Odds and Ends

I started following Chris Reed on Twitter and where ever he publishes articles, especially on his calwhine.com website. He has written a great piece for the always provocative
City Journal on the issues facing San Diego and California in the next election cycle. A few nuggets.

It [Prop B] would end defined-benefit pensions for all new city hires except for police officers, instead providing pensions similar to 401(k)s. It would prevent pay sweeteners from being added to base salary when calculating pensions, and it would require city workers to pay a bigger share of their pension costs.
. . .
He’s [DeMaio is] also a vigorous advocate of “managed competition,” in which public-employee groups bid against private providers on the provision of government services. San Diego’s version of managed competition—which DeMaio would like to expand upon—so far has driven down the cost of municipal fleet maintenance, street sweeping, and printing. “Managed comp” carries the promise of extending to government—at last—the productivity revolution that has transformed the private sector over the past 30 years.

He also points out how Democrats deal with the unions has led them down a path of corruption and cronyism. One more nugget.

DeMaio’s effort faces ferocious resistance. California is so beholden to union power that the head of the state Democratic Party actually endorsed a policy under which students suffering epileptic seizures couldn’t receive life-saving medicine unless union nurses dispensed it. From the unions’ perspective, DeMaio must be stopped. DeMaio and supporters gathered the signatures to place Prop. B on the June city ballot only after overcoming opposition efforts to intimidate signature-gatherers, including radio commercials warning that signing petitions would lead to identity theft. DeMaio, who is gay, also has faced baiting over his sexual orientation (a rich irony in gay-friendly California).

Mitch Daniels was my 2011 choice to run for President. He had social conservative chops but had said it was more important to concentrate on the budget and reforming entitlement. But he has disappointed me with his support for Dick Lugar. I understand that Lugar helped Daniels get his start in politics, but we need to think about moving the Republican party in a new direction. Here is Daniels' endorsement, notice how he is short on specifics.




Put not your trust in politicians, I guess.

I saw Marco Rubio on the Hannity show today, defending Paul Ryan's Medicare plan in very sensible language. He clearly made the valid point that without reform for tomorrow's retirees, the program will go broke. It's the adult thing to do, reforming medicare, which is why the President isn't participating in the discussion. Rather he sends Geithner to the Hill with this message for Ryan. “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours (Ryan's budget proposal.)” Thanks. Sometimes I wonder if anyone is paying attention to shenanigans like this. Why would seniors think that Obama is going to do anything but raid medicare for Obamacare and let the whole program go hang in the long run?

Palin on Crony Capitalism - Daniels on the Red Menace

Two prominent Republicans who are not declared candidates for President are making their mark on the national debate. Sarah Palin has been highlighting the issue of crony capitalism of late and Mitch Daniels new book is a serious look at the mountain of debt he sees as a threat to the Republic.

Even before the recent Solyndra blow up, here was Sarah Palin diagnosing our current ills on September 4th in Iowa.

Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.

Palin attacks the key issue that unites ordinary individuals left, right and center, the use of government to further enrich the already rich and powerful. It is the challenge of our time to convince those on the left that it is constant government meddling in the economy and the immense regulatory regime, not free markets, which lead to this outcome. Probably better to start with those in the center, who might be more open to this line of argument. The GOP needs to go on the offensive against crony capitalism, unfortunately they have been guilty just as have the Democrats in purchasing favors for special interests. However, the time is ripe for this message. We could start by stripping out all of the special favors in the tax code. Starting over with a lower corporate tax rate, but no special exemptions would go a long way to restoring public belief in the party who proposed that plan.

While Palin attacks the most politically compelling issue, Daniels attacks on the debt, on which he is unusually well qualified. His book, Keeping the Republic, Saving America by Trusting Americans is brilliantly titled. The tagline, Change that believes in you cleverly turns Obama's promise on its head. I am really thrilled that he has adopted my ideas on means testing social security and medicare. (OK, probably not, but I feel vindicated since few other prominent Republicans have supported my position.) He also makes the point that the whole of the federal budget should be under consideration, including defense. This issue of defense spending is going to split Republicans, but it needs to be considered, since it comes in at $700 billion plus per year.

More important than any policy prescription offered by Daniels, is his understanding of the need to limit the scope of the federal government and return to a philosophy of self governance.

The coming debate is not really about something so mundane as tax policy or health care or energy choices. It is about things more fundamental: who is in charge, the people or those who supposedly serve at their sufferance?

Answering that it is the former, requires the people to be capable of managing their own affairs. They are in fact so capable. But we should remember that it is ingrained in the language of the left that all mankind's ills: sickness, poverty, old age, sloth, and gluttony are not solved by individuals or capitalist institutions, only by government. But a government powerful enough to solve such issues would be a fearful master indeed, and we would be subjects, not citizens. It is good of Daniels to remind us.

Mitch Daniels Out - Leaves a Void

Just heard the news that Mitch Daniels announced he is not running. A 1:00 a.m. Sunday announcement is about as deep as you can try to bury the story. Nice try.

I am more upset than I anticipated. I agree with Indianapolis Star:

Daniels was the one potential candidate from either major party who appeared ready to lead a serious conversation about the immense dangers created by a $14.3 trillion, and still rapidly climbing, national debt.
. . .
Other Republican candidates so far have been too afraid of the possible political fallout [from discussing Social Security and Medicare] to engage in that much-needed discussion. President Obama, for his part, has done virtually nothing to shore up the major entitlement programs, despite prompting from his own debt commission.

The country is the worse off for not having a candidate in the race who has both the guts to discuss the issue of entitlements sensibly AND the proven executive experience dealing with a state budget.

2012 won't be 2010. The public will want proven experience, having been burned by hopey-changey empty-suited rhetoric. Where is that experience going to come from?

Just Waiting

Family time tonight, so light blogging. Frankly, I am just waiting for Mitch Daniels to tell us if he is running. I am unhappy about his ethanol stand, but think that a Daniels-Christy ticket crushes Obama-Biden on all fronts. He has a great record other than ethanol and he has the experience necessary, that Obama still lacks even after two years on the job.

But let their be no doubt, Obama is so execrable as President, that I would work to elect Romney, if he were the Republican nominee. I care deeply and passionately about repealing Obamacare. That's going to take a Republican President and a Senate majority. A filibuster proof Senate would be nice, but repeal, by defunding would make me happy.

Saw that Democrats called Congressman Paul Ryan a "coward" for not running for the Wisconsin Senate seat being vacated by Herb Kohl (D). Clear indication that he is being super effective as chair of the House Budget committee. But what babies, as if calling Ryan a name will dare him to do something stupid.

Mitch Daniels Fails Ethanol Test

I previously posted with some gusto about Mitch Daniels, endorsing him as a potential candidate. I have also said that ethanol should be a litmus test for Presidential candidates. Sadly, I find that Mitch Daniels has been a big supporter of ethanol.

The production and transportation of ethanol uses more energy than ethanol yields. State and Federal ethanol subsidies cost American taxpayers billions, while increasing the price of fuel at the pump and lowering the mileage of consumers' vehicles.
. . .
Mitch Daniels is a forthright defender; since he became Governor of Indiana, the number of ethanol plants in his state have risen from one to thirteen and he set a goal of producing 1 billion gallons of the stuff.

This is a big problem with litmus tests, because Daniels does so well in other ways. If he were to move against ethanol in a meaningful way before the Iowa caucuses, I could support him. Right now I'm not sure.

Makes more sense than paying to convert it to ethanol.

Too Much CPAC

I'm low on blog topics today, because I spent too much time pouring over reporting and analysis of the recently concluded CPAC. I came to the same conclusion as MacBeth "And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." I quoted extensively from Mitch Daniels speech yesterday at CPAC, but the straw polls and all the other hoopla and analysis strike me as neither predictive nor prescriptive.

It reminds me of B-Daddy's Book of Management Rule#2: The commodity in shortest supply is management attention. Better to pay attention to the key problems and issues and not fritter one's time on asides. Especially, when that frittering results in no blog output. Which brings me back to Mitch Daniels. I think his real strength is that he recognizes what is important. He has a great record on abortion, for example, but thinks today is not the day to push that issue. Not that abortion isn't important, but is it more important than the debt and regulation strangling the country? I think not. Further, not all victories come purely from the ballot box, and it occurs to me that abortion is an issue best won over the long haul by creating a climate whereby it becomes morally repugnant. But the debt and regulation issues can only be solved through the legislative and executive processes.

Even the President appears set to announce budget cuts, even while he promises "investments" in green jobs, shiny trains,... snooze. We'll see how he does. For his own political survival, he needs to produce something, or he is destined to a single term. Unfortunately, he might pull off re-election.

By the way, have you ever noticed that the technologies loved by the left seem to constrain our choices?

All In for Mitch Daniels

I am endorsing Mitch Daniels for President. I read and listened to most of Mitch Daniels at CPAC, Hat Tip: HotAir, where the entire text and a link to the video can be found. I was blown away. He walks the walk, has the right emphases, and slams Obama by comparison without displaying any mean spirit. Let me be clear, this is not a Tea Party endorsement, only my own. But for my Tea Party readers, how can you not like what this man says.

Some key quotes.

Spending: We believe it wrong ever to take a dollar from a free citizen without a very necessary public purpose, because each such taking diminishes the freedom to spend that dollar as its owner would prefer.

Health Care: We designed both our state employee health plans and the one we created for low-income Hoosiers as Health Savings Accounts, and now in the tens of thousands these citizens are proving that they are fully capable of making smart, consumerist choices about their own health care.

The Debt: I refer, of course, to the debts our nation has amassed for itself over decades of indulgence. It is the new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink. We can debate its origins endlessly and search for villains on ideological grounds, but the reality is pure arithmetic. No enterprise, small or large, public or private, can remain self-governing, let alone successful, so deeply in hock to others as we are about to be.

Education: . . . we intend to become the first state of full and true choice by saying to every low and middle-income Hoosier family, if you think a non-government school is the right one for your child, you’re as entitled to that option as any wealthy family; here’s a voucher, go sign up.

Tax code: . . . it’s time we had, in Bill Simon’s words “a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose.” And the purpose should be private growth. So lower and flatter, and completely flat is best. Tax compensation but not the savings and investment without which the economy cannot boom.

Regulation: The regulatory rainforest through which our enterprises must hack their way is blighting the future of millions of Americans. Today’s EPA should be renamed the “Employment Prevention Agency.” After a two-year orgy of new regulation, President Obama’s recent executive order was a wonderment, as though the number one producer of rap music had suddenly expressed alarm about obscenity.

Entitlement reform: We know what the basic elements must be. An affectionate thank you to the major social welfare programs of the last century, but their sunsetting when those currently or soon to be enrolled have passed off the scene.

Our Core Belief: All great enterprises have a pearl of faith at their core, and this must be ours: that Americans are still a people born to liberty. That they retain the capacity for self-government. That, addressed as free-born, autonomous men and women of God-given dignity, they will rise yet again to drive back a mortal enemy.

The whole speech is worth a listen, even if a little long. In this speech has captured both the historic context and a master of the details necessary to restore our nation. I know that he has a reputation for being an establishment Republican, but his record in Indiana and the policy positions he espouses make him the best candidate, in my opinion. I close with a great video, (H/T Dean and Left Coast Rebel):




The picture of Mitch Daniels with his Harley is posted to ensure that he gets Mrs. Daddy's endorsement as well.

Mitch Daniels - Anti-Obama

Mitch Daniels is a dark horse for the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Mona Charen has some nice things to say about him today. He should get KT's nod with this quote (I also agree):

“If I could wave a magic wand, and change just one thing, it would be to guarantee that every American child could grow up in a two-parent home until the age of 18. That would solve maybe three-quarters of our problems.”

However, Daniels has famously called for "truce" on social issues. From a Weekly Standard interview:

Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.”

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved.

Indeed, this is the view of the Tea Party. Notice that Daniels never says that social issues aren't important, just that the magnitude of the deficit spending and economic crisis requires our attention, first and foremost. That Mike Huckabee came out swinging and arguing against this view of priorities disqualifies Huckabee for the nomination, in my judgment as an ideologist for the Tea Party movement.

Here are a couple of interviews in which Daniels makes eminent sense.






Mitch Daniels seems a bit charismatically challenged, but he has an impressive record. Exit question, can the 2012 Republican nominee win with a "my record" is my charisma approach? My answer is a resounding yes, people will be tiring of the faux charisma and failure of the current administration.