No time for a long post-mortem. But pretty much everything I said would happen came out just as predicted. To put the race in historical perspective, it was a slightly bigger margin than Bush 43 won by in 2004, but slightly smaller than Bush 41's margin in 1988. The electoral vote margin was similar to Clinton in '92. So a very "normal" election (thank goodness, no drama this time). It was, however, the biggest popular-vote margin for a Democrat since before I was born (1964, Johnson in one of history's biggest landslides ever over Goldwater). Since then, the previous best showing by a Dem was 50.1% by Carter. This is also the first time in my lifetime that a genuine liberal has been elected (Carter and Clinton both ran as centrists). Although, to some extent, Obama did, too... whether he'll govern from the middle or the left is the big question, and we'll see how that turns out.
One thing I've found amusing in the past 72 hours is how many of my liberal friends have made a point of checking to see if I'm OK with the result. Nobody has been visibly gloating, which is nice, but I think some have been a little surprised that I'm behaving so "reasonably." I think some folks got so wrapped up in how terrible it would be (to them) if McCain had won that they have a hard time imagining somebody just shrugging it off. In a way, I'm almost glad Obama pulled it off so we can avoid the pain of being told how stupid and racist America was for electing "another Bush." Maybe, hopefully, we can get past the last 16 years of half the country hating the guts of the guy in the White House. Oh, and while I'm being thankful, I guess I should also count my blessings that Obama has almost certainly saved us from ever seeing Hillary Clinton or Al Gore as president.
I'm sure I'll have other political thoughts later on. But that's enough for now.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Pre-Election Thoughts
Sorry to all the few of you who have possibly wondered when (if) I was ever going to post again. You'd think that a political junkie would be going at it like gangbusters during this election season. As I indicated earlier, there were a couple of factors in my "radio silence"--first, I explained a long time ago that I'm conservative (and my reasons for it). And that therefore, since Obama is liberal, I wouldn't be voting for him. Nothing about that has changed, and harping on it wouldn't do any good. Secondly, I decided a long time ago to not sink to the lowest level in this political season. I read political blogs daily, and so I've had steady diet of negativity. I just decided not to play. And finally, as I indicated earlier, I just haven't been that enthused by this election. I voted for McCain an hour ago, as he's the least-bad option in this race for someone of my world view. But even if he were to win, I'd only be moderately less unhappy with the outcome. Hard to chearlead when your enthusiasm level is so low.
All that said, with a little over 2 hours until the polls close, I guess I should predict something. For McCain to win, EVERYTHING has to break his way. I happen to think it'll be closer than expected, and I happen to think the polls overstate Obama's case. Still, I can't imagine McCain catching ALL the breaks. Therefore, I predict that Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the United States. (However, I do entertain a small fantasy of pulling it off, just for the sake of seeing the heads of my smug liberal friends explode!)
So, what does this mean in the long run? Well, for starters, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world, for either the USA or conservatism. There was hardly any scenario this year that looked good for any Republican. Assuming we don't see an Obama landslide (which I'm not expecting), this means that the best-financed candidate EVER, in a race against a 72-year-old guy not even liked by his own party, running at a time when everybody has a huge case of Bush fatigue, the economy helpfully crashes, foreign policy recedes from the headlines, and the news media gives every possible advantage, can just BARELY pull off a win by pretending to be a center-right moderate. This country is a center-right country, period. That's not likley to change soon.
Secondly, despite all the hype to the contrary, this is NOT the "most important election of our time." Indeed, if I could have only had one, I prefer the victory 4 years ago to now. Had Kerry prevailed in 2004, we would have certainly lost the Iraq war and two conservative Supreme Court Justices would have been replaced by liberals (which also means that the Heller case would almost certainly have gone the other way and the 2nd amendment would already have been gutted, as just one example). Now, the war is all-but won, and the next two Supremes to retire will come from the left side (Stephens and Ginsburg). Assuming Scalia eats his Wheaties, we're looking at living to fight another day, in more ways than one.
