A minimalist approach to essential, transparent, accountable, flat, adaptable, responsive, solution-based government, rooted in virtuous individual autonomy, traditional values and free markets, with a bias towards reduction of government functionality, cost and scope
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.
Fred Allen
The Public Pension Bubble
In 2009, according to the Census Bureau, the median household income was $50,221. Now, according to Fortune, we have retired or former public servants making 6-digits in retirement income for the rest of their lives: from a 40-year-old former NYC cop making $100K for the rest of his life at the expense of New York taxpayers to multiple California retired city managers and fire chief at over $250K per year for the rest of their lives as well.
The issue, of course, is these Ponzi schemes are going to end badly, but don't expect restraint from government unions. We are going to see local and state budget pension costs projected to rise from up to a third of the budget to as high as 85%. Are you kidding me? We are going to put hiring freezes, cut government services, etc.--just so retired civil servants can take luxury cruises around the world and eat in expensive restaurants? There is nothing comparable in the private sector. (Granted, some corporate executives get very lucrative compensation packages.)
It may sound like I'm practicing the Politics of Envy, but that really isn't the case (even though I've never had a single penny of vested employer contributions). I've had to grow my own retirement assets the old-fashioned way--by investing. Raising taxes to pay an unsustainable benefit for fat cat retirees is a job killer. I think the Tea Party next needs to look more at local and state issues--in particular, unconscionable pensions.
Political Potpourri
Mike Castle, the all-but-elected GOP candidate to convert Joe Biden's old Senate seat but found himself topped in the end by an unlikely, unqualified Christine O'Donnell, had been exploring a write-in candidacy, which I personally supported, but by state law he had to make a decision to declare by today. He bowed out formally last night. I normally respect Scott Rasmussen (in fact, I subscribe to one of his email newsletters), but his poll showing a 3-way race being Coons 49, O'Donnell 40 and Castle 5 is preposterous and delusional. According to Rasmussen, nearly all the Castle voters would go to Coons. Now write-in's are notoriously difficult to assess, but given Ms. O'Donnell's collapse as a serious candidate after the masturbation/witchcraft kerfuffle and the fact that Castle pulled in almost half the vote even before that, but none of the Republicans who had voted for Castle for decades would abandon O'Donnell? And given the fact that Coons was routinely losing to Castle by the mid-teens or more before O'Donnell's upset, clearly the difference between Coons and O'Donnell reflects many Castle supporters. Why would the majority of independents, moderates, and more mainstream GOP voters who were supporting Castle just a month ago drop to a mere 5%? Did Coons suddenly find a message that connects in an election which looks bleak for all other Democrats? Of course not.
Indeed, incumbent Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who is barely trailing in a recent CNN poll as a write-in candidate, against GOP nominee Joe Miller, doesn't have Mike Castle's decades of experience as a former governor and incumbent at-large Congressman, but in fact was initially appointed to fill her father's Senate seat. Unlike Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller is a serious candidate, a former Yale Law School graduate and US Magistrate Judge. Now, personally, I don't think Mike Castle's heart was ever really in the race. In fact, he was talking retirement as a Congressman last year.
The bombshell announcement that Meg Whitman (R-CA) allegedly knowingly hired an illegal alien as a maid left me with a sinking feeling. What is it about housekeepers and inconvenient truths? Remember how Janet Reno was Clinton's third choice as attorney general? Ms. Nicky Diaz Santillan, when she was hired in 2000, presented a valid driver's license and a social security card and signed a statement she was a lawful permanent resident. The "proof" that Whitman and her husband "knew" she was an alien? They got a letter from the Social Security Administration in 2003, suggesting there was a problem with the social security number Ms. Santillan provided; in fact, the letter did not make a finding of Ms. Santillan's legal status, and Ms. Santillan never confessed her real status until years later.
Overall, the House race looks 207-190 GOP with 38 tossups (218 needed to take control). The Senate is 48-46 with 6 tossups. The Senate sees Washington and Connecticut drop from lean Democrat to tossup, and Wisconsin (a Democratic seat) go to "lean GOP" (while Boxer has recovered enough to push the seat to "lean Democrat"). I think these numbers are really conservative. While Boxer has gotten up to a 7% advantage, a lot of these polls show Boxer at well below 50% with a lot of undecided. Undecideds usually break against the incumbent.
Political Humor
"President Obama has written a children's book. Why not? He's got nothing else on his plate." –David Letterman
[Well, Dave, it's not like he can play golf in all his remaining vacations this year... He gets up, does a full half-hour of Bush-bashing calisthenics, and still has some time left before breakfast. He just pretends kids are little voters, he starts talking about his record, and presto! He has a best-seller on the fiction list...
It's his third autobiography; it focuses on his 2008 campaign promises and is called My Fairy Tales.]
"The United Nations is appointing an official space alien greeter to meet and greet any aliens that may visit Earth in the future. Well, how does this make Mexican people coming to America feel?" –Jay Leno
[Barack Obama wants to be buzzed just as soon the greeter arrives with the alien to meet her leader.
Attorney General Eric Holder is concerned about higher intelligence profiling in the Arizona Immigration Law. If Arizona lawmen pull over a flying saucer for speeding in its airspace, and asks the alien for his papers, Mr. Holder is concerned they were really motivated to pull him over because of his green skin color.
Not to be outdone, the Obama Administration has nominated William Shatner as its official space alien greeter, citing to Congress his considerable experience in dealing with the Romulans.]
I love those who yearn for the impossible.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
House Bill 554 (Raising Tariffs on Chinese Goods) Passes 348-79: BOTH Thumbs Way DOWN!
I swear. Sometimes I think after we grow up, we find the world is more like an elementary schoolyard. We have seen both sides playing a game of chicken. Literally. The US decision to limit Chinese cooked chicken items for health concerns was rejected by the World Trade Organization yesterday. The Chinese have doubled duties on imported US chicken, charging the US of dumping products in an unfair manner hurting domestic producers. Am I going to have to separate you two? Now go stand in your respective corners until you can learn to play nice....
So now, mostly in terms of a show vote (because the bill likely will not survive the Senate), the House decided to empower Obama with the power to greatly increase tariffs on Chinese goods, in retaliation for what they see as Chinese manipulation of currency to protect their markets.
There are so many things wrong with this approach, it's difficult to know where to start. For one thing, the American economy benefits from heavy Chinese investment in US Treasury notes. With a more limited market, the US might have to raise interest rates to attract buyers. Higher rates, higher interest expenses, lower profits, stock price slips and businesses look for ways to cut expenses--and for many businesses, the cost of labor is material and relevant. So, congratulations--in the effort to "save" American jobs, you throw the country into a job-killing recession. Second, China has been diversifying its customer base, particularly in the Asian region, which affects America's influence. Third, China is one of the largest importers of American goods and services; retaliatory strikes affect American businesses and jobs.
But there are other compelling arguments as well. Let me illustrate the point using the heavily protected sugar industry. Stephen Haley notes that the government supports artificially high prices, relative to global products, through tariff-rate import quotas and gimmick government loans where the USDA assumes the risk of declining sugar prices. But more importantly, producers of sugar-based products are captive buyers of sky-high sugar, while, say, their foreign competitors are at a competitive advantage. The food operations, of course, attempt to compete by opening foreign facilities, so they can gain access to sugar at globally competitive prices. (Can you hear the protectionists now?) But this is typical Big Government Knows Best; what's important, in the eyes of these misguided politicians and bureaucrats, is the relative small number of domestic producers and their workers whom cannot compete outside the US--not the millions of sugar-based product consumers whom find themselves taxed by the sugar price premium relative to the globally competitive price, with less money to save or purchase other goods and services.
The faithful reader knows I sometimes mark up text to convey the "real meaning" of some pretentious bill title or government office; Mark Perry does the same thing, making an argument analogous to the one I just made, suitably entitled "Why the Hell Do We Care If China Manipulates Its Currency in Our Favor?"
Scott Grannis makes a compelling argument, noting that if the yuan was pegged artificially low, the result would almost certainly be inflationary; he notes, in fact, that the yuan has appreciated by nearly 25% over the last 16 years while maintaining an even lower inflation rate than the US.
Finally, China shows that it is capable of playing hardball when it wants to, the most prominent example being China's recent response to a territorial dispute with Japan by halting shipments of rare earth minerals, a devastating blow to Japan's high tech industry. Rare earths are used in products like fighter jets, computers, wind turbines, etc. More importantly, China produces 97%; the last American producer, Molycorp, shuttered its operations 8 years ago. There seems to be a conscious decision to use its dominant supply of rare earth minerals as incentives for foreign producers to open facilities in China in order to get access.
