Joel Gehrke at NRO explained why we vote for Republicans but hold our nose when we do it:
hen a group of House conservatives voted last week to kill a trade bill favored by President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders who support the measure steamed. Representative Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.) celebrated the revolt as a coming-of-age moment for rebel backbenchers.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419875/fellow-ohio-republican-leads-opposition-boehner-house-joel-gehrke
So doing something stupid is coming of age. What age?
We understand they are concerned about other issues. Why make the point in this way? There are very few opportunities to do something as good as free trade. How about making the point by voting against something that the elites want that provides uncertain benefits to the American people?
Jay Nordlinger, as he often does, asks a good question in the Corner: Why does Obama support free trade? We are with him on Clinton and NAFTA – it was an electoral choice rather than a belief. Obama has no elections left. Why would he support free trade? It depends on how you see Obama. We see him as an economically illiterate guy that likes the limelight. Signing trade pacts give him the limelight. He wants to be on the international stage.
We will support the fast track and the eventual trade pacts because other countries have to agree to them. We don’t trust Obama but we do trust the other countries to look out for themselves. We get a reduction in taxes (tariffs) and both countries in the pact are better off. Finally, Obama’s personality leads to a good outcome.
Today in the WSJ, Kimberly Strassel asks:
How many donors are unaware that their money is going to keep Clinton friends in full employment? How many are aware and give precisely for that reason—to help elect a new president, one who will gratefully remember their help?
We believe that the answer to the unaware part of the question is very close to if not zero. Of course everybody knows what the Clinton Foundation is. The Clintons are running it for heavens sake. The effectiveness of the market is no surprise. The government failure of failing to oversee this (pick at least one) unprofessional, unethical, illegal behavior that Strassel points out is a bit more of a surprise. Of course government action is never as effective as markets but here are a group high profile individuals pushing the envelope of legality. They at least deserve to be investigated. What odds would you give on an investigation?
Government behavior in attacking conservatives and protecting liberal makes a substantial argument for eliminating government involvement in regulating not-for-profits. It turns out we are worse off, in at least one set of circumstances, with government protection than without it.