Tuesday August 23, 2005

Excellent Spin

It is almost amazing how good politicians are at spinning the new and speeches they give. In today's news, in reference to the Cindy Sheehan protests, President Bush is quoted as saying "I've met with a lot of families, she doesn't represent the view of a lot of families I have met with." But if you pay attention to the various public events or town halls that the does attend, they are almost exclusively filled with pro-Bush supporters.

In fact, during the 2004 campaign people wearing anti-Bush T-shirts were denied admission, thrown out, or arrested. In fairness, the Kerry camp was also not welcoming, but not nearly as heavy handed.

Another great example of spin is to tie two important but not necessarily related things together. From the speech to the VFW in Utah:
"We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We will honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists."
It is very difficult for anyone to put together a rational reason not to honor the soldiers that have lost their lives in the US armed forces. As much as you may disagree with the policy, the troops in the trenches are willingly putting their lives on the line without regard to that policy. That is admirable! But the false implication is that if you don't support the policy, you are not honoring the fallen. Their honor comes from what they have already done, not from what the future policy will be. It is completely logical to oppose staying in Iraq and to also honor the troops.

The point is that politicians, and political parties, are spinning things so heavily to support their positions that the logical flaws are now blatant. Personally, I believe leaving Iraq now will cause more harm than good, and that has nothing to do with the arguments for or against invading Iraq in the first place. You break it, you buy it.

( Aug 23 2005, 05:58:12 PM CDT ) Permalink Comments [1]

Tuesday April 19, 2005

Independent Judiciary

A quote from the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

I wonder if Tom DeLay and Bill Frist have considered this perspective in their recent rants about judges opposing their views?

In fairness, the quote is about how Putin is consolidating Russian power and the omitted text is:

"like the Duma (parliament lower house)"

Saturday March 05, 2005

Reducing the Deficit

Claim

On a recent Charlie Rose (02/09/05), the speaker of the house Dennis Hastert stated that they were making progress in reducing the budget deficit. In the most recent year he claimed it was reduced by 20% and at this rate it would be no problem to meet George W. Bush's goal of halving the deficit in 5 years.

Data

According to the Congressional Budget Office's Historical Budget Data report the budget deficit in the last 2 years has been $378B in 2003 and $412B in 2004. Latest estimates by the CBO have the 2005 deficit at $394B, at best a 5% reduction.

Spin

Where did the claim come from? The Bush administration had projected that the 2004 deficit would come in at an amazing $521B. As with any economic forecasting this was based on assumptions of spending and economic growth, ones that turned out to be overly pessimistic. To make things even worse, the 50% reduction goal is also based on this excessive estimate, based on actual data the goal (if achieved) will only reduce the deficit by a third.

ABC Report

( Mar 05 2005, 11:21:14 PM CST ) Permalink Comments [2]

Thursday February 10, 2005

Vote as I Say, Not as I Do

I take pleasure in having been accused by one person as being a Democrat and another as a Republican. In fact I don't much like either party and my personal views cross many party lines. I am not a Libertarian either.

It is always interesting to watch political parties espouse one philosophy while actual implement another. The Republicans have had the advantage in past years of not being in power, so any positions or proposals by them that were not accomplished could be blamed on the Democrats. Now that they are the party in power, they have no one to blame if their words fail to become action.

So how are they doing?

In a recent Washington Post article talks about how the Republicans, traditionally the party of smaller and less intrusive government, have actually become the opposite. The article quotes Indiana Republican representative Mike Pence saying:

"The Republican majority, left to its own devices from 1995 to 2000, was a party committed to limited government and restoring the balances of federalism with the states. Clearly, President Bush has had a different vision, and that vision has resulted in education and welfare policies that have increased the size and scope of government."

Reality is that most politicians first worry about being re-elected and second about party dogma, although the latter may influence the former it is still secondary. The standard stump speech of any politician is that they are the best suited to represent their constituents in Congress. Or in the time warn phrase "All politics is local." Local, if not myopic, vision usually translates into pork barrel spending to "give" the people what they want.

What about tax cuts?

There is a certain cynical element that claims that the Republican strategy of tax cuts is less about supply side economics (a topic for another blog), and more about starving the government of so much revenue that the size of government must be cut to prevent fiscal collapse from out of control deficits. This could actually work if they have the political strength of conviction to risk causing so much pain on the local voters that they are ousted in the next election.

Personally I think that regardless of party, congress will not risk being voted out and the size of government will not shrink.