Feldstein and Goolsbee: Who Makes More Sense?

Listened to an interview on the PBS NewsHour with Judy Woodruff interviewing two noted economists about President Obama's American Jobs Act: Martin Feldstein (introduced as a "longtime conservative thinker" and a professor at Harvard... how refreshingly oxymoronic!), and a former adviser to President Obama, Austan Goolsbee, now returned to the University of Chicago. I'm embedding the clip below because I would like to return to it on occasion. I'm always amazed at how two obviously intelligent and highly educated people can examine the same issue and arrive at such different conclusions. Feldstein makes perfect sense to me here, talking about how impractical Obama's stimulus plan is, especially if you break down the actual cost per job that his stimulus would create (I think he said $200,000 per job). This does seem a bit extravagant. Goolsbee, when asked about these figures, insisted that it's a good investment since we're sailing into strong headwinds, or something like that. The more he spoke, the less credible he sounded. It was as though he had been given some talking points and was sticking to them, regardless of how illogical they sound when contrasted with Feldstein's analysis.

On a related note, I find it interesting that the "jobs act" that Obama keeps haranguing Congress to "PASS NOW!" has yet to be even introduced to Congress. Apparently the POTUS doesn't actually submit bills to Congress, only members of Congress do, and so far no Democratic congressman or woman has done so. In the meanwhile, while the Democrats dither, a Republican member of the House has gone ahead and submitted his own version of a Jobs Act to the House of Representatives!

It seems Obama's latest endeavor isn't about creating jobs for Americans. It's about trying to make Americans think Republicans are against creating jobs for Americans (that's the message Obama's taking out on the road). Interestingly, it's not just Republicans who are hesitating. I just read that some Democrats are also not in favor of Obama's plan. So it's just more political theater from this president. The only job he hopes to create with all his blather is his own second term.

Pshaw.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

Thoughts on the Tea-Party Sponsored GOP Debate on CNN

This was a bit livelier than the first debate. I liked how Wolf Blitzer moderated the debate. I like that the line of questioning began with a question read by someone in the audience (live or remote), and how Blitzer would then follow up with more pointed questions related to the initial question. The audience was enthusiastic, applauding and occasionally booing the candidates' comments. Gotta love them tea partiers. They'll let you know what they think one way or another. No pandering from this crowd.

Just a few observations then back to grading student essays:

Mr. Huntsman didn't seem comfortable on stage. Perhaps he sensed that he wasn't as "welcome" as some of the other candidates in this arena. His comments didn't receive any applause, as far as I recall.

Ron Paul was less offensive to me this time, with maybe one exception, when he started yammering about foreign policy. I also didn't care for his dig at Perry about his taxes going up in Texas.

Cain and Gingrich were their usual selves. I like them both. But neither will be our GOP candidate. I hope whoever is the candidate (and ultimately president) taps Gingrich for something in his administration. That man is a storehouse of information, insight, and experience.

Santorum was pretty aggressive last night. I guess some will say he came out swinging. He and Gingrich acted like old buddies up there and seemed inclined to prop each other up; he and Bachmann, on the other hand, seemed to have conspired together to take down Rick Perry. Neither of them gave an inch on the Gardasil issue (the issue came up when one questioner asked about executive decisions).

Bachmann went too far on this matter, in my view. Her repetition of the phrase "innocent 12-year old girls" came across as melodramatic, but she demeaned herself when she basically accused Perry of handing out favors to the drug company (Merck, who supplied the vaccine) because they donated to his campaign.

Perry was definitely put on the defensive most of the night. Probably his best moments came at the beginning when addressing the Social Security/Ponzi scheme issue. His worst moments had to do with his comments about illegal immigration.

Mitt Romney was the clear winner in this debate. I think he finally came up with a way to handle the question of how "RomneyCare" differs from "Obamacare." He definitely had his ducks in a row last night.

There's something about Rick Perry that impresses me. Was it the way he stood at attention during the National Anthem? Everyone on stage faced the flag, hand over heart, a few mouthing along with the words. Perry's stance was different, almost as though he were saluting. Maybe it's the way he would nod in agreement occasionally when his opponents spoke, as if the other candidate were not his enemy but his compatriot. Does a candidate really have to be able to enumerate seven points by memory, as Romney did, or make no mistakes, as Bachmann claims? I'm not so sure.

Once again, it's heart (Perry) vs. head (Romney), but today I'm leaning Romney. 

Rick Perry: Telling it Like It Like It Is?

Another interesting and insightful column by Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

He starts out by suggesting that GOP-presidential candidate Rick Perry's insistence that Social Security is a "Ponzi-scheme" is in no way original to him, nor is it original to conservatives. Kurtz then cites a number of liberals who over the years have called SS a Ponzi-scheme, including liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson; Stanford economists Victor Fuchs and John Shoven; Ben Wattenberg, author of The Birth Dearth; Robert Shapiro, co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute; Pulitzer Prize winning-columnist William Raspberry; liberal columnist Jonathan Atler; Matthew Miller of The New Republic; journalist and commentator Michael Kinsley of Slate; and Max Frankel, formerly of the New York Times.

Kurtz raises the point that Perry's refusal to back down or tone down his rhetoric on this issue is a reflection of his political courage. His concluding comments:

Remarkably, [Max] Frankel ends by chastising the media — including his own paper — for failing to challenge false claims by politicians for the system’s soundness. Frankel seems to crave nothing so much as a politician or reporter courageous enough to boldly make the Ponzi-scheme point.

 Our historical tour of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme confirms what we already knew: Rick Perry’s remarks are uncharacteristically bold for a politician, most especially a candidate in the midst of a presidential race. Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades. More intriguing, the Ponzi scheme analogy was popularized by a liberal Nobel Laureate economist, who initially offered it as a defense of the system, acknowledging only later that his defense was at least partially flawed. In the decades that followed, many honest liberals have made the Ponzi scheme comparison in the course of calling for systemic reform. Those liberals have bemoaned bipartisan deception and timidity on the Social Security issue, and praised those rare and courageous political souls, such as Alan Simpson, who were willing and able to call a Ponzi scheme by its real name.

So the question today is not simply whether Rick Perry will be punished or rewarded for showing the honesty even many liberal commentators once pined for. The more interesting issue raised by this historical investigation may be the fate of the Democratic party and the media. Where today are the liberal and centrist Democrats who only yesterday called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and supported bold reforms? Where now are the columnists and editors at Newsweek and the New York Times willing to reward truth-tellers and to criticize reporters who cover for cowardly politicians? The fate of Rick Perry’s blunt talk may tell us more than we want to know, not only about Social Security, but also about who we are and what we have become.

Here's the link to Kurtz's article, "Perry and the Ponzis" (NRO, September 12, 2011)

Speechless

Due to the blackout in Southern California yesterday I missed "The Jobs Speech" (to be precise, Obama's campaign speech, paid for and sponsored by The American Taxpayer), which I had set to record on my DVR and watch after I got home from school. Driving home I did manage to catch the last five minutes, enough to be reminded why I hate when presidents speak to joint sessions of Congress. Within those five minutes alone Obama was interrupted at least four times by raucous applause. I think I may have even heard some whoops and hollers. Is that possible?

Though his admirers on the left are praising it, the speech as I perceived it when I heard snippets of it later came across as manipulative and, despite his needling others about the Importance of Bi-Partisanship, partisan. I'm fairly certain that Republicans in that chamber were not applauding. It was a one-sided pep rally, like a gym filled with fans of two teams sitting in opposite bleachers but only one school's cheerleaders leading the cheers.

Thinking about it today, it occurs to me that the speech, salted liberally with the repetitive mantra of "Pass This Jobs Plan Now!" comes across as mostly meaningless, especially when you realize that whatever jobs plan Obama was pressuring Congress to pass ("now!") was not in writing, so there was nothing actually to pass, now or later. And because there was nothing in writing, the costs of this amazing plan that needed to be passed now were also nonexistent. Yet another game of charades by the master charlatan.

Why does this all sound so depressingly familiar? Does anyone remember the 2,000+ page health care bill? Speaker Pelosi herself admitted (after the fact) that Congress had to pass the bill before they could know what was in the bill. Members of Congress hadn't even read it, but they went ahead and passed it anyway because there was Obama insisting it had to be passed now. And so they passed it. And what a mess it was and is.

Now here we are again, the president standing before Congress and essentially daring it not to pass his jobs bill which is not yet in writing and whose cost has yet to be specified, because if they don't, he will sick (sic?) the American people on them.

This is not leadership; it's political theater. Unfortunately this sort of theater what we have come to expect from Obama because it's all he knows. And his far-left base loves it.  I found this by John B. Judis of The New Republic: "Before Obama’s speech, commentators were saying that he stood no chance of getting his program through Congress. But when Obama shows leadership—when he plays the class card, as he did, and implicitly paints the opposition as the party of the wealthy and of the big corporations—then they quaver... ("Obama's Angry, Direct, and Eloquent Defense of Government").

Playing the class card is leadership? Playing the race card is leadership? Denigrating your political opponents and then denigrating the act of denigrating of one's opponents is leadership? Apparently so, if you're a left-leaning Democrat. My definition of leadership is a little different. Obama may have a plan, but so do others in Congress, some of them Republicans. Try working together with them again, Mr. President. Only this time, actually listen to and incorporate their ideas. It should not be an either/or proposition.

And yes, I know the Democrats like to say that it's the Republicans who are the obstructionists, the Republicans who are always saying "no." But that's part of the theater. The reality is, the president brushed aside the Republicans during the health care debate (I seem to recall him saying to one Republican senator, "I won--get over it"). Since this president doesn't play by the rules, I tend to ignore it when Democrats demonize the Republicans in these discussions.

In Search of a New President

Watched the GOP presidential debate trying to determine who among them would be our next president. I look for something that transcends promises that may not be kept. How refreshing it would be if just once a presidential candidate were to acknowledge the complexity of politics and accede to the reality going in that he might not be able to please everyone whose vote he seeks. I look for someone who is able to sift through the pettiness (could none of them have refused to dignify the moderator's line of questioning having to do with believing or not believing in science, for example?). 


Speaking of which, the moderators for this debate seemed determined to steer the debate off topic, which should have been focused on jobs and the economy. Especially that second guy (Politico’s John Harris). You could see him literally itching for a fight. I liked how Newt Gingrich reprimanded him early in the debate, basically telling him to lay off ("I know what you're trying to do here--you're trying to get us to tear into each other, but it's not going to work."). Unfortunately, I don't think all the candidates succeeded in avoiding his trap. Huntsman, while for the most part dignified and reasonable, did at one point rise to the bait and chastised Perry on the science issue. I thought that was a mistake. 


I also felt the moderators gave too much air time to that Paul guy, time that would have been much better spent listening to candidates who have a legitimate chance of becoming the nominee. On the other hand, even if Gingrich does not have that chance, I felt that he was actually being snubbed. I don't want him to be the candidate, but I did find myself applauding the few remarks he made. Ron Paul, on the other hand, I almost had to walk out of the room when he spoke. He's an embarrassment. 


On some levels I was sort of let down by Rick Perry. Maybe because his appearance was hyped and the expectations had been set somewhat high. Some of his remarks seemed scripted, in my view, and some seemed downright weak. I don't think it's necessary, for example, to continually tout successes in your own state (of course Huntsman and Romney did the same). Perry could have been better prepared to address the science issue. I know he's getting a lot of flak for his assertions that climate science is not yet a settled issue, and he didn't have an answer to the question of which scientists' views he respects. Regardless, his point is well taken. Economically speaking, trying to accommodate these climate issues is partly to blame for some of our economic woes. Bachmann, and also Romney, addressed this point when they talked about the need for tapping into America's own resources like oil, coal, nuclear, and renewable energy and not hamstringing businesses with oppressive environmental regulations (Barack Obama himself seems to have realized this, having actually overruled his own scientific advisors and halting the EPA's plan to tighten smog rules on businesses). Perry should also tone down the rhetoric a bit when discussing Social Security. I'm glad he's not backing down on the larger point (that it's unsustainable) but Obama would make mincemeat of him if he's the nominee unless he can start articulating specific ways to remedy the program. In this regard, perhaps Romney edges Perry.


Perry was steely-eyed on the issue of capital punishment, and I respect him for it. He also handled the controversy about his executive decision that young girls should be vaccinated against the HPV virus. I actually felt this was another attempt by the moderators to get off topic and attack Perry. The other candidates should have shrugged it off. Perry has already conceded this was a mistake, but I like the way he answered the question. Good for Mitt Romney to cut him some slack. I wasn't as impressed with Perry's response to the question about border security and immigration. I think he was the first candidate to get that question, and his response focused more on "boots on the ground," as he put it, and also a fence (I think). Some of the other candidates were more nuanced. Gingrich and Huntsman emphasized the need for compassion, underscoring the humanity of illegal immigrants, while Santorum talked about his own (legal) immigrant parents and the richness of America's ethnic heritage. On a side note, I liked the moderator from Telemundo who conducted this series of questions. 


I liked Mitt Romney last night. I felt he was reasonable, respectful, not petty, not easily distracted by the moderators. I also like Perry, despite his rough edges. I find Huntsman intriguing. Bachmann is sharp, but I'd rather she stay put, working for economic and social issues in the House of Representatives. I think she's an excellent lawmaker. I hope Palin doesn't get into the race. She has her place in the bigger picture of Republican politics, and that place is not as a candidate. 


As of today, my heart says Perry but my head argues for Romney.


These are my thoughts for now. I wonder what others are saying. 

A Little Bit Bizarre

I'm starting to be concerned about Nancy Pelosi's mental health. On one hand, you almost want to laugh at her. She is so over the top. But what if something's wrong with her? You would hate to have to go back into your blog posts and delete them if you find out down the road that she's mentally ill. Yet how else to explain the kind of illogical, irrational, nonsensical, even delusional remarks she makes here?

Held Hostage by California Democrats

Democrats are out of control.

"Babysitting Bill in California Legislature"

Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck. Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers.