Monthly Archives: October 2011

The Campaign and Herman Cain, II

Posted on by
Reply

With this post, I continue a short series consisting of my analyses of the Republican candidates for the nomination for President.  To recap, I’m limiting my discussions to three candidates: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry.  The structure of this series consists of a collection of posts concerning what I don’t like about the candidates and then a series of what I do like about them.  I’ll conclude with my endorsement of a single candidate.  At this point I’m in the series of what I like, and here I’ll talk about what I like about Herman Cain.

Business Experience: Mr Cain’s experience runs the gamut: he came up from the ranks, running individual restaurants, then a chain of restaurants, then a restaurant association, and finally a large corporation.  Cain also is fully capable of turning around failing businesses, and doing that without government handouts.  He rescued both Pillsbury’s chain of Burger Kings in the Philadelphia area and a failing Godfather’s Pizza corporation, returning them both to profitability.

His experience in business, also, is concrete: he didn’t come in at the top and learn business only from senior management’s perspective; he learned it from the small business perspective, also, with that individual restaurant experience.  Cain began with an actual working man’s experience.

Economy: On the whole, he’s got it right on taxes and on spending.  His 9-9-9 program has that serious flaw of a consumption tax, but the program reduces tax rates for both corporations and individuals.  Further, it greatly broadens the tax base so everyone does, indeed, “pay their fair share.”

He’s not afraid to cut, either: his opening move is an across the board cut which will reduce spending substantially, and with everyone’s ox being gored by the cuts, it’ll be difficult for anyone to resist without their being exposed as plainly addicted to spending for its own sake.  This is front and center on his campaign Web site:

Every federal agency, every government program and expenditure must be reviewed and revised with a keen eye and a red pen. Leaders should be willing to shrink budgets by target percentages….

On the matter of the nation’s debt, Cain is equally clear:

While both parties can claim some political victory in this compromise [to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for some trivial spending cuts], the American people got short-changed. The debt ceiling will be raised, opening the door for further debt ceiling and tax increases with no sign of treatment for the addiction to spending in Washington.

Communication: He’s plain-spoken with a sense of humor.  He’s fully capable of explaining his positions with brevity and clarity, as he’s shown repeatedly in the formats of the early primary debates.

Character:  Here is Cain in his own words:

One of the most important lessons Dad taught us was not to feel like victims. He never felt like a victim; he never talked like a victim.  And both of our parents taught us not to think that the government owed us something. They didn’t teach us to be mad at this country.

This, of course, is anathema to the incumbent Progressive government, which believes that government is the answer to every problem, and that America isn’t so hot, anyway.

First Amendment and Ego

Posted on by
Reply

Speaking for the sake of making a splash, or the exercise of power for its own sake in suppressing speech, aren’t exercises of a fundamental right or of a fundamental responsibility attached to that right except in the narrowest, most technical sense.

One example is Pastor Robert Jeffress, a senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Dallas, and his remarks about Mormonism.  Pastor Jeffress said this, in part:

Evangelical Christians should not vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon, therefore not a real Christian.  Historically, evangelical Christianity has never embraced Mormonism as a branch of Christianity. Mormonism has always been treated as a cult.

This view, that Mormonism isn’t Christian, and an extension of that view, that not being Christian, Mormonism is somehow bad (which does not seem to be included in any of Jeffress’ remarks), are well-known and long-standing.  And controversial.  So what are we to make of the timing of Jeffress’ remark, in the middle of a heating up Republican primary campaign season in which a Mormon has a significant lead and a fellow Texan is fading rapidly?  Did this remark add anything to the contest that wasn’t already well-known?  Did it clarify anything?

I think not.  I think it was simply a man wanting to be controversial for its own sake, and so he was going to speak, just because it’s his right to do so.  If this remark was simply an ego trip, then the good Pastor has committed the sin of pride.

Here’s another example.  Some days ago, the leadership of the University of Wisconsin-Stout decided to censor the speech of one of its professors.  This article contains a description of a more or less successful resolution to the censorship matter, and it carries links to the original case.  To summarize, University leadership took down a poster that Professor James Miller had put near his office as a tribute to a television series and the series’ lead character.  Why?  Because the leadership thought they could get away with it.  When Prof Miller responded with this poster, they took it down, too, and threatened him with jail if he persisted in exercising his rights.  This second time, they acted both because they thought they could get away with it, and because with their egos on the line, they thought they had to get away with it.

Again, this time from the censorship side, no useful purpose was served here.  The University leadership pretended to concern about posters promoting violence, but as Gregory Lukianoff points out in the linked article, the quote on the first poster was simply a demonstration of the concept of fair play—as this “leadership” would have discovered, had they bothered to investigate first, and shoot second.  And the second poster was simply a (highly warranted) response in defense of free speech.

Although the University has been forced to recant, sort of, the incident is demonstrative of the other side of this ego-as-free-speech question: I’m better than that; the law doesn’t apply to me.

The First Amendment isn’t about the ego trips.  It’s about being able to say something serious and be able to be heard, no matter how unpleasant the truth being spoken might be.  And censorship of speech has no place at all.

The Campaign and Rick Perry, II

Posted on by
Reply

With this post, I continue a short series consisting of my analyses of the Republican candidates for the nomination for President.  To recap, I’m limiting my discussions to three candidates: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry.  The structure of this series consists of a collection of posts concerning what I don’t like about the candidates and then a series of what I do like about them.  I’ll conclude with my endorsement of a single candidate.  At this point I’m in the series of what I like, and here I’ll talk about what I like about Governor Rick Perry.

Economy:  Some insist that the Texas job growth during the current Panic has little to do with Perry’s stewardship: he’s merely ridden the benefit of Texas’ wealth of oil and gas.  Perry, they say, has simply had Texas on autopilot these last 11 years (including the current Unpleasantness).  They’re right as far as it goes.  But Texas also has a burgeoning information technology and communications sector due to its well-educated and skilled work force.  However, that redounds to Perry.  Unlike other governments, including our own Federal government, Perry has kept his Texas government out of the way of the State’s economy, allowing Texas citizens and businesses do what they do far better than governments can: create wealth for themselves and their State.

Indeed, some 37%-40% of the jobs created since the official end of the recession (an aside: does anyone other than an economist poring over his numbers really feel like he’s out of the downturn and prospering again?) have been created in Texas.  That works out to around 260,000 jobs actually created since June 2009, and that’s also in a State economy that’s been growing about three times faster than the nation’s economy (admittedly, this is no large rate, given the anemic performance of the current administration’s national economy).

Perry also has cut spending, including excess spending in education.  Critics have decried this, but they’re simply committing the Progressive error of conflating efficient spending with lots of spending for its own sake.  The cuts Perry has made to education spending (for instance) have been to the fat, and he’s required remaining spending to be done efficiently.  See above about the educated work force in Texas.

Business: Perry is plainly pro-business, which makes him pro worker, since thriving businesses are a thriving labor market.  He was able to push through, in 2003, an amendment to the Texas Constitution that caps medical malpractice awards.  This has led since then to a 30% reduction in medical malpractice insurance premiums.  Far from reducing the quality of medical care in Texas, that’s improved it: doctors are flocking to Texas, and medical service availability has never been higher.

He also pushed through serious tort reform.  As of this year, plaintiffs who lose their cases must pay court and attorney costs for the defendant.

Management Style:  He knows how to collect a competent staff and then let them do the job for which he hired them.  He is involved in decision-making, but he doesn’t micro-manage, delegating effectively instead.

Other: Perry successfully pushed through the 2011 Texas legislature a requirement for voters to present a photo ID in order to vote.  As of this year, one of the following five easily obtained photo IDs must be presented:  a driver’s license, a military ID, a passport, a concealed handgun license (did I mention that this is Texas?), or a special voter ID card which the State provides for free.

Finally, Perry well understands the 10th Amendment and its role in the federal nature of our governmental structure.  He pushes actively for a return to the sovereignty of the States within the framework of our federalism.

Happiness vs Happiness

Posted on by
Reply

In the current contest between two views of the role of government in American citizens’ lives, it seems useful to talk about two views of Happiness and which of these seems more appropriate and will do us individually more good—and so achieve more for our country.  One of the two fundamental versions of happiness [sic] is the Progressive one: personal pleasure, or what makes a man the happiest and most (immediately) comfortable.

This is a view born in the ’70s’ hippy hedonism of “if it feels good, do it;” although it has evolved and its descriptions have grown more circumspect in the intervening 40 years.  It has become more a question of “what can government do for me?”  Proponents of this view insist that government will take care of them, so they don’t have to worry about the stress of the workaday world—they can simply follow their bliss without responsibility for the outcomes.

This is the view that it’s patriotic to pay (ever) more taxes, not so government can have the funds to do the things we originally created it to do, but so that government can have the funds to take care of us as we grow increasingly dependent on it.  This expanding wealth transfer generally is couched in the heart-wrench of assumed human need: we must keep social security going in perpetuity so that we might be taken care of by government (i.e., strangers) in our dotage; people are out of work, so government must pay us for being out of work (apparently in perpetuity—unemployment insurance is payable now for 99 weeks, up from an original 18 weeks or less, and our current President wants to extend that yet further); people belong to self-appointed special groups, and government must give them special treatment, also in perpetuity: “affirmative” action programs, for instance, are never-ending and ever-expanding, and atheists are increasingly looking for offense in religious ceremonies that they choose not simply to ignore.

While we could get away with this in the short term in an earlier time, we’ve seen dependency on government accelerate, and we’ve seen the transfer of our personal responsibility to government via that dependency blow up our economy in the present time.  In the current Panic, TARP, the 2009 Stimulus Bill, and Dodd-Frank all were, and are, intended to inure us from our failure by giving all of us recourse to others’ tax money.  Failed businesses were not to be allowed to fail; they were absolved of responsibility for their failure and propped up, for all the firm finger-shaking done in their direction by government officials.

This isn’t personal responsibility.  This is government assuming responsibility, taking it from us.  And at great peril, for as Nebraska Congressman Howard Buffett (the father of today’s Warren) said 55 years ago:

Will this legislation fulfill its promises? If you think so, consider this rarely mentioned fine print clause. If the government is to guarantee you what the consequences of your actions will be in this case, security, then the government must take control of your activities. For with responsibility—even self-arrogated responsibility—must go authority.

This means that if politicians are to supply your security, they must control your work, your spending, and your saving.

On the other hand, a modern Conservative’s view of Happiness is that of John Adams:

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

One of the early appearances of this is in Adam’s “A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;” it’s also included in Massachusetts’ 1780 Constitution as Article I of Part the First.

This is Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs making themselves stinking rich (and more power to them and others like them)—and employing others in the bargain—on the strength of their own hard work and skills.  This is Joe the Plumber and others like them earning a living—and employing others in the bargain—on the strength of their own hard work and entrepreneurial ambition.  This is the mom and pop business that lets parents put their children through college on the strength of the hard work and personal initiative of those moms and pops.  This is the worker employed by Gates and Jobs and Joe and mom and pop who, lacking the talent, perhaps, or the interest, to work for himself, nevertheless has the ethic to earn a living in a job that helps him to see to his future and that of his children, rather than looking to Big Government to take care of him.

My parents came out of the Depression more determined than ever to rely on themselves for their welfare and not on their government.  Near the home in northern California where my parents lived for part of their retirement, stands a large house—a mansion—that has the busiest, most detailed, gingerbread-laden Victorian architecture and decoration, and the ugliest, I’ve ever seen.  All that complexity and detail work, though, was not because the man who built it, a local lumber magnate around the time of the Depression, liked that sort of thing.  On the contrary, his lumber business was declining, and the loss of business was threatening his labor force.  But he didn’t want to lose them.  Optimistic capitalist that he was, he knew the economy would recover, and he wanted to be part of that recovery.  For this, he needed a skilled labor force readily available; he didn’t want to lose time to having to find, and likely to train, employees after having laid off the ones he had, with their subsequent scattering to the winds looking for new jobs.  Also, these were his labor force, and he felt a measure of responsibility for them.  So he built his monstrosity of a house, and he used his lumber enterprise workers to do the construction.  He kept them employed through the worst of the downturn, they kept jobs through the downturn, and they were available when his lumber business began to recover.

This was done, not by government, but by an individual.  Where true responsibility lies.

This is Happiness.

The Campaign and Mitt Romney, II

Posted on by
Reply

With this post, I continue a short series consisting of my analyses of the Republican candidates for the nomination for President.  To recap, I’m limiting my discussions to three candidates: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry.  The structure of this series consists of a collection of posts concerning what I don’t like about the candidates and then a series of what I do like about them.  I’ll conclude with my endorsement of a single candidate.  At this point I’m in the series of what I like, and here I’ll talk about what I like about Governor Mitt Romney.

Experience: Governor Romney is one of the few candidates in this field who has actual business experience.  He’s run businesses, and he’s met payroll.  With Bain Capital, Romney expanded the company’s size and finances with successful leveraged buyouts, turning around those companies and making them successful (their impending financial failure making them ripe targets for such acquisitions), and then selling them on the open market.  On criticism that such buyouts and resales often cost jobs, he has responded, correctly, that the surviving companies were sounder and were successful—without Bain’s corrections, the companies would have failed entirely, and all of the employees would have lost their jobs.   His experience is broad, too: he’s successfully run nonprofits.  He became CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee in the wake of corruption allegations in the Salt Lake Olympic Committee and of a financial shortfall for those winter games that threatened their removal to another venue.  He turned around the situation and made the 2002 Winter Games a financial and competition success.

Nor is Romney a bailout artist.  After his success at Bain Capital, he was recruited (back) to Bain & Company, where he had started his business career (and which had helped get Bain Capital started), with the purpose of rescuing that now failing company.  He restructured the company and its cost structure and returned it to profitability within a year—without need of bailout funding from any source.

Education:  Governor Romney has stressed that the Federal government legitimately can play only a limited role in the education of our children, not the massively intrusive role of the current (and recent) administrations.

Romney also supports school choice and, within the current tax system (as opposed to a flat tax, or the tax system proposed by Herman Cain), a tax credit for the expenses incurred by those who prefer home schooling to the current failures of our public school systems.  Also, as Governor of Massachusetts, he has vetoed legislation that would have hindered the growth of charter schools.

Finally, Romney favors immersion in English for our immigrants, rather than committing scarce funding and resources to bi-lingual education.

Flip-Flops: For all his reputation as a flipper, he doesn’t seem to be afraid to take a stand.  The Left likes to conflate his evolution of policy with flip-flop, and sometimes they’re right.  But sometimes they’re wrong.  His positions on abortion and on Romneycare are examples.  He’s made no bones about the evolution of his views on abortion: as a private citizen, he could view the matter from the outside and take an abortion-tolerant position; however, once he became governor and had to face this matter of life directly, his position evolved.  On the matter of Romneycare, he makes no bones of his belief that this program was—and is—right for Massachusetts, but that it’s not right for every state, nor is it right for the federal government to impose it.   A flipper changes positions with the political winds; that’s a different behavior than a position legitimately evolving—and not changing back.  Romney’s position on these matters—whether we agree or disagree with him—is quite clear and steady.

Finally, here’s Romney’s take on taking a stand in the context of vetoes, including those he knows he can’t sustain, courtesy of The New York Times:

[P]eople used to say to me…“Governor, you’ve had a lot of vetoes and a lot of them get overridden. Most of them get overridden. That weakens your power.” I said, “Baloney. I want people to know what I stand for. And I’m going to veto items even if that 85% [Democratic] legislature goes out and spends it, I’m going to veto it to make sure people know what is right and what is wrong for the leadership in our state.”

Communication: Romney is an effective communicator who can clearly present his positions, and he can debate well.  As I’ve written elsewhere in this series, the best ideas in the world have no value if they can’t be offered in a coherent manner.