May 1-4, 2009
May 01 10:37 Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong May 02 12:49 Kasich's Running!!! May 03 10:28 GOP Obits a Bit Premature May 03 19:08 Trustworthy Estimates? Not From This Administration May 04 10:44 That's Insulting May 04 15:16 How Delicious Would That Be?
Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong
Paul Krugman's column this morning is too error-riddled to not fisk. Here's an assertion Mr. Krugman made that I find particularly objectionable:
But the opponents of action claim that limiting emissions would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy. So it's important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.I'd love hearing Mr. Krugman explain that companies moving to countries that don't have Cap And Trade doesn't hurt our economy. Similarly, I'd love hearing him explain that the huge tax increase that's at the heart of Cap And Trade won't hurt families. Here's another questionable claim of Krugman's:
But the best available estimates suggest that the costs of an emissions-limitation program would be modest, as long as it's implemented gradually. And committing ourselves now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump.There's just two problems with Mr. Krugman's claim: Rep. Dingell said that it's a big tax increase and then-Candidate Obama said that energy prices "will necessarily skyrocket." Then-Candidate Obama also said that new coal plants could be built but that his Cap And Trade tax system would immediately bankrupt them.
I'd love hearing Mr. Krugman argue that putting companies out of business doesn't have devastating effects on families. Here's another paragraph that's laughable:
If emission permits were auctioned off, as they should be, the revenue thus raised could be used to give consumers rebates or reduce other taxes, partially offsetting the higher prices.That isn't going to happen with the Obama administration controlling one end of Pennsylvania and Prime Minister Pelosi controlling the other end. The term fiscal discipline doesn't mean anything to them. They'll always find other 'important needs' to use the revenues on.
But suppose that Congress were to mandate gradually tightening emission limits, starting two or three years from now. This would have no immediate effect on prices. It would, however, create major incentives for new investment,investment in low-emission power plants, in energy-efficient factories and more.That's fine if entrepreneurs thought that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi wouldn't increase their taxes while they're putting their capital at risk. Since entrepreneurs think that they've got a target painted on their back, I'm guessing that they'll jump into the market.
It's worth reminding people that Cap and Trade isn't environmental policy . It's a tax hike masquerading as environmental policy:
Despite disagreeing with him "100 percent, politically," Weisman said he agreed with Horner that the Obama administration's cap-and-trade program likely won't do anything to effect climate change. "Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."It's impossible to disagree with Prof. Weisman. There's too much data suggesting that he's right.
Posted Friday, May 1, 2009 10:44 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-May-09 09:32 AM
You're right, cap-and-tax is a target rich environment for criticism. Start with the fact that having government take $2 trillion out of the economy does not, by itself, do one thing for the environment, but it would almost certainly destroy an economy already reeling from trillions in new deficit spending.
Then go to the point that the proposed cap and trade "scheme" would alter the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by one part per million and you have truly laughable legislation, were its downside not so serious.
Finally, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic global warming is real and accept the IPCC report as gospel, and the whole world signs on to live by the same limits as the US (which China and India have already firmly rejected, and the EU has proven incapable of doing because it hits their economy too hard), the IPCC says that we will reduce the global temperature increase, 100 years hence, by 10%! What a deal.
Kasich's Running!!!
Last summer, I hoped that John Kasich would be Sen. McCain's running mate. When that didn't happen, I hoped he'd run for governor. According to this article , he's taking the first formal step in ousting Ted Strickland from the Ohio governor's mansion:
Republican John Kasich filed papers this afternoon so that he can begin raising money for the 2010 race for governor.This is one of the campaigns I feel good about. John Kasich's fiscal conservative credentials are impeccable, having written 4 consecutive budgets that ran surpluses. He's a charismatic speaker, too, who relates well with blue collar workers. Rep. Kasich often talks about his dad being a postal carrier before citing his own connections with blue collar voters. (He frequently got majority support from union workers.)
In a filing with the Ohio secretary of state, the former congressman from Westerville designated Bradley K. Sinnott, chairman of the Franklin County GOP Central Committee, as treasurer of Kasich for Ohio, Kasich's gubernatorial campaign. The move will permit Kasich to raise cash and hire staff for his anticipated campaign against Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland.
Another thing he's got going for him is he isn't Ted Strickland. Strickland swept in during the 2006 bloodbath at a time when the Ohio Republican brand was tarnished with Rep. Ney's and Gov. Taft's scandals.
Finally, he won't have trouble raising money, which is almost as important as the fact that he's got high name recognition and a reputation as a reformer. Despite all this, Democrats are already attempting to define him with their usual class warfare gambit:
Until its collapse last September, Kasich spent six years as a managing director of Lehman Brothers' investment banking division, a position Democrats have sought to exploit. They also are questioning Kasich's call for the gradual elimination of Ohio's income tax.This crap won't work against Kasich because of his putting together fiscally responsible budgets at the federal level, which isn't easy to do. It's one thing to balance a state budget. State legislators can't run deficits or print money. It's quite another to balance the federal budget.
In a statement issued this afternoon, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said, "Ohio doesn't need a governor from Lehman Brothers, a governor whose only concern is the wealthy and the well-connected and who has spent the last several years making money in the same financial sector that led to the economic collapse we are facing."
Noting that the income tax raises 34 percent of the state's revenue, Redfern questioned whether Kasich plans to replace that revenue with "a massive tax increase on working families or by completely eviscerating Ohio's investment in education and health care?"
Redfern's talking out of his arse when he tries characterizing John Kasich as someone "whose only concern is the wealthy and the well-connected." John Kasich's record shows where his priorities lie. John Kasich's record makes him virtually bulletproof in the class warfare game that Chris Redfern is deploying.
This tactic is foolish, mostly because it's being employed against someone that's a known quantity. I'll put it this way: I won't trust rumors about a close friend but it's at least possible that I'd be influenced if I hear something about someone I've just met.
Mr. Redfern is telling people that they shouldn't trust someone they know well and have re-elected numerous times. That's an uphill fight at best.
I'd further argue that John Kasich's message will be appealing because it's been time-tested. Rep. Kasich's record of prioritizing spending on the important things and playing a vital role in creating one of the best economic recoveries will appeal to voters weary of President Obama's 'government must do everything' approach to governing.
As a nation, we're still sorting out what we think of President Obama. Partisans already know what they feel about President Obama's administration but independents are still sorting through things. Those feelings will crystallize as the midterm elections get closer and the economy is sputtering along.
I predict that Republicans everywhere will run against President Obama's and Pelosi's congress but that they'll also run with an appealing alternative to the Democrats' agenda. Leading that charge will be John Kasich.
Posted Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:53 PM
No comments.
GOP Obits a Bit Premature
Since President Obama's election last November, pundits have been writing the GOP's obituaries on a weekly basis. This week's obituary was written by Dick Polman, who stated thus:
Let us briefly sift the ashes. The party right now has no coherent message, aside from "Do Not Offend Rush Limbaugh." Its messengers are basically conservatives who speak to the choir. It has virtually zilch appeal beyond its base, as evidenced by the '08 election and every subsequent poll; the party is alienating suburbanites, independents, Latinos (the fastest-growing cohort in the electorate), and people under age 30 (the voters who will dominate for the next half century).Since the GOP "has virtually zilch appeal beyond its base", perhaps Mr. Polman can explain why Republicans led Democrats in the generic ballot question this week . That's after having gone several years of trailing Democrats on that question. How can the GOP lead in the generic ballot question if they're losing ground on all these demographic groups? It'd be interesting to hear a coherent explanation on that.
It's worth asking whether young people will continue preferring President Obama and Speaker Pelosi if they don't change their spending habits. I'm betting that they won't because young people understand that their standard of living drops each time interest on the debt sucks money that could've been lent to entrepreneurs who wanted to grow their businesses.
Salena Zito's column takes a different perspective:
What he has left behind with his switch to the other team is everyone under the sun, as he gleefully dances on the supposed grave of the Republican Party after proclaiming its death by a thousand cuts.To understand what we need to do to regain majority party status, let's ask these simple questions:
"I think the reports of the death of the Republican Party are greatly exaggerated," says Texas Tech political science professor Tim Nokken. "It's been a rough couple of years for the GOP, but that doesn't equate with death."
So, no going the way of the Whigs, which is exactly what self-agonizing Democrats said about themselves after yet another defeat in the 2004 presidential and congressional election. "Many smart strategists were wondering if the Democratic Party was ever going to win a national election again," says Democrat strategist Steve McMahon. Well into 2005, serious doubt existed that the 2006 midterms would be any better, he adds.
- Did the American people suddenly wake up in late 2005 & say "I'm sick of the government spending my money efficiently"?
- Did the American people suddenly wake up in late 2005 & say that they didn't want their government doing everything necessary to prevent another terrorist attack?
- Did the American people suddenly wake up in late 2005 & say they weren't being taxed enough?
We'd be wise to take some important points from Salena's column about Michael Steele . Here's one that's especially worthwhile:
Democratic strategist Steve McMahon has worked with Dean for years and has known Steele since his days as a Maryland Republican committeeman. He says the new GOP chairman must adopt a 50-state program, as Dean did, to get his party back on track.Rebuild the Party started advocating the 50-state strategy right after the election. Instead of calling it the 50-state program, they've titled their approach the 435 district strategy :
"His challenge is to recapture independents without pushing out the base," he explained. The hardest part is pushing against the party's nay-sayers who favor winning here and there rather than taking time to build for the future. "Steele has to remain focused," McMahon said. "Do that, and the GOP will compete not just regionally but across the board again."
By 2012, the Republican Party will field candidates in all 435 Congressional districts in America, from inner city Philadelphia to suburban Dallas, and our leaders must be held accountable for progress towards this goal. With an 80 plus vote margin separating Democrats from Republicans in the House, it's time to widen the playing field, not narrow it. While our targeting has gotten narrower, honing in on a class of seats we feel entitled to because they lean Republican, Democrats have been stealing traditionally 60-40 Republican seats right and left. It's time to return the favor.With few exceptions, every district should be considered a hotly contested district. Being competitive requires good messaging, good candidates and adequate funding. Being winners includes those things plus lots of hard work. The minute people start saying that they're willing to run through walls to get good candidates elected is the minute the GOP will experience a rebound.
What's more, it won't be good enough to run perfunctory races in safe seats. 2008 showed us that every seat, Republican or Democrat, is potentially a target. If you aren't seriously challenged this time, chances are you'll be challenged the next time, or the time after that. Incumbents who don't prepare for this reality will find themselves scrambling to catch up when the inevitable happens. That means that our party needs to set a new standard that campaigns will be professional and fully staffed in each and every seat.
Here's another Polman observation:
Fortunately, there are still some reality-based Republicans. Kristen Soltis, the research director at a top GOP polling firm, warned the other day that her party "is facing changing demographic forces that present a challenge to its long-term growth." Translation: Unless the party wakes up and diversifies, it is toast.It isn't that we shouldn't diversify. It's that we should do it the right way. Doing things the right way is fairly simple: Be yourself. Make the most of each opportunity to tell people why limited government is in their best interest. Tell people why strict constructionist judges are the best guarantee that justice is served. Remind people that low taxes and fiscal restraint leaves 'extra' money in the pockets of families and entrepreneurs.
In other words, follow the Reagan model. Which brings me to my 'soapbox moment': The people that think Reaganism is dead don't understand Reaganite conservatism. As my friend Cindy, aka the Lady Logician, points out in this post , prioritizing things drove Reagan's agenda:
President Reagan is said to have taken the following position on legislation. He supposedly said that if the legislation did not make the country safer, more prosperous or more free then it was not worthy of his support. THAT is what Republicans should be focusing on!Those guiding principles are still appealing today because they're eternal principles. The sooner the GOP understands eternal principles, the faster we'll return to majority party status.
Finally, it's worth remembering that Sen. McCain's appeal to independents was when Sarah Palin joined the ticket and appealed first to the base. Until your base is energized, you can't play on the other guys' side of the field.
Posted Sunday, May 3, 2009 10:38 AM
No comments.
Trustworthy Estimates? Not From This Administration
This article defines the battle happening with Rep. Henry Waxman and the Obama administration on one side and the House GOP leadership on the other. Here's a key point of contention:
But Democrats deny their legislation will cost the taxpayers anywhere near that much money, and some said the legislation's goals it can be achieved with no net cost to the taxpayer. Further, one of the MIT study's author's disagreed with the Republicans' interpretation of the costs. "That is nearly 10 times the correct estimate, which is approximately $340," wrote MIT Prof. John Reilly, one of the authors of the disputed report, in an Apr. 1 letter to Boehner.I should trust the EPA's figures why? Let's remember this testimony given by Lisa Jackson, the EPA's administrator:
In reference to the $3,100 figure, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said, "That's not true at all. In fact, the Environmental Projection Agency estimate says that it will be about $40 or $50 per family per year," Waxman told CNSNews.com.
REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created ; green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?Ms. Jackson started by claiming this legislation would create millions of new jobs, followed by Rep. Scalise challenging that notion before finishing with Ms. Jackson admitting that she didn't know how the EPA arrived at that figure. Considering the likelihood that the EPA's figures on Cap and Trade's cost per family were put together by out of touch bureaucrats, I think I'll take a skeptical view of their estimates.
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would ; that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term "millions." Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.
This FactCheck article casts further doubts on this administration's estimates:
So what 150,000 jobs was Obama talking about? It turns out the president's claim is really an estimate of what his economic advisers think the stimulus bill is doing, and not based on any evidence of its actual effects.Not content with using false extimates to sell their program, the Democrats have resorted to spinning their figures:
Blumenauer and Reilly also said that Republicans are not taking into account the point that the federal government plans to return to the American people part of the money paid by corporations for the right to release carbon into the atmosphere, and that the government also plans to provide Americans with goods and services funded by the cap-and-trade program.Does anyone seriously think that this Congress and this administration wants to return the taxes collected from Cap and Trade? I haven't seen proof that this Democratic Congress and this Democratic administration think of much other than figuring out new ways to tax people to feed their spending addiction.
According to Boehner's office, the $3,100 number is based on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study released earlier this year that examined cap-and-trade legislation from 2007. Republicans believe the new legislation for 2009, in its final form, will be similar to the 2007 bill.We don't even have to rely on the MIT study. We can take then-Candidate Obama's word when he said that his cap and trade program would cause energy prices "to necessarily skyrocket." We can also take Rep. John Dingell's word on it too:
"We took MIT's own estimate of a key cap-and-trade bill from the 110th Congress (S. 309), cosponsored by then-Senator Obama, that said S. 309 would generate $366 billion in revenues in 2015," Boehner's office told CNSNews.com. "We took MIT's own number, $366 billion, and divided that by the number of U.S. households...Using this formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household."
How can this administration and its congressional allies say that the cost to the average family be small when the senior member of the House says it's a "great big tax"? Putting Rep. Blumenauer's spin through the bullshit-o-meter indicates that that's one of the flimsiest bits of spin in this blog's history.
These paragraphs are extra important:
In his letter to Boehner, Prof. Reilly wrote, "We assumed in the analysis we did that the revenue is returned to households." Reilly also noted that the cap-and-trade plan would reduce the number of jobs in fossil fuel industries, such as the coal, natural gas, and oil industries.I'll repeat myself: Why should we think that this Congress and this administration will return the revenues to the people who paid it? Isn't it likely that, if the money is rebated, that the Democrats would exempt 'the rich' from the rebate checks because 'the rich' need to pay their fair share?
"The higher energy prices encourage reductions in energy use by increasing the payback on improvements in energy efficiency, and through such investments households can avoid paying more for energy," wrote Reilly. "Jobs and wages in fossil fuel industries are likely to decline but job opportunities will increase in industries that produce alternative energy sources or that provide ways to save energy."
Secondly, shouldn't we question whether the amount of new green jobs created will be more than the jobs lost because of reduced use of fossil fuels? That's certainly possible considering the fact that there are studies showing that there's a loss of 2.2 jobs in the fossil fuel industry for every green job created.
That's before talking about whether it's possible to generate enough electricity with wind and solar power to sustain a growing economy. To say that people are skeptical of wind and solar's ability to supply that much power, especially at reasonable rates, is understatement.
Talk about reducing energy usage is fine if you're talking about home consumption. Conservation is also important in inventing more efficient appliances and the like. It's insignificant in industrial settings when demand for energy production is rising.
Republicans who spoke with CNSNews.com defended their $3,100 estimate and argued that it is unlikely that money going through the hands of the federal government will make it back intact to the taxpayers.The Democrats know that they'll lost votes if Republicans convince the public that this bill is a big tax increase. I'm betting that they'd lose 3-5 senators if their constituents are letting them know what they want.
"Anyone who thinks you can pay $3,100 to the federal government and thinks you can get that money back completely in services, like I said, he may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.," Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) told CNSNews.com. "No, there is no chance this will not add to the net cost for taxpayers," he said.
"This MIT study was pretty clear in terms of what this professor thought on the costs," Boehner told CNSNews.com.
Originally posted Sunday, May 3, 2009, revised 29-Jun 7:07 AM
Comment 1 by Michael Ejercito at 27-Jun-09 03:22 PM
How is some regulatory scheme supposed to be more efficient at fighting climate change than utilizing the information from the TTAPS study, one of the most groundbreaking scientific papers since "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"?
That's Insulting
When I read the headline to this article , I nearly died laughing. Here's the headline:
Specter says he jumped parties based on principleSen. Specter wouldn't recognize a principle if it bit him on the backside. At least he's honest about this:
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said yesterday that his defection from the Republican Party was a matter of principle rather than opportunism, denied a report he had promised to be a "loyal Democrat," and vowed to join filibusters against his new party when he believes it is wrong.Sen. Specter is full of it. It's insulting to hear him accuse the GOP of moving "far to the right" after watching the spending orgy that the DC GOP has engaged in over the last decade.
"There's more than being reelected here; there's the factor of principle," Specter said on NBC's Meet the Press. "The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan's big tent...As the picture has evolved, I felt a lot more comfortable, as a matter of principle, with Democrats than Republicans."
Only a liar who's willing to talk down to his constituents and to this nation would make such an absurd statement.
What's worse is that, now that he's taking heat, Sen. Specter is telling us that he didn't mean what he said at the press conference announcing his switch. Remember the part where he said he wouldn't be denied re-election because the PA GOP would've defeated him in their primary.
What I'm betting is that Sen. Specter didn't expect a genuine primary challenge within his new party. That's what it's looking like based on this:
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), meanwhile, said on CNN's State of the Union that he would not be dissuaded from considering a primary run because Obama, Gov. Rendell and other top Democrats were backing Specter.I'd love seeing a bloodbath on the left, with Specter getting defeated and Sestak spending lots of money to defeat Sen. Specter.
"I'm kind of disappointed in the Democratic establishment in Washington, D.C.," Sestak said. "What I need to know is what he's running for. If he has the right answer, so be it. We move on...I'm not sure he's a Democrat yet."
For what it's worth, I agree with Rep. Sestak that Sen. Specter is a Democrat. Personally, I think he's the only member of the 'Party of Arlen', which is totally committed to getting Arlen re-elected. Party of Arlen doesn't stand for anything substantive. In addition, Party of Arlen members don't have to stand for anything substantive as long as they're willing to help him win at any cost.
Posted Monday, May 4, 2009 10:50 AM
Comment 1 by Shoebox at 04-May-09 02:01 PM
Principle huh? I wonder how many principled Democrats worked to get Specter elected last go around?
Specter has made a career of playing both ends against the middle for his political benefit. That doesn't sound like principle to me, sounds like opportunism!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-May-09 03:48 PM
Shoe, The 'All for Arlen Party' Platform has 2 planks in it.
Here's Plank #1: It is the duty of every All For Arlen party member to do everything in their power, whether it's savory or unsavory, to get Arlen elected.
Here's Plank #2: When in doubt, always remember Plank #1.
How Delicious Would That Be?
Ed's post about the senior creditors of Chrysler talks about the ironic twists that the Constitution could impose on President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Not surprisingly, King's all over this , too. Let's start with what's happened today in the 'brokered' bankruptcy:
Lauria, who accused the White House of threatening the creditors withn humiliation at the hands of the White House press corps, has filed a motion to halt the administration's machinations on behalf of the UAW in the Chrysler bankruptcy. Lauria and his allies claim that the Obama administration has violated the Constitution in their bid to devalue the senior creditors' holdings on behalf of junior creditors, and have some precedent to support the allegation.King cites Irwin Stelzer's NY Post article on what's at the heart of Lauria's lawsuit:
Obama is pressuring the some 20 "speculators" who are holding out to accept the crumbs that he's offering. But there is more here at stake than the money immediately involved. As George Schultze, managing member of Schultze Asset Management, a hedge fund, told The Wall Street Journal, "This is about contract and bankruptcy law, and upholding agreements, which is important in the grand scheme of things."In Ed's commentary, he wonders if President Obama didn't know about this precedent or if he didn't care about it:
One might think that a Constitutional scholar like Barack Obama would have already known that, but either this precedent escaped him or he doesn't care about it at all.Here's some information about a SCOTUS ruling that appears to be directly on point with President Obama's strong-arm tactics:
14. Justice Brandeis noted that the "essence of a mortgage" is the right of the secured party "to insist upon full payment before giving up his security [i.e., the property pledged]." Radford, 295 U.S. at 580. In invalidating the statute, the Court stated that "[t]he bankruptcy power...is subject to the Fifth mendment," and that the pernicious aspect of this law was its "taking of substantive rights in specific property acquired by the bank prior to the act." Id. at 589-90 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress could not pass a law that could be used to deny to secured creditors their rights to realize upon the specific property pledged to them or "the right to control meanwhile the property during the period of default." Id. at 594. That is precisely what the Treasury Department would have Chrysler do here, with respect to the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders' property rights that were acquired prior to the enactment of TARP.TRANSLATION: Secured creditors come first, regardless of whether a president attempts to strongarm those secured creditors with public humiliation, which is, I believe, what President Obama is attempting to do. In fact, I questioned whether this administration cares about the Constitution in this post . Here's what Judge Andrew Napolitano said about Timothy Geithner's attempted shortcutting the Constitution:
The Constitution basically says that if the government wants to take time or freedom or money from someone or something, it must sue for it. It cannot just give itself the authority to do so via legislation.The Constitution was created to prevent Banana Republic 'justice'. If the justices take the Constitution at face value, which isn't a guarantee, the court will hand President Obama a humiliating defeat. This would be a harsher defeat than a legislative defeat because it would be the SCOTUS telling President Obama that he can't use his bully pulpit to browbeat unpopular creditors into an unconstitutional 'agreement'.
I won't pretend that that type of a ruling would cause his staunchest allies to support President Obama less. They'd likely take this as a rallying cry. However, I'll bet that independents would question President Obama's integrity following a SCOTUS smackdown like this.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: This is what happens when you combine a Chicago machine politician with a power-hungry union.
Posted Monday, May 4, 2009 3:25 PM
No comments.
