Month: May 2009

Is Obama More A Prisoner Of Bush Than He Needs To Be?

Scott Horton strikes the right tone:

[G]overnment must be restrained by the knowledge that it is not omniscient, that it makes mistakes particularly when it purports to be all-knowing, and that justice is our most fundamental value. Obama’s proposals on “prolonged detention” will be worth a careful hearing when they are finally presented with any measure of specificity. But they should also be confronted with healthy skepticism and an insistence that they be checked against the Constitution and the laws and values that define America.

Deal With The Debt!

Or face serious inflation. To my mind, the key test of the Obama administration next year will be a serious move to get long-term deficits under control. It's asinine to expect fiscal improvement in the depths of a deep recession, and dumb to want government to cut back now. But in ten years' time? John Taylor sees the scenarios that could take place if we don't get a handle on long-term entitlements and defense soon:

Inflation will do it. But how much? To bring the debt-to-GDP ratio down to the same level as at the end of 2008 would take a doubling of prices. That 100 per cent increase would make nominal GDP twice as high and thus cut the debt-to-GDP ratio in half, back to 41 from 82 per cent. A 100 per cent increase in the price level means about 10 per cent inflation for 10 years. But it would not be that smooth – probably more like the great inflation of the late 1960s and 1970s with boom followed by bust and recession every three or four years, and a successively higher inflation rate after each recession.

The Cannabis Closet: Insomnia

A reader writes:

I am a stay at home Mom of a toddler, active in my synagogue and preschool. I also have suffered from secondary insomnia almost my entire life. Two or three nights a week I fall 730px-Bubba_Kush asleep, only to wake up 3 or 4 hours late. I am then unable to return to sleep for the rest of the night.

In my twenties, I had a cigar box full of marijuana that I left in a drawer by my bed. (I was never a recreational user, since smoking in the company of others made me feel paranoid.) If I woke up in the middle of the night, I would smoke a little, go back to sleep and wake up feeling bright eyed and bushy tailed. But I stopped smoking when I met my now husband, since he didn’t approve. Now my insomnia has gotten much worse since the birth of my child, with all the attendant middle of the night awakenings. I have tried prescription sleep aids, they make it impossible to wake up if my daughter cries. The over-the-counter ones work, but they leave me drugged and hungover the next morning. Sedatives work, but it bothers me that they can be physically addictive.

Some bleary eyed mornings I find myself reminiscing about that cigar box I had by my bed so many years ago. I know if I had a prescription for the drug, my husband would not dissapprove.  I look around the playground at the other mommies and wonder which one might have a connection.

Weak Fruits Of A Strong Stimulus

Daniel Indiviglio isn’t too impressed by yesterday’s consumer confidence numbers:

Like Bush’s package, Obama’s will likely slow the bleeding for a while. That’s what we’re beginning to see. After all, if $787 billion can’t begin to stimulate the economy, then we are in very, very big trouble. The timing of the package will also help, as its benefit will be spaced out over a few years, instead of a one-time pop. The fact is, however, anytime you throw free money at people, they get happier, or in this case, more confident. The problem is, eventually we have to realize that this money — as well as the money attached to all of the bailouts — was not really free.

One notices that the major critique of the Obama stimulus package – that it was strung out for two years – is now seen by some as one of its main virtues.

Fewer Than Ten

 Ryan Avent tackles Waxman-Markey and climate change once more:

… it will be difficult to get every last microstate to sign on to a climate agreement, but it's obviously not necessary to get every last microstate to sign on to a climate agreement. The Vatican's impact on global emissions isn't worth discussing or pitching a fit over. In fact, there are fewer than ten relevant players, and only two really relevant players not already committed to reductions — the US and China. Given that climate negotiations are part of a repeated game between the two great powers (that is, they're more or less constantly talking about one economic or political issue or another), it seems very likely indeed that an American pre-commitment to emission reductions would facilitate a similar Chinese commitment.

One of his commenters asks:

What India isn't relevant? How so?