Santelli and Baseball Crank - That's the Ticket!!

I propose a presidential ticket of Rick Santelli and Baseball Crank with Ron Paul as the next Federal Reserve Chairman. That would end the need for an audit of the Fed that nobody seems to want. Who's with me on this?

Three guys who are generally portrayed as kooks, loons, cranks or crack-pots by the criminally inept MSM, but I would bet that if we had heeded some of their words of advice from the past, we would not be in the economic or political predicament that we are in today. I speak specifically about Ron Paul-- who was portrayed unfairly by the MSM in the last presidential beauty pageant--CNBC commentator Rick Santelli and the writer of one of my favorite blogs Baseball Crank. Baseball Crank is a nom de plume, although his real identity is not much of a secret.

AGAIN I ASK, WHEN DO WE GET TO THIS POINT?


Some of my favorite hits from the past and present from these artists.

RICK SANTELLI - STOP SPENDING!! STOP SPENDING!! STOP SPENDING!!
JUNE 28, 2010 - SANTELLI VS. LIESMAN - THE STOP SPENDING RANT!!!




RON PAUL - END THE FED
FEB 27, 2008 - RON PAUL SCHOOLS BEN BERNANKE



AGAINST THE BAILOUT
SEP 27, 2008 - BEWARE THE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN OF THE BAILOUT




AGAINST THE FED
OCT 24, 2008 - ON GOVERNMENT (IN)EFFICIENCY




AGAINST THE STIMULUS
THE ORIGINAL RANT - FEB 19, 2009 - THE GENESIS OF THE TEA PARTY



Here is Mr. Santelli unplugged, for more than a 30 second sound byte of screaming that CNBC allows and encourages. What he says makes a lot more sense this way.

FROM KINGWORLDNEWS.COM
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/3_Rick_Santelli_files/Rick%20Santelli%207:3:2010.mp3


---
Along with much the same argument and some cool data tables to back them up is Baseball Crank. I posted the entry in it's entirety because it is so good and so important to understand. You can either read it all here or on his site, but read it and understand it you should. If I violated any fair use provisions I am quite certain that being an attorney Mr. Crank will let me know. Happy reading and understanding.


from the blog Baseball Crank

POLITICS: Deficits Are A Symptom. The Problem Is Spending.
JULY 15, 2010

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2010/07/politics_defici_2.php

The Obama Administration has been in something of a quandary lately as to whether to primarily emphasize its plans to spend more taxpayer money as "stimulus" or to paint itself as fighting against deficits. The former has the advantage of looking like the White House is doing - or trying against GOP opposition to do - something about the economy and its still-listless rates of growth and job recovery; the latter has the advantage of allaying voter fears that the Democrats have been doing too much and digging us into a fiscal hole, as well as offering at least the possibility of bipartisanship or faux bipartisanship that helps (whether Republicans accept or reject Obama's offers) blur the lines between the parties on deficits and spending. Remember that the one thing Obama has sought from Day One of his stimulus strategy, and has largely failed at, is to avoid presenting a clear contrast between the two parties on spending and the size of government, that being an argument he cannot win.

With a deficit commission working on proposals that will be delivered after the fall election, some liberal pundits/activists like Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress are trying to keep both options open by arguing that conservatives are somehow hypocritical for complaining about massive deficits under Obama and the Democratic Congress while promoting tax cuts to help with the lack of economic growth. But read their work and notice, as with Obama, what's missing: they talk only about deficits, not about spending - you will search Klein's column in vain for any indication that anyone should care how obese government gets, as long as it's feasting on current tax revenues instead of on deficit financing. And naturally, when and if Obama tries to do something about the deficit, he too will view it mainly as a revenue problem, not a problem with spending and the size of government. Indeed, history shows that even Beltway Republicans have tended to fall into the trap of assuming that the problem is mainly one of raising revenue, or at least that any deal to fix the deficit can only attract Democratic support if it includes Democrats' beloved tax hikes.

This is going about the question all wrong. Would you rather have a federal government that spends 15 cents of every dollar earned in this country, while taxing 12 and making up the difference by issuing debt - or a federal government that takes in and spends 30 cents of every dollar? I'd much prefer the former. The Democrats don't want to have that conversation at all.

Either way the spending is financed, the amount spent by government is a portion of the economy that cannot produce meaningful growth. Yes, wise government can play a role in a better growth environment, and yes, at times the government produces a little growth on its own, e.g., government scientists invent things that can help the economy grow. But by and large, a dollar invested in the public sector is a dollar that will never bear more than a dollar in fruit, and next year the government comes looking for another dollar, while a dollar left in the private sector can grow and be used later in either private or public hands. (In Biblical terms, the dollar in the public sector is like the servant who buried his master's money in the back yard) All of the growth we take for granted as producing increasing wealth over time comes from the portion of the economy that is not consumed by government. So, using our oversimplified example, which obviously excludes the state and local public sector, you have one economy in which 70 cents of every dollar goes back to the private sector to grow, and one in which 85 cents does. Which economy do you think will have more money after a couple of generations of this? Even at a paltry private-sector growth rate of 2% per year, the first economy has produced $1.59 at the end of three years for every dollar, and the second has produced $2.27. As I said, this is a vast oversimplification, but there's simply no way for the first economy to grow faster unless you believe - contrary to the most fundamental tenets of economics and history - that the public sector can produce economic growth at a rate comparable to the private sector.


Moreover, within reason, running a modest deficit can make sense, for reasons somewhat analogous to why a corporation issues bonds as well as stock to raise capital, or why even well-off families (especially under the present tax code) may take out a mortgage: sometimes, debt is cost-effective. As long as it is a safe bet to repay its debts, the US federal government can borrow funds more cheaply than any other entity on earth, and while debt requires us to pay interest, which means mandated spending, if the money not taxed is growing in the private sector at a faster rate than the interest rate paid by the government, then deficit spending makes sense for the same reason why you might buy stocks instead of paying down your mortgage - the rate of return is better. Also, the federal government should never run a surplus, since if the government is collecting, say, 20% in taxes and spending 18%, it's the 20% figure that represents the bite taken out of the private sector. So, the target for revenue should always aim for a little below spending.

But the fact that deficits can make economic sense under the right conditions does not mean that all deficits do - the bigger the debt, the more interest is paid on it (thus, more spending), and the higher rates must be paid (because too-large debt makes bond markets worry about credit risk); and the higher proportion of government spending that's financed by deficits, the worse are your odds that the money left in private hands will grow faster than the interest rate. At some point, deficit financing becomes a very bad bet. And of course, there are situations where the government may need to run a surplus if it needs to use the difference to pay down enough debt to get back to its usual position of running a manageable deficit, a strategy used in the past after the federal government took on excessive debts in a short stretch to fight wars.

So, why are conservatives up in arms now over deficits? Two reasons. One - which the Democrats seem determined to ignore - is that public concern about deficits is often linked to concern about spending and the size of government. Huge deficits can be a major symptom of overspending. But they're the symptom, not the disease. I have a chart below the fold showing federal revenue, spending, deficits, debt and interest as a percentage of GDP, as well as deficits and interest as a percentage of spending (the Def% and Int % columns) and partisan control of the White House, House and Senate from 1947 through 2011.

Until the 2006 elections, we hadn't been over spending 21% of GDP since the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, and hadn't been over spending 23.5% of GDP in the postwar period. But the first year of the new Democratic Congress took us to 20.7%, then 24.7%, with spending projected to crack 25% for 2010 and 2011 for the first time, as the deficit - never above 6% before, below 4% since 1993 and often below 2% during the era of GOP control of Congress - soars to 9.9% in 2009 and projected 10.6% in 2010. This is simply more spending than the economy can bear, and the deficit is a symptom of that problem.

And two, we're in a situation now where the proportion of deficit spending is itself out of hand. Check the Def% column in the chart - in fiscal years 2009 and (projected) 2010, we're paying for over 40% of government spending by issuing debt, while it had topped out at 18.1% during the years the GOP controlled Congress and 25.5% as the postwar high. It's not at all unreasonable to be unconcerned when you're borrowing 10% or 15% of your budget - when you're borrowing 40%, you're living beyond your means. And anybody who thinks you can fix that by collecting a quarter of GDP in federal taxes is insane.

Spending has to come down. That's the only way to fix the deficit problem and the growth problem.

Here's the chart:

Yr Rev Spend Defc Def% Debt Int Int% WH H S
1947 16.5 14.8 1.7 11.49 110.3 1.8 12.16 D D D
1948 16.2 11.6 4.6 39.66 98.4 1.7 14.66 D R R
1949 14.5 14.3 0.2 1.40 93.2 1.7 11.89 D R R
1950 14.4 15.6 -1.1 -7.05 94.1 1.8 11.54 D D D
1951 16.1 14.2 1.9 13.38 79.6 1.5 10.56 D D D
1952 19 19.4 -0.4 -2.06 74.3 1.3 6.70 D D D
1953 18.7 20.4 -1.7 -8.33 71.3 1.4 6.86 D D D
1954 18.5 18.8 -0.3 -1.60 71.8 1.3 6.91 R R R
1955 16.6 17.3 -0.8 -4.62 69.5 1.2 6.94 R R R
1956 17.5 16.5 0.9 5.45 63.8 1.2 7.27 R D D
1957 17.8 17 0.8 4.71 60.5 1.2 7.06 R D D
1958 17.3 17.9 -0.6 -3.35 60.7 1.2 6.70 R D D
1959 16.1 18.7 -2.6 -13.90 58.5 1.2 6.42 R D D
1960 17.9 17.8 0.1 0.56 56.1 1.3 7.30 R D D
1961 17.8 18.4 -0.6 -3.26 55.1 1.3 7.07 R D D
1962 17.6 18.8 -1.3 -6.91 53.4 1.2 6.38 D D D
1963 17.8 18.6 -0.8 -4.30 51.8 1.3 6.99 D D D
1964 17.6 18.5 -0.9 -4.86 49.4 1.3 7.03 D D D
1965 17 17.2 -0.2 -1.16 46.9 1.3 7.56 D D D
1966 17.4 17.9 -0.5 -2.79 43.6 1.2 6.70 D D D
1967 18.3 19.4 -1.1 -5.67 41.9 1.3 6.70 D D D
1968 17.7 20.6 -2.9 -14.08 42.5 1.3 6.31 D D D
1969 19.7 19.4 0.3 1.55 38.6 1.3 6.70 D D D
1970 19 19.3 -0.3 -1.55 37.6 1.4 7.25 R D D
1971 17.3 19.5 -2.1 -10.77 37.8 1.4 7.18 R D D
1972 17.6 19.6 -2 -10.20 37 1.3 6.63 R D D
1973 17.7 18.8 -1.1 -5.85 35.7 1.3 6.91 R D D
1974 18.3 18.7 -0.4 -2.14 33.6 1.5 8.02 R D D
1975 17.9 21.3 -3.4 -15.96 34.7 1.5 7.04 R D D
1976 17.2 21.4 -4.2 -19.63 36.2 1.5 7.01 R D D
TQ76 17.8 21 -3.2 -15.24 35.2 1.5 7.14 R D D
1977 18 20.7 -2.7 -13.04 35.8 1.5 7.25 R D D
1978 18 20.7 -2.7 -13.04 35 1.6 7.73 D D D
1979 18.5 20.2 -1.6 -7.92 33.2 1.7 8.42 D D D
1980 19 21.7 -2.7 -12.44 33.3 1.9 8.76 D D D
1981 19.6 22.2 -2.6 -11.71 32.6 2.3 10.36 D D D
1982 19.1 23.1 -4 -17.32 35.2 2.6 11.26 R D R
1983 17.5 23.5 -6 -25.53 39.9 2.6 11.06 R D R
1984 17.4 22.2 -4.8 -21.62 40.7 2.9 13.06 R D R
1985 17.7 22.9 -5.1 -22.27 43.9 3.1 13.54 R D R
1986 17.4 22.4 -5 -22.32 48.1 3.1 13.84 R D R
1987 18.4 21.6 -3.2 -14.81 50.5 3 13.89 R D R
1988 18.2 21.3 -3.1 -14.55 51.9 3 14.08 R D D
1989 18.4 21.2 -2.8 -13.21 53.1 3.1 14.62 R D D
1990 18 21.8 -3.9 -17.89 55.9 3.2 14.68 R D D
1991 17.8 22.3 -4.5 -20.18 60.6 3.3 14.80 R D D
1992 17.5 22.1 -4.7 -21.27 64.1 3.2 14.48 R D D
1993 17.6 21.4 -3.9 -18.22 66.2 3 14.02 R D D
1994 18.1 21 -2.9 -13.81 66.7 2.9 13.81 D D D
1995 18.5 20.7 -2.2 -10.63 67.2 3.2 15.46 D D D
1996 18.9 20.3 -1.4 -6.90 67.3 3.1 15.27 D R R
1997 19.3 19.6 -0.3 -1.53 65.6 3 15.31 D R R
1998 20 19.2 0.8 4.17 63.5 2.8 14.58 D R R
1999 20 18.7 1.4 7.49 61.4 2.5 13.37 D R R
2000 20.9 18.4 2.4 13.04 58 2.3 12.50 D R R
2001 19.8 18.5 1.3 7.03 57.4 2 10.81 D R R
2002 17.9 19.4 -1.5 -7.73 59.7 1.6 8.25 R R D
2003 16.5 20 -3.5 -17.50 62.5 1.4 7.00 R R D
2004 16.4 19.9 -3.6 -18.09 64 1.4 7.04 R R R
2005 17.6 20.2 -2.6 -12.87 64.6 1.5 7.43 R R R
2006 18.5 20.4 -1.9 -9.31 64.9 1.7 8.33 R R R
2007 18.8 20 -1.2 -6.00 65.5 1.7 8.50 R R R
2008 17.5 20.7 -3.2 -15.46 69.2 1.8 8.70 R D D
2009 14.8 24.7 -9.9 -40.08 83.4 1.3 5.26 R D D
2010* 14.8 25.4 -10.6 -41.73 94.3 1.3 5.12 D D D
2011* 16.8 25.1 -8.3 -33.07 99 1.6 6.37 D D D

Sources here, here and here, from the master budget-history site which has now been moved to the White House website. House/Senate historical partisan breakdowns here and here, including this note on fiscal years:

The Federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on the subsequent September 30. It is designated by the year in which it ends; for example, fiscal year 2007 began on October 1, 2006, and ended on September 30, 2007. Prior to fiscal year 1977 the Federal fiscal years began on July 1 and ended on June 30. In calendar year 1976 the July-September period was a separate accounting period (known as the transition quarter or TQ) to bridge the period required to shift to the new fiscal year.

As with the prior iteration of this chart, I use 1947 as a starting point, as it's the first year after full demobilization from World War II; the war budgets were colossal - in Fiscal Year 1943, the deficit was over 30% of GDP. And before the New Deal, federal spending was generally less than 10% of GDP. The OMB site has projections beyond 2011, but since we don't even have a 2011 budget yet, much less the Congress that will vote on the 2012 budget, the projections further out than that are useless even if you assume that the federal budget forecasters have perfect clairvoyance about the state of the economy two or more years out (hint: I don't).

HANDICAPPING THE PRESIDENTIAL HORSE RACE

After watching a couple of the debates of both parties and getting to know some of the candidates and their positions and personalities a little better, it's time to take stock and weigh in on the candidates:

Fundamentally, I would prefer to see a candidate not associated with Washington running for both parties. First, these guys are not part of the Beltway mind-set and they are generally closer to and more in tune with the problems of the little guy and the small businessman. Washington is the domain of the big guys, a governor of Arkansas or Massachusetts should have more respect for the rights and responsibilities of the states.

Overall, the Democrats seem like a bunch of folks running for student council President, rather than President of the US. The Republicans seem like a group intent on tearing each other down instead of offering a glimpse into why they are the better candidate and it should only get worse now that all the candidates are engaged and campaigning full throttle. Nice of Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani to join the fray in earnest. How can they honestly lead the nation after symbolically writing off a couple of states as unimportant is beyond me, but they must know better than me how to run a national campaign.

DEMOCRATS:

Barack Obama - The Bill Bradley endorsement helps quite a bit in my mind and I would seriously consider voting for him, especially if the Republicans go in the self-destructive direction they seem to want to go. His biggest weakness was exposed when he tried to puff up his accomplishment in the Senate regarding stiff arming Washington lobbyists. Charlie Gibson CORRECTLY pointed out that in reality nothing has changed. Lobbyists can no longer buy a sit-down meal, but could certainly continue to put on a whale of a cocktail party (as long as the recipient was standing up, it's back up the fund raising truck). Still, I would rather see an Obama presidency then a Clinton redux. I think that given the historical ramifications and the institutional shake-ups that would resonate from an Obama presidency, we would experience some long-overdue, fundamental changes that would be healthy for the country.

Hillary Clinton - Her arrogance and hubris sure did turn to tears quickly. Good for her. The baggage of being Mrs. Clinton is just so much more of a minus than a plus. Too much of a socialist for me, much more so than her husband. Sorry, ladies. Hell would have to freeze over first.

John Edwards - I just see a liberal, Democratic version of the Michael J. Fox character. Nice try.


REPUBLICANS:

Ron Paul - Fundamentally, I agree with most of his libertarian positions. But, if I were Guiliani and he went off on one of his 9/11-foreign policy rants, I would probably punch him right in the face. Not literally of course, but I sure as heck would want to. Go home Ron, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

Rudy Guiliani - Nice of you to join the fray. Talk about more than where you were and what you were doing on 9/11, we know about that, it's probably the main reason you're still here. Don't worry, the other candidates will bring up your NYC record. You remember, how you pretty much trampled civil liberties to get the admirable results you got fighting crime and quality of life issues in NY. Once you win a state or two, the media will turn on you as well. I think the Constitution and the assault on civil liberties have taken a beating under the current administration, I fear a successful Guiliani candidacy would be more than they could bear.

John McCain - just seems like another one-trick pony so far. OK we get it, you were for the surge when it was a gleam in the Bush Administration's eye. What else have you been doing? Campaign Reform? Weren't you once a champion of that cause. Yep, I see the results. See my note about Obmama above, it's more of a joke now than it has ever been. Nice work. Immigration Reform? Your state is on the front line, so you would think you could have brought forth some results in this area. Guess not. Reminds me too much of Bob Dole. Unelectable and will set the Republican Party back a decade or more as a force on the national scene.

Fred Thompson - Nice of you to join the fray as well. Finally opened up in the SC debate. Philosophically and politically, I like Fred. it would be nice if he had put forth some more effort early on. He's the candidate I would vote most likely to have been dragged into the race kicking and screaming and it's hard to build enthusiasm among undecided voters if you yourself seem undecided about running. Thanks for the effort.

Mike Huckabee - A DIRC (Democrat in Republican clothing) or RINO (Republican in Name Only) whichever you prefer. I did love the way he set the questioner straight on the religious question in the SC debate regarding a wife's role and duties within a marriage. Like Romney, I think he is splattered unfairly for his religious zeal when in both cases, I see it as a strength. Still, I have bad flashbacks about Governors from Arkansas. What is it about that state lately? Must be something in the water.

Mitt Romney - I like his background and credentials. I don't hold his religion against him at all, but I think he is going to get hurt by it. That's too bad, I thought we've progressed a bit further a nation, but maybe not. Still it's the wrong reason to exclude the man. If he was not a Morman, if he was a member of one of the more mainstream religions, is there any doubt that he would be fairing better? Don't give me the flip-flop garbage, Clinton flip-flopped all the way from Arkansas to Washington. Most people can't site more than one example of an issue Romney flip-flopped on, so how important can it be. They do know he's a Morman though. An unfortunate victim of religious bigotry. Shameful.

Anyway, if the Republicans nominate McCain or Guiliani or Huckabee especially, I would have to seriously consider going against a promise I made to myself years ago about voting for a Democrat again. Romney or Thompson would be OK, Paul is simply unelectable. On the Dems side, Obama is becoming an intriguing candidate. His choice of VP down the road would be critical. If he picks Bradley, I'm on board.

Speaking of Bradley, I read this interesting story at the blog site "Baseball Crank" from the 2000 election, that "allegedly" was stolen from AlGore by George Bush. In hindsight, isn't that giving GW credit for more intelligence than he has displayed?

Anyway, based on this story, apparently it takes one to know one. If true, file this story under poetic justice. Or karma. Or whatever.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.baseballcrank.com/

I could swear I posted this years ago, but it came to mind on the morning after a crafty veteran pol defeated a people-powered insurgent in NH in the face of polls showing the contrary . . . Let's just say it's a reminder that in Democratic primaries, not all is necessarily as it seems on the surface.

Vice-President Al Gore may have won the 2000 New Hampshire primary - and subsequent primaries, which fed on the New Hampshire–generated momentum - thanks to a traffic jam. At least that's what many Democratic operatives with experience in New Hampshire seem to think. Today, when people look back at the 2000 Democratic-primary season, the prevailing memory is of Gore trouncing former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley. But he beat Bradley in New Hampshire by just four points, a relatively narrow margin of 6395 votes. The bulk of these votes - more than 3000 - came from Hillsborough County, home to Nashua and Manchester, as well as abutting suburbs like Bedford, Goffstown, and Merrimack. This is a small, relatively compact area where political foot soldiers can provide the margin of victory. And, many believe, during the last New Hampshire primary, they did.

As late as 3 p.m. that day, Gore operatives had access to exit polls showing the vice-president being defeated by Bradley. They also learned that while Democratic voters were voting in large numbers for Gore, independents, many of them upscale suburban voters, were voting for Bradley's sophisticated brand of liberalism. Knowing that Bradley's strength came from tony tech havens such as Bedford, the Gore team organized a caravan to clog highway I-93 with traffic so as to discourage potential Bradley voters from getting to the polls. (Michael Whouley, a chief Gore strategist, recounted the Gore team's Election Day field efforts at a Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics symposium, and his comments are included in a book compiled by the Institute titled Campaign for President: The Managers Look at 2000. He knocked down the rumor that they considered overturning an 18-wheeler to clog up traffic.) The caravan - spoken of with awe by operatives who worked on the campaign - had the desired effect. It was harder for Bradley voters to get the polls.

------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. - A great example of how polling numbers and results can be skewed depending on the methodology used or the way a question is asked was on display for all to see after the FoxNews Republican Debate in South Carolina.

After the debate, viewers were urged to vote on "which candidate won the debate". Viewers had to text message a certain number to vote for their candidate of choice. This skewed the results towards the candidate whose supporters are a) cell phone users and b) avid text messagers. I would assume most Republicans are cell-phone owners but my guess would be that the candidate whose base text messages the most would be, the eventual winner, Ron Paul. I wouldn't send a text message to the fire department if my butt was on fire.

The pundits were all over themselves after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire when we saw some rather violent shifts between the poll numbers vs. actual results. I think people are starting to mess with the pollsters a little as well. I mean if could just once walk from one end of the mall to the other without one of them getting in your face it would be all right, but I guess they have a job to do too.