Plenty of blame to go around on this one. I've gotta say: Pelosi's railing against the right was not the best way to ensure that they would accede to a bill they hated. Good work, Madam Speaker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey3ZlsmIkz4&eurl
The partial transcription that follows is my own:
----------
Madam Speaker, when was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?
That's a staggering figure. And many questions have arisen from that request, and we have been hearing, I think, a very informed debate on all sides of this issue here today. I'm proud of the debate.
$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country--policies that were built on budget recklessness. When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses, four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned that around. And now eight years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an "anything goes" economic policy, have taken us to where we are today.
They claim to be free-market advocates, when it's really an "anything goes" mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute, and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.
Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported by the Republicans--some in the Republican Party, not all--it has created not jobs, not capital. It has created chaos. And it's that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed came to see us just about a week and a half ago. ...
-------------
I want to flesh this out a bit. To some representatives, a vote for this bill could be seen as an acknowledgment of Pelosi's remarks. It's not personal or anything like that. It's something akin to the film version of "The Crucible." Daniel Day-Lewis' character refuses to put his name on the church door because "it's all he has." Conservative House Republicans will go to their graves believing that government, not right-wing free-market economics, caused this problem. To vote for the bill after Pelosi's tirade would, in some ways, be surrendering their good names. And, of course, Daniel Day-Lewis' character was hanged as he recited the Our Father.
On the other side, I have great respect for Paul Ryan. He rambled and misspoke a couple of times, but his sentiments are my sentiments.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/vidLink.php?b=1222703292&e=1222703892&n=1
The transcription that follows is my own.
------------
... A lot of us have lost a lot of sleep; a lot of us have looked at this situation. When Secretary Paulson came to us about a week ago, he gave us a three page bill that said "give me a blank checkbook and put $700 billion in it."
I was offended at that time.
And so what happened since then? We added 107 pages of taxpayer protection to that bill. We understand the gravity of this situation, and we worked with our colleagues on the other side, to make this bill a better bill. We made sure that there's upside for the taxpayers, so that when this happens, when profits come to these companies, we get their stock warrants, so that the first person in line to get those profits is the American taxpayer so they can get their money back. We made sure that there's an insurance program that makes sure that Wall Street shares in the cost of this recovery plan. And we also made sure that the executives of these companies that made these bad bets don't profit from this recovery plan. We cut the initial cost in half in this bill; Congress will have to approve the second half of this next year.
Why did we do all this?
Because this Wall Street crisis is quickly becoming a Main Street crisis. It's quickly becoming a banking crisis.
What does that mean? Why does that matter to us? Why does that matter to Janesville, Wisconsin?
If it goes the way it could go, that means credit shuts down. Businesses can't get money to pay their payroll, to pay their employees. Students can't get student loans for next semester. People can't get car loans. Seniors may not have access to their savings. Are we standing at the edge of this abyss? Nobody knows, but maybe.
It's very probable.
Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles. But I'm going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system. This is a Herbert Hoover moment. He made some big mistakes after the Great Depression, and we lived with those consequences for decades. Let's not make that mistake.
There's a lot of fear and a lot of panic out there. A lot of what this is about is getting that fear and panic out of the market. I think the White House bumbled this thing. They have brought this issue up to a crescendo, to a crisis, so that all eyes in the world markets are here on Congress. It's a heavy load to bear.
We have to deal with this panic. We have to deal with this fear. Colleagues, we're in the moment. This bill doesn't have everything I want in it. It got a lot of good things in it, but we're here. We're in this moment. And if we fail to do the right thing, heaven help us. If we fail to pass this, I fear the worst is yet to come.
The problem we have here is we're one month away from an election. We're all worried about losing our jobs. And all of us--most of us say "this thing needs to pass, but I want you to vote for it, not me." But unfortunately, a majority of us are going to have to vote for this. And we're going to have to do that because we have a chance of arresting that crash. Just maybe, this will work.
And so for me and for my own conscience, so I can look myself in the mirror tonight, so I can go to sleep with a clear conscience, I want to know that I did everything I could to stop it from getting worse, to stop this Wall Street problem from infecting Main Street.
And I want to get on my airplane and go home and see my three kids and my wife that I haven't seen in a week, and look them in the eye and know that I did what I thought was right for them and their future. And I believe with all my heart, as bad as this is, it could get a whole lot worse, and that's why I think we have to pass this bill. I yield.
-------
This appeared to be extemporaneous. His fumbles betray the fact that he's sleep-deprived, and they were numerous (he meant the Stock Market Crash, not the Great Depression). And I legitimately hate the "Wall Street/Main Street" thing that's been kicking around the discourse for the last few days. But I found this speech to be impassioned, important, and timely. It's too bad few listened.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Backbench Revolt!
My analysis of the economic crisis is predicated on four things about the "bailout" bill:
1. It's a crummy bill: it's laden with pork and favors, and there's not enough control over the expenditure of money.
2. Theoretically, it would be worth considering the Cantor-insurance plan, which is less heavy-handed and offers a way out.
3. None of this matters because the markets are facing a dire liquidity crisis and need a significant cash injection--and government is the only possible source of this injection on such short notice.
4. The government will make most of its money back, at the very least.
There is a "backbench revolt" going on, vis-a-vis this "bailout" bill.
The "rebels" are the opponents to the bailout. They are rebelling against the nominal leader of their party, George W. Bush. This is what the Brits would call a "backbench revolt," and it's somewhat similar to what happened with the repeal of the Corn Laws in England in the 1840s, actually; Peel's Tories, led by a young Benjamin Disraeli, rebelled against Peel for betraying his conservative principles.
There is a game of political chicken being played right now, and there's a lot of money at stake.
- The Democratic-controlled House could pass the bill without Republican support. The bill is hugely unpopular, though, and the Dems don't want to be left holding the bag without Republicans there, too. Pelosi refuses to pass the bill without 110 Republican votes.
- The Republicans don't like the bill on principle: the Democratic-controlled House has added some unseemly pork to it, and it's a very heavy-handed interference in the economy. They would rather the bill not pass at all.
- Someone has to concede: either Republicans have to hold their noses and vote "yes," or the Dems have to take the lead on the bill and pass it in spite of the backbench revolt. If no one concedes, the collision will be far worse than anything else. Thus, chicken.
Why is the bill hugely unpopular? A couple of reasons:
1. No one trusts Congress at all.
2. No one trusts Bush at all.
3. The people who are selling this message are economists and investors, who are considered either evil or shady.
4. The government is doing a terrible job at marketing this plan.
Francis Cianfrocca over at Redstate.com and Steve Conover at The Skeptical Optimist seem to have the best grip on the crisis.
1. It's a crummy bill: it's laden with pork and favors, and there's not enough control over the expenditure of money.
2. Theoretically, it would be worth considering the Cantor-insurance plan, which is less heavy-handed and offers a way out.
3. None of this matters because the markets are facing a dire liquidity crisis and need a significant cash injection--and government is the only possible source of this injection on such short notice.
4. The government will make most of its money back, at the very least.
There is a "backbench revolt" going on, vis-a-vis this "bailout" bill.
The "rebels" are the opponents to the bailout. They are rebelling against the nominal leader of their party, George W. Bush. This is what the Brits would call a "backbench revolt," and it's somewhat similar to what happened with the repeal of the Corn Laws in England in the 1840s, actually; Peel's Tories, led by a young Benjamin Disraeli, rebelled against Peel for betraying his conservative principles.
There is a game of political chicken being played right now, and there's a lot of money at stake.
- The Democratic-controlled House could pass the bill without Republican support. The bill is hugely unpopular, though, and the Dems don't want to be left holding the bag without Republicans there, too. Pelosi refuses to pass the bill without 110 Republican votes.
- The Republicans don't like the bill on principle: the Democratic-controlled House has added some unseemly pork to it, and it's a very heavy-handed interference in the economy. They would rather the bill not pass at all.
- Someone has to concede: either Republicans have to hold their noses and vote "yes," or the Dems have to take the lead on the bill and pass it in spite of the backbench revolt. If no one concedes, the collision will be far worse than anything else. Thus, chicken.
Why is the bill hugely unpopular? A couple of reasons:
1. No one trusts Congress at all.
2. No one trusts Bush at all.
3. The people who are selling this message are economists and investors, who are considered either evil or shady.
4. The government is doing a terrible job at marketing this plan.
Francis Cianfrocca over at Redstate.com and Steve Conover at The Skeptical Optimist seem to have the best grip on the crisis.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bailout
What happens if we do nothing? I will set out to find answers to this today.
Note: I'm not saying I'm in favor of or opposed to the bailout. I just feel that the question should be asked and explored.
After doing some research, it seems that Francis Cianfrocca has as strong a grasp on the crisis as anyone else out there:
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/blackhedd/2008/sep/23/what-happens-if-theres-no-bailout/
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/22/a-few-important-questions-for-mr-paulson-and/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22017
Note: I'm not saying I'm in favor of or opposed to the bailout. I just feel that the question should be asked and explored.
After doing some research, it seems that Francis Cianfrocca has as strong a grasp on the crisis as anyone else out there:
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/blackhedd/2008/sep/23/what-happens-if-theres-no-bailout/
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/22/a-few-important-questions-for-mr-paulson-and/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22017
Friday, September 19, 2008
An Amateur's Musings on Economics
I'm no economist, but I dabble and try to learn. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these things.
1. The SEC's temporary ban on short selling is frightening.
Short sellers are necessary to keep markets in balance. The markets have exploded upwards today... but they are exploding without short sellers to capitalize on inflated positions. What happens when the ban is removed? I would argue that a significant market drop is necessary.
2. This is the inevitable correction for the explosion in financials mostly brought upon by globalization.
Three decades of strong growth (sometimes fueled by 30x leveraged debt) inevitably would require a correction.
3. A strong series of regulations are necessary here--but the most important thing to regulate is government intervention.
Simply put, the actions of the US government over the past couple of weeks have reaffirmed the idea that companies can be "too big to fail." With government policy as is, there is massive incentive to combine investment houses and insurance companies to reach a point of criticality for the economy. This is an anti-competitive practice, and it is quite clearly a response to the interventions of government.
If I'm reading this correctly, then, the right approach (after this crisis passes) is to offer disincentives for massive companies by making massive bailouts (like what AIG got) illegal. Gigantic companies cannot have the existence of the federal government as an insurance policy. It's anti-capitalistic and it hurts smaller, more efficient companies who succeed by being well-managed.
4. Please, Barack Obama, no tariffs if you win.
Does Hawley-Smoot ring a bell? International trade can keep things moving a bit. Hawley-Smoot II would be a massively unfortunate policy decision.
5. Please, Federal Reserve, no tightening of the money supply.
Deflation is far worse than inflation. If the economic crisis is a repeat of 70s-style malaise, so be it. A Great Depression II would not be fun.
I fear that capitalism will be the inevitable loser in a crisis that was caused by a myriad of things. Government intervention in the markets, over the years, is a big cause.
Confirmation bias? Perhaps. But I'm not giving up on the free market yet.
1. The SEC's temporary ban on short selling is frightening.
Short sellers are necessary to keep markets in balance. The markets have exploded upwards today... but they are exploding without short sellers to capitalize on inflated positions. What happens when the ban is removed? I would argue that a significant market drop is necessary.
2. This is the inevitable correction for the explosion in financials mostly brought upon by globalization.
Three decades of strong growth (sometimes fueled by 30x leveraged debt) inevitably would require a correction.
3. A strong series of regulations are necessary here--but the most important thing to regulate is government intervention.
Simply put, the actions of the US government over the past couple of weeks have reaffirmed the idea that companies can be "too big to fail." With government policy as is, there is massive incentive to combine investment houses and insurance companies to reach a point of criticality for the economy. This is an anti-competitive practice, and it is quite clearly a response to the interventions of government.
If I'm reading this correctly, then, the right approach (after this crisis passes) is to offer disincentives for massive companies by making massive bailouts (like what AIG got) illegal. Gigantic companies cannot have the existence of the federal government as an insurance policy. It's anti-capitalistic and it hurts smaller, more efficient companies who succeed by being well-managed.
4. Please, Barack Obama, no tariffs if you win.
Does Hawley-Smoot ring a bell? International trade can keep things moving a bit. Hawley-Smoot II would be a massively unfortunate policy decision.
5. Please, Federal Reserve, no tightening of the money supply.
Deflation is far worse than inflation. If the economic crisis is a repeat of 70s-style malaise, so be it. A Great Depression II would not be fun.
I fear that capitalism will be the inevitable loser in a crisis that was caused by a myriad of things. Government intervention in the markets, over the years, is a big cause.
Confirmation bias? Perhaps. But I'm not giving up on the free market yet.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
A Tough Out for McCain
Here's a partial transcript from McCain on The View:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/173183.html
McCAIN: My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the legislative branch.
HASSELBECK: So it was in how the law came up, it was in how Roe v. Wade came apart was the issue. You, you want it to be through the Constitution from the people not from the bench.
McCAIN: And I believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then the states would make these decisions.
GOLDBERG: Sir.
McCAIN: Yes?
GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-
McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-
GOLDBERG: Does that-
McCAIN: -for them to do.
GOLDBERG: Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.
McCAIN: I, I understand your point.
GOLDBERG: Okay, okay.
McCAIN: I understand that point and I, I, [applause] thank you. That’s an excellent point.
GOLDBERG: Thank you sir.
McCAIN: And I thank you.
No, it's not an excellent point! It's a terrible, terrible point. And McCain can't say anything, b/c he's boxed into a corner by a raucous, enthusiastic audience response and by a need to be "politically correct."
Let's unpack this.
- McCain says that he supports judges who defer to the legislature. He indicates that Roe v. Wade was a bad court decision, and that abortion legislation should be left to the states. This is a perfectly reasonable position.
- Elizabeth Hasselbeck (conservative) offers a flattering depiction: McCain would prefer the people to decide, rather than five unelected officials.
- McCain affirms.
- Whoopi Goldberg tries to add her wisdom to the situation, asking if McCain wants "strict Constitutionalists."
- McCain tries to clarify, but largely affirms...
- ... and is cut off by Goldberg, who brings slavery into the picture, arguing that "things in the Constitution need to be changed"
- McCain concedes that this is an excellent point.
What????
It's not an excellent point at all. It derailed a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry in favor of an American Idol-style charade.
Goldberg's point is absurd. It obfuscates something that McCain can answer quite acceptably: the Court did NOT get rid of slavery. The Congress did!
The Court's last major ruling on slavery before the Civil War was Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857). The Court ruled that a slave who lived in free states for an extended period of time was still a slave. That was the issue that the Court was charged to settle.
But wait! The activist Taney court, in this case, decided to take it much further! They also ruled:
- Blacks were not citizens, and could not petition the Court. They were "of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations."
- Congress could not regulate the existence of slavery in the territories, which it had done quite effectively for the better part of the four previous decades of American history. The Missouri Compromise and its ilk were declared unconstitutional.
The slavery issue is the perfect issue to use in any debate against the wisdom and efficacy and justice of "judicial activism."
Under McCain's vision of the Supreme Court, the Court would not have been allowed to do what it did to Dred Scott, or to blacks in general. Goldberg's assertion that "she would become a slave again" is ridiculous! The Founding Fathers created a system where the highest law of the land could be amended. And it was amended to abolish slavery!
The legislature branch and the executive branch destroyed slavery. The judicial branch worked to strengthen it. In fact, one of the major impetuses for the thirteenth amendment was President Lincoln's fear that the Court would try to reimpose slavery!
Really, under McCain's vision of the balance of powers, the states would have the ability to legislate on issues related to abortion. Interference by the Court would be akin (on a smaller scale, of course) to the gross injustice propagated by the Taney Court in 1857.
McCain should be able to make the case against Goldberg... but he can't because of the idiotic studio audience for The View, and the image of attacking a popular celebrity on a political point. He comes across as looking stupid, confused, and/or befuddled. In reality, Goldberg is wrong. In a better world, she would be criticized for her flawed logic, but such is life.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/173183.html
McCAIN: My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the legislative branch.
HASSELBECK: So it was in how the law came up, it was in how Roe v. Wade came apart was the issue. You, you want it to be through the Constitution from the people not from the bench.
McCAIN: And I believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then the states would make these decisions.
GOLDBERG: Sir.
McCAIN: Yes?
GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-
McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-
GOLDBERG: Does that-
McCAIN: -for them to do.
GOLDBERG: Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.
McCAIN: I, I understand your point.
GOLDBERG: Okay, okay.
McCAIN: I understand that point and I, I, [applause] thank you. That’s an excellent point.
GOLDBERG: Thank you sir.
McCAIN: And I thank you.
No, it's not an excellent point! It's a terrible, terrible point. And McCain can't say anything, b/c he's boxed into a corner by a raucous, enthusiastic audience response and by a need to be "politically correct."
Let's unpack this.
- McCain says that he supports judges who defer to the legislature. He indicates that Roe v. Wade was a bad court decision, and that abortion legislation should be left to the states. This is a perfectly reasonable position.
- Elizabeth Hasselbeck (conservative) offers a flattering depiction: McCain would prefer the people to decide, rather than five unelected officials.
- McCain affirms.
- Whoopi Goldberg tries to add her wisdom to the situation, asking if McCain wants "strict Constitutionalists."
- McCain tries to clarify, but largely affirms...
- ... and is cut off by Goldberg, who brings slavery into the picture, arguing that "things in the Constitution need to be changed"
- McCain concedes that this is an excellent point.
What????
It's not an excellent point at all. It derailed a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry in favor of an American Idol-style charade.
Goldberg's point is absurd. It obfuscates something that McCain can answer quite acceptably: the Court did NOT get rid of slavery. The Congress did!
The Court's last major ruling on slavery before the Civil War was Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857). The Court ruled that a slave who lived in free states for an extended period of time was still a slave. That was the issue that the Court was charged to settle.
But wait! The activist Taney court, in this case, decided to take it much further! They also ruled:
- Blacks were not citizens, and could not petition the Court. They were "of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations."
- Congress could not regulate the existence of slavery in the territories, which it had done quite effectively for the better part of the four previous decades of American history. The Missouri Compromise and its ilk were declared unconstitutional.
The slavery issue is the perfect issue to use in any debate against the wisdom and efficacy and justice of "judicial activism."
Under McCain's vision of the Supreme Court, the Court would not have been allowed to do what it did to Dred Scott, or to blacks in general. Goldberg's assertion that "she would become a slave again" is ridiculous! The Founding Fathers created a system where the highest law of the land could be amended. And it was amended to abolish slavery!
The legislature branch and the executive branch destroyed slavery. The judicial branch worked to strengthen it. In fact, one of the major impetuses for the thirteenth amendment was President Lincoln's fear that the Court would try to reimpose slavery!
Really, under McCain's vision of the balance of powers, the states would have the ability to legislate on issues related to abortion. Interference by the Court would be akin (on a smaller scale, of course) to the gross injustice propagated by the Taney Court in 1857.
McCain should be able to make the case against Goldberg... but he can't because of the idiotic studio audience for The View, and the image of attacking a popular celebrity on a political point. He comes across as looking stupid, confused, and/or befuddled. In reality, Goldberg is wrong. In a better world, she would be criticized for her flawed logic, but such is life.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Federalism and Gubernatorial Records
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html
Liberal commentator Michael Kinsley drops a bombshell in this article:
"But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative."
Kinsley launches into a full-throated, snide polemic about Palin's heavy-spending habits in Alaska. But he neglects to consider two things:
1. Context.
2. History.
Neglecting context and history immediately makes your analysis suspect. I'll try to add some, for Kinsley's sake.
Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices.
The $1,200 bonus for Alaska's residents is a big deal, I think, in favor of Palin as a fiscal conservative. A more left-wing leader would have rolled the money into sweeping social reforms (fully-funded Pre-K? higher-paid teachers? lower-cost health care?). Palin, instead, gave the money back to the people.
As for the $2000/year/resident in oil revenues, this is a non-Palin development, one that goes along with the massive resource development that Alaska has done throughout its history. The Alaska Permanent Fund has been a way of redistributing oil revenues from the state to the people. It is NOT Palin's invention. Pseudo-socialism? Perhaps. But this is an element of tradition, not of political ideology.
Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
Again, not Palin's doing. This is the work of the tireless Congressional delegation from Alaska. It's also another recent historical reality.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
If you sift through the file, you can see that Alaska has been in the top 10 in dollars received from the federal government per dollars paid in taxes. This is a trend that has been ongoing for years. Again, not Palin. Palin is, in fact, being conservative by not upsetting something that works well for her constituents.
At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it (the government) could find in wasteful spending under her control.
Again, lacking in context.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surplus5-2008sep05,0,2756085.story
Palin's vetoes marked the largest capital budget cuts in the last 10 to 15 years, said Gerald McBeath, a political science professor at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. "She has the potential for exercising budget discipline with legislators who see money on the table and want to spend to the last dime," he said.
Really, the absolute values are far less important than the relative values, because the relative values take into account the context. The thing to take out of all of this is that Palin is far harsher with the veto pen than her recent predecessors.
So, what do we know about Palin?
- She has been unusually active with the veto pen.
- She has sought to give the population spending power over the state government.
- She has not spent a particularly long time fighting federal dollars coming into her state, but she did eventually come around to rejecting the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding.
What do we not know about Palin?
- Her views on federal spending.
- Her views on federal power.
Why is Kinsley's argument specious? Palin's job, to date, has been to work for the citizens of Alaska, and she's done a damn good job to that end. But the US government does not function the way that Alaska does, and a flexible, capable leader would be able to distinguish the differences.
Apparently, though, Michael Kinsley cannot. And he gets to write for Time. Good for him; he's fooling a lot of people, certainly.
Liberal commentator Michael Kinsley drops a bombshell in this article:
"But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative."
Kinsley launches into a full-throated, snide polemic about Palin's heavy-spending habits in Alaska. But he neglects to consider two things:
1. Context.
2. History.
Neglecting context and history immediately makes your analysis suspect. I'll try to add some, for Kinsley's sake.
Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices.
The $1,200 bonus for Alaska's residents is a big deal, I think, in favor of Palin as a fiscal conservative. A more left-wing leader would have rolled the money into sweeping social reforms (fully-funded Pre-K? higher-paid teachers? lower-cost health care?). Palin, instead, gave the money back to the people.
As for the $2000/year/resident in oil revenues, this is a non-Palin development, one that goes along with the massive resource development that Alaska has done throughout its history. The Alaska Permanent Fund has been a way of redistributing oil revenues from the state to the people. It is NOT Palin's invention. Pseudo-socialism? Perhaps. But this is an element of tradition, not of political ideology.
Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
Again, not Palin's doing. This is the work of the tireless Congressional delegation from Alaska. It's also another recent historical reality.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
If you sift through the file, you can see that Alaska has been in the top 10 in dollars received from the federal government per dollars paid in taxes. This is a trend that has been ongoing for years. Again, not Palin. Palin is, in fact, being conservative by not upsetting something that works well for her constituents.
At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it (the government) could find in wasteful spending under her control.
Again, lacking in context.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surplus5-2008sep05,0,2756085.story
Palin's vetoes marked the largest capital budget cuts in the last 10 to 15 years, said Gerald McBeath, a political science professor at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. "She has the potential for exercising budget discipline with legislators who see money on the table and want to spend to the last dime," he said.
Really, the absolute values are far less important than the relative values, because the relative values take into account the context. The thing to take out of all of this is that Palin is far harsher with the veto pen than her recent predecessors.
So, what do we know about Palin?
- She has been unusually active with the veto pen.
- She has sought to give the population spending power over the state government.
- She has not spent a particularly long time fighting federal dollars coming into her state, but she did eventually come around to rejecting the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding.
What do we not know about Palin?
- Her views on federal spending.
- Her views on federal power.
Why is Kinsley's argument specious? Palin's job, to date, has been to work for the citizens of Alaska, and she's done a damn good job to that end. But the US government does not function the way that Alaska does, and a flexible, capable leader would be able to distinguish the differences.
