Tax Cheats R Us

President Obama's cabinet is shaping up to be populated with quite a few tax evaders. First, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes from his employemnt with theIMF.

Now we learn that former Senate Majority Tom Daschle, Obama's nominee to be secretary of Health and Human Services, recently paid $140,000 in income taxes and interest to correct previous tax returns: he had unreported imputed income on an employer-provided car and driver, unreported consulting income, and improper charitable deductions.

Contrast the pass the Senate gave to Geithner with what happened to Linda Chavez, President Bush's nominee to be Labor Secretary in 2001. Chavez withdrew her nomination after withering criticism from the left because she gave money to a woman who was an illegal alien after the woman suffered domestic abuse. She did nothing illegal.

Likewise, Zoe Baird, Bill Clinton's nominee for attorney general in 1993, withdrew her nomination after it was learned she hired an illegal alien as a nanny and chauffeur and failed to pay Social Security/Medicare taxes. She paid $2,900 in fines.

One tax cheat in the cabinet is enough (actually, more than enough). Daschle's nomination should be derailed.

Surely, the Democrats can find qualified cabinet members who have no run-ins with the law. Hopefully, that isn't too difficult a challenge, even in light of the Blagojevich impeachment.

Atlas Continues to Shrug

State Farm Insurance announced it will drop coverage of homeowners in Florida after being denied a rate increase by Florida's insurance commission.

State Farm is the second largest insurer to Florida homeowners; its policyholders may now need to get insurance from a state insurance fund. The already-strapped state government will now contend with the ever-increasing liabilities it is accruing in its insurance fund.

If a company can't make money, eventually it will flee the market. There is no clearer measure of the failure of government intervention when businesses cease operating due to restrictions and limitations imposed on their activities.

And to show you that economic idiocy isn't limited to Democrats, although they sure do have quite a bit of it, Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist said, "Well, they probably charge the highest rates in the state anyway. I think Floridians will be much better off without them." And he wants to kick State Farm's auto business out of the state in response.

The UN: Jokers' Wild

A recent incident speaks volumes about the ability of the world to take serious steps to thwart Iran and other thuggish regime - ultimately showing how dangerous the UN is to world peace.

The U.S Navy recently intercepted and searched a suspicious Iranian-chartered ship. The search revealed it contained weapons, purportedly bound for Syria but suspected by the Navy to be bound for Hamas.

In either case, UN resolutions prohibit Iran from exporting weapons and allow nations to inspect ships suspected of smuggling them - but do not allow the ships to be seized.

So our Navy let the ship go.

This is the type of "pressure" on Iran we have secured from the UN. It is a joke: if the Navy can't seize the ship, Iran won't stop attempting to arm the terrorists Even worse, it deludes us into thinking UN actions are effective in pressuring Iran when they are not.

This is what happens when the authoritarian and anti-American regimes in Russia and China have veto power over coordinated international action. Along with outrages such as the UN Commission on Human Rights being populated by the worst human rights abusers, giving Russian and China such veto power and creating the false impression of "doing something" generally makes the UN a force for ill in the world.

This is Stimulus?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates 20% of the $825 billion "stimulus" bill passed by the House will be spent in fiscal 2009 (year ending September 30). The balance will be spent in fiscal 2010-2011.

Since the plan doesn't include elements that change economic behavior for the better, such as cuts in marginal tax rates, the purported benefits are directly related to what is actually spent.

So stimulus isn't really the issue.

Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's chief of staff, said shortly after the election, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

I wrote about this at the time, and now events confirm what he meant: pass a bill that gives subsidies to the Democrats' favored groups and pet causes.

But There's No Media Bias

The Wall Street Journal reports the Israeli army allegedly prevented medics from assisting a Gaza town during fighting in the recent war. The Journal's attempt at balance is one paragraph that says "human rights advocates by no means only cite Israel's conduct in the war."

But that one paragraph compares to the article's 22 paragraphs on Israel's alleged transgression.

Israel is a western democracy and Hamas is a blood-thirsty terrorist group who killed Palestinian "collaborators" during the fighting. Naturally, for the left, Israel's actions in defense of its citizens are terrible, while Hamas' actions to brutalize Israel and Palestinians are glossed over and minimized.

The Israeli military called Palestinians' cell phones to warn them to evacuate certain areas to minimize risk to their lives. Israeli hospitals treated Palestinians during the fighting. Never before in the history of warfare did an army do more to reduce civilian casualties.

In the meantime, Hamas purposefully violated the Geneva conventions that prohibit combatants from hiding among civilians, including UN schools and facilities, hoping to provoke Israeli counterfire to create civilian casualties - with the goal of achieving a propaganda victory.

And news organizations wonder why they are experiencing collapsing consumer demand. It isn't just technological changes, although that is a very important part of the problem. This bias infuriates many and has encouraged readers and viewers to explore other sources of news than the traditional media outlets.

The Line of Pigs at the Trough is as Far as the Eye Can See

The House of Representatives have approved a pork-laden "stimulus" bill that satisfies a Democratic-party wish list of subsidies and give-aways. As the Wall Street Journal reports, it is a pig fest.

For those who have been thinking it is a modern version of the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps or Works Progress Administration, it isn't. Instead, it is laden with subsidies for Amtrak, mass transit, cable TV boxes, National Endowment for the Arts, child care, renewable energy, carbon capture research - if it is on the liberal agenda, it is in the House bill.

Special Envoy-Itis

Barack Obama has wasted no time in using one of the tactics from the "do something" playbook, by appointing former Senate majority leader George Mitchell as a special envoy for the Middle East and former diplomat Richard Holbrooke as special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Special envoys create the impression that America "really cares" about a foreign policy matter and that we are doing everything we can to resolve a problem. As I discussed in a recent column, this may be good politics and media relations but may not be helpful.

After all, isn't this the job of our new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton?

Presidential Doublespeak

Barack Obama, in describing his decision to order the EPA to consider allowing states to regulate auto emissions for greenhouse gases, said:

"Our goal is not to further burden an already-struggling industry. It is to help America's auto makers prepare for the future."

While his goal no doubt isn't to add to the industry's burdens, in fact such regulations will. Good intentions are not the measure of a policy, but reality. And the auto makers, on the verge of collapse, don't need to add to their R&D budgets to develop new technologies to meet this regulatory burden nor have their most profitable vehicles (trucks and SUVs) regulated out of existence.

Moreover, Obama is disingenuous when he couches this as a forward-looking policy, when in reality the need to prepare for this "future" only exists by virtue of the new government regulation.

Thanks for the doublespeak, Mr. President.

These Piggies Get to Feed at the Trough for Free

Congressional Democrats made a big deal that the bank bailout should impose constraints on certain activities, such as paying executive bonuses.

But the $825 billion "stimulus" bill has state and local governments seeking $200 billion in federal aid. Neither Congress nor the Obama administration has discussed insisting that the states have limitations imposed on them, such as spending constraints. Instead, such aid will reward those states which increased spending in the good times only to find themselves pinched today.

For example, New York state could take its $12 billion deficit and have a $5 billion surplus if it spent per person the same as the average for the rest of the states.

Here We Go Again

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that 13 large banks, who have received about $148 billion in government bailout funds, reported a decline in loans outstanding in the fourth quarter.

Politicians and journalists have been raising a stink about the lack of lending by bank, complaining that TARP recipients should using the bailout funds to lend to "stimulate" the economy.

While I have written about this before, it is such an important issue it is worth repeating again and again. Banks need to make good, profitable loans. They have every incentive to do so. If they don't make a loan, it is because they don't believe it is a good risk. To force the banks to make loans they wouldn't otherwise is to say you are forcing banks to make risky, unprofitable loans.

And that's how we got into our current recession.

If you ask, why do the banks need or deserve TARP funds, the issue is not about bailing out shareholders (who have suffered staggering losses); nor is it about paying executive bonuses (many have foregone or greatly reduced them, which are already hurting organizations such as AIG and BoA as talent flees government-regulated entities); and nor is it about making acquisitions (although that is one way to ameliorate the credit crisis, as evidenced by government pressure to get M&A deals done such BoA's purchase of Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan's purchase of Bear Stearns).

Instead, the bailout is designed to protect creditors, which means all of us who have money in bank accounts - and more broadly, is designed to prevent money from fleeing banks and investing in Treasury bills/bonds or taking cash and literally putting it a mattress (which happened in the Great Depression).

And that is a financial collapse that could turn this recession into a depression.

Auto Crisis Deepens

Although it should come as no surprise, the Wall Street Journal reports that more auto suppliers are considering filing for bankruptcy - there is talk of bailout funds being directed to them (in addition to GM and Chrysler).

The auto bailout will simply grow and grow unless the Obama administration takes a hard line.

Don't hold your breath.

Obama Giveth and He Taketh Away

The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is set to allow 14 states, including California, to impose new restrictions on auto emissions. In addition, the administration will impose higher fuel efficiency standards.

These actions will cost auto makers money to meet the new standards, and with respect to the fuel efficiency mandate, to produce cars profitably that people want to buy.

As discussed in an earlier column, this illustrates perfectly the burdens that government has long imposed on the Big Three. And while it may seem that the government wants to help them with the recent bailout, these new actions will make it harder for the auto makers to achieve profitability on a sustainable basis - and vastly increase the need for further bailouts.

Transparency Indeed

For weeks, there has been a drum beat complaining about the lack of transparency in implementing the financial bailout. These complaints have insinuated that banks are using TARP money for "inappropriate" purposes, such as making acquisitions or paying bonuses, rather than "appropriate uses" such as lending.

As one of my previous columns makes clear, this is a completely incorrect reading of the economics of the situation. But the Wall Street Journal highlights what is the genuine problem with a lack of transparency in the financial bailout: Congressmen and other politicians are pressuring regulators to direct bailout money to certain banks.

How about that. What a shock that where there is a pot of money, Congress will get their hands in the middle of it. This type of political pressure will only raise the cost of the bailout, as banks that otherwise wouldn't get funds do so.

Sounds like extensive hearings and media pressure should be brought to bear on these shenanigans. But since Barney Frank is one of those who have applied pressure to help a favored bank, don't count on hearings any time soon.

A New Surgeon Generals' Warning: The Left is Dangerous to Your Health

The New York Times reports that Said Ali al-Shihri, a terrorist formerly detained at Guantanamo Bay, is the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen.  American officials suspect Shihri was involved in a terrorist attack in September 2008 outside the U.S. embassy in Yemen that killed 16 people.  

A recent Pentagon report indicated that an estimated 61 former detainees have returned to terrorism since their release from Guantanamo.  

And remember:  the detainees released to date were believed to be the less dangerous ones.  And now Obama wants to shut down Guantanamo and potentially release many more.

The brutal question for President Obama, Congressional Democrats, and the left:  how many people are you prepared to see die so you can feel better about releasing detainees and closing Guantanamo?

Another Win for the Gipper

Pundits have gushed at the enormous attendance and TV viewership of Barack Obama's inauguration, and both certainly stand out compared to very recent inaugurals. But while the enthusiasm is impressive, it isn't unprecedented.

Live attendance for Obama's inauguration is estimated at 800,000 to 1.8 million - as compared to Lyndon Johnson's inaugural with 1.2 million people. But considering that the U.S. population has increased over 50% since 1965, the equivalent population-adjusted figure for LBJ is 1.9 million.

Nielson ratings indicate 37.8 million watched Barack Obama's inaugural on TV at home vs. 41.8 million for Ronald Reagan's inauguration in 1981. To be fair, many people viewed this inaugural on their computers at work which would add to viewership - but no such option existed in Reagan's day, when those at work who wanted to participate may have listened on the radio instead.

More significantly, the U.S. population has grown by nearly a third since 1981 - which would make the current population-adjusted viewership for Reagan's inaugural 55.3 million.

Count this as another win for the Gipper.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

There is a long-standing political infatuation of "doing something" to try to address a problem, particularly if it can be done in a visible and demonstrative way.

The media reports favorably, and many in the public feel reassured, with such efforts - even when what is done is often unhelpful or even harmful. Or stupid.

The Wall Street Journal highlights this attitude perfectly in discussing Obama's approach to Israel:

"On the foreign-relations front, Mr. Obama made good on his campaign pledge to engage on the Arab-Israeli dispute from 'day one,' breaking from his predecessor, who waited until late in his second term before jumping fully into the conflict."

This is the received wisdom of the liberal media, that Bush had no policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for many years. But it simply isn't true. Bush's policy was to marginalize Yasser Arafat, the terrorist leader of the Palestinians.

It was a purposeful and thoughtful policy, designed to force a change in Palestinian leadership and/or policy - recognizing that there can be no viable long-term settlement between Israel and the Palestinians if the Palestinians are ruled by terrorists who seek Israel's destruction. It was a policy that comported with our ideals and interests.

But it was not a policy of summits, multiple meetings, photo ops, and the like - which was the failed policy of Bill Clinton.

Instead, Bush's policy worked. Arafat's party, Fatah, has greatly moderated its posture under new leadership. While that isn't a complete solution, the conflict is not amenable to simple or short- term remedies. It will take years for the Palestinians to have their desire to destroy Israel thwarted before they give up that goal and settle for peaceful coexistence.

Is Atlas Shrugging?

Today's Wall Street Journal discusses how AIG is losing talented executives to other insurance companies. Earlier this month, a number of key executives at Merrill Lynch left - after the firm acceded to political pressure to pay certain key executives no bonus.

Many in the country, including some conservatives, have advocated reducing or eliminating bonuses at financial firms who have received government assistance. These departures are the logical consequence of imposing government mandated or threatened restrictions on financial firms.

As I have discussed in an earlier column, if you pay people below market wages, they will leave their employer - even in this environment. And the companies will be weaker, hurting all of us as taxpayers who have invested in these firms through TARP and as citizens who need a successful financial sector for the economy to thrive.

Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged, depicted a world where the successful went on strike to protest the confiscations and impositions they faced by government policy.

It looks like Atlas is beginning to shrug.

President Barack Obama

Since hope springs eternal, let us certainly hope that Barack Obama governs more as the moderate his transition implied than as the leftist his political career and primary campaign indicated.  I take comfort that the one constancy of his career is that he is acutely focused on winning and maintain political popularity - which as President will pull him toward the center.

Here are some general predictions about his Presidency:

• His economic policies will be moderate, focused on Keynesian-style stimulus and less likely to raise taxes than he campaigned on.  He will have to fight Comrade Nancy Pelosi on this, who recently reiterated her desire to increase taxes.  He will disappoint his union supporters and not seek to revoke free-trade agreements - he may even shock us by seeking their expansion, if his rhetoric about engaging the world is a real.

• His defense and foreign policy will look more like George Bush's than his supporters would ever have guessed.  I even think he will take military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - because it would be a political disaster for him and the Democrats otherwise.  He will claim he is withdrawing American forces from Iraq, but in reality it will be very similar to what would have occurred under Bush or McCain.

• He will satisfy his leftist base with judicial appointments, since the base will appreciate their importance but the public at large will be less concerned about this relative to economic or foreign policy matters.

•  A big wild card will be whether he really will pursue a radical revamp of energy usage.  He campaigned heavily on this, but his advisers will surely tell him of the profound economic costs of doing so which, given the recession, will likely moderate their extent.  I suspect he will spend lots of money to support R&D and provide incentives for green energy, but not legislate draconian mandates.

And let us hope, perhaps most of all, that race relations in America can profoundly improve. The campaign demonstrated the deep unhappiness on the part of many black Americans with our country, as manifested in the career of Jeremiah Wright and Michele Obama's comments about not being proud of America.  Barack Obama's ascension as President is the most dramatic refutation of such beliefs.

Promises Made, Promises Broken*

The Obama administration, even before it officially takes office, continues to break from the rhetoric of the campaign. Steven Chu, Obama's nominee to run the Energy Department, said during his confirmation hearing that coal was a "great natural resource". Two years ago, he said expanding coal-fired power plants was his "worst nightmare". The nominee to head the EPS, Lisa Jackson, called coal a "vital resource".

While these current characterizations of the importance of coal to generating electricity for our country are correct, the change of heart suggest the nominees have calibrated their tune to ensure the Senate approves their appointments.

Obama and his administration can't have it both ways. Is coal a menace to our world because of global warming? Or is a great natural resource?

The fact that such flip-flops generate so little press indicates that Democratic politicians can get away with political posturing and games playing: appeal to the left wing base of the party to generate donations and votes during campaigns, then tilt to the center during appeals to the country as a whole.

The unwillingness of the press or the public to demand greater consistency from our public officials has added to our poisonous political culture, by exaggerating differences between the parties when either such differences aren't as great as they seem or by sweeping them under the rug at politically opportune times.

* An ongoing series that looks at how Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric matches with the reality of his administration's actions and policies.

The Line of Pigs at the Trough is Over the Hill and Through the Woods

A coalition of charities have asked for $15 billion in government loans as part of the "stimulus" plan the Democrats are concocting.

Charities, like any family or company, can feel the pinch in tough economic times. If donations have dropped based on the voluntary choices of donors, why should the government step in and spend money on charities that donors won't?

It sure would be nice if the government would honor our decisions, rather than override them with frivolous spending.

Department of Injustice?

Eric Holder, Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General, was questioned heavily this week in his Senate confirmation hearings about his role in Bill Clinton's scandalous pardon of Marc Rich. The Rich pardon raises issues of the degree to which Holder is beholden to political pressure in his work in the Justice Department. Given Obama's connection to Illinois and the corrupt political culture in that state, this is disturbing enough.

But Holder's greatest sin in his previous Justice Department role is what's called the Holder Memorandum. This memo said federal prosecutors could use a corporate defendant's waiver of attorney-client privilege to help determine if the corporation was cooperating sufficiently with prosecutors to avoid prosecution.

Since indictments of companies often lead to their immediate collapse, as happened with Arthur Andersen which resulted in 28,000 jobs being lost, this memo gave prosecutors the legal equivalent of a "weapon of mass destruction" in seeking convictions of individuals alleged to have committed crimes in their business dealings.

Attorney-client privilege has been a bulwark of our legal rights and to overthrow it because it was politically expedient to enhance prosecutors' cases against white collar defendants subverts the very meaning of justice by changing the rules after the fact - companies and employees assumed based on prior law that attorney-client privilege was applicable and then later saw the rules changed. As it turned out, many of the prosecutions secured under such threats were overturned on appeal, showing that abusive legal tactics produced unjust outcomes.

The left would prefer to extend extra legal protections to terror detainees at Guantanamo than preserve long standing rights to American citizens who happen to be white collar defendants.

This is the kind of Change We Need?

A New Mortgage Tax

Congressional Democrats should be pleased they are finally getting something from their support of TARP, with Citigroup's agreement to support allowing judges to reduce mortgage balances for people who have filed for bankruptcy.

Going forward, mortgage lenders and investors will now factor into their risk assessments the possibility of future bankruptcy modifications to mortgage balances - which will drive up the interest rate on mortgages and/or tighten underwriting standards to make it harder to get a mortgage.

When Congress in 1979 passed legislation preventing bankruptcy from being used to reduce mortgage debt, it did so specifically to reduce such risks and keep mortgage rates lower.

In effect, this is a new tax on mortgage - a hidden tax so Congress can avoid the blame for imposing this additional cost on homeowners.

Promises Made, Promises Broken

Last night in a CBS News interview, Barack Obama said that isolating Osama Bin Laden, but not killing him, was a satisfactory outcome.

In contrast, during the presidential campaign, Obama said that killing Bin Laden should be our biggest priority. Moreover, Obama said the war in Iraq was a distraction from going after Bin Laden, using this line of attack to demonstrate his toughness in foreign affairs.

Obama continues to retreat from policies and views expressed in the campaign. After eight years of clarity and consistency from President Bush, I guess this is part of the "change" an Obama administration is bringing to the country.

Guantanamo Reality

News reports indicate that Barack Obama plans to announce an executive order to close the Guantanamo detention facility, but that it may take up to a year to implement.

While this is seemingly a break with Bush administration policy, there is less to it than it appears.

The number of detainees has decreased significantly in recent years from over 700 to 250 as some are released or returned for detention in their home countries. The Bush administration has been stymied in releasing more detainees, since many countries, despite their public criticism of Guantanamo, refuse to take back their citizens.

In other words, the Bush administration is doing quietly what Barack Obama will loudly proclaim.

I have a feeling some of Obama's "change" will look like a break with the past, but in reality, be of little or no substantive difference.

A Two State Solution?

The phrase "a two state solution" has been used for years in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to mean the creation of two states: an Israel that would be recognized and accepted as a legitimate nation by its Arab neighbors, and a state for the Palestinians.

Tragically, the Palestinians haven't seen it this way. While many believe that the terror is a reaction to Israel's control of the West Bank / Gaza and is meant just to gain Palestinian statehood, it is important to realize that:

• The PLO was founded in 1964, before Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, for the purpose of establishing a Palestinian Arab state in Israel

• The PLO before, and Hamas today, have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. Words matter, and all their actions suggest that they mean what they say.

• The Palestinian leadership has preferred to let large numbers of Palestinians suffer in "temporary" refugee camps for 60 years after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, rather than let them resettle permanently. Why? Because this allows them to demand the "right of return", whereby the "refugees" can return to Israel. It is a stunningly brutal policy (aided and abetted by the UN and West who help keep the refugee camps running), reflecting the character of the Palestinian leadership - if they can do that to their own people, why shouldn't we take them at their word and believe they wish to destroy Israel?

If the Palestinians had pursued a path of peaceful protest, they would have long ago achieved an independent nation. They would have gained enormous creditability in Israel and around the world, demonstrating they can live in peace with Israel and adding to the pressure on Israel to recognize Palestinian statehood. This was the path so successfully pursued by Martin Luther King, Jr. in the cause of black civil rights.

With Hamas in charge in Gaza, the Palestinians elected a group committed to Israel's destruction, who wantonly violates the Geneva Conventions by fighting among civilians and by using schools, hospitals, and mosques as places from which to launch military attacks - for the purpose of generating civilian deaths in a propaganda battle with Israel.

So in light of this bleak history and terror, here is another version of the two-state solution.

Before Israel gained control of the West Bank and Gaza in its 1967 war with the Arabs, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza part of Egypt. Both those nations have peace treaties with Israel. For years, people have pressured Israel to return to is pre-1967 borders - with the implication that the Palestinians would then have their nation in West Bank and Gaza.

But another interpretation of a return to the pre-1967 borders is for the West Bank to return to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt.

Israel would then be at peace with its neighbors, and Palestinians would be governed by Arabs.

Sounds like a just outcome to me.

Ballooning Auto Bailout

The initial $17.4 billion cost of the auto bailout will merely be a down payment. Witness that less than two weeks after its introduction, the government is providing an additional $6 billion to GMAC and GM to help stimulate auto lending. And unless the Obama administration is tough with the UAW and requires auto workers to receive market wages and benefits, we should expect the bailout costs to balloon and never be fully repaid.

Chrysler reported that its sales for December plunged 53%, much more than the other auto makers. Although it is very difficult and inappropriate for the government to be in the business of picking winners and losers (then again, it is inappropriate to bailing out these companies to begin with), the government can limit auto company losses by pulling the plug on Chrysler and letting it fail.

There is vast excess capacity in the auto industry, which means factories need to close to return the industry to financial health. And since Chrylser continues to demonstrate, as it has for decades, that it is the weakest of the major auto makers, its demise would bolster GM and Ford and give them a better chance of succeeding.

Guantanamo Inmates Have More Rights than Governors?

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has not been indicted (the prosecutor has asked for a three month extension to try to secure the necessary evidence for an indictment), yet alone convicted of a crime, but he is judged sufficiently guilty by Democrats that he shouldn't exercise his legal right to appoint a successor to Barack Obama's Senate seat.

For a party that has taken great offense to the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, this is remarkable behavior by Democrats. After all, U.S. citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

There is one principle that explains this seemingly contradictory behavior: political expediency. Guantanamo has been a useful rallying cry to denounce President Bush and Republicans, and the Democrats fear ongoing negative publicity from having a U.S. Senator appointed by Blagojevich.

This is not exactly a Profile in Courage.*

* John Kennedy published a book in 1955 titled Profiles in Courage, which presented the stories of eight U.S. Senators who demonstrated a willingness to stand up to their party or public opinion and suffered politically for it.

The Worst Senate Democrat?

Senate Democrats are treating Roland Burris, the choice of Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, as not just the worst prospective Senator but so bad that his taking the office is beyond the pale.

But is he?

Sure, it is offensive that the auctioneer-in-chief of Illinois gets to pick anyone for the Senate seat he attempted to sell. But Illinois Democrats, who control the state legislature, could have avoided this problem by passing a law requiring a special election, rather than appointment by the governor, for open Senate seats.

Immediately after the Blagojevich scandal hit, that's what Illinois Democrats suggested they would do. But when they started worrying that a Republican might win the special election, they decided it was better to risk Blagojevich making a Democratic appointment than risk a Republican victory.

Burris is an ex-state attorney general, so while not the strongest candidate, he is certainly a politician of some accomplishment.

What really upsets Obama and Washington Democrats is not that Burris is unqualified to be Senator, but that if Burris becomes a Senator, the Blagojevich scandal won't be far from public view.

In reality, Burris would not be worst current or prospective Senate Democrat. Several can vie for that title:

• Al Franken: he is currently leading by 49 votes in his battle with Norm Coleman for the Senate seat from Minnesota, and is truly a joke (no pun intended) for a candidate. It is astounding that Minnesota Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate than Franken, but they didn't - and now he is likely to enter the Senate.

• Caroline Kennedy: in a state laden with Democrats, New York may end up with the newest member of the Kennedy clan to enter government. She has never held elected office, nor has articulated her views for public inspection until some recent efforts to do so - which included uttering "you know" 142 times in an interview.

• Robert Byrd: Byrd has been a Senator from West Virginia for 50 years, so his problems aren't new, but it is a biggie: he was a member of the KKK until at least the age of 29 or 30.

• Chris Dodd: aside from being a defender of Hugo Chavez, the would-be dictator of Venezuela, Dodd received low-interest rate mortgages from Countrywide Financial - and sat in judgment on the industry as a member, and now Chairman, of the Senate Banking committee.

Do you think Senate Democrats will go after any of these for their failings, as they have Burris for Blagojevich's faults? Don't hold your breath.

Anti-American Bias Runs Deep

International journalists voted Jamaica's Usain Bolt athlete of the year, defeating Michael Phelps in the vote. While Bolt is an extraordinary athlete, setting world records with each of his three gold medals, Phelps won an unprecedented eight gold medals.

The vote only makes sense if there is a bias against America, extending to its individual athletes, in the world at large.

Although the article doesn't mention when the vote occurred, since the story was just published you would think the vote took place recently - after the election of Barack Obama as President.

In its own small way, this may be an indicator that America's "image" in the world, so precious to many on the left, will not be magically transformed with our new administration.

Blagojevich's Interesting Choice

While Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) has infuriated Senate Democrats and Barack Obama with his appointment of Roland Burris to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat, he has chosen a man with no self-esteem issues:  Burris has already built his own tomb, with plenty of room to add new personal accomplishments as can be seen here.

Illinois politics, and politicians, are certainly interesting.