Wisconsin governor Walker has used the nuclear option. The stalemate is broken as the Republicans passed the bill without the fiscal issues, thus making a 20 person quorum unnecessary. So all along it was not so much about balancing the budget today, but more about busting the union. They should be man enough to admit that all along. As I have said before, I am for busting the public unions. I don't think that it is fair to the taxpayers who are paying the public employees to have unions back politicians who give them what they want. No less of a Democratic authority than FDR felt this was wrong! To be fair, no less of a Republican authority than Eisenhower, warned us about the military-industrial complex! Well, I digress. As I have said before, I don't begrudge a cop or a teacher for making $50,000 a year. What I think gets regular taxpayers mad is the crazy benefits unions got from politicians. For example, a police chief in a nearby town retired this year in his 50's. He got a pension of $200,000 a year. He then got a job as an assistant chief at the county sheriffs, and is being paid over $200,000 for that job. So he is making $400,000 a year! It is this kind of absurdity that gets people mad. Ironically, a Republican district attorney of L.A. lost the state attorney general election when he said he deserves to be able to double dip if he is elected to be attorney general and get the D.A. pension at the same time.

So what happens now? There will be lawsuits, of course. There are going to be attempts to recall lawmakers from both sides. I don't know what the majority of people in Wisconsin think but I have a feeling that even if the majority believe that Walker was right in the first place, I don't think they like him to use the nuclear option without any negotiation. Somebody on a talk show think that this is a plan for Republicans to defeat Obama in Wisconsin next year. I think that is far-fetched. The Republicans won big last year there because of the frustration over the economy. I think people of Wisconsin will have regrets about voting out people like Russ Feingold who was one of the best biparisan politician in the country. Even though the unions are defeated now, I think they will be energized for the 2012 campaign because they know that another defeat will mean the end of the road for them. The Democrats can campaign that the Republicans made the middle class the scapegoat for the economy and that the people who caused the financial crisis, the rich Wall Street folks, not only that none of them are in jail but most are making more money than before. So it will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

Paul Wolfowitz was on CNN today talking about the situation in Libya. Predictably, he criticized Obama for not being tougher on Kadhafy. This comes from someone of the Bush administration which declared that Khadafy was no longer a terrorist because he had renounced terrorism and would not pursue nuclear weapons. Wolfowitz also wants Obama to stop standing by dictators and be more supportive of democratic movements throughout the region. Of course it is the people on the right which is cautious about the victory for freedom in Egypt, fearing that more radical leadership would emerge in place of Mubarak. Wolfowitz also would not come out and say that we should renounce Saudi Arabia which has the most oil.

I think the revolution will win out in Libya and reforms will be made in Bahrain but I don't think it will spread to Saudi Arabia and Iran at this time. Iran will use force on their own people and will hold out for now. The economic problems that started in Tunisia and Egypt do not apply in Saudi Arabia. Most Egyptians were living on $2 a day, this does not apply to Saudi Arabia. I also think that the Saudis will try to stabilize oil prices because if oil goes out of control, food prices will go up and there will be more instability in the region which the Saudis do not want.

China also do not want instability. I am sure the leadership is watching this closely. There are mild protests right now which the government can control easily. But this is at a time when China has the greatest economic growth of any country in the world in the last decade. They have subsidize food and energy prices to keep the masses happy. If there is an economic collapse, there would be great deal of trouble for the government. When that time comes, how will the U.S. react? What if China decides to sell all the U.S. bonds they hold? So it is time to try to decrease the deficit and also decrease our dependence on oil. Otherwise when the governments of China and Saudi Arabia are in trouble so will we.

There are several things I want to talk about regarding the Wisconsin situation. First, I agree with the moves by the governor. It is obvious that this is not just about saving money but about busting the public unions as well. I agree with this because I don't believe that public unions should have the right to bargain. The unions can and do spend lots of money to help people who are favorable to them get elected. These officials are not spending their own money but taxpayers' money. I have no problem with private unions negotiating with businesses. The officers of the company have to watch their bottom line and if they give away too much the company can go under. In the case of a government, it cannot go under and ultimately taxes have to be raised. The private unions cannot help elect the people they negotiate with but the public unions can. So this is an unfair advantage.

Having said that, I am also against corporation's ability to almost spend an unlimited amount on an election as the supreme court ruled last year. Where the unions have an unfair influence on state and local government with their money, the corporations have too much influence on the federal level with their money. The supreme court ruled that corporations and unions have freedom of speech. But this means more money means more freedom. To me that is wrong.

The democrats walked out so that there is no quorum for a vote in Wisconsin and the conservatives are up and arm and say that this is unethical. While I am on the side of the Republicans on the bill, I don't agree with the conservatives' complaint. The quorum is a rule and the democrats are using a rule to their advantage. This is just like the republicans using filibuster to make Obama make concession on healthcare last year. In both cases the will of the majority is stifled because a rule makes it difficult to bring a vote to the floor. Obama had to figure out a different tactic and so Walker will have to do the same here. It is the rule. I don't like either rule, but what is fair for one is fair for the other.

This is a difficult problem for Obama. He is siding with unions which is going to hurt him in reelection. But he has no choice. If the Wisconsin unions are abolished, those in many other states may fall also. He needs the unions in many of those toss up states and without them, reelection becomes extremely difficult. So while he wants to be more centrist in the next two years, he has no choice but to come out in support of the unions. My position is different from Obama on this issue. But if a republican defeats Obama, I am afraid the country will be worse off because the regulation of Wall Street and other businesses will be much more lax. While I don't like the tactics of the unions, it is the Enrons, the Madoffs, the Mazillos etc. who have cause us much more pain economically in the last few years.

Another week has gone by and the Egyptian protesters are going at it with more passion than ever! If there was any doubt as to where the U.S. should stand, there should be no doubt now. Mubarak's action today makes his strategy obvious. Blame other countries (really the U.S.), delay as long as possible and hope that the protesters become violent and give him excuse to use lethal force. The protesters have shown great discipline so far of being peaceful. This is so even though they don't have a Gandhi to lead them. At this point they cannot afford to lose because if the protests stop, many of them will be targeted by the secret police afterward. So they must fight on without provoking the army.

Having seen Mubarak not so subtly blame the U.S. for interfering, Obama must go against him. He needs to signal to the army that if Mubarak survives, the enormous aids that the U.S. gives to the Egyptian army will stop immediately. The people of Egypt have spoken loud and clear and if we don't support them now, we will be look upon as being hypocritical in the Middle East and rest of the world.

Due to technical difficulties, I have not been able to write anything lately. I am still limited but will try to write something whenever I can as I have already missed opportunities with the Tucson shooting, the state of the union address etc. If anyone wants me to comment on something that already passed, please write in.

Egypt is still going crazy. Obviously it is a difficult situation for Obama because of Mubarak's support in terrorism and his keeping the peace with Israel. Whichever way Obama go, he will be criticized. But I think it is time for him to dump Mubarak and take the chance that a less friendly government will be formed. I think history tells us that support for dictators like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein will be disastrous in the long run. I think if we cut the tie with Mubarak now the Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt are not strong enough to take over. Siding with Mubarak now and even if he survived the fundamentalists will get stronger and when Mubarak does leave there will be a even less friendly government to the U.S.

Once again I show my tremendous ability to forecast football results by predicting that the Big Ten will win 3 bowl games this postseason. I don't know why I said they will go 3-4 even though they played 8 games and I made a prediction on all 8. Anyways I predicted 3 wins and just like last year I got it right on the nose. I know one of you will say that I got Iowa and Wisconsin wrong, but they were both close games and the result could easily have been reversed. New Years day was a pathetic day for the Big Ten as I predicted. But even I couldn't have seen the shellacking that Michigan and MSU got. The Big Ten was lucky to salvage some pride because Ohio State survived a comeback from Arkansas. Jim Harbaugh: We need you to come home!

