Posts Tagged ‘economics’

The delusions of the greens

Tuesday, November 9th, 2010

There is still considerable debate about “renewable energy” and the subsidies necessary to make it even marginally competitive. In fact, the wind and solar energy industries are toys that are funded by the left in their delusional fixation on global warming. Spain learned just how expensive these subsidies can be but was the darling of the progressive left for a while.

UPDATE: There is now squabbling in the administration over these subsidies with General Electric, a big corporate welfare recipient, threatening to “go to the private market for funds.” Well, if they could do that, why are taxpayers paying for this ?

Spain has been at the forefront of producing clean energy, especially wind energy. By producing 11.5% of its overall energy through wind turbines Spain has become the 3rd largest producer of wind energy after Germany (2nd) and US (1st). Whereas many European countries like the UK are dragging their feet around the figure of 7300 MW, Spain has an ambitious target of achieving 20,000 MW by 2010.

Unfortunately, the bill came due.

Only two years ago, Spanish solar energy companies feasting on generous government subsidies expanded at a feverish pace, investing €18 billion (then worth roughly $28 billion) to blanket rooftops and fields with photovoltaic panels. They briefly turned the country into the top solar market in the world.

Spain’s subsidies for solar were four to six times higher than those for wind. Prices charged for solar power were 12 times higher than those for fossil fuel electricity. Germany and Spain received about 75 percent of the world’s photovoltaic panel installations that year.

Suddenly facing a deep recession, a collapsing housing market and a ballooning budget deficit, the Spanish government cut the rate paid for photovoltaic power by about 29 percent last year and put a limit on new solar installations at 500 megawatts per year. It is now considering additional tariff cuts that may reach as high as 40 percent and may even be applied retroactively, according to local newspaper reports.

The real future of power generation is coal. This is the future.

Fortunately, the US has the largest coal reserves in the world. There are cleaner ways to use coal for power. That is the way we will provide power for the future. It will be a struggle because the left is obsessed with the religion of global warming.

Eventually we will probably use nuclear power to generate electricity and the use of electricity for transportation will probably be part of the future. Maybe we (You. I won’t be around) will drive cars that draw power from embedded strips in the pavement. I am convinced that coal and nuclear is the future. Wind and solar have serious limitations that will always limit their use to small geographic areas. Arizona and California may be able to provide a lot of power from solar. I looked into it when I lived in Orange County. But for the needs of industry and the general population, the need will be filled by coal and nuclear.

It’s the spending, dammit !

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

The deficits are being blamed on the collapse in revenues by the Democrats. Certainly they are aggravated by the drop in revenue but is that all the reason ?

NO NO NO NO NO !

The spending line is in constant dollars. Had revenue not dropped (The dotted green line) the deficits would still be huge.

An example of how uncertainty kills jobs.

Saturday, October 23rd, 2010

This account of how a Seattle area lumber yard is trying to survive the age of Obama shows the effect of uncertainty on unemplpyment. Anyone who reads modern analyses of the Depression realizes that the causes included uncertainty about regulation and tax policy by Roosevelt. He is once described as having chosen the price for gold that day by choosing his lucky number. He was completely ignorant of economics. There was some excuse for it then because no one really knew how macroeconomics worked. Read Amity Schlaes book, The Forgotten Man, and the conclusions pour forth about how the New Deal prolonged the Depression. There is no excuse for repeating the policies that prolonged the Depression.

Dunn’s great-grandfather, Albert L. Dunn, founded the company in 1907. It has never failed to turn a profit. But now, that streak is at risk. Dunn points to an atmosphere of uncertainty at all levels of government — on taxes, healthcare, and a host of economic issues – that is stifling demand for his products. “When rules are changing and taxes are increasing and regulations are increasingly, it causes everyone to pause, and that’s what we’re seeing today, a pause,” Dunn says.

This is exactly what happened in the Depression as policies changed and professors experimented with the economy.

“Business owners have no idea what government’s going to do to them; they don’t know what health-care is going to cost, they don’t know about the 2001, 2003 tax cuts, whether they’ll be reauthorized or not,” Rossi said. “For someone to actually invest and grow their business too, they’re going to have to be able to plan two, three, five years in advance, and right now you can’t plan for next week.”

Rossi’s opponent, Patty Murray, has to be the dumbest member of the Senate but Washington is a deep blue state, like California. Barbara Boxer would put up a stiff competition as the dumbest Senator if a contest were held. Rossi was denied the governorship of Washington two years ago through fraud when a box of ballots were “found” in a Democrat poll worker’s car during the recount. Let’s hope Washington state, where I once owned property, has learned something since then.

The rule of law.

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

People make jokes about lawyers but the law is foundation of prosperity in this and all prosperous societies. Joel Mokyr, in his books on the history of economics and technology, concludes that the reason why technology and progress in the Roman empire ended with the fall of Rome was the lack of laws that protected inventors and those who developed new technology. A working steam engine was invented in Alexandria in about 62 AD by Heron (often spelled Hero) of Alexandria. It was used to open temple doors and there were other applications. Inventions continued through the Middle Ages but the Industrial Revolution required laws, including patent laws, so that people who did the work would be rewarded in some logical way. In addition, another example may well be the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV in 1685, which sent the Huguenots fleeing to other countries, principally England and Holland. The exodus included 400,000 Protestants who were among the most inventive and industrious of France’s citizens. With them, went the Industrial Revolution.

Why do I bring this up now ? The Obamacare legislation is an attack on the rule of law in this country’s health care economy.
UPDATE: The Obama supporters, like this New York Times reporter have a laughingly ignorant concept of what the rule of law means.

Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, alluded to “The Road to Serfdom” in introducing his economic “Roadmap for America’s Future,” which many other Republicans have embraced. Ron Johnson, who entered politics through a Tea Party meeting and is now the Republican nominee for Senate in Wisconsin, asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.”

The law, of course, is written down. The problem is with people who don’t follow it. Such is the state of knowledge at the New York Times.

On September 30th, Janet Adamy reported for The Wall Street Journal that McDonald’s was considering canceling its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless new Obamacare regulations were waived. The White House pushed back hard with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Jessica Santillo claiming: “This story is wrong. The new law provides significant flexibility to maintain coverage for workers.” But this Tuesday we learned that Adamy was correct. According to Bloomberg News McDonald’s had sought, and eventually won, a waiver from the upcoming Obamacare regulations. This allows them to continue providing health insurance coverage to 115,000 workers. In fact, McDonald’s workers were just some of the over 1 million of Americans who were spared losing their current health care coverage thanks to one-year waivers from the Obama HHS.

The big companies are gaining waivers while small business will face all the onerous regulations of the bill.

a letter HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent to the nation’s health insurers threatening to exclude them from the yet to be implemented Obamacare health exchanges. The letter warned there “will be zero tolerance” for “falsely blaming premium increases” on Obamacare. And who would determine if premium increases were or were not due to Obamacare? The Obama administration of course.

So health insurance companies can be excluded from participation if they tell subscribers that the new legislation will raise premiums. What law authorizes this ? None.

We now know that 22,000 bureaucrats will be hired to write regulations that no one knows now and which are based purely on the bureaucrat’s opinion. The law will be entirely enacted by “Administrative Action”. There is no law saying what the principles should be. Congress passed a bill it had not read and which establishes a framework for bureaucrats to write the laws.

Enactment of PPACA is the first step to this control; the law must be implemented by administrative action. While it is detailed in some instances, PPACA is largely aspi­rational; it directs the Administration to achieve various universally desired goals—better quality of health care, improved access to care, and increased efficiency of delivery. It constructs the scaffolding of federal control and gives the Administration very broad authority to achieve these aspirations.[3] Each of the many actions taken to implement it will determine the shape of that control. Implementation will be technically difficult and politically charged.

PPACA is based on the premise that the federal government can—and must—regulate the details of the health care financing and delivery systems. With its enactment, health care has been thoroughly bureaucratized—since it must be implemented by public servants—and politicized by the Administration and Congress. Bureaucratization and politicization are the inevitable characteristics of government action.
Health care is infinitely complex. Patients and those who provide and pay for their care engage in millions of discrete but interrelated transactions. It is hubristic to believe that the federal government can determine the one “right” approach to organizing the health care system. Yet PPACA attempts to do just that. PPACA represents an effort to impose a uniform template on the health care system. It sig­nificantly reduces the ability of patients and providers to choose how to accommodate their different circumstances and individual desires.

If you would like an example of what happens when people ignore the rule of law in commerce, here is one. Dubai is one of the United Arab Emirates. It was an oil state but, as the oil flows has declined, the ruler decided to build a commercial center. Many rushed to invest.

Today, Dubai has emerged as a global city and a business hub.[7] Although Dubai’s economy was built on the oil industry, currently the emirate’s model of business, similar to that of Western countries, drives its economy, with the effect that its main revenues are now from tourism, real estate, and financial services.[8][9][10] Dubai has recently attracted world attention through many innovative large construction projects and sports events. This increased attention has highlighted labour rights and human rights issues concerning its largely South Asian workforce.[11] Dubai’s property market experienced a major deterioration in 2008 and 2009 as a result of the worldwide economic downturn following the Financial crisis of 2007–2010.[12]

In fact, its property market collapsed. Now some investors have discovered that getting their money back may be very difficult as the laws are changing every month.

Dubai’s real estate regulators have issued a flurry of rules since 2008 to clarify the situation and to comfort potential investors. But new rules sometimes contradict others issued just months earlier, often in ways that leave developers with the advantage and property buyers in a legal limbo, making many wary of ever investing in Dubai again.

Without the rule of law, no one knows what anything is worth or what sort of return one might expect from an investment. The Obama Administration seemed to have taken its approach to law from the Dubai model.

UPDATE: Here is a very good article by Amity Schlaes on the sanctity of contracts. Harding and Coolidge ended a severe recession after World War I by cutting government spending and leaving the economy to pull itself out of the ditch. That worked much better than FDR’s efforts or Obama’s stimulus.

The Education Bubble.

Monday, September 6th, 2010

There has been quite a bit of discussion on various blogs about the rising cost and declining utility of a college education, especially outside the “hard sciences.” Even the left is beginning to notice some of the problems.

And if colleges are ever going to bend the cost curve, to borrow jargon from the health care debate, it might well be time to think about vetoing Olympic-quality athletic facilities and trimming the ranks of administrators. At Williams, a small liberal arts college renowned for teaching, 70 percent of employees do something other than teach.

Complaints about athletics are old news in leftist publications but that number for non-teaching employees is an eye opener.

Tuition is part of the problem.

No one can look at that curve and miss the magnitude of the problem. Roger Kimball has a nice summary of the problem and the comments are almost as interesting as his post.

I went through college and medical school mostly on scholarship. I did lose my scholarship one year through the effects of too much extracurricular activity. I was taking a calculus course from this little Indian professor. He was difficult to understand but I thought we had an agreement. If I got an A on the final, I would get a B in the course. I had been delinquent in turning in homework assignments but had finally seen the light. The final exam came and, since I had finally begun to study systematically, I got the A. All my life, I had gotten by with minimal study. I was finally motivated enough to do the work necessary instead of just enough to “get by.”

Well, I went over to the Math office (In those days a small bungalow painted a dreary sunshine yellow as all the temporary university buildings were.) and the posted grades were up. I had gotten a C. I needed that B to keep a B average and my scholarship. I was doomed. I made an appointment to talk to the professor. He didn’t show up. I made another with the same result. A couple of days later, I was walking down University Avenue when I saw him across the street. I called to him and started to cross. He saw me, his eyes bulged and he started to run the other direction. I didn’t think I would improve my grade by chasing him so that was it.

In those days, there were no student loans except some private funds that I knew nothing about. My father had left high school at the age of 15 to join the Navy in World War I. I have a picture of him in his uniform. When the war ended, he wanted out of the Navy so he told them he was only 15. He never went back to school, which is a shame because he was a very bright man and could have been a very good engineer. As it was, he did pretty well in the middle years of his life and disdained education. I never saw him open a book.

My mother had graduated from high school (In 1915) and from “Business College,” which taught her to type fast enough to be a legal secretary. She could type my high school papers as I dictated them at normal speaking speed. She encouraged me to study and to think about college but nobody knew how you went about it. I knew I wanted to be an engineer and I knew I wanted to go to Cal Tech, to me the pinnacle of engineering (I still think so).

I can’t believe how naive I was about getting funding but I just didn’t know anything. My father declared himself early. He took me down to his basement bar and recreation area and had a serious talk with me. “Son, I want you to get this idea of going to college out of your head.” He wanted me to be a golf pro. One of his standard greetings to me was “Get your nose out of that book !” so this was no surprise. I had never counted on him, anyway. I didn’t know at the time that he would have one more blow to administer to my hopes.

