Towards a Liberty Conservative Party

I think we're on the verge of a major upheaval in the American political system. We've seen third parties: for example, Ross Perot's Reform Party, the Green Party, the US Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and various other parties. I'm not talking about one of those parties moving forward; I'm referring to a less ideological, more pragmatic center/right of American people.

There are a few reasons I say this:

• the status quo is unsustainable: the national debt is at the credit limit, the federal budget is out of control, and the entitlements are drastically underfunded, while ages are increasing. 
• the Democratic Party overplayed its hand nationally in the 111th Congress by failing to revive the economy in a meaningful way (a principal fact underlying 2008 results in the aftermath of the economic tsunami) and squandered its mandate by pursuing a decidedly politically liberal expansionist agenda at a time federal tax receipts were down by as much as 40%. A large percentage of the centrists elected  during the 2000's were swept out of power in the 2010 mid-terms, and others have since retired. This is not only happened on the federal level, but at the state/local area as Democrats find themselves with chronic pension funding shortfalls, handcuffed from meaningful reforms because of their ties to labor
• the Republican Party finds that its credibility on fiscal conservatism and regulatory reform was badly damaged during the Bush years, and the Bush era was characterized by weak economic/job growth, and Bush's massive federal interventions during and after the economic tsunami undermined free market principles; we found our military forces overextended, tied down to an obscure region of dubious strategic importance

For me, there has been a shift. I transitioned from a liberal to conservative Democrat in the early 1980's after taking (nonpolitical) economics courses in graduate school. I had always been a fiscal hawk and became increasingly disenchanted with House Democrats over failure of fiscal discipline. I had always held traditional values (including pro-life views); for me the crucial moment was when the Democrats sabotaged the SCOTUS Bork nomination.

I have always been a military hawk based on having grown up as a military brat. Little did I realize that I was starting to question military policy even as I had endorsed John McCain as President. The issues I had were not reflected in conventional Democratic talking points over "fighting the wrong war", unconditional withdrawals, etc: at the same time, I was troubled by Bush's failure to manage post-invasion Iraq, the military brass failure to adapt to changing conditions and tactics (not to mention manpower staffing),  and the decision to go to war in the first place. I found it difficult to believe that Hussein could mount a credible military threat against the US under various sanctions and logistics.

I wasn't happy with Obama's leadership either, with the Afghanistan surge decision based on lower staffing/high risk and in essence telegraphing withdrawal without reference to mission success; I think that his terminations of military leaders were based more on pettiness (e.g., officers caught saying the wrong thing about US or Afghan leadership) than performance.

At the same time I was troubled by moral hazards of Obama's domestic policy, I started having the same concerns about moral hazards in foreign policy--and I become even more concerned by Obama's expansion of drone bombing raids, meddling in the affairs of Egypt, Libya and (in a limited sense) Syria. Just as I opposed  the spread in federal intervention and meddling on the domestic side, I started seeing scope creep in international intervention. I have been unnerved by the Republicans' (except for Ron Paul) support for much of this, if anything, tossing the Iran chip onto the table.

As I see Ron Paul being marginalized and litmus tests in ideology being applied to candidates to each party, I think the major parties have left us, not the other way. I've been slowly transitioning to the point of view of finding a different way. I have telegraphed my transition in multiple ways: several weeks ago I wrote and published a description of the blog summarizing several key principles; I modified the name and layout of the blog; I've expanded coverage of libertarian issues.

What about the other salient existing parties? The Libertarian Party has positions (e.g., expansion of marriage options) which I think may have unintended consequences. Drug legalization is another one; I favor certain steps towards decriminalization and streamlined reform of relevant laws and penalties. The US Constitution Party is too tied to protectionist trade policies and immigration restrictions.

I propose the concept of a Liberty Conservative Party, one based principally on unalienable rights, classical (economic) liberalism, limited, enumerated government powers, non-interventionist policies, and decentralization or privatization of incidental functions, deference to or empowerment of  traditional social institutions and more localized government services. An initial agenda would be based on ensuring the long-term viability of  government commitments. I would hope that future elected officials commit to basic pragmatic principles of civility, competence, integrity (direct versus scripted messaging), flexible (but limited, feasible, transparent) policies, and unconditional negotiations. (I would expect such a party to be at least initially allied with the Republican Party.)

Miscellany: 3/06/12

Quote of the Day

What ought one to say then as each hardship comes?
I was practicing for this,
I was training for this.
Epictetus

Pseudo Quote of the Day

What should a President say then as each problem surfaces?
'Eight Years of Failed Policies'
I wasn't practicing for this,
(but I did cut a couple of strokes off my golf score during the oil spill crisis)
I wasn't trained for this.
(but has anyone ever more dapper talked the talk,
walked the walk to 'Hail to the Chief'?)
Barack Obama
President of the United States
Nobel Peace Price Winner
Savior of the Auto Industry
"Nothing faster than a high-speed train,
More powerful than my rhetoric;
Able to leap logic in a single sound bite"
Slayer of UBL, #1 With a Bullet
Rescuer-in-Chief (From Another Depression)
Best-Selling Author
Role Model For Your Kids

Political Potpourri
Super Tuesday Edition

One of the interesting side stories for me was a Democratic race where two Democratic-held districts were merged in the aftermath of the recent Census. Dennis Kucinich was badly beaten by Marcy Kaptur in this Battle of the Progressives. There have been rumors that Kucinich was thinking of a carpetbagging candidacy in Washington state, so we may not have seen the last of the Hyperpartisan One yet.

There is some personal interest here in that Kaptur's district closely flanked Bowling Green State's. BGSU made my first academic job offer; I turned down their offer in favor of UWM's offer, one of the worst decisions I've ever made (faithful readers will remember I wanted to teach graduate classes and be part of a doctoral program; at BGSU, I would have taught only undergraduate classes; if UWM had not made the offer, this blog would likely be written by a tenured faculty member, probably married with a family. Being on the business faculty at UWM was like being one of Spinoza's spiders...) BGSU thought the reason I turned them down was because of the boneheaded way they botched my return trip back home. It would be utterly inconceivable today given the TSA regime, but the college scheduled my last activity within an hour or so from flight time. The Toledo regional airport is a small one, several miles from campus (maybe a 15-20 minute drive away) and the college had me on the last flight going back  (via connection, I believe) to Houston. But I wasn't given a rental car. So a faculty volunteer drove me to the airport, and the first thing he tells me is that his gas tank is nearly empty, so he has to stop for gas on the way. Now if you factor in the time at the service station, the driving time to the airport, my check-in at the airport (including luggage) and I'm still several minutes from the gate (and gates close before flight time), I was in a sprint once I got to the airport--and I arrived to find the gate closed. The gate attendant assured me that it really wasn't that bad being stranded in Toledo overnight (yes, I finally got on the flight...)

In any event, Kaptur is likely to face an icon of the 2008 campaign: Joe the Plumber (whom, at last mention, was leading by a few hundred votes in his fight for the GOP nomination). One could hardly script a better story than Joe the Plumber rides a wave of voter discontent to public office at the same time they throw Obama out of office...

I watched Fox News for the first time in a while, when Sarah Palin came on for analysis. The interviewer asked whom she voted for in today's Alaska caucus. (Hmmm. It turns my head to think of whom she might support. Let's see--Todd is an early supporter of Gingrich. Sarah Palin tells those in South Carolina if she lived there, she would be voting for Gingrich. She does the same thing in Florida. Who did she vote for?)  Okay, you aren't going to believe this--she voted for Gingrich. I know--a big surprise. I've commented on this before, because I think Fox News is letting her get away with the pretense of being an independent analyst, especially when they refused to give Tim Pawlenty an analyst gig based on his then recent endorsement of Romney....

