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's VMI Speech

Earlier today Mitt Romney made a key-note foreign policy address. As with my recent analysis of President Obama's foreign policy, I thought it would be appropriate to analyze Romney's speech.

Here's what I liked.

First, I thought it was good that Romney went out of his way to pay tribute to the VMI. The Virginia Military Institute represents the enduring center of the South's contribution to American military service. And southern US states make the primary contribution to the US Military's personnel base.

Second, I thought Romney provided an articulate and persuasive argument concerning the political dynamics in the Middle East at the moment. I share Romney's belief that the Middle East is in the midst of a pivotal battle for its future. This is a struggle between forces of oppression and ideological tyranny, and between citizens who wish for greater freedom, greater opportunity and a better future for their children. There should be no question of where America stands.

Third, I thought that Romney laid out robust alternatives to Obama's policies on Afghanistan and Syria. Where Obama announced and laid down in stone an early artificial timetable to end America's military engagement in Afghanistan ('on schedule'), in contrast Romney today said that he would ensure that military advice and conditions on the ground would be at the core of his decision making process. On Syria, I feel that Romney was bold (and correct) to state that he would provide arms to the rebels. This is a proposition not without risk - those arms might ultimately fall into the hands of adversaries of the United States. However, for both moral and strategic reasons the US must support the liberation of Syria with greater tangible support.

Fourth, I thought Romney laid out a credible alternative to Obama's policy on Iran. Romney brought a poignant clarity to Obama's policy re-Iran. This President has preferred a small chance of detente with Iran's leaders rather than supporting the basic rights of the Iranian people. This is immoral and unbecoming of America. As a second albeit equally important point, I also believe that a President Romney would have a much greater likelihood of persuading Iran's leadership to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Why? Because I believe that Iran regards Romney's threats as far more credible than Obama's. For diplomacy to work, Iran must fear the consequences of diplomatic failure.

Fifth, I agreed with Romney's position that US aid to Egypt should be contingent on the protection of our diplomatic facilities and the surety of Egyptian-Israeli peace. This is an obvious demand that Obama has not made openly.

However, there were areas where I disagreed with Romney.

First, I think Romney was wrong to say that the world should 'never see any daylight' between Israel and the US. While I believe that a strong and positive US relationship with Israel is a moral necessity, we must be willing to articulate our differences with the Israeli Govt. as and when they occur. It is not for example in the interests of the US that settlement construction in the West Bank continues unabated. While Romney is right to argue that the world must understand that the US will always ensure Israel's security, an intellectually robust and honest American policy requires that the US will not always agree with the Israeli standpoint. This is nothing to be afraid of. The US relationship with its closest ally, the UK, often faces points of disagreement. Yet, the special relationship always endures.

Second, I disagree with Romney's defense spending plans. While the January defense sequester would be a disaster that must be avoided, I believe that Obama's proposed $450bn/10yr defense cuts strike an achievable and realistic balance between fiscal austerity and strategic necessity. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is fond of arguing, our national debt is our greatest enemy. Building a greatly increased number of ships is unjustifiably expensive. This budget simulator illustrates the strong defense savings that could be made without damaging US security. While I disagree with Romney's defense spending proposals, I support his focus on greater submarine procurement as part of the Navy's existing construction choices. Submarines will be crucial in ensuring continued US naval supremacy into the future.

Overall though, a strong speech which presented a clear and bold counter to the incumbent's foreign policy. Romney is looking stronger every day.

The First Presidential Debate- It matters!

Tonight brings the first Presidential debate. From 2100-22.30 EST the President and Mitt Romney will meet at the University of Denver, Colorado, to debate domestic policy. This will be a closely watched match up. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the debate will offer Mitt Romney the opportunity to close his polling gap on the President. 

There are two main reasons why Romney has everything to gain from tonight's meeting.

1) The debate will be the first time that voters are able to see Obama and Romney in side by side contrast. This is important. The polls show that while some Americans regard Romney as aloof and emotionally detached, they largely feel comfortable with the President's personality. I believe that this is largely the result of a very successful (if not honest) effort by the Obama Campaign to paint Romney into a negative caricature. While Romney has made some recent mistakes, I believe that tonight will positively challenge voters to look more carefully at the former Governor and what he would offer if elected. I am confident that Romney will impress.

2) I strongly believe that while Romney's current polled supporters are consolidated behind him, I also believe that a considerable number of those who currently say that they will vote for the President are far less confirmed to pursuing that course of action - this is reflected in Obama's fluctuating poll figures. These swing voters have yet to be convinced that Romney can offer real, positive change. For them, Obama is the safe but unsatisfying bet. Tonight offers Romney a clear opportunity to re-calculate this enthusiasm equation. He needs to show his quiet warmth and resolve. He needs to show that he has the leadership potential and the ideas to bring get America back on track.

Now the major question. How does Romney win the debate and effectively begin to persuade voters to move out of the President's camp? The answer is simple. Romney must clarify the choice for voters. For me it's clear. A clear choice of more government interference, more taxes, more spending and more debt under Obama II. Or, an alternative choice of less government, a simplified pro-growth tax code with lower rates, alongside a government that seeks to empower rather than control the private sector. 

The facts are on Romney's side. This economic recovery has been the slowest in American history. The President's stimulus has spent hundreds of billions of dollars for very little return. In addition, while the President is great at bailing out the Unions, but he isn't so great at supporting American business. The unemployment rate remains seemingly immovable above 8.4%, each month thousands of workers are giving up looking for work and many thousands more are having their hours cut. Further, over the last four years, the public held national debt has grown by around $5.3 trillion (more than under Bush's two terms in office). And yet, the President's only solution to the debt crisis is to unleash demagogues and unveil budgets that get an 'F' for their math. This is a President without a record to run on. Romney needs to counter the false narrative of 'hope and change' with facts and alternatives.

Tonight's debate offers Romney a major opportunity that he needs to grasp. It's game time.

CNN - Presidential Debates - Important?

PS- My personal favorite Presidential Debate moment

Romney Tax Returns

My computer destroyed itself a few days ago so I was unable to blog until now. 
Romney's release of his tax returns was long overdue - I never understood his hesitation, as it seemed obvious that at some point the information would be released. Anyway... The media are understandably focussing on the fact that Romney paid an effective rax rate of 14.1% in 2011. However, there are some other considerations that must be noted. First, the IRS has stated that there is no evidence of any 'aggressive tax planning' on the part of Romney. Second, over the years, the Romneys have made significant donations to charity - they haven't simply horded their wealth in an underground cellar. Third, President Obama paid an effective 20.5% rate in 2011 - the difference between the two candidates tax bills is not significant. In addition, where Romney's income largely came via Capital Gains, Obama's was the result of direct income from his book sales. Capital Gains are deliberately taxed at lower levels in order to induce investment in the economy. Though he probably thinks otherwise, Obama's books do not stimulate economic activity.

Fourth, the entire premise of Romney's tax plan (largely developed by Paul Ryan) is to reduce rates, while also simultaneously closing the loopholes which allow taxpayers to substantially reduce their tax payments to the Federal Government. In essence - reduce rates and reduce avoidance, in order to increase revenue but reduce tax distortions on the economy. In contrast, President Obama wants to reinforce the personal income tax code with more deductions and higher rates. This election should be about the bold discussion of compelling alternatives. Sadly, President Obama's economic policies are exceptionally weak. 

PS - Paul Ryan earns the least out of all 4 candidates.

The two faces of President Obama

In accusing Romney of being unworthy of the Oval Office, once again the President has jumped on his rocking horse of faux moralism. Cue the standard 'look away from the camera, pensive, this is serious' posture. This is a major league political hypocrisy in which President Obama is the political Josh Hamilton. Sadly, when it comes to Obama's hypocrisy, there is nothing new here. After the successful Bin Laden operation, the President claimed that he wanted the event to be a moment of national unity devoid of partisanship. And then... he did exactly the opposite and unashamedly decided to use the operation to attack Romney. Another example? Consider candidate Obama in 2008. After stating in his book (supposedly written to foster bi-partisanship) that President Bush was too stupid to hold his office, in response, Bush then used his last press conference to speak highly of Obama, expressing his wish that the new President would be respected. What a difference. Of course, 2008 was also the year in which Obama (speaking to a fundraising audience...) proclaimed middle Americans to be racist and their values delusional.

          In fact, Obama the constitutional law professor is so convinced of his own moral omnipotence, that he finds no qualms even in attacking the Supreme Court* when they dare to disagree with his personal opinion. Who cares that this kind of action cuts at the crucial foundation of our country's separation of powers?

         It is sad that much of the media have no interest in pointing out these profound  and obvious contradictions. But hey, President Obama is perfect so what do I know?

Maybe President Obama was asleep during his first week at Harvard Law?

* -  As well as deliberately misrepresenting the Citizens United decision by falsely claiming that it authorized foreign spending in US elections.

Romney Video

Mother Jones have hit the jackpot for left wing spin. Case in point - the absurd haze atmospherics that they have edited into their video. Suddenly, a standard fundraising event becomes a gathering of evil. 

         But let's consider the facts. What Romney said was largely true. The highest earning top 10% of taxpayers are responsible for over 70% of Federal Government tax revenue. AND as Romney pointed out, 49.5% Americans pay NO federal tax. 49.5%. Indeed, when tax related credits/grants are taken into consideration many of these individuals actually make money from the Federal Government. It is in this sense that there are many voters who have no interest in the Republican agenda. This is not a shocker - there is little personal interest in voting for a party that wants to end the free rider train. Why vote against Obama when he will give you everything for nothing.

Of course, there are broader issues at stake here. One of the big debates in this campaign concerns the question of the Federal  Government. IE - What the Federal Government should do and what it should not do. We Republicans do not believe that the Federal Government should exist as a replicant of EU style social welfare models. For us, a balanced but real appreciation for Personal responsibility is critical. For example, I accept the need for Government led reforms to our health care system that (unlike Obamacare's cost inflationary health reforms) will bring down costs and expand coverage. But, I do not believe that the Government should provide a cradle to grave system of state management over individual lives. Instead, I believe that personal responsibility and its inherent corollary- personal opportunity are critical elements of a dynamic American society and of the high living standards that Americans enjoy.

       Another issue. The federal budget is out of control. Federal spending has increased dramatically over the last 50 years. If the President is re-elected the spending curve will probably continue on the road to bankruptcy. Re- Romney's comments - There is a major problem when a large element of the population gains generous benefits without holding an effective personal stake in the broader budget game. In essence, these individuals feed the President's spending ambitions because they believe that they will have nothing to sacrifice as a result. Resolving America's debt crisis will require tough, honest debate. Unfortunately, the President has zero interest* in such a discussion. This largely explains why left wing outlets like Mother Jones are trying to paint Romney as a Ferengi. Obama has no plan and no ideas, so spin and scare tactics are the left's only option. This President's slogan should be 'Change which takes effort to believe in'.

As a final point, because they cannot face the truth of his words, Romney is attracting Democratic screams that his latest comments should end his campaign. I have a question for those Democrats. Where were their screams when in 2008, Obama attacked the personal values of 'small town America' while casually labelling these citizens as racists?

* - The $4 trillion 'savings' are the same that Obama referred to in his DNC acceptance speech. He is being dishonest.

Note- The Heritage Foundation charts linked above are both built upon IRS data. They do not represent Republican spin.

Romney's opportunity

The Democrats are presenting Romney-Ryan with a huge electoral opportunity. With even greater glee than normal, the Democratic Party is currently engaged in a full scale effort to protect the avarice of big unions. In Chicago, after a week of ignoring the children of that city, the teachers strike continues. Continuing, even though Mayor 'Rahmbo' aka Mayor Dumbo is offering to shower the union with more money. In Wisconsin, after previously attempting to sabotage democracy in order to stop Gov. Walker's union law from taking effect, then trying to end Walker's term early, the Democrats are now relying on absurd petitions to the courts. In New York, the Democrat-Union alliance has proudly prevented poor New Yorkers from taking advantage of cheaper food and household goods (the store, its jobs and cheap prices will now go to Christie's New Jersey). As if these actions weren't enough, the Democratic campaign platform goes even further - declaring total, unrepentant support for the big union agenda. An agenda that rests on intimidation, theft and the restriction of free speech. 

GOP candidates across America should take notice. Alongside their support for the job killing union agenda, the Democrats broader economic position is equally vulnerable. The economy remains weak and Obama's economic record (and economic strategy) are  devoid of value. Americans do not like the kind of left-wing special interests fetishism currently being practised by the Democrats. They understand that these policies destroy jobs, weaken the economy and add seemingly endless amounts of debt to the federal accounts. There is now a clear path for Romney to take the electoral fight to the President. Romney must wage a campaign with absolute focus on the economy (and Obama's foreign policy weakness).

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

Nate Silver on the election

Nate Silver has an interesting piece in his NYTimes column that analyzes polling results post the DNC and RNC conventions. Silver concludes that Obama currently has a 79% chance of winning the general election. Now... I believe that Silver is a fantastic analyst, but I have some major issues with the polling conclusions in this case. My concern is that the conclusions do not take into account some critical data.

 First, the terrible jobless numbers that were released on Friday, the day after Obama's speech, will not have been accurately reflected in the polling sets. While Bill Clinton has received a lot of praise for his speech endorsing Obama - and the polls reflect that the public responded positively- the jobless numbers essentially rebut Obama's argument that the economy is picking up steam. The economy is struggling. I expect that many Americans who regarded the Democratic convention positively will see the latest jobless numbers as evidence that Obama's strong talk is not matched up with reality. I expect that the polling data released next week will reflect this hypothesis.

Second, Romney spent the week of the Democratic Convention preparing for the Presidential debates. He was out of the news. In essence, while Obama and the Democrats launched a full assault on Romney, he was nowhere to be seen. This undoubtedly caused a degradation in his polling numbers V the President. Again, when Romney starts campaigning next week I expect his numbers will improve. 

Third, a lot of voters still don't have a good feel for Romney. As we approach November, it will crucial for Romney to show voters that he is a decent, intelligent and ultimately moderate-conservative Republican. The debates will be incredibly important. Though I am of course biased, I expect that Romney will generate substantially improved personal appeal numbers over the next few weeks. I also expect that he will be able to win the debate with the President on the economy. As I expect Ryan will win the debate with Biden.

This will be a very close election. With its fun moments - See below.

Obama's Speech and the final stretch

In his speech last night, the President said that his re-election 'leads [America] to a better place'. My response is pretty simple - the first four years have certainly not lead to a better place. The great challenges that we face - uncontrolled deficits, soaring debt, uncontrolled health care inflation, 8%+ unemployment are all sustained. President Obama simply has not addressed these issues.

And the President still has no compunction about misrepresenting un-truths as truths. Here is the Washington Post's fact checker on the $4 trillion deficit reduction claim - he basically says that it is complete bs. As did Paul Ryan in a memorable encounter with Obama's budget chief. (I can't wait for the VP debate).

I agree with the President in one regard. Like him, I believe that this election is offering Americans a clear choice. However, I believe that the President offers a future of uncontrolled debt, ever expanding spending (and deficits) and higher taxes. I believe his policies serve the short term interests of Unions rather than the long term economic interests of our country. Today's figures show that unemployment in America remains terribly high and that many Americans have effectively given up looking for work. Less jobs are now being added than in 2011. The President's policies have failed. I will be voting for Mitt Romney. This earlier post of mine basically sums up why.

Soaring rhetoric of hope and promise might sound good, but it doesn't create jobs or pay the bills.

Election Observations in Florida

I am currently in South West Florida. I will be returning to the UK this weekend. While in the sunshine state I have been attempting to get a feel for ground level voter leanings concerning this year's Presidential election. There is clearly a close split between likely voters. However, I have been able to make a number of conclusions. 

1) Republicans are far more energized than Democrats. The Republicans that I have met are almost unanimous in their profound dislike for the President's policies. Contrary to press spin, the majority of this opposition is focussed on a fundamental distaste for the President's economic approach and not on his personality (although he is not popular in this regard). The energy that this opposition holds in terms of prospective support for Republican candidates (at the national and state levels) is considerable. In contrast to Republican leaning voters, many Democrats are less energetic in their contrasting support for the President. They feel that his economic record is weak and they regard him as having failed to live up to expectations. Not surprising when the President promised biblical level change.

2) Romney-Ryan need to do a better job of explaining their Medicare reforms. A good deal of older voters are concerned that these reforms will deny them medical care. This is largely the result of Democratic ad campaigns that unapologetically lie about the Romney/Ryan position on this issue (The Democratic Party has no plan so just relies on lies). To counter Democratic attacks, the Republican ticket simply needs to repeatedly say this. 

3) Far too few voters are attentive to Afghanistan as an issue. Iran has come up in a few of my conversations, but it disappoints me that most Americans seem to have forgotten about the fight our military (along with our coalition allies) are currently involved in. Supporting our troops means more than waving a flag and a yellow ribbon, it requires an attention to our military operations.

4) By Democrats and Republicans alike, the President is seen as offering few new proposals. In this sense, support for the President by moderate Democrats and independents is largely rooted in their discomfort with the more extreme portions of Republican Party policy. I firmly believe that Romney-Ryan have little interest in issues like gay marriage, abortion and pornography (and will largely ignore GOP religious fundamentalists). However, negative perceptions of the GOP on these issues are undoubtedly damaging the party's ability to reach out to new voters. I always come back to this polling data. Around 40% of Americans are conservative, 35% moderate and only 21% liberal. On these results, the GOP should be landsliding every election. Unfortunately, candidates like Santorum drive many voters away. I am confident that over time as the next generation of Republican leaders begin to run for office, we will be able to attract more of these voters. My generation cares very little for intervention in the private lives of our fellow citizens.

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. 

Democratic campaign lies continued

Re- my piece yesterday (see below). See Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair, speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper yesterday. Pure lies.

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.

Todd Akin and the GOP

Todd Akin needs to quit the Missouri Senate race. He is distracting attention away from Obama's failed economic record while also helping Democrats to frame the GOP as a party of extremists. I don't believe that Akin was malicious in what he said, just stupid. The deeper concern that I have about this issue is in the way that extreme views like those of Akin help negatively paint perceptions of the Republican Party. The fact that next week's GOP convention platform will call for a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion (without clarifying rights in cases of rape or incest), is an example of this fundamentalist encroachment on GOP policy. While Romney rightly opposes this position (as Bush opposed the 2004 call for banning civil unions for homosexuals), Republicans must be willing to speak up louder in opposition to religious extremism- a constituency that makes up a far smaller part of the GOP than most people understand. People like Tony Perkins are entitled to their views, but their views are clearly on the fringe of American social discourse and they should not be allowed to punch above their weight in GOP policy formulation. My fear is that if the GOP fails to adopt a more moderate tone on social issues, we will isolate a large swathe of the next generation of potential Republican voters. And of course, there is also the broader, more important issue of what our party stands for.

Romney - Ohio Speech

This is a great speech by Romney in Ohio the other day. He appears confident, focused and articulate. Th speech takes apart Obama's failed policies and false rhetoric. Romney is a bright man with a strong message. Especially with the addition of Ryan onto the ticket. I am relieved that Romney appears increasingly comfortable with his campaigning and is now more willing to aggressively take on the President. Game time.

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!

Obama v Romney - Latest polling analysis

The NYTimes is carrying an interesting story examining demographic polling for the presidential election. The polls conclude that Obama continues to have strong support among women, while Romney has a consolidated base of support among white families earning less than $100,000 a year. As a Republican, I draw positive conclusions from this story. The polls illustrate that Obama's anti-Romney business narrative has pretty much failed. The President has been spending ludicrous amounts of money on pathetic adverts that represent the height of hypocrisy for a man who said he would 'change' Washington for the better. Many voters have not been persuaded by these ads. I believe that the voters in Romney's camp understand that it is in fact Obama who has failed on the economy. These voters want real change and Obama is incapable of offering it. I also believe that when Romney really starts running (which he hasn't yet) and spending money on ad campaigns in key swing states, Obama's lead among women voters will deteriorate. The Democratic spin story about the 'war on women' is a bunch of bs. Contraception is cheap, I don't want to subsidize someone else's sex life. That isn't a war on women, it's common sense. Obama's slight overall polling advantage resides on the negative attack ads that he has brought to bear against Romney. When Romney responds to these ads with facts, Obama will lose support and I expect that Romney will pull ahead in the polls. 

Obama's Economic Failure

The jobless numbers today were better than expected (UPDATE- the jobless numbers released in September illustrate the President's ongoing economic failure). However, they were still exceptionally poor. The economy continues to suffer from an 8 .2/.3% unemployment rate. As the BLS statistics show, far too many Americans are currently disengaged from the employment figures because they have effectively given up looking for work. The job situation in America is very unpleasant. It cannot be denied that President Obama inherited an extraordinarily difficult economic environment. BUT.. Obama has been President for 3.5 years now. As Harry Truman stated with regards to responsibility of the President - 'The buck stops here'. Obama's economic policy has been a profound and continuing failure. I believe there are three core reasons for this.

1) The President does not accept basic capitalist economic theory. This can be seen in health care - Obama has increased demand dramatically without producing a correlative increase in supply. I have suggested ways Republicans (who have been pathetic on this issue) could offer a better alternative. Obama's economic mindset can also be seen in his comfortable attacks on corporations - happily comparing them to the bogey man rather than as job creators. This President has an inherent suspicion of capitalism - his attacks on Bain Capital providing the most troubling example. This point has recently become more clear with Obama's observation that successful business owners owe government for their success. For the President, success is inextricably linked with government. As a correlative point, government should therefore at least in the President's eyes, play a fundamental, active role in society. I believe that this mindset is fundamentally flawed. It is true that government facilitates economic growth by providing roads, schools and law/order etc. However, at the core of business success (as with any success) is the hard work of individuals, the willingness to take risks that others won't and the creativity that comes from the individual with an idea. Ultimately, the President believes that Washington DC is better than individual investors at allocating capital. (See 3).

2) The President is seemingly incapable of being honest about the need to reform and resolve America's tax code/debt crisis. Until America's tax policy is permanently reformed, there will be a continuing fog that prohibits individuals and businesses from making long term decisions about how and where they should allocate their money (their "scare resources"). Instead of offering a tax reform plan that would lower rates and increase revenue by removing deductions, Obama instead calls for higher rates and a continued tax system characterized by insane complexity and numerous loopholes. To date, Obama's only  remotely serious tax reform proposal offered reduced corporate rates in return for a winners and losers system in which Washington would allocate its own loopholes to favored industries. In essence, it just re-dressed the same problem. On the issue of debt, until America is able to produce a long term plan for reduced spending, foreign and domestic investors will remain timid and interest payments will continue to soar. On debt, Obama rewarded John Boehner's bold  summer 2011 willingness to find a deal with games. Now, as he runs for re-election, the 2008 candidate for honesty, hope and change peddles the old democratic lie that raising taxes on the rich can alone pay to erase the debt crisis. These failures represent a collapse of leadership and the unsurpassed hypocrisy of Obama's 2008 election narrative.

3) The President believes that the government is best placed make decisions about allocating capital. See Solyndra for how this works out. I used to believe that criticisms of the President were silly when they typified him as a socialist. Now I think they are somewhat justified. I believe that the President's ideology is closely bounded to a liberal mindset that mistrusts capitalist instinct and believes that the government should exist as an active positive constraint against this instinct. I'm not an ultra capitalist, but I do believe that capitalism is a large part of what has made America strong. Government must regulate and punish (SEC and DoJ for example) where capitalism runs amok, but as a general rule, I believe that the less government interference, the better. I believe this is an especially prescient point with regards to Unions. Unions are the President's favorite special interest. Even though they destroy state budgets, reduce employment opportunities, drive up living costs and restrict the free movement of workers. And damage economic productivity.

The above issues are real and considerable obstacles to building a better economic future for America. In my opinion, Mitt Romney would be a far better President than the incumbent.