Saturday, June 30, 2007
Recent Supreme Court Decisions
It appears that the recent decisions of the Supreme Court involving affirmative actions in schools in getting quite a bit of media attention. Emily Bazelon argues in Slate Magazine that Chief Justice Roberts has been a far more conservative justice than anticipated. E.J. Dionne argues in the Washington Post that the conservatives have now become judicial activists instead of being strict constructionists. The Economist argues that the Supreme Court has moved to the right, but that the case for alarm is inflated. Dennis Byrne in RealClearPolitics argues that the court upheld the principle of equal justice before the law. Jeffrey Rosen in Time Magazine argues that the Supreme Court is essentially tacking right on issues where a majority of voters agree with the court, and that there is little real danger of Roe v. Wade being overturned.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Impeach Cheney
Here's a good rundown of how Cheney has run amok. It still amazes me that this guy is still around...even more amazing is how much power he wields in what was previously thought of as the most useless job in government. Did he change the office for good?
Did anyone read the series the Post did on him this week?
Did anyone read the series the Post did on him this week?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Campaign 2008: Poll shows many Republicans favor universal healthcare, gays in military (The Hill)
Campaign 2008
Poll shows many Republicans favor universal healthcare, gays in military
By Aaron Blake
June 28, 2007
A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn’t be the United States’ top foreign policy goal.
The poll, conducted by GOP consultant Tony Fabrizio 10 years after he conducted a similar study, also casts some doubts on the conventional wisdom about moral-issues voters, thought to be the key constituency for President Bush in 2004. It showed that the group hasn’t grown significantly in recent years and is surprisingly willing to vote for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani despite his differences with it on social and moral issues.
The survey of 2,000 self-described Republican voters, titled “The Elephant Looks in the Mirror 10 Years Later,” showed that 71 percent consider themselves conservative, a 16 percent increase over the 1997 numbers.
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Those two issues continue to divide the party, though, with more than 40 percent opposed to both. Fabrizio emphasized that “the devil is in the details” on healthcare, and that providing a plan that pleases the entire 51 percent would be difficult.
Nearly four in five Republicans said that U.S. foreign policy should be based on protecting economic and national security interests, versus 16 percent who preferred basing it on spreading democracy.
Fabrizio described it as a test of support for the “Bush Doctrine.”“We’re not about spreading democracy around the world; we’re about doing what’s best for us,” Fabrizio said. “Even the [pro-Iraq war] ‘Bush hawks’ don’t buy it.”
“Bush hawks” was one of seven groups into which the survey categorized voters. The others were “moralists,” “government knows best Republicans,” “Dennis Miller Republicans,” “fortress America Republicans,” “heartland Republicans” and “free marketeers.”
The “moralist” section of the party — those focused overwhelmingly on social and moral issues — has grown only slightly since 1997, to just less than a quarter of Republicans.
At the same time, economics-focused “free-marketeer” and “heartland-Republican” voters decreased drastically, from about half to less than 20 percent, while two new foreign policy-focused groups — “Bush hawks” and “fortress America Republicans” — took in most of their ex-members.
The poll provided several insights into Giuliani’s prospects and showed him leading the GOP field in all seven groups into which it broke the party.
Given the choice between leadership and issues, 41 percent of respondents said leadership qualities matter most, while 53 percent said issues are more important. Fabrizio made the case that Giuliani is more focused than others on the leadership segment of the party and that the figures bode well for his candidacy.
Even among “moralists,” 33 percent said they were likely to vote for someone with whom they disagreed on abortion but agreed on many other issues.
Overall, 60 percent of Republicans said they would be likely to vote for a candidate who fits that description.
The poll was conducted in late May and early June. Since then, former Sen. Fred Thompson’s (Tenn.) imminent entry into the GOP field has reduced Giuliani’s lead in other polls.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a key supporter of Bush’s Iraq policy and the troop increase there, actually performed worse among the pro-Iraq “Bush hawks” than he did among Republicans in general. He took 15 percent from “Bush hawks” versus 17 percent overall.
McCain has been falling in the polls in general.“McCain is being capped in the center of the party by Giuliani, who no question is the favorite of the moderate and liberal elements of the party,” Fabrizio said. “On the right, McCain is getting huge competition from [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney, Thompson … and Giuliani.
“He’s not finding a home in either place.”
The “moralist” category was the most undecided group in the presidential contest, perhaps reflective of discontent with the front-runners’ records. Nearly one in five didn’t yet have a presidential preference.
The survey found that one in three has not always been a Republican, while one in four used to be a Democrat.
Three in four maintain that going to war in Iraq was the right decision.
The party has also gotten much older, with 41 percent of Republicans now 55 or older, compared to 28 percent in 1997.
The poll was conducted between May 28 and June 3 by Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates, with half of the surveys conducted online and half over the phone to control for age and other variables.
URL: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html
Poll shows many Republicans favor universal healthcare, gays in military
By Aaron Blake
June 28, 2007
A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn’t be the United States’ top foreign policy goal.
The poll, conducted by GOP consultant Tony Fabrizio 10 years after he conducted a similar study, also casts some doubts on the conventional wisdom about moral-issues voters, thought to be the key constituency for President Bush in 2004. It showed that the group hasn’t grown significantly in recent years and is surprisingly willing to vote for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani despite his differences with it on social and moral issues.
The survey of 2,000 self-described Republican voters, titled “The Elephant Looks in the Mirror 10 Years Later,” showed that 71 percent consider themselves conservative, a 16 percent increase over the 1997 numbers.
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Those two issues continue to divide the party, though, with more than 40 percent opposed to both. Fabrizio emphasized that “the devil is in the details” on healthcare, and that providing a plan that pleases the entire 51 percent would be difficult.
Nearly four in five Republicans said that U.S. foreign policy should be based on protecting economic and national security interests, versus 16 percent who preferred basing it on spreading democracy.
Fabrizio described it as a test of support for the “Bush Doctrine.”“We’re not about spreading democracy around the world; we’re about doing what’s best for us,” Fabrizio said. “Even the [pro-Iraq war] ‘Bush hawks’ don’t buy it.”
“Bush hawks” was one of seven groups into which the survey categorized voters. The others were “moralists,” “government knows best Republicans,” “Dennis Miller Republicans,” “fortress America Republicans,” “heartland Republicans” and “free marketeers.”
The “moralist” section of the party — those focused overwhelmingly on social and moral issues — has grown only slightly since 1997, to just less than a quarter of Republicans.
At the same time, economics-focused “free-marketeer” and “heartland-Republican” voters decreased drastically, from about half to less than 20 percent, while two new foreign policy-focused groups — “Bush hawks” and “fortress America Republicans” — took in most of their ex-members.
The poll provided several insights into Giuliani’s prospects and showed him leading the GOP field in all seven groups into which it broke the party.
Given the choice between leadership and issues, 41 percent of respondents said leadership qualities matter most, while 53 percent said issues are more important. Fabrizio made the case that Giuliani is more focused than others on the leadership segment of the party and that the figures bode well for his candidacy.
Even among “moralists,” 33 percent said they were likely to vote for someone with whom they disagreed on abortion but agreed on many other issues.
Overall, 60 percent of Republicans said they would be likely to vote for a candidate who fits that description.
The poll was conducted in late May and early June. Since then, former Sen. Fred Thompson’s (Tenn.) imminent entry into the GOP field has reduced Giuliani’s lead in other polls.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a key supporter of Bush’s Iraq policy and the troop increase there, actually performed worse among the pro-Iraq “Bush hawks” than he did among Republicans in general. He took 15 percent from “Bush hawks” versus 17 percent overall.
McCain has been falling in the polls in general.“McCain is being capped in the center of the party by Giuliani, who no question is the favorite of the moderate and liberal elements of the party,” Fabrizio said. “On the right, McCain is getting huge competition from [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney, Thompson … and Giuliani.
“He’s not finding a home in either place.”
The “moralist” category was the most undecided group in the presidential contest, perhaps reflective of discontent with the front-runners’ records. Nearly one in five didn’t yet have a presidential preference.
The survey found that one in three has not always been a Republican, while one in four used to be a Democrat.
Three in four maintain that going to war in Iraq was the right decision.
The party has also gotten much older, with 41 percent of Republicans now 55 or older, compared to 28 percent in 1997.
The poll was conducted between May 28 and June 3 by Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates, with half of the surveys conducted online and half over the phone to control for age and other variables.
URL: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Hippies and Jesus Freaks
Interesting Reason article on how the hippies of the 60s and evangelical Christians created a Libertarian America...long article, interesting conclusions...worth the read.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
More Drivel from Rudy
Rudy's stump speech is already stale. His main talking point is that Republicans will protect you from terror, Democrats would rather surrender to Bin Laden. It now appears he's trying to "swiftboat" Hillary on the terrorism issue. In his latest speech, he talks about President Clinton's horrible record fighting terrorism. Not only are these scare tactics despicable, he fails to mention his own questionable record in preparing New York to respond to terror attacks...even after the WTC bombing in '93.
Why does this guy poll so well? In my mind, he's worse than Bush. Not only is he trying to scare Americans into voting Republican, he's done all he can to profit off 9/11, selling himself as a hero.
Why does this guy poll so well? In my mind, he's worse than Bush. Not only is he trying to scare Americans into voting Republican, he's done all he can to profit off 9/11, selling himself as a hero.
The Real Iraq Debate By E. J. Dionne
June 26, 2007
The Real Iraq Debate
By E. J. Dionne
WASHINGTON -- Quietly, the real debate over Iraq is beginning.
