Presimetrics

[KeithE]

In the course of a thread drift (Bachelet thread), ET and I were having our customary disagreement about the scope of government. I brought up an excellent book I have recently read. It is one of those that has challenged my political loyalities with very cogent DATA.

I urged ET to read which is a DATA based assessment of what has worked well over the 1953-2008 period (Ike to GWB with a brief look into Obama's 2009 experience so far). No response so far but I'll be patient. Nontheless I thought I'd bring this book into more limelight by making this post. I urge all BLfers to read it before the elections especially if you like hard data.

Chapter headings are the "issues we care about" :
Real GDP per Capita
Fiscal Responsibility
Debt
Employment
Inocme and Wealth
Republican Issues (Military & National Defense, Size of Government, Taxes, Federal vs States, Welfare, National Endowment of the Arts)
Democratic Issues (Social Benefits, Poverty, Income Inequality, Tax Progressivity, Environment)
Health Care
Crime
The Public Mood
Family Values
Investing in the Future

In all of the above categories (except the so-called "Republican Issues"), the Dems outscored the Reps in terms of what Americans ideally want (eg high GDP per capita, balanced budgets, no debt, full employment, high income/wealth, strong defense, small but effective governmnet, low taxes, small federal/state funding ratio, no NEA funding, no welfare funding yet social service to needy, no poverty, more income equality, low taxes, non-polluted environment, low cost but effective health care, no crime, high morale, traditional family values, strong future prospects). And even on "Republican Issues" the overall score was very close 25 for Reps, 23 for Dems.

Appendix 1: Is it Congress? (Same categories scored based on which party holds the the majority in Congress. No clear winner, but "mixed" is bad on most categories.)
Appendix 5: Obama (Obama not looking so good so far- book published with quarterly data up to Mar 10 at best).

This was no biased study with pre-ordained answers. One author was an Independent and one a Republican going into this study. It was DATA and FACTS that led to the conclusions in a dispassionate manner.

Individual Presidents are rated as well as parties. Best President by a long shot in terms of the desired results - Clinton (63 score), Reagan 2nd best (27), Carter(26), JFK/LBJ(24), Ike(22), GWB (17), Bush Sr(16), Nixon/Ford (15). It is clear that Al Gore's Reinventing Government has much to do with the good scores Clinton received.

Read it, ET and BLfers. Many more interesting and surprising facts.

It is making me consider the Democratic Party again for pragmatic reasons. (I was Republican by birth [mother a John Bircher, NROTC in college, work in military business] until about 40 years old when I determined that trickle down economics was a myth and saw the widening income gap; Democrat from 40 to 54 when I saw clearly that both parties are corrupt to the core, owned by big business/lobbyists and most of our recent wars have been false flag operations condoned by both parties; Independent from 54 until now). Independents may do better if ever given a chance (but that "chance" is doubtful). Reps have done poorly in terms of what Americans ideally want and Tea Partiers I see as trying to outdo Reps and the bad results will be even worse. Dems have the best track record and that is why I am thinking that pragmatically voting Dems may be the best tack (if one were to vote straight tickets).

So for now it is Raby (Dem) over Brooks (Tea Party-ish Rep) in my Congressional district. I'm waiting for a truly insightful/effective Presidential candidate to emerge by 2012 (maybe Bill Clinton again).