Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts

Monday, May 4, 2009

Obama Needs Clintonomics

Reagan introduced a revolution in economic thinking into the practice of governmental finance. It was as important as the original introduction of fiat currency. One satisfied the natural demand for currency while the other maximized taxation by positioning the tax take inside the curve rather than succumbing to a natural inclination to go to the other side.

Political enthusiasm is once again raging at the grabbing at the carrot and must be halted. When crisis sets in it appears the every ancient economic dogma gets hauled out of the attic and dusted of. It isn’t just the gold crowd that we must fear who wish to replace fiat currency with a so called gold backed currency that will merely return our economy to an inflexible rapid cycle of boom and bust. And forget about frills like pensions and medical care. For that you will need a chicken coop in the back yard.

And the wacko left is eager for the good old days of grabbing control of productive assets to show what splendid managers they are by possibly imposing an even higher wage structure than has brought industry to its knees in the first place. I do not think that these people are ever capable of learning and should not be let out to rant on their soap boxes.

We have a president who appears deficient in economic depth as shown by his ready reach for the platitudes of the old left. There are folks who love such nonsense, but it is a poor basis for solving today’s problems.

This article is a restoration of Bill Clinton’s Economic reputation who did have a better grasp of economic thinking than either of his successors. Bush will be remembered not for the bubble economy that arose under his watch but his failure to even recognize the risks been run and for a singular lack of intellectual curiosity about it all. I suspect every mature mind warned against what was unfolding.

How in the desperate aftermath of the collapse of the credit bubble and all the related promises coming home to roost, we have a president who is not giving direction because he also knows and understands far too little. And bankers are the deer in the headlamps who can only see their capital disappearing and whose only solution is to throw money at it and hope somehow it will stop. They do not have a clue how to solve it. Yet their folly and financial gaming is destroying the wealth of their customers who are the only source of recovery.

Clinton made mistakes and so did Reagan, but they created a sound model for government finance and taxation. Try to go back to that and perhaps this will begin to turn around. Better still adopt my suggestions for foreclosure rules and let the American people turn this around.

Obama Needs Clintonomics — and Soon

By: Christopher Ruddy

CIA Director Leon Panetta has some urgent advice for President Obama: Read “Clintonomics” and use it!

Panetta’s advice is no secret. He is referring to a new book just out, “Clintonomics: How Bill Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution,” (AMACOM) by Dr. Jack Godwin, a political scientist.

Here’s what Panetta said about “Clintonomics”: “This book is a must read for those struggling to figure out the present economic crisis.”

As we all know, Obama is one of those struggling.

Before Panetta assumed his CIA post, he had served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. Panetta is a pragmatic man, not an ideologue.

So his praise for this new book should come as no surprise.

But what is surprising is that, as a Republican of the Reagan type, I couldn’t agree more with Panetta’s assessment.

Author Godwin’s basic point is that, contrary to widely held opinion, Clinton did not seek to turn back the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, dubbed “Reaganomics.” Instead, he embraced them and perfected them.

Godwin’s point of view is even more interesting because he served in the Clinton administration as deputy secretary of the Department of Interior.

When Clinton came to office in 1993, the economy was in a downturn.

“Clinton attributed the country’s less than optimum economic performance to low productivity, low growth, stagnant wages, unemployment, budget deficits, and high healthcare costs, among other things,” Godwin observes.

“He outlined the essential components of his economic plan: shifting our emphasis from consumption to investment; making public policy friendlier to workers and families; reducing the federal deficit and cutting government waste; reforming the tax code; and, of course, creating jobs.”

Clinton, in short, sought to put a happy face on Reaganomics. [Godwin points out that Reagan himself disliked the characterization that it sounded like an “aerobic exercise or fad diet.”]

Reagan strongly believed that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Though Clinton did not agree with that view, he did believe that government needed to be both improved and downsized.

Both Clinton and Reagan grasped the notion that the private sector, not the public one, is the primary productive engine of the economy.

Thus Clinton offered a “New Covenant,” which Godwin writes “was indeed based on an old idea — the idea that with opportunity comes responsibility. Clinton wanted to create a leaner, not meaner government . . . In practice, this meant downsizing the federal government, cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending, and bringing down the deficit.”

I can hear the Gipper applauding Clinton’s sentiment.

Clinton is even quoted as saying that he was “the man who downsized the government more than President Reagan did.” This is true.

Democrats have long complained that Reagan gave us huge budget deficits and grew the national debt dramatically.

This also is true.

Some on the left even saw a conspiratorial overtone to the Reagan deficits. Reagan ran up huge deficits to prevent the Democrats from funding new entitlement programs, so the theory went.

Although Reagan did run up the national debt wildly, it had nothing to do with entitlements. Reagan repeatedly stated, before and after his election in 1980, that he would opt for large deficits if he needed them to bankroll his military buildup to counter the Soviet Union.

Indeed, Reagan’s plan worked. The massive military buildup not only helped defeat the Soviet empire but also left the U.S. a sizable “peace dividend” in the 90s.

Ronald Reagan set the stage for Bill Clinton. Clinton’s brilliance was in realizing the gift he had received from the Reagan years. He easily could have moved to shift the “peace dividend” from declining defense expenditures to social programs. But he didn’t.

Instead, he reduced the growth of government, ultimately leaving his successor, George W. Bush, a budget surplus.

When Clinton came into office, he tinkered with nationalizing healthcare with the so-called “Hillarycare” program. But Congress thwarted his plans.

It was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton. After the healthcare debacle, he moved to the center. He adopted a bipartisan approach and even worked with Newt Gingrich in some areas, including welfare reform and cutting the capital gains tax.

“Bill Clinton launched his campaign to end welfare as we know it because he . . . believed millions of people were trapped in the system,” Godwin notes.

“When Clinton signed welfare reform legislation in 1996, he passed the greatest test of federalism, according to the standard set by Ronald Reagan himself.”

Clinton argued that entitlement programs do not work if the government does not require something in return from the recipient. He often referred to “the politics of entitlement” as a way of criticizing his own party.

“Some, but not all, in the national Democratic Party have placed too much faith in the whole politics of entitlement, the idea that big bureaucracies and government spending, demanding nothing in return, can produce the results we want,” he said in a speech.

“We know that is simply not true. There is a limit to how much government can do in the absence of an appropriate response by the American people at the grass-roots level.”

Clinton’s approach is starkly different from President Obama’s. With strong majorities in the House and the Senate, Obama has brushed aside a bipartisanship approach. And unlike Clinton, he clearly favors the public sector over the private sector in restoring economic growth.

As Godwin says, Clinton’s governing philosophy was the logical corollary to the Reagan Revolution, stressing fiscal discipline and the end of big government.

“In public, Clinton positioned his governing philosophy as the antidote to Reaganomics,” Godwin writes. “In fact, Clinton and Reagan are fellow travelers separated more by party affiliation than political ideology.”

Barack Obama does have something to learn from Bill Clinton and “Clintonomics.”

Many Republicans have been reevaluating the Clinton years and realizing, as I have, that the country prospered under a more centrist approach. Obama should take the advice of his CIA director.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Sarah Pallin is Presidental Timber

I have no doubt that we are going to see Sarah Palin run for the presidency and likely win the presidency. The lady has the right instincts, loves to tell stories and is sharp enough to be a quick study as demonstrated by how she decisively broke the political logjams in her own state. She is a communicator on the same level as Clinton and Reagan.

The fact that she is inexperienced in foreign affairs and in economic thinking is hardly a handicap, particularly when she has eight years to pick up the appropriate high level education. The only presidents who actually came to the job since Nixon fully prepared in those areas was Reagan and his vp George Bush in both economics and foreign affairs. Clinton was a fast study and Carter was not. The second Bush delegated for far too long and appeared to never grasp the enormity of what was happening. Obama is intellectually saddled with the fool’s gold of leftist economic theory as well as some of the more ardent believers. His thinking appears to be dangerously linear and this is not the time to mature intellectually. He will however, do very well on the foreign affairs portfolio because he seems able to make others to step down from confrontation. At least he is showing up with a bouquet of roses rather than packing for bear.

The political bashing of Sarah Palin has mostly run its course and that is now fading from people’ memories. And negatives cannot be used twice in politics to any effect. This means that her wonderfully powerful positive image that is unbeatable gives her the upper hand in any run for the presidency. Middle class America wants her and wants her to simply have a bit more experience which she will get over the next four to eight years.

Obama ended Hillary’s political hopes. Now his natural successor is standing in the wings.

Palin's Popularity Soars in Alaska

Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:19 PM

Alaskans aren’t fazed much by the ongoing Sarah Palin-bashing taking place in the Lower 48 -- a new poll indicates the governor’s popularity remains sky high among voters in her home state.

Anchorage-based pollster Hays Research Group says its March survey shows 61.3 percent -- nearly two out of every three Alaskans -- feel either “very positive” or “positive” about Gov. Palin.

Palin triggers a negative reaction from about one-third of Alaskans, however. The poll found some 32.7 percent of Alaskans rate Palin as either “somewhat negative” (12.5 percent) or “very negative” (20.2 percent).

Only 6 percent are undecided about her, suggesting that the GOP governor tends to evoke strong feelings one way or the other. The poll of 400 Alaskans has an error margin of plus or minus 4.9 percent.

