On Vice Presidents: Rob Portman

So continuing the spate of vice presidential speculation, Bob Novak reports that the frontrunner for John McCain's vice presidential slot may be former Ohio Congressman, U.S. Trade Representative, and Budget Director Rob Portman:

McCain won't pick a running mate any time soon. But the front-runner in the VP derby may be Rob Portman -- former Ohio congressman, former U.S. trade representative and former OMB director. He appears to have fewer negatives than any other possibility.

Regular readers will recall that I predicted Portman would be strongly considered more than a month ago. As I noted at that time, Portman is a rising star both in Ohio, and for the Republican party nationwide. While he doesn't have as high a profile as some of the other contenders -- largely because he hasn't served as either a governor or Senator -- there are plenty of reasons that Novak tabs him as the favorite.

Portman brings strong economic policy credentials based on his service on the Budget Ways and Means Committees while in Congress, and as Budget Director and Trade Representative. The latter position also gives him some foreign policy credentials -- perhaps more than most of the other names on McCain's short list. Like Chris Cox, he's a quick study, and strong on policy specifics -- including health care, which is likely to be a major issue in the campaign.

Portman is also a Reagan conservative -- one who'll satisfy all parts of the Republican coalition. And his biggest asset is that he's the strongest Republican in a critical swing state -- Ohio. The candidate who won Ohio has won the presidency in the last 11 elections. Ohio currently looks bluer than any time in recent memory however, as Democrats swept the state in 2006.

Can Portman bring Ohio to the GOP column? That's hard to say -- but he probably has a better chance than Cox would of bringing California. Further, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is a strong contender for the Democratic vice presidential nomination, which would complicate the matter.

In contrast to Cox -- the other former Republican House member turned administration official mentioned for the VP slot -- Portman has a pretty strong reputation as a team player. While he too, has been a leader on conservative reforms, his reputation has been of someone willing to set aside his priorities to put the team agenda first. For that reason and for others, he'd probably make a better fit on a McCain ticket than would Cox.

The wrinkle is that Portman continues to maintain that he doesn't want the job. Rather, he seems to be focused on seeking the governorship in 2010, which would give him an excellent perch to seek the presidency himself -- either in 2012 or 2016.

On Vice Presidents: Chris Cox

The amazing thing about the recent 'Chris Cox boomlet' is that it has not so far touched upon his compelling personal story:

[Cox] had sped through the University of Southern California in three years, then simultaneously gotten a Harvard law degree and MBA. At 25 he was ensconced at a prestigious clerkship with a federal appeals judge in Hawaii. It was August of 1978, and Cox and a friend decided to explore the rain forest on the island of Molokai. They were inching through mud at about five miles per hour in a rented jeeplike contraption when a wheel caught and the vehicle overturned. Cox's friend was thrown clear, but Cox was trapped underneath, with the weight of the jeep on him. His back was broken, a quadriceps muscle was severed, and he was paralyzed from the waist down.

There's an obvious parallel to McCain here. Having your spine snapped and body shattered by a rolled jeep isn't the same as by the Viet Cong, but Cox is probably one of few men who can relate to McCain's experience. While Cox eventually regained his ability to walk, he's been in pain every day of his life since the accident. And where McCain can't lift his arm above his shoulder, Cox is basically forced to stand most of the day, since it's too painful for him to sit for extended periods.

Cox would bring some clear strengths as a vice presidential candidate. He's extremely bright and creative, with an impressive resume and legislative track record. He fathered the Internet Tax Freedom Act, as well as the Securities Litigation Reform Act (which made it harder for trial lawyers to bring frivolous suits against companies). He speaks Russian fluently -- even starting a business translating Pravda in the '80s. He's worked on export controls, and chaired the House Homeland Security Committee. importantly, his conservative credentials are impeccable. During his time in the Reagan White House, he helped select Scalia, Kennedy, and Bork for the Supreme Court.

Cox has also been something of a maverick -- though perhaps not to the extent McCain has. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, against legislation to prompt hospitals to check on the status of aliens that they treat, and against a measure to put the onus on banks to curb internet gambling. He also earned a reputation as more of a China hawk than most other House Republicans, and he was one of few votes against normalizing trade relations with Vietnam in 2002. He's also a pro-life Catholic, which should earn McCain some support in this bellwether swing constituency.

One downside to a Cox nomination is that he probably wouldn't swing a state to McCain's column. Although polls currently show California as being close, it's hard to imagine that McCain could win a state that Bush lost by 9 points in 2004, and which hasn't voted Republican in 20 years.

But the real challenge for Cox might be his reputation among those who have worked with him as being at times too much of a loner, and too uncompromising. While he's consistently pursued conservative principles, there have been some who wished he was more of a 'team player.' That's another trait he shares with McCain -- but it's hard to imagine the ticket will be improved by having two such personalities.

Read the entire article to get a good idea of what Cox is all about.

McCain Behind the 8 Ball?

The Politico reports that having secured his party's nomination while the Democrats continue to fight over theirs, John McCain is in big trouble:

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats do know who they are running against. The Democratic National Committee is already firing out faxes attacking McCain and the party’s outside allies are already putting the finishing touches on their attack ads.

When not picking on each other, Obama and Clinton are also sending rockets McCain’s way.

That incoming fire could be particularly threatening to McCain for several reasons.

First, Clinton and Obama have very strong incentives to go after him. If either can convince their own primary voters that they have the best shot at beating him in the general election, the odds of winning the primary go up.

Their barbs and criticisms carry extra power, as well, these days because they are picked up by the national press corps still tracking the Democratic contest — rather than McCain’s quiet, internal reorganization at his Virginia headquarters.

Add to that, McCain can’t do much to defend himself in the short term because he ended the primary pretty much the way Kerry did four years ago: flat broke...

The explosive fundraising strength shown by both Democratic candidates shows no sign of abating, which means the victor will turn to the general election phase of the race with a presumably unified and enormous list of potential givers, notes Anthony Corrado, an expert on campaign finance.

OK, this is all true. But would it somehow be better if one of the two Democrats had already clinched the nomination? Then he or she would be unifying the party, expanding an already sizable cash advantage, and focusing fire on a bankrupt and under-staffed McCain. I suppose then McCain would have the advantage of additional media attention to both his reorganizing and his attacks, but is it remotely conceivable that would be a better situation for him?

Cummings points to this piece which lays out the challenges for Democrats.

Obama’s failure to win Ohio and Texas and lock down the nomination — combined with Clinton’s newly defensible decision to press on despite a deficit in delegates — virtually guarantees Democrats a draining contest that will give Republicans a months-long head-start on the general election.

It will heighten racial, ethnic, gender, and class divisions already on stark display, raise awkward questions about the legitimacy of the nominating process, and inflict potentially lasting wounds on the eventual winner...

Clinton advisers say Obama was also hurt by media attention to his murky connections to Tony Rezko, a former Obama fundraiser now on trial in Chicago on corruption charges. The Clinton campaign endlessly prodded reporters to insist that the Obama campaign provide answers to the many mysteries about the relationship.

This success will embolden Clinton for more of the same in Pennsylvania.

Obama, in turn, will step up his attacks on her appeal with independents and swing voters, her judgment in backing the Iraq War, and her attachment to "old politics” of the 1990s.

Add to that the fact that both Democrats will be spending boatloads of money to desrtoy each other, rather than stockpiling it. Is there any doubt that McCain would be far worse off if the Democratic nomination was settled?

Educating Obama on NAFTA

Philip Levy explains why Obama is so far off on NAFTA. He also tackles one of the basic misunderstandings about trade agreements -- that they have an effect on employment.

If we want to find the true consequences of NAFTA, we need to disentangle this mess of events. We could be guided by the wisdom of economic theory, but it says, loud and clear, that trade agreements have no impact on overall employment. Trade substitutes better jobs for worse jobs, but leaves the job total unchanged.

This is the type of answer that drives politicians berserk. Economic policies are loved or loathed by the public on the basis of how many jobs they create. How can trade policies not affect overall employment?

The number of jobs in an economy is set by the size of the work force, the health of the labor markets, and macroeconomic fluctuations. Trade can certainly create new jobs with export opportunities or cheaper inputs. It can also destroy jobs when firms succumb to import competition. Lots of job creation and destruction occurs every year in the U.S. economy. In an average year, 17 million jobs are created and 15 million are destroyed, with a net job creation of 2 million. When net job creation matches growth in the labor force, the unemployment rate stays constant.

He explains in greater detail why Obama's claim of 1 million jobs lost does not hold water -- because unemployment has been so low that the Fed would have taken steps to slow economic growth:

What of Obama’s claim that NAFTA cost the United States 1 million jobs? Imagine this were right. Then, without NAFTA we would have had 1 million more jobs. In the year 2000, this would have made the unemployment rate just under 3.3 percent, rather than the 4 percent we actually enjoyed. But Federal Reserve governors would have been in a panic long before we got down to that level and would have raised interest rates to slow the economy. They would have known they had gone far enough when unemployment increased to a level they were comfortable with – the same as with NAFTA.

Then what happened to those US manufacturing jobs? Simple: they continued to migrate to lower-cost locations -- as they had been doing, and as they will do even if NAFTA were to be repealed:

But what about the factory workers in Ohio? Are they just imagining those lost jobs? Of course not. Manufacturing employment in the United States did hit a peak and then begin a steady decline. The problem is that the peak was in 1979, 15 years before NAFTA came into force. The long-term decline of American manufacturing jobs has much more to do with technological change than with trade. We’re producing more stuff with fewer workers.

An excellent summary of an issues that will never be discussed honestly in a presidential campaign.

Friday Funny

If you've ever read this blog, you must have some feel for economics. With that in mind, 'stand up economist' Yorum Bauman translates Greg Mankiw.



Hat Tip: Paul

What's the Product?

There's an extraordinary and memorable new commercial out today, but what's it for? Ford trucks? The Superman sequel? A Ken Burns special? The reimagining of 'Greatest American Hero?' Take a look at the screen caps below, and see if you can figure it out:

The correct answer is 'none of the above.' They're all from John McCain's new webad. And I have to say, I certainly wasn't ready for something quite this... edgy.

Guess the Party: Texas Edition

The Mayor of Austin, Texas has apologized for choking a man at a 2006 party:

Austin mayor Will Wynn has apologized for his 2006 assault of a man at a South By Southwest party.

In a news conference Thursday morning, Wynn said "Two years ago I let a stranger pushed my buttons and lost my cool."

The mayor also said that in his anger he said stupid and insulting things.

The Mayor denies that he was drunk at the time -- saying he has an anger problem, not a drinking problem.

What party was the Mayor? It's not in the first line, or first paragraph, or even in the whole article. It's not here, or here, or here, either. In fact, I couldn't find it in any of these articles.

A cynic might conclude it's because Wynn is a Democrat. And if you did, Wikipedia says you're right.

Check out Jammie Wearing Fool for Guess That Party!, New York edition.

Bonds' Home Run Ball Headed to Cooperstown

But not the way he would have wanted:

Barry Bonds' 756th home run ball, adorned with an asterisk, could be on display at the Hall of Fame by Opening Day.

Jeff Idelson, the Hall's vice president for communications and education, said fashion designer Marc Ecko still has the ball he purchased in an online auction for $752,000. Ecko conducted an Internet poll on how to dispose of the ball. People voted to send it to Cooperstown affixed with an asterisk. The other choices were sending it to Cooperstown as is or blasting it into space.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy -- even if Roger Clemens and others have pushed Bonds off the national stage.

The Funniest Thing I've Ever Seen?

Quite possibly: the Battle of Gettysburg, as shown in Lego, and as told by seventh grade boys. Make sure to hang through for the Matrix effects:



If you like it, be sure to see how the battle ends.

Hat Tip: Norlos

Wednesday Funny

The Star Wars title track as done by Saul Bass:



If you're like me, you've never heard of him either. But you'll certainly recognize the style from movies like 'It's a Mad, Mad World.'

Hat Tip: Jonathan Last

Weather Channel Founder: Al Gore Should be Sued

John Coleman is the founder of the Weather Channel, and he's clearly not part of the 'scientific consensus' on global warming. He said yesterday that Al Gore should be sued for perpetrating a 'fraud:'



You can read much more of Coleman's work on global warming here.

Huckabee's Odd Source of Pride

Mike Huckabee has left the building, but his last number was intended to go over like Ronald Reagan, circa 1976:

“Look at where I won delegates,” Huckabee said. “John McCain won a lot of delegates in states that are not factors [for Republicans] in November: New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut. They are not going to settle the election. I won states that are quite red. I won in states where Republicans had better win or there is no chance of a Republican becoming president.” (McCain, it should be pointed out, also won the very red state of South Carolina, as well as the important swing state of Florida.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'quite red' states likely to remain in the Republican column in the Fall? I had thought the greater desire was for a candidate who could win the base and reach out to the middle, rather than nail down a narrow portion of the base.

Bloomberg's Withdrawal Bad News for Spitzer

So Mike Bloomberg has recognized that with both parties set to nominate candidates with broad appeal to independent voters, it doesn't make sense to throw his money away on a doomed presidential bid. He writes in the New York Times today about what the voters want in 2008:

Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is...

More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.

Ed Morrissey sees Bloomberg's lament as an attempt to set himself up as a kingmaker for the 2008 presidential race -- and it certainly could be that. But I can't help but notice how much it resembles the language that Republicans use when they run statewide in heavily Democratic states. Could a gubernatorial bid be on Bloomberg's radar?

Largely unnoticed by the national media, Governor Eliot Spitzer's poll rankings continue to plummet. The Siena poll is conducted monthly, and if the election were today (instead of in 2010), Spitzer would be in serious trouble against a serious, well-funded opponent:



The number of New Yorkers that would vote to re-elect Spitzer today is just 25 percent. That sets up an attractive opportunity for Spitzer -- and potentially for another former New York Mayor whose presidential bid ended prematurely.

Note: Fausta suggests that Bloomberg may be aiming for an acting career.

Democrats: Tuna is an Economic Stimulus

Faced with falling approval ratings over their failure to accomplish anything significant, Congressional leaders have developed a new plan to prove just how effective they are: label everything they do an economic stimulus:

With a bipartisan compromise on their first economic stimulus package behind them, the second, third and fourth waves of Democratic legislative endeavors likely are to be partisan if this week’s debate on the Democrats’ second “stimulus” bill is any guide...

The housing bill has little in common with the $156 billion economic stimulus of tax rebates, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from dubbing it their “second stimulus” bill. It’s a branding approach that Democrats said will be a common sight this year.

“They don’t call ‘horse mackerel’ horse mackerel anymore. They call it tuna so they can sell it,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). “Labeling becomes extremely important. ... Sometimes it’s a bigger stretch than others...”

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Wednesday that the budget blueprint he intends to consider in committee next week probably would make room for a $35 billion economic stimulus package. The proposal is likely to include extended unemployment benefits as well as additional funding for food stamps and low-income home-heating assistance, he said...

According to the Democratic Senators quoted by Roll Call, home heating oil subsidies, food stamps, unemployment benefits, pork-barrel projects, mortgage assistance -- it's all an economic stimulus! By this logic, there's no government spending that isn't. Here's a suggestion: perhaps Congress can boost the economy by funding the war on terror, or not raising taxes on oil and gas. Either would be more effective than the lipstick-on-a-pig approach advocated by Democratic leaders.

Michelle looks at the inefficiency of the housing bill congressional omnibus residential infrastructure and fiscal stimulus package.

Pawlenty Burnishes His VP Credentials

I've not seen any overt indication from Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as to whether he welcomes the speculation that makes him a leading contender for John McCain's vice presidential nominee. If he's interested though, stories like this can only help:

The Minnesota Legislature voted to override Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of the $6.7 billion transportation bill Monday...

Six House and two Senate Republicans broke party lines to support the override and send the bill into law.

The transportation bill includes a gas tax increase which will be the state's first in 20 years.

The initial two cents go into effect in 30 days, and another three cents will be added Oct. 1...

Despite bipartisan support for the bill in the House, Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, disputed its helpfulness to the majority of the state's population.

"This is probably one of the most important bills we can pass, but this bill is not that bill," he said. "There is a bunch of pork in this bill."

Standing in front of a gas-tax-increasing pork bill is not a bad way to earn the attention of the national media. The only unfortunate thing for Governor Pawlenty is that it has not attracted a lot of national attention -- at least not so far.

I suspect that most fiscal conservatives will cheer the Governor for his action, and hope that Senator McCain picks someone like him for the ticket.

Hat Tip: ATR

Obama the Liberal: More Bricks in the Wall

By now it's abundantly clear that to judge him solely on the issues, Barack Obama is as liberal as any candidate the Democrats have nominated for president in the modern era. George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis would be proud. As the campaign unfolds, we are likely to see more evidence of this. Today brings several items to bolster the claim.

Scott Mirengoff unearthed this video, which by itself would have ended Obama's campaign in the Cold War era:

Greg Mankiw points to this analysis of Obama's Patriot Employer Act, which has earned strong criticisms from economists and fiscal conservatives:

Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential candidate, has proposed tax breaks for US corporations that invest at home rather than abroad. This column argues that his proposal is protectionist, reactionary, and economically unsound.

That puts it firmly in line with the modern liberal tradition. Dorothy Coleman also comments on the problems with the proposal.

John Hinderaker considers whether, in light of Obama's liberalism, we are taking him too lightly. He argues that Reagan won because American voters saw how liberalism failed as a governing philosophy. He finds that times may have changed:

Today, the benefit of that experience has largely been lost. A generation of American voters has not experienced the failures of the Great Society, the near-collapse of American cities, double-digit inflation and unemployment, seventy percent tax brackets, or the disaster of Jimmy Carter's foreign policy. In the absence of historical memory, and with a powerful assist from the ever-forgetful press, liberalism is once again emerging as the philosophy that sounds good...

This is true. But it's also worth considering that no one on the national stage is willing to embrace the label 'liberal.' Obama avoids it, and Democrats are still trying hard to rebrand themselves as 'progressive.' If McCain can convince the people that Obama really is an old line liberal, that label alone may still be powerful enough to win him the election.

On Universal Health Care & Health Care Rationing

Greg Mankiw offers a compelling story and an astute observation:

...Technological advance is making state-of-the-art health care increasingly expensive. In any kind of national health system, some treatments will, by simple cost-benefit calculation, be deemed too expensive to provide to all citizens. But does that mean those of above-average income should be excluded as well? Should they lose basic benefits if they choose to pay for these marginal services with their own money?

If you say yes to this last question, as the U.K. health service has, here is a related one: Should a parent who hires an after-school tutor for his child be barred from sending the child to the public schools?

Some people like to think of health care and education of basic human rights. Maybe they are. But they are also normal goods. That is, the income elasticity of demand is positive. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the right cost-benefit calculation for providing the good depends on the income of the consumer.

It's virtually inevitable that there will be some sort of rationing for expensive and complex health care procedures. No system of delivering health care -- either market-based or single-payer -- is likely to cover the vast expense required to extend the same, state-of-the-art care to all consumers.

Yet that rationing seems to be at the heart of many liberal complaints regarding our existing employer-based health care. If it will not be overcome -- or cannot be overcome except by denying such treatments to all -- then much of the impetus for universal health care is lost.

And while we're on the topic, go check out Mankiw's story. It involves an English cancer patient who's denied treatment that she can afford, and which the private market will offer. In such a case, where is the incentive to continue development of cutting-edge therapies and cures for a range of maladies? After all, if there's little chance of making a profit at it, why develop it?

Mariachis for Obama

Hat Tip... someone. Sorry -- I forget how I found this:



So much for Barack having trouble among latino voters? It's good to see that Ted Kennedy isn't the only hispanohablante backing Barack.

Your Invitation to John Murtha's Big Fundraiser

A little while ago, Bob Novak wrote about John Murtha's 'annual payback dinner' for defense contractors who've benefited from the chairman's largesse:

Murtha, a close adviser of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is one of the leading earmarkers in Congress. The earmark recipients will be paying the $1,500 a person admission to "An Evening with Jack and Joyce Murtha."

Although the dinner is timed to coincide with the anniversary of Murtha's first special election to Congress in 1974, invitations for it were mailed just before the annual deadline for earmark applications.

Oddly enough, this fundraiser isn't listed on Murtha's campaign website. Wonder why he'd want to keep such an event secret?

But while it may cost you $1,500 to get into the party (if you find an invite), it doesn't cost you anything to spend the evening outside with conservative opponents of Congressman Murtha. The food isn't likely to be as good, but the company should be excellent.

No doubt Chairman Murtha will be gratified to by the show of support, but probably not surprised. That's because in recent years, every entity graced by him donates to his campaign. I wonder what he'll do with the money if he winds up running unopposed?

SEIU: A House Divided Against Itself

McQ points out that the Service Employees International Union is pulling out all the stops to help Barack Obama. At the same time, the SEIU is facing an internal rebellion against charges that union boss Andy Stern has put his own power and reputation ahead of the goal of improving work conditions for SEIU members. The basic complaint among the union rank and file is that Stern has negotiated agreements to unionize with employers, guaranteeing them labor peace by conceding worker conditions. That way the SEIU member rolls and contributions expand, even if members don't actually see any benefits:

According to an inside source, this “strategy” would gain for the union 300,000 members, but under the condition of template contracts, and in exchange for continued support of a bad-for-workers national health care bill that could provide a windfall for the hospitals. Plus, though the members would receive representation form the locals, they would be directly signed up to the International to avoid future jurisdictional problems.

This is the direction that the SEIU is headed: a streamlined, top-down, lobbying machine with many members with few rights.

The fight culminated in the recent resignation of Sal Rosselli, the leader of a 150,000-member local in California -- who formerly headed the more than 600,000-member SEIU California State Council:

Rosselli's basic complaint is that Stern and top SEIU officials have sidestepped local union leaders to make critical decisions and have merged locals without giving members a voice.

"Over the past two years, a stark difference has evolved between SEIU's projected image and its real world practices," he wrote to Stern. "An overly zealous focus on growth, growth at any cost, apparently has eclipsed SEIU's commitment to its members."

The anti-Stern dissidents have established a website to build support for (excuse the expression) 'change. The fight may be worth watching as the 2008 campaign unfolds, and we see just how effective SEIU is in delivering the votes of its members.

Hat Tip: Freedom's Watch