Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Newt Will Seek Revenge

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (Daily Kos)
Newt Gingrich is most likely going to lose Florida this evening.  That does not matter.

Mitt Romney has spent $16 Million destroying Gingrich's reputation.  Gingrich is going to stay in the fight because Romney has destroyed Newt twice, in Iowa and Florida.  I do not see Newt as the forgiving type, so what goes around comes around.

Newt will stay in the fight to try and do damage to Romney because he is the reason why Newt may not win the nomination.


Wednesday, January 25, 2012

What America Needs: Ron Paul


The number of Libertarians is growing in America.  They are dissatisfied with both major parties and think government's primary purpose should be limited to national defense and furthering "personal liberty".  Ron Paul and his acolytes support these tenents.
"If you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty - not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live."
                ~Ron Paul
This is a simplistic and selfish perspective that fails to recognize the complexity and inter-relatedness of our local community, national, and international links. These views are absurd, impractical, and result from abhorrence of Obama's alleged "liberal"  administration.  Yet, more and more people are thinking government is the problem.  There has not been a serious debate in our country about what would happen if we drastically shrank government and pursued the now "mainstream" conservative mantra of elephantine privatization.  To precipitate this necessary debate Ron Paul ought to win the GOP nomination; Americans would recognize the consequences of following this Libertarian path.
Until we do so, Ronald Reagan's legacy, "Government is the Problem", will continue to metastasize.  Moreover, Republicans will try to shrink government, and the Democrats will ineffectively compromise.  Ultimately, leading to a gradual decrease in government.
Three things would be achieved if Ron Paul won the GOP Nomination, not the Presidency.
1.)  Barack Obama would be guaranteed a second term.
2.) People would realize government is the solution. (After hearing Obama debate Ron Paul on the role of government)
3.) It would be amusing to watch the GOP implode.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Future of the United States: Tax Increases or Tax Increases

Winston Churchill once said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing-after they’ve tried everything else.” America has a very weak economy.  9.1% of American workers are unemployed, and 28% of all homeowners cannot repay their mortgages.  Politicians are trying everything to fix this economy except the right thing.  This is quite evident when 74% of the country thinks America is on the wrong track, and Congress has an 84% disapproval rating (NYTimes/CBS Poll).
            Political analyst Andy Friedman gave a lecture in Orange County on Washington politics.  He is a proclaimed expert on all things political and writer of The Washington Update.  He predicted what will happen in Washington within the next couple of years.  He started with the facts of the current situation.
            The United States’ $1.3 trillion budget deficit is preventing Washington from addressing America’s pressing economic problems.  The government spends $3.6 trillion a year.  The United States income is $2.3 trillion a year.  The deficit is 9% of the United States GDP and is unsustainable.  It is unsustainable because the countries who fund our deficit (mostly China) say they will not fund it much longer at these high levels.  If we do not solve this problem, China and others will stop lending the US money, and the US will have to offer higher interest rates, ultimately, leading to higher deficits.
          As Churchill predicted, initial attempts to curb the deficit this year have been too little and unsuccessful.  Republicans refuse to consider any solution that includes tax increases and are advocating further tax reductions complied with reduced government spending.  The Democrats position combines spending cuts with selective tax increases for those with the highest incomes.
            In April, the government was on the verge of shutting down because the Democrats agreed to “only” $10 billion in cuts, and the Republicans wanted $60 billion.  The government was nearly shut down over whether to cut 0.8% of the deficit or 4.6% of the deficit.  This was not an attempt to solve the problem, and in the end, they cut the deficit by only 2.9%.  They were arguing over pennies.
            The Democrats and Republicans still did not cooperate a few months later.  In June, the United States government was on the verge of defaulting because Republicans did not want to raise the debt ceiling (The constitutionality of which will have to wait for another article).  This led to huge talks debt talks.  Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and President Obama had a Grand Plan ready, but Boehner due to political pressure.  This proposal would reduce the debt by $4 trillion.  The tax cuts for people who make more than $250,000 would expire.  Medicare eligibility would rise from 65 to 67, and the rich would pay more for Medicare.  Lastly, Social Security growth would be reduced.     
            The final plan calls for a bipartisan bicameral congressional committee has until Thanksgiving to get only $1.5 trillion in deficit savings over the next 10 years.  If this fails, then $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will trigger automatically.  These cuts will come equally from domestic and defense spending.  Friedman predicts that it is very unlikely that this committee will reach a consensus.  If they could not get along in April over $60 billion, how will they agree to $1.2 trillion?  Besides, this $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next ten years (only $120 billion per year) does hardly anything to reduce the deficit.  To address the issues both sides of the equation require attention; entitlements need to be cut, and taxes need to be severely increased on higher incomes.
            The problem with this situation is the Republican plan to cut the deficit is good thinking in the long run, but it is anti-jobs.  The balanced budget approach can only work after the United States is out of a recession.  Government needs to spend to stimulate the economy because private industry is not going to invest in a weak economy for fiscal purposes.  Government does not need to make a profit; thus, it can make an investment in the weak American economy as opposed to private industry not investing.  One can see the truth in this statement by looking at the United Kingdom’s economy.  They have lapsed back into a recession as the conservative government relies solely upon cuts in spending.
            On December 31st, 2012, the Bush tax cuts will expire, and the deficit will be reduced as a result.  Regardless of who wins the 2012 election, on that date, Barack Obama will be the president with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate.  Barack Obama will have a lot of negotiating power over Republicans because Obama does not need to renew the Bush tax cuts.  Obama may negotiate a grand deficit reduction plan.  More likely, Friedman predicted, Obama will not negotiate with the GOP and simply let the tax cuts expire.  However, when the tax cuts expire, taxes increase across the board.  This will not cause much economic harm because tax increases do not prevent investment, if anything, they ensure government investment.  It will mainly impact middle and lower Class families. 
            Can this scenario be avoided? Can Congress discover compromise and adopt a plan that reduces the deficit? Hopefully, congress does not harm America any further and learns that a mixture of cuts and tax increases must be instituted to fix the budget deficit.  Democrats will need to cap Social Security growth and raise the Medicare age.  Republicans will need to agree to tax increases for the rich.  Lastly, there can be no more political gimmicks and sideshows.  For example, House Republicans must stop focusing on trivial social issues such as abortion.  They have a 22% approval rating and a 69% disapproval rating (Fox News Poll).  If politicians do not change within a year, Congress may see a lot of freshmen in the 2013-2015 session.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Paging Ronald Reagan, Paging Ronald Reagan

                      With the GOP Nomination less than five months away, three presidential candidates are fighting for the attention of the GOP voters.  None of them have any key policy differences.  They all have similar policies regarding health care, taxes, the budget, and the deficit.  They are trying to distinguish themselves by their experience and their anti-Obama fervor.  The GOP’s only hope at this stage is bringing Ronald Reagan back from the grave.
            Currently, the Republican front runners are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.  Rick Santorum is a former Senator from Pennsylvania.  After finishing in a close second in the Iowa Caucus, he has captivated the Media and undecided GOP voters.  He does not have a strong chance at winning the election because of his more conservative, religious views on issues, such as, abortion.  
               Former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, could win the GOP nomination if he does well in South Carolina and in Florida.   The biggest problem for him is splitting the vote between himself and Rick Santorum.  By default, Mitt Romney would defeat both him and Rick Santorum.  Many people anticipate him "self-destructing".  (SEE: Incident on Air Force One about 15 years ago.) 
            Lastly, former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney is the leading GOP candidate.  As front runner, he tries to avoid  controversy and emphasizes his business experience and his tenure as chief executive of Massachusetts.  Paradoxically, his current positions regarding health care and taxes are contrary to his policies as governor.  By placing second in the 2008 GOP Primary, he has the experience and name-recognition to win the   current primary.  He may be similar to McCain who lost to Bush in 2000, and won the primary in 2008.  Romney’s relatively moderate views will help him win primaries in more liberal states.  His recent victories in Iowa and New Hampshire have given him momentum, the question is: can he maintain that momentum?  With candidates dropping out after South Carolina and Florida, they could flock to a candidate besides Mitt Romney. 
            There are some other notable candidates such as Jon Hunstman and Ron Paul.  Jon Hunstman is the former Governor of Utah.  As the most moderate candidate and a former ambassador to China for Obama, he has low odds of winning the primary.  He did not win the New Hampshire primary so he is probably not going to win the nomination because he was betting solely on New Hampshire.   Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas, ran in the 2008 election and tries to have a Libertarian stand-point.  His second place finish in the New Hampshire Primary is a good sign for him.  However, he is too far right. 
               When voters are deciding who to nominate for president, generally, they prefer a variety to choose from. In this case, the differences are superficial.  The only difference among the GOP candidates is their limited experience.  There is no distinguishing issue among the GOP candidates.  The three front runners have no disagreement on the major issues, such as the budget, the deficit, health care, or the economy.  They all want a balanced budget that would consist of no new taxes and rely solely on spending cuts.   They seek deficit reduction in the next decade that relies in part on repealing Obama’s health care law.  It is irrelevant that economists argue that repealing the health care law would actually decrease the deficit and eliminate its potential savings.  The leading Republican candidates seek cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  Intense attempts by Republican Party leaders to entice New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to enter the race, illustrate how weak the current GOP candidates are perceived to be.
               The strategy of appealing  to the more conservative voter on the political spectrum may be short-sighted.  This group does not decide elections; they only represent a small portion of the electorate.   Furthermore, this anti-incumbent fervor often does not work in the long run because the voters want to hear new ideas.  The voter wants solutions to what is important to them.  Right now, the GOP candidates’ policies are devoid of solutions and merely try to appeal to the typically more right wing primary voters. 
               Perhaps most significantly, none of the candidates are presidential.  They do not have the courage to stand up to the crowd.  For example, none of the candidates challenged the audience when it booed an active gay soldier who served in Iraq, cheered the number of executions in Texas under Rick Perry, or cheered someone dying because they lacked health insurance.   Americans are not a blood-thirsty horde in favor of government cruelty, and vengeance, or unwilling to support its troops.    If the GOP does resurrect Ronald Reagan from his grave, they should stop his turning in it first.