The retirement of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George reminded me of how difficult it is to be a centrist in government these days. George is a Republican who was appointed chief justice by a Republican governor. He is considered a centrist, however, and often was the swing vote on the court. To many people, usually those on the extreme right or extreme left, a centrist is wishy-washy and don't have convictions. In fact, a centrist do have convictions but he would look at each issue and judge its merit objectively. So sometimes a centrist would side with the liberals and sometimes he would side with conservatives. Of course the side he does not agree with may criticisize him. Add to that problem is the fact that 2 centrists may not agree on a particular issue. I consider myself a centrist and I disagree with George frequently. I do respect the fact that George looks at each issue carefully and rule according how he interprets the law. This is unlike conservatives and liberals whose decision on most issues are known to everybody before the argument begins.

Couple of examples of what a centrist may do. George was the deciding vote in California approving same-sex marriage in 2008. This infuriated conservatives. Subsequently propositon 8 overturned same-sex marriage and when the constitutionality of Prop. 8 came before the Supreme Court in 2009, George voted to uphold it. This infuriated the liberals even though 2 others who voted for same-sex marriage in 2008 also voted to upheld Prop. 8. He was the tie-breaking vote to overturn a state law requiring girls under 18 to obtain consent from a parent or a judge to have an abortion. This infuriated not only conservatives but also a centrist like me. While I think women have the right to abortion, I don't think a girl under 18 should make that decision herself. Right now a girl under 18 can't come to my office to get a pregnancy test without parent approval. I can't give her a shot without notifying a parent or guardian. So why would it be lawful for someone to give her an abortion without parental notification? This is surgery where there can be complications or even death of the girl. So I disagree with George on that. But I do respect George for his overall work and I would much rather have him deciding cases than someone like Clarence Thomas or Ruth Ginsburg because I know how they are going to vote before the case starts.

Obama finished the year with some much needed victories. Sure, he is still very vulnerable in 2012 especially if the economy does not keep improving and if the Republicans nominate a moderate. But if the economy improves significantly in the next two years (a big if), then he can point to the legislations that he pushed through in the past two years as the key. As I have said before, the next two years with the Congress split, nothing will get done. So the Republicans cannot claim that they did anything if things improve. Of course, if thing go bad, then they can and will blame Obama.

Let's face it, Obama has not shown great leadership. Not the Magic Negro some had coined him during 2008. He is at least partially responsible for the Democrats getting slaughtered in the election this year. But his fault is not able to communicate his stragies and ideas to the people, not lack of understanding of what needs to be done. The stimulus program and TARP were forced moves. If he had not done them, even if the economy is exactly the same today without them, he would be roundly criticized for not doing enough. Ironically some who say that the stimulus was socialist also say that his handling of the stimulus was too slow. You know what? China's stimulus plan worked much quicker because they don't have to worry about bureaucracy of a democracy. If they want to build a road, they just do it. No legislation to pass, no arguments. His foreign policies such as the Middle East negotiations and the START treaty are all supported by experienced diplomats including former Republican Secrataries of States. Getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" , increased college financial aid, financial service reforms, consumer credit card protection laws are all Democratic agenda so a lot of people may not like them. But most people would understand that it is a job of a Democratic president to push them through and he did that.

Two legislations that hurt him was Healtcare reform and the extension of Bush tax cut. Healtcare reform gives his opponents an opportunity to call him a socialist. Healthcare is not an immediate crisis for overwhelming majority of the people so reform in a bad economy is going to be unpoplar. But Obama knew that we have to tackle it. My own insurance has doubled in four years and has increased again this month and I have not had a significant illness (knock on wood). So eventually the majority will feel the pain that a small minority feel today. Skyrocketing healthcare cost will also make our businesses less competitive. So Obama was right to tackle it. I don't like parts of the reform but it is a start. The problem for Obama is that both the right and left don't like parts of it and blame him, which I don't think it is fair.

The Bush tax cut extension with extending unemployment benefits and decreasing estate taxes is another legislation that both the left and right blame Obama. But again if he does not compromise then both sides will yell at him also. So it is a no win but I don't blame Obama. By the way if tax cuts are so essential for the economy, how come the economy went down after we had the tax cut? The truth is, nobody knows how a tax cut or increase will ultimately affect the economy. It doesn't matter who is the president, they use the same economists and Federal Reserve Chairman anyway.

Which brings the conclusion. Obama has not shown great leadership so far. But he has tried to do what he can. He is not better than Bush when it comes to the economy. But he has not make the horrible mistake of sending troops to Iraq. He got a lot of what he wanted to do done in the first two years. He will not get much done in the next two years with the new Congress. Whether he will be re-elected depends on the economy and if there is any more terrorist attacks, two thing probably beyond his control.

There was an article in the LA Times today about Newt Gingrich's possible run for the presidency in 2012. You have got to be kidding. This is the guy who is on his third marriage, having got rid of his first wife while she was very ill in the hospital. And of course he claims to be for family value! He was known for leading the Republicans to victory in the Congressional election of 1994. But he had to leave after the Republicans suffered big setbacks in 1998. I think with all the problems Obama is having, he would welcome Gingrich to be the Republican nominee. Frankly I think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama in a general election. I think Obama would like the Tea Party people to run Palin in opposition, split the party and maybe end up with Palin or Gingrich as the nominee. Also since Michael Steele wants another term as the head of the Republican party, this will be also split the party. So unless the Republicans can get their act together or the economy gets worse, I like Obama's chances despite his weakness in this year's election.

What is with all the crying from John Boehner? I am not against man crying. I cry if I get emotional. But why does he cry so often? He cried when he talked about his poor upbringing. A lot of people grew up poor and did great things and they don't get all emotional about it. Can you imagine if Obama cries on stage talking about growing up without a father and being a minority wherever he lived? The Republicans would call him weak and unfit to be president. Remember Saturday Night Live made fun of Pat Shroeder when she cried? I am waiting for the skit of John Boehner soon.

As all you faithful readers may remember, last year I amazingly predicted that Big Ten teams would go 4-3 in the bowl season. This easily defeated the LA Times college reporter who predicted that the Big Ten would go 0-7. While one of you thought that I should have gotten all the games correctly, I say that it is the total number of wins that matter. So I am back to do the 4 F's, ie the fantastic, fearless football forecast.

Before I start, I must mention that Mich State got robbed by not getting to the Rose Bowl. I understand the voters and computers may think that Wisconsin and Ohio State are better, but in head to head to head competition, MSU wins 1-0 vs 1-1 for Wisconsin and 0-1 for Ohio State. It is not MSU's fault that they don't play Ohio State, so I think using the BCS to decide is unfair.

This year I am pessimistic about the Big Ten's chances. I don't like most of the matchups and I think they can easily go 0-7. Of course with parity now, they can also go 7-0. I will predict that they will go 3-4 with a lot of close game. Here are the individual game predictions:

1. Missouri over Iowa. Iowa collapsed at the end so I will give MO a slight edge.
2. Illinois over Baylor. Illinois is no good and they are playing in Texas, but Baylor hasn't gone a bowl game in 1000 years I think, so they will choke.
3. Texas Tech over Northwestern. The real prediction here is that the total number of points of the game will be over 80, over 100 if they go into OT.
4. Alabama over MSU. MSU should have been in the Rose Bowl but they actually got the toughest opponent for all the Big Ten teams. Alabama should have beat Auburn so I don't think MSU has much of a chance here.
5. Florida over Penn State. Florida missed Tebow badly but they don't need a good qb against Penn State. Paterno is over the hill.
6. Miss. State over Michigan. Michigan can't beat any good team with the defense they got. At least this will give their 3 freshmen dbs a chance to play more.
7. Wisconsin over TCU. Wisconsin is on a roll and I don't think that TCU is as good as Boise State although that does not matter.
8. Ohio State over Arkansas. Ohio State already faced Ryan Mallet before when he was at Michigan so they won't be afraid of him.

So I will comment on the results after the Sugar Bowl.