| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Boy, if the best that Dana Milbank can come up with to illustrate the benefits of Big Government is NOAA correctly predicting the path of Hurricane Irene and FEMA pre-positioning hurricane relief supplies, then that isn't really a defense of Big Government, is it?
Together, as best as I can figure (here and here, FEMA and NOAA spend around $10 billion a year.... a tiny portion of the more than $3.8 TRILLION in overall government spending. So even if we were to applaud NOAA figuring out where the hurricane would and would not hit land and FEMA for having the foresight to have moved some number of trailers into the area (which, to me, is a pretty basic thing to do, and isn't something worthy of a whole lot of applause), there is no basis for extrapolating their work to the work of the government as a whole. No self-respecting statisticiana would do so, the sample size is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. And the biggest argument for not taking Milbank's position? His refusal to ever concede that any of government's myriad failures should be taken as evidence that government as a whole doesn't work. If he wants to argue that these failures are emblematic of government as a whole, then he can't use a couple of (mediocre) successes to argue that big government works. Monday, August 29, 2011
And they (California) wonder why we laugh at them...
With all of their problems, one of the nuts (specifically, Alan Lowenthal, a Democratic state senator) wants to make it even more expensive for California based businesses to conduct business by banning their use of foam containers. Lowenthal might be right that they're ugly and last for thousands of years. But when California is one of the worst places to conduct business and when the state unemployment is above the already too-high national average, and when what California needs a whole lot of are taxes derived from business profits, why would anyone want to do anything right now that makes it even harder and more expensive for local businesses to make a profit? I'm all for idealistic legislators... but I want mine to be grounded in reality. I want them to understand the economic consequences of what they do. This guy doesn't. And California will continue to suffer... and be laughed at. Monday, August 15, 2011
Politico thinks Obama has a 'vision' problem...
I, on the other hand, think he's perfectly clear on what he wants to do. His problem is that the path he is on won't get him where he wants to go... and he is too blinded to realize that this is the case. Someone (I don't remember who) once wrote something to the effect that 'Democrats love to demonize businesses... failing to realize that businesses who are demonized are unlikely to increase hiring'. A twist on that adage is that when you ridicule and scare conservatives, those conservatives aren't going to respond by increasing or even maintaining their current level of consumer spending and business hiring. And this is especially a problem when conservatives make up a good chunk of the people who have money to spend and invest. Obama (as with pretty much every liberal Democrat) grew up thinking that successful people only got to where they are because they screwed the little guy. And as such, government needed not only needed to protect the little guy by putting all sorts of restrictions on business but also to punish greedy businesses and high income people with high tax rates on the income they obviously didn't deserve to keep. If you look at what Obama has done since he took office, pretty much everything has been in line with this thinking. He's signed laws that restrict businesses, laws that force them to spend more on their employees, laws that made it easier for employees to sue their employers. From Day One, he's threatened to raise taxes on anyone who makes a smidgen more than an average living. His stimulus put hundreds of billions of dollars in the hands of (trustworthy) government workers instead of the (evil, corrupt and greedy) private sector. He's added tens of thousands of government workers and tasked them with regulating the private sector even more strongly. And to his surprise (but not mine), the economy (i.e., those with money and ideas) aren't putting their heads and money to work growing the economy. Now, if Obama wasn't such an ideologue, he'd co-opt some GOP policy positions. He'd make a nice speech about how the lousy economy persuaded him that he needed to include some ideas from the other side. He'd call a truce on trying to portray businesses and successful people as somehow unworthy of keeping the fruit of their success. In other words, he'd be nice to the people who he needs. But he is an ideologue... so he won't. And as long as he won't, it would be foolish to think that conservatives are going to do anything to help him out.
After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives and limbs, it is nice to see how these days Iraq is a place where one can walk the street without fear of a car bomb blowing them to bits.
What, that isn't the case, people are still getting killed, and by the dozens at a time? So what exactly did America get for our money.... and our lives? Oh, that's right, Obama. Had it not been for Bush's not-so-excellent adventure in Iraq, Obama never would have been elected. Huh? Yes. Had Bush not screwed things up so bad in Iraq, the GOP never would have nominated the likes of McCain, who got the nomination by virtue of his claiming to be the most un-Bush of the group. And had McCain not gotten the nomination, the GOP would have nominated someone who would have trounced the heck out of Obama. Thanks, Bush. And thanks to the thousands of conservatives who thought it was more important to back Bush than to object to his ridiculous - and utterly unattainable - goal of turning Iraq into a peaceful place that would inspire peace and understanding around the world and an end to all that ails us. It's almost like a bad t-shirt: 'My country spent a fortune on Iraq.... and all we got was Obama'. Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Here's why the Obama stimulus didn't work...
We need to first understand what a recession is and why it happens. A recession is simply a cutback in spending and production and usually takes place because of some event that leads to consumers and businesses holding on to the cash they have and to businesses cutting production in anticipation of a drop in demand for their products. Events can lead to recession can be wars and terrorist attacks, diseases, a drying up of credit or anything else that causes people to think that maybe things aren't going to be as nice in the future. Left unchecked, it is possible that this initial round of cutbacks will result in even more fear, leading to businesses and consumers cutting even further their production and spending, the end result being a deeper and more severe recession. However, if the fear can be checked, then we'll gather ourselves, pick ourselves back up, relax and start to spend and invest again. That is where government traditionally has come in. In 'normal' recessions, governments have stepped up with spending and tax cuts that is supposed to 'stimulate' the economy. In reality, the stimulus does no such thing. What it does do is provide some amount of artificial and temporary spending and influx of cash that offsets to some degree the drop in private sector spending and investment, thus lessening the extent of the recession. It isn't so much that the 'stimulus' stimulates the economy as it lessens the drop. Sales and consumer income don't fall as much as they would without the stimulus. And once people see that the world isn't going to end, we get back to doing what we like doing... spending and investing and trying to improve our lives. And once we do that, the private sector picks up, lessening the need for any further government spending. That is the way it is supposed to work. But it only works if people think the stimulus is going to help (yes, it is a self-fulfilling condition). If, on the other hand, people were afraid that the stimulus would make things worse, then the stimulus, instead of causing people to keep spending, causes people to cut even further back on their spending... leading to the very problems that the stimulus was supposed to have prevented. And that is what happened with Obama's stimulus. It was so massive (not just the amount of the 'official' stimulus, but the hundreds of billions that went into the financial sector bailout and into the car companies and so on) that it made people even more afraid of the future. We weren't talking billions of dollars, we were all of a sudden talking about trillions of dollars of spending... and we were no longer talking about a hundred billion dollar deficit, we were looking at a trillion dollar deficit... for as far as one could see. This freaked people out. And when people get more afraid, they cut back their spending and investment even further. At best, they don't increase their spending and investment as much as they would if they weren't so scared. Combine that with a (justified) fear that Obama and the Democrats were taking advantage of the crisis to push their agenda and to funnel money not to programs which would help the country as a whole but rather to their pet programs and supporters and it was no surprise that the huge stimulus failed to do what its authors claimed it would do. That is why the Obama stimulus failed. And as Obama fails to recognize where he went wrong, any follow up stimulus of his would be salt in the wound of our confidence. It isn't that a stimulus per se is doomed to fail. Done right they can (still) work. But this particular stimulus - because of its size and what it did - failed and big time.
BENEFITS, BENEFITS, BENEFITS...
Everybody in marketing knows you can't count on your audience to figure out for themselves the supposed benefits of their buying your product or service. You have to make darn sure you spell out for your prospects just how they're going to benefit from buying your product. You can't count on them to figure things out for themselves, to connect the dots to envision how their live will be better if only they were to buy your product. Yes, there are some who instinctively 'get it', but there usually aren't enough of them to amount to more than a hill of beans. You also have to make darn sure the benefit you tout is the benefit your prospect wants. If the prospect wants reliability, sell reliability. If they want safety, push safety. And if your prospects aren't looking for a safe car, but are instead looking for a car that goes really fast, you're wasting your time and money plugging the safety features of your car. The same lessons apply in politics and policy. The only sure way a political party can reach a critical mass of support is by convincing the public that voting for them will get the public what they want. A mistake most politicians make is confusing process with end result (benefit). Balancing the budget is a process. Reducing federal debt is a process. Keeping taxes low is a process. While each of these may produce benefits, none are benefits in and of themselves, they're merely a means to achieving sought-after benefits. By themselves, they mean little to most people. And one thing most marketers have learned is that you can't count on people to devote the time to figure out how they can potentially benefit from doing something. The attention span of most people is pretty short... and especially so when dealing with something like 'economics' or 'tax policy'. Thus, the political marketer needs to connect the dots for voters, to make it very clear to the people how they will benefit from backing a particular candidate. The benefits people want are more job security... a house that rises in value... more money in their pockets... safe streets... an educational system that teaches their kids what the parent wants the kids to know... and so on. So the GOP needs to tell voters how they can get what they want by supporting GOP candidates. In each and every speech they make, in each and every appearance they make before a camera, they need to tell the voters that voting for GOP candidates is the only way that they'll get what they're looking for. GOP candidates should never talk about the budget without making it clear that high levels of government spending is the biggest reason people can't get a job. They should never talk about taxes without driving home the point that raising taxes - even on the supposed rich - is a guaranteed way of lowering the value of their own 401k plan. They should never talk about the overreach of government without stressing that Obamacare is guaranteed to result in their paying higher prices for health care. The GOP can't (but they will) talk about reducing government spending in a vacuum, they need to connect the dots between reducing government spending and reducing unemployment. They need to connect the dots between reducing government regulations with improving employment. They need to blast that raising taxes - even on the supposed rich - drives down employment, house prices and the value of everybody's 401k and IRA. Without making reference to the benefits of doing X or Y, the public just doesn't get it. And if the public doesn't get it, then they are susceptible to liberal attacks on GOP proposals. The GOP inability (or is it unwillingness?) to connect the dots is why the public doesn't prefer the GOP by a larger margin over the Democrats. It is why the public doesn't support the specific programs the GOP is trying to enact. Spell out the benefits of backing the GOP... in terms of the benefits the public wants... and the public will support the GOP. Spell out the negative consequences of backing the Democrats... and the public will support the GOP. It really is that simple. Tis a shame the GOP doesn't get it. Tuesday, August 09, 2011
I realize bloggers are under tremendous pressure to come up with something witty that stands out from all the dreck that is being written... and sometimes that pressure leads to writing something dumb.
Today's example is this writer, trying to analogize Maureen Dowd's dissatisfaction with Obama to Walter Cronkite's souring on Lyndon Johnson's management of the Vietnam War. Johnson's remark "If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America" was important because Johnson knew that a good part of the country took their cues from Cronkite... and Johnson knew he couldn't win re-election if 'Middle America' voted for his opponent. On the other hand, no matter how unhappy Dowd is with Obama, she's still going to vote for him next year. She is liberal and she's unhappy that Obama hasn't done more things that liberals like, but in the end, she knows that Obama will give her more of what she likes than any Republican ever could. And unlike Cronkite, Dowd has no pull with the mushy middle whose votes are critical. They don't read her, they're not influenced by anything she says. While it's fun to watch liberals turn on one another, that all it is, entertainment. It doesn't have any bigger meaning. Monday, August 08, 2011
Much has been made lately about how liberals don't really think that highly of their fellow Americans.
But it isn't as if we (royal 'we') haven't given them ammunition to think so little of us... I cite as Exhibit 1 the more than 50% of voters in 2008 who voted for Obama. And the 60% of the public who gave Obama high approval ratings earlier in his Presidency. And the more than 50% in several key states who still approve of the job he's doing as President. If all this isn't evidence of some serious lack of candlepower, what is? But, while that may be the case, it is nonetheless rather inconsistent of the liberals. They were okay with a stupid populace when the public voted for Obama and for the Democrats to take control of Congress... but not okay with the same stupid public when we decided we no longer liked the path Obama was leading us down.
Michael Moore is calling for Obama to arrest the CEO of S&P; (presumably, for having issued the downgrade)...
Moore doesn't specify the crime the CEO is supposed to have broken. At its heart, the downgrade is an opinion of S&P; that the United States doesn't have its act together. Right or wrong, it is an opinion, and opinions are supposed to be protected speech. Aren't they? It would seem that having a different opinion than Moore is sufficient grounds for arrest. I wonder if I am also subject to arrest given that I not only agree with S&P;, but my opinion that Michael Moore is a complete clown has got to be a bit different of what Michael Moore thinks of Michael Moore. Nice to see liberals standing up for our right to say what's on our mind. That's right, they do.... but only when it agrees with what they're thinking. And by the way, did anyone else hear (liberal) Cokie Roberts refer to the United States Constitution as being 'the problem'? Wow. And to further illustrate his stupidity, Michael Moore thinks Matt Damon would be a 'viable' candidate for President. Then again, who would have figured that someone with as weak a resume as Obama would have been elected President? Saturday, August 06, 2011
If the best thing Joe Nocera, a fan of the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, can say is that it "might have prevented millions of Americans... from being gouged by mortgage companies" (italics mine), then I'd argue that's not much of a justification for the hundreds of millions of dollars in direct costs and the hundreds of billions of dollars in indirect costs that this agency is going to cost American consumers and businesses.
He doesn't say the agency 'would have' prevented the problem, all he can come up with is the much more lukewarm 'might have'. When the best a self-described liberal can offer up is a wimpy 'might', then that is pretty strong evidence that the reality is that the agency would have done no such thing. Why? Because there isn't anything to suggest that the vast majority of the 'millions' of people taking out mortgage loans were anything but willing participants, who could and should have known better but chose to not be more careful. Nor is there anything to suggest that, to the extent they existed, unscrupulous lenders would have been discouraged from doing what they were doing because of this new agency. This agency, like pretty much everything taken as fact by liberals, represents the triumph of idealism over reality. This agency is and will be unable to prevent dumb people from doing dumb things and it won't be able to prevent unscrupulous people from doing unscrupulous things. All it will do is chew up millions upon millions of dollars of our taxes and add billions upon billions of dollars of red tape and costs on consumers and businesses. And all that for a underwhelming 'might'. Friday, August 05, 2011
It is always nice when someone on the other side says something that makes your point as good or even better than you could do yourself... and it's even nicer when it is someone who is supposed to be one of the best and the brightest the other side has to offer.
Ezra Klein, writing in today's Washington Post and attempting to explain what is happening with our troubled economy, says the following: "(the market is) diving because of forces Washington can’t control, and in many cases, doesn’t understand very well". I completely agree with Klein, and for one of only a few times. The stock market, as well as the overall economy that the stock markets are but a small part of, is indeed something that is beyond any the ability of any one person or group of people to understand. And as something that people don't and can't understand, it is the textbook definition of chutzpah (or arrogance, stupidity or something else along those lines) to argue, as Klein does, that the very people who don't understand it should nonetheless be entrusted with the power to regulate and control it. Why in the world should anyone trust Congress and the President to pass laws controlling the economy when they don't understand what they're trying to control? I know I don't. Thursday, August 04, 2011
First of all, someone with the word "Producer" in their title is not someone I would look to as someone to explain the stock market to me.
Second, despite his title, 5 Reasons Investors Are Fleeing The Stock Market, there really is only one reason the market is going down... And that is because those who now own stocks have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that there are going to be buyers in the near future... and when there are no buyers, prices go down... and thus, when investors think prices are going to go down, they rush to sell... and that is exactly what is happening, investors are selling, trying to beat the rest of the selling crowd out the door. And the reason they think that there aren't going to be buyers is because there is no narrative whatsoever that would lead anybody in their right mind to think that stock prices are going to go up. The economy is in the tanks. The rest of the world is in no better shape. Our President has absolutely no clue how to create an environment that is favorable to growth. While corporate profits are somewhat up, they're not going to continue to go up absent a bump in demand. And people are holding on to what money they have, anticipating higher prices in everything from fuel to health care to food to interest rates. The only thing that doesn't make sense about the market downturn is what took it so long? It isn't as if these sour conditions weren't present a month, two months, three months ago, was it? Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Instead of complaining that liberals are calling conservatives 'terrorists', may I suggest we use that to our advantage?
While we aren't always faithful to the maxim, it is conservatives who don't like negotiating with terrorists.... while liberals have no problem giving in to the terrorists' demands. So it would seem that having the liberals think of us as terrorists can get us a good chunk of what we want to accomplish. We need to start by complaining that the liberals have screwed us, and for generations upon generations. This gets the guilt factor going, greasing the wheels for their eventual capitulation. Then we need to make them think that we are nuts, that perhaps we look to some religious book for inspiration. The nuttier we can make them think we are, the more we can get from them, they'll be too scared to deny us anything. Then we need to sacrifice a few of our own for being insufficiently devoted to the cause. And we need to do so publicly, perhaps we can select one of the dozen or so supposed conservatives running for President. By turning on our own, it makes them even more fearful of what we'll do to them if we don't get our way. Now.... having set the stage, it is time to issue our demands. We need to start with something outrageous, something completely off the charts. Not only does doing this solidify their view of us as completely off our rockers, it makes it that much easier for them to rationalize giving in to us on some of our (supposed) lesser demands. We then establish a group that will claim the mantle of 'moderate' conservatism. This group, while claiming that they're unable to control the more crazy elements of the conservative movement, will nonetheless let it be known that 'gestures' on the part of the liberals, such as doing away with calls for tax hikes, or a real cut in government spending, might go a long way in helping the so-called moderates gain more power within the movement which in turn would help keep the crazies at bay. I see this as a wonderful opportunity. The liberals aren't calling the Tea Party 'terrorists' because they like the Tea Party, they're doing so because the Tea Party scares them. And being spineless (as demonstrated time and time and time again), liberals don't stand up to and fight back against those who scare them, they surrender. It's almost as if they're French...
As Obama turns his attention back to the economy, it is important that the GOP have their act together. Granted, Obama doesn't have a lot of credibility on the 'job creation' front, but the GOP can't sit back and let Obama take the lead...
Here's what the GOP needs to do: * Undercut any public enthusiasm there might be for yet another stimulus. Not, as the GOP is likely to do, by arguing that such a stimulus would add to the deficit, but rather by pointing out how much of a failure the previous Obama stimulus was, calling into doubt Obama's ability to get anything right on the economic front... and by challenging the very concept of government having the ability to 'create' permanent and well-paying jobs. Government can create a favorable environment for entrepreneurs and businesses to hire, but no matter how many borrowed dollars it spends, it can not create real jobs. * Pursuant to the above point, have legislation prepared that will improve the environment so businesses could feel more comfortable adding employees. Raise the threshold for the number of employees that subject businesses to costly new regulations. Impose a moratorium on any new federal regulations. Lower the minimum wage. * Allow multi-nationals to bring profits back into the country without incurring additional tax provided they pay that amount out in the form of shareholder dividends and/or bonuses to existing employees (and on a permanent basis, not just one time). This would generate some additional tax revenue, in the form of taxes on the dividends and bonuses, and the bump in the amount of money in circulation ought to translate into a boost in consumer spending. * Pass legislation to increase domestic oil exploration and development. Nothing saps the economy like money for oil that flows out of the country. Granted, oil from these projects won't reach the pump for a number of years, but the fact that more oil is in the pipeline should have a deflationary effect on current gas prices. In addition, the tens of thousands of oil field workers that would be hired would take a nice dent off the unemployment rate. * Change the rules to allow banks to more easily foreclose and resell homes where the current homeowner is two years in default on their payments. Yes, most people feel sorry for the poor homeowner that will lose their home, but we don't feel so bad that we're going to let them continue to serve as a damper on economic growth. Get the people who can't (or aren't) pay out of the houses and get people who can and will pay in. These new homeowners will not only take far better care of these houses, they (as is almost always the case with new homeowners) will go out and spend money and furniture and other stuff, all of which will provide an economic boost. And the sooner the banks can clear out their supply of non-performing home loans, the sooner we can get back to building new homes. * Declare a net hiring freeze for all government departments (including the defense department). The government could only hire to replace workers who leave. This would send a strong message to the private sector that government will not continue to grow and suck up money that could be better used elsewhere. Notice there is no tax cuts (except for the repatriating of income). This is because taxes are not the reason businesses aren't hiring. They're not hiring because they think it is a lousy time to do so. You could let them keep a larger percentage of their profits and it would still be a lousy time for hiring lots of people. As I said, the GOP can't stand by and let Obama frame the debate. They need to have their own ideas on getting the economy growing again. There's little chance any of these will ever get enacted (especially with Obama in office), but it does nicely define the battle lines: Obama believes in big government, the GOP believes in not standing in the way of businesses who want to grow. That's a debate I am pretty sure we can win. UPDATE: even though she's as vapid as vapid can be, DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz stumbles on something the GOP has to worry about. She bemoans the lack of a 'jobs bill' coming out of the GOP controlled House. Repeating myself, it is critical that the GOP not cede the high ground to the Democrats... which includes denying the Democrats the opportunity to complain about what the GOP isn't doing. It isn't sufficient to point out that the Democrats didn't do much when they controlled the House, the GOP has to show it can go on the attack, offering up concrete legislation which it can argue will get the country moving forward again. And when the Democrats refuse to get on board, the GOP can hit them with that. Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Here is why Obama lost the battle over raising the debt limit (hint, it's not for the reason the talking heads are citing)...
There is NOTHING in the deal that is going to make America come out of its economic shell. Just as in the 1950s, where fear about nuclear war led Americans to stockpile canned goods, uncertainty today over the economy are resulting in American businesses and consumers stockpiling cash and not making investments in new hires, new lines of business and plant and equipment (acknowledging that there are always some whose circumstances allow them to run counter to the masses). And this deal didn't do much of anything to reassure people that economic disaster is not in the not-too-distant future. All of the bad things the doom and gloomers are warning about are still on the horizon: a government borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar it spends, a debt measured in 14 digits, huge unfunded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid liabilities, huge unfunded government pension liabilities and so on. Yes, not as bad as without the new limits, but still very, very, very bad indeed. And as the only thing that will get this economy going again is to remove the fear that is keeping people from increasing their spending and investments, the failure of the debt deal to remove that cloud pretty much means that the economy will not recover to any significant degree. And without a recovering economy, Obama's chances of a second term aren't too bright.
I don't know how anyone can proclaim the debt limit agreement as evidence of the "death of the Socialist left".
The agreement takes but a tiny bite out of government spending. It reduces by a sliver the percentage of GDP consumed by the government. And this happens only if the terms of the deal are not scuttled by future Congresses and Presidents. Given that there's no guarantee that the Socialist left will lose control of the Presidency and the half of Congress they now control, I wouldn't bet against their doing just that. In addition, the deal exposes defense spending to the risk of bearing a huge part of the cuts, and so much so that pro-defense conservatives have taken to criticize the deal for doing that. What wouldn't the Socialist left love that? Nor does the deal reduce the scope of government power. The deal dismantles not a single social program. It eliminates not a single government bureaucracy. It repeals not a single restriction on business. It doesn't reduce crony capitalism. It doesn't improve the climate for entrepreneurship and business development. And finally, the deal doesn't preclude higher tax rates and reduced or eliminated deductions and credits. As best as I can tell, not a single taxpayer (and especially not the taxpayers who create most of the job growth) will see their tax bill go down. So tell me, how is this deal so bad for the Socialist left? Only in a world where they expect to get and keep everything they want could this be construed as even a small setback. This is no death. At worst, it is but a mere flesh wound. Saturday, July 30, 2011
Rubio gives a nice speech, but although he comes close, he doesn't connect the dots between raising the debt limit, the issue that is consuming Washington, and jobs, the issue that is most important to everybody else.
The debt, and the deficit, are two of the reasons that there are no jobs. Who in their right mind would increase hiring when it looks like Washington is going off the rails? And of the people who have money to spend, who in their right mind is going to increase their spending when two of the three branches of government are controlled by people whose goal in life is to take as much money out our pockets as possible? And they're not going to start hiring and spending until this issue gets resolved... and not by adding two and a half trillion dollars of additional debt and make believe cuts in spending... but by approving as little additional debt as possible and by making serious and significant and real cuts in government spending. Only by showing the rest of the country that it has its act together can Washington signal businesses and consumers that we don't have to worry about running out of people to buy our debt... that we don't have to worry about government raising taxes... that we don't have to worry about Washington bureaucrats raising the cost of doing business to the point where we can't make a profit. I know Rubio has only been in the Senate for seven months... but that shouldn't have been long enough for him to lose sight of how the rest of America takes its cues from Washington. When we have a President who is as bad as Obama is, and we have a Congress that is largely controlled by big-spending, big-taxing liberals, then we aren't going to be particularly optimistic and enthusiastic about hiring and expanding and spending. We're going to be worried... so (as we've done) we're going to hoard our cash and wait for the whole house of cards to collapse. I have long felt that the reason the Republicans are losing the PR battle is not because the public disagrees with our principles, but rather because the GOP has been so darn awful at connecting the dots between what we want to do and how that will make things better for those who live outside the Beltway. So the next time you speak, Senator, please spell it out for people. If they want continued high unemployment and high gas and food prices and low home values, then they should back Obama, because Obama, for some inexplicable reason, wants to keep doing the kinds of things that have directly led to such misery today. But if the public wants to get things moving in a positive direction, then they can't support those who stand for business as usual, they need to back those who want to fix Washington.... not for Washington's sake, but for our sakes.
It doesn't matter how enthusiastic your marketers are, if your product s**ks and customers know your product s**ks, then it is a giant waste of effort trying to convince the people who know your product s**ks that they ought to buy it...
And that, rather than a lack of using his 'bully pulpit', as Robert Reich argues, is the reason that Obama can't get any traction for whatever it is that is his plan for raising the deficit... and why his ratings are about as bad as for any President in recent history. Some marketers do have an ability to convince some people to buy a bad product... but only if those people are unexposed to the awfulness of the product. And that is what happened in 2008, Obama (with the help of a woefully non-curious media) was able to sell a sufficient percentage of voters that he was 'what we have been waiting for', that he would make everything right here at home and in the world at large. But once the public experiences for themselves how the product doesn't live up to the hype, they slam the door to even a small possibility of their ever buying that product again... and even if the marketers try to convince them that the product has been improved upon, that the defects have been fixed. This is because it isn't that the product s**ks that bothers them the most, it is that feel used and taken advantage of by the huckster who played to their emotions in convincing them to spend their money and hopes on something that was just so god awful. And once the public feels burned, they want to have nothing to do with that product ever, ever, ever again. Even more sad than watching people with a serious case of buyer's remorse is the marketer who simply can't admit that the product he is selling isn't any good. I pity the marketers who are still trying to convince people that MySpace is better than Facebook. Likewise with the guys who are tasked with selling the American public that union built cars are as good as their non-union built competition. And the (thankfully few) people who continue to push the idea that Bush II was a great President. And.... Reich is another one, still trying to convince people that liberal economics isn't a sure fire way of bankrupting the country, of driving producers offshore or into early retirement. He remains convinced that if only these stupid and evil Republicans would get out of the way and stop obstructing the great liberals, that everything would be just hunky-dory with the economy. And it has to really eat at him that not only do the American people not agree with him, we laugh and ridicule him (as well as the others like him) who are so stuck on stupid that they can't see that the guy they worked so hard to elect just two and a half years ago is so incompetent. If they could, they'd understand that it's not the message that needs reworking, it is the product they're trying to sell.
What a surprise it was, reading that Iraq is deadlier now than it was a year ago..... NOT!
As I predicted*, a HUGE part of the reason Iraq was as quiet as it was back then was because the crazies were just waiting us out... and as soon as we left, they'd get back to killing each other, the way they've been doing for hundreds of years. And this seems to be exactly what is happening. Our presence didn't cause the crazies to love one another, it didn't result in any change in attitude. All our troops did was give the crazies a real good reason to stay quiet.... Why go out and stir up trouble if doing so would bring down the wrath of the US military? And especially when you knew - because Obama so helpfully and repeatedly told you - that we were leaving in the not too distant future? By the way, this is why I disagree* with those who say the Taliban is becoming more aggressive in light of Obama's determination to bring troops home. We are already committed to leaving, their attacks aren't accelerating their departure. If anything, Taliban attacks give ammunition to those who argue against leaving. So to all those who claim that 'we' (or 'Bush', as the case may be) won the Iraq war, I say 'pfffft'. We didn't win the war in the way you're defining winning. We may have killed a bunch of crazies. We certainly got rid of Hussein and his sadistic sons. And we did determine that Iraq does not have WMDs. All of these are good, and I wish we had simply accomplished them and left Iraq to the Iraqis to sort out. But we did not turn Iraq into some beacon of democracy and freedom and hope that would inspire the world the way Bush and his fellow delusionists argued would be the case. * as always, you can take my word for it or search my archives yourself as I am too lazy to find and post the link. Thursday, July 28, 2011
They may or may not have considered this in their thinking, but the House GOPers who oppose the Boehner plan may actually make it more likely that the eventual deal will contain fewer - and softer - cuts in spending than would be the case with the Boehner plan currently before the House.
Huh? For any number of reasons, Boehner is determined to make a deal to raise the debt ceiling (one reason is he thinks the GOP is going to get killed if they're seen as the culprits behind default). And if he can't get the votes from the GOP side, there is only one place he can turn to for votes... the more moderate Democrats in the House. Do Michelle Bachman and the others who oppose the Boehner deal think the deal he makes with the Democrats will contain even more in cuts? Or push to balance the budget even faster? Yes, guys, I too would like a whole lot more in cuts than Boehner is proposing. I'd prefer to see real cuts in spending, not merely decreases in the amount of additional spending. But by being so dogmatic, you're making it very likely that we'll end up with an even worse deal. Now you may have decided that this is okay with you and your constituents (and your campaign contributors), that you're better off with a weak deal that you voted against than a stronger deal that you voted for. If that's the case, so be it. But if I were in your district, I would look at you as having made the weak deal possible. You can kill the weak deal, just as you can kill the Boehner deal. It's up to you to decide which one you're going to kill. Tuesday, July 26, 2011
John Boehner goes on television and declares we need to 'stop spending so much money' (something along those lines).
Yet, his plan provides for increases in spending every year, both in entitlements and in discretionary spending. I am profoundly puzzled why someone on the GOP doesn't simply call for freezing spending - on everything - at current levels. One, it cuts the deficit a whole lot more and faster than any other proposal out there. Second, and no less important, it is a very easy thing to explain to the public and get buy in for. Cuts are cuts... and not merely decreases in the amount of additional spending. And even if the GOP doesn't push on this front, I think they ought to use whatever leverage they have to enshrine into legislation an end to the Washington fiction that reducing the amount of growth is a cut. We would be in far better shape today had the GOP forced this through years ago. It is far harder to justify actual increases in spending than to argue for simply 'maintaining' spending. And it is far easier to demagogue 'cuts' than 'not high enough' increases in spending. An increase takes place when you spend more this year than you did last year. And it isn't a cut unless you spend less this year than you did last year.
Reportedly, some employers are not even bothering to consider applicants who are currently unemployed.
As 'unemployed' is not a federally protected category, an employer is legally able to exclude them from the pool of potential hires (I'm not saying this is a good idea, just that they're legally able to do so). But here comes the EEOC, which is looking into whether employers have adopted this practice as a means of discriminating against blacks and older workers (who are reportedly more likely to be unemployed). If employers were doing so, it would be a big no-no. But does the thought that employers are doing so even pass the laugh test? I think not. A pool of applicants to a particular job is going to consist of people with all sorts of experience. Right off the top, an employer can eliminate anyone who doesn't have relevant experience. With all the people with experience who are looking for jobs, why even consider looking at someone who doesn't? Of the remaining pool of applicants with relevant experience, some portion will be employed, some portion unemployed. And I would figure the racial component of the former would be within a few percentages of the latter. In other words, there are going to be blacks in each group. Just as there is almost definitely going to be older folks in each group. So tell me how excluding the unemployed from consideration gets a racist employer from having to consider black applicants? Or an employer who doesn't like old people from having to consider older applicants? It doesn't.... which means it makes no sense that an employer would exclude the unemployed from consideration as a way of discriminating against blacks or older folks. As it would appear - at least to those of us who don't see illegal discrimination everywhere in life - this is simply as it appears to be... for whatever reason, some employers think that limiting their search to candidates who have managed to hold on to their jobs would produce a higher qualified applicant pool than would be the case if they let anybody apply. Monday, July 25, 2011
Here's my response to James Capretta's suggestions on what the GOP should do next...
Dear James: No offense, but this is too much of an inside-Washington perspective... too much focus on the details of a deal, an acceptance of conditions as they exist and failing to rally the public behind what we're trying to do so that we can get what we want and not have to settle for what we might be able to get. The GOP needs to stop talking about this in the abstract. The public doesn't care about abstracts, they view the world through the prism of 'how does this affect me'... Thus, the GOP needs to be doing a better job communicating to the general public (which isn't the hard core who read NR) that Obama's spending and anti-business agenda is killing the economy... and as bad as the economy is right now, it will be even worse if the debt limit is raised without significant and measurable cuts in real spending. They have to make the public fear an increase in the debt limit more than they fear the upheaval if the debt limit isn't raised by August 2nd. And they have to sell the public on the idea that if we made big cuts in spending (and reined in Obama in other ways as well) that the economy would immediately start to improve... gas prices would start to come down, housing prices would start back up, employment would improve and so on. And if Obama gets his way? Unemployment over 10%... housing prices start downward again... health insurance prices will go up further than in the past... and so on (all reasonable predictions). Were the GOP to be doing this, they could pretty much write the package they want. Keep in mind this worked - in reverse - for Obama with his stimulus, he convinced the public that the world would end without a trillion dollar package... and the public didn't rise up in protest. It's time for the GOP to not let a good crisis go to waste. Oh, what am I thinking? The GOP has historically been rather inept from a PR perspective (too many Washington insiders in charge of policy and positioning). Oh well. Sunday, July 24, 2011
What is it about Michael Kinsley that leads him to so totally misunderstand and/or misrepresent the topic(s) on which he writes?
Today's example is his column in which he claims that refusing to raise the debt limit involves not honoring our obligation to pay the debt the country has run up. Kinsley claims that not raising the debt limit is akin to telling your bank that you're not going to pay your mortgage. But... it isn't and it doesn't. Refusing to raise the debt limit means not agreeing to take on any more debt, it doesn't mean that the country won't honor the debt that has already been incurred. Not a single opponent of raising the debt limit is in favor of not paying the debt that has been borrowed. To use Kinsley's analogy - but correctly - they're willing to pay off the mortgage, what they don't want to do is run up more charges on yet another credit card and fall even further into debt (could Kinsley really be arguing that people who are seriously in debt and whose incomes don't cover their living expenses ought to go out and get another credit card?) Kinsley also plays games by claiming that the country has "fallen into the classic debtor’s trap of borrowing to pay the interest on previous borrowings". But that's not totally true either. One could just as easily (and also misleadingly) claim that tax receipts are sufficient to cover debt service, that we're borrowing to finance current period spending. The fact is that the federal government brings in lots and lots of money every month... obviously not enough to pay for everything but sufficient to pay for any single category of spending, whether it be interest payments, national defense, social security and medicare, or whatever. But depicting federal finances and spending in this way doesn't help Kinsley in trying to portray as childish and irresponsible those who are opposed to raising the debt ceiling. So what is it with Kinsley? Is he really clueless? Or just a liberal partisan distorting the facts in order to make his argument seem more responsible? Thursday, July 21, 2011
|