GOP leadership changes?

I've asked a lot of my more politically connected friends what the chances are of a change in the top leadership for Republicans in the House and Senate when they caucus next month. Most of them tell me "Not much." Boehner has no real opposition for majority leader, though at least Pence is in the running for conference chair.


On the Senate side, I've been exceptionally surprised at the lack of chatter about replacing McConnell. Here's a guy who is only 214 votes and a run-off away having the filibuster lost on his watch and who nearly lost his own bid for reelection in Kentucky. Why would the GOP want to keep him in a leadership position?


Finally I've found at least one voice who agrees with me on this, in an opinion piece today from the DC Examiner.

In 2006 you settled on Mitch McConnell as your leader and quite frankly, the Republicans in the Senate and across the country have very little to show for that decision. We're down six seats in the Senate -- and they're still counting.

Moreover, Mitch McConnell, who supported the Bridge to Nowhere twice, who led you into a disastrous fight on illegal immigration, and who did little to strike back against the Democrats who were slandering the GOP on an almost daily basis, actually campaigned on bringing home pork to Kentucky.

Republican Senators, in their choice for minority leader, get to pick their chief spokesman for their legislative agenda and for the principles they wish to advance....or, in this case, defend. If the GOP really wants to begin the long climb back, it has to stick to principles. My hope - and the hope of so many disallusioned conservatives - is that they will use those principles to pick their leader rather than vice versa.

Diane missing opportunity for free money

Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is upset that people would have the audacity to hope that they could sell their inauguration viewing tickets for a profit (are we still allowed to say that word or is it profane now?).

Diane, dear, don't be mad just because you missed an opportunity to make the government entrepreneurial. If the government had sold those tickets, it could have gained a few extra pennies for the coffers - instead of coming after us in taxes later.

Let's say Congress sold the 250,000 tickets in the viewing area like airline tickets, so the first people get them for cheaper and the later sign-ups pay more. If you can average the ticket prices at $1,000, that's $250 million for Diane and the Congress to play with. Some tickets are going for as much as $40,000 on eBay - sell them all at that price and you're talking $10 billion - that's real money! Hey, you could give that to your friends at GM!

It's not too late! You still have those tickets in a secure location. No one will be surprised by the bait-and-switch on the "free" tickets - though if you're still uncomfortable with it, go ask Hank Paulson. He'll tell you how easy it can be.

O'Rourke accounts for our sins

PJ O'Rourke is mad at everyone:

What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That's not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. "Jeeze, 230 pounds!" But you can't pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters--all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs--think so too.

We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to--as it were--foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We've had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It's one more job we botched.

Mostly, though, he's mad at conservatives for not making the most of 28 years on top (he dates being on top all the way to Reagan and dismisses the '93-'94 period, I suppose). His rant - which is quite lengthy - is half over-the-top and three-quarters spot-on.

What he does not offer are any ideas on how to fix it, though he seems a bit fatalistic and unencouraged that we shall ever get the opportunity in the lifetime of anyone alive today. But perhaps conservative leaders will read it and be jolted into reality, causing some smart thinker to begin getting us out of this mess.

Will Obama be a great president?

With the election over, it has suddenly become acceptable again to notice that Barack Obama is black and for us to awe at the historical significance of this moment.

It is truly a remarkable moment, and despite the plethora of policy differences I am sure to have with his administration, I agree with my friend Charles that now, in this post-election, pre-governing period, it is right to pause and reflect on the accomplishment of an intelligent and eloquent man and, more broadly, with the truimph of Real People in moving beyond prejudices that affected - and in some cases defined - all but the most recent generations.

Will the historical nature of his election cause Obama to become one of our greatest presidents? Joseph Ellis, in his most recent book "American Creation", discusses the consideration the Founder's gave not to their acclaim while living, but to the fame they would achieve in posterity. "They were, in effect, always on their best behavior because they knew we would be watching."

Now, history will be watching Barack Obama. He won because of a lofty and passionately-told story of where he wants to take America, not because he had a powerful set of policy proposals. Many of the other presidents history remembers as "great" have done the same thing: Roosevelt with his promise for change in '32, Kennedy and his lofty notions of country, Reagan's declaration of Morning in America.

My hope is that a President Obama will be mindful of history's record of him as he governs for the next four to eight years. If he truly reaches across the aisle, if he truly manages to lower the tax burden on 95% of Americans while somehow not undermining our business climate, if he truly rekindles America's connection to the world without compromising our strength and independence, and, above all, if he truly restores America's sense of hope and promise, then he can indeed be remembered as great.

I sincerely hope he does become a great president. To do that, though, he will sometimes have to listen to the voices of future generations rather than the voices of those in the room. Keep wistfully gazing into the future, Mr. President-elect, because that is where your true fame lies.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Taste the future

I can't believe I live in a district represented by this idiot. If he represents the views of the people here then I've gotta move.

I did my part to get rid of him...I just know it won't be enough.

HT: Andy at Club for Growth

Joys of Twitter

Curious about Twitter? The Wall Street Journal ran a nice article on the service the other day. People use Twitter for lots of things, from personal to professional to promotional. The article is also frank with the downfalls of Twitter, particularly the fact that if people don't use it then it's not really serving its purpose.

Do you Twitter? You know I do - you can see my most recent tweets over on the right. Several readers of the blog do, and several more - particularly dear friends of mine - are signed up but neglectful.

Make Twitter valuable for you - find two or three people who you care about knowing what they're up to and who would be interested in knowing what you're doing. Sign them up. Most importantly, register your phone with Twitter and get the alerts for your five favorite people on your phone. Send tweets from your phone. That funny thing that happened to you on the subway or at Subway will likely be appreciated by someone else - but if you don't tweet it now you'll probably forget it by the time you're back at your computer.

The Obamercial

I didn't sit down and watch the infomercial last night, but my friend Charles did and had some pretty interesting thoughts.

I continue to be surprised at how relatively cheap it was for Obama to buy up all that ad time. At around $1 million a pop for the 30-minute spot, that comes to $33,333 a minute or $16,667 for every thirty seconds. For the 2007-2008 TV season, a 30-second ad on CBS cost $97,000 during the 8:00 hour, and that's at the low-end of prime-time pricing.

I'm sure there are blog posts or articles out there that can somehow justify the rock-bottom rate that the campaign received, but it sure seems odd to me. CBS for one said they would offer a comparable deal to McCain should he be so inclined, though with sweeps starting tonight I find it tough to believe everyone would be so generous unless compelled by law.

Though I for one wouldn't want to sit through thirty minutes of McCain, either. I did that for the convention speech and that was enough for me.

Baseball - and still asleep at a decent hour

Are you excited about tonight's three-and-a-half inning showdown with the World Series on the line tonight? I am. Exciting baseball that should end early enough to get to bed at a reasonable time.

Tom Verducci at Sports Illustrated sums it up nicely:

For all the criticism of the weather, TV ratings and this strange World Series -- we've played 4 1/2 games over seven days and still there hasn't been one lead change -- baseball wound up with one of the most exciting nights it ever has seen: a 3 1/2-inning game with the world championship on the line. It is baseball's version of overtime, the shootout or penalty kicks. It is baseball for people who don't have time for baseball. It is baseball for the attention-challenged.

Fox should be working overtime to promote this game. It is an unprecedented situation with the urgency you never get from baseball. It can guarantee viewers that the game, if not the entire World Series, will be decided in the late innings -- without asking anyone to invest the time of watching the first two-thirds of the game. And there's yet another bright side to what people thought was a mess: Kids can watch the end of the game on a school night (assuming no rain delays or extra innings). The first suspended game in World Series history is not bad at all for baseball.

Read his whole article. Lots of good thoughts, particularly the point at the end about new stadium construction (I'm sure there's a company or two that would be willing to sponsor the domes on stadiums - the AllState Retractable Dome putting fans in good hands, etc.).

An open letter to Microsoft on occasion of its new ads

Dear Microsoft,

I have always enjoyed your products. You revolutionized computing, and I thank you for that. You created a superior product and we all bought it. And you continue to innovate, or, and the very least - and you shouldn't apologize for this - bring the best innovations of others to the masses. Good for you.

But now you've brought us this new ad campaign where we can apparently broadcast ourselves saying that "I'm a PC and we like broccoli" or "I'm a PC and I appreciate ugly dogs" or whatever. Now I realize that, by using a PC, I must be a loser. That saddens me.

I always thought Mac users were a bunch of weirdos. Now I realize that it is my fellow PC users that are the weirdos. Mac users are like that hip dude in the commercial that you are now trying to make apologies for.

