Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
It's the morning after and along with guests Jonah Goldberg and the WSJ's Bill McGurn, we tackle what it all means, what the future may hold, Paul Ryan's plan, Barney Frank's victory speech, the repudiation of Time Magazine, and of course, a gratuitous Star Trek reference.
Don your amor, here come the bullets:
- According to Wikipedia, Republicans picked up 32 seats in the 1928 election which translated to a 62% majority. In 1974, the GOP lost 48 seats, the largest single loss in U.S. history -- until now.
- Festivus is a holiday featured in "The Strike" episode of Seinfeld. The episode first aired on December 18, 1997. Since then many people have been inspired by the goodness of the Seinfeld holiday and they now celebrate Festivus as any other holiday.
- Congressman Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" has it's own very slick website.
- Jonah mentioned William Voegeli's book Never Enough. Luckily, it was an Encounter Books Pick of The Week about a month ago. Buy it here.
- Ricochet contributor Haley Barbour gave press conference Wednesday alongside House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell as part of the midterm elections triumvirate victory team. Regrettably, he didn't mention us. Nonetheless, speculation about a possible Barbour presidential run has already begun.
- A profile of William F. Buckley from the The Miami News dated April 18th, 1967 in which he discusses his own rule, saying "I'd be the for the most right, viable candidate to win."
- Department store heir and DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor party) candidate Mark Dayton did indeed sell a painting by Renior (as well as another by Toulouse-Lautrec), that he inherited from his mother to help finance his campaign for governor of Minnesota. He claims he sold them for less than they were worth.
- Barney Frank's victory speech. Oy vey.
- One of CNN's ridiculous TweetGraphs. 140 characters aren't enough to describe how #silly they are.
- Back in September, Karl Rove expressed doubts about Christine O'Donnell's ability to win in Delaware. Ricochet contributor Mike Murphy expressed a similar sentiment. Both Rove and Murphy were roundly excoriated by Tea Party loyalists at the time. Turns out, Rove and Murphy were right.
- Almost exactly two years ago, Peter Beinart wrote in Time about the new liberal order and "why shifting attitudes about government could make Democrats the ruling party for a generation." Good call.
- Rob Long's giant brain enables him to host the podcast and read Dana Milbank's column in The Washington Post simultaneously.
- The Star Trek reference was entirely expected, but that doesn't mean we're able to provide a link. A little help, James?
- All of Jonah's recent posts on The Corner are here. We also recommend his Twitter feed.
- Jonah isn't the only one who would like Barack Obama to be more like Silent Cal.
- Are you a member of the Ricochet silent minority? Don't be shy, say hello!
Music in this week's episode:
- Let Yourself Go by James Brown
- Back In Black by AC/DC
The direct link to this week's episode is here (great for mobile devices!), but we'd really love it if you'd subscribe. Not an iTunes user? Please visit our Feedburner page for a number of other subscription options.
The Ricochet Podcast is sponsored by Encounter Books and their Broadside Series. This week's featured title is Obama Health Law: What It Says and How To Overturn It by Betsy McCaughey. Available for $5.99 at EncounterBooks.com.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
SS is pretty easy to fix- the present level of benefits is not the issue, it is the rates of increase. Lock all escalators at the rate of wage inflation minus 1 point (it is presently tied to the higher CPI and they throw in a raise even when the CPI doesn't go up), raise each age by a year (62 to 63, 65 to 66, 67 to 68 for max benefit), and means test. It is Medicare that is a much tougher problem.
Request for James. We need his view on why Minnesota, populated by stolid, seemingly logical Scandanavians, always knowingly elects the nuttiest people. It started in the '30's, when there were two openly socialist governors in a row (Floyd B. Olson and Elmer Benson), then Rudy Perpich the Iron Range dentist, Jesse the Body, the wrestler, Al Franken the bombastic unfunny "comedian".
Now, the worst senator left office, but we get that same unaccomplished, clinically depressive, never-had-a-real-job, admitted alcoholic, ex-Rockefeller in-law, trust fund baby voted in as governor on a "soak the rich" platform?
If I were employable any place else, I'd move tomorrow out of sheer embarrassment.
Jun '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
"Back in September, Karl Rove expressed doubts about Christine O'Donnell's ability to win in Delaware. Ricochet contributor Mike Murphy expressed a similar sentiment. Both Rove and Murphy were roundly excoriated by Tea Party loyalists at the time. Turns out, Rove and Murphy were right."
Not to belabor the point, but Mr. Rove made it a point to repeatedly criticize O'Donnell AFTER she won the primary because his man, Castle, lost. What would O'Donnell's support have looked like if Mr. Rove had either said nothing or if he had the dignity and grace to actually wholeheartedly support the Republican candidate? Mr. Rove's behavior most certainly influenced the outcome of that election. He quite rightly was criticized by Tea Party members. Further, he should have been criticized by Republicans and the Republican leadership as a whole. Instead he gave Establishment Republicans an excuse to stay as far away from O'Donnell as possible. Despite Rove's other accomplishments, his actions in this case were a disservice to the Party and has resulted in a very liberal (former/not so former Marxist) Democrat ascending to this Senate seat. Thanks, Karl. Way to go, buddy.
Jun '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
There was some commentary on the podcast that the American people were somehow put off by or shocked by the "sausage making" of the lawmaking work of Congress. I think the healthcare townhall meetings proved just the opposite. That the American people were fully engaged in the sausage making and knew many parts of the legislation much better than the legislators themselves, some even reciting passages to them that they hadn't bothered to read. What they were shocked by was the disdain expressed by members of Congress for adherence to Constitutional process especially when Alcee Hastings (that paragon of virtue) expressed that "they made up the rules as they go along".
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
It's all easy to fix in Tom Friedman land. In the U.S., not only do you need the political will to get it done, you have to avoid creating perverse incentives. A means test may seem like an obvious winner, but what do you test?
Career earnings? Not bad, but unless you set the bar pretty high (in which case the savings are probably meaningless) you are actually asking people to intentionally underproduce.
Net assets? Well, then you're penalizing those who have planned for retirement.
By the way, it's more than the rate of increase in bennys that's problematic, demography ain't so helpful either. At my workplace there are 4 married couples (including mine) none of whom are in their 20's anymore, and one single guy (50's) I'm the only one with kids.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
Palaeologus
It's all easy to fix in Tom Friedman land. In the U.S., not only do you need the political will to get it done, you have to avoid creating perverse incentives. A means test may seem like an obvious winner, but what do you test?
Career earnings? Not bad, but unless you set the bar pretty high ....
Net assets? Well, then you're penalizing those who have planned for retirement.
The question was not political, it was actuarial. In simple math terms, SS is quite fixable without disaster- if Congress has the guts. In 2005 they didn't.
Means testing is also not that hard. Combine actual monthly income with an imputed value of return on assets as a sinking fund, liquidation period up to age 100.
I am more concerned about these stooges inflating away my retirement savings.
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
Duane Oyen
Means testing is also not that hard. Combine actual monthly income with an imputed value of return on assets as a sinking fund, liquidation period up to age 100.
That was a great piece you linked. Two things stand out:
1. It rejected, unequivocally, means testing.
2. It overestimated the potential savings of price- as opposed to wage-indexing.
I'm no economist, plenty of this stuff is way over my head, but when I read:
"the government calculates his or her average annual earnings over a 35-year career, and then increases that average by the rise in wages over his or her career (not the rise in prices).
This little-known fact helps explain how price indexing could save Social Security. In the United States, wages have historically risen over 1 percent faster per year than prices. Therefore, the purchasing power of Social Security benefits in 2045 is projected to be roughly 50 percent higher than in 2005 for a comparable worker (in constant dollars)."
While wages may have risen faster than prices historically, that seems like an awfully broad brushstroke. Is it true for the middle class since, say, the 70's? I doubt it.
Oct '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
Listened to the podcast today while installing insulation (hey, there's a thread idea...where were YOU when such-and-such an historical Ricochet podcast was being uploaded?), and mention was made of the supposed "Civil War" among Republicans.
Only, it's more Dem projection. There's been a civil war among them since May of 2008, and an editor of Hillbuzz talks about it in a fair amount of detail here:
An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh and His Listeners: With Notes on the Democratic Civil War Already in Progress
I guess they figure if they're undergoing it, everyone else is, too.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
Palaeologus
That was a great piece you linked. Two things stand out:
1. It rejected, unequivocally, means testing.
2. It overestimated the potential savings of price- as opposed to wage-indexing.
While wages may have risen faster than prices historically, that seems like an awfully broad brushstroke. Is it true for the middle class since, say, the 70's? I doubt it. · Nov 4 at 7:46pm
Actually, "progressive indexing" is a fancy name for one type of means testing- changing the initial benefit formula based in some way upon the earnings/means of the beneficiary. You are right that he does frown on explicit means testing at the payout end, due to concerns of losing upper middle class political support; that is a political calculation based on wanting to avoid having SS look like another welfare program as it is in Britain. However, the game has change in the last nearly two years since Pozen wrote that- just look at the comments here, already, because SS is in the hole 7 years earlier than anticipated, no one under 50 believes s/he will see any payout. They just want things fixed at minimal harm.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
(con't) But we need to keep the two elements straight- Pozen's initial indexing is the formula for determining the individual's starting benefit level. The other indexing is the annual payout changes based on CPI indices.
It is pretty clear by all of the current economic markers that labor will be cheaper and essential goods (food, energy, eventually housing on a long run basis after smoothing out the spike) somewhat more costly for a while. The historical trend of CPI moving faster than wage rates, outside of Wall Street derivatives traders, doesn't show signs of reversing. If you like automatically index the lower of the two.
The point is, there are reasonable actuarial approaches that take moderate adjustments to the formulae, flatten the richer end a bit below the savings disincentive threshold because of the access to other assets, and encourage stronger savings at the low end with incentive programs and true personal accounts- even if they are additive to the present level rather than a 2 point diversion from the base FICA rates. Fostering a stake in one's own future is the opportunity/ownership/wealth society and a disincentive for government to excessively inflate.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
This is the 2nd week in a row I've been unable to listen to the podcast. I've written to support but no response - interns busy with all the kudos I guess. Tried 3 different browsers and it won't play in the RSS feed or in iTunes either (older podcasts play fine, newer ones say file could be corrupt or may not be iTunes format). I'm running Windows 7. Any suggestions?
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
Jeanne, maybe you need to clear out your cache, delete the current MP3 file of the podcast you have and re-download.
I like your avatar, BTW. You're looking more and more like Sarah Palin. ;-)
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
Kenneth
It's really disturbing to hear someone on Ricochet advocate generational warfare in such an angry voice.
Boomers had 13% or more of their earnings confiscated by the Federal government throughout their working lives, with the expectation of some return down the line - and now you excoriate us as though we are some sort of welfare mooches?
I'm sorry you came late to the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, but your contempt for your fellow citizens is unseemly. · Nov 3 at 11:20pm
Edited on Nov 03 at 11:22 pm
The vaunted Boomers have refused at every turn to do the necessary fixes to the broken SS system. In fact, you could say they've stood athwart. Now, in the words of Jeremiah Wright, the chickens [will] come home to roost.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
Listened today (Tuesday, 11/9/10) so I'm late to the conversation.
My wife and I raised 5 children, homeschooled them K-12. One is special needs (blind, developmentally disabled) the other 4 either served in the military (7 years Air Force) or are currently serving in the military (Army).
Conservative pundits and politicians lecture us about the demographic time bomb where we're not replacing ourselves. We did our part.
Conservative pundits and politicians lecture us exercising our initiative, and doing whatever it takes to make sure our children receive a good education. We did our part.
Pundits and politicians of all descriptions lecture us about paying our taxes, community involvement, etc. etc. We did (and do) our part.
One of the consequences of doing our part however, is that we were not as successful financially as we might have wished to have been (having devoted our time, talents, and energy to the aforementioned doing our part) or as successful as the members of the panel this week apparently are. (to be continued)
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
We've had 15.3% of our income taken away from us (in the years I scrambled around self-employed scratching out a living instead of collecting unemployment), 7.65% matched by an employer other years. Totalling several hundred thousands of dollars over my lifetime.
That tax exaction has literally prevented me from saving for myself. I'm 60, I expect to have to work until I drop dead. The wrinkle in that plan is being able to find a job as once you cross the age of 40 and lose a job, finding one becomes very, very, very difficult (and please don't tell me age discrimination is illegal, that's would be hilarious if it weren't so painful).
We look like we're middle class, and if SS & Medicare were means tested like food stamps, we wouldn't qualify. That doesn't mean we have any money (every year we have to sell something just to pay the property taxes)
Personally I'd go away happy if the government simply refunded the money I've paid in, keep the employer share. We'll call it even. But that's not going to happen. (to be continued)
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
The cavalier approach taken by some of the panelists (sorry the only voice I recognize is Lileks, and he wasn't in on the discussion) is evidence that on this, like many issues, conservative thought leaders just don't "get it."
Look, I don't think the government owes me a comfortable retirement, any more than I think the taxpayers owe me a hip replacement or heart transplant. I'm not entitled to a guaranteed annual COLA. But since I have been significantly limited in my ability to provide for myself by the government taking money away from me all my life (with the guarantee that money would be there for me when I'm old) I think I have a perfectly reasonable expectation that in fact some money will actually be there without being subjected to means testing or whatever other cockamamie scheme may be cooked by monied elites of whatever political persuasion to welsh on Social Security and Medicare's obligation.
Oct '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #42: One Shibboleth Down
I love Karl Rove when he's debating (and generally mopping the floor with) Libs.
But when it comes to advising the GOP, I think the bloom is off Karl's Rose. We all know his reaction to O'Donnell's defeat of Castle in the DE primary. Well, then he pens a piece for the WSJ that includes this:
"Republicans must not delude themselves: The voters didn't throw out the Democrats because they are enraptured with the GOP. The polling data suggest that many voters, while warming to the party, still remain nervous about it."
Mr. Rove, why do you think voters are not enraptured with the GOP? Why do they still remain nervous about it?
It's because of GOP politicians like...Mike Castle!!! You lament his primary loss because it cost the GOP a shot at winning the Senate, yet it's the politics of "Republicans" like Castle (can you spell "Specter"?) that lead voters to remain skeptical of Republicans!
Maybe if Mr. Rove had been supportive of the O'Donnells of the world, the next Senate would look a lot different. Enraptured, confident voters would follow. And Mr. Rove's reputation would be intact.