Last Monday's Wall Street Journal contained an editorial describing Illinois' recent debacle with 'universal' health care.
Essentially, Governor "Blowdryavitch," as he is known in the state, attempted to push through a $7.6B tax increase, exclusively on businesses, to pay for health care.
A word to the wise liberals pre-2008. It backfired. So badly that, before the end of the story, Blagojevich was repudiating his own plan!
Along the way, the Illinois Democratic House Speaker, Madigan, the Lieutenant Governor, Quinn, and Chicago's Mayor, Dick Daley, all refused to support it. In the end, the legistlators nixed it because they realize that they have to go back to these businessmen for campaign funds. A law like this could give the Illinois legislature, or Governor's mansion (empty now, anyway..but that's for another post) back to the GOP.
To quote Daley,
"To describe every major CEO in Illinois as fat cats is a mistake...They don't have to be here. They can go to Wisconsin. They can go to Indiana. They can go to India. They can go to China. So if you want to beat up businesses, go beat 'em up, and when they leave, just wave to 'em and they're going to wave back to you."
Even Jesse Jackson went on record as preferring to keep jobs in the state to having health care without a way to pay for it.
John Edwards, of course, wants the equivalent of the Illinois plan nationally. Obama Bim Baden is curiously silent on the Illinois debacle. So is Hillary, who also occasionally claims the state as her 'home.'
Is it the liberal health care canary in the coal mine?
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Presidential Candidate Videos
Fred Thompson evidently received a letter from Michael Moore, inviting him to a debate. I didn't catch the opening act, but apparently Fred castigated Moore for visiting Cuba to make a one-sided video/film about the economically-wrecked island's great health care system.
Here is Fred's response, on YouTube.
Also featured in today's Wall Street Journal was this funny, mock job interview by Bill Richardson as a Presidential candidate.
Apparently, Hillary did one on finding a theme song for her campaign, with an allegedly humorous reference to her inability to sing. I won't bother posting that link, as I am not planning to view it. My stomach's a little tender for that kind of abuse.
Here is Fred's response, on YouTube.
Also featured in today's Wall Street Journal was this funny, mock job interview by Bill Richardson as a Presidential candidate.
Apparently, Hillary did one on finding a theme song for her campaign, with an allegedly humorous reference to her inability to sing. I won't bother posting that link, as I am not planning to view it. My stomach's a little tender for that kind of abuse.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Barney Frank's Mistaken View
I saw an interview of Barney Frank the other day on Larry Kudlow's CNBC program. Kudlow was discussing the House's intended bill to levy punitive taxes on owners/partners of private equity firms, "just because."
True to confiscatory form, Frank jocularly intoned that if someone made several hundred million dollars one year, he didn't personally see it as affecting to require that person to pay, say, thirty or thirty-five million of it to the Feds. Talk about incenting economic activity.
However, the House member from Massachusetts went on to articulate- if that's the right word for Frank's speech- his view of what measure best reflects the health of the US economy.
Are you surprised to hear that he focuses on the 'average wage'. Yes, the old-style, clock-punching average weekly/hourly wage measure.
However, economist Brian Wesbury has discredited this measure repeatedly, most recently in an article in the Wall Street Journal.
Wesbury's sensible contention is that many small businessmen have converted to subchapter S corporations or LLCs, so that their reported incomes roll up on a 1040 form, and escape characterization as wage income. Thus, these higher incomes don't flow into Frank's "average wage" numbers.
Further, as more companies pay incentive compensation, the 'average wage' is unlikely to reflect this, since it's a one-time income payment. Wesbury had other reasons for preferring the household incomes survey to the payroll data for assessing US worker incomes health. But, essentially, he argued, convincingly, that today's economy has moved away from the old 'wage' economy, such that much income escapes payroll surveys, but is captured in tax and household incomes survey data.
No wonder Congressman Frank is so out to lunch on good economic sense. He uses the wrong measure, from a bygone era, and pronounces our healthy economy to be sick, not to mention its incomes too skewed for social stability.
True to confiscatory form, Frank jocularly intoned that if someone made several hundred million dollars one year, he didn't personally see it as affecting to require that person to pay, say, thirty or thirty-five million of it to the Feds. Talk about incenting economic activity.
However, the House member from Massachusetts went on to articulate- if that's the right word for Frank's speech- his view of what measure best reflects the health of the US economy.
Are you surprised to hear that he focuses on the 'average wage'. Yes, the old-style, clock-punching average weekly/hourly wage measure.
However, economist Brian Wesbury has discredited this measure repeatedly, most recently in an article in the Wall Street Journal.
Wesbury's sensible contention is that many small businessmen have converted to subchapter S corporations or LLCs, so that their reported incomes roll up on a 1040 form, and escape characterization as wage income. Thus, these higher incomes don't flow into Frank's "average wage" numbers.
Further, as more companies pay incentive compensation, the 'average wage' is unlikely to reflect this, since it's a one-time income payment. Wesbury had other reasons for preferring the household incomes survey to the payroll data for assessing US worker incomes health. But, essentially, he argued, convincingly, that today's economy has moved away from the old 'wage' economy, such that much income escapes payroll surveys, but is captured in tax and household incomes survey data.
No wonder Congressman Frank is so out to lunch on good economic sense. He uses the wrong measure, from a bygone era, and pronounces our healthy economy to be sick, not to mention its incomes too skewed for social stability.
On Scandals
I was reading through the Wall Street Journal today, and happened upon a piece about Federal prison farms. It discussed the typical view of them as a cushy place where non-violent criminals do easy time. However, apparently some of the 'perks' have been reined in now.
One of the former inmates interviewed for the piece was Webster Hubbell. Hubbell's conviction on various charges while in Clinton's Justice Department landed him in a Federal prison farm.
And that got me to thinking.
I hear all these accusations George Bush's administration as corrupt or scandalous. I don't think any of his cabinet officers or deputy cabinet officers have been jailed for corruption. To my knowledge, none are currently serving time in a Federal prison, farm or otherwise.
For scandal, Clinton's administration was really up there. You had Hillary and her friend, Mickey Kantor, being investigated and charged by Judge Royce Lambert for being, then not being, Federal employees on Hill's Healthcare Taskforce, depending upon which classification suited her best that day. And let's not forget his Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, in the midst of being investigated for gross and significant graft and bribe-taking. He died in rather suspicious circumstances while on a work-related trip.
How convenient.
But let's not forget the biggest embarrassment of them all. The big cheese of scandal- Bill himself. The infamous cigar and the intern on her knees. Bill's equally famous equivocations before a grand jury on the meaning of sex, so that he could say, with a straight face, "I did not have sex with that woman." Sure, Bill. Sure.
And for my liberal acquaintances' education, Bill was not impeached for adultery. He was impeached for obstruction of justice. If not for some procedural fumbling by the House team, he probably would have been convicted.
No, no matter what liberals tell you about the current administration, Clinton had it all over this one when it came to scandal and shameful behaviors in office.
One of the former inmates interviewed for the piece was Webster Hubbell. Hubbell's conviction on various charges while in Clinton's Justice Department landed him in a Federal prison farm.
And that got me to thinking.
I hear all these accusations George Bush's administration as corrupt or scandalous. I don't think any of his cabinet officers or deputy cabinet officers have been jailed for corruption. To my knowledge, none are currently serving time in a Federal prison, farm or otherwise.
For scandal, Clinton's administration was really up there. You had Hillary and her friend, Mickey Kantor, being investigated and charged by Judge Royce Lambert for being, then not being, Federal employees on Hill's Healthcare Taskforce, depending upon which classification suited her best that day. And let's not forget his Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, in the midst of being investigated for gross and significant graft and bribe-taking. He died in rather suspicious circumstances while on a work-related trip.
How convenient.
But let's not forget the biggest embarrassment of them all. The big cheese of scandal- Bill himself. The infamous cigar and the intern on her knees. Bill's equally famous equivocations before a grand jury on the meaning of sex, so that he could say, with a straight face, "I did not have sex with that woman." Sure, Bill. Sure.
And for my liberal acquaintances' education, Bill was not impeached for adultery. He was impeached for obstruction of justice. If not for some procedural fumbling by the House team, he probably would have been convicted.
No, no matter what liberals tell you about the current administration, Clinton had it all over this one when it came to scandal and shameful behaviors in office.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Obama's Detroit Economic Club Remarks
Last week, Obama Bim Baden, the Illinois Democratic candidate for President, announced in a lunch speech at the Economics Club of Detroit, that, henceforth, 'expense is no excuse' for environmentally-driven changes to automobiles.
Get ready to have big government make a really big grab on your wallet. Nevermind that the manufacturers are already streaming more fuel-efficient vehicles to the market.
Rather than let people choose what to buy, and, thus, how they value environmentalism, Bim Baden would just force them to pay more for what he thinks they need. Sounds a bit like...well..fascism to me. In the technical sense. State-directed production means.
Hey, is he related to Ted Kennedy? Obama certainly seems to favor that kind of liberalism- nevermind what the people think, we'll tell them what they should have.
If he's elected in 2008, the poor and merely-average in this country are in for a big shock. Ed Begley, Jr. and Leo di Caprio might be able to afford the new vehicles, and enjoy the belief that they contribute to cleaner air. But for most voters, they're just going to have to hang on to their current ride a little longer, because a new one just moved out of their affordability range.
Get ready to have big government make a really big grab on your wallet. Nevermind that the manufacturers are already streaming more fuel-efficient vehicles to the market.
Rather than let people choose what to buy, and, thus, how they value environmentalism, Bim Baden would just force them to pay more for what he thinks they need. Sounds a bit like...well..fascism to me. In the technical sense. State-directed production means.
Hey, is he related to Ted Kennedy? Obama certainly seems to favor that kind of liberalism- nevermind what the people think, we'll tell them what they should have.
If he's elected in 2008, the poor and merely-average in this country are in for a big shock. Ed Begley, Jr. and Leo di Caprio might be able to afford the new vehicles, and enjoy the belief that they contribute to cleaner air. But for most voters, they're just going to have to hang on to their current ride a little longer, because a new one just moved out of their affordability range.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
If I Managed Fred Thompson's Presidential Campaign....
My business partner and I were discussing the changed face of Presidential campaigning in the current era this past weekend.
I mentioned the YouTube video developed by an Obama supporter which was targeted at Hillary Clinton. My post about it, from March, may be found here. This seminal event demonstrates that quite a bit of television commercial-like publicity can be had for essentially no money.
Thus, we turned to Fred Thompson. What if he were to run, but with too little time left to raise the sort of money that other leading candidates have raised? Could he still have a chance? How would he do it?
Well, we know from old third-party candidacies such as John Anderson and Ross Perot that having fieldworkers to get such a candidate on the ballot in each state are necessary.
As to mass media campaigns, we believe that a political candidate can now essentially emulate the direct-to-consumer approaches that I have predicted will soon occur for video programming producers, over on my other blog, The Reasoned Sceptic, which is linked to this one.
To wit, we would have Thompson post videos on his website conveying his message on the various topics which he felt were important. Second, we'd have him produced in a town hall sort of environment, answering questions from an audience, and maximizing his thoughtful, sensible, folksy appeal.
Finally, to throw down the gauntlet to the posed and overly-prepped candidates, we'd film Thompson strolling down major streets in various large and small American cities, stopping people to chat with them and engage in discussions. He'd obviously be exposed to unrehearsed questions and comments, which would tend to make the more stultifyingly pompous candidates have to consider doing the same.
We'd post all of these videos on YouTube and various other free video sites across the internet, thus avoiding the need for expensive purchases of advertising slots on network or cable television. Does anyone still think you can't get good coverage directly on the internet with videos?
Just like every other quadrennial campaign, this one has some new wrinkles to which many candidates will probably not well adapt. Last time, it was grassroots, web-based fund raising and website usage. Perhaps this year's change is the rise of spontaneous, free political message videos on the internet.
I mentioned the YouTube video developed by an Obama supporter which was targeted at Hillary Clinton. My post about it, from March, may be found here. This seminal event demonstrates that quite a bit of television commercial-like publicity can be had for essentially no money.
Thus, we turned to Fred Thompson. What if he were to run, but with too little time left to raise the sort of money that other leading candidates have raised? Could he still have a chance? How would he do it?
Well, we know from old third-party candidacies such as John Anderson and Ross Perot that having fieldworkers to get such a candidate on the ballot in each state are necessary.
As to mass media campaigns, we believe that a political candidate can now essentially emulate the direct-to-consumer approaches that I have predicted will soon occur for video programming producers, over on my other blog, The Reasoned Sceptic, which is linked to this one.
To wit, we would have Thompson post videos on his website conveying his message on the various topics which he felt were important. Second, we'd have him produced in a town hall sort of environment, answering questions from an audience, and maximizing his thoughtful, sensible, folksy appeal.
Finally, to throw down the gauntlet to the posed and overly-prepped candidates, we'd film Thompson strolling down major streets in various large and small American cities, stopping people to chat with them and engage in discussions. He'd obviously be exposed to unrehearsed questions and comments, which would tend to make the more stultifyingly pompous candidates have to consider doing the same.
We'd post all of these videos on YouTube and various other free video sites across the internet, thus avoiding the need for expensive purchases of advertising slots on network or cable television. Does anyone still think you can't get good coverage directly on the internet with videos?
Just like every other quadrennial campaign, this one has some new wrinkles to which many candidates will probably not well adapt. Last time, it was grassroots, web-based fund raising and website usage. Perhaps this year's change is the rise of spontaneous, free political message videos on the internet.
Monday, May 7, 2007
John Boehner's Slip of the Tongue
I caught a few minutes of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Chris Wallace's Fox-TV program yesterday afternoon. For the most part, it was boring and predictable.
Wallace asked what Boehner thought was missing about Frisco 'Nan's legislative program, and, expectedly, Boehner answered, 'they have no program.' True, other than a sort of nihilistic roll-back of any- and everything they can get their hands on which has been done since the Republicans finally got the Speakership more than a decade ago.
However, when Wallace asked Boehner about which candidate he liked, or what he thought of them, Boehner made a telling, important slip. He whined about how, seemingly just the day after last November's elections, the 2008 Presidential contest had already begun. And that the poor voters should get a break from all this.
I'm a sceptic- born and bred, Midwestern-style. I'm not from Missouri, but, trust me, it's not the only state full of people who want to see proof.
Thus, when a hacked-up professional pol expresses sympathy for the common voter having to endure a too-long Presidential election season, my natural inclination is to think, B'rer Rabbit and crocodile tears.
Boehner's put down of the always-on White House campaign makes me think it's probably a good thing. As I wrote here in February of this year, but more briefly, the eternal Presidential campaign is actually a blessing for voters.
Remember, the President of the US is still the single most powerful elected office on the planet. You cannot know 'too much' about the people who seek, crave, lust after, and dream about inhabiting it. However, the risks, if there are any, to a too-long campaign season, are all owned by the candidates, not the voters. As I wrote in that earlier post,
"You know what? Don't worry about any of these egotistical Presidential wannabes. One of these clowns will win- we can't prevent that. And then, s/he won't be allowed to implement his/her wilder, crazier schemes anyway, because about 300 representatives will have to drink the Kool-Aid to make that happen.
More likely, the really appallingly bad ideas will be stripped off, like ionized electrons, on the way to victory. In the end, it's the daily-monthly leadership, reactive, and problem-solving grind that dominates the Oval Office."
As I discussed with another guy in my fitness club's locker room last night, after hearing Boehner's comment, we know the person we elect to the Oval Office will have warts. S/he'll have some seamier personal attributes, or a few zany ideas that don't make sense. Or some ideological stance that nearly half the country can't abide- like abortion, gun control, or, God help us with these horribly misunderstood topics, 'stem cell research.' Remember when a candidate's stand on busing or the ERA amendment seemed to matter?
In the end, some of us will passionately vote for the winning candidate, fewer of us will ardently vote for a/the loser, and a bunch of us will vote for each while holding our collective nose. I spoke with a friend this weekend who voted against Bush in each of the last two elections, but was an avid Reagan supporter in his day. She simply couldn't pull the lever for our current President, but admitted that she did not really support either Gore or Kerry.
The truth is, we rarely have a President who is actively supported by most American voters. And none of them is without fault. But the longer the campaign trail, the more unscripted, candid-camera style YouTube videos we see, the better we'll feel that we know just what we are getting when we vote for this or that candidate.
My guess is that the era of the big Presidential debate is coming to an end. Online, near-real-time video coverage is going to make a carefully-staged debate become rather meaningless. In my next post, on Fred Thompson, I'll explain that notion in more detail.
For now, though, I'm happy and confident that what is mourned by professional politicians like Boehner, is a good thing for us voters. The age of the fully-informed voter, thanks to cheap, omnipresent digital information sources and high-speed internet access, is further eroding the managed, packaged, staged candidate. No wonder the politicians are dreading the always-on, digital media future of campaigning for President.
Wallace asked what Boehner thought was missing about Frisco 'Nan's legislative program, and, expectedly, Boehner answered, 'they have no program.' True, other than a sort of nihilistic roll-back of any- and everything they can get their hands on which has been done since the Republicans finally got the Speakership more than a decade ago.
However, when Wallace asked Boehner about which candidate he liked, or what he thought of them, Boehner made a telling, important slip. He whined about how, seemingly just the day after last November's elections, the 2008 Presidential contest had already begun. And that the poor voters should get a break from all this.
I'm a sceptic- born and bred, Midwestern-style. I'm not from Missouri, but, trust me, it's not the only state full of people who want to see proof.
Thus, when a hacked-up professional pol expresses sympathy for the common voter having to endure a too-long Presidential election season, my natural inclination is to think, B'rer Rabbit and crocodile tears.
Boehner's put down of the always-on White House campaign makes me think it's probably a good thing. As I wrote here in February of this year, but more briefly, the eternal Presidential campaign is actually a blessing for voters.
Remember, the President of the US is still the single most powerful elected office on the planet. You cannot know 'too much' about the people who seek, crave, lust after, and dream about inhabiting it. However, the risks, if there are any, to a too-long campaign season, are all owned by the candidates, not the voters. As I wrote in that earlier post,
"You know what? Don't worry about any of these egotistical Presidential wannabes. One of these clowns will win- we can't prevent that. And then, s/he won't be allowed to implement his/her wilder, crazier schemes anyway, because about 300 representatives will have to drink the Kool-Aid to make that happen.
More likely, the really appallingly bad ideas will be stripped off, like ionized electrons, on the way to victory. In the end, it's the daily-monthly leadership, reactive, and problem-solving grind that dominates the Oval Office."
As I discussed with another guy in my fitness club's locker room last night, after hearing Boehner's comment, we know the person we elect to the Oval Office will have warts. S/he'll have some seamier personal attributes, or a few zany ideas that don't make sense. Or some ideological stance that nearly half the country can't abide- like abortion, gun control, or, God help us with these horribly misunderstood topics, 'stem cell research.' Remember when a candidate's stand on busing or the ERA amendment seemed to matter?
In the end, some of us will passionately vote for the winning candidate, fewer of us will ardently vote for a/the loser, and a bunch of us will vote for each while holding our collective nose. I spoke with a friend this weekend who voted against Bush in each of the last two elections, but was an avid Reagan supporter in his day. She simply couldn't pull the lever for our current President, but admitted that she did not really support either Gore or Kerry.
The truth is, we rarely have a President who is actively supported by most American voters. And none of them is without fault. But the longer the campaign trail, the more unscripted, candid-camera style YouTube videos we see, the better we'll feel that we know just what we are getting when we vote for this or that candidate.
My guess is that the era of the big Presidential debate is coming to an end. Online, near-real-time video coverage is going to make a carefully-staged debate become rather meaningless. In my next post, on Fred Thompson, I'll explain that notion in more detail.
For now, though, I'm happy and confident that what is mourned by professional politicians like Boehner, is a good thing for us voters. The age of the fully-informed voter, thanks to cheap, omnipresent digital information sources and high-speed internet access, is further eroding the managed, packaged, staged candidate. No wonder the politicians are dreading the always-on, digital media future of campaigning for President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
