, “the Constitution is unclear about what constitutes a recess”- this simply isn’t true. A “recess,” being a parliamentary procedure, is determined internally by each body. The Constitution did not intend to define the set of motions either house must adopt for its operations and left it up to the respective bodies. Thus, under current Senate rules, the Senate was not in recess. This forces the Obama Administration to re-define what constitutes a recess which, as John Yoo points out, is not in his purview:

It is up to the Senate to decide when it is in session or not, and whether it feels like conducting any real business or just having Senators sitting around on the floor reading the papers. The President cannot decide the legitimacy of the activities of the Senate any more than he could for the other branches, and vice versa.

Ultimately for Wilson, however, it’s not about the Constitution. It’s about implementing the Obama policy agenda. But it’s important to note that there is no clause in the Constitution that assures a president that every single post he creates will be filled. It’s up to the Senate. So, yes, Republicans can hold these appointments “hostage.” It’s their constitutional prerogative.

However, if Republicans keep doing what they’re doing, they’re going to be in trouble when they face the people and have to answer to the gridlock that Obama will undoubtedly point to in his re-election campaign unless they are able to articulate an adequate defense for their actions (which I believe can be made).

That’s the system that the Founders intended. In the Federalist, they argue that “the injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.” For our current situation, this means that even if the Republicans prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from functioning in the short-term, it’s better to follow the constitution than to set a terrible precedent like Obama has.

I’m always surprised when either side doesn’t see the long-term consequences of their actions. Budget reconciliation- which allows measures to circumvent the filibuster- was used by Republicans to pass the Bush tax cuts, only to be picked up by the Democrats to pass ObamaCare (sidenote: isn’t it interesting that neither policy is accepted by the other side?). Every time the Senate changes hands, the new majority complains about the filibuster, the very same procedure they were defending to the bitter end when they were in the minority.

But it’s important that we retain these restrictions on executive or majority power. I wish that the Democrats currently salivating over Director Cordray could imagine a four-year Ambassador Bolton or Attorney General John Yoo when the next Republican president doesn’t get his way over a certain appointment. Imagine if only 51 senators were required to abolish the Department of Education.

Yeah, it stinks when things don’t go your way in the interim. But, if you have the right ideas, you’ll win in the long run. The solution isn’t to circumvent the Constitution to get your way, but be patient and persuade the American people of the merits of your case. That’s the only way to win a sustainable victory.

That could be the alternative title to the recent AEI Outlook on the Federal Housing Authority.

Key highlights:

1. The FHA is leveraged 840 to 1 (which would mean it would have been already shut down by regulators if it were a private lender)
2. The FHA uses accounting techniques similar to Enron to obscure the reality of their financial situation
3. The FHA is no longer focused on low-income homeowners- “In FY 2011, 54 percent of the FHA’s dollar volume went to finance homes that were greater than 125 percent of an area’s median home price, up from 36 percent in 2010.”
4. “[M]ore than 90 percent of all mortgages are acquired and securitized with a GSE guarantee or insured by the FHA or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and securitized by Ginnie Mae with a government guarantee.”
5. “The off-budget debt of various government agencies—the majority of which is GSE debt—is $7.5 trillion, all of which is ultimately the responsibility of the federal government.”

But the GSE model works, so they tell us…

It’s easy to mock the left for their virulent obsession with “diversity” and “inclusivity.” Those words have been pounded into you since Day 1 freshman year (whoops, first-year) as a sort of post-modern summum bonum to which we must orient ourselves. Conservatives generally agree with diversity and inclusivity insofar as they provide solid foundations for free inquiry or the free marketplace of ideas.

In practice, though, both sides fall short of their ideals. Liberty University gave us an example of where the right is dictatorial in academia, but the vast majority of academic institutions aren’t run by right-wingers like Falwell (though Chancellor George F. Will has a really nice ring to it). It’s accepted that the majority of the faculty and students at your average institution of higher education are generally very left-wing.

UNC is no exception based on my own undergraduate career. I’ve written before about my personal experiences as a conservative at UNC, but one thing that continues to surprise me is the apparent lack of self-awareness among students who invite speakers, host events, or sponsor panels. As I’ve written before, if you’re supposed to be a nonpartisan organization whose goal it is to “challenge” the student body, a sixth consecutive liberal speaker may not do the job. Why not throw some conservative names into the mix, just for funsies?

But that thought never seems to cross people’s minds. This week, there will be a panel entitled “Popular Movements: A Panel Discussion.” Here’s the first line in the introduction: “This panel…will explore four contemporary popular movements.” Let’s think of some major contemporary popular movements: the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, the anti-war movement, the Tea Party, the environmental movement, the immigration rights movement, maybe the Jasmine Revolution in China, or the recent unrest in Russia.

The four that were selected: Arab Spring, OWS, the environmental movement, and the immigration rights movement. Hm, no Tea Party, even though they are credited with giving the Republican Party one of the largest majorities in the U.S. House in history, completely re-focused the budget debate, and have had a marked (if negative) influence on the 2012 election? A movement so influential that liberal commentators were yearning for a similar movement on the left?

The panel is sponsored by UNC’s Annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday Celebration, you say, so the Tea Party has no place? Alveda King, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece and daughter of his brother who was a noted civil rights activist, spoke at one of the largest Tea Party rallies in the country. And a member of the Frederick Douglass Foundation would be very willing to debate whether the Tea Party aligns with Dr. King’s vision for America.

When I expressed that sentiment on the Facebook event, one of the leaders of the event said that I had a good point, but it was too late for this year’s panel. The fact is, this shouldn’t be an issue in the first place. Whenever I question whether a group that invites speakers or sponsors panels lives up to the goals of actual diversity or inclusiveness, the response is invariably something along the lines of “Oh shoot, you’re right. Just come to our meetings to contribute!”

That shouldn’t be necessary. How can a room full of reasonably intelligent liberals not realize that they’re being unbalanced or are somehow unable to come up with a list of conservatives that they could invite? You shouldn’t pretend to be au courante if you can’t name, at minimum, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, David Brooks, or Ross Douthat which, in my experience, is a difficult project for very intelligent folks who can articulately discuss the nuances of single-payer health care systems around the world. You don’t even have to subscribe to National Review (though you should) to find more names. The internet is a lovely thing.

I don’t want a bunch of Anthony Dent clones running around (a weird accusation once leveled against me)- I want a vigorous, healthy, and free marketplace of ideas. UNC purports to be a liberal arts university whose purpose is to cast away all preconceived notions of the world in the search for truth. Offering only one viewpoint for lectures, speeches, and panels simply doesn’t do that.

Even if we ignore the liberal arts mission for the university, we can’t ignore the fact that hearing other viewpoints makes you a deeper thinker whether you agree with the speaker or not. You can sit down and read The Fatal Conceit (which everyone should do) and toss it away in disgust, but confronting opposing ideas forces you to evaluate your own and formulate reasons why you simply cannot accept this viewpoint. Or maybe reasons why you do. Either way, you come away better for it. In this age of polarization, we all could use a healthy dose of true diversity.

UNC Campus Y has organized a protest of tuition hikes for January 12^th, which is amusingly titled “Skip Class for Public Education”. Just let the irony of that title sink in for a second… Ok, now a brief moment on the ridiculousness of the idea that cutting class somehow makes a difference in the tuition debate. All this will show the University administration, the Board of Trustees, Board of Governors and all higher ups is that kids are willing to use the excuse of a “cause” (which has largely been decided at this point) to cut class and protest higher tuition… shocker.

All this yelling and emotion is a method that has proven its futility time and again. If the Campus Y, OWS, or any organization truly want to have any effect whatsoever on this process,  they need facts, figures, evidence, and proof that tuition hikes are not in UNC’s interests rather than loud chants and catchy slogans. They argue for unmentioned, unexplained “other solutions” to the problem of budget cuts. What are these solutions, Campus Y? How will they save us from these increases that keep us as one of the best value schools in the nation? I thought Mary Cooper’s plan was a good balance between revenue increases and student concerns for the University, and no one would object to any organization’s attempt to have it be given another look. That is not what the Campus Y seems to be doing, however. The Campus Y is trying to get students to skip class in the first week of the semester, so that they can make themselves feel like they tried to help the students who will be affected by the tuition increases without actually making any difference.

It may seem odd that the Campus Y is having this clearly pointless and disruptive protest. Well, it suggests, to me, that they are more interested in looking like they support students than actually supporting students. Maybe I’m too cynical, but this protest will certainly garner its due 15 minutes in the spotlight on campus (and garner positive publicity for the Campus Y), while in no way aiding students at UNC. In fact, it is easy enough to argue that this protest would actually harm students by sapping any class participation grades they may have accrued had they attended class instead of attending a futile protest. The populist message of the Campus Y would be fine if it were backed by something more solid than “other solutions”, but it’s not.

A very revealing speech by CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ConferencePa (the video is not embeddable, unfortunately).

Here’s a rough transcript starting around 2:08:55-

Question: I’ll be brief. You mentioned that with the AARA as it was moving through Congress, you provided projections based on a set of multipliers and econometric models and then later, when evaluating the effects you used multipliers and econometric models and that gives the impression of assuming what one’s trying to prove in terms of measuring the effects. So, a two part question: first, is that treatment required by the rules Congress sets for the CBO; and second, how would that be different if you compared the initial projections—both baseline and with the stimulus bill—versus actual experience?

Elmendorf: So, our method of analysis of that is not required by Congress. We’ve tried to be very clear on our reports on that that we don’t one can learn much by watching the particular components of GDP over the last few quarters about the effects of the stimulus. We think the best evidence about the effects of past policies comes from more detailed studies done often several years later: the behavior of particular households that got tax rebates sooner or later or whatever. We don’t think you can learn much from that so we fall back on repeating similar analysis that we’ve done before and we try to be very explicit about that that is, essentially, repeating the same exercise we did rather than an independent check on it. The part that is the check is we watch how the money has flowed out of the government budget—we can update that. We’re reading new evidence—if we thought we saw evidence that substantially shifted the body of work in this area then we would shift our views but we haven’t seen that at this point.

Question: If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then it would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, is that correct?

Elmendorf: That’s right. That’s right. In terms of what we would have found otherwise—I don’t remember each of our forecasts—certainly by last March our economic forecast took on board a very large decline in employment, a run-up in the unemployment rate, weak GDP growth in the recovery of the second half of last year. Our January forecast—last January’s forecast—did not have that. We marked down the forecast considerably from January to March. Our first estimates of the effects of the stimulus package, I think, were coming out in between those benchmarks so it’s hard for me to go back and disentangle those pieces entirely.

So what about all the liberal brouhaha over the “independent, nonpartisan report by the CBO”?

As the referendum this May approaches, partisans on either side of Amendment One will undoubtedly organize, argue, advertise, and rally in attempts to persuade their fellow citizens that their point of view is the correct one.

A fellow Tar Heel, Jeff DeLuca, former Co-President of GLBTSA, recent participated in this process by questioning Speaker of the House Thom Tillis about the amendment and expressed his opinion on the matter:

Jeff provided a model for engaging in political discourse, so the video was rightly celebrated, even getting picked up by Think Progress, a left-wing advocacy group.

The irony, of course, is that the very same leftist groups who adore this kind of confrontation fell over themselves to quickly condemn the precisely same phenomenon three summers ago during the health care debate. A quick search of Think Progress reveals article after article mocking those “teabaggers” who were simply exercising their rights just as Jeff did when he questioned Speaker Tillis.

Conservatives do this too, make no mistake. No doubt some conservative in the state had a few choice words upon seeing the above video. But if we ever hope to have some semblance of a civil and measured- albeit vigorous- debate, we shouldn’t jump to attack efforts like the Tea Party or Jeff’s video- just the ideas they espouse.

Uh oh. Everyone hold their breath. In a new twist in his ongoing presidential run tease, Donald Trump has changed his party affiliation on his New York State voter registration to “unaffiliated.” In this way, he is leaving the door open for a White House bid as an independent.

“Mr. Trump has done that in order to preserve his right to run as an independent after the finale of his television show “The Apprentice” at the end of May,” said Michael Cohen, a Special Counsel to Mr. Trump. “Something’s he’s stated over the past six months he might elect to do if, in fact, he’s not satisfied with who the Republican candidate is and does not believe that that candidate can defeat Obama in 2012.”

