Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, March 6, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 844)

Several months ago, I put forth a two-question challenge for our left-wing friends.

Since they relentlessly insist that we can have bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, and added intervention without any negative impact on economic performance, I asked them to identify a single country that became rich following their policies.

And because I’m such a nice guy, I even gave them an extra option. If they couldn’t find a nation that became prosperous with statist policies, they also could successfully respond to my challenge by picking out a big-government jurisdiction that is out-performing a similar country with free markets and small government.

So what’s been the response? Zip. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

Not that we should be surprised. After all, the rich nations of the western world all became prosperous back in the 1800s and early 1900s when the burden of government was tiny, smaller even than the public sector in Hong Kong today.

And what about the second part of the challenge? Well, our leftist friends have no answers to that query either.

But our side has lots of counter-examples. I’ve put together several comparisons of relatively pro-market jurisdictions and relatively statist jurisdictions. And when making these comparisons, I’ve used several decades of data to avoid the risk of misleading results caused by cherry-picking favorable or unfavorable years.

* Chile vs. Argentina vs. Venezuela

* Hong Kong vs. Cuba

* North Korea vs. South Korea

* Cuba vs. Chile

* Ukraine vs. Poland

* Hong Kong vs. Argentina

* Singapore vs. Jamaica

* United States vs. Hong Kong and Singapore

In every single case, the places with smaller government and free markets generate much stronger economic performance. And that translates into higher living standards.

Now we’re going to add to our list of comparisons, and we’re going to travel to Africa.

Botswana is one of the most pro-market nations in sub-Saharan Africa. It’s still a long way from being Hong Kong, but you can see from the Economic Freedom of the World data that it’s been a steady performer, averaging more than 7 out of 10 this century.

Indeed, only Rwanda ranks higher for economic freedom in the region, but that’s the result of pro-growth reforms in the past few years, so we’ll have to wait a while (assuming the reforms are durable) before having useful data.

And speaking of comparisons, let’s now look at what’s happened to per-capita GDP in Botswana as well as the data for the countries in the region that get the worst scores from Economic Freedom of the World.

As you can see, Botswana (the thick blue line) used to be among the very poorest nations in the region, but over time its per-capita economic output has easily surpassed the countries that have followed statist policies.

These numbers are adjusted for inflation, so the key takeaway is that per-capita economic output is now almost 10 times higher in Botswana than it was in the mid-1960s.

Most of the other nations, by contrast, have suffered from declining real incomes. In other words, the price of statism is very high, particularly for the less fortunate in society.

But there is a sliver of good news (in addition to the Botswana data). If you look carefully, you’ll see that the overall numbers for Africa (thin blue line) have noticeably improved since the late 1990s. Which underscores the importance of promoting business investment in the region, as explained recently by Marian Tupy.

For more information on Botswana, here’s a video put together by Ed Frank (who’s also a very good softball player).

P.S. I rarely comment on foreign policy, but I confess that my jaw dropped when I saw that an Obama Administration official said that a jobs program was key to defeating ISIS.

I thought about recycling some of the evidence showing that government efforts to create jobs are a miserable failure, but then I saw two cartoons that are too funny not to share.

Our first contribution is from Glenn McCoy.

And here’s a gem from Michael Ramirez.

You can see why Ramirez won the political cartoonist contest.

Daniel J. Mitchell on the progressive left's

National and State Mortgage Risk Indices

National and State Mortgage Risk Indices are tracked and released by AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

The riskiness of mortgage loan originations in the U.S. housing market rose in January, marking the fifth straight month of risk increases. AEI’s composite National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for Agency purchase loans hit a new series high of 11.94 percent in January, up 0.4 percent from the prior 3-month average and 0.8 percent year-over-year.

“With the NMRI once again hitting a series high, the risks posed by the government’s 85% percent share of the home purchase market continue to rise,” said Stephen Oliner, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

The composites subindexes gauging risk for Fannie Mae, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Veterans Administration (VA) all hit new series highs in January, as well. Because non-bank lending is substantially riskier than the large bank business it replaces, the shift in market share from large banks to accounts at non-banks is particularly concerning, and represents much of the upward trend.

The NMRI results for January are based on more than 180,000 home purchase loans, which represents nearly the entire universe of such loans with a government guarantee. Including these loans, the total number that have been risk rated in the NMRI since December 2012 has now topped 5.49 million.

“Policy makers need to be mindful of the upward risk trends that are occurring with respect to both first-time and repeat buyers,” said Edward Pinto, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. “Recent policy moves by the FHA and FHFA will likely exacerbate this trend.”

Highlights From December NMRI via AEI:

  • The QM regulation has not reduced the volume of high DTI loans: over the past 3 months, 24% of loans had a total DTI above 43%, up two percentage points from the share in 2013:H2.
  • FHA is not compensating for the riskiness of its high DTI loans; Fannie and Freddie are compensating only to a limited extent.
  • FHA’s NMRI stood at 24.41% in January, up 0.2 percentage point from the average for the prior three months, and 1.5 percentage points from a year earlier. The current level implies that nearly one-quarter of FHA’s recently guaranteed home purchase loans would be projected to default under severely stressed conditions akin to the 2007-08 financial crisis.
  • The softness in mortgage lending is not due to tight standards but to reduced affordability, loan put back risk, and slow income growth for many households.

The riskiness of mortgage loan originations in

(Photo: Reuters)

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s gauge of manufacturing activity in the mid-Atlantic region dropped to 5.2 in February from 6.3 the month prior. The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey widely missed Wall Street expectations of a rise to 9.3.

The current activity index fell for the third consecutive month, as did the future activity index and the diffusion index for current general activity.

The current new orders index fell 3 points, but the shipments and unfilled orders indexes turned positive and rose 15 and 16 points, respectively. The diffusion index for current general activity fell slightly, from a reading of 6.3 in January to 5.2 this month, with half of respondents indicating no change from the previous month.

The index for delivery times increased 6 points but remained negative, while the index for inventories rose 16 points.

The survey’s indicators for current labor market conditions actually showed a slight improvement this month, adding 6 points and returning to positive territory. The percentage of firms reporting increases in employment — at 21 percent — beat out the percentage reporting decreases, at 17 percent. However, the workweek index was negative with almost no change from last month, indicating wage growth stubbornly remains non-existent.

Most firms (55 percent) reported an increase in underlying demand, while 20 percent reported a decrease. Fifty-four percent of the firms anticipate increasing production, and 33 percent expect to cut production. The diffusion index for general future activity fell from a reading of 50.9 in January to 29.7 in February.

Special Questions (February 2015)

1. Since the beginning of the year, how would you characterize the underlying demand for your manufactured products? Exclude any purely seasonal effect.
Increase significantly
6.7%
Increase modestly
48.3%
  Total increase
55.0%
No change
25.0%
Decrease modestly
18.3%
Decrease significantly
1.7%
  Total decrease
20.0%
2. What change, if any, do you anticipate in your firm’s production during the first quarter of 2015 compared with the fourth quarter of last year?
Increase of more than 4%
19.7%
Increase of 2-4%
23.0%
Increase of less than 2%
11.4%
  Total increase
54.1%
No change
13.1%
Decrease of less than 2%
9.8%
Decrease of 2-4%
9.9%
Decrease of more than 4%
13.1%
  Total decrease
32.8%
Average expected growth for all firms: 0.69%
Average expected growth for firms attributing growth to seasonal factors: – 0.96%*
Average expected growth for firms attributing growth to changes in conditions: 2.41%*
*The calculation is based on responses to a separate question about whether the expected change was due to seasonal factors, change in business conditions, or other factors.
3. Would this represent an acceleration or deceleration from the fourth quarter?
Significant acceleration 8.2%
Acceleration:
49.2%
Some acceleration 41.0%
No change 19.7%
Some deceleration 23.0%
Deceleration:
31.1%
Significant deceleration 8.1%

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s Manufacturing Business Outlook

us-embassy-yemen

President Obama and top State Department officials believed they had negotiated a deal with the Houthi rebels through Tehran, which would have allowed them to keep personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen.

President Obama and top State Department officials never believed they would have to evacuate the U.S. Embassy in Yemen, according to department officials. Sources at the State Department tell PPD that Obama administration officials believed they had successfully negotiated a deal with the Houthi rebels through Iran to keep the U.S. Embassy open in Sanaa.

Prior to the evacuation, Iran-backed Shiite Houthi rebels, whose official slogan is “Death to Israel. Death to America,” seized control of the capital and forced the resignation of U.S.- and Saudi-backed former President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

The remaining members of his government soon followed suit, and Parliament was dismantled shortly after.

It was a stunningly embarrassing development the White House struggled to explain, which came less than one year after President Obama cited the Arab world’s poorest country as the model for how he and his administration plan “to degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State (ISIS).

Observers slammed the administration for their handling of the crisis, which led to a hasty evacuation that forced U.S. Marines and other military personnel to destroy or render inoperable their weapons before boarding a commercial (not military) aircraft.

“On a tactical level, just sort of explaining the evacuation it’s humiliating,” said syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. “And this is after Benghazi. It isn’t as if we didn’t know what was going to happen.”

But according to officials, the Obama administration was fully aware that the Shiite-led coup would be successful. They just didn’t think the eventual order to evacuate was going to be necessary.

In exchange for allowing U.S. intelligence and State Department personnel to remain at the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa — with the primary purpose to conduct counterterrorism operations targeting al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) — the Obama administration agreed not to interfere with the Iran-backed coup. The sources indicate the Obama administration not only sold out an important ally in the war on terror, but also that they did so behind the back of another key Arab ally — Saudi Arabia.

While the president’s apparent disdain for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu often consumes media headlines, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Washington has grown more strained under Obama’s tenure.

King Abdullah, who died just before the final stages of the coup were complete, was extremely concerned by Obama’s willingness to negotiate with Tehran over their nuclear program. In a leaked State Department memo, the former Saudi king pushed the United States to take military action to “cut off the head of the snake,” preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

He also pushed the Obama administration to take a stand against Iran and to back the majority Sunni rebels fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, but Obama refused to enforce his own “red line.”

“King Abdullah did not like President Obama,” said NBC News’ Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel. “In fact, a lot of people I know who are quite close to the late King Abdullah said that the King could not stand President Obama because the president was supportive of the Arab Spring, and because the president did not support Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, in fact turned his back on Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.”

According to officials, Hadi received the same treatment as Mubarak from the Obama administration in order to preserve the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Unfortunately, Iran did not deliver on their end, raising several equally disturbing questions, including whether the regime in Tehran is negotiating with the West in good faith or if Western leaders are grossly misjudging their intentions.

Past statements made by State Department spokeswomen Jen Psaki contradict recently obtained emails pertaining to the evacuation, further validating the disturbing story.

“It wasn’t hasty,” Psaki said during a Feb. 12 interview. “We had been planning these [evacuation procedures] for weeks and everybody was following the proper protocol put in place for the advance.”

But a Feb. 8 email obtained by Catherine Herridge reveals Ambassador Matthew Tueller, under the direction of Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, ordered embassy staff in Sanaa to preserve the main communication link with Washington, known as OpenNet, further supporting the claim that they never intended to evacuate. When it became clear that evacuation was necessary — which, according to sources, is when officials came to grips with the reality that Tehran either couldn’t or didn’t deliver — officials began to panic.

“We need to quickly think about the plan for destroying/sanitizing the OpenNet data that is still in Sanaa,” the email from a supervisor said. “I am a little worried it is still out there.”

It is unclear whether France and the United Kingdom — who were both forced to evacuate their embassy locations, as well — were operating under the same assumption as the White House. British Prime Minister David Cameron is as equally desperate as the Obama administration to close a nuclear deal with Iran, and perceivably could have believed that their new-found relationship with the regime in Tehran would gain them favor with the Shiite Houthi rebels.

But, obviously, that wasn’t the case. It now remains an open question whether the repeated decision to delay or push back the deadline for negotiations is yet another attempt by the regime to swindle desperate leaders in the West.

President Obama and top State Department officials

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly jobless claims fell more than expected last week, but the report may not paint a clear picture. Analyst said the department had estimated the claims data for Tennessee, where offices were closed on Tuesday because of bad weather, and the Presidents’ Day holiday shaved off a number of claims.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 21,000 to a seasonally adjusted 283,000 for the week ended Feb. 14, while the prior week’s data was unrevised for the first time in months.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims falling to 293,000 last week, but a shortened work week due to Monday’s Presidents Day holiday fueled the unexpectedly bigger decline in claims. Still, analysts remain hopeful the data point to an increasing labor force participation rate, which has artificially pushed the unemployment rate down.

The four-week moving average of claim — which is considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility — fell 6,500 to 283,250 last week.