I understand why populist politicians want to make China a whipping boy given a current tough economic environment. But there's also widespread ignorance about the economy in the Democrats' ill-considered pitch to focus on manufacturing, thinking that the private sector can't possibly make as efficient decisions as professional politicians whom have never met a payroll. What has changed is the nature and extent of manufacturing; maybe we no longer produce commodity shoes but we produce higher-profit, more advanced products with fewer workers. And you have to wonder why, when Democrats complain about household income stagnating, why the Democrats are pushing manufacturing instead of the service industries, where wages are actually higher...
Bill Gates' daddy is behind an initiative to introduce an income tax for Obama's vision of rich people (i.e., the job creator class). Washington is one of the minority of states (like Texas and Florida) which do not have a state income tax. What is utterly amazing is the clueless nature of progressives whom think they are morally entitled to someone else's money to spend on their own agenda. For example, you will always find some audacious liberal whom will try to shame another for his hard-won income, arguing that he or she will never feel it. It reminds me of during the Democratic race to the Presidential nomination in 2008 when all the candidates were nearly giddy with excitement over how they would spend the new Clintonian tax hike on the wealthy. There is something intrinsically dishonorable about demanding sacrifice of another person or family...
My position is that the tax burden should be shared; the Politics of Envy is never a foundation for sound public policy.
In the meanwhile, I leave it to progressives to contemplate the meaning of the phrase "grow some funk of your own":
Political Humor
"President Obama said he plans on training 10,000 new math and science teachers. How about teaching math to that economic team of his?" –Jay Leno
[Albert Einstein once said, "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." Obama has a qualification requirement for prospective teachers: they must complete their own tax return. It's a tough test; just ask Tim Geithner.]
Quote from the IRS website: “People who complain about taxes can be divided into two classes: men and women.”— Unknown.
[I see I need to educate the IRS about class warfare. The two classes are: the top 2% whom pay taxes, and the liberal Democrats whom demand that they pay more.]
Musical Interlude: The "British Invasion" 1960's Series
We must be the change we wish to see in the world.
Mahatma Gandhi
Courtesy of Rolling Stone
Some accompanying musical inspiration:
TARP 2.0: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain...
It's so easy to succumb to the irresistible pull of Obama Derangement Syndrome; I've fended off the crackpot stuff like Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, the birth certificate, his purported socialism, the allegation that he is Muslim, etc., but it's Obama's indisputable, demonstrable lack of civility and class that really annoys me. Take this gem after signing the unconscionable TARP 2.0: Small Business Edition:
I regret that this was blocked for months by the Republican minority. And that needlessly delayed this relief.
Yes, this is the long-awaited domestic political sequel to last year's sell-out international Obama Apology Tour. Now personally, I don't care about the President's contemptible, unprofessional, boorish behavior (other than the fact that he is setting a bad example for our nation's young people). The non-stop Bush-bashing, scapegoating, straw men arguments, and finger-pointing are in stark contrast to Obama's genteel predecessor, George W. Bush, whom shrugged off incessant crass personal attacks with good cheer. Who does Obama think he's fooling with his perpetual political spin and campaign mode? This country has been over-saturated with Obama (he never learned the life lesson that "less is more"). I find myself increasingly impatient.
Does Obama have a clue as to how people respond to his petty behavior? Even football players are taught not to engage in unsportsmanlike behavior after scoring a touchdown or winning a game. You don't trash-talk the other guys. There's no honor in beating up on an opponent after the match is over. The bullying is pointless and an unnecessary provocation that might come back to bite Obama--say, for instance, if the GOP takes control of the House this election. To me, when the President does this, it's because he doesn't have any point of substance to make, so he engages in condescending, judgmental rhetoric.
I've mentioned multiple times why the Republicans opposed Baby TARP. There is a resistance of conservatives to government meddling: we know there are strings that come with federal dollars. Interestingly enough, this came up recently during the Kagan hearings, because the Harvard faculty wanted to exclude military recruiters from campus while the university accepted federal dollars for various programs. At the core of the $42B bill is $30B of purchases in dividend-paying stock where select community banks will pay a lower dividend payment if they lend to the "right type" of customers (say, certain small businesses). Who decides the "right type" of customer? The government, of course. Now since Katy Perry isn't appearing with the Muppets, let me teach the young kids a lesson: can you spell C-R-O-N-Y C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M? Banks are supposed to make loans based on intrinsic considerations of returns and risks, not on having the politically correct right type of customer or the necessary connections in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
Larry Kudlow wrote a great column for RealClearMarket, and I just wanted to underscore a couple of relevant points he made:
According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), only 4 percent of small-business owners surveyed in August cited a lack of financing as their top business problem. And a full 91 percent say all their credit needs are met....
Now, the Obama plan includes some tiny targeted tax cuts for capital gains and faster business depreciation. But why not universalize those ideas for all businesses on a permanent basis, instead of just small-ball targeting? If you believe those investment-related tax cuts will work for a year for small businesses, why not believe they will work permanently for all businesses? Just lower the cost of capital and raise the investment return permanently to reignite sagging animal spirits in the economy. Then let markets -- not government planners -- make the final decisions.
Let me see...what conservative blogger has been constantly pushing for BROAD-BASED relief, not the partisan government picking winners and losers.... The best way to get 15 million people back to work is to provide stimulus across big businesses and small--not just those opportunities coincidentally aligned with Democratic special interests, e.g., teachers, auto workers, green energy, etc.
So Obama has been fighting for a measure to acquire partial ownership in banks (roughly 75% of the amount of the money in the bill) even though only 1 in 20 small businesses can't obtain the financing they need... Talk about pushing on a string... And only $12B for tiny tax breaks, etc.
More Politically Correct Misleading Statistics
Personally, I don't worry about what the politically correct establishment thinks about my opinions: will they call me a misogynist, a racist, and a homophobe? I don't really care what some judgmental elitist thinks about me. But I dislike it when progressives intentionally use misleading or even false statistics.
I don't need lectures about the contributions of professional women in today's society; three of my beautiful sisters have professional careers as a registered nurse, a librarian, and a CPA. Two of my nieces are registered nurses and another is a teacher. (I once made a mistake of showing the guys in the dorms pictures of my sisters; one of the guys complimented the photo of my sister and then looked at me and said, "What the hell happened to you, man?")
Diana Furchtgott-Roth has an interesting post on The Hill: "Gender Pay Gap is a Myth". She disputes the phony 77-cents-on-the-male-dollar statistics and summarizes accordingly:
When differences in hours worked, time in the workforce, education, or choice of vocation are considered, many academic studies show that women make around 94 percent of what men make. The remaining six cents are due to unexplained variables, one of which might be discrimination.
Diana also points out that women have a significantly lower unemployment rate than men and earn nearly 60% of bachelor's and Master's degrees issued. She spends the rest of the post debunking the "Paycheck Fairness Act", noting the GAO presented their study, concluding "Our analysis neither confirms nor refutes the presence of discriminatory practices." It is very difficult to prove a negative; for example, how do you prove you are unemployed? Obviously the burden of proof is on those rationalizing the Employment Act for Feminist Lawyers Paycheck Fairness Act. Thumbs DOWN!
Political Humor
"House Minority Leader John Boehner says he has never been in a tanning bed and that he gets his dark complexion from his mother. Either he's lying or Snooki's a lot older than she's telling us. " –Jimmy Fallon
[Well, Boehner had seen in Obama's autobiography where Obama wrote that he has never been in a tanning bed and that he got his dark complexion from his father.]
"These Tea Party groups are very conservative. In fact, 58 percent of Tea Party members now believe Joe Biden is a Muslim." –Jay Leno
[The confusion is understandable; Joe Biden has been seen praying 5 times daily as the mid-term elections approach.]
Musical Interlude: The "British Invasion" of the 1960's Series
The young do not know enough to be prudent, and therefore they attempt the impossible -- and achieve it, generation after generation.
Pearl S. Buck
An Original Quote
"Your future is only limited if you don't think big enough."
[From an email I wrote to one of my nephews. An Eagle Scout, he is an engineering major at a major state university and is the drum major for its outstanding marching band.]
We All Remember Dr. J, but Dr. Shaj?
I loved baseball and football growing up, but I had a decent jump shot and would shoot in a gym or outside hoop every chance I got. Just shooting around, I once hit 6 half-court shots in a row: no lie, there were witnesses. I was ready to stop after hitting my first (finishing on a high note), but the guys kept goading me on, and I had an unbelievable hot hand, nothing but net each time.
I went out for my junior high team in Salina, Kansas, and made it through multiple cuts. I'll never forget hitting a final jumper cutting across the court around the circle on a dead run; the coach whistled the practice over, came over, put his arm around me and said the one thing you never want to hear: I was cut. I remember looking at some of the guys still on the squad, thinking how unfair it seemed, because I thought I had better skills. But they had one big advantage: coaches love to say that you can't teach height. (I wasn't that short, but even some of the junior high female basketball players were close to 6 feet tall.)
While I was an undergraduate at OLL, the San Antonio Spurs ABA franchise began in earnest. We got a number of game tickets for a song. It was a blast--the red, white and blue ball, the 3-point shot (at that time a radical innovation), etc. I remember the visiting Julius "Dr. J" Erving, with a big Afro, flying down the court after a steal and nailing the last-second winning jumper with someone's hand in his face.
I have a lot of respect for entertainers like Bill Cosby getting their doctorates. So arguably the most dominant big man in the history of the game, Shaquille O'Neal, is pursuing a doctorate in Human Resource Development at Barry University. I love the fact that he's setting a good example for basketball-loving kids everywhere....
Hell Freezes Over: I Agree With Obama On Something
Unbelievably, as the United States has transformed its economy from its agrarian roots to a diversified one, evolving towards a knowledge-based economy, its educational system has not kept pace. I do not underestimate resistance to change (I have a lifetime of career scars to prove it), but in fact most of our competitors in the first-tier economies have much longer, efficient, and arguably more effective K-12 school years.
the United States doesn't owe (and can't afford to give) mediocre teachers a living
we particularly need to emphasize the hiring of qualified math, science, technology and engineering teachers
Any faithful reader knows what I think of teacher unions, so I'm sure you must know teacher reactions to the idea of a longer school year... Here's a hint of teachers talking to their union reps:
Now just in case you think I stopped by the White House to drink some Kool Aid, let me raise some points the President and I probably disagree on (I'm listing my preferences):
elimination of teacher tenure: good teachers don't need protection
downscaling the federal role in education: I think the government is part of the problem, not the solution
breakup of public education and union monopolies and at minimum, partial privitization
multiple indicator criteria of teaching effectiveness, with more emphasis on objective measures of student learning; elimination of "good old boy" network teacher evaluations
market-based teacher compensation
Waiting for Superman?
I love the show Smallville (final season) and its topical theme song (in fact, I bought the soundtrack just for the single):
My personal belief, of course, is that the very title implies that we ourselves are not responsible for our own destiny, that we have unrealistic expectations of some altruistic soul to come and save us from ourselves. Everybody shares responsibilities, including those parents not holding their kids responsible for going to school and for their performance in school.
I have not seen the film by Davis Guggenheim (see a movie trailer below), but I saw a quick clip of Michelle Rhee, whom is one of my favorite education reformers. (She does not necessarily agree with my points of view.) Adrian Fenty, Washington DC's brave mayor whom stood up to the teacher unions, was recently defeated by a union crony, Vincent Gray, which means Rhee's days are numbered. Rhee recently announced she was firing 241 unsatisfactory teachers, and the union, of course, vows to fight the firing of each and every one of those incompetent teachers.
Political Humor
There's a new opera about Bill Clinton. I don't know how it ends, but I bet it isn't with the fat lady singing. - Craig Ferguson
[No, but Vernon Jordan heard about the show and then got her some auditions on Broadway.]
Katy Perry sang her version of "Hot N Cold" for Sesame Street, but the show's producers decided her bustier was too revealing and pulled the segment before it aired. Too bad, no doubt millions of kids would have never forgotten "B is for Boobjob." - Janice Hough
[No, "D is for D-cup". I'm not saying that the puppets got fresh, but Katy told Elmo to stop tickling her. I don't know much about Katy Perry (I think she's a pop singer), but I saw her cleavage on a recent episode of Extreme Makeover Home Edition. I personally admire voluptuous young women (at least 18 years old), but there's a time and a place...]
Musical Interlude: The American Songbook. This is the final segment in this series. We have just barely touched the full American songbook, and I'll likely do follow-up series in the future, especially focusing on specific writers (e.g., Gershwin or Cole Porter) or artists. The next series features songs from the pop "British invasion" of the 1960's.
Let me give a hint: Michael Bloomberg, the Independent Mayor of New York City, would have instant credibility as a 3-term mayor of America's largest city and as a successful businessman. If I was a betting man and saw the Tea Party Express, say, force an ideologically right GOP ticket in 2012, I think Bloomberg takes a shot as a fiscal conservative, socially moderate third way.
In Washington, a nonprofit group called No Labels is forming with the goal of bringing Republicans and Democrats together; echoing tea party rhetoric, it terms itself a "citizens movement" and decries "the tyranny of hyperpartisanship."
Bloomberg began to campaign on behalf of others after tea party activist Christine O'Donnell beat moderate Republican Rep. Michael N. Castle, a Bloomberg favorite, in Delaware's Republican Senate primary this month.
James Oliphant notes that Bloomberg is supporting former "RINO" (Republican in Name Only, i.e., moderate) Lincoln Chafee, running an independent bid for governor from Rhode Island, Republican Senate hopeful Mark Kirk (R-IL) and gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman (R-CA), and (unfortunately) Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Colorado appointee Michael Bennett (D-CO). I firmly disagree with the last two choices; I certainly don't see Harry Reid, the father of the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, and the Louisiana Purchase during the infamous health care debacle, the man whom repeatedly has refused to allow Republicans more amendments for floor votes, as a moderate. I think it really has more to do with Tea Party-backed Sharron Angle and Ken Buck sniping out more pragmatic, electable mainstream Republicans, Sue Lowden and Jane Norton. I have had mixed feelings about the Tea Party candidates; Marco Rubio and Joe Miller are legitimate political candidates, and Rand Paul has managed to bounce back from an unbelievably stupid gaffe by, of all things, debating political philosophy underlying the 1964 Civil Rights Act. When we are looking at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, why would Rand Paul want to reopen debate on a nearly 50-year-old law? All it does is feed into Democratic talking points, desperately trying to energize their base after throwing all the best progressive ideas at the Great Recession and coming up with little to show for it....
The media conservatives (especially Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity) are ecstatic at the sniping down of their much-despised "RINO's"; they did literally everything in their power to snipe McCain's resurgent candidacy in the winter of 2007-2008. However, distrust of the status quo is not ideologically pure; the Democrats and independents who participated in Tea Party events were not looking for people like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell. The fact that GOP and Democrats both have high negatives in the polls should be a clue; the voters are tired of how parties are ignoring their will (Obama and the Democrats really lost middle America when they went for broke on the health care bill after Scott Brown was elected as the 41st vote last January). They want the parties to come together to resolve serious problems; I'm sure that everyone is willing to pay his fair share of the burden, even if it means modest tax increases, provided that Congress shows it's serious about getting its fiscal house in order. They understand that an even worse bubble than the stock market and housing bubble is the Big Government bubble; the related national debt bubble and insolvency of the twin entitlements become worse each time one Congress punts serious problems to the next.
I'm very troubled by the Tea Party Express, although I think that the GOP leadership will have no choice but to protect the integrity of its nomination processes if fringe candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell lose what were all but guaranteed GOP turnover seats. (The latest polls show Reid beginning to pull away from Angle, and O'Donnell is at least 15 points behind.)
Let's not forget the big prize--which is the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012. The last thing we need is, say, the Tea Party Express trying to take out Mitt Romney as a Massachusetts RINO and force through the nomination of a fringe candidate like Sarah Palin whom has ZERO chance against Obama. (Oh, I've seen the polls showing even Sarah Palin pulling up with Obama as his recent low point in the polls. But these polls are meaningless, only serving as a proxy protest vote against Obama, not for Palin. Don't forget, during the 1981-82 recession following Volcker's 21% interest rate, Reagan's popularity was down, but he recovered in time to win a landslide against Mondale. There is no doubt that Palin has high popularity with the base, although I'm among the 21% or so of conservatives whom unconditionally reject her under any circumstances. Palin's problem has more to do with independents and moderates, and I don't see her overcoming net unfavorable ratings with those groups.)
Sunday Talk Soup
I don't know if Comcast, which is in the process of acquiring NBC from GE, is going to do anything to reverse the liberal mainstream orientation of the news division--wouldn't it be interesting to see a more balanced news perspective? Oh, I'm sure NBC News and Brian Williams are in a state of denial; it often manifests itself in more subtle ways, like on this morning's Meet the Press.
If there is anything else worse than my having to see and hear a progressive Kool-Aid drinking Maryland progressive Democrat in the local media, it's having to see one on national television. Congressman Chris Van Hollen was on this morning. It like watching Robert Gibbs going to the two-minute offense with no timeouts late in the ballgame: how many talking points can you fit in before David Gregory's hair needs to be brushed again? David Gregory sat silently by, no doubt in his mind more interested in formulating another gotcha question for a token GOP appearance by Mike Pence (R-IN), recently winning a straw Presidential poll at a values conference, the patently absurdity of blaming the free enterprise system for the economic tsunami, not the government-sponsored duopoly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for buying and repackaging gimmick mortgage notes, not the Federal Reserve, auditors, credit raters, the SEC, state banking regulators, etc. No, it was a conspiracy headed by that wily George W. Bush; never the mind that pesky fact that he backed GSE reform at the beginning of his second term. We need a new consumer protection agency because obviously all these people buying houses with virtually no savings to put down on a house at the top of the housing bubble really thought they were buying big-screen TV's... No, it wasn't the failure (shudder) of Big Government in aiding and abetting an unsustainable housing bubble. In Van Hollen's world view, the failure of the multiple levels of regulators was simply a sign from God to bring more incompetent, irresponsible, unaccountable government bureaucrats into the picture.
I will make one point (because I'm tired of hearing Obama, Van Hollen, name-your-local-Democrat repeating the same talking point ad nauseam: only a small percentage of small business owners will be adversely be affected by the Obama tax hike on job creators): first, it is true not every small business owner pulls in a quarter of a million dollars per year. There are a number of differences in terms of how businesses are structured, but some economists have predicted a disparate impact among small business owners: the increased tax bite could result in an approximate 18% drop in relevant hiring. But it goes beyond this point: how can petty demagogues like Van Hollen have the audacity to demand the 2% whom pay more in taxes than the bottom 50% put together kick in even more than 35 cents out of every dollar they earn (never mind local and state taxes)? I've never been in the top 2% (and seriously doubt I ever will be), but the issue to me is a tax system already fraught with moral hazard that penalizes success and rewards lack of initiative.
Van Hollen also dismissed the GOP's stand on canceling TARP as little more than a gimmick, that it was being sunset anyway. There are some substantive issues on that goal which dealt with control over those funds and the fact that many banks were politically extorted to participate in the program. To most of us conservatives, the federal intervention in the private sector represented by the TARP was intrinsically troubling, at minimum setting a bad precedent. Keep in mind, contrary to Obama and his fellow progressives' attempts to allege otherwise, the Republicans and conservatives never believed in bailing out the banks, AIG, the GSE's or the auto companies taking on catastrophic business risk. The only thing is that we wanted the process, from a federal perspective, to be treated consistently.
The least David Gregory could do is keep liberals honest by asking simple questions like, "Chris, this has been the weakest recovery to a recession on record. What more can the House Democrats do than you've already done, and if you have any ideas, why didn't you do it from the jump in last year's stimulus bill? You guys have been in power for 4 years, have created ever-increasing deficit records and we have little to show for it; why should voters this fall rehire the Democrats?"
No, if you've watched David Gregory enough, he gets this little smirk on his face in anticipation of his gotcha question to name-your-Republican-lawmaker. Remember when he pinned a concession of the libertarian former Fed Reserve chief Greenspan as to whether a tax cut pays for itself (i.e., the economic effect exceeds the arithmetic effect)? Of course, he didn't ask Greenspan whether Greenspan thought it was wise to raise taxes in a weak economy or whether Greenspan thought the three-quarters of the tax cuts going to the middle class pay for themselves...
This time David Gregory had a different line of attack. I note in passing that Van Hollen wasn't really pressed on his party's credibility on spending restraint with consecutive $1.4T deficits under a Democratic President, but David Gregory really wanted to pursue the thesis that Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to spending and in essence dared the steal-candy-from-a-baby, force-grandma-to-eat-cat-food nefarious Republican to come clean with his plans to balance the budget on the backs of teachers, policemen and senior citizens. I thought I was back in grade school, and David Gregory was on the playground telling Mike Pence, "I double dog dare you to name a cut," knowing that if and when the GOP gets more specific before the election, special interest groups with their mouths on a federal teat will screech and vow to bring out the full force of their wrath on election day. Pence knew better than to step in that trap, but he noted that the GOP didn't forward a single earmark this year, and the Republicans are already on the record as a first step of reducing spending to pre-2008 levels.
Maybe some day David Gregory will learn how to ask questions of the progressive majority to at least the same level of scrutiny he gives to 41 GOP senators and under 180 House seats: Where have the Democrats been in terms of fiscal responsibility, cost-cutting and austerity, while even more progressive European legislatures have been forced to confront the same and take action?
Political Humor
"The Republicans announced their Pledge to America, and here's what it is: Less taxes, smaller government and act now and they'll throw in the Dean Martin roast of Frank Sinatra." –David Letterman
[The Democrats announced their platform, and here's what it is: More free lunches, pushing-on-a-string, spread-some-wealth-around, political patronage giveaways, progressive Democratic excuses and finger-pointing, higher taxes for job creators and investors, Stimulus v. 2.0, more government meddling in the private sector and ineffective, job-killing regulations and reporting requirements, fiscal discipline of only trillion dollar deficits going forward, more extensive crony capitalism, and fewer Republicans so they can finish their job of remaking the American economy into the low-growth, high-unemployment European model.
Act now, and they'll throw a 4-DVD set of President Obama's speeches, addresses, PR releases, and stump speeches, along with an index card of his accomplishments, vintage Obama-Biden "hope and change" bumper stickers, and you'll be automatically enrolled as a contributor to the Campaign to Re-elect President Obama. You'll also get free "family filter" software which will block the harmful Internet browsing of conservative blogs and websites. Of course, the filter won't discriminate against gay porn sites.]
An original:
Chris Coons is irked that Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling him his "pet". But Harry was really referring to his new pet rat. The Christine O'Donnell campaign promptly responded by saying she has renamed her black cat "Chris Coons". The cat's fur is thin on top.
Musical Interlude: The American Songbook Series
Peggy Lee (vocals), "On the Sunny Side of the Street"
I wept because I had no shoes, until I saw a man who had no feet.
Ancient Persian saying
Identity Politics and the President's Economic Team?
Is it just a coincidence that three prominent GOP female former CEO's are running for statewide offices this fall? (Meg Whitman (eBay) California governor, Carly Fiorina (HP) California US Senator, and Linda McMahon (WWE), Connecticut US Senator.) No doubt Obama has noticed the formidable challenges these first-time candidates are posing to highly successful veteran Democratic politicians. Politico is reporting that Obama has his eye on replacing Larry Summers with a female CEO.
We conservatives have been arguing for 20 months that the Obama Administration had an historic imbalance in terms of lack of experience in the private sector--the only experience has been meeting the payroll at the expense of taxpayers, typically at unsustainable deficits. Where did the Obama Administration help "create" jobs? Well, if you were a local or state government that hired an unsustainable number of teachers, policemen, fireman, or other politically favored workforce on an ongoing basis, did not maintain a properly funded rainy day fund and/or promised unsustainable pension benefits to government employees, the Obama Administration was willing to reward you by deferring your day of reckoning. (I call it "moral hazard" pay.) Oh, if you're a member of an auto union, the corrupt Obama Administration was willing to abuse its power by ripping off higher-standing interests (e.g., bondholders). Or Obama wants to give prospective federal government bureaucrats a taxpayer-funded break in the payback of college loans. Let's not forget companies with politically-favored industries, like green energy, which only eke out a profit with massive, inefficient taxpayer subsidies.
But it's not just that Obama finally decides, with nearly 16 million Americans unemployed, it might be helpful to have representation of job creators on his economic team, but we hear pretentious politically correct progressive gibberish from people like Amy Suskind: "[Obama] does not seem to understand the need for diversity and gender balance." [Oh, of course not, after naming women as his first two Supreme Court picks, the third female Secretary of State over the past decade, Latino picks to the Supreme Court and his Cabinet, and clearly Christina Romer, whom he initially named to head his Council of Economic Advisers and will be a member of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, doesn't count...]
I am personally impatient with individuals whom seem to predict that an idyllic America if voters would just put gender above considerations of individual political and leadership skills, background, achievements and experience. After all, didn't all political problems simply melt away when naturally superior women reached the pinnacle of national democratic leadership in Britain, Israel, Germany, India, Pakistan, and other countries? How does it help to advance the feminist cause when Hillary Clinton disingenuously implied that she was Bill Clinton's co-governor and co-President and absurdly spoke of 30-35 years of government experience? The fact is that she would never have been voted senator from New York on her own merits.
Then on the GOP side, some are seriously pushing Sarah Palin, whom quit just two-thirds of the way through her only term as Alaska's governor, for President. Recall just a few weeks before Sarah's resignation her divisive nominee for attorney general was rejected 35-23, with the 'no' votes of 9 Republicans, including the Senate President and the House Speaker. With that, Sarah Palin became the first Alaskan governor to fail to have a state agency nominee confirmed. Just this past May, Rasmussen ran a poll that found 48% of Alaskans would vote AGAINST Palin for President, with another 11% undecided. Not to mention the Senate nomination of Christine O'Donnell, with no public sector experience and various financial problems, defeating a male public servant with decades of honorable statewide experience as a governor and Congressman.
I'm going to get criticized for saying this by my fellow conservatives, but I thought Romer, Summers and Orzag were as best as we could hope to expect from an economic team of a progressive administration. The problem is, there's not much an economic adviser can do when you have an anti-business President whom is clueless about how tax hikes, populist attacks on business, mandates, heavier regulation and report requirements, and historically abnormal federal spending and deficits affect business investment and consumer spending. Cherry-picking businesses and industries for federal invention of any kind is not only intrinsically corrupting but unfairly shifts the tax burden onto other parties.
Mr. Obama preposterously assumes that the American public will consider him a "reformer" for writing obscure 2000-page laws written not by politicians but by unaccountable legal staffers. How many hidden business bombs lay under the surface of incomprehensible legalese that violate the very spirit of the rule of law? He can engage in misleading rhetoric about the Republicans being "the" party of special interests while he cuts political deals with insurers, pharmaceuticals and medical device companies or unions. Tell me, Mr. Obama--what happens with you replace an arcane tax system with a simpler tax system where everybody (not just the top 2%) shares in the tax burden on a fair, predictable basis, which takes away the intrinsic incentive for lobbyists to get their fair share of the federal teat?
We conservatives aren't looking to justify compensation practices of large business executives or businesses decisions. But when Obama demagogues business investment in other countries, misleadingly characterizing it as a big business giveaway and implying a zero-sum relationship with domestic investment, he ignores the fact that businesses are sitting on a ton of cash--not investing it in America for reasons that are tied to Obama's counterproductive scattershot economic policies. Americans have greatly expanded their savings over the last 3 years; normally, that's a positive sign, but in this case, it actually negates the very intent of the tax savings portion of the stimulus package. (It's not that Obama couldn't have predicted it--the same issue was raised during the Bush 2008 stimulus package.)
What's the solution? Some conservative economists believe that Americans don't really believe Obama's rhetoric that you can maintain a no-pain solution; the top 2% don't have enough assets to cover progressive spending binges. Sooner or later, just like at the state and local government level, we are going to see a need for shared sacrifice. Obama dogmatically maintains he can give 95% of American workers tax cuts--in fact, half don't pay a penny towards government expenses; the American people just don't believe that and so the savings could be their way of establishing a rainy day fund in preparation for upcoming tax increases and other costs.
The first step to a solution is acknowledging you have a problem. Obama has to admit that the tax hikes will have an economic as well as arithmetic fact, and you cannot maintain after several years at 35%, raising the marginal tax bracket to nearly 40%, that extending the current tax rates is a tax "cut" which isn't paid for; the expiration of Bush tax cuts for job creators is a de facto tax hike and the middle class portion of the tax cuts Obama wants to extend are 3 times more unaffordable than those to the wealthy. What Obama is trying to do is knock out the political compromise underlying the Bush tax cuts.
But right now we have uncertainty--uncertainty directly caused by Obama and his fellow progressive Democrats. He talks about the GOP holding the middle class tax cuts hostage, but he's the one whom took the Bush cuts for the upper 2% off the table--despite the fact that higher-income taxpayers are also important consumers and investors. He's suddenly become a fiscal hawk, after piling up consecutive $1.4T deficits? Mr. Obama, I'm a fiscal hawk--I'm willing to cut EVERYTHING: operations, entitlements, defense spending--and everything else in the federal budget. No sacred cows, nothing off the table. You, sir, are no fiscal hawk. None of this symbolic, token crap of freezing pay for a small number of political appointees but not any of the other federal workers making over $100K.
Bottom line, Mr. President: stop trying to thread the needle to benefit only your target voting and constituent groups--the lower- and middle-income American workers, the unions, the green energy industry, etc.. You shouldn't aspire to be a corrupt upsized city party boss doling out special favors for votes. You are supposed to be a President of ALL the people, including people like me whom pay taxes and don't support you. I don't care if you name a one-eyed Eskimo lesbian quadriplegic operating an eBay store to be your next economics adviser. But whatever woman you name, let's hope that she has seen this movie clip featuring Cher and Nicholas Cage :
Warren Buffett: Get Over It?
Bloomberg released a survey earlier this month showing 77% of American investors (including me, although I have a very modest portfolio) consider Barack Obama anti-business. At least 35% of higher-income taxpayers holding larger portfolios plan to engage in some tax-saving activities (e.g., pushing taxable transactions up to this year) as a result of the automatic Obama tax hike for the upper 2% occurring at year end. Two-thirds of American investors (including me) consider Obama's tax hike for the job creator class to be damaging to the US economy. [I should note that international investors are more favorably inclined, although the overall global unfavorable rating has risen from 42 to 50% since January, with American investor ratings constant on Mr. Obama.]
Legendary investor (and Obama supporter) Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, says "I hope we get over it pretty soon, because it’s not productive...The truth is we’re running a federal deficit that’s 9 percent of gross domestic product. That’s stimulative as all get out. It’s more stimulative than any policy we’ve followed since World War II."
With all due respect, Buffett is clearly subscribing to a variant of Keynesian economics that most of us conservatives simply reject. Keep in mind that federal spending has traditionally accounted for roughly 18% of GDP. There are a variety of facts that Buffett is simply ignoring: for example, tax rebate portion of the $816-860B stimulus bill (a considerable portion of which remains unspent by the way in a nearly $15T economy) is simply being saved by most Americans, not spent. Saving is good for the economy in the long run, but it's intrinsically not stimulative. Second, a number of stimulus programs (e.g., cash for clunkers, mortgage assistance, etc.) artificially raised markets, which sharply corrected after the federal teat was withdrawn. One could argue that hyperactive progressives did little more than prolong the day of reckoning for various markets. And what Buffett also clearly doesn't acknowledge is that the 15-month-old "recovery" may very well the the shallowest one ever following a sharp correction.
We know, from economics, that permanent tax cuts are superior to temporary ones. If I see a sale on meat, I don't necessarily consume more meat daily; I may simply stock my freezer--at the expense of future meat purchases. If the supermarket simply maintains low daily pricing on meat, I am more likely to buy meat when I intend to consume it. This also makes it easier for supermarkets to make their sales more predictable and manageable versus difficult-to-analyze sales spikes.
The massive national debt is unsustainable, and the Democrats have frittered the "stimulative" money in inefficient ways that favor certain special interest groups, like green energy companies, but has no effect on the economy's "losers". Spending billions on high-speed trains which will never operate break-even? In the long run, other taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill. When is going to be a good time to institute growth-crippling higher taxes to pay these bills?
Soon, interest payments alone are going to start crowding out funds for operating the government. And massive injections of liquidity into the market may eventually unleash raging growth-crippling inflation.
Get over it, Mr. Buffett? Not a chance. What Mr. Obama and his progressive cronies have done amounts to economic malpractice, and the taxpayers bear the ultimate cost. We have to put the nation on a fiscal diet.
Political Humor
"Last night on Fox News, Sarah Palin said she would run for President, if nobody else steps up. Which explains why today, nearly every person in the country announced they were running for President." –Jimmy Fallon
[Remember how Sarah Palin considered Katie Couric's question about what newspapers and magazines she reads as a cultural insult to Alaskans? Well, she mustn't have read there are active and former Republican governors, whom didn't quit in the middle of their first term in office, interested in the job, e.g., Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, not to mention former Speaker Newt Gingrich, among others.
Sarah Palin questions whether any Republican would rise up to challenge an inept, inexperienced President whom has rammed expensive, ineffectual, partisan laws down the nation's throat and has an approval rating in the 40's; why, of course, America, which gave her the lowest favorable rating of any vice-presidential candidate over the past 30 years, would think someone, whom last year quit the demanding post of governor of a state with no income tax and 600,000 residents, is just the voice they are looking for. Never mind that pesky national poll conducted over the past that showed her at a year-high 58% unfavorable impression rating...
I'm sure the Tea Party Express, fresh off the stunning disaster of the Christine O'Donnell Senate nomination in Delaware (after all, everyone knows the election of another Obama progressive in Delaware versus Mike Castle, whose lifetime American Conservative Union rating is higher than any Senate Democrat, is what the Tea Party is all about...), is eager to do to the US what they did in Delaware. I'm sure they would rather stand on principle in considering the nomination of a "RINO" is worse than reelecting the worst President in my lifetime... If the Republicans put Sarah Palin on their 2012 ticket, I predict there will be a significant third-party candidacy that will make more of an impact than the 1992 Ross Perot bid... If anyone doubts that, look at the historically low recent ratings for both parties. That's a warning shot across the bow.
And I'm not talking about the Tea Party. I myself am in philosophic agreement with almost all of their positions, but the Tea Party Express has been counterproductive in targeting more pragmatic legislators. They are putting the cart ahead of the horse: it's a lot easier to influence an existing, credible politician on issues than to take an inexperienced candidate without broad political appeal or ability to problem solve, negotiate and come to a consensus in the interest not of terms of political ideology but the national interest.
Let me give a hint: Michael Bloomberg, the Independent Mayor of New York City, would have instant credibility as a 3-term mayor of America's largest city and as a successful businessman. If I was a betting man and saw the Tea Party Express, say, force an ideologically right GOP ticket in 2012, I think Bloomberg takes a shot as a fiscal conservative, socially moderate third way.
I'm sure that in the wake of Palin's comments, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and others have tried to email Sarah Palin's Yahoo account again, to no avail. No doubt the account has been broken into again. The challenge question, "Who do you think will win the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination?", wasn't strong enough...]
"Larry Summers, President Obama's top economic adviser, is stepping down. So finally some good economic news, I'll tell ya, Summers didn't want to leave, but apparently he was out of bad ideas." –Jay Leno
[Well, after the NBER declared that the recession ended in June 2009, Larry Summers decided that his work was done...]
He who is firm in will molds the world to himself.
Johann Gottlieb
Carrie's Dad Eddie Fisher: RIP
I purchased a download of this song a few years back. In honor of Princess Leia's daddy:
Lesbian AF Nurse, Victim of DADT, Reinstated: Thumbs UP, Separate Opinion
There is a current kerfuffle going on between Bill Clinton and Gen. Colin Powell, whom finished his term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs early in Clinton's Presidency. Clinton is no doubt unhappy about being linked with (in today's politics) an unpopular law, despised by gay activists. He sees himself as having provided a Solomonic alternative to an explicit ban on gays in the military; he thinks that Powell misleadingly did a bait-and-switch: sold him on a kinder, gentler policy where gay service personnel would be left alone in pursuing gay activities and relationships so long as they did not imply that the military endorses their lifestyle, e.g., by appearing in uniform at a gay pride parade. Powell responds by accusing Clinton of trying to rewrite history and Clinton needs to accept responsibility on how "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was implemented during the remaining 7 years of his Presidency after Powell retired.
I have to say that I'm not knowledgeable of the circumstances of the 14,000 gay service members dismissed since 1994. For me, the issue is one of integrity and military discipline, not the underlying First Amendment issue, freedom to associate, etc. There are specific reasons for wanting to maintain independence in fact and appearance from the public policy process (i.e., politics); government workers obviously haven't given up their right as citizens to vote, but service to the American people should not be tainted by partisan factors. I have mentioned in one or 2 prior posts that I was working as a DBA contractor at National Archives in College Park, MD, and I explicitly heard a civil servant talking to another how they were deferring certain activities or decisions until after prospective President John Kerry assumed office. This was an unconscionable breach of professional ethics, if not illegal.
I would be saying the same thing if Bush supporters had done the same thing to President Bill Clinton. Who do you think most members of the military would have preferred as their Commander in Chief? A former POW whom served a full 20-year career as a Navy officer, or a first-term senator whom fought a successful military strategy in Iraq every step of the way and never served a day in the military? The point is, we expect the same dedication from American soldiers, however unworthy they may personally consider their Commander in Chief; they serve their country first, and they honor the Office of the Presidency, not the fallible leader whom temporarily occupies it.
I think denying gays to pursue happiness is fundamentally un-American, and I think the government has no business being in a gay person's bedroom. But it's disingenuous for gay military members to argue that they are unaware of DADT. If the military was enforcing policy based on circumstances beyond the member's control (e.g., a gay publication outs a service member), that's clearly unfair.
US District Judge Ronald Leighton ruled that 17-year Air Force Major Margaret Witt was unconstitutionally discharged for having been in a long-term lesbian relationship. Fundamentally the case turned on whether the military could prove to the judge's satisfaction that there was a reasonable military purpose for the decision. I object, in the strongest possible terms, to the judge's passionate, politically correct rhetoric which, in my opinion, has no place in the courtroom. I don't know the specifics of Witt's case, but certainly there could be, from a more general perspective, privacy, discipline and morale issues which have to be addressed, distracting management attention from the mission at hand. I certainly don't think the mere fact of Major Witt's relationship was a sufficient reason to discharge her, unless somehow the relationship was interfering with her professional nursing duties in the military.
Chris Christie: America's Favorite Governor. Thumbs Way, Way UP!
The Congressional Dems Are Pulling a Gray Davis on the Bush Tax Cuts...
Governor Gray Davis (D-CA) basically hid information about a prospective huge deficit (with obvious tax-and-spend implications) until after his reelection. And so now we have the moderate and centrist Dems, wary about the progressive leadership in the Congress and White House putting them on the spot wanting to do away with the quarter of Bush tax cuts benefiting American's highest income earners and job creators, paying the lion's share of taxes. In essence, the GOP rightly argues that Obama's tax hikes on the wealthy is business growth crippling. Putting centrist Dems on the spot by forcing them to vote for a tax hike could very well cause them to lose their seats. By putting things off until after the election, as lame ducks or survivors, they evade responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It's fundamentally unfair to the American people and, in my judgment, professionally unethical.
Political Humor
"The premiere of 'Hawaii Five-0' was a great episode. The cops were looking around and they accidentally stumbled upon Obama’s birth certificate." –David Letterman
[Unfortunately, just like the series, it was just a copy of the original...]
"Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is supported by 82% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 100% of Ladies Gaga." –Jon Stewart
[Well, Jon, you know where Bill Clinton got his inspiration for the policy: his wedding vows with Hillary.]
Musical Interlude: The American Songbook Series
Jeanne Crain*, "It Might As Well As Be Spring"
(*My collection includes Nina Simone's cover (I couldn't find a video version), but hopefully the movie version of the Rodgers & Hammerstein's classic, State Fair. I am a mark for any R&H musical...)
Knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.
Albert Einstein
ObamaCare: Be Careful of What You Wish For! You Just Might Get It...
Any faithful reader of this blog knows that I love to repeat a famous quote by the Spanish-American philosopher,George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." What did the progressives learn from massive federal expansion and spending during the 1930's? What did the Democrats learn from the mid-term following the Clinton tax hike and the disastrous health care reform debacle?
George W. Bush should have known better than to attempt to make structural changes in social security reform. I am very empathetic to the need for fundamental change; what we have now is little more than a Ponzi scheme run by the federal government, and the Democrats have done little to promote fiscal responsibility, more than willing to let the Republicans play bad cop while they promise more unsustainable benefits and then run against the nefarious, steal-candy-from-a-baby, let-them-eat-cake GOP, whom the Dems claim are "gambling" with senior citizen economic security. What could be a worse gamble than the kicking the can down the road while adding more floors to a house of cards?
But the point is: social security is a sacred cow of American politics. Democrats understand that. But what is astounding is that the Democrats don't have a clue that most American are very happy with their health care providers and intuitively understand that more government meddling isn't the answer.
The Democrats sold their "reform" under accounting gimmicks and misleading statistics; I recently quoted Bill Clinton whom astonishingly talked down the world's best health care system by implying certain statistics about infant mortality and life expectancy were the result of deficient health care or lack of access to health care. Utter rubbish! It was more of an apples and oranges comparison. But there's a hidden agenda behind the smoke and mirrors: it is critical for progressives to argue that the health system is terrible so they can rationalize a progressive government intervention.
Take, for instance, the rationalization of the legislation on behalf of the uninsured, with the inference being that the remaining 15% cannot afford health care on their own. I know of liberal people whom aren't insured by design, because they don't want to pay for the costs of middlemen or to subsidize the costs of older, fatter Americans. Hospitals by law preceding the recent health care bill can't turn away patients for emergency care. In many cases, it's a cost saving move.
The point of this commentary, though, is not to rehash the whole health care debacle again; I've probably written a good dozen to two dozen commentaries on the basic issues. Rather, it's to point out the game playing going on behind the scenes as we now have a six-month anniversary.
Progressives are like 16-year-olds getting their first car; they are confused when people start talking about car repair costs, insurance, gas, tolls, and parking, preventive maintenance (oil changes), etc. They want to point out the freedom of the road, the excellent stereo system, and the car's style. So they want everyone to know because of THEM, you now can carry your slacker mid-twenties' son, that companies can't cut off your insurance because of catastrophic health conditions of your child, and that you qualify for certain "free" preventive health care.
Let's be very clear. Your grown son's health care costs can't be covered by the lost change found in an insurer's couch in the lobby. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I haven't been covered by my folks' health insurance since I graduated high school at 16; talk about moral hazard. The Democrats then get upset when insurers pass along those costs back to their customers in this vicious circle where healthier risks decide to self-insure and drop coverage, leaving only the older, sicker policy holder to cover their own costs. The health care insurance industry and their providers have paid for catastrophic expenses, but their profit margin is thin and they have to control the risk of catastrophic expenses, typically by capping lifetime reimbursements. If the insurance company now is told it's on the hook for much higher lifetime expenses, it has to pass along these costs to its customers. As for "free" mammograms and other medical care: is mammogram technology "free"? Don't doctors and nurses have the right to make a decent living?
It may be surprising to moderates or independents that conservatives are willing to focus on catastrophic costs--by reforming state/regional assigned risk pools. But the idea that you can add the remaining 15% of the country and add new mandates for preventive care and other services, given an already inflationary system with oversubscribed doctors and nurses, and still CUT costs is sheer hubris. We already see this in a number of ways; for example, New Yorkers pay more than twice what Pennsylvanians do for health insurance. Why? High regulations and expensive mandates that go well beyond traditional health insurance.
In the meanwhile, others speculate that progressives are using the price hikes reflecting the health insurers' increased costs to justify expanding beyond Trojan horse ObamaCare to the infamous public option, if not outright nationalization.
US Delegation Walk-Out on Iranian President Ahmadinejad's UN Address: Thumbs UP!
I'm sure that my readers have had to bite their tongues over the expression of my opinions at times. One of the things one must learn to tolerate in a free country is the expression of offensive opinions. People will come up with conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat. Given the fact even some Americans have bought into patently absurd speculations that the 9/11 tragedies were an inside job, should we be surprised that Ahmadinejad has repackaged much of the same?
I went to a website where some of the readers were echoing some of Ahmadinejad's provocative rhetoric. Among other things, one reader referred to the walkout by US diplomats as "childish behavior". I'm thankful that the Obama Administration is beginning to see that there is more to diplomacy than talk and interpersonal dynamics.
Political Humor
"Yesterday, President Obama's aide had to step in and pay more money after Obama only gave a fruit vendor a dollar for four apples. The aide said it was awkward having pay Obama's bill. Then China was like, 'Eh, you get used to it.'" –Jimmy Fallon
[Well, Obama needed one for meeting with the head of the teacher unions. Then promoting the new health care bill, Obama wanted to demonstrate his approach for containing federal health care costs: a three-day waiting period to see a provider. And, of course, he figured since you could buy an apple for a nickel during the Great Depression, an apple today must be worth two bits in the Great Recession. He also told the fruit vendor that he must be among the top 2% fruit vendors in the country, and it's good to spread some fruit around.]
"Well, you know what's interesting, O'Donnell said she dabbled in witchcraft, and her opponent, Democratic candidate Chris Coons, he had no comment. He wanted to comment, but he lost his voice, went blind and came down with boils. It was horrible." –Jay Leno
[Now, Jay: Christine O'Donnell will tell you to be fair, she was not responsible for Coons' going blind. Have you seen the baldie? You know what he is going to do when he can't find a woman...
And you know how Biden was Coons' childhood hero. That "bearded Marxist" college essay? It wasn't really his work; he was just copying from this smart British guy sitting in front of him in class.]
Musical Interlude: The American Songbook Series
Frank Sinatra*, "I've Got the World On a String"
(*My collection has Mel Tormé's interpretation, and I couldn't find a video performance; I trust that the reader will find Frank Sinatra's take an acceptable substitute.)
Do not speak of your happiness to one less fortunate than yourself.
Plutarch
GOP "Pledge to America": Comme Ci, Comme Ça
I have not had an opportunity to read the document firsthand, relying on secondhand sources. (Any faithful reader knows that I prefer to use original sources when available.) The GOP didn't ask for my take, and of course I'm not one of hundreds of candidates running for Congress, but I can tell you how I would approach the mid-term election:
This is NOT the GOP From 4 Years Ago. Fresh faces, new ideas, focused on cutting government costs and waste and limiting scope to core federal competencies.
We Are Looking To Grow the Private Sector, not the Public Sector. We need to hold the line on government intervention, open new doors for American goods and services, increase the responsiveness of government services to businesses (e.g., drug approvals) and individuals, streamline and simplify taxes and regulations, and make businesses taxes globally competitive.
We Are Going to Address the Government Bubble. We need to restore traditional spending and debt as a percent of GDP. we have to contain exploding entitlement costs and an unsustainable national debt.
We Will Approach Policy in a Civil, Flexible, Inclusive Manner. We recognize with a Constitutional balance of powers we have to reach pragmatic solutions with the President and opposition.
We Will Never Forget that the Concerns of the American People and Businesses Come First. We need to provide businesses with the stability, clarity, confidence, and incentives they need to grow their businesses and hire more workers. We will provide assurances that Americans who have invested in government trust funds during their careers will have sustainable benefits at retirement, and we will ensure that existing commitments will be met, but not at the expense of future generations.
We Will Put an End to Divisive Class Warfare Politics. A rising tide lifts all boats.
We Will Stop Government Meddling in the Economy. No more TARP's, no unfair competition by the subsidized GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), no more picking winners (e.g., green energy companies) and losers (oil and gas companies) in the economy, no more cutting special deals with unions in bankruptcy proceedings, no more unaccountable czars, etc.
We Will Have More of a Complementary vs. Adversarial Relationship with States and Individuals. There needs to be an end to an adversarial relationship where a Louisiana governor had to wait on federal bureaucrats to protect his coast during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill crisis, states can no longer depend on the federal government to handle undocumented immigrant issues, and states find the federal government empire building over health care usurping their traditional regulatory authority. Businesses and individuals find themselves penalized for not offering or buying health insurance.
I could go on, but this is a good start. I do like the first priority of the Pledge to America being job creation. I like the setting of specific fiscal goals, like reducing federal spending to levels prior to the economic tsunami. However, many of the ideas are simply a retooled version of what the GOP has been running on for years, and I don't ever think it's a good idea to set false or unrealistic expectations about repealing health care, given the fact that the Dems will, at minimum, be able to block legislation in the Senate they don't agree with and the fact that Obama wields a veto pen. However, I do think that the GOP can starve the misguided health care and financial reforms of necessary funding.
Let me conclude this initial reflection by responding to Pelosi's feedback: "Republicans want to return to the same failed economic policies that hurt millions of Americans and threaten our economy." The "failed economic policies" reflect an abiding faith in the free enterprise system, not the proven failure of Democrats to micromanage a feeble economic recovery. It wasn't the Republicans whom grew the market share of GSE's from roughly 6% to nearly 50% and created financial instruments ultimately guaranteed by the American taxpayer. It wasn't the Republicans whom frittered away the past 18 months pursuing health care, financial reforms, and climate change legislation with nearly 15 million unemployed Americans. And since, once again, Pelosi trotted out Obama's argument that we can't afford to continue the marginally lower tax rates for the highest tax brackets over the past decade--for higher-earning individuals, not the middle-class of course. Why $700B (arithmetic effect) of continued tax savings is fiscally irresponsible for the biggest tax payers, but three times that amount for middle-class taxpayers is not, is of course dubious.
Castle Leaving the Door Open For a Write-In Effort: Thumbs UP!
Sean Hannity is beginning to annoy me with his schoolyard taunts of Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, and Mike Castle as "sore losers" and attacking them for not endorsing the results of manipulated primaries. Two of the candidates, Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell, have not held elective office. Marco Rubio spent 8 years in the Florida House, the last 2 as the Florida House Speaker; however, Crist will have spent 8 years as state attorney general and governor, with additional experience as a state senator and an education commissioner. There is no question that all three "sore losers" were the best qualified candidates in their races and would have won their elections as the Republican nominee.
I understand that there are no guarantees in elections and the better candidate sometimes loses. That was clear in the 2006 Lieberman-Lamont race for the Democratic nomination; Lamont was a one-issue candidate, namely against Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq. Lamont, like Miller and O'Donnell, won a very tight race. The fact is, Lamont had little support beyond his progressive supporters, and Lieberman clearly had broader appeal to moderates and independents.
Hannity desperately wants Castle to endorse O'Donnell, but endorsements don't really mean that much. O'Donnell and Hannity should be ecstatic that Castle hasn't pulled a Dede Scozzafava (the NY-23 special election several months ago which ) and endorsed Coons. I have mentioned in past posts (and stand by those views now): I think that the Republicans had a failure of properly vetting their candidates, and I don't see the logic of backing a candidate you don't believe in good conscience is qualified for the office; all an endorsement does, under those circumstances, is undermine your credibility and integrity. I also believe in a big tent concept, and the ideological races drive more centrist candidates and party members out of the party. Poor O'Donnell; she thinks it's so unfair. After all, she would have supported Castle (whom had been repeatedly winning elections statewide in Delaware for decades without her support).
Castle told the press that he hasn't closed the door on a write-in campaign, but he notes the inherent difficulty. The issue is giving Delaware voters a real choice... I hope he does it, and he'll have my unqualified support.
Political Humor
"Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol Palin is on 'Dancing With The Stars.' And I'm telling you something, you can't get any bigger star than the daughter of a vice presidential loser. That's as good as it gets there." –David Letterman
[Making jokes about Sarah Palin's daughters again, Dave? Not smart... Next thing you know, Sarah will insist that you were really talking about Piper Palin's recent dance recital, she'll call for the termination of the security person whom let you into the audience and get a restraining order against you...]
An original:
I've never watched the show, but Dancing With the Stars has featured some prominent social conservative figures like Tom DeLay and Bristol Palin, a high-profile spokesperson for a national teen abstinence campaign. You know what that means: "Christine O'Donnell, you've just lost the US Senate race in Delaware... Where are you going now?" "I've packed up my dance shoes and am headed for Dancing With the Stars..."
Musical Interlude: The American Songbook Series
Frank Sintra*, "I Get A Kick Out Of You" (another Cole Porter classic)
The trees that are slow to grow bear the best fruit.
Moliere
Return of the Legitimate Nuance: Block of DADT Amendment: Thumbs UP!
There are polls that show public support for repeal of the military policy that allows gay servicemen to join and serve, provided they are not open about their sexual preferences. This "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy, reflecting a Solomonic policy by the Clinton Administration to steer a middle ground between no-gay-soldier policy and gay activists, was on a collision course with the future. After all, it seems to strike at the core of the First Amendment to regulate one's ability to discuss his or her private life in public. (I don't think it's prudent, but freedom includes the right to make one's own mistakes.)
The fact is that sexuality to some extent has been an issue in the military, over and beyond gays. I remember that the rest of the family and I were eagerly awaiting news for my Dad's next stateside assignment on his return from Southeast Asia. I was not happy to hear that my high school years were going to be spent in--Laredo, TX. [Yeah, that's right: I think our first year there, there was one inch of rain over 9 months, and on Christmas the grass was brown and it was 95 degrees.] Laredo has nearly perfect weather for training flyboys. Just across the Rio Grande from Laredo was Nuevo Laredo. In my high school gym class locker rooms, the other guys often spoke of Boy's Town. No, not the well-known charity my maternal grandfather helped support; think red light district.
While I was going to college in San Antonio, my dad got a new assignment to a military base in West Germany. The reason is that the base was closing. I never knew why; I figured that it was one of those periodic military base closings. (In fact, a Wikipedia page on Laredo AFB suggests as much.) I had a conversation a few years ago that suggests there is more to the story. According to my source (I have not corroborated the allegation), the Mexican prostitutes had no issue with servicing white servicemen but allegedly didn't want black servicemen as clients. This supposedly sparked racial tension in the living quarters on base, and the military moved to stop the morale issue. I graduated the year before the base closed, but I do not remember knowing about the closure in advance. [One of the reasons I went to college in San Antonio was to remain closer to my folks. (People may not understand how spread out Texas is; San Antonio is about 150 miles north of Laredo, maybe 180 miles west of Houston, 330 or so miles south of Dallas and over 600 miles east of El Paso. Austin, at 75 miles, is a mere chip shot away.)] It's possible the military expedited a planned shutdown.
So I can understand why the military wants to carefully plan the transition; a number of straight men would not be receptive to unwanted attention from gay soldiers (remember the infamous "same sex secret crush" Jenny Jones Show?) A number of gay activists point out Defense Secretary Gates supports it, but it would be fairly unusual for a Cabinet member not to pay lip service to his boss' agenda in public. [And if you thought the Westboro Baptists were going beyond the bounds of decency in picketing military funerals over gay rights, just imagine how they will be at the first openly gay soldier funeral...]
I've repeatedly discussed that my Navy colleagues and I didn't have any issue with the gay military personnel serving honorably with us, long before DADT. As a conservative/libertarian, I generally think that the government shouldn't get involved in the voluntary relationships between competent adults. Gay people have unalienable rights. I don't care if only 10% of the population supports those rights or 99%.
Given the fact I support policy change more consistent with those unalienable rights, why do I agree with the bipartisan opposition that blocked a relevant amendment to the defense bill? It has to do with PROCESS, not POLICY.
Majority Leader Reid wanted to put the GOP on the spot. He is trying to motivate his base. It was a no-lose situation: if he won the vote, the Dems would be delivering on a key promise to one of their constituent groups; if he lost the vote, he hoped it would energize the base and give moderates and independents supporting gay rights to question the GOP and Tea Party during the mid-terms.
Reid plotted a game of political extortion by linking the policy to the defense budget--a sacred cow for most conservatives. If Minority Leader John Boehner would reluctantly accept a class-warfare extension of the Bush tax cuts, wouldn't John McCain simply hold his nose and vote for the final defense budget?
The New England moderate Republicans (i.e., Snowe, Collins and Brown) have been consistently voting with their more conservative colleagues; in part, they are expressing their frustration with Reid's heavy-handed tactics leaving Republicans with few amendments.
I think once the Defense Department has given its report and the Congress has reviewed it, I suspect there will be bipartisan support for action, without Reid's game playing. When a cause is right, one doesn't have to resort to political extortion. And if Reid really was all that concerned over DADT and/or the DREAM (immigrant children) act, he should offer them cleanly, in their own independent bills.
A Democratic Comeback for early November? Don't Bet On It
Progressive pundits are trying to read much in terms of the latest Gallup poll on the generic Congressional ballot: 46-45. The fact is, of the 9 most recent polls, the Dems lead in 3 of the polls by the smallest margin possible, and overall the Republicans have a 3% lead. It's clear that one poll has the GOP with a 10% lead at the same time the Dems have a 1% lead in a different poll, we are comparing apples and oranges. I think the difference reflects likely voters this fall. I do think things have gotten marginally better for the Dems lately in the sense that the recession has been declared over, the new claims for unemployment benefits are beginning to drop, and the Christine O'Donnell primary victory has badly backfired both on the Tea Party Express and the GOP. But the fact is--if you are the incumbent party and your best showing is 46% in 9 polls, you are roadkill.
I find the latest polls on RealClearPolitics truly fascinating. Rasmussen shows that Lisa Murkowski is drawing 27% of the support--ahead of the Democratic candidate McAdams, but 15% behind Miller. The popular governor of West Virginia, widely expected to roll over token GOP opposition in succeeding Robert Byrd to his US Senate seat, is actually behind in some polls. Feingold (D-WI) seems to fading down the home stretch for holding onto his Senate seat. Probably the most astonishing to me, besides the West Virginia vote, is the fact former Congressman DioGuardi (father of former American Idol judge/songwriter Kara) has closed within 10 points in the Rasmussen polls. To me, this has the look and feel of what happened to propel Scott Brown (R-MA) to victory in January after being down by over 30%. O'Donnell has slipped to 15% behind Coons, but that's expected after taking huge hits over the past week. I've mentioned before: O'Donnell's best chance of winning is to get Mike Castle back into the race to bleed votes away from Coons. Of course, if Castle was to go independent, he could become the first write-in candidate to win a Senate seat since Strom Thurmond in 1954 when the Dems decided to pull a Scozzafava-like (NY-23) party appointment (versus special election) to replace a deceased nominee.
Political Humor
New FBI statistics say that crime in the United States fell 5 percent from last year. You know things are bad when even criminals can't find work in this country. - Jimmy Kimmel
[It's just that they find out they can make more in unemployment compensation...]
An original:
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is desperately trying to save her father's old Senate seat in next month's mid-term election. I know some good movers...
