New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Today, two very interesting revelations have been made about two very different presidential candidates. One was a strange family connection, the other was an announcement that the person would join the race.

Recent genealogical research done by Lynne Cheney for a new book has revealed that the Vice President is indeed related to Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. According to her the two men are 8th cousins and trace their common roots back to an early Maryland settler. A lot has been said about the Bush and Clinton dynasties, but if Barack is on the ticket in ‘08 won’t it be the third straight presidential election with a Cheney on the ticket, too?

The latter news is that Stephen Colbert has stated that he will run for president. He announced this on his show where he enumerated that he would run in both parties primaries, but that he would only be running in his native state of South Carolina. It may be interesting to see how he fares. If you consider that about half of eligible voters do not vote, and that a significant portion of those voters are what we would call cynical, and that moreover Colbert has a very loyal fan base–the type that is known to do anything for their fearless leader–I could imagine a respectable turnout for Colbert. (Think less than Biden but more than Gravel). Then again, I surmise that South Carolina’s isn’t the type of electorate that takes a liking to New York-liberal satire.

Popularity: 43% [?]

Mark Steyn writes:

Well, the average US household consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours of electricity. In 2006, the Gores wolfed down nearly 221,000kWh.

Lesson: before you can save the world from other people, you should try saving the world from yourself.

Popularity: 38% [?]

Its nice to see a battle over spending for once in Washington. Surprisingly enough its the Bush White House who is trying to check Congress’ urge to spend. Block grants are the main area over which this disagreement is occurring:

…differences over how much federal aid should be provided to cities and states is only one part of the $22-billion chasm that divides congressional Democratic leaders and the White House.

Despite the fact that $22 billion is a large amount of purchasing power, in the context of our whole economy it does not make a dent in government spending. Additionally, cutting federal aid expenditures will do little to the Federal budget on the whole. If a real initiative to reduce the size of government existed it would aim at reforming entitlement spending which account for about 2/3 of total spending.

Moreover Social Security and Medicare especially are growing at a rate that make them grotesque liabilities in the near future.

[According to] Congressional Budget Office that Social Security and Medicare outlays will rise from 8.5 percent of annual economic output to 10.5 percent in 2015 and 15 percent in 2030.

These costs, in turn, would force the United States to keep borrowing, pushing the ratio of publicly held federal debt from its current level of 37 percent of the economy to about 100 percent in 2030, a level reached in the past only during World War II.

A wise first step would be to curb the growth of entitlements by tying it closer to an inflation index instead of a GDP index. Second would be to cut entitlements in general. Lastly it would be most wise, although most unlikely, to move towards ending these absurdly large bureaucracies.

Nevertheless, courage and reason are in short supply among politicians and I surmise that very few would sacrifice their political lives to initiate such wise reforms.

Popularity: 100% [?]