It seems that Charlie Crist is having a little bit of memory trouble. He’s just about forgotten Obama exists. The Miami Herald reports:
For a man as tuned into political news coverage as Gov. Charlie Crist is, it seems odd he missed one big story Monday: President Barack Obama coming to Florida.We’re pretty sure it got some play in a newspaper or two.
But that’s exactly what he claimed this morning when reporters asked him why he hadn’t appeared with the president akin to what he did last spring in Fort Myers, when he embraced Obama and campaigned for the $787 billion stimulus plan.
When asked it, Crist said: “No. 1, I’ve got a Cabinet meeting (today), so I’ve got to do my official duties first and foremost.”
Reporter: There was no Cabinet meeting on Monday.
Crist: “Yeah. Where was he yesterday?”
Answer: Jacksonville and Miami. Fellow Cabinet member Alex Sink, a Democrat, showed up there.
Crist: “First I’ve known of that.”
Last week, he was asked why he wasn’t appearing with Obama this visit. So, without going out on a huge limb here, it would seem he knew about the trip.
Oh, Charlie, are we going to need to give you a few tattoos detailing important information? Maybe we could start with one on your forehead reading “I’m a Conservative”. That way, when you admire your reflection every morning, you’ll be fooled and might actually govern like one.
Rasmussen New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey
- Chris Christie 46% {41%} (45%) [47%] <48%> {46%} (50%) [52%]
- Jon Corzine 43% {39%} (41%) [44%] <41%> {38%} (42%) [39%]
- Chris Daggett 7% {11%} (9%) [6%] <6%> {6%} (2%) [4%]
- Not sure 4% {8%} (5%) [3%] <5%> {10%} (7%) [5%]
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Chris Daggett 42% {44%} (45%) [44%] <28%> {29%} / 40% {32%} (27%) [27%] <27%> {26%} {+2%}
- Chris Christie 49% {47%} (46%) [46%] <48%> {42%} (48%) / 49% {47%} (51%) [50%] <46%> {52%} (51%) {0%}
- Jon Corzine 41% {41%} (43%) [45%] <39%> {45%} (36%) / 57% {57%} (55%) [52%] <60%> {54%} (61%) {-16%}
How would you rate the job Jon Corzine has been doing as Governor?
- Strongly approve 14% {11%} (15%) [15%] <14%> {13%} (14%) [11%]
- Somewhat approve 25% {30%} (25%) [28%] <24%> {27%} (21%) [26%]
- Somewhat disapprove 15% {16%} (18%) [14%] <16%> {21%} (24%) [19%]
- Strongly disapprove 44% {42%} (41%) [41%] <45%> {36%} (41%) [44%]
How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?
- Strongly approve 35% {34%} (38%) [37%] <39%> {34%} (35%) [36%]
- Somewhat approve 18% {19%} (19%) [20%] <14%> {19%} (20%) [20%]
- Somewhat disapprove 11% {11%} (10%) [10%] <9%> {16%} (9%) [8%]
- Strongly disapprove 35% {35%} (33%) [32%] <38%> {29%} (35%) [35%]
Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?
- Chris Christie 44% {39%} (39%) [49%] <47%> {46%} (48%) [45%]
- Jon Corzine 29% {28%} (30%) [36%] <33%> {31%} (28%) [35%]
- Chris Daggett 15% {16%} (17%)
Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?
- Chris Christie 47% {42%} (38%) [48%] <46%> {46%} (49%) [53%]
- Jon Corzine 27% {23%} (25%) [28%] <29%> {27%} (23%) [21%]
- Chris Daggett 13% {16%} (16%)
Which candidate is more likely to crack down on government corruption?
- Chris Christie 47% {42%} (40%) [49%] <48%> {44%} (47%) [50%]
- Jon Corzine 28% {26%} (28%) [33%] <28%> {32%} (25%) [28%]
- Chris Daggett 15% {17%} (17%)
Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted October 26. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 19 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 14 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 5 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 21 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 9 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 4 are in square brackets.
Inside the numbers:
Christie leads by eight points among those who are certain they will show up and vote. A week ago, he was up by five among that group. Christie’s supporters are also less likely to say they might consider voting for someone else.
Corzine does better among voters who might not make it to the polls.
Currently, 14% of voters cite Daggett as their first preference. That’s down a couple of points from a week ago. However, only about half that base appears likely to stay with him at this time.
Daggett is now viewed favorably by 42% and unfavorably by 40%. That unfavorable number is up eight points over the past week and 13 points over the past two weeks.
So in a recent interview, Pawlenty attacked the public option with some interesting language. He said:
“If you don’t like the price of toilet paper and toothpaste, are we going to have a government-run Target or Wal-Mart to keep the private sector honest?” Pawlenty said. “I mean, it’s a ludicrous proposition that government’s going to come in in this space and compete directly with the private sector.”
I don’t know why it never occurred to me before, but it seems to me that some variation on this could be an effective counter to the public option which, by itself, really hasn’t been very unpopular. Americans are opposed to the current health care legislation and specifically to the individual mandate, but as Democrats like Nate Silver like to point out, the public option has generally polled higher than the generic bill. But, what if a Republican were to say something like the following.
How would you feel, if the government came in and “competed” with you? If they opened restaurants because your burgers were too expensive or farms because your corn wasn’t large enough? Would that keep you “honest”? Or would it keep you poor?
Oh, they argue that big insurance needs competition and I agree. But, government can’t offer competition without eventually driving ordinary Americans out of business. They can’t keep Blue-Cross/Blue-Shield honest.
Right now there are 28 major health insurance companies in this country. That’s a pretty small number for a business that serves 270 million people, but the average American doesn’t even have that many choices. Because most of those companies are regional and regulations prevent Americans from buying insurance across state lines.
So we have 3, maybe 4 choices for health insurance. Adding one more- a government run plan- isn’t going to make a difference. It’s timid, it’s weak, and it’ll eventually lead to even fewer choices by driving companies out of business. I’d like to ask this President why he’s so timid, why he’s so wedded to the status quo. This, this is change?
No, I’d like to see health insurance in the hands of ordinary Americans. What if, instead of a “public-option”- which is really a government option-we had real public options? What if we had dozens of small companies, started by entrepreneurs, keeping the insurance industry honest? The government can help by allowing Americans to purchase quality health insurance anywhere, and by making it easier for individual entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace, but ultimately they can’t solve the problem.
That’s how it works everywhere else. You can drive into any town in America and, beside an Applebees, you’ll find a Jake’s Diner. Maybe Jake worked for two decades in that very Applebees, flipping burgers and tossing salads, before heading home to a small, cramped Apartment building and a broken water heater.
Jake had an idea though; a dream. And after 20 years that dream became a reality. Now Jake is keeping Applebees honest. Jake and Mary and Catherine and Mike, with diners and restaurants and cafes in every town, in every state all across this land.
And maybe Applebees will eventually go out of business, because these folks found a way to do it cheaper and better. That’s the way we work in America. That’s the kind of public option that we need; government giving the public an opportunity to take control of their own health care and their own destiny.
Whaddya think?
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog
The election in NY-23 has created quite the quandry. For those who don’t know, this is where the local GOP has selected a liberal as their nominee. Wait, she’s a moderate? On what issue? She has the NRA endorsement, so she’s probably good on guns. Anything else? I’ll be happy to post a correction on this post tonight on anything you can identify where she’s voted on the right (I don’t accept pledges to vote, I want to know what she’s actually done).
Anyway, back to the race. We have a liberal, whose landed some pretty liberal endorsements (KOS, NYSUT, and ACORN, to name a few), running against the Democrat. In steps a conservative alternative in Doug Hoffman as a third party candidate. Both sides have gotten party supporters; one on the basis of party, and one on the basis of principles.
As I’ve pointed out before, you are better off supporting a moderate Republican than a conservative Democrat if you’re concerned about conservative issues, as the vote for Speaker determines what issues will be voted on. That’s less of an issue here, because both Scozzafava and Hoffman would vote GOP for Speaker. What IS an issue is whether the fight between them will elect the Democrat. Score one point for Scozzafava.
On the flip side, there’s the question of base enthusiasm. In case you missed it, this race has angered the conservative base all over the country. Like it or not, this race will impact their willingness to volunteer and donate in 2010, with questions about whether the partyreally cares about their issues. Most wouldn’t care if Scozzafava didn’t have all the right positions, but they wany SOMETHING on which to base support. Despite the importance of the issue, guns just isn’t substantial enough. The economy and the deficit are primary concerns, and Scozzafava just doesn’t measure up with her support for forced unionizations (Card Check) and the stimulus bill. These aren’t pet issues held by just a portion of the extreme wing, these are mainstream positions held by the electorate at large. Supporting a candidate who’s bad on these issues sends the message of politics as usual, and putting the GOP in charge would only change who gets the goodies, not the direction we’re headed. Score one for Hoffman.
At the end of the day, message is more important that this seat. This isn’t a question of ideological purity (which should NEVER be the litmus test), but of what message you send the base, and whether you want to convince the general public you are serious about putting out a conservative agenda, or whether you just want your guys in power to get you the loot.
It’s been a while since I posted, but I saw this article on Harry Reid and his Mormon credentials. I think I have long argued the LDS church has a larger tent than it’s members want to admit when it comes to some social issues, such as abortion and immigration (not gay issues).
While I don’t care too much for his politics, I do think Reid gets an unfair shake from most Mormons, and I would guess the LDS church benefits a lot from having an LDS member as the Senate Majority leader. At least more than many members would admit. With that in mind there are a few quotes from the story to highlight:
1.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps a copy of the Book of Mormon in his office just off the chamber floor. There’s a second copy handy to give away to someone in need of spiritual guidance.“I’ve had more than that,” says the Nevada Democrat, pulling the extra edition from his desk drawer. “I have one left.”
2.
Reid, who in 2007 became the highest ranking elected Mormon in the church’s history, says he’s faced this for years. And he’s not offended.“I think some of the most unChristian-like letters, phone calls, contacts I’ve had were from members of the [LDS] church, saying some of the most mean things that are not in the realm of our church doctrine or certainly Christianity,” Reid said last week during an interview in his office.
That’s an interesting point, one that I don’t doubt. I think too often people of politics try strongly to link their politics to their faith. The “Jesus was [Is] a conservative” or this great photo.
Lastly…
3.
On Sunday, Reid, with his security escort in tow, likely made his home teaching rounds after his ward’s three-hour service. Anyone who questions his Mormon credentials should see that, says Jim Vlach, his home-teaching companion.“He’s got a tremendous burden with health care [reform] right now, but despite that, he finds time for home teaching,” says Vlach.
I don’t even get my home teaching in.
Go Harry. (You can read that a multitude of ways.)
A local North Dakota news outlet reports that Michelle Bachmann has taken steps to rule out a 2012 bid:
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann waited until an Iowa newspaper asked before she took herself out of the race.
“Goodness, I’ve only been in the House for three years, so, no, I’m not considering anything like that,” the Minnesota Republican told the Sioux City (Iowa) Journal.
Previously, she left the door open for a presidential campaign, saying she would run if God sent her a message.
I agree with the Congresswoman that she lacks sufficient experience to run for POTUS. Her statement means the mainstream media will have one less conservative woman to attack during the 2012 race.
According to the AP, Speaker Pelosi has revealed a new title Democrats may use to describe government-run health care:
In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”
Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.
“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,’” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”
Pelosi said that was a misconception and that any taxpayer money used to start up the public option would be repaid. She also said such an option would ultimately drive down government health care costs.
The speaker said the “competitive option” idea emerged during her closed-door roundtable at the Sunrise Senior Center with advocates of seniors and others who work with older populations. Wasserman Schultz suggested the term might be here to stay.
“I think she’s going to go up and test-drive it when she goes back to Washington,” Wasserman Schultz said. “It might stick.”
As talk radio hosts have discussed, the fact that Liberals often resort to conservative terminology and rhetoric (take Obama’s “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” promise and Dems’ frequent inclusion of “competition” in statements on health care as prime examples) illustrates the center-right leanings of the American electorate. And exactly what does Pelosi mean when she claims public dollars (tax revenues) will not pay for the government-run plan? Government has no resources of its own. Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood something.
A few thoughts on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) statement at 3:20 this afternoon, where he announced the inclusion of the “opt-out” public option in the final Senate health care bill (The Heritage Foundation has a video of his press conference on its blog):
1. Reid started out saying “insurance reform,” and a few minutes later talked about reforming the “health care system.” A slip of the tongue indicating what he’s really after (those evil insurance companies) or an innocent “You say tomato, I say tomato” deal?
2. Reid slipped again a few minutes into his comments when he talked about polls: “State of Nevada [pause]…national polls.” It looks to me like he panicked for about a second after saying “State of Nevada” before recovering and citing “national polls.” Perhaps he’s worried about next year’s election?
3. Reid, of course, also attacked Republicans. “I could count them [moderate Republicans] on two fingers.” Later, he complained that not-moderate Republicans are “Not helping us with anything.” Ironically, in trying to pass a very liberal bill…Senator Reid is insulting the lack of moderate Republicans? Maybe if he followed Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) in supporting an already well-known bi-partisan bill those darned conservative Republicans would get in line.
Washington Post Virginia Gubernatorial Survey
If the election were being held today and the candidates were Creigh Deeds, the Democrat and Bob McDonnell, the Republican, for whom would you vote?
- Bob McDonnell 55% {53%} [51%] (54%)
- Creigh Deeds 44% {44%} [47%] (39%)
Among Men
- Bob McDonnell 59%
- Creigh Deeds 39%
Among Women
- Bob McDonnell 50%
- Creigh Deeds 48%
Among Independents
- Bob McDonnell 61%
- Creigh Deeds 36%
Do you think Creigh Deeds’ views on most issues are too liberal for you, too conservative for you, or just about right?
- Too liberal 46% {44%} [42%] (39%)
- Too conservative 7% {7%} [6%] (7%)
- Just about right 42% {42%} [47%] (37%)
Do you think Bob McDonnell’s views on most issues are too liberal for you, too conservative for you, or just about right?
- Too liberal 7% {6%} [7%] (6%)
- Too conservative 34% {37%} [40%] (30%)
- Just about right 54% {51%} [47%] (46%)
Regardless of how you may vote, whom do you trust to do a better job handling the economy and jobs?
- Bob McDonnell 54% {53%} [48%] (50%)
- Creigh Deeds 37% {39%} [43%] (35%)
Whom do you trust to do a better job handling taxes?
- Bob McDonnell 58% {51%} [50%] (50%)
- Creigh Deeds 33% {36%} [39%] (31%)
Whom do you trust to do a better job handling transportation issues?
- Bob McDonnell 53% {49%} [46%] (43%)
- Creigh Deeds 37% {37%} [38%] (31%)
Whom do you trust to do a better job handling issues of special concern to women?
- Bob McDonnell 49% {41%} [38%]
- Creigh Deeds 42% {47%} [48%]
Regardless of how you may vote, do you think Deeds or McDonnell would be a more effective leader?
- Bob McDonnell 58% [50%]
- Creigh Deeds 37% [45%]
Regardless of how you may vote, do you think Deeds or McDonnell is more honest and trustworthy?
- Bob McDonnell 48% [38%]
- Creigh Deeds 34% [36%]
Regardless of how you may vote, do you think Deeds or McDonnell better understands the problems of people like you?
- Bob McDonnell 51% [45%]
- Creigh Deeds 40% [46%]
Based on what you know or have heard, do you think Creigh Deeds has been conducting mainly a positive campaign, or mainly a negative campaign?
- Positive 34% {37%}
- Negative 61% {56%}
Based on what you know or have heard, do you think Bob McDonnell has been conducting mainly a positive campaign, or mainly a negative campaign?
- Positive 57% {60%}
- Negative 37% {32%}
Overall, who is running the more negative campaign, Deeds or McDonnell?
- Creigh Deeds 49% {44%}
- Bob McDonnell 22% {18%}
- Neither 18% {22%}
Gary Johnson is preparing to launch his Our America PAC shortly, as soon as he gets all of his legal ducks in a row. He will be hitting the trail hard soon, traveling the country to speak in support of issues and candidates, re-immersing himself in the public policy debate.
This December, Governor Johnson will also be releasing a book entitled “Seven Principles Of Good Government,” published by The Heartland Institute (a conservative-libertarian think tank).
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Harry Reid’s announcement that he supports Senate legislation containing a public health care option demonstrates loudly that he is either highly disillusioned of the role of the public option in the health care debate or, more likely, annoyingly arrogant in his approach to dealing with the Republican minority.
Both reflect poorly on the state of American political values.
In response to Senator Snowe’s comment that she was “disappointed” that he had abandoned her hope for compromise and consensus, Reid expressed his disappointment that one issue was preventing the moderate Republican from becoming the only Senator of her party to join the majority on healthcare.
In his partisan rhetoric Reid was willing to forget that the public option is the single issue that has dominated healthcare debate for the last year and a half, and it is the component of the health care reform that starkly departs from American political and constitutional standards. He also expressed his remorse that the Republican Party can only now count two of its Senate caucus as “moderates,” an apparent indication that the party has devolved into partisan hacks unwilling to compromise.
Let us be thankful for them. It is our political values that have devolved when American politicians are stripped of their moderation for opposing Socialist reforms to the world’s greatest Capitalist nation. It is crucial to note that several of Reid’s moderate Democrats are themselves skeptical of the public option.
Every politician knows that compromise is never noble if it comes at the expense of what one thinks to be right; that is intuitively true. When it obstructs a majority from accomplishing what they arrogantly believe to be self-evidently good, they simply refuse to admit this.
Harry Reid provided us today with an epitome of why the argument of compromise is illegitimate, especially on an issue as important as healthcare, and a solution as radical as the public option. The extent to which it departs from America’s own history necessitates that Reid find for himself 60 supporters of the measure, and not go whining when others wish a less extreme course. If he does, at least he worked within the American democratic system (though I would still contend unconstitutionality). If he doesn’t, then perhaps he will realize his own hubris.
His statement, via Redstate:
“We cannot send more politicians to Washington who wear the Republican jersey on the campaign trail, but then vote like Democrats in Congress on issues like card check and taxes. After reviewing the candidates’ positions, I’m endorsing Doug Hoffman in New York’s special election. Doug understands the federal government needs to quit spending so much, will vote against tax increases, and protect key values like the right to vote in private in union elections.”
Erick Erickson, in the comments, graciously extended the deadline til Wednesday. Good on you, man. In all seriousness, I’m happy about the endorsement and I’m happy that the sentiment, so far, is only half “he didn’t endorse early enough to count”.
Jim Geraghty at NRO:
Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman is now the primary obstacle to the Democrats’ chances of taking over the House seat in New York’s 23rd district. You know how we know this? Because they’re running attack ads against him.
It’s rather fascinating to hear a Democratic ad talking about how on our street “it’s lost jobs, foreclosures and record debt” when the President had his stimulus plan passed half a year ago and Democrats have been running New York State since 2006.
Club for Growth released a new poll today:
Hoffman Surges Into Lead in NY-23
New CFG Poll shows Hoffman 31.3%, Owens 27.0%, Scozzafava 19.7%
Washington – A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.
The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No information was provided about any of the candidates prior to the ballot question.
This is the third poll done for the Club for Growth in the NY-23 special election, and Doug Hoffman is the only candidate to show an increase in his support levels in each successive poll. The momentum in the race is clearly with Hoffman.
“Hoffman now has a wide lead among both Republicans and Independents, while Owens has a wide lead among Democrats. Dede Scozzafava’s support continues to collapse, making this essentially a two-candidate race between Hoffman and Owens in the final week,” concluded Basswood Research’s pollster Jon Lerner, who conducted the poll for the Club.
For internal poll data, click here.
And Republican Dede Scozzafava is at 24 percent unfavorable, 28.3 percent unfavorable.
Ordinarily when a candidate is underwater like that, consultants say, “wow, this is terrible, somebody hit the panic button and call 911,” but somehow this seems like the wrong campaign to say that aloud.
All American Blogger has a timeline of the race so far.
At The American Spectator, Robert Stacy McCain runs an article, “Doug Hoffman, Ordinary American.”
Click here to visit Doug Hoffman for Congress.
______________________________________________________________
Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area. Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP and a former state representative. You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.
Rasmussen Survey on Health Care Reform Plan
Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?
- Strongly favor 23% {23%} (28%) [23%]
- Somewhat favor 22% {19%} (23%) [20%]
- Somewhat oppose 11% {11%} (8%) [10%]
- Strongly oppose 40% {44%} (38%) [43%]
How likely is it that the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats will become law this year?
- Very likely 20% {18%} (19%) [17%]
- Somewhat likely 34% {33%} (36%) [32%]
- Not very likely 28% {27%} (24%) [32%]
- Not at all likely 7% {12%} (9%) [9%]
If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?
- Better 23% {24%} (34%) [23%]
- Worse 53% {50%} (46%) [50%]
- Stay about the same 18% {19%} (15%) [21%]
If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?
- Cost of health care will go up 57% {53%} (42%) [52%]
- Cost will go down 18% {17%} (28%) [17%]
- Stay the same 17% {22%} (21%) [21%]
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted October 24-25. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 14-15 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 12-13 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 25-26 are in square brackets.
Inside the numbers:
Voters under 30 are most likely to support the health care proposal while those over 65 are the least supportive. Just 36% of senior citizens favor the plan while 58% are opposed. Those figures include just 19% of senior citizens who Strongly Favor the plan and 47% who are Strongly Opposed.
Bullying of CEO Ken Lewis and pay “guidelines” for non-TARP banks prove ObamaDems don’t care if TARP funds are repaid
DeVine Law had planned to weigh in on the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of executive branch “czars” since dueling Pro & Con (Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson vs. David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey) columns on the subject appeared in my October 1 edition of the AJC.
I concluded, at the time, that Rivkin/Casey had the better argument in the all-Republican debate that President Barack Obama’s czars did not exercise the ”significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States” that U.S. Supreme Court precedent determined is required for U.S. Senate confirmation under the ”appointments clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
But as the end of October approaches I am persuaded that the Halloween masks of Czar#1 (Obama) thru Czar#33 (and counting) need to be removed, given the specter of thuggish Czarist “pitchfork” threats against TARP and non-TARP companies, akin to those leveled in the Chicago Way against Bankers last April:
“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation, and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
Persuasion, Coercion and Lawmaking
The “czar” that made the above thuggish mobster-type threat against Bank of America’s (BAC) CEO Ken Lewis, after he jokingly complained about rumours of draconian cuts in executive pay, didn’t have to be confirmed by senators. He was chosen by the Electoral College!
Lewis, who had already agreed to work for $2 for 2008-2009; invested millions of his own money in stock after the credit crunch and who was coerced to go thru with the Merrill Lynch deal after learning of their massive debt; has now been rubbed out by Obama’s pitchforks and forced to resign.
It seems that Lewis committed the unpardonable sin when he miraculously turned the Merrill deal into a profit-maker for BAC, thus frustrating the Obama-Geithner goal of nationalizing the banks. Earlier this year, Lewis also tried to return all of the TARP funds that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Obama’s Tax-cheat Treasury Chief-in-waiting had forced BAC to take, alleging the bank was “insolvent.” The problem with that allegation is that BAC has never missed one payment to creditors.
Therefore, before Obama had appointed the first czar, this government had already crossed the line between persuasion from the Bully Pulpit of the executive branch and its execution of the laws responsibilities to the usurpation of the lawmaking responsibilities of Congress and the coercion of Judicial mandates interpreting the law.
One might want to go back as far as the Fannie Mae gangs of Democrats that coerced banks to make loans to those that could not afford them since the late 1990s for earlier coercions as well. One might want to re-visit attempts by President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain to break democrats’ filibusters that kept Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the czar-like power to guarantee the toxic loans that, combined with Democratic Party policies after they took over Congress in 2007, that introduced us to the Great Recession Obama’s Rahm Emmanuel now uses as the crisis to justify the end of the rule of law and free market capitalism, but I digress.
Special Master please, not Czar
I chuckled two weeks ago when I saw that AIG was “asked” by Kenneth “Pay Czar” Feinberg, to reduce scheduled contractual bonuses. Asked? Then the chuckle reached belly-laugh this past week when Feinberg “announced” that all TARP recipients pay would be cut by 90%. No word on AIG et al’s answers after being asked and no word if pitchfork releases were threatened.
Feinberg says that these cuts are a “balance” of public outrage vs. making it more likely that the TARP companies pay back the loans from the taxpayer. He also “hopes” that the best employees of these companies won’t leave for better pay with non-TARP companies.
Feinberg was appointed by President Obama as “Special Master” on executive pay, and Feinberg insists that he not be referred to as a “czar”. But “master” is a term of art used by the Judicial Branch to refer to judges that make impartial decisions based on law and equity.
We missed his judicial appointment and the only jury we saw was one man with large ears not listening to We the people, nor the Congress. Had Obama been listening, he would have remembered the U.S. Senate’s refusal to pass the 90% tax on AIG months ago and had he been listening to We the People, he would have washed away that Big Government Kool-Aid taste with Party Tea.
So you see, whether Obama’s czars are unconstitutional or not (even if the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court would declare them so), the problem of the ongoing transition from a Republic and the Rule of Law to Obama’s preferred rule by men won’t be solved.
Not a Slippery Slope? The slope done slipped.
We are also told by Master Feinberg not to fear a slippery slope that would have the federal government determine salaries in non-TARP funds-receiving companies. Yet, the very day cuts of 50-90% in TARP company pay are announced, Obama’s government issues suggestions for ALL banks and the FEd has now followed.
All this comes after Obama took over GM and Chrysler that now function as premium day care for the UAW workers with no work to do making cars no one wants to buy.
Had they cared about “saving” GM and BAC, (and about taxpayer money being paid back) they would have let GM survive in bankruptcy and let BAC pay their money back months ago. So the Obama motive in the present circumstance is made clear by their takeover of GM and refusal to accept BAC’s money: Obama wants to own BAC and keep GM as a permanent taxpayer funded Democratic Party operation.
Feinberg speaks of having CEO and other executive pay tied to long-term stock options, and that would be fine if Boards of Directors weighed such a choice in the free market against similarly-situated firms with whom they compete.
But Obama, like czars, mobsters and Chavez-like dictators, eschews competition. He prefers to clear the field with Valentine’s Day brass knuckle massacres akin more to Halloween tricks after he takes the treats.
He was ACORN’s lawyer after all, even if he is loathe to admit it, and we can’t count on clearing any more ACORNs absent prostitution ring revelations.
We the People must wield votes in 2009-2012 like pitchforks
Don’t count on any action from a Congress, either, as some of their Blue Dawgs try blocking the cap and trade energy tax assault on the poor and middle class as Obama uses executive bureaucratic interpretations of the law to begin imposing such tax without their Blue Dawg representation.
We face a lawless gang in Washington whose czars may not face Senate scrutiny, but whose head Czar and his party ObamaDems will face We the People scrutiny in Novembers hence.
It has always required courage for conservatives, branded by the Drive-bys as criminals for being Republicans, to oppose the liberal status quo. The Chicago ways of Obama has made a Rush-like courage even more necessary given his pitchfork intimidation tactics.
Fortunantly, when the pitchfork thug ObamaDems slipped down the slope, they landed on Tea Partyers heads, who are poised to play Eliot Ness.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns and Race 4 2012 website.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.
Says right-wing extremist…Reihan Salam. Read it:
It is certainly true that Republican primary voters tend to be highly ideological, perhaps excessively so, it’s worth recounting Crist’s reasons for backing the stimulus plan.
When Marc Caputo and Steve Bousquet of the Miami Herald asked Crist about the virtues of the plan, he said, “I think it’s fantastic. Are you kidding me? We don’t have to raise taxes.” Moreover, Crist continued, “we might be able to cut property taxes some more. We have more money for education, so we can increase per-student spending. We can spend more money on our roads and infrastructure. We can provide health care for our people. I mean, it’s remarkable.” Indeed, something is remarkable, namely Crist’s rigid adherence to an ideology more pernicious than orthodox progressivism or conservatism or nudism or anarchoprimitivism. I’m referring, of course, to free-lunchism…
Incredibly, Crist demanded that Florida use one-time funds to pay for 12% of the state budget. When Republicans in the state legislature took the difficult step of passing a budget that included unpopular spending cuts, Crist turned around and vetoed hundreds of millions in cuts, despite the continuing deterioration of state revenues. It could be that Crist believes that the federal government will simply pass a stimulus plan every year, one that will grow ever larger without consequence to Florida taxpayers. This, of course, can’t possibly be true. As a result, Crist has committed Florida to a fiscal nightmare, one that will lead to draconian tax hikes and spending cuts long after he makes a break for the U.S. Senate or finds some other comfortable sinecure thanks to the good graces of his many wealthy friends…
After riding an unsustainable building boom, Crist intends to back federal measures like tax credits for home buyers and generous Federal Housing Administration underwriting to prop up still-inflated home values. This is public policy as a Ponzi scheme. And even after free-lunchism proved a spectacular failure over the last decade, whether carried out by the Bush White House or Democrats and Republicans at the state level, Crist seems to have learned nothing…
But the fact that Crist is such a miserable governor is immaterial to his boosters, who insist on seeing him as a “moderate” running against the “extremist” Marco Rubio. Last week, Joe Klein of Time insisted that Crist is a conservative by any reasonable standard: “He is pro-life, pro-gun, antitax, big on law and order, a foreign policy hawk.” This exercise in box-ticking tells us nothing, however, about how Crist has actually governed. Klein makes a solid point when he notes that conservative activists are often unrealistic about the extent to which the size of government can be reduced in the short term. Yet surely there is something unrealistic about Crist’s “optimistic” combination of gimmicky tax cuts and spending increases.
Marco Rubio is far from flawless. He had a mixed record as a state legislator, and he gives the impression of being a better communicator than policymaker. The real struggle for the soul of the Republican Party isn’t between Crist and Rubio. It is between the free-lunchism and realism. If Rubio turns out to be a truth-telling realist, he will do all Americans, Republicans and Democrats and independents, a tremendous favor by bringing Crist’s political career to an ignominious end.
When you have the traditional right-leaning magazines against you- National Review, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, etc- you should pause but stay confident. When you’re hammered by a Washington Post conservative like George Will, you should worry but not panic. But, when you’ve lost Grand New Partier Reihan Salam, you should take an ad out in the classifieds. “Seeking: Position with room for growth. Qualifications: Nice smile, tan, and glad-handling skills”.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlentyesque blog
R4’12‘s own Adam Brickley was the subject of an article in the Canadian Canwest News Service (which is a major Canadian news source similar to the AP) over the weekend regarding his profile of Danielle Smith.
Here’s a snippet:
Pro-Republican blogger touts Smith as lesson for U.S. party
The hype building around Danielle Smith’s leadership of Alberta’s upstart Wildrose Alliance party contains echoes for some of the last photogenic poster child who enthralled conservatives everywhere: Sarah Palin.
It’s a comparison that’s even being made by the Republican blogger credited with launching Palin’s vice-presidential run in the United States.
Republican blogger Adam Brickley said Smith shares many qualities with the former Alaska governor.
“I do see some of the same qualities, some of the same spunk, the same desire to make things happen regardless of what party of affiliation you may or may not be,” Brickley told Canwest News Service.
“Smith is an interesting choice for a small party like the Wildrose. She gives them someone who is telegenic and energizing.”
Be sure to read the whole article here. Keep up the good work Adam!
MinnPost.com providers this coverage:
If you’re wondering how seriously to take the presidential ambitions of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, watch Vin Weber.
At the moment, Weber, the former Minnesota congressman and now consummate Washington insider, has stepped away from Mitt Romney and aligned himself with the governor, accepting the position of co-chair of Pawlenty’s Freedom First Political Action Committee.
Weber also adds of Pawlenty:
There are signs, Weber said, that Pawlenty is gaining traction.
“I look at his schedule,” Weber said, “and everybody wants him to come to their state.”
Does this show an establishment shift from Romney to Pawlenty or is this an isolated move by a man with Minnesota roots? Time will tell.
Via RealClearPolitics:
From C-SPAN’s Washington Journal interview with Newt Gingrich this morning:
C-SPAN: “If you were to run, what factors would you take into account? What would lead you to think about running?”
GINGRICH: “Callista and I are going to think about this in February 2011. And we are going to reach out to all of our friends around the country. And we’ll decide, if there’s a requirement as citizens that we run, I suspect we probably will. And if there’s not a requirement, if other people have filled the vacuum, I suspect we won’t.”
To update my post from earlier, the results of tonight’s Uruguayan presidential election are as follows:
Jose “Pepe” Mujica (Broad Front) - 47%
Luis Alberto Lacalle (National Party-Blancos) – 30%
Pedro Bordaberry (Colorado Party) – 17.5%
Pablo Mieres (Independent Party) – 2.5%
So, with Mujica barely missing a majority, he heads to a November runoff with Lacalle. To refresh your memory, Mujica is the raging leftist ex-guerrilla and Lacalle is the free-market former president. Bordaberry, the son of a 1970s dictator, has already endorsed Lacalle for the runoff, but adding both Lacalle and Bordaberry’s numbers together only pulls Lacalle into a tie with “El Pepe”. Hence, this is going to be a close race decided based on which side turns out their base to the polls, how many of Bordaberry’s people actually show up to vote, and the endorsement of 4th-place Pablo Mieres. Mieres, who wants a ”third way” between the left and right, could go either way or no way at all – so I would say that he might just be the most powerful man in Uruguay right now.
So, Mujica only needs to gain 3% to win, and the forces of freedom need one heck of a “goal line stand” to hold him off.
According to The Politico:
Two party officials tell POLITICO that the NRCC will continue to air TV ads propping up Scozzafava in the days leading up to the Nov. 3 contest and plans to keep up a near relentless barrage of press releases slamming Hoffman.
Click here to visit and donate to Doug Hoffman for Congress.
If Hoffman wins, what are the odds that we hear this from the NRCC: “We were quietly rooting for Doug Hoffman, and we were targeting our TV ads so that voters would grow weary of both major-party candidates and then vote for Doug Hoffman”?
Whatever.
If this were two weeks ago, there’d be more of an open debate. But this week’s McCormack-gate means:
When a conservative Republican is accused of breaking the law, the media unleash endless attacks on the Republican. The attacks will often occur even when then the accusations are false, or were settled 25 years ago. Or in Bob McDonald’s case, when the “crime” was a college thesis about which the media later lied, and when those lies were refuted by the fact that his wife had been a long-time “working mom.”
The media will apply the same treatment to a moderate Republican when necessary.
But entirely different rules are applied when the Republican politician is a through-and-through liberal, and when the Republican’s existence increases the likelihood of a victory by the Democratic challenger. In these cases, the hyper-partisan mainstream media will often pretend that the law-breaking event simply did not occur.
After an encounter the night of Monday, October 19, Dede Scozzafava’s husband filed a false police report regarding made-up verbal “attacks” by Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack. The campaign then lied to substantiate the false police report.
McCormack writes:
The next day, the Scozzafava campaign released a statement claiming that I “repeatedly screamed questions (in-your-face-style)” at the candidate. I didn’t. The Associated Press asked to listen to my tape of the event and confirmed my side: “The reporter didn’t raise his voice, but repeated his unanswered questions several times.”
On Oct. 22, NRO’s Jim Geraghty wrote, “It’s Time for Dede Scozzafava and Her False Police Report to Go.”
In New York, Dede Scozzafava — or, more specifically, her husband — has, at least on the face of events, filed a false police report when he called the cops on Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack.
I refer you to New York state law: S 240.50 Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree…
It’s not just bad taste, or stupid, or silly for Scozzafava to call the cops, hoping they’ll shoo away a reporter who is asking her questions she doesn’t want to answer. It is, depending on the discretion of the prosecutor, a potential crime. Cops who respond to false claims of crimes can’t be elsewhere, where perhaps real crimes are being committed.
The maximum penalty for a class A misdemeanor is one year in jail. Should Dede Scozzafava or her husband go behind bars for this? Probably not, but she ought to have the decency to withdraw from the race for Congress. Those who so casually break laws should have no role in writing them.
Predictably, the mainstream media not only ignored the event, but used Sarah Palin’s subsequent endorsement of Doug Hoffman to satisfy their plain odd desire to (attempt to) marginalize Palin. Two articles on the Palin endorsement: this Oct. 23 New York Times article, and this Oct. 23 article written at The Washington Post’s “Post-Partisan” blog by some absurdly partisan writer named Stephen Stromberg. Stromberg’s article was titled, “Sarah Palin’s latest blunder” and argued why the endorsement may “humiliate Palin.” That guy needs to get another hobby outside of bashing Sarah Palin.
The good news is that conservative support for Doug Hoffman is growing. Reportedly, on October 22, Hoffman raised $116,000, all on one day and online.
Recent endorsements include Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Senator Rick Santorum, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and Kansas Congressman Todd Tiahrt. Fred Thompson endorsed, and to his credit I think the endorsement occurred pre-McCormack-gate.
The endorsement by Tiahrt — well-known for his pro-second-amendment views — more than compensates for the NRA’s endorsement of Republican Dede Scozzafava. To be fair to the NRA, it endorsed Scozzafava before her husband and the campaign decided to possibly break state law.
Oddly, Huckabee won’t issue an endorsement in the race. TPM ran an article titled, “Huckabee Doesn’t Endorse Hoffman In NY-23 — But Agrees With Him On Everything.” The article quotes Huckabee from a recent Neil Cavuto interview, where Huckabee said he won’t endorse anybody in the NY-23 race, but also effectively argued why only a Hoffman endorsement would make sense for him. Huckabee claims that because he will soon receive an award from the New York Conservative Party, that an endorsement of a Conservative candidate would somehow appear less-than-genuine.
Erick Erickson suspects bitterness from Huckabee toward Club for Growth and Fred Thompson. In 2008, Huckabee needlessly endorsed incumbent Don Young over (Club for Growth-backed) Sean Parnell in the Republican Primary for Alaska’s At-Large Congressional District; Young narrowly won that primary.
I have a feeling that on November 4 — the day after the NY-23 election — the most-search-for news item among conservatives will be the election results, and the second-most-popular news item will be the amount of money spent by the RNC and NRCC getting in the way of a good candidate.
______________________________________________________________
Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area. Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP and a former state representative. You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.
I’m technically a government employee (that is I work for the Army). The decisions and judgment of the President impact me directly.
However aren’t all of us impacted by the decisions of President Obama?
I think most of us would agree that the President could improve on his first 9 months.
So let’s take off the partisan hat and think about what advice we’d give to President Obama for the rest of his term.
I’ve got two pieces of advice for President Barack Obama:
You were elected to be President of America, not the President of the Democratic Party. So stop attacking Fox News and saying Republican voters are mindless robots. That’s beneath the dignity and honor of the office of the President.
At this time voters care about unemployment, the war on terror and the deficit. They don’t care to see you waste time beating up on the Republican voters or Fox News when your party completely controls Congress and could pass anything they wanted.
Take responsibility for the power you control. You’ve made it very clear that you inherited a recession and two wars. However you’ve had 9 months to start making decisions about the recession and the War on Terror.
Voters don’t want to hear you blame George Bush for your own lack of progress. Voters know the recession and wars started before you were elected. Voters want you to take responsibility for the decisions you have made. They didn’t vote you in, just so you could blame George Bush. They want results and you promised them results.
Uruguay may not get a lot of coverage in the blogs or the MSM, but today that country is front and center in the Latin American war between sane government and Hugo Chavez leftism. The question is whether voters in today’s election decide to draw a line and say “no more” to the forces of Chavismo.
Today, Uruguay votes on how to move forward after the presidency of Tabaré Vázquez- a leftist who moved that nation closer to Chavez and his friends, but took a more moderate approach more remenicent to Brazil’s President Lula than Crazy Hugo. However, Vázquez’s “Broad Front” coalition has veered toward radicalism this year by nominating José “el Pepe” Mujica as their presidential candidate.
The 74 year-old El Pepe may look like a giant teddy bear now – but he got his start back in the 60s as a commander in the Tupamaro guerilla rebellion. The Tupamaros wanted to stage a Cuban-style revolution in Urugay – and they were fond of bank robberies, assassinations, and kidnapping British Ambassadors. In fact, the fight against the Tupamaros was the primary excuses used by the military for seizing power in 1973 and launching a brutal regime of terror that enslaved the country for a decade. So, while I blame the military for the brutality of that time, I blame the bloodthirsty Tupamaros for giving them the cover they needed to take over.
So – needless to say - I’m perplexed as to why a man who helped lead these maniacs is now poised to become president. Vázquez may have had the support of the radical ex-Tupamaros and put a few of them in his government, but he wasn’t one of them - El Pepe is, and I would expect him to be far closer to the Chavez orbit. So, the question is whether Uraguayans will draw a line in the sand and say that this is too much.
They might, or they might not.
Right now, Mujica is well ahead of his rivals in the polls with 45.5% of the vote, but he needs 50% today to avoid a runoff against former president Luis Alberto Lacalle of the National Party, who implemented a staunch free-market program during his 1990-1995 term. Some have speculated that Lacalle could win a runoff with the support of the third place Colorado Party (which historically ran the country’s more authoritarian governments, and hence is unlikely to support Mujica) and possibly help from the more centrist elements of the “Broad Front” who can’t stomach El Pepe.
Either way, it’s going to be close, but Mujica’s best shot at power is to get an outright majority today and avoid a runoff. If he is denied that mandate, then we have our first clue that the Uraguayans will halt the advance of Chavismo into South America’s more prosperous “southern cone”.
Here’s hoping that El Pepe can be stopped.
Surprise! Surprise! Employees leaving businesses where pay is being regulated. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)
Tapper challenges Obama White House’s war on Fox News. (Hat Tip: Reformed Chicks Babbling.)
(Obama taking notes? Chavez takes aim at unfriendly media. (Hat Tip: Wizbang.)
U.S. Health care costs growing at the same rate as countries with government run health care.
The latest advocate for Obamacare: Horror movie antangonist, Jigsaw. (Hat Tip: Newsbusters.)
Victory over the SEIU. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)
ACORN-linked political party caught in Voter fraud scandal. (Hat Tip: Wizbang Blog.)
Democratic Illinois State Senator sponsors mob widow.
1 Million rally against abortion in Spain. (Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)
School sued for discriminating against Christian soccer camp.
Crackdown on Christianity continues in Pakistan. (Hat Tip: Persecution Blog.)
Culture of hopelessness: Japan has 30,000 suicides per year.
Humpty Dumpty saved by political correctness. (Hat Tip: Wizbang.)
Insanity: 8 yearold has “sex change” (Hat Tip: Wizbang.)
Be a voice for life.
Abortionist aborts eighteen week old while eightteen weeks pregnant.
Music by Rare Tunes
.Click here to listen, click here to download.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
New Hampshire, which has been bragged about by Democrats for its 2004-2008 elections of Democrat, has a very good chance of switching to red in 2010 in all three of its very wide open races.
The First District’s Representative is in enough trouble that on October 20 Politico highlighted difficulties Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) is having back home with her reputation. As a New Hampshire native I remember her initial campaign in 2006, which was a truly impressive grassroots effort first against a favored primary opponent and then a general election victory over incumbent Jeb Bradley. Of particular import to her campaign was her very liberal anti-war stance and her radical behavior towards Bradley. Politico focused on concerns that she had “gone native,” something that New Hampshireites despise in our elected officials. This was highlighted during the 2009 August recess, where it took several weeks of bi-partisan pressure for Shea-Porter to finally hold an open town hall meeting- and where she kicked out a retired policeman from one of the town halls. The video of the expulsion can be seen here. She is also expected to face a tough Republican in Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta.
The Second District’s Representative, Democrat Paul Hodes, is going for retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg’s seat. He is a two-time elected representative, but suffers from a lack of statewide recognition, being behind in the very preliminary polls and a slight lack of fundraising this quarter compared to his only announced opponent, former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte.
Lastly, the Second District is wide open. 2008 Republican nominee Jennifer Horn has declared her candidacy, and there are many Republicans and Democrats showing interest daily or already in the race (of particular interest are rumors that former Second District Representative Charles Bass, a Republican who lost to Hodes in 2006, may run for the seat). This is a wide open race on both sides, though Democrat Ann McLane Kuster did raise a fair amount of money in the second quarter of this year.
Of course, all Republican candidates are likely to pick up the nomination of the conservative Union Leader, the state’s largest newspaper.
This early in the races, there are many weaknesses on the Republican side of things. These include Horn’s lack of grasp on the issues, something I saw firsthand in a Republican candidate forum I sponsored at Plymouth State University last year. Also, according to numerous sources in New Hampshire (I’ve always wanted to say that), Ayotte’s unpopular choice of bringing in an out-of-state campaign manager and her inability to take strong stances on several issues thus far are hurting her. Thirdly, of course, the simple fact that there are so many Republicans running or expected to run that we could very well end up with a bad candidate in the general election.
Whatever happens over the next eleven months before the primary elections, and no matter who the general election candidates are in these races for Republicans, party activists should keep New Hampshire in their minds as they choose states and campaigns to donate their time, money and other resources. This will be a truly wide-open election, and one that could begin a Republican resurgence in the Northeast.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Michael Auslin, of the American Enterprise Institute, has written a thought-provoking article for the American, in which he challenges the conventional wisdom that China will linearly continue to grow in economic and global power and influence:
Those who witnessed Japan’s spectacular rise and fall in the 1980s should be getting a familiar feeling watching China these days.
…Many observers have ignored some troubling pieces of evidence, and indeed, most have heralded China for being the first major economy to pull out of the current global economic crisis. Yet looking at the underside of growth leads one to consider that China may be headed for a crash similar to Japan’s if certain trends continue. That would be devastating not merely for China, but also for a global economy just beginning recovery.
…Builders have transformed China’s urban skylines over the past two decades, yet overbuilding has led to increased vacancies and heavy debt holdings, and vacancies in major cities have risen by double digits in the past year. While policy makers in Beijing have managed the country’s macro-development better and for longer than most observers would have imagined, the structure may be under increasing strain, precisely from its success.
…If a crash comes to China, it may come from the madness of affluent crowds. The danger is primarily social, in the form of unsustainable consumption patterns that will play out in the economy.
…A similar tale of excess unfolded in Japan in the 1980s. When land prices skyrocketed, paper profits followed, leading to ever-easier borrowing of money for both individuals and corporations. At the height of the bubble, the land under the Imperial Palace in central Tokyo was worth more than the entire state of California. Japanese investors bought up trophy properties around the globe, such as Rockefeller Center and Pebble Beach, for highly inflated prices, and one investor paid $40 million for Vincent Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers.” Japanese officials and business leaders believed in their infallibility, publicly deriding American society.
…Just like today with China, pundits, investors, and the media largely proclaimed that the Japanese party would go on forever. Today, the sophisticated management of the Chinese government is offered as proof that China will always experience growth (or if contraction, a soft landing). Back in the 1980s, Japanese companies were assumed to have discovered the secret to hyper-efficient production and thus endless profits, while the country’s bureaucrats were lauded as perfect macro-planners. Inefficiencies, protected industries, poor management, and a sclerotic bureaucracy were all ignored by those who wanted to believe the hype. Yet such weaknesses were exacerbated by a culture of excess that destroyed consumer reality. Once it took root in Japan, expectations changed permanently and traditional restraint was abandoned. The savings rate dropped, and people paid exorbitant amounts for new houses and cars. I remember watching as whole parties in Tokyo restaurants walked away from tables full of food that was ordered and then left to be thrown away. The economics fed and then followed the social disease. Eventually, the asset bubble burst and the whole edifice came crashing down.
This is the larger danger in China’s future, except that it might be even more destabilizing to a country that has such uneven economic growth. To control it, the Chinese Communist Party will have to clamp down on the very economic exuberance that has driven the country forward. Failing to rein it in, however, could prove devastating, especially in a society whose majority remains poor and hostile to the authorities. In flush economic times in 2004 alone, Chinese authorities put down nearly 70,000 riots in the hinterland. But today’s spending binge may lead to deeper resentment against the wealthy, while spillover effects from an economic crash could set the countryside on fire. China has seen enough social revolution in its history that no one should rule it out again, especially if fallout from a collapse of the new rich hurts the countryside.
Added to these domestic reverberations would be a dramatic slowing of the global economy, should China’s economic growth derail. Beijing would almost certainly limit if not stop its purchase of U.S. debt, driving interest rates in America sky high, while consumers might be hammered by cheap export goods drying up due to the financial distress of Chinese manufacturers; already tens of thousands of factories have closed due to the current economic crisis, disproportionately affecting lower-wage earners in China. Banks in China undoubtedly have bad loans, shielded by non-transparent accounting practices, and as wealthy individuals and producers over-leverage themselves, the pieces are in place for a very bumpy road ahead.
This piece reminded me of Charles Krauthammer’s recent missive on America’s decline, as the two articles provide common takeaways:
1. We must not take global trends for granted, and
2. Choices can obstruct and even reverse trends.
National leaders directly affect the rise and fall of their homelands. America did not become the most powerful and influential country the world has seen by chance. China will not inevitably continue to accumulate power and wealth. We must return America to the time-tested principles of individual liberty, sound monetary policy and free enterprise. The future of the world depends on it.
Again, a few thoughts of mine to get the ball rolling:
Well, have fun with these topics, or whatever tickles your fancy!
