I have to say, so far I have been relatively pleased, for a Republican, by President elect Barack Obama’s appointments. With the possible exception of Hillary Clinton’s nomination to secretary of state, which I am not convinced would have happened if she hadn’t nearly defeated him in the Democratic primary and her last name wasn’t Clinton, most of his nominations have been centrist, qualified candidates.

Until yesterday.

The president elect nominated former congressman Leon Panetta as the new CIA director. Now, I have absolutely nothing against Mr. Panetta. Another administration position, especially one that deals with the budget (his expertise in Congress and as White House chief of Staff during the Clinton era) would have been completely appropriate.

But I agree wholeheartedly with Sen. Diane Feinstein when she declares that, “I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.” With the CIA coming off of a not so stellar to say the least record during the Bush administration, it is imperative that it be led by a person with strong knowledge of the nature of intelligence gathering. For all his qualifications as a public servant, Leon Panetta is not that person.

Sadly, it appears that Obama’s zeal to appease his leftist base might have gotten the best of him in this case. According to media reports, he refused to consider anyone who was even distantly associated with the Bush administration. Even California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, chair of the House Intelligence Committee and hardly a Bush cheerleader, was ruled out because of her initial tepid support for some Bush intelligence programs.

Let’s hope that Obama realizes this mistake, redirects Panetta to a position he is actually qualified for, and then appoints an experienced intelligence official as CIA chief.

Before I say anything else, I must commend President-Elect Barack Obama. He has shown to be quite formidable in campaigning and running an election as was evident less than two months ago. I may not agree with his policies nor his judgment and decision-making but I am thrilled that he has been able to get so many interested into politics. I am excited that he has been able to grow our nation’s electorate to greater size and I can only hope that these new voters will only become more involved and educated. I must also commend the president-elect for his audacity. As a first-term, junior senator he really has proved that anything is possible and that change may in fact occur for better or for worse. In particular, I must note his audacity when it comes to funding his politicking machine.

During the election, many sources such as the conservative blogosphere and editorial pages have cataloged many of Barack Obama’s fundraising to be suspect. False names were recorded as giving different contributions to the campaign. Although in most cases, the noted contributions were for small amounts, the fraud is still clear, apparent, and unreported in the mainstream media. Obama was notable for his fundraising in being able to attract and attain first time, small donors on the Internet. He was so successful that he was able to amass a considerable war chest during the greatly heated election process with both Clinton and McCain. In fact, fundraising was so successful that even after the election process, the Obama campaign has in its hands a $30 million surplus. Despite this, he still wants more.

I was just recently watching the local news this morning and after discussing the weather and New Year’s festivities around the world, the news soon reported that Obama was holding an essay contest for ten lucky winners to receive all-expense paid trips to the inauguration occurring in little less than three weeks. Thinking that this was too good to be true, I decided to research the issue online among both the blogosphere and the mainstream media. What I found was not too surprising at all. The contest is in fact occurring but more strikingly, despite the impressive war chest that Obama has collected, he is still asking for more donations!

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin, she notes that Obama is still grubbing for money. A snippet of an e-mail from the Obama campaign invites us to donate money stating that we “could be one of 10 selected to join us in Washington for all Inaugural events.” In fact, it continues stating that: “Any donation you make between now and January 8th counts — whatever you can afford. Show your support for a different kind of politics and a different kind of inauguration with a donation of $5 or more today.” Thanks David Plouffe but I would rather not. I understand from your e-mail that this inauguration will not be funded by Washington lobbyists or corporations “unlike other inaugurations,” might I suggest that you put the $30 million your campaign has stockpiled for that use or would that be too much to ask? Instead, must we nickel and dime Americans by both using funds from taxes or holding a pay-to-play donation lottery scheme? It seems that the pay-to-play system is in fact a favorite of Illinois politicians; it is only understandable why your campaign has chosen to do what it has done.

Regardless, I am sure that you will point out that donations are not required and that I can still attend the inauguration by writing an essay about the meaning of the event as reported by many outlets in the mainstream media such as the Agence France-Presse. However, why am I still suggested, prompted, and encouraged to submit money in addition to my essay submission? Regardless, congratulations Obama on adding $21 million to your war chest as a result of your appeal whether it be from your e-mail or the “essay contest.”

Barack Obama, just what will you do with all this money after the inauguration? Will you spend some on your impoverished relatives like “Aunti” Zeituni Onyango who has lived in public housing in Boston? Could you perhaps see it in your heart to donate some of your war chest to rebuild Sarah Palin’s hometown church targeted of a “suspicious fire?”

Last week I blogged that despite the tremendous amounts of undiscovered waste in state government, tax increases might be necessary to bridge the state budget deficit. I suggested strictly temporary increase in the income tax rate that would be equitable to all California workers, regardless of how much they make.

Apparently Governor Schwarzenegger doesn’t read The Patriot.

Instead, he has proposed a new budget solution that includes massive tax incrases, the majority of which are regressive in nature, meaning they hurt those with less wealth more than those with greater wealth:

The governor’s proposed budget includes all the tax hikes the governor proposed in November, including a temporary the 1 1/2-cent boost in the state sales tax, a nickel-a-drink hike in the tax on alcohol, a new tax on oil refined in California and expansion of the sales tax to services including vehicle repairs and veterinary bills.

But the governor also plans to raise about $1.4 billion by reducing the deduction for dependents on state income tax forms from the current $309 a year to $99, beginning in 2009.

The governor should be ashamed of himself. All of his proposed increases would hurt those with the least amount of money, especially the unemployed, families, and students. This won’t do anything to help California’s economy - indeed, it will only make it worse, especially for all those who are already suffering.

Legislative Democrats, who constantly position themselves as the champions of the poor, should join Republicans and come out strongly against this proposal. Will they really stand up for the lower and middle class? Or will their thirst for more revenue lead them to ignore one of their major groups of supporters: those struggling to get by.

We shall see.

While it struggles with a sagging economy and begins to layoff workers, the City of San Francisco under city attorney Dennis Herrera has found another way to spend taxpayer dollars: suing the state of California over existing lawthat allows health insurance to be sold to men and women at different rates.

A few observations:

1. If it can be shown, as it appears it can, that men and women have a different level of risk, then why shouldn’t insurance companies be allowed to charge them different rates? After all, this is what life insurance companies do: it can be shown that men on average die sooner than women. If you deny insurance providers the right to evaluate each individual based on the actual risk present, you destroy their ability to operate a successful business model.

2. The city attorney claims that the “discrimination” leads to higher costs for everyone becuase public has to care for those women that aren’t able to afford health insurance. Even if we grant that this is true, the companies will be forced to raise rates for men to make up the difference. So instead of having to spend taxpayer dollars caring for the women who can’t afford insurance, we will be spending it caring for the same amount of people, except this time it will be men and women. There is no net savings.

3. Why is this a matter for the City Attorney? Even if this were discrimination, aren’t there plently of civil liberties organizations that would love to take up the case? Especially in these times when the city is cutting back and citizens are facing service cuts and layoffs, the City Attorney should not be an taxpayer funded extension of the ACLU.

A stupid suit all around. Get back to work solving the real problems in the city Dennis Herrera.

For the next few weeks, I’ll be blogging about the ASUC recall election scheduled for January. I hope to give you the basic information and some commentary here and there – all from the perspective of (i) your BCR representative in the ASUC and (ii) a strong opponent of the recall election. Let’s review the basics:

The ASUC is your train wreck of a student government. It is comprised of five executive officers (President, Executive VP, External Affairs VP, Academic Affairs VP, and Student Advocate) and 20 Senators. Eight Senators are with CalServe, eight with Student Action, one (yours truly) is with the Berkeley College Republicans, one is with the Cooperative Movement, and two are Independents.

One of those Independents, John Moghtader, is the subject of a recall election scheduled for January 26-27, 2009. Moghtader’s opponents claim he was involved in a physical altercation on November 13 between Palestinian protesters and organizers of a concert for Israel Liberation Week. Witnesses claim they saw him in the altercation, while others deny his involvement. Moghtader himself says he intended only to break up the fight. As reported by the Daily Cal, Moghtader will not be cited with any crime.

