I don’t fully endorse the views of this Instapundit reader. But it’s very hard for me to ascribe good faith to the president and the Democrat leadership, for the following reasons.
They are currently insisting that we absolutely must raise taxes, so therefore Republicans should vote for tax hikes. But it was just last December (which, according to my fingers, was seven months ago) that a Congress completely controlled by Democrats passed an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
In 2008, we elected a president who promised a “net spending cut” and who swore to let the Bush tax cuts expire. He then greatly increased spending and signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts. And this is now being used as a reason for the Republicans to break their (winning) 2010 pledge of not raising taxes.
I don’t like to ascribe bad motives to others, but I think an objective analysis of the situation shows that the president is using a possible default in order to get Republicans to vote for tax cuts hikes that are so politically toxic that he wouldn’t let his party vote for them a mere 7 months ago (and after they’d already been beaten in an election).
In the opening chapter of Applied Economics, economist Thomas Sowell decries our tendency to look only at the intended goals of public policy rather than its unintended consequences:
The point here is not simply that various policies may fail to achieve their purposes. The more fundamental point is that we need to know the actual characteristics of the process set in motion — and the incentives and constraints inherent in such characteristics — rather than judging these processes by their goals. Many of the much discussed “unintended consequences” of polices and programs would have been foreseeable from the outset if these processes had been analyzed in terms of the incentives and constraints they created, instead of in terms of the desirability of the goals they proclaimed. Once we start thinking in terms of the chain of events set in motion by particular policies — and following the chain of events beyond stage one — the world begins to look very different.
Liberals are famously guilty of this kind of short-sightedness. Health insurance mandates get more people insured, but overload the medical system when thousands of new customers try to get care; generous housing incentives during a boom cycle lead to massive foreclosure rates during a bust; price controls make products affordable in the short term, but destroy markets in the long term. The road to Hell is indeed, paved with good, liberal intentions.
But as Ricochteer Conor Friedersdorf argues over on the Atlantic, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform is a perfect example of how liberals aren’t the only culprits. While no one could possibly question Norquist’s goals, Friedersdorf offers a powerful argument against his chosen method of a no-new-taxes pledge:
What Norquist doesn’t understand or won’t admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you’ve got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you’ve created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they’re consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you’re making big government more palatable.
Back in 1986, if taxes had been raised every time federal spending had increased, and voters knew that taxes would go up again every time new federal programs or spending was passed, the backlash against big government that we’re seeing now would’ve started a lot sooner, and been much more broad-based. Had that been the policy, it’s doubtful that George W. Bush would’ve passed Medicare Part D. Instead, the Baby Boomers have borrowed a bunch of money that my generation and my children’s generation is going to have to pay back. But their taxes didn’t go up. Thanks for that, Mr. Norquist. I’m not sure what to call it, but fiscal conservatism isn’t it.
I can’t find any way to disagree, though I’d be curious to hear what others on Ricochet think. Also, are there other examples of conservative stage one thinking?
Is Tom Harkin delusional? Or is it going to forever be the case that for Democrats “the last eight years” will refer to 2003-2007, the four-year period when Republicans controlled the government? Am I actually the only person who has noticed that, technically, for half of “the last eight years” the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress? Democrats have now controlled the Senate for most of “the last eight years.”
I’m no fan of the 109th Congress, but if there were an election held today a Republican running for national office would be able to say, “The last time Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, the unemployment rate was less than half what it is today, and the budget deficit was 1/7 what it is today.”
Put in other words: Since the Democrats took over Congress, the deficit has increased seven fold, and the unemployment rate has doubled. On the bright side, the price of gas has only gone up by by 50%.
In short, Democrats have thus far gotten away with demonizing the Bush years in the abstract. But if you want to compare how well off the country was from 2003-2007 with how well the country did from 2007-2011, Democrats will not enjoy the comparison. That’s probably why, for them, “the last eight years” will never include the last four.
P.S. Let us look back at the halcyon days of 2007, when a scandalized reporter at Forbes noted that the budget – the last passed by an all Republican government – would not have a mere $158 billion deficit, but an unbelievable $344 billion deficit. By comparison, under a government controlled by Democrats we had a deficit of $222 billion … in a single month. One shudders at what the current deficit might be if we used that Forbes writers’ methodology.
Update: I forgot that the question of whether Tom Harkin is delusional is, as we say in the law, asked and answered. So Tea Partiers should be pleased to be thought to be a “cult fringe” by someone with such a marginal connection to reality.
While I doubt Michelle Bachmann’s migraines should disqualify her from the presidency, her prepared (!) response to this issue appears to be nonsense:
But I’d like to be abundantly clear: My ability to function effectively will not affect my ability to serve as commander in chief.
I sincerely hope that was mistranscribed. Or perhaps it’s a sideways comment on her view of the presidency?
Note: The blog post from Michael Crowley ends with what I consider to be the most pernicious storyline from campaign correspondents, that “the pertinent question” is whether or not a candidate is a good campaigner. No, Mikey, “the pertinent question” is whether a candidate is well-suited for the relevant office. Whether the candidate can put up with obnoxious journalists may or may not be a related question – and I’m sure it’s a pertinent question for you - but we’re trying to pick a president here, not a campaigner-in-chief.
I hold no one blameless in this incredibly insipid brouhaha. First let me address the mistakes I think my friend Conor made in his original piece about attending a midnight showing of a Sarah Palin movie screening and finding the theater empty.
Conor’s original inferences were based on faulty assumptions about feature film distribution. Since theaters must pay studios for each print they exhibit (at great cost to the theater) they buy a set number of prints based on their expectations for the first 2-3 weeks of release. In other words the theater could not have screened more Harry Potter films in place of The Undefeated. Furthermore given that the theater was already open (most of the cost was being born by HP) and that the incremental cost of screening another film they had already purchased was negligible – it is not surprising that the theater manager chose to screen another new movie in one of the empty theaters hoping for some spillover traffic. He might have chosen poorly (more Green Lantern, please! I hate having to beg!), but I don’t see him caring much beyond the hundreds of thousands HP was likely to bring in.
I also understand Conor’s desire for an interesting puff piece of anecdotal political reporting and his thinking that a midnight screening would have the most dramatic impact. However, he fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the Palin Fanatic demographic and film entertainment. Sure Palinistas camp out for days to see her in person – but that is a once in a lifetime opportunity for most. A movie is with us forever, in multiple formats, so there is no real rush to see it. Furthermore, since the Palin movie’s target demographic was 45 and older whites – people who don’t tend to go to any midnight screenings – I think his methodology was flawed.
All these flaws aside the vitriolic, moronic and I would think libelous attacks leveled Conor’s way by the alleged stewards of truth and liberty that constitute the right wing media these days is beyond the pale.
The conspiracy nutters like William Collier and Larry O’Conner should be ashamed of themselves. I honestly think we should just discardthem on the Trashheap of Conservatism but they are given forums by people like Andrew Brietbart. This is just the latest in the trend of conservative victimization. No one can find anything wrong with St. Sarah of Wasilla so it must be some sort vast conspiracy between Conor, The Atlantic and AMC Theaters. Seriously? It wasn’t that long ago that we all ridiculed HRC for the “vast right-wing conspiracy“. “Conservative” charlatans who engage in the same practices should receive equal treatment.
This brings me to two of their chief instigators:
Dan Riehl is nothing short pathetic bully, as I’ve said before, and he’s not even the head bully. He’s the sad best friend of the High School Quarterback, (Brietbart, Levin whoever he claims is his bestie this week) who gloms onto the accomplishments and bona fides of someone more accomplished than themselves to swing a big club. I would hope that intelligent conservatives who claim to uphold “traditional values” would dismiss him. Alas, my expectations of many modern “conservatives” are too high it seems.
Andrew Brietbart on the other hand is a different animal entirely. He is quite clearly a genius businessman, media mogul and internet entrepreneur. He absolutely deserves his elevated place on the right as a champion of right leaning opinion journalism. What is truly sad about the man is the way he squanders his gifts. He is completely uninterested in moving the discussion forward and instead seems to believe that making pathetic tit-for-tat gotcha moments will somehow elevate right wing journalism and usher in a new conservative era. Sorry, Andrew, but you are abjectly incapable of convincing anyone not already ideologically aligned with you. For someone with the balls to go out and challenge liberal media hegemony you are the first to fall back on conservative victim whoa-is-me-ism. I hoped you were better than the childish name calling you demonstrated in this case. I was wrong.
Without commenting on the actual subject of this story, I thought one of the people in the story nicely summed up a sentiment that is behind many of our current problems:
Well, state intervention is no guarantee of a good outcome, but to do nothing is also not an answer.
Ah, the therapeutic world view, where there always needs to be “an answer.”
Apollo posted this at 8:29 AM HKT on Thursday, July 14th, 2011 as Politics
I have always maintained that in a democracy, the people everywhere and always get exactly the government they deserve. I, therefore, will not comment on the American people in light of this. How the world’s greatest republic came to have such a petulant and irresponsible ruling class will one day be the subject of numerous books. I hope I will have enough money to buy them.
Apollo posted this at 9:20 PM HKT on Wednesday, July 13th, 2011 as Amer-I-Can!
Oh man, a lawsuit, based on Lawrence v. Texas, to decriminilize polygamy is being filed by someone represented by Jonathan Turley. While Turley isn’t the biggest or most respected name in the legal academy, he is a somebody, and he’s not a fool. If he’s involved with this suit, it’s something to take at least somewhat seriously.
I haven’t read Lawrence since around the time it came out, but I went back and reread it today. I recommend you do the same. Here are some things to keep in mind as you do.
The Utah bigamy statute: “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” It’s a felony.
“Cohabit” means something along the lines of “living together as husband and wife.” As best I can tell (I have no prior knowledge of Utah law), Utah’s criminal code provides no definition of “cohabit,” but a statute in a different Utah code defines “cohabitating” as “residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person.” That seems likely the definition that would apply to criminal code.
Now go read Lawrence. I don’t think you can draw a line between laws banning sodomy and laws banning polygamy, at least not if you look at the law the way Lawrence did:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
The president says Congressional Republicans are being irresponsible; I think his speechwriters are being irresponsible to allow him back within a country mile of driving-relatedmetaphors.
In this post, I giggled at a journalist’s statements that many “compare” Obama to Reagan, and in a comment pointed out that the correct word would have been “constrast.”
Today I read this story, which details the political inaction in Minnesota during a government shutdown:
The lack of action contrasts with what’s been happening in Washington, where an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling has lawmakers scrambling for a deal that would keep the U.S. from a potential default on its debt. President Barack Obama has summoned leaders for a rare weekend session and aides are trading proposals behind the scenes.
The lack of “action” in Minnesota doesn’t “contrast” with what the federales are doing in Washington. In Minnesota there is talk; in Washington there is talk. In neither place is there “action.” Perhaps they are talking faster in Washington, but no matter how fast people talk, it’s not action.
I’m just thrilled when I go into all of these towns. Like for instance, we were in Le Mars, Iowa at Blue Bunny Ice Cream. That was a small, little business started by a family. Now they have over a billion dollars in sales, a tremendous ice cream company. We want more Blue Bunny Ice Creams all over the United States.
No, we don’t. Blue Bunny makes a sub-par ice cream. All of their flavors taste artificial, and the texture includes too much air (i.e. they’re skimping on content).
We want lots of Blue Bells all over the United States, companies competing not to see who make the cheapest ice cream, like Blue Bunny, but companies trying to make the best ice cream. The fact that Texas doesn’t vote as early in the primary season as Iowa is not a legitimate excuse for praising inferior ice cream.
Apollo posted this at 6:20 PM HKT on Friday, July 8th, 2011 as Is It 2012 Yet?
I read this story mostly to giggle at the notion that the unemployment rate won’t be a factor in next year’s election. But then I learned that that was only the second most giggle-worthy statement in the story, finishing well behind:
“Ronald Reagan, another president Obama is sometimes compared with …”
What makes that line especially amusing is that it comes from the journalist writing the story, not an Obama operative.
Apollo posted this at 8:52 AM HKT on Friday, July 8th, 2011 as Journalism
Mike Lee, batting down the stupidnotion that the 14th Amendment somehow abrogates the Glorious Revolution by allowing the executive branch to raise its own funds:
Added: Lawrence Tribe has an uncharacteristically decent op-ed, pointing out that the 14th Amendment argument is bunk. If he and I are on the same page on a question regarding the Constitution, that’s an excellent sign that the principle is well-settled and obvious:
Worse, the argument that the president may do whatever is necessary to avoid default has no logical stopping point. In theory, Congress could pay debts not only by borrowing more money, but also by exercising its powers to impose taxes, to coin money or to sell federal property. If the president could usurp the congressional power to borrow, what would stop him from taking over all these other powers, as well?
Because of the seriousness of the content, senior Secret Service officials held a conference call Monday morning to discuss the posts, said a law enforcement official who requested anonymity because of the investigation into the matter.
A spokesman for the Secret Service, George Ogilvie, said, “We are investigating the matter and will be conducting appropriate follow-up.” The White House declined to comment.
Yes, this plainly involves some sort of actual threat to the president so the Secret Service needs to be very involved in this investigation. I feel this is an appropriate use of my tax dollars.
I’ll give you an example of how this is working. Here in Texas, we almost had to cut the budget back in 2009. It was going to be a pretty dramatic budget cut. But then a ton of stimulus money rained on us, so we were able to avoid laying off government employees (mostly teachers). Well 2011 has rolled around and money failed to fall from the heavens on us, so we either had to raise taxes or cut the budget. So obviously we cut the budget. The actual amount of budget cutting ($4 billion – that’s not a per capita budget cut, but an actual decrease in the amount of money we’re spending) matches up almost perfectly with the amount of stimulus money we got two years ago.
So now tens of thousands of government employees (mostly teachers) are getting laid off. Considering that the main purpose of the stimulus was to give state and local governments money to avoid laying off government workers, I have to presume a similar phenomenon is taking place in jurisdictions across the country this year.
In the end, the number of jobs “saved” by the stimulus will continue to shrink. The relevant statistic will not be how many “jobs” were saved, but rather how many “job-years” were saved. Because the effects of a temporary stimulus are, shockingly enough, temporary.
P.S. +5 internets to the first Democrat who suggests that the tailing off of the stimulus’s impact means we need a “permanent stimulus.” A super bonus of 10 additional internets will be awarded if that same Democrat suggests the 14th Amendment allows the president to borrow money for a stimulus without Congressional approval (”Without a permanent stimulus, our unemployment rate will, eventually, rise to 100%, which will bring into question the validity of our debt in violation of the 14th Amendment. The president has to see that the laws are faithfully enforced, so it’s a no-brainer that he has the power to borrow this money.”)