Today Instapundit Glenn Reynolds asks: “Back in 2008, the social-cons were all-in for Romney, to the point where Hugh Hewitt’s take became a running tagline (“You know who this is good for? Mitt Romney!”) that’s still used by by bloggers from time to time. Now, not so much. So what changed about Romney since 2008 to make him un-conservative?”
A good question, even though I wasn’t a Romney guy back in 2008. But three obvious answers occur to me:
The Tea Party Happened: The election of Obama and Obama’s extreme big-spending, big-government ways have “radicalized” Republican voters to the point that it’s no longer acceptable to campaign like a conservative and vote like a liberal. As the 2010 primary defeats of Charlie Crist and Mike Castle proved, Republican primary voters are no longer willing to give establishment Republicans a pass on their own free-spending, big government ways, and Mitt Romney is as Establishment as they come.
ObamaCare Happened: Before ObamaCare, Republicans might have been willing to downplay the socialistic, anti-freedom aspects of RomneyCare and its own individual mandate under the guise of state rights and the 10th Amendment. But after the passage of ObamaCare, RomneyCare has become a far greater political and ideological liability to Romney, and one that largely negates one of Republicans’ greatest attack issues against Obama, thus making it a much greater problem than it was in 2008.
Romney Isn’t Running Against john McCain: Despite John McCain’s many personal virtues, his voting record is far more that of an establishment Republican than a rock-ribbed conservative. Be it McCain-Feingold or the Gang of 14, McCain has constantly flirted with RINO-hood in his Senate career, making himself a media darling and infuriating the base. In 2008, there was a solid case to make that Mitt Romney was more conservative than McCain. It’s much harder to make the case that Romney is more conservative than Rick Santorum.
Bottom Line: Romney had flaws that were easier to overlook in 2008. You know whose conservative reputation the last four years have been bad for? Mitt Romney!
So the latest “final” bailout is agreed upon, the Greek parliament passes the austerity measured decreed by their German overlords like good little members of the Eurocratic elite, and for their troubles Greek citizens (whose input on the issue is neither required nor desired) responded to these events with widespread arson and looting.
Here are some protesters expressing their displeasure with austerity measures via the now-traditional medium of Molotov cocktails:
Who are we supposed to root for, the Eurocrats who turned a blind eye to Greece’s spendthrift ways when they let them join the Euro, the Greek bureaucrats who went on an orgy of unsustainable welfare state spending with Germany’s credit card, or the Greek citizens who happily sucked at the welfare state teat as long as Uncle Helmut was paying for it and are now throwing a hissy fit because mean Aunt Angela wants to ween them away? It’s like trying to decide between the pusher who stops giving away free heroin after ten years, or the junkie suddenly denied their fix: There are no heroes or sympathetic actors. Keep giving me my heroin or the Acropolis burns!
Other burning Euro issues:
And those members of the Greek parliament who voted against the deal? 43 members of the socialist and conservative parties were were immediately expelled from their parties. That will teach them not to heed their master’s voice…
Those austerity measures are absolutely set in stone…except that they’re not. “Antonis Samaras, leader of New Democracy and likely the next prime minister, said the measures should be renegotiated after national elections expected in April.” What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.
Forbes spins scenarios. If Greece leaves the Euro, things get slightly worse. All the PIIGS leaving is a bit more serious. Germany leaving the Euro? It makes the the housing bubble aftermath look like a clear blue sky of deepest summer by comparison…
As long as Germany wasn’t complaining, others could make free with Germany’s credit card. Once in the euro, Greece, Italy, Spain, and other countries that bankers used to consider reckless or unstable could borrow at the same rates. (The treaties that bound all these dissimilar countries together stipulated that there would be no bailouts for those who borrowed too much, but bankers obviously didn’t believe that.) A boom in lending pushed up wages and prices in those “peripheral” countries, rendering them uncompetitive. After the financial crisis of 2008, the countries that had overborrowed were saddled with more debt than they could comfortably repay. The eurozone’s Mediterranean members have come to think that Germany ought to rescue them. But the Germany to which they are addressing their petitions is not the penitent, diffident, and easily browbeaten land that they came to know over the last three generations. Germany has its own ideas about economics and morality, and it is ready to insist that its weaker neighbors adhere to them.
