Monday, November 26, 2007

The haves and the have-mores...

I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise, but given the success rate of these self-financed candidates it may just be an early sign of concern for the GOP.

In other news, or at least some elementary non-probabilistic horse race journalism, it looks like any Republican is out polling HRC.

National General Election Match-ups:

Huckabee 44%, Clinton 39%
Thompson 44%, Clinton 40%
McCain 42%, Clinton 38%
Giuliani 43%, Clinton 40%
Romney 43%, Clinton 40%

Obama 47%, Thompson 40%
Obama 45%, McCain 38%
Obama 46%, Huckabee 40%
Obama 46%, Romney 40%
Obama 46%, Giuliani 41%

Edwards 45%, Thompson 42%
Edwards 44%, Romney 42%
Edwards 44%, Giuliani 43%
Edwards 43%, Huckabee 42%
Edwards 42%, McCain 42%

Of course, how much this poll shows us - given the non-random self selecting sample -is in question. What isn't in question is how lackluster a lot of these names are. To think 2008 is the first open race in ages and the most dynamic match up would be between a former Arkansas governor from Hope and a Clinton. Sheesh.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Hawkeyes for Hillary?

Hillary has the lead, but can she hold off an improving Obama. Oh wait did I say she has the lead... here comes Obama. I also don't think it wise to count Edwards out of this race yet, considering his performance in 2004. A three horse race, with a big dark governor pony coming up from behind. Richardson, the pony, could benefit from the three leaders beating each other up, but I wouldn't hold my breath. This one will come down to the last week, I think mostly because that is just how Iowans do it*. Look at that positive slope for Big O, if I were in Hill's camp I would be secretly campaigning in Florida to make sure to stop the bleeding if a loss occurs in either NH or Iowa.


(*ASIDE: Did you ever wonder if this Iowa Caucus thing is a big conspiracy to keep interest? Doesn't it seem like there are at least three surprises in every race to win Iowa. This of course excepts Harkin's '92 bid.)

A backpedaling Texan...

There are few things funnier than a cowboy that can't bring the heat. Looks like Mr. T. Boone can't keep his word, and is backing out of the original deal...
* Don't you really just want to call the Jay Rosser on the bottom of that letter? I think I just might do that later.

Hawkeyes for Huckabee...

The most recent polling data from pollster shows some interesting trends in the Iowa GOP caucus. The most interesting trend to me has been the surge of Mike Huckabee into a solid second place behind Romney. Of course, with the recent Club for Growth attacks - it just may be that the Huck is ready for his "deceleration point" to occur. This deceleration point can be noted in the trend lines of Rudy, McCain and especially F. Thompson. This is an interesting phenomenon, especially when all the major players except Romney and Huck have experienced this effect already. The key to note here is that it appears that Romney's support is beginning to clump around the high twenties... could this be the beginning of the deceleration? Could Huckabee's continued growth in support in Iowa be enough to win by ten points, and then go on to carry the nomination? Could an Arkansas governor be pitted against a Clinton for the White House? Just maybe.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

New Review at Critical Donkey...

A review (of sorts) of the Hitchens book, god is not Great has been posted at Critical Donkey... Enjoy!

A mirage in Atlanta...

Droughts and water shortages are serious issues that will continue to face America (and the world) as the population expands, pollution increases, and the geographic concentration of the population refocuses on less naturally hydro rich regions. Water rights issues have already become key for southwestern and southeastern states, and with continued counter-intuitive land and water use polices, will probably not go away anytime soon. The current drought sweeping the southeast should be a warning sign for policymakers that relying on "normal" rainfall to sustain water use policies is inherently flawed and shortsighted. By definition, "normal" will not always be achieved. In addition, I doubt many climatologists would feel comfortable taking a strong stand on what normal will be for the next fifty years - given the current environmental uncertainties due to climate change. Of course, sound policy isn't needed as long as you believe in miracles.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Truth on Taxes...

Informed greatly by Mr. Leonhardt and his column from last week, Plain Truth About Taxes and Cuts, which lays out five basic truths that are often considered debatable with regard to taxes. These five can be summarized as: the affluent are paying a higher share of the taxes, this is because they are making more money – not due to increased rates, corporate tax rates are falling, the total tax burden is relatively stable over time, and the budget deficit is a bigger issue than either party wants to admit.

I am an admitted fiscal policy nerd, but this one nearly made me weep with its’ candid portrait of America’s fiscal position and condition. We can accept these truths and move forward or we can continue to haggle over how to define the debate, while making no progress in securing our nation’s fiscal health. The big hitter of the group of truths is, of course, #5 – the budget deficit. The current official projections show some hope, but are based on unsteady ground. They assume most likely unattainable revenue projections, with relatively modest expenditure planning (i.e. not continually spending billions per week in foreign wars). Not to mention the potential huge shortfall in revenues when Congress (and rightfully so) amends the alternative minimum tax (AMT) to affect fewer middle class families again or the revenue shortfall if not all of the Bush tax cuts are rolled back as current assumptions include.

So what are we to do? Well, if you know anything about basic economics - not the fancy kind, but the kind you run your house on – then you know there are two options out of these situations: Raise revenues or lower expenses. Raising revenues can come through an overall increase in tax rates, a heightened rate on the affluent, or expanding the tax base. Expanding the base sounds the best, but basing a recovery strategy only on continued expansion is asking for failure when this growth rate is not met. I think the best path forward is an across the board rate increase – in a progressive manner (i.e. affluent folks rate increases more) – combined with an increase in the standard deductions and personal exemptions. Another helpful revenue booster and policy simplifier would be to eliminate or greatly reduce (through phase outs) the use of itemized deductions, which incentivize certain behavior.

Another option of course is cutting expenses, which is never easy nor politically palatable. One area that could definitely use some attention is the costs of the Medicare system. I just hope my fellow young voters can recognize the importance of fiscal responsibility as we continue down the path of globalization – which means more competition from developing (quickly) nations (e.g. China).

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

The only thing that is constant... Change

One of the most important values espoused in liberal democracies is the rule of law, which in arguably its’ most important role regulates change within a nation. These changes include how new laws are made through an inclusive legislative process, a fair schedule of elections, smooth transitions of power, and any other significant shift that may inherently seem unstable. This stability of a nation-state during times of change is an important part of global security, because it is a truism to say that nations will at some point change – when they do so, it is preferable that these changes do not result in a power struggle between various factions. If this were to happen, progress would be a very difficult sell, since when something changes the nation would devolve into a power vacuum where all advances in the rule of law are lost to the rule of force.

Unfortunately, this is the instant case in Pakistan today. A general, who six months ago was talked of as a modernizing friend, has gone on a power grabbing spree - banning the supreme court, exercising martial law, and "delaying elections". This is all in the name of stability of course, but the end result of this current action will not be a long term viable and stable Pakistan. There are now far too many disenchanted parties. The religious fundamentalists think the government is held up by the Western infidels. The opposition parties see the cancellation of elections as a sure fire method of keeping them out of government. Perhaps the most disturbing, is the intellectual elites (e.g. lawyers, doctors) abandoning any tacit support previously given to the administration.

With these groups opposed to the current administration, a change is undeniable. The question is what will the change be, how long will it take, and from a very chauvinistic point of view - how will the new leaders view America? I would have said 2 months ago that change was coming, but that there was a greater than 60% chance that it would work out well for America. Today, the odds of getting a stable and friendly regime/administration in Pakistan have fallen to less than 50/50... maybe even to 40%. Once again the realpolitik rationale of "an enemy of an enemy is a friend" may have made a bigger and scarier new enemy. We shall see, but keep your eyes on this area -- It is going to be huge.

Monday, November 5, 2007

A new progressive era --- seriously...

Mother Jones features an article on the potential of a new progressive era that is worth the time to read. I found the most interesting portion to be the section on the demographic change occuring in America along geographical and ethnic lines. These changes are, in and of themselves, interesting, but when viewed through the lens of an increasing population of Latino voters they become the focal point of any electoral calculus over the next twenty to fifty years. The Latino vote showed a significant change from 2004 to 2006, with the gap between Democratic and Republican votes growing by 24%. The article points out that the Immigration debate may end up being the death of the conservative surge since 1980. We shall see. My biggest fear is that neither side will actually work to address this issue and our xenophobia will continue until we have 25% of the population very disenchanted and disenfranchised by these policies.