Washington Post Now Has So Many Crank Conservative Columnists That They Cannot Even Agree on Which Cranky Conservative to Support

Maybe the WP Will Hire Even More Cranky Conservatives to Break the Tie

Conservatism sells.  That is indisputable.  Conservative are far more passionate than any other group about their political beliefs, a passion that results from the fact they believe their views come directly from the Almighty, that they are the only moral views in the universe and that any opposition views are those of pure evil.  As a result they spend money on their cause, support newspapers that support their cause, attend conventions that support their cause, listen to pontificating talk radio that supports their cause and try to mask reality to support their cause.

No one know this more than the Washington Post, as noted here earlier a once great newspaper.  The Post is now reduced to trying to emulate the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal in a level of pandering to Conservatives that the Journal has already achieved.  And so the Post employees columnists, whom they hope will attract to the Post the money that the right wing lavishes on those who agree with them. 

The current rage of the opinion managers of the Post was  to support the candidacy of Mitt Romney and so they elevated a Romney apologist, Jennifer Rubin to the forefront.  Now they want some support for Rick Santorum.  So we have Michael Gerson, former Bush administration official lauding Rick Santorum as a “compassionate” person.

he is the Republican candidate who addresses the struggles of blue-collar workers and the need for greater economic mobility. He talks not only of the rights of the individual but also of the health of social institutions, particularly the family. He draws out the public consequences of a belief in human dignity — a pro-life view applied to the unborn and to victims of AIDS in Africa.

How does Mr. Santorum get to be the person who addresses the concerns of blue collar workers?  Well his grandfather was a miner.  Yep, that sure qualifies him as spokesman.  Oh yes, forget about the millions he made peddling influence in Washington once he was trounced in a re-election bid.  Here, from the real reporting the Post occasionally indulges in is the real Mr. Santorum

In the Senate, for example, he played a pivotal role in advancing the controversial K Street Project, a highly organized effort to pressure industry groups and lobbying firms to hire Republicans for influential jobs and punish those who brought in Democrats. ­Santorum oversaw regular Tuesday meetings with lobbyists in which he solicited their views on pending legislation and discussed potential jobs, according to documents and news reports and a lobbyist who attended the meetings.

After losing a reelection bid in 2006, he capitalized on his congressional experience by beginning a profitable career on K Street as an adviser to industry groups and lobbying firms, disclosure records show.

The ever wrong George Will focuses on Mr. Santorum as a help to the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania

Even if Santorum is not nominated, he might galvanize a constituency that makes him a vice presidential choice. For Obama, getting to 270 electoral votes without Pennsylvania’s 20 is problematic.

But then there is that one thing in Mr. Santorum’s past which even Mr. Will cannot ignore

Yes, in 2006, a ghastly year for Republicans (who lost 30 seats and control of the House, and six Senate seats), Santorum lost by 17 points in his bid for a third term. But, then, Richard Nixon was defeated for governor of California six years before being elected president, carrying California.

U, see Mr. Will, a two term Senator who lost re-election by 17 points is really not the person to bring Pennsylvania to Republicans.  And really, do you think anyone ever benefits from being compared in a favorable way to Richard Nixon?

Rounding out the trio of hacks is Charles Krauthamer.  Mr. Krauthamer was also once fairly thoughtful, but his blind unyielding hatred of Mr. Obama has rendered him pathetic.  But this does not stop the Post from publishing him and his screed on how great Rick Santorum would be as a nominee or as Mr. Krauthamer calls him, a worthy challenger.

He is the first challenger to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.

Really, that is a direct quote.  The only conclusion one can come to is that Mr. Krauthamer is closely following the election, on the election he is following is in some alternate reality.  There are a lot of adjectives to describe Mr. Stantorum, "stable character" isn't one of them.

So what is really going on here.  It is basically human nature.  These columnists want someone other than Mr. Romney.  They want a true Conservative.  So they are willing to suspend belief, ignore those qualities of Mr. Santorum that are in conflict with what they want and view only qualities which they ascribe to Mr. Santorum.  They have the right to do this, but they do not have the right to publish this fantasy in a major newspaper, and one is left with the question of why such a newspaper would let them do so.

Oh yes, for the money.  We temporarily forgot.

The Liberal Democrat Party Britain Has Lost 75% of Its Support – A strong and Serious Message to the U. S. Democratic Party

Are the Democrats Listening? – Maybe Better Than Before

In Britain the political system is dominated by three political parties.  The Conservatives are center/right, the Labour Party is center and the Liberal Democrats are center/left.  Until recently the Lib Dems have been so weak that they have not mattered in national elections, the Conservatives or Labour being strong enough to get an absolute majority in Parliament, and so choose the Prime Minister and run the government.

In 2010 this changed, and the Lib Dems won enough votes to deny either of the other parties a clear majority.  This required the formation of a coalition government, and the Lib Dems chose to partner with the Conservatives even though Conservative political philosophy was far from the Lib Dem philosophy.  The key was that the Conservatives gave the Lib Dems major positions in government, including the position of Deputy Prime Minister.  For the first time in their recent history the Lib Dems were actually in the government.

The Lib Dems  rationale for joining in a coalition with their philosophical opposites, for what looked to many as a sellout,  was to use there experience in the government to show that they too were capable of effective governing, and therefore increase their power.  Well a year and a half later the results are in, and they are what rationale people would think they were going to be.  The Lib Dems have lost 75% of their support from their 2010 supporters.  The grand strategy has totally backfired.  It is a monumental disaster.

The YouGov survey of 4,300 who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 suggests that the party's predicament may be even worse than the headline polling figures show. A quarter of those who backed Nick Clegg's party now support Labour, while another quarter are "don't knows" and the remaining quarter back other parties.

Worryingly for the Liberal Democrats, there are fewer signs than after previous elections of the party winning new supporters to replace the voters it has lost. Only 1 per cent of Labour and Conservative voters in 2010 has switched to the Liberal Democrats.

The why of all of this is pretty obvious.  The party sold out its principles in return for a junior partnership in the Conservative government, where as junior partners they have to support the very policies with which they disagreed.  Their voters, the ones who still support those policies and who didn’t get plush government jobs are, as expected, unhappy.  They see no reason to support the party. 

Even more delusional is the party itself.

A Liberal Democrat source said last night: "We always knew that by going into coalition with the Conservatives, we would lose some people who voted for us to keep them out. It is a long haul but we think we can win people back by delivering in government."

Yes, if is doesn’t work, keep doing it.

The three year decline in the Democratic Party in the U. S. has similar roots.  Mr. Obama made a centerpiece of his government philosophy the idea that he would work with Republicans, and so tried to accommodate them in order to gain their support for the bi-partisan programs he proposed.  Fair enough, but when this didn’t work the President kept at it, following a failed strategy which alienated his supporters without converting his enemies. 

Finally, with apparently one of the slowest learning curves ever in politics Mr. Obama and his team seem to be getting the message.  They did not yield on the extension of the payroll tax, and got a victory, at least in the short term.  And Mr. Obama has called the Senate’s sham “session” not to be a session, and has made recess appointments.  Senate Republicans are reported to be furious and said to be unwilling to  co-operate with the White House in the future, as opposed their previous stance, which is being  furious and not co-operating or compromising in the future.

As the experience in Britain has shown, when Mr. Obama compromised away the principles of his party, getting nothing in return his approval among voters fell.  And now when he is showing signs of leadership and a willingness to fight for the beliefs of that party his approval ratings are rising.  The interesting question will be whether or not Mr. Obama has learned from his own experience and the experience of the party that compromised away its principles in Britain and continue to govern like this in 2012. 

Doing so won’t guarantee re-election.  Not doing so will guarantee defeat at the polls.

Has Anyone of Exceptional Intelligence Become More Irrelevant Faster than Thomas Friedman of the New York Times

The Great Columnist Lives in His Own Dream World – Where Politicians are Rational and Address Real Problems

Thomas Friedman used to be one of the great reasons to read the New York Times.  His insightful analysis ultimately culminated into one of the great books about the global economy and coined a phrase, The Earth is Flat.  He documented in clear, concise language and wonderful analysis and anecdotes how the rest of the world used information technology to gain economic strength and high growth compared to Europe and America.

The Iraq war largely undid Mr. Friedman.  His unqualified support of that war damaged his credibility.  He frequent columns that the “next six moths” will be crucial, columns that appeared regularly every six months finished off his credibility.  In some circles the period of time “the next six months” became known as a “Frideman”.

Mr. Friedman has largely retired from the editorial pages of the Times to write more books, but every now and then he returns to write about things which continually show his disconnect from reality.  In his recent column he addresses the Presidential nominating process for the Republicans

Two things have struck me about the Republican presidential candidate debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. One is how entertaining they were. The other is how disconnected they were from the biggest trends shaping the job market of the 21st century. 

Well the fun part is lost on almost all of us, and the idea that they were disconnected from the trends of the 21^st century, well that is true, obvious and not confined to Republicans running for the Presidency.  The disconnect cuts across all parties and all spectrums of political philosophy.  It reflects an America more concerned with Kardashians than with Quaddafi’s.

So Mr. Friedman concocts a world in which the relevant issues of the day are relevant to the politics of the day.

What if the 2012 campaign were actually about the world in which we’re living and how we adapt to it? What would the candidates be talking about?

And goes on to talk about those issues, for example

The best of these ecosystems will be cities and towns that combine a university, an educated populace, a dynamic business community and the fastest broadband connections on earth. These will be the job factories of the future. The countries that thrive will be those that build more of these towns that make possible “high-performance knowledge exchange and generation,” explains Blair Levin, who runs the Aspen Institute’s Gig.U project, a consortium of 37 university communities working to promote private investment in next-generation ecosystems.

And wonders why politicians are not addressing the issues

I just don’t remember any candidate being asked in those really entertaining G.O.P. debates: “How do you think smart cities can become the job engines of the future, and what is your plan to ensure that America has a strategic bandwidth advantage?”

Seriously, does anyone think that any of the Republican candidates for President would even understand that question?  Does anyone think that any elected official, Democrat or Republican could even come close to an intelligent and coherent answer? We’re talking about people who spent a huge amount of time on whether or not the Federal government should regulate light bulbs.

Mr. Friedman lives in a world where people are rational, elected officials worry about how best to serve the public and promote general welfare, and where politicians are concerned more about doing a job than getting elected.  In short, a world that can only exist in a parallel universe, not in this one.

So sorry Mr. Friedman, until you can start writing about what is rather than what you would like it to be, your columns will continue their irrelevancy.

How Much is it Worth To Travel on the New Jersey Turnpike – About $20 an Hour on One Stretch

And Gov. Christie Blames Toll Increase on his Predecessor

January 1 always brings with it new rules and regulations and other stuff, and in New Jersey it brought with it sharply increased tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike.  Although these increases happen a year after Republican Gov. Chris Christie took office, he was quick to blame the former Governor,

New Jerseyans knew the second step was coming, and as 2011 ended, Gov. Chris Christie made it clear that he had had nothing to do with the increases.

“Oh, and by the way, I’m not raising tolls 50 percent,” he said on radio station WFAN-AM on Dec. 23.

“Who is?” the interviewer asked.

“Jon Corzine did,” Mr. Christie said, referring to his predecessor, who favored the plan to raise money for road and bridge work.

Notice of course a couple of things here.  First of all the current Gov. made no effort to repeal the increase, because in this way he can reap the benefits of the higher revenue and place the blame elsewhere.  Classic politics, regardless of party.  But also notice that while the toll increase may or may not be too high, it supports a pretty good principle, namely that the people who use the highways need to be the ones to help pay for their construction and upkeep.

But the real news here was an experiment done by two reporters from the New York Times to see how much time was saved by taking the Turnpike as opposed to the local roads routes 1 and 9.  Here is the result.

Extrapolating the difference in driving times, and throwing a couple of weeks of vacation into the calculation, a driver could save about $3,200 in tolls by avoiding the turnpike all year, but would spend about 160 hours doing it — or $20 an hour, if the driver’s time really is money.

Of course the best of both worlds is to car pool or use public transportation, the costs go down so the time savings is almost free and our transportation system is better utilized.  Maybe that will happen, but if it does don’t expect Mr. Corzine to be given any credit.  After all, the role of Democrats in politics is to take the blame for the cost of things, and for Republicans to take the glory from the benefits that are provided by taxes. 

Montana Experiences a Temporary Victory in the Freedom of Political Speech Issue

But Don’t Worry – An Anti-Free Speech Supreme Court Will Soon Correct Things

Freedom of speech is one of the more complex issues in American Constitutional concepts.  It should be simple; anyone has the right to express whatever opinions they wish to express, as long as their words do not violate the laws of defamation and libel, and as long as the words do not cause physical harm, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater or advocating violence and the like.

The reason things are not that simple is that many of the practitioners of free speech wish to deprive free speech to their opponents.  The main method to do this in modern America is to speak so loudly and so long that they deny others the right to exercise their right of free speech.  A linchpin of democracy is the concept that the best ideas will emerge from vigorous debate.  Many who have a weak position want to win that debate by denying the opposition access to the debate.

In politics it is very possible for one side to so dominate the debate that it defeats the purpose of free speech.  The most blatant example is large rich corporations and very wealthy people.  They can so dominate the means of communication that they effectively eliminate competing speech, in effect denying their opponents the right to be heard and have their ideas considered. 

This problem had led the Congress to try and protect free speech by limiting the degree to which one side could drown out the other side.  For some perverse reason, probably because they favor rich people and corporations over poor people, the Supreme Court has ruled these restrictions violate the rights of the rich and the large corporations, and so it has largely eliminated any restraint on their actions.

In Montana, where large mining interests have the means to drown out any opposition to their positions, the state Supreme Court upheld Montana’s entirely reasonable limits on dominant speech despite the Supreme Court ruling. 

Last week, the Montana Supreme Court agreed, finding that corporate spending in fact had corrupted elections in the resource-rich and sparsely populated state. Should the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately accept Montana's reasoning—which many observers find doubtful—it could open the door to additional campaign-finance regulation if justified by specific facts.

Soon after Montana's admission to the Union in 1889, the big copper companies and other out-of-state mining interests flooded Montana with political spending, and sometimes outright bribery, to seize control of its courts and statehouse, the opinion said. "This naked corporate manipulation of the very government…of the State ultimately resulted in populist reforms that are still part of Montana law," state Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. "The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did."

By a vote of 5-2, the court held that those interests remained valid. The state's sparse population and reliance on farming and natural resources "make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government," Chief Justice McGrath wrote.

The court found corporate interests in political advocacy were addressed by state law allowing creation of political committees, which collect voluntary contributions from shareholders.

The losers in this court decision will take the case to the Supreme Court, where undoubtedly the Montana ruling will be overturned, and thus return control of the debate to the large mining interests.  Of course their position is that they contribute to the information in the ideas marketplace

The Montana law was challenged by conservative activists led by American Tradition Partnership, a group based in Virginia that collects funds for political advertisements from mining and other corporate interests. Executive director Donald Ferguson said the group was considering its options, which would likely include an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I don't see how having less information for voters is a good thing," Mr. Ferguson said.

And yet ironically that is just what will happen, less information will be available, as it always is when one side dominates the debate to the extent that the others side cannot even get to present their positions to the public.  But the Supreme Court won’t mind, after all in their opinion this is the right side that is dominating, not those awful other ideas.

Sad News To Come Out of Iowa – Michele Bachmann Heavy Favorite to Retain Her House Seat After She Leaves Presidential Race

Also a Sad Commentary on the Democratic Party – That They Cannot Defeat This Person

When, as expected Michele Bachmann officially left the Republican Presidential race she became free to run for re-election in her Congressional district in Minnesota.  Unfortunately, according to Politico, she will be highly favored for re-election.

“Many feel that she’s been disconnected from Minnesota for the last six months, but people feel the seat would be hers if she wanted it,” said Ben Golnik, a Republican consultant in the state who serves as a political adviser to Rep. Chip Cravaack, whose seat neighbors Bachmann’s.

Apparently the Republicans who control Minnesota have made sure that her district was a safe Republican one, although why they bothered is not clear.  The Democratic party is in disarray in much of the country, and is not even an electoral force in many major areas.  It seems there is little or no reason to think any Democrat could win this seat.

There is one bright spot in the horizon (today’s cliché is brought to you by the letter C) and that is that Ms. Bachmann may not choose to run.

The only obstacle to a fourth term may well be Bachmann’s own ambitions and desires. Some Republican officials question whether Bachmann would want to return to the House after firmly establishing herself as a national figure who, for a time, sat atop the GOP presidential field. Bachmann could decide to pursue book deals and TV offers that will inevitably pay far more than her annual House salary, they contend. Making a return to Congress even less desirable for Bachmann is the reality that she has no place in the House leadership.

“As someone who desperately seeks the limelight, I don’t see a scenario in which Michele Bachmann would want to run for reelection now that she’s gotten a taste of the national stage,” said one House GOP aide. “After winning the Iowa straw poll and having her face on Fox News every day for the better part of a year, being one of 435 in the House of Representatives would be one lousy consolation prize.”

This is known as the “Fox News Option” for failed Republicans, but if it will take Ms. Bachmann out of government and marginalize her influence, leaving her to impose her radical positions to only those who regularly watch Fox News and so have already lost the ability for rational thought, well, The Dismal Political Economist and the rest of sanity nation would owe Fox News a huge debt of gratitude.  And like almost everyone else, The Dismal Political Economist did not think he would ever be in that position.

Newt Gingrich Said He Would Win Iowa by Losing – and Other Laughter to Start the New Year

It Doesn’t Get Much Funnier Than This

When Newt Gingrich weighed in on his chances in the Iowa Caucuses  he said this

Newt Gingrich said today he doesn't expect to win the Iowa caucuses tomorrow night, but will declare victory because he has survived an onslaught of negative advertising

And in a related development Mr. Gingrich drew upon his expertise as a historian to declare Napoleon the victor at Waterloo because, as Mr. Gingrich put, Napoleon survived an onslaught of negative advertising.  Napoleon only seemed to lose, according to Newt because the British took out negative ads about the French in all the European papers.

As far as global warming is concerned,  Mr. Gingrich said this

when asked to explain his position on global warming, he delivered a new line.

“I’m an amateur paleontologist,” Gingrich said. “I spend a lot of time looking at the Earth’s temperature for a very long time. I’m a lot harder to convince than just looking at a computer model.”

And while everyone agrees that Mr. Gingrich is an amateur at many things, no one really thinks paleontology is one of them.

If When Mr. Gingrich leaves the Presidential race to return to his true calling, making money and glorifying Newt Gingrich a little bit of laughter will be taken from the world.

After His Tie with Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum Fails the Scrutiny Test

A Candidate So Ignorant He Supports ObamaCare and Doesn’t Even Realize It

The reason that the electoral hopes of anti-Mitt Romney candidates like Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry (gosh, can there have really been that many?) flamed out is that once the candidates became relevant, voters starting looking and listening.  And after they looked and listened they didn’t like what they saw and what they heard.

This has not the case with the latest possible challenger to Mr. Inevitability.  Rick Santorum has not engendered opposition because until a few days ago his campaign was so irrelevant that his views, background and persona were irrelevant.  Now this is changing, so The Dismal Political Economist has taken a look at some of the statements Mr. Santorum made just a few days after his Iowa tie.

Mingling with voters at a jam-packed diner here, Rick Santorum said that if he were president, his top priorities will be cutting spending by $5 trillion over five years and overhauling entitlement programs.

Wow, that’s pretty powerful stuff.  Let’s see exactly what Mr. Santorum has in mind.

Mr. Santorum, who is clearly drawing far more voters to events than before his near win Tuesday in Iowa, did not specify which programs he would change or how, but said entitlement reform is “what it is going to take.”

“We have got to have an honest discussion with the American people,” he said at a lunchtime stop off Interstate 93 at the pink Tilt’n Diner

Ok, like every other Conservative who wants cuts in spending and have “entitlement reform” (whatever that is) Mr. Santorum refuses to say what he has in mind.  That’s understandable, once a candidate actually says which programs he will cut the public turns against him, so instead of specifics we get an “honest discussion”.  Of course an “honest discussion” would start with Mr. Santorum telling us exactly what he plans to do.  So no “honest discussion” from Mr. Santorum.

As far as earmarks, those Congressionally mandated expenditures that all members of Congress put in legislation to bring spending to their state or district, Mr. Santorum says this.

Asked by voters about criticism from Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.)–a Mitt Romney supporter–about earmarking of federal funds, the former Pennsylvania senator shot back: “I would put my record on entitlement reform against his, and more importantly, against Gov. Romney’s.”

Uh Rick, see Mr. Romney has never been in Congress and therefore he has absolutely no Federal earmarks in his history, none, zero, nada.  Really, you can look it up, and please do so before your ignorance makes you look even more foolish.

The really revolutionary ideas of Mr. Santorum though are on health care.

He said he also had a problem with the idea that insurance companies should have to cover “anybody, pre-existing condition or not.”

That, he said, does not give people incentive to buy insurance while in good health, he said. “What are people going to do? Wait to get sick to buy insurance.”

You are right Rick, see that is why you require everybody to buy insurance, so you avoid this problem of adverse selection where people game the system. But if what Mr. Santorum is saying is that he wants to eliminate the requirement to buy insurance and couple that with the fact that insurance companies do not have to cover pre-existing conditions, this results in only healthy people being able to buy or afford insurance.  Oops, another plug for the Obama health care plan.

 So Mr. Santorum, we are all sure Mr. Obama will be thanking you for providing rationale and support of his program, but we doubt if this type of position will carry you with Conservative voters.  And remember Mr. Santorum, now they are paying attention.

President to Use Recess Appointment Powers to Appoint a Head to New Consumer Protection Industry

Republicans Will Be Furious – A Nice By-Product of Getting the Agency a Director

The Constitution allows the President to by-pass the Senate confirmation process in the event that the Senate is not in session.  This is termed a “recess” appointment, and the appointment lasts only until the end of the legislative session.  Presidents of both parties have used this process to appoint individuals to high government jobs when the Senate refused to do so, or in most cases, refused to even have a vote on the nomination.

To prevent this, the Senate Republicans have maintained the Senate in a sham session, so that technically they can claim the Senate has not recessed and any recess appointments are invalid. (Democrats have done this also in the past, petty political bickering is not the province of a single party).  The President, to his great credit has decided to disregard this sham and will appoint former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the agency.

President Obama is scheduled to announce the decision during anappearance in Cordray’s home state of Ohio, where he served as attorney general until losing his reelection bid in November 2010. The president will portay his decision as an escalation of the White House’s “we can’t wait” campaign to take action that does not require congressional approval.

The report notes the unusual nature of this appointment and the clash it will create between Senators and the White House

The White House determined that it may make an unprecedented recess appointment of Cordray even though the Senate remains in pro forma session. Obama is essentially declaring that session a gimmick designed to stymie the administration.

The action is likely to infuriate the Republican legislators who do not want Cordray to lead the agency. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created under Dodd-Frank legislation to oversee mortgage companies, payday lenders and debt collectors, among others.

Now the position of The Dismal Political Economist is that the Senate confirmation process should not be circumvented by a recess appointment in the event the Senate votes down a candidate.  If the Senate follows its Constitutional responsibility by rejecting a nominee, the nominee should stay rejected.

But that is not the case here.  Republicans are simply blocking a vote on the nominee, a vote that if it were held would result in confirmation.  So if the Senate denies a vote then it would seem the use of a recess appointment is entirely right and proper.  This principle should hold for whoever is in the White House.  A President is entitled to have his management team in place;  if the voters don’t like that team they can vote the President and his team out of office.

Furthermore, in this case the opposition to Mr. Cordray is not based on his qualification.

In rejecting Cordray’s appointment, Senate Republicans said they were challenging the structure of the agency’s oversight, which they argue should be overseen by a five-member commission.

But if they want to change things they need to change the law that created the agency.  Of course adherence to the law and its procedures doesn’t mean much to a group whose ideology is so strong they would disregard the law in an attempt to impose their view on an electorate that at least for now, rejected that view.  But not to worry, if Republicans gain control of the White House and Democrats try to block executive appointments (they shouldn’t, but that won’t stop them from trying) the Republicans will suddenly discover the virtues of playing by the rules.

Space Tourism – Now Coming to the Average Person – the Average Person Who Has $200,000 to Spend on a Trip Into Outer Space

Don’t Feel Sorry for These People – They Deserve to be Taken for a Ride

There are many things, ok, actually a huge number of things The Dismal Political Economist will never, ever understand.  One of these is manned space travel.  Not only is it very expensive, it is also a totally pointless activity, devoid of any real benefit except may some unexplainable  psychic pleasure the participants derive from being shot into space on a high speed rocket.

Previously reserved for astronauts and very wealthy people, The New York Times now reports without a bit of irony about space travel being available for what they call the “average person”.

Until now, space tourism has been limited to the ultrawealthy: just seven people have paid tens of millions of dollars each for a trip to the International Space Station aboard a Russian rocket.

But that could change this year, when Virgin Galactic intends to start offering flights just beyond the space barrier on a rocket ship it has built, featuring five minutes of weightlessness during a two-and-a-half hour jaunt. At $200,000 a seat, this will open the final frontier to far more people.

Wow, only $200,000 a seat, who could turn down such a great offer.  Apparently not these people, one of whom is Catherine Culver



Ms. Culver - Who Can Throw $200K into
outer space



Soon afterward, Ms. Culver put down her $20,000 deposit, becoming one of 475 people who have reserved a place on a Virgin Galactic flight. Most of them have already paid the full ticket price to rise above the 62-mile mark, which is considered the entrance to outer space. (People who pay in full will get the first seats.)

And the trip and preparation will be great fun

The trip is not for the faint of stomach: NASA used to train astronauts on a fast-diving airplane that offered intervals of weightlessness and was nicknamed the Vomit Comet — apparently for good reason.

Now Ms. Culver can certainly spend her hard earned money any way she sees fit, and if this is what she wants to do, so be it.  Plus, as she gets above 62 miles into the air she will be able to look down and with a single glance see every unemployed, every hungry, and every poor person in America.  A view like that, priceless.

Jeff Jacoby – Conservative Boston Globe Columnist Asserts Law of the Land is Not the Law of the Land

Position:  If Congress or the President Don’t Like a Supreme Court Decision, They Don’t Have to Obey It

One of the many dangerous “big” ideas of Newt Gingrich that he espoused in his justifiably to-be-doomed Presidential campaign is the idea that as President if he alone felt a Supreme Court decision was wrong, he could ignore it.  As difficult as it is believe, this concept has been taken up by other Conservatives, the latest of which is a reasonably intelligent columnist for the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby.

Mr. Jacoby writes that the Supreme Court is not supreme, that it is a co-equal branch of government and does not have the final say on the interpretation of the law.

If the Supreme Court wrongly decides a constitutional case, nothing obliges Congress or the president - or the states or the people, for that matter - to simply bow and accept it.

This is dangerous stuff.  It is one thing for a buffoon like Mr. Gingrich to present these ideas, no one really takes the Speaker or his radical positions all that seriously.  But it is another thing is respected and serious Conservative commentators take up the theme that a President can simply ignore the Supreme Court when he or she thinks they are wrong.

Mr. Jacoby quotes historical figures who railed against the tyranny of the courts.

But the heart and soul of American democracy is that power derives from the consent of the governed, and that no branch of government - executive, legislative, or judicial - rules by unchallenged fiat. Gingrich is far from the first to say so.

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,’’ wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1820, is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed , and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.’’ Abraham Lincoln - revolted by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case - rejected the claim that the justices’ word was final. “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made,’’ he warned in his first inaugural address , “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.’’

But fails to note that there are remedies for judicial decisions for which the people disagree.  But these remedies are sometimes difficult, and people like Mr. Jacoby would sweep the rule of law away because they find it inconvenient to use those remedies.

Mr. Jacoby is correct in that the Supreme Court is not the final word.  Most of what the Court does is to interpret the laws of Congress; if Congress and the President think that interpretation is wrong, or is not something they intended, the problem is fixed through the legislative process, something that has happened many times in American history. 

If the Court rules that a law is Unconstitutional, again the remedy is legislative action.  New or amended legislation can remedy the Constitutional flaw, or in the extreme,  legislation and state approval can amend the Constitution.  This is what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution, that no branch of government was supreme in that it could not override the actions of a different branch.  It is a system of government, that when used correctly, is a success.

Take for example the extremely unpopular Supreme Court decision that said that state and local government had the right to use eminent domain to take private property for use by a private company.  Those states and communities that disagreed with the ruling simply passed laws forbidding the state or local government from doing so.  This was their lawful right and they used lawful means.  In the world that some Conservatives would have us live in, the ruling would be simply ignored, which is an unlawful right using unlawful means.

The problem is that when people start to propose “nullification” of laws, bad things happen.  In the 19^th century that bad thing was a Civil War, which was largely about slavery but had an undercurrent of the right of states to “nullify” any federal legislation they did not like. In the 20th century it was defiance of Court decisions to end segregation.  (Go back and read the rhetoric of Conservatives during the 1950's and 1960's about how they didn't have to obey Court decisions on integration.  Then try to convince yourself that Conservatives are, well conservative).

 Mr. Jacoby never says how a President or a Congress or the states or the people get to decide that a case is wrongly decided by the Supreme Court and thus they don't have to adhere to it, for the obvious reason that there is no Constitutional or lawful way to do so.

The United States can be and should be well served by rational, intelligent Conservative thought.  They serve to check the too often expansion of government power when that expansion is neither wise nor warranted.  Good Conservatives force all of us to continually examine the trade-off between individual freedom and community action which in some cases have to limit individual freedom in return for community benefit.

One would think the rule of law would be paramount in Conservative values, but now it seems that at least some Conservatives so strongly believe in their cause that they are willing to sweep away the rule of law in order to impose their own philosophy on the nation.  This is sad for Conservatives, and even sadder for the nation.

Bachmann Quits, Perry Doesn’t, Media Gets Iowa Wrong

And News that Requires Commenting

Michele Bachmann is ending her Presidential bid in Iowa, the state where a few months ago she was the leader of a straw poll that made her a media favorite.  The problem that Ms. Bachmann ran into, once she became visible voters started paying attention to what she was saying.  That terminated any chances that she ever had.

Rick Perry is continuing his campaign, and as soon as we can get Mr. Romney’s win in New Hampshire out of the way this will make South Carolina the next really important primary.  With both Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich in the South Carolina race it is possible, even probably that Mr. Romney will lose that state.  The implications for the ultimate success of his campaign, very little.  A contributing factor to Mr. Romney’s loss would be the endorsement of South Carolina’s unpopular Governor, Nikki Haley.  To the extent that a loss by Mr. Romney would further tarnish Ms. Haley that is a benefit for all South Carolinians.

The media, as usual gets the Iowa Caucuses wrong.  Mr. Romney did not win, the result was a tie.  The 8 vote margin is a statistical aberration, like flipping a coin fairly a 1,000 times and coming up with heads 501 times and then saying the coin is fixed because the result was not exactly 500 heads and 500 tails.  Of course, the shelf life of the news of the Iowa Caucuses is only about 7 to 10 days, so this error, like so many others of the press will soon not matter.

One strongly suspects that one reason why Texas Rep. Ron Paul is running for President and will remain in the race is that he wants to hand over his legacy (?) to his son Senator Rand Paul.  If this is the case, look for Sen. Paul to run for re-election in 2016 which would position himself as a potential nominee in 2020 or 2024.  If he does run in 2024, remember where you read this successful prediction of 13 years prior.

Remember all that political rhetoric by Republicans about not having government get involved in “crony capitalism” or “corporate welfare”.  That’s really all it is, rhetoric.  Kentucky is seriously considering approving casino gambling at racetracks in order to benefit the racing and horse breeding industry.

The state's horse breeders and racetrack operators have argued for years that Kentucky risks ceding its status as the nation's horse-racing epicenter and a further slide in its $4 billion industry without a revenue infusion from casino gambling. Thirteen states now have casinos built on racetracks, with a certain percentage of revenue—typically from slot machines—earmarked for the horse-racing industry. The cash helps racetracks offer bigger purses and sweeten bonuses given to victorious breeders from in-state.

This action by state government to aid industry is what one expects from Democrats, but in Kentucky Republicans are coming on board.

Mr. Beshear and GOP leaders are working on details of a bill to be submitted in this legislative session, which began Tuesday. The major sticking point is whether casino locations would be awarded exclusively to horse tracks, be opened up to any bidder, or a mix of both. It isn't clear how that question will be resolved or how much casino revenue would go to the horse-racing industry

To be fair, there is opposition within the Republican ranks, but probably not enough to prevent the measure from getting on the ballot.

The Dismal Political Economist regards lotteries and casino gambling as a voluntary tax on stupidity, but given that there is so much stupidity it would be a shame not to tax it.  Also, since taxing something is supposed to produce less of it, maybe casino gambling produces less stupidity.  Results so far, though are not comforting. 

Memo to Conservatives: Movies are Not Reality – Biopic of Margaret Thatcher is Entertainment, Not History

Conservatives Continue to Escape Reality for Fantasy

The normally intelligent and articulate columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan has, like all of us, has her weak spots.  In her case it is an infatuation for both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher that borders on obsession, and it results in the otherwise sane and intelligent writer embracing fiction rather than reality.

The case in point is the newly released biopic with the great Meryl Street portraying former British Prime Minister Thatcher in what will obviously be a very positive portrayal of the leader.  Here is Ms. Noonan practically overcome with joy about the impending release of the movie.

Mrs. Thatcher's political views are never granted any sympathetic legitimacy, though the movie subtly allows there may have been some legitimacy. Perhaps the great flaw is that it has too great a fear of exactly locating her greatness, and the meaning of her greatness. This is not so much a political as an aesthetic flaw: In the classic movies about Elizabeth I, for instance, you knew why you were watching the movie, why she was its subject, and how she changed history.

But note that she is concerned that the movie does not glorify Ms. Thatcher correctly.  Unfortunately for Ms. Noonan, the movie apparently does get it wrong but not in the way that Ms. Noonan thinks.  The Thatcher biographer whose book was the basis of the movie is quite critical in that he thinks the movie overly glorified Ms. Thatcher at the expense of history.

The author is concerned that screenwriters chose to enhance the prime minister's role in important affairs of the 1980s at the expense of other key figures, such as her foreign secretary Geoffrey Howe.

"Like any film of that sort, it simplifies and it dramatises her as a great individual, fighting against all these things as if it was just her on her own," Campbell tells the Daily Telegraph. "It does not credit her colleagues like Geoffrey Howe, or anybody else. The other politicians are made to look wet – she bashes them.

The whole thing is illustrative of the Conservatives unending attempt to change the image of Ronald Reagan from something he was into something they wanted him to be.  Because of a compliant media, this fantasy adoration of Mr. Reagan and Ms. Thatcher succeeds in the short term, but the judgment of history, once time has passed so that objective analysis can be presented, will be more critical because it will be reality based.

Republicans in Virginia Trying to Limit Ballot Access for Advantage to Certain Candidates

What Is It About Democracy They Just Don’t Like?

In the center ring of the three rink circus that is the Republican nominating process is the fiasco that a number of candidates created for themselves in an attempt to get on the primary ballot in Virginia.  The requirement for ballot access was neither unknown nor particularly burdensome.  Candidates had to get 10,00 petition signatures, with at least 400 from each Congressional District.

Several candidates, Newt Gingrich among them failed to do this.  This was simply lazy and sloppy campaign work, and Mr. Gingrich and others had no to fault but themselves.  Of course, they didn’t see it that way; Mr. Gingrich being of the entitlement class believes that even if he failed in his attempt to do what was required, he was still entitled to ballot access because, well, because he was Newt Gingrich.

Now Virginia’s Attorney General is seeking to obtain a change in the rules, and allow ballot access to any candidate who qualified for federal matching funds, which would give Mr. Gingrich a place on the ballot.  As much as The Dismal Political Economist enjoys the spectacle of seeing Mr. Gingrich whine about an event that was the result of his own incompetence, this sounds like a fair thing to do.  And apparently it is possible to do this if the state legislature will cooperate.

But that is where things get interesting.  See the Virginia Attorney General is an ultra radical conservative, who obviously wants someone other than Mitt Romney, who is on the ballot, to at least challenge Mr. Romney.  But the Governor is Robert F. McDonnell, who is looking like a likely candidate for the VP slot if when Mr. Romney gets the nomination, and blocking ballot access would certainly be doing a favor for both Mr. Romney and for Mr. McDonnell’s VP chances.  So the Governor is non-commital.

Bob McDonnell, the state’s Republican governor, issued a statement saying he would review any legislation passed, but stopped short of endorsing it.

“Virginia’s laws regarding ballot access are well known and have been in place for many years. All candidates seeking to be listed on the Virginia primary ballot in a statewide race have known the requirements well in advance,” said Tucker Martin, a spokesman for Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Martin said the governor “is always open to reviewing how Virginia’s primary system can be improved to provide voters with more choices. If the General Assembly decides to take action to change Virginia’s ballot access requirements for the March 2012 primary, the governor would review those changes.”

In the end it is likely that if the legislature approves such a measure the Governor will sign it.  This is because by the time it becomes necessary for the Governor to do so Mr. Romney may be assured the nomination, and Mr. McDonnell can tell Mr. Romney that had it been important he would have been more than willing to sacrifice democracy for his own political gain, but since the issue was becoming moot, well, he would take the high road.

So in the end Virginia Republicans will likely get to choose from many candidates, but only because it won’t matter.

Once Again Conservatives Show a Lack of Willing to Abide by the Law of the Land

Being Conservative Means Laws You Don’t Like Don’t Apply to You - No Wonder They Like Newt Gingrich

The U. S. tax code awards tax exempt status to non-profit organizations, typically those that operate for the public benefit like schools, charities and other institutions which make life better for all of us.  As a result, a private University may make a profit of millions of dollars, but pays nothing in income taxes.

In return for this exemption from paying taxes, the institutions agree to abide by certain rules.  One of the most important is that the institution cannot engage in partisan political activity.  This seems like an eminently reasonable request, after all the institution is getting a subsidy from all taxpayers and it hardly seems fair that taxpayers should have to subsidize an institution that works against the political positions of some of them.

Liberty University is a college in Lynchburg, Virginia that was started by the late Reverend Jerry Falwell.  It is based on Mr. Falwell’s personal religious beliefs, as it has every right to do so, and it is a tax exempt organization.  But the folks at Liberty who believe that because their hearts are pure they can violate any laws they want feel free to use the college resources to promote a political candidate.  In this case the support is aimed at Newt Gingrich who lacked money to compete in Iowa.

A second major player in conservative circles, Liberty University, the evangelical institution founded by Jerry Falwell, is also giving Mr. Gingrich some help in Iowa, running 30-second commercials in which Mr. Gingrich extols the virtues of a Liberty education.

Now some observers are concerned about this, and think that Liberty is violating the rules of its tax exempt status.

Election law experts said the more problematic issues were with Liberty University’s ad, which could be jeopardizing its tax-exempt status.

“It would be hard to think of a circumstance in which it could run and ad featuring a federal candidate in the middle of a primary or a caucus without raising serious tax-exempt questions,” said Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “I hope they have good tax lawyers.”

But this concern is unfounded.  Places like Liberty are untouchable, the power of the Conservative media being so great that no government agency would dare come after them as they would play the “persecution” card and the “freedom of religion” card.  But at least as time goes on they are less able to play the “good citizens” card, because in fact they are not. 

The Real Lesson of Iowa – Those Who Finished in the Last Half

Up Close and Personal, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Perry and Ms. Bachmann Are Not Very Attractive Candidates

The pundits will take a few days to try and find more meaning in the Iowa Caucuses than is really there.  They will focus on the top three finishers, and speculate on what it means for Mr. Romney, Mr. Paul and Mr. Santorum.  It won’t take long.

For Mr. Romney Iowa was a nice stop on his way to the nomination.  For Mr. Paul it was vindication that at least 20% of Republicans will support an extremist, and for Mr. Santorum it is the beginning of a well deserved end.  The professional commentators will try to make a race of it, but at this point the Republican nominee has been pretty much decided, as it has been since Mr. Perry imploded by actually walking onto the national scene and Mr. Christie walked off of it. (to be Attorney General Christie if Mr. Romney wins).

The real news in Iowa was the finish of Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Perry and Ms. Bachmann.  At one time all three were highly favored to do well in Iowa, Ms. Bachmann even winning the Straw Poll.  What happened?  Iowans got a good look at all three. 

Instead of the polished image which all three had hoped to present, when viewed up close the flaws of these three were finally identified.  Mr. Perry’s lack of knowledge, Mr. Gingrich’s many crazy ideas and bad temperament and Ms. Bachmann’s mean and vindictive nature became glaringly obvious to voters once they started paying attention.

And so the good news from Iowa is that voters do pay attention, and when they finally see what the rest of us have seen they react accordingly.  This in itself is reason enough to have the Iowa Caucuses, at least for now.