Saturday, October 26, 2002
OH POOP
Oooohhhh.....
. . .
GIANTS LEAD 5-3
Only two innings left in Game 6. Oh baby.
. . .
Friday, October 25, 2002
SENATOR WELLSTONE, A GOOD MAN
Had Senator Paul Wellstone been defeated this November, I would have had mixed feelings. I am certainly opposed to most if not all that he stood for, but he was such a decent man. In one important way, I would have been sorry to see him go.
Now, there is nothing but sorrow.
I met Senator Wellstone while I was still in graduate school at the University of Iowa. It was probably in the fall of 1997. One of the professors there knew him personally, I believe, and got him to hold an open meeting with students. He came off as kind and gracious, patiently fielding many questions.
After he talked about raising the minimum wage, I asked him about a Wall Street Journal article that had reported Labor Department data showing that the recent increase had hit small businesses adversely. He seemed a bit thrown by the question, as though he wasn’t expecting it. Hey, these were a bunch of college students, not usually the most well versed in policy. But he handled the answer very well. First, he was honest: he hadn’t seen the article. Second, he suggested that some exception for smaller businesses might be necessary.
After the question and answer period, I went up to him, introduced myself, and jokingly said that I was the “token-conservative” columnist for the student paper, the Daily Iowan. He smiled and talked a bit about one of his conservative friends in the Senate—I think it was Dick Lugar—and about some of his ideas that he found intriguing. I thanked him for coming and giving a talk; he smiled and said “sure.”
I came away thinking what a gentleman he was. He seemed very friendly, low-key, the type you could talk to about your problems while having a beer.
The United States has lost a very good man today. God bless you, Senator. Our hearts and prayers go out to you and your family.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: THE GROSS AGENDA
Doug Gross does have an agenda, and much of it is posted at his website. The three portions on the website are rural development, economic growth, and public safety. The public safety portion primarily addresses the methamphetamine problem in Iowa. That will be examined in a later post, probably this weekend. This post examines the other two.
Gross hopes to “reinvigorate” rural Iowa with his development plan. Portions are innovative and would likely need little government involvement. For example, to make farming more efficient, Gross proposes implementing a network of business mentors to provide management help for farmers. It also encourages the location of biotech company headquarters here in Iowa. Exactly how it will do that is unclear; hopefully not with a lot of government spending.
Yet it still relies on government to fund a lot if rural initiatives. It wants the state to invest in protein extraction facilities. It also proposes the "Creation of a 'Community Reinvestment Fund' that is supported and encouraged with appropriate tax credits/incentives thereby encouraging local citizens to invest within their own business community." Sounds like another one of those "off-budget" funds that will be used to skirt the 99% spending limit in the Iowa budget. Finally, Gross also wants to establish an “Iowa Census of Agriculture.” While data collection is arguably a legitimate government function, this will cost more money, and it isn’t clear that it will do anything different than the USDA census.
The fundamental problem with all of this is that agriculture has been a declining sector of the economy for ages. Thus, rural development plans do little more than postpone the inevitable. The political reality, and what necessitates Gross’s proposal, is the power of the farm lobby. Gross received the Farm Bureau endorsement, so one can't criticize him based on the politics of the proposal. Nevertheless, the spending in Gross’s proposal is tantamount to throwing money down a sinkhole.
The economic growth proposal is not without its faults either. For example, page four calls for bringing broadband to rural areas and expanding the “trail system.” Those will surely require government money. Also unappealing is the creation of a Department of Economic Development. How that is different from the current one is unclear.
Some of the tax incentives are a bit suspect too. The expansion of the tax credit for investment requires new businesses to pay 110% of the average county wage; it’s currently at 90%. That will make the tax credit a little less attractive for businesses considering investing in Iowa. And there is of course the sop to ethanol.
But there are a lot of good ideas like the phase-in of the capital gains tax exclusion. He also suggests streamlining a number of state regulations, such as establishing a limit for the number of days a regulatory agency has to respond to permit applications. Gross also wants to “restructure the personal and corporate income tax and property tax systems,” which I take to mean he wants to reduce taxes.
