Netanyahu's free-market orientation and Israel's economic vitality

In the comment thread under my post yesterday about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a commenter pointed out how Israel subsidizes education and has a pretty nearly single-payer health care system.

But what is Netanyahu's relationship to that arrangement?

It turns out it is to reform it:

. . . what he'd really like to be known for are his economic reforms. At least that was the point he continually made while accepting the American Enterprise Institute's Irving Kristol Award on November 9. Speaking to a largely sympathetic, right-of-center crowd, Netanyahu earned applause when he argued that the Laffer curve worked, and that his 2003 tax cuts had transformed Israel into a market economy and an engine of growth.

In 2003 Israel was suffering from its worst economic recession since its founding. The second intifada was primarily blamed for the downturn, but Netanyahu, who took over the Finance Ministry under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, also blamed a bloated public sector and stifling regulations. Using a story about training as a parachute soldier (an anecdote he repeated at the AEI dinner), Netanyahu explained that the public sector had become a fat man resting on a thin man's back. If Israel were to be successful, it would have to reverse the roles. The private sector would need to become the fat man, something that would be possible only with tax cuts and a trimming of public spending. Netanyahu's Finance Ministry even put out information packets explaining the Laffer curve to Israelis.

Netanyahu didn't just engage in rhetoric. He pushed through controversial reforms that some have blamed for creating serious income inequality. The top individual tax rate was cut from 64 percent to 44 percent, while corporate taxes were slashed from 36 percent to 18 percent. Government spending was capped for three years. Pension ages went up for both men and women. He also liberalized currency exchange laws. The results were a success on the macroeconomic level. Unemployment dropped, as did the debt-to-GDP ratio (from 102 percent to 80 percent). And taxes went from 35.6 percent of GDP in 2000 to 30.5 percent in 2015. Netanyahu credits these reforms for making Israel's high-tech boom of the last few years possible. 

Does this prove that the Laffer curve was a success? Some economists have long conceded that in smaller economies, it might be possible to generate higher revenues by lowering taxes. It certainly is easier to make tax cuts pay for themselves when dealing with a nation of 8 million like Israel than a nation of 300 million like the United States. And in Israel, tax receipts did rise after Netanyahu's tax cuts. In fact, they were sharply higher in 2007 than in 2003, before falling for several years because of the global recession.

A cursory examination of Israel's financial situation shows that Netanyahu might have succeeded where President Reagan failed. His tax cuts did pay for themselves. And he has transformed Israel into more of a market economy (although the rise of tycoons led to sharp protests in 2011 and a slight tax increase to pay for more public spending). In fact, the prime minister recently announced plans for more cuts to taxes, this time to the VAT and corporate levies. 

So AEI, an organization devoted mostly to conservative economic policy goals, seems justified in giving its award to Netanyahu. After all, he might have shown that the right-of-center economic policies that have stalled in the United States might actually work for other countries. 

Like all leaders that wind up getting history's nod for their effectiveness, he knows that letting people keep more of their own money spurs human advancement.

Netanyahu has delivered on security and prosperity

Great Matthew Continetti piece cross-published at National Review and the Washington Free Beacon on why Netanyahu has set a record as Israel's longest-serving prime minister.

There are a few reasons.

He's facilitate Israel's rise as an economic powerhouse:

Beginning with his first premiership, and continuing through his tenure as finance minister in Ariel Sharon’s government, Netanyahu has encouraged the modernization and reform of a once sclerotic economy. What Dan Senor and Saul Singer called Start-up Nation has to a great extent replaced the Israel of labor, cartel, and kibbutz. Today Israel is an entrepreneurial, high-tech economy with a highly educated workforce.

“There is nary an economic indicator that doesn’t look good,” Melrav Arlosoroff wrote in Haaretzlast December. “Gross domestic product has risen an average of 3 percent or more annually, unemployment is at a record low, employment is at a record high, more ultra-Orthodox and Arabs are joining the labor force, and the national debt has fallen to 60 percent of GDP.” (We should be so lucky: America’s debt is 105 percent of GDP.)

He's fostered a new network of alliances and collaboration:

There is a widespread assumption, especially in media, that Israel is isolated. This is a myth. Netanyahu has strengthened and expanded Israel’s alliances and relationships with world powers. Even in the midst of diplomatic daylight between his government and the Obama administration, Netanyahu could count on the support of leaders in the U.S. Congress and among the American people more broadly. His relationship with the current president, of course, has paid dividends. Finally, the U.S. embassy is located in Israel’s capital. And none of the candidates seeking to replace President Trump have said they would move it back to Tel Aviv.

Netanyahu has not limited himself to the U.S.-Israel relationship. He’s become close with the leaders of all the great powers, including Japan, India, Russia, and (most worrisomely) China. He has broadened the Israeli presence in Africa. And he has made remarkable diplomatic gains in the Arab world. “Israel is forging new diplomatic and economic ties with many countries, improving old ties with others, and expanding its trade and financial partnerships,” Elliott Abrams wrote in January 2018. Later that year, Netanyahu became the first Israeli prime minister since 1996 to visit Oman and meet with Sultan Qaboos.

He's stayed on top of shifts in the array of threats to his country:

The Palestinian issue has receded in importance. Iran has come to the fore. The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, missile technology, proxy forces, terrorism, and malign behavior in the region concern not only Israel but also Sunni governments. Israel’s regional partnerships have strengthened as transnational nongovernmental organizations wage political and economic warfare against her. Global anti-Semitism threatens Jewish lives while serving as a reminder of Israel’s necessity. The Syrian civil war has made this picture worse by drawing Russia into a region from which she had been excluded for decades.

Netanyahu has endured because the Israeli public entrusts him with its security. The left discredited itself. It has collapsed as an effective political force. Its embrace of Oslo was a disaster that ended in bloodshed, separation, and stalemate. One of the secrets of Netanyahu’s success is that the alternatives to him are unpalatable. The Labor Party of Ehud Barak withdrew from Lebanon, and the Kadima Party under Ehud Olmert launched an unpopular war against Hezbollah whose outcome was ambiguous. 

He's set an example to the world's nations regarding how to shore up national sovereignty:

Netanyahu is an immigration hawk and has fenced Israel’s borders. At the possible risk of Israel’s deterrent, he has struck Hamas in Gaza only when rocket launches on civilian populations become politically unbearable. He has considerable room for maneuver, however, because of his strength on security and his solid relationship with the American president.

While it's geographically situated in the Middle East, Israel is a Western nation. In fact, the West gets its moral and spiritual foundation from events that occurred there. But being Western also means that it is beset by forces of rot common to all modern Western societies. Pride parades and the like. Still, there must be a critical mass of Israeli society that still values actual economic vitality, national security, and, of course, freedom, which is the West's crowning contribution to humankind's inquiry into what ought to be valued.

Netanyahu is a fallible human being like all of us, but when it comes to being an effective national leader, he's proven himself.

John Kerry is and always has been worthless at best; on the other hand, Benjamin Netanyahu rocks

Compare and contrast.

Here's what Global-Test had to say on Twitter about the recent unrest occurring in Iran:

With humility about how little we know about what's happening inside Iran, this much is clear: it's an Iranian moment and not anyone else's. But the rights of people to protest peacefully and voice their aspirations are universal and governments everywhere should respect that.

He's got some nerve. This, coming from a guy who worked for a regime that turned a blind eye the last time there was this kind of groundswell (2009, when post-America could have made the difference in Iran's election that year), unfroze Iranian assets to the tune of billions of dollars, and orchestrated a document of pure appeasement allowing the regime to continue amassing an arsenal of missiles and foster terrorism and, at the most, delay for a few years its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Then there's the message of full-throated support for the Iranian people from the most visionary and principled leader of any Western nation, Benjamin Netanyahu:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday expressed support for Iranian protesters, and condemned Tehran's claims that Israel is responsible for the demonstrations. 

“Brave Iranians are pouring into the streets. They seek freedom. They seek justice. They seek the basic liberties that have been denied to them for decades,” Netanyahu said in a recorded message.

Netanyahu also called Iranian claims that Israel is behind the protests “false” and “laughable.”

Says that all the money the Iranian regime is spending on its evil designs could have been spent on schools and hospitals. Says that one day, when the regime falls, Iran and Israel will be friends once again.

You really need to watch the video at the link. (Apparently it didn't embed when I pasted the above excerpt.) His delivery is, as always, half the impact.

The chasm between these views could not be wider.

With the Trump approach to foreign policy, you may get bits and pieces of principled positions, but you have to sift through his unique brand of gobbledygook to find them

Such is the case with his joint presser with Prime Minister Netanyahu a short  while ago. He indicated a marked departure from the aims being sought over the past two administrations, but he couched it in kind of a "I-might-be-for-this-I-might-be-for-that-whatever-you-people-want" statement. The guy, if taken literally is simultaneously entertaining two mutually exclusive possibilities:

President Trump said Wednesday that he could support either a one-state or two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a walk back from decades of American policy in the region.

"I’m looking at two-state, one-state, and I like the one that both parties like. … I can live with either one," Trump said during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I thought for a while the two-state [solution] looked to be the easier of the two, but honestly, if Bibi and the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best."

Past administrations pushed for two states in the Middle East, one for each people, as a way to end the decades of turmoil in the region.  

Israel has been searching for the one the "both parties like" - the other party being the one that wants to drive the land's Jews into the sea - for seventy years.

He continued in this vein, acknowledging that Palestinian media is besotted with Israel-hatred, but then asking Netanyahu to "hold back a little bit" on settlements.

As I say, you have to do some parsing to see the contours of something consistent, and in this case, those contours are on balance encouraging.

Roundup of takes on the Most Equal Comrade's shameful parting swipe at Israel

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air on the rank hypocrisy of the MEC acting like he's all concerned with the possibility of Russians trying to influence the recent US elections. His regime was overtly involved in trying to keep Benjamin Netanyahu from being re-elected Prime Minister:

The stunt at Turtle Bay is all the more self-serving, because Obama and John Kerry torpedoed any chance of working with Netanyahu. Obama has spent a lot of time and effort decrying alleged Russian influence in our election, but almost two years ago, the State Department under Obama and Kerry actively attempted to do the same thing in Israel to force Netanyahu out of office. A Senate probe concluded this summer that the State Department funneled cash through OneVoice to Victory 15, an Israeli group committed to defeating Netanyahu in the March 2o15 elections.

 It’s not as if OneVoice made a mistake. They actively worked to defeat Netanyahu, and still got State Department funding anyway:

All three of the State Department officials that the Subcommittee interviewed stated they first learned of OneVoice’s planned political activity when they read news accounts concerning its “partnership” with V15.109 The Subcommittee asked two State Department officials—a senior official with the NEA Bureau and former Consul General Ratney—what the State Department would have done if, during the grant period, OneVoice had informed State officials that it was planning to launch an anti-Netanyahu campaign to coincide with the next election. Consul General Ratney initially responded that it would have been a “red flag” and State would have stopped the grant if it had known OneVoice was making such plans during the grant period. To do otherwise would have been “crazy,” Mr. Ratney explained, given the State Department’s sensitivities about “messaging.”110 The senior official in the NEA Bureau responded that State likely would have ended the grant and the decision would have “gone up the chain, likely to the Ambassador.”111

The record is clear, however, that OneVoice did inform at least two State Department officials of its political plans, and it did so during the grant period. The Department took no action in response, although it is unclear whether the officials in receipt of the plans reviewed them. In September 2014, three months before the grant period was scheduled to end but after the final payment of U.S. funds to OneVoice Israel on August 25, 2014, Mr. Ginsberg exchanged a number of emails with Consul General Ratney, then the second-highest-ranking American diplomat in the region.112 In that exchange, Mr. Ginsberg said he was in the process of obtaining final PeaceWorks board approval of a “major strategy directed at centrist Israelis” after “quietly bouncing ideas off a lot of folks, including Martin [Indyk] in its preparation.”113 Mr. Ginsberg indicated that he did not “expect much help from the USG [United States Government] in its final phase,” but offered to share the strategy “for friendship sake.”114 Mr. Ratney responded that he would “love to take a look at the strategy.”115

The proposal sent to Mr. Ratney, “A Strategic Plan to Mobilize Centrist Israeli & Palestinian,” was the culmination of months of work and presented a “bold and definable” political option to “[l]aunch a major strategic campaign that could shift a key portion of the Israeli and Palestinian electorates in a direction that would marginalize the extremists on either side,” according to Mr. Ginsberg’s email.116 The proposal outlined the political goals of OneVoice in the next Israeli election, which was yet to be scheduled: “The [center-left] bloc has not been able to unify around a common message, a common agenda, or a strong leader. Our aim is to strengthen the bloc, rather than any one party, [and] in tandem weaken Netanyahu and his right wing parties.”117 Additionally, the proposal listed seven “Specific Israeli Tactical Objectives.”118 The second objective was clear: “Shift support within the Knesset from a Likud-centric coalition to a center left coalition through public education and grassroots mobilization initiatives.”119

The media coverage of this UN vote has almost entirely missed this particular point. They have noted Netanyahu’s defense of settlements and supposed intransigence on the peace process without ever noting that his US partner tried to push him out of office — the same partner who’s currently in high dudgeon over hostile governments attempting to do the same thing here. The purpose of this interference was to get an Israeli prime minister who would adopt Obama’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than one who represents the Israelis.
Instead, Netanyahu won a surprise victory, and Obama ended up with egg on his face. It’s difficult to see this stunt at the UN as anything more than a final, impotent, petulant tantrum. 

Andrew McCarthy at NRO on the pressure that Israel-haters have put on Israel over the years to accept their definition of its boundaries:

It is Islamist-leftist dogma that Israel’s millennia of attachment to its homeland count for nothing, and that the Jewish state owes its existence to a fit of remorse over Nazi barbarism — one of the reasons Holocaust denial is an Islamist pastime. Still, even under this skewed version of history, the occupation crowd has no case.

Israel’s foes claim that the settlements are illegitimate because Israel’s only lawful boundaries are the 1948 armistice lines. This is the so-called Green Line that was in effect right before Arab nations (including their Palestinian component, mainly in Jordan) commenced the invasion that began the 1967 Six-Day War.

I italicize “armistice lines” to highlight that the demarcations, even back in 1967, were not national boundaries. They were disputed even before the Arab war of aggression. The armistice lines merely reflect the position of Israeli and Arab forces when the cease-fire went into effect. They were not accepted as final boundaries by the affected countries. As we shall see, they could not be accepted as final boundaries by Israel. 

Nevertheless, Israel did not set out to conquer the disputed territory. The Jewish state took it fair and square when they won the defensive war against enemies that sought Israel’s destruction. Thus the unending pattern that the United States and Western European powers cravenly refuse to address: Islamic factions and nations are free to reserve the right to eradicate Israel, but Israel must pretend the aggression never happened and the continuing threat does not exist.

Regardless of how many resolutions the rabidly anti-Semitic U.N. rolls out, territorial sovereignty, like other disputed issues, will not be settled unless the parties directly affected by it, Israel and the Palestinians, arrive at an understanding. Obama, however, has schemed to impose an outcome unilaterally by rendering as illegitimate Israel’s side of the argument — which, to the contrary, is as justifiable legally as it is essential for Israel’s security.

That, alas, is Obama’s real legacy: There are no good-faith disputes with him; you either agree with him or you are an outlaw.

Jonathan Tobin at Commentary points out that the Palestinians aren't interested in a "two-state solution" in which they would just commence to run a functioning nation-state and leave Israel in peace:

The reason why a two-state solution has not been implemented to date is because the Palestinians have repeatedly refused offers of statehood even when such offers would put them in possession of almost all of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem. The building of more homes in places even Obama admitted that Israel would keep in the event of a peace treaty is no obstacle to peace if the Palestinians wanted a state. Rather than encourage peace, this vote will merely encourage more Palestinian intransigence and their continued refusal to negotiate directly with Israel. It will also accelerate support for efforts to wage economic war on Israel via the BDS movement.

Elliott Abrams at the Weekly Standard on how this exposes the ridiculous disconnect between the attempt by the MEC's devotees to make him out to be pro-Israel and the stark reality:

Obama has done us one favor, which is to settle the long argument about his attitude toward Israel. No partisan of his, no apologetic Democrat, can henceforth say with a straight face what we've been hearing for years about him. In 2012, for example, Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times: "The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most."

Sorry, Tom, but statements like that are now simply embarrassing. Obama has done what he could for eight years to undermine Israel's elected government, prevent its action against Iran's nuclear weapons program, and create as much daylight as possible between the United States and Israel. So when the crunch came yesterday, Israelis had to turn to Egypt to postpone a U.N. vote. Think about that: there is more trust between Israel and Egypt today than between either of them and the United States. That's the product of eight years of Obama foreign policy. Israelis can only wish American presidential terms were just four weeks shorter.

What else is the MEC going to do before January 20 to show his true colors?

 

During UN General Assembly week, you can always count on the thunderous moral clarity to come from Bibi

He shook 'em up every which way.

Said, "Hey, Abbas, how about you and me speaking to each other's legislatures?"

Also said the UN was irrelevant to any kind of peace that can ever be achieved by Israel and the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to come “speak to the Israeli people at the Knesset in Jerusalem,” during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Thursday,

In return, he offered to “gladly come to speak peace with the Palestinian parliament in Ramallah.”

“The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not New York,” Netanyahu said.

In reiterating his persistent call for direct negotiations with the Palestinians, Netanyahu rejected any possible United Nations plan to unilaterally impose a solution to the conflict.
“We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel,” Netanyahu said.

“I call on President Abbas: you have a choice to make. You can continue to stoke hatred as you did today or you can finally confront hatred and work with me to establish peace between our two peoples.”
Netanyahu began his UN address by slamming the international body for consistently condemning Israel, calling it “a disgrace” and “a moral farce.” He also called the UN Human Rights Council a “joke” and UNESCO a “circus.”

“The sooner the UN’s obsession with Israel ends, the better. 

The better for Israel, the better for your countries, the better for the UN itself,” he said.

Nonetheless, he predicted that change will come soon.“Ladies and gentlemen, one message for you today: Lay down your arms, the war against Israel in the UN is over,” the prime minister told the member states.

“The change will happen in this hall because back home your governments are rapidly changing their attitudes toward Israel, and sooner or later that’s going to change the way you vote at the UN,” he told the assembled representatives.

“More and more nations see Israel as a potent partner.

“World leaders increasingly appreciate that Israel is a powerful country with one of the best intelligence services on earth.

Because of our unmatched experience and proven capabilities in fighting terrorism, many of your governments seek our help in keeping your countries safe.”

Netanyahu stressed that “Israel’s diplomatic relations are undergoing nothing less but a revolution,” especially in its relations with Arab countries in the region, which he said have started to “recognize Israel not as their enemy, but as an ally” in the fight against radical Islam and terrorism.

He understands that the UN is behind the curve, out of the loop. It's a new day, and any relatively sane element in Israel's actual neighborhood recognizes what the real threats are.

And he concluded by reiterating in no uncertain terms: There will always be a Jewish homeland right where it is now.

 

Israel to the Most Equal Comrade: don't be putting words in our mouths

Israel says, "Not so fast with this talk of us coming around to the Iran 'agreement'":

 Israel is rejecting remarks by President Barack Obama contending it no longer opposes the nuclear deal that world powers struck with Iran in 2015.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday that "Israel's view on the Iran deal remains unchanged."

Israel's Defense Ministry reportedly compared the deal to the 1938 Munich Pact ahead of World War II, which Britain and France signed with Germany and which averted war at the time but effectively gave then-Czechoslovakia to the Nazis.

Obama said in remarks on Thursday that the Iran deal is working and that "it's the assessment of the Israeli military and intelligence community ... that acknowledges this has been a game-changer."

Netanyahu has been one of the fiercest critics of the nuclear deal and butted heads with Obama over the issue.

Let's not let the MEC get away with such fast and loose talk. Mr. Post-American Dictator, on what basis did you make this assertion?

Monday roundup

As I've said here before, when W first proposed the idea of a Department of Homeland Security in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I thought it was a bad idea that would lead to inevitable overlap, redundancy, corruption and PC silliness. We already had a Defense Department and a CIA. Alas, it turns out that the bureaucracy charged with keeping us secure may get us all murdered in our beds:

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson resisted calls last year to allow immigration agents to review visa applicants’ social media activity because of fear of “bad public relations,” according to a former agency official.

“During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or view social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis, told ABC News, where he now works as a national security consultant.

The issue of social media vetting has taken on new significance during the investigation into Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the jihadi couple who killed 14 people in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino earlier this month.

And how's this for a wake-up call?

Early Saturday morning two “foreign speaking” men set off alarms after they entered the local Walmart store in Lebanon, Missouri and purchased 60 cellphones. The purchase was made around 4 AM in the morning. Police were called but released the men saying they didn’t have a legal reason to detain them.

The Macon County Sheriff’s office is investigating a second suspicious purchase of dozens of cellphones at the Columbia Walmart on Conley Road.

A third suspicious purchase was made at a Walmart in Macon, Missouri.

On Thursday a fourth Walmart in Jefferson City in mid-Missouri reported another bulk cell phone purchase.** On Friday The Gateway Pundit reported that dozens of propane tanks were recently stolen near Kansas City.
Two more Walmarts reported bulk cell phone purchases by Friday night.Now this…

A stash of explosives was discovered in Mark Twain National Forest in Mid-Missouri in October. 

The Most Equal Comrade makes a rare trip across the Potomac to the Pentagon for a national-security briefing on the contained jayvee team.

And back in its caliphate, the contained jayvee team issues a fatwa ordering kids with Downs Syndrome and other congenital irregularities to be killed. 38 have been exterminated so far.

Precisely why we think so highly of Bibi here at LITD: the post-American overlords don't like the way he's "disrespectful" of the Most Equal Comrade:

A new profile of US Secretary of State John Kerry in The New Yorker casts light on the stormy relationship between the US and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who have often clashed publicly over the Iran nuclear deal and the Palestinian conflict but who also routinely refer to each other as friends.

The piece, written by the magazine’s editor in chief, David Remnick, quotes “American officials” who describe Netanyahu as “myopic, entitled, untrustworthy, routinely disrespectful toward the president, and focused solely on short-term political tactics to keep his right-wing constituency in line.”

The overlords have that last part wrong, though. Bibi is focused solely on trying to preserve his nation and Western civilization generally. But Freedom-Haters view everything through the lens of self-serving political maneuvering.

Rahm Emanuel is the leader of Chicago in name only. In actuality, he's toast.

One political figure who is anything but toast right now is LITD's fave prez candidate Ted Cruz. At The Hill, political analyst and communications strategist Naomi Konst has an uplifting perspective on the current juncture:

Every show has an end. Just like "The Apprentice" — gripping the first few few seasons, tired and contrived in the last — Donald Trump's campaign is aging toward death, one reckless outburst at at time. Although the casual political junkie wouldn't know by the looks of most polls, the media fetish with The Donald and his cultish following.

With primaries a bit less than 50 days out, at this point, previously skeptical pundits have assumed not only that Trump is the front-runner in the GOP primary, but that there is no real contest. But while cable news is capitalizing off of kabuki theater, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has been backstage outplaying the entire GOP field.In the modern ratings-based media world we live in, where candidates get attention off fundraising numbers and sensationalism, we often miss the politics brewing below the surface. Even seasoned politicos get distracted by earned media and national polls; but just as former House Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-Mass.) declared decades ago, the tried and tested formula of winning a presidential primary remains the same: It's all local.
Which is why, at this point in the campaign, we should prioritize "likely GOP voter" polls in early primary states over national and "total registered GOP voters" polls — like the Monmouth University poll out last week taken of Iowa GOP voters who have voted in previous caucuses, which shows Cruz winning at 24 percent (Trump is at 19 percent). Or, Sunday's Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican caucus-goers, which has Cruz at 31 percent and Trump 10 percentage points behind.
Recent general GOP polls (like this one and this one), where Trump is winning, factor in new Republican voters — a key portion of his support, but also those less likely to engage in the arduous Iowa caucus voting. And if those voters don't turn out, suddenly Trump drops below Cruz (in Iowa and South Carolina) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (in New Hampshire) in early primary states, making him dead on arrival to that "brokered convention" the media are fantasizing about.
All the focused polls in early primary states this week show Cruz's momentum growing, a reflection of his formulaic long-term strategy centered on fundraising, investment in ground game across the country, key endorsements and messaging to a coalition of conservative voters.
As we approach the final stretch before primaries begin, third-quarter fundraising reports indicate the health of a presidential campaign. Cruz not only out-raised all other candidates ($12.2 million), but he has assiduously maintained the most cash on hand ($13.8 million). While other big raisers (former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina) have spent resources on pricey ads, Cruz focused on field — perhaps saving media buys for the final days and tight race states. Cruz's investment in ground operations has paid off, as he notably has the strongest infrastructure in Iowa and South Carolina, and is far ahead of the pack in Super Tuesday primary states.
Cruz's organizing success is related to the number of conservative influencers he has wooed — from prominent conservatives like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and influential evangelical pastors. In presidential primaries, endorsements still matter, as community leaders are surrogate advocates for the campaign — speaking to congregations and at events, making personal phone calls and rallying other leaders.

You may wonder why Cruz surged this week? A predictable phenomenon in GOP primaries is occurring: As the flavors of the month rise and fall, the candidates focused on the long game benefit. 

I'm going to wrap up this roundup on that positive note. Positive notes are not so easy to come by in this dark time, so let us all proceed into the afternoon with this in the forefront of our mental file drawers.