I’m not one for “I told ya so”, but, I told you so:

In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it.

Last week the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans were involved in intense negotiations over not only the size of the budget for the remainder of the FY2011 budget, and spending cuts within that budget, but also several GOP “riders,” or policy provisions attached to the bill.

One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.

So Bush Republicans: what do you think of Signing Statements now?

Your president said this last night:

Between 2001 and 2009 [...] a very specific philosophy reigned in Washington: You cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires; you cut regulations for special interests; you cut back on investments in education and clean energy, in research and technology. The idea was if we put blind faith in the market, if we let corporations play by their own rules, if we left everybody to fend for themselves, America would grow and America would prosper.

That was the philosophy that was put forward. For eight years, we tried that. And that experiment failed miserably.

Important note: Obama is full of shit.

Look anyone who is under the delusion that George W. Bush was some kind of market fundamentalist needs to have their head examined. What the vast majority of our pundit class, current ruling party and members of the political left don’t seem to understand is that the current backlash against big government has been a long time brewing. The Prophet (the good Jewish nerdy one, not the insane Catholic obstetrician one) is fond of pointing out the Tea Party is, in large part, blow-back against the excesses of the Bush Administration. Once our ruling class gets that through their thick skulls maybe we will get some real progress on this issue.

The West Was Written blogger has an interesting analysis of the civic virtue angle as presented in Antigone:

Once the confetti is swept up, the real test of governing begins. This is when King Creon’s admonishment [to be skeptical of our leaders' self-advertisements] becomes important. WE MUST WATCH OUR RULERS – and this is daunting because there are so very many of them these days. Where to begin? Begin with the understanding that this duty is not exciting. That it requires sacrifice and boring conversations on multiple occasions with people your delicate feelings would rather avoid…

Why all of that watching? Politicians never EVER say what they really mean. It takes multiple times listening to their speeches and interviews (or better yet being in the room with one by going to boring government meetings) to really get a sense of what they’re actually saying.

The conflict between what’s important and what’s exciting is clearest in politics.  It’s why the Cordoba House mosque attracts more attention than the Financial Reform Bill, and why Sarah Palin has more than 2,000,000 followers on Facebook, while Paul Ryan has fewer than 6,000.  Government’s most important functions are rarely sexy, which is why it’s necessary to keep a close, weary eye on it and the people who run it.

But we should apply our skepticism means as well as the proper goals and purpose of government.  Keeping politicians and bureaucrats honest is essential to liberty, but only if we are equally vigilant about keeping them on task.

And what is that task?  Ask George W. Bush, and it’s to end tyranny on Earth, among other things.  According to Barack Obama, it’s to restore science, help people achieve a decent wage and comfortable retirement, and — famously — slow rise of the oceans and heal the planet.  God only knows what they’ll be saying in 2012.

We didn’t always speak this way.  Washington’s Farewell Address is usually remembered for its warnings against foreign alliances and factionalism, but those are less relevant to us than this section:

I shall carry it [my gratitude to you] with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

…The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize.

Even with the 18th century flourishes, it’s amazing how modest the old man’s expectations were both for and about the government he had lead for 15 of the last 20 years.  Washington offered no mission or crusade to change the world, only the hope that he had maintained the country’s institutions so Americans could follow their own pursuits in life, society, and business.  He didn’t offer his fellow citizens meaning from the government because — in his estimation — it has none to offer.  Indeed, the Farewell reads more like a letter from a retiring CEO to his shareholders than that of the nation’s first Head of State.

Those days are gone: America is too powerful and the world too complicated for us to try return to the style of government we had in 1796, even if we wanted to.  But keeping an eye on our politicians — tedious though that may — to ensure that they’re honest and doing only what they should be is as essential as ever.

The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.

He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.

Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.

I’ve complained numerous times (e.g.) that, for all the hubub about what a great speaker Obama is, the only thing he has ever persuaded anyone of is that he’s a great speaker. I can’ t say I’m surprised in the least that he cannot sell health care.

Let me be a little provacative: When Obama speaks, Americans say, “What a clever man is Obama.” When George Bush spoke, Americans said, “Let us march on Bagdhad.”

This is, of course, a gross oversimplication. But it’s also true. George Bush, for all his supposed inability to speak and all his supposed stupidity, was able to approach the American people with an originally unpopular idea and convince them that he was right. His argument wasn’t “Listen to me because I’m George Bush;” instead, it was “listen to me because overthrowing Saddam is the right thing to do.” The failure of George Bush’s second term rests largely on his decision, conscious or not, to stop trying to persuade his fellow Americans of the correctness of his ideas.

Obama’s argument, mostly, is that we should listen to him because he’s Obama. But no one in America has that sort of inate political power. We’re a spirited people who don’t take kindly to being told what to do. Obama’s inability to persuade, despite the supposed cleverness of his speeches, will continue to be the signal weakness of his presidency. And we will not again have a successful president until someone appears on the political stage with the ability and desire to persuade us that he’s correct.

That we’ve been unable to discuss a subject this important — though for entirely different reasons, depending on whom you ask — for more than five years speaks very, very poorly for us; after 200 years of practice with republicanism, one would think our citizens could have an intelligent public debate about a controversial subject.

Jim Manzi’s post on the Corner is a genuine exception and something of an antidote: it frames the debate rationally, weighs arguments for and against, and then makes a reasoned judgment.  It’s by no means a definitive statement, but it’s the kind of argument we need.

My thoughts are below the fold, but they’re less important than what Manzi wrote.  Go read the whole thing.

I almost completely agree with Manzi, which is almost annoying, as I’m more grateful for the clarity he’s offered than to see my own thoughts argued so forcefully.

Personally, I do not have a moral problem with waterboarding a terrorist to find a ticking timebomb, and would condone many kinds of more serious torture under that circumstance.  To my knowledge, however, this situation has not occurred during the GWOT and is unlikely ever to happen; at least, not as likely as the Bush administration’s supporters would argue.

So far as I understand, the Bush Administration did encounter a number of situations where they captured important al Qaeda operatives who almost certainly knew of timely information that could be extremely useful and time-sensitive.  Though a case could be made for waterboarding or torture in these cases, it’s nowhere near as strong as the former.  For both moral and practical reasons — largely those spelled out by Manzi — I’d argue we shouldn’t do this as a matter of policy.  If a situation ever arises where there is little other choice, we have safeguards in place to defend our intelligence agents (such as presidential pardons).

That waterboarding should be outlawed or constitutes “torture” does not mean that it is anywhere near as repugnant as the kind of grizzly, medieval practices that are the norm elsewhere.  Scientific hanging may be a nasty and ugly, but it’s infinitely more humane than being drawn and quartered; so much so that describing them both as “a form of execution” so muddies the subject as to make a debate about capital punishment impossible.  The same confusion occurs when folks like Andrew Sullivan lump waterboarding in with all other methods of torture.

Why in God’s name didn’t the Bush Administration stonewalled this issue while they were still in office — when they might have been able to frame the debate and salvage their reputation on this matter — is beyond me. Why did they lie about not torturing prisoners* when it was clear, given the likelihood of a Democratic victory in 2008, that the truth would come out in due time and that they’d be caught? Has the security situation changed so much since in the past few months that it’s safe to release this information now, though it wasn’t on January 19th?

President Bush and Cheney constantly told us that the decisions they made during the War on Terror have kept us safe and were absolutely necessary. To the extent this is true, they are responsible for allowing those policies to be undone by their successor.

On a final note, I cannot let the subject pass without pointed out what a pompous, self-satisfied bastard President Obama has been on this.  Whatever honest disagreement he has with Bush is wholly overshadowed by his cynical desire to make himself look righteous by making is predecessor look evil.  Disclosing the techniques used against terrorists while withholding the intelligence gathered from those interrogations is like showing the afterbirth without showing the baby. It’s the kind of cynically self-serving, holier-than-thou slick move that’s typified this Administration since January; I’m as disgusted as I am sick of it.

* I’m witting that on the assumption that the reports that KMS was waterboarded 183 times in a month are accurate. It’s difficult to square that figure with Bush’s statement that “We do not torture”; one might as well accept Clinton’s explanation that he did not technically have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski.

And there we have it. The efficacy of the techniques is inconsequential if the morality runs counter to everything America stands for.

Thank god someone at Fox News has their head on straight.

More

In his directive, Mr. Obama said any signing statement issued before his presidency should be viewed with doubt, placing an asterisk beside all of those issued by Mr. Bush and other former presidents.

“To ensure that all signing statements previously issued are followed only when consistent with these principles,” he wrote, “executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the attorney general before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, any provision of a statute.”

Hope everyone is pleased with themselves.  Now that Obama’s president, he (quite understandably) feels free to ignore his predecessor’s objections at will.  This should be especially disturbing to anyone who maintained that Bush used signing statements to protect his rightful powers, since the laws those statements modified are still on the books and Bush isn’t president any more.

John McCain — who’s no genius when it comes to constitutional matters — was right on this one: signing statements are foolish quick-fixes that keep bad laws on the books and allow presidents and their successors to act unconstitutionally.

Elsewhere in the article, Obama promises to keep using signing statements, though with greater reserve than Bush:

But Mr. Obama also signaled that he intended to use signing statements himself if Congress sent him legislation with provisions he decided were unconstitutional. He promised to take a modest approach when using the statements, legal documents issued by a president the day he signs bills into law that instruct executive officials how to put the statutes into effect. But Mr. Obama said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.

“In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded,” Mr. Obama wrote in a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch.

That’s a relief.  Because Obama never makes empty promises that appear to elevate his own virtues at the expense of others.

Today’s progressives apologize to the world for America’s treatment of terrorists (not a single one of whom has been executed). Franklin Roosevelt, when faced with German saboteurs (who had caused not a single casualty), had them electrocuted and buried in numbered graves next to a sewage plant.

The counterpart to Republican incompetence has been a Democratic opposition warped by sentiment. The deaths of thousands of Americans in attacks upon our embassies, warships, military barracks, civil aviation, capital, and largest city were not a criminal matter but an act of war made possible by governments and legions of enablers in the Arab world. Nothing short of war — although not the war we have waged — could have been sufficient in response. The opposition is embarrassed by patriotism and American self-interest, but above all it is blind to the gravity of the matter. Though scattered terrorists allied with militarily insignificant states are not, as some conservatives assert, closely analogous to Nazi Germany, the accessibility of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons makes the destructive capacity of these antagonists unfortunately similar — a fact, especially in regard to Iran, that is persistently whistled away by the Left.

An existential threat of such magnitude cannot be averted by imagining that it is the work of one man and will disappear with his death; by mousefully pleasing the rest of the world; by hopefully excluding the tools of war; or by diplomacy without the potential of force, which is like a policeman without a gun, something that doesn’t work anymore even in Britain. The Right should have labored to exhaustion to forge a coalition, and the Left should have been willing to proceed without one. The Right should have been more respectful of constitutional protections, and the Left should have joined in making temporary and clearly defined exceptions. In short, the Right should have had the wit to fight, and the Left should have had the will to fight.

Both failed.

Read it all.

Let’s imagine this scene: You are the president of one of these banks in which the government has taken a position. One day two young Stanford grads walk in your door. One is named Larry, and the other is named Sergey. They each are wearing jeans and a T-shirt. They tell you that they have this thing called a “search engine,” and they are naming it — get this — “Google.” They tell you to type in any word in this box on a computer screen and — get this — hit a button labeled “I’m Feeling Lucky.” Up comes a bunch of Web sites related to that word. Their start-up, which they are operating out of their dorm room, has exhausted its venture capital. They need a loan.

What are you going to say to Larry and Sergey as the president of the bank? “Boys, this is very interesting. But I have the U.S. Treasury as my biggest shareholder today, and if you think I’m going to put money into something called ‘Google,’ with a key called ‘I’m Feeling Lucky,’ you’re fresh outta luck. Can you imagine me explaining that to a Congressional committee if you guys go bust?”

And then what happens if the next day the congressman from Palo Alto, who happens to be on the House banking committee, calls you, the bank president, and says: “I understand you turned down my boys, Larry and Sergey. Maybe you haven’t been told, but I am one of your shareholders — and right now, I’m not feeling very lucky. You get my drift?”

Maybe nothing like this will ever happen. Maybe it’s just my imagination. But maybe not …

(H/T)

I really hope there’s a sunset provision to the government ownership of stock in the banks.  It could take decades to get the government out of the bank ownership business.