-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Steven Hayward shows how to make the conservative case against Mitch Daniels — and how not to make it. For the purpose of this post, I’ll focus on Hayward’s case against:
The serious case against Daniels is that he was too eager upon taking office to raise income taxes on upper earners, that his paper-clip-counting ways take frugality to a counterproductive extreme, that his suggestion that we consider cutting defense spending (attacked superficially in the AT piece) is not well thought out or connected to a coherent strategic vision, and that his proposed “truce” on social issues is an unforced fumble that leaves the field open for the disingenuous “safe, legal, and rare” liberals.
Unlike much of the anti-Daniels hysteria, these are just criticisms of the Indiana governor.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/21/grading-mitch-daniels
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dan| 3.21.11 @ 2:45PM
"his suggestion that we consider cutting defense spending (attacked superficially in the AT piece) is not well thought out or connected to a coherent strategic vision"
Maybe, if that means he hasn't articulated a "strategic vision" that is substantially scaled down, but I think the notion that the President of the United States needs a "strategic vision" beyond protecting the US from invasion and protecting our vital proximate national interests is based on interventionist assumptions to begin with.
Did Thomas Jefferson have a "strategic vision" for the US military before he took office?
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.21.11 @ 3:08PM
If Governor Daniels has been instrumental in the establishment of Ethanol Subsidies (he has), if he has continued to perpetrate the scam of turning a viable export into a toxic fuel that costs more (he has), and if tht product uses more energy to create than what it replaces (it does) then he is far worse than the typical distributionist liberal and far more economically challenged than Krugman. It is obvious he does not believe in the fair market, he is nothing more than welfare despot and as such (he is) just this one aspect of his resume precludes any consideration for his candidacy.
Funneling money into the coffers for redistribution works on the state level but on the National stage he is dead in the water.
Red Phillips | 3.21.11 @ 3:27PM
That's fine Michael as long as you apply the same standard consistently to all the candidates. They all tend to suck up to the Ethanol lobby when they are campaigning in Iowa. Which of the potential candidates do you think will be willing to take a stand against Ethanol subsidies? I'm sure Ron Paul will. Who else? (I'm asking sincerely. I don't know.)
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.21.11 @ 4:51PM
Red this is why I lean toward Palin. Virtually the entire list of has- been’s are proven to say anything as far as distributing income in whatever regional forum that resonates. Palin was atypical; she got more money from the oil to the people of Alaska. Funding ethanol, which every single Senator and Representative from Nebraska does, is not the same type of distribution. More oil from Anwar will help the nation; more ethanol from Nebraska will institute further hardship on the taxpayer, not relief from foreign dependence as is most often cited. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon, ethanol is less efficient, and ethanol has a negative balance sheet as “fuel.”
I Survived Arlen Specter| 3.21.11 @ 5:31PM
Michael, while your comments were directed at another poster I just want to say I agree with your reasoning entirely. Palin doesn't offer doublespeak in my opinion as the others do & if she runs she will have not only my vote, but my support. I will work to make a Palin Presidency possible. Mitch Daniels? No. I don't trust him at all. Take care Michael & God bless!
Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:18PM
I'd love to have Sarah run. Actually, there are several I like---Bolton (a Goldwater Conservative), Palin, Cain, West. Pence and DeMint would also be fine. That's six right there.
But not Romney. Please, not Romney.
darcy| 3.22.11 @ 2:56AM
I'm not too keen on Palin, but otherwise, I like your list alot, OT.
NO to: Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, Christie, J.Bush.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.22.11 @ 6:38AM
Palin, Cain, West and DeMint are all solid conservatives, although Palin is my preferred candidate.
Romney and Daniels are big government liberals and both of them supported (or still support) big government fiscal, economic, HC plan, and energy-related policies.
Energy, Obama's socialized medicine scheme, and America's fiscal mess will be the three key issues of the upcoming presidential campaign. Only Republicans can remove these issues from the table - by nominating Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, or Huntsman.
Tennisma| 5.21.11 @ 3:06PM
Cain, West and DeMint ARE all good conservatives...and should be happy right where they are, because none of them are ELECTABLE, nor are they worthy of being elected.
We shouldn't be looking for the BEST conservative we can find to run for the office, we should be looking for a the best 'proven leader' we have in our party, who also has a solid conservative record of accomplishments!
And that person should be a governor or former governor, because that is the only position that really provides the necessary experience for the job!
But former governor Sarah Palin should be scratched off the list, because while she is very popular, she is simply not presidential!
And I am a Sarah Palin fan, just not for that office.
Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:15PM
Perhaps the Bolton. I agree. Ethanol is a mistake.
Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:16PM
Yeah, but Paul is unsound on Pekes, as PG Wodehouse would say.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.22.11 @ 9:15AM
Herman Cain and Sarah Palin, maybe? Bottom line, these ethanol programs must be abolished ASAP. They merely skew the laws of supply and demand, increase the prices of food AND gasoline, and poison the environment.
Bob| 3.21.11 @ 6:46PM
Governor Baldy is a complete zit. But what is exciting is the conduct of his wife, salacious!!!! The rag mags and TMZ will have a field day exposing his cheating spouse.
e cowan| 3.21.11 @ 8:38PM
Has he renounced his support for ethanol subsidies? If not - nuts to him. He is a phony and NOT a real free market conservative.
Eddie Willers| 3.21.11 @ 10:22PM
Gov. Daniels would indeed be a difficult pill to swallow. But look at the bright side. Of all the governors running, he has the best chance of returning to the Republican column a state that went for the President in 2008. Govs. Romney, Pawlenty and Christie (who says he's not running) would have more difficulty returning their states to the Republican column. The states of Govs. Palin, Barbour, Huckabee and Huntsman must remain Republican or the President gets reelected. And how about Sen. Rubio for Vice President, from another state that narrowly went for the President in 2008? Take back Indiana and Florida and we're a long way toward taking back the country.
David T| 3.22.11 @ 9:59AM
Ok, sports fans, here's the latest score: Daniels 1, Obama 49. But don't give up--it's still early in the game. Daniels might pull and upset in Idaho.
darcy| 3.22.11 @ 3:06AM
One side comment, if I may. If the Republican Congressional leadership doesn't get its act together -- and pronto -- the Republicans as a party can go suck eggs.
What happened last week with the CR garbage is only one scintilla removed from being the last straw for this voter. The establishment leadership is fast whipping the incoming conservatives into shape to join them as the go-along-to-get-along Democrat enablers who bear the responsibility for propelling our nation into near-bankruptcy.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.22.11 @ 5:36AM
Yet more utter gibberish from James Antle supposed to whitewash Daniels's dismal record. He refers approvingly to a lousy NRO article written by Stephen Hayward which attacks an article written by me for the American Thinker. To reiterate what I wrote in response to Hayward's article:
My name is Zbigniew Mazurak. I am the author of the "Case against Mitch Daniels", which Stephen Hayward dismisses here. His article is ludicrous and suggests that he hasn't even read the Case, but has rather only skimmed it.
Firstly, my article does NOT begin with an invocation of the ranking of states by CNBC. Rather, it begins with a reminder that Daniels is being billed as a fiscal conservative who can rescue America from its fiscal problems. The evaluation of his record as Governor begins with a FACT which Stephen Hayward conveniently omitted: the fact that Daniels, contrary to the popular myth, has failed to balance the state budget and that the state now has a $1.4 bn budget deficit projected for FY2011 (the current FY).
Mr Hayward then defended Daniels' lousy record as OMB Director, claiming that he isn't responsible for the record deficits of the Bush era. Granted, the Congress did make matters worse (as it usually does), but this doesn't change the fact that the NCLB law and the prescription drug benefit were both key planks of Bush's electoral platform and they were Bush's ideas. Daniels joined the Bush Administration as OMB Director in 2001 knowing this, and he voluntarily enacted (and budgeted for) these policies once they were approved by the Congress. Daniels was under no obligation (other than Bush's orders) to enact them. But he did.
Mr Hayward invoked 9/11 and the 2001 recession in Daniels' defense. But he's wrong. The fiscal costs of 9/11 to the federal government, and shrinking revenue as a result of the recession (which ended in Nov. 2001) were not large enough to explain a swing from a large budget surplus at the beginning of FY2001 to a budget deficit at the end of that FY.
What Mr Hayward also conveniently omitted was that Daniels remained the OMB's Director until 2003 and was responsible for federal budgets for FY2002-FY2004. Each of them had a bigger budget deficit than the previous one; the FY2004 deficit was the largest in post-WW2 history until FY2009. It was Daniels' succcessors who reduced budget deficits.
The key argument that brilliantly debunks Mr Hayward's ridiculous claims is that during the Bush era, Daniels himself said that "[eliminating] the budget deficit was not the highest priority."
Finally, regarding Daniels' unacceptable calls for defense cuts: the AT did not rebuke them superficially. What I wrote in my AT article is the truth, and everyone can verify it on the Internet. Defense cuts would weaken the military, and they would not save more than a pittance (you could abolish the DOD entirely and there would've still been a $1 trillion budget deficit every FY) - and only in the short term, because in the long term, defense cuts would embolden America's militaries, encouraging them to engage in coercion or even war. Then, the US would have to either rearm and fight a new war it didn't want - at a high fiscal and human cost - or do nothing and tolerate the resulting costs.
By the by, while making calls for defense cuts, Daniels has revealed his utter ignorance about America's defense spending, asking if the defense budget was $800 bn per year. No, Governor, it isn't. The FY2011 military budget, including GWOT costs, is $685 bn.
My points still stand. They are correct. I stand by everything I wrote in my article. Mr Hayward's article attacking mine is illogical, based on mere tiny fragments of my article, and factually wrong. He owes me an apology.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.22.11 @ 6:28AM
By the by, a few additional points need to be made:
1) Some people have wrongly attacked me for supposedly claiming that Daniels supports a cap-and-tax scheme. But I didn't claim that. I claimed that the IN Governor believes that global warming is caused by humanity and that humanity needs to act urgently to stop it. And Daniels did indeed say that.
2) Daniels has implemented socialized medicine in Indiana, with his plan that enrolled another 62,000 people in medicaid at the same time that this program is going bankrupt, and provides coverage up to 200% of the federal poverty level. It is financed from a huge cigarette tax hike, which Daniels enacted apparently because he considers himself fit to tell Hoosiers whether or not they can smoke and punitively tax them if they don't obey him. Daniels has thus revealed his Big Government nanny state philosophy.
His plan is very similar, though not identical, to Obama's. Obama's scheme is a key issue which can cost him the White House in 2012 - unless Republicans nominate Mitch Daniels (or Mitt Romney). And if they do, they deserve the landslide electoral defeat that will result if they nominate one of these guys.
Red Phillips | 3.22.11 @ 8:37AM
ZM, it is embarrassingly hypocritical of you to call Daniels out for "his Big Government nanny state philosophy" at home when you advocate a "Big Government nanny state philosophy" abroad. You place as much faith in the ability of big government via the military to shape the affairs of the world as any socialist does in the ability of big government to shape the economy.
It is not credible to talk about cutting the budget without cutting "defense" spending. We can easily slash the "defense" budget, because much of it has nothing to do with the actual defense of the US. It is for the unconstitutional role of policing the globe.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.22.11 @ 9:09AM
No, it is not hypocritical, because I do not advocate any "big government nanny state philosophy" - whether in the US or abroad. I do NOT advocate nation-building campaigns, nor forcing democracy on other countries/nations, nor "defending the opressed", nor dictating political systems to foreign countries/nations. I believe that the only legitimate mission of the US military is to defend America, its interests, and its key allies. But I believe that the US military must be properly funded to execute that mission. So don't presume that you know better than me what I advocate, because you do not.
It IS credible to talk about cutting the budget without cutting defense spending. Defense (i.e. the core defense budget) is a constitutional DUTY of the federal government, a tiny part of the federal budget (less than 15%), and a task that should be a priority for the government. A wise policymaker doesn't enact across-the-board cuts, but rather chooses priorities, defends them, and dispenses with everything that is not necessary.
No, America cannot easily "slash" the defense budget; this would only weaken the military while saving little money in the short term and ZERO money in the long term, while emboldening America's adversaries. The vast majority (though not 100%, but roughly 95%) of the defense budget (as opposed to the GWOT supplemental) is connected directly to the actual defense of the US: training, personnel, HC programs, administrations, bases in the US, equipment, R&D programs, etc. The US is not the world's policeman (and shouldn't be), is not even leading the attacks against the long-time anti-American terrorist Qaddafi (who should've been killed long ago), and the defense budget has nothing to do with policing the globe.
So all of your claims are lies.
Defense spending cuts would weaken the military and constitute a heinous betrayal of the government's #1 constitutional DUTY.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.22.11 @ 9:20AM
By the by, I opposed the bombing of Bosnia, the bombing of Kosovo, and the Iraqi war, and believe that now that the Afghan war has morphed into a war of nation-building, it should be ended. I am also the author of a proposal to dramatically reduce the number of American troopers deployed abroad and American bases maintained abroad - vide my Defense Reform Proposals Package. But for you, it's more convenient to lie about me and about the defense budget.
And before you run your uninformed mouth again, note this: the Congress has already cut the defense budget by $25 bn compared to FY2010 levels, from $550 bn in FY2010 (adjusted for inflation; the nominal number in CY2009 dollars was $533.8 bn) to $525 bn, and the House has voted to reduce that further, to $516 bn. And the military is already suffering problems as a result - vide the Congressional testimonies of Sec. Gates, Deputy SECDEF William Lynn, and DOD Comptroller Robert Hale.
No, America cannot afford to reduce its defense budget.
Red Phillips | 3.22.11 @ 6:33PM
"By the by, I opposed the bombing of Bosnia, the bombing of Kosovo, and the Iraqi war, and believe that now that the Afghan war has morphed into a war of nation-building, it should be ended. I am also the author of a proposal to dramatically reduce the number of American troopers deployed abroad and American bases maintained abroad - vide my Defense Reform Proposals Package."
Good. I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps I did assume some things about you based on your stance against defense cuts, but you are still an interventionist. (I do realize that there are different types of interventionists and have frequently stated such.)
I can think of almost no one who is for current or increased levels of military spending who isn't an interventionist. (I have one person in mind but I'm not sure so I won't speculate.) Because the assumptions that underlie the idea that we can't cut defense spending are fundamentally interventionist and based on grossly exaggerated threat assessments. To be for continued military spending at current levels and a non-interventionist would just be too much cognitive dissonance for one person to handle.
First of all, we have no Constitutional requirement to protect our allies. You want us to protect our allies. We have treaty obligations to some, but those are Cold War relics and we should withdraw from them.
Second, no one disagrees that there is Constitutional authority to defend the US from invasion and protect our vital interests. Much of the problem lies in how we differently define vital interests. The interventionist defines it broadly. The non-interventionist narrowly.
If you do not define our vital interests to include ideological interests, as many do, such as promoting democracy and opposing tyrants, then a lot of your problem seems to be your grossly exaggerated threat assessment. Please tell me who is poised to invade us? Is Cuba about to invade Florida? Is Canada about to invade Maine? Is Russia about to cross the Bering Straight into Alaska? Is some Muslim nation state about to cross the Atlantic, subdue the entire US, and impose Sharia law?
It is foolishness, ZM. The fear mongering and threat exaggeration is intended to keep us fearful and willing to keep handing over our hard earned money to the make work jobs program that our "defense" industry has become.
The US spends on defense roughly what the entire rest of the world spends on defense. This is obnoxious. For such an exaggerated figure, the burden of proof that such huge levels of expenditures are necessary for our defense rests on the person making that claim. The default assumption should be that the US should spend about what other countries do relative to our population and land mass. To defend this sort of spending you must assume for the US some special role in the world. So you may deny that you support the US as global policeman, but your underlying premise is fundamentally interventionists with the US playing a grossly disproportionate role.
Finally, if I made some assumptions about where you were coming from that were wrong, I apologize. You differ in some ways from the modal interventionists. But we have a difference of opinion. You obviously disagree with what I said, but that does not make my contentions "lies." There is no sense upping the ante with that kind of rhetoric. I disagree with you. I think you are wrong. But I would never say you are lying. I would say you are mistaken or misguided. Let's try to keep the debate civil.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.23.11 @ 1:08PM
1) I am not making exaggerated threat assessments nor advocating promiscous interventionism. I believe America cannot afford to reduce its core defense budget (differentiate it from the GWOT supplemental, i.e. spending on Iraq and Afghanistan), because 1) 95% of it is related to the maintenance and modernization of the military itself; 2) little of it is related to Afghanistan or Iraq; 3) there isn't enough waste there to make significant cuts (I've identified ca. $24 bn per year of it); 4) defense spending has ALREADY been reduced from the FY2010 level by $25 bn, and guess what? It has led to significant pain for the military - a lack of spare parts, a lack of enough fuel for enough training hours, and a lack of sufficient funding for sufficient equipment orders.
2) Who exactly threatens America? North Korea has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; it has TD-2 ICBMs capable of reaching Hawaii and Alaska; it is pursuing missiles of increasing range; it threatens American political and economic interests in Asia; ditto China, which is waging an arms race aimed specifically against the US; Iran is pursuing terror against the US and other Western countries through its proxies such as Hezbollah, and is pursuing nuclear weapons and missiles of increasing range; it is also capable of shutting down the SOH. Venezuela has deployed Iranian Shahab-3 missiles on its territory; these are capable of reaching the US. As for Russia - no, it's not going to invade Alaska (although Zhyrinovsky has called for that), but remember that Putin and his KGB buddies are vociferously anti-American thugs, and that Russian bombers notoriously violate the airspace of NATO countries, including the US, Britain, Denmark, and Poland.
3) I wouldn't say that treaty obligations to key allies, such as SK, Japan, Western European countries and Australia are Cold War relics. These allies are actually even more important now, in this multipolar, diverse world, than during the Cold War. Japan has the 3rd biggest economy in the world; it and SK are crucial trade partners as well as staunch allies to the US, insofar as Japan has a pacifist constitution. Britain, Canada and Australia are America's staunchest allies, fighting along the US as early as WW1. Should the US allow Russian bombers to violate British airspace or cede Australia to the Chinese juggernaut? I don't think so. Note: I believe the US should defend key allies, not parasitic clients like Latvia, Albania or Croatia.
4) I am a pragmatic interventionist. I believe the US should intervene militarily abroad, but only if absolutely necessary, i.e. only if American interests or America itself are threatened. Accordingly, I believe that the Vietnamese War, the 1983 Lebanese intervention, the 1992-1993 Somalian intervention, the bombing of Bosnia, the bombing of Kosovo, the Iraqi war, and the two Haitian interventions were unnecessary and therefore wrong. Only the Korean War (ended by Ike in 1953), the first Gulf War (whose only objective was to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, not take Baghdad), the interventions in Grenada and Panama, and the original invasion of Afghanistan (as opposed to the current war of nationbuilding ongoing there) were justified. Also, it is important not just WHEN you intervene, but also HOW. If you do fight, you need to fight ruthlessly, win ASAP, and then go home, not engage in an open-ended "stabilization".
5) The defense budget is justified by America's own defense needs alone. Note that the US has long coastlines, 9 mn sq kms of territory, and a population of 308 mn people (according to the 2010 Census) to defend, as well as genuine global interests. The FY2011 defense budget, not counting spending on Afghanistan and Iraq, is $525 bn, i.e. 3.59% of GDP. It's a light burden on the economy. It's less than 15% of the federal budget. I believe that what the DOD needs is what Gates (himself hardly a defender of bloated defense budgets) says is needed, something that I've analyzed myself and found correct: 540 bn USD for FY2011, 553 bn USD for FY2012.
6) It is not true that the US spends as much on "defense" as the rest of the world combined. It's an often-repeated liberal myth. According to the SIPRI, in CY2009 (FY2010), the US was responsible for only 43% of global military spending, and that assessment was based on underestimated figures for Russia and China. (In reality, China's defense budget was 140 bn USD a early as FY2007.) So no, the US defense budget is not too large.
Derek Leaberry| 3.22.11 @ 9:06AM
Daniels will probably not run because of personal concerns regarding his wife and her desire not to be placed under the media microscope.
Bob| 3.22.11 @ 9:54AM
Bingo! Scratch Daniels. The runt decided not to run. Darn! I was salivating over the scandal brewing over his cheating wife.
Mick Lee| 3.22.11 @ 9:32AM
Ok. Ok. You guys don't like "My Man Mitch". Have it your way. For Indiana, however, Daniels has been very good for us. Indiana is the only state in the midwest that's running in the black.
Bob L. Ies| 3.22.11 @ 11:08AM
Bob, if you have info about Gov. Daniels' wife that is based on actual fact you'd like to share, then by all means, please do so. However, if all you have is rumors to spread, then I'll just conclude you're a lying, gossip-spreading, no-good coward.
Tennisma| 5.21.11 @ 2:46PM
Please tell me that the people posting these insane comments are something OTHER than conservatives?
Many of the names they put forward as their candidates are all very nice people I am sure, and I am also sure that they are only slightly more qualified than Obama!
Thank goodness their are serious people in the GOP and among independents who will ultimately select our candidate, NOT THESE MORONS!
My guess is these morons wouldn't know the difference between a good conservative leader and a used car salesman.