Mitt Dukakis

I read a column in the Wall Street Journal by Bret Stephens which expressed something about the last election results that I have been meaning to say but couldn’t quite find find the words. Some of what he has to say, I agree and some I do not but I am struck by his description of Mitt Romney‘s weaknesses.

Though conservatives put themselves through the paces of trying to like Mr. Romney, he was never a natural standard bearer for the GOP. He was, instead, a consensus politician in the mold of Jerry Ford and George H.W. Bush; a technocrat who loved to “wallow in data”; a plutocrat with a fatal touch of class guilt. His campaign was a study in missed opportunities, punctuated by 90 brilliant minutes in Denver. Like a certain Massachusetts governor who preceded him, he staked his presidential claims on “competence.” But Americans want inspiration from their presidents.

That was my thought in the aftermath as well. The real problem with Romney was not that he was a moderate, or not Conservative enough, although that was part of it. the problem is that Romney does not seem to have a core set of political principles. His whole argument was based on “competence”, just like Michael Dukakis‘s campaign was back in1988. Perhaps it should be otherwise, but Americans are not looking for a competent manager in the Presidency, but a leader who inspired them to aim for something higher. To give the devil his due, Barack Obama is very good at that sort of thing. It is his one major talent. If only he had any talent in actually leading, the country would be a whole lot better off.

I think Stephens also has some worthwhile things to say about the immigration problem. The Republicans, and the country as a whole is going to have to come up with a just and reasonable solution to this problem.

On the subject of idiocy, can someone explain where’s the political gold in demonizing Latin American immigrants? California’s Prop 187, passed in 1994, helped destroy the GOP in a once-reliable state. Yet Republicans have been trying to replicate that fiasco on a national scale ever since.

If the argument is that illegal immigrants are overtaxing the welfare state, then that’s an argument for paring back the welfare state, not deporting 12 million people. If the argument is that these immigrants “steal” jobs, then that’s an argument by someone who either doesn’t understand the free market or aspires for his children to become busboys and chambermaids.

And if the argument is that these immigrants don’t share our values, then religiosity, hard work, personal stoicism and the sense of family obligation expressed through billions of dollars in remittances aren’t American values.

I don’t like giving amnesty to illegal immigrants because I do not favor rewarding people who have broken the law. It seems to me to be unfair to the people who have waited in line and filled out the paperwork to come to this country. Yet, aside from political considerations, we ought not to demonize people who want to come to this country to better themselves. We are going to have to find a way to allow those who are here illegally to earn legal statue and eventually citizenship. We will be a better country for it.



Into the Abyss

John Stossel writes in his latest column about the coming fiscal emergency.

America is falling deeper into debt. We’re long past the point where drastic action is needed. We’re near Greek levels of debt. What’s going to happen?

Maybe riots — like we’ve seen in Greece?

We need to make cuts now.

He doesn’t give up hope. Instead he points out how Canada and Puerto Rico have managed to get their houses in order.

When I think Canada, I think big government. I’m embarrassed that I didn’t know that in the mid-’90s, Canada shrank its government. It had to. Its debt level was as bad as ours is today, almost 70 percent of the economy. Canada’s finance minister said: “We are in debt up to our eyeballs. That can’t be sustained.”

Economist David Henderson, a Canadian who left Canada for the United States, remembers when The Wall Street Journal called the Canadian dollar “the peso of the north.” It was worth just 72 American cents. “Moody’s put the Canadian federal debt on a credit watch,” Henderson said.

The problem, he added, was that Canada had a government safety net that was more like a hammock.

“When I was growing up in Canada, people who went on unemployment insurance were said to go in the ‘pogie.’ You could work as little as eight weeks, taking the rest of the year off.”

So in 1995 Canadian leaders cut unemployment benefits and other programs. It happened quietly because it was a liberal government, and liberals didn’t want to criticize their own. The result was that Canada’s debt stopped increasing. As the government ran budget surpluses, the debt went down.

“The economy boomed,” Henderson said. “Think about what government does. Government wastes most of what it spends, and so just cutting government and having that money in the hands of people means it’s going to be used more valuably.”

Canada fired government workers, but unemployment didn’t increase. In fact, it fell from 12 percent to 6 percent. Canadian unemployment is still well below ours. And the Canadian dollar rose from just 72 American cents to $1.02 today.

Fortuno is governor of Puerto Rico. Two years ago, he fired 17,000 government workers. No state governor did anything like that. He cut spending much more than Walker did in Wisconsin. In return, thousands of union members demonstrated against Fortuno for days. They clashed with police. They called him a fascist

Fortuno said he had to make the cuts because Puerto Rico’s economy was a mess.

“Not just a mess. We didn’t have enough money to meet our first payroll.”

Fortuno’s predecessors had grown Puerto Rico’s government to the point that the state employed one out of every three workers. By the time he was elected, Puerto Rico was broke. So the new conservative majority, the first in Puerto Rico in 40 years, shrank the government.

What was cut?

“Everything. I started with my own salary.”

The protesters said he should raise taxes instead of cutting spending.

“Our taxes were as high as they could be, actually much higher than most of the country. So what we’ve done is the opposite.” Fortuno reduced corporate taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent. He reduced individual income taxes. He privatized entire government agencies.

“Bring in the private sector,” Fortuno said. “They will do a better job. They will do it cheaper.”

Fortuno’s advice for leaders who want to shrink the state: “Do what you need to do quickly, swiftly, like when you take off a Band-Aid. Just do it. And move on to better things.”

Unfortunately one of our major parties would rather play politics and watch the country go down the drain.

We badly need more grownups in Washington.

%d bloggers like this: