Political Interest

How to Hoodwink the Washington Post

The White House gives a clinic on co-opting reporters today in the Washington Post analysis piece by Peter Baker and Dan Balz.  Ostensibly the piece is an analysis of the White House communications strategy, which during the Clinton administration was referred to as spin.

In reality, it's just a "Back Spin" piece, where the administration gives the appearance of access and candor in order to co-opt the reporters into their new message.  In this case, it's NSC adviser Peter Feaver giving the Post the back door slider by guiding them to which poll questions on Iraq are important.

Feaver and Gelpi categorized people on the basis of two questions: "Was the decision to go to war in Iraq right or wrong?" and "Can the United States ultimately win?" In their analysis, the key issue now is how people feel about the prospect of winning. They concluded that many of the questions asked in public opinion polls -- such as whether going to war was worth it and whether casualties are at an unacceptable level -- are far less relevant now in gaging public tolerance or patience for the road ahead than the question of whether people believe the war is winnable.

Oh, I see the questions where the numbers don't look good for aren't important, maybe we'll stop asking those questions, or put disclaimers on them next time we report them.  Then there's this piece of malarkey:

The more resolute a commander in chief, the Bush aides said, the more likely the public will see a difficult conflict through to the end. "We want people to understand the difficult work that's ahead," said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to speak more freely.

The Bush administration is stuck on this "test of wills" idea, but with the strains on our military and the recruiting problems we're having it is starting to look like a war of attrition. 

The Bushies were never willing to face up to the costs of winning the war, such as expanding the size of the army and raising taxes to pay for it. Instead, they were intent on flying below the radar screen of the American public and portraying a aura of victory, afraid any change in course would look weak.

If they spent as much time trying to win in Iraq as they do re-fighting the propaganda wars of Vietnam, we'd be in much better shape. 

A Charlatan's "C"

The conservative Boston Herald has again splashed a Mitt bashing alliterative headline across its front page.  And this time the article backs it up, giving a point by point analysis of Romney's ample failures as Governor, in contrast to his slick new brochure.

The Herald's best:

      Unemployment is down under Romney, from 192,000 just before he took office, in December 2002, to 160,556 last month. But that doesn't mean jobs have risen. Non-farm payrolls in December 2002 were 3.42 million. Last month: 3.37 million.

     The labor force has simply shrunk by about 800,000, or one sixth, during that time. Indeed, Massachusetts has lost a net 11,000 jobs since Romney took office.

Hasta La Vista, Baby?

Governor Arnold doesn't seem to have much of a second act.  His poll numbers continue to slide, with a majority of Californians now saying they wouldn't vote for his re-election, according to a SF Gate poll.

In a startling reversal of public opinion, 57 percent of the state's registered voters would not support Schwarzenegger's re-election next year, up from 42 percent in a February poll. Those who would vote to return him to Sacramento tumbled from 56 percent to 39 percent.

The governor, who has yet to announce a candidacy that has been taken as a given since his first day in office, finds himself running slightly behind two Democratic challengers, state Treasurer Phil Angelides and state Controller Steve Westly, in head-to-head matchups.

Bush Disapproval Numbers by State

A state by state survey break down from Survey USA came to my attention via  PolitcalWire.com.  Survey USA shows 30 states giving a net negative to Bush, three tied, and 17 still positive.

Note the number of 2004 red states that seem to have turned against Bush: ten, with Nevada and Ohio showing the biggest swings, and all of the Purple Mountain states showing Bush with net negative ratings.

Bubble Bandwagon

As I argued about month ago, I think the fact that so many economists, journalists, and regular people are talking about the possibility of a housing bubble, is a sign that there might be one.  If that's so MSNBC.com, is on board, by practically starting a Housing Bubble section in their business section.

Today Tom Curry has a round up of an economists panel that is concerned about the effects even a slowing market could have, the National Board of Realtor's economist excepted.

While they pick up a UCLA report through Reuters, that isn't hedging it's bets:

“There is no reason that a house should be worth 40 percent more today than it was two years ago,” UCLA Anderson Forecast economist Christopher Thornberg wrote in a report. “This is a bubble.”

Researchers predict predict mediocre economic growth at best and recession at worst next year as the market slowly cools.

And now Mr. Thornberg, or anyone else who feels strongly about the direction of housing can put their money where their mouth is by betting on direction of house prices:

The new service from HedgeStreet lets investors bet on the direction of home prices in six U.S. markets — Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Diego and San Francisco. The idea is to hedge against a housing bubble bursting, which in many of the nation’s hottest housing markets would likely lead to a sudden drop in house prices.

The Washington Cocktail Party Line

If you ever want to know what the Washington establishment thinks, though why would you?  David Broder and Cokie Roberts are happy to oblige. Between the two of them I think they've had half of an original thought since ABSCAM, but they're always good for establishment "wisdom" regurgitation.

So today, Broder trots out the Washington Cocktail Party line on Social Security, the Democrats should give up their advantage and negotiate especially with Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, who has a plan to reduce benefits:

Democrats are feeling smug about the way they have stymied Bush on Social Security. When I asked Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean last week about his party's position on the issue, he said, "We're in a great place. We have been able to block privatization."

But the program is not in a great place. The insolvency problem is real, and it needs to be fixed. No one who knows Bob Bennett believes he is a "bait-and-switch" game-player.

...If they are responsible, Democrats will take Bennett at his word, come out of their defensive crouch, negotiate -- and put Bush and the Republicans on the spot. To balk at such an offer would be a sign they are putting politics above the national interest.

This lets us know two things about the Washington Cocktail Partiers:

One, they are namby-pamby and have no clue how politics is played. Bob Bennett may not be playing bait and switch, but George Bush and Karl Rove certainly are.  That's why Bush hasn't given up his privatization scheme and why the Democrats are right not to enter into any negotiations with a Republican who is not the ultimate decision maker.

Plus, there is absolutely no reason for the Democrats to negotiate right now, the issue is working and Social Security's financial problems are in no way a crisis that needs to be addressed before the 2006 elections, when the Dems may be in a stronger position.

Second, they are economically conservative, though socially liberal.  By and large the Washington establishment reflects the biases of their class, wealthy professionals.  True, they disdain social conservatives as unwashed troglodytes. But, from their cozy positions of economic privilege, they embrace parlor room Econ 101, supporting "free" trade, cuts in Social Security benefits, and corporate interests in general.

Luckily, the current Democratic leaders seem to have finally tuned out Washington's self proclaimed establishment, perhaps the first step back to real power.

Is Oil Setting Housing Up For a Fall

In MSNBC.com today Tom Curry argues that surging oil prices, in the short run, may keep the housing market hot by keeping long term rates low, because it leads bond investors to bet on slower growth.  But, the scary part is the "long-term" effects of higher oil prices on housing prices could be devastating:

“In the short run higher oil prices — to the extent that lower perceived inflation risks — actually are a positive for housing,” Silvia said. “In the long run, if oil really does weaken the economy, then it’s negative for housing.”

And if persistently higher energy prices translate into a surge in consumer inflation, 30-year mortgage rates could rise in a hurry, putting a chill into the housing market.

The conundrum seems to be that investors fly to bonds in the face of oil prices because they fear slow growth, and there's no where else to put their money.  But, if the bond investors are right, that slower growth will eventually catch up with the consumers buying housing, and possibly inflation and hence interest rates.

Down with the Masters of Business Administration

In an admittedly self serving interview in Newsweek, Honda's U.S. Chief engineer Charlie Baker, shows us one of the reasons American business's over reliance on MBA grads is harming U.S. business and the country.  Honda, it seems, has a philosophy of providing the best fuel economy in its class, a philosophy that doesn't change with overnight price of light sweet crude:

As you develop future vehicles, what are your assumptions about gas prices?
We don't really care. Why would we?

Well, because it could have an effect on consumers' choices.
We don't spend a lot of time agonizing about fuel consumption. The answer is already clear. You are going to have the best fuel economy in class of any vehicle. Period. Have a nice day. You don't need to do any market research. You don't need to do any fancy negotiations because you are never going to get anything approved by the board of directors without proving you have the best fuel economy in class. That's it.

There are many advantages of a company having a philosophy and sticking to it.  It creates a more stable "brand identity" than fad following marketing campaigns, the company is less likely to get caught playing catch up to changes in the market place, and doing the right, whether you're a company or an individual, is the right thing.

Now, who had their bonds down graded to junk status? GM and Ford, or Honda and Toyota?

House GOP Launches New Lead Balloon

The House Republicans truly are not fit for office.  If the Schiavo shenanigans left any doubt, the GOP leaders removed it with their truly asinine new Social Security proposal, which would give people tiny private accounts while the Social Security surplus lasts, increase the current deficit and then vanish. 

The Wash Post has the details.

The Social Security Administration projects that, at its height in 2008, the cash surplus will reach $97 billion, an amount that about 165 million workers would have to share, leaving an average of $588 each. But that cash surplus would decline rapidly to zero after a decade. By 2016, all that would remain is $40 per account.

"You'd launch a proposal without any means of perpetuating the funding," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group.

House Republicans said the plan would extend solvency from 2041 to 2043 because the amount in the accounts would reduce the trust fund's obligation, according to a preliminary analysis by the Social Security Administration.

If the size of the accounts would be small, the cost to the government would not, said Jason Furman, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The proposal would add $600 billion to the federal debt over the next decade, assuming that two-thirds of eligible workers take accounts. The plan would not cut benefits, and the cost to taxpayers of administering minuscule accounts could be huge.

Furman said the plan would push the program to insolvency two years faster than doing nothing, because of administrative costs and the amount that was inherited.

"This is the worst of all worlds," he said. "It has all the problems of any private accounts proposal with none of the benefits for solvency."

They're Not Even Trying Anymore

Romney Campaign Has a Bad Headline Day

Not only is the Herald giving Romney a heavy dose of bad headlines, the Globe put up a headline sure to be featured in Romney's opponent's ads in whatever his next campaign, Romney eyes penalties for those lacking insurance.  Penalties for those lacking insurance, aka a tax increase.

Then they followed up on the editorial page with some good jabs from Scott Lehigh, contrasting Romney's ever shifting pandering with John McCain's independence.

Last week, the governor dropped his previous (tactical) support for a proposed state constitutional amendment that would forbid gay marriage but institute civil unions in favor of one that would simply impose a gay-marriage ban. In so doing, Romney abandoned an amendment that at least makes an effort to be fair to same-sex couples to endorse a measure that includes no provision for them.

Now, Republican recipients of the Commonwealth PAC memo may see all that as the determined leadership of a principled conservative. (Of course, out-of-state observers who value results rather than mere scrappiness might also view Romney's won-loss record on the issues and conclude that when it comes to Beacon Hill fisticuffs, he is more glass-jawed palooka than potent political pugilist.)

From a Massachusetts perspective, however, what Romney is doing looks like presidential primary panderama. When he ran for governor in 2002, one of Romney's strongest selling points was that he was beholden to no one. But the man who won the governorship by portraying himself as independent enough to stand up to powerful Democratic interests here now seems awfully eager to placate Republican activists and ideologues everywhere else.