Francois Hollande for President of France

The first round of France’s presidential election is now over. The second round will be held in two weeks, and my preferred candidate (Nicolas Dupont-Aignan), as expected, failed to make the cut. The choice France must now make is between incmubent Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist challenger Francois Hollande (Telegraph, UK).

I, for one, support Hollande, and I hope the French electorate does, too.

On domestic matters, little separate Sarkozy and Hollande. The latter’s plans for higher taxes and more spending get more attention (because Hollande is from the left), but Sarkozy has been just as bad in his re-election bid. About the only subtantial difference between the two is that Hollande would reverse Sarkozy’s raising of the retirement age from 60 to 62. I consider that a mistake.

However, that pales in comparison to the advantage a Hollande victory would bring: a new obstacle to the Fiscal Union Treaty that the European Union would impose on the people of the EU (minus the UK and Czech Republic). In theory, the FU, with its insistence on balanced budgets and reducing debt, would be net benefit to the continent (although not enough to justify the infringement on national sovereignty). However, given the ridiculous advice the EU has given regarding “austerity” (higher taxes, lower bureaucrat salaries, but hardly any reduction in the size or scope of national governments), the FU will simply lead to a vicious cycle of tax increases that will bring in less revenue than projected because of the economic damage they will do (in the Mediterranean, this is already happening). Hollande has pledged to reject the FU in its current form, and is demanding the Treaty be changed to account for economic growth. That could cause enough friction to slow this down, or even stop it. At the very least, it could change the dynamic for the Irish referendum on the FU.

In short, the FU must be stopped, and Hollande’s election dramatically improves the chances that it will be stopped.  That is the reason I support Hollande; he is the first leftist I have ever supported for national leadership. I only hope that doesn’t doom him on May 6.

With friends like these . . .

During the 1980s, much was made of the massive Soviet military. Not quite so well known was the fact that the personnel were badly demoralized and the economy behind it was a complete mess unable to sustain a decent force (the non-nuclear material was also less than meets the eye).

The Obama campaign will probably be upset that I’m comparing it to the USSR, but incompetence like this forces my hand. As the Daily Caller, notes, this was Obama’s own campaign head – David Axelrod - who framed the race thusly:

The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle  class and that gives people a chance to get ahead, and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we’re on.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

UVA may bring back Michael Mann, seriously

Longtime would-be Federalists like myself may enjoy the permanent damage done to Mr. Jefferson’s University, but it would take a Louisiana-territory-sized heap of schadenfreude to make up for this disaster (Climate Depot via From on High):

Climate Depot has learned that Climategate professor Michael Mann, who has been at the center of a legal firestorm, may be moving back to the University of Virginia.

Climate Depot has heard that the UVA Environmental Sciences department voted on April 10 to offer Mann a “chaired professorship.” It is called “The Joe D and Helen J Kington Professor in Environmental Change.“

The offer must be approved by Meredith Woo, the Dean of Arts & Sciences at UVA. The pending offer to Mann is thought to enjoy the strong support of James Galloway, Associate Dean for the Sciences at UVA.

Sources tell Climate Depot that such a potential offer would not be made unless Mann already indicated he would accept.

Apologies to Marc Morano for the scraping. This is the Update #3 version, BTW, so do check CD out for any newer info.

The idea that UVA would even consider bringing back Mann (whom, lest we forget, is still being sought out for $500,000 in taxpayer money by the AG’s office here) is beyond belief.

For those who are keeping track (admittedly not easy given the numbers), we are now at, thirty-seven examples of data manipulation, errors, and other shenanigans from global warming alarmism, and that’s just from what I’ve been able to blog on this subject since November of 2009. Mann has been one at the center of this junk for over a dozen years, ever since his famous “hockey stick” graph and its less savory “nature trick” used to “hide the decline” in recent tree-growth data that, had it been reported properly, would have sent exposed the entire theory as the scientific equivalent of a game misconduct.

If UVA actually hires him, it’s a slap in the face to the voters and taxpayers of the Commonwealth.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

Dear German Liberals (FDP)

Four weeks ago I lamented your imminent demise.

If you don’t start ripping this nonsensical youth tax (Sydney Morning Herald), you’ll deserve your own oblivion.

Cross-posted to VV

What the unemployment numbers mean for the president

The new unemployment numbers are out, and on first glance, it looks good for the economy and the president’s re-election.

Looks can, however, be deceiving.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that unemployment slithered downward a tenth of one percent to 8.2%, while non-farm jobs rose by 120,000. Interestingly, the BLS referred to the rate as “little changed.” As it turned out, the UE survey (which is different from the job growth survey) reveals that the drop in the rate came largely from a drop in the labor force. The projected number of employed Americans in the UE survey actually fell by 31,000. Clearly, the spike in energy prices is having an effect (as it did in 2008, when UE rose from 5.1% in March to 5.6% in June).

I leave it to others to glean motives form the BLS reporting numbers (I tend to be more receptive to mere survey glitches than most; statistical projections are always weaker than they look). I will say this, however: this is the worst possible March result for the president’s re-election.

Here’s why: ever since World War II, the incumbent party has won the popular vote for president whenever unemployment falls between March and June of an election year. If unemployment rises from March to June, the incumbent party hast lost, every time. Making matters worse for the party in power during a shaky economy, college students usually are out of the labor market in March, but back in by June. An economy strong enough to absorb them will keep the rate below March levels and keep the incumbent party in power. An economy that can’t do that sends the incumbents packing.

If the March numbers are any indication, the recovery that seemed to pick up steam over the winter is now running on fumes. Depending on which survey one uses, job growth was either cut in half or erased. If it stalls now, just as voters begin their usual pre-election gauge of the situation, the president is, politically, toast.

We’ll all have a better idea come June (the economy is far more fickle than those of us who study it closely like to admit), but this report looks more like a warning than anything else.

Cross-posted to VV

Prediction time

Romney wins all three (DC, Maryland, and Wisconsin – the last by a nose), and I won’t see any of it because I’ll be sleeping off a cold.

Whaddya mean you don’t care?