Breaking Records
Eight weeks ago, the presidential primaries were in Iowa. Six weeks from now, the next big state, Pennsylvania, will vote. In the longest primary season ever, it’s not surprising that we’re also seeing record amounts of money being spent on advertising. The Democratic race, especially, is making local media markets very happy. Thus far, the campaign has exceeded $210 million in broadcast, not including cable.
Not to be outdone, Pennsylvania will welcome the more than $40 million that is estimated for the weeks leading up to the vote. This dynamic level of media spending is driven by two key points:
1)Hillary Clinton is leading by double digits in most polls and needs to protect her #1 spot.
2)Senator Obama raised $55 million in February alone (vs. $35 million for Senator Clinton), giving him the ammunition to chip away at her lead.
For Clinton, the Keystone state is crucial. She needs to maintain momentum, especially after her minor setback in Mississippi. With PA Governor Rendell in her corner, the campaign believes that it can carry the state and move on to the next big day (North Carolina and Indiana) with the wind at her back (sorry Guam). It’s the boxer’s strategy: you can get knocked down a few times in the early rounds, but a strong finish will sway the judges’ final tally.
For Obama, he needs to take the next big piece of real estate on the map and show that he can carry a big general-election swing state. The Obama crew knows that the more time people spend with him on the campaign trail, the more people like him. So he’ll be traveling around the state kissing babies and spending his shekels on a record-breaking ad blitz. If Senator Obama can take PA and then North Carolina, he should have the delegates and the velocity to send Clinton home.
So what type of ads will we see?
For Hillary, I hope she continues the ad hominem attacks. The more beat up the winning Democrat, the better for John McCain. But if I were her campaign adviser, I’d still urge her to hit him hard on the issues, but tactfully. She should applaud him for bringing a level of energy to the political process that is sorely needed, but vociferously challenge him on his record. I'd attack his very foundation as an aisle crosser and a political transcendent. In his short time as senator, the Illinois senator has exclusively voted the party line and has never stood up and put his neck out when it mattered. Are these the qualities we want in our next president? She needs to show Democrats that the answer is “no.”
Barack's people will urge him to stay above the fray and act presidential in his advertising. In other words, vanilla. But it’s a long time between now and Pennsylvania and Hillary will use as much of her war chest as possible to undermine him. I can only hope that he is lured into a ticky-tack mud wrestling match while John McCain is refueling and raising money. If I were advising Obama, however, I'd tell him that he needs to articulate his vision into a tangible platform that moves beyond the soaring rhetoric. The doublespeak of his message is that while he speaks the word, "hope," he paints a desperate and victimized picture of the American people. Real change doesn't come from the government, it comes from the people. He hasn't yet shown how "change" means anything more than government bureaucracy. If he cannot give substance to his message and depth to his vision he will become an easy target as people tire of his empty oratory.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Palestinians Are The Ones Whose Aggression Is Not Proportionate
The New York Times covers the "Israeli aggression" in Gaza last week.
I'm amazed at how this story is being framed. At it's core, the Euro-left-wing-anti-semitic argument is that Israel has no right to defend itself against the oppressed Palestinian "militants" (which is a nice word like "rebels," that says "underdog" in a way that "terrorists" does not). Well, perhaps they can defend themselves; just not too well. And most importantly, the tiny Jewish nation must "defend itself proportionally." Check out this critical quote from the Prime Minister of Turkey:
“It is not possible for us to approve of the recent inhumane practice in Gaza...civilians are being killed with a disproportionate use of force.”
You'd think this was a criticism of the Palestinians. After all, they're the ones firing rockets from sovereign Gaza into the civilian town of Sderot. They're the ones breaking a cease-fire agreement with Israel. And they're the ones intentionally launching Qassam missiles at civilian populations.
If Israel were to respond proportionally, they would intentionally target women and children during peak hours of the day. But we know this is not what the Euro-left is arguing. When they say proportional, they mean, "little-to-no" response. But this is not how the real world works. A weak response to terrorism only invites more terrorism. It emboldens the militant Arabs. For instance, one might think that pulling out of Gaza would create a certain feeling of good will. But it didn't; it created a vacuum. Into this vacuum stepped Islamic Jihad with ever larger caches of weapons who were ever more determined to take ALL of Israel.
In the East Village (land of the skinny jean), weakness might be chic, but in the Middle East it's only bad policy.
I'm amazed at how this story is being framed. At it's core, the Euro-left-wing-anti-semitic argument is that Israel has no right to defend itself against the oppressed Palestinian "militants" (which is a nice word like "rebels," that says "underdog" in a way that "terrorists" does not). Well, perhaps they can defend themselves; just not too well. And most importantly, the tiny Jewish nation must "defend itself proportionally." Check out this critical quote from the Prime Minister of Turkey:
“It is not possible for us to approve of the recent inhumane practice in Gaza...civilians are being killed with a disproportionate use of force.”
You'd think this was a criticism of the Palestinians. After all, they're the ones firing rockets from sovereign Gaza into the civilian town of Sderot. They're the ones breaking a cease-fire agreement with Israel. And they're the ones intentionally launching Qassam missiles at civilian populations.
If Israel were to respond proportionally, they would intentionally target women and children during peak hours of the day. But we know this is not what the Euro-left is arguing. When they say proportional, they mean, "little-to-no" response. But this is not how the real world works. A weak response to terrorism only invites more terrorism. It emboldens the militant Arabs. For instance, one might think that pulling out of Gaza would create a certain feeling of good will. But it didn't; it created a vacuum. Into this vacuum stepped Islamic Jihad with ever larger caches of weapons who were ever more determined to take ALL of Israel.
In the East Village (land of the skinny jean), weakness might be chic, but in the Middle East it's only bad policy.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
No Government Mandated CFLs
Beginning in 2014, The United States Congress will enact new energy efficiency standards that will mandate the use of CFLs -- those spirally fluorescent bulbs. This will make the incandescent light bulb (i.e. the type of bulbs you use now) obsolete.
The government has made this decision because the CFLs use about 25 percent of the energy and last 10 times longer than the bulb Edison first invented over a hundred years ago. Sounds like a good idea, right? Wrong. Besides the fact that they emit a harsh glow that makes everyone look like that ugly girl you’ve been talking to until last call when the lights come on, they are actually bad for the environment.
They all contain a small amount of mercury that, unless recycled properly, will leak into landfills and leach into our water supply. Proponents will claim that when you consider the extra production of energy needed because of the inefficiency of regular bulbs, the total toxic mercury footprint is negligible. This is a dumb argument. Why are we allowing our government to dictate what kind of light we can use when it doesn’t ultimately solve the problem – and in fact, may make it worse?
Similar dumb logic comes to mind in a story dating back to Hawaii in 1883. Rats from merchant ships had infested the islands and had no natural predators to keep them in check. A decision was made to import 72 mongooses from Jamaica, believing that they would restore a natural balance to the food chain.
Guess what happened next. Hawaii hosts no natural predators for mongooses either and they began to take over the island. Ironically, rats are nocturnal and mainly active at night, while mongooses prefer to hunt during the day. The rat population continues to thrive and their supposed predators infest the island and carry just as many communicable diseases.
Importing bad solutions to fix other bad problems is not the business that government should be in. A more reasonable solution might include large government prizes to the company that invents a new, clean, and energy efficient light source. Another fix could include tax breaks to private firms that supply renewable energy. Some conservative economists, including The Prometheus Institute (a Libertarian think tank) even believe that a carbon tax, if offset by comprehensive across-the-board tax reductions, would be the ideal way to attack the problem at the root. This proposal essentially builds the externalized (or social) cost of fossil fuels into the equation through a revenue neutral tax. This would be much preferred over an inflexible and bureaucratic cap-and-trade program or things like government mandated light bulbs.
The government has made this decision because the CFLs use about 25 percent of the energy and last 10 times longer than the bulb Edison first invented over a hundred years ago. Sounds like a good idea, right? Wrong. Besides the fact that they emit a harsh glow that makes everyone look like that ugly girl you’ve been talking to until last call when the lights come on, they are actually bad for the environment.
They all contain a small amount of mercury that, unless recycled properly, will leak into landfills and leach into our water supply. Proponents will claim that when you consider the extra production of energy needed because of the inefficiency of regular bulbs, the total toxic mercury footprint is negligible. This is a dumb argument. Why are we allowing our government to dictate what kind of light we can use when it doesn’t ultimately solve the problem – and in fact, may make it worse?
Similar dumb logic comes to mind in a story dating back to Hawaii in 1883. Rats from merchant ships had infested the islands and had no natural predators to keep them in check. A decision was made to import 72 mongooses from Jamaica, believing that they would restore a natural balance to the food chain.
Guess what happened next. Hawaii hosts no natural predators for mongooses either and they began to take over the island. Ironically, rats are nocturnal and mainly active at night, while mongooses prefer to hunt during the day. The rat population continues to thrive and their supposed predators infest the island and carry just as many communicable diseases.
Importing bad solutions to fix other bad problems is not the business that government should be in. A more reasonable solution might include large government prizes to the company that invents a new, clean, and energy efficient light source. Another fix could include tax breaks to private firms that supply renewable energy. Some conservative economists, including The Prometheus Institute (a Libertarian think tank) even believe that a carbon tax, if offset by comprehensive across-the-board tax reductions, would be the ideal way to attack the problem at the root. This proposal essentially builds the externalized (or social) cost of fossil fuels into the equation through a revenue neutral tax. This would be much preferred over an inflexible and bureaucratic cap-and-trade program or things like government mandated light bulbs.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Health Care: Response to a Liberal's Comment
A liberal friend posted a comment about my Goldman Sachs health plan piece ... here's my response:
The comment:
a few points:
1. a real market conservative would argue:
a) you can't provide your employees healthcare without generating profits
b) you can't generate the most profits without the best talent
c) you can't attract the best talent without the best benefit package (heh)
d) ergo, the $40k secretary better thank her $750k estrogen-hopped-up boss -- not only for her job to begin with -- but for her healthcare in the first place. most companies only partially subsidize these costs for their employees, paying for the remainder using a progressive scale that ties contribution rates to salary (similar to payroll taxes). therefore, she's getting a better deal than he is.
2. nice anti hilary/obama-care straw man. very similar logic to the santorum-school of political rhetoric: no same-sex marriages or the bestiality people will want to marry their dogs next...
3. finally, "mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage"? duh. that's the basic definition of health coverage: mandated benefits. i get sick, the insurer must pay for my meds. i break an arm, they must pay for my cast. but since universal healthcare is a political idea who's time has come, you're right that the next battle will most definitely be over mandatory vs. elective benefit definition.
...and keep on blogging, yo. given any more thought those "imaginary" obama republicans?
The response:
Thanks for the comments c-dub. Here are my thoughts back:
1. How would you know what a real market conservative would do? Have you met another one besides me in the East Village or Brooklyn?
a) Um, I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but the whole employer based system is bunk. Don’t get me wrong, I like it better than the idea of gov’t run health care, but we need to de-couple it from the workplace, it makes no more sense than employer sponsored home garbage pickup.
If businesses get out of the health care business, we can then: 1) create major incentives for health savings accounts; 2) allow consumers to shop across state lines for their care, essentially busting the trusts that government has created; 3) make health care portable, so that if you lose your job, you don’t lose your insurance. Also, since gov’t has to pay taxes on health care provisions, wages would likely rise … certainly liberals wouldn’t want that to happen. We should let able-bodied people take care of themselves. You don’t need mommy and daddy to pay your rent, why should Uncle Sam pay for your herpes medicine.
b-d) Leave it to a liberal elitist to have no sympathy for a middle class, secretary making 40k. If you’re not speaking Spanish and sucking the gov’t teet, you’re out of luck, eh? I can only assume you’d also argue that since Dennis Koslowski (jailed Tyco CEO) “subsidized” lower tiered employees with booming profits, it’s also ok that he bought his wife a $9K shower curtain on the company’s dime?
2-3) My argument is more “slippery slope” than “straw man.” Rick Santorum gave an intellectually dishonest argument about why we shouldn’t allow gay marriage. He’d be better off just saying he thinks gays are going to hell and taking society with them. At least we could give him credit for speaking his mind. In my case, I am actually concerned about the fiscal responsibility of universal health care. I’m not diametrically opposed to people getting health insurance, I’m diametrically opposed to working 50 hours a week and paying your bills.
Here’s the juice: as you agreed, mandates always raise the cost of coverage. And although most of these individual mandates have a relatively small impact on their own, the aggregate cost of thousands of mandates is frightening. And when people can’t afford health care, they choose to go uninsured.
The time for socialized health care has not come. While imperfect, the U.S. health care system is the best in the world. Not only do we have the best doctors, medicine, and technology, but we also have the highest life expectancy when you average-out accidental deaths. Who wants a doctors visit to feel like a trip to the DMV? You're crazy if you think it won't be like that. Further, of the 47 million uninsured that Clinton and Obama cite, only a small percentage of them can’t get insurance. If you combine illegal aliens, those eligible for Medicaid (but who haven’t applied), and those with household incomes of 50k or more (top half of the income distribution), but uninsured by choice, you’ve got a relatively small number.
We should be very wary of nationalizing an industry because a few percent of 300 million people are struggling; we wouldn’t nationalize any other industry because some of its workers were unemployed (well, maybe you would). Any plan should be specifically focused on helping the group of people who truly need it.
And as far as your wet dream of Obama Republicans … only if Huckabee wins the primary. Sorry, friend.
The comment:
a few points:
1. a real market conservative would argue:
a) you can't provide your employees healthcare without generating profits
b) you can't generate the most profits without the best talent
c) you can't attract the best talent without the best benefit package (heh)
d) ergo, the $40k secretary better thank her $750k estrogen-hopped-up boss -- not only for her job to begin with -- but for her healthcare in the first place. most companies only partially subsidize these costs for their employees, paying for the remainder using a progressive scale that ties contribution rates to salary (similar to payroll taxes). therefore, she's getting a better deal than he is.
2. nice anti hilary/obama-care straw man. very similar logic to the santorum-school of political rhetoric: no same-sex marriages or the bestiality people will want to marry their dogs next...
3. finally, "mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage"? duh. that's the basic definition of health coverage: mandated benefits. i get sick, the insurer must pay for my meds. i break an arm, they must pay for my cast. but since universal healthcare is a political idea who's time has come, you're right that the next battle will most definitely be over mandatory vs. elective benefit definition.
...and keep on blogging, yo. given any more thought those "imaginary" obama republicans?
The response:
Thanks for the comments c-dub. Here are my thoughts back:
1. How would you know what a real market conservative would do? Have you met another one besides me in the East Village or Brooklyn?
a) Um, I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but the whole employer based system is bunk. Don’t get me wrong, I like it better than the idea of gov’t run health care, but we need to de-couple it from the workplace, it makes no more sense than employer sponsored home garbage pickup.
If businesses get out of the health care business, we can then: 1) create major incentives for health savings accounts; 2) allow consumers to shop across state lines for their care, essentially busting the trusts that government has created; 3) make health care portable, so that if you lose your job, you don’t lose your insurance. Also, since gov’t has to pay taxes on health care provisions, wages would likely rise … certainly liberals wouldn’t want that to happen. We should let able-bodied people take care of themselves. You don’t need mommy and daddy to pay your rent, why should Uncle Sam pay for your herpes medicine.
b-d) Leave it to a liberal elitist to have no sympathy for a middle class, secretary making 40k. If you’re not speaking Spanish and sucking the gov’t teet, you’re out of luck, eh? I can only assume you’d also argue that since Dennis Koslowski (jailed Tyco CEO) “subsidized” lower tiered employees with booming profits, it’s also ok that he bought his wife a $9K shower curtain on the company’s dime?
2-3) My argument is more “slippery slope” than “straw man.” Rick Santorum gave an intellectually dishonest argument about why we shouldn’t allow gay marriage. He’d be better off just saying he thinks gays are going to hell and taking society with them. At least we could give him credit for speaking his mind. In my case, I am actually concerned about the fiscal responsibility of universal health care. I’m not diametrically opposed to people getting health insurance, I’m diametrically opposed to working 50 hours a week and paying your bills.
Here’s the juice: as you agreed, mandates always raise the cost of coverage. And although most of these individual mandates have a relatively small impact on their own, the aggregate cost of thousands of mandates is frightening. And when people can’t afford health care, they choose to go uninsured.
