Blog Moved!

I want to make a surprise announcement.  I have decided to move my blog to another hosting site.  This will be a good move.  My posts will look better and the blog will have more features.  I want to thank everyone who loyally read my blog on this website!  You can find my new blog at www.politicsnotasusual.com!  "Politics (Not) as Usual will become the new name of my blog and all posts will be rerouted there.

Quittin' Time

The day is slowing down, here's what I discussed:

1. Rick Perry's miracle and it's problems
2. Warren Buffet wants the rich to pay more in taxes
3. Pakistan explains international politics
4. More about Rick Perry in one good blog post

Texas Miracles Not So Miraculous

If you want to understand Rick Perry's "Texas Miracle" Brad Plummer has a good post at the Washington Post to provide all the information you need.

International Politics Lesson of the Day

Matt Yglesias writes this about Pakistan's interests:

Without trying to play fake Pakistan expert, here’s the story I see. Pakistan is an independent country with its own interests. High on that list of interests is pursuing a rivalry with India, a country with which it has a longstanding territorial dispute and also a pretty profound ideological clash. India has a much larger population than Pakistan and a larger economy. And while Pakistan was generally richer than India on a per capita basis until about ten years ago, that’s no longer the case. So Pakistan needs partners in a standoff with its larger neighbor. For a long time, both the United States and China have been part of that equation of partner-seeking, and the preference of the Pakistani government is to be on good terms with both. But sometimes you kind of have to choose. And what we’re seeing here is that the Pakistani calculus was that a partnership with China is going to be more valuable in the medium term than a partnership with the United States.

There is a broader lesson here.  Each state does have its own interests, but they also look into the future for potential allies.  For example, many African nations are turning to China because they see it as a chance to cozy up to a superpower.  States also like money and their citizens like the sense of security.   The U.S. is great at this.  In Yemen for instance, we give billions in aid to fight terrorism and have secret drone attacks there, just like in Pakistan.  As a result, Yemen's government is propped up by the U.S. all in the name of security.  The same is true in Pakistan, it gets aid money to fight terrorism and support from the U.S., but it also gets help from Al-Qaeda networks.   In the end, states like money and will go to whoever is willing to help them to pursue their interests.

Since the U.S. sees Pakistan and Yemen as strategic points that cannot be ignored, we play along with their two faced games.  Eventually though, the facade is broken and uprisings like the Arab Spring happen revealing the relationships for the superficial ones that they are.

Is the U.S. Pakistan relationship strategic or just a waste?

The Super Rich Job Creation Theory

Warren Buffet debunks the myth about taxing the rich more equals a loss in jobs:

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation

You wouldn't think the Tea Party or the GOP could argue against this, but they will for two reasons.  First, the GOP argues that you should have "choice" in how you spend your money.  If you want to give it to charity instead of the government, that should be your decision.  Second, they represent a constituency that is Wall Street that, even though low taxes don't really stimulate job growth, do not want higher taxes anyway.  Warren Buffet could be in the minority opinion.  It would be like if Democrats decided to try and pass legislation making union organization harder.  The AFL-CIO would have a cow.

Not to say Buffet is wrong, but in his own words:

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering. (emphasis mine)

That is the sentence the GOP will run with, I guarantee it!

Do you think Warren Buffet is right?  Should the rich pay more in taxes?  What will be the GOP's argument?

Photo Credit: ABC News

.

Perrynomics?

Paul Krugman takes on so-called Perrynomics:

What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs — because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem.

It proves that what works on the state level does not transition well to the economic sphere.  Many governors are running on their records from state politics.  It just does not translate well or it trades off with other social markers.

Does state based economic policies work on the national level as Krugman suggests?

Perry Miracles?

Governor Rick Perry is drawing a lot of attention since his announcement on Saturday that he is running for president.  One positive aspect about Perry:

Texas has no income tax, ranks 46th overall for the taxes it collects per capita and has the strongest job growth in the country. The state has accounted for between 30 percent and half of the net new jobs in the country in the past two years, depending on who is counting.

On the other hand:

 While Obama seeks to increase federal funding for education, Texas ranks 47th in the country for the level of state spending on schools. And while the Obama administration clamps down on pollution, Texas ranks highest in the country for the levels of toxic chemicals released into the water and carcinogens released into the air, according to Scorecard, an organization that tracks nationwide pollution data.

And:

 Despite its strong economy, Texas ranks low on many social markers. It has the fourth- highest poverty rate, the seventh-highest teenage birth rate, and the lowest rate of people over 25 with a high school degree. Experts attribute these markers to the state’s high proportion of immigrants, to political decisions on taxes and spending, and to the state’s business climate. The state spends second to least on Medicaid, per capita, of any state in the country, and the least of any state on mental health care. The rate of unionization is low, which is one reason why the state ranks second to last in the percentage of the population covered by employer health insurance.

Here's the point, the GOP now has a governor who leads a utopia that they proclaim to want.  However, with low social indicators, it is a liberal's paradise to attack.  This points to a great contrast between Barack Obama and Rick Perry.  Stability versus growth, one will win in 2012 and one will lose.

Which factor is more important to you, economic growth or social stability?