Killing Osama

Some folks are going to say this ad is somehow unfair:

It's not. One of the major divisions between both Obama and Clinton and Obama and McCain during the 2008 campaign was Obama's willingness to take out bin Laden if they know he were hiding in Pakistan. The operative quote, from one of his debates with McCain was:


"That, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out. Now, I think that’s the right strategy; I think that’s the right policy."


Seems like pretty much exactly what happened in Pakistan.  It's entirely fair game to take credit for the things you said you would do, especially when you were attacked for those policies in the prior campaign, and your current opponent also intimidated he would not have taken the same actions.


Still, and this says nothing about the substance of the ad, which is good, but I really dislike Bill Clinton's post-presidential tone and presentation, where he emulates the role of wise, humble elder statesman.  It just seems so transparent to me. Yes, it's persuasive and will appeal to almost everyone, but Clinton's routine is pure schtick.  He's acting.  Here's how Bubba really feels about the whole Osama issue:

"Increasing the Size of Government"

One thing that gets my goat in political debates these days is when folks - generally conservatives and critics of the Obama administration - bemoan that Obama has "permanently increase the size of government."  (approvingly linked to from Romney's top economic advisor, Greg Mankiw).  The general critique goes something like this:

When he (Obama) came into office, he favored a massive injection of new government spending into the economy in the name of “stimulus” — counter-cyclical federal activity aimed at offsetting depressed consumer demand emanating from a recession-battered private sector. The net result provides little if any boost to aggregate demand because the states — and to some extent private citizens — simply pocket the federal money and reduce their deficits and debts. Meanwhile, what federal taxpayers get is a permanent increase in the size of government.

It would be interesting to parse out exactly how Obama has permanently increased the size of government.  First, it would be useful if we had some consensus on what the "size" of government actually relates to.  Is it the number of people the government employs?  This seems unlikely, since, as Krugman has repeatedly highlighted, going back about 20 years, Obama's is the first that resulted in a sustained drop in public employment:



So it's not that.  It could be that conservatives think that the $800 billion stimulus itself amounts to a permanent increase in the size of government - in the sense that once we start spending $800 billion, Congress will continually reauthorize that spending level, creating a new baseline.  But that hasn't happened - the lion's share of the stimulus program was spend in the first two years, and Congress has made almost no attempt to reauthorize that spending (though, considering the underperforming economy, it certainly should have).

I think the only way it permanently increases the size of government would be by increasing government debt.  I don't think this is an intellectual rigorous way of defining the "size" of government - when I think of size of government, I think of what it's permanent spending obligations are (not one-off spending, like the stimulus), or how many people it employs. Still, the stimulus did increase government spending for two years, and that will have to be paid for, so in a limited way it did increase the overall amount of government we'll have to pay for.  Still, compared to other major fiscal events, it is minuscule:

So I don't understand the criticism that the stimulus permanently increased the size of government, when so many other recent programs and policies had a much greater increase, with far fewer critical peep to be heard from stimulus-critics.  But maybe I'm missing something.  Regardless, it would be nice if there were more consensus folks clarified what they mean by "size" of government.

Huckabee

I don't think Huckabee is going to run for president, but if he does, I think he'd be one of the more formidable opponents for Obama. He has some crazy beliefs (creationism, flat tax, anti-gay marriage, etc.) but he doesn't seem like a crazy person. This is significant! Almost all the Republicans actually seem somewhat unhinged and/or out of the mainstream. We all know how Sarah Palin is, but there are others. Here's Tim Pawlenty, who won't win but is really trying, introducing himself to the American public.



I mean, that's weird. Real life isn't a movie. It's just strange. This type of stunt may appeal to the far right of people who vote in Republican primaries, but not to regular Americans.

How about Haley Barbour? He's so out there that he won't even commit to denouncing one of the founders of the KKK. That's crazy! He also talked about going to go see a MLK rally in the 60s in order to pick up girls. What! I know some liberals think that Americans are stupid and racist, but most people won't vote for a guy with that kind of background. It's too far out there.

Anyway -- Huckabee seems rational all the time. He's folksy and well-spoken and humble and funny. And guess what he did today. Defended Obama regarding his ties to Jeremiah Wright! More than anything else, this makes me think he'll run. He knows he's well-positioned to win the primaries, and is already trying to highlight that he's not a crazy nut. Good strategy!

DOMA Arrigato Mr. Obam-o

That is a horrible post headline! Meh.

The Obama administration just announced it will stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. Cool!

DOMA was one of those fairly odious pieces of law Bill Clinton supported during his reelection campaign in 1996. It defined marriage as a union between a male and female and denied the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. What?! Bill Clinton signed that you say? Yeah he did! People should stop thinking he was the man so much -- name one piece of legislation Obama has signed that is so obviously both morally wrong and a sell-out of his core constituency. (Note: this is an unfair question. Obama hasn't had to do this yet because he had unified Democratic control of both houses of Congress. But still!) Clinton had a bunch. Don't Ask Don't Tell. DOMA. Uhh...NAFTA to some people I guess but I like that one. The point is he compromised his values a lot for the sake of winning elections, and I don't think there's much of an argument you can make that Obama has or will do that.

Anyway, this is really good. It's one more step toward gay marriage, which is really one of the most no-brainer civil rights issues of our time. I generally credit whoever disagrees with me with having at least a legitimate argument. Pro-life? I disagree, but I can see why you would want to err on the side of protecting a life if you can't really determine when "life" begins. Tea Party? Bunch of nuts, generally, but concerns about spending and the deficit need to be taken seriously for our long-term stability. Etc. etc. But I really have never heard any kind of cogent, fact-based (not theological) argument against gay marriage. I've heard a lot! They're all ridiculous.

UPDATE: 8 gay rights victories since Obama took office.