Apparently, though, Michael Kinsley cannot. And he gets to write for Time. Good for him; he's fooling a lot of people, certainly.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Palin: Conclusions
1. I stand by my allegations of "belief confirmation." This whole debate is positively rife with it.
2. Barack Obama has slightly more experience than Sarah Palin, and his experience makes him more qualified to be president than she is. I am unconvinced that there are any fine distinctions between the two that make him more qualified than his record shows. Not his eloquence, not the fact that he's taught constitutional law or majored in international relations, none of those things. Obama is more qualified for the presidency because he has a record on the national stage. Palin does not.
3. With that said, Obama is running for president. The "Obama has Biden as VP" argument is a valid argument to be used in voting FOR Obama. I do not think it's a valid argument to be used in voting AGAINST McCain/Palin; there is a failure to prioritize the roles of the executive branch positions, if a candidate's vice presidential pick is that influential. Their ticket is ordered correctly.
4. I don't know enough about Sarah Palin's philosophy on the federal government to want her to be president at this stage. State government is only a poor approximation of federal government; Calvin Coolidge supported child labor statutes as the governor of Massachusetts but believed in limiting federal power as president. Palin has supported massive surpluses and wealth redistribution in Alaska... but her state has a whole system and history of dispersing oil revenues. It is not, on its own, a strong enough record. When I envisioned Palin winning the GOP nomination in 2012, I believed she'd have a long slog of a campaign to put together an ideology about the presidency. As it is now, I know that Palin is strong on government ethics and doesn't mind rooting out corruption where she sees it. I do not know anything else, so it is difficult to support her as a politician any more than with strong reservations.
5. Palin is one of the national stage's most socially conservative politicians, but how much does she want federal power to enforce her beliefs? I have read no quotes indicating what Palin would do about critical social issues at the federal level if she were president. I don't know if she believes in stare decisis about Roe v. Wade, or if she would roll back alternative energy measures because she is not a true believer in global warming, etc.
6. I think there is a little bit of denigration of running a state out there right now, even a sparsely-populated one. The politics and power involved with running a state is far greater than any other organizational body, excepting perhaps a large city. County administrators, even if they have larger constituencies, do not have to deal with the same administrative responsibilities and government departments. And I'm fairly certain that Alaska's state government, for better or worse, has a lot of responsibility over money that local governments wouldn't even be able to fathom.
7. John McCain selected Sarah Palin for numerous reasons, not the least of which is because she is a woman. If I may speculate for a minute, I think that the following were all contributing factors in the selection:
- Palin's own "maverick" credentials probably appealed to McCain.
- As I wrote earlier, selecting Palin would signify a desire to put energy issues front and center in the campaign.
- I think that there's at least a little bit of press resentment from McCain, who was a media darling at one point in his life but has been trumped by Obama's eloquence. He knew that picking Palin would temper some of the perceived adulation of Obama.
- I imagine that McCain simply felt comfortable around the very down-to-Earth Palin. I think McCain is a bit hostile to money and people who make money moving money, so Romney was just anathema. The pro-life wing of the party would revolt if he picked someone pro-choice. And that left Palin and Pawlenty. Pawlenty's a safe pick, but safe doesn't win in a Democratic year.
- I don't think McCain was ever particularly comfortable making the "experience counts" case, even though it may well have been his best chance at winning the election.
8. The rest of this now falls on Palin's shoulders. She must deliver an effective, convincing speech on Wednesday convincing people that she's far more serious than her detractors (see: Maureen Dowd, Paul Begala) have made her out to be. She must also hold her own in a debate with Joe Biden and fend off some potentially-difficult or hostile questions from a media, which by then, no doubt, will be widely accused of going too easy on Palin. Her job: to make average voters feel comfortable with the idea of a mid-40s mother of five from Alaska in the White House. It's a tough sell, but it's not impossible.
And so, conclusion: I believe that the Sarah Palin selection was a high-stakes gamble by John McCain--a gamble about his health, about identity politics, and about the political and personal qualities of one Sarah Palin, first-term governor of Alaska. I do not, however, believe in the silly "Hail Mary pass" analogy put forth by members of the punditocracy. This has a much higher probability of success than a "Hail Mary pass." It's more akin to a "trick play": you get great benefits if everything works, but you lose big yardage (or even possession) if it doesn't.
Would I have recommended it? Probably not. Does it impact my voting decision? Not yet. I'm still reluctantly with McCain.
2. Barack Obama has slightly more experience than Sarah Palin, and his experience makes him more qualified to be president than she is. I am unconvinced that there are any fine distinctions between the two that make him more qualified than his record shows. Not his eloquence, not the fact that he's taught constitutional law or majored in international relations, none of those things. Obama is more qualified for the presidency because he has a record on the national stage. Palin does not.
3. With that said, Obama is running for president. The "Obama has Biden as VP" argument is a valid argument to be used in voting FOR Obama. I do not think it's a valid argument to be used in voting AGAINST McCain/Palin; there is a failure to prioritize the roles of the executive branch positions, if a candidate's vice presidential pick is that influential. Their ticket is ordered correctly.
4. I don't know enough about Sarah Palin's philosophy on the federal government to want her to be president at this stage. State government is only a poor approximation of federal government; Calvin Coolidge supported child labor statutes as the governor of Massachusetts but believed in limiting federal power as president. Palin has supported massive surpluses and wealth redistribution in Alaska... but her state has a whole system and history of dispersing oil revenues. It is not, on its own, a strong enough record. When I envisioned Palin winning the GOP nomination in 2012, I believed she'd have a long slog of a campaign to put together an ideology about the presidency. As it is now, I know that Palin is strong on government ethics and doesn't mind rooting out corruption where she sees it. I do not know anything else, so it is difficult to support her as a politician any more than with strong reservations.
5. Palin is one of the national stage's most socially conservative politicians, but how much does she want federal power to enforce her beliefs? I have read no quotes indicating what Palin would do about critical social issues at the federal level if she were president. I don't know if she believes in stare decisis about Roe v. Wade, or if she would roll back alternative energy measures because she is not a true believer in global warming, etc.
6. I think there is a little bit of denigration of running a state out there right now, even a sparsely-populated one. The politics and power involved with running a state is far greater than any other organizational body, excepting perhaps a large city. County administrators, even if they have larger constituencies, do not have to deal with the same administrative responsibilities and government departments. And I'm fairly certain that Alaska's state government, for better or worse, has a lot of responsibility over money that local governments wouldn't even be able to fathom.
7. John McCain selected Sarah Palin for numerous reasons, not the least of which is because she is a woman. If I may speculate for a minute, I think that the following were all contributing factors in the selection:
- Palin's own "maverick" credentials probably appealed to McCain.
- As I wrote earlier, selecting Palin would signify a desire to put energy issues front and center in the campaign.
- I think that there's at least a little bit of press resentment from McCain, who was a media darling at one point in his life but has been trumped by Obama's eloquence. He knew that picking Palin would temper some of the perceived adulation of Obama.
- I imagine that McCain simply felt comfortable around the very down-to-Earth Palin. I think McCain is a bit hostile to money and people who make money moving money, so Romney was just anathema. The pro-life wing of the party would revolt if he picked someone pro-choice. And that left Palin and Pawlenty. Pawlenty's a safe pick, but safe doesn't win in a Democratic year.
- I don't think McCain was ever particularly comfortable making the "experience counts" case, even though it may well have been his best chance at winning the election.
8. The rest of this now falls on Palin's shoulders. She must deliver an effective, convincing speech on Wednesday convincing people that she's far more serious than her detractors (see: Maureen Dowd, Paul Begala) have made her out to be. She must also hold her own in a debate with Joe Biden and fend off some potentially-difficult or hostile questions from a media, which by then, no doubt, will be widely accused of going too easy on Palin. Her job: to make average voters feel comfortable with the idea of a mid-40s mother of five from Alaska in the White House. It's a tough sell, but it's not impossible.
And so, conclusion: I believe that the Sarah Palin selection was a high-stakes gamble by John McCain--a gamble about his health, about identity politics, and about the political and personal qualities of one Sarah Palin, first-term governor of Alaska. I do not, however, believe in the silly "Hail Mary pass" analogy put forth by members of the punditocracy. This has a much higher probability of success than a "Hail Mary pass." It's more akin to a "trick play": you get great benefits if everything works, but you lose big yardage (or even possession) if it doesn't.
Would I have recommended it? Probably not. Does it impact my voting decision? Not yet. I'm still reluctantly with McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)