Civil Rights
1. There is quite a bit of good news for civil rights. First, National Security Letters--which the federal government uses to get personal information on thousands of Americans from companies like Google--have been ruled unconstitutional. What made NSLs particularly disturbing was that the recipient companies were forbidden from ever acknowledging that they had given the government any information. Thankfully, these gag orders have also been ruled unconstitutional.
2. Second, the Supreme Court limited the use of sniffer dogs and expanded the Fourth Amendment's protection of the home by declaring that porches count as part of the home.
3. There's good news for civil rights in Canada as well. The Supreme Court there recently ruled that police need special wiretapping orders, not just ordinary search warrants, to intercept text messages.
Deficit & Spending
4. Via PostLibertarian, the federal deficit for the first six months of fiscal 2013 is 23% lower than the deficit for the same period in fiscal 2012. Government spending in March 2013 was more than 20% lower than in March 2012, a $76 billion fall from $369 to $293 billion. Moreover, an analysis of four major budget plans (President Obama's, Senate Democrats', House Republicans' and Senator Rand Paul's) shows that all four cut spending over the next ten years relative to the current-law baseline. The coming debate won't be whether or not to cut spending, it will be how much.
Energy & Climate
5. In November 2012, U.S. oil production surpassed that of Saudi Arabia! U.S. oil production also remained higher than Saudi Arabia's in December 2012. While month-to-month production fluctuates, and there may again be months where the Saudis produce more oil than we do, for at least two months in 2012, the United States was the largest oil producer in the world. U.S. oil production has continued to grow since then, and is now more than 7.2 million barrels per day, a level not seen since July 1992. Also in December, another country (China) imported more oil than the U.S. for the first time in four decades (ht).
6. Coral reefs are more resilient than we thought. Reefs damaged in super-hot 1998 were presumed to have little chance of recovery, yet they're recovering nonetheless.
Health
7. A new Bluetooth-enabled implant (ht) can monitor blood levels of up to five chemicals and transmit that data to a smartphone or tablet (and from there to the internet) in realtime. It can currently detect glucose (useful for diabetics), troponin (which is released during a heart attack) and a few other substances, but the device has been designed to accommodate sensors for substances not yet covered.
8. Functioning kidneys can now be grown in a lab, at least for rats. Doing the same with human kidneys will take some time, and even then the lab-grown versions are only 5% as efficient as natural, healthy kidneys. But if your natural kidneys aren't healthy, 5% could be enough of an improvement to be worth the transplant. No doubt researchers will also be working on improving that efficiency as well.
Poverty
9. Two recent studies, one from Oxford University and the other from the UN, highlight the improving conditions of the world's poor (ht via @LDoren). Many of the world's poorest nations are on track to eliminate acute poverty and growth is lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. From the UN report: "Never in history have the living conditions and prospects of so many people changed so dramatically and so fast."
Other Optimists
10. Ezra Klein (ht MR) has his own list of reasons for optimism. Among others, he lists the slowing rise of health care costs, a turnaround in housing, corporate profits, natural gas and technological advances.
11. Stephan Kinsella (ht Bob Murphy) says, "The Golden Age of America is Now." Kinsella writes from a libertarian viewpoint, and therefore includes items like imminent marijuana legalization that some might not agree are actually good things. But many of his points cut across ideologies--there is no draft, air travel is safer and cheaper than ever and technology is amazing, from cell phones to the internet to 3D printing to private spaceflight. He also cites increased diversity and tolerance, saying, "some people are vegetarians, vegans; no big deal... Some people have nose rings, multiple earrings. Tattoos. Nobody cares... Mixed-race couples? Nobody bats an eye."
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
I Was Wrong, part I
I believe it's important to admit when you were wrong. Now that the fiscal cliff and sequester are mostly behind us, I can say that I made a few predictions that proved to be wrong.
Immediately after Obama's reelection, I said,
Color me pleasantly surprised. Even a blog called Expected Optimism wasn't optimistic enough!
Immediately after Obama's reelection, I said,
"First of all, expect the fiscal cliff to stay in place. After all, we just re-elected most of the people who put it there to begin with. … Any compromise will include more tax hikes than spending cuts, if spending is actually cut at all."As it turned out, the fiscal cliff did not stay in place. The deal to avert the fiscal cliff included $250 billion in lower taxes compared to just $9 billion in higher spending, relative to what would have happened with no deal. At the time, I said,
"If you think that two month delay is a sign that the sequester will never happen anyway, I think you're right. It was never going to happen in the first place, and we lose nothing by delaying it."This was also wrong. Not only did the sequester actually come to pass, the continuing resolution recently passed by the Senate and House and signed by Obama also keeps it in place for the next six months. While the Senate budget for fiscal 2014 repeals the sequester, the House budget does not, leaving open the distinct possibility that the sequester's lower spending is here to stay.
Color me pleasantly surprised. Even a blog called Expected Optimism wasn't optimistic enough!
Thursday, March 7, 2013
On Drones and Droning On
Yesterday, Rand Paul gave an old-style filibuster where he talked on the Senate floor for 12 hours and 54 minutes about drones and executive power. At first, Paul wanted the Obama administration to come out and say that it is unconstitutional for the government to kill American citizens on American soil without due process. Obama's response: "No comment."
Later, Paul was willing to compromise and end the filibuster for a vote on a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution that "the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights." Democrats (in particular, Majority Whip Dick Durbin) refused.
Ultimately, Paul ended the filibuster without accomplishing his explicit goals, though he has clearly energized his supporters and apparently turned a libertarian talking point into GOP policy. The Minority Leader Mitch McConnell showed up to explicitly support Paul and encourage other Republicans to do the same.
Not all Republicans agreed, however. Senator Lindsey Graham called the whole thing "ridiculous," and he's right -- it should be. The proper response from the Obama administration would have been, "Of course, it's unconstitutional to kill citizens on our soil without due process." This should not even be a question. Indeed, if they had responded quickly enough, they could have devastated Rand Paul's credibility and painted him and libertarians in general as paranoid freaks. But they didn't, and that really has me puzzled.
Obama had the opportunity to give the Tea Party and libertarians a roundhouse kick to the face on prime time TV, and he didn't. He did nothing, and doing nothing gave Paul an incredible victory. Durbin went even further, and objected to just a vote on a non-binding resolution on the issue. Why are Obama and Durbin (and the rest of the Democrats) willing to hand Republicans such a PR coup just to hold on to a power they claim they don't want to use anyway?
At this point, it would be easy to fall into conspiracy theories, but I suspect the Democrats are being honest when they say they don't want to kill Americans in the streets. However, being in power, they thought they had an opportunity to expand that power, and they took it. Everyone likes to have options. They just didn't think anyone would notice. Once libertarians did notice, the Democrats thought no one would pay attention to the libertarians anyway. Now that Paul has forced the issue and gotten people to pay attention, the Democrats don't want to turn around and admit that he's right, because they think they'll look bad if they do. They don't seem to recognize that digging their heels in and insisting on the right to kill American citizens without due process makes them look even worse.
Now that Paul has everyone talking, it will be interesting to see what he does with it. Can he inspire actual change?
Later, Paul was willing to compromise and end the filibuster for a vote on a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution that "the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights." Democrats (in particular, Majority Whip Dick Durbin) refused.
Ultimately, Paul ended the filibuster without accomplishing his explicit goals, though he has clearly energized his supporters and apparently turned a libertarian talking point into GOP policy. The Minority Leader Mitch McConnell showed up to explicitly support Paul and encourage other Republicans to do the same.
Not all Republicans agreed, however. Senator Lindsey Graham called the whole thing "ridiculous," and he's right -- it should be. The proper response from the Obama administration would have been, "Of course, it's unconstitutional to kill citizens on our soil without due process." This should not even be a question. Indeed, if they had responded quickly enough, they could have devastated Rand Paul's credibility and painted him and libertarians in general as paranoid freaks. But they didn't, and that really has me puzzled.
Obama had the opportunity to give the Tea Party and libertarians a roundhouse kick to the face on prime time TV, and he didn't. He did nothing, and doing nothing gave Paul an incredible victory. Durbin went even further, and objected to just a vote on a non-binding resolution on the issue. Why are Obama and Durbin (and the rest of the Democrats) willing to hand Republicans such a PR coup just to hold on to a power they claim they don't want to use anyway?
At this point, it would be easy to fall into conspiracy theories, but I suspect the Democrats are being honest when they say they don't want to kill Americans in the streets. However, being in power, they thought they had an opportunity to expand that power, and they took it. Everyone likes to have options. They just didn't think anyone would notice. Once libertarians did notice, the Democrats thought no one would pay attention to the libertarians anyway. Now that Paul has forced the issue and gotten people to pay attention, the Democrats don't want to turn around and admit that he's right, because they think they'll look bad if they do. They don't seem to recognize that digging their heels in and insisting on the right to kill American citizens without due process makes them look even worse.
Now that Paul has everyone talking, it will be interesting to see what he does with it. Can he inspire actual change?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Taxes in the Fiscal Cliff
It is becoming increasingly clear that we are not going to make it into 2013 without tax increases. If we go over the fiscal cliff, taxes are going up, but Democrats have made clear that any negotiated deal would include increased taxes as well. Assuming we do go over the cliff, what would those taxes look like?
On the other hand, even if Congress does not reach a deal to avoid the cliff, I expect a minor deal to avoid the AMT. After all, Congress has enacted one-year patches to the AMT every year for more than a decade, under both Republican and Democratic Congresses, as well as under the split control we've seen since 2010. This year should be no different.
On the Bush tax cuts, Obama was reelected after campaigning to raise taxes on the wealthy. If no deal is reached, Obama gets his wish; the Bush cuts expire and taxes are raised on the wealthy (and everyone else). The Republicans really don't have any leverage on this issue, so I expect any deal would only keep the Bush cuts for those below some income level, probably $200k or $250k.
The real uncertainty is the payroll tax cut. Normally, I would expect Democrats to abhor the cut on the grounds that it undermines Social Security. Republicans should celebrate it, not only as a tax cut, but because it undermines a massive entrenched entitlement. And yet, in some sleight of hand I still haven't figured out, Obama got the Republicans to oppose (and Democrats to support) a tax cut on every worker in the country. Now that the election is over, will the parties stick to these flipped roles, or revert to their principles? Or will the payroll tax cut expire with no one paying attention?
What Republicans Should Do
Whatever happens with the rest of the fiscal cliff, the rich (and people who work for the rich) are going to get hosed. Obama will probably get his way on the Bush tax cuts, and many of the Obamacare taxes are also aimed at the rich. Health costs are also going to go up, but I think the smart insurance companies have already raised their rates to compensate. There may not be a noticeable increase in premiums because the increase has already happened.
Given this, Republicans need to refocus on what good they can still do. Taxes are going up, and with Obama's reelection, that was inevitable. But if Republicans are smart and tactful, they can still keep taxes low for most of us. Give Obama the tax hike on the rich, since that will happen even with no deal, but secure the payroll tax cut and the Bush cuts for the non-rich in exchange. Obama himself is campaigning for the latter, so this should be easy to do, if Republicans are willing to do it.
- New Obamacare taxes would come into effect.
- The Alternative Minimum Tax would return to full strength.
- The Bush tax cuts would expire.
- The payroll tax cut would expire.
On the other hand, even if Congress does not reach a deal to avoid the cliff, I expect a minor deal to avoid the AMT. After all, Congress has enacted one-year patches to the AMT every year for more than a decade, under both Republican and Democratic Congresses, as well as under the split control we've seen since 2010. This year should be no different.
On the Bush tax cuts, Obama was reelected after campaigning to raise taxes on the wealthy. If no deal is reached, Obama gets his wish; the Bush cuts expire and taxes are raised on the wealthy (and everyone else). The Republicans really don't have any leverage on this issue, so I expect any deal would only keep the Bush cuts for those below some income level, probably $200k or $250k.
The real uncertainty is the payroll tax cut. Normally, I would expect Democrats to abhor the cut on the grounds that it undermines Social Security. Republicans should celebrate it, not only as a tax cut, but because it undermines a massive entrenched entitlement. And yet, in some sleight of hand I still haven't figured out, Obama got the Republicans to oppose (and Democrats to support) a tax cut on every worker in the country. Now that the election is over, will the parties stick to these flipped roles, or revert to their principles? Or will the payroll tax cut expire with no one paying attention?
What Republicans Should Do
Whatever happens with the rest of the fiscal cliff, the rich (and people who work for the rich) are going to get hosed. Obama will probably get his way on the Bush tax cuts, and many of the Obamacare taxes are also aimed at the rich. Health costs are also going to go up, but I think the smart insurance companies have already raised their rates to compensate. There may not be a noticeable increase in premiums because the increase has already happened.
Given this, Republicans need to refocus on what good they can still do. Taxes are going up, and with Obama's reelection, that was inevitable. But if Republicans are smart and tactful, they can still keep taxes low for most of us. Give Obama the tax hike on the rich, since that will happen even with no deal, but secure the payroll tax cut and the Bush cuts for the non-rich in exchange. Obama himself is campaigning for the latter, so this should be easy to do, if Republicans are willing to do it.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Aftermath: Reflections on Obama's Re-election
Barack Obama has been re-elected President of the United States.
For starters, Gary Johnson was not a spoiler. While the results are still coming in, as of 11:30pm Pacific, there was not a single state won by Obama where Romney would have won even if every Johnson voter had voted for Romney instead.
Second, there is no mandate. While Obama won, he won with a far narrower lead in both the popular vote and the electoral college than he had in 2008. While Democrats increased their lead in the Senate, Republicans increased their lead in governorships, and the House is on track to be more or less the same as it was. This was very much a status quo election.
On the whole, will we be better or worse with Obama as president?
First of all, expect the fiscal cliff to stay in place. After all, we just re-elected most of the people who put it there to begin with. While I haven't spent too much time learning about the fiscal cliff, Wikipedia claims a 19.63% increase in revenue and a 0.25% decrease in spending, or a nearly 80-to-1 ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts. This will not end well-- and even if our new old government leaders manage to avoid the cliff, the re-elected Obama is in a prime position to extract concessions he was unable to before the election. Any compromise will include more tax hikes than spending cuts, if spending is actually cut at all.
Second, Obamacare will be implemented fully over the next few years. Expect the nation's health, freedom and balance sheet to all suffer. Although to be honest, I don't believe Romney would have done any better.
The national debt will continue to grow. If the fiscal cliff causes a second recession, expect more stimulus and bailouts, probably for Europe too. We may look back at $1.5 trillion deficits and laugh about how small they were. On the other hand, the same probably would've happened under Romney, considering his plan to index military spending to 4% of GDP.
On other long-term important issues, I don't expect Obama to do much of anything. He'll keep ignoring space (mercifully), Social Security will continue to stumble forward without reform, trade deals will be forgotten, immigration won't change. We'll mostly withdraw from Afghanistan on schedule, although the lack of attention the war gets these days means we'll probably keep troops there for the long haul, same as we've still got troops in Germany, Japan and Korea. On trade and Afghanistan, at least, Romney would have been even worse. While Romney may have avoided the fiscal cliff, his insistence to go after China on trade might have been just as bad for the economy.
The main difference between the two candidates in terms of our long-term welfare is this: With Obama's victory, 2016 will see another wide-open primary for Republicans, where we'll have another shot at nominating a true spokesperson for liberty. Had Romney won, we wouldn't get that chance until 2020. So hold onto your hats. It's gonna be a rough four years for liberty, but we made it through the last four. We'll make it this time, too.
