What's next

The only sure outcome of this election is that either Barack Obama or John McCain will be the next president. If Obama wins we can expect the following according to Charles Krauthammer:

(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign.

(2) The so-called Fairness Doctrine -- a project of Nancy Pelosi and leading Democratic senators -- a Hugo Chavez-style travesty designed to abolish conservative talk radio

(3) Judges who go beyond even the constitutional creativity we expect from Democratic appointees. Judges chosen according to Obama's publicly declared criterion: "empathy" for the "poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old" -- in a legal system historically predicated on the idea of justice entirely blind to one's station in life.

(4) An unprecedented expansion of government power. Yes, I know. It has already happened. A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.

Sounds about right to me, although I would add billions spent on alternative energy research to the list. Surely something has to happen there given what a centerpiece it seems to be of the Obama agenda.

A McCain presidency, meanwhile, would likely be accompanied by its own set of problems says Tom Bevan. If you don't want to read the column they can be summarized as:

• Cries of racism
• Litigation in the event of a narrow victory (and really, can anyone imagine anything other than a narrow win for McCain?)
• A divided, resentful country
• A sizable Democratic majority in Congress whose leaders send a message to McCain of "Don't even think you have a mandate. Your agenda is DOA." Except with more expletives.

Granted, a McCain win would also make for some entertaining reading of all the teeth-gnashing on the liberal blogs the day after the election, but that's rather small consolation. The biggest virtue, as Bevan says, is divided government:

A surprise win by McCain on Tuesday may make for a miserable first term for him as president, but for those who prefer divided government it may be far better than the alternative: President Obama with a gung ho Democratic majority in Congress.

I think that Krauthammer and Bevan each paint realistic portraits of life under each scenario, and it's not going to be pleasant regardless of who prevails.

Letter to Obama

Another business owner sends a (lengthy!) letter to Sen. Obama. Don't expect it to be quoted in his speeches.

The virtue of doing nothing

Earlier this week I wrote that "If government wants to assist this process [of economic regeneration], it can best do so by getting out of the way. Russell Roberts explains this line of thinking in more detail in today's Wall Street Journal:

They need to let housing prices fall. They need to let firms go bankrupt. They need to let firms that are healthy thrive. They need to let healthy firms buy the sick firms. It is time to let the imprudent fail and the prudent pick up the bargains.

...By acting without rhyme or reason, politicians have destroyed the rules of the game. There is no reason to invest, no reason to take risk, no reason to be prudent, no reason to look for buyers if your firm is failing. Everything is up in the air and as a result, the only prudent policy is to wait and see what the government will do next. The frenetic efforts of FDR had the same impact: Net investment was negative through much of the 1930s.

...Worst of all are the political incentives that are unleashed when Washington promises to spend a trillion dollars (and counting). No one can spend such money wisely even if they want to. The information about who needs to be bailed out and who needs to fail is too complicated. Inevitably, such decisions will begin to be more about politics than economics.

Amen. This is why all the talk about how the candidates are going to fix the economy terrifies me, particularly from Obama given the perception he has cultivated of being a savior.

The Economist endorses Obama

Here's the meat of it:

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

So the reasons to endorse him are:

• He's run a good campaign
• He gave a good speech about race
• He didn't freak out during the financial crisis
• He has good advisers
• He moved to the foreign policy center after the primaries

Count me underwhelmed. Honestly, it's almost formulaic at this point. Like Anne Applebaum, The Economist endorsement follows a pattern of :

• Lamenting how the "real" John McCain disappeared during the election,
• A swipe at Sarah Palin
• Acknowledgment of Obama's shortcomings
• An explanations of why those shortcomings aren't a big cause for concern usually because of vague suspicions he will be more centrist once in office (even while John McCain with a longer record isn't accorded the same benefit of the doubt)
• Some tortured logic justifying the endorsement (e.g. he ran a great campaign!)
  

The last point cited by The Economist about speaking with Iran once certain conditions are met is particularly bizarre, given that the whole controversy about speaking with the country arose precisely because Obama agreed to do so unconditionally.

Then again, I guess when you are endorsing a figure with such a thin record of accomplishment you have to grasp at any straws you can.

If you want to check out a real endorsement of Obama, read this.

Earthquakes, economics, Obama

Somewhat lost amidst the election hubbub and the fact that international news is often not really news in the U.S., Pakistan has continued its run of bad luck with a 6.4 magnitude earthquake this week that has left scores dead and thousands homeless. The country is no stranger to earthquakes, having suffered one three years ago in which over 70,000 perished.

Earthquakes are not unique to Pakistan and take place all over the world. California, of course, has experienced several high-profile tremors. I even experienced one while living in Holland. What really differentiates Pakistan, and other developing countries that are impacted by these events, is how many people die in them. An earthquake in Bam, Iran five years ago that registered 6.6 on the Richter scale cost the lives of over 25,000.

What's interesting is that while the earthquakes in Pakistan and Iran resulted in hundreds, and even thousands of deaths, an earthquake of a similar magnitude in Los Angeles -- home to millions of people -- resulted in a comparatively small number (57) killed. The reason for this isn't mysterious -- people in Los Angeles are richer than those in Pakistan and Iran and can afford better housing, office buildings and infrastructure more resistant to earthquakes. They also have better technology and means of rescuing those people trapped in the resulting rubble.

This is obvious, but it is also significant. This helps explain the very name of this blog -- to get rich is glorious. The richer you are the more problems you can solve. People can become more educated, receive better health care, live in better housing -- the list of ways in which our lives are improved is almost endless. Society itself benefits as richer people also tend to be more tolerant and can afford to adopt a lifestyle that is more friendly to the environment.

This is why economic growth and policies to expand our economy absolutely must take a pre-eminent place in this country's political discourse. It's why I get so frustrated with single issue voters who only pay attention to women's rights, gun control or whatever other pet cause they champion.

It's also why I find Obama's anti-free trade rhetoric, oil company bashing, talk of expanded regulation (McCain isn't entirely guilt-free here either), tax increases on the most successful and wealth redistribution so maddening. These aren't policies meant to expand the economic pie so that each of us receives a bigger slice, it's about dividing up the current pie in a different way. That's not the path to prosperity and it's not the type of change I can believe in.

Charity begins at home

In his speeches Obama is a big fan of the sad anecdote, referencing families that aren't sure how they will pay the current month's electrical bill or letters from voters who can't afford potentially life-saving medical procedures. But if it's stories of the downtrodden he is after he could have simply talked about his own family.

He could mention both the half-brother in Africa that claims he subsists on one dollar per month or the aunt that lives in public housing in Boston. Then again that might be an uncomfortable discussion in light of Obama's comparatively far more prosperous circumstances.

Given the leftist philosophy that taking care of the poor is the government's responsibility rather than that of individuals or civil society this really shouldn't be a surprise. It has already been well documented that liberals -- perhaps believing that their tax dollars are a social contribution of sorts -- donate significantly less money to charities than conservatives. Obama is no exception, only ramping up his charitable donations after his thoughts began to turn to the presidency. A look at his tax returns:

Source: TaxProf

Even here, however, we can see that the money wasn't exactly all donated to Habitat for Humanity:

Senator Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sharply increased their charitable donations as Mr. Obama began to run for president and the family’s income increased from book sales, according to tax returns that the couple released on Tuesday.

Some of the largest donations went to the Trinity United Church of Christ, whose pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has been in the news for inflammatory messages in his sermons, causing Mr. Obama to distance himself from Mr. Wright, his former spiritual mentor.

All told, the couple gave $27,500 to the church in 2005 and 2006.

Thought exercise: imagine media coverage of this if it was McCain, the greedy Republican who advocated tax cuts for the rich, while he had family members languishing in poverty. Further imagine that he only increased his charitable donations when it became apparent he was considering a run for the presidency and then donated a good chunk of the money to an inflammatory racist pastor. I'm just saying...

Cory the well driller

A letter to Obama from a business owner that is well worth reading. (via Carpe Diem)

Remeber, Obama is the guy that seems to view businesses as a conduit for social policy, stating in a recent speech that government needs to ensure that "businesses live up to their responsibility to create American jobs."

No, they have a responsibility to turn a profit, that's about it.

Obama, the law, and respect for the Constitution

In his own words:

[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.

Oh dear. The law doesn't change and isn't subject to reinterpretation because someone is gay or old. That's the very beauty of it. It is consistent in what it says and its application -- or at least it should be.

But I can't be too harsh on Obama, both him and McCain -- along with most politicians started ignoring the Constitution a long time ago. As a refresher, here are the powers that are granted to Congress (the body that makes the laws, which you might forget based on all the rhetoric coming from the candidates about various measures they will enact):

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Lastly, just to make sure that this list was meant to be definitive, the 10th Amendment was added that reads, in very plain English:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Got that? That means that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution then it belongs to the States or the people. This is a document that very explicitly lays out a formula for limited government.

Congress is given dominion over international trade, immigration, raising revenue, patents and copyrights, printing money, some limited infrastructure and defense. That's pretty much it. Does anyone in their right mind think that's all Congress currently has oversight of? Does this square even remotely with reality?

All those people that claim the Constitution has been torn to shreds under Bush's watch kind of make me laugh -- they're a bit late to the party.

Applebaum, McCain and moderates

Back in 2000 I recall a number of Democrats and self-described moderates publicly lamenting the fact that George W. Bush was the Republican nominee instead of John McCain. John McCain, they claimed, was a Republican they could support, a moderate that they could have voted for if only the right-wing zealots who dominate the primacy process hadn't chosen Bush.

Well, when finally offered the choice of either voting for McCain or the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate...they're going with the liberal. This should come as a surprise to no one, and Republican candidates who think that there are votes to be won in catering to this crowd are sadly mistaken. The latest moderate to jump ship is Anne Applebaum, a Washington Post columnist that I have always found to be interesting and intelligent. This week's column, however, about her decision not back the Arizona Senator, may be the most thinly-reasoned piece she has authored. Explaining her decision she says:

The appointment of Palin -- inspired by his closest colleagues -- turned out not to be a "maverick" move but, rather, a concession to those Republicans who think foreign policy can be conducted using a series of cliches and those in his party who shout down the federal government while quietly raking in federal subsidies. Although McCain has one of the best records for bipartisanship in the Senate, he's let his campaign appeal to his party's extremes. Though he is a true foreign policy intellectual, his supporters cultivate ignorance and fear: Watch Sean Hannity's " Barack Obama and Friends: A History of Radicalism" on YouTube if you don't believe me. Worse, McCain has -- in a fatal effort to appeal to the least thoughtful, most partisan elements of his base -- moved away from his previous positions on torture and immigration. Maybe that's all tactics, and maybe the "real" McCain will ditch the awful ideologues after Nov. 4, if by some miracle he happens to win. But how can I know that will happen?

To summarize Applebaum's objections are the following:

• McCain's pick of Sarah Palin to be the Vice Presidential candidate, which ranks as a near-capital offense here in Washington DC.
• He has allegedly shifted ground on torture and immigration.
• Some people that support McCain have said some nasty things about Obama.

Well. With regard to the first point, while I have my disagreements with Sarah Palin, can anyone really characterize Joe Biden as an inspired choice? This is a guy with such a penchant for nonsense that his own campaign has essentially muzzled him to the point where the only topic he is allowed to speak freely on is ice cream.

Next Applebaum says that McCain has flipped on torture, but has he really? Not according to those rock-ribbed conservatives over at Time magazine:

A review of the record shows that McCain has neither changed his position on torture nor taken sides with President Bush on the substance of the issue.

Hmmm. And yes, while it is true that McCain has altered his position on immigration (a politician changing positions -- unheard of!) his current position probably places him squarely in the middle of American politics. According to the McCain website his immigration stance mainly consists of:

• Securing our borders.
• Reforming the H-1B visa and green card programs to allow for more highly-educated workers.
• Implementing a "market based system for low-skilled workers to enter the United States in an orderly fashion."
• Implement a program for undocumented workers that will "ensure that all undocumented aliens either leave or follow the path to legal residence."

This hardly plants McCain among the extreme pastures of the right wing. Indeed, what's really interesting is how closely it mirrors that of the Obama plan, which is basically the same but with less detail.

The last point is hardly worth addressing. If you really want to play guilt by association is that really a game that favors Obama? Is Obama responsible for what every one of his supporters in the public domain or at his rallies utter?

Plainly Applebaum is grasping at straws here. Although she concedes that McCain may just be engaging in election year rhetoric in a bid to secure the support of the party's base, she worries whether the authentic McCain will emerge once firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, or if he will forever be a prisoner of the right-wing.

It's funny how many people are willing to engage in this line of thinking but then fail to apply the same to Obama. After all, Applebaum is an established internationalist who surely has to be disturbed by Obama's protectionist trade rhetoric, but I am sure that she consoles herself that this is nothing more than posturing -- despite the fact that his words have been accompanied by anti-free trade action in the form of his votes in the Senate. Why is one given the benefit of the doubt but not the other, despite having a longer track record?

My speculation here is that this is largely a product of Applebaum's roots in the Washington media and foreign policy establishments. In the circles she likely finds herself traveling in support for Obama is a given and even slight deviations from the liberal agenda arouse immediate suspicions. With this column, however, she has reaffirmed her right-thinking credentials, both by endorsing Obama and slamming Sarah Palin. She can now safely return to the DC dinner party circuit.

Ultimately people will vote how they are going to vote, and have an uncanny ability to rationalize their actions.

Update: My email to Anne:

Dear Anne,

I have always found your columns interesting and occasionally illuminating, but was surprised by how thinly-reason your most recent piece was. After reviewing all of the various things you liked about John McCain you proceeded to explain why you would not be voting for him. They chiefly consisted of:

• The pick of Sarah Palin
• Changes on torture and immigration
• Various utterances about Obama by some of his supporters

This seems to me rather lacking. While Sarah Palin may not be qualified, is there anything about Joe Biden that is particularly inspiring? After all, this is an alleged foreign policy expert that claimed in the VP debate that the US kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, wanted to divide up Iraq into three countries and voted against the Persian Gulf War. Not a very inspiring record. Given his penchant for silly comments it is little wonder that he has been muzzled by the Obama campaign. But I digress...

With regard to torture, Time magazine parts ways with you, stating that McCain has not flipped flopped at all:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1729891,00.html

On immigration, meanwhile, McCain's position strikes me as fairly centrist and strikingly similar to that offered up by Obama, but with more detail. Really, just compare the two:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm

Lastly, is McCain really responsible for every single thing uttered by his supporters? Does that make sense? Is guilt by association a game we really want to apply to Obama?

You concluded by wondering whether this current, more right-wing, McCain is the authentic McCain, or whether he will revert to form if elected, but stated that you can't take that chance. I wonder if you also apply the same standard to, for example, Obama's protectionist rhetoric, which has also been accompanied by actual votes? If not, why not? Why are you more comfortable with the candidate with the thin resume than the one with the longtime record? Which is really more likely to be engaging in election year posturing?

I look forward to your thoughtful response.

Best regards,

Colin

ObamaCare

Barack Obama, in his own words:

I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program. ... And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.

He's not a moderate and his ideas aren't new. Read the whole thing. (via Club for Growth)

Taxation

Obama on taxes:

At a moment like this, the last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired, old theory that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else....

It's not change when John McCain wants to give a $700,000 tax cut to the average Fortune 500 CEO. It's not change when he wants to give $200 billion to the biggest corporations or $4 billion to the oil companies or $300 billion to the same Wall Street banks that got us into this mess. It's not change when he comes up with a tax plan that doesn't give a penny of relief to more than 100 million middle-class Americans. That's not change.

...The choice in this election isn't between tax cuts and no tax cuts. It's about whether you believe we should only reward wealth, or whether we should also reward the work and workers who create it. I will give a tax break to 95% of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paychecks every week. I'll eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000 and give homeowners and working parents more of a break. And I'll help pay for this by asking the folks who are making more than $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rate they were paying in the 1990s. No matter what Senator McCain may claim, here are the facts - if you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class.

Once again I think the best way to judge Sen. Obama is by examining what he actually says. He begins by criticizing the tax cuts of the Bush Administration, which he describes as geared towards the wealthy and corporations, and accuses John McCain of wanting to continue down this road with further such reductions.

And he's basically right.

Let's be honest, the rich have disproportionately benefited from the tax policy enacted under Bush -- but so what? After all, the rich shoulder a disproportionate amount of the tax burden in the first place, particularly income tax:

Source: Carpe Diem.

What has occurred in this country since the George HW Bush Administration is a tax policy in which tax rates imposed on the rich have steadily increased at a disproportionate rate. Indeed, we have come to a point where a growing number of Americans pay zero income tax:

Source: Tax Foundation

Thus, if you are going to cut taxes, you can just about guarantee that the rich are going to benefit because they pay most of the taxes! If you think about it the approach taken by Democrats is really quite genius, they have put us in a place where there is basically no way that substantial tax cuts can be enacted without most of the spoils going to the wealthy. And, as Obama says in the second part of his speech, he wants to make the tax code even more lopsided with further reductions in the lower income brackets along with -- not mentioned in his speech -- tax increases on higher income brackets. A smaller and smaller number of taxpayers are going to be sharing a higher and higher share of the tax burden.

This often leads to much teeth-gnashing on the right about the impact this has on economic growth, but Obama's plan gets at something more fundamental -- it is deeply unfair and bad for democracy. Fairness is when we all get treated the same, not when some of us are asked to surrender a higher percentage the fruits of our labors than others. As much as anything this is why we should have a flat income tax. Under a flat tax, if you make 10 times more than someone, you pay 10 times more tax. It's fair.

We also have come to a bad place when the many can vote themselves an increasing number of benefits at the expense of the few. Past a certain point it becomes tantamount of legalized robbery, and places severe stresses upon the very underpinnings of our society.

There is a quote that many on the left of fond of quoting from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. -- "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." If one accepts the premise of this quote, then one must also concede that far too many people are not contributing to civilization. Indeed, one could say that we have arrived at a system that is increasingly uncivilized, and under the Obama plan it is set to become even more so.

Windfall profits

Today while getting a haircut I overheard CNN blaring in the background, which was doing a segment on each energy policy. The correspondent mentioned something that I had forgotten about -- Obama's plan to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Let's think about windfall profits for a second. If a company obtains windfall profits it is typically because either they were the beneficiary of a sudden change in market conditions, are making a product that is wildly popular, or has monopoly or near-monopoly control over a market that has seen a sudden demand spike. Possibly a combination of all three.

Oil companies were subject to a sudden shift in market conditions (which the Wall Street Journal editorial page argues was a product of fed policy), make a product that just about everyone needs and operate in a global market that is subject to all sorts of government distortions (prohibitions on domestic oil drilling, lots of countries that prohibit outside investment).

Now, if Obama simply believes that they should fork over some of their cash because they were lucky rather than smart, then where are his similar demands for such taxes on corn, soybeans or wheat? In a similar vein, should oil companies now get some kind of federal handout due to the recent slump in oil prices?

More fundamentally, why should companies that made smart investments into a product that people need and want be punished? And remember, these aren't faceless corporations that are punished, these are publicly traded stocks, meaning that the investors are just as likely to be middle class people planning for their retirement as anyone else (not that it should matter).

In the final analysis, this really comes down to nothing more than "they've got it and we want it." Shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone, coming from the guy that believes in spreading the wealth around.

Obama vs. his advisers

Apparently some of Obama's economic policy advisers used to support the McCain health care approach before they signed on for the campaign. Now, we often hear what a great bunch of economic advisers Obama has, so it seems that either they aren't so great after all or that McCain may in fact have the superior approach.

(via Greg Mankiw)

Green tech

Although I have already discussed the subject of "green jobs" before I think it needs to be revisited. The drumbeat on the subject grows ever louder with Barack Obama, John McCain, Thomas "E.T." Friedman, various think tank scholars and the UN Secretary General among others all proclaiming a need for government policies to promote environmentally friendly industries to save us from an impending ecological nightmare.

Anyone paying even a cursory amount of attention to the presidential campaign has probably heard Barack Obama talk about how he is going to help create 5 million jobs that help secure a more environmentally friendly future. As his website states his energy plan will:

• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

There are two key flaws here. The first is that five millions jobs will result from Obama's initiave. We know this is false if for no other reason that anytime you hear a politician quote some nice round number like five million you can be sure they pretty much pulled it out of thin air. Equally falacious is the notion of the government "strategically investing" $150 billion. This conjures up images of brilliant government workers pouring over large reams of data and making careful unbiased decisions about what technologies present the best option to advance our renewable energy future.

This is fantasy.

The notion that government workers will make better decisions about where to invest taxpayer money than either venture capitalists or people who actually work in the energy sector investing their own money is ludicrous on its face. Furthermore, with $150 billion at stake you can be sure that the lobbyists will swarm to grab their slice of the government pie. The fact that Obama is oblivious to this reality speaks to either vast ignorance on his part, a willfull desire to mislead the public, or an arrogant belief that someone the government on his watch will function differently than every other one in the course of history. For a more thorough description of the flaws presented here I strongly urge a quick read of this.

Obama, however is hardly alone with John McCain also eagerly jumping on the eco-bandwagon. As JohnMcCain.com states:

Climate change is the single greatest environmental challenge of our time. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington...We can no longer deny our responsibility to lead the world in reducing our carbon emissions.

John McCain has announced The Lexington Project, a comprehensive energy and climate strategy to provide America with secure sources of energy, ensure our continued prosperity, and address global climate change. This plan includes the elements necessary to achieve these objectives by: producing more power, pushing technology to help free our transportation sector from its use of foreign oil, cleaning up our air, addressing climate change, and ensuring that Americans have dependable energy sources.

Not that differences don't exist, but they aren't exactly night and day.

Attending an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies this week I listened to one representative from the Brookings Institution describe renewable energy as a "huge economic opportunity." A scholar at CSIS spoke of the "unfolding drama and tragedy of climate change" while a senior member of Japan's Ministry of Foreign affairs invoked the scenario described in the movie The Day After Tomorrow as a very real possiblity.

No less than the UN Secretary General has called for a Green New Deal this week to help ward off environmental catastrophe while simultaneously promoting job growth:

At a time when the global economy is sputtering, we need growth. At a time when unemployment in many nations is rising, we need new jobs. At a time when poverty threatens to overtake hundreds of millions of people, especially in the least developed parts of the world, we need the promise of prosperity. This possibility is at our fingertips.

Economists at the UN call for a Green New Deal, a deliberate echo of the energising vision of US president Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Thus, the UN Environment Programme is launching a plan for reviving the global economy while dealing simultaneously with the defining challenge of our era, climate change.

The plan urges world business and political leaders, including a new US president, to help redirect resources away from the speculative financial engineering at the root of today’s market crisis and into more productive, growth-generating, and job-creating investments for the future.

This new ‘Green Economy Initiative’, backed by Germany, Norway, and the European Commission, arises from the insight that the most pressing problems we face are interrelated. Rising energy and commodity prices helped create the global food crisis, which fed the financial crisis. This, in turn, reflects global economic and population growth, with resulting shortages of critical resources such as fuel, food, and clean air and water.

While rhetoric about how a food crisis led to the current financial crisis and praise for the "energizing New deal" suggests that those with a deep skepticism of the UN are entirely correct, more disturbing is the continuing notion at work here that governments should be picking and choosing industry winners.

Meanwhile, amidst all the talk, the price of oil has plummeted to around $70 per barrel. But the narrative about disappearing fossil fuels and impending shortages has already been written, and I have no expectations that this development will change anything.

Perhaps the really funny thing here is that Obama, Friedman, various government officials and think tank scholars along with the UN Secretary General all favor profound government interventions despite a history suggesting that this would be nothing more than another boondoggle. The Japanese official I mentioned even cited a piece of visual fiction to help illustrate the gravity of the situation.

But Sarah Palin is the dangerous idiot.

In his own words

Barack Obama:

Unfortunately we've gotten caught up in an ideological battle where one party says the only way to create job opportunities is through the marketplace and government should not be involved at all. Whereas my argument would be we also have to make sure that people are trained for jobs, that they've got childcare so that they can go to a job, so that there's affordable housing in those areas where jobs are being created, that entrepreneurs in minority areas are getting financing to create their own businesses and create jobs in those communities and all of those involve not just individual responsibility but also societal responsibility.

Got that? You're not responsible for attaining the right skills to obtain the job you desire, the government (i.e. the rest of us) is. You're not responsible for getting childcare for the child you decided to have, the government is. The government also has the right, the very mandate, to interfere in the financial and housing markets to ensure that certain desired outcomes are achieved.

What's also instructive here is the distrust and disdain of the marketplace. The implication of Obama's argument is that if an entrepreneur doesn't receive funding it's the fault of the marketplace. Well, either that or he doesn't have a very good business idea. Who is a better judge of an entrepreneur? A banker with his own money on the line or a politician with yours?

With regard to the housing market meanwhile, one of the key reasons we have an affordable housing problem in some parts of the country is because government regulation makes it so difficult to expand the supply, which drives up prices. (And if this election has taught us anything it is that falling housing prices -- i.e. making housing more affordable -- are also a problem that politicians believe warrants government intervention)

Is it any wonder he is getting hit with the socialist tag? Not, mind you, that John McCain is exactly libertarian.

Knowing what you're doing

Obama, 2004:

Question: Why have you ruled that out, running nationally?

Obama: You know, I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now there's some people that might be comfortable doing that but I'm not one of those people.

Video here. Feb. 10, 2007 Obama launched his candidacy, just over two years after taking office in the Senate.

Obama and social security

Quote of the day:

[Obama's] not an agent of change but a staunch defender of the status quo.
-- economist Robert Samuelson

(via Greg Mankiw)

Europe hearts Obama

Earlier this week I received a postcard from a European friend of mine who said, "I hope Obama pulls it out so that there are some jobs left in your country." While he said it at least partly in jest it is symptomatic of the adoration he enjoys on the other side of the Atlantic:

A majority of Europeans in 14 countries said they wanted an Obama victory, with the Dutch and Norwegians the strongest Obama supporters in Europe: nearly three-quarters in both countries said they preferred him to McCain.

In France, 64 percent chose Obama against four percent for McCain, and in Germany, where an Obama rally in Berlin gathered some 200,000 people in July, the Democratic presidential contender was supported by 62 percent of those polled compared with 10 percent for McCain.

Like many of his domestic admirers this phenomenon can be explained largely by the fact that:

• Obama is from a different political party than the reviled George W. Bush
• A wildly biased media (European media bias is really another level)
• He is a blank slate that one can project their hopes and wishes on to

In the minds of many Europeans Obama is seen as a learned man from an international background (studied international relations in undergrad, has a father from another country, spent part of his childhood years overseas) that understands and seeks to engage the international community. Or something. The problem with this is that Barack Obama is still an American and will largely behave according his own self-interest, which will inevitably produce conflicts with Europe and others on matters such as trade and troops in Afghanistan.

As this post notes, one European columnist may have it right when he says "Eventually, we will all hate Obama too."

Gazing into the crystal ball

Mona Charen, David Brooks and Fred Barnes all look at the future with a Democratic White House and Congress -- and it ain't pretty. Some points raised include:

* Contempt for the secret ballot by passing the diabolically-named Employee Free Choice Act.

* Contempt for the freedom of speech by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

* An increase in taxes to take from the fruits of the productive to hand more goodies to the less productive. As Obama recently told a plumber who complained about higher taxes, his plan is to "spread the wealth around." Somewhere Karl Marx is smiling.

* A halt or rollback in free trade. And remember, free trade is just that, the free exchange of goods regardless of origin. Funny how the same people that like to talk about how they are "citizens of the world" are fiercely nationalistic when it comes to trade.

* Increase spending that drives us further into debt.

And for those that take solace that it will prompt a GOP comeback, Charen issues the following warning:

"Well," you may say, "if the Democrats drive the country into a deep recession, so much the worse for them. The Republicans will come back strong -- even with two senators from DC!" Perhaps. But in hard times people tend to ask for more government, not less, and this tumble started while George W. Bush was in the White House. Franklin Roosevelt continued to invoke the boogey man of Herbert Hoover long after the Depression was his own. In fact, Democrats used Hoover successfully for 40 more years!

Finally, there is a one-way ratchet in public policy. Liberal reforms are never undone. How hard have conservatives tried to eliminate the Department of Education or subsidies to public television? Would they have more success uncreating a new nationalized health care system?

Yep. You don't win by losing.

Update: The future seems to be now. Plans to pass card check legislation appear to be already underfoot. Jeez.

The Choice: Democrats

Taking an especially jaundiced view of the election, here is a profile of the Democratic ticket:

Barack Obama

Barack Obama has a thin record of accomplishment at virtually every elected office he has ever held. This can be traced back to his days at the Harvard Law Review, where he seems to have written nothing and presided over a volume of work only notable for the infrequency in which it has been cited.

His political career, meanwhile, was launched in 1995 at the house of William Ayers, founding member of the Weather Underground that bombed the Pentagon and US Capitol. Among the very first political contributions ever given to Obama was two $2,000 checks from food companies owned by Tony Rezko, who is now in jail on fraud and bribery charges.

Obama then won his first election the following year by having all of his opponents thrown off the ballot through technicalities. Now a member of the Chicago Democratic party establishment, Obama did not use his position to promote reform or take on the status quo. Indeed, as recently as 2006 Obama refused to wield his influence to support a left-wing reformer in a primary against Cook County Board President John Stroger, a machine boss whose tenure resulted in federal investigations.

In the general election Obama backed Stroger's son, who replaced his deceased father. Only last year Obama backed incumbent mayor Daley for re-election even after, as David Fredosso notes, "several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago's city government."

The politics of hope and change indeed.

While in office as a state senator Obama's most high-profile accompishments were legislation on racial profiling, death penalty reform, and ethics and health care laws. A US Senator for less than 4 years, Obama has sponsored 136 bills, 2 of which have become law -- one that set up a website so that the public can better follow federal expenditures and another that expanded the Nunn-Lugar Act meant to address "loose nukes" and nuclear proliferation. Much of the rest consists of small-bore legislation such as the "Healthy Places Act of 2006" and the "Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007."

This, it would seem, is adequate preparation for the White House. Claims of bipartisanship, meanwhile, would seem to be undermined by a voting record that National Journal deemed the most liberal in the Senate last year (outdoing, it would seem, leftist luminaries such as Ted Kennedy).

Lastly is Obama's association with radical preacher Jeremiah Wright. I'll outsource this bit to Tucker Carlson, who scripts a possible attack ad:

The spot opens with the familiar yet still shocking tape of Wright pounding the pulpit and looking crazy:

Wright: “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Narrator: This is the man Barack Obama has called his spiritual mentor. In 2006, Obama gave Wright’s church more than $22,000 as a gift. Here's what Obama's mentor had to say about our country in the days after 9/11.

Wright: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye…America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Narrator: For 20 years Barack Obama sat in the pews, even brought his family, as Wright preached hate. Obama never said a word, until he was caught. Then he defended Wright. Barack Obama: Divisive. Dishonest. Dangerous.

An alternate version might contain footage of Wright accusing the U.S. government of manufacturing AIDS in order to kill black people, or of spreading drugs in the ghetto, or it might show Wright dismissing murdered Alabama teen Natalie Halloway as a drunken slut. There's a lot of footage to choose from and it's all on YouTube. A seasoned media consultant could have that ad ready in a couple of hours. It'd be the most famous spot of this political year, and probably the most powerful.

And this is the candidate that will promote racial conciliation?

Joe Biden

Joe Biden was first elected to the US Senate at age 30. He's now 65, which means he has spent more of his life inside the halls of Congress than outside. That has to give someone a rather weird perspective on life. As he so often likes to mention, Joe was born in Scranton but his family left when he was 10 years old. Having driven through Scranton, I can't blame them.

Citing a history of alcoholism in his family Biden claims that he has never touched a drink, and he has a reputation as something of a drug warrior for both creating the office of the "drug czar" as well as authoring the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act.

Where Biden has made his name, however, is in foreign affairs. Indeed, many observers believe that Biden was brought on board the ticket in large part to shore up perceived vulnerabilities by Obama on foreign affairs. Despite convincing many in Washington that he is an expert, some of his more notable votes include opposition to the Reagan defense buildup and the Gulf War. Becoming perhaps more hawkish in later years to make amends, Biden supported bombing in the former Yugoslavia and voted to authorize the Iraq War. Wielding his foreign policy expertise with all the acumen and subtlety of a blind elephant, Biden proposed dividing Iraq into three separate country -- a solution whose stupidity was about the one thing all Iraqis could agree on.

Biden has been in politics so long that he actually ran for president over 20 years ago -- but had his campaign short-circuited when he was caught plagiarizing in his speeches.

While Sarah Palin has caught considerable flak for gaps in her knowledge, Biden has managed to avoid such criticism through a combination of falsehoods and bluster. For example, Biden, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee mind you, stated during the vice presidential debate that "we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon" -- something that occurred only his imagination. Biden, who chaired the Judiciary Committee for 8 years and is a trained lawyer, later did the following:

The constitutional law professor scornfully mocked Dick Cheney because the vice president "doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president. That's the executive branch." Wrong. Article I defines the Legislature, Article II the executive branch. Both define the role of the VP.

Yeesh. This is how wikipedia describes him:

During his years as a senator, Biden has amassed a reputation for loquaciousness, with his questions and remarks during Senate hearings being especially known for being long-winded. He has been a strong speaker and debater and a frequent and effective guest on the influential Sunday morning talk shows. According to political analyst Mark Halperin, he has also shown "a persistent tendency to say silly, offensive, and off-putting things"; The New York Times writes that Biden's "weak filters make him capable of blurting out pretty much anything."

And those are the two guys that are widely favored to win.