Rick Perry vs World

20 December 2006

Welcome Professors Taylor and Carnahan!

University of St. Thomas Political Science Professors Jon Taylor and Michelle Carnahan have launched a blog. It's called Professors R-Squared. Go visit them. They'll be a welcome addition to the Texasphere. Plus, they're both Republicans, so they'll be especially welcome, for diversity's sake and all.

I had the good fortune of meeting Dr. Taylor a few months ago, so I'm willing to forgive him for not including me on his blogroll.

Memo to some of the Houston media types who read this: quoting Taylor or Carnahan more often would be a refreshing alternative. Diversity is a good thing.

Posted by Evan @ 12/20/06 04:08 PM | Comments (1)

Pelosi passes up Lampson

Last week, Michelle Mittelstadt of the Chronicle reported that:

Nick Lampson, who earned bragging rights for Democrats by claiming the seat once held by Republican powerbroker Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, lost a three-way Texas derby for an Appropriations Committee seat.

The job is a political plum because it permits members to steer millions of dollars in federal funds to their home districts and determine the spending of billions more.

Pelosi's hand-picked Democratic Steering Committee chose for the seat Ciro Rodriguez, the former congressman from San Antonio who thrilled his party with a come-from-behind runoff victory Tuesday over 14-year Republican incumbent Henry Bonilla.

As Kevin Whited noted at Blog Houston:

Pelosi's move can be interpreted as bolstering the Texas Democrat with the better chance of being re-elected in 2008. That's Rodriguez, not Lampson.

My interpretation was pretty similar to Whited's. I didn't think it was blog-worthy at the time, but I guess it's a good point.

Frankly, I was a little surprised that Pelosi didn't appoint Lampson. Lampson tops the list (along with Mark Foley's old district) of vulnerable Democratic incumbents in 2008. If Pelosi thought she could hold onto the seat, she'd have almost definitely put Lampson on Appropriations. The fact that she didn't is a bad sign for Lampson, and a definite signal to the Houston establishment.

I've written before about possible best candidates for CD22 in 2008. I'm quite curious as to who gets in this race (Janek? Eckels? Wallace?), or if Bettencourt will get to take on Shelley (and right now, you'd have to regard him as the favorite) all by himself.

Posted by Evan @ 12/20/06 02:57 PM | Comments (0)

Ideas have consequences

The NYTimes:

...about 5,000 babies, of the 70,000 or so who would otherwise be born during the first week in January, may have their arrival dates accelerated partly for tax reasons.

...

They found that people who stood to gain the most from the tax breaks were also the ones who gave birth in late December most frequently. When the gains were similar, high-income parents — who, presumably, are more likely to be paying for tax advice — produced more December babies than other parents.

...

Induced births and Caesarean sections are considerably more expensive than natural births on average. There are clearly cases when labor needs to be induced for a baby's health or the mother's. It's much less clear, however, that the health care system should be subsidizing parents' desire for a smaller tax bill.

The health effects of scheduled births are also murky. A big study led by a researcher at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that voluntary Caesareans increase the risk of infant mortality. Another study found that weekday births are slightly more risky than weekend ones, all else equal, suggesting that a drug-induced birth can also cause health problems. The differences are small, but the stakes are big enough to take any change seriously.

I liked this article, because it clearly showed so many economic truths.

1. People respond to incentives. The most basic principle of economics. It shouldn't surprise us that people are inducing labor in order to save money.
2. Ideas have consequences. It's simple fact that when the government tries to do something, there are unintended ramifications.
3. Social engineering is complicated and should generally be avoided. "Targeted tax cuts" (Al Gore's phrase in 2000, you might recall) are rarely as clearly and cleanly targeted as they sound. They usually benefit the rich (as the article notes), who are much more likely to do tax planning. I've never seen any empirical data, but I would surmise that "tax loopholes"/"targeted tax cuts" are probably about as loaded to upper incomes as rate cuts are (the ones that Democrats deride as "tax cuts for the rich"). But of course, if you ever want to cut tax rates, then upper incomes will always save the most in gross dollar amounts. That's because the rich pay most of the income tax revenue.

Ok, the second half of part 3 was a normative opinion. The rest weren't.

I do hope that the legislature keeps incentives in mind when it considers appraisal caps. I am not confident.

Hat tip to Greg Mankiw.

Posted by Evan @ 12/20/06 01:52 PM | Comments (0)

Spinning a little too hard

I always love post-campaign spinning. People say silly things almost as much as the time right before the election. Here's a recent case by Seth Davidson, campaign manager for Democratic Senate candidate Barbara Radnofsky, writing in the Amarillo Globe News:

Underfunded by millions, and depending on two paid staff for the entire statewide campaign, we did what people in the Panhandle do when they want to convince someone of something: We spoke with Texans face to face. And we did it thousands and thousands of times.

From an unknown, first-time, hard-to-pronounce name like "Radnofsky," we not only won the primary with a plurality of the vote; we crushed Gene-Kelly-not-the-dancer in the runoff with 60 percent of the vote. In the final tally on Nov. 7, we managed 1.5 million votes with no major media and relying on grass-roots organization and old-fashioned campaigning.

I understand that it's good to be proud of your work, and when your candidate loses, there's really nothing else to hold on to. Trust me, I've been there.

But you lost 62%-36%. That means that all Radnofsky did was hold the Democratic base -- in part, by calling Hutchison a liar. In 2000, no-name candidate Gene Kelly lost 65%-32% to Hutchison. That's a shift of 3%. Considering that 2006 was easily a much more Democratic year than 2000, that easily accounts for the 3% shift. Radnofsky essentially didn't do any better than Gene Kelly. All the hard work didn't show up in the vote totals.

Oh, and bragging about beating Gene Kelly 60%-40% in a runoff? That's not "crushing." And even if it were, you're talking about beating a non-campaigner in a race where only relatively informed voters turn out. Yikes.

I have sympathy; I really do. But please, don't spin so hard.

Posted by Evan @ 12/20/06 01:11 PM | Comments (0)

18 December 2006

Burying the lede

Somewhere in the middle of a Lynne Duke Washington Post article on Hillary's managing of Bill's ego:

Since the Lewinsky scandal, Bill has received counseling for a sex addiction.

One thing I don't miss about the Clinton presidency is the constant drip of salacity.

Posted by Evan @ 12/18/06 08:04 PM | Comments (0)

Welcome, welcome

New Republican blog called Right on Target. Give him a visit and some love.

Posted by Evan @ 12/18/06 07:43 PM | Comments (0)

DeLay Homes, Inc.

Harvey Kronberg has a very interesting piece in News8Austin today.

Last week, the House that Tom DeLay built finished collapsing. The San Antonio-based congressional runoff between seven-term Republican incumbent Henry Bonilla and Democrat Ciro Rodriguez marked the end.

As Charles Kuffner and I have already pointed out, Bonilla wasn't going to win if redistricting hadn't happened. So, exactly how does Bonilla's loss say much about DeLay and his construction skills? Kronberg never really does tell us. Hrm.

I mean, I get the idea that Bonilla's loss means that the DeLay-backed redistricting nets one less seat for the GOP. But, what really supports a statement like: "the House that Tom DeLay built finished collapsing." Nothing as far as I can see, except that Kronberg is not a DeLay fan.

Next odd statement from Kronberg:

Rodriguez was not a great candidate and he had only a fraction the money of his opponent. On paper, he should have lost. But with President Bush at 40 percent in Texas combined with the anti-border votes of the GOP congressional majority, the winds were at the back of the victorious Rodriguez. With massive help from national and local Democrats matched with an unusually low Republican turnout, Rodriguez simply rolled over Bonilla.

In terms of overall spending in the runoff alone, Bonilla and Rodriguez actually spent relatively similar amounts, once you factor in the independent expenditures that the DCCC made on behalf of Rodriguez. Perhaps this is what Kronberg meant when he says that there was "massive help from national and local Democrats," but it certainly leaves the point rather blunted.

Posted by Evan @ 12/18/06 03:27 PM | Comments (0)

15 December 2006

Sometimes cheerleading lacks historical accuracy.

I've seen lots of different numbers thrown out for how many seats Texas redistricting helped Republicans gain. Someone somewhere even said that redistricting only gained one seat for the GOP. I've also seen people say it was two seats.

As Vince Vaughn might say, "Erroneous! Erroneous on all counts!"

In 2000, Democrats had a 17-13 edge in the Texas Congressional delegation. After 2002's reapportionment, it became 17-15 Dems (and later 16-16, when district 4's Ralph Hall switched parties pre-election, but post-redistricting, if I recall correctly).

Right now, it is 19-13 GOP. But look, if redistricting hadn't occurred, the 2006 Democratic wave would've almost definitely have crashed over Bonilla. His 2002 district was not a maintainable GOP hold in the 2006 environment, and the 02 district would've even been a tough race in 2004. So, redistricting had no effect. [For what it's worth, Bonilla should have a fighting shot if he chooses to run in 2008, thought I doubt he will. Last Tuesday's run-off is not as good a predictor of future support as the 06 general election, where Bonilla almost had a majority in a horrific, horrific environment, albeit as an incumbent.] Democratic cheerleading aside, they didn't really land a blow on DeLay's redistricting. Whether we had redistricting or not, the result was the same.

And as to DeLay's district? Perhaps the ramifications of redistricting did him in, but perhaps not. This certainly was not the first time that Democrats had attempted to use the judicial system as a means to force DeLay out of office. So DeLay might've had to quit anyway, as he saw it. And besides, if Republicans can't take back CD22 in 2008, then 08 will probably be just as bad a cycle as 06. Actually, probably worse, although not worse on sheer numbers because Democrats have already taken all the low-hanging electoral fruit.

So, right now redistricting picked up 4 seats for the GOP (or 3, if you don't count Ralph Hall, but there's no reason to think he wouldn't have switched without redistricting). But really, it's 5 seats, because CD22 is not a Democratic district.

Posted by Evan @ 12/15/06 07:05 AM | Comments (0)

14 December 2006

Fort Bend GOP infighting

The Fort Bend GOP is squabbling. Apparently the Fort Bend GOP Executive Committee (ie, the precinct chairs) passed a resolution circumscribing the chairman's powers. This was probably a shot across Chairman Gary Gillen's bow.

Gillen has apparently responded by forming his own PAC, which will now carry out the party's annual Lincoln Day Dinner. In other words, his PAC paid for the banquet hall, and will apparently receive all the proceeds from the fundraiser.

Obviously, it's not lost on Gillen that he's consolidating his authority over the Fort Bend party by controlling the money. Gillen would probably argue that he's doing what he has to do to be effective, given the controls placed on him by the Executive Committee. His critics will argue that he's splitting the party, and making the party all about the chairman.

Whatever it is, it can't be good for the Republicans down there. At least a few of them have forgotten that the main role of the party is to beat Democrats, not fratricide.

Their quarterly meeting is occurring tonight, so I'm sure we'll have a juicy report from Chris Elam very soon.

Posted by Evan @ 12/14/06 11:04 PM | Comments (0)

No!

Popular Mechanics (via Instapundit):

Your car may have GPS navigation and radar blind-spot monitoring, but it still doesn’t stand a chance against traffic. The Department of Transportation's Vehicle Infrastructure Integration program, which faces its final testing in 2007, might even the odds. The program involves installing a 5.9-GHz short-range wireless link in your car that can talk with other cars, as well as with control units at intersections and along the side of the road. Pool all the information being beamed from cars -- speed, location, whether the wipers are on—and you have a map of traffic and weather conditions, so that drivers can be directed away from trouble spots.

SHORT-TERM IMPACT: LOW This is only the latest -- albeit the smartest -- in a long history of federal initiatives to win the war on traffic. Next year, lawmakers will decide whether to wire up hundreds of thousands of intersections and roads, but getting automakers to install standardized transmitters might prove even trickier.

A friend and I had this idea a couple years ago. In fairness, I think it was his idea. And it looks like we might've been too late even then.

Back in elementary school (I think the year was 1989), I had to do Invent America. My idea was for a "silent ring" (if I remember my wording correctly; I was 8, after all) for beepers. I am convinced that someone from Invent America stole my idea and made millions. Ok, I'm not really convinced of it, but it might be a possibility.

I wish I knew more rich people who wanted to invest in my ideas. I have lots.

Posted by Evan @ 12/14/06 10:14 PM | Comments (0)

[Previous 10 Entries] [Next 10 Entries]

SITE MENU

+ Rick Perry vs World
+ About Me

+ Archives

+ Email:
perryvsworld* at *gmail dot com

ADVERTISING

SYNDICATION

DISCLAIMER

Rick Perry vs. World is powered by Nucleus.

Site design and Nucleus customization by Kevin Whited.