Friday, November 01, 2002
HARDBOILED
Dean Bartkiw has little use for Chris Matthews's anit-war stance.
. . .
ANOTHER BLOG GOES DOWN
Amatuer Economist is no more. Ross wrote to say:
Thanks for taking the time to insert the HTML code to link to my page and allowing my link to take up some of the scarce real estate on your blogs, but I've put up my last post. The main page and archives of my blog will remain indefinitely, but I've decided that, among other things, the opportunity costs of maintaining my blog are just too high.
"Opportunity costs." Spoken like a true economist.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: LAST CHANCE FOR GROSS
Well, things don’t look so good for Doug Gross. The most recent poll by KCCI-TV has Governor Vilsack increasing his lead to 12 points, 53-41%. KCCI-TV probably has the most accurate of the three independent polls (the other two are WHO-TV and the Des Moines Register) that track the Iowa gubernatorial race.
So is it over? Well, the fat lady hasn’t started singing, but she is approaching the microphone. Before Gross supporters get too despondent, let me offer a ray of hope, as slim as it may be.
In 1998 Vilsack closed much of the gap against Jim Ross Lightfoot on the last weekend of the race. That could still happen for Doug Gross. The problem is that the polls suggest the momentum going toward Vilsack. But two things might combine to shift it back to Gross.
First is the Iowa economy. Numerous businesses in Iowa, including Maytag, Younkers, and Seimens, have either laid off workers or announced layoffs recently. Most damaging for Vilsack is the announced closure of the Blue Bird Bus factory in Mt. Pleasant, the town in which he used to be Mayor. Gross is going after Vilsack for not participating in a trip with Mt. Pleasant officials to Blue Bird headquarters in Georgia. The ads that Gross has been running about may just now be sinking in with voters. If they are, Gross might gain in the last four days.
Second, Iowa voters dislike smear tactics. Four years ago Vilsack won in part because voters were turned off by Lightfoot’s ad accusing Vilsack of voting for nude dancing while in the State Senate. Vilsack appears to have forgotten that lesson. For most of the race, Vilsack has run ads criticizing Gross for being the attorney for notorious hog producer Iowa Select Farms. The early ads emphasized corporate interests vs. the average Iowan. As of late, however, they have turned nasty, accusing Gross of being like a “junk yard dog.” Vilsack had better hope Iowans don’t view that as a smear.
That said, though, the chances appear pretty slim for Gross. Iowa voters have a habit of reelecting the incumbent, even in bad times. In 1986 they gave then GOP Governor Terry Branstad the benefit of the doubt in the midst of the farm crisis. They look posed to do the same with Vilsack this time.
It’s too bad. Gross would make a far better governor.
. . .
STUPIDITY INDEED
Jay Caruso has a post about political correctness at—where else?—a university campus.
. . .
MORE ON THAT MEMORIAL/POLITICAL RALLY
Geitner Simmons has some comments and lots of good links, here and here, about the Paul Wellstone memorial/political rally. So does Steve Green.
. . .
SOME NON-ELECTION NEWS
Believe it or not, there is some. Over at Give War A Chance, Emily Jones notes that Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein did a fundraiser for victims of 9/11. Emily's permalinks don't seem to be working, so just click here and look for the post titled "Adams addresses charity dinner in New York." It should be at or near the top.
. . .
SELLING OUR SOUL FOR PORK, EXCEPT….
….except when it’s time to endorse a Democrat over a Republican. First look at this editorial in the Quad City Times endorsing Senator Harkin over Greg Ganske:
Both have influence in the halls of Congress, but Harkin has more. And the native of tiny Cumming, Iowa, is exactly what he appears to be: a fighter, often for the little guy, who brings home a lot of federal money for Iowans.
Then see this one endorsing Republican—no, wait, Democrat—Ann Hutchinson over Republican House member Jim Nussle:
Nussle is a respected six-term congressman who has attained a point of considerable influence in the House, most recently as chairman of the House Budget Committee. That clout for the 1st District won’t be easy to replace.
Perhaps Iowa hasn’t sold it’s soul for the federal largesse after all. Maybe it’s just the Iowa opinion writers who’ve sold their soul to the Donks.
. . .
Thursday, October 31, 2002
HERE, HERE!
The Daily Nonpareil is right about Iowa's absentee ballots.
. . .
AN ODD BUT INTERESTING PREDICTION
Over at the New York Times, William Safire is predicting a Republican takeover of the Senate and a Democratic takeover of the House.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: IT ALL COMES DOWN TO COLORADO
Control of the U.S. Senate comes down to Colorado. Why? I’ll explain shortly, but let me first comment on South Dakota, Missouri, and Arkansas. (To see my picks in other races, click here.)
South Dakota: John Thune has had the momentum in the last three weeks. After some stumbling early, his campaign appears to have hit its stride. Thune now leads Tim Johnson in most polls, and a visit from President Bush today will keep the momentum on Thune’s side. GOP takes this seat from the Dems.
Missouri: After trailing in most of September, Jim Talent’s talent (ha-ha) as a candidate has come through. He is clearly more competent and, hence, more fit to be in the Senate than Jean Carnahan. Talent now leads in most polls. Furthermore, whatever sympathy factor remained for Carnahan has likely been neutralized by the death of Talent's father over last weekend. GOP pickup.
Arkansas: It’s bad enough when an incumbent is below 50% in the polls. It spells political doom when he is trailing the challenger. Republican Senator Tim Hutchinson was behind Democrat challenger Mark Pryor 48-43% in a recent Arkansas News Bureau poll. Guess folks don’t think too highly of you when you dump your wife in favor of a younger staffer. Arkansas is a Dem pickup.
Thus far, my analysis means that, excluding Colorado, the Senate make-up is 49 Democrat, 49 Republican, 1 sniveling little clown (sorry, couldn’t resist.) The Colorado race will, then, determines who controls the Senate. This may be the hardest race to call. The most recent poll I’ve seen has GOP incumbent Wayne Allard leading Democrat Tom Strickland 43-39%. Allard is way below the danger point for an incumbent. If the undecideds vote as they usually do, Allard is toast. Yet, GOP Governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, is going to win in a landslide. (The story linked dealing with the Allard/Strickland race shows Owens leading his opponent 65-21%. Wow!) His lopsided win, along with a recent visit from Bush, could tip this race slightly in the favor of Allard. But I'm just not willing to go against the general rule that an incumbent who is that far below the 50% mark this late in the game is going to lose. Thus, I predict a narrow win for Strickland.
Given the Dems pickup in Colorado, the Senate stays in the hands of the Democrats. That may be depressing for my conservative readers, but it shouldn't be. This is an off-year election in which a Republican is in the White House and the economy is dragging itself out of a recession. The Democrats should be riding a big wave to increasing their lead in the Senate and regaining control of the House. But most observers think recapture of the House is very unlikely. So the GOP retains control of the House and the Dems make no gains in the Senate. If my prediction holds, that's not a bad year for the GOP at all.
UPDATE: Scott over at Indepundit has a similar analysis.
. . .
THANK YOU FOR A RECORD DAY!
Yesterday was Cornfield’s best day yet, with over 3,000 hits. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, and Croooow Blog (not once, but twice) for giving me links. And thanks to all of you who stopped by. Very much appreciated.
. . .
HE’S COMING!
According to this article, President Bush will be making a Monday stop in Iowa for Greg Ganske, Doug Gross, Jim Leach, and Jim Nussle. Will it help? Some, but perhaps not enough:
"I think it can help on the margins. He can't help more than 1 or 2 percentage points," said University of Iowa political science professor Peverill Squire. "I don't think he's under any illusion he can turn these races around."
I have to agree with Professor Squire, if for no other reason than he is the chair of my dissertation committee.
. . .
REPUBLICAN FORTUNES LOOKING UP?
David Yepsen thinks so. He notes a number of opinion polls from the Iowa GOP. Some skepticism is in order, but it’s am interesting read nonetheless.
. . .
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
A SHAMEFUL FUNERAL
Steve Green is highly critical of the funeral/rally for Paul Wellstone. Courtesy Croooow Blog, who has links to other comments on thei matter as well.
. . .
SELLING OUR SOUL, AGAIN
The Ames Tribune also endorsed Tom Harkin. And guess what the reasoning was?
What is undeniable is that Harkin's seniority in the Senate gives Iowa, and particularly Story County, the uncommon power in Washington to really make a difference. As The Tribune supports development of the National Animal Disease Center and for funding research in the full spectrum of plant and animal sciences, Harkin is in the best position to help.
Just as The Tribune endorsed Tom Latham for his potential to secure funding for Ames and Iowa, the newspaper supports Harkin. He's simply too valuable an ally to lose. The Tribune endorses Tom Harkin for U.S. Senate.
Yep. In Iowa, Pork = Soul Sold
. . .
AN ENDORSEMENT FOR GROSS
The Ames Tribune has endorsed Doug Gross for Iowa Governor. Unfortunately, the Tribune doesn't mention any of his proposed tax cuts as a reason for its support.
. . .
A GANSKE ENDORSEMENT
The Omaha World-Herald has given it's endorsement to Greg Ganske. Too bad it won't help much
. . .
MORE ABSENTEE BALLOT PROBLEMS IN IOWA
Read this article and see if you don't think this is a just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Post a comment.
. . .
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY MOXIE
Today is Moxie's 2nd Anniversary. Congrats Moxie! Be nice and give her a visit. By the way Moxie, if you'd rather not be single, come out to Iowa. I'm available.
. . .
A BANKRUPT TERM
Michael Kelly doesn't much care for the term "chicken hawk."
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: SOME SENATE PREDICTIONS
Today I’m going to predict the outcome of a few Senate Races. I’ll finish tomorrow with a few other races, and a prediction about which party will control the Senate come January.
Iowa: Have I mentioned Iowa before? I think so. Let's move on.
North Carolina: Elizabeth Dole had this race pretty well in hand—until she started campaigning. Her usual campaign incompetence has now made this race competitive, but she should still pull it out. She does have a winning personality that appeals to voters. Furthermore, her opponent, Erskine Bowles, is former Clinton Chief-of-Staff. What are the chances that North Carolina voters will send a former Clinton staffer to replace Jesse Helms? The question answers itself.
Georgia: GOP challenger Saxby Chambliss has been closing the gap with incumbent Max Cleland in the last week. Yet, in this time of going to war against Iraq, the disabled war-veteran Cleland cuts a pretty sympathetic figure. It will be close, as Georgia has been trending GOP for some time and a Bush visit will help Chambliss. Cleland's status as a disabled vet will enable him to win a squeaker.
New Hampshire: The latest poll I’ve seen has GOP Representative John Sununu, Jr. trailing Democrat Governor Jean Shehan 48-42%. But that was a Zogby poll, and Zogby is not as accurate on the state level as he is nationally. A previous poll had the race 48-46% in Sununu's favor. A lot of speculation has been that Shehan will win. A lot of speculation is wrong. Sununu defeated incumbent Senator Bob Smith. This should have divided the Republican base. Shehan is a sitting governor. This should increase her prospects in a statewide election. In short, she should be ten points ahead. Furthermore, Bush's Friday visit should help the GOP. This race goes to Sununu.
Minnesota: The untimely, tragic death of Senator Paul Wellstone increases the likelihood that this seat stays in Democrat hands. Larry Sabato has done the best analysis of this. I agree, and I think you will too once you read it. And now that Wellstone’s sons have endorsed Mondale, it is all the more likely that Mondale will beat Norm Coleman. Sorry, I just don't buy the analysis that Mondale is vulnerable. Dems hang on in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.
New Jersey: As sleazy as it was to insert Frank Lautenberg in the ballot, it appears to have worked. Lautenberg has led in almost every poll, in a few by double digits. New Jersey voters might be repulsed by the Democrats' ruse, there might be a small Torricelli hangover, and Doug Forrester might still pull an upset. Might, might, might: The odds are against a GOP pickup. Old Senator, same party.
In sum, the party that holds each of these seats will hang on to them. Tomorrow: the seats that will switch.
. . .
IS LINDA LINGLE A LESBIAN?
Following the fine tradition of Montana and South Carolina, Democrats in Hawaii are apparently claiming that the GOP candidate for governor, Linda Lingle, had a lesbian lover. According to this article in the Hawaii Reporter,
Yesterday, Hawaii Reporter talked to a handful of people outside the Republican Party who had direct knowledge of a new secret whispering campaign against Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Linda Lingle. Apparently a woman claiming to be the former lover of Lingle is calling targeted Republicans as a part of a smear campaign against Lingle. Lingle says she is not gay and in fact has been married twice.
Lingle supporters says smear mongers are hoping to distract voters from the real issues like the fact that the state has hit rock bottom in almost every category -- education, business, social problems, importation of drugs, domestic violence, theft -- because of poor political leadership.
Democrats tried this same smear in 1998 against Lingle when she ran for governor against incumbent Benjamin Cayetano and against some of their own candidates in years prior who weren't the "chosen" party candidates, including a Democrat candidate for mayor and a Democrat candidate for governor.
Power or gay rights? Democrats seem more and more willing to choose the former.
In a sidenote (and a contrast), look at what happened in Iowa when a GOP candidate for the Iowa Statehouse made an ethnic comment about her Democrat challenger.
. . .
INAPPROPRIATE LAUGHTER?
Thanks to Instapundit for providing a link to this picture of Clinton and Mondale.
. . .
IT'S OFFICIAL: IOWA HAS SOLD IT'S SOUL FOR FEDERAL PORK
I almost missed this column by David Yepsen. He complains about Iowa's system of redistricting. Yepsen admits that it is reasonably fair, but he still doesn't like it. What's his beef? Well, from the headline of this post you have probably guessed:
There's one problem with our good-government system: We're chumps.
Our system makes Iowa's members of Congress much more vulnerable to defeat than those from other states. As a result, Iowans are less able to pile up seniority in Congress. For example, 10 years ago the system produced congressional district lines that contributed to the defeat of veteran Congressman Neal Smith in 1994. With his defeat went his seniority and ability to bring home the bacon for Iowa State University and for environmental and recreational projects in the state. This year, there are four incumbent members of Congress who are in tough re-election races and one, Jim Leach, is in such bad shape he's considered the underdog.
Until Congress gets rid of the seniority system, Iowa politicians have to ask if it is wise to use a system that chews up our incumbents when other states don't. We can feel warm and fuzzy about our good-government redistricting system - and then watch federal money and projects go to states with more seniority in Congress.
If Yepsen thinks a fair redistricting system that creates more competitive races is bad because it hurts the potential for bringing home federal money, then Iowa has definitely sold its soul for pork. In my opinion, we've sold it for cheap.
. . .
RURAL VS. URBAN
Take a look at this letter to the editor by John Dunlap in the Des Moines Register. I think Mr. Dunlap hits the nail on the head as to why Iowa has a lot of trouble attracting economic development.
. . .
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ANN HUTCHINSON
If voters in Iowa’s 1st District need more reasons to vote against Ann Hutchinson for Congress (aside from the fact that she was a Republican, applied for a job in the Bush Administration, and then became a Democrat to run for Congress) read these two paragraphs in the profile of her in the Des Moines Register.
Budgeting in Congress, she said, shouldn't be all that much different from budgeting for a city. "It's not that difficult," she said. You develop consensus and set priorities. "When you do that, you can do remarkable things."
One of her priorities, said Hutchinson, would be to build partnerships between the federal and local governments. Instead of big tax cuts, she said, it would have been better to invest in local projects such as roads, bridges and schools. She ticked off a list of highway and similar projects around Dubuque, Clinton, Waterloo and Davenport that could use help, and she argued that such investments would provide more economic stimulus than tax cuts.
. . .
SOCIAL SECURITY STUPIDITY
Well, Chip Taylor and Dean Bartkiw really came through with some good comments on the problems with the Des Moines Register’s editorial on Socials Security. To read them, click here, then click on "comments."
Okay, my turn. Let’s take it point by point.
Enthusiasm for this approach [personal accounts] waned when the stock-market bubble burst.
Whose enthusiasm? The idea still has support in the high 50s in opinion polls. The Register editorialists seem to think that as goes their enthusiasm so goes the American public’s.
Even before that, there were nagging questions about the idea: Would the nest eggs of small savers be eaten up by brokerage fees?
No, they wouldn’t. The President’s Commission report forbids "load" fees, only permitting firms to charge an annual percentage of the investment. And those "percentages" tend to decline as the assets in a retirement fund grow—which they would if more people had money to invest.
Could Wall Street be trusted not to take advantage of millions of small, unsophisticated investors?
Do the words T. Rowe Price, Fildelty, and Charles Swaab mean anything to the folks at the Register? If Wall Street is so untrustworthy, why are so many 401(k)s invested in these firms? Also, the question seems rather patronizing. It suggests that the Register doesn’t have enough faith in the average person to make good choices when choosing an investment firm. Thus, we need liberal elites to protect us from ourselves. Standard, modern liberalism.
Would the taxpayers be expected to make up losses when individuals made bad investment choices?
Um, sorry, but individuals will be choosing the firms and/or funds in which to invest their Social Security money. They won’t use the money to put together their own portfolios as the question suggests.
Social Security has always been an insurance system, not an investment vehicle.
So? Since when does something always being a certain way mean that something can never change? By that logic the abolitionists of the early 18th Century were misguided because, well, there had always been slavery in the world. Typical breakdown in logic by the Register.
The taxes paid by those currently working go directly to pay benefits to those currently retired. If workers divert some of their taxes into personal accounts, there won't be enough money going into the system to pay current benefits.
That wouldn’t be true until later this decade, at the earliest.
Any transition to a privatized or personal-account system would require a huge infusion of money from outside the Social Security system for several decades in order to maintain benefits until the growth in the personal accounts became sufficient to allow regular Social Security benefits to be reduced.
And keeping the present system as is would require an even larger infusion of money. That’s one of the main points of reform! Reducing future costs.
When it looked as if the government might run a surplus of more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years, it seemed possible that the transition costs could be paid out of the surplus. But the government has returned to deficit spending.
The surplus has disappeared, and with it the way to cover the transition costs.
The surplus has disappeared—for now. But it will likely return before too long. Once it does, I guess the Register won’t have any problem with personal accounts. I’ll start holding my breath.
So the argument about personal accounts vs. leaving the system alone is pretty much pointless. Unless advocates of personal accounts can find several trillion lying around to cover the transition costs, the system will have to stay pretty much as is.
Well, the government could always borrow the money. It has to pay for all those wonderful farm subsidies, welfare payments, corporate subsidies, crucifixes in bottles or urine, etc. etc. Why not borrow so younger workers can create some personal wealth?
The debate shouldn't be about whether to privatize. It should be about how to shore up Social Security within the existing framework.
What a weasely dodge! The only way to fix it without personal accounts is either benefit cuts or tax increases. Why doesn’t the Register come out and say that? Because its easier to hide behind nice sounding rhetoric like "Shore up….within the existing framework."
. . .
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
KRUGMAN TAKEDOWNS
Ah....Paul Krugman takedowns by Juan Gato and Jay Caruso. All's right with the world. Except for the fact that the little weasel disparaged Senator Chuck Grassley. Hey Kruggy, you couldn't even hope to ever have 1/1000th of the integrity the good Senator from Iowa has.
. . .
ANOTHER HARKIN ENDORSEMENT
In another indication of how badly the Ganske campaign is going, the Cedar Rapids Gazette has for the first time endorsed Tom Harkin. Guess what underlies the Gazette's endorsement:
He can "bring home the bacon," particularly if the Democrats hold on to Senate control. He has made a compelling argument that Iowa has invested a lot in him. The farm bill is an example of how he can help keep Iowa on the radar screen when the federal government is setting priorities. That influence could be helpful in changing reimbursements to hospitals and other Iowa priorities.
Has Iowa sold its soul for federal pork?
. . .
BUSH’S FALL?
Bill Quick appears to agree with Dick Morris’s recent column that suggests Bush has blown it for the Republicans in the coming election. After reading Morris’ column, though, I’m not persuaded. The main problem is this erroneous comparison that Morris makes:
History may be repeating itself. When Bill Clinton returned from his successful trip to the Middle East in October of 1994, he found his job approval had risen 10 points as a result of his "presidential" image in negotiating a peace deal between Jordan and Israel. Determined to use that popularity to re-elect Democrats who had voted for his tax program, he immediately toured the nation giving political speeches.
The public soon forgot all about the "presidential" president they had seen: Clinton's job approval dropped the 10 points he had gained. The result was a 1994 disaster for the Democrats.
One problem with this comparison becomes apparent when one looks at Clinton’s approval numbers at the time. It is true that they rose ten points after his Mid-East visit, but they only rose into the high 40s. Morris would seem to imply that is high enough to have a positive impact on an election. But it seems doubtful that a president with approval numbers under 50% would be able to have any significant electoral impact save a negative one.
By contrast, Bush is still at 60%. Whether that is enough to rally a sufficient number of voters to elect candidates that Bush supports remains to be seen. Yet it is high enough that it isn’t going to drive a lot of voters to turn out for the candidates he opposes.
Another problem is that Morris connects Clinton’s campaigning to the Democrats’ 1994 disaster. This article by Jerry Carter (no relation) in the American Prowler nicely encapsulates the primary reason the Donks went down in flames:
Then along came Bill Clinton, who in his first two years in office gave us gays-in-the-military, the LAX tarmac haircut, a socialized-medicine proposal, the Travelgate debacle, a big tax hike … and let's not forget that wife of his.
The result was an electorate that came out in droves at the first opportunity to register their displeasure, and that meant voting against anybody with a D next to his name in 1994.
In other words, the problem wasn’t the campaigning; it was who was doing the campaigning. Bush, on the other hand, has conducted a successful war against the Taliban, has had no major legislation die in Congress, and has been relatively scandal free. Again, it may not be enough to convince more voters to pull the lever for Republicans, but it isn’t going to hurt any.
Ultimately, Morris is wrong to suggest that “Bush needs to stop campaigning.” The only chance Bush has to convince voters to return the Senate to GOP hands is to stump for Republican candidates.
. . .
HOW TO THINK ABOUT TAXES
Thomas Nugent has one of the best articles about how income taxes affect economic activity I have seen in some time
. . .
AND ON THE KNOWLEDGE SIDE
Chip Taylor provided me with the link to this column in the Kansas City Star on Social Security has its facts exactly right. Well worth a read. Mr. Taylor (he said I should call him Chip) is a libertarian candidate for statehouse in Missouri. Check out his website.
. . .
ELECTION TROUBLES IN IOWA?
Thanks to Croooow Blog who gave me a heads up on this article at KCCI's website. Maybe loosening the requirements for requesting an absentee ballot weren't such a good idea.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: A BAD ENDORSEMENT
I thought the editorial endorsing Governor Vilsack in the Iowa City Press-Citizen was wanting. That was a Cicero speech compares to what the Des Moines Register came up with on Sunday. The inanity gets rollings in the fifth paragraph:
With no plans to seek a third term, he can be more bold with the Legislature in pursuing his vision for overcoming Iowa's stagnant growth.
BWA, HA, HA, HA, HA! Vilsack’s promise to only seek two terms is as thin as, well, a promise. Surely, the Register editorialists are not that gullible. Then again….
This former mayor of Mount Pleasant and three-term state legislator was elected in 1998 because he inspired confidence that he could help move Iowa forward. And he has. Vilsack's most outstanding accomplishment has been strengthening public education in kindergarten through 12th grade. His support for reducing class size and for the new teacher-pay plan appears to be paying off with higher student achievement on standardized tests.
A small, one-time increase in test scores is not much of an accomplishment. Is it the beginning of a trend or merely a random blip?
Other accomplishments under his watch include the Vision Iowa program, in which the state assists cities with building major attractions.
Oh yes, Vision Iowa, that wonderful bit of pork-barrel spending that communities like Waterloo and Clinton County have rejected recently. That’s going swimmingly well.
He has delivered health-insurance coverage to more low-income children.
And increased the strain on the budget by expanding the eligibility for health-care from 185% to 200% of the poverty line. That’s ironic praise given what follows two sentences later:
He has expanded monitoring of the state's water quality. He has managed the state budget relatively well - with help in spending restraint from a Republican Legislature - through a recession and a painfully slow recovery.
That the Register can’t see the connection between increased spending on health care and the budget mess is, well, typical. Futhermore, Vilsack has not handled the budget problem well, unless downplaying the crisis early in 2001, having to call two special session of the legislature, and rescinding much of the property-tax credit fits your definition of "handling it well."
Looking ahead, the next governor will face two immediate challenges. One is dealing with a still very tight state budget while maintaining high standards for education and preserving critical services. The other challenge is to provide more enticing opportunities for entrepreneurs to create companies with the sorts of high-paying jobs that make young professionals want to live in Iowa.
And he has handled those challenges so well up to this point, hasn’t he? That’s why Iowa has less manufacturing jobs, for example, are than when Vilsack first took office.
Vilsack's persistence in promoting biotechnology as key to a brighter economy for Iowa - including his proposal for a major "bio park" north of Des Moines - is right on the mark. So are his plans to turn Iowa into a net energy exporter and his understanding of the importance of venture capital as an incentive to investment.
If this is such a great idea, why didn’t he do something about it in his first term? I guess increasing spending on health care, education, and state-employee benefits left too little time to focus on economic development. Also, it is by no means certain that Vilsack’s approach is a good one. What if biotech doesn’t work out? Then the state is out $50 million (probably a low estimate) and Iowa is stuck with a bunch of empty buildings in North Des Moines.
Finally, the last paragraph is a gem:
Vilsack exudes the same optimism about Iowa's future that got him elected four years ago.
WHOOPEEE! He’s optimistic! Did you expect him to be weary and bleak?
What's different is that he's developed a more sophisticated, targeted strategy for change.
No, what’s different is Iowa’s economy is hurting and it’s an election year. He’s hoping that his proposal, the inappropriately named "Iowa Works," will convince Iowa voters that he is serious about the economy.
He deserves a second term as governor to carry it out.
Vilsack deserves a "career change." Given the, ahem, quality of their editorials, the Register editorial staff should consider one too.
. . .
EVEN MORE IGNORANCE….
Check out the first line in this editorial on domestic violence in the Iowa City Press-Citizen:
It doesn't just happen on Super Bowl Sunday.
Guess the Press-Citizen doesn’t know that the correlation between spousal abuse and the Super Bowl has been debunked.
. . .
SPEAKING OF IGNORANCE….
Des Moines Register editorial writer Andie Dominick displays her prejudice toward conservatives in this profile of Steve King, the GOP nominee for the House in Iowa’s 5th district. Here is her final sentence:
And after being best known for only his social conservatism, King was a pleasant surprise as he focused on a variety of other issues.
I suppose that means persons who are known for being pro-lfe, pro-english only, and pro-prayer in schools are assumed to be disagreeable and uncivil?
. . .
MORE SOCIAL SECURITY IGNORANCE
The Des Moines Register has a rather inept editorial on Social Security. I’ll take it down later today. Right now, I want you to read it, and then post a comment about what you think is wrong with it
. . .
Monday, October 28, 2002
AN OVERUSED TERM
Over at Quasipundit, Tony thinks the term "war" is used much too often. He has a good point.
. . .
REVIEW OF 24
Over at Blogcritics, I've posted my review of the DVD version of the TV show "24." I also have a small guess as to how good this season will be.
. . .
FUNNY
Okay, this is a little hokey, but I couldn't resist:
A teacher explains to her class that she is a liberal Democrat. She asks her students to raise their hands if they were liberal Democrats too.
Not really knowing what a liberal Democrat was but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands explode into the air like fleshy fireworks.
There is, however, one exception. A boy named Adam has not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asks him why he has decided to be different.
"Because I'm not a liberal Democrat."
"Then," asks the teacher, "what are you?"
"Why I'm a proud conservative Republican," boasts the little boy.
The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Adam why he is a conservative Republican.
"Well, I was brought up to trust in myself instead of relying on an intrusive government to care for me and do all of my thinking. My Dad and Mom are conservative Republicans, and I am a conservative Republican too."
The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason," she says loudly. "What if your Mom was a moron, and your dad was a moron. What would you be then?"
A pause, and a smile. "Then," says Adam, "I'd be a liberal Democrat."
. . .
GRANDMOTHERS FOR PEACE
It's hard to know what to think about this story. To me it seems that this woman is misguided, and perhaps a bit unpatriotic when she makes comments like:
"I've been terribly frustrated at Bush and Co. for the demonization of Saddam," Solomon said. "There are another 61 leaders of countries that are equally undemocratic."
But she's a 72 year old grandmother of eight. What can I say?
. . .
ENDORSING VILSACK, SORT OF
The Cedar Rapids Gazette has endorsed Tom Vilsack for Governor. But it is hardly what you would call resounding:
Vilsack gets the nod here for a second term -- but just barely.
And:
Still, it's a close call. If you believe, as we do, that Vilsack has learned some lessons, then he deserves your support.
. . .
HOW MUCH SICK LEAVE?
The Cedar Rapids Gazette also has this editorial about the average amount of sick leave that state employees take:
To the list of issues in Iowa's Gross-Vilsack race for governor, now add state employee sick leave. A recent survey by an Illinois firm shows Iowa employees used an average of 10 days of sick leave last year....
Republican challenger Doug Gross said the state's sick-leave policy should be re-evaluated. Democratic incumbent Tom Vilsack defends the current arrangement, saying sick leave is a benefit that helps ensure productivity and wellness....
Reworking the state sick-leave policy is not too much to ask.
No, it isn't.
. . .
DONK PANIC?
Bill Quick thinks the Democrats' new tactic means that the GOP will regain complete control of the Senate.
. . .
SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE
With apologies to Andrew Sullivan, here is my nominee: Mohammed Munib. Mr. Munib writes this letter to the editor in the New York Times comparing Iraqi prisons to Guantanamo. What a fool!
. . .
WILL MONDALE WIN?
Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that Mondale is very beatable. He makes some very good points, although I'm not entirely convinced.
. . .
A SOCIAL SECURITY BET
Michael New has a great idea on winning the Social Security reform fight.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHILE I’M ON THE SUBJECT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
The Des Moines Register has this article about Social Security this morning. I’ll be damned if reporter Jane Norman didn’t get most of it right. She explains the system and why it is in trouble quite well.
Take a look at this passage on Senator Harkin:
Harkin, in a printed statement from his campaign, said that Social Security will be sound for the next 40 years, and longer if the economy continues to grow.
"The best thing we can do for Social Security is to strengthen our economy and restore fiscal discipline to our budget," he said. "As an added protection, we should dedicate savings from paying down the national debt into Social Security. We should also eliminate government rules that discourage people with disabilities from working. That will boost payments into Social Security and reduce payments out."
What nonsense! First, strengthening the economy won’t do anything to help Social Security. SS benefits are determined by the income one earns in roughly the top five earning years. As the economy grows, so do incomes. As incomes grow, the more Social Security will have to pay in benefits.
Harkin also hints that the way to save Social Security is to strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) when he states "As an added protection, we should dedicate savings from paying down the national debt into Social Security." This same canard was echoed in a recent guest editorial in the Iowa City Press-Citizen that criticized the Press-Citizen’s recent endorsements of Greg Ganske and Jim Leach:
Like Ganske, Leach argues that current recipients of Social Security benefits should be protected, while allowing younger workers to privately invest a portion of their Social Security payments toward their own retirements. These two objectives directly oppose one another (take money from Social Security while still not reducing the Social Security fund), yet the board makes no attempt to bridge this gap when describing Leach's position on this topic.
Okay, let’s try it again boys and girls. The SSTF only has Treasury bonds in it. These bonds are just IOU’s from the government, a promise to repay, with interest, at some point in the future. The government will have to come up with a lot of tax revenue to repay those bonds if they are to be used to pay for Social Security benefits. The more bonds we put into the SSTF now, the bigger the liability on taxpayers down the road. See this for a more extended treatment of the SSTF.
There is still a lot of misinformation about Social Security floating around. Much of it is employed by Democrats to scare senior citizens. What the Democrats are doing this election year is shameless. We can only hope that more reporters like Ms. Norman get it right.
. . .
ENTER THE KOOK BRIGADE
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
. . .
MORE ON IOWA'S COMPETITIVE RACES
Thanks to Joe Kristan who emailed me the link to this article in the Washington Post. I think the article over-hypes the Latham-Norris race, and under-hypes the Leach-Thomas one. But it is interesting nonetheless.
UPDATE: The Ames Tribune has endorsed Tom Latham. Can't say I think too much of their reasoning though.
. . .
BUSH: FOUR MORE YEARS?
Jay Caruso says that the momentum is now in Jeb Bush's favor.
. . .
HOW IOWA REDISTRICTS
This editorial in the Des Moines Register explians why Iowa has the biggest concentration of competitive races in the country.
. . .
GUESS WHO ENDORSED HARKIN?
No big surprise, the Des Moines Register has given its stamp of approval to Senator Harkin. And the Register isn’t even shy about stating why:
Seniority counts in the U.S. Senate. It has made Harkin chairman of the Agriculture Committee, which writes the farm programs and is of obvious importance to Iowa. He also heads an appropriations subcommittee that is second only to the defense subcommittee in the amount of money it doles out. It provides funds for health and education - areas of special interest to Iowa.
Harkin is in a position to do a lot for the state.
And:
Iowa shouldn't shrink from taking full advantage of the seniority of Harkin and Grassley. In the past, there has been considerable turnover in the Iowa congressional delegation, meaning few Iowans attained the power that comes with seniority. Iowa has suffered as a consequence, as federal projects and grants flowed elsewhere to help build the economies of other states.
Now it should be Iowa's turn.
In other words, Iowa hasn’t been able to suck at the taxpayers’ teat enough. But now that Harkin has seniority, we can all stick our snouts in the trough and gorge ourselves.
. . .
CONGRATS TO THE ANGELS
Oh, I hate it when I'm right.
. . .
Sunday, October 27, 2002
ANGELS LEAD GIANTS 4-1
I need a beer.
. . .
INSPECTIONS, NOT WAR!
Guess who.
. . .
WELL, TWO OUT OF THREE ISN'T BAD
Well, I guess I can’t expect miracles. After endorsing some Republicans, including Jim Leach and Greg Ganske, the Iowa City Press-Citizen went with Tom Vilsack for Governor on Saturday. The reasons they give are wanting.
First, the Press-Citizen likes Vilsack’s development plan, which includes a lot of new government spending to try to get Iowa’s economy moving again. The Press-Citizen approves because it is "more specific" and "more comprehensive."
Vilsack may have lots of specifics, but they are the wrong ones. For example, he wants to spend $50 million to create a bio-park north of Des Moines. Sounds good, but there is no way of being certain that biotechnology is going to be the industry of the future. A recent news story reports that the Biotechnology Industry Organization "adopted a policy against growing the biotech corn in a large portion of the Midwest." That should give Iowans some pause before we spend a lot of government money on an industry that might not prove productive. Ultimately, what will persuade firms to invest in biotechnology is if it proves profitable, not because we create a bio-park.
The correct approach is to make Iowa more business friendly, and then let the market decide what industries will prosper in Iowa. That is done by reducing taxes and regulations. Gross is far more committed to that than is Vilsack.
The Press-Citizen also tries to dodge the budget issue:
The truth is, everyone in state government can share the blame, and frankly, we're tired of hearing and talking about it. The damage is done, and now it's time to focus on solutions.
But what kind of solution does Vilsack have if he is proposing lots of new government spending? It seems that, if anything, his spending initiatives are more likely to make the budget problem worse.
The Press-Citizen tries to absolve the Vilsack of much of the blame:
In addition, we believe Republican incumbents contributed to the current budget crisis by helping to enact massive tax cuts over the past five years that helped lead to reduced revenues that, combined with the economic slump, led to the cuts to higher education that the Republicans are now blaming on Vilsack.
As the budget policy study that I co-authored showed, the biggest tax cut, that of the personal-income tax, only cost the state about $600,000 last year. That’s no where near enough to solve the budget problem. The proper blame lies with Vilsack’s overspending in his first two years.
I had hoped that the Press-Citizen would be a bit more skeptical toward Vilsack. Oh well.
. . .
WHAT IS SHAMELESS?
Rekha Basu in the Des Moines Register today:
It's no secret that in an election year, anything might be exploited for political gain….
So you thought such shameless tactics had peaked? Now Greg Ganske, down by double digits in his Senate race against Tom Harkin, is blaming his opponent for the deaths of 11 migrants whose bodies turned up in a grain car in Denison this month.
Yes, Ms. Basu, it is shameless. Almost as shameless as the Register using the Reagans’ tragedy to promote stem cell research.
. . .
YEPSEN ON IOWA’S RACES
David Yepsen has a good column on the Senate and Governor’s race. He predicts that Harkin and Vilsack will win. One problem: He relies on WHO-TV polls that show Vilsack and Harkin with big leads. This is the poll that uses the automated phone message. Hence, it is likely unreliable. I need to cut Yepsen some slack, as I went in for this poll a while back because it yielded a result that I liked. Nevertheless, his other reasons are good ones.
. . .
A BED OF ROSES?
In some more upbeat sports news, yesterday the Iowa Hawkeyes beat the Michigan Wolverines, 34-9. It was the first time Iowa had beaten Michigan since 1990, and Michigan’s worst home loss since 1967. Not only does it mean the Hawkeyes are 8-1, and will probably be ranked in the top ten on Monday, but they have a very real chance of heading to Pasadena. They are 5-0 in the Big Ten. Their three remaining opponents are Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Minnesota. The only real challenge of those three is Minnesota; as you can see from the Big Ten standings, it is a real challenge. Iowa will have to play at Minnesota, and Minnesota has one of its best teams in years.
If Iowa can get past Minnesota (and doesn’t screw up on the way there), it will be on its way to the Rose Bowl. Assuming Ohio State plays to form, Iowa will be co-champs of the Big Ten. But since Ohio State has been to the Rose Bowl more recently, Iowa will be the one headed to Southern California.
What is that smell? Could it be roses?
. . .
TO ALL RED SOX FANS: I FEEL YOUR PAIN
To all Red Sox Fans: I feel your pain. I now know what it must have been like after Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. So close to winning a series; watching it slip away. Going into Game 7 hoping and praying for the best, but knowing that the momentum was with the Mets. You had that awful feeling in your gut that the Red Sox were doomed to lose.
I know, because that is how I feel about the Giants heading into Game 7 tonight. All of the momentum has now shifted to the Angels. I am hoping and praying, but my gut is wrenching. It was a bit worse for Red Sox fans than for Giants fans, since there was no Bill Buckner moment in last night’s game. The Angels simply got the job done. But it hurts nonetheless.
It is more than just a feeling. My thinking side knows that the odds are against the Giants. First, there is the momentum factor. As I noted above, it is all with the Angels now. They will go into the game upbeat; the Giants will be glum. Score one for the Angels.
The Giants are starting Livan Hernandez. With Hernandez it is either feast or famine. He does have a great post-season record, but his Game 3 performance was terrible. I suspect it will be a feast tonight, a feast for Angels’ hitters.
Last, historical numbers favor the Angels. No team has won a Game 7 on the road since the Pirates in 1979. Furthermore, as Rob Neyer notes,
Since 1985 the team with home-field advantage has won 14 of 16 World Series, with the exceptions being the Braves twice (1992 and 1999). Further, home teams are 14-2 -- after tonight, it's 15-2 -- in Games 6 and 7.
Meaningful? Or random.
The Giants must hope for the latter.
And I must hope that I’m wrong. But I fear that I’m not.
. . .
|
. . .
|
