Thursday, July 28, 2011

Dr. Sowell on the Debt Ceiling and the Tea Party

One of the greatest influences on my understanding as a conservative comes from Dr. Thomas Sowell.  One of the few voices of the original conservative movement left, he has always laid out the case for limited government and the free market in economics.  While people flock to the vitriolic blogs for their red meat, it falls to those like Dr. Sowell to actually make sure the conservative movement retains ideological coherence.

That is why I view his latest column important.  Yesterday I had a discussion with a Tea Party advocate who claimed Dr. Sowell opposes not only the Boehner plan, but raising the debt ceiling at all.  Being a student of Dr. Sowell's work, I was skeptical.  I had reason to.

In the article, Sowell savages those conservatives who oppose the Boehner plan, and offers some timeless political wisdom.  He recognizes, like everyone else, that you can't get everything you want in an imperfect world.  Being unable to obtain the perfect, you then have to weigh your options against the competing goods.  Simply liking something does not mean being able to obtain it.    That isn't being a "sell-out."  A sell-out is a complete abandoning of your previous worldview, and adopting the opposite.  Calculating how to accomplish a goal is a nasty business.  Some purists might not like it, but it isn't a sell-out.

A second major point is something that should be obvious but isn't:  We live in a republic that has a democracy.  A republic is built around an innate fear of one man amassing too much power.  To limit that ability, structural checks are placed upon the leader.  Two of those structural checks are elected by the popular vote.  Due to the checks placed upon any one man (or group) becoming too powerful, you are forced to negotiate and compromise to enact something.  The best legislative victories are those which move the country closer to the perfect ideal you advocate, yet still maintain a chance of passing.

The idea of not raising the debt ceiling is not an option.  As much as Tea Partier's might hate to hear it, Cap, Cut, and Balance is not an option either.  A balanced budget amendment doesn't solve a problem outright, and would take years to get enacted.  What would we do until that point?  Of equal anathema to conservatives are tax increases in both the realm of principle and practice.  (Seriously, who really wants to raise taxes right now in this kind of economy?)  Even though tax reform couldn't happen (and who seriously though it would during this debate), Republicans still scored a victory by removing tax increases from the table.

Those Tea Party members advocating opposition to the Boehner plan have no credible alternative.  As mentioned before, CCB can't pass the Senate, and doesn't actually solve the problem.    The idea you can force the executive branch to prioritize payments in a default to your liking is folly.  If your default position is indeed default, then you are adopting what Dr. Sowell calls a "rule or ruin" philosophy.  If you can't have all the power, you will do your best to ensure nobody has any power.  When people act this way, they don't last very long in politics.

The final point made by Dr. Sowell is again something that should be obvious:  there is a world of difference between the priorities of Rush Limbaugh and a Congressman.  Rush Limbaugh first and foremost is worried about ratings.  Any idiot can go on the air and spout conservative platitudes.  (Indeed, turn on talk radio and you will hear precisely that more often than not.)  It takes someone with true talent to make these views marketable.  Yet it also requires being "principled" in taking absolutely no compromise ever.  Who is going to turn into someone who advocates anything other than equating Barrack Obama as a mix between Sauron, Darth Vader, and Barney?  Rush Limbaugh can safely do what he feels the need to do without worry.  People won't vote him off EIB because they disagree with him.

Yet a Congressman can lose an election.  If you want to detonate America's economy simply to make a point, voters will want to make an equally forceful point in the next election.  Their priorities are about winning elections and advancing their ideologies.  You can't do the latter without the former.  The Tea Party was sent to Washington to act like adults as well as be stricter guardians of our finances.

This they have achieved.  Who would've thought 2 years ago that going into the final stretch of his Presidency, we would have a Republican House and Democrats would officially abandon their love with high tax rates?  Yet it has happened.  In addition, we are actually cutting spending.  We all wish it were more, but there are actual cuts, and those cuts magnify over the future as a smaller pie is available due to baseline changes.

Given the small amount of Tea Party members, that's quite an achievement.  Yet they cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good.  If they do so, they will deserve everything they get, and Republicans will suffer greatly.

Friday, July 15, 2011

@Obama: Your Move

                A friend asked me this week how I thought the debt ceiling debate/discussion was going in Washington for Republicans.  My reply was that they overplayed their hand, and Obama was beginning to take the advantage.  While true, we should never underestimate the ability of Obama to screw up paradise.  Before we look at how he did that, lets look at how we got here.

                When I wrote on this issue previously, I tried to make two points, which Republicans didn’t follow:

1.)     The debt ceiling has to be raised.
There are many things that Obama is wrong about.  Yet the President was right on one thing.  Default isn’t an option.  You have to raise the debt ceiling eventually.  Some Republicans (especially Tea Party Freshman) seem to think you don’t have to honor your debts, that American can simply walk away from them.  They are just like Obama in one aspect: both sides would sacrifice everything as long as it meant destroying the other.  Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) even said we should lower the debt ceiling, forcing Americans to make massive European-style austerity cuts.  The entire point Republicans made when passing Paul Ryan’s budget was that forced austerity was bad, and that we can manage our finances without resorting to such economy-killing measures.  Then again, Mr. Broun was one of the few open birthers in Congress, so this shouldn’t be surprising.
2.)    Focus on the way money is spent in the future, not current spending
The temptation to demand huge spending cuts is indeed very tempting.  We want to get something out of Obama right away.  Yet spending cuts now do nothing to change the bad system currently in place where it is far too easy to raise spending.  Republicans for the most part ignored this, and demanded serious spending cuts to current programs, including entitlement reform.  Part of me admires their bravery.  Yet I’m far more concerned about preventing future presidents, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, from going on spending benders the way the last two Presidents (one Democrat, one Republican) went on.

                President Obama, give him credit, played his response nicely.  He professed to offer serious spending cuts and entitlement reform, but offered tax increases alongside it.  That tax increases would torpedo the economy is beside the point.  Obama knew they wouldn’t back tax increases.  Yet he understood that spending cuts and entitlement reform in exchange for raising the debt ceiling was a bad deal for him.   Republicans need the debt ceiling raised just as much.  (See #1.) Since they wouldn’t back tax increases, the entitlement reforms he was professing to propose would never occur, so he would never actually have to be specific.  That must be remembered.  To this date, nobody has offered any specifics of what is going to be done.  President Obama figures his plan needs no substance. 
                This is all about politics.  He wants the debt ceiling raised just long enough to get him through the election.  Part of him I am sure would not mind a default, if it meant Republicans were damaged.  Such a default wouldn’t be long, and once Republicans capitulated, he would get his way.    Sam Nunn famously said about politics “Never take a hostage you aren’t willing to shoot.”  President Obama has proven time and time again, he is not afraid to shoot the hostage.  In a fight between the President and Congress, the President has the advantage.
                This became apparent when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a very convoluted plan in response to Obama’s act.  In short, it would give Obama the authority to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.  Democrats could vote against it or for it, but in the end, Obama would get what he wanted.    This was a retreat.  Republicans weren’t surrendering, but they clearly wanted out of the situation they dug themselves into.
                Then Obama got sloppy.
                Part of the entire charade was to have a sense of calm and coolness that is befitting the President.  Since he holds all the power, he needs to act like it.  He forfeited this earlier this week.  During negotiations at the White House with congressional leaders, he became visibly enraged by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. (R-VA)  Cantor offered a short-term debt ceiling increase that gave them the breathing room to work out a long-term deal and debt reduction thrown in.  The reasoning made sense.  President Obama had been stating that not only must we raise the debt ceiling, but we must also put forth a credible deficit reduction package, otherwise the debt ceiling won’t matter, our credit would still get downgraded.
                President Obama boldly refused, stating a deal must have tax increases, and must get him through the election.  Announcing he would hang his Presidency on the issue, he vowed to veto a short-term move.  Threatening that Republicans better not “call his bluff”, he angrily stormed out of the room.  With this move, Republicans suddenly had life again.  The President dismisses you from a meeting.  He doesn’t storm out of his own meeting.  Why was he so angry with a move that would’ve given him everything he needed?  Simply put, the move wasn’t politically expedient.  Once Republicans saw this, they knew what they had long suspected:  Obama had no plan.
                The past two days have only confirmed that.  During a press briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney explicitly said he couldn’t figure out what was worse:  a default or having to vote on the debt ceiling again in six months.  The answer to this question is:  of course a default is worse, that is why we are doing our best to prevent it!  The question became, worse for the country, or Obama’s re-election prospects?  This image was reinforced during today’s press conference.  Given ample opportunity to do so, Obama refused to reveal one dollar or one program he would cut.  This was the perfect time to at least show a little bit of what he wanted to do, putting pressure on Republicans.
                Since he has no plan, events are moving on without him.  As of right now, Barrack Obama is irrelevant in the debt ceiling debate.  Sensing the moment, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor have announced they will vote next week on the finally revealed House Plan to raise the debt ceiling.  The plan would raise the ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars, but also include 2.4 trillion in spending cuts.  A vote on a balanced budget amendment would be held right after.  (To prevent the two from being coupled.)  Are they bluffing?  I am led to believe that if they are bringing forth a plan, they have the votes to pass it.
                The Democrats in the Senate are in the works for offering their own plan in the absence of leadership from Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced he has entered into negotiations with Senator McConnell over his plan on the debt ceiling.  He does so out of naked self-interest, and I’m okay with that.  He sees how vulnerable his colleagues are in 2012.  They need to say they voted to increase the debt ceiling, as well as offering spending cuts.  So far, it appears that 1.5 trillion in spending cuts have been attached to McConnell’s plan.  Both raise the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion.  McConnell’s plan does it over 3 installments, whereas the House does it all at once.  Either way, tax increases are off the table, and spending is cut. 
                If the house plan passes (which is likely) then Democrats are faced with a choice.  The Senate Republicans will support the House measure first.  (McConnell’s plan is a last resort.)  Does Harry Reid obstruct it or permit it to a vote?  If it comes to a vote, it will pass.  If he blocks it without an alternative, Democrats have chosen default.  Or he can choose to cut 1.5 trillion instead.  This isn’t a compromise between the Republican Party and the White House.  It’s a compromise between the Senate GOP and the House GOP.  Does Obama dare veto it?  He would have to offer a plan of substance instead.  Reveal that plan, and he faces a revolt from his base.  Admit you don’t have a plan, and he has no credibility.  Pass the plan, and you must sell to your base that Republicans beat you a third time since December 2010.  He would come out of this with nothing.  Republicans will have thwarted his goal of raising taxes, and they managed to enact serious spending cuts.
                Of course, the House could fail to pass the plan, doubtful as that may be.  If they pass it, they called Obama’s bluff, and realized he had nothing.  Your move, Mr. President.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

The Problem of Obama's Inner Circle

It is said that a man can be defined by those he associates themselves with.  If this is true, then we have a great understanding of the measure of a man that is President Barrack Obama.

One the one hand, he has the rigid ideologues.  Some of these were "czars" like Donald Berwick (who wants to do whatever he can to provide us with socialized medicine) or Van Jones (the disgraced 9/11 truther/hard leftist), who was canned by the administration for the crime of being liberal in public.  For the ideologue, their worldview trumps everything else, including reality.  They are not as interested in equitable results for all, as the imposition of their worldview.  It is a very power hungry nature.

As he heads into re-election, President Obama has tried hard to present himself as the one sensible adult in Washington and a pragmatist.  Yet you cannot be what you cannot be.  Obama is neither sensible or a pragmatist, and this is demonstrated by his advisors.

Take the National Labor Relations Board and their demonizing of Boeing.  Boeing decided to build a new plant in South Carolina.  In a struggling economy, a big company decides to give considerable investment.  What's the problem?  The problem is that South Carolina allows workers to decide for themselves if they should be in a labor union.  Labor unions hate the complexities of giving workers the freedom to be represented by the union, or (more importantly) someone else, themself. The NLRB claims that since Boeing has a compulsory union plant in Washington State, it is wrong for them to build in one in a right to work state.  Worse, it is engaging in "retaliation" against those Washington workers for joining a union.  That the Washington plant is seeing its producitivty and employment increase is irrelevant.

What could be behind such a mindset?  In a seemingly unrelated story, Energy Secretary Steven Chu.  In an effort to promote the environmental movement, a Democratic Congress banned older light bulbs in exchange for new "energy efficient" lightbulbs that are costlier, give less light, and are a toxic hazard if they break.  Mr. Chu justified this rationale as follows:

"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money,"
In their mind, they can decide best if you are wasting your money.  Ergo, they should be able to limit your choice so you do not waste your money.  Despots normally do not speak in such naked terms of control.  Traditionally, it has been understood that in America, you can use your money how you see fit, provided it is not for criminal means.  Money is the fruit of private property.  In order for it to be private, one must have discretion over it.  What qualifications does Mr. Chu have to dictate how people can best spend their money?

When one looks at all the regulations President Obama has passed or favored, the same arrogance comes into play.  People in distant places will be able to decide for you if you are wasting money on health care.  If they think you are, they will simply take away the choice of that healthcare.  Distant "enlightened" men in Washington will decide for your business if the location you are wanting to set up shop in is "wasteful."  If they deem it so, they will do whatever they can to take away the choice of where to have your business located.

This is inherently dangerous.  What if a certain state is key to a President's re-election campaign, and he decides to use regulation to prevent a business from relocating to a state that he is already going to lose?  What if a company does a lobbying effort to promote their product as the most "efficient" and their competitor as "wasteful."  Who is to decide?  Some people might place a premium on safety.  Therefore, the newer lightbulbs are not worth the cost.  What criteria does Mr. Chu place on those competing factors to determine what is and isn't "wasteful?"  Should companies be allowed to influence that decision with their money?

This is how corruption in government spreads.  You get someone who thinks they know best, or at least that they should be in the position to know best and decide the most minute of matters for everyone else.  There is nothing pragmatic or moderate about it.