Thursday’s claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid rose 58,000 to 2.43 million in the week ended Feb. 7

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly

prime-minister-alexis-tspiras

Greece’s newly-appointed Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (C) leaves the Presidential Mansion after his swearing-in ceremony . (Photo: REUTERS)

There’s a big fiscal battle happening in Europe. The relatively new Greek government is demanding continued handouts from the rest of Europe, but it wants to renege on at least some of the country’s prior commitments to improve economic performance by reducing the preposterous burden of spending,regulation, and intervention.

That seems like a rather strange negotiating position. Sort of like a bank robber holding a gun to his own head and saying he’ll shoot himself if the teller doesn’t hand over money.

At first glance, it seems the Greeks are bluffing. Or being suicidally self-destructive.

And maybe they are posturing and/or being deluded, but there are two reasons why the Greeks are not totally insane.

1. The rest of Europe does not want a Greek default.

There’s a famous saying, attributed to J. Paul Getty, that applies to the Greek fiscal fight. Simply stated, there are lots of people and institutions that own Greek government bonds and they are afraid that their investments will lose value if Greece decides to fully or partially renege on its debts (which is an implicit part of Greece’s negotiating position).

So while Greece would suffer if it defaulted, there would be collateral damage for the rest of Europe. In other words, the hypothetical bank robber has a grenade rather than a gun. And while the robber won’t fare well if he pulls the pin, lots of other people may get injured by shrapnel.

And to make matters more interesting, previous bailouts of Greece have created a rather novel situation in that taxpayers are now the indirect owners of a lot of Greek government debt. As you can see from the pie chart, European taxpayers have the most exposure, but American taxpayers also are on the hook because the IMF has participated in the bailouts.

The situation is Greece is akin to a bankruptcy negotiation. The folks holding Greek government debt are trying to figure out the best strategy for minimizing their losses, much as the creditors of a faltering business will calculate the best way of extracting their funds. If they press too hard, the business may go bust and they get very little (analogous to a Greek default). But if they are too gentle, they miss out on a chance of getting a greater share of the money they’re owed.

2. Centralization is the secular religion of the European elite and they want Greece in the euro.

The bureaucrats at the European Commission and the leaders of many European nations are emotionally and ideologically invested in the notion of “ever closer union” for Europe. Their ultimate goal is for the European Union to be a single nation, like the United States. In this analogy, the euro currency is akin to the American dollar.

There’s a general perception that a default would force the Greek government to pull out of the euro and re-create its own currency. And for the European elite who are committed to “ever closer union,” this would be perceived as a major setback. As such, they are willing to bend over backwards to accommodate Greece’s new government.

Given the somewhat blurry battle lines between Greece and its creditors, what’s the best outcome for advocates of limited government and individual liberty?

That’s a frustrating question to answer, particularly since the right approach would have been to reject any bailouts back when the crisis first started.

Without access to other people’s money, the Greek government would have been forced to rein in the nation’s bloated public sector. To be sure, the Greek government may also have defaulted, but that would have taught investors a valuable lesson about lending money to profligate governments.

And it would have been better if Greece defaulted five years ago, back when its debt was much smaller than it is today.

But there’s no point in crying about spilt milk. We can’t erase the mistakes of the past, so what’s the best approach today?

Actually, the right answer hasn’t changed.

And just as there are two reasons why the Greek government is being at least somewhat clever in playing hardball, there are two reasons why the rest of the world should tell them no more bailouts.

1. Don’t throw good money after bad.

To follow up on the wisdom of J. Paul Getty, let’s now share a statement commonly attributed to either Will Rogers or Warren Buffett. I don’t know which one (if either) deserves credit, but there’s a lot of wisdom in the adviceto stop digging if you find yourself in a hole. And Greece, like many other nations, has spent its way into a deep fiscal hole.

There is a solution for the Greek mess. Politicians need to cut spending over a sustained period of time while also liberalizing the economy to create growth. And, to be fair, some of that has been happening over the past five years. But the pace has been too slow, particularly for pro-growth reforms.

But this also explains why bailouts are so misguided. Politicians generally don’t do the right thing until and unless they’ve exhausted all other options. So if the Greek government thinks it has additional access to money from other nations, that will give the politicians an excuse to postpone and/or weaken necessary reforms.

2. Saying “No” to Greece will send a powerful message to other failing European welfare states.

Now let’s get to the real issue. What happens to Greece will have a big impact on the behavior of other European governments that also are drifting toward bankruptcy.

Here’s a chart showing the European nations with debt burdens in excess of 100 percent of economic output based on OECD data. Because of bad demographics and poor decisions by their politicians, every one of these nations is likely to endure a Greek-style fiscal crisis in the near future.

EU-Debt-Nations

And keep in mind that these figures understate the magnitude of the problem. If you include unfunded liabilities, the debt levels are far higher.

So the obvious concern is how do you convince the politicians and voters in these nations that they better reform to avoid future fiscal chaos? How do you help them understand, as Mark Steyn sagely observed way back in 2010, that “The 20th-century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to.

Well, if you give additional bailouts to Greece, you send precisely the wrong message to the Italians, French, etc. In effect, you’re telling them that there’s a new group of taxpayers from other nations who will pick up the tab.

That means more debt, bigger government, and a deeper crisis when the house of cards collapses.

P.S. Five years ago, I created a somewhat-tongue-in-cheek 10-step prediction for the Greek crisis and stated at the time that we were at Step 5. Well, it appears my satire is slowly becoming reality. We’re now at Step 7.

P.P.S. Four years ago, I put together a bunch of predictions about Greece. You can judge for yourself, but I think I was quite accurate.

P.P.P.S. A big problem in Greece is the erosion of social capital, as personified byOlga the Moocher. At some point, as I bluntly warned in an interview, the Greeks need to learn there’s no Santa Claus.

P.P.P.P.S. The regulatory burden in Greece is a nightmare, but some examples of red tape are almost beyond belief.

P.P.P.P.P.S. The fiscal burden in Greece is a nightmare, but some examples pf wasteful spending are almost beyond belief.

P.P.P.P.P.P.S. Since we once again have examined a very depressing topic, let’s continue with our tradition of ending with a bit of humor. Click here and here for some very funny (or sad) cartoons about Obama and Greece. And here’s another cartoon about Greece that’s worth sharing. If you like funny videos, click here andhere. Last but not least, here’s some very un-PC humor about Greece and the rest of Europe.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary”]

There’s a big fiscal battle happening in

jon-stewart-judge-napolitano

Jon Stewart, right, interviews Judge Andrew Napolitano, left.

About six years ago, one of my producers at the Fox News Channel received a call out of the blue in which the caller asked if I’d be interested in coming on “The Colbert Report.” At the time, I was generally unfamiliar with the genre of late-night comedy because I am usually in dreamland when it airs.

Colbert was hilarious in his haughty imitation of the excesses of my Fox colleague Bill O’Reilly. I did not and do not know what his personal politics are, but his shtick was playing O’Reilly to a T. In fact, at one point during our back-and-forth, I inadvertently called him “Bill.” He stopped the act, came out of character and kissed me. Later he claimed it was one of the most novel and show-stopping uses of a single word he had experienced.

A few months later, my producer received a call from a producer for Colbert’s boss, Jon Stewart. That caller asked if I wanted to be on Jon’s show to discuss my latest book. That was five books and five appearances ago.

The on-air experience with Jon Stewart is unlike anything I do at Fox. First, when you are Jon’s guest, you are his only guest. Second, as the only guest, you are on the show for about 15 minutes. In TV time, and by Fox standards, 15 minutes as an on-air guest is an eternity. Third, Jon spends the first 15 minutes of the show bashing you or your ideas or your employer — and he did this to me all five times I was on with him. So, by the time I first walked onto his set, the 400 or so folks in his live studio audience were expecting me to have two horns and a tail.

I decided to push the envelope a bit. Before Jon could question me, I told him my purpose in coming on his show was to out him as a closet libertarian. “Go ahead, Your Honor. Give it a try. This is ridiculous.” OK, here goes… “Is it any of the government’s business whom you marry or what you put into your body or to whom you speak on the phone?” “Of course not.” Good. “Should the U.S. be traveling the globe looking for monsters to slay?” “No; never.” Excellent. “Can the feds constitutionally capture the content of your phone calls and emails without a search warrant from a judge based on evidence about you?” “No.” Terrific.

I should have stopped there, but I was having too much fun with America’s funniest comedian. “Are you a secret admirer of Rand Paul?” OK. I blew it. He exploded with his characteristic inanity, and the audience roared with Jon and me, thinking we had rehearsed this.

So began a happy friendship during the course of which we have discussed and analyzed on air nearly every aspect of the proper role of the government in our lives. We were and are admittedly an odd couple. He is the progressive Jewish funnyman with a tongue as sharp as a serpent’s tooth, trying to sound smart. I am the libertarian traditionalist Catholic defender of the Constitution, trying to be funny.

Well, a strange thing happened. We agreed more than we disagreed, and I learned what most of his fans do not know: Jon does not need to try to sound smart; he may be the smartest personality on television. He is as well read in the works of those with whom he disagrees as he is in the works of those who reinforce his own views.

During last winter’s version of the polar vortex, a bit like the weather this week in the northeast, I left a restaurant in lower Manhattan one night and was waiting for a car to pick me up when I saw a man wearing two overcoats and a hoodie walking a three-legged dog. I couldn’t see the man’s face, but I recognized the dog, and the dog recognized me. Then I heard the man, who was on his cellphone, spell my last name in a loud booming voice to whomever was on the other end of the call.

It was Jon. His dog jumped up to lick my face. Jon hugged me and said, “Judge, please come on the show next week. Let’s talk about something that we will not disagree on.” “What?” “Lincoln…” Oy. We disagreed profoundly. Jon had a black actress about a foot and half taller than I am playing Lincoln and three leftie-loony professors who were blind to historical truths trying to rough me up. It was hilarious.

I was saddened when Jon announced his retirement last week. Jon is a comic genius. His ratings are the envy of all in cable TV. He is the principal news source for millions of young people, who are the principal targets of TV advertisers — and God love him, he is his own boss. He has five dogs who run around that studio, and also a lot of love. Agree with him or not, he is intellectually honest, sharp as a tack, and so warm and engaging that you just don’t want your time with him to end.

I hope mine doesn’t.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: The on-air experience with

hillary clinton

The former first lady, New York senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2016, sort of.

In my wildest dreams, I would never suggest campaign strategy to Hillary Clinton, but in my wakeful hours, my temples pulse with ideas.

For a while, I’ve thought it best to keep my thoughts to myself, but that was before I started seeing all kinds of advice coming from people who never wait to be asked. Not surprisingly, most of them are men, and — get this — they’re complaining that Hillary has too many men working for her. I love that.

This strategy in male pundit-land makes sense when you think about it. If Hillary Clinton is indeed the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, a lot of guys are going to vie for honorary girlfriend status this time around to make up for all the sexism and misogyny masquerading as wise white men talking in 2008. Even the fellas at Fox News have surely figured out that if there’s one thing women have learned in the past eight years, it’s the thrill of rapid response.

How I wish only the men at Fox News had been a problem back then, but never mind. If I start naming names, I’m going to forget my vows to forgive, and that’s no way to begin the Lenten season.

There’s no point in talking about Hillary-anything without addressing the issue that, based on my social media feeds, is best-cast as “Hillary? A-gin?”

I confess to finding this attitude a bit confounding because we’ve yet to elect a female president. No matter what else America’s No. 1 overachiever has done, she still hasn’t led the country from the White House. Save your sarcasm about her ’90s co-presidency for those who think a timid wife is a marital asset. My family hasn’t seen one of those women in at least 100 years, to state the obvious.

As for stories about who’s working for Hillary, it’s important to remember who cares about staffing. People who hope to be staff care, definitely. Donors care, sometimes. Activists care, too, especially those on the left, because most liberals are eternal optimists looking for reasons to be disappointed.

Most Americans couldn’t care less who’s doing a presidential candidate’s polling or picking soundtracks for campaign ads. They care about the issues that directly affect their lives. Let’s try that coverage for a change.

A CNN/ORC poll released Wednesday showed that when asked whether seven possible presidential candidates better represent the future or the past, 50 percent of Americans picked Clinton as evoking the future. That was more than any other candidate.

By fascinating contrast, 64 percent of Americans said Bush Wannabe No. 3 — let’s call him Jeb — represents the past.

The gender breakdown on Clinton was interesting. Fifty-three percent of men said she’s a throwback, but 55 percent of women saw her as representing the future. I love that statistic because it illustrates what women already know: We’re not a monolithic group.

Oh, my, this campaign is going to drive some men into hibernation for the duration — which, by the way, would be a swell name for a country music cover band. I further suggest that the opening number be that Merle Haggard song about when women could cook and still would. I love belting that out at the top of my lungs when I make my chicken piccata.

So, you may remember I started this column with the suggestion that I have an idea or two for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. I understand saying that out loud likely provokes a blown-tire sigh from whoever is currently in charge of the next big idea. I can hear him from here: “The last thing we need is unsolicited advice from some outsider…”

Please, by all means, finish that sentence: “…from the great battleground state of Ohio.” That’s can’t-win-without-Ohio, to you.

