Not sure what those 8 percent are thinking. They probably aren’t.
Of course, talk is cheap. The very same people who so loudly disapprove of Congress have re-elected 94 percent of its incumbents the last two election cycles. The last time it was as low as 90 percent was 1992.
People do seem to want change. They just rarely vote for it.
Categories: Elections · Political Animals
Tagged: congress, election 2010, Elections, incumbents
The New York Times apparently has a juicy profile on New York Gov. David Paterson in the works. It should run sometime this week. The Hill reports that ‘There has been speculation the piece will contain details about Paterson’s personal life that would result in his resignation.”
Paterson’s rival in the Democratic primaries, Andrew Cuomo, stands to benefit. Resignation or no, Paterson is already unpopular. And Cuomo has $16 million in campaign funds and counting.
Paterson’s resignation would also likely hurt the Republican candidate, Rick Lazio. Political junkies might remember him as the sacrificial lamb in Hillary Clinton’s 2000 senate race. By possibly sparing Mr. Cuomo a bruising Democratic primary, the Times may be assigning Mr. Lazio a similar role in this year’s gubernatorial race.
Categories: Elections · Political Animals
Tagged: andrew cuomo, david paterson, election 2010, new york governor 2010, rick lazio
Sen. Richard Shelby, who placed holds on over 70 of President Obama’s nominees, has lifted all but three of them. Politico reports:
A spokesman for the senator said Monday that with attention brought to these two concerns, the political maneuver had “accomplished” its goal and was no longer necessary.
Translation: “We were getting too much bad publicity.”
The three holds that Sen. Shelby is keeping in place have directly to do with the Alabama-based pork projects that he believes will make him look good to the Alabama voters he will be facing in November. So, in a way, nothing has changed.
This brings up a legitimate question: can earmarking abuse sometimes be an agent for smaller government?
Few, if any, of President Obama’s appointees will work to decrease the size and scope of government. Now that their path is cleared, they will probably do net harm to taxpayers. This is the nature of government workers, whether Republican or Democratic.
Sen. Shelby’s motive for blocking them is despicable: stealing from taxpayers to improve his re-election prospects. But one wonders if those same taxpayers would have been better off if Sen. Shelby had stuck to his guns.
Categories: Earmarks · Economics · Elections · Political Animals · Public Choice
Tagged: alabama, alabama senate 2010, Earmarks, election 2010, holds, limited government, obama, obama nomination holds, obama nominee holds, pork, president obama, Public Choice, richard chelby, sen. richard shelby, sen. shelby, senator chelby, senator richard shelby, shelby
One reason Democrats were so upset about losing their 60th Senate seat was that it would make it easier for Republicans to obstruct legislation.
Fair enough. But the revived possibility of a filibuster may turn out to be the least of their worries.
Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, has placed a hold on more than 70 of President Obama’s nominees.
His motivations are not partisan. He wants money. A lot of it. If Democrats simply throw a few billion federal dollars at his home state, he promises to release his holds.
Basically, Sen. Shelby is requesting a wealth transfer from federal taxpayers – that’s you and me – to politically favored groups in Alabama. Presumably the earmarks would make him look good to Alabama voters. Sen. Shelby is up for re-election this November. Who doesn’t like free goodies? Vote for Shelby!
But they aren’t free. The money to pay for them has to come from somewhere – us. Let us mince no words, then. Sen. Shelby is a thief. What a shame that such stealing is perfectly legal.
Categories: Earmarks · Elections · Political Animals
Tagged: Earmarks, filibuster, obama nominees, pork, richard shelby, sen. richard shelby, senator richard shelby, taxpayers
Meant to post this earlier. Here’s last night’s live-blog of the State of the Union:
8:46 Welcome to CEI’s live-blog of the 2010 State of the Union address. President Obama will be touching on all kinds of issues tonight. And I’ll have something to say about them all. But I’ll be paying special attention to what he has to say about regulation and spending. Keep refreshing this post every few minutes for fresh commentary.
8:54 Important people are filing in. Pundits are bloviating. Welcome to Washington.
8:58 Here comes the cabinet.
9:00 Peter Orszag and Christina Romer are there. Romer has done some excellent research on the Great Depression, by the way. Any monetarists out there would find much to like about what she has to say about monetary policy vs. fiscal policy.
9:06 The President enters. Much applause.
9:06 While waiting for the applause to die down, I’ll add that Romer thinks that monetary policy is what drives business cycles. Fiscal policy, such as stimulus spending, has little effect. I largely agree.
9:10 Speaker Pelosi introduces the President. Much applause. Many “thank yous.”
9:11 It begins.
9:11 He refers to the Constitution. Heh.
9:12 American exceptionalism. Neocons cheering somewhere, no doubt.
9:13 He inherited a bad situation. True enough. We must act? Not so much. The recession is largely a creation of over-active monetary and regulatory policy. Not a lack of policy.
9:14 First reference to “the children.”
9:15 He has said both “hope” and “change” already. Campaign 2012 has begun.
9:17 First standing ovation.
9:18 A government that matches our decency? Public choice theory is unknown on Capitol Hill, apparently.
9:18 He hates the bailout. Good! Why did he go through with it, then?
9:18 It was necessary. Unemployment would have doubled. Hyperbole. Now banks know they can continue taking stupid risks and get bailed out for it.
9:19 touts his fee on big banks that received bailouts.
9:20 20 tax cuts. Net tax cuts. While spending goes through the moon. Tax cuts are great, but spending cuts are more important. A tax cut now is a tax increase later if spending isn’t cut to match. An increase. Not a decrease. An increase.
9:22 Many jobs created. Touting the stimulus. Which takes money out of the economy, wastes some of it on bureaucracy, then puts it back into the economy. First instance of the broken window fallacy.
9:23 Anecdotes, people helped by stimulus spending. He sees what is seen. But not what is unseen. Those jobs, and that money, came from somewhere else. Each job created is one lost elsewhere.
9:25 Jobs, jobs, jobs. Bryan Caplan’s make-work bias lives.
9:25 Business creates jobs. Government can help. But only by taking money from somewhere else, and hurting businesses elsewhere. No net effect.
9:26 $30 billion transfer from “Wall Street” to “small businesses.”
9:27 small business tax credit. Eliminate capital gains tax on small businesses. Nice, but tax code simplification would be better. Lobbyists will be all over this one.
9:28 Infrastructure!
9:28 Rail! It’s the 19th century all over again.
9:29 Clean energy. Higher energy bills for all!
9:29 Keep jobs in America! Efficiency be damned! USA! USA! USA!
9:30 Jobs bill, ASAP. But full employment requires…
9:31 still waiting…
9:32 still waiting… the virtues of China’s economy…
9:33 financial reform! For starters. But don’t punish banks. Prevent recklessness. Good. Prevent dumb risks. House has already passed some reform. But lobbyists are all over.
9:34 And they will be as long as Washington is doling out money.
9:34 Plank 2: Innovation and science. More clean energy. More nuclear power. More offshore oil. More biofuels and clean coal. Comprehensive clean energy bil. Cap-and-trade light?
9:36 Consensus on global warming. Jeers from the crowd. Acknowledges doubts, touts clean energy again.
9:37 Plank 3 – trade. More exports! Double them in 5 years = 2 million jobs. National export initiative. Trade, of course, has almost zero effect on the number of jobs. It only affects the kinds of jobs. Also take measures to decrease imports. Renegotiate Doha. Is this a new protectionism?
9:40 4th plank – education. Only reward success. Not failure. Nice. Of course, that would mean less federal involvement in education, not more. Washington has no idea how to educate kids hundreds or thousands of miles away.
9:41 End taxpayer subsidy to banks for college loans. Substitute a tax credit and increase Pell grants. Forgive student loans after 20 years. Why bother paying back, then? This will bode well for future deficits.
9:43 Social Security fix – lend more to homeowners. Yeesh.
9:43 Health care!
9:44 Acknowledges unpopularity.
9:44 Anecdotes!
9:45 Blames insurance industry for regulatory failures. Emphasis on preventive care; no empirical research is cited for obvious reasons.
9:46 We can save money by spending money.
9:46 Reduce deficit by $1 trillion over 20 years. Last year and this year alone will incur nearly $3 trillion in deficits.
9:47 Temperatures cooling? Oh wait, he’s talking about health care.
9:48 Open to other proposals. Not bloody likely.
9:48 Pass a health care bill, any health care bill.
9:49 Spending.
9:50 Blames Bush for the deficit. Rightly so! Where’s he going with this, though?
9:51 Adding debt was the right thing to do. No mention of “the children” who will ultimately pay for it.
9:51 freeze certain types of discretionary spending for three years. This excludes most spending.
9:52. Save $20 billion this year. Or less than one percent of total spending.
9:53 Bi-partisan fiscal commission. Not exactly the Gramm Commission. Good idea, but beware the execution. Wayne Crews and I have done some research on this.
9:54 Pay-Go budget keeps spending in line. The data say otherwise.
9:54 Oh, the freeze won’t take effect until next year. The crowd laughs.
9:55 Says Bush cut regulations. Actually, he passed more than 30,000. See CEI’s Ten Thousand Commandments study for the exact numbers.
9;56 Deficit of trust in Washington, not just dollars. There’s a reason for that, you know. Two of them are the Republican and Democratic parties.
9:57 Excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs. That isn’t actually true.
9:58 Doesn’t like the Citizens United decision. Or the First Amendment, for that matter. Wants a new campaign finance regulation bill. Presumably so it can be struck down on First Amendment grounds like the last ones.
9:59 I’m liking what he has to say on earmarks. Good luck to you, sir.
10:00 “can’t wage a perpetual campaign.” Tell that to Organizing for America.
10:01 Partisan politics get in the way of doing things. He’s right. And that’s exactly why I like gridlock.
10:02 Hey Republicans, no filibusters, please.
10:03 Will be talking more to the other side of the aisle.
10:03 National security!
10:04 Hope again. I haven’t been keeping track, but that’s at least 3.
10:05 Start getting out of Afghanistan in mid-2011. Good!
10:06 Out of Iraq by August. Good! Foreign aid to Iraq. Bad for Iraq!
10:07 Pork for veterans. Taking a page right out of the Gracchi playbook.
10:08 Nuclear deproliferation. I applaud the sentiment, but prohibition doesn’t work. Good luck to you, sir.
10:11 Would love to hear what Bill Easterly has to say about all the government-to-government transfer programs he’s touting.
10:12 Haiti. I completely agree with the ends. But the effectiveness of the means needs to be questioned.
10:13 Hate crimes. Thought crimes?
10:14 Let gays in the military. Nice! About bloody time.
10:14 Immigration. He has a positive view of immigration. Let’s hope that means much-needed liberalization. The more immigrants, the better. Those who are illegal, make them legal. It is the right thing to do. Obama says this is bi-partisan. I wish he was right.
10:16 Decries cynicism. There’s a reason for all that, you know.
10:19 Anecdote!
10:19 Another anecdote!
10:19 A third!
10:20 A fourth!
10:20 “I don’t quit!” Reminds me of Brett Favre’s advice to a startled referee: take two weeks off, then quit.”
10:21 End of speech.
10:26 Here comes Bob McDonnell’s Republican response. Get ready to be disappointed!
10:30 Thank yous and much applause.
10:31 Jobs. Jobs for all! Good end. The means?
10:31 So far, indistinguishable from Obama.
10:32 Calls for less taxation, regulation, etc. Quotes Jefferson. Says government is trying to do too much. Now he sounds different.
10:33 Likes Obama’s spending freeze. Says it’s small. Not often one hears a politician calls a spending non-increase anything other than draconian.
10:34 Likes bipartisanship. I like gridlock. Boo!
10:34 Likes the Shadegg health insurance reform. And medical malpractice reform. No specifics, though.
10:35 Energy. More of everything! Why isn;t anyone saying, “let the market decide?” Why must government, no matter the party, pick winners and losers?
10:36 Government energy policy can create jobs. Oh, wait, that costs money and jobs from elsewhere. Broken window fallacy again.
10:37 Education. Likes merit pay and school choice. Nothing about reducing federal involvement in this state and local issue.
10:38 Wars abroad. Daughter served abroad. Laudable. But nothing to do with the merits of nation-building.
10:39 Doesn’t like giving due process to the underwear bomber. Well, he’s probably guilty. Let’s find that out for sure and then punish him accordingly, then! What’s to be gained from denying due process?
10:40 I’m liking his rhetoric about taxes, spending, and regulation. But I’ll believe it when I see it. Which is probably never.
10:41 Haiti. Less than a paragraph.
10:42 Big role for government in creating opportunity.
10:43 One more call for bipartisanship, and a big sop to the Religious Right. An utterly conventional speech. If you thought liberals and conservatives have fundamental philosophical differences, think again. Two sides of the same coin.
10:44 That’s all for tonight. CEI scholars will have more in-depth analysis for you tomorrow. Thanks for reading!
Categories: Bailouts · Business Cycles · Earmarks · Economics · Elections · Health Care · Political Animals · Science · Security Theater · Spending · Stimulus · Taxation · Trade · education · regulation
Tagged: change, Health Care, hope, live-blog, obama, president obama, sotu, spending, state of the union, taxes
Sarah Palin, on her Fox News debut, said she thought that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks until 2008 campaign handlers informed her otherwise.
That would be seven years after the attacks.
Not as off base as the truthers. Still jaw-dropping to read.
One wonders why Democrats put so much time and effort into attacking her. If I were a Democratic party strategist, I would be lending active support to her 2012 candidacy.
It doesn’t matter how much Ms. Palin learns about the issues between now and then. And I place no doubts on her IQ. You don’t get to be governor unless you have something going on upstairs. Sarah Palin has to be the easiest general election kill since at least John Kerry.
Categories: Elections · Political Animals · The Partisan Mind
Tagged: 2012, 2012 election, democratic strategist, democrats, fox news, presidential election, republicans, sarah palin
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled out “you lie!” at President Obama while he was presiding over a joint session of Congress. His outburst has been good for $2.7 million in campaign contributions over the last two months.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) raised $114,108 in one day after labeling the other team’s health care proposals as a way to “die quickly.”
Such hyper-partisanship is regrettable. But there is a reason politicians indulge in it — voters like it. Why else would it be so good for their campaign war chests?
Sometimes I think the saddest part of democracy is that the people get what they want.
Categories: Elections · Political Animals · The Partisan Mind
Tagged: alan grayson, campaign, campaign contribution, election, fundraising, hyper-partisan, joe wilson, partisanship, rep. grayson, rep. wilson, voter
A new NBER working paper by Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver, and Aaron Edlin finds that “On average, a voter in America had a 1 in 60 million chance of being decisive in the [2008] presidential election.”
Live in a swing state like Virginia? 1 in 10 million.
Categories: Elections · Political Animals
Interesting timing. One wonders if the Minnesota Supreme Court was waiting to see if Waxman-Markey would pass the House. Franken, remember, represents the crucial 60th Senate vote.
Categories: Elections · Political Animals
The House stimulus vote did not contain a single Republican “yes” vote. Andy Roth thinks that “Democrats now ‘own’ this massive spending bill.”
Maybe the public will see it that way. If they do, that would be a coup for Republicans, akin to the Clinton health care debacle in 1994. If they succeed in labeling Democrats as the bigger-spending party, they’ll probably gain seats in 2010.
All this political maneuvering got me thinking. The Republicans’ main selling point is that Democrats are unfit to govern. They’re right.
The Democrats’ main selling point is that Republicans are unfit to govern. They’re right, too.
Sometimes I think it’s a real shame that elections have to have a winner.
Categories: Elections · Political Animals · Stimulus · The Partisan Mind
Tagged: 2010 election, andy roth, clinton, democrat, election, election 2010, hillarycare, republican
