Draft Mitch Daniels

Yes.

He is way better than the GOP's current field.

My dream nominee would be Gary Johnson, but let's be real—there's no way he can overcome both neo- and social-conservative opposition.

Mitch Daniels will at the least have an outside chance of overcoming tea party populism.

I need to know more of how his foreign policy would contrast with Obama's before I could endorse him in the general. But let's also not get ahead of ourselves.

Tea party ad

Woohoo.

Healthcare, tradeoffs, and the road ahead

Writes Mankiw:

Well, it appears certain that the healthcare reform bill will become law. One thing I have been struck by in watching this debate is how strident it has been, among both proponents and opponents of the legislation. As a weak-willed eclectic, I can see arguments on both sides. Life is full of tradeoffs, and so most issues strike me as involving shades of grey rather than being black and white. As a result, I find it hard to envision the people I disagree with as demons.

Arthur Okun said the big tradeoff in economics is between equality and efficiency. The health reform bill offers more equality (expanded insurance, more redistribution) and less efficiency (higher marginal tax rates). Whether you think this is a good or bad choice to make, it should not be hard to see the other point of view.

I like to think of the big tradeoff as being between community and liberty. From this perspective, the health reform bill offers more community (all Americans get health insurance, regulated by a centralized authority) and less liberty (insurance mandates, higher taxes). Once again, regardless of whether you are more communitarian or libertarian, a reasonable person should be able to understand the opposite vantagepoint.

In the end, while I understood the arguments in favor of the bill, I could not support it. In part, that is because I am generally more of a libertarian than a communitarian. In addition, I could not help but fear that the legislation will add to the fiscal burden we are leaving to future generations. Some economists (such as my Harvard colleague David Cutler) think there are great cost savings in the bill. I hope he is right, but I am skeptical. Some people say the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation a clean bill of health regarding its fiscal impact. I believe that is completely wrong, for several reasons (click here, here, and here). My judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems.

The Obama administration's political philosophy is more egalitarian and more communitarian than mine. Their spending programs require much higher taxes than we have now and, indeed, much higher taxes than they have had the temerity to propose. Here is the question I have been wondering about: How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for his vision of government?

I venture: until November 7th, 2012.

Petraeus to New Hampshire

Interesting, to say the least.

Yes I am wary of how this country glorifies military service, but that doesn't mean I'd be willing to take the opposite position and regard his service with distaste. I think that sort of prejudice is uncalled for, even if many of his supporters (unfortunately) over-value it.

What does interest me is he seems like a thoughtful, intelligent man without the malice of Cheney, and who could bring the party of Bush-Palin some much-needed gravitas.

Why Palin won't win the nomination

Ambers is somewhat encouraging.

Ezramesh on health care politics

They discuss Romney 2012, then plow through the grisly details of health care politics.

Justice sans politics

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is considering appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Bush administration crimes.  This very welcome news will no doubt meet with protests from the usual suspects (Republican hacks) calling it a partisan witch-hunt.  So, I propose: why not take the politics out of it?  Perform a thorough investigation but embargo results until the second half of November, 2012.

Update: Greenwald thinks this may be the worst of both worlds because it doesn't go after higher-level Bush officials and would treat John Yoo's work as the settled law of the time, i.e. only prosecute those who went beyond it. Maybe he's right, but I still think some level of accountability would be better than none--and if people really did exceed Yoo's bounds then, well, aren't those people worse than Yoo?

The fiscal irresponsibility of Obama Democrats

Via Mankiw, Source: Congressional Budget Office

Stimulus and bailouts aside, Obama is doubling the gap between revenue and spending from its average during the Bush years. This is the opposite of Bill Clinton's fiscal responsibility (for which Newt Gingrich deserves significant credit). But wait, it's okay—Obama is getting on the case now with a 0.0029% budget cut!

I repeat my earlier advice: If this picture doesn't change by 2012 and you care about fiscal responsibility, you can't vote Democratic again. Can't do it. Or you shouldn't be allowed to call yourself fiscally responsible anymore.

I don't know whether Republicans will offer a compelling alternative—again, they might double down on an ignoramus like Palin or Huckabee—but in that case you should pick a third party or sit the election out.

Taking fiscal responsibility seriously

If this future projected deficit chart looks the same in 2012:



...that is to say, if those red bars for 2012+ are projected to be near that high, then nobody who values fiscal responsibility should consider voting for Obama.

Whether Republicans will offer a compelling protest choice, I don't know. It could well be a freak like Palin. But in that case one should sit 2012 out or vote 3rd party.

Alaska Senate 2010 and beyond

On Dec 20 it was Murkowski 31, Palin 55

Now a local pollster says Murkowski 57, Palin 33

Phew. I'm sure a fair chunk of the difference is methodology, but in the later article are some explanations of why it would make little sense for her to challenge Murkowski.

(UPDATE: Nate Silver throws some cold water on this and, being Nate Silver, is most probably right. Oh well, we have almost a year to go before the polling starts to matter)

Hopefully all we have to worry about is Palin being the sacrificial lamb in 2012. On the one hand I'm likely to care very little about that election since barring unforseeable events it's a done deal. But on the other hand Republicanism needs to make a clean break with the Bush-Palin ignoramus axis if they want my support. Since they're fully committed to the Iraq war, defending torture, and similarly bad ideas, one of the few ways they'll be able to do this is to nominate a candidate who is not only competent but eloquent & intelligent, a concept Palin wouldn't understand if it hit her in the face.

Prediction: The more interesting choice in 2012 will be between Obama and a 3rd party protest vote (like Libertarian) for if Obama gets too lefty on economics. But all signs of his cabinet selections and stated goals are that he's too much a conventional pragmatist, and will merely carry on Clinton's Rubinomics. We have more to fear from the democratic congress than Obama himself, so apparently what we need to do is support the blue dogs once the recession turns around.