Counter to “Republicans” and facts

Comment to Paul Krugman’s “Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias”, New York Times, 201-12-08

I think a counter-attack to these distorters of facts should be repeating over and over again their misinterpretation and misrepresentation of so many ideas.

To them, a free market means corporations are free to do what they please.  But a true free market is:

Many buyers and sellers.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter or leave the market.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need.
There are no externalities (all costs are paid for in the transactions

They cherry-pick “sacred” texts to suit themselves.

Adam Smith in “On the Wealth of Nations” observed the England had laws the prevent the workers from organizing to raise wages but none to prevent the masters from organizing to keep wages down.

Adam Smith warned that those who live by profit are not to be trusted.

“Originalist” judges have changed the Constitution to mean that corporations are people.

Check the data of those claiming proof of whatever

Many are claiming that high national debt leads to a decline in growth.  According to Mike Konczal, this claim is based on a paper whose results cannot be replicated by other economists.  See "Shocking Paper Claims That Microsoft Excel Coding Error Is Behind the Reinhart-Rogoff Study On Debt",  Business Insider, 2013-04-16.  Among other things, the authors of the study have not released the data they used to determine their results and that they didn't use comparable data from one country to another.

Unfortunately, "This has been one of the most cited stats in the public debate during the Great Recession. Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity budget states their study 'found conclusive empirical evidence that [debt] exceeding 90 percent of the economy has a significant negative effect on economic growth.'"  And the Washington Post considered it a consensus view of economists!

But the debate doesn't end here.  See also "New Research Undermines The GOP's Austerity Agenda", Jeff Spross, Think Progress, 2013-04-16 and the rebuttal from Reinhart and Rogoff, "Critique of Our Work Still Confirms What We Found on High US Debt", Rob Wile, Business Insider, 2013-04-16.

Solyndra loan, just the facts, ma'am

The Republicans have been jumping all over the Obama administration for the collapse of Solyndra; Paul Ryan accusing the Obama administration of "crony capitalism".  Guess which administration actually approved the loan?  The Bush administration!  The loan was not actually made until Obama was in office.  See "Clean Energy: Obama Says It's the Future, Paul Ryan Calls It a Fad", Stacy Curtin, Daily Ticker, 2012-08-16.

Meanwhile, the Republicans don't seem to notice the subsidies to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear.

Ryan also said, "We want to get Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers."  He seems to forget that the last great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, was very much in the business of picking winners and losers and providing subsidies.  What would this country be like if he hadn't pushed the Transcontinental Railroad with "subsidies" of bonds and free land?

BTW: one of the commenters asked where Paul Ryan called clean energy a fad.  Given how quotes of any kind get distorted and go viral, it is hard to find sources for a supposed quote.  What Ryan said was "fads like Solyndra" on "60 minutes" with Bob Schieffer.  I can't find a direct quote from 60 minutes, but dozens of repeats by many sites, each with its own particular bias.

Whatever, the fact is the Bush administration approved the loan.  Now the Republican Party has morphed to promote only fossil fuels and nuclear energy and to disparage any alternate sources of energy.

A "real" Republican stands up

David Stockman was director of the Office of Management and Budget during Ronald Reagan's first term.  He wrote a sharp criticism of current Republican thinking in "Paul Ryan's Fairy-Tale Budget Plan", New York Times, 2012-08-13.

Among other things Stockman points out that for all the budget cutting in "entitlements", Ryan wants to fund the "warfare state" with a budget twice what Eisenhower thought was sufficient to contain the Soviet threat, adjusted for inflation.  Stockman writes that we have no real credible threat from any "advanced industrial state" and that Iran is benighted but irrelevant.

You might not agree with everything Stockman wrote, but you'll find his thinking is more in tune with reality than what currently passes for conservatism, that is, conserve the entitlements of large corporations and their "right" to raid the Treasury and the pockets of savers.

Which set of no-shows will give the election away?

I started this entry as a Quote of the Day entitled "Something very disgusting".  It was from hearing a radio interview with a man who called himself a Democrat.  He wouldn't vote for any Republican but he was unhappy with Obama.  He said, "I think I'll sit this election out."  Effectively, he's helping the party he doesn't want elected.  It's happened over and over again with Democratic voters, even when in a large majority, staying home on election day and "giving" the election to the Republicans.  I've never heard of major no-shows by Republicans.

With Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, there may be many Republicans who stay home on election day.  These would be some of the mainline Republicans who consider the Tea Party as too doctrinaire.  These would also be the RINOs who have been unhappy with the Republican move to more uncompromising stances on many issues.

I think the Democrats will "win" the no-show battle thus losing the election to the Republicans.

Why?  Because the Republicans have more "true believers" who feel the issues personally.  They "don't want our guns taken away", they "want government off our backs", they "know better how to spend our own money", and on and on.

The "true believers" among the Democrats are more empathetic to other people.  Their issues are helping the poor, protecting wetlands, reducing emissions, and so on.  They might not even experience any of these problems directly.  Because many people who lean Democratic don't feel as strongly on these issues, they are more likely to not show up at elections than the "true believers"

In other words, lukewarm Democrats far outnumber lukewarm Republicans, putting Democrats at a disadvantage when voters stay home.

Whatever your political leanings are, don't give elections away.  Show up and vote!

What to make of George Will on Newt Gingrich

George Will wrote a good critique of Gingrich that anyone who values good government would appreciate, "Gingrich - The Anti-Conservative", Washington Post, 2011-12-20.

Will is very displeased with Gingrich's disdain for the judiciary. Gingrich thinks that judges should appear before elected officials to justify their decisions and can be summarily dismissed.

Will writes that Gingrich is not a historian but often plays one on television. Will is right on with this because I think a historian would be familiar with the Federalist papers:

"A circumstance which crowns the defects of the Confederation remains yet to be mentioned, the want of a judiciary power. Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation."
- Federalist No. 22, supposedly written by Alexander Hamilton

Hm! That reads as if Alexander Hamilton was in favor of "activist judges".

I often enjoy reading George Will's columns; he can be very thoughtful. But he loses it when he becomes partisan and overextends himself in generalizations. In the above article he faults Gingrich for not having "the central conservative virtue, prudence…" This may be a trait of classical conservatives, but unfortunately too many who call themselves conservatives now rush into the issue of the day "without due diligence". Will goes on to compare the "conservative virtue" to "progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power." I don't think this wish for "untrammeled power" is an attribute held by only one sort of politician; politicians of all kinds can be too unwilling to ride roughshod over opposition.

George Will shows this same polarization on "The Great American Debate" with Christiane Amanpour as he argues about legalization of marijuana with Barney Frank. Will makes a remark about "liberalism's aversion to information". Sorry, George, but an "aversion to information" is found all over the political map, especially among those who think their particular ideas are the truth.

This bit of repartee, not a debate, can be found on "Barney Frank Challenges George Will on Marijuana". The full show can be found on http://abcnews.go.com/watch/this-week/SH559082/VD55158848/this-week-1218--the-great-debate.