So, not surprisingly, there is plenty for a free marketeer to dislike in the Gross agenda. But there is also a good deal to like. And it is far better than Vilsack’s Iowa Works Program, which does little more than create new layers of bureaucracy. Gross is still lacking in specifics as to what he’d do about the state budget. Even so, Gross has laid out parts of his agenda and given Iowans plenty to consider when they go to the polls in about ten days.
. . .
HOLY COW, PART 3!
The Iowa City Press-Citizen has endorsed another Republican! This time it is Jack Young, the candidate for state senate in District 15 over incumbent Democrat Bob Dvorksy. Get this paragraph:
On the surface, the candidates' answers seem similar, yet Dvorsky doesn't mention anything about tax relief. We agree with Young that without that extra incentive, it will be that much harder for Iowa to lure companies to locate here. In addition, while we agree that regions of the state may need to work more closely together to achieve economic development goals, we believe the foundation of those goals should be laid at the state level.
Tax relief?!? I need to call the editor of the Press-Citizen op-ed page, Sara Langenberg to see if she is feeling okay.
UPDATE: I've called Sara. She's feeling fine.
. . .
NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE IRAQI AMNESTY
Finally, a Des Moines Register editorial on Iraq that I agree with. They were none too big on the recent amnesty.
. . .
PAUL WELLSTONE, RIP
You've probably already heard, but Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife and daughter, and staff members were killed in a plane crash. May God Bless Them. My prayers go out to his two surviving sons.
. . .
Thursday, October 24, 2002
MORE IOWA ELECTION SHENANIGANS
The Iowa GOP is also accusing the Democrats of engaging in "push polling." Nothing illegal about push polling; it's just sleazy.
. . .
IT'S REALLY, REALLY, REALLY OVER
I'm not going to comment on the Harkin-Ganske race this time. Just go read this article to see what the headline is about.
. . .
WHAT HAS McAULIFFE IN A TIZZY
Here is a story in the New York Times that examines McAuliffe's claims that "many are being harassed, photographed, and scared away as they attempt to cast their ballots." Turns out the harassment is simply GOP operatives asking folks for ID, and the photgraphs are only of a person wearing campaign paraphenelia to a polling place and someone in Arkansas trying to vote using a Michigan ID. In other words, McAuliffe is distorting again.
There is also the typical hyperbole from Donna Brazile:
Donna Brazile, chairman of the Democratic Party's Voting Rights Institute, said that Monday's incident was like a scene from the 1960's and that such activities humiliated potential voters and were meant to suppress turnout.
A cynic (okay, me) might point out that it seems that what McAuliffe and Brazile are really upset about is that the GOP is actually thwarting Democrats' attempts to engage in voter fraud.
. . .
HOW ABSENTEE BALLOT ARE COLLECTED IN IOWA
In light of the report this morning of alleged ballot fraud in Iowa, Mary McGrory's column about why abentee ballots have become so prominent in Iowa in this year's election is eye-opening. The column has some silly lines such as
Canvassers in both Missouri and Iowa are bringing no surprises back to headquarters. The issues are what they were always going to be until the president began beating the drums of war: the economy, Social Security, prescription drugs. Voters are concerned about terrorism, but Saddam Hussein is not on their screens.
Uh, yeah, well they are canvassing primarily Democrats, Mary. Get a grip.
Anyway, read the column for what it says about the absentee ballot drive.
. . .
GOP OUTREACH TO AFRICAN-AMERICANS
This article in the Washington Post examines the efforts Republicans are making to bring African-Americans into the fold. Long overdue in my opinion.
. . .
BUSH IS POLITICAL! WHO KNEW?
After eight years of Bill Clinton, articles like this one elicit nothing but a dimissive chuckle from me.
. . .
PHONY AMNESTY IN IRAQ?
Junk Yard Blog is commenting on a UPI story wich suggests that Hussein's recent release of political prisoners may have been a hoax. (Thanks to Croooow Blog.)
. . .
IOWA'S CONGRESSIONAL RACES
Thanks to John Ferguson for emailing me this article in Roll Call about the Congressional races in Iowa's 1st, 2nd, and 4th. The article is a good, in-depth read, but makes a bit too much of each race being a horserace. Of the three races, only incumbent Jim Leach is in any real trouble.
. . .
OOPS!
The headline of this article in the Des Moines Register reads "Dead Heat in N.H. Governor's Race." Problem is,as the article notes, Republican candidate Craig Benson leads Democrat Mark Fernald 52-33%. What the headline meant to say was "Senate Race" where John Sununu leads Jean Shaheen 48-46%.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: A BASEBALL ANNIVERSARY THAT HAS RECEIVED NO ATTENTION
Did you know that 2002 is the twenty year anniversary of Rickey Henderson setting the single-season stolen base record? Unless you are an absolute baseball nut, I’ll bet you didn’t. It seems to have received no attention in the press this season. About the only thing I can find about it on the net is this picture. That, and Major League Baseball did include Henderson’s setting of the career stolen-base record in its most memorable moments, although it didn't make the top ten at last night's World Series game.
For obvious reasons, baseball is going through home-run mania right now. Also, home runs are more spectacular than stolen bases. Thus, historical achievements in stolen bases are not likely to receive a lot of attention. But those are only reasons why the 20th anniversary of Henderson’s achievement hasn’t received as much attention as home run achievements. But they are not explanations for why it has received no attention.
In fact, I can’t think of any good reason why it hasn’t. Rickey Henderson is arrogant and uncooperative with the media? So is Barry Bonds, but that hasn’t stopped the press from slobbering all over his recent achievements. Henderson’s career has gone on too long? So did Pete Rose’s. I’ll bet if you do a Lexus/Nexus search of Rose and Henderson, you’ll find more articles about the former than the latter this last season.
Or perhaps stealing bases aren’t an achievement on par with hitting home runs? Okay, okay, that question is a straw man; here comes the predictable knock down: Let’s compare milestones, that of hitting 60 home runs in a season with stealing 100 bases. Only five players in the last one-hundred years have hit 60 or more home runs: Babe Ruth, Roger Maris, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds. Only four have stolen 100 or more bases: Maury Wills, Lou Brock, Rickey Henderson, and Vince Coleman. The home-run hitters have collectively hit 60 or more eight times—Ruth, 1927; Maris, 1961; McGwire, 1998, 99; Sosa, 1998, 99, 2001; Bonds, 2001. The base-stealers have collectively stolen 100 bases or more eight times—Wills, 1962; Brock, 1974; Henderson, 1980, 82, 83; Coleman, 1985, 86, 87. Stealing 100 bases is just as rare an achievement as hitting 60 home-runs.
A few more things to consider. For the single-season home run record, three home runs separate first, Bonds with 73, from second, McGwire with 70. For the single-season stolen base record, twenty stolen bases separate first, Henderson with 130, from second, Coleman with 110. It also appears that base stealing is in decline. Since Coleman stole 109 in 1987, the closest anyone has come to 100 is Kenny Lofton with 75 (only 75!) in 1996.
Rickey Henderson's achievement is very worthy of some recognition, especially since it is the 20th anniversary. Unfortunately, now that the season is almost over, it isn't going to get any.
. . .
IT’S REALLY, REALLY OVER
A new poll out by WHO TV shows Tom Harkin with a 17 point lead over Greg Ganske. I'm not sure how accurate these numbers are given that the survey method uses an automated phone message. For example, the WHO poll on the Governor's race shows Vilsack leading by 14%; two weeks ago the same poll showed only a four point difference. A ten point swing in only two weeks when nothing of major significance has changed in the Governor's race makes me suspicious.
But even if the Harkin-Ganske poll is off by half, it still means that Ganske is down by 8-9 points without any weapons left in his arsenal.
. . .
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
First the Iowa City Press-Citizen endorses not only Jim Leach but also Greg Ganske, and now the Des Moines Register has printed a second editorial worrying about the cost of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. (Here’s the first.) And look at the two last paragraphs:
For younger Americans, a prescription-drug benefit for seniors would mean a double whammy. Not only are workers hit by their own rising health-insurance premiums each year, they would also pay the taxes to provide the lion's share of the benefit for seniors.
Congress must carefully weigh the difficult question of equity between older and younger generations as it considers adding a prescription benefit to Medicare.
I’m still not persuaded that the Register is reconsidering a prescription drug benefit. My guess is that at some point down the road, the editorialists will call for raising the income limit on the payroll tax to cover the cost. But I could be wrong. One can hope.
. . .
VOTER FRAUD IN IOWA?
According to this article in the Des Moines Register, the Iowa GOP is launching an investigation into possible fraud involving absentee ballots. Here’s the key passage:
State Republican Party Chairman Chuck Larson Jr. on Wednesday questioned the tactics being used by Democrats to get the absentee votes. He said the GOP has brought in a private investigator from another state to check into whether fraud has occurred.
"There's been numerous reports from across the state of Iowa of people who have received absentee ballots that did not request them," Larson said, "and reports of multiple ballot request forms that had a very similar if not the same signature."
Larson said Democrats also are picking up ballots from Republican voters' houses, raising concern that some of these ballots won't make it to the county auditor's office. "We caution all Iowans about who they give their ballot to," he said.
The Democrats, naturally, are claiming that the Republicans are just playing politics. One Democrat makes an unintentionally canny remark:
Democrats in Iowa and Washington, D.C., Wednesday blasted Republicans for their attempt to cast doubt on the state's election process, which has been praised by many as one of the cleanest in the nation.
"I don't know if they feel they're behind with so many absentee votes that they need to create a controversy," said Polk County Auditor Michael Mauro. "When things aren't going good, it calls for desperate measures."
Yep, when the election isn’t going well for your party, you can resort to ballot fraud. Or getting judges to put people on the ballot after the legal deadline. Or getting judges to keep polls open late. Or setting up legal teams in advance of the election to challenge the post-election results.
The DNC mouthpiece also gets into the act:
Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Republicans simply are trying to prevent people from voting at the polls.
"As thousands of citizens attempt to take advantage of early voting opportunities around the country, many are being harassed, photographed, and scared away as they attempt to cast their ballots," McAuliffe said, adding that such disenfranchisement could corrupt election results.
I’d like to see evidence of the McAuliffe charge. The latter part of the sentence is also ironic in the wake of Democratic ballot fraud in South Dakota. Unsubstantiated allegations, that's a serious matter that could "corrupt" the election outcome. But actual tampering with the ballots, oh well, no big deal.
. . .
A BREAK IN THE SNIPER CASE?
I'm watching MSNBC which is reporting that two arrests have been made in the sniper case. Here's what's posted at the MSNBC site.
. . .
INFORMATION AS A WEAPON
Glenn Reynolds has a great column at Tech Central Station arguing that the U.S. should engage in disinformation campaigns to combat terrorism. This paragraph is quite good:
The problem, of course, is that in order to fool terrorists, the authorities' manipulations must be plausible. This suggests that the authorities are not following a strategy of asymmetric information warfare today: The reluctance to call even obvious acts of terror terrorism, which has been the hallmark of recent law enforcement approaches, may have the opposite effect - sufficiently damaging the authorities' credibility that even non-terrorist acts are presumed to be the result of terrorists, thus giving the world (and even the terrorists themselves) an exaggerated idea of their power. That seems to have happened where the D.C. sniper is concerned, with many observers saying that the authorities' reluctance to discuss terrorism is evidence that terrorism may be involved. D'oh!
. . .
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
WE SHOULD ATTACK NORTH KOREA TOO, JUST TO BE FAIR
After reading that headline you probably guessed that the Des Moines Register has run an editorial questioning why we are not sending troops to take out "Dear Leader":
By the logic of President Bush's case for war with Iraq, the United States should begin preparing for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. The president has identified both countries as members of the same "axis of evil," in effect categorizing them as equally troubling forces that both need to be dealt with.
In fact, North Korea might be the greater threat of the two, because it appears to actually possess nuclear weapons whereas Iraq is only suspected of wanting to obtain them.
But rather than threatening military action against North Korea, Bush is talking about a diplomatic solution and has given no indication military force would be contemplated. One U.S. official said, "We seek a peaceful resolution to this situation."
I could respond to this, but I don't believe in reinventing the wheel, especially when the original inventor writes much better than I could ever dream of. On Monday, Andrew Sullivan set out the case clearly and succinctly:
The argument that immediately surfaced in the media following the North Korean revelation about their nukes has been: See? Why shouldn't we invade North Korea now? The Bushies are sooo inconsistent. They just want to invade Iraq for oil/empire/the hell of it/the mid-term elections, or fill in the latest Dowdian allegation. But the difference between North Korea and Iraq is so simple it's astonishing some people don't see it. So let's put this as clearly as we can: North Korea has a nuke; Iraq, so far, doesn't. Got that? When a rogue state succeeds in getting weapons of mass destruction, our options are severely limited. The question with Iraq is simple: in trying to stop Saddam getting a nuke, do we follow the same policies as Clinton and Carter in 1994 with North Korea, or do we try something else? Amazingly, large swathes of apparently intelligent people seem to think we should try the Carter/Clinton approach to Iraq. My view is simple: if we do not disarm Saddam now, we never will. And if we don't, a full-scale nuclear, biological and chemical war is inevitable in the Middle East; and that war, with the help of terror groups like al Qaeda, will soon come to LA and New York and London and Washington. So the choice is a dangerous war now; or a much more destructive war later. I know democracies don't like to hear these as the two options; democracies rightly, understandably hate to go to war. But these choices, in my view, are the only ones we actually have. So what's it gonna be? Or do we still want to change the subject?
. . .
CAMPAIGN UPDATES
Bruce Bartlett thinks the Democrats are in heap big trouble for not acting an economic agenda. They also appear to be in heap big trouble in New York, where Democrat candidate for Governor, Carl McCall, may come in third. (Thanks to Croooow Blog.)
Meanwhile, Frank “I’m on the ballot” Lautenberg appears to be increasing his lead over Doug Forrester. Whatever faith I had (and it wasn’t much to begin with) in New Jersey voters is about to go straight down the crapper.
In Wisconsin, the Democrat candidate for governor, Attorney General Jim Doyle holds a 46-38% lead over GOP Governor Scott McCallum (he replaced Tommy Thompson.) My good friend who lives in Wisconsin, political science Professor Geoff Peterson, said that at a recent debate McCallum came off as a whining brat. Peterson claims that Doyle has it all but wrapped up.
In some better news, it appears that Bill McBride came off pretty amateurish in his last debate with Jeb Bush. Also see Jay Caruso's post.
. . .
HOLY COW AGAIN!
The Iowa City Press-Citizen has now endorsed Greg Ganske over Tom Harkin. They give numerous reasons, but guess which one rears it head again?
In addition, Harkin opposes the privatization of Social Security, saying that even for those who choose not to participate, benefits would be cut at least 25 percent.
Ganske says he would reform the Social Security system. His plan doesn't affect anyone over age 50, but allows those younger than that to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes. He would replenish the Social Security Trust Fund with general revenues to lengthen its life. Without reform, he adds, retiring baby boomers will see a 25 percent reduction in benefits or a doubling of the payroll tax.
In this case, reform is in order.
On Saturday the Press-Citizen makes its endorsement for Governor. It could hit the trifecta if it endorses Doug Gross. Too bad the gubernatorial race has nothing to do with Social Security reform.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: IOWA SENATE RACE IS REALLY OVER
Well, I'm just piling on, but here is my article about the Iowa Senate race in today's American Prowler. It speculates as to why Ganske has run such a dreadful campaign.
. . .
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
HOLY COW!
Look at this editorial in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. Not only does it endorse Jim Leach over Julie Thomas, but, well, get a look at this passage:
Leach has held the post for 26 years, and although he is a career politician, he has done a good job of voting independent of his Republican party affiliation. He also presents well-reasoned arguments to support his positions on several issues.
For instance, he makes a good case for investing a piece of Social Security in our economy. He says the benefits of current retirees and those approaching retirement should be protected, but he would give younger workers the option to invest in personal accounts, such as the governmentally supervised stock and bond index funds like the Federal Retirement System.
In comparison, Julie Thomas ardently opposes any plan that will allow people to take money out of the system for private investment. She says it would be "too risky," but hasn't explained how she would restore fiscal responsibility to the tax-supported program, which some analysts expect to run out of benefits within 20-40 years.
The Iowa City Press-Citizen all but endorses Social Security reform! I guess there is hope after all. Now if only the Des Moines Register would do so.
. . .
THE COMING TRAIN WRECK IN OREGON?
If you don't know much about the ballot initiative to provide universal health care in Oregon, this article at Tech Central Station will bring you up to speed. It's also very good for understanding how "third party payers" increase health-care costs.
. . .
DIE, SPAM, DIE!!!
The HawkGirl has a great rant against Spam. If you need a good chuckle, I highly recommend you read it.
. . .
UPDATE ON FLORIDA
Croooow Blog has this post warning about an upcoming judicial fight over the Florida governor's race, once the voting is finished. The new Mason-Dixon poll that Henry cites shows Jeb Bush leading McBride 49-44%, with 6% undecided. If the undecideds break as they usually do, Bush should pick up just enough to put him over the top. But will it be enough to make a lawsuit untenable? For more on potential lawsuits, see this column by John Fund, this post by Jay Caruso, and this one by Bill Quick.
. . .
NEW DIGS FOR DR. MANHATTAN
Blissful Knowledge has a new website. Done by Sekimori Designs, it is quite nice. Sigh, I'm jealous.
. . .
GUNS AND THE PAP WE TEACH YOUNG SKULLS FULL OF MUSH
Via Instapundit I have come across some interesting pieces in the blogosphere. The first is a piece by Eugene Volokh on the failure of gun control. This one by James Lileks also mentions gund control. But more importantly, take a look at the new pledge of allegiance.
. . .
IN SENATE RACES THAT STILL MATTER (MAYBE)
At National Review Online, Jim Geraghty reports that in the New Jersey Senate race, Doug Forrester is getting some traction by challenging Frank Lautenberg to a debate. The article is pessimistic about Forrester's chances, but at least one of the polls mentioned by the article shows Forrester within striking distance.
Speaking of striking distance, Croooow Blog notes that the race in Georgia between Democrat Max Cleland and Republican Saxby Chambliss has tightened. It's now 47-41%, in Cleland's favor. Cleland is down from 50%.
Meanwhile, things are looking worse for Missouri Democrats as they have managed to earn the ire of the AARP. And in Montana, Mike Taylor has re-entered the Senate race. He probably won't win, but at least he's said "up yours" to the gay-baiting Democrats.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: THE IOWA SENATE RACE IS OVER
How do we know this? Let us count the ways. First, Ganske is trying to change the issues only two weeks from election day. He is even trying to link Harkin’s past support of welfare benefits for illegal aliens to the recent tragedy in Denison. Talk about desperate.
Today there is an article that, if you read between lines, you can see that the Gankse campaign is yelling "Help! I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!" Take the first paragraph:
National conservatives and Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa are trying to jump-start interest in Republican Rep. Greg Ganske's bid for the U.S. Senate as the hard-fought race heads into its last frantic two weeks.
It says something when your campaign needs to be "jump started" at the last minute. And what it says isn’t good.
Also:
But an anticipated visit to Iowa by President Bush close to Election Day, considered important to boost Ganske and U.S. House candidates, particularly in eastern Iowa, might not come off, Republicans said. Bush might have to skip Iowa to hit states such as South Dakota, Colorado, Texas and Florida, where his visits could have a bigger impact.
John Maxwell, a Ganske consultant, said the president would be welcome in Iowa, but "they're going to wait until next week and look at things."
Democrats say the uncertainty over a presidential visit is another sign that Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin's campaign is strong.
Yes, Mr. Maxwell. Bush would be very welcome. But he isn’t coming! The GOP at the national level has written off the race. And I’m reluctant to admit that the Democrats are right about much of anything, but they are dead on this time.
Finally,
Ganske supporters hope a push to energize Iowa conservatives will convince the president to return. Paul Weyrich, a conservative leader and a founder of the religious right movement, said in an interview that "a lot of people are writing off this race and saying it can't be won," but he is working to spread the word among other Washington conservatives that there is still enough time for Ganske to catch up.
"It is not over," Weyrich said. "Two weeks from now it could be" unless an effort is made now.
Mr. Weyrich, it’s over.
A large part of the reason it is over is that the Ganske campaign has been dreadful. Another part is that the Harkin campaign, with the exception of Saverygate, has been top notch. It has focused the election on issues that are Democratic strengths: Medicare, Social Security, education. It has hammered relentlessly at Ganske’s record on those issues. It has been disciplined, never wavering from message.
Furthermore, Harkin has maneuvered brilliantly in this legislative session. He received most of the credit for the current farm bill. It brought a largesse back to Iowa farmers, resulting in the Farm Bureau’s endorsement of Harkin, a big deal in the Hawkeye State. He has also threaded the needle very well on the Iraq resolution. He voted for it, thereby mollifying independents and conservative Democrats. At the same time he complained that the original resolution was too broad, and emphasized the need for multilateral action and United Nations involvement, thereby satisfying the leftist part of his base enough to keep them from bolting.
And Harkin got lucky with Saverygate. Specifically, prosecutors declined to take any action and Gankse decided not to make an issue out of it once those decisions were made. But most successful campaigns have some luck. What matters is how well a campaign manages the things that it can control. On that score, the Harkin campaign receives an 'A-' grade. (Without Saverygate it would be an 'A'.)
Republicans still have a very good chance of regaining the U.S. Senate. They are making a good decision to not spend any more resources in Iowa.
. . .
YES, THEY’RE CHEATING, BUT WE NEED THEIR VOTES
Election reforms has passed the Congress. In the Senate, only Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton voted against it. Go here to read why.
. . .
YEPSEN ON EDUCATION IN IOWA
Yepsen has an outstanding column today about the early release of Iowa test scores and how education factors into the Governor’s race. He blows the lid off the sham that is the Vilsack campaign:
This fact is supposed to make voters jump up and down and think everything is hunky-dory in our schools, thanks to Tom Vilsack. Think again. Do we allow our children to bring home only half a report card - just the part with the "A" grades on it? I think not.
(For example, what about minority test scores? Well, um, er, uh, the dog ate that part of the report. And does the report still show superintendents getting 5 percent average pay raises while teachers get only 2 percent ones? Ah, uh, mmm, gee.)
. . .
ELECTIONS COST MONEY
No election coverage would be complete without the articles trying to shock the public about how much is being spent on the campaigns. This year, the two candidates for Iowa Governor have raised more than $10 million. And "spending total easily eclipses the record set four years ago in an Iowa gubernatorial contest, when Vilsack and Republican candidate Jim Ross Lightfoot racked up $6.2 million in spending over the 1997-98 election cycle." Gasp!
There is also the article about all the donations coming from "outside sources." I have one basic reaction to this: YAWN.
. . .
Monday, October 21, 2002
WISH I'D SAID THAT
Thomas Sowell has this very good column about the sniper and gun control. This short passage is outstanding:
Killings seldom start where someone else is known in advance to be carrying a gun. Have you ever heard of one of these supposedly "senseless" killers opening fire on a gathering of members of the National Rifle Association? They always seem to have better sense than to do that.
. . .
GOVERNOR’S RACE IS TIGHTENING—NO IT ISN’T
KCCI-TV has this piece about its recent poll on the Iowa Governor’s race. These are the first two paragraphs:
A new KCCI-TV poll released Thursday shows the race for governor is tightening.
Gov. Tom Vilsack is leading with 50 percent to Republican Doug Gross' 42 percent with those surveyed in this poll. Five percent of those polled are still undecided on who to vote for. The last KCCI-TV poll conducted at the beginning of October showed 7 percent of those polled being undecided. Comparing this poll to the last poll shows that the increase in support for Gross is coming from independent voters who were previously undecided.
Compare that to this report on the poll in the Des Moines Register:
The latest statewide poll shows little movement in the races for governor and U.S. Senate.
Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack leads Republican challenger Doug Gross, 50 percent to 42 percent, in a poll taken for KCCI-TV in Des Moines. U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin leads Republican challenger Greg Ganske, 50 percent to 41 percent.
The telephone poll of 600 likely voters was taken Sunday through Wednesday by Research 2000 of Rockville, Md. It had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
Results were similar to an early-September poll by KCCI.
A poll taken last week by WHO-TV in Des Moines showed a slightly closer governor's race.
Notice how the Register downplays the change: "shows little movement," "results were similar." Don’t want the public to think that Gross might be closing the gap, now do we?
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD (NOT) PAY FOR
This editorial in the Des Moines Register on the budget crisis is interesting for a number of reasons. In no particular order:
Iowa's severe budget shortfall is not temporary.
Really? Tell that to Governor Vilsack who suggests that the budget crisis is just about over.
More than balancing the books is at stake. Iowa's quality of life is eroding.The single most disheartening example is not having enough money to maintain the excellence in education that Iowans expect - not for public schools, nor for community colleges, not for the three state universities. State revenues for two years have not kept up with basic needs, and the official outlook for 2003 is for zero-percent growth.
That’s odd, given today’s editorial touting the rise—albeit very small—in student test scores. If lack of funding is going down, how is it that test scores have gone up?
The Register also pans the cowardice of the Legislature (although, you’ll notice Governor Vilsack isn’t mentioned in this editorial.)
Various constituencies have made it hard for the Legislature to order reorganization on the scale necessary. As Republican House Majority Leader Christopher Rants of Sioux City noted earlier this year, "I would say it's easier to climb Mount Everest than it is to eliminate a bunch of programs."
To underscore its cowardice, the Legislature appointed a panel - its formal title is the Program Elimination Commission - to recommend by the end of the year what to cut. It's supposed to find savings equal to 2 percent of the state's $4.5 billion general-fund budget. The Legislature can either approve or reject the recommendations, but not amend them. In this way, lawmakers hope to duck their responsibility to make thoughtful decisions.
Yes, it is very hard to cut spending. That is one of the basic problems of government spending. When budget cuts hurt the ability of politicians to get reelected, expect them to find ways to make the cuts without taking responsibility for them, like creating the Program Elimination Commission.
The Register also gives two examples as to how liberal thinking leads us into this mess. First,
It's not just education that's slipping. It's also human services, which after education take up the next biggest chunk of the state's general-fund budget. One concern is the rapidly rising cost of Medicaid - the government health-care program for the poor. The rolls are growing as more people lose jobs in a slow economy. Should they be denied? What about the indigent elderly in nursing homes? Or the mentally ill?
In other words, people are going to get sick and die if budget cuts take place. No wonder it is so hard for politicians to cut spending.
Second,
Beyond education, Iowa somehow must find the means to invest more in a cleaner environment, expanded outdoor recreation and greater cultural amenities. These are imperative if Iowa is to offer the quality of life that Americans have come to expect in places where they choose to live and start businesses.
While I would agree that the government has some responsibility to protect the environment, I would exclude outdoor recreation and cultural amenities as legitimate government functions. Yet the Register operates on the assumption that they are. But the more government has to do, the more it has to spend. We (and that includes the Register) need to change our expectations as to what government should pay for. Perhaps one thing the Commission should do is reexamine what Iowa government really needs to be doing.
Finally, also note that the Register connects these things to the decisions about where to live and start a business. I suspect that variables like cultural amenties factor less into those decisions than do cost of living, tax rates, and crime. Such factors are mentioned in the Small Business Survival Index; cultural amenities are not. If we are serious about improving life in Iowa, we need less government, not more.
. . .
YAY FOR GOVERNER VILSACK!
Test scores have gone up (slightly) in Iowa! Who gets all the credit? Well, according to this editorial in the Des Moines Register, Governor Vilsack, of course. Exactly how that is consistent with the previous day’s editorial lamenting the lack of education funding is unclear, as you can see in this passage:
Vilsack has put a lot of energy into improving education. He promoted sending school districts money to reduce class size, and many districts used the money to hire teachers who specialize in reading. Vilsack also has pushed for a new teacher-pay plan to attract and keep the best educators. Though strapped state finances have kept the plan from taking off as fast as hoped, Iowa's national ranking in teacher pay is a little better.
It's impossible to know for sure what caused the improvement in test scores, but it's reasonable to conclude it is at least partly due to Vilsack's and the Legislature's education initiatives over the last few years. Smaller class sizes in the lower grades, lots of attention to reading and retention of good teachers are good policy choices.
Oh well. Who cares about consistency when there is the opportunity to boost the chances that a Democrat will win reelection? Besides, it’s better than focusing on the rise in state unemployment, which would give the lie to Vilsack’s claim that he has worked for economic growth.
. . .
|
. . .
|