And I'm the pathetic fat guy.

I feel lost and alone. Thanks Microsoft. Maybe I'll just wait for Google to make an operating system.

Lots of love,
A Microsoft loser

I'll know Tuesday if I should buy stocks

My friend Ania twittered recently that she bought her first stock. I thought, Good for her. I also got a little jealous because I hadn't done that yet (except for the ol' 401k). Given the bargain price of so many stocks, it's an enticing time to start investing. My plan has been to see where I sit at the end of the year and consider investing a bit of money in a few carefully selected stocks.

A thought occurred to me today, though, that says I'll probably know if I want to invest after the election on Tuesday. Barack Obama joked at one of the debates, in response to John McCain noting that Obama plans to raise capital gains tax, that no one was going to have capital gains this year. Cute, and true. For people who bought high, they probably won't have capital gains for a while. But for those of buying now, capital gains are going to come quickly if the stock market begins to rebound.

So should I put my money into a stock market when I know that, if I want to pull it out in a few years, I'm going to get hit with the government taking an even bigger portion than they already do? And for those who make more than $250,000 a year, the ones who would have to pay whatever the new top rate is (possibly as high as 28%, versus 15% now) and actually have the money to invest, won't this create either a disincentive for investment or a disincentive to trade?

By the way, if those realizing gains are not actively trading but instead sit on their gains to wait for a more favorable tax climate, the government isn't going to get the tax revenue anyway. And then you have to wonder where an Obama administration will go looking for funds...

The fastest way to food

I encourage you to read this post that has it all: hunger, obstacles, and the innovation that conquered them - and then the government that took it all away.

Union overreach

The proposed new contract for police in Peabody, MA, adds a demand that Sept. 11 become a paid holiday for police officers. The police officers in Peabody were, of course, not involved or effected by the attacks directly until voluntarily helping in the recovery effort afterward, but no matter.

Once President-anointed Obama comes to power along with his Parliament and passed card check, expect to see a lot more of this. Once secret-ballot union elects disappear and right-to-work starts to slip away, expect to see more states like Michigan and fewer enjoying the prosperity they enjoy now.

Effort

Being smart might be luck of the draw, but knowing stuff is the result of effort.

That's the best line from a really wonderful and challenging post from Seth Godin the other day. Read the whole thing.

Did the combustion engine need subsidies?

A thought occurred to me during the constant discussion of energy in last night's debate, which prompted a tweet but is something I've continued to ponder: did the new industry forming around the internal combustion engine receive subsidies in the late 1800s-early 1900s?

Politicians want to throw so much money at growing "green" industries now to stop the evils of climate change but also to reduce our dependence on foreign energy (the Right's common argument) and to create thousands, nay, millions!, of "green jobs" (the Left's common argument). But couldn't compelling, and in some cases similar, arguments have been made one hundred years ago?

Versus walking, a car sure was tough to beat. Cover great distances in no time! And against horses? Horses are heavy polluters, dropping their business in the road or wherever they please. They smell and can be temperamental. Plus you have to feed them them corn and other important foodstuffs, and why would you want to put precious food in your mode of transport? (oh, wait, we don't care about that anymore? Well never mind.)

But the car! Great distances in no time flat, runs on abundant oil (more food for people!), and a car can probably hold more than one or two people. Plus the number of jobs that would be created by this growth industry is remarkable! Why wouldn't the government want to put its stamp on this wonderful new idea?

And yet, amazingly enough, my guess is the government restrained itself, and Henry Ford probably forgot to ask for free money. But I don't know that for certain, and I'd sure be interested to see. Does anyone have a spare intern they can put on finding this out?

Toilet news for a Friday

"One of the cleanest things in the bathrooms we find are the toilet seats," Gerba said. "I'd put my fanny on it any time -- unless it's wet; then you'd want to wipe it first."

Still prefer to know where the cleanest toilets are outside of your home or office? The market came up with a solution to that, too. It's in the article.

Travel

Travelling is a fairly grueling endeavor these days thanks to the TSA and the bevy of rules they impose. All of us come up with pithy, clever, and occasionally salient questions about the procedures the TSA/FAA/airlines put us through. Seth Godin's new post asks many of the best of them, and does so in his usual way of honest challenge that makes you believe (realize?) that these changes really are possible.

He also comes through with a bitter pill at the end that made me think that with the things I do at work, I've probably also forced customers to, in whatever way, remove their shoes or turn off their safe electronics before take off. You?

But WWMFD?

Terrifying:

A truly Keynesian rescue plan should do more than bail out foolish investors. How might the pieces fit into a larger design? Well, if the taxpayers are going to acquire a stake in the nation's largest insurance company, perhaps that company can be the cornerstone of a new system of universal private health coverage. If the taxpayers are going to acquire $700 billion in real estate assets, perhaps the eventual profits can fund new investments in infrastructure or energy technology.

That's from David Ignatus at the Washington Post today. Thanks to Don Boudreaux for pointing it out.

Maybe the new Harrison Bergeron film adaptation will open a few eyes to what's at the bottom of this slippery slope...

The Bailout

The more I read about this bailout, the more terrified I become. I mean, this is a lot of money and not a lot of accountability. Obviously no one fully understands this thing, but from various things I have read, the bill:

• allows for spending about $150 billion above what is actually necessary,
• allows for $700 billion in spending at any given time - but that is not the total cap on all cumulative spending, and
• places the undetermined (uncreated?) agency administering the bailout above the law and not answerable to anyone.

All this for a bill that may or may not be necessary (see the various discussions on Marginal Revolution and Cafe Hayek about current lending continuing to go strong).

I do commend the GOP for finally getting up gumption to ask some questions about this bill and to slow the process down some. And I do commend Barack Obama for admitting that if this deal goes through it may cause him to limit or delay some of his own far-reaching proposals (which ought to give you some idea of just how much strain those big-government proposals will put on the American economy and should make any thinking person ponder the economic sense of voting for Obama).

Into the mix I throw an idea - instead of all of us bailing out a few companies, how about we let all companies give less to the government? Let's pass a two-year suspension of the corporate tax, which is currently either the highest or the second-highest in the industrialized world - take it to 0% effective immediately and retroactive for all of 2008 and through 2009. Then corporations can then use the money to grow and bail themselves out instead of being given a handout and tacit assurance that no matter how bad it gets, they'll be ok.

I'm not a tax expert so I don't know how much that actually goes toward the $700 billion mark, but I feel like it's a much more practical way to help corporate America. It helps everyone and allows an unaccountable government to touch less hard-earned money.

NB: My friend tells me that this really doesn't do much for the liquidity problem the banks are facing. Fair point. My hesitation here remains the government buying all those assets is a risky bet in the short term and a dangerous precedent for our free-market economy in the long term.

Not all bad

Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the U.S. House's Republican Study Committee, is one Republican who's ready to stand atop history yelling stop. On Friday he released a statement about the impending bailout of corporate America. Here's the crux of it:

At this point, Congress is being asked to support an uncertain entity, costing
an uncertain amount of dollars, for an uncertain duration – a decision that will
have implications for generations to come and requires absolute certainty. We
are being asked to go ‘all in’ with taxpayer dollars, and once our government
and the taxpayer is on the hook, there is no fallback option. My fear is that
taxpayers will be left with the mother of all debts, the federal government
becomes the lender and guarantor of last resort, and our nation finds itself on
the slippery slope to socialism.

I'm beginning to hear more and more chatter from conservatives who are waiting anxiously for the elected leaders to stand up for this. Democrats are ready to stand up - and request more regulation. Who is brave enough to say maybe less government intrusion is a better way?

One post (against the bail-out) noted that there is significant risk to the markets and the economy without the bailouts as well. So the choice is between pain now but a clear message that the government will not save corporate America (or individual Americans who make bad decisions) or pain down the road spread lightly on those who caused this mess and burdonsomely on those who had no hand in it at all.

It may surprise you, but $700 billion is quite a bit of money

One headline on CNN right now reads, "Democrats push back." It's in regards to the massive federal bailout of Wall Street proposed over the past few days.

Why aren't the Republicans pushing back?! We have to be done with giving a blank check to the Bush administration to do crazy things. We don't get to be the party of fiscal responsibility if we don't at least just ask the question of if this is the right move - or the right amount of money.

Now, maybe there are Republicans in Congress who are questioning and CNN isn't looking at them. The article mentions Shelby of Alabama at least noting the size of this thing. If anyone sees any members of the GOP asking tough questions and avoiding the blank check, please let me know.