I have finally had my fill of Democrats continuing to misleadingly spin how their policies have been proactive and instrumental in helping the economy recover after the recession, triggered by the burst of a housing bubble and starting at the end of 2007; among other things, Obama has been claiming that his policies helped prevent a second Depression, a patently false and absurd statement: the critical elements that mitigated a greater economic collapse during and after the 2008 economic tsunami included the TARP legislation and the Fed's aggressive moves to pump liquidity into the banking system, which occurred during the final months of the Bush Administration.
Now, to some extent, we expect relief spending (e.g., unemployment compensation, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) to increase during a recession and government revenues to decrease, e.g., unemployed people don't pay income and payroll taxes. But the idea, that the federal government, through the stimulus plan was engaging in the morally hazardous step of bailing out state and local legislatures (without rainy day funds and merely postponing the day of reckoning of axing programs, employees, and unfunded, unrealistic retirement mandates--as if government employees are "more equal" than private-sector employees!), or picking winners (e.g., green energy and construction/engineering companies) in the economy, was instrumental in a broad-based economic recovery, is sheer fantasy. Where were the incentives to address the 30% of the economy not involving consumer spending? Why is it only until now that the Democrats are addressing things like payroll tax incentives for business? Why have they not been equally concerned over new energy or health care taxes or mandates or numerous changes (including new regulations) creating uncertainty in the economy, counterproductive from the standpoint of economic growth?
But what particularly irks me is how the President and his fellow progressives (this morning, Joe Sestak on Fox News) trying to point out the slowdown of job losses from a year ago as validation of their approach. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research:
Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades...The 2001 recession thus lasted eight months, which is somewhat less than the average duration of recessions since World War II. The postwar average, excluding the 2001 recession, is eleven months.What should be disturbing is the fact that leading US economists believe that the recession ended in the second quarter of last year. But wage earners are actually increasing their savings rate (which in other regards is a good thing), offsetting things like the modest stimulus bill tax cuts. When Obama and Sestak start bragging about the drop in unemployment, in only one month of the last 6 months of recovery have we seen jobs pick up, and the recent dip in unemployment does not reflect an increase in jobs (jobs actually decreased) but more unemployed people giving up in job searches and hence no longer counted in labor statistics. What's equally disturbing is the fact that the bump in fourth quarter GDP numbers seems to be more an artifact of inventory replenishment than due to an organic pickup in consumer demand.
What I'm really concerned about is the possibility that this year's numbers may be borrowing at the extent of next year's growth, given the fact of expiring tax rate cuts for job creators, business tax credits, etc. But let's face it: business will be reluctant to expand and hire until they see some improvement in things like consumer confidence. The best things Congress can do are to eliminate uncertainty, especially new progressive initiatives that can shock a fragile recovery, address unfunded mandate solvency issues (especially entitlements) and the deficit, get spending under control (consolidating federal operations and reducing federal payroll costs), and encourage business growth, e.g., by lowering and simplifying business taxes, minimizing reporting and other mandates
The Mt. Vernon Statement
What's really interesting is the fact that we conservatives have or are in process of considering 3 different documents over the last several weeks: the Manhattan Declaration, a Christian-based statement of principles, consisting of respect for the sanctity of life, defending the traditional definition of marriage, and religious liberty; the Mount Vernon Statement, which is a fusion of economic, social, and national security conservative principles, which some consider an update of the nearly 50-year-old Sharon (CN) Statement, and a Tea Party-sponsored update of the 1994 Contract With America, called the Contract From America. (I have signed the first two documents; at present, the Tea Party organizers are seeking to determine grassroots-based set of 10 policy principles and will ask national legislator candidates from both paraties to address these concerns.)
I see these efforts as complementary; each of the approaches has certain limitations, and a comprehensive comparison is beyond the scope of this post. There are issues with the 3 approaches. For example, with respect to the Manhattan Declaration, I would like to have seen a more broad-based, trans-religious statement regarding faith and moral autonomy and responsibility and their relationship with other dimensions of liberty. (For example, social programs which reinforce indefinite dependence of the individual on the government do not support the self-actualization of the individual, while others may use tax-supported government programs (like Dickens' Scrooge) as doing their fair share for their neighbors.) I also think that more specific policy objectives would be helpful; there are a few obvious ones (e.g., abortion, defending traditional marriage, etc.) Of course, there are the issues regarding the dubious morality of leaving the next generation with an unmanageable debt and depleted resources, not to mention affirming the human rights of oppressed groups in other countries (e.g., genocide and human trafficking) in our foreign policy.
With respect to the Contract From America, I would like to see more emphasis on process than specific policies, particularly given the very process of negotiation with the opposition over political issues is a conservative principle. I'm also concerned with anything suggesting a litmus test for political candidates or unspecified priorities of policy alternatives. We also need to flesh out specific conservative policy ideas that are sufficiently scalable for the problem; for example, if we have a 50% high school dropout rate in certain urban centers, it's going to take more than opening a couple of charter schools in the area.
I think one of the issues that we conservatives need to flesh out is the practical context of limited government; this is similar to the abstract conceptualization I had with the 2008 posturing of "change" and "maverick reformist" teams, because these are RELATIVE process-oriented concepts, not substantive, i.e., change what? reform what? How many people who voted for Obama in 2008 realized that "change" meant they were voting for a $1.4T deficit and a partisan obsession with climate change and an ill-defined health care reform while the unemployment rate would rise almost 40%? I just want to give a hint of my approach here: We need to set some higher-order objectives, e.g., to reduce federal spending to historical norms as a percentage of GDP, streamline government operations, including downsizing and/or privatizing nonessential government services, expanding the markets for American goods and services by new free trade agreements (including a Western Hemisphere trade zone) and increasing the domestic production market share of energy consumption.
The Mt. Vernon Statement focuses more on guiding principles and goals than specific policy objectives; a principal limitation of this approach is establishing its context-specific legislative mandate. I find the revised commitment to the principles in the Sharon Statement compelling, particularly given qualitative jumps in entitlements with the intervening Great Society entitlements and government scope creep:
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
Quote of the Day
- It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
- It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
- It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
- It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
- It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting closer to the top yourself. - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
Political Cartoon
Chip Bok mocks Deputy Security Advisor on Counterterrorism John Brennan, whom unconscionably attempted to intimidate criticism of unsatisfactory Obama Administration performance and policies, particularly with respect to the downgrade of terrorism to merely criminal activity. You see, the Obama Administration is not in favor of waterboarding, but they are for brainwashing.
Musical Interlude: Songs of Remembrance
Styx, "Dear John"
Beth Nielsen Chapman, "Sand and Water"
Josh Groban, "To Where You Are"