Okay, you know that my forecast in yesterday's post was almost spot on across the board. I had predicted Santorum would win Tennessee and Oklahoma, Romney would get Ohio, and Gingrich would win Georgia. I also predicted Romney would win one of the caucuses between Idaho and North Dakota. Word has just out that Romney beat Santorum in Alaska by a nearly 4-point margin: So Romney won 6 out of 10 races, placed second in 3 others, and his third-place finish in the North Dakota caucuses behind winner Santorum and runner-up Ron Paul was the one thing quite frankly I didn't see. I hadn't heard any discussion of Santorum in North Dakota. I also predicted that Romney would win a larger percentage of the 410 delegates up for grabs and would be a third of the way to the nomination: Huffington Post shows Romney with an estimated 411 after tonight (208 earned today): roughly 36% of the way needed to clinch the nomination. Santorum won 86 tonight and 176 overall. In essence, Romney has just lapped the field.

No doubt Santorum will, once again, gripe about the Romney campaign's money, but the fact of the matter is that moderates aren't supposed to win caucuses, and Romney has won Maine, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska. Gingrich is trying to make a Southern state strategy to the nomination, but he followed Romney in both Oklahoma and Tennessee. Romney also picked up the gold in Florida and Arizona and the silver in South Carolina.

There are a couple of things to note about Romney's HUGE Ohio victory. First, as late as a week ago, Romney was behind in double-digits and even a week or so earlier, Romney trailed Santorum by about 20 points. The story is even worse than Santorum suggests: one of the Fox interviewers said that Romney carried GOP voters by 8 points: the reason Santorum made it close was because of lopsided crossover Democrat support for Santorum. It is no secret that Romney is the one candidate Obama would prefer not to face; Santorum and Gingrich have little appeal to the independents and moderates needed to win the battleground states against Obama.

Fox News continues to annoy me with the consensus talking point that Romney is not winning in a very convincing style, it's all about money, etc. Let's keep in mind the entire race has been phrased as Romney vs. the non-Romney. Bachmann, Perry, Cain (twice), Gingrich (twice), and Santorum have all held (and then lost) the mantle of the non-Romney. It's pathetic when the only thing you've got to convince people to vote for you is that you aren't Romney. Sixth months ago Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum had single-digit support when they were running on their own merits and Herman Cain was on top by virtue of a catchy "9-9-9!" slogan. That's right--Republicans preferred a pizza chain CEO whose only prior political campaign was a failed bid for the US Senate from Georgia over two experienced former GOP Congressional leaders. What have these two done in the interim do to win support? The only reason these two get any support is not based on merit: it's because other candidates dropped out of the race. For better or for worse, the GOP voters are demanding that Romney earns his nomination: it's not going to be handed to him.

There's a saying in basketball: you can't teach height. Regardless of Romney's ideology, he's one of the smartest guys to run for the Presidency in my lifetime; he's not a natural politician. There is a story I came across when I read up on how Romney handled RomneyCare policymaking. The consultant was explaining how in most cases he had served in a capacity where the politician basically was presented a policy and signed off on it as his own; in this case, the consultant  said he went to a meeting with Romney where the situation was flipped on its head: Romney had his own ideas and was presenting them to the consultant. When I looked at the Bush Presidency--say, its handling of the Iraq occupation, you can't help but wonder why Bush waited until after the 2006 campaign to make a change in DoD management and strategy. (Of course, once the Congressional Democrats were in power, Bush wanted to make a change and it fell on deaf ears because the Dems wanted to cut and run.) This is a guy whom goes into detail, not just talking points; he's not going to be easily manipulated by advisers.

You can't teach competence; you can't teach leadership skills. I think it's time we have a national timeout and apply some elbow grease to this nation's problems--not like a clueless Obama whom clearly can't conceptually grasp the corrosive effects on the economy of the federal government's far less efficient utilization of the nation's GDP. I want to see a return to old-fashioned values and virtues, living within our means, not playing games with budgets; I think it's time to get away from the polarizing rhetoric on both sides of the partisan divide. We don't need a President habitually blaming the political opposition or predecessor  for his own failures as we have seen the last 3 years.

We could use a little less excitement. The entire country thinks our political leadership has been going in the wrong direction. Professional politicians like Santorum and Gingrich are part of the problem, not the solution. Romney can walk the walk and talk the talk. Maybe Romney will bring all the excitement to the Presidency as  Dwight Eisenhower. But I assure the rest of my fellow Americans, it actually makes me feel better having someone in office whom really knows what he's doing versus a placeholder guest-appearing on 'The View'.

Does that mean I'm a shill for Romney? Hardly. I don't like hearing all this dangerous talk about military options against Iran. I don't want him sounding like any other politician by telling us what he thinks that we want to hear versus what we need to hear.

The Obama Administration regulatory spill gumming up the economy reminds me of my early career as a programmer/analyst. Older DP professionals can probably remember these huge application printouts distributed daily and especially monthly. Most of those printouts weren't really being read by their target audience. And so I was like the little boy whom noticed the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes: why are we distributing things that managers or others aren't really using? Isn't that just a waste of money? Let's stop the madness...

Have you ever seen those TV shows of packrat spouses whom never throw out anything, and one can barely find a place to sit or lie down? The federal government is like the world's biggest packrat. What we need is something like a Romney whom knows all of this crap is stuff we don't need and is willing to work behind the scenes to do the world's biggest spring cleaning job one can think of. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations of Mitt Romney. Ideologically, I would prefer to see some of Ron Paul's ideas rub off on him....

So, yes, let's stop bitching about problems and start solving them. Let's stop spending the next generation's money. Let's speak civilly to each other in Congress and worry more about constructive solutions than the latest sound bite. Of all the people running for President, including the incumbent, I trust Romney to be the grown-up in the room. Maybe Romney is like my maternal grandfather: he wanted to listen to the evening newscast without interruption. People might have thought he was very boring (but he knew how to play ring around the rosie with his beloved grandkids...) If I want to hear a one-liner, I'll go to a comedy club; what I want from my elected officials is leadership and accountability.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I know there's not much I can do about political correctness. And this is not an entertainment blog. But seeing the entertainment media discuss the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy and the once child star, now Christian actor Kirk Cameron (in trouble for a recent media interview where he discussed homosexuality in unfavorable terms)  get attacked by wolf packs because they express opinions that others disagree with...

Listen,  if you disagree with another person's point of view, that's fine--just do it in a respectful matter, without getting personal, judgmental, condescending, repetitive or abusive. I sometimes hear of instances where people get death threats over saying the "wrong" thing. The barely-constrained jubilation  by certain leftists (including a well-known hacker group) at the recent passing of  conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart is unconscionable.

I think what works with other people is more subtle: you live the change you want to see in others. Sometimes it's the little touches that matter. In one of my favorite Elton John songs, "The Last Song", the young gay man dying of AIDS discovers that a father's love runs deep, beneath the facade of judgmental rhetoric, and that he has underestimated his father's character. Whatever Strom Thurmond's political opinions, he once loved an African American woman and helped bring a beautiful little girl of color into this world, and I trust that at some level as a father, he wanted a better life for his daughter.

Limbaugh's use of a derogatory term is NOT misogyny (which is a far more serious issue than one's choice of words). Kirk Cameron's opinions about the gay lifestyle do not call for venomous tweets and threats, reprisals against his acting career or projects, etc. I think most of the people attacking Limbaugh and Cameron have undermined their moral authority by the very nature of their responses, which overshadowed the original infraction.

I think the way you should handle these things, when they occur, is to simply not reinforce the desired effect, e.g., you don't applaud a bad joke, you ignore what was said or politely disagree and move on. You don't overreact to the offense or escalate the situation.

This blog has been a frequent critic of the Westboro Baptists. As bad as their anti-gay rhetoric is, their anti-Catholic rhetoric is just as bad, if not worse. Remember, they wanted to protest the funeral of the little CATHOLIC girl whom was murdered during the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords. But if I met any of them in person, I would be civil to them--not because they deserve it, not because I agree with their views, but because I choose my reactions and will not let others define me.

I think when you respond to hate with your own hate (e.g.,  many entertainment figures responding to behavior not even directed at them,  in very personal, hostile, judgmental terms), the targets of your misbehavior feed on your energy.

Back in 2008, I thought McCain did the right thing by distancing himself from the Jeremiah Wright kerfuffle. But the Bill Ayers stuff I felt was a mistake from the start, and with Palin's red meat rallies (which I didn't like), it was inevitable a few crackpots in the crowd took it to a different level and started expressing themselves inappropriately. (What bothered me was that the mainstream media was falsely reporting the comments were directed against Obama, versus "terrorist" Bill Ayers.)

Yes, if I ever knowingly met a Westboro Baptist, I would probably smile, tell them that God had created this glorious day and wish His blessings on them. I would leave justice to God. It is enough for any one man just to reflect on his own sins.

Political Humor

"Japanese researchers have invented a speech-jamming gun that can silence people from 30 meters away. You fire this at them, and they can stop talking. It makes people speechless. We should try this on Rush Limbaugh." - Jay Leno

[President Obama has been testing out a prototype against his mainstream media critics...]

"In a speech on Wall Street the other day, President Obama compared himself to Gandhi. Well, that makes sense. He's created a lot of jobs in India." - Jay Leno

[Obama felt that Gandhi might have also won a Nobel Peace Prize if only the name of the last British Governor General had been George W. Bush... Perhaps Obama will honor Gandhi by naming one of the military drones flying over Pakistan after him...]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Paul McCartney & Wings, "Goodnight Tonight"

Miscellany: 3/05/12

Quote of the Day

If a man does not make new acquaintances 
as he advances through life, 
he will soon find himself alone. 
A man should keep his friendships in constant repair.
Samuel Johnson

Political Potpourri
Super Tuesday Eve Edition

I don't know if other pundits are pointing out the same, but there's been a significant development where Romney has gone from a consistent low-20 percentile to a stealth rise in the polls. He has actually gotten just over 42% of the accumulated vote to date to now we have two separate polls (Gallup Tracking, and NBC News), showing Romney at an identical 38% in the general Republican beauty contest.

Santorum and Gingrich will point out that means 58% of voters are voting against him, but the fact is that the 3 candidates account for that 58%, and Bill Clinton won the 1992 Presidency with a similar percentage against two major opponents, President Bush and Ross Perot.

At least 3 polls out there show Gingrich has 47% of the vote in Georgia, but he's barely in the mid-teens nationwide. It seems he's decided on a Southern strategy and hopes to outlast Santorum; he's convinced he's got a third shot left at Romney. The problem is that even if Southern Republicans prefer Gingrich to Romney, any reasonable Republican, including Romney, will carry the South, just like McCain did. However, Gingrich is carrying baggage, and polls have consistently showed that Gingrich attracts less general election support than his competition, and I've even seen Georgia polls with Romney leading Obama by a larger percentage. Gingrich has not had a good showing to date anywhere outside the Southeast.

There's an interesting thing going on in the polls with Santorum in quite a few polls in the ballpark with Romney against Obama. I think those recent tracking polls are misleading. It's not just that Santorum gives away the business card that Romney's candidacy offers, but Santorum's high visibility on social issues and polarizing statements over the past two decades provides Obama with enormous ammunition to deflect attention away from his incompetent performance over the past 4 years and make Santorum's character the issue. For an incumbent senator to have lost his reelection by 18 points to Bob Casey, a far less charismatic opponent in a purple state is not good: he was part of the leadership that got rebuked in the 2006 election. Things like his role in the new Medicare drug benefit (unpaid for) and notorious earmarks like the Bridge to Nowhere sharply undermine his case against the $5T Man, Barack Obama: you know that Obama is going to come back right at him, pointing out that the last time there was a balanced budget, the Dems controlled the Senate and Bush, largely on Santorum watch, almost doubled the national debt by himself.

I take into account that barring a Ted Roosevelt/Ross Perot third-party candidacy, which I don't see happening, the GOP should be starting from McCain 46%. I seriously doubt that McCain voters have been converted  by Obama these past 3 years. But remember that McCain is more popular than Santorum or Gingrich among independents and moderates. Now Santorum will point out that he won in a district that has a high percentage of blue-collar Dems ; that was before he became a target as part of the Senate leadership.

I think Romney's problems are fixable--but he has only 4 years of Massachusetts positions on the line; Santorum has 4 times the exposure. Santorum can't argue anti-Washington/change the way that Romney can.

A whole flurry of polls out of Ohio, and you would have to say it looks, as in the case in Michigan, Romney is going to come from behind to take Ohio. The momentum is clearly in his direction. Today's results showed Romney now leading in 3 of the polls and one tie, with Santorum barely beat Romney in 2 others. Romney hasn't led Ohio in a long time, and it would not surprise me if Romney wins by 2 or 3 points based on momentum.  Intrade has Romney winning Ohio with a market share exceeding 80%

What really surprised me is how fast Romney has been closing the race in Tennessee; only about a third of Intraders think Romney will pull it out, but one poll showed Romney up by a bare minimum I would need to know more about the momentum of Romney's surge; I think the odds are still in Santorum's favor but I would not be surprised if Romney squeaks by.

I haven't seen more recent polls in Oklahoma; I think the Santorum's plunge has occurred across the board. My intuition says if Santorum wins anywhere tomorrow, it starts with Oklahoma.

The Gallup tracking poll now has Santorum down by 16%; I think that's the one Gingrich is closely tracking because he thinks he'll get the hot non-Romney vote, but Romney's electability argument is what the close is being based on--conservatives are more interested in seeing Obama out and all they really care about Romney is that he's conservative enough and not another Obama. As long as Romney keeps pointing out that he balanced his budgets but Obama had been running up the nation's credit card limit, I don't think that's a problem.

With 410 delegates on the line tomorrow, in theory Romney could close in the halfway point to the nomination; it's unlikely he'll do that given proportional assignment of delegates, he's probably going to lose 2 to 4 primaries (but likely to get a cut of the delegates as the likely runner-up). Romney is pretty much a lock on Massachusetts, Virginia, and Vermont; he should win at least one, if not both Idaho and North Dakota, and it looks like Ohio and maybe even Tennessee are possible. If he wins half or more of the races, he should pick up, say, at least 60% of the delegates. I see him doubling or more his delegate count, and he should have at least a third of the delegates he needs to get the nomination.

Do You Like to Insert Quotes in Your Email?

Some observant readers will note that I start off each miscellany post with a quote; you may have wondered where these quotes come from. I've been maintaining a growing text file of quotes for over a decade; I have subscribed to a number of quotes emails (more than a handful). For years, I've been using a freeware product which basically merges a random quote from my text file with signature text macros and outputs the result in various file types that I've been able to configure with past and current desktop email clients. In my tech blog's third post, I describe this tool in my own distinctive style.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Paul McCartney & Wings, "With a Little Luck"

Miscellany: 3/04/12

Quote of the Day

Hard things are put in our way, 
not to stop us, 
but to call out our courage and strength.
Anonymous

The Sandra Fluke vs. Rush Limbaugh Kerfuffle

I have written several commentaries distancing myself from media conservatives, in particular, Rush Limbaugh. On the first gig after leaving academia in a bad job market, I worked as a subcontractor for an IBM subsidiary in northern Irving, TX. I worked with others in a cubicle setting; most people there listened to music or radios on headphones. One of my co-workers, a pro-abortion choice conservative, would every once in a while break out laughing. Curious, I asked him what he was listening to, and he mentioned Rush Limbaugh. I didn't listen to his show (in fact, I don't think I've ever listened to his radio show), but at the time he had a half-hour syndicated television program being carried on one of the Dallas area stations, and I started watching it. Rush differed from most hosts with a distinctive sense of humor. For example, pop music star Madonna at the time had published a best-selling book of her nude photographs, and Limbaugh had just released one of his popular political books. He proudly noted one week that he was finally on top of Madonna...

We have seen Democrats play this cynical bait-and-switch game before: they will put whatever lipstick they can on government pork to sell their megalomaniac policies. The Democrats, for instance, call a massive government spending bill a "stimulus bill" or "recovery act": they try to make it a referendum on whether you like public sector teachers, police or firemen, and they find the most dilapidated school premises in the country to sell massive pushing-on-a-string, politically manipulative infrastructure spending. I mean: for shame, South Carolina! But the greater shame was borne by the Democratic hucksters writing this $862B legislative crap check on the backs of future generations of American citizens, whom have their own expenses to take of.

A 30-odd year-old law student Sandra Fluke, motivated by her own political agenda, seeking her own 15 minutes of fame, made a patently absurd, audacious argument on behalf of forcing other people pay for some or even all of her personal ordinary expenses. She speaks of spending up to $3000 during law school for birth control. (Does she ask her partner to bring his own condom?) Money is fungible. Yes, I can understand why a law student might consider pregnancy an inconvenient fact. But during the 5 years I was a full-time "publish or perish" professor, I never went out on a date: I was a workaholic.  I didn't spend a penny on condoms. (Of course, some women would think that I wouldn't have needed condoms under any circumstances... Not that the Guillemette's aren't fertile: I'm the oldest of 7 and have 21 nieces and nephews.) I mean, I had to spend money on food, rent, clothes, and other things, but I did not expect other people to subsidize my  optional dating life.

The fact is that over the past 50 years, in a sexually-obsessed and liberated popular culture (I don't think my folks even knew that I could easily purchase condoms at high school), we haven't seen exploding family sizes. For all the studies the hypocritical progressives bring out showing, for example, all these Catholic women using the pill or getting their tubes tied--all without the involvement of federal government funding or mandates and low-cost, effective condoms and birth control pills not only legally sold, but readily available at multiple drugstore chains and/or thousands of other locations everywhere, never mind at no or a nominal cost at Planned Parenthood everywhere--what can possibly justify socializing birth control expenses which citizens have been handling on their own to date anyway? Why should other citizens, handling their own reproductive expenses, take on those of other people? I know: "Ron, you're not dating anyone now. Ms. Fluke's partner has just spent $50 on their evening together hoping that he would get lucky, but he's now tapped out: he can't afford his own condom..." Yes, I'm getting screwed, but not by Ms. Fluke.

And can't we stop calling this pig of resources "insurance"? The hypocritical Democrats created this perverse crony capitalist/unionist benefit as a way of coping with a labor squeeze during WWII and the bad economics of wage-price controls. Wages are observable, but not benefits. Those costs you don't see--the company's match of payroll taxes and various benefits--are not "free". They're really tax-advantaged wages.

No, these are bundled health products/services, not insurance. We are not talking about the spreading catastrophic expenses: unexpected illnesses or conditions that would overwhelm all but the wealthiest households. We are talking about cynical gimmicks that if pushing-on-a-string "consumer protection" progressive Elizabeth Warren was to see the same in the private sector, she would be the first in line to complain. Free breast exams, annual exams, no co-pays? Churches don't have to pay for expenses that their employees are going to receive? Think about all those cheesy cable ads... Not a penny will come out of your pocket, we'll do all the government paperwork for you. You are entitled to this or that product or service at no extra cost...It's covered under your existing policy--why not take advantage of it?

If you think that doctors or nurses go off the clock while doing exams, that shipping is "really" free, that clerical personnel go off the clock while doing your paperwork. If it sells for money in a drugstore--it's not free. But the problem is that understated costs may spike demands for goods or services, which add to inflationary pressures.

There are a number of things to criticize about Ms. Fluke's pathetic, self-serving appearance. I've mentioned in past posts that I was serious enough about a religious vocation to be personally interviewed by a Jesuit while I was at OLLU. I know about the prominence of Georgetown University, one of the first American Jesuit institutions. Ms. Fluke is attending a Church-affiliated university and no doubt is aware of the Catholic Church's teachings against extramarital sex; her presence at the hearing was no accident.

I have remarkable tolerance for opposing views--that should be apparent from my current views overcoming the liberal Democrat perspective I had during my salad days; I am frankly bored by the self-appointed politically correct forces trying to intimidate frank discussions by asserting words like 'racist', 'homophobe' or 'misogynist' (as a high-ranking Georgetown official termed Limbaugh), as if confronting a vampire with a cross! OH PLEASE. I heard the term 'slut' being used by both genders since I was a little kid in school; I've heard daughter characters on TV and movies use the term to describe their promiscuous fathers.

I've only heard a brief clip of what Limbaugh said about Fluke. I think it was a misguided attempt at insulting humor. I don't know anything about Ms. Fluke's private life; presumably if she was living a chaste life, she wouldn't be spending $1000/year on birth control. But a number of monogamous women use artificial birth control, and I think a celebrity personally attacking a college student is unfair: he didn't even have the integrity to say it to her face.

You would think that someone who has spent nearly 25 years as a well-compensated radio show host would know better than to extend Ms. Fluke's 15 minutes of fame. (Maybe I should write something provocative enough about him  to trick him into mentioning my blog on the airwaves and send my readership through the roof...) And the way Barack Obama seized the moment to politically exploit it: utterly pathetic. Mr. Obama, did you personally call Sarah Palin last year in the aftermath of so-called comedian Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a dumb lady part and following it up the next week by calling Palin and Bachmann bimboes--or are you simply the Hypocrite-in-Chief? I'm sure Ms. Fluke, as a law student, has heard worse--and she's about to become a rent seeker lawyer and will get called other things.

But what's really worse, from the perspective of Limbaugh, is the fact that his entire point has gotten lost because of his use of language. And hearing  the Sunday talk shows (as I write, NBC and ABC's shows spent an outrageous amount of time on this nonsense) go on about this...

I was particularly annoyed by David Gregory's attempts to try to fault Romney for NOT promptly speaking on about this kerfuffle. OH PLEASE. Since when, other than perhaps an occasional rebuke from Gingrich to a GOP debate moderator, has the national media ever played it down the middle? When did David Gregory ever put Obama, Reid, or Pelosi on the spot over Maher's unprofessional behavior? I routinely filter out Maher's crap for my Political Humor section selections; Letterman is almost as bad. It's 2012, and the guy is still making George Bush jokes (he had one this past week talking about the son of King Kong).

It's one thing to question Romney over something said by a campaign staffer, but since when is it necessary for him to be asked to comment over the misbehavior of others not working for him? I think the real agenda is trying to stir trouble between Limbaugh and Romney which would backfire down the home stretch of the general election campaign. (I don't think it would work; Limbaugh has no intent of aiding and abetting a second Obama election.)

I think that the birth control kerfuffle, other than the obvious reference to religious liberty, is being given undue emphasis. This is just one rule--and personally I think the progressives are ecstatic that conservatives are ignoring the illegitimate preponderance of the anti-job, anti-business Obama Administration Economic Regulatory Spill, seeping throughout the economy. This has brought rent seeking to a whole new level. Government has largely caused this mess with dysfunctional policies and is trying to use its failure to justify a de facto nationalization of the sector. (Even if part of the sector remains in private hands, a government authority that pulls their strings doesn't really care; this is economic fascism.)

For an alternate take, Lee Doren has an interesting, well-spoken video commentary (thumbs UP!) on Youtube: "Sandra Fluke, Rush Limbaugh, Carl Sagan, George Carlin and [the Rush Limbaugh] Boycotts."

Obama's Narcissistic Behavior Watch

After my recent lengthy post on Obama's narcissistic behavior, I have decided to make it a recurring feature of the blog. In this first edition, Obama compared himself to Nelson Mandela and Gandhi at a recent NYC fundraiser.

13 Catholic-In-Name-Only Democrat US Senators Help 
Send Blunt Religious Liberty Amendment To Defeat:
Thumbs DOWN: VOTE THEM OUT!

Last Thursday 54% of Catholic Senators voted against the Blunt amendment allowing religious-affiliated institutions to opt out of ObamaCare rules requiring funding, directly or indirectly, birth control and/or abortifacients of employees, which lost by 3 votes 51-48. No Catholic GOP senators voted against the Blunt amendment; only 2 Catholic Democratic senators, both up for reelection this fall, supported the amendment: Manchin (WV) and Casey (PA).

Among the anti-liberty Catholic Democrats up for reelection this fall: Cantwell (WA), Menendez (NJ), Gillibrand (NY), and McCaskill (MO).

Only one Republican, retiring Olympia Snowe, voted against the amendment. For a list of other non-Catholic anti-liberty Democratic Senators whose seats are up for reelection this fall, see here. The following is the relevant list of anti-liberty Catholic legislators:


Senator Mark Begich (Alaska, D) – Opposed
Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa, D) – Opposed
Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois, D) – Opposed
Senator Mary Landrieu (Louisiana, D) – Opposed
Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts, D) – Opposed
Senator Barbara Mikulski (Maryland, D) – Opposed
Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri, D) – Opposed
Senator Robert Menendez (New Jersey, D) – Opposed
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York, D) – Opposed
Senator Jack Reed (Rhode Island, D) – Opposed
Senator Pat Leahy (Vermont, D) – Opposed
Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington, D) – Opposed
Senator Patty Murray (Washington, D) – Opposed

Political Humor

"A new study found that government employees are the happiest workers. The study was not conducted at the DMV." - Conan O'Brien

[What other profession is there where you're not the boss, but you get paid to tell other people what to do for a living?]

"I think Rick Santorum learned something yesterday [Michigan and Arizona losses]. He learned that the Electoral College is not for everyone." - Jay Leno

[Santorum accused Obama and Romney of being "snobs"; Romney reminded Santorum that not everyone needs to go to the Electoral College: conservatives who lose elections can always apply for work at Fox News Channel.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Paul McCartney & Wings, "Mull of Kintyre"

Miscellany: 3/03/12

Quote of the Day

Children need models rather than critics.
Joseph Joubert

Romney Takes #5 In a Row: 
Washington State Caucuses

At least one headline says #4, but I'm counting Maine, Arizona, Michigan, Wyoming and Washington. (Maybe it's because Wyoming's results aren't finalized yet.) Romney at 38% bested runner-up Ron Paul at 24% and Rick Santorum at 23%. The New York Times has Romney's delegate tally at 180 vs. Santorum's 90. The two biggest prizes on Super Tuesday, 3 days from now, are Georgia and Ohio.  Romney continues to gain ground in Gallup tracking, now with a 14-point lead over Santorum. Santorum's lead in Ohio had shrunk to 2 to 4 points before this weekend, and I think Romney has a good shot at taking Ohio. Romney has 42% of the popular votes to date. It looks as though Gingrich has a lock on Georgia with a double digit lead over second-place Romney; Santorum was in the second spot just a few days back. I haven't seen more recent polls in Oklahoma and Tennessee, but Santorum had lopsided leads in both states over Romney and is likely to take them. Romney is a lock in Virginia and Massachusetts and leading in Vermont. He and Ron Paul will be battling over Idaho and North Dakota.

Catholic-In-Name-Only Gov. Martin O' Malley (D-MD) 
Signs Measure Accommodating Gay "Marriage"
Thumbs DOWN!

Well, before the grooms celebrate with the traditional cutting and shoving of  the fruitcake into each other's mouths, there will be likely a referendum this fall, and I will vote to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage against radical social re-engineering, fraught with the risk of unintended consequences. (It's ironic that one of the few times my mom has commented on my blog, she was furious, thinking I was writing  in support of gay "marriage".) All I've said is that I believe that gay people should be left alone and I do not have a problem with civil unions guaranteeing certain rights, e.g., hospital visitation and inheritance.

As for a fifth  pathetic "Catholic" progressive governor pandering to a small fraction of the 3% or so of gay Americans in long-term, stable, monogamous relationships: O'Malley, you have dishonored the traditional Catholic roots of this colony, now state. Catholic Democrats who have opportunistically sold their souls for 30 pieces of political silver with sophistic arguments in favor of accepting the evil of elective abortion and undermining the unambiguous Church teachings on the indissolubility of traditional marriage embrace a false, hollow faith, devoid of substance or communion with the true Church. Your "Catholicism" is little more than derivative secular humanism. You show the lack of true leadership and moral integrity of  knowing when and how to pick your battles. Your life in politics has been little more than supporting policies undermining the self-reliance and fundamental dignity of citizens, hooked on morally hazardous government handouts.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Paul McCartney & Wings, "Maybe I'm Amazed". I feel this is the greatest live performance of all time, one of the greatest rock vocals ever, and one of the greatest songs ever recorded, period. Linda must have been one remarkable woman to have inspired such a loving tribute. How ironic and tragic that "Mother Mary" McCartney, the inspiration for "Let It Be", died from a complication in treatment of her breast cancer, years before Paul would become one of the greatest singer-songwriters in the history of popular music. (I remember there was speculation at the time McCartney was referencing Jesus' mother; in fact, Mary was Roman Catholic, and Paul was baptized Catholic but brought up nondenominational (because Paul's dad was Protestant).) Linda also succumbed to the tragedy of breast cancer. I can't even imagine what it was like for Paul to have lost the two most important women of his life to the same terrible disease.

Miscellany: 3/02/12

 Quote of the Day


Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
Demosthenes

Is Santorum Right? Is Obama a “Snob”?

I realize that the familiar reader will note that I have been judgmental of Barack Obama. For example, I had come to an independent judgment in 2008 that Obama is narcissistic; it was not based on reading or hearing someone speculating on the topic. It had to do with the arrogance of someone with no administrative experience and with a paper-thin resume of accomplishments thinking that he was up for the challenge of the most difficult job in the world, being President of the United States. There was this grandiose “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” rhetoric. Obama had already published two autobiographies by his mid-40’s. There were the infamous San Francisco comments when he dismissed clueless mid-western xenophobic voters whom clung to their guns and Bibles and weren’t smart enough to vote in their own interests for his better middle-class policies.
Jackie Fuchs, who met Obama in his freshman year at Harvard Law and handed him his greatest compliment, a comparison to female rocker Joan Jett, had this to say:

One of our classmates once famously noted that you could judge just how pretentious someone's remarks in class were by how high they ranked on the "Obamanometer," a term that lasted far longer than our time at law school. Obama didn't just share in class - he pontificated. He knew better than everyone else in the room, including the teachers.

Then there was an incident described in a Dec.2007 Politico post (my edits):

Then there was Sandra Burt, who lost her job on her 65th birthday. She cannot afford her $2,900 monthly prescription drug costs (she tried skipping doses, but ended up in the hospital). Her husband cashed in his life insurance and sold his treasured truck. They live in a 30-year-old double-wide trailer where the thermostat is set at 64 degrees.
Obama listened intently at the center of a U-shaped table, but amid the heart-wrenching stories that moved even members of the media, he betrayed little emotion. “No, listen, it is outrageous,” said Obama, his voice monotone. “We are going to change this.” For all the charisma that Obama can show day-to-day, bringing crowds to their feet with optimistic rhetoric or lingering on the rope line to hear voters’ stories, he can also appear equally detached. His response to Burt was a snapshot of his stump speech. Obama [talked], looking down at the table as often as he did at her. “Can you fix it?” Burt asked. “If I got the American people understanding that it needs to be fixed.” When somebody handed napkins to Obama for Burt, he dropped the pile in her hands from across the table. He later mentioned the success of his book allowed him to buy a big house.
Burt had become an insert in his speech. [Later] Burt said. “[Obama] does take the time to listen to you.” Asked by a reporter whether any of the candidates had actually tried to help her, Burt did not hesitate: “No one has helped me.”

Need more reminders since then? In one of his autobiographies, Obama suggested that his Caucasian maternal grandmother, who had raised him, was racist because she expressed a concern about an aggressive panhandler near her bus stop. Remember when McCain sought to delay (because of TARP legislation) the first Presidential debate, dealing with his strong suit of military affairs and foreign policy (a military retiree with nearly 25 years of related Congressional policy experience), and Obama accused McCain of trying to duck debating him? How about his accepting the Nobel Peace Prize when anyone with an ounce of personal integrity would reject an unearned honor? Remember what former Arkansas Congressman Marion Berry said about a 2010 conversation he had with President Obama, recalling the historic 1994 mid-term election giving the GOP their first House majority since the 1950’s? “The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ What about Obama taking credit for saving us from another Great Depression or saving the auto industry with his crony bankruptcy settlements (somebody better tell Ford, which did not take a government bailout). Or how about Obama’s condescending lectures during the debt ceiling negotiations, without submitting a constructive plan of his own? Or daring to jawbone SCOTUS over their recent Citizens United decision at his State of the Union address, an unprecedented incident (well, after all, Obama knew better than SCOTUS because as a lecturer he had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago….) Do I need to bring up the sham health care summit where he repeatedly interrupted the Republican members presenting their point of view? Or how about the fact that Obama, instead of presenting his own stimulus, health care and financial reform legislation, mostly cheered Democratic sausage making  from the sidelines? The incessant Bush bashing, “8 years of failed policies”, his international apology tour?
I had written related prior posts (e.g., here and here), The following excerpts are from an article on recognizing a narcissist:

• “individuals high in narcissism displayed amplified responses to social comparison information, experiencing greater positive affect from downward comparisons and greater hostile affect from upward comparisons.” (Consider, for instance, his condescending remark to Hillary Clinton during the 2008 when she suggested Obama was likeable that Hillary was likeable enough, and his above comparison between Bill Clinton’s vs. his own mid-term election outcomes)
• “Iin order to avoid shame, which the narcissist feels must be avoided at all costs, he externalizes blame for negative events. As he feels someone must be guilty, he almost always attributes blame to others.”  (Say, for example, Bush bashing, job losses during the 3 months following the 2008 election when Bush was a lame duck and had no leverage except a veto, GOP obstructionists, and international apology tours.)
• “A narcissist is someone who is overtly or subtly arrogant, exhibitionistic, vain, manipulative, and greedy for admiration.” (e.g., Obama’s unprecedented, frequent visits to various popular entertainment television shows, his own media channel at the White House, a voluminous number of public addresses and statements, his bashing of SCOTUS, etc.)
• “Their lack of empathy colors everything they do. They may say, "How are you?" when you meet, but they are working from memory. They are not interested in how you are.” (the Burt incident is classic.)
• “Their sense of self-importance and lack of empathy means that they will often interrupt the conversations of others.” (Obama’s interruptions during the health care summit)
• “Listen for the constant use of "I", "me" and "my" when they talk.” (Do I really need to elaborate here? Consider how often Obama speaks about himself—in the same appearance that he’s talking to Burt, living in a cold flimsy trailer, he mentions living in a mansion purchased with his book royalties; at a different appearance, he talks about the high cost of arugula at Whole Foods, an expensive upscale grocery, in a community without a Whole Foods.)
• “They expect others to do the day-to-day chores as they feel too important to waste their time on common things.”  (Think of Obama playing golf—again—during the BP oil spill, or the constant vacations to Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard, while we have the lowest labor participation rate in decades and record long-term unemployment.)
• One way to recognize a narcissist is to trust in your own intuition. As Sam Vaknin put it, "One feels ill at ease in the presence of a narcissist for no apparent reason. No matter how charming, intelligent, thought provoking, outgoing, easy going and social the narcissist is – he fails to secure the sympathy of others, a sympathy he is never ready, willing, or able to reciprocate." (A clear example is the fact that the public has never bought into ObamaCare and its kaleidoscope accounting before, during and after passage. Yet Obama persists to believe it’s a messaging problem and not the policy itself. I have been constantly annoyed by his johnny-come-lately attempts to co-opt issues (e.g., Romney’s business tax cuts, expanding offshore drilling (but only a tiny percentage and none off blue state coasts) His initial salary freezes—were for high ranking political appointees, but not thousands of six-figure salary federal employees. His discussion of special interests only reference GOP supporters, not his own crony labor union and environmentalist supporters. He engages in straw men arguments and constantly implies that his political opponents are stupid and little more than corporate shills, not principled. When GOP amendments are routinely rejected on party-line votes, Obama seems surprised that legislation is filibustered, and when he rammed partisan legislation through the 111th Congress, this political genius didn’t seem to realize that his observation after the 2008 election that “elections have consequences” also applied to mid-terms.. His spending cuts are accounting gimmicks and usually aimed at the 20% of the budget involving defense spending. Yet despite his immense personal popularity, he hasn’t seen an approval rating at 50 since the UBL mission last year.)

Sam Vaknin (cited in the above paragraph) wrote an August 2008 post where he does a more technical discussion of narcissists and Obama in particular; he cautions this was not a professional diagnosis which would require more extensive interviews and related data. But, for example, and I agree, for all the time Obama spent in publish-or-perish academia, his scholarly output in peer-reviewed journals was nonexistent.
I have a very good friend from India whom suggests this characterization of Obama as a narcissist is unfair and politically motivated. I’ve tried to be very explicit why I believe that’s the case. I’m frankly embarrassed by a President whom confuses trite observations with insight, whose response to the historic rebuke of the 2010 election has been to double-down on class warfare rhetoric and continue push money-losing high-speed train boondoggles and morally hazardous bailouts of  state/local teachers and public sector professionals (as if money isn’t fungible!) Where is Obama’s adaptation of Bill Clinton’s street smarts in realizing that the era of Big Government has passed?
What about Rick Santorum’s description of Obama as a “snob”? He was, of course, referring to Obama’s pushing of college education vs. say, blue-collar jobs not requiring a college degree. It’s even worse than that: Obama has nationalized the student loan industry putting the taxpayer at risk for uncompleted (or completed) degree programs in art history, philosophy, sociology, psychology, English, classic languages, etc., up to six-figures of loans that will probably never will be paid off.
Personally, I think Santorum was looking for publicity, Calling Obama a “snob” is unnecessary and would probably be seem by moderates and independents as a personal attack. I would prefer to talk about things like Obama picking winners and losers in the education market, the meager returns we’ve seen from taxpayer “investment” in public education. I would point out various studies, summarized in this blog, which call into question any incremental learning over the first couple of years of college.When I was teaching microcomputer application courses at ISU in 1991 (i.e., Lotus 1-2-3/DOS, dBASE, Word Perfect, etc.), I went out of my way in the class to say I was more interested in students being able to adapt current technology to solve problems than whether or not, twenty years later, they could remember keystroke combinations of now obsolete applications.
Employers aren’t necessarily looking for prowess in new skills—because technology will be different 5 years from now. In my judgment, they want self-motivated, hard-working individuals whom can cope with rapid changes in technology, incomplete specifications, dysfunctional project or organizational politics, and can effectively communicate, including salient organizational processes (i.e., grooming your successor in career advancement).
Santorum is right to point out Obama has been selling college education as most individuals’ path to a well-compensated career. But I’ve met, for instance, in the high technology field, successful people whom never earned a college degree, and some of the most famous non-graduates include America’s wealthiest person, Bill Gates, and Michael Dell.
I differ from Obama and Santorum because I see government as more the problem than the solution in education, period. I think, for instance, we can leverage education dollars more effectively by making lectures and learning software available to a larger number of students, including the ability of inner school students to remotely enroll in or audit the classes of first-rate teachers.
I also think both of them are playing winners and losers with manufacturing. Most jobs are located in the service arena. We need to get out of the business of trying to micromanage the economy and deal with the economy as it is.
I don’t think the issue is just with education policy. I think there is a real problem with business talent acquisition. For example, I’ve sometimes been passed over for opportunities based on wish lists of arbitrary skill sets, which I could easily master in minutes or a few hours. (It’s also very difficult to compete against H1B’s living out of suitcases; in fact, I’ve also personally interviewed unsuccessfully at multiple places where every single technical person was Indian or Indian-American—no exaggeration.) But my position is that the private sector has the right to be stupid; any business that engages in suboptimal hiring processes is providing a competitive advantage for the new or other competitor. The government monopoly, however, doesn’t have to convince taxpayers to choose its goods and services: it can tax and spend by fiat and even print its own money.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Paul McCartney & Wings, “Let ‘Em In”

Miscellany: 3/01/12

Quote of the Day

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
William Butler Yeats

Andrew Breitbart: Done Too Soon at 43

Breitbart was the undisputed leader of the new generation conservatives, someone whom was influential in iconic websites DrudgeReport and Huffington Post and had several of his own with a Big[name].com: BigGovernment, BigPeace, BigHollywood, etc. He was seen collapsing  on a late night walk by a neighbor, whom called an ambulance; he allegedly had known heart problems. Breitbart often assumed guest host duties of Dennis Miller's radio show (Dennis Miller also does the greatest interviews with actor Orson Bean, Breitbart's father-in-law); in fact, I was listening to one of those guest host podcasts yesterday.

Breitbart broke a number of well-known stories, including some of the Acorn stings, the infamous Shirley Sherrod audio/visual clip that led to her termination, etc.

Ms. Sherrod expressed her condolences to the family, and I applaud her for that. I still have mixed feelings about the Sherrod incident. The "big sin" was that Breitbart, who had been given an excerpt of the speech, went public before getting a copy of the full speech if it was available. I still think it would have been better for Ms. Sherrod to be prudent in explaining how she felt about the white farmer whom had disrespected her. I don't think I would have released it having heard the whole speech. Ms. Sherrod was certainly entitled to her opinion.

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Breitbart. I thought he was always interesting to listen to, although I thought he was a bit too focused on and defensive about  progressive's abusive assaults on conservatives. My feeling is, get over it: life isn't fair. I don't think it's prudent to show the jerks are getting under your skin.

But as someone who myself started out as a liberal Democrat, it was always refreshing to hear of another conversion to conservatism; we had something in common. He, of all the media conservatives, came across as a genuine, very nice man. He left behind an amazing family with several beautiful pre-teen children; my thoughts and prayers are with his surviving family members and friends.

Romney Takes Wyoming Caucuses 
For Fourth Consecutive Win

Maine, Arizona, Michigan and Wyoming add to Romney's prior victories/ties in Iowa (tie), New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada. The Gallup tracking poll, as I expected, has Romney up by 11% over Santorum, and Rasmussen has Romney up 40-24 over Santorum, reversing an early 39-27 advantage for Santorum. Next week will be more of a challenge with Romney up in Massachusetts, Virginia and Vermont, Gingrich up in Georgia, and Santorum up in Ohio, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Romney is a lock in Massachusetts and Virginia, only facing Ron Paul. And after Santorum bragged about earning just as many delegates in Michigan as winner Romney, one delegate was effectively flipped for Romney. Romney holds an estimated 182 of  1144 delegates needed for nomination. Romney picked up the endorsement of an influential Georgia newspaper, and Gingrich admits that winning his home state is make-or-break for his campaign.

On the Latest Episodes of  
"O'Reilly Knows Nothing (About Economics)"...

Before proceeding with the video commentary below, the reader may want to review my original response to the first episode; I also provide a related excerpt from Cafe Hayek at the end of a long commentary here.

I'm a little frustrated here, because I don't think the oil industry spokesman in the piece does a very good job of explaining a number of things. True, he talks about global prices, but he needed to be somewhat more specific. First, it's not true that America is self-sufficient in oil. Even with North Dakota's production, we are still dependent on about half of the oil we use. Second, money is fungible: the price of oil (holding type of oil constant) is determined by the global market. The spokesman did mention the global market, but did not explain about valuation of American oil. To suggest, as O'Reilly does, that American oil and derived products be sold below global costs is perverse economics and bad accounting: what is relevant is current/future prices for ongoing enterprises. It is true that matching existing inventory acquired at a lower price will show higher profits, but those profits are an artifact of accounting procedures: the inventory is really worth the current price. The use of obsolete prices of source resources would be unsustainable and misleading. Third, O'Reilly's market manipulation argument won't work (unless a company is distressed and will sell at any price). A vendor should be indifferent where he sells the goods (inside or outside the country): the relevant price is the global market price. Bill thinks that the vendor would be forced to sell at whatever the local market will bear. But as a vendor, I have no incentive to sell below my relevant costs; I would rather store my product until I get acceptable prices. Note that Bill's argument could be used for any exported good:  given the supply/demand curve he figures larger supply means lower price. Just don't export any good, and Americans will pay lower prices. There are several problems with that (besides the argument I just made about vendors refusing to sell below relevant costs), including the fact that American higher-value goods often require imported resources or components: how does the American manufacturer get his supplies if we aren't exporting? Fourth, Bill is pulling a bait-and-switch; he's talking about gasoline and other downstream products, but refining is only one set of operations for Exxon and contributes only part of the revenues and profits earned by the parent company O'Reilly cites. An Exxon refinery in theory could process crude from any source, over and beyond Exxon's own exploration and production unit. And Exxon's production unit could sell to any refinery in theory. What's the settled price? Clearly the market price for crude. The refinery has its own market, and it operates at typically lower margins than other aspects of the oil business (production, transport, etc.). For example, according to Ycharts, Valero, a very large refining and marketing operation, has a margin of 5.58%. Finally, market prices encourage locating and developing additional or alternative supplies. Bill's market manipulation does no such thing. New discoveries can have a material downward affect on global prices.

• "A decade ago, oil exports were not even among the top 25 exports." Even if true FOR DOWNSTREAM PRODUCTS (not crude, which O'Reilly implies), irrelevant. As Dobbs pointed out, there are higher-growing economies with expanding middle-income families buying cars. It may also be that international refineries are already running at capacity and hence are looking to the US refineries.
• "Many Republicans want to drill baby drill but what's the point if all the oil goes to China? Increased production obviously doesn't mean lower prices for us." Let's get this straight: China's demand is going to go up as its middle class grows, with or without new discoveries of American oil. So what Mr. Bill is saying here is "don't discover new oil--which will positively affect oil prices--because the Chinese are out to buy every barrel it can and/or downstream product it can find anywhere." Um, Mr. Bill? What about the fact that we're continuing to depend on foreign suppliers of oil, and we have to bid against China for that oil? What you are suggesting is MAKING A BAD SITUATION WORSE. That's not "looking out for the folks".
• "However, if the Obama administration wanted to, it could ask Congress to raise export taxes on the oil companies to encourage them to sell their products here." Not a chance in hell the GOP will raise business taxes, which are contrary to their entire rhetoric against Obama's anti-growth economic policies. Bill O'Reilly, as usual, gets it exactly backwards: the correct policy is to encourage domestic investment by constraining the EPA, expanding leases, streamlining approval processes, etc. More domestic supply encourages energy independence. What O'Reilly is doing here is a violation of equal protection principle; it engages in the same sort of picking winners and losers in the marketplace--an argument the GOP has been pressing against the Dems.
• "Well, Republicans generally don't want to inhibit the oil industry. And Democrats generally want high gas prices so folks switch to other modes of transportation and embrace alternative energy". The GOP, if it argues that it believes in the free market (which it has) will not intervene in the market. They have been arguing against the Dems engaging in industrial policy. I will point out that the Dems are well aware that the GOP will use high prices against Obama in the campaign--because Obama has opened only a marginal number of new sites. But both Dems and Republicans have thrown money at alternative energy, which is an indirect way of boosting prices for alternative fuels. And the Dems' standard talking point on this issue is more subtle than O'Reilly presents: they argue that new discoveries won't hit the market for years and hence will have no affect on prices in the short term. False; it depends on the nature of the find.
• "The cartels overseas and the oil companies here set the prices based upon what they can get anywhere in the world." Apparently O'Reilly thinks there's a problem which suppliers charging what the market will bear. As I explained in an earlier post, price-fixing is economically inefficient; oil shocks can trigger recessions and cut demand and also provide an incentive to find new supplies or make alternative energy supplies more feasible.

More on the second video to follow...



(About halfway through this commentary O'Reilly talks about oil and President Obama's leadership.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The amount of oil that we drill at home doesn't set the price of gas by itself. The oil market is global. Oil is bought and sold in a world market. And just like last year, the single biggest thing that's causing the price of oil to spike right now is instability in the Middle East. This time around Iran.

O'REILLY: But that's not entirely true. As "The Factor" has been reporting the oil companies are selling products that originate in America overseas because they can get more money in China and other places. That is the primary reason we're paying more for gas right now, because our domestic supply up because of the mild winter is being diverted to other countries so the oil companies can make more profit.

Obama, in this instance, is correct (not something I say that often). However, his energy policies have deterred the industry from finding or developing new supplies, and his policies towards Iran are playing a role.

O'Reilly is simply misleading the folks. First of all, we're still importing about half the oil we need. By what stretch of logic is he attributing refinery products to domestic (vs. imported) oil? Moreover, O'Reilly is confusing different markets here. There's the issue of heating oil, a different product. Heating oil is also being affected by Americans converting to cheap natural gas (which we have in abundance) versus home heating oil. And O'Reilly has things exactly backwards here: the reason we are paying more for oil reflects the global market price, not America's exports of oil products.

Therefore President Obama and Congress have a perfect right to regulate where fossil fuels that originate in the USA go because it's basically the property of we the people. But once again our leadership lets us down. If I am president I say to the American oil companies, hey, you have to sell a certain percentage of what you find and refine here to Americans.

Gas retailers already provide as much domestically-gasoline at a market price as consumers want or need. There are additional shipping costs for exported oil products.

And if you don't, we're going to slap an import tax... an export tax I should say on what you send overseas. Now that will bring down the price of gasoline? Would it not?

No. What will bring down the price of gasoline is decreased global demand (e.g., a recession) or increased global oil supply. We should not be discriminating against American downstream product exports; exports enable imports of goods that are cheaper to produce by others than we ourselves (the law of comparative advantage). You can't force a producer to sell below price, and discouraging American exports also adversely effects well-paid staff and (largely senior investor) stockholder income. What O'Reilly also fails to see is that we are not exporting crude--the raw material of oil products--but generally higher-margin value-added products.

Mr. Obama could call every American oil president into his office tomorrow. He could say exactly what I have just said in this "Talking Points" memo. You guys either sell a certain percentage of your oil to Americans or you've got to pay a price.

First of all, I don't believe in an imperial Presidency. Obama has no authority to unilaterally change terms of a contract after the fact (which oil companies have for domestic exploration and production); I didn't like it when Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson forced banks to accept federal money against their will, I didn't like it when Obama ignored higher-standing bondholders ahead of his crony union members. Second, even assuming the GOP House would pass this nonsense, which I doubt given the fact the GOP opposes industrial policy, it doesn't do anything to solve the real problem--that global demand is outstripping supply. What the Republicans need is a long-term solution to phasing out dependency on foreign energy supplies, not O'Reilly's megalomaniac short-term fixes which do nothing to address the long-term needs.

Political Humor

"Today is the 100th anniversary of the Oreo cookie. For New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, it's a holy day." - David Letterman

[Thank God that Letterman didn't think about doing a Barack Obama joke.


Santorum charged Romney of twisting the cookies apart and settling for the middle and Newt Gingrich of dunking his Oreos in batter and deep-frying them. As in all things, Santorum himself sees the discussion of Oreos as black and white.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Paul McCartney & Wings, "Silly Love Songs"