Preview of the State of the Union Address - 2012
Written by VASS - political commentary
Once again President Obama will stand before America and define his vision for the nation in the coming year. Once again, grand promises will be made. The question that stands at this moment is if the State of the Union Address will be about the re-election of President Obama, or what will be done to improve the economic and national interests of America?
What we are aware of is that President Obama will be addressing several items.
• A tax code that lets the Bush tax cuts expire and the wealthy pay more
• More refinancing for homeowners in trouble
• Additional tax breaks for companies that create jobs in the United States
• More clean energy incentives
• Enhanced education and job training initiatives
• A renewed call for the so-called Buffett rule, a minimum tax rate for the wealthiest Americans
• The creation of a China task force to monitor trade violations
What is not being addressed? Apparently entitlement reform and illegal immigration. 2 issues from the 2011 Address that never saw the light of day from the Obama Administration.
Of the issue to be address, that we know, what is the consequences?
Increasing taxes on the wealthy is the ultimate feel good answer from a Democrat in trouble. The wealthy are an endless fountain to be tapped whenever a distraction is needed. But will increasing taxes help?
Considering that President Obama is about to increase the debt ceiling, after raising it in 2011, by at least another trillion dollars, going after the wealthy amounts to nothing more than trying to plug a whole with cheesecloth. Even if President Obama could pass such a tax increase, it would not stop or slow the national debt.
Worse yet, it can be well argued - and has been - that increasing taxes on the very people that create jobs and new business slows the economy and would extend the current malaise. While the far-left will be pleased, middle America and the poor, will not be served to have fewer job opportunities. But it will sound good, from the mouth of President Obama.
More funds for homeowners in default and foreclosure is a big issue. The comment avoids speaking about the $75 billion already wasted on the only other effort to help these Americans, started 3 years ago. The Making Homes Affordable Act was a horrendous failure, so much so the Obama Administration refuses to discuss it. Instead, after years of foreclosure and mortgage defaults at new all-time highs, we now finally get a new idea - maybe. Though the question that might be asked is, why all the delay?
More tax breaks for businesses creating jobs is next up. So far the EXISTING tax breaks for this very thing has had, at best, minimal effect on the economy. Tax breaks don’t mean much when these businesses face still mounting costs due to the Health Care Reform. Costs that are still being determined as new complications from the Reform are revealed, even though it has been 2 years since the Bill passed. In effect it is another sound good but do nothing proposal.
Clean energy incentives are funny. After the scandal of Solyndra and the other “green” companies that the government decided were winners - and lost tens of millions of taxpayers dollars when proven wrong - it seems a subject that the President would avoid. But, if the State of the Union is about re-election, then it is critical for his support among the far-left.
Enhanced education, another crowd pleasing subject. Paid for by unknown means, with an ever-growing debt. Yes everyone is for it, but who is paying for it? Do the numbers and even the wealthy cannot pay for all that is being asked and spent.
The Buffett-rule. Another word for an even higher tax on the wealthy. Otherwise thought of as a penalty tax for acheiving the American dream of success.
Which completely avoids a far more simple and direct answer. Warren Buffett and ANY other American can just donate money to the IRS. Not that Warren Buffett has done so - until he was embarrassed into it by promising to match Republican donations, and finding out that Rep. Scott Rigell has already been doing so for some time. But admnishing Buffett for not doing the simple and direct does not play well with Democrats that want higher taxes from other people so they can spend more on what they think the nation needs.
Were this not an election year, and if Warren Buffett was a Republican like his father, do you doubt that President Obama and other Democrats would ask Buffett to just donate a couple million to the IRS as an example of leadership? For that matter, how much has President Obama donated? 0. So much for the rich, which President Obama as a multi-millionaire is, paying more just because it is the right thing to do.
Lastly there will be a trade force to watch out for China. What are the chances of that trade organization asking why President Obama helped China by turning away Canada and the Keystone Pipeline - that had 2 EPA studies and an Obama trade commission approval? One might also ask if GE Chairman Immelt will be on this task force, as he was on the task force to help keep jobs in America and then sent jobs to China.
Considering all the above, and the reported theme of the State of the Union Address being “economic fairness”, it seems that America is in for a re-election speech and not a vision moving forward. This seems to be targeted to one goal, preservation of power for Democrats in the embodiment of President Obama.
We understand that the economy has continued to falter. We realize that every plan and project over the last 3 years has failed. We also recognize that this is President obama’s economy, and by his own words the standard to his election prospect was improvement. This State of the Union will fly in the face of that self-assessment, but that’s what re-election campaign speeches do.
And then there were 5
Written by VASS - political commentary
Jon Huntsman has dropped out of the race for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination. The news to be formally announced Jan 16, 2012 was released late on Sunday. Huntsman is expected to shift his support to frontrunner Mitt Romney, adding to the support and probability that Romney will win the Republican nomination.
Jon Huntsman started the 2012 Republican nomination race as a relative unknown to most of the public. He was a Governor of Utah, and the former ambassador to China. He is part of a highly successful family global business in chemicals. His credentials would have implied that he could have been a serious contender for the nomination.
But almost from the start of the debates, Huntsman lagged the huge field of Republican hopefuls. Early in 2011 Huntsman was looking at single digit polling. The response was to push for a win, or competative 2nd place, in New Hampshire. This was done at the cost of almost completely abandoning Iowa, the first Caucus.
The result in Iowa Caucus reflected the polling from the latter half of 2011, from across the country. But Huntsman spoke boldly and definitively about his chances in New Hampshire’s Primary. But once the deed was done, and the votes counted, Huntsman lagged by a huge margin. Added to this was the fact that Huntsman had missed the Arizona cut-off date to register for that vote.
Still there was initial hope that South Carolina, on Jan 21st, might hold some glimmer of rescue. The latest polling data again suggested Huntsman would receive a percentage of votes that wouldn’t cross into double digits (matching our prediction on Jan 11th of a 3 - 6% return in that race). Though that did not account for South Carolina’s largest newspaper - The State - endorsing Huntsman over their second choice Romney. But that was apparently too little too late.
The loss of Jon Huntsman now leaves 5 Republicans in the contest. Reuters, on Jan 14th, shows Mitt Romney with 21%, followed by Rep. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum tied for second with 16% each. Newt Gingrich is in third with 12% and no mention was made of Texas Governor Rick Perry.
Rasmussen, on Jan 12th, showed Romeny with 28%, Gingrich with 21%, Rep. Paul and Santorum tied at 16%, with Perry at 6%.
Real Clear Politics shows the average of polling from Jan 11 - 15th as:
Obviously polling from this week will reflect whether or not Romney will benefit from the loss of Huntsman, who is expected to endorse Romney. We estimate that the loss of Huntsman will still bring Romney to 32% at best, with Santorum and Rep. Paul splitting up the difference.
While it is not definitive yet, we expect that by the end of the South Carolina Primary, Gov. Perry will also take his leave of the nomination race.
New Hampshire Primary results - shock & awe it was not
Written by VASS - political commentary
How might the descroption of the New Hampshire Primary go? There of course were the winners and losers. Beyond that, the yo-yo of Republican candidates trying to sit alongside Mitt Romney once again changed the rankings.
The latest series of dance partners with Mitt Romney was lead by Rep. Ron Paul. That was followed by Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum - in that order. The vote count was:
Mitt Romney - 39.4%
Rep. Ron Paul - 22.8%
Jon Huntsman - 16.8%
Newt Gingrich - 9.4%
Rick Santorum - 9.3%
Gov. Rick Perry - .07%
Romney was expected to run away with New Hampshire, considering his 5 year campaign approach to the State anything less than a wide margin would have been devestating. With a cushion of 16.4%, confirmation of the effort in the face of a blitz of ads attacking Romney, little question remains that Romney is the frontrunner. Until a single candidate can be identified as his opponent, or if this remains a race by many, Romney is the Republican nominee.
Still there will be no end to the comments from his opponents. Jon Huntsman is claiming a victory from New Hampshire. Newt Gingrich is still in the fight. Rick Santorum hasn’t gotten a knockout yet. And of course Rep. Paul lingers on. That’s the news various publications and the candidates will spread today.
The reality though is that Huntsman, having put virtually all his eggs into New Hampshire only managed to get 17% of the vote (rounding up to be kind). While that is significant compared to his 1% finish in Iowa and barely noticible polling numbers from 2011, it is hardly a claim that the Republican mainstream is seeking him out. In a game where 2nd place might get you the win in 2016, Huntsman seems capable of maybe getting to 4th. If his momentum can keep up without loss of steam.
Rick Santorum is the big loser of the night. He took a huge drop, not just in the overall votes. According to exit polls, Santorum lost to Romney with the Tea Party and Evangelicals - 2 groups critical to his win in Iowa. They also represent the core of the base of voters for Santorum. Still Santorum, like Huntsman, is more concerned with South Carolina and the results there.
Both men, rising from the dead in 2011, have little cash as compared to Romney. Neither has as strong a national presence or election staff. Their main hope is to feed off the cash, clout, and media attention that Gingrich is bring on Romney. At times, listening to Gingrich speak about Romney, it sounds as if Gingrich is resigned to lose as long as he can take down Romney with him.
The problem for all 3 men is the fact that exit polling shows that 6 in 10 voters felt that they would be comfortable with Romney if he were to be the Republican nominee this year. Which means that all three could suffer dramatically if they encounter any hiccups (ie. political ads that do to them what they are doing to Romney), or if campaign donations slow down. Which says nothing of events like Huntsman not getting placed for the Arizona Primary (Feb 28th).
Perhaps the worst news for everyone except Romney (and to an extent Rep. Paul) was that 4 out of 5 voters stated in exit polls that they had made up their minds BEFORE primary day. A strong indication that many voters have already made up their mind on who they will vote for. Given that Iowa did not reflect this, South Carolina may be more of a definitive answer on how locked in Republicans are.
The great news for whomever is the Republican nominee is that exit polls showed that the economy is the primary concern on voters minds. 6 out of 10 felt it was the most important issue. 7 out of 10 feel “very worried” about the economy, which massively exceeds the result for 2008. 2/3 stated they were just holding even.
Another positive for Republicans was who voters in New Hampshire blame. 4 out of 10 felt angry at Obama Administration policies. In addition 4 out of 10 were “dissatisfied” with the obama Administration. This was not just the Republicans that held this view. 1/3 of those identiifiying themselves as Independants (a group that surged versus 2008) were equally angry.
Lest we leave him out, Rep. Ron Paul had some good news that is sure to get press attention. 4 in 10 of the first time voters (12% of New Hampshire Primary voters in 2012) chose him over any other candidate. Like in Iowa, this is a clear indication of the base of support for Rep. Paul is growing. But as stated prior, the results of the votes show a distinct advantage to more traditional candidates.
Based on the results thus far, we would venture to say that the results in South Carolina might be something like this:
Mitt Romney: 29 - 32%
Rick Santorum: 19 - 22%
Rep. Ron Paul: 22%
Gov. Rick Perry (assuming he stays in the race): 9 - 11%
Newt Gingrich: 9 - 11%
Jon Huntsman: 3 - 6%
Obviously there is a margin of some 4% (on the high side) that is up for grabs. That difference will likely be locked down by the ads that will appear, endorsements (mostly for Romney we believe), and last minute guidance by preachers. As always, the chance for something exotic happening/being said is out there and could change everything. But at this point we think it unlikely.
Romney may get a bit bruised and scoffed at over the next few Primaries and Caususes, but it is unlikely that this will be unclear for too long.
Caucuses and Primaries: what are they and why have them
Written by VASS - political commentary
With the results of the Iowa Caucus in place, the official race for the 2012 Presidency has begun in ernest. From this point forward every candidate is in a battle to claim caucuses and primaries, with the resulting political influence and donations that come with these victories. The net winner will go on to face their political opponent (in this case the incumbent President Obama), and then the majority of America will forget about 99% of all the politics that took place.
Every 4 years there is one question that is asked often, and likely unasked by many more people than are willing to admit it. What is a Caucus? The same can be said of a Primary, and what function both play in the eventual standoff of Republican vs Democrat for President.
Whether a Caucus or Primary, the candidates are seeking to gain as many delagates as possible. These delagates will be tallied at the national convention for each Party, where the nominee for the Presidency will be named. Majority of delagates (51%) wins. There are about 2,308 Republican delegates; Democrats have roughly 4,364 delegates according to the 2008 US Dept of State records.
A Caucus is almost the same thing as a Primary. Both are designed to assign delegates, from the respective political Party, in favor of this or that candidate for President. In a nutshell, its a smaller and slightly less removed, version of the electoral college that is used to determine who actually wins the Presidential election (which does NOT have to match the popular vote - and has happened in the past).
The big difference in a Caucus is how it functions. It’s not the simple vote and tally system that is a Primary.
In a Caucus, voters enter a predetermined gathering area for that district. Voters seat themselves for whichever candidate they support, as well as undecided voters. Each group gets a chance to speak about, defend, and tout their candidate of choice. The goal is to convince voters of other candidates and the undecided vote to join with them. After every group has had the chance to speak, a tally is taken of the total supporters for each group.
When the totals equal a certain percentage (which varies in each State) the decision is considered final. If not, the process continues until either time or the required percentage is reached.
That is a Caucus. It can take considerably more time than a Primary.
A Primary, as stated in part above, is a direct vote of each voter with the tally being a direct representation of their views.
Here is where it gets tricky. How do the votes turn into delagates? It depends on the State. In some, the winner takes it all. In others each candidate gets a number of delagates in proportion to the percentage of votes they received.
- Ie. - If there are 100 potential delagates, and candidate X has 40% of the vote and won the State then:
Either Candidate X would get 100 delatages or 40 delagates, depending on the system that particular State uses.
Texas is an exception in that it uses both a Caucus and a Primary. 2/3 of the votes are in a Primary format, 1/3 are done in a Caucus.
If you are wondering which system you use, here is the breakdown. The following States use the Caucus system, the rest are Primaries:
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Iowa
Nevada
Nebraska
Washington
Maine
Wyoming
Texas*
Utah
Hopefully this helps clarify what a Caucus and Primary are, and why they are important to the candidates and Parties. The best way to find out more about the process in your State is to contact the political party of your choice (or even better both).
The best way to determine who you should vote for, in a Caucus, Primary, or the Presidential election, is to know who is running and what they actually have done and stand for. That means learning more than what is said in a 30 second television commercial, or even in watching 1 or more debates. There is a lot that is left out in those formats that you might want to consider before you vote.
If not, you may regret the vote you made and it can’t be taken back or changed. At least not until 4 years are up.
Iowa Caucus: A war of attrition
Written by VASS - political commentary
“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley” - Robert Burns poem, To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough
In 2010, depending on the month you choose, any one of 6 Republican candidates looked to be the defining leader of the Republican race for the nomination. Pundits and commentators fed on the ups and downs of the candidates like sharks with chum in the water. Ultimately all the predictions, forecasts, and probabilities went out the window as voters in Iowa did the one thing that matters - vote.
As the night has continued, the results have come in with a surprise and clear indications of the future. The race for the Republican Presidential nominee to face President Obama will be won more likely through attrition than outright victory.
The data early on suggests that some things were exactly as could be predicted by pundits:
Rep. Ron Paul made a strong showing. Anything less would have been amazing for a candidate that has spent years preparing for this 1 day. Even with that, last-minute voters shunned Paul. More to the potential for the future, Rep. Paul seems incapable of drawing beyond the isolated core of his supporters.
Mitt Romney remains a critical choice for most voters. As seen throughout 2010, Romney has maintained a status of co-leadership. His position of being the frontrunner and presumptive choice in 2012 remains intact. But, for a candidate that was so close to winning in 2008 and with such name recognition, not to mention the millions in advertising spent in Iowa, that he would not improve on his results is troubling. There is no more clear indication that Romney is not the decisive choice, just the choice most likely to win in a battle among many.
Newt Gingrich has dropped from the top tier. While he enjoyed a huge and unexpected surge in late 2010, his return to the spotlight brought attention to the past negatives of the candidate and his record. While that brings up the positives, it demands attention on the negatives as well. The unlikely candidate, remains unlikely.
Gov. Rick Perry continues to lumber on, his luster lost almost as quickly as it was gained. The many stumbles, misstatements, and questionable positions on critical issues like immigration reflect his performance in Iowa.
The big surprise of course is Rick Santorum. He was long-ago placed in the same category as Jon Huntsman, and Gov Tim Pawlenty. Most pundits were amazed that he remained in the nomination race. For those that follow the half-year of debates and speeches that culminate with the Iowa and other Caucuses, Santorum was barely worth mentioning - and often wasn’t.
Santorum for his part was undaunted. He used the time to present his message to the people of Iowa. He effectively reached the masses with little cash, and almost no media attention. He took advantage of the fact that unlike all his peers, his position in polls left him unworthy of attack ads or highlights of the negatives of his time in Congress. That will end first thing in the morning tomorrow, even as he capitalizes on the fact that most Americans don’t pay attention until the Caucuses start.
Thus there is a race. In South Carolina it will be brutal. In New Hampshire there will be some more blows landed as candidates negotiate for a position from which to continue their race for the presidential nomination.
This is where the attrition is the factor. There is no 1 dominant choice in Iowa. There likely will not be a dramatic or substantive seperation of any single candidate versus the throng of competitors in most of the other early races. Which means that money and position are critical.
The remaining top tier will be scrambling for cash, rushing out ads praising themselves and highlighting the blemishes of their opponents. With 3 way battles for some time, no one candidate will be able to pause, or focus, on a single candidate. That means that every move will be a strike to the jugular, balanced to walk the edge and not anger voters for having gone too far with the mud-slinging.
Mitt Romney has been facing this battle since early 2010. He has the organization built to handle such a challenge. He has the money to withstand the attempts to cut out his legs. He has the presence and experience to wait and let others make the mistakes in their need to rush before time is gone.
The lesson that Romney has learned is not just available to him. Rep. Ron Paul will likely follow a similar vein as he tries to recruit more support from outside his core base. Even Gingrich could once again rise from the dead, based on nothing more than letting the top tier slug it out and annihilate each other.
So far, the Republican presidential nomination race has seen a candidate drop early because he could not compete (Pawlenty). Another was lost later on, not because he failed to keep the attention of the masses or that he was outmanuevered by his peers, due to the allegations that were never proven and highly questionable to start with (Cain).
Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who had the first taste of the lead, looks likely to fall away as the cost to continue is not worth the lackluster support from voters apparent via Iowa and other places.
Jon Huntsman has not been a factor at any point, and will not become one without a miraculous event. His continued presence is a statement of determination and willpower, but not an accurate reflection of the odds to win.
So the Republican nomination is a war of attrition. Whomever uses up too much capital, or makes their moves too soon, will wind up losing their valued position or leaving themselves too weak to make it to the finish. The final victor will likely not be the choice the majority of Republicans want, but the only one left standing to chose.
Commentary - Charles Babington thinks 2012 will be close Presidential race, why?
Written by VASS - political commentary
We read the artilce by Charles Babington of the Associated Press, 2012 race likely to be close, tough, maybe brutal, and had to wonder about the 2012 Presidential election. A year to go, without a clear frontrunner in the Republican Party, and already Mr. Babington is foreseeing a battle that will be down to the wire. We just can’t buy that.
Mr. Babington is quite correct that the 2012 Presidential election will be very different than 2008. The battle on the Democratic front will not involve breaking the glass ceiling. Assuming that any Democrat is willing to take on President Obama - which would have to be Secretary of State Hilary Clinton if anyone - and that is not likely.
So with the big barrier (being anything other than a White man running for President) broken, the impetus for some is gone. While not a factor spoken about out loud, the fact is that some voters chose President Obama simply because of race and breaking that barrier. A good percentage of thse voters will return, but many will not as the motivation is not there anymore. Which means that those that would vote against President Obama based solely on his skin color should be evenly matched by those who vote for him on that same solitary basis.
We also agree that the 2012 Presidential election will be, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, about the economy and jobs. In fact this is the main source of where we disagree with Mr. Babington. Of all the issues that Americans want the president to deal with going forward, all wind up being secondary to the economy and jobs. Which sets the table for a landslide victory.
That does not mean a guaranteed, or even easy stroll to the Presidency for Republicans. It is possible for President Obama to win.
Republicans have clearly stated that President Obama has failed the economy and on the jobs front. No surprise, though even President Obama himself recognized that his failure on these 2 items virtually seals his fate for re-election (February 2009 in an interview with Matt Lauer). The dismal approval ratings and overall opinion of handling these problems has consistently been a negative indicator for re-election, and by a wide margin. Which does not indicate a close battle.
Fatigue among Liberals, minorities, and Independents has been an issue that Democrats have sought to battle against since 2010. They lost that battle in the mid-term elections, by a wave so demostrative no political spin could make it seem anything but the rout it was. The recent Special election in the New York 9th District was a clear indication that such fatigue continues unabated.
Mr. Babington identifies Congress for part of the problem that President Obama faces. While true that the House of Representatives, and the Republican majority in it, are not warming to the ideas of President Obama, it is still the President’s failure. Obama himself stated that he was a bi-partisan leader that could make things happen regardless of who controlled Congress or its parts (as he said throughout the 2008 election campaign trail). The proof has been that President Obama’s effectiveness with Congress was marginal under a Democrat supermajority and completely evaporated without it.
Again, this does not indicate a close race. It indicates a weak President that cannot control his own Party, and therefore lends itself to the thought of a landslide victory.
What makes the 2012 presidential election close, in the mind of Mr. Babington (and likely Obama supporters) are just 2 things - the Tea Party and lack of Congressional action (noted above). These he points out are negatives to Independents and could even cause Republicans to turn away. Which we think is inaccurate.
The Tea Party has been dragged through the mud by the media since it’s inception. There have been scant positive coverage, and scathing attacks at every opportunity. Some in the media have jumped at any and every opportunity of misfortune to target the Tea Party as the ultimate cause - like with early reports on the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords. The net effect of this concentrated effort has been 2-fold.
The Tea Party has solidified, and while not a large or all-encompassing movement, they have withstood shifting public opinion for more than 2 years. That solidification resulted in a large part of the steam behind the outcome of the 2010 mid-term elections. This effective grassroots movement is just as likely to motivate voters in 2012 as 2010.
The second effect, while many Americans may not agree with all the values of the Tea Party, most have increased their participation and attention to issues like the deficit, government spending, and the powers of Government. As such more voters are becoming more involved (on both sides of these issues) and decreasing voter apathy. Such greater scrutiny on issues President Obama is already faltering on, again indicates landslide loss, not a close battle.
Considering that President Obama is no longer a fresh new face, has an actual track record, and is ultimately the person where the buck stops at for voters, none of this looks positive. But there is a potential for an Obama landslide victory.
IF the economy were to exceed the pathetically weak growth figures reported by the White House and economists, even to have a marginal improvement, this could spur the belief that Obama Administration policies are having a positive effect. Coupling such improvement with a resurgence of pressure on Congress to approve further Obama Administration policies would strengthen the appearance of leadership which could be a catalyst to re-election. This is especially true if the improvement and Congressional action takes place in late summer of 2012.
IF the choice of Republican candidate is too indecisive or radically Conservative, then both as a backlash and as a loss of interest, President Obama could win by a landslide. Envision Rep. Ron Paul debating with President Obama on the merits of isolating America from the world and you can see how quickly the tide could turn.
IF the Republican, and Independent, votes are split by a choice of 2 candidates against President Obama. This is the most realistic manner in which President Obama could win, and a very real possibility. If a strong and highly Conservative candidate, and a more moderate Conservative, were to both be in the running against President Obama, he would win. The split of votes would also likely cut into his own base of voters, which includes a large and highly moderate Independent representation, but the concentration of voters that remain from Liberals and Democrats along with Independants would be enough to overcome the fractured more Conservative opponents share.
Lastly, assuming that everythig else does NOT happen, and the nation continues as has been projected with President Obama facing a singular and somewhat Conservative candidate - his only opportunity to win would be
This plus the 18 States that are not in question of voting Democrat, would equal a decisive victory. Based on our reviews in April 2011 and the above quoted review in August 2011, such a likelihood is a bet that is akin to playing the lotto. Could it happen? Sure, but the eloquence of President Obama would have to surpass his ability in the 2008 election. Vice President Biden would either have to be silent, or capable of speaking without gaffe for several months. In addition it would require that the unabated negative mud-slinging campaign that the Obama election campaign MUST wage, is accepted almost as widely as his campaign of hope and change, which will not return for 2012 ads. Plus there would need to been a major gaffe by his opponent, or a VP choice that was utterly laughable.
The odds of any of these 4 things happening, appears at this moment, to be small. Given all the factors, and as noted by Mr. Babington, and by economic predictions, President Obama will lose in a landslide victory more similar to the loss by President Cater than the bloody knuckle fight of 2000 or even 2004.
At this point, only wishful thinking would cause 2012 to be a close election.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and take part in our 2012 Buy & Win Contest - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
High Tech Lynching… really now.
Written by VASS - political commentary
In politics there is no lack of over-the-top language and inferences. A decision to try to balance the budget was reportedly called an act of terrorism by Vice President Biden. Discussions on the national debt ceiling caused President Obama to get on television and frighten seniors with a threatened end to SSI checks (which could only happen if the President directed the Treasury to do so - which was left out of the rhetoric). Use of terms like “blow them out of the water”, or the use of targeting recticles in ads - by Republicans - were denounced by Democrats after the Rep. Giffords shooting (and since used by those same Democrats in their political election efforts).
That’s the nature of politics. Every event is fodder for the opponents of whomever is involved, and the proportion of enhancing the problem is magnified by the importance (or self-importance) of the politician involved. This is even worse when a Presidential election is involved.
Currently Herman Cain is learning about this. His early bouts with his views on Muslims and Mormons were reconciled, each gaining rather little coverage as early in the Republican nomination cycle he was considered incapable of winning by most [we gave him an outside chance and a likely 4th place finish]. But he pushed on, learning how politics on the Presidential level is played, and running with the ball once he was given the question he was in desperate need of - why he stated that under the Health Care Reform he would be dead today.
Cain has learned what Gov. Perry of Texas, and Rep. Michelle Bachmann before him, learned about being a frontrunner in an election cycle. Your enemies are not just across the aisle but in your own Party. Such is the widespread rumor that the article on the past sexual harrassment allegations against Cain was prompted by a GOP opponent as opposed to Democrats or pure journalistic research.
The issue at hand is being widely covered. Which reflects the status that Hermain Cain now holds. According to a NY Times poll (Oct 19 - 24) Cain leads the pack with 25%, followed by Mitt Romney at 16%. According to Gallup, Cain leads 29% to Romney’s 12% (tied with Newt Gingrich) on current image. Real Clear Politics lists Cain leading 30% with Quinnipac, and 33% with Rassmuesen. Such a strong and apparently sustainable lead paints a political target on the back.
But, the question that should be asked is if calling this news of a past allegation a “High tech lynching” is accurate or fair?
Given, Herman Cain is Black and Conservative. Among many many Liberals and Democrats that equates to calling him any and every name - Janeane Garofalo refered to Cain as a Stockholm Syndrome victim, Keith Olbermann called him ‘delusional’, as examples of the more tame far-left labeling. Accusations of diminished capacity and personal attacks are, of course, not considered racist if spoken from the mouth of a Liberal it seems.
So it is fair to say that race is a factor for the campaign of Herman Cain. Just as it is for President Obama - polls before the 2008 election predicted,
“Six percentage points is the price Barack Obama could pay on election day for being black.”
But is a targeted, if it was, article about a factual event inherently racist? Given there seems to be an argument that can be made on how similar this allegation and the press coverage it is receiving is similar to the probe on Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas when he was being vetted.
It is not uncommon for people of high stature in business and politics, to be accused of sexual harrassment. Even frivolous cases are regularly settled out of court rather than endure the legal cost and time of a trial to win. In fact it may be more of a suprise, in business, to see a high ranking success without a frivolus lawsuit or three. But to discuss this, as much as can be given the standard gag orders these suits come attached with upon settlement, is that racist?
Yes this may be politically motivated. A means to take down a candidate that some thought had no chance, and is now leading. Yes, it is a means to distract voters from the claimed merits of a economic growth plan that provides a simple to understand tax plan. Yes, it is a way to encite the racial bigotry of those that have the affliction of small-minds. But is that last answer the real source of the article?
There is no doubt that the GOP is deridded as a gathering of old white men by Liberals. There is no question that the Black community has been long fed a diet that proclaims Republicans as rich and deceptive men that want to restart plantations. There is no question that to be Black, successful, Conservative, and politically active is to be scorned by diehard African American Democrats that vote only Party-line based on the misconceptions and falsehoods that are promoted.
Still given all that, we can’t see this as a lynching. Not in a political sense, nor does this seem to be racially motivated. Political by all means, but not racial.
Herman Cain is the King-of-the-Hill at the moment. Opponents from all sides are seeking to knock him down. That’s not about race, that’s about winning an election. How some are seeking to do it (the Keith Olbermann’s and Janeane Garofalo’s of the country) is patently racist. The fact that some will never vote for a candidate simply based on race or gender, as the NY Daily News pointed out at the near pinnacle of Obamamania, is adamantly racist. But this does not rise to that bar.
Perhaps this is a subject some are afraid to broach. Perhaps politicians are too fearful to reproach a Black candidate for using racially evocative language where there seems no place for it. Perhaps America is so busy trying to stick it’s head in the sand, when it comes to race relations, to dare whisper that some things are just not about race - or gender, or religion for that matter.
What is happening to Herman Cain appears to be unfair. It appears to be politically motivated, a cheap and dirty means to unseat the guy on the throne right now. It appears, based on all evidence at the moment, to be baseless and a distraction. But at the same time, it is NOT racial. Just because a Black guy is saying it might be, does not make it so.
Herman Cain will do well to move past this political scandal in the making, and leaving the over-the-top language and inferences with it as well. He’s Conservative, a businessman, a political candidate with a decent economic plan (as good as any other currently being proposed) and that should enough to vote for or against. His skin should never be a factor among people with enough brainpower to read this article. As such, his evocative hype on this issue serves him poorly.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and take part in our 2012 Buy & Win Contest - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Perry ranch proof of racism? Or opportunistic political diversion?
Written by VASS - political commentary
There is no question that the media in the nation (generally) dislikes Conservatives and prefers President Obama for the 2012 Presidential election. By and large, the news media has bestowed preferential treatment on President Obama and his ideology since the 2008 election campaign. But the question now should be, how much of the bias is coloring the way the Republican candidates are being covered.
The most recent case in point is the hunting camp of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and his family. As reported first in the Washington Post, the camp has a very old name - “Niggerhead”. A name that instantly brings up racism and anger in many.
But, is this an indication of racism? Is this a label that can be placed on Gov. Perry and his family?
In reading the article by the Post, you may think so. But such an implication should not be jumped at lightly or in haste. This kind of labeling can be the end of a career and decimate anyone - which is fair if accurate and horrendous if not.
What is clear is this. The Perry family took possession and had hunting trips at the lodge in the early 1980’s. Prior to that time, a long time prior, the location was known by the offensive title. To some locals in the area it continues to be called by that name. Thus, this was not an action by Gov. Perry nor an indication of his personal beliefs.
It is also clear, as stated by Gov. Perry directly, that the name was painted over in 1983 or 1984 largely due to his request.
This claim of removing the offensive title has yet to be disputed. So, if accurate and there is no reason to believe it is not, it is an indication of a racial sensitivity rather the counter being displayed.
How common is it to find locations with racist names and terminology in America? Not hard to find at all. In Florida, prior to the Abrogating Offensive Place Names Bill, you could have located:
But Florida and Texas are not alone in having locations with racially offensive names. References to, and celebrations of, racisim in America can be found across the country:
To point out that Gov. Perry’s family has owned a location that has a historical tag that is based in racism is to say that America has a history that is fully and extensively checkered with racism. If we are honest, and not seeking to enflame emotional reactions to create a political benefit for a partisan outcome, then we must consider what the current actions to that racist past are. The Perry family covered the offensive term - 18 years ago.
Is that enough? For some not at all. For those that seek to embed a seed of disgust and a reason to to vote for a candidate based on a trumped up claim of racial bias it definitely is all the proof needed. But for those that want to have valid references to, and support of, racism removed from America and politics, this does not rise to the mark of credibility.
The question of what was done to the title of the hunting camp is valid. If Gov. Perry was shown to be in support of the name and what it represents, then that is newsworthy and a just cause to not vote for him for those that care. But this is not the case.
Ultimately, we feel the question that needs to be asked in follow-up is why was this critical? It is not something that appears to have ever come up in campaigns and re-election debates in Texas during the tenure of Gov. Perry. It is not something that we see was ever a matter of importance for the people or news media of Texas. To say that the entire State of Texas is racist, would be painting the State with a brush that is unfair, inaccurate, and ridiculous. Perhaps prior media coverage understood that no hint of racism existed in the ownership of this location, so the implication was never made.
IF, and the argument can be made, the media is using this hunting lodge as a means to prop up the chances of re-election for President Obama. IF one of the cornerstones of re-election for the Obama campaign is to inaccurately describe any and all opposition as simply racist to attemtp to discredit and create an emotional response in voting booths - if that is the case, then we would say that such a political campaign deserves to fail.
America’s past is racist, there is no dispute on that. Racism exists today just as it did prior to the election of President Obama, much to the dismay of many Obama supporters. But to create a battle of race and racism, where it does not exist, simply for partisan gain at the expense of rational debate and open choices for American voters is disgusting.
Is Gov. Rick Perry a racist? We do not know the man, but based on what is being presented to-date the answer is no. Yet this appears yet another Ed Schultz-like moment where the media is trying to confer an image for the sole purpose of aid to President Obama. Such acts of desperation need to be singled out for what they are
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and take part in our 2012 Buy & Win Contest - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Video - Republican debate, the end for Rep Ron Paul and Gov. Rick Perry?
Written by VASS - political commentary
There are a lot of things that can happen on the campaign trail. Statements are made that make or break campaigns. Momemtum reverses, and apparent winners lose as underdogs sail by. But in each case, if you look back in time, you can sometimes see the telltale moment that signals the coming defeat.
In reviewing the CNN/Tea Party Republican Debate, we noticed something. We spoke about it in our coverage of the debate, but then we looked harder. There were some strong answers in the debate by Republican candidates that thus far had been overlooked and mostly ignored. At the same time one of the favorites took a beating. In fact, the bubble of invincibility that seemed to sheild one candidate may have been burst for good.
We present the highs points for Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michelle Bachmann. At the same time, we want to share the low points for Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Rick Perry.
As we said before, our opinion is that Rep. Paul cannot win. But in the debate, the confrotation with Rick Santorum on national security appears to be a definitvie moment. The tide of the crowd, which strongly favored Rep. Ron Paul, swung away from him. The difference was night and day. While it may not be the straw that breaks the camels back, we predict that it is the moment that has put him on the precipise of his nomination. No matter how long he stays in, we feel the video highlights why he will not win the Republican nomination.
For Gov. Rick Perry, he has had a fair wind behind his back since entering the race. He sailed past every candidate, and was a target so big that the MSNBC debate was just a big attempt at a bias news media organization trying to bust his chops. That didn’t work, but the double barrel assault from Rep. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum feels like it did the trick.
With the flaws of Gov. Perry now clearly exposed, the question is can he regain his invincible luster? Can he rally in the next debate and in speeches to townhalls to maintain his frontrunner status?
Only time will tell.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
The CNN/Tea Party Republican Debate
Written by VASS - political commentary
Continuing our efforts to catch up to the latest news and events since the floods in Upstate New York occured, we look at the CNN/Tea Party Republican debate that took place on Monday Sept 12, 2011.
The debate was an extraordinary improvement from the politically biased questions and Perry based ratings frenzy of the MSNBC debate. The questions were far more to the point of what the general public is concerned about. It provided the non-frontrunners more time to answer serious questions, often allowing them to be the only voice on a question (both a benefit and detraction depending on the nature of the question).
There was of course controversial statements, and jostling against the frontrunners. Gov. Perry was of course challenged on several topics and statements. There was a bit of a sparring match between the 3 governors, and the pair of Texans. But unlike the baiting and leading of the MSNBC moderators, Wolf Blitzer stayed out of the fray. He allowed the comments to evolve and the challenges to flow, without getting overly repeatative - or excluding the voices of the other Republican candidates.
Perhaps most important was the fact that CNN did not cherry pick questions to try to promote an ideology, or protect the sitting President. Moderators were not playing to an audience, trying to present the various candidates as less than Presidential.
But as to the candidates themselves, there was a lot to like, and a bit not too.
Rep. Ron Paul probably was the biggest loser of the entire event. While his thoughts on debt reduction and cuts to Government spending is popular, his isolationist views are a problem. His comments about 9/11 (where he ascerts America contributed to the attacks by Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda) proved highly unpopular with the audience and likely voters across America. This only adds to our thought that while popular with segments of the Tea Party, Rep. paul is unelectable for the general 2012 election.
As a side note we want to address the hype on the “cheers” from the “crowd” when Rep. Ron Paul stated that a hypothetical uninsured American should “die”. That is pure and unadulterated media hype. The los Angeles Times used the following headline to describe the debate question from Wolf Blitzer and the answer from Rep. paul (with an outburst from the audience): Support at GOP debate for letting the uninsured die.
But if you read into the story, you see that the headline in fact was not what was the response. Not from Rep. Paul nor the audience. But we are sure it sold a lot of papers.
Here is video of that exchange exactly
The applause were in fact to the statement that people should take responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof. When asked if the man should be allowed to die, Rep. paul (a doctor before being a Congressman) stated NO. He also clearly stated prior that while it was the responsibility of the individual to seek medical insurance, he did not advocate allowing him to die and provided examples of his experience where the uninsured were cared for long before the concept of socialized medicine was on the political landscape.
The hype is a low step for news media, and an indication of partisan sensationalism that should not be in political coverage.
As for the rest of the debate.
Newt Gingrich once again gave several responses to questions that were crowd pleasing, seeming to buoy the fact that his campaign is faltering. In the CNN debate he was far more direct and less confrontational. But he still is deeply reliant on comparison to the Reagan years, which have definitively passed.
One of the most damaging moments in the debate for Texas Gov. Perry was when both Rep. Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum blasted his executive order to impose mandatory vaccinations in young women versus cervical cancer. The stance of Gov. Perry was a solid, “I did it for the right reasons”. That logic was blown out of the water by the impassioned attacks of Rep. bachmann and Santorum. Santorum was the strongest voice in that back and forth.
The shiny badge of newness was also tarnished by Rep. Bachman, who laid into both Gov. Perry and frontrunner former Massachuecetts Gov. Mitt Romney. She made a strong case for the weakness, and apparent ignorance, on how to repeal or dispose of Obamacare (the Health Care Reform).
Herman Cain also made several strong arguements on how to resolve the malaise that is currently the American economy. Of the candidates, he has consistently had the most definitive and direct answers on fixing the economy. This debate allowed him to show a bit more of his personality, and the character he holds when speaking to crowds. This improvement in his ability to debate among the polished debate skill of his opponents surely cemented his general 4th place position and possibly showed his ability to rise in polls in the future.
Rick Santorum, as stated earlier gave a clear and damning response to Gov. Perry’s use of executive orders. Beyond that, it was his rebuttal against Rep. Ron Paul’s stance on 9/11 that most clearly identified Paul’s isolationist views and cemented (in our opinion) the inability of Rep. Ron paul winning the nomination.
Jon Huntsman has also improved his debate skills, though we believe him to still be the weakest of all the candidates. His attempt to both jab at the treason statement of Gov. Perry, and to derive some humor out of it (or at least we think that was what he was doing) fell flat, and worse made Huntsman look like he was floundering.
This debate, like the Fox News Debate, provided a clear distinction between the candidates:
Based on the CNN debate, we would rate the candidates in the order listed above. We expect that by the end of October, Jon Huntsman will be out of the race due to a lack of funds. Next would be Rick Santorum for the same reason, followed in December by Newt Gingrich who will bow out due to unfavorable polling throughout the campaign. The 5 leaders will go into the Primaries in 2012, with Rep. Ron Paul holding out against the odds just because of his strong following with the extreme Right. It’s still too early to say who wins.
We suggest that voters, of whatever political affiliation, go and review the voting records and platforms of each candidate to make up their own minds.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
The best comments and answers by the Republican nominees at MSNBC debate
Written by VASS - political commentary
The following video contains what we believe are the best performances of each of the 2012 Republican candidates during the MSNBC/Politico debate. Due to issues from the severe flodding in the Binghamton area, the last 15 minures of the debate were not included in the video. Even so, we believe we have culled the best, and perhaps the most controversial for one or 2 candidates, out of the debate.
We have tried to include the question being asked and as much of the relevant portion of the question as possible, to give full context to what was said. Please see our review of the MSNBC debate to get our thoughts on what happened, and who won.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
The MSNBC 2012 Republican Debate - or the ‘all about Perry show’
Written by VASS - political commentary
The thing the news media was flying before the debate was that the MSNBC/Politico Republican debate was going to be defined by only 3 things: Mitt Romney, Gov. Perry, and any arguements between the 2 current frontrunners. Since the debate ended, the news media has focused almost exclusively on: Mitt Romney said he wasn’t a member of the Tea Party, Gov. Perry compared the Social Security system to a Ponzi scheme, and that Rep. Michelle Bachmann was not as dominant as in prior debates.
Out of almost 2 hours of discussion, you would think there was a bit more said. You might wonder what the other 5 Republican candidates said. You might wonder if the discussion covered more than the Tea Party, SSI, and 3 people. Things like jobs, taxes, national security, international policy, the debt, and more. The first statement of Jon Huntsman alone - successfully comparing how Utah was under his Governorship as compared to Romney and Perry - deserves some attention at least.
But this was not just a debate. This was a chance for MSNBC to get in a few jabs at the Republican Party, and help President Obama. That’s not an opinion, it’s analysis.
Of the questions asked, the focus was on only 1 thing - Gov. Perry. We reviewed the Republican debate, and have video of all but the last 15 minutes (due to the flooding affecting our area). In the first 17 minutes - which was exactly how long it took for every Republican candidate to be asked a question or respond to a statement - Perry spoke 3 times, Romney 4 times, Rep. Ron Paul twice, and the rest all once. The entire first 5 minutes were entirely just Mitt Romney and Gov. Perry.
In total, the breakdown of questions and responses for all Republican candidates was (first 1 1/2 hour):
Gov. Perry - 21
Mitt Romney - 12
Rep. Michelle Bachmann - 11
Rep. Ron Paul - 8
Jon Huntsman - 8
Herman Cain - 6
Newt Gingrich - 6
Rick Santorum - 6
The bias of who they wanted to answer questions is pretty blatant. The disparity was not just in the timeframe of being asked and answering questions. MSNBC went further, they asked no less than 17 questions of all the Republican candidates combined, that were either about a prior statement/position of Gov. Perry or based on his answer to a debate question. In addition there were at least another 3 questions that were directly set to only fuel the impression of animosity between Mitt Romney and Gov. Perry.
In fact there was so much of a focus on Gov. Perry, you would often forget that there was a stage filled with other candidates. Add to that the fact that the questions were mostly challenges of the statements and positions of Gov. Perry, and you see a complete bias. They were out to knock a frontrunner down a peg. They wanted to alter the way Republicans were seen. And they desperately wanted to avoid, as much as possible, any issue that could in any way focus on the Obama Administration and its problems.
The MSNBC roundtable after the debate - notably by Chris Matthews who took great pains to ensure that he insulted Mormons, the South, and the intelligence of Republicans overall - was even more biased. The fact that MSNBC is known as a support for the Obama Administration makes the outcome no surprise though. Especially with Matthews and his “tingle running up [his] leg” when President Obama speaks.
One of the best responses all night was Newt Gingrich - taking on the news media and the moderators (again). He made a definitive and strong stance, for all the candidates, that Obamacare was a universal problem that they all agreed must be repealed. He further denounced the way the media instigates fights among the candidates, in hopes of better ratings. Debate is par for course, but trying for and starting personal attacks is another thing altogether.
Jon Huntsman finally took the chances to get aggressive. He charged forward on his accomplishments, and took on the apparent leaders of the Republican nominees.
Of course Gov. Perry did say that SSI is a ponzi scheme. He further clarified his reasoning on why a 20 or 30 year old might find SSI funding, and the usage by the Government of those funds, to be a failure. It was not the most politically benefiicial statement, but it was strong. Though it failed to explain how it might be changed.
Herman Cain was relegated to brief responses, usually 3 or 4th on a question. He insisted on focusing on the fix to problems, and offered solutions - based firmly on a more corporate theme. He stressed his expertise and unlike other debates, did not stray far from that strength.
Michelle Bachmann rarely got questions. She was kept a bay by the moderators, more than once being dismissed when she was trying to respond to a comment made to her. The flow of the questions kept Rep. Bachmann of the television screen, and played down any momentum she could have tried to gain. Given that expectations were for Rep. Bachmann to be aggressive and force yet another candidate out of the race, she fared badly, but in reality she held her own and was adequate.
Rep. Ron Paul did very poorly as the debate stayed far from the main issue facing America - jobs. It equally was far from the issue of the economy, or at least when questions were asked of Rep Paul. Mostly he was asked to defend his beliefs. The worst was when some of the statements by Rep. Paul were taken to conclusions he had never intended, and complex answer had to be boiled down to seconds. Rep. Paul had answers that did not inspire confidence. Perhaps his worst response was on FEMA.
Overall the themes of this debate were somewhat of a hodge-podge of issues. Few were the most immediate to the Average American. Nearly all danced away from any subject that could be detrimental to the Obama Administration. Considering the focus on Gov. Perry, and the zigzag of topics depending on who was being asked, the debate felt more like it was cobbled together at the last minute.
Who won the MSNBC 2012 Republican Presidential debate? Gov. Perry of Texas, because he didn’t fold under the pressure that MSNBC was trying to apply. Also President Obama, as the moderators jumped from subject to subject and barely touched on any issue that might detract from the Jobs Speech to be held on Thursday Sept. 8th.
Who lost the debate? MSNBC. Their bias was apparent, and there was only the least bit of an attempt to hide it. Their after-debate commentary was bile. Their targeting of candidates blatant. It played well, most likely, with the far-left that are the fanbase of the cable news channel but unlikely any others.
As for anyone else, it doesn’t matter. MSNBC wasn’t really interested in the others, unless they could be enticed to pick a fight with Gov. Perry. Or if Rep. Ron Paul could be made to look extreme and an oddball - thus making the Tea Party look the same by association. Considering it was the day before the “major” speech by President Obama, the moderators could have do so much more to ensure that ALL Americans were clear on exactly where every Republican candidate stood on the primary issue of the 2012 election - jobs and the economy.
At least there are other debates to come. Don’t expect any candidate to lose sleep over this debate, nor for it to garner much in ratings (well, ratings for any station that a mix of people actually watch - it might be very good ratings for MSNBC though).
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Obama supporters ask, ‘What could President Obama have done differently on economy’?
Written by VASS - political commentary
This was essentially the question that Bloomberg View’s Jonathan Alter and the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein asked recently. It’s not a new question, and supporters both famous and common have asked it many times. The core of the question implies that all that could have been done was done. But that is incorrect.
The biggest issue that detractors of the Obama Administration policies bring up is the Recovery Act - commonly called the Obama Stimulus, or just Stimulus by most Democrat elected leaders. It was at its start the brain-child of then Speaker of the House Nanacy Pelosi, in October 2008. Under President Bush, Pelosi proposed a meager $50 billion stimulus that was equally limited in the scope of what it could do. With President Obama winning the Presidency, and Congress becoming a supermajority for Deocrats, it literally became a $150 billion monster overnight. It rolled on from there.
In the months that preceded the inauguration, the Obama Stimulus grew weekly. It took on more programs to fund and more money to borrow to fund them. Issues that Democrats had long sought to increase funding to, suddenly became funded with billions of dollars. This is the first thing that President Obama could have altered.
President Obama did not lead on the Stimulus, he cheerleaded. He spoke as a figurehead as Congress determined what the Stimulus would do. The focus was not on infrastructure, the “shovel-ready” jobs that became a joke used by President Obama this year. For those that dispute this, please do explain how $15 billion for more Pell grants creates a job? That’s just one example.
The lack of leadership also shone through in the definition of the purpose of the Stimulus. What is a “saved” job? That has NEVER been defined. According to the calculations of Recovery.gov and many respected news media organizations, a raise is a percentage of a “saved” job. How does that math work out? How can you determine what was or was not “saved”? How can you justify such a vague and useless term.
But such vague answers allow for political showmanship. It allows the White House to claim millions of jobs “saved” or created. It allows for the arguement that “it would be much worse without the Stimulus”. A logic that is unprovable and only useful for winning votes. Given the resources it can be stated and argued that the sky is purple, or that industrialization has prevented a global ice age. Is it true? It doesn’t matter, it sounds good and can win support of voters that agree with the conclusion. This is the biggest failure of the President.
President Obama has been the political embodiment of Billy Crystal’s Fernando - looking good at the expense of doing good. After the abject failure of the much hailed “Summer of Recovery” the Obama Administration didn’t refocus on jobs as the first priority. They just stopped speaking about the Stimulus and moved on to the Health Care Reform. That too was promised to help create jobs. Another empty promise that had little to do with reality.
The Health Care Reform was promised to lower the deficit, it does not. It was promised to reduce the cost of helathcare, it is not. It was promised to allow individuals to keep their current healthcare plans, based on surveys of businesses and their future plans to carry healthcare many will not be able to do so. It was promised to cover everyone in the nation, and it will not.
Again, a law that Democrats have wanted for decades, crafted by the Congress, without leadership from the President, rushed through the legislation process with tricks of legality and quite a few sweetheart backdoor deals, and passed without being read. Nothing in that speaks of benefit to the nation.
Perhaps the biggest and most important thing that President Obama could have done for the economy is to be focused on the needs of the nation. While the President has spent more than 60 televised interviews, speeches, and State of the Union Addresses denoting that his focus is on job creation, plan B of action on creating jobs won’t actually take place until later this week. That’s 2 years and 7 months after the Stimulus was first proposed. More than a year after the complete failure of the “Summer of Recovery”. It’s after continuous recalculations by the CBO and White House on the extended high levels of unemployment, each time projecting no improvement for years going further forward in time than the last calculation.
None of this is new.
If President Obama had taken the leadership of the nation’s outlook on the economy, if he presented a plan B for job creation even a year ago, would the economy be better? If President Obama was willing to simply say, ‘This isn’t working, let’s try something else,’ would the nation have been better off?
Yes.
Not because things would have turned around. Real economics does not work like that. There would still be a lack of jobs and high unemployment. But the nation would be on a course, set by the leader of the nation, and confidence that we were on the right path would be higher. Consumer confidence in the economy leads to business confidence and thus recovery - at some point. It surely would obfuscate the problems, improving the approval rating of the President and provide him more political clout to enforce changes that are needed.
Instead we have President Obama standing before the nation, in a weakened position and under criticism from world leaders on our fiscal policies, unwilling to face the reality of his failures and posturing arrogantly as he finally presents a plan B. A plan so important to the nation, so sure to create a better economic environment, that it could wait until after the President’s vacation to be revealed. Confidence inspiring indeed.
Thus in conclusion, to answer the titular question, leadership is the answer. That does not imply the best answer, or even the right one. It does not mean that an excercise in mental masturbation - trying to determine what could have happened and what might have been a result -is anything less than ultimately being moot as no matter what is determined as the correct answer the effect on the current status does not change.
But leadership, from the President, is the only path in which progress towards a different economic environment might be possible. It remains to be seen if President Obama will do that on Thusrday. IF not, be assured that on election day, supporters will still be asking the same question, ‘What could President Obama have done differently on economy’?
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Alternative Energy + “shovel ready” + $814 billion = bankruptcy
Written by VASS - political commentary
The promise was to end America’s dependancy on foreign oil. The promise was to solve the financial crisis. The promise was to create jobs. These promises were made before and after the 2008 election by President Obama.
Then came the action. Buoyed by a supermajority, a guarantee that no matter the opposition of Republicans any law, reform, and/or economic plan proposed by President Obama it could not be stopped, we received the Stimulus. Then, after months of in-fighting among Democrats alone, we received the Health Care Reform. In between we had the takeover of GM, and retro-active taxes on corporate bonuses - that were initially approved of by the same Democrats that later denounced them. Also there were the new regulations from the EPA, targeting the coal industry and power generation - part of global warming prevention efforts and a move to alternative energy sources.
Plus there was the appointment of Jeffery Immelt (CEO of GE, which owns MSNBC that supports the President and Democrats with extreme bias) as the head of a Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. A position whose purpose was to create jobs and keep them in the US.
Those are all facts. So are the results.
The Stimulus, against all the proclimations of friendly news media and more than a dozen press conferences, has failed. It has exceeded its initial cost, created more jobs in Government than the private sector, failed to acheive any of the primary target goals, and failed to lower unemployment.
The Health Care Reform is poised to slow job creation according to several analysts. It will not save money or be nuetral to the deficit - in fact it is one of several factors currently increasing the cost of healthcare in the nation. That’s not even counting IF the law is constitutional, which is in major debate, and the majority of Americans continue to desire it repealed.
GM exited banckruptcy, had an IPO, and after a brief and paltry increase in price has been below IPO price for the majority of the year. Targets of eventual profit exist, but the same factors that caused the initial failure remain unresolved. Even after bondholders were, arguably, wrongfully deprived of their priority rights to the old assets - to give those benefits to unions and the Government. A government that is actively planning to sell its shares, at a loss - ensuring that the American public who paid for the “investment” will NEVER see a break-even or positive return on the money that increased the national debt.
As for the coal industry, well the current regulations, put in place because a supermajority of Democrats was not enough to enact Cap & Trade legislation, will ensure that 10% of America’s energy disappears. Not replaced, just unable to be created.
But what about the renewable energy?
Well here are a few examples of where that is. There is a glut of ethanol right now. At the same time, food prices have risen (though not called inflation for some reason) - in the form of smaller portions at the same price. Which says nothing of the creation dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Areas where no life exists because of a lack of oxygen. Not because of the opil spill, these existed before - and are connected to ethanol production.
But at least it is creating jobs? The head of GE is helping to make sure of that right? Well, no and no.
GE is in fact shipping jobs to China. In fact, so has the alternative energy sector. Evergreen Solar Inc., which went bankrupt on Aug 15th, got over $58 million in State and Stimulus funds. It was a darling, at the time proclaimed as “earning 85%” of the funds given to it in the jobs it created. In 2010 they moved jobs to China, and cut 800 jobs in March 2011.
So much for the success of solar panels, that can be made cheaper in China and are not effective in the majority of the nation or on a mass-scale. So much of earning 85% of the funds taxpayers gave them. So much of creating American jobs.
Of course that’s just 1 example. Solyndra, built largely with $535 million in federal loan guarantees (Stimulus) - funds that were alleged to be misappropriated as they were “fast-tracked”, is another example. President Obama, on May 26, 2010, said
Just a touch more than a year later, President Obama isn’t saying a word as 1,100 former emplyees are being laid off and the company has filed bankruptcy. But at least jobs didn’t go to China. Though ABC News was curious about the way Oklahoma oil billionaire George Kaiser, an investor in Solyndra, who raised money for Obama was involved in how Solyndra got funded.
It’s that coincidence that brings us to Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE. There is no denial that MSNBC is a major cheerleader for President Obama. To do so requires approval from GE, and thus Immelt himself. Odd that Immelt finds himself the recipient of a critial posting in a Council to create American jobs and benefit the nation. Especially once you consider that under Immelt, GE paid NO TAXES in 2009. In 2010 they received $3.3 billion tax refund. That was not an error in typing, yes REFUND. Which we are sure helped the economy immensely - as well as providing Immelt himself with a $15 million paycheck.
But don’t forget, GE also created jobs, in CHINA.
When you look at the facts, without bias and just facts that are not in question, we believe you have to come to 1 conclusion. There is a problem either with what was promised, or what was done in executing those promise. What was promised was an improving and better America - we doubt anyone has a problem with that (China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuala excepted of course). Therefore the execution is to balme.
Now we know the blame, according to Democrats and left friendly media must lie with Republicans. EXCEPT, all of the above was started and put in place before Jan 2011, which was the first chance during the Obama Presidency that Republicans had a chance to do ANYTHING. The Tea Party, which is not even a political party but an ideaology some Americans follow, likewise has no power to start or stop ANYTHING in Government.
That just leaves President Obama, and Democrats.
What you do with the facts is up to you. But no matter how well-spoken the President is, or how terribly Democrats denounce fellow American citizens, the facts DO NOT CHANGE.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Libya - Gadahfi out? Well then thank President… Sarkozy
Written by VASS - political commentary
Moammar Gadahfi is hardly anyone that will be missed in the UN or the world. He was a vicious dictator who ruled Libya with a bloddy iron hand. He was a friend to terrorists, and a constant threat to America. The world would surely have been better off if the 1986 bombing had killed him - Maltese Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and Italian politician Bettino Craxi can be thanked for that.
This being the given and understandable stance on Gadahfi, the U.S. embarked on a curious path once it became clear that the Libyans were ready to overthrow the dictator. America took the back seat. America did not step forward, rather we sat back and allowed NATO to make a decision.
In April 2011, America gave up leading operations against Gadahfi. France took the lead. France, a nation that honestly hasn’t won a war since Napoleon. A nation that does not have the same vested desire to have Gadahfi removed from power, if not the face of the Earth.
In fact, not only did America NOT stand up to this dictator, we were failed in leadership. President Obama, in his illogical picking and choosing of Middle East nations in revolution to support, could not even muster the courage to ask Congress for the right to bomb Libya. He chose instead to pick a political fight over the definition of the bombing, and the extent of the War Powers Act of 1973.
The War Powers Act states,
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
It is understood that a President must get authorization from Congress to deploy military forces beyond 90 days maximum.
The New York Times, ardent supporters of the President, were compelled to report,
“But the 1973 act does not apply solely to boots-on-the-ground, full-out shooting wars. It says that 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress of the introduction of armed forces “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” the president must receive Congressional authorization or terminate the mission.No word games can get him off the hook.” - June 16, 2011
Why?
Because rather than say that the U.S. is fighting a dictator, and advancing the potential for democracy in the Middle East - as opposed to our stance under similar circumstances in our somewhat ally Egypt - the Obama Administration stated,
“U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops,” and thus are not the sort of “hostilities” covered by the act.”
According to the Obama Administration, killing a person with a bomb does not count as “hostilities”. We don’t consider it friendly, and if we dropped a bomb on North Korea we are sure they would consider it hostile enough to restart the Korean War. Ditto for Iran, China, and any place where Al Queada happens to be.
Thus, President Obama was unwilling to take the blame for actively involving America in a 3rd war. He was unwilling to have America stand as the shield bearer for democracy in the world. He was unwilling to even be honest with the American people.
Therefore, he deserves none of the credit. If Moammar Gadahfi’s government is overthrown, it wasn’t because of America under President Obama. IF Libya becomes a stable and democratic nation (which is in major dispute), it is not thanks to America under the leadership of President Obama. IF democracy takes hold of the Middle East, again it is not because of the leadership of President Obama.
He didn’t want the blame, nor had the courage to have American forces in the forefront. He was unwilling to justify what he did to Congress, and the American people. President Obama gave up control, and France stepped up to take it.
Anything positive in Libya therfore is credit to France and Europe. Any attempt by President Obama to take credit is riding on the coattails of France and Europe. Its dishonest and distasteful. Not only should any action to gain a reward for a lack of leadership be denoted as such, we would hope it would detract voters rather than gain them, as such actions would be intended to do.
We are happy to see Moammar Gadahfi removed from power. We are happy to sleep at night knowing that another dictator that funded and supported terrorists targeting America is gone. We are pleased that, for the moment it appears, America will cease military operations in yet another nation.
But at the same time we cannot help but be dismayed at the failure of America to stand up. That forthright position belongs to France. Good for them. good for President Sarkozy. Yet it feels that America has lost far more than it gained in this situation with Libya.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Stimulus - “I don’t think that means what you think it means”
Written by VASS - political commentary
We keep hearing the term Stimulus, being used by Democrats so much that we could not help but come to the same conclusion as did Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) in the modern classic film The Princess Bride. Like that character, we know the meaning of the term, but the way we are hearing it used seems inaccurate.
Perhaps one of the more notable misusages of the term came from former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, when she stated in July 2010, that unemployment benefits are a stimulus - “This is one of the biggest stimulues to our economy”
At the time that then-Speaker Pelosi made the statement, the unemployment rate was 9.5%. Today it is 9.1%, not including those people that have used up the 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and no longer count according to the Government. It seems this major stimulus hasn’t worked for some reason.
But Nancy Pelosi is hardly alone in her views of the economy, and what is a stimulus. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack seems to hold a similar view on what gets Americans working. In his version, Food Stamps are the key to job growth.
1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. The highest number in the history of the nation. That’s 45.75 million people, almost treble the number of people unemployed. So the positive effect on the nation should be dramatic right?
Again, unemployment is 9.1%. But for those that think this is a lagging indicator, that the food stamp stimulus just needs a bit of time to kick in as Secretary Vilsack is implying, here is a chart of the growth in food stamps
Chart of food stamps since 1975
Now compare that to a chart on unemployment
Unemployment rate from 2009 through 2011 to date
And just in case there was any further question, here is a chart (up to August 2011) of how long people have been unemployed
Comparison Chart of average weeks unemployed - 1950 - 2011
At any point is there anyone, besides Secretary Vilsack, that sees a benefit to the nation based on an increase in the need for food stamps? Does anyone note an improvement based on the increase of those in need of help to feed themselves and their families?
When we consider what is being said, that being unemployed or needing food stamps is a positive for the national economy, we have to wonder what is going on in the minds of the Democrat leadership. If these are positive things, as they have stated, what other “positives” are they planning?
Considering that both Pelosi and Secretary Vilsack are in constant contact with President Obama, does that make anyone else a bit concerned with what his new (and incredibly late) jobs program will be in September?
Lastly, we dispute the conclusion of Secretary Vilsack that people have been unaware of food stamps and that the Obama Administration has had “success” in making them aware of the program and getting them signed up. Americans have long been aware of food stamps. We believe that prior to recent history, most Americans neither wanted nor had as great a need for food stamps as right now. Which is anything but success, again implying a positive.
As we have asked before, is this the kind of “Change” that President Obama meant when he campaigned in 2008? Is this the “transformation” that he intended? Because if his Administration can call this success, and the other leaders of the Democrat Party feel this is beneficial, we are led to conclude its exactly what he wanted.
Draw your own conclusions, but these are their words and the facts of what is happening.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Initial thoughts on the Republican FOX/Examiner debate
Written by VASS - political commentary
Like many people we were unable to see the Republican debate like tonight. We are watching it via Tivo, and will provide videos of our thoughts of what are the highlights for the candidates. But until then we well share what wer are thinking at about half way through.
Newt Gingrich had a couple of good lines, but his anger at being called out on factual problems in his campaign hurt him.
The battle between Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Michelle Bachmann was very exciting, and informative. Rep. Bachmann won the back and forth, cutting the chances of Gov. Pawlenty even more. A bad night so far for him.
Rick Santorum is definitely the odd man out. His answer on the 10th Amendment is probably his strongest point so far, but hardly strong enough. Even his rebuttal to Rep. Paul lacked a feeling of strength, at least in a manner to grab the audience.
For all of the candidates, and viewers, the belief that this debate would be filled with softballs and distractions went out the window the minute that Chris Wallace started his first set of questions. While each of the candidates have been called out on weaknesses in their campaign to date, they also have been given a chance to clarify, defend and expand on what they believe. The best thing about that being that having watched this, anyone with a question on the differences between the candidates will no longer have that question.
A weak point in Rep. Ron Paul’s position is his willingness to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. He is an isolationist, so it is not surprising. But it is troubling, at least to us.
We wonder why Chris Wallace was so insistent on presenting the candidates with challenges to each other. Given we need to compare the differences on critical issues, but we don’t need to have them tear each other down to present that difference. Again good television, but not exactly good for politics and voters.
We would rate Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachmann as the winners. Cain for his reasoned and balanced approach to economic issues. Bachmann for her fierce stance on her beliefs. Romney for his calm demeanor and measured approach on difficult issues and his ability to counter the attacks against him.
Finally Herman Cain got clear and decisive answers about his comments on religions. It’s been a weight on his campaign, and he would have helped himself long ago if he had said the same thing the first time round, or at least when it came back to him.
Sadly for Jon Huntsman, he has fared poorly. Of the candidates on the stage, he may well be the biggest loser.
Also, we must note that there was a definitive bias in who received the majority of questions, and where the questions would create a circle of back and forth rebuttals. While it in part plays into those who have the highest ranking in polls to date, but also to those that have the most media attention and ratings. Not exactly fair.
Lastly, we wish that Gov. Rick Perry was involved. His loss, we hope, will be made up in future debates and future speeches.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Reviewing our consideration on 2012 Presidential election
Written by VASS - political commentary
On April 6, 2011 we looked at the landscape of the nation and determined what the potential outlook for a re-election of President Obama may be. Since then we have re-evaluated the Republican candidates looking for the nomination and a chance to challenge President Obama in 2012. Thus we believe that it is time to take another look at where President Obama stands.
The latest Real Clear Politics approval rating from President Obama is 43.5% with 51.2% disapproving. Since April that has dropped 3.1% in approval. A bad sign for any President seeking re-election. Even worse when the prospect of economic recovery was shot down yesterday with the announcement of the Fed that interest rates will not foreseeably increase until 2013 - meaning abysmal growth if at all for the next 2 years.
In February 2011 the 10 States least approving of President Obama averaged just 35.77% approval (WY, ID, WV, UT, OK, AK, KY, MT, AR, KS - in order from lowest to highest). As of August 8, 2011 the bottom 10 States average an approval of 33.7% (ID, WY, UT, OK, WV, AR, MT, KY, ND, with AL and KS tied - in order from lowest to highest). A drop of 2.07% in 6 months.
Looking at the states that we isolated in April as critical for the re-election of President Obama we see the following:
Colorado 44% - down 1.2%
Florida - 47% - up 1.2%
Indiana - 42% - down 1.9%
Iowa - 49% - up 1.5%
Nevada - 44% - down 3%
New Hampshire - 40% - down 1.3%
North Carolina - 46% - down .9%
Ohio - 45% - down 2.4%
Oregon - 44% - down 3.8%
Pennsylvania - 48% - up 1.7%
Virginia - 46% - down .4%
The next change over 6 months was a decrease in approval of 8.6% for the above states.
We also looked at the unemployment rate for those states, as the economic condition of the population likely will be a factor in their votes, or turning out to vote. The lastest change, as of Bureau of Labor Statistics, for June 2011 shows:
Colorado 8.5% - down .8%
Florida - 10.6% - down .9%
Indiana - 8.3% - down .5%
Iowa - 6% - down .1%
Nevada - 12.4% - down 1.2%
New Hampshire - 4.9% - down .5%
North Carolina - 9.9% - up .2%
Ohio - 8.8% - down .4%
Oregon - 9.4% - down .8%
Pennsylvania - 7.6% - down .3%
Virginia - 6% - down .4%
The total change was an average of .52% better (less unemployment) than the prior March 2011 figures.
Based firmly on these figures we determined that President Obama must win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana in that order of importence for an electoral victory. Further, he must win at least 3 of these to have any chance of victory in 2012. We hased that on the assumption that President Obama will win 18 States (strongly or leaning Democrat) that he carried in 2008, and the new electoral math of those States after taking into account the population changes according to the 2010 Census.
We noted that there were several factors that could help or hurt the President. The most prominent was the economy. If the economy improved and jobs in these States dramatically improved he would fare far better in the 2012 election.
As of yesterday, with the Fed action and announcement, the hope of an improved economy, from the Stimulus, Health Care Reform, or any other current proposal has evaporated. It is likely that these States, and the rest of the nation, will hover in a range similar to that of the past 6 months - potentially worse if another credit rating agency downgrades the US. That downgrade would force interest rates up between 1 - 2%, and severely hamper the already feeble economy.
As of this moment stability in the Middle East is no more assured or apparent than in April. The outlook for it to become so is just as unlikely as previously. The war in Libya continues with no end in foreseeable sight. While operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, continued losses to military personnell are expected and occuring.
New instability in Europe and England is a negative that was not forseen and may have ripples that will negatively impact the US.
Lastly we looked at the Tea Party and the Republican candidates. The Tea party, while being demonized by the Left, are a political reality now. This was confirmed in the budget and debt ceiling debates. Their focus on the spending in Washington will directly affect the 2012 election. It is also a sentiment that is gaining traction among Democrats and Republicans, much to the dismay of both Parties.
As for the Republican candidate that may face President Obama, there still is no clear leader. Not that one was expected at this early date. Still, all of the potential nominees are aggressively targeting the economic policy of the obama Administration, and the pall that has settled on the growth of the nation. Considering the record of the Obama Administration on domestic issues alone, this is a weight that is more likely to drag the President down than raise him up.
Thus at this point, we continue to predict that President Obama will lose the 2012 election. We believe that based on the economic outlook and approval ratings, there is no reason to expect a homerun between now and the election. In fact the odds favor several negative and painful outcomes for the nation in the next year. All of which will lie upon the doorstep of the President as he is the leader of the nation, for good or bad.
As always, this is not written in stone. Far too many factors can come up that have not been forseen, or considered unlikely outcomes. The actual Republican candidate, and the ooutcome of actual debates with President Obama could sway the nation either way. International actions may create new opportunities or downfalls. The economic hurdles facing the nation, notably the deficit and the means by which it may realistically and definitively be reduced, still lie in the future.
We will continue to review the situation for the President, and the Republican nominees. But the most critical thing we can advise readers, is that no matter what we or any pundit may say or predict, the election is in the hands of the public. It is up to voters to review the campaign speeches, the voting records, and political actions of the candidates and President Obama. It is up to voters to determine which is the best choice for America, now and in the future. We do not presume to know what the American people will come to a consensus on, we just hope to elicit active participation in the voting process.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
How do the Republican Presidential candidates rank right now
Written by VASS - political commentary
With the Fox News/Washington Examiner debate about 24 hours away, and the critical Iowa Caucus just 5 days away, we thought it might be of interest to look at how the announced Republican candidates for the 2012 Presidential election are doing. We are not considering Texas Gov. Rick Perry, nor any of the minor candidates without national recognition in the ranking, though they will be discussed in the analysis.
As a total, based on polls from August 2nd - August 9th (from Public Policy Polling, Quinnipiac University Poll, Rasmussen Report) covering 7 States (IA, FL, MI, NV, PA, VA, VT), the race looks like this:
While we do not count this in our official breakdown we should add 2 key notable figures: Gov. Rick Perry who has 13.43% over 7 States, and former Gov. Sarah Palin with 10.3% over 3 States.
Thus almost anything is possible. Due to the large margin of undecided voters in the majority of States since August 2nd, we could see ANY candidate take the lead if they perform well in the next debate and in Iowa. Even a currently unknown minor candidate could enter the race with a strong position. But there are certain probabilities on the results.
We expect that after the FOX/Examiner debate and Iowa, Jon Huntsman will be out of the race. He has not been a factor, and barring a miraculous performance, we see his hopes of being President ending in 6 days.
We expect that Rick Santorum will continue after the debate and Iowa, possibly improving his exposure and influence on Republicans, but he is fighting an uphill battle. Most likely he will not be in the race after September. He has virtually no traction in the vital mid-west, which we do not see substantially improving.
Also we expect that Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is not a factor in the Republican race for nomination. His campaign has been plagued with defection of staff, poor funding, and negative media attention. It’s a combination that will not allow him to move forward in any reall importance. But we suspect that Gingrich will continue until Mid-October to November, when his funding will be gone, promoting issues that he feels strongly about.
Former Gov. Palin has been on the sidelines for far too long. At this point she is not factor in the race. Her entry at this point would likely split the votes from Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Michelle Bachmann. That would hurt all 3 candidates and none would emerge with the lead.
Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty must make his stand in Iowa. Without a 3rd place finish, we cannot see him going beyond November, if that far. He has gained no traction among voters across the country. His image lacks energy and conviction compared to the other candidates, and he is too subdued to challenge Mitt Romeny effectively.
This leaves Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Paul and Cain. We are assuming that Gov. Perry steps into the race, as he has alluded to and all pundits expect. These are the real contenders for the Republican nomination in 2012.
We expect that as in years past, Rep. Ron Paul will not take the Republican ticket. He will maintain about a 10 - 12% core of Republicans, fluctuating at times based on the economy and the impact of the dbet and credit rating of the nation. But his major positions will remain a mostly fringe and too-far-outside-the-norm position for most Republicans. Add to this his lack of eloquence (as compared to President Obama) and the writing is on the wall. But he will be in the race until the end.
Herman Cain is also likely to not make the finish line. Though he is a motivating speaker, and an accomplished businessman, he continues to be plagued by gaffes that isolate voters. We will add that he is fighting the unmentioned yet real stigma of trying to be the next Black President. While there is no poll or official statement about it, the reality is that America remains a nation biased by race (though not nearly as badly as we have been in the past). This, plus the realization that President Obama was not what he presented himself as, weighs on Cain and his campaign. The racial aspect is surrmountable - but it requires Cain to move past his prior gaffes and allows no room for any others. It also does not take into account his health, which his cancer survival would surely bring up in a Presidential race.
We expect that he will finish the race for the 2012 nomination in 4th. A decent showing and leaving him the potential for a future run.
Thus there are only 3 real choices going forward at this time. Mitt Romney, Rep. Bachmann, and Gov. Perry - in that order. While the debate and Iowa may make a big difference for Rep. Bachmann and Romney, Gov. Perry will not announce himself as a candidate (based on the latest news) until those 2 are settled. Having not heard the positions and platform of Gov. Perry, we cannot evaluate his chances.
We will not try to predict more than we have at this point. Many things may change. As the poll indicate, there is a large and critical number of Republicans that either are unsure or disapprove of the candidates at this point. The candidate that can sway these voters can change everything. It may happen in the FOX News - Washington Examiner debate tomorrow at 9pm. It may occur in Iowa. Or it may take longer. But whnever these undecided votes commit, the real race and leaders will be revealed.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Gov. Perry racist, or was it just MSNBC?
Written by VASS - political commentary
There are a lot of tricks in politics that politicians use to get elected. Some are dirty tricks, some are evasion. When the news media is doing their job, they bring out the truth for the public to see. But when news organizations have a vested interest, the public doesn’t get the truth. They get a biased view that is meant to benefit a political that viewers may not share.
Gov. Rick Perry is mostly unknown to the American people. Having just entered the Republican nomination race, there is a rush to learn more about him and to evaluate his worth as a Presidential candidate. This is where the news media can be of great value, or be the most dangerous plague on truth.
MSNBC has decided, via Ed Schultz and the producers of his show, that truth is not as important as politics. Their political view. Their defense of President Obama and Democrats.
Ed Schultz, noted for his disgraceful comments about a female pundit and the suspension he received thereafter, has hit a new low. Prejudice is a topic that is a hot button in America. Since the election of President Obama, a multitude of Democrats (like Rep Shirley Jackson Lee, and former President Carter) have claimed any disagreement with the Obama Administration is directly caused by racism. Ed Shultz didn’t bother to make the accusation - he just made up a situation and tried to paint Gov. Perry racist without cause.
See the video of how he edited the words of Gov. Perry. He then made sure there was no way viewers could escape the conclusion he wanted them to have, as the directly made comments that he knew were unequivocally false.
Is this what people watch MSNBC for? Is this what they believe is responsible political commentary? Making false accusations and inventing evidence to back up that claim. All to benefit a personal political view. It was so bad that even Jon Stewart, a well-known Liberal, had to defend Gov Perry versus this sickening false accusation.
MSNBC has hit a new low. Prejudice is a serious issue in this nation. Such an accusation against a politician has ramifications that are long lasting and far reaching. It can destroy a career and individual. To just make up something is a disservice to the public and deceptive.
Does MSNBC think that President Obama is in that much trouble? Honestly, we think that while President Obama is using a campaign strategy of negatives against his potential opponents, they have too much integrity and self-worth to make up lies on such a sensitive issue.
We believe that Ed Schultz deserves to be fired. Given he has apologized for his actions. But this was not an off comment, or a heat of the moment reaction. This was a deliberate, purposive attempt to destroy the career of a politician with a lie - just because Schultz disagrees. Viewers of MSNBC deserve better than this. The news media need to be held to a standard above such muck and mire.
The race of President Obama - pro or con, it still amounts to nothing
Written by VASS - political commentary
Recently, we received a comment on a post that irked us. Not because of what was being said, or who was saying it, but what was implied.
The exact words were
“I’m tired of the raciest overtones and I believe that the GOP will not be happy until they bring this country down.”
It doesn’t matter who said it or in reply to on what article. The though is the key. A theme that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee recently spouted on the floor of the House. A theme that is a constant among many of the most extreme of Liberals.
The implication is
If you say you disagree with President Obama, It is because you must be a racist.
The theme is ridiculous. But even Democrats like former President Carter have uttered words that evoke that message. The major media has largely run with that message on almost every opposition to President Obama since before he took office.
But let’s stop to think about this for a moment. Is it racist to disagree with President Obama? Is there really no other logical reason to oppose some of his political positions than the fact he has a permanent tan? Even when such opposition comes from people equally of color?
So, under that logic, every Person of Color that opposed President Bush did so because they were racist? The same is true of President Clinton. And President Carter. That is the implication. That the ONLY reason anyone could oppose a sitting President is because they hate the color of skin of whomever holds the office. Oh, and as for say President Ronald Reagan, well opposiition from other Whites MUST be because they hate their own race and are sellouts. Or how about the implication made by President Carter, that the people who carried around signs depicting President Bush as Hitler, and protesting his policies, are just racists? Is there a Democrat, elected or not, that is willing to stand by that statement? Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, any comment?
When you interject other Presidents into the same line of reasoning, suddenly it becomes clear how lopsided and ignorant such an implication is.
In fact, one of the best ways we have ever learned to explain racism are by examples, and reversing the color or those involved in the example. Maybe one of the best examples of this is depicted in the movie A Time To Kill
Now imagine she is White. The men that would do such a thing are animals. Their skin color is irrelevant to what they did, the attrocity of it. But take that same kind of reasoning and now apply it to President Obama, or President Bush.
Is President Obama being opposed because he is Black, or because he is the President? Was President Bush opposed because he was White, or because he was President? Both Presidents have had opponents mock them. Both have had the small-minded spitefully ridicule them and their actions. Both men have had pundits and elected officials oppose their ideals and political actions. Where does race apply?
Do you recall the images of President Bush as the Joker? Do you recall the delight of the media when a shoe was thrown at the President of the United States? Do you think there would have been the same glee if President Obama has a shoe thrown at him? Do you think comedians would have laughed and mocked the scene? Why is it different then?
America is in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. We still use and buy oil, as much as before. We still have a massive army, and live a better quality of life than 95% of the world. Fanatical Islamists still want ALL of America to be wiped of the face of the Earth. Nations across the globe still denounce every action, or inaction, that we take.
At home, a majority of Americans oppose many of the policies of President Obama, just like President Bush at times. In fact, just like most Presidents since Nixon - at least part of the time of their Presidency. Where is this different? Where is this a “unique” event based on the color of skin of the President?
If we are honest, and set aside political preferences, then we all realize that race is not important when discussing President Obama. His race does not make the Health Care Reform better or worse. His skin tone does not influence the number of people unemployed. His permanent tan does not alter the number of people that have had their homes foreclosed. His birthright of color has not stopped a bullet fired at a single soldier, nor altered the increase in food prices due to ethanol production. The Blackness (or Whiteness as he is bi-racial lest we forget) of President Obama has not removed a single dollar from the interest of the debt that is being accumulated right now.
The issue of race is a distraction from the reality. A way to enflame emotions. A way to stop people from thinking about the facts as they exist. The use of race is, in this application, a means of buying votes on the cheap.
To use my example, reverse the color of President Obama. He is as White as former President Clinton. Or Carter. He has followed the exact same policies. What changes? What is different because of his skin tone?
Nothing.
Therefore opposing the policies of President Obama is not about race. We dare any Democrat, elected or not, to provide 1 law or proposal that was not passed, or even opposed, because of the skin color of President Obama and not his political beliefs.
We ask each of you, think about it. Name 1 thing that is political that President Obama has done that was opposed ONLY because of his race. Even secondarily, even denarily. We are beyond sure, that it cannot be done. Because while it may sell newspapers, draw a television audience, or pack a comedy club it isn’t real.
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
What the DCCC attack on Speaker Boehner hides
Written by Michael Vass
Sometimes we just have to wonder if it’s the politicians that are myopic, or that they expect the voters to be senile. We wonder this when we see things like what the DCCC recently has done.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has paid for and built a site targeting House Speaker Boehner, and all Republicans, on their position for job creation. This is a fair thing on the face of it as ANY politician should be held accountable for their campaign promises, and public statements.
[You can see the DCCC sponsored webpage at Where Are The Jobs]
But what makes this myopic, or assumes that the public is too obtuse to understand is what it does not say about President Obama, and the Democrats.
President Obama has been in office for about 985.5 days (2.7 years and counting). Democrats controlled the House and Senate for 1,825 days (Jan 2007 - Jan 2011). Democrats had a Super Majority, and the President in office, that allowed for passage of anything they wanted - without the ability of being stopped by any political means except themselves - for just about 401.5 days (Jan 2009 - Feb 2010)
In that timeframe Democrats, specifically former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama, created 1 job law - the Obama Stimulus. The success of that, defined by the goals and promises of the Democrats themselves, is an abject failure. There is no major criteria that the Stimulus has achieved as promised or speculated.
It has taken more than 2.4 years before President Obama has even hinted at other job proposals - not laws or Bills, just a proposal to be considered. That is even though President Obama has made some 30 speeches and press conferences (as well as 3 State of the Union speeches) emphasizing jobs as the first priority of his Administration.
Does the DCCC think that blaming Speaker Boehner and Republicans, who only have control of the House and cannot pass any law without the consent and active help of the Democrat-controlled Senate and the President, will suddenly absolve President Obama and all Democrats that have maintained leadership? Do they think that by justifiably holding Speaker Boehner to his promise the ENTIRE status of jobs, unemployment, and the recession are in the hands of Republicans - making Democrats innocent angels at the mercy of others?
Looking at it from another direction, is the DCCC by its promotion, stating that Democrts are so weak and without guidance or leadership that even though they continue to control the Senate for 4.7 years now, had control of the House for 4 years, and have the Presidency for 2.7 years, they are at the very whim of any and all Republican ideas? That is the re-election theme?
Perhaps we are wrong. Maybe pollsters and stataticians under the employ of the DCCC are correct that the public will blindly accept that after 2 years of blaming President Bush for the current state of the nation, that he no longer leads, should be followed up by blaming Speaker Boehner who just got on the job. Blaming someone else for the problem is easier than fixing it, and the public is mad so someone needs to be their target.
Still we don’t think the public is so sheepish, so docile, so ignorant as to not realize that Speaker Boehner is not running America. Nor is former President Bush. We are confident that Americans are aware that President Obama is the man in charge. Which means when things go right, like killing Osama Bin Laden, he gets the credit - deserved or not. That also means the buck stops at the top for the things that he is failing to fix: jobs, unemployment, the economy, ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, living up to his promises about Guantanamo, helping homeowners keep their homes, ect.
And that says nothing about all the issues that started and have evolved completely under the Obama Administration: The “Arab Spring/Summer”, starting a war in Libya, green jobs failures, the hiring of self-avowed communist as a czar, failing to introduce new blood into the political machine, continuing to do business the “old way”, breaking and ignoring political promises, passage of laws against the will of the majority of Americans that have the potential to exponentially increase the power of the Government over the people (Health Care Reform Law), spending money that we don’t have faster than any President prior, and virtually all combined.
Is the DCCC attack on Speaker Boehner effective? Maybe, if you fail to think about what it means, and what else is and has happened in Government. The DCCC is counting on Americans to be couch potatoes and simply forget about the past several years. We think that such a strategy is both short-sighted and an insult to Americans, no matter their political beliefs.
What do you think?
Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, political event coverage, and our political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass - help keep us going. We appreciate your support.
Review of the New Hampshire Republican Presidential debate 2011
Written by VASS - political commentary
So Monday was quite the day. President Obama finally admitted the failure of his economic programs to date, and introduced 2 new ideas to help the downtrodden economy. The 7 (currently) candidates for the Republican challenge to President Obama met up in New Hampshire to debate. Things are cooking now.
In reviewing the debate, there are several observations that are clear. First is that Michelle Bachmann proved herself a force to be dealt with. She won the debate. She will be a factor in the race, if she continues with the path she took on Monday. Though her answer on a Constitutional amendment to define marriage was radically close to a flip-flop. She needs to work on being explicitly clear on devisive issues like that.
Secondly, CNN did a relatively poor job. Given, political debates tend not to be sexy television - but CNN is hardly a leader in cable news in any time slot. But that said, the moderator - John King - was less than effective. Often he would pose questions that SHOULD have been asked of all the candidates, only to allow 2 to answer the question before moving on. Multiple times he would broach an issue only to tell the candidates he would return to it, and never did.
Now we will not take issue with cutting off the candidates. That is what a moderator should do in a debate. As well a modedrator should keep a candidate on the subject at hand - which was also done a few times. But a moderator should NOT restructure the words of a candidate, redefine and make assumptions, based on an answer that was just given to ask another candidate. John King did that far more than once.
John King was perhaps the most blatant about that in redefining the answer of Herman Cain on his comments about a Muslim in his Cabinet. But there were several other instances where it was apparent that the personal political views of John King was critical in the manner in which he rephrased a question or introduced a subject. Asking the candidates if they were “Bush Republicans” or “Dick Cheney Republicans” on an issue on States Rights is partisan, and meant to inflame or disenfranchise non-Republican viewers, not promote an answer to the question. Thankfully all the candidates avoided that act of partisan theater.
The other standouts of the night included Herman Cain. He took a big hit on his answer to what he would do about a Muslim in his Cabinet, while direct it was not clear nor a great moment. The answer was further dunked in mire by the subsequent 2 rephrasings by moderator John King. Even so he was very strong on his issues on the economy, States Rights, jobs, and overall. The night raised his profile a bit, leaving him a contender for the nomination.
Newt Gingrich was a bit of a let down though. His troubled candidacy needed a big boost from New Hampshire, and it did not get it. Perhaps his best answer was his boldly direct comment, also relating to the issue of qualifications and loyalty of Cabinet members, where he gave a strong unequivocating answer. Still, his overall performance seemed to be a bit tired and far from up to par.
Mitt Romney equally disappointed. His responses seemed to be just enough to satisfy, but not enough to motivate. He did not come off like a strong front-runner, just a strong choice among potential frontrunners. He made several good responses, and involved the Obama Administration policies well. But as a polished politician, who has been here before, the expectations were higher.
Likewise Rick Santorum failed to hit expectations. Like Romney he was without the stage presence that he often does have. Again he had solid answers and was rather clear on his positions. Still he did not make himself stand out.
Rep. Ron Paul was of course Ron Paul. His chances of winning are beyond slim, though there is no questioning of his determination and strong positions. In New Hampshire he confirmed his more isolations views, his insistance on minimalizig Government, and allowing private business to grow without restrictive interference. Like always his views on the economy were popular, but the rest of his message was more of something the generally extremist would prefer.
Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty rounded out the group of candidates. He was lackluster by comparison. He did not stand out on any issue. His responses felt bland, if not competent. He was the political equivalent of a meal of beans and rice - filling but leaving a desire for a more tasty and diverse meal.
Based on the overall debate, the things to walk away with were:
Likely things as a result of this debate:
We suggest that if you have not seen the Republican debate in New Hampshire you do so, no matter what your political party. An informed voter insures that the best choice for America will win the 2012 Presidential election.
Review Republican 2011 presidential candidates on taxes
Written by Michael Vass
Since Tim Pawlenty presented is plan for a new simplified tax code today, we felt that it would be fair to present a bit on the past views of some of the other contenders for the 2011 presidency.
The following are statements, on the 2008 election trail and in general, that we believe will help to put the other candidates into perspective. It will also serve as a basis for comparison when these same candidates launch their proposals for 2011.
**We do not promote or advocate ANY presidential candidate, nor any election. We only seek to provide information to allow voters to make informed decisions.
It does not matter to us how you vote. We only want you to vote based on an informed decision.**
Rep. Ron Paul - 2008 Presidential election
Rick Santorum - Sept. 2010, Bush Tax Cuts
Herman Cain - New Hampshire April 2011
Mitt Romney - December 2007
Newt Gingrich - May 2007
December 2010
Rep. Michelle Bachmann - April 2011
November 2010
This review is by no means complete. It is not comprehensive. It is simply an overview of some of the statements and plans of several Republican candidates in reference to taxes, tax policy, and the deficit. It is a stepping off point for voters to investigate more on the candidates, and to compare current comments to.
Tim Pawlenty tax rate proposal
Transcript of speech on June 7, 2011 as per Wall Street Journal
**We do not promote or advocate ANY presidential candidate, nor any election. We only seek to provide information to allow voters to make informed decisions.
It does not matter to us how you vote. We only want you to vote based on an informed decision.**
How are you enjoying your recovery Summer? That’s what the President said we were having. And that was last year.
Now — gas is nearly $4 a gallon. Home prices are in the gutter.
Our healthcare system — thanks to ObamaCare — is more expensive. And less efficient.
Unemployment’s back over 9%. Our national debt has skyrocketed.
Our budget deficit has grown worse. And the jobs and manufacturing reports are grim.
If that was a recovery — then our President needs to enter economic rehab. And the American people need to stop his policies. Cold turkey.
The addiction to spending must be brought to a halt. And we must have a President who has a growth agenda. With pro-growth policies I will.
The President wrongly thought the stimulus — the bailouts — and the takeovers were the solution. He says they worked. They did not.
The President is satisfied with a second-rate American economy. Produced by his third-rate policies. I’m not.
I promised to level with the American people. To look them in the eye. And tell them the truth.
I went to Iowa. And said we need to phase out federal ethanol subsidies. I went to Florida. And said we need to raise the retirement age for the next generation. And means-test cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security. I went to New York City. And told Wall Street that the era of bailouts — carve-outs — and handouts had to end.
I’m willing to tell Americans the hard truth. And I believe Americans are ready to hear it.
But the truth about our economy isn’t hard at all. Markets work. Barack Obama’s central planning doesn’t.
America’s economy is not even growing at 2% today. And that’s what all projections say we can expect for the next decade. That’s not acceptable. It’s not the American way.
The recession may have changed our economy. But it didn’t change our character.
The United States is still home to the most dynamic and entrepreneurial people in the world. They’re all around us. Ready to innovate — invest — compete — and create new businesses and jobs. That will mean opportunities for everyone.
They’ve been discouraged and weighed down. By President Obama’s big government. And heavy handed regulations. They deserve a better deal. I’ll give them one. And here it is.
Let’s start with a big — positive goal. Let’s grow the economy by 5%, — instead of the anemic 2% currently envisioned.
Such a national economic growth target will set our sights on a positive future. And inspire the actions needed to reach it.
By the way — 5% growth is not some pie-in-the-sky number. We’ve done it before. And with the right policies — we can do it again.
Between 1983 and 1987 — the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9%. Between 1996 and 1999 —- under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress. The economy grew at more than 4.7%.
In each case millions of new jobs were created — incomes rose — and unemployment fell to historic lows. The same can happen again.
Growing at 5% a year — rather than the current level of 1.8% — would net us millions of new jobs. Trillions of dollars in new wealth. Put us on a path to saving our entitlement programs. And balance the federal budget.
How do we do it?
In short — we create more economic growth. By creating more economic freedom.
We should start by overhauling the tax code. Its currently an anti-growth — nine thousand page monstrosity. That’s chock full of special deals for special interests. It’s main goal — seems to be to generate campaign contributions. Not jobs.
American businesses today pay the second highest tax rates in the world. That’s a recipe for failure — not adding jobs and economic growth.
We should cut the business tax rate by more than half. I propose reducing the current rate from 35% to 15%.
But our policies can’t just be about simply cutting rates.They must also promote freedom and free markets. The tax code is littered with special interest handouts — carve-outs — subsidies — and loopholes. That should be eliminated.
Such reform would not only help offset short-term revenue loss from the rate cuts. But it would also reduce cronyism — favoritism — and government manipulating markets for political purposes.
Business success should depend on winning over customers. Not winning over Congressman.
These changes will make American companies immediately more competitive. Investment from around the world will pour into our suddenly inviting market. Creating desperately needed jobs — and opportunities.
But just changing business tax rates isn’t enough. That’s because we know most job growth will come from small and medium size businesses. Typically structured as S corps or LLCs. And their owners are taxed under individual tax rates. Not corporate tax rates.
So — pro-job and pro-growth tax reform — must include individual tax reform as well. Small business owners and hard working Americans need a better deal too. Small businesses should also have the option of paying at the corporate rate.
On the individual rates we need a simpler — fairer — and flatter tax system overall. I propose just two rates — 10% — and 25%.
Under my plan — those who currently pay no income tax would stay at a zero rate. After that — the first fifty-thousand dollars of income or one-hundred thousand for married couples — would be taxed at 10%.
Everything above that would be taxed at 25%. That’s it.
A one-third cut in the bottom rate.To allow younger — middle — and lower-income families to save and build wealth. And a 28% cut in the top rate — to spur investment and job creation.
In addition — we should eliminate altogether the capital gains tax — interest income tax — dividends tax — and the death tax.Government has no moral or economic basis to claim a second share of the same income.
When you deposit a dollar in your bank account. Every penny should be forevermore yours and your children’s. Not the federal government’s.
Once we unleash the creative energy of America’s businesses — families — and individuals — as we did in the eighties and nineties. A booming job market will reduce demand for government assistance. And rising incomes will increase federal revenues.
In the 1980s — revenues increased by 99%. In the 1990s — revenues climbed high enough to balance the budget.
5% economic growth over 10 years would generate 3.8 trillion dollars in new tax revenues. With that — we would reduce projected deficits by 40%. All before we made a single budget cut.
The next part of my plan deals with that other 60%.
A balanced federal budget shouldn’t be a political sound bite. It should be the law of the land.
As one of 49 governors operating with a balanced budget requirement. I balanced 4 biennial budgets in my two terms as governor of Minnesota.
And I know the only reason our legislature ever gave me a balanced budget was because — under our constitution — they had to.
We have to face the truth — Congress is addicted to spending. And that’s true regardless of which party is in control.
The best way, and possibly the only way — to ensure fiscal discipline is to put the Congress in a spending straightjacket.
That’s why I support a constitutional amendment. That not only requires a balanced federal budget. But also caps federal spending as a percentage of our economy. Around the historical average of 18% of GDP.
Only a constitutional amendment has the power to bind future Congresses to keep their promises. Force decision-makers to finally make decisions. And give statutory reforms a chance to succeed.
But passing a constitutional amendment will take awhile. And the crisis that we face is here now. And requires immediate action.
I have and will continue to outline specific proposals to reduce spending — reform government — and balance the budget. As mentioned I’ve already begun that process. With proposals regarding ethanol — entitlements — government employees — and Wall Street.
For example — I’ve proposed capping and block-granting Medicaid to the states. Raising the Social Security retirement age for the next generation. And slowing the rate of growth in defense spending.
But we can’t trust Congress to do it. We cannot allow the situation to risk being unresolved. And take down America’s potential for growth and prosperity.
So — I propose that Congress grant the President the temporary and emergency authority. To freeze spending at current levels. And impound up to 5% of Federal spending. Until such time as the budget is balanced. If they won’t do it — I will.
As an example — cutting just 1% of overall federal spending for 6 consecutive years — would balance the federal budget by 2017.
I know government can cut spending. Because I did it in Minnesota.
I cut state spending in real terms for the first time in our state’s history. We did it with priority-based budgeting. We did it by setting a record for vetoes.
It took a government shutdown. And a long government union strike. But we got it done.
We didn’t close our schools. Or empty out our prisons. We cut spending where it needed to be cut. We can do the same thing in Washington.
Impounding the money should only be a last resort. To force policymakers to finally do their jobs. To cut what we don’t need. To allow us to keep the things we need most.
There’s some obvious targets. We can start by applying what I call “The Google Test.”
If you can find a good or service on the Internet. Then the federal government probably doesn’t need to be doing it.
The post office — the government printing office — Amtrak — Fannie and Freddie were all built for a different time in our country. When the private sector did not adequately provide those services. That’s no longer the case.
What’s more — the same competitive efficiency that revolutionized America’s private sector over the last three decades — should at long last be applied to every corner of the federal bureaucracy as well.
It is no longer enough for government to go on a diet. Government needs to hit the gym.
One efficiency program — Lean Six Sigma — already has a proven track record. Using performance-based management practices to streamline programs at the CIA and the Pentagon. And — as I can personally attest — various agencies of the Minnesota state government.
If we applied this approach throughout all federal agencies — we could save up to 20% in many programs.
Beyond all of this — the real slog of the next administration will be an unrelenting trench battle against the over-regulation. That’s suffocating America’s entrepreneurial spirit.
Conservatives have long made the federal bureaucracy the butt of jokes. And considering that some bureaucrat in Washington is actually in charge of the strength of our showerheads — the vigor of our toilet flushes — or the glow of our reading lamp — it’s hard not to laugh.
But the fact is — federal regulations will cost our economy 1.75 trillion dollars this year alone. It’s a hidden tax on every American consumer. Built into the price of every good and service in the economy.
And make no mistake. The current Administration is hunting far bigger game than the incandescent light bulb.
Under ObamaCare’s individual and employer mandates — America’s private health care market is in intensive care. And the prognosis is bad.
The Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill called for more than 200 new rules. To be written by more than ten federal agencies. None of them resolving the catastrophic scandal of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Months after the law went on the books —- no one yet knows exactly what the law is.
And the Environmental Protection Agency — is now regulating carbon emissions. A policy rejected by Congress — but putting millions of jobs at risk.
If these policies sound as though they were written by people who have spent no time outside government — well — you’re right. President Obama’s political appointees have been notorious — for their lack of private sector experience.
This is unacceptable.
It”s fundamentally immoral — to force working Americans to hold down two or three real jobs. Just to afford the whims of “experts” — who’ve never had one.
We don’t need ObamaCare to create a one-size-fits-all — government-run health care program. We need Washington to allow a personalized — private health care market to flourish. And meet the diverse needs of individual patients.
We don’t need Dodd-Frank to further intertwine Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. We need to privatize Fannie and Freddie. And remove the threat — that their political slush funds can never again sink our economy.
And we don’t need the unelected officials at EPA — to do what our elected officials in Congress have rejected. We need less EPA monitoring of our economy. And more monitoring of EPA’s affects on our freedom.
I will require sunsetting of all federal regulations. Unless specifically sustained by a vote of Congress. Under my administration — the NRLB will never tell an American company where they can and cannot do business.
Just as the federal government must break down barriers within our domestic markets. We must break down barriers in international markets.
Congress should ratify completed free trade agreements with South Korea — and Colombia. And complete the agreement with Panama. We should start new bilateral talks with our trading partners. To promote our exports.
President Obama set a goal of doubling exports. Yet his policies have prevented this. Mine will achieve it.
Finally — even if we are successful in changing the way Washington taxes — spends — and regulates. Many of the gains we’d realize could be lost by the continued debasement of the dollar. As a result of the loose-money policies of the Fed.
A strong dollar undergirds all that we do for economic growth. Inflation cruelly undermines the life savings — and life prospects of every American.
If we want to give taxpayers — retirees — investors — consumers — and entrepreneurs a better deal — we have to maintain a strong dollar.
No more quantitative easing. No more monetizing debt. No more printing money with reckless abandon
The president and Congress have every incentive to maximize employment. And a limited government — streamlined tax system — and competitive marketplace will give the economy what it needs to do so.
We need monetary policy that is focused like a laser on curbing inflation. And maintaining price stability. That should be the role of the Fed. And nothing more.
America is facing grave challenges. And when times get tough — some politicians try to turn the American people against one-another.
Regrettably — President Obama is a champion practitioner of class warfare.
Elected with a call for unity and hope. He’s spent three years dividing our nation. And fanning the flames of class envy and resentment. To deflect attention from his own failures. And the economic hardship they have visited on America.
But class warfare is not who we are.
I come from a working class background. I didn’t grow up with wealth. But I’ve never resented those who have it.
The top ten percent of income earners already pay more than 70% of income taxes. We could jack that up to 80 or 90% — as President Obama would have us do.
But that’s not the point.While it might make the class warfare crusaders feel better. It wouldn’t create a single job in America. And it would destroy many.
President Obama has had three years to turn things around.
And all we have to show for it is 3.7 trillion dollars more debt. Nearly 2 million fewer jobs. A Congress that hasn’t passed a budget in more than 2 years. A health care takeover he pretends we can afford. And a fiscal crisis he pretends we can ignore.
We’ve tried President Obama’s way — and it has only made the economy worse. Other countries around the world have tried President Obama’s way —- and have met with ruinous results.
We have a choice. Just because we followed ancient Greece into democracy. Doesn’t mean we’re doomed to follow modern Greece into bankruptcy.
The United States has always chosen its own path — culturally — politically — and economically.
For 235 years we’ve taken the road less traveled. The road of liberty. Of self-government. And free enterprise. And it has made all the difference.
America is in trouble. There’s no question. But the frustration and apprehension of the moment doesn’t define us.
Where we are — is not who we are.
We are the United States of America.
We settled the west and went to the moon. We liberated billions of good people from communism, fascism, and jihadism. We’ve lit the lamp of freedom — for the entire world to see.
The strength of our country is our people — not our government. Americans believe our country is exceptional. And they deserve a President who does too.
We can fix our economy. Our people are ready to get back to work. We just need to give them to tools to get there. And get the government out of the way.
Thank you. And God bless America.
