With both Virginia’s and New Jersey’s governor races won by Republican candidates and the loss by the Conservative candidate, Hoffman, in NY-23 Congressional district, the results of yesterday’s elections have interesting implications for the Republican Party. In short, these results have reflect a distaste with the Democrats’ agenda, coupled with a call for greater Republican cohesiveness. This bodes well for the moderate Republican movement.
The Republican win of both governorships is a clear indictment of Obama’s policies and Congress’s rule. Both states went to Obama last year. Of the two, New Jersey has historically been ‘bluer’. Virginia on the other hand has swung more widely. It is thus less surprising that Virginia elected a Republican governor. What is surprising is the magnitude of Republican Robert McDonnell’s win. McDonnell won Virginia with an astounding 59% of votes, a massive swing from the percentage of Virginia voters that supported Obama last year.
However, the Republican triumph in the historically staunch blue state of New Jersey is the more significant of the two. New Jersey has long been considered a Democratic stronghold. They fact that the state could go red only a year after Obama’s election supposedly stamped a new mandate on America, reflects a strong repudiation of the past year’s policies. Both Virginia’s and New Jersey’s results signify America’s distaste with the overreach of government and the inability of the administration to solve the most pressing issues.
So what is one to make of the loss of Congressional district NY-23, a long-time Republican district? Democratic pundits will most certainly claim it counters any message sent by the governor races. However, the story more directly reflects the internal problems within the Republican Party than national politics.
The muddled race began with liberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, running against former Independent-cum-Democrat Bill Owens. A rebellion by Republicans prompted Conservative Party candidate Hoffman to jump into the fray at the last minute. Scozzafava was immediately overshadowed and dropped out of the race; ironically throwing her weight behind Owens. The result of theRepublican infighting split the Republican vote. Furthermore, Hoffman’s candidacy never had the time needed to fully get off the ground. Voters were undoubtedly unclear about where he stood. Ultimately, this handed the race to a Democrat for the first time since the Civil War.
Yesterday’s elections send a clear message to the activist wing of the Republican Party. The branch of the party that wants to see a smaller, more ‘ideologically pure’ party has been dealt a heavy blow. The failure in NY-23 is clearly an issue of party infighting. Hoffman or Scozzafava most likely would have won if they were the sole right-wing candidate; however, by taking the fight outside of the Republican Party all conservatives lost.
This election is a resounding success for the Big Tent Republicans. Republicans have won where they have appealed to all and have lost where they have become narrow and isolated. This will become increasingly important as conservative Republicans aim to challenge moderate Republican candidates, such as Charlie Crist, next year. The challenges are welcomed, but should stay within the party. Republican candidates should be selected that can appeal to their electorates. As the wins in New Jersey and Virginia show, America has soured to the liberal excesses in Washington. Republicans can win by being true to their principles and reaching out to independents and Democrats. But they cannot win by being exclusionary and fighting amongst each other.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Back from the Dead - Harry Reid's Public Option
Just in time for Halloween, Harry Reid has raised the dead. Like a zombie from a cheesy horror flick, the public option is now once again roaming the halls of Congress. In a recent announcement, Senate Majority leader Reid stated the newest version of health care legislation would be heading to a vote in the Senate with a government-run public option included.
Setting aside for a moment the foolishness of a public option, Reid’s insistence on including this provision in a plan is utterly baffling. The public option was killed over the summer when Democrats realized the political infeasibility of the concept. The Democrats simply did not have the votes in the Senate to avoid a Republican-led filibuster. The Democrats need every single member of their caucus (58 Democrats and 2 Independents) to agree with the plan in order to push it through without Republican support. The political reality indicated that this just was not possible. If one Democrat wavered the entire plan would fail. And so, wisely the Democrats seemed to move on from the public option. After all, they profess that their real goal is to achieve much needed health-care reform.
Reid’s move to bring back the discussion on the public-option is a step backwards. Nothing has changed to indicate a different political environment. In fact, shortly after his announcement Olympia Snowe, the sole Republican to have voted with Democrats on some health-care related issues, backed off from her cross aisle move. She indicated she would work with Republicans to quash any health care reform that included a public option. Snowe’s rebuke was quickly followed by one from Joe Lieberman – one of the two Independents who caucuses with the Democrats. With Lieberman’s defection a public option is undoable.
So what are the left-wing Democrats trying to accomplish? The inclusion of a public option will sink any reform bill. If the Democrats truly want to reform healthcare, they need to face the reality that it cannot (nor should not – see a prior post on ANR) include a public option. Reid’s gambit seems to lead to nothing but a dead end – torpedoing the Democrats’ and Obama’s crown jewel.
Ironically, it appears that Reid is sabotaging any chance at Democrat-led healthcare reform. One possible explanation is that the Democrats are in such internal disagreement that they cannot design any plan that is amenable to all wings of the party. The tensions between the leftists and the centrists are running high. In order to avoid a failure based on the Democrats’ inability to compromise, Reid is setting up a surefire way to fail that can be pegged on supposed Republican obstructionism. At the end of the day, Democrats will point to the ‘anti-reform’ Republicans who successfully filibustered their plan, rather than their own ranks for the political failure to pass a reform bill. If one is going to fail, at least make it look like it is someone else’s fault.
The Wall Street Journal offers another relatively plausible explanation for Reid’s maneuver. Reid might be offering the plan knowing full well that he will have to drop the public option. The WSJ writes;
Setting aside for a moment the foolishness of a public option, Reid’s insistence on including this provision in a plan is utterly baffling. The public option was killed over the summer when Democrats realized the political infeasibility of the concept. The Democrats simply did not have the votes in the Senate to avoid a Republican-led filibuster. The Democrats need every single member of their caucus (58 Democrats and 2 Independents) to agree with the plan in order to push it through without Republican support. The political reality indicated that this just was not possible. If one Democrat wavered the entire plan would fail. And so, wisely the Democrats seemed to move on from the public option. After all, they profess that their real goal is to achieve much needed health-care reform.
Reid’s move to bring back the discussion on the public-option is a step backwards. Nothing has changed to indicate a different political environment. In fact, shortly after his announcement Olympia Snowe, the sole Republican to have voted with Democrats on some health-care related issues, backed off from her cross aisle move. She indicated she would work with Republicans to quash any health care reform that included a public option. Snowe’s rebuke was quickly followed by one from Joe Lieberman – one of the two Independents who caucuses with the Democrats. With Lieberman’s defection a public option is undoable.
So what are the left-wing Democrats trying to accomplish? The inclusion of a public option will sink any reform bill. If the Democrats truly want to reform healthcare, they need to face the reality that it cannot (nor should not – see a prior post on ANR) include a public option. Reid’s gambit seems to lead to nothing but a dead end – torpedoing the Democrats’ and Obama’s crown jewel.
Ironically, it appears that Reid is sabotaging any chance at Democrat-led healthcare reform. One possible explanation is that the Democrats are in such internal disagreement that they cannot design any plan that is amenable to all wings of the party. The tensions between the leftists and the centrists are running high. In order to avoid a failure based on the Democrats’ inability to compromise, Reid is setting up a surefire way to fail that can be pegged on supposed Republican obstructionism. At the end of the day, Democrats will point to the ‘anti-reform’ Republicans who successfully filibustered their plan, rather than their own ranks for the political failure to pass a reform bill. If one is going to fail, at least make it look like it is someone else’s fault.
The Wall Street Journal offers another relatively plausible explanation for Reid’s maneuver. Reid might be offering the plan knowing full well that he will have to drop the public option. The WSJ writes;
He could then tell the left that he did his best, only to have been beaten back to the unreliable likes of Mr. Lieberman….Meanwhile, such endangered swing-state Democrats as Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas could claim they won a great concession if the public option fails, making it easier for them to vote for a final bill that would still do enormous harm to private insurance and the federal fisc.Reid and his cronies could be trying to push the negotiating grounds leftward in order to achieve a more Democrat-friendly outcome. This is a risky move, but opens an opportunity for Republicans. Senate Republicans should point out the foolishness of Reid’s insistence for a public option. They can easily turn the tables on the Democrats, by branding them obstructionist. How can the Democrats claim to be solving our health care problem if they are offering proposals that clearly are not passable? However, such a strategy necessitates a counter-proposal – something the Republicans have been lacking. A successful Republican-led reform will offer America the right kind of health care fix and deal the final deathblow to the leftist Democrats’ socialist ambitions. Let’s put a nail in this coffin for good.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Fed Up!
The economic meltdown was caused by the underestimation and mispricing of risk. The small town broker, the average family, and the Wall Street banker were all responsible for taking on too much risk. The government has correctly diagnosed the ailment – in part. While the Fed and Treasury both point to the excessive risk taking, they only seem to place the blame on Wall Street.
As The Financial Times reports, the Federal Reserve has unveiled new rules aimed at limiting and controlling executive pay at all institutions under its purview. This follows sharp controls from the Treasury for executive pay at institutions who still have bailout money.
The Fed defends the proposed rules by claiming they will reduce the excessive risk taking that caused the meltdown. Chairman Ben Bernanke, stated that “…compensation plans that encourage, even inadvertently, excessive risk-taking can pose a threat to safety and soundness.” The argument implies that economic downturn was the direct result of risk taking that was driven by high-pay packages for greedy executives.
This perspective is downright foolish. It is unquestionable that mismanagement and so-called ‘fat cat’ bankers played a role in causing the economic mess. However, they are no more culpable than ‘covetous’ housewives who took out a home-equity loan to buy the flat-screen TV or new Mercedes or the ‘greedy’ loan originator who turned a blind eye to the proper documentation in order to make a quick sale. The fact of the matter is all of America is to blame. Most Americans – individuals and companies – did not make smart investment decision.
The Fed’s new pay policy is simply an attempt to make it appear like the government is doing something productive. In reality, it is simply to appease voters who, egged-on by the finger-pointing Obama, are looking for a scapegoat. It is politically and logistically easier to go after a few, big-target banks, than a million or so credit card owners.
Unfortunately government meddling in executive pay will not make things better. It is the wrong medicine for the correct diagnosis. Such a narrow shot at poor risk-management completely misses the fundamental problem. It obscures the fact that the underlying issues are not and will not be addressed. Even more concerning is the fact that it nestles the government far too deep into the private sector.
Not only will the plan fail to address systemic problems, but it will most likely fail to solve the problem at companies. In fact, it is more likely to exacerbate problems. CBS News reports, that talent is already being driven from top firms. Furthermore, individual executives will find ways around the system. They will find alternative ways of compensation or establish unconventional institutions that do not fall under the purview of the Fed. This will move the main banking industry out of the regulatory eye of Bernanke. At the end of the day the risk will still be incorrectly accounted for and nothing will have changed.
Bernanke is correct that excessive risk is to blame. But let’s step back and stop pointing fingers. Smarter policy that is not punitive and spiteful needs to be designed. Flashy regulations that scapegoat a few individuals while absolving the rest of America from responsibility are counterproductive and will only lead to the next bubble and burst. This is particularly true if our government is simultaneously diminishing risk by bailing-out companies. Any market distortions will misprice risk – why doesn’t the Fed understand this?
As The Financial Times reports, the Federal Reserve has unveiled new rules aimed at limiting and controlling executive pay at all institutions under its purview. This follows sharp controls from the Treasury for executive pay at institutions who still have bailout money.
The Fed defends the proposed rules by claiming they will reduce the excessive risk taking that caused the meltdown. Chairman Ben Bernanke, stated that “…compensation plans that encourage, even inadvertently, excessive risk-taking can pose a threat to safety and soundness.” The argument implies that economic downturn was the direct result of risk taking that was driven by high-pay packages for greedy executives.
This perspective is downright foolish. It is unquestionable that mismanagement and so-called ‘fat cat’ bankers played a role in causing the economic mess. However, they are no more culpable than ‘covetous’ housewives who took out a home-equity loan to buy the flat-screen TV or new Mercedes or the ‘greedy’ loan originator who turned a blind eye to the proper documentation in order to make a quick sale. The fact of the matter is all of America is to blame. Most Americans – individuals and companies – did not make smart investment decision.
The Fed’s new pay policy is simply an attempt to make it appear like the government is doing something productive. In reality, it is simply to appease voters who, egged-on by the finger-pointing Obama, are looking for a scapegoat. It is politically and logistically easier to go after a few, big-target banks, than a million or so credit card owners.
Unfortunately government meddling in executive pay will not make things better. It is the wrong medicine for the correct diagnosis. Such a narrow shot at poor risk-management completely misses the fundamental problem. It obscures the fact that the underlying issues are not and will not be addressed. Even more concerning is the fact that it nestles the government far too deep into the private sector.
Not only will the plan fail to address systemic problems, but it will most likely fail to solve the problem at companies. In fact, it is more likely to exacerbate problems. CBS News reports, that talent is already being driven from top firms. Furthermore, individual executives will find ways around the system. They will find alternative ways of compensation or establish unconventional institutions that do not fall under the purview of the Fed. This will move the main banking industry out of the regulatory eye of Bernanke. At the end of the day the risk will still be incorrectly accounted for and nothing will have changed.
Bernanke is correct that excessive risk is to blame. But let’s step back and stop pointing fingers. Smarter policy that is not punitive and spiteful needs to be designed. Flashy regulations that scapegoat a few individuals while absolving the rest of America from responsibility are counterproductive and will only lead to the next bubble and burst. This is particularly true if our government is simultaneously diminishing risk by bailing-out companies. Any market distortions will misprice risk – why doesn’t the Fed understand this?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A Right is a Restriction
The use of the term “right”, as in ‘Americans have a right to…,’ has become watered down and incorrectly used in far too many instances. Generally, a right is a restriction on the authority of the government. By reserving certain powers to individuals, a right limits the strength of the government and prevents abuses of its citizens. However, a right is not an obligation to provide. While governments are, in some instances, obligated to provide certain items, these obligations are not rights. The distinction, while seemingly slight, is an important one that is often muddled in the popular arena.
Rights, as properly understood, are simply a restriction. They offer no direct provision to individuals. To understand this better one only needs to understand the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For instance, Americans have the right to free speech and the right to religion. In the first instance, the right prevents the government from limiting what any individual can say. In the second instance, the right prevents the government from imposing a religion on any individual. In neither case is the government required to provide something to an individual. Other rights, such as the right to bear arms, can be understood in the same way. The right to bear arms is a restriction on the government’s monopolization of power. It prevents the government from encroaching on the personal lives of individuals, by restricting power.
However, many politicians incorrectly use the term ‘right’ to refer to certain things the government provides. Often this language is used in an attempt to expand entitlements and services. By using this language, politicians aim to make the provision of such items unassailable. This use, however, is incorrect when dealing with the rights an individual has vis-à-vis the government.
The ‘right to a minimum wage’ and the ‘right to healthcare’ are two such false rights. The reason these are not true rights is because they require the government to provide a service. A ‘right to a minimum wage’ demands that the government provide the means and structure for an individual to be provided with a certain wage. The ‘right to healthcare’ that is generally discussed when politicians try to cobble together a health reform package essentially demands that the government either directly or indirectly (eg. by establishing a legal system to force the provision from private sector) provides healthcare to every American. Since rights are defined as the restriction not the expansion of government roles, these claims cannot be rights. A properly defined right to healthcare would simply be defined as a restriction on the government not to prevent individuals from purchasing healthcare. Obviously, this is a relatively meaningless right and not what most proponents of a ‘right to healthcare’ discuss.
Civil rights are also an area where this distinction is very often incorrectly applied. Citizens undoubtedly have the right not to be persecuted or discriminated against based on racial, sexual, or other characteristics. The government is not allowed this power. However, civil rights do not mean that the government has an obligation to provide anything to people based on these same characteristics. In fact, if such an obligation existed it would most certainly violate other citizens’ rights (read: affirmative action).
The point of such a distinction is to correctly define the use of the term ‘rights’ in order to better understand the role of the government. Many policies on the left, and some on the right, tend to dismiss this definition of ‘right’ in order to expand the role of government and provide benefits to narrow slices of the electorate. However, by applying such a definition it is relatively easy to come to a conclusion as to the appropriate role of the government.
[As an added caveat the correct use of the word ‘rights’ does not imply that the government has no positive obligations. What is not a right reserved to the people (or states) is often a role for the government to play. For instance, the government has an obligation to protect its citizens from each other (policing) and from external threats (military). This positive action is something the government must provide its citizens. However, it does not mean that such a positive obligation is a right that the citizens possess.]
Rights, as properly understood, are simply a restriction. They offer no direct provision to individuals. To understand this better one only needs to understand the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For instance, Americans have the right to free speech and the right to religion. In the first instance, the right prevents the government from limiting what any individual can say. In the second instance, the right prevents the government from imposing a religion on any individual. In neither case is the government required to provide something to an individual. Other rights, such as the right to bear arms, can be understood in the same way. The right to bear arms is a restriction on the government’s monopolization of power. It prevents the government from encroaching on the personal lives of individuals, by restricting power.
However, many politicians incorrectly use the term ‘right’ to refer to certain things the government provides. Often this language is used in an attempt to expand entitlements and services. By using this language, politicians aim to make the provision of such items unassailable. This use, however, is incorrect when dealing with the rights an individual has vis-à-vis the government.
The ‘right to a minimum wage’ and the ‘right to healthcare’ are two such false rights. The reason these are not true rights is because they require the government to provide a service. A ‘right to a minimum wage’ demands that the government provide the means and structure for an individual to be provided with a certain wage. The ‘right to healthcare’ that is generally discussed when politicians try to cobble together a health reform package essentially demands that the government either directly or indirectly (eg. by establishing a legal system to force the provision from private sector) provides healthcare to every American. Since rights are defined as the restriction not the expansion of government roles, these claims cannot be rights. A properly defined right to healthcare would simply be defined as a restriction on the government not to prevent individuals from purchasing healthcare. Obviously, this is a relatively meaningless right and not what most proponents of a ‘right to healthcare’ discuss.
Civil rights are also an area where this distinction is very often incorrectly applied. Citizens undoubtedly have the right not to be persecuted or discriminated against based on racial, sexual, or other characteristics. The government is not allowed this power. However, civil rights do not mean that the government has an obligation to provide anything to people based on these same characteristics. In fact, if such an obligation existed it would most certainly violate other citizens’ rights (read: affirmative action).
The point of such a distinction is to correctly define the use of the term ‘rights’ in order to better understand the role of the government. Many policies on the left, and some on the right, tend to dismiss this definition of ‘right’ in order to expand the role of government and provide benefits to narrow slices of the electorate. However, by applying such a definition it is relatively easy to come to a conclusion as to the appropriate role of the government.
[As an added caveat the correct use of the word ‘rights’ does not imply that the government has no positive obligations. What is not a right reserved to the people (or states) is often a role for the government to play. For instance, the government has an obligation to protect its citizens from each other (policing) and from external threats (military). This positive action is something the government must provide its citizens. However, it does not mean that such a positive obligation is a right that the citizens possess.]
Monday, October 19, 2009
What is the Point of Attacking Fox?
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Fox News, the Obama administration’s repeated assaults on the cable news network are unwise and bad for the country. Over the past few weeks, members of the Obama administration have gone on the record attacking Fox News. Amongst other statements, David Axelrod has said “It’s really not news. It’s pushing a point of view,” while Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said that Obama does not want “the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox.”
These attacks are unwise for the Obama administration. They accomplish little except to galvanize support around (or against) Fox News and draw partisan lines in the sand. For an administration that apparently strives for bipartisanship, getting mired in the muck with Fox only speaks of desperation and partisanship. The battle has only been a boon for Fox, while making the administration look foolish.
The continuation of such desperate behavior emphasizes the perceived threat the administration feels from Fox. Fox News has revealed numerous scandals and stories, such as ACORN and Van Jones, which are damaging to Obama. The administration’s attacks read as a response to the political costs wrought by Fox News. This not only adds a level of legitimacy to Fox’s reporting, but makes the administration appear as if it is trying to portray a false image to America by demonizing its enemies rather than actually dealing with real issues. Neither is a perspective that the administration wants to foster.
More concerning is the fact that the executive branch is attempting to quash anti-administration (if they may be called that) perspectives. While certainly not yet violating freedom of the press, the administration is treading on dangerous ground. Freedom of the press is one of the most prized rights. Americans of all stripes bristle when it is attacked. Even if the administration’s indictments of Fox News are entirely correct, its behavior is not. No government should be meddling with the news sources that its citizens choose to use.
An open society has numerous voices and perspectives, some of which are correct and others which are not. No news source can be free from biases. Since every incident entails interpretation and perspective there is no such beast as completely objective news. It is up to the consumer of news – the voter – to distill and analyze the multitude of news. Accuracy and correctness will be awarded; while bogus news outlets will be marginalized. The government, and any other body or individual, can choose to play a role in the competition of ideas; however, it can not rightly use its power and position to attempt to silence a perspective that it does not like. Such abuses of power are characteristic of third world military dictatorships, not the United States of America.
Fox News may or may not be what the administration claims it is. Regardless, it is a voice in the mix. Obama’s administration would be wise to drop the attacks on the network; if not for the sake of fostering an open society, then at least to preserve its own image. Let Americans decide for themselves what they want to hear and from whom. America is educated and mature enough to judge Fox for what it is.
These attacks are unwise for the Obama administration. They accomplish little except to galvanize support around (or against) Fox News and draw partisan lines in the sand. For an administration that apparently strives for bipartisanship, getting mired in the muck with Fox only speaks of desperation and partisanship. The battle has only been a boon for Fox, while making the administration look foolish.
The continuation of such desperate behavior emphasizes the perceived threat the administration feels from Fox. Fox News has revealed numerous scandals and stories, such as ACORN and Van Jones, which are damaging to Obama. The administration’s attacks read as a response to the political costs wrought by Fox News. This not only adds a level of legitimacy to Fox’s reporting, but makes the administration appear as if it is trying to portray a false image to America by demonizing its enemies rather than actually dealing with real issues. Neither is a perspective that the administration wants to foster.
More concerning is the fact that the executive branch is attempting to quash anti-administration (if they may be called that) perspectives. While certainly not yet violating freedom of the press, the administration is treading on dangerous ground. Freedom of the press is one of the most prized rights. Americans of all stripes bristle when it is attacked. Even if the administration’s indictments of Fox News are entirely correct, its behavior is not. No government should be meddling with the news sources that its citizens choose to use.
An open society has numerous voices and perspectives, some of which are correct and others which are not. No news source can be free from biases. Since every incident entails interpretation and perspective there is no such beast as completely objective news. It is up to the consumer of news – the voter – to distill and analyze the multitude of news. Accuracy and correctness will be awarded; while bogus news outlets will be marginalized. The government, and any other body or individual, can choose to play a role in the competition of ideas; however, it can not rightly use its power and position to attempt to silence a perspective that it does not like. Such abuses of power are characteristic of third world military dictatorships, not the United States of America.
Fox News may or may not be what the administration claims it is. Regardless, it is a voice in the mix. Obama’s administration would be wise to drop the attacks on the network; if not for the sake of fostering an open society, then at least to preserve its own image. Let Americans decide for themselves what they want to hear and from whom. America is educated and mature enough to judge Fox for what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
