Home
Yesterday was a fascinating day for me. I wrote a little blog post earlier in the week in which I said President Obama should be fired for putting resources behind medical marijuana prosecutions in California. And then the Internet puked on my shoes. (See my post below for all of the fun.)

It seems some clarifications are in order.

Sorry I Confused Some of You

You can see from the many comments on this blog, and on the other Internet sites that linked to it, that people had very different interpretations of what I wrote. The people with good reading comprehension correctly understood my point: Jailing an American citizen for no reason other than political gain is a firing offense.

The people with bad reading comprehension, and the people who saw nothing but the confused summaries and tweets from those people, interpreted my argument as saying Romney is likely to be softer on drugs than Obama. And based on that misunderstanding, people concluded that my endorsement of Romney was the stupidest opinion in the galaxy. They'd be right if that had been my reasoning.

The fascinating thing here is that I believe the source of confusion is that people literally don't recognize objectivity when they see it. I got a lot of comments along the lines of "You say X is true and then in the same paragraph you say Y." What I actually said is "X is likely to be true, but here's an argument for Y." That's how objective people talk. They make a prediction and then explain why it might be wrong. That's the only way you know all sides have been considered. Partisans and non-thinkers say, "My prediction is 100% certain."

If I were to say the weather in California is good, but today it is cold and foggy, about 20% of readers would say, "Make up your mind! First you say the weather is good and then you say it is cold and foggy! You make no sense!"

Bad Analogy People


The people who aren't good with analogies waded in next, pointing out that President Obama killed U.S. citizens abroad because those citizens were part of a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of the United States. While that situation is worthy of discussion, it misses the central point of my post. There's a big difference between protecting the country and expecting some political gain from doing so versus jailing a small businessman in California for political gain while not even pretending it benefits the country. I expect my president to do some nasty stuff in my best interest. I don't expect him to do nasty stuff to citizens for no reason other than his own reelection interests. The latter is a firing offense.

The Law is the Law

The next thing that fascinated me is the number of people who said President Obama is obligated to pursue legal action against medical marijuana dispensaries in California because the law is the law and we can't have our leaders picking and choosing which ones they support.

To the people who hold that view, I wonder what country you have been living in. In the real world, legal resources are always limited, and leaders at every level of the legal system make choices every day about what is important enough to pursue and what is not.

As I write this, every police chief in every district is looking at his resources, looking at all the work his office is charged with doing, and deciding that something on the order of 50% of what the legal code asks him to do is simply impractical. So he focuses his resources on the 50% that are his highest priorities.

While the law is the law, the more important fact is that the budget is the budget. We elect our leaders to set priorities and act accordingly. The point of my post is that President Obama is using the country's limited resources to shut California dispensaries - possibly the country's lowest priority - for no reason other than political gain. In the process, he's putting a small businessman in jail for 10 years to life. That's a firing offense.

On my side of this debate is a Harvard-trained lawyer by the name of President Obama. During his first campaign for president he promised he wouldn't waste limited government resources pursuing medical marijuana cases. I'm not a Harvard-trained lawyer so I will take his word for it that a president can choose to ignore low-priority prosecutions without violating his oath.

The President Doesn't Personally Put People in Jail

Some commenters mocked me by arguing that the President doesn't control federal law enforcement at the granular level. You can't blame him for every decision made in the field. He's not personally slapping handcuffs on perps. True enough. But in the case of California dispensaries, he authorized the flip-flop in policy from ignoring the situation to going after them. Holding him innocent from the logical repercussions of his policy is like saying history should cut some slack for Pol Pot because he didn't personally kill anyone.

The Lesser Evil Argument

Supporters of President Obama argue that firing the President FOR ANY REASON means accepting a devastating alternative in a Romney presidency. While I applaud the complete dismissal of morality in the interest of practicality, let's take a minute to see if the practicality argument is so cut and dried.

My observation is that voters often - perhaps usually - don't get what they think they voted for. Nixon surprised everyone by getting cuddly with China. Bush Junior turned from isolationist to military adventurer. Obama went from weed-friendly to badass destroyer of state-approved dispensaries. Some fiscal conservatives have blown up the budget while some free-spending Democrats balanced it. If you think you can predict how a candidate will act in office, you might need a history lesson, or perhaps a booster shot of humility.

Now consider Mitt Romney, the most famous chameleon of all time. I submit that a hypothetical Romney presidency would be nearly impossible to predict with any accuracy. In each of his past leadership roles he has morphed into whatever the job required. During the primaries, his job required him to be far right. In the general election we see him drift toward the center, or as his advisor famously said, "Shake the Etch-a-Sketch." It would be naïve to assume Romney wouldn't shake it again once elected, given that even non-chameleon presidents do so.

Romney knows that the electorate is full of idiots and he needs to be a gigantic liar to win their votes. I totally get that. The funniest part is his budget plan that he promises to describe in detail after he gets elected. Dumb people see this as "He has an awesome fiscal plan!" Democrats see it as "He's a liar with no plan!" I see it as "You know I'm a brilliant and experienced turnaround guy. I know how to do this sort of thing. And if I give details now it just paints a target on my back. So chill."

In any event, Congress will be the ones who decide on the next budget. It will probably look similar no matter who gets elected. I don't believe, for example, that a Romney budget would overfund the military. Congress would moderate that, and Romney probably doesn't mean it anyway. Remember, his job today is to lie to get elected. His job once elected is quite different.

I also have no faith in my ability - or yours - to compare Obamacare (essentially a Romney plan) to how healthcare might change under a Romney administration. If you think you know the answer to that question, you're kidding yourself.

Some Democrats say the biggest risk in a Romney presidency involves Supreme Court nominees. But I think we saw after the unexpected opinion from Justice Roberts on the Obamacare ruling that the court has a built-in safety net against being too blatantly partisan and destroying its own credibility in the process.  I think the risk of a conservative-heavy Supreme Court ruining the country by adhering too slavishly (irony!) to the Constitution is low. You might not like some of their rulings, but they probably won't kill you. And if we are being objective, a court with too many lefties would have its own risks.

You're Endorsing Romney to Cut Your Rich Guy Taxes, Bastard!

Some folks suspect that I'm a weasel-bastard who is using the California dispensary issue as a smokescreen for bobbing to the right so I can save on taxes under a Romney administration. There's no defense against an accusation that I have secret motives, but let me describe the economics as I see them.

Over my career, my net worth has moved in lockstep with the overall economy. So whatever plan is good for the entire country is probably the one that helps me most, no matter what my tax rate is. And realistically, given a choice between taxing the rich, including myself, versus taxing people with no money, I don't see a choice. Even Romney knows we can't grow our way out of the problem. He's not an idiot; he's just a guy who needs idiots to vote for him.

So no, I don't see a scenario in which someday I am flying my diamond-encrusted helicopter over the rioting masses of starvation-crazed ex-middle-classers and thinking to myself that things worked out well for me. I don't see the option of living the good life at the expense of the 99%. That's not even a thing. I stopped working to satisfy my personal cravings years ago. Everything I produce and everything I earn these days is for the benefit of others. So I don't mind higher taxes on the rich if it makes sense for the country. With the exception of M.C. Hammer, the rich get richer no matter what the tax rates are. I'm afraid that won't change regardless of who gets elected.


Update:

Where's your evidence that President Obama is enforcing drug laws in California for political reasons alone?

What other reason is there? And remember that your answer has to account for the fact that President Obama has never bothered to explain his unexpected change of policy. Nor has anyone in his administration explained it.

I think it is fair to say President Obama didn't learn anything new about the dangers of medical marijuana in California that he didn't know before he got elected. If he did receive new information, he could simply point it out to defend his change of policy.

Californians voted to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries after considering all factors from freedom to health and safety to economics. Our prior governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed a law decriminalizing possession of small quantities of marijuana with a classic summary: "No one cares if you smoke a joint." (It's funnier when you imagine it in Arnold's accent.)

The medical marijuana dispensaries have now operated long enough that we can see their impact.  So far, it seems that dispensaries raise tax revenues, reduce crime in their neighborhoods, and help a lot of patients find relief. Dispensaries also keep their customers away from shady dealers who might offer more harmful drugs. The dispensaries probably have no appreciable impact on supply. Illegal marijuana is easy to obtain just about anywhere.

The trend toward full legalization of medical marijuana is accelerating all over the country for the same reasons that swayed Californians. I see no reason the trend will reverse. Does it make sense to send someone to jail for a crime that will likely become a non-crime during the jail term? What kind of leader devotes resources to that?

Have you ever met someone who smoked a lot of marijuana, as President Obama did when living in Hawaii, while simultaneously holding the view that the people who sold it to him should go to jail? I don't know the exact answer to my own question, but I'm guessing the number is near zero.

Now let me confuse the readers coming over from Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Gawker, Mediaite.com, and some of the other Low Information Voter sites. I'm going to display something called "objectivity." It involves discussing the odds that I might be wrong. It does not mean I just changed my mind. It means I'm attempting to consider all sides. Here goes. . .

There is some chance - I think a very small one - that President Obama has a non-political reason for cracking down on California's medical marijuana dispensaries, although I can't even imagine what reason a liberal  ex-stoner  with a budget problem might offer. If he chooses to tell the public his reasons, I will happily reassess my opinion. But keep in mind that one of my neighbors down south is about to go to jail for ten years to life because of President Obama's decision to devote limited Federal resources to prosecuting dispensaries. When a president doesn't offer reasons for jailing Americans, you have to call that a firing offense. (Saying he is following the law isn't a reason. Federal resources are limited and citizens expect their leaders to ignore low priorities.)

In summary, if President Obama is devoting limited federal resources to go after marijuana dispensaries for no reasons other than political gain, including, for example, attracting campaign funding, he should be fired. If he has a reason for jailing a small businessman, and he chooses not to share it, that too is a firing offense.

Why do you keep ignoring third-party candidates?

The best way to fire an incumbent president who is running for reelection is to vote for the only candidate with a realistic chance of beating him. If a voter switches from Obama to Romney it causes a two vote difference: one less vote to Obama and one more for Romney. Moving one vote from President Obama to a third party candidate is a one vote difference in the competition between President Obama and Romney.

And frankly it makes a stronger statement to endorse Romney since I disagree with most of his stated policies. It underlines the difference in importance between a true firing offense and policies you believe would be less desirable than the alternatives.

If my endorsement carried any weight whatsoever, I'd consider backing a third-party candidate. But no one will change opinions based on what I blog about. So I have the freedom to write whatever has the most entertainment value for me, with the hope you'll enjoy the show too.

You're crazy when you say a good reason to believe Romney won't be a disaster as president is that he's lying about what he would do in office.

I'm betting that a chameleon will stay a chameleon. That's his history. He adapts to whatever situation he's in. The alternative is to believe a candidate for President will do all the things he promises during the campaign. How has that worked out for you?

Update 2:


Single issue voting is stupid

I agree. One must always look at the big picture. That's why I'm glad O.J. Simpson got acquitted of criminal charges for allegedly murdering his ex-wife. He only had one bad day. You also have to consider his football records.

When Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid," I took that to mean the economy is just one issue among many. I don't know how else to interpret that.

I also think Nixon got a bum deal with that Watergate thing. That was just one mistake.

If President Obama decides to give our nuclear codes to Iran, let's agree to count that as one mistake that should be weighed against all of his good work. For example, there's the time he recycled, and the time he could have lied but didn't. So that's two good things versus one bad thing.

[sarcasm off]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???!!! OF COURSE ONE ISSUE VOTING MAKES SENSE IF THE ISSUE IS BIG ENOUGH!

I think we're all on the same page now. So let's focus on whether the one issue I raised in my offending blog post - that President Obama is effectively sending a guy to prison for no reason other than political gain - and see if that crosses the line for you. Do you want to live in a world where your President can incarcerate citizens for no reason beyond political gain?

Now you might say President Obama is just doing what the law requires when he puts resources behind closing marijuana dispensaries. I dismissed that argument above. (Summary: We expect our leaders to focus their limited resources on high priorities. To willfully do otherwise for political gain, and put people in jail in the process, has to be a firing offense in a free country.)

If you think the one issue I'm talking about is drug policies, and you believe both candidates will have similar policies, then of course that one issue should not sway your decision. But that isn't the one issue I'm focusing on.

My one issue involves President Obama jailing a citizen for naked political gain. You can argue whether my facts and assumptions are correct, but I don't think you can dismiss it as just one issue among many. Jailing a citizen for no reason other than political gain has to be a firing offense. I'd like to believe every citizen agrees on that point.




 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +467
  • Print
  • Share

Comments

Sort By:
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 24, 2012
>I think my problem with your argument Scott is the assumption that President Obama specifically told someone in his administration to actively go out and begin prosecuting California marijuana offenders, and that he did so for political gain. There's no evidence that such an event occurred.


He never assumed any such thing. The fact of the matter is that Obama is in charge of the war on drugs, and he specifically hand picked the drug czar. He is responsible for this action even if he wasn't the prime mover, and he has EVERY opportunity to stop it, especially considering his pardon power over federal prison.
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 24, 2012
>Yes, it would have been nice for the government to have settled all of this from the beginning. Unfortunately we are dealing with more than one 'government' here with somewhat conflicting interests. If I understand correctly the California state government issued the license, the county government decided it was a bad idea and got the federal government to help them out in the matter. Life in the Dilbert zone!

But that's just it. Obama said that he wouldn't bother dispensaries if they were complying with state law. This is just a nonsensical justification.
 
 
Oct 24, 2012
@helen.trim

Not that I agree with Scott but I believe he made that clear enough in his post, even though Im one of those poor reading comprehension folks who thought at first that he was saying Romney would be softer on drugs than Obama. Scott didn't see an explanation from the administration on the matter so concluded that back room maneuvering must have been what happened. A number of flaws in Scotts overall argument have since been pointed out in the comments, among them my own statement that what likely happened was the county governments were having problems with the dispensaries, asked the feds to come in and enforce federal law and the feds looked at Obamas stated policy on the matter and concluded they could go in and crack down. This would explain why the administration has so far been silent. For a more detailed explanation of this and the other arguments read through the comments.
 
 
Oct 24, 2012
I usually find Scott's blogs interesting and thought-provoking. After reading the original entry, I was on Scott's side and agreed with his conclusion. However, I have been looking for evidence to back up his claim that Obama has changed his policy for political gain only. All the news reports on the subject show what a muddle the laws are, and there is evidence that this muddle is leading to an increase in illegal use of a dangerous substance. From what I can see, it looks as though the Obama administration acted on this evidence.

Sorry to 'puke on your shoes', Scott, but what is your reason for stating that your President acted purely for his own political gain?
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
[But no one will change opinions based on what I blog about. ]

Do you really believe that Scott? I recall one commenter stating they changed their mind because of you and another saying they were considering it. Id bet money you changed at least three folks minds and if I had to guess Id say around a dozen. But you're closer to this than I am so I would be willing to believe you if you disagreed with that assessment. If you say over a hundred, though, Id like to know how figure that.
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
[You researched the matter. What, exactly, happened?]

Snort. You over-estimate me.

[If I understand correctly the California state government issued the license, the county government decided it was a bad idea and got the federal government to help them out in the matter.]

Yeah - that's pretty much how I understand it as well.

[Life in the Dilbert zone!]

My point exactly.
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
@Dingbat

[The second question is: Is it justifiable to send a citizen to jail for operating a business in the midst of unsettled law -when he had good reason to believe he was operating legally. In that case, the answer is clearly no. I don't think it matters that he knew he was taking a risk. The government has no business issuing "risky" business licenses. If they do - they need to work it out amongst themselves rather than nailing the business owner for bad judgment in trusting them. ]

Were the feds not clear enough with him on this point? Did they not tell him what he was doing was illegal and give him the opportunity to stop? That is not a rhetorical question. You researched the matter. What, exactly, happened?

Yes, it would have been nice for the government to have settled all of this from the beginning. Unfortunately we are dealing with more than one 'government' here with somewhat conflicting interests. If I understand correctly the California state government issued the license, the county government decided it was a bad idea and got the federal government to help them out in the matter. Life in the Dilbert zone!
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 23, 2012
@whtllnew
[The guy knew he was breaking a federal law, was given a chance to stop and, when he was arrested, was given a chance to cut his losses. And, I might add, the crackdown that got him has the support of millions of Americans and the county government where he lived. Taking all that into consideration I do not consider what happened to him a big enough reason by itself to demand the President lose his job.]

I agree with you on the "not a big enough reason...to demand the President lose his job" part.

However, there are two separate issues. One is - are we looking at a "firing offense on the assumption the President violated his own beliefs in authorizing a legal attack on a citizen solely for political gain. In my opinion -no. You can be pro-medical marijuana - and pro-decriminalization in general - and still be justified in responding to a plea for help from county officials to deal with problems created by a poorly enacted law/policy.

The second question is: Is it justifiable to send a citizen to jail for operating a business in the midst of unsettled law -when he had good reason to believe he was operating legally. In that case, the answer is clearly no. I don't think it matters that he knew he was taking a risk. The government has no business issuing "risky" business licenses. If they do - they need to work it out amongst themselves rather than nailing the business owner for bad judgment in trusting them.

If it turns out the case is murkier with that and the individual was clearly violating other laws it's a different question. But if that is the case, I assume he will charged/convicted on the basis of those other, clear violations.
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 23, 2012
[So it's okay as long as the victim knew there was some risk involved? -- Scott]

Getting jailed for breaking the law after being given a chance to rectify the problem, and then still failing to do so, and rejecting a plea bargain as well?
Yes, I'd say its ok.

What it would take for it not to be okay is if they didn't give him a chance to rectify the problem, given that state and federal law isn't consistent on this matter. Or if he only had the legal dispensary in California and they still went after him (because I believe its the other two dispensaries that caused the federal authorities to take action). If we have cases like that, then my argument won't hold up.
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
[So it's okay as long as the victim knew there was some risk involved? -- Scott]

You're taking it out of context Scott. The guy knew he was breaking a federal law, was given a chance to stop and, when he was arrested, was given a chance to cut his losses. And, I might add, the crackdown that got him has the support of millions of Americans and the county government where he lived. Taking all that into consideration I do not consider what happened to him a big enough reason by itself to demand the President lose his job.
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
A lot are raising the issue of individual choice/stewardship, since Obama didn't do the police or prosecuting attorney work to convict this guy.

I would argue that people in the executive branch are not independent actors. They all serve at the leisure of the single person head of the branch.

Additionally, if its a case of a rogue agent, a good leader would fix what bad underlings broke as much as possible, and punish them. He didn't stop the prosecution nor did he pardon the "victim". Those who put him in jail were not fired.

This is why I think a "rogue agent" defense is futile. Those in power get what they want. Look what happened to the guy who gave up Osama. He is in prison in Pakistan. Leaders punish ppl who do stuff they dont like. The Obama admin punished the marijuana guy and rewarded his prosecuters.

If what Obama truly wants doesnt happen in agencies that answer DIRECTLY to him, he is a terrible leader. Either he betrayed his own public dogma, or he sucks at getting his servants to obey.
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
If there is only one example of Obama sending someone to prison for political reasons then I'd say he's ahead of 99% of all rulers that have ever lived. Historically, throwing those that oppose you in prison is straight out of the play book for world leaders since the dawn of time. Ooops, I somehow forgot that we live in the most civilized society the world has ever known.
 
 
-9 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 23, 2012
I think the most interesting question is: how have you people managed to go an entire thread without calling him out on his central claim that Obama personally gave the order to crack down on marijuana dispensaries?

If you ever need a proof of the credulity of the masses, look no further than this present thread. To convince you that X is a true statement, all Scott Adams had to do was act as if it's common knowledge.
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
I am not american and don't care who wins, both candidates seem quite capable (although in different ways).

However I find this post interesting not so much about what it says about the candidates but about what it says about Scott: It seems you decided to support Romney first, and only then look for a justification. It's almost as if you didn't have any free will!
 
 
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 23, 2012
@DingBat

"I hope everyone agrees that no American citizen should go to jail for engaging in behavior he had every reason to believe was legal. This is not an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" issue. The State government said it was legal. The fact that the State, Federal and Local governments have not worked this out is no excuse for sending someone to jail unjustly."

Federal authorities ordered him to shutdown all three of his medicinal marijuana dispensaries. He only shutdown two of them. The third was left open since it was in California.
No one can know exactly how the interaction between him and the authorities played out, but he did break the law and defied the authorities orders on the third dispensary.
He was also offered a plea deal which he rejected.
My guess is that they decided to slam him for his defiance, not because this was a clear cut case of him doing something illegal (even though two of the dispensaries were in fact illegal).
Either way, the question of whether or not he should be jailed seems to be fuzzy at best. Still, I have to assume he knew what the risks were.

