In some respects, gadflies can serve a valuable service. When I was on the UWM faculty, one of my MIS colleagues begged off assignment to the MBA Program Admissions Committee, and I was asked to replace her. (Faculty members have service requirements in addition to teaching and research responsibilities.) The MBA program had certain automatic acceptance criteria (in particular, GMAT scores and undergraduate major GPA). We handled the exceptions, e.g., candidates whom met just one of the primary criteria or otherwise were unusually qualified. A noteworthy example was an applicant with a PhD from the University of British Columbia. Indignant that the university required him to take the GMAT, he basically just blew off the exam. We approved his acceptance (although he clearly needed an attitude adjustment). We had some informal fallback criteria we would use, and in most cases I would vote with the majority. But there were probably at least a dozen votes where I was the sole dissenting vote. I was trying to be scrupulously fair, and these cases were comparable to earlier cases where the applicant had been turned down. I don't mind being the lone wolf over matters of conscience.
But I also pride myself as a pragmatic problem solver. It's sometimes difficult to get the point across, because it can come across like Clinton's arcane pretentious sophistry, e.g., "it depends on the meaning of the word 'is' is", or Kerry's tortuous nuances, e.g., "I voted for [the bill] before I voted against it." But let's take social security and Bush's position of enabling younger workers more control over a portion of their mandatory contributions, one of 3 recommendations made by an earlier bipartisan commission. It was very clear that the Democrats were not going to go along with this solution and it was dead on arrival. I personally agree on principle that there is moral hazard in terms of people expecting the government to finance their retirements: where's their incentive to save for their retirement? If you recall, the Democrats and AARP at the time argued against the proposal because it essentially caused a funding issue involving the pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme of the current entitlement system. Currently any net contribution surplus is invested in captive T-bill funding of the federal operations deficit; any net distribution requires selling or redeeming reserve T-bills--not to mention the fact that the government can't count on social security reserves funding part of its operations deficit.
I've outlined a number of steps I would consider in reforming social security, in particular more actuarial sound distributions, postponing retirement eligibility, modifying the basis of payment increases, and a sustainable trust reserve including increasing diversification of the trust reserve. What I consider a nonstarter is backdoor attempts by progressives to use social security reform to raise income tax rates for higher-income workers, and I have concerns about the fairness of means-testing a defined contribution program. It's like paying your life insurance premiums faithfully all your life, only for the insurance company to tell your heirs they can't collect because they don't need the money. What we have to have is a concept of shared sacrifice, not punishing success by having some people pay more into a system that doesn't benefit them. I understand I'm questioning a possible concession that House Minority Leader John Boehner floated.
But I posture myself as more as a pragmatic conservative, in the mold of Ronald Reagan, whom, despite unimpeachable credentials, made concessions on social security, taxes, and immigration. In contrast, the media conservatives went ballistic on George H.W. Bush on a tax compromise (no doubt they would have preferred a President Dukakis...) and did everything they could to try to keep the 2008 GOP nomination out of McCain's hands for his part in campaign finance, immigration and the Bush taxes. The fact of the matter is that Reagan and G.H.W. Bush had to deal with a Democratic-controlled House and/or Senate.
During the recent primaries/runoffs in Nevada and South Carolina, Republicans nominated two strong Republican women, Sharron Angle and Nikki Haley, to run against US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and to succeed the incumbent governor respectively. I, of course, am endorsing both candidates. (That, and $5, will get them a cup of coffee at their local Starbucks.) Both are currently leading in the polls, but have a reputation for bucking their state legislative party leadership. The always excellent George F. Will has written his current column about Angle, including a number of "41-to-Angle" votes (including a vote against seat belts on school buses) and her role models being the ideological Congressional GOP gadflies Michele Bachmann (MN), Tom Coburn (OK), and Jim DeMint (SC). Nikki Haley has been an ally of controversial retiring Governor Mark Sanford against the fellow Republican legislative leadership.
The problem is that both women are aspiring to high-profile positions with fairly limited resumes of legislative accomplishments. This leaves them vulnerable to attacks as ineffectual outsiders. Harry Reid thinks that Nevada voters will overlook 14% unemployment to keep Nevada's most prominent politician in his powerful position as Senate Majority Leader over a female Don Quixote. It is critical that Sharron Angle not let herself be marginalized as an ineffectual legislator; she needs to focus less on radicalized restructuring and more on forging a common sense consensus to stopping growth of the federal government and national debt. After all, no matter what happens this fall, President Obama will yield a veto and enough votes in one or both houses of Congress to sustain his veto. She needs to reinforce the point that what Harry Reid has been doing is not helping the average citizen of Nevada, but aiding and abetting the greatest intergenerational theft in world history and engaging in some of the most corrupt behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing over the past 2 generations. She needs to remind people that unlike Harry Reid, she's not a career politician but ran for office because of meddling legislative laws getting in the way of home schooling her child. She should then make Harry Reid eat each and every page of convoluted multi-thousand page laws enacted under his leadership.
Nikki Haley needs to promote her government reform message (in particular, transparency and term limits), to fight for a pro-business growth agenda, to reject the progressive federal agenda of tax, spend and regulate, and to streamline state government and education.
Turkish Demands for Israeli Apology: Thumbs Down
The follow-up to the incident of the "Turkish aid" ship to Gaza remains an impasse between former regional allies Israel and Turkey, with Turkey demanding an apology for the deaths of its "peace activists" or Israel's acceptance of an "impartial" international inquiry into the incident. (Israeli soldiers, boarding the vessel being detained by Israel's blockade, were savagely attacked and resorted to deadly force in self-defense after paintball weapons proved ineffective against the assault.) The video evidence of the assault on Israeli soldiers is indisputable. No doubt the Turkish Muslim government feels emboldened by the unsurprising knee-jerk anti-Israel diplomatic groupthink in the aftermath of the incident, but Israel should stand her ground. I am pleased to see that Israel on Monday had loosened many restrictions on consumer goods and allows construction materials under supervision of international aid agencies.
SCOTUS: Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Not Retire During Obama's Tenure: Thumbs Up
There's an interesting blurb in today's New York Daily News that Justice Kennedy, the current swing vote on the Court, in the aftermath of Obama's clearly ideological nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, has no intention of letting the President nominate his own successor.
TSA Employees Cannot Read My Blog
The CIO assistant administrator of the Transportation Security Administration,
I wonder if this new policy also bars access to the White House
Here's a radical idea: restrict government-paid Internet usage to specific job-related reasons (Why listen to me? After all, I'm just a former MIS professor...) I still remember being interrupted at a government facility just before the 2004 election, with progressive civil servants in an adjacent cubicle playing and replaying the latest JibJab cartoon...
Political Cartoon
Steve Kelley knows it's no big deal Elena Kagan has never made a judicial decision; after all, Barack Obama had never made an executive decision. Now if the Dems could only find a progressive legislative candidate whom never cast a vote.... That would make for a progressive hat trick...
Quote of the Day
For the skeptic there remains only one consolation: if there should be such a thing as superhuman law it is administered with subhuman inefficiency.
Eric Ambler
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1986
Peter Cetera, "Glory of Love"
The Moody Blues, "Your Wildest Dreams" (one of the best songs ever written)
Mr Mister, "Kyrie"
Steve Winwood, "Higher Love"
Eddie Money, "Take Me Home Tonight (Be My Little Baby)" (one of the greatest rock songs and performances ever! I love the story where Ronnie rebuffed Eddie on how to sing "be my little baby"...)
