Another Time for Choosing

Another Time for Choosing

Reagan made history with his speech 50 years ago; now Republicans need a new great communicator.

By Lee Edwards

Fifty years ago to the day, a political star was born in America. His name was Ronald Reagan, and he seized the national imagination with a mesmerizing television address titled “A Time for Choosing.”

The address was described by political analysts David Broder and Stephen Hess as “the most successful political debut since William Jennings Bryan electrified the 1896 Democratic convention.” It brought in $1 million in contributions to the Republican National Committee in the first 24 hours. It shifted many votes — the Republican nominee Barry Goldwater gained several percentage points following the telecast. Republican leaders said they would not have approached Reagan to run for governor of California in 1966 if he had not made his TV talk. What was there about this speech and the man who delivered it that altered the course of history?

As Republican presidential hopefuls consider what to say and how to say it leading up to the 2016 election, they would do well to examine the speech that transformed Ronald Reagan into a national political leader overnight. 

“A Time for Choosing” was Reagan’s work from beginning to end. He researched it, he wrote it, and he delivered it without a teleprompter or a manuscript, relying on a packet of 4-by-6-inch note cards on which he had written, in his own shorthand, key phrases, quotes, and statistics. 

The “choice” before the American people, he began, is between two starkly different visions of America and the kind of government we should have. One side says “you never had it so good” and the nation is at peace. But, Reagan asked, do they really mean peace or do “they mean we just want to be left in peace”? There can be no real peace, he said, when “we’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars.”

If we lose our freedom, history will record with the greatest astonishment that “those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.” He sharpened the differences between the two sides and the importance of the choice. It’s time, he said, to ask ourselves “if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.”

Those freedoms are based on one idea: “that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.” The choice before the people, Reagan stated, is simple: “whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

Any conservative, then or now, would be hard pressed to present a more concise argument against the progressive paradigm.

Next, Reagan addressed and rejected the liberal argument that “we have to choose between a left or right.” “There is no such thing as left or right,” he argued. “There’s only an up or down, up to man’s age-old dream of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”

He quoted liberal Democratic voices such as those of Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, who said that the Constitution was “outmoded,” and Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania, who defined liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.” Reagan responded that he resented it when a representative of the people referred “to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as ‘the masses.’” As for the “full power of centralized government,” that was exactly what the Founding Fathers sought to minimize because they knew that “a government can’t control the economy without controlling people.”

He proceeded to give a number of examples in which government had tried and failed to solve problems, such as farm subsidies, public housing, and unemployment, poverty, and juvenile-delinquency programs. He used humor to expose the failed policies of the other side: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Addressing key issues, Reagan suggested commonsense solutions, such as introducing voluntary features in Social Security and stopping foreign aid that is used to buy “dress suits for Greek undertakers [and] extra wives for Kenyan government officials.” From the beginning to the end of his address, his primary target was the ever-increasing size of government. “Actually,” he said, “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

He concluded by laying out the most important choice of all — peace through strength or peace through appeasement. Conceding there was a risk in standing firm, Reagan declared that “you and I do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.” He quoted Alexander Hamilton, who said that “a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

Borrowing from Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, Reagan said to an audience of millions, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” But he finished with a message of hope and optimism: “You and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.”

Twenty-five years later, in his 1989 farewell address, President Reagan displayed his sure command of political rhetoric by denying that he was merely a “Great Communicator.” He said, disarmingly, “I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things.” The truth is that he was a great communicator, one of the greatest in American politics, who communicated great things such as liberty, justice, and equality that have shaped America. 

Isn’t it time, indeed past time, for another great communicator who can articulate the unique American spirit?

— Lee Edwards is Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation and author of The Essential Ronald Reagan.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391198/another-time-choosing-lee-edwards

A Speech for All Time

A Speech for All Time

Republicans must apply the principles of Reagan’s “Time for Choosing” to today’s challenges.

By Marco Rubio

I remember sitting with my grandfather in 1980, when I was just nine years old, and watching on TV as Ronald Reagan accepted the Republican nomination for President. While that was the first time I was really exposed to the Reagan Revolution, the movement’s foundations had been laid in a speech delivered before I was born, on October 27, 1964.

On that day, exactly a half-century ago, Reagan spoke in support of Barry Goldwater’s campaign for president in a speech titled “A Time for Choosing.” The address is often remembered as the breakout moment in Reagan’s political career, but in truth it was much more than that — it was the moment that sparked a movement that transformed America.

In the speech, Reagan warned of the dangers of a growing government and a shrinking private economy. He pointed to signs that he believed were indicative of a diminished future: an enormous tax burden, massive budget deficits, a rising debt limit, and a less-valuable dollar.

Though Goldwater lost that year, Reagan’s message continued to be validated in the years that followed. In his 1980 campaign, Reagan built on “A Time for Choosing” by taking the founding principles he had outlined and detailing exactly how to apply them to the challenges that had subsequently emerged. Once in the White House, he proved just how effective his conservative approach to government could be.

In the half century since that speech, some of the policy debates Reagan discussed have changed while others have not. But every single one of the principles he outlined is just as relevant today as in 1964. I believe the modern conservative movement can find its roots in that speech, but I also believe it can find its blueprint for the months and years ahead, starting with the election next week.

Republican candidates today have an opportunity — and an obligation — to do what Reagan did in 1964: explain exactly what makes America exceptional and exactly what will be required to keep her that way. First, this requires defending the principles of our founding, the same ones supported in “A Time for Choosing.” Second, it requires policy ideas that apply these principles to modern challenges.

America’s founding ideals can be applied in the 21st century just as easily as Reagan applied them in the 20th century, just not in the same way. Today, we need modern reforms that recognize modern realities: that our country now faces global competition for jobs, that technology has transformed the very nature of our economy, and that our policies and institutions have failed to adapt accordingly.

Modern conservative reforms will recognize that these realities cannot be addressed with government power, but rather through a government that empowers. If we give our people a government that helps rather than hinders, a free economy that promotes growth and opportunity, and a higher-education system that equips every American with the skills needed for modern jobs, our people will do what they’ve always done: dream, achieve, and leave behind a better America for their children.

That’s exactly what our parents and grandparents did in the last century, partly because of Reagan’s vision and leadership.

When I think back to watching the 1980 convention with Papá, I think of what Reagan’s message must have meant to him. My grandfather would always tell me that his own life had been limited by the circumstances of his birth, but that mine would be limitless because I was an American.

In “A Time for Choosing,” we can see that Reagan knew that sentiment to be true. He told the story of a Cuban refugee who was speaking with two other Americans about his life. One remarked to his friend with wonder, “We don’t know how lucky we are.”  And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to!”

Reagan described the significance of the exchange by saying: “In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”

I’m not sure if my grandfather ever saw that speech, but if he did, I know he would have been moved by that story. He and Reagan agreed on what America represented to the world, and on what her destiny was in the 20th century.

This week as I reread that iconic speech from 50 years ago, I am reminded that our destiny is the same in this century as it was in the last, but that before we can achieve it, we must face our own “time for choosing.” And like our parents and grandparents before us, we must choose wisely.

— Marco Rubio is a Republican U.S. senator from Florida.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391249/speech-all-time-marco-rubio

How High Will Your Health Insurance Premiums Go In 2015?

How High Will Your Health Insurance Premiums Go In 2015?

 by Hugh Hewitt

Nobody knows because Team Obama has conveniently arranged for you to be kept in the dark on your health insurance costs until after everyone votes next week.

Most are expecting 5% to 10% hikes, but there are rumblings of far nastier surprises.

Read this Denver Post report of a Colorado study of expected rates for individuals on the state’s massively screwed-up exchange. (Not a failed exchange, like Oregon’s or Maryland’s, just a screwed-up exchange.)  It begins:

Colorado health-insurance consumers relying on tax credits will see their share of premiums rise an average of 77 percent next year if they keep the same plans, according to the state’s preliminary analysis.

While premiums overall are not expected to increase significantly in 2015, the way tax credits are calculated under the Affordable Care Act is creating challenges for Colorado consumers.

According to an analysis done for the Colorado Division of Insurance, the average share of costs for customers receiving tax credits in 2014 was $161.79 a month. In 2015, if they keep the same plans, their average share of costs after tax credits will be $281.01.

You’ve got to love that “[w]hile premiums overall are not expected to increase significantly in 2015″ assurance, followed by the hammer of the rarity of radically decreasing tax credits.

The bottom line is that the total cost while skyrocket for Centennial State consumers buying individual policies if they keep “the plan they like.”

Of course most voters won’t figure this out until after the elections, but the signs are there.  Here’s the start of a story from CBS Minnesota:

Minnesotans who bought policies on the state’s health insurance exchange are starting to get their first renewal notices, and many could be in for a jolt.

Premiums for most of the more than 55,000 individuals signed up for private insurance plans via MNsure are going up. For the nearly 33,000 who have coverage from PreferredOne, most who want to keep those policies next year will have to pay over 60 percent more, according to officials with the Minnesota Association of Health Underwriters who’ve seen the company’s rate data.

A 60% hike!  How would such news impact voters weighing the choice between Al Franken and Mike McFadden –if they knew about it.

Thus has the manipulation of Obamacare’s rollout be designed to keep voters from feeling the full impact of the disruptions caused by Obamacare, but like the boat hitting the first patch of rough water, heads are raised and eyebrows furrowed as bits and pieces of information cross the country’s collective screen, even as it s mostly watching the Ebola and ISIS stories.  Many suspect that something is rotten in Obamacare, and it isn’t just the state exchanges.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll is a disaster for Democrats rounding the bend into elections a week away, so they are desperate to talk about anything except the cost of health insurance, the economy, Ebola, ISIS, the collapse of Libya into chaos, Russia’s assaults on Ukraine…you name it, Democrats don’t want to go there.

They are left with…nothing.  Worse than nothing, as they hope voters aren’t reading and watching the signs of how their individual wallets will handle 2015.

Not the place they wanted to be a week before the results are tallied, and for this they have President Obama to thank.  He’s on the ballot, right there with every Democrat.  And an angry country cannot wait to send the disconnected, dispirited president a very loud message.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/high-will-health-insurance-premiums-go-2015/

THE MOST STUNNING NEWS STORY OF 2014

THE MOST STUNNING NEWS STORY OF 2014

BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

Back in June 2013, we covered the hacking of at least one of reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s computers by persons unknown. CBS, which, as we now know, was anything but supportive of Attkisson, verified that the intrusion(s) had taken place:

A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.

This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.

But we heard nothing further until the publication of Attkisson’s explosive book, Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington. Now the next shoe has dropped, as the New York Post reports:

In her new memoir, Sharyl Attkisson says a source who arranged to have her laptop checked for spyware in 2013 was “shocked” and “flabbergasted” at what the analysis revealed.

“This is outrageous. Worse than anything Nixon ever did. I wouldn’t have believed something like this could happen in the United States of America,” Attkisson quotes the source saying.

She speculates that the motive was to lay the groundwork for possible charges against her or her sources.

Attkisson says the source, who’s “connected to government three-letter agencies,” told her the computer was hacked into by “a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency.”

The breach was accomplished through an “otherwise innocuous e-mail” that Attkisson says she got in February 2012, then twice “redone” and “refreshed” through a satellite hookup and a Wi-Fi connection at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.

The spyware included programs that Attkisson says monitored her every keystroke and gave the snoops access to all her e-mails and the passwords to her financial accounts.

“The intruders discovered my Skype account handle, stole the password, activated the audio, and made heavy use of it, presumably as a listening tool,” she wrote in “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”

But the most shocking finding, she says, was the discovery of three classified documents that Number One told her were “buried deep in your operating system. In a place that, unless you’re a some kind of computer whiz specialist, you wouldn’t even know exists.”

“They probably planted them to be able to accuse you of having classified documents if they ever needed to do that at some point,” Number One added.

If the Obama administration hacked into a reporter’s computers, used them to spy on her, and even prepared to frame her for a potential criminal prosecution by planting classified documents, aren’t we looking at the biggest scandal in American history? Perhaps I’m forgetting something, but I can’t come up with anything to equal the stunning lawlessness on display here–if what Attkisson says is true (which I don’t doubt), and if the administration is the guilty party.

If this were a Republican administration, every reporter in Washington would be on the story, as would various law enforcement agencies. Given that we are talking about a Democratic president, Attkisson shouldn’t expect any help. If I were she, I would hire one of the top litigation firms in Washington and look into suing appropriate federal agencies. That won’t be easy; the most obvious obstacle is that she has to have evidence that a particular agency was involved in the hacking/spying operation in order to survive a motion to dismiss, but it will be hard (maybe impossible) to get that evidence without the ability to do discovery in the lawsuit. But having her own lawsuit allows her to run her own show, and private lawyers are generally far more effective at unearthing and processing information than, say, Congressional committees.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/the-most-stunning-news-story-of-2014.php

Suppose They Gave a Climate Conference and Nobody Came

Suppose They Gave a Climate Conference and Nobody Came

We evil climate deniers often enjoy comparing the current uproar over the weather with Stalin’s misuse of science byTrofim Lysenko.  But I think the devotion to extreme climate, or whatever today’s catch phrase may be, is far more in the realm of magic and metaphysics than real physics — Lysenko was, after all, a genuine agronomist — and is much more akin to the story of Sabbatai Zevi, the 17th century Sephardic rabbi many Jews believed was  the long-awaited Messiah but who ended up ridiculing his supporters and converting to Islam.

Climate armageddon is a messianic cult based almost entirely on religion and faith and very little on science.  And, like the Sabbatean movement where many adherents remained devoted to Zevi no matter what he did or how he behaved,  it’s still thriving, somewhat, despite the many blows that it has taken lately — no warming in the last fifteen years, Antarctic ice cap bigger than ever, more polar bears than ever, all kinds of leaks of fraudulent figures and fudged graphs, etc., etc.   The list, available at www.wattsupwiththat.com by scrolling backwards, is almost comical in its extent.   It’s amusing to read the myriad theories for why the ice cap is bigger, motivated, for the most part, by panic on the part of the scientists involved that they might have their stipends cut.

Nevertheless,  your United Nations, at the the behest of your president, is on the case.  On September 23, they are convening a UN Climate Summit.  From their website:

Climate change is not a far-off problem. It is happening now and is having very real consequences on people’s lives. Climate change is disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow.  But there is a growing recognition that affordable, scalable solutions are available now that will enable us all to leapfrog to cleaner, more resilient economies.

There is a sense that change is in the air. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited world leaders, from government, finance, business, and civil society to Climate Summit 2014 this 23 September to galvanize and catalyze climate action.

Problem is most of those leaders aren’t coming.  Maybe they realize the whole thing’s a shuck.  From Newsweek(apparently back in print — go figure):

But the U.N. Climate Summit, set for September 23, is likely to be hampered by the failure of leaders from the U.N.’s three largest member nations—China, Russia and India—to attend. China’s Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli will represent the country at the summit, as well as the September 24-30 General Debate, instead of President Xi Jinping, and the Russian Foreign Ministry said Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will lead the Russian delegation. The top leaders of China and Russia won’t be coming because their schedules are too demanding, Think Progress reports.

So what, pray tell, is going on here?  In a word:  distraction. Although the UN secretary general has pronounced climate “the defining issue of our times” (Obama and Kerry have made similar remarks), everyone with an IQ in triple digits knows that it isn’t — and has for some time. What we do know is that the UN Oil-for-Food scandal was a monumental example of corruption, as was and is the UNRWA housing missiles and other weapons for Hamas, not to mention the possibility that they cooperated in the building of the terror tunnels.

But forget that for the moment. Allow me to share a personal experience.  I went to Copenhagen in 2009 for this website to cover another UN climate conference (COP 15), then considered to be extremely crucial.  Several islands — Micronesia, I think — were supposedly about to go under from the rising tides.  I ran into the representative from one of those islands and asked him if he was worried.  He started to laugh and shook his head.  So I asked him what he was doing at the conference.  I want the money, he said.

So here we go again.  Climate is the real problem.  We know the song — and the motivation. Whatever happened to all those billions spent for carbon offsets…. hmmm?

But the whole climate thing is much more than a mere scam, gigantic as it is. It is the purest example of the use of moral narcissism by and against liberals and progressives. It is the perfect exploitation of the human need to feel good about ourselves.  More opine about matters scientific in our culture than in all of history, probably, while knowing less — and that’s not just because Al Gore got D in geology or because the whole idea of “settled science” is an oxymoron.  ”Climate change” is liberalism’s paradigm self-deception.  If you believe that, you can believe anything. It is so, if you want it to be so. With the world in the midst of civilizational struggle, that’s pretty pathetic — and scary.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/09/17/nobody-came/?singlepage=true

IT’S TIME TO STAND UP FOR AMERICAN WORKERS

IT’S TIME TO STAND UP FOR AMERICAN WORKERS

 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN IMMIGRATION

Today Peter Kirsanow, a Civil Rights Commissioner, wrote President Obama to urge him to abandon the executive amnesty that is planned for after the election. Kirsanow’s letter focuses on the damage an amnesty, and increased legal immigration, will do to American workers, especially African-Americans and STEM workers. First, here is Kirsanow’s letter in its entirety. Then I will excerpt some paragraphs, omitting the extensive footnotes:

Executive Amnesty Letter October 2014

I write to express my concern regarding reports that you plan on issuing an executive order that purports to grant legal status and work authorization to millions of illegal immigrants after the November elections. My concerns center around the effect such grant of legal status will have on two subsets of American workers: low-skilled workers, particularly low-skilled black workers, and high-skilled STEM workers. …

Such an increase in lawful workers would have a deleterious effect on low-skilled American workers, particularly black workers. In 2008, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a briefing regarding the impact of illegal immigration on the wages and employment opportunities of African-Americans. The testimony at the briefing indicated that illegal immigration disproportionately impacts the wages and employment opportunities of African-American men.

The briefing witnesses, well-regarded scholars from leading universities and independent groups, were ideologically diverse. All the witnesses acknowledged that illegal immigration has a negative impact on black employment, both in terms of employment opportunities and wages. The witnesses differed on the extent of that impact, but every witness agreed that illegal immigration has a discernible negative effect on black employment. For example, Professor Gordon Hanson’s research showed that “Immigration . . . accounts for about 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline [from 1960-2000] in black employment rates.” Professor Vernon Briggs writes that illegal immigrants and blacks (who are disproportionately likely to be low-skilled) often find themselves in competition for the same jobs, and the huge number of illegal immigrants ensures that there is a continual surplus of low-skilled labor, thus preventing wages from rising. Professor Gerald Jaynes’s research found that illegal immigrants had displaced U.S. citizens in industries that had traditionally employed large numbers of African- Americans, such as meatpacking. …

Granting work authorization to millions of illegal immigrants will devastate the black community, which is already struggling in the wake of the recession that began in 2007 and the subsequent years of malaise. Americans of all racial groups have seen their incomes stagnate since the recession. African-Americans have been particularly hard-hit, however. Their median wages were already the lowest of any racial or ethnic group, and they have not recovered from the recession. In 2007, median black household income was $35,219 and declined to $34,218 in 2008. In 2013, median black household income was $34,598 – better than during the worst of the recession, but still not back to the 2007 level. …

Granting legal status to millions of people who are in the United States illegally will continue to depress the wages and employment opportunities of African-American men and teenagers. …

Finally, I would like to say a few words about the supposed need for an increased number of high-tech visas. There is little evidence, other than the protestations of tech titans and politicians, that there is a shortage of STEM workers in the United States. Statistics suggest otherwise. Five professors who, variously, study economics, public policy, labor, and computer science recently wrote, “[the] Census reported that only one in four STEM degree holders is in a STEM job … As longtime researchers of the STEM workforce and immigration who have separately done in-depth analyses on these issues … none of us has been able to find any credible evidence to support the IT industry’s assertions of labor shortages.” Others note, “America ‘produces far more science and engineering graduates than there are S&E job openings – the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.’”

Furthermore, if there is a shortage of IT workers, why aren’t wages increasing? Hal Salzman notes that wages in the IT field fell after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, and “[are] well below their earlier peak and now hover around wage levels of the late 1990s.” Also, as Jay Schalin notes, the fact that STEM graduates are more likely to be employed than those with other degrees does not mean that they are employed in STEM fields or at high wages. For example, students who graduated with chemistry degrees had a 6.6% unemployment rate, but had a “starting mean salary of $32,000 [which] is surprisingly below average for all graduates, equal to those with sociology degrees.” The problem is not that there are insufficient STEM graduates; the problem is that tech companies do not want to pay the wages American workers would demand absent a continual influx of high-tech visa holders.

Here and there Republican candidates in high-profile races have made defense of American workers important themes of their campaigns. Tom Cotton and Scott Brown come to mind, but there are others. Still, the coming election will probably not be what it could have been, had Republicans consistently nationalized the immigration issue.

This morning Tom Cotton appeared on the Laura Ingraham radio show. In this clip, Tom talks about his defense of American workers:

THE GERMAN DISEASE: COMING SOON TO A COUNTRY NEAR YOU?

THE GERMAN DISEASE: COMING SOON TO A COUNTRY NEAR YOU?

Click to embiggen.

The cover of this week’s edition of The Economist, nearby, combines a lot into a little. Above all, it has a Monty Python reference. You can never go wrong with a Monty Python reference.

Overseas the macro news is bad. Germany’s sluggish economy may take the rest of the Eurozone down with it. Japan, which has been unsuccessfully fighting deflation for two decades now, has just issued bonds with negative interest for the first time. And low oil prices are likely to tip Venezuela into default and probably put its socialist government on the course of ultimate extinction. (I didn’t say the news was all bad.  But a Venezuelan collapse could roil the economic picture quite a bit in the short run.)

The United States looks comparatively robust compared with other regions and nations. But not so fast. Back to Germany for a moment. If you think we can’t still throttle the American economy with still more stupidity out of Washington, consider the New York Times article on Friday on why German chemical giant BASF is expanding in the United States rather than Germany: lower energy prices.

Lately, though, BASF has been investing more of its money and management energy outside Germany, especially in the United States. And the company’s reasons for doing that help illustrate why the German industrial economy has been losing momentum — and why Germany risks tipping back into recession.

BASF executives say that German and European Union policies toward industry, particularly when it comes to energy, are forcing big companies to look elsewhere as they seek to expand.

Energy is perhaps BASF’s biggest cost. Tremendous amounts of electricity are required to produce chemical raw materials like ethylene, propylene and butadiene for a range of products like plastics, pharmaceuticals and rubber. And oil or natural gas are the basic feedstocks from which these chemicals are produced.

Especially in Germany, energy prices have jumped as a result of the government’s big push for renewable energy sources — a policy that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel has labeled the Energiewende, or energy transition.

At the same time, surging production of natural gas from shale rock in the United States is creating cheap and ever more abundant energy, giving American chemical plants and manufacturing sites a new competitive edge over facilities in Europe. (Emphasis added.)

Energy costs in the U.S. are currently favorable—thank you fracking—but will they remain so for long? Just why wouldn’t we expect that the Obama Administration’s long-term EPA scheme to restructure our energy sector to have the same results as Germany in the fullness of time? Someone ought to be asking these questions on the campaign trail in Colorado, Louisiana, Kentucky, etc.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/the-german-disease-coming-soon-to-a-country-near-you.php

It’s the Economy, Stupid

It’s the Economy, Stupid

Republicans have a better deal for the average American — but they need to make their case.

By Fred Bauer

Democrats have tried running away from President Obama. They’ve tried shouting “birth control” from the rooftops. They’ve tried lamenting dastardly Republican obstruction. But many Democratic candidates are still struggling in the closing weeks of the midterm electoral season.

In the past week or so, some of them have come to the conclusion that economic populism could save the day for the party. The president may be toxic, and the Democratic and progressive brands might be tarnished by an ever-growing host of scandals, mishaps, and gaffes. But a populist charge, headed by Elizabeth Warren, could turn the tide for Democrats, or so left-leaning operatives hope. This turn to populism might run into the realities of President Obama’s record, but it should also remind Republicans of the importance of attending to their economic message.

As a matter of political strategy, speaking to voters’ economic concerns has much to recommend it. Many Americans feel as if they have experienced a lost economic decade (or even decade and a half). According to a study sponsored by the Russell Sage Foundation, the median American household is, in inflation-adjusted dollars, worth less now than it was in 1984. This study finds that, just over the past ten years, the median household wealth collapsed by 36 percent. Much of that loss of wealth is explained by the bursting of the housing bubble, but other indicators suggest broader pressures on opportunity and economic achievement for the middle class. When adjusted for inflation, median hourly compensation has grown by only about 8 percent since 1979, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, millions of Americans have left the work force in the wake of the Great Recession, leading to significantly lower employment levels. Polls show continued economic pessimism on the part of many Americans.

So it would make sense for the party of FDR to turn to the theme of economic uplift for the average American. Unfortunately for many endangered Democrats, however, the record of the Obama administration may present a number of stumbling blocks.

As much as the president and his allies may complain about income inequality, many indicators suggest that this inequality has worsened on his watch. The president might fan the flames of class warfare, but, all too often, his administration has failed to help advance the interests of the average American.

The White House has chosen to maintain the policy of Too Big to Fail. Former Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner admitted in May that he believes the quest to end Too Big to Fail was “misguided.” The White House has been very sympathetic, then, to policies that allow a few connected financial interests to distort the marketplace. Under Dodd-Frank, the biggest banks have gotten even bigger.

The administration’s health-care policies have been full of deals for special interests, and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has been marred by numerous broken promises (If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, among them). According to a recent poll, only 40 percent of Americans believe that the ACA has been good for the country.

On energy policy, the president has persistently attacked efforts that would decrease energy costs, which are both an inhibitor of economic growth and a burden on many American families. President Obama has not totally delivered on his campaign promise to make energy costs “skyrocket,” but he has tried, and residential electricity prices have increased during his administration. From the administration’s opposition to pro-energy efforts like the Keystone pipeline to its desire to raise taxes on various forms of energy production, it has often failed to be the ally of reducing energy costs for American families.

The White House immigration agenda, which every Senate Democrat has endorsed, is both anti-market and anti-worker. The underlying premise of the Senate immigration bill, especially its expansion of guest-worker programs, is that America suffers not from a deficit of opportunity but from a surfeit of unfilled jobs, a belief that might surprise the millions trapped in underemployment and unemployment. Despite the stagnant wages and diminished opportunity for many households, the Senate pushed through a bill that would likely have further undermined the economic position of countless Americans. This undermining of the worker would especially harm the young, who have already felt the bite of economic decline. As a 2013 report put out by Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce found, even recent graduates in much-vaunted STEM fields face significant risk of unemployment (for instance, in recent years the unemployment rate among recent computer-science graduates at times has been almost 9 percent).

With that immigration bill stymied by popular opposition, the president has proclaimed his willingness to take matters into his own hands and rewrite and selectively nullify immigration law as he sees fit. And, as of now, there is no evidence that Senate Democrats would do anything more than offer pro forma complaints about this radical power grab. This brings us to a deeper, structural challenge for Democrats hoping to rally populist energies: Contemporary bureaucratic progressivism is premised on the idea of a supercompetent and virtuous technocratic elite, which can administer the nation from a few hubs, principally the Beltway. The growing list of recent scandals (such as IRS targeting) undermines the notion of a central bureaucracy’s virtue, and the national conversation in recent months has been full of instances where bureaucracies have performed in a less-than-stellar fashion (the past month or so has witnessed serious problems with both the Secret Service and the administration’s handling of Ebola).

At a time when many Americans are disillusioned with the current governing elite, President Obama seems anxious to give that elite even more power. He and the people around him seem to have an insatiable appetite for ever-more-sweeping executive powers, and it is far from clear that many congressional Democrats are interested in resisting that appetite.

Despite all these obstacles, Democrats may be able to use populist messaging to push themselves over the finish line in a few close races. President Obama’s reelection campaign depended upon a combination of class warfare, withering personal attacks upon Governor Romney, and appeals to demographic polarization (such as the “war on women”). Some Democrats seem to hope that the White House’s 2012 playbook can be useful in 2014. Josh Kraushaar noted last week that some Democrats are turning with at least modest success to economic issues in places as disparate as Illinois, Massachusetts, and Georgia. This success should remind Republicans of the need for the GOP to offer its own message of economic advancement for the middle class.

Luckily for many Republican candidates, pundits and politicians alike have taken a renewed interest in broad-based economic prosperity. Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, among others, have emphasized pro–middle-class messages and policies. The recent policy publication Room to Grow is full of market-oriented suggestions for improving the standing of the economic middle. Beyond debates about the minimum wage, Republicans can emphasize the importance of a vibrant economy, in which incomes of all types can grow. They could argue on behalf of a tax-reform agenda that has benefits for middle-income families. They could defend an energy policy that fuels economic growth and makes energy more affordable for consumers. In contrast to the prevailing doctrine of Too Big to Fail, Republicans could argue for reform that would create a more diffused and market-oriented financial system. In place of the White House’s anti-market and anti-worker immigration agenda, Republicans could argue for an immigration policy that affirms the dignity of all workers and increases economic opportunity for native-born Americans and immigrants alike (so GOPers would be better off not calling for a further increase in guest-worker programs). In addition to criticizing the shortcomings of the ACA, Republicans can lay out their proposals for making the health-care system more affordable and more efficient. Instead of pitting Americans against one another through class warfare, Republicans can defend broad-based economic opportunity, where Americans can work together for the enrichment of all.

In the closing days of the campaign, Republicans cannot afford to surrender economic issues to Democrats. Right now, it seems that the reigning political paradigm has failed in the eyes of many Americans. If Democrats do hold the Senate, they will do so because, in close races, they have put as much distance as possible between themselves and the White House. However, Republicans have not yet entirely succeeded in convincing voters that they offer a persuasive alternative to the status quo. RealClearPolitics is now putting nine Senate races in the “toss-up” category, so Republicans could find themselves with an impressive Senate majority in 2015, or they could find themselves falling just short of victory. In order to win the Senate and take steps toward forging a governing majority, Republicans will have to remind a restless public of the shortcomings of the current administration and point to how they can offer an alternative vision of economic and civil renewal.

— Fred Bauer is a writer from New England. He blogs at A Certain Enthusiasm, and his work has been featured in numerous publications.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390968/its-economy-stupid-fred-bauer