Why This Republican Majority will be Different

Some worry that the new Republican Majority will be trounced in confrontations with Obama next year, similar to what happened when the new majority in 1995 confronted Bill Clinton. But there are many considerable differences this time:

Congresses Compared

Next year in Washington is not going to be a replay of 1995. The analogy is on everyone’s mind in the capital. Many Republicans worry that President Obama will win the public-relations war against Speaker-to-be John Boehner as handily as Bill Clinton bested Newt Gingrich. They should relax.

The parallels are obvious. Both times, a young Democrat had succeeded George Bush in the presidency and then worked with a Democratic Congress to push a liberal agenda. In the next election Republicans ran against big government and won elections up and down the ballot, picking up governorships and seats in the Senate, the House, and state legislatures. Pollster Kristen Soltis points out that much of the data from the 2010 election looks nearly identical to the numbers from 1994. In both elections, for example, roughly 55 percent of independents chose Republican congressional candidates.

Republicans don’t want what happened after the last Republican takeover to recur. During the winter of 1995–96, the new Republican Congress battled with Clinton over the budget — a battle that reached its climax in partial shutdowns of the government. The public sided with Clinton. His approval ratings rose while Gingrich’s plummeted.

The conservative campaign to limit the size and scope of the federal government never really recovered from this defeat. Within a few years congressional Republicans were beginning to run for reelection on pork and incumbency rather than reform, and George W. Bush was advancing a “compassionate conservatism” as a way of distinguishing himself from the Gingrichites.

But there are several differences between 2011 and 1995 that should work in favor of Republicans.

First, Republicans won a larger House majority. In 1995, Republicans had the smallest majority of any Congress since the 1950s. Conservatives were a majority of the majority, but not a majority of the House. Holding the conference together on votes was a constant challenge: Budgets would be too tight for party moderates and too loose for conservative firebrands.

Boehner’s task will be easier. Republicans have the largest majority they have had since the 1940s. For the first time in the modern history of conservatism, the House has an outright conservative majority. Michael Barone says that House Republicans are in the sweet spot: They have enough members that Boehner can let some Republicans out of tough votes, but not so many that they have no cohesion.

Second, Republicans did not take the Senate, as they did in 1995. As a result, the public will be less likely to hold them responsible for governing the country. When House Republicans passed legislation that could not pass a Republican Senate, conservatives were demoralized and the party looked incompetent. Neither effect will be as pronounced if a Democratic Senate kills House-passed conservative legislation.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, will have an easier time keeping his conference together in the minority. Getting Rand Paul to sign off on a McConnell agenda would be a lot harder than getting him to agree to oppose Harry Reid’s. Finally, if there are veto fights with President Obama, they will necessarily involve legislation that had significant Democratic support.

Third, the fact that Republicans came up short in the Senate elections will probably temper their triumphalism. At the start of 1995, a lot of conservatives believed that history was on their side and would roll over anyone standing in their way. They thought Clinton was a sure loser. The Republican takeover was widely described as a “revolution.” This time Republicans are well aware that Obama could win reelection and that Republicans could lose House seats in 2012. [...]

Ramesh Ponnuru goes on to give a total of eleven reasons why things are going to be substantially different this time. Read the whole thing; there are so many reasons! The way he explains it is very well thought out.

At last, some hope for optimism. If the Republicans screw up this time, it will have to be for very different reasons than last time. Lets keep their feet to the fire, and say our prayers that they do good this time.

Also see:

Obama Can't Play Center

Should Obama pull a Clinton? This has been a burning question inside the Beltway ever since the polls showed the Great Shellacking bearing down on the White House.

As most know by now, pulling a Clinton isn't anything kinky; it simply means moving to the center, or "triangulating" between the unpopular left and the unpopular right. That's what President Clinton did after the Democrats' historic drubbing at the polls in 1994, and it's what a lot of would-be sages argue President Obama must do now after the rout of 2010.

But the argument is deeply flawed for a few simple reasons: 2011 will be very different than 1995; the Republicans and the Democrats are different than they were then; and Obama is very, very different than Clinton.

Other than that, the analogy is perfect.

Even outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi concedes the political importance of the economy. In 1995, the economy was poised to take off like a rocket. Today, no one thinks the economy is about to perform in a way that would provide a glide path to re-election for Obama. If at the end of Obama's first term, near 10 percent unemployment is the "new normal," as Obama fretted recently on "60 Minutes," then his chances for re-election are bleak -- so long as the GOP doesn't throw him a lifeline, the way it did Clinton in 1995-96.

And the GOP is not only determined not to repeat those mistakes, it is well positioned to avoid them. With Democrats controlling the Senate, it will be much harder for Obama to run against a do-nothing Congress. [...]

Yep. It will indeed be different this time. It goes on to point out that Clinton's road map wouldn't help Obama, even if he were inclined to use it. The terrain is too different. It will be up to Obama to find his own way through it, and make it work. If he can.
     

Afganistan: Russia returns as America departs

Russia Returns to Afghanistan with the U.S.'s Blessing

[...] Mounting Russian concerns that Islamist militancy and cheap drugs emanating from Afghanistan are a threat to its national security have made Moscow refocus on the region even as the U.S. and its NATO allies maneuver to draw down. Two decades after the Soviet army left Afghanistan in humiliating defeat, Russia is poised to spend billions in the war-wracked country to develop infrastructure, mineral and energy reserves, with new plans taking shape to boost military capability. This time around, it has America's blessing.

Mutual interests intersect in the former Cold War battleground. Nearly nine years on, the Taliban-led insurgency is costing the U.S. more lives and money than ever before. With a July 2011 deadline looming for troops to begin their withdrawal, the Obama Administration has been angling for regional partners to step in and shoulder a greater share of the burden.

[...]

Large-scale investment may also enter Afghanistan to help shore up the embattled Karzai regime - and to make money. Russian companies are currently trying to secure deals to upgrade dozens of Soviet-era installations, among them a $500 million plan to reconstruct hydroelectric plants and a similarly ambitious bid to build wells and irrigation systems in the Afghan countryside. Rosneft, the state-owned oil and gas giant, is exploring potentially lucrative gas fields in the north, while other companies are said to be hunting for minerals such as iron and aluminum. With big bucks to be made in a war economy, Russian officials and business leaders make no secret that they are out to help themselves to the spoils.

Moscow's decade-long occupation of Afghanistan from 1980 to 1989 may have left the Russians with advantages. Many Soviet-educated Afghans who fled the country under the Taliban have since returned, adding a degree of competence to a fledgling government - with perhaps more affinity for Moscow than for Washington. And, according to Haroun Mir, director of Afghanistan's Center for Research and Policy Studies, ex-communists heavily represented in the upper ranks of the national police and army remain the backbone of the security establishment. "They are knowledgeable and well-trained and we have to rely on them until a new corps can fill the vacuum," he says.

Faced with bigger worries and less reliable neighbors, the U.S. and NATO appear willing to accept growing Russian influence. "At this point, we can't afford to be too selective in terms of where we get help," says one Western diplomat in Kabul. Indeed, the gathering flurry of activity in Afghanistan is a sign: Russia is back.

Afghan president questions US timeline for leaving

[...] A statement by Karzai's office said the Afghan leader told the U.S. delegation that significant progress had been made in rebuilding the country after decades of war.

But he said the campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaida had faltered because of ongoing civilian casualties during NATO military operations and a lack of focus on "destroying the terrorists' refuge" across the border.

Karzai also said President Barack Obama's announcement that he would begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan in July 2011 has given "the enemy a morale boost" because they believe they can simply hold out until the Americans leave.

Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina and one of the four U.S. congressmen who attended the one-hour meeting, said Karzai focused primarily on criticism of private security contractors and the role of Afghan forces in the war.

Karzai has ordered all Afghan and international security contractors to cease operations by the end of the year, saying they have abused Afghan civil rights and undermined the authority of the state.

Karzai also emphasized that Afghans should take the lead in going into villages to clear out Taliban, with U.S. soldiers behind them playing a supporting role, Inglis told The Associated Press.

"I was glad he said that because it indicated a level of ownership and commitment to Afghans taking charge of the task," Inglis said. But, "I think it's an open question as to whether the Afghan security forces (are) at that level as of yet."

Karzai also raised concerns about Taliban hideouts in Pakistan, Inglis said, asking the lawmakers to provide more help in trying to stop attacks from across the border.

"He seemed pretty pumped up, very determined and energetic and optimistic, which was not the way I thought we'd find him," Inglis said.

Inglis said the lawmakers raised the issue of corruption and that Karzai assured them he is working on it. Karzai tried to describe the difference between low-level corruption and high-level corruption, but the lawmakers told him both were unacceptable, Inglis said. [...]

Yeah, whatever. I'm sure the Russian's won't bother Karzai with those pesky corruption complaints. As for the terrorists across the border in Pakistan. Russia may deal with them, IF they think it's in their interest to do so. Or perhaps they will make an alliance with them, to try to gain a foothold in Pakistan. The Russians are always over-reaching, so who knows?

Anyway, we won't have much to say about it once we are gone.
     

Ford Fiesta makes it's return to the USA

Ford Fiesta earns top safety award

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The new Ford Fiesta was chosen as a Top Safety Pick by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety on Wednesday, becoming the first minicar to win the top rating since the group added a rollover test to its requirements.

Both the 2011 Fiesta sedan and hatchback versions received top ratings for front, side, rollover, and rear crash protection, the IIHS said. The car was also praised for having electronic stability control as standard equipment.

But the award only applies to Fiestas built after July 2010, when Ford made design changes to minimize the possibility of doors opening in side impact crashes, according to IIHS.

[...]

Ford (F, Fortune 500) announced plans to reintroduce the Fiesta in the United States earlier this year as part of a plan to offer more small, fuel efficient cars. Along with the other major U.S. automakers, Ford sales have been slowly recovering after falling sharply during the Great Recession.

The 2011 Fiesta, with a base sticker price of $15,120, can travel an estimated 40 miles on one gallon of gasoline.

However, it remains to be seen how Fiesta sales will fare domestically.

More than 12 million Fiestas have been sold in Europe since it was introduced there in 1976. But the car was only sold in the U.S. market for a brief period between 1978 to 1980.

Well, it looks like a considerable improvement over the Fiesta's I remember from my youth. Still, not all reviews are thrilled:

2011 Ford Fiesta: I wish I could like it better

But in the comments section after that review, the reviewer himself is heavily criticized for nit-picking. The Fiesta is, after all, an ECONOMY car. Fine for tootling around town, great mileage, and safe too.


It's a great economy car to add to Ford's lineup. I hope it does well.


Also see:

The Ford 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic gets 65 mpg!
     

The Government's incentives to see you dead

When you die, they will be able to take 55% of your wealth via the death tax. And they will also save money by not having to pay you social security and medicare. From their point of view, they're better off if you're dead:

Death *OR* Taxes?

[...] And what of those of us who live to see the dawn of the brave new year? Do I need to point out that, with the coming healthcare rationing and the 55% death tax, the government has both the means and motivation to kill off its aging people? Many thanks, citizen, for your years of productive service! Now please die so we can take your stuff to pay off our cronies.

Am I starting to sound like a kooky alarmist? Yes, maybe a bit. It takes a leap to imagine we’ll get to the point of an actual “Soylent Green” policy. No, I don’t believe our government is actively planning to kill us. But you can see that the government has growing reason to kill us. The power, the motive, the opportunity… this is the sort of temptation you do not want to have in anyone’s hands. Would you trust a stranger to be your sole caretaker when you’re critically ill? What if that stranger would collect most of your financial assets if you were to die? And what if that stranger were a spendaholic, deeply in debt, and facing financial catastrophe if he can’t get his hands on a big pot of money?

Are you starting to get uncomfortable? I sure am! [...]

The government that gives you everything can also take it away. And now they have a motive to do the latter. How's that for Change You Can Believe In?


Also see:

The Deadly Impact of the Death Tax

With Timing of Death, Steinbrenner Family Won't Pay Estate Tax
     

What happens when Tax Cuts Expire in 2011?

Tax rates will rise sharply. Businesses are already planning for it now, and it will affect the state of the economy and the recovery. But how much so? Here are two perspectives:

Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse
Today's corporate profits reflect an income shift into 2010. These profits will tumble next year, preceded most likely by the stock market.

[...] On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there's always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession. [...]

The article goes on to compare what is happening now, with what Ronald Reagan did in 1981, to pull us out of a recession. The current Administration is doing exactly the opposite, and the results will be exactly the opposite too. Many in this Administration have been claiming that "capitalism is dead"; and now it seems they are doing their best to make sure it happens.


Tax cuts actually increase tax revenue, because as businesses prosper, there are more businesses and employees paying taxes. The Democrat leadership knows this too, but it doesn't fit with their agenda of attacking the private sector and expanding government power and control. Many of them would even like to overburden and collapse our current system of government and economics, so they can then replace it with something else. And unfortunately, the Democrat's understanding of economics in general, tends to be very poor. We are seeing the proof of that now.

Even so, I don't want to be strictly partisan about this, I want to be realistic. Is the prediction of "economic collapse" in 2011 too grim? Or at least, too soon? Perhaps.

Will Higher Tax Rates in 2011 Cause an Economic Collapse?

[...] I am reluctant to endorse Art’s prediction that the “economy will collapse,” since even good economists are lousy forecasters. But we certainly will see a large degree of tax planning, which will lead to less revenue than expected next year. And the higher tax rates will inhibit growth, though it is impossible to predict whether this means 2.1 percent growth instead of 2.3 percent growth, for instance, or 0.5 percent growth instead of 0.6 percent growth. [...]

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that if taxes rise sharply, businesses will make decisions based on that, and the cost of higher taxes will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

In our own business, we are buying new equipment and making repairs and improvements this year, because we are anticipating the costs of these things to rise next year. Therefore, we won't be spending much next year. I would have to assume that other business people who are paying attention to what is happening are going to do the same.

Even if we elect a better congress in November, it will take time to reverse the many bad trends that have already been put into motion. I don't see a quick fix for any of this. We are going to have muddle through. If that is the best we can do, then we must do it. The situation is what it is, but it can be improved, even if it has to get worse for a time, before it can get better.


Also see:

Has US Currency already "collapsed"?

What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?