That year, 1956, was the first year a new national scholarship program was in effect. It was called The National Merit Scholarship Program and that became my chief goal. Of course, I didn’t realize there were only 100 scholarships that year. It began with the SAT. There were no SAT prep courses then. We were lined up one day and marched into the study hall, a classroom that was unique in that it had theater style seating. We took the exam and about a month later, I was notified that I was a finalist for the National Merit Scholarship.

What I didn’t know was that a packet was sent to the parents of finalists. One item in the packet was a statement of income, although the scholarship was not based on need, apparently that was one criterion. My father refused to fill it out. It was no one’s business how much money he made, which wasn’t very much by that time. His prosperous career was pretty much behind him. A few months later, I got a letter congratulating me, and informing me that, since I did not need financial aid, I was getting a certificate of achievement. In the meantime, I had been interviewed by a Cal Tech professor who traveled to Chicago, my dorm room had been assigned and I was ready to go except for the lack of ability to pay the tuition. I look back in wonder at my own naivete in not contacting the school after my mother told me about the uncompleted financial statement. Maybe they would have helped. I just didn’t know enough.

A month or so later, I was contacted by the Chicago group of USC alumni. I was vaguely familiar with the University of Southern California and, since my prospects were otherwise dim, I accepted. I was interviewed by Robert Brooker, then a vice-president of Sears, and was awarded a full scholarship plus a $500 stipend for living expenses. My high school’s unfamiliarity with my new university was exhibited by the fact that they sent my records to UC, Berkley. I got a letter from Berkley accepting me for admission and asking me to submit an application. We finally got that straightened out and I arrived in Los Angeles about two weeks before classes began to find a place to live.

I eventually, settled in a fraternity house, Phi Gamma Delta, because, in those days at least, fraternity houses were the cheapest place to live and, of course, the fact that they asked me. I had been staying there at the request of my local sponsor, a UCLA Phi Gam alum, while I looked for an apartment. USC in those days had almost no dorms for men, unless they were football players. When I was asked to pledge, I accepted. It was a good decision in many ways (I needed socialization) but it didn’t help studying. I often wonder how I would have turned out if I had made it to Cal Tech.

Engineering at USC was a weak department but I did not take sufficient advantage of what was there. When I lost the scholarship, I was somewhat at sea. What was I to do ? The tuition was $17 a unit, about $272 a semester. I didn’t have it but, at that time, it wasn’t out of reach like it is now. I got a job. I went to work for Douglas Aircraft at what was called a Mathematician I. This was a junior engineer. I had a couple of fraternity brothers who were working there, working their way through the last year of engineering school. In those days, and the point of this stream of consciousness, is that you could work your way through school in those days, even a private university.

My job was in the wind tunnel facility. I spent most of the day with a Marchant desk calculator and the rest programming an IBM 650 computer. This was about the era when the term “bug” was first used for computer malfunctions. We were told that it derived from the fact that one of the COBOL programmers had spent weeks trying to solve a programming error only to find that a moth had gotten into the machine and was contacting random connections.

After six months at this job, I decided to go back to school at night. I was lying on the beach at Playa Del Rey (now under the take-off zone of LAX) in January talking with my roommates about my future. They were both pre-med majors. I had begun thinking about it several years before, even before dropping out of school. John Paxton, whose father was a surgeon, suggested I take a basic biology course (My high school had zero biology) and another advanced course called “Comparative Anatomy.” The latter was a junior level course and maybe too tough for me but, he said, it would be the closest thing to medical school I would find in undergraduate.

I signed up for both courses, paying the $119 tuition myself. It was a good decision. That was January 1960. A year later, I had been accepted to medical school.

Now, there is no way I could do that and the alternative would be thousands of dollars in debt.

Where are we going ?

Friday, August 27th, 2010

There are several good posts on various blogs today and I thought I would summarize some of them. This is sometimes called a “thumbsucker” column when it appears in the NY Times.

1. Germany is rapidly recovering from the financial crisis. This from, of all people, David Brooks.

During the first half of this year, German and American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted. What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence.

The debate got pointed. American economists accused German policy makers of risking a long depression. The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, countered, “Governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand.”

So, the Germans went one way, we went another. Results ?

The American stimulus package was supposed to create a “summer of recovery,” according to Obama administration officials. Job growth was supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month. Instead, the U.S. economy is scuffling along.

The German economy, on the other hand, is growing at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate. Unemployment in Germany has come down to pre-crisis levels.

In fact, the second quarter US GDP has now been revised DOWN by 1/3. To 1.6% growth.

As an editorial from the superb online think tank e21 reminds us, the Germans have recently reduced labor market regulation, increased wage flexibility and taken strong measures to balance budgets.

2. Victor Davis Hanson writes excellent columns on his web site but the one today is exceptional. “Decline is a choice.”

In the age of Obama, the notion of not being exceptional or preeminent comes as a relief to millions on the left who pretty much are in sync with the protocols of the United Nations. On the right, there is a sense that Obama is the ultimate expression of downfall; given the wild spending, the iconic efforts abroad at apology, and the rampant entitlements we simply aren’t what we once were. In between, most aren’t quite sure—but sure are worried that we may never climb out of our self-created indebtedness crater, and that the culture’s education, the nation’s borders, and the civilization’s values are eroding.

He makes the point that much of our problems are psychological and, in fact, are the consequences of one generation, the Baby Boomers.

On the plus side, as I mentioned last time, our economy is almost three times larger than China’s. American agriculture is the most productive in the world. There is simply nothing like the farmland in the Great Plains, or the 400 miles of irrigated expanse between Bakersfield and Red Bluff. For all the damage done by the federal government, we remain the most orderly free society on the planet, where merit still to a large degree determines success—not class, race, or tribal affiliation. While our universities in the humanities are increasingly corrupt, their science, engineering, and computer science departments, as well as professional schools in business and medicine, are the best in the world. It is not that Cal Tech, MIT, Harvard or Yale or Stanford are better than counterparts in Germany or Russia or China, but that an entire array such as UCLA, USC, Texas, Ohio State, Duke, and dozens of others is as well.

We have huge reserves of both coal and natural gas, and can quite easily quadruple our nuclear power generation. The U.S. military is not just the most technologically advanced and supplied, but the most experienced in all phases of modern challenges, from air campaigns to counter-insurgency.

I have lost confidence in American arts, in the sense of fiction and poetry, which are now in large part warped by the cult of race/class/gender orthodoxy that brings intertribal awards and recognition, but American scholarship in science, medicine, and the professions remains preeminent.

I agree with all this and have had confirmation with my youngest daughter’s experience at the University of Arizona two years ago. I believe, and she suspected, that her experience, at a cost of $25,000 per year, was useless. She has returned home and is starting junior college in San Diego Monday. She told me what her classes are and they all sound solid and useful.

I could go on, but you get the picture: our parents and grandparents left us a wonderful infrastructure, methodology, and constitutional system. So it is hard for our generation (I was born in 1953) to screw things entirely up, although we have done our best, within a mere twenty years of coming into the responsibility of governance.

Look at the often cited pathologies that are destroying what we inherited, and note how easily they are within our material ability to cure—and yet how psychologically we simply lack the courage to take our medicine.

I agree with his comments and there is an interesting thread in the comments section of the blog. There is a growing backlash against the cultural and political “elite,” including the practices of affirmative action. Racism has been taboo for 40 years. We are now learning that American blacks are the final reservoir of this poison and a backlash may come soon if this continues.

3. The election in Alaska is a microcosm of the coming revolt against the elites. The Alaska Republican primary election was won by a tea party and Sarah Palin backed insurgent. The GOP apparatchiks seem to be trying to steal the election for the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, an example of nepotism if there ever was one. Sarah Palin began her career by defeating Lisa Murkowski’s father in the election for governor. He appointed his daughter to fill a vacant Senate seat. There is just nothing like starting at the top.

A reliable source unaligned with either GOP senatorial campaign in Alaska, and positioned to know, confirmed for me last night that the Alaskan Republican Party (ARP) stepped up their efforts on behalf of Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the closing days of the election, going so far as to phone bank for her from the Alaska GOP’s headquarters on election day.

There is just no better example of trying to thwart the will of the people. Primary elections should be hands-off for the party. Instead the NRSC seems to be heavily involved in trying to pick candidates. If someone were to write a book on how to fuck up a golden chance to elect lots of Republicans, this should be chapter one.

4. John Boehner gave an excellent speech that may suggest an aggressive GOP agenda. I hope so.

I refer you back to my post on Angelo Codevilla’s essay that I posted on recently. It is amazing to see how quickly his points are being proven true. These are frightening times. I took two friends from England on a tour of California three years ago. Rather than waste time at tourist attractions everyone has seen, I drove them through the Central Valley that Hanson refers to. I wanted them to see the real riches of California. Now, that valley is mostly a dust bowl thanks to the Environmental Protection Agency and its concern over a tiny non-native fish in the Sacramento Delta.

This coming election will be the most important for our future since 1860.

The Left and its delusions.

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

I skim the Washington Monthly blog as a window on the thinking of the far left. They are more civil (except in comments) than the DailyKos but the mentality is the same. Today is a reasonable example. The topic is taxes.

Roll Call noted this morning that the Senate is moving towards “an epic election-year battle over Bush-era tax cuts.” That sounds about right.

The dispute helps capture exactly what the two parties prioritize right now — Dems want to keep lower rates for the middle class, while reducing the deficit by letting the rich go back to the rates they paid when the economy was healthy. Republicans want to hold the Dem proposal hostage, fighting tooth and nail for breaks for millionaires and billionaires, and adding $680 billion to the deficit the GOP pretended to care about for a while.

The “middle class” is a very elastic concept for them with the top income range going all the way down to $150,000 per year. Secondly, the group with incomes of $250,000 or more, the target class, consists of mainly small business people who are not incorporated and who file all income with a personal return.

There is also no concept here of who pays the taxes. Shouldn’t “tax cuts” be distributed to those who pay taxes ? Otherwise, it is just one more government handout to those who are nonproductive. Here is a look. The top 1% of income pays 40% of the income taxes. Hmmm That’s also about $410,000 per year, not $2 million.

The top 5% pays 60.63% of the income taxes. The threshold for the top 5% is $160,000. Well, what do you know ?

Billionaires need little help from Republicans but they do invest and are the source of most new jobs. The concern for “the deficit” on the part of Democrats may be translated as the left side of the entire argument about spending versus taxing. Republicans want to talk about cutting spending, especially tea party Republicans. I even have a compromise: Let the tax rates go back to the Clinton administration rates but let’s also go back to the number of government employees of the Clinton period.

[W]here would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade. […]

Notice how the “richest” become those with incomes over $2 million when we are talking about one aspect of the issue but, when it is time to actually impose the taxes, the incomes shrink back down to $250,000 or, in some cases, it shriveles all the way down to $150,000 per year.

Midwestern centrists such as Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) have called for an extension of all of Bush’s tax cuts, including those benefiting individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning over $250,000 annually.

Other Democrats say they would consider raising taxes on individuals and families earning below those thresholds, despite President Obama’s promise that middle-class families would not see their taxes increase.

Some liberals balk at the notion that families earning $250,000 or more belong in the middle class.

“Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars? Is that the top 1 percent of Americans, or half a percent? Come on!” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

Harkin said he would be willing to extend the tax cuts for families earning $150,000 or less annually.

See how elastic that number is ? Families with a combined income of $150,000 are “rich.” We went from $2 million per year to $150,000 per year just like that!

Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

Did you notice that one ? Tax cuts “give” money to people who have “plenty.” Just keep repeating to yourself; it’s not your money. It’s the government’s money and they are “giving you some of it.” They used to call that “To each according to his needs.”

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

Once again, a translation. Schoolteachers “need” the money. Firefighters is just a cover. The “wealthy” (Those with over $150,000 per year income) don’t “need” the money.

Note, there is no concept of a private economy here. Nobody invests; nobody starts a business. The story of the 2001 tax cuts that Democrats want to repeal is here in more detail.

This is what socialism looks like in practice.

Good Advice

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

Today, over at NRO, there is an excellent column by Michael Tanner about the coming election.

Given this record of Democratic ineptitude and the voters’ reaction to it, one would think that Republicans would be talking about these issues every day. Instead, Republicans and conservatives have spent recent weeks talking about such distracting side-issues as immigration, the 14th amendment, gay marriage, and when and where mosques should be built.

This is not the year for the culture wars to be emphasized. This is potentially a watershed election. People are worried about the survival of the republic. The economy was trashed by reckless financial speculation that was NOT George Bush’s fault, although he could have done more to stop it. The two biggest culprits are still untouched; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, protected by the Democrats as they have been Democratic Party sandboxes for years. Subsidized housing for the poor became a housing bubble and we are still dealing with the consequences. This is not the time for social conservatives to take over the platform.

Despite their repeated threats to stay home if Republicans deviated from a commitment to conservative social issues, it wasn’t the Religious Right that deserted Republicans in 2008 (or 2006, for that matter). Turnout among self-described members of the Religious Right remained steady from 2004 to 2008, and these voters remained loyally Republican. Roughly 70 percent of white evangelicals and born-again Christians voted Republican in 2006, and 74 percent in 2008, essentially in line with how they have been voting for the past two or three decades.

Like the blacks with the Democrats, the social conservatives have no where else to go. The difference is, although this is not polite to say, the social conservatives still vote on other issues. They don’t stay home in big numbers although the fumble of Bush’s drunk driving arrest might have caused enough to stay home to tie the 2000 election. This year, they need to show they have other concerns.

It was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up with the Republican drift toward big government who stayed home — or, worse, voted Democratic in 2008. Republicans carried the suburbs in both 2000 (49 to 47) and 2004 (52 to 47), but in 2008, suburban voters — notably wealthy, college-educated professionals, many of whom consider themselves moderate on social issues but economically conservative — voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 50 to 48. The switch among voters in the suburbs of Columbus, Charlotte, and Indianapolis, for instance, was largely responsible for moving Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana into the Democratic column. Democrats also continued their gains in the more independent, libertarian West.

This is the year of the libertarian, not the goofy libertarian who wants to sell all the highways but the moderate libertarian that makes up a very large share of the tea party activists. These people are outraged enough to hold signs and stand on street corners, something that 95% of them never did before in their lives.

These independent and suburban voters are now regretting their Democratic flirtation. They didn’t vote for record deficits, the health-care bill, bailouts to banks and auto companies, or cap-and-trade. Having rejected big-government conservatism, they never realized they were going to get even-bigger-government liberalism.

But these voters are not culture warriors. Polls show that while they are fiscally conservative, and very upset by excessive government spending and rising deficits, they are socially moderate, tending toward indifference or even support on issues like gay marriage.

This is the year for the big tent. Gay marriage is not the issue that is going to save the country from economic collapse. I am personally neutral on gay marriage with the exception of a concern that this is actually a war on religions that disapprove of homosexuality. Having said that, let’s talk about it next year.

This year we have to save the country.

Deficits and taxes.

Sunday, July 25th, 2010

I switched back and forth today between This Week and Fox News. That is my usual practice although, without George Will, I have little interest in the This Week discussion period. The Fox regulars would seem, from the complaints of the left, to be garden variety Republicans on economics. Therefore, it is disappointing to see them mouthing the same old Washington nostrums. They seem to agree that deficits are a problem but spending is never mentioned. Not once on Fox News Sunday was cutting spending mentioned. To hear a mention of reducing spending, it was necessary to watch Jake Tapper’s interview of governor Chris Christy on This Week.

Juan Williams, nearly always to the left of the rest of the panel, brought up the old canard (of course) of Clinton era tax rates. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire was simply going back to the Clinton rates and the economy was booming. Fair enough. If that is the case, why not go back to Clinton era spending ? Why not go back to Clinton era government employee numbers ?

Let’s see. The 1999 data is here, and shows that the 1999 budget included:

A more realistic headcount begins with the 1.9 million full-time permanent civilian federal workers who get their paychecks and identification cards from Uncle Sam. Add in the 1.5 million uniformed military personnel and 850,000 U.S. Postal Service workers who were counted in the federal workforce until their department became a quasi-government corporation in 1970, and the total full-time permanent federal workforce was just under 4.3 million in 1996, the last year for which good numbers are available on both the visible and shadow federal workforce.

That should give us a fairly good comparison. How many civilian federal employees are there ? The bureau of labor statistics says 2.0 million. There is a number that would give us some real information.

Table 1. Federal Government civilian employment, except U.S. Postal Service, November 2008
(Employment in thousands)

United States Total Executive departments Defense, total Army

1,909 1,664 652 244

Notice that this is November 2008 data, just before Obama was elected. Notice also that the military is much smaller than in 1998. Notice also that the number of federal employees had only increased by 9,000 in ten years.

What happened after Obama was elected ? Well, the number of federal employees has gone to 2.15 million !. That’s an increase of 250,000 in two years.

Juan, let’s make a deal. We can go back to Clinton tax rates if we lay off 250,000 federal employees.

The Washington line is always to raise taxes to deal with deficits. I wish a well documented, well written book about Harding and Coolidge would be written. Maybe Amity Schlaes could do it. The 1920 recession was more severe than the 1929 contraction. Why don’t we hear about it ?

Because Harding and Coolidge cut government spending in half and advocated a “return to normalcy.” The economy boomed and the recession was over.

The Governing Class

Saturday, July 17th, 2010

We are now at an inflection point in the political history of the United States. The people are being subjected to increasingly arbitrary and ideological rule by a small governing minority. There have been several episodes of similar disconnect in our history. The election of Andrew Jackson, after the “corrupt bargain” of 1824. The Federalists of 1824 had as much fear of a backwoods candidate as the present day Democratic Party fears Sarah Palin. He was uncouth and did not understand the subtleties of governing as did John Quincy Adams, for example.

The present day Democrats celebrate Jackson as an exemplar of the Democratic Party when, in fact, he is the antithesis and would feel comfortable in the tea parties of 2010. James Buchanan is another example of rule by a president who did not support the policies and aspirations of the public. He disdained and opposed the policies of the new Republican Party of the day. He sympathized with the Confederates and, it is widely believed, assisted them in weakening Federal control of US property. He later attempted to defend himself and his record is mixed.

Finally, Woodrow Wilson is a revered figure of the Democratic Party although his well known racism (He segregated the civil service and military) would normally affect his reputation. His government in the World War had many characteristics of Fascism and has been the model for corporate government ever since.

Now, we come to an essay that everyone concerned about the present trend to statism should read. Angelo Codevilla is a retired professor of International Relations and former Foreign Service Officer.

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

As to Republicans, here is some evidence of their contempt for the tea parties who do not accept direction from above.

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott said in an interview. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.” But Lott said he’s not expecting a tea-party sweep. “I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people,” he said.

The rest of the essay is worth the time to read it. Nicole Gelinas, in her book, After the Fall, explains how the actual purpose of the TARP fund defeated the chances for an orderly liquidation of the assets that banks held and which no one could set a price for once the mortgage backed securities (MBS) had lost their value.

The consequences of this division between ruled and rulers has incalculable consequences.

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; that is a foundational principle of our republic. To a stunning degree, however, Americans don’t believe that their own government meets that standard. Scott Rasmussen finds that only 23 percent of voters believe that “the federal government today has the consent of the governed.” A remarkable 62 percent of voters say that our government does not enjoy that consent.

How can this be, given our seemingly free and vibrant democracy? I think there are two main reasons, one specific to our present political environment and one more general.

The immediate cause is the fact that the Obama administration and its Congressional allies have embarked on an ambitious, left-wing program that seeks to transform America into a country quite different from what most Americans want. Elections have consequences, as the Democrats never tire of telling us. The problem is that the Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, did not run on the divisive, far-left program they are now trying to implement. Obama postured himself as a rather centrist, post-racial figure. His style as President has been the opposite.

So it is no wonder that most Americans believe they have gotten a government that they didn’t vote for.

I think the more significant cause, however, is the general one–a growing conviction that America is governed by a political class that has its own agenda, involving its own enrichment as well as the endless expansion of its own power, and that this political class is contemptuous of the opinions of ordinary Americans and is determined to impose its will regardless of how Americans vote. I think this perception is in fact true.

Study that chart and see if you can discern the source of Americans’ distrust of the governing class. Republicans fare little better than Democrats as many, including George W Bush, advocated big government in spite of objections from a significant segment of their party members. There is an opportunity for the Republicans to join the wave sweeping the country, but Trent Lott is not a good indicator.

UPDATE: Instapundit has a list of ways to fight back, including ways of communicating if the governing class shuts down the internet and other common means of communication like cell phones.

Jonah Goldberg thinks the left is failing as the rules change. I’m more pessimistic as I wonder if they will let them change without a fight.