Category: Politics

The Phantom Economy

ABC News has an interesting piece on why the booming US economy doesn’t translate into a positive economic outlook for the average American. It is somewhat mysterious – unemployment is very low (4.7%), economic growth is high, and wage growth is steady. By all accounts, the average American worker is exceptionally well off – despite all the worries about outsourcing, 2.3 million jobs have been added to the US economy since August of 2003. Even tax revenues have gone sharply upward. So why is there such pessimism over the state of the economy?

Gas prices are certainly part of it, as they have the largest instant psychological impact. People don’t immediately see a fluctuation in GDP growth, but the second prices at the pump go up $0.05 everyone in the country notices. However, SUV sales are still strong, and people don’t seem to be cutting back on consumption, which suggests that filling up is nowhere near painful enough to warrant people changing their habits. It’s been estimated that $4/gal gas would have a significant impact on people’s habits, but $2.50-$3/gal doesn’t seem to be forcing people to take much action.

If jobs and gas aren’t the issue, what else is? The ABC article mentions debt as being one factor. High levels of credit card debt and home equity debt is altogether too common in this country – if you can fog a mirror, you can get a credit card these days. It’s exceptionally easy for someone to get in over their heads, and payday loan/car title loan shops prey on the financially weak. This would certainly put a squeeze on the average consumer, even if all they have is a few grand in credit card debt.

Of course, the media plays a role in all of this too. Remember in 2004 when Bush was responsible for “the worst economy since Hubert Hoover”? Either the US economy has made a miraculous recovery since then, meaning that Bush’s policies did more than the New Deal in a faster amount of time, or that whole line of argumentation was a crock. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which scenario is the most likely. However, the media narrative of imminent doom never really went away – part of it is due to our natural sense of pessimism, part of it is because good news doesn’t garner good ratings, and undoubtedly part of it is due to the political biases of the media – any news which might give the Bush Administration credit isn’t likely to make it through the ideological blinders of the mainstream media.

The new Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, formerly of Goldman Sachs has his work cut out for him – the US economy is doing very well, but we’ve also gone through one of the lengthier periods of economic growth in recent times – and what comes up must come down. Not only that, but Paulson is going to have to combat that sense of economic pessimism, which is a difficult job in itself. John Snow, Paulson’s predecessor at the Treasury was an able economic steward, but a very poor salesman. Paulson’s position as the former CEO of Goldman Sachs means that he’ll have much more influence over the markets than Snow did. Paulson’s not the showy type, but he is the sort of person who can make an effective Secretary of the Treasury.

The US economy is performing exceptionally well, and nearly every sign of growth and success bear that out – but because the Bush Administration hasn’t fought back against the pessimism of their critics in any real, that negative public perception is hurting Bush’s approval ratings. Paulson will have a difficult job in combating that perception, but at least the Bush Administration seems to be willing to combat the problem.

What About That “Culture Of Corruption”?

While the DNC tries to push the Republicans as being mired in a “culture of corruption”, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took free boxing tickets from the Nevada Boxing Commission while Reid was involved in legislation that would have put more federal controls on the sport.

What Reid did was not a violation of Senate Rules, but it certainly looks shady. Sen McCain paid for his tickets, and Sen. John Ensign recused himself from the issue when they accompanied Reid to the fights. Senate ethics rules recommend against taking gifts from organizations that may be effected by pending legislation. Reid was also heavily involved with Jack Abramoff’s various lobbying efforts.

Reid’s ethical lapses demonstrate why Congressional corruption is a bipartisan problem. Neither party can get much traction on the issue when both are complicit in a legislative culture of lobbyists, wasteful junkets, and earmarking. The entire system has dramatically expanded in power and scope, and as the Founders warned, the more government there is, the more the incentives to use the levers of government for one’s own personal ends. The fact is that the “culture of corruption” is really just another facet of Big Government run amok, and sadly, few in either party seem to have the political will to do much to fight it.

Dispatches From Bizarro World

As loathe as I am to defend Nancy Pelosi, her her decision to ask Rep. Jefferson to resign from the Ways and Means Committee was the right one, despite what the Congressional Black Caucus may say. Jefferson was caught red-handed taking a $100,000 bribe. This is a very clear-cut case, and if Jefferson had so much as an ounce of decency he would have fallen on his sword already. Then again, expecting decency from a politician these days seems to be too much to ask.

