When I recently praised the fetching Maria Bartiromo whom dismissed
HT Father Lonergan (OLL), whom loved Leonard Bernstein. I first decided to become a professor when I visited him in his office--his office was delightfully cluttered, classical music blared in the background, and aromatic pipe smoke filled the air... (The only thing missing was a wonderful woman to share it with...)
PS. I've never smoked anything. But there is just something about the smell from someone's decent lit cigar or pipe.
Quote of the Day
Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn.
Miguel de Cervantes
Another Progressive Myth Bites the Dust
It's somewhat amusing to see another kerfuffle pop up over Obama's now infamous Roanoke speech, this one involving Obama's claim on the government inventing the Internet. I had this to say in my July 19 post:
As for Barack Obama's argument about the Internet, it is partially true, but the inference Obama intends is false. The Internet, or something like it, was INEVITABLE. The concept of a decentralized network is hardly novel (in fact, if Obama really understood the Internet, he would never have used the example: the idea that the states could operate independent of a central planning authority in the federal government, our ideal of limited government and federalism, is something Obama would never knowingly promote)
It is true that the government had a specific use: worried about a centralized hub being knocked out by say a USSR attack, the Pentagon wanted a mechanism for communicating flexibly about sites independently of each other. A government subcontractor from Rand Corporation designed the basis of the original ARPANET among 4 universities by the Nixon Administration. It soon developed in unexpected ways, e.g., for electronic messaging. Obama would not care for Klein's assessment: " It is only thanks to market participants that the internet became something other than a typical government program: inefficient, overcapitalized, and not directed toward socially useful purposes."Gordon Crovitz wrote a controversial WSJ July 22 column "Who really invented the Internet?", intended to debunk Obama's claim (For some odd reason, WSJ often keeps its op-eds behind a paywall but at the time of this post, it's openly available.) I winced when I read the opinion; there are many published histories of the Internet (e.g., here) paying homage to government programs, and some of Crovitz's points are anecdotal and dubious in nature. Some key players behind the historical development, like Vint Cerf (e.g., behind the TCP/IP protocol), have been dismissive of Crovitz' claims as revisionist and politically motivated.
To be honest, Cerf and others have a vested interest in their place in history, so I don't think they will admit that others could have independently devised alternative, superior protocols. Industry competitors often agree on standards (e.g., for computing languages). Why didn't they? I'll speculate here that perhaps one reason is because the government started phasing in commercialization/privatization (e.g., regional but not national) access to its network infrastructure and hence use of its standard protocols. It may also be that certain applications (e.g., integration with vendors or customers) became more feasible with the propagation and improved functionality of microcomputers and network bandwidth, and businesses chose not to reinvent the wheel but to go with an existing standard.
Obama is simply repeating (as usual) what other incompetent progressives have been repeating for years, e.g., see Brian Carnell's writeup here, also cited by Tyler Cowen here):
"Maybe that will change--as, for example, people notice that it is the federal government and not the Chamber of Commerce that tends to organize disaster relief and that has brought us such innovations as the Internet. But for the time being, we're not going to get anywhere with a progressive agenda consisting of wonderful new government initiatives." - Barbara Ehrenreich in a 1997 piece in The NationThe irony almost nobody points out is that social liberals like Ehrenreich and Obama, whom have hardly been supportive of Defense spending and/or research and development efforts, are ironically selling Big Government based on the kind of government spending they oppose on principle.
Let us be clear: almost nothing of what most people think of in terms of the Internet today (web content, applications, browsers, etc.) has to do with the government involvement, which mostly consisted of some networking infrastructure and standards. If anything, we could argue that arbitrary government restrictions on privatizing commercial access to the Internet delayed its explosive growth and technologies. Carnell points out (some minor edits):
Prior to the early 1990s almost nobody outside of governments and universities had home access to the Internet while several million had logged on to a BBS at one point or another for email, file-sharing, and other applications. The main problem with the BBS system was a lack of standards for interconnection. As the 1990s approached and computers became more powerful and modems supported more bandwidth there were several competing proposals for graphical interconnection standards, but those were wiped out by the Internet tsunami. What caused the change? Privatization. The floodgates of the Internet came open only after key resources became privatized and companies and individuals could operate on the Internet. For much of its existence, commercial activity on the Internet had been forbidden or restricted. The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large government. Here for 20 years the government had an immensely useful protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished with almost no added benefit other than to the military and academia. In less than a decade [mid 1990's-mid 2000's], private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the most important technological revolutions of the millennia.
Obama's New Political Ad: "The Choice"
Thumbs DOWN!
Are we finally past the Obama campaign ad hominem attacks on Romney? At least I finally heard a different commercial during today's early Olympic coverage (I think I finally heard the first GOP ad of the general campaign, an RNC one during yesterday's coverage). I'm sure that we haven't seen the last of negative attacks from the Obama campaign: when you are holding a weak hand in the economy, as the trite saying goes, "the best defense is a good offense" ("The principle is echoed in the writings of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.")
This was totally predictable, of course: the Romney campaign had wasted many resources carpet-bombing Gingrich in Florida and elsewhere while Obama, running unopposed although drawing some embarrassing competition along the way, conserved his cash. Don't ask me how the incompetent Romney campaign didn't see this happening: I mean, McCain was ahead of Obama in Florida by 10 percent earlier in 2008, and then the Obama campaign just flooded the state with unanswered ads and by the time of the economic tsunami had completely flipped the lead.
And, for reasons I still don't understand, Romney ended up whining about the Obama attacks and demanding apologies. This is like Playground 101: you don't give the other kid the satisfaction of knowing that he's getting to you. It's very poor campaign tactics: you never let the other side define you or set the rules of the game. If and when you do so, you are playing on his home court, and he has the advantage. The man has to defend an abysmal record of 4 years
If you are a GOP strategist, you have got to know the weaknesses of Obama, e.g., his ultra-defensiveness. There are endless ways to tweak Obama on that score, e.g., "President Truman said, 'the buck stops here'. Under President Obama, the publicly-held national debt has doubled in less than one term, one-third of US debt is owned by foreign countries like China and Japan, and we pay hundreds of billions in interest every year, including over $70M each day in interest payments to China."
Or, say, "Under President Obama, we've expanded our meddling in the affairs of other countries, including Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Instead of imprudently spending American blood and treasure in being the world's unwanted, unappreciated, unpaid policeman, isn't it time we have a President whom puts America first?"
Or "President Obama named Ben Bernanke to a second term as Federal Reserve chairman. Under Bernanke, savers and others on fixed income receive less in interest income than general price increases in the economy-- and then the federal government taxes the same interest! We found out in the first audit of the Federal Reserve that the Federal Reserve has lent out over $16T to big domestic banks and international banks without our knowledge or consent.
"Yet President Obama and the Senate Democrats are saying 'NO' to full audits of the Fed and long overdue reforms of the Federal Reserve. In fact, during financial reform, they expanded the role of the Federal Reserve. When the Federal Reserve prints dollars out of thin air, it lowers the value of the dollars you've saved for the future and your spending money. Isn't it time for REAL reform?"
I could write these things ALL DAY LONG
The President's new ad is unusual because it comes across as a paid commentary from the White House. I'm sure that regular readers of the blog recognize one of this blog's trademark sayings: "If there's one thing Barack Obama knows, it's symbolism." I think the real story behind the ad is that Obama is reminding the viewer in a latent fashion that he is President--and Romney isn't, i.e., Romney is an unknown quantity, whereas the voters know what they're getting with Obama.
The overall theme has been telegraphed for weeks now, so I'm not at all surprised: he's been arguing that the voters need to make an unambiguous decision in this fall's election. Obama attempts to make his case:
Over the next four months you have a choice to make. Not just between two political parties or even two people. It's a choice between two very different plans for our country.
Governor Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top, roll back regulations on big banks, and he says that if we do our economy will grow and everyone will benefit.
But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place.
I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs. Sometimes politics can seem very small. But the choice you face, it couldn't be bigger.The Romney campaign has started to respond, e.g., Shawn McCoy here). But let me provide an initial independent reaction here (I am not part of the Romney campaign, I have not contributed to it (and have no plans of doing so), I've detailed several policy differences with Romney, and I've criticized his campaign):
First, the President is correct that voters have a stark difference this fall. We have the President whom is asking us for another 4 years of letting Big Government tax future generations for money it doesn't have--and trusting this time the results of spending it will turn out differently. We know the results of this administration: the highest general unemployment rate since the Great Depression, the worst long-term unemployment picture in memory, and the lowest labor force participation rate in 3 decades. The average household net worth has dropped by over a quarter. Job growth and economic growth (roughly a third of the normal rate) have been the weakest of any recovery since the Depression, despite record low interest rates and record levels of spending.
We have the most anti-business administration in the history of the country which completely ignored the supplier side of the economy, which has the highest income tax rate (nearly 40% or more federal, state and/or local) in the developed world and suffers a regulatory burden over somewhat over $1T (an often cited 2008 SBA commissioned study put the cost of regulations then at $1.75T, or 12% of GDP), and the Obama Administration has vastly expanded regulation (among other things, through financial and health care "reform") in an uncertain way (since a number of regulations remain unpublished).
We have the most spendthrift administration in history, with Obama adding more to the national debt than Bush (over 2 terms and bookend recessions); the national debt has exceeded the GDP for only the second time in American history (the first time being WWII). Our debt has been downgraded for the first time in history; the Senate Democrats continually fail to come up with a viable budget, and Obama's budgets have been dead on arrival, even rejected unanimously. In the meanwhile, Obama has failed to address over $40T in unfunded senior entitlements and refused to back the bipartisan majority supporting his own deficit reduction commission recommendations.
We have a President whom continues to insist on divisive class warfare tax hikes (in disingenuous double speak, he refers to extending EXISTING tax rates as a "tax cut"). Obama is disingenuous here in a number of respects: first, the goal is not a serious answer to over $1T deficits: even if enacted, it would amount to less than a dime on each deficit dollar. Three-quarters of the Bush tax cuts are for the middle class.
But, according to this morally bankrupt President, we are giving tax cuts for those "whom didn't ask for them and don't need them": spoken like any other self-righteous, self-justified thief, a parasitic legal plunderer with his hand in some other man's pocket! This is not "his" money: he hasn't produced any widgets or performed any necessary service in the real economy (other than delivering boring, repetitive polarizing speeches no one ever listens to anymore). [Of course, I will concede that he does his fair share of keeping golf courses afloat (over 100 rounds of golf, e.g., during the BP oil spill crisis) and supporting Hawaii's and Martha Vineyard's tourist economies while on his numerous vacations during the economic malaise.] The only thing this busybody windbag knows how to do is waste other people's hard-earned money and incompetently meddle in the internal affairs of individuals and businesses.
The President's agenda is blatantly full of moral hazards, e.g., in many cases, it pays better to take unemployment rather than accept a part-time job; if you earn "too much", you lose lucrative government-paid benefits. Heavily-subsidized health care insurance does not vest consumers in lower costs; half of American workers do not pay a single penny towards government operations (i.e., through income taxes).
We have a President whom makes deals with the special interests like unions, green energy companies, and others (some of which have gone bankrupt) and wants to raise taxes on everybody else to pay for his giveaways.
Yes, we have a demagogue for President, one whom is all too eager to add to the tax burden of the economically successful by raising tax rates and/or investment taxes, even as economists tell us this not only lowers the tax base but adversely impacts economic growth. Since many small business owners operate through a special corporation structure tied to individual marginal tax rates, this has the effect of raising business taxes in a discriminatory and counterproductive fashion.
What is the alternative? We have a candidate, Mitt Romney, whom knows a rising tide (economic growth) lifts all boats, that playing political games with tax rates as economic growth sputters yet again, down to 1.5%, increases uncertainty, adversely affecting business and job growth.
We have a man:
- whom built a successful private equity company from the ground up, has gone through multiple expansions and recessions, and had to make tough decisions
- whom has dealt with financially troubled companies, inherited a state with a large deficit and employment free fall, and turned around a floundering winter Olympics
- whom, unlike his opponent, has had to work across the aisle with a state legislature dominated by the opposing political party
- whom, as governor, vetoed tax and spending increases, cut taxes and spending, and balanced the budget
- whom believes in a smaller federal government that can live within its means and believes in delegating responsibilities to the state and local government
Second: "roll back regulations on big banks"? Banks have been regulated during the history of the US, and somehow government regulation always seems to miss the mark: regulations are only as good as the bureaucrats enforcing them. More regulations, such as in the Dodd-Frank law, tend to REDUCE market competition; competition is a much better check on a bank than incompetent bureaucrats and regulators whom have shown an inability to cope with existing regulations. We reduce moral hazard by allowing bad banks to fail and lowering taxpayer exposure by reducing or eliminating government guarantees. The pushing-on-a-string Dodd-Frank law is hopelessly convoluted, has raised uncertainty in a fragile economy and expanded the mandate of the Federal Reserve, which has enabled massive stock, credit, and housing bubbles over the past 20 years.
Third: "We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place." Actually, significant cuts in upper-income tax rates under Harding/Coolidge, JFK/LBJ, Reagan, and G.W. Bush, resulted in greater government revenue, reduced deficits and/or higher economic growth.
The private sector did not "cause the mess in the first place". A number of factors were involved in the economic tsunami, most prominently government/regulatory failure, progressive laws pushing home mortgage loans for at risk applicants with little or no money down and lax underwriting standards at the expense of taxpayers, a Federal Reserve feeding into the real estate bubble with loose money policies, etc.
Fourth: "I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs."
Obama, as usual, has the cart before the horse. The private sector already exists: government is NOT the solution--it's the problem. The economy works best when government lives within a limited budget focusing on core competencies of a common defense, public safety and a judicial system guarding unalienable rights. The economy improves with government spends less of the income of individuals and businesses, leaving them free to spend and save/invest more of their own money. What we don't need is the federal government throwing money at public education monopolies, whose performance benchmarks have been flat for decades. We don't need a President playing winners and losers in the economy: let the market be the market. Jobs do not result from delusional progressive tax gimmicks or mercantilist policies; they come from a free market and economic growth.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Blondie, "Atomic". It's amusing reading other people's interpretations of this song, which has spartan lyrics which singer/songwriter Deborah Harry suggests were written on the fly. There's definitely an apocalyptic context (doomsday weapons, etc.) I will simply suggest that to me there's an implied message of survival of the human race, which is tied to procreation (e.g., a darker variation of the Hollies' "The Air That I Breathe"). I just love the overall sound and the brilliant vocals; at the time it was released, the song wasn't like anything else I had ever heard on the radio.
