One risk in the next election

In case you haven't noticed, my biggest concern throughout this blog has been the deficit, and it's my focus still in my thinking about who I favor in the 2012 election. There is a scenario that especially scares me: one-party domination.

In the last decade, the worst economic moves have been made when one party had control over the presidency, the House, and the Senate:

• Bush tax cuts - responsible for a large part of our deficit
  
• Stimulus bill - an unfocused mixture of reasonable spending and money-down-the-hole projects
  
• Obamacare - a too-big answer to a real problem
  

At the 2012 election, we are facing the possibility of all three bodies in Republican hands. (I don't see the Democrats recapturing the House, and they have a better than 50% chance of losing the Senate.)

That worries me because I recall what the Republicans did last time they held the triple crown. We can't afford more Bush-type tax cuts, but I don't trust newly elected Republicans to see it that way. Many Republican candidates are promising major tax cuts already.

Although the Republicans have been stalwarts on balancing increased spending with revenue (or revenue gimmicks), we've seen before how quickly they abandon all that good sense when they direct the deficit spending. As painful as gridlock and obstruction may be, at least there is one good result: less spending and no big tax cuts.

To prevent one-party domination, I'll be voting for a Democratic president and a Democratic senator, even if I kind of like the Republican. We need elected officials who will block the stupidity of a thundering herd of partisans. In 2009, it was a herd of Democrats and the Senate blocked some of their excesses. In 2013, it's likely to be Republicans, so we'll need as Democratic a Senate as possible, and a Democratic president as insurance if the Senate fails.

Update 1/31/12. Read how I reevaluate after a weak SOTU address.

Reflections on partisanship

Partisanship is more the norm, but bipartisanship also has a robust history. I was asking myself the question: is it really worse now than it was in the past? Yes, I think so. In the past 3 years, Congress has negotiated virtually no bills. A few measures have been so popular that they passed easily, most recently a jobs bill for veterans, but that it isn't the hard work of negotiating a compromise. All the compromises in the past year have occurred as time ticked down to a shutdown or a hard expiration date.

A welfare reform bill or education bill worked on by both Bush and Kennedy would be unthinkable today. There had been camaraderie among senators in past years, but not now.

Not So Small Beginnings

I tried to think back to when this nearly constant animosity started, and I think it was during Reagan presidency. There won't be any proof of this, but I think there was a near constant barrage of disagreement and belittling critique of the man, his intelligence, and his policies. It wasn't surprising, because Reagan was an existential threat to the liberal-leaning status quo. He wanted to roll back a scary number of the gains liberal had made: welfare, abortion, tax-free student loans, decreased military spending, women's liberation.

One of the most blatant of the liberals' attacks was on Robert Bork, Reagan's nominee to the Supreme Court. Republican neither forgave or forgot, and Supreme Court nominations have been generally been contentious ever since. (To be clear, I agreed with the fight against Bork. He was a frighteningly persuasive reactionary, and I don't use those terms lightly.)

 "I'll see you and raise you five."

This form of partisanship, with constant attacks, became even more pronounced during the Clinton administration. The tools--congregational hearings, constant news leaks, rumors, special prosecutors (blessedly defunct now)--had all been used before by Democrats out to embarrass a Republican administration. Perhaps the Republicans added a few new tricks, such as finding PACs or think-tanks that would  financially sponsor accusers on press junkets (though it's possible that wasn't a new twist).

The Republicans really upped the ante with their impeachment proceeding against Bill Clinton. Even a strong electoral repudiation of the Republicans didn't deter the House Republican leadership, who commenced impeachment proceeding after losing a significant number of seats in the 1998 off-year election. Since then, the partisanship has barely had even a Christmas truce, except perhaps Gore's altruistic concession of the disputed 2000 presidential election. Each president has been accused so often of being "the most polarizing figure ever" that it could be a title equivalent with 'Mr. President.' I'm so tired and cynical about all this partisanship that I don't want to chronicle any more of it in this post. Suffice to say that it continues unabated.

I don't have a hopeful note to end on. No pithy quip. I still pray for an end to this partisanship, but without any spirit of hopefulness. Sorry to be such a downer.

 ... just another day at the beach

Extras
Google counts:

• "Impeach Carter"   - 5140 results, none contemporaneous.
• "Impeach Reagan" - 10,700 results
• "Impeach Clinton"  - 62,900 results
• "Impeach Bush"       - 2.2 million results
• "Impeach Obama"  - 1.0 million results

Supreme partisan Jon Kyl

Species identification - Lousy arguments

We've all heard about logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks. The straw man argument, ad hominem attacks, exaggeration, etc. I'd like to catalog more of these arguing tactics. Reader suggestions and verbatim examples are strongly encouraged:

