The Intransigent Conservative

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Thursday's Thoughts

@Bishtoons

@ericallie

View the story "Thursday's Thoughts (2/14/13)" on Storify Thursday's Thoughts (2/14/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Thu, Feb 14 2013 16:46:32 Emily Miller, former deputy press secretary for Secretaries of State Powell & Rice, writes that America cannot afford to put off spending restraint. As Speaker Boehner said last week, “The American people do not believe the president will use further tax revenues to lower the debt. After having seen this president attempt to spend his way into prosperity over the last four years, they know he’ll spend it.”

“President Obama has a way to delay the across-the-board $85 billion sequestration scheduled for March 1. His not-so-surprising proposal is to raise taxes so he can spend more. Fortunately, the GOP is not going along with this tired, old plan.”

“The original Budget Control Act was about deficit reduction, but the sequester part was only a reduction in spending — it had nothing to do with taxes,” said Patrick Louis Knudsen, senior fellow in federal budgetary affairs at the Heritage Foundation. “For that reason, if you’re going to replace it with something else, it should be alternative spending reductions.”

“The president keeps saying that the spending cuts in sequestration would be tough on the fragile economy, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem taking money out of the economy by taxes,” explained Mr. Knudsen. “Keynesians always do that — they fight against taking money out of the private sector with spending cuts, but have no problem doing it by raising taxes.” MILLER: Obama’s Insatiable Appetite for Taxes http://bit.ly/WZGGlAEmily Miller David A. Fahrenthold reports that the actual impact of a historic $37.8 billion federal spending cut in April 2011 was often negated by accounting gimmicks that “cut” programs that, in fact, had already been canceled.

“In some areas, they did bring significant cutbacks in federal spending… But the bill also turned out to be an epic kind of Washington illusion. It was stuffed with gimmicks that made the cuts seem far bigger — and the politicians far bolder — than they actually were.”

“Today, an examination of 12 of the largest cuts shows that, thanks in part to these gimmicks, federal agencies absorbed $23 billion in reductions without losing a single employee.”

“Many of the cuts we put in were smoke and mirrors,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a hard-line conservative now in his second term. “That’s the lesson from April 2011: that when Washington says it cuts spending, it doesn’t mean the same thing that normal people mean.”

“To sketch the bill’s biggest impacts, The Washington Post focused on the 16 largest individual cuts. Each, in theory, sliced at least $500 million from the federal budget. Together, they accounted for $26.1 billion, two-thirds of the total… there were at least seven where the cuts caused only minimal real-world disruptions or none at all.”

“The Post’s analysis found five large cuts that turned out to be very real… None of them actually caused an agency in Washington to shed federal personnel. Instead, they reduced the money that passed through those agencies to state and local projects.” Many 2011 federal budget cuts had little real-world effect http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/many-2011-federal-budget-cuts-had-little-real-world-effect/2013/02/09/11938e3e-6bc6-11e2-a396-ef12a93b4200_story.htmlDavid Fahrenthold budgetcuts2Brian_Empric Carl J. Schramm (@CarlSchramm), contributor at the 4% Growth Project and a recognized leading authority on entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth, asks, “What if the economy never recovers?”

“It is common to hear people discuss 2% annual growth and 8% unemployment as the ‘new normal’… Perhaps most alarming is that Americans between the ages of 18 and 27 have never known what it’s like to participate in a robust, growing, economy.”

“The sentiment felt today is not unprecedented in history. During the Great Depression there was likewise a feeling that recovery might never come. It is assumed that we now really understand the events of 1929 and how the near decade long Depression finally came to an end. Clearly we do not; if we did, we would have pulled ourselves out of the current predicament by now.”

“Through a good deal of ill-advised, ideological policymaking — including expanding public debt and a raft of novel regulatory ways to insert the government into the day-to-day lives of citizens and the decisions of business — the Roosevelt administration prolonged the American Depression well past the recovery that Europe enjoyed beginning in 1933… Many mistakenly believe that the war, with its need for soldiers and munitions workers and new deficit spending, solved the Depression. Without the war we might have had something like today’s jobless, quasi-recovery.”

“If there is no deus ex machina solution today (i.e., we don’t have a war) and America continues to spend more on the public sector than our society can possibly support at current levels of growth (growth being inversely influenced by the size of the nation’s deficit spending), will we ever see full employment again? It seems a certainty that higher taxes on those willing to risk capital by investing in new industrial infrastructure (the motor of private-sector job creation) will surely cause investment financing to become more costly, thus adding to the anti-growth forces.”

“Higher taxes coupled with out-of-control spending are likely to produce another year in which growth won’t happen and jobs creation remains level or falls… If the concomitant cost in all this is that our economy can never again grow at 4% or 5% a year, it will indeed be a bleak future for America’s promise.” Forgetting Prosperity | 4 PercentWhat if the economy never recovers? There's a growing portion of Americans who consider this a real possibility. It is common to hear peo... Dr. Salim Furth, Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, writes about last week’s CBO forecast, which “continued the pattern of predicting a strong recovery just two years away.” There are 3 possible explanations: forecasts are never perfect, factors have contributed to the slow recovery, or the past five years “have been a clinic in bad policymaking.”

“Although CBO’s economic approach is typical among forecasters and historically unbiased, the economy’s persistent failure to launch as predicted raises questions. Are current conditions of persistent slow growth and high unemployment principally the result of bad luck, uncertain global economic conditions, or bad policy?”

“Each year the Outlook embodies the spring-back theory of recessions, with a robust recovery beginning two years away. As Chart 1 exhibits, the boom is always just around the corner—but has not arrived as predicted in the past few years. From 2010 to 2012, annual growth averaged 2.1 percent, which is not enough to diminish the gap between actual and potential GDP.”

“Washington has made large, impactful policies that have negative incentive effects on the private economy, including overhauling the welfare eligibility rules, rewriting the bankruptcy rules for General Motors, pointless tax rebates, harmful tax increases, regulatory uncertainty, sequestration uncertainty, ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ the ‘Cornhusker Kickback,’ blocking the Keystone XL pipeline, funding railroad boondoggles in the desert, Obamacare, and Dodd–Frank.”

“As the economy limps through its fourth year of ‘recovery,’ CBO has further diminished its expectations for the long-term potential of the economy. This can be seen in Chart 2, where the forecast for 2019 GDP has fallen each year since 2010.”

“As discouraging as the new CBO Outlook is, reality will probably be worse unless federal policies improve.” Questions Raised by the CBO ReportAs expected, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Budget and Economic Outlook released today continued the pattern of predicting a stron... CBO chart 1Brian_Empric CBO chart 2Brian_Empric Ori Lewis reports that Benjamin Netanyahu has recently told a group of American Jewish leaders “that new centrifuges Iran was installing for its uranium enrichment program could cut by a third the time needed to create a nuclear bomb.” Based on the parameters of his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in late September 2012, this means Iran could have enough material to produce a bomb in about 60-90 days.

“The move underlined Iran's defiance of international demands to scale back the uranium enrichment which Tehran says is for civilian purposes but which could also potentially be used to make material for atomic bombs.”

“Iran's ... nuclear weapons program continues unabated ... I drew a line at the U.N. last time I was there,” Netanyahu said. “They haven't crossed that line but what they are doing is to shorten the time that it will take them to cross that line and the way they are (doing it) is by putting in new, faster centrifuges that cut the time by one third.”

“You have to upgrade the sanctions and they have to know that if the sanctions and diplomacy fail, they will face a credible military threat. That's essential. Nothing else will do the job, and it's getting closer,” Netanyahu said. New #Iran centrifuges could shorten path to atomic bomb: Netanyahu http://reut.rs/YS9ifL #IsraelReuters Top News Rick Santorum writes that Obama and his recent nominees are determined to blur the clear moral lines between right and wrong.

“Iran remains the greatest threat to the security of the United States and its people that exists in the world today. Iran – where ‘Death to America’ chants can be frequently heard on the street and whose leaders have pledged to ‘annihilate’ Israel – continues its aggression.”

“In late January, a former Iranian diplomat defected and told Israeli television that Venezuela is shipping uranium to Iran and the country is only a year away from having a nuclear bomb and would use it against Israel.”

“For those of us who recognize and take these threats seriously, the first weeks of the second Obama administration have been a grim period. The nominations of Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and John Brennan, for the heads of Defense, State and CIA, respectively, have been a reminder that President Obama would prefer a softer, more negotiable stance with Iran than what is required to confront this threat.”

“As a U.S. senator, Hagel voted against sanctions on Iran and refused to sign a letter that labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization – the same Hezbollah that was linked to a bombing in Bulgaria last summer.”

“Brennan’s views, like Hagel’s, have been even more accommodating of Iran and its ally, Hezbollah. He has tried to remove language like ‘radical Islam’ and ‘jihad’ from the law enforcement and intelligence communities…”

“While Kerry’s anti-war views are well-known from his post-Vietnam days, his friendliness toward our more recent enemies has been less reported. He has been a supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for example, and has advocated deeper engagement with bad actors and friends of Iran like Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro and Egypt’s new dictator, Mohamed Morsi.”

“These three – Hagel, Kerry and Brennan – along with President Obama, are what Barry Rubin, Middle East expert and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, calls ‘The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.’

“Instead of drawing clear moral lines against what we know to be the evil and very serious threat of Iran, these four have a history of blurring, of seeking to engage, of negotiating and of ‘appealing to moderate elements.’ Given the aggressive nature and deadly threat we face, the thought of where these four will lead us is downright scary.” My latest: Getting Serious with Iran. http://ptrtvoic.es/WTObsURick Santorum Conservatives have not reacted favorably to the formation of Karl Rove’s Conservative Victory Project super PAC. Nate Silver analyzes the previous two rounds of Republican Senate primaries and determines that “money is usually the least pressing problem for the incumbents and other establishment-backed candidates whom Mr. Rove’s group might be inclined to support.”

There is a small correlation between share of funds raised and margin of victory, but “the relationship is much weaker than it is in general elections for the Senate, when fund-raising totals have about twice as much power to predict the margin between the Democratic and Republican candidates.”

“The table below reflects 23 Senate races between 2010 and 2012 in which an establishment-backed candidate squared off against an insurgent candidate in a Republican Senate primary…the overall message from the data should be reasonably clear. The establishment candidates substantially outraised the insurgents, by an average of $4.3 million to $1.2 million… And yet, the insurgent candidates won 11 of 23 races, or nearly half the contests.”

“The voters who do turn out in Republican Senate primaries are likely to be highly informed consumers of conservative-friendly news media outlets such as talk radio, prime-time shows on Fox News and conservative magazines and blogs. They may also weigh the endorsements of prominent conservative politicians and organizations. An insurgent candidate who is presented in a favorable light in these outlets may have plenty of ability to reach her target voters, even if she is spending little or nothing on paid advertisements and outreach efforts.

“Mr. Rove’s efforts could backfire, therefore, if they result in the insurgent candidate receiving more sympathetic treatment through these channels; the amount of so-called ‘earned media’ that the insurgent receives could outweigh the extra advertisements that the establishment candidate is able to afford.”

“The intuition is simply that it may be dangerous to raise the profile of an insurgent candidate for whom a little extra money and exposure could go a long way.”

“Republican voters have already been rejecting these candidates despite their overwhelming advantage in paid media placements, and often because they are viewed as too much a part of the Washington establishment. It will take more than a new super PAC for Mr. Rove to earn back their trust.” [new article] New Rove Group Could Backfire on G.O.P. http://nyti.ms/12nnM7xNate Silver nate silver tableBrian_Empric James Taranto interviews former Justice Department Civil Rights division attorney and voting-rights expert Hans von Spakovsky about the liberal campaign to expand the electoral rolls via the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013—and why Obama is on board.

“In December, some ‘three dozen of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups, including union organizations,’ held a strategy session, he says, citing a report from the liberal magazine Mother Jones. They agreed to ‘oppose all voter integrity efforts, things like voter ID,’ to push for federal legislation requiring states to permit voter registration on Election Day, and to institute ‘automatic’ voter registration.”

“They basically want to use the government to do Democratic voter outreach and voter registration for them,” Mr. von Spakovsky says. “They believe that if they can get, for example, everyone registered to vote who is currently getting government benefits like welfare . . . then that will somehow get them more votes at the polls and make it easier to win elections.”

“A Pew Center study found that in 2008—when, as Mr. von Spakovsky reminds me, ‘we had the highest turnout in a presidential election since the 1960s’—the average wait time was 10 to 20 minutes. In 2012, according to an MIT study, Florida had the longest average wait time, 45 minutes. Long waits can be a problem in big cities, but officials ‘can easily fix that themselves, without any federal help, by reducing the precinct sizes.’”

“The left is constantly working on these voting issues,” Mr. von Spakovsky says. “They have dozens of organizations, with a lot of money.” The goal, he says, is “to change the rules to give them an advantage in elections. The other side of the political aisle just doesn't do that.”

“They keep trying to scare black voters into thinking that these voter ID laws are an attempt to take away the right to vote,” Mr. von Spakovsky says. “We know that's not true. The experience of states that have had voter ID laws in place for [several] years, like Georgia and Indiana, shows that it does not suppress the vote of black voters; it doesn't in any way keep them out of the polls.” My Weekend Interview with Hans von Spakovsky: The Coming Battle Over the Ballot Box http://on.wsj.com/ULYPVLJames Taranto David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman write that the courts would no more allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than the First. It doesn’t matter if the American people support Obama’s proposed gun-control measures, because “constitutionally protected rights are guarded with particular vigor precisely when public opinion turns against them.”

“Could there be a better illustration of the cultural divide over firearms than the White House photograph of our skeet-shooting president? Clay pigeons are launched into the air, but the president's smoking shotgun is level with the ground. This is not a man who is comfortable around guns. And that goes a long way toward explaining his gun-control agenda.”

“The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia confirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says: ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’… After Heller and its follow-on case, McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the Second Amendment rights to the states, what government cannot do is deny the individual interest in self-defense. As a legal matter, that debate is settled.”

“While the courts are still sorting out Heller's implications, politicians should not assume that they have a free hand to restrict private gun ownership. Decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights show that there are hard-and-fast limits on gun control.”

“The government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done.”

“A state cannot circumvent the right to a free press by requiring that an unfriendly newspaper carry millions in libel insurance or pay a thousand-dollar tax on barrels of ink—the real motive, in either case, would be transparent and the regulation struck down. How could the result be any different for the right to keep and bear arms?”

“At bottom, the Constitution requires sensible and effective regulation of guns that respects and upholds this most fundamental right. Policies motivated by nothing more than discomfort with firearms, often born of a lack of experience, fall far short.” Me and @DavidRivkin in @WSJopinion: Gun Control and the Constitution http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323951904578290460073953432.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopAndrew M. Grossman Obama shoots skeetBrian_Empric Amity Shlaes (@AmityShlaes), who directs The 4% Growth Project, is the author of the new book “Coolidge,” a reexamination of President Calvin Coolidge and the 1920s. She argues that Republicans pursuing small government and big results may want to consider a strategy of not just thinking small, but like Coolidge, being small too.

“The Grand Old Party’s abiding affection for a ‘bigger and better’ presidency isn’t entirely logical. After all, the Obama presidency commenced with an effort to reenact the Hundred Days. Yet President Obama’s first-term economic performance itself was not ‘big’ but mediocre, tiny even. Perhaps Republicans should consider whether inaction on the part of the White House can be desirable. Perhaps, led by Republicans, the United States could benefit from trying out an unfashionable idea: the small presidency.”

In the election of 1920, Warren Harding and his running mate Calvin Coolidge “coolly campaigned on the humdrum, underwhelming motto of ‘normalcy,’ meaning a reduction in uncertainty.”

“The White House was no bully pulpit; the Republican elephant should not be an elephant in a china shop. After winning the presidency, Harding continued to endorse inaction. ‘No altered system will work a miracle,’ Harding told the crowds at his March 1921 inauguration. ‘Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of the proven system.’ Harding wanted to ensure that government did less so that commerce might enjoy free range.”

“But… Harding was not really cut out to be a small president. His personality was big, and he tended to do things in a big way… Even when it came to legislating smaller government, Harding tended to favor a big style, demanding extra sessions of Congress to implement his agenda.”

The silent Coolidge became president in August 1923 when Harding died unexpectedly, and after finishing Harding’s term, he was elected in 1924 with 54% of the vote.

“Coolidge’s aims differed little from Harding’s: Indeed, he told the (Washington) Post’s (owner Edward) McLean that he aimed to carry out Harding’s plans ‘to perfection.’ But where Harding had relished the limelight, Coolidge shrank from it. Where Harding had led, Coolidge now delegated. As vice president, the New Englander had struck Washington socialites with his silence, and as president he continued to do so.”

“Many rated Coolidge weak. Some were even astounded that the presidency should come to such a nonentity… And he declined to run for reelection in 1928, forgoing a near-certain chance at victory. That earned him the contempt of his very practical party.”

“By 1929, when Coolidge left Washington, he had completed the legislative tasks Harding had only started. His 50 vetoes had held back the Progressives; his federal budget contained less spending in 1929 than it had in 1924. The harmony between Coolidge’s modest goals and his modest comportment lent the whole undertaking credibility.”

Shlaes believes that many Republican political failures “can be blamed on the party’s unwillingness to try out the small presidency again.”

“In the early 1970s, Richard Nixon similarly blurred the distinction between the two parties when he opted to play economic superhero at Camp David, ending the gold standard and imposing wage and price controls. These policies were popular at the time, but they hurt the party for decades: ‘We are all Keynesians now,’ Nixon’s phrase, too often meant we were all Democrats as well. Ronald Reagan, strong as he was, also fits in here. We can see some of Coolidge in him, for, like Coolidge, he cut taxes, looked away from details, and delegated routinely. But his willingness to permit continued federal spending produced a record of deficits that would undermine the Republican reputation for fiscal probity.” The Small Presidencywrites on NRO: Action is something Americans of both parties demand of their presidents these days. This is natural for Democrats, whose ...