(snip)
The German public was dragged into the euro reluctantly and would never have consented to it had they been consulted. “The euro has always been the ‘Golden Calf,’ so to speak,” says Barclays’s economist Thorsten Polleit. “It was forced upon Germans.” There is still a lot of debate about how it was forced upon Germans. The most common explanation is that French president François Mitterrand insisted on the euro as a condition of Germany’s reunification. A number of Germany’s top politicians and economists assured citizens that the new currency would hold prices stable. That turned out to be right. They also promised that this would not mean sharing wealth and bailing out laggards. That turned out to be wrong—and perhaps catastrophically, apocalyptically wrong. In the late nineties, “many chief economists did a lot of client presentations where they told people the euro would be as stable as the German mark,” says Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Commerzbank. “I am quite happy I was young enough not to have had to do this.”
How the latest deal could trigger a crisis “rivaling anything yet seen.”. Also: You know which bank isn’t taking any haircut at all he latest debt deal? The European Central Bank.
This piece by Dan McLaughlin encapsulates why the Tea Party exists, and why it has to fight a willfully heedless Republican establishment, so well that I’m going to quote whopping great chunks from it:
As anyone with a passing familiarity with Republican politics over the past four or five decades knows, conservative magazines and think tanks have been making detailed entitlement reform proposals for most of those years, and Republicans running for offices high and low have been running on platforms of reducing the size and cost of government for just as long. And then nothing happens.
That’s why Congress’ battles over the debt ceiling and related issues provide such a potent example. Basically all Republican Senators profess to be in favor of smaller government, and yet so few are willing to go to the barricades to make it a reality. Now, I’m a realist – there are limits to how much we could expect even a completely united GOP to bring home as long as Obama is the President and Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader. But the repeated spectacle of leading pundits and Beltway Republicans tut-tutting Boehner and company for even trying to use their leverage to exact real concessions is a sign that the message Republican voters have been sending is not getting through to everyone.
(snip)
The related point here – and one that says much about why RedState has put so much energy into intra-party primary battles rather than the production of white papers – is that personnel is policy. The ideas are already there; what is lacking is the necessary corps of people with the will to fight for them.
(snip)
The point of my essay was not to denounce anyone, but to explain the history and depth of the current popular distrust on the Right of leaders who seem unwilling to lead. The battle to restrain runaway government spending is so much smoke and mirrors unless the people who profess to support it in word are dedicated to it in deed. No wealth of position papers, endorsements and Power Point presentations can demonstrate that. Voters and activists who have figured this out are rightly skeptical of those who don’t seem to “get it”. And they are more than willing to embrace flawed champions – even such a creature of the Beltway as Newt Gingrich – if they demonstrate the willingness to actually do something to stop the runaway train of federal spending. Every time some Beltway figure calls Newt or some Tea Party candidate crazy, voters think again, “he might actually be crazy enough to upset some applecarts to get things done.”
Greece and the EU are having their final showdown (I tell you final! This time we mean it! Lather, rinse, repeat!) over the Greek debt crises. Until they do it all over again two months from now.
Some people wonder just what all this has to do with the U.S. economy? Well, the one good thing about having a crack house at the end of the street: No one worries about how crappy your own house looks, because it’s great by comparison. But once the PIIGS start defaulting, getting kicked out of the EuroZone, or both, people are going to start to notice that Obama hasn’t mowed the lawn in months…
Metaphors! I mix them! Now back to all that exciting Euro-defaulting action:
Europe tells Greece take the deal or else. Of course, as Bob Dylan once noted: “When you got nothin, you got nothin to lose.” At this point, who does throwing Greece out of the EuroZone hurt worse: Greece, or Europe? Alternate metaphor: Maybe you should have cut off that gangrenous toe before it spread to your thigh…
And what’s this unacceptable demand Europe is making? To cut deficit spending by…1.5% of GDP. For a country running a deficit of, what, 9% of GDP? “Son, you’ve got to promise you’ll cut down on shooting smack by one-sixth.” Hey Greece (and, for that matter, Europe. And Obama): How about you (and try to keep up with me here) stop all deficit spending? That would take care of the problem, no?
The real reason Germany is asking for total control of Greek finance in exchange for the next bailout? To make Greece say no so they don’t have to bail out the rest of the PIIGS: “How do you preclude Portugal, Ireland and, indeed, Spain from asking for the same deal as Greece, if the negotiations succeed? Answer; you can’t. So the Germans throw a politically impossible demand in front of the Greeks, in effect saying, “No more money unless you effectively surrender your national sovereignty.” And that’s the implied warning ahead for the other periphery countries which look to secure the deal currently on the table for Greece. In effect, the Germans (behind the auspices of the troika) are saying, “It’s fiscal austerity on our terms. You try to renegotiate like the Greeks and we take you over. The other alternative is that you leave.”
This article goes into detail about how exactly they lied.
The leader of the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left says the EU won’t dare kick Greece out. And he also wants a three-year suspension of all payments by Greece to foreign creditors. He may be on to something. When you owe the bank $3,000, you have a problem. When you owe the bank $30 billion, the bank has a problem. The OJ Simpson/Clevon Little technique of holding a gun to your own head just might work. “Do what he says! He’s crazy!”
Spain’s fourth largest airline collapses. “The airline was seen as a flagship of the regional government of Catalonia, which had helped it stay afloat with more than 150m euros of subsidies. The government refused to provide more funding on Friday.”
“California will run out of cash by early March if the state does not take swift action to find $3.3 billion through payment delays and borrowing, according to a letter state Controller John Chiang sent to state lawmakers today.”
Remember this the next time some liberal says that Texas has a budget crises “just like California.” We don’t. The Texas budget battle was like a husband and wife arguing over what to cut back from the household budget to keep putting money in the kids’ college fund. California’s budget crises is like two junkies arguing over whether to sell the baby’s insulin to buy more crack. Texas has never had to worry about whether the lights will stay on or whether the checks the state government writes will bounce or not. Nor will it, as long as the fiscal discipline that comes from having conservative Republicans in charge of the House, Senate and the Governor’s Mansion remains in effect.
The big government, high tax, closed-shop, heavily regulated blue model doesn’t work any more, and whenever you hear that Texas should embrace the California model, what they’re really saying is that big government is so awesome its worth the long-term risk of default and bankruptcy to implement. It isn’t, and it’s not.
You know the problem with doing one of these roundups on the European Debt Crises? I can search for “Euro” just about anytime of the day and night on Google News and come up with a dozen things I could potentially include. So just consider this a Whitman’s European Despair Sampler of possible bad news, as there’s a lot more where this came from:
European Finance Minsters on Greece’s latest bond offer: REJECTED.
In exchange for bailing out Greece yet again, Germany wants Greece to cede control over its tax rates and budget to an EU commission (i.e., Germany). It’s almost touching, this German naivety that Greeks can actually be compelled to obey German laws when they can’t even be compelled to obey Greek laws even now. But despite the fact that such government dictates would be ignored just like they are now, Greeks are still furious at the proposal. (Hat tip: Ace.)
And if Berlin doesn’t get to call the tune? “Germany and the Netherlands are likely to quit the eurozone rather than swallow an indefinite number of ‘unrequited transfers’ to the union’s crisis-stricken nations.”
What will European currency look like after a Euro-zone breakup? Like this.
Another month, another EuroZone bailout fund. The rules for the New and Improved Euro Bailout Fund is: 1. “Access [will] be made conditional on signing a new treaty on fiscal discipline.” 2. “Countries representing 85 percent of the fund’s capital [will make] decisions instead of unanimity among the eurozone 17 – will only apply to authorise ESM loans from existing funds.” So 1.) We get an entire new set of fiscal discipline guidelines for the PIIGs governments to ignore, and 2. Germany will call the tune, and the rest of the Eurozone will dance. At least until the next shuffling of the fiscal deck chairs.
Well, here’s a headline sure to fill investors with confidence: “From now on, in Europe, everything gets worse.”
Spanish unemployment hits 23.4%. And what happens when austerity means they can no longer pay people not to work? That’s he problem with cradle-to-grave European welfare state: sooner or later you run out of your grandchildren’s money…
The Soviet Union yesterday: “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” Greece today: “The old dynamic—with Greece pretending to make structural changes and its lenders pretending to save it from default—has become untenable.”
The whole EU illusion has been predicated on the assumption that Greeks can be made to behave like Germans, and that the EU could manage to forge a new, multi-ethnic, post-national identity in 20 years when Belgium hasn’t been able to do it in almost 200.
Cameron caves. Sadly, this behavior is far more in line with his previous record than his brief stint of standing on principle.
House Republicans are working to rescind the $100 billion IMF bailout fund Nancy Pelosi helped create. They may not succeed, but they might force the Obama Administration to defend backstopping the Euro at a time when the federal budget is still hemorrhaging red ink…
Last week: France’s credit rating makes our latest Euro bailout fund rock solid. This week: oops.
The threat of default is also holding up the merger of two Greek banks, maybe because it’s as yet unclear just how they’ll put European taxpayers on the hook for their losses. Once that’s figured out, I’m sure the merger will fly through…
Those bondholders who can’t stick it to taxpayers are looking at 70% losses for Greek debt.
France’s credit rating, that is. “Standard & Poor’s has downgraded France’s credit rating, French TV reported Friday, while several euro zone countries face the same fate later in the day, according to reports.” Maybe because that “strict” 2012 budget France passed still had a budget deficit of 4.5% of GDP, despite the EU having a “limit” (in much the same way the Professional Wrestling has a “limit” on fouls) of 3.0%.
The race to a Euro-crackup seems to have slowed down to merely a jaunty saunter this week. Maybe once everyone made it to the New Year without a sovereign default, the Eurocrats might have breathed a sigh, confident that there’s still a few miles yet before they went over the falls…
Germany could create a parallel currency—a new D-Mark, pegged at 1.0 to the euro. The German government would guarantee that holders of German government bonds could convert euro securities to new-D-mark instruments on a one-to-one basis up to some designated date, perhaps two years in the future. Private German contracts expressed in euros would switch to new-D-mark claims over the same period. The transition would likely feature a period in which the euro and new D-mark circulate as parallel currencies.
Other countries could follow a path toward reintroduction of their own currencies over a two-year period. For example, Italy could have a new lira at 1.0 to the euro. If all the euro-zone countries followed this course, the vanishing of the euro currency in 2014 would come to resemble the disappearance of the 11 separate European moneys in 2001.
Of course, this would mean that any bonds from the PIIGS with a maturity date more than two years in the future would trade at a heavy discount, but that’s far preferable to the looming Euro crash. But a bigger problem to this proposal actually being implemented is that it reverses the drive to centralize European bureaucracy, and Eurocrats will never stand for that.
Like a squirrel hording nuts for winter, I’ve set aside a few tasty links for you to chew on:
George Will offers up a masterful column on why big government actually increases, rather than decreases, inequality.
Liberals have a rendezvous with regret. Their largest achievement is today’s redistributionist government. But such government is inherently regressive: It tends to distribute power and money to the strong, including itself.
Government becomes big by having big ambitions for supplanting markets as society’s primary allocator of wealth and opportunity. Therefore it becomes a magnet for factions muscular enough, in money or numbers or both, to bend government to their advantage.
[snip]
Not only does redistributionist government direct wealth upward; in asserting a right to do so, it siphons power into itself. A puzzling aspect of our politically contentious era is how little contention there is about the ethics of coercive redistribution by progressive taxation and other government “corrections” of social outcomes it considers unethical or unaesthetic.
This reticence, in an age in which political reticence is rare, reflects the difficulty of articulating principled defenses of these practices. They go undefended because they are generally popular with a public that misunderstands their net effects and because the practices are the political class’s vocation today. The big winners from these practices are that class and the interests adept at collaborating with it.
Government uses redistribution to correct social outcomes that offend it. But government rarely explains, or perhaps even recognizes, the reasoning by which it decides why particular outcomes of consensual market activities are incorrect. When taxes are levied not to efficiently fund government but to impose this or that notion of distributive justice, remember: Taxes are always coerced contributions to government, which is always the first, and often the principal, beneficiary of them.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindel makes the case for Rick Perry:
Mark Styen on the left’s idea of empathy: “In 2008, the Left gleefully mocked Sarah Palin’s live baby. It was only a matter of time before they moved on to a dead one.”
Speaking of Steyn, here are his wishes for a Happy New Year in his usual gloomy, depressing, acerbic way.
And speaking still further of Steyn, he once noted that China will get old before it gets rich. And just what is it like to be old in China now? It really sucks. It turns out Communism’s claims of taking better care of the helpless was just as big a lie as all communism’s other claims…