Friday, October 11, 2002
NO DAILY DIATRIBE TODAY
Sorry, my friends. Just too exhausted, need to rest and enjoy myself for a little while. Will be back in full force come Monday.
. . .
JUST A REMINDER
I will be interviewd by Jan Mickelson on the radio this morning, at 10 am CST. You can hear it at WHO 1040 AM out of Des Moines, or WMT 600 Am out of Cedar Rapids. We'll be dicussing Public Interest Insitute's new policy study on the Iowa budget.
. . .
A TOAST TO SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS
Finally! A government plan I can support:
Iowans drink cheap booze.
State officials would like to change that so the government can make more money off liquor sales.
The Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division wants to lower the price of top-shelf liquors, starting with vodka this spring, and thereby encourage consumers who are drinking midrange brands to move up to higher-end liquor.
The state has the clout to bring down retail prices because it sets wholesale prices for all liquor sold in Iowa.
Right now, the state's markup on liquor is 50 percent. That generated $38.3 million in revenue last fiscal year.
Under the new plan, the state will ask distillers to lower their prices on premium brands and then add to that reduction by lowering the state markup 10 percent, said Lynn Walding, administrator of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division.
"We would make more money, even with the reduced markup, without increasing consumption," Walding said.
Say you typically buy a bottle of midrange Smirnoff vodka for roughly $11 a fifth. If that $20 bottle of top-shelf Absolut was reduced a few bucks, you might buy it, the reasoning goes.
Walding said his office would make sure liquor retailers in Iowa were passing the savings on to consumers. The liquor retailers were presented with the idea in late September and generally were in support, he said.
Got that? Lower taxes on a product will result in more purchasing of that product. That will result in the government taking in more revenue. Supply-side economics vindicated and cheaper booze! This could be a beautiful day!
. . .
LEAP BEFORE YOU LOOK
Not surprisingly, the Des Moines Register editorial page loves the universal health-care system that Oregon citizens will get to vote on this November. The Register notes how the system would be financed:
The plan would be financed by payroll taxes on businesses and an increase in income taxes for workers. It's estimated some people could be taxed as high as 17 percent, even if they choose not to enroll.
Does the Register give any concern to what effect such a tax would have on Oregon’s economy? It’s a rhetorical question:
Higher taxes aren't the only potential roadblock to passage. The plan is also being criticized by business and insurance-industry groups for being too generous with benefits, potentially covering everything from massage therapists to acupuncture. Some opponents are arguing universal health care, with a price tag of $19 billion a year, could bankrupt Oregon and that there's potential for nonresidents to easily abuse the system.
Regardless of the potential problems with Oregon's plan, it's great that one state is doing something to address the problems in a health-care system that isn't working well for anybody. Ask seniors without prescription-drug coverage. Ask poor families. Ask average American workers as payroll deductions for health insurance outpace pay raises. Ask the 41 million uninsured.
But don’t ask all the Oregon taxpayers and small businessmen and women, apparently.
The Register is just giddy over the prospect:
So the fact that some Oregonians are proposing a potentially radical concept is a step in the right direction. If voters approve the proposal and it works, it could become a model for universal health-care coverage. If an instituted plan fails, everyone will have learned more about what it's going to take to construct a workable option for Americans.
An effort to reform the current health-care system has to start somewhere. It might as well be Oregon.
And if it drives Oregon’s economy into the tank, so be it. No need to worry about that when there is all sorts of social engineering to do.
. . .
Thursday, October 10, 2002
MICKELSON IN THE MORNING
I will be on Mickelson in the Morning tomorrow at 10 am, Central Standard Time. It can be heard at WHO 1040 AM out of Des Moines, or WMT 600 out of Cedar Rapids. I'll be discussing the new policy study on the Iowa budget.
. . .
YEAH BABY!!!!
Giants beat the Cardinals 4-1 to take a 2-0 lead in the National League Championship Series. And now we head to San Francisco.
. . .
DODDERING WISDOM
Juan Gato has this hilarious smackdown of West Virginia's biggest industry.
. . .
EAT SOME CROOOOW
Croooow Blog has some great bits up today. Check this one out on the Montana Senate race. Very clever.
He also notes that someone else has compared CEOs to terrorist and leaves this little hint: "the former center square."
He further notes that there is a double standard on the left when one compares the Harken Scandal vs. the Harkin Scandal.
Finally, he has this little post on the vote on the Iraq resolution. He states "no points for guessing how Barbara Lee, McDermott and the soon-to-be-former CLCIC voted... " Okay, Henry, but do I get some points for guessing how this gent voted?
. . .
DEMOCRATS GOT YOU A BIT UNHINGED, JAY?
Jay Caruso thinks that he is batting behind Barry Bonds. Which would mean, of course, that 'Jay Caruso' is a pseudonym. That, and he is still damn good at throwing out runners from his knees.
Oh, and he's none too happy about a new Democratic memo either.
. . .
GETTING DESPERATE
As the case for war against Iraq gets stronger and stronger, the Des Moines Register editorials get lamer and lamer. Get a load of this bit of sophistry from yesterday’s editorial:
First, there are the conditions to which Saddam agreed in order to end the Gulf War in 1991. The United States and its allies in that war have properly used military means to enforce some of those conditions, such as no-fly zones. There is no reason why the United States and those allies cannot properly use military force to make Iraq comply with other conditions, such as eliminating chemical- and biological-weapons programs.
“Proper use of military force”? What would that be? Drop a few bombs on some presidential palaces and hope for the best? Thank God Bush and Co. are in charge of the war effort, and not the folks at the Register.
The editorial also relies on the flimsy assumption that Hussein can be persuaded to comply with United Nations’ demands:
The Bush administration has pointed out before that the president already has authority from Congress and the United Nations to use military power to enforce the conditions of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement. The president has wisely gone back to Congress to reaffirm its support for that, and he has asked the United Nations for more meaningful inspections in Iraq. He should have both. Then, with the backing of the United Nations and other nations around the world, he should demand that Iraq comply.
In Monday night's address, President Bush softened his Iraq-war rhetoric of recent weeks. He said military action is not "imminent or unavoidable." Rather than calling for a "regime change," the president said Saddam could stay in power if he meets U.S. demands designed to neutralize the threat Saddam poses for the world.
In that vein, Congress should fully support the president's goals in Iraq, in concert with the United Nations and with the Gulf War allies. It can do that, however, without giving the president a blank check to conduct a war against Saddam and the people of Iraq.
And what happened when Hussein, as usual, thumbs his nose at the U.S. and the U.N.? The Register probably doesn’t want to consider that question.
. . .
HOW LIBERAL EDITORIALISTS AND BUREAUCRATS THINK
This editorial in the Des Moines Register supports the proposed increase in what the city of Des Moines charges landlords to do rental inspections. As the editorial notes:
Landlords and housing advocates are speaking out against the increase. The argument is that the additional cost will be passed on to tenants.
Does that really concern the Register? Are you joking?
But what should the city do? It's still charged with maintaining inspection standards - even during revenue shortfalls.
How about finding ways to cut spending? That might be something city could do. It’s also interesting that the Register is more concerned about the finances of the city in rocky economic times than the landlords or tenants. Does it occur to the Register that maybe they’re facing their own “revenue shortfalls”?
There is also this very telling quote from Ben Bishop, chief of neighborhood inspections:
In regard to passing the cost on to tenants, he said, "Our inspections are a price of doing business. All businesses pass their costs on to their customers."
Yep, passing on the cost to customers is no big deal, especially when you’re not the one who has to worry about customers picking up and going elsewhere. Isn’t the mind of a bureaucrat a wondrous thing?
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: IOWA'S STATE BUDGET
Earlier today, Public Interest Institute, which I work for, held a press conference to release our new policy study titled “Iowa’s State Budget: Spending Our Way to a Crisis.” (To be honest, due in part to bad timing, only one reporter showed up. Thank you Rachel Conradt of WHO Radio.) The study, authored by myself and my colleague, Amy K. Frantz, examines the trends in state spending from Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, the year before Governor Tom Vilsack assumed office, to the current Fiscal Year of 2003. The study examined total state spending, minus all federal funding.
Iowa has faced a budget crisis since January 2001. The state has not taken in enough revenue to meet funding obligations. The Governor and State Legislature have responded with a combination of budget cuts and raiding of various “off-budget” funds. The press has focused largely on the recession as the cause, and, to a lesser extent, some state tax cuts of the late 1990s. But a primary culprit is spending.
To begin with, in the first two fiscal years of the Vilsack Administration, Iowa went on a spending binge. Total state spending was up $434 million, an increase of 8.6%. The average for each year was 4.23%. That is more than twice the rate of inflation (1.89%), and nine times the rate of population growth (0.46%) during that same time period. With this large increase in spending, Iowa’s funding obligations increased to the point that a minor recession has plunged Iowa’s budget into the red. Had Governor Vilsack and the State Legislature limited spending increases to inflation and population growth in FY 2000 and 2001, the state would have saved more than $359 million.
Perhaps the most interesting finding was the difference in spending in the General Fund vs. the Non-General Fund. In the Iowa budget, the General Fund is one budget fund that has many limits and controls imposed on it by Iowa law—for example, General Fund spending is limited to 99% of state revenues each fiscal year. Some of leftover revenue goes into the state’s Rainy Day Fund, which is supposed to be used for economic emergencies.
The best way to understand the Non-General Fund is to substitute the phrase “Non-General” with “Slush.” The Non-General Fund is composed of many different funds, including the Road Use Tax Fund and the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund. Iowa law puts few restrictions on the Non-General Fund. Much of the leftover revenue goes into the various funds that make up the Non-General Fund. This enables the governor and state legislators to circumvent the 99% spending limit on the General Fund.
That is exactly what has happened. From FY 1999 to FY 2003, due to spending cuts and growth limits, spending on the General Fund has increased just under 1%; spending in the Non-General Fund has increased by 46%! Unfortunately, most of the attention on Iowa’s budget crisis has been limited to the General Fund.
Because the spending side of the crisis has not been thoroughly examined, much misinformation about the Iowa budget has gone unchallenged. For example, earlier this year the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that Iowa had made some of the deepest budget cuts of any state from FY 2001 to FY 2002, a total spending cut of 5.7%. But that study only examined the General Fund. When the Non-General Fund is included, the cuts amount to just over 2.7%.
Focusing solely on the General Fund can lead to other misleading statistics. For example, if one looks at the peak of General Fund spending in FY 2001, and then compares it to spending of FY 2003, it looks as though the state has cut spending over $315 million. But when the Non-General Fund is factored in, the cuts amount to only $158 billion. Or look at spending on Administration and Regulation. Looking at just the General Fund reveals a cut from FY 2001-2003 of almost $14 million. But when spending from the Non-General Fund is included, Administration and Regulation actually saw an increase of almost $16 million. And this is during a time when the state was in a budget crisis! Nice to know what Vilsack’s real budget priorities are, huh?
There are lots of interesting findings in the study, including how much has been transferred from the “off-budget” funds to shore up the General Fund, and what the budget would look like today if spending limits based on inflation and population growth had been instituted in 1997. We also deal with the argument that tax cuts are to blame for the budget crisis. Good bed time reading.
. . .
SORRY FOR LATE START TODAY
I apologize for not posting earlier today. Work interceded, as you'll see in the Daily Diatribe. Speaking of which, it is coming right up.
. . .
Wednesday, October 09, 2002
SAVERYGATE AND LEFTY BLOGS
As Saverygate appears to fade, it is worth looking back at some of the left-wing coverage of the scandal. It appears that those on the left have yet to break the habits developed during the Clinton years. It’s ironic, in that two of the sites I have in mind—Media Whores Online and Counterspin Central—are supposedly dedicated to fighting spin, or at least the right-wing version of it. A third, TAPPED, likely prides itself on its ability to dispatch it. Yet their response to Saverygate demonstrated they are so enmeshed in spin that they don’t have a firm grasp on reality.
TAPPED was at it again yesterday. At the end of this post, TAPPED writes:
Looks like Harkin can go back to beating Ganske, who in a poll taken during the controversy was down nine points.
What they don’t mention is that the article about the poll that they link to states that in the new poll “Harkin goes down one point while Ganske goes up two points, compared to the last KCCI poll in September.” In other words, TAPPED tries to show that Ganske is still well behind, but neglects that there is the possibility, keeping in mind the margin of error, that there has been some movement in Ganske’s direction.
Based on their coverage of Saverygate it seems that leftists' entanglement in spin manifests itself in three ways:
1. Being free and loose with the facts. For example, MWO stated:
Aroused by Ganske's political blood lust, the meeting then degenerated into violent chants and hollers.
and
Interested especially in hearing Mehlman's remarks, the taper OPENLY recorded the meeting instead of taking notes. Nobody objected.
TAPPED stated:
[t]he individual who taped the meeting was a Ganske contributor who had been invited to the meeting and had asked if he could record Melhman's presentation in lieu of taking notes.
None of those turned out to be true. Either MWO and TAPPED were making them up, or they were not checking the facts very carefully. I suspect that when you’re so accustomed to thinking spin is reality, you see the facts you want to. (To his credit, “Hesiod Theogony” at Counterspin Central was more circumspect with the facts.)
2. Focusing on one major aspect to the exclusion of all others. In this case, it was all about the “illegality”—or lack thereof in these lefty blogs—of the taping. Surely, that was a huge part of it that has now been put to rest. This led TAPPED to state:
So, as MediaWhoresOnline points out, there was no impropriety whatsoever -- unless you count Ganske's.
Notice that “impropriety” refers only to legality, as though there is no such thing as ethical impropriety. As I noted this morning, this adheres to the new liberal principle “If it’s not illegal, it’s not wrong.” So a gentleman (I use the term loosely) by the name of Brian Conley colludes with a Harkin campaign staffer named Rafael Ruthchild to secretly record what is supposed to be a private meeting of the opposition. That those on the left see nothing “improper” about that shows how wrapped up they are in Clintonian spin.
3. Claiming the victim is the real culprit. If you read the post above, you’ll notice that TAPPED latched onto the Gankse comment that “You've never seen a campaign where anyone will attack him like we're going to attack him.” The lefty bloggers used this to suggest that the only one who looked bad in this scandal was Greg Ganske. Hesiod stated:
The real story is what was recorded on the tape: Greg Ganske's promise to run a nasty campaign against Tom Harkin.
Well...he's following through on his promise, isn't he?
Only when you are completely caught up in spin can you look at a candidate whose campaign secretly taped a private meeting, lied about it, and had two staff members resign, and then claim that it his opponent who comes off worse.
Kind of depressing, isn’t it?
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: HOW DOUG GROSS CAN WIN
About ten days ago the Des Moines Register released a public opinion poll showing GOP challenger Doug Gross 18 points behind Governor Vilsack, 51-33%. Furthermore, a KCCI-TV poll just released shows some slippage for Gross from the last such poll, although the numbers are within the margin of error. While it's not certain that Gross has slipped, let’s suppose that it is. What does it mean, and what can Gross do?
I suspect it means that Vilsack’s hog-lot ads have hit their mark. The Register poll suggests that on questions like "Stands up to Special Interests," and "Cares About the Needs of People Like You," Vilsack has gained a substantial lead. It's unfortunate because the ads are little more than smear tactics; and it is infuriating to see Vilsack—whose party insists that it wants to talk about the issues that really matter to the American people—succeed with them. But that’s the way it goes sometimes.
All is not lost, however. Even if the Register poll is accurate, the Gross Campaign should remember that Vilsack was down nearly twenty points at this time in the 1998 race. He didn’t close the gap until the last two weeks. With just under a month to go in this race, there is still plenty of time to turn it around.
And Gross is not off to a bad start on “turning things around.” He is running a new ad taking Vilsack to task for the hog-lot ads, pointing out that the hog-lot situation has gotten worse under Vilsack. He also suggests a plan for dealing with the problem. This will neutralize some of Vilsack’s attack, which is fine. Yet Gross can, at best, only parry to a draw on the hog-lot issue. He won’t get an advantage on it.
To further “turn things around,” Gross should run some “soft-sell” ads in the last three weeks. He should promote his qualities as a leader, father, public servant, etc. Also, where is Gross’s friend, former-Governor Terry Branstad? Iowans still remember him fondly. Why not have him cut a commercial in which he states how much he admires Doug Gross, how painful it is to watch Vilsack’s mean spirited attacks, etc., etc.? Gross used Branstad in a radio commercial during the primary, when Steve Sukup attacked Gross on hog lots. Were those ads effective? Well, Gross won the primary.
Next, Gross needs to move the debate back to the issue of the budget. This is where Vilsack is clearly the weakest. The same poll showing Vilsack with an 18 point lead, also showed that Gross had 14 point edge on the question "Holding the Line on Spending," and 13 point advantage on "Balancing the Budget." These questions also show that more respondents think these areas are weaknesses rather than strengths for Vilsack. Gross's ads attacking Vilsack’s mismanagement of state finances have made an impression. Clearly, the budget is a winner for Gross.
There are two reasons why it has not become a major strength. First, Iowa voters are asking what will Gross do different? In other words, what is his agenda? Thus far, Gross has only given a few vague ideas about what he would do about the budget. Second, the budget crisis has dropped off the Iowa media's radar screen in recent weeks. If the media doesn't focus on it, then it isn't focusing on one of Gross's strengths. To fix this, Gross needs to give some specifics, and soon. It doesn’t have to give us the whole book; two or three chapters will suffice for now.
Here are some suggestions. First, visit Mark Sandford’s website, specifically his budget proposals. His ideas on zero-based budgeting and competitive government are ideas that the Gross Campaign should adopt. Zero-based budgeting can be turned into a soundbite like "Doug Gross will require bureaucracies to justify every dollar they spend." Competitive government can be sold as "Doug Gross will ensure that state government does nothing that the private sector can do better." Finally, Gross should also consider the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights for Iowa. It includes limits on state spending based on inflation and population growth. Gross could advance these as "a way to safeguard against state government spending its way into a future budget crisis." Doing this will give Iowans a solid idea of what Gross would do as governor. It would also highlight media attention on the budget issue.
This race is still very winnable for Doug Gross, if for no other reason his campaign does not need a major overhaul. All it needs to do is build on what it has already done.
. . .
HARKIN GETS AWAY WITH IT
Here is a roundup of Savrygate stories that happened while I was away. (Thanks to Croooow Blog for sending me a summary.)
This article in the Des Moines Register nicely summarizes the decision by both local and federal prosecutors against taking legal action. Although I’m not entirely persuaded by the prosecutors’ reasoning, it does seem like they reached a conclusion that does not fly in the face of the law. Either way, a lot of the wind has been taken out of the scandal’s sails.
This is what might keep the scandal going:
Conley and Ruthchild, who also has resigned, did not speak to investigators at the advice of their attorneys. They also could not be reached for comment Monday night. A woman at Conley's house asked a reporter to leave her property.
So they still aren’t talking, and now that no charges will be filed, they have even less incentive to do so. Will the Iowa media keep pushing for these two to give an interview? If it does, the scandal will still have some legs. But it is a big "if."
Also of note in the article is the comment of John Frew, the new campaign manager for Harkin:
"Today's announcement confirms the results of the campaign's internal investigation, and vindicates Senator Harkin's assertion that there was no illegality involved," said Harkin campaign manager John Frew.
Frew adheres to the new liberal principle of "If it wasn’t illegal, it wasn’t wrong." The Harkin Campaign may be vindicated on the issue of criminality, but it is not vindicated on the matter of ethics. The Harkin Campaign is guilty of dirty politics, pure and simple.
Dave Yepsen also has a good column about the issue. He notes that the lack of any criminal charges is a win for Harkin. It also sounds like Ganske tanked the debate on Sunday night.
He also has this funny bit:
FREUDIAN SLIP: During the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Saturday night, Harkin twice referred to Vermont's Gov. Howard Dean as "John" Dean. John Dean is the Watergate figure who was Richard Nixon's legal counsel in the White House. With all this controversy over tapes, bugs and moles, Harkin's head must be back in the Watergate era. He made a partial recovery later in the speech when he got the governor's name right.
Hmm….Wonder what was on Senator Harkin’s mind?
Meanwhile, the Washington Post asks the key question:
Whether Ganske can pump life back into the controversy is the challenge he and his campaign now face. His goal is to turn the whole episode into a broader critique of Harkin's character. "This isn't an isolated incident," Ganske said in an interview Saturday at his campaign headquarters. "This is a pattern of his campaigns through the years. . . . It's a pattern of behavior. It's a pattern of deception."
Given the, ahem, quality of Ganske’s campaign thus far, I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it. Saverygate did give Ganske some new life. But it is a very open question as to whether he can ride it to victory on November 5.
. . .
FLIGHT DELAY
Sorry about not posting yesterday. My flight out of Las Vegas was delayed until Tuesday morning, and I didn’t get to work until the afternoon. This left no time for blogging.
I’m still pretty broke up about getting stuck in Vegas. But at least I got to watch this on TV. Yeah Baby!!!!
. . .
|
. . .
|
