Massachusetts shrugged?

For Scott Brown, a Massachusetts lawyer and state senator - and Republican - to take the Senate seat of Massachusetts that was vacated when Ted Kennedy finally went into oblivion, is quite something. With 52% against the Democrat candidate Martha Coakley on 47%, it is a clear mandate.

You see in 2006 Ted Kennedy won the seat with a healthy 69% majority. For the Democrats to bleed almost a third of that support in such a short time will be a shock. However, what does it reflect on?

Did Brown campaign better than Coakley and was clearly the better candidate?

Probably yes, but not by THAT much. He travelled by pick up truck, painted himself as the outsider who was fiscally conservative and opposed to Obama's health reforms. Coakley by contrast seemed to assume she'd inherit the seat from Kennedy. His social views put him more in the middle of the Republican Party. He supports civil unions, but opposes gay marriage. She was far more socially "liberal", moreso than Obama. She wants US withdrawal from Afghanistan, supports heathcare reform, but has also been involved in a number of controversies as state attorney general. She played a negative campaign against Brown claiming he wanted hospitals to turn away rape victims, misconstruing his belief that religious hospitals can choose not to offer emergency contraception if they so wish. Coakley was close to trade unions, but they were clearly not decisive in Massachusetts.

However, whilst she wasn't much of a candidate, that shouldn't have meant she would get defeated on that alone. Surely Ted Kennedy personally wouldn't command an extra 20% of votes?

Was there a poor turnout, as Democrat supporters stayed home?

Apparently not. The total vote turnout in 2006 was 2,165, 490 votes. This time it is 2,249,026, a slight increase. It could be argued Republicans turned out this time because they knew they'd have a better chance, but then Ted Kennedy was a polarising figure. It is quite likely many Republicans would have wanted to vote against him on principle, even though the odds of removing him were not high.

Is this an endorsement for the Republican Party?

Well not really. After all, there is no effective Republican leadership at the moment. Mitch McConnell as Senate Minority Leader, and John Boehner as House Minority Leader are hardly household names. Sarah Palin remains one of the highest profile Republicans, but she wasn't seen (thankfully) on this campaign. The Republicans are a rallying point for opposition to the Obama Administration, but really that's about it. It is still a party pulled in different directions by evangelicals (who can't win an election), conservatives and small government liberals (in the classical liberal not US leftwing liberal) sense. Scott Brown is a blend of the last two.

Is this a rebuke of Barack Obama?

Perhaps a little. Obama won Massachusetts by 62% to 36% to McCain, so you'd think most of his supporters would vote for the woman he endorsed. Clearly not all is well with independent ly minded voters.

However, it's worth noting that neither Obama nor McCain won their party's primaries here. Hilary Clinton beat Obama 56% to 41% for the Democrat nomination. Mitt Romney beat McCain 51% to 41% for the Republican nomination. So Massachusetts is a little different from other states. It may well be that the Presidential elections reflected more disenchantment with McCain than Obama as second choice.

Obama's health care reforms have clearly rattled many voters. Given the vast majority of Americans have health care coverage, and see the looming budget deficits under the Obama Administration, there is some serious fear that they may have to pay more and get less because of it. Brown has campaigned clearly on the fact that a win for him would enable the Republicans to filibuster bills in the Senate, including health care. In other words, this very election means that Obama's health reforms will at least be delayed, at most could be seriously compromised. Brown campaigned that the Democrats wont consider tort reform to reduce healthcare costs because they are beholden to the legal fraternity, this perhaps struck a chord.

Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that the grand promises of "change", and taking a different approach to government, have proven rather feeble. Yes, Bush is gone, but Obama has become beholden to the vast range of special interests and lobby groups that Democrats are in the pay of. It's just a change of personnel, not a change of technique. Pork barrel politics remain as much as they ever were. The hype has not met expectations. Obama is simply another politician.

Is this a rejection of big government?

I'd like to think it is, of course, and it would seem, in part that this is what it is about. Evangelical Republicans may want to pay special attention, as it is NOT social issues that have motivated the change, but it is money.

The amounts of money the Obama Administration is looking to pour into subsidising compulsory health insurance are substantial. Indeed, the Obama Administration has shown virtually no real appetite for fiscal conservatism, with the so-called "stimulus" package often going into consumption and poorly planned projects.

American taxpayers see the bailouts, see the willingness to engage in all sorts of new government projects as an unwillingness to face up to the need to cut spending. In the US, there is a particular degree of wariness about how well government can spend your own money. This is something the Obama Administration doesn't even start to understand, and it is a movement that has been catalysed by the proposals on health care. Bear in mind that nothing in the health care package would cut the burgeoning costs of Medicare and Medicaid, both of which comprise half of all US health spending. Yes - the government's health care plans have poor cost control, so why wouldn't Americans fear state run health care?

Massachusetts interesting has a public health care plan run by the state, which effectively subsidises health insurance for those on low incomes and penalises, through the tax system, those who don't have health insurance schemes. It means 4.1% of people don't have health insurance, which represents those preferring to pay the tax penalty and those who are still unwilling to buy insurance with low incomes. So do the people of Massachusetts simply not want an additional federal healthcare plan, or is it simpler than that?

Conclusion

Coakley might not have been the best candidate for the Democrats, but she didn't lose because of that. Brown might have been quite a good candidate, but he didn't win just because of that. The election was a judgment on the growth of government by the Obama Administration, particular fear of what health care reforms could mean for individual health insurance schemes and for taxation.

Ed Rollins, former political director for Ronald Reagan said on CNN:

Mr. President, don't run away from or misinterpret Tuesday's results. Don't let the Chicago sycophants surrounding you in the White House tell you this defeat had nothing to do with you or your health care legislation or your style of governing. It did big time, and every poll said it did.

You have three more years before the next inaugural. It may be yours or it maybe someone else's. But don't let your team convince you that this loss was only about Martha Coakley being a lousy candidate. (She was.) But she was good enough to win the state attorney general's job three years ago with 73 percent of the vote. She was good enough to trounce three other candidates, including a sitting congressman to win the primary a few weeks ago.

By contrast, House of Representatives lead Marxist with a silver spoon Nancy Pelosi couldn't have lied better than what she said: "We heard, we will heed, we will move forward with their considerations in mind, but we will move forward".

No Nancy, you heard, you're ignoring. This year there are mid-term elections. After two years of Bill Clinton and Hilary trying to introduce more government healthcare, Americans voted in droves to turn both houses of Congress Republican. The Republicans are not consistently small government fiscal hawks, and they are by no means great believers in slashing the size of the state, but if Massachusetts is a sign of wider discontent, the mid-term elections could cauterise Obama's plans on health care and his budgetary ambitions over the next three years.

How can John Key cut income tax?

According to the NZ Herald, the Prime Minister said "The Government would like to lower personal taxes"

Great stuff.

The solution involves two words.

CUT SPENDING.

Don't increase GST - that simply increases the viability of a free (black) market in secondhand goods, and adds to compliance costs for business.

Don't create new taxes, because it will create new ways of evading and avoiding them.

Don't even start to believe taxation on real property will address speculative bubbles in the housing market, look at how the RMA, the absurd obsession of councils with the discredited "smart growth" philosophy, the central banking system and most of all, taxes on other investment, create distortions.

So think about this John.

If income and company tax were reduced to a simple 20% with the first $10k tax free (hardly radical and not Libertarianz policy), then how much MORE would that encourage a shift of investment from land to business? Do you really think you and your crew know better how to spend more than that proportion of New Zealanders' income than they do?

If the RMA and tinpot planners in local authorities (especially the new uber council for Auckland) stopped restricting how people can build housing on land, without threatening the property rights of their neighbours, how much supply would be unlocked to ease pressure on prices?

How about a bottom up review of the central banking system, inflation targets and prospects for reform of that?

Who would Matt McCarten prefer?

Oh yes, it shouldn't be a surprise. Matt McCarten's tired old Marxist rhetoric about US foreign policy. Apparently wanting to be an ally of the US is "fawning support", something no country apparently should seek. Why? Because it Matt's world, the US is bad - very bad. In fact given his political heritage I wouldn't be surprised if he missed the Soviet Union, given that the anti-nuclear policy he supported was, in effect, New Zealand opting out of the Western alliances that saw it siding clearly with the US, NATO and Australia against the Soviet Union and its satellites. The middle ground was the middle ground of not giving a damn about which side won.

So what does he believe in?

1. That after 9/11 the US should NOT have attacked Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrown the regime that provided safe haven and support for the 9/11 attacks. Of course not. Did the US deserve it Matt? Do you believe it was a conspiracy? So you prefer the stoneage misogynists of the Taliban who deny girls an education? No, you wont answer them. It's simple enough, the US shouldn't respond militarily when attacked. Of course not. The US is to blame anyway, right Matt?

2. Israel shouldn't build settlements in the West Bank. Well funnily enough Matt, the Obama Administration doesn't believe in that either. However, what would you do? Cut all aid from Israel? Tell Israel it's on its own? Let all of Palestine become a bloodbath of Islamist terror against the state of Israel? No. He doesn't have an answer to this.

3. Gaza should have open borders, and Israel should allow Hamas to import whatever it wishes, presumably including rockets to start attacking Israel again. Oh but it's ok for war to be waged by heroic militants isn't it Matt? You relate to them. After all, just because they attacked Israel proper doesn't mean anything. Not that you're going to tell Hamas to stop waging war, because it's only peace if the US or Western side surrenders right?

4. Iraq is apparently "occupied". Who by Matt? I guess that democratically elected government is illegitimate, although you claim the war against the Saddam Hussein criminal gangster regime was illegal. That means you believe the Hussein clique was legitimate. You'd prefer the Iranian back Islamist insurgents ran Iraq? The same ones who impose draconian sharia law in areas they controlled? Ahh they're not backed by the US so MUST be ok right? Yes, would have been far better to let the insurgents win. Better still to have left Saddam in power. After all, he didn't occupy Iraq did he?

5. New Zealand shouldn't be in a military alliance with the USA. Why? Because Matt and his buddies on the left don't like it. Would it harm New Zealand? Well hardly, but it does put New Zealand squarely against a whole range of rogue states that Matt presumably would like to appease. So why not Matt?

Or is it just your inherent hatred of individual freedom and capitalism that the US still (with many flaws) represents that drives you?

Police don't understand Twitter

"Robin Hood airport is closed," he wrote. "You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

That's what Paul Chambers said on Twitter, jokingly frustrated about snow closing his local airport.

He was arrested under the Terrorism Act for being suspected of creating a bomb hoax. He has his iphone and computer confiscated, and was questioned for seven hours straight.

According to the Daily Telegraph: "I had to explain Twitter to them in its entirety because they'd never heard of it. Then they asked all about my home life, and how work was going, and other personal things," he said.

This hardly surprises me, as one recent experience I had with Police showed a complete lack of understanding of the internet (e.g. what's a blog, what's a message board, how can you find out who people are on the internet?).

Now Paul was foolish, and it may have been appropriate to ask him a few questions. However now it has become a thought crime, a crime to joke about blowing something up. He wasn't at the airport, and it would be clear he just should have been told his statement worried the airport company.

No. Instead he is to be treated like a terrorist, by Police who don't even know the medium he used.

Silence from the anti-Americans

If you absorb the sneering, semi-automatic anti-Americanism of the left, which is seen in the words of many intellectuals, journalists and bloggers, you'd assume the USA engages with other countries purely in an exercise of imperialism. It intervenes where there is oil to plunder.

So when the USA goes to the aid of Haiti, on a grand scale, when there is no apparent economic imperative, then you notice how silent the left are. How so many of them, who probably haven't contributed a thing to any aid appeals, don't say "thank you USA", or notice that even with rampant budget deficits, the USA is still prepared to help on a scale that dwarfs all others. US$100 million in emergency aid, and a flotilla of vessels and aircraft bringing in rescue crews and supplies.

The nasty comment from the vile Lumumba di-Aping, comparing developed country approaches to climate change as "a solution based on the same values that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces" is shown up for the disgusting, dishonest envy that permeates so much of the politics around the developing world. "Give us more" they all want, so many unprepared to produce the conditions that generate wealth in the first case. It doesn't matter that because of the wealth of the USA, it can afford to go in, anywhere in the world, and save lives - with a spirit of benevolence you will find rare in any of the kleptocratic criminal gangs that call themselves governments in much of the world.

It isn't an act of self sacrifice of course. The USA knows that a healthy vibrant Haiti is good for the Caribbean, and good for the US. It would no longer be a source of refugees, but a potential trading partner.