Right in San Francisco

The Emperor's (Jobs) Speech

While we all eagerly await President Obama's return from Martha's Vineyard with a new jobs agenda, we can muse about whether he will walk through Door A or Door B.

Door A: Governing. What would seem to be needed is a long term plan with a short term component, agreeable to both parties.

The framework could be based on Simpson-Bowles, perhaps enhanced by elements of Paul Ryan's FY 2012 budget and the recent debt ceiling debate "grand bargain". That would include restructure of the corporate and individual tax codes; steps to restructure Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and a general tightening of federal spending to get Debt to GDP into the 60 to 70% range.  This is the work of the bipartisan Deficit Reduction Commission, but a strong and specific presidential plan would go a long way.

Given a long term framework, there are some things that could be done in the short term.  Regulatory relief would seem an easy place to start - eliminating new dust standards for farmers; letting Boeing and other decide where to locate their facilities; getting on with expansion of our energy resources.  He might unlock the free trade agreements which have been negotiated and available from Day 1 - but face union opposition. As part of a total package the Republicans might well agree to a deficit-increasing continuation of unemployment benefits, the partial payroll (Social Security) tax holiday, and more subsidies for mortgage holders.

Door B: Campaigning. Continue the mode of blaming Bush, the Tea Party, and "bad luck".

     Much of the media still seems willing to place the blame for the debt limit impasse on the Tea Party's insistence on not raising taxes rather than the Democrats unwillingness to address entitlements. Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare remains a good demagogue item which would be lost for 2012 if Obama made any similar concrete proposal. Taxing "the rich" to make them pay their "fair share" is always a good applause line, particularly if you can get Warren Buffet to deliver it - even though such an increase would have a negative impact on job creation and he agreed to the current rates as part of the "continuing budget resolution" debate for FY 2011.

     Part of the problem for Obama is that it is probably too late for any impact on the economy prior to the 2012 election unless it is a matter of passing out money for specific short term job creation - and the Republicans won't allow that for ideological and political reasons.  With the Congressional Budget Office projecting unemployment well above 8% through 2012 he will be aiming at the optics of an improving situation to get above his current Carter-esque approval rating. And, of course, if it is somebody else's fault - maybe the Big Guy who's sending earthquakes and hurricanes.

     But the larger part of his problem is that he doesn't have a clue. Most of his economic advisors are gone; he still doesn't have any business people in his inner circle; and he leans in public on people likeJeff Immelt of GE which pays no taxes (due largely to "clean energy" credits for wind turbines) and apparently intends to move its medical devices headquarters from Wisconsin to China.  Small business - forget it.

    A prediction: Obama will will stay with Door B; Mitt Romney will offer a Door A option.  Game on.  

 

                                                                            -------

      In place of a video, this week's "bonus" is an excellent Stratfor article about Libya's future challenges.  Absent from the discussion of internal divisions and external forces - Egypt; Europeans; China - is any mention of the United States.

bill bowen - 8/26/11

Rick Perry - A Perspective

For Republicans the inevitable has happened. We now have a Class A conservative competing with a Class A moderate to face a vulnerable liberal incumbent Democrat in 2012. Both Perry and Romney have significant records of success (Romney in business; Perry in government); both have national networks (Romney from his 2008 run; Perry from his chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association); both are prodigious fund raisers; both have been governors; both appear to have unblemished personal histories. A welterweight or two may remain in the hunt, but these are heavyweights.

By chance I have met Governor Perry twice - once at the Red State Gathering in Austin in 2010; once at a Northern California Lincoln Club seminar in 2011. A fews observations:

1. Perry is legitimately "down home." In Austin his schtick included hosting a Texas-style BBQ for several hundred conference participants, casual western dress, and an afternoon at a rifle range for a few VIPs. He mingles well, has a lot of Texas small talk, and is a gracious host. His roots, life story, and politics are all transparent.

2. He enjoys being "in your face." With the more moderate California group containing many potential donors he enjoyed explaining that his primary reason for being in California was to recruit businesses interested in moving to Texas. The style plays well in Texas and is OK with core Republicans. With others, not so much.

3. He also enjoys discussing policy and economic development. A primary talking point is tort reform which resulted in an increase in doctors moving to Texas, particularly to poor areas. On taxes, regulation, and appreciation for business he justifiably relishes the position of being the anti-Obama.

One has to have some sympathy for the liberal media. Perry can fairly be criticized for the Texas's low ranking in public education funding and health care; he has offered many exploitable quotations on secession, social security, Medicare, and the Federal Reserve; his speech cadences even sound like George W. Bush. Liberal minions like Paul Krugman will make laughable efforts to show that Texas' leadership in producing jobs in the past decade is an illusion. Serious students of politics might read "Fed Up", Perry's 2010 book about his "unwavering belief in the goodness of America", unencumbered by big federal government.

The difference between Perry and Romney is real - with President Perry (and the likely Republican House and Senate) you would get a balanced budget amendment, a major downsizing of the federal government, and socially conservative judges. In Newtonian terms, the liberal "action" of the past decade would result in an "equal and opposite reaction". With Perry the reaction would be by brute force. With Romney it would be done withiin the system and would be less complete. (For example - Wall Street reform would be vastly different.)

It will take a month or more for the polls and the frenetic media to settle down; meanwhile Romney ramains the frontrunner, even to knowledgeable conservative observers. The scheduling of Republican primaries (beginning in February with the convention in late August) favors a conservative early, but a moderate later. Romney's strategy will apparently be to remain focused on Obama and his 26% approval rating on the economy; Perry will apparently speak loudly about whatever is on his mind and may well wander into many meaningless minefields. In the end most Republicans and conservatives will vote for ABO.

The Democratic quandry is how much to attack the easily-attacked Tea Party favorite, thus increasing the odds for Romney who would be a much more formidable candidate among swing voters. This choice will undoubtedly occupy President Obama between rounds of golf and his laser-like focus on jobs during his 10 day Matha's Vineyard vacation.

------

This week's video, for those in low exposure TV markets, is Perry's first presidential campaign ad. A few more may follow.

bill bowen - 8/19/11

also visit www.BillBowenAuthor.com.

 

If - Revisited

Rudyard Kipling, the great storyteller of British imperialism, in 1895 wrote a compelling poem of advice for a son in a hostile world - "If". Some of the wisdom is pertinent for today's American leaders.

" If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you"

So the Tea Party is at fault for pointing out that mounting deficits and government spending are unsustainable; and S&P is at fault for doing their job with an obvious downgrade.

"Or being lied about, don't deal in lies

Or being hated, don't give way to hating."

So the vice president calls political opponents "terrorists" and the vitriol aimed by the media and the Democrats against George Bush, and then Sarah Palin, and then the Tea Party will soon pivot to the 2012 Republican presidential candidate - with a $1 billion dollar war chest and a "kill Romney" campaign under development. The Republicans should continue to resist the temptation to respond in kind.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools"

So Paul Ryan presents a budget which would reform the tax code and start to address entitlements and it gets demagogued as an attack on Seniors.

"If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch"

Inability of the president to relate to Joe the Plumber or the Cambridge police is bad enough, but a total lack of relationships with foreign leaders is an unreported problem. George Bush had a personal connection with Vicente Fox of Mexico, Angela Merkel of Gemany, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. For Obama - David Cameron of the UK? Nope. Stephen Harper of Canada? Nope. Felipe Caldedron of Mexico? Nope. Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel? Nope. Nicholas Sarkozy of France? Nope. Naoto Kan of Japan? Nope. Pick a country - China; Russia; Brazil; india; Pakistan; Egypt; Kenya; Indonesia. All Nope's.

Kipling wrote around 1900, shortly before the British Empire passed the torch to America. Lets hope that we can put new leaders in place who understand his wisdom before we drop it.

-----

This week's video is a short perspective by Mark Rubio. He is definitely one of the top "new generation" stars of the GOP.

bill bowen - 8/12/11

P. S. Last week's blog, "Machiavelli's Obama" had the highest number of hits on any RightinSanfrancisco posting to date. If you forwarded it - by Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, or some other way - thanks. If not, you might consider doing so.

Machiavelli's Obama

In his brilliant political advice to the leader of Florence in 1512, "The Prince", Niccolo Machiavelli offered four choices:

A. Be honest; Appear to be honest

B. Be dishonest, Appear to be dishonest.

C. Be honest, Appear to be dishonest.

D. Be dishonest; Appear to be honest.

Most American poliiticians follow the advice of the Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Signoria, pursuing Plan D. After hearing President Obama twice claim that he was putting "domestic discretionary spending" on a path to be the lowest since the Eisenhower administration, I figured it was worth a look on some fact checking sites - PolitiFact (relatively liberal) and FactCheck.org.(relatively moderate) It couldn't just be a lie could it?

My first reaction is to revert to Bill Buckley's great put-down: "Sir, I am not going to insult your intelligence by pretending that you believe what you just said." But maybe our president does! And maybe the media does too. This isn't a question of where John Wayne was born which got Michelle Bachmann much attention, it gets at the centerpiece of the liberal philosophy.

Like much of Washington budgeting it is all about timing and definitions. Forget the fact that intervening administrations have created a Department of Education and a Department of Energy. Forget Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind. Hell, forget all of Lyndon Johnson Great Society. The President said it so it must be true. Right?

Well, a few caveats:

1. We'll be on a path. The basic calculation is that Ike's number was 2.2% of GDP and Obama's vision will get us to 2.1% in 2015. Forget the fact that his 2012 budget (that was defeated 97 - 0 in the Senate) put discretionary non-security spending at 3.4% of GDP. If future Congresses and the next President follow his vision we'll get there.

2. Fortuitously for politicians, definitions have changed over the past half century and even the fact checkers cannot connect all of the dots. (Obama's categorization changes from non-defense to non-security.) What they do know is that things like the highway system have become "non-discretionary" as have Pell grants for college tuition. It helps to eliminate from the discussion Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare as "non-discretionary". And "security", that's a bigger category that gobbles up a lot of stuff that previously would not have been considered "defense" - well, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security stuff for example.

Somewhere on the staff of David Axelrod or David Plouffe there's got to be a junior intern looking up what the Secretary to the Second Chancery had to say about how to maintain the appearance of honesty in the face of deliberate distortions that are obviously false on their face. Perhaps she'll send a tweet.

-----

This week's video is a brief clip of the glorious victories by our Libyan allies four and a half months into the non-hostilities which have conservatively cost over a half billion dollars thus far.

Note: This blog had the greatest number of hits of any RightinSanFrancisco to date. If you forwarded it - via Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, or any other way - thanks.

 

visit www.BillBowenAuthor.com