OUTSOURCING

Is outsourcing of American jobs overseas inevitable?  The Obama-Romney campaign has brought to the fore once again the question of outsourcing.  Obama and his people believe they can use the issue as a club to beat Mitt Romney over the head.  There is always a segment of the population that can be riled up by the vision of selfish, greedy plutocratic businessmen putting their profits ahead of the welfare of their fellow Americans.  Of course, as this New Hampshire Union Leader editorial points out, the reason outsourcing happens is because products can be made more cheaply overseas, and when they are imported into the U.S. our consumers will usually choose the cheaper option, especially if there is little or no difference in quality.

If we accept the premise that business owners are going to do those things that ensure they make more money, and cease doing things that lose them money, and if we understand that a failure to do those things will eventually lead to the demise of the business, then we are left with one question.  What are the best policies for creating an atmosphere within our borders that allows our business owners to make the most money in the widest possible array of economic activities, thus creating the most vibrant economic atmosphere for the creation of the most jobs?  Unfortunately, as you know, there is absolutely no consensus on the answer to that question.  In the specific arena of outsourcing, from some one hears that raising tariffs is the answer.  If we just tax imports to such a level that those products are equalized on price, or even made more expensive, than American-made goods, American consumers will buy them, and American high-wage jobs will be saved.  But if we do that, free trade proponents will say, then other nations will retaliate on our exports, thus damaging those industries and losing jobs in those sectors.

I do not have the answer.  I have interviewed dozens of protectionists and dozens of free-traders over the years.  Both sides make compelling arguments.  In the end, our generally free trade policy as a nation continues under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and many of our manufacturing industries have died as a result.  Of course, we have also still been at the forefront of inventing new products and industries.  Perhaps outsourcing is inevitable.  But I have to believe that our strengths as a nation so far outweigh our weaknesses that we shall overcome these job losses, if only we remember that it is the private sector economy that has made this nation prosperous, and not the heavy hand of the state.

A TRILLION HERE, A TRILLION THERE...

...and pretty soon you're talking about real money.  According to figures from the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government is set to add another trillion dollars to the accumulated federal debt by the end of this fiscal year.  That makes five straight years of adding a trillion dollars a year to the debt.  Can anyone say, "unsustainable"?

Robert Costa is one of the many national writers and political analysts who has noticed that New Hampshire is very much in play for Mitt Romney.  We are a swing state, and our four electoral votes could make the difference in a close race.

While Eugene Robinson goes the typical gun control route, Charles Lane exposes Europeans' hypocrisy when the decry our 'gun culture'.

Jay Cost looks at polls and whether or not they are skewed toward Obama.

LUNATICS, GUNS AND POLITICS AS USUAL

The story arc following the mass shooting at a movie theater in Colorado is following a very predictable pattern.  Having lived professionally as a talk host, producer and electronic journalist for much of the last 30 years I have, depressingly, seen this all before more than a few times.  The story begins with the shock of the incident itself, the first, often erroneous, reports about the shooter, the number of victims, and the weapon or weapons used.  Then the trickling out of information about the shooter.  Then the weapons used and how they were obtained.

What follows almost immediately is the same old argument about gun control.  How is it that an obviously mentally ill man can walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 (the civilian version of the M-16 rifle) and, within only a few days, buy two Glock automatic pistols, a shotgun, and thousands of rounds of ammunition without anyone trying to stop him or anyone monitoring these unusual purchases? 

First, it will be pointed out that the suspect passed the federal background check when he purchased the weapons because he had no criminal record and no record of institutionalization for treatment of mental illness.  Then the story arc will move quickly to the second part, which is the fact that these weapons are available for civilian purchase.  That will lead to the same arguments by the same people and exploited by the same groups to benefit the same politicians as all the arguments following all the other mass shootings in recent American history.

Eventually, the story will move on to the issue of how we deal with mental illness.  The shooter's whole life story will be picked over, and many friends, colleagues and family members will be interviewed and reveal all sorts of disturbing details about his life and actions.  In retrospect, it will all be so clear that this young man was seriously disturbed, and columnists and pundits will talk endlessly of how we fail to properly treat so many who desperately need treatment.

Finally, the story will center around our "culture of violence".  This line of attack will be used by those who wish to assail our primarily liberal-dominated popular entertainment industry as well as by those who wish to splatter mud on conservatives and the "Tea Party" movement.

In the end, of course,we will be left right back were we started.  Democrats will attempt to pass more stringent gun control laws.  Republicans will block them when they can.  Financially strapped cities and states will not expand mental health services.  In fact, it is rather more likely that those services will be cut.  In any event, we will probably learn that the shooter would not have fallen into any category that would have made him eligible for treatment, even were he motivated to seek such treatment.  Political operatives on both sides will seek to use the story for their own purposes, with some success, but not so much as to change the basic political balance.  The shooter will be tried and convicted, with the very remote possibility that he will be found mentally unfit for trial.  In either case, he will spend the rest of his life in some form of confinement (Colorado has the death penalty, but they have not executed anyone since 1997, and have only four people on death row).

In the end, we will move on to other controversies, until another lone, mentally unstable young man walks into another theater, or stalks another campus, or a restaurant or shopping mall, and opens fire.

The significance of the new CBS News/New York Times poll is not simply that it shows Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in a virtual tie at 47-46, but that it is a poll of registered voters.  Typically, registered voter polls lean more Democratic, while likely voter polls tend to be a shade more conservative and Republican.  If Obama is struggling to maintain a tie with Romney in registered voter polls, and in late July no less, then he is in trouble.

Speaking of trouble, the United States Postal Service is also facing trouble as they are poised to miss a $5.5 billion payment to their retirement system.  While the Senate has come up with an aid plan (the postal employees do not like the term 'bailout', and I don't blame them), the House does not appear as if it will move before the August recess.

John Podhoretz hits the nail on the head with this piece about what he calls "the biggest mistake of campaign 2012".  I entirely agree with his conclusion that President Obama really stepped on it when he told every small business person and entrepeneur that he/she didn't build their business themselves.  What they know, and Obama doesn't, is that they DID work harder, for longer hours and less pay, than many of their neighbors.  They took risks and busted their tails to get what they've got, and now they know the Community-Organizer-in-Chief doesn't think they deserve whatever they managed to get for their pains.  He just may have pushed several hundred thousand more voters Mitt Romney's way...maybe more.

The campaign theme for President Obama and the Democrats is now clear.  Because they cannot run on the economy, which is sputtering along at less than two percent growth with unemployment hovering around eight percent, they have to run on something they believe will gain favor with most of the population and will box the Republicans into an unpopular position.  That position is good, old-fashioned class warfare, exemplified by the proposal coming from the Democrats in the Senate that they would rather go over the "fiscal cliff" than let the wealthy keep their Bush tax cuts.  They figure if they push hard enough the GOP will cave, infuriating the Tea Party types and depressing their turnout in the Fall.  They also hope to win over white, working class voters with this approach.

It might just work.  It depends on whether or not some sufficient mass of those voters (and some young voters and minorities as well) have become immune to the siren call of 'tax the rich', realizing that it is 'the rich' who do the investing, job-creating, and hiring that leads to more economic activity.  But the liberals who dominate the Democratic Party don't believe in that concept, which is why the President can say individuals who own their own businesses did not build them on their own (therefore, they do not deserve to be the beneficiaries of their success).

Perhaps, though, it will backfire on them, as millions of people who have dedicated their lives to building their own businesses come to realize that President Obama and the Democrats are their worst enemy, worse than any big business Republicans, worse than any banker, worse than anything.  Perhaps some are paying attention, and perhaps they will remember in November.

Mark Steyn, as he often does, reminds us that human history is not an unbroken tale of unrelenting progress.  In fact, there are many instances in history when cultures and peoples went backwards, whether voluntarily or not.  In this piece he notes that the Arab and Islamic worlds are moving away from the Westernization that was a hallmark of the thirty or so years after the Second World War.

We need to realize that when faced with political, social or economic distress, people tend to gravitate to whatever historical cultural norms or myths they find most appealing and that relates most closely to their own sense of community.  In the Arab world that is fundamentalist Islam, of one variety or another.  Ironically, that is not so much the case in Iran, which has a robust Persian culture and identity that pre-dates Islam.  But Iran shows us another historical tendency of peoples and communities...the tendency for a small group to sieze control and assure the dominance of their vision over competing ones.

There's a solar storm coming...but the top space agencies filled with scientists who watch and study these things for a living disagree on how big it will be.  It all seems rather esoteric, until you read about the big one that hit in 1859.  If something similar were to happen today the chaos would be tremendous, and perhaps devastating to the global economy.

Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case against Condi Rice as Romney's VP.  All good points, but mostly they hinge on whether social conservatives would really stay home this November rather than take a chance that Romney would not serve out his term and Rice would become President (and that she would then sign or propose to sign legislation that would be considered pro-choice, or refuse to veto pro-choice legislation, or stand in the way of pro-life legislation, etc., etc.).

In the end, the selection of VP usually creates more media buzz than actual impact on voter behavior.  For all her foibles, Sarah Palin did not cost John McCain the election.  The McCain/Palin ticket lost to Obama/Biden because of the financial crisis.  It was going to be a close election under any circumstances, and Obama/Biden was going to get the benefit of a larger minority and youth turnout.  But they won because white, working class voters and independents swung over to them in greater numbers than would have been the case absent the financial freeze-up and collapse in real estate values.

The 2012 election will be a referendum on President Obama.  If his approval rating is 46-48 percent on election day...he loses, unless Mitt Romney's favorability ratings are worse.  The Obama people know this, which is why their only option is to paint Mitt Romney as an ogre who cannot be trusted to sit in the Oval Office.