You have to believe in yourself.
Sun Tzu
Earlier One-Off Post: 2015 State of the Union Address: Critique Part I: The Introduction
Image of the Day
Let's Celebrate the Birthday of One of the Worst Presidents in American History: The Roosevelt Song (Played to the Melody of 'America the Beautiful')
For infamy, for welfare state,Background on the Historic California Teacher Tenure Case
For fascist NRA.
You gave East Europe to the Reds
In Yalta one fine day.
Oh Roosevelt, oh Roosevelt,
God curse the likes of thee.
The bums you fed
Are glad you’re dead.
And so, by God, are we!
Romney Is Out: Thumbs UP!
The sad truth is that the "real" Romney may have shown up this time around. One of the issues that Romney had originally run in Massachusetts unsuccessfully for the Senate and then as governor on more of a progressive platform, specifically distancing himself from the more conservative message. The interesting thing is, perhaps due to his business background, he carefully marketed his image to the electorate, saying what he thought was what the target voters wanted to hear. Notoriously he ran on a more pro-abortion choice position. It was true, of course, that the Dems were trying to define him as "too extreme" for Massachusetts, and they accused him of basically of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, willing to say whatever it took to get elected. I do think that Romney was never a principled conservative, that he believed in government and has been confident in his ability to manage it effectively. In contrast, we pro-liberty conservatives of course don't want tax money wasted, but we believe that government has strayed beyond its core competencies; running nonessential government efficiently is suboptimal: free the real (private) economy to meet relevant consumer needs through dynamic competition.
It was fairly clear by Romney's mid-term as governor that he was eying the open GOP Presidential nomination in 2008 and had transitioned to a more conservative perspective, which I never felt was principled but reflected what he thought was necessary in marketing his image to win in 2008. I would have respected Romney more if he was more principled; he became the Republican version of Flip-Flopper John Kerry in the 2008 campaign. We started seeing video clips of those Massachusetts campaigns. He sought to explain away his earlier more skeptical views of the Iraq mission, more immigrant-friendly rhetoric. This had a lot to do with why I supported McCain over Romney in 2008 (before I transitioned to a more pro-liberty perspective); I later developed some nagging concerns about McCain: his selection of Palin; his mishandling of TARP, and it seemed like his legendary straight talk had morphed into political spin as usual.
In many ways, the 2012 Romney candidacy seemed unlikely; Romney seemed like Obama's perfect straw man opponent: a multimillionaire several times over who had a career in the hated financial sector, including rehabilitating businesses with failing business models, a natural target for Obama's union allies. Never mind the nonsense about car elevators and the like. But it wasn't just that: Romney had a hard time dovetailing with the Tea Party movement, and his role in the precursor of RomneyCare largely neutralized the popular opposition to ObamaCare. His 59-point economic plan was beyond the grasp of most American voters. The anemic economy, huge debts under both Bush and Obama, and unpopular American military intervention gave Romney a perfect opportunity to run against 12 years of Bush and Obama, but Romney decided to try to run to the right of UBL-killing Obama. Now it may surprise blog readers who read through old posts to wonder why I didn't publish my reservations during the campaigns of McCain and Romney; I think in part I was somewhat vested in their candidacies and considered the Presidency of Barry Obama the worse evil. I didn't want to be quoted by some Obama operative.
It seemed the third version of Romney gave him more reinvented makeovers than pop music icon Madonna. This time it seemed like he wanted to talk about income inequality, etc. I guess it depends how he would take on the topic, but my preferred approach is to point out how capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any State intervention. But I think in reality he was identifying, along with John McCain, with the progressive wing of GOP politics since the Teddy Roosevelt era. This may appeal with independents and moderates, but my guess is that if voters want the Statist approach, they would go with the real thing, i.e., fascialist Hillary Clinton and her Democrat minions. No, the Big Government GOP is not the winning ticket for 2016. We need a real voice who diagnoses government failure and prescribes less government spending and regulation. So far the only politically viable candidate along that line is Rand Paul.
NFL and the Taxpayer
Facebook Corner
(Varney & Co.) Should vaccines be mandated? We debate with John Stossel
I had to scan a number of comments to ensure I wasn't repeating what others are saying. In part, it depends on the nature and extent of the contagion, and I have an issue with Alvarez' approach of a federal mandate vs. traditional state regulation based on the principle of Subsidiarity. But, as the great Walter Block points out, in the case of Typhoid Mary, her (unknowing?) exposure of the disease to others is a violation of their unalienable rights, a violation of some form of the non-aggression principle. Similarly, I have a responsibility of ensuring my child does not spread a contagious illness; vaccines are an appropriate proactive response. Obviously we need to be mindful of certain issues, like a child's allergies or intolerance for said vaccines.
(Cato Institute). "As virtually all the research shows, attracting more high-skilled immigrants will stimulate economic growth and job creation by boosting innovation and productivity."
It never ceases to amaze me how a Nowrasteh post brings out all the anti-immigrants and labor protectionists out in full force. Most of them never even read the article. Nowrasteh specifically distances himself from the rhetoric Hatch is using but argues for I-Squared (and I agree). It's not simply a case of hiring foreign widgets. Quite often, foreign professionals bring more complementary and/or entrepreneurial skills, over and beyond the native population. I myself have worked at 3-4 companies founded by first or second-generation immigrants, and one of my best friends, an Indian-American IT manager, is also the CEO for an application software company which was trying to attract venture capital investments.
It might be interesting to know what those differences are and how to nurture the same among native workers--perhaps the resources and opportunities for talented professionals aren't available in their native countries, but don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Those immigrant patents and new businesses could be facilitating economic growth elsewhere. The important point is that freer immigration facilitates economic growth, including growing the professional opportunities available to native high-tech workers. We need for the government to get out of the way of businesses hiring the talent they need wherever they are located to drive business growth and success; We need to welcome immigrants who want to be an American success story.
But personally, I'm sick and tired of all the anti-immigrants who keep worshiping restrictive immigration processes since 1921. The economic evidence for a more open immigration system is compelling. What I'm afraid of is that aspiring immigrants will be discouraged by all the ignorant xenophobes spamming Cato Institute threads; be assured these ignorant fools and their morally repugnant ideology are not representative of most Americans.
(Cato Institute). "Free trade and free trade agreements are meant to open up the U.S. economy to foreign competition and opportunity. The result is economic growth, innovation, better quality of life, more jobs, higher wages, and international peace."
Well, let's be honest here; as Don Boudreaux among others has pointed out, we don't need to negotiate free trade---we simply let it happen. In fact, I'm willing to support unilateral free trade. If other countries want to subsidize my personal consumption at the expense of their own citizens' welfare, by all means.
The fact is that the economy shifts along with technological change. In just over a century, we've come from an economy where 40% of jobs were farm-related to about 2%. By the 1940's, productivity was so strong that the federal government was setting and enforcing crop quotas in an effort to keep prices artificially high. Yet I haven't heard Obama gripe about the need to expand farm jobs by manipulating trade policy. In fact, we were also transitioning to a more service-oriented economy by the time POTUS was in diapers, just over a quarter of US jobs, to maybe just under 10% today. We were not losing jobs so much to export-oriented third-world economies as to technological changes making labor more productive. So this trend was underway long before demagogues started making China and its dollar peg a scapegoat instead of failed domestic economic policies (in particular, the self-serving regulatory bureaucracy) crippling economic growth.
In fact, Obama, mindful of his crony union support, has called for a doubling of US exports but has not closed on TPP or TTIP; he's done little beyond closing on 3 deals that Bush had negotiated before leaving office. Let's face it: every country and almost all politicians always hype trade deals not on providing consumers with a greater variety and more competitive-pricing, but on providing more export-related jobs.That, of course, is a 2-way street for why other countries want access to our 320M consumers.
Fundamentally, liberalizing trade policy is a win-win game. And currency or trade wars are a lose-lose proposition. It is time for Obama to start thinking of his legacy instead of promoting the protectionist agenda of crony unionists.
Bullshirt. It offers Big Business and the 1% a way to undermine America and it's working people to line their greedy pockets.
Fascist, morally corrupt thread. Free trade is fundamentally pro-consumer. If some corporation (let's take the favorite whipping boy of leftists, WalMart) earns a decent profit providing goods and services more affordable to lower-income people, why should I care? It's a win-win situation.
Yeah actually the result is the entire domestic economy being beholden to the price of oil (needed to transport the imported goods); and the average American worker being forced to compete with five billion destitute third world laborers whose labor is made even cheaper by currency manipulation. But why would the one world government shills at Cato care anything about that.
Crackpot economically illiterate leftist rant (well, there are also some paleoconservatives who also promote mercantilist policies). It is true logistics costs make imported goods more expensive, but noncompetitive domestic costs don't make our own goods and services exportable, and they lower our standard of living as consumers. I hate to break the news to you, but we've been an increasingly services-dominated economy for decades now, long before you started scapegoating the Chinese for natural technological advancements making existing labor more productive. In fact, global recessions make export-dependent economies more unstable, and manipulating currencies exacerbate issues--for example, by maintaining a currency peg, the Chinese subordinate monetary policy to our feckless Federal Reserve--and they've found themselves with chronic inflation issues affecting lower-income people and more costly imported resources like oil, which increases costs (including factors of production). The Chinese government is trying to shift their economy to a more stable consumer-oriented economy.
(side comment)
A side comment: "one world government shill"? How ignorant are you? Libertarian entities like Cato Institute are skeptical of government--at least government beyond minimal functionality like common defense and enforcement of contracts. It is true we don't like artificial constraints on our liberty to migrate, transact beyond the border, etc. One of our complaints about government is that it is a monopoly, and we view any sort of central planning with outright skepticism. We believe in competition, not empire. A one-world government would be the ultimate libertarian nightmare.
Guest Post Comment: Rating the 2016 GOP Presidential Field
I think Reason (Gillespie) did a similar piece, singling out Palin, Trump, and Carson are not serious.
Basketball coaches say that you can't coach height. We can't teach smart, attractive, articulate, and charismatic. I prefer Rand Paul and I also like Paul Ryan (who recently took himself out of the race) and Bobby Jindal. I like any of the three, although Jindal, the only experienced executive of the group, seems to be making an odd play for social conservatives.
I do think Jeb Bush is right: you need a positive agenda. However, I think the successful candidate in 2016 needs to argue change against the Bush/Obama record of domestic and foreign intervention, has to talk about reducing government costs across the board, including DoD; I don't think Jeb can throw his Dad and brother under the bus.
I think what voters will look for in 2016 goes beyond bashing Obama. Avoid divisive issues like anti-immigrant policy (which really hurt Romney in 2012). Talk of a governing partnership; come up with new, fresh ideas. Ideally someone who, like Obama, comes across as unflappable and inspirational, has a sense of humor.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Jerry Holbert via Townhall |
Joe Cocker, "The Letter"
