Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Craig Pirrong at Streetwise Professor says the only game that counts is 2012. As far as trying to get a deal with Obama now – fuhgeddaboudit.
… Obama operates under the ratchet theory of government. Once ratcheted up, spending cannot ratchet down. Spending that was not missed yesterday is imperative tomorrow, once it has been adopted today. Which means that doing any deal based on Ratchet Man’s promises that he will cut future spending is a mug’s game.
Addressing the nation’s long term–and not really that long term, actually–danger of government insolvency cannot be done in the context of annual budgeting. The crux of the problem is entitlements, and attacking that problem requires fundamental restructuring of the programs, where this restructuring will likely require features (e.g., supermajority requirements) that make it difficult for future Congresses and administrations to renege on the commitments inherent in the legislation mandating the restructuring.
That will not happen while Obama is in office. Period. Which is exactly why 2012 is the only thing that matters, and that doing a deal today or forcing a triggering of the debt ceiling that will have extremely unpredictable economic and political consequences is foolhardy. Unfortunately, those who desire most ardently to cut back on government and its growth are those who most ardently press for a deal or a showdown that could lead to a shutdown. Although the frustration is understandable, this is short sighted and counterproductive. It is vital to keep the big things in mind, and to avoid battles that risk the war.
Roger Simon posts on America The Broken.
… Our country is being led by an individual seemingly incapable of thinking beyond his own interest or beyond an ideology as shopworn as a 1962 television set with a blown tube. Is there anybody left who still believes in Keynesian economics? I mean really believes in it with our now prodigiously escalating debt spiraling off into an unknowable future.
Well, our president appears to with his endless references to “fairness” — a fairness that most hurts the very people it pretends to help. Obama has trapped himself in a ideological oxymoron. He wants us to believe, wants himself to believe, that government is the solution when we all know that government is the problem. The more government tries to create jobs the worse the economy gets. The history of the twentieth century has demonstrated that for us from the Great Depression to the sorrow of the Soviet Union.
Someone finally has to cut this Gordian knot. We are living at a time when we need a man or woman in the presidency of true courage and what we have is a smug coward — the worst possible combination. …
David Brooks has been at the NY Times long enough to have gone native. At least, that is what we can surmise from this post by Jennifer Rubin.
David Brooks of the New York Times likes to fancy himself as a truth-seeker, bringing social and hard sciences to the masses. But in his Friday column on health care and death, he makes some shocking and inaccurate assertions. Given his coziness with the Obama administration one has to wonder if he is test-driving some Obama administration rationalizations for rationing.
Brooks is enamored of Dudley Clendinen’s “splendid” essay, as he describes, “The Good Short Life.” Brooks thrills to this definition of a life worth living:
‘ Instead of choosing that long, dehumanizing, expensive course, Clendinen has decided to face death as one of life’s “most absorbing thrills and challenges.” He concludes: “When the music stops — when I can’t tie my bow tie, tell a funny story, walk my dog, talk with Whitney, kiss someone special, or tap out lines like this — I’ll know that Life is over. It’s time to be gone.” ‘
Well that “dehumanizing, expensive course” allows millions of Americans who would have died in past years to “kiss someone special.” But is someone confined to a wheelchair (no dog walking) or who needs help dressing not living a life of value? Clendinen, and in turn Brooks, begin down a slippery slope as they decide that, really, is it worth it to keep grandpa around for years if he can’t tie his tie?
Brooks then embarks on a flight of misinformation to suggest we’re wasting much of that money. He finds other useful sources: …
Noemie Emery says we have had our fling with the welfare state.
The intentions of Democrats are only the best. They want all of the old to have lavish retirements, all of the young to have scholarships, verse-penning cowboys to have festivals funded by government, and everyone to have access to all the best health care, at no cost to himself. In the face of a huge wave of debt swamping all western nations, this is the core of their argument: They want a fair society, and their critics do not; they want to help, and their opponents like to see people suffer; they want a world filled with love and caring, and their opponents want one of callous indifference, in which the helpless must fend for themselves. (“We must reject both extremes, those who say we shouldn’t help the old and the sick and those who say that we should,” quips the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg.) But in fact, everyone thinks that we “should” do this; the problem, in the face of the debt crisis, is finding a way that we can. It is about the “can” part that the left is now in denial: daintily picking its way through canaries six deep on the floor of the coal mine, and conflating a “good” with a “right.”
Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt linked “freedom from want” to “freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship,” the left has been talking of everything that it thinks would be nice to have in terms of an utter and absolute right: a right to a job and a right to an income, a right to retire in comfort in Florida, a right to the most advanced health care without paying much for it, and a right to have your children taken care of while you work all day at your job. The problem is that these are all goods and services, though of varying importance, and goods and rights are not the same things. …
… In the United States, the states patterned most on the Old Europe model—those with high taxes, high spending, and strong public unions—suffered the same plight as Europe, while those with free-market models did not. “The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the past decade,” Michael Barone tells us. “The other states grew just 8 percent.” The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the past decade, the 28 others grew 6 percent. The 16 states that don’t require collective bargaining with state employees grew 15 percent, the others grew 7 percent. The most rapid growth—21 percent—was in the Rocky Mountain states and Texas, which have low taxes, weak unions, and light regulation.
Among the states with high taxes, strong unions, and heavy public employee pension burdens are those in the Rust Belt around the Great Lakes. As Matt Continetti writes in the Washington Post, “Five of the eight states that border the Great Lakes now have Republican governors working to limit union power,” while one Democrat, New York’s Andrew Cuomo, son of a much revered liberal icon, has been praised by New Jersey’s Chris Christie as his cost-cutting twin. And to everyone’s shock, the Democratic legislature in Massachusetts has voted to rein in unions, too. …
Jeff Jacoby shines some light on another of government’s overreaches.
… Washington oversteps its legitimate bounds all the time and usually gets away with it. But every now and then a federal encroachment is so egregious that the public rebels against it. Outlawing the light bulbs that illuminate 85 percent of American homes strikes me as such an encroachment – one that even Democrats should be embarrassed to defend.
The use of efficiency mandates to snuff out the standard light bulb was an exercise of unadulterated crony capitalism. It came about after big bulb manufacturers, frustrated by their customers’ refusal to switch from cheap throwaway incandescents to the far more profitable compact fluorescents touted by greens, decided to play hardball.
“So some years ago,’’ The New York Times Magazine noted last month, “Philips [Electronics] formed a coalition with environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, to push for higher standards. ‘We felt that we needed to . . . show that the best-known lighting technology, the incandescent light bulb, is at the end of its lifetime,’ says Harry Verhaar, the company’s head of strategic sustainability initiatives.’’
Other corporations joined the plot, lobbying Congress to croak a product Americans overwhelmingly like and compel them to buy the more expensive substitute the industry was eager to sell them. The entire scheme, a lobbyist for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association testified candidly in 2007, was “at the industry’s initiative.’’ Unable to convince consumers to voluntarily abandon Edison’s light bulb, Big Business got the government to force the issue. “Of such deals,’’ remarks Bloomberg columnist Virginia Postrel, “are Tea Parties born.’’ …