RAG Perspective: An American Pro-Liberty Conservative

Miscellany: 2/11/12

2012-02-11T23:59:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Excellence is an art won by training and habituation.
We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence,
but rather we have those because we have acted rightly.
We are what we repeatedly do.
Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle

Whitney Houston Dead at 48: RIP
Heaven Numbers One More Angel
In Its Choir...
DONE TOO SOON!

I had written the first entry of my Entertainment Potpourri segment earlier today, suggesting that one of the American Idol contestants consider singing the third Whitney Houston song embedded below; little did I imagine I would now be writing a tribute to the memory of one of the duet's vocalists. I still remember as though it was yesterday when I heard for the first time her distinctive magical voice coming through my radio, singing "Saving All My Love For You". And then when I first saw her, an unbelievably gorgeous African-American woman, I was totally blown away: she was like an angel on earth. I'm sure others will remember how Whitney took Dolly Parton's bittersweet tribute in breaking with long-time singing partner Porter Wagoner for a solo career, "I Will Always Love You", and make it totally her own with a gravity-defying vocal explosion.

Whitney Houston scored an amazing 11 #1 pop hits (and 12 other Top 10 hits)--she even managed to take her version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" to #6 on the charts. In fact, my middle two selections below aren't among those top hits.

Whitney Houston has had a well-known substance abuse problem; she has been in rehab multiple times, reportedly as late as last year. No cause of death was given; the early report is no obvious evidence of foul play or drugs at the scene (hopefully no one tampered with evidence); it wasn't even clear who, presumably from her entourage, found Ms. Houston unconscious or dead and contacted hotel staff.

One of My Favorite Songs of All Time...
"All the Man I Need"
(I used to fantasize my bride one day would sing it to me)

Two of the Greatest Divas of All Time:
A DREAM Duet, A GREAT Song and Performance
"When You Believe" (with Mariah Carey)

One of My Favorite Duets Ever: I LOVE This Song
"If I Said Your Eyes Are Beautiful" (with Jermaine Jackson)

Remember the 1988 Summer Olympics?
(I also liked Four Tops' "Indestructible")
"One Moment in Time"

Romney Wins Maine, CPAC Straw Vote

There had been rumors that Ron Paul, if he was going to steal a state away, would succeed in Maine; in fact, Ron Paul always has a vocal following at CPAC, so the fact that he skipped CPAC to campaign in Maine confirmed those rumors. But Romney held on to beat Paul 39-36. (Note that despite all the talk building up Santorum, we saw, once again, Santorum has problems when social conservatives aren't a major force (like they are in Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri); Santorum got just 18 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, the high-profile win for Romney at CPAC, the annual conservative pilgrimage, over Santorum 38-31.

I'm getting more impatient with the anti-Romney forces. THIS IS NOT ABOUT IDEOLOGY--THIS IS ABOUT LEADERSHIP. None of the other candidates has any credible public administrative experience; except for Paul, none of the others has any appeal to the moderates and independents. All of the other candidates are existing or former career politicians tied to Washington and an unpopular Congress: tell me, Mark Levin, have you seen Congressional approval ratings lately? What part of your political "street smarts" tells you that nominating a highly polarizing Gingrich at the head of the ticket will not only lose to Obama, but bring GOP candidates down the ticket crashing with him? And as for Santorum, take a look at how well Alan Keyes, a prominent black social conservative, did against Obama in 2004. Santorum lost to "Mr. Charisma" himself, Bob Casey in a landslide, one of the worst I've ever seen for an incumbent senator. What happens when Santorum has to face a much better, charismatic Barack Obama and a $1B campaign war chest?

Read my lips, Mr. Levin: self-styled "conservatives" have been running against Romney solidly for the past year. How hypocritical of you to slam Romney for having the audacity to fight back. For most of the past year, Romney hasn't been focused on the other GOP candidates but running against Obama. On the other hand, Gingrich and Santorum barely registered in the single-place percentages: the only thing they've had going for them was not being Romney.

Whatever you may say about Romney, the fact is that Romney was busy vetoing spending bills by a nearly 90% Democratic Massachusetts legislature, while Rick Santorum was part of the Senate leadership pushing through the biggest spending increases since the LBJ era (well, until 2007 when the Democrats started putting spending on steroids) and he helped push through massive earmarks (while making sure that Pennsylvania got its fair share), including the notorious Bridge to Nowhere. (Technically, when bridge project costs doubled, the Alaskan legislature used the option to spend the hundreds of millions on other projects.)

I have given Romney a fair dose of criticism in this blog, even after I endorsed him. As for saying whatever he thought it would take to get elected statewide in one of the most liberal states in America, including distancing himself from ideologues, I'm not worried about it. The guy spent decades as a venture capitalist, not a community organizer. The idea that a free market venture capitalist needs to be lectured to by Mark Levin about conservative princples is ludicrous.

Looking at current polls, it's fairly clear across the board that Santorum has slipped past Gingrich into second place, roughly 10% behind Romney. Well, except for one oddball PPP poll which puts Santorum 15 points ahead of Romney. I have criticized PPP before; recall, they forecast Romney with a 10 point victory in Colorado.

I'm still amused and annoyed at the hype surrounding Santorum's close win in Colorado, a beauty contest Missouri primary victory (where Gingrich wasn't on the ballot), and the Minnesota caucus. The fact is that Santorum didn't come close in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida or Nevada. These 3 contests were all but ignored by the media (including the conservative activists) UNTIL Romney lost them.

Entertainment Potpourri

American Idol Follow-Up. In last Wednesday's post, I criticized AI's handling of 16-year-old Symone Black's fall from the stage as a cliffhanger. I was particularly worried about the possibility of a head or spinal cord injury. It sounds as though she fainted (doctors subsequently confirmed a dehydration problem); she came to with some soda on the scene and managed to get up under her own power. I predict that Symone is America's next sweetheart: sweet, beautiful, upbeat personality, great pipes. She picked one of my all-time favorite songs, Otis Redding's iconic "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay" (there are a handful of songs I've mapped out how I would remake: this is one of them). Taking on an Otis Redding song is like trying to remake a Mariah Carey tune: how can you improve on perfection? How confident are you in having your performance compared to the efforts of a great performer whom made the song his or her own? I think what judge Randy "Yo, Dawg" Jackson is getting to in asking why she picked the song is because the song really doesn't fit her persona. The song has a sound of despair and resignation about it; it's easy to see why Michael Bolton remade it, and it seems to call for a gritty or blue-eyed soul voice, e.g., Joe Cocker, maybe Rod Stewart. Among female performers, I can easily imagine the late Janis Joplin, Tina Turner, Bonnie Tyler or Bonnie Raitt covering the song. What would I have recommended for Symone? Off the top of my head, Nat King Cole's "Too Young", Minnie Riperton's "Loving You", Michael Jackson's "Ben", Jermaine Jackson & Whitney Houston's "If I Said Your Eyes Are Beautiful" (I really LOVE this song...), or Lulu's "To Sir With Love"

New Fox Series: Touch: Thumbs UP! I can't claim to speak on behalf of every bright person on the planet, but there is a certain level of frustration when you catch onto things, solve a problem or come to a conclusion much faster than most people. You aren't even conscious that you're doing it: it comes natural to you so you think other people can do the same thing. It can be frustrating and test your patience as others struggle to reach the same point. And team meetings can be sheer torture. You can also freak out other family, friends, colleagues, students, etc. I recall I was in an other room and overheard my mom talk about some mystery scenario I had never heard before (I'm not into mystery novels), and I blurted out, "Oh, it's got to be so-and-so." My mom came in with a startled look on her face, "That's right; how did you know that?" I've mentioned other examples in the blog. I swear to God this is a real-life experience where a student had never visited me before during office hours. He shows up at the door, and without his saying a word, I said something like "4PM tomorrow". He turned white as a sheet. "How did...?" I said, "Weren't you about to ask me when the test data for the assignment would be ready?" He nodded and said, "How did you do that? I never said a word." He was quite convinced I could read his mind. I also have had an uncanny ability to predict disk and RAID failures (and even alerted Unix system administrators hours before they confirmed through their own diagnostics). There was a case when a junior Unix system administrator at a baking goods distributor essentially pulled the plug on a SAP database server in the middle of the day, corrupting our Veritas mirroring. Not only had I not had any training in Veritas, but I was able to diagnose the mirroring as the cause of our database problems and to estimate almost the exact amount of time to the minute (3.5 hours) it would take for the mirroring to be reestablished allowing us to bring up the database. A lot of these things are difficult to explain; for example, in the case of the student, it wasn't like I had a stream of students asking me the same question; in the case of the Wisconsin RAID meltdown, I had never seen it happen before, and Oracle's error messages are hardly suggestive of the nature of hardware issues.

Somehow I'm able to encode things differently than most people--although nowhere quite like this precocious autistic-like boy in the series whom is able to see interactions between seemingly completely unrelated events, even predicting things like terrorist attacks. But somehow he is unable to communicate verbally; his frustrated father is able to infer in general terms what his son is trying to say. In the pilot, it starts with a long lottery-winning digit string. The storyline works (at least in the first episode); the show premieres next month. The first episode link is above; I saw it after downloading it free from iTunes (note that free episode offers expire after a week or so). Let's hope that the series writers are creative enough to keep the quality up through the next few months.

"A Walk to Remember" (2002): Thumbs UP! Yes, I know: a decade-old movie. I probably first saw this movie on cable late one night last year while working on the blog. Shane West plays Landon, the kind of self-centered, irresponsible high school jock no father, never mind a preacher man, wants his daughter to meet, and Mandy Moore plays Jamie, the modestly-attired, sweet, kind, patient, smart, beautiful young lady next door every mother hopes her son will marry one day. Landon dares a friend to do something risky and to reassure his friend, promises to do it with him (which, of course, he doesn't do). The young man has a catastrophic injury, and Landon is in a state of denial with his conscience. Landon is not doing well in his classes, and Jamie agrees to tutor him with the tongue-in-cheek provision that he never falls for her. (Yeah, right: what young man could possibly resist Mandy's soft voice or kissable full lips or not lose himself in her doe eyes? I want to know how much Shane West had to pay the director to play Mandy's love interest...) But Jaime has been hiding a heartbreaking secret from Landon. This is a tragic love story, but also a triumphant tale of personal redemption.
"Dr Phil", 2/09/12 episode. A powerful UNCF ad when I was growing up reminded us that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste". How did Jenna, a drop-dead gorgeous straight-A student from UC-Berkeley--one of the highest-rated state universities, with stiff admissions standards--get hooked on heroin and meth, have lost an unhealthy amount of weight, living in squalor and feeding her habit by trading sexual favors? Let me be clear: I do not believe in abusing one's liberty by engaging in self-destructive, indulgent behavior. (My libertarian leanings on the drug issue have more to do with high compliance costs, dysfunctional aspects and unintended consequences of state prohibition (e.g., a disproportionately high prison population); as for me, I don't even like to take an aspirin when I have a headache.) Usually the Dr. Phil shows dealing with addicts follow a predictable patterns: addicts and/or their enabling family and friends paying half-hearted lip service for the need for rehabilitation but not, as Dr. Phil McGraw would say, "getting real" (as he reminds his guests, they aren't doing him a favor by making necessary changes in their lifestyle): this isn't your New Year's diet resolution that is forgotten by the time you get the Super Bowl munchies. It requires going out of your comfort zone. I don't usually comment on Dr. Phil shows, which I watch on an occasional basis, but this one had a complementary tragic story that made me extremely angry (I had a suppressed impulse to throw something at my TV set)--angry at parasitic dealers, at self-indulgent, otherwise brilliant young people (the seed corn of our future), and at clueless parents. (These are general comments; Madelyn, in probably one of the most heartbreaking stories I've ever heard below, is clearly a very loving mother whom never suspected a thing.) Let me reedit from a Dr. Phil webpage:

"My son [John, a fellow UC-Berkeley student and former boyfriend of Jenna] was the most amazing kid in high school. He had a 4.67 GPA and managed to do JV basketball, varsity hockey and varsity track. His IQ was tested at Mensa at 187. [Jenna] turned him on to cocaine for the first time. On March 18, [2010] we were called by somebody who told me that my son had an accident. [John] was in cardiac arrest, and they believed it was a cocaine overdose. The MRI showed that the entire top of John’s brain was dead skin, like the calluses on the bottom of your feet, and they said there is no chance of him having any kind of recovery. The neurologist said, ‘You should just unplug him,’ and I looked over at John, and John was crying." Madelyn says that John now lives in a state that borders the end of minimally conscious. "He can’t talk, he can’t walk, he can’t get up and go to the bathroom," she explains. "Since his accident, we have spent more than $450,000 on John’s care."

The show showed a clip of Madelyn very tenderly and lovingly tending to John, his face frozen with a gaping mouth, his eyes following his mom's movements. I don't have unrealistic expectations about bilateral communication from independently-minded teenagers and young adults. I hope that no other parent will ever have to go through what Madelyn is living through every day; I bet a hundred times a day she is thinking 'woulda coulda shoulda'. She is aware that John made his own bad choices and was bright enough to realize that a girlfriend with a drug problem was trouble. As a bachelor with no kids of my own, I can't stand in judgment, but Dr. Phil has a top 5 list of warning signs that I hope any parent will review.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Guess Who member: Burton Cummings, "Stand Tall"

Miscellany: 2/10/12

2012-02-10T23:51:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Politicians are the same all over.
They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
Nikita Khrushchev

NO DEAL: Obama Puts Lipstick on a Pig:
Too Little, Too Late: Thumbs DOWN
The Birth Control "Compromise"

MONEY IS FUNGIBLE! We are dealing with no more than an accounting shell game. Let's take a hypothetical organization X which offers, say, breast exams and abortions. This organization has two principal potential donors: donor A has no problems with funding abortions, and donor B only wants to give for the breast exams. Organization X says to Donor B, "Donor A is willing to pay for all the abortions out of his half, and so your money will only go for breast exams. Happy?" Of course not! Donor B is still implicitly funding abortions because he's funding an organization performing abortions. From Donor B's perspective, there are only two viable options: (1) Organization X drops its abortion business; (2) Donor B finds Organization Y which provides a pro-life health services bundle.

Obama is resorting to the same old same old sophistic smoke and mirrors characteristic of the ObamaCare funding problem. He has a nuanced compromise position: (1) employees of the Church and (2) those at religious-affiliated institutions (i.e., schools, hospitals, etc.) He's willing to waive the birth control mandate in the former; he won't force the Church to pay for birth control coverage for the latter, but insurers will be required to make the coverage available, at "no cost", to church-affiliated female insured.

First, there is no such thing as "free birth control" (well, of course, there's always abstinence...) Those costs have to come out of someone's pocket; the idea that the government can force you to operate at a loss is blatantly unconstitutional. Not to mention an equal protection argument here: why should secular organizations have to pay for the birth control expenses of their insured, but not religious ones? Trust me, it will eventually be passed on to all employers (including the Catholic Church!), in one way or the other, hidden in those inevitable rate increases. (A Reuters news analysis piece makes similar points (my edits): "Insurers may still seek less obvious ways to pass it through, either to the same employers or other corporate clients. Thomas Carroll, an analyst for Stifel Nicolaus, said that 'it doesn't seem like a material cost to be added to the managed care company or the employer.'")

Well, everyone's pocket except for that of the sexually active, fertile woman; it's not like she has a vested interest here: birth control is too expensive to pay on her own (by some estimates, $15-50 a month, say, a full tank of gas). Everyone knows that having a child is so much easier on the pocketbook, and it's common sense that your employer should pick up the tab for your lifestyle choices (yes, readers: sarcasm). Not to mention the partner's responsibility. Yes, he may try to talk his way out of using a condom: it doesn't feel as good. (You would think child support for 18 years should be more than enough incentive, but use of that organ tends to be subordinated in the presence of attractive women.)

OH PLEASE. Guys will do or say anything... If I was attracted to a female progressive, and she was turned on by Barack Obama speeches, I would bring a copy of his best speeches with me (granted, there would be a lot of space left on that index card, but I don't mind repeating myself) and recite all the best Obamaisms I know, e.g., "I am the one you've been waiting for..." And then run a video of Obama smoking after the encounter...

What really annoys me, though, is the total, utterly clueless nature of the Administration that says things like this (from the Reuters story: you can't make this stuff up): "The administration says insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies." I'll tell you an even better way: women can JUST SAY NO. It doesn't even cost $15 a month.

And don't you just love the way these people think of pregnancy like some disease to be prevented? And, oh yes, $15/month seems like a small price to pay versus, say, an average cost of pregnancy and delivery at about $7600. It seems like a no-brainer. Except when you take into account that most children will more than pay back those costs as contributing members of society. Some of the most wonderful, productive people in the world were unplanned pregnancies; I mentioned at the passing of Steve Jobs, the iconic Apple co-founder, that he had been put up for adoption at birth; Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle, the market-leading database company I once worked for, who ranks just below Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in net worth, was also an unplanned pregnancy. (For an impressive list of celebrities who were adopted, see here.)

But the sheer audacity of the most anti-business administration, with almost no legitimate business management experience, trying to lecture the health care insurance industry why it should give away something that is an ordinary expense and costs real money in the drugstore. Thank God we're blessed with six-figure lawyers in the White House whom know how to compare pregnancy costs against birth control! It never would have occurred to the health insurers. But can we expect anything more from this mediocre Administration than trite observations and condescending lectures? Is there no end to this megalomaniac delusion that an administration which has been borrowing 40 per cent or more of what it spends from the outset (something no viable business can afford to sustain) and has multiple entitlement systems running towards insolvency but thinks it has the credibility to micromanage an entire market segment?

I got an email from the libertarian Cato Institute which teased the REAL problem associated with the birth control kerfuffle. I haven't even read the article yet, because I'm fairly sure I know what they are going to say. You know, when we take out auto insurance, we don't expect the auto insurers to cover our gas, oil changes, insurance, tolls, etc. We expect them to handle the big bills, like property damage or pedestrian/passenger bodily injuries. Let people self-insure for ordinary expenses; this would immediately implement the best cost controlling mechanism available: people will be vested in the purchase decision. If they could handle ordinary expenses, say, out of a medical savings account, it would leave health insurers to focus on the big ticket items. The government needs to get out of the birth control business. I'm tired of replaying the same episode of "Obama Knows Best."

Political Humor

As if Newt Gingrich didn't have enough to worry about, Kira Zalan's Washington Whispers column in this week's US News Weekly starts off with a lead segment titled "The Taller, the Better". There are some well-known studies correlating height with income, career advancement, leadership, etc. This also holds true for politics (although Barbara Boxer and Dennis Kusinich (with his 6-foot wife Elizabeth) will beg to differ): the taller Presidential candidate has won nearly 60% of the time. Mitt Romney, at 6'2", has the edge over 6'1" Barack Obama and average-height (5'10") Newt Gingrich. I can just see it now: Romney runs an ad at notoriously thin-skinned Newt, saying "I'll always be taller than you, Newt..." (Of course, neither Romney nor Obama measure up to 6'4" Abraham Lincoln...)

Courtesy of Ed Wexler/US News Weekly, 2/10/12

[Edit: 2/11/12. The original video was withdrawn after my initial post (maybe some added references to Crowder's Twitter account and the original hosting website, National Center?) Note that I originally published that link with the free mp3 offering below. I don't always review older posts to check if original videos are still online and replace them with more current links. I believe that I've posted an occasional Steve Crowder video or two in the past: he has his own channel on Youtube. If the currently embedded video is withdrawn, you should be able to find it on Youtube or nationalcenter.org. I don't claim any credit for the entertaining video; the artist(s) and his (their) sponsor deserve all due credit and publicity.]

Powdered Zombies, "Mr. America": Both Thumbs WAY UP!

Written by, and reprinted courtesy of, Steven Crowder & Chris Loesch.
The mp3 is available for free download here.

Yeah, lookin’ at the country, It’s not what I intended
Gotta start to make a change, Before you’re a Neverending
Story of a failed nation run straight out of luck
Like a million Tyler Perry movies
Uh, you suck

All you little haves lots you’re still selfish and want more
Votin’ in your own self-interests now instead of the core
Principles that made this country both honest and true
Free to speak, worship, pursuit of your happiness too

With all this money afly you gon’ be needin’ a big freeze
I hate the size of the fed like Jesus hated the fig tree
As the spending goes up, you gotta borrow some more
Borrowin’ from the Chinese, like Oh My lord

Instead you just tax more, increasin’ the size
Of the federal government yeah to George’s surprise
You’ll be done like Detroit man, no you ain’t comin’ back
Forget it, I’m out, I’m muzzle loading my gat

HOOK
Mr. America, look what you’ve done
You’ve traded your liberty and sovereignty for lies and promises

Mr. America, don’t you run away
Pick the pieces up and face the problems, you’ll be great again
Mr. America

I got tired of rolling over in my grave everyday
Makin a monarchy of my beloved US of A
You little glitches need remindin of what we were before
And the sitch that led us up to revolutionary war
High taxes to the throne without a voice of our own
Ruled top down from the crown we wanted left alone
All y'all so soft you takin it year after year
We were fighting Redcoats while we were brewing our beer
Now I'm drinkin, spittin cyphers through a grill made of wood
That's how it all went down in G Dubs neighborhood
Packin cap n balls black powder hammers were cocked locked
Click clack, the lobster backs lost the attack 'cause I rocked!
You chicken littles who don't know me, listen don't let it twist
We kicked the "Aaa's" of the "Bees" for much less than this!
So don’t deny the historical I’m climbing out of the mud
Follow me, believe this creed, plant the seeds and be free

HOOK
Mr. America, look what you’ve done
You’ve traded your liberty and sovereignty for lies and promises

Mr. America, don’t you run away
Pick the pieces up and face the problems, you’ll be great again
Mr. America

Unemployment’s at eight five, when it’s really at twelve
Hear me class is in session you can’t be saved by the bell
What happens when you keep printing mo dough
Both parties have gone green like their name was Al Gore

Yeah but right now you’re high, hey ain’t you big hitter
But I’m back from the dead now bringing back all my knickers

Man you think I’d say that, come on what’s wrong with you
I’m just talking about my short pants that tuck into my shoe
But let’s get back to the first point I was trying to make
The degradation of our freedoms and our country at stake

The government’s getting grand, while private sector grows smaller
Pour one out for your homies, cuz here comes the cold water
Unemployment’s still rising, our debt’s growing still
The only change that you’re gonna get is being left with the bill

HOOK
Mr. America, look what you’ve done
You’ve traded your liberty and sovereignty for lies and promises

Mr. America, don’t you run away
Pick the pieces up and face the problems, you’ll be great again
Mr. America

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "Clap For the Wolfman". This novelty hit focuses on iconic DJ Wolfman Jack, probably best known from syndicated radio in the 60's and 70's and particularly his memorable role in the George Lucas retro classic "American Graffiti".

This is the last selection in my Guess Who series, but I will briefly cover a well-known Cummings solo hit and founding member Randy Bachman's subsequent work in BTO before moving on to Paul McCartney & Wings. (Bachman left the group after "American Woman" hit #1, because as a then devout Mormon, he disapproved of his fellow band members' hedonistic lifestyles.)

Miscellany: 2/09/12

2012-02-09T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

My father taught me to always do more than you get paid for as an investment in your future.
Jim Rohn

Lightning Round

$25B Homeowner Bailout Settlement: Thumbs DOWN! Dick Bove is spot on: this is morally hazardous populist nonsense, and I might add, just the type of thing that led to Rick Santelli's clarion call spawning the Tea Party movement. Why should homeowners whom dutifully saved up for their conventional down payment and have seen their own home values drop during the recession see homeowners whom took on the risk associated with nontraditional mortgage loans with less of their own money on the line be rewarded with adjusted loans? Why not simply refinance the loan for a longer term to lower payments? If anything, any money recovered by authorities should be applied against the massive GSE (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) bailout.
Two nuclear plants approved: Thumbs UP! We haven't seen any meaningful progress on nuclear power development in over 3 decades. Nuclear power has had recent challenges lately with the shale gas boom, which has undercut relatively cheap nuclear power costs plus, of course, last year's Japanese Fukushima nuclear incident with a partial meltdown due to loss of backup power during cold shutdown. (The Fukushima problems are not relevant to the American nuclear power program for a number of reasons (better regulation, geological factors, newer/modified reactor designs, etc.)) The one thing that bothers me is the massive federal loan guarantees; to me, this smacks of crony capitalism, consistent, of course, with Obama's green energy agenda. I do not believe that any utility should expect effectively government subsidized loans.
Romney Seems To Be Weathering the Tuesday Elections. Santorum seems to be delusional. One quote had him saying that he's the candidate that Republicans really want. Earth to Santorum: nobody wants someone whom lost reelection in a landslide in a purple state to face Obama. Well, maybe Obama's reelection campaign. Go back to the 2004 Illinois US Senate race when a high-profile social conservative lost to Barack Obama in one of the biggest landslides in modern American history. Santorum is toxic to moderates and independents, and the GOP has no chance of winning the battleground states with Gingrich or Santorum. Santorum has only won one primary, and two of his victories against Romney were narrow and more anti-Romney than pro-Santorum. Today's RCP poll summary shows Santorum with only a 1-point lead over Romney in his home state of Pennsylvania, and he is losing to Obama (while Romney is beating Obama) in his own state. Today's Gallup tracking poll shows Romney with a 16-point lead over both Gingrich and Santorum. The National Journal has an interesting short post showing a 4-pronged Romney approach: (1) showing his more empathetic side (such as what he learned during his mission work as a Mormon); (2) taking the fight to Gingrich and Santorum, particularly their Washington connection; (3) taking the fight to Obama (e.g., the ObamaCare birth control kerfuffle); and (4) keeping up the fundraising.

More on the ObamaCare Mandatory
Birth Control Funding Kerfuffle

From an ABC News news tease:

Internal Debate - Several Catholic men at the White House, including Joe Biden, Bill Daley and even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, opposed the contraception mandate, according to Jake Tapper. They faced off against other Catholics such as senior adviser David Plouffe and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who were joined by senior White House advisers Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse, and then-Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes. Also lobbying by former White House communications director Anita Dunn, Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards.

Obama, despite his considerable political skills and charisma, happens to lack Bill Clinton's street smarts in knowing how to choose one's battles. And he has a certain stubbornness; it showed in his politically disastrous rhetoric about clueless Midwesterns clinging to their guns and Bibles during the 2008 Democratic Presidential campaign, his insistence that the anti-ObamaCare backlash would melt away in time, and finally conceding to the Republicans in an extension of the full Bush tax cuts three weeks before their expiration.

No doubt Obama is seeing this as little more than an internal Catholic dispute--after all, he seems to have at least as many Catholics in his Administration for the policy as against the policy. He would be wrong (and I saw some news stories yesterday floating around the idea that Obama was looking to cut a deal; when that happens, you know they realize they're in big trouble). How wrong is he? Take, for instance, the fact that for the first time I can remember, Protestant ministers are openly supporting the Catholic Church in fighting the mandatory funding of birth control (particularly abortifacients), which violates the very core of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. (Apparently progressives recognize freedom of conscience when it comes to killing on the battlefield, but not when it involves the killing of preborn babies.) Rick Warren, who gave an invocation at Obama's inauguration, had this to say: "I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure. I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29." [But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men."] Both thumbs WAY UP!

I'm pleased that other people are making the same point I have about the ObamaCare policy being manifestly unconstitutional. Here's another news excerpt:

Urging the court to rule the policy unconstitutional, EWN [for those who don't know, this is a well-known Catholic cable network, in fact my Mom's favorite channel] became the first lay Catholic organization to file suit against the mandate. Two institutions of higher education, Belmont Abbey College and Colorado Christian University, have already filed suit.

The way that Obama dodges questions on the kerfuffle during this media clip below, maybe the New England Patriots will recruit him after Obama loses in November and has to look for work...

video platform video management video solutions video player

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "Share the Land". Hmmm. Clearly I didn't choose this pop gem based on its lame naive lyrics, which seem to reflect a recycled Marxist utopia of a classless society, where the state will wither away. Methinks singer/songwriter Burton Cummings wouldn't be happy if people wanted to "Share the Song" residuals. But as Randy "Yo, Dawg" Jackson would say, Cummings has "mad vocals"; the chorus/harmony is irresistible, and the arrangement is glorious and memorable (I particularly love the guitar work). And now, for dessert, may I recommend another feel-good song, the Youngbloods' "Get Together"?

Miscellany: 2/08/12

2012-02-08T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Love conquers all.
Virgil

A Little Housekeeping

Due to time constraints and the late election results, I published yesterday's post, but subsequently decided that the commentaries didn't meet my personal readability standards and made an extensive series of edits. The post was republished late this afternoon, and earlier readers may prefer the updated version. (Of course, if you disagreed with my original analysis, you still won't like the revised version.)

A Further Reflection On the Romney Florida Gaffe

Here is the FULL excerpt (in context) from the now famous Soledad O'Brien interview with Florida GOP Primary winner Mitt Romney:

ROMNEY: This is a time people are worried. They're frightened. They want someone who they have confidence in. And I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in the American people. And, by the way, I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
O'BRIEN: All right. So I know I said last question, but I've got to ask you. You just said I'm not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?
ROMNEY: Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.

Clearly Mitt Romney is not cognizant of the mixed message he is sending. Consider within mere seconds he sends out this message: "I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor..." This is not good when one is going up against a President whom is all hat and no cattle. To cite for the umpteenth time in this blog: "If there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism."

I'm at a loss to explain how he expressed himself in such a way. Since he opened the door, let's briefly discuss this: how does he feel about the very poor have done under Barack Obama? Better, the same, or worse than under President Bush? I don't know why he would say something like "if there's a problem there, I'll fix it". One could infer that he hasn't put that much thought into it.

Let me take a very simple example to illustrate my point. The Democratic-controlled Congress during the second Bush term was trying to push up income eligibility for various entitlement programs (e.g., SCHIP, Medicaid, etc.) The Bush Administration was concerned about the fact that the Democrats were trying to extend the reach of poverty-support programs well into the middle class--even as many people eligible for the programs weren't aware of and/or using their benefits.

So what Romney should be saying to lower-income people is a message like this: "Ultimately, our safety net depends on the federal government's ability to live within its means. I want to do on the federal level the same kinds of things Mitch Daniels has done in Indiana for the DMV: target the resources at truly needy people, improve responsiveness and quality of government goods and services and evaluate government performance accordingly. I also want to get the government out of the hair of businesses by reducing government costs (taxes and regulatory compliance) on businesses, meddling in hiring practices and not borrowing so much, thus lowering the cost of capital."

Romney is here talking about why he's in politics is to help the middle class. This is instantly confusing. Remember Reagan's quote? "I"m from the government, and I'm here to help." Why? For one thing, his middle-income obsession seems to suggest the Democrats and the Republicans are in a bidding war in pandering to the middle class. That's just more of the same--spending more and more money we don't have, even as we have already reached our credit limit.

Why is Romney here for the middle class (instead of all Americans)? Is it because he's always been part of the middle class? No. I don't think here he's giving a good reason of why he's running for President.

What would I say in his place? Something like this: "You know, when I grew up, my folks taught me certain values: hard work, thrift, self-reliance, diligence, integrity, and accountability. We knew what to do and how to help other people without the federal government looking over our shoulders. Our education and hard work would pay off in the long run: we could make our own opportunities: start a business, buy a home, raise our family and promise our children a brighter future.

"Over the past 4 years, what we've seen is a different America. We have a leadership with a lack of confidence in our own economy, our ability to produce without a federal bureaucrat with no real business experience looking over our shoulders. We have a leadership whom has refused to ask all Americans to sacrifice, not just the disproportionately taxed upper 1%, We have a leadership which knows only how to spend, not very efficiently. We have had a leadership that is more interested in pursing priorities like climate change, financial regulations and healthcare insurance than in lowering business taxes and regulations or opening new markets to American goods and services.

"Yet all that spending has done nothing to shore up retirement benefits for seniors, and we're currently at our credit limit. All those overbudget dollars come at the expense of the far more efficient, effective, real job-generating private sector. All those uncompetitive taxes and burdensome regulations get in the way of business growth and generating good-paying jobs.

"The reason I want to be President is to restore hope for a new generation of Americans that they'll have the same type of opportunities that I had to make a decent living for my own family and the promise of a better future for my kids. I want to leave a smaller, not higher national debt and sustainable, accountable programs. I want to provide a constructive leadership to work together with both parties in the interests of the American people, not someone whom promised a post-partisan Washington but wouldn't deliver on that promise."

Well, that's part of what I might say if I was Romney. How would you feel if Romney spoke those words to you?

Entertainment Potpourri

I often discuss American music, television and movies. So I've decided to start a related segment (not that people look for entertainment tips from an obscure nerdy political blogger (especially one whom hasn't gone out to a movie in years)), but for some reason some of the biggest responses I've gotten from the blog reflect some of the music videos I've included in the blog, and one of my highest post pagereads was the day after I wrote a commentary on how the Fox TV show American Idol could be retooled.

I haven't been a fan of a number of recent Super Bowl halftime shows. [The Toronto Sun has an interesting retrospective of the best and worst of Super Bowl halftime shows; as of this post, there's a rather embarrassing typo when they list last year's Black-Eyed Peas' universally panned show (even late night comics were cracking jokes about how bad it was) under "Best"--and then immediately go on to hammer the vocal performances.] However, I did like Madonna's; it's not hard to understand how America fell in love with a talented, beautiful Franco American singer (although she is a lapsed Catholic and we have different political views and values). Many fans may not realize Madonna's Franco American mother (with the same given name) died of breast cancer when the future musical icon was just 5 years old. I've never been impressed by Madonna's attention-seeking gimmicks, but she has an ear for listenable pop music, probably the most prolific, enduring pop performer since Elton John (my top 5 favorites? "Like a Prayer"; "Frozen"; "4 Minutes"; "This Used To Be My Playground"; "You Must Love Me" (from Evita)). I loved the fact that she ended with "Like a Prayer", on my personal Top 10 list (in my mind, I mapped out how I would produce my own version of the song), although to be honest, I would have opened the show with her signature tune and ended with a context-appropriate "Four Minutes". Apparently the biggest news was when some mediocre backup singer decided to exercise her middle finger, and already you've got the regulators stirred up: can we PLEASE ignore provocative behavior from an unworthy entertainer wanting her 15 minutes of fame? Listen, if that scandalizes you, you should have seen or heard what was going on in schoolyards when I was a kid...
"New Girl" Fox TV. Now Thumbs DOWN! It's not the actors--whom are brilliant. It's lousy writing and gimmicky contrived scenarios. I have continued to watch, hoping it'll improve. For example, Jess had an intimate relationship with this guy; in a memorable scene, her new boyfriend confesses to Jess that he loves her--and she responds with an uncomfortable "thank you". (The poor young man can't emotionally handle the fact she doesn't want a serious relationship.) In another episode, she accidentally sees one of the male roommates naked; she soon comes to the conclusion the best way to handle the situation was for her male roommate to "accidentally" see her naked. In the last episode there were two scenes of note: a building superintendent somehow gets the idea Jess wants to have a multi-partner sexual encounter with him and one of her male roommates. Then there's another roommate who thinks a female manager has a thing for him and sent him to a conference room to do something she could enjoy in the privacy of her office. So he starts doing a strip tease in front of the camera while we see about 2 dozen unsmiling Japanese businessmen looking in on the feed. I just think the show has lost its more endearing, creative edge since the first few episodes. Let's just say I have some ideas on how to rework the show, but as long as they're getting great ratings with the target demographic (of which I'm not a member), they'll continue.
A late, late review: "Just Like Heaven". Yeah, it's been in DVD release for a few years now. This is another romantic fantasy. I caught it on rotation recently on cable; you can find the DVD on sale for under $10, and I think the full film is available on Youtube as well. Reese Witherspoon plays a workaholic doctor (whom, of course, without a progressive government available to mandate no talking on one's cellphone while driving, runs into a little trouble...) Mark Ruffalo is a landscape architect whom knows how to grow roses Reese should have been stopping and smelling. I"m a perfectionist as a writer, and there are parts of the plot that don't seem to fit (for example, why would the spirit of workaholic doctor be drawn to her apartment where, for all practical purposes, she had been spending little time beyond sleeping?) Even as a Catholic, I enjoyed the exorcism scene (although I would have also loved a Ghostbusters' cameo with Aykroyd fleeing, saying Reese reminded him of his ex-wife....) Add a dash of Sleeping Beauty, and this film is a winner.
I didn't watch Simon Cowell's The X Factor, so I didn't recognize the buxom diva in the Super Bowl ad singing for King Elton John, aka the Pepsi Nazi (remember the greatest Seinfeld character, the Soup Nazi? "No soup for you"). But now the new season of American Idol. I have to say for some reason I'm not as much into this new season. I miss Cowell's sometimes biting criticisms and the memorable train wreck auditions of past seasons. This is notorious "Hollywood week" where they whittle down the candidates. One of the special-interest stories involves comedian/film star Jim Carrey's daughter whom was eliminated in tonight's episode. (You feel so bad for the kids of celebrities; people have unrealistic expectations, plus any measure of success they achieve is attributed to their parent's connections.) However, I really, really didn't like how AI created its version of a cliffhanger--a young lady apparently fell off the stage by accident and someone is calling for an ambulance. I don't know if this is about ratings, but don't build ratings over a contestant's injuries.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "Hand Me Down World"

Miscellany: 2/07/12

2012-02-07T22:52:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

I hear and I forget.
I see and I remember.
I do and I understand.
Confucius

Santorum Wins Non-binding Missouri Primary,
and the Minnesota and Colorado Caucuses

Santorum pulled off a minor hat trick at Romney's expense. The one clear loser tonight was Newt Gingrich. The fact that Gingrich didn't qualify for the Missouri primary (because he didn't file in time) helped Santorum with the non-Romney votes. (There were party rules about primaries to protect the traditional early states' status before Super Tuesday next month, and the Missouri legislature failed to move the primary back.) Santorum became the first in the field to win by majority vote 55-25% over a distant Romney in second.

The Minnesota caucuses had Santorum with 45%, Paul had his best showing of the night at 27%, and Romney placed a distant third at 17% (I had never seen a poll out of Minnesota with Romney leading). Michele Bachmann, a darling of the social conservatives and no doubt would have won the Minnesota caucuses going away if she was still in the race, went out of her way last week to quash talk of an imminent Romney endorsement. (I'm sure Romney will remember this fact in the future, say, when it comes to picking a VP or members of his Administration.)

The Colorado caucus vote was much delayed, but with almost all votes counted, Santorum beat Romney by 3 points, 39%-36%. The Colorado caucus was a mild upset because the few polls before it (by PPP) suggested Romney had up to a 10-point lead. Did we experience déjà vu from the Iowa campaign where the "hot conservative" caucus-goers jumped from a fading Gingrich to Santorum, more as a protest "stop-Romney" vote to prevent Romney from claiming a victory on the night?

What happened tonight? Was it a second failure of the Romney campaign to play Whack a Mole this time (this time Santorum, whom had been unable to follow up his photo-finish win over Romney), like when a fading Gingrich suddenly caught fire in the closing days of the South Carolina campaign?

In fact, the social conservatives in Minnesota and Missouri had more than enough incentive over the past week to resurface and make a statement, especially as the Ninth Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge overturning California's Proposition 8 (i.e., restoration of the traditional marriage definition to the California constitution) as unconstitutional and a recent very controversial decision of the Obama Administration under ObamaCare to require Catholic institutions to fund birth control in their benefit packages.

A number of progressive Democrats, who see Romney as the strongest challenger to Obama, were tweeting, happily pointing out that the 3 states are battleground states. That was a politically naive observation: first, candidates who are perceived as more moderate or independent don't do as well in caucuses or closed primaries. Second, in some states e.g., Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota, social conservatives in the GOP are more of a factor.

The fact of the matter is nearly all the recent GOP beauty contest polls nationally have Santorum at a distant third or fourth in a four-man race. It's possible that Santorum will displace Gingrich as second to Romney in these beauty contests over the days ahead, but is the GOP really going to nominate someone whom lost in a landslide for reelection in a purple state? I don't think so. In 2008 Huckabee continued to rack up Southern states after it was fairly clear that McCain was going to get the nomination, but McCain easily held these states in the general election.

I think in the long run, tonight's results have no real significance, more of a wake-up call to Romney that his Florida and Nevada wins didn't seal the deal. He is still the only candidate to finish in the money in every race to date.

Ninth Court of Appeals Sustains District Court Judgment:
Reinstatement of Traditional Marriage "Unconstitutional":
2-1 Decision: Thumbs DOWN!

Reading a legal opinion can be a maddening experience for any seriously intelligent individual. I understand the concept of equal protection, and I understand just like Congress can pass an unconstitutional law, so can the people. If we were talking about some incidental characteristic among people, e.g., "only people of the same religion [can marry]", "only people of the same race or ethnicity", etc., I would agree such restrictions on liberty would be unconstitutionally discriminatory, regardless of any proposed law or referendum.

I also dislike how the propagandists are framing the issue in a biased fashion: "banning gay marriage". Proposition 8 has the wording "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", the same wording as Proposition 22 (which I personally voted for while a California resident back in 2000). It was one of those legalistic hair-splitting things in the first place that resulted in the status quo: Proposition 22 was a statute, subject to California Supreme Court review. The California Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was an attempt to establish the definition in the state constitution beyond Supreme Court reach. Opponents of Proposition 8, after it carried in the fall of 2008, filed in federal court. The federal district judge, himself gay, declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The sexual orientation of the judge and whether he should have recused himself was a second issue the Appeals Court heard, and all 3 judges agreed that there was no problem requiring the district judge's recusation. (I disagree.)

But traditional concepts of marriage and family are not arbitrary constructs. They have served functional purposes, norms for procreation in society's self-preservation and promotion of social stability. A more superficial analysis might point out idiosyncratic deviations from cross-cultural structural commonalities, e.g., polyandrous arrangements.

I have always been an avid reader; my mom's cousin still talks about how I would pick up volumes of her encyclopedia to read while on visits. I was on a Western Civilization kick at one point during my free time in undergraduate school and started reading this translated ancient Greek text. I came across this phrase "beautiful boys" and thought that it was odd--probably some error in translation. Only as I continued reading, I found the phrase subsequently repeated time and again. It suddenly occurred to me what it meant: "OH GROSS!" (and I was done reading that book). That's how I accidentally discovered that homosexuality was celebrated in ancient Greek and Roman society. I'm not wired that way; I don't understand the behavior, but I learned in my first psychology course that the it also occurs in other species. I do respect the privacy rights of consenting adults, even when their intimate relationship is inconsistent with my moral beliefs.

The issue has more to do with the social validation of certain relationships, and we make a useful distinction between tolerance and acceptance. For example, I respect the rights of others to associate, even when I strongly disagree with their agenda or morals (e.g., racist groups, the Westboro Baptists, etc.) I don't have to recognize the status of the pastor of the Westboro Baptists; for example, I wouldn't select him to give the opening prayer for some public event.

Proposition 8 does not ban gay, polygamous or other nontraditional civil unions; it simply recognizes certain institutions which have existed and been socially accepted for centuries, beyond recorded history. I'm sure to people in alternative relationships or lifestyles, that fact of life doesn't seem fair. In many cultures, alternative relationships are tolerated, but only the first qualified relationship is legally recognized. A Wikipedia article on polyandry makes related points: "In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law... In Tibet, which is the best-documented cultural domain within which polyandry is practiced, certain polyandrists themselves testify that the marriage form is difficult to sustain." The syndicated Dr. Phil show recently showcased a variation of sororal polygyny: "Meet the Dargers: A happy family made up of one husband, three wives and 24 kids. Joe Darger and his wives, twin sisters Vicki and Valerie, and their cousin, Alina, join Dr. Phil". (Joe Darger is legally married to Alina. He claims in the O'Reilly piece that the relationship is a felony under Utah law. As a libertarian, I take a dim view of the prosecution of victimless crimes.)

I duly note that those who look, say, at the 72-day marriage of starlet Kim Kardashian to a pro basketball player (now who could have ever imagined that wouldn't last?) or a large percentage of divorces and/or single-parent homes in urban centers, think that traditional marriage in modern-day America is in trouble. But that's a topic for a future commentary.

The Court of Appeals overplayed their hand, and I hope SCOTUS picks up the case.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "No Sugar Tonight/New Mother Nature"

Miscellany: 2/06/12

2012-02-06T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

A lifetime of happiness!
No man alive could bear it,
it would be hell on earth.
George Bernard Shaw

Massachusetts, RomneyCare,
The Politics of Convenience
and the Medicaid Kerfuffle

I was looking at some of the recent rhetoric particularly that Massachusetts had been free riding at the expense of all the other states. Michael Cannon (below embedded) states that Massachusetts was free-riding off the other 49 states on its use of federal Medicaid fund by playing a shell game with state matching funds. I find this phrasing to be somewhat polemical and misleading. Jonathan Gruber, an economist whom played a major role in RomneyCare and ObamaCare, explains:

Second [of 3 reasons why Massachusetts was ready for universal health reform], a large amount of federal funding was at stake. As part of a Medicaid Section 1115 waiver—usually given in order to promote experimental or pilot health care programs—the state had since 1997 been receiving a large Intergovernmental Transfer (IGT) of the type used by many states to expand health care spending. The state was in essence using phantom state dollars to generate a federal match: it transferred the matched dollars to certain health care providers that then returned them to the state. Under the current waiver, renewed in 2002, the federal match amounted to $385 million by 2005. This money was directed toward the state’s main safety net providers, Boston and Cambridge City Medical Centers, to run the state’s largest Medicaid managed care plans. The rates paid these safety net providers were exceedingly generous, such that the federal government was essentially supplementing the expansion of these inner city hospitals.

Thus, the issue at stake had more to do with the federal government's concern that its dollars were being used to subsidize the costs of non-Medicaid patients also treated by these safety net providers, not the method of accounting for Medicaid 1115 waivers. This is why Romney has been talking about free riders, i.e., patients above the Medicaid income eligibility ceiling whom are receiving subsidized or even free care.

Gruber goes on to explain that the state responded to the Bush Administration's threat to cut off funding by matching up relevant state-only medical expenditures against the federal funds; further, instead of federal funds being used to reimburse the providers directly, the Medicaid funds (and some funds for low-income uncompensated care) would be used to fund means-tested subsidies in a mandatory insurance system.

Going back to the discussion of 49 states subsidizing Massachusetts's Medicaid dollars, unless I'm misunderstanding a Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid and Multiplier chart published by statehealthfacts.org, Massachusetts has consistently placed among the LOWEST percentage/multipliers among the states since at least FY2004. I also want to point out elsewhere Kaiser also tracks other state Medicaid 1115 waiver activities, including California, Illinois, Delaware, New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, New Mexico, Maine and Colorado.

Now let's talk about the politics of convenience. Here is Newt Gingrich, before he announced his bid for President, in November 2010 talking about "Massachusetts liberal Mitt Romney"'s RomneyCare on Brody File:

Newt Gingrich: Governor Romney's made very clear that he favors absolute repeal of Obamacare and that he believes it's not accurate and not fair to try and compare the two. And I think you have to start with that. and I also think, in all fairness to Governor Romney, that he vetoed many provisions that the liberal Democrats in the Massachusetts state legislature added to the bill. and they overrode his veto. So I think if you're going to go back and look at the original Romney bill you'd have a much better bill and a much more practical bill than what the liberal Democrats did to the legislation because they literally overrode his veto on a whole series of items.

As for Rick Santorum, he had this to say in endorsing Romney for President in Feb. 2008:

In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear.

Other Republicans who endorsed RomneyCare before Obama and the 111th Congress are listed here.

There are significant differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, especially in ObamaCare's approaches to locus of control, the nature and extent of subsidies, entitlement criteria, enforcement mechanisms, and funding (beyond the typical comparison and contrast). And here is a good overview of the development of RomneyCare including elements that the Democratic legislature changed over Romney's vetoes.

Where do I stand? Tom Miller wrote an excellent paper for CATO which criticizes Nickles-Stearns (a 1994 GOP alternative to HillaryCare), including the mandatory option, and for the most part, he is spot on across the board. I think the health insurance situation has morphed into a monster. Consumers have almost no incentive to engage in cost containment. Guaranteed issue as Cannon and others point out, is basically a means of socializing one's own expensive health care costs, which is perverse policy.

I have one basic consideration for universal coverage: catastrophic conditions/injuries, e.g., spinal cord injuries and serious diseases (cancer, Lou Gehrig's, etc.) When medical bills mount to the point of personal bankruptcy. (In a certain sense, these bills are eventually covered anyway, but I would like to see a situation where you don't have to liquidate a lifetime of investing for retirement, etc., before the state steps in to help.) But people aren't going bankrupt over the payment of birth control pills and certain prescription drugs. There's a big difference between emergency surgery and ordinary medical costs which can and should be handled out of pocket.

I think Adler is spot on when he says this: "I recall that many conservatives and libertarians believed those who had embraced the Heritage approach were engaging in preemptive compromise, proposing bad ideas in an effort to forestall worse ones. " (Heritage, a conservative organization, was willing to accept a mandate as part of individual responsibility.) I think Romney did a great job trying to stick with a private sector approach to the problem. Do I like the solution? Of course not. But I saw it as an imperfect solution which was creative and bold and managed to stave out an even worse "solution".

Michael F. Cannon/CATO,"RomneyCare Free Riding and Fact Checking"

Jobs, Compensation and IT

There are a couple of minor IT related compensation items I wanted to comment on. The first is a FINS post by Joseph Walker on Why $100K Engineers Are Underpaid. He argues that high tech Goliath's like Google have seen profits outpace compensation, even with notorious perks. [In Silicon Valley, many employers feed their clients meals; my first employer usually just brought in some gooey breakfast pastries on Friday. I remember one of my clients in San Jose brought in dozens of Krispy Kreme doughnuts; I was working on an installation alone late at night and couldn't leave for dinner--I don't think I had a swipe card to get back into the building--so I ate a lot of leftover doughnuts. Another client I had in Sunnyvale invited me to their Friday after-hours beer keg social. But I never got pampered with free gourmet meals, various concierge services, etc. I still remember that first employer; originally I was a subcontractor for over 3 months, and my new boss told me the company brought in pizzas for their employee meeting. (He was broadly hinting he wanted to hire me full-time; I was commuting from Chicago on weekends.) So he invited me to go to the cafeteria and have some leftover pizza. (The company was reimbursing my food expenses, so it wasn't a big deal.) But there was a tiny Philippine accounting manager from hell whom hated me with a passion because I had replaced her friend. As soon as she saw me enter the cafeteria, she quickly boxed up the leftover pizzas and told me in no uncertain terms that the pizzas were for employees, not contractors. I went back upstairs (without pizza, of course), and my manager wanted to know where my pizza was. He wasn't happy: he prided himself on those little touches. I mean, when he finally recruited me, he actually used 25-cent Cokes in the vending machine as a recruitment incentive....)

Anyway, one of the gripes that Walker had in his article was how cheap $100K was when you work near Stanford, where homes probably start at $1M.

On an unrelated note (but related to high costs in economically booming areas), MJ Perry in Carpe Diem listed some notes from a radio station in Fargo, ND about the booming oil-rich western part of the state... Let me quote a few items:

3. Rents in Williston currently range from $2,000 for a one-bedroom apartment to $3,400 for a three-bedroom apartment.
4. Williams County allows three campers per farmstead, the farmers almost all have three campers on their property and are charging $800 per camper per month for rent.
7. The Williston McDonalds just announced that they will pay new workers $15 an hour, a $500 immediate signing bonus and full medical benefits.
9. The local Motel 6 in Williston now rents rooms for $130 per night.
10. Trinity Hospital in Minot has just hired 115 nurses from the Philippines, because they cannot get enough local nurses to apply.

The second item involves a Senate bill (by a NC Democrat, Kay Hagan, of all people!) seeking to broaden the scope of salaried IT workers ineligible for overtime. I think the concern is that without flexibility, these jobs might be outsourced overseas.

I almost laughed when I saw that law; let me be clear: I don't think the government has any business in interfering with my negotiations with a potential client or employer. Even when I had to book hours for the client, almost all the agreements capped the hours I could be paid for to 8. It was a joke. I've written a few times about a Milwaukee suburb I worked in 2001. The female county DBA's were in charge of backups on the test server overnight, but I was told I had to be on the client site at 7:30AM in the morning to make sure the databases and application processes were up and available. (Sometimes processes wouldn't start up because of file ownership issues.) But if I needed to do patches, I couldn't start them until after 7PM.) Here's the worst part: when I negotiated my salary, the company president argued a lower base salary since I would be eligible for a bonus. After I finished the project, and no bonus was paid, I was told by HR that I was on a flat-bid contract, and the employee handbook said no bonuses on flat-bid contract. But the company president knew that when he negotiated my salary.

Sometimes you work for dishonest people. But looking back over the years, 60 hours or more a week, doing database maintenance over holidays, etc., were the norm, not the exception. I've had bonuses on a handful of occasions but no overtime. In fact, I've worked for management consulting companies related to accounting firms. Not only did I have to scan my investments with the firm's accounting client list, but most of them had service (e.g., interview prospective consultants) and continuing education requirements.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "American Woman"

Miscellany: 2/05/12

2012-02-05T23:04:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

It is not a disgrace not to reach the stars,
but it is a disgrace to have no stars to reach for.
Benjamin Elijah Mays

Congratulations, Super Bowl Champion NY Giants!
Super Bowl 46: 21-17

I have 4 siblings (and both parents) whom were born in Massachusetts (I was born in Texas, and the youngest siblings were born in Florida and South Carolina). I expect most of them were rooting for the New England Patriots.

I've mentioned parts of this story in past posts. I became a Minnesota Twins (then Vikings) fan by accident: my first Little League team was the hapless Twins, which won one game all season. My middle brother was playing on the Yankees, the eventual champs. We were losing to the Yankees when this kid on my team for some reason started heckling me, suggesting I had a girlfriend (even though I had 3 little sisters at the time--a fourth later, it not only wasn't true but was the ultimate insult). I playfully grabbed his uniform and told him to knock it off. My coach in turn grabbed me by the collar, threw me out of the dugout and told me to go home. I wasn't happy with what happened and decided since my little brother was playing, I would go up into the stands and root for him. My coach spotted me up there and responded by throwing me off the team.

Bobby Richardson, a former real-life New York Yankee second baseman and Sumter, SC native, was scheduled to make an appearance at the end-of-the-season fried chicken banquet. To any red-blooded American boy, meeting a real-life professional athlete, not to mention the MVP of the 1960 World Series, was the ultimate thrill. I had never been closer to a major league player than the family TV set. My folks tried talking to the coach into letting me go to the banquet, but rooting for one's kid brother was an unforgivable sin.

For some odd reason, after the season, I discovered there was a real major league team called the Twins, and I became obsessed: Harmon Killebrew, one of the greatest home run hitters of all time, was a natural role model. Rod Carew, Tony Oliva, Jim Kaat, etc. While we lived in Kansas during Dad's tour in Southeast Asia, I had managed to pick up on my radio an Iowa station on the Twins network. Eventually I got interested in football and discovered Minnesota had a pro football team. The Vikings: Joe Kapp, Fred Cox, the Purple People Eaters, and Bud Grant.

Technically I never set foot in Minnesota until an international MIS conference in the Twin Cities while I was on the UWM faculty in the late 1980's. But I'll never forget checking into the conference host hotel because literally at the time the Minnesota Viking cheerleaders were making some unrelated appearance in the hotel lobby. And they were AWESOME. I wouldn't have minded if that little 8-year-old punk from my youth had said one of those fetching young women was my girlfriend... That's also as close as I've come to seeing a Viking game in person.

Long story short, I have been a staunch NFC fan ever since. So I was rooting for the New York Giants. The game, of course, is well-covered elsewhere, but Manning's touchdown rally, starting from the Giants' 12 with less than 4 minutes and one timeout with one of the best receptions I've ever seen, Mario Manningham's 38-yard catch down the left sideline, was the stuff of legends. I was laughing hysterically when Bradshaw unintentionally fell into the endzone for a touchdown on a second and goal with about a minute left. (The New England Patriots strategically decided to let Bradshaw score to give QB Tom Brady a full minute to try to answer a Giants score. New York anticipated this and wanted to Bradshaw to pull up short so they could all but run out the clock and convert a fourth-down chipshot field goal for the win.)

And this is why I'll never be an NFL head coach. I wanted Bradshaw to take what the Patriots were giving them because I know the only way the Patriots can win is to answer with a touchdown in the last minute of the game. They've scored only 2 touchdowns all game, the only way they can win, short of a miracle kickoff return, is to improbably pass nearly the length of the football field. It's a lot easier to defend when you know what's coming; you've got your front line charging at the quarterback, maybe throw in a blitz or two. On the other hand, you set up the field goal--and say, the snap is fumbled: you end up trying to explain why you didn't put the points on the board when you had the chance. I do understand Tom Brady is a great quarterback, but he barely converted a fourth-and-16 deep in his own territory. Still, I was glued to my seat wondering if the "Hail Mary" pass into the end zone would connect. Heck of a game, Brownie!

My Choice for Halftime Commercial

Any regular reader of this blog knows that I have been a persistent critic of the crony unionist. managed bankruptcy process for GM and Chrysler by the Obama Administration which rolled over higher-ranking bondholder interests. But there's something quintessentially American about this commercial (second chance, the game isn't over) that instantly reminded me of Reagan's 1984 "morning in America" commercials; the choice of Clint Eastwood's gritty voice just works.

[Notice: I earlier posted a Youtube version uploaded by Chrysler itself, which encouraged its circulation, but the video for some reason was withdrawn due to NFL Property rights. In fact, the relevant link on Chrysler's own home page doesn't work at this time (how embarrassing!) If I become aware of an officially-sanctioned embedded video, I'll use that. In the meanwhile, I have embedded a currently working alternative; if the current replacement video is withdrawn, try running a query like this one on Youtube: search for a video using search terms like 'Chrysler', 'Clint Eastwood', and/or 'Super Bowl [46 or 2012]'.]

Go, Verlin!

Let's help Verlin cremate anti-competitive crony Big Mortuary laws, which do little more than drive up the high cost of dying:

Citizens United and SpeechNow.org:
Eliminating Double Standards on Free Speech

The top Romney gaffe on Daniel Kurtzman's "Dumb Mitt Romney Quotes" webpage is Romney's response last August to a heckler demanding a higher tax burden on corporations (domestic operations are already taxed at the highest rates in the developed world): "Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend." Among other things, Romney here is talking about governments double-dipping off the same stream of income; for example, stockholders or owners of a business get taxed twice--first at the business level and then as a residual redistribution.

In fact, corporate personhood is hardly a new concept. The idea a group of individuals pooling their assets and being taxed and regulated by the government, somehow lose their First Amendment or other (property) rights because of their freedom to associate (say, enjoyed by a self-employed businessman) is intrinsically arbitrary and unjust. The same point can be made about the nature of the association (e.g, nonprofit vs. business). Nonprofits or wealthy individuals (e.g., Ross Perot or Michael Bloomberg) are not "more equal"; there are more direct ways to influence legislation (i.e., lobbying). The bottom line is that the public interest is NOT served by hypocritical special-interest, self-appointed or government censors, but by the free market of ideas.

Romney's quest for the 2008 GOP nomination and Blair Hull's quest for the 2004 Illinois US Senate nomination (eventually won by Obama) are just 2 examples where huge influxes of their own cash did not get them the nomination. Most Florida voters indicated that their vote was not influenced by the huge ad campaigns (e.g., by Romney's Super PAC allies). I live in Maryland, largely controlled by Democrats with saturation Democratic campaigns; none of their incessant ads worked on me. The bottom line is that I have more faith in the electorate than in censors.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "No Time"

Miscellany: 2/04/12

2012-02-04T23:40:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
Bertrand Russell

Romney Wins the Nevada Caucuses

With 45% of the caucus vote in, Romney rolled to an easy win, capturing 42.6% of the vote to Gingrich's 26%; Ron Paul got 18.5%; and Santorum placed last at 13%. Once again, Romney outpolled Gingrich and Santorum combined, exposing Gingrich is wrong about Santorum's presence costing him the victory.

In fact, I was very fascinated by the entrance polls:

Gingrich's support was inversely related to education level (from 24% to 12%)
Romney won more than half of the Catholic vote (and a plurality of every other religious group), over Catholics Gingrich (19%) and Santorum (11%)
Romney won 49% of the very conservative vote, 50% of the Tea Party vote, 51% of the moderate or liberal vote, and 61% of the somewhat conservative vote, even though only 5% consider him a true conservative
Romney and Paul got the lion's share of support from moderates and independents; what's particularly interesting is that Paul won a clear plurality of voters whom considered him to be the true conservative

And, most tellingly, nearly three-quarters consider Romney as most likely to defeat Obama. I should also note that Nevada has a large Mormon population, and they supported Romney in a proportion similar to what blacks back Obama (9 to 1).

Although one should never overgeneralize from one election, it's clear that Romney hasn't convinced the GOP base that he is a "real" conservative, but conservatives seem to think he's "conservative enough". Nevada is the third purple state that Romney has won with a strong plurality. Right now the only state I see where Gingrich as possibly winning is his home state of Georgia, but Romney does better than he does in his own home state against Obama.

Next up: Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, the last a nonbinding primary: the latter 3 on Tuesday. Romney's superior organization should serve him well in the caucuses. The last numbers I've seen indicate if Gingrich has a shot at any of these, it's most likely Minnesota. Then we go through a slow period with month-ending primaries in Michigan and Arizona, both favoring Romney at this time and then we go through Super Tuesday. But the bad news for Gingrich is that Romney is beginning to close the sale across every category of the GOP electorate.

Kathleen Parker,
"Komen, Catholics and the Cost of Conscience":
Thumbs UP!

I have held my tongue over the past week on the two matters Ms. Parker discusses here: the first involves a kerfuffle over a defunding of Planned Parenthood by Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the world's largest breast cancer nonprofit foundation; the second involves the Obama Administration's unconstitutional meddling in the internal affairs of Catholic institutions, using the corrupt Democratic Party health care law in an attempt to force them to provide certain health care benefits (e.g., birth control, "morning after" medications, etc.) against the consistent moral teachings of the Church.

Komen (and the US government, for that matter) should never have funded a polarizing advocacy group like Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion services in the United States. Planned Parenthood over the past year has been involved in a related controversy involving Indiana's April decision to defund Medicaid services by Planned Parenthood. (The states and the federal government split program costs.) The case is currently under court review.

I will point out: (1) this blog is strongly pro-life (I am Catholic, but my position was based on the scientific fact that human life begins at conception and was formed before I ever knew or researched the Church's position; in fact, Jesus never spoke about abortion in the Gospels, but the Romans practiced abortion and infanticide; the Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents, specifically condemned both practices (2:2); also note that the original Hippocratic Oath, which preexisted Christianity, also forbade abortion); (2) money is fungible (this is one of the favorite sayings of this blog): I agree with the state of Indiana's argument that if Planned Parenthood wants to serve as a general health provider, it needs to spin-off its abortion services; (3) from a first principles approach, I believe in decentralization of authority and the traditional regulation of health services at the state level; (4) Planned Parenthood is NOT entitled to funding from US or state governments--or other charities; it should recruit money for its morally repulsive services from its own donors instead of trying to capture funding from taxpayers or other charity donors whom do not want to indirectly or directly subsidize the unconscionable practice of killing preborn children.

It didn't surprise me that US Senate Democrats would fall behind their crony interest group of feminist ideologues and try to intimidate an independent organization into funding organizations which, if anything, turns off potential Komen donors. Komen shamefully caved under morally outrageous high-pressure tactics and agreed to restore funding. Those hypocritical protesters should put their money where their mouths are and support Planned Parenthood directly instead of demanding Komen fund an organization that many of its real or potential donors consider morally unacceptable. I'm calling on Komen to return or release from pledges any pro-life sympathy donations made in good faith in response to Komen's earlier change in policy. In the meanwhile, I recommend those empathetic to the breast cancer cause consider worthy alternatives to Komen.

There is a second reason I do not support Komen, and it goes back to a kerfuffle dating back to annual breast cancer exams; the Democrats beat back scientifically-based recommendations based on harmful effects of false positives (not to mention the fact that in some cases treatment can be counterproductive). Consider the following discussion from a Wikipedia article:

[Komen's] response to scientific evidence that the indiscriminate nature of screening mammography for all middle-aged and older women, regardless of each woman's individual risk of developing breast cancer, results in overtreatment of some women whose cancer would regress on its own or would grow so slowly that it would never harm them—for every one woman whose life is saved by screening mammography, between two and ten women will receive completely unnecessary and toxic treatment for a harmless growth, 250 to 500 women will be wrongly told that they might have breast cancer (false positives), and 125 to 250 will have biopsies performed—is to "keep hammering away at our basic message, which is, early detection saves lives".

What the Obama Administration is doing to the Catholic Church--in a blatant violation of religious liberty and freedom of conscience--reminds me of stories I came across in researching the People's Republic of China during high school: not only did the Communist government ruthlessly execute certain family "criminals", but they would subsequently bill the victim's surviving family members for the bullets used to kill him.

Parker writes:

[ObamaCare] requires nearly all employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception, including in some cases abortifacient drugs, [forcing Catholic institutions] either to forfeit their most fundamental beliefs or to face prohibitive penalties — or to close hospitals, schools and other charities, with catastrophic consequences for millions who depend them. For perspective, one in six patients in the United States is cared for in a Catholic hospital.

I fully expect ObamaCare's individual mandate to be held unconstitutional, but I think that the Catholic Church should appeal this unconscionable Obama Administration decision to SCOTUS. There is NO WAY this survives a First Amendment challenge, especially after the recent Hosanna-Taylor v EEOC decision; it would not surprise me if we get another 9-0 vote. [Note to nominal Catholic VP Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: this is an [expletive deleted] big deal.]

To fellow Catholics: if you think Obama is this ruthless BEFORE his reelection attempt, just imagine how he'll be in a second term, unaccountable to the voters. It is a lot easier to vote him out of office this fall than to impeach him.

Political Potpourri

Gingrich's burnt earth campaign against Romney is having a telling effect on both candidates; his populist attacks against Romney and the party infighting is raising unfavorable ratings for both candidates. Now, if and of itself, infighting doesn't imply an issue: witness, for instance, the 2008 battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And there's little doubt that Obama's approval ratings are correlated to perceived issues with the general economy, and Romney has had "foot in mouth" disease as I've mentioned in a prior commentary. But one of the polls over this weekend showed Romney going from an advantage of 3 over Obama at the beginning of December to a 10-point deficit in New Hampshire, one of the true purple states in New England.

[I'm not sure I believe that NH poll: nationalpolls.com shows Obama's approval rating in NH under 50% since at least September 2009 and Obama's national numbers are in the mid-40's. I would expect to see a more consistent approval of Obama across the board, without NH being an outlier. But there's no doubt the populist attacks against Romney, not to mention Romney's self-inflicted gaffes, are taking a toll, more recently cycling between a small lead for Obama and ties).]

Romney's post-Florida surge is continuing to widen his national lead over Gingrich, now to 11% in the Gallup tracking poll.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "Undun"

Miscellany: 2/03/12

2012-02-03T23:54:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

It is true that we cannot be free from sin,
but at least let our sins not always be the same.
Teresa of Avila

Official Employment Rate to 8.3%, Jobs Up 243K, But...

I have not listened to today's political spin, not a word from the Administration, but it's so predictable: Obama will cite a number of encouraging signs--consecutive drops in the unemployment rate, higher than expected job growth, improvements in manufacturing and construction, etc.; he will then add that he's not satisfied, we've still got a long way to go, but we're headed in the right direction, our policies are beginning to bear fruit, blah, blah, blah. How am I doing? If he hasn't said it yet, trust me: he will.

I have no doubt that some readers will think no matter what the numbers are, I would have have a problem with it. No. Not even FDR, LBJ, Carter and Clinton and decades of Democrats dominating the House of Rpresentatives could kill the economy, despite all their counterproductive, reckless attempts to tax, spend and regulate the economy into the ditch. To a large extent, Speaker Boehner (R-OH) has been able to stop the madness; we still need a GOP-controlled Senate and White House to rollback the excesses of the 111th Congress.

No, there are some encouraging signs--a definite pickup in a more diversified hiring pattern (professionals, for instance), and there are some encouraging signs in terms of Caterpillar's hiring. And no matter what, I would rather see the official unemployment numbers going down than up. But I need to caution people about a couple of things: (1) one must not overgeneralize from one sample point where numbers are better than expected (and note that numbers are subject to revision) and (2) there are a number of risks out there, including an unresolved European crisis and worrisome international hot spots (including Iran).

But my own anecdotal experience shows little improvement from having been a professional Oracle DBA, an in-demand profession since 1993 and having ridden the waves of the economy since then. I can literally count on one hand the number of companies that have been willing to cover travel costs and/or share in relocation over the past year. I reluctantly allowed a recruiter to present me recently to a company located in a major Michigan university college town; the company rejected me as "overqualified". A bottom-feeding IBM vendor wanted to present me for an out-of-area gig where travel expenses would eat up almost half of the rate.

The real story can be seen in the two following charts, and there's no way Barack Obama can put lipstick on these numbers. The best he can argue in terms of employment participation is that it is leveling off and not deteriorating, but labor participation is continuing to drift down. What does this mean? Recall that new workers enter the job market each month. But unemployed workers may get discouraged and simply leave the labor force (an arbitrary government statistic that goes into determining the official unemployment rate). The discouraged former workers haven't disappeared--in fact, if they like today's news, they might start looking at the want ads again--and fall back into the labor force. I find it difficult to believe the official unemployment rate drop is sustainable given tens of millions unemployed or underemployed.

Romney needs to press the attack: we need to PERMANENTLY lower the government burden on business. It's not just taxes but regulations, a hidden type of taxation, and massive government spending--which is zero-sum with the FAR MORE EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE spending of the private sector. We cannot afford for the government to crowd out investment in the free market. Barack Obama's megalomaniac delusion of "pick and choose" industry winners and losers is unsustainable.

Courtesy of Casey Research

Courtesy of shadowstats.com

George Will, "Romney and Gingrich, from bad to worse":
Mixed Review

I briefly discussed this George Will column in yesterday's commentary on the Tyrrell column on Newt Gingrich. Will regards Gingrich's political ideology as subordinate to his personal ambition. He points out that Gingrich lacks the conservative's true skepticism of government and concerns about the law of unintended consequences. He thinks that Gingrich's ideology is irrelevant: Gingrich could have just as easily have been a liberal. Will doesn't make this specific argument, but it's clear: Romney needs to expose that the activists' cherished non-Romney candidate Gingrich is no true conservative.

What is Will's problem with Romney? In short, he thinks Romney is the second coming of Thomas Dewey. If ever there was a change election, it was 1948, when the Republicans had been out of the Oval Office for 16 years. There was no way Dewey, a liberal Republican New York governor, who had done remarkably well in 1944 against FDR, could lose to Truman. Truman ran an aggressive campaign against Dewey--and a more conservative "do-nothing" Republican Congress. Will classifies Dewey as a detached, efficient public servant, devoid of charisma.

So it's easy to see why many conservatives, whether or not conscious of history, have drawn parallels between the 1948 campaign and this fall. By any objective standard, Obama shouldn't have a prayer. Romney comes across as a passionless technocrat whom talks in terms of a 59-plank economic plan: no pithy "9-9-9"; they worry that Romney won't press the battle against Obama and he will be seen as detached from other Americans (which is why the "I'm not concerned with the very poor" soundbite, quoted out of context, came across as utterly clueless). They intrinsically know that Obama is going to run a populist campaign against Romney (and will try to tie him to Wall Street) and against an allegedly "do-nothing" GOP-controlled House.

I am absolutely convinced that Mitt Romney is NO Tom Dewey. But I think he does need to revamp his campaign. For example:

Streamline Your Message. Yes, we know: the world is complex. Most Americans can't relate to the minutiae of government operations or economics or detailed discussion of footnotes in government financial statements. No more "Mr. Roboto" President Greenshades. Yes, demonstrate that you are more than capable of handling the details, but speak in broader terms of goals and objectives.
Less Talk, More Action and Results: Sometimes Words ARE 'Just Words'. No more vacuous Dewey/Obama talk of "our future lies ahead", "we are the ones we've been waiting for". Focus on traditional American values of self-reliance, thrift, and personal responsibility: no more freeloaders. Speak in terms like "don't ask what the government can do for you", "the government must live within its means and pay off its debts", "government must become less complex, more manageable and accountable", etc.
Be More Poignant and Show Passion. Obama routinely features anecdotal stories in his speeches. Romney needs to connect with his audience and show his humanity: maybe it's how he felt at the birth of his first son, what he wished for his son's future; maybe it's how he felt on being told the diagnostic for his wife's medical condition, how that's affected his view about public policy and healthcare.
Model Reagan's Trademark Humor and Optimism. For instance, show that you don't take yourself that seriously.
Draw a Line in the Sand. No more "Big Government Knows Best", no more phony spending renamed "stimulus", accounting of spending cuts, no more pushing-on-a-string rules and regulations. It's time to streamline government, sunset nice-to-have versus need-to-have mandates and other rules and regulations.
Demand Productivity Increases in Government. Working for government is a privilege, not an entitlement. Government and contractors must learn to do more with less. No more turf battles at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Run Against A Corrupt, Spendthrift US Senate and Czarmaker Obama
The Buck Stops Here. We need to make long-term fixes to entitlements and out-of-control budgets and spending
No More Crony Capitalism/Unionism.
Run against Washington and Obama's Divisive Politics. Stress bipartisanship is more than lip service.

Political Humor

"A woman in Illinois is auctioning off a 2005 Chrysler that once belonged to President Obama. You can tell it was Obama's car because it gets out to a fast start, and then stalls for the next three years." - Jimmy Fallon

[The buyer is responsible for having the car towed out of that ditch, the owner's guide is 2000 pages long, Obama never had anything fixed while he owned the car and blamed the prior owners, the car never seems to get anywhere no matter how much you put in the tank, it seems to drift left no matter where you're going, you can't pass anything with Republicans on the road, and you're still stuck having to make the payments long after Obama last drove the car.]

“Mitt Romney's campaign will start getting Secret Service protection this week. That's just to protect him from Newt Gingrich.” –Jay Leno

[Mitt Romney told the Secret Service he's not concerned about the very poor people. And he's not worried about the very rich people either, after 3 years of Obama as President.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "Laughing"

Miscellany: 2/02/12

2012-02-02T22:20:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

With reasonable men I will reason;
with humane men I will plea;
but to tyrants I will give no quarter,
nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
William Lloyd Garrison

Indiana Has Become the 23rd "Right to Work" State:
Thumbs UP!

Before Taft-Hartley, there were "closed shop" unions: you had to join and pay union fees as a condition of employment, even if you had personal or conceptual issues with the union and its leadership, felt relevant benefits weren't worth the high costs of dues, and/or disagreed with the union's crony political policies or negotiation stances. Unions could effectively fire a productive worker (from an employer perspective) for arbitrary, union-related reasons (failure to pay dues or compliance with various union rules and regulations).Taft-Hartley, passed over President Truman's veto, allowed states to designate themselves as "right to work", meaning that a worker can decide whether or not to join a union, without that decision affecting the employment decision. Thus, in a right to work state, a union has to convince a new worker of the intrinsic merits of joining without the state intervening against the economic right of the worker and employer to transact. (Roughly 1 in 10 workers is unionized, including in Indiana.)

I cannot say enough nice things about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R); this blog has been a friend to Mitch Daniels, and I encouraged readers to join a Facebook group encouraging him to run for President. (Governor Daniels subsequently cited family considerations in not making a run.) Mitch Daniels gave a brilliant GOP response to Obama's recent mediocre State of the Union Address. As Frederick Hayek (the 1974 Nobel laureate of economics, and a principal intellectual force behind the Austrian school (think business cycle: remember when Ron Paul recently said after a recent primary "we are all Austrians"?)), noted we shouldn't even need such a law in a free market country, except for the fact of crony unionism. My congratulations to Governor Daniels and the likewise courageous Indiana legislature for restoring a measure of economic liberty to the workers and businesses in Indiana.

Punxsutawney Phil Sees His Shadow:
6 More Weeks of Winter for the Santorum Campaign

R. Emmett Tyrrell, "Exit Newt": Thumbs UP!

If you look at the latest Gallup tracking poll, Romney is now up 31-26 over Gingrich and has pulled into a 48-48 tie with Obama; a Jan. 30 post headline reads "Romney Seen as More Presidential, Sincere Than Gingrich", and Obama has stretched his lead over Gingrich 53-41. If you go to RCP's latest polls, as we head for this weekend's Nevada primary, the latest poll shows Romney with a wider-than-Florida lead over Gingrich, and in the next biggest two primaries, just before Super Tuesday next month, Romney holds a wider-than-Florida lead over Gingrich in Arizona and a Florida-like lead over Gingrich in his Dad's home state of Michigan.

Tyrrell, the founder and chief editor of The American Spectator, a conservative monthly magazine, subtitles his piece: "He's part and parcel of the 1960s generation's larger failures." He notes the train wreck of failed political leaders to emerge from the early Baby Boomers, e.g., Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc., and identifies Gingrich as a similarly indulgent but quasi-conservative figure. As an example, Tyrrell points out that Gingrich last Sunday called for Santorum to drop out of the race and endorse him--at a time when Santorum put his campaign on pause to be at the bedside of his 3-year-old daughter Bella, whom has a serious health condition and whose health had taken a turn for the worse over the weekend. (I wrote a relevant commentary on the Santorums and two of their children, the late Gabriel and Bella, in Monday's post. If you don't know the story or a recent Fox News controversy involving their key liberal contributor, Alan Colmes, I think I posted one of the best overviews on the Internet. I was disappointed that the piece didn't attract more pageviews.)

Tyrrell suggests that we can expect the same kinds of drama with a President Gingrich that we saw with Speaker Gingrich; he didn't use the phrase, but I will: "high maintenance".

I wrote this about Gingrich in my Jan. 20 post: "The guy is audacious and intellectually pretentious; he also seems to have a variation of attention deficit disorder. He goes from topic to topic, more of a jack of all trades, master of none." I had not read George Will's Dec. 2 post until today, but he wrote essentially the same thing using different words: "His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today." [I'll have to write a separate commentary about the Will column's criticisms of Romney. Our differences are mostly nuanced: I think Romney's "conservatism-as-managerialism" is pragmatic, risk-averse and process-oriented.]

As much as Gingrich insists labeling himself as a Reagan conservative, it's difficult to argue he is principled in the sense of Ron Paul's consistent pro-liberty perspective for years before the Tea Party caught up with him. There's Gingrich's quasi-lobbyist activities with government-subsidized companies and rhetoric putting a positive spin on crony capitalism/industrial policy. This blog rarely quotes Mother Jones, but this account of what was behind the mid-1990's government shutdown seems to reflect as much Newt Gingrich's determination to be part of the story rather than an ideological conservative:

On the flight back from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral in Israel in November 1995, Gingrich was asked to sit in the back of Air Force One, rather than up front with President Clinton. As a result, Gingrich upped his demands in the budget fight, leading to a historic government shutdown. "It's petty, but I think it's human,” Gingrich explained at the time. The New York Daily News put Gingrich on its cover dressed in a diaper, holding a bottle and crying.

He opposed drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge before he was for it; He was for mandatory carbon caps before he was against them. He was for the 1989 Global Warming Preventive Act, which, among other things, embraced global population control, anathema to social conservatives, but Gingrich wants to attack Romney on abortion. And you know how Gingrich has been adversely linking RomneyCare to ObamaCare? (If you do a simple Internet search, you'll find 2006 references to Gingrich enthusiastically backing RomneyCare.) I only recently came across the following video; I haven't seen the Romney ads being run, but if you loved the spot of Gingrich sitting with Pelosi talking about climate change legislation, you'll LOVE this spot where Gingrich shares the stage with Hillary Clinton talking about healthcare. If you go about 5.5 minutes into the video, you'll hear virtually word for word EXACTLY what Romney was saying about freeloaders of individuals $50K or above and the need for an individual mandate or posting a bond.

Trump Endorses Romney

Let me start out by acknowledging this blog has been a persistent critic of Donald Trump and particularly his Presidential ambitions. No doubt Romney's tough talk on China, a key issue for Trump (and which I strongly oppose as protectionist policy), played a significant role. The big news here is that Trump has said that he will not mount an independent bid for President if Romney wins the nomination.

China and Toll Roads

What is particularly notable here is the difference in how a Communist country is embracing private sector solutions for roads, e.g., private toll roads, while US roads in many metropolitan areas are clogged beyond planned capacity, but private toll road solutions are more the exception than the rule. Let's hope that our own government will look to the free market to help alleviate the unsustainable traffic burden with fee-based alternatives, instead of holding onto manifestly mismanaged government monopolistic policies even Communist governments reject.

Political Humor

"Mitt Romney went to a McDonald's and ordered burgers and fries and apparently everything was going well until Romney asked the cashier if she could break a $1 million bill." - Conan O'Brien

[I remember: it was on a Tuesday afternoon, and the cashier handed him back $1.74 in change, saying Mr. Clinton's tab was finally settled.]

"Rick Santorum says Newt Gingrich is too hot, Mitt Romney is too cold, but he's the “Goldilocks candidate.” Yes, nothing gets voters excited like comparing yourself to tepid porridge." - Craig Ferguson

[The Obama Administration objected to the Republicans co-opting their own fairy tale: The Bears are from Chicago and Goldilocks, whom ate adopted son Oliver Twist Bear's porridge and slept in his bed, is clearly a Democratic politician.] On a personal note, I think Goldilocks is DNC Chair Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): what do you think?

"A law enforcement agency in Florida revealed that it paid 15 employees to get drunk to see if its breathalyzer tests worked. In related news, it looks like I’m getting a second job!" - Jimmy Fallon

[Well, Billy was happy that the department volunteered to pick up the tab for his bachelor party; he just couldn't figure out why those fancy noise makers they were given didn't seem to work...]

"Studies are showing that Republican candidates are buying a lot of their ad time on the Weather Channel. You can tell because last night, the weatherman blamed the cold front on immigration and gay marriage." - Conan O'Brien

[Well, Newt Gingrich wanted exclusive rights to the lunar calender and moon phases, Barack Obama is sponsoring the windy city, Ron Paul sees a rising tide of support, Santorum is hoping that lightning strikes twice, and Romney is worried about the flooding of red ink around the Washington DC area.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Guess Who, "These Eyes". I have to say every time I think of this band's name, it reminds me of Abbott and Costello's signature skit "Who's on First". You can easily envision a follow-up bit: "The Guess Who is playing on stage... I don't know: who is up there?... No, not The Who, The Guess Who..."

Miscellany: 2/01/12

2012-02-01T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.
It takes a ouch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in the opposite direction.
Albert Einstein

Dick Morris, "How Mitt Suckered Newt": THUMBS UP!

I attribute President Obama popularity to one particular trait: his unflappability. (He has other less endearing qualities, such as a condescending attitude, making it clear that anyone whom disagrees with him is either stupid or obstructionist. One might think that someone smart enough to control his emotions in public would also know when to keep his mouth shut...)

As any faithful reader knows, I love quotes (I've even published some of my own originals in the blog (e.g., here and there)). So we have some classic quotes on calmness:

Calmness is the cradle of power. - Josiah Gilbert Holland
Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain cool and unruffled under all circumstances - Thomas Jefferson

I have a different style than Barack Obama; I maintain self-control at all times, but I can be very direct.

A brief example will suffice. I was dealing with an Oracle high-availability database configuration requiring two different database servers to be identically configured. A security patch had to be applied to the operating system, and maintenance periods were usually on early Thursday evenings. When this database was unavailable, we had to go through special steps, such as ensuring base security guards had certain hardcopies. The female supervisor of the Unix admins, after announcing the patch, didn't appear at the Monday meeting with application leaders, but I followed up to ensure everything was set for Thursday. I also had to shift to a later work schedule (because we could only bill 8 hours a day). At some point Thursday afternoon, the Unix administrator became aware of the fact that I expected both servers would be patched, but he thought he was only going to patch one of them and do the other one at a later date. He could have worked on both servers concurrently but he "wasn't comfortable" with working on more than one server at a time. This was not a novice Unix admin: he had worked there for 6 years. His manager pulled the operating system upgrade about 10 minutes before the end of the business day/beginning of maintenance period.

I was unhappy because both the manager and the Unix admin should have known about the joint patch policy of these servers, never talked to me about the patches on these servers before scheduling the patch and then pulled the patch work at literally the last minute--after I had personally done the legwork (not the Unix admin) to ensure all the special steps were carried out by Tuesday. I wanted to know how she didn't know both servers had to be patched together before putting the patch on the schedule--and allocated time accordingly. Even if she didn't know, why didn't she check with me first, because these were database servers. Long story short, she wanted me terminated immediately. I didn't need to resort to name-calling or false allegations: the facts (as Al Gore might say, "inconvenient truths"), a failure of due diligence, spoke for themselves.

I remember babysitting my nephews and nieces (different families) and watching a couple of older ones constantly having their chains jerked by younger siblings (and even when I explained to them what was going on, it didn't seem to register). But you have to admire how the younger siblings seemed to know exactly what buttons to push or strings to pull.

So here we have the case of one Newt Gingrich, whom by early December was acting like getting the GOP nomination was in the bag: the math was inescapable. One problem: even though Newt Gingrich may have been the "smartest guy in the room", he seems to have an inflated ego and a thin skin. Newt Gingrich is an historian by training (granted, not American historian). There have been nasty politics since the early days of the republic. I don't speak for all voters, but I don't like to hear candidates make excuses, play the victim card or overreact. For one thing, some people will think where there's smoke, there's fire. Second, people like to see passion--but passion for one's ideas and causes, not personal image. Gingrich can't be seen as a guy in the White House consumed with playing Whack-a-Mole, every time some 2-bit dictator like Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls him a name. We want to have confidence in our Commander in Chief, someone whom is going to be level-headed in a time of crisis.

Morris basically argues here that it really didn't matter what those PAC commercials said: what mattered was how Gingrich responded to them. What Gingrich had to do was respond objectively to the substance of the allegations and move on, certainly not show the allegations were getting under his skin; he needed to take the higher road, shake off the commercials like the water off a duck's back. Once Gingrich overreacted, the game was over; he wasn't acting Presidential.

Romney's "Foot in Mouth" Disease

You would think the last thing I need to lecture a politician on how to talk to the media: if there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism. No doubt Romney's comments about not being concerned about the very poor amused Obama, as he sampled his arugula for lunch, paid the mortgage on his $1.6M mansion in upscale Chicago and the next installment of the $60K annual private school tuition for his two daughters and planned his next vacations to Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii and his next golf outings.

Romney has had a number of known gaffes over the past few weeks: talking about liking to fire people and betting a fellow candidate $10,000 But even though I understand what Romney meant here, it's just a very bad choice of words.

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

First lesson, Governor Romney: as President, you're President of ALL the American people: poor, rich, and the middle class.

What Romney said is very consistent with the way business executives speak. Let me explain in the contest of a family going on summer vacation: "I'm not worried about the newspapers or the mail: I've put them on hold. I'm not worried about the lawn: I've hired Bob next door to handle it in my absence. What I am worried about is a couple of packages on order which could arrive while we're gone..."

But I disagreed with what he said and how he said it. Here's what I might have phrased: "Look, this is a tough environment. Energy and food inflation affects everyone, even the poor. We need a fiscally responsible budget to ensure all programs, including our safety net programs, are sustainable. We need to have pro-growth policies in place to provide employment opportunities across the breadth of the economy. But I'm particularly worried about middle-income families whom are struggling to keep up with the high cost of health insurance, retirement planning and college tuition, among other things."

Reason's Big Nanny of the Month

What hypocrites! You would think after what LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Governor Jerry Brown are doing to California taxpayers, they should set a good example by wearing prophylactics on the job... Fortunately, we can recognize the symptoms of infection: for example, if you find yourself suddenly staring at that bulge in someone else's back pocket, you're brooding about your Calpers check being late this month while on your morning 5-mile jog passing by those poor saps sitting in traffic, or in the middle of a workday afternoon, you find yourself giving "Dr. Phil" unsolicited advice on how to run his show...

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "Flash". I still think this is the COOLEST theme ever for a SciFi project, and Freddie's vocals are AWESOME at a high range (the dialogue about having only 14 hours to save the earth: priceless!) I know a lot of my fellow geeks will disagree. Other favorite fantasy project tunes by other artists: Remy Zero's "Save Me" (the "Smallville" theme), the Theme from Beauty and the Beast (i.e., Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman, TV, not Disney), and "One of Us" (Joan Osborne's brilliant anthem use by the "Joan of Arcadia" series)

This marks the end of my Queen series. The next group I'll cover is the Guess Who.

Miscellany: 1/31/12

2012-01-31T21:32:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Nature does not bestow virtue; to be good is an art.
Seneca

Blog Update

January pageviews increased once again month over month and were the strongest since last January (a negligible decrease year-over-year). Once again, my Russian readers dominated international readership with a 2-1 edge over my German readers, with Ukraine readers placing a distant third. My all-time international pageviews show Denmark first, Russia second, and Germany third, but I haven't had any measurable pageviews from Denmark in quite some time. (I'm not sure why my Danish readers have disappeared.)

ROMNEY WINS FLORIDA!

With about 99% of the precincts reporting, Romney won the Florida primary going away, nearly capturing a clean majority at 46.4%-31.9% over Newt Gingrich. In fact, Romney beat Gingrich and third-place Santorum combined. I want to point out 4 different polls predicted the margin of victory--except the Insider Advantage and PPP polls which reduced the Romney advantage by half. (I previously commented that I distrusted these two pollsters.)

It's very difficult for Gingrich to put a positive spin on this: it's the second straight purple-state primary Romney has won going away. Gingrich will point out that he was outspent, but most voters indicated that they were influenced by two things: debates and electability. In the meanwhile Gingrich's lead in the GOP tracking poll had shrunk to the bare minimum, and I suspect the Florida win put catapult Romney back into the lead. The Nevada caucuses this weekend should also go to Romney (like it did in 2008). My guess is Gingrich's or Santorum's best chance will be Missouri and Ohio next week. The polls I see there from RCP indicate a tight race with Gingrich narrowly in the lead, but these are battleground states like Florida, the Romney campaign has more money and is better organized, and the available polls are sparse, outdated and come from questionable pollsters.

I think what we'll start seeing over the next week or two is more of a bandwagon effect towards Romney. The Romney campaign I think miscalculated in South Carolina, underestimating Gingrich's ability to rebound after bad finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire. But there's no place for Gingrich to hide, as Santorum and Paul continue to fade. It's possible that we'll see nobody drop out at least until Super Tuesday in early March--and possibly not even then. Why? Huckabee in 2008 refused to concede until McCain won an absolute majority of delegates, and many of the early states this year got dinged in terms of delegates. You never can tell in politics; Gabby Giffords' tragedy and Sen. Mark Kirk's (R-IL) recent unlikely stroke reinforce that.

I"m pleased to see Sarah Palin's and Herman Cain's enthusiastic support for Gingrich went nowhere.

Late Note: I have not been watching live network coverage, but there are stories that Gingrich said in his concession speech that he will not run "Republican campaign but a people's campaign". Even the bare hint that Gingrich would go rogue would be political suicide. If there is a legitimate third-party candidate, it's Ron Paul, not Newt Gingrich. Very bizarre development and it should be interesting to see if he walks that back--or can walk that back. If I'm heading the Romney campaign, I think Romney has just clinched the nomination: I've got that tape going to every local, state, and national GOP executive in the country, it's showing up in my ads, etc.

Anybody But Newt

[NOTE: Most of this commentary was written before tonight's primary win for Romney and late developments.]

With all due respect, I'm done with the strident partisans stubbornly determined, at any cost, to engage in a suicide mission this fall against Obama. Let me start by saying first of all, from a policy standpoint, I'm closer to Ron Paul than any of the other candidates. More recently, I decided to take an editorial position from the blog to endorse Mitt Romney. This was based on two fundamental, indisputable facts: (1) Mitt Romney is the most electable candidate, over dozens of pairwise polls: he's not a career politician and is an obvious candidate whom can run against Washington; he won a statewide election in the bluest of states, Massachusetts, and he is very competitive against Obama in the battleground states; (2) Mitt Romney is the most qualified person to serve as President (among announced candidates) from either party. Let me be clear: he does understand business and the economy from a first-hand perspective. He has solid executive experience from both the private and public sectors. He has proven ability to reach across the aisle, even with a Democratic-dominated legislature.

Over the past year the so-called "Establishment choice" Romney has seen one train wreck after the other rise and fall as the designated "non-Romney" candidate: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. I get an email inbox full of strident anti-Romney ads, news items, and columns from popular conservative media outlets like Human Events, Newsmax, and Worth Reading. (Can you say 'unsubscribe'?) This is the same man with the same views and credentials that 4 years ago prominent media conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin were essentially backing in an all-out attempt to deny "RINO" John McCain the nomination. He's not a professional politician: he ran twice before the 2008 GOP nomination race: 1994 as Senate candidate and 2002 as gubernatorial candidate. He was an inexperienced political candidate trying to win statewide election in a very liberal state; did he make mistakes in his campaigns and say things he now wished he could take back? Probably, but he was trying not to let his very liberal opponents define him as a right-wing ideologue in a state that doesn't elect right-wing ideologues. It's almost like the media conservatives would rather not run a Republican at all if he or she doesn't pass their litmus test. By any account, Romney's views are at least as conservative (if not more) now as they were back in 2008.

Some people might think that having maintained the same conservative views for 6 or more years: what's the litmus test? Unlike Romney, Governor Reagan signed a bill liberalizing abortion in California; Governor Reagan agreed to a tax hike to balance the budget. President Reagan agreed to tax increases, including social security; he ran huge budget deficits; he signed an immigration law most conservatives today despise. Conservative after conservatives claims to be a Reagan Republican. What did Romney do? He basically stopped an attempt by majority Democrats to implement a variation of HillaryCare by using elements of the same approach Congressional Republicans used in 1993-1994 (including, yes, Gingrich's support). And yet Gingrich is considered the "real" conservative in this race? To reprise a John Kerry-like message, Gingrich was for Freddie Mac before he was against Freddie Mac (but only after he cashed in some $1.6M in fees through early 2008 while consulting for Freddie Mac's chief lobbyist)? I mean, give me a break.

Let me be blunt here: Newt Gingrich is a jerk, and the American people do not knowingly elect jerks to be their President. The name-calling, the constantly disrespectful tone: using, for instance, the term "Massachusetts liberal" is knowingly false and unnecessary. Romney was facing a nearly 90% Democratic legislature in Massachusetts; he vetoed lots of items, including in the famous RomneyCare legislation--for example, he wanted an exception to the mandate for people whom could post notice of financial responsibility for their medical debts. Newt's own think tank backed RomneyCare, as did the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization. It's not just that, but Newt has engaged in the pettiest type of sniping talking about a vote Romney cast for a Massachusetts Democrat before he ever became a GOP candidate. Give me a break: how many Republicans rejected Reagan because he remained a Democrat until just a few years before becoming governor? I mean, is this Presidential material? Gingrich lost his temper because a Romney PAC ran ads pointing out he took money from Freddie Mac, he was rebuked by the House while serving as Speaker, etc.: big news for Gingrich: these are legitimate issues. He may not like the negative spin, but let's face it: if Sarah Palin had run, she would be facing issues over Troopergate and her resignation as governor. Romney has never backed away from his health care reform in Massachusetts, and he's acknowledged that it's been an issue.

But to take another example: there was the revelation that Gingrich had allegedly asked his second wife for an open marriage. I mean, it's just as legitimate an issue as it was in discussing the Ensign and Vitter affairs, the resignations of Foley and Chris Lee. I thought it was in Gingrich's interests to handle the relevant question respectfully and honestly. Attacking the messenger is wildly inappropriate; it's not Presidential.

This leads to another assertion made by pro-Gingrich forces: Gingrich was the "best" debater to take on Obama this fall. I definitely don't agree with this; I have a good idea of how to beat Obama (but I don't believe in revealing my hand if I'm playing a game of poker). I will say that an erratic/undisciplined, predictable performance and a disrespectful tone plays right into Obama's hand. Obama is personally likable, but I guarantee he's going to play the part of the incumbent for all its worth and play prevent defense or rope-a-dope. He doesn't even have to land a punch on the GOP challenger; if he can simply goad the challenger into intemperate behavior, it almost doesn't matter what they're talking about. I will simply hint here that the first step is to put Obama on the defensive by using his own unfulfilled promises and words against him, his failure to back his own bipartisan debt reduction committee findings, his power grabs without Congressional authority (e.g., the Libya operation or the Gulf moratorium issue), and his legislative priorities in a tough economy (e.g., climate change, no movement on business taxes, etc). I would avoid being predictable and I would try to use the element of surprise in challenging him so he can't resort to rehearsed soundbites.

I myself have used judgmental terms in discussing Obama--for example, I think his performance has been mediocre, he has a narcissistic personality, and he's in over his head. But it's not personal--it's about policy and performance, and I think he really blew it as a politician: he was being penny-wise, pound-foolish. He decided to ram partisan legislation down the GOP's throat, which killed any chance of legitimate bipartisanship.

Gingrich has found few, if any of the Congressmen to serve with him to publicly endorse him; the vast majority joined Democrats in 1997 in rebuking him on ethics charges on a floor vote, unprecedented in American history. Gingrich constantly whines, has varied from conservative orthodoxy on at least as many grounds (and let's not forget--working for a government-sponsored entity is not something any Tea Party conservative would even consider) as Romney (despite not having to run in a blue state like Romney had to), bullies debate moderators and his opponents, and has used Democratic-like class warfare arguments against Romney's candidacy.

Finally, let's look a little bit at Gingrich's support. Sarah Palin has twice unofficially endorsed Gingrich in races in South Carolina and Florida. I'm not making this up: one pop conservative media outlet has actually condemned Fox News for reportedly cutting short a Palin interview on one of the weekend shows (I think she was once again pushing Gingrich's candidacy). Now does anybody else reading this commentary remember what happened to former Governor Pawlenty? Reportedly after he withdrew from the race, he tried to get a gig with Fox News Channel, and Ailes refused, pointing out that Pawlenty had recently endorsed Romney. Now Palin knows all this (or at least Ailes has probably told her in private), and so she can't pick sides officially--so instead she's playing fast and loose with the rules by endorsing in individual races.

[I realize the fact I've endorsed Romney may lead some to question my objectivity here, but I'm a commentator, but a reporter or contributor working for Fox News trying to work around the rules. I'm far more objective that any commentator I know, even though I have done an endorsement of Romney's candidacy. I have criticized some of Romney's views and performances.]

Parsing Obama's 2012 SOTU Address: Part III

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

Obama's speeches should be called "Weapons of Mass Distortion".... Where do we start? Obama is knowingly stating things in ways that play on people's mistaken economic assumptions. In Obama terms, this is "putting lipstick on a pig: it's still a pig".

Neo-Keynesian delusional thinking is alive and well in the White House. They want you to think that everyone wins when you play Government Monopoly. Well, the odds are stacked in favor of the House: when you pass GO, you pay the federal bureaucrats $200. The only REAL winners in this rigged game are the toll-collectors (i.e., the IRS).

Now without going back to your history books (no fair peeking!), suppose I told you that by 1944 unemployment had plunged from pre-war nearly 20% to 1.2%; nearly half of the economy was aimed at WWII, deficits and the cumulative national debt exploded past the size of our economy, and we had 12 million men in the military, nearly a fifth of our labor force.

I mean, FDR threw money and regulations at the economy during the New Deal, and to his great surprise, the economy remained in a stubborn funk (revisionists will no doubt say he didn't throw ENOUGH money and regulations at the problem...) It was like FDR was lobbing one dodge ball after another at the heads of business owners and couldn't figure out why they didn't have time to grow their businesses and employ more people. His deficit spending was crowding out investment in the private sector, and all the new demands he was throwing at businesses was changing the ground under their feet: who knew what this guy was going to do next? I have used this analogy before: when you start a small campfire (yes, I was once a Boy Scout), you have to coax it to full strength: you don't snuff out the fragile flame under the weight of 2000-page laws! Or, using a different analogy, if you want a 98-pound weakling to scale a mountain for the first time, you don't strap a 45-pound backpack on him.

Yes, I'm referring here to the unconscionable 111th Congress and President Obama. Apparently they didn't take Newt Gingrich's history course on the Great Depression or remember George Santayana's famous quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Take Dodd N. Frankenstein (regular readers will recognize my coined term for so-called "financial reform") and other counterproductive government interventions under the Obama Administration: the private sector was more than willing to find a natural bottom in the real estate cycle (as it always had), but we had an activist government changing the ground under their feet. This was all pushing on a string: the last thing banks were interested in doing was further putting their capital at risk by approving high-risk mortgage applicants under the falling knife of home prices. This was all about filling a long-pending item on the progressive wish list while they briefly held the trifecta of the House, Senate and White House, regardless of the state of the economy. They put ideology ahead of their country.

FDR had found the one sure weapon to get us out of the Depression: draft all the unemployed men in the country and finance a global war, putting it on the national credit card! [Yes, readers, I'm being sarcastic...] So what happens when, all of a sudden, you end up dropping defense expenditures by more than half and let over 10M men come home and out of the service? We are taking all of thus "stimulus" out of the economy. You can all but hear Paul Krugman running around screaming, "The sky is falling!" No doubt some Keynesian economists were suggesting that we "invest" in other hotspots around the globe... [Yes, sarcasm again...] Taylor and Vedder have an interesting post discussing what happened--and "austerity" didn't "cause" massive unemployment.

Obama is wrong to focus on manufacturing for a variety of reasons. The manufacturing sector is not more equal than the service sector; workers may shift from one sector to the others. First, job losses often inevitably result from improvements in technology and increased productivity. Second, many job losses in the manufacturing sector move towards the service sector.

We've heard this sort of fear before, e.g., when we transitioned from a primarily agrarian economy. Progressives refuse to believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand". In the 1970's nobody would have ever conceived that that people would be willingly giving up their wired phone services for multi-functional devices you could wear in a shirt pocket, nearsightedness could be permanently cured in a matter of seconds, there would be professions like webmasters, or you could send a message anywhere in the world almost instantaneously, or shop for almost anything or pay a bill in mere seconds, without a trip to the bank or buying a stamp.

(But progressives would have you know that federal bureaucrats running under defined benefit pension systems that the private sector ditched 3 decades ago as unsustainable would have done all of these things and many other even more wonderful things faster, better, and cheaper.... The secret is in the red tape bureaucrats use...)

Money is fungible; if farmers are more productive and food products are high-quality, only cheaper, we'll spend and invest elsewhere in our economy.

As for "financial reform", we have had a ludicrous ideologically-driven, pushing-on-a-string legislation which used the economic tsunami as a transparent excuse. Many, if not most of the problems during the economic tsunami can be traced to problematic public policy (including the GSE's use of an implicit taxpayer-backed guarantee, government subsidies and policies pushing home ownership (particularly for certain high-risk interest groups), incompetent and uncoordinated regulation, etc. There was no attempt to fix existing government policies, to lessen or eliminating the unsustainable subsidies, guarantees, cronyism, government-sanctioned or sponsored entities, uncoordinated, unaccountable regulatory schemes and failures in regulatory performance, etc. Of course, the Democrats weren't about to admit that government was part of the problem, not the solution. Their response was NOT to lower the taxpayer exposure to corruptible guarantees, subsidies, and the like but to expand the self-preserving federal bureaucracy and mandate. As if a government which has accumulated a $15T debt has any moral authority to lecture those in the private sector!

My position on the banks and AIG is clear: if you take on undue risk and fail, goodbye. If there is a legitimate market need for your goods and services, the private sector will find a way to address it. The same thing with the auto industry. Obama's laughable assertion that his corrupt managed bankruptcy "saved" the auto industry is certainly audacious but lacks any serious credibility. Companies with more sustainable cost structures emerge from bankruptcy all the time--the only thing that Obama did was to ensure that the interests of unions, whose unsustainable contracts were the principal contributing factor behind the two automakers' failures, were protected.

In any event, let me quote Kling's reflection on "financial reform", which is spot on:

No exit strategy from government support for subsidized, lenient mortgage credit. No curbs on Freddie and Fannie, whose market share has skyrocketed in the past year and a half. No increase in down payment requirements for FHA, which is in deep doo-doo.
No change to the role of credit rating agencies
Nothing to address the issue of "cognitive capture." The regulators will still get their analysis of the financial sector from the CEO's of the largest banks.
A pushing-on-a-string consumer financial protection agency.

Finally, the deficit reductions Obama is referring to consist of savings OVER A DECADE, not absolute cuts to current programs. A lot of them come from cuts in (below-cost) reimbursements or playing games with planned budget increases.

Political Humor

"Newt Gingrich has been attacking Mitt Romney for being wealthy and having money in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. See, that's when you know you're part of the top 1 percent, when your bank's address has the word “island” in it." - Jay Leno

[Newt knows because he met Mitt also filling out a deposit slip during the Cayman Islands cruise he took after his Greek cruise. Mitt thought that Callista's new Tiffany's earrings looked very nice...

When asked by the debate moderator for a response, Romney said, "To the moon, ~~Alice~~ Newt!"]

"Sarah Palin has also been supportive of Gingrich but she hasn't made an official endorsement yet. Her husband endorsed Gingrich but he's a snowmobiler, so nobody cares." - Jimmy Kimmel

[Well, after all, Newt Gingrich has been snowing conservatives for years.... He makes Todd and Sarah feel right at home.]

"Newt Gingrich picked up an endorsement from Herman Cain. It's not unlike getting Carrot Top's endorsement for an Academy Award." - Jimmy Kimmel

[You see, I knew there was a downside to all those late nights between Clinton and Gingrich, talking about those fetching ladies they met on the job, just like Cain...]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "Crazy Little Thing Called Love". Freddie Mercury does retro rock: need I say more? Brilliant...

Miscellany: 1/30/12

2012-01-30T22:52:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Seek respect mainly from thyself, for it comes first from within.
Steven H. Coogler

Alexander T. Tabarrok,
"The Innovation Nation vs. the Warfare-Welfare State":
Thumbs UP!

My Saturday post has attracted some pageviews, which I attribute to a commentary I wrote in a discussion of inventors and innovation. Even though I didn't specifically rant about the effect of government regulation on innovation, it was clear from context:

"I think one of the more interesting points discussed was when DoD went to Kamen to ask about development of an artificial limb; he mentions how he expected a thick specification document, not to mention years of going through FDA approval...A simple Google search reveals references to Kamen's rants about FDA red tape...Most young people at one time or another question authority and/or bureaucracy, and I think that the relevant frame of mind is more likely to come from a libertarian than a communitarian standpoint."

Remember DARPA, the agency that recruited Kamen and a principal founder of what would emerge to be the Internet? (One of the classic papers in the history of human factors (and which I used to cite while in academia) is a 1960 paper from JCR Licklider: "Man-Computer Symbiosis" which says in section 5.1: "It seems reasonable to envision, for a time 10 or 15 years hence, a "thinking center" that will incorporate the functions of present-day libraries together with anticipated advances in information storage and retrieval and the symbiotic functions suggested earlier in this paper. The picture readily enlarges itself into a network of such centers, connected to one another by wide-band communication lines and to individual users by leased-wire services." DARPA recruited Licklider in 1962 with a mandate to interconnect major DoD centers. I know...you thought I was going to say Al Gore...) DARPA gets $3B from a budget exceeding $3.5T. In fact, as Tabarrok points out, "Even when we lump all federal R&D spending together regardless of quality it amounts to just $150 billion, a mere 4 percent of the budget: National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research, spends $31 billion annually, and the National Science Foundation spends just $7 billion."

Tabarrock's post is worthy, but one item particularly intrigued me as exactly the kind of thinking we don't see from the Obama Administration, which has been more than willing to throw money at boutique energy alternatives, like solar energy, versus proven technologies and solutions:

The U.S. Department of Energy, for example, estimates that small and environmentally friendly hydro-electric projects could generate at least 30,000 MWs of power annually. That’s equivalent to the generating capacity of about 30 nuclear power plants. Moreover, since 97% of U.S. dams are generating zero power today, these projects would not require building any new dams. So what’s the problem? The problem is that building even a small hydro-electric project requires the approval of numerous agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, State Environmental Departments and State Historic Preservation Departments. It’s simply too expensive, time-consuming and risky to build these projects when any of these agencies could veto it at any time.

No wonder Newt Gingrich wants to go to the moon... It's the only place left not covered with Obama Administration red tape... You know, now that we've licked that problem of getting computers to network with each other, perhaps Obama could have DARPA figure out protocols to govern ~~turf battles~~ interconnections among government regulators. (I can just see it now: Obama will appoint Al Gore to be father of the Reg-net.)

Get Well Soon, Bella Santorum!

Let me start out by saying I don't support Rick Santorum's bid for the White House (but it goes without saying that I prefer Santorum to Gingrich, and Santorum is an easy choice over Barack Obama). Issues I have with all 3 men in common have to do with their polarizing rhetoric and lack of executive experience. Obviously Obama is currently getting on-the-job experience, and his inexperience shows in his mediocre performance and record.

Before going on to Bella, I briefly wanted to reprise a dated story about media progressive Alan Colmes. (I should note, in fairness, Colmes apologized to Santorum for unconscionable comments relating to Rick's prematurely born late son Gabriel.) [Please note that the embedded videos below are available at the time of the post and may become unavailable in the future.]

In my book collection, I have owned, for years, a copy of Karen Santorum's moving book, Letters to Gabriel, Here is a shorter discussion of Rick and Karen's son Gabriel. Let me quote Karen's words:

For several years I worked as a registered nurse and dealt with many painful situations. I never dreamed one day I would have to face the silent birth of a child of my own.... The 20 week old baby in my womb was diagnosed with a defect that is always fatal without surgery. Through our immense heartache came the most basic of parental emotions: We had to save our child. After many tests it was determined our son was eligible for the operation that could save his life. It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable.

Gabriel Michael Santorum was born at 12:45 AM on Friday, October 11, 1996. He was a beautiful boy. He did not give a cry or open his tiny eyes. We baptized him, bundled him, and held him ever so close. We sang to him, held his little hands and kissed him. Gabriel lived for two hours. In those two hours something simple but profound happened. Rick and I became parents to a newborn baby and welcomed him into our family. That was all....but it was everything. His life was so brief, yet his impact so great. In two hours we experienced a lifetime of emotions. Love, sorrow, regret, joy----all were packed into that brief span. To have rejected that experience would have been to reject life itself.

According to Michelle Bauman:

On a Fox News segment on Jan. 2, political commentator Alan Colmes criticized Santorum for “some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby who died right after childbirth home and played with it for a couple hours, so his other children would know the child was real.”
In a Jan. 5 interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson also ridiculed Santorum and his wife for taking their son home “to kind of sleep with it, introduce it to the rest of the family.”
“He’s not a little weird,” said Robinson, “he’s really weird.”
But Robinson and Colmes were “speaking out of a seemingly bottomless well of ignorance,” according to Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
In a Jan. 5 article in Commentary magazine, he pointed out that health experts often suggest spending time with a stillborn child as a means of grieving.

Courtesy Andrew Burton/Getty Images and ABC

Proud Daddy and Daughter Bella

I don't know if that sweet, beautiful gift from God, Bella (Isabella) Santorum, was named in reference to one of my all-time favorite movies Bella, a powerful pro-adoption choice film. (Don't you just want to hug and kiss that sweetheart? Doesn't her smiling, pretty face just melt your heart?) I can't imagine what it has been like for Rick and Karen to have had to cope with challenges and heartaches involving two of their children, but I don't for a second question their hearts and the fact they are decent, honest, honorable people. There's no doubt that the Santorums (or the Romneys) would bring to the White House a welcome change in leadership, competence, integrity and grace we can really believe in.

Quoting ABC (my edit):

Bella suffers from Trisomy 18, a rare and serious genetic disorder that kills about 90 percent of children before or during birth. Three-year-old Bella was diagnosed with pneumonia in both lungs and had very difficult 36 hours over the weekend; she has “a long way to go,” but has “turned the corner.”

video platform video management video solutions video player

Parsing Obama's 2012 SOTU Address: Part II

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

First, notice that Obama is up to his same old same old bag of tricks here: he's making excuses for people whom took out mortgage loans and regulators. And dubious victims at that. We don't need to speculate (as Obama clearly does) on some nonsensical, unsupported conspiracy theory involving banks looking to rip off naive borrowers (with no legally recoverable assets to speak of).

Even liberal Keynesian economist Paul Krugman doesn't buy Obama's "predatory lending" argument, noting that the real estate bubble was broad-based, across the home mortgage and commercial real estate market. Arnold Kling made this observation in April 2010 (my edits):

What about predatory lending? As I understand it, the idea of predatory lending is to saddle the borrower with an expensive mortgage so that you can foreclose on the property and sell it at a profit. How many times did that happen? Have you read of a single instance in the past three years where the bank made a profit on a foreclosure?

I know that it's axiomatic that poor people are helpless victims. But in the case of these mortgages, that is a really hard sell. The banks did not take from poor people. They gave to poor people. [If the poor homeowner was lucky to sell in a rising market, he] got to reap a nice profit on his house. [Not so lucky, he] lost...close to nothing.

It's not like banks don't understand the risk of holding a nonperforming, low-collateral loan in a falling real estate market. I'm not going to make excuses for banks that failed to exercise due professional care in evaluating applicants. It's not like prospective homeowners don't realize that they are making one of the largest purchase decisions in their lifetime and if you don't have sufficient collateral, sustainable income or a stable credit history, you have to pay an interest premium to the lender for taking on increased risk. Furthermore, mortgage interest rates were below historical norms, and monthly payments for the nontraditional loans were likely to jump at the next planned reset. Everyone also knew that there was, at best, sluggish wage growth.

We don't have to speculate on conspiracy theories here. There was a herd mentality at the time: prices can only go up from here. Besides, I'll have cashed out long before any real estate correction. We had heard some of the same kind of nonsense during the late phase of the Nasdaq bubble: "Profits don't matter... We are in a new, different economy where the old rules don't apply..." I knew that we were in a frothy, speculative market, no doubt enabled by easy money policy from the Fed Reserve, even as early as 2005 when I had read reports of Florida condos still in construction being repeatedly flipped and get-rich-quick-in-real-estate infomercials popping up on late night TV.

Should have we been surprised by a correction? In fact, we know about an 18-year real estate cycle. The economy had pulled out of recession late in GHW Bush's only term in office, fueling the new real estate cycle. By the time I moved to California in late 1999, nearly half-million dollar homes were more the rule than the exception in Silicon Valley. Consider Steve Hanke:

Speaking of economic history, one thing that the purveyors of monetary policy (and all prudent investors) should become well versed in is a piece of business-cycle history that has apparently passed them by – namely the little-known, but essential, 18-year real estate cycle. This cycle goes hand-in-hand with Austrian business cycle theory in which booms and bubbles are created when central banks set short-term interest rates too low, allowing credit to expand artificially.

In fact, the federal government also got swept up in the herd mentality. Democrats and the "compassionate conservative" Bush Administration were thrilled that the percentage of homeowners was at unprecedented high levels (which others as well as myself regarded as unsustainable).The government specifically wanted banks to make loans. One way they could do that was the GSE's purchase of loans from banks. We were not talking about your grandfather's 20-percent down, 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage loan. Basically we had exhausted the conventional mortgage pool of qualified applicants:

Between 2005-2007, few of the mortgages acquired were conventional,fixed-interest loans with 20% down. By December 2007 [the GSE's were] responsible for 90% of all mortgages. Fannie Mae's loan acquisitions were:

62% negative amortization
84% interest only
58% subprime
62% required less than 10% down payment

Freddie Mac's loans were even more risky, consisting of:

72% negative amortization
97% interest only
67% subprime
68% required less than 10% down payment.

I'm not arguing that CRE/GSE policies caused the real estate market crash, but clearly risky loans were enabled by government policy and/or a failure in competent regulatory oversight. Making money available to risky applicants bid up prices, and the magnitude of the GSE exposure using government guarantees to the real estate market exacerbated taxpayer losses.

In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

This is just flat-out intellectually dishonest. Consider the following:

September 2008 – 280,000 jobs lost
October 2008 – 240,000 jobs lost
November 2008 – 333,000 jobs lost
December 2008 – 632,000 jobs lost
January 2009 – 741,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 681,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 652,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 519,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 303,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 463,000 jobs lost

NBER claims the recession ended in June 2009. A May 2009 New York Times report indicated nearly 3 months after the so-called then $787B stimulus, just $45.6B or 5.8% had been spent. In the context of roughly a $14.6T economy? (Well, of course, Obama was responsible for the nation's first trillion-dollar deficit... And second... And third... But after all that spending over 14M unemployed and underemployed from one of the slowest job recoveries in American history. Of course, Obama doesn't want you to think it has anything to do with his reckless, irresponsible threats to raise tax rates on investors, a huge power grab by the federal bureaucracy, globally uncompetitive business income tax rates or playing games with temporary versus permanent tax policy.

Take, for example, the latest economics-challenged proposal from Obama to double Mitt Romney's tax rate to 30 percent. Since most of Romney's income is from CAPITAL GAINS, not WAGES, Obama is really suggesting DOUBLING TAX RATES ON INVESTMENT. Obama KNOWS (or should know) doing this would KILL the economic recovery, but he can grandstand, knowing it's dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. It's the political equivalent of a "free play" (defensive offside in football). And it's ineffective, as even Obama should realize. Capital gain realizations are triggered by sales events. Wealthy individuals don't have to sell relevant assets: they can wait until a more accommodating legislature and President are in power. And as I've constantly mentioned. Wages and short-term capital gains are taxed at the same rate; the special rate reflects long-term investments--and the gains are NOT inflation-adjusted so you're really taxing phantom income--the nominal gain may not even cover your loss in purchasing power, so taxes add to your "real" capital loss.

It's bad enough that the Democrats are materially misleading Americans on the nature of income by suggesting that middle-class Americans are paying twice Romney's tax rate. That is knowingly false. The top tax bracket on wages is applied INCREMENTALLY, and middle-class investors are taxed at the same rate as Romney.

But let's go back to Obama's disingenuous use of job loss statistics, and this is a point I made in a recent post:: the indisputable fact is that job losses accelerated AFTER OBAMA AND DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED CONGRESS WERE ELECTED in November 2008. One has to be in a state of denial to think businesses cut jobs because of a lame duck President's policies. The Democrats controlled the Congress during and after the lame duck session. The only weapon Bush had was the veto, and the Democrats knew they could just wait until Obama was inaugurated to pass anything they wanted without having to worry about a Presidential veto.So even though Bush had almost 3 months left in his term, for all practical purposes, he was powerless. Businessmen were not thinking in terms: let's take on new hires; we'll just fire them as soon as Obama is in office. As I mentioned earlier: past performance is not indicative of future results.

Obama can try to scapegoat Bush all he wants--he's 3 years into his Presidency and he's still Bush-bashing, but the indisputable fact is that the Democrats took control of Congress nearly a year before the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 and 20 months before the tsunami and TARP. Didn't the Democrats pass a stimulus bill that Bush signed in his last year? Yes. So Obama is intentionally misleading people here wanting to pass off as many job losses he can to Bush. Everybody knew that Obama was going to sign a huge stimulus bill before he even took his oath. He signed it less than a month in office. This is the same Congress that took over a year to pass ObamaCare.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "Another One Bites the Dust"

Miscellany: 1/29/12

2012-01-29T20:30:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Patience has its limits. Take it too far, and it's cowardice.
George Jackson

Parsing Obama's 2012 SOTU Address: Part I

Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

This passage just strikes me as odd in several respects. Let's start with the unusual soundbite at the end "responsibility is rewarded". What exactly does that mean? Responsibility is "the act of carrying out prescribed roles and duties without supervision in home, school, community and society. Responsibility is a force that binds you to your obligations." If I assume the role of a husband and/or father (NB: I've never been married and don't have children), I am responsible for providing financial and emotional support for my wife and kids. I don't expect to be rewarded for doing the right thing by my family. It would be nice if my efforts were noticed and appreciated, but my duties are not contingent on whether family members love or even respect me. Now, certainly government can remedy the situation (e.g., garnish wages) if you are financially able but don't meet the obligations to your family, but it's not the role of government to confer its blessings on the heads of households.

I think what Obama is really saying here is insidious: he is subtly and unconscionably subordinating liberty of the individual or business to the authority of the state, e.g., "we are going to reward businesses which are entitled [the right size, industry, ownership, etc.] or do right by [fill in the blank with a relevant progressive ideological goal: are environmentally conscious, accommodate union demands, achieve lending targets for small businesses or minority home ownership, etc.]" What are the rewards? Things like exemptions from economic growth-choking regulations, tax breaks. In other words, industrial policy/crony capitalism as usual. Picking winners and losers in the economy. Obama is implicitly defining "responsibility" as accommodation to progressive ideological objectives and is also implying that he wants to punish "irresponsible" individual or business behavior. Is there no end to this counterproductive, megalomaniac delusion? All these not-that-subtle anti-business threats do absolutely nothing positive for the economy, including jobs.

Now let's review the earlier part of the passage: he's talking about "America that leads the way in educating its people". First, our universities are world-class. He's referring to K-12 and generally public education, traditionally managed at the local and state level. This is clearly a situation where public policy is part of the problem, not the solution. We find that administrators often have at best limited ability to manage resources, hamstrung by union contracts; we have legally enforced public monopolies with little or no effective competition, where parents who choose a private/parochial school for their children are not given the right to use their own tax money for a school of their choice and have to pay twice.

Barack Obama is completely clueless here; for all the money thrown at public education over the past 50 years, we have seen little, if anything to show for it on any desired criterion (test scores, graduation rates, etc.) In other societies, doing well in school and passing board exams can mean the difference between a comfortable middle-class lifestyle and a lifetime of financial struggle. If we are going to continue to subsidize education, we need to acknowledge (1) the status quo is not working, (2) the amount of resources government can contribute is limited and needs to be more efficiently allocated, preferably by encouraging real (not token) K-12 competition, and (3) our children are too important to delegate responsibility of their education to dysfunctional government and legislators, bought and paid for by crony union interests.

"An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs." This really, really annoys me. First, America, with a single-digit percentage of the world's population accounts for nearly a quarter of the global GDP, and we continue to lead in manufacturing, particularly high value-added manufacturing. MJ Perry in his Carpe Diem blog (see blog top-right recommended blogs) routinely features news clips with a positive spin on our manufacturing sector. Some manufacturers that relied on high-cost low-skilled labor, no longer globally competitive, have shut down, but consumers with more money in their pockets spend and invest in other parts of the economy. It's called the law of comparative advantage. Unfortunately, the Democrats can't put the genie back into the bottle: businesses are not charities; they have to be profitable in the long run.

But Obama is ignoring the unbelievable damage that that his high-tax/high-regulation rhetoric, globally uncompetitive business tax structures, and industrial policies are having on American economic growth. He has got to stop cherry-picking which industrial sectors win and lose, and doubling down on regulations, a hidden tax on consumers, with an anemic economy is extraordinarily counterproductive. It took forever to get three free trade treaties negotiated by Bush passed (only during the last year), never mind any new initiatives.

" A future where we're in control of our own energy". One of the problems here is that Obama is continuing to throw money at alternative energy which is only profitable as a result of massive, unaffordable, unsustainable subsidies. On the other hand, while Obama tried to take credit for the North Dakota oil boom helping to displace some foreign imports, which has zero to do with his policies which have been generally negative towards oil and gas exploration; he has done nothing to end countless environmentalist lawsuits against development of shale properties in the West-Central-North US. There were his notorious moratoriums against Gulf exploration and development after the BP oil spill, and he has released only something like 5% in relevant acreage of offshore areas for exploration, including almost no new exploration off the shores of blue or purple states (e.g., West Coast and the Northeast).

And don't get me started on the Keystone XL pipeline project which is a transparent concession to his crony environmentalist allies. The point is that Obama's political grandstanding does undermine a stronger dollar, and we are going to face a severe economic crunch if and when other countries don't need to accumulate dollars to pay for oil, which props up demand for the dollar. Probably the single best thing Obama could do to facilitate energy independence for ourselves and our allies is to get out of the way of domestic oil and gas exploration. Alternative energy will play more of a role--but that will reflect the supply and demand for energy, and we're still years away from that.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise [ if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement] alive....We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values.

I absolutely reject the implicit assertion of FDR's Second Bill of Rights, expounded in his 1944 SOTU address:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

These are so-called positive rights: in essence, obligations that the government must do or guarantee for you. The issue isn't so much the worthiness of these ideals, but the use of the term "rights" and thus the implicit mandate of the government to guarantee them. Government simply doesn't have the resources or the know-how to underwrite these guarantees or effectively micromanage the economy, but even if it did, there would be moral hazard: why should I work hard or save to buy a house or for retirement or a rainy day if, no matter what I do or say, the government is going to guarantee I'm going to be fed, have a decent roof over my head, be treated for even preventable illness, etc?

Obama provides a false choice: either we accept a world where this unsustainable government does everything for you or we settle for a free economy where some might do very well. Obama sees the economy as a zero-sum game, not a win-win game. There's a saying in the financial services industry: past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Ask Ted Turner whom at one time was worth nearly $10B and is reportedly down to about $2B or former employees of Enron whose retirement savings in the company's stock were wiped out.

The problem is that government intervention adversely effects economic growth; we need to encourage economic growth, a rising tide that lifts all boats. There are a number of misleading income inequality statistics behind Obama's rhetoric: we need to remember a key reason that "the rich got richer" has to do with the fact that government policy had been burdensome with respect to pre-1980 tax rates. High tax rates discourage the incentive to earn more and/or to invest; if and when the government tax or regulatory burden on individuals and business decreases, it restores an incentive for individuals and businesses to earn more and/or deploy more assets. It may very well be the case that the economically successful will benefit considerably from these policies, but they are also taking on economic risk--say, new competitor products or services undermine their business model.

"Fair shot"? "Fair share"? "Same set of rules"? Oh, but who exactly decides what is "fair" or the "same set of rules"? That is the rub; Obama wants you to believe that he and other progressive Democrat elitists stand in judgment of just what is "fair" or the "same set of rules"... Tell me, what was the "same set of rules" when Obama rammed through managed auto company bankruptcies which stiff-armed bondholders and rewarded lower-standing union interests? What was "fair" about other oil and gas vendors in the Gulf of Mexico which were forced to shut down because of the BP oil spill, regardless of their own safety procedures and regulatory compliance? What was "fair" about union groups and/or other companies in (say) former Speaker Pelosi's district offered waivers from certain aspects of ObamaCare? What's "fair" about Obama and his cronies growing the national debt by 50% in less than one term of office and leaving future generations to pay an unconscionable burden in addition to their own while he refused at all turns to make any substantive cuts to live within the government's means? What's "fair" about using money from Medicare, needed to shore up a program which will be insolvent in roughly a decade, to help pay for another entitlement program? What is "fair" about payroll tax holidays which further undermine the long-term financial stability of the social security system?

The fact of the matter is that Obama and his Democrat cronies have been picking winners and losers in the economy: alternative energy companies, teacher and/or public safety unions, auto companies, etc. Whatever convoluted special-interest rules exist in this house of cards we call our tax system, Obama and company have added their own special-interest groups. Obama's attempt to stake out a claim on "fairness" is arbitrary and laughable.

I agree that American values are at stake--but the danger is from an overreaching elitist federal bureaucracy, dedicated to self-preservation at the expense of an increasingly threatened free market. What we need to do is to foster liberty, self-reliance, hard work, thrift, perseverance, and other virtues, NOT an undue dependence on a paternalistic bureaucracy which undermines our very self-actualization.

Let's remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't, and personal debt that kept piling up.

Actually, Obama is rewriting history. For example, we had a number of shocks to the economy during the last decade--9/11, the financial scandals, and 3 asset bubbles (fueled by easy money policies by the Fed). It's not true that the same people did as well over the past decade: the stock market was flat over the decade. Some businesses did well (e.g., Google and Apple) but most struggled--as well as the shareholders. It is true that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did encourage growth in the tax base: what Obama deliberately ignores to report in his heavily edited version of reality is that federal revenues grew to an all-time time under the Bush tax cuts, and the income tax burden was the most progressive in history; people at the very top have been contributing twice their share of national income while the bottom half of earners, if anything, were net beneficiaries.

What Obama also conveniently ignores and/or tries to explain away the failure of government regulators, the role that public policy played in artificially raising home ownership beyond the historical average, the inability of the Congress to live within its means, and the failure of the government to shore up unsustainable entitlements as Baby Boomer retirements continue to escalate.

I will likely continue my analysis of the SOTU in a future post. I dislike Obama's rhetoric because it's fundamentally dishonest and misleading, and I feel it underestimates the intelligence of the American people. I mean, does he seriously expect people to believe he and his fellow partisans are the arbiters of "fairness" or "special interests" are exclusively the backers of the opposition, not his own side? This smacks of the same kind of elitism that led him to wonder during the 2008 campaign what was it about those Midwesterners to vote against their own self-interest, to cling to their guns and Bibles? He just couldn't understand why, after 3 dozen speeches, he had failed to get the American people to see the wisdom of ObamaCare--it surely wasn't the legislation itself: it was far more reasonable to believe that he just hadn't found the right words to say in casting his spell over the American people...

No, Obama can't co-opt the truth by mere assertion, and analyzing Obama's speeches is like trying to pull teeth.

Political Potpourri

Busy weekend as we head down the stretch to Tuesday's primary in Florida, with polls now showing Romney beginning to pull away from Gingrich. What's peculiar is Herman Cain's decision to endorse Gingrich. Cain (as well as Santorum) had backed Romney in 2008. Sarah Palin is trying to repeat her South Carolina endorsement of Gingrich against the "Establishment". In the meanwhile, everyone is talking about money making the difference in Florida as Romney forces outspend Gingrich's.

There has been a lot of discussion about a couple of points regarding Gingrich's ethics charges and the nature of his resignation, which have been cited in the Romney PAC ads. Byron York, in particular, has been cited in arguing that the IRS "exonerated" Gingrich. Gingrich had taught a college course which sponsors had promised was tax-exempt but others alleged served a political purpose, putting the tax-exempt status in jeopardy. The IRS later investigated the course and did not find it partisan in nature. However, Gingrich had submitted letters from lawyers during the investigation which the committee felt was incomplete, inaccurate or unreliable. (Anyone believing that a combative Gingrich in 1997 meekly agreed to a $300K fine and a lopsided bipartisan vote against him over a trumped-up charge is in a state of denial.) There was a suggestion in the Romney ads that Gingrich resigned in disgrace after the ethics charges. In reality, there was a failed attempt to bring Gingrich down after the vote, but Gingrich, who was in trouble with fellow Republicans for other reasons as well, was principally undone by a loss of seats (but still retaining control) following the 1998 mid-term elections. I think the ad was probably a bit of a stretch, but Gingrich was on thin ice for multiple reasons heading into the 1998 elections. Whether it was his erratic behavior, rumors of an affair, and/or the unprecedented ethics rebuke to a sitting Speaker, Gingrich should not be surprised that his resignation as Speaker and from the House is an issue; the Romney campaign did not invent the issue, and even if Romney didn't make it an issue, Obama certainly would have.

I don't know if other pundits have noticed this, but Gingrich's lead over Romney in the Gallup daily tracking poll has shrunk to 2 points, 28-26, down 6 points from Friday (Romney +2, Gingrich -4). I think Romney learned a valuable lesson in South Carolina; after Gingrich had finished #4 and #5 and leading early the week of the primary, Romney was playing prevent defense. I think the campaign isn't likely to let that happen again.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen (with David Bowie), "Under Pressure". Bring together two of the greatest rock vocalists of all times and a brilliant anthem-like pop arrangement, melody and harmony, and you have one of the best tracks ever recorded in the rock era, hands down one of my favorites from the 1980's.

Miscellany: 1/28/12

2012-01-28T23:57:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Never give in...
never, never, never, never,
in nothing great or small,
large or petty,
never give in
except to convictions of honor and good sense.
Never yield to force...
never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill

Too Funny: An Author Pleads For Crowdsourcing

You could understand this point of view from a different context: bootleg recordings of recording artists' live performances. Most popular artists sooner or later release one or more authorized "live" compilations (particularly after Peter Frampton's unbelievable success with his mid-70's album). But I could easily see cases of impromptu guest performances or failed official recordings when, years later, say, Bruce Springsteen says, "Just before we went on tour in 1979, we went to this little club near Philadelphia. We were in the zone that night, but we don't have a suitable quality recording of the event." One could easily see where Springsteen fans might check to see if any fan at the club that night recorded the event.

In fact, free products or services have been a way of building a larger audience for future transactions. But science fiction author Walter Jon Williams decided to use piracy for his own benefit in a delightful tongue-in-cheek post called "Crowdsource, please":

I’m striving to get my out-of-print books and stories online so that (a) you can enjoy them, and (b) I can make a few bucks...I discovered that my work had been pirated, and was available for free...I figured I’d let the pirates do the work, and steal from them... [But] the scans were truly dreadful and full of errors [and] apparently a few of my books were so obscure that they flew under the radar of even the pirates!..So I’m willing to trade. Should any of you volunteer to provide scans of [any of 3 out-of-print books], that lucky individual will get a signed, personalized copy of the WJW book of his or her choice [and be acknowledged in a future edition of the missing volume].

PC World has an interesting post up arguing Why History Needs Software Piracy. No, this piece is not encouraging illegal mass distribution of copyrighted work. It's best understood in context. For example, I've got some unusable licensed music tracks from a former digital music distributor; in other cases, I've exhausted my digital rights simply as an artifact of having to reformat the hard drive on a notebook PC and restore from backup without making a single copy to media or another device. There are other classic pop songs which aren't available through iTunes or Amazon. Books or journals go out of print (I published 3 book chapters in the 1990's).

To be honest, I've never made a penny from anything I've published, whether it's a dozen articles or another 6 national conference proceedings and book chapters (and, of course, these blogs). I've occasionally thought about making available my academic and professional articles and book chapters, but there are also publisher contractual rights to consider.

My mom once asked me why I'm writing this blog--it's not like I'm making any money off it. I think initially I wanted to use it to flesh out some ideas for future political volumes; that's still a possibility, but to be honest with pageviews reaching in the dozens versus thousands, if I was to become a commercial success, my sales wouldn't get much of a boost off of the blog. Second, I thought perhaps my prolific, high quality commentaries with a fairly distinctive perspective might attract the interest of a publishing group. For the most part, the blog is more of an exercise in discipline: I found when I was teaching, I always came to class with prepared lecture notes in detail. In a similar fashion, I find in presenting my political perspective, I often have to research various topics to an exhaustive degree, sometimes with a dozen or more links.

It also provides a paper trail of my evolving political views which I find interesting. When I started off the blog, I was more tolerant of nation building, federal government leadership in education, and a more active Fed Reserve role.

Greatest Innovators?

Lemelson-MIT have an annual invention index. Among other things, they poll teens and young adults as to their ranking of inventors or innovators. This year's ranking was headed by Thomas Edison (52%), Steve Jobs (24%), Alexander Bell (10%), Marie Curie (5%), and Mark Zuckerberg (3%).

Let's just say I have a different take. Jobs and Zuckerberg would not even be listed among my honorable mentions; I see them more as marketers than inventors; certainly their products or services have been innovative and popular but more evolutionary than revolutionary.

I first would like to acknowledge the context which I believe contributes to American leadership in innovation: from a political standpoint, we have English philosopher John Locke, whom provided the intellectual context for our Declaration of Independence, and James Madison the Father of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our government's balance of powers; from a philosophical standpoint, the American pragmatist school (championed by Peirce, James, and Dewey); from a management perspective, scientific management founder Frederick Taylor, IBM CEO Thomas J. Watson, and quality guru W. Edwards Deming.

I would argue that technology has had a number of important leaders, starting with the Wright brothers and air/space travel/warfare; Watson and Crick (DNA) and the human genome project; and Intel's microprocessor and Microsoft's cross-vendor personal computing operating system in the world of high tech.

It's almost a crime to single out any one person or movement. There are hundreds, if not thousands of innovators whom should be recognized. But I'm at a loss to explain how Dean Kamen, probably the best known American inventor today, didn't place high on the list. I have embedded a couple of videos below. I think one of the more interesting points discussed was when DoD went to Kamen to ask about development of an artificial limb; he mentions how he expected a thick specification document, not to mention years of going through FDA approval. The context seems to suggest that DoD was more interested in giving Kamen room he needed to achieve his goal versus trying to micromanage the process. I would have liked to have heard more about these issues; a simple Google search reveals references to Kamen's rants about FDA red tape.

My personal experience is that creativity requires both hard work and an ability to question one's own assumptions. Peer pressure or groupthink (including pervasive progressive ideology in most universities) is not conducive to creative approaches. I found in trying to do something new I often had to battle resistance to change, skeptical colleagues, etc. Most young people at one time or another question authority and/or bureaucracy, and I think that the relevant frame of mind is more likely to come from a libertarian than a communitarian standpoint. Still, Kamen is clearly moved, especially in the second video, talking about how wounded warriors have gained a degree of independence from his efforts.

Let me just say for the record: I am a deficit hawk, but I will not balance the budget on the back of people whom sacrificed their health and limbs in the service of their country.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "Bicycle Race"/"Fat-Bottomed Girls"

Miscellany: 1/27/12

2012-01-27T21:40:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Compromise:
The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece.
Sherry Rothfield

Must Be Nice...
We Need Federal Pension Reform

I am not a regular C-SPAN viewer, but the other day I was checking on my expanded cable listings, which I accidentally stumbled the very beginning of this session on the third C-SPAN channel. I later found a C-SPAN webpage with the video, but it was not possible to link the video. Today I discovered video embed functionality through a C-SPAN archive website. In addition, you can find a relevant House hearing webpage here (with links to participant hearing documents). I have respect for the work of AEI's Andrew Biggs, whom has considerable scope of knowledge involving retirement programs (including social security: for an interesting take on his views on that entitlement, see this The Atlantic interview). Biggs' statement for the committee is available here.

I touched briefly on the federal pension system when reviewing the sorry state of the USPS. Biggs' statement cited above provides a nice historical summary. Before 1984, there was a single all-inclusive (no social security) defined benefit (pension) system (CSRS). Since 1984, there has been a hybrid system, consisting of social security, a defined benefit system (FERS) and a (401K/403B-like) defined contribution system (TPS). Long story short, on a more apples-to-apples approach, Biggs finds no comparable private sector concept to FERS (which requires less than 1% employee contribution) and the government match in TPS is significantly more generous (e.g., 5% versus 3% of salary, Table 1). Biggs compares federal and private sector retirement in Table 2; basically, social security plus TPS accounts for roughly a third of the employee's salary both in government and private sector systems; FERS accounts for another third--without a comparable private sector match. Biggs essentially argues that we need to phase out FERS for new federal employees, that we can do it without undermining comparable compensation with the private sector.

Most of the hearing I watched was very predictable: we hear populist grandstanding about the Congress' own pension plan, the Democrats bring up their cherry-picked studies preposterously suggesting that federal employees are underpaid by roughly a quarter (Biggs suggests that these are not peer-reviewed, an academic standard which, among other things, carefully reviews methodology). The problem is that the civil service system is pretty much a round peg/square hole system that has no essential connection to the dynamic labor supply/demand picture in the private sector, just like the absurd Medicare/Medicaid below-cost reimbursement schedule which bears little comparison to the real prices in the private sector. Some also note that the public sector fills comparable slots with less experienced, skilled personnel. (I'm not going to name names here, but I've worked with civil servants on a number of contracts, and if I take a first cut of about a dozen civil servants, there are only two that I would consider staffing for comparable positions in the private sector. Most I met were in over their head.)

I can already predict how this plays out. The Democrats will offer to expand the employee contribution to FERS in an effort to stave off more radical reforms, which are desperately needed. We are already running under an unsustainable budget deficit. The average civil servant retires in his or her late 50's and may be eligible for a FERS annuity supplement; given my constant criticism of state/local pension funding, Biggs argues that FERS funding is much worse. We need to act sooner than later to reform this system--before we are forced to do so in a manner similar to Greece.

Political Potpourri

It's been a mixed week for Romney: the Gallup tracking poll showed Romney drifting down to his early January share (which is not good when you consider 3 opponents have left the race), but Gingrich seems to have stalled in the low 30's. Two recent national polls have Gingrich with roughly an 8-point lead. On a more positive note, there's some evidence that Romney has found his footing on the offense in the debates against Gingrich; a number of prominent conservatives have started questioning Gingrich's conservatism; Gingrich continues to lose badly to Obama in paired runoffs; and after an initial Gingrich surge in Florida after his SC win, it looks like Romney has regained an 8 or 9 point lead.

So far Obama is benefiting from the Romney-Gingrich struggle. Romney has to bear some responsibility because he didn't seem to anticipate Gingrich's populist attacks against his wealth and involvement with Bain Capital, and the demand for his income tax records. Gingrich, of course, wasn't really interested in Romney's finances: exit polls show he was really making a class-based argument. I expect Romney is in the process of turning around his campaign.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "We Will Rock You"/"We Are The Champions"

Miscellany: 1/26/12

2012-01-26T20:44:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Only solitary men know the full joys of friendship.
Others have their family;
but to a solitary and an exile,
his friends are everything.

Willa Cather

The "New" Buffett Rule:
I Decree ALL OTHER Millionaires Should
Pay MORE Taxes Than I Do Now

This is not to be confused with the Obama Buffet Rule, which is "all we can tax" of a one-percenter's assets. The first thing that comes is Buffett secretary Debra Bosanek's salary estimate ranging from $200K to $500K by Paul Roderick Gregory, based on the information provided about Bosanek and Buffett's tax rates. (If accurate, there are going to be a lot of college kids trying to find out what coursework it takes to become Warren Buffett's secretary...)

First of all, note that when Buffett talks about his secretary paying more taxes than him, he doesn't mean it in the common sense understanding, which is aggregate tax paid, not relative tax paid. For instance, if he paid 15% on $1M, his tax is $150K. If the secretary paid 30% on $100K, the tax is $30K--Buffett is paying 5 times more tax. Does Buffett have to pay 5 times the amount for the same loaf of bread as the secretary? Does he get 5 times the number of votes or 5 times the national defense service of his secretary? Of course not. One of my signature sayings in this blog is: if there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism: Obama likes arugula, owns a mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood and knows $200K secretaries... No doubt during the debates this fall, he'll ask Romney if he has Grey Poupon... Warren Buffett earns a mere $100K at Berkshire Hathaway--the same salary he has drawn for decades. So the bulk of his income comes from investment income, not wages (the basis of social security).

Second, Buffett is comparing apples to oranges. Investment tax rates are lower for a number of good reasons. For example, in many cases, you are taxing nominal gains, not real (inflation-adjusted) gains. (Hinkle points out a Fed Reserve study indicating the effective tax rate of 233% on Dow Jones investments from 1972 to 1992; in other words, once you factor inflation (i.e., failed monetary policy) into the picture, the government was taxing principal, never mind any nominal gains.) You have already taxed the same stream of income once before, e.g., the corporate level (up to 35%). (The whole issue of subchapter S corporations is trying to deal with the federal government's double-dipping from the same stream of income--even more when you factor in compounding and other considerations.)

Now the Dems are focusing on Romney's self-reported 15% tax rate over the past 2 years on roughly $20M a year in income. There are a few things wrong with this analysis: first, Romney earned very little wages over that period (i.e., he was doing a lot of work setting up his bid for the Presidency)--most of his income was related to investments. Second, the President doesn't mention salient facts, such as the average income tax burden is more like 9.3% vs. Romney's 15%.

Obama and his fellow myopic progressives seeking to demagogue the issue of millionaire taxes fail to explain why, for instance, investment tax policy affects economic growth. The economically successful can cash out at any time and live out the rest of their lives, say, on safe bond interest alone. Knowing the high failure rate among new businesses and/or other risks (competitor, industry or general economic) and inflation risk, why invest? Tax policy doesn't treat losses the same as gains. When you have gains, the government wants ALL your tax then and there (net of any carryover), but you can only deduct up to a net loss of $3000 in any one year. Investing, to put it in words Obama can understand, is the free market's way of "spreading the wealth around"; if and when business succeeds and grows, it's not just the investor that profits, but workers and the government as well (employee and business tax receipts, etc.) A low, consistent investment tax policy encourages private sector investment, and the government earns more revenue in the long run. Obama's ideologically driven investment tax policies, scapegoating the economically successful, is shameless counterproductive demagoguery. Even if the proposal is likely dead on arrival in Congress, it raises uncertainty over current or future projects and expansion decisions.

Santorum, Dennis Miller and
the Political Significance of Bestiality

I subscribe to the (comedian) Dennis Miller Show podcasts and in fact embedded an audio clip of a call-in viewer in yesterday's post. (Miller, a lapsed Catholic, is generally conservative but not a social conservative, e.g., he's pro-abortion choice and gay marriage.) For some reason, Dennis Miller has been particularly obsessed by social conservative Senator Santorum's use of the term 'bestiality' in the same conversation with gay marriage.

Santorum is trying to argue that there is reason for one-man/one-woman relationship as the foundation for family over the centuries; the point is, and this is what Miller isn't focusing on, that the law of unintended consequences accompanies radical social engineering. Keep in mind homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, adult-child relationships, etc. are not new concepts. The constraints on entities and relationships within the ideal of marriage and family are not arbitrary but reflect functional, evolutionary considerations in society's stability and self-preservation. Some individual characteristics are arbitrary in nature (e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, height, weight, or (adult) age). However, gender is not an arbitrary consideration to procreation, which is tied to the future of society.

Miller seems to think that Santorum is attempting to equate nontraditional relationships; no, I think that Santorum was simply fleshing out examples of relationships not fitting the ideal and making a slippery slope reductio ad absurdum argument.

Personally, I think society should continue to embrace the traditional definition of marriage but I am reluctant for the state to intervene in the cases of nontraditional relationships (e.g., gay and polygamy) where there is competent consent.

Political Humor

"A new website just came out that’s designed to calculate how long it takes Mitt Romney to earn your salary. So from now on, whenever Mitt Romney is running late, he can call there and say, 'I'll be there in five teachers.'" - Conan O'Brien

[In other news, a new website just came out which estimates how long it takes for Barack Obama to spend your annual salary. The federal government spends about $6.85M per minute; you know what that means: even a one-percenter can't afford a 10-second ad.]

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she has dirt on Newt Gingrich, but so far she's keeping her lips sealed — because that's how the last surgeon left them." - Conan O'Brien

[Well, that's because the mud has dried since their last election together...]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "Somebody to Love"

Miscellany: 1/25/02

2012-01-25T23:37:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.

William Butler Yeats

Podcast Rant of the Day

A female listener comments on the Pied Piper of So-Called Conservatives (my nickname for the winner of the SC GOP primary, whom I've nominated, in the spirit of the just announced Oscar nominations, as Most Likely to Play the Pillsbury Dough Boy in a Live-Action Film and Most Likely GOP Candidate to Lose to Obama). The audio clip is courtesy of the Dennis Miller Show, available as the date of this post. I made a more comprehensive critique of Gingrich in Monday's post, but (I write this primarily in the event the audio clip becomes unavailable in the future) the woman comments that she initially like Gingrich but has lately found his character and temperament troubling, particularly Gingrich's transparent thin skin and his motivation to get even. I concluded my commentary saying "I mean, what's he going to do or say if and when [a foreign leader treats him disrespectfully]? I don't want that guy within 100 yards of the red button; he can't even handle mild criticism. It comes with the territory; you need thick skin; you got to shake it off like water on a duck's back."

I just listened to the video podcast of Gregory's interview with Newt Gingrich on Sunday's Meet the Press. Among other things, Gingrich slams Romney as being an inferior debater having no alternative but to resort to ad hominem attacks, unable to win a high school debate, never mind stand up to Obama. This is coming from a career politician whom has lost almost every head-to-head poll matchup against Obama (whose approval ratings have been in the lower 40's, bad territory), openly suggested that he had the nomination wrapped up before finishing fourth and fifth in the first two contests, has net disapproval ratings himself, saw his senior campaign staff desert him early in the campaign, and has few major endorsements, even from Congressional Republicans whom have served with or under him.

In fact, I think Romney, who like Obama has a Harvard law degree, is a better debater than Gingrich, whom seems more interested in attacking moderators rather than answering questions directly and his anti-capitalist rants against Romney's role at Bain Capital verge on heresy: no real "Reagan conservative" would have ever said or did any such thing.

A lot of resistance of my fellow conservatives has to do with Romney's legendary flip-flops, particularly on the topic of abortion. Keep in mind that Romney was a novice candidate in 1994 going up against Ted Kennedy, whom had never lost a statewide election since he won his brother's Senate seat after JFK became President. Ted Kennedy, a nominal Roman Catholic, was a zealous promoter of abortion rights (the Catholic Church has always considered abortion a grave sin, even when a few theologians accepted Aristotle's flawed theory of ensoulment). Romney knew that if Ted Kennedy was allowed to turn his reelection into a litmus test of abortion in a very liberal state, Romney had little chance of winning. So he tried to co-opt Kennedy on the issue by arguing what most Catholic Democrats, almost universally for abortion rights, do: they don't want to impose their personal beliefs on public policy. Ann Coulter's current column "Re-elect Obama: Vote Gingrich" has an interesting anecdote of how the Kennedy campaign furiously attempted to prove that they were the "real" abortion choice campaign:

Nonetheless, Kennedy ran a campaign commercial against him featuring a Mormon woman complaining that Romney, as a Mormon elder, had pressured her not to have an abortion, but to give the child up for adoption. Are you getting the idea that Massachusetts is different from the rest of America, readers?...As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. Gingrich, who has run for office only in a small, majority Republican, undoubtedly pro-life congressional district, lobbied President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research.

Ann Coulter also exposes the hypocrisy of my fellow Tea Party members upset by ObamaCare with its individual mandate position. I recently commented about the GOP's attempts to derail HillaryCare with an approach similar to what Romney faced when it looked that the Democrats were about to pass their own version of HillaryCare in Massachusetts: "For those of you who still think Romneycare is the worst possible sin a Republican candidate could commit, that doesn’t help Gingrich: He supported Romneycare..As former Senator Rick Santorum has pointed out, Gingrich supported a FEDERAL individual mandate to purchase health insurance from 1993 until a “Meet the Press” appearance just last May."

It looks like Gingrich's post-SC bounce may already be starting to recede; the last 4 polls I've seen from Florida range from a tie to up to an 8-point Romney lead. Gingrich has a 3-point lead in the Gallup daily tracking poll and a bigger lead in Rasmussen (but I have some concerns with a number of Rasmussen polls). I have confidence that GOP voters will decide that the electability argument matters, that Gingrich's lack of executive experience, his baggage, and defensive, erratic behavior are unsuitable for the nation's highest office.

US v Jones: 9-0: Thumbs UP!
A Baby Step Towards Reestablishing Privacy Rights

This basically involves a situation where a suspected drug dealer Antoine Jones was caught in part due to the use of a GPS device attached to a household car under an expired warrant. What is particularly interesting about this unanimous decision ruling that law enforcement had violated the defendant's fourth amendment rights were contrasting approaches to the decision. Justice Alito thought that the majority opinion focused too narrowly on a trespass charge. Advancements in technology have transformed traditional boundaries of privacy: sophisticated listening devices and video technology can be intrusive. There's a relevant discussion among the libertarians below which point out, for example, the issues focus around property as an unalienable right (and consider the fact that many cellphones allow for relevant tracking).

Like Justice Alito, I'm concerned about government scope creep without due process in restricting individual rights. I have made it clear in my opposition to certain provisions in the Patriot Act where individuals can find their rights compromised in "whatever it takes" in response to politically motivated, over-hyped threats to public safety.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "You're My Best Friend"

Miscellany: 1/24/12

2012-01-24T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Read, every day, something no one else is reading.
Think, every day, something no one else is thinking.
Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do.
It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity.

Christopher Morley

The State of the Union: My Take

Gov. Daniels' Response Speech: Thumbs UP!
President Obama's Speech: Thumbs DOWN!

The State of the Union is NOT "getting stronger"; it's very serious. As Governor Daniels reminded us during his rebuttal speech, gains in the unemployment rate to a large extent reflect the fact to a large extent unemployment is declining because long-term unemployed people continue to leave the work force, discouraged and unable to find work. We are 2.5 years into the Obama recovery; the President can talk all he wants about 3 million jobs added after a loss of 8 million during the recession (a recession, by the way, that started when Democrats were in charge of both chambers of Congress). What do economists say? It's disputed, based on the implications of an escalating number of Baby Boomers requiring (these numbers reflect some confounded effects, like Boomers opting for earlier social security given bleak job prospects, but others needing to work longer because of inadequate retirement savings). Here are some relevant ballpark figures: "Typically the figure economists cite as the minimum number of additional jobs needed to keep the unemployment rate flat is about 150,000 to 200,000. But economists at Barclays Capital, who have been analyzing how the graying of America may affect employment trends, estimate that going forward 75,000 to 100,000 jobs added per month may be sufficient. But the situation is particularly bad for workers within 10-15 years shy of retirement age (this statistic is from a year ago and I believe the numbers have worsened): ""The average jobless person over age 65 has been looking for work for 43.9 weeks. For someone between the ages of 55 and 64, the typical duration is 44.6 weeks, just a few weeks shy of a year. The average unemployment spells for both of these groups are at record highs."

Anyway, even if you argue only the lower bound of both ranges (75,000 a month) is just to accommodate newly eligible workers, that means at least 2,700,000 had to be generated over the Obama Administration to date just to keep pace with new workers, never mind the 8M whom lost their jobs over the recession. But as once again, the President is playing winners and losers. Note that Daniels was spot on when he said, "Out here in Indiana, when a businessperson asks me what he can do for our state, I say, 'First, make money. Be successful.'" Successful businesses grow (and inspire the development and growth of other businesses: consider, for example, when a Wal-Mart, supermarket or bank agrees to open in an underserved inner-city neighborhood), and they need to hire people to make that success happen.

The President's speech was unsatisfactory. I'll probably go into the speeches a little more fully in an upcoming post, but let me give a quick critique (I spent much of the speech screaming at my television set); this is just a short list:

Populism has no place in a State of the Union address. This nonsense about banks run amok flies in the fact that banking has been one of the most regulated industries out there. The problem is that regulators didn't anticipate the risks to the industry, regulators were in over their head, and government policies (e.g., guarantees) have transferred risk to the taxpayer. Adding regulations increases burden on business. Again, he plants a false choice between an overgrown regulatory empire, which he favors, and anarchy. He talks about regulatory--only when it affects small business. (He fails to understand that regulations must be manageable and consistent; undue government burden is a de facto tax on businesses and consumers, and small businesses are not "more equal" when it comes to burdens.)

He's inconsistent on the discussion of regulation, arguing that there is a bipartisan buy-in to regulatory growth: he is implicitly charging that the GOP has been hypocritical by pointing out Bush added MORE regulations (after having run on the progressive talking point that (not-so-conservative) Bush and McCain were ideological deregulators). In fact, it's not just thousands of pages of the radical expansion of SPECIFIED financial and healthcare regulations: there's the HIDDEN burden of unpredictable new regulations gushing out each day by unaccountable boards and bureaucrats (a hundred times worse than the BP oil spill), and ObamaCare alone has imposed a new federal burden on the health care system, which accounts for roughly 17% of GDP.

I have to smile because he tried to talk about SMART regulations. That's right, ladies and gentlemen: the Fed and other regulators have done such a splendid job in past performance (with 3 massive bubbles over the past dozen years: stock market, real estate, credit) that we'll concentrate even more authority in the vested failed regulators (as in a Regulatory Superbubble): they'll get it right THIS TIME, because, well, he's Barack Obama, and he said so... It's not like they are already finding it nearly impossible to cope with their existing workload competently... You would have thought all this progressive ideological HUBRIS would have dissipated in the aftermath of the 2008 economic tsunami, which is just as much the result of GOVERNMENT FAILURE as well as business failures. But while the government sees fit to scapegoat businesses for its own failures, Obama fails to do a proper post-audit of the government's part of the tsunami, because it would challenge his own government empire-building agenda.

Obama wants to use the tax code to punish successful international corporations and "spread the wealth around:" by redistributing the proceeds of tax hikes on the "rich internationals". This is ignorance of basic economics: most of the world's population (and consumers) exist outside the US, and US headquarter personnel grow with success. He is fixated on maximizing business tax revenues and a zero-sum game between domestic and international businesses (ignoring the tax base problems associated with higher tax rates). He fails to grasp that existing (and his own) policies DISCOURAGE business growth with globally uncompetitive tax and regulatory burden. What we need is a simpler, more consistent, lower tax and regulatory burden on business ACROSS THE BOARD
More of the same old same old talking points and soundbites: Bush bashing, loyal opposition "obstructionist" bashing of the GOP, class warfare tax cuts for millionaires, spending more on teachers, infrastructure, clean energy, etc. He disingenuously tries to take credit for the Baaken formation oil boom in North Dakota, which had NOTHING to do with him, claims he'll open up 75% of offshore drilling (the proof is in the pudding, but he hasn't done it in the past); he largely ignored the Keystone XL pipeline controversy, the countless crony environmental lawsuits against drilling, particularly in the West, and bureaucratic stonewalling of permits.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "Bohemian Rhapsody". I remember when this unlikely glorious hit fusion of rock and opera was released in the 70's. For some odd reason, it's been probably one of the most covered songs during the history of American Idol....

Miscellany: 1/23/12

2012-01-23T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

To laugh often and much;
to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children...
to leave the world a better place...
to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.
This is to have succeeded.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Blog Comment of the Day

[On Obama's recent appearance at DisneyWorld:] Obama has ears like Dumbo, Mickey Mouse policies, Goofy advisors, and lies like Pinocchio so Disneyworld fits him quite well.. - Lefty

Kudos to Congresswoman Gabby Giffords

The Congresswoman, one of the victims in a tragic shooting rampage in Arizona early last year, realizing the physical demands of an upcoming reelection battle and the difficulties in juggling rehabilitation with the rigors of the life as a Congresswoman, has decided to resign. She has put the interests of her constituents and her own health over those of her own political ambitions. I was saddened by the last several months of two senators (Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy), whom continued to cling to their seats even while their health was deteriorating. I'll withhold comment on Senator Kirk (below) until we get more information, but we've had precedents (e.g., Johnson), with similar challenges and have continued a productive tenure in public service.

Best Wishes for a Speedy Recovery
to Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL)

The senator, who holds the seat formerly occupied by Barack Obama and my former Congressman before moving to Maryland, suffered a stroke over the weekend (a carotid artery split at the right side of his neck); doctors suggest, from a mental capacity standpoint, a full recovery is expected but he may have residual physical impairment on the left side of his body.

Photo of Johnson and Kirk from Johnson Senate office

"Today’s news regarding Senator Kirk is very concerning for all of us on Capitol Hill. My thoughts and prayers go out to Mark and his family for a quick recovery and return to the Senate. As chairman and ranking member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, we’ve worked side by side over the last year to provide for our veterans. I look forward to redoubling our efforts when he returns to Washington." - Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD).

NOTE: In 2006 Senator Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage during a media interview.

The Gloves Are Off: Romney vs. Gingrich

Those who have been reading my ad libs in the Political Humor section won't be surprised if I start out this commentary with my latest lines on Gingrich. You know, Newt Gingrich has been talking about (Washington Post) Pinocchios on the Romney PAC ads so many times, he must think another part of his anatomy is growing. But the only packages Callista Gingrich is interested in come gift-wrapped from Tiffany's...

I am now officially annoyed. Newt Gingrich is like the GOP version of Barack Obama: both of them exaggerate their "accomplishments"; both of them refuse to accept responsibility for their wrongdoings; both of them think they are better debaters and speakers than they are; both of them are divisive politicians; both of them lack genuine administrative experience in either the private or public sector. And both of repeatedly say something that's demonstrably not true or inherently unknowable or repeatedly take credit for something they had at best modest effects on. I coined an expression (nobody else seemed to have picked up on), calling him the "Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism". At that time, I am lampooning this over-the-top, pretentious, nebulous "we are the ones we've been waiting for" type nonsense that seemed to have a hypnotic effect and exaggerated expectations that even if Obama was competent would be hard to live up to. So I think it's only fair, given how "hot non-Romney" ~~lemmings~~ voters seem so spellbound by Gingrich's put-downs and other one-liners that I'll call him the "Pied Piper of So-Called Conservatives".

I have no connection to the Romney campaign, but let me point out a few things, because hardly anyone else is discussing them:

Gingrich claims that he was not a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, but a consultant "[Gingrich] worked directly for Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist from 1999 to 2008." Talk about Obama-like putting lipstick on a pig! Consulting a lobbyist on what to say to these conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill so they won't crack down on the GSE's writing checks on taxpayer backs! No, sir--I'm not the lobbyist: I simply aid and abet the lobbyist. Everyone knows that's a substantive difference...] WHAT HUBRIS! There are a number of legitimate management consulting companies, public administration academics, former government staffers, etc. available at a fraction of the cost Newt Gingrich was billing Freddie Mac on retainer. It's very clear what Freddie Mac got from the Gingrich gig:

Freddie Mac executives told Bloomberg [Gingrich] was never critical of its business model [Gingrich's talking point in trying to justify getting $1.6-$1.8M over 10 years.] "Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s [crony capitalist GSE] public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it."

And from Gingrich's own website: "The Gingrich Group stressed that [read: lip service] Freddie Mac must be open to reform of their lending practices but that by [read: justify crony capitalism] stressing the historical success of public-private partnerships in achieving public goods at a minimum of taxpayer money and bureaucracy." Apparently an enlightened conservative knows how to intervene in the free market, but Obama and other progressives can't be trusted to intervene in a particularly competent way... "After Gingrich left Freddie Mac's payroll, [Gingrich] quickly turned into one of its most vocal critics, writing...that the companies "are so thoroughly politicized and preside over such irresponsible lending policies that they need to be replaced with smaller, private companies operating without government guarantees, whose leaders focus on making a profit, not manipulating politicians.” That's what happens when you stop paying Gingrich $160K a year, you ungrateful so-and-so! Let that be a lesson to other lobbyists I'm working with...

The Lying Ads? GIVE ME A BREAK. Let's get back to Gingrich's cherry-picking that well-known "conservative" newspaper the Washington Post (can you say "Watergate"?) talking about "lies" and "distortions". What in particular he's referring is the discussion of the $1.6-1.8M payments made by Freddie Mac to Gingrich after he resigned as Speaker and from Congress: Gingrich was paid on a flat-fee retainer, not invoiced by the hour. There may have been some months (I'm not saying it happened, but it's the nature of a retainer) where Gingrich did no work but still collected his fee.) So someone tried to estimate how many hours he worked and divided it into the aggregate retainer fees. SO WHAT if the ad implied he was submitting monthly invoices at a huge rate per hour or a flat fee that added up to the same amount. All the ads cared about was showing Gingrich made a boatload of money just months before they collapsed, with the taxpayer being left to bail them out. Lies? Distortions? Nobody forced Gingrich to pose in a spot with Pelosi. Nobody put Gingrich in a position of being brought up on charges facing ethics charges. OF COURSE, GINGRICH DOESN'T LIKE ROMNEY PUTTING A NEGATIVE SPIN ON THINGS. That doesn't make them lies and distortions.

There was a reason Bachmann went up and down, Perry went up and down, Cain went up and down--and Gingrich went up and down. Gingrich is the best-known candidate in the group. When Gingrich's campaign imploded several months back and Gingrich was a fringe candidate, he had the same strengths and weaknesses he has now. Gingrich has had lousy numbers against Obama since day 1; the only reason the votes came to him at all is because they ran out of other candidates against Romney. It's absolutely insane that you slam the media or Obama in a couple of debates and your support all but doubles in literally a matter of days. There's only one politician in this race whom has a steady relationship with the GOP voters.... Let me make the point in verse about the difference between a crush and real love:

There's a mediocre Townhall blogger whom posted a column with a title implying Mitt Romney was a crony capitalist. I was curious: is he saying Bain Capital was targeting companies with ties to Washington? It turned out to be yet another anti-RomneyCare rant. I think Romney should speak for himself, but I think the arguments by Gingrich and Santorum are unconvincing because Congressional Republicans in 1993-1994 tried to co-opt HillaryCare with an ObamaCare style package which DID include employer mandates AND AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO HANDLE THE FREELOADER PROBLEM. Luckily, HillaryCare soon collapsed on its own and the Republicans, of course, pulled their counter-measure. But there were over 20 GOP senators signed on to support. Romney was faced with HillaryCare v. 2.0 in Massachusetts and Romney simply adapted the same type approach that Republicans were using 10 years earlier for the same reason. And as for Santorum, he helped push through the unpaid-for Medicare prescription drug benefit. So that "pious bologna" that Gingrich was blaming Romney for? There's plenty of pious bologna to go around here. Today's conservatives upset with Romney fail to recognize that the heavily Democratic state of Massachusetts wanted a far more radical solution than they got. It's not that Romney necessarily wanted to implement the bill. Note that Romney wasn't proposing a vast new bureaucracy or looking to fund subsidies with new taxes or money. As to that blogger writing about the the moral hazard of federal government funding of Medicare reimbursements based on too many freeloaders in the Massachusetts pre-RomneyCare system, let's keep in mind that the states and feds split Medicaid funding

South Carolina was a wake-up call for Romney. He has tried to shrug off the relentless series of attacks on him. Being the nice guy sometimes gets viewed as a sign of weakness. I've been in that situation before, getting personally attacked by people I've never met. You return the favor even once, and they disingenuously play the victim card....

I saw Romney FINALLY take the gloves off and ask for a full release of the House investigation into Gingrich's activities that resulted in his humiliating rebuke by a BIPARTISAN House vote. He FINALLY started mentioning Gingrich's erratic behavior. You don't have to look far: with all the things to attack Obama about, he decides to talk about his "Kenyan anti-colonialist" viewpoint? I mean, he didn't even know his Kenyan father growing up... It's Jerry Brown-crazy space cadet stuff... That's one-off thinking--I'm too disciplined to even think in those terms. Then there was the anti-capitalist Bain critique against Romney which betrayed a core belief in the free market system, Gingrich's political judgment that he had all but mathematically clinched the nomination shortly after the Cain collapse, his vow to follow Reagan's 11th commandment in not speaking ill of a fellow Republican, but he blew his top at even measured criticisms from Romney and Ron Paul--and even though he demands that Ron Paul commit himself to endorsing the GOP nominee, he openly says he would never vote for Ron Paul. I MEAN, AT LEAST OBAMA IS SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHEN TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT AND GIVE HIS OPPONENT ALL THE ROPE HE NEEDS TO HANG HIMSELF. I can't believe that many GOP voters want to vote this guy to be PRESIDENT. I mean, what's he going to do or say if and when Putin calls him the Pillsbury dough boy? I don't want that guy within 100 yards of the red button; he can't even handle mild criticism. It comes with the territory; you need thick skin; you got to shake it off like water on a duck's back.

I was listening to a Dennis Miller podcast the other day, and Dennis was saying something to the effect that what Newt should have done is give back the $1.6M from Freddie Mac, and the nomination would be his for the taking. I DON'T THINK that Miller was trying to be funny, but if that was a joke, it wasn't funny. Gingrich has far bigger problems than his corrupt relationship with a GSE. If you think influence peddling is something you like to see in a President who'll need to ask all Americans to make sacrifice... I bet any number of colleges would have given him an endowed chair to serve on their faculty--a big deal to a former academic whom got turned down for tenure. Don't ask me how Sarah Palin's mind works--she prides herself as being a "reformer", taking on the establishment--and how her mind leaps across the Grand Canyon and lands on Gingrich...

Political Humor

"Gingrich is lining up impressive endorsements. Todd Palin, Gary Busey, and now, Chuck Norris. I'll tell you, his endorsements could beat up Mitt Romney's endorsements." - Jimmy Kimmel

[Add President Obama, the DNC, and all Democratic Congressional candidates this fall. Nancy Pelosi is so thrilled that she even made a voluntary appearance in one of his TV spots a while back...]

"Scientists announced that they have detected a brand new subatomic particle. This particle is so tiny it is actually smaller than the income tax rate paid by Mitt Romney." - Jay Leno

[But greater than the cuts Obama has made in a bloated federal budget and that corporate income tax paid last year by GE, headed by Jeff Immelt, Obama's job czar, a proud member of the zero-percenters (along with half of American workers). And the primetime ratings for GE's progressive cable subsidary, MSNBC.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Queen, "Killer Queen". Yesterday marked the last selection in my series covering the Doors. Today I start a new series on the 70's/80's British supergroup Queen.

Miscellany: 1/22/12

2012-01-22T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

The man who has confidence in himself gains the confidence of others.
Hasidic Saying

Joe Paterno, Former Penn State Football Coach: RIP

The 85-year-old coach died from complications of lung cancer. The man was an icon, with a handful of unbeaten, untied seasons and 2 national championships; he won more games than any other Division 1 coach. But unfortunately all that people will remember is that he got caught up in a controversy involving a former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky. After the story went national last fall, the university president and a frail Joe Paterno were terminated, in Joe's case, despite 6 decades of service to the university, without even the face-saving measure of simply retiring at the end of the season, only a few games remaining (including bowl game). I think it's tragic that the university board threw him under the bus to live out the remaining weeks of his life in disgrace.

Let me make myself clear: as far as I'm concerned, a grown man (Jerry Sandusky) had no business showering with any minor. There were 2 cases (1998 and 2002) where Sandusky is alleged to have hugged a minor and another which has described in terms of everything between sexual activity to fondling to horsing around in the lockerroom respectively. McQueary, the assistant coach who reportedly accidentally observed the second instance when he came in to put stuff into his locker, expecting nobody else to be around. A number of reporters claimed that McQueary reported seeing sexual activity, i.e., statutory rape, but McQueary recently testified that he never alleged that. Paterno said McQueary reported to him something of the nature of Sandusky fondling the youth. Highers up claimed to have investigated and said it seemed to be a judgment call, merely horseplay in the shower, snapping towels, etc.

I personally don't like people nearly a decade after the fact being quizzed about what exactly was said to whom at what time, what they did about it when. Most college students forget a significant portion of what they crammed before an exam just a few weeks afterwards. Paterno did report something of an inappropriate nature was observed to his boss, the athletic director. We know the athletic director at least did a follow-up with Sandusky. Now given the nature of Chinese whispers, why were we being unduly critical of Coach Paterno? I've even read criticisms that he waited over a weekend to report the incident. Are we really that petty? We are not describing a kidnapping; McQueary claims that he had put a stop to whatever happened.

I would have probably handled it differently than Paterno did: I don't think a former coach, particularly one with a questionable 1998 incident behind him on the Penn State campus, would have had unsupervised access to Penn State facilities. If McQueary had come to me, I would have told him to report the incident immediately to campus security; as a first-hand witness, it is important he report the incident while details are fresh in his mind. If I reported something like that to my boss, and he didn't seem to be taking the matter seriously, I would have escalated it higher in the organization, and/or if I didn't think McQueary was going to the police, I would have reported it. To me, it's a matter of due diligence. However, I'm convinced that Paterno was not trying to sweep the incident under the rug.

Even if Joe Paterno made mistakes in judgment, let's hope people will remember his positive contributions to Penn State and development hundreds or thousands of talented young men and outstanding citizens over the decades.

A First For This Blog: Ann Coulter is SPOT ON!

Ann is notably exasperated (see embedded video, available at the time of the post) with those voters in South Carolina whom seemed to be keeping score, not by legitimate conservative views and electability, but how many zingers Gingrich can deliver at Obama, Romney, or the media. What true conservative would have described the FIRST, MODEST, SERIOUS take by Paul Ryan to reform Medicare as radical right-wing engineering? Some conservatives and libertarians might have argued Ryan didn't go far enough, that this program is a perversion of the free enterprise system by implementing fixed-cost reimbursements. Did we forget this is a guy whom not only got paid over a million dollars from Freddie Mac, a chronic federal problem child with known accounting issues before they went under during the economic tsunami? And a spot with Nancy Pelosi on environmental issues? Someone utterly lacking in leadership skills with few others serving under him endorsing him, has never served in a meaningful executive role (at least in the public sector), got outmaneuvered by Clinton during the budget crisis, was petty enough to gripe about his seat selection on Air Force One, and has a Biden-like propensity for erratic comments (have we forgotten that he all but declared victory around early December?)

Just another comment: nationalpolls.com has pointed that one pollster, Insider Advantage, already posting a lead of Gingrich over Romney (whom has been consistently scoring in the 40's vs. Gingrich's low-to-mid 20's) is consistently underreporting Romney's strength and overreporting Gingrich's numbers. Keep in mind results factor in early voting in Florida already favors Romney... Averaging 43 points before South Carolina,these folks would have you believe that Romney has dropped 17 points in a purple state because some irrational voters in a red state surged at the end of the week to a 12-point win? Give me a break; if you believe that, you'll believe Obama can "fix" the economy by the election (more likely get it fixed by neutering the job creators...)

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Doors, "Love Me Two Times"

Miscellany: 1/21/12

2012-01-21T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Too many people overvalue what they are not and undervalue what they are.
Malcolm Forbes

Political Joke of the Day

"The only difference between Mitt Romney and a statue of Mitt Romney is that the statue never changes in position." - Stephen Colbert

Gingrich Takes South Carolina:
My Posted Prediction Fails

A Bold Prediction: Romney Still Takes South Carolina. With the RCP's most recent SC polls averaging a 2-point lead for Gingrich and Internet betting showing Gingrich with an 80% chance of winning, I'm going to take a contrarian spin. Why? Not because I've endorsed Romney (and the fact Romney has fallen in the polls has nothing to do with this blog's endorsement) or am in a state of denial. The reasons are: (1) there are a lot of undecideds in South Carolina, and I expect them to prefer Romney to Gingrich; (2) South Carolina seems to be a bellwether for the nation, and the national advantage of Romney over Gingrich is still at least 10 points; (3) whereas Gingrich's ex-wife's recent assertion that Gingrich wanted an open marriage may not cause Gingrich's campaign to falter, it may have tempered Gingrich's momentum; (4) South Carolina likes to pick winners and generally prefers more establishment types like Romney... A South Carolina victory for Gingrich more likely than not will be a one-off--and let us not forget, Gingrich once led with 41% of the polls.

Before I go on, let me put in a plug for Google search: one of the things I discovered by accident sometime in the past (probably looking for a sports webpage covering a specific game) is that Google will embed the target results (e.g., the current score if the game is in process) top in the search results. The same thing holds true for other events. So after entering a search for "South Carolina GOP primary 2012", I found an updated embedded results following a brief collection of headlines on primary results. Very cool. Google provides the same value in other contexts; for example, several days back, a recruiter contacted me about any interest in a DBA gig in Camp Hill, PA. All I had was enter "Camp Hill, PA" in the search box; Google Maps has an embedded Camp Hill map near the top of the page, and I'm 3 mouse clicks away from driving directions from my street address. [Disclosure: Google owns Blogger, which hosts my blog.]

With 99% of precincts in: Gingrich 40.4%, Romney 27.9%, Santorum 17%, Paul 13%.

What happened to my predictions? First of all, I was relying on older polls. There were two posted yesterday, one by Clemson mirroring about a 6-point lead for Gingrich., like the (Democratic) PPP poll. It was clear that Gingrich had picked up momentum during the week and a lot of it had to do with to do with the two debates, but there were other things at work--and, I realize this sounds wildly out of touch with reality on the surface, but I don't think it was a validation of Gingrich's candidacy. Give me a chance to make my case.

I got a couple of pollster emails early this morning after publishing my post. Nationalpolls.com had this to say on their website: "The polls have done a great job thus far in the Republican nomination process -- except to factor in late minute movements. Gingrich is the clear momentum candidate in South Carolina....PPP has Gingrich ahead by nine points in their latest poll BUT ahead by 14 points (40-26) if only looking at the last date of their poll." ARG reported a 2-day poll also ending yesterday, with an identical 40-26 advantage. Their email this morning reported 4 separate predictive services indicating an 8 to 10-point victory for Gingrich. But if you look at the RCP polls through Wednesday, every recent poll had Gingrich in the low 20's and Romney in the 30's. On Thursday, of 5 polls, 4 had Gingrich in the 30's, and 2 had Romney in the 30's. And then the last 2 days, Gingrich stretched from the mid-30's to 40 points while Romney had dipped into the upper 20's, across the board. Another email reported that undecideds were breaking heavily in favor of Gingrich instead of Romney, something that I did not expect. I suspected that Romney would at least hold his own,

Second, I expected that South Carolina would break in favor of Romney because of a few well-established grounds: electability and notorious social conservatism. Gingrich has no real shot of beating Obama this fall. I have previously suggested that I would vote for a yellow dog before I voted for Obama, but if I thought the GOP nominated the wrong person, whom almost certainly would lose to Obama (like Gingrich), there would be repercussions, which I'll discuss at the end of the commentary.

One of the interesting sidenotes to this primary was a split between Tea Party-backed South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley whom backed Romney and Sarah Palin, whom backed Haley for governor but backed Gingrich in the primary. I haven't read the reaction, but the idea of Palin as kingmaker has been widely discredited. There were reasons Romney lost, and people are entitled to their own reasons. I have my own theory of why Palin implicitly endorsed Gingrich, but it's for the wrong, dangerous reason that I'll discuss shortly.

South Carolina likes to vote conservatively--this is different from "conservative". By that I mean they like to vote for the tried and true, e.g., the late Senator Strom Thurmond and the state's two senators are former Congressmen. I thought they would gravitate to the safer "establishment" figure, Mitt Romney. He's picked up endorsements from almost every prior GOP Presidential nominee and a wide variety of governors; he didn't resign in disgrace from the House like Gingrich

I thought the social conservatives would have more of an impact. After Santorum won an impressive evangelical party endorsement, he picked up almost no support or bounce from that. I mean if McCain's campaign in 2000 was torpedoed by rumors that McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his "love child" by an African-American mistress, how could Gingrich survive charges from his ex-wife that he wanted them to have an open marriage? Remember how ABC News debated releasing the allegations for fears of affecting the results? It's now very clear the revelation had NO effect on Gingrich's late surge: he soored nearly as high as during his earlier campaign surge (nationalpolls.com showed that Romney did better than the polls taken during the earlier post-Cain surge during the first week of December when Gingrich scored from 38 to 43% while Romney had 19 to 23%.

So what happened? First of all, Romney had a bad week; the flip of the win in Iowa hurt, even though it was mostly symbolic. He also was caught flat-footed in a no-win situation about reporting of taxes, something he had to know was going to demanded sooner or later. Second, Gingrich has found a formula in the "debates" that seems to connect with GOP voters. I think attacking the media, which I regard as defensive and pathetic, works in a world where the mainstream media are regarded as agenda-driven, biased against center-right politics and personally against conservative favorites, like Sarah Palin. I think Gingrich's playing the media hypocrisy card is predictable and if and when he tries to use it against Obama in a general campaign, Obama will be ready for it. You cannot be predictable in real debates, versus whatever these things are. I absolutely guarantee that Obama's handlers are focus-group testing responses to Gingrich's predictable responses.

I was listening to Dennis Miller's podcasts, where Miller described Gingrich as the smartest guy in the room and one whom can put Obama in his place this fall. With all due respect, Gingrich is not even in Romney or Ron Paul's league. This is not to say that Romney hasn't made mistakes, even dumb mistakes. I have in the past purchased at least a couple of Gingrich books, and I am not impressed. If you read some of earlier commentaries this month--for example, where I'm talking about communitarianism or the issue this week of Internet freedom, I'm going to a level of discussion qualitatively beyond what Gingrich does. Gingrich has a PhD in history (his thesis was on the Congo)--not business and economics and certainly not the law, and from an academic perspective, his career was a failure: he failed to win tenure.

(As an aside, I will acknowledge that I never got tenure, but I never went up for tenure; I had one 3-year contracts and two 1-year contracts. It probably differs by school and context (e.g., the person at Bowling Green State who got the position I turned down reportedly won tenure in his fourth year there, while I was scrambling to find a one-year contract as a visiting professor; to this day, I have my own version of the Politics of Envy, academic style. As faithful readers know, I turned down BGSU because I was told I wouldn't have an opportunity to teach graduate classes. BGSU only offered one graduate MIS course, the core MBA course, and that was "owned" by some CIS textbook author and adjunct professor. ) In most programs I'm aware, you go up towards the end of a second 3-year contract. If you read that WSJ article about Gingrich's academic career, on the other hand, Gingrich is doing stuff which most junior professors like me would consider almost career suicidal. He was trying to start up an environmental studies program; to the best of my knowledge, he had no earned credentials in the field. He's applying to be President of the college in his first year, chairman of his department the second year; he's running unsuccessfully for Congress. I mean, I was putting in 70 hour weeks working on articles, new course preps, devising and grading computer assignments, etc.--I didn't have time to play university politics. Why in the world would I want to give senior faculty with a voice in my own tenure process motives against me (say, a WWII veteran history professor with his own eye on becoming department chairman). Gingrich, like Obama, pays too much attention to superficial surface details; Romney, on the other hand, is like a chess champion whom is thinking 8 moves ahead; he's the kind of guy whom not only can read the financial reports in detail, things that make Gingrich's and Obama's eyes glaze over; if you look at how he headed off liberal attempts to implement a version of HillaryCare in Massachusetts, it's brilliant, masterful political strategy: he even sold Ted Kennedy, whom was once his opposition in the 1994 Senate race, on his approach. Ted Kennedy spent decades trying to implement a single-payer system. I mean, conservatives have been arguing superficial points. I have differences with how Romney approaches certain issues, but seriously: if you asked me whom I would rather have dinner with, among Obama, Gingrich, or Romney, I would pick Romney (and I would ask him to invite Ron Paul). My positions on a number of issues are different than Romney's (take immigration and foreign policy, for instance.) But Gingrich? Seriously, Mr. Miller, you just haven't met very many smart people if you think he's the smartest guy in the room. Gingrich is a master of self-promotion, just like Barack Obama. He calls himself a "Reagan conservative", but Reagan was more of a libertarian-conservative than a neo-con like Gingrich. Gingrich is full of hubris, just like Barack Obama.

What do I like about Romney, even though he is hardly a libertarian? I think at heart he is a problem solver and a pragmatist. This doesn't mean an absence of principles; as a businessman, he knows how government impairs business/job growth. The question is how do you navigate through a minefield of divisive issues (either Democrat or Republican) to the nomination. When you're a change agent--like Romney--you are aware of bureaucratic inertia and resistance to change. You aren't going to reveal your cards until you're in the White House and maybe not even then. Look at what happened when Scott Walker started off with a much needed but radical reform; he all but poisoned the well of bipartisanship. I would have approached that situation differently, So Romney knows, for instance, that military conservatives are an important part of the GOP base. He knows that you're not going to close a $1.3T deficit by cherry-picking a few billion here or there. The Dems, of course, want to play rope-a-dope; they know every federal dollar has an angry vested interest behind it. Force the GOP to reveal what they're going to cut. Cut PBS subsidies? They'll make sure that Obama is filmed carrying a picket sign down Sesame Street. I mean, literally the year after the Democrats made cuts in Medicare (that's hubris--rather, they're balancing the funding for a new benefit off the backs of doctors and hospitals with ineffectual price controls), a New York Democrat takes over the seat in a GOP district by going after Paul Ryan's MODEST attempts to reform Medicare--not to fund another insolvent program but to make the existing system more sustainable.

So anyway, what was Palin's endorsement of Gingrich about? In my view--very easy to explain. It's all about how she sees herself and her family as victims of the largely liberal mainstream media. There have been a couple of people whom have gone into her personal life and written judgmental things about her, and she sees the way the press is going after Gingrich's personal life (and his marriages in particular) in sympathetic terms. The second reason is because at heart she's a populist and Gingrich is turning to anti-capitalism populism for tactical reasons: he would like nothing better than for people to see him as David taking on Romney's Goliath. Romney doesn't have billionaire Ross Perot, Michael Bloomberg or Donald Trump money, but he was able to guarantee his 2008 run for the GOP Presidential nomination using his own resources.

Going back to Dennis Miller's gullible insights on Gingrich (don't forget--Miller endorsed Cain before Cain's campaign imploded), he repeats verbatim Gingrich's "positive campaign" talking points. Gingrich was hardly Mr. Congeniality while in Congress; the Dems were looking for political payback when Gingrich was rebuked by the House on ethics charges (and shortly thereafter resigned). Very few people who served under Gingrich (the only one I know supporting Gingrich is JC Watts, a former Congressman) have endorsed him. Look for Gingrich to spin that as those Republicans are "part of the establishment", when in fact anyone who ever reached the position of Speaker of the House is certainly more establishment than a single-term governor.

What do I think is the big takeaway from the South Carolina primary? Economic uncertainty. I think the idea that the anti-Bain ads did was to raise uncertainty that Romney can create jobs and the opposition has tried to impeach Romney's claims as a job creator. (I fully expect Obama to pull some superficial stunt like distributing pink slips with Romney's signature on them.)

Romney needs to revamp his message by explaining the differences between running Bain Capital and the government. He needs to reset expectations of what the government can do and point out that making the tough decisions sooner than later may avoid the riots and other problems we are seeing in Greece, France and Great Britain. He needs to appeal to old-fashioned American values of hard work and self-reliance. He needs to fashion a JFK-style pro-growth message ("ask not what your country can do for you...") and contrast with Obama's philosophy ("Demand more things for the government to do for you.") He should also adapt Gingrich's tactics and use them against Gingrich.

Finally, on a personal note, what turned me off as a conservative Democrat was what the Democratic Party did to Judge Bork. I'm looking very carefully at what the GOP does here. It's highly unlikely that Gingrich will win the nomination: Romney's numbers across the board are better against Obama; Gingrich is running out of "debates" for Gingrich to bash moderators and toss in one-liners; Romney's campaign is better organized and financed, and he should do well in Florida and in next month's contests.

I think the Romney campaign is bottoming out; and he should regain his momentum after a win of Florida, although I expect that Gingrich will get some bounce out of South Carolina and some neighboring state vote.

But if somehow Gingrich manages to win the nomination, this blog will NOT support his election, and I will register as an independent; if Ron Paul makes an independent run, I will support him. I'm more interested in what Romney does than what he says, and I think any Republican who this week voted for "words, just words" did his country a disservice. This election is not about Gingrich's (or Obama's) massive ego. The future of our country is at stake, and 4 years of analysis paralysis with either Gingrich or Obama in the White House means that nothing will be resolved over the next 4 years. We need someone whom will solve problems and put America first. I will not sink with the Gingrich ship.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Doors, "Love Her Madly"

Miscellany: 1/20/12

2012-01-20T23:40:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

You can preach a better sermon with your life than with your lips.
Oliver Goldsmith

Etta James: RIP

Political Potpourri

Romney's Prevent Defense? There's an interesting Gray Lady post that suggests Romney is playing prevent defense and it's costing him just as Romney seemed to be pulling away from the pact. Any faithful reader knows I was attending UH as a graduate student during the days of Phi Slama Jama when the Cougars reached the NCAA Final Four in three consecutive years: 1982-1984. Unfortunately the Cougars never came away with the championship. They came closest in 1983 (my MBA class) when they won 26 games in a row--and lost on a unlikely defensive lapse at the very end of the game. The underdog NC State had fought to come from behind--but Houston, which thrived on an explosive fast-break offense, mysteriously went to a slow-down game late in the second half. This took them out of their style of play--and what's more, the Cougars were notoriously bad foul shot shooters. What you saw was NC State gradually nibble on the lead seemingly every time down the court, while Houston seemed unable to hit foul shots and came up empty on their side of the court. Before the first debate early this week, Gingrich, coming off fourth and fifth-place victories in the first 2 contests, seemed to be receding back to about a 15-point range while Romney seemed to be increasing a point or two everyday, now past 30. Perhaps Romney was playing it cautious, figuring he needs Gingrich and Santorum's favor this fall. I did not watch the 2 debates this week, although I've heard more than my fair share of Gingrich on Sunday talk soup. What was predictable since the day Romney went into politics were populist attacks on his wealth. Let's be clear: none of this has anything to do with transparency; what Gingrich and Obama are going to use the information is to point out while the folks are struggling to make ends meet, Romney has assets and a lifestyle (multiple homes, etc.) most can't dream of. Romney clearly doesn't want to release his tax returns or financial statements unless he is the nominee for obvious reasons. From a political standpoint, though, it's usually better to launch a preemptive strike in the sense that once the media picks up on the story, it takes on the appearance you're trying to hide something. Romney now has seen his paper-thin victory in Iowa reversed. His surge past 30 just a week ago has corrected back down to 30 and Gingrich is back to 20 or so after dropped back to the mid-teens. Romney is still in the driver's seat; there are a number of reasons. Florida and February should be big for Romney; Gingrich is less organized than Romney and he is running out of debates.
A Bold Prediction: Romney Still Takes South Carolina. With the RCP's most recent SC polls averaging a 2-point lead for Gingrich and Internet betting showing Gingrich with an 80% chance of winning, I'm going to take a contrarian spin. Why? Not because I've endorsed Romney (and the fact Romney has fallen in the polls has nothing to do with this blog's endorsement) or am in a state of denial. The reasons are: (1) there are a lot of undecideds in South Carolina, and I expect them to prefer Romney to Gingrich; (2) South Carolina seems to be a bellwether for the nation, and the national advantage of Romney over Gingrich is still at least 10 points; (3) whereas Gingrich's ex-wife's recent assertion that Gingrich wanted an open marriage may not cause Gingrich's campaign to falter, it may have tempered Gingrich's momentum; (4) South Carolina likes to pick winners and generally prefers more establishment types like Romney. As I mentioned above, Florida looks good for Romney, and he's got friendly primary and caucus territory next month. Gingrich won't even be on the Virginia ballot (by the way, popular Virginia Governor McDonnell (R) endorsed Romney (which I expected)). A South Carolina victory for Gingrich more likely than not will be a one-off--and let us not forget, Gingrich once led with 41% of the polls.
Oh, Gingrich, Will You Please Shut Up? As much as Obama is a narcissist, Gingrich seems to be the same. So help me if I have to hear him say one more time he is the "best" debater, if I hear him take credit one more time for "job creation" during the 1980's through 1990's, if I hear him personally attack the press or debate moderators, I'm going to have to be tougher on him. Before going any further, there was an interesting recent article about Gingrich's brief academic career at West Georgia in the Wall Street Journal by Elizabeth Williamson that tells volumes about Gingrich. Get this: as a first-year junior (untenured) professor, Gingrich had the audacity to apply for the university President position. In his second year he decided to try for the chairman position of the history department. Then a couple of years or so later he effectively decided to help launch an environmental studies discipline outside of the history department. During his time at West Georgia, he loses a race or two for Congress. He ends up not even winning tenure (in fact, the history department claims he's not even a history professor anymore). There's nothing wrong with being ambitious and having a healthy ego and confidence--but it's another thing to go around telling people how great a debater you are, claiming credit for the the growth of the 1980s-1990's, etc. The guy is audacious and intellectually pretentious; he also seems to have a variation of attention deficit disorder. He goes from topic to topic, more of a jack of all trades, master of none. But just take his ludicrous attempt to tie economic growth of the 1980's and 1990's to HIS efforts. First of all, until the election of 1994, Gingrich was part of the minority party--including Reagan's two terms in office. He didn't have a majority without Democrats to vote for the same policies. There's a great 1975 Reason (libertarian) article/interview with Reagan: "In addition, in recent months Reagan has taken to using the term "libertarian" (or "libertarian-conservative") to describe his political philosophy. Hmmm. What obscure blogger uses exactly the same description? "Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual." Gingrich is hardly a Reagan; he has some gushing things to say about government/business symbiosis. And I hardly believe that Reagan would have ever let a PAC run an anti-capitalist rant against Romney or made fun of the fact that Mitt Romney speaks French (I mentioned in a recent post I am a Franco-American whose parents came from the Fall River area, just east of Providence, RI and in fact French was my first language--so I find nothing wrong with a New England politician knowing how to speak French.) Going back to Gingrich: maybe your bullying of the media plays well with the red meat crowd, but you lose moderates and independents: KNOCK IT OFF!

SOPA and PIPA on Legislative Hold: Thumbs UP!

The Hill reports that House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has put SOPA on the legislative shelf, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has done the same thing with Protect IP. I have written multiple commentaries opposing these poorly-conceived bill, basically in alliance with Big Entertainment content providers.

The Daily Bell, one of my favorite libertarian websites, does a good job explaining the crony capitalism nature of these operations. Let me quote relevant discussion in explaining the below referenced video of a DOJ bust of a New Zealand-based company (my edits):

Megaupload is a good example of why "public" state-generated justice is hopelessly unjust. It is not justice [when state governments take away your property and means to make a living without due process,] without even the beginnings of a trial. Legal counsel for the firm already pointed out that the case is probably civil rather than criminal. But nonetheless a criminal case has been brought – with all the resultant destruction.

Copyright laws [were developed as arbitrary methods in vain attempts to manipulate information flow.] When it comes to modern "justice," the Hegelian Dialectic is sweet and simple. Two lawyers make a case and then the judge decides. Over time, given the bias of the system, the punishments grow incrementally larger, the amount of activity necessary to commit a crime shrinks and the authority given to prosecutors (and judges) expands.

An analogy immediately comes to mind in terms of a person developing a tolerance towards a particular drug; the drug loses its initial effect and so you need to resort to bigger doses or alternative substances to achieve the same effect. We can think the same way about state rules and regulations. Remember when Plato quoted Heraclitus? "Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers ." In a political context, the ink of new regulations is barely dry when people find workarounds to these arbitrary restrictions on their liberty.

The states (nations) can't really control the flow of information in the long run (the genie is out of the bottle), so what to they do? They resort to intimidate the citizens from daring to defy them by making examples of certain people and companies.

It's clear why Big Entertainment is interested in having the government pick up the tab for cracking down on its competitive threats, but what's in it for Big Government?

State monopoly justice cannot be other than biased because those involved all work for the state and have a stake in expanding their jobs, salaries, pensions and perks. One only does this by expanding one's responsibilities.

While I was writing this commentary, my favorite Pink Floyd song kept playing in the back of my mind:

Political Humor

"A hiker who was lost in a blizzard said he stayed alive by digging a snow tunnel and burning dollar bills for warmth. Today he was offered a job as President Obama's economic adviser." - Jay Leno

[Well, President Obama just had to meet the man, because Obama burned $535M on Solyndra, without any snow, and it still didn't survive...]

"Yeah, the crew told passengers their plane was about to crash, but it turns out a flight attendant hit the wrong button. I don’t know what’s worse — getting lied to about crashing into the ocean, or knowing it happens so often there’s a button for it." - Jimmy Fallon

[Obama knows what disaster could happen if anyone hits the wrong button. That's why he always locks the doors of the Oval Office whenever he goes out of town and Joe Biden is left behind.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Doors, "People Are Strange"

Miscellany: 1/19/02

2012-01-19T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

From long familiarity, we know what honor is.
It is what enables the individual to do right in the face of complacency and cowardice.
It is what enables the soldier to die alone,
the political prisoner to resist,
the singer to sing her song, hardly appreciated, on a side street.
Mark Helprin

"As Newt's World Turns":
Case Closed, But Marriage Open?
Payback's a Bitch

As I contemplate the world of Gingrich's marriages, almost nothing could bore me more. Faithful readers may know because I've mentioned it, but for other readers, do you know how close we came to not having a President Obama? I moved to Maryland after the Illinois primaries in 2004...

Consider this 2003 poll, just a year before Obama a stunning come-from-behind majority-vote victory in the crowded primary: "“[State Comptroller] Hynes is favored by 24 percent, followed by [Cook County Treasurer] Pappas with 21 percent, state Sen. Barack Obama with 9 percent, former Chicago Board of Education President Gery Chico and health care executive Joyce Washington, each with 5 percent, and commodities millionaire Blair Hull with 1 percent.”

Blair Hull spent millions on his campaign; I remember he seized on a phony Democratic issue about importing American pharmaceutical drugs from Canada. Any first-semester economics student understands the core issues involved. Companies often face competing goals like maximizing revenues/profits and maintaining market share. For a company to be profitable in the long run, it has to cover its costs (including ongoing drug development and federal drug approval, company overhead and executive management, and a reasonable profit) There are some practical constraints on pricing models. For example, if you have a limited population of people with a specific medical condition, price cutting only gets you so far; healthy people won't buy it no matter how low you price the drug. (Democrats will understand this concept but you have to phrase it in terms they understand, like cutting income tax rates on the upper 1%.) Keep in mind there are a couple of important things to keep in mind: limited lifetime of exclusive distribution rights (i.e., generic drugs) and high margins for drugs for a particular condition attracts the development of competitive drugs, which will be aggressively priced to win over market share.

At the risk of oversimplification, after one covers overhead costs, it makes sense to expand sales provided you are able to cover your incremental costs in producing a product with some markup over costs. Canada regulates (or has regulated) prices on drugs. Keep further in mind that the market can vary because Canada could accept competitive products not approved by our federal government. American pharmaceuticals may elect to sell at a lower price in Canada because it can increase its revenue and profitability by gaining a larger population for its drug. Exporting the same drug back into the states under undermine the business model, because it could cannibalize existing US sales covering overhead. Democrats may disingenuously suggest that this is the free market system, except the market is distorted by regulations, both in terms of drug approval and pricing. In essence, that pharmaceuticals have made a contract they will have exclusive pricing for a limited period of time. If you change the rules of the game after the game has started, the federal government needs to make compensatory changes, e.g., extend the tenure of a drug's exclusivity. Most likely, the drug companies would withdraw their products from the Canadian market since drug imports would likely decrease aggregate revenues and profits.

The problem is--it's a lot easier for Democrats to demonize discriminatory pricing in different markets, at the expense of "greedy" drug manufacturers because all you have to do is point at higher prices here and lower prices there, and let people come to their own conclusions, not understanding the business implications. For example, a company may need to outsource production to cope with lower prices.

I realize this is a long introduction into what happened in the spring of 2004, but Blair Hull picked on the drug import issue, and I recall innumerable ads featuring Hull leading bus runs across the Canadian border from Michigan.

Let me outline some excerpts from one of my sources:

2/14/04: "Hull has been continually gaining momentum, showing that his record breaking $18 million spending spree has not been wasted. Since August he has raised his poll numbers from 3%, to 10% in October, to 19% in January and now 29%. " Hull's 3 main competitors (Hynes, Obama, and Pappas) ranged from 14% to 20% over two monthly poll comparisons.

On the 15th news broke out about spousal abuse allegations involving Hull's ex-wife. (The rumor is that the story was planted by the Obama campaign.) Hull never recovered: the genie was out of the bottle. Somehow Obama's campaign caught fire. Knowing the intelligence of Illinois voters, whom twice put currently convicted felon Rod Blagojevich into the governor's mansion, I suspect it had to do with Obama's substantive policies as exemplified by Obama's campaign jingle:

Barack Obama, oh yeah, say it again
He's solid as a rock, Barack Obama
If you believe like I believe that children are our future
You're ready to move forward
Instead of things being like they use to be . . .

Just in case you think I'm pulling your leg, here is the original hit song:

Oh, my goodness, now all my fellow libertarian-conservative readers are going to be inspired to vote for Obama's reelection, and I'll get blamed... Yeah, right... You see, Obama believes in challenging our children: leaving over $5T debt in less than one term in office was not by accident. It demonstrates his confidence in our children's ability not only to balance their budgets (just like the examples being set by their parents), but his as well.

Let's get a recap from the Gray Lady (my edit) [Barbra Streisand must be so proud that the column title was "A Democratic Star is Born"]:

As recently as three weeks ago, polls showed both Mr. Obama and Mr. Hynes trailing Blair Hull... But Mr. Hull's campaign suddenly imploded over his former wife's accusations that he had behaved violently toward her. In a field of seven, Mr. Obama received more than 52 percent of the vote statewide while his closest competitor, State Comptroller Dan Hynes, whose family has long held power within Chicago's Democratic Party, had less than 24 percent. Mr. Obama even won in Mr. Hynes's predominantly white home ward on Chicago's North Side.

Now let's turn to Republican Jack Ryan, JFK-handsome/telegenic Wall Street investment banker whom gave up the lucrative career to teach in an inner city school:

We’ve all heard Jack Ryan’s story – how after going to Harvard Law and Business schools and working for Goldman Sachs, he left corporate America to teach. He took a job at Hales Franciscan, an all African-American Catholic high school on Chicago’s south side.

What undid Jack Ryan's political career? He married a seriously gorgeous blonde National Merit Scholar and a 1990 Miss America third runner up and actress, Jeri Zimmermann. When Jeri Ryan joined the Star Trek Voyager cast, ratings jumped 60%. The physical separation of Wall Street-based Jack and Hollywood-based Jeri eventually resulted in divorce. Jeri, in a custody hearing for their young son, filed a sealed complaint, which I'll quote from Wikipedia:

It was revealed that six years previously, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public, and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris. Jeri Ryan described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."

And the Democrats thought that Bill Clinton had an interesting sex life...

For the record, Jack denied the claims, but any geek in the world (including myself) will vouch for the fact that Jeri Ryan is a goddess. [Of course, geeks are willing to do anything...go on a 3AM run to find an outlet selling Popeye's fried chicken and also bring back a half gallon of Blue Bell cookie dough ice cream...agree to stay in a room of her choice without windows, wear a mask and/or agree to arrive and depart at separate times. I mean, if you wait in line for hours just to see a Star Trek movie...]

Jack Ryan never had a chance. To give an example, in late February, Ryan in one poll had a 46-14 lead over the next closest challenger, investment guru Jim Oberweis. His lead took a hit and he won the primary 36-24. As the scandal grew, Obama jumped out to a 10-point lead, and the GOP leadership, which self-righteously felt "betrayed", put pressure on Ryan to quit the race. The rest is history; those same geniuses which failed to field a competitive alternative to Blago, decided to replace Ryan with carpetbagger Alan Keyes, whom ran a spectacularly bad campaign, including a confrontation with his lesbian daughter.

[These geniuses must have thought, hey, how do we compete against a young telegenic African-American Democrat? I know: we'll field our own African-American candidate. Let's see: what (failed) GOP statewide or national high-profile African-American politician is available... These same political geniuses got into the 2008 McCain campaign and thought: let's see--what is our answer to politically exploit Obama's boneheaded, petty decision to pass on Hillary Clinton, a national runner up and proven vote-getter, whom was willing to serve in the largely ceremonial role of running mate? I know--let's look for a first-time governor in a lightly populated state, currently under investigation for abusing her authority in a transparent attempt to have a despised former relative by marriage, a state trooper, fired; the investigation findings are due to be released right in the middle of a general election campaign. Any adverse finding would torpedo the front runner's campaign. It's not like we have to expand on the investigation of an obscure Alaskan politician being considered as the running mate of the 70-year-old nominee, a heartbeat away from being President. Let me see: who were those brilliant GOP strategists whom suggested the BEST WAY to spotlight GHW Bush's experience argument was to select an obscure second-term Indiana senator. No need to check on those fourth-grade spelling tests... Having Dan Quayle on the ticket must have reassured those moderates and independents on the fence. Yes, indeed, Sarah Palin on the ticket would help reassure wavering undecideds sold on McCain's experience argument against Obama: why, if there are any rumors of bears on the prowl in Wall Street, President McCain will send out VP Mama Grizzly with a shotgun to take them out!]

And you thought Rick Santorum lost in a 2006 landslide.

I voted for Jack Ryan, and if I still lived in Illinois, I would still have voted for him or anyone whom wasn't Barack Obama. I didn't buy the Obama hype when I lived in Illinois, and we now have more than enough reason to vote against him today.

I have made it clear that I do not support Newt Gingrich, but unless the sex in question involves a minor, is involuntary and/or contextually exploitative (i.e., sexual harassment, such as Clinton's behavior pattern in Arkansas and the White House), I am more concerned with the suitability of knowledge, abilities, skills and experience relevant to being President. Is Gingrich qualified to be President? Yes; he's negotiated with the White House from the other side of the table, and he thoroughly understands federal policies. Would I vote for him over Barack Obama? Of course. Any reasonable person would have to; Obama is easily the worst, most unqualified, unfit President in American history--and I would pass a polygraph saying that. We cannot afford another 4 years of adding another $5T to the national debt and unbridled, growth-sapping regulatory empire building. Is he the best Republican candidate? Of course not: just to give a short list of people I prefer (in addition to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul): Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Eric Cantor, ...

Don't get me wrong. I believe in the traditional ideals of lifelong marriage and family. I understand the hypocrisy of a Republican running on family values. And I think it's fair for people to ask whether someone who cheated on his marriage vows will respect his oath as President (consider, for instance, Bill Clinton's failure to testify truthfully to an Arkansas judge.)

But I was somewhat aware of the allegations that Gingrich's current wife had an affair with him while still married to his second wife, now accusing him of wanting an open marriage. (I have little doubt that any politician would prefer to portray a stable home life, have his cake and eat it, too. Whether or not the allegations are true is simply a matter of semantics: clearly he was having an affair.)

But in terms of "destroying him"? There are a number of men whom cheat on their wives. It's one of the oldest stories since the beginning of time.

What bothers me far, far more were the reports out there hinting at a scandal but not wanting to go with the story for the purpose of not affecting an election with some reports of a Santorum-Iowa surge (presumably based on his red meat sound bites delivered at a Fox News Channel debate earlier this week). EXCUSE ME! Intentionally withhold a newsworthy story from the South Carolina voters is a paternalistic violation of journalistic ethics. It is not the function of journalists to serve as a censor for the prospective voter: voters have a right and a need to know a newsworthy story sooner than later--what can they do after the vote is over? Recall their ballots? We do not have a right to decide whether a voter's judgment is mature enough to handle a sensational story. This fall I have to rely on the good judgment of the American people; if they are insane enough to vote for the reelection of the worst President of their lifetimes, they are stuck with that decision over the next 4 years, and don't expect him to be any better the next time around.

More Political Potpourri

Just some brief comments on the other happenings of the day (or recently):

Santorum wins Iowa by a few dozen votes on a certified count. The problem is that there were so many questions about uncounted votes that we really don't know for sure who won it. Clearly the Iowa party has some things to fix for the future. The interesting thing is, the coverage was always anti-Romney from the get-go, with many commentators talking about Santorum's tie, 75% of the voters against Romney (not against Santorum). Mitt Romney handled it well--he simply applied the "virtual tie" rhetoric Santorum himself was using when he was on the other side of the ledger. The fact is, the Iowa win has not helped him in New Hampshire or South Carolina (so far). As I've written, Santorum's success was based on saturation politics in Iowa above all other candidates combined and being at the right place at the right time when Gingrich took a deep hit after some effective ads from a Romney PAC.
Palin Endorses Gingrich in South Carolina. After I paid Palin a rare compliment for distancing herself from the Gingrich PAC's anti-capitalist Bain ads against Romney, the "maverick reformer" decides to embrace someone whom has been part of the problem, not the solution. Is it hypocritical and yet another example of bad political judgment? Of course.
Perry Drops From the Race and Endorses Gingrich. I did suspect that he would do both things but thought it would happen after the primary, not before it. Maybe it was to preempt a likely last-place finish. Perry had co-authored a book ("Fed Up") with Gingrich, so I wasn't surprised at all by the endorsement. What I don't get is his logic in endorsing the ultimate insider after running an anti-Washington campaign.
What Is Going On With the South Carolina Polls? Some 5 polls came out with 2 of them Gingrich with a slight (within error, essentially tied) with Romney, 1 with a 6-point lead, but Romney leads in the two others by 7 and 10 points. Gingrich was the prohibitive favorite before Iowa, so this last minute surge (the FNC debate?) may hold on, but if someone asked me, results unseen, which pollsters I trust least, I would have listed all three polls showing Gingrich in the lead. Not sure if the ex-wife "open marriage" scandal will have any effect. The Gallup daily tracking poll still sees Romney with a higher percentage than the combined second (Gingrich) and third challenger (either Paul or Santorum). I think Romney will hang on but I don't know if Gingrich's ex-wife comments will have any effect as we head into Saturday's vote. South Carolina likes to crown the eventual winner, and right now the polls strongly favor Romney over Gingrich. But it's possible South Carolina voters will signal the contest should go on past Florida, which Romney will almost certainly win. If Romney sweeps South Carolina and Florida--and he's got a good shot of doing it--the nomination is all but his. The long-sought non-Romney surge is imploding: Romney is now regularly creeping up in 30-40% territory in polls, which is significant in a fragmented field. That means undecideds are breaking towards Romney, probably based on the electability argument.

Political Humor

"Mitt Romney is coming under fire because even though he is a multimillionaire, he only paid 15 percent in taxes. That's not a tax, that's barely a tip." - Jay Leno

[Romney thinks a 15% tip to the IRS is very generous given the poor government service, the fatty government pork, and half-baked programs. Besides, aren't school lunches on the House? He also thinks being charged $16 a muffin can't be justified...]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Doors, "Hello, I Love You"

Miscellany: 1/18/12

2012-01-18T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control. These three alone lead to sovereign power.
Lord Alfred Tennyson

Support for Rejection of SOPA/PIPA Grows: Thumbs UP!

In a nutshell, this is a battle between content providers (e.g., entertainment) and various deep-pocket related hosting sites. In essence, the idea was to target American providers if and when the piracy crimes occur with respect to foreign affiliates. NOTE THAT PROSECUTION OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS IS NOT THE ISSUE. What we are talking about is giving new, rather Draconian weapons to content providers which would have the net affect of discouraging basic liberties on Internet by raising the cost of doing business on the web--in many cases for circumstances beyond their control. The last thing conservatives should be doing is adding to government regulatory empire building and discouraging innovation by small businesses operating on the Web. Discussions of many key lawmakers include new GOP senators and other lawmakers.

For many of us who regularly access Google's market-leading search engine and Wikipedia, there were stark reminders today in terms of a blackout (Wikipedia) or a giant black smudge over the Google ID on the search page.

Obama Refuses to Accommodate Congressional Timing
for Keystone Pipeline Project Approval: Thumbs DOWN!

This DOES NOT surprise me. Let's briefly reprise the basics: We have a vast network of pipelines criscrossing the United States. Technology improves all the time. The environmentalists have a variety of concerns including the process of processing oil from the tar sands in Canada to pipline erosion and/or leaks of oil along an economically vulnerable ecosystem (aquifers, etc.) on the way through Nebraska on the way to Gulf Coast refineries. For most people, the pipeline would create jobs and lessen American's dependence on oil from hostile, unreliable courses. The pipeline folks, in an attempt to gain approval adjusted the path through Nebraska to avoid going through the environmentally-sensitive region.

Here's all you need to know: there is NO LEGITIMATE reason to delay project approval. Obama was argue it's just a matter of timing (and no doubt you'll hear disingenuous attempts to rationalize why they can't approve things faster, comparing it to the BP oil spill excuse that the Congress had unrealistic assumptions of due professional care in reviewing the application). This is all nonsense. This is always what progressives try to do: they stonewall spending cuts, they file lawsuits to block any and all projects, etc. What they're willing doing is buying time until they can elect some ideological leader to kill it. This is how Obama operates: remember 2007 immigration reform? He wanted to implement a long-term series of appeals for targeted aliens. He will tell people that it's possible he will still approve the project in due course, But the kinds of risks we're talking about are well known and can easily be accomplished: it's just a bureaucratic delay tactic.

Illinois and California: Taxes and Spending and Pensions: Oh, My!

No doubt Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D-IL) must be a Meatloaf fan, singing "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad". That's because after Moody's dropped Illinois below even California's abysmal bottom-of-the-market (i.e., from A1 to A2) bond credit rating, S&P and Fitch didn't. Poor Gov. Quinn: he thought he had covered the pension issue by the conventional approach of implementing a two-level system (doesn't this seem to be the conventional cop-out: e.g., fix the expensive auto worker problem by creating a more realistic compensation track for NEW workers; and how many GOP Presidential candidates bend over backwards to ensure that today's beneficiaries don't lose a penny of their unsustainable benefits....) He puts through a temporary tax hike, but he figures the credit agencies won't ask what happens with that surtax ends... But think really hard: if people near or at retirement aren't asked to share in the sacrifice the rest of the Illinois people have

Why is he getting a hit? Can you say 'new retirees'? It turns out pensions that will end up costing $5.8B this fiscal year (ending June 30) will add ANOTHER BILLION next fiscal year... That's about 17%. And that $800M that the state is planning to cover with a debt offering (which will now cost today's taxpayers MORE because of the rating cut) for schools, roads and bridges... How many times do I write in this blog MONEY IS FUNGIBLE?

I put together the following table based using information from Fidelity and/or other sources on bond ratings:

Grade (Descending Order)	Moody's	S&P/Fitch
Investment (Strongest)	Aaa	AAA
	Aa1	AA+
	Aa2	AA
	Aa3	AA-
	A1	A+
	A2	A
	A3	A-
	Baa1	BBB+
	Baa2	BBB
Weakest	Baa3	BBB-
High-Yield/Junk (Highest)	Ba1	BB+
	Ba2	BB
	Ba3	BB-
	B1	B+
	B2	B
	B3	B-
	Caa1	CCC+
	Caa2	CCC
	Caa3	CCC-
	Ca	CC
Lowest	C	C
	D	D

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Doors, "Light My Fire"

Miscellany: 1/17/12

2012-01-17T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Face your deficiencies and acknowledge them;
but do not let them master you.
Let them teach you patience, sweetness, insight.
Helen Keller

Earlier Endorsement Post

I wrote what I think is an interesting sweeping critical perspective on Bush, McCain, and Romney over the past decade and the basic reason I decided to turn to Mitt Romney. Note that even though I'm endorsing Romney, I am not connected in any way to the Romney campaign, and that includes any financial contributions. (The same was true of the Ron Paul campaign.)

The Fox News SC GOP Debate

I get a number of politically conservative-oriented emails; I didn't bother to listen to the FNC debate. I don't like gimmicky sound bites, especially politicians like Gingrich waiting to spring a prepared red meat line in the debate session. Supposedly one of Gingrich's lines resulted in a standing ovation and he slammed down a line of questioning from liberal Fox News analyst Juan Williams. He apparently got Rush Limbaugh jumping out of his chair...

If one-liners qualify someone to be President, well, I should like to submit my blog's Political Humor section. Supposedly Sarah Palin has said that if she was voting in South Carolina Saturday, she would be voting Gingrich--just days after Gingrich voiced his anti-capitalist rhetoric against Romney. What's more important--Gingrich's indictment of the free market system or a clearly rehearsed talking point on Andrew Jackson?

[Oh, yes: why wouldn't fellow pro-life Catholic Newt Gingrich implicitly compare American Indians with Islamic terrorists and get an ovation for suggesting that the enemy be executed? Do some reading of your own on Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears, etc. Here's just a sample: "In 1817 it was claimed that the Seminoles were harbouring runaway slaves. In January 1818, Andrew Jackson and 3,000 troops began attacking the Seminoles. This included killing the Seminoles and the burning of their villages." Just as an aside, my Mom once claimed that I had inherited my cheekbones from a Cherokee great-grandmother, and I've always thought that was pretty cool. I have NEVER been proud of what happened with American Indians, African slaves or Japanese-Americans during WWII. Who was Jackson to talk about how American Indians should "cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and christian community"? My Christian faith never taught me to kill and destroy someone else's home....]

I mean, Gingrich claims that he is the "best" debater (no, he's not: he's thin-skinned, erratic, vain, and specializes in obnoxiously lecturing debate moderators). If you think for a second Obama can't use those qualities against him, you're sadly mistaken. Look at what bullying behavior at debates gets you: remember when Gore approached Bush aggressively during the debates in 2000? Remember when Rick Lazio did the same against Hillary Clinton, also in 2000?

Obama is EXPERT at controlling his emotions; it's manipulative behavior, but his interpersonal skills win for him what his trite rhetoric and mediocre performance can't. If viewers think Gingrich or anyone else is treating Obama disrespectfully, Gingrich could be right on 99 out of 100 points, and it won't matter. That's why in posts, I've cautioned Romney that he can't let Rick Perry or Gingrich's petty rhetoric get under his skin. He's got to treat Obama with respect but just clinically take him apart. He exactly got it right: Obama is a nice guy, but he's just in over his head (although I would avoid using those words against Obama during the general debates this fall).

What exactly is it about one-liners and put-downs do these so-called "conservatives" like Limbaugh and others find "Presidential"? I mean, we're coming up to the third anniversary of a motivational speaker with no business experience whom got elected President, and where has it gotten us? TALK IS CHEAP. Are we conservatives willing to sell our votes for some line cooked up by some professional comedian? If all it takes is a clever line or sound bite for Romney to win the Presidency, I'll write them free of charge...

One More Time, Gov. Perry: Communitarianism, NOT Socialism

The following excerpt was principally authored by Amitai Etzioni of Britannica:

Communitarianism arose in the 1980s as a critique of two prominent philosophical schools: contemporary liberalism, which seeks to protect and enhance personal autonomy and individual rights in part through the activity of government, and libertarianism, a form of liberalism (sometimes called “classical liberalism”) that aims to protect individual rights—especially the rights to liberty and property—through strict limits on governmental power....Communitarian ideas have also played a significant role in public life through their incorporation into the electoral platforms and policies of ... U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama....Liberals and libertarians responded by characterizing the communitarian position as akin to East Asian authoritarian communitarianism. They also argued that social formulations of the good—and the obligations they generate, which individuals must then discharge—can sometimes be oppressive. Some libertarians cited taxes and mandatory vaccinations as examples of such obligations.

Oops, Gov. Perry... That little bit about "mandatory vaccinations"... I wonder where I heard that before (can you say 'Gardasil'?)

I am a classical liberal/libertarian which is different from George W. Bush's fusion of communitarian conservatism he called "compassionate conservatism". (Perry is quite right in pointing out that Bush was a big spender, and this is exactly why...) A contemporary liberal supplements the negative liberties espoused by libertarians (things that government or some group can't constrain, like your right to speak or worship as you please, take away your property without due process) versus positive liberties, which are not just the opportunity to do something but the ability to do something (e.g., government not only allows you to start your own business, but it helps you, e.g., with the right education and training, loans, etc., to actually do it).

I don't want to have a long discussion here other than to say that the whole concept of what resources ought to be made available with regard positive rights and the common good can be open-ended. And isn't that precisely the kind of problem we're seeing today?

Political Humor

"During a campaign event on Saturday, Mitt Romney reached into his pocket and gave cash to a woman who said she was broke. Which got awkward, when she was like, 'I'm also lonely!'" - Jimmy Fallon

[It turns out the lady was from the US government; the IRS reminds us that donations to the US government are tax-deductible; they want to know if there were $15.2T more dollars from where that came from...]

"From 1934 to 1963, the ~~biggest~~ criminals in America ended up on Alcatraz. Nowadays they end up ~~on Wall Street~~." - Craig Ferguson

[shortest...in Littleton, CO]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Doors, "Riders on the Storm". A personal anecdote about this song in particular: I never talked that much to Mom about music, and I never heard her listen to music on the radio. But I remember one of the first albums I bought was a Diana Ross' greatest hits album, and Mom told me she really liked her, which really surprised me. I think I must have brought my Doors' hits compilation over my folks and played the album in the living room while Mom and others were doing something in the kitchen and she looked over to me and said that she liked the song. On a sidenote, my Dad is more of a country music fan--I started getting bored with country except for crossover acts around the mid-70's. So imagine my surprise when I found out he had bought an ELO boxed set. (I covered ELO in a past series.) But then the sibling closest to me in age, a younger sister, thought my favorite act was Barbra Streisand. OH, PLEASE! Not even before she started publishing her boorish political opinions. Come on now: "Love, soft as an easy chair"? Let me donate the starting lyric for the next Streisand-penned song: "Love, made on a feather bed"... (Because if you're going to choose furniture for a love song...)

Endorsement: Mitt Romney for President

2012-01-17T21:39:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of rickety.us

Why an Endorsement?

I suspect most bloggers or commentators don't endorse candidates; perhaps they want to maintain a facade of independence. (It really doesn't work; in Andrew Sullivan's currently published rant against the conservative take on Obama, he, in fact, lists a number of progressive ideological complaints against Obama, but describes Obama's reelection as even "necessary".)

This blog did not exist in 2007; it started well into the summer of 2008. I had supported Bush's election and reelection, but my reasons didn't follow the standard talking points from media conservatives. (The fact that the Democrats nominated nondescript, uncharismatic, undistinguished career progressive ideologues as candidates made the decisions no-brainers.) I honestly thought that Bush would bring an end to partisan bickering. Unlike Obama, Bush did have a track record of bipartisanship as governor of Texas. But I became disillusioned with Bush's leadership and decisions, starting with his selection of Dick Cheney as VP. I had always been fiscal hawk even during my college progressive salad days as an undergraduate. I didn't oppose the Bush tax cuts, but I faulted Bush for letting spending get out of control, being disengaged from Congress, inadequately managing a dysfunctional occupational strategy in Iraq, failing to negotiate reforms in social security and immigration (making necessary updates from Reagan's efforts (negotiated with Dems)), and expanding Medicare benefits without adequate funding at a time Medicare was in even worse shape than social security.

I saw both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as manifestly unqualified and unacceptable for the Presidency, but given the rebuke the American people gave the GOP during the 2006 mid-terms, widely viewed as a rebuke of our now unpopular Iraq occupation and returning control of the Congress to the Democrats, I knew the GOP's chances were slim in retaining the Presidency as Bush, with plummeting approval ratings, largely retreated to the White House after the debacles of the crony Alberto Gonzales AG and Harriet Miers SCOTUS nominations (which even I couldn't defend), social security, and immigration reform.

I was, and continue to be, horrified how the media conservatives like Limbaugh seemed to think the way to go in 2008 was a return to Reagan conservative orthodoxy. In fact, the GOP failed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent while the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress. It was very clear to me that we needed like I would call a "Goldilocks" conservative whom could draw a clear contrast from George Bush.

McCain seemed the obvious choice: he had distanced himself from Bush and the ideological right on bipartisan legislation (especial campaign reform and immigration), his membership in the Gang of Six, and his votes against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. I was sufficiently impressed with McCain's prescient critique of Iraq occupation sizing.

I thought, and continue to think, social conservative issues are more about securing the base than expanding the voter base. I think from a practical political point of view, it's always better to be positive than judgmental, negative and divisive about fellow Americans. There's a distinction here; yes, I'm critical and judgmental about Obama's efforts to date. I'm talking more about things like blaming unauthorized aliens for failed immigration policies, welfare recipients for failed, morally hazardous New Deal and Great Society programs, etc.

Mitt Romney did not make a great impression early in the 2008 race because he was spending a lot of his own money to promote his candidacy, which to me came across as "trying to buy the Presidency", and I thought some of his position shifts were politically motivated.

The big problem was that the 2008 GOP campaign was largely driven by ideological issues like the Bush tax cuts, and not enough on flat economic growth, the Fed's easy monetary policies, the exploding deficits and regulatory empire building. McCain had some fundamental flaws that became problematic during the general campaign: in his effort to (unsuccessfully) appease the conservative base, he slavishly ensured his votes had the Bush Administration's back, boasting a 90% or better voting consistency. This cost him a lot of credibility with the centrists whom should have been in his corner during the general campaign: why you were bragging to the American people about your ties to a President with a 30% approval rating? Then there was the class warfare language he used during deliberations over the tax cuts and an interview he had given where he admitted that economics wasn't his strong suit.

Then McCain's behavior during the general campaign showed himself shooting himself repeatedly in the foot: his selection of Palin always seemed to be more of a tactical decision, based on surprising the opposition and trying to politically exploit the fact that the Democrats failed to nominate a popular Hillary Clinton--in fact, in one of the dumbest political moves of all time, Obama had selected Joe Biden rather than Hillary Clinton, whom wanted to be named (and had earned it). McCain should never have selected Palin: she was the first-term governor of a lightly populated state. In hindsight, it's easy now to see how McCain needed someone to balance his military/foreign policy expertise, and Romney was it. (Recall that the economic tsunami came down right after the GOP convention.)

It was clear when the McCain campaign didn't make Palin available to the press that something was terribly wrong. Even I was impressed by some of her early speeches, but it was quite clear that she wasn't up for the role, and that put McCain's judgment on the table. Then there was his bizarre suspension of his campaign and unsuccessful attempt to postpone the Presidential debates, and so here was Obama accusing McCain of trying to duck out of a debate tailored to McCain's own background. The McCain campaign then resorted to its own version of federal interventions, while they failed to blunt the Dems' characterization of McCain as a reckless deregulator, which was preposterous on its face. It was also clear during the debate series that Obama had been better prepared to handle John McCain's predictable rhetoric and attack (e.g., on earmarks). When you are hundreds of billions in deficit, you can't focus on, say, 2% of federal spending. So Obama was able to say, look, I've promised to eliminate earmarks, too, and besides earmarks aren't material relative to the overall budget. McCain really didn't have a good response to that, and he should have (for reasons obvious today). What's worse? "Political spin" John McCain was less attractive than "straight talk" John McCain.

(Let me be clear here: I like George W. Bush and John McCain and don't regret voting for them. But I'm still that former professor whom always graded scrupulously honestly; I used to tell my students I wouldn't hesitate flunking a family member or close friend if they failed to perform in my classroom. For example, I used to grade essay questions by rank-ordering all the answers at the same time among 30 or more students.)

So that's the past, and when I look at what needs to be done to defeat Obama in the general election, you have to look at someone whom has the ability to think on his feet, can provably negotiate with the opposition, knows business and the economy inside out, has proven executive knowledge, skills and experience inside and outside the public sector, knows what drives economic growth and job creation, and can deal with a $3.5T budget. There's only one man in either party (or outside: definitely NOT "the Donald Trump") and that's Mitt Romney.

Why Have I Changed My Mind on the Ron Paul Endorsement?

First, I initially intended to endorse Romney for reasons I just specified. If you go back in past posts, I indicated around the time Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the race after the Iowa straw poll and subsequently endorsed Romney that I was planning to do an endorsement (clearly Romney, because why else did Pawlenty preempt my own selection?)

Second, if you look at my posts since the Ron Paul endorsement, you will see that I have been very critical of the people attacking Romney.

Third, I purposefully used the term 'preliminary' in my endorsement of Paul and suggested that my final endorsement might change. I specifically wanted a Ron Paul vote in the Iowa caucuses.

It is very clear why I like Ron Paul; from a standpoint of principled pro-liberty conservatism, his views come closest to my own and are much more direct and consistent. I continue to be critical of the way Mitt Romney responds to certain issues, and I prefer a more direct "straight talk" approach. For example, take the question about why he didn't run for reelection. He should have said something like this: "Dick Cheney was not going to run in 2008, and it was an open nomination. When I ran for governor, I wanted to show people that I could apply the same executive experience I showed in the private sector and apply it to public sector problems. I proved that it was possible to work with Democrats and lead the state to a surplus instead of a deficit. Now if I decided to make a run at the White House, I needed a national springboard like becoming head of the RGA. If it didn't look like I was going to be able to mount a serious run for the White House, I might consider reelection as governor. But once I knew I wanted to make that run, it wouldn't be fair to the people of Massachusetts for me to be a part-time governor for two years."

In voting for a President candidate, there are a couple of things I look for: governing principles and executive skills. If you look at my blog description, on policy I'm clearly closer to Ron Paul. The issues I have are with Ron Paul's lack of public sector administrative experience and his political skills in pushing relevant legislation. He also needs to tone down some of his provocative rhetoric. I'm also concerned that the Dems might focus on some of his more unorthodox policy positions (e.g., drug legalization).

Am I Going to Be Critical of Romney During the Rest of the Campaign?

I would prefer not, but I will call them as I see them. I still don't like his rhetoric on China. I want to hear more of an acknowledgment that we are not the world's policeman and there are no sacred cows in the budget and we need to stay away from nation building. I want to hear tougher rhetoric about the Fed's artificially low interest rates.

Miscellany: 1/16/12

2012-01-16T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

A leader is a dealer in hope.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Final Endorsement for President Post Tomorrow

I have a daily blog post with a variety featured format I call "miscellany": mostly political commentaries, but also occasional sports items, excerpts/links to other commentaries, and recurring quote, humor, and music. This will be published late night as usual tomorrow. I also publish some standalone commentaries; this will be one of them.

Newsweek Slams Conservatives:
'Why ~~Is Andrew Sullivan~~ Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?'

I'm late getting this post out and will review this Andrew Sullivan piece in more detail in a future post. So far the reaction has more to do with Sullivan's provocative article title than the content. Newser had a better collection of conservative comments on the content. But let me point on all the so-called "successes" of the 111th Congress, Obama was more Cheerleader-in-Chief than Leader/Coach-in-Chief. Deciding to add thousands of pages of new business regulations (after all, over two centuries of regulations on banks have worked so well, Mr. Sullivan, you just KNOW they got them right this time around, right?) And Barack Obama as senator or President hasn't said a word about artificially low interest rates/monetary policy which encouraged rampant malinvestment by, among other things, enabling/artificially putting high-risk homeowners into houses under unrealistic expectations of future income.

Andrew Sullivan could at least write something more interesting than soundbites of preposterous talking points that Obama "saved" a $15T economy by delayed disbursements of $862M (most after the time economists decided the recession was over) investing in Keynesian policy broken windows, state or local bailouts, government boondoggles, and temporary pizza-buying tax cuts or disingenuously claims the EXPEDITED LAYOFFS AFTER AN ANTI-BUSINESS PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS WERE ELECTED: GO FIGURE! somehow belong on the ledger of a lame-duck President Bush. (Apparently Mr. Sullivan believes that businesses invest and make job-creating decisions based on irrelevant past economic policy, instead of the future... He probably talked to a White House economist attending that Alice in Wonderland party!) And EVERYONE knows that crony union-based auto bankruptcies are MORE EQUAL than those which respect traditional higher-standing bond holders. What investor WOULDN'T want to invest in businesses and jobs in an Obamanomic future?

No, Mr. Sullivan has fallen in love with the profoundly intelligent idea of smothering a fragile economic recovery by ineffectual, feckless, spendthrift "broken-window" spending, dumping thousands of pages of new regulations put together in corrupt sausage making by frenzied lawyers over a few days in a manifest contradiction of "transparency", creating dozens more of various unaccountable boards spewing out unpredictable rules and regulations on business?

All while increasing the national debt by almost 50% in just 3 years, with projected trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see--each trillion dollars is roughly HALF of federal revenues in ONE YEAR--all while an empty suit who never even had prior responsibility for running a lemonade stand, never mind a payroll, doesn't do a single thing to save money as we've reached our natural debt limit and uses "smoke and mirrors" kaleidoscope accounting even the chief government actuaries won't stand by, to justify EXPANDING the government's intervention into health care (no doubt as competently as they've managed banks and the GSE's!) EVEN AS THE CREDIT BUREAUS ARE LOWERING THE US GOVERNMENT'S CREDIT RATINGS!

Andrew Sullivan says, just be patient; have faith in the all-powerful Wizard of DC, the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism: Obama is plenty smart. We just need to have some patience and to trust in His judgment. After all, Obama knows how to set priorities: what's important in national defense is not so much new threats in cyber warfare, unfriendly nations or unconventional enemies, inadequate resources for research and development and supplies: it's recruitment. The real reason why the military apparently mustn't be able to make their recruitment targets with an official 8.5% unemployment rate must be because gays refuse to serve unless they can talk publicly about their sexual identity! (Of course, straight guy better not leave in view a sexy picture of their wife or girlfriend at their cubicle... It's not like they'll be backed up by those feminist-supporting Senate Democrats quashing those silly impeachment counts against President Clinton,whom upheld the US Constitution by not testifying truthfully about his inappropriate sexual harassment policy violations with government subordinates in front of an Arkansas judge. I bet those CEO's at Bendix, Boeing and HP wish they had had Senate Democrats on their boards!)

Like I said, I'll comment more in a future post, but just in case you're wondering: I think I'll probably be giving Andrew Sullivan's op-ed a THUMBS DOWN!

Meet the Press GOP Debate - Jan 8: Thumbs UP!

I've only recently reviewed the debate and haven't parsed it yet for the blog, but I was surprisingly entertained. I don't like listening to rehearsed soundbites, so I generally haven't followed the debates unless I see some controversy coming out of one. I'll write more about some of my favorite quotes in a future post.

You Also Heard It Here:
Gingrich Slams Santorum

I was already writing my Political Potpourri commentary yesterday and was not aware of the independently published The Hill item published yesterday afternoon:

I think Gingrich has to go after Santorum, or he's done. This is like a pro wrestling match where two heels (bad guys) take on the babyface. You know the heels have to turn on each other at some point, and the primary weapon you have available is the element of surprise. I don't know yet when or how it'll happen, but he can't afford to let Santorum knock him out of an expected second place.

The Hill piece notes "It's a marked contrast to his earlier suggestion of a loose alliance between the two and might indicate an attack line [for the upcoming FNC debate]."

Consider the following Gingrich excerpt (my edits):

If you vote for Sen. Santorum, somebody who set the all-time Pennsylvania record for the size of their defeat, in effect, you’re functionally voting for Gov. Romney to be the nominee.It’s a mathematical fact Any conservative who votes for anyone but Newt helps elect a moderate as the nominee.

What I failed to anticipate was the nature of the attack, electability. That shouldn't have been surprising given the fact that Gingrich brought up the point first-time candidate businessman Mitt Romney failed to beat Ted Kennedy, whom never lost a Massachusetts election from 1962 to his relatively recent death. I think it's very logical that Gingrich raised that issue because the issue has been raised to him. I think Gingrich has a fatal personality flaw in that, in my view, he seems to want to get even with the critic and/expose the critic's hypocrisy. There are a couple of things wrong with that: (1) you shouldn't let your opponent define you and/or jerk your chain; (2) you shouldn't choose an attack that is double-edged sword (and probably be used more effectively against you). Right now we have two candidates (Mitt Romney and Ron Paul) whom, in the latest polls (both Fox News and CNN) are the only ones within a statistical tie with Barack Obama, even though the President has a net negative approval rating.

The next broad point I would repeat against Gingrich on using the electability argument against Santorum is that if you look at the Gallup daily tracking poll of the GOP candidates and the Fox News beauty contest, Romney leads by more that the combined support for both Gingrich and Santorum.

Finally, in this commentary, I want to point out a couple of reasons why Gingrich's muddled, inconsistent arguments against Romney just make my eyes roll. First, Gingrich argues that Romney is a "Massachusetts moderate" while he is the consistent conservative. But Gingrich is or has been to the left of Romney on immigration, capitalism (e.g., his favorable commentary on a close relationship between business and government and the populist attack on business turnarounds at Bain Capital), and climate change. He then tried to argue that Romney is just another in a series of Massachusetts statewide officeholders like Dukakis and Kerry. But at the same time he argued that Romney had a low approval rating as governor and may have not won reelection and he failed to acknowledge that Dems overrode hundreds of Romney vetoes on spending (and certain RomneyCare policies).

And then Gingrich attacks Romney's losing to John McCain as a measure questioning his electability. But by any measure, through Florida, UNLIKE GINGRICH, Romney finished in the money in all the races, the overall runner-up in vote percentage (despite dropping out early in the race), and the runner up in states carried (11 states in west/central and northeast) while it was McCain whom carried the lion's share of moderate/independent voters, and self-classified conservatives supported Romney after Huckabee starting in Iowa.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Doors, "Touch Me". Hands down, my favorite Doors songs and one of all-time favorites.

Miscellany: 1/15/12

2012-01-15T23:50:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil; our great hope lies in developing what is good.
Calvin Coolidge

New Blogroll on the Blog

In the upper right corner of display, you will see that I've added a blogroll. I may add other blogs or websites in the future. I often reference MJ Perry's Carpe Diem blog, so regular readers understand that listing. I want to draw your attention to the other blog listed: The Constitution Club (NB: there's another similarly named website; the blog I'm referencing does not include "the" in the URL.)

To date, I have relied on word of mouth to build my blog readership. I have a distinctive writing style and perspective, and I've kept a low profile with respect other conservative blogs, in part to maintain a fresh, independent point of view. (I've read about major rock stars whom do a similar thing to avoid being influenced by the efforts of other recording artists.) I don't recall how I came across the website; I probably clicked on the link of a post through a web search and subsequently went to the home page.

What impressed me about the website is an interesting variety of new bloggers and topics that go beyond the same old same old. The website also proudly posts a number of derogatory comments by progressives. (One of my favorite Einstein quotes is: "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds.") I think a sign of true maturity of perspective is when one manages to overcome a pervasive, oppressive progressive groupthink characteristic of most universities.

I encourage my readers to visit Conclub (link above or in my blogroll). I'm also happy to point out that my blog has now been added to the website's blogroll.

A Barton Hinkle/Reason.com, "A Modest Proposal: Let’s Ban All Sports!": Thumbs UP!

I particularly like this sarcastic jab by one of my favorite libertarian columnists at the trite progressive talking point about about inappropriate emergency room use (Obama and Romney, take note) (my edit):

According to the National Center for Sports Safety, more than 3.5 million children receive medical treatment for sports injuries every year. The CDC reports that “more than 10,000 people receive treatment in the nation’s emergency departments (ED) each day for injuries sustained in” sports, recreational, and exercise activities. “At least one of every five ED visits for an injury results from participation in sports or recreation.” Obviously, this imposes huge costs on society. Those injured players who are insured drive up premiums for everybody. Those who are not insured receive charity care, which drives up hospital rates. People who play sports are engaging in risky behavior that hurts us all, for their own selfish enjoyment. Somebody needs to put a stop to this.

In fact, one of my own brothers-in-law (who works in a medical profession) had to have knee surgery after an injury playing amateur soccer (as an adult).

Then, of course, Nanny-in-Chief New York Mayor Micheal Bloomberg effectively said to the Soup Nazi, "No soup for you!" by reducing or banning taste from soup:

Not long ago Scientific American reported, “In just the past few months researchers have published seemingly contradictory studies showing that excess sodium in the diet leads to heart attacks, reduces your blood pressure or has no effect at all.”

(Note the end of the Seinfeld clip got it wrong. It wasn't because a rival stole the Soup Nazi's recipes that led him to go out of business: it was the New York health department got a hold of the recipes and modified them to comply with regulations. The Soup Nazi would rather go out of business than serve a bland soup...)

Political Potpourri

Late-breaking reports indicate Jim Huntsman will leave the GOP Presidential race tomorrow and will endorse Mitt Romney. I expected both moves, although I did not post them. In part, I was waiting to see the South Carolina polls over the weekend. Huntsman got no real boost from his New Hampshire finish; in every single general GOP Presidential poll and South Carolina, Huntsman is dead last among the 6 candidates, with at best a 5% showing. There was one poll last Thursday where he, with 7%, had a 2-point lead over Perry. Huntsman was aiming more at moderates and independents, whom are part of Romney's constituency, so it's not surprising that he would endorse his fellow Mormon.

Barring any unexpected development before Saturday's primary, Perry is done and will drop out soon thereafter. The next lowest candidate is drawing twice as much support. Florida is more purple with South Carolina, generally considered a more conservative-friendly state.

The momentum is now clearly with Romney. The Gallup daily tracking poll has Romney with 37%--with his next closest challenger, Santorum, at 14%. Holding the undecided's constant, Romney is now polling better than Santorum and Gingrich combined. Friday's CNN poll also showed Romney edging the combined percentages of Santorum and Gingrich. In plain English: it looks like the non-Romney bracket is imploding.

Romney sought to lower expectations last week I think quite deliberately--Insider Advantage had him with a 2-point lead over Gingrich in South Carolina. It's technically possible for undecided's to break out away from Romney, but it looks as though the polls are breaking out in favor of Romney both nationally and South Carolina. The last Florida poll I've seen (from Rasmussen) shows Romney at 41%, again more than Gingrich and Santorum combined.

This is all beginning to have the feel of inevitability to it. I don't see it necessarily as pro-Romney in nature but more of a case that none of the other candidates are connecting with voters or showing they are more electable than Romney--and in the end, it's more important that the GOP puts up someone whom can beat Obama, and Romney has been able to fend off his opponents' attacks.

There were reports over the weekend that the evangelical wing of the party has coalesced behind Santorum. Ironically, this may be the best possible outcome for Romney. First, Santorum is a weak opponent; he has no friend in conservative GOP Senator Toomey, Specter's successor. (Santorum backed Specter, a real-life RINO whom switched parties and lost the Dem nomination.) Second, he's got baggage from nearly 20 years in Congress. Third, he lost by 18 points to Casey; he can spin anything he wants about initially getting elected in Congress from a Democratic district, but an 18-point loss for reelection in a purple state eviscerates the electability argument. He also lacks administrative experience, just like Obama, which puts him in a weaker position to argue the experience argument. This has not been an issue in the GOP race to date because disgruntled conservatives are focusing on ideological purity, but the fact is that Romney can point on his experience in both the private and public sectors. Moreover, Santorum's high profile on social issues allows Obama to appeal to independents and moderates whom otherwise are unhappy with Obama's economic record. Fourth, the evangelicals have put themselves in a box: if Santorum places third, their endorsement will undermine their political relevance; if they win, they undermine Romney's strongest opponent, setting Santorum up for a decisive crushing blow just like Gingrich got in Iowa.

In my view, if Romney wins in South Carolina by 10 points, he basically wins the nomination. And, unwittingly, Gingrich and Perry may have paved the way with their populist attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital. It undermined their legitimate conservative credentials and boosted Romney's standing with conservatives. I think any kind of Romney victory boosts him to the mid-40's in Florida and high-30's nationally. A Romney loss means the race continues past Florida. However, the two polls released Saturday showed Romney over the margin of error, and Huntsman withdrawal and endorsement should give Romney another slight boost.

I don't have to point out that Huntsman's withdrawal leaves Romney against the non-Romney bracket (technically Huntsman was in the non-Romney bracket, but he was more in moderate/independent vs. conservative bracket). I think Gingrich has to go after Santorum, or he's done. Finishing third or fourth in a 5 man field is not going to give him any momentum towards Florida. Even if Gingrich scores points on Romney at this point he doesn't take votes away from Romney and in fact Santorum could benefit from the results as well as him. This is like a pro wrestling match where two heels (bad guys) take on the babyface. You know the heels have to turn on each other at some point, and the primary weapon you have available is the element of surprise. I don't know yet when or how it'll happen, but he can't afford to let Santorum knock him out of an expected second place. I THINK what it might be is Gingrich argues that it was his agenda that led to consecutive budget surpluses and the GOP lost its way in the early 2000's, giving up its ideals in an effort to remain in power at all costs. I think he brings up the Medicare expansion.

I did want to bring up a few of the arguments that have been advanced against Romney. First, there's the concept of 75% voting against Romney. That's silly. There were 6 candidates in Iowa. Roughly 17% gives you a tie among 6 players. Clinton scored in the low 40's in a 3-way race in 1992. Romney's number should improve as other candidates drop up.

Second, there's the whole question of Massachusetts' elections. Gingrich argues that Romney is a career politician wannabe whom would still be a senator if he beat Kennedy in 1994. Let me point out only two Republican candidates during Kennedy's Senate career got over 41% of the vote against Kennedy: his first (1962) opponent (George Cabot Lodge) and Romney. This is in a state which in 1994 had a simple majority of registered Democratic voters and nearly a 3-to-1 party registration advantage?. This is before the advantages of incumbency and having one of the most storied names in American history. A first-time political candidate? Whereas a win is always better than a loss, one should never underestimate how difficult it is for a minority party nominee to win a statewide election--that is why I was appalled that the GOP threw away the open Delaware Senate seat in 2010 where Republican Mike Castle, whom had won multiple statewide elections as governor and Congressman, had a lock on the seat.

Santorum argues that Romney would have been defeated for reelection in 2006, too. That's somewhat debatable. Polls were mixed between Romney and the likely opponent, Attorney General Thomas Reilly before Romney backed out. But Reilly lost his primary fight against Deval Patrick and Patrick won 55% of the vote against the then lieutenant governor Kerry Healey and other candidates. But it was also clear that Romney was eyeing the first open Presidential election (without a defending President or Vice President on the ballot) in decades in early 2005. I didn't like Romney's exchange on the issue in last Sunday's Meet the Press , i.e., "I accomplished everything I set out to do as governor"--whereby Santorum came back with the obvious "would you commit yourself to a one-term Presidency?" The answer was obvious: "No". Romney makes a good point about the kinds of problems we have aren't likely to be resolved in one term, but you give up a lot of leverage by becoming a lame duck in one term. But who would have done better in his reelection campaign? I think it would have been a tough reelection given Obama-like approval numbers. (Maryland Governor Ehrlich (R) lost in 2006 despite a majority approval rating.) Romney would have done a lot better against Patrick than Santorum did against Casey, although it's possible he would have lost (Blagojevich in 2006 won reelection despite low approval numbers, and he still was raising funds for his next campaign at the time of the Obama seat scandal). Romney was clearly hedging his bets even after exploring a run for the White House, but he got the RGA chair position he wanted as a springboard for a Presidential bid.

Political Humor

"Mayor Bloomberg wants to outlaw alcohol in New York City. How about outlawing rats in the subway?" - David Letterman

[Since Prohibition worked so well in the Great Depression, Mayor Bloomberg figured it would work during the Great Recession...

Note to Letterman: it gives James Cagney impressionists a whole new take on the misquoted line: "Mmm, you dirty rat!"]

"The State Department issued a new travel warning yesterday, urging U.S. citizens to avoid Syria. Yeah, it was part of a new set of warnings called, 'Things you were probably doing already.'" - Jimmy Fallon

[In retaliation, Syria issued a warning its own diplomats that there are certain places in DC where you don't want to venture alone at night. Like Capitol Hill.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Styx, "Dear John". This song is a Tommy Shaw tribute to the late Styx drummer. There were a couple of pop songs I particularly recall listening to on my daily 83-mile commute to a Milwaukee suburban county to single-handedly turnaround a failing ERP project: BBmak's "The Ghost of You and Me" and this one. I don't see it currently listed in the Wikipedia Styx discography, but it is well known to any Styx fan. This is my final Styx selection. In my next post, I'll start a brief Doors series.

Miscellany: 1/14/12

2012-01-14T23:45:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day

It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid.
George Bernard Shaw

S&P Lowers the Credit Rating of Nine European Countries

This is one of the items I intended to put into yesterday's "Lightning Round" occasional feature when I found myself going against my design format creating extended commentaries. There is a general problem here that I have mentioned, especially in dealing with our unsustainable entitlement boondoggles: aging of the population. This puts a squeeze on a likely stagnant or even shrinking workforce. Japan and Europe are facing these problems sooner than us; the Baby Boomers here won't be finished filing for their senior benefits until 2030. We have a federal government in a state of denial; cities and states are in defined benefit programs that may very lead to cuts in basic services to maintain contractual pension obligations.

I think history will record the Obama era as a tragic mistake in American, maybe even world history. We have over a $15T deficit. Even if the federal government did not spend another cent, it would take almost 8 years (assuming a modestly growing economy) to work off that debt. This guy in the White House has done NOTHING--absolutely NOTHING to cut spending. You know those bombs on TV action series where the government agents have to cut just the right wires to disable them? The federal budget is filled with similar booby traps--you have mandatory spending, automatic budget increases, at least 3 different types of federal employee pay increases--even if you stop the madness of new programs. You have defined benefit systems that allow some military personnel to retire from working for a living as early as 40 with stipends exceeding the average household income! You have an all-but-bankrupt Post Office which is one of the few in the developed world NOT privatized with the majority of facilities running at a deficit, but the Congress blocks facility closures! What are these people doing to future of our children and grandchildren?

There are a lot of people out there predicting we are in the early stages of the next great depression, an imminent financial Armageddon. I'm not predicting that, but I think that the progressives have done permanent damage. The question is no longer whether there will be pain in the future but how bad and how long.The problem is that the federal government has grown too big for us to deftly maneuver our way through icebergs.The GOP House has tried and the best they've been able to do is slow the rate of increase--still over a $1T deficit. Look at what's happening in Europe, a preview of our future: college students agitating, protests over raising the minimum age for national pensions, etc.

Only Germany has survived the latest S&P ratings with AAA ratings intact. Even France and Austria have been dinged, and the problem children (Spain, Portugal and Italy) have also seen themselves downgraded. How long can Germans pick up the slack for the rest of the European Union? What this means in practical terms is that countries have to pay more money to service the same amount of debt and it will be harder to raise more debt without paying a premium. If somehow Obama managed to get reelected this fall (I'm not sure why voters would think Obama has any credibility in fiscal responsibility): how much more damage will Obama leave future generations by using the veto power to resist long overdue necessary fiscal reforms?

The MSNBC Sniper Soundbite Ads:
The "Lean Forward" Propaganda Campaign: Thumbs DOWN!

I don't usually watch the NBC-affiliated USA Network, but I was recently watching one of their original crime/drama series' episode marathons and I started these mini-political sound bites from MSNBC's progressive prime time hosts (Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, etc.) I understand these things have been going on for some time over the past several months (going by a recent Internet search), but I hadn't really seen them before, at least the occasions I've watched the USA Network or other cable networks.

For all the criticisms I've made of Fox News; these aren't plugs for the shows; we don't see, say, the host's show and time--just a cryptic one-sided predictable soundbite. I tried to find clips and transcripts for some of the ads I've been seeing but haven't (this may be an artifact of my Internet searches, but even when I went to the above-cited link, I didn't find the promos I saw running on USA Network, and I didn't see links to transcripts); I prefer not having to recite from memory and prefer being as accurate as possible. This sort of hit-and-run propaganda only serves to preach to the choir; it's intellectually dishonest.

I'm not going to write an extensive rant here, because the back and forth is a familiar dance, and I'm bored. The MSNBC progressives would sound more interesting if they weren't taking their talking points from Obama's own rhetoric. The sound bites are paraphrased from memory.

"All we've heard from the other side is that tax cuts to job creators work. Well, where's the growth?"

Well, first of all, taxes are only one cost factor in the decision to expand, which reflects the supply and demand for relevant goods or services, expected competitor moves, availability of capital and resources, general economic conditions, etc. By the way, the Bush and Obama Administrations both increased the regulatory burden on businesses, which mitigated the positive effects of tax policy, and tax changes that the progressives are referring are INDIVIDUAL or household income tax burden, NOT business; business tax bracket rates are the highest among developed nations after Japan recently cut its high level tax rate. (And let's not forget it was Clinton and Dems in 1993 whom RAISED the corporate income tax rate to the existing 35%.) So the progressives are disingenuous here, confounding apples and oranges.

(I should point out a salient issue behind the job creator rhetoric: a certain type of corporation, subchapter s corporations, is taxed at the individual rate; a key conservative argument is if you revert to the Clinton tax hike rate, subchapter s corporations could be taxed at an even higher tax rate than a globally uncompetitive 35% bracket rate for other corporations! Subchapter s corporations are typically smaller/entrepreneurial businesses. Progressives are basically arguing that some subchapter s corporations are more equal than others.)

Second, the progressives are disingenuously asserting a 1993 Clinton high end tax bracket (39.6%) is the "real" tax rate. Let us do a reality check: at the beginning of GHW Bush's term in office, the top rate was 28%. Bush agreed to an increase to 31% in exchange for spending cuts (which, of course, never happened). Clinton then increased the top rate to 39.6%. By 2003, GW Bush had returned the high end to 35%. In fact, the Bush tax cut has been in effect roughly as long as Clinton's tax hike.

On a side note, not us not forget (but the progressives fail to acknowledge) that the Republican-led Congress in 1997 passed a tax cut package among other things slashed capital gains by a third. A major part of the balanced budget or budget surplus Clinton, who initially resisted the legislation, and other progressives have the unmitigated gall to take credit for have a lot to do with increased capital gains tax receipts

But let's go a little deeper into the math. The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts were enacted: more workers were employed than ever before; higher-income people paid the highest proportionate amount of the income tax burden in recent history;and the federal government revenue increased to the highest amount in history. The progressives are trying to obfuscate things by wanting to tie the bubble busts in the credit and housing markets to tax policy (vs, say, monetary policy), which is patently absurd and arbitrary. What we do know is that the fundamental law of supply and demand works: you increase the costs of wages (e.g., taxes), you decrease the tax base. In other words, restoring the Clinton tax hike would have adversely affected the tax base, effecting economic growth and federal revenues.

There are other talking points raised by the progressives, but basically there's a feeling of entitlement to the assets of higher-income workers. There are a number of things one should take into consideration: for example, households and businesses have been shoring up their balance sheets since the credit bubble burst. Consumers are less likely to spend when tax cuts are temporary in nature (e.g., the payroll tax holiday). The liberals are also failing to recognize the beneficial impact of low inflation since the economic tsunami and free trade helps stretch the dollars of lower-income workers.

My Greatest Hits: Jan 2012 Edition

As faithful readers know, I revamped the appearance of the blog; one of my motivations to changing the design was to get improved statistics on blog readership, including specific posts (presumably by clicks to links in Internet searches, emails, etc.)

[Just a brief aside here if you want to share my individual posts with others: I'll use the browser Chrome and the Mozilla email client Thunderbird for an example (specific instructions may differ by browser or email client). In my browser window/tab, I can find post links at the timestamp at the bottom of a post or in the archive section at the right of the blog: right-click and select "copy link address". Then in my Thunderbird compose window I would type and select the desired link text in the message body (e.g., the word 'here' in 'click here') and then select the link option in the right pulldown menu (box icon) at the end of the formatting bar (or select the 'insert' menu option and choose 'Link'; alternately, there's a CTRL-L hotkey). Right-click in the 'link location' box of the popup and select the paste option.]

I now get a listing of specific posts that presumably are accessed through links in Internet search engines, emails, etc. What I've noticed is that some days I can get more hits on a post I wrote nearly two years ago than my current post. As you know, since my daily posts have a multi-feature format (a daily quote, two or more commentaries or main features, periodic features (political potpourri, Sunday talk soup, etc.), recurring features (political humor), and musical interlude), so I can only speculate on what readers are responding to.

This is a new feature, primarily for the benefit of new or regular readers whom haven't read all of my previous 1125 posts over the past 3.5 years; I can only speculate on how or why the readers selected these posts, but every mid-month starting this month I'll list and briefly summarize the 5 most popular linked posts over the past month:

Miscellany: 4/05/10. The lead commentary is my rant on a Bob Schieffer (CBS News) FTN commentary related to a then recent New York Times story which, in my opinion, outrageously smeared Pope Benedict, attempting to link him (on very thin inferred "evidence") to institutional cover-ups involving a very few rogue priest child predators. I also wrote a commentary criticizing neo-conservatives whom seem to be spoiling for a confrontation with Iran.
Miscellany: 8/22/10. Most likely this post was selected for its unlikely contrarian, long and unique commentary against a unanimously passed Texas College Transparency Law. Before going further, let me say that I dislike pretentious, politically spun titles of legislation. I mean, for instance, if you were a legislator, would you like to explain to constituency why you voted against, say, the We Love Our Military Veterans Act? (I just made that up, but so help me if someone actually did independently come up with that title..) "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig..." If you are a regular reader, you know I like to mock this stuff: the name I invented for the so-called financial reform act is Dodd N. Frankenstein.

As a former professor, I have my own perspective: I am highly critical of how universities assess professor performance; most parents or students don't have the background to evaluate puffed-up vitae or syllabi or assess the comparability or quality of similar degree programs across universities, and it's questionable how useful target data are without proper context (for example, I wouldn't have the medical background as a patient to judge the competent performance of a surgeon, I don't know the reputation of a journal in the discipline or how to attribute journal article contribution among co-authors, etc.)

I also would want to know if there's a hidden agenda underlying the legislation. For example, if I was teaching a course on philosophy, history, or economics, I might want a student to read original writings of Karl Marx (among other figures, such as Adam Smith) for academic, not ideological reasons. The bottom line is, don't have unrealistic expectations about any resulting data and its utility. Do taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent? Of course.

Miscellany: 10/23/10. This post is written just before the mid-terms and has some relevant obsolete coverage; I suspect the real reason for recent access to this post has to do with my critique on Obama's "pick and choose" emphasis on small business. Ironically yesterday I wrote a related extended commentary: there are a variety of government subsidized loans, contract set-sides for women-owned/other small businesses, etc. It's somewhat amusing to see Democrats implement business-unfriendly policies (increased tax/regulatory footprint) on one hand and then push for increased funding for the SBA on the other.
Miscellany: 7/29/10. I suspect because I did a brief follow-up on a then recent post (see below) of the Shirley Sherrod kerfuffle. The lead segment involved a recent graduation of a niece. (This may be why her older sister recently wrote to me telling me she didn't want to be in my blog. I have only rarely mentioned relatives; I think in one case I announced the marriage of one of my nephews and I covered the golden anniversary of my maternal uncle's ordination.) Note that my political views are not necessarily shared by any relative.
Miscellany: 1/01/12 Happy New Year! The only post on my top 5 list since the mid-terms for some odd reason. I suspect it has to do with a reprinted subway art poster of maternal aphorisms, but I have an interesting commentary on Georgism and Elizabeth Warren.
A Bonus Selection: Miscellany: 7/24/10. This post oddly pops up in my traffic sources even before the blog design update. It probably has to do with a criticism I made over former government bureaucrat Shirley Sherrod's threat to sue Andrew Breitbart, a conservative website owner, over a video excerpt. Briefly, Shirley Sherrod got into trouble for giving a speech where at one point she vocalizes how she felt at the time being disrespected by a white farmer in financial trouble; she had the right connections to help the farmer, but she wasn't going to use them. Ms. Sherrod then goes on to explain how she later had second thoughts and did come to the aid of the farmer; she had come to the realization that the real issue was more class-based, that poor people had to stand together against the rich, powerful interests. Let's ignore the divisive class warfare rhetoric: what Ms. Sherrod admitted was that she didn't do her job, at least initially, to help out this farmer (whatever reason or race) is a breach of professionalism, period. What can you do when she openly admits to doing the wrong thing? Put the genie back in the bottle? I never really saw this as a race issue; it was bureaucratic arrogance. Now the mainstream media went to bat for Ms. Sherrod with the "discovery" of her redemptive act of helping the white farmer in question; the farmer and his wife announced support for Ms. Sherrod. The administration had initially terminated Ms. Sherrod--and keep in mind the whole video was available to the administration at the time of termination, but once the mainstream media made Andrew Breitbart the issue (for "distortion" in leaving out the redemptive side of the story), the administration backtracked and offered her job back. It would have been far more prudent for Ms. Sherrod to have simply said, "You know, initially I didn't feel like helping that farmer, but..." There was really no reason for her to say, "You know, I had the power in the situation and I could have helped him out, but he didn't treat me right." You can't do that. There's nothing in the law that says, "You don't have to do your job if the customer makes you feel bad." You file a complaint about the customer with your supervisor, but you do your job.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Styx,"Show Me the Way"