For Rent

In the same week Obama publicly signed an executive order to cut down on coffee mugs and what not in executive departments (we're told it will save $4 billion), news comes out that the honorable Joseph Biden is charging the secret service rent when they stay at his Delaware cottage.  The same secret service that protect his life.

Now, one can easily counter that he is losing potential income since he cannot rent out the residence like past years, when he was merely a Senator.  True, and fair enough.  But when your administration has attempted to build a facade of budget cutting for the last 2.5 years, can your credibly demand rent money for your bodyguards?  Especially when you are paid hundreds of thousands a year - and are set for life with speaking fees!

With all this jobs talk in DC, it seems Biden is only worried about his own income.

#Occupy ... the Banks?

The #occupy movement can not seem to live up to its own idealist standards yet again.  First, the wall street bunch complained when the New York homeless were snagging free meals from the encampment's kitchen - apparently displeased about bums taking from the contributors.

Now, Occupy Oakland has deposited $20k into a Wells Fargo account, after their group vandalizing a branch of that same corporation about a week earlier.  Camping in a taxpayer funded park, living off donations, and not contributing to anything of value will only last so long.  Amorphous movements are great, but occupy will set itself on proverbial fire as their unrestrained masses are not held to account by the greater movement.

I don't think you're supposed to #occupy the bank with your money...

Taxing Christmas

The Obama administration (though probably not Obama specifically) has announced a new 15 cent tax on live Christmas trees.  The best part of the tax is that the revenue is intended to promote real Christmas tree purchases!  When has a tax ever increased commerce for that product?

To be fair, 3/4 of the industry is in favor of this new tax, which funds an estimated $2 million ad campaign for real Christmas trees.  But this begs the question - how is this the role of government?!  If private tree farms want to fund a public relations campaign, they do not need the government to do so.  If artificial tree manufacturers decided they need a PR campaign as well, will the federal government organize a tax on their products as well?  What about Menorahs for Hanukkah or fireworks for the 4th of July?

I almost forgot, the preferred nomenclature is now "Holiday Tree," not the intolerant Christmas Tree.

In Defense of Jubilation

When you hear that the President is holding a press conference within the hour on a Sunday night, one's mind can only think we've been contacted by aliens.  The elimination of Osama Bin Laden by American troops was a great second, and greeted by immigrants and native-borns, yanks and southerns, liberals and conservatives with equal ecstasy.

Spontaneous celebrations broke out; most significantly at ground zero and the White House, but also at numerous college campuses.  Chants of "USA" and the like filled an almost tailgate like atmosphere.  And with the jubilation came the usual hand-wringing from certain corners on how a death can elicit such a brutish joy from a whole population.  These debbie downers are fundamentally wrong in their moralistic concern.

A short thought exercise if you will.  In a parallel universe, Osama was captured yesterday.  I would dare say the same visceral joy would be on exhibit.  If he was locked in a cell awaiting trial, and suffered kidney failure resulting in death, Americans would not take to the streets to celebrate.  

We celebrated as a nation, and specifically as students, because the demise of Osama Bin Laden marks a bookend in our world experience.  I was alive for the fall of the Berlin wall, the first Gulf War, and our action in Bosnia - but I don't remember them.  I have vague recollections of OJ and OKC.  

But 9/11 is vivid.  9/11 slapped my 12 year-old consciousness out of sleepovers and junk food.  My teen years, as well as every other college students', was in part defined by the War on Terror.  Emerging from the limitless 90s, our world was now colored by a looming threat.  After anthrax, DC sniper, botched bombings, TSA screenings, and 2 wars later, we have some closure.  We have justice. No one claims our wars or international terrorism is over, but the elimination of Osama brings us just a little bit closer to the morning of September 10th, 2001.

It hasn't been the best couple years stateside, for anyone.  But this accomplishment, this justice served, brings us a national sense of pride in what America can still accomplish.

And They Vote with Their Feet

The states are often referred to as the "laboratories of democracy."  Well, I think it is quite apparent which experiments have worked;

• The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent.
• The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent.
• The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent.

Read the whole article from Michael Barone here

You're Not Allowed to Do This in Science

AEI's chief editor, Nick Schulz, shared a great video discussing what the climategate's "tricks" actually means in terms of raw data

Wisconsin Polls Prove Wording Matters

The summer reading assignment for my introductory statistics class was a short little book entitled How to Lie with Statistics. Before we ever took our first random sample or ran our first regression line, we learned how questions and numbers can be used to affirm any position (and yet for some reason the professor docked us points if we tried to do such on exams).

In the recent Wisconsin budget saga, pundits and politicos on both sides of the debate have attempted to reinforce their positions with public opinion numbers and statistics. Rachael Maddow has led off numerous shows in the past couple weeks with the latest poll from Wisconsin, and Nate Silver has critiqued Rasmussen’s early poll on Walker and unions. This week, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute added another statewide poll to the mix. Partisans may and have cherry picked numbers out of it like “65 percent think Governor Walker should compromise” or that a majority disapprove of Senate Democrats’ leaving the state. Fortunately, there is more information within the poll release than partisan positioning.

Two aspects of WPRI’s release make it notable over previous polls on the subject; they included two questions in an “experiment to examine responses to different ways of framing a key element of the budget repair bill, specifically collective bargaining, and they released the full crosstabs of their data, revealing the beliefs of different demographic groups. Question framing and wording are often cited as reasons to dismiss poll results when they are unagreeable, though rarely is there a direct comparative sample to see if such dismissals are correct.

The first question in the experiment asked if respondents strongly or somewhat favor or somewhat or strongly oppose the following Walker-friendly statement (let’s call it statement A); “Limiting most public employees' ability to negotiate over non-wage issues in order to prevent local union affiliates from obstructing the budgeting process for local governments.” The results found a statistical tie: 47 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor of the statement, while 50 percent somewhat or strongly oppose the statement.

And yet, when the other half of the sample is asked about favoring or opposing the second union friendly statement (statement B), “Stripping most public employees of their right to collectively bargain over benefits and working conditions as part of a ploy to eliminate public employee unions altogether,” there is a 25-point swing in the favor/oppose margin! Only 32 percent favor the second statement while 58 percent oppose it.






An interesting demographic aspect is the shift in opinion among the college educated between the two statements. 40 percent of those with an undergraduate or higher degree favor the first statement, statement A. When we turn to statement B, where overall favorability fell by 15 points, the favorability of those with college or graduate degrees marginally increased (42 percent). The best educated were more inclined to favor a statement of “stripping … rights to collective bargaining” that is supposed to be engender sympathy for the unions than the Walker-friendly statement. These results suggest that the college educated are more impervious to the phraseology of poll questions.

Gallup discovered a similar occurrence regarding the wording and results in their union questions. On February 21st, they found that only 33 percent of Americans favored the Wisconsin bill “that would take away some of the collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers’ union,” and 61 percent opposed it. Less than two weeks later (March 3-6), a question on the same subject found 49 percent favored “changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions,” and 45 percent opposed. The 34-point swing between the two Gallup questions is even larger than the swing between the two WPRI experiment questions.

The essential difference in both sets of questions is the wording “collective bargaining rights”; statements with those words in some order suggest clear support for unions, where as questions omitting the words “collectively” or “right” show mixed opinion. Gallup observes that their “differing results likely reflect Americans' sensitivity to nuances in how the debate can be framed. They may also indicate the high and low boundaries of support for setting new limits on collective bargaining.”

Question wording matters, not just the percentages that follow them. So, too, does looking beyond the state level responses to see how different groups react. The certain take away from these polls reaffirms the old adage popularized by Mark Twain; there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Japan: The Aftermath

An amazing series of photos of the Tsunami aftermath is compiled at by the UK's Daily Mail.  The images are incredible.  The complete destruction is simply humbling.  Nature has the final say.

My Man Mitch

Even if he hasn't decided, I know it's true; Mitch Daniels will run for President.

After a second appearance on a Sunday morning show in as many weeks, keynoting a night at CPAC and the Gridiron Club dinner, and writing Op-Eds appearing in the likes of The Wall Street Journal, Daniels is intentionally gaining national exposure your typical Governor never seeks.  Unlike most other candidates, there isn't another possible candidate in the mix that competes for Daniels' natural base of support.  Romney and Huntsman overlap.  Palin, Huckabee, and the run of other social conservatives overlap.  I contend that Gingrich, Barbour, and Pawlenty overlap a core constituency as well.

I also think Daniels has a gift that will allow voters to connect with him in the early primary states.  He is humble, not larger than life.  At CPAC, he took time to speak to about 50 students when he arrived, free from any media or big donors.  He was frank and honest.  His speech was serious and steady.  He has a unique message, not an anti-Obama drivel that falls from the lips of others.  Most importantly, he will not run simply because he want's to be the President, but because he has something to offer.

Lastly, some jokes from his recent Gridiron Club address;

Daniels, who gave the Republican response, invoked the sling he wore thanks to recent rotator-cuff surgery. He mentioned Obama’s comment during the 2008 campaign about conservatives seeking religion and guns as touchstones.

“Mr. President, until I get this thing off, I can cling to my gun or my Bible but not both,” Daniels quipped.

The Indiana governor, who is considering a run for the White House, also joked about the president’s widely-reported use of written texts at big events, saying, “Mr. President you’re not laughing, who forgot to put ha-ha-ha on the teleprompter?”

But Daniels saved some of his harshest jabs for his potential Republican primary rivals.

Daniels poked both Palin and Mike Huckabee with a single punch, raising the former Arkansas governor’s gaffe in which he claimed inaccurately more than once that the president grew up in Kenya.

“Sarah Palin pounces and says, ‘Wrong, Mike — he’s never been to Europe,”

Daniels/Christie 2010

 

As the Seas Shift, so Does the News Cycle

Any news junkie recognizes near monthly shifts in news cycles.  Midterm elections, TSA scanners, Wikileaks, Lame duck Congress, Mid-East turmoil, Union protests, and now a Japanese Earthquake.  Each new event, which comes to dominate coverage and punditry, is the death knell of its predecessor.  If an event is not resolved before its overshadowed, it's history.

So let this count as an Obituary for the Union Protests.

The Japanese earthquake, coupled with the weekend, has ended the union narrative.  Any large protests planned for this weekend will get zero coverage.  There are no friendly commentators over at MSNBC on over the weekend to force coverage.  The ongoing (and unfortunate) nuclear threat in Japan promises to to perpetuate news dominance.  Talks of a general strike have no traction.

But, there are 3 things we can takeaway in our postmortem examination.

1) The Tea Party now has universal legitimacy
After the crass actions of many union protesters, there is no standing to marginalize the tea party movement.  They can't be cast aside as crazy, a minority, dangerous, or racists, because there is demonstrable equivalence on the left which is upheld as noble, heroic, etc.

2)  The bill will stand, and be repeated in other states
Threats of recall and general strike are muted without national coverage.  Elections in Wisconsin are two years out, and voters's memories are short.  Besides, the national election will define the narrative, not a two year old debate.  The media microscope is no longer on other governors pushing similar laws.

3)  New media has changed the narrative
15 years ago, the only knowledge of the event in Wisconsin would be from nightly news coverage.  Now, the internet creates nuance to any story.  People actually read bills.  Videos emerge which objectively amplify events.  The narrative is no longer defined by media suits.

"Tens of thousands of people ... would not exist?"

Politico highlights yet another cringe worthy foot-in-mouth moment for the Senate Majority leader today;

“The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1 … eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts,” said Reid. “These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.”

I am intrigued how such a festival creates tens of thousands of people!   Undoubtedly through the same Democratic math that uses Obamacare to remain budget neutral.  I wonder if NYC's Naked Cowboy makes the trip out to Nevada every year.

What we do know is that the Democrats are very unserious about the budget deficits.

Obama shifts on Gitmo, joins public opinion

Yesterday, the Obama administration reversed course and announced they would restart trials at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  While not surprising, it is one of the administration's clearest admissions of err thus far.  Remember, this is the same President whose first executive order (just hours after being inaugurated) was to fully close the Gitmo prison in a year, signed two years ago.

The situation is an apt time to quote the late Irving Kristol, who noted a neoconservative is "a liberal mugged by reality."  Obama clearly took an ideological stance on Gitmo while in the Senate and during his campaign.  When he took on governing realities for the first time, reality quickly educated him on the phrase "necessary evils."  His terrorism policies are not all to different than his much maligned predecessor.

As for the public, majorities generally favor keeping Gitmo open.  While a slim majority (51%) favored closely the facility in January 2009 (during the publicity of Obama ordering its closure), 60 percent thought it should continue operations a little over a year later in March 2010 (CNN).  The latest poll on the subject was a Fox/OD poll in January, finding 53 percent of people "would you like Obama to change his position and keep the prison at Guantanamo open" where as only 31 percent "want Obama to keep his promise and close Guantanamo."

Gitmo is a necessary reality that finally forced Obama to surrender his ideological pretensions.

China's Soft Imperialism

Libya is in the news for obvious reasons.  The country has fallen into civil war and is emblematic of strife across the whole region, the modern "Arab Spring."  A subplot of the Libyan story revolved around the evacuation of foreigners who were caught in conflict.  Each country sought to remove their citizens as fast as possible; Americans were stranded at port until a ferry was secured to carry them across the Mediterranean to safety.  The Dutch had a few of their marines detained on a mission to rescue nationals

Yet, the Chinese evacuated over 30,000 nationals flawlessly, without a problem.  Which begs the question, why were there over 30,000 Chinese in Libya of all places?

The answer is natural resources.  Mainly oil, but also ores and other earthly metals.

It's the world's newest imperialism, but of a softer, blunter variety.  Over the last decade, China's trade with Africa has exploded - it's estimated to reach $300 billion by 2015.  The key to Chinese trade and investment is that there are no strings attached.  Investment and trade dollars are not conditional on human or civil rights, like the dollars from the West via the IMF or WTO.  Somalia gets money, and China gets oil.  Simple.  (Kinda follows China's internal model).

With a million people in Africa, China is not looking to slow down their soft imperialism anytime soon.  Africa is the last undeveloped (and unexploited) region in the world.  As the globe's rising power, it is natural for China to expand into the continent that is most underdeveloped.  The question is will their economic control of the region mitigate Western efforts to promote human rights.

Will Eastern economics or Western morals win out?

Primary Rundown: Before the Storm

With Newt Gingrich's awkward, non-announcement this week, political junkies are jumping at the bit for the campaigning to get started.  Many "contender" lists have come out, separating whose hot from the hopefully nots.  Most candidates had announced their intentions by this point in 2007, so a lot of us are still waiting for our first campaign "fix".  There won't even be a story after the first quarter FEC filing date, because no one can legally raise money with out a campaign entity.  Barack and Hillary already raised near $50 million at that point. The candidates are jockeying for position in every save actual campaigning - this is where they stack up

Nate Silver took a critical look at Gingrich's odds a couple days ago.  Nate notes that Gingrich has the lowest favorable margins amongst Republicans and all voters.  As a candidate, he doesn't have a natural demographic base of support like other to-be candidates do.  Newt is a policy wonk, but not in a "fixer" sort of way as one might classify Daniels or Pawlenty.  The former speaker is more of a futurist, tacking towards big ideas that are off the beaten path.  This will not help him as he seeks a reliable constituency.  The one area is unique wonkishness will be an asset are the litany of debates upcoming in the primary; the first one is in two months!  Maybe Gingrich is already running for VP - he is a bulldog.

Huckabee is the big enigma as of now.  He netted the second most delegates last go around and has arguably the strongest natural constituency, but thus far shows no interest in running.  Punditry and writing have earned him more than he could ever imagine, plus he despises campaigning.  Reading the tea leaves, I find it hard not to read between the lines of Fox New's recent announcement.  Gingrich and Santorum's contracts as "political contributor" have been suspended until they decide whether they're running for president, while Palin and Huckabee (and Bolton) still have a job.  Palin and Huckabee split a constituency, so it's almost an either-or situation as to their candidacies.

Romney, the presumed front runner, made his first public speech in New Hampshire at the end of this week.  He has the money, the base, and the hair to go all the way, yet lots of conservatives are nervous about him.  Ann Coulter quipped at CPAC this year that "he'll lose in the fall" if he gets the nomination.  He's a little too stepford for some people.  I personally supported him last cycle, but this time around it seems as if he is trying to force himself into the role a little too much.

Barbour, Palin, Santorum, Huntsman, Trump, and Cain all will not win the nomination.  Simple as that.  They'll present interesting antidotes over the next year, but eventually be footnotes and maybe a VP.

Tim Pawlenty (affectionately called T-Paw by his supporters) comes off as a middle schooler wearing his Dad's suit to the school dance.  While I loved his movie preview, but it comes off as a couple of teenagers having fun making a video over a long weekend and posting it online.  He doesn't have the pizazz as most candidates or the studied seriousness of other candidates.  His path to the ticket is being everyone's second pick.

Last but not least is My Man Mitch.  Daniels is fighting through state legislative battles at the moment, and has suggested the recent speed bumps might hamper a presidential bid.  He contrasts Obama in every way, from stature to philosophy.  His CPAC speech is yet unmatched, and he is my favored possible candidate in the current pre-primary.

While historically it's absurd we're talking about announcing candidacies at this point (Clinton entered the race the October before the primaries) the 2008 cycle had made it the new normal.

You Know You're a Megalomaniac When...

A lot has come out about Hosny Mubarak in the last month. He had billions of dollars to his name, his wife was lugging around gold bars, etc. But this latest photo pushes it to the limit...

That's right, the pinstripe of his suit is really his name stitched repeatedly in the fabric. I would dare say he is bi-win.

I can't wait to see Charlie Sheen adopt the new trend.

What's the Matter with Mississippi?

That’s the question many commentators were asking last week, when Gallup released their 2010 averages of Obama’s presidential approval ratings, broken down by state. Nate Silver over at Five Thirty Eight found that President Obama’s approval rating has only increased (when compared to his 2008 vote share) in states that voted for McCain. Most surprisingly, Mississippi was at the top of this list. Obama’s 2010 approval rating is more than 4 points higher than the votes he received there in 2008, 47.1 percent to 43 percent.

Continuing with this analysis, last year New Hampshire gave Obama the lowest approval rating of any state that voted for him in 2008 (41.3 percent) and experienced the second largest drop from Obama’s 2008 vote totals (Vermont experienced the largest drop). Conversely, Mississippi gave Obama the highest approval of all the states that voted for McCain in 2008. The article is summarily titled “Is Mississippi the new New Hampshire?”

Yet, two days later, Gallup released another set of polling numbers, examining the average number of self-identified conservatives, moderates, and liberals in each state in 2010. Mississippi is again at the top of the list, this time for being home to the highest percent of conservatives (50.5 percent). Conservatives have a numbers advantage over liberals in all fifty states, ranging from a 36.7 point gap in Mississippi to a 0.2 point gap in Vermont. So if over 50 percent of Mississippians identify as conservative, and over 47 percent approve of Obama, what’s the matter with Mississippi?

Examining the ideological spectrum nationally, Pew found 38 percent of people identify as conservative or very conservative, 33 percent as moderate, and 24 percent as liberal or very liberal in August and September of 2010. Despite the common perception that identifying as conservative equates to being or voting Republican, this is not an absolute. Though only 6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as liberal or very liberal, 24 percent of Democrats identify as conservative or very conservative nationally according to the same Pew poll. Furthermore, moderates are more likely to identify as a Democrat over a Republican by a 3 to 2 ratio (33 to 22 percent). So, despite conservatives boasting pluralities in every state, those pluralities do not translate to a unified Republican voting bloc across the map. Even with his increased popularity in the state, Obama shouldn’t be pegging his reelection hopes on Mississippi any time soon.

Noodles is a Dictatorship

Don't let Noodles keep you down, fight the man!



The best part is when he sells a magazine to the cameraman at the end. What a crummy socialist.

A DC Day: Rally & Protest

Being a recent DC immigrant, the opportunities to attend rallies and protests of all stripes has grown exponentially.  Danville Kentucky didn't have too many.

This weekend bore witness to a number of such events.  The first I attended was up at Dupont Circle, a union rally a stone's throw from SEIU's headquarters.  A healthy crowd, upwards of 1,000, showed up consisting mostly of union households, a speckling of ISO members (International Socialist Organization), and a handful of folks who probably showed up for the sake of protesting.  As I was wandering about, Van Jones strode right in front of me (he would later speak).  The crowd was generally agreeable, though I didn't wear my beliefs on my sleeve.  Activities lasted for an hour, and as I would later learn a number of people marched on down to the white house.  I guess they were hoping Obama would put on a pair of comfortable shoes and join them.

Following the union folks, the ISO had an abortion rally at Dupont.  The recent funding cuts to Planned Parenthood was the impetus.  Their message was more blunt, calling for on-demand abortions, framing it as a "human rights" issue.  They were also selling books such as The Jewish Question.  The crowd that stuck around for this rally was a little more ... free spirited.

Later in the day there was a separate rally in front of the white house for freedom in the middle east, specifically Yemen, Bahrain, and Libya.  Egypt and Iran also had contingencies there, thought some what removed from the central events.  Most of the core participants were expats and their families standing in solidarity with their countrymen.  The different nationalities often competed for attentions, sometimes chanting over each other (though never at each other) and I witnessed at least one spirited debate, though it wasn't in English.  a Lot of people filtered in and out of Lafayette Square, many drawn by the color and noise.

Only if there was a website to catalog upcoming protests, rallies, and marches in the city.

Shame

Shame.

Shame.

Shame.

Those were the words resonating from the halls of Wisconsin’s state capitol as their lower body passed the much discussed union bill. I first heard the audio of the event, and assumed the ruckus was resonating from rowdy rabble-rousers in the viewer’s gallery. After all, the protestors have lived in the very building for 2 weeks.

But later, I saw the video. The shouts came from Democratic law makers, the people’s public servants. Dressed in orange T-shirts (presumably a show of solidarity), the Democrats stood there, pointing at their Republican colleagues, howling “shame.” After 60 straight hours of debate over mostly Democratic amendments, the vote surprisingly passed in a body of majority Republicans. Who woulda thunk it.

To the Left, these state representatives are heroes. But let’s rewind history 18 months and remember a solitary outburst in the US House of Representatives. The two words uttered by Rep. Joe Wilson, “you lie!,” was the end of civility and decorum as we know it (and probably racist on some level!). He apologized despite the cries for censure and what not. Yet Democratic lawmakers who menacingly assail their colleagues for voting how they believe are union heroes. Another bullet point to the long list of the Left's cognitive dissonance.

The Democrats clearly show they can’t even handle the democratic process, what a shame.

You Have the Right to ... Collectively Bargain?

When the American founders signed the Declaration of Independence, they enshrined our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We usually refer to these as fundamental, natural, or God given rights. While these rights are the foundation of our storied civil society and representative government, people of the Middle East are now sacrificing their lives to secure those basic rights. At the same time, American labor unions are sacrificing their sick days for their self proclaimed human right to collectively bargain.

There are varying degrees of how people define what a right is. Differing degrees include natural, God given, human, political, and civil rights. Now-a-days, people combine the concept of "rights" with any classification of people in order to defend their cause; student rights, fliers' rights, workers' rights.

To properly grasp the dynamics of what right are, understanding where they come from is key. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from the intrusion of the government; the document is not the government granting rights, but protecting your rights from the government. This means that rights exist independent from the government. So can the government create rights, or simply honor them?

Some in Europe have recently pushed for a universal right to the internet access or vacation. The United Nation Declaration of Human Rights enumerates a long list of supposed human rights. These entities take a proactive, or hands-on attitude towards rights. Their definition of a right has inherent government action mandated; provide education, health service, etc. On the other hand, a more libertarian approach calls for hands-off rights. People have a right to natural/fundamental rights, protected from the government - this includes the right to fail. The libertarian quip that "my rights end at your nose" (or as the Tea Party might say "my rights end at your wallet") calls for limits on government involvement or responsibility. Government is not inherently required to ensure a supposed (or government created) right.

That's why I fear the "human right" moniker attached to collective bargaining. While other countries' lists of human rights is a bloated enumeration of excuses for government involvement, America has avoided such capitulations to interest groups. Human rights still have a fundamental sense. The term "civil rights" often refers to those rights created and ensured by the government; minimum wage, voting, etc.

Yet, I'm not sure collective bargaining is even a civil right. It is a contract line in a term of employment. Over 85% of Americans do not enjoy such a luxury. They advance on the basis of their own merit, not on the negotiating skills of their union lawyers. If it was a right, shouldn't Senators, lawyers, and insure salesmen have that privilege as well?

If labor unions were truly into rights, wouldn't they offer workers the right not to be in a union?

(They're against that right by the way)

The Paradox of Public Opinion towards Budget Cutting

As President Obama released his 2012 budget this week, the ongoing federal deficit debate has turned from electoral rhetoric to governing reality. Both Republican leadership in the House and President Obama have publicly discussed the need to examine cuts in defense and entitlement funding, but neither one have made a meaningful opening gambit. This month, a CBS poll finds that the American public is evenly split on who they trust more, Obama or House Republicans, when it come to making the right decisions about reducing the deficit. Each side holds the trust of 42 percent of Americans. This is consistent from last month, where AP-Gfk found 41 percent trusted each party.

For Republicans, public confidence in handling the deficit has fallen since last fall, when they were regularly trusted more than Democrats by roughly 7 points. Gallup’s polling shows the public’s approval of how Obama is handling the budget deficit has also fallen, from 49 percent approval in March of 2009 to 27 percent this month.

The federal deficit is of increasing concern to Americans. In Pew’s poll, 64 percent of Americans rank “reducing the budget deficit” as a top priority this January, whereas only 35 percent did so in January of 2002. The last time the budget deficit was a top priority for nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans was in December of 1994, on the heels of the Contract with America and right before the only years of budget surpluses in modern history. In December 2010, the Wall Street Journal found a slim majority, 51 to 45, think the deficit needs to be addressed now as opposed to waiting until the economy improves. Though a large majority of Americans view the deficit as a top priority and a majority wants it addressed now, the public is sending mixed signals on how exactly they would address the national balance sheet.

In January 2011, CBS found Americans overwhelming prefer spending cuts (77%) over tax increases (9%) to reduce the deficit. When the Wall Street Journal offered the option in December, 19 percent were comfortable with letting the deficit increase. But in the same CBS poll where 77 percent favored spending cuts, only 38 percent of Americans answered “Yes” when asked if there was a specific program they would cut. While 86 percent of Americans prefer lowering the debt through spending cuts or a combination of cuts and tax raises, 35 percent in another question responded there was no program they would cut and 27 percent did not know what they would cut. When the responses of the two questions are combined, one can infer that twenty-one percent of Americans who prefer cuts in some fashion don’t want to cut anything! In this respect, politicians are representing their constituencies pretty well.

When asked about specific programs, Americans are reluctant to cut funding in most areas. The only popular cut is to the foreign aid budget. Education, Social Security, and Medicare are at the bottom of everyone’s list of acceptable cuts, and a majority of Americans from both parties oppose any cuts to education or Social Security according to Kaiser. When CBS pressed the issue in January and asks if people would rather raise taxes or reduce benefits to bring down the cost of Medicare, 64 percent favored raising taxes while 24 percent favored a reduction in benefits. The numbers for Social Security are almost exactly the same (63 and 25 percent).

Defense spending, a significant portion of the budget, is receiving increased scrutiny as the deficit is looming larger every year. Support for cutting defense spending hovers between 40 and 50 percent depending on the poll. When Kaiser breaks down this question by party, 52 percent of Republicans oppose any cuts while only a third of Independents and Democrats oppose any cuts. When Harris compared the favorability of cutting spending on twenty different programs in 1980 and again in 2011, defense spending was the only category where people are more willing to cut spending today than thirty years ago (34 to 41 percent). When CBS and the New York Times asked how they would reduce defense spending, 55 percent of Americans said they would reduce the number of American troops stationed in Europe and Asia and only 7 percent would reduce the size of military branches.

When spending cuts and tax increases directly affect those asked, respondents were slightly more tepid in their enthusiasm. CBS finds a plurality (49%) of Americans agree that “it will be necessary to cut programs that benefit people like [themselves] to lower the deficit” (as opposed to 77% who favored general spending cuts), but only 37 percent think it will be necessary to raise taxes on people like them to lower the deficit. Overall, spending cuts seem slightly more tenable than tax increases to Americans when directly affected.

There is no clear public opinion mandate for politicians to act upon when tackling the deficit. Even though most Americans favor cutting spending, programs that cost the most are the most popular. At the state level, governors are already making cuts and some retain popular support in the face of drastic spending reductions. At the national level, politicians will have to take unpopular actions to make a meaningful impact on reducing the deficit.

Budget Cuts and Governors’ Political Fortunes

Wednesday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie spoke to a packed house at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. His remarks were entitled “It’s Time To Do Big Things,” and he addressed the need for states and Washington to make painful decisions in order to balance government budgets. Governor Christie has gained national attention from his tough stance towards public unions (specifically teachers’ unions) in righting his state’s budget.

Thursday, fifteen school systems in Wisconsin are closed due to a massive “sick-out,” where teachers have called in sick in order to continue protests at the state capitol over newly elected Governor Scott Walker’s bill to reduce the benefit packages of public sector employees. The bill asks teachers to contribute towards their retirement pensions and health care premiums in order to combat a pending $3.6 billion state deficit. Similar protests occurred when California raised tuition fees at state universities.

Most states, unlike the federal government, are constitutionally required to balance their budgets every year. A year ago, the Pew Center on the States reported that states are facing a trillion dollar gap between their pension assets and liabilities. The public understands the shape of their state economies; CBS reports 74 percent say their state’s budget is in bad shape and Pew finds that 81 percent agree their state is facing budget problems.

In the face of these looming budget gaps, Governors are being forced to make tough decisions about where precious state funds go. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn raised taxes by 67 percent. New governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida have rejected billions in federal money for high speed rail because they fear that project overages and maintenance costs will burden their state treasuries. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels leased a state highway to a private company for the next 75 years, for a onetime fee of just under $4 billion.

CBS finds that 68 percent of the public think that focusing on both cutting major programs and increasing taxes is the best way to handle the budget. When asked about budget correcting actions, “decreasing the pension plans of government employees” received the most support with 47 percent favoring the action. Nothing garners a majority, so any action a governor could take is seemingly be unpopular. Cutting K-12 school funding is the least popular action; only 18 percent approve of doing it to balance the budget.

Yet, governors are being rewarded for their decisive action. As Governor Christie mentioned in his speech, Governor Cuomo enjoys an approval rating in the 70s. While not as popular, Quinnipiac finds that Governor Christie has a 52 percent approval rating after his first year of budget cuts. Governor Daniels, who brought Indiana from a $600 million deficit to a $300 million surplus in his first year, had a 42 percent approval rating when he proposed program cuts, modest tax increases, and privatization. But he went on to win reelection by 18 points in 2008 in a state that also voted for Obama (Daniels is a Republican), and he now enjoys an approval rating near 70 percent amongst Hoosiers.

Americans know that state budgets are in bad shape, and they will reward strong, decisive leadership. Despite the fact that most budget saving actions garner support from less than a third of citizens, governors who take action to fix budgets are viewed favorably. New governors will face loud criticism over cuts, especially from those affected the most. But if New York, New Jersey, and Indiana are any guide, Governors who take the lead in reducing budgets are rewarded in the court of public opinion.

The Cognitive Dissonance of the Left

5 hypocrisies the recent union protests reveal in the Democratic agenda;

1. The Party of "No"
How many times did Democrats say congressional Republicans were the party of No during the healthcare debate? That the obstructionism was against the will of the American people? And yet, Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin are heralded as heroes when they flee the state and don't show up for work, in order to prevent the passage of a law.

2. Let's Keep the Conversation Civil
When a couple signs cropped up in Tea Party rallies comparing Obama to Hitler, the Democrats would have you believe Hitler himself was speaking at the rally. After the horrible events at Tucson last month, right-wing talkers were initially blamed for the hyperbole of their talk and it's potential for violence. Civility was called for.

And yet, signs with Hitler, targets on the Governor's forehead, and analogies to rape have been witnessed at this week's union protest. The Republican Speaker's family was forced out of their house for fear of the protesters that showed up on their front lawn.


3. Astroturf
For every Tea Party, there were 5 accusations of "astroturfing," the act of groups busing people in to make their cause look bigger. Or, shady corporate interests were blamed for a fake grassroots campaign. Yet, a number of the protesters in Madison were bussed in from Illinois (maybe to make up for the missing legislators?). Obama's own volunteer network, Organizing for America, is encouraging people to join in and organizing buses to get people there. That said, does the President want the Governors of the country to "fail"?

4. Put the Kids First
Teachers always fall back on the fact that they teach because they love it, and I'm sure you, like me, have had some great ones. I'm also sure you can remember some teachers who should have been let go years ago. That said, why are teachers forcing schools to close? Do they not care about the kids? When Obama called for more funding for school meal programs, it was so the kids don't go hungry. How many growling stomachs are there today because kids don't get their subsidized school meal? How many parents are losing a day's wages because they have to stay home with their kids this week? Because the teachers don't want to contribute to their pensions and healthcare.

It would seem the unions think schools are designed to employ people, not teach the kids.

5. To Debate or Not to Debate
Obama famously said in a meeting with Republicans "I won". Compromise over the health care bill occurred only within the Democratic caucus, which was large after the 2008 elections. People said "what did you expect, Obama campaigned on health care reform." Yet, after clear victories for Republican governors and state legislators, the unions are stunned that these politicians are actually trying to balance the budget. Elections have consequences.

Let Them Eat Cheese

Let Madison Burn.

As Gov. Scott Walker attempts to pass budget cutting legislation which forces unions to share in the cost of their benefits, the teachers' union has led protests in the state capitol. Nobody from the right is going to complain about protesting; the Tea Party has used it as an effective tool in the vocalization of their concerns. But when the President's organizing apparatus (Organizing for America) takes the lead in busing protesters in, when schools have to close due to an illegal strike, and politicians' families have to flee their homes because protesters are on their front lawn, something is amiss.

The debate over union entitlements and contracts is old and not going to be rehashed here. The debate about how to balance budgets is just starting, and is being hashed out in state capitals across the US. A significant portion of budget shortfalls come from unfunded public employee pension liabilities - totaling a trillion dollars for all 50 states. As witnessed with the automotive industry, paying retirees nearly full wages is unsustainable. Gov. Walker's bill asks unions to contribute towards their pensions and health care costs as well as takes away collective bargaining rights over benefits, but keeps the right to bargain over salaries. In exchange, there are no lay-offs. Millions of unemployed Americans would jump at this opportunity.

And yet, the teachers walk out on it. After years of claiming they're "putting the children first," their own childish actions have temporarily closed 15 school districts. How does this help the children? Did a weekend or evening protest not suffice? Have Wisconsinites been watching too much news coverage of Cairo in their post-football withdrawal?

In a period that demands consequential leadership, Wisconsin Democrats have not only fled town, but supposedly fled the state. While governors from both parties are making the tough decisions to balance budgets (and being reward in the court of public opinion), those who have enjoyed decades of job security and pay increases based only on the number of years they have sat behind a desk feel under assault - the President's words.

What these unions need to remember is they are comprised of public employees. The governors and state congressmen they are protesting against are also public employees. The only difference is, the public got to hire their politicians. The American public who have put in extra hours and job insecurity during the recession will not put up with the historical indulgence of unions nor their government shut-downs.

CPAC Recap

The last two days were a blast at the American Conservative Union's annual CPAC. Some interesting, humorous, and great speeches. I rediscovered my twitter account and it was fun to have a running commentary of events from participants in-hand during speeches and events.

Instead of commenting on individual speeches, lasting opinions will give a better summation.

One of the most interesting dynamics was the applause pattern during the speeches - Diamond vs. Student. The Diamond section represents those who pay for the premium event passes and have priority seating front and center. The Diamond club is generally older, wealthier, and more Neo/Traditionally conservative. The students get passes for $35 and usually get seat out in the wings of the ballroom. So, different topics and one-liners aroused passion from the different sections, and the subsequent applause and what-not was evident.

Pawlenty (T-Paw), Barbour, Santorum, Trump, Paul, and Johnson all will not get the nomination. Cain greatly improved his positive name recognition, though I was personally disappointed we didn't get free Godfather's pizza when he spoke. Romney looked and sounded presidential. Coulter and Breitbart were hilarious. We has a surprise appearance by the "rent is too damn high guy." Daniels spoke to the crowd as adults and took the problems facing us seriously. I think Allen West will be on any VP short list.

The Paulite libertarians were always out in presence, evident from stickers, shouts, applause, and of course the straw poll.

Coulter made a very interesting comment in her Q&A segment - "If Christie doesn't run, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose." Very interesting.

CPAC Recap: Day 1

Just wrapped up my first day at my first CPAC. Pretty interesting to say the least. To run through my novice perspectives;

Exhibit Hall - Lots of random groups, from campaign consultants to 57 Tea Party varieties. Lots of interesting people, but it seems there is a lack of "actionable" activities going on in the off year cycle. Also, a lot of the exhibitors could sure use a crash course in tabling from The Leadership Institute - they seem timid to engage me even when I am there staring at their lit. The RomenyPAC girl seemed depressed that '08 supporters were hesitant to commit and the Cain people seemed pretty intense on their guy.

Speakers;

Ron Johnson - Decent, not too memorable. Not too great at giving speeches it seemed, got lost on the page, etc.

Mitch McConnell - As a recent graduate from the state, I am accustomed to his speaking demeanor. Some great lines (as difficult as getting a deaf dog off a meat truck), but a tad slow overall.

Newt Gingrich - Really huge entrance, walked down the staircase and made his way across the hall (as opposed to everyone who just emerged from the curtain). I think he had the most coherent speech when it came to actionable policies, over the typical regurgitation of conservative talking points and a sprinkling of one-liners. He will be a strong candidate in the primary, but will have to answer questions from a lot of people over issues ranging from 3 marriages to his acceptance of climate change. As I shared with some people today, it would be an intellectual orgasm to hear him debate Obama

Donald Trump - The surprise appearance of Donald Trump is what I have dubbed the "TMZ Moment" of the day. Most people had heard the hour before that he would speak, and he was squeezed in right before Rand Paul (much to the vocal displeasure of Paul fans). He had great ideas, and really played to American Exceptionalism, but his speech failed on some foundational fronts. He can not take his aggressive management and leadership style to the world stage and simply tell OPEC to lower prices or China to stop manipulating their currency. Sovereign nations can't be "fired". And when some Paulites vocally answered "Ron Paul" to Trump's question of who will lead, Trump replied Paul can't get elected.

Hell. Broke. Loose.

The already disgruntled Paul fans went berserk while Republican regulars applauded to the fact some one finally said it. Trump has just too many feet to stick into his mouth to successfully run for president.

Rand Paul - He had the time and audience to play to his strength, a libertarian lecture. I have already been impressed by the workload his office has undertaken in his first month in the Senate. His adherence to liberty is always fundamental, and I think he will be a great work horse for us in the Senate with a flash of showmanship when the situation calls for it.

A rather ugly moment appeared when Dick Cheney had a surprise appearance to introduce Donald Rumsfeld. Though not in the ballroom, I was watching on the live stream on a TV outside. The Paulites (or as some less graceful attendees called them Paultards) took it upon themselves to call out "war criminal", "where's Osama", and the like. Others chanted "USA" to try and counter the heckling. While there is an appropriate venue to voice disagreements on the right of center movement, the moment someone is receiving an award is not such a time.

As some one on the twitosphere said, "The libertarians need to show a little respect to the conservative movement if they want to get respect from the movement." I know the comments did not represent all libertarians, but it was not a good representation.

Paul Ryan - The Right's favorite policy wonk, Ryan gave a decent speech. His problem was that while he eloquently enumerated the deficiencies of the Left over the last two years, it never seemed appropriate to applaud. It's like the type of question where answering "yes" or "no" could mean the same thing! At one point, he was talking a mile a minutes, showing his clear excitement over the legislative arm of Republican politics.

Arthur Brooks - Not being able to justify the banquet dinner expenses, I was able to watch the keynote online. Brooks gave an deliberative and rational defense of free enterprise, basing a lot of his argument on public opinion! Being intimately familiar with AEI's public opinion databases, I was probably a little too excited to hear that. Out of all the speeches I heard today, I would recommend watching his. He wasn't a politician trying to sell or justify something, he is an intellectual committed to the free enterprise system, and it clearly came through.

Football, Fan Favorites, and Financial Indicators

Originally appeared at The American, AEI's blog.

Two things that Americans love are football and winners. Professional football has grown in popularity over the past 25 years. In 1985, pro football edged out baseball as America’s most popular sport by just 1 percentage point in Harris’s polling, 24 percent to 23 percent. As of this season, football opened up a 19-point gap over the second-ranked baseball, 35 percent to 16 percent. If you factor in college football, the sport is the favorite sport of half of all Americans. Gallup shows that the majority of Americans identify themselves as pro football fans throughout the last decade. The Wall Street Journal has recently found that across all metrics (ticket sales, TV viewership, merchandise sales), the NFL is at its “zenith.”

Beyond just liking football, Americans like teams who win. Asking respondents to name their two favorite teams every year, Harris has tracked team rankings since 1998 (2000 and 2001 excluded). Only two teams, the Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers, have consistently been ranked in the top ten, and the number-one spot has gone to either the Packers or the Cowboys all but once. The Pittsburgh Steelers captured that remaining number-one spot after winning the Super Bowl in 2006, and have not slipped out of the top four since. This year’s Super Bowl contenders are already fan favorites.

More interesting to observe are the crescendos in popularity following historically underperforming teams making a playoff run or the slow decline of powerhouse teams from the 1990s. The Indianapolis Colts hovered around the 24th spot (out of 32) until 2002. Since 2002, they have made the playoffs a record-breaking nine times in a row, and not surprisingly have been ranked on average as the third favorite team for the past five years. Similarly, the New Orleans Saints have consistently appeared at the end of the list. After winning the Super Bowl last year, the team shot up from their usual 24th spot in 2009 to sixth favorite in 2010. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers jumped 14 spots to number 4 in 2003 after winning the Super Bowl and the Arizona Cardinals have climbed 13 spots since their 2009 appearance. After their unexpected playoff run, we can expect the Seattle Seahawks to show some upward mobility from a bottom-scrapping 31st spot this year. Americans like winners.

Lack of success also has a significant impact; both the Denver Broncos and the San Francisco 49ers have witnessed a slow but steady decline over the last decade after repeat visits to the Super Bowl in the 1990s. The Jacksonville Jaguars, one of four teams to never reach the Super Bowl, have been at the bottom of the list five out of the last six years.

Looking at another historical trend, the stock market has gained on average 15.2 percent the years the NFC wins the Super Bowl and only 7.3 percent in years the AFC wins. Have no fear though; in the years that either the Packers or Steelers have appeared in a Super Bowl, the stock market has gained on average 25.3 percent. The game this year is already a contest between two fan favorites, and all indicators point to it being a market favorite as well.

Low Approval for Congressional GOP’s Policies

Repost from my submission to the NRO

Electoral wins usually come with talk of political mandates and political capital. Yet as the Republicans assume congressional leadership roles this month, public approval for their “policies and plans for the future” is low relative to previous new majorities’. As of this month, a PSRA/Pew poll reports that only 34 percent of Americans approve of the Republican agenda; 43 percent disapprove.

These numbers have worsened for Republicans since November, a change that can largely be attributed to the views of moderate Republicans, 78 percent of whom supported Republican congressional leaders’ plans in November; only 57 percent do now, a net loss of 22 points.

Similarly, a CNN/Opinion Research poll reports that that, despite Republican wins in November, 50 percent of the public want Obama to have more influence over the direction of the country in the next two years; only 44 percent want Republicans to have more influence. (By comparison, 49 percent of Americans wanted the Republicans to have more influence following the 1994 elections, 40 percent wanted Clinton to.)

When Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, Pew reported that 50 percent of Americans approved of Democratic congressional leaders’ policies (21 percent disapproved). Likewise, CNN/Opinion Research reported in December of 2006 that 49 percent of the public thought Democratic leaders’ policies would move the country in the right direction; 39 percent thought wrong direction. A month later, in January 2007, right track respondents had increased to 51 percent and wrong track respondents fell to 31 percent. Over the same transition period this time around, favor for current Republican policies fell.

While the new Republican majority can boast an overwhelming showing in the last election, so far the support in the voting booths has not translated to even plurality support for Republican congressional leaders’ agenda