Click on WORD or PDF for full content
In his first column for the new year, Mark Steyn wonders when the spending will stop.
… The year began with a tea-powered Republican caucus taking control of the House of Representatives and pledging to rein in spendaholic government. It ended with President Obama making a pro forma request for a mere $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. This will raise government debt to $16.4 trillion – a new world record! If only until he demands the next debt-ceiling increase in three months’ time.
At the end of 2011, America, like much of the rest of the Western world, has dug deeper into a cocoon of denial. Tens of millions of Americans remain unaware that this nation is broke – broker than any nation has ever been. A few days before Christmas, we sailed across the psychological Rubicon and joined the club of nations whose government debt now exceeds their total GDP. It barely raised a murmur – and those who took the trouble to address the issue noted complacently that our 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio is a mere two-thirds of Greece’s. That’s true, but at a certain point per capita comparisons are less relevant than the sheer hard dollar sums: Greece owes a few rinky-dink billions; America owes more money than anyone has ever owed anybody ever.
Public debt has increased by 67 percent over the past three years, and too many Americans refuse even to see it as a problem. For most of us, “$16.4 trillion” has no real meaning, any more than “$17.9 trillion” or “$28.3 trillion” or “$147.8 bazillion.” It doesn’t even have much meaning for the guys spending the dough: Look into the eyes of Barack Obama or Harry Reid or Barney Frank, and you realize that, even as they’re borrowing all this money, they have no serious intention of paying any of it back. That’s to say, there is no politically plausible scenario under which the 16.4 trillion is reduced to 13.7 trillion, and then 7.9 trillion and, eventually, 173 dollars and 48 cents. At the deepest levels within our governing structures, we are committed to living beyond our means on a scale no civilization has ever done.
Our most enlightened citizens think it’s rather vulgar and boorish to obsess about debt. The urbane, educated, Western progressive would rather “save the planet,” a cause which offers the grandiose narcissism that, say, reforming Medicare lacks. …
Scott Adams of Dilbert decided at the beginning of 2011 to take more risks. The first was on a trip to Costa Rica with wife Shelly.
.. As 2011 approached, I wondered what would happen if, for the next 12 months, I said yes to any opportunity that was new or dangerous or embarrassing or unwise. I decided to find out.
Shelly quickly embraced my new attitude and booked us on a trip to Costa Rica. That country has a huge population of monkeys and no military whatsoever—an obvious recipe for disaster. But my immediate problem was surviving Shelly’s idea of fun. This, as it turned out, included zip lining (less scary than it looked), an ATV trek through a dangerous and muddy jungle (nearly lost a leg) and, finally, a whitewater excursion down a canyon river in the rain forest.
I should pause here to explain that though I have many rational fears in life—all the usual stuff—I have only one special fear: drowning. So for me, whitewater rafting pins the needle on the fear-o-meter. But this was my year to face my fears. I was all in.
The first sign of trouble came when the more experienced of the two guides said that Shelly would be with him in his two-person kayak and I would ride with the new guy. This worried me because most reports of accidental deaths include the words “and then the new guy….” The second red flag appeared as the guide explained that when we hit the rapids through the waterfalls, we civilians should hold our oars above our heads and let the guides do the steering. My follow-up question went something like this: “Waterfalls?”
Things went smoothly for Shelly and her expert river guide. I watched them slalom down an S-shaped, 12-foot drop. Shelly might have said something like “Wheeee!”
My experience differed. My guide (the new guy) steered my half of the kayak directly into the huge rock at the top of the water hazard. My next memory involves being at the bottom of a Costa Rican river wondering which direction was up and holding my breath while I waited for my life-preserver to sort things out—which it did. Somehow, my guide and I got back into the kayak, only to repeat the scenario at another rocky waterfall five minutes later. If you think this sort of thing gets more fun on the second try, you might be a bad guesser.
Our guides brought the kayaks to a resting area midway through the excursion. I crawled to shore like a rat that had been trapped in a washing machine. You know how people say you shouldn’t drink the local water in some places? Well, apparently you should also avoid snorting a gallon of bacteria-laden Costa Rican river water. I woke up the next morning hosting an exotic-microbe cage match in my stomach followed by an hour-long trip over winding jungle roads to the airport for home. I’ll summarize the two weeks that followed as “not good.” On the plus side, I didn’t gain weight on that vacation.
So far, my strategy of being more adventurous was producing mixed results. My life seemed richer and more interesting—but it also involved a lot more groaning, clutching my sides and intermittently praying for death.
It was time to dial back the risk-taking a notch. …
Houston econ prof, Paul Gregory, uses a NY Times article to illustrate how the left creates bias in the media.
The Democratic Party and their media enablers, such as the New York Times, slaughter the Republicans when it comes to economic reporting. The public discussion of social security taxes, unemployment benefits, and stimulus takes place in the language of Keynesian multipliers and stimulus counterfactuals. He who controls the language of debate has already won, no matter how inappropriate or ridiculous. (I cite as an example of the latter the discussion of unemployment benefits as a form of stimulus that will restore the economy to health).
The Democrats and their media enablers use a tried-and-true template to dominate the debate. I use the New York Times article, “Analysts Say Economic Recovery Might Suffer if Tax Break Is Allowed to Expire,” to illustrate how it works.
The article’s objective is to convince readers that all right-thinking people know that the economy will go down the toilet if there is no agreement on extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. They claim that “economists” or “analysts” agree on this. They then interview four economists/economic organizations that support this conclusion and they cite one senior White House official who warns of dire consequences. They then dismiss one skeptic, who makes a technical point the average reader will not understand.
Voila! “Economists” agree with the Democrat position.
There is no reason why two cannot tango.
I have taken the liberty to rewrite the Times article to prove the opposite case. I use four respected economists and one respected media outlet and cite only one supporter of the administration case.
Here is my version, new headline and all. I preserve as much of the original Times language as possible: …
American.com blog with an unbelievable statement from Barney Frank.
Soon-to-be former Congressman Barney Frank continues to try to defend his record on Fannie and Freddie by distorting, or simply reversing, the truth. Here he is in the TheAtlantic.com today on his history as he hopes we will remember it:
“In 2004, the administration of President George W. Bush began a conscious plan of trying to increase levels of homeownership as part of its ‘Ownership Society,’ raising affordable housing targets for Fannie and Freddie. I opposed this policy because I thought people could end up with mortgages they could not afford.”
A pretty categorical statement, right? Replete with context that makes it sound as though it actually happened. Unfortunately for him, there’s a written record—a letter to President Bush, dated June 28, 2004, that he authored for 76 colleagues, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi:
“We write as members of the House of Representatives who continually press the GSEs to do more in affordable housing. Until recently, we have been disappointed that the administration has not been more supportive of our efforts to press the GSEs to do more. We have been concerned that the administration’s legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing performance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness. While the GSEs’ affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.
We have been led to conclude that the administration does not appreciate the importance of the GSE’s affordable housing mission, as evidenced by its refusal to work with the House and Senate on this important legislation. It now appears that, because Congress has not been willing to jeopardize the GSE’s mission, the administration has turned to attacking the GSEs publicly. We are very concerned that the administration would work to foster negative opinions in the financial markets regarding the GSEs, raising their cost of financing. If the intent is to get prohousing members of Congress to weaken their support of the GSEs’ mission, it is a mistaken strategy.
Our position is not based on institutional loyalty, but on concern for the GSE’s affordable housing function. We appeal to you to agree to work on legislative proposals that foster sound oversight and vigorous affordable housing efforts instead of mounting assaults in the press. We also ask you to support our efforts to push the GSEs to do more affordable housing.”
If Barney Frank has any credibility after this, it will only be with those who—for ideological reasons—support him in his efforts to distance himself from the government’s affordable housing requirements, which were so destructive to Fannie and Freddie and the financial system as a whole.