No Oil for Pacifists

I'm taking another Sunday off--check back tomorrow.

I have shown that solar power simply isn't cost effective without substantial subsidies. In a guest post last year, reader O Bloody Hell showed why solar power -- particularly photovoltaic (PV) cells -- were unlikely to be a significant energy source for the foreseeable future (especially given the land-use required, see page 38).

Craig Hunter, Vice President and General Manager of Energy Technologies at Intermolecular -- which specializes in semiconductor and solar R&D design and testing -- concurs in Greentech Media:

[T]he litmus test for any solar energy technology is its ability in the next 10-20 years to be deployed in hundreds of gigawatts per year, delivering electricity at $.05-.07/kWh, even in areas that aren't very sunny. Given the load factors of PV installations, not to mention the possible need for storage, we need to consider a target installed system price of no more than $1/Wp.

Panel prices have indeed come down significantly, but the PV "experience curve" (15% cost reduction for each doubling of production) is too slow, requiring us to get to 40-80GW per year production just to reach sub-$1/Wp panel pricing. And unless we see disruptive improvements in conversion efficiency, the "balance-of-system" costs (i.e., all the system costs other than the solar panel itself) will make it impossible to achieve a $1/Wp system price even if the panels are nearly free.

Personally, I'm agnostic about whether a technological breakthrough might make non-PV solar power significant in the long term. But I'm sure that distorting subsidies are wasteful and unnecessary--the free market responds automatically to shortages and can be counted on to solve any energy crisis. Without subsidizing what might be dead-end technologies such as PV.

(via FuturePundit)

At yesterday's healthcare summit:

After Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) focused on issues in his wheelhouse -- the dearth of transparency and wealth of special deals in Obamacare -- and chastised Obama for failing to live up to his campaign promises to change the way Washington works and conduct health-care negotiations in front of C-SPAN cameras, the president got testy.

"We're not campaigning any more, John. The election is over," he said.

To which McCain responded, "I'm reminded of that every day."

Video here.

(via NPR's News blog)

From xkcd:


source: xkcd 703

(via reader OBH)

From Monday's Washington Post:

During the past nine months, credit card companies jacked up interest rates, created new fees and cut credit lines. They also closed down millions of accounts. So a law hailed as the most sweeping piece of consumer legislation in decades has helped make it more difficult for millions of Americans to get credit, and made that credit more expensive.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. The law that President Barack Obama signed last May shields card users from sudden interest rate hikes, excessive fees and other gimmicks that card companies have used to drive up profits. Consumers will save at least $10 billion a year from curbs on interest rate increases alone, according to the Pew Charitable Trust, which tracks credit card issues.

But there was a catch. Card companies had nine months to prepare while certain rules were clarified by the Federal Reserve. They used that time to take actions that ended up hurting the same customers who were supposed to be helped.

As Reason's Nick Gillespie notes:

Consumer advocates, including politicians who have helped to created mega-gigundo deficits at the local, state, and national levels, have already started calling for the next round of regulations, in which villainous bankers, finally get their comeuppance. But sadly, just like Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life, the people giving credit will always find a way to prosper.

"The credit card issuers can adjust their tactics faster than Congress can pass laws," said Joshua Frank, author of [a] report [for the Center for Responsible Lending].

Which is to say, the best way to ensure access to credit and decent treatment is by market competition, not by top-down regulation that stymies the development of many different types of credit instruments.

(via Carpe Diem)

From the March 8th National Review (subscription only):

Recall the thinking of Barack Obama and Joe Biden about the Iraq War. Obama opposed President Bush's surge in Iraq, saying it would make things worse. He wanted to declare the war lost and come home. Biden proposed essentially splitting the country into three: a Sunni land, a Shiite land, and a Kurdish land. John McCain remarked that you would have to draw lines through a lot of Baghdad bedrooms, because Iraqis intermarry. In any event, the Bush administration had the war pretty much won by the time of the Obama inauguration. And, the other night, Biden went on television and said, "I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration." Chutzpah is a popular Yiddish word. Schmuck is another.

Les Hatton, PhD, who holds the Chair in Forensic Software Engineering at Kingston University, from the abstract and conclusion of his new paper "1999-2009: Has the intensity and frequency of hurricanes increased?":

One of the often quoted side-effects of global warming is an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events such as hurricanes. This hypothesis is tested here against hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and also the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre.

Data for the years 1999-2009 are analysed and tested against long term data for the North Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, Western Pacific, Northern and Southern Indian oceans. It is concluded that Hurricane intensity and frequency is significantly higher in this period in the North Atlantic. However in the Eastern Pacific, Western Pacific, Northern and Southern Indian oceans, there is no evidence of significant change. Taken together, there appears to be no significant difference in either frequency or intensity of hurricanes globally. Repeating the analysis for 1999-2007 gives the same result and this conflicts with statements made in the IPCC 2007 report. . .

Over the periods 1999-2007 or 1999-2009, it can be concluded that there is no evidence to support that the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes, major hurricanes or proportion of hurricanes which mature into major hurricanes has changed in the last 60 years.

Agreed--and wrong again, Al.

Hatton btw:

once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He's a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community - his studies include critical systems analysis.

(via Planet Gore)

Tom Raum of the Associated Press, on February 14th:

The government already has made so many promises to so many expanding "mandatory" programs. Just keeping these commitments, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained.

Take Social Security, Medicare and other benefits. Add in interest payments on a national debt that now exceeds $12.3 trillion. It all will gobble up 80 percent of all federal revenues by 2020, government economists project.

That doesn't leave room for much else. . .

It's not clear when the debt's day of reckoning will arrive. But the overall national debt over the next few years will rise to 100 percent of the gross domestic product -- a level viewed as alarming by the International Monetary Fund and international economists.

The Social Security system, the biggest social spending program, has begun paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. For the past quarter-century, Social Security had produced a surplus that helped finance the rest of the government.

Medicare, the health care program that now covers 45 million elderly and disabled people, is in worse shape. It's been paying out more than it takes in since 2008 and its trust fund is projected to run out of money in 2017.

Agreed.

(via Don Surber)

February 8th -- Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh:

[U]pon instruction of my government today, officially, I reflected to the [IAEA] the intention of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to start its nuclear enrichment activities of uranium up to 20%, I repeat up to 20%, in order to produce the required fuel for Tehran research reactor. This has been already officially delivered about 12 o'clock today Vienna time to the agency.

February 11th -- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

I think Iran has made a series of statements that are far more political than they are -- they're based on politics, not on physics. Okay? The Iranian nuclear program has undertaken -- has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. Quite frankly, what Ahmadinejad says -- he says many things and many of them turn out to be untrue. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.

February 18th -- Report of the IAEA Director General (at 3):

On 14 February 2010, Iran, in the presence of Agency inspectors, moved approximately 1950 kg of low enriched UF₆ from FEP to the PFEP feed station. The Agency inspectors sealed the cylinder containing the material to the feed station. Iran provided the Agency with mass spectrometry results which indicate that enrichment levels of up to 19.8% U-235 were obtained at PFEP between 9 and 11 February 2010.

Question: Given that President Obama promised to "restore science to its rightful place," why presume political bragging?

Answer: Because it's convenient for progressives.

Question: How's that 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluding Iran abandoned its nuke program looking now?

Answer: Under revision.

Question: When will this Administration take the Iranian threat seriously?

Answer: After it's too late.

(via The Hill)

From the February 10th Times (London):

Hindus and Sikhs in Britain won a landmark court victory yesterday that will allow mourners to cremate their dead on funeral pyres.

The Court of Appeal ruling follows a lengthy battle waged by a devout 71-year-old Hindu for the right to be cremated by "sacred fire" according to the ancient diktats of his religion.

Davender Kumar Ghai’s attempt to establish the first approved site in Britain for the 4,000-year-old spiritual ceremony was blocked four years ago by Newcastle City Council, which ruled that human pyres were unlawful.

The local authority’s decision was upheld by the High Court last year, when the Ministry of Justice argued that "a large proportion of the population of the United Kingdom would be upset and offended and would find it abhorrent if human remains were burned on open-air pyres".

That ruling has been overturned by a panel of three Appeal Court judges headed by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who said that existing cremation laws did not prohibit the burning of human remains on a wooden pyre open to natural air and sunlight.

(via Normblog)

The smackdown Russian (and Washington Capital) hockey player Alex Ovechkin (ОВЕЧКИН) laid on Czech (and former Capital) Jaromir Jagr can be viewed here.

There's no escaping current "conventional wisdom" that America has become ungovernable:

President Obama -- "[I]f this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us."

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman -- "Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure."

Newsweek columnist Michael Cohen -- "Is America simply ungovernable? Are the impediments to governance so great . . . that no one can run the country effectively?"

NY Times columnist Tom Friedman -- "'Political instability' was a phrase normally reserved for countries like Russia or Iran or Honduras. But now, an American businessman here remarked to me, 'people ask me about 'political instability' in the U.S. We’ve become unpredictable to the world.'"

Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan -- "America's problems are too great for Americans to tackle."

Such critics commonly cite three causes of the alleged collapse:

1. stupid Americans and spineless Democrats pandering to them (Time magazine's Joe Klein; NY Times columnist Charles Blow; Michael Cohen; Daily Kos Diarist Backbone Project)



2. the Senate's filibuster (WaPo's Ezra Klein; Paul Krugman; Hartford Courant columnist Jim Shea), and/or



3. minority party evildoers (Salon's Joan Walsh ("obscenely well-funded army of right-wing politicians"); Andrew Sullivan ("a nihilist strategy in order to regain power . . . [t]he Republicans are insane"); Michael Cohen ("obstructionist Republicans"); Paul Krugman ("one of the nation's major political parties has descended into nihilism"); Tom Friedman ("the Party of No"))

None of this is true. First, I'm pleased to belong to the party that trusts ordinary Americans, as opposed to the condescending and paternalistic left. Blaming the people amounts to a re-edited attack on electoral popular sovereignty, as Jay Cost says on Real Clear Politics:

Moderate Democrats might have defected because they were worried about their jobs -- but the point of popular elections is to link the personal interests of legislators with the interests of their constituents. It often fails to work -- but in a situation where "spineless Democrats" clearly voted with their districts, it seems to have been working pretty well.

In Friday's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer agrees:

That's not a structural defect. That's a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself -- despite the special interests -- through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

Besides, was the electorate stupid when it chose Democrats to run the Executive and Legislative branches in 2008? Perhaps this disconnect explains why "ungovernable" advocate Tom Friedman favors China's despotic authoritarianism over America's constitutional democracy -- like most leftists, he prefers diktats by the elite, i.e., New York Times columnists.

Second, although I think the filibuster dubious for votes under the "treaty and appointments clause" (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2), the Framers intended that Senate review of proposed legislation be thorough and deliberate. Moreover, Democrats historically have employed the tactic -- indeed, Vice President Biden decries the filibuster though Senator Biden defended it passionately. There's no inconsistency because -- I'm not making this up! -- progressives say "the filibuster is OK for Democrats but not for Republicans." Suggesting that the "ungovernable" meme really means "All your base are belong to us."

Third, faulting Republicans flows from equating "failure to adopt my ideas" with "ungovernable." Observe, for example, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

[T]he country faces some serious problems: a costly and cruel healthcare system, an energy system that contributes to damaging climate change, and an unsustainable deficit. I don't see how any of these problems can be solved or even significantly ameliorated under the present setup. That's my definition of ungovernable.

In other words, the left "has decided the nation is ungovernable because there is no popular support for the total upheaval of the American way of life." How can Republicans be blamed for this? As Mickey Kaus concludes:

[I]n this case there's a simpler explanation: Barack Obama's job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed. He didn't fail because 55% of Americans can never be convinced of anything. It happens all the time. He just failed. He tried to sell expanding coverage as a deficit reducer. Voters didn't believe him and worried that they would pay the bill in some unadvertised way (through Medicare reductions or future tax increases, mainly). That's not constitutional paralysis or Web-enabled mob rule. It's just bad salesmanship.

Bad logic too, because -- as Jonah Goldberg observes -- the claim is no more than "After all, Obama's a super-genius and the Democrats had control of everything, so clearly the system is broken and the presidency is too weak institutionally (or some such)." On top of that, Obama claimed as recently as October that last year's "legislative session [was] one of the most productive in a generation." Besides Scott Brown, what's changed? As even Susan Estrich says, "What Went Wrong?" is that the people don't like Obama's bloated healthcare spending plan.

Finally, the flip-side is that reforms passed in the past, as Krauthammer recounts:

In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president's own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O'Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board -- and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

It turned out that the country's problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn't. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

The February 20th Economist concurs:

It is not so much that America is ungovernable, as that Mr Obama has done a lousy job of winning over Republicans and independents to the causes he favours. If, instead of handing over health care to his party’s left wing, he had lived up to his promise to be a bipartisan president and courted conservatives by offering, say, reform of the tort system, he might have got health care through; by giving ground on nuclear power, he may now stand a chance of getting a climate bill. Once Mr Clinton learned the advantages of co-operating with the Republicans, the country was governed better.

Conclusion: The current meme is meaningless. As Jay Cost says, "America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job." But those demanding a deeper discourse should read American Thinker's Christopher Chantrill:

Our left-wing friends never seem to have thought that their narrative of injustice, which exposed the hypocrisies of the world bourgeoisie and global corporations, applies exactly to them and their progressive project.

When you look at the great government programs, you can believe the liberal narrative about helping people, or you can believe the liberal postmodernists and assume that it's all about power. Every regulation is a bid for power; every dollar of spending is a payoff to supporters. You can make a case that the Obama administration's program of stimuli, bailouts, tax "agnosticism," and crony capitalism is all about hope and change for the people. But in the modern age, stripped of superstition and Platonic "likely stories," we believe in the simple, elegant explanation. Nah, it's all about power. . .

So when liberal wring their hands because the U.S. seems to be ungovernable, we conservatives chuckle. That's not a bug, liberals; that's a feature.

(via Moonbattery, Byron York, reader Doug J.)

I'm taking a one-day blog break. Look for a large post Monday morn.

From CATO's Chris Edwards:


source: Employee Compensation in State and Local Governments (Jan. 2010)

Prior related post here. See also Carpe Diem relying on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

(via February 13th Economist (subscription only))

Senator Obama campaigned against Bush's supposedly wrong-headed isolation of Iran, promising instead to initiate "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." President Obama first tried to be the good guy, then was shocked, shocked when that approach failed. Now the Administration's shifted towards sanctions.

The Islamic Republic finally responded to the President's diplomacy, by beginning to enrich uranium to 20 percent, far more than necessary for civilian nuclear power. But at least Iran didn't blame Bush:

Iran's parliament speaker said that attempts by the Obama administration to quell its nuclear program will only encourage the Islamic Republic to speed up its uranium enrichment even more.

"Even if U.S. President Barack Obama dares to repeat threats of tougher sanction against us as much as 10 times, we will still be determined to pursue our enrichment program, but with a much faster pace," Ali Larijani said Thursday, according to remarks carried by the semi-official Fars News Agency.

An Administration spokesman called Iran's failure to play nice "mysterious." It's a mystery only to fuzzy-headed internationalists, or those who never argued with a three year-old.

Time for the President to recognize that Iran may be among the evils deterred with actions, not words.

(via Berman Post)

Megan McArdle on her Atlantic blog (embedded links added):

People under the age of 55 account for a very, very small proportion of deaths in this country. It's after 60 that you'd expect to be getting the largest mortality benefit from expanding insurance coverage. If switching people to government-run insurance at the age of 65 doesn't produce any measurable improvements in the mortality rate of a population with a high mortality rate that are large enough to show up in aggregate death statistics, then how big an effect could a national health care system for younger people have on mortality outcomes? Would it even register in the mortality statistics? Is this the right use of $163 billion? I mean, we can say that a policy is a success if it saves even one life, but it is not actually possible to run a country this way.

Agreed.

Major premise -- GM Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre, January 7th:

The development of electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt is creating entire new sectors in the auto industry -- an 'ecosystem' of battery developers and recyclers, builders of home and commercial charging stations, electric motor suppliers and much more. These companies and universities are creating new jobs in Michigan and across the U.S. -- green jobs -- and they’re doing it by developing new technology, establishing new manufacturing capability, and strengthening America's long-term competitiveness.

Minor premise -- Automotive News, February 8th:

General Motors Co. last month assembled its first lithium ion battery pack in suburban Detroit -- with nonunion workers. The plant was set up to make the packs for the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid and other future GM vehicles.

Conclusion -- Might America's long-term competitiveness depend on non-union labor? As Edward Niedermeyer observes, "if GM can get away with using non-union workers at a crucial plant that’s supposed to represent the firm’s future, things aren’t looking so good for our friends in organized labor." Especially given that the choice came from "Government Motors."

(via Kausfiles)

UPDATE: below

On February 9th, the Fiqh Council of North America -- a body of Islamic scholars established for "advising and educating its members and officials on matters related to the application of ShariÌah in their individual and collective lives in the North American environment" -- issued a fatwa that forbids Muslims from going through body scanners at airports. According to the FCNA:

[A] general and public use of such scanners is against the teachings of Islam, natural law and all religions and cultures that stand for decency and modesty. It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women. Islam highly emphasizes 'haya' (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Qur’an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.

Rather than the scanners now being installed, FCNA recommends:

that instead of producing and displaying a picture of the body, software should be designed to produce only the picture of questionable materials on an outline of the body. Further, other technologies could be used that detect the presence of explosives without infringing on modesty as some European leaders have pointed out. FCNA appreciates the alternate provision of pat-down search (when needed) and therefore recommend to Muslims to avail this option over the nude body scanners.

As reported by the Detroit Free Press:

The decision could complicate efforts to intensify screening of potential terrorists who are Muslim. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt in Detroit by a Muslim suspect from Nigeria, some have called for the use of body scanners at airports to find explosives and other dangerous materials carried by terrorists. Some airports are now in the process of buying and using the body scanners, which show in graphic detail the outlines of a person’s body.

MORE:

From the March 3rd Times (London):

A Muslim woman was barred from boarding a flight after she refused to undergo a full body scan for religious reasons.

The passenger was passing through security at Manchester Airport when she was selected at random for a full-body scanner.

(via The Corner)

President Obama last week:

What I have said is that both the House bill and the Senate bill were 90 percent there. Ten percent of each bill, people had some problems with, and legitimately so. So we were just about to clean those up, and then Massachusetts' election happened. Suddenly everybody says, oh, oh, it's over.

Does this mean he didn't know:

A) Massachusetts was holding an election?

B) Any overstretched reform legislation had to be passed in the first year of the new Administration?

C) His proposals were unpopular?

The Fraiser Institute charts the effectiveness of Canada's single payer system, using the metric of waiting times between when a physician refers a patient to a specialist and when treatment is received, showing the changes between 1993 and 2009:


source: Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, 2009 Report at 57

As the report explains (at 7, 10 & 37):

Despite a two week fall from the high reached in 2007, the total wait time remains high, both historically and internationally. Compared to 1993, the total waiting time in 2009 is 73 per cent longer. Moreover, academic studies of waiting time have found that Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes (some times) for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British. . .

One interpretation of hospital waiting lists is that they reflect excess demand for medical treatments per formed in hospitals and that they therefore represent the substitution of "non-price" rationing of scarce resources for rationing by price. In this case, the rationing takes place through enforced waiting for a given treatment or procedure. . .

Further confirmation of the magnitude of Canadian waiting times can be derived from 5 international comparative studies . . . Coyte et al. (1994) found that in the late 1980s, Canadians waited longer than Americans for orthopedic consultation (5.4 versus 3.2 weeks) and for surgery post-consultation (13.5 versus 4.5 weeks). Collins-Nakai et al.(1992) discovered that in 1990, Canadians waited longer than Germans and Americans, respectively, for cardiac catheterization (2.2 months, versus 1.7 months, versus 0 months), angioplasty (11 weeks, versus 7 weeks, versus 0 weeks), and bypass surgery (5.5 months, versus 4.4 months, versus 0 months). Another study of cardiac procedures, by Carroll et al. (1995), revealed that in 1992 Canadians generally waited longer for both elective and urgent coronary artery bypass than did Americans (whether in private or public Veterans' Administration hospitals) and Swedes, and longer than Americans (in either hospital type) for either elective or urgent angiography.

I've said it before. So what explains fact-challenged activists' and leftist legislators' love for single-payer healthcare?

Rational Democrat lawyer/columnist Stuart Taylor in the National Journal:

Reasonable people disagree about how much coercion interrogators should use to extract potentially lifesaving information from terrorists. (None at all, President Obama unwisely ordered soon after taking office.)

But no reasonable person could doubt that starting out with "you have the right to remain silent" is not the way to save lives.

Yet this is essentially the policy into which the Obama administration has locked itself by insisting that it did the right thing when it read Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas Day bomber, his Miranda rights after only 50 minutes of questioning and a hospital visit. . .

The fundamental principle underlying Miranda is the Fifth Amendment right of every person not to be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." And "all the Fifth Amendment forbids is the introduction of coerced statements at trial," as the late, liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in a 1984 opinion, joined by Justices William Brennan and John Paul Stevens.

In other words, neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda forbids aggressive interrogation to protect public safety without Miranda warnings.

The Holder-Obama policy of promptly reading terrorist suspects their Miranda rights comes close to guaranteeing that no timely intelligence will ever be extracted from any of them.

(via reader Doug J.)

Remember the Kos poll of self-identified Republicans? Leftists embraced it as evidence conservatives are extremists. In fact, most answers merely confirmed that Republicans are closer to the mainstream than Markos Moulitsas (who's writing a book calling conservatives an "American Taliban").

Still, at the time, I thought some of the poll results -- particularly regarding President Obama -- did not reflect my views or those of conservative friends. Others were were skeptical about the Kos poll's methodology. So it's useful to compare John Hawkins' tally on Right Wing News when he asked a small sample of right-of-center bloggers a sub-set of ten Kos questions.

I was among the bloggers polled; my answers were:

1) Oppose
2) No
3) No
4) No
5) No
6) No
7) Yes
8) No
9) No
10) No

Questions and full results here.

I've been critical of inflated claims of the number of deaths caused by the Iraq invasion. The two Lancet studies are nonsense at best (fraud at worst), as is the WHO report, activist assertions and especially the ORB poll. Virtually all such counts were tallied by anti-war lefties, via questionable data, eliding causation -- even Iraq Body Count (IBC) argues that all violent civilian deaths there "have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq" even where the killers were terrorists. Terrorist Death Watch, which tracked solely deaths of terrorists, unfortunately went silent two years ago.

This leaves IBC as the least biased group remaining. So what does IRC's year-end 2009 analysis say? That terrorists are far more lethal than coalition soldiers or Iraqi police. Unfortunately, IBC cloaks this conclusion.

To its credit, IBC states some facts forthrightly. It admits to "significant improvements in levels of armed and non-state terrorist violence in Iraq," such that the "annual civilian death toll from violence in 2009 was the lowest since the 2003 invasion, at 4,644 by Dec 31." Even better, it now sets forth a separate count of coalition-caused civilian deaths:

Non-combatant Iraqi deaths resulting directly from actions involving US-led coalition forces were dramatically lower than in the preceding year, with a total of 64 reported by Dec 25 (2008: 594): deaths due to air attacks reduced from 365 in 2008 to 0 in 2009 (as of Dec 25). Deaths involving Iraqi forces were down from 519 in 2008 to 103 in 2009.

Of these deaths caused by US-coalition and Iraqi state forces, the number killed in joint actions fell from 114 in 2008 to 16 in 2009; the overall number of civilians killed by state forces (US-coalition, Iraqi, or both) was 999 in 2008 and 151 in 2009.

Conversely, the group concedes that "'anti-occupation' activity continues to play a central part in the deaths of Iraqi civilians."

Ok, but how central? IBC's summary 2009 report won't tell you. Indeed, I was struck by the absence of comparisons in that web page. IBC doesn't do the math -- one has to comb the underlying data. Fortunately, I have. (Subsequent comparison assume 151 coalition-caused civilian deaths (not 167), because that's the figure in IBC's database.)

Initially, the count of coalition-caused civilian deaths represents only 3 percent of all civilian deaths. Though I wish the number were smaller, that's not many. And the mere datapoint obscures the critical question of intent: the fact remains that terrorists deliberately target civilians while we seek to shield them. Civilians killed by the coalition or police are unintentional collateral damage -- mistakes, not murders.

How about the tally of civilians killed by what IBC calls "anti-occupation" forces? (The label is wrong -- they're terrorists or ex Baathists seeking to return to their former dictatorship) The IBC's summary page never says, though the underlying data lists 1041 deaths. The page does allow readers to create charts; this one shows terrorist killings (gray) far outpace those of the coalition forces and the Iraqi government (blue):


source: IBC

Unmentioned is the fact that attributed terrorism accounted for a minimum of almost 7 times more Iraqi civilian deaths than coalition and police forces.

And even that figure substantially underestimates the actual ratio. Obviously, 1041 plus 151 represents only about a quarter of the over 4600 total Iraqi civilian deaths last year. This is because IBC concludes that there were only a "minority of incidents where perpetrators could be positively identified." I don't doubt that a killer's identity sometimes may remain inconclusive. But, of the deaths ascribed to unknown agents, most probably were murdered by terrorists -- as even IBC admits, the difficulty establishing causation applies "with the exception of uniformed forces." As a reminder, most coalition soldiers and Iraqi police wear uniforms. So it's likely that terrorists were behind the vast majority of the deaths by "unknowns."

This is supported by other numbers reported by IBC itself. It classes each murder by one of three types of violence: explosive, gunfire and suicide bombs. First, obviously, neither the coalition nor Iraqi police use suicide bombs (the IBC database lists zero suicide bomb deaths caused by coalition or police forces). So all "unknown" suicide bomb killings last year -- the IBC reports 692 such murders without a proven responsible party -- were the work of terrorists.

Second, terrorists were behind most killings by explosives. Even IBC labels bomb murders -- "706 explosions causing 2,972 deaths" -- as victims of "everyday terrorism." This is 60 percent of total deaths last year. Yet, despite that admission, IBC's database doesn't acknowledge that terrorists use terrorism -- most who died by planted bombs were victims of terrorism (the database ascribes less than 1 percent of explosive deaths to coalition and police forces). Adding bombing deaths alone almost triples the number of civilians killed by terrorists, to nearly 20 times the count of civilians killed by identified coalition/police.

So it would be fair to presume virtually all "unknown" civilian deaths were caused by terrorists. Even assuming, generously, that coalition or police forces were responsible for 10 percent of the unattributable deaths, terrorists killed the overwhelming majority of Iraqi civilians:


source: NOfP chart from IBC data

Conclusion: Iraq is a credible representative democracy. Still besieged by terrorist attacks, it's safer than last year--and far better than under Saddam (literally). Put differently, we're winning.

I regret any civilians mistakenly killed by coalition soldiers or Iraqi police. But that represents a small fraction of the violence. In Iraq and elsewhere, terrorists are by far more lethal. The coalition and the Iraqi government are a force for good; terrorists remain the principal threat to civilians. Notwithstanding the protests of fact-challenged progressives.

I'm taking a break from blogging for the rest of the long weekend. Back Tuesday.

From last Thursday's Washington Examiner:


source: Nate Beeler in the February 4th Examiner

January 26, 2010, NY Times editorial titled "Don't Give Up Now":

It would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to abandon comprehensive health care reform just because voters in the Massachusetts Senate race last week decided that they liked the Republican, Scott Brown, more than the Democrat, Martha Coakley.

There is no question that without a filibuster-proof majority it will be a lot harder to pass a bill. But it should not be impossible if Congressional Democrats and the White House show courage and creativity. Health care reform is too important to throw away, and it is not too late to persuade voters that it is in their interest. . .

Recent polls show that the public is divided, with more opposing the bills than favoring them. The negatives have been driven up by critics’ distortions about a supposed government takeover of medicine and the tawdry deal-making necessary to win 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. . .

We are hearing a lot of talk in Washington, including from President Obama, about possibly paring down the current bills -- to cover many fewer of the uninsured and focus instead on reeling in the worst abuses of the insurance industry and reining in health care costs. That could be difficult technically; many of the parts are not easy to disentangle without undermining their effectiveness. And the politics on Capitol Hill -- where the Republicans are determined to oppose pretty much anything President Obama endorses -- are unlikely to get easier. . .

This is a once-in-a-generation chance. President Obama must explain to the American people why reform is essential to their health and security and this nation’s future. And he must insist that Congress finish the job.

June 23, 2005, NY Times editorial titled "Social Security Follies":

Congressional Republicans have begun talking with top White House aides about an exit strategy -- not from Iraq, but from the winless quagmire of President Bush's campaign to privatize Social Security. Mr. Bush has responded to this new political reality by, first, insisting that the American people do not yet understand the virtues of privatization, and second, blaming the failure of his deservedly unpopular plan on Congressional Democrats.

That's absurd.

After listening to Mr. Bush talk of little else during his second term, the American people understand quite well what he is proposing for Social Security, and by wide margins reject it. In fact, the polls show that the more they learn about privatization, the less they like it. And with good reason. The very real risks of privatization -- in terms of retirement security and the enormous budgetary cost to the country -- far outweigh the potential rewards.

So when Congressional Republican leaders tell the president that Social Security private accounts are a nonstarter, they are conveying the informed views of their constituents.

Mr. Bush has reacted by railing against Democrats for obstruction -- as if Democrats are duty-bound to breathe life into his agenda and, even sillier, as if opposing a plan that the people do not want is an illegitimate tactic for an opposition party. . .

Enough is enough.

For the supposed "paper of record," the Democrats always are right--even if it requires flip-flopping on procedural legitimacy.

(via Megan McArdle)

UPDATE: below

From the February 2nd National Post (Canada):

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

"In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."

Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.

"It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province," said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.

It's not just access to specialists. Canada's single payer healthcare increases wait times and contributes to a shortage of doctors -- making America Canada's health safety valve. By contrast, asks Critical Condition's Jeffrey Anderson, "When was the last time you heard of an Obamacare-supporting senator, representative, or administration official heading to Canada for a major medical procedure?"

MORE:

Williams explains his decision: "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." In other words, Canadian Provincial Premier confirms U.S. has "best possible health care."

Megan McArdle in the Atlantic:

I have a serious question for the people who are mounting [the "blame Bush"] defense: at what point in his presidency is Obama actually responsible for any bad thing that happens? Two years? Five? Can we pick a date for when bad things that happen on Obama's are actually in some measure the responsibility of one Barack Obama, rather than his long gone predecessor? And then stick with that date? Conversely, can we agree that as long as the bad things that happen are really George Bush's fault, any good things that happen should probably be chalked up to his administration as well?

President Obama promised unprecedented transparency in his Administration, especially in fiscal policy. He hasn't delivered, either in general or in budgeting. And it's getting worse.

Last year, the Administration pushed a cap-and-trade plan that included punishing taxation, conceived in part to offset Federal spending, but supposedly mitigated by plans to distribute free "allowances" (exceptions) back to the hardest hit businesses. These projected receipts and outlays were listed in the 2010 budget ($627 billion over 10 years, see page 26), under instructions from OMB Director Peter Orszag.

Now, cap-and-trade returns in the newly proposed 2011 budget--sort of. Specifically, in totaling the projected deficit in Table S-2 (page 147), there's a line-item labeled "Allowance for climate policy". So Obama's still presuming carbon tax receipts--but shows blanks where the revenue numbers should be. The Administration tries to justify the omission in footnote 3 on page 148:

A comprehensive market-based climate change policy will be deficit neutral because proceeds from emissions allowances will be used to compensate vulnerable families, communities, and businesses during the transition to a clean energy economy. Receipts will also be reserved for investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including support of clean energy technologies, and in adapting to the impacts of climate change, both domestically and in developing countries.

Nonsense, explains Phil Kerpen on FOXForum:

[D]eficit neutrality is beside the point. This is a budget; it’s supposed to show us the total amount of revenue planned and what it’s going to be spent on. The blank line with the above footnote is simply a promise to spend every penny of this huge new tax hike. That's not very comforting to the millions of Americans who will pay the price for this tax, and deserve to see an honest budget that shows how much the tax will raise and precisely how it will be spent.

The blank line for hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in higher taxes and spending flies in the face of every promise this administration has made about transparency and accountability, and conceals the true scope and cost of Obama's budget plans. . .

Now, for the sake of political expediency and to create a façade of fiscal responsibility, Orszag has presented a budget that does exactly the opposite. Obama and Orszag have thrown transparency out the window and created a black box for taxes and spending on climate change hidden inside its 2011 budget. They are still proposing the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, but instead of lowballing the revenue estimate the way they did last year, they are concealing it entirely.

Conclusion: This could be good news -- Obama's "bailing" on cap-and-trade because it's politically dead. Still, budgeting isn't supposed to be on "double-secret probation." Especially when backtracking from the opposite approach a year ago. This White House whitewash falls well below the transparency the President promised.

Forget hope -- start demanding change.

(via Planet Gore)

From the Telegraph (U.K.):

Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists

So that's why Washington's paralyzed: because zealots claim warming causes cooling, along with just about everything else.

(via Planet Gore)

Peter Landers in the Wall Street Journal:

For the first time, government programs next year will account for more than half of all U.S. health-care spending, federal actuaries predict, as the weak economy sends more people into Medicaid and slows growth of private insurance. . .

Public funds accounted for 47% of the $2.34 trillion of national health spending in 2008, the last year for which figures are available. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates in a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Health Affairs that the proportion will rise to 50.4% by 2011. Last year, the federal actuaries had predicted the 50% mark wouldn't be reached until around 2016. . .


source: February 4th WSJ

The rise in Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly and disabled, and Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, is driving an increase in overall health spending.

The paper estimated that U.S. health spending hit $2.5 trillion in 2009, up 5.7% from the previous year. That represents 17.3% of gross domestic product, up from 16.2% in 2008, because the overall economy shrank last year. A decade from now, health spending is projected to hit about $4.5 trillion a year.

Growth of Medicaid accounts for much of the shift toward publicly funded health care. The paper predicted enrollment in Medicaid would rise 5.6% this year and spending would rise 8.9%.

Meanwhile, the number of people with private health insurance is falling slightly because of high unemployment.

(via Critical Condition)

Matt Ridley in The Spectator:

Journalists are wont to moan that the slow death of newspapers will mean a disastrous loss of investigative reporting. The web is all very well, they say, but who will pay for the tenacious sniffing newshounds to flush out the real story? 'Climategate' proves the opposite to be true. It was amateur bloggers who scented the exaggerations, distortions and corruptions in the climate establishment; whereas newspaper reporters, even after the scandal broke, played poodle to their sources.

(via The Corner)

I've argued that Obama's election should trigger the termination of racial preferences. Still, I recognized this result was unlikely, given the left's preference for "group," rather than individual, rights. For state school admissions, this is embodied in a 2003 Supreme Court ruling exempting racial preferences from the 14th Amendment for a further 25 years.

My cynicism was warranted, based on Philippe Bernard's full-page interview with Harvard law prof Randall Kennedy in the February 1st Le Monde (automatic translation here; my rough translation below):

One year after the historic election of the first Black president of the United States, is the backlash mounting against him related to the color of his skin?

Without hesitation, yes. I do not claim that anyone criticizing Barack Obama is racist. But I'm certain that the issue of race permeates every aspect of American life. Some whites do not recognize the legitimacy of a Black head of the United States. Others are only not looking to admit it.. . .

Does Obama represent the emergence of a "post-racial America"?

Of course not! Why did people cry when Obama was elected? The color of his skin had nothing to do with it? Of course it did! Why was that moment so marvelous? Because many people thought they would never see the day when whites would vote for a black man. If America was post-racial, this wouldn't have been said.

Only progressives could use the election of a black President to prove America is racist. As ¡No Pasarán! remarks, "You can't win; I'm telling you, with those people, you can't win. . ."

A day early and a continent away, a cellar-dwelling academic emerged to prognosticate six or more years of racial discrimination. Having already decided we're still in the winter of white discontent, Kennedy and other lefties never checked if the groundhog cast a shadow.

(via Instapundit)

Gerard Alexander in the Washington Post:

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension. . .

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades, a tendency encapsulated by Lionel Trilling's 1950 remark that conservatives do not "express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." During the 1950s and '60s, liberals trivialized the nascent conservative movement. Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics at the time stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival. In 1962, Richard Hofstadter referred to "the Manichaean style of thought, the apocalyptic tendencies, the love of mystification, the intolerance of compromise that are observable in the right-wing mind." . . .

It follows that the thinkers, politicians and citizens who advance conservative ideas must be dupes, quacks or hired guns selling stories they know to be a sham. In this spirit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman regularly dismisses conservative arguments not simply as incorrect, but as lies. Writing last summer, Krugman pondered the duplicity he found evident in 35 years' worth of Wall Street Journal editorial writers: "What do these people really believe? I mean, they're not stupid -- life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they're not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth. . . . The question is, what is that higher truth?"

In Krugman's world, there is no need to take seriously the arguments of "these people" -- only to plumb the depths of their errors and imagine hidden motives.

But, if conservative leaders are crass manipulators, then the rank-and-file Americans who support them must be manipulated at best, or stupid at worst. . .

Perhaps the most important conservative insight being depreciated is the durable warning from free-marketeers that government programs often fail to yield what their architects intend. Democrats have been busy expanding, enacting or proposing major state interventions in financial markets, energy and health care. Supporters of such efforts want to ensure that key decisions will be made in the public interest and be informed, for example, by sound science, the best new medical research or prudent standards of private-sector competition. But public-choice economists have long warned that when decisions are made in large, centralized government programs, political priorities almost always trump other goals.

Even liberals should think twice about the prospect of decisions on innovative surgeries, light bulbs and carbon quotas being directed by legislators grandstanding for the cameras. Of course, thinking twice would be easier if more of them were listening to conservatives at all.

Agreed--several times over. Read the whole thing--but be careful of the caustic reader comments.

(via MaxedOutMama)

President Obama decided to skip a mooted U.S.-E.U. summit in May in Madrid, Spain. The meeting later was canceled; blue state-ers and Euros are appalled.

Columnist Anne Applebaum -- who is married to the Polish Foreign Minister, and lives in Warsaw -- bucks conventional wisdom and salutes the decision in Friday's Washington Post:

The president is absolutely right to ignore what would certainly have been another boring meeting, accompanied by excellent food and inconsequential conversation. I write here as a paid-up Europhile, but also as a Europhile who is thoroughly fed up with Europe’s inability to come up with a united front in its dealings with Russia, a common energy policy, and a more forthright commitment to Afghanistan -- or anywhere else.

More to the point, I am fed up with the endless procedural debates. For a decade, Europe’s leaders wrangled over a constitution -- now called the Lisbon Treaty -- that was supposed to give the continent a clearer voice in international affairs. But when it finally came down to selecting a president and a foreign minister of Europe, the Europeans punted. They chose two perfectly nice, perfectly bland, and completely unknown politicians, neither of whom has yet said or done anything of any consequence. In other words, the real leaders of Europe -- Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France -- don’t want the continent to have a foreign policy at all. But if they don’t want to speak in unison, then why should the American president pretend to listen? He can get a lot more done by calling up Merkel, Sarkozy or Britain’s prime minister for the occasional off-the-record chat.

It didn’t have to be this way: A year ago, at the start of this administration, Europeans had a chance to make a real impression in Washington. All doors were open, all ears were listening, any European coalition that had wanted to help solve one or more of the world’s security issues would have been granted carte blanche.

Nothing happened, no such coalition emerged, and the window of opportunity closed.

See also Mats Persson in the Daily Telegraph (U.K.):

[T]he fundamental question that EU leaders seem incapable of asking -- and much less answering -- is: what exactly did the EU want the US President to come all the way over to Madrid to talk about?

We were told that the era of European navel-gazing would end with the Lisbon Treaty. But the EU is as obsessed as ever with gatherings, family photos and the institutional questions which bore both voters and the rest of the world to tears.

The truth is that the Lisbon Treaty locks in a failing model, an inward-looking model, that puts Brussels at the centre of the universe, when the challenges of the modern world are increasingly global. The awkward institutional set-up created by the Treaty does nothing to make Europe a more powerful or efficient global player. From Haiti to Copenhagen, this is becoming increasingly clear.

If EU leaders really wanted to lure Obama to Europe, they could start by dropping their protectionist trade and agricultural policies and take the lead in the WTO talks; or providing a pragmatic and cost-effective solution to lowering emissions -- one that the rest of the world could afford to follow; or spending its money on defence and security; or creating a financial and regulatory framework which underpins global, sustainable initiatives rather than undermining them.

Until the EU comes up with something actually worth talking about, it's not surprising that Obama thinks that it's more important to travel to Asia, South Africa and to attend NATO summits. Appearing in the EU's latest self-congratulation ritual is something that the leader of the world's most powerful nation has done well to stay clear of.

Agreed.

(via reader Helen W.)

From the Detroit News' Henry Payne:


source: Comics.com, Feb. 5th

(via Planet Gore)

In Friday's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer explains that Democrats view democracy:

through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.' "

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it [health care] more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice.

(via reader Josh A.)

Does the fact that "weather is not climate" explain why I'm buried under two feet of snow?

The Clinton Administration kept America out of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bush did the same. Last summer, however, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she regretted we weren't an ICC member, suggesting a policy shift.

Thankfully, that seems less likely. Last month, President Obama's Ambassador for War Crimes, Stephen Rapp, conceded that no US president is likely to recommend Senate ratification of the treaty for the "foreseeable future." Rapp referenced "fears that US officials would be unfairly prosecuted." This is no fantasy: such proceedings repeatedly have been threatened.

Joining the ICC would be fatal to "America's leadership role in both the military operations and the political transition" in troubled nations. It also would accelerate "eroding national sovereignty by divorcing the vital link between the law and the people subject to it." Both explain why progressives promote ratification -- to hinder America and punish Americans. Thankfully, the Administration apparently includes some adults.

Keith Hennessey charts the "average budget deficits measured as a percent of GDP":


source: Keith Hennessey

Hennessey explains:

You can see that budget deficits during President Clinton’s eight years averaged 0.8 percent of GDP. Clinton folks will tell you this is because of his brilliant policies, and in particular the 1993 budget law. I think most of it is the result of tech bubble-induced higher capital gains revenues causing total taxes to surge to record levels. We can have that debate another time.

If I measure President Bush for the nine year period 2001-2009, thus assigning almost all TARP spending to his Presidency, I get an average budget deficit of 2.7% of GDP. (Historical numbers are from OMB’s historical tables. Obama numbers are from Table S-1 in his new budget.) In calculating this nine year average I am adding the horrible FY 2009 into the Bush average, using CBO’s projection for the FY 2009 deficit of 8.3% when President Bush left office in January 2009. Bush therefore gets the deficit hit for most of the TARP, but Obama gets the hit for his stimulus law and the further economic deterioration when he was in office, both of which pushed the actual 2009 deficit to 9.9% of GDP.

You can see a black line within the Bush column. That’s at 2.0%, the average Bush deficit for the eight year period of 2001-2008.

Now let’s turn to President Obama. Remember, we are measuring his average budget deficit through FY 2017, assuming he stays in office for two terms and his new budget is enacted as proposed. I am also being generous by using OMB’s scoring of the President’s budget. CBO is always more pessimistic and would make the Obama numbers look worse.

President Obama’s proposed deficits over the eight-year period FY 2009-2017 are 5.9% of GDP, the light blue bar. That’s more than twice as large as the Bush nine year 2.7% average, and almost three times as large as the Bush eight year 2.0% average. Update: This calculation assumes the full 9.9% FY 2009 deficit in the average, thus it includes the TARP spending and in a sense overlaps with the Bush red bar. The TARP money is being counted with each of them. The next three bars "solve" this problem by excluding all of 2009 (including TARP and stimulus) from the Obama average.

I can imagine someone replying that it’s not fair to blame President Obama for the big deficits we are running as we recover from a severe recession. The next three bars therefore exclude the first one, two, and three years of an assumed eight year Presidency. Surely no one can argue that President Obama should not be held responsible for the budget deficits in years four through eight!

Agreed.

(via Berman Post)