Granite State Pundit

GINGRICH WINS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

2012-01-21T23:00:00.002-05:00

The pattern continues, with a twist. The big win by Newt Gingrich in South Carolina this evening continues the pattern we have seen for this entire cycle. Romney remains the front-running, establishment candidate. Clearly, a large chunk of the GOP electorate is dissatisfied with Romney. At every point in the cycle a candidate emerges as the anti-Romney, only to fall back again. The twist this time is that it is Gingrich making a comeback after an initial dramatic rise and fall. Will the pattern continue? Will Gingrich say or do something that will cause him to falter? Or is it Rommey who has blown himself up with the tax issue by puncturing the aura of inevitability about his nomination and the perception that he is best equipped to defeat Obama.

This is getting very interesting, indeed.

GINGRICH SURGE IN SC CONTINUES

2012-01-20T08:16:00.002-05:00

There is now lots of evidence to bolster the view that Newt Gingrich is about to win in South Carolina.

One, the latest RCP average of polling data in South Carolina now puts Newt Gingrich in the lead, which is just another indication that undecideds are breaking toward the former Speaker.

Two, Newt was able to deflect the energy from his ex-wife's ABC interview by attacking the media at the start of the debate last night, and the applause from the audience was heartfelt.

Three, Mitt Romney gave a lackluster debate performance and the boos that greeted his "maybe" answer on releasing his tax return were just as heartfelt as Newt's cheers.

Four, Rick Perry getting out and endorsing Gingrich adds a few points to the Speaker's column.

Five, news that Santorum actually finished ahead of Romney in Iowa adds to the growing realization that Romney is not the inevitable nominee. That will cost him a few more votes he would have gotten otherwise.

It ain't over 'til it's over.

ROMNEY WEAKENS...BUT...

2012-01-19T09:15:00.003-05:00

There is some new evidence that the Romney campaign is weakening this morning.

New polls show Gingrich is surging in South Carolina. The two most recent polls put Gingrich at 30% or higher, bringing the RCP average for the former Speaker to 26%. That still leaves him 7.6% behind Romney, but I suspect when older polls are dropped from the average and newer ones included that gap will narrow. Update: As I expected, now that a new poll is added to the mix the RCP average shows Romney with only a 1.2% lead. Gingrich is leading in the three most recent polls which simply confirms his growing momentum.

Romney is dealing with more bad news because it appears now that he did not win Iowa by the narrowest of margins, rather he lost to Rick Santorum by the narrowest of margins. The Des Moines Register reports on the discrepancies and the fact that the Iowa GOP has had to recalculate the final totals. They conclude that rather than Romney winning by 8 votes, Santorum won by 34 votes. In the greater scheme of things this is not terribly significant. Romney and Santorum still get the same number of delegates out of Iowa, and no one can take away the positive press and momentum Romney received since the caucuses. But it does eliminate the historic significance of Romney being the only non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire and creates just a little more doubt about Rommey's inevitability.

Still, Romney's biggest problem may be his fumbling on the personal income tax issue. Toby Harnden writes about why Romney is being hurt not only by the perception that he is a rich guy who doesn't pay his fair share (certainly he is a rich guy, and 'fair share' is a debatable concept), but by the perception that he is hiding something.

But...to deny Romney the nomination there is still the need for a viable alternative. Newt Gingrich is surging, but that surge may be weakened and even reversed by the interview to be aired this evening on ABC of Newt's second wife, Marianne. Santorum has yet to catch fire, and was denied the opportunity by the foul-up in Iowa and his own poor campaigning in New Hampshire. Rick Perry, according to this CNN story, is about to drop out. That leaves Ron Paul, who has no chance of being the nominee.

In the end what the GOP faces is a process that, once again, produced a field full of flawed candidates that will result in the nomination of the safe, next-in-line, establishment choice. There has to be a better way.

ROMNEY'S THE ONE

2012-01-12T06:55:00.002-05:00

With the votes now counted in New Hampshire and Mitt Romney the first non-incumbent to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary most observers, myself included, now believe Romney is the inevitable nominee. Here are the reasons...

First, and most important, Romney is the only candidate with the organization and the money to compete in every state. He can run adds, get out the vote drives, make phone calls, in short, everything a campaign can and must do to win votes on the town-by-town, county-by-county basis.

Second, his opponents are divided. As long as both Santorum and Gingrich remain in the race (and Perry to a lesser extent), they divide the conservative vote. Romney can only be defeated by one conservative alternative.

Third, even if one conservative opponent comes to the fore, that candidate will be need time to gain momentum, and time is running out. If Romney wins in South Carolina, the game is over.

While Romney now has a 99% chance of being the nominee, the contest will go on. The new rules, which elongated the process through spacing the contests across the calendar and limiting the number of winner-takes-all contests, and the presence of Ron Paul in the race will make certain of that.

PRIMARY DAY

2012-01-10T11:15:00.003-05:00

Primary Day is here in New Hampshire, at last. Starting tomorrow we here in the Granite State can get back to our normal lives, which means no more annoying phone calls from pollsters and campaign workers (robo-calls or live) and an end to the political advertisements on television. For those folks in places where the candidates and the press cause havoc, while they will miss the money rolling in, they won't miss the crowds and the aggravation.

A few thoughts on the election itself (if you want to hear more, you can tune-in tonight to Bloomberg Radio on your satellite service, online, or over the air on WBBR-New York, from 7 PM to 11 PM as I join Tom Maroney to cover the results).

This Gallup poll tells you everything you need to know about why Mitt Romney seems to have a clear path to the nomination. Of the candidates in the race, he is the only one who is "acceptable" to a broad swath of the Republican electorate. Everyone else in the field carries too much baggage for one part of the GOP coalition or another. Paul is too outside the mainstream on foreign policy, or too libertarian, or too old. Santorum is too much the social conservative, Gingrich has too much personal and political baggage, Huntsman is too liberal and Perry would be eaten alive by Obama on the debate stage. So that leaves Mitt.

You may not like it. I may not like it. But it is what it is.

FROM IOWA TO NEW HAMPSHIRE

2012-01-04T15:35:00.003-05:00

Now that the Iowa caucuses are over it is time to reflect upon the results. Here are my impressions of those results and what they might mean...

Momentum in politics is a thing to behold. Just ten days ago Rick Santorum was an afterthought. The final RealClearPolitics average of the last Iowa polls showed him at 16.3%. He finished the night with 24.5%, a mere 8 votes shy of an outright victory over Romney. The latest in a long line of anti-Romneys peaked at just the right time.

The conventional wisdom is set in stone that Romney will win in New Hampshire. The RealClearPolitics average of the latest polls here in the Granite State show Romney leading by 21.3 points over Ron Paul. But if Santorum can avoid being destroyed by his own words or actions in the next week, and that is a very big if, and he can withstand the negative ads that are sure to come, another very big if, then he should do much better than those polls show. Santorums problem here is that Gingrich and Paul will not get out of his way. So, the conventional wisdom is probably correct, but Romney now faces the problem of high expectations. If he does not win by a large enough margin, and I have no idea how large that margin needs to be, he will not be able to erase the narrative that has already taken hold. Namely, that the majority of GOP voters would rather nominate someone else.

Finally, a word of caution to those pundits who would like to declare the race over and Romney the nominee. While I agree that a Romney nomination is still the most likely scenario (after all, history does tell us that Republicans prefer to nominate the safe choice,which is usually the next fellow in line), the calendar is such that if a real alternative can rise above the fray that person will have some time to raise money and build an organization. Not much time, but some time. The key is not what happens in New Hampshire, but what happens in South Carolina. If Santorum or Gingrich can win South Carolina on January 21 and then follow up with a win in Florida, then it is "game on". The entire month of February,except for Nevada on February 4, is filled with small state caucuses awarding uncommitted delegates (Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and the Northern Marianas). The next big contests won't happen until February 28 with primaries in Arizona and Michigan. While Michigan should be a lock for Romney, if the alternative candidate, probably either Santorum or Gingrich, can win Arizona, then he can enter Super Tuesday on March 6 with at least a shot at doing well enough to keep the contest going.

2011-11-12T10:51:00.002-05:00

Now that the 2011 elections are in the books it is time to reflect on the results. Whereas the 2010 midterms were unambiguously a big Republican victory (or, perhaps more accurately a big Democratic defeat), the 2011 elections are a mixed bag. Republicans did increase their strength in state legislatures (full results from Ballotpedia.org), and the results in Virginia show some more warning signs for the Obama campaign. But it is the referendum results in Ohio that I find most illuminating. I agree with Henry Olsen's take on the results. Writing in The Weekly Standard, Olsen believes that the key to understanding the Ohio results is to understand the white, working class voter. Those voters are not in sync with the ideological conservatives who make up the core of the Republican grassroots movement and, for the most part, its elected elites. They came out in droves to express a vote of no confidence in President Obama and the congressional Democrats in November, 2010 which, combined with the enthusiasm of the conservative core voters and the disillusionment of the liberal base of the Democratic Party led to the GOP tsunami. White, working class voters make up the bulk of the public employee union membership, especially the police, firefighters, transit workers, water and sewer workers and the like. Their leaders (with the exception of the police and firefighters) almost always back Democrats. But the rank-and-file don't always follow their leaders when they get into the polling place and have a chance to cast a secret ballot. These folks don't like the bailouts for big banks and corporations, but they do like their wages, salaries and benefits. The Ohio ballot measure directly threatened their own economic security so, naturally, they came out against it.

Facing these facts, how should the GOP proceed?

First, understand that white, working class voters don't want to vote for Obama. They made that clear in the Democratic primaries when they voted in large numbers for Hillary Clinton, and they made it clear in the 2010 midterms, and the polling data continues to indicate that they are not warming up to the President. You can infer whatever you like from the data, that these voters are a bunch of racist, ignorant hillbillies or they are simply being misled by Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc., it really does not matter why they are voting they way they are voting. It is simply an electoral fact. So, for the Republican Party, they present a huge potential voting bloc for their nominee. But they cannot be taken for granted, because they are not voting FOR something, they are voting AGAINST something (Obama).

Second, these voters will push back against anything that directly threatens their economic security. While the majority of white, working class voters are not public employees, unless a direct connection can be made between their own tax rates and the benefits of public employees, expect very little in the way of support for cutting those benefits. So, referendums to raise taxes will fail (as in Colorado), and referendums opposing more government intervention in health care, that is, Obamacare, will pass (as happened in Ohio) as Obamacare is widely viewed by white, working class voters as a threat to their health care security. But referendums that directly threaten working class public employees will usually fail.

Third, by understand points one and two, GOP candidates can make themselves acceptable to white, working class voters by attacking Obama, vowing to help repeal Obamacare, vowing to oppose bank and corporate bailouts, vowing to oppose tax increases, but assuring voters they will not cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or eviscerate the rights and protections working folks have either at their private sector OR public sector jobs.

For ideological conservatives, this smacks of blatant pandering and hypocrisy. Of course, it IS pandering and hypocrisy. From a public policy perspective it is also, in the long run, unsustainable. But the only way to ensure that the conservative party is in charge when the time comes to make the real reforms and hard choices is to get their candidates elected. It has never been a pretty business, but sausage-making never is.

2011-11-02T11:29:00.002-04:00

With the Greek government in turmoil over a proposed referendum on the EU bailout deal one wonders where this is all headed. For at least a year many informed observers have believed that a Greek default was inevitable, but it seems that the political leadership of Greece and the leading EU nations are simply incapable of admitting that fact, so they have spent the intervening months in an effort to prevent the inevitable or, barring that, at least make the default orderly and call it by some other more palatable name. It seems to me that all such efforts are in vain, as the inescapable fact remains that the European Union adopted a common monetary structure (the Euro as a common currency) without adopting a common fiscal structure (the surrendering of sovereign control by the nation-states of the EU over their tax and budgetary structures). This is unsustainable, as events are now bringing into crystal clarity.

Meanwhile, the problems in the Eurozone are part of a larger economic situation that continues to show eerie parallels to the Great Depression. Just as that jarring economic dislocation caused social and political unrest, so we too might be headed for years of unrest.

Nile Gardiner has some thoughts on Europe's folly.

2011-10-07T07:54:00.002-04:00

The Bank of England Governor says we are facing the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen. Meanwhile, he is presiding over the British version of "quantitative easing" which, in essence, is simply a modern version of printing more money. Looking around, it seems striking to me how many government officials and big bankers are simply flailing about looking for some way out of the trap rather than coolly considering how they got into it. But that is human nature, after all.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid triggers the "nuclear option" in making a change of Senate rules. The details are rather complex and arcane but it essentially boils down to the majority stripping the minority of one of their filibuster-related prerogatives. At the end of the article one Republican staffer hits the nail on the head when he says, "just wait until we get the majority". Indeed.

There is some sentiment among members of the Republican National Committee to strip New Hampshire of its favored status in the presidential primary process after word is received that our Secretary of State may move the primary date up to January 3. This move, if it happens, would be as a result of the moves of other states, thus triggering the state law that requires him to keep the primary at least one week ahead of any similar election. John DiStaso of the Union Leader talked with Secretary of State Bill Gardner about why Nevada's caucuses would be a "similar election' in his Granite Status column. So, what is the bottom line? Bill Gardner does not care what the leadership of either political party has to say about the matter. He is required to follow state law, and he will, even if it means holding the primary on Halloween, Thanksgiving or Christmas. As for the parties, until such time as they make their national conventions relevant again, they should expect the states to continue to ignore their complaining (and I won't hold my breath waiting for the conventions to become relevant again...that ship has sailed).

Robert J. Samuelson writes about our one-sided trade war with China. It appears that the Chinese are still the only side fighting, and I expect that trend to continue.

Charles Krauthammer writes about the possibility that our Einsteinian conception of the universe is completely wrong.

Jay Cost thinks the Wall Street protest movement may be just a sign of things to come.

2011-10-06T07:57:00.002-04:00

Ladies and Gentlemen, despite polling data to the contrary, the "Tea Party" surge toward more Conservative and/or Libertarian government is over, at least according to E.J. Dionne. Democrats in Congress have discovered their way to victory in 2012, which is to change their previous definition of "the rich" from those making $250,000 or more to those making $1 million or more. That, combined with the energized movement in the streets and a President who has found his Progressive voice along with a reluctance by GOP stars to enter the fray and the domination of the nominating process by candidates who cannot win, should lead to a rerversal of fortune that will carry Obama and the Democrats to victory.

Are you buying it? As for me, I am not.

My reasoning rests on the fact that, as Mark Twain said, history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Voters tend to punish the party in power for bad times. After the Panic of 1893, an economic dislocation very similar to the one we are experiencing today, voters routed the Democrats from Congress in the 1894 midterms and then elected a Republican President in 1896. In fact, the fallout from the 1893 financial panic and resulting recession lasted far longer than the recession itself (which lasted approximately 5 years). The GOP dominated national politics from 1894 to 1930, controlling the U.S. House for 32 of those 36 years and the White House for 26 of the 36. After the stock market crash of 1929 and the resulting Great Depression the Democrats crushed the GOP in successive elections in 1930, 1932, 1934 and 1936 and went on to a decades-long period of dominance.

Despite the vicissitudes of the day-to-day political campaign, I expect that the 2010 election may very well be just the first in a series of GOP victories that will lead to a period of Republican dominance.

