The June 21 edition of the U-T cites an Anderson Forecast that stagflation is on the horizon. I thought it interesting that a West Coast think tank would take such a view in light of recent data. So I read the article, expecting it to blame the Bush tax cuts and deficit for an event that has not yet occurred.

Sure enough, far down in the article, was this gem:

Peter Morici, an economist with the University of Maryland, said there is at least a 50 percent chance that the economy will suffer a bout of stagflation. But he adds that it is not Bernanke’s fault.

“In a lot of ways, it’s the fault of George Bush and Alan Greenspan,” he said. “But Bernanke’s going to have to deal with it.”

Morici said Bush’s tax cuts and deficit spending and Greenspan’s rock-bottom interest rates of the early 2000s helped create the current economic quandary.

We entered a recession and currency deflation in 2002. After the tax and interest rate cuts, we came out of recession and deflation was halted. I’ll grant that perhaps Greenspan cut rates too far. But with the economy growing steadily, government revenues at an all-time high, and the budget deficit falling sharply toward 2.5% of GDP (well below the historical average), I fail to see how the tax cuts have put our economy into a quandary.

And speaking of the last period of stagflation under Jimmy Carter (which they call the “Ford-Carter” stagflation), wasn’t it Volker’s interest rate hikes and Reagan’s tax cuts that pulled us out?

Perhaps Mr. Morici would have recommended in 1980-81 and 2002-03 that the taxes and interest rates remain where they were?

I looked into the Anderson Forecast and saw that they’re a UCLA think tank that forecast back in 2004 that we would be in a recession by 2005 or 2006.

The media keep reporting the Federal Marriage Amendment as a ban on gay marriage. That’s interesting, because the proposed amendment says nothing about gays, nor does it ban anything.

So why don’t they just print the text? Because if they did, readers would immediately learn that it bans nothing. It merely defines marriage. It then goes on to say that the constitution can’t be construed to define it another way. Meaning that if other unions are to be created, they will be created by legislatures, not the courts.

This is federalism in the purest sense. It isn’t federalism if a state law defining marriage is overruled by a court (state or federal) for “constitutional” or any other reasons. Nor is it federalism when a federal court forces a state to honor the decision of a court in another state even if it contradicts its own laws.

The FMA doesn’t ban gay marriage, it merely takes the definition of marriage away from the courts and hands it back to legislatures where it belongs.

A lot of conservative pundits have been trying to figure out what happened to the GOP in view of the steady slide away from Reaganism in the past two decades, and the abandonment of the principles that brought about the Gingrich achievements. Many believe that the Republicans are victims of their own success, and deserve to be demoted to minority status where they can recognize their apostasy and regain their principled positions (they are wrong). Others advocate forming a third party (even more wrong).

Unlike Democrats and liberals, who hold reliable positions on many issues, Republicans and conservatives seem to disagree amongst themselves more than they agree. On immigration, free markets, abortion, separation of powers, national security, and many other major issues, there is no orthodox “conservative” position as there is among liberals. So forming a third party would only create two fractious parties out of one. Conservatives have succeeded when they have united under common principles, and have failed when they have formed alliances with their political enemies over the uncommon principles.

This isn’t rocket science. So why are Republicans in Congress and the White House following the path to failure? Have they simply succumbed to the Beltway mentality? Or is there another factor in play?

My theory is simple. I firmly believe that at least half of all office-holders who call themselves Republican (or Democrat) chose to run as a Republican (or Democrat) simply because it offered them the best chance of winning. Most politicians really hold no principles that they care about, and will compromise them in a heartbeat if it offers political gains. A good example is Arnold Schwarzenegger. Some exceptions hold principles that are at odds with their own party (Joe Lieberman). Only a minority of Republicans (though a majority of Democrats) are faithful ideologues.

So the GOP is a victim of its own success: it accepts and supports anyone who calls himself or herself a Republican, without regard for the reality that a good many are simply opportunists who know that they couldn’t win as a Democrat. Recognizing this, what possible good would forming a third party do?

If vermin invade your house, do you give it to them, abandon it, and build a new one? Or do you call an exterminator?

Better to take back the GOP, recognize the apostates for who and what they are, and tell them to take a hike. No, you don’t need to expel them from the party. Just cut them off from campaign funding and endorsements.