It's not about whether the United States should pull out troops. That is now inevitable. The real challenge is to figure out the right timetable for withdrawal, whether a residual force should be left there, and which American objectives can still be salvaged.
This is not the debate President Bush wants to have come September, when a slew of reports will be issued assessing the results of the troop surge. Already, the administration is preparing the ground for kicking the real choices into next year. Where once the White House seemed to be saying, "Give us until September,'' its spokesmen now seem to be insisting we won't know that much by then after all.
"If you want a definitive judgment, I've warned from the very beginning about expecting some sort of magical thing to happen in September,'' White House press secretary Tony Snow said earlier this month. All we'll have then, he said, is "a little bit of a metric to see what happens when you have all the forces in place for the Baghdad security plan.''
"A Little Bit of a Metric'' -- sounds like a song that Snow's rock band might play.
The facts are these: We do not have enough troops to commit to Iraq to turn things around militarily, and the political situation is too fractured to give rise to a sudden burst of cooperation among Shiites and Sunnis.
Colin Kahl, a nonresident fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a middle-of-the-road think tank that launches formally on Wednesday, sees the American saga in Iraq as the Goldilocks story in reverse. We sent a large enough contingent of troops to give the United States responsibility for security, but too few to keep order. "Not hot enough, not cold enough, just wrong,'' Kahl says.
Time is running out because most Americans no longer believe the administration's promises that the commitment in Iraq will turn out well if only we are patient. This is why we need to begin planning our withdrawal now rather than waiting until the Army and the reserves hit the breaking point. Oddly, President Bush has more of an interest in this than anyone. "The more time passes, the more our options narrow,'' says Kurt Campbell, the CEO and co-founder of CNAS. "Left unchallenged, the president would fight to exhaustion, and we can't afford to fight to exhaustion.''
In one of its inaugural reports, CNAS suggests reducing the American presence in Iraq by 100,000 troops between now and the beginning of 2009. But it would keep 60,000 troops in Iraq for four years beyond that, not only to train the army, but also to work with "tribal, local and provincial leaders'' who are fighting al-Qaeda.
It is not clear to me that a lengthy commitment of that sort is either possible or desirable. But the report, written by James Miller and Shawn Brimley, has the virtue of defining three sensible goals for American policy: to prevent the establishment of al-Qaeda safe havens in Iraq; to prevent a regional war; and to prevent genocide. Miller defines the right objective for those who want to end the war: "There should be a much better plan for withdrawal than there was for entry.'' Indeed.
That's why it's also useful that on Monday, the Center for American Progress, a center-left think tank, released its own plan for a much more rapid withdrawal. The CAP would have all American troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008 except for a force of 8,000 to 10,000 in the Kurdish area for an additional year. The United States owes a serious commitment to the Kurds, both for historical reasons and for the help they have given the U.S. in this conflict.
Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the CAP, argues that "the quicker you get out, the quicker you can recapture control of your policy in the area.'' And the longer the United States stays, the greater will be the damage to our armed forces. "You're ruining your ability to confront the global terrorist threat,'' he says. "You're ruining the Army.''
Up to now, the administration has insisted that the only question in the Iraq debate is to withdraw or not to withdraw. These two reports lay out the parameters for the argument we need now: How to end a disastrous war in a way that best serves America's long-term interests. The president would be better served if he entered the new debate. If he ignores it, it will pass him by.
postchat@aol.com
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
URL: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/the_real_debate_over_iraq_begi.html
The Real Iraq Debate
By E. J. Dionne
WASHINGTON -- Quietly, the real debate over Iraq is beginning.
It's not about whether the United States should pull out troops. That is now inevitable. The real challenge is to figure out the right timetable for withdrawal, whether a residual force should be left there, and which American objectives can still be salvaged.
This is not the debate President Bush wants to have come September, when a slew of reports will be issued assessing the results of the troop surge. Already, the administration is preparing the ground for kicking the real choices into next year. Where once the White House seemed to be saying, "Give us until September,'' its spokesmen now seem to be insisting we won't know that much by then after all.
"If you want a definitive judgment, I've warned from the very beginning about expecting some sort of magical thing to happen in September,'' White House press secretary Tony Snow said earlier this month. All we'll have then, he said, is "a little bit of a metric to see what happens when you have all the forces in place for the Baghdad security plan.''
"A Little Bit of a Metric'' -- sounds like a song that Snow's rock band might play.
The facts are these: We do not have enough troops to commit to Iraq to turn things around militarily, and the political situation is too fractured to give rise to a sudden burst of cooperation among Shiites and Sunnis.
Colin Kahl, a nonresident fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a middle-of-the-road think tank that launches formally on Wednesday, sees the American saga in Iraq as the Goldilocks story in reverse. We sent a large enough contingent of troops to give the United States responsibility for security, but too few to keep order. "Not hot enough, not cold enough, just wrong,'' Kahl says.
Time is running out because most Americans no longer believe the administration's promises that the commitment in Iraq will turn out well if only we are patient. This is why we need to begin planning our withdrawal now rather than waiting until the Army and the reserves hit the breaking point. Oddly, President Bush has more of an interest in this than anyone. "The more time passes, the more our options narrow,'' says Kurt Campbell, the CEO and co-founder of CNAS. "Left unchallenged, the president would fight to exhaustion, and we can't afford to fight to exhaustion.''
In one of its inaugural reports, CNAS suggests reducing the American presence in Iraq by 100,000 troops between now and the beginning of 2009. But it would keep 60,000 troops in Iraq for four years beyond that, not only to train the army, but also to work with "tribal, local and provincial leaders'' who are fighting al-Qaeda.
It is not clear to me that a lengthy commitment of that sort is either possible or desirable. But the report, written by James Miller and Shawn Brimley, has the virtue of defining three sensible goals for American policy: to prevent the establishment of al-Qaeda safe havens in Iraq; to prevent a regional war; and to prevent genocide. Miller defines the right objective for those who want to end the war: "There should be a much better plan for withdrawal than there was for entry.'' Indeed.
That's why it's also useful that on Monday, the Center for American Progress, a center-left think tank, released its own plan for a much more rapid withdrawal. The CAP would have all American troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008 except for a force of 8,000 to 10,000 in the Kurdish area for an additional year. The United States owes a serious commitment to the Kurds, both for historical reasons and for the help they have given the U.S. in this conflict.
Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the CAP, argues that "the quicker you get out, the quicker you can recapture control of your policy in the area.'' And the longer the United States stays, the greater will be the damage to our armed forces. "You're ruining your ability to confront the global terrorist threat,'' he says. "You're ruining the Army.''
Up to now, the administration has insisted that the only question in the Iraq debate is to withdraw or not to withdraw. These two reports lay out the parameters for the argument we need now: How to end a disastrous war in a way that best serves America's long-term interests. The president would be better served if he entered the new debate. If he ignores it, it will pass him by.
postchat@aol.com
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
URL: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/the_real_debate_over_iraq_begi.html
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Sicko
Your thoughts on the new Michael Moore movie? From what I've read, I assume he's a champion of socialized medicine. This is definitely a problem that won't be solved overnight, but our current system is far from the freemarket ideas of The Goldwater Society.
Here's another fact about Dr. Ron Paul that you might not have heard. In his practice back in Texas, he does not accept Medicare or Medicaid...in fact, he'll perform services for free rather than suck from the government teat.
Here's another fact about Dr. Ron Paul that you might not have heard. In his practice back in Texas, he does not accept Medicare or Medicaid...in fact, he'll perform services for free rather than suck from the government teat.
Political Futures
Ever heard of the Iowa Electronic Markets or Intrade? Current money there is on Hillary v. Rudy. Uggghhh. It's featured in this Slate article.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Apple
This post might not fit here, but I'll post anyway. Isn't it interesting that the media just adores Apple products? Every Apple product release is always surrounded by a lot of hype. Even its failed products such as the Newton receive a lot of press. Any idea why this might happen? Does the medias affection for Apple give it any sort of advantage in the marketplace? I'd assume that it does, since it's essentially free advertising. Here's a Slate article--Apple suck-up watch.
Did media hype convince me to buy an iMac and 2 x iPods? That may be the reason. I certainly wasn't sold by one of the condescending "geniuses" at the local Apple Store.
Did media hype convince me to buy an iMac and 2 x iPods? That may be the reason. I certainly wasn't sold by one of the condescending "geniuses" at the local Apple Store.
Whom Does a Bloomberg '08 Run Help or Hurt?
June 21, 2007
Whom Does a Bloomberg '08 Run Help or Hurt?
By John McIntyre
Opinion seems to be all over the lot on this question. And my first reaction is a Bloomberg run will hurt the Democratic nominee, because at his core Michael Bloomberg is a liberal and his maximum appeal will be to Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents. In the same way Ross Perot at his core was a conservative with an appeal that was clearly more to Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. At the end of the day, this simple analysis is probably the most accurate gauge of the likely impact of any Bloomberg candidacy.
However, if he does run I don't know that it would be as simple as that. Election 2008 is shaping up to be a bizarre and different election on so many different levels that I can begin to imagine scenarios where a Bloomberg run could hurt the Republican nominee more.
What makes this more intriguing is the likelihood of Bloomberg getting in is inversely related to the strength of the eventual major-party nominees. A Romney-Edwards general election would be Bloomberg's best hope and in the unlikely event they are both the nominees I think a Bloomberg run becomes a near certainty, with a Bloomberg presidency a possibility.
Of the other leading candidates Giuliani, Thompson and McCain for the Republicans and Obama (and Gore) for the Democrats it is hard to envision the type of election where Bloomberg could find the opening to get the 35-40% of the national vote which is what he would need to win.
The best argument I heard that a Bloomberg candidacy hurts Republicans was from Frank
Luntz on Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: You said Bloomberg jumping in hurts Republicans more than it hurts Democrats, why?
LUNTZ: Because the Democratic base is stronger at this point than the Republican base. The Republican base has eroded over the last two or three years......Hillary Clinton has got a base vote of about 38 percent, 39 percent. She can't go any lower. The Republican base vote now is about one-third.
I think Luntz makes a very good point here: the Democratic base is stronger and more eager to win than the Republicans, but this is exactly what makes a Bloomberg run -- as long as Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee -- very unlikely.
Bloomberg's dilemma is this: even if Luntz is high with his 38%-39% projection for Hillary's base vote and it's really more around 35%, that's still too high for Bloomberg when you consider that the Republican base vote is at least 30%. That leaves Bloomberg no pathway to victory.
Bloomberg needs the biggest possible opening, the kind that could be created by a progressive run by Edwards on the Democratic side and a less popular candidate on the Republican side that would give Bloomberg the opportunity to go after moderate, suburban voters turned off by an energetic embrace of social conservative issues. Romney-Edwards is the kind of scenario where Bloomberg could plausibly thread the needle in a three-way (33-33-33) type of race. Don't misunderstand me - it is still an uphill battle, but it is at least conceivable.
So, to answer the original question, a Bloomberg candidacy would hurt the Democratic nominee in most cases - except for the field that would generate the highest probability of Bloomberg actually getting into the race. In that scenario, Bloomberg could easily end up hurting the Republican as much, if not more, than the Democrat.
John McIntyre is the President and co-founder of RealClearPolitics. Email: john@realclearpolitics.com
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/who_does_a_bloomberg_08_run_he.html at June 22, 2007 - 09:10:46 AM CDT
Whom Does a Bloomberg '08 Run Help or Hurt?
By John McIntyre
Opinion seems to be all over the lot on this question. And my first reaction is a Bloomberg run will hurt the Democratic nominee, because at his core Michael Bloomberg is a liberal and his maximum appeal will be to Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents. In the same way Ross Perot at his core was a conservative with an appeal that was clearly more to Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. At the end of the day, this simple analysis is probably the most accurate gauge of the likely impact of any Bloomberg candidacy.
However, if he does run I don't know that it would be as simple as that. Election 2008 is shaping up to be a bizarre and different election on so many different levels that I can begin to imagine scenarios where a Bloomberg run could hurt the Republican nominee more.
What makes this more intriguing is the likelihood of Bloomberg getting in is inversely related to the strength of the eventual major-party nominees. A Romney-Edwards general election would be Bloomberg's best hope and in the unlikely event they are both the nominees I think a Bloomberg run becomes a near certainty, with a Bloomberg presidency a possibility.
Of the other leading candidates Giuliani, Thompson and McCain for the Republicans and Obama (and Gore) for the Democrats it is hard to envision the type of election where Bloomberg could find the opening to get the 35-40% of the national vote which is what he would need to win.
The best argument I heard that a Bloomberg candidacy hurts Republicans was from Frank
Luntz on Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: You said Bloomberg jumping in hurts Republicans more than it hurts Democrats, why?
LUNTZ: Because the Democratic base is stronger at this point than the Republican base. The Republican base has eroded over the last two or three years......Hillary Clinton has got a base vote of about 38 percent, 39 percent. She can't go any lower. The Republican base vote now is about one-third.
I think Luntz makes a very good point here: the Democratic base is stronger and more eager to win than the Republicans, but this is exactly what makes a Bloomberg run -- as long as Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee -- very unlikely.
Bloomberg's dilemma is this: even if Luntz is high with his 38%-39% projection for Hillary's base vote and it's really more around 35%, that's still too high for Bloomberg when you consider that the Republican base vote is at least 30%. That leaves Bloomberg no pathway to victory.
Bloomberg needs the biggest possible opening, the kind that could be created by a progressive run by Edwards on the Democratic side and a less popular candidate on the Republican side that would give Bloomberg the opportunity to go after moderate, suburban voters turned off by an energetic embrace of social conservative issues. Romney-Edwards is the kind of scenario where Bloomberg could plausibly thread the needle in a three-way (33-33-33) type of race. Don't misunderstand me - it is still an uphill battle, but it is at least conceivable.
So, to answer the original question, a Bloomberg candidacy would hurt the Democratic nominee in most cases - except for the field that would generate the highest probability of Bloomberg actually getting into the race. In that scenario, Bloomberg could easily end up hurting the Republican as much, if not more, than the Democrat.
John McIntyre is the President and co-founder of RealClearPolitics. Email: john@realclearpolitics.com
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/who_does_a_bloomberg_08_run_he.html at June 22, 2007 - 09:10:46 AM CDT
Pork Project
June 22, 2007
POTOMAC WATCH By KIMBERLEY STRASSEL
Pork Project
June 22, 2007; Page A10
It was about a week ago that House Democrats ran up the white flag on earmarks and begrudgingly agreed to live by their campaign pledges to make pork requests public. It was also about a week ago that Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a sweeping new state transparency law, which will give his taxpayers detailed information about every state expenditure, grant and contract. Mark the difference.
Even as Washington has fiddled on earmarks -- delaying, obfuscating and basically doing all it can to avoid enacting real reform -- a transparency movement has been sweeping the nation. Angry over Alaskan Bridges to Nowhere, and frustrated by the lack of willpower in the nation's capital, small-government activists have turned their attention to the states. If ever Washington lagged behind a movement, this is it.
In April, Kansas became the first state in 2007 to sign into law comprehensive legislation mandating a public Web site to show its citizens where all their money was flowing. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty quickly followed suit, signing his own state's reform the following month. Mr. Perry was next, and Oklahoma and Hawaii have bills awaiting their own governors' signatures. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels issued an executive order to disclose state contracts all the way back in 2005. In total, some 19 states have passed, or are now working on, legislative or administrative reforms that would hand the public tools to examine government spending.
"Transparency is the next big thing," says Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. His organization, along with other national anti-waste groups, has turned this issue into a top agenda item, and they've been joined by local grassroots organizations such as Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and Washington state's Evergreen Freedom Foundation. These groups are aiming for more than just feel-good "open government." They're making a bet that transparency will succeed in limiting spending in ways that their other campaigns have not.
That hope is rooted in the idea that the best way to get Americans actively engaged in the debate over the size and efficiency of government is by giving them examples of government gone wrong. Reformers point to the current furor over Washington earmarks as proof. Tell Americans that the size of the federal government increased to a whopping $3 trillion, and their eyes glaze over. Tell them that the Alaska delegation was trying to appropriate some $300 million of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to build a bridge for 50 people, and they go berserk. Much as they went berserk decades ago at the news the Pentagon had spent $640 on a toilet seat.
Texas shows how big the transparency debate has become at the local level, and is even offering some signs that the reformers might be on the right track. Having seen national Republicans bounced from power -- in part because of the earmark issue -- Gov. Perry got out ahead on the transparency issue, running on greater disclosure in his re-election campaign last year and proposing in January that all state agencies publish their expenditures online.
He received a boost from Republican State Comptroller Susan Combs, who got elected in part by promising more disclosure -- a message that resonated with voters angry over Washington shenanigans. Within days of taking office in January, she'd listed her department's spending "down to the pencil category" and by May was offering information for dozens of other state agencies. Her Web site runs the gamut, from the state's commission on environmental quality to its employees' retirement system, and includes data on everything from salaries to travel bills. The legislature, meanwhile, also rushed to get some good-government kudos from voters, and the bill Gov. Perry signed last week requires spending information from all state agencies, as well as state contracts and grants.
The media, government groups and blogs have been combing through the details, with some lively results. Among the first to have to answer for spending actions was none other than Ms. Combs. Within a few weeks of posting the comptroller office's outlays, a local newspaper was asking why telephone costs had nearly doubled going into fiscal 2007. Her office also had to explain why cable costs had soared (more executive staff members had wanted it in their office); she noted that this expansion in services had now been cut back and would cost less.
Which is exactly the sort of debate the reformers had aimed to inspire. Mr. Norquist argues that the very existence of transparency laws "gets rid of half the problem," since politicians are on uncomfortable notice that their spending habits are being watched. If a politician knows that Joe Public can find out that he helped award a huge grant or government contract to a big campaign donor, he might think twice about pushing the grant in the first place.
At the state level, transparency has been an easy political sell. Voters have made clear they are willing to turn spending abuse into a top issue in local elections. And while big-government politicians may not fear arguing against budget caps or spending limitations, few are stupid enough to argue against better information. If anything, state Republicans and Democrats are racing to sponsor transparency bills. The question is if any of this translates back to Washington. National politicians understand the anger, which is why Democrats ran on greater earmark transparency last year, and why we had last year's successful legislation from Sens. Tom Coburn and Barack Obama to set up a public Web site detailing all federal contracts and grants.
Yet for all the sweet talk, most of Congress is still hoping voters will forget all this hubbub about pork amid more pressing issues like the Iraq war. The uproar over Democrats' decision to hide the details of 32,000 earmark requests suggests those hopes are as yet misplaced.
Even with greater transparency, will the humiliation factor work? Amid all House Appropriations Chairman David Obey's unconvincing reasons for keeping the public in the dark, he did make the fair point that even when embarrassing earmarks have been disclosed, Congress rallies around its porksters and approves the money. It's hard to shame people who have no shame.
And that's the next stage of the earmark debate. Forcing national politicians to admit to their bad spending habits is clearly difficult. Forcing them to stop, or pay the price at the polls, is the real test of "earmark reform."
• Write to kim@wsj.com1.
URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118247650043244330.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:(1) mailto: kim@wsj.com
Copyright 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
POTOMAC WATCH By KIMBERLEY STRASSEL
Pork Project
June 22, 2007; Page A10
It was about a week ago that House Democrats ran up the white flag on earmarks and begrudgingly agreed to live by their campaign pledges to make pork requests public. It was also about a week ago that Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a sweeping new state transparency law, which will give his taxpayers detailed information about every state expenditure, grant and contract. Mark the difference.
Even as Washington has fiddled on earmarks -- delaying, obfuscating and basically doing all it can to avoid enacting real reform -- a transparency movement has been sweeping the nation. Angry over Alaskan Bridges to Nowhere, and frustrated by the lack of willpower in the nation's capital, small-government activists have turned their attention to the states. If ever Washington lagged behind a movement, this is it.
In April, Kansas became the first state in 2007 to sign into law comprehensive legislation mandating a public Web site to show its citizens where all their money was flowing. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty quickly followed suit, signing his own state's reform the following month. Mr. Perry was next, and Oklahoma and Hawaii have bills awaiting their own governors' signatures. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels issued an executive order to disclose state contracts all the way back in 2005. In total, some 19 states have passed, or are now working on, legislative or administrative reforms that would hand the public tools to examine government spending.
"Transparency is the next big thing," says Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. His organization, along with other national anti-waste groups, has turned this issue into a top agenda item, and they've been joined by local grassroots organizations such as Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and Washington state's Evergreen Freedom Foundation. These groups are aiming for more than just feel-good "open government." They're making a bet that transparency will succeed in limiting spending in ways that their other campaigns have not.
That hope is rooted in the idea that the best way to get Americans actively engaged in the debate over the size and efficiency of government is by giving them examples of government gone wrong. Reformers point to the current furor over Washington earmarks as proof. Tell Americans that the size of the federal government increased to a whopping $3 trillion, and their eyes glaze over. Tell them that the Alaska delegation was trying to appropriate some $300 million of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to build a bridge for 50 people, and they go berserk. Much as they went berserk decades ago at the news the Pentagon had spent $640 on a toilet seat.
Texas shows how big the transparency debate has become at the local level, and is even offering some signs that the reformers might be on the right track. Having seen national Republicans bounced from power -- in part because of the earmark issue -- Gov. Perry got out ahead on the transparency issue, running on greater disclosure in his re-election campaign last year and proposing in January that all state agencies publish their expenditures online.
He received a boost from Republican State Comptroller Susan Combs, who got elected in part by promising more disclosure -- a message that resonated with voters angry over Washington shenanigans. Within days of taking office in January, she'd listed her department's spending "down to the pencil category" and by May was offering information for dozens of other state agencies. Her Web site runs the gamut, from the state's commission on environmental quality to its employees' retirement system, and includes data on everything from salaries to travel bills. The legislature, meanwhile, also rushed to get some good-government kudos from voters, and the bill Gov. Perry signed last week requires spending information from all state agencies, as well as state contracts and grants.
The media, government groups and blogs have been combing through the details, with some lively results. Among the first to have to answer for spending actions was none other than Ms. Combs. Within a few weeks of posting the comptroller office's outlays, a local newspaper was asking why telephone costs had nearly doubled going into fiscal 2007. Her office also had to explain why cable costs had soared (more executive staff members had wanted it in their office); she noted that this expansion in services had now been cut back and would cost less.
Which is exactly the sort of debate the reformers had aimed to inspire. Mr. Norquist argues that the very existence of transparency laws "gets rid of half the problem," since politicians are on uncomfortable notice that their spending habits are being watched. If a politician knows that Joe Public can find out that he helped award a huge grant or government contract to a big campaign donor, he might think twice about pushing the grant in the first place.
At the state level, transparency has been an easy political sell. Voters have made clear they are willing to turn spending abuse into a top issue in local elections. And while big-government politicians may not fear arguing against budget caps or spending limitations, few are stupid enough to argue against better information. If anything, state Republicans and Democrats are racing to sponsor transparency bills. The question is if any of this translates back to Washington. National politicians understand the anger, which is why Democrats ran on greater earmark transparency last year, and why we had last year's successful legislation from Sens. Tom Coburn and Barack Obama to set up a public Web site detailing all federal contracts and grants.
Yet for all the sweet talk, most of Congress is still hoping voters will forget all this hubbub about pork amid more pressing issues like the Iraq war. The uproar over Democrats' decision to hide the details of 32,000 earmark requests suggests those hopes are as yet misplaced.
Even with greater transparency, will the humiliation factor work? Amid all House Appropriations Chairman David Obey's unconvincing reasons for keeping the public in the dark, he did make the fair point that even when embarrassing earmarks have been disclosed, Congress rallies around its porksters and approves the money. It's hard to shame people who have no shame.
And that's the next stage of the earmark debate. Forcing national politicians to admit to their bad spending habits is clearly difficult. Forcing them to stop, or pay the price at the polls, is the real test of "earmark reform."
• Write to kim@wsj.com1.
URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118247650043244330.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:(1) mailto: kim@wsj.com
Copyright 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Rudy
Thought I'd give a rundown on why I'm opposed to Rudy Giuliani. Of all the candidates out there, I like this guy the least. Frankly, he scares me, the same way W scares me.
This Slate article discussed Giuliani's decision to leave the Iraq Study Group. My boy Keith Olbmermann talks about Rudy's fear mongering, and basically surmises that Rudy's a terrorist himself. I agree. Giuliani is running on 9/11, plain and simple....it reminds me of that video played at the 2004 Republican National Convention, casting W as a 9/11 hero. I really don't see what Rudy did after 9/11 that was commendable. I think he did his job...albeit a tough job, but anyone with a sense of duty and the most elementary of leadership skills could've done the same if not better. The Slate article hints at Rudy's failure to make the NYPD and NYFD interoperable prior to 9/11.
I'm with Rudy on the social issues. Gay marriage and abortion should not be discussed in the political arena. I do fear that with all his talk of being on the offensive in the war on terror, he will be one to strip us of civil liberties, perhaps even more than W and his Patriot Act.
I think the Onion says it best, maybe Rudy should be the President of 9/11.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
My Two Cents
Although I am not sure if I am eligible to join in on this electoral pool, I will throw in my ideas on who will be the nominees and winners:
Democrats:
Presidential Candidate: Hillary Clinton
Vice Presidential Candidate: Barrack Obama
Republicans:
Presidential Candidate: Rudy Giuliani
Vice Presidential Candidate: Fred Thompson
Independent:
Presidential Candidate: Michael Bloomberg
Vice Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul
Yes, I have picked an all New York ticket for the 2008 election.
Bloomberg would definitely complicate matters, and at this time I am unsure which party he would hurt the most. However, for the sake of the bet, I will say that the winning ticket will be the Democrats, much to the chagrin of my Goldwater persona.
Democrats:
Presidential Candidate: Hillary Clinton
Vice Presidential Candidate: Barrack Obama
Republicans:
Presidential Candidate: Rudy Giuliani
Vice Presidential Candidate: Fred Thompson
Independent:
Presidential Candidate: Michael Bloomberg
Vice Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul
Yes, I have picked an all New York ticket for the 2008 election.
Bloomberg would definitely complicate matters, and at this time I am unsure which party he would hurt the most. However, for the sake of the bet, I will say that the winning ticket will be the Democrats, much to the chagrin of my Goldwater persona.
2008...time to bet
Alright, we're what, 17 months away? It's time to pick a candidate. Mr. Winthorpe, the standard prize will apply...a bottle of Pappy's 30 year goes to the winner, paid for by the other 2.
Before stating your picks, we need some ground rules. Rather than picking a straight up winner, we should give credit for picking both GOP and Dem nominees. No prohibition on picking the same winner of the general election. Tiebreaker will be margin of victory with electoral votes....Prices Right rules apply.
Let's say 10 pts each for party nominees, and 20 pts for picking the winner. 5 point bonuses for picking their running mates.
Along with picking the winners, compare those with the candidate you'd LIKE to see win, but probably won't (i.e. Ron Paul).
Put your picks down in the form of a new post, rather than a comment attached to this one.
Before stating your picks, we need some ground rules. Rather than picking a straight up winner, we should give credit for picking both GOP and Dem nominees. No prohibition on picking the same winner of the general election. Tiebreaker will be margin of victory with electoral votes....Prices Right rules apply.
Let's say 10 pts each for party nominees, and 20 pts for picking the winner. 5 point bonuses for picking their running mates.
Along with picking the winners, compare those with the candidate you'd LIKE to see win, but probably won't (i.e. Ron Paul).
Put your picks down in the form of a new post, rather than a comment attached to this one.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Scooter Libby
Listened to this essay on the Bill Moyers Journal podcast this morning. This one sums up my feelings on the Libby issue. Can't the judge use a little creative sentencing? How about a year in Iraq as a PFC in an infantry unit?
---------------
June 15, 2007
Bill Moyers Essay; Beg Your Pardon
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal. Iraq is a bloody mess and getting bloodier every day. So what's been all the buzz this week among the people who took us to war from the safety of their beltway bunkers - I mean Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites? Their passion of the week is to keep Scooter Libby from going to jail. I'm not making this up. Secretary of State Condoleeeza Rice, one of the premier fabricators of the war, met with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal here in New York, and is quoted saying that Scooter Libby has served the country well and should be treated accordingly. A strong hint there of a presidential pardon for one of their own.
BILL MOYERS: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was Vice President Cheney's most trusted adviser - as you know, he's been sentenced to 30 months in jail for lying. Perjury. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators....for the purpose of obstructing justice.
Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places - including his boss Dick Cheney - outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. He kicked sand in the eyes of truth, to throw investigators off the trail. Said the Chief Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald: "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered." The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. The judge - Reggie B. Walton - a no-nonsense lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush - called the evidence ‘overwhelming' and threw the book at Libby. You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his defenders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to free Scooter Libby.
TOM DELAY ("Hardball"): This is a travesty of justice.
DAVID FRUM ("Hardball"): The punishment is just so out of line with reality!
BILL MOYERS: Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as "a man of...personal integrity" - without -- of course -- a hint about their collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq. "A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and a tireless, honorable, selfless human being," said Donald Rumsfeld -- the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction, and boasted of "bulletproof" evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. "A good person" and "decent man," said the pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a "cakewalk." Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise "the noblest spirit of selfless service" that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" and that Iraq would "finance its own reconstruction." The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently as president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: I made a mistake.
BILL MOYERS: Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness. The praise kept coming....from Douglas Feith, who ran the pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press... from Henry Kissinger, who whispered often into Libby's ear...from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby's "honesty, integrity, fairness and balance" as he had been about the success of the war...William Kristol, whose Weekly Standard primed the pump of the propaganda machine, now led the call for a presidential pardon:
WILLIAM KRISTOL: I think there's a very strong case on the merits for pardon.
BILL MOYERS: One beltway insider is quoted saying the neo-cons are "weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness" of Libby's sentence. And there's the rub. None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state it baldly, as he pleaded on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal for Bush to pardon Libby. For believing "in the nobility of this war," wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a "casualty" -- a fallen soldier the president dare not leave behind on the beltway battlefield. Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-god dead and dying and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. All the beltway warriors can muster is a plea of mercy for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks. There are contrarian voices.
PATRICK BUCHANAN: This is an open and shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice. And the Republican party, you know, stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators.
BILL MOYERS: And from the former Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: "If the public believes there's one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system." So it may well be, as the Hartford Courant said editorially, that Mr. Libby is "a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot"...but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn't matter much."
---------------
June 15, 2007
Bill Moyers Essay; Beg Your Pardon
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal. Iraq is a bloody mess and getting bloodier every day. So what's been all the buzz this week among the people who took us to war from the safety of their beltway bunkers - I mean Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites? Their passion of the week is to keep Scooter Libby from going to jail. I'm not making this up. Secretary of State Condoleeeza Rice, one of the premier fabricators of the war, met with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal here in New York, and is quoted saying that Scooter Libby has served the country well and should be treated accordingly. A strong hint there of a presidential pardon for one of their own.
BILL MOYERS: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was Vice President Cheney's most trusted adviser - as you know, he's been sentenced to 30 months in jail for lying. Perjury. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators....for the purpose of obstructing justice.
Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places - including his boss Dick Cheney - outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. He kicked sand in the eyes of truth, to throw investigators off the trail. Said the Chief Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald: "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered." The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. The judge - Reggie B. Walton - a no-nonsense lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush - called the evidence ‘overwhelming' and threw the book at Libby. You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his defenders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to free Scooter Libby.
TOM DELAY ("Hardball"): This is a travesty of justice.
DAVID FRUM ("Hardball"): The punishment is just so out of line with reality!
BILL MOYERS: Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as "a man of...personal integrity" - without -- of course -- a hint about their collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq. "A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and a tireless, honorable, selfless human being," said Donald Rumsfeld -- the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction, and boasted of "bulletproof" evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. "A good person" and "decent man," said the pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a "cakewalk." Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise "the noblest spirit of selfless service" that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" and that Iraq would "finance its own reconstruction." The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently as president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: I made a mistake.
BILL MOYERS: Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness. The praise kept coming....from Douglas Feith, who ran the pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press... from Henry Kissinger, who whispered often into Libby's ear...from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby's "honesty, integrity, fairness and balance" as he had been about the success of the war...William Kristol, whose Weekly Standard primed the pump of the propaganda machine, now led the call for a presidential pardon:
WILLIAM KRISTOL: I think there's a very strong case on the merits for pardon.
BILL MOYERS: One beltway insider is quoted saying the neo-cons are "weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness" of Libby's sentence. And there's the rub. None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state it baldly, as he pleaded on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal for Bush to pardon Libby. For believing "in the nobility of this war," wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a "casualty" -- a fallen soldier the president dare not leave behind on the beltway battlefield. Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-god dead and dying and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. All the beltway warriors can muster is a plea of mercy for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks. There are contrarian voices.
PATRICK BUCHANAN: This is an open and shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice. And the Republican party, you know, stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators.
BILL MOYERS: And from the former Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: "If the public believes there's one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system." So it may well be, as the Hartford Courant said editorially, that Mr. Libby is "a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot"...but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn't matter much."
Ron Paul as the Next Howard Dean?
From Reason:
Ron Paul, for the People
Can a libertarian Republican appeal to Democrats?
Brian Doherty | June 15, 2007
Ron Paul may not be the next president of the United States, but he is already in effect the president of meetup.com.
You might remember that online community site from the Howard Dean explosion leading into the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. It was widely credited with being key to his burgeoning people power that scared the rest of the Dem pack four years ago.
Deanmania ruled for a while, at least until votes were actually cast. He did not, as you might notice, end up president, or even the Democratic nominee. But he did assure a political future for himself as chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Looking at the meetup numbers, Paul partisans can’t help but feel a swell of hope—and wonder if Paulmania has some chance of reaching escape velocity between now and the actual primary season.
Ron has 8,763 meetup group members. For politicians actually running this year, he’s more than 100 percent ahead of his nearest rival, Barack Obama. And that’s not all: Paul’s got about twice as many YouTube subscribers as he has meetup members, while Obama, who is supposed to be similarly exhilarating to the grassroots on the Democratic side, has only 6,589.
Despite these numbers in a world where concerted activist action can bring impressive paper results, and even gather more real-world cheering than competitors, Ron still isn’t doing much in the polls, despite an impressive amount of specialty national media (from Maher to Dobbs to Stewart to Colbert), even in those polls which bother to include him. (Paul partisans have some good reasons to feel picked on and excluded by mainstream media, to be sure.)
It’s no coincidence that meetup.com made its first big political splash for a Democrat, Dean. Conceptually, the meetup model fits well with a certain story that Democrats like to tell about themselves—all cutting edge and grassroots and people power, the sort of things a party that was, until 2006, largely out of federal power needs to court and cultivate.
That thought, and my experience at a meetup-generated Paul supporters meeting this week in Pasadena, made me wonder about Paul’s potential to appeal to disaffected Democrats.
The meeting, which I stumbled into by accident (I hadn’t signed up for Paul’s meetup group myself and was unaware it was happening), had, even two and a half hours after its official beginning, a good 75 people filling the room. Attendees told me more than 100 were there at peak—which I found quite impressive, but the Paul rally coordinator I spoke to seemed disappointed. There were more people under the age of 30 in this room then I saw at the national convention of the Libertarian Party in Portland in 2006.
When I asked one former Democrat at this gathering, who told me he got excited by Paul during the first televised GOP debates, whether he was a common phenomenon, both he and another supporter (who came to Ron from the hard money side) shook their heads wonderingly as if I’d asked them something as ridiculous and obvious as if Ron Paul believes in the Constitution; it’s a constant phenomenon, they insist. The hard money guy, who likes to wear his nifty “Ron Paul Revolution” t-shirt (with the “evol” in revolution laid out to make the “love” backwards part stand out), says he’s constantly approached by interested civilians, many of them Democrats, excited and eager to know more.
All either of them had was anecdotes, not thorough data. But no one is polling Democratic voters on their thoughts on Ron Paul, so that’s all we’ve got to go on. The appeal makes sense on some level, especially when you look at the weak-kneed pasts of most of the antiwarriors leading the Dem pack and contemplate the list of issues that sum up Paul on a business card being handed out at this event.
It has the “ronpaul2008.com” address on top, and lists as Ron’s stances: “Voted against Iraq War. Voted against Patriot Act. Never voted to raise taxes. Never voted to increase government. Opposes Internet regulation. Opposes War on Drugs. Opposes Torture. Supports non-interventionist foreign policy. Supports habeas corpus.” (That’s the full list.)
Now, some Democratic intellectuals of the Jonathan Chait variety seem to think raising taxes is a primary political imperative, but I’m sure even most Democratic voters aren’t going to actually mind too much that he’s against raising taxes. So Paul has in many senses the best of the supposed appeal of Reaganite conservatism (small government, keeping the feds out of our lives), and is for many rights and against many abrogations of rights that progressives support.
And this list of stances (perhaps wisely) doesn’t mention immigration at all—where Paul’s position, outside the modal libertarian let ‘em in but don’t put ‘em on the dole line, probably appeals to more American voters than does that modal libertarian line. Thus, one wonders why Paul isn’t considered a shoe-in for victory by acclimation, as he seems to have something big to offer almost every impassioned voting constituency. And he’s even major party. (Not to mention that his noninterventionist foreign policy has something in common with the one that President Bush was elected on in 2000.)
One of the keys to why Paul should have wider appeal is that while he is certainly very libertarian, he is in many ways more federalist and constitutionalist than libertarian in a strict sense. He’s willing to leave all sorts of things to the states rather than imposing small-government solutions from the top down. He represents—or should, to most thinking voters—little in the way of a threat to their interests, insomuch as their interests don’t involve living off the federal teat or using federal power to their advantage. As Paul told me when I interviewed him for my book Radicals for Capitalism, “the freedom philosophy shouldn’t be challenging to too many people, when you emphasize that all I want to do is leave you alone.”
Progressive gadflies at the Nation such as Alexander Cockburn and John Nichols have had kind words for Paul, the former bordering on an endorsement. Paul has spoken of his affection for, and cooperation with, progressive Dem favorite Dennis Kucinich. Democratic voters need to decide, after eight years of Bush, if they can dedicate themselves mostly to stopping government from doing all the bad things they think Bush has done, from wars to Patriot Acts, or if it is more important to use government’s power to do all the good things they insist must be done.
I suspect they will ultimately fall back on the latter, and not rush into every open primary state away from their own lame pack to push Paul forward in Republican primaries.
In the voting booth, momentum often seems to overcome affection (was Kerry really particularly beloved by anyone, even his family?) and the inertia of centrism often overwhelms potentially exciting change.
And undoubtedly, culturally and intellectually, Ron Paul is coming from a very different place than most Democratic voters, and especially from most Democratic intellectuals. (At this Pasadena meeting, the most prominent literature being handed out was issues of the Birch mag New American.) See the Suicide Girls softcore hipster porn web site for a list of reasons why most American progressives, the more they learn about Paul, might want to run away. And no matter how much evil they see in Bush, it is very hard for American liberals to let go of a dream of a powerful do-everything state that will do just what they want it to do, and no more.
Ron Paul is the most energetic and consistent advocate on an issue of paramount political importance, especially to left-progressives—ending our involvement in Iraq. He’s willing to leave many controversial issues to states and localities. He wants to leave most of us alone to manage our own affairs, as either individuals or smaller polities. He’s a dedicated enemy of some of the most evil and repressive policies currently afoot in America. If America’s progressives can’t manage to give him at least two cheers, the fault lies not with their candidates, but with themselves.
Still, I’m not taking any bets on Ron Paul being the chairman of the RNC in 2009, either.
Ron Paul, for the People
Can a libertarian Republican appeal to Democrats?
Brian Doherty | June 15, 2007
Ron Paul may not be the next president of the United States, but he is already in effect the president of meetup.com.
You might remember that online community site from the Howard Dean explosion leading into the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. It was widely credited with being key to his burgeoning people power that scared the rest of the Dem pack four years ago.
Deanmania ruled for a while, at least until votes were actually cast. He did not, as you might notice, end up president, or even the Democratic nominee. But he did assure a political future for himself as chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Looking at the meetup numbers, Paul partisans can’t help but feel a swell of hope—and wonder if Paulmania has some chance of reaching escape velocity between now and the actual primary season.
Ron has 8,763 meetup group members. For politicians actually running this year, he’s more than 100 percent ahead of his nearest rival, Barack Obama. And that’s not all: Paul’s got about twice as many YouTube subscribers as he has meetup members, while Obama, who is supposed to be similarly exhilarating to the grassroots on the Democratic side, has only 6,589.
Despite these numbers in a world where concerted activist action can bring impressive paper results, and even gather more real-world cheering than competitors, Ron still isn’t doing much in the polls, despite an impressive amount of specialty national media (from Maher to Dobbs to Stewart to Colbert), even in those polls which bother to include him. (Paul partisans have some good reasons to feel picked on and excluded by mainstream media, to be sure.)
It’s no coincidence that meetup.com made its first big political splash for a Democrat, Dean. Conceptually, the meetup model fits well with a certain story that Democrats like to tell about themselves—all cutting edge and grassroots and people power, the sort of things a party that was, until 2006, largely out of federal power needs to court and cultivate.
That thought, and my experience at a meetup-generated Paul supporters meeting this week in Pasadena, made me wonder about Paul’s potential to appeal to disaffected Democrats.
The meeting, which I stumbled into by accident (I hadn’t signed up for Paul’s meetup group myself and was unaware it was happening), had, even two and a half hours after its official beginning, a good 75 people filling the room. Attendees told me more than 100 were there at peak—which I found quite impressive, but the Paul rally coordinator I spoke to seemed disappointed. There were more people under the age of 30 in this room then I saw at the national convention of the Libertarian Party in Portland in 2006.
When I asked one former Democrat at this gathering, who told me he got excited by Paul during the first televised GOP debates, whether he was a common phenomenon, both he and another supporter (who came to Ron from the hard money side) shook their heads wonderingly as if I’d asked them something as ridiculous and obvious as if Ron Paul believes in the Constitution; it’s a constant phenomenon, they insist. The hard money guy, who likes to wear his nifty “Ron Paul Revolution” t-shirt (with the “evol” in revolution laid out to make the “love” backwards part stand out), says he’s constantly approached by interested civilians, many of them Democrats, excited and eager to know more.
All either of them had was anecdotes, not thorough data. But no one is polling Democratic voters on their thoughts on Ron Paul, so that’s all we’ve got to go on. The appeal makes sense on some level, especially when you look at the weak-kneed pasts of most of the antiwarriors leading the Dem pack and contemplate the list of issues that sum up Paul on a business card being handed out at this event.
It has the “ronpaul2008.com” address on top, and lists as Ron’s stances: “Voted against Iraq War. Voted against Patriot Act. Never voted to raise taxes. Never voted to increase government. Opposes Internet regulation. Opposes War on Drugs. Opposes Torture. Supports non-interventionist foreign policy. Supports habeas corpus.” (That’s the full list.)
Now, some Democratic intellectuals of the Jonathan Chait variety seem to think raising taxes is a primary political imperative, but I’m sure even most Democratic voters aren’t going to actually mind too much that he’s against raising taxes. So Paul has in many senses the best of the supposed appeal of Reaganite conservatism (small government, keeping the feds out of our lives), and is for many rights and against many abrogations of rights that progressives support.
And this list of stances (perhaps wisely) doesn’t mention immigration at all—where Paul’s position, outside the modal libertarian let ‘em in but don’t put ‘em on the dole line, probably appeals to more American voters than does that modal libertarian line. Thus, one wonders why Paul isn’t considered a shoe-in for victory by acclimation, as he seems to have something big to offer almost every impassioned voting constituency. And he’s even major party. (Not to mention that his noninterventionist foreign policy has something in common with the one that President Bush was elected on in 2000.)
One of the keys to why Paul should have wider appeal is that while he is certainly very libertarian, he is in many ways more federalist and constitutionalist than libertarian in a strict sense. He’s willing to leave all sorts of things to the states rather than imposing small-government solutions from the top down. He represents—or should, to most thinking voters—little in the way of a threat to their interests, insomuch as their interests don’t involve living off the federal teat or using federal power to their advantage. As Paul told me when I interviewed him for my book Radicals for Capitalism, “the freedom philosophy shouldn’t be challenging to too many people, when you emphasize that all I want to do is leave you alone.”
Progressive gadflies at the Nation such as Alexander Cockburn and John Nichols have had kind words for Paul, the former bordering on an endorsement. Paul has spoken of his affection for, and cooperation with, progressive Dem favorite Dennis Kucinich. Democratic voters need to decide, after eight years of Bush, if they can dedicate themselves mostly to stopping government from doing all the bad things they think Bush has done, from wars to Patriot Acts, or if it is more important to use government’s power to do all the good things they insist must be done.
I suspect they will ultimately fall back on the latter, and not rush into every open primary state away from their own lame pack to push Paul forward in Republican primaries.
In the voting booth, momentum often seems to overcome affection (was Kerry really particularly beloved by anyone, even his family?) and the inertia of centrism often overwhelms potentially exciting change.
And undoubtedly, culturally and intellectually, Ron Paul is coming from a very different place than most Democratic voters, and especially from most Democratic intellectuals. (At this Pasadena meeting, the most prominent literature being handed out was issues of the Birch mag New American.) See the Suicide Girls softcore hipster porn web site for a list of reasons why most American progressives, the more they learn about Paul, might want to run away. And no matter how much evil they see in Bush, it is very hard for American liberals to let go of a dream of a powerful do-everything state that will do just what they want it to do, and no more.
Ron Paul is the most energetic and consistent advocate on an issue of paramount political importance, especially to left-progressives—ending our involvement in Iraq. He’s willing to leave many controversial issues to states and localities. He wants to leave most of us alone to manage our own affairs, as either individuals or smaller polities. He’s a dedicated enemy of some of the most evil and repressive policies currently afoot in America. If America’s progressives can’t manage to give him at least two cheers, the fault lies not with their candidates, but with themselves.
Still, I’m not taking any bets on Ron Paul being the chairman of the RNC in 2009, either.
Monday, June 18, 2007
End Social Security
by Alex Epstein (January 20, 2005)
Throughout the nation, a fierce debate rages over Social Security. One side, led by President Bush, says the system is in crisis and must be saved via "partial privatization." The other side says the system is basically sound and can be saved with a little tinkering.
Both sides, however, agree on one absolute: Social Security should be saved. While it may have financial problems, they believe, some form of mandatory government-run retirement program is morally necessary.
But is it?
Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.
This is a fraud.
Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income--approximately 12%--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.
Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes--it has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants--observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of--witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything--except a massive drain on his income.
If Social Security did not exist--if the individual were free to use that 12% of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12% to retirement. He might choose to work far past the age of 65. He might choose to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business.
How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual--and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves.
And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?
The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a recent New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.
Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.
Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures.
Throughout the nation, a fierce debate rages over Social Security. One side, led by President Bush, says the system is in crisis and must be saved via "partial privatization." The other side says the system is basically sound and can be saved with a little tinkering.
Both sides, however, agree on one absolute: Social Security should be saved. While it may have financial problems, they believe, some form of mandatory government-run retirement program is morally necessary.
But is it?
Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.
This is a fraud.
Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income--approximately 12%--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.
Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes--it has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants--observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of--witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything--except a massive drain on his income.
If Social Security did not exist--if the individual were free to use that 12% of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12% to retirement. He might choose to work far past the age of 65. He might choose to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business.
How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual--and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves.
And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?
The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a recent New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.
Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.
Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures.
It's Time To End Social Security
Why the System is Bankrupt -and How We Can Replace It
by George L. O'Brien
edited by Mark Valverde and James R. Elwood
"If the US government were required to keep its books the way businesses are required to keep theirs, the national debt wouldn't be $5 trillion. It would be $17 trillion, an amount equal to 2½ times the nation's gross domestic product." Forbes, "The Legal Ponzi Scheme," October 9, 1995
The Legal Ponzi Scheme
Discussions of Social Security remind me of the joke about a man who jumps from the top of a fifty-story building and after falling half-way is asked, "How are you doing?" He answers, "Fine, so far." The issue of Social Security has long been considered the "third rail'' of politics – as on the electrified subway: "touch it and you die." But like the falling man, Social Security is not really "fine."
There are many reasons for the popularity of Social Security. It is the only part of the welfare state which promises benefits to nearly every person. It is also seen to relieve adult children of the responsibility of supporting their elderly parents, and it helps the elderly poor for whom there is a great deal of sympathy.
There is only one problem: the system is a fraud. In theory, Social Security is a form of "insurance." In practice, it is a "Ponzi scheme." Historian Mark Knutson, writes that in the summer of 1920, [Charles K.] Ponzi claimed he was giving investors just a portion of the 400% profit he was earning through trade in postal reply coupons. As Ponzi paid the matured notes held by early investors, word of enormous profits spread through the community, whipping greedy and credulous investors into a frenzy. Investigation later revealed that there were no coupons or profits – earlier notes were paid at maturity from the proceeds of later ones. The simplicity and grand scale of his scheme linked Ponzi's name with a particular form of fraud.
This type of fraud is called a pyramid scheme. To pay off earlier "investors" in such a scheme, an ever larger number of participants must to be added.
In the early 1970s, a federal law known as ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act) was passed after it was found that many corporate pension plans were paying current beneficiaries directly from current contributor's funds. When income declined, the corporate pension plans were terminated - just like the late investors in Ponzi's scheme. (The whole idea that businesses should handle employee savings due to federal tax preferences helped create this problem in the first place.) Under ERISA, any employer who failed to fully fund its pension plan could be held criminally liable.
Charles Ponzi went to prison. But the politicians who run Social Security are not held liable for what is normally considered criminal behavior.
The Prussian Model
Many Americans believe that Social Security is an integral part of our free enterprise system, but it is neither American nor free enterprise. The original Social Security system was created by the Prussian/German leader Otto von Bismarck in 1883. Bismarck was looking for a way to win the support of the working people, who were unhappy with the high taxes needed to support the large German military and the high prices created by the government-protected industrial cartels.
He wanted to find a way to con people into believing that they were going to get something from the state, without its actually having to deliver. He asked an actuary how long most people could be expected to live. The answer was 65 years. Bismarck then set the age of eligibility for his social security system at 65, knowing full well that most of the people would have died before they received a dime from the system. In spite of this, the system was wildly popular.
The Prussian concept of Social Security was an authoritarian one – based on the false premise that people are incompetent to look after their own affairs and need a paternalistic socialist state to force them to provide for their own retirement.
In the US during the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was looking for a way to gain the support of the working people who were unhappy with the continuing Great Depression and the high taxes needed to support his New Deal programs. So the Social Security program was created in 1935 (just in time for the 1936 elections).
The Social Security "Trust Fund" Myth
Republican and Democrat politicians tell us that the money each employee "contributes" to Social Security goes into a "trust fund." The money from this fund is "invested" in federal government bonds. Upon retirement, the "reserve" made up of "contributions" and the interest on the bonds would be used to pay benefits to the retiree.
From the beginning, in spite of the claims that it was an old-age insurance program, Social Security paid its benefits from current cash flow, rather than paying benefits out of interest accrued on a reserve fund as a private pension plan would do. As Social Security taxes were paid into the system, the funds were immediately doled out to beneficiaries. As more taxpayers retired, they would be paid from the money taken from younger taxpayers – just like Ponzi's investors.
There are other structural flaws with this system. First of all, people began to live longer. Whereas in 1883 most people died by the age of 65, by the late 20th Century people were living an average of a decade longer. This meant a huge increase in potential beneficiaries. When the Social Security program began in 1935, there were 16 contributors for every retiree, but a decline in the birth rate paralleling the increase in longevity has dropped the ratio of workers to retirees to only 3 to 1 in the 1990s.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Once the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) start retiring, the ratio will shrink even more. Estimates are that there will be only two workers for every retiree by the year 2025. Social Security taxes alone will have to exceed 22% of each worker's income by that point. (Plus a compulsory matching amount paid by employers).
Preserve The System: Ruin The People
Typical proposals to "reform" Social Security have been built around increasing taxes. The 1983 Social Security tax increase was supposed to create a reserve fund of $10 trillion by the year 2030. However, since 1967 Congress has been raiding up to $70 billion each year from the Social Security fund to hide part of their massive deficit spending. Thus the Social Security trust fund is filled with IOUs in the form of Treasury Bonds. The interest on these bonds must be paid by you, the taxpayer.
The typical alternative "reform" is to renounce promised benefits by implementing a series of major benefits cuts and raising the age of eligibility. Many people have come to expect this solution. Indeed, one public opinion poll found only 8% of Americans under age 30 believe they will get anything out Social Security. Even defenders of the status quo admit that benefits will have to be reduced.
Recently, proposals have emerged in Congress to partially "privatize" Social Security. But with rare exceptions, none of these proposals address the problems of the $12 trillion in unfunded liability or the high risks involved in transferring control of one's retirement savings into the hands of politicians.
The promises made by politicians are simply a fraud. Few people will ever get what they've been promised from Social Security.
The Chilean Model
In the mid-1980s, Chile had an even worse problem than the US. Yet according to Rita Koslka in her article "A Better Way to Do It," published in the October 28, 1991 issue of Forbes:
Replacing the old system, then Minister of Labor José Piñera put in a plan that requires each of the country's 4.8 million workers to put 10% of his pre-tax income into a private pension fund of his own choosing; there are no employer contributions. There are 13 plans to choose from, and workers can switch their funds between plans to get the best returns at the lowest cost.
In Chile, at age 65 for a man (60 for a woman) the worker takes the accumulated savings and either buys an annuity or organizes an individual payout schedule. He can retire earlier if he has enough money in his pension fund. To protect worker's savings, most funds are invested in securities automatically indexed for inflation.
The benefits to the individual worker of this policy have far exceeded expectations.
The original plans for the Chilean program anticipated an annual return of about 5.5%. A retiree with 40 years in the fund at that rate, would receive 70% of the average of the last five years of his or her salary. With a return of 6.5% the payout would be 100% of that rate.
It turns out that the average rate of return has actually been in the neighborhood of 13%, which has induced many workers to contribute far more than the required minimum amounts. This has not only made it possible for people to retire in comfort, but has provided funds for a major economic expansion.
Because the money that goes into these private pension funds is invested in production, a great supply of investment capital was made available to businesses and entrepreneurs at relatively low interest rates. With capital available, production increased many-fold and a huge new labor market has been created. There was also a major stock market boom (helped by new funds and new freer market policies). These private funds now constitute the equivalent of one third of Chile's gross national product.
In 1992 alone, Chile's economy, measured by its Gross Domestic Product, grew by 9.7%. That is nearly 4 times the rate of growth in the US for that same year. Inflation and unemployment in Chile have been declining steadily and rapidly during the same time period.
In fact, so much investment capital is now available that Chilean investors have been able to invest in neighboring countries.
The program has in fact proved so successful that Argentina has adopted a similar system. Delegations from Mexico, Venezuela and Poland have visited Chile to study how this approach can be used in their countries.
According to Augusto Iglesias, chief economist for the Chilean pension fund, Habitat, the Chilean Social Security system "is based on very simple and reasonable principles: that people care about their money, and that putting it in private hands is more efficient than with the government".
The Chilean program goes beyond replacing a government pension system with a private system. It also eliminates the domination of retirement programs by corporate pension plans, since workers now control their own funds.
Chilean Minister of Labor José Piñera summed it up by saying, "It is a common-sense system that is more easily understood by the average Chilean mother than by social security experts." However, the Chilean system is not perfect. The program is compulsory and there are limitations on investment choices.
Ending Social Security
At some point people must realize the futility of trying to save the current bankrupt Social Security system.
More tinkering with the status quo won't help – Social Security is both financially and morally bankrupt – and soon this Ponzi scheme will collapse.
Completely ending Social Security and returning total control over retirement savings to individual workers will end the fraud and provide opportunities for them to earn a decent rate of return on their own hard-earned money. Moreover, it will protect their savings from rapacious politicians and ensure that their money is used productively rather than to disguise federal deficits. Reforms in places such as Chile suggest that the overall benefits to the economy could be substantial if government is removed from the equation.
Unfortunately, like the falling man, it is hard for most people to realize that things are not "fine" – until they hit the pavement. The sooner we end Social Security, the better for everyone concerned.
****************************************
George L. O'Brien is a prolific libertarian writer, policy analyst, lecturer and political strategist. He is ISIL's Regional Representative for the southwestern United States.
This pamphlet was originally published in 1994 and revised in August 1998. It is part of ISIL's educational pamphlet series. Click here for the full index of pamphlets online.
All ISIL educational pamphlets are available in hard copy for 5¢ each. Click here for the ISIL Store.
URL: http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/time-to-end-ss.html
by George L. O'Brien
edited by Mark Valverde and James R. Elwood
"If the US government were required to keep its books the way businesses are required to keep theirs, the national debt wouldn't be $5 trillion. It would be $17 trillion, an amount equal to 2½ times the nation's gross domestic product." Forbes, "The Legal Ponzi Scheme," October 9, 1995
The Legal Ponzi Scheme
Discussions of Social Security remind me of the joke about a man who jumps from the top of a fifty-story building and after falling half-way is asked, "How are you doing?" He answers, "Fine, so far." The issue of Social Security has long been considered the "third rail'' of politics – as on the electrified subway: "touch it and you die." But like the falling man, Social Security is not really "fine."
There are many reasons for the popularity of Social Security. It is the only part of the welfare state which promises benefits to nearly every person. It is also seen to relieve adult children of the responsibility of supporting their elderly parents, and it helps the elderly poor for whom there is a great deal of sympathy.
There is only one problem: the system is a fraud. In theory, Social Security is a form of "insurance." In practice, it is a "Ponzi scheme." Historian Mark Knutson, writes that in the summer of 1920, [Charles K.] Ponzi claimed he was giving investors just a portion of the 400% profit he was earning through trade in postal reply coupons. As Ponzi paid the matured notes held by early investors, word of enormous profits spread through the community, whipping greedy and credulous investors into a frenzy. Investigation later revealed that there were no coupons or profits – earlier notes were paid at maturity from the proceeds of later ones. The simplicity and grand scale of his scheme linked Ponzi's name with a particular form of fraud.
This type of fraud is called a pyramid scheme. To pay off earlier "investors" in such a scheme, an ever larger number of participants must to be added.
In the early 1970s, a federal law known as ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act) was passed after it was found that many corporate pension plans were paying current beneficiaries directly from current contributor's funds. When income declined, the corporate pension plans were terminated - just like the late investors in Ponzi's scheme. (The whole idea that businesses should handle employee savings due to federal tax preferences helped create this problem in the first place.) Under ERISA, any employer who failed to fully fund its pension plan could be held criminally liable.
Charles Ponzi went to prison. But the politicians who run Social Security are not held liable for what is normally considered criminal behavior.
The Prussian Model
Many Americans believe that Social Security is an integral part of our free enterprise system, but it is neither American nor free enterprise. The original Social Security system was created by the Prussian/German leader Otto von Bismarck in 1883. Bismarck was looking for a way to win the support of the working people, who were unhappy with the high taxes needed to support the large German military and the high prices created by the government-protected industrial cartels.
He wanted to find a way to con people into believing that they were going to get something from the state, without its actually having to deliver. He asked an actuary how long most people could be expected to live. The answer was 65 years. Bismarck then set the age of eligibility for his social security system at 65, knowing full well that most of the people would have died before they received a dime from the system. In spite of this, the system was wildly popular.
The Prussian concept of Social Security was an authoritarian one – based on the false premise that people are incompetent to look after their own affairs and need a paternalistic socialist state to force them to provide for their own retirement.
In the US during the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was looking for a way to gain the support of the working people who were unhappy with the continuing Great Depression and the high taxes needed to support his New Deal programs. So the Social Security program was created in 1935 (just in time for the 1936 elections).
The Social Security "Trust Fund" Myth
Republican and Democrat politicians tell us that the money each employee "contributes" to Social Security goes into a "trust fund." The money from this fund is "invested" in federal government bonds. Upon retirement, the "reserve" made up of "contributions" and the interest on the bonds would be used to pay benefits to the retiree.
From the beginning, in spite of the claims that it was an old-age insurance program, Social Security paid its benefits from current cash flow, rather than paying benefits out of interest accrued on a reserve fund as a private pension plan would do. As Social Security taxes were paid into the system, the funds were immediately doled out to beneficiaries. As more taxpayers retired, they would be paid from the money taken from younger taxpayers – just like Ponzi's investors.
There are other structural flaws with this system. First of all, people began to live longer. Whereas in 1883 most people died by the age of 65, by the late 20th Century people were living an average of a decade longer. This meant a huge increase in potential beneficiaries. When the Social Security program began in 1935, there were 16 contributors for every retiree, but a decline in the birth rate paralleling the increase in longevity has dropped the ratio of workers to retirees to only 3 to 1 in the 1990s.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Once the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) start retiring, the ratio will shrink even more. Estimates are that there will be only two workers for every retiree by the year 2025. Social Security taxes alone will have to exceed 22% of each worker's income by that point. (Plus a compulsory matching amount paid by employers).
Preserve The System: Ruin The People
Typical proposals to "reform" Social Security have been built around increasing taxes. The 1983 Social Security tax increase was supposed to create a reserve fund of $10 trillion by the year 2030. However, since 1967 Congress has been raiding up to $70 billion each year from the Social Security fund to hide part of their massive deficit spending. Thus the Social Security trust fund is filled with IOUs in the form of Treasury Bonds. The interest on these bonds must be paid by you, the taxpayer.
The typical alternative "reform" is to renounce promised benefits by implementing a series of major benefits cuts and raising the age of eligibility. Many people have come to expect this solution. Indeed, one public opinion poll found only 8% of Americans under age 30 believe they will get anything out Social Security. Even defenders of the status quo admit that benefits will have to be reduced.
Recently, proposals have emerged in Congress to partially "privatize" Social Security. But with rare exceptions, none of these proposals address the problems of the $12 trillion in unfunded liability or the high risks involved in transferring control of one's retirement savings into the hands of politicians.
The promises made by politicians are simply a fraud. Few people will ever get what they've been promised from Social Security.
The Chilean Model
In the mid-1980s, Chile had an even worse problem than the US. Yet according to Rita Koslka in her article "A Better Way to Do It," published in the October 28, 1991 issue of Forbes:
Replacing the old system, then Minister of Labor José Piñera put in a plan that requires each of the country's 4.8 million workers to put 10% of his pre-tax income into a private pension fund of his own choosing; there are no employer contributions. There are 13 plans to choose from, and workers can switch their funds between plans to get the best returns at the lowest cost.
In Chile, at age 65 for a man (60 for a woman) the worker takes the accumulated savings and either buys an annuity or organizes an individual payout schedule. He can retire earlier if he has enough money in his pension fund. To protect worker's savings, most funds are invested in securities automatically indexed for inflation.
The benefits to the individual worker of this policy have far exceeded expectations.
The original plans for the Chilean program anticipated an annual return of about 5.5%. A retiree with 40 years in the fund at that rate, would receive 70% of the average of the last five years of his or her salary. With a return of 6.5% the payout would be 100% of that rate.
It turns out that the average rate of return has actually been in the neighborhood of 13%, which has induced many workers to contribute far more than the required minimum amounts. This has not only made it possible for people to retire in comfort, but has provided funds for a major economic expansion.
Because the money that goes into these private pension funds is invested in production, a great supply of investment capital was made available to businesses and entrepreneurs at relatively low interest rates. With capital available, production increased many-fold and a huge new labor market has been created. There was also a major stock market boom (helped by new funds and new freer market policies). These private funds now constitute the equivalent of one third of Chile's gross national product.
In 1992 alone, Chile's economy, measured by its Gross Domestic Product, grew by 9.7%. That is nearly 4 times the rate of growth in the US for that same year. Inflation and unemployment in Chile have been declining steadily and rapidly during the same time period.
In fact, so much investment capital is now available that Chilean investors have been able to invest in neighboring countries.
The program has in fact proved so successful that Argentina has adopted a similar system. Delegations from Mexico, Venezuela and Poland have visited Chile to study how this approach can be used in their countries.
According to Augusto Iglesias, chief economist for the Chilean pension fund, Habitat, the Chilean Social Security system "is based on very simple and reasonable principles: that people care about their money, and that putting it in private hands is more efficient than with the government".
The Chilean program goes beyond replacing a government pension system with a private system. It also eliminates the domination of retirement programs by corporate pension plans, since workers now control their own funds.
Chilean Minister of Labor José Piñera summed it up by saying, "It is a common-sense system that is more easily understood by the average Chilean mother than by social security experts." However, the Chilean system is not perfect. The program is compulsory and there are limitations on investment choices.
Ending Social Security
At some point people must realize the futility of trying to save the current bankrupt Social Security system.
More tinkering with the status quo won't help – Social Security is both financially and morally bankrupt – and soon this Ponzi scheme will collapse.
Completely ending Social Security and returning total control over retirement savings to individual workers will end the fraud and provide opportunities for them to earn a decent rate of return on their own hard-earned money. Moreover, it will protect their savings from rapacious politicians and ensure that their money is used productively rather than to disguise federal deficits. Reforms in places such as Chile suggest that the overall benefits to the economy could be substantial if government is removed from the equation.
Unfortunately, like the falling man, it is hard for most people to realize that things are not "fine" – until they hit the pavement. The sooner we end Social Security, the better for everyone concerned.
****************************************
George L. O'Brien is a prolific libertarian writer, policy analyst, lecturer and political strategist. He is ISIL's Regional Representative for the southwestern United States.
This pamphlet was originally published in 1994 and revised in August 1998. It is part of ISIL's educational pamphlet series. Click here for the full index of pamphlets online.
All ISIL educational pamphlets are available in hard copy for 5¢ each. Click here for the ISIL Store.
URL: http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/time-to-end-ss.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
