Category: Politics

Judging by the reaction to the Club for Growth’s hilarious Mad Howie ad, Dana Carvey’s Church Lady produced a whole passel of offspring. Check out the clucking from John Perry Barlow, the illustrious Joi Ito, and Dean’s hired bloggers. Once again, we see concrete evidence that the people who made Michael Moore a millionaire have no sense of humor.

Pioneer Wellbert John Perry Barlow steps outside the gated community with a load of mush that would have sailed by without a challenge on The Well, only to be slapped upside the head by Misanthropyst Don McArthur. Barlow retreats and cops a plea (guilty of hyperbole, but not of mush-headedness) and many bloggers applaud, others offer raspberries.

Here’s another raspberry. Barlow wants to stipulate that his people, the “anti-Bush” side, have failed to deliver their policies effectively because their rhetoric has been too hyperbolic. With all due respect and in the spirit of respect for everyone’s inner child, I beg to differ. What lurks behind the over-heated rhetoric of the anti- crowd is not a set of unappreciated but superior policies, but no real policy alternatives at all. Let’s take a few examples.

The antis don’t like the Bush tax cuts as a means of stimulating the economy. In their stead they offer no alternative, unless you consider universal health care to be an economic stimulus, a hard position to champion.

The antis don’t like the Patriot Act as a means of closing the noose on terrorist cells operating on American soil, but offer no alternative for dealing with a loosely joined network that relies on e-mail and cell phones for communication.

The antis don’t like pre-emptive invasion of terrorist states as a means of knocking foreign support out from underneath terror networks, but offer no alternative apart from UN jawboning that failed to produce a constructive result in Libya during 20 years of sanctions that hurt innocent people or in 12 years in Iraq with similar results.

The antis would do well to study President Bush. His demeanor is a lot more personable and open than is Howard Dean’s, although he’s every bit as direct. The president is able to speak softly because he carries policies that have produced clear and obvious results: a growing economy, a reduction in terrorist attacks, the overthrow of a genocidal regime, and, in Libya and Iran, a reduction in WMDs in the hands of terror-friendly states. The president has even beaten the antis on the traditionally Democratic issues of health care and education, passing an education bill that increased federal funding to the schools and a Medicare bill that offers prescription drugs to the elderly, both coupled with programmatic reforms important to conservatives.

Left-wing, anti-Bush politics are too much about emotion and identity and not enough about policy. For thirty years, the Democrats blindly supported a dysfunctional welfare system by telling themselves that only they really cared about the poor, but it was Republicans who came along and finally made the program work in 1996 when they made it an avenue to work and not a permanent dependency plan.

So all this talk about rhetoric and manners is nice, but it doesn’t go very far. Unless the left can come up with some realistic and practical policies, they’ll continue to be the weak sisters of American politics, all alone in their gated ideological communities crying to each other about how nobody understands them, and losing election after election.

When Mad Howie complained about hardball politics, one response was:

Craig Smith, Lieberman’s campaign manager, said Dean’s criticism “is like the mad cow calling the herd rabid.”

So how can you tell Mad Howard Dean from a Mad Cow? Here’s a handy guide.

	Mad Cow	Mad Howie
Disposition	Mad	Mad
Home	Dairy	Dairy State
Brain Condition	Misfolded proteins	Misguided policies
Behavior	Flops around	Flip-flops
Purpose	Provides milk to the public	Milks the public
Effect	Spreads disease	Profits from disease
Beef	Hard to eat	Hardball
Accompaniment	Red wine	Red whine

I hope that clears it all up.

Crazy Howard’s WaPo op-ed is a real piece of work:

The reasons I opposed the war in Iraq are clear. In the fall of 2002, Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to America. The administration had not (and still has not) presented clear evidence that Hussein was on the verge of attacking his neighbors or threatening the United States or the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction or supporting al Qaeda. The administration’s failures to mobilize allies and plan effectively for the war’s aftermath suggested difficulties ahead.

It is just as important that this president failed to level with the American people about the costs or potential consequences or about the nature of the threat. Our democratic tradition, our mainstream values, demand that government be open and honest with its governed. The consequences of the war are becoming clear, even beyond the loss of life, even beyond the $150 billion price tag — so far. Our resources — military, intelligence, diplomatic — are strained. Our alliances are frayed. Around the world, too many are now under the false impression that the American people are bent on global domination and war against Islam.

I’ve got one word for him: Libya. In the aftermath of Qaddafi’s cave-in and Iran’s agreement to allow surprise inspections, Howie’s hot-head routine looks awfully silly, and when Syria gets in line it’s going to be a belly-slapper. It’s shame that the first Internet-enabled campaign was carried out in the name of a twit, but it was, and while we can thank the Dean people for showing pols a better way of fundraising, we’ll never have him as president.

Mr. ne quid nimis says the Hitchens/Danner debate was gobbles of fun, echoing the reports of my spies at the event. See a webcast here.

Here’s more bad news for the Democratic Party and its attack dogs:

Unemployment Continued to Fall in October

The Labor Department reported Friday that payrolls grew by 126,000 last month, significantly more than the 50,000 new jobs that economists had predicted. That followed a revised 125,000 new jobs in September, which initially was reported at 57,000.

All of those whose response to third quarter GDP growth was “where’s the jobs?” should take note, eat crow, and find a new issue.

Via Steve, who has charts and graphs.

I wanted to see what people are saying about Krugman today, but the Technorati: Link Cosmos is empty just for this one article.

The left doesn’t want you to know what a liar Krugman is, apparently.

UPDATE: I’ve shamed Technorati into showing some links, but it’s a small list.

UPDATE AGAIN: It looks like Technorati has finally more or less caught up with Blogistan, after about 48 hours of being far behind. This tool doesn’t appear to be incredibly useful with such a long lag time. But in this case there wasn’t much to see: Krugman, who’s supposed to be a brilliant economist, simply parroted Nancy Pelosi’s line on the third quarter economic results: “So what if consumer spending, business investment and exports are are all up? Next quarter might not be so good, neener neener.”

Why does the Times pay Krugman for such crap when Pelosi dispenses it for free?

This seems like important news:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

I wonder why this isn’t headlines?

UPDATE: Reader points out that it is headlines in some places: New York Times, LA Times, and Wall St. Journal specifically. But it’s not headlines in Frisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington. Here’s the report with the breakout of growth areas (durable goods and consumer spending) and here’s an analysis from the Journal (for subscribers).

“The biggest upside surprise was a larger-than-expected narrowing of the net export deficit, which was the product of a 9.3% rate of gain in exports and a scant 0.1% increase in imports. ? Looking ahead, it is probable that consumer-spending growth is going to cool off as the benefits of tax refunds and mortgage refinancings fade. ? However, capital spending growth is likely to remain firm on the back of much improved corporate profits and stronger domestic output. Most important from the short-term standpoint, however, will be a need to boost inventories in order to replenish depleted stocks and to satisfy final demand. ? it is likely that real GDP growth will be solid in Q4, albeit probably not as robust as in Q3.” — Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist, MFR Inc.

“This report provides further confirmation that the real recovery has begun. The economy was firing on all cylinders from the demand side in the third quarter. Importantly, business-equipment spending continues to strengthen while the strength of nominal GDP growth and productivity gains points to even stronger gains in corporate profits. ? My forecast prior to the release of GDP was 4.2% for Q4 and I have not made any material changes to it following today’s number. ? We see growth remaining significantly above trend in the fourth quarter and we continue to believe that the Fed can raise rates” at its March meeting. — John Ryding, chief market economist, Bear Stearns

Tomorrow, look for Krugman to explain that it really means Bush is a very, very bad man.

See also Megan’s take on these numbers. Her last link is especially interesting; it shows a flat economy in Europe, poor dears.

There’s been a fair degree of whining on the left about the audacity of Tom DeLay’s redistricting in Texas, simply because DeLay is a Republican and therefore a lightning rod for left-wing hate. There is apparently some democratic principle, knowable only to those with rarefied sensibilities, that dictates a state with a 60% Republican population should be required to send a Congressional delegation to Washington with a Democratic majority in perpetuity. I don’t understand that kind of thinking.

And I expect there will be the same sort of whining in California as the Ted Costa plan nears the ballot, for pretty much the same reasons. California’s legislature and Congressional delegation are to the left of the population thanks to the 1980 district maps drawn up by the late Phillip Burton, elder brother of state Senate leader and major coke fiend John Burton. (Phillip’s life is chronicled in A Rage for Justice by John Jacobs, a great read.)

Burton’s 1980 map was the first use of computers in redistricting, although the driving force was Burton’s rabid partisanship. Check this description on a notable members of Congress site (scroll down):

At least two political surnames have become verbs. “Gerrymandering” entered the political lexicon in 1812, in association with a formidable leader, Elbridge Gerry, and refers to “the drawing of legislative district boundary lines to obtain partisan or factional advantage.” (Plano, 1993, p. 140) Given the high stakes that ride on redrawing district boundary lines every decade, it may not be surprising that the verb “to burtonize” also has to do with political cartography. It derives from the work of Rep. Phil Burton, a Californian, whose computer-based skills after the 1980 census brought gerrymandering into a whole new level of precision….

Nature abhors a vacuum, so when the legislature in Sacramento had given little thought to redistricting, Burton moved in. Officially, he was the Democratic congressional liaison to the state legislature; but politically he was the close ally of House Speaker Willie L. Brown, Jr, who later has become the mayor of San Francisco. Because Burton had an abrasive side, he also had a number of enemies in Sacramento — many of them Democrats.

California had acquired two additional seats in Congress under the 1980 apportionment, raising its number of congressmen from 43 to 45. Most of this increase was owing to immigration into Republican-dominated southern California, and the districts in the San Francisco Bay area in 1981 were from sixty to eighty thousand people smaller than the Supreme Court’s one-person, one-vote dictum would have them be.

Burton was the leader of the congressional Democrats, who held a paper-thin 22-to-21 majority. Early on, it was clear that Burton was seeking a potential Democratic of two seats by placing one of the two new districts that would be needed in central San Diego. Also, if another district were carved into the San Joaquin Valley, there was hope of gaining another Democratic seat in the Fresno area. The real challenge, however, was in the Bay Area. In addition to his brother John’s Fifth District and his own Sixth, there were those “undersized” districts represented by Vic Fazio (4th), Ron Dellums (8th), Fortney “Pete” Stark (9th), George Miller (7th), Don Edwards (10th), and Norman Mineta (13th). In addition, Hungarian-born Tom Lantos had won an unexpected upset of a Republican in the 11th District, and it seemed improbable that this additional seat could be retained. As one Democratic strategist observed, “It’s going to be a phenomenal feat to balance them in such a way that all five are preserved.”

In the end, taking maximum advantage of computer technology, Burton redrew the state in a way that created five new Democratic districts. His GOP congressional counterpart on the state redistricting panel fumed that the result was “bizarre,” and “an abomination,” and that Burton had “personally put his thumb print on the state of California.” (CQWR, 1981, 2155.). Burton loved being chastised however, and gleefully pointed out that the mean variance in population among the forty-five districts he had created was a scant 65 people! (CQWR, 1983, 2155.)

Phillip Burton called his map his “contribution to modern art” because it was so ugly and obviously unfair, but he got it passed by creating safe seats for enough Republican incumbents to ensure its approval by the legislature, and the incumbency protection racket was born. Burtonized maps create special districts for minorities and Republicans that essentially guarantee regular re-election at the expense of obscurity: the holders of these seats never have to reach out to the majority with the kinds of policies that might win them acclaim and state-wide recognition. So California has no blacks and no Republicans in the US Senate or in statewide office except one, Swarzenegger, who was able to become famous outside politics.

If California had a fair and straight district map, the legislature would be about 45% Republican instead of 36%, and legislative battles would be about policy instead of party loyalty. The Costa plan is even more dangerous to the anti-democratic spirit of the Left than the Recall was, and they fear it.

We’re in the lull between elections right now, but expect the unions and the Casinos to pump all their spare cash into the defeat of this measure.

See: Irish Lass for more.

One of the myths swirling around the California budget deficit is a claim that tax rates in the Golden State are modest. This is hard to swallow when we look at neighboring states. Oregon has no state sales tax, and an income tax rate that peaks out at 9 percent. California’s peaks at 9.3 percent.

Washington, which has no state income tax, has a state sales tax of 6.5%, plus local taxes. California has a state sales tax of 7.25% plus local taxes. In Santa Clara, CA, I pay 8.5% sales tax; in Vancouver, WA, I pay 7.3% sales tax.

It’s odd that California, which charges both sales and income taxes, would charge these at rates that exceed nearby states that manage to get by on only one; perhaps the property tax is lower thanks to the infamous Prop. 13.

But no, not even that’s the case. While California’s property tax rate of $1.05 per $100 is lower than Oregon’s $1.35 and Washington’s $1.10, the higher prices of California real estate push it though the roof. A 1200 sq. ft. home in Portland is going to run you about $150,000, give or take a few, and about $120,000 in Vancouver, WA. But that same house would run you at least $450,000 in Santa Clara, and your property tax bill will reflect that. So you’re gonna pay 2 to 3 times as much property tax in California along with your double taxation on income and sales.

California tax revenues took a big jump in 2000, and have been essentially flat since then, except for a slight upward creep this year:

1998-99 …. 58,615.3
1999-00 …. 71,930.5
2000-01 …. 71,428.1
2001-02 …. 72,238.6
2002-03 …. 81,527.4*

*Includes $10,675.4 million for the Deficit Financing Bond

But spending exceeded revenues in 2000-01 and stayed there until this year’s budget, aided by the big bond sale:

1998-99 …. 57,827.1
1999-00 …. 66,494.0
2000-01 …. 78,052.9
2001-02 …. 76,751.7
2002-03 …. 78,141.7

This in a state that has a balanced-budget provision.

Now why is it that a state that taxes so much more heavily than its neighbors can’t balance its budget as its own laws require?

One reason is a wuss governor, another is a legislature that’s far to the left of the people thanks to Gerrymandering, and another is a media establishment that doesn’t cover Sacramento. At least one of these things is going to change, and perhaps two.

For the last, Ted Costa will have to be successful with his latest initiative, but stranger things have happened.