2/23/12
Several thoughts on Governor Pat Quinn’s (no relation) budget:
--Even before Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) made his budget speech yesterday, when news of budget began leaking early this week, I was all set to put up a post ruminating on the financial trouble we are currently experiencing and how this budget, which Mr. Quinn (no relation) touts as tough, in reality does not even begin to address the fiscal mess that is this state. I was about to excoriate those voters, mostly Republicans, but also swing voters, who simply could not vote for Mr. Quinn’s (no relation) GOP opponent, Senator Bill Brady, because they could not stomach his “hard right” stance on social issues. I was going to point out that voting based on social issues, no matter where one stands on them, is silly because the politicians can do little that would have an impact on these issues. They can rail all they want on either side of the issues of abortion, gay marriage, even gun control, or, apparently, Satan’s designs on our Republic, and doing so will get them votes from constituencies who hold these issues dear and who really believe that one can legislate morality, but, ultimately, those grandstanding pols can do nothing to effect change in any of these issues because doing so involves changing people’s hearts, not telling how to live or how others should live.
In this context, I was going to say that those who are fiscally conservative, or just want to stop the once great Land of Lincoln from falling into the rabbit hole, but voted for Quinn because they are pro-choice are now reaping the fruits of their misguided votes. I was also going to broaden the argument and argue that those who vote solely, say, pro-life without regard to fiscal issues make a similar mistake, forsaking issues over which the pols have some influence in order to vote on issues on which their impact is (In most cases, thankfully, but that is grist for another post.) limited. But one thing gnawed at me, a perennial point of the Pontificator, to wit...how much different would things have been from a fiscal standpoint under a Governor Brady? Yes, he would have spent a little less and his cuts would have fallen on perhaps different programs than would Governor Quinn’s (no relation) “cuts,” but Mr. Brady would have had to raise taxes (As I said ad nauseam around the time of the tax increase, the money had already been spent and, constitutionally, Illinois, like most states, has to run what passes for a balanced budget.) and Mr. Brady, being a pol, would have been similarly pusillanimous about making cuts that would cost him votes.
I’m glad I waited until now to post on this issue because this morning’s (Thursday, 2/23’s, page 10) Chicago Tribune provided confirmation regarding the likelihood of Mr. Brady’s pursuing a course much different form Mr. Quinn (no relation). Mr. Brady is arguing against Mr. Quinn’s (no relation) proposed “facilities” closings and trying to mask his opposition in terms of fiscal rectitude, arguing that closing facilities and laying off workers will make the admittedly far more important pension negotiations with the unions representing those workers difficult:
“It’s going to take employee participation to solve these problems in the area of pensions, and to throw this (the closings) out at this point in time, I’m just concerned about how those representing employees are going to react.”
So there is your “conservative” candidate for governor, effectively telling us that we’d better not cut the budget because it would upset AFSCME. This should inspire people to vote Republican…oh, yeah.
--Governor Quinn (no relation) was not specific on many of his proposed cuts in the budget, but he was specific about prisons he would like to close: the super-max facility at Tamms and the women’s jail in Dwight.
I don’t know if these cuts are advisable; the Governor argues that we have plenty of excess space throughout the system to house the inmates currently at Tamms and Dwight and that the maximum security jail in Pontiac can provide all the security needed to house the bad actors from Tamms. Maybe he’s wrong, maybe he’s right. On the one hand, it’s hard for me to argue with cutting any kind of government spending. On the other hand, it’s hard for me not to argue that we could always use more prison space in order to house, or, better yet, deter the miscreants among us, unless we decide to overhaul our drug laws, but that, too, is grist for another mill.
Whether closing Tamms and Dwight is a good idea, it is clear that Governor Quinn (no relation) is engaging in a time-honored political tactic: When cuts are needed, cut those programs, facilities, or services that the tax paying middle class finds valuable (in this case, making sure that the bad guys are kept behind bars) so that those who pay the bills will rise up against those cuts and perhaps accede to further tax increases to, for example, “keep us safe.” Never propose cuts in the various cutesy-pie, feel good programs that do little, at best, to address the social pathologies they are ostensibly designed to affect but, rather, serve as sops to the various interest groups and contributors that put our public servants in office. Those are sacrosanct to the pols but would be lopped off in a heartbeat by those charged with paying for these useless, or counter-productive, handouts to the entitled at all levels of the income distribution.
We see this tactic all the time out here in the suburbs when a bond issue for “our children” is proposed. Proponents tell us that if we don’t issue the bonds, class sizes will increase, course offerings will be cut (This wouldn’t be such a bad thing in districts that offer, for example, several finance courses…in high school. But that is another issue.), athletics will suffer, etc. Never do they propose as a possibility lopping off levels of vestigial middle management in the ranks of school and district “administrators”…no sir. What will be cut are those programs that directly benefit, or that are perceived to directly benefit, the students, the children of the taxpayers.
Governor Quinn (no relation) is doing the same thing; he tells us that if we insist on cuts, okay, he’ll close prisons while disingenuously telling us that this will have no impact on public safety. It almost doesn’t matter whether closing the prisons would be a good thing or not as long as most of the voters think that closing them will have an impact on public safety and therefore would not be such a good thing. Higher education, a program near and dear to the hearts of middle class taxpayers, will probably come up for proposed cuts as well.
The state of Illinois is in, as it is often put, one h(eck) of a mess. Given the political realities, and the want of a spine that is such a salient feature of the people who run this state, there is little way out of this other than massive tax increases. Not only is this once great state going to be an inhospitable place for business; it is going to an inhospitable place for anyone who works.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
NOTHING AT WHICH TO SNICKER
2/17/12
Mars, Inc., the maker of, among other delectable treats, Snickers bars, told the world yesterday that it will soon commence selling us less Snickers (and Milky Ways, M&M’s, Three Musketeers, etc.) for the same money. The poohbahs at Mars have the temerity to tell us that they are doing so out of concern for our health, that they don’t want us to get (stay, really) fat and so they will not sell us portions of candy that contain more than 250 calories. This will be achieved not by, Thank God, changing the recipe (except for perhaps less salt in the formula), but by reducing the size of the Snickers bar.
Just how stupid do the Mars people think we are? Regular readers of this column know that I have approximately the same regard as did H.L. Mencken for the intelligence of the American people regarding political, financial, cultural, and historical matters. But in matters like shopping and getting the most for our money, we Americans have few, if any, rivals. And no American shopper worth his or her Milky Way is going to fall for the claptrap that the good people at Mars are looking out for our health rather than stiffing us on our Snickers Bar…is s/he? Clearly, Mars is motivated not by a concern for our collective health but, rather, by a desire to save, and hence make, money.
Mars’ efforts at saving money are completely understandable; the costs of raw materials keep going up at the same time that it is very difficult to pass along these cost increases. Somethin’s gotta give, and hence the reduction in the size of our Snickers bars. This follows a growing trend of less cereal or less pasta in the box, less sausage on the pizza, less meat (and lettuce and tomato) on the sub, fewer pancakes in the order, etc. with no concomitant reduction in price. (What is even more alarming is that the Fed and the financial “experts” seem to be falling for this, insisting that inflation is running at “only” 3% while taking no account that we are getting more for less, but that is grist for a more contemplative post.) Again, all understandable…but all so dishonest, or at least sneaky. And now that the incredible shrinking portion trend has hit very close to home with the Snickers bar, I thought it time for the Pontificator to pipe up on this perfidious plot against a perhaps pliable and purblind public rather than wait for the same pernicious trend to hit my even more beloved White Castle slider; it’s already hit the rings.
Men of Mars…charge us more if you must, but please don’t try to sell us, for the same (or, who knows, maybe even more) money, a portion capable of filling only a tooth. We may like our burgers small (but no smaller…we have our eye on you guys at the Porcelain Palace!) and riddled with holes, but we like our Snickers BIG!
Mars, Inc., the maker of, among other delectable treats, Snickers bars, told the world yesterday that it will soon commence selling us less Snickers (and Milky Ways, M&M’s, Three Musketeers, etc.) for the same money. The poohbahs at Mars have the temerity to tell us that they are doing so out of concern for our health, that they don’t want us to get (stay, really) fat and so they will not sell us portions of candy that contain more than 250 calories. This will be achieved not by, Thank God, changing the recipe (except for perhaps less salt in the formula), but by reducing the size of the Snickers bar.
Just how stupid do the Mars people think we are? Regular readers of this column know that I have approximately the same regard as did H.L. Mencken for the intelligence of the American people regarding political, financial, cultural, and historical matters. But in matters like shopping and getting the most for our money, we Americans have few, if any, rivals. And no American shopper worth his or her Milky Way is going to fall for the claptrap that the good people at Mars are looking out for our health rather than stiffing us on our Snickers Bar…is s/he? Clearly, Mars is motivated not by a concern for our collective health but, rather, by a desire to save, and hence make, money.
Mars’ efforts at saving money are completely understandable; the costs of raw materials keep going up at the same time that it is very difficult to pass along these cost increases. Somethin’s gotta give, and hence the reduction in the size of our Snickers bars. This follows a growing trend of less cereal or less pasta in the box, less sausage on the pizza, less meat (and lettuce and tomato) on the sub, fewer pancakes in the order, etc. with no concomitant reduction in price. (What is even more alarming is that the Fed and the financial “experts” seem to be falling for this, insisting that inflation is running at “only” 3% while taking no account that we are getting more for less, but that is grist for a more contemplative post.) Again, all understandable…but all so dishonest, or at least sneaky. And now that the incredible shrinking portion trend has hit very close to home with the Snickers bar, I thought it time for the Pontificator to pipe up on this perfidious plot against a perhaps pliable and purblind public rather than wait for the same pernicious trend to hit my even more beloved White Castle slider; it’s already hit the rings.
Men of Mars…charge us more if you must, but please don’t try to sell us, for the same (or, who knows, maybe even more) money, a portion capable of filling only a tooth. We may like our burgers small (but no smaller…we have our eye on you guys at the Porcelain Palace!) and riddled with holes, but we like our Snickers BIG!
“THE CRAZIES ARE GETTING READY TO MOVE IN”
2/17/12
U.S. intelligence officials now say they think that Al Qaeda operatives are “aiding” the Syrian opposition to the Assad dynasty. This should, of course, come as no surprise. The battle in Syria largely involves the majority Sunni Muslims rebelling against the Assad family, which is of the minority Alawite sect, which in turn is a branch of Shiite brand of Islam. Al Qaeda is a composed of radical Sunnis fighting for what they perceive as the purity of their faith, and this zeal often manifests itself in fighting against what they consider the apostate Shiites. Further, Syria borders Israel and, as much as Al Qaeda hates the United States and, to a lesser extent, the Shiites, its ultimate enemy is Israel. So when an opportunity arose to fight Shiites in a country that has direct access to Israel, it stood to reason that Al Qaeda would jump at the chance. Don’t be surprised if we next learn that Al Qaeda is more than “aiding” the opposition in Syria but indeed is, or soon will be, leading the opposition in Syria. An overthrow of the Assad regime, as worthy as that goal may be, may very well result in an Al Qaeda state on Israel’s border.
Note also that, as fervently as “the West” supported the Libyan rebels in their struggle against the Qadafi regime, we were never sure whom it was supporting. But just about everyone conceded that Al Qaeda elements were entrenched in the Libyan opposition. That did little to cool the ardor of those who were convinced that, by supporting the opposition, they were supporting the “Arab spring” and “the inevitable march of democracy” or some such drivel.
Don’t misunderstand me; I am not denying that the likes of Messrs. Qadafi and Assad are, or were, bloodthirsty thugs and, in many respects, the world is, or would be, better off without them. What I am saying is that we ought to be careful about not only what we wish for but also about what we midwife. We also ought to turn off “American Idol” long enough to consider some history. While I realize that the latter wish is utterly futile, I still persist in asking the American people to remember that we wanted the bad guy imperialist Communist Soviets out of Afghanistan so intensely in the very late ‘70s and early ‘80s that we aided the opposition with guns, money, and other forms of support. Remember how triumphant we felt when the Soviets (Who could be so crazy as to invade Afghanistan? Didn’t they know that Afghanistan is the burial place of empires? I at least digress parenthetically.) left with their tails between their legs? Remember further how convinced we were that the noble Afghan resistance would be so grateful for our help, and so naturally predisposed toward liberal self-government (Isn’t everybody, as George Bush and his henchmen would have us believe?), that our form of democracy, perhaps SuperPacs and all, would flourish in Afghanistan? Remember what actually happened? Those free, democratic, liberal, western oriented crusaders against Soviet oppression became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Oh, boy!
One would think that we would have learned that putting our considerable probosces into the affairs of other nations, even when ostensibly well intentioned is generally a Frankensteinian prescription for disaster. But we are far too busy digesting the intellectual cotton candy that is beamed into our living rooms each night to do the hard work of actually governing ourselves. And so we, while happily chomping down on the sound bites the politicians feed us as the “political advertising” that supports much of the cranial novocain with which we fritter away our lives, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again and to act with surprise and shock when the outcomes similarly repeat themselves.
U.S. intelligence officials now say they think that Al Qaeda operatives are “aiding” the Syrian opposition to the Assad dynasty. This should, of course, come as no surprise. The battle in Syria largely involves the majority Sunni Muslims rebelling against the Assad family, which is of the minority Alawite sect, which in turn is a branch of Shiite brand of Islam. Al Qaeda is a composed of radical Sunnis fighting for what they perceive as the purity of their faith, and this zeal often manifests itself in fighting against what they consider the apostate Shiites. Further, Syria borders Israel and, as much as Al Qaeda hates the United States and, to a lesser extent, the Shiites, its ultimate enemy is Israel. So when an opportunity arose to fight Shiites in a country that has direct access to Israel, it stood to reason that Al Qaeda would jump at the chance. Don’t be surprised if we next learn that Al Qaeda is more than “aiding” the opposition in Syria but indeed is, or soon will be, leading the opposition in Syria. An overthrow of the Assad regime, as worthy as that goal may be, may very well result in an Al Qaeda state on Israel’s border.
Note also that, as fervently as “the West” supported the Libyan rebels in their struggle against the Qadafi regime, we were never sure whom it was supporting. But just about everyone conceded that Al Qaeda elements were entrenched in the Libyan opposition. That did little to cool the ardor of those who were convinced that, by supporting the opposition, they were supporting the “Arab spring” and “the inevitable march of democracy” or some such drivel.
