Analytics

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Miscellany: 1/24/15

Quote of the Day
One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important.
Bertrand Russell

Tweet of the Day





Image of the Day


Sowell on Bureaucracy

Let's just say I've been up against the federal bureaucracy for 4 months counting (details beyond the scope of the blog), and I can personally attest to the fact Sowell's discussion is spot on.



 Political Potpourri: The Love-Hate Relationship with Rand Paul

I haven't done one of these for a while, I guess around the mid-terms; Obama's ratings have improved somewhat (about 4-5 points by RCP poll compilations of approval ratings), even up to an anomalous 52 points by conservative pollster Rasmussen. I think in part Obama has projected a stronger post-election image as he has issued some controversial executive orders and a number of veto threats, which has probably shored up his relationship with the dejected Congressional minority. The GOP's ongoing internal squabbles, i.e., Speaker Boehner facing blowback from conservatives who think he's not pushing back hard enough to spendthrift Obama and his lawlessness, may also be playing a part, not to mention Obama enjoying the political benefit of some apparently improving numbers on economic growth, jobs, and a declining deficit. I thought that Obama would have taken more of a hit from the botched Charlie Hebdo rally kerfuffle. So where does it go from here? My gut feeling is that he'll probably bounce in the 45-50 channel; he may break out if the Congress does something boneheaded, but remember the UBL operation only briefly pushed him over 50. Whereas Clinton not only beat back impeachment but flourished, Clinton was willing to compromise with the GOP Congress--something Obama has repeatedly rejected. I think, though, the economy is weaker and more vulnerable to a struggling global economy and currency wars than most people think, and Obama faces a troublesome global map with the Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Africa. What if, for instance, we experience a terror attack--will the response be to rally around Obama or blame him for letting it happen? I'm not sure; a lot would depend on the nature and extent of any attack, and Obama's response to any provocation. My guess: there's more risk than reward during Obama's lame duck period, and we may well be seeing the highpoint of his approval  ratings.

It looks like Hillary is getting ready to announce, probably in March or April. She's lining up a huge campaign war chest which will intimidate any challengers. There are rumors Carly Fiorina and even Sarah Palin will announce candidacies on the theory that another woman may be the most likely candidate to defeat Hillary; I don't see Fiorina, without government experience and limited charisma, attracting more than nominal support; Palin is interesting and could be a serious contender in some states, but her tax-and-spend record and resignation as governor will come under scrutiny.

I see Christie is trying to reinvent himself as a conservative in Iowa, but I think he passed his moment in 2012; he would face stiff competition from Jeb Bush and Romney, and he lost most conservatives over his photo op with Obama just before the 2012 election. I was mildly surprised that Paul Ryan took a pass; his JFK-ish good lucks and youth, brains, new ideas and appeal to all factions in the GOP make for a good matchup. I think at least one of the Midwestern governors, probably Scott Walker, will probably enter the race and could be the sleeper candidate like Santorum in 2012 who advances against the Bush-Romney shootout. Rand Paul has lost some momentum going from double to single digits, but I think he will ultimately build on his Dad's 20-up support, I think he will have a grassroots base and could win some caucus states if not some early primaries depending on a crowded field; Rand appeals to a different type of voter across the political spectrum, so I think current polls are underestimating his strength. Hillary's lead in pairwise matchups has widened back to double-digits from roughly 5 points, but keep in mind this mostly reflects her wider name recognition; she is still going to be tagged as the third term of Bill/Barry in a change election year.

Just because I'm likely to support Rand Paul's candidacy doesn't mean I always agree with him. I challenged his ISIS speech on violation of non-interventionist principles, and to those who follow my Facebook Corner segment, I had specifically taken on the sham eminent domain argument and even wrote a critical, unanswered email to Don Boudreaux when he and/or Justin Amash had raised the issue. (In fact, farmers can plow right over pipelines.) This has nothing to do with TransCanada having farms condemned and sold to them--they are just seeking an easement--a right of way--across properties. The fact of the matter is there are thousands of miles of pipelines all across the US, and property owners are paid for this access across their property. So that's why I tweeted refutations back twice when he proudly characterized the Democratic amendment as anti-Kelo; in fact, more Democrats voted against the amendment than the 2 Republicans voting for it. (About 1 in 6 property owners are holding out against TransCanada before TransCanada tries to gain easement rights through eminent domain.)

The Currency Wars

Swiss francs/euro via Google
Several days back in my Facebook Corner segment, I had a mini-debate in the aftermath of the Swiss central back (SNB) decided to abandon its 3-year-old 1.2 franc/euro ceiling peg, i.e., it would prevent the franc from appreciating further against the euro, which was hurting Swiss sales to its largest customers. (To maintain the peg, it would sell francs to buy euros.) One of the problems of a peg is that you lose control of your monetary policy--in this case, Draghi (ECB chief) was about to engage in quantitative easing, effectively watering down the euro. One example problem is oil imports. Oil is generally sold in dollars, so if and when the dollar appreciates against euro, the Swiss would have to pay higher prices for oil. [Yes, the price of oil has corrected, but note part of that story is a strong dollar.] Note that when SNB finally floated the franco against the euro, it quickly appreciated to about .84 francs/euro  before settling at rough parity.  The SNB did not swear off activist monetary policy, noting there are other ways of weakening the franc to help exporters, like dropping interest rates.

I like to drop by Stockman's blog to see him rant against central banker manipulations of fiat currency. This one piece mocks Treasury Secretary Lew for paying lip service to the "strong" dollar. Believe me, this has more to do with central banks in Japan and Europe trying to jump-start their economies by weakening their currency. The subtitle about reading Lew's lips is an implicit reference to Bush 41's infamous vow to hold off spendthrift Dem demands for increasing taxes, only to capitulate, a major factor for why he lost to Clinton. To give a minor example, JNJ, a major healthcare company, got dinged by investors recently for lower-than-expected sales based on foreign sales, hurting due to higher prices caused by a stronger dollar. I have no doubt, like the piece's author, that the big exporters are whining about the "strong" dollar. Sooner or later, you'll hear the big exporters complain they'll need to reduce headcount due to slumping sales. The Obama Administration and the Fed will notice--and as I've written before, I don't think the Fed will raise rates this year, which would make the dollar "stronger", make the deficit worse, and possibly put a weaker-than-it-looks economy into recession. I think the Fed is likely to weaken the dollar and protect the stock market by announcing a new QE initiative sooner than later. This is beggar-thy-neighbor madness where countries vainly try to gain economic growth at the expense of trading partners.


Choose Life: What Does Baby River Think of Her Mommy Kelly Clarkson's Heartbeat Song? Does It Have a Beat You Can Dance To?

Note: The Heartbeat Song just debuted on the Hot 100 at #37....




Facebook Corner

(continued from yesterday's IPI thread on the Illinois public employee pension crisis

I know that the union members would prefer a pension as promised (it amounts to over a million dollars lifetime distributions), but the pension system is unsustainable.

 Your point, though, is that nobody will choose it. First, I think it needs to be the option for new employees. And I think the system needs to come up with lump sum rollovers of accrued assets for existing employees. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that the state constitution can guarantee anything above accrued benefits. For example, if employees contributed $180K and state/local matched that , I think the state might guarantee that $360K cannot be written down, but I don't think the state would be on the hook for a $1.5M lifetime payout--which I think the union leadership/members feel is "guaranteed".

Some entities have found their pension expenses have quadrupled over the past decade--and the baby boomer retirement tsunami has only started. Revenues have not quadrupled.. Where is the money going to come from? Gullible bondholders who will get the shaft in a bankruptcy?

 My gut feeling is that the Illinois Supreme Court is going to nullify the paper-thin pension reforms the Dems passed--which will be seen as a union win. The only reason I've stressed an optional 401K/403B is because I think it's the most viable reform until the state and local governments start passing massive tax increases which will finally instigate a taxpayer rebellion at the expense of the unions. And if you think the pension funds are bad now, after a robust stock market the last 5 years, wait until the next recession hits and takes out 20-30% of the pension base. This is going to be really ugly because this will require the government to kick in more even as tax revenues shrink. Just imagine how taxpayers are going to react to tax hikes during a recession. That's why I would get out now, because at least I make a bad decision, it's on me. I have no control over the government, the economy or the pension fund.

(National Review). Philosophers won’t tolerate some viewpoints, and they’re trying to make traditional marriage one of them.
A true conservative position (not religious) would be let people marry who they want. Where is Barry Goldwater when you need him?
A true conservative would be concerned with concerned with socially experimental policy involving the bedrock institutions of marriage and family, in particular unintended consequences to violating evolved norms that promote societal preservation and stability. Look at the consequences of morally hazardous welfare state policies and a hedonistic culture; up to 40% of births are illegitimate and the urban two-parent family is more the exception than the rule. 

Now as a fusion pro-liberty conservative, I believe man has free will and I don't think it's appropriate to prohibit relationships I find morally unacceptable. "Gay marriage" goes beyond the natural right of association; it wants to impose recognition of those relationships on communities with traditional values.
(separate comment)
Now as to the OP who laments Barry Goldwater as the "true conservative": he seems to be making reference to Barry Goldwater's last term in office on abortion and/or his acceptance of gays in the military. It should be noted that he ran for his last reelection in 1980 with pro-life support. He had a libertarian streak: this is clear when he said: ''The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.'' (I should also point out that I saw a column which claimed 3 Goldwater daughters had abortions.)

It may surprise the OP that European conservatives don't believe there are "true" American conservatives because of our classical liberal tradition. In fact, American abortion laws are far less restrictive than European ones.

Finally, speaking as another pro-liberty conservative or right-libertarian I oppose abortion and "gay marriage" (up to a third of libertarians are pro-life--it has to do with recognizing the natural rights of the pre-born, and there is nothing libertarian about imposing gay marriage on a traditional state/community), and I oppose Goldwater's interventionist foreign policy. I am not claiming most libertarians share my views. But the point I'm making is that libertarians, even those opposing my views, would never argue who is the "true libertarian".

 Political Cartoon
Courtesy of Glenn McCoy via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

 Céline Dion, "A New Day Has Come"




Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,