NY Times Over Dramatic
Today the NY Times has this article, which essentially says: Halliburton is getting a sweet deal thanks to Dick Cheney. As I read it I was concerned. Not that Halliburton is getting a great deal, but that the reporter was not telling the entire story. The story says that Bechtel is withdrawing from bidding for an oil field project in Iraq because: "competitors have begun to conclude that the bidding process favors the one company already working in Iraq, Halliburton". One reading the article gets the serious impression that Bechtel is in the same business as Halliburton and that Bechtel is getting NO work in Iraq. This seems to be incorrect from my impression of older stories. So in the interest of self education I went to the corporate sites for Halliburton and Bechtel. The first thing that strikes me is that they are definitly marketing very different services. Halliburton is focusing on the needs of the petroleum industry--all needs. Bechtel is a big construction company that claims as one of it's most recent big projects the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transist system and the Chunnel. And then the big whopper. Go ahead, read it for yourself. That is right. Bechtel is already in Iraq rebuilding infrastructure. Did they bid for that? I don't think so. They got a quick deal to rebuild roads that will be subject to future bidding just like the Halliburton deal. Why? Because they are the best at doing the job they got hired to do and we don't want to wait around for bids while the infrastructure of Iraq suffers. Sort of the same reason Halliburton is rebuilding the oil industry. Shame on the New York Times for implying that Bechtel was being screwed by Dick Cheney.
UPDATE: I have just posted an abridged version of these comments on Reductio Ad Absurdum
Aug 7, 2003
Arnold
Why not? He is an improvement over Gray and he can not run for President.
The issue hinges on the question of an old and over used truism: 'As California goes, so goes the country' (something like that). Ever since Californians lead a tax revolt and provided the country with Ronald Reagan people on both sides of the political divide have been wringing their hands and lamenting that California dictates national trends. But there is far too much anecdotal evidence that this is NOT true. California made services to illegal aliens, well illegal, but you haven't seen other states clamor to codify such a move. California made it illegal to use affirmative action in college admissions and the Supreme Court sure didn't listen on that one. California overwhelmingly voted for Gore in 2000--any questions? California inspects your car for fruits and plants before allowing you into the state--nope they don't do that in Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, etc. California made gay marriage strictly against the law--maybe someone should send a copy to Vermont and Massachusetts, huh? California has a state budget crisis but Utah does not. My point is that California does not define the fate of our nation.
So it is not logical to conclude that every state with a budget crisis will recall their governor. For example, the laws for recalls are unlikely to be identical, Representative Issa lives in California, no state has a budget crisis as bad as California's, and not every governor got elected with only 47% of the vote. In fact, look at the same data and ask how many states gave a total of 10% of the vote to independent candidates? California is unique, every state is unique.
Even if the country did follow why would it matter? One can only assume that it is because it scares the heck out of politicians. It is as if Rep Issa broke the code of all politicians--'never, ever, make things harder for everyone.' You see if there is anything learned by voters everywhere it will be that recall is a great way to remove politicians who don't keep promises. Davis promised to take care of the problem and voters gave him a chance. After 9 months at it there is little evidence he is living up to the deal. Why not set a precedent that politicians need to deliver quickly? Why not keep them nervous?
Then there are the Republicans--which brings us back to Arnold. Arnold will win--count on it. This will be a coronation thanks to Rep Issa. The only question at this point is how Arnold will show his gratitude to Mr Issa. Republicans are mad. The rules of the recall grant the governors office to the person with the most votes. There is recent evidence that in statewide races California Republicans face a ceiling of 42% (the only exception was McClintock in 2002 at 45%). It is worth pointing out that because of the strength of conservatives in the California Republican Party, these candidates are overwhelmingly conservative. If the conservatives could have created a scenario where one solid conservative--Simon, Issa or McClintock--ran while a Democratic safety candidate like Cruz Bustamante ran and while the uninspiring moderate Richard Riordan ran it was a safe bet that a conservative could hold 40% of the vote. The only challenge would be to find a way to make sure only Simon, only Issa or only McClintock ran (looks like Issa is already off the list). Democrats realized this was the strategy and this is why they are crying "undemocratic" while hoping that all three would run and trying to get Feinstein to run. Arnold upsets the entire formula. Because he is not uninspiring like Riordan, because he and Riordan agreed to not run against each other, and because he was smart enough to wait long enough to not give Democrats enough time to respond. Why should conservatives care? Because Arnold is not a conservative, but he can draw conservative votes because he plays a tough guy who fights for right against wrong in the movies and he can win. Enough conservatives love that combination to fracture the conservative 40% block.
Should conservatives be concerned? Yes only because Arnold will be governor with no help from us (except Issa of course). He won't owe conservatives anything. But on the other hand I would prefer a Republican of any stripe to the existing Democratic monopoly in California. With that said, the optimal strategy for conservatives might be to convince Simon and McClintock to bow out and back Arnold.
Why not? He is an improvement over Gray and he can not run for President.
The issue hinges on the question of an old and over used truism: 'As California goes, so goes the country' (something like that). Ever since Californians lead a tax revolt and provided the country with Ronald Reagan people on both sides of the political divide have been wringing their hands and lamenting that California dictates national trends. But there is far too much anecdotal evidence that this is NOT true. California made services to illegal aliens, well illegal, but you haven't seen other states clamor to codify such a move. California made it illegal to use affirmative action in college admissions and the Supreme Court sure didn't listen on that one. California overwhelmingly voted for Gore in 2000--any questions? California inspects your car for fruits and plants before allowing you into the state--nope they don't do that in Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, etc. California made gay marriage strictly against the law--maybe someone should send a copy to Vermont and Massachusetts, huh? California has a state budget crisis but Utah does not. My point is that California does not define the fate of our nation.
So it is not logical to conclude that every state with a budget crisis will recall their governor. For example, the laws for recalls are unlikely to be identical, Representative Issa lives in California, no state has a budget crisis as bad as California's, and not every governor got elected with only 47% of the vote. In fact, look at the same data and ask how many states gave a total of 10% of the vote to independent candidates? California is unique, every state is unique.
Even if the country did follow why would it matter? One can only assume that it is because it scares the heck out of politicians. It is as if Rep Issa broke the code of all politicians--'never, ever, make things harder for everyone.' You see if there is anything learned by voters everywhere it will be that recall is a great way to remove politicians who don't keep promises. Davis promised to take care of the problem and voters gave him a chance. After 9 months at it there is little evidence he is living up to the deal. Why not set a precedent that politicians need to deliver quickly? Why not keep them nervous?
Then there are the Republicans--which brings us back to Arnold. Arnold will win--count on it. This will be a coronation thanks to Rep Issa. The only question at this point is how Arnold will show his gratitude to Mr Issa. Republicans are mad. The rules of the recall grant the governors office to the person with the most votes. There is recent evidence that in statewide races California Republicans face a ceiling of 42% (the only exception was McClintock in 2002 at 45%). It is worth pointing out that because of the strength of conservatives in the California Republican Party, these candidates are overwhelmingly conservative. If the conservatives could have created a scenario where one solid conservative--Simon, Issa or McClintock--ran while a Democratic safety candidate like Cruz Bustamante ran and while the uninspiring moderate Richard Riordan ran it was a safe bet that a conservative could hold 40% of the vote. The only challenge would be to find a way to make sure only Simon, only Issa or only McClintock ran (looks like Issa is already off the list). Democrats realized this was the strategy and this is why they are crying "undemocratic" while hoping that all three would run and trying to get Feinstein to run. Arnold upsets the entire formula. Because he is not uninspiring like Riordan, because he and Riordan agreed to not run against each other, and because he was smart enough to wait long enough to not give Democrats enough time to respond. Why should conservatives care? Because Arnold is not a conservative, but he can draw conservative votes because he plays a tough guy who fights for right against wrong in the movies and he can win. Enough conservatives love that combination to fracture the conservative 40% block.
Should conservatives be concerned? Yes only because Arnold will be governor with no help from us (except Issa of course). He won't owe conservatives anything. But on the other hand I would prefer a Republican of any stripe to the existing Democratic monopoly in California. With that said, the optimal strategy for conservatives might be to convince Simon and McClintock to bow out and back Arnold.
Aug 6, 2003
Bush Not Nixon, But Not Conservative Either
This post appears as a comment on Reduction Ad Absurdum as part of my contribution efforts on that blog. I have made minor edits to improve readability here.
Conservatives need to wake up to one very serious reality: Bush is conservative when it makes for good politics. When it doesn't make for good politics he could care less.
Kevin Whited has commented on a piece by Bruce Bartlett. Bruce Bartlett thinks that Bush is little different from Nixon--i.e., not a conservative. Kevin disagrees. While I do think that Bruce exaggerates the similarities, I think it is worth pondering whether Bush is truly a conservative. I am not saying that I agree with Bartlett's final conclusion. And I even question some of his points. But I am saying that Bush has a problematic record. Here are the points that Kevin makes and my comments.
1) Campaign Finance Reform: Clearly Bush abandoned even his own campaign statements to sign the legislation. To excuse this because it should eventually be found unconstitutional does not excuse Bush from his own responsibility to uphold the constitution. At the end of the day Bush signed it in order to neuter McCain--a political consideration.
2) Education Bill. Bush promised education reform and to be fair he fulfilled a campaign promise. Any smart person would have predicted that Bush would not get all that he wanted. But at the end of the day he compromised a lot more than intended in order to remove a perennial Democratic issue.
3) More trade protectionist than anyone since Nixon. I think Bartlett is making an assertion here that is somewhat exaggerated. Bush's actual acts of protectionism have been limited. But, once again, political consideration was the motive--not principle.
4) Prescription drug plan. Sure there was a campaign promise to make this part of his domestic agenda, but did that mean he had to abandon conservative principle? Even Kevin admits that it is politics before principle: "This issue will be removed as one that can damage the President and the GOP. Granted, at the expense of sacrificing some purity."
5) War on terror. This is where I draw the line and think that Bush finally demonstrates principle. He leans against the wind, ignores critics, and refuses to compromise.
Four out of five are proofs that Bush places politics before other considerations. At the end of the day he is concerned about electoral victories. He does not go out on the limb for ideology. His appointment of judges is not enough proof for me, because while the fights have been controversial Bush has seemed distant and unwilling to make a fight. One might cynically conclude that the strategy is to offer conservative judges that Schumer will fight against in order to look good with the base, but not actually play the political hard ball necessary to get them approved. The admirable part is that Bush has co-opted Schumer as his assistant in solidifying the conservative base.
My problem with Bush is his spending. As I see it there are a few pillars of conservatism: tax cuts, spending cuts (less government), protecting cultural values, and protecting America. When it comes to actions a President can control he has done fine on tax cuts and protecting America. I often conclude there is little the President can do about cultural values other than speak to the issue and appoint judges. But when it comes to spending there is much a President can do. Bush has failed. While it may be unfair to make a strong comparison to Nixon, it is fair if you consider that they are both political animals willing to cut deals and use government in order to solve problems. They are government activists.
Which brings me to my real point. I really have no problem supporting a Republican politician who is a politician first and a conservative second. For this reason I will go to the polls and vote for Bush. I will even advocate his re-election on Right On Everything. However, I am not willing to defend him as a conservative. Bush is a politician. If conservatives expect him to take more conservative positions we must stop giving him passes on issues of principle and hold his political interest by challenging him to serve our interests. It is in that light that I (mostly rhetorically) make a general call for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. Is anyone interested?
This post appears as a comment on Reduction Ad Absurdum as part of my contribution efforts on that blog. I have made minor edits to improve readability here.
Conservatives need to wake up to one very serious reality: Bush is conservative when it makes for good politics. When it doesn't make for good politics he could care less.
Kevin Whited has commented on a piece by Bruce Bartlett. Bruce Bartlett thinks that Bush is little different from Nixon--i.e., not a conservative. Kevin disagrees. While I do think that Bruce exaggerates the similarities, I think it is worth pondering whether Bush is truly a conservative. I am not saying that I agree with Bartlett's final conclusion. And I even question some of his points. But I am saying that Bush has a problematic record. Here are the points that Kevin makes and my comments.
1) Campaign Finance Reform: Clearly Bush abandoned even his own campaign statements to sign the legislation. To excuse this because it should eventually be found unconstitutional does not excuse Bush from his own responsibility to uphold the constitution. At the end of the day Bush signed it in order to neuter McCain--a political consideration.
2) Education Bill. Bush promised education reform and to be fair he fulfilled a campaign promise. Any smart person would have predicted that Bush would not get all that he wanted. But at the end of the day he compromised a lot more than intended in order to remove a perennial Democratic issue.
3) More trade protectionist than anyone since Nixon. I think Bartlett is making an assertion here that is somewhat exaggerated. Bush's actual acts of protectionism have been limited. But, once again, political consideration was the motive--not principle.
4) Prescription drug plan. Sure there was a campaign promise to make this part of his domestic agenda, but did that mean he had to abandon conservative principle? Even Kevin admits that it is politics before principle: "This issue will be removed as one that can damage the President and the GOP. Granted, at the expense of sacrificing some purity."
5) War on terror. This is where I draw the line and think that Bush finally demonstrates principle. He leans against the wind, ignores critics, and refuses to compromise.
Four out of five are proofs that Bush places politics before other considerations. At the end of the day he is concerned about electoral victories. He does not go out on the limb for ideology. His appointment of judges is not enough proof for me, because while the fights have been controversial Bush has seemed distant and unwilling to make a fight. One might cynically conclude that the strategy is to offer conservative judges that Schumer will fight against in order to look good with the base, but not actually play the political hard ball necessary to get them approved. The admirable part is that Bush has co-opted Schumer as his assistant in solidifying the conservative base.
My problem with Bush is his spending. As I see it there are a few pillars of conservatism: tax cuts, spending cuts (less government), protecting cultural values, and protecting America. When it comes to actions a President can control he has done fine on tax cuts and protecting America. I often conclude there is little the President can do about cultural values other than speak to the issue and appoint judges. But when it comes to spending there is much a President can do. Bush has failed. While it may be unfair to make a strong comparison to Nixon, it is fair if you consider that they are both political animals willing to cut deals and use government in order to solve problems. They are government activists.
Which brings me to my real point. I really have no problem supporting a Republican politician who is a politician first and a conservative second. For this reason I will go to the polls and vote for Bush. I will even advocate his re-election on Right On Everything. However, I am not willing to defend him as a conservative. Bush is a politician. If conservatives expect him to take more conservative positions we must stop giving him passes on issues of principle and hold his political interest by challenging him to serve our interests. It is in that light that I (mostly rhetorically) make a general call for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. Is anyone interested?
August
August is traditionally the time when the White House, Congress, and the Press take vacation. Interestingly enough people do as well. Somehow the news stories quiet down and everyone except the junior replacements at the news networks hope that nothing big happens. Personally I am in the midst of several life transitions. As such I may be a little spotty on posts for the next few weeks. One of these transitions is an experiment of sorts. I have recently discovered Kevin Whited, editor of Reductio Ad Absurdum. He has given me the opportunity to contribute on occasion to his blog. I am inclined to see if I can juggle that and maintaining Right On Everything. It will enable me to have an interactive and public discussion with other conservatives. I will not make posts at his blog without also providing the same content here. What you will get if you read my post there is the dialogue with other contributors to Kevin's blog. Please feel free to give me feedback as usual.
August is traditionally the time when the White House, Congress, and the Press take vacation. Interestingly enough people do as well. Somehow the news stories quiet down and everyone except the junior replacements at the news networks hope that nothing big happens. Personally I am in the midst of several life transitions. As such I may be a little spotty on posts for the next few weeks. One of these transitions is an experiment of sorts. I have recently discovered Kevin Whited, editor of Reductio Ad Absurdum. He has given me the opportunity to contribute on occasion to his blog. I am inclined to see if I can juggle that and maintaining Right On Everything. It will enable me to have an interactive and public discussion with other conservatives. I will not make posts at his blog without also providing the same content here. What you will get if you read my post there is the dialogue with other contributors to Kevin's blog. Please feel free to give me feedback as usual.
Aug 4, 2003
Go Figure
I am not one to say that all Congress Persons need to read every piece of information. I agree with the contention that they hire good staff to do this. However, if I was a Congress Person who intended to be critical of President Bush for taking us to war and claim in the process that the President used faulty intelligence I would at least review the intelligence made available before opening my big mouth. This story is very irritating.
I am not one to say that all Congress Persons need to read every piece of information. I agree with the contention that they hire good staff to do this. However, if I was a Congress Person who intended to be critical of President Bush for taking us to war and claim in the process that the President used faulty intelligence I would at least review the intelligence made available before opening my big mouth. This story is very irritating.
Fences
Normally I find a lot to agree with when I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page or anything by Robert Novak. But I find myself at odds with them on the issue of the Israeli fence around the West Bank.
The Wall St Journal says that:
if Mr. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expect Mr. Abbas to rise to the challenge, they will need to take steps to strengthen his political position. This will have to include addressing the issue of the unpopular Israeli security fence, which is being constructed well inside the borders of the West Bank and the existence of which is incompatible with any realistic vision of a permanent settlement.
Robert Novak says that:
[Bush's indifference on the fence is] profoundly depressing for those Republicans, in the administration and Congress, who have prayed that Bush would capitalize on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by insisting on a Middle East settlement including a Palestinian state. They think the president's intent is pure, but that he is overpowered by the combination of Sharon and DeLay.
I say: poppy-cock!
Let's use a hypothetical news story to make the point.
Today conservatives called on President Bush to tear down the wall around Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. It has been just a year since it was concluded that Al Qaeda was only located in a small mountain province. Since that time the US has responded to international calls for restraint by not invading or bombing the area. However, since Al Qaeda has continued to allow citizens of the mountain province to secretly leave the area in attempts to set off bombs in the major cities of Afghanistan the US administration has begun construction of a security fence. An annonymous source in the administration says that we should invoke the words of The Gipper by calling on the President to "tear down this wall!"
Do you see how ludicrous that sounds? Ignoring the issue of US interests for a moment let's just discuss whether the Bush administration official cited by Robert Novak who wants to use the words of Reagan is even competent. It is obvious to me that he or she was not paying attention in world history class or had a liberal professor that was too persuasive. The Berlin wall, while officially built to defend East Germany from the encroachment of the capitalists, in reality served the purpose of imprisoning East Germans. Reagan called for Gorby to tear down the wall in order to free the people of the Eastern Block. Let's make it simple: Russia built the wall to imprison their own people. Russia was not a democracy. Now let's move to Israel. Israel IS a democracy AND the fence is more analogous to a fence we have along parts of the border with Mexico. Israel is not trying to contain the people of Israel, it is trying to keep OUT illegals!
To be fair, although I think the dishonesty of Novak and the WSJ on this issue does not merit fairness on my part, these opinions are not driven by anything more than realism about US foreign policy. The reality is that Israel does not make sense. What I mean is that being the ally of Israel at such great cost is not logical. Israel has no significant natural resources, they are not an irreplacable trading partner, and other than proximity to the Suez canal there is little that is strategic about their location. In fact, it is our friendship with Israel that provides the greatest proof that Bush's foriegn policy is not about OIL. You see, if oil was all that mattered we would have abandoned Israel and have made friends with Saddam. So why are we allies?
I often ponder this question to no strong conclusion. But I do have a few ideas. It is a matter of history and familiarity. In the years immediately following World War 2, Israel served our interests in keeping the Suez canal open and out of European or Soviet control. During the Cold War Israel was our beach head in the Middle East. And some how we came to see ourselves as the protector of democracies. The clincher however is the holocaust. When it comes right down to it Americans feel an emotional responsibility to protect the down-trodden. There is something in US politics that is very powerful about policy that seeks to protect those who suffer. Over time these things have been reenforced by simple familiarity with Israel as an ally we can trust.
All along this has created a great conflict for America. On the one hand we care about things like right and wrong, but on the other hand we need oil. So we try to walk a tightrope. Novak and the WSJ propose continuing on the tightrope for as long as possible. Bush instead recognizes that Israel is simply trying to protect itself. I do not think that this is some conspiracy of Neo-Conservatives deceiving the President and I do not believe that the absence of a fence will strengthen Mr Abbas' position in Palestine. But I am sure that a fence will lessen the liklihood of bombs in Israel. The real statement that Mr Bush should make is: "Mr. Arafat, stop those bombs!"
Normally I find a lot to agree with when I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page or anything by Robert Novak. But I find myself at odds with them on the issue of the Israeli fence around the West Bank.
The Wall St Journal says that:
if Mr. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expect Mr. Abbas to rise to the challenge, they will need to take steps to strengthen his political position. This will have to include addressing the issue of the unpopular Israeli security fence, which is being constructed well inside the borders of the West Bank and the existence of which is incompatible with any realistic vision of a permanent settlement.
Robert Novak says that:
[Bush's indifference on the fence is] profoundly depressing for those Republicans, in the administration and Congress, who have prayed that Bush would capitalize on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by insisting on a Middle East settlement including a Palestinian state. They think the president's intent is pure, but that he is overpowered by the combination of Sharon and DeLay.