For starters, Gary Johnson was not a spoiler. While the results are still coming in, as of 11:30pm Pacific, there was not a single state won by Obama where Romney would have won even if every Johnson voter had voted for Romney instead.
Second, there is no mandate. While Obama won, he won with a far narrower lead in both the popular vote and the electoral college than he had in 2008. While Democrats increased their lead in the Senate, Republicans increased their lead in governorships, and the House is on track to be more or less the same as it was. This was very much a status quo election.
On the whole, will we be better or worse with Obama as president?
First of all, expect the fiscal cliff to stay in place. After all, we just re-elected most of the people who put it there to begin with. While I haven't spent too much time learning about the fiscal cliff, Wikipedia claims a 19.63% increase in revenue and a 0.25% decrease in spending, or a nearly 80-to-1 ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts. This will not end well-- and even if our new old government leaders manage to avoid the cliff, the re-elected Obama is in a prime position to extract concessions he was unable to before the election. Any compromise will include more tax hikes than spending cuts, if spending is actually cut at all.
Second, Obamacare will be implemented fully over the next few years. Expect the nation's health, freedom and balance sheet to all suffer. Although to be honest, I don't believe Romney would have done any better.
The national debt will continue to grow. If the fiscal cliff causes a second recession, expect more stimulus and bailouts, probably for Europe too. We may look back at $1.5 trillion deficits and laugh about how small they were. On the other hand, the same probably would've happened under Romney, considering his plan to index military spending to 4% of GDP.
On other long-term important issues, I don't expect Obama to do much of anything. He'll keep ignoring space (mercifully), Social Security will continue to stumble forward without reform, trade deals will be forgotten, immigration won't change. We'll mostly withdraw from Afghanistan on schedule, although the lack of attention the war gets these days means we'll probably keep troops there for the long haul, same as we've still got troops in Germany, Japan and Korea. On trade and Afghanistan, at least, Romney would have been even worse. While Romney may have avoided the fiscal cliff, his insistence to go after China on trade might have been just as bad for the economy.
The main difference between the two candidates in terms of our long-term welfare is this: With Obama's victory, 2016 will see another wide-open primary for Republicans, where we'll have another shot at nominating a true spokesperson for liberty. Had Romney won, we wouldn't get that chance until 2020. So hold onto your hats. It's gonna be a rough four years for liberty, but we made it through the last four. We'll make it this time, too.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
The Elite Eight
This blog has been on an unintentional summer hiatus the past some weeks, thanks to a combination of great weather, longer work hours and several friends' weddings on the other side of the country. A lot has happened politically in the meantime, much of it worth ignoring, but there is a semi-recent piece of news about the 2008 presidential election that I really should cover. And no, I don't mean that one.
Back on August 9th, we here in Washington state found out the list of candidates who passed certification and will appear on our ballot. It's no secret I don't like Romney, and I definitely don't like Obama either. Lucky for me, there are six other tickets on the ballot. Since most outlets are only going cover two, maybe three of these candidates, I present for your informational pleasure the eight candidates for President of the United States:
Ross C. (Rocky) Anderson, Justice Party
VP: Luis J. Rodriguez
Do they have the ballot access to win? Yes, just barely, with 26 states and exactly 270 EVs, counting write-in states.
Links: Justice Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Rocky Anderson's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: Left of Obama, but mostly within mainstream liberalism.
Party slogan: "Economic, environmental and social justice for all."
Virgil Goode, Constitution Party
VP: James N. Clymer
Do they have the ballot access to win? Unclear, although possible; aiming for 40 states.
Links: Constitution Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Virgil Goode's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: Mostly paleoconservative, but likes entitlements.
Campaign slogan: "Save America, citizenship matters."
James Harris, Socialist Workers Party
VP: Alyson Kennedy
Do they have the ballot access to win? Unlikely; aiming for just 8 states plus write-ins.
Links: The best I can find is The Militant, a weekly newspaper closely associated with the Socialist Workers Party. Neither the party nor the campaign seem to have an online presence outside The Militant.
General impression: Socialist focusing on union and race issues.
Quote: “The capitalist crisis, attacks by bosses, and workers’ resistance are worldwide phenomena. Everywhere they are driven to attack us..." --James Harris, Aug. 11, 2012
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party
VP: James P. Gray
Do they have the ballot access to win? Yes; on the ballot in 38 states so far, totalling 394 EVs.
Links: Libertarian Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Gary Johnson's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: A solid libertarian, the best-known third-partier.
Party slogan: "Minimum government, maximum freedom."
Peta Lindsay, Party for Socialism and Liberation
VP: Yari Osorio
Do they have the ballot access to win? Not even close, at just 60 EVs. But even if they did win, neither Lindsay nor Osorio is eligible to be President. Lindsay is only 28, too young under the Constitution, while Osorio immigrated to the US as a child and is not a natural born citizen.
Links: Party for Socialism and Liberation's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Peta Lindsay's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: Hardcore socialist focusing on economic issues.
Campaign slogan: "Seize the banks - Jobs, health care and housing for all - Fight for socialism."
Barack Obama, Democratic Party
VP: Joe Biden
Do they have the ballot access to win? Of course.
Links: Democratic Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Barack Obama's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: The status quo.
Campaign slogan: "Forward."
Mitt Romney, Republican Party
VP: Paul Ryan
Do they have the ballot access to win? Of course.
Links: Republican Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Mitt Romney's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: A Democrat's vision of a stereotypical Republican.
Campaign slogan: "America's Comeback Team."
Jill Stein, Green Party
VP: Cheri Honkalai
Do they have the ballot access to win? Yes; on the ballot in 35 states so far, totalling 442 EVs.
Links: Green Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Jill Stein's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: Left of Anderson, but right of the socialists.
Campaign slogan: "A Green New Deal for America."
Back on August 9th, we here in Washington state found out the list of candidates who passed certification and will appear on our ballot. It's no secret I don't like Romney, and I definitely don't like Obama either. Lucky for me, there are six other tickets on the ballot. Since most outlets are only going cover two, maybe three of these candidates, I present for your informational pleasure the eight candidates for President of the United States:
VP: Luis J. Rodriguez
Do they have the ballot access to win? Yes, just barely, with 26 states and exactly 270 EVs, counting write-in states.
Links: Justice Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Rocky Anderson's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: Left of Obama, but mostly within mainstream liberalism.
Party slogan: "Economic, environmental and social justice for all."
VP: James N. Clymer
Do they have the ballot access to win? Unclear, although possible; aiming for 40 states.
Links: Constitution Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Virgil Goode's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: Mostly paleoconservative, but likes entitlements.
Campaign slogan: "Save America, citizenship matters."
VP: Alyson Kennedy
Do they have the ballot access to win? Unlikely; aiming for just 8 states plus write-ins.
Links: The best I can find is The Militant, a weekly newspaper closely associated with the Socialist Workers Party. Neither the party nor the campaign seem to have an online presence outside The Militant.
General impression: Socialist focusing on union and race issues.
Quote: “The capitalist crisis, attacks by bosses, and workers’ resistance are worldwide phenomena. Everywhere they are driven to attack us..." --James Harris, Aug. 11, 2012
VP: James P. Gray
Do they have the ballot access to win? Yes; on the ballot in 38 states so far, totalling 394 EVs.
Links: Libertarian Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Gary Johnson's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: A solid libertarian, the best-known third-partier.
Party slogan: "Minimum government, maximum freedom."
VP: Yari Osorio
Do they have the ballot access to win? Not even close, at just 60 EVs. But even if they did win, neither Lindsay nor Osorio is eligible to be President. Lindsay is only 28, too young under the Constitution, while Osorio immigrated to the US as a child and is not a natural born citizen.
Links: Party for Socialism and Liberation's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Peta Lindsay's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: Hardcore socialist focusing on economic issues.
Campaign slogan: "Seize the banks - Jobs, health care and housing for all - Fight for socialism."
VP: Joe Biden
Do they have the ballot access to win? Of course.
Links: Democratic Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Barack Obama's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: The status quo.
Campaign slogan: "Forward."
VP: Paul Ryan
Do they have the ballot access to win? Of course.
Links: Republican Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Mitt Romney's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: A Democrat's vision of a stereotypical Republican.
Campaign slogan: "America's Comeback Team."
VP: Cheri Honkalai
Do they have the ballot access to win? Yes; on the ballot in 35 states so far, totalling 442 EVs.
Links: Green Party's official site, Facebook, Twitter
Jill Stein's official site, Facebook, Twitter
General impression: Left of Anderson, but right of the socialists.
Campaign slogan: "A Green New Deal for America."
Friday, June 8, 2012
Romney, Obama and the Big Diversion
Apparently, Romney's latest talking point is that Obama "knowingly" slowed the economic recovery by focusing on passing health care reform rather than improving the economy. Sigh. Never mind whether this is true or not. If you believe half the rhetoric that comes out of the Romney camp on what should be done about the economy, you should be happy that Obama set his sights on health care instead!
Look at what Obama did when he actually was focused on the economy. There were the auto and bank bailouts, then the $800 billion "stimulus" that ended up as mostly just a bailout for state and local governments. Then there was Cash for Clunkers. Once health care reform was done, there was Dodd-Frank, plus talk of a second stimulus that never got anywhere. And since 2010, Obama's economic plan has primarily consisted of taxing the rich and insisting the stimulus worked.
To be fair, part of that stimulus included tax cuts, and there is the payroll tax cut. I suppose it's possible that, if Obama had focused on the economy instead of health care, he would have passed more tax cuts instead of more spending, more bailouts, pushing Dodd-Frank through a few months earlier or even raising taxes. It's possible, sure, if you believe it. But the reality is, if Obama actually had focused on the economy more, we just would have seen more of the same policies that conservatives never wanted in the first place. If you believe conservative ideas are what the economy really needs to recover, you should be happy Obama got distracted by health care!
Is this a sign that Romney doesn't really believe conservative ideas are what the economy needs? Perhaps, but that's probably reading too much into it. More likely, Romney is just appealing to the old idea that government should just do something, no matter what it is, and that being seen to be doing something is more important than what you're actually doing. Romney sees an opportunity to attack Obama for looking like he didn't do enough, even though what he would have done would have made things worse. Hopefully Romney loses that old idea before he moves into the White House and starts to actually govern.
Look at what Obama did when he actually was focused on the economy. There were the auto and bank bailouts, then the $800 billion "stimulus" that ended up as mostly just a bailout for state and local governments. Then there was Cash for Clunkers. Once health care reform was done, there was Dodd-Frank, plus talk of a second stimulus that never got anywhere. And since 2010, Obama's economic plan has primarily consisted of taxing the rich and insisting the stimulus worked.
To be fair, part of that stimulus included tax cuts, and there is the payroll tax cut. I suppose it's possible that, if Obama had focused on the economy instead of health care, he would have passed more tax cuts instead of more spending, more bailouts, pushing Dodd-Frank through a few months earlier or even raising taxes. It's possible, sure, if you believe it. But the reality is, if Obama actually had focused on the economy more, we just would have seen more of the same policies that conservatives never wanted in the first place. If you believe conservative ideas are what the economy really needs to recover, you should be happy Obama got distracted by health care!
Is this a sign that Romney doesn't really believe conservative ideas are what the economy needs? Perhaps, but that's probably reading too much into it. More likely, Romney is just appealing to the old idea that government should just do something, no matter what it is, and that being seen to be doing something is more important than what you're actually doing. Romney sees an opportunity to attack Obama for looking like he didn't do enough, even though what he would have done would have made things worse. Hopefully Romney loses that old idea before he moves into the White House and starts to actually govern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
