SWNIDish Stimulus? Be Contrarian!

As an utterly amateur economist, we wonder whether it's past time for a very different kind of monetary policy to effect stimulus of our moribund economy.

Specifically, we wonder whether higher interest rates are in order.

"What?" responds a public drunk on elixir of Keynes. "Higher rates will suffocate what economic activity there is! Are you mad, SWNID?"

Yes, on the demand side, it might be a little tougher. But consider first that lower rates are not making for more borrowing and the economic activity connected to it. Banks are loathe to lend, and businesses are loathe to borrow. Cash is being hoarded in record amounts these days.

But what if the Fed began gradually raising rates.

First off, the dollar would strengthen considerably. That, in turn, would reduce inflation for producer prices, specifically for petroleum and other raw materials that the American economy needs to make products to sell to the world. Conventional wisdom says that a weaker dollar will make exports cheaper and so stimulate export industries. But when about half of our domestic economy's imports are petroleum and other raw materials, the difference is at best negligible. People buying with higher valued currencies currently have an advantage over Americans, an advantage that would go away if rates were raised and the dollar appreciated. That says nothing about the additional dollars in the pockets of consumers if oil prices drop with dollar appreciation, as they historically have.

Second, savers would have a better reward for their savings, and all would have more of an incentive to save. Not only would America's retirees have some money to spend, America's workers would have a better growing sense of prosperity as their net worth creeps up. The difference is that interest, not appreciation of assets like homes or stock-based mutual funds, would be fueling the renewed confidence. So for the long term, we get a stronger consumer base, but even in the short term, we get a more confident cadre of consumers, at least those who save instead of borrowing.

Now, who would suffer in all this? For one, banks would no longer be able to make money on the fact that they can borrow from the Fed essentially for free. Some might fold as a result. But might others be forced into more aggressive lending that would in turn offer some prospect of economic growth? What good is a bank that simply makes money on the Fed's zero-interest dole?

Of course, Uncle Sugar would have to pay higher rates too. That outcome, however, depends on the world finding something other than Treasurys as a parking place for its fear; otherwise, the rate at which the government can borrow will remain historically low. But if rates on Treasurys do rise, there's all the more of an imperative for the government to reverse the pattern of the last 2.5 years, in which "stimulus" has been used as the Trojan horse for increasing the federal baseline on the way to making more of the economy dependent on federal patronage and so more firmly capital-D "Democratic." So this too may be, at worst, painless in the short run but still highly beneficial in the medium and long run.

We are attracted to this idea by all the wrong reasons, namely, our contrarian tendency to assume that if a huge majority believes something, it is probably false. But at this stage, who can realistically say that more of the same will yield something better than it already has?

A SWNIDish Almanac of Higher Education

Actually, this is our selection of facts from the annual almanac issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. The principle of selection is what interests SWNID.

Here goes:

• The average tuition discount rate for first-time, full-time freshmen is 42.4%. For all undergraduates, it's 37.1%
• Average cost of attendance as an in-state, residential student at a 4-year public is $20,339. At a 4-year private it's $40,476. At a 2-year public as a commuter it's $14,637.
• Professors in theology and religious vocations are paid the least on average. Here are the averages:
• Professor: $74,267
• Associate Professor: $59,593
• Assistant Professor: $52,241
• New Assistant Professor: $50,620
• For private master's-granting institutions in Ohio, average professorial  pay for all disciplines is as follows:
• Professor: $69,261
• Associate professor: $57,170
• Assistant professor: $60,553

• Average compensation for faculty members has over the last five years and the last ten years gone up faster than inflation. Not so for other recipients of graduate degrees or people ages 25 and older. But presidents' salaries have risen even faster.
• IHEs show more diversity in their staffs than in their faculties.
• College presidents are sharply divided when asked whether the purpose of higher ed is to promote intellectual and personal growth or to provide knowledge and training for the working world. Overall, it's about half either way, but for four-year institutions, more than 70%, public and private, name intellectual and personal growth as the main aim.
• 20% of college presidents are older than 65.
• 41% of 18- to 24-year-olds are enrolled at degree-granting institutions. A larger percentage of women are enrolled than men. Hispanics lag other groups in enrollment at 28%. Blacks are enrolled at 38%; Whites at 45%.
• Less than 1/3 of Americans have at least a bachelor's degree.
• In the next 10 years, the number of students graduating from high school in Ohio is projected to decline by 6%. It is projected to rise in Indiana and Kentucky by 4%. Highest rates of decline will be in the northeast. Highest rates of increase will be in Florida, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and the Rocky Mountain and Intermountain regions.
• In the last decade, undergraduate enrollment grew 38%. It grew 21% in private nonprofit colleges.
• Liberty University is by far the largest private, nonprofit, master's level institution in the country, with 46,312 students in 2009. That makes it the largest private institution in the country: NYU has 43k. We infer that most of this is online enrollment, not that there's anything wrong with that. Eight public universities and three for-profits have higher enrollment than Liberty. Liberty grew 342% from 2004 to 2009.
• U of Phoenix had 380k students in 2009 fall.
  
• Four freshmen out of 1000 name the MDiv degree as their eventual goal.
• Fifty-one freshmen out of a thousand name "Church of Christ" as their religious preference. That's less than Roman Catholic, Baptist, Other Christian or None, but more than any other. Really.
• In 2008-09, 8940 bachelor's degrees were awarded nationwide in theology and religious vocations, almost 2/3 to men. At the master's level there were 12,836, with a somewhat less pronounced lean to men. Nearly 1600 doctoral degrees were awarded, and we believe that every one of them asked us for a job.
  
• There were 347k bachelor's degrees given in business.
• In the decade ending in 2009, the number of degrees in theology and religious vocations rose 43%. On average, growth was 33%.
• 19% of college students in Ohio are minorities.
• Blacks and Hispanics had the biggest increase in percentage increase of students receiving degrees in the decade ending 2009.
• For-profit institutions enroll a disproportionate number of black students.
• Per ACT, only 25% of college students are ready for all areas of college study (English, math, reading, science). Only half are ready for the reading.
• Nearly 60% of bachelor's recipients from private 4-years graduate with less than $20k in debt. 28% graduate with no debt. 15% owe over $40k.
• Median debt at 4-year privates doesn't vary much according to the family's income. It hovers a little above $20k. It's over $30k at for-profits.
• College costs have been increasing steadily as a percentage of family income.
• The wealthier a student's family, the more likely the student is to receive a degree.
• On average, grants and loans are roughly equal as sources of financial aid.
• Adults with bachelor's degrees in Ohio = 24%. Indiana =23%. Kentucky = 21%.
• From highest to lowest percentages of students who report using such digital things, here are the digital technologies most used by students:
• library web site
• presentation software
• text messages
• social networking web sites
• course- or learning-management systems (like Moodle)
• spreadsheets
• instant messaging
• graphics software
• internet from a handheld device
• voice over internet protocol from computer (like Skype)
• microblogging (like Twitter)
• contributing to video web sites (like YouTube)
• contributing to wikis
• video-creation software
• contributing to blogs
• audio-creation software
• online multiuser computer games (like HALO)
• social bookmark/tagging
• online virtual worlds
• Nearly 50% of students are on the internet more than 15 hours a week. 9.1% are on 40 hours a week or more.
• Over half of Ohioans are between the ages of 25 and 64.

News Flash: Americans Start to Get It

Recent Rasmussen polling shows:

Most (59%) think it is better to have lower corporate tax rates and very few deductions than to have higher tax rates and lots of deductions. Seventy-nine percent (79%) recognize that corporations generally pass higher taxes along to their customers in the form of higher prices. 

So the truth is taking hold. From a SWNIDish perspective, this is a very optimistic sign in an indicator that leads Leading Economic Indicators.

Has Barone Been Cribbing SWNID?

Michael Barone, distinctly distinguished in the punditsphere for his logical and empirical rigor, today writes what SWNID has been writing for years. Namely, about how buses of the private sector smoke so-called high-speed rail of the public sector as well as buses of the crony sector.

We quote:

Bus travel used to be decidedly downscale, with a clientele that scared off middle-class travelers. That's because, back in the days of heavily regulated transportation, bus lines followed the passenger railroad model, with stations in central cities, routes with multiple stops, fares propped up by monopolies, and operators with no economic incentive to provide comfortable or pleasant service.

Chinatown and Megabus operators ditched this model for one that works for travelers for whom money is scarce and time plentiful. Who needs a station? Intercity buses can occupy curb space briefly just as city buses do. Who needs multiple stops? You can make money on people who want to go from one specific location to another.

Needless to say, the cost to the taxpaying public is minimal. City streets and interstate highways already exist, and maintenance gets financing from gas taxes. And the system has enormous flexibility. If fewer passengers want to line up in Chinatown and more on the Upper West Side, the bus can change stops.

Rock on, Mr. Barone. And he does:

Compare high-speed rail. It is tethered to enormous stations that must be built or refurbished and limited to particular routes that, once the rails are laid down, cannot be changed except at prohibitive expense.

And it is enormously costly. In just two years the estimated cost of the Obama administration's pet project, California high-speed rail, in the "flatter than Kansas" Central Valley, has risen from $7.1 billion to $13.9 billion. Oxford economist Bent Flyvbjerg has found that high-speed rail projects always end up costing more, usually far more, than estimates.

In addition, operating costs almost always end up higher than fares. And fares always turn out to be expensive, comparable to airfare if you book a popular flight the day before your trip.
So high-speed rail is a form of transportation on which government subsidizes business travelers. You don't see backpackers any more on the Acela or Amtrak trains from Washington to New York. They're taking the Chinatown bus or one of its competitors.

And so to conclude:

So the private sector provides cheap intercity transportation while government struggles to waste $53 billion. Please remind me which is the wave of the future.

Remember where you heard it first.

On the F-Word

GetReligion, a blog on press coverage of religion, offers a short rant against the LA Times characterization of Rick Perry's weekend prayer rally as a gathering of "fundamentalists."

We cite the post for one trenchant rhetorical question:

Have we reached the point where any Christian believer whose doctrine of scripture and church tradition is high enough to believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin will now be called a “fundamentalist”?

We figure that the obvious answer is "yes." There's probably no definition of the f-word today that better captures that word's usage. We intend to point this out to everyone from now on.

End of Week Economic and Political Potpourri

We offer some links and observations that converge on SWNIDish themes.

In WSJ, Eric Cantor is featured in the weekend-edition's profile that leads the opinion page. The brief interview and analysis emphasize what SWNID has been posting lately: that our body politic is riven by two distinct notions of what the country ought to be. If you haven't been paying attention, those two notions are (a) a republic of equal and abundant opportunity, relatively unfettered by government interference; (b) a European-style welfare state pursuing equality of outcome. Cantor is quoted on the subject:

The assumption . . . is that there is some kind of perpetual engine of economic prosperity in America that is going to just continue. And therefore they are able to take from those who create and give to those who don't. We just have a fundamentally different view.

Meanwhile, others in WSJ are noting a corollary: that in the present debate, as progressives get the worst of it, they retreat to more overt expressions of elitism. So writes Stanford's Peter Berkowitz. Cataloging some of the recent examples of egregious name-calling from lefty Congresspersons and pundits, Berkowitz observes a fundamental contradiction in the progressive political mindset:

The evident panic of the progressive mind stems from a paradox as old as progressivism in America. Progressives see themselves as the only legitimate representatives of ordinary people. Yet their vision of what democracy requires frequently conflects with what majorities believe and how they choose to live.

Add to this the progressive belief that human beings can be perfected through the rule of experts, and you have a recipe--when the people make choices contrary to progressive dictates--for generating contempt among the experts for the people whose interests they claim alone to represent. And not just contempt, but even disgust at diversity of opinion, which from the progressive's perspective distracts the people from the policies demanded by impartial reason.

The progressive mind is on a collision course with itself. The clash between its democratic pretensions and its authoritarian predilections has generated within its ranks seething resentment for, and rage at, conservatives. Unless progressives cultivate the enlightened virtues they publicly profess and free themselves from the dogmatic beliefs that undergird their political ambitions, we can expect even more harrowing outbursts to come.

Meanwhile, S&P has downgraded US Treasurys to AA+ with a negative outlook. Of course, they did it despite having to acknowledge a $2 trillion mistake in their analysis. We see this change as more symbolic than substantial, as there is no real alternative for cash in the global economy to replace Treasurys. So we expect little change in interest rates, even though a rise in interest rates is perhaps in the interests of longer-term prosperity. Markets are more important in determining prices than are market-watchers.

And meanwhile, Ohio's bonds have been upgraded. Ohio Governor, shameless self-promoter and former Lehman Brothers partner John Kasich explains how he has accomplished this fiscal feat by doing the Coolidge thing in balancing the state budget and reducing taxes:





What to say in conclusion? That we dearly hope that the decade-long flirtation with spending and borrowing our way to prosperity is at an end, and that this time the lesson will last longer than the 20 years it takes for another generation to arise, hold its parents in contempt, imagine that we suffer from a deficit of civic-minded virtue that they intend to fill, and concoct yet another failed experiment in patron-client relations between a government and its citizens.

CPS Continues Incremental Improvements

We welcome the usual rejoinders that all public schools are awful and that Cincinnati Public Schools are especially awful. But the numbers are in again, and despite working with a massively disproportionate number of poor kids, Cincinnati Public Schools continues to improve its outcomes.

Where this goes next will largely be determined in the upcoming board meeting and then in November. The CPS school board will decide whether to seek a tax levy and how much to seek if seek they do. Then voters will decide.

COAST, the perennial opponents of all local taxes, already says that CPS doesn't need more money because (a) more money doesn't improve education; and (b) private (Catholic) schools operate on a lot less.

CPS will say that a failure to invest that leads to layoffs will stymie improvements.

We will SWNIDishly offer some observations.

First, both COAST and CPS are at this stage of discussion offering generalizations that only offer possibilities and may not apply directly to the present situation.

To COAST, granted that spending more money has not been shown in itself to improve educational outcomes, we ask whether CPS has shown itself to be a better than average steward of fiscal resources as compared to other urban school districts teaching a disproportionate number of poor children. If so, might they be able to spend a few more dollars wisely? Is it time to move beyond your knee-jerk rationalizations for opposing taxes and consider the merits of particular levies with regard to their particularity?

To CPS, we ask for more than the generalization that layoffs will hurt. Granted that you're doing well, granted that the comparison to parochial schools is not apples to apples, if your ambition is to be the best urban district in the country, you're going to have to move beyond the level of trite generalizations that appeal to public sympathy for hard-up kids and dedicated "public servants."

What's the plan CPS? What's wrong with the plan, COAST?

To voters, we say this. The business environment in Our Fair City is extremely affected by what's at stake here. On the one hand, lower taxes are attractive to businesses. On the other hand, effective schools are attractive to businesses. "Strike the balance" is a truism that can be articulated here and then set aside. The real question is whether there's a better plan to improve public education with some specific, targeted spending or to improve it without that spending.

So when the plan is offered and critiqued, listen well and think hard, OK?

Assessing Christian Taxonomy Thru the Lens of a Life Well Lived

CT's Mark Galli offers what is for us both the best appreciation of the late John Stott and the best assessment of evangelicalism's sense of frustration over the excesses of its fringe family members. Galli shows Stott as a sample of the best of evangelicalism, suggesting that when one compares subgroups of Christianity--Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, emergent/emerging--one ought to compare the best to the best, not the worst to the ideal.

Some quotes:

So for a few decades now, we've witnessed many evangelicals grow weary of arm wrestling about dispensationalism or egalitarianism or annihilationism or atonement or a host of other issues. They look longingly to Rome and that glorious magisterium, where supposedly one fiat ends all debate.

Or we compare our trivial services that pass for worship and become infatuated with the bells and smells of Orthodoxy.

Or we grow tired of rationalism and all things modern, so drift into emergent and postmodern Christianity.

Or we are frustrated with privatistic pietism and long for a faith that engages the world on its own terms.

. . .

What many don't see is that every Christian movement and tradition—Catholic, Orthodox, emergent, liberal, and so forth—has their crazy uncles (Episcopal Jack Spong), scandalous behavior (priestly abuses), and boorish attitudes (Orthodox ethnocentrism). It's called sin, and no movement escapes it. 

. . .

One could hardly do better than by first rereading the works of John Stott, and reflecting on his life.

Why? Because Stott articulated a biblical faith in ways that are true and faithful to the text of the Bible. No postmodern experiments with deconstructing. No theological flights of fancy. No sermons that overwhelmed the biblical narrative with his own cute stories. No pandering after the crowds. No studied attempt to be authentic, no pacing up and down the stage, no working the crowd for a laugh. Just simple and clear exegesis, with the appropriate illustration or classic quote.

Why? Because he lived a life that was true and faithful to the Bible. He spoke with conviction and humility. He worked hard but did not burn out. He played hard—if you call his fascination with bird-watching play—but was never tempted to let leisure define his lifestyle. He listened to his critics without being cowed by them. He wore his fame lightly, and used it not to promote himself or the sale of his books, but to further the ministries he had given himself to. He continued to grow and learn his whole life, expanding God's calling on his life until his last breath. He put love into action, bringing into near perfect biblical balance the call for evangelism and social justice.

Why? Because he preached and lived a life that was an apology for the oldest and strongest pillars of evangelicalism: the complete trustworthiness and authority of Scripture; the primacy of the substitutionary atonement of Christ; Jesus as Savior and Lord; and a life of activism, characterized by both evangelism and social justice.

Nice Fornicators

Superb beginning to a discussion of contemporary sexual behavior!

Fun Fact!

Did you know . . .

That Otto von Bismark, the architect of German unification in the 19th century, is credited with the origin of the European welfare state? And that he promoted a social-welfare system to try to establish a competitive differentiator with the United States, to which Germans were immigrating in massive numbers to find better opportunities for economic advancement, as well as to blunt the popularity of socialism?

Bismark's approach was, like everything that he did, an expression of the history of Germany and of Europe, in which patronage was the means by which the more powerful ensured the loyalty of the less powerful.

We simply mention this Fun Fact as a means of framing the ongoing conflict between two visions of the state's role in the economy: to provide common opportunity or to provide common benefits. Yes, it's about balance, but the determination of the "right" balance will be decided on the larger vision of what constitutes the best kind of society.

SWNID thinks that since there will always be a Europe, there also should always be an America.

It Pays to Be Smarter Than Jesus

Bloomberg has a timely and significant article on the measure of boodle available to those who pander to expectations of the Rapture. We leave it to gentle readers to scan the article for details.

Various points can be discussed from all this, but there's one that we'd stress above all. It is the underappreciated but obvious fact that the expectation of a secret rapture of the church before a period of tribulation that precedes Jesus' return is of very recent theological origin (19th century), does not represent the historic view of Christians and is not the view of most people today who believe the Bible and study it professionally. To put it more succinctly: you can be a Christian, affirm that Jesus will return, and have no belief whatsoever in the secret rapture.

Christianity is not as dumb as some of its adherents make it appear, and as many of its opponents wish it to be.

The Adults

They happen to be Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.

Ryan months ago proposed a plan that initiated the honest discussion that is now leading to the fiscal pact about to be enacted. And what he proposed is still better than anything proposed since.

Rubio yesterday on the Senate floor offered the most cogent analysis of the situation that we've heard:



Too bad they're still too inexperienced to lead a national ticket. In the best case, they can do so in 2020. In the worst, in 2016.

Outlines of Debt Compromise Emerge - Major Garrett - NationalJournal.com

If conservatives can't live with a deal like the one hastily outlined and hastily linked below, they are divorced from political reality. To wit: no new taxes.

Same for lefties. You got clobbered in 2010, and you only won in 2008 because your guy was cool.

Hey, Chicken Little! Revise your celestial estimate! The Chinese will still buy Treasurys on Wednesday.


Outlines of Debt Compromise Emerge - Major Garrett - NationalJournal.com

Al Franken: Still Wrong, Not Funny, Except by Accident

At least as a senator, he's not supposed to be funny.

Al Franken is advertising on Facebook to get people to sign a petition against the Defense of Marriage Act. Such internet petitions, of course, are really trolling for the email addresses of likeminded people to hound them for donations to the upcoming Battle Royale that will determine whether future Americans will live in a place like America or one like Greece. But we enjoy Franken's unsubtle attempt at such subterfuge because the former comedian, forced into politics by his inability to be amusing, manages now to be unintentionally funny. Note the opening paragraph of his marketing-ploy-disguised-as-a-cause:

There’s no good argument against marriage equality. There’s no good argument in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. And there’s no reason we should wait one more day to repeal it.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. The arguments/reasons (why the shift from "argument" to "reason" in the third sentence? the lack of commitment to the rhetoric is an additional irritant) are good enough to convince a lot of people more thoughtful than the failed founder of AirAmerica.

In keeping with the gravity of the web posting, we registered Messrs. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, always suspected of seeking an unconventional marriage to each other, as supporters of Franken's campaign. Really, for those who maintain a secondary email account for receiving rubbish, it's kinda fun to sign up for these things, knowing that you will then receive endless emails inviting you to send $10, $100 or $1000 to slay the barbarians and usher in Utopia. They're fun too, that is, at least as fun as this was:

Dr. K: It's About Two Views of Our Republic

We’re in the midst of a great four-year national debate on the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two parties — social-democratic vs. limited-government — have underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama’s inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental divide.

Yep. Opinionist Charles Krauthammer and journalistic analyst Gerald Seib see things exactly the same way. The current debate is about different notions of how economic and political life ought to be lived. And the issue can only be settled by an election.

To everything else they and we have said about this, we'll add one more element. Much depends on whether Americans will own up to their individual double-mindedness about such matters. To wit: most citizens are insistent that the government both (a) get off their back; and (b) give them increasing entitlements. Hence, both (a) Tea Party conservatives who want the budget balanced yesterday without touching Social Security and Medicare; (b) Subaru socialists who want the price to be paid by the rich, who happen to be just beyond the economic ambitions that they have for their offspring.

In our mind, we imagine a political Don Corleone who will do to Our Republic what that celebrated character did to Johnny Fontane:

John Stott Showed Us How It's Done

In tribute to the late John Stott, we link not one of the many articles of tribute that has appeared since his death yesterday but an article from 2004 by David Brooks of the New York Times. Brooks captured Stott's contribution to Christianity in SWNID's generation as well as we've ever seen it done.

As a sometime visitor to All Souls Langham Place, where Stott preached next door to the BBC's studios, and as an admirer of every aspect of his ministry, we add this tribute. In our view, Stott was one of the first to realize that Great Britain, Europe, and North America had entered a post-Christian cultural condition. He led first his church and influenced many others to articulate the Christian gospel in ways that were clear, accessible and appealing to a post-Christian audience, and without sacrificing any aspect of historic orthodoxy. We believe that when the history of Christianity in our lifetime is written centuries from now, Stott will be noted as crucial to the church's survival and revival in lands where once it had been predominant but then had become marginalized.

Wallis's Fundies Prooftext Budget Debate

Sojourners is buying radio time to hector the budget debate with prooftexts.

