Conservatives must learn from the shutdown

Speaker Boehner: ‘’We just didn’t win’’

16 days overdue, thus ends an American take on Monty Python. Without the satire.

The White House has preserved ObamaCare, Democrats have won clean resolutions and the GOP has been humbled into a very public and very bloody retreat.

For Republicans, there are only two positives.

First, with this deal, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has probably saved the GOP from being vanquished in next year’s Mid-Terms. Second, McConnell has challenged the President to live up to his word and engage in serious negotiations (my take on 'serious') before next January. In short, McConnell has given CPR to a party drowning in emotion.

For leading the GOP off its Maginot Line, McConnell deserves the gratitude of all conservatives.

Unfortunately, he won’t get it. 

Instead, the very opposite is likely to occur. Conservative firebrands will rage against his ‘betrayal of conservative values’. McConnell’s primary challenger, Matt Bevin, can expect his campaign coffers to brim. After all, for a loud but vocal conservative minority, compromise is treason. A capital crime. 

This insipid absolutism can’t continue. It’s time for us, the majority of conservatives; the ‘quiet conservatives’, to bring reason back to Republican politics.

For a start, we need to recognize what we’re up against - that there are those in our movement who see ‘purity’ as their defining cause. That for these conservatives, politics isn’t about asserting an agenda, it’s about purging the ‘ideologically impure’. We need to recognize that these partisans see themselves as the modern incarnations of John Stark’s heroic toast, - ‘’Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.’’ That for these men and women, political death is preferable to compromise.

Next, we need to point out the fallacy of their argument.

Let’s cut the faux patriotism, ObamaCare is not the British Army and this isn’t the Revolutionary War. In their struggle, Stark and his comrades were fighting for an ideal that was both pure and possible – freedom and independence.

Neither was true with regards to the GOP strategy on ObamaCare. As I argued earlier this week, demanding that Obama sacrifice his landmark law was always implausible. Democrats control the Senate and the Executive. The Judiciary has rendered its decision- the law conforms with the Constitution. The polls were also clear- Americans might dislike ObamaCare, but they disliked the GOP’s brinkmanship even more. On top of it all, Obama had a post-Syria necessity to project clear leadership.

Unsurprisingly, the news coverage has reflected this understanding. Instead of focusing on the absurd incompetence of the ObamaCare rollout, the media set up camp on a different story – one centered in a Republican celebration of rudderless obstructionism. A political opposition marching in perfect step with Democratic propaganda. A modern tea party… without the tea.

For conservatives, this strategic delusion speaks to our burgeoning fetish - self-immolation at the shrine of partisan resistance.

Over the last two weeks, the House GOP has rendered itself the governing equivalent of a skydiving team without parachutes- for two minutes, soaring ecstasy as the jumpers sail through the clouds. Until terminal velocity meets certain gravity. Then truth renders its judgment – the illusion of omnipotence at an awful price. Self-destruction is the nemesis of political reason.

If we’re serious about preventing an American welfare state, we conservatives need to get serious.

We need to grasp the virtuous truth- that Political leadership demands both courage and rationality. That in a democracy, believing alone isn’t enough. In the end as with all arguments, political success requires presenting a case, persuading voters and pursuing change.

The alternative is what we’ve seen today. A gleeful Democratic party, a preaching President and a Republican brand that’s bobbing in the sewer.

Please watch video below for my thoughts on broader issues involved.

A 3-step ladder to escape the Shutdown hole

The Shutdown is underway, but it doesn't need to stay that way.

1) Obama and Boehner must meet

The notion that Obama and Boehner cannot stand each other is a myth.

For the most part, during their 2011 debt negotiations, the President and the Speaker were able to develop a good working rapport. Bob Woodward talks about their once budding friendship extensively in his book ‘The Price of Politics’. Alternatively, one photo provides an effective summation. Although those discussions ended in failure, their very essence proved that compromise is possible. But there’s another point here. If Obama can speak with Rouhani, he can certainly meet with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A ten minute phone call is not the same as a face to face. Indeed, when challenged on this point yesterday, the WH Press Secretary, Jay Carney, was unable to defend the President's unwillingness to meet with the Republican leader. He was unable to do so for a simple reason – the President’s job is to find a path through the political wilderness. Even when the wilderness is not of his own making. In the same vein, Obama is the chief executive of the United States - Boehner has a responsibility to work with him. It won't be easy, but ultimately dialogue is the first step to consensus. Even if the discussions don’t immediately bring about a prosperous outcome, the imagery of constructive discussion would strengthen moderates in Congress and help foster greater trust. Aside from the intransigents, everyone would benefit. It would also help stench the hemorrhaging reputation of American political life.

2) A touch of humility

House Republicans must recognize Obama's political position. The President faces a base which is angry and ready for a fight. A base that believes he’s yielded too easily in previous showdowns with Congress. More than this, not only do liberals believe that the GOP is behaving outrageously; they also believe that any necessary spending cuts have already been implemented. At the same time, Obama must recognize that Republicans face a distinct political reality of their own. At a basic level, conservatives expect further spending cuts from the House and they feel empowered by the polling data (nevertheless, they shouldn't take this data as an endorsement for a shutdown - see the latest polling in the video below). True, in some sense, these diverging understandings suggest an unyielding standoff, yet, they also hint at a solution. Were the President to address certain elements of the non-Obamacare elements of the GOP plan (those focused on spending/keystone etc), he could induce elements of the GOP caucus into a compromise position. At the same time, Obama would ensure the survival of ObamaCare and he'd be able to take credit for guiding the country out the shutdown. Reciprocally, Republicans in Congress would be able to broadcast their own deal inducing message to the conservative base - the President wanted a clean resolution but we were able to extract concessions. If both sides can sell a deal, there is a deal.

3) Leadership

At a foundational level, this shutdown is the result of both Obama and Boehner's unwillingness to face down the rejectionist elements of their respective bases. In essence, instead of pursuing real leadership, the two men have played to narrow perceptions of leadership. Following on from my arguments in (1) and (2), were Obama and Boehner to take a stand in the center ground- resisting internal discord in their own parties, the American people would respond positively. It would make sense for Obama in the aftermath of his post-Syria credibility deficit and it also would make sense for Boehner - offering the Speaker a pre-2014 midterm expression of good faith negotiation.

Ultimately, the President and the Speaker must decide between two choices. Political posturing at the cost of continued shutdown suffering, or common sense engagement that serves the common interest.

San Diego Mayoral Race and the GOP

Among the many electoral races this year, the competition to become the next Mayor of San Diego is one of the most interesting and important. At least for Republicans. Why? Because the Republican candidate is a homosexual. 

As regular readers will know, I have previously spoken about my ideational and political concern over the medium-long term future of the Republican Party. Put simply - While I'm not gay, I worry that if we don't stand for freedom we won't stand for anything. And that if we don't stand for anything we won't win votes. And if we don't win votes we won't win power. 

Fortunately, the San Diego race is showing Republicans a path towards future electoral success. In Carl DeMaio, Republicans have a candidate who is charismatic, energetic and intelligent. Because DeMaio is running 'on fiscal reforms and prosperity to create jobs' he has been able to win support from Republicans across San Diego. While it is true that some Republican groups may have had initial hesitation in providing their endorsements, the fact that the party is now firmly behind DeMaio, represents a significant and highly positive moment. I hope Mr. DeMaio is elected. Not because he is gay, but because I believe that he is the best candidate for Mayor of San Diego. Which is all that should matter.

When the Republican Party is defined by policies that replace soaring deficits and unemployment with solvency, growth and jobs, rather than defined by policies that attack freedom with ideologically fundamentalist intrusions, both our party and the American people prosper alike.

           When Jackie Robinson began his career in Major League Baseball, fans ultimately had to decide whether they derived greater satisfaction from racism or from sporting excellence. Republicans face a similar choice. What do we value more? Tolerance of anti-homosexual bigotry? Or leaders who can restore our communities?

Latest Polling Data Analysis

My internet now appears to be fixed.

The latest polling data is a mixed bag. However, I think the trends remain firmly in Romney's favor (even if the President remains the overall slight favorite). 

I have a number of observations.

1) The second Presidential debate does not seem to have stopped Romney's ascent in the polls. I think that there is a critical reason for this. While Obama may be seen as the slight winner of the debate, Romney has been able to establish a firm position as the better candidate on the deficit, debt and unemployment/the economy. Crucially also, as I predicted, Romney's likability ratings are now level or greater than the President's. Put simply, winning a debate is not the same as winning the debate.

2) Romney must secure either Wisconsin or Ohio in order to win the election. Using this site you can see the prospective effect of variable state wins on the larger electoral college. Using this site you can see the polling data for each state (hovering over a state will show you the latest polling data, while clicking on a state will show you trend polling). Taken together, the two websites paint a very interesting polling picture. Having seen other polling data in addition to these two websites, I believe that Romney now holds increasingly firm leads in Florida, North Carolina and Colorado. I also believe that Romney has slight but statistically significant leads in Virginia and New Hampshire. However, the President remains ahead in Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio (albeit by 2 point margins). Because of the electoral college points available, Romney must win either Ohio or Wisconsin. So expect his campaign to allocate a huge amount of final resources to those states in the coming days.

3) The final debate on Monday night will be crucial. Voter interest in this year's debates has been unusually high, so both candidates still have a major opportunity to persuade the last undecided voters to come into their corners. Romney needs to slightly adapt his second debate game plan for the final debate. First, he needs to be more aggressive with the President. When the President starts misrepresenting him, Romney needs to say 'Mr. President, these kind of deliberate untruths are unbecoming of your office.' Second, Romney needs to focus his argument on 'jobs, deficit and debt' - the key issues at stake. Obama has 0 record on these issues and is extremely weak in his available defenses. Third, as the final debate is focused on foreign policy, Romney must point out the Administration's continuing absurdity on Benghazi as an indication of their larger foreign policy confusion. The Obama Administration tried to misrepresent the attack as a mob incident, so as to avoid the negative domestic political fallout of successful terrorist attack on their watch. The President neglected his intelligence briefings in the run up to, as well as (and extraordinarily) in the aftermath of the attack. I have previously written more in depth about why I believe Obama's foreign policy is weak.

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.

Things to watch out for at the GOP Convention

TONIGHT - Ted Cruz, Gov. Chris Christie and Ann Romney. Expect Ann Romney to attempt to personalize her husband for the American people - Mrs. Romney may mention her husband's strong support in her battle with MS. From watching Ann Romney on tv, I feel that she will make a strong, positive impact on the American people. On the part of Christie, expect a humorous, aggressive rebuttal of President Obama's economic policies. The crowd will go crazy for Christie who is this Convention's keynote speaker. I am a long time fan on Christie. Ted Cruz - the new tea party hero will also be worth looking out for. I like Cruz, he brings an intellectual gravitas to the tea party movement which has been lacking until now.

WEDNESDAY - Condoleezza Rice and Paul Ryan. Expect Rice to cover substantive issues of foreign policy and make the case for why Romney would be stronger here than the President.  Ryan's speech will be pivotal. Many Americans still do not have a firm view on Ryan and this will be his opportunity to alter that perception gap. I am very confident that Ryan will deliver a powerful, passionate speech which outlines the grave fiscal situation that America faces. Expect Ryan to attack President Obama for his utter failure of leadership on the national debt crisis. Also expect Ryan's personal appeal numbers to improve post-Convention. His young, passionate and honest approach to politics represents a refreshing and a stark contrast to the President.

THURSDAY - Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney. Expect rising Republican star Rubio to give a speech that reaches out to Latino and Hispanic voters. Rubio will want to show why Republicans not Democrats offer the best policies for these voters. Also expect Rubio to play up his compelling life story. 