The time for socialized health care has not come. While imperfect, the U.S. health care system is the best in the world. Not only do we have the best doctors, medicine, and technology, but we also have the highest life expectancy when you average-out accidental deaths. Who wants a doctors visit to feel like a trip to the DMV? You're crazy if you think it won't be like that. Further, of the 47 million uninsured that Clinton and Obama cite, only a small percentage of them can’t get insurance. If you combine illegal aliens, those eligible for Medicaid (but who haven’t applied), and those with household incomes of 50k or more (top half of the income distribution), but uninsured by choice, you’ve got a relatively small number.
We should be very wary of nationalizing an industry because a few percent of 300 million people are struggling; we wouldn’t nationalize any other industry because some of its workers were unemployed (well, maybe you would). Any plan should be specifically focused on helping the group of people who truly need it.
And as far as your wet dream of Obama Republicans … only if Huckabee wins the primary. Sorry, friend.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Sex Change free at Goldman Sachs
Due to some very unique perks, Goldman Sachs was recently ranked 9th in Fortune Magazine’s annual list of 100 Best Companies to Work For. The financial giant added sex reassignment surgery to its health insurance coverage, reasoning that it would help “attract top talent and retain a more diverse workforce.”
While I personally believe the desire to chop your dick off is a personal choice, if not a bit unusual, it’s hard to challenge a private company for doing something that it believes will ultimately help it’s bottom line. Goldman had the foresight to avoid the current mortgage crisis and we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to navigating a little foreskin. But there are a couple of things about this that bother me.
First, while most employees at Goldman can afford expensive coverage that includes less-than-mainstream health options, the $40K-a-year secretary who’s a divorced mother of three still has to pay into the plan. This means that she is subsidizing Richie Rich’s deep-seated need to have breasts. Why should the janitor, or the kid in the data-entry department have to pay more for his asthma inhaler because someone else needs the company to pay for her testosterone? Let those who are deeply confused get some therapy and pay for a shiny new vagina with their seven-figure bonus.
More importantly, this sets a horrible health care precedent. In a 2009 world in which the Democrats may hold the White House and Congress, a Clinton or Obama universal health care will be at the top of the agenda. If it ever passes, you can bet that it will be loaded with non-medical mandated coverage that hikes up the price. Check out this quote from an article on Heritage.org (a conservative think tank):
Do you think that Gay and Lesbian special interest groups will not eventually push to add sex change operations to the list of mandated coverage? By the way, this isn’t an anti-gay rant: my libertarian side believes that government shouldn’t legislate who can and cannot get married, but it shouldn’t make tax payers cough up money for Jack to become Jill any more than it should pay for every guy in the country to get penis enlargement surgery. People in this country are free to do what they choose, but citizens shouldn’t be forced to subsidize whacked-out desires.
While I personally believe the desire to chop your dick off is a personal choice, if not a bit unusual, it’s hard to challenge a private company for doing something that it believes will ultimately help it’s bottom line. Goldman had the foresight to avoid the current mortgage crisis and we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to navigating a little foreskin. But there are a couple of things about this that bother me.
First, while most employees at Goldman can afford expensive coverage that includes less-than-mainstream health options, the $40K-a-year secretary who’s a divorced mother of three still has to pay into the plan. This means that she is subsidizing Richie Rich’s deep-seated need to have breasts. Why should the janitor, or the kid in the data-entry department have to pay more for his asthma inhaler because someone else needs the company to pay for her testosterone? Let those who are deeply confused get some therapy and pay for a shiny new vagina with their seven-figure bonus.
More importantly, this sets a horrible health care precedent. In a 2009 world in which the Democrats may hold the White House and Congress, a Clinton or Obama universal health care will be at the top of the agenda. If it ever passes, you can bet that it will be loaded with non-medical mandated coverage that hikes up the price. Check out this quote from an article on Heritage.org (a conservative think tank):
According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage by as much as 60 percent or more in mandate-crazy jurisdictions such as in Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia. Even in states with relatively few mandates, the nanny-state premium adds 20 percent to the cost of coverage.
Do you think that Gay and Lesbian special interest groups will not eventually push to add sex change operations to the list of mandated coverage? By the way, this isn’t an anti-gay rant: my libertarian side believes that government shouldn’t legislate who can and cannot get married, but it shouldn’t make tax payers cough up money for Jack to become Jill any more than it should pay for every guy in the country to get penis enlargement surgery. People in this country are free to do what they choose, but citizens shouldn’t be forced to subsidize whacked-out desires.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)