First of all, don't miss the update on NY-9 that CAC posted last night.

A snippet of PPP's analysis in the 47/41 advantage for Republican Turner over Weprin:

One final note on the poll and what perhaps should concern Democrats most of all. 55% of voters in the district report having voted for Obama in 2008, which is the actual percentage of the vote he got in the district. Last year a lot of the races Democrats lost were because their voters didn't show up and the electorate was far more conservative than for a Presidential year. When you lose that way you can say, well, our voters will come back out in 2012 and we'll be fine. But there is no enthusiasm gap here. Obama voters are showing up in the same numbers they did in 2008. But only 65% of them are voting Democratic. That's a really big cause for concern.

It's a bad thing when your base doesn't turn out to vote for you.

It's a much worse thing when your base does turn out... but votes against you.

Regarding Nevada 2. Nevada 2 is the most Republican district in the state, because it excludes the cities. It's everywhere else. Natural conservative territory. Nope! Reno_Dave corrects me -- while the district excludes most of Las Vegas, it includes the Carson City, Sparks, and the biggest little city in the world, Reno.

I assumed that Nevada 2 would be a win, but a PPP poll (and PPP is a Democratic outfit, and does polls for Kos, too) said that the Republican Amodei was only one point ahead of the Democrat Marshall.

CAC has a theory about PPP. His theory is that they do all sorts of skewed polls to hearten Democrats, and claim they're ahead or at least close, except in the final poll, the one that counts, the one that goes into their W-L records when they pimp their accuracy to new clients. Then they get a little more... rigorous.

CAC predicted the final poll in Nevada 2 would show a distinct shift from the previous 1-point gap.

He was right. PPP now puts the race at a 13 point gap, 50-37.

Previously, Sharon Angle expressed interest in running for the seat. This poll finds she would have lost to the Democrat:

Here's one thing the numbers make very clear- Republicans dodged a bullet when Sharron Angle was kept out of the race. Only 24% of voters in the district have a favorable opinion of her to 63% with a negative one and in a hypothetical head to head with Marshall she would trail 47-40. The fact that Amodei polls 20 points better than Angle really makes you wonder what would have happened to Harry Reid with a serviceable opponent.

Sorry to rub that in. But I'm going to continue my crusade, insisting that Candidate Quality and Crossover Appeal matters quite a bit in elections, until it's accepted, and not pooh-poohed in favor of "ideology and cultural affinity with the conservative base are the only things that matter" model.

Posted by: Ace at 09:01 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 528 words, total size 3 kb.

This is a political article, not a policy one, however, all policy responses rely as a first step on marshaling the political will to address the problem at all.

As they say of alcoholics, you can't do something about your drinking problem until you first recognize the problem.

These are the hard facts: Social Security's unfunded liability is calculated in the trillions of dollars. Last year, annual Social Security outlays exceeded annual revenues for the first time since 1983. The Congressional Budget Office projects that outlays will be roughly 5% greater than revenues over the next five years, worsening as more and more Baby Boomers retire.
By 2037, retirees will only get roughly 76 cents back for every dollar that is put into Social Security unless reforms are implemented. Imagine how long a traditional retirement or investment plan could survive if it projected investors would lose 24% of their money?

I am going to be honest with the American people. Our elected leaders must have the strength to speak frankly about entitlement reform if we are to right our nation's financial course and get the USA working again.

For too long, politicians have been afraid to speak honestly about Social Security. We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come.

USAToday responds with its own editorial opinion:

A Ponzi scheme? A failure? A lie? Really?

Yes, Social Security has major funding problems. It pays out more in benefits than it takes in, and the gap will grow steadily worse as Baby Boomers retire. To that extent, Perry has a point. Congress, under both Republican and Democratic control, has been negligent in making necessary adjustments to bolster Social Security's balance sheet for the long term. But the program's problems are largely the result of people living longer, and therefore collecting more in benefits, rather than some inherent structural shortcoming or constitutional failing.

People have been living longer for as long as people have lived in America. The problem was recognized with particular acuteness in the 80s, and payroll taxes raised in order to create a funding pool when needed later. (Of course, Washington spent this money as if it were current operating revenue.)

This is pretty quibbly on the part of USAToday -- whining that while everything Perry says it's true, it's not an "inherent structural problem."

It seems to me that if the government does not take into account actuarial facts and builds in a permanent revenue/spending imbalance into a program, that's sort of "inherent."

USAToday speaks as if just in the past couple of years a new anti-aging Wonder Drug began extending people's lives by 12 years. Not so.

Social Security is most certainly not a Ponzi scheme, which is an undertaking designed to swindle people out of their money by using incoming revenue to produce bogus investment returns to attract more money (see Ponzi, Charles and Madoff, Bernard).

A Ponzi scheme also relies on a permanent supply of new investors to always pour fresh money into the scheme, and cannot actually work unless the investor pool is always growing. It can never be self-sustaining (let alone profitable) if there is not an expanding pool of dupes.

It has long been known that the Baby Boom generation was a huge cohort, and that we would have severe demographic problems with Social Security due to the fact that the generations that came after the Baby Boom were so small, by comparison.

Politicians expanded benefits to the smaller pre- Baby Boom generations, and could get away with doing so, because the Boomers were so numerous in comparison to their elders.

But they always knew that when the Boomers stopped paying into the system and began taking money out of the system, there was going to be a problem.

And yet the program was not modified at all-- the politicians assumed that somehow we would simply create millions of new young taxpayers to pay the costs of the Boomers' retirement, even though not enough children had actually been born to satisfy this revenue requirement.

Seems kind of worse than a Ponzi scheme -- in a Ponzi scheme, at least, it is hypothetically possible you can find new suckers and keep the boondoggle running. In the case of Social Security, it has long, long been known as an absolute mathematical fact that there were not enough new suckers in existence to make it work.

Others continue whining about the term.

“The critical thing that makes a Ponzi scheme despicable to me is the fraud, and Perry’s exaggerating a little bit if he’s implying that there is fraud,” said Harvard Law professor Mark Roe.

The Democrats, and now their spirit squad, the Media, all insist that there is no problem at all here; is that not a fraud?

While PerryÂ’s choice of words may not be completely accurate, they are not entirely off-base either. Young people are paying into a system with the promise of receiving retirement benefits later in life when, in fact, the system in its current form may not be able to pay those benefits starting in 2036.
“I think it’s more true than not,” said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the conservative CATO Institute. “You rely on the next generation of taxpayers who will pay into the system to pay your benefits.”

I thought Perry's blunt talk would get him into more trouble than it seems to have actually gotten him. He may have placed a bet that the public was in the mood for some Chris Christie-like bluntness; so far, at least for the Republican primary electorate, he hasn't lost that bet. Yet.

The most interesting part of tonight's debate will be how Perry deals with Romney's (and now Bachmann's) claims that he plans to "abolish" Social Security. They seem to have simply made this up, and are just relying on the public accepting their say-so on the claim. Perry could, and just might, call them liars to their faces; that would be high drama.

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (278)
Post contains 1025 words, total size 7 kb.

Maybe before Obama tries to con us all again that his Son of Stimulus will save or create a bazillion new jobs, his administration could try something simpler. For starters they could not kill hundreds of jobs at a time.

Texas energy company Luminant announced on Monday new burdensome Environmental Protection Agency regulations are forcing it to close several facilities, which will result in about 500 job losses.

The company will be idling — stopping the usage of — two energy generating units. It will also cease extracting lignite from three different Texas mines.

...

“We have hundreds of employees who have spent their entire professional careers at Luminant and its predecessor companies,” Luminant CEO David Campbell said in a statement. “At every step of this process, we have tried to minimize these impacts, and it truly saddens me that we are being compelled to take the actions we’ve announced today. We have filed suit to try to avoid these consequences.”

Via David Hauptmann, last year the Democrats passed a $26 Billion "jobs bill" to prop up state worker payrolls, exactly what he's talking about now. This is simply an attempt to subsidize public employee and other unions.

An oh by the way, Bank of America just announced they are cutting 30,000 40,000 jobs in the next three years.

Pass this bill!

Posted by: DrewM at 07:35 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Coming up in a few minutes from the White House. What makes this speech different than the last two or three? He's got a backdrop of government workers this time. That'll work!

Obama is trying to box the GOP in here with this so-called "jobs bill". He either gets them to pass some of this and then they get some blame when it doesn't work. Obama would get to run on "Hey, we tried. You can't hold on me responsible for this lousy economy" If the GOP doesn't pass it he'll run as some modern day incarnation of Harry Truman running against a Do Nothing Congress.

Here's the difference...The GOP House was elected to stop Obama. The big wins we saw last year were a direct response to two years of just this kind of Democratic overreach.

Obama was told by the voters, "Don't Do This Again" and yet here he is offering the same type of wasteful "stimulus" that leads to non-existent "shovel ready" projects and crony capitalism like Solyndra.

It's just one bit of polling but don't forget, by 56-38% people said they are more concerned about increasing the deficit than they are in more spending.

The GOP would be wise to do what they are doing, talk this to death... "Sure, we'd love to find some common ground but as we saw in the wasted "stimulus" and health care bill, giving this President a blank check rushed through Congress is a recipe for disaster."

More importantly, if this bill has to pass "now", John Boehner should say to Obama..."Fine, you do know your party controls the Senate, right? Have Harry Reid call me when he's done and we'll talk".

Given the way Obama's popularity is tanking, his constant threats to "take it to the voters" is pretty lame. They've heard it all and see the results. We're all just counting down until this SCOAMF is gone.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:51 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Any time you read a story in the leftist press about the greedy, money-grubbing leeches of Wall Street, remember this piece. Wall Street is full of people with ethics, morals, and courage, and that was on full display in the days and weeks after 9/11/2001.

“Pass this bill!” Except there is no bill so far. Just a huge revolving gas-cloud of unfounded assertions, strawman arguments, magical thinking, nonsense, and political expediency. Obama should have just stayed on vacation.

The Greek endgame is very close now. The markets are going to open ugly this morning, and it's mostly because of the looming Greek default. I expect some dramatic developments this week.

Here's the real question confronting the Eurozone right now: Will Greece leave the union...or will Germany?

Santelli schools Tom Friedman. Sweet as candy.

How do we save the US economy? By implementing a consumption tax, silly! (Editorial comment: I hate an actual VAT, but I do think some sort of consumption-based tax is inevitable, given our slowing economic growth. Income taxes really only work when the GDP is growing quickly. And if we do go down the consumption-tax road, I want it in place of the current income-tax regime, not in addition to it.)

Why the “stimulus” failed. It failed because it was badly designed and badly implemented, and performed more as a service to Democratic constituents than for alleviation of overall hardship. It was a tool to expand the reach of government, little more.

Note to Democrats: employment is a side-effect of business growth. If you want to increase employment, you have to make it easier for businesses to operate and grow.

Perry is right about SS being a Ponzi scheme. People who argue in favor of SS arenÂ’t arguing against Perry; theyÂ’re arguing against math. Money that canÂ’t be paid out, wonÂ’t be. Period.

Yet even more “green” FAIL: Solyndra raided by the FBI. That’s what you turds get for embarassing His Majesty!

Union thuggery at its finest. But make nice with His Majesty and all is forgiven! Laws are for the peasants and tradesmen; His Majesty's minions may act as they please, for it pleases His Majesty to allow them to do so.

Teh Bernank speaks. The business world rolls their eyes and wonders when this boring doofus is going to leave.

Speaking of doofuses: I include this story only because you don’t often read the word “doofuses” in the financial press. Also: such language for a lady!

How do you convince business to begin investing again? Stop treating them like criminals. Stop using class-war rhetoric. Reduce taxes. It's not difficult, really. But President Obama will do none of these things. Why? Because it's not so much that he can't hide his anti-business agenda so much as he doesn't want to. Businesses are only important to him to the extent that they help him politically (Solyndra), and they cease to matter when they become an embarassment (Solyndra again) or a hindrance to his ideological goals (Gibson Guitar).

I am a musician of sorts and a guitar geek, and itÂ’s not often that my musical passions intersect with my interest in economics and politics. Judging by the reaction to the raid on Gibson Guitar IÂ’ve seen on the various guitar boards and forums, there is a heavy "Tea Party" vibe to the outrage. Few musicians lean conservative, but many are libertarian, and this event seems to have galvanized lots of them.

Older workers are displacing younger workers. I saw this coming -- the pressure on Boomers to work longer to prop up their retirement savings is preventing employment "churn" that opens doors for new workers coming in at the bottom. When a senior worker retires, it tends to have a ripple effect as other workers are promoted and move up: it opens positions at the bottom for new workers. But since the older workers are deferring retirement, those slots aren't opening up. And since older workers often make multiples of what a younger worker does (both in salary and benefits), corporations don't have a strong motivator to expand, lacking any genuine growth opportunities in their respective sectors.

So here's the irony: not only are young people being asked to fund a welfare state mainly directed at older people, they are also being prevented from entering the workforce by those very same elders!

UPDATE 1: Greek 1-year debt? 108% percent, baby! That's how investors in my old neighborhood say, "Just default already, you broke-ass motherf***ers!"

UPDATE 2: Walter Russell Meade, "Europe slips as Greece falls".

Creating a monetary union without a true federal government is looking more and more like the biggest European policy mistake since Britain and France let Hitler have the Sudetenland.

UPDATE 3: From the sidebar, there was an explosion at a French nuclear plant. It looks to be an accident and not a terrorist attack at present.

UPDATE 4: The rise of "private cities". I see this trend accelerating as the world continues urbanizing, particularly in the developing world.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:44 AM | Comments (200)
Post contains 857 words, total size 8 kb.

Honestly? I'm already all debated out. Maybe we could at least go a week between debates, or something. Also, er...can anybody think of something else to do on a Monday evening in September? Whatever.

There will be a GOP candidate debate this evening at 8 Eastern on CNN. It's billed as the CNN/Tea Party Express debate.

Governor Perry has to be feeling pretty comfortable about his debate performance last week. No matter how underwhelmed we felt it hasn't hurt him any, and Romney's disgraceful attempt to scare seniors by serially misquoting Perry does not appear to have caught on.

The survey, released Monday morning, indicates that 30 percent of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP support Perry for their party's nomination, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 18 percent.

[...]

"Perry's support comes mostly from Republicans who support the tea party movement, although he has a statistically insignificant edge among non-tea party Republicans as well," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"Perry doesn't simply have the most support in a hypothetical ballot - he also tops the list of GOP candidates on every personal quality tested," adds Holland.

Thirty-six percent, for example, see him as the strongest leader in the field, with Romney second at 21 percent. According to the poll, 35 percent say Perry is the Republican candidate most likely to get the economy moving again, with Romney in second at 26 percent.

Nearly three in ten say that Perry is the candidate who is most likely to fight for his beliefs, with Palin in second place at 23 percent and, significantly, Romney in a distant tie for fourth at just 11 percent.

Overall, the poll has Sarah Palin at 15 percent, Ron Paul at 13 percent, and Michelle Bachmann down to 4 percent (from 10 in the last survey).

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:23 AM | Comments (296)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

As a male citizen of America, I'm entitled on Sundays to watch athletic men in tight uniforms ritualistically invade one another's territory, and while they're resting I get to be bombarded with commercials about trucks, pizza, beer, and financial services. That's how it's supposed to be.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:56 AM | Comments (80)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Turner (R) 47% Weprin (D) 41%
More numbers per PPP's twitter:
37% in NY-9 say Israel 'very important' to their votes. They support Turner over Weprin 71-22.

Weiner's favorability in NY-9: 29/53. (So much for Weiner trying to run again for this district, eh?)

22% of Jewish voters in NY-9 approve of Obama's handling of Israel. 68% disapprove.

Turner's approval numbers: 45%/30%.

Weprin's: 39%/36%.

From @PPP:

Weprin actually has positive favorability numbers. If Dems lose this race blaming it on Weprin it is an excuse and ignores the bigger issues.

What is one of those bigger issues?

President Obama's approval rating in this district: 31%.

In fact per PPP, Obama would lose this district 42-46 to Romney and only edge Perry 44-43.

This, combined with the Magellan Poll giving the Republican a 5 point lead, and the Siena poll giving him a 6 point lead, should give us cautious confidence.
The finger pointing post-election amongst Democrats if Turner indeed pulls it off will be popcorn-worthy.

The moneyshot quote from Public Policy Polling:

One final note on the poll and what perhaps should concern Democrats most of all. 55% of voters in the district report having voted for Obama in 2008, which is the actual percentage of the vote he got in the district. Last year a lot of the races Democrats lost were because their voters didn't show up and the electorate was far more conservative than for a Presidential year. When you lose that way you can say, well, our voters will come back out in 2012 and we'll be fine. But there is no enthusiasm gap here. Obama voters are showing up in the same numbers they did in 2008. But only 65% of them are voting Democratic. That's a really big cause for concern.

Losing over a third of your "base" isn't even a really big cause for concern. Repeated elsewhere, it is a cause for pulling a LBJ.

My prediction, a viral video replay, and a link to help Turner all below. more...

Posted by: CAC at 06:24 PM | Comments (134)
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

And now for something really important...

Pop, Soda, or Coke?

So what do you call that carbonated liquid stuff that you drink despite all the bien-pensants lecturing you on why you shouldn't?

Coke probably has the edge through sheer numbers and consistency in the South, but soda and pop seem pretty tied by population.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:23 PM | Comments (461)
Post contains 498 words, total size 6 kb.

What can I say? It was any other Tuesday. I got up, showered, and hopped in the car for the commute to work. At the time, I had an 8-block commute to the office (it's up to a mile & a quarter now), and I already had a CD in the player keyed up and ready to go, so no radio for me. I had no idea what was going on at the time. Since I'm in the Central time zone, my commute took place between the two plane strikes.

I got to the office, turned on the radio, and while I was organizing the tasks on my desk I heard a lot of excited talk in the background. Something about plane crashes? And a fire? WTF?

I hopped back in the car and drove home to turn on Fox News, and while I was watching the first tower fell. All I could think of was "How many thousands will be lying dead in that rubble?" I kept watching the other tower and trying to remember all the facts from my Steel Structure Design class back in the late 80's: Fireproofing materials sprayed on steel beams can only protect them for 30 or 45 minutes, and when structural steel gets hot it starts to deform like cooked spaghetti. And then? Well, you know what happened.

more...

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 03:49 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 814 words, total size 4 kb.