Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (90051)	12/10/2004 8:33:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793958

Hewitt - Whoaa Nellie! I didn't endorse or diss Rudy in the WeeklyStandard piece. I was reporting in this piece the reactions of one group of Republican activists. You should read the e-mails from Rudy-supporters and Rudy-haters alike. Wow. Rudy may have a 2nd Amendment problem as well as his right-to-life problem, but the noisy are not always the plurality. Allow me to share two other e-mails: "Hugh: On a plane flight from Jacksonville to New York City on the Sunday before the GOP Convention, I sat next to a woman from Alabama who was a convention delegate. We spoke for most of the flight. She was pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-school prayer--as rock-ribbed a conservative as you are likely to find. I asked her who she was supporting for President in 2008. Without a moment's hesitation, she replied, "Rudy." When I informed her that Rudy held views that were the opposite of the issues we had just discussed, she replied, "None of that matters if we're dead. Rudy will keep us safe." That's when I knew that Rudy can be the next GOP nominee." And: Hugh, I just wanted to offer a brief response to your recent piece about Rudy Giuliani's presidential prospects in The Weekly Standard As one of those rare New York City Republicans, I thought that our poster boy Rudy would not play well in a Republican primary in 2008, and would have an especially difficult time appealing to Southern voters with his stances on gun control, abortion, and gay rights. On a pre-election trip to Louisiana, however, I started talking politics with a good ol' boy from Louisiana who assumed that -as a New Yorker- I must be a raging liberal and Kerry-backer. When I informed him that I was a Republican, and that there are a fair amount of Giuliani Republicans like myself in New York, the man I was speaking with lit up like the proverbial Christmas tree and said, "You mean our next president! I love Rudy Giuliani!" Granted this is an isolated incident, but I think it bears out a trend. The punditry seriously underestimates the bond that Giuiliani formed with the nation as a whole in the aftermath of 9/11. If a good ol' boy from Louisiana can enthusiastically back Giuliani, then I don't think there's any demographic that he can't win over. Not to mention that while Rudy can always "polish" his positions on guns and abortion, neither Bill Frist nor any other potential candidate can fake the attitude and ability that Giuliani demonstrated as mayor of New York. So I wouldn't be surprised, as you note, to see Giuliani run away with the nomination in 2008. - GWT" and: Hi Hugh, I'm a regular reader of your blog & should have written to compliment you earlier -- you got me through Election Day! Also, btw, I contributed (more than once) to several Senate campaigns because of your recommendations. (HH note: Be still, my heart.) I was prompted to write just now, though, by your column over at the Weekly Standard on the Riverside Republican women & Rudy Giuiliani. I'm a long time Republican voter and a religious conservative and I've gotta say, I LOVE Giuliani. I'm already on his team also with this proviso: he's got to say some vaguely reassuring things about pro-life topics, including stem cell research, and social topics, such as gay marriage. I would like him to say he'll appoint judges who'll uphold the Constitution and not "legislate from the bench." I would not vote to put someone in power who would freeze conservatives, especially religious conservatives, and our concerns out of the White House. As to why I'm so in favor of Giuliani: it was his convention speech, which I thought was the single most effective, inspiring, moving political speech I've heard in my lifetime (and I'm about your age and I LOVED Reagan.) I can't think of any other political figure on the scene right now from either party who could give that kind of speech. It was an amazing fusion of the political and the personal. It was effective politically -- he said the things, made the policy points he was supposed to make, but what was incomparable about it was how heartfelt it seemed. I'll never forget his demonstration of the bear hug he was given by the firefighter. There are other good speakers out there, but Giuliani came across as a real person, talking from his heart, talking to us. My guess is that as media gets more informal -- blogs, cable TV, etc., that that characteristic or ability will be a real asset. And, yes, he's got the guts to take on the Clintons and, purely from the point of view of political theater, it would be great to have the great Clinton-Giuliani shootout, interrupted in New York, play out on a national stage. Keep up the good work, Judith S____" Now, look. I don't invent these things, I just report them. Despite the folks who denounce me as an "open borders," "anti-gun," "anti-Christian," I am just an evangelical, pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment Reagan conservative --how many of my critics spent six years in D.C. under the Gipper-- who understands that majorities matter, and who is interested in reporting the reality of American politics at this time and place, not what I'd like it to be. I Haven't endorsed Rudy, and I haven't endorsed McCain or Frist, and I haven't written off Owens or Pawlenty or anyone else (except mahbe Hagel.) But for the first time in a long time,there is no "front runner" for the presidency, or so I thought before my talk in Riverside. What my column suggested was that perhaps we scribblers are behind the curve, and that perhaps middle America decided on 9/11 that Rudy was going to be next in line, because, to quote the Alabama delegate above "None of that matters if we're dead." Lots could happen, and there's four crucial years ahead behind the leadership of W. But political reporters don't serve their readers if they hide the ball. And the ball happens to be Rudy.

To: LindyBill who wrote (90051)	12/10/2004 9:08:59 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793958

The Last Gaffe? The president's chief economic adviser has a problem with the truth - Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason According to Jack Kemp, Gregory Mankiw committed a "gaffe" by declaring "there are no free lunches" when it comes to Social Security reform. In Washington, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, a "gaffe" is an inconvenient truth spoken at an inopportune time. Mankiw's propensity for gaffes is the main reason I'll miss him when he steps down as chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "The [Social Security] benefits now scheduled for future generations under current law are not sustainable given the projected path of payroll tax revenue," Mankiw said at a recent tax policy conference. "They are empty promises." It is indisputably true, though rarely acknowledged by politicians, that Social Security benefits are empty promises in the sense that the there is no "trust fund" in which money is saved for your retirement. The money you pay into the system is immediately spent, either on benefits for current retirees or on other government programs. Worse, the Social Security Trustees estimate that by 2018 payroll tax revenue will no longer cover benefits. By 2042 even the fictitious trust fund, which consists of money the government owes itself, will be exhausted. The basic problem—a shrinking ratio of workers to retirees, coupled with longer life spans—is familiar. Jack Kemp knows all this, of course. So why does he fault Mankiw for pointing it out? Kemp thinks talking about it now will endanger the prospects for allowing Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts. He writes that worrywarts like Mankiw, by suggesting the need for an increase in the retirement age (ridiculously low, given current life expectancy) and/or some sort of cut in promised benefits (e.g., by pegging them to inflation instead of wage increases), are "draining personal accounts of their vitality, jeopardizing Social Security reform, and ultimately endangering the Republican congressional majority." Restoring to Americans the freedom and responsibility to save and invest for their own retirements is a fine idea, and over the long term it will permit better returns than are promised under current law. Total "benefits" will be higher, even if the portion paid by the government is reduced based on the amount diverted to personal accounts. But privatization will not do much to address Social Security's insolvency over the short term; it's too late for the baby boomers. Indeed, privatization initially will exacerbate the system's cash shortage, since payroll taxes in private accounts won't be available to pay current retirees. Asked how the transition would be funded during his third debate with John Kerry, President Bush hemmed and hawed for 264 words before acknowledging that "we're of course going to have to consider the costs." In other words, there are no free lunches. By insisting on that point, Mankiw is trying to avoid unreasonable expectations that may lead a disappointed public to turn against reform. And by accurately describing Social Security's current condition, he is trying to avoid the impression that sticking with the status quo is an option. "Be wary of comparisons between a new, reformed Social Security system and current law," Mankiw wisely warned. "Unless a listener is discerning, empty promises will always have a superficial appeal." This is not the first time Mankiw has provoked criticism from Republicans by stating politically unpalatable facts. Last February he rightly noted that the "offshoring" of U.S. service jobs is "the latest manifestation of the gains from trade that economists have talked about" for hundreds of years. "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," Mankiw said. "More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing." His remarks prompted House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to issue a statement announcing that "Hastert Disagrees With President's Economic Advisor on Outsourcing." But neither Hastert nor Mankiw's other critics could explain why voluntary trade, which occurs precisely because it's mutually beneficial, is suddenly undesirable when it involves services purchased across national boundaries. It would be a shame if Mankiw's expected departure had anything to do with his habit of telling the truth. As fellow Harvard economist David Laibson told The Harvard Crimson last month, Mankiw "has always stood up for economic principles even if they are unpopular." Presumably that is the whole point of having economic advisers. Politicians are perfectly capable of telling people what they want to hear. Sometimes it takes an outsider to tell them what they need to hear.