Obama the uniter

Obama's "arrival" on the national stage came with his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Amongst his memorable lines:

Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spinmasters and negative-ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight: There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America.

Call me cold, call me cynical, but this sort of thing doesn't really move me. According to the National Journal, Obama was the most liberal Senator in 2007. When you consider that there are 100 Senators, this 1st place showing is significant. John McCain, meanwhile, was, between 2002 and 2006 (he did not receive a rating in 2007 because he missed too many votes) the 45th, 44th, 49th, 45th, and 46th most conservative Senator. In 2004, only two Republicans were considered more liberal than McCain, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and those two were ranked 1 and 2 in Human Events' list of the "Top 10 RiNOS [Republicans in Name Only]" in 2005.

Some asides:
- Mitt Romney was #8 on the Top 10 RiNOs list
- although DiNO would be the presumptive term for a Democrat on the right wing fringe of his or her party, some sources indicate that "Fox News liberal" or "Fox Democrat" is the preferred term, especially when the context is the extent of agreement with or deference to their conservative and/or Republican counterparts in media fora like TV talk shows.

Given that Chafee, who voted against the Iraq War authorization when Hillary Clinton voted for it, has subsequently left the party and even endorsed Obama, one can argue that Snowe is the only Republican Senator consistently to McCain's left, meaning that McCain is to the left of more than 95% of his party colleagues in the upper house. Although that might be overstating it, keep in mind that Chafee was the only Republican to vote against Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination (Alito was confirmed by a 58 to 42 vote), and McCain, in turn, has stated, disapprovingly, that Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve". Elsewhere, when asked if "Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" McCain replied "Well, certainly Roberts" (John Roberts, current Chief Justice of the US, was confirmed 78 to 22). Certainly McCain is not conservative on immigration (even libertarians would have reservations about his vote against an immigration bill amendment putting more weight on job skills than on family ties).

Should it be any surprise that both parties are nominating candidates on the left fringe of their respective parties (as evidenced by voting records, which I suggest is far more predictive than rhetoric)? Of course not: everyone knows that 2008 should be one of the best years ever for left leaning (on the US spectrum) candidates. But the Democrats are in serious danger of over-reaching here. McCain is already far more competitive in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida than Democrats should be comfortable with.

If Obama's support should significantly change, I think it is more likely to go down than up. Not because of anything Obama does in 2008 or because of past ethical concerns, but because of stories that suggest Obama's more distant history is relatively out of step with the American mainstream. Obama gave a great speech re Jeremiah "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell" Wright (photo above) but that doesn't change the fact Obama joined and remained with a church whose leader was most definitely on the fringe.

Who else might come out of Chicago to say that, since going national, Obama is using uniting rhetoric to cover an activist past (and inclination)? Charles Lipson identifies several possibilities. Of particular note is the observation that while Obama, bomber-turned-professor Bill Ayers, and leading Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi served on the board of the Woods Fund, the Fund gave $40 000 to the Arab American Action Network. Obama's real attitudes with respect to the Middle East conflict may, indeed, become a major issue. Ali Hasan Abunimah, an advocate of the single state solution (in which Jews in the region would likely lose political power by virtue of becoming a minority) and a co-founder of the Electonic Intifada, writes:

... I met [Obama] about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy ....
The last time I spoke to Obama ... [h]e responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Abunimah's piece includes a photo of Obama talking with Chicago scholar and Palestinian activist Edward Saïd, a "good friend" and fellow traveller of Noam Chomsky.

Now just as Stephen Harper has a history of association with various "right wing" outfits, Obama's connections with leftist Chicago preachers and/or Palestinian activists may not preclude him from the highest office in the land, were it not for the fact that so many Obama advisors of 2008 have butted heads with the "Israel lobby".

Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman Merrill "Tony" McPeak, former US Air Force Chief of Staff, told the Oregonian that the "problem" is in "New York City. Miami. [where there is] a large vote in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it." Robert Malley, another Obama foreign affairs advisor, has come under attack for what are claimed to be anti-Israel views. Same goes for advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samantha "[Hillary] is a monster" Power. Ditto for Susan Rice and donor George "anti-Semitism is caused by Israel and the US" Soros.

Naturally all this makes many voters even more enthusiastic about Obama. And it might ultimately say more about the power of the "Israel lobby" than about Obama if the issue becomes a deal breaker for him. But the people who oppose Israel are not swing voters. According to Gallup, Americans sympathize with Israel over the Palestianians by more than a 3 to 1 margin. Even if Israel is indeed the primary problem causer over there, Obama will end up seriously offside with the US swing voters in the north-east if it should come out that everything besides his national campaign speeches (i.e. his pre-Senate, Chicago days and the background of his advisors) suggests he's with the Palestinians, or, more generally, America's victims.

When I first arrived in Ottawa six years ago my immediate supervisor was a speechwriter for Paul Martin. Martin was so scripted even his apparent asides were scripted! There was plenty of doubt within the Finance Department that Martin would have a sense of direction after he left our people, in particular our policy experts, in Finance to surround himself with his own yes-men in the PMO. I don't doubt that Obama is genuinely skilled at giving speeches. But I do have my doubts concerning how much campaign speeches say about a politician's real inclinations.

mind the gap

In New Jersey, a state that has not voted Republican since Reagan was in the White House, today Rasmussen polling reports that McCain leads Clinton by 3% and Obama by 1%.

But of particular note is that fact that, among men only, McCain would lead Clinton by 29%. Among women only, Clinton leads by 21%.

That's a full 50 point gender gap.

US trade and carbon policy

According to Businessweek, "the economic priesthood continues to devote enormous intellectual firepower to making the case for freer trade... In the battle of public-policy ideas, American economists do wield influence."

An example of this might be Greg Mankiw's NYT op-ed. Although Mankiw makes the best case for voting for McCain that I've seen yet, his point about taking Obama's and Clinton's opposition to trade with a grain of salt is well taken. After all, Obama has Austan Goolsbee working for him and even Clinton's "top economic advisor" (according to CNNMoney) has written "in the long run America will win more than it loses from an open global economy. What practical options do we have between simply assuming greater globalization will lift all boats, and resorting to self-defeating protectionism?"

I've initiated a "blogroll" in the bottom right area with Greg Mankiw's blog as the first entry. I admit that part of my appreciation for Mankiw follows from my discovery that he largely agrees with what I've been saying about carbon taxes. He does it better than I do, of course, when he talks about it as a Pigovian tax. I had the general idea when I talked about externalities but I didn't have the term. This is why it is generally more useful to listen to someone with an actual PhD in economics than to someone like me.

Perhaps the best article yet that I've seen on emissions policy is by the former president of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo:

... a Kyoto-type framework ... is not feasible. The only approach that will ... relieve countries' apprehensions regarding sovereignty and free riding is one in which all countries agree to penalize their carbon emissions in such a way that, over time, an internationally harmonized carbon price prevails. Consequently, the negotiation's focus would not be on emissions quotas but on the harmonized carbon-price trajectory.

Of course, carbon taxes (on burning fossil fuels) would provide the easiest way for countries to comply with the system, and each country could then decide what to do with the tax revenue. Some might make their carbon tax revenue-neutral by reducing other taxes. ...

If you're worried about climate change but don't like carbon taxes, think about the messy or even impossible alternatives!

it ain't over til it's over

The Oba-maniacs calling for Clinton to quit should dial it down.

First of all, Rasmussen polling has Hillary leading Obama amongst Democats. Gallup has her up by a full 7 points. If it was presumptuous for Hillary to offer Obama the #2 position (veep) while he was running #1, it is even more presumptuous to call on Hillary to walk away with nothing when she is running #1.

Secondly, Rasmussen also has Hillary doing better against McCain than Obama amongst Americans in general. McCain is 7 points up on Hillary and 9 points up on Obama. CNN and Gallup polls also have Hillary doing better than Obama vs McCain. You additionally have to consider the Electoral College here. Remember how Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the 2000 election to GWB? The distribution of Obama's support is more problematic for Dems than Clinton's.

PENNSYLVANIA GOV. RENDELL [on Tim Russert's Meet the Press]: ... we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote. And the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate. Tim, you and I have been doing this for a long time, as Tom has, and we know the big four in any presidential election recently are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. ... Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. ... We've got to win three of the big four [and] Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that.

Rasmussen currently has McCain leading in all four, albeit by a statistically insignificant margin in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

To really make the point here, I could cite the Clinton campaign's statistics, but I would instead ask you to check this out. If the source's methodology is sound, as of late last week, Clinton is running AHEAD of John McCain on the College 294 to 231. Barack Obama is running BEHIND John McCain 238 to 288. These are not small numbers. In Pennsylvania, SurveyUSA has McCain leading Obama 47% to 42% while trailing Clinton 47% to 46%. Earlier this month Rasmussen said "In New Jersey, Hillary Clinton holds a double-digit advantage over John McCain... However, if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, the race in New Jersey will begin as a toss-up." On March 20 SurveyUSA released a poll showing Obama merely TIED with McCain in Massachusetts of all places. Rasmussen essentially agrees that with Obama as the nominee, Massachusetts could come into play for McCain ("Massachusetts: Clinton Leads McCain by 19, Obama Leads by 7"). 7 points would probably still be too much, but McCain could nominate Romney as his running mate. SurveyUSA's March 19 Ohio poll has Clinton over McCain 50% to 44% and McCain over Obama 50% to 43%. As Michael Barone notes:

In southeast Ohio, settled originally by Virginians and still Southern-accented today, [in the March 4 primary] Clinton carried all-white counties with 70% to 80% of the vote—more than she was carrying nearly all-white counties in central Texas. That raises doubts that Obama could run well in these counties, which provided critical votes in Bill Clinton's wins in Ohio in the 1990s and Jimmy Carter's narrow win there in 1976.

I don't doubt that Obama does better in the (non-Florida) South (today Rasmussen's polling said Obama would shrink a 16 point McCain lead over Clinton in North Carolina to 9 points over Obama), but a closer loss is still a loss. The African American voters who are breaking 90%+ for Obama are not the swing voters who will decide the general election.

Thirdly, why do the superdelegates get a vote if they are supposed to simply cast for whoever has more elected delegates? Presumably these superdelegates exist because they bring something of value to the table. If so, they should use that something. As of March 22, http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ has it at a perfect tie, 1688 delegates each, when Michigan and Florida are included. While the February votes might have been a valid expression of sentiment when they were cast, they lose their authority as an expression of the popular will as they age. It is more than 200 days between between Super Tuesday and the Convention. If I were an undeclared superdelegate, I would continue to keep my power dry.

Obama could potentially be "swiftboated". Hillary cannot; she's simply been in the public eye for too long. Today's Charlotte Observer calls North Carolina "unexpectedly tight": the most recent poll in NC has Obama leading Clinton by a single percentage point. Older polls have Hillary within 4 to 8 points. A John Edwards endorsement would presumably vault Hillary into the lead in that state. If Obama should lose in NC on May 6 after getting blasted in Pennsylvania on April 22, expect to start hearing calls for Obama to quit!

Ontario should run a deficit

Given the very real economic reality of falling demand, the Ontario government would run a one time deficit (by adopting the tax reductions that the federal Finance Minister is calling for and I discussed here) while affirming its commitment to long term debt reduction.

What's happening is the opposite. The Ontario government will provide limited fiscal stimulus to the private sector. Meanwhile, the Toronto Star reports that "[t]he Liberals have also introduced legislation that allows part of the annual surplus to be spent ... rather than applying all of it to reducing the debt." This legislation suggests that, going forward, the Ontario Liberals will provide more stimulus when demand is high and tax revenues are flowing in, but less stimulus when demand is low and tax revenues are limited.

Part of the reason why Alberta politics are so frustrating is that many voters seem to be more concerned with "flows" than "stocks". As defined by the infallible Wikipedia, "stock refers to the value of an asset at a balance date (or point in time), while a flow refers to the total value of transactions (sales or purchases, incomes or expenditures) during an accounting period". So long as the "flow" is above the red line, all is presumed well in the land of the Wild Rose. On the "stock" front, however, the value of Alberta's assets is an embarrassment.

As I noted in an earlier post by quoting Wikipedia:

"Crowding out" is most serious when an economy is already at potential output or full employment. Then the government's expansionary fiscal policy encourages increased prices... At potential output, businesses are in no need of markets, so that there is no room for an accelerator effect. More directly, if the economy stays at full employment gross domestic product, any increase in government purchases shifts resources away the private sector.

This is Alberta spending in recent years. It gets worse, however, in that the spending also comes at the opportunity cost of contributing to our net asset position, which would allow us to run a deficit when economic growth is well below potential.

One can actually plausibly argue that the Klein cuts of the mid-90s were economically unwise. Why? Because if Klein had invested in, say, a high speed rail line between Edmonton and Calgary 10 - 15 years ago, we would have paid significantly lower prices then than now. As it was, the accelerated debt repayment of the early Klein years ended up removing the political discipline to restrain spending at the worst possible time. If voters disciplined non-savers like they are inclined to discipline deficit spenders, the 21st century would have been a different story for this province.

At issue is not the size of government per se, but expected return on taxpayer dollars. It is the generally low expected return that argues for smaller government in general. A government could responsibly go into deficit to fund an investment which generates a greater return than its cost of capital. Corporations borrow all the time and the issue for shareholders is whether the borrowing is being used to fund projects that have a "positive net present value" or NPV, not whether they borrow. In my campaign literature during February, I noted that Alberta spends almost 40% more per person than Quebec but then immediately also noted that Quebec has $7 a day child care.

Jack Layton: odd man out

Dear voter:

Do you take anti-corporate rhetoric straight up and strident, undiluted by nuance, and with a chaser of 200 proof anti-Americanism? Is federal NDP leader Jack Layton too reserved in taking the battle to Harper for your taste?

Let me introduce federal Green leader Elizabeth May!

Compare this video of Elizabeth May on North American integration to Jack Layton.

From another clip I found of Elizabeth May:

Stephen Harper comes from a culture ... that Maude Barlow has documented meticuously in Too Close for Comfort. Read Too Close for Comfort and [you won't be able to] sleep at night.... the Alliance Conservative Republican Party of Canada is a horse of another colour...

The fact that Stephane Dion and Elizabeth "read Barlow for the truth" May are cutting deals says a lot about their, shall we say, ideological flexibility. Dion apparently has no reservations about a rapprochement with someone whose left wing rhetoric is so over the top in its belligerence it appears that even Jack Layton would be uncomfortable with it. May, in turn, is apparently more interested in working with a party that could form the government than "the conscience of Parliament" despite the fact that the SPP was a Liberal party initiative! On CBC Radio last August former Liberal Finance Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister, and Deputy Prime Minister John Manley observed that "[t]he Canadian left is very closely in sync with the American right on trade issues, which is to hunker down and keep everyone else out, and ultimately that will impoverish us all." Manley later showed more passion that perhaps I've ever seen him show when he slapped down Gordon Laxer (who serves the Albertans who pay his U of A salary by calling for a new NEP) observing:

Sovereignty is something that you have to exercise in a mature fashion. ... We compromised our sovereignty when we signed the Kyoto Accord, the Geneva Convention, the Vienna Convention. You want a model of sovereignty? The most sovereign nation on the earth today in my opinion is North Korea. They don't do what anybody tells them to do. Their people may be starving, they may be outcasts in the international community, but by God they're sovereign!

Son of Godzilla