2011-10-04T08:35:00.002-04:00

Victor Davis Hanson still believes in America, and he believes America will be re-energized when we get new leadership in 2013.

Rich Lowry has nothing but contempt for the Left's "Tea Party" protestors. The protests continue to spread across the country, much in the way the "Tea Party" protests did. The difference, I think, is that while both sets of protests have their origins in real concerns and fears across the population, and while both have activist groups that either foment the protests or take advantage of them, the "Tea Party" protestors are generally older, with a greater stake in their communities and, therefore, are more likely to make a difference politically (and already have within the Republican Party).

New Hampshire's Secretary of State patiently plays the waiting game while other states move up their presidential primary dates.

Jay Cost compares Chris Christie to Woodrow Wilson.

Vladimir Putin calls for a "Eurasian Union". Such a union would be dominated by Russia, of course, and would look suspiciously like the old Russian Empire. I still think Putin should do everyone a favor and just declare himself Tsar.

Meanwhile, in Asia, it looks increasingly like the folks who live in that region will have to choose..the U.S. or China

2011-09-30T07:38:00.002-04:00

Some folks believe the "Fast and Furious" gun-running ATF scandal will be another Watergate. It will not, of course, because the MSM will not chase the story (no Woodward and Bernstein and Washington Post to keep the story alive) and because the GOP does not need the scandal to bring Obama down (he's doing a peachy job of that all by himself).

Charles Krauthammer states the obvious...the Palestinians want a state under only one, ironclad condition...no Israel.

Daniel Henninger says we should take Herman Cain and his candidacy for President seriously.

Jay Cost also believes Cain should be taken seriously because it would help put the Black vote back into play, which would be good for the GOP but also for the political influence of African-Americans generally.

Here is an interesting analysis of why the seeming Electoral College advantage for President Obama may be illusory.

Daniel Hannan says the survival of the Eurozone is not in Britain's interest.

Michael Gerson tells us why the trouble in Europe is trouble for America's economy.

2011-09-28T10:43:00.002-04:00

Peter Wehner writes about some new polling data released by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg that shows the Democrats could be in even deeper trouble in 2012 than they were in 2010. Here is the National Journal story about the new data that surveys 60 Republican-held battleground House districts. The data indicates continuing poor approval ratings for the President, but the current incumbents aren't terribly popular, either. Still, it does not seem to be a generally anti-incumbent feeling. Currently I am researching the phenomenon of mid-term loss (the President's party almost always loses House seats in a mid-term election) and I am now heading down the path of looking specifically at how and why realigning elections happen, specifically when the House changes hands and remains in one party's control for a decade or more. It appears that these changes often happen over a multi-election cycle. After the stock market crash of 1929 the Democrats made big gains in 1930, falling just short of winning control of the House. Then, famously, FDR and the Democrats gained a crushing landslide victory in 1932. But the wave continued even into 1934 with the Democrats gaining a few more House seats, the first time since the Civil War that the President's party won seats in a midterm election. 2010 could be just the first in a series of GOP wave elections that might hand them control in Washington for the next decade or more.

Sean Trende examines the U.S. Senate electoral landscape for 2012 and finds the odds seem to favor a GOP takeover. If I am correct and 2012 continues the 2010 wave, then the GOP may end up with a 55-45 split or better.

Jay Cost gives us a history lesson about the Southern realignment.

2011-09-20T08:01:00.002-04:00

David Brooks finally realizes the truth about himself.

President Obama, facing a potential challenge from the liberal base of his own party, has decided to embark on a course of political confrontation with the GOP by proposing a plan that refuses to trim entitlement benefits unless they are accompanied by tax increases on "the rich" (I put that in quotation marks because the definition is fungible). I happen to believe that this is his only hope for winning re-election, although it will make it impossible for him to get anything substantive passed through Congress for the remainder of his first term. This new rhetoric will fire up his base, as indicated by this column from Eugene Robinson and this one from Dana Milbank. But the real key, and his only real hope, is that this rhetoric can convince white, working class Americans in sufficient numbers to support him who right now seem not inclined to do so. If, on the other hand, those voters believe the editors of The Wall Street Journal when they say that "the rich" are already paying their "fair share" and, more importantly to them, any renewed effort by the federal government to get more taxes will inevitably snare the middle-class, then Obama is still electorally doomed. (As an aside, for those of you who believe that most white, working-class Americans do not read The Wall Street Journal, I concede the point. However, many of those Americans do listen to Rush Limbaugh, or watch Hannity or O'Reilly on TV. Those gentlemen agree with the editors of the Journal, and they hammer at those points nearly every day).

Meanwhile, over in Europe, people are coming to grips with the various scenarios surrounding a possible Greek default.

One such scenario results in the end of the European Project. Bret Stephens sees that as the inevitable outcome.

Finally, this article from John Judis in The New Republic is a reminder that there are still quite a few Keynesian true believers out there, convinced that the only way out of the Great Recession is massive government spending.

2011-09-17T09:29:00.002-04:00

President Obama's job approval slips to an all-time low in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll...43% approve with 50% who disapprove. Reading into the poll one finds he has only one population who give him their support...Democrats. Independents and Republicans disapprove by large margins. If this is the mood of the populace in November, 2012, then he cannot win re-election.

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn writes about the ludicrous picture of the President campaigning for a jobs bill that hasn't even been submitted to Congress, yet the President continues to shout, "Pass this jobs bill now". What jobs bill?

Peggy Noonan also comments on the declining political fortunes of the President as she examines the results from the special election in the 9th district of New York.

George Will talks with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the threats facing the U.S. and the looming possibility of massive spending cuts directed at the defense budget.

The Eurozone faces the possibility of a nightmare scenario. David Ignatius points to one of the root causes of the present crisis.

A new survey of college students paints a pretty bleak picture about their sense of entitlement. The anger and frustration that they will feel when they don't get what they want will be a major factor in the coming social upheaval here in the West. Fortunately for us here in America, a significant portion of our young people continue to show overwhelming evidence of a willingness to sacrifice for their country, a willingness to serve, take risks, and work hard. They are our salvation.

2011-08-08T08:39:00.002-04:00

Paul Krugman says the people at S&P have no credibility, but the deficit problem is not as bad as we think and could easily be fixed if the extremists in the GOP were politically defeated and marginalized. I think it is important to read Krugman if for no other reason than to understand how completely the tradition, New Deal, Progressive left views our economy. They simply refuse to believe that the era of Big Government is over and that the welfare state is unsustainable.

Robert J. Samuelson, who does believe that the welfare state as it is currently constituted is unsustainable, says the liberals were the true winners in the debt ceiling deal as the final plan leaves Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs untouched while focusing cuts on the Pentagon. Samuelson's analysis is correct, of course. Politicians of both parties, except for some of the really committed Tea Party folks, are unwilling to touch the entitlement programs. As a consequence, if the are also unwilling to raise taxes (or, more accurately, if neither side can come up with enough votes to either cut entitlements or raise taxes) then the only other part of the budget where they can find big enough savings to make a dent in deficit spending is the Defense Department.

Ross Douthat points out that both Republicans and Democrats are looking for that next great realignment election that will give their side the power to make the changes they want. He believes as a nation we cannot afford to wait for such a realignment. Alas, I believe that we can only get out of the fix we are in with such a realignment, or an event of such enormous consequence that politicians from both sides cannot be seen to oppose the measures deemed necessary to deal with the crisis.

Niall Ferguson has some thoughts on how the Chinese are reacting to our debt crisis. I suspect that while they are concerned about their own exposure, they are also quite pleased to see more evidence of America in decline.

Michael Barone has some thoughts on why the Great Recession isn't pushing the American people to the left.

Nouriel Roubini thinks there is nothing left in the toolbox to prevent a double-dip recession.

Walter Russell Mead writes about the recent racially motivated violence coming from young Blacks aimed at whites. He fears we may be sitting on a tinderbox that could result in an explosion of violence.

2011-08-04T08:15:00.002-04:00

As the debt crisis worsens...oh,wait a minute, you thought the debt crisis was over? Well, it isn't over for us, of course, but the crisis I am referring to is happening in Europe.

Meanwhile, as the aforementioned debt crisis worsens, numerous commentators are turning their attention to the looming defense cuts that will automatically kick in if the debt ceiling bill is not superseded somewhere down the road (it will be, by the way).

Peter Brookes says these proposed cuts risk disaster, while Arthur Herman compares them to the weakened state of the U.S. military in the 1930s.

On the other hand, Fareed Zakaria believes the cuts are long overdue.

In my estimation, these cuts are inevitable. Since we will not see a large enough political coalition for actual cuts in entitlement programs, nor will we see a coalition powerful enough to raise taxes significantly, the only other option to ameliorate the deficit spending situation is to cut defense. This is the way the other declining empires of the past did it, and this is how we will do it. Of course, those empires got into big trouble by following that course, and so will we.

THOUGHTS ON THE DEBT CEILING BILL

2011-08-02T08:26:00.002-04:00

Now that the debt-ceiling bill has passed the U.S. House it goes on to the Senate for a vote later today. Most of the talking heads seem to think it will pass and go on for the President to sign, thus allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately begin borrowing even more billions of dollars to continue operating our federal government.

While it is a hopeful sign when one examines the overall trend of the decline of the Socialist Left in both Europe and America, I still am not convinced that "the people" are really determined to end the era of big government. Crucially, this plan does not start a real debate about entitlement reform. In fact, when push comes to shove, the bill looks to cutting the Defense Department as a way to make the balance sheets look better.

As I have written many times, the declining, overextended empires of the past always shredded their defense expenditures in a last-ditch effort to remain solvent, since the political pain of tackling domestic bribery programs was too great to keep their leaders comfortable on their thrones or in their parliamentary seats. Until I see evidence that "the people" are willing to withstand real cuts to domestic entitlement programs, I will withhold judgment.

AMERICA IN DECLINE?

2011-07-30T08:49:00.003-04:00

For many years I have pondered the question of American decline. Numerous books and essays have been written over the last few decades about the possibility that the American Empire will follow the path previously taken by the British Empire, the Spanish Empire and the Roman Empire. Essentially, these Western global superpowers of history all overextended themselves financially by spending too much money on military adventures abroad and domestic programs at home. The Romans and Spaniards exacerbated the problem by allowing themselves to be governed by too many foolish emperors, and the British people, who governed themselves, became foolishly overconfident in their own power. So, are we Americans on the same path?

Andrew McCarthy, in writing this piece about the debt ceiling debate, argues that we have already reached our Day of Reckoning. We are adding so much to our national debt so quickly that we are already on an unsustainable and ruinous path. Therefore, he argues that we ought to have the crisis now, and he has faith that the American people voted for fiscal sanity in 2010 and will back the Tea Party Republicans in their efforts to restore that sanity.

I disagree. There is no such thing, when voting is concerned, as "the American people". There are millions of individual American voters, all of whom have an image of the world as they think it is, which is oftentimes completely different than the world as it really exists. Those voters coalesce into voting blocs based on conditions at the time of the election. Some are ideologically hard-wired to vote a certain way and maintain that voting pattern almost irrespective of all other conditions. Others are more impulsive and emotional. Others vote based on their assessment of the personalities and qualifications of the individuals on the ballot. If one understands that this is, in fact, the case when it comes to how our people govern themselves, then one can only conclude that "the American people" did not vote for fiscal sanity in 2010, but a coalition of people came together with different motivations and, more importantly, different visions of the state of the country and the problems facing the country, and voted for GOP candidates more than for Democratic candidates.

In a few days, unless some compromise is reached, the U.S. government will be unable to spend above the debt ceiling. Unless I miss my guess, events will unfold pretty much as Megan McArdle describes them here. Interest on the debt will continue to be paid, along with military salaries and other monies for ongoing military operations, Social Security checks and Medicare/Medicaid payments will still go out, and bills for services already rendered will be paid (all of which to reassure the markets that the government will still meet its basic obligations). Everything else will be on the chopping block. Most of the rest of federal operations will have to be put on hold. This will create a crisis atmosphere, no doubt fully exploited by the media (ratings and revenues, my friends, ratings and revenues). Markets will drop even with the aforementioned assurances. It will be bad news all around.

Someone once said that "the people" are a sovereign who can say only two words...yes or no.

Make no mistake. "The people" didn't vote for anything in the last election. A coalition came together that helped elect a Republican House in 2010. A new coalition may come together and give it back to the Democrats in 2012. The sovereign who rules America with only two words and has an unreal vision of the world is just as dangerous as any dissolute, half-mad Roman or Spanish emperor ever was, with consequences just as dire for this country as it was for those lost empires.

2011-07-16T10:05:00.002-04:00

Over the last few years I have written a number of posts on this blog predicting that we will see another big, global war within the next decade or so. As you know, the world has not experienced a truly big war (one that involved the most powerful nations on the planet arrayed on opposite sides in direct conflict) since 1945. Why have we enjoyed such a long period of peace? There are, of course, a lot of theories about that one, but the answer that makes the most sense to me is the one that combines the existence of nuclear weapons with the ability of the superpowers to achieve their economic and ideological goals without going to war with one another, thus risking the mass destruction those nuclear weapons would cause. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the world has briefly enjoyed a period with one superpower. That, of course, cannot last. Other great powers are emerging, especially China.

Still, just because there is more than one great power (or superpower) does not mean that a big, global war is necessary or inevitable. Why, then, should we worry? Fundamentally, we need to realize the reasons why wars happen in the first place, big or small, global or local. Economics and/or ideology is the starting point for all wars, in my estimation. One nation's leaders decide that their economic or political survival in their cherished, ideological vision of themselves is imperiled and can only be salvaged by making war (Japan's forays into China in 1931 and 1937, followed by her attacks on the Western powers in 1941). Or a nation is consumed by the messianic vision of her leader (Hitler, Mussolini, etc.). Or a nation's leaders decide they must preempt a rival's attack (Israel in '67). Or there is a competition over land or resources that neither party wishes to resolve simply through talk and compromise (India vs. Pakistan several times).

We have enjoyed since 1945 decades of economic growth (on average) in the Western world and Asia, and we have watched as numerous developing countries have tapped into their economic potentials. While we have seen numerous wars over that time, all have been relatively small and localized, at least as compared with the two world wars. While some have involved enormous casualties (Chinese civil war from '45-47, India and Pakistan in '47) and even led to genocide (Cambodia, Rwanda), none have grown to a global scale or have directly involved the greatest military and economic powers of the Earth.

This is about to change. Why? Read this piece by Caroline Glick about the economic, social and political conditions now facing countries like Egypt and Syria. When the leaders of a country are facing a populace on the brink of starvation and their nation on the brink of ruin, they have a tendency to do rash things. If this economic ruin were limited to the Arab nations, it would not necessarily lead to global conflagration. But it seems increasingly clear to me that widespread economic ruin could very well strike the rest of the world due to the financially precarious condition of Europe and the United States. We may not have seen the real repeat of the Great Depression yet. It may be yet to come.

2011-07-13T14:38:00.002-04:00

Much ado today about the deal offered by the GOP Senate leader on raising the debt ceiling. It seems like a canny political move designed to put the onus on the President. If, however, a failure to raise the debt ceiling does lead to dire economic consequences, I think the GOP will take as much or more heat than the President.

Bill Kristol thinks the McConnell plan is dead in the water and has some alternatives.

