Month: November 2008

The details of the Mumbai terrorist plot are sobering.

The national security team roll-out is coming tomorrow, and the reporting has not changed.

CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama will roll out his national security team at a news conference here on Monday morning, including his former primary rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, as his secretary of state, Democrats close to the process said.

Mrs. Clinton is flying to Chicago to appear beside the man who beat her for the Democratic nomination, a person close to Clinton said. Friends previously said she was prepared to join his cabinet in hopes of having more impact than she would in the Senate, but the person close to her said the decision is now official.

In addition to Mrs. Clinton, Democrats said, Mr. Obama plans to announce that he is keeping Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has run the Pentagon for the last two years under President Bush. And they said Mr. Obama will appoint Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine commandant and NATO supreme commander, as his national security adviser.

Rounding out his national security team, Mr. Obama will also name former Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. as his choice for attorney general and Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona as secretary of homeland security, the Democrats said. Mr. Obama may also announce former Assistant Secretary of State Susan E. Rice as ambassador to the United Nations, a job that will be given cabinet rank in his cabinet, as it had under President Bill Clinton.

Bolstering the case that Clinton will be tapped for State, the New York Times and Washington Post are both reporting that Bill Clinton will release the names of over 200,000 donors to his library and foundation, paving the way for his wife’s confirmation.

The former president has also agreed to allow the State Department and, potentially, the White House, to vet his personal business interests and speeches so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest, according to transition officials.

If the reporting is correct, one significant development is Susan Rice’s appointment to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and the restoration of that post to cabinet level. Rice and Holder would be the first African-Americans to hold their respective seats in a cabinet. Joining with the president-elect and Bill Richardson at the Commerce Department, they will present an image of diversity to the world.

The retention of Robert Gates is being well received at the Pentagon, and I have not seen one peep of criticism of Hillary Clinton from the right (there’s a lesson in there, by the way). Obama appears to be avoiding the problems that beset Bill Clinton at the beginning of his administration. He is not going to allow himself to get crossways of the military, which is something JFK never recovered from after the Bay of Pigs.

At this point, I am more interested in the who will be staffing the deputy and undersecretary positions at Defense and State. You may recall that most policy meetings are coordinated at the Deputies level. When the Bush administration kicked Richard Clarke out of the cabinet they also kicked him out of the principals meetings, and Clarke found it very difficult to get his Al-Qaeda warnings heard at the highest levels of government. But the Deputies Meetings are still where most of the choices are formulated for presentation to the principals, and it is therefore very important to have good, solid progressives in the deputy positions.

This article debunks the myths about how the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the 30’s caused harm to our economy. In reality, it had almost NO effect, as exports were only 5% of our GDP, while the total Depression area decline in our GDP was -46%. All relevant stats are included (with links), and verify the lack of effect of Smoot-Hawley.
Tariffs:The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale

Once again, it’s necessary to debunk the Globalist fairy tales about the “damage” caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Below is a copy of U.S. GDP from 1929 through 1939. These are official government figures from the

US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Below is a copy of the chart that has key numbers underlined. The Trade Balance has been underlined in Red. Exports have been underlined in Blue. Imports have been underlined in Orange.

** Note on the above referenced charts: The 1929 Trade balance is listed as +$0.4 billion. This is a MISTAKE. It should be +$0.3 billion. Subtracting the $5.6 billion in imports from the $5.9 billion in exports gives a difference of +$0.3 billion, not +$0.4 billion.

Notice that there is a slight decline in both exports and imports by the end of 1930. The trade balance remained around 0 during the entire time. Exports bottomed in 1932 — 2 years before any revision or modification of Smoot-Hawley occurred.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley. Thus, the effects of Smoot-Hawley cover only the period between June 17, 1930, and 1934. This is the time frame that should be focused on.  

So in reviewing the chart, what evidence is there that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff “hurt” the economy?? Is there any evidence at all?

No, there is practically NO evidence that Smoot-Hawley hurt our economy.

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.  

What happens if we focus on exports alone? Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.0 billion in 1933, for a -$3.9 billion decline. This $3.9 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had already declined by a whopping 46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only 3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports.

But the effects on trade must also include the reduction in Imports, which ADDS to GDP. (A decline in imports increases GDP). If the import decline is added back to the GDP total (to measure the net trade balance), the “loss” becomes only -$0.2 billion from our GDP — or less than ½ of 1% of the total GDP decline.

In other words, the document-able “loss” from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff — the “net export” loss — contributed less than ½ of 1% of our our -46% GDP decline. Overall, the Smoot Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy during the Depression.

To put this in better perspective, let’s compare all the GDP components together:

1929 …………………………………………………. 1933

GDP $103.6 billion———————>$56.4 billion ( decreased -$47.2 billion)
Consum. Expend $77.4 bil———-> $45.9 billion ( decreased -$31.5 bill)
Private Invest $16.5 bil————–> $1.7 billion ( decreased -$14.8 billion)
*Trade Balance +$0.3 bil————>+$0.1 billion ( decreased -$0.2 billion)
Exports $5.9 billion——————–> $2.0 billion ( decreased -$3.9 billion)
Imports $5.6 billion——————–> $1.9 billion ( decreased -$3.7 billion)

Again, to re-emphasize, how much difference to US  GDP did the export loss make? The Trade Balance worsened by only -$0.2 billion, or about 0.19% of our 1929 GDP ( or less than 1/5th of 1% of 1929 GDP). Meanwhile, our total GDP decreased a whopping -46% (or $47.2 billion).

How much effect did a 1/5th of 1% loss of GDP have on the Great Depression, especially when spread over a 4-year period?

Again, where’s all the “damage” that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused??
(Was it was all in “off-balance sheet” accounts?)

Based on available statistics, Smoot-Hawley had almost NO effect on the Great Depression. At the very most, caused a -3.8% decline in GDP from loss of exports. But factoring in the GDP increase from a decline in imports, it caused less than 1% of the  GDP decline.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did not cause the Great Depression, nor did it worsen it or extend it. Claims to the contrary are not only false, but easily refutable. The evidence to disprove those claims is abundant, overwhelming, and freely available to the public.

The Smoot-Hawley myth needs to be put to rest, once and for all. The claim that it worsened the Great Depression is nothing but a fairy tale.

 Economic Populist Forum

Finally an explanation for George W. Bush’s psyche (and assault rifle and concealed carry addicts, too) which makes sense:

What the heck is Saxby Chambliss doing in this ad (watch until the very end)? (You might want to watch it with the sound turned down…) How could they air this? Or is the GOP so demented they don’t even notice what’s going on in their little family photo-op?

H/t to brendan.

What’s the minimum amount of backward-looking clean-up you think the Democrats can do without putting their legislative agenda and political momentum as risk?

Alternative gift ideas: a contribution to your favorite charity in your loved one’s name. No shipping costs!

It isn’t surprising that the Democrats, after being virtually shut out of power for the last eight years, developed a critique of the GOP that involved a concern about personal freedoms/civil liberties, the national debt, and the way that federal monies were being appropriated. A minority party will always be cynical about the use of executive power and the spending priorities of the majority party. This is true even in an atmosphere of competent government. When we look at the Republicans’ core principles, as articulated today by Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, we see familiar themes.

There needs to be a high standard for our franchisees. In other words, I believe Republicans and conservatives must agree on our core principles. St. Augustine called for ‘unity in the essentials, diversity in the nonessentials, and charity in all things,’ and while I believe there should always be a big GOP tent, there must also be a shared agreement on the essentials — including expanding liberty, encouraging entrepreneurship and limiting the reach of government in people’s everyday lives.

To these, Sanford added a belief in small government and an emphasis on solutions developed on the state (non-federal) level. A party that is long shut-out of power in Washington will naturally develop an aversion to federal incursions into state prerogatives. But let us consider what this means for conservatism going forward.

Modern conservatism developed during a period of sustained dominance by the FDR-inspired New Deal Democratic coalition. The Civil Rights/Warren Court era pitched Southern Democrats that were unhappy with federal outcomes, against their northern brethren, and eventually into the arms of waiting Republican/Wall Street coalition that shared their discomfort with large government with its taxes and regulation. Southerners were concerned about desegregation, school prayer, abortion, women’s and gay rights. Their answer was to join the Wall Street crew’s campaign against a strong federal government and activist courts.

But this philosophy was developed as a strategy for a minority party. It was completely unsuited for a party that controlled the federal purse-strings. After the 1994 Gingrich Revolution handed the purse-strings to the Republicans, they quickly adapted to majority-party status and began to behave in much the same way the Democrats had for a half-century. This meant that the Republicans continued to spend federal monies at the same or higher rates, but they spent the monies in ways that favored their core constituencies and that helped assure the reelection of their members.

Now that the Gingrich Revolution has crashed and burned and the Republicans have returned to what appears to be a sustained period in the minority, it is natural that they should revert back to the principles of a minority party. It is also natural that they will blame their failure on their lack of adherence to those principles while they were in power. But, while all of this is predictable and easily understood, it is an example of a minority party failing to understand the shortcomings of their philosophy. What the Republicans need to do is not to simply revert to their old philosophy but to come to terms with the reality that they do not and never have had a philosophy for being in the majority. The Republicans need to develop a governing philosophy. If they do not, then there is no reason to believe that they won’t fall into the same trap again the next time they take power.

John McCain often said that the Republicans came to Washington to change Washington and instead found that Washington changed them. This will always happen if the minority party has a purely negative philosophy that has no vision for how best to run the federal government.

Set aside the demographic challenges facing the Republicans. Until they decide how they want a majority-Republican federal government to work, they’ll never be prepared to run one.

Would I prefer Gov. Bill Richardson over Sen. Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State? Yes, yes I would. Richardson certainly has the stronger resume of the two, and he’s more sympatico with my political views on foreign affairs. But it isn’t an insult to Richardson to get the lesser appointment of Secretary of Commerce. It isn’t a snub to the Latino community. In narrow, parochial, terms, Richardson will probably be able to do more good for the Latino community at Commerce. And Richardson isn’t owed the State Department. Hillary Clinton may be slightly less qualified on paper, but she has intangible strengths that certainly put her in the same league with Richardson.

It is not known why Obama is leaning towards Clinton at State (if the reporting is accurate), but we can all recognize a variety of possible motivations. He is uniting the Democratic Party by providing jobs for countless Clinton supporters, he’s neutralizing a potential rival and critic, he’s tapping into the star-power of the Clinton Couple, and he’s sending a reassuring message to both hardline Israel supporters and moderate Republicans. What would Richardson bring to the table that compares?

Richardson has his own liabilities, including a reputation as a bit of a publicity and credit hound. Many people inside the Washington foreign policy establishment, including Steve Clemons, have raised alarms about Richardson’s managerial style and fitness for State. In other words, it isn’t a total slam-dunk case that Richardson would be the better of the two. In fact, I think John Kerry has a good case that he is the best fit for the job, and he could argue that Obama owes him the position, too.

Ultimately, this is a personnel decision for president-elect Barack Obama. If he is willing to put up with the potential drama of the Clintons, then he can live with the consequences. If Richardson would rather work on foreign affairs than commerce, he can hold out for a position as emissary to some hot-spot in the world. Perhaps Richardson could be our point-man for defusing tensions between India and Pakistan. Regardless, it’s wrong for the Latino community to feel disrespected because Richardson did not get the State Department.

Welcome back.

This week we’ll be continuing with the painting of the grille of a 1949 Packard automobile.  The photo that I’m using is seen in the photo directly below.  I’ll be using my usual acrylics on an 8×10 canvas.

Seen in a vintage illustration directly below is the entire vehicle showing the grille in
context.

When last seen, the painting appeared as it does in the photo directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

I’ve concentrated most of my efforts on the wide chrome area just below the central grill.  Seen for the first time is a reflection to the left side of the bumper that is apparently the roof of the yellowish house reflected in several other surfaces.  Also depicted is the rather deep blue sky.  The remainder of the upper bumper has been painted in blue and white areas as seen in the photo.

The edge of the bumper has been painted in lines of blue, white and gray.  I am not completely satisfied and will revise this slightly.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

 

That’s about it for now.  Next week I’ll have more progress to show you.  See you then.  As always, feel free to add photos of your own work in the comments section below.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.