I also don't think Obama will be as able to implement a far-left vision as some fear. You may remember Clinton coming to office with a very similar house and senate to what we're likely to have this year, back in 1992. He bit off more than he could chew, and 2 years later, the "Contract With America" put the clamps on him. I think Obama is a smart enough guy to try to avoid that outcome. At least I hope he's that smart. If he tries to govern as the same guy he acted like in the debates, that'll be fine. If he goes hard left, the voters will wise up. As I wrote earlier, it's still basically a center-right country.
One more note about the election. It's a great country we've got. And it's awesome that we, the people, get to choose our leaders. The system isn't perfect, and sometimes we get results I would not prefer. But I respect the system. If the people want this, then that's fine with me. I voted, fair and square, and if I lose, that's OK. (And conversely, if my side happens to pull the upset, I sure hope it doesn't provoke stupidity from the other side!)
Now the waiting begins. I'll be up late watching the polls close, and of course I'll be interested in the outcome. But I have been reminded again this week how little this really matters compared to the big stuff. Tomorrow I will attend the funeral of a young man I coached, one of the all-around best kids I've worked with in 15 years. That is REALLY important. As C.S. Lewis said a long time ago, kingdoms, nations, empires (and presidencies) are temporary. People, made in the image of God, live forever in eternity. Even as we pick a "leader of the free world" in tumultuous times, I prefer to spend the bulk of my energy on what lasts forever.
All that said, with a little over 2 hours until the polls close, I guess I should predict something. For McCain to win, EVERYTHING has to break his way. I happen to think it'll be closer than expected, and I happen to think the polls overstate Obama's case. Still, I can't imagine McCain catching ALL the breaks. Therefore, I predict that Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the United States. (However, I do entertain a small fantasy of pulling it off, just for the sake of seeing the heads of my smug liberal friends explode!)
So, what does this mean in the long run? Well, for starters, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world, for either the USA or conservatism. There was hardly any scenario this year that looked good for any Republican. Assuming we don't see an Obama landslide (which I'm not expecting), this means that the best-financed candidate EVER, in a race against a 72-year-old guy not even liked by his own party, running at a time when everybody has a huge case of Bush fatigue, the economy helpfully crashes, foreign policy recedes from the headlines, and the news media gives every possible advantage, can just BARELY pull off a win by pretending to be a center-right moderate. This country is a center-right country, period. That's not likley to change soon.
Secondly, despite all the hype to the contrary, this is NOT the "most important election of our time." Indeed, if I could have only had one, I prefer the victory 4 years ago to now. Had Kerry prevailed in 2004, we would have certainly lost the Iraq war and two conservative Supreme Court Justices would have been replaced by liberals (which also means that the Heller case would almost certainly have gone the other way and the 2nd amendment would already have been gutted, as just one example). Now, the war is all-but won, and the next two Supremes to retire will come from the left side (Stephens and Ginsburg). Assuming Scalia eats his Wheaties, we're looking at living to fight another day, in more ways than one.
I also don't think Obama will be as able to implement a far-left vision as some fear. You may remember Clinton coming to office with a very similar house and senate to what we're likely to have this year, back in 1992. He bit off more than he could chew, and 2 years later, the "Contract With America" put the clamps on him. I think Obama is a smart enough guy to try to avoid that outcome. At least I hope he's that smart. If he tries to govern as the same guy he acted like in the debates, that'll be fine. If he goes hard left, the voters will wise up. As I wrote earlier, it's still basically a center-right country.
One more note about the election. It's a great country we've got. And it's awesome that we, the people, get to choose our leaders. The system isn't perfect, and sometimes we get results I would not prefer. But I respect the system. If the people want this, then that's fine with me. I voted, fair and square, and if I lose, that's OK. (And conversely, if my side happens to pull the upset, I sure hope it doesn't provoke stupidity from the other side!)
Now the waiting begins. I'll be up late watching the polls close, and of course I'll be interested in the outcome. But I have been reminded again this week how little this really matters compared to the big stuff. Tomorrow I will attend the funeral of a young man I coached, one of the all-around best kids I've worked with in 15 years. That is REALLY important. As C.S. Lewis said a long time ago, kingdoms, nations, empires (and presidencies) are temporary. People, made in the image of God, live forever in eternity. Even as we pick a "leader of the free world" in tumultuous times, I prefer to spend the bulk of my energy on what lasts forever.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The perfect tax code
One of colleagues, who teaches AP US Government, has a class blog. (Sorry, you have to be a student in the class, or get special permission like I did, to participate). She has asked me to be the token right-wing Bible-thumper, as she and almost all the students are liberal (sigh). Anyway, I posted a thought or two today on how I would change the federal income tax, if I could. I have cut and pasted my thoughts below. I would welcome any feedback.
First of all, it would still be graduated and progressive. Either a flat tax or the so-called fair tax would be significantly less progressive than we have now. I have no problem with those who make more paying a higher percentage of their income than those who make less; but I would stipulate that there ought to be reasonable limits on how much anyone can pay.
What limits? I would stipulate that there is an alternative maximum tax of an effective 33% rate. (Note--marginal rates could be higher; at the current 35% top rate, a doctor earning 400k a year still doesn't hit an effective rate of a third). This is just a matter of fairness... even if it is economcially good sense, I think it smacks of theivery to confiscate more than a third of someone's income.
Moreover, I would have a minimum nominal tax. Under the current system, many, many families (mine used to be one) pay ZERO federal income tax. (in my case it was one teacher salary, a stay-at-home wife, tithing at church, a mortgage deduction, and three child tax credits...zippo net tax. Even though I lived in a brick house, had two cars, and sent the aforementioned kids to PG). I would set it to where everybody pays, say $600 a year minimum.$50 a month... less than most of the "poor" spend on cable TV, and a small price to pay for the benefits of US citizenship. Moreover, I would index that amount to future tax increases. So if spending/taxs go up 10%, the poor guy feels 5 bucks worth. The notion that we can spend whatever we want and someone else will pay for it is pernicious.
But what, you may ask, about the truly poor who get things like the Earned Income Child Credit? Still do such programs, but call them what they are: welfare. Put them on the "expenditures" side of the ledger, not as a negative on the "revenue" side. I don't care if a poor family takes in more from the government in welfare than they pay in taxes. I care that they (and we) think that somebody else pays the taxes. And I especially hate it when politicians promise "tax cuts" to people who don't pay anything. That's just buying votes with stolen money.
Finally, I would design the tax code around the concept of maximum federal revenue, subject to the above principles. If an increase in rates chokes off economic growth and creates less-than-maximum revenue, then it's a mathematically bad idea, regardless of how "fair" it makes us feel. But conversely, if a cut in rates does not throw off enough increased growth to make it a net positive, then supply-siders should be against it. I feel quite comfortable in saying that JFK cutting rates from 90% to 70% was sensible, as was Reagan's cut of 70% to 28%. I am less convinced that the Bush cuts from 39.6% to 35% were as necessary (but open to convincing on that point).
Spending, of course, is a totally different topic. But in the unlikely event that we generate enough revenue to cover all expenses and have leftovers (like we did during the tech boom of the 90s), I would say that excess revenue should go to debt reduction, not as a cut back to the taxpayers (provided, of course, that my other conditions are being met).
First of all, it would still be graduated and progressive. Either a flat tax or the so-called fair tax would be significantly less progressive than we have now. I have no problem with those who make more paying a higher percentage of their income than those who make less; but I would stipulate that there ought to be reasonable limits on how much anyone can pay.
What limits? I would stipulate that there is an alternative maximum tax of an effective 33% rate. (Note--marginal rates could be higher; at the current 35% top rate, a doctor earning 400k a year still doesn't hit an effective rate of a third). This is just a matter of fairness... even if it is economcially good sense, I think it smacks of theivery to confiscate more than a third of someone's income.
Moreover, I would have a minimum nominal tax. Under the current system, many, many families (mine used to be one) pay ZERO federal income tax. (in my case it was one teacher salary, a stay-at-home wife, tithing at church, a mortgage deduction, and three child tax credits...zippo net tax. Even though I lived in a brick house, had two cars, and sent the aforementioned kids to PG). I would set it to where everybody pays, say $600 a year minimum.$50 a month... less than most of the "poor" spend on cable TV, and a small price to pay for the benefits of US citizenship. Moreover, I would index that amount to future tax increases. So if spending/taxs go up 10%, the poor guy feels 5 bucks worth. The notion that we can spend whatever we want and someone else will pay for it is pernicious.
But what, you may ask, about the truly poor who get things like the Earned Income Child Credit? Still do such programs, but call them what they are: welfare. Put them on the "expenditures" side of the ledger, not as a negative on the "revenue" side. I don't care if a poor family takes in more from the government in welfare than they pay in taxes. I care that they (and we) think that somebody else pays the taxes. And I especially hate it when politicians promise "tax cuts" to people who don't pay anything. That's just buying votes with stolen money.
Finally, I would design the tax code around the concept of maximum federal revenue, subject to the above principles. If an increase in rates chokes off economic growth and creates less-than-maximum revenue, then it's a mathematically bad idea, regardless of how "fair" it makes us feel. But conversely, if a cut in rates does not throw off enough increased growth to make it a net positive, then supply-siders should be against it. I feel quite comfortable in saying that JFK cutting rates from 90% to 70% was sensible, as was Reagan's cut of 70% to 28%. I am less convinced that the Bush cuts from 39.6% to 35% were as necessary (but open to convincing on that point).
Spending, of course, is a totally different topic. But in the unlikely event that we generate enough revenue to cover all expenses and have leftovers (like we did during the tech boom of the 90s), I would say that excess revenue should go to debt reduction, not as a cut back to the taxpayers (provided, of course, that my other conditions are being met).
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Reality Check
I'm not buying gold. I'm not hoarding canned goods. And I'm not stocking up on ammunition for the coming implosion of the entire US economy.
Don't get me wrong--yesterday's stock market drop of 777 points was serious. And my retirement fund is down a net 14% this quarter. That stinks. But those 777 points on the Dow were in a market at 11,000. Back in 1987, the 500-point drop came on a market at 2500. THAT was really bad. And by 1989, I was making 29% a year in mutual funds. I have great faith in capitalism, and the law of averages.
Sure, there need to be some fixes. I personally would repeal mark-to-market accounting rules, for instance. I'd definitely increase the limits of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. And there may need to be some government intervention in terms of insuring or even holding some of the bad debt that is clogging the credit markets. But it's pretty clear that "we the people" didn't want the $700 billion plan that was proposed.
I don't blame those congressmen. Their constituents told them in no uncertain terms to vote "no." And they did. That's what is supposed to happen in our system. Either you believe in "we the people," or you don't. I do.
Finally, and this is the most important thing: neither economics nor politics is my religion. Even more than I believe in the USA, capitalism, or conservatism, I believe in God. And He is sovereign over all. That's what is real.
Don't get me wrong--yesterday's stock market drop of 777 points was serious. And my retirement fund is down a net 14% this quarter. That stinks. But those 777 points on the Dow were in a market at 11,000. Back in 1987, the 500-point drop came on a market at 2500. THAT was really bad. And by 1989, I was making 29% a year in mutual funds. I have great faith in capitalism, and the law of averages.
Sure, there need to be some fixes. I personally would repeal mark-to-market accounting rules, for instance. I'd definitely increase the limits of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. And there may need to be some government intervention in terms of insuring or even holding some of the bad debt that is clogging the credit markets. But it's pretty clear that "we the people" didn't want the $700 billion plan that was proposed.
I don't blame those congressmen. Their constituents told them in no uncertain terms to vote "no." And they did. That's what is supposed to happen in our system. Either you believe in "we the people," or you don't. I do.
Finally, and this is the most important thing: neither economics nor politics is my religion. Even more than I believe in the USA, capitalism, or conservatism, I believe in God. And He is sovereign over all. That's what is real.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Here come the 1970s again!
Well, the bailout bill failed in the house. Plenty of blame to go around; only 65 Republicans voted for it. 95 Dems voted against (pelosi and co. could have lost 82 and still passed it). What a mess!
Not only does this mess up the economy, at least in the short run, it certainly hurts John McCain. He made a play last week to get this thing passed, and it didn't work. No matter how you spin it, it doesn't help.
If Obama loses this election, he ought to teach classes in how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I'll be very, very surprised if he's not the president. Anybody want to guess when is the last time we had a democrat president and both houses of congress at the same time? I'll give you a hint... the economy was bad, then, too. And gas was expensive. And America got weaker around the world. And Islamic radicals in Iran embarassed us. If you said, "the Carter adminsitration," you win the prize!
I'm cool with that. Lived through the last time, and the eventual reaction (the Reagan Revolution and the 1980s in general) was very much to my liking. I just hope disco and really bad polyester clothes don't make a comeback!
Seriously, I hope that Obama doesn't preside over Carter II. I'd rather be wrong and the country be OK than have the chance to say "I told you so" at the expense of so many folks who would suffer. But I wonder if 2008 might go down as one of those times (like 1928 and 1976) where winning puts you in an impossible situation.
Here's an interesting thought (not original... I read it somewhere last week. Would link, but long since forgot where). George Washington was elected in 1788. Exactly 68 years later, we elected James Buchanan. Not particularly a success (he's my pick for worst-ever). Hello, Civil War. Only 68 years from the end of his term, we elected Herbert Hoover. Hello, depression. From the end of his term, count 68 years, We get George W. Bush. Now this. But here's the good news: following Buchanan, we get Lincoln. Following Hoover, we get FDR. So, by extension, Barack Obama will be on the currency as the next great president!
(OK--if you do the math, you have to count from the beginning of Washngton's term and the end of the other two, and you have to forget that Bush won twice. But it's still fun!)
Not only does this mess up the economy, at least in the short run, it certainly hurts John McCain. He made a play last week to get this thing passed, and it didn't work. No matter how you spin it, it doesn't help.
If Obama loses this election, he ought to teach classes in how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I'll be very, very surprised if he's not the president. Anybody want to guess when is the last time we had a democrat president and both houses of congress at the same time? I'll give you a hint... the economy was bad, then, too. And gas was expensive. And America got weaker around the world. And Islamic radicals in Iran embarassed us. If you said, "the Carter adminsitration," you win the prize!
I'm cool with that. Lived through the last time, and the eventual reaction (the Reagan Revolution and the 1980s in general) was very much to my liking. I just hope disco and really bad polyester clothes don't make a comeback!
Seriously, I hope that Obama doesn't preside over Carter II. I'd rather be wrong and the country be OK than have the chance to say "I told you so" at the expense of so many folks who would suffer. But I wonder if 2008 might go down as one of those times (like 1928 and 1976) where winning puts you in an impossible situation.
Here's an interesting thought (not original... I read it somewhere last week. Would link, but long since forgot where). George Washington was elected in 1788. Exactly 68 years later, we elected James Buchanan. Not particularly a success (he's my pick for worst-ever). Hello, Civil War. Only 68 years from the end of his term, we elected Herbert Hoover. Hello, depression. From the end of his term, count 68 years, We get George W. Bush. Now this. But here's the good news: following Buchanan, we get Lincoln. Following Hoover, we get FDR. So, by extension, Barack Obama will be on the currency as the next great president!
(OK--if you do the math, you have to count from the beginning of Washngton's term and the end of the other two, and you have to forget that Bush won twice. But it's still fun!)
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Debate Reaction
Having now offered the disclaimer as to why debates are worthless, let me give my post-debate reax (nothing like a little hypocrisy in the political silly season). It's amusing to watch the spin room after the debatesand see both sides claiming victory. I think both sides have a point--each overcame the possible worst-case scenario, and there were no serious sound bites ("Well, there you go again...") that seem destined for viral youtube. Obviously, I heard more I agreed with from my guy, etc. But if I were grading this as an undecided and uninformed voter, I'd have to give the nod to Obama. This election is about change, and about him. If he can clear the hurdle of minimal acceptability, he's supposed to win. He did that, and more. He seemed just as "presidential" up there as McCain, and he seemed thoughtful, even moderate. Even when selling ideas that I would characterize as from the left, he struck a tone of centrism. So did McCain, of course, but everybody knows McCain is a moderate. The only folks who think otherwise are voting for Obama anyway. So I think Obama helped his cause more.
Now, whether I BELIEVE that Obama is really as moderate as he sounds... that's another story. But as I mentioned before, my vote is not even in play, so that point is moot.
Now, whether I BELIEVE that Obama is really as moderate as he sounds... that's another story. But as I mentioned before, my vote is not even in play, so that point is moot.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Problem With Debates
Please note--this is written BEFORE the first Obama-McCain debate (in about half an hour). And I will, of course, be watching. But WHY? It's not going to change anything. At least not for me. Let's pretend Obama just rocks, and McCain royally steps on his crank (can I say that on a Christian blog??) So what? It's not like I'm suddenly going to become a pro-choice liberal. No more than if the reverse happens that my lib buddies are going to say, "heck, yeah. Let's cut those top tax rates!" Those of us who have strong principles on the issues are going to vote those principles, period.
But that's not who the debates are for. The US electorate is divided into basically three parts. About 40% are liberal. About 40% are conservative. And then there are the 20% in the middle. (Which is why even the biggest landslides in this country are 60-40.) Many of those 20% are a combination of the ignorant and those without clear principles. We hold these beauty contests for their all-important votes. But, in my worst moments (shades of Alexander Hamilton), I kinda wish those folks who can't be bothered to decide what they think would stay the heck away from voting booths. It's the same thing with the Supreme Court. You wind your way through the federal courts and finally get a writ to appear before the Supremes. You get there, and 4 of the judges are strict constructionists. Scalia and his cronies are going to rule like the founders wrote the text in stone. And 4 are definitely not--John Paul Stevens and three others are going to act like it was written in sidewalk chalk on a rainy day. So you get this far, and your entore legal case falls on whatever "moderate" Anthony Kennedy had for breakfast that day. And why is he the swing vote? Because he has the most muddled, unclear, jumbled grasp of any of them when it comes to a clear legal philosophy. Ginsberg, Souter... I can disagree with. Vehemently. But at least there is a perverse consistency there.
It's always been this way. 48 years ago tonight, Nixon met JFK in the first-ever televised presidential debate. Those who heard it on the radio thought that tricky Dick won. But on TV, JFK just plain looked better. He won the beauty contest, and he won the election. Don't get me wrong--knowing what we know now, we're all happy that JFK won the election. But that's just a heck of a way to pick the leader of the free world.
Oh, well. Gotta go. Wouldn't want to miss the debates. Tomorrow, everyone will be talking about who won and who lost. It won't have any effect on who's right.
But that's not who the debates are for. The US electorate is divided into basically three parts. About 40% are liberal. About 40% are conservative. And then there are the 20% in the middle. (Which is why even the biggest landslides in this country are 60-40.) Many of those 20% are a combination of the ignorant and those without clear principles. We hold these beauty contests for their all-important votes. But, in my worst moments (shades of Alexander Hamilton), I kinda wish those folks who can't be bothered to decide what they think would stay the heck away from voting booths. It's the same thing with the Supreme Court. You wind your way through the federal courts and finally get a writ to appear before the Supremes. You get there, and 4 of the judges are strict constructionists. Scalia and his cronies are going to rule like the founders wrote the text in stone. And 4 are definitely not--John Paul Stevens and three others are going to act like it was written in sidewalk chalk on a rainy day. So you get this far, and your entore legal case falls on whatever "moderate" Anthony Kennedy had for breakfast that day. And why is he the swing vote? Because he has the most muddled, unclear, jumbled grasp of any of them when it comes to a clear legal philosophy. Ginsberg, Souter... I can disagree with. Vehemently. But at least there is a perverse consistency there.
It's always been this way. 48 years ago tonight, Nixon met JFK in the first-ever televised presidential debate. Those who heard it on the radio thought that tricky Dick won. But on TV, JFK just plain looked better. He won the beauty contest, and he won the election. Don't get me wrong--knowing what we know now, we're all happy that JFK won the election. But that's just a heck of a way to pick the leader of the free world.
Oh, well. Gotta go. Wouldn't want to miss the debates. Tomorrow, everyone will be talking about who won and who lost. It won't have any effect on who's right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)