Oh, Winston, how true. In other news, gumdrops will fall from the sky and unicorns will prance o’er the land on January 20.
In other news, there’s this surrealistic interview from CNN:
Hat tip to Reason for the clips. Just four days left. Hallelujah.
And then there’s this last portend of doom from the FAIL blog:
PRESIDENTIAL RACE
You may recall my post last week predicting that Barack Obama will capture 400 electoral votes. I stand by that call. Specifically, he will capture all of the currently recognized battleground states (as in the current projection from electoral-vote.com in the sidebar), along with slim wins, in order of decreasing plausibility, in Montana, North Dakota, Georgia, and West Virginia to reach 401. He ought to clinch a victory reasonably early in the evening, even with the media petrified of making a hasty projection. The failures of the McCain campaign are numerous and well-documented, but in the end, it comes down to two: First, the choice of Sarah Palin for VP galvanized the base but chased away everyone else. Second, McCain’s reaction to the financial crisis was consistently inconsistent. A race that appeared to be a dead heat as recently as mid-September has turned into a rout.
SENATE BREAKDOWN
There are currently 51 Senators caucusing with the Democrats, though whether Joe Lieberman will continue to do so is, let’s say, unknown. There are at least five seats moving to the left side of the aisle: Warner in Virginia, the Udalls in Colorado and New Mexico, Shaheen in New Hampshire, and Begich in Alaska. Hence, Democrats would need to capture four of the six toss-ups (Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon) to reach a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes. By the skin of their teeth in Georgia, they’ll do it, just as they barely got a raw majority two years ago. Franken, Hagan, Martin, and Merkley will be in Washington come January (despite Dole now running the mind-blowingly vile ad below, in the fine tradition of fear-mongering in North Carolina political advertising). In any event, it’s time to construct my election night multimedia war room …
PRESIDENT
[ ] Barack Obama, Democrat
[ ] John McCain, Republican
[ ] Seven Other People
[X] Bob Barr, Libertarian
It’s pretty hard to believe how drastically the Republican Party has not just abandoned but actively antagonized someone like me, playing solely to the neoconservative warhawks and social conservatives while discarding any pretense of fiscal modesty. On most economic issues, the difference is between a tax-and-spend party and a borrow-and-spend one; if the baby boomers are going to lead us down the path of economic destruction, they had better share some of the costs of it. On social issues, it’s not even close. Therefore, if New Jersey was a swing state, I’d be pulling the lever pressing the button for Obama. Given that it’s not, however, I can vote my conscience here and vote for reformed Republican Congressman Bob Barr. This is my second presidential election and it’ll be two-for-two in the Libertarian column.
I agree with almost every aspect of their party platform; it’s short,
so please read it for yourself.
U.S. SENATE
[ ] Frank Lautenberg, Democrat
[ ] Dick Zimmer, Republican
[ ] Four Other Random People
[X] Jason Scheurer, Libertarian
As is typical in New Jersey, only the Democrat is even bothering to run a serious campaign. Lautenberg is an ancient partisan (age 84) who appears to have done little of actual substance in four Senate terms. He’s actually very unpopular with only 36% of New Jerseyans saying that he deserves to be re-elected … but he will be anyway. If this race was even remotely close, I think I’d vote for Zimmer, who was in the U.S. House for three terms back in the 1990s, back when Republicans had principles, and won awards for fiscal conservatism in that time. Given that it’s not, however, see above. Schuerer appears to have no qualifications whatsoever (he’s a financial advisor), but what the hell?
U.S. HOUSE
[X] Frank Pallone, Democrat
[ ] Robert McLeod, Republican
[ ] Herb Tarbous, Independent
McLeod’s website, which looks to be from 1994, announces a motto of “border control and fair trade.” Oh goody, a Lou Dobbs Republican. PASS. Tarbous’ website indicates that his sole reason for running is to be a third name on the ballot (he ran back in ‘06 as well). PASS. Pallone is at least a vaguely competent member of Congress that has done little to deeply offend me. That’s generally as strong of an endorsement as anyone can expect from me.
COUNTY FREEHOLDER
[ ] Three Democratic Hacks
[X] Three Republican Hacks
As I said back in 2006: “I’m voting for the GOP on a local level, because (a) I like being quixotic and (b) if they got power by some cosmic accident, Republicans would wipe out the existing cronyism among Democrats in New Jersey … for about two minutes before establishing their own system of cronyism. Still, those would be two good minutes.” Also, as I said then, I didn’t know who the GOP was running until I got my sample ballot.
BOROUGH COUNCIL
[ ] Unopposed, as always!
Aside from one Democratic primary for mayor in 2007, all borough races since I’ve lived here have had only one name for every single position on the ballot. I’m not going to encourage that behavior.
PUBLIC QUESTION #1
Do you approve the proposed amendment to the State Constitution which provides that, after this amendment becomes part of the Constitution, a law enacted thereafter that authorizes State debt created through the sale of bonds by any autonomous public corporate entity, established either as an instrumentality of the State or otherwise exercising public and essential governmental functions, such as an independent State authority, which debt or liability has a pledge of an annual appropriation as the ways and means to pay the interest of such debt or liability as it falls due and pay and discharge the principal of such debt, will be subject to voter approval, unless the payment of the debt is made subject to appropriations of an independent non-State source of revenue paid by third persons for the use of the object or work bonded for, or are from a source of State revenue otherwise required to be appropriated pursuant to another provision of the Constitution?
[X] YES [ ] NO
In fact, there should be a “HELL YES” option here. No politician is going to stop New Jersey from spending itself into an ever-deeper fiscal crisis … but then again, who knows if the public will either?
PUBLIC QUESTION #2
Shall the amendment to Article VI, Section VI, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, providing that judges of inferior courts with jurisdiction extending to more than one municipality be appointed as provided in law rather than as provided in the Constitution which requires nomination by the Governor and appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate, be approved?
[ ] YES [X] NO
Letting someone other than the state government choose judges through an as-yet-undetermined process? This seems … less than thought out. I’m not even sure why it’s on the ballot. That said, I trust Gov. Corzine more than anyone else in this state’s political structure, so let’s keep him picking the judges.
So that’s that. Get out there and vote!
Yes, in a recession. It’s exactly what the economics textbooks tell you is the worst thing to do now — which is exactly why it must be done.
Yesterday, the Federal Reserve cut short-term interest rates by fifty basis points to 1%. That level happens to be exactly where rates sat in 2003 and 2004 to help fuel recovery from the last recession in 2001. A commentary in BusinessWeek asked how low interest rates could go; the answer, of course, is zero, but the author notes that “could trigger a speculative investment frenzy that could feed a bubble that pops, wreaking havoc on the economy.”
You don’t say. It’s not like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out, considering THAT’S WHAT JUST HAPPENED.
We are in the midst of a consumption bubble. Consumers and government are both spending thoroughly absurd amounts of money that are well beyond their means. The latter is easy enough to explain; politicians want to stay in office and go about buying off constituents, printing money to pay for it, regardless of the future consequences. The former can be partially explained by the increased availability of credit cards and home equity loans, but these are simply enabling devices. In essence, the American public has become accustomed to a rate of economic growth that is not sustainable in the long run, due to a series of positive shocks to aggregate supply:
(1) Following nearly two full decades of depression and war, massive depletion of physical capital at home and abroad required large-scale investment that stimulated the economy and led to the golden age of the 1950s (on which American politics is based, as I noted in 2005).
(2) The large-scale addition of women to the workforce, starting in the mid-1960s, drastically increased the supply of labor, lowering wage costs for firms. Combined with “guns and butter” federal spending at the time, the economy grew at a very rapid clip until the 1973 oil crisis.
(3) The mainstreaming of the personal computer in the 1980s and the Internet in the 1990s led to radical increases in workforce productivity, allowing for accelerated inflation-free growth until the 2000 tech crash.
This decade has not seen an aggregate supply stimulus on the scale of any of these three events, which together led to a six-decade period with only one period of dire recession (1980-1982). The business cycle is not supposed to be so kind. What made the downturn of the early 1980s so severe was Paul Volcker’s determination to eliminate inflation, which had plagued the entire prior decade — to the point where he hiked short-term interest rates to a mind-boggling 20% to kill it. This led to double-digit unemployment, but there is no doubt that the economy was all the better for it in the long run.
So herein lies the problem: We are doing irreparable damage to the national economy in the name of financing absurdly unsustainable growth rates in consumption. The savings rate is practically zero and you’re CUTTING interest rates? In the name of what? Banks aren’t hoarding cash because the fed funds rate is too high; they’re doing so because they don’t know who they can loan money to (as for the last five years, the answer was “anyone with a pulse”). Setting rates at or below 1% is walking right into a liquidity trap, as occurred in Japan in the 1990s; giving them an unregulated pile of bailout money in such a climate of fear leads to what we saw last week: PNC, hours after getting its $7.7 billion check under dubious circumstances, used most of that money to purchase National City Bank.
It’s time to try a new tack: incentivize saving, not consumption. Gradually raise short-term interest rates back to their historic average, replace all income taxes with sales or value-added taxes to make savings tax-free, eliminate barriers to foreign trade and investment, and get slashing with the federal budget. This is the policy mandate that we impose on every country that needs financial assistance (except the sales tax part); it’s time we started taking our own advice.
WASHINGTON – An impatient White House served notice Tuesday on banks and other financial companies receiving billions of dollars in federal help to quit hoarding the money and start making more loans.
“What we’re trying to do is get banks to do what they are supposed to do, which is support the system that we have in America. And banks exist to lend money,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
Banks exist to make money, Ms. Perino. That whole capitalism thing, y’know. Maybe you’ve heard of it.
Anyway, in case you haven’t been paying attention for the last month, the AP sums it all up rather nicely:
Under the authority of the $700 billion financial bailout plan approved by Congress and signed by President Bush earlier this month, [there are] plans to dole out $250 billion to banks in return for partial ownership.
The Treasury Department, which is overseeing the massive capital injection program along with the rest of the bailout, will pour $125 billion into nine of the country’s largest banks this week. Another $125 billion will go to other banks.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has said the money was aimed at rebuilding banks’ reserves so that they would resume more normal lending practices. But reports then surfaced that bankers might instead use the money to buy other banks. Indeed, the government approved PNC Financial Services Group Inc. to receive $7.7 billion in return for company stock and, at the same time, PNC said it was acquiring National City Corp. for $5.58 billion.
Officials have said that there are few strings attached to the capital-infusion program because too many rules would discourage financial institutions from participating.
… Because the government cutting massive checks with no strings attached (e.g. Halliburton) always works so well. On the plus side,
at least banks have decided to start doing things in their self-interest, as opposed to writing mortgages that borrowers could never repay. On the other hand, taxpayers have just given out $700 billion for M&A financing, which is way less stimulative than providing seed capital — which wasn’t the original plan (buying up mortgage-backed securities) that we were repeatedly convinced was fundamentally necessary to preservation of the financial system.
*sigh* Spectacular. Imagine that — government thoroughly fucked something up. Again. And yet, somehow, the solution will be more government action. How hard is it to draw the line from A to B?
Snow? Already? [expletive deleted].
With 10 days until Election Day, long-brewing tensions between GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say.
Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what [was] described as Palin “going rogue.”
Emphasis mine. So the Alaskan governor is a Russian submarine?
A Palin associate, however, said [Palin] is simply trying to “bust free” of what she believes was a damaging and mismanaged roll-out.
Insert sexist joke here.
A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.
“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” said this McCain adviser. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us,
her family or anyone else.
“Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves,
as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”
I sure hope that she’s been hiding some wisdom from us. Or hoarding it for winter. Or something. Maybe?
A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is “not good at process questions” and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.
So we can only ask her questions about … non-processes? That seems to exclude, y’know, ALL OF POLITICS.
The article ends with these thoughts:
With the presidential race in its final days and polls suggesting that McCain’s chances of pulling out a win are growing slim, Palin may be looking after her own future.
“She’s no longer playing for 2008; she’s playing 2012,” Democratic pollster Peter Hart said. “And the difficulty is, when she went on ‘SNL,’
she became a reinforcement of her caricature. She never allowed herself to be vetted, and at the end of the day, voters turned against her both in terms of qualifications and personally.”
The temptation to say we won’t have Palin to kick around anymore is immense, but methinks that will not be the case. Methinks she will retreat to Alaska, surround herself with a flotilla of policy advisers to prepare for the next go-around, and will be the odds-on favorite to be the GOP nominee and, ultimately, POTUS #45. Don’t say that I didn’t warn you. (But then again, I’m the guy who said — in August 2006! — that John Edwards would be the victor this fall, so take my words with a grain of salt.)
From the Dept. of Sentences I Never Thought Would Be Heard Again, there’s this from CNBC:
“Kmart is reminding consumers in a new holiday ad campaign that it offers layaway service.”
For those of you unfamiliar with the concept — and odds are, if you’re under 25, you’re not — layaway is essentially a credit card in reverse. The consumer reserves an item, sets up an installment payment plan with the store, and receives the item once they have actually, y’know, paid for it.
All in all, while this is indicative of how damaged the economy is, it’s an encouraging development that some semblance of fiscal austerity — though it is often accompanied by panic — is seeping back into the average consumer’s psyche. Methinks this will vanish once the stock market recovers, though … at least until the next crash.
Obama is taking home 400 electoral votes. To put that in perspective, the only Democrat to hit that number since WWII was LBJ in 1964.
What leads me to say something so preposterous? Well, look at the state of the McCain campaign. The latest NBC poll has him down ten points nationally … and that’s not entirely out of line with other polls. Even worse, the leading drag on the ticket isn’t the current president, but the running mate he himself chose. McCain essentially ended his campaign to win Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico — meaning that for any mathematical chance of victory, he needs to shock the world and win Pennsylvania, where he is trailing by double digits.
National polls and the increasing insanity of Republican partisans — like Rep. Michelle Bachman pining for the good ol’ days of the House Un-American Activities Committee and Sen. Mel Martinez comparing Obama’s economic policy to Castro’s Cuba, let alone McCain himself taking a blatantly obvious remark by Biden and turning it into a threat to America — indicate that there is a massive Obama landslide forming, the magnitude of which has not yet been properly appreciated.
At this point, 400 electoral votes sounds admittedly crazy; that number would mean that Obama will win not only all current battleground states, but states on the margin that seem quite decisively Republican. With a national landslide of this scope, however, I think Democratic victories in states like Montana and Georgia are eminently plausible, especially as trends in favor of Obama appear to be self-reinforcing and GOP voters become more likely to abandon a candidate that they weren’t particularly enthusiastic about to start with.
President-Elect Obama (let’s just cut to the chase here), backed by a 60-member Senate caucus, will have the power to mold the world as he sees fit … WITH HIS MIND. Or something. But seriously, folks, if you like the Democratic platform, America is gonna get a lot better for you. Unless, of course, our form of government is fatally flawed and will destroy us all. Just file that thought away.
And finally: Contemplate the speed at which change typically occurs in human history, then consider that it will have been a mere 55 years — far shorter than the average lifetime — between Brown v. Board and the ascendancy of an African-American to the presidency. Holy smokes. What the hell will my generation live to see?
The next time someone confuses corporatism with “the free market,” like Jacob Weisberg in his latest Slate column, I’m not going to be able to contain my anger. Just because the Republican Party clothes itself in the economic rhetoric of government non-interference does not mean it actually, y’know, brings about government non-interference.
To analogize libertarian economic principles to “Sarah Palin’s view of global warming” is so thoroughly mind-blowing that I don’t even know where to start. It is the government’s encouragement for everyone to get a mortgage that led us here, combined with — sure, I’ll admit it — corporate malfeasance. Maybe, if executed properly, there is a role for the SEC or some other public entity to rate bonds to ensure that junk backed by subprime mortgages isn’t rated AAA. (On the other hand,
as some have suggested, maybe we need to eliminate bond ratings to force investors to actually read what they’re buying.) You can’t tell me, though, that this is a wholesale repudiation of the free market.
The free market does not exist — not with the sheer volume of rent-seeking activity in this country, something which will only increase. How is it intellectually valid for failures of government to justify the need for more government?
In other news: Really, Boston? Again? In any event, no matter who advances tonight, I was lucky enough to win the Phillies’ lottery for Game 4 World Series tickets, so I will be in Citizens Bank Park on Sunday night. Madness.