Even before this news, five Boalt students submitted a recall petition which eventually gained more than 1,000 signatures (the minimum required for a recall election to be approved). The ASUC set the date for the last week of January, though much of the recall details still need to be hammered out by the ASUC Judicial Council. The cost of the recall election is estimated to be around $50,000, an enormous portion of your student government’s resources.

Had Senator Moghtader been cited with battery, or had a videotape emerged of his involvement in the altercation, I’d be completely for the recall and I’d probably vote for his removal. But in the absence of any verifiable evidence (i.e. no “he said, she said”), it is clear this recall is a sham. Its supporters overplayed their hand by not waiting for the Alameda County DA to issue its ruling – a demonstration that their motives are political and have little to do with what happened on November 13. More about Moghtader’s history in the ASUC is on the way later. Stay tuned.

Apparently banks don’t feel the need to tell the public what their government bailout money was or is be spent on. It was intended to be spent on unfreezing the credit markets, but as is typical of Washington nobody actually bothered to mandate that.

Hey, I got an idea. Charities are suffering becuase of the current economic meltdown. Let’s ask the government for some cash based upon the idea that if we will have more money, we will give more to charity. Of course, in their haste to help charities (think of the children!) lawmakers will not bother to attach any meaningful mandates. Then we will use the money to go on vacation to Hawaii.

Sound like a plan?

Seems there are too many homeless across the bay in SF and there just aren’t enough services for everyone. So the city’s proposed solution?

Require that the homeless show proof of SF residency before recieving service. Kind of like how the city has been a leader in the effort to make sure that those applying for state and federal services prove their legal residency first.

Oh, wait, nevermind.

Attorney General Jerry Brown has decided to abandon his role as the legal defender of state law and urge the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, which eliminated same sex marriage in California. Brown said he could not find reasonable grounds upon which to defend the measure.

It’s important to step back for a moment and realize what the role of the attorney general is. The attorney general, as prescribed in section 12512 of California Government Code is required to “prosecute or defend all causes to which the State, or any State officer is a party in his or her official capacity.” Since proposition 8 passed and thus is now a part of the state constitution, it is his duty to defend it, unless there is truly no grounds on which to do so. It is completely irrelevant whether Brown personally believes that the statute is legal; he has a duty to defend it.

So is there reasonable ground to defend Prop 8? Brown says no, but the evidence points to the contrary. Ken Starr thinks so, as he authored a brief urging the court to uphold the statute. The State Supreme Court must think so, as it refused to toss the measure off the ballot when it had the chance before the election (if it was such a clear cut issue, why would the court have allowed the unconstitutional measure to proceed?) And even Brown himself seems to suggest that there might be legal grounds to defend Prop 8, writing on page 91 of his own brief that, “Existing precedents of this court do not support the invalidation of Prop 8 either as a revision or violation of the separation of powers.”

Regardless of one’s opinions on same sex marriage, the state should be gravely concerned about an attorney general that refuses to uphold the duties of his office. And we should be even more concerned that he wants to be our next governor.

The budget battle continues in Sacramento, with the latest proposal by Democrats to close the massive deficit including an increase in the gas tax, sales tax, and income tax, along with some cuts. Republicans are opposed to the new taxes.

This dispute has created gridlock that recently led to the suspension of various construction projects, resulting in many workers losing their jobs. Warnings have abounded that massive cuts in state services will result if a solution is not reached within the next few months.

This is not an easy one to solve. Republicans are absolutely adamant about not raising taxes. The public employee unions are absolutely adamant about preventing layoffs. And the Democrats seem adamant about raising taxes.

So here is my humble suggestion about how this could be addressed.

First, lawmakers should look for any and all cuts that can be made that do not impact the overall economy. Any waste should be gone. This is common sense.

But most likely, not enough waste will be identified to come even close to what is necessary (that doesn’t mean there isn’t that much useless government, but the auditing process to find it would be so massive it would take far more time than the state has). At that point we have to decide, what impacts everyday Californians more, massive service cuts or increased taxes? Both hurt the economy, the million dollar question is deciding which will hurt less.

Since neither side will probably be willing to cave in completely, a compromise will be necessary. What follows is a possible way that Republicans could agree to temporarily higher taxes and still advance conservative, small government ideals.

1. Insist that any increased tax be a limited, equal, and across the board, increase in the income tax. Most of the proposals that have been made so far by both the governor and Democrats have been to raise sales, gas, or similar taxes. These taxes are all regressive, meaning they impact the poor more than the wealthy. This is an excellent opportunity for Republicans to make inroads into traditionally Democratic voter blocks – who’s fighting for the poor now?

2. Insist that tax increases are temporary and in the form of a loan – meaning that if a tax is increased by a certain amount for a certain number of years, it will be reduced by that same amount for the same number of years afterwards. That way taxpayers get their money back for bailing out the state for its fiscal imprudence. This would probably have to be a constitutional amendment that Democratic legislators would have to pledge to support on the ballot so that a future legislature or governor couldn’t just make the tax permanent.

3. Insist on a hard spending cap to make sure that government lives within its means in the future. This would make sure that a problem such as we have this year does not reoccur. This is something Republicans have wanted for a long time – this could be their chance to get it by insisting upon it as a condition for a temporary tax increase.

Democrats are very desperate to increase taxes on Californians. An agreement among Republicans, if all spending cut options have been exhausted, to agree to tax increases with the above conditions could be very beneficial. It would show the public that they are indeed willing to put something out there and put pressure on democrats to pass these common sense measures, instead of the other way around. We could solve this budget crisis and have some serious reform to limit government at the same time.

Last night, the Berkeley Objectivist Club, sympathizers, and skeptics packed a lecture hall in VLSB to hear Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute speaking on capitalism, free markets, and their “failure” in the current economic crisis.  Brook first asked the crowd who was to blame for the mess.  The answer he was looking for: financial institutions, greedy corporate titans, free markets, capitalism.  He then asked, if free markets are to blame, did we have free markets?  The short answer: no.

The government has long had a policy of manipulating and distorting incentives and markets, and that policy has not been limited to the political left.  For greater than a half century, the government has subsidized homeownership by deducting interest from taxation, so that home prices are artificially low.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, having an implicit government guarantee, were able to offer loans at interest rates that drove out competitors.  Under the Community Reinvestment Act, subprime mortgages were mandated (that’s not a typo).  Add to that the Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping interest rates exceptionally low, and you have a recipe for a housing bubble. The list goes on.

Homeownership is a wonderful thing.  It fosters an ownership society, where people work for and maintain their possessions, and more importantly, their communities.  For some, the equity can be used to take out lower-interest loans, which dramatically reduce the cost of education (particularly for the homeowning poor, who need the benefits of education most).  But everything has a cost, and when prices do not reflect costs, markets will not function.

Even if this was the limit of government intervention, the mere presence of statutes such as the CRA meant financial institutions saw profits being generated by banks and decided to hop onto the bandwagon just to keep up and prevent their capital from flowing out of their companies.  Furthermore, this regulatory atmosphere leads companies to use regulators as an excuse.  During the Chinese consumer good scare a few months ago, the toy industry lobbied extensively for more regulation, simply because that would shift legal liability away from them and onto bureaucrats (which are rarely, if ever, held responsible for the damage they cause).  And, if that fails, the companies in question can merely lobby for a bail-out, which severely distorts economic incentives and makes the problem fester, all at the expense of taxpayers whose wallets have been pried open by ever-more-willing politicians.

Capitalism and markets behaved exactly as they should have, given the rules they were forced to play by.  Given that the market in this case was not free, all we can say about this crisis is that a mixed economy, partially government controlled or regulated, and partially free, cannot function smoothly.  Now we must only ask ourselves if the direction we want is more or less freedom.  For Yaron Brook, the answer is a resounding affirmation of economic freedom.

But to do that, we need to dispel some ideas about morality and self-interest.  Today, children are taught to play nice, share, don’t be selfish.  But why?  Why should any person hold another person’s life above his own?  What moral claim do others have on their neighbors’ lives?  Self-interest is not myopic greed, it is merely individuals determining for themselves what is in their best long term interests, and to deny that as a real possibility is patronizing, paternalistic, and patently false.  If morality is understood to mean avoiding any kind of harm to others, by action or omission, free market capitalism is the only moral economic system, because it does not confiscate the wealth or freedom of one group for another’s benefit, but instead demands that all parties trade value for value, on mutually beneficial terms.  Brooks ended by asking not that people go out to support capitalism, or self-interest, but that they support a code of ethics that values individualism and freedom, and as a consequence, free markets.

This view contrasts starkly with a previous lecture at UC Berkeley, given by Economics Professor Martha Olney, on the same subject.  The lecture, directed at engineering majors who had little to no economic or legal background, grossly misstated the causes of the current economic problem and blamed them squarely on lack of regulation and evil corporations.  She dismissed the Fed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA as “Republican talking points” with “no value whatsoever”.  Olney, while evangelizing a largely uninformed audience of her particular political beliefs, conveniently forgets that financial firms are some of the most heavily regulated in the country, and that freedom will be the cost of her preferred solution.

The appropriate conservative and libertarian response to such nonsense is simply that markets were not free, and that an immoral economic system was doomed to fail.  Perhaps if free markets are perceived to be a moral force in our culture, we will know the end to government’s creation and exacerbation of economic problems.

I just came back from an ASUC Senate meeting (still in progress, heading into the eternally painful guest announcements). The liason from the UC Police Department, Sgt. Tucker, had the simplest explanation for how to avoid brawls like last week’s. To paraphrase, it was “don’t be mean. Be nice.”

Several senators really, really, really wanted the police department to release information about what actually happened at the brawl. It was an illustration of how folks aren’t yet interested in bringing about peace or reconciliation or a deescalation of tensions between the two groups.

Stop and consider for a moment: Why would anyone want the details of the fight publicly revealed? My journalistic nerve certainly clamors for that information, but I also recognize the problems that arise from publication of the events. If the goal is to provide information to punish perpetrators of violence, then the information needs to go to the police department, not the public. Publicly announcing information like this serves only one purpose: public vilification of the opposition group.

The two groups are engaged in a public relations war. They aren’t really calling on folks to take any action to solve a problem, but to simply convince them to take “the right side.” And so public vilification of the opposition is simply an attempt to take political advantage of the situation. This isn’t limited to one side or this example. The competing press releases, which out of respect for humanity I won’t link here, waste no time in claiming racism from evil unprovoked attackers. Extremist news outlets on both sides have picked up these press releases and are trying to control public opinion elsewhere. (So far, there has been no mainstream news interest, which is probably a good thing for Cal)

The fact of the matter is that every attempt to publicly vilify the opposition, every accusation of racism, or refusal to dialogue, or swinging first, or whatever, is an escalation. It attempts to involve those who are not involved, and to do so in a manner that brings them in on a particular side. It sets battle lines that make it difficult for the opposition to do anything but defend themselves by striking back. If they are to be taken seriously as folks interested in preventing these kinds of conflicts, they need to simply stop. Stop trying to convince folks that the other side is evil. Stop trying to extract political advantage. Stop refusing to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the other side is, in fact, acting in good faith.

So it’s “peace not prejudice” week here at Cal. Excellent. Considering that things these days haven’t really been so “peaceful” here on campus, especially between the pro-Palestinian and the Zionist voices, perhaps this peace and not prejudice week is a good idea.

As I walked on campus early this morning, I didn’t really see or feel or hear much of a change. In fact, it felt like any other day walking down Sproul. The only difference was that the pro-Palestinian students decided to have a little rendezvous right where I wanted to walk. Surprisingly, I first thought it was Greek dancing (which put a smile on my Hellenic face); but then I heard the music, noticed the Palestinian flag, and the convenient location of the celebration located right in front of the Cal Democrats table. I couldn’t help but feel a little annoyed. Maybe this was because not too far down from all the happy dancing were the pro-Israel students, holding the Israeli flag and feeling a little aggravated. This is a great step towards peace and not prejudice. I wonder what else I will witness this week.

I think it’s great that people celebrate their own culture and identity. No one should ever be ashamed of doing so. However, following the recent brawl and the extremely high tensions between these two groups, a better step towards peace could have been less obnoxious today and a little more, well, peaceful. I think this week could be better used if the pro-Palestinian and the Zionist students attempt to come together and reconcile their differences here on campus. I know that isn’t as easy as it sounds, and the fundamental differences in beliefs can be a huge road block, but if the two groups really want “peace” and not “prejudice”, then they should be seizing this opportunity. Call me an idealist, but why shouldn’t they try to reconcile differences (if only for this week) for the sake of peace and not prejudice? And why can’t the two groups come and celebrate together on Sproul? UC Berkeley should be a place of free speech, thoughts, and opinions which people can express without the fear of being harassed. If the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups actually come together in peace, then that would be honoring what this week (and Cal) is supposed to be about. In fact, if I saw that, I may just join in on the celebrating too… although I might end up Greek dancing out of pure habit. It looks similar anyway.

Fighting over Israel and Palestine is a popular pastime at Cal. I mean no offense to my more politically inspired fellow students, some of whom I know personally (on both sides), but there comes a time when you really have to scratch your head and wonder what it is they’re trying to accomplish.

Following up on the graffiti wars of September, and the speaker disruption of October, seeing a balcony brawl as a followup isn’t nearly as surprising as one might hope.

The second floor of Eshleman Hall, by the way, houses the ASUC, which is the student government at Cal, and it is currently in the hands of the pro-Palestinian CalSERVE party. The Palestinian flags appeared from that balcony, apparently after receiving permission from ASUC officials meeting there. As an aside, I think the ASUC should perhaps reflect a bit on how appropriate it is for the student government’s facilities to be used to directly engage in activism to counter the activities of student groups.

The Zionist voice on campus has undergone a fairly dramatic change in recent years, as the Israel Action Committee has been displaced by more active and confrontational groups such as Tikvah. The pro-Palestinian groups have engaged in an opposite shift, moving from occupying buildings to a much more defensive posture, which some pro-Israel groups have been happy to play aggressor to, as was the case when the pro-Palestinian event was disrupted by Zionist activists in October.

So now we have both a sitting and a former ASUC Senator reported as being involved in a brawl. Their party, the SQUELCH! party, which has traditionally been the party involved in bringing common sense levity to overly egotistical ASUC activities, has likely suffered damage to its reputation that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse, leaving the student body without the “fight the entrenched interests” option they’ve had for student government. And, of course, pro-Palestinian groups have the perfect public relations victory heading into Peace Not Prejudice Week.

My advice to Zionist groups? Chill. Get a good grasp on what, exactly, it is you’re trying to accomplish at Cal, and target your activities towards that goal. Generically “fighting for Israel” may feel good, but your cause isn’t improved by outbursts of anger. A golden opportunity to question the ASUC’s hostile attitude towards certain groups and causes was blown.

Putting aside the “Us vs. Them” mentality may be a good start. I don’t mean this in the generic, Obamaesque “unity is good” sense. Drawing battle lines of allies and enemies makes sense if you’re actually fighting a battle that involves some form of victory. Conquering land? Us vs. Them. Moving hearts and minds? Not so much. If you aren’t on either side, why would you care about the views of folks whose goal seems to be simply to defeat the opponents? Talking about the importance of freedom and how valuable and rare Israel is in the region for its respect for human rights comes across as empty if trying to settle differences in a much more peaceful and secure place ends in a brawl.

The radical left, anti-American, communist, World Cant Wait organization held a protest today led by Cindy Sheehan. It began at MLK park and then went to the Marine Recruiting Center.

Of course, the Berkeley College Republicans were also there to support the Marines and America against the hateful WCW group.

This picture shows a school teacher with her students passing by chanting “No more War!” They start them young in Berkeley…

Berkeley College Republicans

World Cant Wait protesting on Shattuck Avenue and Allston, while BCR members were standing right next to them chanting “USA! USA!”

Berkeley police keeping an eye on the protestors