Archive for 2009

RICHARD POSNER: LIBERALS FORGETTING KEYNES: “Krugman’s passionate support for the Administration’s health-care program suggests that he has not absorbed one of the central elements of Keynes’s theory, which is the role of uncertainty in depressing investment spending and, both by depressing investment and by increasing passive savings, in depressing consumption spending as well. . . . When uncertainty in the sense of risk that cannot be calculated rises, it tends to make businessmen and consumers alike freeze–they hoard money rather than spend it, whether spending on investment in the case of businessmen or sending on consumption in the case of consumers. That is the prudent response to increased uncertainty, because by holding off on spending the businessman or the consumer buys time to gather information about his options, or simply wait for the situation to clarify itself, and also accumulates cash with which to deal with emergencies to which an uncertain economic environment can give rise. We see these tendencies at work today, in the huge excess reserves accumulated by the banks, the decline in new bank loans, the massive layoffs by employers uncertain about the demand for the goods and services they produce, the decline in business deals, and the sharp increase in the personal savings rate.”

And what’s the biggest source of uncertainty right now? The Administration and Congress! “I therefore thought it a mistake, as I have noted often in the blog, for the Administration to embark, without waiting for the recovery from the depression, on ambitious social programs that are likely to add substantially to the national debt. These programs, if enacted, will increase the likelihood of a severe aftershock.”

FORTUNE: 5 freedoms you’d lose in health care reform. “If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you’ll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.”

POLITICO: Democrats Search for Villains on Health Care. “With their health care plans in a holding pattern — and no George W. Bush to kick around anymore — Democrats are casting about for somebody to blame.”

MEN DON’T WANT PRINCESSES: “Give us Sarah Connor in a black cocktail dress pumping a shotgun any day.” Wait — which Sarah Connor, Linda Hamilton or Lena Headey? Okay, really it doesn’t matter, I guess . . . .

SCUTTLING THE NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE? I thought we were in some sort of greenhouse crisis. Apparently I was misinformed.

MEGAN MCARDLE: Why get married? “Why not simply live together, and avoid the tax hit?”

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: As Health Vows Don’t Hold Up, Dems Scramble To Square Circle. “Jolted by a Congressional Budget Office warning that leading health care plans would raise spending, not lower it, the White House moved quickly last week to avoid a potential deal-breaker.”

Plus, reader Patrick Parsons writes: “It’s going to be ugly for members during congressional recess. Here is an ad on ‘card check’ that will be running against Webb/Warner in Virginia. It isn’t just going to be healthcare, cap and trade, spending, and taxes. there are going to be so many issues that they are going to get hit on.” Yeah, that’s the downside of trying to rush a lot of stuff through all at once. I think they’ll be hearing from a lot of Tea Party folks, too.

FRANK CAGLE LOOKS AT BLOGS in the Tennessee Governor’s Race:

Blogs will play an important role in this election by default. Over the next year, traditional news organizations will do the occasional “take out” on the race. (The News Sentinel had a nice piece a couple of Sundays ago on Republicans and conservatism.) But day in and day out the gossip, the trivia, the minutiae, and the obscure details that thrill political junkies will be found on the blogs.

That is as it should be, I suppose. Blogs can provide information that is not general enough for mass media. That will be especially true for special-interest issue blogs. No doubt SayUncle will keep us informed on where the candidates are on gun issues, for example.

Blogs do not, by and large, have the reach of traditional news organizations. At least right now. But they do have a great deal of influence with political insiders. And they are often read by newspaper editors and television and radio news directors. Thus they often set the tone of campaign coverage. They can get the “talk right” for a candidate, or reveal the candidate to be a bumbling fool. This campaign, they may set the storylines that play out in the course of the campaign.

That sounds about right to me.

CLAIRE MCCASKILL’S OFFICE HOLDS TOWN HALL: Tea Party Breaks Out. More evidence of the Geraghty Principle.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a report: “They were expecting around 100-150 people… Hundreds showed up. It was so crowded they were forced to move the meeting down to the cafeteria.”

IOWAHAWK ON THE “GRIM REALITY” of Cambridge police profiling.

CHRIS DODD UPDATE: AP IMPACT: Dodd, Conrad told deals were sweetened. “Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation’s largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.” Oh come on — a politician lying about his finances? You expect me to believe that?

But lawhawk offers the perfect defense:

I think I have the answer.

They signed the paperwork without reading.

We already have proof of all that with every new massive piece of legislation that has been passed of late – without anyone reading for details, and members of Congress like John Conyers bellyaching about having to read for understanding being too difficult to do.

Sadly, that’s plausible . . . .