What Jim Wilson taught me
March 2, 2012, 11:40 am
Jim Wilson defined the highest reach of social science and made
it possible for all of us to grasp it. He was a man of great Irish
charm, wit, and probity.
I will always remember two things he taught me: one, a poignant memory of his own; the other, a formative message for me.
First: “During my adult life I have been part of five institutions—the Catholic Church, the University of Redlands, the United States Navy, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University. If I were required to rank them by the extent to which free and uninhibited discussion was possible within them, I am very much afraid that the Harvard of 1972 would not rank near the top.”
Second, a lesson he taught me early on when I became drug czar. He taught me the most important insight about drugs; it guided all my policies, and I still believe it: “Drug use is wrong because it is immoral and it is immoral because it enslaves the mind and destroys the soul.”
As to his humor, we were sitting together at a roast for Norman Podhoretz’s 80th birthday. I gave a bit more of an emotional talk than we were all used to and when I sat back down he said, “You are a good Irishman, you finished.” We shall miss him, but he leaves his life on the minds of the men and women he taught. May he rest in peace.
William J. Bennett is former Secretary of Education and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
I will always remember two things he taught me: one, a poignant memory of his own; the other, a formative message for me.
First: “During my adult life I have been part of five institutions—the Catholic Church, the University of Redlands, the United States Navy, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University. If I were required to rank them by the extent to which free and uninhibited discussion was possible within them, I am very much afraid that the Harvard of 1972 would not rank near the top.”
Second, a lesson he taught me early on when I became drug czar. He taught me the most important insight about drugs; it guided all my policies, and I still believe it: “Drug use is wrong because it is immoral and it is immoral because it enslaves the mind and destroys the soul.”
As to his humor, we were sitting together at a roast for Norman Podhoretz’s 80th birthday. I gave a bit more of an emotional talk than we were all used to and when I sat back down he said, “You are a good Irishman, you finished.” We shall miss him, but he leaves his life on the minds of the men and women he taught. May he rest in peace.
William J. Bennett is former Secretary of Education and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
A brokered convention would be a disaster for the GOP
March 2, 2012, 11:09 am
Get a hold of yourselves, folks. You are not thinking this
through. Every time Mitt Romney loses a state or a caucus in this
topsy-turvy Republican race, the media starts talking about a boomlet
for Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, or some other candidate who might enter the
race now or be nominated at a “brokered convention.” And there is
always a Republican pundit or two—someone not aligned with any of the
campaigns—who’s available to stroke his chin and opine that yes, we’re
getting closer to just that kind of scenario.
Now, no one should exclude the possibility of really weird events occurring in U.S. politics this year. The international economic, financial, military, political, diplomatic, and oil scene—quite apart from the economic, employment, and energy picture in the United States—could easily produce major changes in the political lineup before November. But these are what Donald Rumsfeld used to call “known unknowns,” and not something anyone can plan to exploit.
However, there’s one fact that everyone should know and keep in mind: this year, there are 67 days between the end of the convention and the election. No matter what might have been possible in 1924, 1932, or even 1952, it is simply impossible for a candidate chosen at a convention in 2012 to raise the funds and put together a credible campaign in a little over two months. Can’t be done.
Republicans who want to beat Obama should stop talking about the possibility of a brokered convention. It only encourages the losing candidates to stay in the race and savage one another, and—even more likely—it stimulates financing sources that are keeping these tigers in the ring. To have any chance of beating Obama, the Republican convention this year will have to nominate one of the four candidates now in the field. Any other idea is both unrealistic and ultimately destructive to Republican chances.
Now, no one should exclude the possibility of really weird events occurring in U.S. politics this year. The international economic, financial, military, political, diplomatic, and oil scene—quite apart from the economic, employment, and energy picture in the United States—could easily produce major changes in the political lineup before November. But these are what Donald Rumsfeld used to call “known unknowns,” and not something anyone can plan to exploit.
However, there’s one fact that everyone should know and keep in mind: this year, there are 67 days between the end of the convention and the election. No matter what might have been possible in 1924, 1932, or even 1952, it is simply impossible for a candidate chosen at a convention in 2012 to raise the funds and put together a credible campaign in a little over two months. Can’t be done.
Republicans who want to beat Obama should stop talking about the possibility of a brokered convention. It only encourages the losing candidates to stay in the race and savage one another, and—even more likely—it stimulates financing sources that are keeping these tigers in the ring. To have any chance of beating Obama, the Republican convention this year will have to nominate one of the four candidates now in the field. Any other idea is both unrealistic and ultimately destructive to Republican chances.
Why Obama might raise taxes on the middle class if he’s reelected
March 2, 2012, 7:50 am
All the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
Gone.
It would have been the Mother of All Tax Hikes, a $3 trillion tax increase during shaky economic times. It would have broken a campaign promise not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans.
President Obama was shockingly close to embracing such a plan back in 2009. And if he’s reelected in 2012, Obama may well reconsider the idea and let all the Bush tax cuts expire as they are scheduled to do in 2013.
At least, that’s the story—and prediction—told by journalist Noam Scheiber in his new book, The Escape Artists: How Obama’s Team Fumbled the Recovery.
Short version: In the fall of 2009, Obama’s chief congressional lobbyist Phil Schiliro cooked up a plan to extend the middle-class Bush tax cuts for two years while letting the upper-income tax cuts expire on schedule. If Congress couldn’t devise a way to pay for the $2.3 trillion extension of the middle-class cuts, they would expire in 2015. Schiliro easily sold White House budget director Peter Orszag on the idea. “[Orszag] believed the only practical way to balance the budget was to repeal all the Bush tax cuts, not just the upper-income variety.”
Orszag then presented the plan to Obama:
As Scheiber explains:
See, the Bowles-Simpson commission recommended a) cutting individual tax rates to as low as 23 percent, b) eliminating many if not all tax breaks, and c) capping federal spending and revenue at 21 percent of GDP. At that level, taxes as a share of the economy would be about 3 percentage points above the historical average, a massive tax hike.
But even that would not be enough taxpayer dough for many liberal economists, such as those that work in the Obama White House. They believe federal spending will need to be much, much higher in the future due to a combination of factors: an aging population, rising healthcare costs, the need for more public “investment,” and greater debt service costs when interest rates eventually rise. (Indeed, three liberal think tanks recently constructed long-term budget plans, and their average projection for federal spending by 2035 was 25 percent of GDP—with a bullet.)
Generating the tax revenue that Obama would need to finance all his spending would require sharply higher taxes on the wealthy—and everybody else. And according to Scheiber, Obama might well like to start the taxathon with a $3 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Of course, that still wouldn’t be enough, which is why the next step might be a value-added tax.
Obama has been boasting that he has “five more years” in office. To do what, exactly? Now we know.
Gone.
It would have been the Mother of All Tax Hikes, a $3 trillion tax increase during shaky economic times. It would have broken a campaign promise not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans.
President Obama was shockingly close to embracing such a plan back in 2009. And if he’s reelected in 2012, Obama may well reconsider the idea and let all the Bush tax cuts expire as they are scheduled to do in 2013.
At least, that’s the story—and prediction—told by journalist Noam Scheiber in his new book, The Escape Artists: How Obama’s Team Fumbled the Recovery.
Short version: In the fall of 2009, Obama’s chief congressional lobbyist Phil Schiliro cooked up a plan to extend the middle-class Bush tax cuts for two years while letting the upper-income tax cuts expire on schedule. If Congress couldn’t devise a way to pay for the $2.3 trillion extension of the middle-class cuts, they would expire in 2015. Schiliro easily sold White House budget director Peter Orszag on the idea. “[Orszag] believed the only practical way to balance the budget was to repeal all the Bush tax cuts, not just the upper-income variety.”
Orszag then presented the plan to Obama:
… the administration’s chief wonk—Barack Obama—was intrigued. He asked a series of encouraging questions about how the proposal would work. According to two sources in the room, he was taken with both the political merits—that is, putting Republicans on the defensive—and the policy rationale of lopping trillions off the deficit. He gave no indication that he was troubled by the plan’s most explosive feature: that it would likely break a central campaign promise—not raising taxes on the middle class—one Republicans would surely wrap around his neck with populist glee.The White House political team and Vice President Joe Biden eventually helped kill the idea. Intriguingly, however, Scheiber thinks that if Obama is reelected, letting all the Bush tax cuts expire—which will happen automatically if Congress does nothing—”may simply be too tempting to pass up.”
As Scheiber explains:
What is clear is that, having been tempted to end all of the Bush tax cuts in 2009, the president would only find the idea more attractive were he to win a second term. At that point, he will never again stand before the voters, at least not as a presidential candidate. There would be nothing to stop him from flouting a campaign promise, even one as sensitive as his tax pledge.My take: Now we have even more evidence as to why Obama created a debt commission—and then rejected its recommendations. It didn’t tax or spend enough.
Perhaps most important of all, killing the entire zombie army of Bush tax breaks would be far, far easier than only slaying the upper-income portions. To pull off the former, Obama literally has to do nothing—the tax breaks are slated to expire on their own. To do the latter, he would have to pass legislation extending the middle-class elements. As a practical matter, that means rounding up majorities in the House and Senate, which seems unimaginable given the likely balance of power on Capitol Hill after the election. (There is a third option, which entails striking a deal with Republicans to junk the entire tax code and rebuild it from scratch, but it’s hard to envision this happening between Election Day and December 31.)
See, the Bowles-Simpson commission recommended a) cutting individual tax rates to as low as 23 percent, b) eliminating many if not all tax breaks, and c) capping federal spending and revenue at 21 percent of GDP. At that level, taxes as a share of the economy would be about 3 percentage points above the historical average, a massive tax hike.
But even that would not be enough taxpayer dough for many liberal economists, such as those that work in the Obama White House. They believe federal spending will need to be much, much higher in the future due to a combination of factors: an aging population, rising healthcare costs, the need for more public “investment,” and greater debt service costs when interest rates eventually rise. (Indeed, three liberal think tanks recently constructed long-term budget plans, and their average projection for federal spending by 2035 was 25 percent of GDP—with a bullet.)
Generating the tax revenue that Obama would need to finance all his spending would require sharply higher taxes on the wealthy—and everybody else. And according to Scheiber, Obama might well like to start the taxathon with a $3 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Of course, that still wouldn’t be enough, which is why the next step might be a value-added tax.
Obama has been boasting that he has “five more years” in office. To do what, exactly? Now we know.
Why Ron Paul’s isolationism appeals to the young
March 1, 2012, 1:03 pm
Many have noted how Ron Paul does extremely well among the 18-
to 29-year-olds in primary and caucus states. In fact, it goes deeper
than that. In virtually every state, Paul’s support is directly
correlated with age—the older the voter is, the less likely she or he is
to support Paul.
Looking closely at the exit poll data, Paul’s support normally drops off at two age cuts—30 and 40. A 40-year-old is someone born in 1971—she/he has no adult memory of the pre-Berlin Wall period. A 30-year-old was born in 1981—his or her primary adult memories of foreign affairs are in the post–9/11 era. Thus, Ron Paul’s support is directly correlated to a worldview in which the United States is an unchallenged superpower and the only question appears to be how we should use our unquestioned power.
Those of us who are older worry that this period of unquestioned security and global preeminence will not last without our vigilance. That argument and worldview seems incomprehensible to many younger than us because of their life experience. The challenge for those of us who favor a stronger international presence and maintaining the defense budget is how to explain our policy conclusions to a generation that doesn’t share our premises.
Looking closely at the exit poll data, Paul’s support normally drops off at two age cuts—30 and 40. A 40-year-old is someone born in 1971—she/he has no adult memory of the pre-Berlin Wall period. A 30-year-old was born in 1981—his or her primary adult memories of foreign affairs are in the post–9/11 era. Thus, Ron Paul’s support is directly correlated to a worldview in which the United States is an unchallenged superpower and the only question appears to be how we should use our unquestioned power.
Those of us who are older worry that this period of unquestioned security and global preeminence will not last without our vigilance. That argument and worldview seems incomprehensible to many younger than us because of their life experience. The challenge for those of us who favor a stronger international presence and maintaining the defense budget is how to explain our policy conclusions to a generation that doesn’t share our premises.
Recovery Winter: Is Obama’s economic ‘comeback’ starting to fade?
March 1, 2012, 11:42 am
It’s a long way from here to Election Day. At this point in
2011, Japan’s earthquake/tsunami/nuclear emergency, the Arab Spring, the
killing of Osama bin Laden, the fall of Gaddafi, Occupy Wall Street,
and the escalation of Europe’s debt crisis were still in the future.
Anyone know what’s going to happen with Greece? How about Israel and Iran? As I said, it’s a long way from here to there, and much can happen to rattle the fragile-but-anemic U.S. recovery—and the presidential election landscape.
But as The New York Times reports today, President Obama has begun to sound a “Morning in America” theme:
1. Manufacturing cooling? The Institute for Supply Management said on Thursday that its index of national factory activity fell to 52.4 last month from 54.1 the month before. The reading was shy of expectations of 54.5.
2. Construction spending softening? Construction
spending dropped 0.1 percent to an annual rate of $827 billion,
“confounding analysts’ expectations for a 1 percent increase,” Reuters
reports. It was the first drop since July 2011. Between the
manufacturing and construction numbers, Goldman Sachs revised its Q1 GDP
forecast downward to 1.9 percent.
3. Consumer spending weakening? Here is JPMorgan: “Real consumption came in flat in January, and past data were revised so consumption was flat in December (previously -0.1 percent) and November (previously +0.1 percent) as well. This soft trajectory for consumption adds downside risk to our GDP forecast for 1Q (currently 2.0 percent saar), and it looks like real spending will increase slightly below the 1.0 percent mark during the quarter. Despite improvement in the labor market in recent months, the consumption data have been lackluster—nominal spending increased only 1.3 percent saar over the three months through January while real consumption edged down 0.1 percent saar.”
And here is Barclays: “Directly plugging this in to our Q1 GDP tracking estimate has a significant effect – real GDP growth is now tracking 1.5 percent q/q (saar), down from 2.5 percent.”
And earlier this week there was a bum durable goods report which saw new orders for U.S. manufactured goods falling in January by the most in three years, according to Bloomberg.
I hope this isn’t the start of a trend. America is desperate for faster economic growth. As the always insightful Jed Graham of Investor’s Business Daily points out, “U.S. GDP hasn’t risen 4% or more in any quarter since the first quarter of 2006. That’s by far the longest such stretch on record going back to 1950. The only other sizable sub-par stretch was a three-year span from late 2000 to mid 2003 during the prior recession and sluggish recovery.”
We need a Recovery Winter … and Spring and Summer and Fall. So does the Obama campaign if it is going to sell Americans that the U.S. economy has finally turned a corner.
Anyone know what’s going to happen with Greece? How about Israel and Iran? As I said, it’s a long way from here to there, and much can happen to rattle the fragile-but-anemic U.S. recovery—and the presidential election landscape.
But as The New York Times reports today, President Obama has begun to sound a “Morning in America” theme:
President Obama has a new message: America has gotten its groove back. In ways large and small, Mr. Obama has seized on a narrative of national optimism in recent weeks, offering a portrait of a country that, guided by him and powered by the American worker, is making a comeback. It is a narrative with strong echoes of President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign and one that is intended to provide a contrast with today’s less sunny Republican candidates.But the Times also sounds a cautionary note:
Still, while Mr. Obama has enjoyed a strong few weeks with improving poll numbers and economic data, there is danger in the optimism strategy. Things could turn at any moment and make him seem out of touch, with oil prices rising and foreign policy crises looming in Iran and Afghanistan and with European debt. Some liberals argue that the optimistic tone is out of step with the country’s mood and that a campaign highlighting his differences with Republicans on economic issues has more promise.“Things could turn around at any moment.” Is that moment already here? A string of economic reports today show Obama’s supposed mini-boom may already be losing strength:
1. Manufacturing cooling? The Institute for Supply Management said on Thursday that its index of national factory activity fell to 52.4 last month from 54.1 the month before. The reading was shy of expectations of 54.5.
3. Consumer spending weakening? Here is JPMorgan: “Real consumption came in flat in January, and past data were revised so consumption was flat in December (previously -0.1 percent) and November (previously +0.1 percent) as well. This soft trajectory for consumption adds downside risk to our GDP forecast for 1Q (currently 2.0 percent saar), and it looks like real spending will increase slightly below the 1.0 percent mark during the quarter. Despite improvement in the labor market in recent months, the consumption data have been lackluster—nominal spending increased only 1.3 percent saar over the three months through January while real consumption edged down 0.1 percent saar.”
And here is Barclays: “Directly plugging this in to our Q1 GDP tracking estimate has a significant effect – real GDP growth is now tracking 1.5 percent q/q (saar), down from 2.5 percent.”
And earlier this week there was a bum durable goods report which saw new orders for U.S. manufactured goods falling in January by the most in three years, according to Bloomberg.
I hope this isn’t the start of a trend. America is desperate for faster economic growth. As the always insightful Jed Graham of Investor’s Business Daily points out, “U.S. GDP hasn’t risen 4% or more in any quarter since the first quarter of 2006. That’s by far the longest such stretch on record going back to 1950. The only other sizable sub-par stretch was a three-year span from late 2000 to mid 2003 during the prior recession and sluggish recovery.”
We need a Recovery Winter … and Spring and Summer and Fall. So does the Obama campaign if it is going to sell Americans that the U.S. economy has finally turned a corner.
Highlights from the Arizona and Michigan exit polls
February 29, 2012, 10:05 amIn Arizona, Hispanics were 8 percent of the electorate. Thirty-eight percent voted for Romney, 23 percent for Santorum, and 20 percent for Gingrich. The top issue in the poll was the economy (49 percent), followed by the budget deficit (30 percent), illegal immigration (13 percent), and abortion (6 percent).
Attitudes in Arizona and elsewhere about illegal immigrants appear to be softening. Thirty-four percent of respondents said most illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for citizenship, 28 percent said they should be allowed to stay as temporary workers, and 34 percent said they should be deported. In 2008, those responses were 24, 29, and 44 percent respectively.
Forty-eight percent of working women in Arizona, a category the exit pollsters broke out for the first time, voted for Romney. Twenty-seven percent voted for Santorum.
Sixty-four percent of Arizonans supported the Tea Party. They supported Romney 43 percent to Santorum’s 31 percent.
Mormons were 14 percent of the electorate, and as expected, they voted overwhelmingly for Romney.
In Arizona, Santorum was voted the “true conservative.” Fifteen percent of voters said that was the most important candidate quality for them. Forty percent said beating Obama was their top quality. Fifty-six percent of those voters selected Romney. Fifty-seven percent in another question said Romney was most likely to defeat Obama.
Fifty-three percent had a favorable opinion of John McCain. Forty percent had an unfavorable opinion.
The Arizona electorate was more conservative than in 2008. Four years ago, 66 percent identified as conservative. Of those, 30 percent said they were very conservative. This year, 74 percent identified as conservative, with 38 percent identifying as very conservative.
Michigan
As he did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, Ron Paul won the vote of the youngest age group in the poll.
Union members (14 percent of Michigan primary voters) and union households (23 percent) voted for Santorum.
Thirty-one percent reported that someone in their household had been laid off in the last three years. They voted for Romney over Santorum by 42 to 36 percent.
Working women in the GOP primary were 21 percent of the electorate. They narrowly supported Romney over Santorum, 40 to 38 percent. Married voters narrowly and unmarried voters more widely supported Romney.
Santorum won the votes of the 30 percent of primary voters who said they were very conservative. Romney won the crucial somewhat conservative vote and the moderate to liberal vote.
Tea Party support was more tepid in Michigan than Arizona. Fifty-two percent supported the movement. Santorum won voters who strongly supported the Tea Party movement (28 percent of the electorate) and those who strongly opposed the movement (12 percent of the electorate).
Catholics supported Romney over Santorum, 44 to 37 percent.
Santorum won the votes of the 16 percent of voters who said being a true conservative was the most important quality to them (58 to 18 percent for Romney). Romney won the vote of those who said being able to defeat Obama was the most important quality (32 percent of voters).
Only 35 percent of the electorate said the recent debate was the most important factor in their vote. Romney won this group by five points over Santorum. Sixty percent said the debate was not the most important factor and they narrowly supported Santorum, 40 percent to Romney’s 38 percent. In general, Santorum won among voters who said they decided how they were going to vote in the past few days. Those who had decided earlier supported Romney.
No comments:
Post a Comment