Don’t misunderstand me; I am not denying that the likes of Messrs. Qadafi and Assad are, or were, bloodthirsty thugs and, in many respects, the world is, or would be, better off without them. What I am saying is that we ought to be careful about not only what we wish for but also about what we midwife. We also ought to turn off “American Idol” long enough to consider some history. While I realize that the latter wish is utterly futile, I still persist in asking the American people to remember that we wanted the bad guy imperialist Communist Soviets out of Afghanistan so intensely in the very late ‘70s and early ‘80s that we aided the opposition with guns, money, and other forms of support. Remember how triumphant we felt when the Soviets (Who could be so crazy as to invade Afghanistan? Didn’t they know that Afghanistan is the burial place of empires? I at least digress parenthetically.) left with their tails between their legs? Remember further how convinced we were that the noble Afghan resistance would be so grateful for our help, and so naturally predisposed toward liberal self-government (Isn’t everybody, as George Bush and his henchmen would have us believe?), that our form of democracy, perhaps SuperPacs and all, would flourish in Afghanistan? Remember what actually happened? Those free, democratic, liberal, western oriented crusaders against Soviet oppression became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Oh, boy!
One would think that we would have learned that putting our considerable probosces into the affairs of other nations, even when ostensibly well intentioned is generally a Frankensteinian prescription for disaster. But we are far too busy digesting the intellectual cotton candy that is beamed into our living rooms each night to do the hard work of actually governing ourselves. And so we, while happily chomping down on the sound bites the politicians feed us as the “political advertising” that supports much of the cranial novocain with which we fritter away our lives, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again and to act with surprise and shock when the outcomes similarly repeat themselves.
Friday, February 10, 2012
“NEXT TIME, ROCKY, LET ME DO THE FIGURIN’; YOU JUST DO THE COLLECTIN’”
2/10/12
As you might guess, I have plenty of problems with the deal reached between the AGs (Most people think that “AG” stands for “Attorney General,” but, in reality, “AG” stands for “Aspiring Governor,” but I digress.) of 49 states and five big banks, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo, Chase, and Ally, to settle a suit regarding supposedly nefarious mortgage underwriting and foreclosure practices.
First, I certainly hope there is something in the provision allowing a principal reduction for borrowers who are behind on their payments that disincentivizes everybody with a mortgage loan from simply skipping a few payments and demanding that his creditor reduce his or her principal balance. If not, one can imagine the consequences. There has to be something in this deal to stop such havoc from being wreaked on our financial system…right?
Second, there is something horribly unfair about people who were foreclosed on getting maybe a couple thousand bucks out of the deal if, as this deal does, we are going to allow those who skipped some payments to get their principal reduced in amounts, one supposes, vastly in excess of a couple thousand dollars. Those who were foreclosed on have to be thinking “Damn; if I could just have held out a little while longer, I could have stiffed these guys at the bank, just like my neighbors can do now!”
Third, there are some portions of this agreement that might make sense, such as allowing borrowers who are underwater to refinance at currently very attractive rates. However, if this is such a good deal with such salubrious consequences, one would think the banks would pursue such a course of action without the government’s forcing them to do so.
Fourth, the banks were bailed out by the federal government; this fact was cited by President Obama when he was congratulating himself and his staff on reaching this deal. Most people seem to think the banks are in the financial clear, that the point of danger has been passed. That probably is the case; the banks as a group, and the aforementioned banks, are certainly better capitalized than they were going into the “crisis.”
But perhaps we should not be so confident about the banks’ ability to weather this storm. The left hand sides of the banks’ balance sheets are still jammed with assets of questionable value, which may be why the banks’ stocks are trading at such paltry multiples of book; i.e., book value may indeed be overstated because banks’ assets are not worth what the accountants say they are worth. Should substantial dollar amounts of these assets come a cropper, an apparent overcapitalization can rapidly become an undercapitalization. And where will the banks turn when they get into trouble? Of course…to us, the taxpayers or, as is the fashion of late, to the Fed, the printer of last resort.
Even if the banks are as healthy as appearances indicate, the politicians and their henchmen smell blood. For example, the SEC yesterday notified big banks that it will sue those banks over their securitization of loans. Once these sharks start to gather, even strong banks can be crippled by lawsuits, forcing them into the rescuing grasp of the government. So we may be seeing here a situation in which the federal government winds up suing itself (See my 9/4/11 post, “HE’S EITHER IN ON IT OR HE’S AN IDIOT; EITHER WAY, I HAVE TO LET HIM GO.”), achieving its goal of letting borrowers stiff lenders on the taxpayers’ dime but doing so under cover of suing the banks whose bills will ultimately be picked up by the federal government.
I would feel more comfortable with deals of this sort if we allowed big banks to fail in this country, but, unfortunately, we don’t and so I am not.
Fifth, the housing market will recover more quickly if we just let the market run its course, let housing prices fall to a natural bottom from which they will recover, probably more rapidly than most people think. Such maladroit machinations as these deals only prolong the discomfort.
For all that is wrong with the deal between the AGs and the Big 5, it does have one very salubrious aspect: It should make mortgage loans more difficult, perhaps much more difficult, to obtain. Even those legions who don’t agree that making such loans harder to get is a good thing do agree that this deal will make such loans more scarce. Most argue that we will see the decreasing availability of mortgage loans manifest itself in rising spreads between treasury yields and mortgage loan rates. While we have seen such quantitative tightening, and probably will see more of it, yours truly believes that the declining availability of mortgage loan money will manifest itself most saliently in a qualitative sense, in tightening credit standards for such loans; i.e., banks will lend at perhaps only slightly wider spreads to treasuries but will loan money only to very creditworthy borrowers. So we will see a tightening of the mortgage loan market in a more qualitative than quantitative sense. Either form of tightening would be a very good thing, but the more qualitative the tightening, the better the consequences will be.
In considering my contention that a tightening mortgage loan market is a very good thing, consider, though, that I think very perversely. I actually think that banks should be careful in lending out the money provided by their shareholders, depositors, and other lenders. I further am guilty of the apostasy that people should live within their means, save money, and avoid borrowing money but, when forced to borrow, should do so only in amounts they can pay back. I also do not think that everyone has a constitutional right to own a home and that, indeed, people are better off renting until they can actually afford, rather than just want, a home.
The rest of the world, including most of the political and financial worlds, believes that banks, as a matter of public policy, should lend willy-nilly in order to inflate and support asset bubbles, resting assured that, should trouble come their way, the sap taxpayer will always be there to keep them from such ignominy as having their executives and traders forced to sell off portions of the west coast fleet of Ferraris. Further, as the world sees it, everyone is entitled to borrow whatever he or she deems necessary not only to buy the home of his or her dreams but also to indulge any silly whim that strikes him as even transitorily worthy. Should trouble come his or her way, he or she should rest comfortably knowing he can always stiff his creditors who in turn will find solace at the bosom of the taxpayer.
As you might guess, I have plenty of problems with the deal reached between the AGs (Most people think that “AG” stands for “Attorney General,” but, in reality, “AG” stands for “Aspiring Governor,” but I digress.) of 49 states and five big banks, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo, Chase, and Ally, to settle a suit regarding supposedly nefarious mortgage underwriting and foreclosure practices.
First, I certainly hope there is something in the provision allowing a principal reduction for borrowers who are behind on their payments that disincentivizes everybody with a mortgage loan from simply skipping a few payments and demanding that his creditor reduce his or her principal balance. If not, one can imagine the consequences. There has to be something in this deal to stop such havoc from being wreaked on our financial system…right?
Second, there is something horribly unfair about people who were foreclosed on getting maybe a couple thousand bucks out of the deal if, as this deal does, we are going to allow those who skipped some payments to get their principal reduced in amounts, one supposes, vastly in excess of a couple thousand dollars. Those who were foreclosed on have to be thinking “Damn; if I could just have held out a little while longer, I could have stiffed these guys at the bank, just like my neighbors can do now!”
Third, there are some portions of this agreement that might make sense, such as allowing borrowers who are underwater to refinance at currently very attractive rates. However, if this is such a good deal with such salubrious consequences, one would think the banks would pursue such a course of action without the government’s forcing them to do so.
Fourth, the banks were bailed out by the federal government; this fact was cited by President Obama when he was congratulating himself and his staff on reaching this deal. Most people seem to think the banks are in the financial clear, that the point of danger has been passed. That probably is the case; the banks as a group, and the aforementioned banks, are certainly better capitalized than they were going into the “crisis.”
But perhaps we should not be so confident about the banks’ ability to weather this storm. The left hand sides of the banks’ balance sheets are still jammed with assets of questionable value, which may be why the banks’ stocks are trading at such paltry multiples of book; i.e., book value may indeed be overstated because banks’ assets are not worth what the accountants say they are worth. Should substantial dollar amounts of these assets come a cropper, an apparent overcapitalization can rapidly become an undercapitalization. And where will the banks turn when they get into trouble? Of course…to us, the taxpayers or, as is the fashion of late, to the Fed, the printer of last resort.
Even if the banks are as healthy as appearances indicate, the politicians and their henchmen smell blood. For example, the SEC yesterday notified big banks that it will sue those banks over their securitization of loans. Once these sharks start to gather, even strong banks can be crippled by lawsuits, forcing them into the rescuing grasp of the government. So we may be seeing here a situation in which the federal government winds up suing itself (See my 9/4/11 post, “HE’S EITHER IN ON IT OR HE’S AN IDIOT; EITHER WAY, I HAVE TO LET HIM GO.”), achieving its goal of letting borrowers stiff lenders on the taxpayers’ dime but doing so under cover of suing the banks whose bills will ultimately be picked up by the federal government.
I would feel more comfortable with deals of this sort if we allowed big banks to fail in this country, but, unfortunately, we don’t and so I am not.
Fifth, the housing market will recover more quickly if we just let the market run its course, let housing prices fall to a natural bottom from which they will recover, probably more rapidly than most people think. Such maladroit machinations as these deals only prolong the discomfort.
For all that is wrong with the deal between the AGs and the Big 5, it does have one very salubrious aspect: It should make mortgage loans more difficult, perhaps much more difficult, to obtain. Even those legions who don’t agree that making such loans harder to get is a good thing do agree that this deal will make such loans more scarce. Most argue that we will see the decreasing availability of mortgage loans manifest itself in rising spreads between treasury yields and mortgage loan rates. While we have seen such quantitative tightening, and probably will see more of it, yours truly believes that the declining availability of mortgage loan money will manifest itself most saliently in a qualitative sense, in tightening credit standards for such loans; i.e., banks will lend at perhaps only slightly wider spreads to treasuries but will loan money only to very creditworthy borrowers. So we will see a tightening of the mortgage loan market in a more qualitative than quantitative sense. Either form of tightening would be a very good thing, but the more qualitative the tightening, the better the consequences will be.
In considering my contention that a tightening mortgage loan market is a very good thing, consider, though, that I think very perversely. I actually think that banks should be careful in lending out the money provided by their shareholders, depositors, and other lenders. I further am guilty of the apostasy that people should live within their means, save money, and avoid borrowing money but, when forced to borrow, should do so only in amounts they can pay back. I also do not think that everyone has a constitutional right to own a home and that, indeed, people are better off renting until they can actually afford, rather than just want, a home.
The rest of the world, including most of the political and financial worlds, believes that banks, as a matter of public policy, should lend willy-nilly in order to inflate and support asset bubbles, resting assured that, should trouble come their way, the sap taxpayer will always be there to keep them from such ignominy as having their executives and traders forced to sell off portions of the west coast fleet of Ferraris. Further, as the world sees it, everyone is entitled to borrow whatever he or she deems necessary not only to buy the home of his or her dreams but also to indulge any silly whim that strikes him as even transitorily worthy. Should trouble come his or her way, he or she should rest comfortably knowing he can always stiff his creditors who in turn will find solace at the bosom of the taxpayer.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
RUN WHAT YA BRUNG
2/8/12
What to make of yesterday’s strong showing by Rick Santorum in the Minnesota and Missouri caucuses and the Colorado “beauty contest”? (I find that moniker for a primary that rewards no delegates somewhat unsettling; don’t you? But I digress.) See my, as of about 9:00 Chicago time last night, seminal 2/1/12 post EVEN THE CHICKEN MIGHT DO BETTER THAN GINGRICH IN THE GENERAL. But please note the last sentence in that typically prescient post; it still holds…I think.
What to make of yesterday’s strong showing by Rick Santorum in the Minnesota and Missouri caucuses and the Colorado “beauty contest”? (I find that moniker for a primary that rewards no delegates somewhat unsettling; don’t you? But I digress.) See my, as of about 9:00 Chicago time last night, seminal 2/1/12 post EVEN THE CHICKEN MIGHT DO BETTER THAN GINGRICH IN THE GENERAL. But please note the last sentence in that typically prescient post; it still holds…I think.
“…AND IF THERE’S NO OTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS, I’D LIKE TO ATTEND MY DAUGHTER’S WEDDING.”
2/8/12
The lead story on many news outlets yesterday was news that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriages in the nation’s largest state. The Ninth Circuit’s decision thus set the stage for the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of gay marriage, or at least on the right of states to ban gay marriage, perhaps as early as next year.
Why this story should have been the lead story anywhere, on a day when Syria was almost literally on fire, Americans were effectively being held hostage in Egypt, the Congress continued to wrangle over the payroll tax break, which directly affects every American who works and which will expire in three weeks, and the Catholic Church and the Obama administration were duking it out over a mandate for contraceptives, is beyond me. Gay marriage is a very important issue for gays, and especially for gays who would like to marry, and for those who consider gay marriage an abomination before God and man. Both groups feel very passionately about this issue, and understandably so. But, for most of us, this is not a non-issue but not a burning issue, either. While all of us care, or at least should care, about the rights of others and all of us have moral and/or religious sensitivities and sensibilities, most of us are not gay and don’t really care all that much about the sexual orientations of other people. Whom people choose to sleep with is none of our business and we prefer to keep it that way…please. So why the brouhaha over this story? One supposes the media think anything even remotely connected with sex (and it’s hard to imagine many things more remotely connected with sex) sells. And, in our increasingly strange and superficial society, they may be right. But I digress.
Gay marriage has been an issue for a number of years. Back in November, 2006 (and the issue was not new then), I sent a letter to Steve Chapman, who writes for the Chicago Tribune, is one of my favorite columnists, and shares my libertarian tendencies. In it, I proposed a solution to this controversy. Here is a reproduction of that missive:
11/5/06
Hi Steve,
I enjoyed your observations on gay marriage in your 11/5 column and have a hard time disagreeing with any of your arguments. However, I have another take on the gay marriage issue.
Why should the government be involved in the institution of marriage? Shouldn’t marriage, which many, if not most, Americans consider a sacrament, be the exclusive province of churches, leaving civil unions and the legal rights that would attend thereto, to the government? The government would then decide legal rights and obligations and the churches would decide sacramental rights and obligations. Why should the government have the right to decide who conforms to religious rules and parameters? Why should churches decide who conforms to legal rules and parameters? Those who belong to a religion and wish to proclaim their fidelity before their church could opt for both civil unions and marriages. Those gays and heterosexuals who have no religion, and who don’t care to abide by the current hypocrisy exhibited by many who are completely unfamiliar with the interior of a house of worship but go through a church marriage strictly for appearance’s sake, could opt only for civil unions.
With the government’s having lost its role in dabbling with religious definitions, at least in this application, gays who wish to have all the legal rights currently reserved for married people in most jurisdictions would encounter less, albeit still considerable, opposition to achieving those rights. Those gays who wish to marry, in addition to being granted civil unions, would surely be able to find a church who will marry them, and it will be strictly their business and the business of that church and its congregants.
More importantly, however, the government will have been removed from an area in which it should never have had any business: deciding who is married before God and the church.
Mark Quinn
To clarify this proposal, under such a system, everyone who wishes to enjoy the legal rights and privileges that now attach to marriage would apply for a civil union, which would confer such rights and privileges. Those who, in addition to obtaining a civil union, wish to marry inside their church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc., would get married according to the rules and guidelines of that institution. The marriage would confer no legal rights and the civil union would not have to conform to any religious rites.
I suppose, by the way, that one could have a religious marriage without a civil union if one wished to proclaim his or her marriage before God but cared nothing for the legal rights of a spouse, but one suspects that such circumstances would be rare. Who knows, though?
The solution I proposed in 2006 has withstood the test of time on at least three fronts. First, it preserves the sacramental nature of the institution of marriage and a faith’s right to determine who is, and can be, married before God. Second, it respects and furthers the rights of gay people to access all of the legal and familial rights that society formerly, and, in many cases, still, reserves for heterosexuals. Third, it keeps government out of the business of telling faiths on whom they must confer the rites of matrimony (Think it can’t happen? See today’s other post, “IT’S THE BISHOP!”) and faiths out of the business of telling government on whom they must confer legal rights.
The lead story on many news outlets yesterday was news that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriages in the nation’s largest state. The Ninth Circuit’s decision thus set the stage for the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of gay marriage, or at least on the right of states to ban gay marriage, perhaps as early as next year.
Why this story should have been the lead story anywhere, on a day when Syria was almost literally on fire, Americans were effectively being held hostage in Egypt, the Congress continued to wrangle over the payroll tax break, which directly affects every American who works and which will expire in three weeks, and the Catholic Church and the Obama administration were duking it out over a mandate for contraceptives, is beyond me. Gay marriage is a very important issue for gays, and especially for gays who would like to marry, and for those who consider gay marriage an abomination before God and man. Both groups feel very passionately about this issue, and understandably so. But, for most of us, this is not a non-issue but not a burning issue, either. While all of us care, or at least should care, about the rights of others and all of us have moral and/or religious sensitivities and sensibilities, most of us are not gay and don’t really care all that much about the sexual orientations of other people. Whom people choose to sleep with is none of our business and we prefer to keep it that way…please. So why the brouhaha over this story? One supposes the media think anything even remotely connected with sex (and it’s hard to imagine many things more remotely connected with sex) sells. And, in our increasingly strange and superficial society, they may be right. But I digress.
Gay marriage has been an issue for a number of years. Back in November, 2006 (and the issue was not new then), I sent a letter to Steve Chapman, who writes for the Chicago Tribune, is one of my favorite columnists, and shares my libertarian tendencies. In it, I proposed a solution to this controversy. Here is a reproduction of that missive:
11/5/06
Hi Steve,
I enjoyed your observations on gay marriage in your 11/5 column and have a hard time disagreeing with any of your arguments. However, I have another take on the gay marriage issue.
Why should the government be involved in the institution of marriage? Shouldn’t marriage, which many, if not most, Americans consider a sacrament, be the exclusive province of churches, leaving civil unions and the legal rights that would attend thereto, to the government? The government would then decide legal rights and obligations and the churches would decide sacramental rights and obligations. Why should the government have the right to decide who conforms to religious rules and parameters? Why should churches decide who conforms to legal rules and parameters? Those who belong to a religion and wish to proclaim their fidelity before their church could opt for both civil unions and marriages. Those gays and heterosexuals who have no religion, and who don’t care to abide by the current hypocrisy exhibited by many who are completely unfamiliar with the interior of a house of worship but go through a church marriage strictly for appearance’s sake, could opt only for civil unions.
With the government’s having lost its role in dabbling with religious definitions, at least in this application, gays who wish to have all the legal rights currently reserved for married people in most jurisdictions would encounter less, albeit still considerable, opposition to achieving those rights. Those gays who wish to marry, in addition to being granted civil unions, would surely be able to find a church who will marry them, and it will be strictly their business and the business of that church and its congregants.
More importantly, however, the government will have been removed from an area in which it should never have had any business: deciding who is married before God and the church.
Mark Quinn
To clarify this proposal, under such a system, everyone who wishes to enjoy the legal rights and privileges that now attach to marriage would apply for a civil union, which would confer such rights and privileges. Those who, in addition to obtaining a civil union, wish to marry inside their church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc., would get married according to the rules and guidelines of that institution. The marriage would confer no legal rights and the civil union would not have to conform to any religious rites.
I suppose, by the way, that one could have a religious marriage without a civil union if one wished to proclaim his or her marriage before God but cared nothing for the legal rights of a spouse, but one suspects that such circumstances would be rare. Who knows, though?
The solution I proposed in 2006 has withstood the test of time on at least three fronts. First, it preserves the sacramental nature of the institution of marriage and a faith’s right to determine who is, and can be, married before God. Second, it respects and furthers the rights of gay people to access all of the legal and familial rights that society formerly, and, in many cases, still, reserves for heterosexuals. Third, it keeps government out of the business of telling faiths on whom they must confer the rites of matrimony (Think it can’t happen? See today’s other post, “IT’S THE BISHOP!”) and faiths out of the business of telling government on whom they must confer legal rights.
“IT’S THE BISHOP!”
2/8/12
Several of my readers have asked my opinion on the latest kerfluffle over the HHS requirement that, like most other employers under the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, depending on how one feels about it), Catholic hospitals, schools, and other service providers provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. I have had a hard time commenting on this issue, largely because it is difficult to come up with something especially unique and/or insightful on the issue. While not entirely sure that I have succeeded in overcoming that obstacle, I have come up with a few thoughts on the issue.
First, in today’s (i.e., Wednesday, 2/8/12’s) Wall Street Journal, Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer, and Patty Murray, argue for the mandate but frame their argument in terms of the merits of contraception. But this argument does not concern contraception; many, if not most, Catholics agree with these Senators on the merits of family planning by means of artificial contraception and consider themselves no less Catholic because of this belief despite the objections of the Catholic hierarchy. No, this dust-up has little to do with contraception and everything to do with the role of government in telling a religious faith (The scope, or at least the ramifications, of the HHS ruling extend beyond the Catholic Church.) what it cannot, or must, do regardless of the diktat’s synching or not synching with that faith’s doctrine. The HHS ruling is not, as its most vociferous critics would argue, an all out assault on religious liberty or, as the Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial this morning would have it, telling “religious believers to go to hell” (Why on earth would the Obama administration tell Catholics to go to hell? Even if one believes that the Obama administration is somehow rabidly anti-Catholic, one must admit that Mr. Obama is a good politician and knows the importance, indeed, the very necessity, of winning the Catholic vote. More on this in my fourth point.), but it is putting the Church in an untenable position: either violate its stated doctrine regarding artificial contraception or deny health care coverage to its employees, the latter of which would violate the Catholic spirit of service to not only its flock but also to all who seek it and expose the Church to charges of rank hypocrisy. One could thus easily see how some might consider the HHS directive a direct attack on the Church. More likely, however, this move by HHS is an instance of, like everything the Obama Administration, or anybody in the politics business, does, a calculated balancing of political interests. In this case, the Obama administration has bet that this decision will please its liberal base and appeal to the middle, which is resoundingly in favor of insurance coverage for birth control, while not having much, if any, effect on the Catholic vote, which largely ignores the Church hierarchy when it votes. (Again, more on this in my fourth point.) This is Machiavellian politics, not a manifestation of some deep-seated ideological animosity toward the Church. Still, the Church has come out on the short end of this particular calculation. Mr. Obama has to be betting that he made the right calculation.
Second, an argument in favor of the HHS mandate is that, in a democratic, or, more properly, a democratic republican, society, we are all forced to pay, through the tax system, for things in which we do not believe. Those of us vociferously opposed to the Bush/Obama adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have had to pay for them. Those of us opposed to the expansionist welfare state have been forced to pay for it. Those of us who oppose thinly veiled payoffs to street gangs under the guise of “community outreach” projects have been forced to pay for them. Perhaps most germane to this discussion, those of us who would rather save for our own retirements are forced to pay into the Social Security system. So is it that big of a stretch to force the Church to pay for artificial contraception, which at least its hierarchy staunchly opposes?
There might be something to the above argument, but, taken to its logical conclusion, it could lead to all kinds of havoc and, according to conservative Catholics, already has. At least the tax system preserves the fig leaf of fungibility and, to a certain extent, plausible deniability; we pay to support our government that in turn decides what it will do with our money, ostensibly according to the will of the people but in reality according to the will of the lobbyists and others who finance politicians’ ego trips that we call political careers. There is no such fig leaf here; the Church is being forced to directly finance something that it directly opposes. The analogy of having the families of the condemned pay for the bullets of the firing squads is strained, but not completely off-base.
Third, the “Catholic left” (whatever that is. Yours truly has been accused, on occasion, of being part of the Catholic left, a charge to which I really do not know how to respond, due largely to utter other-worldliness of my being considered part of “the left,” Catholic or otherwise, but I digress.) is said to be staunchly opposed to the HHS mandate. Such notables from the Catholic left, as Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association and Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins, have come out in opposition to the HHS mandate, but one wonders how widespread the opposition to the mandate is among the “Catholic left;” there is no way to measure such opposition given that there is not way to define or measure the Catholic left. One suspects that, given its very leftishness, if you will, the Catholic left cannot be all that opposed to the Obama administration’s mandate, unless its opposition comes from the left rather than from the right, terms which tend to lose their meaning in such discussions, but you know what I mean.
To the extent, however, that the Catholic left is doing a convincing Claude Rains imitation and is shocked, shocked that the Obama administration would mandate contraceptive coverage, it should have known better. They knew who they were dealing with, and by that, I don’t mean just the Obama administration. I mean that they trusted the assurances of a politician, which is similar to trusting the marital vows of Newt Gingrich. The Catholic left, or anybody, for that matter, knows better than to trust the promise of any politician, who would sell one out whenever raw political calculation merits doing so.
Fourth, the least important aspect of this issue is its political ramifications, but it is the subject of much discussion and, politics, after all, is one of the main subjects of the Pontificator. One suspects that, since the Catholic vote is the ultimate swing vote and, since Catholics, as a group, largely ignore the admonitions of the hierarchy when casting their votes, the HHS mandate will result in no political damage for the Obama administration. This is especially the case on an issue like artificial contraception, on which, as I said before, many, if not most, Catholics part with the hierarchy. Further, those Catholics who are most offended by the HHS mandate were not going to vote for President Obama under any circumstances.
It thus looks like Mr. Obama made a purely political calculation, as politicians always do, here and determined that he would not lose the Catholic vote by mandating contraceptive coverage for employees of Catholic institutions but would solidify his support on the left, Catholic or otherwise. He will be right to the extent that he frames this as an argument on the merits of artificial contraception; thus today’s Wall Street Journal op-ed by Senators Shaheen, Boxer, and Murray. But to the extent that this can be made an argument about religious freedom and Mr. Obama’s designs on the Catholic Church, this may hurt Mr. Obama with Catholics who, regardless of how they feel about the hierarchy, still are proud of and defend their faith. Thus the framing of this issue by “the Catholic right” (whatever that is) as an assault on the Church and an admonition to all of us Catholics to go to hell.
One suspects that some kind of compromise will be struck here because the heat the bishops and the right have brought on the subject dictates that the Obama administration show some flexibility. The compromise will probably be something along the lines of the compromise reached in some of the many states that already dictate that health insurance plans cover contraception but allow religious organizations that object to such coverage to offer a reduced premium plan with no such coverage but allow employees who want contraception covered to pay for such coverage themselves. Hawaii’s approach is the best example. Such a compromise, which, depending on where you stand is either a logical solution or a fig leaf, will in all likelihood mollify most Catholics and will have absolutely no impact on those members of our Church who would never vote for Mr. Obama under any circumstances.
Several of my readers have asked my opinion on the latest kerfluffle over the HHS requirement that, like most other employers under the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, depending on how one feels about it), Catholic hospitals, schools, and other service providers provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. I have had a hard time commenting on this issue, largely because it is difficult to come up with something especially unique and/or insightful on the issue. While not entirely sure that I have succeeded in overcoming that obstacle, I have come up with a few thoughts on the issue.
First, in today’s (i.e., Wednesday, 2/8/12’s) Wall Street Journal, Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer, and Patty Murray, argue for the mandate but frame their argument in terms of the merits of contraception. But this argument does not concern contraception; many, if not most, Catholics agree with these Senators on the merits of family planning by means of artificial contraception and consider themselves no less Catholic because of this belief despite the objections of the Catholic hierarchy. No, this dust-up has little to do with contraception and everything to do with the role of government in telling a religious faith (The scope, or at least the ramifications, of the HHS ruling extend beyond the Catholic Church.) what it cannot, or must, do regardless of the diktat’s synching or not synching with that faith’s doctrine. The HHS ruling is not, as its most vociferous critics would argue, an all out assault on religious liberty or, as the Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial this morning would have it, telling “religious believers to go to hell” (Why on earth would the Obama administration tell Catholics to go to hell? Even if one believes that the Obama administration is somehow rabidly anti-Catholic, one must admit that Mr. Obama is a good politician and knows the importance, indeed, the very necessity, of winning the Catholic vote. More on this in my fourth point.), but it is putting the Church in an untenable position: either violate its stated doctrine regarding artificial contraception or deny health care coverage to its employees, the latter of which would violate the Catholic spirit of service to not only its flock but also to all who seek it and expose the Church to charges of rank hypocrisy. One could thus easily see how some might consider the HHS directive a direct attack on the Church. More likely, however, this move by HHS is an instance of, like everything the Obama Administration, or anybody in the politics business, does, a calculated balancing of political interests. In this case, the Obama administration has bet that this decision will please its liberal base and appeal to the middle, which is resoundingly in favor of insurance coverage for birth control, while not having much, if any, effect on the Catholic vote, which largely ignores the Church hierarchy when it votes. (Again, more on this in my fourth point.) This is Machiavellian politics, not a manifestation of some deep-seated ideological animosity toward the Church. Still, the Church has come out on the short end of this particular calculation. Mr. Obama has to be betting that he made the right calculation.
Second, an argument in favor of the HHS mandate is that, in a democratic, or, more properly, a democratic republican, society, we are all forced to pay, through the tax system, for things in which we do not believe. Those of us vociferously opposed to the Bush/Obama adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have had to pay for them. Those of us opposed to the expansionist welfare state have been forced to pay for it. Those of us who oppose thinly veiled payoffs to street gangs under the guise of “community outreach” projects have been forced to pay for them. Perhaps most germane to this discussion, those of us who would rather save for our own retirements are forced to pay into the Social Security system. So is it that big of a stretch to force the Church to pay for artificial contraception, which at least its hierarchy staunchly opposes?
There might be something to the above argument, but, taken to its logical conclusion, it could lead to all kinds of havoc and, according to conservative Catholics, already has. At least the tax system preserves the fig leaf of fungibility and, to a certain extent, plausible deniability; we pay to support our government that in turn decides what it will do with our money, ostensibly according to the will of the people but in reality according to the will of the lobbyists and others who finance politicians’ ego trips that we call political careers. There is no such fig leaf here; the Church is being forced to directly finance something that it directly opposes. The analogy of having the families of the condemned pay for the bullets of the firing squads is strained, but not completely off-base.
Third, the “Catholic left” (whatever that is. Yours truly has been accused, on occasion, of being part of the Catholic left, a charge to which I really do not know how to respond, due largely to utter other-worldliness of my being considered part of “the left,” Catholic or otherwise, but I digress.) is said to be staunchly opposed to the HHS mandate. Such notables from the Catholic left, as Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association and Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins, have come out in opposition to the HHS mandate, but one wonders how widespread the opposition to the mandate is among the “Catholic left;” there is no way to measure such opposition given that there is not way to define or measure the Catholic left. One suspects that, given its very leftishness, if you will, the Catholic left cannot be all that opposed to the Obama administration’s mandate, unless its opposition comes from the left rather than from the right, terms which tend to lose their meaning in such discussions, but you know what I mean.
To the extent, however, that the Catholic left is doing a convincing Claude Rains imitation and is shocked, shocked that the Obama administration would mandate contraceptive coverage, it should have known better. They knew who they were dealing with, and by that, I don’t mean just the Obama administration. I mean that they trusted the assurances of a politician, which is similar to trusting the marital vows of Newt Gingrich. The Catholic left, or anybody, for that matter, knows better than to trust the promise of any politician, who would sell one out whenever raw political calculation merits doing so.
Fourth, the least important aspect of this issue is its political ramifications, but it is the subject of much discussion and, politics, after all, is one of the main subjects of the Pontificator. One suspects that, since the Catholic vote is the ultimate swing vote and, since Catholics, as a group, largely ignore the admonitions of the hierarchy when casting their votes, the HHS mandate will result in no political damage for the Obama administration. This is especially the case on an issue like artificial contraception, on which, as I said before, many, if not most, Catholics part with the hierarchy. Further, those Catholics who are most offended by the HHS mandate were not going to vote for President Obama under any circumstances.
It thus looks like Mr. Obama made a purely political calculation, as politicians always do, here and determined that he would not lose the Catholic vote by mandating contraceptive coverage for employees of Catholic institutions but would solidify his support on the left, Catholic or otherwise. He will be right to the extent that he frames this as an argument on the merits of artificial contraception; thus today’s Wall Street Journal op-ed by Senators Shaheen, Boxer, and Murray. But to the extent that this can be made an argument about religious freedom and Mr. Obama’s designs on the Catholic Church, this may hurt Mr. Obama with Catholics who, regardless of how they feel about the hierarchy, still are proud of and defend their faith. Thus the framing of this issue by “the Catholic right” (whatever that is) as an assault on the Church and an admonition to all of us Catholics to go to hell.
One suspects that some kind of compromise will be struck here because the heat the bishops and the right have brought on the subject dictates that the Obama administration show some flexibility. The compromise will probably be something along the lines of the compromise reached in some of the many states that already dictate that health insurance plans cover contraception but allow religious organizations that object to such coverage to offer a reduced premium plan with no such coverage but allow employees who want contraception covered to pay for such coverage themselves. Hawaii’s approach is the best example. Such a compromise, which, depending on where you stand is either a logical solution or a fig leaf, will in all likelihood mollify most Catholics and will have absolutely no impact on those members of our Church who would never vote for Mr. Obama under any circumstances.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
QUOTE OF THE CAMPAIGN
2/1/12
This morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 2/1/12’s, page A4) Wall Street Journal, in its coverage of the Florida primary, quotes Mr. Glen Witherbee, a Floridian barely into senior citizenship who contemplated voting for Newt Gingrich but, in the end. decided to opt for Mitt Romney, as expressing his feelings regarding Mr. Romney thusly
“I don’t love him, but I like him enough.”
Mr. Witherbee thus brilliantly succinctly sums up the general feeling of Republicans, and perhaps many Americans, regarding Mr. Romney. No one loves the guy, but he’ll do. This feeling should be enough to allow Mr. Romney to become the GOP presidential nominee. See, inter alia, today’s other post and my by now long seminal 7/19/11 post, MICHELE AND SARAH, MAKE ROOM FOR THE FAT LADY.
Will the good enough vibrations regarding Mr. Romney be sufficient to win the general election? Given that Mr. Romney’s chief attractions seems to be that he’s good enough, if, as is probable, he is the GOP nominee, the election will be even more than was, or is, anticipated a referendum on the presidency of Barack Obama. Mr. Romney, who generates little of either enthusiasm or derision, will not win the election unless Mr. Obama loses the election.
One other thing to note in assessing Mr. Romney’s chances in the general election is the huge money advantage he had in Florida, outspending Mr. Gingrich 5-1. Mr. Romney will have no such, if any, such financial advantage over President Obama. Another thing that Mr. Romney will not have is an opponent with the personal foibles of Mr. Gingrich. See my 12/11/11 post I DON’T SALUTE NEWT. Still, that voters like Mr. Romney enough may be enough…if they are dissatisfied enough with Mr. Obama.
This morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 2/1/12’s, page A4) Wall Street Journal, in its coverage of the Florida primary, quotes Mr. Glen Witherbee, a Floridian barely into senior citizenship who contemplated voting for Newt Gingrich but, in the end. decided to opt for Mitt Romney, as expressing his feelings regarding Mr. Romney thusly
“I don’t love him, but I like him enough.”
Mr. Witherbee thus brilliantly succinctly sums up the general feeling of Republicans, and perhaps many Americans, regarding Mr. Romney. No one loves the guy, but he’ll do. This feeling should be enough to allow Mr. Romney to become the GOP presidential nominee. See, inter alia, today’s other post and my by now long seminal 7/19/11 post, MICHELE AND SARAH, MAKE ROOM FOR THE FAT LADY.
Will the good enough vibrations regarding Mr. Romney be sufficient to win the general election? Given that Mr. Romney’s chief attractions seems to be that he’s good enough, if, as is probable, he is the GOP nominee, the election will be even more than was, or is, anticipated a referendum on the presidency of Barack Obama. Mr. Romney, who generates little of either enthusiasm or derision, will not win the election unless Mr. Obama loses the election.
One other thing to note in assessing Mr. Romney’s chances in the general election is the huge money advantage he had in Florida, outspending Mr. Gingrich 5-1. Mr. Romney will have no such, if any, such financial advantage over President Obama. Another thing that Mr. Romney will not have is an opponent with the personal foibles of Mr. Gingrich. See my 12/11/11 post I DON’T SALUTE NEWT. Still, that voters like Mr. Romney enough may be enough…if they are dissatisfied enough with Mr. Obama.
EVEN THE CHICKEN MIGHT DO BETTER THAN GINGRICH IN THE GENERAL
2/1/12
Say what you will about James Carville, you have to admit that the guy is smart, very good at what he does, and always entertaining. On the night of the South Carolina primary, as Rick Santorum was getting buried, Mr. Carville made the following observation regarding Mr. Santorum’s position in the race for the GOP presidential nomination: (I have to paraphrase because, having heard, rather than read, the quote, I can’t quote precisely)
When you cut off the head of a chicken, it runs around for a little while before it falls over. Everyone realizes the chicken is dead but the chicken.
When Mr. Carville uttered those comments, it looked like he was right; by winning the South Carolina primary decisively, Newt Gingrich had shown himself to be the champion of what calls itself the conservative wing of the Republican Party. His rival for the position of “conservative” standard-bearer, Rick Santorum, finished a weak third and thus apparently had no chance for the votes and the financial support necessary to challenge the “moderate” Mitt Romney. Mr. Santorum was as dead as a chicken with its head cut off, but just didn’t know it.
However, in light of the results of last night’s Florida primary, perhaps Mr. Carville was a bit too hasty in his assessment of Mr. Santorum’s chances. Why? Even though Mr. Santorum, who opted not to spend much time in Florida due primarily to financial constraints, finished a distant third, the trouncing that Newt Gingrich took at the hands of Mitt Romney further illustrated the hopelessness of Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy. He simply has too many, to put it politely, warts, of which my loyal readers are perhaps excruciatingly aware. See my 12/11/11 post, I DON’T SALUTE NEWT. While it’s almost always foolish to use words like “never,” in this case I feel reasonably safe writing that Newt Gingrich will never, thank God, become president of the United States. As Mr. Carville also said on the night of the South Carolina primary, when one of his colleagues, noting the Gingrich presidential effort’s refusal to die, compared Mr. Gingrich to Rasputin (again, paraphrasing),
The big difference between Rasputin and Gingrich is that Rasputin would get more votes in the general election.
So if the die-hard self-styled “conservatives” are looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney, Mr. Santorum is a far better horse than Mr. Gingrich. While Mr. Santorum, despite his now not quite as ubiquitous sweater vests, is not Mr. Rogers, he is far more likeable than the prickly Mr. Gingrich. While Mr. Gingrich would be an attractive subject for a doctoral thesis in psychiatry, Mr. Santorum, at least by contrast, looks well balanced, sane, and sober. And Mr. Santorum has the humility to give glory, and credit, to God. Mr. Gingrich gives the impression that he expects God to give the glory, and the credit, to him. And then there are the contrasting personal lives of the two gentlemen, which would exhaust the ink on my Word program. The whole point is that these two are delivering the same basic message; i.e., that we don’t like big government unless the government is doing our bidding and/or reducing the size of government would have an adverse impact on us and the Constitution is wonderful until it interferes with something we would like to do. But Santorum is a far less flawed messenger than Mr. Gingrich.
It’s too late for anyone else to enter the race, and, while the prospect tantalizes the ranks of political enthusiasts like yours truly, the chances of a brokered convention nominating someone who was not in the race are both remote and somehow not right. If the forces of big government “conservatism” simply cannot stomach Mr. Romney, it is beginning to look like their only alternative is Rick Santorum. That might keep the chicken alive for a few more laps around the barnyard.
Say what you will about James Carville, you have to admit that the guy is smart, very good at what he does, and always entertaining. On the night of the South Carolina primary, as Rick Santorum was getting buried, Mr. Carville made the following observation regarding Mr. Santorum’s position in the race for the GOP presidential nomination: (I have to paraphrase because, having heard, rather than read, the quote, I can’t quote precisely)
When you cut off the head of a chicken, it runs around for a little while before it falls over. Everyone realizes the chicken is dead but the chicken.
When Mr. Carville uttered those comments, it looked like he was right; by winning the South Carolina primary decisively, Newt Gingrich had shown himself to be the champion of what calls itself the conservative wing of the Republican Party. His rival for the position of “conservative” standard-bearer, Rick Santorum, finished a weak third and thus apparently had no chance for the votes and the financial support necessary to challenge the “moderate” Mitt Romney. Mr. Santorum was as dead as a chicken with its head cut off, but just didn’t know it.
However, in light of the results of last night’s Florida primary, perhaps Mr. Carville was a bit too hasty in his assessment of Mr. Santorum’s chances. Why? Even though Mr. Santorum, who opted not to spend much time in Florida due primarily to financial constraints, finished a distant third, the trouncing that Newt Gingrich took at the hands of Mitt Romney further illustrated the hopelessness of Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy. He simply has too many, to put it politely, warts, of which my loyal readers are perhaps excruciatingly aware. See my 12/11/11 post, I DON’T SALUTE NEWT. While it’s almost always foolish to use words like “never,” in this case I feel reasonably safe writing that Newt Gingrich will never, thank God, become president of the United States. As Mr. Carville also said on the night of the South Carolina primary, when one of his colleagues, noting the Gingrich presidential effort’s refusal to die, compared Mr. Gingrich to Rasputin (again, paraphrasing),
The big difference between Rasputin and Gingrich is that Rasputin would get more votes in the general election.
So if the die-hard self-styled “conservatives” are looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney, Mr. Santorum is a far better horse than Mr. Gingrich. While Mr. Santorum, despite his now not quite as ubiquitous sweater vests, is not Mr. Rogers, he is far more likeable than the prickly Mr. Gingrich. While Mr. Gingrich would be an attractive subject for a doctoral thesis in psychiatry, Mr. Santorum, at least by contrast, looks well balanced, sane, and sober. And Mr. Santorum has the humility to give glory, and credit, to God. Mr. Gingrich gives the impression that he expects God to give the glory, and the credit, to him. And then there are the contrasting personal lives of the two gentlemen, which would exhaust the ink on my Word program. The whole point is that these two are delivering the same basic message; i.e., that we don’t like big government unless the government is doing our bidding and/or reducing the size of government would have an adverse impact on us and the Constitution is wonderful until it interferes with something we would like to do. But Santorum is a far less flawed messenger than Mr. Gingrich.
It’s too late for anyone else to enter the race, and, while the prospect tantalizes the ranks of political enthusiasts like yours truly, the chances of a brokered convention nominating someone who was not in the race are both remote and somehow not right. If the forces of big government “conservatism” simply cannot stomach Mr. Romney, it is beginning to look like their only alternative is Rick Santorum. That might keep the chicken alive for a few more laps around the barnyard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
