I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the revenues going to the government.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayOctober 11th, 2012 |
 47 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Yeah, but to say that he’s as similar to Obama as Hitler was similar to Stalin is a bit hyperbolic.
I think a fuller quote leaves open the possibility of a cut in the tax rate that yields more actual revenue, Á la the Reagan tax cuts.
Yes Alisa (wrong article for this comment btw) but that is not what I was suggesting, merely that I would expect the same ‘vote the lesser evil’ logic to persist in a great many people even if it really was a choice between Stalin and Hilter 😀
Clearly the extended quote suggests a different intent but I’m still clearly of the opinion that this is no time for a purist Libertarian stance – he’s definitely by far the lesser of two evils…
No it does not. He wants the middle class to pay less (allegedly) but he does not want smaller government as evidenced by his clear and unambiguous statement that he does not want to reduce the revenues going to the government.
All the rest is halting verbiage. But “does not want to reduce the revenues going to the government” is not mere verbiage, it is the only absolutely clear statement that tells you everything you need to know about the shape of a Romney presidency.
Or is that okay, just as long as it is not the middle class who has to stump it all up?
I could not disagree more. Never has there been a better time for a purist libertarian stance.
Indeed I think Romney is proof positive that it does not matter a damn who wins and it is testament to the collective delusion that the system can be reformed and civilisation can be saved by voting appropriately within the context of the current political and social environment.
Every time he opens his yap I become more convinced I got it right before.
At best these two vile thugs are fungible and at worst, Romney will be more effective at neutering any meaningful constituency of anti-statism (ie, significant elements of the Tea Party) than the odious Obama ever could.
I would be delighted to see Romney lose as as I am unlikely to get my hoped for meteor that gets rid of both of them.
The People want lower taxes, less government and more Government Stuff. The People, in other words and in aggregate, are crazy. When Governor Romney, or any other politician, says things, it is probably good to consider that they are trying to talk crazy people into liking them. That any conversation regarding the fundamental craziness of our current system is happening at all is, to my mind, an encouraging sign that the craziness can eventually be cured. Or at least ameliorated.
Given the US government’s continuing deficit position the quote says nothing about the size of the government Romney wants.
To steal a snark from a different thread, file this under “no shit, Sherlock.” 🙂
There’s not much separating Obama and Romney in terms of fiscal policy, and never has been. The difference lies in who each of the two major parties brings to Congress.
Sure it does. Not smaller or at least not any less expensive. Nothing else matters
The fundamental underlying issue here (and I wager in the UK) is not taxation and revenues; it is the functions of government.
In best practice, the purpose of taxation is to provide revenues for the functions of government. Of course, that has been perverted by the use of taxation for purposes of social engineering, rent seeking, and punitive politics, inter alia.
In the US the public acceptance of the expansion of functions of the federal government has led to a steady annual increase in the actual revenues of the federal government. Only occasionally and recently have the actual receipts of revenues declined in nominal dollars (not to be confused with percentages of “GDP,” which is heavily weighted by government expenditures). Past decreases in tax rates did not result in extended decline in actual revenue receipts. In fact, those decreases, after very brief and shallow dips, were followed by substantial increases in actual tax revenue receipts.
Funding for governmental functions attained through governmental borrowing has also grown incrementally, driven largely by the expansion of the functions of government and by the increases in costs of particular functions.
Public comprehension of the impact of the expansion of the functions of government and their costs has been limited to the perceived impacts of taxation. Those perceptions have been blinkered by deceptions of political convenience. The blinkers are coming off for a significant portion of the electorate. Still, political rhetoric on the subjects of taxation and revenue is required to match the public’s perceptions and comprehension.
Desirable as it might be, the functions of the federal government cannot be radically altered in the very short term. The current level of revenues, derived from taxation (but not from borrowing) will have to be maintained, but contained, with a decrease in the rates of annual increases. “Starve the beast” has failed to work.
The erosive rates of federal government borrowing require actual reductions and eliminations of federal government functions. That will not necessarily reduce the “size” of the federal government as measured by public expenditures.
Therein lies the difference between the two candidates. While he does not propose a reduction in revenues, one candidate proposes reductions in, or elimination of, those functions of government that cannot justify borrowing for their funding. The other candidate proposes continuation of increases in the functions of government through administrative activities, political patronage and the “usual suspects” programs.
It was miniscule, but we heard for the first time in 20 years that the functions of the federal government must be constrained. That is the issue rather than tax rates and the resultant revenues. That is why there is a difference in these candidates.
Whilst it may not be “Purist,” I offer (again?) the following synthetic fresh-water pearl of my own composing from some time back>
.
PdH, granting for the sake of argument that Romney is all you claim, he still provides coat-tails for Tea Party congressional candidates and is worth supporting for that reason alone.
And in fact, on further reading of the extended quote I regard him as having said only that there will be no abrupt reduction in revenues at the expense of a bigger deficit. That doesn’t preclude smaller government, only that revenues will not get smaller first. And it does allow for a Laffer-curve tax rate reduction.
And yes, I know that ‘doesn’t preclude’ is pretty weak tea; but it’s tea of a sort, where Obama exults in promising wormwood.
“While he does not propose a reduction in revenues, one candidate proposes reductions in, or elimination of, those functions of government that cannot justify borrowing for their funding.”
Fair enough, RRS, (and I did like Romney’s line about his test for keeping a program was whether it is important enough to borrow from the Chinese to pay for it). However, nowhere in his debate performance last week (or anywhere else, for that matter) did I hear Romney advocate eliminating any functions of the federal government. Certain marginal programs, sure, but not actual functions. You didn’t hear him advocate cutting back on (let alone eliminating) the Department of Education, or the Postal Service, or anything else. A little trimming at the margins, a little more efficiency through better management, but still the same Leviathan. He likes big government; he just wants it to be a bit more economical. And if tax revenues should soar under his policies I have no doubt that he would perfectly happy to expand it even more, just in ways different than Obama.
Which doesn’t mean that I don’t want him to win the election (although I do agree with Perry: I’d like them both to lose, but unfortunately that can’t happen), because the only other real option is the re-election of Obama. We’re in a lose-lose situation, but one alternative promises at least the hope of a somewhat smaller loss. And the faint glimmer of a hope that we might start down a better path.
Perry: I read this post right after I read that comment on the other thread, so I guess the two had merged in my mind. Anyway, and for what it’s worth, I’m glad to see that I misunderstood you, because that comment really bothered me…
Romney is a vile thug?
Laird, et al.,
Among the functions recently expanded have been those proposed under Obamacare. Romney does propose to reduce those functions. Some may quibble to say that he proposes to “replace” those functions, but that does not seem to be indicated by either his proposals or those of Paul Ryan.
His proposals with respect to federal intervention in local education policies would also begin to shrink those functions of the federal government.
The proposals with respect to “block grants” to state governments for the conduct of Medicaid would reduce the functions of the federal government in that program.
The proposals to eliminate the “Practices Board” would eliminate a further function of the federal government without any provision for replacement of any kind.
However, from the standpoint of “practical politics” the public comprehension of the impact of functions is limited to specific perspectives, and to be addressed effectively has to be through rhetoric directed at those perspectives.
The quote is in context.
This is the Romney (and the Ryan) position.
They are in favour of cutting tax RATES but they believe that (especially as they are also in favour of getting rid of some lopeholes) tax REVENUES will go up – or stay the same.
Leftist mock this – pointing at deficits under Reagan and Bush.
However, the left fail to see that the tax revenue went UP under Reagan and Bush (especially from the rich).
Still what about the TRILLION DOLLAR deficit.
Unlike Romney I do not like “Big Bird”.
But ending the half a billion Dollars that goes to PBS and NPR is not going to make much a dent in those trillion Dollar deficits.
It is the difference between BILLION and TRILLION that is not being grasped here.
Of course both Romney and Ryan (having a good grasp of mathematics) know this perfectly well.
They know that killing “Big Bird” (and so on) will only scratch the surface of the problem.
However, they dare not say more – as they would not be elected.
That is democracy.
I would vote for someone like Senator Rand Paul (see his proposed budget in the United States Senate), but in a democracy even the “Ryan budget” (in reality a milksop ultra moderate affair) is presented as savage.
See what Vice President Biden (and the media) will say tonight.
“You want to shut down the Department of Education? The kids don’t need to read anymore?? What, are you NUTS???!“
“You say abolish the FDA? As in, Big Pharma and Big Ag can sell whatever snake-oil or so-called ‘food’ they want, and the h*** with if it’s made out of ground-up cardboard glued together with fly droppings?? Oh, I see. We should copy China!!!“
Heh…I could go on like this all day. I’m not a Mittens fan either, but that’s the kind of stuff that even Ron Paul was too smart to say.
But we are making inroads, at least a bit, at least in some areas. Gun ownership (and the right of use for self-defense) is one, and home-schooling is another.
By the way, Romney DID sign the Repeal Pledge*, for what that’s worth. I b’lieve the Sith has yet to do so. */sarc off* Now, if only we can get a decent Congress….
*See
http://therepealpledge.com/the-repeal-pledge-presidential-candidate-version(Link) .
Hey!
Half a billion here, half a billion there – and pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Julie, I agree with you that proposing to abolish the FDA in one fell swoop would be too much for the populace. (It will need to be carved back gradually.) But I think we could get somewhere with proposing to abolish the Department of Education. For one thing, it hasn’t been around all that long. And it’s pretty easy to convince people that education is inherently a local (or, at worst, state) matter, in which the federal government has no legitimate role. Yes, it doles out money to the states, but that can be dealt with (initially) by switching to unrestricted block grants based solely upon the number of school-age residents of a state, and (eventually) by replacing those block grants with locally-sourced funds (i.e., increased state taxes offset by corresponding reductions in federal taxes). The dollars would be the same, only the taxing authority differs. And then we can go to work in our own states on the aggregate spending amount and other matters. But first and foremost we need to get the federal government completely out of education!
I regard anyone who fulsomely supports The War Against Drugs, with all the horror that has caused, as a vile thug. Then add his support for censorship… yeah.
Laird, I didn’t mean that it’s impossible until a million years from now, but only that I don’t think a plank promising to abolish the Dept. of Ed. would appeal to more Presidential voters than it would repel, this November. Don’t forget, before the D. of Ed., we had “H.E.W.”–the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (And a right dandy mess it made of things, too.)
However, if Mittens wanted to take it on, he could lay some groundwork by suggesting that probably some of the money that’s in the Federal budget (what budget?!) for D. of Ed. would better be left to the States to administer education themselves…or some such thing…maybe.
The general public’s Inner Infant still has its fist wrapped quite tightly around Big Daddy Government’s pinky…takes time, gently, gently, to tease the little fingers to relax and let go….
Heh…besides, Romney can’t campaign on such a plank and stay (reasonably) honest. He doesn’t believe in getting the Gov out of Education himself! (IMO.) Remember, he’s not exactly a Tea Party libertarian! :>)
I agree with you, of course, about letting the states keep and administer the ed. funds themselves, while we work on the next step, which is keeping them in the local districts (at least). But it seems to me that people need to get used to less Fed intervention in Ed first, before they’ve regained enough self-confidence to let go of Big Daddy’s finger.
Agreed, Julie: people do need to get used to less federal intervention in everything, not just education. But I think that’s a great place to begin. Merging the D of Ed back into HEW would be a good idea, as it could be sold as simply transferring the functions (for cost-saving effeciencies, of course!) without completely eliminating them. Then whittle away at them until there’s nothing left. But you’re right, Romney would never propose (or agree to) that because he doesn’t really believe in smaller government or seriously eliminating any federal functions.
Agreed, on the whole, Laird. I still think the real reasons to vote for Romney-Ryan are to get the Creep out of there, and get at least a shot at a non-flaming-leftist Supreme Court…and to buy time to continue educational and also practical political efforts. I like your idea of quietly sneaking the D. of Ed. out of sight and then letting it die due to lack of financial nourishment. –Does HEW even still exist? Nowadays we have the D. of E., and HHS. Perhaps we would have to recombine them.
I wonder if any candidate could say that he/she was going to end the useless war on drugs, and ever hope to be elected? The american voters seem to have a fair share of drug-hating moralists- enough so a Libertarian platform can’t succeed. To our American e-penpals, is this true?
‘Then add his support for censorship.’ ?
How else to describe this?
Damn…
Well, I think that may just be the last straw that settles this whole voting conundrum for me. Thanks.
Romney’s not going to shut down porn. But the Sith is working every day to shut down criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood, Cair, and ISNA. Remember the recent attempts to blame the murder of Amb. Stevens on some film? Romney I think does believe in freedom of speech–within limits. The Sith and the Left believe in freedom of speech as long as it repeats the current Party Line.
Obama has an active interest in killing America, which Romney does not. That’s the difference between them…and Obama will continue to work hard at it, if he gets re-elected.
The War on Porn has three supports. There IS the moral segment of the religious segment of the right. There is also the oh-so-brave Feminazi industry, which works for Obama and the left, not for Romney. And there is a large, or at least vocal, segment of the citizenry, in both parties, that’s currently in the throes of the Pedophile Panic. They’re more likely to vote for Romney, I suppose, insofar as they’re rational (which is probably not very far, she said meanly)–and it’s a segment that Romney probably doesn’t want to lose.
Be all that as it may, it’s the left that’s talking about shutting down or tapping or censoring the Internet, using various excuses, one of which is to stop child porn.
Romney could work for that too…but there’s some hope that he won’t. The Sith and his gang already are.
Now, as an example, let’s look at the War on Drugs. Yes, conservatives don’t want to end it. That’s because they see the results of out-of-control druggies and the behavior of the dealers and cartels, and they see how it ruins the people they care about, and they are afraid. But some of them, at least, are reachable if they can be calmed down long enough to listen, and to think. Their aim, after all, is to end the epidemic.
The Left doesn’t want to end it the WoD either…and for them, not ending it is part of a strategy. Part of the power game. They would just as soon keep it going forever…as totalitarian regimes are wont to do.
I think the Incumbent and his crew have every intention of gutting the First Amendment (and, of course, the Second). I honestly don’t think that’s what most Republicans are after, or at least not Romney.
At least, such is the view from Near Chicago. :>)
Julie, I absolutely agree with you (and Paul, and others) that Romney is not ‘evil’, in the sense that the big 0 certainly is – that’s why I have a problem with the way Perry seems to think of him. I don’t even think that he’s a ‘lesser evil’ – I just don’t think that he’s evil, period – just not very wise, that’s all. Kind of like GWB, only a bit less irritating. I am not afraid of Romney’s presidency, what I’m afraid of is its failure and what it will inevitably lead to – which, I’m afraid, will likely be someone at least as evil as Obama, but possibly much worse (and whether that particular personality will come from the Left or the Right is really immaterial). So far I have not seen any compelling scenario that has Romney’s presidency not turning out to be such a failure.
No compelling scenario, Alisa, but on the other hand there is the certainty of disaster with another Obama-Biden term.
Whether Romney is “evil” turns on one’s definition of “evil”, of course, but when using the phrase “lesser evil” I think most people aren’t using “evil” in a literal sense but rather as a synonym for “bad”. But maybe that’s just me. Personally, I don’t think of Romney as “evil” in the sense of Satan/Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot, but as fundamentally misguided in his approach to government. Obama, on the other hand, is much closer to objective “evil”.
No disagreement here, Laird.
Sure he is. He will preside over the war on drugs that blights many more lives than the actual fix of chemicals themselves ever could. He will preside over a vast confiscatory state that engages in what is nothing less than official brigandage (called civil forfaiture), and that also blights thousands and thousands of lives. He will attempt to suppress expression he disapproves of just as the ‘other’ side do (as in”other side of the same coin” )… and so on…
So yeah. Evil. Millions will suffer due to the system he presides over due to conscious acts of predation. Many others will share the blame of course and can also fairly be described as evil…but that really has no bearing on regarding him, the would-be man at the top, as evil.
Well, first of all, he has not done any of these things yet (at least not on a federal scale).
Second of all (and, in fact, it sort of ties in with the first), personally I separate evil deeds from evil intentions. I do know very well that great many good and wise people see such separation as problematic. I also understand very well that for the practical purposes of voting for a political candidate this may be a distinction without a difference. But I still feel the need to make this distinction, because I feel that every individual deserves his due, for better and worse (and politicians, as unlikely as it may sound, are individuals too).
So, when it comes to giving Romney his due, Laird put it best: ‘fundamentally misguided in his approach to government’. Not a description I could let Obama get away with, but the practical results may, in fact, prove equally evil.
As do I. My view is that supporting and advocating wicked things is evil but generally not criminal.
Actually doing wicked things is also criminal.
So once could argue Romney is evil but not yet criminal 🙂
To me ‘criminal’ implies something that has to do with laws – and since I couldn’t care less about laws, I concern myself with criminality (as I understand it) only from my own practical perspective.
From the moral POV, to me dangerous people are either evil or stupid (or both). Romney is misguided (i.e. stupid) on the role of government, Obama is evil (and not very bright either, but that’s beside the point).
But we may be sliding into arguing semantics:-)
Even if I were the president, with over a trillion dollar deficit, my first task would be to reduce the budget/spending and try to pay down the national debt. So, reducing the tax revenue is NOT a priority – reducing the regulations to stimulate growth and reducing direct govt spending should be.
PdH is in a fantacy land, assuming the next obama term will result in societal collapse and give birth to the perfect libertarian govt. In that respect he sounds like obama:
step 1 – state great goals
step 2 … ? (magic?)
step 3 – great goals accomplished.
Fill in step 2 for us Mr. dH.
The decline and fall of a huge nation will take several years or decades with countless millions suffering (100 times more than the “drug war casualties”), with no guarantee of anything better in the future.
If you can’t articulate with a 50% or better probability your “vision” of how we get to step 3 by re-electing obama, you should give it a rest.
Romeny is another socialist.
Worse, saying this “I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the revenues going to the government.”
means he want the cake and eat it too.
Does he expect to maintain 1 Trillion deficits ad eternum?
Romney if he wins will be another 4 year President. Then the Left – now extreme because the Democratic Party isn’t moderate anymore- will came up with vengeance.
But that is not what I think at all.
What I think is that things will get worse under an Obama second term.
And if Romney wins, things will still get worse because Mitt RomneyCare is largely interchangeable with Barack ObamaCare and it is you… and tens of millions of other people… who are the ones living in a nightmarish fantasy land of your making if you think that by voting for Romney you are not actually voting for more of the same.
By voting The Lesser Evil it is you who endorses and perpetuates a system that guarantees whoever wins, they will be evil… and more to the point, it is a ratchet system in which the degree of evil progressively increases and so the “Lesser Evil’ you vote for this time is more evil that the “Greater Evil” you voted against last time.
That is exactly my fear too.
Yep, that’s exactly what I said above [shamelessly quotes herself]: I am not afraid of Romney’s presidency, what I’m afraid of is its failure and what it will inevitably lead to – which, I’m afraid, will likely be someone at least as evil as Obama, but possibly much worse (and whether that particular personality will come from the Left or the Right is really immaterial).
The central problem is the “trillion not billion” matter.
If the United States Federal government had a billion Dollar deficit then the Romney-Ryan plan would work fine (Obama would, of course, make things far WORSE).
However, the U.S. Federal deficit is a TRILLION Dollars.
True we are talking about American billions and trillions (a billion as a thousand million and a trillion as a thousand billion) not old style British ones (where a billion is a million millions), but the deficit is still totally unsupportable.
And the Romney-Ryan cuts seem designed for a deficit one thousanth (0.1%) of the size that it really is.
Although, I repeat, Obama would make the trillion Dollar deficits even WORSE.
Remember nothing else matters if the United States goes de facto bankrupt.
That is game over.
That does not mean there would not be new “games” (a Republic of Texas perhaps), but the “United States of America” would be gone – and China would, most likely, dominate the world.
The possible backstory to Firefly/Serenity?
Just to cavil a bit with some of the PMO conclusions:
The central problem lies in what causes the “trillion not billion” issue.
The federal deficits have been over $1 trillion every year for five years.
Those are legislative not executive issues.
The legislative issues are characterized by “baseline budgeting” in which reductions in increases or rates of increases are classified as “budget cuts.”.
While specific legislation imposes a duty on the President to submit a proposed “Budget,” those submissions have been of marginal historic effect. See, Obama – 2012. Review, Senate Calendars 2010, 2011, 2012
Pragmatism limits the scope of any executive proposals for matters that lie within legislative control. Of course, it does not limit the amount of “noise” that can be made about those proposals.
Given the representation of particular interests in the US legislative bodies, perhaps the most that can be sought currently is a careful ending of the past trends and some reversals of the effectiveness of those particular interests (some in the garb of “general” interests) through executive budget proposals.
To use an old Southern expression, “they ain’t but so much we can do ‘bout it.”
Inflation, as tantamount to a tax on capital, with the resulting devastating effects of reducing available capital for investment and maintenance of production is far more likely than de facto bankruptcy. However, due to the lack of surpluses and the lack of redeployment of such surpluses as exist, the results will be worse than Irving Fisher’s “Debt Deflation.” Nevertheless, the game will not be over.
It is possible that the degree of devastation on production and distribution will accelerate the movement of the core of Western Civilization toward the Pacific Rim. Texas will remain steadfast, there are now too many Americans who have moved there with connections to the rest of the United States. 🙂
Janine McA said:
US government spending exceeds US government revenues. Romney saying he won’t cut US government revenues says nothing about what Romney would or wouldn’t do about the size of the US government because at the moment they are not directly related.
RRS – I agree with you.
BUT (you knew the “but” was comming) Presidents have been taking the lead on fiscal matters since the time of George Washington.
Perhaps if the “New Jersey Plan” had been adopted (with the President appointed by Congress – not elected by the Electoral College) this would not be so. But I suspect that, even with the New Jersey Plan, Presidents would have taken the lead with fiscal issues.
However, you may be right.
President Romney (if there is a President Romney) may just sit back and wait for Senators such as Jim De Mint and Rand Paul to propose real action to deal with the trillion Dollar deficits – and get people in the House (of course budgets start in the House) to propose the same.
Even then Romney will have to work his socks off in support of such a plan in order to get it passed.
Fortunately there is no 60 Senator vote rule on budgets (that is a media myth).
Get a bare majority in the House and Senate to vote for the sort of cuts that are needed – and get the President to sign the Bill (and job done).
But that is a incedibly difficult task – when one is talking about cutting one trillion Dollars out of the budget (at least the buget as politicians think of it).
One thing to avoid……
Neil Cavuto repeated the same line that A. Luffer pushes.
“We can not cut our way our of this – we have to boom our way out of it, Ronald Reagan……”
With the greatest respect to Mr Cavuto (a man I admire) that is BULLSHIT.
There is not going to be any “boom” and there are no stupid level (70% is what Reagan looked at in 1981) taxes to cut.
The budget gap has to be closed – and there is no way a “boom” is going to come along and do the job. Especially not with a financial system reduced to a credit bubble joke (one can hardly cut interest rates when they are basically zero – and one should not be thinking of such stuff anyway).
Sorry but we are back to the need for those TRILLION Dollar budget cuts.
“Paul you are like a record player with the needle stuck”.
Yes I am, I admit that – but I am also correct.
Paul, I agree with you that we can’t “boom” our way out of this mess, but we can’t cut our way out, either. (Or tax our way out, for that matter.) It’s going to take a combination of spending cuts and economic expansion. And that expansion will require both rationalization of the tax system (yes, including some rate cuts at the margins), a massive shrinkage of the regulatory scheme, and the promise that those changes will survive for a reasonable period of time (businesses require stability in the regulatory environment more than anything else). There’s no single “magic bullet”; we need a fusillade of bullets all heading toward the same target.