Saturday, June 01, 2002
WEATHER IN IOWA TODAY
Who the !#%#$ turned on the !?*&$*@$$! sauna outside!?
. . .
GOP NOMINATION FOR SENATE
This is the easier of the two picks, so I’ll do this one first. For Senate, I’m voting for Greg Ganske. Yes, Bill Salier is more conservative than Ganske. But I don’t think it is correct to label Ganske a "moderate." He may be more moderate than Salier, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t conservative. Yes, he has some positions that I dislike: the patients’ bill of rights and airport security. But he has been reliably conservative on a number of issues like taxes, Social Security, and free trade.
I mention this last issue, because on free trade Salier appears to be ambivalent at best, a protectionist at worst. There is no way Salier can beat Harkin without a solid position in favor of free trade. Free trade in general, NAFTA in particular, has benefited Iowa considerably. That is why the usually liberal Harkin is for it. Harkin will beat Salier over the head with that issue if Salier wins the GOP nomination. Ganske does not have that problem.
Furthermore, Salier has not proven that he can raise the type of money to mount an effective challenge against Harkin. Ganske has, and thus far, Ganke is using it well. He has not been idle in face of the recent attacks from Harkin (well, more accurately, from Iowa Democrats.) Ganske has returned fire on the farm bill and medical privacy. It looks like Harkin is going to have his hands full in the fall campaign.
Thus, I’m voting for Greg Ganske on Tuesday. He’s the best chance yet we have of unseating Tom Harkin.
GOP NOMINATION FOR GOVERNOR
First, let me state who I’m definitely not voting for: Doug Gross. Gross brings too much baggage to the race, as exemplified by the flap he had with Steve Sukup over notorious hog producer Jack DeCoster. Regardless of whether Gross actually represented DeCoster as his attorney, the memo uncovered by Sukup’s campaign mentions Gross’ name in connection with DeCoster five times in three pages. That’s damning enough. If the Sukup campaign can uncover something like this, what will the Vilsack campaign uncover? No one can be sure about that. What you can be sure of is that Vilsack has his operatives dutifully working on it.
That leaves Steve Sukup and Bob Vander Plaats. Let me say that I really want to vote for Vander Plaats. He is just as conservative as Sukup, and I think he comes off better on the stump. Further, if the improvement he has made as a candidate in the primary is any indication, he is only going to get better. There is one major drawback: Vander Plaats’ low poll numbers. Last I saw, he garnered only 14% of the projected vote, nowhere near enough to give him a realistic shot at winning on Tuesday. I hope that Vander Plaats uses this as a stepping stone to run for another office in 2004. He is definitely a rising star in the Iowa Republican Party. Unfortunately, every vote for Vander Plaats on Tuesday is a vote that will not be cast for Sukup, thereby improving the chances of Gross.
Steve Sukup does have a realistic shot on Tuesday. He does trail Gross, but he is within striking distance, and there are plenty of undecided voters up for grabs. Sukup’s platform is conservative: lower taxes, more business investment, a commission to cut government spending, banning partial birth abortion, instituting parental notification. Further, if his attacks on Gross are an indication, Sukup will go after Vilsack with both barrels in the fall. There is one drawback, evident at last Saturday’s debate. Sukup’s responses are sometimes choppy. His delivery needs to be smoother. But that can be fixed. Vander Plaats low poll numbers cannot.
On Tuesday, I’m pulling the lever for Sukup.
. . .
AT LEAST SHE DID IT BEFORE SHE GOT TO THE U.S SENATE
The Cedar Rapids Gazette has a story about Ann Hutchinson, one of three candidates for the Democratic nomination in Iowa’s 1st U.S. House District. It turns out that she applied for a job in the Bush Administration back in February 2001. All conservatives should find this comforting: Hutchinson defected before she was elected to office.
GOOD EDITORIAL, NOT SO GOOD HEADLINE
The Iowa City Press-Citizen has a good editorial this morning warning about local governments taking on debt to pursue Vision Iowa funds. The problem is the headline: Yucca Mountain is no Solution. Actually, yes it is. It’s Vision Iowa that is no solution.
COMING UP
My picks for Senate and Governor in Tuesday's primary.
. . .
Friday, May 31, 2002
FOR EDELMAN, IT'S 1996 ALL OVER AGAIN
You might think that Peter Edelman would have learned his lesson about welfare reform. After seeing his forecast of the 1996 welfare reform leaving one million more children in poverty dashed by the reform actually lifting 2.3 million children out of poverty, you might think he would be a little chastened. You would be wrong.
In Wednesday’s New York Times, he claims that the fact that many former welfare recipients remain poor, especially single mothers, is “an indication of the 1996 law’s failure as policy.” He notes that employment of single mothers increased dramatically, but “that did not necessarily mean they escaped from poverty. (Today they make an average of just under $8 an hour working about 35 hours a week, which would add up to around $14,000 annually.)”
The problem appears to be that Edelman relies solely on wage data to bolster his claims of continued poverty, while overlooking other sources of income such as Food Stamps and public housing. When these are factored in, according to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, overall poverty has declined from 10.2% in 1996 to 8.8% in 1999. Even more striking, the poverty rate among single mothers fell from 34.4% in the mid-1990s to 25.7% in 1999.
Edelman also trots out a variation of the tired liberal cliché of it was the economy, not welfare reform:
The 1996 law got some women to look for work who might otherwise not have done so, and it got the numbers down by pushing people off the welfare rolls or not letting them on. But the big post-1996 fact was the increase in the number of jobs — many areas had unemployment rates below 3 percent.
Actually, the analysis of ‘economy versus reform’ that has been conducted thus far has found no significant relationship between the economy and decline in the welfare rolls. Thus far, the decline appears to be largely attributable to welfare reform.
He also decries the get tough approach of the Bush proposal toward those still on the welfare rolls:
Who are the two million adults still on the rolls? Many are there temporarily while they look for work and need no push to do anything. The remainder are the hard cases — the ones who have less education, less work experience and more personal problems. Rigid requirements are the exact opposite of the individualized approach they need.
Funny, I recall someone saying something similar back in 1997 about welfare recipients in general. I think it was in the Atlantic Monthly. It was wrong back then, and it is likely wrong now. If tougher requirements helped get as many people of the welfare rolls between 1996 and the present, we should maintain that approach with those still on the rolls. And we should make the requirements even tougher.
And of course, Edelman’s suggestions for welfare reform now are remarkably similar to the ones he made in 1997:
Financing for child care and other supports should be substantially increased. All benefits for legal immigrants should be fully restored. And responsible fatherhood could be encouraged if the federal government promoted ways to help young, less educated African-American men, who were left out during the economic expansion of the past decade, find work. A set of proposals developed by Senators Edward Kennedy, Paul Wellstone and Jon Corzine includes many of these suggestions.
In other words, more spending. But more spending has proven an ineffective approach. That it is ineffective is only reinforced by the fact that it is championed by the likes of Kennedy and Wellstone.
Lastly, Edelman also states that “The main lesson of the 1996 law is that having a job and earning a livable income are two different things.” No, the main lesson is that despite all the evidence that welfare reform has been a tremendous success, people like Edelman never seem to learn.
. . .
WHAT, WE WORRY?
This article, by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough in the Washington Times,via Rush Limbaugh today:
The Bush administration has lined up support from most Persian Gulf nations for an invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein from power.
Our administration sources say no pledge of support is stronger than those from Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The two oil-rich kingdoms long for the day Saddam is gone and they no longer have to worry about Iraqi invasion.
The UAE has promised continued use of airfields and ports, while Kuwait could be a staging ground. The U.S. Army has increased the tempo of desert exercises in Kuwait as a signal to Baghdad about preparations for an invasion.
This is Rush’s take on it:
This should be blasted across front pages across the nation in massive headlines, but it's just quietly squirreled away in this column. Now, this information begs the question: was that Washington Post story leaked in an attempt to forestall the invasion, presumably by whoever in the military and State Department doesn't want one? In hindsight, we can see that they wanted to get this leak out to make it appear as if the invasion was called off. In fact, they're filling up the giant sandbag in the White House, lining up allies, and getting ready to go in - not to liberate Kuwait from Saddam, but to clean him up personally.
Do you think Rush is correct? Let’s see what the blogosphere thinks.
. . .
READ MY LIPS
The Daily Nonpareil thinks Jeff Ballenger—a candidate for the 5th District House Seat in Iowa—displayed political immaturity with his pledge to "never vote for a tax increase." As the editorial puts it:
We're reminded of the 1988 campaign for the presidency of the United States when George H. Bush uttered what could go down in history as his most famous remark: "Read my lips: No new taxes." Two years later, then-President Bush abandoned that campaign pledge and acknowledged that new or increased taxes were necessary.
The above example shows that the problem isn’t a lack of maturity. It’s politicians not sticking to their guns once elected.
SIGHHH….
Some people will just never get it.
PERHAPS THAT FREE MARKET WORKS AFTER ALL
The Ottumwa Courier reports that many banks in the region are joining a network that does not charge customers fees for ATM use. Wait a minute, I thought we needed the government to protect from all those big bad banks over-charging us at the ATM.
DUMP ETHANOL
Kudos to Dean Krenz of the Sioux City Journal. He has it right on Ethanol.
. . .
THE NY TIMES IS HOT
Yesterday, the New York Times over-heated due to the Bush Administration decision to not impose the Clinton Administration efficiency standards for air conditioners:
At the end of his term, after six years of consultation, President Bill Clinton approved a regulation requiring a 30 percent efficiency increase for central air-conditioners (not the window units most New Yorkers are familiar with). The Bush administration put the rule on hold and then last week imposed its own, lesser standard of a 20 percent increase. That's more of a difference than it seems, economically and environmentally. By 2020, the lower standard could cost consumers an extra $1 billion a year to run their air-conditioners. It could also result in extra greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to the annual output of 1.7 million cars.
First, let’s do a little math. I have no idea exactly how many air conditioners this will apply to, but let’s say 50 million for the sake of argument. Divide that into $1 billion, and you come up with an extra 20 dollars a year per air conditioner. This matters because of the next paragraph in the editorial:
Most manufacturers have the ability to produce the more efficient units. But except for the second-largest maker, Goodman Manufacturing, none of the big companies wanted to proceed with the Clinton rule. They argued, and the Bush administration agreed, that the Clinton standard would make air-conditioners too expensive for low-income families and discourage others from replacing older systems. In actual fact, the up-front cost difference between the 20 and 30 percent standards is about $100 per unit—an amount that could be recovered through electricity savings in three to five years.
The Times wants everyone who purchases a new air conditioner to pay an extra $100 now for possible future savings, and, let’s not give this short shrift, to guard against the dubious threat of global warming. An extra $100 dollars may not seem a lot to those who work for the Times, but for many of those in the areas of the nation where it gets really hot, like Iowa, it is a great deal. The Times wants to make air conditioners more expensive for those who most need them. I suspect that if given the choice, most consumers would rather pay an extra $20 in future years, than an extra $100 at the time when they buy an air conditioner.
Furthermore, the $100 is a bit misleading. That’s the extra cost of increasing the efficiency standards from 20% to 30%. I wonder, what is the true cost increase if that first 20% is included? Probably substantial enough that the Times didn’t want to mention it in the editorial.
Even that doesn’t reveal the true cost. The Times notes that only the second largest air conditioner manufacturer supported the new standards. I’m nearly certain that is not correct. Last year there was a letter-to-the-editor in the Washington Post from the CEO of the largest manufacturer claiming that his company also supported the new standards. It would stand to reason. Big companies often support new government regulations, because they have the resources to pay the cost of complying with new regulations. Smaller companies often do not, and often go out of business as a result. Then the big companies that remain can absorb the market share that formerly belonged to the small companies, thereby boosting their bottom lines.
This is surely what will happen with the air conditioning industry. Smaller manufacturers will go out of business, leaving fewer air conditioner producers in the marketplace. Fewer manufacturers mean less competition. Less competition means higher prices for the consumer.
In the end, the new standards, even the lower ones favored by the Bush Administration, will result in higher costs for consumers. They are likely to be costs that will take much longer for consumers to recoup than the Times claims.
. . .
THE WEB IS ON FIRE TODAY!
Lots of good stuff out in Blogistan, and some of the sites I visit haven’t even posted yet!
-First, click on the “Public Interest Institute” link to the right. We have a sleek new look. Unfortunately, the improvement has resulted in a lot of our publication links being lost. We are working on that.
-Cranky Professor, along with Daily Pundit, enjoyed the Top Ten Reasons Why Fidel Castro Should Be the Next University of Iowa President.” Thanks for the compliments, Professor. However, I have only two entries in my contest for who is least likely to be nominated for UI President. Come on folks. Just think about some of the current Republican members of Congress and I’m sure you can come up with lots of nominees.
-There is this very unnerving story about sexual abuse involving athletes—who else?—at University of Alabama-Birmingham . Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for posting a link to it.
-This once came via Crow Blog, via James Taranto. Playwright Tony Kushner recently gave the commencement address at Vassar College. What a piece of work.
-The blogosphere seems to really like this column by Nicholas Kristoff in the New York Times about the FBI and civil liberties. So do I.
-In the “Oh Please Let it Be True!” Corner, this one from Daily Pundit. Looks like Jihad Cindy is in some primary trouble.
-And in the Total Hysteria Corner, this one from This Modern World. Ever notice how in Tom’s World everything is the biggest crisis since the last biggest crisis?
-Eric Olsen, at Tres Producers, has posted his dad’s commentary on his recent visit to Cuba. Long, but very interesting.
-NewsMax has this report about schools in Pea Brain—er, Palm Beach—County. According to the report:
The substandard government high schools in Palm Beach County, Florida—also known as Pea Brain County, Floriduh, after hundreds of fanatical Al Gore supporters claimed to be too stupid to use the Democrat-designed ballot in 2000—have stooped even lower. Pupils who miss up to 77 percent of the answers on a history test will pass, according to the educrats who rule from the boondoggle building known locally as the Taj Mahal.
-And last, but definitely not least, Thomas Sowell explains the link between federal government land grabs and rising housing costs. And in the process he bashes Barbara Boxer. I knew that would get your attention. Now go read it!
. . .
SUPPLY SIDERS AT THE IOWA CITY PRESS-CITIZEN?!
Although this editorial at the Press-Citizen largely criticizes Republicans for their solution to the budget crisis, the following sentence offers a ray of hope:
Tax increases are not the solution. Higher taxes won't jump start a stalled economy, especially one finally showing signs of recovery.
That sonic boom you heard this morning was me falling out of my chair.
GOP RACES MAKE FINAL PUSH
Two good articles in the Des Moines Register today. The first deals with the last minute push by GOP gubernatorial candidates to get out the vote. The second describes some of the mud flying in the race for the 5th U.S. House Seat.
FYI: I’ll post my picks, and my reasons for them, for GOP Governor and Senate nominations tomorrow morning.
DID THE BLOGOSHPERE MISS THESE?
My recent tours of Blogistan seem to reveal that no one has commented on two recent pieces on the New York Times editorial page. The first one dealt with new efficiency standard for air conditioners. The second was by Peter Edelman about welfare reform. Given the vastness of the blogosphere, it is quite possible I missed the commentary on these two pieces. So if someone is aware of it, please email me or post a comment. I plan on commenting on these pieces later today, and I’d rather not repeat a lot of stuff that has already been said.
. . .
Thursday, May 30, 2002
STEVE GARRISON TO BE ON MICKELSON IN THE MORNING
My colleague, Public Interest Institute Research Analyst Steve Garrison, will be on the number one morning radio show in Iowa tomorrow, Mickelson in the Morning. The host Jan Mickelson can be heard 9-11:30 am in Des Moines at Newsradio 1040 WHO, and in Cedar Rapids on WMT-AM 600. Steve will be interviewed at 9:15, and will be discussing Iowa’s pay gap.
I told Steve that if he’s going to be on Mickelson much more, he’ll need a radio handle. I’ve suggested Stevie G. Other suggestions are welcome.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO BILL QUICK—AND THANKS
Well, I’ve finally figured out why my hits are suddenly on the rise. I’m the beneficiary of an “Instalanche.” Bill Quick, aka Daily Pundit, has blogged me not once, not twice, but three times in the last three days. He even called me “Iowa-centric”! But all levity aside, thank you very much Bill. It means a lot to a wannabe-hack blogger like myself whose site is still in its infancy.
Today is also Bill’s birthday. So let me join in the blogospheric chorus and wish him a very happy one.
TWO VERY GOOD ONES AT CUT ON THE BIAS
Susanna Cornett has two excellent blogs today. The first deals with a left-wing blogger who is “disturbed” by a Blog Burst on the recent riot at San Francisco State. The second deals with another left-wing site that appears to be run by folks who need a guide on how to find their collective ass with both hands. Be a nice person and go read them.
RECONSIDERING THE HAWKEYE
Yesterday I suggested that I might have to reconsider my evaluation of the Burlington Hawkeye editorial page as “pretty good.” Let the reconsideration begin.
. . .
MORE RACIAL QUOTAS FOR SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Apparently Marc Hansen isn't the only one today worried about affirmative action dictating school discipline. There is also this one by Roger Clegg in National Review Online.
HOW TO ANSWER AN EXAM QUESTION
Protein Wisdom has this hilarious bit about how an egineering student at the University of Washington responded to a question on a mid term. It turns out to be an urban myth, but it is very funny nonetheless.
. . .
BIG BOUNCING BOOB WATCH
The New York Post reports that supermodel Anna Nicole Smith will have her own show similar to that of Ozzy Osbourne. It debuts in August on the E! channel. I will be certain to do the hard work of keeping up with the show and reporting on it for the Blogosphere. I can't wait to find out what her position is on nuclear missiles...
. . .
WHO SHOULD BE FIRED FIRST?
It’s long overdue for Bush’s first firing of a cabinet level official. So who should be the first to get the axe, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill or Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta? To see why it should be O’Neill, pick up a copy of the June 3 edition of the Weekly Standard and see the Parody. (Sorry, but it’s only available online if you are TWS subscriber.) To see why it should be Mineta, see Ann Coulter’s great column.
. . .
EL JEFE FOR UI PRESIDENT?
My colleague John Sandell sent me a humorous email yesterday suggesting Fidel Castro as a nominee for University of Iowa President. I think John must have misread the blog on my contest. I said nominate the least likely person to become UI President.
Anyway, in the finest tradition of David Letterman, John sent me this list:
Top 10 Reasons Why Fidel Castro Should Become the Next U of I President.
10. So old, state will not need to contribute to his 401(k) plan
9. With Iowa Summers as hot & humid as Havana, he’ll feel right at home
8. Iowa casinos will remind him of how it used to be in Havana
7. He will provide a steady supply of Cuban cigars—better than Iowa monkey weed
6. Able to attract quality pitching to Iowa baseball team
5. Cuban Senoritas will improve quality of Iowa City bars
4. Cuban health-care system fits well with U of I hospitals’ billing practices
3. Can teach Iowa farmers a few things about growing a third crop
2. Communist background fits right in with the People’s Republic of Johnson County
And the Number 1 Reason:
Able to spend weekends with his new best friend "Jimmy Carter " without going through customs.
ZONITICS RESPONDS TO MY LIZZA BLOG
Ed Boyd has a good rejoinder to my diatribe on why Ryan Lizza is correct that the Democrats will get some traction.
COYOTE HOWLS ABOUT PEACE IN MID-EAST
Swen Swenson, aka Coyote at the Dog Show, sent the following email bout my post on how invading Iraq could bring peace in the Middle East:
I think some regime changes are going to be necessary throughout the Arab world and Iraq would be a good place to start. However, I don't think the Israelis really need our military's help dealing with the Palestinians - if the Israelis felt about the Palestinians like the Palestinians feel about the Israelis, 'Palestinian' would be an archaic name for an extinct group. They're also giving us a lot of advice on dealing with terrorism. Other than that, an excellent post!
Thanks for the compliment, Swen. Swen also has a nomination for the University of Iowa president. I’ll reveal that when I list the contest winners early next week.
. . .
COLEMAN AND MICHIGAN
It’s official. President Mary Sue Coleman is leaving University of Iowa to take the top post at University of Michigan. As this article in the Iowa City Press-Citizen notes, she’s going to face a few challenges at UM:
Coleman faces a number of pressing issues as she takes the helm of Michigan's premier institution of higher education. Michigan continues to defend itself against a pair of lawsuits challenging its affirmative action policies.
Wouldn’t it be something if Coleman wanted to make major headlines with her first act as President of UM? She could declare that she was dropping the Law School’s stupid affirmative action policy.
Hmm….What did I sprinkle on my breakfast cereal this morning?
RACIAL QUOTAS FOR SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Marc Hansen has an eye-opening column in the Des Moines Register today. Apparently affirmative action now governs discipline in the Des Moines area public schools. Of particular note is this passage:
A few years ago, the school district decided too many minority kids were being suspended, especially in relation to nonminorities.
The goal was to close the gap. The district also wanted to see a 93 percent graduation rate. That's a tough number to hit, especially if too many suspensions lead to expulsions.
A lot of teachers see unintended consequences. Mainly, discipline suffered.
Hansen goes on to recount how a teacher at Meredith Middle School attempted to discipline a belligerent student, who happened to be black. It was the teacher who ended up being suspended.
Is it any wonder that alternatives to public education, like home schooling, are on the rise?
SALIER BEATS GANSKE?
Also in the Des Moines Register today, David Yepsen has a good column about the upcoming GOP primaries, including some interesting analysis of the gubernatorial race and the 5th district congressional race.
Most strikingly, Yespen suggests that Bill Salier has a real chance at besting Greg Ganske in the Senate primary. Interesting. Wrong. But interesting.
ONE FROM YESTERDAY
I forgot to post this one yesterday. The Omaha World-Herald has a solid editorial on free trade.
. . .
CAN THE DEMOCRATS GET SOME TRACTION?
As I discussed in a previous blog, Ryan Lizza has a column in the New Republic in which he claims that the recent flap over what Bush knew "has given political momentum to Democratic calls for an outside commission to investigate what went wrong." He ends by speculating that "if the Democrats use their recent momentum to get their way on an outside commission, aid to Afghanistan, a Department of Homeland Security, and a wider Enron probe, the consequences for Bush could be bad enough." In my blog, I suggested that Lizza might be on to something.
A number of bloggers have made serious arguments as to why Lizza is off-base. For example, Bill Quick, aka Daily Pundit, writes:
The Donks haven't realized the national mental terrain has been irrevocably change (I'm not sure the Pubs have, either), but they should get a clue from the results of every single one of their brazenly partisan attacks on Bush: disaster.
However, this last episode took a while longer than previous ones to end badly for Democrats. It also took a little more effort by the administration to put the Democrats on the defensive. The point is that I’m not sure the change in American psyche is "irrevocable." The further we get from 9/11, the better the chances it might revert back to a pre-9/11 state. Is the fact that the most recent episode took a little longer before it ended badly for the Democrats mean that the national mood is beginning to change? No one can be sure, but it should give conservatives some pause.
Furthermore, the Democrats don’t necessarily have to engage in direct Bush bashing to get some traction against Bush. They can continue to press for a commission to investigate the pre-9/11 failure of intelligence agencies. As Lizza notes, they will be supported by the likes of the Weekly Standard and John McCain. Although such a commission, if it is formed, is unlikely to find anything damning about the Bush Administration, it will probably find something that is embarrassing.
Will the Democrats be able to exploit such a revelation? They may not have to. I hardly need remind the Blogosphere that the Democrats generally have an ally in the mainstream media. The media can run dozens of stories about how embarrassing the revelation is to the Bush Administration. I can just see Democrats in such stories saying they are "gravely concerned," and that "the commission must continue its important work." Thus, the Democrats come off as looking like serious statesmen (and women) while the press does all the dirty work.
While I’m on the subject of the media, I should address Ed Boyd’s criticisms regarding the Democrats’ attempt to get traction by bashing Bush on his handling of education and health-care in Afghanistan. Generally, I think Ed is correct that this issue isn’t going to play with the voters. Yet there is one exception. Suppose that sometime in the next few months the media actually finds masses of sick, starving children in Afghanistan? If such images were broadcast back to voters—and surely they would be—voters might be far more receptive to Democrats’ claims that the Bush Administration is not doing enough in Afghanistan.
Perhaps the most troubling recent development is the Bush Administration’s apparent hesitancy to invade Iraq. If Bush really decides against an invasion—a pretty big ‘IF’—would the Democrats exploit this? Hey, we’re talking about the Democrats. The Democrats might appear foolish trying to out-hawk Bush were they to try such a strategy. But they certainly would try. I’d rather not find out if they could get traction on it.
Thus far, conservatives have had a pretty easy time of defending the Bush Administration and putting Democrats on the defensive about the War on Terrorism. Let’s not miss the warning signs that it may not be so easy in the near future.
. . .
Wednesday, May 29, 2002
IT IS ON ITS WAY
Yes, I promised a blog on Lizza’s column by late afternoon. Unfortunately, Michael Kelly’s superb column in the Washington Post has made it all the more difficult for me to put together my argument. I’m working on it, hopefully for later this evening. I must say this is the first time I can remember being annoyed at one of Kelly’s columns.
TONY AND MICKEY ON THE FBI AND PRIVACY
An interesting exchange is going on between Tony Andragna, aka QuasiPundit, and Mickey Kaus of Kausfiles over, among other things, the Rowley Memo. Well worth the read.
GUESS WHO’S WORRIED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LOSING SOME POWER?
The New York Times, who else? The Times editorial page laments yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court “is the latest in a line of cases that have insulated the states from legal challenge and whittled away at federal power.”
Daily Pundit already has a good take down of the Times editorial. I’ll just add one thing. The Times worries about “the dignity that individuals are deprived of when stated trample on their rights with impunity.” If the Times is really worried about government trampling on individual rights, they should focus more attention on the Beltway, not state governments.
. . .
THAT ‘REFRESHING’ NON-INVASION
The editorial page of the Burlington Hawkeye apparently thinks it is “refreshing” that President Bush is considering not invading Iraq:
Since Sept. 11 Bush has intensified his threats against the resilient Iraqi leader, repeatedly saying that an invasion is not only likely but could happen sooner rather than later.
But the Arab world, Europe, China and Russia are all stridently opposed to any such invasion, for economic and other pragmatic reasons.
They caution, with sound logic, that attacking Saddam could well lead him to unleash the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons he says he doesn't own but the White House insists he does.
It now appears that Bush is listening to other moderate advisers who worry about the consequences of an all –out war—namely Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Tommy Franks, who is running the war on terror.
Question to the Hawkeye: Do you think that if we don’t invade Iraq, that will keep Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction at some point in the future? If you do, you’re forgetting Hussein’s past actions.
The way I see it, there are four basic scenarios in the question of whether to invade Iraq.
Scenario 1: We invade Iraq, topple Hussein. In the process, Hussein does not use weapons of mass destruction.
Scenario 2: We invade Iraq, topple Hussein. In the process, Hussein uses chemical and biological weapons, inflicting heavy casualties on the U.S. military.
Scenario 3: We do not invade Iraq. Hussein is a good boy until he dies of natural causes.
Scenario 4: We do not invade Iraq. This gives Hussein enough time to not only stockpile chemical and biological weapons, but also develop a nuclear weapon.
Really, there are only three scenarios, as scenario 3 is the epitome of wishful thinking. Of course, everyone would prefer scenario 1. But it is probably a choice between 2 and 4. If the U.S. pursues a policy that leads to 4, what do we do the next time Hussein invades another small Arab country? If we decide to invade Iraq at that point, we will build up our forces in the Gulf with the knowledge that at any time Hussein could lob a nuclear weapon into the middle of our troops. How many casualties do you think the U.S. military will incur then? Answer that question, and it will become obvious why scenario 2 is far preferable to scenario 4.
Finally, the editorial claims that Bush’s consideration of not invading Iraq “should bring worried Americans a level of comfort that homeland terrorist alerts don’t.” After 9/11, Americans would likely find much more solace in the knowledge that Bush was doing all he could to destroy as many mass-murdering thugs as possible.
Yesterday, I wrote that the Hawkeye “has a pretty good editorial page.” It is definitely time to reconsider.
BLAME THOSE TAX CUTS
This letter to the editor appeared in the Dubugue Telegraph Herald from a Mr. Terry Stewart. The title is “GOP to blame for state’s woes.” It begins:
There's something that's been stuck in my craw for months now, and I've got to speak up about it.
And what would that be, pray tell?
The Republican leaders in the Iowa Legislature have savagely attacked Gov. Vilsack and blamed him for their mistakes. The state budget is deeply in the red after 10 years of tax cuts totaling $4.8 billion, yet the Republicans who sliced and diced the state finances blame the current governor for that awful financial condition.
As I’ve pointed out before, between 1998-2001 state tax receipts rose 4.3% while spending rose 6.1%. Perhaps Mr. Stewart hasn’t gotten the message. Not that he’d listen anyway:
How convenient that the Republicans "rant" about "gross mismanagement" of funding, then continue to line the pockets of their rich friends and refuse to use some of the billion dollars set aside for crises and long-range planning, while attacking the governor and other Democrats for the "lack of state funds" and "frivolous spending."
Mr. Stewart, please put it back in your craw.
. . .
WANT PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST? INVADE IRAQ
This missive has been sitting in my computer for some time, and three recent developments have convinced me to post it. The first is the suicide bombing carried out over the weekend. The second is the increasing concern that the Bush Administration may not be planning an invasion of Iraq. The third is the attempt by U.S. officials of negotiating another peace agreement in the Middle East.
Any new peace plan rests on the hope that Chairman Yasir Arafat can be negotiated with. That hope is misplaced. Any peace negotiated with Arafat will be temporary. Arafat has shown time and again that he cannot be trusted. Peace will last only until he launches his next intifadah.
If we are serious about peace in the Middle East, our best course of action is to invade Iraq. There are many reasons why the U.S. should invade Iraq: We would remove Saddam Hussein, a mass-murdering dictator who is developing weapons of mass destruction. We would liberate the Iraqi people from a totalitarian state, and perhaps help them on the path to democracy. But achieving peace in the wider Middle East is another reason that we should factor into the decision to invade. Peace in the Middle East will not be achieved through negotiation. It will be achieved through a show of force.
The first reason invading Iraq would bring peace to the Middle East is that the U.S would no longer need to pressure Israel to pull back from the occupied territories and get to the negotiating table. The U.S. has been doing this because it will be difficult to invade Iraq without peace between Israel and the Arabs. But once we topple Hussein, that rationale disappears. If Arafat starts another intifadah, the U.S. will have no reason to pressure Israel to show restraint. Israel will be given a free hand to root out terrorists in the occupied territories and perhaps even send Arafat into exile. Arafat would have tremendous motivation not to restart the violence.
Second, after invading Iraq, the U.S. would have a large amount of armed forces in the Middle East. Perhaps our diplomats could hint to Arafat that these forces might be used to help Israel should he be inclined to start a new intifadah. With the possibility of facing the combined forces of Israel and the U.S., Arafat would have even greater motivation not to begin a new intifadah.
Finally, invading Iraq would send a powerful message to the remainder of the Middle East that America will not tolerate regimes that support terrorism. This might lead regimes like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran to suspend their support of suicide bombers in Palestine. Losing the support of other Middle East regimes for his intifadah would give Arafat one more reason not to start one.
Many voices on the left, and even a few on the right, will cry out that this is a doomed approach, that violence will only breed more violence. They will urge the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with our enemies for peace. But such an approach is foolish and naïve.
Negotiating for peace rests on the possibility that the other side can be negotiated with. Unfortunately, too many sectors of the Arab world, including Arafat and his supporters, do not have the mentality for negotiation. Consider suicide bombers. What kind of mentality sends its sons and daughters, some of them teenagers, to kill civilians by blowing themselves up? It is certainly not the mentality of someone interested in sitting at a negotiating table.
Or consider Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged co-conspirator of September 11 who is now in court. In his opening address to the court, he stated that his goal is "the destruction of the United States," and that he also prays "for the destruction of the Jewish people and state." How do you negotiate with someone whose aim is your destruction? You can’t. The fact is that the mentality represented by the likes of suicide bombers and Mr. Moussaoui is hell bent on achieving its ends through death and destruction. Such people have no interest in peace.
Some will argue that this characterization of Arabs is unfair, that most Arabs are peaceful and abhor terrorism. That is very likely true; it is also irrelevant. Those Arabs are not the ones in charge throughout much of the Arab world. The extremists are.
And extremists only respect force. That is why, in terms of achieving peace in the Middle East, it is imperative that the U.S. invade Iraq. Toppling Saddam Hussein would convince Arafat that future intifadahs will be useless, if not fatal to his own ambitions and power. A show of force is the only thing that will convince Arafat to accept peace with Israel. Let's hope that President Bush isn't going wobbly.
. . .
GUTSY FOLK GROW UP IN THE CORN
Interesting personal profile of Coleen Rowley, the FBI memo writer, in the Des Moines Register. It turns out that she hails from Iowa. The columnist, John Carlson, thinks she should have Bob Mueller’s job. I concur.
BUDGET CRISIS CONCLUDES
It’s over—for now. Yesterday, the Iowa legislature passed a budget that cut spending and did not raise taxes. It appears that Governor Vilsack will sign it. Hmmm….a Democrat as governor and we manage to balance the budget without increasing taxes. How did that happen? Oh yeah, it’s an election year.
DODD THE CLOD
While typing this, I’m listening to Don Imus interview Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut). Dodd is such a pompous fool that he always manages to irritate the living you-know-what out of me. So forgive me if this little blog is more ad hominem than usual. In this interview he has bashed the Bush Administration decision to maintain the Cuban embargo by claiming that it prevents proper medication from getting to Cuban children. Cuban children denied medication? I thought Cuba had one of the best health-care systems in the world. Surely Dodd, an apologist for left-wing regimes in Latin America, must be aware of that. Second, has it ever occurred to Senator Dodd that if Cuban children aren’t getting proper health care, the primary culprit is not the embargo but that charming little fuzzball of a dictator Fidel? Never mind. The question is rhetorical.
CONTEST: NOMINATIONS FOR A NEW UI PRESIDENT
The Cedar Rapids Gazette is reporting the University of Iowa President Mary Sue Coleman is leaving for the top post at the University of Michigan. So, she’s trading one Midwest Mecca of Marxism for another. Wonder why she’s leaving—maybe she couldn’t take the heat from Cornfield Commentary.
Anyway, I’m announcing a contest for the person least likely to become the next University of Iowa President. My nominee is William J. Bennett. So please, email me your nomination or post it in the comments section at the bottom of this post. I’ll announce the winners early next week.
. . .
UTUs WIN, 11-10!
The Fort Madison UTU softball team won yesterday, 11-10. You don’t know who the UTUs are? Well, you should my friend. They are the softball team of the 11-year-old daughter of my good friend Lori Scott. Her daughter, Shelby, pitched the last three innings of the game, giving up only four runs. The UTUs went into the final inning leading 11-9. If Shelby gave up two runs, they would tie. She only gave up one! Now that, my friends, is clutch pitching! I hear, via blogger Tres Producers, that the Cleveland Indians' pitching stinks this year. Someone tell the Cleveland front office to send a scout.
By they way, I also need to mention that Courtney (sorry, I don’t know her last name) ripped a home-run for the UTUs in third (or was it the fourth?) inning. Barry Bonds, don’t look over your shoulder!
. . .
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
WHOA!
At the time of this writing, Cornfield Commentary has had 76 visits today, and 110 views. That is a record. Perhaps I'm the recipient of an "Instalanche." I don't know where it is coming from, but thank you. And thanks to all of you who have viewed my site. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.
So, let's try to break the record tomorrow. Tomorrow I will have a post on why I think invading Iraq is the best way to achieve oeace in the Mid-East. Also, I will have my blog on Lizza's column in the afternoon. So visit early, and visit often.
Again, thanks.
. . .
BLOGS AND THE MEDIA CYCLE
A good one via Virginia Postrel. John Hiler has written a tome, albeit a very interesting tome, on how the Blogosphere fits into the media cycle.
KRUGMAN’S EGO EXPOSED—AGAIN
The Daily Rant dissects the recent Paul Krugman vanity mirror in the NY Times. Well done Mr. Rant
SPEAKING OF EGO
Yes, it is ego boosting time again. I now have links at the Insolvent Republic of Blogistan and Coyote at the Dog Show. Thank you gentlemen.
Eric Olsen of Tres Producers posted a very nice blog about Cornfield Commentary. Here is a highlight:
Just found a blog dedicated to politics and media in what is largely perceived in the middle of nowhere: Iowa. Cornfield Commentary once again proves the point that there is much to be learned of the macro from a fine sift through the micro.
Thank you, Eric. But Iowa is not in the middle of nowhere. It is somewhere. And after seven years of living here, I’ve almost figured out where that somewhere is.
Finally, the Cranky Professor had some nice things to say about my posting a link to his Orwell blog:
Warming the cold cockles of a cranky professor's heart...It's always nice to hear that my maunderings make someone want to read something. Mr. David Hogberg thinks Orwell sounds interesting. Hearing this sort of thing also makes it worth cut'n'pasting those Amazon links - and I get nothing at all from them.
When CP first posted this, he had my name as David Yepsen, the columnist for the Des Moines Register. CP and I had a lighthearted email exchange about it, in which I pointed out that it could have been worse. He could have identified me as David Brock.
. . .
NEWSFLASH: POLITICAL SOUND BITES DON’T TELL WHOLE STORY
Actually, this is a good column in the Mason City Globe Gazette. It could just do with a better title than “Education statements don't tell entire story.” Most people know that the sound bites coming out of candidate mouths are usually just partial truths. Nevertheless, the analysis of Iowa gubernatorial candidates’ statements on education is, well, educational.
CLUB FOR GROWTH IMPACTS HAWKEYE LAND
The Sioux City Journal has a story about the impact the Club for Growth is having in the race for the GOP nomination in Iowa’s 5th U.S. House District. Among the more interesting tidbits is that the Club for Growth endorsement of State Senator Steve King has helped King’s fundraising considerably.
GANSKE RETURNS FIRE ON THE FARM BILL
While typing this, I heard for the first time Representative Greg Ganske’s radio ad attacking Senator Tom Harkin for the farm bill. In the last two weeks the Iowa Democratic Party has been running an ad that promotes Harkin’s farm bill and attacks Ganske for opposing it. Most cynically, the ad quotes President Bush in an attempt to make Gankse look out of step with the administration.
Now, Ganske has fired back with an ad showing what a boondoggle Harkin has created in the new farm bill. It begins “Lawyer Tom Harkin….” In an earlier blog I suggested the Ganske was likely to win in November if he went on the attack against Harkin. I ended that part of the blog by saying “It remains to be seen if Ganske will run such a campaign in the fall. But given the campaign skill he's showing in the primary, I'm optimistic that he will.” Ganske has started to run such a campaign in the Summer. So far, my optimism seems well placed.
. . .
WHERE DID ALL THE TAX MONEY GO?
A very good article in the state government section of the Des Moines Register this morning. It deals with the question of why Iowa budget projections were so far off in the last few months, and the sources of declining state revenue.
There is this eye-opening paragraph near the beginning of the article:
The national pattern, said [Arturo] Perez [a budget analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures], is that states with the most progressive personal income-tax systems are having the most trouble getting the numbers right. That's because the biggest single change was the loss of the wealth after the market bubble for technology stocks burst.
The more progressive the personal income-tax system, the more trouble a state has in bringing in tax revenue? I thought "progressive taxation was regarded as one of the great achievements of our democracy," according to Register editorial page editor Richard Doak. Perhaps there is a lesson here about taxation. The higher the tax rates, and the more complicated the tax code—two hallmarks of progressive taxation—the less revenue that will flow to the government. The reason is that the worse the tax code, the bigger the strangle-hold on investment, new business start-ups, job creation—i.e., all the things that lead to revenue growth.
But don’t expect the editorial board at the register to get that lesson. Today’s editorial suggests that "taxes and fees will have to be raised" to the fix the budget shortfall. Raise taxes when the state economy is having trouble creating jobs—yeah, that’s the ticket! Perhaps the editorial board should read the state government section of their paper and try connecting the dots.
The article also has some insights into state capital gains taxes:
Before 1995, taxes on capital gains and stock options amounted to less than 5 percent of personal income taxes. That rose to about 15 percent by 1999 and got as high as 39 percent in California, Perez said. Then it fell way down again last year….
Ten years of increasing numbers blinded many experts, who should have known better, Perez said.
The article should also have noted that the rise in taxes on capital gains and stock options coincides with the state government spending orgy. And if Perez had added that state government also should have known better, he really would have hit the nail on the head.
Then there is this paragraph that deals with the drop in revenue from corporate income taxes:
There is no single statistical explanation for the drop, [state revenue analyst Michael] Lipsman said. More businesses are "using very creative accounting" to lower their taxes, he said, but there have been genuine losses this year because of the economic slowdown, and businesses will be able to carry parts of those losses forward into future tax years.
If only the article had bothered to explore why more businesses are "using creative accounting" to lessen their tax burden. The author really should have interviewed some business economists. Surely it has a lot to do with the fact that Iowa has the highest top corporate income-tax rate among all states in the nation, at 12%. Lower that rate, and businesses will have less incentive to engage in accounting shenanigans to avoid paying high taxes. It might even attract new businesses to Iowa, which in turn would yield more revenue for the government. I would encourage the Register’s editorial page to make this argument, but that would be expecting miracles.
For good ideas about what to do about the budget crisis, you’ll have to turn to David Yepsen.
U2 COMING TO BURLINGTON?
The Burlington Hawkeye has this rather odd editorial today: "Root causes Bono, O'Neill tour Africa seeking answers to poverty." Yes, that Bono.
Here are the snippets that made me cringe the most:
It may be the oddest pairing ever seen in the struggle to alleviate world poverty.
Bono, the political activist and singer from the band U2, toured a dozen impoverished sub–Saharan African nations last week with U.S. treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, whose world is tailored suits and genteel discussions of theoretical economics.
In visits to struggling nations like Uganda, Ghana, South Africa and Ethiopia, Bono and O'Neill tried to determine what it might take to stop the scourge of AIDS and alleviate the grinding poverty that threatens millions of lives.
A man deeply committed to eradicating Third World poverty and the debt that feeds it, Bono was the seasoned tour guide on this trip, O'Neill the student. As the former CEO of Alcoa, O'Neill is a businessman who expects a return on investment.
I particularly like how the editorial portrays O’Neill as residing in an ivory tower and Bono, who spends most of his time in front of millions of fans who worship the ground he walks on, as the experience-hardened realist.
Sorry, but U2 isn’t going to play at the next Des Moines County Fair, no matter how much the Hawkeye editorial page sucks up to U2’s egomaniacal front man. The Hawkeye actually has a pretty good editorial page. Such missives only make it look silly.
. . .
EXTENDED BLOG COMING WEDNESDAY, NOT TUESDAY
In my last blog, I said I would post an extended blog on Ryan Lizza's column on Tuesday. When I wrote that, I was thinking that today was Sunday. (Sorry, three day weekends sometimes do that to me.) Thus, the blog will be coming Wednesday, not tomorrow.
. . .
Monday, May 27, 2002
COMMENTS ON LIZZA’S COLUMN
Looks like my little post on Ryan Lizza’s column has generated a bit of attention. So far, no one seems to think that the Democrats could get some traction against Bush.
The first is from zonitics, although I’m not mentioned in the post so I don’t know if he got wind of it from Cornfield. Nevertheless, he makes a very good point about Lizza’s analysis:
Do congressional Democrats really think that they're going to score points with voters back home by beating up Bush over Afghan education? Do they think that a provision requiring Bush to come up with a security strategy for all of Afghanistan will be seen as supportive rather than meddling? If so, I can only wish them good luck with all that.
Zonitics is correct; Democrats won’t get any traction over matters in Afghanistan. But an investigation of pre-9/11 security….
Then other is an email from William Quick, aka Daily Pundit. He writes:
Dear David,
First, get some comments! I like the YACCS system, if you decide to add them.
Second, about Lizza's TNR piece. The Donks still don't get it. As long as they (publicly) approach investigations and commissions and "blame-fixing" for 9/11 as an exercise in partisan advantage-grabbing (Hey! We can use this to "get political traction") they are going to fall flat on their faces. This is a political-biz-as-usual approach, and America isn't in the mood for that. If a commission will help advance the war on terror, that's one thing. But if its only value per the Dems is as a political lever, nobody is interested in that. The Donks haven't realized the national mental terrain has been irrevocably change (I'm not sure the Pubs have, either), but they should get a clue from the results of every single one of their brazenly partisan attacks on Bush: disaster. If they think Hillary Clinton waving a copy of the NY Post (!!!) with the headline "Bush Knew" is going to help them, they are sadly mistaken.
Good blog, by the way. I need to read it more often.
Best,
Bill
Thanks for the compliments Bill. I’ll definitely work on getting a comments feature.
I’ll put up a more extended blog on why I think there is something to Lizza’s column on Tuesday. At this point I’ll just say this: Gentlemen, I hope you are correct. But I fear you are not.
CRANKY ON ORWELL
Cranky Professor has an interesting blog on George Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier. I haven’t read this Orwell book, but reading CP’s blog makes me want to pick it up. This is my favorite part:
Of course, my colleagues would begin by saying that Russia was never really socialist, but a distortion, etc., etc. I heave a great sigh and continue.
PRICE CAPS IN HAWAII
Did you know that Hawaii has imposed price caps on gasoline? They don’t take effect, however, until 2004. This via Thomas Sowell’s outstanding column today. He shows why, when it comes to explaining complex economic ideas in simple, easy to understand terms, and then explaining how they are related to politics, he is the master.
POKER RESULTS—MAY 27
Well, not a very good day at the poker tables. Busted out of the tournament—cost $25—after my pair of kings were cracked by a set of tens. Later played $3/6 Hold ‘Em, and lost $83. Oh well. Could have been worse.
. . .
A LIST OF SACRIFICE
Okay, one more post. This is a link to a list of all the soldiers who have given their lives in the War on Terrorism. God Bless.
. . .
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY
Okay, maybe one post this morning. Happy memorial day everyone. In tribute to all who have sacrificed for our great nation, I'm posting two verses by one of my readers, Paul S. Breitbach. Enjoy.
THIS GREAT LAND CALLED AMERICA
My friends this is a great land
A land of Dreams
A land of Opportunities
A land of Endless Possibilities
A land of Hope
A land of Plenty
A land of Freedom
A land of Pride
A land of Liberty
A land of An Undying Spirit
This Great Land Called America
The core of this greatness
From our early times at Valley Forge
To our present time in New York City
And thousands, and thousands, and thousands of times between
Is Honor, Freedom and Service
Represented in many places
Both at home and abroad
Represented by the great men and women who have served
In the Armed Forces
As firefighters
As police officers
Their duty to God, Honor and Country
Is unmatched
Their examples of selfless service
Is what makes them our heroes
It is what makes America Great
It is and always will be what sets this Great Land apart from all others
It is the reason so many come to this Great Land
This Great Land of endless possibilities
From Sea to Shining Sea
In the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave
This is and always will be a Great Land
This land called America
DEBT OF LOVE, HONOR AND GRATITUDE
Their country called
They answered
They left their home, families and communities
To go and preserve, protect and defend our freedom
They gave so much
Their time, energy, youth, dedication, their innocence
And many gave their most precious gift -- their life.
They fought fascism, Nazism, totalitarianism, communism
They fought Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Hussein
They fought in Europe, the Pacific, Korea, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia
They sacrificed for us
For our life, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness
They asked nothing in return
They proudly served in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard
They fill us with the greatness, hope, freedom and pride that is and always will be ours as Americans
All of us owe them a debt of love, honor and gratitude
We shall never be able to repay them for the precious gift of freedom
We simply say thanks
We honor them today, tomorrow and forever
We honor them by living our lives as proud, patriotic Americans
When I think of their selfless love, courage, pride, dedication, determination,
sacrifice and heroism
I feel a sense of love for our great country that is unmatched, unwavering and
undying
They are our heroes - proud, tall and strong
In the land of the free and the home of the brave
On this great day and on every great day
We say thanks
God Bless Our Veterans
God Bless America
. . .
Sunday, May 26, 2002
CONSERVATIVES SHOULD READ LIZZA’S COLUMN
Ryan Lizza has a very good missive in the New Republic that all conservatives should read. He deals at length with the coming Democratic assault on the Bush Administration. It reads a little like someone who is desperate for the Democrats to gain some traction, but it makes some good arguments that the Democrats may finally be doing just that. The fifth paragraph is particularly good. On the domestic front, conservatives have had it rather easy these last few months. If Lizza is correct, that may be about to change. We should be ready for it.
A STATE EMPLOYEE DOESN’T GET IT
This opinion column seems to be floating around various newspapers in Iowa, and it has now appeared in the Ames Tribune. It is written by Pam Reinig, a state government employee. Here is the key passage:
I am not an economist, but there seems to be some "penny-wise, pound-foolish" decision-making going on. I understand the state is struggling economically, but I don't see how we're going to reverse that by cutting programs that could lead to new jobs.
I realize there's a "gap" between the dollars we require and the dollars we have, but I need some help understanding how shutting down a nationally recognized center of agricultural and environmental research and education will make us financially healthy in the long run.
I'm also having difficulty reconciling the concept of a stronger state economy with decisions to discontinue economic development programs.
Higher education is not standing alone on the chopping block. Virtually everybody who receives financial support from the state is learning to do a lot more with a lot less.
Some thoughts:
-I wonder, how many other state employees think that the government is the creator of new jobs or is responsible for a strong economy? Have these people never heard of the free market?
-The "penny-wise, pound-foolish" decisions were made when Iowa went on a spending binge in the 1990s.
-Government doesn’t create jobs; it sponges off of those who do. When a government hires an employee, it doesn’t do it with funds from new wealth that it created. Rather, it uses funds that it took from others.
-And the reason government is cutting programs right now is so that it doesn’t have to take more funds from the folks who do create jobs.
NO MORE BLOGS UNTIL LATE TOMORROW
Sorry friends, but I’m going to the Quad Cities to play poker tomorrow. Need to get an early start, so there will be no posts in the morning. But I’ll let you know how I did at the tables when I get back.
. . .
ANOTHER SPORTS TRAGEDY
A fascinating, and sad, piece at Tres Producers about the robbery of Cleveland Indian’s pitcher C.C. Sabathia by two former Cleveland State Basketball stars. It’s long, but it is well worth the read.
. . .
THEY JUST CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES….
More fodder for Governor Vilsack courtesy of the Des Moines Register. Here is the opening sentence:
More than two years of budget cuts in Iowa have significantly slowed some state government services, forced most employees to do more work, and created a greater chance that crime and abuse will slip by without notice.
If the Register wants to scare Iowans about dreaded budget cuts, here’s a tip: Most people aren’t going to shed many tears over the news that cuts have "forced most employees to do more work."
….AND NOW THEY’RE GETTING INTO THE ACT
The Quad City Times has this headline this morning:
Cuts Would Slam Art Programs
Here’s a tip for the QC Times: Most people aren’t going to shed any tears over cuts in art programs either.
CONSERVATIVES NEED NOT APPLY
The Des Moines Register editorial board has endorsed the following candidates for the GOP nomination. Doug Gross for Governor, Greg Ganske for Senate, and Brent Siegrist for Iowa’s 5th U.S. House District.
The Register goes to great pains in these endorsement to say that their decisions are based on the need for "legislative experience." But that explanation is less than persuasive. In the gubernatorial race, Steve Sukup has almost eight years of experience in the Iowa House. Furthermore, given that Sukup is still in the House, his experience is far more current than that of Gross. That would seem more useful in dealing with the State’s current budget crisis than Gross’ stint as Governor Branstad’s chief-of-staff more than fifteen years ago.
In the U.S. House race, the argument is somewhat more convincing. Siegrist is currently Speaker of the Iowa House and has about three times more experience in the Iowa Legislature than State Senators Steve King and John Redwine. Still, both King and Redwine have more than enough experience to make them fit for a seat in the U.S. House. (Also, the lone Democrat running for the seat, accountant Paul Shomshor of Council Bluffs, apparently has no political experience. Does that mean the Register will use that as a reason to not endorse him come November? I’ll bet anyone a C-Note that it doesn’t.)
"Experience" really isn’t the reason for the Register’s endorsements, as this paragraph from the Siegrist endorsement shows:
It is not just Siegrist's 18-year stretch at the Statehouse and his good-natured temperament that make him best qualified of the four. It's also his approach to politics. He is a practical conservative, and focuses on what can be accomplished.
The key phrase is "practical conservative" which is liberal code for "liberal Republican." What really drives these endorsements is the Register editorial board’s desire to elect as many liberal politicians as possible. They pretty much give the whole game away with this paragraph in the Ganske endorsment:
But the question shouldn't be which candidate is more conservative. It should be which one could do more to advance Iowa's interests. That requires the experience of having operated in the give-and-take of a legislative arena.
Of course it doesn’t matter which candidate is more conservative. As far as the Register is concerned, it matters which candidate is more liberal. Thus, it has endorsed the GOP candidates which are not the most solidly conservative.
If the Register thinks that the conservative agenda is not right for Iowa, that’s fine. Let’s have a debate over the issues, and let it inform the debate over the candidates for Governor, and U.S. Senate and House. Just stop misleading Iowans by dressing it up as a matter of experience.
WE HAVE CLEANER AIR IN THE U.S.
A good opinion column in the Burlington Hawkeye by James S. Jennison. This is my favorite paragraph:
Considering that a 1999 FCAP survey showed that 61 percent of Americans actually believed our air quality was getting worse, you might think that two objective reports packed with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary might make headlines in major newspapers or network news broadcasts. But they didn't. So you might wonder what motivates media leaders to keep this good news under wraps.
. . .
|
. . .
|