Martin Wolf believes that ideologues are responsible for two looming financial disasters. He equates those in Europe who put their faith in the European Project, which led to the single currency and the continent now on the financial brink, with the Tea Party anti-tax folks in the GOP who are willing to risk a global financial meltdown by refusing to raise the debt limit. If failure to raise the debt limit does lead to a financial crisis I predict it will not last for long and it can be quickly fixed, at least in the short run. Unfortunately for the Europeans, the Eurozone mess cannot be fixed easily or quickly.

Michael Goodwin has some scathing remarks about the President's handling of the situation.

Charles Krauthammer is equally contemptuous of the President's positioning and posturing on the issue.

On the other hand, liberal columnist Harold Meyerson believes the debt talks reveal the Republican Party is dominated by people who wish to make war against government. As usual, Meyerson believes this is due to the inherent racial animosity and fear of the majority of white Republicans. Why it can't just be about a different philosophy of government I simply cannot fathom. But Meyerson, like so many liberals, simply cannot believe that knowledgeable people of intelligence and good will can come to a different conclusion about the proper role of government in modern life. People who have a different view, like conservatives and libertarians, must therefore be motivated by greed, fear or racial hatred.

Why are small business owners not hiring? Unless the economy starts booming again, it simply costs more to hire people than they are worth in terms of generating profits.

2011-06-29T08:35:00.002-04:00

While Al Gore and the global warming activists are failing in their misguided efforts to enact a global treaty to deal with the problem (if it exists), a more immediate problem continues to loom on the horizon...the fiscal collapse of the United States of America.

Laurence Kotlikoff calls it a war against our children, and has the frightening figures.

Lawrence B. Lindsey also has the numbers that show our deficit problem is worse than we think.

Can anything save us?

As a person whose expertise falls within the political realm (having studied and covered American politics for decades), I can tell you it doesn't look good. I simply see no way either party can embrace the kinds of tax increases or entitlement cuts necessary to solve the problem without committing political suicide. I expect that as each side tentatively pushes forward with their preferred solutions (leaning on more tax hikes for the Democrats and more spending cuts for the Republicans) they will find their election coalitions dissolving before their eyes. We are already seeing it happen. The Democrats rode the wave in 2006 and 2008. The GOP rode the wave in 2010 and that wave will continue, in my opinion, into 2012. The Democrats will come roaring back in 2014. As this see-saw political battle continues, real solutions will continue to be put off while the crisis worsens.

So, I say again, can anything save us?

Only a new, unexpected burst of enormous economic growth (as we saw in the 1990s). Barring such a burst of growth, expect a lost decade and decline or significant social and political upheaval leading to a radical transformation (I think the latter more likely, as Americans are much more prone to tearing up the book and throwing it away to start fresh than simply let things slide, especially if they are prompted by some dramatic event).

In other news...Mona Charen continue her crusade to alert people to the importance of traditional marriage. She believes too much time is being spent talking about gay marriage while ignoring the decline of heterosexual marriage, especially amongst people without a college education.

Amir Taheri writes about the recent missile tests in Iran as the Iranian generals talk about hitting Israel and American bases in the region. Apparently, they think we are in retreat (an impression easy to understand by watching and listening to President Obama).

Sean Trende writes about why redistricting makes it harder for the Democrats to win back the House.

Jay Cost reminds us that presidential polls, whether in Iowa, New Hampshire or nationally, are absolutely useless at this stage.

2011-06-22T07:53:00.002-04:00

Ross Douthat writes about a new HBO show that I have come to enjoy, even though I have not read the books that the show is based on, called Game of Thrones.

Charlie Gasparino writes about how a number of Obama supporters on Wall Street have finally realized that the President is not on their side.

America's 2011 recovery is in two speeds, a fast one for the financial industry and big business, and a slow one for small businesses and the average worker. If this continues for too long it will lead to social and political upheaval.

Jay Cost writes about comparisons between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.

Today is the 70th anniversary of the start of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union by the German Wehrmacht. June 22, 1941 and December 7, 1941 are the two most important dates in the history of the 20th century, in my opinion. By invading the Soviet Union, Hitler sealed his fate and the fate of Europe for the next 50 years. By attacking the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor the Japanese did the same. World War II is really the story of two wars, fought on an immense scale on opposite sides of the globe. The land war in Eurasia between the Germans and Soviets killed millions and resulted in the destruction of Nazi Germany and the enslavement of Eastern Europe to Stalin. The war in the Pacific killed fewer people, but resulted in the destruction of a militaristic Japan and the creation of the United States as a true global superpower. One cannot understand the geopolitical history of the world in the second half of the 20th century without understanding the significance of these events.

2011-06-21T07:35:00.002-04:00

In Wisconsin, a bastion of progressivism since the early 20th century, conservatism is on the rise.

Benny Avni says our enemies continue to form their own 'coalitions of the willing'.

Angela Merkel is in trouble as Germans begin to realize that they will be left holding the bag for the European Project. Meanwhile, the streets of Athens could explode into rioting at any moment as the government faces a crucial vote this evening.

David Warren writes about Vancouver's shame.

Want to understand the 2012 election? Then understand that it will be decided by white, working class voters.

Is Texas Governor Rick Perry the answer for the GOP in 2012?

Robert J. Samuelson says that there are jobs available out there, but it seems the right people are having a hard time getting matched to the right jobs in the right places.

Mort Zuckerman writes that the job situation here in the U.S. is worse than we think. The picture he paints is one of an America in a modern depression.

Eugene Robinson slams President Obama for his novel definition of hostilities regarding our operations in Libya.

Richard Cohen says it is time we left Afghanistan.

2011-06-17T08:14:00.002-04:00

Now that New York congressman Anthony Weiner has bowed to the inevitable by resigning his seat in the wake of his creepy sex scandal (the one where he apparently did not have sex with anyone in the process), it is time to reflect on what it all means. Michael Goodwin says it means Weiner is a pathological liar unfit to hold public office. Of course, if being a liar were a bar to holding elective office we might find it difficult to fill the positions. As for me, I think the impact of the scandal is limited to Weiner, his wife, and his constituents. For the rest of America it is a story not worth the time or the effort, except for the entertainment value...which is why the media spent so much time and effort covering the story. Ratings and revenue, my friends, ratings and revenue.

Charles Krauthammer says President Obama is hurting efforts to revive the economy because he, and the rest of the Democratic party, is owned lock, stock and barrel by the unions.

The Greek government is tottering under pressure from the EU, the IMF and protesters in the streets. Does this matter to us here in America? Yes, it does. The world economy is more integrated than ever before. If Greece defaults on its debts, which could happen if the current government falls, international financial markets will be hit by an earthquake that will be felt everywhere and may be the straw that breaks the camel's back as far as our own tepid recovery is concerned.

Here in New Hampshire the House-Senate conference committee has reached an agreement on a budget that cuts spending and does not raise taxes (it even lowers the cigarette tax).

According to this story from The Union Leader, Ovide Lamontagne is reaching out to some potential GOP candidates for governor. While such a meeting may not prevent a bruising primary, it will give Lamontagne some food for thought and continue to promote the very positive image he has crafted for himself within the conservative movement here in New Hampshire.

Jay Cost compares President Obama to President Carter and concludes that Obama is much stronger within his own party, but that would not be enough if the economy continues to drive independents toward the GOP.

2011-06-16T07:56:00.002-04:00

Toby Harnden says the Obama spin brigade may try to sell the Republican presidential contenders as a weak field, but they won't succeed.

Michael Barone says Romney remains the front runner while Bachmann gained the most from the St. Anselm's debate.

The stock market continues to drop as investors fear a default in Greece.

But, of course, the really important news (and the reason I overslept this morning) is that the Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup. This truly is the Golden Age for Boston sports fans (including me).

2011-06-15T07:35:00.003-04:00

Walter Russell Mead explains why President Obama is looking more and more like President Hoover.

Jay Cost explains why President Obama is resorting to "blue smoke and mirrors" in the manner of Jimmy Carter in 1980. Cost believes, and I agree completely, that no amount of political acumen, fundraising skill, or rhetoric will protect him from a bleak economic picture. If the economy looks as bad, or worse, on election day as it does today, then Obama's political goose is cooked.

Michael Tanner makes the case for balancing the budget without tax increases.

Gary Shapiro says there are some simple things that can be done to improve the job picture immediately. Almost all of them are non-starters for the Democrats in Washington.

Dominic Carter says Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right when he warned about the disintegration of the Black family.

Pakistani authorities arrest some of the people who helped the CIA find Osama bin Laden. It seems more and more that the Pakistanis are deliberately trying to hinder our operations in their region. That is the behavior of an enemy, not a friend.

Drew Cline says Romney won the recent presidential debate.

2011-06-14T07:08:00.003-04:00

It's the economy, stupid. The Obama economy is, in some respects, as bad as the Great Depression.

But, since the economy is not the only news out there, a few thoughts on the race for President.

You can go to any one of a number of sites to read commentary about last night's GOP presidential debate here in New Hampshire. I caught bits and pieces of it as I spent most of my television viewing time (like most folks around here) watching the Bruins beat the Canucks to force a game seven of the Stanley Cup finals. But, here are my two cents. These early debates, like most of the early activity in the presidential primary/caucus process, is all about activists and contributors. There are still some grassroots types out there to be had (although many have already made their choice). The left-wing press seems to think Michelle Bachmann was the winner, and maybe she did win over some folks with her performance. But these early debates act, like the early primaries and caucuses themselves, as a winnowing out process. Weak candidates are exposed and, eventually, are forced to withdraw. Newt Gingrich is already headed down that path, and Herman Cain may be sputtering after his lackluster performance last night. In the end, the libertarian conservatives and the social conservatives must choose their champion against that candidate who would seem to appeal most to less ideological voters (usually the safest, most mainstream, best known guy...like McCain in '08 or Bush in '00 or Dole in '96). Right now, that guy is Romney and, despite everything, he is still the man most likely to take the prize in the end, if Republican voters continue a long trend in picking presidential nominees.

2011-06-13T07:07:00.003-04:00

Revealing Paul Krugman's mistakes, lies, distortions, and his true agenda.

Tonight at 8 PM seven GOP presidential contenders will debate here in New Hampshire. Of course, the Bruins take on the Canucks at the same time. Wasn't there something about a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it?

Robert J. Samuelson writes about how a lack of confidence is keeping the economy in the doldrums.

The media frenzy over Sarah Palin's e-mails does more damage to the media than to Palin.

E.J. Dionne reveals that Washington Democrats recognize they are in a bind when it comes to jobs and the economy.

John Podhoretz explains that Mitt Romney is in the same position now that Giuliani was in at this same point in the 2008 cycle. He leads in the polls because of his name recognition, but he has a fatal flaw. For Giuliani it was that he is pro-choice, and no pro-choice candidate can win the Republican nomination. For Romney it is his Massachusetts health care plan. That kind of statism will kill his candidacy in the end.

2011-06-12T09:06:00.003-04:00

It's the economy, stupid.

A new UNH Survey Center poll of New Hampshire residents finds that the economy is the number one issue, followed by concerns about the deficit. It also shows Romney the favorite for the GOP presidential nomination (at this early stage, though, most voters have not really started to pay attention and know little or nothing about the other candidates).

Tom Friedman has also hit on the thing that is holding the economy down...uncertainty. Until investors and business leaders have a clearer picture on what budgetary and regulatory decisions are coming down the pike from Washington they are not going to make any big decisions about investing their money.

Andrew C. McCarthy responds to those who argue against his call for an end to the Medicare program. McCarthy is right when he says that Medicare is unsustainable, but his critics are right to say that a politician who calls for the end of the program is one who will likely not get elected. Alas, too many Americans believe it is OK to use government coercion to take other people's money for their own uses.

2011-06-11T09:12:00.002-04:00

It's the economy, stupid.

Irwin Stelzer asks why the economic numbers all seem headed in the wrong direction. He talks to some investment bankers and business people and comes up with the right answer...uncertainty. The people holding onto enormous amounts of cash and hesitating to invest it are spooked by the uncertainty surrounding the Dodd-Frank finance reform law and the Obamacare medical insurance reform law. They just don't know how the new rules and regulations will impact the cost of doing business. Not knowing means not investing. There is, of course, a simple solution. Elect a Republican President with a Republican Congress to repeal these laws, cut taxes and cut spending. Then the wealthy, who are the only people with the wherewithal to create new jobs, will start investing that cash.

Mark Steyn writes about Obama's road to nowhere.

Daniel Henninger writes about Obama's worst week and Pawlenty's best.

Rich Lowry writes about the cancer of long-term unemployment.

Ron Paul tells a crowd in Manchester, NH that inflation will hit 50 percent within a few years.

2011-06-10T07:30:00.002-04:00

Newt Gingrich says his campaign for President will continue despite the resignations of much of his staff, including New Hampshire's own Dave Carney.

Fred Barnes says the staff was compelled to resign because Gingrich's wife did not want her husband to campaign full-time. Perhaps she does not want to be First Lady.

Paul Krugman says our current economic policies are being driven by the interests of the wealthy stock and bond holders, not those of ordinary workers.

Joe Liberman has a proposal to save Medicare.

Benny Avni says the U.S. and the U.N. are failing the people of Syria.

2011-06-09T10:12:00.003-04:00

It's the economy, stupid.

Jobless claims numbers on the rise, possibly indicating a slowing economy.

Romney can win. No, he can't. If the economy is the number one issue facing Republican primary voters, then Romney has the advantage. But primary voters do not always reflect the general public in terms of their issue priorities.

Victor Davis Hanson says the plight of Europe, after decades of Socialism, is a warning that we ought to heed.

Of course, not everything is about the economy. Arthur Herman writes about the looming possibility that Iran will successfully test a nuclear weapon before the year is out.

2011-06-08T07:36:00.002-04:00

It's the economy, stupid.

Responding to a Paul Krugman column, Amity Shlaes recounts some historical facts about why the economic recovery that looked like it might be on the way in 1937 collapsed into three more years of Great Depression. Hint...it had to do with new taxes, new regulations and a President who seemed to be looking for an even larger expansion of government. One interesting political consequence of all of the above was the smashing return of the GOP in the midterm elections of 1938. Alas, for those seeking historical parallels, President Roosevelt went on to win re-election in 1940. Of course, Barack Obama doesn't strike me as a politician or a leader anywhere near the skill level of FDR.

Thomas Friedman says our global economic growth model is in crisis and is unsustainable. Of course, we have heard this line of reasoning many times over the last few decades.

Martin Feldstein says the state of the U.S. economy right now is worse than you think, and he has the numbers to prove it.

2011-06-07T07:40:00.002-04:00

While much of the American news media is concentrating on the escapades of a New York congressman, there is some stuff happening out there that really has an impact on our lives.

First, and most importantly, it's the economy, stupid. Democratic political strategist James Carville, who coined the iconic political phrase for the 1992 presidential campaign, says that if we continue on a path of anemic job growth then "it's going to be a very, very rough 2012 for President Obama."

John Crudele says there is a very scary truth behind the new job numbers.

Michael Barone says the reason the job numbers look so bad is because business owners and managers have gone on a hiring strike. The reason? They see higher taxes and more regulations if the Obama Administration continues along the same path.

The reality of an economy that is growing so slowly as to make the word "recovery" seem laughable is what is behind new ABC News/Washington Post poll numbers that show President Obama losing what little bounce he received from the killing of Osama bin Laden. A whopping 57% think the economy is not recovering from the Great Recession, 59% disapprove of his handling of the economy, and 66% say the country is on the wrong track. If these are the numbers Obama faces in November, 2012, he can start planning his post-presidential life.

The second really important issue facing us in the real world is the unrest that continues in the Middle East. Benny Avni says the Syrians who are rushing the Israeli border fortifications along the Golan Heights are being paid by the Assad regime, essentially to distract attention away from the brutal crackdown on Assad's internal opponents.

Daniel Pipes writes about the disturbing possibility that Yemen could see a massive outflow of refugees in the wake of the attack on that country's longtime dictator who subsequently left the country for Saudi Arabia. Pipes says Yemen faces not only civil breakdown due to political instability but societal breakdown resulting from lack of natural resources, especially potable water.

Meanwhile, Bill Kristol points to a piece by the Kagans on the possibility that our forces could leave Afghanistan without securing the victory they have fought so hard for over the last decade.

What do both of these story categories have in common? Both are vital to our security. Economic security and political/military security. Both are also example of the failure in leadership in Washington, and if things continue along the downward path in both areas, we will certainly need some more hope and some more change in our nation's capitol.

2011-06-06T07:25:00.002-04:00

Paul Krugman says Ryan's Medicare voucher plan would 'end Medicare'. Robert J. Samuelson says unless we 'end Medicare as we know it' we are in deep fiscal trouble. I think everyone understands that the current system is unsustainable without changes. Krugman believes the changes that would work would involve the entire health care system by much more stringent government regulation of how health care providers do their jobs. Samuelson says we need to end the incentive system that exists in our fee-for-service environment. Both men see the problem, and both see a way out, but one is for more government involvement by laws, regulations and regulators while the other sees a market mechanism. I'm with the market-oriented folks on this one.

The Socialists lose in Portugal. Could Socialism be on the way out, or is this just a knee-jerk response to bad times?

A new movie chronicles Sarah Palin's life. She is running for President, I am sure of it. Like all the others, I will withhold any snap judgements.

2011-06-04T10:17:00.002-04:00

Nile Gardiner says we are heading toward an economic abyss under the policies of the most left-wing President in U.S. history.

The new numbers are not good, as the economy is creating a paltry number of jobs and the number of jobless people continues to grow.

The most recent economic data has many economists wondering whether we have just "hit a speed bump" on the road to economic recovery or we are now entering the second dip in the "double-dip recession".

The political consequences of continued slow growth, high joblessness and, potentially, another economic downturn, are sobering for the President. Fred Barnes believes there is no way the President can convince voters that we are not living in the "Obama economy".

On the other hand, Dorothy Rabinowitz does not believe the Republicans can just get away with harping on the bad economy and warning of the perils of huge budget deficits. She believes the winning Republican presidential candidate must speak to voters about the things that concern them the most...jobs, jobs, jobs.

Speaking of jobs, here is a chart that shows the extent of the problem.

Still, if entitlement spending is the rock upon which our economic ship will eventually founder, then we should heed Andrew C. McCarthy's column on Medicare. Alas, very few politicians can take McCarthy's position, which is to end the Medicare system entirely, and survive an election with job intact. I happen to believe that the American people will only understand that what Walter Russell Mead calls "the blue model" is obsolete when the ship hits the rocks. Americans tend to learn only when disaster strikes. Churchill was right when he said Americans always do the right thing...after they have tried everything else.

2011-06-03T10:41:00.003-04:00

Former New Hampshire Governor Walter Peterson has died. I always enjoyed speaking with him. He was a very classy guy.

Why the Obama economy is all about exporting, rather than creating, jobs.

On the other hand, Paul Krugman continues to believe that the mistake Obama (aided and abetted by the GOP) is making is not spending more federal money on stimulus programs to create jobs, deficits be damned.

2011-05-31T07:43:00.003-04:00

FYI...I will be doing the WGIR Morning Show this Thursday (6/2) from 6-9 AM. The show can be heard locally on 610 AM and online at wgiram.com. I hope you can take a listen. It will be the first time I have been back on WGIR since 2004.

Some interesting things going on today...

Michelle Bachmann talkes to veterans in New Hampshire. She seems to me like a person very close to running for President.

Victor Davis Hanson has a good handle on President Obama's reelection strategy. Essentially, the sluggish economy is Bush's fault, if you criticise the President you are a racist and if you elect Republicans they will push grandma over a cliff.

Michael A. Walsh blasts the Mediscare tactics of the Democrats. Only time will tell whether or not these tactics will work.

Meanwhile, Niall Ferguson says Democrats here do not seem amenable to the true lessons of the economic crisis gathering steam in Europe.

George Will says our military involvement in Libya is now illegal under the War Powers Act, yet no one seems to care.

Here is something Americans do care about...the housing market continues to fall.

2011-05-28T10:25:00.002-04:00

Monday...Maine officials grapple with New Hampshire envy. Want our economic growth? Adopt our tax structure. (Prediction...they won't do it).

Egypt is disintegrating.

Putin and Medvedev offer Russians a real choice (maybe).

Cornel West called out as the Ivy League huckster that he is.

Huntsman visits New Hampshire.

Tuesday...Young people flee New York. Want to prevent that from happening? Adopt New Hampshire's tax structure. (Prediction...they won't do it).

Experts baffled by decline in major crimes in the United States. It seems economic distress is not the major factor in criminal activity. Californians will soon discover that crime is caused by criminals.

European leaders at a loss as to what they ought to do about Greece (and, possibly, Portugal, Spain and Italy).

A plan to deal with deficits.

Wednesday...Americans fear the growing debt more than a possible default.

Thursday...Analysis on the special election win for the Democrats in upstate New York here and here. My analysis? One special election taken alone does not necessarily tell us anything. When three or four are strung together and all point in the same direction, then you might have something. Still, a backlash against the GOP on Medicare fits within my grand theory of American voter behavior, which explains the see-saw nature of recent elections as a consequence of ill-informed 'swing voters' entering the fray in unpredictable proportions and behaving in unpredictable ways depending on the circumstances of the moment.

Friday...Is there really water on the Moon? If so, it would make establishing a permanent base much more practical.

Jonah Goldberg says that for the GOP the die is cast. Like Caesar, Republican leaders have crossed the Rubicon with their embrace of the Ryan Medicare proposal. If 'swing voters' are convinced by the Democrats that the GOP is trying to eliminate Medicare, then many Republicans will be defeated in 2012, and Obama may get his second term. Of course, the huge and growing annual deficits and growing mountain of accumulated debt will remain, and whoever wins will still face the unpalatable choice of either cutting cherished benefits or raising taxes.

Paul Krugman relishes the opportunity to bash the GOP over the head with the Ryan plan.

The folks at The Wall Street Journal relish the opportunity to educate voters about the true meaning of a "tax the rich" policy.

Jay Cost analyzes economic data and concludes that we may be in for a long period of minuscule economic growth. If he is correct (and I think he is), then we may reach a crisis sooner rather than later on entitlements, other spending, and taxes.

2011-05-18T07:32:00.002-04:00

At some point in the not-too-distant future a critical mass of Americans will realize that Congress passed a law a few years ago which essentially bans incandescent light bulbs. They will realize that they are being forced to by flourescent bulbs which, at least in the opinion of some, throws off a less pleasing light (these bulbs also take longer to get to their full brightness). They will also find out that the new LED bulbs, which allegedly solve some of the issues of the flourescents as compared to the incandescents, are quite costly. As a student of politics, I wonder what kind of reaction we might see from the masses. After all, this issue hits home...every home. I sense an opportunity.

A story found only in The New York Post reveals that the hotel maid who is accusing the head of the IMF of sexual assault lives in a building that is exclusively for HIV/AIDS sufferers. It appears Mr. Strauss-Kahn's troubles are multiplying.

Caroline Glick believes President Obama is setting up an ambush for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. She thinks Obama will try to corner Netanyahu on the issue of negotiating with Hamas, now that Hamas officials have signed a unity deal with Fatah.

Controversy over a pending bill in the New Hampshire legislature that would require a photo ID to vote as a town clerk posts a request for voters to show their ID at a special election, despite the fact that the bill is not yet law.

2011-05-03T08:05:00.002-04:00

Here is the inside story from The New York Times about how our intelligence services tracked down bin Laden and how our military took him out. President Obama deserves credit for continuing the effort begun under the Bush Administration, and I am glad he chose the more difficult and dangerous option of using special forces to make the raid. I hope everyone notes also when reading the story that the intelligence was derived in part from 'enhanced interrogations' of terrorists held in secret CIA prisons. Despite what candidate Obama and his allies thought and said during the campaign, this is just more proof that there is no 'clean' way to fight vicious, barbarous terrorists like bin Laden and his ilk. Perhaps President Obama is getting the message.

Christopher Hitchens has it right in this piece when he points out that Abbottabad is a town that is owned, lock, stock and barrel by the Pakistani Army. The Pakistanis, like all our other allies in the region, are playing a double game with us.

JUSTICE

2011-05-02T08:07:00.002-04:00

In the end, despite the fact that recent political events in the Arab world have made him increasingly irrelevant, the pursuit of Osama bin Laden resulting in his death sends a powerful message to the enemies of the United States. We will not stop. We will not rest. Whether a Republican or a Democrat holds the White House, we will hunt you down no matter how long it takes.

Does this mean that the war on terror is over? I think it will add some powerful political impetus to the notion that we can move on to other things, as there already exists strong sentiment to get our troops out of Afghanistan.

Eugene Robinson expresses the bipartisan pride that I think is the most common emotion in the wake of the news of bin Laden's demise.

David Ignatius says the news puts the lie to bin Laden's belief that the U.S. was the "weak horse".

2011-04-15T07:18:00.002-04:00

I've been pretty busy this week which is why blogging was low on my priority list (I don't know if anyone reads this blog, anyway, so what does it matter). Having said that, I'm also reluctant to comment on the the debate over the President's response to the Ryan budget plan. I read the transcript of the speech, and I've read many of the opinion pieces that came in its wake. Essentially, it all boils down to this. Conservatives think the speech was a disgrace and liberals think it was marvelous. If you don't want to spend too much time recognizing the distinction, I recommend you read just two pieces...this one by Charles Krauthammer for the conservative side and this one by Paul Krugman for the liberals. What is so discouraging about all of this is that I believe, as Jay Cost does, that this speech was really all about the 2012 election. Obama needs to shore up his liberal base and the speech was the opening play in achieving that goal. I see absolutely no chance of any bipartisan compromise that would help the country avoid the massive debt crisis that is looming on the horizon anytime in the next two years. It will take another election. It will also take an election that results in one side or the other getting complete control of the Federal Government. If not, then we will kick the can down the road another two or four years. Depressing, I know, but that is how I see it.

2011-04-11T07:48:00.002-04:00

These are strange days, indeed. As President Obama makes plans to unveil a plan to deal with deficits and debt many on the left and the right are contemplating the seemingly changed political landscape. Once upon a time it was considered an act of political suicide to suggest cuts in popular entitlement programs like Social Security or Medicare. But it seems that this is no longer the case (notice that I continue to use the word 'seems'). Michael Barone believes the President is responding to the changed landscape as indicated in recent election results and polls. Paul Krugman is despairing that the ultra-liberal candidate of hope and change he and his friends thought they were getting turns out to be an empty suit easily bested by the evil Republicans. But, as always, Robert Samuelson provides the voice of reason in this column reminding everyone that we are on an unsustainable spending path driven by popular programs. Almost half of our population of 300 million (46.2%) is receiving some kind of substantial benefit. That number includes 46.5 million getting Social Security benefits, 46.2 million on Medicare, 42.4 million on Medicaid, 36.1 million getting food stamps, 12.4 million receiving housing subsidies and 3.2 million getting veteran's benefit's. Of that group, only the veteran's can be said to have earned those benefits by direct service to the country. Everything else on the list is welfare in one form or another. Samuelson also points out that polls show Americans want increased spending on education, health care, social security and many other things, but also believe they are taxed enough. This is unsustainable fiscally, economically and politically. So, is there a way out? Yes. When we reach a crisis point and are forced to make hard choices. Mine is a pessimistic view to be sure. But it is what I think based on the evidence at hand.

2011-04-08T07:50:00.002-04:00

The Social Security Administration will stop sending us those paper statements in a money saving move. Good. I always found it depressing to look down the list and say how little money I made over the years. An economist says that the U.S. is going down the same deficit spending path as Greece and Portugal. Ruben Navarrette says the American people have more important things to worry about than a government shutdown. A massive debris field of flotsam that was carried out to sea by the Japanese tsunami is making its way across the Pacific. Some of it will eventually wash ashore on the West Coast. Check out the video of a press conference held in Wisconsin to announce that an entire city was left out of the reported vote totals on election night in the closely watched contest for a seat on that state's supreme court. The new totals give Justice Prosser a 7,000 vote cushion. Charles Krauthammer praises Paul Ryan for his leap of faith in putting together a truly radical document and risking the wrath of the left, like he is already receiving from Paul Krugman. Michael Walsh believes the Ryan budget plan re-opens the debate on the size and scope of the government.

2011-04-07T07:41:00.004-04:00

Two talk show hosts I once liked and listened to often until their acts wore thin are shown the door by their employers. Glenn Beck and Fox News part ways, while Jay Severin is let go from WTKK in Boston. When I first listened to each of these men on the radio (before Beck got his TV gig) as a fellow talk professional I admired their ability to put on a very entertaining show. Each man at times could put on some very compelling radio, irrespective of the political views they were espousing. You just had to listen. Each man parlayed their creativity and style into monster contracts as they built big ratings generating big revenues for their employers. So long as those ratings and revenues continued to roll in their employers were willing to overlook the more outrageous or controversial things they said. It's easy to ignore activists and community leaders who demand that you fire one of your hosts when your numbers are really good. After all, in the modern radio and television business the first and foremost duty of management at all levels is to hit their revenue numbers (exceeding them is even better). Corporate managers at the regional and national level for these big media conglomerates only see the numbers. Having said that, there is a duty to safeguard the broadcast license of the facility. It is, after all, the license that is the most valuable asset that the big media conglomerate purchased in the first place. Once upon a time, when broadcast companies were small and oftentimes owned by people who were based in the community those outlets served, there was a greater fear of upsetting the locals and endangering the license. That no longer exists. But there is such a thing as a talk host who is more controversial than he is worth. If the ratings and revenues don't make taking the heat a worthwhile endeavor, then broadcast managers are not going to be willing to put up with that heat. This was the case for both Fox News and WTKK in my view. If both men were still pulling monster ratings and huge revenues, then the aggravation of dealing with their sometimes strange theories (Beck) and vulgar pronouncements (Severin) would be worth it (and worth the big money they were getting paid). Without those ratings and revenues, forget it. There is a lot of interesting political commentary from various sources concerning the potential for a government shutdown and the Ryan 2012 budget. Liberal editor and columnist Robert Kuttner is disappointed with President Obama's performance thus far in fighting against the GOP's spending cut proposals, both the ones in the current budget and those proposed by Congressman Ryan. For his part Ryan says the President's budget proposals put the U.S. on an unsustainable track. Paul Krugman, on the other hand, believes Ryan's proposal is ridiculous. Michael Barone believes Rep. Ryan has presented a bold plan which will form the basis for GOP's economic platform in 2012. He believes the American people are now so worried about unsustainable debt and deficits that they will rally around such a plan. I disagree, but more on that later. Charlie Gasparino also likes the plan, but is disappointed that the GOP presidential contenders all seem to be hiding from the details. They are hiding from those details because, like me, they believe when "the people" get wind of those details the majority will reject them.

BUDGETS, POLITICS AND PROSPERITY

2011-04-05T07:51:00.003-04:00

Rep. Paul Ryan is set to release his 2012 budget plan (it is actually the GOP's plan, but he is the architect, so it is and will forever be known as the Ryan budget) called "The Path to Prosperity". I don't know if it will put us on such a path, other factors will be in play, but I do agree with this piece asserting that the plan and its components will act as a giant political test for the American voting public. I say voting public rather than the more generic "American people" because the only people that count in our system politically are those who vote. A very significantly conservative and Republican electorate turned out in 2010 leading to all of those GOP wins in Congress and State Houses across the land. If the electorate is composed of a more Democratic-leaning population in 2012 those gains will be reversed. That, of course, is quite possible (and I expect it to be the case). President Obama will be at the top of the Democratic ticket. His presence will bring out more African-Americans, more young people, more left-leaning peripheral voters (political scientist Angus Campbell famously called them "in-and-out voters"). How those voters react to the budget proposals of the GOP will be a factor. Frankly, though, the economic conditions of the country and the job approval rating of the President will be far more significant, in my opinion, in deciding how those voters cast their ballots. As for the short-term, I expect a government shutdown this week as the Democrats are looking back to 1995 and perceive the similar situation which happened then is repeating itself today. They believe the 1995 shutdown helped them politically, so you can bank on it happening today.

2011-03-25T07:46:00.002-04:00

Charles Krauthammer is exasperated by performance of the college professor in the White House. Well, I did not vote for him, and I believe Mr. Krauthammer did not vote for him, and I hope that many of the people out there who did vote for him are thinking about a different decision in 2012.

I am also exasperated by Obama's lack of leadership skills (but I knew that when he was a candidate, so it is not a surprise). The problems we face are daunting enough, even for a leader with real skills and steel in his backbone. This is why we need to make the Obama era a short one.

Jay Cost analyzes the 2012 race from Obama's standpoint. He concludes that Obama is in real trouble, even if the economy gets a little better.

David Warren is worried about the weakness of the West as it is revealed in the Libya operation.

The allies continue to bicker about the goals of the Libya mission. Meanwhile, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood partners with the Egyptian military. I expect the generals think the Brotherhood will be a useful tool in keeping the people in check. I remember that the German generals thought the same about Hitler and the Nazis in 1933. How did that work out for them?

Sally Pipes writes about how events in Massachusetts concerning the continuation of Romneycare have implications nationally when considering the future of Obamacare.

2011-03-24T07:56:00.002-04:00

In Massachusetts, white families are abandoning the cities.

In Portugal, the Prime Minister resigns after the parliament fails to pass austerity measures. That could mean another Eurozone bailout.

In Germany, commentators from across the ideological spectrum are skeptical about the no-fly zone over Libya.

In the American states, one analyst believes pensions are not the real source of budget problems.

Conrad Black praises the French for taking the lead regarding Libya.

Elizabeth Taylor, dead at 79. Camille Paglia expresses her love, devotion and appreciation for Taylor and her many fine qualities, from her stunning, sensual beauty to her acting skills.

2011-03-23T08:09:00.002-04:00

A new study says religion may become extinct in nine countries in the coming decades...Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland. In the Czech Republic right now 60% of survey respondents indicate they have no religious affiliation. I think, though it is an elegant mathematical study, the results are incorrect. Religion will not be extinct in those countries, but Christianity probably will be, replaced in some of those places by Islam.

A former SEIU official has a plan to destabilize the country, cause another financial panic and meltdown on Wall Street, and generally stir up some unrest. He thinks it is the only way to take the country back from the capitalist oligarchs and restore power to "the people". I guess electing Barack Obama was not enough.

Martin Wolf has some advice for China as they prepare to assume global hegemony. I suspect the Butchers of Beijing will have different ideas.

Michael Kinsley is confused by the Libya operation. Jonah Goldberg, who supports the operation, is worried that the President missed his fast-break opportunity to get rid of Gaddafi by insisting on going the diplomatic, multilateral route which is proving problematic, at best.

But Stanley Kurtz has the right answer when he asserts that the President is following a provision within international law called "responsibility to protect" (RtoP) which was passed by the UN in 2005. Some think this is folly, but Kurtz makes the salient point when he says that the President is, once again, following a particular leftist, internationalist ideology without telling the American people.

Here at home, while Detroit continues to shrink, Miami is rocked by racial tension, not between Blacks and Whites, but between Blacks and Hispanics, specifically Black men getting shot by Hispanic police officers.

Andrew Ferguson has this interesting piece on why major American colleges and universities are once again discriminating against women, and why that discrimination is being ignored by feminists.

2011-03-22T07:49:00.002-04:00

The joys of multilateralism....

France, the U.K. and the Americans get in a row over the possibility that NATO will take the lead in the Libya air campaign, with NATO member Turkey steaming about being left out of the process.

David Brooks points out why multilateralism when running a war is a difficult row to hoe.

Rich Lowry writes about the fog of obfuscation and VDH writes about the madness of it all.

Editors of The Telegraph are amazed at the incoherence from their own government, and they wonder why their RAF boys are risking their lives.

Marc Thiessen says the wording of the UN resolution authorizing the no-fly zone is disastrous.

Niall Ferguson says the intervention was the right call, but the timing was late. He also is not optimistic about how it will all turn out.

George Will, as he has done consistently over the years, argues against American intervention in a place where our vital interests are not at stake.

Meanwhile, Benny Avni says the mullahs in Iran just keep gaining ground.

Max Boot says we need to plan for a post-Gaddafi Libya.

Caroline Glick says the Libya episode is just the latest piece of evidence confirming that the Obama Administration is descending into foreign policy incoherence, if not insanity.

2011-03-21T07:53:00.002-04:00

As our planes, along with some from Britain and France, bomb anti-aircraft positions, radar installations, and Libyan tanks and other armored vehicles, we start to see some reasons why this might not be such a good idea.

First, despite the fact that they called for a no-fly zone, the Arab League is now going wobbly. Apparently, they think you can have a no-fly zone without bombing anything on the ground.

Second, some Liberal Democrats in Congress are now asking a pertinent question...why did the President not get authorization from Congress before sending our military into action? This despite the fact that, as Ross Douthat writes, this is a very liberal intervention.

The most pertinent point about the whole operation, though, is made by the historian Arthur Herman, who says that the operation cannot succeed without boots on the ground. Victor Davis Hanson, another historian, also thinks the operation is a bad idea, but says now that we are in it we need to win it.

As for me, I was never a big fan of U.S. military action in any circumstance that does not involve our vital interests. Who governs Libya is not our concern, and does not matter much in terms of our economic or military security. When Gaddafi killed Americans, especially when his agents blew up a civilian airliner, that was the time to use our military power to remove him. I hope he goes (preferably, carried out in a body bag), but I'm not very hopeful that we will get anything more than a bloody stalemate using air power alone.

2011-03-18T08:00:00.002-04:00

I have to admit that I never thought the Arab League would call for a no-fly zone over Libya, and I never believed the UN Security Council would pass a resolution authorizing force to protect Libyan civilians from Gaddafi's thugs. Alas, too little, too late.

Max Hastings points out that the intervention is happening too late, and argues that it makes no sense for the U.S. or other Western nations to intervene in the Arab world after our experiences in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter). I agree. We should only intervene when our vital national interests are at stake.

Just the day before she managed to achieve a diplomatic victory by helping to convince the Security Council to take action on Libya, Hillary Clinton announces that she will not serve as Secretary of State in a second Obama term. That's nice. Of course, many folks don't think there will be a second Obama term (me included).

Meanwhile, Nicholas Kristof writes about the problems in Bahrain where Shiite protesters are being beaten and bullied by Sunni police and security forces loyal to the monarchy in that small country. The government is being aided by Saudi military units that entered the country earlier this week.

Charles Krauthammer fires back at the head of the OMB, Jack Lew, who insists that those IOU's in the Social Security "lockbox" are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, just like any other Treasury bond. Krauthammer, correctly, points out that Lew's contention is s much baloney.

Jay Cost explains why most of the Presidential polls that are coming out at this time are practically worthless. He is correct. There are only two polls really worth looking at right now. Presidential job approval and any question regarding whether or not the President deserves re-election. Until we get a GOP nominee, those will be the best polls to get a feel for the 2012 outcome.

2011-03-17T07:48:00.002-04:00

Walter Russell Meade writes about the two forms of capitalism practiced in the U.S. over the last century, and prospects for the future.

Michael Barone writes about the problems with our Presidential nominating system.

No matter what else you read and hear about the upcoming 2012 election campaign remember one thing...it will be a referendum on the job performance of President Barack Obama. A Presidential re-election campaign is always about the incumbent. In 2004 there was general, if moderate, satisfaction with the leadership of George W. Bush. In 1996 the same could be said of Bill Clinton, but in 1992 there was deep dissatisfaction with George H.W. Bush (at one point that Summer the polls showed Ross Perot, of all people, in the lead, which goes to show how unhappy people were about the situation in the country at the time). If 2012 is like '04 or '96, Obama wins. If, on the other hand, it seems more like '92 or '80, Obama loses (right now, it feels an awful lot like 1979 did).

2011-03-15T07:59:00.002-04:00

Nick Gillespie writes about the three essential facts to keep in mind when thinking about the tax and spend issue at both the state and federal levels. These are the immovable objects when it comes to the debate surrounding this issue. We are out of money, our public employees are overpaid, and we cannot tax our way out of this mess. The short term ebbs and flows of political power between Republicans and Democrats will not change these simple facts.

Another explosion and a greatly increased potential for a meltdown at that Japanese nuclear power plant.

Niall Ferguson ponders Barack Obama in the role of Jimmy Carter. I remember those years, and how bad things seemed at the time. Ferguson also says there is another way to get Gaddafi.

James Carville admits a mistake.

Juan Williams says 'I told you so' about NPR.

Saudi troops enter Bahrain.

2011-03-09T07:31:00.002-05:00

NPR executives caught in a sting operation that reveals their biases. Not surprising to me at all, and more evidence that the GOP should refuse to back any more tax dollars for the organization. One of the executives in question is being shown the door, by the way.

Victor Davis Hanson explains why the atmosphere of unreality is so pervasive in elite circles.

George Will asks all the right questions concerning the possibility of U.S. or NATO military intervention in Libya.

Jay Cost looks at the "yes...but" Republican presidential field. He reminds is that, once upon a time, Ronald Reagan was a "yes...but" candidate.

BRAVE NEW WORLD

2011-03-08T07:16:00.003-05:00

Walter Russell Mead has some thoughts on the latest column by Paul Krugman. I actually skipped the column when it appeared yesterday, but reading Mead led me to read Krugman. I think both are valuable pieces to consider. Krugman is correct in his diagnosis of an economy that is being changed in dramatic and unforeseen ways by new technology, but Mead is correct in pointing out that Krugman (and other traditional liberals) is unable to move beyond the old solutions (more and stronger unions, more government programs like universal health care, etc.). As I approach 50 years of age, I find myself with a personal stake in all of this. Technology changed my business (broadcasting) in many dramatic ways, most importantly in that it allowed for significant downsizing in terms of personnel (along with changes in federal regulations that allowed for the development of super-sized broadcasting companies like Clear Channel). Job opportunities diminished dramatically as a result, which forced many of us to choose different paths. There are millions of people out there who face similar circumstances. How they react to those circumstances will determine the course of our collective future, as well as their individual one.

2011-03-03T08:37:00.003-05:00

Another day, another poll. This time it is the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. This one finds a majority of Americans do not support cuts in Social Security or Medicare to deal with the deficit.

Fareed Zakaria says America may be in decline. Here is a rebuttal to that view. I retain my optimistic view of America as a whole, but I am worried about how our political system functions.

Nile Gardiner says America must work to avoid Europe's doomed path.

The NFL is headed for a fall.

Victor Davis Hanson says President Obama is caught in a Middle East minefield.

Public employee unions are not going to the mattresses over wages, benefits, or even collective bargaining rights. They are fighting to retain their ability to raise money through the forced collection of dues. They use that money to support Democratic politicians. It is the basis of their power and influence. Without it, they will fade away, and they know it.

2011-03-01T08:11:00.002-05:00

If the latest New York Times/CBS News poll is correct then a majority of voters approve of collective bargaining rights for public employees, and a plurality favor raising taxes to balance their state's budget. I am always skeptical of polls of adults, rather than of registered voters or likely voters. In this poll 25% indicated there was a public employee in the household and 20% said there was a union member. If Democrats on the state level want to believe in this poll, then they should prepare their tax increase proposals for the next campaign.

On the other hand, Michael Barone says Middle America is rejecting big government.

Liberal columnist Brent Budowsky thinks average Americans, battered by the poor economy, are being poorly served by both the Democrats and the Republicans. Of course, Budowsky thinks some good, old-fashioned government jobs programs would do the trick.

Charlie Gasparino explains why not financial executive has gone to jail in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, despite the protestations of a Hollywood filmmaker.

LABOR PAINS

2011-02-28T11:26:00.003-05:00

Walter Russell Mead argues that public employee unions are not facing assault simply from Republican politicians and their Tea Party supporters, but are in even more danger from the budget cutting axes being swung by Democrats in deep blue states. He gives some compelling examples, and his case fits the common sense test. What common sense is that? The proposition that majorities can no longer be found, in Red or Blue states, for significant tax increases. Without significant tax increases, or any more bailout money from Washington, the states can only get their fiscal houses in order by cutting expenses, and the fastest way to do that is to cut down your personnel costs, as all of us in the private sector have learned only too well over the last few years.

Kevin D. Williamson argues that the fight between GOP governors and the public employee unions is not simply a matter of balancing budgets, but a contest to determine whether or not those unions can maintain their political power.

Bob McManus writes that the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw the current crisis coming because he believed labor intensive services, like health care and much of what is done by public sector employees, would increase in cost without gaining much in productivity.

Robert J. Samuelson writes that what we are witnessing in Wisconsin and elsewhere is really the death knell of Big Labor as we have know it as a political and economic force in the United States for the last 75 years.

The labor movement is, indeed, on the wane. For private sector unions it was a competitive labor dynamic that put relatively high cost American workers into direct competition with lower wage workers, both overseas due to a globalized economy, and here at home due to higher levels of immigration (legal and illegal). For public sector unions it is the fact that there is a limit to the overall tax burden. The same principle, of course, applies. You can only raise prices so high on a product before people can either no longer afford it, or they find a cheaper alternative. For the private sector, cheaper alternatives were available. For the public sector, voters can choose representatives who will refuse to charge them more for their public services. In the end, I agree with those who believe unionization as we have know it is coming to an end.

2011-02-25T07:56:00.002-05:00

Nile Gardiner says the Obama Administration has been spineless so far in their response to the revolt in Libya.

Yesterday I wrote that the President's decision to end federal legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act was all about the 2012 election. Michael A. Walsh says the same thing.

Paul Krugman compares Madison 2011 to Baghdad 2003. Of course, in his analogy the public employee union demonstrators equate to the oppressed people of Baghdad, and the Republican governor and legislators to the evil, corrupt and incompetent American administrators of the 'occupation'. Always remember when reading Krugman that he really believes the conservative movement is a cover for the capitalist oligarchy attempting to rule this country for their own selfish ends. Those of us who are conservatives, in his view, are either dupes or willing co-conspirators.

On the other hand, Karl Rove writes that the events in Wisconsin could have enormous consequences for the 2012 election.

Joe Klein writes a muddled piece about the events in Wisconsin. It is muddled because he has sympathy for the average state worker, especially those who work on the lower end of the pay scale, but he also has sympathy for government administrators trying to bring sanity to the system. But it is really muddled because as a true believing liberal, he believes America is under taxed.

Charles Krauthammer understands that the GOP effort to break the power of the public employee unions on the state level, combined with their insistence that they will take on middle-class entitlement spending on the federal level, if they follow through, is truly crossing the political Rubicon. Of course, historically speaking, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon he sparked a civil war in Rome.

When it comes to the nuts and bolts of cutting spending, this article in The Washington Post profiles the trials and tribulations of my very own brand new Member of Congress, Frank Guinta. Rep. Guinta is the former Mayor of Manchester, and he has found himself voting for cuts in programs that benefit his home town, his district and his state, while defending programs that anger his Tea Party supporters, here and elsewhere. This is what 2012 will be all about. Will those independent, swing voters who threw the Democrats out in such numbers in 2010 be willing to keep the GOP members in while they slash spending? I remain hopeful, but skeptical.

2011-02-24T07:41:00.002-05:00

Tim Carney hits the nail on the head in this piece about the current political atmosphere here in the United States. The liberal elites do not understand what is driving the Tea Party, populist anger. It is not anger against "the rich" or Wall Street or big corporations, although members of each category are included in the anger. It is against everyone who is perceived by the public to be getting special or unfair benefits through their connections with big government. That is why the anger was sparked by the bailouts, and that is why it will now focus on public employee unions. While the beneficiaries are different, Wall Street bankers on one hand and your average state employee on the other, the anger is the same. We are headed for insolvency, both on the state and federal level, and our economy continues to slowly drag along with the average private sector worker who still has a job in fear of losing it. One can argue about the rationality of the approach, but as a political matter it is very real.

Michael Barone writes about the money trail which leads from the taxes paid by citizens, into the state treasuries, then into the pockets of state employees as their salaries and wages, then into the legally required union dues paid by those state employees, through the union coffers, into the pockets of Democratic politicians, who then use their power to aid the unions in getting more money out of the taxpayers.

Victor Davis Hanson writes about the consequences of Obama's failure to deal realistically with our federal deficit and debt situation.

Fareed Zakaria writes about the seismic shift going on in the Arab world.

Protests against government austerity measures continue in Greece, and efforts to prevent austerity continue in Wisconsin and Indiana.

President Obama, sensing that his chances for re-election continue to shrink, now looks to shore up his liberal base by shifting the government stance on the Defense of Marriage Act. The Justice Department will no longer defend the law in court. Obama's views on the issue are said to be 'evolving'. Yeah, right. Whatever his personal view, his political stance is what is at question. Opposition to same-sex marriage is pretty strong inside the African-American community, especially the more actively religious part of that community. When he was a State Senator representing a Chicago district, and when he was attending Reverend Wright's church, it was good politics to be opposed to same-sex marriage. It did not damage him when he became a U.S. Senator from Illinois, and it was a peripheral issue in 2008. But now he need all the help he can get. He knows that his African-American support is unshakably monolithic, so he does not worry about losing any of them. He worries about gaining, or regaining, the support of social liberals and the gay community. That is what this is all about.

2011-02-23T07:59:00.002-05:00

The battle between GOP governors/legislators and public employee union members and their Democratic legislators continues in state capitols across the country. As in Wisconsin, Democratic legislators in Indiana have now left their state to prevent a quorum. What are the real stakes involved in this battle?

First, the political stakes are enormous. The union movement in general, and public employee unions in particular, are one of the pillars of the Democratic Party, as left-wing columnist Harold Meyerson points out in this piece assailing what he calls a GOP war against unions waged at the behest of their corporate masters. Markos Moulitsas believes this "war" will backfire on the Republicans as it will cause them to lose Republican and Independent voters who are union members. I happen to think that while it may cause some losses from conservative leaning public employee union members (think cops and firefighters), it will generate even greater enthusiasm from Tea Party supporters and those who earnestly believe that deficits and debt are an existential threat to our general prosperity.

Second, moving beyond the political calculations, it must be pointed out that the real-world economic consequences are even larger than the political ones. Unless we are saved by a huge economic upsurge, as happened in the mid-1990s, tax revenues will continue to lag behind expenditures. States will continue to be squeezed by pension and health care obligations. Since there is no process for states to go into bankruptcy, eventually state legislatures will have to raise taxes or cut spending to get into balance. If the unions win this round of political combat (by which I mean if the Democrats win back some legislatures and governor's mansions in 2012) , taxes will have to go up, and in some states substantially. I suspect if that happens an even larger voter backlash than just seen will swamp the Democrats in 2014, and we will be right back to where we started.

I suspect the GOP will prevail in some states, get some sort of mushy compromise in others, and fail in still others. As we are seeing in the case of the big federal entitlement programs, the can will get kicked down the road. Inevitably, though, we will have to deal with these issues, one way or the other.

Jonah Goldberg says the problem is the ability of public employees to join unions. He believes that should be outlawed (as it once was).

IT'S THE DEBT, STUPID

2011-02-22T07:49:00.003-05:00

The combined federal, state and local government debt now exceeds the size of the U.S. economy.

Awareness of this fact, and concern over its consequences, is the number one political story of the moment, because so many voters are now linking these high deficits and enormous debt to the slow economy. Thus, stories that show the movement of states from the Democratic column to the Republicans are a good indicator of the electoral consequences of all of this.

The demonstrations by public employee union members in Madison, Wisconsin only serve to highlight the disconnect between how good the government workers have it as opposed to those in the private sector, and by that I mean middle and working class folks. This would not be a problem except for the fact that those private sector working and middle class folks know that they are paying for the generous pay, pensions and benefits through their tax dollars. They are beginning to realize that these unions, through their ability to require state employees to contribute dues, use their power to support Democratic candidates who, when elected, use their power to provide ever more generous pay and benefits to the public employees, at the expense of everything else state government does. Of course, at some point in the future the average taxpayer will be forced to realize that the very same dynamic is at play when it comes to middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.

Yet, despite it all, President Obama does not get it, and he will not, as he is a left-wing ideologue, a community organizer who never ran any kind of large organization, never had to hire or fire anyone, never had to balance a budget.

By contrast, men like Wisconsin's governor Scott Walker do understand that it takes real money to balance a budget, and that money does not grow on trees, but comes from the pockets of taxpayers.

2012 will be all about whether or not a majority of American voters want to go forward with the socialistic vision of a community organizer, or the vision of someone (hopefully) who knows how to balance a budget, and wishes for a smaller, less intrusive federal government.

2011-02-21T07:40:00.003-05:00

Turmoil continues in the Middle East as violence in Libya has led to reports that Colonel Qaddafi has fled the country. We can only hope.

Protesters continue to occupy the central square in the capitol of Bahrain.

Protests also continue in Iran and Morocco. In Tunisia a general debate is going on over what a new government will look like.

Amir Taheri says a recent speech by the top Iranian general could signal that the military will not help the government crack down on protesters.

Meanwhile, here at home the union protests in Madison, Wisconsin continue to lead to a debate about the power of public employee unions and the meaning of elections. Paul Krugman, of course, is rooting for the unions as a way to prevent our descent into oligarchy. Joe Klein says the events in Madison are really about the fact that elections have consequences and oh, by the way, the Republicans won the last one.

Robert J. Samuelson, looking at the federal budget mess, says we will not effectively deal with the problem until we deal with the fact that the AARP is really running the show.

STATE OF PLAY

2011-02-18T07:29:00.002-05:00

You may have been reading about the protests in Wisconsin. Essentially, the public employee unions are upset with legislation that would curb their power and benefits. It is, of course, their right to protest against the legislation. It is, however, indefensible for the Democratic members of the legislature to abandon their duties as a ploy to prevent action on the bill. It is indefensible for some of the more radical union members to attempt to intimidate lawmakers and the governor by demonstrating at their homes. I hope that many Americans are watching this and are beginning to understand that the only way to prevent the unabated growth of government is to fight (through peaceful political means) against the people who benefit from that growth.

Peggy Noonan writes about the leadership that is coming from some state governors, as she profiles the courage and commitment of Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Chris Christie of New Jersey. If Scott Walker of Wisconsin holds the line against the unions in his state, we can add him to the list.

One person who does not fit the leadership bill is Barack Obama. As Charles Krauthammer points out, his new budget can aptly be described as a Louis XV budget ("after me, the deluge").

In fact, the story is even worse than simply one of a President who does not have the courage to lead. Barack Obama does not lack courage or conviction, in my estimation. He believes in his left-wing vision of government. He wants to achieve political victory in order to implement that vision. Facing the enormous repudiation at the polls last November, he has decided to fight back. He has sent in a budget that does very little to deal with deficits because he has made the political calculation that the true believers in the GOP will come out with alternatives that make REAL cuts, and may even go after entitlements. He believes that by doing so the GOP will alienate the great mass of independent voters, which will help him win reelection in 2012 and give him a Democratic majority in Congress. I believed that before today, but this article in The Washington Post about the political activities of the President and his people makes me even more certain, as they are now jumping in with both feet regarding the battles in the states over the power and perks of the public employee unions. Winning in 2012 will depend on that power on a state-by-state basis.

2011-02-16T07:20:00.002-05:00

It has taken some doing, but today I can announce some truly bipartisan agreement on an issue. In this case, the partisans are columnists with varying ideological perspectives. The issue is the new budget just issued by the President and his team. The consensus opinion? It's a joke.

Scot Lehigh of The Boston Globe says the President punted on making the hard choices and has abdicated his responsibility to educate the American people on the tough realities we face.

Megan McArdle of The Atlantic says the budget proposal is disastrous.

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post says the budget simply kicks the can down the road...again.

I think it is clear that the President and his people have made a strategic political calculation. They assume that the Republicans will have to come out swinging with significant budget cuts to programs people like, including entitlements. The President will then rally his Liberal base and hammer away, hoping to get enough non-ideological voters so concerned about their programs that they will come his way, leading to a big comeback victory in 2012. If Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard is correct, then the GOP leadership in the House is going to jump in with both feet by proposing real cuts to these programs. This will set the stage for the battle. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about the results. I suspect that if the GOP stays true to their belief that programs should be cut without raising taxes, then Obama and the Democrats will be able to give them a beating in the media. That will likely lead to an Obama victory in 2012 with the Democrats regaining the House. Of course, they will still be faced with the same problems. They will have to raise taxes, which will lead to their defeat in 2014, and so on. I hope I am wrong. If the GOP can propose significant cuts and still win in 2012, then we might see some real progress.

Jay Cost predicts that the 2012 election may prove to be a true ideological contest, in his estimation for only the third time in American history.

Andrew McCarthy continues to warn about the true nature of the Islamists in Egypt and elsewhere.

Soaring food prices may ignite instability in Asia, a scary thought indeed.

2011-02-14T08:02:00.002-05:00

Small businesses in Massachusetts, beset by the high cost of employing people, are reluctant to hire new workers. It makes sense, of course. A logical remedy would be to reduce or eliminate the government regulations that impede hiring (minimum wage and insurance requirements, as well as payroll taxes). It will not happen, of course.

Mort Zuckerman lays out the grim unemployment numbers for the nation as a whole. Like the Great Depression, this Great Recession will last for many years.

As the President introduces his new budget, which Fred Barnes believes is pathetic, it includes many foolish things, large and small, but perhaps the most foolish is his proposal to spend even more money on passenger rail service, as Robert Samuelson explains.

Irwin Stelzer explains how politics trumps economics, while Paul Krugman believes that politics, and an uninformed or misinformed public, is leading to GOP proposals that will eat the future.

Each of these columns has something valuable within it, even Krugman's column. At the core, in my opinion, is the fact that the general public does not have a good understanding of the realities of public spending at either the state or the federal level. That does not mean that there are not individuals out there who have such an understanding. It simply means that majorities cannot at present be found who do understand those realities. What are the realities? At the federal level, no real progress can be made at reigning in annual deficits or paring down the accumulated debt without either significantly raising taxes or cutting entitlement spending, or some combination of both. Here is a link to a simple pie chart representing the federal budget. Combine health care and pension programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the pensions and health care of all federal employees and retirees, including military) and you get to 44% of the entire pie. Add 24% for defense and you are talking about 68% before you even get to things like foreign aid, or rail service subsidies, and the like. As long as majorities can be found to defend these spending programs, we will continue to rack up huge deficits until a crisis point is reached.

2011-02-07T07:21:00.002-05:00

Amir Taheri believes the Islamists have set their sights on Egypt.

Fareed Zakaria believes the Army is still in the saddle in Egypt, which is why the comparisons with Iran in 1979 are not accurate.

Robert J. Samuelson reminds us that the turmoil in North Africa is in itself a reminder that we have not, and will not anytime soon, weaned ourselves off of imported oil.

Paul Krugman writes about exploding food prices as a causal factor for the recent unrest in Tunisia and Egypt, which he attributes to climate change caused by anthropogenic global warming. He is correct when he writes about rising food prices, and he is right to attribute much of the increase to weather conditions, as weather is always the most important factor in food production. As for AGW, I still am not entirely convinced, and even if I were to be convinced, I am certain that we will do next to nothing about it.

There is a debate going on in Israel about whether or not they face an existential threat from the increased power of the Islamists in the region. As long as the Israelis have a monopoly on nuclear weapons, then they are relatively safe. Once the Islamists get nuclear weapons, then all bets are off. I do not believe the Islamists can be deterred in the same fashion that the Soviet Union was deterred during the Cold War.

2011-02-03T07:39:00.002-05:00

Con Coughlin feels a bit sorry for Hosni Mubarak as a staunch and reliable American ally so quickly abandoned by President Obama. Reminiscent, of course, of how quickly the Shah of Iran, another staunch and reliable American ally, was abandoned in 1979. We remember how that turned out, don't we?

Jonathan Freedland writes about the growing unease in Israel over the events in Egypt. Freedland believes real peace can only be achieved with true, representative Arab democracies. I disagree. Arab governments that wish to truly reflect the will of their majorities would be implacable foes of Israel, and would maintain the singular goal of its destruction as a Jewish state.

Benny Avni also writes about the stakes for Israel.

On another subject, here are the nuts and bolts of the recent judicial decision concerning Obamacare.

2011-02-02T08:37:00.002-05:00

Victor Davis Hanson says for President Obama 2011 is beginning to look a lot like 1979 did for Jimmy Carter, and for many of the same reasons.

Amir Taheri is optimistic about the coming change in Egypt. I do not share his optimism.

Tom Friedman says the potential loss of a stable Egypt should make the Israeli government more willing, not less, to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Such an agreement is, in my view, getting less likely because I expect a negative outcome in Egypt. Others agree with this view, including Yossi Halevi in Jerusalem, who writes that many Israelis now worry that they will soon be surrounded by the Islamists.

