A Depressing Campaign

So far this campaign has been really depressing to me.  Either, as I have matured, I have become more cognizant of how campaigns are run, or President Obama's campaign has been unimaginably cynical.  Here's a list of campaign developments that I think Democrats should be ashamed of.

1. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claiming via anonymous source, with no evidence whatsoever, that Governor Romney had paid no taxes for the past 10 years.
2. Stephanie Cutter insinuating that Romney is a felon.
3. Ad insinuating that Governor Romney was responsible for a woman dying from cancer.
4. Democrats claiming that Republicans are conducting a war against women.

As I see it, the problem is two-fold.  First it's depressing to me, that these arguments succeed at all.  To do that, voters must be much more sensitive to this demagoguery than I had ever thought before, much more credulous.  Secondly, the Obama campaign is much more eager to exploit the public's credulity than I expected.  This is not the sort of high-minded campaign Obama promised.  He is not a new type of politician.  It's depressing, too, that he still has many supporters that don't realize that.

Poisoning the Well

Democrats love talking about Mitt Romney's taxes, but really, they're irrelevant.  They'd only be relevant if someone suspected Romney of breaking the law.  No one has suggested that Romney has done anything illegal.  All he's done is take advantage of the tax code.  Clearly Republicans and Democrats have different opinions when it comes to the tax code, but surely that debate can go forward without focusing on one man's taxes.

Some have suggested we need to know which loopholes Romney used so we can make sure those loopholes aren't expanded if he reforms the tax code.  First of all, which loopholes he used does not help anyone decide whether he should be President or not, which is what we're discussing.  Secondly, those loopholes exist whether or not he took advantage of them.  The benefits and costs of loopholes have nothing to do with whether Romney used them or not.

This is another example of how Democrats are trying to debase the tenor of the campaign.  Instead of focusing on the issues and the details, they'd rather curry jealousy and hatred of a wealthy man, who though he pays a large amount of taxes, and does so legitimately, pays a small percentage of his income.

They'll Be Sorry

I've noticed a trend.

Step 1: Democrats do something unprecedented.
Step 2: Republicans, who have never contemplated that action before, not only do it, but take it to new heights.
Step 3: Democrats complain that Republicans are abusing the process.

Examples: Filibustering court nominees for political purposes, using filibusters to prevent major laws.

My prediction is that Democrats breaking this precedent will come back to bite them.

A Challenge to Liberals

I would like to propose a requirement for all who support President Obama's re-election.

Preface: President Obama's term in office has been marked by unprecedented infringements on civil liberties and a strengthening of the executive office. 

Civil Liberties (for more details see this Salon.com article):

• He has argued that the government has the power to detain anyone (citizen or not) without due process if they're a suspected terrorist.
• He has argued that the government has the power to kill anyone (citizen or not) abroad without any trial if they're a suspected terrorist.  (and he has acted on this)
• He has extended the government's power to spy on its citizens without a warrant. Therefore where liberals complained Bush went too far, Obama has gone even farther.

Executive authority:

• Has said he will not defend certain legislation in court (DAMA)
• Has said he will not enforce certain provisions of Federal Law (selective enforcement of immigration laws).
• He has nullified certain laws that he disagrees with by granting waivers (in the case of welfare reform, he nullified the central provision which the author argues was illegal)

All that he has done, he has done for temporary benefit (whether it benefits him politically or the country's welfare is up to interpretation).  But all of them, I believe, is in the long-term very bad for this country.  They each set disastrous and frightening precedents.  Imagine what a Republican could do with these!

My proposed requirement for those who want to vote for Obama is that they must admit that he has done all of these things (which is indisputable).  They then have to either argue that they approve of all of these moves or they must say that despite these troubling actions, they believe Romney will do worse.

The Old Switcheroo

Ask yourself how many times you've heard Democrats/liberals/the media say the Republicans have put forward no plan on health care.  I've heard this many, many times.  But then, out of the blue, in an effort to discredit Republicans from another angle, Dylan Matthews at Wonkblog says "In early 2009, Ryan introduced the Patients’ Choice Act as an alternative to the administration’s health-care reform efforts."  [Emphasis my own].  Hmm, that doesn't fit with what I've heard before.

This is a lot like the years of Democrats' talking about how the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich and hurt the poor.  That's all I heard during the 2002-2004 elections.  But now Democrats want to extend the tax cuts for the middle class.  Why?  For years, they had no tax cut, now it's too important to lose!  Republicans should call them on this.  Get together a collection of Democrat quotes about the Bush tax cuts being only for the wealthy, then force them to admit that they were beneficial to the middle class.

Democrat: We must extend the tax cuts for the middle class and discontinue those for the rich.
Republican: Are you saying it would be detrimental to let the tax cuts expire for the middle class?
Democrat: Of course, the middle class are hard-working and being left behind.
Republican [Option 1]: So all those times when President Obama said we can't return to the failed policies of the past, he means all those policies except the tax cuts, which George W. Bush pushed and Republicans passed?
Republican [Option 2]: So if it's detrimental to allow them to expire now, it must have been a beneficial law that Republicans and President Bush passed 10 years ago.  Are you crediting Republicans with a good policy?

Ban Everything!

This Buckyballs controversy raises several interesting questions about how far government should go to protect consumers.

I want to draw attention to Betty Lopez's statement, though. She says "Any child's life is worth more than $50 million."  This is one of those statements that is hard to dispute without sounding callous, but let me try the ad absurdum approach.

Do you think Betty Lopez has a number where she would no longer make this statement?  Do you think she would say, "Any child's life is worth more than $1 billion"?  I can imagine her saying "No amount of money is worth a child's life."  Which is true in a sense.  Anyone willing to sell their child for any amount of money deserves scorn.

However, think of all the lives we could save by banning bicycles.  In essence, you're arguing Buckyballs' case.  We don't want to ban bicycles because the benefits of bicycles are much greater than the regretful children's deaths.  We've already made those decisions.  Any activity can lead to death, but that's not the argument we should make.  We should compare the benefits and costs of banning and regulating.  Ms. Lopez's statement is much too universal for me.

Congress's Selective Polarization

Peter Orszag argues that the Postal Service should be privatized.

I wholeheartedly agree. There's really no reason for the government to provide a service that the private sector has demonstrated that it can easily handle (Fed Ex, UPS).

I also agree that if people are worried about service to rural areas, I'd be willing to discuss some kind of subsidy for them only.

I want to draw attention to his opposing arguments, though. He has provided what he believes are the best counter-arguments to his proposal and attempts to dispel them.

Congress could simply unshackle the agency. Legislation is currently pending in both the Senate and the House that would give Postal Service management additional flexibility. In an increasingly polarized Congress, however, it is not clear if or when this legislation will be enacted. And even if it were passed soon, it would probably provide only temporary help. 

Wait, so we can't settle for relaxing the burdens on the postal service through legistlation because the political process is stymied, but how exactly will the postal service be privatized?  Don't we need legislation for that as well?  Will the same political process that is too polarized to provide management extra flexibility magically hold hands and usher through the privatization?