Nate's Thoughts - A Blog by Nathan Benefield

David and Goliath Revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:38:12 PDT

I've been pondering the story and lessons of David and Goliath recently. Mostly commonly, people take from David vs. Goliath the lesson that we can accomplish anything--slaying the "giant" in our own lives--if we have faith in God. Often, this leads to disappointment when we don't reach our goals and don't get what we want in our lives or careers. But there is more to the story of David and Goliath.

David was tall.

Contrary to perception, David wasn't a small child when he faced Goliath.

Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else. - 1 Samuel 9:2

Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. "I cannot go in these," he said to Saul, "because I am not used to them." 1 Samuel 17:38-39

The tallest man in Israel wouldn't put his armor on a little boy. And David didn't say "this armor is huge on me", but that he wasn't accustomed to fighting in armor. David was, at the least, physically ready to go to battle.

David had done battle before.

Not only was David physically prepared to go to battle Goliath, he had some experience that would come in handy as a shepherd--including fighting lions and bears.

But David said to Saul, "Your servant has been keeping his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God - 1 Samuel 17:34-36

David went on to become a great warrior.
David was young and inexperienced when he slew Goliath, he would go on to prove himself to get a great soldier and leader on the battlefield. The Bible describes many battles David would successfully lead after slaying Goliath.

Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Saul's officers as well..."Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands." - 1 Samuel 17:5, 7

David ran to the battle, hit Goliath with a rock, then cut off his head.
God could have had Goliath slip on a banana peel, that would have made it easier for David. But he didn't, David actually slew Goliath in a real battle.

As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. - 1 Samuel 17:48-51

The story of David and Goliath is meant to give all of us hope--God will be on our side, and with Him, we can conquer any challenge. We each face our own Goliath in our lives, and we should have the confidence David had that God will help us slay our Goliath.

But too often we expect God to do things for us without any action on our part. God didn't slay Goliath for David, but was with David when he acted. David ran to fight Goliath.

When you face Goliath in your life, and pray to God for help, we should ask ourselves these questions:

Am I prepared to fight Goliath? David was. He wasn't just a small boy thinking he could kill a giant. He had already fought bears and lions. Goliath would be a great challenge, but David knew that with God on his side he could prevail, and had prepared himself for that battle.

Have I actually prepared myself to deal with the challenges in my life? Have I rehearsed and practiced? Have I trained? Do I have the experience I need? Have I asked others to help? Simply asking God to take care of your problems isn't enough. God will help you when you ask, and with God you can do things you could never do alone, but God won't do for you what you can do for yourself.

Am I capable of handling the challenge of Goliath? David was on his way to becoming a great warrior when he faced Goliath. Facing Goliath was a great trial for any man--one all the other Israelite soldiers were too terrified to face--but David was someone ready to become a giant-slayer. Sometimes God doesn't give us what we ask for, because we aren't ready for those challenges. Maybe you want to get a big promotion, or fall in love and get married, or start your own business. But are you truly ready? Because God won't give us more than we can handle.

Am I willing to run to face Goliath?

God will be with us as we face the Goliaths in our lives, but we have to be ready to fight those battles. It won't always be easy, or pretty, or convenient. Praying for God's help doesn't mean he will slay Goliath for us, but should give us the confidence to face Goliath with God on our side.

How Romney, Smith can win Pennsylvania

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:39:27 PST

While losing the election in 2004, John Kerry won Pennsylvania by 140,000. In 2008, Obama carried the Keystone state by a wide margin of 600,000 votes. But in 2010, Republicans won the top races, with Pat Toomey going to the Senate and Tom Corbett winning the Governor's office. If Mitt Romney and Tom Smith are to win Pennsylvania this time round, they'll need to follow the Toomey path to victory.

Here's what to watch for:

Philadelphia: Barack Obama carried Philadelphia by 480,000 votes in 2008. This was a big gain from 2004; Kerry's margin was 410,000 votes. Toomey lost Philadelphia by 290,000. (Toomey's percentage in Philadelphia was lower than either Bush's or McCain's, but turnout was much lower).

Obama likely won't get that margin this time round, but should still top Kerry's numbers from '04. Anything better than +430,000 is good news for Obama. Less than +400,000 gives Romney a great chance.

Watch the undervote here too. In 2004, there were 40,000 fewer votes cast in Philadelphia for U.S. Senate than for President. In 2008, there was a 68,000 vote dropoff from President to Attorney General. A big undervote could help Tom Smith in the U.S. Senate race.

Suburban Philadelphia: Kerry won the suburban counties (Berks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery) by 90,000. Obama ran up a whopping 205,000 vote margin in these counties. But Pat Toomey narrowed the gap to 23,000 votes in 2010. If Romney can hold his own here - keeping the race close, he'll have a good shot to win.

The suburban counties are not monolithic - Delaware Co. has been pretty strong for Democrats at the state and national level, while Chester remains a better bet for Republican - but the shift in voting patterns will be similar for all four. Watch Bucks in particular to get a sense of how this trend is shaping up: Obama won Bucks by 29,000, but two years later, Toomey took the county by 14,000 (each winning about 53% of the vote).

Allegheny County: Allegheny County includes the Democratic stronghold of Pittsburgh, but also more conservative suburbs. Kerry won Allegheny by 100,000, and despite doing much better statewide, Obama didn't expand the margin out west. Toomey lost Allegheny by 40,000 in 2010.

If Romney and Tom Smith (a native of nearby Armstrong County) hold their own in Allegheny County, it should also signify they do very well throughout Western Pennsylvania--a region Republicans have made gains the last few elections with blue-collar, conservative voters.

Rest of State: The rest of Pennsylvania isn't quite what James Carville dubbed "Alabama in the middle", as it include smaller Democratic bases like Scranton, Erie, and Harrisburg. But the "T" is much more conservative. McCain won the "rest of state" by 185,000, while Bush won by a net 460,000 in 2004. Toomey netted a 433,000 vote margin in the "rest of state" in winning in 2010.

Romney and Smith should both do very well in the other 61 Pennsylvania counties. How well remains to be seen. Keep an eye on Lancaster County, typically a Republican stronghold. Bush carried Lancaster by 71,000 in 2004, Obama closed to within 27,000 in Lancaster four years later. Toomey won Lancaster by 55,000 in 2010, with a higher percentage but lower turnout than Bush in 2004.

If Romney gets both high turnout and Toomey-like percentages in rural counties like Lancaster, he could overcome Obama's Philadelphia margin.

Why I am not a "libertarian"

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:25:55 PDT

Here are two examples of libertarian articles that help illustrate why I consider myself a “classical liberal” and have many problems with the self-identified libertarian movement.

In one article that many of my libertarian Facebook friends have shared, If Only Conservatives Were More Like Libertarians, the author attacks social conservatives with rhetoric like:

How is it that same government can be the ultimate authority on how we live our lives, whom we can marry, how we raise our children, where we worship, what we inhale and ingest, and what we do behind closed doors?

Later she repeats the charge:

Typically, conservatives line up in support of family values (what if the family is dysfunctional?), a strong military and national defense, the right to bear arms, the death penalty and school prayer. They oppose embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, divorce, gay marriage, gay adoption and euthanasia. It’s the conservative version of a cradle-to-grave model, all spelled out in great detail.

These are both over-the-top passages. I know many social conservatives that advocate for strong military, against legalized abortion, and for family values. But I’ve yet to meet anyone who thinks the “government is the ultimate authority” or supports laws dictate where we worship or how we raise our children. I don’t think that by-and-large conservatives “oppose divorce”—unless “oppose” means they think it is bad to get divorced, rather than they want to make it illegal. The conservative agenda was to oppose federal funding of new lines of embryonic stem-cell research—something every libertarian would agree with. And yes, conservatives generally oppose giving government marriage licenses to same sex couples—but I’m not convinced that government licensing of same-sex marriage is a libertarian solution.

Clearly, this is a criticism of a straw-man conservative, not a real-life, intelligent social conservative who can articulate why strong families lead to smaller government.

The second piece which raised my ire was even more mean-spirited in discussing the shooting at the Family Research Council:

The Family Research Council will no doubt appreciate how some guy with a gun and bag full of Chick-fil-A sandwiches will feed its narrative they are the actual victims of oppression, not the gays.

Not only does it imply horribly that conservatives are happy that a security guard got shot, but that their end game is oppression of gays.

If these were just two ill-conceived essays, that would be one thing. But from my observations, happens far too often amongst many “libertarians”. They use over-the-top demagoguery, seek to claim a “holier-than-though” moral position, and go out of their way to alienate potential allies. Libertarians—including friends of mine at the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine—need to spend more time understanding conservatives,and finding ways for working with them on areas of common ground in the spirit of fusionism.

For a good discussion of the role of libertarians in the conservative movement and fusionsim, check out the first half of this Reason piece - a discussion between Matt Welch and Jonah Goldberg.

Rick Santorum's Phony Fiscal Frugality

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:34:39 PST

Rick Santorum attempts to defend his legacy as an avid earmarker by attacking John McCain, claiming he manufactured the earmark issue to hide his own big government tendencies:

“The reason John McCain created the earmark controversy is because he needed to say he was tough on spending. The problem is that when it came to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps — he never wanted to cut anything. Those are the big issues. That’s where the money was. It’s not in appropriated accounts. … Sixty percent of the spending in Washington is entitlement spending. … That’s the spending that’s going up.”

The problem with attacking McCain over not wanting to reduce Social Security or Medicare spending is this: In 2003, there was a vote to expand Medicare liabilities by several trillion dollars, i.e., Medicare Part D. Rick Santorum voted for this massive increase in entitlements (McCain, by contrast, did not).

Oh, and by the way, while earmarks may only be a small part of the federal budget, they are used to grease the skids for other big government programs. Medicare Part D is a key example - earmarks were used to help buy Republican votes for that.

A lot of Republican voters are looking for a "conservative alternative to Romney" - and one is needed. Problem is, Santorum is not that guy; neither is Newt Gingrich.

I've noted for a while I think Obama is more likely than not to win another term. Even if that proves wrong, we are not going to have a president who embodies fiscally conservative principles. Bottom line is this: Conservative activists need to focus on electing a conservative Congress, and then holding them accountable.

Does Newt Gingrich Believe in Limited Government?

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:28:08 PST

I'll admit I haven't been watching the presidential campaign very closely, having skipped all but a few minutes of the so-called debates and mostly skimming news articles. But it feels like I woke up from a long Rip van Winkle nap and heard Newt Gingrich was leading in the polls. What the heck?

I've already skewered Mitt Romney on these pages during his prior run, for flip-flopping and for stealing the Aqua-Fresh logo, and blasted Rick Santorum for his big government policies and for then claiming he would have been fiscally conservative if the Tea Party had his back. So now let me turn my ire to Newt Gingrich:

Gingrich has long supported an individual mandate to buy health insurance. He is trying to distance himself from his prior stance now, the only problem with that is he kept endorsing an individual mandate over and over again. Indeed, President Obama has defended Obamacare recently by noting both Gingrich and Romney endorsed an individual mandate. The individual mandate is such an extreme and irrational policy that even candidate Obama opposed it. Gingrich also supported another key component of Obamacare: government-run or subsidized electronic medical records.

Gingrich endorses taxpayer subsidies for ethanol, which makes no policy sense as ethanol is both inefficient and results in greater carbon emissions, but makes political sense when you consider big campaign donations and Gingrich's background as a well-paid ethanol lobbyist.

Gingrich today says it was a "mistake" to do an ad with Nancy Pelosi about "climate change" (though I'm guess he got paid for that too). But he also has supported carbon cap & trade, a big government scheme dreamed up by Goldman Sachs and Enron.

You have his lobbying for Freddie Mac a quasi-government body that contributed mightily to the financial collapse then got billions in taxpayer bailouts. His ties to the causes of the problem help explain why he decided to endorse the Wall Street Bailouts and TARP.

Gingrich famously attacked the Paul Ryan plan to reform Medicare, calling it "right-wing social engineering" (though maybe that was really a compliment, Gingrich seems to appreciate right-wing social engineering). Less famously, he lobbied for Medicare Part D, a multi-trillion expansion of taxpayers' entitlement liabilities.

On everything from earmarks to pandering to union bosses that underwrite Occupy Wall Street to pushing for a national ID card, Gingrich has chosen big government, or at least political expedience, over free enterprise.

In my review of his book, I noted Gingrich is generally committed to "efficient" government and bringing new technology into government, rather than a commitment to limited government. I found nothing in his record to make me change my mind.

As I mentioned in a Twitter conversation, I understand that there is not "perfect candidate," but there's a difference between having a "purity" test and demanding a candidate who will expand liberty, not government. Newt Gingrich is not that candidate.

Just Call it a "Social Security Scheme"

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:56:30 PDT

There's been a lot of debate over whether Social Security is a "Ponzi Scheme". I propose we stop calling it a Ponzi Scheme - as the term is a bit dated, since Ponzi pleaded guilty to fraud in 1920 - and call such schemes "Socially Security Schemes" For example: Bernie Madoff ripped off investors through a Social Security Scheme.

The elements are effectively the same. Social Security and Ponzi schemes take your money and promise some return on it at a later date. But rather than investing your money, both schemes rely on people joining into the pyramid in the future. Most Ponzi schemes collapse by failing to continue to attract new investors. Social Security has avoided that fatal flaw by forcing every generation of workers to pay into the system.

Of course, as the number of recipients increased faster than the number of payers, Social Security has continued to become a worse deal. As Michael Tanner points out, we are paying more and getting less:

The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. ...

Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

Andrew Biggs elaborates on this, noting that - like a Ponzi scheme - those than joined the Security Security Scheme early get a much better payout than those joining late:

A person who retired in 1950 received around a 20 percent annual return on the taxes he paid (which happens to be exactly the same return that Madoff promised to his investors). Put another way, that person received around 12 times more in benefits than he’d paid in taxes. That helps explain why Social Security became so popular: it was simply an incredibly good deal.

If you were born in 1950 and heard your grandparents say how much they liked Social Security, you’d be tempted to think you’ll get the same sort of deal. But you won’t: an average wage earner born in 1950 will receive around a 2.2 percent return from the system, which is less than what you could earn on guaranteed government bonds. A person entering the workforce today will receive only around a 1.7 percent return.

Yikes, could I please get my money back?

Wake me when Google + is ready for prime time

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:09:38 PDT

I don't normally blog on technology, but since I've gotten a chance to try out Google +, and others have not, and I have a few friends who swear Google + is the awesome, I thought I'd offer some perspective.

For starters, Google + is very derivative. It intended to be just like Facebook, geared for folks who prefer the Google brand, with virtually all the same basic features under different names. I'm generally dismissive of things that rip off the invention of others--though many products (examples: cars, computers, cell phones) have been improved by second generation imitators. However, I see no improvement whatsoever in Google + over Facebook. Let me break down a few reasons why.

The "Network" for Social Networking: I use Facebook primarily to share articles (often on politics) with my friends and other connections to spread the word. This includes my 700 Facebook "friends" and 3,000 plus folks who "like" my employer. Spreading my wisdom will be a bit slower with the 16 folks who included me in their "circle" on Google +.

I also like to interact with real life friends on Facebook, and see what they are up to. A large number of my friends are on Facebook. In fact, I have more Facebook friend requests that I need to accept or reject than total contacts on Google.
Ease of Sharing: Google + has a "+1" button, mimicking Facebook's "like" button. As mentioned above, I tend to share articles. On this topic, there is a good PC World Infographic comparing features in Google + and Facebook, a Wall Street Journal article on how Google made Facebook respond to Google +, and a PennLive blog post on how to use Google +. All of them have a prominent Facebook Like/Recommend/Share button. None of these articles on Google + has a Google share option.
RSS Feeds: I blog quite a bit. I like to share my blogs in a variety of areas, including Facebook and Twitter. Using RSS, I can post automatically to both my Facebook page and Twitter Account. In fact, shortly after I click "post" on this particularly blog entry, it will appear on both. It will not appear on my Google + account, as no such functionality exists yet.
Games: Other than sharing articles, I also play games on Facebook, especially Jeopardy. I play Jeopardy a lot. But I can't play Jeopardy on Google +.

Google Wave: One of my friends most insistent on getting everyone to "switch over" to Google + was also insistent I need to use Google Wave for everything. Shortly after I got on Google Wave, it was buried next to Jimmy Hoffa. I'm skeptical that Google + will stand the test of time.
Google's Big Government rent-seeking: Google has poured millions of dollars into politics, supporting mostly liberal candidates (including heavy support for President Obama). They lobby for internet regulation (that would benefit Google) in the form of "net neutrality" (with exemptions for applications, i.e., for Google) and to get tens of millions in government contracts. (Note there was a Blogspot blog I found just yesterday on Google's rent-seeking that is now gone, which I find curious, as Google owns Blogspot).

Granted, many companies engage in lobbying for their own benefit, and Facebook is no bastion of libertarianism. And it makes no sense to avoid a good product because of the politics of the company or its employees--I use many Google products already. But Google + is not a good product, and it seems the only benefit of Google + is the Google brand: a brand I have no love for.

Now a defender of Google would tell you that Google + is only in "Field Testing" stage, and much of my critique could be moot once Google adds features and reaches critical mass. But as of now, Google + is underwhelming, and contrary to some of my real-world friends, I will not encourage others (real-world or cyber contacts) to switch over.

How Wrestling is Like Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 09:17:40 PDT

In celebration of Wrestlemania, and to defend myself against those who mock my appreciation of pro wrestling, I feel the need to point out how wrestling is like politics:

While some criticize pro wrestling because it is "fake", so too are political events. A wrestling match or show is staged, pre-planned, and well rehearsed, but anyone who has seen a political rally or even town hall meeting, must realize that those too are well choreographed.
Wrestlers play to the crowd, trying to whip them up into a fervor. So too do politicians. (Although, in this case, politicians all pander to the crowd, whereas many wrestlers are "heels", and try to insult and offend the crowds to get the energy going).
Both wrestling and politics involve a lot of talking, mostly about how awesome the speaker is, and how evil their opponent is.
Regardless of merit, popular personalities tend to win. The best pure wrestlers will often lose to those who are more dynamic speakers - the same happens in politics.
It is usually pretty easy to predict what wrestlers and politicians will say, do, and who will win.
No one ever wants to retire (see: Rick Flair, Arlen Specter).
Cheating is common, but rarely results in disqualification.

In some ways, however, wrestling is superior:

Cool entrance music. Could you imagine a legislative hearing wrapping up, and all of a sudden, my personal theme song blasts on the sound system? I walk in with the announcer yelling "What's he doing here," and grab the microphone and give my testimony. We'd get a lot more viewers on CSPAN or PCN that way.
After the debate, they fight. They closest thing we get to that in politics is debates like Santorum and Casey in 2006. You can't tell me that wouldn't have been better if it had ended with Santorum attacking Casey, with the late Tim Russert screaming, "A steel chair! Don't do it, Rick! No not like this, not like this!!!"

Mitt Romney: Ultra Phony

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:47:31 PST

There's a lot of news coming out on the 2012 presidential election races, so you know what that means: Time to make fun of Mitt Romney.

First, there was the news that the paperback edition of his book not only represents a reduction in price, but also significant changes in sections that didn’t resonate too well with Republican voters. That is, he had the opportunity to change his lukewarm support for the stimulus and inability to identify differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare (which was the model for ObamaCare). Now, those are both “failures”:

The first rewrite excises a relatively even-handed assessment of the 2009 economic-stimulus package. In the original, Romney wrote that it "will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery, but not as much as it could have." The paperback pronounces the stimulus "a failure," and blasts Obama's "economic missteps" with conservative red-meat language — for example: "This is the first time government has declared war on free enterprise."

The other major change comes in a chapter on health care. In the original hardcover, Romney tried to carefully distinguish between the Massachusetts law and the national version that was nearing passage as he wrote.

But the Massachusetts model has become Romney's bête noire among conservatives, who loathe the national reform they call "Obamacare." The rewritten paperback swings much harder, proclaiming that "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states."

Other additions in that section blame the Massachusetts legislature for altering his plan, and the current Democratic administration of Governor Deval Patrick for botching the implementation.

The book, ironically enough, is titled No Apology—but why would anyone apologize when (like the editors at MiniTrue in 1984) they can simply go back and rewrite history.

But now Mitt has outdone himself with his pandering:

He's going tieless on network TV, strolling NASCAR pits in Daytona and sporting skinny Gap jeans bought for him by his wife.

His latest campaign book, just out in paperback, opens with a regular-guy scene: wealthy Mitt in a Wal-Mart checkout line, buying gifts for his grandsons and comparing the surroundings to Target, another discount store he says he's familiar with.

Okay - that the multimillionaire goes shopping at Wal-Mart when he's not campaigning is a bit tough to swallow, but other politicians (looking at you, Joe Biden) pretend to be "regular guys". And showing up at NASCAR events is right out of the politicians' playbook (after all, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and McCain all addressed a WWE crowd with lame wrestling jokes).

But wearing skinny jeans? Come on. No one wearing skinny jeans can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. And does that even have a constituency? Does anyone want to see Romney in skinny jeans?

Rick Santorum Would Have Been Fiscally Conservative If ...

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:48:12 PST

Rick Santorum tells Philip Klein of the American Spectator that he would have been true to his fiscal conservative "principles" and opposed all the Bush-era spending and big government programs -- i.e., the programs he voted for and led the charge for in the U.S. Senate -- if only the Tea Party had been around then to pressure him.

That is too say, he would have been/will be fiscally conservative when it is politically expedient to be so.

Recall, that Rick Santorum recently claimed that he alone among presidential candidates could be considered a "tea party candidate" and decided he opposes earmarks after celebrating the ones he got.

Santorum also recently told prospective Iowa Caucus voter that the federal government should subsidize ethanol, a policy almost every (Al Gore included) recognizes is bad for the environment and bad for the economy (driving up taxes, fuel prices, and food prices). Everyone that is, except a few corn farmers in Iowa who receive ethanol subsidies.

Hey, notice a pattern here?

George Bush's Spending Record

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:10:25 PST

In a Wall Street Journal piece, Kim Strassell interviews George W. Bush, and talks about his spending record, but lets him get away with statistical nonsense.

One perception the president is determined to shift is that of his spending record. "Decision Points" contains one graphic: a table comparing, among other things, President Bush's average spending-to-GDP (19.6%) to that of Bill Clinton (19.8%), Bush 41 (21.9%), and Reagan (22.4%). It also shows that his deficit-to-GDP was 2%—half that of Bush 41 and Reagan.

Anyone with any sense of history might remember that Bill Clinton (and Republicans in Congress) cut spending as a percentage of GDP, and balanced the budget. Bush came in and (with Congress) grew spending and the deficit. The average spending measure includes the early years, in which Bush had not implemented all his spending increases (benefiting from spending cuts under Clinton) and the later years, in which spending skyrocketed.

For his number, Bush uses the years 2001-2008, for which he was in office--of course, Bush's budgets represent the fiscal years 2002-2009, which would increase his "average" to 20.2% of GDP. But even if we give Bush the benefit of ending in 2008, since some of the 2009 budget was enacted under Obama, federal spending as a percentage of GDP increase from 18.2% in 2000 to 20.7% in 2008. It increased every single year from 2000-2008, except 2007.

In 2009, the federal budget as a percent of GDP reached 24.7%, and this year reached an estimated 25.4%, the highest since 1945. Here is the federal budget data for anyone who doesn't trust Bush's memory of his spending record.

As the chart below illustrates--showing all years since 1980--not "averages", even using Bush's measure of years in office instead of years of budget, spending as a percent of GDP:

Increased in the early Reagan years, then declined;
Increased under George HW Bush;
Decreased under Clinton; and
Increased under Bush and Obama.

A Liberal Can't Win in Pennsylvania

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:24:00 PST

Throughout much of this election cycle, we heard a lot of "A conservative can't win in Pennsylvania," or specifically, "Pat Toomey is too conservative for Pennsylvania." Now that Pat Toomey won his election to the US Senate, AP writer Marc Levy has already spun the analysis that "Pat Toomey is too conservative to win reelection."

Three things really bother me about this analysis. First is the common refrain used by the media that Toomey is "more conservative" than Rick Santorum. This involves the mindless left-right dichotomy, instead of a common sense understanding of different views on fiscal, social, and foreign policy issues.

It is undeniable Toomey is more fiscally conservative than Santorum—who I don't consider a fiscal conservative at all, having supported all of Bush's overspending, expansion of Medicare, and defending to this day the use of earmark. (Indeed, what is curious is that the Sestak campaign both tried say "Toomey is more conservative than Santorum" and "Toomey supported Bush's deficits"—yet the reason Toomey scored higher than Santorum on indexes like the American Conservative Union's is that he voted against much of the deficit spending under Bush.

But the reason Rick Santorum is so demonized as an "arch-conservative" is his views, and moreso his rhetoric, on social isses and foreign policy. Few would consider Toomey "more conservative" than Santorum on social issues (in fact, many social conservatives considered Toomey not conservative enough). Like Santorum, Toomey is pro-life. But Toomey is much more moderate on things like same-sex marriage and gays in the military (having suggested he would support a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Toomey would not have tried to get Congress involved in the case of a single woman, Terry Shiavo. Nor would Toomey push a federal government program to promote marriage—which includes a taxpayer-funded website with dating tips.

On foreign policy, Toomey supported the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan (as did a majority of both parties in Congress), but never adopted the extreme rhetoric of Santorum against "islamo-fascism" and in support of further wars with Iran. (Indeed, I would suggest much of the neo-conservative views in support of these wars, in support of torture and the Patriot Act, and against the Mosque at Ground Zero are not conservative at all, as they are neither part of the libertarian nor Russell Kirk traditionalist views at all). Toomey and Santorum have very different views on immigration and free trade, which would likely baffle the media to figure out which is the "conservative" view. Comparing Toomey to Santorum is not well thought out at all.

My second issue is a long-standing one: that whenever the media urges "compromise" or "bipartisanship" it is always conservatives who need to move toward the middle, or Republicans who need to work with Democrats. For one example, see the Patriot-News post-election op-ed. Or consider how the media is already blaming the Tea-Party candidates for some losses—not the horrible candidates put out by the party hacks, whose records of tax-hikes, overspending, and corruption were why the Tea Partiers rejected them. This is much the same as when the establishment blamed the Club for Growth for GOP losses—not the incumbents who lost to Club for Growth candidates, then worked for Democrats (like Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland, and Joe Schwarz in Michigan). Then you have cases like Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, and Charlie Crist; whose rejection by Republican voters led them to try to switch parties or run as independents to maintain power. The media embraces these candidates only because they are more leftists, and blames conservatives—not obvious self-interested actions by incumbents—for any losses of any so-called moderates.

Finally, the lesson that should be learned is that a liberal cannot win in Pennsylvania. Indeed, Joe Sestak was one of few candidates to campaign as a true liberal state-wide, Joe Hoeffel, who has been uncompetitive each of his election attempts, being another. Ed Rendell, off his record as a Philadelphia mayor who cut taxes and took on the unions, ran as a moderate. So did Barack Obama, who promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

In Pennsylvania's competitive Congressional races, the Democrats who won—Altmire, Holden, and Critz—voted against or opposed Obamacare. Those who lost—Patrick Murphy, Dahlkemper, Carney, Kanjorski, and Lentz (in Setak's seat)—all voted for Obamacare or supported it as a candidate.
The lesson should be clear: liberals and liberal policies lost. That may not be the same as say Conservative/Conservative ideas won; but the idea that anyone should move the to left to win re-election is laughable.

Do Voters Want to Go Back?

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 10:03:16 PST

Barack Obama framed Tuesday's election results quite nicely. Not, not in his post-election press conference, when he blamed the Democrat losses on the inability to "inform" the electorate, but in his run-up to the election, campaigning on the theme, "do you want to return to the failed policies of the past?"

Few voters, myself included, look back at the presidency of George W. Bush as some sort of utopia, or even "the good old days."

But if Obama is asking voters if they'd like to go back to the days before Democrats took control of Congress--i.e., 2006, when the unemployment rate was 4%--I think its pretty clear most voters said "Yes, we would!"

Or, since he wasn't up this cycle, if Obama was asking voters if they'd like to go back to the last time we had divided government, with Republicans controlling Congress and a Democrat president--i.e., during the mid-1990s, when the economy was flourishing--I'd say most voters like that ideas too.

Election Night Live-Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:00:03 PDT

I'll be live-blogging election night, from 4 pm to around midnight, along with the rest of the gang at the Commonwealth Foundation and the reporters at PA Independent, and some additional guests. We'll be focusing on the Pennsylvania results, but with some talk about what is happening across the country as well.

You can sign up for an email reminder, and then join in here.

<p>&amp;lt;a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=f69a53e615" &amp;gt;General Election Live Blog&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;</p>

Social Security is a Lemon, and I Want my Money Back

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:16:30 PDT

Imagine, if you will, a man knocking on your door asking offering you a special deal. His proposal is that each week for many, many years, you give him a chunk of your salary. In exchange, when you get old, he will return the money in monthly checks. You will not earn any interest on the money, as it will not be invested, but will be used it to pay off those who signed up before you. If you die, the man will keep the money you paid him.

You would probably slam the door in the man's face for what is obviously a pyramid scheme (or Ponzi scheme) scheme - but this is exactly what today we call Social Security.

Now imagine that you foolishly agreed to this offer (or were forced to join), and several years later the man returned with bad news. It turns out there isn't enough money to pay you back what he promised - he is having trouble getting enough new participants to join the pyramid scheme. Also, he has no money available now, as not only did he spend it giving it to others in the scheme, but he spent it on items for himself.

But he has a new offer for you: if you give him more money each week, he will give you less money back each month in the future, and he will wait a few more years (until you are even older) to begin paying you back. You would probably call the police, as you had been defrauded.

Unfortunately, this new scheme is called "saving Social Security". Like Lando's agreement with Darth Vader, this deal keeps getting worse all the time.

There is ample reason why most 18-to-34-year-olds don't expect Social Security to be there when they retire - the program paid out more than it took in last year, and the so-called "trust fund" is nothing more than promises to pay back money from other tax revenue.

Even if Social Security weren't approaching bankruptcy, it is a raw deal. The effective rate of return on Social Security payments is a little over 1 percent. Indeed, while critics of "privatizing" Social Security point to "risky" investments, stock market returns over 40 years would generate several times more earnings than Social Security, even after market collapses. Social Security may be less risky, but only because it is a guaranteed loser.

It is time to stop talking about saving Social Security, and start talking about ending Social Security.

Some more reading on Social Security:

Sestak vs. Toomey: Record On Job Growth

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:00:54 PDT

Congressman Joe Sestak, talking about Bill Clinton coming to town to stump for him, tries to compare the records of Democrats vs. Republicans - particularly his opponent, former Congressman Pat Toomey - on job growth:

"Twenty-two million jobs were created when he [Bill Clinton] was in office. [Republicans under George W. Bush, including Pat Toomey] created none. We're going to Scranton to talk about jobs," Sestak said.

"We've controlled the damage. We've taken some steps but not enough," said Sestak, who hammered what he said is the fundamental difference between himself and Toomey.

The problem in Sestak's logic should be obvious - that Bill Clinton governed largely with a Republican Congress (including two years that Toomey served in Congress), and the current recession only began after Democrats took control of Congress, years after Toomey left.

Now, I would never ascribe the performance of our county's economy to the government, much less one person - even the President. The economy is millions of individual actors, and while government policy has a significant role in economic performance, government doesn't create jobs or wealth.

Nonetheless, since Sestak raised the point, I thought it would be interesting to compare job creation while Toomey was in Congress - during which time Republicans controlled the House - and while Sestak has been in Congress - during which time Democrats have controlled the House.

Indeed, while Toomey was in Congress from 1999 to 2004, the nation added 5 million jobs. Whereas since Sestak was elected, and Democrats took control of Congress, in 2006, the country has lost 6.6 million jobs. Perhaps this is not the comparison he wants to make.

	Party Control of Congress	Job Growth (Loss)	Percent Change
Toomey (Jan 99-Dec 04)	Republican	5,094	4%
Sestak (Jan 07-July 10)	Democrat	(6,631)	-5%

Toomey vs Sestak on Jobs

The 600-Home Run Threshhold

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:40:55 PDT

As Alex Rodriguez approaches 600 career home runs (he may have already done so by the time this posts), a lot of pundits have suggested that 600 isn't what it used to be. The fact that several players have reached 500-homer status - which used to be the threshold for greatness - and the number of 600+ home run players doubled in recent years, combined with revelations of steroid use among baseball players, seems to have diminished the difficulty of this milestone.

At the same time, others analysts have noted that it may be a long time before another pitcher wins 300 games. Thus, the argument goes that 600 home runs is now much easier to achieve than 300 wins.

While the "steroid era" may have boosted home run production, at least the top-end years, and certainly changes in pitcher use (see note below) makes 300 wins more difficult, 600 home runs always has been far more achievable than previously thought. Not to say it is "easy," of course, but given the right circumstances, it is realistic for outstanding power hitters.

Here are five basic criteria for getting 600 home runs or 300 wins:

Start young - hitting home runs or winning games by age 21
Play a long time - still being productive at age 40
Stay healthy (and don't miss time fighting in wars)
Consistently have good seasons- 30+ HRs or 15+ wins
Have multiple great season- 40+ HRs or 20+ wins (50+ HRs or 25+ wins are a bonus)

Of course, this should illustrate why modern pitchers are at a disadvantage - with the move to a 5-man rotation and greater bullpen use, winning 20 games is a rarity, and winning 25 or more almost never happens any more. On the other hand, 600 home runs is and always was feasible, even without the 60- or 70-plus homer seasons of the steroid era.

To illustrate, I will run down those who could have hit 600 home runs, starting with those who just missed the 500 HR club.

Fred McGriff (493)- The "Crime Dog" was a fine slugger, but only meets one of the four criteria - most notably he never hit 40 or more home runs, topping out at 36 in a season.
Lou Gehrig (493) - If you've read to this point, you probably know something about baseball, and certainly know that Lou Gehrig's career was cut short by Lou Gehrig's Disease. He was finished at age 36, or else he likely would have reached 600 home runs.
Eddie Murray (504) - Eddie Murray played a long time, but was never a great home run hitter. His career high was 33 (though he did lead the league in the strike-shortened 1981 season), and only hit 30+ in 5 of 21 seasons.
Gary Sheffield (509) - Sheffield's career was up and down, he broke in early, but struggled his first few years. He had several good years and two 40+ years, but also several injury-plagued seasons.
Mel Ott (511) - Only hit 40 once, and his production declined dramatically after age 30.
Ernie Banks (512) - While Banks had more 40+ seasons than 30 to 39 homer season, he also declined after age 30, and didn't hit 20+ in a season until age 24.
Eddie Mathews (512) - Like Banks and Ott, dramatically declined after age 30.
Willie McCovey (521) - McCovey started young and played a lot of years, but didn't hit a lot of home runs early or late in his career. He only reached 40+ twice and 30+ seven times in 22 years.
Frank Thomas (521) - Thomas was a great hitter early in his career, but lost a lot of time to injuries throughout his career; only hit 40+ twice.
Ted Williams (521) - I'm going to pretend Ted Williams did hit 600 home runs - his major fault is missing most of five seasons fighting in wars. WWII and the Korean War took Williams away from baseball during his peak (he missed parts of other seasons with injuries), otherwise, he'd have cleared 600 easily, and probably finished with 700 or more.
Jimmie Foxx (534) - Foxx was fantastic early in his career, but he was washed up by age 33.
Mickey Mantle (536) - Like others in his era, Mantle declined rapidly after age 30, and was out of baseball after age 36.
Mike Schmidt (548) - Schmidt was the best home run hitter of his era, and hit 30+ homers regularly and 40+ often enough, but he started a bit late, and finished a bit early to make it to 600.
Manny Ramirez (554) - Still going, and might make 600. If not, it's probably due to the fact he didn't hit 20 or more in a season until age 23, and missed 50 games in 2009 due to suspension (plus a lot of games over the years due to various injuries).
Reggie Jackson (563) - People love Mr. October, but his postseason heroics dwarf his regular season production. Jackson hit 40 homers only twice, and only hit 30 or more seven times in 21 seasons of play, yet still approached 600.
Rafael Palmeiro (566) - That Palmeiro approached 600 home runs demonstrates how attainable it is. While perhaps aided by steroids late in his career, Palmeiro was never consider a great home run hitter compared to his contemporaries. He did hit 40+ four times, but never led the league, and didn't hit 20 in a season until age 26.
Harmon Killebrew (573) - Killebrew was great in between, but didn't really start playing until age 23, and declined after age 34.
Jim Thome (575) - Still playing, and might have a shot at 600, but didn't break through until age 23, and missed almost all of the 2005 season with injury, as well as parts of other years.
Mark McGwire (583) - McGwire broke in with a bang, and had several monster years. But he was already 23 as a rooking, retired at age 37, and had 4 seasons in which he played fewer than 100 games (for comparison, he played 1,000 fewer games than Palmeiro).
Frank Robinson (586) - Like so many others of his era, Robinson declined after age 30, but not as drastically as some others. He only hit 40 homers once.
Sammy Sosa (609) - Sosa may be the poster boy for the steroid era, which would explain why he was not a great home run hitter until age 24, and hit close to half his career home runs over a five-year stretch. But despite that, retiring at 38, and sitting out the 2006 season, he still hit 600.
Ken Griffey (630) - Most readers will know that Griffey's career was marred by a slew of injuries after age 30. Had he stayed healthy, he probably would have reached 700 or even 800.
Willie Mays (660) - Like Williams, Mays missed time due to war, playing little in 1952 and sitting out 1953. Given he hit 40 the following year, had it not been for the Korean War (even though Mays' home run production declined after age 36), he should have hit 700.
Babe Ruth (714) - Most folks accept that Babe was the greatest slugger ever. Most readers will also know that he spent his first five years as a pitcher. 800 was well within his reach, but since Ruth became the all-time leader when he hit his 139th round-dinger, he probably never considered that a goal.
Hank Aaron (755) - The only player (unless A-Rod matches it) to meet all five goals.
Barry Bonds (762) - While many begrudge Bond's records because of steroid allegations, he still could have hit a few more - he didn't become a top notch slugger (hitting 30+) until age 25, and missed almost all of the 2005 season (and the strike-shortened 1994 season cost him some games).

While the 50+, 60+, and 70+ homer seasons may have boosted some recent players, and the steroid label will haunt them, a top notch slugger can hit 600 home runs by staying healthy (modern players are doing better at this), by playing into his late 30s or early 40s (again, modern players are doing this), and by being productive in their 30s (again, modern players have an edge). Not fighting in wars helps the modern-era ballplayer as well.

Big Government Rick Santorum

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:59:32 PDT

A new American Spectator piece touts Rick Santorum for president. This obviously sends me into a tizzy (see previous post on Santorum).

For starters:

When Santorum lost in 2006, the Republican "brand" had been severely defaced by the Bush administration's mangling of the Iraqi war effort (pre-surge) combined with the ham-handed response to Hurricane Katrina and with the horrendous Bush-Hastert big-government axis on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Perhaps the "brand" was also hampered by Rick Santorum's non-stop, historically inaccurate rants about "Islamo-Fascism" and why we needed to fight many more wars. Or Rick Santorum's insistence the federal government get involved in every nanny-state scenario, including trying to get Congress to overrule courts on the Terry Schiavo case (affecting a single person). Perhaps Santorum's lack of concern about the Constitution hurt the brand.

More importantly, I fail to see why the the "Bush-Hastert big-government axis" isn't the "Bush-Santorum big-government axis". Santorum championed every major Bush era expansion of government through 2006 - including Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the like. Santorum was Bush's go-to guy in the Senate, and his involvement in the K-Street project was solely to promote the Bush agenda. Pretending Santorum had nothing to do with Bush's big government expansion is like suggesting Nancy Pelosi can't be blamed for Obamacare.

The article goes on to state that Santorum's only mistake was endorsing Arlen Specter - the key vote in passing the stimulus bill and the health care takeover - but that's no big deal.

Is this the same Rick Santorum who abused the earmark system as much as anyone, and continues to this day to defend earmarks (at least when Republicans give earmarks)?

Is this the same Rick Santorum who told a group of Pennsylvania conservatives that he's learned to love deficit spending?

Is this the same Rick Santorum who thinks the big problem with the Republican party is Libertarianism? The same Rick Santorum who attacks individual liberty and denounces the pursuit of happiness?

Is this the same Rick Santorum who fought ceaselessly for the federal government use taxpayer dollars to start giving dating advice!

Rick Santorum is as much to blame for the growing federal government spending and power as anyone in America.

Libertarians and Tea Partiers

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:39:39 PDT

Reason Magazine feature a very interesting debate between Brink Lindsey, Jonah Goldberg, and Matt Kibbe on Where Do Libertarians Belong?

I take issue with a lot of what Lindsey says. Primarily, Lindsey complains:

What counts today isn’t engaging the other side with reasoned arguments; it’s building a rabid fan base by demonizing the other side...

He then proceeds to demonize the tea party movement, social conservatives, and anyone who isn't 100% with him with phrases like:

raving, anti-intellectual populism, ... a brutish nationalism, as expressed in anti-immigrant xenophobia ... dogmatic religiosity, as expressed in homophobia, creationism, and extremism on beginning- and end-of-life issues... mass opinion on the right has veered off into feverish self-delusion. Witness the “birther” phenomenon ...

This is quite disappointing and not particularly helpful. Not only is Lindsey picking the worst elements, as well as mischaracterizations, of tea partiers and of conservatives and applying it to everyone, but he basically ostracizes anyone who supports enforcement of immigration laws or opposes abortion on demand. It will be tough to build a libertarian majority with an attitude like this, as decades of failure have proven.

As I said once before, instead of sticking a finger in the eye of those with some policy disagreements, but similar principles, Lindsey and his colleagues at Cato should reach out to the Tea Party Movement and persuade them, and help provide the intellectual rigor he thinks they lack.

The other two pieces are exceptionally well done, and provide the "reasoned arguments" the discourse needs. Goldberg, especially, writes what I would have said, had I both the time and his eloquence.

Big Business and Democrats

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:37:03 PDT

The average voter will probably hear a lot this election year trying to tie Republicans to Big Business. For instance, Democrats have already attacked anyone opposing the so-called "Wall Street Reform" as being a puppet of Wall Street. What you might not hear, but should know is that:

Big Wall Street players, like Goldman Sachs, love the new Wall Street regulations, and have had a role in crafting the legislation.
Wall Street is giving plenty of money to the campaigns of Democrats, including those supposedly "fighting Wall Street."
The Wall Street Reform creates a permanent bailout authority.
The legislation preserves the status quo.
The legislation exempts Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac - the entities most responsible for financial crisis (or course, that's what happens when those who pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up bad credit and denied the two giants were in trouble write the new bill).
The reform would tax commercial banks and to support big hedge funds, and will largely help the larger banks.

You will also hear rhetoric that Republicans love Big Oil, especially BP. But wait, are we talking about:

The same BP that "lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels?"
The same BP that gave more money to Obama than any other candidate, then supported his agenda?
The same BP that gave millions to environment groups - including Pennsylvania's enviro-lobbyists PennFuture - and funded the US Climate Action Partnership?

It is important to note that there is a difference between Big Business and Free Enterprise, and it is often the case that Big Business loves Big Government.

This is such an important fact about government rent-seeking, yet so often misunderstood and distorted, that I will repeat: Big Business loves Big Government. And again: Big Business loves Government

Quick Summary of Corbett's Ideas: Lots More Spending, Less Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 09 May 2010 14:04:15 PDT

A quick perusal of the PA gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett's policy proposal indicates lots more spending, but not more taxes:

Cut Taxes.

You might notice the obvious difficulty in doing both.

Add to that the fact the Corbett remains undecided on Right to Work, undecided on taxpayer funded preschool and on school vouchers, as well as undecided on Prevailing Wage laws, term limits, I & R, and 401(k)s for state workers and it should be obvious what is going on here.

The Corbett campaign has surrounded itself with every special interest imaginable - none of whom want higher taxes (at least, not on themselves). But from the public school establishment, to the transportation industry, to unions, to state workers, to alternative energy firms, to Big Businesses that receive corporate welfare, his allies and funders feed at the trough of state government - either through state spending and handouts, or through regulation and mandates that benefit them.

Thus, Corbett has promised to let them have their cake and eat it too.

Tom Corbett and the "Living Constitution"

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:49:52 PDT

I received two missives from the Corbett for Governor campaign and the PA GOP today - the first decrying "desperate condidates [sic]" the latter using Reagan's "11th Commandment" to to defend Corbett saying "any assertion that he is not a strong defender of the Constitution is simply not ture [sic]."

The comments come in defense of Tom Corbett's statement at the PA Leadership Conference in Harrisburg, and later at an event in Pittsburgh, that he believes the Constitution is a "Living Document". The phrase "Living Constitution" of course, is one deeply concerning for most conservatives. It originated with Woodrow Wilson, who used it to explain that we should not be constrained by the limits put forth in the Constitution - like checks & balances, separation of powers, federalism, and expressed powers of government. Wilson argued that the Constitution was "living" - that is, the power of government grows and expands with the changing country and changing economy.

Having heard Corbett's speech, I don't think this quite what he meant by the phrase (though it's hard to say exactly what he meant). But the problem is one of his own making - if Corbett and his staff didn't know that "Living Constitution" wouldn't play out well, they should have noticed the loud murmur through the crowd after he said it. And if they didn't hear that, maybe they should have noticed reporters on Twitter commenting on the murmur through the crowd. And if Corbett wasn't able to correct his gaffe on the spot, he should have had time to take the line out before his next speech.

Corbett could have defused the whole situation saying, "hey I misspoke", or "it was a poor word choice" and deny he believes in a Living Constitution, making Rohrer's response seem desperate, rather than calling it desperate without refuting it.

As for the PA GOP and Rob Gleason, they always seem to evoke Reagan's 11th commandment when it suit them - not noting for instance, that Reagan came up with it when he was Governor of California, not when he challenged Gerald Ford. Indeed, I never heard Gleason express outrage over Corbett's camp calling Sam Rohrer "desperate" and that his support was "contrived". Nor did Gleason call out former Republican Arlen Specter for attacking Pat Toomey, trying to link him to "Wall Street Greed."

Indeed, it seems the GOP only likes to cry foul when a challenger criticizes their endorsed choice.

More Frequent Updated - Microsoft Windows or Mitt Romney's Principles?

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:37:37 PST

Politico has a story on the new and improved Mitt Romney, unveiled at CPAC this week.

Political Wire previously wrote on how Romney was going to "reinvent" himself yet again, given that posturing as the conservative alternative to McCain and Giuliani didn't work in 2008, and pose as a moderate.

Hey, I've got to hand it to him, at least he's consistent - always changing his views to get people to like him.

Is the Tea Party Movement Dying?

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:27:23 PST

Joe Scarborough had a recent column asking "Is the Tea Party over?" Curiously, I had been thinking of writing a post with the opposite conclusions. First, let me rebut Scarborough, and the three examples of the movement "tearing itself apart".

1) Scarborough points to questions/jokes about Scott Brown (namely by Glen Beck), and asks "Why are the tea partyers turning on their own?" But Joe misses the obvious fact that that many of those supporting Brown - including Jim Demint and the Tea Party Patriots - acknowledged that he was not one of their own, but that supporting him in Massachusetts would be a strategic pick-up (more on this below)

2) He points to a National Tea Party Convention, and Redstate's Erik Erickson's criticism of the event. But Erickson's criticism is well-justified. The sponsor of the National Convention have not been part of the movement, are charging an unusually high price, and are looking to make a profit. Rather than being those within the movement fighting amongst themselves, it is really those within criticizing outsider who are simply trying to make a buck exploiting the name.

3) Finally, he points to the failure of the Ross Perot and the Reform Party in the 1990s as what could happen to the Tea Party movement. This is the only valid point. However, the tea party movement is not personality driven, and has no Ross Perot, but is a leaderless, grassroots, movement. Furthermore, there has not been a serious attempt to form a third political party.

Now on to my observations. To start, I will dispense with the "tea party" label - there are groups forming from this spirit, but only a portion of them identify themselves with the tea parties. Heretofore I will refer to the movement as the Liberty Movement.

What I have seen over the past few weeks and months in not a dying movement, but one that is stronger now than ever. The Liberty Movement did not end with the tea parties (as I had once feared) or the 9/12 rally, but is continuing to grow both in size and scope. As a policy wonk, I have been able to speak to a number of these groups across Pennsylvania, and been amazed at the numbers attending these forums. They certainly aren't attending because I am a great speaker (I'm not) or famous (again not) or because of my good looks (which since I'm not famous, they wouldn't know about beforehand).

Rather, these are people concerned, many for the first time, about what is happening in politics at the national, state, and local level, and want to hear about government pensions or the state budget. Three positives to counter Scarborough

1) The Liberty Movement is growing - these groups are adding new members and getting new faces at their forums. And there are many more looking for a group to get involved in.

2) The Liberty Movement is increasingly informed - these activist already are well aware of the voting records of members of Congress, and are quickly catching up to speed on state lawmakers and local officials. This spells trouble for those seeking to capitalize on the movement and think they will simply support Republicans. Members of the Liberty Movement are also paying attention to the issues; they of course understand the details of the health care bill, but are also paying attention to state budget and tax proposal and local issues.

3) The Liberty Movement is becoming organized and getting strategic - the movement has moved past protest. They are holding forums to discuss issues (indeed many groups have committees studying legislation and policy areas). They are beginning to vet candidates for office - some groups may make endorsements, others will stick to educating their members about the positions of candidates. And these groups are looking to get involved in the election process, even down to getting new people to run for party committee positions - which poses a great threat to the party establishment (in both parties).

What Scarborough misses with his national-level observation is that he can't see the trees for the forest. All politics is local, and the influence of individual groups (i.e. trees that are ever-growing) at the local level should not be underestimated.

I can't say that the Liberty Movement will have a lasting influence, or will fade like the Reform party. But any prognosis of an eminent demise is greatly exaggerated.

Limited-Government Conservatives and Rick Santorum

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Benefield) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:14:38 PST

The buzz is already circulating that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is considering a run for president in 2012. Ignoring the fact that it is way to early to talk about the 2012 election, unless you are a political consultant needing a long-term job, I'll try to nip this in the bud, and explain why PA conservatives will likely respond with an ugh!

Rick Santorum is the kind of "fiscal conservative" who supported a massive increase in federal spending, champions deficit spending to a group of Pennsylvania conservatives, and defends Republicans' earmarks while criticizing Democrats'.

Cato's David Boaz explains Santorum's antipathy towards limited government.

One example - I think the next Republican candidate for president should criticize Obama for his expansive view of the federal government. He or she might want to point to ridiculous examples - like the federal government running a website giving dating advice!

Just one problem - this was the brainchild of one Rick Santorum, who fought to spend $100 million in taxpayer funding to "promote healthy families," which includes the federal government giving dating tips. Of course, Santorum celebrated the $5.3 million that he was "bringing back to Pennsylvania."

So yes, if you think members of Congress should dole out dating advice at the taxpayers' dime, then Rick Santorum is your guy.