Anchorage pollster Ivan Moore reported similar results in January. His survey showed Palin’s favorability rating at 63 percent.

Palin’s popularity has fallen well off her peak level of 89 percent. Palin reached that highpoint in an Ivan Moore survey conducted in May 2007, about 15 months before she was named GOP Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential running mate.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Obama and Amending the Constitution

One of the interesting side stories of the candidacy of Barrack Obama is the persistent story that he was born in Kenya and that his mother immediately returned with the new born to her Hawaiian home to claim and register birth in the USA. The problem, of course, is that this story rings true. This has been a consistent practice among mothers who had the option and we can be sure that she planned to come to the USA before the due date and at least certainly did so. That the child may have not been born in the USA thus becomes a real possibility that is not eliminated by the judicious stonewalling and obfuscation been practiced by the campaign on this and other Obama records. In fact it provides a clear motive to not release any documentation except under duress and clarifies his peculiar behavior over this matter.

This particular feature of the constitution should have been eliminated long ago and it serves no practical purpose whatsoever and merely demonstrates a lingering fear that the American electorate will not get it right. If we end up with a duly elected president who is legitimately disqualified from taking office, then we have a real constitutional crisis. What makes it so choice is that I suspect that everything could be legal up the point in which he is sworn into office.

Obama has been clearly brought up and has lived his adult life as an American citizen. It would be an injustice to deny his right to stand for office on what is a technicality. This is a good example of the law and in this case the constitution been an ass.

On the other hand, this is an excellent time and place in which to push through the appropriate constitutional change on this matter. In fact, we likely have no better time. The Democrats will have a majority in both houses and the presidency itself and are in a position to push through such a constitutional amendment. I expect that the Republicans will find ample reason to support it also. And that will end the static over his mother’s choices.

Since it appears that we are about to be graced with an Obama presidency, which in view of his tactical reticence is shaping up so far to be a mystery, a few thoughts are perhaps in order.

The man is a lawyer by training and a polished speaker who should become a gifted legislator. Because of his age, he may find that an attractive option. Bill Clinton should consider the same option. I have grown up in a world were the top post is held by a parliamentarian and find it quite appropriate.

He was delivered into office as a Chicago machine politician with all the vote rigging and baggage that goes with that. If you wish to believe otherwise read this article:

Somehow that machine has kept their candidate inside a media cocoon that has made no issue out of his many politically incorrect lapses from the past. This will likely come back to haunt him and certainly gives the machine a lot of undue influence.

He must now try to rise above all that in the same way that Kennedy was able to. Kennedy’s daddy was a sweetheart and it probably helped that he was struck down before his influence might have been felt.

He has been associated with a lot of the classic far left political clichés. This is perfectly harmless so long as he actually does not think that they are real policy. The wacko left and the wacko right both have curious positions that politicians need to at least give a nod to. Implementing those weird positions is an excellent method of mobilizing ninety percent of the population against you.

His foreign policy credentials are on a par with those of George Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter on entering the white House. Until he has had time on the job, he will not be deft and the challenge will initially be to not make any obvious blunders. Expect more sympathy for Africa in particular and the third world in general. Just do not expect more money.

My real fear is that he does not understand the Laffer curve and is unable to rein in the very stupid people in his own camp who think that they now have a mandate to jack up taxes. If we can stay the course on taxation policy and implement the regulatory governors put in place seventy years ago and removed a mere ten years ago, we will be fine. If we can then implement a number of other useful programs such as universal health care properly by making the states run it as was done in Canada, the country will emerge much stronger from the disaster.

Race issues will be on the agenda whether by choice or otherwise. It needs to be ignored because it is actually resolving itself through simple age. What must not be ignored is poverty. Once again read my item on minimum wage and home ownership.

Poverty and Medical care are both resolved the same way. You establish a service floor for one hundred percent of the population. Otherwise, your system will be naturally gamed in such a way that a third of the population will be disadvantaged while a third pays way too much for the privilege of service. By establishing a floor you are simply moving the game to a higher more naturally stable level while lowering the cost.

Should he win, it is likely that he will face a savage drop in governmental revenues and the need to accommodate a deepening and unavoidable recession over the length of his term. It will be interesting to see how his reputation fares and how long the media wolves will then hold off.

Monday, March 31, 2008

EPA Demonstrates Common Sense

It is good to see the EPA demonstrating common sense, hard as that is to believe. Particularly after watching Al Gore push tortured analogies decrying the opponents of the global warming ideology. I am getting disturbed that some of this bone headed thinking will work itself into the global economic system.

The worst idea that I heard recently was that the developed world, after shipping our polluting industries offshore, should turn around and slap on a carbon tax on all imports. We really need to turn the current financial panic into a true depression.

I have rarely seen such a lack of economic leadership in the political world. Both Democratic candidates sound hopeless on the issue, although perhaps you can trust Hillary to actually do nothing as her husband had the good sense to do in a different time and place. Of course, if you live in Pennsylvania, you may think she means it about NAFTA, and if you live anywhere else, you sure as hell hope she doesn’t. Obama however, seems to be a follower of ideas that may betray him and he has not come out with a strong convincing economic position. Unfortunately, we can say the same thing about John McCain. He however, appears most likely to recognize and follow good advice. I am personally impressed by his support of the Iraqi surge and he is certainly the best option for wriggling out of there.

We have been blessed for the past forty years, to have had strong voices who have positively influenced economic policy and have benefited with a full twenty five years of solid economic expansion that reinvigorated both Europe and Japan and ignited the emergence of both China and India as viable economic powers.

Yet we always hear the voices of the economically ignorant who desperately want to promote state power in the naïve belief that this can work. How many Katrinas do we need? Human greed will trump good intentions every time.

That is the elephant at the party in China today. And it is starting to rumble. The only escape hatch for the Chinese political leadership with their loot is in fact to start a program of free elections, starting at the local level and quickly moving to the higher stages in two year steps. It could have been done slower, but I do not think that they have that much time left. Heaven no longer needs them.

The truth is that global warming was likely never tied to CO2 production as we have investigated this past year. But CO2 production without paying attention to CO2 offsets is just bad husbandry unless you think throwing night soil out the window is a sustainable practice. CO2 management is not about not burning fossil fuels – they will all one day be burned – it is about using good husbandry to maximize CO2 sequestration in the soils every way we can.

It struck me today that terra preta soil culture will permit the maximization of soil nutrient content. This means that no food crop should be ever nutrient deficient which is the holy grail of organic farmers. At this point, this is only my hypothesis, supported by a scattering of evidence. I suspect that it is both possible and sustainable.

Recall that in 10,000 years, that agricultural man has never had a way to create fertile soil easily if in fact at all in many circumstances. Corn culture terra preta does just that in just a few years. The resultant soil is a nutrient sponge.

EPA Signals Caution on Global Warming

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government made clear on Thursday it will not be rushed into deciding whether to regulate emissions linked to global warming, as the Supreme Court directed nearly a year ago.

Such action "could affect many (emission) sources beyond just cars and trucks" and needs to be examined broadly as to other impacts, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency wrote lawmakers.

Stephen Johnson said he has decided to begin the process by seeking public comment on the implications of regulating carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, on other agency rules that cover everything from power plants and factories to schools and small businesses.

That process could take months and led some of his critics to suggest he was shunting the sensitive issue to the next administration.

"This is the latest quack from a lame-duck EPA intent on running out the clock ... without doing a thing to combat global warming," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. He is chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

The Supreme Court said in April 2007 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a pollutant subject to the Clean Air Act. The court directed the EPA to determine if CO2 emissions, linked to global warming, endanger public health and welfare.

If that is the case, the court said, the EPA must regulate the emissions.

The ruling, in a lawsuit by Massachusetts against the EPA, dealt only with pollution from cars and trucks.

Johnson said Thursday that if CO2 is found to endangered public health and welfare, the agency probably would have to curtail such emissions from other sources as well. That could affect a range of air pollution, from cement factories, refineries and power plants to cars, aircraft, schools and off-road vehicles.

"Rather than rushing to judgment on a single issue, this approach allows us to examine all the potential effects of a decision with the benefit of the public insight," Johnson wrote the leaders of the House and Senate environment committees.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, who heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, noted that Johnson has had nearly a year to respond to the court but "now, instead of action, we get more foot-dragging."

"Time is not on our side when it comes to avoiding dangerous climate change. This letter makes it clear that Mr. Johnson and the Bush administration are not on our side, either," Boxer, D-Calif., said in a statement.

Senior EPA employees have told congressional investigators in the House about a tentative finding from early December that CO2 posed a danger because of its climate impact. They said a draft regulation was distributed to the Transportation Department and the White House.

The EPA officials, in interviews with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said those findings were put on hold abruptly. Johnson has said that enacting tougher automobile mileage requirements in December meant that the issue had to be re-examined.

Johnson said a requirement for greater use of renewable fuels such as ethanol changed the landscape when it comes to CO2 regulation.

"It does not change EPA's obligation to provide a response to the Supreme Court decision," Johnson wrote Congress.

Environmentalists said Johnson's approach seemed to signal no meaningful action on climate change.

"EPA has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate," said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense.

Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, an advocacy group, added, "This means any real action is going to come in the next administration."

But lawyer Chet Thompson, a former EPA deputy general counsel, said Johnson's approach was "very responsible given the numerous issues raised" and ramifications of regulating carbon dioxide.