Perry and Romney discuss National Security and Obama

I honestly thought we could go one day without the current Republican candidates for the Presidency pitching a ridiculous position.  Unfortunately, that did not happen today.  Both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney decided attacking President Obama on national security was their opportunity to demonstrate just how oblivious they are to the reality of the world around them.  To be fair, each candidate has the right to state any position they want.  It just doesn't mean it will have any basis in reality (and it usually doesn't these days) nor does it mean I have to agree.

To summarize, Perry and Romney believe that America and our military interest should always rein supreme and although we should discuss our international military strategies with our allies it is ultimately our right to do as we please to protect American interests and never relinquish discussion or command of an operation to other allies.  The Washington Post had the following quote from Rick Perry:

“We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened, and we should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom-loving people,” he said. “It’s not our interest to go it alone.”  Perry added: “At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multilateral debating societies, and when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders.”

To me, this sounds inconsistent.  Apparently, we should always work with our allies, however, we should always go it alone as long as what America perceives as it vital interests are at stake.  Can anyone think of a time in recent memory when America has not implied its vital interests were at stake in international issues?  Please do not mistake my position here - I am completely for protecting our country, our sovereignty and our citizens.  But we are moving in to a new world and a new era.  The world is a much smaller place these days and it is not enough to justify military action by any country by itself without the consent of its allies; at least where imminent threat to the country is not involved.

President Obama has taken a bold stand against the type of reckless foreign policy that started under President Bush.  It was clear by the end of the Bush Presidency that flaunting America's prowess and throwing our military might in the faces of our allies did not do us any good in the end.  If we can all remember, we were almost unilaterally hated by most of the world including our allies by 2007 and we needed a change.  Obama brought that change and now the Mitt Romney has the audacity to state that “[u]nfortunately, when we look around the world today, we see a muddled picture of American’s foreign policy and our power.”  The fact that we are no longer hated by our allies and actually work with them to resolve conflicts does not muddle our foreign policy but rather solidifies our coalitions. 

Do you think we should continue the policies of President Bush and face the future alone?  Or should we solidify our coalitions and face the future with our allies and the knowledge that we only seek to protect that which is right and just?

Republican Candidates criticize FEMA: Are you kidding me?

As we have all see on t.v. for the past week Hurricane Irene hit the east coast this week.  There was devastation across multiple states, power outages for hundreds of thousands and yes, some people died.  In the midst of this destruction, the Republican candidates for President were discussing how they would help the citizens of these state,s right?  They set forth their positions on how best to rebuild and avoid another failure to respond similar to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, right?  Well...not exactly.

Republican candidate Michelle Bachmann asked, "Washington, D.C., you'd think by now, they'd get the message: an earthquake, a hurricane. Are you listening?"  She was referring of course to the fact that God was signalling to America that our spending was out of control.  Are you kidding me?  Another Republican candidate Ron Paul stated that he would eliminate FEMA because the government shouldn't help those who choose to live in risky places such as the coastline.  Are you kidding me?  I don't have the exact statistics available but too imply that millions of people that live in flood zones, earthquake zones, tornado zones, etc. are unworthy of assistance after a disaster because they chose to have their lives destroyed is ridiculous.  It is in horrible taste to joke about natural disasters when people are dieing just to score a cheap laugh at a political rally.

All this shows is that the Republican priorities are so far out of focus that none of the current candidates deserve a legitimate shot at the Presidency.  This is a systemic issues in our political system as most politicians will take the quick laugh and quick jab to score political points over doing what is right.  The Republicans should have been discussing how best to assist the east coast; not making jokes or looking how best to court the Tea Party.  Helping our fellow Americans during and following natural disasters is something we should always agree is necessary and right.  If we can't even agree on that then what exactly are we fighting for?

Bernanke and The Economy: Jackson Hole Speech

As this is my first post on the new blog I figured I would start off with something on every one's mind:  the sluggish economy.  We were in a recession and now apparently we're not; although for many of us it still feels like it never ended.  Mortgage defaults are still occurring every day, credit card balances are still high and politicians cannot seem to agree on what to do.  And then came a speech from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke - from Jackson Hole! 

I don't know about anyone else but with all the complex problems this country has a speech from Jackson Hole just doesn't do it for me.  I want a speech from the President, Congress and everyone else on the steps of the Capital Building declaring enough is enough and everyone now agrees on the future of this country.  I guess you can call me a dreamer because this will never happen.  So the next best option is clearly a speech from the Federal Reserve Chairman in Jackson Hole at the Federal Reserve's annual retreat. 

And after all the build-up and news reports of the the markets waiting for the federal reserve to declare its new monetary policies to save the country...nothing.  The federal reserve is not going to do anything at this time.  Some of you may be thinking this is a terrible idea.  In fact, it's only my opinion, I think that is a great idea.  We don't need any more help from the fed buying back mortgages and Treasury's or lowering interest rates (not that they could be lowered even if they wanted to).  It's time for the American public to take the reins and get this country back on track.  Congress has proven that they are incapable of passing meaningful legislation that can solve real problems and it is simply not the fed's job to fix the economy as a whole, nor should it be.  The fed exists to maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates not run the country and make decisions that the rest of us are incapable or unwilling to make.

So here is my proposal:  start expecting from the government what you would expect from yourself.  Would you spend more money each month than you earn with no end in sight?  Would you then go to your bank and take out money against your home to walk down the streets and hand money to those in need?  While altruistic, I would wager that most of you would not do this.  It doesn't make sense because before long you would end up with no home, no money and no way back.  I agree that removing entitlements is not an easy task and I also agree that we shouldn't turn a blind eye to those in need.  But a broke America cannot help anyone and its time we start admitting to ourselves that the U.S. Government cannot do everything and remaining healthy economically.  There is middle ground between helping everyone and spending beyond our means and helping no one.  It's about time we start discussing what that is without standing by the party line or expecting the federal reserve to come to the rescue.

What are your thoughts?