. . . and they call it austerity: part 4

Erica Alini (Macleans, Cdn.) has a small sampling of the absolutely idiotic regulations strangling the Greek economy.

Among other things . . . corporation owners must provide stool samples and chest X-rays to the Health Ministry; beer sellers are not allowed to sell anything else; and book-selling is illegal after 6PM.

Keep in mind, the supposedly enlightened “troika” – the ECB, EU, and IMF – are asking for none of these regulations to be rescinded. In the Brusselian Empire, government’s size and scope are to be as large as possible; just bleed the taxpayers dry and cut government salaries if you’re in a pinch. Reducing the damage big government does to the economy? Don’t be silly.

Cross-posted to VV

Prediction time (a.k.a. the triumph of experience over hope)

I understand that I am among a very, very, small group in that I believe three things:

1. Mitt Romney is not, and never was, the “inevitable” nominee
2. Mitt Romney is not, by default, the best Republican candidate for November
3. Mitt Romney would still be a better President than anyone else running (see why I say that here).

As I said, that’s a fairly small group. So I probably have more at stake in this than anyone outside of the actual campaigns themselves, in that I want Romney to win for policy reasons, and I genuinely believe the country would be worse off if another candidate is in the White House on the afternoon of January 20, 2013.

That said, my first choice (and I waited to make a decision long enough for Romney to be my first choice) has never won a contested Republican presidential nomination – and I fear history repeating itself tonight.

So, here we go:

Santorum wins Michigan - it won’t be by much (I say 39-37), but it will be enough, because . . .

He’ll win Arizona, too - by almost the same margin (39-38).

At least Riley will be happy.

Cross-posted to VV

Mark Obenshain for Attorney General

I met Mark Obenshain last Thursday night at the Spotsylvania Republican Committee meeting. I asked him my simple, straightforward litmus test for AG candidates: “Will you pursue the EPA lawsuit and Michael Mann case until all legal avenues are exhuasted.”

His answer: “Absolutely.”

That’s all I needed to know.

Tim Kaine doesn’t want to talk about “divisive social issues?” OK.

Tim Kaine put out a presser demanding that Virginia Republicans stop talking about “divisive social issues.”

I understand. It’s hard trying to explain a request to send a double-murderer to Germany where he could be free in two years, while doing zilch to protect innocent pre-born children; let alone how you pretzelized yourself trying to defend the Obamacare broadside against Catholic priests.

Still, being the nice guy that I am, if Tim Kaine wants to avoid “divisive social issues” like that, it’s OK with me. He has to have a good reason, right?

Well, he says the people with whom he talks “want to see leaders who will focus on results-oriented solutions to rebuild our economy.”

Yeah, about that, Tim.

Why we should we put our faith in you to “rebuild our economy” when unemployment rose from 3.0% in January 2006 to 6.9% in January 2010 - more than doubling under your watch?

Why would your election ease the uncertainty holding the economy back when you opposed tax increases while running for Governor in 2005 and then demanded tax increases in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010?

Why should we trust your ability to gauge the effect of tax rate reductions on revenue when as Governor your projected revenue figure was so off-base it led to a record $7 billion shortfall?

How can you claim to be able to work with your would-be fellow Senators on budget issues when your last proposed spending plan was so laughably ridiculous it was defeated 97-0 in the House of Delegates?

Oh, and one more question:

Are you sure you’re not more comfortable with those “divisive social issues?”

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

EU agrees to Greece bailout deal . . . that it knows Greece can’t keep

You can’t make this stuff up (Forbes):

On Tuesday, the EU, the ECB, and the IMF – collectively known as the Troika – agreed to a €130 billion bailout package for Greece; this is the second bailout the Hellenic Republic gets after a €110 billion package approved in May 2010 .  Markets essentially yawned.  The bailout comes with conditions of further austerity, expectations that a “voluntary” debt restructuring (PSI) goes through, and promises that debt-to-GDP levels will be brought down to the arbitrarily sustainable figure of 120%.

Only six days before, on February 15, the same authorities that agreed to give the bankrupt Hellenic Republic another bailout warned that their own conditions wouldn’t be met, begging the question as to what the actual value of this “can-kicking” experiment is.  In a “strictly confidential” memo titled Greece: Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis, Troika researchers note that debt-to-GDP levels will remain well above the 120% mark, that “additional debt relief from the official or private sectors” will probably be needed, and that “prolonged financial support […] by the official sector may be necessary.”

In other words, the EU just announced to the world a Greek bailout deal that it already knows Greece can’t keep.

No wonder Der Spiegel was ripping this thing before the ink was dry. Among the many things the German newspaper noted: $30 billion of the $130B “Greek” bailout went straight to the banks holding Greek bonds (in the hope that it would make it easier to swallow a 50%+ partial default). Meanwhile, the Guardian (UK) reports that the next three months of Greek obilgations will be covered by a special escrow account beyond Athens’ control . . .

. . . and suddenly, my refusal to believe in coincidence (inherited from my Antimasonic four-great-grandfather) combines with my overly geekish knowledge of international politics to remind myself, “hey, that would be just long enough to keep Greece off the front pages during France’s presidential election campaign.”

Hmmm…..

Cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon

Surprise! Obamacare regulation aimed at Catholics is unpopular

I am certain several of my lefty friends will be stunned to read this (TWS):

CNN reports:

Half of all Americans say they oppose the Obama administration’s new policy concerning employer-provided health insurance plans and their coverage of contraceptive services for female employees including those at religiously affiliated institutions, according to a new national survey.

CNN’s results are roughly the same as two other recent polls: Rasmussen found that voters opposed Obama’s policy 50% to 39%, and Pew found that voters opposed the policy 48% to 44%. A CBS/New York Times poll seems to be an outlier: It shows 61% of Americans support Obama’s policy

CNN mentioned the CBS poll too, without mentioning a crucial caveat – there was no mention that religious organizations and individuals would have provide contraceptives and abortifacents in violation of their beliefs. Pew and Rasmussen were more specific on this (DC Examiner). Surprisingly, CNN’s question is much like the CBS version – and the Administration still ended up on the wrong end of the numbers.

How, exactly, did this happen? I humbly submit three reasons.

First, the Administration misjudged the lay Catholic response. I’m guessing Obama and Sebelius simply assumed that because most American Catholics use artificial birth control themselves, they wouldn’t be too upset at forcing their priests to provide it free of charge. In other words, they simply do not understand the relationship between priest and parishoners. Most Catholic parishes are small geographically (“mega-churches” are nearly unheard-of), and thus most Catholics know their priests quite well. As such, discussions on issues - such as artificial birth control - arise from time to time (my parents brought this issue up themselves with our pastor a few years back). The conversations vary from place to place, of course, but in nearly every case, the priest carefully and intellectually explains his point of view. How many lay Catholics are convinced is up in the air (my parents weren’t, as I recall), but we all come away understanding and respecting the priest’s view. For the Administration to show such callous disregard for our priests is infuriating to many Catholics. Whether Obama et al planned this or not (and I don’t think they saw this coming), they made it about our friends in the priesthood, and put themselves on the wrong side.

Secondly, they included abortifacents in the mandate, which all but insured the entire pro-life community would weigh in. It also changed the nature of the conversation for many non-Catholics. Pro-life Protestants may not worry about contraception, but chemically-induced abortion is another matter entirely. As such,every argument the Administration has used comes off as irrelevant and insulting to a large group of Americans – and that’s never a good idea.

Finally, the Administration made Obamacare an issue all over again. For months, Democrats have tried to hide or avoid Obamacare due to its unpopularity. This mandate just shoved it right back in everyone’s face. It’s as if someone decided the American people needed a reminder of how much they can’t stand the president’s “biggest domestic achievement.”

There is a deeper lesson in all this, however, namely that Saul Alinsky didn’t understand everything about American politics. Obama did exactly what Alinksy taught: he picked a target, froze it, personalized it, and polarized it (I should note that this particular little list in some form predated Alinksy by, oh, about 200 years). What he didn’t expect was that the target would stand up to him; freezing it meant nothing since it had no intention to move; personalizing it insulted everyone with personal ties to priests; and polarizing it drove tens of millions of uninterested Americans away from him.

In Alinsky’s world (and Obama’s), mobs win because ”targets” are afraid of them. When the “target” does not have that fear, the Alinsky model breaks down. That is the critical lesson here.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

Yes, I’m all-Lin

Just over a week ago, being a Knick fan was its usual torture: the team was 8-15; Amare and Carmelo were vying to control an offense neither is equipped to run (that’s why teams have point guards); and it looked like yet another season was ready to be written off.

Now the team is at .500, having won seven in a row. The team ha a point guard, who just happens to be a media sensation. Lin-sanity has descended upon Knick fandom.

If anything, I liked his last game the best. He had only 10 points, but 13 assists (and his turnovers were down to 6 – still needs lowering, but an assist/TO ratio of better than 2:1 is more than adequate). With Carmelo coming back from injury tomorrow, this team could finally be something special.

Cross-posted to VV

The Law of Unintended Communist Consequences

The Chinese Communist Party has finished hosting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in what was clearly a feather-in-the-cap moment for the regime. Here it was, hosting and feting a man who had ripped the cadres so thoroughly his candidacy form Prime Minister was endorsed by yours truly, only to chuck it all out the window. This was yet another opportunity for the CCP show how it was moving forward, and bringing the Chinese people with it.

Except that even when it tries to impress, the regime leaves its guests . . . depressed. Paul Wells, one of the most insightful pundits in Canada (and easily the most humorous), gives his description of the hollowness of it all in Macleans. The last paragraph bring the point painfully home:

It’s a fake opera house across the park from a fake shopping mall next to a fake hotel in a fake neighbourhood designed to snow gullible foreigners, not 100 km from villages whose residents live in grinding poverty. A rich command economy is still a command economy, and it commands its subjects to live in ways that steal hope. There was much more to like about other parts of other cities we visited — Chongqing is wild, bustling, dirty and vital — but after less than a day I was eager to put Guangzhou behind my back. And grateful for the right to do so

That wasn’t in the CCP script. The ersatz wealth was supposed to make outsiders ignore the hopelessness, not zero in on it with sniper-like accuracy.

So once again, the regime’s attempt to win over foreigners (and thus justify its regime to the imprisoned Chinese people) goes awry, and the day when said Chinese people will take their country back continues its approach.

Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby

If Santorum is the conservative alternative to Romney, what does that make Lincoln Chafee?

Most pundits have heard and commented on the Mitt Romney Super PAC’s latest criticisms of Rick Santorum. For the most part, would-be Santorum boosters or Romney critics have defended the ex-Senator on debt-ceiling and earmark votes. In fact, the response on those two issues has been so loud that I just assumed they were the only barbs Santorum had thrown at him.

Not so. In fact, Romney’s critics have missed a very salient point that he has raised (Brian Bolduc, The Corner, emphasis in original):

In an ad airing in Michigan, Arizona, and Ohio, the pro–Mitt Romney super PAC, Restoring Our Future, is hitting Rick Santorum on his voting record. You can watch it below. By my observation, the ad’s claims are on firm ground. Let’s take them one by one:

. . .

“In a single session, Santorum co-sponsored 51 bills to increase spending and zero to cut spending.” True, according to the Club for Growth, whose paper on Santorum the ad cites. The club argues that Santorum went easy on spending before his 2006 campaign:

In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican — sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.

For the uninitiated, Lisa Murkowski was the Senator so profligate on spending she lost the Republican primary in 2010 to Joe Miller. That same year, Chafee, after being bounced from the Senate in 2006 and endorsing Obama in 2008, was elected Governor of Rhode Island as an Independent. He is now looking to tax pet groomers and car washes in a desperate attempt to keep the spending spigots flowing up there (Deseret News).

Yet both of them would have spent less money in the 109th Congress than Santorum.

Yes, I know Santorum was in a desperate (and futile) campaign for re-election, but that campaign was largely predicated on the notion that he was willing to go down in flames for what he felt was right. Not largely advertised was the fact that he was willing to set taxpayer money afire with such reckless abandon his way down.

Rick Santorum does have an electoral path to victory in November, and I do believe he could beat my guy for the nomination. However, when Lincoln Chafee becomes the conservative alternative to you, you have no right to claim yourself as the conservative alternative to anyone.

Why I still support Mitt Romney

The Santorum surge has radically altered the state of the Republican presidential race – at least as of today. Whether Santorum has the strength to defeat Mitt Romney is an open question; we shall see over the next few months. However, many of my friends are heavily leaning (or have fallen over) in Santorum’s direction. When I decided my choice for president, Santorum had hardly caught any fire; however, I am sticking with Romney.

I have three main reasons for doing so:

First and foremost: only one candidate has raised the alarm on the Chinese Communist Party – and that candidate is Mitt Romney: He has been alone in raising concern over the regime’s theft of intellectual property from foreign dupes investors far and wide. He is the first candidate for president ever to take note of the CCP’s desire to build a global network of tyrants to challenge the free world (not even Duncan Hunter mentioned that in 2008). He has continued to sound the alarm on them despite being attacked for it by the other candidates – including none other than Rick Santorum. For the uninitiated, just about every enemy of America or threat to the same (the mullahcracy of Iran, Saddam Hussein before he was deposed, the Taliban, al Qaeda, North Korea, the Syrian regime, even Qaddafi) has been backed or is backed by the Chinese Communist Party (for the latest on the Tehran-Beijing axis, see the National Post). We need a president who recognizes this danger – and Mitt Romney alone makes the cut.

Second, Romney has the private sector experience that is needed: Just to be clear, private sector experience itself, while certainly valuable, is not per se what I mean. It is Romney’s experience in taking on bloated companies that are bleeding money with antiquated business plans that got my attention – especially given that the new president will take over an executive branch bleeding over $1T a year with far too large a bureaucracy and service systems (e.g. entitlements) stuck in 1969. None of the other candidates have experience in paring down overloaded personnel and modernizing a wheezing entity.

Finally, I consider Romney’s conversion on life to be sincere: I’ve given this one a lot of thought over the last few months, and for good reason. The abortion issue being what it is, many politicians have held to one view throughout. Some have shifted, once, based on intellectual pondering, a dramatic personal story, or, well, crass political considerations. Romney is the only politician I know who has double-backed on this issue. Initially, in 1994, Romney had his personal story (if memory serves, a distant relative had died from an illegal abortion), and that seemed that.

Then the embryonic stem-cell research debate hit Boston.

Normally, views on ESCR are driven by views on unborn life in general. Defenders of the latter by and large can’t stand the former, although a few do. Almost no one who defines themselves as pro-choice opposes ESCR. So one can imagine the surprise when Romney himself tried to stop the creation (and destruction) of research-only embroys. It just doesn’t make sense. After a while, it didn’t make sense to Romney either, and he realized that if you can’t tolerate the death of one embryo, you can’t tolerate the death of any of them.

It’s an unusual journey on the issue, of that there is no doubt. But Mitt Romney is more an empirical politician than a philosophical one; he builds his views from what he sees in front of him – and in this case, what he saw in front of him was so horrifying it overrode the loss of his relative.

These are the reasons I still support Romney. I do not think his nomination is inevitable. Nor do I think he would automatically be a better general election candidate than Rick Santorum – each has their own potential path to victory.

I do think Romney will be better at reducing the size and scope of government, identifying our enemies around the world, and standing up to said enemies. In short, I think he would be a better president than anyone else in the field.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift