Francois's blog

The health care reform bill is easy to repeal

2010-03-28T19:03:00.000-07:00

Liberals have been saying for the past few days that once passed, entitlements can never be repealed. Of course, this is wrong, Medicare catastrophic was repealed, and liberals themselves are essentially repealing Medicare Advantage in the current bill to pay for the new entitlement. And Social Security and Medicare have been vulnerable to cuts in the past, to say nothing of how easy it has been to cut anti-poverty programs.

But let's analyze whether the current health care bill will be as popular as Medicare. Here's the major differences between this program and Medicare:

Medicare is an entitlement in which those who receive the benefit get something worth far more than what they paid in. Those who pay pay only a little bit, those who receive, receive something wonderful. That's why it's popular. How does the current health care bill measure up?

First, unless you qualify for a rather large subsidy, you aren't getting some great benefit. YOu are getting pretty much what you pay for. All the bill really does is make you buy insurance, and if you don't have the money to buy it, it gives you some help. So the only people really seeing a benefit are those who are poor to lower middle class.

However, the way the bill is written, the subsidies increase SLOWER than medical inflation. So the benefit is self-cutting. Poor Americans will start having trouble affording insurance very early on. Lower middle class Americans will start feeling the pinch soon as well. So unless Congress makes changes in by 2020, we'll be right back where we started: with 35 million uninsured. And paying a penalty. This is supposed to build political support for the program?

But that's not all. Health care reform has other losers: elderly people will have less access to doctors and hospitals because the bill cuts payment rates. The Medicare actuary estimated that 20% of hospitals would stop taking Medicare. Medicare Advantage essentially goes away. Elderly people do see the donut hole for part D close, but it's hard to believe that seniors would benefit from gutting part A in order to solidify Part D.

Let's face it. The only hard to kill entitlements are elderly entitlements. The elderly receive no benefit from this bill, in fact, they are primarily the ones paying for the bill. Unless Democrats decide to just not cut Medicare and let the deficit increase further, the elderly will favor repeal. And if the elderly want something, the elderly get it.

Ah, but there's more! Many employers are going to drop their insurance plans and put people into the exchanges. Others have already said their costs will increase under reform, and those costs will be passed to their employees. What will be the position of people who lost their employer health care on repeal of the bill?

It's really simple math. Medicare and Social Security are a benefit for the few, paid for by the many. The few get a great benefit, the many don't pay enough to get upset about it, and they figure they'll benefit when they get older anyway. The health care bill, by contrast, makes everyone pay so that everyone can benefit. But the way it's designed, more people will lose something than gain something, and the losers will lose more than most of the gainers gain.

So by my figuring, Republicans don't need to act fast. The longer this is in place, the more opposition will be built up against it. There will be a small faction of people, mostly non-voters, who benefit and will try to keep it, but the elderly, people on workplace insurance, the rich, and the lower middle class who will have a new obligation they can't afford, will support repeal.

Of course, the Democrats could have been lying this whole time and intend to do what they did with the doctor fix: constantly "fix" the bill, but not pay for those fixes. They had to pass something deficit neutral, but the fixes won't have to be. And I think they planned that all along.

Obama's greatest challenge

2009-09-25T01:26:00.001-07:00

It's not now. Getting us out of recession is the easy part. Voters blame the recession on Bush, so Obama either gets credit for getting us out, or he ends up not getting blamed for failing to get us out. Not much downside for the President.

No, the real challenge for Obama is going to be the next wave of prosperity. How could that be a challenge, you ask? Because of our huge debt. During good times, it must come down to sustainable levels, or better yet, we should be running surpluses. But Obama's own forecasts call for the deficit to still be in the $600 billion range, or 4% of GDP, by 2019.

The upshot of that is that when we next go into recession, the government will crash. There will be no room for fiscal stimulus. There won't even be a way for the government to meet its current obligations. Let's do the math:

Obama's budget outlook assumes 8 good years between 2011 and 2019. That's some serious optimism, but let's go with it. Eight solid years of prosperity, and the best we can do is get the deficit down to 4% of GDP? According to his plans, the national debt would be somewhere between 85-95% of GDP. Pretty dangerous territory.

So what happens if we go into 2020 with that $600 billion deficit and a recession hits? Armageddon, basically. Normal recessions typically double budget deficits, so let's conservatively assume a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2020. But that's probably way too conservative. The President's tax plans rely excessively on the top 1%, whose income is more volatile and drops precipitously during recessions. So the deficit could easily reach $1.5 trillion. But wait! Medicare's out of money! Gotta shore that up. Call it $1.7 trillion. That's before stimulus and that one year tips us over 100% Debt-to-GDP.

So what's Obama's challenge? It's not good enough to slowly lower the deficit over the next few years. Once the recovery sticks and we are in boom times, Obama must aggressively cut spending. We must get to surplus by 2015, preferably sooner, or the next recession will be budgetary armegeddon.

As with global warming, the longer he waits to make the tough decisions, the more expensive those tough decisions will be. In 2012, he can make minor cuts to social programs and defense and reform entitlements. If he doesn't, then in 2020, his successor will have to basically end most of those entitlements and slash social spending to nothing. We'll be back in the 19th century as far as the role of the federal government is concerned. The progressive project will have failed spectacularly.

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism from itself. In 2012, Barack Obama must save liberalism from itself

Predicting the far future

2009-09-20T02:15:00.000-07:00

No, not who is going to win the football games today, or who is going to be President in 2012. I'm talking way ahead, to 2100. And these are tough ones:

1) What views that are pretty much mainstream today will be considered barbaric in 2100? Obviously, when we look back at 1900 we think of racism, sexism, colonialism, totalitarianism(democracy was still a bit radical in most of the world in 1900), and religious prejudices(especially anti-semetism).

2) What views that are mainstream today will be seen as overly wishful and naive thinking? Most of the time we are taught in history classes about how barbaric and stupid our ancestors were, but humans are complex creatures. There was also a lot of idealism that turned out to be well, fuzzy-headed, naive, or downright stupid. Think of the peace movement in the 1920s between the wars, which culminated in the Kellogg-Briand pact, which outlawed war. yeah, that was a shining moment of realism right there. Or Marxism. Or the genuine idealism behind colonialism, which wasn't done JUST to exploit people, it was also to bring them the benefits of civilization. A lot of prominent progressives in the late 18th/early 19th century were pro-colonialism on those grounds. Or the temperance movement, which thought that society would be much better off if alcohol was outlawed. What naive things do we try to do today that future generations will look at us and think, "WOw, their intentions were good, but how did they ever imagine THAT would work?"

3) What from our popular culture of the late 20th/early 21st century(60s to the present) will stand the test of time and be considered essential classical art when the 22nd century dawns? Star Trek? Michael Jackson, the Beatles? Pac Man?

Here are the answers, in my opinion:

1) I think it's pretty obvious that we'll be over the anti-gay thing. We're already almost there. I also think that the idea of innate human superiority over animals will be considered just as barbaric as innate superiority of whites over blacks was. Not that humans aren't more intelligent than animals, of course we are. But is a human instrinsically "worth" more than an animal? 99% of you would probably say yes, but when you think about it, it's a belief based on the fact that you yourself are human, possibly backed up by religious dogma. I think our descendants will look back on that belief as being pretty barbaric, especially considering the horrors we inflict on animals, such as cosmetic testing or killing them to make coats. I think even meat will eventually be grown without killing an actual animal. Cloning technology and stem cell advances may make it possible to only grow parts of animals that don't think and feel. Like growing a chicken wing. Or maybe things will be like Star Trek and we'll just be able to replicate food out of the air.

Finally, I think that economic liberty will be the big battleground throughout the 21st century. Liberals have successfully fought for freedom to do a lot of things. The 20th century certainly belonged to them when it comes to civil rights, free speech, rights of defendants, workers' rights, and sexual freedom. But they tend to hold restrictive views on economic rights. They've restricted property rights, imposed onerous taxes on us, made it hard to run a business(or start one), and have not been above fomenting class hatreds. The trend over the last few hundred years in almost every sphere of human life has been towards more freedom. I don't think economic rights will be any different. I think that our descendants in 2100 will look back at high taxes and restrictions on commerce as unacceptable infringements on human rights. That doesn't mean that there won't be any regulations, but business regulation will more resemble today's regulation of sexual practices, whereas today it more resembles 1950s-era regulations on sexual practices. All that is "icky" is regulated regardless of whether it actually harms anyone. In 2100, the only business regulations will be on things that actually harm people directly, rather than things that offend liberals primarily because they don't run a business or just don't like business owners.

2) Diversity will be one for sure. Multiculturalism and diversity are just absurd the way they are practiced now and almost anyone can see it, but yet we are still practicing it. In the future, even thinking about color or sex as part of a hiring process will be considered strange. But where there are legitimate cultural or genetic differences, our descendants won't hide from them anymore. And the idea that all cultures are inherently equal will be laughable. The way we think about race and culture today is a hangover from the negative ways we thought about those things fairly recently. Once that hangover is gone, people will start to see these things more lucidly and without the baggage that we carry today.

I also think that we're repeating the stupidities of the 1920s peace movement in many ways. There are many people who actually think that there will never be another great war between nations. I think that by 2100, we'll see one, possibly two, really disastrous wars. I do think that eventually war will no longer be a fact of our existence, but it hasn't happened yet and it probably won't have happened by 2100, either. The biggest mistake we are making in the West in regards to our views on war is thinking that we can wage a war by strict rules that the enemy doesn't have to follow. It's literally impossible for any Western nation to win a war these days decisively. I think that in 2100, people will see a difference between war and law. War is what happens precisely because the rule of law has failed. Trying to uphold rule of law in the middle of a war is nonsense. You fight to win and you do whatever it takes to win. What will be most laughed at in 2100 was this idea that even many modern military experts hold, that you win a war by winning the "hearts and minds" of the enemy population.

Finally, I think that what many idealistic futurists predict, a united world under a single government, won't happen. In fact, I think that in 2100 there may be as many as 1000 nations, or at least most nations will use a decentralized approach to governance. People are diverse. In different regions they have different values and different ideas of how things should be. It makes no sense to try to have a one-size-fits-all way of doing things directed from some central world authority.

3) Big action-packed blockbusters won't hold up, because they'll still be making them in 2100, except they'll be even better and they will probably be holographic. And interactive. So what's the Gone With the Wind of the late 20th/early 21st century? I don't know. Whenever I think of a movie with a really good plot that was made since 1970, I think about how dated it will appear. We have a romanticized view of our recent past in some ways, so that's why we still like old cinema. And we still like stuff from the 70s and 80s, because we grew up with it. But will any of this be interesting to the average person in 2100? I think they'll be interested in the early days of cinema just like us, but middle eras tend to get short shrift when it comes to art. Will Titanic still capture people's hearts, or do we like that just because the Titanic fascinates us now? Maybe people in 2100 will have forgotten about the Titanic. Alien movies like ET will probably seem silly, especially if we've made first contact by then, or even if we've merely found remains of an older alien civilization. Star Wars I don't expect to survive past 2040 as a cult phenomonon. Star Trek will probably have more staying power, but by 2100 might just be a well known curiosity of how the people of the 20th century viewed the future. Even now, I laugh at some things I see on Star Trek or ST: Next Generation because they sometimes talk about things just being discovered in their time that we take for granted now. So hell, I don't know when it comes to movies.

Music is easier. The Beatles of course will still be big in 2100, although I think more known for their early years than the psychedlic and "give peace a chance" later years, which will be seen more as period music. The earlier stuff will be considered timeless. I think that disco may actually be even more popular in 2100 than it is today because it was the first real dance club music. I figure people will still want to get together for some dancing in 2100, so dance music will still be big and disco was the first real dance music for the masses. So the Bee Gees may be bigger than the Beatles. Springsteen, Dylan, and the better rap music will probably also hold up. As much as I love heavy metal, little of it will probably survive to 2100. There will always be heavy music, but I don't think there will be much interest in the history of it, except for maybe Sabbath, Zeppelin, and maybe Metallica.

President telling a whopper on health care

2009-08-23T03:58:00.001-07:00

At two seperate appearances, the President stated that health care reform would cost $80 to $90 billion/yr. He makes that assumption based on the $800-$900 billion cost of HR3200 over 10 years.

Here's what he doesn't tell you: the plan doesn't go into effect until 2013. So that $800-$900 billion cost isn't over ten years, it's over six. The CBO says that in 2019, the bill will cost $202 billion. And will continue to grow faster than revenues after that into the longterm, widening the deficit and pushing us headlong towards bankruptcy.

The left loves to whine about all the right-wing lies, but their credibility might be helped if the President himself wasn't telling such frequent whoppers of his own.

And while I'm on the topic, the ever-changing rationale for health care reform reminds me of something that happened under the last adminstration. Wonder what that was?

Evidence that the stimulus was a waste of time

2009-08-18T02:00:00.001-07:00

Why are Europe and Japan pulling out of recession before we are? that almost never happens. And Paul Krugman was bitching for weeks during our own recession debate how the US is the only one trying to do a serious stimulus and that without world cooperation it won't do much good.

Well, we did do a stimulus and we're doing about as well as was predicted without one. Meanwhile, Europe and Japan are recovering sooner than expected.

What, you mean busting a hole in the budget doesn't bring prosperity? I'm shocked!

I have a new blog

2009-08-18T01:20:00.000-07:00

Link here

I will still be keeping this blog for general commentary, but I've started a new blog dedicated to commenting on issues brought up by Matt Yglesias' blog. Yglesias fans or haters will appreciate this more than the casual blog reader who isn't familiar with him, but for political junkies it does contain some pretty good political commentary, if I do say so myself.

And if you're a political junkie, why aren't you reading Matt Yglesias' blog already?

Liberal Democrats making empty threats

2009-08-18T01:18:00.000-07:00

Would liberal Democrats really not vote for a bill without a public option? We're hearing threats that without a public option, 100 Democrats will vote against it, which would mean no health care bill at all, since a bill with a public option can't pass and a bill without one can't pass.

Personally, I don't think they would, and it's not about guts or spine, it's about incentives. the Blue Dogs come from districts that are against the public option vehemently. If no bill passes, it's no skin off their backs.

So that leaves liberals with an empty threat, and the Blue Dogs know it.

On bubbles

2009-08-17T02:49:00.001-07:00

There's been a lot of posts on Matt's blog recently, as well as on Brad Delong and Kevin Drum's blogs, about bubble. How to detect them, what to do about them.

Now I'm not a financial expert. At best, I'm financially literate and not a bad investor. I saw the stock market bubble and the housing bubble before they popped, as well as the oil bubble. When things get insanely overpriced, it's not hard to tell. The only part that's impossible is figuring out when investors will finally realize how fast prices have outpaced value and start selling. But from the perspective of policymakers, they don't need to know that. They just need to know that a market is fundamentally overpriced by quite a bit. You don't know precisely when a bubble starts or when it's going to end, but you know when one is going on once it's really gotten inflated.

But that's not really relevant either. What causes bubbles? Is it that investors aren't aware of them? Many investors aren't, but I think most investors are. They just assume it will make them big profits and they'll get out and some other sucker will be holding the bag, usually inexperienced investors who hear during the height of the bubble how they can make massive returns with little risk. So it's probably not ignorance. It's greed.

So how do you deal with that? I have an idea: why not jack short term capital gains rates to 50%? And to encourage investment for the long term, reduce long term capital gains to a nominal amount like 10%, or even 5%. If you're worried about that being regressive since rich people tend to be more likely to have long term investments, you could just keep the current long term capital gains rate on people making more than $250,000 and reduce the capital gains rate to 10% for everyone else if they hold an investment for at least five years.

Something that was particularly to blame for the housing bubble was the recent favorable treatment of capital gains on the sale of a primary residence. Taxes change incentives. Especially for smaller investors, what could make more sense than to invest in your home, since when you sell it, you don't pay capital gains taxes unless your profit is $250,000 or more if you're single? Since it also applied to second homes, it encouraged house flipping. That not only encouraged people to overpay for housing, it also led people to put all their eggs in the real estate basket. The favorable treatment of capital gains on housing should be eliminated, or at least require that the home be owned for longer before sale.

Don't blame Obama for the economy

2009-07-06T02:51:00.000-07:00

In regards to Biden saying they "misread" the extent of the recession, John Boehner and other Republicans are attacking Obama for presiding over the loss of 2 million jobs since he took office.

This is just stupid, for reasons of simple reality and political strategy. Everyone knows that this recession started under the Bush administration. Obama is not responsible for the recession unless you can point to something stupid he did to harm the economy. Since the only candidate policies that might do that(cap and trade, tax increases) haven't gone into effect yet, or even been signed by the President, it's silly to accuse him of economic mismanagement.

The only thing Obama is responsible for is wasting all that stimulus money. That's where the Republicans should be hitting him, especially when you've got prominent liberals calling for a second stimulus before the first one is even half spent. Focus on the failed stimulus like a laser and don't let another one get by you. The nation can't afford it.

Attacking Obama on the economy is just stupid, because voters know Republicans got us into this mess, and because if Obama senses that it is hurting him, he'll do something stupid like sign another stimulus. The stimulus is the failure, not Obama's overall economic management.

The war in Afghanistan

2009-07-06T02:10:00.001-07:00

With the war in Iraq winding down after it took a good five years to come up with a winning strategy, the Obama administration is now focusing on winning the war in Afghanistan. This is all good.

However, despite what the Iraq war cost us, I think most of us realize that Afghanistan is a much tougher job. Since the load is being widely shared among NATO, and we have fewer troops over there, the casualties don't seem as high. But at least for the last three years, they have been near Iraq levels. With more troops being committed and us getting more serious about fighting the remnants of the Taliban, our casualties will continue to rise, probably to the point where we're losing as many of our men and women as we did at the height of the Iraqi insurgency. And this may go on for a long time, much longer than it went on in Iraq.

The generals say they don't have enough troops yet. Obama has made a very good decision to raise troop levels to 66,000, but that's just not going to cut it. That's not Obama's fault, that's probably all that can be committed until we are first out of Iraq, and second, our military has had a couple of years to recover from the Iraq debacle. But eventually, we are going to have to ramp up to near 200,000 if we want to actually win this war. That won't happen until 2013 at the earliest. Once we do get to that troop level, we can probably win the war in another four to six years, given good political and military leadership.

I think we're going to have significant forces in Afghanistan until 2020, and I also think we'll incur 10-15K combat fatalities. Iraq has been in the headlines since 2003 while Afghanistan has been a sideshow, but I think when the histories are written, Afghanistan will be the big war and Iraq the sideshow. Iraq will be seen as a blunder that diverted troops from the real battlefield and made our eventual victory that much harder.

For those who think we won't have the political will to expend that much blood and treasure in Afghanistan, think again. 3000 Americans died because of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The threat that they pose still exists. There's no way we can retreat from Afghanistan. It's not an elective war like Iraq was, or the Soviet Afghan war was. We either win, or we are defeated. Al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot win a political victory because political victories are only possible in elective wars like Vietnam or Iraq. So the only question to answer is, how long will it take for us to defeat them, not whether we'll stick it out to the bitter end.

That means that the war in Afghanistan is only just beginning.

Major trade decision coming up for the administration

2009-06-20T03:06:00.000-07:00

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/tough-china-trade-decision-for-obama-2009-06-18.html

The Steelworkers' union has succeeded in their petition to a US trade body to determine that Chinese tire exports are hurting our domestic tire industry. What remains is for President Obama to approve the request for relief, which would result in quotas and/or tarriffs on Chinese tires, or to reject it. Bush rejected all four such petitions that he received during his Presidency.

While this is a major decision, I don't see it as a particularly enlightening example of Obama's thinking on the issue, whichever way he comes down. We do not have a free trade agreement with China. China is a very protectionist nation and likely wouldn't be interested in the first place. While I am a big supporter of free trade, I believe it must be on the basis of mutual agreements with our trade partners. Since we don't have an agreement with China, I don't really think it makes Obama a protectionist if he grants the steelworkers' union relief and imposes tarriffs on Chinese tires.

Now if it was a complaint about Mexican tires, I'd be throwing a hissy fit on this blog.

The Osbourne decision

2009-06-20T02:23:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court recently ruled, 5-4, that a person in prison does not necessarily have a constitutional right to potentially expulcatory DNA evidence. The voting broke down along ideological lines, with the conservatives maintaining no constitutional right and the liberals dissenting.

Many liberal blogs are attacking the decision and taking a swipe at conservative jurisprudence in general as always favoring prosecution over defense, corporations over the little guy, etc.

Hate to say it, but it's true. But the solution isn't the one liberals favor: more liberal justices. While liberal judges are excellent on issues of criminal justice, and have established extremely important precedents on search and seizure, legal representation, and the rights of the accused, liberals have a big blind spot: they favor the powerful over the weak when the powerful is the government.

While this decision is troubling, it's not nearly as far-reaching as two cases decided in the last few years: Kelo and Raich:

The Kelo decision allowed state governments to take private land under eminent domain in order to transfer the land to another private party. An extremely broad reading of the "public use" clause. That case was also decided along ideological lines: the liberals plus Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, chose government power over individuals.

The Raich decision stated that the federal government could regulate medical marijuana use, even though the marijuana was not part of interstate commerce and was being grown only for personal use. This decision was handed down 6-3, with Scalia joining the liberal bloc and Kennedy. O'Connor and conservative justices Thomas and Rehnquist dissented. Another case of government being favored over the little guy, courtesy of liberal jurisprudence.

What we need are Alex Kozinski and Randy Barnett on SCOTUS. Glenn Reynolds and Douglas Ginsburg. Justices who will interpret the powers of the government narrowly, and the rights of the people expansively.

A theory of religion and morality

2009-06-04T00:11:00.001-07:00

Liberals love to post studies about how religious people are more likely to get divorced, have kids out of wedlock, etc. Well, a new study now shows that girls who attended a religious school are more likely to have abortions than girls who did not.

But statistics have little meaning if you can't figure out the "why". Why do religous people tend to be less moral, assuming the statistics are correct?

First, you have to distinguish between different types of religion. I'm not talking about Christianity vs. Islam, or Judaism vs. Buddhism, but levels of religious devoutness. Lots of people go to church. Different churches have different levels of devoutness among the congregations. A mainstream Baptist church is going to have a different congregation than a born again church like Cavalry Chapel.

Here's my theory: it's all about the commitment in your beliefs, not necessarily what you believe. Atheists tend to be the least likely to be criminal, tend to be the most educated, yada yada. But although I can't back it up with statistics because no one has ever asked the right question, so are those Christians who are born again, who have freely chosen the faith and are motivated to live by it. You just can't compare someone who has a belief system based on what they were told to believe by their parents, and someone who considered the matter themselves and came to a certain conclusion.

So, to put this in the most offensive, non-PC way possible, those individuals who are nominally Christian or Jewish or whatever, who occasionally go to church and have a passing familiarity with the Bible, are the ones most likely to fall into moral decay. They don't have a set of morals because they probably don't really think about morals much. Spending time thinking about what you believe is inextricably linked to thinking about what constitutes moral behavior. If you've never given your religion any thought, you probably haven't given your morals much thought either. Very few people are born atheist. They arrive at atheism through a lot of soul-searching and thinking. Neither are people born into some of the less mainstream churches. They freely choose to abandon the sect of their parents and go to the new church, which they feel is more true to Scripture. A person who was born a Baptist or a Catholic and remains one without thinking much about what it all means or even whether it's valid given what they know about Scripture probably also hasn't thought about right and wrong much.

Atheists tend to have a very humanist perspective. They tend to have a firm moral grounding based on not doing harm to others, accepting differences, and recognizing that this life is all you get, so don't screw it up for yourself or other people.

Devout religious followers tend to have a firm moral grounding based on God's law(or whatever applies to their religion). As long as their beliefs about what God requires aren't nuts, which can happen with some religious fanatics, they will lead a moral life. Because they love and fear God.

But people who are not devout, who just practice churchianity or go to the synagogue primarily for social networking, what is their moral basis? They sorta believe in God, but it's not reflected in their actions because the belief isn't firm. They just fall into narcissism.

Now of course this doesn't mean that all soft religious believers are immoral. I think it just explains why members of mainstream denominations are more likely to fall into immorality than atheists or devout believers.

Everyone should subject their beliefs to rigorous analysis. that doesn't mean abandoning faith. You can't prove certain things, such as the existence of God. But if your pastor says one thing, and the Bible says another, you might be in the wrong church. And if you've never given it any thought, but just accept wrong teachings, then you probably also allow yourself to be convinced that lying, stealing, cheating, fornication, etc. are okay. After all, if your pastor says divorce is a-okay despite Jesus saying the exact opposite, then it doesn't take much at all for a friend to convince you that it's okay to snort cocaine.

How health care will be rationed

2009-05-18T01:59:00.000-07:00

http://www.fresh-thinking.org/publications/JAMA_perfect_storm.pdf

Dr. Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, by the way, should be credited for his honesty.

The ways costs will have to be cut:

1) Less amenities in health care. The hospital rooms are too nice.
2) Less use of the newest treatments
3) Doctors are currently too thorough. He even manages to criticize the Hippocratic oath, as it encourages doctors to go above and beyond to help a patient. This of course, is inconsistent with social justice, since not everyone can receive this time-consuming and expensive care.
4) Pharma companies need to stop advertising to consumers. If consumers know what's available, they'll demand it. If they don't know, then "There's nothing we can do" becomes much more plausible.

Oh, and one last one fro last year. Dr. Emmanuel wrote this in the Lancet:

“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.”

In plain English, it means that it's okay to deny certain treatments to the aged. Which of course is correct if you're going to provide good treatment to the young. But I don't think Medicare beneficiaries will willingly give up their Grade A care so that the young poor can get better care.

Of course, Dr. Emmanuel is right that we have an overutilization problem. There is some money to be saved in using older, effective treatments rather than always going for the newest one. I've gotten prescriptions myself for drugs that could be bought cheaper over the counter. One doctor gave me a prescription for Naproxen that was lower than the dosage in a single Aleve tablet. Naturally, I tossed the prescription and bought a bottle of Aleve. I was once prescribed Paridex for a gum problem that Listerine was actually more effective for. And I once got a prescription for ringworm that was cured by OTC Tinactin. So encouraging doctors to prescribe OTC stuff first where possible would probably be a good start. and yes, heroic, end-of-life care will have to stop except for those who can pay for it themselves. Sorry, Medicare folks.

The point of this is to understand just what will be involved with a government health care plan. the government will try to sell it as everyone getting gold-plated care. The reality is that it will be a heck of a lot better than having no insurance, but don't kid yourself into thinking it will be better than a decent, much less, a gold-plated, insurance plan. Understand what you're buying as a taxpayer, and judge the value of it vs. the cost. Oh, and keep in mind that they will lie about the cost, so at least double the expected cost before deciding if it's worth it.

A better money-saving idea for Pres. Obama

2009-05-10T03:19:00.001-07:00

Tax preparation costs $300 billion per year. A fairly large minority of workers work for the federal government.

Instead of having them pay taxes on taxpayer dollars, why not have the government simply offer less pay in the first place and make that pay tax free?

I realize that taxes are different for everyone, but that's another problem that needs to be addressed. But we can make a good start by imposing a no-deductions tax on all federal employees, which would be paid simply by pay cuts, thus saving them the trouble of paying taxes ,and taxpayers the expense of processing those taxes. and since as many as 10-15% of federal employees fail to file and even more claim fraudulent deductions, it would increase tax revenues.

As a gesture to our men in uniform, we could just make their current pay tax-free. All civilian employees would receive a 20% pay cut.

Who watches the watchers, and why lobbyist restrictions are dumb

2009-05-09T23:25:00.000-07:00

Lobbyists don't vote on legislation. In the end, it's the politician who foists bad legislation on us, not the lobbyist. Blaming lobbyists for bad lawmaking infantilizes our Congressmen. They can't control themselves, they got a free plane ride and had to vote a certain way on a bill!

Whether it's the lobbyists fault, because Congressmen are children with no self-control, or whether it is Congressmens' fault, controls on lobbyists solve nothing. We need controls on Congress.

An independent oversight board made up of people from the private sector should be set up, appointed by all three branches evenly(say, three appointed by the President, three by Congress, and three by er, maybe the Chief Justice.) They would serve as long as desired. They would have the power to investigate ethics infractions by Congressmen by majority vote, and the power to remove Congressmen from office by 2/3rds vote.

Congress constantly screams about oversight of everything. Of the executive branch, of the private sector, but never of themselves. Yet Congress contains a higher percentage of corrupt members than the business world, the executive branch, or anywhere else. They have proven themselves unable to self-regulate. Outside regulation must be established over Congress.

A viable third party

2009-04-16T21:40:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about what a viable third party in this country would look like. Many say that a successful third party is impossible due to our winner take all electoral system. I would agree that it would be hard to sustain three viable parties for the long term. What would have to happen is that either one of the major parties would go away(as happened to the Whigs in the 19th century) or various ideas of the third party would be coopted by the major parties(as happened to Ross Perot's movement).

It's passe to say that voters are disgusted with both parties. There's always been a lot of truth to that statement and to say it now as if things are worse than ever probably wouldn't be accurate. However, I do think that there are some issues that many Americans care about but which aren't represented adequately by either party. So let's look at what issues are being ignored, and what kind of third party could fill that empty space.

The first thing a third party would have to be is moderate. Most of America's existing third parties are radical, fringe parties. The only way third parties get significant support is by squeezing in between the two major parties, as Ross Perot did in the 1992 election and Jesse Ventura did in the 1998 Minnesota election.

But what does that consist of? Well, for starters, thinking in broad terms:

1) The party would be fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Right now the Democratic party is fiscally liberal and socially liberal, while the Republican party is(in theory) fiscally conservative and socially conservative. In this case, the new party wouldn't occupy the middle ground, so much as a more libertarian ground than either party.

2) The party would be moderate on foreign policy issues. Right now, the Democrats are too weak on foreign policy, to reflexively accomodationist. The Republicans are too reflexively hawkish and insult our allies. We need a party that strikes a good balance. In this case, the new party would exist in the middle ground.

3) The party would be skeptical of government and not seek to expand the government's powers. It would be favorable to individual rights, and place the burden of proof on those who would limit freedom to prove that it is absolutely necessary. Currently, we have the Democrats constantly seeking to expand federal power at the expense of states and individuals, and grab a larger and larger piece of the economic pie for them to distribute as they see fit. They believe there should be few limits on Congressional power. The Republicans have set up a national security apparatus that violates our privacy. They believe that the executive branch should have supreme power.

4) The party would be reformist. It would attempt to sever the connection between campaign donations and earmarks. It would end subsidies to favored businesses and also end confiscatory tax policy towards unfavored businesses.

5) The party would be a unifying force in politics, rather than a divisive force. Both parties try to divide us and make us hate one another. Republicans demagogue against gays, illegal immigrants, liberal academics, and the law profession. Democrats stereotype businessmen as greedy and corrupt. Both parties use this to convince us that we need to give the government more powers to protect us from these threats. The new third party would never try to spread hatred against others, no matter how useful a caricature they were for campaigning purposes.

6) The party would take seriously its elected members oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Of course, there are often differences about interpretation. However, what we're seeing now in Washington is Congressmen and even the last two Presidents not even caring about whether legislation is constitutional, or seeking ways to narrowly craft legislation so that it is technically constitutional but violates the spirit of the supreme law of the land.

If this sounds like a moderate libertarian party, it's because it is. The official Libertarian Party likes to cite various polls showing that anywhere from 40% to 60% of the public leans libertarian. I think those polls are probably accurate, but it doesn't follow that Americans want to do away with Medicare, public schools, and retreat to isolationism. It's a shame too, because since WWII, neither major party has stopped the headlong rush towards greater centralization. They've only differed in their reasons and methods. We need a third party that won't want to dismantle the entire apparatus as the official Libertarian Party does, but one that wants to make government simply become less of a burden over time and recognizes that we live in a globalized marketplace.

Who really runs this country?

2008-07-09T23:01:00.000-07:00

If you ask most Americans, they'd probably say big corporations. It's easy to see why they'd think this. Every time a law is being debated that affects corporate interests, the corporations pour millions into lobbying to make sure the law conforms with their interests. It's what makes the headlines.

But the reality is that the middle class runs this country. Need proof? What are the most deadly programs to touch? What are the most difficult tax breaks to rescind? Those that benefit the middle class. Politicians can't cut Social Security. They can't get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. When they run for office, they'll never say they'll raise taxes on the middle class. But they'll sure promise to raise taxes on the rich. They'll also promise all kinds of new restrictions on business.

Criminal justice is Exhibit B. Compare the crimes that the poor are most likely to commit to crimes the middle class are most likely to commit. The crack/powder cocaine discrepancy is the most well known example, but there are others. Traffic laws come to mind, especially DUI. Despite the crackdown on drunk driving since MADD started raising public awareness, you'll still get a relative slap on the wrist for driving drunk, considering how serious the crime is when you think about it objectively. That's because it's mostly middle class males that drive drunk and by God, we can't have middle class people going to jail! Jails are for poor folks!

If you follow Congress pretty closely like I do, you'll notice that whenever a law is passed, it is tailored to exempt the middle class whenever possible. If it's a law directed at business, they'll stress that the business must have X number of employees, otherwise they are exempt. Even if the law does apply to everyone, the enforcement tends to be strictly against larger businesses, and almost never against individuals. For example, if you pay an illegal alien to mow your lawn or even to be a babysitter, no one is coming after you. But if you're a company and you don't get proof they are legally eligible to work, it's a $10,000 fine. And in practice, smaller businesses are almost never audited by the government.

Proposed cap and trade laws to stop global warming are another example. Every proposal involves making business pay all the costs wherever possible, even though consumers account for far more emissions than businesses. The Presidential candidates all agree that consumers must be shielded from the costs of anti-global warming legislation.

The different reactions to the housing bubble and high gas prices are another example. Selling a house for 5 times what you paid for it just being a smart investor. Selling gas for 10% more than you paid for it is gouging. That's simply because most middle class people are homeowners, but few middle class people are CEOs of oil companies, or even gas station owners. Politicians would never in a million years seek to investigate collusion between neighbors, which has happened a lot in recent years, where neighbors coordinate their pricing strategies. But with zero evidence of price fixing or collusion by gas stations or oil companies, multiple investigations are launched. Because the middle class is angry.

The reality is that the middle class is protected by it's numbers. The voters are mostly middle class, so politicians fear the middle class. The rich are protected by their money. They can protect themselves from adverse legislation by lobbying. Which they do so much because it's actually pretty easy for politicians to attempt to go after the rich. The reason for the perception that the rich and corporations run things is because almost all legislation is directed at them and they defend themselves against it. But if they really ran things like the middle class does, they wouldn't have to defend themselves from such legislation to begin with.

The only people who have no defense against adverse legislation are the poor. And they get the screws put to them on a regular basis. Laws directed mainly at the poor tend to be harsh, often disproportionate to the transgressions. Politicians don't give a second thought to taxes that mainly fall on the poor.

As someone who is middle class now but still lives the poor lifestyle in some ways, I experience small slights every day, and the law does very little to uphold my rights. I ride a bike and nearly get run over, I'm told by cops to be more careful even though the driver broke the law and I didn't(of course I do need to ride very defensively, but the cops should enforce the law, not lecture the law abiding just because they are less important politically). I bought some chicken strips and sat outside the grocery store to eat since I don't have a car and I didn't want to have to nuke them when I got home. A cop told me I should go because "it looks weird for someone to be sitting there eating". And since a cop can order anyone to leave for any reason(another law directed mainly at the poor), I had to do it.

Middle class society has decided that not only are middle class values the only thing that is "normal", but also the only thing that is legal. And Congress and state legislatures have followed the middle class's wishes. It's illegal to sit in front of a store and eat. Car drivers own the road. You can sell a house for an unlimited profit, but you can't sell gas for an unlimited profit. You can hire illegal aliens, but the local Wal-mart better not. Camping in a forest is wonderful, sleeping on a park bench is distasteful.

Evangelical Christians have been complaining for years that they are an oppressed majority somehow. Middle class people have also claimed to be "under assault" and oppressed by wealthy people and corporations trying to screw them on one side, and poor people trying to rob them and marry their daughters on the other side. In reality, they run things and they need to quit whining.

Putting negative charges into the proper context

2008-04-18T15:20:00.000-07:00

Like most campaign seasons, there have been a lot of charges that don't have much to do with issues. Some of them are barely even relevant to character. Naturally, both sides use them to say that the candidate they don't like is completely unfit for office due to this or that charge.It's just not true in either case. There are some silver bullets that completely blow up a candidate's reputation and make them clearly unfit for office, but we haven't seen anything approaching that in this fight so far.But that doesn't mean that the charges are meaningless. They do speak to an aspect of the candidate that may or may not be important to you. For example, McCain's potty mouth and temper give him a boorish aspect that turns a lot of people off. The Rev. Wright controversy calls into question just how much of a uniter Obama is. However, in McCain's case, it doesn't mean he can't be a great Commander-in-Chief. Many military officers lack tact and have an explosive temper. In Obama's case, does he have to be the Ultimate Uniter to be a superior candidate to Mccain? Absolutely not.Now, to drop the veneer of balance, here's why I think the Obama stuff is more damaging than the McCain stuff. McCain's faults are mostly well known. Everyone knows he's like a bull in a china shop at times. Therefore, that deficiency is already built into his current approval numbers. The only thing that really damages McCain are the repeated Shiite/Sunni confusion, which hurts him where he is perceived as most credible: on foreign policy.Obama, however, his great appeal was as a uniter. As an agent of change. That's a very delicate narrative to maintain, so unless he actually is a uniter and an agent of change, the facade will fall pretty quickly. The Rev. Wright scandal works against that narrative. The NAFTA/Goolsbee thing is a great example of politics as usual, telling voters one thing while your advisors tell interested parties another(Clinton's campaign did it too, but people already expect that of her. It's built into her "value" already). His speeches also gave the impression of a strong leader. I used to extol him as the next JFK, but as time went on it was noticeable that he didn't do so well without a prepared speech and when challenged his appearance of strength vanished.To sum up, in politics, the most damaging accusations are ones that contradict your narrative, that question the very heart of your candidacy. Bill Clinton was absolutely hammered throughout the 1992 campaign, but survived, in large part due to the fact that for all those charges, none of them challenged what he portrayed himself as: a really good leader, a former governor, who could economically turn this country around. None of them challenged the narrative that he was a "different kind of Democrat", another major attraction. He was DLC. Practically FOUNDED it. There was no way to portray Clinton as a liberal Democrat, even though the Bush team tried.You have to run as what you actually are. Obama is running as something he is not. What he is is a Democrat in the Kerry/Mondale/Dukakis mold, albeit far superior to those three in terms of intelligence and strength(he's not what I'd call courageous, but he's not nearly as wimpy as those three.) But he's running as something else, a centrist, bipartisan Democrat trying to change politics. It's not who he is and voters are going to see right through it.

I guess I should also mention that despite my distaste for liberal Democrats, I would never go so far as to say a liberal Democrat can never win or that they are unfit for office. Obama is a very good candidate, he's just not all he's portrayed as.Voters who want a liberal Democrat are going to stick with him through thick and thin and we're seeing that. None of the revelations really bother them because they really didn't care whether he was actually a unifying, bipartisan figure or not. If the country is truly ready for a liberal Democrat, the country will elect him. But to expect the bipartisan, unifier facade to stay in place until November is just not realistic.

Random thoughts on the election

2008-03-01T12:55:00.000-08:00

- Obama's answer to every charge from either John McCain or Hillary Clinton seems to be to refer to the fact that he was right and they were wrong on Iraq. While that is an effective counter when used sparingly and appropriately, it's getting to the point where he's using it to answer everything. At some point, it becomes tiresome. And more importantly, it becomes evident that it's all he's running on.

- John McCain seems to be the target of more unfair attacks on the internet than any other candidate. Fortunately, his team has an excellent response time to unfair attacks that actually get printed. Unfortunately, they don't anticipate blunders like getting John Hagee's endorsement.

- Is it just me, or has Hillary Clinton run the most dishonest, desperate campaign in history? Does she have entitlement issues or what?

- It seems to me that as long as the campaign stays positive and uplifting, Barack Obama will win the Presidency. But if the election becomes a series of attacks on the two candidates, I think McCain will win. Despite his faults, you won't find anyone cleaner in politics. While that doesn't mean he is without skeletons, there is no way that going over both candidates' records with fine tooth combs will benefit Obama. There are too many connections between waste of taxpayer dollars and campaign contributions to Obama, and none for McCain. The best the lefty blogs can do is say that he helped expedite decisions with the FCC for Paxson. A case in which he didn't even put pressure on them to make a particular decision.

- This country hasn't elected a protectionist President since Herbert Hoover. There's a reason for that. Clinton and Obama's scare tactics on trade are damaging relations with our allies, at a time when both have talked about rebuilding relations with our allies and ending unilateralism. I guess that doesn't apply to trade.

- Democrats are often known as tax and spenders while Republicans are often known as borrow and spenders. Obama's economic plan seems to incorporate the worst of both worlds. It's tax, borrow, spend, and reduce trade. I don't know how the economists on his team look in the mirror every morning. Apparently, Austin Goolsbee, a renowned economist on the Obama team, has been reassuring Canada that Obama doesn't really mean what he says about trade. I find myself in the unhappy position of hoping a candidate is lying.

- On the other hand, Obama's health care plan is the most well thought out of any of the remaining candidates. If only he had a way to pay for it...

- My prediction of a McCain general election win still stands. On the most important issues of the day, McCain is within the American mainstream while Obama is far off to the left. This is true even of Iraq, where Americans trust McCain over Obama according to an LA Times poll. If Obama can't beat McCain on Iraq, he can't beat McCain, period.

-

On the morality of taxes

2007-06-13T07:36:00.000-07:00

Many conservative columnists have been writing lately about how immoral it is for the government to take money from one person and give it to another. While I agree with the general principle, I think it's a good example of how conservatives go wrong by talking about grand philosophies that don't really make much sense in the world as it actually is. Of course it's good to remind people what taxation really is: the taking of property by force. Despite the fact that you have to pay and go to jail if you don't, a lot of people for some reason forget that hard reality. It's just another example of how you can get used to something and think of it as perfectly normal if it's been part of your life as long as you can remember.

However, that wave of logic ends up crashing on the rocks of "What do we do about the poor, hungry children?" Some conservatives may insist that only voluntary contributions should help, but voluntary contributions have never been enough to do anything but keep children from starving to death, except in some especially generous localities(mainly small towns).

In my opinion, we should all understand that taking money from people who earned it is a very serious matter. It's not something that should be done blithely just because we want to spend money on something that would be nice to have. We need to understand the very real impact of taxation on individuals and families. Even the poor end up paying 15-18% of their income in taxes every year due to sales taxes and payroll taxes. The middle class pays a similar percentage, and for most middle class families, taxes are their first or second largest bill. Many liberals agree that the poor and middle class are overtaxed and want to raise taxes on the rich. The problem with that is that taxing the rich doesn't yield all that much revenue. The big money is in the middle class and upper middle class. The only way to get big revenues from taxing the rich is to define the rich as households making more than $75,000. While that is certainly well off(in most areas), you're talking about a rather large percentage of people these days. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd really be mad if I "made it" to that income level and now had to pay 50% of my income in taxes, kicking me right off the ladder of progress back into the lower middle class.

Since we've established that taxation is a very serious matter, we need to make sure that our money is spent wisely, and only on things that are absolutely necessary. Not things that are just kinda nice or nifty. That means we should build a national defense. We should feed and provide health care to poor children. We should provide a basic safety net for adults temporarily down on their luck.

What we should not be taking peoples' money away from them at gunpoint to pay for are local projects of limited value(such as the Cowgirl Hall of Fame and statues of Robert Byrd), unlimited support for people who will not work or are to morally dysfunctional to hold down a job, corporate welfare, or subsidies.

In all, unnecessary spending probably accounts for a good 20-30% of the budget. Keep in mind I didn't say "wasteful", just unnecessary. Not only that, but even worthwhile programs tend to grow faster than necessary. We need to limit the growth of those programs to population + inflation. I haven't seen many domestic programs benefit from 10% annual spending hikes. They often performed just as well on 3% annual spending hikes.

Conservatives need to fight against the tax and spend mentality, but they need to do it intelligently. In 1995, the Republicans entered Congress and immediately started attacking programs for the poor and elderly, when there was a good $100 billion in corporate welfare and another $50 billion in agricultural subsidies to knock off. Not to mention $30 billion worth of pork.

That's why I support John McCain. McCain knows where the unnecessary spending is. He knows where the outright waste is. He has been a staunch opponent of unnecessary spending for decades. He will make sure that whatever money we pay will be spent well. He will fight Congress on behalf of taxpayers. Although there are many other decent candidates in both parties who oppose unnecessary spending, all others have more important priorities. And as Bush and even Reagan have shown, when a President has higher priorities than controlling spending, the only way to get Congress to do what they wanted was to give in on spending.

For fiscal conservatives, there is only one really reliable choice in this race: John McCain. If you have "other priorities", such as the war on terror, family values issues, or immigration, that's fine, but understand that spending WILL increase in order to get Congress to move on those issues. Congress only responds to bribery. Unless controlling spending is priority #1, it won't get done at all.

Glenn Reynolds rocks!

2007-06-08T08:28:00.001-07:00

Oliver Willis, along with a lot of the rest of the lefty blogosphere, has taken to bashing the Blogfather lately for the supposed crime of being a libertarian/conservative and fooling people into thinking he's a moderate. They also don't like the fact that he links to blogs that make vicious attacks on the left, to which Reynolds doesn't really say whether he agrees or not.

These folks just don't get Reynolds. Reynolds primary role in the blogosphere is his personal opinions second, expanding and promoting the blogosphere itself first. He's not called the Blogfather because he was the first big blog. He wasn't. Andrew Sullivan came before him, as did Steven Den Beste and Josh Marshall. What earned Reynolds that title was that no one did more to grow the blogosphere through encouraging and linking to smaller bloggers. Getting readers motivates bloggers, and unfortunately a lot of good bloggers stop blogging because no one is reading. Readers are like fuel. When you post a few things and no one cares, you tend to do something else. If readers write in asking for more stuff, you give them more stuff. Then if you get an Instalanche, you're probably set for life. Wouldn't it be nice if the big lefty bloggers would link to their smaller counterparts? They mainly link to each other in a kind of elitist back-scratching racket.

So Reynolds spends a good 80% of his blog space linking to other posts he finds interesting. If he wrote long comments about everything he posted, he'd be posting more than Den Beste did in his heydey.

As to his ideology, it's not as if he pretends to be anything other than what he is: a libertarian/conservative. He posts a lot of attacks on the right as well when they try to do things to limit our liberties. What's more, unlike the heated, cursing posts written about him, his responses are always gentlemanly and good humored.

I've been reading him avidly since 2002(Sullivan was the first blog I ever read. I discovered Instapunit through Sullivan linking to him). There is no single blogger who is more valuable to the blogosphere, even if one doesn't agree with everything he posts.

So, all my loyal readers, let's give Glenn Reynolds a Francoislanch as a thank you. Read his blog, and more importantly, read the smaller bloggers he links to. I guarantee that on any given day there are at least a few news stories or posts that are interesting and that you'll have a hard time finding anywhere else.

http://instapundit.com/

Crime

2007-06-07T07:15:00.000-07:00

The latest statistics show that crime is going up again after over a decade of dropping. The question is "why"?

Some people feel that crime is linked to poverty, but if you went and did a line graph with one line representing poverty and the other representing crime, you wouldn't see any observable pattern. Just because mostly the poor commit crimes doesn't mean that crime is caused by poverty.

Others believe that crime is caused by illegitimacy. There's a little more support for this, as crime really started to skyrocket as illegitimacy increased from the 60s to the 90s. It's also well known that children, especially male children, without fathers tend to be more likely to get involved in unsavory activities. But illegitimacy is still increasing and crime went down from about 1993-2004.

Looking at an Excel file from the DOJ breaking down crime statistics by metropolitan area, I still can't find a pattern. Some places crime went up, other places it went down. It's not as if one region saw a major increase and others did not.

I guess the point of this blog post is to demonstrate that humans are sovereign beings who make individual choices and aren't as subject to predictable trends as we might like. Those who believe that all we have to do to change human behavior is implement policy on the macro level have a God complex. We don't have any idea what causes crime other than that for whatever reason, some people engage in criminal activity. Anyone who has known criminals knows that they all have their own reasons for doing what they do. There is no single, or even finite group, of national policies that can address the almost infinite different motivations for criminal behavior.

The only way to fight crime is at the personal level. Raise your children well. Be a good influence on those around you. Intervene when you think a friend or family member or acquaintance is sliding down a dark path. In the end, it's the 300 million individuals who make this country great, not our government. If we all decide to be assholes, not even the best government can make this country work. If we all treated each other as we would like to be treated, we wouldn't even need a government in the first place.

Impressions of the latest Democratic debate

2007-06-05T09:04:00.000-07:00

I know I'm a few days late here.

Edwards lost the election. Not by this one performance, of course, but because of a string of errors that show he's simply not ready, even with four years off to do his homework.He attacked the other candidates for not defunding the war. Obama helpfully reminded him that he was leading on the issue long before Edwards was. Edwards also attacked Obama's health care plan for not having an individual mandate. Obama declined to defend that part of the plan, but when Edwards further went on to say that children can't make insurance decisions, Obama pointed out that there is a mandate for children. Edwards, once again, didn't do his homework.

Then there's the remark about higher taxes being necessary to insure our financial stability. He didn't mention that he thinks higher spending is necessary either, but it is part of his plan. Yet another example of extreme economic ignorance on his part.

Clinton and Obama on the other hand, helped themselves a great deal. Clinton looked the most Presidential and Obama looked like the superstar he is. Let's face it. He WILL be President some day, regardless of whether he wins this year or not. Richardson did a terrible job. He's just not good in debates. If he's going to win he's going to have to raise a lot of money and trumpet how qualified he is for the office. The fact that he's so different from all of the other candidates is his greatest strength.

Biden did great in the debate and will probably end up doing a lot better than everyone initially thought once the primaries roll around.

Latest polls show Clinton and Obama widening their lead over Edwards, so apparently Democrats are thinking the same thing I am.

Fred Thompson

2007-04-13T07:31:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of buzz recently over Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican, former Senator, and Law and Order actor. He's hailed as the savior of conservatives in a Republican field that contains no viable true conservatives.

This is what annoys me so much about Republicans. Fred Thompson is not a down the line conservative. He supported campaign finance reform, which is being used as an excuse by conservatives to not support John McCain. He supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, another excuse to not support John McCain.

So why don't conservatives just support McCain? Simple. McCain isn't partisan. He considers his primary role in government to be governing. Republicans see the primary role of Republican politicians to be attacking Democrats. Thompson and Giuliani, despite their ideological heresies, never work against their own team. McCain will if he feels his team is going in the wrong direction.

IMO, Thompson is just a weaker version of two guys who are already in the field: McCain and Giuliani.

The housing bubble pops

2007-03-22T10:23:00.000-07:00

So, the housing bubble is popping and a lot of people are howling. Lenders are losing money or even going out of business because they made questionable loans. Borrowers are being foreclosed on because they took out questionable loans. Flippers are taking a bath as the value of their investments goes down. And through all that gnashing of teeth and cries of pain, many bloggers are asking: What should the government do?

That question is probably the easiest to answer of all time: nothing.

Things are working exactly as they should. People who made bad decisions are facing the consequences. People who got greedy are reaping the fruits of that greed. Let them learn their lessons. It's the only way to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again for another generation. Try to regulate this problem out of existence and the herd will just find another investment, or loopholes in the regulations to create the same conditions.

'08 analysis- the Republicans

2007-03-19T11:08:00.000-07:00

The outlook here is much brighter than it was when I did my first analysis back in May. George Allen and Bill Frist are out. Actually just about all Republicans who were closely identified with the current President are out. This is a good thing. Now, on to the contenders:

Rudy Giuliani-I predicted that he might not run, but he's in, and now leading by a wide margin over second place John McCain. He's a bona fide superstar. Democrats are already trying to knock him down a peg by claiming that his popularity is based on 9/11 and that he was not very popular in New York prior to that. Nonsense. Rudy Giuliani turned New York around. Yes, he upset a lot of people, but his approval ratings were always consistently high and he won reelection easily in 1997. The big question hanging over his head is whether or not social conservatives will get behind him once they find out about his past and his stance on social issues.

John McCain- McCain apparently made a calculation sometime last year. He knew that his biggest obstacle to the Presidency was winning the nomination. In order to do that, he had to mend fences with the Republican base. He figured he'd lose some Reagan Democrats and independents, but considering he was leading Democratic opponents in frickin' Massachusetts as late as summer 2006, he could afford to give up some of that support. He had independent votes to give up, but was short on Republican votes. So far, that strategy is backfiring. He's lost independent support and gained little from Republicans. He's in second place and is only slightly leading Democrats in trial heat polls. He needs to recapture that 2000 magic. It failed in 2000 because he was up against an extraordinarily well financed, high name recognition candidate. Now he's the best financed candidate with the best name recognition. He needs to go back to doing what voters loved about him.

Newt Gingrich- Still hasn't declared. Better do it soon if he wants to compete. Almost a sure loser if he does win the nomination. Gingrich is the Republicans' version of Hillary Clinton. Everyone's already made up their mind about him and half of Americans have decided they don't like him.

Mitt Romney- his stock continues to rise, but he may have hit the ceiling. He's discovered conservatism VERY recently and his explanations for his sudden change of heart have not been particularly convincing.

Jim Gilmore- ex-governor of Virginia. Did a pretty good job by all accounts, but not good enough to be considered Presidential material. There's only room for one governor in a nomination contest, and Romney is it.

Sam Brownback- Still appeals to religious conservatives, but even if he was electable in a general election, he holds no appeal outside that religious base.

Chuck Hagel- I said back in May that he was the poor man's John McCain. Now that McCain is now trying to become Mr. Mainstream Republican, the maverick slot is open for Hagel. While he has no support right now, if the Iraq war continues to go badly GOP voters might find that he's the only guy with a chance to win. Also keep in mind these facts:

1) Hagel is from Nebraska and will probably do well in Iowa. Hagel is a maverick, so will probably do well in New Hampshire. He won't win either state, but he may do well enough to be the main serious opposition left to whoever the frontrunner is.

2) As of now, 19% of Republicans are anti-war. As the only anti-war candidate on the GOP side, he might be able to count on that 19% as a base. Expect that base to expand if the war continues to go poorly.

Ron Paul- For libertarians, a long-awaited entry into a GOP nominating contest. He stands at 2% right now, but has barely gotten started. His early attempts to raise money have gone well. His biggest problems? Lack of charisma, unwillingness to compromise, he's only a Representative, and a staunch libertarian won't beat a Democrat in the current climate.

Mike Huckabee- One of five ex-governors in the race. Probably the worst of the lot. He's got likeability, but he was a big spender. Like Brownback, he's made religion a big part of his run.

Tom Tancredo- He was in, then he was out, now he's in again. He's still got no chance. His only issue is immigration.

Tommy Thompson- On the merits, the best governor in the field, but so far not attracting much attention. He won four terms in Wisconsin and was the primary mover and shaker behind the 1996 welfare reform. He is to welfare reform what Giuliani was to law and order. He was also one of the few competent Bush cabinet officials when he ran HHS.

Duncan Hunter- a Representative who is not showing up in the polls much yet, but who is generating a surprising amount of enthusiasm among conservative bloggers. Has a good resume( a combat veteran), and has been a leader on conservative issues in the House. While I don't think he can win the nomination, he'll do better than expected considering he's just a Representative.

Frank Thompson- a supposed wildcard entry if he runs, but I don't see it. While he has some starpower, he stakes pretty much the same positions John McCain does that got McCain in trouble with the base.

So, getting down to brass tacks:

Iowa- I have no idea. McCain won't win it. Period. Giuliani could because he's the biggest name. Thompson probably deserves to win it, and if he gets a good campaign apparatus, he just may. If Iraq is still a disaster and still in the headlines, Hagel could win it.

New Hampshire- McCain will win here. Giuliani will do well, Hagel will do well if(see Iowa). Romney will either die here or come back here. Since NH is the home of the libertarian Free State project, Paul should pull at least 10%.

South Carolina- McCain will win here as well. If any of the other candidates stay close, it's still a race heading into Super Duper Tuesday on Feb. 5. I think Giuliani will still be in it and that's about it. McCain will probably come out ahead.

So my current prediction is still the same as before: Clinton vs. McCain. McCain will win and be our 44th President. Still a-ok with a cherry on top with me.

Looking at the '08 race so far- the Democrats

2007-03-16T09:53:00.000-07:00

A lot has changed since my last post, more than a year ago, on the '08 Democratic Presidential race. Since a lot of my predictions and observations are now obsolete, I figure I'll post some updated thoughts.

Actually, I did the Democrats over a year ago. Anyway, here's my new analysis of the Democratic field:

Joe Biden: My thoughts on him haven't changed, other than to take back my prediction that he wouldn't declare. It's pretty clear that he will declare, but I still don't see him going anywhere.

Wes Clark: I still think he's got no particular direction as a candidate, and if he's going to run he'd better get in soon.

John Edwards: I said back in Jan. 2006 that Edwards had moved beyond the "Two Americas" class warfare shtick. Well, he either changed back or I wasn't paying attention. Now he seems to be the favorite of the liberal base and has been pandering to them non-stop. That will get him about as far as it got Howard Dean. He could still win, but I doubt he will.

Bill Richardson- Still the best Democrat in terms of resume and still the best executive. He was probably the candidate most helped by Mark Warner's decision not to run. He's raising money at a good clip and is up to 5% in the polls, which for a governor this early is not bad at all. Look for him to be in the top tier by late this year.

Hillary Clinton- No longer a clear frontrunner, but still the most formidable in terms of money and ability to mobilize traditional Democratic constituencies. She's not as much of a sure thing as she seemed in Jan. 2006, but she's still the most likely to win the nomination.

Chris Dodd- This is the Democrat who I've changed my opinion about the most. He's raising money very well and is being a leader within the new Democratic majority. He's well versed in economic issues and is good at working with the other side. Still a second-tier guy with only 1% support, but could conceivably do well in New Hampshire. Still not likely to beat Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or Richardson though. Would make a great VP.

Al Gore- Still not running, but some people think he might. Still a top tier candidate if he does run. Whether he'd win would depend on which Al Gore he decided to be this go around.

Dennis Kucinich- Still terrible, still no chance. You know you have it bad when even Kos thinks you'd make a bad President.

Barack Obama- I said back in Jan. 2006 that he was a future superstar, but probably not running in 2008. Well, he is running, and he's in second place in the polls. He's the best chance to stop Hillary Clinton for Democrats frightened of her negatives. If he can avoid serious missteps and put out good plans, he can win the whole enchilada.

Mike Gravel- the longest of longshots, but he's no fool like Kucinich and has some genuinely good ideas. Maybe if he wasn't in his 80s and maybe if the field wasn't so strong he'd do better.

My overall predictions for the Democratic field?

Edwards wins Iowa. Richardson wins Nevada. Obama wins New Hampshire. Clinton wins South Carolina. We go into Feb.5 with those four and I'll be damned if I can guess which one will win. I'd say Clinton has the best chance, Obama second, Richardson third, and Edwards fourth.

Out of those four, Richardson matches up best with Republicans.

How priorities can be revealing

2007-03-14T11:32:00.000-07:00

http://newdonkey.blogspot.com/2007/03/frames-run-wild.html

There's a bit of self-censorship going on in the lefty blogosphere. Liberal bloggers constantly tell each other not to say things that reinforce right-wing talking points. The author of the blog New Donkey rightly points out how pernicious this is, because it limits debate. It's an excellent post which I recommend everyone read. But I have another angle here.

Righty bloggers also practice this, but it's not directed at liberals. I have yet to see a conservative blogger urge other conservatives to not say things that would help liberal talking points. What righty bloggers do is urge each other and liberals not to say things that would give comfort or reinforce Al Qaeda talking points. I still think it's dumb, but it is revealing that liberal and conservative bloggers have such different priorities about who they want to avoid helping with their speech.

Why do lefty bloggers expend so much energy trying not to reinforce right-wing talking points, but don't expend any energy at all trying to avoid reinforcing Al Qaeda talking points? I realize that's an extremely explosive accusation, so if someone wants to demonstrate to me that liberals do worry more about the foreign enemy than the domestic enemy I'll be glad to hear it.

Global warming

2007-03-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm

Jonathon Rauch brings some sanity to the debate on global warming with a great op-ed.

His most significant recommendation is to simply tax carbon emissions and let the market work it's magic. I agree completely. We don't need government caps and controls. What we need is to simply correct the market failure that causes prices to not reflect the true costs of global warming. With those costs factored in, alternative energies will become more viable and emissions will be reduced. And without infringements on our liberties.

Tax us more?

2007-03-09T09:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0701.schmitt.html

Mark Schmitt and a lot of other liberals seem to think that the era of small government is over, or at least the era of Republicans being able to call for small government and actually win elections is over. He writes:

Just as the tax revolt era had a beginning, so will it have an end. And there are indications that the end might be approaching. In 2006, New Jersey governor Jon Corzine raised taxes. Many expected him to face the backlash that his ill-fated predecessor Jim Florio encountered in the 1990s. Instead, his approval ratings actually went up from the mid-30s to above 50 percent. In 2004, Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia formed a bipartisan coalition to raise taxes and left office in 2005 as one of the most popular governors in state history. This year, the movement to impose limits on state taxes using ballot initiatives (known as Taxpayer Bill of Rights or TABOR), failed in three states once voters— who appear to have become skeptical of tax-cut gimmicks and free-lunch promises—understood the consequences. Perhaps most tellingly, when Bush and the Republicans led a last-ditch defense of their congressional majority with millions of dollars in ads charging that Democrats would raise taxes, it had no impact. In fact, shortly before the election, voters said they trusted Democrats over Republicans on the issue of taxes by 12 percent—a result almost as unlikely as preferring Democrats on national security—even though they fully expected Democrats to raise taxes.

That's because the true rate of taxation is spending, and voters sense that even if they can't articulate it to pollsters. Democrats are more trusted on taxes at this point because over the last 30 years they've been more likely to keep spending fairly close to revenue. Since Democrats have had a hard time increasing revenues, it has in effect made them the party of small government, or at least smaller than Republicans would impose on us.

But the truth is that we are heading down a path toward fiscal crisis that will inevitably require a major increase in revenues. In case that sounds like a euphemism, I’ll say it plainly: Taxes must go up. If Democrats try to avoid that fact, they’ll become mired in trench warfare with Republicans over small-bore increases that will cost them political support and won’t really address the problem. But if Democrats seize the opportunity to define a new era of the politics of taxes, as Republicans did 30 years ago, they can shape the debate in a way that may actually help them to achieve some of their most-cherished policy goals.

Or it could result in spending cuts. In 1993, Bill Clinton's budget plan cut spending and raised taxes by equal amounts. If we did that today, we'd be back in surplus. And taxes would still be lower than they were in 2000.

To avoid an economic crisis or massive cuts to existing programs, taxes will have to increase by at least the amount of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that are scheduled to expire. And if we are to restore the promise of activist government that can solve problems and help families make it in a difficult, dynamic economy, then taxes are going up even more, beyond what can be raised by letting the tax cuts expire.Well before the election, budget expert Stanley Collender wrote, “Whether it is fear, resignation, or just reality setting in, an attitude adjustment in the federal budget world is now definitely palpable: there is a growing likelihood that taxes will have to be increased to reduce the deficit.”

Eliminate spending on Iraq, which won't last forever, and the deficit is less than 2% of GDP at this point. It's much easier to close that gap than it was during the Clinton years. Half spending cuts, half tax increases. Problem solved. Sounds to me like Schmitt is being alarmist in order to drum up support for higher taxes.

The first step will be to establish an acute sense of fiscal and economic crisis. That won’t be difficult, since it’s true. The difficulty is in expressing it the right way. “The deficit” is an abstraction. As long as we accept that balanced budgets every year are not a realistic goal, the difference between a deficit of $150 billion and $600 billion is meaningless. Instead, Democrats should emphasize tangible consequences—such as a choice between cuts to vital services and a devastating economic shock versus manageable tax increases.

Isn't that what Bush tried to do with Social Security? Didn't Democrats say there was no real problem, or that the problem was minor enough to be fixed by minor adjustments? Why the call for major tax increases to solve a crisis? The deficit is 2-3% of GDP. Where is this crisis? And how is increasing taxes from the current 17% of GDP to over 21% of GDP "manageable"? Not many of us can afford to give up another 4% of our income.

Of course, Democrats will do what they've done in states where they've tricked people into voting for higher taxes. They will claim that higher taxes are necessary for education, health care, etc., and won't mention how much we currently spend on subsidies for various industries, local pork barrel projects, and $500 hammers.

The government has more than two and a half trillion dollars of our money to spend every year. If they can't spend that responsibly, giving them another half trillion won't make them more responsible. Don't ever let them emotionally blackmail you with stories of starving elderly and children because they are short of cash. They have the money, they just choose to spend a large chunk of it on things that the majority of voters wouldn't support, at least not for the amount of money it costs.

Employee Free Choice Act passes

2007-03-02T12:38:00.000-08:00

Or more accurately, the Abolition of Secret Ballots passes. Get ready for a knock on your door and some tough-looking organizers urging you to sign the card "for your own good. Oh that's a beautiful daughter you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to her."

The main reason cited by supporters of this law is that employers can intimidate employees during the long drawn out affair known as an election. Employers also face way too light penalties for firing workers attempting to organize. Fair enough. Increase the penalties! The current penalty is a year's wages. Make it so that every employee fired for organizing becomes a millionaire. But don't force workers to have to tell organizers no to their faces.

Also, will there be full disclosure here? Currently, a person who signs a card thinks they are doing it to support an election later. Just as I sign petitions to get things on the ballot in my state even though I don't necessarily support them, I could see signing a card in order to support the right of my fellow workers to decide whether to organize or not.

Between the intimidation(currently estimated at around 12% of workers by organizers) and people not being fully aware that they are making an irrevocable decision, we're going to see plenty of unions formed with far less than majority support.

Well, we would if it got signed into law, which isn't going to happen, thank goodness.

After Democrats lose this battle, they should go back to the drawing board and increase penalties for businesses firing workers attempting to organize. Almost no one would be against that other than businesses who don't want to play fair. It would be a political victory if Bush had to veto it. Considering how reluctant Bush is to use his veto pen, I'm not sure if he even would.

Have we lost sight of who the enemy is?

2007-02-26T11:28:00.000-08:00

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

Seymour Hersh published a piece in the weekend alleging that the US is now seeking to undermine Iran by supporting Sunni extremists in Lebanon and in Iran itself. Sunni extremists that are very often aligned or sympathetic with, Al Qaeda.

Now normally I don't believe Hersh. He's been wrong more often than right and there are quite a few media people who suspect he's so gullible he's used as a disinformation source by the Pentagon. But here he has some pretty solid sources, such as a senior House member on a powerful committee.

So what to make of this? It looks like once again Bush is taking his eye off the ball. We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11, invaded Afghanistan, which was a good idea, then took our eye off the ball to attack Iraq. Now I supported that war and still hope for success. I understood the strategy behind invading Iraq. But I also learn from mistakes. We made a major strategic error. We should have concentrated on Al Qaeda before opening up a new front and trying a democratization project.

Now Bush is doing it again, training his guns on Iran. It's unlikely that we'll actually go to war with Iran. Our ground forces are too exhausted. We could do an air war, but what would that accomplish? The military insists that we cannot eliminate Iran's nuclear program with an air war. So what's left is undermining Iran with covert aid to guerillas inside Iran and trying to take apart Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Those objectives are worthy. Iran is an enemy state that has committed numerous acts of aggression since 1979 that are internationally recognized as acts of war. However, fighting that enemy by aiding Al Qaeda doesn't strike me as the right way to go about this, to put it mildly.

The lame Hillary Clinton blog

2007-02-23T10:21:00.000-08:00

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/

Yes, I know campaign blogs are lame in general, but this one is ultra lame. It's just so transparently a politician blog it's painful. Let's start with Clinton's own post today:

It's now just over a month that I have been in to win.

Oh my. A slogan. That's so corporate chic. Reminds me of Pizza Hut.

The rest, if you care to read it, is pure pap. Not a substantive sentence in there.

Then we get down to Howard Wolfson's response to David Geffen's attacks on Clinton:

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd published a column (sub. required) today that quotes David Geffen, finance chairman of Senator Barack Obama's Presidential campaign, attacking Hillary and Bill Clinton and saying that "America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms."

I made the following statement today in response, and I wanted to share it with you:

"While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband.

"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.

"While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser."

First, Wolfson lies by claiming that Geffen is Obama's principle fundraiser or his campaign finance chair. He is neither. He simply held a fundraiser for Obama. He is not formally tied to the campaign.

Second, and much funnier, is what follows:

Senator Obama's campaign responded, and I've just released the following statement: "By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton, Senator Obama has called into serious question whether he really believes his own rhetoric.

How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash & burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?

"When one of Senator Clinton's supporters made an inappropriate statement, her campaign disavowed it immediately and the supporter apologized for his words. Why won't Senator Obama do the same?"

Notice that Wolfson said the Obama campaign responded, but never linked to the actual response, which was this:

“It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom.”

I can see why Wolfson wouldn't want anyone to be reminded of that.

Clinton is re-running the 1992 race. Fighting the last war. She just doesn't get it. She's making a show of adopting modern campaign tactics, but it's only an inch deep. Her blog is meaningless, and her advisors are playing the same game they played in 1992. That was good enough to beat Bill Clinton's clumsy opponents then, but it won't be good enough to beat a strong Democratic field in 2008, much less McCain or Giuliani.

I do like Hillary Clinton, but she's got a credibility gap. She won't close it by doing a by the numbers fluff campaign. She has to campaign as if she's Dennis Kucinich. Every candidate does. We're in an age where blogs penetrate right through BS like a knife through butter and mercilessly attack meaningless fluff in campaign speeches or blog posts. These candidates need to say what they mean and mean what they say, or else they'll lose to someone who will. Somebody's going to figure that out among the high profile candidates, and whoever that is will win this race.

Maybe the first time I've ever disagreed with Sowell

2007-02-23T06:48:00.000-08:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/obama_on_economics.html

Thomas Sowell, to me, is one of the finest writers on economics we've ever seen. He clearly lays things out in ways laymen can understand.

But for the first time, I think he dropped the ball:

Senator Barack Obama recently said, “let’s allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country’s middle class again.”

Ironically, he said it at a time when Detroit automakers have been laying off unionized workers by the tens of thousands, while Toyota has been hiring tens of thousands of non-union American automobile workers.

Labor unions, like the government, can change prices — in this case, the price of labor — but without changing the underlying reality that prices convey.

Neither unions nor minimum wage laws change the productivity of workers. All they can do is forbid the employer from paying less than what the government or the unions want the employer to pay.

I refer back to my minimum wage post. Sowell's argument makes perfect sense as long as you assume that both sides have equal bargaining power. But in reality, they don't. Business, unless we are talking about skills in huge demand, has an inherent advantage, because they don't bargain for wages. They SET wages and the employee either has to accept or find another employer, where more often than not he is offered another take it or leave it situation.

Now of course that doesn't mean there is not still competition. Businesses can and do set wages higher to gain a competitive advantage in luring workers. And obviously this whole thing falls apart at higher skill levels, because highly skilled workers know that if businesses won't bargain with them they can walk out and another business will. However, businesses do have an advantage when it comes to low and mid-skilled labor, and they further cement that advantage, by as I noted in my previous post, taking away the ability to bargain from their managers and putting pay rates in a distant HR office or much higher up in management. So that even if a manager wants to get a certain job seeker, he's constrained by company policy from offering a wage that both he and the prospective employee could agree on.

What a union does is make things more equal. The union forces management to directly bargain. And here's where Sowell goes really wrong. He compares union bargaining to government setting higher wages. They are apples and oranges. A company is not forced to give a union higher wages, any more than a worker is forced to accept a low wage from an employer. It's still a free market, just with the parties being on a more equal footing in terms of bargaining power.

There are good reasons to not like unions, and even better ones to oppose Obama's specific plans for unionizing more workers(card check). But the idea that they distort the market is not one of them.

I'd be remiss if I didn't comment on the rest of Sowell's column, which has even more stuff I don't fully agree with:

Senator Obama is for making college “affordable,” as if he has never considered that government subsidies push up tuition, just as government subsidies push up agricultural prices, the price of medical care and other prices.

He is also for “alternative fuels,” without the slightest thought about the prices of those fuels or the implications of those prices. All this is the old liberal agenda from years past, old wine in new bottles, a new face with old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly over the past generation.

Senator Obama is not unique among politicians who want to control prices, as if that is controlling the underlying reality behind the prices.

I do love it that Sowell mentions that you can't control prices. You can't. It's like trying to alter the laws of physics. But Obama is not suggesting price controls, he's suggesting using tax revenues to help less well off Americans afford certain goods and services. Once again, you can disagree with that agenda, but it's not price controls and it is not impossible to accomplish. If I give money to my neighbor's kid to go to college, he goes to college. It doesn't push prices up or ignore reality. That only happens if I go and force the university President at gunpoint to set tuition at 75% less than it is now. Then, bad things would happen as all sorts of students attended and found that they had to sit out in the grass and sleep on park benches because there was no money for dormitories or classrooms.

And what's with dissing alternative fuels? Gasoline was once an alternative fuel. He could be referring to something else in Obama's plans, but he doesn't elaborate. He just gives the impression that weaning off gasoline would mean higher prices. It would in the short term, but as new alternatives become viable it could mean cheaper gasoline as demand slackens.

Assassination

2007-02-22T13:45:00.000-08:00

The latest blog cage match seems to involve Glenn Reynolds again, who advocated the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and mullahs. It's kind of odd that Prof. Reynolds is the subject of so much controversy, seeing as how he's been running one of the least shrill blogs on the internet, Instapundit. So anytime someone accuses the good professor of being a wingnut, I take notice. And that's exactly what many liberal bloggers, most notably Glenn Greenwald and Scott Lemieux, did.

I'll comment on Lemieux's post, here:

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/02/sure-its-illegal-now-but.html

Mainly because unlike Greenwald, a normally reasonable blogger who could only express moral outrage and horror rather than reasoned arguments, Lemieux actually challenged Reynolds' idea with probing questions. Such as:

Could anyone be dumb enough to think that the American assassination of Iranian clerics, scientists and/or political leaders would help liberal forces in Iran?

Would propping up the regime with energy assistance help the liberal forces in Iran? Okay, that's not fair, since it's just answering a question by posing another question. Never mind that the Greenwalds and Lemieuxs of the world have never particularly cared one way or another about the Iranian liberals, at least judging by the dearth of blog posts on Iran's liberals. Oh yeah, the question. No, assassinating clerics and scientists wouldn't help. It wouldn't hurt either. When Iraqi insurgents pick off Iraqi government people, does that strengthen the government and support for the government? It wouldn't do any favors for Iran's government either.

That killing a couple scientists would make Iran less determined to acquire nuclear weapons?

Determination doesn't build nuclear weapons anymore than determination gets us a cure for cancer.

That these kinds of covert ops are remotely viable?

Lemieux could have a point here. But that's the only valid argument, in my opinion: can it be done? If it can't, we shouldn't. If it can, we should.

Then Lemieux concludes with this attack:

The whole thing is nuttier than a Planters factory, and Reynolds can't even be bothered to begin an argument on the merits. This should be irrelevant to his job, of course, but that anybody takes anything he writes about foreign policy seriously is remarkable.

Read Glenn Reynolds' op-ed and decide for yourself:

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/speakout/2007/02/arguing_from_ignorance_1.html

Looks to me like he made reasoned arguments:

History first: There’s nothing beyond the pale about suggesting assassination and covert action as an alternative to warfare. In 1998, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Joseph Biden, D-Del., asked the government to look into assassination as a means of dealing with terrorists; Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., suggested assassinating Saddam Hussein the same year. On Jan. 3, 2001, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., introduced legislation to facilitate the assassination of terrorists. And in 1997, George Stephanopoulos wrote: “A misreading of the law or misplaced moral squeamishness should not stop the president from talking about assassination. He should order up the options and see if it’s possible. If we can kill Saddam, we should.” If this be fascism, make the most of it.

Genocide?

2007-02-21T13:55:00.000-08:00

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/steyn_reynolds_.html

Andrew Sullivan is currently having a conversation about whether Mark Steyn and Glenn Reynolds are insufficiently opposed to genocide of Muslims.

I'd say the answer should be self-evident to any student of history. Steyn and Reynolds are as opposed to genocide of Muslims as FDR was opposed to genocide of the Japanese in 1933.

Right now we are involved in a limited war. We have decided that civilians are not the enemy, but people who must be persuaded to reject the fundamentalists competing with us in this war of ideas. If we win the war of ideas, we win. Huzzah.

But what happens if we lose this war of hearts and minds and most Muslims embrace the fundamentalists? What happens if we start taking thousands of civilian casualties on the US mainland on a regular basis? What happens if many Muslim governments fall to fundies and declare jihad against the US?

What would happen then is obvious: total war. We'll pummel them until they either surrender or are eradicated, and the vast majority of us won't particularly care which path they choose, anymore than Americans in 1945 were particularly concerned for how many Japanese we had to kill to win the war. The only thing Americans feared in 1945 was that we'd take a million casualties invading Japan. 90% of Americans would gladly have seen every last Japanese man, woman, and child killed if it would end the war without taking those casualties.

In 1945, before the atomic bombs were dropped, Truman stated that if Japan did not surrender unconditionally, the Japanese nation faced total destruction. Genocide.

I conclude with a quote from Admiral Halsey shortly after Pearl Harbor: “Before we’re through with’em the Japanese language will be spoken in hell!”

And another thing....

2007-02-20T11:44:00.000-08:00

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/best_2008_websi.html

From Ezra Klein's blog:

The first item on their "why John McCain" page:

The world is a dangerous place, and we need a leader who is ready to assume the job as Commander in Chief on day one of the Presidency. No candidate has the experience or is better prepared for this task than John McCain. America is engaged in a war against violent Islamist extremism. A totalitarian enemy declared war on America, attacked our nation on September 11, 2001, and is committed to the destruction of the values we hold dear.

So vote McCain or the terrorists will kill you. Charming. This is the guy who's going to run a campaign of class and principle.

What the hell kind of interpretation is that? McCain is just pointing out the obvious. A totalitarian enemy declared war on America and we have to defeat them. You would think this is something liberals and conservatives and centrists all agree on.

We could take this line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion: Vote for Edwards or you'll lose your job!

And liberals wonder why people are suspicious of their seriousness on national security. Well, when you go around screaming "crisis!" at every turn(global warming, health care, the middle class squeeze), but then when planes slam into the Twin Towers you imply that we're all just being paranoid, people start to wonder about your priorities.

Oh the horror!

2007-02-20T11:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/popular_wingnut.php

Greg Sargent is all offended because Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has sort of advocated the assassination of three of the most heinous dictators in the world.

.those targets, of course, being Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Now you may think that taking out dictators is unwise. It is certainly illegal. But it sure doesn't sound to me like something to get worked up over. I would shed no tears if any of those men were taken out. All three of them are responsible for the deaths of Americans. The fact that there are people in this country who are adamantly opposed to justice does concern me, however. And notice how they are all on one side of the political spectrum?

Card check

2007-02-19T07:59:00.000-08:00

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/card_check_now/

Matt Yglesias discusses the new card check legislation Congress is trying to pass. Basically, what card check is for those who don't know, is a change in unionization rules. Currently, in order to unionize, a workforce has to sign cards saying they want to organize. Once 30% of workers sign these cards, an election is held, by secret ballot. If a majority wants to unionize, then it's done. To reverse the process and deorganize, workers do the same thing in reverse.

One would wonder what the problem is with this process. It seems pretty fair and straightforward. Well, the problem, at least for those who want to see more unions, is that in recent years it has resulted in fewer workers being in unions.

So here's what the new law would do: it would simply allow the creation of a union if a majority of workers sign the cards.

Now why is this a bad thing? Because it gets rid of the secret ballot. Workers can be intimidated by labor bosses to sign. Also, workers can't decertify the union by the reverse method.

One theme you'll see a lot of on this blog if I ever get around to posting frequently is fairness. I believe that as much as it is possible to do so, our system of government should be fair. My own definition of fair is that we all abide by the same rules. That we use as consistent a philosophy as possible. And that we don't change the rules just because we're seeing a result we don't like, unless the vast majority of parties affected by those rules agree there needs to be a change.

In this case, we have a situation where the rules in place are eminently fair. Democrats want to replace it with a system that doesn't pass the fairness test in any respect. It changes a system that isn't broken to the detriment of both business and workers who don't want to organize. It is also philosophically inconsistent with the Democratic ideal of secret ballots in elections.

This is nothing more than a baldfaced power grab by organized labor in an effort to reverse their increasing irrelevancy in the modern economy. If organized labor wants to win more elections in workplaces, they might consider changing their approach. Labor should be concentrating on using their bargaining power to raise wages and benefits and improve working conditions. Not on stupid work rules and insistence on seniority over merit in terms of promotions and pay raises. The reason there are fewer unions is simply that fewer workers want to be in unions.

President Bush should veto card check if it passes. It is horrible legislation that endangers the liberties of the majority of workers who do not want to unionize. According to the AFL-CIO's own polls, most workers do not want a union.

http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/resources/1999labordaypoll.cfm

For those who do, it's called an election and a secret ballot.

Are we pissed off?

2007-02-19T07:13:00.000-08:00

Atrios asks:

One does wonder why the 101st Fighting Keyboarders aren't more upset by the fact that George Bush has fucked up their pet war. I don't line up with the "incompetence dodgers" but that doesn't mean that there wasn't immense amount of incompetence. What the consequence of slightly less incompetence would have been I do not know, but it would have at least smelled a bit nicer.This was their mission, their grandiose cause, their Battle Between Good and Evil. And George Bush fucked it up. Why aren't they pissed off?Oh, looks like I already answered the question.

Maybe Atrios doesn't read enough blogs outside the liberal universe, but there are a lot of PO'd people who supported the war and are angry at the incompetence with which it has been waged. Andrew Sullivan, Greg Djeijerian, pretty much all of the liberal hawks at TNR, and John Cole. Sure, there are still some cheerleaders for Bush out there, but those sites are so blatantly partisan and part of the Republican noise machine that they should easily be see for what they are.

As for myself, I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 because of his incompetence, so call me one who figured it out early. But I still hope for success, because really, failure just isn't an option in Iraq. This isn't Vietnam, where we can just abandon the field and the only ones who will suffer will be Iraqis. That's not to say there aren't good arguments supporting withdrawal, but we need to candidly deal with the consequences of that withdrawal. We can't just wash our hands of this.

The main reason half my posts are about 2008 is because I can't wait for new leadership. I'm not one to say that ANYONE would be better than Bush, but most of the top tier candidates are clearly superior to him.

The Obama-Howard kerfuffle

2007-02-12T10:01:00.000-08:00

The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, has said that terrorists should pray for Barack Obama to be elected President.

While that is unusual in itself for a fellow Western leader to be picking on Presidential candidates, what is more interesting is Obama's response:

The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.

He's right. The only two nations that have contributed as much as they can to the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq are the US and Britain. Everyone else has contributed either token forces or small forces that are only a fraction of what they are capable of sending. It almost seems as if Australia and Continential Europe are willing to fight to the last Brit and American to defeat Al Qaeda.

As to the merits of what Howard said, Obama only favors getting out of Iraq. There are good reasons to want to get our troops out of Iraq. There are good reasons to keep them there as well. It's a contentious war domestically and a difficult conflict to resolve within Iraq itself. Obama has said the right things on Iran and North Korea, in my opinion. Willing to negotiate, but military force is not going to be taken off the table.

The minimum wage debate

2007-01-19T10:41:00.000-08:00

So, Congress is all set to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. Liberals say this is a long overdue raise for poor workers. Conservatives say it will lead to unemployment among the poor. Very few commentators are exploring the issue in any depth, except to reinforce one of those two views. Considering how many economists are part of this debate on both sides, that's a shame.

I'm not an economist, but I do have something to contribute: I have been privy to the balance sheet of a rather large company that does employ minimum wage labor. And I worked at that company through the previous minimum wage increase, so I can tell you how it was dealt with. Then I'll put in my two cents on what a minimum wage increase really means.

Back in the 90s, minimum wage was raised from $4.25 to $5.15, a much lower increase than the current one. How did my company deal? Well, first off, they raised prices. They didn't say it was in response to the minimum wage increase, but they did it at the same time and hadn't significantly raised prices in a few years. Secondly, we had to spend the same percentage of sales on labor as before, even though the wages of many of our workers went up. Now how did we do that? The price increase, alas, didn't increase our overall sales, as it turned off some customers. Tax increases tend to work that way as well, bringing in much less revenue than expected due to decreases in economic activity. So neither government nor business can just with themselves more revenue by decreeing it. So now we had to meet labor targets with higher wage employees and the same level of sales.

What happened? Well, contrary to the doomsaying of conservative commentators, we didn't fire anyone. In fact, I've known a lot of people who have worked for minimum wage or close to it, and never known of anyone who got fired because minimum wage went up and their boss could no longer afford them. But that doesn't mean there were no consequences. We cut back on hours. Everyone got a few less hours, and so their paychecks did not change despite the minimum wage increase. Congress meant to give poor workers a raise, but instead they got more free time.

Ah, but even that is not the whole story. You see, my company, like many large companies, seeks to subvert the bargaining process by not giving managers the power to give better pay to better workers. It's a great example of market failure. Big companies, rather than letting the managers decide how much each employee is worth, simply set wages for job descriptions and give stingy merit raises every six months to a year. After about five years, a good cook can make a whopping 50 cents an hour more than a mediocre cook. That tactic by large corporations helps hold wages down artificially, because there's no one to bargain with. Even if the employee says "Give me a raise or I'm quitting" all the manager can do is throw up his hands. It's out of his control. The guy that sets pay rates is so far up that he doesn't care. He doesn't know who is good and who is mediocre.

So what does that have to do with the minimum wage debate? Well, if minimum wage is raised, then they get the raise they deserved all along but couldn't get because of the strict pay scales of the company. So it benefits good workers who haven't been able to bargain for what they are actually worth. It does hurt poorer workers, because what a manager will do is cut the poor workers hours while leaving the good workers' hours the same, or even increasing them.

So what's my political position on the minimum wage? Really, I'm neutral. On one hand, the value of a product or service cannot be changed by legislation. If someone's labor isn't worth $7.25 an hour, he'll find himself priced out of the market. In that respect, conservatives are 100% right. But then liberals are right that the market is not necessarily efficient in every respect, especially at the micro level. Individuals and companies do different things to try to distort the bargaining process, and this sometimes shows results at the micro level. So many employees who actually are worth more than $7.25/hr are underpaid. So when minimum wage gets raised, they don't get fired or lose hours. It's only the people who aren't worth that much that get priced out. The mistake conservatives make is to assume that everyone makes what they are worth.

To further lengthen this post, that does not mean I subscribe to the idea that you can determine the worth of a worker. I can't say if a CEO is worth $400 million or if a delivery driver is worth $7.25. There is no objective way to measure worth, and I don't think the government should be in the business of trying to. What I can say is how much their services would be worth to me if I was paying for them. So when I say someone is underpaid, I'm referring to the fact that I, as a manager, would be willing to pay them more. So don't jump on me libertarians and conservatives. I'm only pointing out a type of market failure that those who haven't worked as or employed minimum wage labor may not know about.

Freedom in the World 2007

2007-01-18T11:57:00.000-08:00

Freedom House has issued it's annual report on freedom in the world. This year was a mixed bag.

46% of the world's population lives in free countries. 37% in countries that are not free.

Longterm, we're still seeing great improvements. In 1996, 79 countries were free, compared to 90 today. There were 53 not free countries in 1996, and only 45 today. So freedom is still on the march, at least in the longterm.

The freest region is Europe. The least free is the Middle East. No big surprises there.

In 1987, there were only 66 democracies. Today there are 123.

Individual countries of note:

Afghanistan, which had the worst rating at 7,7 back in 2001, is now at 5,5.

Haiti is now a 4,5, which is an improvement over last year.

Iraq was 7,7 in 2003, now it's 6,6. Much less progress. Iraq actually took a step back this year.

Russia is 6,5. That's pretty ominous. It's getting worse over there. And that's not the kind of country you want falling back under authoritarianism.

Shapiro on 2008

2007-01-16T05:41:00.000-08:00

Ben Shapiro weighs in with his opinions on the 2008 race. I tend to agree with most of what he says, except for that typical conservative blindness when it comes to the Clintons. He says:

For the Democrats, the choice is clearer: It's Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York all the way. Although constant media attention has elevated rookie Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the polls, this is part of a broader Democratic strategy to boost Clinton. The Democratic Party believes deeply that the illusion of political momentum for a candidate emerging from the primaries is more important than actual political momentum. To that end, the Democrats dub a challenger every four years. Every four years, they talk about how popular the new kid is. Every four years, the old warhorse, the candidate obscured by the blinding brightness of the hot new star, emerges victorious. In 2000, the hot new thing was Bill Bradley; the old warhorse was Al Gore. In 2004, the hot new thing was Howard Dean; the old warhorse was John Kerry.

In 2008, the hot new thing is Barack Obama; the old warhorse is Hillary Clinton. While everyone focuses on Obamamania, Hillary goes about her business -- shoring up her political contacts, busting her campaign coffers at the seams, lurking in the political background until the time is right. And when it is, Obama will recede, possibly to a second spot on the Democratic ticket.

He's not totally wrong. You could even add the Mondale-Hart race as another example. But that's only a predictor of what Democrats do when they lose. When they win, it's when they went for the younger guy. As a matter of fact, the average age of Democrats who won elections in postwar era is something like 48. So why Democrats would question the experience of their younger candidates, who knows. Those are the guys that actually win.

Also, is Clinton really an old warhorse? Sure, she's aging, but she's not exactly a longtime political fixture. The old warhorse in the party is Biden out of the 2008 contenders.

In any case, Clinton is in second place, behind Edwards, a guy Shapiro didn't even mention. At least in terms of the primaries that matter most.

Latest '08 trial heat polls

2007-01-10T14:01:00.000-08:00

Yeah, it's still early, but I love this stuff. So I'm going to bother my two readers with it and anyone else who happens to stumble onto this site. Surprisingly, I seem to get more traffic from '08 Presidential race posts than anything else, mainly because people are searching for news on their favorite candidate.

So let's look at the latest trial heats, courtesy of Investors Business Daily:

John McCain 48, Clinton 41

Looks like McCain still has a comfortable lead over Clinton. Even though it's early, these numbers are actually pretty firm, considering how many voters have already made up their minds about both candidates. I actually think Mccain's margin would be closer to 57-43 in a real election, because most of the undecideds are conservatives who don't trust McCain. Given a real choice, they'll turn out just to stop Clinton.

Rudy Giuliani 48, Clinton 43

Essentially the same race here, although Clinton has typically matched up better against Giuliani than McCain.

Romney 35, Clinton 48

Romney isn't well known, so take this one with a grain of salt. Still, if Clinton is up to 48, that probably means she can count on that 48% against any generic Republican. Which means she can probably beat any generic Republican. All the more reason for Republicans to bite the bullet and nominate McCain or Giuliani.

McCain 48, Obama 36

Obama is better known than Romney, but there are still an awful lot of people who don't know him(about 45% of the electorate). Plus, he's still essentially a blank slate. That being said, beating McCain in a general will be a tall order even for someone as charismatic as Obama. Obama would match up best with a more generic Republican, especially in a year where the Democrats are likely to have momentum.

Giuliani 49, Obama 36

Same as above.

Romney 31, Obama 43

Now this is more like it for Obama, facing a generic Republican. And Romney is doing his best to be a milqetoast Republican for some reason.

McCain 44, Edwards 43

Now this race is a blockbuster if it happens. Edwards matches up the best with McCain out of all the Democrats. The reason for this is simple. Edwards doesn't have Clinton's baggage, and he's not an unknown like Obama. Plus, unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is positioning himself as a clear choice compared to McCain. McCain supports free trade. Edwards is a protectionist. McCain wants to cut spending and is a deficit hawk. Edwards believes in more social spending and puts less priority on cutting the deficit. McCain supports the war in Iraq. Edwards regrets his vote and wants us to redeploy our forces. There couldn't be a clearer choice for voters in 2008.

Giuliani 47, Edwards 42

Now this one is interesting. I think the reason Giuliani does better against Edwards than McCain is because he enjoys more solid Republican support than McCain does. Edwards, unlike Clinton, doesn't motivate Republicans to vote against him and some of the more populist types might even vote FOR him. Giuliani probably keeps the base behind him a little better. At least until they find out his views on social issues.

Romney 29, Edwards 53

Even though Romney's unknown, he's just not going to beat Edwards no matter how high his name recognition gets. Edwards has a compelling message and charm out the wazoo. Only the Republican heavyweights(McCain and Giuliani) can beat him. Romney isn't a horrible candidate, but he just doesn't have the Edwards charm and ability to articulate his message.

Conclusions? Well, first, a few very attractive candidates who aren't currently first tier were left out, namely Bill Richardson on the Democratic side and Frank Keating on the Republican side. But that's only natural, considering that those guys are even less well known than Romney at this point and would just get destroyed in these trial heat polls. But those two will be coming on. Jim Gilmore might even start registering by the summer.

Secondly, Edwards has emerged as a juggernaut. He leads in Iowa and South Carolina, so he has to be considered the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. He also matches up best by far in these electability polls, so that will make him very attractive. It's been a long time since Democrats could look at a candidate they could actually love this early and see him as electable. The Republicans are in the opposite situation: two candidates who would very likely win, but both with heretical views on issues very important to the base.

This is going to be a fun race.

The 90s economy

2007-01-09T13:41:00.000-08:00

Liberty Lover has a post up from a few days ago about the 90s economy:

Democrats have been citing the economic growth of the 1990's as a reason to duplicate those policies again. Of course, the policy they want to duplicate are the tax increases in the early 1990's. The tax increases brought down interest rates and allowed consumers and businesses to spend and invest. Not so fast.

So far he's absolutely correct. Liberals have been trying to claim Clinton's success as a vindication of their philosophy of government. The problem is that they cherry-pick his accomoplishments. For example, saying that the tax increase of 1993 was good policy, when a closer look at the 1993 deficit reduction bill shows that there was a dollar of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases. Liberals don't want to hear about that part, much less repeat it. Moving on:

The problem with this thinking is that it ignores two one-time events during the 1990's. These events drove certain sectors of the economy, artificially increased growth, and would have occurred despite the level of interest rates.

Curiously, it gives all credit to the central planning of the federal government and the Federal Reserve. Still haven't learned.

Those two events were, one, the initial build-out and commercialization of the Internet and, two, the mandatory spending for the Y2K computer system conversion. Both events increased demand for computer hardware and software, communications equipment such as routers, and the technology professionals such as programmers to make it all work.

This PDF from the Bureau of Economic Analysis has lots of useful data. Chart 4 on page 3 shows the outsize spending on Real Nonresidential fixed investment in the entire 1990's and the 1995-1999 five year span in particular compared to previous periods. That five year span is especially important because that's when businesses and governments concentrated on converting their computers for Y2K. That spending was going to occur regardless of other events - their companies and agencies depended on it. Table 3 on page 11 shows the contribution of computer hardware sales to GDP growth.

These files (PDF, Excel) show a condensed view of all the numbers for the years 1990-2005. Table 7 shows GDP growth and its components. Notice the large increases in the 'Durable goods' 'Equipment and software' numbers in the late 1990's. That's where the IT spending shows up.

A normal spending pattern for these products and services would have resulted in slower economic growth.
[/B]

Yes, there were many things that happened in the 90s that had nothing to do with the government. Most booms and busts have more to do with private sector trends than what the government is doing. But let's give credit where credit is due. When Bill Clinton entered office in 1993, we had a pretty large deficit. Greenspan told Clinton that the deficit had to be brought under control in order for the Fed to lower interest rates. Clinton did this by putting together a package whose goal was to cut the deficit in half over a period of years(five, if I recall correctly). The package involved about $180 billion in tax increases over that period, and $180 billion in spending cuts. This package signalled to the Fed that the government was finally getting its fiscal house in order, which led to a dropping of interest rates.

In turn, the dropping in interest rates made it easier for businesses and entrepeneurs to borrow money, which led to the huge increase in business investment and startups in the 90s. Interest rates are very important to the economy, and Clinton played a large role in ensuring interest rates went down.

Conservatives and libertarians should give credit where credit is due: by just villifying Clinton, while liberals try to expropriate Clinton's legacy for themselves, conservatives make the mistake they make on a host of issues. They concede the field of debate to only one side. Clinton proved that smaller government is good for the economy. If conservatives would recognize this and trumpet it, then conservatives would win that debate with the public. It should be smaller government that we fight for, not Republican political dominance.

In defense of John McCain

2007-01-08T08:53:00.000-08:00

John McCain has been pilloried in many circles, both left and right, for awhile now. Mainly because he's such a big threat. To the right, he has some unacceptable views and thus must be torn down in order to pave the way for a "real" conservative(one who backed Bush 100% presumably). To the left, he's the biggest obstacle to a Democratic victory in 2008, so must be torn down.

The problem for McCain is that he's stupidly giving them ammunition. He's become a bit of a panderbear over the last year, trying to cozy up to the social right and Bush supporters, figuring that the nomination is the hardest battle he'll fight. Then he can just coast to victory in the general election.

Back in 2005, I would have said he was right. He could afford to lose a little bit of the maverick luster because his lead over Democrats in trial heats was just so huge. If he wins all the swing states plus a few blue states, or if he just wins the swing states, he's still President. But if he lost the nomination, he'd either be finished or have to attempt a third-party run(although a McCain-Lieberman 2008 Unity Ticket would be compelling).

But now, he's seeing his approval ratings take some hits and the latest polls show him trailing Edwards and with only a thin lead over Clinton and Obama. All of this effort hasn't helped him in the Republican polls, as he's now consistently trailing Giuliani.

So we agree he's pandering too much. But now it's time for the defense, because there are just way too many attacks on McCain that are completely unjustified.

Let's start with who McCain is: he's a conservative, one of the most conservative members of Congress. Sure, he has a few heretical views on issues like campaign finance reform and immigration, but on the issues that have traditionally mattered most to Republicans, he's a solid conservative. In the eight years of the Reagan administration, McCain opposed him only once: on Lebanon. It wasn't until the 90s that he got a maverick reputation.

Now to the pandering again: McCain has pandered on some issues, no question. But on the issues that are most important to him, he simply won't give ground: Iraq. Campaign Finance reform. Spending. He still opposes ethanol subsidies, something that almost no Presidential candidate dares to do in the age of the Iowa caucuses opening the nominating season. He's doing what a lot of politicians, and even regular joes do: backing off on issues that aren't that important to him and standing firm on the things he thinks are truly important.

Then there's the "Bush hug", something the left just loves to hit McCain on. Look, McCain had to back his party's nominee. Democrats certainly didn't believe that Democrats who backed Lieberman instead of the Democratic nominee were courageous. They thought they were traitorous! If you're in a party, you back the nominee.

Advice to McCain: Just be who you are. Be the McCain of 2000. There's no well-funded Bush in this race. You've got the most money, the most name recognition. You will win the nomination if you just be yourself, and you will absolutely smoke the Democratic nominee in the general election. Continue on the path you're on, and you may be just another old Republican up against a possibly young and vigorous Democratic nominee. You'll be Nixon to Edwards' or Obama's Kennedy. That's not a reflection of your character, Mr. McCain, you are certainly no Nixon. But in order to get elected when you're 72, you have to be special. Right now you're emulating Bob Dole on the campaign trail.

Edwards loses my vote

2007-01-04T10:32:00.000-08:00

John Edwards has now stated on two occasions, once in a townhall meeting and once on one of the morning talk shows, that he will place spending priorities above deficit reduction. For me, this is a dealbreaker. I was willing to forgive the class rhetoric. I was willing to forgive the protectionism. I was even willing to forgive the business-bashing. All because the guy was just so darn nice and intelligent and seemed like a uniter despite his divisive rhetoric. But any politician that wants to spend a future generation's money is not going to get my vote.

Edwards' platform is looking way too much like LBJ's for comfort.

Oh, and two posts in one day! When was the last time that happened?

Congratulations are in order Part II

2007-01-04T08:20:00.000-08:00

To the Iraqi people, for handing out justice to the man who tormented them for decades. While it doesn't change the fact that Iraq is a mess, at least they are rid of Saddam forever.

Some critics insist that the trial was a farce, that this was a lynching. Nonsense. The trial was at least as solid in terms of due process as the Nuremburg trials. And no, neither were as sound as your average American criminal trial, but they are good enough under international norms.

Then there's the complaints that Saddam was executed illegally, based on a technicality that no executions are supposed to take place just before Eid. Look, folks, Iraq is not a western democracy. At best, it's a third world banana republic at this point. The fact that Saddam even got a trial where he was essentially allowed to rant and rave whenever he pleased and intimidate witnesses is more than most other dictators would get when overthrown. Ceaucescu didn't have it that good.

Congratulations are in order

2006-11-16T16:45:00.000-08:00

First, to the Democrats for winning the 2006 elections. They ran a very good campaign. Credit goes to Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer above all for recruiting great candidates and strategically putting money into races that became competitive late. Unlike Howard Dean, who squandered all the DNC's money early. I agree with Carville- Dean screwed up. And it's not the first time. In 2004, Dean blew through all his money before the first primary. But hey, when your team wins you don't go cleaning out the leadership. Dean gets to try again in 2008, which will be a much bigger test.

Second, while we're discussing keeping the leadership that brung ya, congratulations to Democrats for electing Steny Hoyer Majority Leader over the corrupt John Murtha. Although the Democrats as a whole are to be commended, Nancy Pelosi made a major error in backing Murtha. Should have given him the brush off, despite his past favors to her.

Finally, let's get to the Republican leadership. The Republicans, as the thoroughly stomped losers of 2006, should make the necessary changes to get back their majorities and win the White House in 2008. The latter part should be fairly easy, what with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani pretty much announcing that they are in the race. Hard to see the Democrats putting up anyone who can compete with either of those superstars.

The first part(changing leadership) is the tough part. Mitch McConnell, while not perfect, should be a superior Senate Republican Leader to Bill Frist. The Whip on the other hand, is now Trent Lott, the veteran porker with a history of racial problems much like George Allen's. John McCain supported Lott and was the deciding vote. Why would McCain support Lott, you say? Because Lott supports McCain for President, that's why. And Lott's opponent in the Whip race, Lamar Alexander, supports Bill Frist. This one's going to come back to hurt McCain.

So the Senate Republicans showed they learned very little. How about the House? Well, tomorrow they will elect their leaders. Incumbents John Boehner and Roy Blunt are trying to keep their jobs against challenges from Mike Pence and John Shadegg. Pence and Shadegg are excellent leadership candidates. If the House GOP has learned anything at all from their shellacking, they should elect Pence Minority Leader and Shadegg Minority Whip. If they don't, then they'd better settle in for a long period in the wilderness.

Final election endorsements and predictions-House

2006-11-02T09:08:00.000-08:00

Not as many here, just because there are too many to cover, but these are the races that are most important to me:

CT-04 Shays(R) is a good man who doesn't deserve to go out with the other Republican trash this year. I think he'll pull it out. Prediction: Shays(R)

FL-22 Ron Klein(D) and E. Clay Shaw(R) are both fine candidates. This district has been lucky to have Shaw represent it for so long and is lucky to usually have strong candidates run against him. Klein is the strongest yet. Still, I think the voters are going to send Shaw back again. Prediction: Shaw(R).

IL-06 I endorse Tammy Duckworth(D) with one of the strongest endorsements I can give. Another future Presidential prospect. The woman is brilliant, beautiful, and has her head on straight, unlike many Democrats, who have gotten a bit crazy in recent years when it comes to criticizing the President. And I think she's going to win. Prediction: Duckworth(D).

IN-09 This race sucks. Both Sodrel(R) and Hill(D) are horrible. I'm going to predict that Hill(D) wins it, but geez, get some better choices for '08.

KY-03 Another race that sucks. Yarmuth(D) is a liberal hypocrite who is off his rocker. Northrup(R) represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party today. I think she'll survive though. Prediction: Northrup(R).

MN-06 I endorse Michele Bachmann(R). An outstanding fiscally conservative candidate. Close race, but I think she's going to win it. Prediction: Bachmann(R).

NY-26 Reynolds is toast, and rightfully so. Prediction: Davis(D).

OH-02 Prediction: Schmidt(R). I really have nothing else to say about another uninspiring race.

TX-22 Delay's old district. I endorse Nick Lampson(D). Lampson will win this one.

PA- John Murtha is the most corrupt Democrat next to William Jefferson. He needs to go. Diana Irey(R) is a rising star. She probably won't win, but we'll be hearing from her again. Endorsement: Irey(R). Prediction: Murtha(D).

My final election endorsements and predictions-Senate

2006-11-02T08:31:00.000-08:00

Arizona- I heartily endorse John Kyl(R), one of the most fiscally responsible members of Congress. In this case, my prediction and endorsement are the same: John Kyl wins reelection.

Connecticut- I also heartily endorse Joe Lieberman(I). Lieberman is an outspoken supporter of the War on Terror. Another case where I'm likely to get what I want: Lieberman will win reelection.

Maryland- I don't endorse either candidate. Not because I hate them both or anything, but just because in order for me to actually endorse someone I have to be enthusiastic about them. Prediction: Cardin(D) wins, although Steele is going to make it closer than most think.

Michigan- Prediction: Stabenow(D)

Minnesota- I endorse Mark Kennedy(R), a bright young conservative/libertarian star. Is he going to win? Doesn't look like it. Prediction: Klobuchar(D).

Missouri- Prediction: McCaskill(D)

Montana- Prediction: Tester(D). Burns is corrupt and out of touch.

New Jersey- I endorse Tom Kean(R), a clean Republican in a state with a dirty Democratic machine. Although he's trailing a little, I think he's pulling this one out. Prediction: Kean(R)

Ohio- Prediction: Brown(D)

Pennsylvania- I endorse Bob Casey(D), a solid moderate Democrat. Normally I'd endorse anyone who runs against the odious Rick Santorum, but Casey makes it easy for me. With his wide lead in the polls, it makes it easier still. Prediction: Casey(D)

Rhode Island- I endorse Lincoln Chaffee(R), a longtime maverick and honest Republican. This race still has a lot of undecideds, so I'm not confident about this prediction: Whitehouse(D) will win.

Tennessee- I endorse Harold Ford(D). A potential future President. Smart, moderate, a leader. Corker's an empty suit. Prediction: Ford(D).

Virginia- I endorse James Webb(D). Like with Santorum, I'd probably endorse anyone against George Allen, but Webb is another guy who makes it easy. Prediction: Webb(D).

Washington- Cantwell(D). I'd like to point out that I think both candidates are very good candidates and Washington would be well-served by either.

We must not compromise with torturers

2006-09-29T14:18:00.000-07:00

First, let me say that I love TNR. It's probably the best political commentary magazine in existence.

Second, let me say that I don't like torture and don't think the US should be engaging in it(except for the ticking time bomb scenario, but how often does that happen?).

But Spencer Ackerman highlighted one of the problems with some liberal thought processes. No compromise with the domestic enemy(Republicans), but sit down and talk with the foreign enemies, no matter how monstrous.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=40393

Ackerman says "No compromise with torturers". Which of course doesn't apply to foreign torturers, does it, considering he wants us to negotiate with Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs?

Edwards gets it wrong on "predatory" lending

2006-07-10T01:52:00.000-07:00

John Edwards, a probable Presidential candidate who I am generally positive about(mainly because he's so positive himself), has a problem: a weakness for demonizing business and infantilizing the poor. In a speech in Iowa, he said that something must be done to stop predatory lenders who prey on working families.

Interest rates are high with payday loans because of the high risk of default. Cap the rates, and high risk consumers will simply not be able to get credit. Now I would bet that to John Edwards, this is just fine. He doesn't think they should get credit anyway, because the won't use it wisely.

So as I said, he's managed to demonize business and infantilize the poor in the same speech. I've said before that Edwards' only real weakness as a candidate is his tunnel vision acquired from his experience as a trial lawyer, where he saw the dirty underbelly of business practices. It probably also didn't help that many of the people he represented were in fact helpless.

In order for Edwards to become President, he'll need to demonstrate that he'll represent all Americans, not just "the little guy". He'll also need to show that he believes that we, the people, are adults capable of making our own decisions about the use of credit.

Besides, payday loans are local businesses and thus not subject to the federal governments' regulatory jurisdiction. Edwards would also do well to understand the Constitutional seperation of powers between the states and the federal government. Only states have the power to regulate strictly local businesses.

Hillary Clinton's electability

2006-07-08T01:08:00.000-07:00

James Carville makes a pretty convincing case that Hillary Clinton is indeed electable, challenging what has seemingly become conventional wisdom among bloggers and television pundits.

The idea that Clinton can't win is based on two faulty assumptions:

The Democratic base doesn't like Clinton, so she can't win the nomination

On the contrary, Clinton is very popular with the Democratic base, raising more money than anyone else by far, and polling high favorables among Democratic voters. She is unpopular with the netroots, a very tiny subset of the Democratic base, and one not very representative of the views of the Democratic base. The netroots is mainly made up of white urbanites and suburbanites, and are more likely to be students or professionals than the base as a whole.

The more powerful parts of the base are labor and African-Americans. Within these two Democratic groups, Clinton is very, very popular. And these are the groups that decide Democratic primaries. Clinton can be beaten, of course, but she has to be considered the frontrunner, with good reason. She's got the money, the name recognition, and the allegiance of the interest groups that count the most.

Clinton can't win a general election because she is such a polarizing figure

This contention is a little stronger, but it's not a sure thing either, not by a long shot. Carville points out that Clinton is considered to be a strong leader by 68% of Americans. So right off the bat she's doing well on an issue where Democrats have been weak in recent elections. Carville also points out that Clinton, unlike most Democrats, responds effectively to attacks from the opposition. Something that Kerry and Dukakis failed miserably at.

Sure, Clinton won't win many Republican votes. She'll even cause Republican voters to be more motivated than they would be otherwise, thus increasing turnout. But if the Republicans nominate a weak candidate like George Allen or Bill Frist, it won't be enough. Democrats hated George Bush with a lot more passion than Republicans can work up for Hillary Clinton, yet failed to beat him despite solid turnout. Elections are still won in the center. And among independents, she polls well enough to win.

I do think that Richardson, Warner, and Edwards are all superior candidates in a general election. But Republicans wishing for a Clinton candidacy should beware of what they ask for. She can certainly win, especially if Republicans fall prey to their own hubris and foist an out of the mainstream character on the voting public just because he's ideologically pure. Personally, if I was a Republican I'd be wanting John Kerry again. Or Wes Clark, who shows no aptitude whatsoever for campaigning and is not enough of an Eisenhower-type to be able to overcome it. Or Russ Feingold, the netroots darling who is too much of a gadfly to win.

Cool! A debate already?!

2006-07-01T02:40:00.000-07:00

Well, probably not. Newt Gingrich has issued a challenge to John Edwards for a debate on the issue of poverty. Edwards has made poverty his signature issue, and he has a lot of very interesting ideas for how to alleviate poverty. As well as some impressive goals, involving ending poverty in 30 years. I'd say that's impossible for many reasons which I'll go into in another blog post if I feel like it.

Anyway, Edwards' camp has declined the debate. Which begs the question of why? Edwards did debate the far less formidable Steve Forbes in Nov. 2005 on a variety of issues. It was pretty boilerplate stuff, with Forbes touting America's still robust social mobility and Edwards pointing out that current policy values wealth over work.

So why avoid Gingrich? Probably because Gingrich is first, an outside the box thinker who will throw some very unpredictable curveballs Edwards' way. Second, Gingrich states correctly that education is the single biggest reason for poverty, and Edwards' ideas on that subject are a bit sparse. Gingrich says it's because Edwards won't take on the teachers' unions. He is probably right. Edwards, while a great ideas man, has never shown a willingness to take on the Democrats' special interest groups. Nor is he particularly good at answering tough questions. Gingrich of course also has faults, but there is no doubt he is every bit Edwards' equal as an ideas man and isn't beholden to special interests.

Probably the most amusing part of the Edwards' camp response was that Gingrich should have done something about poverty when he had the chance, rather than jawing about it now. That's probably the best softball ever tossed by an opposing campaign and Gingrich can hit it out of the park by citing his accomplishments as Speaker: Welfare reform, free trade agreements, and sharp reduction in poverty during his term. What did Edwards do in his six years in the Senate? Not that he was a bad Senator, he was a very good Senator. But all he really did was support steel tarriffs(a bonehead Bush move that may have cost 50,000 jobs in other industries due to the higher steel prices), and favor extending unemployment benefits while our unemployment was only 6%.

Edwards should accept the chance to debate. He should apply his formidable intellect to the problems of public schools and propose solutions, some of which will inevitably anger the teachers' unions. He should also sell his other ideas on poverty.

Win or lose, this debate would raise the profile of both candidates at a time when they both need to rise in the polls. And what's more, it would be good to see two of the brighter intellects in politics talk about poverty.

Kossacks trying to win over libertarians

2006-06-16T01:58:00.000-07:00

Kos recently wrote a post about so-called "libertarian Democrats", claiming that he was one. The concept isn't preposterous in itself, after all Democrats are usually fairly libertarian on social issues, so they're halfway there. It's not stranger than being a libertarian Republican, where you have to find a way to make common cause with religious voters who want government imposing their own moral preferences.

The problem is that Kos is only doing some creative framing here in an attempt to woo libertarian voters to the Democratic side. Try to emphasize Democrats' libertarian stance on social issues, while trying to explain how authoritarianism in economic matters will increase our freedom. It's clever, but most libertarians in the blogosphere seem to have seen right through it.

I do believe he has a point about some things, like health care. A case can be made that if the government takes on some risks, then it gives us greater freedom of action, thus offsetting the loss of liberty inherent in any universal health care system. Most doctrinaire libertarians would scoff at this, but at least the logic has some merit, at least from a Democrat's perspective. One could make the same case about a social safety net and Social Security. It's not exactly your father's libertarianism, but it can work, especially since it's unlikely libertarians will ever defeat that status quo anyway.

Where he goes off the rails is in believing that the corporation is more dangerous to our liberties than the government necessary to exert the amount of control that Kos deems necessary. He also misrepresents a libertarian belief, stating that libertarians only believe that government and individuals can threaten your liberties. Libertarians see corporations as a threat as well. The difference is that we recognize that their power comes from government. Government which they can use to extort money from taxpayers. Government which can pass anti-competitive laws and regulations.

Kos's most important line:

The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe

So basically, the government, with its virtually unlimited ability to use force, will protect us from corporations, whose ability to use force is limited. I don't find that convincing at all, for obvious reasons. It's fox watching the henhouse type stuff.

Now of course there are a few things that corporations are doing that hurt us more than what government is doing to us. The most frequently cited is pollution. Okay, fine. I'm okay with environmental regulation. Provided we do cost-benefit analysis. No more forcing businesses to spend $50 billion to achieve a .0001% reduction in arsenic in the water, or forcing car companies to add a $1000 widget to every car where the widget would only save a dozen lives a year. Cost/benefit analysis is a must, and something resisted by Democrats in the past. If Kos and other Democrats can meet us in the middle there, we can deal.

Another thing that corporations do to us is corrupt our political system. Well, not actually, at least no more than any other interest group. If you check out Open Secrets you'll find that corporations' effect on the political system, while significant, is not as dominant as Democrats' would like to portray it. Also important in the process are trial lawyers, doctors, unions, single-issue PACs, the AARP, minority groups, and even foreign governments. Secondly, corporations don't have a single agenda, so their influence is neutered to some extent. Some corporate sectors donate and lobby more to Democrats, some more to Republicans.

But let's say they were in fact dominating and corrupting our political system. Why are they doing that? Because government has something they want. A few things they want, actually. The first 2.5 trillion things they want is your money. Government hogs almost 20% of GDP, so naturally there's quite a bit of goodies to compete for. Corporations are hardly alone in trying to get their share of all this loot. Pay $5 million in lobbying and campaign donations and you can get a $5 billion subsidy. What a deal! Now how do you stop this kind of thing? It's ridiculously easy: Stop granting government the power to hand out money to special interests. Then those millions in lobbying dollars and campaign donations becomes a bad deal.

The other thing corporations want is the ability to harm their competitors or get special advantages for themselves in the market. Many of the largest corporations are highly dependent on government regulation keeping out upstart competitors. The auto industry is a prime example. The regulatory hurdles to starting your own auto company are so extreme that the very idea of starting such a business today seems laughable. Might as well get into the space tourism business. But it wasn't always so. Anyone who has seen Tucker knows how business and government collude to keep smaller competitors out. Businesses can afford to comply with the labyrinth of regulations better than they can afford to constantly adapt and compete. Once again, sharply restrict the ability of government to do this kind of thing, and corporations have no reason or incentive to get so involved in the political system.

If we could just establish a few basic guidelines for regulation and other government powers, then libertarians and Democrats could do business:

1) Regulations should only be to promote safety, prevent fraud, and stop anti-competitive practices. We can also throw in environmental regulations for industries that pollute.
2) All such regulations should be subject to cost/benefit analysis.
3) No outlays for local or individual interests. That means no earmarks or corporate welfare. There is not a single state that can't build its own bridge to nowhere with its own taxpayers' money. Any corporation that can't compete doesn't deserve to exist.
4) Don't screw with the political system. After you've eliminated corporate welfare and the ability of corporations to kneecap their competitors using government power, all that's left is lobbying in defense of shareholder assets, which is a GOOD thing. There are many groups that want to foist unfunded mandates or even try to seize property from corporations. Shareholders are every bit as human as AARP members or union members, and thus have a right to defend themselves from rent seekers. A good example is a group of doctors trying to get the government to force restaurants to label their menus or reduce portion sizes. These policies would have a very real effect on shareholders as it would increase costs. If corporations were banned from lobbying, which some Democrats have suggested doing, that means rent-seeking groups get to lobby while shareholders are defenseless from groups trying to pillage them.

We have our first official announcement for 2008!

2006-05-05T23:24:00.000-07:00

For the Democrats, former Senator Mike Gravel.

For those of you who are very young, Gravel is best known as an anti-war Senator during the Vietnam years. A bit of a maverick too. Although quite long in the tooth, he seems like he's still got all his faculties.

His stands on the issues:

funding education as the top priority it must be in a democracy;
repealing the Electoral College;
enacting term limits at the federal level;
reforming Social Security by putting real money in the Trust Fund, investing it properly and identifying the interests of individual beneficiaries so that they can leave their surplus in the fund to their heirs;
enacting a universal health care system covering all Americans from birth to death;
rebuilding our gridlocked transportation system and our crumbling national infrastructure;
repealing the income tax and closing down the IRS replacing it with a Fair Tax (with a pre-bate for necessities) that will reverse the flight of jobs and capital abroad (the ensuing economic growth that the Fair Tax will induce will pay for my program for health care, education and a new national infrastructure);
launching and leading a massive global scientific effort to end energy dependence on oil and integrating the world’s scientific community to this task,
taking responsibility and mitigating our nation’s impact on the world’s environment; and
organizing and leading an intelligence and police organization of willing nations, similar to NATO, to root out terrorism and addressing its causes through aggressive diplomacy.
and of course, The National Initiative which can make all these happen and more.

This is quite a bit different from what modern liberals are about. Most liberals for a long time have been willing to tolerate the atrocity that is the IRS because they placed a higher priority on social justice than on individual liberty and privacy. Gravel seems to be taking the more traditional liberal view that the Fairtax funds the government adequately without creating the virtual tax enforcement police state that the IRS has become.

As a former Senator, he has to be taken seriously. Not so much as a frontrunner. He's a long, long, LONG shot. But he's doing what longshots have to do. He's the only announced candidate(only one with qualifications at least) and will therefore get to own whatever 2008 buzz there is until the more well known candidates announce in the summer and fall of 2007. As a former Senator, he'll certainly be part of the Democratic debates, which means his ideas will be heard.

Francois happily welcomes Sen. Gravel to the fray!

Handicapping 2008-the Republicans

2006-05-04T23:28:00.000-07:00

Now it's time for the Republicans. The first thing to consider is how George Bush's popularity or more likely lack thereof will affect the contenders. My own take is that some candidates who have really tied their horse to Bush's popularity by carrying water for him over the year(such as Frist and Allen) are going to be hurt by association with him, while the outsiders and mavericks should be relatively unaffected. Here are profiles of those Republicans likely to attempt a run:

George Allen- Allen is probably closer to Bush politically than any of the other candidates, and is thus a favorite of Republican insiders. He was a pretty successful governor of Virginia before being elected to the Senate. His drawbacks are many, however. He's not a good speaker, he has race problems in his past, his sister wrote a book detailing years of abuse at his hands, and he's generally not considered one of the brighter bulbs in the Senate. Since GOP primaries tend to be more coronations than actual exercises in democracy, he can't be discounted. But if Bush is still hovering below 50% in early 2008, Allen won't be a good pick. And if there's one thing Republicans haven't done since 1964, it's pick a sure loser(with the exception of Dole, but that's because Clinton was unbeatable anyway and it was Dole's turn).

Haley Barbour- Barbour has become prominent because of his handling of the Katrina crisis. Although he'll never be compared to Rudy Giuliani, he did a much better job than Blanco did. He was also a very successful Republican National Chairman, so we know he knows his politics. The problem for him is that he's not very charismatic, comes from a small red state, and although a competent governor, doesn't exactly have much better than a C+ record to run on. If he's the only governor in the race, he's got a decent chance, but if Huckabee and Giuliani are in the race, he's second-tier.

Sam Brownback-With Bush's popularity waning, and thus Allen and Frist's as well, Brownback is quickly becoming a favorite of religious conservatives. Although not especially charismatic, he's a very down to earth speaker who can connect with an audience and persuade. His economic conservatism is appealing to the remainder of the Republican base, but it's obvious he's setting himself up as first and foremost a values candidate. This guy's top tier, although I question whether he can beat any but the weakest Democrats in the general election.

Bill Frist- Frist's stock has fallen not just because of Bush's slide in the polls, but due to his ineffectiveness as majority leader. He's got a good biography, being a doctor. He also has the virtue of sticking to a campaign promise to serve only two terms in the Senate. Although he's definitely a first-tier candidate due to his name recognition, it's hard to see him having that much appeal to well, anyone. Conservatives don't like his poor performance as majority leader and independents generally just don't like Senators.

Newt Gingrich- This one is intriguing. Gingrich is the "ideas" man of the GOP field, much as John Edwards was and probably still is in the Democratic field. The problem for Gingrich is that his ideas are more often than not poor, although that is partially offset by the fact that some of them are really, really good. However, he lacks discipline, has the hypocrisy problem on values, and had ethics problems while in the House. On the upside he is a compelling speaker and an eternal optimist. His name recognition is high. He's a wildcard. He can flop completely, or he could contend for the nomination.

Rudy Giuliani- Giuliani leads most preference polls. He was a practically legendary mayor of New York even before 9/11. New York's renaissance under his leadership was extraordinary. One would think that a mayor might not be qualified to run for President. One would be wrong in Giuliani's case. New York is larger than most states, and the change was so dramatic he has to be considered a capable executive. Just the kind of person voters look for in a President. The big question is whether or not he will actually run. He'll have a bruising primary fight, being liberal on social issues. But my fearless prediction is that if Giuliani runs, he's probably gonig to be taking up residence in the White House. He's one of the few bona fide rock star politicians of our time.

John McCain- The other big gun. He is right up there with Giuliani in preference polls. He's a maverick, which has harmed him with the Republican base, but he is currently working hard to mend fences. Some think that this is going to hurt his chances in the general election, but I say he'll do fine. Independents don't care much about internal party politics. McCain can kiss up to any conservative figure he needs to and it won't harm him in the general election. The only question mark on McCain is whether he can win the nomination. If he does, he's almost certainly the next President.

Chuck Hagel- Hagel is the poor man's McCain. There is simply no rationale for any Republican to support him if McCain is already running. He also shows little enthusiasm for becoming President. He's only considering it because he knows he's popular and has a good shot. Provided McCain stays out. If McCain does choose to stay out, Hagel would be the main maverick in the race. Which would make him a first-tier candidate. He'd probably do well in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Like McCain and Giuliani, South Carolina would be the primary that could bring his house of cards down.

Mike Huckabee- Huckabee is the governor of Arkansas. A former man of the cloth from Hope, Arkansas(Bill Clinton's home town). A genuine nice guy with solid conservative credentials. No one is noticing him right now, but he'll be a player, especially if Republicans feel the need to rally around an outsider due to Bush's unpopularity.

John Kyl- Kyl is probably not going to run, but for some reason he's listed in a lot of polls. He's one of the most solidly conservative members of Congress and a good orator to boot. This is just not the time, though. He's facing a reelection fight in 2006 that he is almost sure to win, but will have to work hard on. If he runs, he's a contender, but he doesn't really have the same appeal as Brownback for conservatives.

George Pataki- Another guy who probably won't run, but who has to be taken seriously simply because he was governor of a large state. If Giuliani runs, he's toast. If Giuliani doesn't run and throws his support behind Pataki, he's got a great shot. The problem is that he's just not very inspiring and wasn't really that great a governor. Most of New York's success during his administration can be laid at Giuliani's feet.

Tim Pawlenty- Pawlenty was considered an up and coming star by Republicans in his first year as governor of Minnesota, but his popularity has slipped in the last two years. He's in a fight for his political life in 2006, so probably won't have any desire to take on a Presidential race in 2008. I consider him to be one of the better governors in the nation, but not enough of a superstar to enter this field and compete.

Condi Rice- The dream candidate of Bush administration supporters. She has an outstanding biography, but has never held elective office. Her views on many issues are probably liberal. She's a contender if she runs, but it's hard to see her wanting to go through the ordeal. Seeking the highest office in the land is tough enough for hardened politicians. It's a lot tougher for someone who has never campaigned before.

Mitt Romney- Romney's stock has gone up in recent months. He's probably the highest profile governor in the race. He is handsome, a great speaker, and a competent executive. He got a health care plan passed in Massachusetts that will eventually lead to universal coverage. He's probably the only Republican who can win on health care, especially if Hillary Clinton of failed Hillarycare fame is the Democratic nominee.

Mark Sanford- A darling of liberatarian conservatives. Young, charismatic, and often unfairly maligned by the local press as an ineffective governor. Sure, if you consider effectiveness to be spending a lot of the taxpayers' money. He's not particularly interested in running and probably wouldn't get far anyway, but he has a good future. Maybe in 2012 or 2016.

Rick Santorum- His name has been bandied about, but I say forget about it. I still say he's nuts. He's also going to be a loser in 2006. You don't go losing your seat and then running for President. If he was serious about running he would declined reelection so he could concentrate on running for President.

Tom Tancredo- Tancredo isn't well known, but has been tearing up the GOP speaking circuit with his indignation over illegal immigration. He's probably equivalent to Dennis Kucinich in terms of his ability to win the nomination. He'll liven up the debates considerably, but as a House member he's just not going to be able to raise enough money.

Tommy Thompson- Another guy who has been talked about a little bit here and there, but probably a non-factor if he runs. Former governor of Wisconsin. Pretty effective, but once again, not good enough to be considered for President.

John Thune- Thune was profiled in a major publication as a possible 2016 nominee against Barack Obama. While Thune is young and charismatic, he just arrived in the Senate and is likely going to sit this one out, like Obama. However, let's be clear: he's no Obama. While Obama has embraced the national stage, Thune has concentrated on parochial interests in South Dakota. That may make him a better Senator, but Senators are notoriously bad at winning Presidential elections. History's exceptions have been Senators who grabbed the national stage by the throat and disdained parochial concerns. That's not to say that Obama or McCain don't take care of their constituents, but their main claim to fame isn't a Road to Nowhere or saving a military base.

My predictions:

Allen, Brownback, Frist, Gingrich, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney will make it to Iowa. Giuliani's sitting this one out.

Allen, Frist, Gingrich, McCain, and Romney will flop in Iowa. Brownback will win the state with Huckabee finishing a strong second. The only candidates who will withdraw will be Frist and Gingrich.

McCain will take New Hampshire, with Romney a close second. Allen may drop out at this point, leaving the field Brownback, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney.

Brownback will take South Carolina. Huckabee will pull out.

So that leaves Brownback, the conservative favorite, McCain, the favorite of economic conservatives and populists, and Romney, the charismatic governor. When it all shakes out I think that McCain will come out ahead, although the fight will be long and hard and may go all the way to the last primaries.

If the Democratic race shakes out as I predict, then that means it's Clinton vs. McCain. I have no doubt McCain wipes the floor with her, so my bold prediction is that John McCain is going to be our next President. And that's a-OK with a cherry on top with me.

Cold War revisionism

2006-04-09T02:28:00.000-07:00

The subject of proxy wars during the Cold War period is a subject that nowadays is mainly covered only on left-wing blogs and history sites. It's really a shame, too, because their text contains some pretty vicious slander of the United States. Many people read these sites(or books by Chomsky, Zinn, and Cockburn) and now have a distorted view of that period.

According to the left-wing narrative, the US sponsored coup after coup in the Third World, funded and armed tyrants, and stood in the way of democratic progress. It's all true, but it's only half the story. It's a prosecution case which leaves out the historical context. It's like saying that from 1941-1945, the United States murdered millions of Germans and Japanese and invaded country after country, all to protect our economic interests. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of World War II would find such a statement to be ridiculously out of context, despite technically being true. Unfortunately, revisionism of Cold War history tends to work because it happened over a longer period, much of what happened was secret(a lot of very important events are still disputed), and there is a dearth of good, balanced books about the period. And even those books don't deal much with the proxy wars, preferring instead to concentrate on US-Soviet diplomatic strategies and arms control, along with the most well-known crises that almost led to World War III. This is sad, because the US's victories in the proxy wars had as much to do with the eventual fall of the Eastern bloc as any other factor. It's just not a sexy subject for historians without any particular agenda.

Back to that agenda, if you want to learn about the proxy wars, there is no shortage of left-wing authors who have written extensively about them. From Chomsky's writings to "Killing Hope", you can learn all you could ever want to know about US crimes. Not that these books don't serve a valuable purpose. War is ugly. We should know what war looks like so we aren't eager to fight it(or have others fight it on our behalf). But these books don't really tell the reader why we did what we did. Nor do they touch on the end result of our policies.

First let's look at the context. It was the Cold War. The Soviets and Cuba were supporting guerilla forces intent on overthrowing the governments in the region. We had two options: do nothing, and hope for the best, or actively support the governments under attack. We chose the latter. There are varying situations and exceptions, but that's the gist of it. Noncommunist governments were under attack, so we supported those governments to prevent them from falling into the Soviet orbit. In most cases, we succeeded.

In the case of coups, there are two that are nearly legendary in left-wing circles: the coup that overthrew Allende in Chile and the coup that ousted Mossadegh in Iran. There are others, but they aren't as well known on the left because a) the coup victim wasn't a "progressive", or b) the aftermath of the coup wasn't nearly as ugly. In the case of Allende, Pinochet replaced him and Chile fell under tyranny for the next 15 years. In the case of Mossadegh, Iran too fell into dictatorship, as the Shah replaced him for the next 25 years. He in turn was replaced by the mullahs due to his misrule. The Chile story ended much better, but I'll get to that later.

Anyway, the left-wing narrative on Allende is that he was a democratically elected leader who was overthrown in a CIA coup because he threatened US economic interests because he was nationalizing industries. What they don't tell you is that Allende was elected with only 37% of the vote and thus did not enjoy widespread popular support. Of course, this alone means nothing, because a fairly elected leader is a fairly elected leader. But in the context of the rest of the story, it becomes important. Allende tried to make revolutionary changes to Chilean society. A leader with slim support who does this kind of thing can expect the majority that didn't vote for him to be very pissed off, which is exactly what happened. Okay, so you may ask why we overthrew him. If the Chilean people hated him so much, they'd just vote him out, right? Not exactly. Allende was violating the constitution on a regular basis and had Fidel castro over for a full month to dispense advice on Chile's transition to socialism. I think it's pretty easy to see how this would alarm the people who didn't vote for Allende. Allende also made statements that he intended to overthrow democracy. The end result was anarchy. When faith in the democratic process evaporates, the people realize that the only way to get power back is to fight for it. Allende supporters and anti-Allende people fought in the streets. The situation got so bad that the elected Congress called on the military to restore order. And that's the final, most important context that the left-wing authors leave out: the fact that the ELECTED Congress called on the military. Not the United States, not Henry Kissinger. In the end, the military overthrew Allende. What is known is that the coup plotters did consult with CIA agents. But the US did not direct the coup, nor was the coup done because as Chomsky says, "Allende was trying to help his people".

The case of Mossadegh is a lot simpler. He was elected with a lot more popular support. His problems weren't internal, they were external. Mossadegh tried to nationalize Western oil interests. Now when left wing authors say "nationalize" they think they are saying, "give to the people". But to the owner of property, nationalize means to steal. It's eminent domain of a sort, something that US homeowners have become increasingly familiar with. Making things worse, Mossadegh's compensation offer was ridiculously low. The US and Britain rightly saw this as theft and acted. Should they have overthrown Mossadegh? I don't think so. It was a disproportionate response. It was wrong. It's led directly to the problems we have today with Iran. But when you have the whole picture, it does look a little more understandable, doesn't it?

The Cold War was for all intents and purposes a 45-year World War fought by proxies rather than directly between the US and Soviet Union. The US, by doing what left-wingers apparently wanted us to do(stay out of it), would merely have ceded the battlefield to the Soviet Union, condemning billions to Communism and hundreds of millions to mass graves. We fought that war, and we won that war. And because we won that war, today most of the world is democratic. Almost all of those legendary pro-US dictators are now a part of history, dead or in exile, often due to US pressure on those regimes to hold free elections. That's the epilogue to the story that they don't want you to know. Meanwhile, the epilogue to Communism has a far less happy ending. Although the European Communist nations all became democracies, the Third World nations where the Communists managed to win are still tyrannical hellholes to this day. I think it's safe to assume that if we'd conceded those Third World battlegrounds to the Soviet Union back then, they would all look like Cuba and North Korea today. The fact that we won is something to be proud of. That doesn't mean we should shirk our responsibility for the suffering of untold numbers of Third World peoples in those wars. As the ones who did most of our fighting for us I'd say we owe them a Marshall Plan of some sort, especially Latin America. It's more than Russia will ever do. Russia, by the way, STILL supports all of their old clients. You won't be hearing any apologies from them, much less reparations. For all the faults of our Cold War strategy, thank God we won and not them.

Missouri Senate race

2006-04-01T01:55:00.000-08:00

Shows what I know. I didn't even mention this race because I assumed Talent was safe.

Turns out he's running neck and neck with his challenger. Poll here.

At this point, the Democrats look to gain a net of two seats. They are leading in Montana(incumbent Burns is in trouble over Abramoff), Missouri(by only three), and Pennsylvania(Santorum getting beat up on by Casey). Republican Tom Kean is currently in a slight lead for the New Jersey seat currently held by Menendez.

Handicapping 2008-the Democrats

2006-01-15T01:59:00.000-08:00

Now we'll move on to 2008. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about 2006. I'll post interesting stories about 2006 races as the news comes up. But 2008, for obvious reasons, is a far more significant race, the one everyone is looking ahead to. Congressional races are obviously impossible to handicap, as it's three years out and there's no clue who is running, who is retiring, or who is in trouble. So we'll concetrate strictly on the Presidency here. And oh, is this one going to be fun. For the first time in oh, I don't know, a heck of a long time, both parties will enter 2008 with open fields. The Democrats naturally are out of power, so we expected them to have an open field. But Bush doesn't have a clear successor either. Cheney is almost certainly not going to run, and even if he did he wouldn't be the frontrunner because he is generally considered unelectable. Let's face it, his personality is not one that inspires love from the masses.

Of course, this far out we really don't know for sure who is running and who is not. We only know who is interested. At least half of those interested in running won't make it to the first primary. Many more will decide not to run in early 2007 and say so. Some who were speculated to be running, like Mark Sanford and Al Gore, have made it clear they won't run. So the first thing we need to look at is who is running?

For the Democrats, we have these prospects:

Evan Bayh- A DLC favorite, the most conservative Democrat likely to run. Not much charisma, but a responsible, steady guy. As governor of Indiana, he was known as cautious and responsible. He ran a budget surplus and didn't raise taxes in his eight years of governing. I have no doubt he would make a solid President. The problem with Bayh is that he won't generate much excitement among primary voters. He can only win if the rest of the field makes them want to flock to someone steady and responsible. Bayh will likely declare his candidacy, and he will probably make it through at least the first couple of primaries.

Joe Biden- A longtime legislator, former Presidential candidate. A great speaker, but over the years the base seems to have grown less enamored with him. He's a compromiser by nature. Another very responsible,thoughtful guy. A mainstream liberal compared to Bayh's conservativeness. Problem is, I just don't see it working. The party has sent a lot of Northeastern liberals up, only to have them soundly defeated by the GOP. Biden is the both of all worlds: a liberal who isn't loved by the liberal base. He would make a decent President, but there are many better to choose from. I don't think he'll even declare, because he won't raise any money.

Wes Clark- Anyone paying attention in 2004 remembers this guy. Took the party by storm in late 2003 but flamed out early. Personally, I think it's because he didn't run as a general. He let himself be packaged as Mr. Democrat and was as slick as any politician. The problem with that is that being viewed as a politician rather than a general means he gets compared to the other politicians. Other politicians with more experience and who are better at playing the game. At this point, I see no sign that Clark has learned anything from his defeat in the primaries. I don't think he'll bother to declare, and even if he does he won't be a factor unless he runs on a solid national security platform.

John Edwards- In contrast to Wes Clark, Edwards has shown that he's learned from the 2004 campaign. Edwards is a brilliant, telegenic candidate, with an idea for every problem. He's got a great story, being the son of a millworker who went to law school, became a trial lawyer, and is now a great family man. Unlike Clinton, another young southerner, he won't have bimbo eruptions. Edwards run in 2004 basically mirrored his career as a trial lawyer. It was all about fighting for the little guy. A nice idea in theory, the US is a lot more complicated place than that. There aren't "Two Americas" there are dozens of Americas, representing the diversity of this great nation. Edwards, if his recent speeches are any indication, seems to have grown beyond his trial lawyer worldview of Little People vs. Evil Corporations. He will almost certainly run and he will almost certainly go at least until the southern primaries. And I think he has a good shot at the nomination.

Russ Feingold- Feingold is an interesting case. The far left of the party really seems to want to get behind him based on his willingness to speak out against Bush policies when many other Democrats scurry for political cover. However, he's not so much a liberal doctrinaire as a maverick who has some right-wing positions as well. Like Howard Dean in 2004, he believes in the 2nd amendment right for individuals to bear arms. He's also against pork barrel spending. Realistically, he has little chance of winning the nomination. He's a liberal without the benefit of being able to mobilize the Democrat's traditional interest groups. However, it is possible he could make a splash in New Hampshire, a state that LOVES mavericks. But once campaigning shifts to the South and Midwest, he's toast.

John Kerry- John Kerry is under the impression that Democrats chose him in 2004 because they loved him. He's also under the impression that because he came close to unseating Bush in 2004, that he has a shot in 2008. He'd be wrong on both counts. John Kerry has one man to thank for his win in 2004- Howard Dean, who sent supporters scurrying to find a responsible, sane candidate to support. Kerry was the most liberal candidate left standing. Edwards was too green, Lieberman too conservative, Gephardt had just choked in Iowa. Even if he does win the nomination, he won't beat the GOP nominee unless it's someone insane like Santorum. I woudln't count on it though. The GOP doesn't pick candidates who can't win, at least not since 1964. Hard to say whether he'll actually declare or not. If he does, he'll go far simply because he'll raise decent money and has name recognition. But he is unlikely to win unless the field is extraordinarily weak.

Bill Richardson- Richardson is in my opinion the most qualified person to run for President of the likely field. A very successful governor of New Mexico, a Secretary of Energy, and a UN ambassador. All three of those pertain directly to the problems we'll be facing in 2008. The only question is whether primary voters will get excited about him. He has informed the party that he intends to run, so that's probably a sure thing. If he's the only governor in the race, his chances of winning are excellent, as governors tend to wipe the floor with Senators on the campaign trail. But if Mark Warner, a good, but not AS good, governor gets in the race, Warner's charisma could defeat Richardson's superiority on substance. Not that Warner isn't a man of substance. Its' just that Richardson is far more qualified and a far more successful governor.

Mark Warner- Warner is also a successful governor. What is making him attractive to primary voters is the fact he's a southerner who won in a red state. He'd probably make a fine President too. He balanced his budget, but he did it by raising taxes, unlike Richardson and Bayh. His record on crime is excellent. His approval rating in Virginia is 80%. The fact that he can win Virginia alone makes him formidable. However much better Richardson is, Richardson's state is not necessary for the party to win. Virginia on the other hand would be huge.

Barbara Boxer- Yeah, right. As loony as Santorum, albeit on the left rather than the right. Liberal activists want her to run, but even she's not that delusional I would suspect. If she does run, she goes nowhere. She'd be lucky to get past 3% anywhere but the Pacific Coast.

Phil Bredesen- Another governor, another good one. Great campaigner as well, probably better than Warner, although Warner's done a much better job of getting press at this point. He has a strong background in health care, another issue that will be important in 2008.

Hillary Clinton- The obvious frontrunner should she run, which seems likely. She's managed to annoy many party faithful with her centrist positions and extreme hawkishness on national security. Nothing wrong with that strategy however, as she's got the nomination should she want it. The only way she can be defeated is if those same party faithful annoyed with her centrism and hawkishness rally behind er, someone else centrist and hawkish, like Richardson or Warner or Bayh. More likely they'll rally around Feingold. That won't get them far.

Tom Daschle- Who? I don't think so. Feckless, uncharismatic, a loser in 2004, and a loser when it came to getting the Democrats to put up serious opposition to the GOP in the Senate. Not the kind of man anyone really wants leading this country.

Chris Dodd- As a friend of mine said, the answer to the question no one was asking? Will Chris Dodd run? In a field which may already have two northeastern liberals, Dodd is the third wheel. And the least charismatic one to boot.

Al Gore-Sure, he said he wouldn't run, but Gore is the kind of guy to change his mind if he thinks he has a shot. Actually, I take back what I said about Hillary. Gore can beat her because he provides a liberal person for the base to rally around to defeat Hillary. He'll also be able to attract the interest groups better than any other candidate. The question for voters is, who is the real Al Gore? Is the real Al Gore the conservative candidate who ran in 1988? Is he the New Democrat who governed with Bill Clinton for eight years? Is he the liberal who ran for President in 2000? Or is he the extreme progressive champion who has spoken out on many issues since 2000? Does he even know?

Dennis Kucinich- Probably the least qualified man in the field, having held numerous positions in government and been a failure at all of them. Has some of the worst ideas ever articulated in public by a Congressman. Non-profit health care system? Dept. of Peace? If he runs, he'll do as well as he did in 2004.

Gary Locke- Another very successful governor, this time from Washington. Another Democrat who didn't raise taxes. What sets him apart from Richardson and Warner is the fact that not only did he not raise taxes, but he had the courage to make deep budget cuts in order to keep that promise. At a time when even Republican governors were caving in and raising taxes.

Barack Obama- A future superstar in the party. Smart, charismatic, honest, and clear-headed on national security. Very liberal, but with his leadership skills that won't be an obstacle. I'm sure everyone would love to see him run in 2008, but that's probably not in the cards. I'd say his target for running is 2016.

Tom Vilsack- Another governor, but by far the weakest in the field. Typical Democrat despite his centrist reputation. Massively increased spending, and vetoed attempts by the legislature to cut taxes and ease business regulation. This in the face of a recession. The base likes him, but he's just not Presidential timbre.

It's really far out, so I'll probably be spectaculalry wrong here, but this is what I think will happen:

Bayh, Edwards, Feingold, Kerry, Richardson, Warner, and Clinton will make it to Iowa.

My money is on Clinton. Second would be Warner, who will probably stick around the longest. Edwards, Richardson and Bayh will also probably hang around awhile. Feingold and Kerry will be out early.

Handicapping the 2006 Senate elections

2006-01-09T03:37:00.000-08:00

There is much talk about the Republicans' recent ethics problems sweeping the Democrats back into the majority in the Senate and the House. So let's see how likely this is. First, let's look at the races that are very competitive:

Pennsylvania-Rick Santorum(R) is a bona fide nutcase conservative running against popular ex-governor Bob Casey. This is a blockbuster race. Really, I think both conservatives and liberals would be better off with Casey in office, but that's my opinion. Casey is a conservative Democrat, except you know, he doesn't think women should be strictly barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Emotional distaste for Santorum aside, Casey leads him in the polls and I just can't see Santorum running a charming enough campaign to win over a moderate-liberal state like Pennsylvania. Casey is mainstream for PA, Santorum is far right for Utah. I'm calling this one for the Democrats, which means they pick up a seat.

New Jersey-Bob Menendez(D) is an appointed incumbent, which equals vulnerable. To make matters worse for the Democrats, he's facing Tom Kean Jr., son of a very popular ex-governor. The Democratic Party in New Jersey has a corrupt reputation, while the NJ GOP has a reputation for clean government. Which is why even though this is a very liberal state, it's usually competitive and has seen Republicans like Kean and Christie Whitman become governor. I'm calling this one for the Republicans, which makes up for losing Santorum's PA seat.

Rhode Island-The most liberal Republican in the Senate, Lincoln Chaffee, is running here against a couple of strong Democratic contenders. Either one that gets the nomination is going to have a good chance to topple Chaffee. Sheldon Whitehouse, former state attorney general is the most likely Democratic candidate. I'm calling this one for the Democrats, which means we're back to a one-seat gain for the Democrats.

Vermont-Jim Jeffords is retiring. Fellow independent Bernie Sanders is running for his open seat. Sanders caught a break when Howard Dean said that the Democrats would not compete against him in order to not dilute the liberal vote while conservatives united behind the GOP nominee. Despite my distaste for socialists like Sanders, it's good to see the Democratic chairman have his party step aside rather than doing what they usually do: arrogantly call for the minor parties or independents to step aside. Sanders will likely face Brian Dubie, the Lt. governor. Sanders has the name recognition to win without major party backing, but I would imagine the GOP is licking it's chops at the prospect of facing a socialist and will pour money into this one. I'm still calling it for Sanders, but it's going to be a competitive race.

Tennessee-Another open seat, with Bill Frist retiring. Harold Ford, a rising star in the Democratic Party will probably be their nominee. The Republicans have a three-way contest between three pretty strong candidates. Yes, this is a red state, but Ford is a star and the Republican party is not associated with competence in this state. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, is one of the most successful and popular Tennessee governors in recent memory. Gotta give it to Ford, which means the Democrats now have a two-seat pickup.

Ohio-Mike Dewine(R) is in serious trouble. He's not very popular and Ohio has two very strong candidates to choose from to oppose him, Paul Hackett and Sherrod Brown. Either one has a good chance to defeat him. Another pickup for the Democrats, putting them at +3.

Nebraska-Ben Nelson(D) is a Democrat in one of the most conservative states in the US. He also beat a nobody in 2000 with only 51% of the vote. Now he faces stiff opposition and could fall. What will probably save him is the fact that he's the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. I'm calling it for Nelson.

Minnesota-Mark Dayton(D) is retiring, so this is an open seat. Mark Kennedy(R) is the most prominent contender and has to be the favorite at this point. All of the likely Democratic candidates are of smaller stature and Dayton was deeply unpopular. That will slightly rub off on the Democratic contenders. I'm giving this one to Kennedy, and thus it's a Republican pickup. They are down to -2 at this point.

North Dakota-Kent Conrad(D) is the incumbent here, a Democrat in a very red state. He dodged a bullet when John Hoeven decided not to run. Hoeven is the most popular governor in the country and would have crushed Conrad. Which tells me that Hoeven might be considering a Presidential run. But that's the next topic. Conrad will however have to face Wayne Stenehjem, the state attorney general. That makes this race a toss-up. The Republicans want this one so bad they can smell it. I've got to give this one to Stenehjem. GOP is down to -1.

Now, let's look at races that are somewhat competitive:

Florida-Bill Nelson(D) is the incumbent here in this swing state. He's a solid Senator and pretty popular. The Republicans hopes of taking the seat depend a great deal on who the nominee is. The frontrunner, Katherine Harris, hasn't a shot in hell of beating Nelson. Mark Foley on the other hand would make put this race into the "toss up" column because of Foley's popularity and good reputation. If Harris is the GOP nominee, I favor Nelson. If Foley is the nominee, I've gotta give it to Foley by a whisker.

West Virginia-Robert Byrd(D) is the incumbent here running for, oh, his 189th Senate term or something. His likely opponent is Hiram Lewis, an Iraq war veteran. Certainly a longshot, but West Virginia is increasingly a red state and this is a classic battle between the old, stuffy, machine politics Byrd and the young energetic newcomer. Byrd also happens to be an old crook and former KKK member, although that's never hurt him with WV voters before. I have to call this one for Byrd, but there's a small chance Lewis could pull this one out.

Maryland-This race is for an open seat and has yet to fully shake out. The GOP nominee is probably Michael Steele, the Lt. Governor. He's a pretty strong candidate. The Democratic nominee will be either Ben Cardin or Kweisi Mfume. Cardin is a Congressman, Mfume is an ex-Congressmen and ex-NAACP head. I have to give the edge to Cardin if he's the nominee, to Steele if Mfume is the nominee. I'm calling this one for the Democrats. Since it's an open seat vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes, it's not net gain for anyone.

Montana-Conrad Burns(R) is one of the incumbents connected to Jack Abramoff, which could end in his downfall depending on how that scandal shakes out. Fortunately for Burns, his competition isn't that great. But this is one seat that the Democrats could pick up due to Abramoff fallout. I'm giving it to Burns, but this is another one that the Democrats have a longshot at.

Washington-Maria Cantwell(D) also dodged a bullet when Dino Rossi decided to forego a challenge to concentrate on a rematch with Gregoire in 2008. Good move, since Rossi is a future star who could someday be President. Governor is a much better thing to have on your resume than Senator. Cantwell will instead face Safeco CEO Mike Mcgavick. McGavick has a shot, but not all that much of one.

All the seats I didn't list are safe for the incumbents.

So crunching the raw numbers, it looks like a one seat gain for the Democrats in 2006. Of course, there are also wild cards, like the Florida race, the Maryland race, the Abramoff scandal, and the general fact that by fall 2006 the political situation may look very different than it does now. Iraq could be mostly won, the economy could be good. Or Iraq could be a disaster and the housing bubble could burst and drag down the economy. This one seat gain for the Democrats is only really a good prediction if everything stays pretty much the same, or what changes between now and 2006 doesn't really benefit either party.

Best case scenario for the Democrats would result in them gaining 5 seats. That's assuming they win every competitive race where they have an opportunity to take a seat from the GOP. Which means they stay in the minority. Sorry, guys.

Best case scenario for the GOP(assuming some very rosy things come fall) is a 9 seat gain. That's counting every competitive race where the GOP can pick up seats.

So I really don't see why the Democrats are so optimistic. The GOP has far more to gain from 2006 and not all that much to lose. The GOP is also on a winning streak, having won convincingly in 2002 and 2004. That losing streak will probably come to an end in 2006, but if 2006 ends up being a good year in Iraq and the economy, that 9 seat gain potential starts to loom large.

Yeah, yeah, I know I need to post more

2005-10-19T23:26:00.000-07:00

But I only post when I have something to say that not many other people are already saying better.

I have found another blog that is undiscovered, but a kindred spirit to mine. It's called Practical Politics. Unfortunately, William hasn't posted in over a month, but what he has is good stuff. Perhaps if William starts posting more, it will get me to start posting more, and we can create a virtous cycle of non-partisan posting on how to solve the nation's problems.

Phil Bredesen

2005-07-17T03:17:00.000-07:00

Okay, last month I talked about Hillary Clinton, this month I'll talk about another Democratic Presidential contender, Phil Bredesen. Here is an excellent article about the Tennessee governor.

What makes him attractive to me is first off, his effectiveness at a job that is very much like the Presidency. No one is more qualified to be President than a governor, with the exception of maybe a Vice President. An effective governor's logical next step is the Presidency, although since there can be only one President, some get siphoned off into the Senate where they usually run the clock out on their political career.

In this article in particular, he talks about health care, specifically Tennessee's own program, Tenncare. Bredesen used to run an HMO, so he knows a little something about the business. He recognizes the need for consumers to be able to make choices, and the cost control benefits that come from that.

To me, an important trait in a Presidential candidate, or any candidate actually, is the willingness to come up with new ideas that aren't necessarily ideologically orthodox. John Edwards was the most attractive Democrat in that regard last year. He was Mr. Idea Man in 2004 and I'm sure he's taking another shot in 2008. And as long as he gets over his anti-business and anti-free trade tunnel vision(acquired from a career battling Big Business excesses), I think he'd be a good choice as well.

But if I had a choice in 2008, I'd take a successful governor with business experience in a field like health care, over a one-term Senator with experience as a trial lawyer. So if 2008 shook out as a primary race between Bredesen and Edwards, I'd easily want Bredesen. How Bredesen stacks up against Hillary Clinton or Bill Richardson I'm not sure. That's what the primary campaign is for. In terms of qualifications, I'd put both ahead of Bredesen, slightly. Clinton was practically a co-President and Richardson has been an even more effective governor, as well as a Cabinet Secretary in the Clinton administration. But Bredesen isn't far enough behind in that regard for me to automatically place him in the second tier. I'd say that on substance Bredesen, Clinton, and Richardson are the best choices for Democrats. Then of course there's Wes Clark, but he really has to grow as well to be a good President. He had to have been the most overrated candidate in 2004, and fortunately the voters smacked him down to spend some time in the minor leagues of politics. The less said about Kerry and Dean, the better. I was told that if you don't have anything nice to say....

More on Hillary Clinton's Presidential prospects

2005-06-11T01:01:00.000-07:00

Robert Novak comments on Hillary's prospects among Democratic voters. According to Novak, the party insiders have already decided that Clinton is the one, but the rank and file aren't so enthusiastic.

This seems to be a standard canard among conservatives and the far left of the Democratic Party: that Hillary is unelectable. What they are really saying is that they don't want Hillary elected for their various reasons. I'm sure in the case of Democrats, there is also fear that she isn't electable, but these polls seem to say otherwise.

The first poll looks rather bleak, showing that only 52% of voters would consider voting for her. But keep in mind that's a pretty nice jump from when only 41% would have considered her. Now 41% would make me think she was unelectable, if it held up over time, which it hasn't. Really, Hillary Clinton, despite the name recognition, is not that much of a known quantity as a politician. She's only served four years in the Senate, and has held no other office aside from that. She can still go way up or way down in opinion polls based on what kind of campaign she runs.

The next poll regarding Hillary is a lot more hopeful. It shows her behind John McCain, possibly the most popular politician in America, but only eight points. She is in a statistical tie with Rudy Giuliani, another popular politician. She absolutely demolishes Jeb Bush. Surprisingly, Edwards looks pretty robust as well, actually beating Giuliani in trial heats. I've always liked Edwards for the most part, so no complaints there if the Democrats nominate him.

Most of the other polls show Hillary competitive with the Republicans most popular potential nominees. What I would really like to see, since Republicans are skeptical of McCain and Giuliani, is how well Clinton stacks up against Frist or Allen, the candidates more likely to be supported by the party's evangelist base. Personally, I think a trial heat poll would show Clinton kicking their asses.

Soldier blogs

2005-06-01T21:37:00.000-07:00

Want to know how it is for the average soldier in the Sunni Triangle? Read Boots on the Ground, a soldier's blog. It's not the only one, either, but it's the one I read most often.

Where freedom is not marching

2005-05-21T23:52:00.000-07:00

Uzbekistan. A great op-ed piece by Bill Kristol.

Excerpts:

IN THE WEEKS AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, as Washington prepared for a difficult war to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan, the neighboring former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan became a particularly useful ally. Indeed, Uzbekistan was the first country to offer military assistance to our government on the afternoon of September 11, and the Pentagon subsequently established a base there. After the main fighting in Afghanistan ended, we continued to work with the regime of Islam Karimov, even though he remained an unsubtle dictator of the neo-Soviet style. We did little to help promote political freedom there. Indeed, we seem to have "rendered" dozens of terrorists to the Karimov government for interrogation, despite (or perhaps because of) its well-deserved reputation for brutality and torture.

But the character of the Karimov regime can no longer be ignored in deference to the strategic usefulness of Uzbekistan. The Taliban has been defeated, and, with the liberation of Iraq, the nature of the global struggle to which the Bush administration is committed is no longer exclusively focused on the destruction of terrorist redoubts. We are now committed to a democratizing effort that challenges tyranny along with terror as threats to peace and freedom around the world. The Uzbek regime that was part of the solution in 2001 is now, with its bloody suppression of protests, part of the problem.

Less than two weeks ago, Karimov ordered his troops to the eastern Uzbek city of Andijon, where economic discontent had stirred the local populace to protest. They opened fire in a spasm of official bloodshed reminiscent of Tiananmen Square. The death toll remains unconfirmed, perhaps unconfirmable, but apparently exceeds 500 and includes women and children. Karimov and his servants have sought to explain away this atrocity with charges that the Andijon demonstrators were, or were inspired by, Islamist radicals. But such claims seem to be mendacious propaganda, which, left unchallenged, could undermine the real and indispensable effort against radical Islam.

The Bush administration's response to the bloodshed has been tepid, featuring calls for restraint by both sides. The president's failure even to mention Uzbekistan in a major foreign policy speech to the International Republican Institute last week is not good news. Neither is the absence of talk about using U.S. aid as leverage on Karimov.

Uzbekistan has a distinguished cultural and theological Islamic heritage. If it had a regime accountable to the people, allowing entrepreneurship and pluralism, it could become a force for progress in other Muslim lands. As an exemplar of successful reform, Uzbekistan would be a far more valuable ally than it is now as Karimov's fiefdom.

I couldn't agree more. Mr. President, show us the guts you're famous for.

Freedom continues to march

2005-05-21T02:52:00.000-07:00

Kuwait recognizes the right of women to vote. Now the UAE is considering voting rights as well.

Social mobility

2005-05-16T00:59:00.001-07:00

The NY Times is running an interesting set of articles about social mobility. You can read the first here.

The NY Times, like most media, is really striving to be fair and balanced here, but I think in this case it's painting an unnecessarily grim picture of class in America today. If you look at their data, we see that people in the bottom quintile had about a 50-50 chance of moving into a higher quintile over ten years. In my opinion, those are not long odds. Those are "work hard and you'll make it" odds. People in the bottom quintile had a 5% chance of making it to the top quintile. Once again, this is hard, but hardly impossible. Many liberals have made it seem like a person born poor had such huge obstacles to overcome that the odds of them succeeding were about the odds of an aspiring baseball player to make it to the majors.

Also keep in mind that we're only talking about ten years here. I'll share a little bit of my info with you. When I started out, I made $4.75 an hour, or $7000/yr(part time work). That's defintely bottom quintile territory. Ten years later, I was making $30,000/yr, which I believe puts me pretty firmly in the 3rd quintile. Not too shabby, according to the NY Times' data, my odds were 25% of accomplishing that. So pat me on the back, thank you very much. However now, I'm up to $36,000, three years later. That's about 4% real growth per year. At that rate, I'd be getting into the 2nd quintile in about 20 or 30 years. But I plan on doing better. That's if I only get raises and similar jobs my whole life. If I continue on my career track, I can eventually expect to make top quintile wages. I'll probably achieve that at the end of 20 years of working life. So over 20 years, if all goes well, I'll be on top, from the bottom. I wonder how many people from the bottom quintile would be following me over 20 years. I hope the NY Times uses the same data and comes back to tell us in 2015.

In my opinion, social mobility will not be a problem unless we have a situation where people born poor actually do have long odds to make it to the middle class. I just don't see that kind of problem in the current social mobility data.

Presidents and the economy

2005-05-10T01:02:00.000-07:00

Just as I say I need to pay more attention to Kevin Drum, he goes and posts something stupid.

Here it is.

All I have to say is do the same thing, only use Congress instead of Presidents, and you get a much different result. And after all, does not Congress decide tax and spending issues?

Not that it matters there either, since it's a lot more complicated than that and I think Kevin Drum knows it. So after exposing some right-wing hackery in Limbaugh, I guess I'll expose the left-wing kind now. You're welcome.

The 1990 bipartisan deficit reduction plan

2005-05-09T02:13:00.000-07:00

I was just reading about it today. I remember that conservatives had a huge fit over this plan. It contributed to President Bush's defeat in 1992. But I never knew the specifics of the plan, only the general outlines. And I've found that it really wasn't a bad plan. We could use such a plan today to reduce the deficit. For those who don't know, here were the specifics. I think every one of these could be used today to help bring down the deficit:

Taxes:

Gas tax increased by 10 cents.

Cigarette tax increased by 8 cents.

Liquor taxes raised by a total of $2 billion a year

A new 10% luxury sales tax on cars over $30,000, yachts over $100,000, jewelry over $5000, and furs over $5000.

The wage ceiling on the Medicare tax was raised by
$22,000.

Tax deductions were reduced for the top 2% of households.

Airplane ticket taxes rose by a total of $2 billion a year.

Spending cuts:

Defense reduced by $35 billion a year.

Meidcare payments to hospitals cut by $6 billion a year.

Doubled the deductible that Medicare beneficiaries had to pay.

Doubled Medicare premiums.

Cut farm subsidies by $2.3 billion a year.

All other discretionary domestic programs held to inflation for the following three years.

Total bill:

$134 billion in tax increases over 5 years.
$366 billion in budget savings over 5 years.

I'm not sure what's so bad about this plan, especially considering that Democrats controlled Congress at this point. Yet Bush still managed to make 72% of the deficit reduction come from the spending side! And no income tax rate increases! That's brilliant negotiating considering the circumstances.

When do liberals consider taxes to be too much?

2005-05-09T00:07:00.000-07:00

Jim Henley asked the question. Matt Yglesias dodged it. Kevin Drum, a liberal blogger I should really be paying more attention to, answers it.

He lists 40% as "unwise"(which wasn't really the question, but hey, I'm all for more information), 50% as "counterproductive", and 60% as "unjust".

Myself, I'd put 40% as the figure that is unjust, at a minimum. It seems that whenever we've increased that top rate past 40%, we start running into problems of declining revenues and reduced compliance. Which is understandable. It's an oppressive rate.

But that's a minimum. Whether or not something is just is a lot different from whether or not something can be done without unduly impacting the economy. So I'd say that advocating tax rates higher than 40% is crazy, but that even as high as 25%, we're in unjust territory. But that's just my opinion. I've spent a lot of time studying what the government spends money on and how it raises revenues. Taxes and spending are something I feel I've got a pretty good handle on. So I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the federal government, under normal peacetime circumstances, can get by with 15% of GDP. If I was really ambitious I'd go so far as to say they could do it on 12%. 9 to 10% once you can eliminate most of the national debt. But let's just go with 15% for now. I don't think a tax rate over 25% is really necessary to fund that fully.

Like Kevin, I'm speaking of effective tax rates here, not the marginal tax bracket.

I also think that Democrats really hurt themselves when they can't bring themselves to say that any tax rate is too high from a moral perspective. It makes one wonder if they have any respect for the rights of citizens to own property. What else can one think, when they think it's morally okay to take more than half of it?

2005-05-08T04:56:00.000-07:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Hillary Clinton

2005-05-08T04:41:00.000-07:00

David Limbaugh has a post about Hillary Clinton's positioning herself to run for President in 2008. Like most Republican hacks, he's portraying it as a cynical attempt to deceive Americans about her true feelings, which are supposedly of the far left variety.

I say baloney. There is nothing in her history of her statements to suggest that she is anything other than a moderate centrist Democrat. She was that way during Bill Clinton's Presidency, she has been that way as a Senator. The only black spot I can find on her resume is working for the McGovern campaign. But Bill Clinton did as well, and he turned out to be quite the centrist President. Heck, even McGovern seems to have seen the error of his ways, at least on issues affecting business.

Now, there's no question that she is crafting her centrist message better to appeal to Americans who are inclined to disagree with her. But that's normal. Nothing deceptive about that. Her recent statement on abortion, where she said she respected the views of pro-lifers, are cited by Republicans as proof of her duplicity. How? On most issues, I respect the views of those who disagree with me. Doesn't mean I'm changing my position. I think Republicans are projecting here. Limbaugh and many other Republicans don't respect the opposing views of Democrats and assume that Democrats don't respect their views. Especially Mrs. Democrat herself, Hillary Clinton. Sure, there are many Democrats and liberals who are quick to resort to ad hominems or throwing things rather than reasoned debate. Ann Coulter knows about that. But I don't see that Hillary has ever shown herself to be one of those kinds of people.

Pat Tillman

2005-04-16T23:37:00.000-07:00

I know this has been mentioned elsewhere many times, but it just awes me that any man could be this unselfish and willing to serve his country. Even after seeing combat. Tillman could have come home and played football after that tour and no one would have said a thing bad about him. His hero status was already cemented. Yet he returned to Afghanistan because he felt his word was his bond. He'd signed up for a certain period and he was darn well going to serve his entire term.

Very few things really move me these days. As a news and history buff, I like to think I've read it all. But nothing like this since the Korean War, when Ted Williams left in the prime of his career to become a fighter pilot, has there been a story like this. I hope that the Football Hall of Fame creates a special new category for men like Tillman. He deserves to be remembered long after Afghanistan and Al Qaeda fade from our headlines.

John Bolton

2005-04-16T21:08:00.000-07:00

I like John Bolton for the UN job. You know why? Because he tells it like it is. I'd always thought liberals liked the "truth to power" thing. But it seems that with the UN, it's some kind of sacred cow that should never be questioned or criticized. So of course they want someone who will just go with the flow. Don't look under rocks for corruption, don't point out the UN's inadequacies. And certainly don't point out the simple truth that the UN can't prevent 99% of the nations out there from doing what they want to do when they want to do it.

Now I'm agnostic on what the UN should actually be. On one hand, you have conservatives saying that the US shouldn't even be there, and at worst, it's a threat to our Constitutional liberties. If the end goal of the UN is in fact a world government of some sort, then they have a point. But on the other hand, if the UN has zero enforcement powers except against weak, internationally isolated states, what is its purpose?

It's generally a truism that any democratic government must have three basic powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. The UN has only one of these, legislative. The Security Council in theory has executive power, but in practice it does not becuase of its unwillingness to actually enforce its edicts. Imagine how much we'd respect our local elected governments if they were completely unwilling to send the police to deal with anything, whether robbery, murder, rape, or what have you. Imagine if all they did was issue resolutions condemning the crimes. And even there, imagine if they did it selectively, so that certain criminals got condemned for everything, real or imagined, and some criminals were even on the city council! So they could protect their friends and get back at their enemies. Heck, in that case, you probably would be thankful they are too cowardly to send in the police!

So let's move on to legislative powers. They do seem to have this, but unfortunately there don't seem to be any restraints on their powers the way there is in the US. The World Court, in theory the UN's judicial branch, can't overturn General Assembly Resolutions. So once again, good thing we don't have any real executive power in this body, or else we'd have real problems with all the capricious resolutions the General Assembly passes. Finally, let's look at the World Court. Theoretically, the world's Supreme Court. Yet any nation can reject the jurisdiction of the court!

So what is the UN for? Some seem to think it's just a forum. But those same people will usually say, without noticing the inherent contradiction, that its resolutions are binding. Of course, in practice, this only means binding on us. A concept which I personally reject. There can be no justice of any sort when the laws only apply to you. Some say that if we set a good example, other nations will follow. That doesn't hold water either. In the real world, every nation does what is in its national interest. If the US decides to unilaterally abide by all UN resolutions, other nations won't be shamed into doing it, they'll see it as an opportunity. Take whaling, for instance. The US has generally abided by this treaty. What effect has this had on Japan? None that I can see except they don't have to compete with our whalers anymore! So those who say the UN is just a forum need to stick to that story. It's the only one that actually expresses the reality of what the UN is and has always been. A forum which occasionally decides, in the most arbitrary fashion imaginable, to enforce its edicts.

So if you want the UN to have real power, how do you fix it? The most obvious solution is to eliminate the veto powers of the permanent members. Also, only allow governments who meet a minimum threshold of respect for human rights to have a seat. Give the UN Secretary General a military force that he can dispatch wherever there is genocide, without waiting for UN debates that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Make election of the Secretary General by popular vote so he is accountable to the people of the nations who put him there. Also have direct popular election of UN delegates while we're at it. Then we might be getting somewhere. And of course, have a UN Constitution which puts strict limits on what the UN can and can't do. The UN is a global security organization, not a potential world government. The only time the UN should be able to override national sovereignty is in gross cases of human rights abuses or aggression.

Such a UN, if reformed in this way right after the end of the Cold War, would have prevented genocide in Rwanda. It would have stabilized Somalia. It would have stopped genocide in the Balkans. It would have forced Iraq's compliance with its cease-fire obligations. It would have dealt with the Taliban long before 9/11. Of course, there would still be practical limitations on its power. North Korea is a gross case of human rights abuses. However, a UN force that was strong enough to take on North Korea, and possibly China as well, would probably be unacceptable to the international community. So in practice it would only be able to be used on the less powerful nations. Iraq probably would have been the limit. However, since the vast majority of genocides and aggression these days happens in the Third World, this solves at least three fourths of the problems. And it means the US can return to its traditional role of defending its own borders, rather than trying to be global policeman.

Democracy in Iraq

2005-04-10T23:59:00.000-07:00

I'm just amazed at the ease with which the Iraqis have been able to make compromises on huge issues that many, including me, thought might be intractable. For example, the status of Kirkuk, where the Kurds got most of what they wanted. Kirkuk will for the most part be a Kurdish city. The cabinet is going to be quite diverse, with a Sunni in control of defense, a Shia in control of the oil ministry, and a Kurd heading the foreign ministry. The media has been reporting the negotiations for the makeup of the Iraqi government as if it's going unexpectedly slow. But then the media has been constantly reporting almost everything in Iraq in a negative light.

Think about it: how likely would our own Democrats and Republicans be to agree so quickly on such momentous issues? They can't even seem to agree on judicial confirmations, much less if say, all of a sudden, Kansas demanded that Kansas City was a Kansan city and that Missouri had no right to any of it.

This is truly incredible in such a potentially fractious nation that has never known democracy. Add in the news that the Iraqi insurgents are looking for a way to end their guerilla war, and it looks like we and the Iraqi people are going to be victorius in this vital battle in the War on Terror.

Bankruptcy bill

2005-03-09T21:08:00.000-08:00

It appears that the new bankruptcy bill is likely to become law. Personally, I'm all in favor. There is a cost to everything, and when people who can pay their debts don't, it makes the cost of credit greater for all of us.

Opponents of this bill seem to be of two motivations: those who are genuinely concerned about the plight of the poor who have taken on too much credit. For these people, quit worrying. The new law still allows people to discharge their debts who are truly unable to pay. Judging from the forumula they will use to determine who is eligible for Chapter 13 and who isn't, there will still be a lot of people discharging debt who can still pay. This bill only tightens things up a little more. So if you're worried about the poor, don't be. The poor are completely unaffected by this legislation. The ones who are affected will be middle class debtors who are quite capable of paying.

The other motivation I see from opponents of this bill is a more base one: anti-business. Their view is: these corporations make enough money, why should I cry for them? Even if I accepted the morality of this view(I don't, I believe the law should be fair, not take sides between rich and poor), it would still be wrong. There is no free lunch, and when corporations take a bath, consumers and workers get wet. So let's say for the sake of argument that I did believe the law should take sides. Whose side should it be on? How about what Bill Clinton once said, "Those who work hard and play by the rules?" And who would those be? Those consumers who are responsible with debt! Who are the primary losers when people get out of paying back what they owe!

Another issue among the anti-business crowd, and in fairness also a concern of those who aren't necessarily anti-business, is predatory interest rates. In my opinion, this is one of those issues that you can't do anything about. Concerned that poor people can get credit at 29% interest rates? Well, don't be. Alternatively, they could get payday loans, where interest is 10% over only a two week period. I'm not interested in doing the math on what that is for a year, but it's at least ten times, perhaps 20 times, higher than credit card interest. So, you say, we'll ban that too. Some state legislatures have even considered it, although I don't know who has and who hasn't tried to ban or regulate it. In my own state of Florida, it hasn't happened yet. Great. So you've cut off the poor from all sources of legal credit. Pat yourself on the back and tell yourself what a good person you are if it helps. Oh, you didn't know that the poor won't get credit at all if the most credit companies can charge is 19%(or some other arbitrary figure you wanted set?) Oh, and I said LEGAL credit too, didn't I? The poor can still go to loan sharks and lose their kneecaps if they fail to pay back. Oh, what a compassionate world you've helped create by sticking it to those evil credit companies!

One final note about hypocrisy. Under current bankruptcy law, you cannot discharge your tax obligations. I don't know how the anti-business crowd really feels about this, but I know there hasn't been much in the way of objection to it as there has been to the current bankruptcy bill. Seems that the attitude is "You owe a corporation? No problem, I feel your pain, we'll get you out of your obligations. What, you owe the government? You're DAMN well gonna pay!"

Hope for peace in the Middle East

2005-01-10T03:45:00.000-08:00

Abu Mazen has won the Palestinian election.

Here's hoping that he is more sincere about making peace than Arafat was. What gives me hope is that he promised a better life for the Palestinian people. I can't recall Arafat ever talking about how to make the lives of Palestinians better. When was his speech on education? There never was one. How about how to care for the poor? He never talked about that either.

Arafat was 100% a soldier. All he knew was war. I think the biggest reason he walked away from a peace deal in 2000 was that he couldn't deal with the idea that he would have to go from warrior to statesman.

Sudan genocide

2005-01-09T04:14:00.000-08:00

If you want to know the latest news about the Sudan genocide, there is no better resource in the blogoshpere than Passion of the Present

The weak response from the world's powers is pathetic and cowardly. We said "never again" after the Holocaust, yet we keep on letting it happen. Again. And again. What is the UN for if not to stop this kind of barbarity?

Michael Savage- ugh

2005-01-09T01:12:00.000-08:00

What an embarassment to conservatives. Check this out.

The 2% solution- Part four

2005-01-07T21:21:00.000-08:00

Okay, so far Matt Miller's gone over health care and education. What's the next step? A living wage. Now for me this is kind of a personal issue because I've lived with low wages most of my life. Only in the last two years have I become what you'd call a member of the middle class. So when I hear ivory tower pundits talking about "living wages" they are usually talking about what they think is a decent life, not what us working stiffs see as a decent life. Now us working stiffs aren't likely to complain about people wanting us to have more money, but we should. Because those well-meaning advocates end up doing things that hurt us more than help us much of the time.

I favor the minimum wage. Does it cost jobs? Probably. But reasonable increases in prosperous times tend to cause little impact to the economy overall, yet have a huge impact on the living standards of minimum or near-minimum wage employees. So all in all, I'd say it's worth it. As someone who has been a manager at a company that hires a lot of minimum wage employees, I can tell you that if minimum wage just goes up a little bit, we simply shuffle around money here and there and we make it work. When it went from $4.25 to $5.15 about a decade ago, it was all right.

However, I find that for the last few years, a lot of people have been calling for a "living wage" that varies from $10 to $15/hr. That's just ridiculous. That's not a living wage, that's a middle class wage, unless you live in a really expensive area like New York or California.

Here's what I think a "living wage" is, and what minimum wage should be: It should be what one person requires to pay the rent, feed him or herself, pay the electric bill, clothe him or herself, and get to work. News flash: phone, cable, car, and internet are not needs. Until 1999, I had never made more than $8.50/hr(and was below $6/hr from 1992 to 1995) and got by just fine, although I won't try to say it was easy. Currently, $5.15 doesn't cut it, so we are overdue for a minimum wage increase. But we don't need $10 or $12. $6.50 to $7 is sufficient. Then index it to inflation so that we don't have to keep having this debate every few years.

However, Matt Miller does have a useful idea that deserves to be considered. He proposes rather than placing the burden on employers to pay a living wage, which would cost jobs, the government should supplement low wage workers' incomes on a sliding scale. Here's Miller's proposal:

If you make $6, you'd get a $3 subsidy, which would make your wage $9/hr.

If you make $7, you'd get $2.29, giving you $9.29.

$8, you get $1.65, for $9.65.

And it goes all the way up to $14, where it is a mere 6 cents per hour and becomes $14.06.

Now the idea here is to give everyone, as Miller says, "a minimally decent life". This isn't typical liberal social engineering. It's not a handout. These are all hand-up type stuff and it lets the market work for a mere 2 cents on the nation's dollar. This is not economy busting stuff like we see in Europe with their bloated welfare states that reward sloth and punish success. You have to work to get this money. And it's much more efficient than the Earned Income Credit which it would replace.

The nature of the enemy

2005-01-06T03:37:00.000-08:00

This image is from a Hezbollah rally.

Energy independence

2005-01-03T03:06:00.000-08:00

Here's an idea to help wean ourselves off Middle East oil.

Why don't people buy Hybrid cars?

Part of the reason is price and the fact that the auto companies haven't been pushing them hard. In order to encourage hybrid car use, the federal government offers a $1500 tax credit for purchase. Now that's a good idea and all, but what does it really accomplish? Seems to me like the government is just wasting money by throwing nickels and dimes at it. Why not, if we are serious about energy independence, offer a $10,000 tax credit? That would make hybrid cars cheaper to buy than the traditional solely gas-powered vehicles. Also, allow the auto makers to deduct advertising costs for hybrids from their corporate taxes, so consumers can hear about these fine cars.

Here's another idea. Let's expand our use of nuclear power. Europe has figured this out. Nuclear power in the West has a phenomenal safety record, so it's time for Greens to quit whining. It's also environmentally cleaner than coal or gas powered plants, provided you can dispose of the waste, which we can. But for right now, in light of the war on terror and the importance of self-suffiency, we should get off oil as much as possible. Thomas Friedman, NY Times columnist, has been going on and on about a "Manhattan Project" in energy. We don't need one. We already have alternative sources that we aren't using because oil is just more cost-effective and our infrastructure is currently built around using lots of oil.

I see no reason why we can't bring our oil usage down to the point where domestic supplies more than cover it. We should be a net oil exporter, not a net oil importer. It would also do wonders for our trade balance and current account deficit. I think a President should lead on this and make it a goal to totally wean off foreign, or at least Middle Eastern, oil, within 20 years. It can be done, and it starts with hybrid cars.

Social Security

2005-01-03T02:12:00.000-08:00

Matt Yglesias has a post, one of many recently, on Social Security. He is making the case that there is no crisis. I have a serious problem with this. Yglesias is one of my favorite bloggers and is on my must-read list every day. He's a serious liberal thinker who seriously evaluates policy without the hackery we see so much of these days. Although he opposes Bush, if Bush comes up with a good policy, Matt will honestly evaluate it as such.

But on Social Security Matt seems to be letting his more base instincts take over. In previous posts, he simply said that there was no crisis, Social Security is just peachy until 2041. Finally, he addresses the fact that after 2018, Social Security is expected to pay out more than it takes in. How is that shortfall to be made up? By cashing in treasury bonds. And how would treasury bonds be cashed? By the general fund, which funds everything besides Social Security and Medicare. So one of two things happens. Either a) other government programs have to be sharply cut, or b) taxes have to be raised. Now I guess it's not a crisis in that Social Security isn't going to disappear into a black hole. But it is a crisis in the sense that Americans will have to make extremely painful choices between popular government programs, or the middle class is going to get severely burdened with high taxes.

Matt blithely says this:

Today, the agents of America's rich in the Republican Party are proposing that the wealthy default on their debt to the middle class. That this proposal exists is the only thing that Social Security must "reckon" with for the next several decades.

The people facing the day of reckoning are the high-income folks who will soon need to start paying their bills. Rather than pony up the cash, they prefer to default. The voters -- and the congress -- shouldn't let them.

I wasn't aware that the rich were obligated to pay. What statute says this? Okay, seroiusly, I know there is none and so does Matt. Matt just believes that the wealthy should make up the gap between outlays and revenues that currently exists. And this is where I strongly disagree with liberals. Why is the solution to a struggling government program always to tax the rich? And who is rich? Revoking the Bush tax cuts on just those making more than $200,000/year, as Kerry wanted, won't help all that much, especially in light of other proposals he had and liberals like Yglesias still have on their wish list.

No, as with all large scale programs, you simply cannot fund them without tapping the largest revenue base: the middle class. To suggest an increase in the middle class tax burden beyond where it's at now is simply a non-starter in my opinion, and I think most people from the center to the right agree. The middle class is already overtaxed.

How about the rich? Are they undertaxed? Possibly, you could make that case if you compare all taxes at every level, as all but income taxes are regressive. But if so, they are undertaxed in relative terms, not in absolute terms. In my opinion, and this is also supported by most opinion polls, no one should pay more than 20% of their income in taxes at all levels. Scroll down about halfway, and you'll see a poll here that shows that 90% of Americans agree that 30% is the upper limit. 60-65% agree that 20% should be the maximum tax rate. I don't see the solution to tax fairness as increasing the burden on the rich. If I'm being treated unfairly I don't respond by demanding that someone else be treated unfairly as well. I demand fairness for all of us. The solution to tax unfairness is not to raise taxes on the wealthy, but to reduce them for the middle class. Let the wealthy pay 20%, the middle class around 10%, and the poor nothing. That's tax fairness.

Back to Social Security, I fully support private accounts. The only way to make the system sustainable is to take it from pay as you go, to a system where each worker funds their own retirement. The pay as you go system is based on an untenable assumption: that there will be enough workers to support the retirees. But if you have a system of private accounts, it doesn't matter.

I'll debunk the main objections in later posts. I have yet to hear any legitimate arguments against private accounts as a concept. The only objections I've heard that have any merit are who is handling it: George Bush. He also wants to borrow the money to pay for transition costs, which is also a very bad idea. We can certainly all argue about the merits of Bush's plan once it's proposed, but for now let's concentrate on the concept of private accounts in general. I see no legitimate argument against them.

The 2% solution-part 3

2005-01-02T04:02:00.000-08:00

The next two chapters in Miller's book deal with education. The first proposal is to create "millionaire teachers". His second is for vouchers that liberals can support.

Millionaire teachers. This is fairly straightforward, but it has ramifications that Miller goes into detail about. The idea is to pay teachers enough that providing they show a decent grasp of financial responsibility, they will grow to become millionaires. He would peg starting pay at something like $60,000 and top pay at around $125,000. Conservatives might object, "What?! How does giving more money to teachers who already aren't doing a good job help matters!" That's where merit pay comes in and where liberals and the teachers unions will have a conniption. Miller proposes very substantial pay differentials for good teachers vs. average teachers. He also would make it easier to fire teachers who are not up to par. Another effect of his Millionaire Teachers program would be to attract top graduates to the profession. Because of hard work for low pay, the lowest a person with a college degree can expect, the people that tend to become teachers do it for two reasons: they love teaching(the good ones) or they can't hack it in the private sector(the bad ones).

So in speaking with conservative thinkers, Miller manages to get tentative support for his idea. But he finds more resistance among the teachers unions. The unions want higher pay, that's great. But merit pay, substantial merit pay, for better teachers? Firing bad teachers? The first objection is, who decides? Well, in going around schools, Miller found that there was almost always near unanimous agreement among students, teachers and administrators as to who the best teachers were. I've found this to be true when I was in school as well. I attended several in my time. Everyone knew who the good teachers were and the ineffectual teachers and there was seldom any sort of debate. The only time there was serious dispute was in cases where there was a teacher who was really popular with students but didn't really do much in the way of teaching. So let's dispense with the "who decides?" argument. There will be a level of subjectivity, but in most circumstances there will be little argument with the decisions on who gets the big raises and who gets canned.

The second objection the unions had was over job security. Teachers seem by nature to prefer security over the chance at higher pay. Well, Miller replies, how about if we offer two tracks? Those who want to keep job security can continue to make the current ridiculously low salaries, and those who want a shot at big money can choose that track?

Then we get to where conservatives will jump back off the wagon. The only way to fund this is for the federal government to do it. But surprisingly, Miller found that conservatives' objections were lukewarm at worst. I've also noticed that in recent years conservatives have become less dogmatic about the federal government involving itself in traditionally state affairs. Might have something to do with the fact they have the power right now. All in all, I think this plan is probably the single easiest one to sell in Miller's entire book. Who doesnt' support rewarding good teachers, attracting better teaching candidates, and getting rid of teachers that are failing to educate the students entrusted to them? Only the unions. And they have no power in this matter if the teachers are drawn by the higher pay being offered as an inducement. Mark my words. If this proposal is seriously brought up and debated, it will pass quickly.

Vouchers. What do liberals define as the single biggest problem with America's education system? The fact that schools are funded primarily by property taxes. What's the solution? Well, the old liberal solution was to pour federal money into inner city and poor rural schools. Problem is, even where they've done so it simply hasn't worked. Plus, from my own studies of the issue I've determined that there is little relation between per student education spending and academic success. The Midwest spends the least yet has the highest achievement as measured by graduation rates and test scores. The Northeast and California have the highest yet tend to be middle of the pack. The South is the worst, and spends at levels in between the North and Midwest. Miller really doesn't spell this out, but he does seem skeptical that simply pouring more money into these inner city schools will accomplish anything. Instead, he proposes using the magic of the marketplace, the magic of competition, to bring about improvement in quality(combined with millionaire teachers, of course).

How about a "grand bargain", as Miller aptly coins it? Why not increase per pupil spending by about 20 to 30 percent, and give every student a voucher which they can use to attend any school they wish? Why should inner city kids be stuck with inner city schools? Currently we have a situation where some schools are so horrendous, and a good school is located only a couple of miles from the bad school. So parents that care enough feel forced to lie about their addresses so they can send their child to the good school. Miller predicts that if every student had a voucher, that more private schools would be built to meet increasing demand. This would in turn force public schools to compete. This proposal seems to rely on a lot of assumptions and tweaks a lot of people the wrong way. In contrast to his other proposal for education, which is the easiest to pass, I think this one will be the hardest by far.

One point which Miller doesn't mention, and probably the most important, is the students and parents themselves. I think the reason he doesn't go into it is because quite simply it's outside the scope of his book. The government can't make students want to learn or parents give a damn about their children's education. A local news story in my area reported that in a failing school where the students were eligible for vouchers, only 10% took them. Parents interviewed said that they didn't want to have to drive their kids farther to a different school. WTF!? This is the kind of attitude that is 90% of the education problem, IMO. Parents that don't give a damn, students who treat education as something uncool.

However, he could have mentioned this if he had a solution. Fortunately, I do.

Bribe the students. Yeah, I know, some people are going to think there's something dirty about paying students to do well in school. But you know what? In the real world you will be paid in accordance with your achievement. You'd be shocked at how cool learning would be if students got $50 for every A on their report card, and $25 for every B, with a single F meaning no bonus at all. And you can be darn sure that inner city parents that struggle to pay the bills will be wanting their kids to bring home the money for the electric bill once every two months. In real life, the vast majority of most people's efforts are dedicated to making a living. Might as well instill this work ethic in students from the start. It's perverse that we expect kids to work hard just because they it's the right thing to do, but adults demand immediate gratification(a paycheck) for work they do. School is analogous to a real job. It's preparation for a real job. Why not just make it a real job?

A new Iraqi blog

2005-01-02T03:42:00.000-08:00

Democracy in Iraq is mainly dedicated to election coverage. Always great to hear from Iraqis.

Freedom House releases its 2005 report

2005-01-02T01:07:00.000-08:00

You can look at the basic table here.

Overall, I'd say it's encouraging, like most Freedom House reports since the 90s. Afghanistan continues to make progress. Ukraine of course, also has improved. About a dozen other nations improved their ratings, mostly in Eastern Europe and the Asian Tigers. Egypt and Jordan also improved, which could be interpreted to show that Bush's desire to achieve democracy in the Arab world is making slow but steady progress.

Now the bad news: Most glaringly, Iraq has shown no improvement since 2003. Iraq became freer by two points with Saddam's fall, but showed no further progress during 2004. Let's hope the elections do for Iraq what they did for Afghanistan. Africa took a few steps back again. Haiti got worse.

The most galling part of the survey is the 7,7 nations, the most oppressive of the oppressive. Some are obvious enemies of ours, and with a human rights record like that, with good reason. But Saudi Arabia, a longtime ally, has also consistently been at 7,7. I realize that we are dependent on them, but I hate the idea of selling my soul for oil. That's why I don't. I don't drive. My total oil usage, if everyone lived the way I do, would be covered entirely by domestic production. I really wish everyone would make an effort to reduce their oil usage. It may be comforting to blame the government for coddling Arab dictators like the Saudis, but they are only looking out for our interests and desires. And we the people want cheap oil and raise holy hell if gas gets above $2 a gallon.

The 2% solution-part two

2005-01-01T01:56:00.000-08:00

The first major proposal Miller makes is in health care. Basically, he calls for a system of subsidized insurance not connected to employment. This is similar, although he doesn't mention it, to the Swiss system, which basically only provides help to those who need it. Personally, I've never understood the Canadian and British systems of pretty much just nationalizing health care in the interests of helping the poor, yet affecting the majority who didn't need help in the first place. Perhaps at the time it seemed like the simplest solution, to just create a single-payer system, but in hindsight, and in comparison with other universal health care systems, single payer seems pretty clunky.

The main legitimate objection that one would make to such a plan is that it would simply cause insurers to just keep on jacking up their rates, as well as cherry-pick the very people who don't need insurance. Miller addresses this by calling for community rating, as in everyone pays the same for insurance of the same type regardless of health history, age, sex, etc. The price differentials in insurance would be because of bells and whistles, not essential coverage. For example, a rich man might choose the best insurance, which would give him a private room in a hospital and no waits for non-emergency procedures, while the poor slob making minimum wage would get a gurney in the hospital hallway and Canadian-style waits in weeks for non-emergency procedures. I think people obsessed with equality of outcome might be offended by all this, but why? Everyone gets the care they need under this plan.

The genius of this plan is that it doesn't cost all that much. First, it would get health costs off of employer's backs. Second, it would mean we could end Medicaid and Medicare, and replace it with the new subsidy program. There is already something like $1.3 trillion out there between business and government costs that can be reallocated towards subsidies. The extra cost comes from insuring those not currently covered by any source. Miller estimates this would cost about $80 billion a year in today's dollars.

I say it's a great plan, except Miller doesn't really address why we have a health care "crisis" in the first place: ever-increasing medical costs. The main reason for higher health care costs is new procedures and drugs. This is actually a good problem to have, which is why I put the scare quotes around the word "crisis". One thing I think would work is to start out with 2004 insurance, as in the customer gets every procedure available in 2004 for a certain cost. His insurance costs will not go up. However, every year he wanted to upgrade his insurance to cover brand new procedures he could, or if he's about ten years behind, upgrade, say five years.

Tsunami disaster

2004-12-31T03:56:00.000-08:00

Geez, 100,000 and climbing, and many areas haven't even been heard from yet. Here's a good place to donate.

What especially worries me is Somalia and Burma. I don't see any way that aid is going to be able to reach those places. We'll probably never know how many died in those countries.

Did the voters make the right choices?

2004-12-27T09:47:00.000-08:00

My last post created a bit of controversy over my assertion that voters have always generally chosen the right man for the Presidency. I admit that this is a very subjective judgement and it's impossible for me to really prove it, as we can never know how someone who wasn't elected would have performed. So let me attempt to clarify.

I think that American voters, while ignorant about policy details, do understand the big picture. In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George Bush and Ross Perot because the top concern among Americans at the time was the economy. They also were disgusted with politics as usual and wanted change. Clinton was a different kind of Democrat. Perot at first dominated the change vote, but then got way too flaky and dropped out. Then he got back in. Voters picked up on that and recognized that Perot was probably not stable enough for the job. That's something you could figure out without knowing where Perot stood on one issue. Clinton turned out to be a very successful President. He fell short on his goal of real change, but at the very least good times returned and the voters broke the Democrats' monopoly on Congressional power. And I think in both cases that was the right move. Clinton was the right man for the Presidency, and it was time for the Republicans to start reversing the excesses of Democratic tax and spend policies, with the help of a New Democrat.

In 1988, it was Bush vs. Dukakis. I don't know about you, but I'm glad Michael Dukakis wasn't President when Saddam invaded Kuwait. I'm glad that Dukakis wasn't President at a time when crime rates peaked in America. We needed firm toughness and we got it. Bush also put his extensive foreign policy experience to good use while the Communist bloc crumbled.

In 1984, Reagan vs. Mondale. Please. No contest. Mondale was an Old Democrat trying to bring back policies that were long past their shelf life. Reagan was as right for the 80s as Clinton was for the 90s. He had vision when America needed vision. He had optimism when America was downcast.

1980: Carter vs. Reagan. Do I even need to comment here? Carter was incompetent. He was done. He was tired. I don't even know why he was running.

1976: Carter vs. Ford. We needed Carter to restore trust. The American people needed to feel right about their government again. Although Carter failed in many ways, he was always viewed as honest and is still beloved as a person if not a President.

1972: McGovern vs. Nixon. Nixon may have been a bastard, and the people sensed he was a bastard, but McGovern was so weak he was unacceptable.

I was born in 1974, so I won't try to go back much further. Just suffice to say that from 1945 to 1968, the choices were mostly clear and Americans have few regrets about men like Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Truman. LBJ was weak, but Goldwater was too extreme for the times.

Now of course there can be a lot of argument with this post, and I'd like to see and participate in discussion about it. But keep in mind it's only an opinion and I'm not going to defend it to death like I would say, the 1st amendment.

I have faith in democracy and faith in the American voter especially. I've never felt let down after an election.

The 2% solution-part one

2004-12-27T03:55:00.000-08:00

This is a multi-part series on one of the most outstanding new wonkish books in recent memory, at least in my opinion, Matt Miller's Two Percent Solution: Fixing America's Problems in Ways Both Liberals and Conservatives Can Love. The book is pretty much what it describes. A way to fix America's biggest domestic problems. It doesn't address America's current big problem, war and terrorism. But that's not really Miller's specialty from reading his columns. He's a domestic policy wonk, first and foremost, and a darn good one. He worked on the Clinton administration's first economic plan in 1993 and is currently a fellow in the centrist think tank Center for American Progress.

The first three chapters of Miller's book deals with the fundamental unseriousness of American politics. He blames in part the media, for being stenographic in the way it covers political news. The media bends over backwards to avoid the appearance of bias, so has mostly limited itself to just copying down whatever the politicians say. I don't know if this is as true as he thinks it is. Blogs have been exposing media bias in both directions for awhile. But I do think it's evident that on policy matters, the media really doesn't contribute anything. I'm not so sure it's even supposed to, and later in the book Miller interviews the main editor of the Washington Post and he makes precisely that case. Since I'm reluctant to blame the media, let's concentrate on politicians.

Few politicians are willng to take chances on really big ideas. On one hand, it's not their fault. Voters tend to punish the really ambitious ideas, such as Social Security privatization, universal college education, universal health care, etc. Sometimes with good reason, sometimes not. Obviously, Dennis Kucinich's or Pat Buchanan's type of "big ideas" are nutty in the extreme to all but a small minority of voters. Non-profit health care? Limit non-white immigration? Ugh. On the other hand, politicians have not been bold enough to attempt to educate the voters. Now I don't mean voters are dumb. Far from it. I have an intrinsic faith in the American voter. I realize that Americans tend to be ignorant of policy matters and foreign affairs, but somehow they always seem to understand the big picture and make the right choices. Perhaps I'm being hopelessly naive, but I challenge anyone to name one Presidential election in recent memory where voters made the wrong choice. Besides the most recent President of course, because it's too soon to assess his record. However, on specific policy matters, Americans can often be demagogued. Instead of educating the public about the pros and cons of a proposed policy, both sides make outrageous claims that can fit into 30-second talking points. The media dutifully copies the talking points verbatim and does little helpful to expound upon the themes. So politicians tend to work at the margins of problems.

The Democratic Presidential candidates presented a health care program that would cover fewer Americans than one that George Bush senior proposed during his Presidency. George W. Bush proposes a private accounts plan for Social Security that would allow Americans to divert a measly 2 percentage points of their FICA tax. Matt Miller endeavors to discuss America's problems and find real solutions. And for the most part, I think he does. We'll detail his solutions in the following parts of this essay.

A victory for democracy!

2004-12-27T02:55:00.000-08:00

Yuschenko wins.

Good for the people of Ukraine. Democracy continues it's advance around the world. Let's cross our fingers for Iraq and Palestine.

So, think the Iraqi elections aren't important?

2004-12-27T01:45:00.000-08:00

Then why do the jihadis seem so desperate to stop them?

If they'd succeeded in assassinating Hakim, this may well have been the spark that set off civil war. They want to stop this election from happening really, really bad.

So many parties, you need a program

2004-12-27T01:11:00.000-08:00

Thankfully, Zeyad at Healing Iraq has the complete, or as complete as possible, rundown for us on who is who.

Iraqi government shows some spine

2004-12-26T22:56:00.000-08:00

Iraq's interim government has rejected a greater role for Sunnis in the elected government to be chosen by Iraqis on Jan. 30. This strikes me as common sense. Why should the Shiites and Kurds, oppressed by the Sunni minority for centuries, give into a violent minority? Especially when it's not really even clear how much of the violence is about that.

How much of the insurgency is due to our occupation of Iraq? How much is foreign jihadis simply on a killing spree, knocking off any infidels or Shiites or Kurds they can find?

My educated guess is that the only Sunnis who are fighting for some kind of Sunni Power movement are mainly ex-Ba'athists. And from reports I've read, despite Allawi's and Bush's statements, ex-Saddam supporters and Ba'athists in general don't really seem to make up a very large portion of the insurgents. Therefore, granting Sunnis power they won't have earned through the electoral process would be useless anyway.

Besides, it's not as if the Sunnis are going to get shafted here. The Shiites and Kurds seem to be making far more effort than the Sunnis ever did for them as far as involving them in the governing process. There are lots of Sunnis on the Shiite electoral lists. Also, the Sunnis dominate the military, the civil service, and the professions. They are the wealthiest and best educated group in Iraq. Even if they don't win much in the way of elected power, they will still wield substantial power and influence in other ways.

First post

2004-12-26T04:04:00.000-08:00

Okay, so here it is. The first blog post. Basically, I intend this blog to serve two purposes:

1) To solicit discussion on issues which I don't fully understand, and which I don't feel are covered enough on other blogs or in the mainstream media. That could be a challenge at first, since this blog will have like, no readers, but hey, at first I'll just learn by talking to myself.
2) To persuade, on issues which I do fully understand(or at least think I do until someone shows me otherwise). I'm afraid I'm not nearly as good a writer or as persuasive as some of the great bloggers like Steven Den Beste or Andrew Sullivan or Matthew Yglesias, but I'll give it a shot because I love challenges.

I imagine someone might peek over from Ebay's Town Square, so welcome! I'll appreciate your feedback the same way I do on Town Square. And don't think for a minute that I will neglect my duties over there just cuz I have a blog now.:)

Mainly, I'll be linking to news stories, like most political bloggers do, or other blogs that I've been reading avidly for the last couple of years.

As for my political affiliation, I think I'll leave that to the judgement of the reader, since whenever I've attempted classified myself in the past, I've been accused of mislabeling myself for having views which are unorthodox. So I'll let you label me, or just call me names if you want. I can take it.:)