I say: poppy-cock!
Let's use a hypothetical news story to make the point.
Today conservatives called on President Bush to tear down the wall around Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. It has been just a year since it was concluded that Al Qaeda was only located in a small mountain province. Since that time the US has responded to international calls for restraint by not invading or bombing the area. However, since Al Qaeda has continued to allow citizens of the mountain province to secretly leave the area in attempts to set off bombs in the major cities of Afghanistan the US administration has begun construction of a security fence. An annonymous source in the administration says that we should invoke the words of The Gipper by calling on the President to "tear down this wall!"
Do you see how ludicrous that sounds? Ignoring the issue of US interests for a moment let's just discuss whether the Bush administration official cited by Robert Novak who wants to use the words of Reagan is even competent. It is obvious to me that he or she was not paying attention in world history class or had a liberal professor that was too persuasive. The Berlin wall, while officially built to defend East Germany from the encroachment of the capitalists, in reality served the purpose of imprisoning East Germans. Reagan called for Gorby to tear down the wall in order to free the people of the Eastern Block. Let's make it simple: Russia built the wall to imprison their own people. Russia was not a democracy. Now let's move to Israel. Israel IS a democracy AND the fence is more analogous to a fence we have along parts of the border with Mexico. Israel is not trying to contain the people of Israel, it is trying to keep OUT illegals!
To be fair, although I think the dishonesty of Novak and the WSJ on this issue does not merit fairness on my part, these opinions are not driven by anything more than realism about US foreign policy. The reality is that Israel does not make sense. What I mean is that being the ally of Israel at such great cost is not logical. Israel has no significant natural resources, they are not an irreplacable trading partner, and other than proximity to the Suez canal there is little that is strategic about their location. In fact, it is our friendship with Israel that provides the greatest proof that Bush's foriegn policy is not about OIL. You see, if oil was all that mattered we would have abandoned Israel and have made friends with Saddam. So why are we allies?
I often ponder this question to no strong conclusion. But I do have a few ideas. It is a matter of history and familiarity. In the years immediately following World War 2, Israel served our interests in keeping the Suez canal open and out of European or Soviet control. During the Cold War Israel was our beach head in the Middle East. And some how we came to see ourselves as the protector of democracies. The clincher however is the holocaust. When it comes right down to it Americans feel an emotional responsibility to protect the down-trodden. There is something in US politics that is very powerful about policy that seeks to protect those who suffer. Over time these things have been reenforced by simple familiarity with Israel as an ally we can trust.
All along this has created a great conflict for America. On the one hand we care about things like right and wrong, but on the other hand we need oil. So we try to walk a tightrope. Novak and the WSJ propose continuing on the tightrope for as long as possible. Bush instead recognizes that Israel is simply trying to protect itself. I do not think that this is some conspiracy of Neo-Conservatives deceiving the President and I do not believe that the absence of a fence will strengthen Mr Abbas' position in Palestine. But I am sure that a fence will lessen the liklihood of bombs in Israel. The real statement that Mr Bush should make is: "Mr. Arafat, stop those bombs!"
Aug 1, 2003
See You on Monday
I will not likely be posting again until Monday. I did stay up late Thursday night (Friday morning) posting just to be sure you would all have something to read. Please enjoy.
If you are hoping for a comment on the economic data, here it is: Hooray! I haven't time to read Paul Krugman yet, but just the title convinces me he is really out in left field. I am just appalled that rather than admit that the numbers look good and that he is wrong, he looks for the only dismal issue in the nation--California--and tries to extrapolate some greater meaning. I will read the article and comment in detail when I return.
I will not likely be posting again until Monday. I did stay up late Thursday night (Friday morning) posting just to be sure you would all have something to read. Please enjoy.
If you are hoping for a comment on the economic data, here it is: Hooray! I haven't time to read Paul Krugman yet, but just the title convinces me he is really out in left field. I am just appalled that rather than admit that the numbers look good and that he is wrong, he looks for the only dismal issue in the nation--California--and tries to extrapolate some greater meaning. I will read the article and comment in detail when I return.
The Gay Marriage Issue
One argument often cited against gay marriage is the slippery slope. Most recently, the slope towards polygamy and polyamory. In and of itself I think that a slippery slope argument is not strong enough to win a debate--any debate. In fact, if I was an opponent of a slippery sloper I would simply offer a compromise--agree to let X go and agree to ban Y. Thus the slope disappears. The gay movement may want to consider doing just that.
So, I feel we need a more compelling argument.
The gay movement also has a weak argument. They keep trying to argue that they are denied a "right". When it comes right down to it the right that they are concerned about is the right to express love in any way they feel. Besides the point that there is an irony to the sexual revolution now wanting to embrace the actual institution it once rejected, serious people should wonder why this is a right and why the gay movement thinks that this is the ultimate way to express love. To be fair this is not the only argument for gay marriage, but it is the only one that can not be legislated away. All other arguments are for economic benefits that simply require an update to laws to allow for any two persons regardless of sex of the parties to enter into mutual agreements for the receipt of benefits such as Social Security.
In making the argument for love, the gay marriage movement actually sets good terms for debate. What they raise is the question of the nature of marriage. What is marriage for? Is it for love? Is there no other reason for marriage? Tell the Indian programmer who just returned to India for his arranged marriage to a woman chosen out of a newspaper that marriage is for love. Tell the Filipino mail order bride that marriage is for love. I will admit that in the West love has become an important condition for marriage. Our culture glorifies love in marriage. We also glorify some concept of destiny. We embrace the fairy tale of Cinderella and more recently The Princess Bride. What is the line? "Marriage. Marriage is what brings us together--today. Marriage--that blessed arrangement. That dream -- within a dream." That dream--within a dream. Our culture idolizes the entire process. Who can blame the gay person for feeling that life has excluded them?
Why the fairy tale about marriage? Why any fairy tale? Let's try another fairy tale to make my point. How about the most discussed (according to this website): Little Red Riding Hood. If you read through the entire piece (or at least scan as I did), you will find this quote: "Other interpretations range from a focus on the idea that it is a simple cautionary tale, to a plethora of psychoanalytically based interpretations which generally radiate from a sexual / initiation source..." (emphasis mine). I am willing to discard all the gobbledy gook of all the PhDs who need to justify their degrees in literature by defining some new meaning in the red cape and focus on the cautionary tale. Simply put it was meant to scare the bejesus out of little kids in order to keep them from getting too close to wolves and asking dumb questions about their ears and eyes. Parents needed to keep their kids safe.
What does this have to do with marriage? The cultural fairy tales about marriage as the romantic end all of life are there to get us to marry. If the tales really told about how the couple argued on their honeymoon, or how child birth was so painful, or any number of things about marriage that are arduous do you think anyone would get married? If they didn't get married what would their fate be? Why do you think Cinderella's wicked step sisters couldn't get married? They are in the story to make the point that only selfish and mean girls can't get married so be nice.
Why did culture evolve such fairy tales? One might conclude that marriage had other benefits. If the fairy tale made it easier to get the young couple to agree to marriage then all the better. Just as the benefits of keeping children away from wolves justified scaring children, the benfits of marriage, protection from economic and social instability, justified making marriage seem romantic.
Does this still apply today? The welfare state has come pretty close to making it seem as if it does not. But I believe that it still does. Why? Because it still protects children. Ultimately there is no kind of homosexual sex that might result in child birth. Try as they may, there will be no accidental birth. However, in a heterosexual relationship this is possible for all except presidential interns. The ideal is marriage in order to protect children--not for love. Gay people need to understand this and embrace it. They need marriage to work in the traditional way just like I do. They need children to be born in to stable two parent families rather than grow up in single parent homes as wards of the welfare state. As for expressing love, they can do that in their rooms and in contracts and in the way they live.
The real slippery slope has already been slid down--it is the slope of forgetting why culture has certain traditions. It is in forgetting why these traditions are of value to all. Forget polygamy and polyamory and forget expressions of love. Instead focus on the real tradition and ask if the value that each tradition provides for our collective society is worth maintaining. In the case of marriage, I believe that it is.
One argument often cited against gay marriage is the slippery slope. Most recently, the slope towards polygamy and polyamory. In and of itself I think that a slippery slope argument is not strong enough to win a debate--any debate. In fact, if I was an opponent of a slippery sloper I would simply offer a compromise--agree to let X go and agree to ban Y. Thus the slope disappears. The gay movement may want to consider doing just that.
So, I feel we need a more compelling argument.
The gay movement also has a weak argument. They keep trying to argue that they are denied a "right". When it comes right down to it the right that they are concerned about is the right to express love in any way they feel. Besides the point that there is an irony to the sexual revolution now wanting to embrace the actual institution it once rejected, serious people should wonder why this is a right and why the gay movement thinks that this is the ultimate way to express love. To be fair this is not the only argument for gay marriage, but it is the only one that can not be legislated away. All other arguments are for economic benefits that simply require an update to laws to allow for any two persons regardless of sex of the parties to enter into mutual agreements for the receipt of benefits such as Social Security.
In making the argument for love, the gay marriage movement actually sets good terms for debate. What they raise is the question of the nature of marriage. What is marriage for? Is it for love? Is there no other reason for marriage? Tell the Indian programmer who just returned to India for his arranged marriage to a woman chosen out of a newspaper that marriage is for love. Tell the Filipino mail order bride that marriage is for love. I will admit that in the West love has become an important condition for marriage. Our culture glorifies love in marriage. We also glorify some concept of destiny. We embrace the fairy tale of Cinderella and more recently The Princess Bride. What is the line? "Marriage. Marriage is what brings us together--today. Marriage--that blessed arrangement. That dream -- within a dream." That dream--within a dream. Our culture idolizes the entire process. Who can blame the gay person for feeling that life has excluded them?
Why the fairy tale about marriage? Why any fairy tale? Let's try another fairy tale to make my point. How about the most discussed (according to this website): Little Red Riding Hood. If you read through the entire piece (or at least scan as I did), you will find this quote: "Other interpretations range from a focus on the idea that it is a simple cautionary tale, to a plethora of psychoanalytically based interpretations which generally radiate from a sexual / initiation source..." (emphasis mine). I am willing to discard all the gobbledy gook of all the PhDs who need to justify their degrees in literature by defining some new meaning in the red cape and focus on the cautionary tale. Simply put it was meant to scare the bejesus out of little kids in order to keep them from getting too close to wolves and asking dumb questions about their ears and eyes. Parents needed to keep their kids safe.
What does this have to do with marriage? The cultural fairy tales about marriage as the romantic end all of life are there to get us to marry. If the tales really told about how the couple argued on their honeymoon, or how child birth was so painful, or any number of things about marriage that are arduous do you think anyone would get married? If they didn't get married what would their fate be? Why do you think Cinderella's wicked step sisters couldn't get married? They are in the story to make the point that only selfish and mean girls can't get married so be nice.
Why did culture evolve such fairy tales? One might conclude that marriage had other benefits. If the fairy tale made it easier to get the young couple to agree to marriage then all the better. Just as the benefits of keeping children away from wolves justified scaring children, the benfits of marriage, protection from economic and social instability, justified making marriage seem romantic.
Does this still apply today? The welfare state has come pretty close to making it seem as if it does not. But I believe that it still does. Why? Because it still protects children. Ultimately there is no kind of homosexual sex that might result in child birth. Try as they may, there will be no accidental birth. However, in a heterosexual relationship this is possible for all except presidential interns. The ideal is marriage in order to protect children--not for love. Gay people need to understand this and embrace it. They need marriage to work in the traditional way just like I do. They need children to be born in to stable two parent families rather than grow up in single parent homes as wards of the welfare state. As for expressing love, they can do that in their rooms and in contracts and in the way they live.
The real slippery slope has already been slid down--it is the slope of forgetting why culture has certain traditions. It is in forgetting why these traditions are of value to all. Forget polygamy and polyamory and forget expressions of love. Instead focus on the real tradition and ask if the value that each tradition provides for our collective society is worth maintaining. In the case of marriage, I believe that it is.
Oil Out of Crap
Thanks to Nick Schulz for this and this post on The NRO Corner today. Just to sum it up for you. There is an article in Discover magazine that reports on a company that has developed a process whereby they can convert anything containing Carbon into Oil while producing mineral and water as by-products. Nick, who edits a technology magazine, asks if any experienced scientists can vouch for the legitimacy of this process.
He has received some comments from engineers on the article. Some sceptical, and one very positive.
I offered Nick an alternative point of view. The economic one.
You see, I am convinced that most science is like computer programming which I know a little about. The question is not if something is possible, but rather how long it will take and at what expense--more specifically, is it worth it. Let's use a simple example. An electric car is possible, but each car costs SO much money that it is not economically feasible. What is obvious to me from the article is that the interviewer did not ask the hard detail questions on costs. Sure, I realize that he did have some lines about costs, but let's look at them. First quote:
"We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process.
Please note the future tense there. Right after the reporter got done listing the $50 million invested by individuals and government just to do the research. Further in the article you will read that the first plant cost $20 million to build. Next quote:
It will make 11 tons of minerals and 600 barrels of oil [a day]
600 barrels of oil which will sell on today's market for $30 a barrel for a total of $18,000 a day. At that rate it will take him three years just to cover the cost of building the facility. Not too bad so far. Final quote:
And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
That is where he exposes himself. You see the reporter should have asked why the costs will go down. Is that because turkey guts will get cheaper, or he will have written off the fixed costs, or is it because he is assuming that more people will adopt the technology and he will be able to spread the costs over multiple locations? I think he is only talking about the variable costs of turkey guts and keeping the lights at the factory on. He is not including the initial investments, or the reality of how much more his oil cost in terms of the opportunity cost of the natural gas he claims to pump back into the system. The real give away that they might be using rosy estimates was that the "authority" on how good an investment this is was the venture capitalist--you don't think he has an agenda, now do you?
I love technology. I am very excited about things like this. I really believe that scientists will make drilling for oil a non-issue long before it runs out. But I am not so excited that I think it will happen tomorrow. I would guess that this guy has really discovered a spectacular process, but I would also guess that it is more costly than he lets on. All new technology tends to be. Will it get cheaper? You bet it will, but can the idea last long enough for the idea to get cheaper? How long will it take to get cheaper? Many great ideas fail for reasons unrelated to the greatness of the idea, let's hope that this is not true of turning turkey guts into oil.
Thanks to Nick Schulz for this and this post on The NRO Corner today. Just to sum it up for you. There is an article in Discover magazine that reports on a company that has developed a process whereby they can convert anything containing Carbon into Oil while producing mineral and water as by-products. Nick, who edits a technology magazine, asks if any experienced scientists can vouch for the legitimacy of this process.
He has received some comments from engineers on the article. Some sceptical, and one very positive.
I offered Nick an alternative point of view. The economic one.
You see, I am convinced that most science is like computer programming which I know a little about. The question is not if something is possible, but rather how long it will take and at what expense--more specifically, is it worth it. Let's use a simple example. An electric car is possible, but each car costs SO much money that it is not economically feasible. What is obvious to me from the article is that the interviewer did not ask the hard detail questions on costs. Sure, I realize that he did have some lines about costs, but let's look at them. First quote:
"We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process.
Please note the future tense there. Right after the reporter got done listing the $50 million invested by individuals and government just to do the research. Further in the article you will read that the first plant cost $20 million to build. Next quote:
It will make 11 tons of minerals and 600 barrels of oil [a day]
600 barrels of oil which will sell on today's market for $30 a barrel for a total of $18,000 a day. At that rate it will take him three years just to cover the cost of building the facility. Not too bad so far. Final quote:
And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
That is where he exposes himself. You see the reporter should have asked why the costs will go down. Is that because turkey guts will get cheaper, or he will have written off the fixed costs, or is it because he is assuming that more people will adopt the technology and he will be able to spread the costs over multiple locations? I think he is only talking about the variable costs of turkey guts and keeping the lights at the factory on. He is not including the initial investments, or the reality of how much more his oil cost in terms of the opportunity cost of the natural gas he claims to pump back into the system. The real give away that they might be using rosy estimates was that the "authority" on how good an investment this is was the venture capitalist--you don't think he has an agenda, now do you?
I love technology. I am very excited about things like this. I really believe that scientists will make drilling for oil a non-issue long before it runs out. But I am not so excited that I think it will happen tomorrow. I would guess that this guy has really discovered a spectacular process, but I would also guess that it is more costly than he lets on. All new technology tends to be. Will it get cheaper? You bet it will, but can the idea last long enough for the idea to get cheaper? How long will it take to get cheaper? Many great ideas fail for reasons unrelated to the greatness of the idea, let's hope that this is not true of turning turkey guts into oil.
Jul 31, 2003
Bush Press Conference
President Bush held a press conference yesterday at a time of day when few people could watch. Just for fun go to the White House home page and see if you can find any reference to the press conference. What is wrong with this White House? Okay, I know that President Bush is not the best public speaker, but he is worse quoted than he is live. The few clips I have seen were great. He showed emotion and a sense of humor. He clearly is comfortable with reporters and willing to joke with them from reading the transcript. I think these are the things that the American people need to see live in prime time rather than reading the quotes that make him sound dumb. Karl Rove set the man free!
Speaking of which there were some really great comments in the press conference. Some reality expressed about how long it will take to establish democracy in Iraq, more directness about the '16 words', and a comment about gay marriage.
What I want to know is whether people are going to eat crow now about the '16 words'. After all, a lot of people have been going on and on about the President not being willing to take personal responsibility. I still contend that he has done that all along. Maybe they will be happy that he did it live at a press conference. I doubt it! The strategy is to weaken Bush through a thousand pinpricks. And, if Karl Rove is listening, this is the reason that Bush needs to be live in prime time. Because when people hear Bush speak they see the simple cowboy and they like it.
What I really am interested in is his comment about Gay Marriage. No, I am not going to take credit for this one. But I am happy to see him finally address the question in a way that indicates that he is taking it seriously. I am not sure that some of the headlines were appropriate. But he did imply that legal proposals are on the way. I would like to see what he has in mind. Regular readers will recognize that I have strong feelings on this issue. I am not in favor of gay marriage. I am, however, nervous that Bush will continue his track record of overdoing the government role in any solution.
Fundamentally there is a cultural debate that needs to be held, which is bigger than just gay marriage. The initial question of that debate is: 'Do Christian values have a place in our society?' President Bush obviously believes there is. I agree. The challenge is how best to do that without disturbing the rights of people to believe and worship however they choose. The real problem is that so much of western cultural tradition is rooted in Christianity. Why do you think American's feel this moral obligation to help poor war-torn countries like Liberia? Where does that come from? There is no self interest involved; yet there is a lot of compassion. Why do we value the life of an individual soldier? Why do we object to ideologies that imply that some are better than others are? Whether we like it or not many of these concepts are linked to or influenced by Christianity. If Christian values have a place then President Bush's complete statement is very appropriate and goes very well with what I have argued. The problem with gay marriage is that gay persons feel ostracized by people who look down on the gay lifestyle. Bush exhorted all Americans to be better Christians towards gay persons. And then he pointed out that being better Christians did not require accepting the legalization of gay marriage. Can you see that one with out the other would have been a contradiction? Can you see that you can't call on Christians to observe the higher ideals of Christianity while kicking the institution of marriage? Or stated the opposite way, we can't defend traditional marriage and at the same time be callous to the feelings of gay persons.
Because this and other issues are so important I return to my original point: put Bush on in prime time and let him be a bigger part of the debate on each and every issue that is important in this country.
President Bush held a press conference yesterday at a time of day when few people could watch. Just for fun go to the White House home page and see if you can find any reference to the press conference. What is wrong with this White House? Okay, I know that President Bush is not the best public speaker, but he is worse quoted than he is live. The few clips I have seen were great. He showed emotion and a sense of humor. He clearly is comfortable with reporters and willing to joke with them from reading the transcript. I think these are the things that the American people need to see live in prime time rather than reading the quotes that make him sound dumb. Karl Rove set the man free!
Speaking of which there were some really great comments in the press conference. Some reality expressed about how long it will take to establish democracy in Iraq, more directness about the '16 words', and a comment about gay marriage.
What I want to know is whether people are going to eat crow now about the '16 words'. After all, a lot of people have been going on and on about the President not being willing to take personal responsibility. I still contend that he has done that all along. Maybe they will be happy that he did it live at a press conference. I doubt it! The strategy is to weaken Bush through a thousand pinpricks. And, if Karl Rove is listening, this is the reason that Bush needs to be live in prime time. Because when people hear Bush speak they see the simple cowboy and they like it.
What I really am interested in is his comment about Gay Marriage. No, I am not going to take credit for this one. But I am happy to see him finally address the question in a way that indicates that he is taking it seriously. I am not sure that some of the headlines were appropriate. But he did imply that legal proposals are on the way. I would like to see what he has in mind. Regular readers will recognize that I have strong feelings on this issue. I am not in favor of gay marriage. I am, however, nervous that Bush will continue his track record of overdoing the government role in any solution.
Fundamentally there is a cultural debate that needs to be held, which is bigger than just gay marriage. The initial question of that debate is: 'Do Christian values have a place in our society?' President Bush obviously believes there is. I agree. The challenge is how best to do that without disturbing the rights of people to believe and worship however they choose. The real problem is that so much of western cultural tradition is rooted in Christianity. Why do you think American's feel this moral obligation to help poor war-torn countries like Liberia? Where does that come from? There is no self interest involved; yet there is a lot of compassion. Why do we value the life of an individual soldier? Why do we object to ideologies that imply that some are better than others are? Whether we like it or not many of these concepts are linked to or influenced by Christianity. If Christian values have a place then President Bush's complete statement is very appropriate and goes very well with what I have argued. The problem with gay marriage is that gay persons feel ostracized by people who look down on the gay lifestyle. Bush exhorted all Americans to be better Christians towards gay persons. And then he pointed out that being better Christians did not require accepting the legalization of gay marriage. Can you see that one with out the other would have been a contradiction? Can you see that you can't call on Christians to observe the higher ideals of Christianity while kicking the institution of marriage? Or stated the opposite way, we can't defend traditional marriage and at the same time be callous to the feelings of gay persons.
Because this and other issues are so important I return to my original point: put Bush on in prime time and let him be a bigger part of the debate on each and every issue that is important in this country.
Jul 30, 2003
What Is Bush Really Hiding? NOTHING!
That is the real question to ask about the blacked out section of the 9/11 report. Not some question about motives. I guess the President still has political capital on store with me because I don't believe he is just trying to cover and maintain some cool relationship with the Saudis. Furthermore, I think there is fair evidence that this adminsitration does not try to coddle unwilling or unneeded allies. Our success in Iraq makes the Saudis both unwilling and now unneeded.
What is really going on?
The first possible explanation is that this is just another example of what I will call 'intelligence caution'. I think spies are like any other technician in any other job where their word can mean the difference between trust and losing a job. For instance, in my line of work I am often asked if we can make some modification to a computer system so that users can do something special. The most important question I ask is 'who is the user?' This affects my answer. At a simplistic level the change the user requests can always be done, the real question is how LONG will the change take. If the user is someone who can get me fired then I prefer to sound optimistic but in my actual estimates I err on the side of caution. If it will likly take one day to make the change I hedge and ask for two days. If I am done early all the better.
What does this have to do with spies? I think they are in a similar position. They are always being asked to assess risks. If they underestimate the risks, as they did previous to 9/11, they will get burned if the worst case scenario comes to pass. However, if they over estimate risks, as some think they did with Iraq, at the worst we will eliminate a threat that was not as bad as thought, but nonetheless a threat. So when a report about all the details of 9/11 comes along then the spies and investigators ask themselves what are the risks of everyone knowing every thing that we know. In the worst case a bad guy gets spooked and runs or the Saudis are able to figure out who is the spy in the upper reaches of the royal family. Granted the bad guy may never read the report and the Saudi royals may be too dumb to figure it out, but why take the risk?
I want to know WHO blacked out the sections. Did the CIA? The FBI? The NSC? State? Or was it a White House political operative?
I am going out on a limb here, but I think it was some technician who wants to avoid risk.
What of the Saudi desire to see it released? The Saudis are honestly concerned about public image, but only when Washington cameras are focused on them. Once again I am going out on a limb here, but when all is said and done I think the Saudis want to know who in the royal family keeps telling Washington about all their dirty laundry. This is the second possible explanation for keeping the critical sections of the report blacked out.
It is clear to me that Bush irritates the Saudis. Why else would you have quotes about Bush Sr calling the Prince to tell him that Jr's heart is in the right place? Why else would the Prince storm away from a week at the ranch without holding a joint news conference? Bush Jr sees black and white, and if there is one thing I like about him it is that he is not afraid to identify it. There is no doubt in my mind that he is leaning on the Saudis and they don't like it.
So while I would love to read the report contents, I am actually satisfied that Bush is not giving the Saudis a pass on being bad, so I don't care. Now can the press and the Democrats move on to another story?
That is the real question to ask about the blacked out section of the 9/11 report. Not some question about motives. I guess the President still has political capital on store with me because I don't believe he is just trying to cover and maintain some cool relationship with the Saudis. Furthermore, I think there is fair evidence that this adminsitration does not try to coddle unwilling or unneeded allies. Our success in Iraq makes the Saudis both unwilling and now unneeded.
What is really going on?
The first possible explanation is that this is just another example of what I will call 'intelligence caution'. I think spies are like any other technician in any other job where their word can mean the difference between trust and losing a job. For instance, in my line of work I am often asked if we can make some modification to a computer system so that users can do something special. The most important question I ask is 'who is the user?' This affects my answer. At a simplistic level the change the user requests can always be done, the real question is how LONG will the change take. If the user is someone who can get me fired then I prefer to sound optimistic but in my actual estimates I err on the side of caution. If it will likly take one day to make the change I hedge and ask for two days. If I am done early all the better.
What does this have to do with spies? I think they are in a similar position. They are always being asked to assess risks. If they underestimate the risks, as they did previous to 9/11, they will get burned if the worst case scenario comes to pass. However, if they over estimate risks, as some think they did with Iraq, at the worst we will eliminate a threat that was not as bad as thought, but nonetheless a threat. So when a report about all the details of 9/11 comes along then the spies and investigators ask themselves what are the risks of everyone knowing every thing that we know. In the worst case a bad guy gets spooked and runs or the Saudis are able to figure out who is the spy in the upper reaches of the royal family. Granted the bad guy may never read the report and the Saudi royals may be too dumb to figure it out, but why take the risk?
I want to know WHO blacked out the sections. Did the CIA? The FBI? The NSC? State? Or was it a White House political operative?
I am going out on a limb here, but I think it was some technician who wants to avoid risk.
What of the Saudi desire to see it released? The Saudis are honestly concerned about public image, but only when Washington cameras are focused on them. Once again I am going out on a limb here, but when all is said and done I think the Saudis want to know who in the royal family keeps telling Washington about all their dirty laundry. This is the second possible explanation for keeping the critical sections of the report blacked out.
It is clear to me that Bush irritates the Saudis. Why else would you have quotes about Bush Sr calling the Prince to tell him that Jr's heart is in the right place? Why else would the Prince storm away from a week at the ranch without holding a joint news conference? Bush Jr sees black and white, and if there is one thing I like about him it is that he is not afraid to identify it. There is no doubt in my mind that he is leaning on the Saudis and they don't like it.
So while I would love to read the report contents, I am actually satisfied that Bush is not giving the Saudis a pass on being bad, so I don't care. Now can the press and the Democrats move on to another story?
Tax Cut
I just got my $800 tax rebate check! Besides now knowing I have at least two kids and the possible range of my income you can also be assured that I love tax cuts in any form.
At a theoretical level I don't really care who gets the tax cut. At the end of the day all I am interested in is the total size of the tax cut. There are two reasons for this. First of all the total size of the tax cut has a direct effect on the ability of politicians to justify the total amount of spending. Remember it is the spending that causes the deficit, not the tax cut. Secondly, the larger the total tax cut the greater the total effect on the total economy. And the real stimulation for me is that if the economy turns up companies start hiring and all kinds of nice things happen. With this type of logic it would be really no difference if we just gave Bill Gates the entire tax cut or we spread it around.
Granted at a personal level I really enjoying being a part of the tax cut. Furthermore, I feel it is my civic duty to spend a fair portion of the money thereby stimulating the economy. To that end my wife and I intend to go out for a nice sit down dinner and tip lavishly! I love getting some of it.
The reason to spread the tax cut around is to keep me voting for Bush. It is sold as fairness, but if it is the economy we are concerned about, then giving Bill Gates a check for $100,000,000 can be just as effective as giving 100,000 families a check for $1,000 not to mention much simpler to administer. This is the segway to the first Democratic lie about tax cuts. That is that tax cuts need to go to the people that need them the most. I don't dispute that poor people would really appreciate the break, while Bill Gates wouldn't miss the money if we in fact raised his taxes a little bit. The real problem is that it is hard to cut the taxes of a person who doesn't pay taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit for example effectively removes the poorest Americans from tax liability. The last time I qualified I actually made money from the credit! Therefore if I want to cut the total tax burden in the country by $1 billion then I am going to cut taxes even for the people who don't need it. If the real objective is to make poor people better off then forget tax cuts and write them a check--oops! I forgot I just explained how we already do that.
The other lie about tax cuts is that they cause deficits. When is a Democrat going to be honest and tell us what they really mean? Sure, they wouldn't get my vote, but they aren't going to get it anyway. What they mean is that without higher tax revenues, at some point, someone will have to cut spending. Democrats don't want to cut spending on precious programs and therefore they are against any tax cut.
Heres to happy sit down dinners all over America!
I just got my $800 tax rebate check! Besides now knowing I have at least two kids and the possible range of my income you can also be assured that I love tax cuts in any form.
At a theoretical level I don't really care who gets the tax cut. At the end of the day all I am interested in is the total size of the tax cut. There are two reasons for this. First of all the total size of the tax cut has a direct effect on the ability of politicians to justify the total amount of spending. Remember it is the spending that causes the deficit, not the tax cut. Secondly, the larger the total tax cut the greater the total effect on the total economy. And the real stimulation for me is that if the economy turns up companies start hiring and all kinds of nice things happen. With this type of logic it would be really no difference if we just gave Bill Gates the entire tax cut or we spread it around.
Granted at a personal level I really enjoying being a part of the tax cut. Furthermore, I feel it is my civic duty to spend a fair portion of the money thereby stimulating the economy. To that end my wife and I intend to go out for a nice sit down dinner and tip lavishly! I love getting some of it.
The reason to spread the tax cut around is to keep me voting for Bush. It is sold as fairness, but if it is the economy we are concerned about, then giving Bill Gates a check for $100,000,000 can be just as effective as giving 100,000 families a check for $1,000 not to mention much simpler to administer. This is the segway to the first Democratic lie about tax cuts. That is that tax cuts need to go to the people that need them the most. I don't dispute that poor people would really appreciate the break, while Bill Gates wouldn't miss the money if we in fact raised his taxes a little bit. The real problem is that it is hard to cut the taxes of a person who doesn't pay taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit for example effectively removes the poorest Americans from tax liability. The last time I qualified I actually made money from the credit! Therefore if I want to cut the total tax burden in the country by $1 billion then I am going to cut taxes even for the people who don't need it. If the real objective is to make poor people better off then forget tax cuts and write them a check--oops! I forgot I just explained how we already do that.
The other lie about tax cuts is that they cause deficits. When is a Democrat going to be honest and tell us what they really mean? Sure, they wouldn't get my vote, but they aren't going to get it anyway. What they mean is that without higher tax revenues, at some point, someone will have to cut spending. Democrats don't want to cut spending on precious programs and therefore they are against any tax cut.
Heres to happy sit down dinners all over America!
Senate Judiciary Committee
Last night I watched C-Span. It was the July 23rd vote on referring William Pryor to the full Senate for a vote on his nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Setting aside the debate about Mr. Pryor, it was just fun to watch. Democrats and Republicans were at each other's throats. The Democrats tried to raise questions about Pryor's honesty to the committee and request more time to investigate. The Republicans countered that plenty of investigation had been done and nothing turned up. The Democrats tried to invoke Rule 4, which they felt allowed for a filibuster within the committee. Chairman Hatch declared that he had the sole authority to interpret the rule and declared that it could not be invoked in this case. The Republicans upheld his interpretation and then they voted on Pryor along party lines. Political high drama--good TV.
Last night I watched C-Span. It was the July 23rd vote on referring William Pryor to the full Senate for a vote on his nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Setting aside the debate about Mr. Pryor, it was just fun to watch. Democrats and Republicans were at each other's throats. The Democrats tried to raise questions about Pryor's honesty to the committee and request more time to investigate. The Republicans countered that plenty of investigation had been done and nothing turned up. The Democrats tried to invoke Rule 4, which they felt allowed for a filibuster within the committee. Chairman Hatch declared that he had the sole authority to interpret the rule and declared that it could not be invoked in this case. The Republicans upheld his interpretation and then they voted on Pryor along party lines. Political high drama--good TV.
Jul 29, 2003
Quick Roundup
I am on a business trip and so instead of posting this morning, I was on an airplane. Rather than provide one of my normal lengthy posts I thought I would share my thoughts about the things I read in the newpapers while flying--as well as some general in flight observations. I read both the Wall St Journal and USA Today. I know that there is a big difference in the prestige and quality of these papers, but I think that they provide some different things which I value.
Airport Screeners
But before the papers. I went through airport security in a midsize airport. The lady behind me complained about the length of the security line. I don't get it, the line only took 5 minutes. Forget all the things that can be said about airport screening good or bad and recognize that at a minimum the screeners try their best to make it a quick process. I will say that I have observed that airport design does limit the ability of screeners to affect the flow. For instance it is no surprise to me that some of the longest line times are experienced in Atlanta where ALL people go through one central security checkpoint
In Flight Movie
It was that movie with Steve Martin and Queen Latifah. That movie made use of every stereotype about racist white people and hip hop black people and still managed to be funny without making me feel uncomfortable. I think that took courage to just have fun.
USA Today Gay Poll
The biggest thing that caught my attention was the poll results about how people feel about Gay Rights. Now either the pollsters made a mistake a couple of months ago, a mistake this time, or there has been a DRASTIC change in attitudes in just two months. I am convinced that my website has single-handedly made the difference--okay, maybe not;)
Tom DeLay
Things that USA Today thinks you and I should know about Tom DeLay.
Rod Paige in the Wall St Journal
Rod Paige, President Bush's Secretary of Education, made a case (link requires registration) for the use of school vouchers in the Washington, D.C. school district. He was doing fine on the general issue. Where he lost me was his statement that he and President Bush believe that an education is a "Right". What? It might be good policy, but it is not a right! Add this the list of proofs that Bush is a politician, not a conservative.
Barry McCaffrey
Am I the only one who thinks that his editorial (link requires registration) was pointless? I would much rather have preferred a piece where he admits that he was a fool in saying that we didn't have enough troops to win the war. He said that months ago. Now he thinks we don't have enough troops to win the peace. I wonder if he thinks we have enough troops anywhere? He may be right, but his credibility is sure shot.
Pilots Have All The Fun
Sitting next to me was an off-duty pilot. On the other side of him an attractive 18 year old girl. Let's just say that the pilot and the girl talked up a storm while I wondered why I didn't choose to become a pilot.
I am on a business trip and so instead of posting this morning, I was on an airplane. Rather than provide one of my normal lengthy posts I thought I would share my thoughts about the things I read in the newpapers while flying--as well as some general in flight observations. I read both the Wall St Journal and USA Today. I know that there is a big difference in the prestige and quality of these papers, but I think that they provide some different things which I value.
Airport Screeners
But before the papers. I went through airport security in a midsize airport. The lady behind me complained about the length of the security line. I don't get it, the line only took 5 minutes. Forget all the things that can be said about airport screening good or bad and recognize that at a minimum the screeners try their best to make it a quick process. I will say that I have observed that airport design does limit the ability of screeners to affect the flow. For instance it is no surprise to me that some of the longest line times are experienced in Atlanta where ALL people go through one central security checkpoint
In Flight Movie
It was that movie with Steve Martin and Queen Latifah. That movie made use of every stereotype about racist white people and hip hop black people and still managed to be funny without making me feel uncomfortable. I think that took courage to just have fun.
USA Today Gay Poll
The biggest thing that caught my attention was the poll results about how people feel about Gay Rights. Now either the pollsters made a mistake a couple of months ago, a mistake this time, or there has been a DRASTIC change in attitudes in just two months. I am convinced that my website has single-handedly made the difference--okay, maybe not;)
Tom DeLay
Things that USA Today thinks you and I should know about Tom DeLay.
Rod Paige in the Wall St Journal
Rod Paige, President Bush's Secretary of Education, made a case (link requires registration) for the use of school vouchers in the Washington, D.C. school district. He was doing fine on the general issue. Where he lost me was his statement that he and President Bush believe that an education is a "Right". What? It might be good policy, but it is not a right! Add this the list of proofs that Bush is a politician, not a conservative.
Barry McCaffrey
Am I the only one who thinks that his editorial (link requires registration) was pointless? I would much rather have preferred a piece where he admits that he was a fool in saying that we didn't have enough troops to win the war. He said that months ago. Now he thinks we don't have enough troops to win the peace. I wonder if he thinks we have enough troops anywhere? He may be right, but his credibility is sure shot.
Pilots Have All The Fun
Sitting next to me was an off-duty pilot. On the other side of him an attractive 18 year old girl. Let's just say that the pilot and the girl talked up a storm while I wondered why I didn't choose to become a pilot.
Jul 28, 2003
Holy Cow!
I have previously sited Veronique de Rugy as a good analyst of the out of control spending that the Bush White House is allowing to take place. Today she has a piece on National Review and I was thinking: 'I can guess what it says, I'll read it later'. And then I read it.
HOLY COW!!!!
I had to stop reading when I hit this quote: "Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively." Okay, okay, I know the education numbers are not a surprise to any conservative who was attentive when Bush and Teddy passed their version of education reform. But seriously, what does the Labor department do? Is that just because of unemployment checks? NO. I decided to check things out at the Department of Labor website. Sure the administration is planning on bringing Labor spending down for 2004, but what were they doing in 2001, 2002, and 2003? I might let them slide on 2001 since Clinton wrote that budget, but what gives?
It gets back to my point that this administration is not willing to confront anyone. If the Democrats want to investigate the President for making bad decisions they should forget about Iraq and focus on spending. The problem is that they would like to spend that much money as well. The administration does not want to defend spending cuts on the Sunday news shows. They do not want to confront the Teddy Kennedys and Robert Byrds of Congress.
Send Bush a check and he will sign it. W: it is time to get a stiff back bone on spending. Conservatives: I am afraid that the only way that W will listen is if we offer up a sacrificial lamb to challenge him in the primaries. Anyone interested?
I have previously sited Veronique de Rugy as a good analyst of the out of control spending that the Bush White House is allowing to take place. Today she has a piece on National Review and I was thinking: 'I can guess what it says, I'll read it later'. And then I read it.
HOLY COW!!!!
I had to stop reading when I hit this quote: "Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively." Okay, okay, I know the education numbers are not a surprise to any conservative who was attentive when Bush and Teddy passed their version of education reform. But seriously, what does the Labor department do? Is that just because of unemployment checks? NO. I decided to check things out at the Department of Labor website. Sure the administration is planning on bringing Labor spending down for 2004, but what were they doing in 2001, 2002, and 2003? I might let them slide on 2001 since Clinton wrote that budget, but what gives?
It gets back to my point that this administration is not willing to confront anyone. If the Democrats want to investigate the President for making bad decisions they should forget about Iraq and focus on spending. The problem is that they would like to spend that much money as well. The administration does not want to defend spending cuts on the Sunday news shows. They do not want to confront the Teddy Kennedys and Robert Byrds of Congress.
Send Bush a check and he will sign it. W: it is time to get a stiff back bone on spending. Conservatives: I am afraid that the only way that W will listen is if we offer up a sacrificial lamb to challenge him in the primaries. Anyone interested?
Gay Marriage Debate
There are many interesting articles to sight today. First, reference my original comments to see where I stand. I have refined things a bit since the original comments, and followed up with this and this. I do intend to continue refining my views and continue making the case that gay people don't really need marriage. If expressing a commitment to love is so important there is nothing preventing them from writing a contract, creating a will, and taking out a full page ad in the local newspaper.
One of the more interesting people I have stumbled upon in my reading is Maggie Gallagher--because she generally agrees with my approach to the issue. I don't think she knows who I am, oh well the suffering of the small-time blogger. But, I am interested in getting a copy of her book and I recommend her brand new site MarriageDebate.com. I first discovered her on July 14th of this year (just so she doesn't think I am just a copy cat my original statement was made on July 1). She has just had her views included in the Weekly Standard. Good job Maggie.
What is really interesting is that National Review is now adopting the same line of reasoning. At the risk of admitting laziness I admit that it is possible that National Review has had this position for a while. What is really exciting to me is that Andrew Sullivan has finally begun to respond to the presentation of this argument. Here is his response to National Review today. While Andrew Sullivan can ignore me, as he has done since I have made every effort to let him know that I was debating his view on gay marriage, he cannot reasonably ignore National Review.
Like National Review I am hesitant to envision amendments to the constitution. As a conservative I am inherently opposed to changes for the sake of change. The problem is that without any action we are faced with a change. There is no doubt in my mind that if conservatives simply opt to keep arguing that marriage be left as is, within five years we will have gay marriage nationally. Cynically one might fairly wonder: "so what, the whole thing is going into the gutter anyway", but I am willing to fight. There is a clear cultural risk to further abandoning marriage. One need only ponder the question from the perspective of why there is little proof that gay marriage has ever been the part of any culture--Christian or not. All these years of cultural tradition cannot be all bad. And to say that because liberals have already weakened marriage over the last 40 years so gays cannot really make it worse is really just a distraction. Because B made A weak does not mean we should ignore the possibility that C will make A even weaker.
To be fair to Andrew Sullivan I am willing to accept his premise that gay people feel ostracized in society. He hopes that marriage will change that by allowing gay persons to express love in the same way that heterosexuals can. However, the love expressed in marriage is only the expression of my willingness to accept the consequences of sex with you through a commitment. I guess in a sense gay persons may mean the same thing. The difference is that gay sex will never produce unwilling third parties that also need the parties of marriage to express a commitment. Andrew Sullivan has done some research to counter the argument that marriage is only for the children. He has found some statutes in Wisconsin and Arizona that allow incestual marriage if parties are infertile or too old to bear children. I don't dispute that these may be examples of marriage for love, solely. But that doesn't mean that marriage was not originally institutionalized to protect children. It just means that some legislators felt bad for incestual couples and made an exception. Which brings me to a tangential point. Andrew Sullivan criticizes the National Review for not being truly conservative in supporting a constitutional amendment on marriage. His premise is that the true conservatives would defend the right of states to decide for themselves. Andrew, I've got news for you. You are the true charlatan. A true conservative, gay or not, would be opposed to court mandated gay marriage and instead favor allowing the voters or their elected representatives to decide the issue. The last time I checked the voters do not like gay marriage. Even Californians, in the home of the gay capital of the world clearly went on record against gay marriage.
I hope that we can return to being sensible on the issue. Let's fix marriage and make it consistent for the sake of confirming the family institution. Meanwhile let's also recognize that gay persons do not deserve to suffer. Expose the real suffering and let's eliminate it. As for the insurance that marriage provides, with few exceptions, which can be easily remedied, everything that gay persons need may be provided by a contract, a will, and a newspaper ad.
There are many interesting articles to sight today. First, reference my original comments to see where I stand. I have refined things a bit since the original comments, and followed up with this and this. I do intend to continue refining my views and continue making the case that gay people don't really need marriage. If expressing a commitment to love is so important there is nothing preventing them from writing a contract, creating a will, and taking out a full page ad in the local newspaper.
One of the more interesting people I have stumbled upon in my reading is Maggie Gallagher--because she generally agrees with my approach to the issue. I don't think she knows who I am, oh well the suffering of the small-time blogger. But, I am interested in getting a copy of her book and I recommend her brand new site MarriageDebate.com. I first discovered her on July 14th of this year (just so she doesn't think I am just a copy cat my original statement was made on July 1). She has just had her views included in the Weekly Standard. Good job Maggie.
What is really interesting is that National Review is now adopting the same line of reasoning. At the risk of admitting laziness I admit that it is possible that National Review has had this position for a while. What is really exciting to me is that Andrew Sullivan has finally begun to respond to the presentation of this argument. Here is his response to National Review today. While Andrew Sullivan can ignore me, as he has done since I have made every effort to let him know that I was debating his view on gay marriage, he cannot reasonably ignore National Review.
Like National Review I am hesitant to envision amendments to the constitution. As a conservative I am inherently opposed to changes for the sake of change. The problem is that without any action we are faced with a change. There is no doubt in my mind that if conservatives simply opt to keep arguing that marriage be left as is, within five years we will have gay marriage nationally. Cynically one might fairly wonder: "so what, the whole thing is going into the gutter anyway", but I am willing to fight. There is a clear cultural risk to further abandoning marriage. One need only ponder the question from the perspective of why there is little proof that gay marriage has ever been the part of any culture--Christian or not. All these years of cultural tradition cannot be all bad. And to say that because liberals have already weakened marriage over the last 40 years so gays cannot really make it worse is really just a distraction. Because B made A weak does not mean we should ignore the possibility that C will make A even weaker.
To be fair to Andrew Sullivan I am willing to accept his premise that gay people feel ostracized in society. He hopes that marriage will change that by allowing gay persons to express love in the same way that heterosexuals can. However, the love expressed in marriage is only the expression of my willingness to accept the consequences of sex with you through a commitment. I guess in a sense gay persons may mean the same thing. The difference is that gay sex will never produce unwilling third parties that also need the parties of marriage to express a commitment. Andrew Sullivan has done some research to counter the argument that marriage is only for the children. He has found some statutes in Wisconsin and Arizona that allow incestual marriage if parties are infertile or too old to bear children. I don't dispute that these may be examples of marriage for love, solely. But that doesn't mean that marriage was not originally institutionalized to protect children. It just means that some legislators felt bad for incestual couples and made an exception. Which brings me to a tangential point. Andrew Sullivan criticizes the National Review for not being truly conservative in supporting a constitutional amendment on marriage. His premise is that the true conservatives would defend the right of states to decide for themselves. Andrew, I've got news for you. You are the true charlatan. A true conservative, gay or not, would be opposed to court mandated gay marriage and instead favor allowing the voters or their elected representatives to decide the issue. The last time I checked the voters do not like gay marriage. Even Californians, in the home of the gay capital of the world clearly went on record against gay marriage.
I hope that we can return to being sensible on the issue. Let's fix marriage and make it consistent for the sake of confirming the family institution. Meanwhile let's also recognize that gay persons do not deserve to suffer. Expose the real suffering and let's eliminate it. As for the insurance that marriage provides, with few exceptions, which can be easily remedied, everything that gay persons need may be provided by a contract, a will, and a newspaper ad.
Jul 26, 2003
Conservatism Bleg
I understand that the term for inviting blog readers to submit information is: 'bleg'. I am now blegging. Actually I am feeling pressure. You see for a while I have been alluding to a future blog to explain my own personal take on defining conservatism. I am by no means delusional to the point of thinking that conservatism has never been defined. I just want to put into words what it means to me. Along the way I have occassionally posted things that are part of that greater discussion, but I really intend to put it all together in the mother of all blogs. Of course this assumes that Blogger, my wonderful host, won't crash;)
I have been putting it off, but yesterday I got an email from a reader providing me with a link to a site that he thought might be helpful in my attempt at defining the Unified Conservative Theory. I REALLY appreciated that. It made me feel a little pressure to realize that a reader ACTUALLY is waiting to read what I have to say. Then it gave me an idea. Since there is no way for me to ever single-handedly compile every thing that has been said in defining conservatism maybe readers would be willing to help me out. I know I don't have a large readership, but the few and the proud could be helpful. So, if you do see something out there in an article or the blogosphere send me a link; if you wrote an essay in a college political science class send me a copy; and if you have a recommended reading list send it to me. I can't promise to process or include everything, but I will make sure that you get a thank you.
I can be reached as always at james at rightoneverything dot com.
Thanks!
I understand that the term for inviting blog readers to submit information is: 'bleg'. I am now blegging. Actually I am feeling pressure. You see for a while I have been alluding to a future blog to explain my own personal take on defining conservatism. I am by no means delusional to the point of thinking that conservatism has never been defined. I just want to put into words what it means to me. Along the way I have occassionally posted things that are part of that greater discussion, but I really intend to put it all together in the mother of all blogs. Of course this assumes that Blogger, my wonderful host, won't crash;)
I have been putting it off, but yesterday I got an email from a reader providing me with a link to a site that he thought might be helpful in my attempt at defining the Unified Conservative Theory. I REALLY appreciated that. It made me feel a little pressure to realize that a reader ACTUALLY is waiting to read what I have to say. Then it gave me an idea. Since there is no way for me to ever single-handedly compile every thing that has been said in defining conservatism maybe readers would be willing to help me out. I know I don't have a large readership, but the few and the proud could be helpful. So, if you do see something out there in an article or the blogosphere send me a link; if you wrote an essay in a college political science class send me a copy; and if you have a recommended reading list send it to me. I can't promise to process or include everything, but I will make sure that you get a thank you.
I can be reached as always at james at rightoneverything dot com.
Thanks!
Jul 25, 2003
Damned if you do and damned if you don't
That is the message we are getting about using the intelligence provided by all the spooks out there.
That is the message we are getting about using the intelligence provided by all the spooks out there.
Krugman vs. Greenspan
Today Paul Krugman decided to take on Alan Greenspan. To begin with let me make a disclaimer: I have mixed feelings about Greenspan and see no reason to defend him since I think he stands on his own record well enough. But I do think this is another example of Paul Krugman waving his PhD in Economics in front of you and I while not being honest about economics.
You see the problem with Greenspan is that he is a sincere economist. Let me tell a story to make my point. I was once a teaching assistant for an Economics Professor teaching Economics 110--yes, the general introductory course. Just so people know who I am talking about the professor was Jim Kearl. He had just finished a week or two of lectures that made it very clear that government was BAD. Some student walked up to Dr. Kearl after class and said something to the effect of: 'I love you and now I have another reason to hate the government and taxes.' To which Dr. Kearl said something like: 'Not so fast, next week I will be talking about the inefficiencies of the free market and you will see that government is not always bad'. Dr Kearl did not disappoint. You see Dr. Kearl is a PhD in Economics with academic integrity.
What does that mean? The biggest problem with learning economics was that for a while I felt paralyzed by all that I now know. You see the biggest lesson in economics is summed up by the statement: 'There is no such thing as a free lunch'. The more you learn about economics the more you realize that there is nothing that happens independently. Economists analyze each thing independently in order to understand it better, but at some point it all gets put into play as one big system. So, for instance, if I cut taxes without cutting spending then I will have a larger deficit which might cause interests rates to rise, but at the same time there will be increased spending by consumers who now have more disposable income and greater savings by those same consumers and corporations selling them stuff which would bring down interest rates as a countering force to the deficit... This can keep going on endlessly since there are so many things that can be affected. At some point serious economists perform studies in order to assign actual numbers to the actual effects and it is true that some effects are greater than others. But it can get very complicated very fast. So an honest economist, like Alan Greenspan is unwilling to go on record just saying: "Tax cuts are good". Instead he qualifies and points things out. He says that tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts in order to be effective.
Which brings me back to Paul Krugman. He is dishonest. He would have you believe that the tax cut is the cause of all evil in the economy. This is simply untrue as demonstrated by when the tax cuts took effect and when the downturn began. Krugman would also have you believe that tax cuts are the reason for the current deficit size. This can also be seen as untrue when one considers how much of the tax cut has actually taken effect already. But just in case you think I am being overly critical of Krugman why don't you read the entire text of Greenspans testimony to Congress and see what he really said.
Today Paul Krugman decided to take on Alan Greenspan. To begin with let me make a disclaimer: I have mixed feelings about Greenspan and see no reason to defend him since I think he stands on his own record well enough. But I do think this is another example of Paul Krugman waving his PhD in Economics in front of you and I while not being honest about economics.
You see the problem with Greenspan is that he is a sincere economist. Let me tell a story to make my point. I was once a teaching assistant for an Economics Professor teaching Economics 110--yes, the general introductory course. Just so people know who I am talking about the professor was Jim Kearl. He had just finished a week or two of lectures that made it very clear that government was BAD. Some student walked up to Dr. Kearl after class and said something to the effect of: 'I love you and now I have another reason to hate the government and taxes.' To which Dr. Kearl said something like: 'Not so fast, next week I will be talking about the inefficiencies of the free market and you will see that government is not always bad'. Dr Kearl did not disappoint. You see Dr. Kearl is a PhD in Economics with academic integrity.
What does that mean? The biggest problem with learning economics was that for a while I felt paralyzed by all that I now know. You see the biggest lesson in economics is summed up by the statement: 'There is no such thing as a free lunch'. The more you learn about economics the more you realize that there is nothing that happens independently. Economists analyze each thing independently in order to understand it better, but at some point it all gets put into play as one big system. So, for instance, if I cut taxes without cutting spending then I will have a larger deficit which might cause interests rates to rise, but at the same time there will be increased spending by consumers who now have more disposable income and greater savings by those same consumers and corporations selling them stuff which would bring down interest rates as a countering force to the deficit... This can keep going on endlessly since there are so many things that can be affected. At some point serious economists perform studies in order to assign actual numbers to the actual effects and it is true that some effects are greater than others. But it can get very complicated very fast. So an honest economist, like Alan Greenspan is unwilling to go on record just saying: "Tax cuts are good". Instead he qualifies and points things out. He says that tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts in order to be effective.
Which brings me back to Paul Krugman. He is dishonest. He would have you believe that the tax cut is the cause of all evil in the economy. This is simply untrue as demonstrated by when the tax cuts took effect and when the downturn began. Krugman would also have you believe that tax cuts are the reason for the current deficit size. This can also be seen as untrue when one considers how much of the tax cut has actually taken effect already. But just in case you think I am being overly critical of Krugman why don't you read the entire text of Greenspans testimony to Congress and see what he really said.
Bush Conservatism Questioned Long Ago
Here is a link to an opinion piece by Veronique de Rugy of Cato. Long before Andrew Sullivan claimed to have been the first to say that Bush may not be all that conservative, long before George Will questioned it, and long before I started getting that sick spot in the pit of my stomach, Veronique pointed out that Bush was no conservative.
What is W? W is a politician. A pretty damn fine one at that. On top of it he is a political strategist who studies history. I am looking for the quote, but way back during the election of 2000 there was a story that pointed out that when Bush Sr was running for office W was very involved in the day to day political campaign operations. In fact, he was the guy who would go to the bar with the press corps after a long day on the campaign trail--presumably he drank 7-up. It was obvious to the reporters that he had a great handle on what was going on. Again, what I have just said is unsubstantiated until I can find the quote--readers?
But, what I can assess is his track record. Ever since I became aware of George W Bush I contended that he was smart. My reason for believing this was his clear election strategy. W looked at each of the errors of the previous candidates for President at least as far back as Reagan/Carter and made sure his strategy would avoid previous pitfalls. To use a saying usually applied to the military: he fought all the previous elections. Every failure by the Bush strategy team has always been in areas that they could not have anticipated--brand new ground. In fact, I am convinced this is why the smart liberals are so afraid of Bush--they assume that he will not make the mistakes of the father on things like Supreme Court nominations. Back to the election.
W’s strategy for winning momentum in the primaries was clearly aimed at Steve Forbes. Forbes had really been the greatest problem for Bob Dole in the Republican primaries in 1996. It was a safe assumption he would return. Forbes was a darling to economic conservatives, but most of us realized he was a nerd that could never win. When W came along and made tax cuts his biggest campaign issue Forbes was dead. Furthermore, W made sure he had a sound campaign organization in the early states that Forbes had done well in. The next thing Bush did was most clever. After Dole had been through a bruising primary he was out of money and limited by public campaign finance spending limits that applied because he had accepted public funds. This hurt him in the months after the primaries were settled but before the Republican convention. He could not spend. Meanwhile, Clinton and the DNC coordinated a series of ads that positioned Dole at a time when Dole could not respond. George W Bush took a gamble that if he could make it to the end he needed to have the flexibility to spend money to respond if and when the DNC tried this tactic again. Back to my point, the thing that caused W the greatest challenge was that McCain came out of nowhere to be his biggest opponent. Even then, his team pulled out the old Lee Atwater playbook and went into South Carolina intent on burying McCain for once and for all. It worked. No idiot could have pulled that off.
The biggest lesson W learned from studying Reagan, his father, and all the unsuccessful Republican suitors over the last 20 years was that you needed to sound like Reagan. Once again I cannot find the quote yet, but in a Time magazine interview of Bush Sr in the mid 90s Bush Sr lamented that Reagan raised specific taxes several times and no one screamed, yet Bush Sr only did it once and all the conservatives panicked. Admittedly Bush Sr's tax cut was a lot more reported on and sweeping in scope without any offsetting tax cuts, but his complaint is fair. W learned the lesson well. So if you hear him speak he sounds like Reagan. Tax cuts at all costs, for instance. And the war on terror was ready made for a Reagan Cold War Redux.
But Bush is still a Bush. A family with individuals who I have always felt LIVED the life of a conservative even if they failed to understand the actual policy implications. Family values matter to the Bushes. Discipline matters to the Bushes. Public service, charities, the nation, and family are more important than the selfish pursuit of ME. They also believe that government should be about doing things. And this is where they stop being conservatives and reveal their Rockefeller roots. They are good people who think that we can all just iron out our differences and work for the better of our nation. The most revealing fact is Bush's unwillingness to veto. Who can forget Reagan telling Congress "over my dead body" as he threatened a Presidential veto? This is where Bush is unwilling to sound like Reagan. He is willing to sign anything that Congress has hashed out. He may try to slow it down and sway votes on the hill, but he is unwilling to force a confrontation.
That wouldn't be a problem if the only things that got to his desk were good sound policy. But there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
George W, it is time that us conservatives send you a message. It is time that we start complaining and it is time for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. I don't really care who, I just want W to have to pull his playbook out again and figure out how to make me happy again.
Here is a link to an opinion piece by Veronique de Rugy of Cato. Long before Andrew Sullivan claimed to have been the first to say that Bush may not be all that conservative, long before George Will questioned it, and long before I started getting that sick spot in the pit of my stomach, Veronique pointed out that Bush was no conservative.
What is W? W is a politician. A pretty damn fine one at that. On top of it he is a political strategist who studies history. I am looking for the quote, but way back during the election of 2000 there was a story that pointed out that when Bush Sr was running for office W was very involved in the day to day political campaign operations. In fact, he was the guy who would go to the bar with the press corps after a long day on the campaign trail--presumably he drank 7-up. It was obvious to the reporters that he had a great handle on what was going on. Again, what I have just said is unsubstantiated until I can find the quote--readers?
But, what I can assess is his track record. Ever since I became aware of George W Bush I contended that he was smart. My reason for believing this was his clear election strategy. W looked at each of the errors of the previous candidates for President at least as far back as Reagan/Carter and made sure his strategy would avoid previous pitfalls. To use a saying usually applied to the military: he fought all the previous elections. Every failure by the Bush strategy team has always been in areas that they could not have anticipated--brand new ground. In fact, I am convinced this is why the smart liberals are so afraid of Bush--they assume that he will not make the mistakes of the father on things like Supreme Court nominations. Back to the election.
W’s strategy for winning momentum in the primaries was clearly aimed at Steve Forbes. Forbes had really been the greatest problem for Bob Dole in the Republican primaries in 1996. It was a safe assumption he would return. Forbes was a darling to economic conservatives, but most of us realized he was a nerd that could never win. When W came along and made tax cuts his biggest campaign issue Forbes was dead. Furthermore, W made sure he had a sound campaign organization in the early states that Forbes had done well in. The next thing Bush did was most clever. After Dole had been through a bruising primary he was out of money and limited by public campaign finance spending limits that applied because he had accepted public funds. This hurt him in the months after the primaries were settled but before the Republican convention. He could not spend. Meanwhile, Clinton and the DNC coordinated a series of ads that positioned Dole at a time when Dole could not respond. George W Bush took a gamble that if he could make it to the end he needed to have the flexibility to spend money to respond if and when the DNC tried this tactic again. Back to my point, the thing that caused W the greatest challenge was that McCain came out of nowhere to be his biggest opponent. Even then, his team pulled out the old Lee Atwater playbook and went into South Carolina intent on burying McCain for once and for all. It worked. No idiot could have pulled that off.
The biggest lesson W learned from studying Reagan, his father, and all the unsuccessful Republican suitors over the last 20 years was that you needed to sound like Reagan. Once again I cannot find the quote yet, but in a Time magazine interview of Bush Sr in the mid 90s Bush Sr lamented that Reagan raised specific taxes several times and no one screamed, yet Bush Sr only did it once and all the conservatives panicked. Admittedly Bush Sr's tax cut was a lot more reported on and sweeping in scope without any offsetting tax cuts, but his complaint is fair. W learned the lesson well. So if you hear him speak he sounds like Reagan. Tax cuts at all costs, for instance. And the war on terror was ready made for a Reagan Cold War Redux.
But Bush is still a Bush. A family with individuals who I have always felt LIVED the life of a conservative even if they failed to understand the actual policy implications. Family values matter to the Bushes. Discipline matters to the Bushes. Public service, charities, the nation, and family are more important than the selfish pursuit of ME. They also believe that government should be about doing things. And this is where they stop being conservatives and reveal their Rockefeller roots. They are good people who think that we can all just iron out our differences and work for the better of our nation. The most revealing fact is Bush's unwillingness to veto. Who can forget Reagan telling Congress "over my dead body" as he threatened a Presidential veto? This is where Bush is unwilling to sound like Reagan. He is willing to sign anything that Congress has hashed out. He may try to slow it down and sway votes on the hill, but he is unwilling to force a confrontation.
That wouldn't be a problem if the only things that got to his desk were good sound policy. But there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
George W, it is time that us conservatives send you a message. It is time that we start complaining and it is time for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. I don't really care who, I just want W to have to pull his playbook out again and figure out how to make me happy again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)