| Morning Jolt – November 20, 2012 By Jim Geraghty Here's your Morning Jolt. Enjoy. Jim Astronomical Debt Overshadowed By Geological Age Debate Hey, news world, let's analyze Marco Rubio's comment about the age of the Earth for days and days! . . . . . . eh, let's not, and say we did, because some really much more important news is going on. How old is the Earth? Slightly older than the tradition of the media asking Republicans questions about evolution and creationism that they never seem to ask any stripe of Democrat. So, that much more important news that's going on includes this: U.S. companies are scaling back investment plans at the fastest pace since the recession, signaling more trouble for the economic recovery. Half of the nation's 40 biggest publicly traded corporate spenders have announced plans to curtail capital expenditures this year or next, according to a review by The Wall Street Journal of securities filings and conference calls. Nationwide, business investment in equipment and software—a measure of economic vitality in the corporate sector—stalled in the third quarter for the first time since early 2009. Corporate investment in new buildings has declined. At the same time, exports are slowing or falling to such critical markets as China and the euro zone as the global economy downshifts, creating another drag on firms' expansion plans. You know those automated "STALL! STALL!" warning voices that pilots hear from the aircraft system? Well, one of those is going off in the Treasury Department.
"In addition to the economic woes overseas they also cited the looming fiscal cliff and coming tax increases," notes the Lonely Conservative. "Then we have Obamacare and the regulations from Dodd Frank which only make things worse. The left will argue that these companies are just being greedy, but actually they're being realistic, and if they aren't investing they won't be hiring." Bruce McQuain: "As before the election, an unstable business climate persists which does not provide any incentive to expand, spend or hire. In fact, as indicated above, it is providing precisely the opposite incentives. It's one reason the GDP forecast for the country has been downgraded again to 1.5% (Mexico, for heaven sake, has GDP growth of 3.2%). But when you vote for the status quo, well, you get what you vote for — enjoy." Erika Johnsen, at Hot Air: "There's a distinct lack of optimism about the prospects in a continuing global economic slowdown and the uncertainty of the United States' pending policy decisions, so companies and investors are going small rather than risking big. If the government manages to navigate us around the fiscal cliff, there may be a short-term burst of pent-up investment energy, but how long can that last? With global governments still trying to solve their massive fiscal problems by Robin-Hooding the wealthy instead of balancing their budgets, how long can any of it last?" "Hopefully, Washington will reach a solution to the (entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary) fiscal cliff problem," writes Walter Russell Mead. "Hopefully, that will show that fear and uncertainty over the consequences were the real reasons for the collapse. Hopefully, in other words, the roots of the slowing demand aren't deeper than the foolish political brinkmanship on display in Washington. But, laying aside our hopes for a moment, if, as has happened first in Japan, then the UK, and next the whole eurozone, we were going to have a double dip recession, a collapse in business investment would be one way it would start." Over at The Atlantic, Derek Thompson argues the biggest problems are overseas, not at home: For the moment, imagine two American economies. The Home Economy and the Away Economy. In the Home Economy, there is mostly good news to report, so long as Washington doesn't screw it up. GDP growth and job growth have been steady, if slow, for more than three years. Consumer spending is healthy. Housing indicators are turning up all over the place, like home prices, home starts, home sales, and construction employment. It adds up to the possibility of accelerating job growth and a recovery worthy of its name in 2013. Small businesses sentiment, which relies less on world markets and more on the animal spirits of the neighborhood, is still higher than it was for most of 2011. Meanwhile, in the Away Economy, there is a world of precarious, scary, and outright depressing news, which is weighing on large corporations that tend to make more than half of their income from customers outside the U.S. GE and Pfizer, for example, are listed in U.S. stock indices. When their prices fall, it looks like a reflection of the U.S. economy. But both companies make more than 50% of their revenue abroad, and Apple makes more than 60% outside the Americas. When the world catches a cold, multinationals sneeze . . . even if the typical U.S. household is feeling alright. That strikes me as a particularly cheery take on the domestic picture, but maybe I'm too gloomy . . . Iron Dome: A Missile-Defense System as Awesome as Its Name If you feel like you need some good news, how about this? Military gear-heads like to boast about how this or that latest technology that they're fond of – or that their company, or country, is pushing – is a "game-changer." The major-combat debut of Israel's Iron Dome missile-defense shield over the past several days may be one of the few that can legitimately make that claim. It is destroying about 90% of the rockets and missiles that Hamas, the Palestinian political party governing Gaza, is firing into southern Israel, Israeli officials say. One battery of Iron Dome anti-missile missiles downed 100% during a salvo, a senior Israeli official tells Battleland. "We've got about a 90% success rate," he says, proudly giddy. "This is unprecedented in history." It's also impossible to confirm, but the lack of Israeli casualties suggests Iron Dome is the most-effective, most-tested missile shield the world has ever seen. Even Slate is raving about it: The missile-defense system can detect rocket launches and then determine the projectiles' flight paths. Iron Dome intercepts rocket or artillery shells only if they are headed for populated areas or sensitive targets; the others it allows to land. After pinpointing a rocket for destruction, Iron Dome fires a warhead that destroys the rocket within seconds. Currently, five Iron Dome systems are deployed in Israel. Most are located in the south, near Gaza, and each operates with a 45-mile radius. Israeli officials point out that Iron Dome saves money despite the fact that the interceptors cost up to $100,000 each. The cost of rebuilding a neighborhood destroyed by a rocket attack—not to mention people wounded and lives lost—would be far greater than the cost of the interceptor. In addition, the system buys Israel time, allowing it to plan out an appropriate response without the political pressure that would be generated by hundreds of potential deaths. Experts have called Iron Dome's success a crucial factor in deterring Israel from launching a ground assault on Gaza. Remember when the awful performance of Saddam Hussein's army in the Persian Gulf War of 1991 made all of that Soviet weaponry stockpiled in the Third World look obsolete? Maybe this conflict is doing the same to all the stockpiles of rockets in the Middle East. Those Warm and Fuzzy Libertarians
Matt Welch writes that I take Libertarians to task over their votes to Gary Johnson, and I think the headline – "Without You Meddling Libertarian Voters, Romney Could Have Lost By Only 2.7 Million Votes!" – pretty awfully misconstrues my point. I specifically say in the post that the Libertarian vote nationally amounted to about one third of Obama's margin, so at no point do I blame Romney's loss on Libertarians. This grew out of the search for the "missing" McCain voters from 2008, a total that shrinks a bit more each time a state certifies its election vote totals. From 2008 to 2012, those voting for the Libertarian ticket increased from 523,433 to 1.22 million, a jump of just over 700,000.
This would make more sense if the Romney-Ryan ticket were significantly less libertarian-friendly than McCain-Palin, but I think that the GOP ticket moved in the libertarian direction in several key areas: spending, entitlement reform, campaign-finance "reform," and military intervention overseas (although one can argue whether there's a unified libertarian position regarding the War on Terror). Keep in mind, Obama tore apart Romney by contending that he was a tightfisted miser who would cut government to the bone and won lots of votes in key swing states as a result of that, while the Libertarians scoffed that Romney would never make any serious cuts. You just can't win. I suppose the argument would be that Gary Johnson is a better candidate than Bob Barr, but Welch writes that Libertarians were in effect "punishing" the GOP for picking a nominee who doesn't meet their standards: It seems to me that giving near-historical votes to the LP candidate in the face of such a GOP nominee is arguably a low-cost method for encouraging a more libertarian nominee next time around. And for encouraging the LP itself for putting up a good candidate as well! We don't know who the nominee will be, but if Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney and the Ayn Rand-reading Paul Ryan weren't libertarian enough for you, I don't think you're going to get a significantly better ticket from the GOP anytime soon. Or more specifically, I'd like to hear any GOP official elected statewide who doesn't have the last name "Paul" whom these folks could picture voting for as president. Because right now, the lesson to the GOP is precisely the opposite of what Welch intended: They moved in a more libertarian direction than 2008, and saw more folks pick the third-party Libertarian option. Let the Cries of 'RINO' Commence Over on NRO, I have a long article on how wishy-washy voters may come to the conclusion that Republicans and conservatives are mean and nasty because . . . every once in a while, some Republicans and conservatives are mean and nasty. I think the most important point is that if we want certain groups of voters to consider our ideas, join our movement, and vote for our candidates, then we can't speak of them with contempt. ADDENDA: Pajamas Media's Ed Driscoll is a National Review cruisegoer, and he conducted an interview with me on the boat; you can hear that interview here. To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com Save 75% . . . Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for print-edition information. Click here for digital-edition information. And National Review makes a great gift. Click here to send a full-year gift to NR Digital, and here to send a full-year subscription to the print edition. Conservatives – stay healthy! Get plenty of Vitamin Sea on the next National Review cruise. Visit www.nrcruise.com for complete information about our next trip. National Review, Inc. | 
Comments
Post a Comment