The Anointing of Mitt Romney as the Republican Nominee Has Begun – Wall Street Journal Joins Washington Post

Watch for Others To Come Around as Soon as They Get Those Annoying Early Primaries Out of the Way

The anti-Mitt Romney candidates are having a shorter and shorter shelf life.  What has happened in the past is that as one by one they arose, this caused voters to actually look at what they were saying and what they have done, and as a result, reject them.  The latest non-Mitt candidate, Ron Paul, must now defend some bigoted hate-filled comments he made in newsletters seeking to raise money and gather support for his causes some 15 to 20 years ago.  His response has been to that was some other guy.

The editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal are anti-Mitt, in large part because of his imposition of a requirement for health care insurance while he was Governor of Massachusetts.  Mitt’s opposition to this principle for the nation is not enough to absolve him of the disdain of the WSJ.  Mitt also is not aggressive enough on lowering taxes for the very wealthy, at least in the eyes of the WSJ.



Mr. Romney in the WSJ
Notice the Nice Glowing Image



But as his nomination becomes inevitable folks like the WSJ will seek to rehabilitate Mitt and cast him into the mold of Presidential prowess.  It has started, with Mr. Romney having been given the Saturday puff piece interview in the Wall Street Journal.  In this interview Mr. Romney mostly ducks and covers, although he does state one, big boldface lie.

The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008—"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's

Mr. Romney conveniently omits the fact that the “another home” was in the state of New Hampshire, which just coincidentally holds the nation’s first primary.  The truth is that Mr. Romney started running for President the day after the 2008 election, and has been running hard ever since.  One wonders why he just wouldn’t admit this and move on.

On several other issues Mr. Romney says that he is ignorant.  On his proposed tax changes he says he doesn’t know their impact

When it comes to "something as extensive as the U.S. tax code," Mr. Romney continues, "I simply don't have the team . . . to be able to model out what will happen to all of the different income groups in the country, what will happen to the different sectors of our economy based on dramatic changes."

But that of course has not prevented him from presenting tax changes.  One wonders of the wisdom of advocating a change in something as important as taxes without knowing the impact but this is politics, wisdom has nothing to do with it.

On the big foreign policy issue of Mr. Romney’s campaign, Iran and their nuclear capacity Mr. Romney says this

As for Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Romney sounds a note of moral certitude reminiscent of, well, George W. Bush and the axis of evil. "I see Iran's leadership as evil. When the president stands up and says that we have shared interests with all the people in the world, I disagree. There are people who are evil. There are people who have as their intent the subjugation and repression of other people; they are evil. America is good.

But as to specifics, well he again pleads ignorance

So what would he do about it? "I do not have a top secret security clearance at this stage to be able to define precisely what kinds of actions we could take." But he adds that "the range includes something of a blockade nature, to something of a surgical strike nature, to something of a decapitate the regime nature, to eliminate the military threat of Iran altogether."

So Mr. Romney is clearly in general election campaign mode.  Criticize without giving alternatives or specifics, equivocate to try to please all sides, impute to the opponents views and positions that the opponent does not have.  Mitt has clearly learned the skills of successful politicians of both parties. 

And now the first step towards endorsement by the radical Conservative establishment has taken place.  The interview in the WSJ, with no tough questions, no challenges and no opposition to his pronouncements.  Fox News, here he comes.

More Evidence the Economy is Improving – Experts Say Economic Prospects are Bleak

Trust the Experts – To Be Wrong

Economic forecasting is the most perilous of tasks.  No matter who says what, no one, and we do mean no one, can accurately forecast economic activity for the future year or longer.  The problem is that there are just too many unknowns, and too many random disturbances to make predictions accurate.

This of course does not stop forecasting and forecasters, including The Dismal Political Economist from prognosticating.  But unlike the so-called experts, The Dismal Political Economist expects to be wrong more often than not.  This is not to imply that the experts will be right more often than they are wrong, they won’t be, they just don’t admit it.

So what the rest of us can take from the following headline in the New York Times

Signs Point to Economy’s Rise, but Experts See a False Dawn

is that this is about as strong an item of evidence possible that the economy will be stronger not weaker during the first half of 2012.  Sure, the “experts” do point out legitimate concerns.

There are two reasons for the renewed pessimism. First, economists say that temporary trends increased growth in the fourth quarter and may not continue into next year. Second, the economy faces significant headwinds in 2012: some from Europe’s long-lingering sovereign debt crisis, and some from domestic cutbacks beyond the control of President Obama, whose campaign would like to point to a brightening economic picture, not a darkening one. Even the Federal Reserve is predicting that the unemployment rate will remain around 8.6 percent by the time voters go to the polls in November.

But there are cyclical and technical reasons why the economy should not slow down early next year.

One of the technical issues is that recessions tend to run out of gas, the same as expansions.  Consumer spending, which drives the U. S. economy will increase because consumers must replace things like autos and major appliances.  Furthermore, consumers are becoming more confident, and new electronic gadgets are getting a lot of attention.  The gadgets require spending for add-ons,   so spending on them instigates more spending.

There is also a lag, which economists understand but don’t seem to remember, between policy actions and results. Future home owners and builders don’t just go out and buy and build the day after interest rates drop, there may be 6 to 18 months of lag time before they react.  Similarly, business does not hire immediately when the need new employees, they wait until they have used up overtime availability of existing employees.  A continuing sign of progress is the decline in new jobless claims.

There is no question that there are huge risks on the horizon, Europe could have a severe negative impact on the world economy, the lack of effective government in Washington can doom the growth of investor, business and consumer confidence and a new, unknown shock to the economy is always possible.  But right now the signs are positive, and the most positive of all is that the “experts think they are negative.

Washington Post Fact Checker is Even More Biased Than PolitiFact

Condemns Democratic Ad That Accurate Portrays Mitt Romney; Does Not Condemn Romney Ad That Misquoted Mr. Obama

It is now evident to anyone paying attention that the once respected journal known as the Washington Post has decided to back Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, and probably for President.  The Post has hired Romney hacks like Jennifer Rubin to opine on their web site in support of Mitt, and they have some how subverted their Fact Checker to ignore the worst political ad of the season, which is by the Romney campaign and to condemn a Democratic ad that is correct.

Earlier this year the Romney camp ran an ad in which they show Mr. Obama saying something like “If we have to talk about the economy, we lose” which seems pretty damning.  Except Mr. Obama was quoting John McCain in the 2008 campaign.  This was clearly the most egregiously misleading ad of the current political campaign.  Yet when the Washington Post Fact Checker came up with his biggest lies of 2011, the Romney ad was spectacularly missing.

What was present as one of the “biggest” political lies of 2011 was the claim by Democrats that the Republican Plan to end Medicare did indeed end Medicare.  It seems for the Fact Checkers of America, as long as Republicans called what they proposed Medicare then Fact Checkers will regard it as Medicare.  Apparently if Republicans wanted to replace Medicare with bull fighting, and called it Saving Medicare by Having Senior Fight Bulls the Fact Checkers would still say that Republicans have preserved Medicare. (It would have “Medicare” in its name so it must be Medicare, right).

But the Washington Post Fact Checker goes even further, he cites a Democratic ad that quotes Mr. Romney correctly as a lie.  About the only way this can stand is if the Fact Checker is reasoning that Mr. Romney has changed his positions so many times that anything he says is not true, and therefore to quote him is misleading. 

Huh? No that doesn’t make sense to even The Dismal Political Economist.  Neither does the efforts of the Post to pollute their once valued reputation, but that is what they are doing.

Which Myth Does Mitt Romney Believe: In Santa Claus or That His Super Pac is Independent and He Cannot Influence It

Well He Knows There is No Santa Claus

One of the great (?) changes in the political system wrought from the Supreme Court’s decision to allow unlimited money in campaigns is the creation of “Super Pac’s”  These entities are campaign organizations funded by unlimited anonymous donations that support a particular candidate, but (wink, wink, nod, nod) have to operate independently of the candidate.  The logic of the Supreme Court is that unlimited funding is equal, billionaires can contribute millions, just like a homeless person can contribute millions.

So seizing the opportunity, Mr. Romney got some of his friends and associates to set up a Super Pac on his behalf.

Restore Our Future is a PAC founded by some of Mr. Romney's most senior advisers and funded by his largest donors.

And guess what the PAC is doing, it is running a massive amount of anti-Newt Gingrich ads in Iowa, funded by the millions in unlimited contributions. 

In Iowa, it has pumped millions of dollars into ads attacking Mr. Gingrich for his ties to the mortgage giant Freddie Mac and his ethics violations while in the House, among other issues.

But Mr. Romney doesn’t want to be associated with the negativity, so he claims that all of this is taking place without his consent, and even more unbelievable, as something he does not even support.

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Mr. Romney kept his distance from the PAC and decried the campaign-finance system that has given rise to such entities, which can take unlimited donations and are not subject to the $2,500-a-person limit that applies to primary election campaigns.

Well everyone except Newt Gingrich is still laughing over that one. 

"His comments today are palpably misleading, clearly false and politics in its worst form," Mr. Gingrich told reporters at a campaign appearance at a snow-removal equipment maker in Ottumwa. He said it was "just purely dishonest" for Mr. Romney to say he could not influence a PAC founded by his former aides and financed by supporters of his presidential campaign.

As recently as July, Mr. Gingrich said, Mr. Romney's campaign was welcoming the creation of Restore Our Future and encouraging contributions.

See Mr. Gingrich decided he didn’t need things like a campaign staff, organizations and all that utter clutter, he was going to run and win an unconventional campaign.  Now that it turns out that strategy may not be working, Mr. Gingrich too is joining the “Super Pac” bandwagon.

Mr. Gingrich has his own Super PAC, Winning Our Future, which longtime aide Rick Tyler joined just this week.

But Mr. Gingrich said Winning Our Future should keep its efforts positive and promised to "disown" it if it turns negative.

Nobody should take Mr. Gingrich at his word on this, because if his Super Pac can only say positive things about Mr. Gingrich, well, what exactly are they going to fill the ads with.  Why bother with 30 seconds or 60 seconds of empty space.

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Seizing Control of the Country – Wants to Arrest and Replace Opposition Politicians

Memo to George W. Bush:  Is This What Americans Died For?  Is It?

Here is the briefest of all possible histories of the U. S. war in Iraq.  The narrative is that the U. S. and it allies invaded that country to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.  When it turned out there weren’t any, President Bush and his minions changed the rationale to being one of deposing a brutal dictator and replacing him with a democracy.

Now a few days after the last American troops have left the country, Iraq’s Prime Minister has declared himself to be the “fearless leader”.

Maliki also said he would release what he described as incriminating information about government officials if they continue a boycott that started recently. He also said that the county’s constitution gives him broad authority and latitude to run Iraq as he sees fit.

Gosh, he has authority to run Iraq as he sees fit.  What previous Iraqi ruler could have said such a thing and done such a thing.  Anyone know? 

The issue is the role in the government with respect to Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and the semi-autonomous Kurds who inhabit the north part of Iraq. 

Much of the current crisis is the result of the Shiite Prime Minister wanting to arrest his Vice President

Iraq’s Interior Ministry, which is controlled by Maliki, announced the arrest warrant for Hashimi on Monday, the day after the last U.S. troops departed Iraq. Maliki said at the news conference that Hashimi was operating outside the law and thought his position allowed him to do so.

“There is a mechanism all over the world for people who are wanted by the judiciary,” Maliki said. “That’s why we are demanding the brothers in the regional government of Kurdistan to bear their responsibility.”

The Vice President has fled to the Kurd region of Iraq, and the Kurds do not appear to be willing to give him up. 

Now no one, least of all The Dismal Political Economist, has any idea about what the true situation is here.  But the idea that the U. S. is leaving behind a thriving democratic country subject to the rule of law, well only George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld believe that.

State Employment Data in November Shows Little Correlation to State Fiscal and Governmental Policy

Something Other Than Conservative vs Liberal is Going On

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has released its November 2011 employment report by states, and the conclusion that one draws from the report is that no real conclusions can be drawn from the report.  The report does not support the conclusions that low tax states are at a greater advantage over high tax states, and it does not support the conclusion that states with high levels of government spending are at a disadvantage compared to states with low levels of government spending.

The states that had the greatest employment increases from November 2010 are Texas and California, with California in the lead. California had 233,000 more people employed in November 2011 than a year ago, and Texas 226,000.  But California has a higher population than Texas, so on a relative basis Texas had more job creation than California.  Texas of course is controlled by radical Conservatives and California is firmly in the control of Democrats (although Republicans can and do block many programs).  So neither California nor Texas governance can be used to explain employment growth.

Regional issues appear to be mostly significant.  New Mexico had a huge drop in unemployment, from 8.6% to 6.5% for the past year, although why this has happened is not clear to folks like The Dismal Political Economist who are far from New Mexico.  Unemployment rates continue to be low in the lightly populated Midwest states, where high commodity and energy prices support a strong economy. Nevada continues to lead the nation in unemployment, and this is because its economy was built on construction, which has since collapsed and entertainment, which is vulnerable to an economic slowdown.

Conservatives continue to predict doom and gloom for Illinois, as that state had to raise taxes to fix a budget problem created by multiple inept governors and legislators, but so far that has not happened as the state gained jobs over the past 12 months.  New York and New Jersey both had nice employment gains also, and the two states have widely different Governors.

The conclusion, no conclusion can be made about state politics, fiscal policy and taxation and job creation.  Sorry economists, there are other things in the world besides economics.

Forecasting the Newt Gingrich Vice Presidential Choice – Remember if Newt is Nominated Voters Get Two Tickets to Crazy Town

A List of Non Conventional Choices

As the holiday break is in full swing, and the Iowa Caucuses loom as soon as New Year’s Day is out of the way, the Republican race is coming down to Mitt Romney and the someone who is the least objectionable non-Mitt Romney.  That Newt Gingrich can fill that role says volumes about just how objectionable Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and the rest turned out to be.

So it is now time to once again speculate on a possible Vice Presidential choice.  For Mr. Romney this comes down to Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.  Mr. Rubio was the safe and logical choice until it turned out he misrepresented his past.  Mr. McDonnell is very popular in a swing state and is a closet radical Conservative.  Mr. Daniels is a successful cut spending Governor and a bland, safe choice.  Mr. Christie is probably too dynamic for Mr. Romney, but would be the choice if Mr. Romney can stand having a running mate who is more popular than he would be.

With Newt Gingrich though, none of these choices would work.  They are all too safe and conventional.  Mr. Gingrich wants to be known as a big thinker, a man of big ideas, a man who defies convention. So with that in mind, here are some of the possible running mates for Mr. Gingrich.

Sarah Palin:  Newt Gingrich is all about attention and publicity, and this pick would give him an unlimited amount of both.  Mr. Obama would be relegated to the back page of the newspaper and the Republican convention would be a love fest.  Even his opponents would label Mr. Gingrich a man of big ideas,  stupid ideas yes, but definitely big.

Barack Obama:  This would be a hard sell to Mr. Obama but it would be unprecedented for the sitting President of the opposition party to accept the VP nod, but again unprecedented is what Mr. Gingrich is all about.

Richard Nixon:  Mr. Nixon comes closest to embodying what Newt Gingrich is all about, scheming, sweaty, unethical, and most of all, blaming the media for all of his and the world’s problems.  That fact that Mr. Nixon is deceased would make the selection truly revolutionary.

George W. Bush:  Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush in ineligible for the job, but not because he is dead.  He is Constitutionally barred because of the two term limit for the Presidency.  However Mr. Gingrich has consistently shown than he does not care about those things.  He would unilaterally abolish a Federal Appeals Circuit because he doesn’t like their decisions, so violating a Constitutional provision is not much of a stretch. 

Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise:  Newt is a big space fan, wants to colonize the moon and put reflecting mirrors in space to light highways at night.  The fact that Captain Kirk is a fictional character is not a limitation in Mr. Gingrich’s world.  Also, although he has not said so, Mr. Gingrich is thought to believe that the Klingons pose a huge threat to U. S. national security, so selecting Captain Kirk would be the natural choice for better national defense.

Lady GaGa:  As a patron of the arts Mr. Gingrich is reportedly impressed by Ms. GaGa’s gaga attitude.  Adding her to the ticket would be a balancing move, the ticket would have a genuinely flamboyant, self centered, materialistic diva and Ms. GaGa.

Elmo from Sesame Street:  Yes he is a hand puppet, but hand puppets are under-represented in national politics and this would be a breakthrough for a previously neglected minority.  The only problem is that despite Newt’s reputation as a thinker, Elmo seems to have the better intellect.
 
Vladimir Putin of Russia:  Mr. Putin seems to have the same atttudes towards democracy and governing that Mr. Gingrich has, so this would be the most compatible running mate Mr. Gingrich could find.  The fact that Mr. Putin is Constitutionally ineligible to run would give Mr. Gingrich the opportunity to defy the Supreme Court when it ruled against this selection, as Mr. Gingrich has said that he has the authority to disregard Court decisions when he does not agree with them.
 
It is becoming increasingly unlikely that Mr. Gingrich will get the nomination, as voters are now starting to look at his actual statements and positions, but in the event he does and one of the above is selected as his VP nominee, remember where you read it first.

Mr. Romney Takes Stand That is Not in His Best Interests; Mr. Obama Just Takes a Stand; Supporters of Ron Paul Move to Have Him Committed and Other Miracles of the Season

News That Didn’t Happen – But Could Have in a Holiday Setting

Mr. Mitt Romney today announced that he would be offering employment to several thousand workers who had been laid off as a result of the buyouts he engineered at Bain Capital while he was in the private sector and making millions.  Mr. Romney was quoted as saying “I made a lot of money by basically doing nothing, and a lot of people suffered so it is only right that I do this”.  In a related story Mr. Romney said he would not longer strap his dog to the top of his car when going on vacation (Thanks to Gail Collins of the NYT).

At the White House President Obama said that he would stand his ground on at least one issue in 2012, and that if he felt good about it he would not compromise his principles on a second issue.  The President admitted that he too often gave in to pressure from Republicans and that he owed it to his many supporters to support at least one position that he had taken and said that he would not abandon. 

Instead of voting for Ron Paul during the Iowa Caucuses, his supporters said that they would use those meetings to pass the hat and collect money for therapy for the perennial Presidential candidate. 

Eric Cantor, the Republican Majority Leader in the House told supporters that he would stop trying to go behind the back of House Speaker John Boehner and would support Mr. Boehner in the future, regardless of what it meant for his own ambitions to replace Mr. Boehner as Speaker.  Mr. Cantor though denied Mr. Boehner’s request that Mr. Cantor never be behind Mr. Boehner, and that Mr. Cantor pass through a knife detector when entering the same room as Mr. Boehner.

Vladimir Putin of Russia spoke to a crowd of voters in Moscow and said that in the upcoming election there would be a totally secret ballot and that the election would be supervised by outside monitors to assume that no fraud would take place.  Mr. Putin, a former KGB leader said that until recently he didn’t know that democracy was supposed to work that way.

In Alabama elected officials revealed that they would amend Alabama’s harsh anti-illegal immigration law and no longer require anyone who spoke with an accent or whose skin was not pure white to have to show a U. S. passport in order to buy milk.  The officials said that while they supported the requirement in principle, dairy farmers had pressured them to drop the requirement.  They said that instead they would replace it with those persons having to produce an affidavit from either the President, the Vice President or the Secretary of State that testified that they were in the country legally. 

In a humanitarian move a group of major colleges said that while they would not support returning the right to vote to convicted felons who had served their time, they would act to restore full eligibility for college football to any convicted felons who promised to limit their crimes to misdemeanors during their time on the team.

Because the Congress could not pass year end tax legislation, the IRS has sent a notice to every taxpayer that they will owe the same for 2011 that they owed for 2010.  The Service said that they had no idea what the tax rules for 2011 would be because Congress has failed to act in a timely manner, and that individuals could just file their 2010 tax return for 2011, and mark through the 2010 number at the top of the 1040.

Finally, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker and PolitiFact issued the Republican Party certificates good for seven separate lies that they could make in 2012, and not be subject to critique by the fact checking services.  Both the Post and PolitiFact said that holding Republicans to a standard of truth was unfair, because the facts, logic and data were biased against Republicans.

Jeb Bush (the Smart Bush?) Writes Gibberish in the Wall Street Journal

Lack of Freedom (Unspecified)  and “Ruinous” Taxes (Unidentified) are the Problem According to This Bush

One of the few good things of the current political season has been the absence of the progeny of George H. W. Bush from the political spotlight.  George W. has left the building, (thank you very much), and Jeb has declined to run for the Republican nomination (thank you very much).  For the last few years there hasn’t been a single Bush in the political news, something that hadn’t happened since 1979.

But Jeb Bush, the former Governor of Florida has jumped back in the news with an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.  It looks like this Mr. Bush penned the piece himself, because the sheer level of incoherence is so great that a ghost writer, even a bad one could not have achieved this blather.  Here is just a sample, see if anyone can make sense of it.

We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation, where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and where the state decides how a massive share of the economy's resources should be spent.

Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well: a road where individuals acting freely and with little restraint are able to pursue fortune and prosperity as they see fit, a road where the government's role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.

Really, what does that mean?

Mr. Bush apparently forgets an important fact.  Until 2009 his father and his brother were in control of the executive branch of the government for 12 of the 20 years dating back to 1989.  Really, they were, it’s in all the history books.  So if Mr. Bush has a complaint shouldn’t he be airing it at the family Christmas gathering instead of the Wall Street Journal, that is, going to the source of the problem. 

As for this “ruinous” taxation thing, Mitt Romney is certainly exhibit A why that is not true.  Mitt can testify that he has made tens of millions of dollars, and has so much wealth that he is embarrassed to release his tax returns and most people think his tax rate is less than that of the average employee.  The facts of course are that the U. S. has the lowest tax burden of any of the advanced countries of North America and Europe. 

But in the spirit of the holiday season, The Dismal Political Economist has perused the Bush piece to try and find something he would agree with, and he found this.

We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions.

So yes, Jeb Bush is saying all those corporate executives who ran their companies into the ground should not be rewarded.  Those bankers who cost their shareholders and the taxpayers billions should lose everything they have, and maybe go to jail.  Yes, we agree with Mr. Bush, a major problem is that those who make bad decisions do not suffer the consequences, and we await Mr. Bush’s call for much harsher penalties for those who collected millions from unethical, incompetent and illegal actions.

But looking at the piece as a whole, it is pretty disappointing, filled with generalities and lacking any specifics.  If Jeb Bush is the smart Bush, we can only be thankful that the country was never subjected to governance by the dumb Bush.

 Uh oh, wait a minute.

The Light Bulb Fiasco: Irrevocable Proof Positive that Conservatives in Government is a Collection of Idiots

As If Further Proof Were Needed

When Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe and Madison  and the other Founding Fathers sat down to write the Constitution of the United States, one of the things that concerned them the most was that at some time in the future the Congress would spend a huge amount of time involved in trying to guarantee Americans in the future the right to buy a light bulb.

Anticipating the invention of the incandescent light bulb, that would take place about 100 years later, the Framers made specific mention in the Constitution that Congress could never take away from Americans the right to choose, that is, the right to choose the light bulb technology of their choice.  Removal of this freedom, they felt, was just the first step on replacing the American form of government with a Soviet style dictatorship.

Ok, this really didn’t happen (no it didn’t, you can look it up) but Conservative members of the Congress apparently believe it should have happened, and that they are the last defense against the removal of an Americans right to waste energy.  So in the midst of the debate over taxes and government spending, they fought long and hard to get a provision in the funding bill that would prevent the government from enforcing Bush administration laws mandating more energy efficient light bulbs.

The Senate and House passed a massive spending bill, which President Obama is expected to sign this week, that includes a measure barring the Department of Energy from enforcing more efficient light bulb rules. Those rules, requiring bulbs use at least 25% less energy, do not ban all incandescents but phase out Edison's bulbs in favor of the more efficient halogen incandescent, the CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) or LED (light emitting diode.)

And who do all Americans have to thank for this preservation of a basic, right, why of course, it’s a bulbous, bombastic, boastful buffoon

The light bulb rules were approved with bi-partisan support and signed by President George Bush in 2007. Yet this year, House Republicans and conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh have attacked them as a ban on all incandescents and an infringement on individual rights.

And at least one Conservative praised the action in terms of the coming holiday

"This is an early Christmas present for all Americans. It restores the freedom, at least temporarily, for you to choose thelight bulbs you want to illuminate your home," Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said in a statement after the House voted Friday. 

The Congressman went on to add that because the Bible reports that among the gifts the magi brought to the baby Jesus was a 100 watt GE light bulb, banning such items was not only an attack on freedom, but also an attack on religion (ok, he didn’t say it, but we all know he thought it).

Opposing the Conservative initiative was the godless, atheistic lighting industry.

The lighting industry has opposed GOP attacks on the lighting standards, which begin phasing out Edison's 100-watt incandescent Jan. 1 nationwide. The 75-watt version follows Jan. 2013 and the 60-watt and 40-watt ones, Jan. 2014. California began the phaseout a year early, in Jan. 2011.

"American manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in transitioning to energy efficient lighting," says Joseph Higbee, spokesman of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, an industry group. "Delay in enforcement undermines those investments and creates regulatory uncertainty."

And even worse, many Americans, in fact a majority, are going ahead with changing out light bulbs the Conservatives want to preserve in order to have more efficient lighting, thus voluntarily given up their precious rights.

Stephen Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, says most Americans favor thelight bulb standards. He cites a USA TODAY/Gallup poll, taken in February, that found 61% regarded them favorably. Of those surveyed, 71%, said they have replaced standard light bulbs in their home with more efficient options, and 84% said they are "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the alternatives.

Can anything be done to stop that?  Conservatives are reported to be considering legislation requiring Americans to use energy wasting light bulbs, “It’s what this country was built on” said an unnamed spokesperson.

The Premier Fact Checker on Politics Gets It Wrong – How Can This Be?

Is Everyone Afraid to Offend the Republican/Conservative Sector?

PolitiFact is regarded as the premier independent – non partisan fact checking group.  In fact when Michele Bachmann wanted to establish her credentials as a truth teller she cited the fact that PolitiFact confirmed all of her statements (and in another strike by the gods of political irony the organization gave her their coveted “Pants on Fire” designation for that statement.)   Now PolitiFact has come up with their lie of the year, and one can only say that now we need a new fact checking organization, one that can award PolitiFact the lie of the year for their award of the lie of the year.  (Confused, you won’t be after next week’s episode.)

Here is the issue.  Medicare is a government provided health insurance program for individuals 65 years old and older.  The program is public health insurance, although seniors may opt for coverage by a private plan (Medicare Advantage) and private firms provide prescription drug coverage.  But those are just subsets of the coverage.  Everyone pays the same amount, regardless of age or health.

In the spring 2011 Republicans in the House voted to replace Medicare with private insurance.  The private insurance would have premiums that were paid in part by seniors and in part by a subsidy from the government.  Medicare as it is known today would disappear, the only role for the government would be to provide part of the premium.  The purpose of this program was to reduce the cost of health care for senior that is provided by government and to shift more of the cost to seniors.  The core concept of the Republican program was unambiguous, Medicare would be replaced with private insurance.

Democrats charged, correctly that this plan would eliminate Medicare as it is currently structured and replace it with private insurance.  It would, there was no dispute about that.  But Republicans said that their new plan was also “Medicare”, and PolitiFact in reviewing the Democrats charges that the Republican Plan destroyed Medicare have given it their “Pants on Fire” Award for the biggest lie of the year.  Here is the rationale by PolitiFact

• They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare -- or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.• They used harsh terms such as "end" and "kill" when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.• They used pictures and video of elderly people who clearly were too old to be affected by the Ryan plan. The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills.

So according to PolitiFact, the fact that the end of Medicare wouldn’t occur until 10 years from now was reason not call the Republican Plan to end Medicare a plan to end Medicare.  Gee, just how much time has to elapse before on can call it the plan to end Medicare?  A Day?  A Week? 2.76543 Years?  And wow, Democrats used “harsh terms”, not wrong terms, just harsh terms.  And finally, Democrats illustrated their point on the future removal of government health insurance for old people by showing old people.  Wow, what a distortion.

Here in one sentence is why the Ryan plan ends Medicare as it exists today.

The guarantees: Ryan's plan requires private insurers to accept all applicants and to charge the same rate for people who are the same age.

Medicare has the same rate for people regardless of their age.  The idea that a private insurance company would charge a competitive rate for an 85 year old is so far removed from reality that only Republicans can believe it.  But the final proof that the Republican plan ends Medicare as it currently exists is the fact that just recently Republicans abandoned it, and now are willing to include Medicare as it currently exists in their new program.  Game, set and match to the critics.

But apparently the real basis of the defense by PolitiFact of the Republican plan is that Medicare would still exist, albeit as a privatized program.  But the very nature of Medicare, its very essence, the meaning of the term is that of government provided health insurance.  If the PolitiFact logic holds, one could say any program would still be Medicare, as long as it was given that name. 

As with many situations, one can turn to Abraham Lincoln for the ultimate wisdom on this and other issues.

The Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, was asked by a congressman why he hadn’t freed the slaves earlier in his term of office.

Lincoln replied that the time had not been right; he wouldn’t have been able to enforce the proclamation.  The congressman was puzzles and didn’t understand what the president meant.

Lincoln explained with a question, “How many legs will a sheep have, if you call the tail a leg?”

“Five,” responded the congressman.

“Not so,” said Lincoln wisely.  “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.”

And calling the Republican plan “Medicare” makes it about as much Medicare as calling it a sheep’s tail a leg would make it a sheep’s leg.

The absurdity of this claim by PolitiFact is so great that one can only speculate on the reasons why they have chosen to go this route.  It may be that they felt they had to attack Democrats because they wanted to present a bi-partisan front.  Or it may be that they are genuinely stupid, capable of being taken in by the Republican program just because the Republicans claimed they were “saving Medicare”.

So now we have the Washington Post Fact Checker as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mitt Romney campaign, and PolitiFact as a collection of idiots and nowhere does there appear to exist a truly independent and objective fact checker.  Maybe Fox News will step into the breach, they would certainly consider themselves qualified.

Another Conservative Position Exposed as Myth – Tort Reform and Limiting Malpractice Awards Has Not Brought More Physicians to Texas

Didn’t Lower Costs Either

One of the discouraging things about the Conservative political arguments is that they are so wrong, so mis-directed and so unsupported by fact, logic and data that they result in a huge waste of time.  Part of the waste is by Conservatives themselves; instead of setting forth sane and substantial proposal that can be debated by rational people they put forth ideological driven agendas that have no appeal because the positions are unsupportable. 

The rest of the waste is generated by people like The Dismal Political Economist who have to spend hours debunking the positions of the Conservatives, in the hope, mostly unrealized, that serious people will not take the Conservatives seriously.  There is ot greater example of the problem than the area of medical costs.

Conservatives abhor the rights of individuals who feel they are wronged to seek redress in the courts.  Therefore, even though it accounts for only about 2.5% of all medical costs, (which is too high and should be brought down) medical liability and the medical mal-practice suits that accompany it are, in the fantasy world of Conservatives, the primary cause for high medical costs.

a new report, published this week in the journalHealth Affairs, estimating the annual cost related to medical liability is $55.6 billion — or 2.4 percent of the nation's total healthcare spending.

Case in point, Texas.

In 2003, the state enacted a series of malpractice reforms, including limits on non-economic damages ("pain and suffering") and creation of an independent panel charged with approving lawsuits before they could proceed. 

Seven years later, healthcare costs in parts of the state remain sky-high.

 That their position on malpractice claims and health care costs is patently untrue is no cause for them to abandon such a belief.  Conservatives take this even further, arguing that if tort reform reduced these costs, more physicians would flock to states that did that.  Here is a Texas politician arguing that point.

"In Texas, medical liability reform has attracted thousands of new doctors to the state — over 15,000 since reform passed in 2003. Before reform, doctors were leaving the state," Burgess said. 

Well, as they used to say, let’s go to the video tape.  The Economist has a report on malpractice reform in Texas and the number of physicians in the state, along with a nice chart.  This British based news magazine is about the closest thing there is to objective reporting on issues in the U. S, and here is their conclusion and their chart.

Texas politicians, including Mr Perry, credit the state’s 2003 cap of $250,000 for most cases for bringing a flood of doctors to the state, though the extent of that is disputed. They often cite a sustained jump in medical licences granted (which began in about 2006). Our chart, based on research by three university economists, took a different metric, using state health department’s figures for doctors who work directly with patients. These were on a gradual upward trend well before 2003, and show no acceleration after that. Per-capita numbers begin, in fact, to flatten out around 2003.

So no, physicians were not leaving the state prior to malpractice limits, and they are not flooding the state after malpractice limits.  Anyone believe this data will now cause Conservatives to abandon their arguments? No, well then the public is getting smarter, isn’t it.

Mitt Romney Goes on Fox News and Gets Grilled, No Make That Gets to Walk with the Cakes

Surprised, Why Do You Think He Went on Fox News

For many years now Mitt Romney has avoided going on the TV News Talk Shows.  The reasons are numerous, one being that Mr. Romney does not feel the need to have to submit to questions about his views (he is rich, you know) and another being that he is running for President under the guise that he is already President, and Presidents don’t do that.  There is also the issue of whether or not he can tolerate someone questioning his positions.

But Mr. Romney now faces a challenge from Newt Gingrich.  And so the Mittster has dispatched his surrogates to attack Mr. Gingrich (Mitt being above that sort of thing) and he agreed to be interviewed on the Fox News Sunday program.  The tenor of that interview, with Republican enabler Chris Wallace was about what you would have expected.

Wallace allowed Romney free reign to discuss his economic policies, his personal life and – without inquiring about specifics – his differences with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

And in classic Mitt fashion, he equivocated on the question of the Iraq war

Romney, who has criticized President Barack Obama for pulling the remaining American combat troops out of Iraq, told Wallace he is unsure whether President George W. Bush made the right decision to launch the war in 2003.

But in an unusual comment, unusual in that it made no sense whatsoever Mr. Romney defended his policies of buying companies, loading them up with debt, taking out millions in fees and then selling the companies, or sometimes running them into the ground with loss of  jobs by comparing that greedy destruction of value with the assistance given GM and Chrysler to save them.

“The president has had one experience overseeing an enterprise, General Motors and Chrysler,” Romney said. “What did he do? He closed factories, he laid off people. He didn’t do it personally, his people did. Why did he do that? Because he wanted to save the enterprise and he wanted to make it profitable so it could survive.”

The difference, of course, is that Mr. Obama and the government intervened after private management had ruined GM and Chrysler while Mr. Romney and his cohorts at Bain Capital were the engine of ruin at some (but not all) of the companies they bought, plundered and ruined.  An unlike Mr. Romney, who did all this to make millions, Mr. Obama did all this to save jobs and help the economy.

And in a final display of arrogance Mr. Romney talked about how

“This is a president who goes after anyone who is successful, and by the way, he’s been pretty successful too. He’s done very, very well over the last several years.”

And of course Mr. Wallace did not note that Mr. Romney was born to wealth, has net worth of between a quarter and a half billion, made by creating nothing, building nothing and doing nothing but investing, while Mr. Obama was raised in a family with very little wealth, and made about 2 to 3% of what Mr. Romney made by actually working and writing.  After all if Mr. Wallace had brought that up, it wouldn’t be called Fox News.

Expecting Too Much Tiny Tim and Not Enough Scrooge on Christmas Day?

The Only Cure - The Dismal Political Economist

There will be the secret list of Newt Gingrich's Vice Presidential favorites (secret because we made it up), a list of unlikely actions by politicians confounded by the holiday season and a comment on the return of Jeb Bush to pontification.

If you must read one Forum on Christmas Day, this is the only one to read (primarily because all the others will be busy with fun activities and not be publishing).

Note to Republicans – Cutting Corporate Tax Rates May Severely Harm the Banking Industry

As If Banks Haven’t Done Enough Harm to Themselves

The Dismal Political Economist has often called out the gods of irony.  The gods of irony strike when someone proposes one thing and that things leads to the opposite of what they person wanted to achieve.  Such a situation involves large banks and the tax gods of irony.

A current attack by the gods of tax irony results from an unusual accounting procedure that creates an asset when a company loses money.  Let’s say a bank loses $100 million, not a big stretch of the imagination these days. If the bank is in the 40% tax bracket for federal, state and local income taxes, the loss and be used in the future to offset income and will allow the bank to offset $100 million in income in the future and not pay taxes on that income.  This is called a tax loss carryforward.

This is a $40 million benefit the bank will get at some time in the future if it ever earns $100 million.  So the brilliant people in the accounting profession allow the bank to record a “deferred tax asset” of $40 million on its balance sheet, and to have $40 million of increased equity. That's right, under accounting rules the $100 million loss created a $40 million asset.

So given the debacle in the financial services industry over the last several years, it turns out that many large banks have a large amount of deferred tax assets on their books.

JPMorgan Chase held DTAs of $16 billion at the end of last year, while Bank of America had $27 billion-worth. The undisputed deferred-tax king, however, is Citigroup with slightly more than $50 billion-worth, the largest discretionary accounting item in the company’s history.

Now one might look upon this as a good thing, for Citibank it means the next $50 billion the company owes in taxes on taxable income of approximately $120 billion will not have to be paid.  But that assumes several things,  One is that Citibank will indeed earn $120 billion before the DTA expires.  But another thing is that the corporate tax rate remains at its current level.

Suppose one of the crackpot schemes of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates is adopted and the corporate income tax is abolished.  That would mean that for JP Morgan Chase, $16 billion of assets disappears; for Bank of America $27 billion of assets disappear and for Citibank $50 billion of assets and net worth is, poof, gone.

Now the intelligent thing for the accounting profession to have done would have been to not allow the creation of these assets in the first place, because they are not tangible, not assured, cannot be sold or liquidated and may not even exist at all.  But that would harm companies, and companies are the ones who pay the accountants to develop the accounting rules.  So don’t expect any changes here.

In the meantime, Republicans may find the political gods of irony strike them, as large banks lobby to prevent any reduction in corporate tax rates, at least until they use up their deferred tax assets.  It’s ok big banks, we feel your pain.

California Conservatives Seeking to Punish Children Brought to the United States Illegally by Their Parents

Can’t Be Rewarding Those 3 Year Olds Who Committed Criminal Acts Can We?

Decency, Morality and Compassion Test: 

Question 17:

Let’s all assume the following situation:

A person is born in a foreign country, and at an early age is brought to California illegally by one or both parents.  The person is enrolled in public schools, graduates and has lead a perfectly normal life.  The person does not belong to a gang, does not use drugs and has excelled academically.

The person is applying for legal immigration status, and needs financial help to attend college.  Providing this help to students of this type would cost 1% of the state’s student grant budget.  California has already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in educating the student.

The State of California Should:

1. Incarcerate the person in a jail for a long period of time, since the student is a criminal

2. Send the person back to the country of origin with or without a period of prior incarceration

3. Allow the person to remain in this country, but have to wear a Scarlet “I” as an illegal immigrant.

4.  Deny the person any rights and condemn the person to a life of unemployment, homelessness, and dire poverty.

5. Treat the person the same as any other person raised in California

Ok, not that hard a question.  But if you are a Conservative in California you will have picked either A, B, C or D. (and contrary to test rules, probably picked them all). Conservatives in that state regard children who were brought to the U. S. as youngster as wanton criminals.  They are in a class of murderers, robbers, rapists and other violent felons, and the state should use its full police power to prosecute them.

Unfortunately for these Conservatives much of the rest of the state sees these young men and women for what they really are, decent, hard working people, the kind any society would like to have.  So California has passed its own “Dream Act” which provides for treatment of these people the same way that every other person who attended school in the state and graduated is treated.

To qualify for aid under the bill, students must graduate from a California high school after attending school in the state for at least three years and must affirm that they are in the process of applying to legalize their immigration status. They also must show financial need and meet academic standards.

The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), who praised Brown for showing courage in signing it.

"After having invested 12 years in the high school education of these young men and women, who are here through no fault of their own," Cedillo said, "it's the smartest thing for us to do to permit these students to get scholarships and be treated like every other student."

This action of course infuriates Conservatives, whose war on children who take government money that could be used for tax cuts for the wealthy is unending.  So the Tea Party folks in that state are trying to get a ballot referendum that would repeal the law.

When the state Dream Act was signed into law in October, it was greeted with cheers by those who felt it would give undocumented youth a much needed opportunity to succeed. It has also inspired anger and dismay among many who believe that the state should not spend scarce resources on illegal immigrants.

"It's ironic they want to use education dollars for foreign nationals when they're raising tuitions for U.S. citizens," said volunteer Ernie Arnold of South Pasadena.

The argument against using education dollars for “foreign nationals” would be valid if that is what these students were.  But they are not.  They are Americans, whose only crime was to have been brought to this nation soon after they were born elsewhere.

Of all of the current Republican candidates, Mitt Romney, who flouts his clean and moral life style in contrast to people like Newt Gingrich, (who by comparison has not had a very clean and moral life style) stands out as the most vocal supporter of the anti-child issues like this.  This leads to the often asked question.

“Why don’t those who purport to support family values support policies that promote family values”?

Get back to us Mitt (and others) when you have an answer.