|
August 02, 2004
Weekly QandO Roundup
Posted by Jon Henke
[Bumped to the top] By the way, if you enjoy the posts on economics here at QandO, check out "SLACKERNOMICS: Basic Economics for People Who Think Economics is Boring" by QandO blogger Dale Franks.
I've read it, and highly recommend it. It is both funny and clearly written for the layman. In other words, you don't really have to know much about economics to enjoy it. And when you're done, you'll know something about economics.
__________________________________________________________________
Some of the posts you may have missed from this past week. Click the button to read an excerpt....or just follow the link to read the whole thing.
__________________________________________________________________
* Opportunitarianism (Jon Henke) - The ideology of the Bush administration seems to be one of political opportunity, rather than conservatism.
It remains to be seen whether the neoconservatives can gather enough of a coalition to make this opportunitarianism a permanent aspect of US politics. The alternative is a decisive fracture in the Republican Party....a break between the social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, and moderates.
* Kerry's Pitch (McQ) - Kerry has to convince the electorate that, despite 20+ years worth of evidence to the contrary, he won't be paralyzed by international indecision.
Will Kerry hesitate to act in the best interest of the US if he's unable to garner the support of the UN or "key" allies?
I think all indications point to a yes to that answer. Again, statements he's made in the past and during the campaign indicate a belief on his part that we shouldn't act without that sanction. In my opinion that is a truly dangerous policy in light of the realities of the War on Terror. Our commander-in-chief must reserve the right to defend the US through unilateral action if necessary.
So Kerry has a tough sales job ahead of him. Regardless of his 30+ year old 120 day combat tour his record after that has been anything but awe inspiring in terms of leadership in general and leadership specifically in defense or security matters.
* Internal Consistency (Dale Franks) - "You can stick that in a nice dress and teach it to dance, but it's still the same old whore of a policy the Democrats have been bringing to the national security party ever since George McGovern."
But, somehow, there is no indictable past when it comes to Democrats. Kerry voted for the war, too? No, no, you misunderstand, Kerry voted to authorize the war as a bargaining chip, to show how serious we were, not to actually, you know, go to war. There was a whole nuance thing there that you're, like, totally missing. Kerry has voted consistently to defund the military to one extent or another for his entire career? What a scurrilous attack on the patriotism of a man who volunteered to serve in Vietnam, and who came home with three purple hearts!
* The Argument Against Tax Cuts (Dale Franks) - Tax cuts may be good for votes, but they're not always responsible. We may have reached the point at which they're counter-productive.
the Republicans seemed to have learned the wrong lessons from Ronald Reagan's tax cuts. The whole point of Reagan's tax cuts were to produce an economically neutral tax structure, not tax-cutting for the sake of tax cutting. Now, the Republicans seem to have concluded that tax cuts, in and of themselves, are a good thing. That is by no means, true, however. Tax cuts may be politically popular, but they may also be economically unwise. Political popularity, of course, is always a compelling argument to politicians, though, so Republicans have begun to make "tax cuts" of one kind or another an annual event.
The 2001 tax cuts were a good idea. Eliminating taxation on dividends is a good, pro-investment, and hence, pro-growth tax policy. Cutting capital gains taxes is even better. Lowering income tax rates was a good idea, too, since based on the historic record, a 36% upper bracket was a skoche too high.
Since then, though, the race towards tax breaks has not been caused by a race toward economic neutrality, but for tax cuts as means of buttressing Republican political popularity. We've done rebates, and kiddie tax credits (It's for the children!), and a whole host of things that don't provide any long-term economic incentives to savings, investment, or growth. That's just simple revenue cutting.
* More on Taxation, complete with a shameless plug (Dale Franks) - The merits of a National Sales Tax.
Under the National Sales Tax (I’ll just call it the NST, because I’m lazy and it’s shorter.), the personal income tax would be totally eliminated. No more Federal Income Tax withheld from your paycheck. No more IRS at all. No more scrambling to the post office on April 15th. The government would no longer have any business at all asking you nosy personal questions like how much money you made, and what you did with it. On the other hand, the price of almost everything in the country would rise by 20%.
* Convention Quotes - Night 1 (McQ) - Notable moments from the first night of the DNC Convention.
A night of red meat for the left (although not quite as vitriolic as in the past and thus more of a hamburger night in that regard instead of a steak) but not much new or of substance, at least for a political junkie. Pretty much what I expected. Pushing the myths, pushing the talking points, pushing the party line ... regardless of the truth. Welcome to the Democrat Convention.
* Welcome to the Machine (Jon Henke) - Paul Krugman waxes mythic about Florida voting issues. The evidence does not justify his claims.
There are two problems with this:
1. The list would not have "wrongly disenfranchised many legitimate African-American voters". This was a list of "potentials", and counties were supposed to "verify the information" and "contact the voters" prior to taking any action. The list itself--and the State's orders--could not disenfranchise voters. Only a failure to follow those orders could result in improper disenfranchisement. That is a rather important difference.
2. "Hispanic voters tend to support Republicans".....is not quite correct.
Hispanics favored Kerry 45 percent to 34 percent...
* Jimmuh's Convention Speech (Dale Franks) - "the more I read Jimmy Carter's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, the more I remember why exactly it is we ran him out of Washington the first chance we got"
Just out of curiosity, weren't you the guy who came back from NoKo in '94, telling us what a prince of guy that Kim Jong-Il was? I mean, you practically did the whole Neville Chamberlain bit, waving the agreement with Kim over your head, and announcing it secured peace in our time.
Meanwhile, your pilot had barely got the landing gear retracted after leaving the tarmac at Pyongyang before that little maniac Kim was planning on building strontium bombs like the cool missile that James Franciscus shot off at the end of Return to the Planet of the Apes. And now, somehow, all that is W's fault.
So, what, can we take it as a given that you'll support the president in an upcoming invasion of North Korea? No, I'm sorry, forgive me for asking. Of course you won't. Because there's no threat to the people and interests of the United States that you don't think can't be solved by a unilateral American retreat, is there?
* Send Me (but not too close) (Jon Henke) - John Kerry served honorably, but let's not pretend he really said "Send Me" into combat.
The difference, Clinton and the Democrats claim, is that John Kerry volunteered to go into the middle of a shooting range and take fire. Except, not so much...
"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."
Anytime somebody brings up the idea that John Kerry said "Send Me" into combat, remind them that--while his service was admirable--he said otherwise.
* Boston D Party (Dale Franks) - Observations on the DNC Convention.
Here's an interesting little exercise. Read Howard Dean's speech, and find a single nice thing he has to say about John Kerry.
But he's not bitter.
* Why all the Vietnam? (McQ) - Kerry is running on his Vietnam record, because he hasn't got that much else that looks palatable to the voters.
Reports have it that the convention center is covered with Kerry Vietnam era pictures (although I’m sure none of them include a tasteful “Winter Soldier” montage or a medal flinging pic). Kerry grandstands in his convention entrance using a water taxi as his “swift boat” and stocking it with his Vietnam “band of brothers”. Kerry’s super-8 film from Vietnam will play heavily in the film about the man, although we may have difficulty separating the real action from the reenactments. Ms. Heinz-Kerry lovingly tells the world that John got his medals “the old fashioned way, he earned them.”
Of course I know why they’re hanging out in Vietnam. Because that’s the last time he was actually strong on defense. OK, I’m being facetious. But really .... how do 120 days in a combat zone trump a 7300 days (20 years) in the Senate? Regardless of the Star Trek defense (“deflectors up, full speed ahead”) its his record in the Senate which tells the true tale of the real John Kerry, presidential candidate.
* Why all the Vietnam? II (Dale Franks) - Why military service is not a predictor of Presidential qualifications.
Franklin Roosevelt, who led the country through most of WWII, never served a day in uniform. Woodrow Wilson, who was president during WWI, didn't either. Yet no one would argue that they were incompetent in their role as commander in Chief, Abraham Lincoln's sum total of military service was a few weeks in the Illinois militia, yet he somehow managed to make it through the Civil War creditably, even though he was hamstrung by the equally arrogant and incompetent Commander of the Army of the Potomac, General McClellan, a man who was wonderful at building armies, yet fatally indecisive at using them.
So, then, with these examples in mind, what does John Kerry's service as a junior naval officer tell us about his fitness to be president?
* Blinded by the Shite (Jon Henke) - Atrios and Oliver Willis are bought-and-paid-for critics of bought-and-paid-for pundits.
In fact, Reynolds is exactly right. Duncan Black would make something of Scaife-funded right-wing information, and he has done so in the past.
For that matter, Oliver Willis, who also works for the Soros-funded MediaMatters, has had no apparent problem criticizing Scaife-funded right-wing information.
So, what we have are two critics, bought and paid for by the left wing, criticizing some media outlets and pundits for being....bought and paid for by the right wing.
When can we begin calling them "Duncan Ruddy" and "Oliver Ruddy"?
* Edwards quotes from Day III (McQ) - A look at Edwards mimimum wage complaints...
In fact, the study cited shows that "Between 1998 and 2002, median wage
growth averaged 10.4 percent for minimum wage employees but only 1.7 percent for workers earning above the minimum—more than five times higher."
It isn't a minimum wage increase for the 'poor' Kerry/Edwards really want. Its the increase it will give union workers if the minium wage is increased that they're after. It always happens when the minimum wage in increased.
In other words, the aim is really to increase the cost of labor across the board on the one hand while telling us they're going to increase jobs on the other and using "poor families" with "no hope" as the bait. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that those two goals may work against each other.
* Our vote is not for sale.....because your offer isn't big enough. (Jon Henke) - Al Sharpton says his vote is not for sale......but his demands put the lie to that claim.
That is the very definition of rent-seeking behaviour - attempts by special interests to gain rewards through government intervention.
As concerns the specific group of voters for which Al Sharpton speaks, their vote is most definitely--even explicitly--for sale.
* A New Grand Strategy (Dale Franks) - "Since the end of the Cold War, we have had no great national vision. Perhaps it's time to go about the business of acquiring one once again."
From 1945 to 1991, when the USSR fell into the ash-heap of history, our Grand Strategy was the containment and, eventually, the defeat of Soviet Communism. Practically every international effort we made, as well as many national ones, were predicated upon this strategy. This strategy was bipartisan, and its utility was unquestioned.
Since then, however, we've done practically nothing to create a national strategy. Lacking the overriding threat of Soviet Communism, we've let the idea of a necessary, worldwide, strategic goal for the United States lay fallow. After the end of the Cold War, the general feeling in Washington has been that, with the disappearance of the USSR, the need for a national Grand Strategy has vanished as well.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
* Estate Tax (Jon Henke) - In the Estate Tax debate, everybody misses a pretty primary point: it's just not a very effective tax.
The Joint Economic Committee has investigated the Estate tax and concluded.....it's just not that useful. Specifically, "the estate tax generates costs to taxpayers, the economy and the environment that far exceed any potential benefits that it might arguably produce".
* Let's Judge Kerry by his Record, as requested (McQ) - I don't think he wanted to be judged on that record.
Kerry’s claim is he can pay for everything, cut spending in half plus fund all the stuff above simply by rolling back one tax cut on 2% of taxpayers? It’s a no-go, its nonsense, its not possible. So where’ll he have to turn? Huge cuts in other discretionary spending (yeah, that’s likely) or raising taxes. His record points to the likelyhood that the latter will be his choice. So based on his record, again, I'm not buying.
* Do you really want to run on the Third New Deal? (Jon Henke) - In their rush to portray Bush as Hoover, the Democrats are offering the same policies that extended the Great Depression for a decade.
Those economic policies led to a far longer depression than was otherwise ncessary. We didn't pull out until--at least--the beginning of WW2. There was protectionism, higher taxes, expansion of government programs to aid the poor and unemployed, and an expansion of all manner of new economic "rights" (read: privileges).
You might be forgiven for mistaking those ideas for this years Democratic Platform.
TrackBack
|