fellow citizens
<http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,769703,00.html>.
*SPIEGEL ONLINE:* Mr. Ritschl, Germany is coming across like a
know-it-all in the debate over aid for Greece. Berlin is
intransigent and is demanding obedience from Athens. Is this
attitude justified?
*Ritschl:* No, there is no basis for it.
*SPIEGEL ONLINE:* Most Germans would likely disagree.
*Ritschl:* That may be, but during the 20th century, Germany was
responsible for what were the biggest national bankruptcies in
recent history. It is only thanks to the United States, which
sacrificed vast amounts of money after both World War I and World
War II, that Germany is financially stable today and holds the
status of Europe's headmaster. That fact, unfortunately, often seems
to be forgotten.
But Professor Ritschl will happy to remind them, from his safe perch at
the London School of Economics <http://personal.lse.ac.uk/ritschl/>.
- 10:42 AM, 23 June 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/June2011_3.html#jrm10014>
*Presidents, Congress, And The Economy: *Presidents, like quarterbacks,
get too much credit for good results, and too much blame for bad
results. In contrast, Congress, like offensive lines, gets too little
credit, and too little blame.
It's an argument I've made before, but it's an argument that requires
repeating, since so few "mainstream" journalists understand the point.
Even economists — who you would think would know better — make this mistake.
I was reminded of that by this Greg Mankiw post
<http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/06/preaching-to-choir.html>, where
he takes Paul Krugman
<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/reagan-and-revenues/> to
task for an odd choice of dates.
What strikes me about Paul's blog post, however, is how completely
unconvincing it is. He uses a chart that starts the Reagan era in
1979, arguing we need to correct for the business cycle. But would
or should this persuade anyone?
The null hypothesis being tested is that Reagan policies had a
significant effect on revenue growth. But would any believer in that
null hypothesis include the last couple years of the Carter
administration as part of the Reagan era? Weren't the policies of
those years precisely what Reagan was trying to reverse? Maybe
Paul's chart might appeal to someone who already agrees with him,
but I thought economists turned to data to try to persuade those who
are truly undecided. It is hard to see how this presentation of the
data would move someone who is yet to make up his mind.
(I am trying to match Mankiw's politeness when I say "odd".)
Mankiw ends by crediting the Internet bubble for the good economic news
in the last Clinton years.
Let's review: During all eight Reagan years, Democrats controlled the
House; during his last two years, Democrats controlled the Senate as
well. It is true that Reagan was able to win majority support in the
House for some of his measures, especially in his first two years,
against the Democratic leadership. But it is also true that the
Democratic House majority forced Reagan to change many of his policies,
for example, to continue spending on programs that he would have
preferred to end.
So the good — and bad — results of the Reagan years can not be
attributed to Reagan alone, but must be shared with Congress, especially
the Democratic House majority. We can not know exactly what shares
should attributed to each, since we can not run history over again,
changing only the control of Congress.
You can extend my argument to the first Bush administration, without
much effort. Unlike Reagan, George H. W. Bush never had a friendly
majority in the House or the Senate, so the credit and blame for those
years goes more to the Democrats in Congress than in the Reagan years.
For the Clinton years, we need to review again: Clinton came in with a
large House majority
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1992>
(258-176) and a solid Senate majority
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1992>
(57-43). Clinton, with the support of those majorities, increased taxes,
including on the middle class, and spending, but failed to pass his
health care "reform" plan.
Economic results during those first two Clinton years were unimpressive.
The economy continued the recovery begun during 1991, but did not pick
up much momentum.
In 1994, as we all know, Republicans took over control of the House and
the Senate. Under the leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority
Leader Bob Dole, they cut spending and restrained regulation. Since they
had to get Clinton's agreement for their changes, they were unable to go
as far as they would have liked, but they did succeed in getting him to
sign on to welfare reform, on their third try.
After the Republican takeover of Congress, the recovery picked up speed.
And for that, Gingrich and Dole probably deserve more credit than
Clinton. Probably because, again, we can not run history over again just
changing the party controlling Congress.
(And the low energy prices during Clinton's eight years probably owe
more than a little to Bush's victory in the first Gulf War.)
The second Bush administration is harder to analyze because, even when
George W. Bush had Republican majorities, they were so narrow that it
constrained his policy-making seriously. He was unable, for example, to
control wasteful spending on farm subsidies, and unable, as Professor
Mankiw knows, to restrain Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Which would have
saved us several hundred billion, real money, even now.
And his efforts to reform entitlements got no support at all from
Democrats in Congress.
Credit — and blame — for the economic results of those eight Bush years
must be shared even more than usual.
(Of course, there are many other people who can help or hurt our
economy. In 1991 and 1992, President Bush was unhappy with the Federal
Reserve because he thought their monetary policy was too tight,
correctly as far as I can tell. But there was no way that Bush could
change those policies by himself.
Nor does the help, or damage, have to come from someone in government. A
brilliant inventor may spark an economic boom that owes nothing to
government policy.)
- 10:17 AM, 23 June 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/June2011_3.html#jrm10013>
*South African President Jacob Zuma Doesn't Fear President Obama: *
Which explains why he felt safe snubbing First Lady Michelle Obama
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/michelle-obama/8589715/Jacob-Zuma-snubs-Michelle-Obama-during-First-Ladys-South-Africa-visit.html>.
South Africa President Jacob Zuma has snubbed the visiting Michelle
Obama by sending his prisons minister to meet the first lady at the
airport and failing to see her during her three-day stay.
His prisons minister! (Officially,Corrective Services Minister.)
Zuma knows how to insult a visiting dignitary. And just to add to the
insult, only one of his three wives was allowed to meet Michelle Obama,
and that very briefly.
(What's Zuma mad about? Most recently the attacks on Libya. Many African
leaders think that even the most corrupt and dictatorial African leaders
should be left in power.)
- 8:39 AM, 23 June 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/June2011_3.html#jrm10012>
*Obama's Speech Last Night Was Not Churchillian: *By now, that should
not surprise anyone who has been paying attention. President Obama might
be able to /read/ a Churchillian speech if one appeared on his
teleprompter, but he could not write one, and he certainly doesn't
believe in Churchill's resolute defense of freedom and democracy.
Somewhat to my surprise, when I searched through the speech
<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270303/text-obamas-afghanistan-speech-nro-staff>
for the word "victory", I found it.
And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we
killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever
known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. One
soldier summed it up well. "The message," he said, "is we don't
forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes."
And he even uses "defeat" in the next paragraph.
But that's the only place in the speech where he uses a concept so
foreign to most on the American left, and so essential to any thinking
about war.
This passage is more typical:
Of course, huge challenges remain. This is the beginning — but not
the end — of our effort to wind down this war. We will have to do
the hard work of keeping the gains that we have made, while we
drawdown our forces and transition responsibility for security to
the Afghan government. And next May, in Chicago, we will host a
summit with our NATO allies and partners to shape the next phase of
this transition.
We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much
war without a political settlement.
(And we know that how?)
His language in that selection has become so familiar to many on the
left that I must take a minute to explain why it sounds so silly to
others. (This is how I would explain it to Obama.) Suppose you were in a
football locker room at half time and you were listening to the coach
give his half time pep talk. Suppose that the coach told his players
that, in the second half, they would "wind down" the game. You'd think
that the coach was nuts, right? Football games, like wars, can be won,
lost, or tied; they can't be wound down.
We can extend this metaphor by going on to the next paragraph. Coach
Obama is telling our team that we are ahead, but that the game can only
end in a tie.
There's another word that's almost entirely missing from the speech,
"military". At the beginning, Obama tells us that he ordered the surge
on the advice of our "military commanders". So one would expect him to
say, further on, that those same commanders are telling him that it is
safe to draw down the troops. But he can't say that, because it isn't
true. As anyone who has followed this knows, General Petraeus
<http://nationaljournal.com/obama-sided-with-gates-over-petraeus-in-afghanistan-troop-decision-20110623>,
who probably knows more about military questions than President Obama
does, is opposed to the draw down. And so, I suspect, are almost all the
other military commanders.
Obama's plan does not make sense militarily, but it does make sense
politically. As practically everyone has noticed, the timing will allow
Obama to claim credit for the draw down before next year's election.
(Note, for instance, the timing and place of that NATO meeting, if you
are wondering how the Obama political team plans to play this.) And,
most likely, before the costs of the draw down become apparent, even to
our slothful "mainstream" reporters.
(The move of Petraeus to the CIA can also be understood politically. The
Obama administration is moving a potentially dangerous critic to a
position where he can do less damage.)
- 7:39 AM, 23 June 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/June2011_3.html#jrm10011>
*Has Congressman Alcee Hastings Been A Bad Boy? * Possibly
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576400053258305010.html>.
A congressional ethics panel is investigating allegations that
Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings sexually harassed a member of
his staff, according to people familiar with the matter.
The investigation of Mr. Hastings is being conducted by the Office
of Congressional Ethics, the House's independent ethics
investigative arm, and it is at a preliminary stage.
It began at least a month ago after Judicial Watch, a conservative
group, filed a lawsuit as the legal counsel for Winsome Packer, a
staffer on a commission Mr. Hastings headed. She alleged that she
had been sexually harassed by the congressman and that he retaliated
when she tried to report it.
Aaron Worthing
<http://patterico.com/2011/06/22/alcee-hastings-investigated-for-sexual-harrassment/>
and Ann Althouse
<http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/it-would-be-impossible-for-me-in.html>
think there might be something to the complaint.
(Long-time readers will recall that this is not his first
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/October2006_3.html#jrm4627>
ethical problem. Not many federal judges get impeached by the House and
removed by the Senate.)
- 3:32 PM, 22 June 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/June2011_3.html#jrm10010>
*The Continuing Mystery Of Hugo Chávez's Illness: *The /Wall Street
Journal/ has a long article
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576399961115943884.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLENews>
that begins with this paragraph:
Venezuela's voluble and ubiquitous President Hugo Chávez hasn't
returned to the public eye after a surgery in Cuba that has friends
and foes alike speculating about the state of his health and the
future of his rule.
And then describes the speculation at some length, without ever coming
up with a plausible explanation for his illness, and his long stay in
Cuba. (As I have said earlier, Chávez may be staying in Cuba in order to
keep his illness secret
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/June2011_2.html#jrm9989>, but
that's just a guess.)
How sick is Chávez? Fausta has a telling detail
<http://faustasblog.com/?p=26579>.
Everybody is speculating as to Chavez's malady, particularly since
Chavez, who for years has done his interminable TV and radio shows
several times per week (averaging 43 minutes /per day/ since he took
power in 1999), has limited himself to a single telephone call into
state-run television.
As the /Journal/ article and a later post
<http://faustasblog.com/?p=26615> by Fausta note, there are
constitutional problems with his long stay in Cuba.
(One can understand why he might not want to go back to Venezuela, even
if he were well. The country has a horrific prison riot and electricity
rationing, both caused, in part, by his regime's incompetence.)
- 10:41 AM, 22 June 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/June2011_3.html#jrm10009>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment