Month: December 2015

It is 5:00 on December 24.  Bob Cratchit is working in his cubicle at Scrooge LLC when the boss, in “managing by walking around” mode, comes by.

BC:  Mr. Scrooge, sir.

S:  What is it (looks for nameplate on the cubicle) . . .Cratchit?

BC:  Can I please have tomorrow off, sir?

S:  Why?

BC:  Why, it’s Christmas, sir.

S:  Not in China, it isn’t.  How am I supposed to compete with those people and their low labor costs if I give people free time off?  As it is, Obama is killing me with taxes and regulations.

BC:  It’s just one day of the year, sir.  It’s important for me to be with my family.  I have a special needs child, you know.

Scrooge peers into the cubicle again and sees a photo of Tiny Tim.

S:  Is that him?

BC:  Yes, sir.

Scrooge hobbles around the office with an exaggerated limp.

BC:  He’s in really bad shape, sir.  Why are you making fun of him?

S:  I don’t have time for that political correctness crap.

BC:  You sound just like Donald Trump.

S:  Yes, it’s about time that someone who understands my problems ran for President.  He’s a winner, you know.  He’ll get rid of all of those new taxes and regulations and show people like me some respect.

BC:  What about health insurance?  Obamacare has been a lifesaver for Tiny Tim.

S:  He’ll get rid of that, too.  In this country you have to earn your health care.  Stand up for yourself and be a rugged individual!

BC:  But about Christmas?

S:  Oh, I suppose it would be a violation of some stupid federal regulation if I don’t give you the day off.  But you can work from home, so keep your phone on–I will send you some spreadsheets to analyze.

He thinks for a minute.

S:  Hey, there’s an idea!  You could be an independent contractor.  . .

If Trump wins the nomination, will the GOP establishment suck it up and support him?  I would say yes (albeit somewhat halfheartedly), for the following reasons:

1. You can’t overestimate the power of tribal loyalties.  Anyone who strays from the flock runs the risk of being excommunicated and left powerless.  Very few will be willing to accept that kind of risk.
2. There are important parts of Trump’s agenda with which the establishment agrees.  His tax cut plan, for example, is within the GOP mainstream.
3. The establishment can comfort itself with the thought that President Trump would have to surround himself in government with GOP mainstays, who would inevitably put limits on his ability to stray from the party line.

Then, when he loses, they can say they told us so, and everything will go back to normal.

I think it was Joe Biden who said that a typical Rudy Giuliani sentence included a noun, a verb, and 9/11.  We all know how far that got him in the primaries. However, at least the guy was dealing with real security issues in New York, so if anyone had a right to wrap himself in the bloody 9/11 flag, he did.

Chris Christie insists on portraying himself as a tireless terrorist fighter after 9/11, but the guy was a lawyer working in an office, not some sort of action hero. Of all of the bogus arguments I won’t miss when this campaign is over, this one is right at the top of the list.

What would a Cruz Administration look like?  Here are some educated guesses:

1. Fiorina would be his VP.  She is a logical choice because:  she is an experienced campaigner and debater; she is an outsider; she has no obvious policy disagreements with Cruz; she would bring some balance to the ticket; and she needs a job.
2. As everyone knows, the GOP Congressional leadership despises Cruz, so there would be some issues in the beginning.  However, having accomplished his goal of climbing over his elders to become President, Cruz would have every reason to try to accommodate the leadership, and the leadership, for its part, would be let loose in an ideological candy store.  In other words, the incentives for the GOP leaders to work together would outweigh any lingering personal issues.
3. Congress would pass, and Cruz would sign, a big tax cut bill, but it is unlikely to include the Cruz VAT proposal, which the leadership would view as being too politically risky.  The final version of the bill would look more like the proposals offered by Rubio, Trump, and Bush.
4. Cruz would roll back all of Obama’s regulations in his first few days in office.
5. Anti-abortion legislation would be passed in his first 100 days.
6. There would be large increases in the budget for border enforcement and for defense.  The practical implications of these increases in the real world would be close to zero.
7. The tone of American diplomacy would change dramatically.  Relations with our allies, other than Israel, will deteriorate quickly.  However, President Cruz will be, if anything, even less willing to commit American troops to foreign adventures than President Obama.
8. Cruz doesn’t appear to be emotionally wedded to entitlement cuts.  For political reasons, they would be put on the back burner.
9. Obamacare will be repealed in its entirety and replaced with. . .nothing.  The Kentucky gubernatorial race is proof to the GOP that they can take away the health insurance of millions of people without paying a political price for it.
10. The deficit will explode as a result of the tax cuts.  Spending on discretionary items will be cut to practically nothing.

Am I right?  Let’s hope we never find out.

An iPhone with a generous data plan

A subscription to Netflix

Adele’s “25”

The GOP hawk Lindsey Graham

Both Obama and Clinton he slammed.

He called for more troops

Claimed his foes were just dupes

The voters did not give a damn.

If you haven’t read the article about Puerto Rico in yesterday’s NYT, I would strongly recommend it as a case study on American politics.  It isn’t pretty.

The background of the story is that the island’s debt is unsustainable, which means that some creditors are going to lose a lot of money, the federal government will have to provide a bailout, or both.  The story tells us that hedge funds with big speculative investments (at very high interest rates, naturally) are fighting through the political system to make sure that they aren’t the losers in this process.  Their weapons are campaign contributions, lobbyists, and Astroturf political groups.  Thus far, they are at least holding their own in the battle.

According to the article, Rubio, given his large number of Puerto Rican constituents, is in the middle of this discussion.  He initially supported the idea of a bankruptcy process, but changed his mind after some of the hedge funds in question started contributing  money to his campaign.  He now sees bankruptcy only as a “last resort,” whatever that means.

There are a number of things to take away from this:

1. Bernie Sanders really should jump on this article if he truly wants to make his case that the system is rigged against the average citizen.
2. Notwithstanding their rhetoric, Republicans do not oppose bailouts as long as they go to their kind of people.
3. Rubio didn’t exactly cover himself in glory by repudiating his previous commitments on immigration.  This is additional evidence that his backbone is a lot more flexible than he would have you believe.

It has occurred to me that the two have a lot in common.  How do they stack up?

            Sanders      v.     Santa

Northern Base         Vermont                  North Pole

Age                             Old                            Timeless

White Hair                Yes                            Yes

Free Stuff       Government Spending     Christmas Presents

And the winner is. . . Santa, who polls much better than Sanders, although GOP voters would probably launch a war against him if they thought he was giving presents to the undeserving poor.

 

 

 

 

Twelve pollsters polling

Eleven cameras running

Ten walls a-building

Nine fairs attending

Eight guards a-guarding

Seven limos driving

Six taxes cutting

Five more debates!

Four town halls

Three web ads

Two new wars

And a Trumpster in a clown car.

 

Thus begins a series of special posts on Christmas.

1. Was there a line for the ladies’ room?
2.  I can’t put my finger on it, but there is something about Martin O’Malley that annoys me.  I wish he would quit and leave the stage to the two serious candidates.
3.  I appreciate Sanders’ passionate, no b.s. approach to the issues.  Unfortunately, almost everything he says about programs that cost money is a left-wing cliche, and he never deals openly with the tax consequences of these programs or what they might mean to the overall economy.
4.  The split between O’Malley and Sanders on the one hand and Clinton on the other with regard to ISIS and Assad directly mirrors a similar split in the GOP field.  There were times when Bernie sounded just like Rand Paul.
5.  The question to Clinton about her responsibility for the ongoing problems in Libya was completely fair and appropriate (unlike all of the GOP rubbish about Benghazi).  Her comments about the Libyans refusing help were news to me.  I would hope that someone would follow up on that in the coming days.

Nothing that was said tonight will make a significant difference in the election.  It will be interesting, though, to see if Trump accuses his GOP critics of agreeing with Hillary.  I’m willing to bet he does.

It is an article of faith among Reactionaries that they constitute a majority of “real Americans,” and that the key to winning the presidential race is to mobilize millions of evangelical voters who are turned off by moderate GOP candidates and do not vote.  In electoral terms, this is the basis for the Cruz campaign.  Unfortunately for him, there is no support in the data for this position, as he will discover if he gets the nomination.

Similarly, the “Sanders Revolution” is based on the premise that he can inspire millions of disaffected potential Democratic voters to register and vote for him.  These people actually do exist, but there is no reason to believe that they are sufficiently motivated by a cranky old white guy to get out and vote, even though it might be in their economic self-interest.

He’s the big favorite in the Assad primary, too.  No polling yet on Xi.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown contraception blues.

You surely know of them; they’re all over the news.

We try to shut Obama down, but we always lose.

We don’t accept that there’s a woman’s right to choose.

 

We’ve done our level best to stop Planned Parenthood.

We should eliminate their evil deeds for good.

We’d close the government if we only could.

Why can’t Ryan win for us, like he said he would?

 

I’ve got the blues.

Abortion clinic blues.

Can’t find an offer that Obama won’t refuse.

I know the folks back home can feel my frustration.

Guess I’ll keep pushing for more state regulations.

The real significance of the agreement is that, for the first time, the principal players in climate change prevention–the US, China, and India–have all recognized that they have a direct and compelling stake in the matter, and that nothing will be accomplished (and disaster looms) if anyone insists on the right to be a free rider.  As a result, even though the structure of the deal is unconventional, it is conceivable that it could work.

(As I predicted, the Fiorina boomlet fizzled out months ago, so my Fiorina Friday feature is being discontinued.  However, one of her comments at the latest debate requires a response.)

Fiorina has a narrative supporting her candidacy that runs something like this:

1. The federal government is inept because it is poorly managed and lacks tech skills;
2.  Therefore, what the country really needs is a successful manager with strong connections to Silicon Valley;
3.  That’s me!

When she was asked a question about the tech companies’ position on encryption, an honest answer would have conflicted with her narrative, so she decided to hum a few bars and fake it.  As we know, this isn’t the first time she has done that;  I imagine most of my readers remember her bogus description of the body part footage a few months ago.

As the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.