As CNN reports:

The minute-long spot attacking Boehner's plan says the book of Proverbs "teaches that where there is not leadership a nation falls and the poor are shunned while the rich have many friends."

"Sadly Congress has failed to heed these Biblical warnings, and our own Rep. Boehner is risking the health of our economy if America defaults on its debts," the ad says.

Wow, that settles it, doesn't it? Why bother with marcroeconomic considerations when you've got Wallis and his ilk to make it all so very simple?

Jim, we won't ask how things like means-testing Social Security benefits or cutting off government money for NPR would hurt the poor. We'll just take your word for it, and take spiritual comfort in our shared indignation. And write you a check so that you can continue to articulate biblical principles for the sake of those who have no voice in the debate.

Truth Behind the Pay Wall: Seib Describes Rival American Political Philosophies

WSJ's Gerald Seib, always as mild and moderate as lowfat vanilla yogurt, today offers as apt a description as one can imagine of the contrasting fiscal philosophies of Our Republic's only two political parties. As it's behind the pay wall, we quote from our privileged position as a Kindle subscriber:

Democrats see the governments' [sic] role edging up as the nation ages and its economy matures. Moreover, they see that as the inevitable and desirable evolution of a nation making good on its social compact with a graying population and competing in a global economy where state-directed economies such as China's use the power of government to prevail.

Republicans watch those same trends and recoil from what they see as a nation drifting away from its traditional economic moorings and toward the inherently flawed models of a socialist Europe and a mercantilist China. They see a social compact that needs to be trimmed as the economy matures and a government role in the economy that shouldn't grow to compete with China but rather be curtailed to differentiate the American model from the Chinese one.

Indeed! And, we add to the last sentence, to continue on the path that historically and universally has produced more prosperity for more people than its competitors, both in the United States and elsewhere.

Seib is as evenhanded as he can be with this, really a model of journalistic neutrality (and note well that he continues to work for WSJ long after Evil Genius Rupert Murdoch's sinister takeover). Some with weak constitutions may respond by saying, "Well, both sides have good things to say. Who can determine who's right in this? I'll just vote for the best candidate."

Wrong. Given that politics and economics is as much art as science, one is compelled to say that the obvious bet is to bet on oneself and people like oneself. Citizenship, not client-patron relations, makes us happier, healthier, wealthier, and wiser. Vote for the people who affirm your adulthood. Blame the people who infantilize you.

And so one party says that we much tax the rich more so that we can include the rich amongst the clients of government patronage, never means-testing entitlements or stifling crony-capitalistic ventures that we label "investments in our future." The other plans to not so much to starve the middle man as put him on a diet.

2012 Is Why We Don't Have a Deal Yet

WaPo's Jennifer Rubin reports what John Boehner and Eric Cantor said to their caucus yesterday about the dissolution of talks on a debt-ceiling deal. We take two points away.

One is that there will be something passed in time to avoid the train wreck, though a slip in the bond rating is probably inevitable anyway.

The other is that the problem is 2012, and it's more a problem for the Ds than the Rs. Ds know that they were decimated in 2010 and face the same in 2012 without a game changer. Getting hung with a fresh "tax-and-spend" label would make matters worse, but pulling Bill Clinton's trick of blaming the Rs for a government-shutdown-type experience could be just enough to get BHO a term to follow his warmup.

Meanwhile, you've got to listen awfully, awfully closely to hear that spending at 24% of GDP is fundamentally higher under Obama than ever before in the post-WWII era, that no matter what we do with tax rates, we've never managed to collect much more than about 20% of GDP in taxes, and so the problem is not that Richie Rich pays too little but that we all, through the patrons we elect every two years, spend too much.

Once Again, What the Real Problem Is

From columnist Jack Kelly:

Another way to indicate the problem is spending -- specifically, Mr. Obama's spending -- if federal spending were held to what it was during President Bush's last year in office, deficits likely would be eliminated in four years.

Can we all please agree to the math and get on with the decision?