Advancing Capitalism | Publications | Competitive Enterprise Instittue

Higher Education Bubble Update

Hans Bader — Tue, 22 May 2012 20:50:56 +0000

From Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit:

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Are We Subsidizing Student Debt Too Generously? “Why am I subsidizing student loans for Harvard kids? . . . I have no idea why. It never made sense to me even when I was at Harvard. Harvard has a huge endowment, and just hoards it. It’s not mostly for the students. As the Dean of Harvard Law School publicly said then, students are merely ‘incidental.’”

Hans Bader

Tue, 2012-05-22

Citation Source:

Instapundit

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/143502/

Driving the Market From the Marketplace of Ideas

Fred L. Smith, Jr. — Fri, 18 May 2012 11:31:55 +0000

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin recently came under attack from left-wing activists for meeting with representatives of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nationwide association of conservative state legislators. This is but the latest salvo in a sustained attack on ALEC from the political left. The governor rightly has ignored the attacks, which really are efforts to stifle political speech.

ALEC's critics paint it as a shadowy organization that pushes ready-made legislation to advance a corporate agenda. In reality, the attack on ALEC is part of a much broader attack by those seeking to drive all market voices from the marketplace of ideas. ALEC's critics say they object to its tactics, but what they really seek to attack is its ideological principles: free markets and limited government.

ALEC has never denied that it promotes an agenda. That is why it was founded. Groups promoting an agenda are at the core of the political system envisioned by our nation's founders. Indeed, such organizations are part of every democracy. Embracing this reality, the founders "set faction against faction" as a bulwark of freedom. Open political battle among opposing groups armed with equal rights to free speech and assembly would only benefits America.

However, as the attack on ALEC illustrates, in today's highly politicized world, some factions are more equal than others. The campaign against ALEC is part of a greater concerted effort to drive productive economic voices from the policy debate. This campaign involves stigmatizing efforts by the entrepreneurial elements of the business community - and by extension, their policy allies - when they try to explain their side of an issue.

This effort to drive out pro-market voices is far more extensive than the attack on ALEC. Anti-business forces already have succeeded at excluding business experts from governmental policy advisory councils and imposing second-class status on them in academic journals. Any nonprofit political organization that receives business funding comes under constant attack - unless, that is, the funding is aimed at expanding the size and scope of government.

Businesses have every right and, in fact, a responsibility to push back against reckless job-destroying legislation. If the for-profit sector can't participate in political debate, practical voices will be excluded in favor of those motivated only by ideology. History has provided lesson after lesson of the damage that those with the very best of intentions can do when they put ideology before reality.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with ideology, which informs politicians of principles to uphold. Organizations such as ALEC and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which I head, fight market-distorting policies, such as subsidies and regulations, based on a commitment to economic freedom. But public policy isn't made in a vacuum. It needs to be informed by the real-world experiences of those affected by it. It is not enough to have good ideas. We also need to develop ways to apply them and communicate them - to make good policy, good politics.

For that reason, it is unfortunate that so many businesses see discretion as the better part of valor when their backing of pro-free-market groups such as ALEC comes under attack. Such a retreat simply reinforces the short-term approach that leads too many businesses to neglect the policy arena, allowing anti-business voices to rise unchallenged. America needs more CEOs willing to stand up for free enterprise itself. Support for groups like ALEC is a valuable way to make that stand.

ALEC plays a valuable role in ensuring that state policymakers consider how legislative and regulatory initiatives affect the main role of business - wealth creation. It advocates for pro-market policies through publications, conferences and model legislation - in other words, by presenting ideas. As for the value of those ideas, legislators and the public are free to make up their minds.

Our democratic republic runs on the fuel of open debate. If those who want to limit the free market have a powerful argument it should be easily able to overwhelm the ideas of those with a different view - without trying to stifle opposition with strong-arm tactics. ALEC's opponents' thuggery shows they have no such case and little respect for the tradition of open debate.

Fred L. Smith, Jr.

Mon, 2012-05-14

Citation Source:

The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/14/driving-the-market-from-the-marketplace-of-ideas/print/

Letter to the Editor: Companies Have Right to Engage in Political Process

Fred L. Smith, Jr. — Mon, 14 May 2012 15:32:49 +0000

Regarding “Activist shareholders want full disclosure” (Business, May 6): Shareholder proposals calling for greater disclosure regarding “lobbying” sound reasonable until one considers the aim of most of the activists calling for such disclosure: to undermine companies' right to engage the political process and to defend their interests. The view that economic voices are somehow less legitimate than others poses great danger to our democracy. If economic voices are driven from the policy debates, we're left only with the often shrill voices of ideologues.

And, history shows, the greatest dangers to civil society come from ideologues who believe their views to be the only legitimate ones. Moves to clutter the meeting agenda of public companies in anticipation of gaining a negotiated capitulation are increasing throughout America. They should be resisted. We would all lose if the market were to be driven out of the marketplace of ideas.

Fred L. Smith, Jr.

Mon, 2012-05-14

Citation Source:

The Oklahoman

http://newsok.com/companies-have-right-to-engage-in-political-process/article/3674624

Federal 'Stimulus' Spent $34.5 Million In Michigan For Only 183 Total Jobs

Fred L. Smith, Jr. — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:49:21 +0000

From Anne Schieber's article on Michigan Capitol Confidential:

The real problem is that the government is creating these programs in the first place; the companies aren't to blame, said Fred Smith, president and co-founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“Government has poor ability to pick the winners on the frontier sectors of the economy. It got excited and over-promoted an issue and everyone got excited, even Fortune 500 companies,” he said.

Fred L. Smith, Jr.

Thu, 2012-05-10

Citation Source:

Michigan Capitol Confidential

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16868

If I Wanted America to fail: Free Market Agitprop With a Lesson

William Frezza — Fri, 04 May 2012 11:22:18 +0000

A powerful YouTube video essay that premiered on Earth Day has since gone viral. I first saw it when it cracked 100,000 views. At last count, over 1.7 million people have seen it, a number that grows daily. It started out being passed along by conservative Americans but has begun spreading into wider circles.

This video, entitled, If I Wanted America to Fail, can be best described as a pithy five-minute antidote to Al Gore's ponderous and plodding film, An Inconvenient Truth. Written and narrated by a young Floridian political activist named Ryan Houck from an organization named Free Market America, the piece is loosely modeled on Paul Harvey's famous 1965 radio sermon "If I Were the Devil."

But this is not a religious screed. It is an anti-religious screed. The religion it attacks is radical environmentalism, and the priesthood it exposes is the runaway bureaucracy of the regulatory state. The philosophy it proposes as an alternative is free market capitalism.

It's not just the crisp production values and skilled emotional manipulation that makes this piece so notable. It is the structure of the repeated refrain that tacitly asks the most important questions one could ask about both radical environmentalism and the wider basket of progressive policies that are now strangling our economy.

The questions are: Should government policies be judged by their intentions or their results? Should political leaders be judged by what they say they want to accomplish or by what actually happens after they gain the reins of power?

If you believe that the answers to these questions are yes, you must watch this video.

The piece opens: "If I wanted America to fail ... to follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream. I would start with energy."

What follows is a steady drumbeat of indictments depicting the actual results of environmental regulatory policies that have demonized the energy infrastructure that keeps us all alive. In example after example, Houck drives the message home. This is not working. This is not making us better off.

While the essay lays the blame at the feet of global warming hysteria, it does not engage in a debate on the scientific merits of that controversial theory. It merely notes that all of this economic devastation is being justified by the highly speculative notion that somehow, someday, these economically destructive policies will deliver a greater good.

Note that Houck does not directly accuse progressives of wanting America to fail, yet that is exactly what progressives hear-and it is the only thing they hear-when they listen to this piece. He merely states that if failure were your objective, then the energy policies our government has espoused would be a very effective way to go about it.

Most of my friends are liberals, not just because I live in an extremely blue state but because I enjoy their company. I believe them when they say that they want what's best for America. While numerous Cloward-Piven strategists may lurk in academia hoping to overload our current system so badly that it comes crashing down, I believe that these radicals are a tiny minority, even within the Democratic Party.

There is no reason not to take the good intentions of environmentalists and progressives at face value. Sure, it's fun to point out the hypocrisy of jet-setting environmental celebrities and their heated swimming pools, but no political group has cornered the market on hypocrisy.

Rather than questioning motives-which almost never leads to fruitful dialogue-this essay invites us to question results. Have government policies created a viable, scalable, economically sustainable solar power industry? Has the biofuels movement reduced or increased our carbon footprint? Can windmills really generate enough reliable electricity to replace coal, or would we end up living with rolling blackouts if we let the EPA shut down the coal industry?

Is it rational to expect that current policies will make electric vehicles a meaningful portion of the automobile market in the foreseeable future? Has blocking an oil pipeline from Canada forced those dirty oils sands to stay in the ground? Has an explosion of promised green jobs actually arrived to reduce unemployment and help pull us out of recession?

As Houck eloquently points out, can we condemn logging, mining, and farming while we expect to have roofs over our heads, heat in our homes, and food on our tables? If we demonize prosperity because it is not instantaneously enjoyed equally, should we expect to get more or less of it?

Finally, I'd like to ask my liberal friends: If failure is not your objective then why are you demanding that failed policies be continued, and even expanded?

I recommend you invest the four minutes and 39 seconds it takes to watch this video, even if you are a radical environmentalist. Especially if you are a radical environmentalist. Because this guy is your worst nightmare. Ignore him at your peril.

William Frezza

Mon, 2012-04-30

Citation Source:

Real Clear Markets

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/04/30/if_i_wanted_america_to_fail_free_market_agitprop_with_a_lesson_99645.html

Leftwing Pitchforkers: Kill the Limited Government Monsters!

Fred L. Smith, Jr. — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:19:21 +0000

From Ronald Bailey's article in Reason:

In a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal about the relentless Team Blue crusade against "market voices," Fred Smith, head of the libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, warns:

The attack on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is part of a broader attack by those seeking to drive all market voices from the marketplace of ideas. ("Shutting Down ALEC," Review & Outlook, April 18). As the Founders realized, "factions"—what we now call "special interests"—are an unavoidable aspect of democracy. The Founders' solution was not to suppress factions, but to "set faction against faction" to ensure vigorous debate. The attack on ALEC runs counter to that spirit. It is a concerted effort to silence one faction by driving productive economic voices from the policy debate.

When businesses seek to expose and reduce the harmful consequences of capricious legislation, that is both their right and good for democracy. When market voices are excluded from the policy debate, the only voices left are those motivated purely by ideology. And as history shows, the greatest harm to nations comes from ideologues who believe they know what's best for everybody.

Our Founders gave us a system based on the battle of ideas. If critics of the free market believe they have a strong case, they should seek to win that battle openly, rather than by silencing the opposition through intimidation. What ALEC's opponents seek is nothing less than the sabotage of democracy. It is especially unfortunate when businesses retreat from backing free-market groups like ALEC when they come under pressure. America needs more CEOs willing to stand up for free enterprise. Readers who agree should let those CEOs know now.

In an email, Smith notes...

...there are only three sources of financial support for anything: Stolen money (government), Dead money (foundations) and Live Money (firms and individuals). All are useful but very different.

He asks why should anyone be nervous about "Live Money" participating in public debates? As Smith correctly points out:

After all, bureaucrats and foundation managers have goals too – are these more moral?

Fred L. Smith, Jr.

Thu, 2012-04-26

Citation Source:

Reason Magazine

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/26/leftwing-pitchforkers-kill-the-limited-g

Letter to the Editor: An Attempt to Drive Free-Market Voices From the Field

Fred L. Smith, Jr. — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:07:59 +0000

The attack on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is part of a broader attack by those seeking to drive all market voices from the marketplace of ideas. ("Shutting Down ALEC," Review & Outlook, April 18). As the Founders realized, "factions"—what we now call "special interests"—are an unavoidable aspect of democracy. The Founders' solution was not to suppress factions, but to "set faction against faction" to ensure vigorous debate. The attack on ALEC runs counter to that spirit. It is a concerted effort to silence one faction by driving productive economic voices from the policy debate.

When businesses seek to expose and reduce the harmful consequences of capricious legislation, that is both their right and good for democracy. When market voices are excluded from the policy debate, the only voices left are those motivated purely by ideology. And as history shows, the greatest harm to nations comes from ideologues who believe they know what's best for everybody.

Our Founders gave us a system based on the battle of ideas. If critics of the free market believe they have a strong case, they should seek to win that battle openly, rather than by silencing the opposition through intimidation. What ALEC's opponents seek is nothing less than the sabotage of democracy. It is especially unfortunate when businesses retreat from backing free-market groups like ALEC when they come under pressure. America needs more CEOs willing to stand up for free enterprise. Readers who agree should let those CEOs know now.

Fred L. Smith, Jr.

Wed, 2012-04-25

Citation Source:

The Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html?mod=WSJ_topnav_na_opinion

Are We Subsidizing Student Debt Too Generously?

Hans Bader — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:20:27 +0000

From Jennifer Rubin's post on The Washington Post's Right Turn blog:

I went to two critics of the current craze for federal subsidies and extension of student loans, Lindsey Burke, the Will Skillman Fellow in Education at the Heritage Foundation, and Hans Bader, senior attorney and counsel for special projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Why am I subsidizing student loans for Harvard kids?

BURKE: Exactly. The burden – and risk – is passed along to taxpayers, including the three-quarters of Americans who don’t hold a college degree (and likely earn less than those who do hold a degree). Taxpayers will be on the hook for $6 billion if the rates are kept low.

BADER: I have no idea why. It never made sense to me even when I was at Harvard. Harvard has a huge endowment, and just hoards it. It’s not mostly for the students. As the Dean of Harvard Law School publicly said then, students are merely “incidental.”

Don’t federal subsidies drive up the price of tuition?

BURKE: Keeping interest rates artificially low will fail to drive down college costs in the long run. Colleges will once again be able to increase costs, and students with easy access to low-interest loans will once again be able to pay. The Obama administration has significantly increased federal involvement in the student loan industry, effectively nationalizing student lending through language buried in Obamacare, by continuing to increase federal subsidies, and by “forgiving” student loans altogether after 20 years on the backs of taxpayers. But these policies only exacerbate the college cost crisis, continuing a vicious cycle whereby college costs rise in tandem with ever-increasing federal subsidies.

BADER: Yes, federal subsidies do drive up tuition. It’s Econ 101: basic economics dictates that conclusion. Cato Institute education expert Neal McCluskey links to 4 studies so concluding at this link. Andrew Gillen persuasively argues that subsidies drive up tuition in a study available at this link. Gillen’s study is discussed at this link. Government loan ceilings are higher for law students than for undergrads, and, surprise, surprise, law school tuition and student debt are much higher there. The more taxpayer-backed student loans available, the higher the tuition rises, and the more crippling students’ debt upon graduation. Even the liberal law professor Brian Tamanaha was driven to observe that “This financial insanity will not stop until significant changes are made to the federal student loan program.” As a story in the ABA Journal noted, “Law students . . . are treated generously as future professionals and able to borrow, with virtually no cap, significantly more money than undergrads. . . For several decades, most higher education loans were made by private lenders with the federal government providing guarantees against loss — and, in some cases, interest rate subsidies.” Now, students routinely graduate from law school with well over $100,000 in debt – an average of $165,000 at John Marshall in Chicago.

Why are colleges allowed to keep tax-exempt status while sitting on mounds of endowment money?

BURKE: It’s an interesting question, particularly when one considers the increase in non-instructional staff at universities over the years. The Goldwater Institute found that administrative positions at colleges increased 39 percent since 1993. But ever-increasing federal subsidies give colleges little incentive to cut costs. If the administration wanted to drive down college costs, they could consider reforms that would encourage savings-based – instead of debt-based – college financing, and ending the witch hunt against the for-profit higher education sector.

BADER: Logically, I can’t explain why colleges are allowed to [keep] tax exempt status while sitting on mounds of endowment money. Private charities usually have to spend a certain percentage each year. Why not wealthy colleges? They are accumulating extravagant wealth due to preferential tax treatment in a way that reminds me of the Medieval Church, which ended up controlling much of the land due to its favored, tax-free status (which later kings – even some Catholic rulers – ended up confiscating in large part later in the Renaissance and Enlightenment). But if you tried to limit their tax-free hoard, they would send high-paid lobbyists to fight you, and claim you were stealing from the children and America’s future.

Bader went on to explain: “Sometimes, financial aid increases lead directly to tuition increases. The federal government imposed the 90-10 rule, which forced low-cost for-profit educational institutions to raise their tuition to comply with a new federal regulation requiring them to charge enough over federal financial aid so that at least 10 percent of education costs don’t come from financial aid. Corinthian College had diploma programs in health care and other fields that can be completed in a year or less. Until 2011, many of those programs had a total cost of about $15,000, which meant that federal grants and loans could cover nearly 100 percent of their cost. In response to the Education Department’s rule, the college raised tuition to comply with the 90/10 rule. The net result of the government’s rule, as Corinthian College notes, was to “create a perverse, no-win ‘Catch-22’ that could prevent low-income students from attending college,” by encouraging such colleges to raise tuition to outstrip rising financial aid by more than ten percent.

In sum, Bader finds that President Obama has “harmed America’s students, not only by perpetuating financial aid policies that drive up tuition” but also by encouraging students to seek degrees that don’t make them employable “even though a credit rating agency, Moody’s, is now warning student borrowers that college may not be worth the money for some majors. Meanwhile, he says, the administration is “seeking to cut back on useful vocational training needed for in-demand, high-paid blue collar jobs, such as the skilled workers who factories need before they can expand and hire more unskilled workers (among whom unemployment is very high).” His analysis on that topic is here.

Hans Bader

Tue, 2012-04-24

Citation Source:

The Washington Post Blogs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/are-we-subsidizing-student-debt-too-generously/2012/04/24/gIQAjCtCfT_blog.html

Supply-Side Critics Offer Only Trickle-Down Inflation

William Frezza — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:11:36 +0000

Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing. Many professional economists go to great lengths to obscure simple truths inconvenient to their political masters. The media then promote these obfuscations, which are designed to appeal to a misinformed electorate. And that is the truly dismal part.

Much of the economics politicians peddle - and voters think they know - is pure bunk. For a different perspective, here are 10 common sense propositions I challenge political economists to refute.

1) Money is not wealth, but merely a claim on wealth. Printing more money does not create more wealth.

2) Counterfeiting money steals wealth from others. The theft is no less when a government does it.

3) Moving money from one pocket to another does not create wealth. This is true even when small amounts of money are quietly siphoned from the pockets of the many and loudly deposited into the pockets of the few.

4) Before wealth can be consumed, invested, or redistributed, it has to be created. Consuming existing wealth does not create more of it, nor does borrowing against future wealth.

5) Wealth is created when consumption is deferred in favor of profitable production. Profits generally require selling something for more than it costs to make.

6) Profits are rarely a sure thing. Every decision to forgo consumption and invest in production seeking future returns is a gamble.

7) Private investors investing their own money generally seek to maximize after-tax profits balanced against a chosen degree of acceptable risk. Investment decisions are sensitive to policies that affect this equation.

8) Private investors that consistently make bad decisions, thereby squandering their wealth, eventually lose the ability to make more investments.

9) Politicians often "invest" other people's money seeking to maximize the number of votes they can garner. Whether or not these "investments" generate a future return, or are just thinly veiled redistributions, is secondary because a politician's time horizon extends only until the next election.

10) Politicians acting as public investors who consistently make bad decisions can remain in office and continue making more "investments" as long as they convince enough voters to shift the blame for their failures onto others.

Are these propositions really so radical? It seems that way, given the remarkable persistence of inflationary Keynesian policy, the popular indifference to the risks posed by regulatory uncertainty, and the interminable calls for higher taxes on productive investments.

It's a pity that the Reagan-era supply-side policies that rekindled an economy mired in malaise, unemployment, and stagflation continue to be ridiculed as "trickle-down economics." As an alternative, we now have moved into the era of "trickle down inflation." Here's how it works.

Hundreds of billions of dollars counterfeited by the government and handed over to banks deemed too big to fail earn riskless returns from the carry trade, generating paper "profits" fueled by an explosion of government debt. These "profits" do nothing to create wealth as they merely move money from the pockets of all the taxpayers into the pockets of a few crony capitalists. But they do deliver a temporary illusion of false prosperity, which helps boost the reelection chances of political incumbents - even as they rail at the bonuses of the fat cats their policies are enriching. When this money explodes off balance sheets, as it one day must, double-digit inflation will have trickled down, but only after the bankers and politicians have profited from it.

Meanwhile, young companies that need cash to grow are starved of credit while mature companies sit on mountains of cash they are afraid to invest. In both cases, job growth is stifled, expanding the ranks of the unemployed to whom politicians can promise extended unemployment benefits in return for the votes necessary to maintain the policies that keep them out of work.

But wait, there's more.

"Investments" in unproven green energy technologies are being showered on companies run by politically connected campaign donors that sell products for less than it costs them to make. This produces nothing but a string of predictable bankruptcies. None of these failures reduce the ardor of government "investors" to do more of the same. Why? Because with the help of certain economists, failure can always be blamed on not spending enough.

Nothing seems to put a dent in the eagerness of politicians to throw other people's money at the next hare brained scheme promising renewable energy independence. Never mind that we are awash in domestic energy supplies spouting from newly drilled gas wells that these same politicians have been trying to plug.

Then there's the pipeline from friendly Canada, which has been blocked in a futile effort to keep that oil in the ground. Instead the oil will be diverted to China, which has been accused of manipulating its currency to commit the dastardly crime of selling us more for less as they lend us the money to make it possible.

All of the above will continue as long as politicians believe it will buy votes. Voters will be unlikely - or unwilling - to figure out what is really going on as long as court economists and their media enablers succeed in misleading them.

To paraphrase the Gumpster, that rare American immune to bamboozlement, dismal science is as dismal science does.

William Frezza

Mon, 2012-04-23

Citation Source:

Real Clear Markets

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/04/23/supply-side_critics_offer_only_trickle-down_inflation_99632.html

President Obama Pledges To Recycle His Campaign Pledges

William Frezza — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:44:46 +0000

In a bold move aimed at reviving a renewable energy program struggling to bounce back from a string of bankruptcies (investing in the future isn’t easy), President Barack Obama once again promised that if elected he will not only give courageous speeches on immigration reform similar to the ones he gave in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, but will recycle entire paragraphs of his old remarks in order to conserve teleprompter electrons.

The Romney campaign was quick to condemn the president, pointing out that Mitt would never recycle campaign pledges, preferring instead to promise bold new initiatives designed to repeal programs he once favored.

Pivoting off criticism that many of his speeches and promises are starting to sound familiar, the president assured prospective voters that this is all part of a carefully thought-out “campaign pledge sustainability program”—the real objectives of which he’ll be able to share as soon he doesn’t have to worry about reelection.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney fended off requests to clarify that remark. “This is the most transparent administration that has ever occupied the White House,” Carney repeated. And repeated. And repeated. Until an alert staffer had the presence of mind to reset Carney’s animatronics programming unit.

An overnight Rasmussen poll of 500 registered voters who responded to robotic phone calls asking them to, “Press 1 if you believe in campaign pledge recycling” indicated massive support for dredging up unfulfilled past promises. Sixty-eight percent responded positively to a series of recycled campaign pledges that included the word “fairness,” while a strong plurality were willing to swallow any repeat promise that ended with the totemic phrase “shared sacrifice.” Women were much more willing to believe recycled promises even if they had been broken several times, while the young seemed unaware that all of the promises reviewed in the poll had come around before. Elderly voters were unsure what they remembered.

The Rain Forest Alliance praised politicians who promised to recycle past campaign pledges, calculating that 20,000 trees could be saved during the current election cycle if journalists and editors followed suit and recycled their news coverage. The New York Times editorial board immediately endorsed the idea, pointing out that star columnist Paul Krugman has been recycling the same three columns for years.

“Let’s face it,” recycled political analyst James Carville was overheard mumbling into an open mic at a recent Democratic National Committee fundraiser for socially conscious millionaires and billionaires. “Most voters are dumb and lazy. There is no downside to promising the same things over and over as long as you can make the poor fools believe that they can eat someone else’s lunch before someone else gets a chance to eat theirs.”

Recycled threats and tried-and-true fear mongering initiatives are also expected to play a prominent role in the increasingly negative presidential campaign. “There is something timeless about telling old folks that the other guy is going to take away their Social Security,” offered political comedian Jon Stewart. “This is actually pretty ironic when you consider the fact that Congress made off with the entire Social Security trust fund years ago.”

In signs of evident panic as the campaign pledge recycling program gains momentum, Mitt Romney released a 79-point study that showed that campaign pledges have no correlation with actual legislation once a candidate wins office. “In my own personal experience, running for office has nothing to do with actually governing,” stated Romney. “Campaigning and governing are completely different problems requiring completely different solutions. Now that I’m the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, you won’t see me repeating any pledges I made to win the nomination. In fact, it won’t be long before most people start to wonder whether I’m even the same guy.”

“I could think of no better way to outline the central dichotomy that lies at the heart of this historic election,” offered recycled history professor and thrice-married wedding vow breaker Newt Gingrich. “Would voters rather hear a comfortable and familiar set of lies eloquently repeated by a lifelong politician who has proven himself phenomenally ineffective at actually accomplishing anything or a fresh new set of ever-shifting lies delivered by a gaffe prone, part-time politician who has spent most of his career outside of Washington getting rich by methodically achieving his objectives?”

Jimmy Carter was unavailable for comment.

William Frezza

Tue, 2012-04-17

Citation Source:

Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2012/04/17/president-obama-pledges-to-recycle-his-campaign-pledges/