Toomey and Gun Safety

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Saturday that "Toomey could be key to a deal on guns," by Jonathan Tamari (4/06).  By chance I had called Sen. Toomey's office on Friday morning.  His website didn't like gun safety note on the issue's page.  I asked the staffer on the phone if the senator had a position on background checks or limiting the size of ammunition magazines sold.  The staffer sounded weary, no doubt a number of people have been calling.  She said that the senator was in discussion with other senators on the subject.  So he's consistent in what he's telling people.

Book Review: Toomey's Triumph by Harold I. Gullan

Book Review:  Toomey’s Triumph:  Inside a Key Senate Campaign, by Harold I. Gullan.  Philadelphia:  Temple University Press, 2012.

Gullan, an advertising executive turned history professor, writes about the 2010 Senate race.  Instead of taking a standard historical approach he sort of embeds himself in the Toomey campaign and writes chronologically, so at the start of the book he isn’t sure who will be running, let alone who wins. 

Chapter  1 Prelude (March 2010).  Gullan explains how the book got started and introduces the cast of characters.  He approached the campaign and asks if they would be willing to grant him access to campaign activities and interview staff.  At this point Toomey is the Republican candidate.  Incumbent Arlen Specter, who switched from the Republican to the Democratic party, faces Joe Sestak, then the congressman representing the 7^th district.

Chapter 2 Three Paths to April.  This chapter provides family and political background on the three major candidates, including a shorter amount of information on Peggy Luksik, another Republican seeking the office, but given little chance of winning.  The author also goes into detail on Specter’s party switch.

Chapter 3 Setting the Table (May).  The focus here is on the Democratic primary.  There is also biographical information on Toomey’s campaign staff.  This chapter has two rather glaring typographical errors.  Congressman Bob Brady is referred to as “Bill Brady,” (52) and Inquirer reporter Tom Fitzgerald is referred to as “Tom Fitzpatrick” (61).    While Specter’s most recent book said the (in)famous “re-elected” ad did not have much effect on the campaign, Gullan says it is “devasting (59).  Gullan’s powers of observation and writing style are on display when he remarks that Dr. G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College “may use an excess of hair dye” (72).

Chapter 4 “Nothing inappropriate happened” (June).  The chapter title is in reference to the rumor of a job offer in the federal government used as a failed enticement to Joe Sestak to drop out of the race.  The chapter itself focuses on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  John Hanger, then the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and current candidate for governor, is described (77) as having a “strong background in the realities of resources exploration.” 

Chatper 5 The 80 Percent Solution (July).  Gullan focuses on campaign events, such as Joe Sestak’s talk before the PA Press Club, and television ads for the candidates.  He also notes that at campaign stops Sestak will so thoroughly answer questions that reporters will eventually end the conversation so they can write up their story before deadline.  [blogger note:  I can confirm this having personally observed the same phenomenon.]  Gullan also briefly discusses the Corbett / Onorato governor’s race.  He also writes about polls and polling.  

Chapter 6 Maintaining Momentum (August).  Toomey’s consultants (and the fact that he has two primary consultants) are described.  The chapter also has information on debates, interviews, television ads, and campaign positions.  

A few interesting quotes:

As each candidate’s staff seeks to define (and malign) their opponent, with multiple pronouncements emerging each day, this campaign cam sometimes seem like a contest between Sestak’s “Extreme Makeover” and Toomey’s Who wants to be a Millionaire.” (148)

And

Neither Joe Sestak nor Pat Toomey is a particularly compelling orator, nor do their diametrically opposed message really require one.  The difference is that Sestak at least tries for some semblance of oratory, while Toomey does not. (150)

Chapter 7  Seeking the Summit (September).  Another of Gullan’s peculiarities is his use of the term “tea bag” instead of Tea Party.  On p. 169 he refers to “tea bag supported Sharon Angle.”  Personally I think it is best to refer to individuals or groups by the name they use to refer to themselves.  Gullan also notes Sestak’s unusual speech patterns and delivery.  He discusses earmarks and both candidates’ current and past positions on earmarks.  Like many Pennsylvania politicos he is fond of Pennsylvania Cable Network (PCN), and he writes about watching some of their televised political events.

Chapter 8 Driving it Home (October).  The race heats up.  Gullan focuses on campaign events and ads.

Chapter 9 Toomsday (Nov 2, 2010).  Election day and the immediate aftermath.

See other reviews and articles on the book at "Mt. Airy author's book recounts Toomey's campaign," by Lou Mancinelli, Chestnuthilllocal.com

More on Specter

from the inbox:

COUNCILWOMAN BASS RELEASES STATEMENT ON PASSING OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

 

Today, Cindy Bass, Councilwoman for the 8^th District, released the following statement on the passing of former US Senator Arlen Specter.

 

“I am saddened by the loss of Senator Arlen Specter. Senator Specter was a true champion for Philadelphia and consistently fought hard in Washington for the needs of its citizens.

 

“Having had the opportunity to interact with Senator Specter on many occasions, I can say that he was always kind and gracious, and was a real man of the people.

 

“My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this difficult time.”

Marcel Groen, Chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee

Senator Arlen Specter was a giant in Pennsylvania politics. His intellect, character and work ethic served the people of Pennsylvania extremely well . Despite the fact that for most of his career we were on opposite sides of the political aisle, Sen. Specter was a moderate in the best sense of the word, and eschewed the ideological extremes that are so prevalent today.

Our condolences and best wishes go out to the Specter family and all his friends. Sen. Specter will be greatly missed.

The Pennsylvania Cable Network (PCN) will air a special LIVE PCN Call-In program in memory of the Senator on Tuesday, October 16 beginning at 8:00 p.m.

Statements on Specter's Death

various statements from the inbox: 

Statement by Vice President Joe Biden on the Passing of Arlen Specter

 

Jill and I are deeply saddened. Arlen Specter was a great Senator who lived his life the way he died, with dignity and courage. He was my friend and I admired him a great deal. 

 

For over three decades, I watched his political courage accomplish great feats and was awed by his physical courage to never give up.  Arlen never walked away from his principles and was at his best when they were challenged. 

 

Jill and I are thinking of Joan at the moment – she was an incredible partner through his life journey. Our hearts go out to Shanin and Stephen and all who were deeply touched by his life.   

Statement by the President on the Passing of Arlen Specter

 

Arlen Specter was always a fighter.  From his days stamping out corruption as a prosecutor in Philadelphia to his three decades of service in the Senate, Arlen was fiercely independent – never putting party or ideology ahead of the people he was chosen to serve.  He brought that same toughness and determination to his personal struggles, using his own story to inspire others.  When he announced that his cancer had returned in 2005, Arlen said, "I have beaten a brain tumor, bypass heart surgery and many tough political opponents and I'm going to beat this, too."  Arlen fought that battle for seven more years with the same resolve he used to fight for stem-cell research funding, veterans health, and countless other issues that will continue to change lives for years to come.  Michelle and I send our thoughts and prayers to Joan and the rest of the Specter family.  

Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman Jim Burn issued the following statement on the passing of Senator Arlen Specter.

"Senator Arlen Specter was a true Pennsylvania institution whose record of fighting for our Commonwealth is unmatched. Senator Specter's contributions to Pennsylvania and the United States will leave a lasting legacy. Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Specter's family during this difficult time." 

Kathy Boockvar, the Democratic Congressional Nominee (PA-08), released the following statement on the passing of Pennsylvania’s Senator Arlen Specter:

"I am so sad to learn of the loss of Senator Arlen Specter.  Senator Specter exemplified public service at its best, always working with Democrats and Republicans to do what he thought was best for our country. Pennsylvanians and all Americans were fortunate to have the Senator as our representative.

My thoughts and prayers are with the Senator’s family and loved ones. We will always be grateful for his service.”

Book Review: Life Among the Cannibals

Life Among the Cannibals:  A Political Career, A Tea Party Uprising, And The End Of Governing As We Know It, by Arlen Specter, with Charles Robbins.  NY:  Thomas Dunne Books, 2012

This is not light reading.  It is not a beach book or an airplane book, but if you can devote some time to thoughtful reading, in chunks (because it’s too much to take in all at once), this is an excellent book.  The holidays are coming and anyone on your gift list who enjoys politics would appreciate this title.

Specter doesn’t pussyfoot.  If he is describing a situation or event he provides names.  There are footnotes so you can follow up on some things if you wish.  I admire the senator for being so forthright and giving us some insights into government and campaigning.

This post is divided into a chapter by chapter recap of the book followed by some personal observations. 

Specter sets the tone of the book right at the start.   He begins with the primary election in 2010, when he is facing Joe Sestak in a fight to be the Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania senate.  Specter has changed parties after decades in the Senate as a Republican.  He talks about the change in the Senate, how vitriolic it has become.  Readers get a first hint of the details to come, when Specter writes about local reporters and media personalities by name, Mike Smerconish, among them, and political consultants, like Neil Oxman.  Specter recounts his election day tradition of buying a new tie to wear.  The chapter ends with him awaiting election results.

Then we go back for a quick biography.  His upbringing in Kansas, first job as a bike messenger, two years in the Air Force.  Specter was the first Jew hired at a Philadelphia “white shoe” law firm.  His work on a law case involving the Teamsters leads to his involvement on the JFK commission.  Philadelphia Republican boss Billy Meehan financed his early campaigns.  In 1980 he was elected to the Senate.  A lot happens in this chapter but much of it has been told in other books.  This is just a quick recap.

Specter devotes a chapter to telling stories about Senate life, opening with a 2008 moment when Ted Kennedy joins him in the whirlpool at the Senate gym.  There are several gym stories, as well as some off color jokes.  There are also tales of bipartisanship past and compromises on legislation.  Specter took Amtrak to and from DC and there are several train related stories as well.  He writes about Ed Rendell and former congressman Bob Edgar.  Several pages are devoted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  A lot of action is packed into this chapter, with a lot of Pennsylvania political gossip and angles. 

In 2004 Specter was the only incumbent Senator to be primaried.  Pat Toomey ran against him, backed by the Club for Growth, an organization Specter says wanted to defeat him as a show of strength.  President Bush and then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger both campaigned for him.  Afterward some of the women at the Schwarzenegger event complained that the movie star turned politician had pinched their bottoms.  Specter says Richard Mellon Scaife, Pittsburgh Tribune Review owner and publisher backed Toomey and goes into some detail on this.  It was a close election but Specter prevailed.

More Senate tales follow, primarily involving the Judiciary Committee and judicial nominations.   A significant part of this chapter is devoted to the “nuclear option,” the possibility of changing the Senate rules to allow for a simple majority instead of the standard 60 votes needed to vote on judicial nominees.  It never came to a vote but Specter reveals that he would have voted against it.

Ah, and then a chapter devoted to scandals.  Specter supported Sen. Larry Craig when he was accused of lewd behavior.  He said it reminded him of a blackmailing scheme in Philadelphia in the mid-1960s.  Gay men were threatened with prosecution and then a magistrate would offer to delay or halt the case if the accused would pay up.   Other scandals mentioned involved Senators Ted Stevens, John Tower, Bob Packwood, and David Durenberger. 

On to the 2008 stimulus.  This is a juicy chapter, juicier than the previous scandals.   Specter writes about racial politics in Philadelphia, about his relationship with Harry Reid, memories of Andrea Mitchell as a Philadelphia reporter, sitting knee to knee with Sarah Palin on a campaign bus, and the irony of then Congresswoman Marjorie Margolis Mezvinsky agreeing to be the pivotal vote for then President Clinton’s tax proposal in return for his firstborn.  (Chelsea Clinton married Margolis’s son.)   There are even mentions of Bucks County political powerhouse Harry Fawkes.   Specter voted for the stimulus, knowing it would affect his career.

And so the party switch.  After voting for the stimulus Specter knew he could not win as a Republican.  He claims that Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate promised him his seniority would transfer and he could keep his committee assignments but apparently Reid had not okayed this with the Democratic Senators and they nixed the idea.  Reid did not keep his promise.  Specter also writes about the human toll of his party switch.  The Republican staffers assigned to his committee work could not be employed by a Democrat.  His office staff had to decide whether to stay, and risk being hired by other Republicans in the future, or leave in search of another job.  He says he made a mistake by calling some Democrats who were planning to run for Senate, such as Joe Torsella, but not calling Joe Sestak. 

Next is the Tea Party and health care reform chapter.   Specter writes about contentious townhall meetings.   At one in particular he notes a woman who had moved here from Brazil in 1986 complaining about America being a land of entitlements (p. 240).  [Blogger’s note:  He doesn’t give a name but these details fit Bucks County tea party leader Ana Puig.]  He also says that Joe Sestak only held one townhall meeting (p. 250).  [Blogger’s note:  I’m not sure what time period he is referencing but I attended at least two during the 2009-2010 campaign period.]

Having ticked off the Republicans with his stimulus vote Specter ticks off the Democrats with his opposition to card check.   He prefers the current system of workers wanting to unionize to hold a secret ballot.  Card check would allow union organizers to gather a sufficient number of signatures over time.   Montgomery County Republican power broker Bob Asher tells Specter that card check would devastate his business.   Delaware County labor leaders are on friendly terms with Joe Sestak and Specter is disinvited to a union conference.  The topic is of enough interest that Specter attends senate staff meetings on it, surprising those working on the legislation.

The next chapter concerns the primary election.  A large part of this is, as one might expect, negative towards Sestak.  Specter says that early in the race Sestak was irrelevant and later on that Sestak only had to show he was a viable alternative.  Congressman Bob Brady didn’t endorse Specter early in the race.  Teresa Heinz Kerry won’t host a fundraiser for him.  The Club for Growth took his donor list and mailed all of them suggesting they ask for their donations back; Specter suggests this was illegal.  Sestak suggests someone offers him a job at the national level if he will get out of the race.  Remember the famous ad with Specter saying the party switch was necessary to be re-elected, with the word re-elected said with the accent on the wrong syllable?  Specter says the ad wasn’t very effective.   He writes about the poor choice of words when he told Congresswoman Michelle Bachman to act like a lady.   President Obama won’t come and campaign for him  but Vice President Biden does radio ads. 

Specter circles back to election night, where he had left us at the end of the first chapter.    He gets very granular here, writing about people who were ticked off at not being invited into the “war room” to watch the returns.  He lists the drinks that have been named after him.  Again he goes after Sestak, saying he is upset that in an ad Sestak used a picture of him when he had lost his hair after chemo.   He ends by saying there isn’t a Philadelphia political machine anymore. 

Specter is still a senator though, and a Democratic senator.  The day after the primary Sen. Harry Reid tells him he is needed in Washington for a vote.   His staff and those who have worked for him and those who counted on him for favors would no longer have his ear.   President Obama doesn’t acknowledge him on a trip to Pittsburgh.   When Toomey wins the general election, Sen. Bob Casey takes him to lunch, as Specter had taken Casey to lunch when he was elected.  In case  readers didn’t pick up on it earlier in the book, in this chapter Specter makes it clear he does not care much for Senators Harry Reid and Jim DeMint.

In an epilogue Specter offers his suggestions for a more effective government.  He would like to see open primaries, weekend voting and voter registration via “motor voter.”  He thinks people need to be more involved in the political process.  In the Senate the minority party should be allowed to offer amendments to bills.  He is dismayed by the lack of collegiality in the Senate.  In previous years one senator would not campaign against another incumbent senator, regardless of party.  He thinks the debate on judicial nominees should be cut off at 51 votes and that the separation of powers should be respected.

Personal Observations

Specter is one of the few male politicians who can write about his wife well.  Joan Specter comes across as her own person.  She’s an asset to his campaign, as many political wives are, because he “can’t be all bad if he has a nice wife like that” (2).  He says she is graceful and poised (7) and mentions campaigning for her when she ran for city council (2).  When he loses the election she is “unflappable” (297).  It is definitely Arlen’s book and there isn’t much description of his home or personal life but when Joan appears he writes of her positively without going overboard.    

He has an attention to detail that is phenomenal.  He notices things that not that many other people would.  Unusual for many men, this includes wardrobe descriptions.    Note this passage from p. 149:

The president razzed me for putting on a tie.  I was wearing a navy blazer and a patterned tie over a white shirt with blue windowpane checks, a version of my usual sporting-event attire.  The president’s shirt was like mine but with tighter blue checks.

Or this description of someone who asked a question at a townhall meeting

“a middle-aged blonde in a turquoise top and white pants” (240)

Who notices this things?  And it’s not just clothes.  On page 151 he describes various meetings with presidents over the years, down to what kind of chairs they sat in; he recalls the color of President Clinton’s dog. 

One other thing that struck me was the way Specter’s family absorbed his identity as a Senator.  After the party switch he considered serving out his term and not running for re-election.  Joan tells him on the phone “You are Arlen Specter!  You are a giant in the senate.  You have done so many things.  You are bigger than all of them.” (220).  He even mentions that his granddaughters had wrapped his job into their identity (294).  Perhaps this is normal; I just don’t remember reading about it in other political autobiographies, and it isn’t necessarily something that happens for most average peopl.

Co-author note:  Robbins was Specter's Director of Communications and helped write on the the Senator's earlier books.

Toomey in Philly Mag

In case you missed it, Patrick Kerkstra has a nice profile of Senator Pat Toomey is the August issue of Philadelphia Magazine.  It's called "The Surprisingly Moderate Pat Toomey," (Don't let the title fool, you, no, he isn't.)

Review of Pat Toomey's Road to Prosperity

Over a series of posts I reviewed Pat Toomey's Road to Prosperity. Each post covered a chapter or two, with an additional post on how women are presented in the book (hint: by and large they aren't), and another post on his view of the separation of church and state (based on the book). While it is true that I disagree with much of what Toomey says, I also find his reasoning to be cold. Rest assured, this is an economics book; it is not intended as anything even faintly warm and fuzzy. This is perhaps best summed up in his statement on the fact that new jobs are seldom created where old jobs were lost:

This is a very real problem for those individual auto workers and their families, and, as society, we should have a serious discussion about the public policy options for helping them deal with this problem (p. 113)

That strikes me as being particularly heartless. And he has no solution, other than, we'll have to talk about it. Small comfort to those who are left behind.

On other policies, make no mistake that he favors privatizing social security; people will be required to put money into accounts, similar to 529 college savings plans which "for a very modest fee, a financial services firm provides this service efficiently and seamlessly." I am concerned about how those firms will be regulated, what happens if some of the accounts are held by a firm that collapses, and what that modest fee might be.

You are encouraged to read the book for yourself, although these posts may direct you to specific sections you might want to focus on. A note on his sources is also provided below.


Pat Toomey: No Ladies' Man
Introduction and Chapter 1: Principles of Prosperity
Chapter 2: Lessons from History
Chapter 3: Tax Policy
Chapter 4: Government Spending
Chapter 5: Free Trade Facilitates Economic Growth
Chapter 6: Transforming Social Security
Chapter 7: School Choice
Chapter 8: The Crash of 2008
Chapter 9: The 2009 Lurch Left, and Epilogue

Toomey on church and state


A Note on Sources

Researching and writing a book is a lot of work, and I commend former Congressman Toomey and his co-author for making the effort to do so. However, I do question their use of sources. Research is often a tedious and difficult task, especially if done in a thorough fashion. A writer wanting to reach a diversity of people must make sure the sources refered to reflect some diversity as well. Mr. Toomey does not do well here and if he farmed out the research, his assistants did not do him many favors. Other than government reports the notes section is populated with primarily newspaper articles and reports from and websites of partisan organizations, such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, both conservative think tanks, and the Friedman Foundation, which is dedicated to school choice. While, yes, it is logical to base your book on people who agree with you, it does require you to paddle in a very small pond. There are a number of ways to diversify your sources but they require a lot of work, combing through books, articles, and reports from a variety of publishers, shifting through the strands and weaving together a strong base that brings a larger group together.

Limiting yourself to what you can find easily among your friends leaves you with a flimsy foundation. As one example. When Toomey wants to make a point about the effect of government regulation on the Great Depression (in chapter 2) he cites four works but depends more heavily on one than the others. A book by Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz is cited once, perhaps because that particular work has little to say on the subject. Another book by Gene Smiley is listed in the references a total of five times. Another book, by Jim Powell (a senior fellow of the Cato Institute), is cited 15 times, but only seven of those times alone; most often Powell is cited in conjunction with another source and that source is usually a book by Amity Shlaes. In addition to the eight times she is cited in conjunction with someone else, 7 times with Powell, she is cited 14 times on her own, for a total of 22 citations.

Why does this matter? I did some checking on Shlaes to see why her book, The Forgotten Man, was so important, why Toomey referenced it so frequently. I found a number of reviews of it. The popular press seemed to like it; the scholarly publications not so much. The Journal of Economic History (68, 2008, 325-328) says "Schlaes and many others sadly perpetuate this incorrect myth [of the New Deal as a Keynesian response to the Depression]. While JEH praises the books storytelling structure and calls it "a welcome addition to Great Depression scholarship" it says it is less successful as an "analysis of Roosevelt's New Deal economic policy..." Yet this was how Toomey was citing it. Labor History (50#2, 2008, 217-221), as one might expect, also does not like it, although the review does say the book was praised it the Wall St. Journal and Commentary. The review refers to her "ideologically driven bent" and her book as a "tract for unbridled self-interest." In the New Republic (Mar 18, 2009, pp. 38-42), the review states:

Now here is the extremely strange thing about the Forgotten Man: it does not really argue that the New Deal failed. In fact, Shlaes does not make any actual argument at all, though she does venture some bold claims, which she both fails to substantiate and contradicts elsewhere. Reviewing her book in the New York Times, David Leonhardt noted that Shlaes makes her arguments "mostly by implication." This is putting it kindly. Shlaes introduces the book by asserting her thesis, but she barely even tries to demonstrate it.

American History (December 2007, 63-64) says Shlaes "makes no attempt to be balanced." The reviewer states "She cherry picks economic data to make her case ..." Even Commentary (Sept 2007, 72-77) has some reservations: "If it is true that New Deal policies were not so effective in ending the depression, it is also true that FDR's leadership was instrumental in maintaining the public's faith that the crisis could be met within the boundaries of traditional institutions."

Why does this matter? If Toomey is only reading and listening to people who agree with him he is only hearing half of the story. Each time he cuts the pie, to limit references to women in his book, to limit his sources to only those from a few conservative organizations or those whose thinking is like his own, he closes off part of the world. Eventually he ends up representing only a select few.

Pat Toomey: No Ladies' Man

Pat Toomey is the Republican candidate for Senate. Reading through his book, The Road to Prosperity, I noticed something. Women are practically non-existent. Even though his co-author, Nachama Soloveichik, is female, he seldom references women in the book. Most people these days will make an attempt to balance out pronouns, so that not every hypothetical example is a "he" or "him" and to ensure that a good percentage are "she" or "her." Toomey and Soloveichik seldom reference women at all. All but one worker is male (the only exception is a hypothetical fashion designer). He does reference congressmen or -women in one place. Otherwise all workers are "he" or "his" or "him." Women are referenced as a mother who buys inexpensive Chinese-made clothes for her children, and as single mothers with little education. Even the American taxpayer is referenced as "he." Does this mean if Toomey is elected the IRS will stop taking money out of my check?

I made a list of references in the book to gendered examples. References to historical people (FDR, Herbert Hoover, etc) are not included, though most of those were male. Ditto for experts quoted or referenced in the text (also mostly male). If one hypothetical situation is mentioned more than once only the first reference is listed -- Toomey makes several references to a coffee shop owner, only the first is included below.

Not many people are going to notice this, and perhaps not many will care, but to me it says a lot about how Toomey sees the world -- it is mostly male and women exist only a mothers, fashion designers and congressional representatives. Each example is preceded by the page number on which it appears. This isn't cherry picking. I may have missed one or two but, to the best of my ability, this is complete.

1, coffee shop owner …. he
7, example of farmer, Andy Drysdale
9, homebuilder …. he
10, single person …. himself
13, producer must recover all of his costs
14, the investor, he
17, examples of “ridiculous” projects Cowgirl Hall of Fame
19, shoemaker … his
20, a small homebuilder …. he
42, the trucker … he
52, a worker … he
54, a worker … his tax rate
55, individual families … a working-class father … he
55, entrepreneur … he
58, carpenter … his
64, “Consider a young man from a middle-class family who embarks on a business career” as example of how people move form one income level to another
69, if one man is given …
70, “first, we need to elect congressmen and –women
74, thing that enrich our lives …. piano lessons for a daughter
80, no rational person would ever fund with his own money ...
90, “What bureaucrat feels the need to spend money on the Cowgirl Hall of Fame”
91, the American taxpayer … he
100, An American mom chooses to buy Chinese-made clothes for her children …
100, a Chinese farmer … his
101, one man trims trees, another is a heart surgeon
118, Chinese farmer … his
119, a worker … his
122, Ida Mae Fuller – first American to get social security (paid in $44, received $22K)
127, cites case of Ephram Nestor, Bulgarian immigrant deported
128, your surviving spouse … she
129, a hypothetical 25 year old male
131, among occupations mentioned … fashion designer … she
134, a worker … he
137, cites Kathleen Casey-Kirscling – first baby boom to file for social security benefits
150, random college student … he
172, broken homes, kids “are raised by a parent who has little education herself”
177, home buyer … he
214, productive activities … men and women producing goods and services

China, Toomey, and Wall Street

Something interesting showed up in a New Yorker article this week (11/01). The article itself, "The Online Threat," by Seymour Hersch, is on cyber warfare. This passage caught my eye:

James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who worked for the Departments of State and Commerce in the Clinton Administration, has written extensively on the huge economic costs due to cyber espionage from China and other countries, like Russia, whose hackers are closely linked to organized crime. Lewis, too, made a distinction between this and cyber war: “Current Chinese officials have told me that we’re not going to attack Wall Street, because we basically own it”—a reference to China’s holdings of nearly a trillion dollars in American securities—“and a cyber-war attack would do as much economic harm to us as to you.”

What does this have to do with Pennsylvania politics? One of the candidates for Senate, Republican Pat Toomey agrees with the Chinese. From his book, The Road to Prosperity (p. 105):

Trade skeptics worry about the risks Americans take when we borrow heavily from the Chinese. They argue that the Chinese government might quickly sell off our bonds some day, driving down bond prices and raising the corresponding interest rate the United States would have to pay on new debt. But the Chinese have no incentive to do such a thing -- at least not for now.

Neither of these passages makes me very comfortable. I'd rather we weren't so heavily indebted to another county. I also plan to vote for Joe Sestak.

Chapter 9 and Epilogue of Toomey's Road to Prosperity

Partial review of The Road to Prosperity: How to Grow Our Economy and Revive the American Dream, by Patrick J. Toomey and Nachama Soloveichik. NY: Wiley, 2009.

A few years ago I wrote a lengthy multi-part review of Rick Santorum’s book. I’d like to do something similar for Toomey’s Road to Prosperity. Each post will discuss one or more chapters of the book with a post at the end with a linked list of all the entries and some final thoughts.

Chapter 9 is "The 2009 Lurch Left" (pp. 195-214), followed by the Epilogue (215-216).

People have forgotten that the economy has swings and expect a quick government intervention and fix. "This substitution o fcentralized, politically driven economic controls in place of personal and economic freedom invariably diminishes prosperity." (196).

Bailouts

We should not have bailed out banks, car companies, and mortgage companies. Toomey says that the lack of lending by banks was not due to an unwillingness to lend but because there was little demand for loans. Few banks had toxic assets that needed to be bought out (198). Insolvent companies should have gone into bankruptcy.

Mark to Market Accounting

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is letting companies to decide how to value their assets. Toomey advocates splitting this into two reporting methods, using mark to market for financial reporting and a more conservative method for capital adequacy. No, I don't know what this means either.

Bankruptcy

Toomey thinks banks should have gone into bankruptcy instead of being bailed out. He thinks that a bankruptcy would have lost money for stockholders but made deposits would have been guaranteed by the government. Debt holders would have taken a loss. I disagree with him on deposits -- that only guarantees certain kinds of deposits and only for a certain amount. He suggests expedited bankruptcy for banks. A little later he says "The guarantees of deposits, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities, hundreds of billions in mortgage-backed securities, even automotive warranties collectively impose the biggest increase in contingent liabilities on the American taxpayer in history. (202)" Moving on the state government, Toomey says that most states run deficits and over promised pension and retiree health care programs which are unfunded. By bailing out the states just exacerbates the problem and undercuts political accountability.

Tighten the Federal Belt

"Obsolete programs, earmarks, subsidies, price supports, and bailouts and handouts to corporations and state and local governments are all excellent candidates for significant reduction and, in many cases, outright eliminations. (205)" Another option is across the board spending cuts. While he himself does not list specific programs he would cut he says groups such as the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, and National Taxpayers Union have specific lists that we should look at. I looked at one of these, the Cato Institute. It's spending cuts site is www.downsizinggovernment.org. It advocates closing down the department of education, replacing medicare and medicaid with vouchers and tax credits, ending minority business support, ending head start, and sending research subsidies for the department of energy.

Tax Hikes

Toomey rattles off a list of tax hikes he thinks the Obama administration will implement and then says it amounts to class warfare.

Cut Taxes Instead

Toomey points out that the stimulus bill costs $787 billion and total corporate incomes taxes each year are about $300 billion. He suggests that instead of the stimulus we eliminate corporate incomes taxes and this would attract a "a flood of new capital investment" (206). Or he says we could have reduced both employee and employer payroll taxes by half for two years. I'm not sure this would have provided any comfort to the unemployed. He thinks we should eliminate corporate gains taxes entirely, extend 2003 tax cuts permanently, and lower top corporate income tax rate to 25%.

Government-dictated Industrial Policy Will Fail

He cites the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea as examples of how government controlled economies fail, and goes on to say that Obama has stepped-up central planning. In discussing the government bailout of GM he says Obama suggested the company make more small fuel-efficient cars, though Toomey says those cars are not what the American public wants to drive. Other examples of government control are expanded health insurance, energy production, and carbon emissions. He says "Only the unordered, spontaneous activity of people in a market, responding to that great aggregator of all information -- the price mechanism -- can allocate resources where they are truly needed and valued. (209)." I'm not sure who would bear the costs of research & development in that case as that is a front-loaded expense that does not always (or even often) lead to profit.

Denying Worker's Freedom

Toomey thinks the reason unions are in decline is that the higher costs of labor from less flexibile work rules reduces productivity and therefore makes union shops less competitive. The Employee Free Choice Act, which allows a union to gather signatures from 50% of workers in a company in lieu of a one-time ballot, would, in his view, allow unions to intimidate works. As a former elected union official I would like to point out that it is just as easy for corporate management to intimidate workers not to vote in secret ballot elections. The bill also imposes binding arbitration in contract disputes. In my view, without binding arbitration companies will just walk away and ignore an arbitor's findings. He says that workers are wary of joining unions after seeing what happened to steelworkers and automobile workers. I think it is less what the unions did than outsourcing of jobs and unfair trade practices.

Slouching Towards Protectionism

Toomey thinks Obama has instituted "buy American" legislation and that other countries have followed suit which means prices are higher in the U.S. He re-states earlier views that free trade agreements benefit the US because we sell more goods to other countries that way, and American consumers get lower priced goods here.

Cap and Trade

Toomey is very much against cap and trade legislation. He thinks it will put the US at a trade disadvantage as China and India are unlikely to institute similar laws and European countries will evade them. Businesses would have little choice but to pass those increased costs along to consumers. He also thinks it would have minimal effect on the global climate. Instead he suggests increasing the use of nuclear power which he calls "safe, clean, economically competitive to alternatives, and available to be significantly scaled up" (213), though we would need some technological breakthroughs. The word safe is relative, depending on how close to a plant you live, and there is still the worrisome problem of what to do with nuclear waste, especially given his general dislike of government intervention. We would be dependent on the nuclear industry to provide adequate storage for nuclear waste and this makes me a tad nervous.

Conclusions

Recent government actions are similar to those instituted by presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, but he thinks it is not too late to change course.

Book Epilogue

He again reiterates his basic economic policies: property rights, free markets, low taxes and government spending, and a stable currency. Among the items he notes as signs that voters have taken note of government encroachment of these policies is an increase in sales of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. He hopes his book will persuade people to defend the principles he espouses.

Toomey on Church and State

There has been a lot in the news today about a Delaware senate candidate's comments on the separation of church and state. Pat Toomey, running for Senate in Pennsylvania, wrote something similar in his book, The Road to Prosperity. From page 170:

The best way to address this argument [school vouchers used at religious schools] is to take a look at the Constitution itself. The relevant portion of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The text of the Constitution is pretty clear about what is prohibited -- an establishment of religion. constitutional scholars have argued for years over the subtleties of the Establishment Clause, as it is know, but how exactly does giving money to parents to chose their children's schools constitute "an establishment of religion?"

Proponents of the constitutional argument often refer to Jefferson's famous line regarding a "wall of separation between church and state." They neglect to mention that this metaphorical line was written in an 1802 letter an doesn't appear in the Constitution at all.

Chapter 8 of Toomey's Road to Prosperity

Partial review of The Road to Prosperity: How to Grow Our Economy and Revive the American Dream, by Patrick J. Toomey and Nachama Soloveichik. NY: Wiley, 2009.

A few years ago I wrote a lengthy multi-part review of Rick Santorum’s book. I’d like to do something similar for Toomey’s Road to Prosperity. Each post will discuss one or more chapters of the book with a post at the end with a linked list of all the entries and some final thoughts.

Chapter 8 is “The Crash of 2008” (173 – 194).

Toomey things the financial in the fall of 2008 was caused by failed monetary policy. He sums it up on p. 174:

Certainly, there were greedy investment bankers, imprudent underwriters, and irresponsible home buyers. Greed, imprudence, and irresponsibility – to varying degrees – are permanent character traits of our species. But we do not have permanent crashes. When governments play their appropriate role – provide protection for property rights, the rule of law, and sound money, and interfere minimally in economic choices – markets tend to punish these vices and reward the virtues of hard work, thrift, and responsibility. When governments fail at these functions, havoc reigns.

Really? Seriously? The market punishes greed? This is news to me.

In the “monetary policy” section he lays blame at the feed of the Fed, whom he thinks kept the interest rate too low too long. In the next section to takes Alan Greespan to task.

Then he moves on the legislation and regulation that contributed to the crash. the first is the Community Regulation Act. He dismisses it with this logic:

The legislation was motivated by a concern that banks might discriminate against people on the basis of race or low income. The legislators responsible for the act were evidently unaware that the profit motive was sufficient to induce banks to provide their services wherever they could do so profitably. (182)

From this I take it that Mr. Toomey is unaware of any circumstances under which banks might refurse to loan to qualified people based on their skin color or where they live. Perhaps he has never heard of redlining.

Next up are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Among the charges he makes is that Fannie and Freddie made campaign contributions to members of Congress who, in return, fought efforts to put tougher regulations in place. (Toomey himself has received significant donations from the financial services industry.)

The third item on his list is “mark to market.” This is an accounting principle and one that I have only a loose grasp of. It would be better if you read this section yourself.

Fourth on the list are Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke Toomey blames then for undervaluing Bear Stearns stock when it was forced to sell out to J P Morgan, and for letting Lehman Brothers go under. He also blames them for TARP.

In summation, Toomey thinks the crash of 2008 was caused by government policies.