I am delighted to announce that my blog, A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days, is now being hosted at The New Ledger's site. You can now find it here.

Many thanks to Ben Domenech and Christopher Badeaux for making this possible, as well as for giving me the responsibility and privilege to serve at TNL as a Senior Editor. I hope that all of you visit Chequer-Board as often as possible and make it a daily stop. There shall be no more blogging on this site, and I hope eventually to be able to redirect the URL to the new site, so I will leave this post on top in order to allow readers to find the new site with ease.

I am late to this, but it deserves at least some kind of commentary. To be sure, I don't believe the President harbors any kind of particular contempt for the Special Olympics and for the people who participate in it, but his comment nevertheless was appalling. And it is refreshing to see that he is being taken to task for it:

After comparing his bowling to the Special Olympics on "The Tonight Show" Thursday, President Obama called Special Olympics Chairman Tim Shriver to apologize before the program even aired.

"He expressed his disappointment and he apologized, in a way that was very moving," Shriver said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "It's important to see that words hurt, and words do matter. And these words that in some respect can be seen as humiliating or a put-down of people with special needs do cause pain, and they do result in stereotypes."

Obama told Shriver he wants to have some Special Olympics competitors over to the White House for basketball or bowling.

Shriver is the son of Special Olympics founder Eunice Kennedy Shriver, President Kennedy's sister.

The president had been making an attempt at self-deprecating humor in his appearance on Jay Leno's show by saying that a recent 129 he scored in the White House bowling alley had been "like Special Olympics, or something."

It turns out that comparing the President's bowling skills to those of Special Olympians is an insult to Special Olympians:

The top bowler for the Special Olympics looks forward to meeting President Barack Obama in an alley.

"He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily," Michigan's Kolan McConiughey (KO-lahn Mc-KAHNA-he) told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.

I'm sure that he can and I hope that he does. Publicly and with great fanfare. In the meantime, can we stop pretending that this President is a stranger to gaffes?

The mind reels:

We are not making this up:

Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.

This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."

The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.

The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.

Further commentary would be superfluous, wouldn't it?

Read it and weep:

President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month - a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable.

In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, but the eye-popping deficit numbers threaten to swamp his ambitious agenda of overhauling health care, exploring new energy sources and enacting scores of domestic programs.

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or else pare back his agenda.

Just in time, perhaps, for a double-dip back into recessionary territory. Of course, there is no indication whatsoever that the Obama Administration is willing to "pare back" its agenda. But then, that should surprise no one; Democrats appear to be quite fond of increasing taxes, after all.

While it doubtless makes many feel good to see Congress tax AIG bonuses at astonishingly punitive rates and renew class warfare with a fervor, the fact of the matter is that such emotionalism makes for amazingly bad public policy:

Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis called the tax "unfair" in a memo to employees yesterday, while Citigroup's Vikram Pandit said his bank is "working in every appropriate way with policymakers." JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon held a conference call with about 200 executives, saying the firm is concerned about retention and is working with lawmakers.

The banks are responding to an outcry in Congress over $165 million in bonuses paid by American International Group Inc. after the insurer received $173 billion in federal bailout funds. The Senate will vote next week on levies on bonuses after the House of Representatives approved a 90 percent tax on bonuses at companies that received bailout funds.

"People are very anxious about this getting too widespread, this notion that no one on Wall Street or in banking deserves any money," said Seamus McMahon, a consultant with Booz & Co. in New York, who works with financial firms.

Banks, worried that the proposals are distracting employees, are trying to reassure staff and keep them focused on clients. Lewis said the taxes could cause "unintended harm" and delay the recovery of the financial system. Dimon urged workers to call politicians and voice their opinions, a spokesman said.

[. . .]

"The work we have all done to try to stabilize the financial system and to get this economy moving again would be significantly set back if we lose our talented people because Congress imposes a special tax on financial services employees," Pandit said in the memo, whose contents were confirmed by a Citigroup spokesman.

Can there be any doubt whatsoever that talented people will indeed avoid working at companies that have received taxpayer aid because their ability to earn will be severely circumscribed at such companies? And of course, the irony is that such companies are in the most need of talented people to pull them out of their current parlous states and get them off the taxpayer dole. More here:

Bankers on Wall Street and in Europe have struck back against moves by US lawmakers to slap punitive taxes on bonuses paid to high earners at bailed-out institutions.

Senior executives on both sides of the Atlantic on Friday warned of an exodus of talent from some of the biggest names in US finance, saying the "anti-American" measures smacked of "a McCarthy witch-hunt" that would send the country "back to the stone age".

There were fears that the backlash triggered by AIG's payment of $165m in bonuses to executives responsible for losses that forced a $170bn taxpayer-funded rescue would have devastating consequences for the largest banks.

"Finance is one of America's great industries, and they're destroying it," said one banker at a firm that has accepted public money. "This happened out of haste and anger over AIG, but we're not like AIG."

[. . .]

In Frankfurt one employee at a US investment bank said the new tax measures would "send [the US] back to the stone age".

"Commodity traders are already moving to companies like BP where they can make as much money as they used to," said another banker at a US firm.

Bankers at Deutsche Bank said it could benefit from the proposed legislation by poaching its US rivals' most talented employees.

Unfortunately, it would appear that those on the port side of politics don't appreciate the fact that financial incentives are oftentimes needed to ensure that people not only work, but do a good job as well. These people have been going on and on and on about "exorbitant salaries and bonuses" for an exceedingly long time and one can almost smell their anticipation in ensuring that salaries and bonuses get clawed back. The problem is that they will help ensure that companies currently on the public dole will not get the smart people they need in order to thrive again. And, as referenced in the excerpt above, what is to stop those smart people from going to work for companies overseas that will allow them to make more money and avoid the quasi-punitive taxes and restrictions that increasingly appear likely to come over the horizon and regulate pay and bonuses here? Of course, once this happens and Congress and the Obama Administration notice that members of the business community are taking jobs in overseas firms that will be exempt from Washington's efforts to regulate pay and bonuses, they will likely then make noises about the lack of "economic patriotism" amongst members of the business community. You cannot win with these people.

It is not difficult to conclude that the rhetoric from Washington is directly responsible for things like this:

Pillars of the community are now pariahs fearing for their safety in a ritzy area of Connecticut home to many executives at American International Group Inc. (AIG), hit with a backlash over bonuses it paid to top brass even as it accepted federal bailout money.

The payouts to executives appear to have helped put a face on the economic struggles the country faces, and the anger targeting AIG is palpable. Death threats have been pouring in since the brouhaha broke, the company said, and its workers are taking no chances.

"It's scary," one executive said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he feared retribution. "People are very, very nervous for their security."

The funny thing, as we all know now, is that guarantees for bonuses were inserted into the stimulus package by Chris Dodd, the senior Democratic Senator from Connecticut, at the behest of Treasury Department officials. The late outrage over this fact would appear to constitute yet more evidence that no one actually took the time to figure out what it was that they were voting on when it came to the stimulus package. It is unbelievably embarrassing for the Obama Administration and for Congressional Democrats to wax outraged over the payment of AIG bonuses . . . only to find out that they were responsible for the fact that those bonuses had to be paid out in the first place. Wasn't this new Administration supposed to work hand-in-hand with Congress to teach us the meaning of competence, after all?

Unfortunately, it would appear that courts will not help us get out of this mess, despite the fact that the exorbitant tax bill that was passed in response to the payment of AIG bonuses was a clear and obvious bill of attainder (yes, the language was written generally so as to avoid appearances of a bill of attainder, but we all know what was going on, don't we?). The only way to stop policies that will, indeed, take the business environment here in the United States back to the Stone Age is to vote out the people determined to exalt Neanderthal thinking when it comes to economic policy. 2010 is the first opportunity we will have to pull back the country's march to an economic Stone Age. It cannot come fast enough.

My computer cannot contain this much awesome.

Well, disaster pretty much ensues. No one should claim that they did not see this coming.

Those bonuses at AIG? The ones that everyone is waxing enraged about? The morality play that has unfolded concerning the story?

Yeah, I think the issue is a bit more complicated than people care to admit.

and it appears to be because Mir Hossein Mousavi has entered the presidential race, thus making Khatami's presence unnecessary. I am not all that surprised; again, it bears noting that Khatami never wanted to enter the race and basically made clear his lack of interest in returning to the presidency of Iran. The claim that he ran because he had to and that he is withdrawing because he is no longer needed to carry the reform banner makes sense to me. And given that Khatami never delivered in any real way when it came to the reform agenda, perhaps his withdrawal is for the best.

I cannot comprehend policies that so obviously make life more difficult economically at a time when an economic perfect storm is battering the U.S. in just about every way imaginable. To take just one example, Smoot-Hawley and the disasters associated with it ought to have taught us that raising trade barriers during a severe economic downturn is a horrendous idea.

So . . . well . . . explain this:

A long-simmering trade dispute boiled over into sanctions on Monday after Mexico said it would raise tariffs on $2.4bn of US exports in retaliation for ending a pilot programme to allow Mexican trucks on American roads.

The announcement marks one of the first big tests for trade policy under President Barack Obama, who has sought to tread a fine line between assuaging his domestic constituencies and upholding the US's international obligations.

Mexico said it would increase tariffs on 90 industrial and agricultural goods, likely to include politically sensitive farm products, after Congress last week killed a pilot programme allowing a limited number of Mexican trucks on American highways. Mexico obtained a judicial ruling in 2001 under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) allowing it to impose such sanctions, but has held off since the US introduced the pilot scheme.

The sanctions, which Mexican officials say are set to be imposed later this week, will be one of the largest acts of retaliation against US exports. US goods exports to Mexico totalled $151.5bn last year. On Monday, Gerardo Ruíz Mateos, Mexico's economy minister, said: "We believe that the action taken by the US is wrong, protectionist and in clear violation of Nafta."

As the story makes clear, the cancellation of the program was done at the behest of unions like the Teamsters. And despite the claims that Mexican trucks are less safe than their American counterparts--a claim used to justify the cancellation (protectionists never cite actual protectionism for the trade barriers they erect; they always use "labor" or "safety" or "the environment" as justification for their concerns)--a Department of Transportation study found that in many instances, Mexican trucks are safer than American ones.

An saboteur could not have done a better job of undermining American economic interests than the Obama Administration's Democratic allies in Congress have done with this move. And to be sure, the Administration could have shut down the effort . . . but chose not to.

One wonders what other international trade agreements the Administration will unilaterally--remember when that was a bad word?--break. And one wonders what other damage will be done to American economic interests.

It is well known that in its drive for health care reform, the White House and Congressional Democratic allies want to reduce the power of private insurance carriers, whose individual policies they see as being responsible for a large portion of the health care crisis (lack of coverage in general, use of the pre-existing condition argument to deny coverage in specific cases, fighting to refrain from paying for various medical treatments, etc.).

But there are times when private insurance carriers are important to the Obama Administration and its allies. One such time, apparently, is when veterans are needed to be cared for:

The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

The Obama Administration, of course, made much of its supposed desire to honor our veterans with the care that it and its allies claimed the Bush Administration never gave. How that promise is reconciled with the determination to outsource veteran care is a mystery. Private insurance carriers will only pass on the costs imposed on them by government to the rest of us, thanks to this arrangement. And the government shall have broken a promise to care for its fighting men and women.

Perhaps the Commander-in-Chief does not understand just how offensive this stance really is. If the government wants to save money, it can do so by refraining from costly and ineffective "stimulus" packages. Refraining from the care of veterans is positively wrong and the outsourcing of this critical task makes one wonder just how government proposes to take the lead on health care reform for the rest of us. Will non-veterans--like veterans--be told, at a critical moment, that the buck is being passed concerning their care, once a set of health care policies is passed and supposedly implemented?

Those who have been reading reports on the relevance and efficacy of unions shall find this article to be no surprise whatsoever. But it is worth highlighting. When one concentrates one's mind on the fact that in the midst of a severe recession, we are seeking to legislatively empower a workplace vehicle that is an economy-killer, it does not take long before one's neurons rebel in protest.

The President's approval ratings fall.

They are still fairly high. But not amazingly so. Indeed, the President fares worse than many of his predecessors at the same stage during their first terms. Can we stop calling Barack Obama exceptionally popular now?

That's the rumor. I shall wait until it is confirmed--or not--but this may not be the disaster to the reform movement that the article makes a potential Khatami withdrawal out to be. To say the least, Khatami's bark was always worse than his bite when it came to fighting against fundamentalist creep in Iran. And there is little reason to think that things have gotten any better in terms of his ability to maneuver against the fundamentalists--including the Supreme Leader, who always held him in check and has the power to hold any Iranian president in check.

I can think of worse things than giving new blood a chance to make the reformist case in Iran, though, to be sure, the current batch of "new blood" leaves something to be desired on multiple fronts. Perhaps the remaining reformist candidates will not have Khatami's charm and electoral reach. But what good is charm and electoral reach in a candidate who is unwilling to use them and in a president who has shown no ability to use those qualities for the purpose of advancing the cause of freedom within Iran?

But as James Pethokoukis notes, excessively positive thinking is not the best thing in the world in any circumstance, and can be particularly harmful when it comes to making economic forecasts.

And yet, the Obama Administration appears to be bound and determined to engage in excessively positive thinking by putting forth economic forecasts that, while attractive, can only be believed in by people so happy-go-lucky that they have never had any kind of misfortune befall them.

Of course, when one recalls that the Obama Administration is basing its deficit forecasts on these economic prognostications, the situation becomes ever more frightening, doesn't it?

Wasn't the "reality-based community" supposed to be more tethered to reality than this?

Bruce Lee plays ping-pong . . . his own way:

How goes the economy? Depends on whom you ask:

During the fall campaign, Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obama's team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country.

But on Sunday, that optimistic message came from economic adviser Christina Romer. When asked during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" if the fundamentals of the economy were sound, she replied: "Of course they are sound."

"The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology," she said. "We know that - that temporarily we're in a mess, right? We've seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. So certainly in the short run we're in a - in a bad situation."

Just a week ago, White House Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag declared that "fundamentally, the economy is weak." Days later, Obama told reporters he was confident in the economy.

On the upside, it is nice to see this:

The seesaw message from the new administration drew sharp criticism from Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who said Obama's team was exploiting the economic situation for political gain.

"They're taking advantage of a crisis in order to do things that had nothing to do with getting us into the crisis in the first place," McConnell said.

More of that, please, Milton Friedman never engaged in "Shock Doctrine" rhetoric, the silly accusations of Naomi Klein notwithstanding. But the Obama Administration has taken "Shock Doctrine" rhetoric to a whole new level.

Why even listen to Keith Olbermann and/or Sy Hersh anymore? Isn't that kind of like taking lessons in chivalry from Chris Brown?

Nancy Pelosi is not a partisan? Come on. If you took the partisanship away from Nancy Pelosi, there would be nothing left. And of course, the partisanship has only gotten worse since that article was written, with the Speaker taking away the ability of Republicans to engage in motions to recommit and cutting Republicans completely out of the process when it came to crafting a stimulus package.

Either the Speaker should stand up a proudly embrace her partisanship or she should strive to be the non-partisan figure she claims to be. But she shouldn't lie to people.

You have to be kidding.