The Congressional Black Caucus carries a lot of weight with House Democrats:

The Jefferson scandal, which after more than a year of investigation blew open Saturday with an FBI raid at his congressional office, has brought into glaring public light long-standing resentments felt by black lawmakers toward the Democratic leadership in the House.

The CBC’s chairman, Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), engaged in a heated argument with Pelosi on the House floor Tuesday afternoon after Watt heard reports that Pelosi was considering calling for Jefferson’s ouster, according to one witness.

Members of the CBC are expected to confront Pelosi today in a meeting that was previously scheduled to address separate concerns about Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). That meeting is now likely to focus more on Jefferson, a Democratic aide said.

With 43 members, the CBC is a formidable force in the 202-member Democratic caucus and one Pelosi is unusually reluctant to antagonize. Should Democrats take the House, the CBC would control four, and possibly five, committee chairmanships.

This puts Pelosi in a bind – does she kowtow to the CBC or stand up for responsibility in government? Either way, she loses something.

Still, at least Pelosi was acting out of some form of principle – small as it may be. Jefferson has brought shame to the whole House of Representatives and should be treated as the corrupt scoundrel he is. The fact that the CBC is once again closing ranks around one of its own is unsurprising. What would be surprising is if Pelosi holds her ground and demands Jefferson’s resignation.

The Imperial Congress

Speaker Hastert seems to have put his foot in his mouth over a search of the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) as part of the ongoing investigation into Jefferson’s caught-on-tape bribe-taking. Hastert wants to argue that there are Constitutional issues involved with law enforcement searching the office of a sitting Member of Congress – an argument that is incredibly unsound. If anything, the Justice Department went out of its way to avoid even a semblance of impropriety in the search.

Congress’ approval ratings are even lower than the President’s. People feel that our government has become unresponsive, corrupt, and arrogant – and given Hastert’s idiotic response to a perfectly legal search, it’s pretty damned clear why. Jefferson was caught on tape accepting a $100,000 bribe from an FBI agent. Calling that evidence damning would be a massive understatement – and it looks like Hastert is more interested in covering the asses of his colleagues than cracking down on the corruption that plagues both sides of the Congressional aisle.

If this is how the Republican leadership will handle such issues, there are a lot of people who are going to wonder why they should vote Republican at all – and unless Hastert and company get serious about fighting corruption in Congress, the public’s widespread view of Congress as a den of iniquity will only get worse.

UPDATE: Both Pelosi and Hastert are calling for evidence found in Jefferson’s office to be returned. As Orin Kerr observes, the Constitutionality of the search seems quite solid. The Speech and Debate Clause does not apply in the cases of “felony” – and there’s more than sufficient evidence to bring Rep. Jefferson up on felony charges.

This case could have been perhaps done in a better way – such as through the office of the Sergeant of Arms of the House, but that doesn’t excuse Pelosi and Hastert’s little hissy fit. Congress is not above the law, no matter how much they protest.

Why The Guest Worker Bill Must Be Defeated

The current guest-worker bill in the Senate is quite possibly the single worst bill of the Bush Administration’s tenure in office – which is in itself quite an accomplishment. Heritage Foundation researcher Robert Rector takes an in-depth look at the bill and why it will severely harm the American economy:

If enacted, CIRA would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. In its overall impact on the nation, the bill would rival other historic milestones, such as the creation of Social Security or Medicare.

The bill would give amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the U.S. Under the bill, the annual inflow of immigrants with the option of becoming legal permanent residents would rise from the current level of one million per year to more than five million per year. Within a few years, the annual inflow of new immigrants would exceed one percent of the current U.S. population. This would be the highest immigration rate in U.S. history.

Within 20 years, some 103 million new immigrants would enter the U.S. This number is about one-third of the current U.S. population. All of these immigrants would be permanent residents with the right to become citizens and vote in U.S. elections. CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically, and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.

With all the loopholes in the CIRA bill, we’d be better off in the long term to simply annex Mexico – at least we’d get some nice oil deposits out of the deal. Instead, this bill would basically destroy any attempts to control the flood of immigrants to our country. In fact, there’s a good chance that significant portions of this country wouldn’t be America anymore – you’d have essentially created vast ethnic states of relatively unassimilated immigrants who would be divorced from American politics and culture.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act would Balkanize the US in a way that should be absolutely and categorically unacceptable.

Robert Novak also notes some incredibly disastrous features of this bill:

Rector’s updated analysis, based on the Bingaman amendment, downgraded the two-decade estimate for immigrants to approximately 66 million under the reform. That remains a total that boggles the imagination. As a result, critical analyses of other aspects of the bill are getting a focused reception in the Senate.

*The bill supposedly would protect American workers by ensuring that new immigrants would not take away jobs. However, the bill’s definition of ”United States worker” includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless.

*It extends the Davis-Bacon Act’s requirement for the payment of ”prevailing wage” to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of Americans, who have this protection only on federal job sites.

*Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be ”terminated from employment by any employer … except for just cause.” In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.

Not only would this bill create a new American underclass, but it would place them under the same rules that were used during the Depression to keep blacks from getting federal construction contracts. That would not only shut out many small minority contractors and upend the entire agricultural labor market, but would also be tantamount to the government enforcing wage controls on a significant amount of the American workforce. This is most certainly a bipartisan bill – there is something for everyone to utterly despise about it.

The best we could hope for is that it would leave the status quo intact – why would anyone hire a “temporary worker” when they’d have to pay Davis-Bacon’s exhorbitant wages for labor that’s not worth the cost? Instead, there’s a strong likelihood that people would continue to hire illegals at rock-bottom wages unless there’s serious enforcement of rules against doing that – and actually enforcing our immigration laws doesn’t seem to be a priority with Congress these days. It appears as though the rush to please everyone with this bill will end up pleasing no one. How Congress expects a system that brings in millions of largely unskilled workers and demands they be paid well above realistic market averages (not to mention the costs in bureaucratic red tape) will work is well beyond me.

CIRA must be defeated – it is a poorly-written piece of legislation that would create profound negative changes to the American economy and society, and such a program must not be allowed to come to fruition.

Restating The Obvious

Power Line has an interesting piece on a Washington Post story that reveals that the GOP’s political goal hinges around – gasp! – winning the fall midterm elections. As John Hinderaker notes:

On reflection, though, the title may not be as silly as it sounds. One would think that electoral victory is the chief, if not sole, object of any political party. Yet it sometimes seems as if the Democrats are pursuing some other agenda, as they dominate Hollywood, Washington and New York, but generally lose most of the rest of America.

That’s the fear that underlines the Post’s analysis: that those pesky Republicans will somehow be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat and stymie the paper’s beloved Democrats once again. Which is quite likely to happen, I think.

I’m not so sanguine about the GOP’s chances, but as Hinderaker points out, they do have one big advantage: they’re running against Democrats:

The Democrats have a real problem on subjects like the Hayden nomination. Because almost all of the press is loyal to them, they can easily generate negative headlines and misleading (or outright false) stories implying that the NSA programs, for example, are illegal or dangerous to civil liberties. But then comes the hard part: they have to take a position. Do they really want to go on record as saying that the NSA shouldn’t be spying on al Qaeda, and doing its best to intercept its communications? No, they don’t. So we have the weird spectacle of DNC Chairman Howard Dean sending out emails denouncing Hayden and demanding that his nomination be rejected, while Senate Democrats are pretty uniformly praising him and saying that he will be confirmed easily. Once again, the Republicans can take comfort from the fact that they don’t run for election against newspaper headlines; they run against Democrats.

The essential problem the Democrats have is that what excites their base turns off everyone else. The Democrats think that because Bush’s approval ratings are in the toilet that everyone drinks their anti-Bush Kool-Aid. That line of logic assumes that thinking that Bush is doing a bad job is enough to get people to vote for Democrats. That just isn’t in the case – there are plenty of conservatives who are angry at Bush but have no intention of letting the Democrats near the majority in November. The Democrats keep trying to run against Bush, but that just isn’t enough. They have to have some semblance of an alternative, and the Democrats offer nothing but retreat in Iraq and war at home. Their sense of petty and vituperative partisanship is all they have.

Granted, the GOP is hardly doing much better, but at least the Republican Party has some semblance of an agenda, which puts them ahead of the curve. In the end, it all comes down to candidates and issues. The GOP’s candidate recruitment has not been great, but the Democrats aren’t doing that much better. It’s quite possible, even probable that the Democrats will make gains in the House, but the Senate is shaping up fairly well for the Republicans, especially with Tom Kean in New Jersey, Michael Steele in Maryland, and Mark Kennedy in Minnesota. The Democrats have the tendency to put their feet firmly in their mouths, and with “Howlin'” Howard Dean as the Democratic National Chairman, there’s plenty of room for the Democrats to embarrass themselves even more.

The Democrats offer a referendum on someone who isn’t even on the ballot: the Republicans are trying to offer a real choice. As bad as the GOP’s political fortunes are at the moment, that fundamental difference exposes why the Democrats are simply unfit to lead.

Why Bush Won’t Budge

Mark Krikorian has what I think is the best explanation for the President’s views on immigration:

…I get asked this question all the time and the conclusion I’ve come to is this: The president is morally and emotionally opposed to immigration enforcement, especially on the Mexican border. He sees it as uncompassionate and un-Christian, at best a necessary evil that must be entered into with the greatest reluctance and abandoned as soon as is practical. And this is especially true with regard to Mexico because he sees it as a “cousin” nation, like Britain or Israel, and thus enforcing immigration laws against Mexicans is even worse than doing so against Chinese or Pakistanis.

I don’t say this to hurl epithets — President Bush is a conviction politician and sincerely believes this, which is why he sticks to his anti-enforcement guns despite potentially catastrophic political damage. This is unlike President Clinton, who was actually better on immigration in many ways precisely because he was (is) completely amoral and willing to embrace almost any position.

I think he’s right. One of Bush’s greatest strength is his conviction in the idea of the US’ role in spreading liberty across the globe. Even at great risk – such as Iraq. Toppling Saddam Hussein was an enormous political risk – one that hasn’t played out very well for the President at all. Immigration is the same. The President seems to be acting out of a fundamental conviction that barring immigrants from the United States is an immoral act. At the same time, that conviction is in direct conflict with the economic and social health of the United States. Bush’s non-amnesty amnesty through the guest-worker program is an attempt to take a reasonable middle ground without sacrificing his values – something that may ultimately not be possible unless Bush is willing to compromise on things such as border security.

We always clamor for a politician with strong convictions – and Bush is certainly such a politician. However, as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it…

Don’t Quit Your Day Job

None other than Kos has made his political TV ad debut, and it is quite possibly one of the dumbest and most disturbing political ads I’ve ever seen – and even features Kos’ making light of his despicable and shameful comments about the four American contractors killed in Fallujah.

An ad that dumb will almost certainly ensure that Kos goes 0-18. This is quite possibly the dumbest political ad I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen some truly awful ones.

Kos’ tradition of being the Typhoid Mary of politics continued unabated…

UPDATE: The “Screw them” bit was a Photoshop and wasn’t part of the ad – which I should have noticed. Mea culpa.

Has Bush Lost His Base?

National Review had a symposium on Bush’s immigration speech, and the reactions ranged from disappointed to very disappointed. The majority of the conservative movement does not anything that even resembles amnesty for illegals. That’s an understandable position. As a nation of laws, we should enforce our rules.

John Podhoretz calls for a more level-headed discussion of the issue. I think he’s right – there’s absolutely no excuse for the kind of self-censorship that is being practiced by some on this issue. As Glenn Reynolds observes, if you’re starting to sound like a Kos diarist, you need to step away for a moment.

I think Bush is trying to find a reasonable middle ground here, but there’s a small but vocal segment of the base that just won’t have it. Even someone as reasonable as John Hinderaker is saying that there is no middle ground on this issue. With all due respect to someone who’s one of the best bloggers out there, that’s just not true. Yes, we could deport illegals in droves. We could seal the border. We could try to retreat behind the comfortable illusion of Fortress America. However, is that really a viable option? What would be the cost of such an action? Would that be a case of the cure being worse than the disease?

Politics is a game of compromise, and if all that conservative activists want is to deport illegals en masse, that just isn’t a viable strategy. Neither is the virtually uncontrolled immigration of the Hagel-Martinez bill currently in the Senate.

President Bush at least tried to find some middle ground here. If his base isn’t willing to do the same, the political situation of the Republican Party will only get more dire than it already is. The only thing that can help the Democrats is a Republican implosion, and it’s looking increasingly like that’s exactly what they’re going to get.

Liveblogging Bush’s Immigration Speech

As is my tradition, I’ll be liveblogging President Bush’s speech on immigration in about 90 minutes. The Truth Laid Bear has a list of obsessive nerds Bush-speech livebloggers as well.

For this liveblogging exercise, I’ll be drinking some Pacifico beer and eating authentic Mexican nachos (which are flash-fried tortilla wedges coated in refried beans, a bit of cheese, and a jalapeño slice.) Somehow it just felt appropriate for the occasion. (UPDATE: Sadly, no Pacifico to be found. So instead I grabbed myself a selection of various cervasas from our neighbor to the south. Remember, these do jobs that American beers just won’t do.)

Based on the chatter in The Corner, there’s a lot of nervousness about this speech. If Bush doesn’t show some leadership on this issue, his approval ratings could plummet even more. This is one of the more important speeches Bush will give, which is why he’d better knock one out of the park. I’m skeptical as to whether that will happen or not.

The Corner also has a preview of tonight’s speech.

6:57PM CST:The President will speak from the Oval Office in just about three minutes.

7:01PM: Bush begins his speech by asking Congress to support him on the issue of immigration. The gang at Fox News argues that this is a speech targeted towards Congress, which is probably true.

Bush notes we’ve lost control of our borders. Really? Hadn’t noticed.

7:04PM: Bush begins by arguing for securing our borders. It’s about time. Bush states his record on the issue of securing the border – only 12,000 agents for one of the longest uncontrolled borders in the world?

Bush is planning to double the size of the US Border Patrol. He also argues for fences and patrol roads to secure the borders. This is going to be a tough job – there are simply too many migrants coming across the border. Going after the organized groups that facilitate this human trade would be a smarter move to me.

7:06PM: 6,000 National Guard troops will assist the Border Patrol in securing the border. They’ll mainly install the new surveillance equipment to assist the Border Patrol for one year. This seems like a relatively reasonable plan. Bush also states that he won’t militarize the border.

7:08PM: Bush also goes against the “catch and release” policies that let migrants free until a court date – and unsurprisingly they don’t show up. Bush promises to end this policy by expanding the detention facilities that house these illegals.

7:10PM: Now Bush is pushing for a guest worker program. I’m skeptical of this argument. Yes, it will help regulate the flow of workers, but it won’t solve the essential problem. My guess is that at the end of the working period, a lot of these workers will simply disappear into the country.

Bush argues to stop document fraud that use biometric technologies to make cards “tamper proof”. There’s no such thing, and the more money that can be made from forging IDs, the more incentive there is to break that system.

7:12PM: Bush comes out against total amnesty as well as mass deportation. Bush talks of a “rational middle ground”, which is what people are looking for in general. Bush basically argues for a non-amnesty amnesty – which I think will probably pass muster politically. We can’t just kick these people out, but we can’t reward illegal behavior. I’m not sure how good a compromise Bush’s plan really is, but there is nothing in this case that will serve as a perfect compromise.

7:15PM: Bush speaks directly to Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Bush needs to shore up his approval on this issue, especially conservatives. Bush is trying to put himself above the fray on this issue – which is the Presidential thing to do. All in all, that’s probably a decent enough message. Bush is trying to walk a difficult line here between enforcing the law and eroding our culture.

Bush talks of an injured Marine who came in from Mexico. Bush’s humanity always comes through when he recounts stories like that, and Bush needs that right now.

All in all, a short and sweet speech that tries to put Bush firmly above the fray and on the middle ground. I have a feeling that it will give the President a bit of a bounce, just for speaking out on the issue.

Reactions:

Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review: “Delivery feels a bit more Mr. Rogers than commander-in-chief. I mean we have an emergency—our borders are out of control and during a time of war. You don’t get that sense.

Get me Jack Bauer.”

Glenn Reynolds, InstaPundit.com: “Bush is right to stress assimilation. That should have been the cornerstone of the speech.”

Bill O’Reilly: “It’s a start.”

Michelle Malkin: “Too little, too late.”