The Obam-"duh" Doctrine, Ctd...

All the way back in December of 2009, President Obama received the Nobel Peace prize and I noted that conservatives were stunned that the President would advocate for the use of force in defense of this country and in limited times when the humanitarian call for action was too great. And I said way back then, that this was unveiling of the Obama doctrine. And I was right.

President Obama proved last night that he's a man of his word. He does not oppose the use of military force but he understands that military force alone cannot, and we as a country cannot, force political change. We can create conditions where mass violence is minimized, but we cannot through our military might form a brand new government for a country out of whole cloth. And for god sakes, we don't need to save the whole world by ourselves! It's OK to ask friends for some help. One of my favorite quotes during the 2004 Presidential campaign, John Kerry mused regarding Iraq, "Mr. President, it's not leadership if no one is following."

Some conservatives and liberals argue that by imposing the "no-fly zone" implicitly calls for regime change. I disagree. We are not taking part in a civil war. We are merely making it a fair fight. We have removed Gaddaffi's ability to attack from the air (which is imprecise and kills more civilians) and limited his ability to use mass artillery.  The Obama Doctrine is essentially limited strategic force with a cooperative massive effort on the diplomatic end to ensure foreign policy goals. Last night, the President essentially said "Gaddaffi must go, but we don't have to kill him for that to happen." After the sobering lesson of Iraq, we've learned that the U.S. Armed Forces are really good at blowing stuff up. They are not good at making a government for a foreign country.

Meanwhile, France and the U.K. are taking the reins, because this is in their backyard and the conflict is a more vital interest to them. We are also supplying our high tech know-how with radar jamming and other advanced rescue capability.

I think it's a pretty sensible policy. We will stop mass murder where and when we can. We are in the business of stopping things from happening not making things happening. The military is responsible for destructive capability and constructive capability will be the purview of our state department and diplomatic efforts in the region, which by definition, includes partners willing to help and help pay for those shared goals.

The era of the superpower died in 1990 and really died on September 11, 2001. With actual threats that are so defuse and varied, no one nation will be able to fight it all by itself. The new era requires cooperation with friends and allies, which happens to be the best for security and fiscally. And if working with our friends is called weakness by some conservatives, than so be it. I'd rather have a stronger America that looks weak than a weak America that pretends to be strong.

NEWSFLASH: The Bailout Worked

A new release by the Treasury Department shows that TARP - commonly known as "the bailout" - will not cost taxpayers as much as originally anticipated.  Estimates show that the program, signed into law by President Bush in late 2008 and re-authorized by President Obama in 2009, will cost approximately $50 billion but has the potential to turn a profit for taxpayers.

Although President Obama should have leveraged the use of TARP more over Wall Street banks and hedge funds for stronger financial regulation reform, the program did its job in stabilizing the financial sector at a relatively small cost. (It's important to remember that estimates of the cost of the crisis range from $1.3-1.6 trillion.)

Interesting fact: Although roughly $700 billion was authorized, the program only disbursed roughly $380 billion.

The bailout is a perfect example of why it's sometimes OK to have BIG GOVERNMENT.  I would have liked to stem the financial crisis but unfortunately I don't have $700 billion at my disposal.  The big banks were the ones who didn't have any money anymore, so they couldn't get together and come with a private solution.  Once at the turn of the century, the U.S. went into a recession and J.P. Morgan, not the bank, but the man, bailed out the U.S. government - those were the days!

There are some things that big government shouldn't do. Big government shouldn't set local school curriculum, or set local zoning laws, tell you you can't eat certain foods or smoke, or tell a girl what to do with her body if she gets raped or knocked up by her 15 year old boyfriend.  That stuff is too small for big government to do and it's really not its job.

Anyway, this is a case of big government working.  We don't want big government all the time but we want big government to do big things like this, fighting wars, making sure every state is treating U.S. citizens equally and protecting our food, air and water to make sure its clean.  All of this big stuff we can't do by ourselves and we need big government to do. And when we agree that there are certain big things that we need to do like build more federal highways, reform our outdated healthcare system, update our energy grid, or send our troops to war, it's fair that big government asks us to pay for those things, because those things cost a lot of money.