Finally, Mitt Romney. Expect Romney to assert his business background and moderate brand of Republicanism as arguments as to why he should be elected President. Critically, Romney will want to rebut Obama's left wing approach to economics. Romney will attempt to come across as a CEO type figure. Strong, confident and friendly, but in control. Romney will also want to positively contrast himself with the President's 'celebrity style' personality. I expect that if Romney delivers a strong speech he will raise himself three-four points above Obama in the post-Convention polls. Romney's speech will focus on two key concerns - the economy and introducing the idea of a Romney Presidency to the American people.

It should be an interesting week!

In the aftermath of Akin, the Democrats have embraced dirty campaign tactics.

Todd Akin’s comments were profoundly moronic. They were also unbecoming of a serious Republican candidate running for political office in the 21^st century.

While Akin’s interview should have been expected to spark a broader national debate on social issues, instead, Democrats and left wing bloggers across America have elected to pursue a strategy of false demagoguery. While Republicans have reacted to Akin’s words (and his half-hearted apology) with anger and disappointment, Democrats have reacted gleefully, sensing a new opportunity for partisan battle. As a result, Republican candidates are now facing a systematic and deceptive Democratic effort to tar them with the Akin brush.

A striking component of this Democratic attack campaign is the manner in which it is being employed against Republicans from across the spectrum of GOP ideology.

As the VP nominee, Paul Ryan was always going to be a target. Even though Ryan has issued a concrete rejection of Akin’s words, he is still being labelled by the left as an Akin aficionado. Regardless of the fact that Ryan has asserted that his personal beliefs on abortion are private and not ideals for future policy, according to Democrats, as Romney’s VP, Ryan’s beliefs still raise legitimate policy concerns. Assuming they hold their own VP nominee by the same standards, this line of attack is probably not the most logical approach for Democrats. Take Iraq. Here, Biden first proposed a wacky 2006 idea to break up Iraq and then later started claiming credit for the surge which he had opposed. Put simply, on this crucial issue of national security, Biden’s record is a poster for consistent farcicality.  

Alongside Ryan, moderate Massachusetts Republican, Scott Brown, has been another notable target for Democratic post-Akin misrepresentation. While Brown was among the earliest Republicans to condemn Akin, his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, has happily tried to tie Brown to the scandal. As Warren put it, “he [Brown] stood up and said, ‘Yay, Mitt Romney,’ who said he was going to get rid of Planned Parenthood, and, ‘Yay, Paul Ryan,’ who’s out there on a bill wanting to redefine rape. Scott Brown is in this one up to his neck.” Even the New York Times was uncomfortable with these blatant lies – stating immediately below Warren’s quote that her words were simply not true. For Warren the Harvard Law Professor, truth is an obstacle not a virtue.

Having attempted to tar Republicans in the East (Brown) and Mid-West (Ryan), Democrats have also launched attacks on Republicans in the West. The experience of Michael Baumgartner, the Republican Senate candidate for Washington, provides perhaps the best example here. While Baumgartner has focused his campaign on the most serious of issues – our current effort in Afghanistan, left wing bloggers have attempted to paint him as an Akin accessory. They are doing so even though Baumgartner holds a clear record showing that his personal faith does not determine his policy judgement and even though Baumgartner condemned Akin before his Democratic opponent, Maria Cantwell. As a patriot who has spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan seeking to advance freedom in those states, – Baumgartner reacted strongly to the pathetic attempt to stain his candidacy. In communications with me yesterday, Baumgartner expressed his disappointment that most media coverage has focused on the Akin issue while neglecting more important concerns which have real and lasting importance for our country. I agree with him. While I differ with Baumgartner on what our Afghanistan policy should be, I find it disgusting that his opponent lacks the decency to engage with him in debating such a crucial moral and strategic issue.

This week brought a solemn timeline – the two thousandth American military fatality in Afghanistan. Sadly, rather than taking stock of this moment, the party of ‘hope and change’ has been more interested in misrepresentation and distraction. Offers of honest debate by Republican candidates, whether by Paul Ryan on the debt or Michael Baumgartner on foreign policy, have all been rejected by the vast majority of Democrats. Instead, these partisans favor a continuing storm of unjustified and deceitful attacks. This dynamic should concern us all. This week, thanks to one idiotic Republican and the Democratic Party, our national political dialogue evaporated into a mist of polluted partisan absurdity.

Certainly, Akin should be ashamed of himself. But, in their reaction, so should a great many Democrats. Amidst the record of their disastrous economic management, the Democratic Party now seemingly has nothing to offer but spin.

‘Hope and Change’ has never sounded so ridiculous.

Obama tax announcement

Obama is about to start another pointless fight today. He will call for a one year renewal of the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or less. He is doing so for political reasons - IE - To pursue his campaign narrative that Romney is the candidate for the rich and that conversely, Obama is the honest servant of middle-low income Americans (Obama isn't). There is one central problem with the President's plan. In calling for a $250,000 cap, Obama is again illustrating the absurdity of his debt reduction platform. The longer America's debt crisis remains unresolved, the more likely it is that the markets will force a solution. In this event, low and middle income americans would bear the brunt of the negative fall out (higher income americans would be able to shelter their assets more effectively). By claiming that his tax plan balances debt reduction with economic necessity, Obama is behaving disingenuously. His plan offers no chance of substantive debt reduction. As such, if enacted, today's announcement would simply add a further tax burden in the context of an already confused tax system that is helping maintain a stagnant, rudderless economy.

I still believe the Ryan plan (which Romney has endorsed) offers a far better (and far more honest) approach to address our economic needs.

Romney - Immigration

Mitt Romney's speech on Immigration was a good one. The Republican candidate outlined a fair minded, rational plan that would allow illegal immigrants to find a confident future in the United States. In contrast to the President's politically motivated plan, Romney's approach offers a more balanced process. A process in which a President Romney would lead Congress towards comprehensive long lasting reform. Securing the borders while securing the futures of millions of illegal immigrants who contribute greatly to America's economy is an important issue. It took moral and political courage for Romney to come out against the hard elements of the Republican party who hate immigrants. An example below -

Romney v Obama - Election 2012

Romney is officially the nominee. In reality he was the nominee a few months back. Now that he is confirmed, we can expect to see a much greater emphasis on the key issues rather than on semantics. For me the election will be decided on two core issues - the economy and the debt. Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses, pick winners and losers and pretends that he can resolve the debt crisis simply by raising taxes on the rich. Romney wants to simplify the tax code (lowering rates but ridding loopholes so as to increase revenue), encourage greater competition and attract greater investment into the US economy. Romney has endorsed the Ryan Plan for debt reduction (in which unlike the President's plan, the sums actually add up).

  In personal terms, Obama will seek to portray Romney as an aloof, uncharismatic rich guy who doesn't care about low-middle income Americans. Conversely, Romney will seek to portray the President as a man who simply doesn't understand basic economics. A President more interested than class warfare than creating jobs. I think that the President is making a terrible mistake by rooting his campaign in the Bain Capital saga. Obama simply doesn't have many options, his record varies from being non-existent to actively negative. I believe that Mitt Romney will be the President on January 20th 2013. 

Democrats and State Tax Increases

Yesterday, the Maryland state legislature voted to support Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley's proposed tax increase. This news is important in the trend it reflects concerning state finances across America. O'Malley's new taxes mean that many Maryland families will now pay an additional $700+ a year in tax. The new rate also means that Maryland's taxes are now the fourth highest in the country. Why did the Democrats do this? To pay the unions. The WPost article has a quote that stands out -

'Counties and unions for state employees, who will receive a 2 percent raise from the tax increase, praised the legislature after the House of Delegates voted 77 to 60 for the package.'

The problem for Maryland democrats is that screwing people for more money in order to maintain the union feeding frenzy, pisses people off. Major corporations are already abandoning Maryland and California, where the Democratic leadership of that state is proposing similar tax increases. Republican led Virginia, which borders Maryland, has lower tax rates and high living standards. The simple fact is that increasing numbers of people and corporations are likely to decide that Virginia and not Maryland offers the better locale for residency. Human capital is inherently moveable in the DC area.

           The broader point here is that where Democrats are in control of state politics, taxes are increasing while long term entitlement/spending reforms remain weak. In contrast, Republican run states like that of Gov. Christie's New Jersey, are pursuing reforms that increase their states attractiveness to individuals and businesses, while ensuring that the unions are not able to drag everyone along a course to bankruptcy. This polarity of choice - on the one hand, Democrats offering higher taxes and higher spending and on the other, Republicans offering lower taxes and long term reform, is increasingly evident across America. This should be the ground on which Republicans wage our political campaigns. We should be unafraid to take on unions who are the worst enemy of the vast majority of low income workers. 

             Under this President, America is heading towards a future of catastrophic debt, higher taxes and economic stagnation. These issues are of crucial importance. (Screaming about gay marriage does not help the Republican cause).

Romney looks to November

Romney's primary victories last night were not surprising - Mitt Romney has been the Republican nominee for President since Santorum dropped out. However, Romney's victory speech did illustrate a new narrative on the part of his campaign. Instead of a focus on securing the Republican nomination as previous speeches have entailed, Romney used his speech to focus on the President's abysmal economic record. The point.... Romney knows he is the nominee.. from now until November he will argue to Americans why he believes would do a better job as President. Contrary to the opinion of some, I believe that Romney will come across well to independent/moderate voters (the key constituency for the election). While Romney might not have the natural charisma of Obama's celebrity style, he comes across as an intelligent, calm and driven man who is passionate about his country. For this reason and for Obama's terrible record, I believe Romney will defeat the President in November.

Santorum

Santorum did very well last night. However, this result will not change the outcome of the primary race. For all his passion, Santorum has a central problem. His policies are simply out of the mainstream. In arguing so vociferously against gay rights- including Lawrence v Texas, Santorum undercuts a simple premise of the mainstream Republican movement. This premise being that the government should not engage in excessive interference with the affairs of the individual. Santorum would be crushed by Obama. Republican primary voters will ultimately coalesce around Romney. He is the only candidate who has the economic-policy credibility to challenge the President in the general election.


Americans simply don't care about what gay people do in their own homes. And those that do, tend to care more about how much money they have in their pocket!

Obama State of the Union

Obama's State of the Union Address was well crafted but predictably partisan. The problem with the President is that he does not understand the irony of making this statement - 


 'It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work; and every risk- taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.'


and this statement

'Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle- class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else - like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.'

in the same speech. He is right about closing loopholes, but his supposition that alongside the woefully insufficient reforms to medicare/social security he is willing to consider, the top 2% can pay to close a $5 trillion/ten year deficit, is patently untrue. The sums simply do not add up. The President is bright and knows this. So the only possible answer is that he is playing politics instead of proposing good policy.

This statement was equally annoying -


 'In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects.'  I wonder if this means he will move to repeal the union friendly (and job destroying) Davis-Bacon Act?


 I doubt it.

However, where credit is due.. I thought that the ending of his speech was excellent.

'So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.'

Obama's Budget

The President's budget is a joke. It counts savings from Iraq and Afghanistan.. it fails to make any substantial reforms to medicare/medicaid (obviously the political loss of raising the entitlement age was not worth the good it would do for the country) and it uses a class warfare narrative to raise taxes on the wealthy without instituting tax reform. At least the restrooms in the Republican caucus will be well stocked with paper. That's all this bill is good for..

Tom Rogan Thinks..

1) How Disney ever thought that this would work is beyond me.

2) If Sarah Palin runs for President it will be unfortunate.


3) Wisconsin Republicans should pass the bill again. To do so would be good Republican politics- honest decisive action in support of basic party ideals. Republican values are not served by running around screaming like the Bachmann brigade.


4) Gen. Dempsey would be a great choice as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I especially enjoyed his quote about AC-130s a few years ago while fighting al-Sadr in Iraq..

Tom Rogan Thinks..

1) The FIFA scandal http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9481461.stm is a disaster for two reasons. Firstly in the suggestion that the World Cup wins for Qatar and Russia may have been bought. Secondly in that the allegations were not made prior to the World Cup allocation, through fear of defamation suits being brought in English courts. In one example we see the true cost of England's disastrous defamation laws. By the perceived absence of a public interest protection and the heavy burden of evidence that publishers/speakers must present to support their story, speech is avoided and the chilling effect becomes real. Sepp Blatter needs to resign, this should be the final nail in his already heavily nailed coffin. FIFA also now needs to conduct a major investigation into the allegations. If proven, the bid process should be reconstituted and Qatar/Russia stripped of their tournaments.




2) The debate on Afghanistan that is following Bin Laden's death is to be expected, but for me it is also problematic. the Obama counter-insurgency surge (a strategy I wrote in support of -http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/29/obama-mcchrystal-afghanistan ) has produced major security and governance gains across Afghanistan. These successes are creating space for political reconciliation by building local empowerment that increasingly rejects the Taliban. While the corruption of the Karzai administration is  a major issue and while local governance is no where near the level of proficiency we would hope to see, I would argue that with a little more time (2-3 years) we can and we will reach a point in which violence and meaningful political stability; stability characterized by a just, albeit basic democratic peace will emerge. This evolution will allow an orderly and meaningful withdrawal of forces. We have lost much blood and treasure to the effort in Afghanistan and in a situation where a positive outcome is increasingly possible, we have a strategic and moral responsibility to stay and finish the mission.


3) It is a tragedy that HAMAS still does not accept that they cannot win. There will be no peace until they change their outlook towards Israel or they become politically isolated. I suspect the later will happen. People are tired of the cycles of violence. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-accepts-1967-borders-but-will-never-recognize-israel-top-official-says-1.361072


5) Finally.. Roberto Mancini successfully navigates the Sea of Egos - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13346933.stm Good for him.

Blog - First Day

This is my blog. Each day I will put down my thoughts concerning political issues (and sports) that are in (and sometimes are not in) the news. I am a Republican but I have an open mind.

Tom Rogan Thinks..

1) The ongoing Pakistan-US situation vis-a-vis Bin Laden is ridiculous. The No. 1 Pakistani Intelligence Service - ISI, is riddled with Taliban sympathizers and more than likely helped protect Bin Laden from our intelligence efforts. For the ISI, India is the key. They see the Taliban and other regional idiots like Lashkar e Taiba  as  a counter-weight against Indian power and influence. The US is just a source of money.

2) This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13341058 is fantastic news. Freedom of speech is already diminished in the EU (something I wrote about for The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/04/freedom-of-speech-us-constitution-and-civil-liberties), but had Mosley won today then things would have rapidly become a lot worse. Requiring journalists to inform the subject of their story before publishing would have allowed public figures to seek pre-emptive injuctions to prevent the story ever reaching us. Freedom of speech requires robust defences for speech so that journalists can bring light to power. Today's ECHR ruling keeps freedom of speech alive (albeit weakened) in Europe. Regardless, the ongoing twitter- super injunction saga shows the true absurdity of current defamation laws in the UK - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8504051/Super-injunctions-David-Cameron-blames-Parliament.html


3) Boehner's focus on entitlement reform is admirable. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54628.html While Republicans should be open to more substantial cuts to defense spending (there is no question that this can be done without harming our core capabilities), the fact that Democrats don't seem interested in reforming Medicare (the core driver for future debt growth) is a serious problem for their intellectual credibility. If we want to avoid a collapse in the bond markets and an ensuing economic disaster, the debt limit must be raised and substantial long term spending cuts/reforms enacted. I will publish more on my deficit/debt control ideas tomorrow.


4) Nice work from Crawford http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=310509102


5) On the Ancelotti debate at Chelsea FC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13343882.stm  - I think he should be allowed to stay. Ancelotti has an impressive managerial record and has presided over a remarkable turnaround in Chelsea's recent fortunes (Man Utd game aside). Abramovich keeps ripping the gears and then gets confused when the team doesn't work properly? Chelsea need consistency and another key play maker who can support their offensive efforts.