Ryan-Murray Deal

I support Congressman Ryan's deal. I do so for two reasons. First, government dysfunction is never a cause for celebration. It fosters a climate of economic doubt and a culture of self-perpetuating disdain. It's clear that many conservatives oppose this deal. Still, in order to make the spending reforms that are necessary for the long term of the country, Republicans will have to control Congress. In similar vein, if liberals want to have a chance of asserting the Warren agenda, they'll also need to control Congress. This deal recognizes those two competing truths. In essence, it ends the dysfunction by deferring those judgments to a later date. Second, the United States military is being gutted by the sequester. As I've argued before*, this cannot continue. Especially in the context of growing threats from China and a splintered but metastasizing collection of extremist groups. This is the essence of a compromise. It's a deal all sides can learn to live with.

* The title is a little harsh - Although I disagree with him, I've grown to respect Norquist.

Ryan budget v Democratic games

Paul Ryan has released his new budget. Relying in part on the January tax increases, it nonetheless proposes major but necessary spending reforms. In doing so, Ryan's plan achieves a small Federal Govt. surplus by 2023. Crucially, the budget addresses the imperative of restraining health care inflation in Govt. entitlement programs (the core driver of our national debt). This approach makes the hard choices that are necessary to restore fiscal balance for the post-baby boomer era. Ryan's total savings = $4.3 trillion.

Later today, Senate Democrats will also offer a 'budget'. Their first in four years. Unfortunately however, by considering the pre-released details of their proposal, it's obvious that the Democrats are messing around. And a sad joke at that, it actually increases 'stimulus' spending by $100 billion! The budget also raises $500 billion via closed tax loopholes (which will almost certainly focus on the man/woman behind the tree aka don't tax me- I want my government for free!) and vague health care savings from providers. Further, it only removes half of the DoD sequester cuts (a policy which would be catastrophic for the US Military). In short, this Democratic budget is about as serious as a Monty Python sketch. All this, for a paltry total savings figure of $1 trillion.

          $1 trillion vs $4.3 trillion. It's apparent that Democrats are utterly disinterested in resolving America's debt crisis.

One final point, Paul Ryan has consistently said that he would be willing to negotiate with Democrats in pursuit of a final budget. In fact, re- his health care reforms, by being open to changes, Ryan was able to win the support of a liberal Democrat. Unfortunately, on the flip side the story is much different. Senior Democrats much prefer slander to dialogue.

Vice Presidential Debate

Apologies for my absence from the blog over the past few days - I have been busy with some other work.

Tonight will see the first and only 2012 Vice-Presidential debate. The meeting between Biden and Ryan should bring some compelling insights concerning the state of the campaign and the divergent benefits (and costs) that Biden and Ryan bring to their respective running mates.

There will be a number of dyanmics at play tonight.

1) In the aftermath of the President's debate performance last week, the Obama campaign will be looking to Biden to make a strong showing. The Obama campaign team understand that if Ryan wins convincingly against Biden, the political consequences will likely be profound. Having Romney and Ryan comfortably win the first two debates would most certainly fuel further negative media attention on the incumbent ticket. In addition, a clear Ryan win would move more independents into the Republican bracket. Both these outcomes would dramatically increase pressure on Obama's re-election prospects.

2) There will be an interesting 'contest of style' tonight. In a similar manner to the first Presidential debate in which Romney tried to claim the mantle of a less-populist, more-CEO style leader, Ryan will seek to assert that narrative even further. Ryan will be focused on appearing as a determined, passionate policy wonk. The Romney campaign are wagering (I believe correctly) that because of the economy, voters are far more interested in politicians who offer policy solutions, rather than warm populism. In contrast to Ryan, Biden will want to come across as a literal 'average joe'. Biden's greatest political talent is his ability to appeal to the instinctive emotions of voters. Biden will want to make people feel good about him and by association, also feel good about the President. The Obama campaign remain convinced that increased enthusiasm from their base will go along way to helping them achieve re-election. It will be interesting to see how these two styles interact.

3) The policy debate tonight will probably center on three issues - Medicare, tax reform and the Benghazi intelligence scandal (that Obama's foreign policy is weak and struggles with the truth). Biden will attempt to launch an emotionally charged attack on the Romney-Ryan medicare and tax reform proposals. Expect Biden to bring out lines like this one (I have made this up) - 'In the midst of an economy in which middle class families across America are suffering, Romney and Ryan want to cut taxes on millionaires and turn medicare into a voucher system where seniors have to fight for the medical care they are owed.' In contrast, Ryan will attempt to counter Biden with the logical argument that Medicare is going bankrupt and that America's national leadership owe voters serious solutions rather than populist games. Expect Ryan to blow holes in the absurd Obama-Biden argument that the rich can pay down the national debt. Ryan will also make the case that tax reform is crucial to American economic growth and effective revenue generation. I expect these policy debates will become heated. 

What do I think will happen? While I don't expect a win on the scale of Romney's last week, I do feel that Ryan will win tonight's debate. With the exception of foreign policy, I don't believe that Biden has the policy-wonk strength to seriously debate Ryan on the issues. Ryan's passion for the Romney-Ryan proposals and crucially, Ryan's ability to articulate the seriousness of the issues at stake will be clear to voters. I believe that Biden will struggle to defend an Administration lacking in serious policy solutions for the great challenges of our time.

Romney V Obama - What Romney must do to win

The latest ABC News-Washington Post polling data shows a closer race (likely voters are the key) than Nate Silver had suggested. To be honest, I am surprised that Romney is not 1-2 points ahead of the President after last week's terrible jobless numbers - I expect this is for the reasons I mention below. The polls will fluctuate as the next few weeks pass by. The really important data will start coming in after the Presidential debates. However, there is some useful information below the surface of this latest poll.

            First, the poll shows a deep dissatisfaction with Obama's handling of the economy. 53% of voters oppose of his handling of the economy. The majority of these voters believe that the issue is rooted in the President's policy failings, rather than in his purported need for more time to remedy the situation. In addition, a statistically relevant ten point majority of voters (43%-32%) believe that the economy has become worst since the President took office. There is a division between voters who blame the President for the bad economy and those who do not. Mitt Romney also holds an advantage in terms of being viewed as someone who understands small business needs. Interestingly, a clear majority of voters believe that government programs do more to harm small businesses than help them (53%-35%).

           Second, the poll shows that most voters do not believe that Mitt Romney has given them enough clarity on what policies he would pursue as President. Further, the President holds significant advantages in terms of his polling on whether he or Romney would do a better job for the middle class or women's issues. 

           So what do these results mean? First- the election remains close and most certainly winnable by Romney. As I noted earlier this week, Romney must do more to boost his personal appeal numbers. I don't think that this will be too difficult to accomplish, Romney must simply get out on TV more. He needs to do more late night tv interviews (shows that have a comedic edge) and he needs to show the American people his life story - a committed husband and successful businessman. Second, Romney also needs to take much greater advantage of the President's weakness on the economy. The polling data shows that many voters are looking for a reason to abandon the President. Romney must take the fight to Obama. Romney should be aggressive and bold in articulating why the President's economic policy continues to be an abysmal failure and why in specific terms, he (Romney) would do a better job. Romney should also be unafraid to assert the conservative message as to why government is not the solution to America's problems. America is not Europe and attacking government spending will not alienate independent voters. Romney should attack the President for his proposed American Jobs Act (which Obama frequently touts on the campaign trail) by pointing (as I have) to the Chicago teacher's strike, as an example of how Obama serves Union vested interests rather than the interests of the private sector. Specifically, Romney should root this argument in a broader narrative that explains why the President is no friend of the middle class nor of small businesses. This shouldn't be too hard - Obama has showed his own disregard for hard work and business risk takers. Third, Romney must show American women that he is not with the fringe Republican goon squad when it comes to issues that concern them. These fringe morons have been able to shape public perceptions of the GOP on social issues for far too long - Romney must ensure this changes. Romney should openly condemn Republicans like Todd Akin, while asserting that the economy rather than abortion will be the key for his Presidency. If Romney is unable to attract a larger percentage of women voters, he will lose the election. James Boys recently wrote about this important concern.

             But again, the key is the economy. Romney should engage with Paul Ryan in a collective attack on Obama's failed economic record. Failure on the economy, failure on the debt. This is not a difficult argument to articulate. With reference to the economy, perhaps Romney should adopt the line-

  'Failure only the President believes in'.

GOP ad - Illustrates the message that Romney should relentlessly present

Rebutting the left wing spin on Ryan's Speech

Jonathan Cohn's TNR hit piece on Ryan was mostly devoid of factual value. Here's why.

1) Wrong. The plant was still open until April 2009. Obama said that he would help it stay that way. He didn't.

2) Some truth. True that Romney-Ryan counts the cuts, but the cuts are effectively irrelevant to Romney-Ryan because their plan is to completely overhaul the medicare system anyway. A plan so horrendous, it was co-authored by a a liberal democratic Senator. Indeed, unlike the President, Ryan has always said that he is willing to negotiate on this issue as part of a grand compromise. 

I find these quotes absurd -  

"By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.

What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates."

Let's see what doctors decide to do when the opportunity cost of treating Medicare patients becomes even more excessive. And where is Obama going to find the money for his new 'added benefits'? As with his Medicare proposals (and his budget - see end of 5), he is going to imagine it into existence.

3) Republicans must share some blame for this. I have argued the same. But... In the end, it was Obama who failed to engage in genuine negotiations with House Speaker Boehner about how to resolve the debt crisis. Boehner was willing to stand up to the huge power of the tea party in pursuit of a deal. In contrast, Obama went back on his word so as to please left-wing Democrats in Congress.

4) Somewhat fair. But those lines are on an escalating track through the next ten years. In addition, they assume that Obama wants to cancel all the Bush era tax cuts (which he doesn't). And... it hilariously asserts that Obama has no responsibility for the continuing economic troubles. And... it claims that Obama has no responsibility for Iraq/Afghanistan even though he has direct control over both theaters. 

5) This is an ideological issue. Republicans believe that the Federal Government should have less role in social service program provision. IE - If New Yorkers want to pay more taxes for more programs, then that is their prerogative. If Mississippians want to pay less taxes for less programs, again, that is their prerogative. Block granting allows states to find cost savings at the local level, rather than having the blind hand of the Federal Govt. throwing money into a dark, bottomless abyss.  Just look at the cost growth of the Federal disability support program as an example of this issue. The poorest Americans are the ones who have the most to lose if we continue on the debt course. Such a situation risks Medicare's very existence.  The real issue here is addressing the health care cost growth which is absorbing low/middle income real wages (neither Obama nor Congressional Republicans are yet offering substantive plans to address health care inflation) (though I believe Ryan will want to press this concern onto a Romney Presidential agenda). Cohn seems to think (like many Democrats including the President) that we have an ample supply of money. We have no money. We have to make tough choices rather than tough attack ads. Oh and on tax reform, Ryan's plan (endorsed by Romney) would eliminate loopholes so as to prevent the rich from being able to reduce their tax bills through heavy avoidance. Obama would simply reinforce the thousands and thousands of pages of our tax code mess. Obama's approach to America's fiscal situation is a dream. And a nightmare for America. 

Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan made a great speech last night. Ryan was bold, passionate and presented compelling arguments. Ryan didn't turn away from the fray, he ran straight into it. The difference between Ryan and the 2008 Republican VP could not be more profound. I thought Ryan was at his best when he slammed the President's failed economic record - 'one term, five trillion in new debt.' My favorite line was his rebuke of Obama's attacks on Romney's business record - 'And by the way, being successful in business: that's a good thing!' It was obvious that Ryan was at his most comfortable when he attacked Obama's Presidency as the 'nothing' Presidency. As Ryan noted with reference to the ideas battle at stake in this election - 'We will win.'

Paul Ryan as a candidate

This video effectively explains why Paul Ryan will make a great VP candidate. Because the Democrats refuse to suggest solutions to medicare/social security cost growth, they are unable to do anything but apply scare tactics against Ryan's plan. It is pathetic and it will be seen as such by the American people

Paul Ryan - VP

IF Paul Ryan is indeed to become Romney's VP running mate, he would be an extremely strong choice. Ryan has been one of the few Republicans willing to propose a serious process for reducing the catastrophic federal debt. He has been clear and articulate in taking apart the President's disingenuous and failed debt reduction policies. The Ryan debt reduction plan (which Romney has endorsed) makes bold choices on tax (it reduces loopholes - some popular) in return for lower rates. The Ryan plan also offers substantive reforms to social security and medicare, in order to maintain those programs for future generations. In contrast, Obama's plan would let those programs erode with the weight of the baby boomers. Ryan will be able to articulate why the President's policies are so abysmal and how America can do better. It is important that this election is centered around intelligent debates concerning the deep financial difficulties that we are facing. No candidate is better suited to that debate than Paul Ryan.

I am much happier with this VP choice than the last one!

The need for a 'big tent' GOP

On Thursday, I attended a meeting of Republicans Abroad UK in London. It was a productive gathering that should enable Republicans in the UK to provide better assistance to the task of electing Romney in November. However, towards the end of the meeting, I had a little (loud) disagreement with one lady who was in attendance. I remarked that I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin. This particular individual did not appreciate my comment and stated something along the lines of 'You've never met her!'... I responded by saying that I didn't need to. (Why I dislike Palin). In the end, the lady's husband calmed the situation down by making a comment about how the Republican Party needs to be a 'big tent' organization and that we must respect varied opinions. If he was genuine in this belief then he is absolutely right. However, my concern about Palin is that she lacks any apparent intellectual curiosity and  thinks that this is something to be proud of. It isn't. For reasons of politics and patriotism, Republicans need to put forward candidates like Paul Ryan who have a deep grasp of important issues, rather than supporting candidates who have no clue about the most basic elements of policy. When it comes to foreign policy, I take this issue extremely seriously. Put simply, when we send Americans to fight and if necessary die, we must ensure that we have serious policymakers in positions of leadership. But... if people are willing to hear me out, I will hear them out.

Great scene from West Wing. The President is a Democrat but his point stands.

The Republican Budget

Paul Ryan's budget shows that House Republicans are focused on advancing serious plans to resolve the extraordinarily high federal deficit/debt. The Democrats will scream that the Ryan budget will hurt the poor, but the simple fact is that Ryan has offered a plan that resolves America's fiscal crisis and preserves medicare/social security for the benefit of future generations. 

As the NY Times notes, 

'Under the House plan, the current $1.18 trillion deficit would fall to $797 billion in the coming fiscal year, compared with $977 billion under Mr. Obama’s plan. By 2016, the deficit would fall to $241 billion by Republican estimates. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that Mr. Obama’s budget would still have a $529 billion deficit in 2016.

The Ryan plan would accumulate $3.1 trillion in additional debt through 2022. The president’s would add $6.4 trillion, more than twice that total. The Republican budget cuts spending by $5 trillion more than the president’s plan.' [5.3 trillion/10 yrs]

Ezra Klein at the WPost argues that the Ryan plan resolves the debt on the backs of the poor. I challenge that premise.  49% of Americans don't even pay federal income taxes. In addition, the Ryan plan cuts tax rates to just two rates (25% and 10%) by ridding the system of the tax loopholes/inefficiencies that are used by the rich and that lose the Government huge amounts of revenue each year. At the same time, Ryan adopts the bi-partisan medicare proposal that Democrat Ros Wyden helped author. The Democrats have offered no solutions to the looming medicare bankruptcy. The US should not be a something for nothing society.  Klein suggests that the $5.3 trillion reduction is unnecessarily high..  My response? Not when our interest payments are this high.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress have abdicated the responsibility of governing. They are in full election mode. Look for more political scare tactics like this. There is no question that the GOP is taking substantial political risk in proposing this plan. Pain is rarely popular but sometimes it is necessary. Republicans are gambling that Americans will prefer a future in which medicare and social security are preserved for those who will need it, taxes are low and personal responsibility remains part of the American way of life. The Democrats want to drag America towards a European style social welfare system..  with high taxes and big government. There's nothing wrong with this (in a democracy people should be able to chose to live in whatever kind of system they want and many Europeans are v. happy with their system), but the Democrats are lying to the American people when they pretend that the rich alone can pay off the debt. 

The Republicans now have a plan in which the sums add up. Democrats have a joke.

40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, 35% as moderates and 21% as liberals. This is a fight that Republicans will ultimately win.

Paul Ryan continued

Follow up of last post - Ryan grilling White House budget.

Paul Ryan discussing the President's budget

As regular readers will know, I am a big fan of Congressman Paul Ryan. 

Here he is again. This time taking apart the absurdity of the President's budget and illuminating the hollow nature of the President's 'desire' for realistic, bi-partisan solutions to resolve America's debt crisis. Ryan is articulate, exceptionally bright and willing to engage in real bi-partisan solutions (listen to him talking about his plans with Democrat Ron Wyden)*. 

Ryan is also incredibly important to the credibility of the Republican Party in the era of Palin/Cain etc.

*- The President launched political attacks on Wyden and Ryan when they announced their plan. The President's change we can believe in..

Paul Ryan on Fox News Sunday

Paul Ryan takes apart President Obama's economic policies. Ryan is a deeply impressive Republican politician. I really hope that he runs for President one day. In the meantime, we need to get him at the front of our message delivery (and cut out the Sarah Palinesque individuals).

Tom Rogan Thinks..

1) Obama is speaking to the UK Parliament today. I hope he says that as part of a balanced relationship the US cannot be expected to subsidize European security.

2) The election of the Democrat in New York shows two things. 1) The tea party cannot win everywhere. The voters who went with the tea party candidate should consider the political value of their vote. 2) The Republicans need to do a much better job articulating the crisis facing Medicare. It should be the main Republican talking point at every stump speech to state that even with top rate tax increases the budget gap cannot begin to be resolved.

3) The Libya operation was always going to be complicated. The niavete of people who excitedly called for war was stunning. The Europeans must spend more on defence.

4) Obama has some good options for the next chairman of the joint chiefs. I think Ray Odierno would be the best pick. He has born the personal and professional burden of war.

5) Finally.. to all those who said that Obama is being anti-Israeli, read this poll.

6) The French Open is wide open. I still think Nadal will win. He sometimes takes a while to warm into the tournament.

Tom Rogan Thinks..

1) The ongoing Twitter saga is interesting. David Cameron has now come out against the injunctions. The New York Times seems to think that it is unlikely that Twitter will co-operate with attempts by the English courts to access the personal details of the 'tweeters'. I hope Twitter tell the High Court to f**k off. If you are in the public eye and you base your public image (and earning power) upon the visage of an honorable family man focused only on athletic excellence, but are in fact engaging in a long term affair, the public must be allowed to judge you on the truth. If you want privacy then go live in a box.

2) Once again Obama's sums don't add up

3) A shame that Mitch Daniels is out of the Presidential race. However, Tim Pawlenty's announcement ad is pretty good. I want him to win the nomination (not just because of the ad!!).

4) Yemen's problems are only going to grow. The country has no water, demographics that do not suggest political stability (very young population) and is fragmented along deep political divisions. A wonderful place for Al Qa'ida to reconstitute its Arabian operations.

5) Rumsfeld is right about the White House and Bin Laden.

6) Michelle Bachmann is an embarrassment to our democracy. This ad sums up why. Bachmann relies upon people who take comfort in locking themselves in a specific understanding of the world. I had a debate with one such individual yesterday in the comments below a Naples News article.

7) Red Sox played very well last night. Very disappointing that Blackpool were relegated from the premier league. I hope Ian Holloway gets a premier league job soon. Great guy.