Political-Commentary.com

Kerry -- The Not-Dean Candidate

Dean was riding high for a long time as the Anti-Bush candidate. However, the voters decided that Anti-Bush probably couldn't beat Bush. So they looked for a Not-Dean candidate, and found Kerry. Doubtless the voters will soon realize that Not-Dean doesn't have much of a chance against Bush. At that point, watch out for Clark and Edwards.

Karl Rove

We have been told that the Bush Administration is run by Karl Rove, who promotes or opposes policies depending on whether they will help or hurt Bush's chance of re-election. Doubtless this true to some extent. Politicians do not remain in office long unless they note which way the political wind in blowing.

However, the two big policy achievements of the Bush Administration have been the Iraq war, and tax cuts weighted toward the well-off. Neither is a policy that should achieve much political mileage. Rather than going into Iraq, Bush could have focused on terrorism, both on hunting down Al Queda members, and on promoting political systems in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) that would be hostile to terrorism. Rather than enacting tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy, Bush could have aimed the cuts at middle- to low- income voters.

One may quarrel with the decisions that Bush has made, but it does seem a bit unfair to accuse him of making decisions on the basis of politics. If anything, he has retained fairly high popularity despite policies that were not designed to maximize his popularity.

Bush's State of the Union

Several commentators have pointed out that Bush's State of the Union speech emphasized past triumphs (or disasters, depending on one's point of view), rather than future policies. Bush still is attempting to justify his Iraq war, and still is telling us how his tax cuts have turned the economy around. Bush's speech, however, had few proposals for the future. There wasn't even any mention of the idea of going to Mars.

On reflection, however, the State of the Union speech was exactly what one should have expected from the Bush Administration. Bush entered office with little interest in policy or current affairs, and his election almost certainly didn't awaken any interest in those matters. This is a fellow, after all, who doesn't even read the newspapers, and depends almost entirely upon his advisors for ideas. So one would not expect new ideas from him.

Nor would one expect new ideas from Bush's advisors. His advisors have achieved what they wanted -- the war in Iraq, and big tax cuts weighted toward the well-off. They now are either basking in the after-glow of their success, or are trying to convince the public that the policies were not disasters.

Thus, the Bush administration consists of a president without ideas, and advisors who have accomplished their ideas. There is no one there with any new ideas, so the dearth of ideas in the State of the Union speech is hardly surprising.

As Dean Fades Away . . .

It appears that Howard Dean's candidacy is on the ropes. What does this mean? Probably that Democratic voters are rational.

If you opposed the war, there is no special reason to vote for Dean. With the possible exception of Lieberman, none of the Democratic candidates would have taken us into a war in Iraq. Thus, there really is no reason to favor Dean over any of the others on the Iraq issue. However, in other qualities (such as temperament), Dean seems a bit lacking. WIth any luck, his candidacy will quickly fade away.

Who Will Win in 2004?

Prediction: Wesley Clark will be the Democratic nominee, and will defeat Bush. [February 15, 2004, update -- Wow, I sure missed that one!]

Governor Arnold

Explaining why he is making crippling cuts in various government programs, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger explained: "It is difficult, it is painful. There are no two ways about it, because we have to make savings in so many different areas and programs. But it is the only way we can do it, because we don't have the money."

Well, Governor, the reason you don't have the money is that you just gave a $4 billion tax break to car owners (with most of that money going to the owners of fancy cars), and you refuse to even consider raising taxes. It is like a parent who gives up his or her job, spends all day drinking beer and watching TV, and then explains that the family must start living under the freeway overpass "because we don't have the money."

Bush – Our “Tax and Spend” President

Republicans have always complained about the “tax and spend” Democrats. But what about the “tax and spend” Republicans? George Bush loves to write checks without any consideration of the fiscal consequences. His tax cuts and his war in Iraq have both been fiscal boondoggles.

Bush’s latest inspiration is to send humans to the moon and Mars. Of course, if there were some scientific value to such missions, it might make sense to spend the money. However, anything that can be achieved by astronauts can be achieved more cheaply by unmanned missions. In fact, unmanned missions will accomplish more – for a given budget, the number of unmanned missions can vastly exceed the number of manned missions. The ultimate absurdity is Bush’s idea to use the moon as a base to send supplies to Mars. It is tremendously more expensive to send supplies via the moon than to send them directly from the Earth.

How does Bush pay for his various boondoggles? Well, certainly not through taxes, which would impose the costs on current voters. That isn’t the way to get re-elected! No, instead, he borrows giant sums of money, which imposes the costs on future voters. Thus, his philosophy is “Tax Tomorrow and Spend Today.” Aw, those fiscally responsible Republicans!

Democrats and Free Trade

President Clinton liked free trade. Most of the present Democratic candidates do not. This has caused some dissatisfaction among liberal commentators (such as those at the New Republic) who understand economics and the benefits of free trade. Restrictions on free trade, however, are not necessarily a bad idea.

It is clear that free trade is good on a local level. Imagine that Chicago decided to prohibit any imports to the city, and thus had to grow its own food, build its own cars, and so on. Even after the transition to this new economy, the people of Chicago would be much worse off than before. Free trade between countries occurs on a much bigger scale, but that does not eliminate its benefits.

Unfortunately, however, free trade has a disadvantage -- it denies opportunities to the unskilled by shipping their jobs abroad. Thus, free trade is good for the economy, as it increases our society’s wealth; but can be bad for less skilled workers. The answer? The obvious one is to have the government encourage and subsidize education, so no one has to rely upon dead end jobs; and to have a “safety net” for those who nonetheless fall through the cracks.

In the present conservative political climate, however, the government seems unconcerned about people who are “falling through the cracks.” Thus, free trade may be making our society richer while making the poor poorer. Under such circumstances, it is not irrational for the Democrats to favor restrictions on free trade. Such restrictions will reduce our country’s wealth, but may also benefit the less skilled. This is not the best way to benefit the unskilled, but in the present political climate it may be the only way.

Who Would Have Known?

California is a great state, blessed with a superb road system, magnificent universities, and gorgeous parks. Unfortunately, California also is crippled by a state government that imposes excessive taxes, and then wastes the tax revenue on worthless programs.

California voters elected Arnold Schwarzenegger to bring the California government back under control -- to get rid of those excessive taxes which serve no purpose. Unfortunately, Arnold now tells us that we must stop maintaining the roads, must raise tuition at the universities, and must charge admission to the parks.

Who would have guessed it? We actually were getting something worthwhile from the state government! Why didn't Arnold tell us that before we elected him?