Marginal Utility

by Ken Houghton

It used to be that when someone declared themself a "libertarian," you could reasonably assume that they were a Republican who did drugs.

That myth can now officially be laid to rest. As evidence, we have, first, the quintessential "Libertarian" band, boldly declaring "If you choose not to decide/You still have made a choice":

And, as the counterpoint, the 2008 Reublican National Convention delegates, most especially the lady at 3:26 who declares "a choice is not freedom of choice."

US version:



Canadian link

I await the news of Glenn Reynolds's head having exploded.

Labels: Glibertarianism, pop music, Republican Party

by Ken Houghton

If I believed the punditocracy (including most of the web-based supporters of ObamaNation, e.g., here and here* UPDATE: Or here, with a hat tip to Mark Thoma), the "battle" between Their Man and HRC is much more brutal than anything the Republicans will throw at him, and will only damage his support among the Democrats who, since they still have a choice, are voting for her and may not turn up in the general election.* * Or something like that.

So it's nice to see that all the Macro factors (2006 being historic, a large number of retiring Republicans, Presidential popularity in the Nixon-just-be-resignation range) also translate, as Stan Collender details at Capital Gains and Games:

[S]pecial elections are typically dominated by the party in power. The incumbent party can usually, and easily, get its supporters to the polls. Combined with the almost always low-turnout in a special, that gives the incumbent party a huge and frequently insurmoutable advantage.

So what can you say when an insurmoutable advantage turns out not to be enough? What does it mean when the same thing has now happened in Illinois and Louisiana, two very different states in two exceptionally different parts of the country?

Maybe it means that all of those "benefit of the doubt, and besides we're at war" votes in 2004 have come to doubt? Maybe it means four more years of real-wage-losses and more deaths (even without the benefit of seeing the coffins) have taken their toll, and "you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is a truism because it's true.

Or maybe it's that running the same play every time gets as boring to MOR and socially-conservative voters as it is to those being tarred. Collender:

[T]he GOP campaign strategy in Louisiana was to tie the Democratic candidate to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and paint the local candidiate as too liberal for the district. If using something as tried and true as the "liberal" label doesn't work, what does that say about what will be effective in November?

Maybe even Harry Reid could win if he were running as a Democrat this year.

*Though "the Sherman's March to the Democratic nomination for President" is a classic, if precious, phrase.

**Many of them appear to expect Obama's supporters not to turn up in the general election if HRC is nominated. Is this really an indication of their candidate's strength?***

***There might be an argument that it would be, but it seems rather specious without details of what those voters will do that is different from what they did, say, in 2004.

Labels: 2008, ObamaNation, Republican Party

by Ken Houghton

While I just described giving money to move Gary Farber from a good city to an all-right city as a good idea, I can't get such enthusiasm for the latest mailing, which seems to be from one of those Nigerian businessmen, except it lacks their usual verve, charm, and, yes, even style:

Today, there are 47 million uninsured individuals in the U.S., and nearly a quarter of them are children. High costs and limited access are the underlying, fundamental problems in our healthcare system.

Separate thoughts in the same paragraph, not for the last time. This reveals that the writer is not a native English speaker.

As you know, both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are touting outrageously expensive and unrealistic universal health care plans - a government monopoly over health care.

As is common knowledge, I wish that were so in the case of Obama. Again, confusing monopoly and monopsony gives away the game. Either Nigerian or a Friend of McMegan (link is not to a friend of McMegan, but rather to someone whose work you should be reading).

Unlike my opponents, I do not believe that all of our nation's problems can be solved by turning control over to our government, with all the tax increases, new mandates and government regulation that come with that idea.

Unlike the current system, where tax increases, new mandates, and government regulation that come with no idea. I'm starting to lean toward FoMcM, since no Nigerian ever talks about being regulated. Thought that "opponents" thing does imply some Civil War.

Today, our campaign began running a television ad focused on health care...to ensure all Americans hear the truth about how I plan to tackle the challenges facing our nation's health care system. To ensure this important ad is aired in as many markets as possible, I'm asking for your immediate financial assistance.

Ah! There it is! The pitch is just where the Nigerians put it.

I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves. Americans need new choices beyond those offered in employment-based coverage.

The last time the "the patients themselves" had "control" over their part of the health care system was before Arizona was a state. Most "hospital" care was provided by charity wards run by churches.

This e-mail may not be from a Nigerian, but it's clearly from someone who wants to turn out health care system into the Nigerian one.

My friends, this is not my definition of real reform. I hope you will join me in my fight to tackle the real problems facing our nation's health care system by making a contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or $2,300 to help fund this important ad.

There's the pitch again. But...$2,300??? That seems small for a Nigerian.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

John McCain

Oh, him.

Please, folks, send Gary your money instead.

Labels: 2008, Health Care, Republican Party

by Ken Houghton

After I tried (with a hint of irony) to say something nice about RWR (and Tom corrected me*), John McCain undermines all that goodwill with another mailing:

While many of us are aggravated and displeased when we see exactly how much of our hard-earned money goes to the federal government - if one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can be certain your tax rate will increase across the board. [emphasis his]

Hmmm; increasing deficits (ameliorated only slightly by a Social Security Trust Fund surplus that even Andrew Samwick is now defending), an ever-more-costly war (some of which is "off balance sheet" [think derivatives], so the actual deficit is ever higher), and more than a 2% difference between income (read: taxes) and outflows that have increased at greater than the rate of inflation only for defense for all of the Discretionary Spending. (And if cactus at AngryBear updates this post,*** I suspect the differences will be even worse.)

But I'll hold out hope, John; after all, you're a Straight Talker. What's your plan?

I believe today, as I have always believed, in small government, fiscal discipline and low taxes. I believe that tax cuts work best when accompanied by lower spending. And I make the promise to you that if elected president, I plan to make the present tax cuts permanent, lower corporate rates from 35% to 25% and end the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will affect millions of middle class families.

Let's see:

1. "make the present tax cuts permanent": I assume this means the 2001 and 2003 cuts that were scheduled to "sunset" in ten years because even then—with a trend toward paying off deficits and Saint Alan talking about the Evil that would be a Sovereign Wealth Fund—our representatives and Senators knew they would be too costly on an Infinite (or even Extended) Time Horizon. So monies that are in the baseline CBO projection, for instance, would not be there. Need taxes, or cuts in spending.
   
2. lower corporate rates from 35% to 25%: Well, as pgl pointed out last year, it would be absurd to assume that the actual corporate tax rate is at 35% now.**** But, once again, baseline projection monies are no longer there. Need taxes, or cuts in spending.
   
3. "end the Alternative Minimum Tax"—this is the first year in a few that I wasn't hit by the AMT. But this is also, definitionally, the first time in a few years that our Gross Income was less than about 250% of the national average. And this is outright elimination. (The CBO released a report this month [PDF] that projects the 10-year cost of just indexing the AMT to inflation of $700B.) So this is a major loss of revenue, without any noticeable income

So that's three proposals: all tax cuts without a single revenue source in sight. And I'm not betting that John "we'll spend 100 years in Iraq, but don't worry, only 95 of them will be as an active fighting force" McCain is going to reverse the GWB trend in increasing defense spending at greater-than-inflation rates.

The kicker? There's only one way to cause this miracle to happen:

But I cannot succeed in my efforts without your immediate financial support. [I spare you the link]

So the only way not to pay taxes is to pay tribute to a man who plans to increase deficits in a major way, crowding out entrepreneurial activity and further impairing growth.

Makes me long for the days when RR appointed David Stockman to run the OMB. At least then we got Straight Talk from a Republican.

*This may be what I get from believing my accountant, who may well have confused 1986 and 1996.** Though it remains remotely possible that Reagan did start the ball rolling to some small extent:

Most Americans already escape the tax by either rolling over, or deferring, their capital gain when they buy a more expensive house, or by taking a one-time exemption for up to $125,000 in gains allowed for those 55 and older.

So it's possible that Reagan initiated it, while Clinton both eliminated the age restriction and raised the limit. But that's probably not the way to bet.

**We are both of an age where that happens. Having heard the, er, update of Kurtis Blow's classic "Basketball" last weekend on Radio Disney, I suggest that the decay of memory and the "memory of decay" is natural.

***I thought he had, but I can't find it on a quick use of The Google (TM Sadly No!).

****If we do the math, taking the 39.3% overall corporate tax rate here and the proportions documented by the CBO here***** [PDF; 1.6% of GDP for Federal; 2.1% for all], we would conclude that the effective Federal corporate tax rate is currently 39.3% * 1.6/2.1 or 29.9%. So take heart, John; we're halfway there and you haven't done anything yet.

****I am comparing a 2004 ratio with 2006 data, but since the Tax Foundation indicates a difference of 0.1% between 2001 and 2006, this does not seem unreasonable.

Labels: Bushonomics, defense, deficit, Personal Finance Advice of Alan Greenspan, Republican Party

by Ken Houghton

Here are some current members.

Click link here.

UPDATE: Oops. I see Dr. Black posted this Saturday night. So I'm not going to keep it embedded it here.

Labels: 2008, abject horror, Politics, Republican Party, Video

by Ken Houghton

I get e-mail:

My Friends,

Last week, I was humbled to win the support of 1,191 delegates and officially become the presumptive nominee of our party. It was a great honor to also receive the endorsement of President Bush and visit the Republican National Committee to begin laying out our strategy for victory in November. We face a tough challenge, but I'm confident that together we will win....

The Democratic nominee will increase the size of the federal government, raise your taxes, and withdraw our armed forces from Iraq's front lines based on an arbitrary timetable. My commitment will be to cut taxes, reduce the size of government and bring the war to the swiftest possible conclusion without leaving the region in chaos, or an enemy emboldened to attack us elsewhere with weapons we dare not allow them to possess. [boldface his]

He's got my vote with that strategy. I just want to know: will he do it with mirrors (1980), or writing $200 million a day in hot checks (1988)?

Labels: 2008, Politics, Republican Party

by Ken Houghton

Arthur Sulzberger Jr. begins and ends the search for its next Op-Ed columnist:

“I don’t know anything about it,” Mr. McCain said. “Since it was in The New York Times, I don’t take it at face value.”

while Mike Huckabee flashes back to Willy S.

“You know, I’ve campaigned now on the same stage and platform with John McCain for 14 months; I only know him to be a man of integrity,” Mr. Huckabee said, according to NBC. “Today he denied any of that was true, I take him at his word. I have no further comment other than that. I think for me to get into it is completely immaterial. Again, I only know him what I know him to be, and that’s a good and decent and honorable man.”

Labels: 2008, Politics, Republican Party, Republicans, Sex

by Ken Houghton

What is it about Republican Presidential candidates and the inability to treat a dog humanely?

Update: I see that Digby was on this Thursday, and both she and Lambert at CorrenteWire has an update.

Labels: 2008, Republican Party

by Ken Houghton

In the midst of claims that Northeast real estate is going to drop 15-40%, some transactions are off-market:

As for Hazleton,[Pennsylvania,] the Giulianis are buying more than gas there these days. On Nov. 1, records show, the couple purchased Nathan's childhood home from her parents for an unspecified sum.

There is, of course, no reason to believe there would be anything suspect about such a transaction. Contrast, for instance, this statement:

"Nobody was trying to hide anything."

with the reality:

One document dated June 26, 2000, shows how money from five such offices - the Mayor's Office of People with Disabilities, the Community Assistance Unit, the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, the Loft Board and the mayor's liaison to the United Nations - was used to prepay an American Express account to the tune of $60,000...

Carbonetti said that the document - dated four days before the end of the city fiscal year - simply showed how unused money from agencies was being used to prepay bills. [emphases mine]

And the follow-up statement to it:

"It's fiscally responsible to anticipate predictable expenses and prepay them," he argued.

It's also fraud.

Then again, it's the lovable and much-loved-by-the-Beltway Rudolph, so it must not be important.

Labels: 2008, fiduciary responsibility, High Finance, Housing Bubble, Mannion, Politics, Republican Party, RudyG

by Ken Houghton

Ronald Reagan gave some support to gays and Jews, so we should ignore his "consistent opposition to federal civil rights legislation."*

I feel so much better now.

*Insert obligatory Sadly, No! footnote** here.

**‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.

Labels: Politics, Republican Party

by Ken Houghton

It's bad politics to acknowledge genocide, because Turkey is going to get angry, but it's great for the President to award a Congressional Gold Medal—the highest honour given to a civilian in the United States—to the Dalai Lama since that will only irritate China?

(To be pre-emptively clear, I have no problem with either act, though the irony of the man most similar to Nixon in his ways giving an award to a Tibetan should not be lost.)

(Edited to add appropriate, comparable FTD links.)

Labels: Politics, Religion, Republican Party

by Tom Bozzo

Josh Marshall is a little too kind to Sen. Craig:

With that assumption [that Craig's action would be readily recognizable as cruising for sex], it's still clear that the whole thing didn't get far enough for Craig to 'do' anything lewd...

Given what's described, it seems quite possible that, with a good lawyer, Craig could have beaten the rap.

First of all, part of the cited behavior sounds pretty lewd to me. From the police report:

I [the arresting officer] could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, "fidget" with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes. I was able to see Craig's blue eyes as he looked into my stall.

Maybe the angle is that Craig's eyes appear in his official portrait to be more gray than blue. Or not.

While Craig was cited for "lewd conduct," he was charged with disorderly conduct and "interference with privacy." See section 699.746 of the Minnesota Statutes, specifically 699.746(c):

A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel... a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts... or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.

It would seem reasonable to expect a degree of privacy in a public bathroom stall, and repeatedly looking in an occupied stall among other cited actions would seem to rise to an "intent to intrude," something which Scott Lemieux and Garance Franke-Ruta fail to grasp despite TNH's dispositive comment, "Because straight guys are forever gluing themselves to the cracks in bathroom-stall doors in order to stare for minutes on end at some other guy who's got his trousers down."

Pace commentary about the supposed homophobia of the law, the case here is not, really, about the not generally criminal asking for sex — not that framing it so would exactly help un-dig Craig's particular hole. The peeping criminalized by the "interference with privacy" statute and the harassment covered by interconnected statutes isn't characteristically associated with gay men's behavior. And while there may be some circumstances in which an unwanted proposition should be handled with a polite if firm no, such things can reasonably considered nuisances, especially in highly public places like large hub airports.

Now, Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct and the interference with privacy charge was dropped. Craig, trying to get on offense, has characterized the guilty plea as an overreaction. Yet it would not be better for him to go to court and lose. Plus, the plain language of the complaint suggests that, far from being caught in a Catch-22, Craig fashioned a very fine quality noose before hanging himself.

So the question is whether there's a plausible exculpatory account to be found via public bathroom behavioral norms. I might otherwise leave this to the restroom etiquette expert, but Dan's amusing posts on the subject are enough to suggest an answer subject to the operation of the intrablogiversal self-correction mechanism.

The short answer is: are you kidding me?
1. Non-cruising men's room behavior involves keeping at least some distance from strangers.
2. It isn't hard to tell when someone in an adjacent stall is using the toilet for excretory functions in the prompt fashion that airport bathrooms normally encourage by their ambiance.
3. Looking repeatedly into an occupied stall, and indeed looking more than once for longer than strictly needed to determine occupancy, is highly unusual.
4. Based on the sample of me and my colleagues, a bathroom "stance" wide enough to violate stall boundaries is rare in the U.S. male population. If seated, it's darn near impossible short of removing one's pants entirely, which would itself be highly suspicious among bathroom users past age 5 or so.
5. Part of what would seem to make the Northstar Crossing men's room a prime cruising spot is that it isn't a natural choice of bathroom for someone who's merely a harried business traveler. Those would be the facilities closest to the arrival and (if connecting) departure gates.

It's certainly not clear how retention of counsel would lead to a less embarrassing outcome.

Labels: Republican Party, Sex

by Tom Bozzo

Slightly shorter Tommy Thompson:

I love money, just like the you money-grubbing Jews!

Verbatim Tommy Thompson, speaking at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington D.C.:

I'm in the private sector and for the first time in my life I'm earning money. You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that.

Via Barry Orton at WaxingAmerica.

Labels: Republican Party, Utter Stupidity

by Ken Houghton

Via my local community forum comes this piece fromWonkette:

GOP moneybag Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari was indicted Friday for trying to send $152,000 to terror-training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Alishtari is a member of the White House Business Advisory Committee and a “U.S. National Republican Senate Inner Circle Member for Life.” He’s aDoD/Homeland Security contractor, obviously, and he claims to be best buddies with Dick Cheney!

The CBS version of this story downplays his affiliation with the Republican Party and the Administration.

I haven't seen a NYT version yet, but it's likely I just missed it, since he is from Westchester and the indictment was three days ago. (UPDATE: The Times has the AP feed.)

Labels: Al Qaeda, Republican Party, terrorism