Dumbest Quote by a Nobel Prize Winner Ever

I read Paul Krugman's (that chronic curmudgeonly malcontent), evaluation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform today. You know, the bi-partisan (wink-wink) commission that has illlustrious thinkers on it like Jan "collectivize America" Schakowsky and Alan Simpson, who I thought had passed away some years ago. Of course, while the rest of us are worried that what this commission has in mind is to reduce our military to the size of Guatemala's and to cut out the home interest mortgage deduction (I'd love to see the econometric models they used to demonstrate the effect on the economy and tax revenues on that one), Krugman's main complaint, as usual is that this commission benefits the rich and erodes the social safety net. Really? By reducing corporate tax rates and making our economy more competitive? By raising eligibility for social socurity to 69 and make people more self-reliant until then? The horror of it all.

But my favorite line in his op-ed is his complaint that, "why is a commission charged with finding every possible route to a balanced budget setting an upper (but not lower) limit on revenue?" This reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of government and its nature. Why would you set a lower limit on revenue? Since when did government shrink voluntarily? Unless vigilantly pushed back, government wants to grow and grow. That's what it does, and it has done so in spades since team Obama took over. It never shrinks without yeoman effort. As I mentioned in my previous blog, for example, home ownership is now more affordable than it has been in decades. Have we seen one governmental department that is devoted to "affordable housing" at any national, state, or local level disbanded? Not a chance. Those happy little bureaucrats in their little departments continue to trot merrily along, funding intact, as if the housing bubble never happened.

The notion of setting a lower limit on revenues is superfluous. We're not on the brink of becoming like Greece because we have spent too little as a percentage of GDP, nor has that ever been a problem. Only a hard cap will prevent us from a welfare state that threatens to swallow enough of GDP to destroy any incentive to work hard, save, and take risks. A lower threshold is a bit of a sick joke.

I'll start taking this commission a little more seriously when it is chaired by Chris Christie.

Sand in the Gears

Last night's election can only be read as an utter rejection of Obamunism. Despite the claims from folks like Obama and John Kerry that the electorate is scared and isn't thinking straight, or that the issues are too complex for voters to understand, voters were thinking clearly enough to sweep the tax, spend, and regulate crowd out of the House and nearly out of the Senate. Obama's drive to transform us from an independent, entrepreneurial, resourceful, pull-yourself up-by-your-own-bootstraps people to a docile, dependent, risk-averse society was entirely rejected last night. There were two messages that were sent by voters last night--one for Obama and his neo-Euro-socialists, but an equally strong message for Republicans.

The obvious first message was directed toward the Obama administration. Voters attempted in every way possible to tell him that the '08 election was NOT a mandate to put bearded Marxists in charge of every aspect of government mechanisms, and it was NOT a mandate for a foreign policy designed by George Soros. But that is what Obama reached for. He put academic leftists at the controls of all of the departments charged with carrying out policy: Kathleen Sebelius, Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, Ken "we're up against 200 years of laissez faire capitalism" Feinberg, and Donald Berwick. In foreign affairs, Obama turned a cold shoulder to loyal democratic allies like Great Britain and Israel, while his staff sent birthday greetings to Ahmadinejad and hugged Hugo Chavez, all the while apologizing for America's arrogance. The message from the bullhorn of the American voters last night was: "We're Americans. We're proud of our heritage and our special place in the world. We're not Europeans. We're don't want this much government shoved down our throats." It was that simple. The most common comment I hear from voters that occupy the middle of the road to conservative voters space is, "He scares me." Last night was all about throwing sand in his gears. Most Americans are very uncomfortable with a future constructed by Obama because it is completely foreign and unmoored from our past.

But just as there was a message for Obama, there was an equally strong message for Republicans. There is no mandate. The reason Republicans were rejected in '08 are still around. Republicans are as guilty as Democrats at propagating crony capitalism. They have not developed well-thought out positions to attack the problems of health care, financial reform, entitlement and budget reform. I had an uneasy feeling when John Boehner spoke last night-- it sounded a little like back to the future to me.

Fortunately, Republicans are developing a bright young bench that is poised to replace the old guard. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner need to begin to cede power and influence to the new crew-- Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, and Michelle Bachmann. This is were the future of the Republican party lies.

The second lesson for Republicans is that even in a wave year, you have to run good candidates. It is a shame that we lost Delaware and Nevada. Next to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid's departure would have been most gratifying. But Republicans failed to capture those seats because they ran poor, flawed candidates. In other states where the tea party supported candidates were strong (Rubio and Toomey), voters embraced them.

Overall, I was pleased with the results last night. It's no accident that seats held by Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama have fallen into Republican hands. But Boehner and crew are mistaken if they commit the same error as Obama by misreading the mandate.