In 2008, Clinton won the Ohio presidential primary. It pains me to say this, but I don’t think it was because all those white working-class guys suddenly decided they were feminists. They need to see her early and often. That goes double for all those women who haven’t yet wrapped their minds around the possibility of a female president in their lifetime.

Come to the Buckeye State, Hillary. Go to Kansas and Michigan, too, and to other places full of regular Americans who need to know they’re on your mind.

Hold town halls, and take questions that aren’t screened. Meet with editors at small and regional news organizations now, before your every quote is a response to someone else’s attack.
I hear the mumbling: She’s got a lot of nerve.

Let’s hope so.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and an essayist for Parade magazine. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate.

Connie Schultz: In my wildest dreams, I

In his Feb. 17, 2015 Talking Points Memo, Bill O’Reilly said the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians marked the beginning of the Holy War. In light of recent developments that assessment appears rather self-explanatory.

But wasn’t it always a Holy War to the Islamists? Whether Mr. O’Reilly — or anyone else for that matter — believed Islamic terrorism to be a Holy War or not, is frankly irrelevant. Radical Islamists do, with all of their souls, and that’s all that has or ever will matter.

In the follow up segment to the Talking Points Memo, Mr. O’Reilly was joined by Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers, the latter of which refused to characterize the conflict with radical Islam as a Holy War. Ms. Powers, almost laughably, also miraculously became pro-ground troops. However, she claimed she won’t support such a move now because Mr. Obama — a president not yet far enough to her left, unless of course we are taking about canceling her health insurance policy — has not put forward a strategy she can get behind.

Lost in all of this pretentious flip-flopping, however, was the fact that Monica Crowley was right, consistently right, and no one gave her credit for it. Perhaps Mr. O’Reilly thought it appropriate to quickly dismiss Ms. Crowley’s well-deserved “I told you so” moment, but the viewers certainly did not. Following the show PPD’s editor tweeted Ms. Crowley to tell her so, and it quicky became apparent that R. D. Baris, The People’s Pundit, wasn’t the only one who remembered Mr. O’Reilly’s former position.

We could go on and on, but a significant response it was indeed (no doubt due in large part to Ms. Crowley retweeting the People Pundit’s initial tweet to her some quarter million followers). Next time Mr. O’Reilly, who we on the whole believe to be a straight shooter, should be a little more modest and a little less “condescending, disrespectful & dismissive of those w/differing opinions,” to use the language of one viewer. That’s particularly true when they turn out to be right — like Ms. Crowley.

In his Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2015 Talking

ukrainian-troops-retreat-debaltseve

The Ukrainian troops retreating from the besieged, eastern Ukrainian city of Debaltseve.

Ukrainian troops are retreating from the strategic town of Debaltseve in the country’s east, where they were defeated by Russian-backed separatist forces and have engaged in an intense fight for control of the railway hub.

“This morning the Ukrainian armed forces together with the National Guard completed an operation for a planned and organized withdrawal from Debaltseve,” Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said in a statement before traveling to the frontline in the east. “As of now we can say that 80% of our units have left. We are expecting another two columns [to leave].”

The loss of Debaltseve is a major strategic and even political defeat for the Ukrainian army, which had desperately tried to hold the city and prevent Putin’s separatists from consolidating the territory under their control. By seizing Debaltseve, the separatists now control the railway junction linking the rebel-held cities of Luhansk and Donetsk. Moreover, the fall of Debaltseve has eliminated a pocket of Ukrainian army control along the front-line that stretches between those two cities.

Russia’s foreign minister claimed Ukrainian forces had been encircled and were forced to battle their way out, a claim that Ukrainian officials have disputed. He urged the separatists to provide troops who surrendered with food and clothes after rebel military spokesman Eduard Basurin, claimed hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers there had given themselves up.

“I’m reckoning that common sense will prevail,” said Sergei Lavrov.

Kiev has admitted that some soldiers were taken prisoner in Debaltseve, but gave no details on how many were seized.

“We were not encircled,” President Poroshenko said.

The fall of Debaltseve comes on the heels of a cease-fire agreement signed in Minsk that was supposed to have stopped fighting around the city. A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the separatists offensive and said that the fighting constituted a violation of the cease-fire agreement.

Ukrainian troops are retreating from the strategic

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial