Praising Bill Clinton?

I strongly believe that economics should be the deciding issue for any Presidential contest. A robust economy heals many problems by increasing the size of the pie for everyone. The private sector adds jobs, tax receipts grow, and the annual deficit shrinks. At least that's the theory.

The economy is like a very complex machine, with many inputs. The President sets the national agenda, and has the power to influence some of these inputs. Chief among those are:

• Controlling federal spending
• Liberalizing trade
• Maximizing investment capital

Of course there are many other factors outside the control of the Executive:

• Domino effects from foreign economies
• Consumer spending
  
• Monetary policy controlled by the Federal Reserve
• Energy prices (oil!)

Surprisingly, Bill Clinton did quite well with the top three. On spending, he was checked by a Republican congress for 6 years, and his early first-term healthcare proposal was defeated. On trade, he supported and extended NAFTA, despite the opposition of many Democrats. He also signed GATT, which created the World Trade Organization that is so hated by many progressives. Much of this was due to the Clinton Administration's ties to the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrats that advocated liberalizing trade, support for Israel, and more business-friendly policies. Clinton also passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, lowering capital gains taxes and fueling the superheated economy of his second term.

So, what can we learn in 2008 from all this? Bush does not merit praise for his economic contribution over two terms, especially on federal spending. Outlays as measured against GDP are below the 40-year average, but in the longer term the new Medicare Part D entitlement and Iraq spending will hurt:

Total Revenues and Outlays as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

The Democrats running for the nomination are not any better. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton propose new healthcare entitlements which will swell the budget. Both have been shamefully pandering to the rust-belt voters over who can slam NAFTA and globalization more:

Democratic Myths Collide with NAFTA Reality

Passing ECON 101 should be a prerequisite to voting in this country.

Mock the Conservative

I'm not one of those who believe that we need to bomb Hollywood to save America. Okay, many of the stars are loudmouthed lefties: Sarandon, Sheen, Penn, Streisand. We have the First Amendment, it's within their rights to say whatever they please. They often end up looking like idiots anyhow.

Usually I can watch my chosen entertainment without getting ambushed by some writer or director. I don't look too deeply for hidden messages, and I don't take offense at jokes on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show. I can laugh at the creepy Dick Cheney character without violating my political ethos. If I rent an An Inconvenient Truth or anything by Michael Moore, I know what I'm getting and I take it as it is. Recently I ran across two cases where I thought the anti-conservative sentiment was in bad taste.

I'm a sci-fi fan, and I'm working my way through the first season of Dark Angel. I watched the show when it first aired back in 2000-01, but I didn't see every episode. In one of the early episodes the character who runs Jam Pony bicycle courier, "Normal", mentions that his idol is G.H.W. Bush (a.k.a. Bush 41). Up to that point, I thought that Normal was just an effort at creating a bossman character that everybody loves to hate. Keep in mind that this was written well before bashing Bush 43 became a national pastime. So the secret in-joke is that Normal is a conservative. He is constantly ridiculed by the other cool (stereotypically ethnic) side characters for the sin of, um, ASKING THEM TO ACTUALLY WORK FOR THEIR PAY. If you look him up on IMDB, the character's full name is actually Reagan 'Normal' Ronald. It would be excusable if it were actually funny, but most of these "comic relief" efforts could be cut out completely and the episode would probably improve.

The second incident is much more serious, and occurred while watching the documentary film Crossing the Line. I like the documentary and I highly recommend it, but afterward I made the mistake of watching the interview with director Daniel Gordon. He talks about his epiphany that the U.S. and North Korea both have statues and lots of flags in common. In particular, he implies that James Dresnok is "like a Republican sitting on his porch" spouting nationalist propaganda, except that he happens to be sitting in Pyongyang. Excuse me? The flags that fly on porches in the U.S. are flown because its citizens have that freedom to express themselves. The flags that fly in North Korea, not so much. The fact that many Republicans in the U.S. still have a sense of national pride is a good thing, nothing to be ashamed of. Gordon (who is British) might not understand that concept. The Brits, whose empire has shrunk alittle lately, don't have much national pride left. They also share a uniquely European fear of nationalism brought on by WWI and WWII.

Gordon drew parallels between Richmond, Virginia and Pyongyang because they both have statues of men with their arm out. Wow, I guess that Britain, France and any other country that has advanced to the bronze age doesn't have such incredibly unique statues? North Korea has an estimated 800 statues of Kim Il-sung, who died in 1994. The Great Leader and Eternal President created a cult around his own persona. I live near Richmond, and I can tell you that we don't have a nuclear-armed cult following of Arthur Ashe or Matthew Fontaine Maury.

Coupons & Condoms

I like to save money, but I also like to shop on the spur of the moment. When I'm in a grocery store, there is nothing worse than having to do coupon calculus. It ruins the spontaneity, man.

The usual scenario goes like this: you're looking at a box of Fudge Bombs for two bucks. The generic is less, but if you mentally subtract the coupon it's easy to figure out the best deal. Oh, wait, this store doubles coupons. So now that's $1.99 minus 2X. In the fine print it says the coupon is only good for three boxes. So that's $1.99 minus 2X/3. No, look closer, more fine print: coupon good for "New Fudge Bombs with Cherry Flavor." The Cherry Flavor is 14oz, while the generic is 16oz. Now compute the price per ounce...

My wife gives me multiple coupons, which means the scenario above is repeated throughout the store. Thus, it has occurred to me that coupons are like condoms. Men will avoid using coupons unless women order us to use them. Have you ever seen a coupon for beer, guns or chainsaws? No? I used to be able to buy a sale item on the spot with the satisfaction that I'd gotten a good deal. Now, I have to dig out the coupon and stand there mumbling to myself while any pleasure in the moment is fading rapidly. Sometimes the coupon is too old, so you can't use it anymore. And don't even think about trying to tell her you forgot to use the coupon.