Washington to set executive salaries as auto boondoggle deepens

Yesterday, President Obama offered a stern warning to GM and Chrysler to shape up in 60 days or face bankruptcy. To show he meant business, the administration asked for the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner and strongly suggested that Chrysler work out a merger with foreign car manufacturer Fiat. Meanwhile, the President promised to guarantee the warranties on all GM and Chrysler vehicles, a move designed to buttress confidence in the automakers’ products but, in my opinion, isn’t a road we need to go down.

Auto workers are beginning to chafe against the moves, saying, quite rightly, that the blue-collar auto industry is being treated worse than the white-collar Wall Street community. They even have some limited sympathy for Wagoner, noting his push-out would have been easier to swallow if the head of an irresponsible bank had been forced out. I’ll go one step further – why not ask for the ouster of the UAW President, since the unions had a part to play in this as well? I won’t hold my breath for that, as we all know the reason a Democratic President wouldn’t dare go after the head of any union, yet has no problem demonizing the company those unions work for. And you know who comes out ahead in this? Ford, who eschewed government money and won’t be a party to this circus, and as a result will end up in a better position than its two domestic competitors by being free of government hamstringing.

Against this backdrop, the House Finance Committee, led by Rep. Barney Frank, has introduced a measure to set the pay scale for executive members taking federal money. The act is retroactive, meaning it would affect contracts already agreed upon, and it would also give Secretary Tim Geithner broad authority to set the salaries of many employees and determine by himself what “excessive” and “unreasonable” precisely means.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the free market at work, this is not capitalism, this is direct government control of the private sector. With the initial injection of taxpayer money into troubled companies, many lauded the action as a necessary remedy that would ease the worries. A lot of the rest of us recognized the slippery slope that we were heading down, that government money meant eventual government-dictated terms and control. Yes, you could say that some saw it coming, but that doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow.

There’s a good chance that, despite all the taxpayer funds, GM will still be forced to declare bankruptcy. Do you believe the government intervention will at that point end? The answer, of course, is no, not because it’s necessary or because it’s the correct path – the simple reason is because government bureaucracy is a creeping cancer that is nearly impossible to scale back once unleashed. It’s always argued that it’s against the public interest to scale back government, because how would we function if certain areas were pared back? Just fine, in actuality, but government is too important a security blanket for some.

With the salary restrictions, government goes beyond a security blanket to a finger-wagging nanny who knows what’s best for all of us. Expect to see more manifestations of this attitude in the future. What’s amazing is that the author of the House Finance Committee act, Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, seems to think only corrupt lawmakers would vote against it. “This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they’re willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable … We’ll find out who are the people who understand that the public’s money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street.”

Actually, Rep. Grayson, we’ll find out who is committed to the Constitution and the principle of limited government, and who is willing to sacrifice them for political points.

Update: Patterico has a good post on why freedom and capitalism cannot exist without each other. It’s a fundamental point worth strongly considering.

10,000

At some point during the day on March 30, 2009, my humble website received it’s 10,000th page view. Now, to be sure, I’m quite aware that bigger and better blogs register that many in one day, some in one hour. It took this little blog, from the last week of November to today, about four months to reach that number. I don’t know what’s good for a new blog, or really for any blog that isn’t gargantuanly popular, but I’m pleased.

I thought I’d take a quick moment to thank all of you for dropping by. If you find what you read here interesting, please tell others about this place, and feel free to comment on and discuss what I’ve written, whether you agree or disagree (respectfully, please!). And above all else, keep your eyes open and keep thinking.

GM CEO Wagoner resigns on request of Obama administration

On the eve of a much-anticipated announcement regarding further bailouts for GM and Chrysler, GM CEO Rick Wagoner is stepping down as head of the company. What has raised my eyebrows is that the resignation apparently comes at the request of the Obama administration. Mr. Wagoner’s marks against him are evidently the length of his tenure at GM, and the slowness of his response to economic tough times by shrinking the company and taking on the UAW. David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research said Wagoner was essentially taking one for the team so that his company could receive more taxpayer money; he went on to note that he wasn’t surprised by the move, but disappointed as he still considered Wagoner a capable leader.

There is recent precedent for the action. Former Secretary Hank Paulson replaced the heads of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac when they took government aid in September of 2008. And way back in 1984 (what a coincidence there), federal authorities ousted the head of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. when they took 80% ownership.

Although the precedent exists, however, I am still left uncomfortable at the thought of government dictating to private entities who should sit in the leadership chairs. Yes, I understand that a special situation is created when public tax dollars prop up their companies, but that sort of gets at the root of the problem – public tax dollars shouldn’t be used to prop up private companies. As painful as it might be, companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to fail, with smaller and stronger companies picking up the slack. In any case, what I’ve read so far seems to indicate that although Wagoner did commit some management missteps, the real reason for the request was to provide moral authority for the administration to take whatever action it deemed necessary or appropriate. In other words, the “change” is more for political expediency and not an example for forward-looking thinking. Boy, that sounds awfully familiar …

By definition, this move brings us ever closer to socialism. No matter how great the intentions, the essence remains of government providing ownership and direction to private sector corporations. The announcement tomorrow will probably have a short-term and much-lauded positive effect on automakers’ stocks, but it’s my own belief that increased government entanglement will ultimately hogtie the companies and cause them to suffer. Unfortunately, solving the crises of the automakers and the banks is going to take more than shovelling more money into the furnace and rearranging the Titanic’s deck chairs.

Mike Rowe and the War on Work

(Photo credit: osmoothie.com)

Via the Anchoress and American Digest, we have a video of Mike Rowe from the Discovery Channel’s “Dirty Jobs” speaking on our own preconceptions and on the value of hard work. You can see the video on either of these fine sites, and it’s well worth the 20 minutes to check it out, as well as reading the Anchoress’ own reflections on work in our culture.

Rowe comes across as a very humble and intelligent man, both on his terrific show and here in this speech. He has some thought-provoking words on the moment when you realize when your own opinions on what you thought was obviously right are turned on their side. But more interestingly, he talks about happiness, work, and how our society has disconnected the two, with the overriding message that less work automatically equals more happiness. And in a brilliant rhetorical moment, he calls this our “War on Work.”

His words really rang true for me. In this country we have absolutely forgotten the intrinsic value of hard work and a job well done, of taking pride in what we do. And it’s absolutely true that we don’t value our skilled tradesmen and those without degrees as much as we should. We look down on them as hopelessly ignorant, and not an ideal to strive for. Mike Rowe’s show is basically all about people who do distasteful but absolutely necessary tasks, and do it cheerfully, experiences which he draws upon here to speak to the fundamental need for “dirty jobs” in all sectors of our economy in order to survive.

Mike Rowe’s right when he says we glamorize certain professions and categorize others. We seem to overvalue a college degree as mandatory to advancement in our society and for the acquisition of security and happiness. This economic crisis shows that not to be the case. All the while, we seek for ways to minimize the amount of work we have to do, since, obviously, the only way we can be happy is if we’re not working. Meanwhile, we demonize those who have happiness and security as having too much, as if hard work and determination won’t get you there, and the only way is to cheat yourself into it.

It was once implored, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” The Protestant work ethic used to be something that was celebrated and strived for in this nation. In its stead, we now have a drive for comfort and convenience in every aspect of our lives, so much so that we in the end forsake personal responsibility and any potential bad consequences of actions to create for ourselves a false sense of security and happiness that in reality is as fleeting as anything else. Rowe’s words give us something to think about as we double down on our entitlement mentality, for we need to be reminded that we are our own best resource. Not government, not academia, not Wall Street or Main Street – ourselves.

Anarchy expected at G20 summit

The G20 summit is set to convene next week in London, and English police are gearing up for confrontations with multitudes of angry protesters, with fears that some protests may turn violent. The fears are given weight with the recent vandalism against the home of Bank of Scotland CEO Fred Goodwin, and while various groups have always protested the gathering of world economic leaders, the global economic repression has many more feeling acutely wronged.

While many protest organizers are undoubtedly not stoking the violence, tensions will be running high. Take a look at some of the protest promotion posters over at Michelle Malkin’s site and you’ll see that feel-good pacificism isn’t the order of the day. One need only look at the riots in Seattle against the World Trade Organization in 1999 for a recent example of how protests can become ugly. I hope that there aren’t too many unpleasantries in London, but the feelings of tension have me feeling a little bit nervous.

Contrast this scene with the entirely peaceful Tea Party rallies being held across the nation. April 15th looks to be a big day as countless rallies are scheduled to be held across the country. The Atlanta Tea Party will be promoted by national radio host Sean Hannity as well as other speakers, and even my own hometown of Dayton, OH is getting into the act. I’d like to be there myself, and if I do, I’ll be sure to give a full accounting. On the whole, the peaceful tax protests will be a stark contrast in style to the hyper-tense potentially-violent clashes in London.

It’s another reason why I hope things stay sane in London. If protests turn ugly there, it’s not much of a stretch to think that economic protests here would be closely monitored if not curbed slightly in the wake of a disaster, which I pray doesn’t happen. In any event, the eyes of the world will be watching London very closely next week.

One step closer to regrowing limbs (and an aside about political rants)

Wired magazine is reporting that scientists have now been successful at turning human skin cells into an undifferentiated mass of cells called a blastema that is the first step toward regrowing limbs. Now Worcester Polytechnic Institute has been given a DARPA grant to develop the blastema into muscle tissue. It’s a very interesting development that has applications not only in military medicine, but also in the larger medical community. It’s also worth noting that this development arose from adult cells, perhaps creating an avenue around ethical complications from using embryonic stem cells.

Don’t ask me why, but I have a weakness for reading comments on news articles, even though they’ll undoubtedly make me tear my hair out. This one was no different, I guess because the Pentagon is funding the research. The first poster made the comment, “Next time don’t go in to an “occupation” half-assed so you end up with 10,000 guys with limbs blown off.” The thread was immediately hijacked from that point on, with commenters calling soldiers “brick-ass stupid” for joining, that anyone supporting them is being duped by “superman” propaganda, that 9/11 was the best thing that happened to this country, and that we obviously need a draft.

I thought Wired readers were a more intelligent bunch, but I guess I was wrong. I don’t see why an article about the potential for regrowing limbs should immediately elicit such a vehement attack against something that really has little to do with the article’s subject matter. I guess we’ve all been way too politicized, where not even promising medical news is free from the wrath of ideology. It’s too bad.

UN pushes for global currency reserve

One day after Timothy Geithner and Austin Goolsbee drew fire for hinting at being open to a Chinese monetary proposal, a United Nations panel pushed for a new Global Reserve System to replace the dollar. This moves the debate somewhat out of the realm of the conspiracy and into the realm of the possible. The dollar tomorrow will undoubtedly fall against this talk, and it’s evident that global movers and shakers are going to make a concerted effort to move away from the dollar, sabotaging it, intentionally or otherwise, in the process. Whether their motives are merely self-serving or nefarious, well, I’ll leave that to the conspiracy theorists to figure out. In either case, it’s without a doubt bad news for American currency worldwide.

Geithner “open” to China’s monetary proposals

Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking at a forum at the Council on Foreign Relations, today said he was “open” to a proposal by the governor of China’s central bank reforming world monetary policy. The Chinese proposal was seen by many as a call to adopt a world currency, but Geithner noted the only concrete proposal was a modification of the IMF’s drawing rights, and said the governor, a man he obviously respects, deserves to be considered whenever he offers ideas. I can somewhat appreciate that sentiment, but the talk still sent the value of the dollar down even as Geithner tried to reassure that the dollar would remain the world’s reserve currency for some time.

Conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with the remarks, and it doesn’t help that another Obama economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee couldn’t bring himself to rule out a currency change. President Obama last night said a global currency was out of the question, and on this issue, I take him at his word. Being willing to submitting America to a one-world government isn’t something I’m willing to ascribe to him just yet, as such a move would be earth-shattering and disastrous.

No, the loose talk merely speaks more to the incompetence of Geithner. Speculation like this in an open forum is going to do nothing but hurt the value of the dollar, and the Secretary of the Treasury should never be in a position to cause harm to the dollar this way. I almost feel bad for the guy, as between the tax scandals, the AIG bonuses, and being massively understaffed, and now this gaffe, Geithner just can’t seem to catch a break or get it right. Unfortunately, he’s sitting in one of the most important national positions, and this nation can’t afford mistakes like these.

Presidential press conference: my quick and dirty take

Unlike millions of saddened American Idol fans, I freely chose to watch the Presidential press conference tonight. Reoprters tonight pressed a little bit harder tonight than they have in the past, which is a good thing as far as I’m concerned. President Obama renewed his call for the power to seize businesses, amazingly arguing that this lack of authority is the reason for the AIG situation. He dismissed repeated concerns about the size of his budget, saying it was important to invest now for potential savings down the road. The only problem is that spending government money in this fashion isn’t going to lead to spending less government down the road. Characterizing the massive spending as an investment is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion.

The President answered 13 questions in 1 hour, a low number, but not surprising considering the length of most of his answers. At one point, Jake Tapper of ABC asked bluntly, “Would you sign a budget that didn’t contain the middle class tax cut and your cap-and-trade proposal?” Obama responded with a lengthy retort that didn’t really clarify his position.

I give Obama credit for playing down the softball race question, saying the American people are judging him just as he should be judged. He stands by the reduction in deductions for charitable giving, saying only 1% of givers are affected. But, as Dick Morris, those 1% give a large majority of charitable funds, and it doesn’t make sense to me to propose and vehemently defend a policy that in any way makes charity less attractive.

I’m sure a lot of the analysis will boil down to, “My, my, look how regal and Presidential he looked. Good show, Mr. President, good show.” I just thought I’d give my own two cents, sure to be lost in the swirl of opinion. Michelle Malkin liveblogged the presser, and RedState has an open thread to check out if you’re interested.

Obama seeks power to seize more businesses

The Washington Post reports today that the Obama administration wants expanded power to seize other businesses besides banks. Large insurance companies, hedge funds, and investment firms – these are the main types of business in the crosshairs right now as the push is to get rid of private regulatory agencies and seemingly nationalize the banking industry and put it under the loving care of the Federal Reserve.

President Obama likes the idea, saying he hopes it doesn’t take too long for the proposed powers to be enabled. Meanwhile, the rest of us see this as an absolutely horrible idea. Brian Darling at RedState notes that the Constitution gives no power to the Treasury to usurp private industry to prevent a greater harm to the economy, as the argument is being framed.

The bottom line is that this is not the free market, not capitalism, and not the principles of limited government this country was founded upon. The markets rallied yesterday, but I’ll be interested to see their reaction over the next few days to the threat of potential federal seizure. The precedents being set here are frightening. We have the House approving a 90% confiscatory tax designed to specifically punish a single company that made a politically unpalatable move (a tax which has been delayed by the Senate). Now we have the administration calling for the power to seize “troubled” companies. Today, it’s the finance sector. Tomorrow, it might be the auto industry, who also accepted bailout money. Next week, it might be whatever industry is deemed to be causing harm to the economy.

It’s a grab for power, and one that doesn’t sit well with me at all. In just the last two months, the administration has called for the role of government in the private sector to dramatically expand, when any constitutional scholar will tell it was the intent of the founders to curb the influence of the federal government, knowing that its growth would flirt too dangerously with tyranny, a situation which we may find ourselves in before it’s all done.

The Anchoress admits she originally misread the headline, thinking it said “Obama wants to seize arms.” Obviously that’s not the case today, but with such open talk of empowering government to an unprecedented level, it’s not that hard to imagine.

Geithner reveals plan for toxic assets … to the tune of $1 trillion

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner fleshed out more details of his proposal to absorb toxic assets on the balance sheets of major banks. Dubbed the Public-Private Investment Program, the plan calls for the government (i.e. the taxpayer) to buy bad real-estate loans and securities from banks and calls for private investors to buy those items back from the government. The size will initially be $500 billion and eventually balloon to $1 trillion.

On the surface, it sounds like Geithner found a perfect harmony between free-market and statist solutions. I mean, just look at the name! “Public-Private,” can’t get much more balanced than that! Unfortunately, once you think about it a tad longer, you begin to realize it might not be the great solution to the problem. Essentially, the government will be buying these bad assets at face value while investors will then compete to buy them at a lower price. Exactly how this will translate into profit for the taxpayer escapes me. Economist Mish Shedlock offers a host of arguments against the plan, along with the concerns of others, culminating in the realization that the plan seems to be a giant “confidence” game in which Treasury tries to persuade private investors that the bad assets are worth more than they truly are.

Michelle Malkin calls it the David Copperfield School of Economic Recovery, and Russ at A Time to Choose says Treasury is merely crossing its fingers. But in the larger picture, think about what the $1 trillion plan means against the backdrop of a $700 billion TARP program (voted for by then-Senator Obama, along with John McCain) and the $787 billion stimulus. Essentially, the plan is an admission that the two bloated proposals, touted as absolutely necessary to remedy our economic problem, failed to fix the problem in any sense, which fundamentally leaves me with little confidence that throwing yet more money down the drain will prove anything but mostly futile.

Thankfully, the stock market today jumped 500 points, based on the fact that Geithner has finally provided some plan details and that home sales unexpectedly rose. What I seem to be reading, however, is that this plan ultimately will not address the overpriced nature of the bad loans, and instead will burn up even more taxpayer money in an ill-favored ploy that seems based on overly rosy hopes and projections. On top of budget deficits that Michael Eden at Start Thinking Right warns could easily reach $9.3 trillion over the next ten years, it’s more obvious than ever that government spending, instead of solving the economic situation, will compound the problem exponentially by driving us into debt, inflation, and higher taxes to pay for such schemes.

AIG bonuses, Special Olympics, and the perpetual campaign

My apologies, first off - a temporary change in working hours left me unable last week to offer comment on major events. That’s not to say that I wasn’t paying attention, so let me throw in my two cents before the slog of next week begins.

The AIG bonus situation is a bit of egg on the face for Congress and the Obama administration. The outrage on the Hill last week was mostly feigned, as it appears that Sen. Chris Dodd himself wrote the bonus language into the stimulus bill (a bill which Pres. Obama had no compunction stumping for and signing, by the way). But Tim Geithner looks like a bungler as well, as it seems he was heavily involved with the AIG bailout last fall. While I respect the argument that these were simple retention bonuses, and that the government shouldn’t be in the business of interfering with private contracts, the sheer principle of rewarding management of a failing company on the public dole was what fueled the majority of the public outrage over the revelation.

Michelle Malkin is right, however, when she warns to remain undistracted from the bonus smokescreen. Ultimately the millions in bonuses are a small percentage of the billions of unwarranted taxpayer money that essentially rewarded bad behavior on the corporate level. No, what concerns me more is Congress’ irate rush to pass a 90% tax on the bonuses, setting a dangerous precedent that lawmakers can exact punitive punishment on specific entities when it suits them.

Obama’s Special Olympics gaffe doesn’t outrage me as much as it starkly illustrates the malleable nature of the gods of political correctness. Obama, after all, as it was explained away to us, only made a regrettable and clumsy attempt at humor; he’s not a bad guy, doncha know? On the other hand, that “clumsy attempt at humor” excuse didn’t work for Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, or any other Republican/conservative making a similar verbal screw-up, does it? In any event, this episode, along with Obama yukking the economy up to an incredulous Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes (heads up to RedState), provides more evidence to further dispel the myth that Obama is the smoothest and greatest communicator this side of Lincoln. Without his TelePrompter, he’s average at best.

Lastly, I’m fully in agreement with Mark Impomeni at RedState in getting a little creeped out by the millions of volunteers, at the behest of the President, going door to door in support of the President’s proposed budget, collecting information all the while. Now a vibrant and healthy grass-roots effort is one thing, but this whole operation seems just a tad too organized from the top down, and along with Obama’s stint on the Tonight Show and campaign-style town halls, show that Obama at this point is proving either unable or unwilling to move out of campaign mode and into governing mode, to switch to a politician for the people instead of an activist for the winners. Above all, it shows an “us versus them” mentality that is unhealthy to see so early in an administration.

Who knows what next week will bring, but I promise I’ll be there with you to react to it.

Undemocratic card check threat hurts Walmart stock

The spectre of union card check legislation has caused Citigroup to downgrade the value of Walmart’s stock, noting the legislation, introduced this week and seemingly aimed at the large non-union retailer, would create significant costs and bring down earnings for the company.

Walmart-haters don’t care about any of that and are gleefully anticipating a comeuppance for the mean and evil corporation. The point they miss is that a lot of middle to lower class folks do their shopping at Walmart, so a rise in costs for the company will mean a rise in prices for them. Is that any way to stimulate the economy? No, it isn’t.

I’m no apologist for Walmart. I’m not thrilled with the amount of goods they import from China, but then again, Target, Costco, Meijer’s, etc., all do exactly the same thing, but Walmart is singled out because it’s nonunion, so it’s continued success is a speck of dust in Big Labor’s eye, showing that the union model isn’t the only or even the best way to financial success, for management and for workers, who do just fine under Walmart’s pay structure.

The larger point about card check, otherwise known deceptively as the Employee Free Choice Act, is that it is inherently undemocratic. The quick version of how it works is as follows: in lieu of having a secret ballot election to determine whether a company’s workers will unionize, organizers can simply have employees sign a card and present that to management to avoid an election altogether.

The opportunities for intimidation and coercion, overt and subtle, are limitless, as employees who might be against unionization might feel uncomfortable declining to sign a card in front of their coworkers and glowering union organizers, and retaliation from either side against those who didn’t vote their way seems assured. I know that some companies have meetings urging their employees about the dangers of unionization before such elections, which might skew the results, but at the end of the day, the worker by himself makes a quiet and anonymous decision on whether to go union.

It’s my personal belief that unions no longer serve the once-vaunted goal of protecting the worker as they used to when the labor movement first began. Instead, now they act as sports agents for their clients, getting them the best deal management will pony up under threat of strike. They have their place in history and provide some decent services today, but they have become largely irrelevant, mainly due to the steep domestic decline of the industries they dominate. One need only look at the auto industry for a glimpse at what out-of-control unions, along with bad management and suffocating regulation, can do to business

Thankfully, the measure isn’t as popular as backers have hoped, as moderate Democrats are balking at the divisiveness and the seeming unfairness of the proposal. Hell, even a former union leader, Neal Catlett, opposes card check on the grounds that privacy of opinion is key to the protection of the worker, and he’s spot on. Michelle Malkin notes that Arlen Specter will again be a swing figure in the vote-wrangling ahead. In my view, card check is an inherently unfair and undemocratic method that will hurt business, and it ought to be defeated.

After signing earmark-filled bill, Obama promises to curb earmarks

The headline could rightly be an article at satirical humor newspaper The Onion, but it’s sadly true. After a $787 billion stimulus bill, a $700 billion bank bailout, and a $4 trillion proposed budget, President Obama signed a $410 omnibus spending bill into law. The bill contained some 9000 earmarks, and Obama, promising during the campaign to end earmarks, called it imperfect but necessary. Laughably, after signing it, he says that this is absolutely positively the last time the old way of doing business is done. Right away he issued a signing statement about future earmark restrictions that is already meeting Democratic opposition. Like everything else, I’ll believe it when I see it applied consistently. I’m not hopeful.

Apologists falsely declare that this particular omnibus spending bill is absolutely essential to government function. It’s a patently false claim, as a series of continuing resolutions could have instead been enacted while a much pared-down version of the bill was hammered out. Instead, the drunken Congressional spending spree continues, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggesting a second stimulus package might be in the works. It all smells to me that instead of keeping the welfare of the American people in mind, Congress instead will hurry up and spend, spend, spend on their favorite social programs before the majority of the public takes notice.

If Obama had hoped to be termed fiscally responsible, this is the last nail in that coffin. Economists are giving Obama and Secretary Geithner failing grades on their economic performance so far, as it becomes more obvious that all this reckless spending, while it may provide a momentary bounce that will undoubtedly be pounced on as proof of the “wisdom” of this strategy, will wind up doing far more harm than good by massively inflating our debt, driving higher inflation and higher taxes to sustain it all.

But more than that, Obama’s backtracking on earmarks ought to bring whatever stratospheric aspirations foisted upon him solidly back down to earth. He made a flat out about-face on an explicit pledge, publicly and early in his administration. It ought to show the most ecstatic of his supporters that, yes, Barack Obama is not a transcendental figure, he is, like everyone else in Washington, just a politician. It ought to show that, but I have no doubt the excuses will still keep coming.

Connecticut tries to regulate church governance

It’s barely believable, but scarily true. In a shocking assault on the separation of church and state, the Connecticut legislature was slated to hear a Democrat-sponsored bill that would create lay councils to oversee church finances. The bill has rightly provoked outrage among many in the religious community, who hastily organized a campaign to register their extreme misgivings with a legislative act that would essentially dictate to the Catholic Church how it should operate. Luckily, after a rapid and massive public outcry, the bill was withdrawn from consideration and is dead for the rest of the legislative session.

Why introduce this bill in the first place? The Constitution, via the First Amendment, says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If you want to be pedantically nitpicky, you could argue that it was a state legislature and not Congress seeking to regulate the Church, but the spirit of the law of the land is that government should not stick an overt hand into the affairs of faith.

We hear cries of “separation of church and state” every time a politician makes a public statement in favor of religion or that might be construed as too “dangerously religious.” Yet I believe the separation is more likely to be violated by government than by a church. This country was founded with the intention of securing “freedom of religion,” not “freedom from religion.” The distinction is subtle yet beyond importance.

The Anchoress is rightly concerned about this initial skirmish, and wonders whether we’ll see a schism leading to an American Catholic Church, much as the Anglican Church broke away in England, as the importance of the individual/collective over the divine is celebrated with increasing emphasis. I unfortunately have to say her prediction has a great chance of coming to pass. Some may react joyfully to the news that a growing number of Americans are atheist or agnostic, but I find the loss of faith sadly disappointing.

Faith and religion are denigrated by progressive intelligentsia and mainstream pop culture as barbaric backward byproducts of earlier ignorant eras, while the enriching and fulfilling aspects of faith are downplayed, ignored, or ridiculed. I foresee a step-up in the culture wars against religion, led by a progressive movement emboldened by recent electoral victories. My own personal opinion is that America is happier with a healthy religious sector, and broadsides against it, like this ill-considered bill in Connecticut, are designed to weaken that resolve to replace it with the religion of secular humanism that is neither inspiring or uplifting.