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.)

Simpson-Bowles economic plan - WIN

I've written about my support of the Simpson-Bowles plan many times, but I'm finally doing a capsule review as I've done of Obama's, Romney's, and Cain's plans. A debt-reduction commission was created by Obama in early 2010 after Congress after the Republicans in the Senate refused to give a mandate for a commission and guarantee a vote on their recommendations.

The commission was bipartisan with members from the House, Senate, business, and economic experts. They worked from April 2010 until December 2010. In the end, 11 of 18 commission supported the report, with the dissenters split nearly equally between Dems and Repubs. (Thanks, Wikipedia, for this background.)

This plan is actually very readable with all major recommendations put into categories and bullet pointed, like this:

RECOMMENDATION 1.1: CAP DISCRETIONARY SPENDING THROUGH 2020. Hold spending in 2012 equal to or lower than spending in 2011, and return spending to pre-crisis 2008 levels in real terms in 2013. Limit future spending growth to half the projected inflation rate through 2020.

Budget Cuts

Roll back discretionary spending to $688 billion for security and $410 billion for non-security spending. Let agency heads recommend the budget reductions for their department; Congress will not be allowed to micromanage and protect a fiefdom.

Cut congressional and white staffing and budgets by 15%. Reduce federal workforce by attrition. Institute pay freezes and much tighter travel budgets.

Tax Reform

Raise gasoline taxes $.15 a gallon for adequate funding for transportation (currently partially funded through borrowing).

Eliminate most deductions. All dividend and capital gains will be taxed as the same rate as earned income. The commission offered three choices to determine which brackets to establish:

• If there are no deduction and no credits, the brackets would be 8, 14, and 23%.
• If there are credits for low-wage workers and their families, the brackets would be 9, 15, and 24%.
• If there are credits for low-wage workers and somewhat limited deductions for mortgage interest, health insurance, charitable giving, and retirement savings, the brackets would be 12, 22, and 28%.
• Exemptions would be maintained as is. The standard deduction would become an exemption. A family of four would exempt $26,000 from taxes.
• Business income tax would be 26 or 28%.

Health Care Spending

• Freeze doctor reimbursement for 2013 and have a 1% reduction in 2014. 
• Reform the payment formula. Repeal the longterm care part of ACA (already done). 
• Institute a simpler, higher deductible higher copay. 
• Require the same drug rebate for some on Medicare as already used in Medicaid. 
• Increase fraud division. 
• Decrease contributions to states for Medicaid administration costs. 
• Reform malpractice law and create specialized courts. 
• Start pilot programs for health insurance vouchers for federal workers (already in ACA and part of Ryan plan for Medicare). 
• Create a board like the IPAB payment board to set reimbursement rates. 
• Once reforms are in place, establish hard caps that allow spending increases that match the percentage growth in GDP plus 1% per year.

Mandatory Spending Reforms

Change federal pension rules to bring them in  line with lower rates in the private sector. Reduce spending on agricultural subsidies. There is also a bunch of smaller savings on student loans, general fees, mines, private pension insurance, energy, post office.

Social Security

Change benefit formulas to provide better support for low-income, very old, and long-term disabled. Provide less generous support at the high end. Raise the retirement age, tax more income, make state and local workers join SS.

Enforcement

Cut spending somewhat gradually. Start tax increases after first year of substantial spending cuts. The CBO will score spending bills and send them  back to committee when they exceed the allotment for their category of spending. OMB can require across the board cuts if Congress passes offending bills.

An appointed ongoing committee will recommend 2% cuts every year by identifying programs that are no longer needed or not working as planned. They will also recommend consolidation of redundant programs.

No off-budget spending for wars.

Congress will define what constitutes "emergency" and "disaster" spending. They will establish a special fund for disaster relief based on 10 year average.

My Critique

It's a  great plan. I think the exemptions are a bit low. It doesn't zero out the deficit in its ten-year projection, which I think should be a goal in any plan because we can't pay down our debt until we have a zero deficit. Those are my two specific criticisms. That doesn't decrease my awe at the achievement of the commission. They were actually able to reach agreement in many areas:

• Cutting the federal workforce
• Discretionary spending limits
• Healthcare spending (where agreement is especially hard to reach)
• Social Security
• Provisions to enforce the budget agreements

The one area where they couldn't reach a final agreement was tax reform, and even then, they agreed on a framework and three workable options within that framework. Whittling tax reform plans down to option A, B, or C, and getting agreement to present just those options is still a solid achievement.

You can compare the Simpson-Bowles plan to mine, but I wish you wouldn't. On the other hand, go ahead and compare it to Romney's plan and Obama's plan. For laughs, compare it to Cain's plan. Remember when he was the frontrunner?

The Payoff

Within the first 4 years of the plan, we reduce our deficit to 2.3% of GDP, then down to 0.8% by 2025. In the meantime, normal growth in GDP will make our debt smaller as a percent of the economy.

Green - current trajectory

Red - Bush tax cuts expire

Blue - Simpson-Bowles WIN!

Edit 12/27/11. Added my second criticism, that the plan didn't zero out the deficit.

My Crystal Ball - Iowa and beyond

On Bernstein's blog, we were asked for our predictions for Iowa. The caucuses in Iowa are inscrutable to foreigners, and I'm definitely a foreigner with regard to Iowa, so I don't have a prediction. But others on the blog made longer-range predictions, like Paul was going to be a stronger contender throughout the primary season. Be sure to read the interesting array of ideas. As for me, I'm afraid that I have a vanilla prediction.

I have pity for Mitt. He's the most sensible choice for the general election (Paul would be slaughtered), but the girl he's waiting for keeps dancing with all these bad-boys. He's even tried to be more bad-boy himself, but it's not working.

Despite the reluctance of the national party, I do think Romney will win in NH. I was up there this past weekend, and Romney had the most and largest signs. Ron Paul is second.

Romney will do well enough to stay in the race past Florida, and he'll have stronger wins after that. Gingrich will win a few, but people will find him less and less charming. He'll enjoy the campaign, avoid becoming nasty to his rivals, and be cordial when he bows out.

Paul will keep up the fight, but he doesn't have a shot. He'll have to decide whether to run as an independent.

I haven't mentioned Iowa because don't think it's going to be important. The only exception to that is if Paul does really well (1st or very high 2nd) and the same in NH. If Paul gets two wins or near-wins, he'll finally get some press. Once he gets some coverage, the merely curious will drop out, and he'll have only his die-hard 15%. (Because he really is Nader crazy.)

The final scorecard will look like this:

• Romney - gets the nomination, is gushingly grateful. The bride has her doubts all the way to the altar and beyond.
• Gingrich - his good cheer wins him elder statesman status--less than Reagan, but more than any other Republican. He remains very partisan, with frequent visits to Fox News and all the right-wing think tanks. 
• Paul - 80% find out for sure that Paul IS crazy. Fifteen per cent know for sure he's a genius. The remaining 5% are split between lizard-alien, regular alien, and "who?"

*****************************************************

To me, it's almost as though the Republicans are a contestant on Let's Make a Deal. The only difference is that they can see the prizes, and still the choice is difficult. "... Do I want the RV, the Mediterranean casino cruise, or the goat? Oh no, I can't decide."

Bonus predictions: Callista divorces Newt and takes over the Huffington Post. Both Newt and Ron Paul will be contestants on The Apprentice. Pirate videos of Ron Paul grabbing Trump's hair will go viral. Newt will get a Christmas special on TV and dress up as an elf. Lots of Christian stars will sing. Sarah and Bristol Palin will visit. President Romney will visit on the second season. Newt dies happy and fulfilled. The End.

Update 12/30/11. This post is already a bit out of date. I know it stuck out like a red flag: "Gingrich will win a few..." It now looks like this part of my prediction won't pan out. And I couldn't be happier--I loathe Gingrich.

No shock treatment, please

Is it already too late to save the US from becoming Greece? I think there's hope. We have some time left, but we don't know how much time it is.

If this was an action movie, and the US was under a known threat of attack, there would be multiple military missions, conventional and unconventional, trying to prevent a terrible outcome. You can probably picture it--the stalwart hero who does everything he can think of to stop the devastation.

Well, we are under that kind of threat. We don't know how long we have to defuse the bomb, this bomb being our high and growing level of debt. And unlike in an suspense movie, I don't want to take any high stakes gambles. I don't want to try to shock our economy into a burst of activity that saves us, because what if it doesn't work? Shock treatment always costs a lot, whether direct government stimulus spending or tax cuts. The costs and risks are too high, and there is a good alternative.

We can take a conservative course. We can match our spending to our income. We haven't done that on a federal level in 11 years, and it'll be hard to do in just one year without causing painful shocks to our economy. However, we can put ourselves on a multi-year reducing diet plan. We can plan that in year 1 we will do this, in year 2 even more, etc.

Sticking to a budget can be hard for a family unless the family has 1) discipline and 2) some emergency money. The US is a wealthy country, so having some emergency money isn't really the problem. Discipline definitely is.

Right now, most of the country agrees that we have economic problems and rapidly increasing debt. In fact, that was the consensus at the beginning of 2010 when Obama created the deficit commission.

Unfortunately, there wasn't a consensus on the treatment. Was it more important to stimulate the economy to grow, and if so, using what method? This lack of consensus didn't hamper the deficit commission. As they studied the problem, most of the members came to a consensus, which became the Simpson-Bowles plan. Ultimately, the Republican and Democratic chairs (Simpson and Bowles) and 9 other committee members representing both parties approved the plan. However, there were dissents on both the right and the left. Obama damned the plan with faint praise, and Congress didn't act on it. This was an incredible waste, because a plan that can get bipartisan agreement is a rare achievement. This plan, supported by moderates, was scuttled by the extremes and the cowardly.

Once the plan was rejected, then we saw the plans from the extremes. Obama's initial budget proposal for 2012 had a deficit of $1.1 trillion. The Ryan plan cut only $90 billion, had a deficit of $1 trillion, and had future cuts that overwhelmingly affected domestic spending. Ron Paul's plan called for cutting $1 trillion in his first year. He's clearly unafraid of the economic shock. Consequently, no budget was ever passed for 2012. Instead, the government has operated under continuing resolutions for the entire year. Budgets cuts were agreed during a crisis over the debt ceiling, but there is no plan in place for 2012.

If Simpson-Bowles had been accepted, voted on, and passed, we would be nearly to our second year of the plan. Instead, we have a deeply polarized Congress, a current confrontation over payroll tax cuts, and no deal in sight for the Bush tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2012. We will stumble to a more balanced budget, even without a deal, thanks only to sunset provisions. I guess we should count our blessings. The extremes are canceling each other out (at least until the next election). A lucky default outcome is better than an expensive, ill-conceived policy, but a reasonable, conservative approach like Simpson-Bowles would be far better. In the meantime, the bomb is still live, and time is getting shorter.

 Blue - new taxes, Red - spending cuts. Simpson-Bowles: Most balanced

Update 2/10/12. Greece today:  "Papademos said failure to secure the $171 billion rescue package that’s under negotiation threatened 11 million Greeks with a default that would halt the payment of wages and pensions and shut down schools, hospitals and businesses." -- Bloomberg.  Is that what we want in our future?

Advice to Mitt

Romney isn't going to be able to corner Newt on policy issues. He's already tried on health insurance mandates, and Newt simply admitted to it. He didn't go on to justify it, he just left it as an error, plain, simple and small. That was very smart.

Romney would be much better complimenting Newt on ideas and conservative strategy, then questioning him on character issues and governing style. There's a lot to work with there. Just imagine an open-ended question on how Newt decided to do the global warming commercial with Pelosi.

********************************************************************

I guess the Romney campaign doesn't need my advice. From CBS today:

...Gingrich's erratic behavior had imperiled future progress. "You were in a situation where you would get up in the morning, and you would have the to check the newspaper, the clippings, that was before the Internet, to see what the Speaker had said that day that you were going to have to clean up after in your own district."

 Be honest --what's the first thing that jumped into your mind?

My Political Empathy FAIL

Get ready for a rant.

The Tea Party

I set a goal for myself--try to understand the Tea Party from the inside. So I read a lot of blogs covering almost 2 years in this attempt to understand the goals, frustrations, emotions, etc. of the Tea Party. This is what I learned:

Tea Party types think there is nothing redeeming in Democrats, Democrats are crypto-communists who want the state to take over everything [this actually applies to just a few Democrats, mostly Kucinich and Nader supporters], MSM is completely biased [actually only partially biased], conservatives are the only patriots in this country, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And this is what I conclude: they are deluding themselves. They quietly went along with 7 years of the Bush administration, and only started questioning in the 8th year. Then, they don't even look for realistic solutions for problems they identify:

• Banks are too big and too risky - government regulation is the problem.
• Healthcare costs too much - repeal Obamacare.
• Too much government spending - cut government workers, welfare, foreign aid, liberal programs like family planning, NPR, arts, university and student funding, that should be enough.
• Budget is out of balance - cut taxes to stimulate the economy.
• Not enough jobs - cut taxes to stimulate the economy.

They don't f*cking look at or care whether their supposed solutions have a hope of working against the identified problem. They are not in the realm of logic or observable fact or pragmatic thinking.

That's how they can blame Obama for the bad economy and deficits, even though this is exactly what Bush left on the plate! If someone believes it's all Obama's fault, it's a waste of time trying to convince them. I don't want to convince them. I just want to expose them.

Liberals

Likewise, in some ways, with liberals. This will be a shorter rant, because I haven't just done a bunch of research on liberals. The biggest thing that bothers me about liberals is their sense of math. It's not going to hurt to raise taxes a little for this wonderful social program, and then this one, and then this one, etc. Since it's for a good cause, money shouldn't be an impediment.

Excuse me, but I'd like to keep more of my money that you have myriad ways to spend. This is an imperfect country that all the money in the entire world won't fix, so let's set some limits and priorities and always, please, consider the costs.

One last thing, liberals, don't try to guilt me. It doesn't work, at least not on me. Why? Because I don't believe in the perfectability of people or this world. I am at peace with the plain fact of  imperfection. I can choose my struggles, instead of every damn thing being a struggle.

It's kind of zen... and I'm calming down already. Exhale slowly ...  ...  ...

Thank you and goodnight.