Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 28, 2016, 10:52:14 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95575 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 110 111 [112] 113 114 ... 161
5551  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mark Steyn: VP Biden, are you smarter (economically) than a 4th grader? on: October 23, 2011, 07:09:22 PM

Biden’s Fourth-Grade Economics     Mark Steyn    October 22, 2011
How to justify unaffordable and inefficient stimulus

In one of those inspired innovations designed to keep American classrooms on the cutting edge of educational excellence, the administration has been sending Joe Biden out to talk to schoolchildren. Last week, it was the fourth grade at Alexander B. Goode Elementary School in York, Pa., that found itself on the receiving end of the vice president’s wisdom:

    Here in this school, your school, you’ve had a lot of teachers who used to work here, but because there’s no money for them in the city, they’re not working. And so what happens is, when that occurs, each of the teachers that stays have more kids to teach. And they don’t get to spend as much time with you as they did when your classes were smaller. We think the federal government in Washington, D.C., should say to the cities and states, look, we’re going to give you some money so that you can hire back all those people. And the way we’re going to do it, we’re going to ask people who have a lot of money to pay just a little bit more in taxes.

Who knew it was that easy?

So let’s see if I follow the vice president’s thinking:

The school laid off these teachers because “there’s no money for them in the city.” That’s true. York City School District is broke. It has a $14 million budget deficit.

So instead Washington, D.C., is going to “give you some money” to hire these teachers back.

So, unlike York, Pa., presumably Washington, D.C., has “money for them”?

No, not technically. Washington, D.C., is also broke — way broker than York City School District. In fact, the government of the United States is broker than any entity has ever been in the history of the planet. Officially, Washington has to return 15,000,000,000,000 dollars just to get back to having nothing at all. And that 15,000,000,000,000 dollars is a very lowball figure that conveniently ignores another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that the government, unlike private businesses, is able to keep off the books.

So how come the Brokest Jurisdiction in History is able to “give you some money” to hire back those teachers that had to be laid off?

No problem, says the vice president. We’re going to “ask” people who have “a lot of money” to “pay just a little bit more” in taxes.

Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pa. But they’re out there somewhere. Who has “a lot of money”? According to President Obama, if your combined household income is over $250,000 a year you have “a lot of money.” Back in March, my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson pointed out that, in order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning more than $250,000 a year by $500,000 a year.

Okay, okay, maybe that 250K definition of “bloated plutocrat” is a bit off. After all, the quarter-mil-a-year category includes not only bankers and other mustache-twirling robber barons, but also at least 50 school superintendents in the State of New York and many other mustache-twirling selfless public servants.

So how about people earning a million dollars a year? That’s “a lot of money” by anybody’s definition. As Kevin Williamson also pointed out, to balance the budget of the United States on the backs of millionaires you would have to increase the taxes of those earning more than 1 million a year by 6 million a year.

Not only is there “no money in the city” of York, Pa., and no money in Washington, D.C., there’s no money anywhere else in America — not for spending on the Obama/Biden scale. Come to that, there’s no money anywhere on the planet: Last year, John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin published a study called “Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money in the World — and At What Cost?”

Don’t worry, it’s a book with a happy ending! U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as by 2020 the rest of the planet is willing to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. And why wouldn’t they? After all, if you’re a Chinese politburo member or a Saudi prince or a Russian kleptocrat or a Somali pirate and you switched on CNN International and chanced to catch Joe Biden’s Fourth Grade Economics class, why wouldn’t you cheerily dump a fifth of your GDP into a business model with such a bright future?

Since 1970, public-school employment has increased ten times faster than public-school enrollment. In 2008, the United States spent more per student on K–12 education than any other developed nation except Switzerland — and at least the Swiss have something to show for it. In 2008, York City School District spent $12,691 per pupil — or about a third more than the Swiss. Slovakia’s total per-student cost is less than York City’s current per-student deficit — and the Slovak kids beat the United States at mathematics, which may explain why their budget arithmetic still has a passing acquaintanceship with reality. As in so many other areas of American life, the problem is not the lack of money but the fact that so much of the money is utterly wasted.

But that’s no reason not to waste even more! So the president spent last week touring around in his weaponized Canadian bus telling Americans that Republicans were blocking plans to “put teachers back in the classroom.” Well, where are they now? Not every schoolmarm is down at the Occupy Wall Street drum circle, is she? No, indeed. And in that respect York City is a most instructive example: Five years ago (the most recent breakdown I have), the district had 440 teachers but 295 administrative and support staff. If you’re thinking that sounds a little out of whack, that just shows what a dummy you are: For every three teachers we “put back in the classroom,” we need to hire two bureaucrats to put back in the bureaucracy to fill in the paperwork to access the federal funds to put teachers back in the classroom. One day it will be three educrats for every two teachers, and the system will operate even more effectively.

It’s just about possible to foresee, say, Iceland or Ireland getting its spending under control. But, when a nation of 300 million people presumes to determine grade-school hiring and almost everything else through an ever more centralized bureaucracy, you’re setting yourself up for waste on a scale unknown to history. For example, under the Obama “stimulus,” U.S. taxpayers gave a $529 million loan guarantee to the company Fisker to build their Karma electric car. At a factory in Finland.

If you’re wondering how giving half a billion dollars to a Finnish factory stimulates the U.S. economy, well, what’s a lousy half-bil in a multi-trillion-dollar sinkhole? Besides, in the 2009 global rankings, Finnish schoolkids placed sixth in math, third in reading, and second in science, while suffering under the burden of a per-student budget half that of York City. By comparison, America placed 17th in reading, 23rd in science, and 31st in math. So the good news is that, by using U.S.-government money to fund a factory in Finland, Fisker may be able to hire workers smart enough to figure out how to build an unwanted electric car that doesn’t lose its entire U.S.-taxpayer investment.

In a sane world, Joe Biden’s remarks would be greeted by derisive laughter, even by fourth graders. Certainly by Finnish fourth graders.
5552  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar & other currencies, & Gold/Silver on: October 23, 2011, 07:03:43 PM
Seems to me that a prolonged period of deflation following a bubble means that the asset prices are not freely correcting.  In the case of housing today, we made this bubble by artificially inflating a market, now we prevent correction with more of the same policies on steroids, forcing re-writes, blocking foreclosures and delaying properties to market.  Fixing an error by exacerbating it, what could possibly go wrong?  The deflationary period it seems to me is a result of the correction not fully occurring.  The downward expectation becomes a force of its own, just like the inflating bubble did.  An asset price correction should not require a prolonged economic downturn to occur, IMO.

That we try to cover up other policy problems by injecting more and more dollars means yes, hyper inflation is very likely if/when we ever snap out of this. 
5553  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government regulations: Paul Volcker on: October 23, 2011, 06:26:08 PM
Thumbs up for accuracy and clarity.  Hard to believe Volcker was ever an Obama supporter with these views.  Everyone was quiet about the falling out, but at what point and over what issue in the Solydra Presidency did he resign or fade away?  My understanding is that they just never sought his advice.  They haven't really had any economic troubles - the unraveling of our economy into crises and government takeovers is going pretty much according to plan.

Volcker Oct 2011: “You ought to be either public or private; don’t mix up private profit-making opportunities with an institution that is going to be protected by the government but not controlled by it.”
5554  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Government regulations/financial reform: Paul VOlcker says we got it wrong on: October 23, 2011, 03:35:17 PM
Former Obama adviser highly critical of current policy:

“This is an opportunity to get rid of institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) that shouldn’t exist,”  

“You ought to be either public or private; don’t mix up private profit-making opportunities with an institution that is going to be protected by the government but not controlled by it.”
5555  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: October 23, 2011, 03:12:11 PM
The increases in domestic spending alone since Democrats took over congress cost more than deposing Saddam, overthrowing the Taliban, killing bin Laden, deposing Khadafy, 10 years in Afghanistan, 9 in Iraq, drone strikes in Waziristan and Yemen, all combined? Wow! Makes you wonder how much unemployment came down in 6 years with all that pure Keynesian stimulus. Unemployment was 4.4% in Oct 2006 coming into the Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Biden-Hillary takeover.  It's more than double that now, but maybe they were helping minorities?  Hispanic unemployment was 4.6%, 11.3% today.
5556  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 23, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
Whether it is rich guilt or economic ignorance, Romney's inability to justify the $200,000 threshold is reminiscent of George Bush not knowing why he wanted lower tax rates.  Just what we need is another President who can't grasp or articulate incentive-based production.

Iowahowk (humor site) is covering the candidacy of a new establishment Republican candidate to thwart off the tea party insurgency:

Murphy's Law must have chosen Rick Perry, only after he proved himself a blockhead and his candidacy was declared room temperature, to finally get a tax reform right (IMHO) with just the first two nines of a flat tax package, 20-20 or whatever it will be called.  I am very excited to find out if he will credit the forum for inspiring his plan:

My advice to Herman Cain is to take ownership of both plans. Cain should say to Perry: "Nice job.  I was first with a bold plan for tax reform and economic growth and my rates are lower, but I like the way you are thinking.  If congress passes a flat tax with out without a new consumption tax that accomplishes all our goals, even if it is called the Perry Plan, as your President I will happily sign it, scrap this tax code and then get moving with regulatory reform and our smaller government, larger freedom agenda". 

My advice to candidate Romney is to have his marketing people take one more look at his 59 point non-specific addition that keeps the current tax code intact.  Gov. Romney, you are running for leader of the free world.  Is this really your final answer?
5557  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics, Bobby Jindal wins with 66% of vote on: October 23, 2011, 11:23:31 AM
A post-Katrina Republican, does anyone remember Kathleen Blanco or when Louisiana was a swing state?  Jindal cut taxes, outsourced government services to private companies, supports drilling. Louisiana’s jobless rate of 7.2 percent ranks below the national average of 9.1 percent.  Democrats outnumber Republicans in Louisiana 44 percent to 41 percent.  A poll conducted by WWL-TV on Oct. 5 gave Jindal an approval rating of 63 percent.  Jindal is 40 heading into his second term.
5558  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 20, 2011, 12:15:17 PM
I had higher hopes than this for Rick Perry.  If we rule him out, we are down to a very small number of choices, each with their own known deficiencies.

5559  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Libya and on: October 20, 2011, 12:08:56 PM
GM, At least he was not caught in the picture bowing.  Ghadafy was a humble man, never appointing himself past the rank of Colonel.  Had he made it to King or even Prince, the photo would be most embarrassing.
5560  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Libya and on: October 20, 2011, 11:30:00 AM
Whatever happened to the policy articulated so well four years ago that we can sit and and talk to these people?

Oh, here it is:
5561  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar & other currencies, & Gold/Silver on: October 20, 2011, 11:23:21 AM
"Folks: Tom is a serious, well-informed advocate of the Austrian school.  We are fortunate to have him drop in.  Marc"


First to Crafty, I was partially agreeing with you and still wanting to draw your view out further.  Overlap or agreement with me doesn't make either of us right.  wink

Ron Paul's view has evolved from 'end the fed' (he wrote the book) to the one posted which I think is stop mis-managing the Fed, a view we can probably all agree on.  His first point though is a bit simplistic and partly wrong to me.  "Money is like any other good in our economy that emerges from the market to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers." 

Yes money has the characteristics of other goods but it is a public good with a government monopoly as much as it is a private good.  If the oil price (or corn or lumber) is too high, too low or too volatile, that screws up other industries.  When money is high, low or unstable, it screws up all enterprise.  Not only the relative price is important but also the general price level IMO.

TB, that is a great post, much more detailed than Ron Paul! I agree about with nearly all but pick out a couple of points for followup. 

"deflation can be painful, for sure, but it cannot spiral out of control."

Good point, there are of course limits to a downward movement in price.  It isn't that it would spiral out of control, but that it can develop a self-sustaining momentum difficult to break - at least that way in a couple of cases.

"The Fed was created to establish a profit enhancing bank cartel."

A muddled institution, the Fed is both public and private, owned by the member banks, managed by government appointed and confirmed technocrats.  The Fed returns its own direct profits to the Treasury other than a statutory return to its owners, yet no doubt it serves to enable profits to its member institutions. The banks themselves are also public-private entities in a sense due to the deposit insurance guarantee relationship and the all-encompassing regulation aspect.
The real error we are committing now in my view comes from congress assigning a dual mission to the Fed.  Besides the function of managing a stable money supply, the Fed is charged with alleviating unemployment caused by policy errors that were not monetary in the first place.  The Fed is supposed cover for the 40% excesses in federal spending, and 'stimulate' our way through economic damages caused by regulatory and tax policies.  That doesn't make any sense.  It enables rather than soves the other policy errors, and sets up a high likelihood of new inflation coming if or when the current stagnation ends.
5562  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar & other currencies, & Gold/Silver on: October 19, 2011, 11:20:24 PM
"Lets define our terms here.  Question:  Is the bursting of a bubble a deflation?"
Yes, that is where it starts, at least in the case of the two examples I gave: America in the 1930s and Japan in the 1990s.

The problem is the spiral and that we don't know any easy fixes to snap an economy out of it.

In today's economy the bubble started with housing.  We don't face deflation, but the fear of it was one big reason why we have this 6 trillion plus stimulus/quantitative expansion of debt and dilution will haunt us perhaps forever.  Even with the multi-trillion dollar injection, the momentum is stalled.  Wait, don't buy, don't hire, don't invest is what the smart money is doing.  A sad state of affairs.

If bursting a bubble is a necessary evil, two questions come to mind: what were we doing that made the bubble worse than it needed to be (everything), and what are we doing now that is making the correction take longer than it needs to (pretty much everything).

If we didn't try so hard to stave off corrections maybe the expectation of continued falling prices wouldn't set in for so long and so deeply.

How does someone buy a house today if they know the price will be lower tomorrow?  They don't.  Consistently falling prices are a bad thing.

Back to you.  wink
5563  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 19, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
"A VERY lively night in last night's debate.  Analysis? Comments?"

Once again, I missed it and don't enjoy trudging through after I have already seen clips and commentary.  THE clip that made news was about hiring of an illegal, not exactly new or the key to beating Obama or turning the country around.  Too bad to give the public a food fight instead of a economics lesson.

Cain now says he misspoke, whatever that means regarding making the 1 for a thousand trade out of Guantanamo.  Not ready for prime time.  Newt was the one to stay on track, they say.  Eleven more debates to go through January.  Let's get it together!


Debate Roundup
October 18, 2011 11:04 P.M.
By Victor Davis Hanson 

I don’t think the debate will change much in the polls, and those without the money are not going to gain some by tonight’s performance. Obama surely gains when the debaters end up shouting at each other and forget about the present mess. Cain took a lot of hits that scored. Here’s a quick take.

Romney: I think he won the weird crossfires with Perry: a) illegal aliens working on his property were hired by contractors, not him personally (most recognize the difference); b) Perry’s ad hominem came off too calculated and studied rather than an ad hoc jousting point. He scored points for being above the fray, and parried all the blows pretty well. Along with Gingrich and Santorum, he seems to have the best command of the facts, and is doing a good job presenting a certain presidential calm. He is often aware that the debate is being watched by independents as well as the base. When he survives these sharp attacks, he gets better — much better than in 2008. The flash of anger at Perry was a sort of Reagan “I’m paying for this” moment.

Gingrich: A person from Mars would conclude that once again Gingrich is the most impressive in debates, especially his efforts to steer the attacks back to Obama’s policies. His above-the-fray lectures come off very well. He should reflect why it is, then, that when he does so well in debates and so often is the best informed, he gets little traction in polls — and then address that paradox.

Bachmann: She is well-informed and comes up with some strange, but welcome, takes on issues that few have thought of — like her quips on foreclosures, illegal immigration, Israel, and 9-9-9. For someone who is supposed to be wacky, Bachmann came across tonight as sensible and often imaginative. Along with Cain, she is the coolest under fire, and the lower she sinks in the polls, the more relaxed and better she is in debate — as if the less pressure, the more natural she appears.

Cain: At some point reiterating “9-9-9” or referring to his website is simply not enough. He is fearless and candid, and that counts for a lot, but without at least some detail he comes off more as a salesman. One would think he at least would make a 20-second pitch that he is trying to encourage more production and investment and discourage consumption, or articulate exactly why the half that doesn’t pay income taxes should pay quite a lot through his federal sales taxes and 9 percent income tax — or to what extent a national sales tax would, in EU style, create (or not) an even bigger underground, off-the-books economy. On too many occasions, he doesn’t answer the particular question asked or obfuscates about his past statements. But again there seems no interest in detail at all. Too many weird things about electric fences and trading captives for terrorists = too little political experience and not enough prep. His chief strength: He remains absolutely unflappable! But we don’t elect presidents on that admirable trait.

Perry: He is not the somnolent Perry of past debates, but his animation is mostly ad hominem and comes off mean-spirited. He seems to have realized that midway, and gets better when he talks about energy. Tonight: two steps forward for passion, two and a half steps back for a bothersome abrasiveness. Passion is not just invective.

Paul: He gets a lot of applause for reducing problems to sheer simplicity. But the more he talks, the more it is clear that he is a neo-isolationist. At this point, I don’t see how getting rid of the Federal Reserve is viable when fiscal discipline in the past was not antithetical to it. Fifteen percent cut to the Defense Department? All those cabinets cut in a year? Abruptly withdraw the troops from South Korea? I guess it is to be “starve the beast”: First, cut the military, and then they can’t go abroad. (No aid to Israel makes it stronger?) He can sound good on the economy, and some cuts in foreign aid, but all in all, he is simply not a serious presidential candidate.

Santorum: His is a more informed, more analytical version of Perry’s personal-attack mode; somehow he pulls it off a little better because he offers detail. He rarely says anything that doesn’t make sense. But he seems visibly exasperated, almost to the point of sputtering, that his rivals don’t reply to his revelations about their purported hypocrisies — but why would they? He needs to adopt a little more of Herman Cain’s sunny disposition and cheer up, since otherwise he seems perennially angry that the debate, like life, is not fair and his talents go unrecognized.
5564  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar & other currencies, & Gold/Silver on: October 19, 2011, 01:19:56 PM
I have come to doubt the "deflation is bad" hypothesis.

Oh? Do tell.
I like it when conventional 'wisdom' gets questioned around here. 

One argument is that deflation is not a risk in this environment because of our never ending increases in the money supply, but that is not what Crafty is saying.

If Crafty is correct, the Fed could target inflation at 0% instead of more like 1-3%, then with margin of error in a big economy price increases/decreases might swing 2% up or 2% down averaging 0% and the dollar maintaining all of its value over the long term. 

That is only true as long as deflation is not the expectation.

Deflation has tended to correlate with lousy economic periods, the Great Depression in the US and the end of economic growth in Japan in the early 1990s are examples.  Other studies say that is not always so.  Small deflationary periods have come and gone without major damage.

The risk of deflation is really the risk of spiraling deflation.  It goes something like this: Things are cheaper, but people actually buy less because of low demand and because they know prices keep falling.  Companies sell less and make less on what they do sell at the lowered price.  Businesses either lower wages or layoff workers.  Households have even less to spend, demand falls further, prices fall further and the cycle continues or accelerates.  If or when this happens, it is very difficult cycle to break.
5565  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar & other currencies, & Gold/Silver on: October 18, 2011, 04:36:34 PM
Question to all those interested in this subject: What is the acceptable range for the rate of inflation if we accept that a) deflation is totally unacceptable, b) exact 0% inflation is therefore too close to deflation, and c) that there is quite a margin of error for monetary policy makers working with very imprecise measurements and imprecise tools.

You of course don't have to accept my premises.
5566  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: October 18, 2011, 04:13:42 PM
I said before but it still seems to me that whatever the underlying thinking is for the Israeli side of the deal, they aren't going to tell us.  Stratfor is holding back the conjecture they usually add that tries to make sense of things.  Makes me think (as already said by CCP) Israel is preparing for some act of war and Shalit would certainly have been murdered in response.  Maybe they are preparing something relating to security that would 1027 more terror soldiers back on enemy ground of little consequence.

CCP: "Eventually there will be war.  It is inevitable.  Israel is screwed and I feel the sentiment in the US is turning against the "Jews"."

Yes.  Not being able to count on America might actually simplify their  options, allow for actions not available when the focus is always on jumping through the international hoops of acceptance.

I don't know exactly where we are in this so-called Arab spring process, nor I suppose does anyone else.  The calm before the storm is probably the best guess.  Israeli intelligence and military strategists must assume and prepare for the worst case scenario if the goal is a 100% chance of survival.

I was not familiar with Mr. Shalit.  Judging from his photo on wikipedia I am guessing that what is special about Gilad Shalit is merely his youthfulness and innocence, symbolic of any young man lost from any Israeli family.  He was just serving his country and for that has been held 5 years behind enemy lines.  I am reminded of a comment made by Mariane Pearl, widow of Daniel Pearl, saying to Jim Lehrer about those who beheaded him - they are a "nuisance to humanity", meaning of no value to the human race dead or alive.  In that sense maybe Israel got the better end of this deal  - receiving more value in one person than Hamas is getting with a thousand.

Another CCP point: "one downside is it encourages more hostage taking"

The only consolation to that is that if they already have a 100% incentive to take hostages, it is hard for that incentive to increase.  
5567  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: October 17, 2011, 04:22:16 PM
Odd that economists use such powerful words as "real growth" to describe what of course is not real growth.  It is just the formula they all accept for adjusting 'nominal growth'.  Around here most people know that we have flooded multi-trillions of declining-value dollars into yesterdays numbers.  The resulting  inflation has already occurred, does not show up yet, but is certain to materialize in tomorrow's prices levels. 

Real growth for this year by honest definition is something we will never know because we chose instead to conduct such an artificial, contrived and manipulated experiment. MHO
5568  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Someone needs to find the regulatory equivalent of the Laffer Curve on: October 17, 2011, 10:05:04 AM
Regulations today are worse than taxes, worse than spending and maybe even worse than what we are doing to our currency. 

An excerpt from Steven Hayward yesterday (biased blogger) agreeing with Peggy Noonan on 'This is no time for moderation', praising Cain and goes on into regulations:

"I depart from Peggy in one respect.  While our financial structures are certainly still shaky, a much larger problem is the regulatory structure that has clotted the arteries of the economy by making it cumbersome and difficult to get anything started. Consider the Keystone XL pipeline, which would generate over 20,000 constructions jobs, and lot of other permanent jobs after it is finished.  It is going to be approved.  Eventually.  Is the long hearing and litigation process really contributing to reducing the environmental impact the project is going to have?  Surely not.  And to the extent the long review process does lead to mitigations of harms, are there any changes that couldn’t have been figured out in the first 90 days of the whole story?  A country serious about job creation wouldn’t tolerate this kind of process.  I’m convinced the purpose of the whole regulatory process today is to extort things from the private sector, and/or to simply wear out the opposition to new things before the government finally says “yes.”   We can’t afford this frivolousness any more.

As a thought experiment, think back to all the New Deal era construction projects, like the Columbia and Colorado River dams, the Empire State Building, and the Oakland Bay and Golden Gate bridges.  None of them could be built as quickly today, if at all.  The hearing/litigation process would have delayed them for years, and run the cost way up.  The replacement Oakland Bay Bridge, called for after its collapse in the 1989 earthquake, is just now approaching completion, 22 years (and three recessions) later.  Notice how long it took to let everyone have their say on replacing the World Trade Center at Ground Zero.  See the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Project No Project website for much more on this point.

So just as Reagan embraced supply-side economics as a radical move to change the economy in 1980, the big opening for someone today is to find the regulatory equivalent of the Laffer Curve.  Someone needs to figure out a way to rip out the regulatory structure by the roots, and replace it with something that delivers genuine protection for health, safety, and the environment while allows things to get built and businesses to get started quickly."
5569  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / No longer doubting (Justice) Thomas on: October 17, 2011, 09:55:28 AM

Ralph A. Rossum: No longer doubting Thomas

In his 446 opinions, Clarence Thomas always looked to preserve the original meaning of the Constitution.

By RALPH A. ROSSUM / Salvatori professor of American Constitutionalism, Claremont McKenna College

On Oct. 23, 1991, Clarence Thomas was sworn in as the 106th Justice of the Supreme Court. During the heated debate over his confirmation, Gary McDowell, a conservative legal scholar and former speechwriter for Edwin Meese, wrote a piece entitled "Doubting Thomas: Is Clarence a Real Conservative?" Now, 20 years later, there is no doubt: the answer is an unequivocal, yes.

In the 446 opinions he has written since his confirmation, Thomas has assiduously pursued an original understanding approach to constitutional interpretation and a jurisprudence of constitutional restoration. He has been unswayed by the claims of precedent – by the gradual build-up of interpretations that, over time, completely distort the original understanding of the constitutional provision in question and lead to muddled decisions and contradictory conclusions.

As with too many layers of paint on a delicately crafted piece of furniture, precedent based on precedent – focusing on what the Court said the Constitution means in past cases as opposed to focusing on what the Constitution actually means – hides the constitutional nuance and detail he wants to restore. Thomas is unquestionably the justice who is most willing to reject this build-up, this excrescence, and to call on his colleagues to join him in scraping away past precedent and getting back to bare wood – to the original understanding of the Constitution.

The two Supreme Court justices who unabashedly identify themselves as originalists are Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Yet, they are different in their approaches. Scalia consistently employs an original public meaning approach to interpretation.

He wants to know what the words of the text being interpreted meant to the society that adopted it. While he often turns to founding documents, he does so because they "display the original meaning of the text."

Thomas, pursuing an original understanding approach, incorporates Scalia's narrower original public meaning approach, but then widens the originalist focus and asks as well why the text was adopted. Concerning the Constitution, Thomas turns readily to founding era sources not only to determine the original meaning of the text being interpreted, but also to ascertain the ends the framers sought to achieve, the evils they sought to avert, and the means they employed to achieve those ends and avert those evils when they adopted and ratified that text.

Thomas invariably rejects past decisions that depart from that original understanding. He invites his colleagues to join him by engaging in the hard jurisprudential work of scraping away the layers of misguided precedent and restoring the contours of the Constitution, as it was originally understood by those who framed and ratified it.

Here are two examples from the scores that could be provided. In his concurrence in the Ten Commandment case, Van Orden v. Perry, Thomas condemned the "incoherence" of the Court's past decisions that rendered "the Establishment Clause impenetrable and incapable of consistent application" and called for a "return to the views of the Framers" and for the adoption of actual physical coercion as "the touchstone for our Establishment Clause inquiry."

And, in his dissent in the takings case, Kelo v. City of New London, he observed that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not." He regretted that the Court majority relied not on the constitutional text, but "almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result."

And, he concluded, "[w]hen faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."

After a long and bruising confirmation hearing and a close Senate vote, Thomas arrived at the Court as damaged goods. And, given the liberal bias of the legal professoriate, law review articles about him during his first decade of service were unrelentingly hostile and derogatory. One in the Harvard Law Review went so far as to declare that Thomas had no underlying legal approach other than to be in "direct opposition" to the views of Justice Thurgood Marshall whom he replaced. But, that is finally changing, as thoughtful articles taking seriously his opinions and commending his original understanding jurisprudence are now much more prevalent than those castigating him. They praise him as the "Next Great Dissenter," "the Lone Principled Federalist," and the emerging "Commercial Speech Protector."

Even his civil rights opinions are now winning the respect of leftist professors such as Mark Tushnet and the self-described "liberal black womanist," Angela Onwuachi-Willig, who confessed that, by defending Thomas, she had committed an act she "once thought was impossible."

As his 20-year effort to restore the original understanding of Constitution makes clear, there was no reason then and there is no reason now to doubt Thomas.
5570  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential: Taxpayer paid buses, 2.2 million, head to swing states on: October 17, 2011, 08:52:51 AM
There is no primary opponent so the rule is no victim, no crime?  See if the sound bites this week coming from the President bus tour through states like North Carolina and Virginia that Obama carried in 2008 and needs in 2012 sound like campaigning or governing.  Leave the campaign war chest in the bank.  This tour is free!

WSJ: Obama to Target a Few Crucial States

The president starts a three-day bus trip Monday through North Carolina and Virginia that brings fresh attention to the kinds of voters he will rely on as he works to assemble a majority next year in the Electoral College.
5571  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / VDH: The skeptics of 2008 proved prescient on: October 17, 2011, 08:35:08 AM
Did 2008 Come True?
October 16, 2011 - 11:15 am - by Victor Davis Hanson

The Right-Wing Complaint of 2008

In 2008, the following was the general right-wing argument against Obama’s candidacy:

a) The self-professed “uniter” Obama had, in truth, little record of uniting disparate groups. From community organizing to politics, his preferred modus operandi was rather to praise moderation, but politick more as a radical, and sometimes go after opponents as unreasonable or illiberal. Thus the most partisan voting senator in the Congress, who talked grandly of “working across the aisle,” also urged supporters to “get in their faces” and “take a gun to a knife fight.” Acorn, Project Vote, and SEIU were not ecumenical organizations.

b) Obama knew very little about foreign affairs, or perhaps even raw human nature as it plays out in power politics abroad. At times, he seemed naive about the singular role of the U.S. in the world, especially his sense that problems with Iran, the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia, and others were somehow predicated on American arrogance and unilateralism (and neither predating nor postdating George Bush) — to be remedied by Obama’s post-racial, post-national diplomacy.

c) In truth, Obama, for all his rhetorical skills and soft-spoken charisma, had little experience in the private sector outside of politics, academia, foundations, and subsidized organizing. Consequently, he did not seem to understand the nature of profit and loss, payrolls, how businesses worked and planned, or much of anything in the private sector.

d) Obama at times seemed to lack common sense, and perhaps even common knowledge. He appeared confused about everything from the number of U.S. states to the idea that air pressure and “tune-ups” might substitute for new oil exploration. He seemed assured when reading a teleprompted script, and yet lost much of his eloquence when it came to repartee and question and answer.

e) Obama saw race as essential to his persona and his success, rarely incidental. Collate the writings and rantings of his triad of pastors and friends — Rev. Wright, Rev. Pfleger, and Rev. Meeks — and one sees a common theme of racism (sometimes overt), anti-Semitism, and class warfare. It was considered irrelevant to remind voters in 2008 that Michelle Obama had alleged that the U.S. was a downright mean country, or that she had confessed to never heretofore being very proud of her country until it gave consideration to her husband as a presidential candidate — though both sentiments would seem rare for a potential first lady.

f) Obama, it was also felt, counted on a sense of entitlement. His admissions to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard were alleged not to have been based on the usual competitive test scores or grades — and such charges were not refuted, but considered ancient history. As Harvard Law Review editor, he seemed to assume, quite rightly, that he did not have to publish an article. As a University of Chicago Law School lecturer he also rightly assumed that Chicago — and later Harvard as well — would, if he had wished, granted him tenure, again, despite nonexistent publication. Sen. Clinton argued, without much refutation, that as a state legislator Obama had both authored very little legislation and voted present on any vote that might be considered problematic for a higher political office — a charge that later disappointed supporters would come to echo, along with admissions of prior inexperience on Obama’s apart.

g) Obama, like many on the elite left, had an ambiguous attitude about affluence and its dividends. The more, as a community organizer, he had railed about bankers and unfairness, the more he had enjoyed a mini-mansion and dealt with the soon-to-be criminal Tony Rezko. The current Wall Street protests take their cue not just from presidential anger at “millionaires and billionaires,” but also from the idea that affluent young people are exempt from their own rhetorical charges.

Yet in 2008, to suggest “spread the wealth” meant anything important was to be either racist or a rank partisan. But Obama in 2001 in a Chicago public radio interview could not have been clearer about the need for government to redistribute income and his unhappiness that the Constitution seemed to prohibit that. Here is a telling excerpt in all its half-baked Foucauldian vocabulary:

    But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. … I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

Again, to refer to all of the above in 2008 was considered not so much unfair as improper.

The Proving Ground

Then came the election, and a perfect storm of events. The general unhappiness with Bush over deficits and Iraq, the recession that had started in December 2007, the absence of any incumbent vice president or president in the race for the first time since 1952, an unusually unenergetic McCain campaign, and a nakedly partisan media — all that by early September still had not given Obama the lead. But the mid-September 2008 financial crash did. And so what in the last fifty years was usually considered improbable — the election of a northern Democratic liberal — soon seemed foreordained.

The Reality of 2011

We are now nearing the third year of the Obama administration. Were those worries of 2008 at all justified? Let us briefly review them in the same order:

a) Uniter? The country is divided, perhaps more so than in 2006 — except to the extent of gradually unifying around opposition to Obama, who now polls around 40% approval and is heading to Bush levels in three rather than seven years. “Get in their faces”transmogrified into “punish our enemies,” a lawsuit against Arizona, “stop the smears”/ JournoList/, and a shellacking in 2010 that led the president to abandon any pretense of “bipartisanship” in favor of revving up the base with them/us rhetoric. Let me juxtapose these two quotes that sum up the current weird Obama atmosphere:

    * “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic.” — Hillary Clinton in 2003 objecting to the Bush administration.

    * “These are not patriots, people who love this country want to see jobs created. They don’t love this country. … I don’t think they love this country. They’re not concerned about the economic well being of the country as a whole.” — Rep. Linda Sanchez, in 2011, in response to congressional opposition to President Obama’s job’s bill.

Could now-Secretary Clinton address Rep. Sanchez’s charges?

b) Abroad? Obama soon began treating allies and enemies alike as near neutrals: outreach to Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba, while petty slights and sometimes serious rebuke to Israel, the UK, and eastern Europe. Once the most vocal of Bush’s critics, Obama ended up copycatting all of his predecessor’s anti-terrorism protocols – but without a gesture of gratitude. As Predator in chief, Obama quintupled the number of targeted assassinations, on the apparent theory that dead suspected terrorists would cause fewer problems than incarcerated confessed terrorists. Reset and outreach faded and are now terms of yesteryear: China is as anti-American as ever, more so Pakistan. Iran allegedly now tries to kill inside Washington. Putin is still Putin. “Leading from behind” proved that a thug like Gaddafi could resist NATO’s big three for eight months. The Arab Spring may become a winter of anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism,  and anti-Americanism. The Arab Spring also suggests so far two tragic truths: the Middle East changes only when the U.S. removes a psychopath, and then spends lots of blood and treasure fostering a new government — something that has zero political support after Iraq; and two, Middle East dictators are sometimes more liberal than the masses to whom they deny freedoms. In general, we still have Afghanistan and Iraq, plus Libya and now a small force in Africa. Israel, Cyprus, Taiwan, North Korea, and the former Soviet republics are more volatile, not less.

c) Economy? Obama’s EU-like economic plan is in shambles. Prior to Obama, Keynesians had argued that no one had given them a fair shot since the Depression. But borrowing nearly five trillion in less than three years, near zero interest rates, vastly expanding food stamps and unemployment benefits, absorbing private companies, and issuing vast new financial and environmental regulations turned an anticipated recovery into another near recession. In any case, Obama’s economic architects of such policies — Goolsbee, Orszag, Romer, Summers — mysteriously did not last three years.

d) Common sense? 2008 campaign “slips” prefaced things like “corpse-man” and speaking Austrian — perhaps understandable, but not in the media climate of zero media tolerance for “nucular.” Presidents I suppose in the future will have to be taught by handlers not to bow to emperors and kings. Going to our ally Germany to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall was apparently less important than jetting to Copenhagen to lobby for a Chicago Olympics. The 2009 Cairo speech was one of the most factually incorrect speeches in recent presidential history, as almost every assertion was demonstrably false. Well before Solyndra, the secretary of energy quipped that gas prices should reach European levels, that California farms would some day blow away, and that Americans, in essence, could not be trusted to buy the right light bulbs. From “man-made disasters” to “overseas contingency operations” to “my people” and “cowards” to videos assuring that immigration laws will not be enforced, the Obama cabinet is about what one could have predicted back in 2008.

e) Racial healing? All these earlier bothersome tidbits like “typical white person” reappeared with an entire litany of them/us calumnies, none of them in isolation of any importance, but in toto quite disturbing. Do we remember them all — from the beer summit and Eric Holder’s “my people” and “cowards” to “wise Latina,” “punish our enemies,” “moats and alligators,” the faux-southern black preacher cadences and condescending addresses to “bedroom slippers” African-American audiences, or the video appealing to constituents by racial categories? Few imagined in 2008 that the Congressional Black Caucus in 2011, in the new period of post-racialism, would be accusing opponents of wanting a return to lynching and Jim Crow laws.

f) Political savvy? Why federalize health care in the midst of a recession with 10% plus unemployment? Obama promised the public in November 2010 not to raise taxes in a recession, in 2011 to raise them a lot. Solyndra seems far worse than Enron, but Fast and Furious perhaps as bad as Iran Contra — except that Americans died in the former and not the latter. In 2010, potential Republican opponents and the Democratic base were worried that Obama would triangulate as Clinton had in 1995; in 2011, most observers are exasperated that he thinks more of what failed in 2010 is the remedy in 2011.

g) Hate or love of the elite? The hints of the 2008 attraction and distrust of wealth only magnified by 2011. In the midst of “at some point” we have made enough money, of not the time for profits on Wall Street, of “millionaires and billionaires,” of “corporate jets,” of going after everyone from guitar factories to Boeing — in the midst of all that, where do all the all elite vacation spots and golf resorts fit in — along with massive donations from Goldman Sachs and BP? How strange that the more one demonizes the good life that unimaginable riches provide, the more one seems comfortable with the good life that unlimited government subsidizes?

The skeptics of 2008 proved prescient; those who demonized them should be embarrassed. And we should remember that candidates, of both parties, will govern mostly as they campaign. Slips are not indiscretions, but often will prove in hindsight windows of the soul.
5572  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / We STILL own 500 million shares of Government Motors on: October 17, 2011, 08:30:45 AM
Current loss:  14, 421,881,925.36

How the loss is calculated:
The United States Treasury owns roughly 500 million shares of common stock in General Motors. (Source: U.S. Treasury) The Treasury would need to sell these shares at roughly $53 per share in order to "break even" on the investment. (Source: WSJ) Using Google Finance API, we multiply the current GM stock price by 500,065,254, and subtract that total from $26,503,458,462 (or, 500,065,254 x $53).

Our calculations estimate the loss taxpayers would suffer if UST sells its GM common stock shares at the current ticker price. We track the common stock price and update our calculations on an ongoing basis, providing an up-to-the-minute snapshot of the money the UST lost in Government Motors.
Rob Peter, pay Paul.  Someone tell me how coerced help from taxpayers to one enterprise is equal protection to all others...  sad
5573  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans on: October 17, 2011, 08:20:33 AM
"McCain-Feingold...was structured to make it more difficult to challenge incumbents."

True even if by accident.  Incumbents start with a big advantage, the powers of incumbency: briefing letters, press stories covering their work in Washington and their local visits, paid staff helping constituents, etc.  Spending limits applied evenly to everyone lock in that advantage.

The way you limit money in politics is limit what influence is for sale.  If the public were to not tolerate the special treatment of special groups in the tax code, in spending bills or in regulations, most of that kind of money would dry up quickly.
5574  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans- Disparity on: October 16, 2011, 10:06:37 PM
"So what would be the policy solution to this gap?"

For lower and middle income earners to have the opportunity to earn more money if they want to.

Disparity tells us that people with high incomes make more money than people with lower incomes.  We are missing something with that.  I learn more when we compare some other variable such as that people who set an alarm and get up in the morning make more money than people who don't.  Or people who have saved and invested in their earlier years make more investment income now than people who didn't.

Fact is that a typical person moves freely between at least 3 or 4 of the 5 quintiles of earners in the course of their lifetime. 

The question IMO isn't disparity but opportunity.  If 40% of young people are unemployed right now, our policies are choking off their momentum to work a couple of jobs, save and start of business of their own someday.

"Campaign finance reform was lambasted by the..." ... [first amendment]   wink

"Simplify the tax code.  Get rid of loopholes"  YES!  And closing the loopholes means the marginal rates can be lower, and that would help investment, expansion and hiring get going again, helping those currently left out of the economy who don't want to be. Favorable conditions for economic growth will not cure disparity,but it does help everybody.

5575  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GOP job growth plan on: October 16, 2011, 04:54:44 PM
Finally, a GOP Growth Plan
Senators John McCain and Rand Paul have drafted an economic growth blueprint that they hope to be the rallying cry of all congressional Republicans.


The White House and congressional Democrats hope to use the Senate rejection of the Obama jobs plan this week as a campaign issue against "do nothing Republicans." Senate Democrats have crowed that "Republicans have no jobs plan of their own," but that's not true any longer. Senators John McCain of Arizona and Rand Paul of Kentucky have drafted a comprehensive economic growth blueprint that they hope to be the rallying cry of all congressional Republicans in the weeks ahead. We obtained a copy of the draft document which includes tax cuts, a balanced budget amendment, ObamaCare repeal, and a regulatory freeze.

In an interview, Mr. McCain said that the two GOP senators were asked by Senator John Cornyn of Texas to stitch together a counterpoint to the Obama $447 billion proposal that lost in the Senate on Tuesday. "Can you imagine a stranger pair than me and Rand Paul," laughed Mr. McCain of his co-sponsor, who is a libertarian Republican. "We found a lot of common ground, and that started with fixing the tax code," he adds.

The plan would also promote an America-first pro-drilling policy to expand U.S. industry and reduce the country's reliance on Middle East oil. That's an issue where Mr. Obama is highly vulnerable given the tens of billions wasted on wind and solar subsidies. On the regulatory front, federal agencies would not be able to issue new rules until the unemployment rate drops to 7.7%.

The plan, which would cut corporate tax rates to 25% from 35% is partly paid for by offering a reduced 5% tax on repatriated capital to the U.S. When that approach was tried in the Bush years, revenues rose as a flood of new capital that was trapped overseas poured back into the U.S. Mr. McCain fumed that the congressional score keepers won't count this maneuver "as a revenue raiser, even though we know it increase tax payments."

The plan won't get close to the 60 votes necessary in the Senate. But it does establish a polar star for Republicans to head toward. Republicans got a nice lift for the plan when a Chamber of Commerce poll asked 1300 business owners across the country whether they support the GOP plan of "permanent tax cuts and less regulation," or the Democratic plan of temporary payroll tax cuts and public works spending. More than eight of 10 said they favor the Republican approach.

Mr. Paul told Politico that it is critical that Republicans have a response on jobs to the White House offering. Now they have one, and we will see if Republicans actually fight for it.
5576  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 16, 2011, 04:36:05 PM
"Perry has proven to be quite the disappointment."

Agree, but with 15 million in the bank he isn't going to go away anytime soon.  Like Newt, he can still add something to the discussion if he chooses to step up to the plate.
I watched Cain on Meet the Press today.  Must say again what a pompous and partisan jerk David Gregory is.  Cain was poised and focused, answered every question very well, never distracted by the outrageous opposing opinions expressed in the question that poses as journalism.  Cain was ready on every objection.  Cain makes the Reagan  case on foreign policy, peace through strength, wouldn't let Gregory go anywhere with neocon labeling and didn't get drawn into specifics on action against Iran.  When all he has for intelligence and IF this was an act of war, then he would have his advisers present him with "all our options".

Gregory: For starters, about 30 million of the poorest households pay neither income taxes nor Social Security or Medicare levies.  `So for them,'" he says, "`doing away with the payroll tax doesn't save anything.  And you are adding both a 9 percent sales tax and 9 percent income tax.  So we know they will be worse off.'" That's the reality, Mr. Cain

After being completely refuted by Cain, Gregory says: "The other defect in the plan..."

Gregory just can't get it that state and Federal are DIFFERENT.  No matter what you do with federal, you have state taxes to deal with. His plan has nothing to do with that.

Cain did not back off of strong statement made in speeches, Cain clip: 'liberals seek to destroy this country',  Gregory: "How so?" Cain: "economically".  They don't want America to be strong.
5577  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 16, 2011, 01:26:41 PM
GM wrote: "At least Cain is willing to think outside the box on this topic."

Absolutely! Cain put himself on the map with his plan and sparked the interest of both the flat and Fair tax people that unfortunately are two competing minorities of the electorate. I read through Romney's 59 point plan and can't remember any of it.  I did not find the top marginal rate in there - because it isn't in there.  Hardly a commitment to lower rates, economic growth and smaller government.

Cain is the only one calling for the complete scrapping of the current tax code.  Many are finding agreement with the first two nines and but distrusting the third - the enactment of a large new federal tax.  The door is wide open for candidate Rick Perry to also scrap the code with a different plan.  Gov. Perry, if you are reading this, debates won't be so scary after you have a plan.  I will be happy to outline one for you.

5578  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: October 16, 2011, 12:29:46 PM
Kudlow is wrong about Cain's 999 excluding people below the poverty line. Kudlow says: "the Cain plan partially deals with this by exempting everybody below the poverty line." That was the FAIR tax that did that, undermining its simplicity.  Cain has only said that people poor or otherwise can avoid this tax by buying used goods.  A fair point except the price of used goods will go up by the same 9% his own valid logic - an embedded tax passed along to the consumer.

Note that Kudlow also writes: "I am troubled by the national sales tax piece. It reminds me too much of Europe. It could start low and then build on top of the other taxes. But I totally support the first two nines on personal income and business....I'm still a flat-tax guy"

Me too.

I posted at length previously as to why I believe the FAIR tax is unworkable politically, such as here is 2007:  That is the reason Cain moved to the combination plan, but the combination plan precludes the central feature of the FAIR tax, repealing the income tax amendment.  

I agree the Cain plan if implemented exactly as written will achieve an economic jumpstart and optimistic future growth rates similar to what is claimed, but I don't believe income taxes and corporate taxes will then stay flat or low thereafter, but I do believe that a new federal tax will never go down in its top rate or go away.

Cain 9-9-9 requires a 2/3 majority to change the rates?  How so?  That sounds more like a constitutional amendment than a tax bill.  I favor constitutional amendments to cap tax rates and spending.  That is not in the proposal.
I strongly agree with  this part, Crafty wrote: "The current structure, where most people pay little or no taxes actually weakens our resistance on the whole.  A system where virtually everyone pays THE SAME RATE will do much to stiffen the spine of we the people should Washington try to increase any of the 9s."

5579  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Republican race so far (Dance of the Un-Mitts) by John Podhoretz on: October 14, 2011, 10:04:17 PM
Crafty,  I see it differently, but I notice that John Podhoretz also makes the Ronald Reagan comparison.  This is a great re-cap of the race so far:

The question now for Herman Cain, certainly the most charming Republican presidential contender since Ronald Reagan, is whether he’s a formidable candidate in his own right -- or just the latest of the Not-Romneys.

The structure of the GOP race this year has been simple. There’s Mitt Romney and his solid 20-25 percent of the Republican electorate, the level of support the former Massachusetts governor has garnered in nearly every major poll this year.

And then there’s the other 75 percent. They know Romney. They’ve been listening to him for nearly five years. And they’re not buying.

There are three possible explanations for this.

They dislike his stands on policy. How can Republicans nominate a man who imposed an individual health-care mandate on the state of Massachusetts to lead a party whose primary policy goal since 2010 has been the repeal of ObamaCare -- designed around an individual health-care mandate?

They can’t make an emotional connection with him. Romney is a Scotchgarded candidate -- all attempts to penetrate the shiny surface are repelled. This is why there is political value to his rivals when someone brings up his Mormonism, and not just to make evangelicals uncomfortable with him. Because LDS is a minority faith, Romney’s membership in the church only emphasizes his otherness and distance.

The GOP base’s difficulty in finding a commonality with Romney is related to their unease with his policy history. Romney does not have a natural affinity with the GOP faithful. Or, as Rush Limbaugh put it simply yesterday, “Romney is not a conservative. He’s not, folks.”

Romney has sought to calm these concerns simply by changing some of his positions. He was pro-choice; now he’s pro-life. He was a supporter of some vague form of gay marriage; now he promises to oppose it. Which leads to point 3:

GOP voters think Romney is a phony. Combine the above two and you get this one.

Authenticity is always an issue for primary voters, as it should be. They are the most committed people in politics, and they believe deeply in the power of the political system to do good (even if, in the Republican case, the good to be done is to dismantle the political system in part). An inauthentic candidate is exactly the kind of politician true believers fear the most.

Romney can’t really do anything about these problems -- except perhaps find a way to remove the Scotchgard. And because of them, the GOP race all year has been a contest between Romney and the Not-Romneys.

First up was Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, who said explicitly that he was in the race to provide a more conservative mainstream alternative to Romney.

He went nowhere because, as it turned out, the 75 percent didn’t want to choose between Romney and a better version of Romney. They wanted a Not-Romney, a candidate of conservative principle, and three have surfaced.

Michele Bachmann surged after two debate performances in which she positioned herself as unwilling and indeed emotionally incapable of compromise. But her entire candidacy was and is negative -- you know what she won’t do and what she doesn’t like, but you know nothing else.

Her Not-Romney position was obliterated by the arrival of the man who, on paper, was the perfect Not-Romney: Rick Perry. A hard-line conservative, he could also boast of governing credentials and had a simple positive message: I can get the country back to work the way people are working in Texas.

Perry has done nothing but shoot himself in the foot he’s had lodged in his mouth for six weeks. So now comes Herman Cain.

Now this is a Not-Romney -- an African-American evangelical preacher and former businessman with an entrancing personality and a genuine sense of the size and drama of the present moment.

Cain speaks plainly, whereas Romney speaks like the guy in a radio commercial reading off the fine print of a lottery. Romney has a 59-point plan to save the economy? Cain has a one-point plan, the already-iconic 9-9-9.

This is Cain’s Not-Romney moment. Some polls have him ahead of Romney now. Every conventional understanding of politics says he can’t win; 9-9-9 is fun to describe but difficult to defend substantively; Cain has an unfortunate history of saying unfortunate things. And he has no elective experience.

And he has one more problem: Romney. Because while everybody was looking for an alternative to him, Romney has used his time on the trail to turn himself into a dazzling candidate. Even the 75 percent won’t remain immune forever to just how fluent, how precise and how serious he is about running and winning.

All he needs is for this one last Not-Romney to fade as the others did. Will he?
5580  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 14, 2011, 07:12:39 PM
"I love the first two 9's  of his 999 - but not the last.  At least he has people talking about revamping the tax code."

Absolutely!  I don't think there is any question that Cain, who used to support moving 100% to a sales tax, could be moved in negotiations with congress to any serious proposal that tears up the old tax code, taxes income evenly, slashes the rates, and raises just as much money.

For Romney, he will leave the highest rates on the rich (because they fell into it?) and for Perry he will continue the public private partnerships.  How can we measure income if we can't even define what is a private business?

People  who liked Newt can remember that Cain's one word description was 'brilliant'.  Newt will have his best second shot at writing domestic policy in a Cain administration.
5581  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 14, 2011, 04:40:03 PM  I just donated $25.  With the dates for the primaries moving up dramatically, Herman is going to need the $ now.

I wasn't endorsing yet, but you are right about timing.  Now is the time.  I think I will match you on that.  

To all others:  Do not sit on the sidelines spring, summer and fall of 2011 and then in early 2012 tell us you don't like the remaining choices.

We aren't going to elect a perfect President, but we are going to elect a President.
5582  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: October 14, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
I am taking the Laffer and Ryan endorsements to be non exclusive; the Cain plan is one good way to move forward out of this mess:

Laffer...said Mr. Cain's principles on taxation are "really sound," and that Mr. Cain himself is a "world-class candidate," but he also praised several other GOP candidates.

“We need more bold ideas like this because it is specific and credible,” Ryan said
5583  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Tax Policy: Washington Post opposes dynamic scoring? on: October 13, 2011, 11:25:42 PM
Media idiocy in economics.  Washington Post editorial yesterday denies that changing the income.  They prefers static scoring.  Call dynamic scoring "faith-based" analysis.  Unbelievable.

Mr. Cain’s argument of revenue-neutrality rests on the sleight of hand of dynamic scoring — taking into account the economic growth to be generated by lower tax rates. This kind of faith-based tax analysis is too dubious a basis on which to rest an economic program.

5584  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential: Herman Cain vs. Pres. Clinton on Health Care, April 1994 on: October 13, 2011, 11:04:00 PM
Watch Clinton's expression as he gets his lunch handed to him by a questioning restaurant proprietor.  Rhodes scholar young Bill Clinton does some pretty fast math on his feet - impressive to his audience, but wrong.  Readers of these pages would already know that Cain has a degree in mathematics and didn't pose his question to the President without doing his homework.  At the end, Clinton bails as if time is up and says send me your calculations.  Cain did that and never received a reply from the President or anyone in his administration. 

One of the bonehead statements of the Rhodes scholar that never worked in the private sector is that mandatory healthcare would only add 2% of additional cost (actually 7%) to a business with 10,000 employees that returns 1 1/2% to the bottom line.  No return or a negative return on sales means no expansion, no hiring, really no reason to be in business.

Another thing clear from the video is that Cain is no affirmative action, racially picked figurehead.  He is clearly the leader of the operation, out front and center in public advancing the interests of the business.  Besides CEO of a 500 restaurant company, he was also head of the national restaurant association.  Intro ends at about 1:10.
When he gave the Greenspan example for Fed management he made it very clear he was referring only to the years in the early 1990s when he served as Chairman of the Kansas City Fed.  It was a trick question because there was no good example in our adult lifetime of a Fed chair who would serve as a model for a great appointment.  In the last several decades we had Arthur Burns and the inflationary spiral of the 1970's.  We had inflation and then tight money that was poorly timed  under Volcker and caused a very deep recession and later became an Obama adviser, now AWOL.  We had the bizarre record of Greenspan who barely spoke English and we have the current QEx fanatic who can't remember his mission.
5585  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism: on: October 13, 2011, 11:48:34 AM
It will be interesting on the left to see who owns and who dis-owns the message that will come out of the 'Occupy' movement.

GM posted the purple hair and nose ring lady.  BD advised to look past a few kooks for validity in their points.  Over time we will see what are their points.  I predict from past similar movements it will devolve into anti-capitalism which puts Obama the mainstream anti-capitalist in a tricky situation about taking sides.

"Fast-forward about 100 years to the "99 percenters v. 1 percenters."
Today, almost 35 percent of Americans are dependent upon government subsidies, and 40 percent of Americans pay no income tax and thus have no stake in the cost of government. Consequently, most are predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others' incomes rather than work for their own."

Our own CCP has persuasively made this point.  '35% of Americans' understates the influence.  Normally I have seen it written more like '53% of households' receive federal transfer of wealth payments.  I understand helping the oldest and weakest among us who cannot get help from their own family, church, county, state or neighborhood, but not defining the weakest among us who have no chance as the lower 99%!

Which hurts you more financially if you are middle class, the people who are taking from you or the people who pay taxes in dollars about 40 times more than you are?
5586  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential - Rush L: Romney is not a conservative on: October 13, 2011, 11:28:56 AM
My view is that, like a Supreme Court Justice settling in after confirmation, there is about a 50-50 shot that Romney will govern in the right direction.  Running against a 0% chance.

Rush's view here is that if being a Governor is such a great experience for becoming President, then why can't we judge what they did as Governor?  Surprisingly strong words:

The reason is simple: Romney is not a conservative. He's not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn't. What he has going for him is that he's not Obama and that he is doing incredibly well in the debates because he's done it a long time. He's very seasoned. He never makes a mistake, and he's going to keep winning these things if he never makes a mistake. It's that simple. But I'm not personally ready to settle on anybody yet -- and I know that neither are most of you, and I also know that most of you do not want this over now, before we've even had a single primary! All we've had are straw votes. You know that the Republican establishment's trying to nail this down and end it. You know that that's happening, and I know that you don't want that to happen, and neither do I.

Now, as for Romney -- and you should know, by the way, that I've met Romney. I've not played golf with him but I've met him, and I like all of these people. This isn't personal, not with what country faces and so forth. I like him very much. I've spent some social time with him. He's a fine guy. He's very nice gentleman. He is a gentleman. But he's not a conservative -- and if you disagree, I'm open. The telephone lines are yours. Call and tell me what you think it is that makes him a principled conservative, what exactly is it. Is there something that he has said that shows conservative, principled leadership? What did he say? I'm open to it. Now, we're told that governors are better than legislators when looking for presidents for a host of reasons.

Legislators are filled with ego, they sit around and by "yes" men, they're not executives, and they're one of many, and the buck never really stops with them. Governors, it's just the exact opposite. But when we look at the record, and we bring up Romneycare, we're told, "Well, that's been he was a governor, but as president he wouldn't do any such thing." What? What do you mean he wouldn't do any such thing? He did it is the point. He has positions as governor that make it obvious he believes in the concept of manmade global warming. "Yeah, but that was as governor, Rush. It's a liberal state. He had to do things to get elected." Um, there's gonna be a lot of liberal pressure on whoever our president is: Media, Democrat members of Congress that the media's gonna fawn all over.

Every night you'll have Harry Reid and Pelosi on camera commenting on what the new conservative president's doing. There's gonna be all kinds of liberal pressure on whoever our next president is who's a Republican conservative. The Romneycare health care bill has individual mandates, and they're wrong. Individual mandates are wrong whether they're imposed by a governor or a president. Governor McDonnell of Virginia has not done what Romney did in Massachusetts, and neither have most other Republican governors. Governor McDonnell of Virginia is running a very small deficits, but surplus, in fact, I think. His unemployment rate in Virginia is way down. Nobody talks about him for the presidency, because he himself has not put himself out there for it.

But most Republican governors are not having to fall back on the federalism argument to justify what they did. "Well, it's states' rights. You know, we're laboratories. We can do whatever we want to do. I wouldn't do it, of course, at the federal level! I wouldn't do it. But, of course, the governors we gotta experiment with things," and the reason that they're not falling back on federalism is because, as governors, they didn't make terrible policy decisions that they now have to justify. So if we are going to look at a governor's record, what exactly do we find? There's manmade global warming, and Romney has indicated that he believes in it and he has supported laws in Massachusetts built on it. The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in the federal government is out of control.
5587  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: October 13, 2011, 10:56:52 AM
I agree that nothing in the story indicates why they would trade one person for a thousand.  There is more to that and we don't get to know what it is.
Earlier in the year during the Arab spring there was a near-war between Iran and Saudi over Bahrain, a decades old dispute that I assume is still smoldering.  That Iran would want to kill off their enemy Saudi while he is negotiating assistance against them from their enemy America isn't is no surprise, nor is it new that our security is constantly thwarting off attacks like this.  It is a huge story, but not something new or changing as I see it.

Didn't this happen over the summer?  The surprise is that the Obamites went to press with it now instead of holding it a year for value in the general election.
5588  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Environmental issues: Role of the EPA on: October 13, 2011, 10:39:09 AM
Pulling out one point of CW from Politics: "main points I don't agree with the tea party... the EPA..."

I would think the federal role for protecting our air and water involves watching for gaps in necessary regulation and enforcement from across the 50 states and taking action in certain extreme circumstances that can't be solved a better way.  I don't understand having a federal standard for something that is stricter than what the people in the states chose for their standard at home.   But let's say 49 states have good and reasonable air and water protections and one state doesn't, and from that one state they spew filth or pollutants down wind or downstream outward across state lines.  That is when a federal government role is appropriate and justified.

All I think a conservative or tea partier would want for environmental regulation is a practice that regulations are reasonable and based on real cost/benefit analysis.  To unilaterally drive all factories off our shores alone does not reduce global carbon or anything else on the planet by a milligram.
5589  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 13, 2011, 10:13:12 AM
The 99% to me infers a class war war against the top 1% of earners.  I don't feel any of that.  I wish every family could have at least one million-plus dollar earner.  That reminds me to talk to my daughter about careers.

Wall street as an issue to me is only: what should the laws be and are we investigating and prosecuting all the violations.

Other than that, get rid of all the preferences so that businesses can concentrate on business instead of lobbying.  Start with getting it preferences of the tax code.  Then out with all the preferential spending.  Then comb through all regulations to make sure only what is necessary and can't be achieved a better way is regulated.  Obscene profits indicates a lack of competition for those services.  It is over-regulation and overly-complex regulations that pull our best and brightest into things like SEC compliance and employee benefit law instead of inventing, building and innovating.
5590  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 12, 2011, 11:41:13 PM
Thank you CW.

"I'm mostly interested in aggravating politicians that are in bed with large corporations. I'd also like to see something more tangible to prevent things like the 2008 crash. It was just used as an excuse to rob the treasury. Hell, Obama is still doing it."

I agree on these points.
5591  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: October 12, 2011, 05:33:55 PM

Actual cable:
5592  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: October 12, 2011, 04:23:25 PM
CCP, That is an amazing story.  The USA under Obama wanted to apologize to Japan for using force to end WWII - and Japan wouldn't allow it.  Unbelievable!

I wonder if the Obamites regret using force against Hitler as well.  Maybe my dad will still be charged aiding and abetting the American military effort in Germany during WWII.

Did we even try to sit down and talk with them first?
5593  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China, no hard landing... on: October 12, 2011, 04:10:03 PM
Asia's Wesbury?  wink

"Many experienced international investors look at a decline in housing prices as a signal of serious trouble to come. But Beijing itself has engineered this decline using policies that restrict house purchases. If this starts to cause major macroeconomic consequences, the government could easily reverse the restrictions."

Sounds a lot like an argument that could have been made in the U.S., how the resources and powers of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and FDIC and federal GSEs guaranteeing loans would remove any risk beyond minor fluctuations in housing prices here.  How's that going?

In closing: "Only if there is another global recession would China suffer a hard landing..."

And what are the odds of that?
5594  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential, Romney's lean toward liberalism? on: October 12, 2011, 01:14:56 PM
Slate, of all places, trying to paint Romney positions as liberal.  This was their 4th example:

 Middle-class tax cuts. An hour into the debate, Newt Gingrich asked Romney:

One of the characteristics of Obama in his class-warfare approach has been to talk about going after people who made over $250,000 a year and divide us. And I was a little surprised—I think it's about page 47 of your plan—that you have a capital-gains tax cut for people under $200,000, which is actually lower than the Obama model. Now, as a businessman, you know that you actually lose economic effectiveness if you limit capital gains tax cuts only to people who don't get capital gains. So I'm curious: What was the rationale for setting an even lower base marker than Obama had?

Romney answered:

The reason for giving a tax break to middle-income Americans is that middle-income Americans have been the people who have been most hurt by the Obama economy. … Median income in America has declined by 10 percent during the Obama years. People are having a hard time making ends meet. And so if I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class. I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net, they're taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there.

If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most. That’s Romney’s most revealing statement of the night. A property-oriented conservative would say that dollars belong to the people who earned them and that tax cuts should let them keep more of their money. But Romney’s formulation—“ use precious dollars to reduce taxes”—assumes that the dollars are his to “focus,” i.e. distribute, according to need.  Again, it’s a defensible worldview. But it’s fundamentally liberal.
5595  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade on: October 12, 2011, 12:53:23 PM
True.  I agree the article and I agree with the quote within from the GE chairman only for the substance inside the quotation marks, not for his slimy acceptance of crony, public-private anti-equal-protection leadership.

For the question posed, reasonable exceptions to free trade make perfect sense to me in situations such as transactions that empower or enrich our enemies, or transactions to lower costs by manufacturing with coerced labor.

Isolating a regime like Iran economically is a legitimate foreign policy tool.  Probably not effective, certainly legitimate and distinct from our approach to trade policies in general.
5596  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential: NH Debate October 2011, video and transcript on: October 12, 2011, 12:30:05 PM
GM, That is some major league, big time shrinkage for a man who is only 50!
Another debate gone by, Dartmouth N.H.  

Romney was confident and poised with no gaffes, people say.  Herman Cain is now the main conservative challenger.  They both still have the same strengths and weaknesses that they started with. Perry didn't change the perception that he isn't a great debater considering his strong credentials and isn't ready with his economic plan.  But, this was the economic debate.  Bachmann made a valid point  to Cain's third 9 but mixes in a falsehood (it's not a jobs plan) and ends with a flippant remark.  Ron Paul took to the attack against Greenspan, but Cain had referred to Greeenspan's policies of the early 90's not the loose money policies of post-911.  

Romney I think will win and unless Cain or someone else comes out of the gate winning primaries, it is over.   The candidates should present their own positive agenda and run against Obama-Pelosi-Reid governance, not get further invested into taking down each other.

Those of us to the right of Romney can favor Cain or whoever we want while they are still in, but to really make a difference going forward conservatives IMO can start moving the effort over to the house and senate where these reforms will be written.
5597  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Politics: 99% rally? on: October 12, 2011, 11:34:15 AM
Cranewings:  "Went to my first 99% rally today"

I am curious, CW, as to what the 99% rally main political points are to you or at least what points you wish they were effectively making?
5598  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade on: October 12, 2011, 10:49:49 AM
The article below is based in current events today, aimed at our hemisphere, but also summarizes nicely the main benefits of free trade, what I call freedom to trade - a basic economic freedom.  Key points:

1) "There are a billion new consumers that are going to join the middle class in Asia over the next 10 years. We have to have access to them."  In other words, with free trade, whatever you invent or innovate or design or build or just source and sell, the larger the market you can sell into the more return you can earn for your effort.

2) 'access to imports is a key contributor to high U.S. living standards'.  Freedom to buy from far away means the freedom to make the best possible purchase transactions available.  Besides standard of living, this is a key component in competitiveness.  

3) Trade war escalations: "If the U.S. puts up new trade barriers to China and attaches "buy American" provisions to federal spending—as the Obama administration did in 2009 and now wants to do again—other countries are likely to feel justified in moving to protect their own domestic markets."  As with the leadup to the Great Depression, protectionism at home leads to other countries doing the same, and trade wars destroy economies, commerce and wealth.

The Case for Free-Trade Leadership   WSJ
Mexico's growth in investment and trade, both imports and exports, shows the benefits of open borders.


'There are a billion new consumers that are going to join the middle class in Asia over the next 10 years. We have to have access to them."

That was General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt on CNBC Thursday responding to a question about the Senate's 79-19 vote last week to advance a bill that would punish China with antidumping duties if it does not strengthen the yuan.

Bipartisan Washington, as indicated by that vote, is itching to launch a trade war with China. Mr. Immelt warned against it: "Make no mistake. The U.S. will do better if we have a good strong positive engagement with China. I was there last week. It is still growing eight to ten percent. We need to have access to China for our exports."

Too bad President Obama didn't say that.

There is no such thing as a good moment to close markets, but this would seem to be an especially inauspicious time, just as Asians are climbing up the economic ladder, to introduce a policy that is likely to generate reciprocal penalties against U.S. exporters.

But that is only one reason the Senate bill is dumb. The chief reason is that access to imports is a key contributor to high U.S. living standards and American export competitiveness.

A third factor, less often recognized, has to do with the need for U.S. leadership in reaching wider geopolitical goals. If the U.S. puts up new trade barriers to China and attaches "buy American" provisions to federal spending—as the Obama administration did in 2009 and now wants to do again—other countries are likely to feel justified in moving to protect their own domestic markets.

The unintended consequences of a U.S. shift toward protectionism are not hard to predict. Brazil is already loudly complaining about pressure on local industry due to currency weakness abroad—meaning the U.S. dollar. In September it raised duties on some auto imports by 30 percentage points.

Closer to home, Mexico remains vulnerable to internal protectionist forces. Amazingly, the country has stuck to a liberal trade agenda in recent years despite the impact on exports from the 2009 U.S. recession and strong competition from China. But a World Trade Organization commitment it made in 2008 to lift all antidumping duties on some 1,500 Chinese goods this December is stirring up protectionist sentiment. Presidential and legislative elections slated for July will give nationalist populists an opportunity to strike.

The Bombardier manufacturing facility in Queretaro, Mexico

Sensational press coverage of Mexico's narco-violence has obscured the exciting story of the changing economic landscape brought on by openness. In an October economic analysis of the economy, the Spanish bank BBVA says that in 2010 Mexico was among the top 10 destinations in the world for foreign direct investment, which grew almost 22%.

BBVA found that the "main attraction" for that capital was Mexico's "platform" as an exporter of manufactured goods (over $246 billion in 2010) but also as an importer of manufactured goods ($250 billion). Those figures, BBVA said, "place Mexico as one of the economies most open to foreign trade and with the greatest trade activity internationally."

This has allowed Mexico to move up the food chain as a producer. One fascinating development is its evolving role in the global aerospace industry. Using data from the Boston Consulting Group, BBVA found that "in the aerospace category, [Mexico] is the main recipient [in the world] of FDI."

Baja California is home to 52 of the 232 aerospace companies in Mexico today and 40% of the industry's work force. Honeywell and Gulfstream are two household names that have facilities there. In Chihuahua, Cessna manufactures aircraft wiring sets (called harnesses) and ships them to Kansas for airplane assembly while Bell Helicopter manufactures cabins for commercial units. Jalisco is also an aerospace hotspot, with projects "in place," according to the Mexican-government publication Negocios, for "producing engine components, wiring harnesses, cables, landing system components and heat exchangers." By attracting the Canadian firm Bombardier in 2006, the state of Queretaro has pulled in a host of suppliers. A total of 50 local and foreign firms employ 4,800 workers in what is now "recognized as the strongest Mexican aerospace cluster," Negocios reports.

Increasing labor costs in China, and Mexico's low transportation and logistic costs for the Western Hemisphere, its available human capital, and its respect for intellectual-property rights are all conspiring to attract investors. But none of it would be happening without the opening to foreign trade and investment.

It is true that Mexico has not grown fast enough to satisfy its young population. But that's because Mexican competitiveness needs work. Crucial sectors like telecommunications, electricity and oil have to be deregulated to lower costs; and further opening to competitors like China is necessary.

This will entail tough domestic political battles which, if won, will make Mexico a stronger, wealthier democracy and a better U.S. neighbor. A new wave of protectionist thinking out of Washington is not going to be helpful to market liberals who are trying to stay the course.
5599  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics, Tea party vs. Occupy on: October 12, 2011, 10:36:05 AM
So far 'Occupy' looks to me like a continuation of the anti-capitalism demonstrations that go back to anti-WTO in Seattle and others.  From a bias-right point of view, I wish for them full exposure to cameras and microphones. Real corporate welfare is one area where far right and far left should be able to come to agreement and get real reform done.

Tea party rallies grew out of tax cut rallies of the past.  After the overspending deficits of Bush, a Republican,  into the escalation on steroids of TARP, Obama stimulus, QE  and healthcare, the emphasis changed to opposing the massive size and scope of what was supposed to be a limited government.  Taxes have become a minor part of the damage now being done.

Bigdog wrote: "When you focus on a small portion of the entire crowd to make a (snarky) point, you do the same thing that liberals do with the Tea Party when they only take pictures of the signs with misssspelinggs.  I think that both the Tea Party and the OWS have beefs, that if others managed to actually listen to what they are saying, there might (shock!) be a lesson in it."

That seems like a fair point to me.  We will see if the kooks are a small portion or the main portion, and what valid points they make. 

Cameras at tea party rallies didn't really find what they were looking for - bigots and racists, mostly just hard working people who came out to express frustration and work toward positive change. Some cameras found too many white people in view but never did I see any racism as reported, and the main leader to come out of it for the moment seems to be Herman Cain. Allen West is another, and Marco Rubio.  The movement became a political force when they began organizing to take down big spending, unprincipled incumbents inside their own party.  Some tea party candidates won, some, lost, but people in these cases were offered a clearer choice.

If the 'Occupy' crowd is a serious movement, where are their candidates? We will see. Where is their opposition to Obama Corporatism?  He certainly is a corporatist, perhaps the biggest one, by their own standards.  Same with Dodd and Frank.  What were the Fannie and Freddie top salaries of their cronies at the time that they succeeded in destroying the market they took over.

Regarding valid points, my own beef with the obscene profits on Wall Street come from two things: a) when they take in a boatload of money for failure, and b) when the big comes from the cozy relationships of crony governmentalism.  Besides government direct investment, we have created a regulatory system so overly complex in so many industries that only entrenched players with their huge political contributions can survive and new entrants with smaller resources are functionally locked out.  That is the objection of the occupy crowd. Their philosophy would take us to a system where Derek Jeter and his batboy should make a similar wage, if I am reading them correctly.

You will never build a better economic system by ignoring concepts like value added and work done. 
5600  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Latin America: Argentine President Poised for Reelection on: October 10, 2011, 08:47:36 AM
"Fernandez...vows to continue current policies that include a strong state hand in the economy, hefty energy and transportation subsidies and trade protectionism.  She is enjoying approval ratings of more than 60 percent"

And second place is a socialist.

One more place where freedom is not on the ballot?

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez has a massive lead over opponents two weeks before a presidential election and looks set to win more than 50 percent of the vote, two polls showed on Sunday.

Fernandez's support now stands at 53.2 percent, according to the latest monthly survey by local pollsters Management & Fit showed. That puts her more than 40 points ahead of her nearest rival
Pages: 1 ... 110 111 [112] 113 114 ... 161
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!