Hillary’s newly found voice (she seems to find a new one every few months) is now spouting Gore-y criticisms of those greedy corporate interests. The New York Sun points out that she raises curiously high amounts of money from interests she bashes.

Mrs. Clinton is raising money from the very industries she is bashing, making her sincerity open to question. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Mrs. Clinton has raised $269,436 from the pharmaceutical industry, more than any other candidate, including Republicans, and $220,550 from the oil and gas industry, more than double what her closest Democratic rivals raised from the industry.

Just a quick point about political money: business people tend to give political money defensively. Someone once said it’s to “reduce animosity”. I’m well aware that the media prefers the storyline of the presumptively evil rich person corrupting democracy. (It’s true sometimes but rarely.)

Hillary does nothing without careful calculation. She knows that politicians – provided they have real power – who bash entire industries tend to raise huge dollars from individuals in those industries. Certain types of politicians are drawn to this marketing technique because they think the “bashing” also can be held up as proof that they are not being corrupted.

This scheme is called “putting the squeeze on.” Does that phrase remind you of anything?

By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.

Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style...

The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.

Among the Republicans, there are misgivings about the track record of each of the candidates, especially those who have shown what Thorstein Veblen once called "a versatility of convictions."

I’m back, tan and ready! It’s a globally warm day in Washington. Speaking of Al Gore, shouldn’t the people’s choice always prevail in elections in our democracy? You might think the answer is obvious, especially inside a party so haunted by the 2000 victory of George W. Bush that undermining the constitutional imperative of the Electoral College is seen as an overdue reform.

Who would have the unmitigated hubris to use special voting stock to hurdle over Barack Obama -- the RFK/MLK, Jr. of today? From RealClear Politics:

There are two features of the Democratic nomination process that could help Hillary.

First, Democratic primaries and caucuses allocate delegates proportionally. Candidates win "pledged" delegates based not on whether they win a state - but on how many voters support them. So, for instance, even though Clinton and Edwards lost Iowa, they still won a few delegates.

Second, about 20% of all delegates to the Democratic convention are "super" or "unpledged" delegates. This quirky provision - which does not have a corollary on the Republican side - has its origins in Chicago, 1968. In the wake of that disastrous convention, the DNC formed the McGovern-Fraser Commission to recommend improvements for the nomination process. McGovern-Fraser suggested that the process be opened to rank-and-file Democrats on the principle of "one Democrat, one vote." The reforms contributed to George McGovern (the same McGovern from the commission) winning the nomination in 1972. The party establishment did not like this. So, it added the super delegate provision to serve as a check on the party rank-and-file.

This year, according to the indispensable Green Papers, there will be 798 super delegates at the convention in Denver. They include all elected members of the Democratic National Committee, all current Democratic members of Congress (including non-voting delegates), all sitting Democratic governors, and past party luminaries (e.g. former presidents). Unlike pledged delegates, who are bound to particular candidates, super delegates are free to vote their consciences.

Here is how these rules could help Clinton.

Suppose that Clinton stumbles early, but rebounds later. By the end of the nomination period - she draws even with Obama in the primaries. She wins 45% of the aggregate vote. He wins 45%. Edwards, who in this scenario dropped out some time before the end of the season, wins 10%. That could yield the following count among pledged delegates:

Obama: 1,464 delegates
Clinton: 1,464 delegates
Edwards: 325 delegates

This leaves the 798 super delegates, who can support whomever they choose. Let us suppose, in this scenario, they divvy up the way the Hill reports declared members of Congress have so far split their support between the three major candidates: 62% for Clinton, 25% for Obama, and 13% for Edwards. That would change the delegate count to:

Clinton: 1,967 Delegates
Obama: 1,664 Delegates
Edwards: 420 Delegates

A candidate needs 2,026 delegates to win the nomination. In this scenario, Clinton goes from being tied for first to having a solid lead, and just 58 delegates short of the nomination. If she could persuade about three-fifths of the Edwards' super delegates to back her, she would win.

The flaw wasn't just the attempt to go back to the future, to the 1990s, but that the Clintons picked the wrong year in that decade. Instead of 1992, when Bill was the personification of change, their model was 1996. So Hillary ran as a pseudo-incumbent, with a selection of bite-size proposals and an abundance of caution and transparent calculation. Why would any campaign ever explicitly announce a tour to make the candidate "likable"? Or, as happened when the beleaguered Clinton machine sputtered into New Hampshire, that they now had a plan for her to be spontaneous and actually answer audience questions?

While the Bush administration has steered the country through recession and other challenges, it has favored long-term tax relief over short-term measures to help the economy through a soft patch.

"It's not their style," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer of investment consultant Trend Macrolytics. "They're looking for opportunities to make lasting, important structural change."

But Bush co-opted Democrats in 2001 by adopting a $300 tax rebate.

Luskin expects Bush would probably sign a Democratic-type stimulus package — "provided that it does not have any tax increases."

To the Editor:

Your editorial yesterday (“Drowning in Special-Interest Money”) describes the Club for Growth as a “narrow political lobb[y],” but the Club for Growth’s 40,000-plus membership represents a wide spectrum of Americans from every state and innumerable backgrounds. Unlike special-interest groups that seek to promote a small group at the expense of the larger public and contrary to your caricature of the Club as “tax-phobic,” the Club for Growth promotes policies that will lead to greater economic growth for all Americans, including lower, simpler taxes; less wasteful government spending; free trade; deregulation; and school choice—in short, economic freedom. In fact, the only Americans who would not benefit from the economic freedom we advocate would be the narrow special interests who attempt to secure special advantages from government on the backs of American taxpayers.

Your editorial also sadly calls for further restrictions on our—but not your—constitutionally guaranteed right to political free speech. You hold your own right to praise, criticize, endorse, and reject candidates as inviolate, yet our political speech should be kept “under control” by congress, regulations, and the courts. We prefer an America in which both of our organizations have a right to free speech.

Pat Toomey
President, Club for Growth

In yesterday's edition of the New York Times, Paul Krugman again suggests that trade with low-wage countries poses real problems for high-wage America. (Krugman's column of December 28th is even more explicit on the point.) I sent this letter yesterday to the Gray Lady in response:

Paul Krugman again insists that trade with low-wage countries - especially China - threatens to depress wages in America ("Dealing With the Dragon, January 4). So I again refer Mr. Krugman (the shrill pundit) to Dr. Krugman (the skilled scholar of trade).

In his excellent 1996 essay "Ricardo's Difficult Idea," Dr. Krugman pointed out that wages are determined by worker productivity. Therefore, low wages reflect low productivity. This fact, once grasped, reveals that low-wage countries have no general competitive advantage over high-wage countries. Dr. Krugman continued: "Someone like [James] Goldsmith [a protectionist] looks at Vietnam and asks, 'what would happen if people who work for such low wages manage to achieve Western productivity?' The economist's answer is, 'if they achieve Western productivity, they will be paid Western wages' - as has in fact happened in Japan."

Substitute "Mr. Krugman" for "Goldsmith," and "China" for "Vietnam," and Dr. Krugman's learning should calm Mr. Krugman's fears.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

LIVING standards in Britain are set to rise above those in America for the first time since the 19th century...

The calculations suggest that, measured by gross domestic product per capita, Britain can now hold its head up high in the economic stakes after more than a century of playing second fiddle to the Americans...

...Oxford Economics says that...the comparisons are affected by sterling’s high value against the dollar... It concedes...that a significant fall in the pound against other currencies would push Britain back down the ladder. It has assumed an exchange rate of just over $2 for the purpose of the calculation but in recent days the pound has slipped below that level.

Thanks to Jameson Campaigne for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:42 AM | link