Link: http://article.nationalreview.com/437808/the-selective-modesty-of-barack-obama/charles-krauthammer?page=1

This article nails it.

Link: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=537684

Good one, Krauthammer, like it like it.

Especially this part:

With the liberal (and professorial) conceit that scientific breakthroughs can be legislated into existence, Obama proposes to give us a new industrial economy.

But is this not what we’ve been trying to do for decades with ethanol, which remains a monumental boondoggle, economically unviable and environmentally damaging to boot?

As with yesterday’s panacea, synfuels, into which Jimmy Carter poured billions.

Notice that Obama no longer talks about Spain, which until recently he repeatedly cited for its visionary subsidies of a blossoming new clean energy industry.

That’s because Spain, now on the verge of bankruptcy, is pledged to reverse its disastrously bloated public spending, including radical cuts in subsidies to its uneconomical photovoltaic industry.

“Alternative fuels” and “green jobs” are the biggest shams going. Ask yourself one thing: if any of these alternative sources of energy are any good, why does the government need to be involved? Why do they need subsidies? Because they are inferior. It all comes down to price. Wind power, along with problems of intermittency, is only competitive because it receives twenty dollars per MwH in federal subsidies. Solar energy is almost five times as expensive to produce as coal. Other alternative energies are projected to be similarly expensive if they ever got into widespread use.

It is true that some sources of energy have greater negative externalities than others, as the Gulf oil spill obviously shows. Fine, build the externality into the price. In fact, the oil spill will build itself into the price, since BP will be paying the cleanup and economic impact costs. And other oil companies will be spending an additional (yet optimal!) amount on safety as they weigh their own risks of a costly disaster against the expense of safety precautions.

In his speech on Tuesday night, Obama said, “[T]he one approach I will not accept is inaction.” Actually, the federal government need not do anything. If the correct property rights are respected and BP owns up to its liabilities (notwithstanding the $75 million limit on economic damages that they have conveniently disregarded), private industry will adjust. The idea that the federal government can solve any problem, and that they can do it better than anyone at all has been disproven time and again, not least by this latest spectacle of ineptitude.

Link: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-250766-oil-deep.html

Krauthammer on the Gulf oil spill. I agree that Obama will be (somewhat) unfairly blamed for what happens. But I also agree that since the Democrats did that to Bush with Katrina, they have it coming to them. Big Time.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209824.html

Good article on the Fort Hood shooting by Krauthammer.

For the record, I think it’s a bit silly to insist on calling this an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of impersonal violence intended to change the policy of an adversary by inducing terror in those remaining. Yes this act was impersonal (it was directed at American soldiers in general, not at anyone Hasan had a personal grudge against). And violent. And it certainly will induce some terror amongst the rest of us. But was it intended to change policy? Not so sure. I think that trying to shoehorn it into that category may make us myopic, only to look at traditional terrorist motives. Crimes can have a religious basis that don’t have a political intent. I’m not saying this didn’t have a political intent at all. But I also don’t think that there is a clean division between terrorism and religious hate crimes. We must keep our eyes open for both, and trying to separate the two by labels may make us only wary of one and not the other.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504334.html

Another home run by Charles Krauthammer. If he had been playing for the Phillies this past week, all those Yankee fans would be as mopey as a Virginia Democrat.

I liked this dig:

[The death of conservatism] was all ridiculous from the beginning. 2008 was a historical anomaly. A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican president, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression. And still he won by only seven points.

I also liked this analysis:

White House apologists will say the Virginia Democrat was weak. If the difference between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds was so great, how come when the same two men ran against each other statewide for attorney general four years ago the race was a virtual dead heat? Which made the ‘09 McDonnell-Deeds rematch the closest you get in politics to a laboratory experiment for measuring the change in external conditions. Run them against each other again when it’s Obamaism in action and see what happens. What happened was a Republican landslide.

Bring down the Krauthammer!

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091003408.html

Good words from Krauthammer about Van Jones and the stupid conspiracy theories about 9/11.

The opening paragraph had me laughing, though:

So Van Jones, the defenestrated White House green-jobs czar, once called Republicans “assholes.” Big deal. I’ve said worse about Democrats. I’ve said worse about Republicans. I’ve said worse about members of my family (you know who you are).

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/21/lets_be_honest_about_death_counseling_97982.html

Charles Krauthammer’s opinion on the whole “death panels” discussion. I’m pretty much in agreement with him, that it’s not the outrage that many on the right hold it up to be, but it is government pushing you to cost them less by not fighting death. And it’s only to be expected when government is in charge.

What to read? My Quite Right blog was created to tune in my readers to what I think are the best articles in political and economic commentary on the internet. But what I convey and comment on is only a tiny fraction of the reporting and perspectives produced every day. So each July I shall indicate who I believe are the essential top 10 writers to consistently read without waiting for me to recommend their specific articles.

These writers are those I read consistently myself. I have assembled this list only after considerable reflection. My criteria for choosing these ten are the following:

• Insightful. While it is important to have columnists who are excellent at reporting news and events (e.g., Lambro, Thomas), this must-view list includes those that provide us with unique and valuable insights into policy debates. They must be opinionated and have an original perspective. Poorly written arguments that introduce new ways of thinking may be more valuable than rehashed well-known arguments that are written with humor and finesse.
• Relevant. The writer must write about issues that are important and are in public discussion. Someone who is too much of an expert or always writes about a single topic can never be a must read. This is a tough hurdle for those columnists who are focused on a narrow range of issues.
• Intelligible. This often is the opposite of intelligent. Some of my favorite writers are academics on economic policy blogs (Kling, Caplan, Cowen), but while they are very insightful and often relevant, their use of jargon and esoteric concepts make them inaccessible to a wider audience.
• Prolific. The writer must write often enough that a reader who follows them will actually get plenty to read. A regular column in a newspaper or web site is almost essential. This criterion eliminates many of the talk radio hosts (e.g. Ingraham, Levin) who otherwise would make the list.
• Agreeable. The writer must have similar core principles to my own. This criterion is questionable yet necessary. After all, if a left-wing writer were insightful, relevant, and intelligible, why would it be not useful to read them? It would, but this list is what to read to find good ideas that work for us, not insights on how the left can swindle the country into accepting their agenda.

If you are a conservative libertarian and free-market fanatic like myself, here is the list of ten writers who will consistently produce must-read material in the coming year:

1. Richard Rahn. This CATO fellow and weekly columnist for The Washington Times consistently hits the nail on the head with current topics in economic policy. He has an excellent grasp of libertarian principles that guide him to an intellectually airtight and politically marketable free-market solution on every issue.
2. Charles Krauthammer. This veteran Washington Post columnist has been elevated to iconic levels in conservative circles lately due to his clever thinking and uncompromising irreverence in recent years. While his foreign policy verges to neoconservative, on domestic policy he is fervently anti-government and knows how to express it well.
3. Mark Steyn. A writer for National Review, Steyn is always thought-provoking, wordsmithy, and entertaining. His best work is on the Islamic threat to Western civilization, but he writes on all topics.
4. Jonah Goldberg. Another writer for National Review, Goldberg is very adept at seeing how seemingly small, non-ideological disputes or encroachments fit into larger patterns and the greater philosophical struggle.
5. Walter Williams. A Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Williams is unrivaled in his ability to apply economic principles to everyday situations and show how voluntary exchange and free markets are more efficient and more moral than government force.
6. Jacob Sullum. This senior editor for Reason magazine finds the great battles between libertarianism and statism and delivers a sharp perspective on why freedom is always the correct path.
7. Caroline Baum. Baum is an up-and-coming commentator on mostly financial and economic issues for Bloomberg. I have never read an article of hers where I didn’t get a good nugget to chew over and good ammunition to lob at left-wing foes.
8. Larry Kudlow. This CNBC talk show anchor also produces weekly commentary on the macro-economy and how government policies affect it. He is an unabashed cheerleader for capitalism, the stock market, economic growth, and supply-side economics.
9. Michelle Malkin. A top-notch extremely prolific journalist who unearths everything about the opposition. With over half a dozen posts a day, you will have no lack of reading material. She often chooses corruption and culture over serious policy discussion, but she does it very well.
10. Amity Shlaes. Another Bloomberg columnist, Shlaes specializes in economic history but often writes on other topics. With all the comparisons of today’s economy to the Great Depression, her repudiations of New Deal solutions will be welcome manna in the coming year.

Also worth keeping an eye on (honorable mentions): Victor Davis Hanson, Tony Blankley, George Will, Thomas Sowell, and David Limbaugh.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040203287.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Krauthammer argues here that Obama’s goals are about “fairness” and distributional issues, rather than about industrial socialism. I have argued this for a long time (see the intro to my JED ratings) with two central themes: (1) economic issues can be split between those intended to regulate markets and those intended to distribute income and wealth; and (2) in the 21st century, believers in capitalism are winning the argument against regulation but losing it against redistribution.

The first theme is definitional and still holds. The second one looks kind of shaky. The financial crisis and the ensuing call for more regulations seemed to disprove it, as faith in the productive and allocative efficiency of capitalism was called into question. However, I think this is a temporary, political setback.

Certainly there are still many on the left who want to regulate and government-micro-manage the economy, and the mainstream media has been successful in painting the financial crisis (but not the auto-bailout) as a failure of capitalism that demands a government response. But as Krauthammer points out, for them this is a diversion, and it is a long-term loser. They see the short-term political gain in blaming free-markets, but most educated Democrats know that the government can at best play the watchdog, not the sleigh-driver. Their real ambition is to push their warped notion of fairness and at the end of the day distribute the bounty that capitalism brings. Since that is a moral argument as opposed to an efficiency one, it is not easily rebuked. While they may yield to proven capitalist methods in how goods are produced, any notion of “fairness” trumps everything, even efficiency. Obama’s reasoning for capital gains tax hikes, despite revenue and efficiency losses, is a perfect example of this.

The risk for conservatives and libertarians is that they will continue to fight for free market principles by only claiming the high ground on efficiency, or in claiming that efficiency is more important than morality or fairness. This works on the regulatory side of economic policy, and the knee-jerk logic is to extend this to the distributional side. You can witness this when conservatives complain that higher taxes on high earners will harm economic growth, or that single-payer health care causes a brain drain, or that we need to bring competition to secondary education. All of these arguments are true. But until conservatives not only add on but lead with moral arguments, such as owning your own problems, or owning what you earn, or personal freedom and responsibility, will they win the victories against redistribution that are rightfully theirs.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_shine_wears_off_faster.html

I love it.

Stick a needle in the eye of all those sheep who voted for hope and change. Even that didn’t last a month.

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/949rsrgi.asp

I most often agree with Charles Krauthammer and particularly admire his pouring of salt over sugar-coated schmaltzy feel-good nonsense that pervades contemporary political discussions.

But in this cover story for the Weekly Standard he exposes the disagreeable fault line between small-government libertarians like myself and his breed of neoconservatives who have for too long had too much influence over our current president, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.

It is not so much what Krauthammer is arguing for that I object to, but how neocons like him argue for it. There are certainly arguments to be made for increasing the gas tax. And he is right to say that it is an economic policy far superior to the brute coercion of CAFE standards. But Krauthammer falls for the same idiotic circular logic that ails movement liberalism. This is very clear in his seventh paragraph. High prices encourage fuel economy he says. Then he goes on to argue that fuel economy is good for people because it will be more … economical … for them. (Give us more of your money so that you will do less with what you have left, and thus keep more of what you earn. Cute.) And it will accomplish what CAFE standards are trying to accomplish but in a more market-friendly efficient way.

That’s the problem with neoconservatives. They are called neo because they used to be liberals, but newly (i.e. in the 1960s and 1970s) became conservatives when they realized that liberals didn’t really get how the world (basic economics, geopolitics) works. But they still share all the goals of liberals, or at least the idea that society’s (i.e., their) goals are an all-important common purpose of shared nirvana that trumps whatever it is that you or I or any individual wants for themselves or their families.

Thus, he is blind to the fact that CAFE standards may be objectionable because they substitute the supposed goal of the collective for the collective goals of individuals. In essence, he only objects to liberal means, not to liberal ends. This is also clear when he says that “a nice detail” with his net-zero tax proposal is that it is “mildly progressive". Writing in a publication that, while certainly tainted as big-government or neocon itself, is widely read and swallowed whole by Republicans and conservatives, he should be careful not to sound accepting or even eager with regard to increasing the progressivity of taxes. A party that has always held a prinicpled stand in favor of flat (i.e., NOT progressive) taxes and whose presidential candidate only two months ago joined a populist backlash against the “redistributionist” rhetoric of the left, does not take kindly to this kind of talk without it at least being qualified as marketing or political deft. The word “nice” hints that Krauthammer actually believes in progressive taxes, itself a progressive cause.

He also rehashes the case, made often before, that there are many externalities to the use of gasoline. Most of these are unassailable (like the geopolitical ones, and the cost of highway infrastructure), some of them very assailable (like global warming). I think it perfectly reasonable to try to agree on, and then price through a federal gas tax, what is the true cost of gasoline inclusive of these externalities. But rationing itself is something that prices do, is not an externality, and is patently bad economics. Furthermore, while I agree that balancing whatever adjustments are needed to a gas tax with some kind of tax cut elsewhere is prudent in these economic times, taking money out of the Social Security trust fund increases a problem (government solvency) bigger than the high cost of energy or energy independence or a temporary economic contraction.

The problem with trying to achieve collective or liberal ends, whether through markets or through regulations, is how to prioritize. Krauthammer and other neoconservatives understand that regulations can not do this and markets can. But all too often they forget that the market itself is nothing but choice, and that every effort to pursue this goal or that through government policy is to substitute the choice of the few or the one over the choice of everyone.