Maine is now a Red State, at least for the time being, and it is due to a confluence of factors that drove its white, working class voters to the GOP.

2011-02-01T07:17:00.002-05:00

Hundreds of thousands of people are gathering in Cairo as the protests against the autocratic government of Hosni Mubarak continue. Meanwhile, an army spokesman announces that the military will not take action against the protesters. What does this all mean? I think it means that Mubarak is about to fall.

What is the likely result for Egypt? I hate to be pessimistic, but I have to agree with Richard Cohen on this one that the outcome will likely be a bad one. I expect El Baredei will be placed into position as the head of a caretaker government, followed by elections which will be won by the Islamists. The other likely scenario is a caretaker government that is unable to get a grip on the economic and social problems of the country, leading to more protests, leading to its fall and replacement by an Islamist government.

Gordon Chang points out that the Butchers of Beijing are watching events in Egypt with a nervous eye. They could be next, which would be especially ironic since this is the 100th anniversary of the 1911 revolution in China.

Here at home the centerpiece of President Obama's first term, the health care reform law, is ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. This makes two rulings in favor and two against so far. Clearly, the issue will be decided by the Supreme Court.

2011-01-31T07:26:00.002-05:00

Most of the chatter from the punditcracy over the last few days has centered around the events happening in Egypt.

Ross Douthat weighs the unknowns that surround the issue.

The Israeli government meets to ponder the implications for their security.

Benny Avni says the U.S. can play a key role in any transition.

Bill Kristol says if Mubarak is fated to go, then he should leave sooner rather than later.

As for me, I see only two well organized and disciplined groups in Egypt...the Army and the Muslim Brotherhood. Traditionally, the Army has held a significant position in the Egyptian state. But if its officers prove unwilling to broker some deal for a new government, I expect the Muslim Brotherhood to come out on top.

2011-01-28T07:35:00.002-05:00

I hate to be pessimistic about the unrest in the Arab world, as I am sure many of the people involved in the protests truly want some form of pluralistic, representative democracy. But I cannot shake the feeling that, in the end, when the smoke and the tear gas clears and the old leaders have been killed or chased out, the new governments will be run by Islamist fanatics. Revolutions just as often end with a Napoleon or a Stalin as they do with a Washington or a Mandela, and perhaps more often with the former.

Daniel Henninger says that the President is embarked on a voyage to nowhere, and he is taking the country with him. I say, "hope and CHANGE in 2012".

Still, the relevant political question is whether we are living in 1995 or 1979. In 1995, having seen the voters give Congress to the GOP in '94, Bill Clinton pivoted decisively to the center and, with the help of a good economy and a bad opponent, won reelection in 1996. In 1979, facing a bad economy and a hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter floundered around while he and his advisers, with encouragement from the mainstream media, convinced themselves that Reagan could not possibly win. Carter was crushed by a landslide Reagan win in 1980. As I look around today, I see a bad economy and a deteriorating situation in terms of foreign policy. So far, so good, for the GOP. But they need to nominate someone closer to Reagan than to Dole.

2011-01-27T08:58:00.002-05:00

The Chinese manage to insult the President who, along with his advisers, remained clueless throughout.

Amir Taheri has some thoughts on the protests that are erupting throughout the Arab world.

Michael Barone says the old rules concerning the Presidential nominating process in the GOP will not apply in 2012.

Robert J. Samuelson points out that the President had an opportunity during the State of the Union Address to educate the American people about the tough choices that need to be made to "win the future'. Instead, he fed us the usual diet of platitudes.

E.J. Dionne was pleased that the President is politicking.

Michael Gerson is not.

Meanwhile, the head of the CBO projects a U.S. budget deficit of $1.5 trillion in 2011, the largest ever recorded. The politicians and pundits continue to fiddle while the country burns.

2011-01-26T07:34:00.002-05:00

Is there a bigger waste of time and energy in Washington than the State of the Union Address? I don't think so, which is why I did not watch it. I'm not sure I will be able to watch the video, but I may have to force myself, as I am, at least ostensibly, a student working on a Masters Degree in Political Science.

Yuval Levin believes the President refuses to accept that a crisis is looming, at least based on the speech he delivered last night.

Stephen Hayes does not think it was a winning speech.

Paul Ryan gave the GOP response.

Michelle Bachmann gave the Tea Party response.

The political significance of a separate response by the self-identified congressional Tea Party leader is unclear at the moment, but could become more evident if the mainstream GOP fails to satisfy Tea Party goals.

2011-01-25T08:07:00.002-05:00

Andrew McCarthy says President Obama and much of the political and media elites in the West continue to paint a false picture about Islam.

Meanwhile, the new Prime Minister of Lebanon is backed by Hezbollah. It appears as if the Cedar Revolution was really a false dawn.

Rahm Emanuel is thrown off the ballot for Mayor of Chicago.

Mort Zuckerman writes about how public employee pensions and benefits are strangling the states.

2011-01-24T07:49:00.002-05:00

Why is Massachusetts growing so slowly, resulting in the loss of a congressional seat? This piece argues that it is because there is a housing shortage in Greater Boston (and in other parts of the state) driven by restrictive building regulations. I would also argue that the overall climate of taxes and regulations are a factor, and the proximity of a less heavily taxed and regulated state (New Hampshire, of course).

Meanwhile, tax increases in Illinois have some business leaders considering relocation.

Nicole Gelinas argues that the creation of a legal bankruptcy process for the states is not the solution to their fiscal woes. She does not offer an alternative, however.

Paul Krugman says the President is wrong to even give lip service to conservative ideology concerning competitiveness. Of course, Krugman does not have to get elected to anything.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that appeasement is the best policy to use with a growing and more bellicose China. Needless to say, I disagree strongly, but read the piece anyway.

Robert J. Samuelson describes the nature of our difficulties with China. Essentially, China is a mercantilist power, using currency manipulation and other techniques to prey on the rest of the world's economies, especially ours. I believe the Chinese leaders are doing this because they know they must try to appease the great, poverty-stricken mass of their population. Failure to keep the wheels turning would, they are certain, lead to chaos, which is the historical pattern for China since the 19th Century. Therefore, I expect they will continue to pursue their predatory policies. I also expect their military complex will become more powerful over time, as the Japanese military did during that country's explosive period of growth and modernization from the late 19th through the early 20th centuries. Looking around the world, the parallels between our time and the 1930s continue. Of course, you know how that historical period ended,

2011-01-22T10:32:00.002-05:00

Keith Olbermann is shown the door at MSNBC. Unless there is some misconduct issue that we do not know about, I suspect this is the first step in a significant programming realignment. Maddow, Schulz and the others should be polishing up their resumes.

As a GE stockholder I am pleased to see the CEO of the company is tight with the President. As a citizen, not so much.

The former head of the OMB says the U.S. must brace for financial turbulence. In the words of Han Solo, "I've got a bad feeling about this".

Lawrence Solomon writes this excellent piece about the coming chaos in China. He believes the growing disparity between the wealth of the 300 million, gained largely through corrupt means, and the 1 billion in poverty will inevitable lead to social breakdown and violent upheaval, which would fit within the historic pattern in China (which is why I am inclined to believe him).

Dan Baum writes this excellent piece about why the drive by Liberals/Progressives for more gun control is killing them politically by increasing the alienation of working-class white males, many of who are what he calls "gun guys". I think he is correct in his assessment that the Liberal embrace of gun control is a factor in the switch in political allegiance by that demographic, but it is not the only factor.

Here is a rather lengthy article, but well worth the read, concerning the great economic mystery of the first decade of the 21st Century; what happened to the 15 million jobs that should have been created here in the United States? Numerous economists were interviewed for the article, and most answer honestly that they just don't know. I have a theory (I always have a theory), but it isn't fully fleshed out yet. Some day I'll write about it in this space or elsewhere.

Andrew McCarthy lays out the reasoning behind the President's decision to re-start the military tribunal process for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

An interview with Walter Williams well worth your time.

2011-01-21T07:48:00.002-05:00

Jeffrey H. Anderson writes about the three things we have learned from the Obamacare repeal effort, and tells us why the 2012 election is so crucial.

Bill Kristol comments on the Anderson piece and adds his two cents on the critical nature of the 2012 election.

Sean Trende analyzes the Senate seats that will be contested in 2012. In my opinion, it all boils down to how independent voters break. The electorate will be much larger than in 2010, but if independents break toward the GOP in similar percentages to 2010 it will mean the end of the Obama Administration and Democrat control of the Senate.

The New York Times has this front-page article on the possibility that Congress might create a legal path for states to seek bankruptcy protection. Clearly, the awful fiscal condition of many states, and the crushing burden of unsustainable pension and health care obligations, will continue to drive this discussion. Unlike cities and other municipalities, there is no legal way for states to go bankrupt. Public officials are reluctant to even discuss the matter for fear of spooking the bond markets and, thus, making things even worse for states trying to borrow money. But the discussion will not wait, and should not wait. Alas, I fear no serious action will be taken until one of our big, cash-strapped states like California faces imminent default on its debts.

Democratic pollster Douglas E. Schoen writes about how public employee unions threaten the future of the Democratic Party.

Charles Krauthammer points out the ridiculous accounting practices that allow the CBO to say that Obamacare reduces the deficit, and says that chicanery is just one of many reasons why everything starts with repeal.

George Will says the hubris of big government advocates is leading them to a big political fall.

The common thread running through all of these stories? While it may take a long time to happen, eventually you just end up running out of other people's money to spend.

2011-01-20T06:56:00.002-05:00

Arthur Herman writes about China and America's 'Sputnik' moment.

The New York Times has this story about raising taxes in the states. In some states even raising taxes substantially would not be enough to cover their deficits.

The House passes a health law repeal bill, although it has no chance of passing the Senate.

Charles Krauthammer talks to Bill O'Reilly about the debate over health care and the politics of the effort to repeal the new health law.

Karl Rove believes the health law repeal issue is a winner for the GOP.

The housing market remains a trouble spot in the economy.

Richard Wolff says the mythical period of 'American Exceptionalism' is over, as wages have stagnated since the 1970s.

2011-01-19T07:33:00.003-05:00

Michael Tanner makes an argument for the GOP to hold off on raising the debt ceiling.

Sally Pipes describes the damage already being done by the new health care law. Republicans in the House are making an effort to repeal it, which will almost certainly pass the House but fail in the Senate. Once they go through this process, I hope they will start trying to repeal or change the most onerous parts. They may fail on those as well, but it will keep the political pressure on.

Our high jobless rate will continue for years to come. Remember, the Great Depression lasted for ten years, so it would not be unprecedented for our Great Recession to last at least as long.

So, what could possibly have motivated former Haitian dictator 'Baby Doc' Duvalier to return to his earthquake ravaged homeland? I don't have an answer.

More problems in the Eurozone as Portugal's borrowing costs rise to unsustainable levels and the Germans complain about having to bail them and other 'spendthrift' nations out.

The Economist calls for Plan B to deal with the Eurozone problem, which is to restructure the debt of the countries, like Portugal, that are currently in the most trouble.

2011-01-18T08:09:00.002-05:00

Con Coughlin says revolutions in North Africa could pose a problem for the West if the secular, family-run, money grabbing governments are replaced by Islamist ones.

An argument is made that China's currency manipulation is not a problem.

David Brooks says Amy Chua is a wimp. I have met Amy Chua, and she seems pretty tough to me.

Some thoughts on the mental health system and why it allows people like Jared Loughner to walk free until they start shooting.

Chris Matthews recalls the friendship between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill.

In an effort to sell Obamacare, as Republicans try to repeal it, the government releases a report that says almost half of all American adults under 65 have preexisting conditions that might deny them insurance coverage.

2011-01-17T09:51:00.002-05:00

Charlie Gasparino writes about the coming meltdown in the 'muni' market. Investors are justifiably getting spooked by the possibility that politicians in some states will be unable to come to agreement on balancing their budgets. While it is my understanding that there is no current legal process for a state to go bankrupt, it does seem possible that a state could fall into a grey area of being unable to pay its bills. That could lead to a collapse in the value of that state's bonds, and make it unable to issue new ones at any interest rate.

Robert J. Samuelson points out to those who insist these are the worst times in America since the end of World War II that there was a period, we call it 'the Sixties', when things seemed much worse. From the assassination of JFK in November of '63 to the resignation of Nixon in August of '74, America seemed to be coming apart at the seams. A bloody war in Vietnam (averaging 150 American dead a week), assassinations of our leaders (JFK, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr.), race riots in our major cities, anti-war sit-ins and demonstrations shutting down our universities, a huge upsurge in violent crime, and the collapse of the U.S. Army by the early 70s (not as well documented, but I heard some hair-raising stories from veterans of the Army during that time who saw a total breakdown of discipline, including racial animosity, brawls and riots, rampant drug use, even rape and murder on post). Our current era is tame by comparison.

Robert Kagan writes about the necessity for maintaining our military presence across the globe, and the dangers we face should we succumb to the call for retrenchment and isolation.

2011-01-14T07:40:00.002-05:00

Daniel Henninger explains why leftist pundits like Krugman and Alter sincerely believe that rhetoric from the right leads to violence from lunatics like the Tuscon shooter.

Arthur Laffer says the GOP can extract concessions for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling.

While many commentators are ruminating about the symbolic meaning of the test flight of a Chinese stealth aircraft, here is a piece that reveals the potential military value of the aircraft.

Is there another market bubble forming that will potentially burst?

Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi is betting that the global climate will actually cool down over the next ten years. I wonder if any of the global warming scientists will take the bet.

2011-01-12T09:47:00.002-05:00

Charles Krauthammer writes about the Tucson shooting and the response from the left. I believe that the hysterical and libelous response from the left to the shooting rampage of a madman has driven another nail into their political coffin.

Jay Cost compares the new Republican House to the one elected in 1946. By making the comparison he shows how the New Deal coalition has finally collapsed.

Prior to the Civil War it was commonplace for Congressmen to carry weapons into the chamber, and those weapons were sometimes drawn in anger. Here is a piece describing the situation, although the author tries to make the claim that overheated rhetoric incites violence, which can be true under certain circumstances, but is still so obviously not the case with a severely mentally disturbed person like the Tuscon shooter.

Lawmakers in New Hampshire are once again being allowed to carry weapons in the State House.

If you want a picture of true social breakdown and near-anarchy, just read this story about a small town in Mexico.

The latest judicial decision about foreclosure procedures could produce a meltdown in the housing market, or at least slow any recovery to a crawl.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann believe laws should be altered to allow states to enter into a voluntary bankruptcy process. They believe this would allow the states to get their finances in order and break the backs of public employee unions.

MORE MADNESS

2011-01-11T08:17:00.003-05:00

Yesterday I wrote that I would respond to all of the columns being written about the Arizona shootings by reading them and discarding what I found useless. Alas, I am so sickened by the politicization of the tragedy that I cannot even bring myself to reading even a small portion of what is being written. If you want to read about why the "climate of hate" is responsible for the tragedy, why Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are at fault, why guns are the real problem, etc., you can go to RealClearPolitics or Instapundit or The New York Times, the editorial pages of The Washington Post, the Drudge Report and the like to find all that you can handle.

As for me, I am convinced that the elephant in the living room on this latest mass murder is the issue of mental illness. While it is true that the vast majority of mentally ill people are not dangerous (at least to others), it is also true that it only takes a small minority to create a good deal of mayhem. Responding to the abuses that resulted from an under-funded system of state mental hospitals in the first half of the 20th Century, policymakers decided it would be better to de-institutionalize the severely mentally ill and allow them to be treated in their communities to better integrate them into society. So, we closed many of the mental hospitals (which also saved money). The problem? We never built the required infrastructure to handle the people once served (however poorly) by those hospitals. Today, we find these people sleeping on the streets, living in shelters, or being cared for by their own families (which is often an expensive, debilitating and frustrating process, usually leading to family members giving up, resulting in homelessness for the mentally ill).

I hate to be a cynic about this, but I do not expect any action on this problem, even if more people become convinced, as I have, that it is the real problem. It is just too politically useful for liberals to blame these kinds of things on the rhetoric of the right or the lack of adequate gun control, rather than on our failure to create an effective infrastructure to identify and treat the severely mentally ill among us.

Mona Charen believes the contemptible opportunists on the left are obscuring the real problem, which is the failure to deal with mental illness.

Here is another column with specific recommendations on how to reform our current infrastructure regarding mental illness.

This blogger is trying to get a book published on the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill in the latter half of the 20th Century, and he has some thoughts on the issue.

MADNESS

2011-01-10T07:50:00.003-05:00

It is all so depressingly familiar. A man commits a heinous act of violence, in this case a massacre of people at a meet-and-greet with their Congresswoman in Arizona. Innocents are killed, and the Congresswoman is gravely wounded. Almost immediately, people ascribe motivations to the gunman without waiting for additional information. Folks like Paul Krugman blame the Republicans and the Tea Party for fomenting an atmosphere of hate. Others like Glenn Reynolds and John Podhoretz push back. Can we not wait for a little while to get more information about the gunman? No. For people who are paid to provide opinions, or are in the political arena as activists or politicians, there is no waiting for facts. There is only the relentless push for a political narrative to achieve their political goals.

What should you do? I can only tell you what I do. I read them, I search for anything of value, and discard the rest. I wait to find out more about the gunman and then come to my own conclusions. I do not advocate for policies based on the isolated actions of deranged individuals, therefore, if this recent shooting is simply the isolated action of a deranged individual, I will not advocate any particular policy based on his actions, nor will I come to any particular conclusion about our political system or our current rhetorical climate based on those actions.

Political leaders are sometimes assassinated by deranged individuals (the historical list is too long to get into here). Those assassinations, while they can have momentous significance in terms of the course of history, have no more moral or intellectual significance than an earthquake or a bolt of lightning.

2011-01-08T09:40:00.002-05:00

A Massachusetts court decision could have enormous implications for the way real estate foreclosures are done across the country.

The latest U.S. jobs report is an "utter mess" according to one analyst.

Ron Brownstein writes about exit poll data from the last election which shows white voters fleeing the Democratic Party in droves, especially white, working class men. While the Democrats may be able to win elections without those voters once minority voters become the majority, they will have a hard time in the interim. As for now, this points to something most of us who analyze politics have known for some time, that the old New Deal coalition is finally dead.

Kevin Williamson replies to Paul Krugman about Texas.

David Brooks writes about the plethora of problems with the new health care law.

The governor and legislators in Illinois are looking at big tax increases to get their budget in balance. Almost every state faces big budget problems and they will all have to raise taxes, cut spending, or do some combination of both to get those budgets into balance.

On the federal level, by contrast, the unbalanced budget just goes on and on. The current situation, with a need to raise the debt ceiling looming on the horizon, could be an opportunity for the GOP, or a disaster.

2011-01-07T07:48:00.002-05:00

Toby Harnden believes Obama's Clinton makeover effort will fail.

Charles Krauthammer praises the new Constitutionalism.

Michael Lind blasts racist Southern Conservatives and all others who view the Constitution as a sacred document.

Ed Kilgore says liberals need to scale back their expectations, as he looks at the electoral landscape and concludes that the evil conservatives will be mostly free to destroy what is good about America at least until 2014.

Victor Davis Hanson writes about the new Sophists.

Paul Krugman says conservatives who praise Texas as the right model for state governance are wrong (0f course) because Texas, like almost every other state, is facing a budget deficit.

I have long believed that if the U.S. does suffer a decline and fall, like the British Empire, the Dutch Republic, and the Spanish Empire, all of which at one time or another dominated the globe economically and/or militarily, it would be for similar reasons. All overextended themselves beyond their ability to pay the bills. All were forced to renege on their international commitments and cut their military capabilities over time as their finances grew more and more precarious. This is happening now to us. As our politicians will be unable to cut the biggest and fastest growing part of our government spending commitments, the entitlement programs, they will be forced to cut defense spending. Count on it.

2011-01-06T07:16:00.002-05:00

Martin Wolf writes about the great convergence as the people of China and India see their productivity and incomes rise rapidly, thus drawing closer to the people of Western Europe and the United States. The social, political and economic consequences of this convergence are enormous, and Wolf promises to write about it in his next column.

Charlie Gasparino writes about the economic malaise in Europe being driven by the stifling of the private sector economy by the high taxes and tight regulations of the welfare state and warns that we are headed in the same direction.

An article about ESP in a prestigious scientific journal is causing outrage.

John Boehner takes on his new job as Speaker of the House, and at least one pundit is impressed with his opening speech.

The Republican super majority in the New Hampshire House repeals a ban on guns on the premises and looks to remove a Democratic Party official who is also a State Representative. I am not familiar with the constitutional issues that surround the contention that a party official cannot serve as a representative, so I will withhold comment for the moment. As to guns, I remember covering the State House as a reporter in the 90s and it was refreshing to be able to walk in and around the place without feeling like you were living in a police state. Certainly, if someone wished to bring a gun to the place to commit mayhem and murder he would have been able to do a great deal of damage, but that is true whether or not one allows other citizens to be on the premises with guns. In fact, I would argue that allowing others to be armed could result in an intruder being brought down more quickly, rather than less quickly.

2011-01-05T07:57:00.002-05:00

Wisconsin is the birthplace of the modern Progressive movement. The people of Wisconsin recently elected a Republican governor and state legislature. These newly elected Republicans are going after the public employee unions, and at least one Progressive thinks they are right to do it.

More instability in Pakistan as the governor of the Punjab is assassinated by one of his own guards.

Birthright citizenship is under assault by those who are worried about illegal immigration. Count me as being in favor of encouraging more American babies, as they will grow up to be productive American workers and courageous American soldiers, whether their last name is Smith, Santelli or Sanchez.

Speaking of courage, it seems to be in short supply from Yale to the NFL.

The fornication lamp is lit.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has some dire economic predictions for 2011. I am not an economist, of course (although once I earn my Master's Degree I guess I will be able to call myself a political scientist), but I keep thinking about the parallels between the Great Depression and our current era. Two years after the Crash of '29 it appeared as if there was some light at the end of the tunnel, but by the end of '32 the wheels were coming off (which was the main reason why Roosevelt and the Democrats has such a smashing victory in November of '32).

Harold Meyerson, writing as always from his Liberal position, sees an America in economic decline because U.S. corporations invest more in workers overseas than here at home.

Ruth Marcus believes Democrats will rue the day that they change the filibuster rules in the Senate. I believe she is correct.

2011-01-04T08:13:00.003-05:00

Some dire predictions for China's economy in 2011, with significant implications for the United States.

On the other hand, investors are showing confidence in the U.S. economy at the moment.

State lawmakers, at least Republican ones, are looking to scale back the power of public employee unions. This is absolutely necessary if they are to get a handle on their budget problems, and helps politically in their effort to cripple the Democrats going into the next election cycle.

Some thoughts on the incandescent light bulb ban.

House Republicans look at some big budget cuts in discretionary programs. An admirable start, if they follow through, but it still does not get to the heart of the matter.

Republicans are also looking at issues to investigate now that they have the House majority.

Andrew McCarthy does not have much faith in the GOP in Congress.

Daniel Foster thinks the Republicans can get a lot in exchange for agreeing to raising the debt ceiling. Bill Kristol is critical of those Republicans who believe it is possible to simply reject raising the debt ceiling, as he thinks it is not possible to go 'cold turkey' on spending.

Rich Lowry wonders if the spending can be stopped.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz believes it is a mistake for governments in Europe and the U.S. to launch austerity programs. He believes they should spend more to stimulate the economy. He implies that the wealthiest among us should pay more.

Strapped for cash, some European governments are looking to get their hands on private pensions.

Eugene Robinson relishes the idea of a Republican assault on the Obama health plan. He believes the public favors the program, or at least most of its constituent parts. We shall see. He may be right. If he is, Republicans will go down in the polls, Obama will go up, and Obama and the Democrats will make a big comeback in 2012.

2011-01-03T08:10:00.002-05:00

Young people in Southern Europe growing less hopeful as the reality of a dying continent begins to take shape. Hyperbole? Europe is dying out. Low fertility rates combined with a cradle-to-grave welfare state that acts as a massive Ponzi scheme will lead to a collapse of civil society within the next few decades, unless massive changes are made.

Japan is in the same boat and is unwilling to allow foreigners in to take up the slack.

Victor Davis Hanson writes about the rage directed against 'them' by everyone from delusional Greek youths to California liberals. They are all being mugged by reality.

Robert J. Samuelson judges Obama's economics.

Israel is preparing for a large-scale war. That seems prudent to me.

2010-12-31T09:12:00.002-05:00

As I expected, the pacifist argument against allowing ROTC to return to the nation's elite college campuses by Colman McCarthy that appeared in The Washington Post yesterday has been the subject of much exasperation and derision (justifiably so, of course). Jonah Goldberg takes some shots, and Victor Davis Hanson exposes the many flaws in the argument.

Nile Gardiner says that President Obama had a very bad year in 2010, and it may very well get worse for him in 2011.

New York City sanitation workers targeted specific neighborhoods in their work slowdown scheme that resulted in miles of city streets remaining unplowed long after the end of the recent snowstorm. There will be a great deal of commentary, vitriolic or not, generated by this controversy. In the end, and I hate to be pessimistic about it but I must, not much will come of all of this. The voters in NYC will continue to elect Democrats (or wishy washy Republicans) to represent them. Those Democrats are beholden to public employee unions. Therefore, while a manager or two might have to play the role of scapegoat, the essential political dynamic will remain the same.

Tea Party darling Michelle Bachman is a Neo-con, according to Bill Kristol. He defines a Neo-con as a former liberal mugged by reality into becoming a conservative.

2010-12-30T08:58:00.002-05:00

Scientists are now looking for a 'Solar Max'. Increased solar activity could cause some real problems in a world that increasingly relies on electronics.

The anthropogenic global warming theory continues to come under scrutiny. Not that it matters, of course, as the people of the industrializing world will not be deterred from burning fossil fuels as they climb out of poverty, and China is the best example of the principle.

A newly discovered fossilized bone fragment discovered in Israel reveals that Homo Sapiens existed at least 400,000 years ago and lived in the Middle East.

Arthur Herman is concerned about U.S. military decline, while the Chinese military is preparing for war in every direction.

Victor Davis Hanson says fears of a general American decline are not new, and have always proved to be wrong.

Michael Barone says we are in a culture war truce as economic issues come to the fore.

U.S. Muslims must confront Islamism, according to this former U.S. Naval officer.

Former N.H. congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter is delusional, according to this piece in the Union Leader. Well, whether delusional or not, she at least won't be practicing her delusions in the halls of Congress.

A pacifist makes the case for American universities to continue the practicing of barring ROTC programs. If, like me, you have forgotten that there are still pacifists out there, read the piece. Delusions come in many forms.

Mathew Continetti writes about the way the world looked to readers of The New York Times in the early 1930s. A fascinating piece that captures how most folks live with the delusions that comfort them, and how a few can see through those delusions.

2010-12-28T09:49:00.002-05:00

If GOP lawmakers get there way you will no longer need to retreat from an attacker before using deadly force against him to avoid legal consequences.

Dennis Prager has an answer for two questions; what do men want and what do women want?

Carol Shea-Porter says the Chinese wanted her to lose her seat. If so, it marks one of the few times that my interests and those of the PRC are one and the same.

Betting on an optimistic view of our energy future, and winning.

An in-depth look at the Eurozone crisis.

Frank Rich is confused about the 1950s. The reason for his confusion is simple. The 1950s, like every other decade in human history, was filled with the good, the bad, and the ugly. Focus on one at the expense of the others and one gets a distorted view of the decade.

Unsustainable public debt loads have, throughout recorded history, resulted in the collapse of nations, either by internal revolt, civil war, or defeat at the hands of their rivals. Can we possibly believe that we in the West are somehow immune, that we can continue to pile up debt without consequences?

2010-12-24T08:36:00.003-05:00

Why is it relatively warm in Greenland and freezing in England? A diversion of the jet stream.

Charles Krauthammer says President Obama has made a stunning comeback.

Jennifer Rubin says he has not.

It could be a white Christmas in Atlanta.

Working class Iranians are upset with the regime.

Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is now voting with President Obama. After the Tea Party insurgency that cost her the GOP nomination, and her stunning comeback as a write-in candidate, it would not surprise me if she became a Democrat or, like Joe Lieberman, decides to become an Independent.

A glowing review of True Grit.

2010-12-23T07:40:00.002-05:00

The new census results show that those states without an income tax, or have a generally lower tax burden, are gaining people (and political representation in the House) while those with higher tax burdens are losing people and representatives. Michael Barone writes about the phenomenon, as do Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. On the other hand, Froma Harrop believes a slower growing population is something to celebrate.

A New York Republican says the Empire State needs to radically alter its tax and business policies to reverse the population outflow that the cause of their loss of two House seats. New Yorkers just elected Andrew Cuomo as their governor, so I do not believe they will do much to reverse their liberal tax-and-spend policies (although those policies will probably be constrained by their economic and fiscal realities).

Another good article in The New York Times today (that is two in a row for the Old Grey Lady). This one is about how a small Alabama city failed to find their public employee pension plans, which ran out of money in 2009. The doleful consequences for the city and their retired employees stands as a stark warning for all the municipalities and states across the country that have over-promised and will soon start to under-deliver or face bankruptcy.

Jay Cost takes on the folks who still believe in the 'emerging Democratic majority'. Cost believes the false assumption they make (and I agree with him) is that Hispanic voters can be automatically assigned to the Democratic camp. Wrong. Hispanics are not African-Americans (a bloc that is 90% for the Democrats). In fact, as Cost points out, Hispanics in New York and other Northeastern urban areas vote quite differently than do Hispanics in Texas or Florida. Although Cost does not write about this aspect of the story, the reason for the differences is quite simple. Hispanics are incredibly diverse, sharing a language, but with variations in history and culture that can be quite dramatic. A Mexican-American in Texas from a family that has lived in the region for two centuries is quite different from a Puerto Rican recently arrived in New York City from his island home, for instance. Failure to take these differences into account is one reason why political analysts make improper conclusions about how Hispanics will vote.

George Will writes about 'the FICA scream'.

E.J. Dionne celebrates the progressive accomplishments of the recent Congress and the performance of those Democrats who gave their seats for the cause.

Finally, teenage girls with guns.