Get over yourself, Mr. Trump. How many times have we heard this before? If you wanted to run for president, you would have tossed your name in the hat many months ago in the Republican primary. If you are not willing to step up to the political plate, stay away. Run your Trump Empire and star in your TV shows. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. Pad your pocket. You are good at it.

But do not try to play for both teams. America deserves that much. Presidential elections are not a game. They decide the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Stop dabbling. Enough with the charades of independent runs and nice public television chats with Newt. So either proclaim yourself fully as a candidate or get the heck out.

…or something. In his most recent column, my friend and DTH columnist Mark Laichena bemoans the apparent lack of activism at UNC and asks whether this shows that UNC is less committed to social justice than “service hours and other indicators would suggest.” Even more strangely, he seems to dismiss long-term, committed efforts by members of the Campus Y, the Roosevelt Institute, and other organizations on campus that actually achieve substantive results that benefit people.

To my mind, this is a great development for UNC and shows a maturity in how we attempt to address the problems plaguing our society. The futility of student protests should be obvious. Look at the examples Mark lists of student protests that he presumably wishes UNC would emulate: protests against the tuition increases in California, marches against Scott Walker’s ban on collective bargaining in Wisconsin, and protests like Occupy Wall Street in New York.

Now, show of hands: who thinks that, because of those protests, tuition won’t increase in California, public-sector unions will be restored in Wisconsin, and income inequality will magically disappear across the country? *crickets* Thought so.

The same would apply if we had a far more active Occupy Chapel Hill/UNC (and not merely a “damp squid”) or massive numbers of students protesting our own tuition hikes. They would achieve nothing. The tuition hike would still happen because protests don’t make economic realities disappear.

Contrast that with the approach currently being taken by Student Government or the Campus Y- instead of protesting, they’re sitting down to figure out a way to minimize the tuition hike. They’re working with administrators to achieve their ends, not calling them rich, white, males who clearly don’t care about the poor.

Consider the difference between the Campus Y of the ’90s and the Campus Y of today. Two decades ago, the Campus Y was a rowdy bunch heavy on ideology, not so heavy on actually doing social justice. Today, that’s almost completely changed. Committees like Best Buddies, Big Buddy, Carolina Microfinance Initiative, Nourish International, or Project Literacy do amazing things to change our community for the better. But we’re expected to believe that their time would potentially be better spent on protesting?

Protesting is  merely man’s shallow attempt to satisfy that need to do something even though we realize that human action is ultimately futile. But on a practical level, imagine all the good that could have been done if, instead of beating drums all day and yelling, the Occupiers had devoted their time and energies to a Habitat build. We ought to celebrate that “this campus today seems far away from its activist history.” It’s not a sign that we’re any less dedicated to improving the lot of man- it’s just that we’re finally beginning to do so, little by little.

You may remember when our beloved (it is at this point I wish there were a sarcasm font) governor suggested that we suspend Congressional elections in 2012, and the “unbiased” Daily Tar Heel refused to devote so much as a column on the issue. Instead they lambasted the governor with a vicious “Thumbs Down” in their Quick Hits section. If not, you can read my brief post about it here.

Well, today, the DTH gave similar treatment to another controversy involving the governor. During her campaign, several members of Perdue’s staff allegedly siphoned money from the campaign to pay certain members of the campaign under the table. The DTH gave this too a “Thumbs Down”. No article or column or letter to the editor… just a “Thumbs Down”.

This  gets at the ubiquitous liberal bias at UNC that Anthony Dent has been pointing out recently. It is not that liberals here necessarily wake up and say, “I’m going to discriminate against conservatives today” (though I’m convinced some of the very worst offenders may very well intentionally show bias because you have to try to be that hostile to open debate). They just sweep news that goes against liberal orthodoxy or that would harm their precious Democrats under the rug, and they see the conservative groups offering an alternative as an uneducated bunch who would become enlightened if they “got it”. Whether it is celebrating the diversity that manifests in Muslim students requesting a place to pray and perform the pre-prayer washing ritual (Wudu) and then lambasting Christmas trees on campus or not allowing their writers to affiliate with campus political parties and then ignoring scandals by Democrats, the Daily Tar Heel has shown that it is participates in  liberal bias that touches almost every aspect of campus politics and political discussion.