[So it's okay as long as the victim knew there was some risk involved? -- Scott]
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
You can repeat your mantra of the firing offence as much as you want, the hard of thinking are going to pick up on your sarcasm and take it literally.

So what does it feel like to be an apologist for OJ?
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 23, 2012
[Jailing a citizen over nothing important doesn't seem outrageous to you? Whatever meds you're on are working great. -- Scott]

It is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. Whatever else we may agree or disagree on - I hope everyone agrees that no American citizen should go to jail for engaging in behavior he had every reason to believe was legal. This is not an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" issue. The State government said it was legal. The fact that the State, Federal and Local governments have not worked this out is no excuse for sending someone to jail unjustly.
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
@cramdenr15

Close but not quite. Based on what we now know the likeliest scenario is as follows:

Some California counties are having problems with marijuana dispensaries and ask the feds to enforce federal law. Perhaps the feds interpret Obamas statement saying he cant ask them not to enforce the law as meaning they can use their own discretion. Perhaps Obamas statement that they should go after folks that are doing harm combined with the counties assurance that they are doing harm, makes them conclude they can go ahead and crack down. Whatever the reason, they act without bothering our very busy president for permission.

Anyone see a hole in this scenario?
 
 
Oct 23, 2012
I think my problem with your argument Scott is the assumption that President Obama specifically told someone in his administration to actively go out and begin prosecuting California marijuana offenders, and that he did so for political gain. There's no evidence that such an event occurred.

Also, it's unclear how doing so would strengthen his political future, as a democrat (aka liberal socialist commie atheist) he'd be alienating his own political base (albeit primarily in a state that he's likely to carry).

A more reasonable explanation is that someone in government (possibly a Republican, possibly to make the president look bad, possibly for their own political gain) made a decision to waste government resources prosecuting marijuana offenders, knowing that the president is in the midst of a tight campaign and unlikely to have the time to deal with anything that doesn't involve another potential war in the Middle East.
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 23, 2012
Scott: "Even Romney knows we can't grow our way out of the problem."

Perhaps we can't grow our way out of the problem, but part of the problem is that the system is set up to be very anti-growth, and that's when you analyze it from both ideologies.

To a conservative/libertarian, there is an unsustainable welfare state; the analogue in business is a defined benefit pension plan. These are both examples of unproductive legacy costs; the government DOES NOT create growth. It creates activity, but that is not the same thing as growth, which is why Obama spent a trillion dollars and accomplished next to nothing, economically speaking. Government spending is not an "infusion" of cash, because it either involves higher taxation (lowering other spending), or inflation (which also lowers spending), especially commodity inflation, which is strangling the economy right now (admittedly, the speculators aren't helping matters any, but that's a problem with global markets that requires a global solution). Their mistake is thinking that people will take this problem seriously when they've come to enjoy, and depend upon, getting their government goodie bag -- which, to be fair, many of them did pay into, but to continue being fair... that money went to their parents (and to cook the government's books), not to the people who paid.

To a liberal/progressive, there's a problem with where the money is, or rather, isn't, going. It is sitting on corporate balance sheets, not really doing anything risky (except for a bunch of crazy derivative bets) or productive. Compounding the problem is that in all of these companies, the CEOs are on each others' boards of directors, pumping up their own salaries, and only hiring their cronies for top positions (although, to be fair, the liberals have the government to hire their own cronies and hacks). There's something useful there, but their error is thinking that they can MAKE them do something useful, in any manner that people will stand for. That is also unlikely.

The system is horribly broken, and it will definitely require a pro-growth agenda AND serious structural reform, as well as addressing inherent imbalances in the global economy, before anything will get fixed. That requires a practical and flexible thinker who is willing to evaluate the problems honestly, and Obama's obsession with increasing the top marginal tax rate (despite its being meaningless without capital gains tax reform, except for hurting sole proprietorships) is the emotional appeal of a raging ideologue who complained that health care costs were killing the economy and then rammed through a plan making them WAY MORE EXPENSIVE (for more abundant, but lower-quality, care!), not the kind of practical thinking we need. Mitt's flexibility is actually his biggest asset -- and the best chance this country has of getting anything useful done in the next 2 to 4 years.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog