Thursday, November 05, 2009
The Economics of a GOP Gubernatorial Sweep
By Larry Kudlow
Against the backdrop of high unemployment and a public revolt against a Democratic health-care bill -- which would significantly increase taxes, slash Medicare spending, and massively raise health-care spending elsewhere in a government takeover of our leading growth sector -- the Republicans swept the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races.
It's interesting that early signs of economic recovery are not helping the Obama Democrats. This is largely because of the 9.8 percent unemployment rate, which is expected to move higher. Even the crazy jobs-saved-or-created campaign is having no discernable impact while the Obamacons try to fight the unemployment rate.
If you go to recovery.gov, the official stimulus website, you'll find that there has been $207 billion in stimulus spending through Oct. 30, 2009 -- including $84 billion in tax benefits, $52 billion in contract grants and loans, and $71 billion in entitlements. So even if we give my friend Jared Bernstein his highly flawed "1 million jobs saved or created," that's $207,000 per job in an economy where the average wage is about $46,000. Not good. Wasteful and ineffectual spending. (In reality, tax credits are spending. For incentivizing, you need marginal tax-rate cuts.)
Mike Flynn of Breitbart's biggovernment.com notes that the government pumped $170 billion into the third-quarter economy. But gross domestic product grew by only $150 billion. As I said, ineffectual spending.
That doesn't meant the economy isn't rebounding. It is. Glitches and all, third-quarter GDP popped up 3.5 percent at an annual rate after inflation. Statistically, the recession is over. That's good. And it corroborates the big stock market rally over the past seven months. This is going to be a business-led recovery as self-correcting firms build profits on top of huge cash flows.
Yesterday's ISM manufacturing report for October also confirms the growth trend with a recovery reading of 55.7, the strongest since April 2006. And this morning's factory orders for September also show a stronger-than-expected gain. Even car sales are expected to rise in October by more than 10 million, at least 1 million better than September. Ford, which refused to take TARP bailout money, reported a surprise increase in profits.
But the depreciating dollar remains a storm cloud over recovery. So are scheduled tax-rate increases and health care legislation that will slam individuals and firms with higher tax burdens and higher tax costs for job creation.
And then there's the Federal Reserve. With gold up another $25 -- setting a new nominal record of $1,079 -- the Fed released a policy statement Wednesday that continues a program of massive money-pumping and a zero interest rate.
This whole Obama policy mix of huge government spending and a depreciating greenback is all wrong. It's pro-inflation, not pro-growth. For a true economic recovery, we need a stable King Dollar and lower marginal tax rates to incentivize job creation.
Jimmy Pethokoukis and others have noted that the first recovery quarter under Ronald Reagan was better than 8 percent, not 3.5 percent. In fact, the average real GDP growth rate for the first quarter of the 10 postwar recoveries is 7.3 percent.
So the economic-recovery story, and even the stock market rally, won't bail out the Obamacons today, although it remains to be seen whether a free-market, anti-tax-and-spend message will emerge from the election sweep by the GOP. If so, it could doom the so-called health care reform that has become a symbol of the leftward-tilting, big-government, economic-control policies emanating from Washington.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
The Double Standard About Journalists' Bias
I made The New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud.
Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, "Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel's speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox."
Which "critics" had "leaped"? The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow. I wouldn't think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life. He also quoted an "associate professor of journalism" who said my speeches were "'pretty shameful' by traditional journalistic standards." All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a "conservative advocacy group."It is odd that this is a news story. In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity. The Times didn't call that "shameful."
But in August, I worked for ABC News. Now, I work for Fox. Hmmm.
It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career.
I was one of America's first TV consumer reporters. I approached the job with an attitude. If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV -- and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter -- the former was a good thing.)
I clearly had a point of view: I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies. My colleagues liked it. I got job offers. I won 19 Emmys. I was invited to speak at journalism conferences.
Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well. The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more.
As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks. But once I got to the national stage -- "20/20" and "Good Morning America" -- it was hard to find comparable national scams. There were some: Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc. But they are rare. In a $14 trillion economy, you'd think there'd be more. But there aren't.
I figured out why: Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep scammers in check. Reputation matters. Word gets out. Good companies thrive, and bad ones atrophy. Regulation barely deters the cheaters, but competition does.
It made me want to learn more about free markets. I subscribed to Reason magazine and read Cato Institute research papers. Then Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Aaron Wildavsky.
My reporting changed. I started taking skeptical looks at government -- especially regulation. I did an ABC TV special, "Are We Scaring You to Death?" that said we TV reporters often make hysterical claims about chemicals, pollution and other relatively minor risks. Its good ratings -- 16 million viewers -- surprised my colleagues.
Suddenly, I wasn't so popular with them.
I stopped winning Emmys.
I was invited on CNN's media program, "Reliable Sources," to be interviewed by The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz and an indignant Bernard Kalb. They titled the segment, "Objectivity and Journalism: Does John Stossel Practice Either?" It was in big letters over my head.
Apparently, I had broken the rules.
On the air they told me that I was no longer objective. I was too stunned to defend myself effectively. I said something like: "I've always had a point of view. How come you had no trouble with that when I criticized business?"
In hindsight, I wish I'd said: "Look at the title on the wall, you hypocrites! It shows you have a point of view, too. Many reporters do. You just don't like my arguments now that I no longer hew to your statist line. So you want to shut me up."
But I didn't.
So I'll say it now: Reporters who think coercive government control is generally good and I, who thinks voluntary market forces are generally better, both have a point of view.
So why am I the one called biased?
I like what "Americans for Prosperity" defends. I'm an American, and I'm for prosperity. What creates prosperity is free and competitive markets. That means limited government.
And I will speak about that every chance I get.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
W.H. diplomacy 'back down to earth'
Foreign policy never goes according to campaign plan, but for President Barack Obama, who promised a hardheaded new engagement with the world, the last week and the weeks he sees looming ahead must be discouraging.
Across a region spanning Pakistan to the Mediterranean, foreign leaders seem to be challenging the very premise of his policy: that foreign countries can reasonably be persuaded to move in the direction of common interests, and that a better-loved America can get more done.
In Afghanistan, an all-out effort to promote a legitimate election turned into a scramble to prevent a civil war and ease the defrauded challenger off the stage. Iran persuaded the White House to drop its late-September deadline for action and then appears to have rejected a deal on nuclear fuel. Great powers such as Russia and China show no appetite for crucial concessions, while the U.S. Congress continues to block major action on a pillar of Obama’s policy goals — international action on climate change.
“This is a clarifying moment,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration foreign policy hand. “It’s not the week that they wanted to have happen, but sometimes it’s better to get your rough lessons early when the stakes are lower.”
Another Democratic analyst, the National Security Network’s Heather Hurlburt, labeled this “back-down-to-earth week.”
“None of these things is more ugly than they were a week or a month or six months ago,” she said. “They’ve now done the easy things, and we got spoiled for six or eight or 10 months: easy thing, applause, Nobel Prize. We’re now at the stuff that’s really hard.”
Less sympathetic analysts see the clarification in more negative terms.
“For an administration that came in thinking it was going to be more realistic than the previous administration, they’ve certainly been hit in the head by real facts,” said Gary Schmitt, a former Republican congressional staffer and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, citing a “growing perception that they’re the team that can’t shoot straight.”
“They had — ironically for realists — unrealistic expectations on what they could accomplish,” he said.
It’s a cliché of presidencies that foreign policy priorities set themselves and that presidents have far less control than they imagine they will. Obama’s key priorities looked, weeks ago, intact. On his most profound challenge, Afghanistan, he was herding key constituencies — from the British military to American Democrats — toward a consensus.
“There had been a huge amount of momentum behind his emphasis on Afghanistan — thanks also significantly to [envoy Richard] Holbrooke — and this election has halted all that momentum,” said Peter Galbraith, an American diplomat who left the U.N. mission to Afghanistan in a dispute about the election.
In Iran, meanwhile, detailed and painstaking talks about shipping nuclear fuel to Russia — a subject of cooperation with French and Russian leaders — also foundered last Friday, when Iran rejected the deal.
Iranian officials were quoted Monday offering only the haziest reassurances.
The country’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told reporters that Iran has “some technical and economic considerations” about the proposal, The Associated Press reported.
The central problem in those two theaters, and in others, has been the lack of a reliable partner whom Obama can engage.
“There is a unifying issue in the Palestinian territories, in Iraq, in Iran, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, and that is you need to have a trustworthy partner and the people on the ground need to want to change,” said Rothkopf. “Unless both of those conditions are present, then you’re playing at the margins.”
Some analysts also question the focus of an administration whose foreign policy seems dominated by the president’s personal interest.
“The administration is finding it difficult to have six major priorities,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s not a question of can the administration walk and chew gum, but it’s hard to devote high-level attention to a wide diversity of things.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to the Middle East and Central Asia in recent days contributed to the impression of an unsettled policy approach. In Pakistan, she said bluntly that the Pakistanis ought to know where Al Qaeda leaders are — then walked the candid comment back. In Israel, she praised Israeli leaders for their willingness to compromise — then rushed to shore up a Palestinian leadership that appears to have been badly weakened by that same compromise.
And so Obama has been forced to adjust his targets. On Afghanistan, he declared Karzai’s election “legitimate” Monday — a statement of hope as much as a description of reality. On Iran, he faces congressional pressure for harsh sanctions and a choice of imperfect options, some weaker compromise with skeptical Russian and Chinese partners on international sanctions or sanctions enacted by the sort of Bush-style coalition of the willing, dubbed “the coalition of the like-minded nations” he’s long derided.
What had appeared to be a new approach to foreign policy — a combination of charismatic leadership, moral suasion and cool judgment of interests — at this moment looks like a simpler pragmatism.
But that, for those who want Obama to succeed, is still a welcome change.
“Any foreign policy is going to have ups and downs, but what characterizes Obama’s foreign policy is a great deal of pragmatism and strategy,” said Galbraith. “Strategy by definition means you’re always evaluating the circumstances — the terrain — and making adjustments.”
Chris Christie's Next Case: Who Stole My Election?
Absentee voter fraud may play a significant role in New Jersey's gubernatorial election
By JOHN FUND
The race for governor in New Jersey is so close in final polls that it may well end up in a recount -- the 1981 election did and was decided by less than 1,800 votes. If there is a recount, you can bet disputes about absentee ballots will loom large. Moreover, if serious allegations of fraud emerge, you can also expect less-than-vigorous investigation by the Obama Justice Department -- which showed just how seriously it takes such allegations when it walked away from an open-and-shut voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia earlier this year.
Plenty of reasons exist for suspecting absentee fraud may play a significant role in tomorrow's Garden State contests. Groups associated with Acorn in neighboring Pennsylvania and New York appear to have moved into the state. An independent candidate for mayor in Camden has already leveled charges that voter fraud is occurring in his city. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party in New Jersey is taking advantage of a new loosely written vote-by-mail law to pressure county clerks not to vigorously use signature checks to evaluate the authenticity of absentee ballots, the only verification procedure allowed.
The state has received a flood of 180,000 absentee ballot requests. On some 3,000 forms the signature doesn't match the one on file with county clerks. Yet citing concerns that voters would be disenfranchised, Democratic Party lawyer Paul Josephson wrote New Jersey's secretary of state asking her "to instruct County Clerks not to deny applications on the basis of signature comparison alone." Mr. Josephson maintained that county clerks "may be overworked and are likely not trained in handwriting analysis" and insisted that voters with suspect applications should be allowed to cast provisional ballots. Those ballots, of course, would then provide a pool of votes that would be subject to litigation in any recount, with the occupant of New Jersey's highest office determined by Florida 2000-style scrutiny of ballot applications.
Absentee voter fraud is in danger of becoming a hardy perennial in New Jersey. Atlantic City Councilman Marty Small and 13 campaign workers were indicted in September on charges of conspiring to commit election fraud using absentee ballots. One worker pleaded guilty last month. In Newark, five campaign workers were indicted in August on charges involving absentee ballot fraud.
Victor Negron, a campaign adviser for independent mayoral candidate Roberto Feliz, a former director of Camden's public works department, says he's shocked that more than fifteen times the normal number of voters are casting absentee ballots in Camden this year. In the 2005, when the city's voters voted for both governor and mayor on the same day, only 200 absentee ballots were cast. This year, some 3,700 have already been received. At least four voters have approached the Feliz campaign to complain that an absentee ballot was sent to them without their permission or cast for them without their understanding the documents they were signing. I spoke with Uremia Rojas who reports that "a man with a clipboard knocked on my door and had me sign something so I could vote by mail. I was skeptical but signed and got a ballot. I never really wanted one." Says Mr. Negron: "We believe this to be underhanded and a possibly illegal strategy by the Democratic Party to undermine the civil rights of the residents of Camden."
There are additional reports from Camden that Hispanic voters have been misled into voting absentee ballots. So-called bearers who are allowed to collect and carry absentee ballots are said to have encouraged voters to fill out applications for absentee ballots. A few days later, the bearers reportedly return with the actual ballots, which they offer "assistance" in filling out.
Authorities in nearby Philadelphia know about such scams. In one infamous case, a key 1993 race that determined which party would control the Pennsylvania state senate was thrown out by a federal judge after massive evidence that hundreds of voters had been pressured into casting improper absentee ballots. Voters were told by "bearers" that it was all part of "la nueva forma de votar" -- the new way to vote. Local politicos tell me Philly operatives associated in the past with Acorn may now be advising their Jersey cousins on how to perform such vote harvesting.
Elsewhere, an investigation is being conducted into a report that people wearing Acorn T-shirts entered an East Orange hospital near Newark carrying blank absentee ballots and left with completed ballots. New Jersey law allows anyone to pick up an absentee ballot for someone else -- these are called messenger ballots.
After repeated election-related scandals, Acorn has become toxic for many candidates who once relied on the group. But Acorn's longtime allies, the Service Employee International Union and New York's Working Families Party, have both moved into New Jersey. Peter Colavito, Acorn's former political director in New York and a board member of the Working Families Party, is now the political director of SEIU Local 32BJ, which is heavily involved in New Jersey's election. Nationally, the SEIU is a political powerhouse with White House visitor's logs showing that Andrew Stern, its national head, visited 22 times in the first six months of the Obama White House -- more than any other person. "Andrew Stern practically lives at the White House," notes Politico.com.
The Working Families Party, which is co-chaired by Acorn head Bertha Lewis, is no stranger to absentee ballot fraud. A special prosecutor in Troy, N.Y. is investigating New York's September primary, in which at least 38 ballots cast for Working Families Party candidates were thrown out as forged or fraudulent. New York Judge Michael Lynch found "significant election law violations that have compromised the rights of numerous voters and the integrity of the ballot process."
Nor is in-person fraud at the polls unknown in New Jersey. In 2007, a former Hoboken zoning board president noticed a group of men outside a polling place being given index cards by two people. One of the loiterers later tried to vote in the name of a voter who had moved out of the area. When challenged by the former zoning board president, he ran out of the building and was caught. He later admitted to police he was part of a group from a homeless shelter who had been paid $10 each to vote using the names of other people.
That's one reason ElectionJournal.org will be deploying observers with cameras around New Jersey to hunt for irregularities. The Web site hit gold last year when its cameras captured footage of two members of the New Black Panther Party in black combat boots and black uniforms blocking the door of a Philadelphia polling place. One was brandishing a large police-style nightstick and hurling racial epithets at voters.
The Bush Justice Department filed a civil-rights lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and the two individuals. When none of the defendants answered the lawsuit, a federal court rendered a default judgment against the defendants. But last May, Attorney General Eric Holder dropped charges against the party and the two individual defendants. Another man was given the mild sanction of being barred from displaying a weapon near a polling place for three years. To groups that may be contemplating vote fraud in tomorrow's races, such an outcome will hardly be seen as a big deterrent.
Does U2 Still Matter?
"The only band that matters." Those words were thrust upon The Clash upon the release of "London Calling," when the punk legends were at the height of their powers. While The Clash's stand as rock's most important band was brief, they did have an enormous impact on a little group from Dublin, Ireland, known as U2. Since The Clash's demise, U2--Paul "Bono" Hewson, Dave "The Edge" Evans, Adam Clayton, and Larry Mullen, Jr.--is one of the few rock acts in the world that managed to "matter" during the '80s, '90s and into '00s. Whether it's shilling iPods (now Blackberrys), trying to save the world one small gesture at a time, or delving into sonic experimentation with their longtime producer pals Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, U2 has had an undeniable impact on not only music, but popular culture.
Yet there are signs U2's influence may be faltering. "No Line On The Horizon," the band's most recent release, has failed to yield a mainstream hit single; "Get On Your Boots" reached No. 5 on Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks, but failed to crossover to the pop chart, stalling at No. 37 on The Hot 100. And, with sales of 1 million copies in the US, according to Nielsen SoundScan, "No Line On The Horizon" is the band's weakest-selling effort since SoundScan began tracking sales data in 1991. By comparison, the band's polarizing 1997 effort "Pop" has sold 1.5 million copies, according to SoundScan.
Still, U2 remains a juggernaut in the concert arena--or, in the case of its current trek, on the stadium circuit. The band topped Pollstar's recently released 2009 third-quarter ticket-sales chart with sales of 2.3 million ducats, besting such perennial best-sellers as AC/DC, Bruce Springsteen, Coldplay and Madonna.
As the band rolls out additional dates on its groundbreaking 360 Tour, LiveDaily thought we'd check out U2's impact by asking various musicians (from the legendary Quincy Jones and Rock and Roll Hall of Famer Doug Clifford to up-and-comers like electronic sensation RJD2 and rising indie band Portugal The Man) and assorted music-industry types if U2 still matters and why.
Quincy Jones, legendary producer/arranger, entertainment mogul
"Are you kidding me? I just went to a show of theirs in New York that seemed like it had 200,000 people in attendance! They had the audience in the palm of their hand, and, most importantly, they showed their care for the world. Their relevance transcends music--it's almost like its own belief system, which is probably why those four dudes have stayed together for so long. On a side note, I just want to point out that my knowledge of Da Vinci wouldn't be remotely the same without Bono."
(In honor of Jones' attendance at U2's Giants Stadium show on Sept. 23, Bono slipped in a few lines from Michael Jackson's "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," which was produced by Jones.)
Ray Waddell, Billboard, senior touring editor
"I think it's pretty obvious U2 matters and could make a case as the most 'important' rock band in the world, if demand and creativity are the barometers. They continue to push themselves artistically, both in the studio and through innovative, ambitious touring. They are in the uppermost echelon of artists in terms of global demand, rarefied air occupied only by The Rolling Stones. U2 are currently touring with a production unlike any before, playing to packed stadiums in a 360-degree configuration all over the world, setting attendance records all over the place. The staging and video are pretty mind blowing, but do not overwhelm the band, which is playing in top form. They open with several songs from the new album and the crowds instantly embrace the new material. By the time they wrap the tour next year, U2 360 will be one of the biggest tours ever in terms of both gross and attendance. I think they can continue to do this as long as they want to do it."
Doug "Cosmo " Clifford , drummer, Creedence Clearwater Revival
"I have nothing but respect for U2 because they have managed to stay together as a band for decades. They have stayed viable at a very high level through the many changes in the industry over the years. They have given back so much to people in need, making a real difference in the lives of millions of people around the globe. They are truly a class act. Bravo!"
Bob Lefsetz, industry commentator/author of the "Lefsetz Letter" blog
"They matter financially. And to those in their forties who remember 'The Joshua Tree.'
"They're meaningless in terms of new music. If only they'd realize this, and start to record and release new music that's not overmanaged and overmanipulated to try and be successful, but is recorded for the pure joy of it."
John Baldwin Gourley, singer/guitarist, Portugal. The Man
"U2 will matter forever, that is not up for debate. I just can't imagine charging your fans, who have made you, that much for a concert or a T-shirt, but maybe I have no perspective of the size of things"
Kasim Sulton, bassist/singer, Utopia, session and touring pro
"Very few bands/musicians have the capacity to remain popular and contemporary after 25 years together. Much like a roman candle, there might be four or five truly good records before the magic sputters and the artists find themselves held hostage to their initial success, playing the same old songs because that's all the audience really wants. U2 is one of the only bands that consistently tops the last record, the last tour, and continues to remain one of--if not the only--bands that can release an album and have it mean more than the previous one. Consistently. Case in point: The Rolling Stones, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, Aerosmith and most other artists in that stratosphere of success can still sell out tour after tour, yet nothing they've released in the last 15 years compares to their early material. U2 still matters."
Paul Donoghue, bassist/vocalist, Glasvegas
"I don't think there's a question over whether U2 still matter or not. They still play to stadiums of new and old fans alike, something very few acts can achieve over such a long career. They still have desire and soul, which doesn't seem to have waned. They're still writing strong material and aren't relying on their back catalogue, which so many people do. They also are a huge inspiration to so many people ... any band with aspirations larger than playing the local shithole to four of their mates has taken something from U2. And just look at the huge bands lining up to support them. It was an honour for us to support them, and if they threw the towel in tomorrow, they'd still be relevant in 50 years time. Of course they still matter."
Bertis Downs, R.E.M. advisor
"Of course U2 still matters--they make music all their own, are many people's favorite band, carry themselves in a manner like no one else, and make a huge difference with their approach to their responsibilities as a role model for so many others. And, to my ears, they are still pushing their creative envelope every time they release a record."
RJD2 (a.k.a. RJ or Ramble Krohn), artist/producer
"U2 sells out venues that are literally 100 times the size of rooms that I play. So if U2 doesn't 'matter,' then what is a degree 100 times smaller than 'mattering'? Does it surpass 'existing'? Whatever it is, that is what I am--sub-existence. Also, for the record, anyone who goes around saying things like 'someone doesn't matter' is a status-obsessed douche."
Glenn "G5" Gyorffy, bassist, Anvil
"Absolutely! U2 have been, and still are, one of the biggest bands in the world. They've inspired some of the greatest music of the past two-and-a-half decades as well. There was a time when they sounded unique but now you can hear their sound in just about every pop band. U2 will always matter! Just like the Beatles will always matter!"
Monday, November 02, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)