1. Straw man - An opponent raises up a terribly weak point in your favor and busts it down. It's like punching a kid.
2. Ad hominem attack - You're a complete jerk, or moron, or traitor, or ... Your opponent may be a complete jerk too, but it doesn't make the underlying argument better or worse.
3. Correlation is causation - Obama caused the recession, the debt, etc. This is a big one because it can be used in so many situations.
4. Case closed - Annoying, one-sided closure of the argument.Variant: End of story, Period.
5. Irrelevant - Annoying, one-sided judgment of what the boundaries of an argument will be.
6. Limit choices argument -- Status quo or my candidate. EPA overreach or no EPA. Keep all the Bush tax cuts or none of them. You can reframe the argument: someone is offering 0% or 100% and ignoring all the possibilities in between.
7. Demand for proof - This can be legitimate, for example when someone asserts a fact, like 47% of people pay no income tax, or makes other kinds of assertions. But it's also used to derail the argument. It can be used as a straw man, an offhand assertion that isn't central to the argument, but an opponent picks it as a weak point and demands data.
8. Ignoring context - This is major, and is related to declaring information irrelevant. No extenuating circumstances matter. For example, unemployment was under 8% when Obama was elected and soared to 10%.
9. Creating a diversion, or "look over there, something worse" - Someone is clearly desperate when they try to distract you and steal your chess pieces. Point out the maneuver, and hammer the point you just made. It was probably a winner.
10. False comparisons - Our poor people are richer than 95% of the world. Implication is that they aren't poor, so the money shouldn't be spent on them. A give-away is the mention of different countries or  different eras.
11. Exaggeration - Making what is bad infinitely worse. Example: Taking away our freedoms, ruined the economy, if it wasn't for medicare we would all die.
12. False assertion - Claiming something that isn't true or is only an opinion. This is a case when demanding evidence is a good idea. Ex. Obama is the worst president in my lifetime. 

Examples:

Look at Europe and Cuba and every other place that has government run health care, they are in big financial trouble. - Correlation is causation.

Additions:

13.  It's common sense - Common sense always supports your side. This is similar to asserting something without evidence and declaring "case closed."

14. The well-known "No true Scotsman" argument. This is used to discredit someone so you don't have to listen to their point. All Americans should rally around the president. But here's an American who isn't rallying around. Must not be a true American.

15. Gotcha question - A question meant to derail a discussion rather than clarify positions or weak points. A gotcha question isn't on an important point in the argument, but on trivia. It functions similarly to the demand for proof (#7), and is similarly obnoxious in having a know-it-all smell to it. Example: "Pop quiz time: When MLK was in jail, ... which 1960 presidential candidate called Coretta Scott King to express sympathy and support: JFK, or RMN? Take all the time you need before responding...."

*****************************************************************
If you'd like, add  your own examples in the comments.

Links to the 13 or 20 top fallacies. Link to a good list of 42 fallacies with excellent examples and very little Latin.

Update 8/21/19. Quite a comprehensive list, but it doesn't list Gish Gallop, which is a great name, though I thought it was called fish gallop, which is even better.

Planning your repatriation holiday

You may see this proposal in the platform of Republicans. They advocate a tax holiday for companies bringing home the profits collected in other countries, called repatriation. I'm much less a business expert than some who read this blog, so I may be about to subject myself to cruel humiliation, but I'll attempt to explain this anyway.

The federal government taxes profits that US companies earn in foreign countries. It gives credit for taxes paid in the original country, but the companies still have to pay tax beyond that up to the top rate of 35%. Since the income tax rate on US companies is so high, companies may park the profits and not take them officially. Companies are asking for a tax holiday to bring the profits back to the US, reinvest them here, and grow the economy.

Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Not quite. This is a great line, but I hope it isn't successful like the "corporate gains and dividends are double taxed" argument. The truth, which the companies won't be mentioning, is that much of the money is already deposited in US banks. Also, the last repatriation holiday resulted in a lot of stock buybacks, not new investment.

So, when I read this talking point sometime next year, I'll be ready with this comeback:

This is a convenient argument for bigwigs who would like to increase their personal wealth. A tax holiday would allow executives to 1) repatriate profits, 2) avoid corporate taxes, 3) initiate stock buy-backs, 4) raise the stock price, 5) sell stock at higher prices, 6) take capital gains at 15% next year (if Obama is re-elected) or possibly 0% in 2013 if there’s a Republican president. But it’s very important for executives to get this repatriation tax holiday soon, because special low capital gains rates may be over at the end of 2012.

Do I think they’re planning to reinvest? No, but they hope other people will believe it.

All that money pining to come home

Anyone but Romney

...Except Dopey, Loony, Sleezy, Geezer, Niney, Prig, and Snoozy.

Maybe it's a bit early to post this, but I got started on the nicknames with Dopey and decided to run with it. Who knows, maybe they will pick Dopey.

Ron Paul supporters get their wish

Ron Paul is finally getting a lot of press. Some higher power heard the collective prayers (or rants) from Paul supporters, and granted their wish. But as is wont to happen with wishes, it didn't turn out quite as hoped.

Now the media, instead of ignoring Ron Paul's numbers in this straw poll or that conservative conference, is reporting on Paul's surge in the Iowa pre-caucus polls. Mostly, it's "He might win Iowa, but that just shows how marginal Iowa is" or "There's no way he'll win the nomination." There are also a spate of articles on his newsletters from the 1990's with some racist articles that appeared under his byline.

All this gives Ron Paul supporters a new reason to call foul. I'm glad they have a new reason, because the old one was worn thinner than the elbows on my favorite shirt. They are shocked... shocked that the media is not all adulation and hero worship. I don't know how this happened, but every single one of Paul's supporters ignored what happens when the press turns its attention on someone, especially a candidate for president. The anointed Obama excepted, of course.

Now, I think it's a great idea to report on Paul's policies, and give them a real good inspection, because they don't hold up to scrutiny. But the coverage on his newsletter is also plenty fair. Paul has barely explained this ghost from his past. If I have to fill the blanks that he leaves, I'm not giving him much benefit of the doubt. Here goes:

• Paul is a strict constitutional libertarian, and there aren't many around.
• He'll hang with anyone who also says that they want the federal government out of their business.
• There's a concentration of somewhat like-minded people in militias, white-supremacists groups, gun rights/survivalist groups.
• Ron Paul craves any audience, and this is what came to him. He didn't look too closely at anything else they support and stand for. Why? Because the constitution is all that matters.
• There is a lot of evidence that Paul is not a racist, but he didn't mind associating with them, or giving them control of his newsletter.
• I don't want this guy as my president. I'll add this of my pile of reasons.
• Move over, Tea Party. Cue a new bunch of people screaming about Sen. Byrd being in the KKK.

It's a fair question whether an issue form 20 years ago should matter so much. If it is wasn't a pattern, or was completely disavowed in word and deed, I'd agree. However, Paul has continued the pattern of poor associations with whackos. For him, crazy is OK so long as he gets airtime. I'll repeat, I don't want this guy as president.

Extras
Don't get no respect:

"Wow. The second Ron Paul becomes a viable candidate, the slander machine begins. Someone REALLY doesn't want him to win... Don't you find it odd that there was no mention of him before he started polling first, and now that his numbers are rising, every mention is negative?!"

"Now that media's attempt to eliminate Paul haven't worked and he's due to win Iowa, now all of a sudden 'iowa doesn't matter', and here come the tired re-treads of this old canard."

"MSM should stick with what they do best cover Britney Spears or a "sports hero" or any other useless time wasting coverage... " - Atlantic comments

Best defense of Ron Paul:

"Libertarianism is an attractive philosophy to racists... because it states that people should be allowed to freely associate and enter into contracts with whomever they decide. This would mean racists could have a private club and only allow same race people to join... History shows, however, that racists will flock to whatever party serves their interests at the moment. They will switch parties based on superficial reasons. They've switched between Democrats and Republicans." - Atlantic comment

Update 12/29/11. I allude to Paul's continuing pattern of working with whackos, but I should name names. Here goes: Alex Jones, truther and major conspiracy theorist. The New York Times has a longer list. I think this is important because it indicates potential risks in a Ron Paul presidency. All presidencies have risks, and it's good to identify them as well as we can and then choose. By the way, it was almost all Ron Paul all the time in political news today. He's not missing in the media anymore.

Analogies: Carter is to Obama as Reagan is to...

If (note the 'if') Obama is the Carter of the 21st century, do we have a Reagan to defeat him after one lucklustre term? As the tragicomedy of the Republican nomination campaign continues, it becomes more and more apparent that there is no 21st century Reagan to run against Obama.

I hope I'm witnessing the demise of Newt Gingrich's campaign. I loathe Newt because he has consistently put his ego above the good of the country, or honesty, or countless other virtues. He is definitely no Reagan.

Today, I regret that there isn't another Reagan, with the caveat that the myth of Reagan glosses over many characteristics out of favor today: negotiating with Democrats, raising Social Security taxes, closing loopholes to increase revenue, increasing deficit spending.

It could be that Reagan picked the low hanging fruit that ripened during years of Democratic domination of Congress. Not that I want to downplay his accomplishments. He showed that the country could reverse the trend of ever increasing social spending without the dire outcomes that liberals predicted (upsurge in crime and desperation with the end of social programs). He also showed the possibility for strong conservative policy objectives after the previous 20 years had been mostly in line with liberal objectives.

Today's Republicans are in a much different situation. Republican ideas have been dominant for 30 years. So would a would-be 21st century Reagan be running against the 20th century Reagan?

Maybe this is the problem we're seeing. Republicans are running against their former selves, at least to a certain extent. That's a problem Reagan didn't have. He could go full bore against the excesses of the Democrats and the exclusion of conservative ideas. Today's Republican candidates have to thread the needle very carefully--use the tactic of blaming Democrats as much as possible, throw in a few mea culpas and 'back to basics' rhetoric. But they can't go full Reagan.

There's a bigger problem than rhetorical positioning, however. Candidates can't promise initiatives the way Reagan did because our fiscal situation limits what we can do. Reagan's sunny outlook just doesn't fit with the times. Would the electorate believe a candidate today who says we can build up our military, face down our enemy, be the leader throughout the world, reform entitlements and put them on a stable footing for the next century, cut taxes, and unleash growth? We would probably roll our eyes and ask: "We already did this. What do we do now?" That's a question even Reagan couldn't answer.



Carter is to Obama as Reagan is to: _____________________  (Your answer here.)