Rick Perry's exit from the Republican field makes the race far more interesting as it will undoubtedly lead to some level of consolidation of the "not Mitt" vote in South Carolina. Perry quickly endorsed Newt Gingrich for President and Newt certainly becomes a more likely contender for a South Carolina win.
Gingrich has been catapulting in the polls as a result of his strong debate performance on Monday and he hopes for a repeat tonight. Romney is still the betting favorite, but Gingrich is closing in.
In the mix of all of this is the odd report from Newt's ex-wife that he had asked for an open marriage. I have no idea if the allegations are true and don't particularly care, but those types of liberal personal social activities are poison to social conservatives. On the other hand, did anyone actually think Newt was a classic conservative family man?
The debate tonight should be interesting.
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Wholly Ridiculous Perry Tax Plan, Did Tim Pawlenty Bow Out Too Soon?, Deficit Plan PR Wars
A Very, Very Bad Plan
There are some things to love about the concept of a flat tax. Our current income tax system is overly complicated, causing a huge cost of enforcement, large scale fraud (or at least graying of the tax law) and places an efficient time and financial burden on tax payers. A true flat tax, that eliminated all the itemized deductions and at least carved out an exemption for the first $20K or $30K of income (so we aren't taxing working class people into poverty) would probably be preferable to our current system, particularly if it was structured to encompass existing payroll taxes. It has the drawback of, on face, making the system less progressive, but the reality is that our existing code really is regressive in many cases, because of the myriad of tax credits and deductions that distort the stated rates. Besides, by exempting, say, the first $30K in income and setting a tax rate of say, 20%, the progressive nature of the code would be preferred, since a wage earner of $30K would pay an effective rate of 0%, an earner making $60K would pay an effective rate of 10% and an earner making $150K would pay an effective rate of 16% and so on.
So shouldn't I love Rick Perry's plan that applies a flat tax of 20% and exempts the first $12,500 in income for individuals? Absolutely not. Perry's plan combines all of the worst drawbacks of a flat tax while gaining none of the advantages. His plan lets taxpayers CHOOSE between the existing system and his new system. This means that all of the loopholes and carve outs stay for those who benefit them. It doesn't get rid of the cost of enforcement, since any number of taxpayers may continue to pay under the old system, if it benefits them. It doesn't reduce the burden on taxpayers for preparing their returns, since you would need to do your taxes both ways in order to determine which one was more beneficial. Even in the "flat tax" option, it leaves carve outs to deduct state income taxes, charitable deductions and home mortgage interest.
Worst of all, it would amount to a massive decrease in federal revenue. How can I be so sure? Think about it. If I have an option between the old system and Perry's new system, which system would I choose? The answer, of course, is the one under which I pay less taxes. There would be no taxpayers that would pay more...and many who would pay less (those who would owe less under Perry's new system.) It's simple math that you can't have no one pay more and lots of people pay less and not collect a lot less.
Worse still, Perry eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends, meaning he is effectively not taxing the investing class and relying entirely on taxes on wages. This makes the system massively more regressive than our existing system.
This is a far inferior system to Herman Cain's 9/9/9 plan, although that has flaws too, which I have previously discussed. It is completely unserious. He has absolutely zero in specific budget cuts to offset the revenue, instead only a broad statement that he wants to get federal spending down to 18% of GDP. Even if that were possible without either massive cuts to military spending or serious changes to entitlement programs (one of those two would be necessary), to get to a balanced budget at 18% of GDP, we'd need Clinton-era tax levels, not rates even lower than the ones today.
It's fine to believe in lower taxes. But lower taxes should be a byproduct of lower spending. So if you want to cut taxes by slashing Social Security, Medicare or Defense, then say so. There is no free ride.
Shame on the conservative blogosphere for embracing Perry's plan. A flat tax debate would be a great debate to have in this country. But let's debate a real plan, not a PR gimmick.
I probably shouldn't waste much more digital ink on Perry. Between this and his ridiculous identification with birthers this week, I think he is pretty well done as a national candidate. Frankly, I think GOP primary voters were done with him even earlier.
Where is Tim Pawlenty When You Need Him?
75% of the GOP seems to want someone other than Mitt Romney to be the nominee, judging by his stuck-in-neutral poll numbers. Perry has effectively flamed out. Michele Bachmann's brief surge is a distant memory. Herman Cain looks unready for the national stage on many levels.
If he were still in the race, wouldn't Tim Pawlenty seem like a logical guy to go to? Sure, he once supported Cap and Trade. But his conservative bona fides are a heck of a lot better than Romney's and Pawlenty has the credibility of a successful governor. Does anyone else think he would be a player if he hadn't dropped out so early?
A Tax Increase by Any Other Name...
The PR leaks around the deficit reduction super committee's work are coming fast and furious (perhaps a bad term to use after watching Janet Napolitano get grilled this week over the botched operation by that name.) First, the Democrats leak that they had proposed a $3 trillion deal that included significant entitlement cuts but also significant tax increases. Now the GOP leaks a $2 trillion counter proposal that contains a lot of the same cuts, but no tax increases, although it has some enhanced revenues from increased federal fees.
At least they are talking and passing specific proposals back and forth, but it seems like we are at the same log jam - the GOP simply won't accept higher taxes, no matter what.
How about some creative solutions to get to a solution that both sides can stomache?
How about a proposal that tax the cuts, doesn't raise taxes now, but includes a poison pill that would have tax increases kick in in 2013 or 2014 if the deficit isn't brought down to x% of GDP by those years? The GOP still controls the House, so they could argue that they aren't really voting for a tax increase since they won't let spending drive deficits that high. And Democrats could claim victory in that they kept tax increases on the table but just pushed them out to later to help the weak economy.
Some type of creative compromise will be necessary to get something on the table that can pass. We'll see if the super committee is up to the task.
There are some things to love about the concept of a flat tax. Our current income tax system is overly complicated, causing a huge cost of enforcement, large scale fraud (or at least graying of the tax law) and places an efficient time and financial burden on tax payers. A true flat tax, that eliminated all the itemized deductions and at least carved out an exemption for the first $20K or $30K of income (so we aren't taxing working class people into poverty) would probably be preferable to our current system, particularly if it was structured to encompass existing payroll taxes. It has the drawback of, on face, making the system less progressive, but the reality is that our existing code really is regressive in many cases, because of the myriad of tax credits and deductions that distort the stated rates. Besides, by exempting, say, the first $30K in income and setting a tax rate of say, 20%, the progressive nature of the code would be preferred, since a wage earner of $30K would pay an effective rate of 0%, an earner making $60K would pay an effective rate of 10% and an earner making $150K would pay an effective rate of 16% and so on.
So shouldn't I love Rick Perry's plan that applies a flat tax of 20% and exempts the first $12,500 in income for individuals? Absolutely not. Perry's plan combines all of the worst drawbacks of a flat tax while gaining none of the advantages. His plan lets taxpayers CHOOSE between the existing system and his new system. This means that all of the loopholes and carve outs stay for those who benefit them. It doesn't get rid of the cost of enforcement, since any number of taxpayers may continue to pay under the old system, if it benefits them. It doesn't reduce the burden on taxpayers for preparing their returns, since you would need to do your taxes both ways in order to determine which one was more beneficial. Even in the "flat tax" option, it leaves carve outs to deduct state income taxes, charitable deductions and home mortgage interest.
Worst of all, it would amount to a massive decrease in federal revenue. How can I be so sure? Think about it. If I have an option between the old system and Perry's new system, which system would I choose? The answer, of course, is the one under which I pay less taxes. There would be no taxpayers that would pay more...and many who would pay less (those who would owe less under Perry's new system.) It's simple math that you can't have no one pay more and lots of people pay less and not collect a lot less.
Worse still, Perry eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends, meaning he is effectively not taxing the investing class and relying entirely on taxes on wages. This makes the system massively more regressive than our existing system.
This is a far inferior system to Herman Cain's 9/9/9 plan, although that has flaws too, which I have previously discussed. It is completely unserious. He has absolutely zero in specific budget cuts to offset the revenue, instead only a broad statement that he wants to get federal spending down to 18% of GDP. Even if that were possible without either massive cuts to military spending or serious changes to entitlement programs (one of those two would be necessary), to get to a balanced budget at 18% of GDP, we'd need Clinton-era tax levels, not rates even lower than the ones today.
It's fine to believe in lower taxes. But lower taxes should be a byproduct of lower spending. So if you want to cut taxes by slashing Social Security, Medicare or Defense, then say so. There is no free ride.
Shame on the conservative blogosphere for embracing Perry's plan. A flat tax debate would be a great debate to have in this country. But let's debate a real plan, not a PR gimmick.
I probably shouldn't waste much more digital ink on Perry. Between this and his ridiculous identification with birthers this week, I think he is pretty well done as a national candidate. Frankly, I think GOP primary voters were done with him even earlier.
Where is Tim Pawlenty When You Need Him?
75% of the GOP seems to want someone other than Mitt Romney to be the nominee, judging by his stuck-in-neutral poll numbers. Perry has effectively flamed out. Michele Bachmann's brief surge is a distant memory. Herman Cain looks unready for the national stage on many levels.
If he were still in the race, wouldn't Tim Pawlenty seem like a logical guy to go to? Sure, he once supported Cap and Trade. But his conservative bona fides are a heck of a lot better than Romney's and Pawlenty has the credibility of a successful governor. Does anyone else think he would be a player if he hadn't dropped out so early?
A Tax Increase by Any Other Name...
The PR leaks around the deficit reduction super committee's work are coming fast and furious (perhaps a bad term to use after watching Janet Napolitano get grilled this week over the botched operation by that name.) First, the Democrats leak that they had proposed a $3 trillion deal that included significant entitlement cuts but also significant tax increases. Now the GOP leaks a $2 trillion counter proposal that contains a lot of the same cuts, but no tax increases, although it has some enhanced revenues from increased federal fees.
At least they are talking and passing specific proposals back and forth, but it seems like we are at the same log jam - the GOP simply won't accept higher taxes, no matter what.
How about some creative solutions to get to a solution that both sides can stomache?
How about a proposal that tax the cuts, doesn't raise taxes now, but includes a poison pill that would have tax increases kick in in 2013 or 2014 if the deficit isn't brought down to x% of GDP by those years? The GOP still controls the House, so they could argue that they aren't really voting for a tax increase since they won't let spending drive deficits that high. And Democrats could claim victory in that they kept tax increases on the table but just pushed them out to later to help the weak economy.
Some type of creative compromise will be necessary to get something on the table that can pass. We'll see if the super committee is up to the task.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Fireworks in the Desert -- Does It Matter That Only Romney is Credible?, Another Dictator Dead
The GOP Clash Demonstrates One Thing: There Are Very Few Serious Candidates
The saying in political circles these days is that Herman Cain peaked one hour before the start of the CNN Republican debate this past weekend. Clearly, Cain did not give a great account of himself. He managed to make, what is ostensibly a very simple tax plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, 9% national sales tax) into a very confusing topic for the viewer and drew fire from all sides at the start of the debate. Some of the criticism was, frankly, odd for a Republican forum. Michele Bachmann criticized the plan as being to regressive: she is right, but this is the first time that I've heard the Tea Party advocate argue the virtues of a progressive tax system. Romney criticized it as double taxation, pointing out that Nevada residents would have to pay their own state sales tax in addition to the national tax. He is also right, but his point is sort of beside the point. We pay multiple taxes at almost every level now. Income is taxed with SSI taxes and income taxes at both the federal and state level. We already have federal taxes on things like gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and firearms that are in addition to state-level sales taxes.
I was on one level very surprised to see the GOP candidates so roundly dismiss what is a pretty GOP idea -- a flatter tax code and a shift away from income-based taxes to consumption-based taxes. I guess everyone shoots for the front-runner of the week.
Cain did himself absolutely no favors in the debate, mumbling on about Apples and Oranges, rather than focusing the debate on the simplicity of his plan and the complexity of the existing plan. He also was completely backed into a corner, trying to continue to argue that this plan won't make taxes go up on lower-income Americans, when it is obvious on face that it will (a point Rick Santorum and Rick Perry made at great length.) Of course, Rick Perry is now turning around and promotion a flat income tax designed to "broaden the tax base", which is exactly the same thing, but never we mind that.
Just when it looked like Cain was going to be completely cooked and roasted, Romney and Perry turned on each other in a series of exchanges that, in a less civil day, might have ended in a fist fight. Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal immigrants (he hired a landscaping company which employed illegals, hardly a first) and Romney fumbled completely by stating that of course he asked the lawn company to fire them since he was running for public office, seemingly implying that he wouldn't have cared otherwise. Perry kept pointing his finger at Romney. Romney kept chiding Perry for interrupting him, even begging moderator Anderson Cooper to intervene at one point.
In total, it was the worst showing for the GOP field as they looked like a bunch of bickering school children. Romney clearly had his worst performance, losing his cool in a way I had not seen in previous debates. Cain looked like an utterly unserious front-runner. Perry looked like a guy who has lost all momentum and is just trying to gin up controversy to keep himself relevant. If there was a winner, it was Newt Gingrich, whose professorial, intelligent responses played a lot better against this backdrop than they had in previous debates.
In spite of Romney's poor performance, it is abundantly clear to me that he is the only credible candidate in the field.
Cain? If the anchor to your campaign is a tax plan and you can't explain it, you are in big trouble. People might forgive some of the downright ignorant things Cain has said on foreign policy, his utterly confusing responses to questions about social issues and his borderline racist comments about Muslims if he was rock solid on economic policy. But Cain would be a train wreck in a general election campaign.
Perry? The more that even Republican hear him speak, the less they like him. Does anyone really think this is the guy to bring down Barack Obama?
Gingrich? He WOULD be credible -- if he didn't carry so much baggage. He's a smart guy and a great debater. He explains his positions in a clear, well thought out manner. But if he ever became a serious threat in the polls, his sketchy personal past and long history in Washington would be a club over the head of his poll numbers.
Bachmann? Please. Crazy doesn't win general elections.
Santorum? If the lynchpin of your campaign is that you've won in a swing state and the reason you aren't in office is that you lost re-election in that swing state by 18%, you aren't starting in a great place. Besides, he comes off horribly bitter. Nobody takes him seriously.
Paul? His loyalists love him, but the day the GOP nominates an anti-war, pro-drug and prostitution legalization, pro-gay marriage (sort of) libertarian, I'm investing in snow plow dealerships in hell.
Huntsman? Is he still running? Regrettably, Jon Huntsman is a very serious and well qualified candidate. He just can't get the GOP to pay attention to him.
All of which leaves Romney as the guy with the most credibility.
The key question is whether that will matter to the GOP in this nomination cycle. It didn't matter when they nominated Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Joe Miller in Alaska and Sharon Angle in Nevada in 2010. Do they want to win or do they want a Tea Party loyalist? We shall see.
Qaddafi Dead
The death of Libyan Dictator Muammar Qaddafi (or Gaddafi if you like that spelling) is good news to the world. Qaddafi was an awful dictator, hated by his people and well known for making crazy and offensive UN speeches that delegates would walk out of.
You can criticize President Obama at great length on many domestic topics, but to the surprise of many, he has been a rock-solid leader on foreign policy.
The GOP can say all they want that he bows too much or isn't strong enough, but the facts tell a different story.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. So are scores of Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership.
Muammar Qaddafi is dead.
The Iraq War is essentially over with the last US troops leaving in the next couple of months.
Our position in Afghanistan is strengthened (albeit we still need an exit strategy.)
We have a new, comprehensive, nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
We have new free trade deals spanning the globe.
Did President Bush have 1/10th this amount of accomplishment in 8 years?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The saying in political circles these days is that Herman Cain peaked one hour before the start of the CNN Republican debate this past weekend. Clearly, Cain did not give a great account of himself. He managed to make, what is ostensibly a very simple tax plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, 9% national sales tax) into a very confusing topic for the viewer and drew fire from all sides at the start of the debate. Some of the criticism was, frankly, odd for a Republican forum. Michele Bachmann criticized the plan as being to regressive: she is right, but this is the first time that I've heard the Tea Party advocate argue the virtues of a progressive tax system. Romney criticized it as double taxation, pointing out that Nevada residents would have to pay their own state sales tax in addition to the national tax. He is also right, but his point is sort of beside the point. We pay multiple taxes at almost every level now. Income is taxed with SSI taxes and income taxes at both the federal and state level. We already have federal taxes on things like gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and firearms that are in addition to state-level sales taxes.
I was on one level very surprised to see the GOP candidates so roundly dismiss what is a pretty GOP idea -- a flatter tax code and a shift away from income-based taxes to consumption-based taxes. I guess everyone shoots for the front-runner of the week.
Cain did himself absolutely no favors in the debate, mumbling on about Apples and Oranges, rather than focusing the debate on the simplicity of his plan and the complexity of the existing plan. He also was completely backed into a corner, trying to continue to argue that this plan won't make taxes go up on lower-income Americans, when it is obvious on face that it will (a point Rick Santorum and Rick Perry made at great length.) Of course, Rick Perry is now turning around and promotion a flat income tax designed to "broaden the tax base", which is exactly the same thing, but never we mind that.
Just when it looked like Cain was going to be completely cooked and roasted, Romney and Perry turned on each other in a series of exchanges that, in a less civil day, might have ended in a fist fight. Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal immigrants (he hired a landscaping company which employed illegals, hardly a first) and Romney fumbled completely by stating that of course he asked the lawn company to fire them since he was running for public office, seemingly implying that he wouldn't have cared otherwise. Perry kept pointing his finger at Romney. Romney kept chiding Perry for interrupting him, even begging moderator Anderson Cooper to intervene at one point.
In total, it was the worst showing for the GOP field as they looked like a bunch of bickering school children. Romney clearly had his worst performance, losing his cool in a way I had not seen in previous debates. Cain looked like an utterly unserious front-runner. Perry looked like a guy who has lost all momentum and is just trying to gin up controversy to keep himself relevant. If there was a winner, it was Newt Gingrich, whose professorial, intelligent responses played a lot better against this backdrop than they had in previous debates.
In spite of Romney's poor performance, it is abundantly clear to me that he is the only credible candidate in the field.
Cain? If the anchor to your campaign is a tax plan and you can't explain it, you are in big trouble. People might forgive some of the downright ignorant things Cain has said on foreign policy, his utterly confusing responses to questions about social issues and his borderline racist comments about Muslims if he was rock solid on economic policy. But Cain would be a train wreck in a general election campaign.
Perry? The more that even Republican hear him speak, the less they like him. Does anyone really think this is the guy to bring down Barack Obama?
Gingrich? He WOULD be credible -- if he didn't carry so much baggage. He's a smart guy and a great debater. He explains his positions in a clear, well thought out manner. But if he ever became a serious threat in the polls, his sketchy personal past and long history in Washington would be a club over the head of his poll numbers.
Bachmann? Please. Crazy doesn't win general elections.
Santorum? If the lynchpin of your campaign is that you've won in a swing state and the reason you aren't in office is that you lost re-election in that swing state by 18%, you aren't starting in a great place. Besides, he comes off horribly bitter. Nobody takes him seriously.
Paul? His loyalists love him, but the day the GOP nominates an anti-war, pro-drug and prostitution legalization, pro-gay marriage (sort of) libertarian, I'm investing in snow plow dealerships in hell.
Huntsman? Is he still running? Regrettably, Jon Huntsman is a very serious and well qualified candidate. He just can't get the GOP to pay attention to him.
All of which leaves Romney as the guy with the most credibility.
The key question is whether that will matter to the GOP in this nomination cycle. It didn't matter when they nominated Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Joe Miller in Alaska and Sharon Angle in Nevada in 2010. Do they want to win or do they want a Tea Party loyalist? We shall see.
Qaddafi Dead
The death of Libyan Dictator Muammar Qaddafi (or Gaddafi if you like that spelling) is good news to the world. Qaddafi was an awful dictator, hated by his people and well known for making crazy and offensive UN speeches that delegates would walk out of.
You can criticize President Obama at great length on many domestic topics, but to the surprise of many, he has been a rock-solid leader on foreign policy.
The GOP can say all they want that he bows too much or isn't strong enough, but the facts tell a different story.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. So are scores of Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership.
Muammar Qaddafi is dead.
The Iraq War is essentially over with the last US troops leaving in the next couple of months.
Our position in Afghanistan is strengthened (albeit we still need an exit strategy.)
We have a new, comprehensive, nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
We have new free trade deals spanning the globe.
Did President Bush have 1/10th this amount of accomplishment in 8 years?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Cain Ahead in the Polls but Romney Way Ahead in the Betting, The Meaning of 9-9-9
Who Exactly is the Favorite?
Frequent readers to this space can't exactly be surprised by the Jupiter-gravity speed fall of Texas Governor Rick Perry from frontrunner to near afterthought in the GOP race. After all, I'd been warning you for weeks: Rick Perry is this year's Fred Thompson, Rick Perry is a great concept for the GOP but a horrible candidate, Rick Perry is not ready for prime time. Certainly none of this stopped the talking heads from immediately appointing Perry the guy to beat as soon as he led in the polls. But they stopped talking about him just as fast as his numbers crashed, instead focusing on the new guy at the top in national polling: former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain.
Cain is ahead in the national polls modestly and leads in several early states. The primary and caucus calendar is a dynamic thing, thanks to Florida's decision to go early, but ultimately it should settle down to the first 5 races still being Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and then Florida. The "early 4" will do whatever it takes to move their debts to preserve their early status and will all therefore set calendar dates earlier than Florida's accelerated January 31st date. South Carolina has already moved its date up to January 21st, Nevada to January 14th. Iowa and New Hampshire have not yet set their dates, but the mostly likely dates are for Iowa to go January 3rd and New Hampshire to go January 7th, although there is some possibility that New Hampshire will attempt to go in December, as they are extremely unhappy with the notion of having only a four-day gap between Iowa and them.
These states all have different dynamics. Iowa and Nevada are caucuses, which require participants to donate money, invest significant time and openly declare their support for candidates - in other words, these are events that only the most devoted party members participate in. New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida are primaries, which, at a minimum, allow open access to any member of the party that wishes to participate and require only the few minutes it takes to go cast a vote. Add to this the further wrinkle of primary rules - New Hampshire has what is known as a "semi-closed" primary - Republicans and Independents can participate in the GOP primary but Democrats cannot. South Carolina has an "open" primary, meaning anyone of any party can participate in its GOP primary (they cannot participate in both primaries, but that is largely irrelevant this year as President Obama faces no real opposition for the Democratic nod.) Florida has a "closed" primary - only registered members of the GOP can participate.
So, with 4 different kinds of elections in the offing in the first 5 contests, polling gets extremely tough. Caucuses are notoriously hard to poll for and open primaries are generally harder to get a read on than closed primaries. All of that said, let's assess the latest polling numbers both nationally and in the likely first 5 states:
Latest Average of Averages for National Polls:
Romney - 20.5%, Cain - 19.2%, Perry - 13.7%, Paul - 8.6%, Gingrich - 7.6%, Bachmann - 4.8%, Santorum - 1.9%, Huntsman - 1.6%
While Romney still leads marginally over Cain nationally, all the dynamics would seem to favor Cain. Perry has been in decline and his support, almost vote-for-vote, has been going to Cain. Paul has been a relatively constant at that level, with a small, but very loyal demographic backing his libertarian views. Gingrich has been on the rise, mostly at the expense of the other minor candidates. The other candidates don't have enough support to be worth taking, but to the extent that they fade, it is likely that Bachmann and Santorum's supporters would go to Cain, while Huntsman's would go to Romney, based on their ideologies.
So, for now, call it basically a wash between Romney and Cain, with Cain gaining and Romney relatively constant (he's been in the low 20s virtually the whole election cycle.)
Averages by State:
Iowa (only 1 recent polls): Romney 26%, Cain 20%, Paul 12%, Perry 11%, Bachmann 11%, Gingrich 5%, Santorum 5%, Huntsman 1%
New Hampshire (3 recent polls): Romney 40%, Cain 15%, Paul 12%, Huntsman 6%, Perry 5%, Gingrich 4%, Bachmann 3%, Santorum 1%
Nevada (no recent polls)
South Carolina (no recent polls)
Florida (no recent polls)
So, as things stand now, Romney would be poised to take the first two contests, which would give him considerable momentum going into the next 3. Cain is live in Iowa, but Romney appears to be a lock in New Hampshire, which neighbors his home states of Massachusetts.
You would think Nevada is fairly neutral ground (a moderate state but a caucus structure), South Carolina would heavily favor Cain (or anyone else polling well against Romney, being a conservative electorate) and Florida would be a fairly neutral state (classic large-state swing contest.)
So to have the momentum to mount a serious charge, anybody other than Romney (for now, we'll say Cain) needs to win in Iowa. Expect the next couple of months leading up to the caucus to be fast and furious in that regard.
While on face, Romney is the favorite, the betting odds might surprise some. Here are the latest odds from our friends at Intrade:
Romney to win nomination: 68.5%
Perry to win nomination: 12.4%
Cain to win nomination: 8.9%
Someone else to win:10.2%
How can Mitt Romney be such an overwhelming betting favorite when he is only a marginal leader in the polls? And how can Perry be ahead of Cain when all the numbers look like he's sunk?
The answer is pretty simple. One is that nobody buys the Cain phenomenon yet as a lasting trend. Donald Trump led the GOP field in the polls at one time. Then it was Michelle Bachmann. Then Rick Perry. Now Herman Cain is on the verge of it. Through it all, Mitt Romney has plodded along with his 20-25% support. It's starting to look like the GOP is going to date a lot of super models but marry the girl next door (note: this analogy has nothing to do with the good looks of the candidates for those who may not be able to connect the dots.)
I've been predicting Romney to get the nod from the get go. Seems like the smart money is coming around to that.
9-9-9
Since Cain is, at least for the moment, polling strongly in the GOP race, it is worth spending a little bit of time discussing his cornerstone proposal, a fundamental change in the tax code that he has been touting as his "9-9-9 plan".
Before I dissect the plan, let me give Cain credit. I'm not a fan of the 9-9-9 plan in a lot of ways. But at least Cain has proposed something meaningful. Can you tell me the tax plan of Mitt Romney or Rick Perry? That's because they don't have one. So, while I don't agree, I appreciate that Cain is actually contributing to the dialogue rather than just spouting platitudes about not raising taxes.
9-9-9, at its essence, is a replacement of most of our existing taxes: corporate, individual income and payroll with a 9% tax on corporate profits, a 9% tax on individual incomes and a 9% sales tax.
Let me start by providing context to the discussion. There are two important decisions to be made relative to taxation. The first is HOW MUCH the government should collect in taxes. This should (but often isn't) be related to how much you want the government to spend. In other words, how many bills do I need to pay and therefore what do I need to collect in taxes? The second decision in a tax code is WHO should pay the taxes and in what proportion.
Cain has stated that his plan was designed to be initially neutral to what the current tax code collects. I am unable to independently verify that claim, but not able to disprove it either. You see, it's such a fundamental change in the method of collection (the addition of a national sales tax, a major change in the corporate tax structure) that I simply lack adequate data and study at this point to verify whether it is revenue neutral or not. So, for purposes of this debate, let's assume that it is, or, if it isn't that Cain would adjust it to be a 10-10-10 plan or an 8-8-8 plan to compensate.
On the issue of who pays, there is some good but a lot of bad.
In our current tax code, the people that pay are the upper-middle class. The most heavily taxed money is income that is between $85K and $106K. This income is subject to a federal rate of 28% plus an effective payroll tax of about 15% (considering both the employer and employee share, which you have to, since they both, in essence, come out of the employee's pocket), for a combined rate of about 43%. This is higher than the 39.6% effective rate paid on very high incomes (over $383K).
Also paying are US-centered businesses that are in non-capital intensive industries - think software companies and small retailers. They pay an effective rate of 35%.
The people who don't pay much are:
The working and lower middle classes with children - 47% of the population is able to avoid all income tax through exemptions and deductions and therefore pay only an effective payroll tax of around 15%.
Investors and the non-working rich - capital gains and dividend income is taxed at only 15%.
Businesses that have foreign operations, qualify for energy-efficient tax credits or have heavy capital needs that they can leverage accelerated depreciation - GE famously paid no federal taxes last year and they are not alone. By shoveling profits to foreign affiliates, taking advantage of accelerated depreciation laws and getting givebacks from the government for investing in green energy, many companies can reduce their effective tax burden to close to zero.
This doesn't seem like a great system in total. Under Cain's system, the people who would pay most heavily would be:
The working class and the lower-middle class - those who effectively live "paycheck to paycheck" and spend all of their income would be hit fully with both the income and the sales tax and pay an effective rate of 18%.
Who would be hit the least? The investing class and corporations, who would pay a mere 9%.
It doesn't seem like a good system to me. And it isn't because I'm opposed to a less nuanced tax structure.
I'd propose instead, that a better system would be to ditch the sales tax (which is regressive in that it hits the poor a lot harder) and exempt the first $30K per year in individual income from taxation (you shouldn't be taxing people into poverty.) Beyond that, I'd be fine with a flat tax rate with no deductions (no home mortgage deduction, no charitable contribution deduction, etc.) I'd treat all investment income (capital gains, dividends, etc.) the same as any other income and nix the corporate tax. This way, you'd eliminate all the balance sheet and income statement gain playing and tax the money at receipt. In reality, the rates would likely have to be a lot higher than Cain's 9%, under a system such as mine, the likely rate would need to be 20% or so, but that would beat the heck out of having some pay 43% and some pay nothing.
Tax reform is a debate we have been putting off way too long. I thank Herman Cain for getting us started even if I don't like his plan.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Frequent readers to this space can't exactly be surprised by the Jupiter-gravity speed fall of Texas Governor Rick Perry from frontrunner to near afterthought in the GOP race. After all, I'd been warning you for weeks: Rick Perry is this year's Fred Thompson, Rick Perry is a great concept for the GOP but a horrible candidate, Rick Perry is not ready for prime time. Certainly none of this stopped the talking heads from immediately appointing Perry the guy to beat as soon as he led in the polls. But they stopped talking about him just as fast as his numbers crashed, instead focusing on the new guy at the top in national polling: former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain.
Cain is ahead in the national polls modestly and leads in several early states. The primary and caucus calendar is a dynamic thing, thanks to Florida's decision to go early, but ultimately it should settle down to the first 5 races still being Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and then Florida. The "early 4" will do whatever it takes to move their debts to preserve their early status and will all therefore set calendar dates earlier than Florida's accelerated January 31st date. South Carolina has already moved its date up to January 21st, Nevada to January 14th. Iowa and New Hampshire have not yet set their dates, but the mostly likely dates are for Iowa to go January 3rd and New Hampshire to go January 7th, although there is some possibility that New Hampshire will attempt to go in December, as they are extremely unhappy with the notion of having only a four-day gap between Iowa and them.
These states all have different dynamics. Iowa and Nevada are caucuses, which require participants to donate money, invest significant time and openly declare their support for candidates - in other words, these are events that only the most devoted party members participate in. New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida are primaries, which, at a minimum, allow open access to any member of the party that wishes to participate and require only the few minutes it takes to go cast a vote. Add to this the further wrinkle of primary rules - New Hampshire has what is known as a "semi-closed" primary - Republicans and Independents can participate in the GOP primary but Democrats cannot. South Carolina has an "open" primary, meaning anyone of any party can participate in its GOP primary (they cannot participate in both primaries, but that is largely irrelevant this year as President Obama faces no real opposition for the Democratic nod.) Florida has a "closed" primary - only registered members of the GOP can participate.
So, with 4 different kinds of elections in the offing in the first 5 contests, polling gets extremely tough. Caucuses are notoriously hard to poll for and open primaries are generally harder to get a read on than closed primaries. All of that said, let's assess the latest polling numbers both nationally and in the likely first 5 states:
Latest Average of Averages for National Polls:
Romney - 20.5%, Cain - 19.2%, Perry - 13.7%, Paul - 8.6%, Gingrich - 7.6%, Bachmann - 4.8%, Santorum - 1.9%, Huntsman - 1.6%
While Romney still leads marginally over Cain nationally, all the dynamics would seem to favor Cain. Perry has been in decline and his support, almost vote-for-vote, has been going to Cain. Paul has been a relatively constant at that level, with a small, but very loyal demographic backing his libertarian views. Gingrich has been on the rise, mostly at the expense of the other minor candidates. The other candidates don't have enough support to be worth taking, but to the extent that they fade, it is likely that Bachmann and Santorum's supporters would go to Cain, while Huntsman's would go to Romney, based on their ideologies.
So, for now, call it basically a wash between Romney and Cain, with Cain gaining and Romney relatively constant (he's been in the low 20s virtually the whole election cycle.)
Averages by State:
Iowa (only 1 recent polls): Romney 26%, Cain 20%, Paul 12%, Perry 11%, Bachmann 11%, Gingrich 5%, Santorum 5%, Huntsman 1%
New Hampshire (3 recent polls): Romney 40%, Cain 15%, Paul 12%, Huntsman 6%, Perry 5%, Gingrich 4%, Bachmann 3%, Santorum 1%
Nevada (no recent polls)
South Carolina (no recent polls)
Florida (no recent polls)
So, as things stand now, Romney would be poised to take the first two contests, which would give him considerable momentum going into the next 3. Cain is live in Iowa, but Romney appears to be a lock in New Hampshire, which neighbors his home states of Massachusetts.
You would think Nevada is fairly neutral ground (a moderate state but a caucus structure), South Carolina would heavily favor Cain (or anyone else polling well against Romney, being a conservative electorate) and Florida would be a fairly neutral state (classic large-state swing contest.)
So to have the momentum to mount a serious charge, anybody other than Romney (for now, we'll say Cain) needs to win in Iowa. Expect the next couple of months leading up to the caucus to be fast and furious in that regard.
While on face, Romney is the favorite, the betting odds might surprise some. Here are the latest odds from our friends at Intrade:
Romney to win nomination: 68.5%
Perry to win nomination: 12.4%
Cain to win nomination: 8.9%
Someone else to win:10.2%
How can Mitt Romney be such an overwhelming betting favorite when he is only a marginal leader in the polls? And how can Perry be ahead of Cain when all the numbers look like he's sunk?
The answer is pretty simple. One is that nobody buys the Cain phenomenon yet as a lasting trend. Donald Trump led the GOP field in the polls at one time. Then it was Michelle Bachmann. Then Rick Perry. Now Herman Cain is on the verge of it. Through it all, Mitt Romney has plodded along with his 20-25% support. It's starting to look like the GOP is going to date a lot of super models but marry the girl next door (note: this analogy has nothing to do with the good looks of the candidates for those who may not be able to connect the dots.)
I've been predicting Romney to get the nod from the get go. Seems like the smart money is coming around to that.
9-9-9
Since Cain is, at least for the moment, polling strongly in the GOP race, it is worth spending a little bit of time discussing his cornerstone proposal, a fundamental change in the tax code that he has been touting as his "9-9-9 plan".
Before I dissect the plan, let me give Cain credit. I'm not a fan of the 9-9-9 plan in a lot of ways. But at least Cain has proposed something meaningful. Can you tell me the tax plan of Mitt Romney or Rick Perry? That's because they don't have one. So, while I don't agree, I appreciate that Cain is actually contributing to the dialogue rather than just spouting platitudes about not raising taxes.
9-9-9, at its essence, is a replacement of most of our existing taxes: corporate, individual income and payroll with a 9% tax on corporate profits, a 9% tax on individual incomes and a 9% sales tax.
Let me start by providing context to the discussion. There are two important decisions to be made relative to taxation. The first is HOW MUCH the government should collect in taxes. This should (but often isn't) be related to how much you want the government to spend. In other words, how many bills do I need to pay and therefore what do I need to collect in taxes? The second decision in a tax code is WHO should pay the taxes and in what proportion.
Cain has stated that his plan was designed to be initially neutral to what the current tax code collects. I am unable to independently verify that claim, but not able to disprove it either. You see, it's such a fundamental change in the method of collection (the addition of a national sales tax, a major change in the corporate tax structure) that I simply lack adequate data and study at this point to verify whether it is revenue neutral or not. So, for purposes of this debate, let's assume that it is, or, if it isn't that Cain would adjust it to be a 10-10-10 plan or an 8-8-8 plan to compensate.
On the issue of who pays, there is some good but a lot of bad.
In our current tax code, the people that pay are the upper-middle class. The most heavily taxed money is income that is between $85K and $106K. This income is subject to a federal rate of 28% plus an effective payroll tax of about 15% (considering both the employer and employee share, which you have to, since they both, in essence, come out of the employee's pocket), for a combined rate of about 43%. This is higher than the 39.6% effective rate paid on very high incomes (over $383K).
Also paying are US-centered businesses that are in non-capital intensive industries - think software companies and small retailers. They pay an effective rate of 35%.
The people who don't pay much are:
The working and lower middle classes with children - 47% of the population is able to avoid all income tax through exemptions and deductions and therefore pay only an effective payroll tax of around 15%.
Investors and the non-working rich - capital gains and dividend income is taxed at only 15%.
Businesses that have foreign operations, qualify for energy-efficient tax credits or have heavy capital needs that they can leverage accelerated depreciation - GE famously paid no federal taxes last year and they are not alone. By shoveling profits to foreign affiliates, taking advantage of accelerated depreciation laws and getting givebacks from the government for investing in green energy, many companies can reduce their effective tax burden to close to zero.
This doesn't seem like a great system in total. Under Cain's system, the people who would pay most heavily would be:
The working class and the lower-middle class - those who effectively live "paycheck to paycheck" and spend all of their income would be hit fully with both the income and the sales tax and pay an effective rate of 18%.
Who would be hit the least? The investing class and corporations, who would pay a mere 9%.
It doesn't seem like a good system to me. And it isn't because I'm opposed to a less nuanced tax structure.
I'd propose instead, that a better system would be to ditch the sales tax (which is regressive in that it hits the poor a lot harder) and exempt the first $30K per year in individual income from taxation (you shouldn't be taxing people into poverty.) Beyond that, I'd be fine with a flat tax rate with no deductions (no home mortgage deduction, no charitable contribution deduction, etc.) I'd treat all investment income (capital gains, dividends, etc.) the same as any other income and nix the corporate tax. This way, you'd eliminate all the balance sheet and income statement gain playing and tax the money at receipt. In reality, the rates would likely have to be a lot higher than Cain's 9%, under a system such as mine, the likely rate would need to be 20% or so, but that would beat the heck out of having some pay 43% and some pay nothing.
Tax reform is a debate we have been putting off way too long. I thank Herman Cain for getting us started even if I don't like his plan.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The "I Told You So" Edition
When you write about politics and specifically when you make political, economic and social projections, you get your fair share of things wrong. I've gotten a few minor things wrong (see North Dakota's projection in 2008, not massively wrong, but wrong nonetheless) and a few major things wrong (see my blog during the height of the financial crisis about how the economic recovery would be strong -- oops.) So, it's nice to know that I haven't lost my knack for identifying some of the things to come in the political world. Two cases in point this week.
Perry Candidacy Already on the Rails
Frequent readers will know that I never believed the hype around Texas Governor Rick Perry's prospects of becoming the GOP nomination. The media has been gaga over Perry and his sudden rise in the GOP field. One can understand why. Perry is a conservative, in line with the party faithful in his political beliefs. Perry has a good track record economically in Texas. On face, he looks like what today's GOP wants. But, as I wrote a few weeks ago when Perry got into the race, I'm not convinced Perry is ready for prime time or capable of leading the GOP.
And so it was on full display in the latest Republican debate, a Fox News hosted affair, where Perry looked bewildered, spoke in sentence fragments, stepped in it on perhaps his one moderate political stance by alienating the GOP base when he had an opportunity to make a unifying statement and generally fell completely flat. He hasn't been a rock star in the other debates, but this was, by far, his worst performance.
And GOP loyalists spoke. In the Florida straw poll, a poll Perry had spent heavily and campaigned strongly for, he got scorched by conservative talk show host and businessman Herman Cain and barely finished ahead of Romney, who had not campaigned hard or spent heavily in the poll. Now, I take these straw polls with a grain of salt. This is a poll of loyalists, not a poll of representative voters in a GOP primary. And you can certainly spend to up your standing. I don't think Cain is in any way the favorite in Florida. But let's analyze what it means.
The Tea Party wing isn't happy with Mitt Romney as a choice, primarily because of his moderate positions when he was Governor of Massachusetts, most notably his health care plan which looks a lot like President Obama's national plan. Consequently, they were ready to flock to Perry. The message from the Florida straw poll is that they are no longer happy with Perry as an alternative. They weren't willing to cross and vote for Romney, so they voted for Cain as a kind of second-choice protest. Of course, Cain has his supporters as well, but few believe a businessman with no political experience and a penchant for saying outrageous things will really be the nominee or could seriously take down President Obama.
So where does this leave the state of the GOP? The right wing still isn't happy with Romney, but it is very fragmented, since there isn't a clear good alternative with Perry looking like a hack. One possibility is that Perry ups his game and they decide to get behind him. Another is that another candidate, perhaps one already announced (Newt Gingrich? Michelle Bachman?) or one that hasn't (Sarah Palin?) is able to concentrate this support. The third, and I still think most likely scenario is that the Tea Party wing stays fragmented and Romney is able to win by being just conservative enough and strong enough a general candidate to get the nod.
Nominations doesn't get decided in September the year before. They will be decided in the first quarter of 2012, when everyone really tunes in. But it's shaping up to be an interesting, competitive race.
Another Shutdown Showdown
I told you that we'd be back here. We are a mere week before the start of the government's new fiscal year and there is no agreement on how to proceed with the Fiscal 2012 budget, leaving us at a logjam that yet again threatens a government shutdown. The issue this time is the level of funding for FEMA and how it will be paid for. Republicans want a less than $4B funding replenishment, paid for by offsetting spending cuts in other area. Democrats want closer to $8B, without the offset. The GOP plan passed the House narrowly and was soundly rejected in the Democratic Senate. The Democratic plan has not been voted on in either house.
The budgetary dysfunction continues. Even if they are able to come to agreement in the next week (expect another 11th hour deal that nobody likes), this will only kick the can down the road to Mid-November, right before the bi-partisan deficit commission is supposed to report back its recommendations. So we will have at least 3 more fights that create uncertainty, make long-term programs highly inefficient and threaten to shut down the government.
Many have noted recently that Congressional approval is around 12%, by far an all time low. The question is, who are the 12% who approve? Does anyone else just feel like voting against every incumbent regardless of party?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Perry Candidacy Already on the Rails
Frequent readers will know that I never believed the hype around Texas Governor Rick Perry's prospects of becoming the GOP nomination. The media has been gaga over Perry and his sudden rise in the GOP field. One can understand why. Perry is a conservative, in line with the party faithful in his political beliefs. Perry has a good track record economically in Texas. On face, he looks like what today's GOP wants. But, as I wrote a few weeks ago when Perry got into the race, I'm not convinced Perry is ready for prime time or capable of leading the GOP.
And so it was on full display in the latest Republican debate, a Fox News hosted affair, where Perry looked bewildered, spoke in sentence fragments, stepped in it on perhaps his one moderate political stance by alienating the GOP base when he had an opportunity to make a unifying statement and generally fell completely flat. He hasn't been a rock star in the other debates, but this was, by far, his worst performance.
And GOP loyalists spoke. In the Florida straw poll, a poll Perry had spent heavily and campaigned strongly for, he got scorched by conservative talk show host and businessman Herman Cain and barely finished ahead of Romney, who had not campaigned hard or spent heavily in the poll. Now, I take these straw polls with a grain of salt. This is a poll of loyalists, not a poll of representative voters in a GOP primary. And you can certainly spend to up your standing. I don't think Cain is in any way the favorite in Florida. But let's analyze what it means.
The Tea Party wing isn't happy with Mitt Romney as a choice, primarily because of his moderate positions when he was Governor of Massachusetts, most notably his health care plan which looks a lot like President Obama's national plan. Consequently, they were ready to flock to Perry. The message from the Florida straw poll is that they are no longer happy with Perry as an alternative. They weren't willing to cross and vote for Romney, so they voted for Cain as a kind of second-choice protest. Of course, Cain has his supporters as well, but few believe a businessman with no political experience and a penchant for saying outrageous things will really be the nominee or could seriously take down President Obama.
So where does this leave the state of the GOP? The right wing still isn't happy with Romney, but it is very fragmented, since there isn't a clear good alternative with Perry looking like a hack. One possibility is that Perry ups his game and they decide to get behind him. Another is that another candidate, perhaps one already announced (Newt Gingrich? Michelle Bachman?) or one that hasn't (Sarah Palin?) is able to concentrate this support. The third, and I still think most likely scenario is that the Tea Party wing stays fragmented and Romney is able to win by being just conservative enough and strong enough a general candidate to get the nod.
Nominations doesn't get decided in September the year before. They will be decided in the first quarter of 2012, when everyone really tunes in. But it's shaping up to be an interesting, competitive race.
Another Shutdown Showdown
I told you that we'd be back here. We are a mere week before the start of the government's new fiscal year and there is no agreement on how to proceed with the Fiscal 2012 budget, leaving us at a logjam that yet again threatens a government shutdown. The issue this time is the level of funding for FEMA and how it will be paid for. Republicans want a less than $4B funding replenishment, paid for by offsetting spending cuts in other area. Democrats want closer to $8B, without the offset. The GOP plan passed the House narrowly and was soundly rejected in the Democratic Senate. The Democratic plan has not been voted on in either house.
The budgetary dysfunction continues. Even if they are able to come to agreement in the next week (expect another 11th hour deal that nobody likes), this will only kick the can down the road to Mid-November, right before the bi-partisan deficit commission is supposed to report back its recommendations. So we will have at least 3 more fights that create uncertainty, make long-term programs highly inefficient and threaten to shut down the government.
Many have noted recently that Congressional approval is around 12%, by far an all time low. The question is, who are the 12% who approve? Does anyone else just feel like voting against every incumbent regardless of party?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Perry Earns His Spot on Stage, Obama Stimulas: DOA
Rick Perry Turns in an Acceptable Performance
The first GOP Presidential debate featuring Rick Perry was at times a boring affair, but one that ultimately served its purpose for front-runners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney as it clarified a clear choice between the only two candidates at this stage that have a realistic shot at the GOP nomination.
Perry didn't exactly set the world on fire with his debate performance, but he showed that he can hold his own on the stage with Mitt Romney, who had been running over the rest of the field in the previous two contests that he had attended. Perry hit Romney hard on his job creation record in Massachusetts (a factually dubious claim, given the very low unemployment rate when Romney left office, but an effective talking point nonetheless), the similarity of Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts to Obama's national plan (a very true fact, and it's a shame that Romney won't defend the success of that plan) and generally staked out his turf as the more conservative alternative. He didn't come off as a wing nut or a slave to the Tea Party, but his red meat barbs at President Obama should be enough to satisfy that wing of the party.
Romney, for his part, made no real mistakes, but also didn't break any real new ground or necessarily effective refute Romney's position, which is, in essence, that Romney is too moderate for the average GOP primary voter.
As I said before, my money is still on Romney in the long run - I just feel he is a better politician than Perry and that Perry will ultimately be prone to say more things that will alienate mainstream voters. But Perry did well to solidify his standing in this depend.
My last thought on the GOP debate is -- who the hell did the make-up for the candidates? Every candidate appeared to have an awful case of John Boehner orange skin disease. You'd think they could get these things nailed down for a national television appearance. One candidate looking oddly orange would have been interesting, but the whole field looking that way had me scratching my head.
Does Anybody Really Expect This Thing to Pass?
The GOP controls the House and has a large enough minority to effectively filibuster in the Senate. President Obama's new $400B+ stimulus package, consisting of lower-income and middle-class tax breaks, infrastructure spending, extended unemployment benefits and aid to states is an interesting policy paper. But does anyone expect that it will even get to a vote in either chamber?
The only piece that might gain some traction is continued payroll tax reductions. After all, the GOP loves to cut taxes. But those pesky taxes on the rich? Forget it. More spending of any kind? Deader than dead.
This will be an interesting speech that ultimately means nothing. It was as much about staking out ground for a campaign as actually trying to get something done. Pay attention to the deficit super committee, ignore this piece of DOA legislation.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The first GOP Presidential debate featuring Rick Perry was at times a boring affair, but one that ultimately served its purpose for front-runners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney as it clarified a clear choice between the only two candidates at this stage that have a realistic shot at the GOP nomination.
Perry didn't exactly set the world on fire with his debate performance, but he showed that he can hold his own on the stage with Mitt Romney, who had been running over the rest of the field in the previous two contests that he had attended. Perry hit Romney hard on his job creation record in Massachusetts (a factually dubious claim, given the very low unemployment rate when Romney left office, but an effective talking point nonetheless), the similarity of Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts to Obama's national plan (a very true fact, and it's a shame that Romney won't defend the success of that plan) and generally staked out his turf as the more conservative alternative. He didn't come off as a wing nut or a slave to the Tea Party, but his red meat barbs at President Obama should be enough to satisfy that wing of the party.
Romney, for his part, made no real mistakes, but also didn't break any real new ground or necessarily effective refute Romney's position, which is, in essence, that Romney is too moderate for the average GOP primary voter.
As I said before, my money is still on Romney in the long run - I just feel he is a better politician than Perry and that Perry will ultimately be prone to say more things that will alienate mainstream voters. But Perry did well to solidify his standing in this depend.
My last thought on the GOP debate is -- who the hell did the make-up for the candidates? Every candidate appeared to have an awful case of John Boehner orange skin disease. You'd think they could get these things nailed down for a national television appearance. One candidate looking oddly orange would have been interesting, but the whole field looking that way had me scratching my head.
Does Anybody Really Expect This Thing to Pass?
The GOP controls the House and has a large enough minority to effectively filibuster in the Senate. President Obama's new $400B+ stimulus package, consisting of lower-income and middle-class tax breaks, infrastructure spending, extended unemployment benefits and aid to states is an interesting policy paper. But does anyone expect that it will even get to a vote in either chamber?
The only piece that might gain some traction is continued payroll tax reductions. After all, the GOP loves to cut taxes. But those pesky taxes on the rich? Forget it. More spending of any kind? Deader than dead.
This will be an interesting speech that ultimately means nothing. It was as much about staking out ground for a campaign as actually trying to get something done. Pay attention to the deficit super committee, ignore this piece of DOA legislation.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Is the Perry Surge for Real?, Dangerous Voter Disenfranchisement
Is Perry Really the Front-Runner?
The newest national polls are all in and they confirm one fact, if the primary elections were all held today, Rick Perry would be the GOP nominee for President. Fox News has Perry at 26% of likely primary voters versus 18%, CNN has the margin at 27% to 14%, Gallup 25% to 14%, all well outside the margin of error. There is only one major problem for Rick Perry...the primaries aren't being held tomorrow. Perry's appeal to the GOP base is obvious: he's a conservative, well in line with the Tea Party voters who dominate GOP primaries and he brings the credibility of 10 years of experience as Governor of Texas, much stronger qualifications than, say, Michele Bachmann, who has never held an executive office. Perry possess good looks, a charming and unassuming southern drawl and a great economic story from the State of Texas. But to my eyes, Rick Perry has some major obstacles from turning this polling theory into reality: (1) He Appears Unready for Primetime He fumbles when asked about foreign policy, calls Ben Bernake (a Bush appointee) a traitor and seems to have a poor command of the national issues of the day. You don't have to be a genius to be President, but you do have to appear Presidential. And trust me, as much as the GOP is Tea Party-tilted these days, they also want to win a national election and party loyalists have to be worrying right now whether Perry would get squashed like a bug in a debate with Barack Obama (who, lest we forget after 3 painful years of governing, is very good at the whole campaigning thing.) (2) He Has to Debate Mitt Romney has utterly owned the GOP field in the first couple of debates. He's polished, sharp and behaves like the next President. Perry is going to have to stand on a stage with Romney and convince the GOP he's the better guy. (3) Romney is the Next Guy All of recent history would indicate that the "next guy in line" usually gets the GOP nod -- either a previous candidate who came up just short or a guy with a powerhouse name brand connection to the party. Perry has neither. Consider: 1968 - Richard Nixon - previous Presidential candidate 1972 - Richard Nixon - incumbent 1976 - Gerald Ford - incumbent 1980 - Ronald Reagan - previous Presidential candidate 1984 - Ronald Reagan - incumbent 1988 - George H-W. Bush - sitting VP and previous Presidential candidate 1992 - George H-W. Bush - incumbent 1996 - Bob Dole - previous Presidential Candidate 2000 - George W. Bush - powerhouse name brand 2004 - George W. Bush - incumbent 2008 - John McCain - previous Presidential candidate Of the whole bunch, only George W. Bush in 2000 hadn't previously run for President. And the name "Bush" ain't no hay. (4) The Open Primary Effect There is no Democratic Presidential race of any consequence and in many states (such as South Carolina), there are "open" primary systems, meaning that Democrats and Independents can choose to participate in the Republican primary if they choose to sit out the Democratic one (which won't be meaningful.) In many other states with "closed" primaries (such as New Hampshire), Independents still have the choice. Even in the states with "completely closed" primaries (such as my home state of New Jersey), you can still switch party registration very close to primary day to vote in the GOP primary and then switch back afterwards. My point in all of this is that there will likely be a sizable contingent of Democrats and Independents voting in GOP primaries this season. Does anyone think they will be backing Rick Perry? Don't get me wrong...Perry is the definitive betting favorite at this stage. But so was Rudy Guliani. My money is still on Romney, but it's still early and a lot can still happen.
Why Asking for ID Isn't a Good Thing
In Rolling Stone this month, Ari Berman writes an excellent piece on a recent campaign by the GOP in some states to place additional requirements on voters in 2012. The story is linked here. Requiring ID to vote sounds fantastic in theory -- who wouldn't want to stop ineligible voters from showing up? But it creates huge problems in states where 10% of the population has no state issued photo ID card and that population is largely poor and minority. I'm all for stopping voter fraud, but there is zero evidence of any election in the US in the past 20 years where widespread voter fraud existed. If we are truly worried about the wrong person showing up and a poll (and believe that someone would risk 7 years in prison to cast ONE false vote), there are simple checks that have been in place for years in many states, including cross-checking actual signatures against ones recorded on a voter registration form or requiring commonly available non-photo ID such as a utility bill (who, after all, is going to NOT vote but give their utility bill to someone else to vote falsely?) Does the Tea Party really believe that you should be REQUIRED to get a government ID in order to cast a vote, often at a cost? Doesn't that sound a lot like requiring people to buy a product or service, something they are suing the Obama Administration over as unconstitutional? If you like this site, tell your friends.
The newest national polls are all in and they confirm one fact, if the primary elections were all held today, Rick Perry would be the GOP nominee for President. Fox News has Perry at 26% of likely primary voters versus 18%, CNN has the margin at 27% to 14%, Gallup 25% to 14%, all well outside the margin of error. There is only one major problem for Rick Perry...the primaries aren't being held tomorrow. Perry's appeal to the GOP base is obvious: he's a conservative, well in line with the Tea Party voters who dominate GOP primaries and he brings the credibility of 10 years of experience as Governor of Texas, much stronger qualifications than, say, Michele Bachmann, who has never held an executive office. Perry possess good looks, a charming and unassuming southern drawl and a great economic story from the State of Texas. But to my eyes, Rick Perry has some major obstacles from turning this polling theory into reality: (1) He Appears Unready for Primetime He fumbles when asked about foreign policy, calls Ben Bernake (a Bush appointee) a traitor and seems to have a poor command of the national issues of the day. You don't have to be a genius to be President, but you do have to appear Presidential. And trust me, as much as the GOP is Tea Party-tilted these days, they also want to win a national election and party loyalists have to be worrying right now whether Perry would get squashed like a bug in a debate with Barack Obama (who, lest we forget after 3 painful years of governing, is very good at the whole campaigning thing.) (2) He Has to Debate Mitt Romney has utterly owned the GOP field in the first couple of debates. He's polished, sharp and behaves like the next President. Perry is going to have to stand on a stage with Romney and convince the GOP he's the better guy. (3) Romney is the Next Guy All of recent history would indicate that the "next guy in line" usually gets the GOP nod -- either a previous candidate who came up just short or a guy with a powerhouse name brand connection to the party. Perry has neither. Consider: 1968 - Richard Nixon - previous Presidential candidate 1972 - Richard Nixon - incumbent 1976 - Gerald Ford - incumbent 1980 - Ronald Reagan - previous Presidential candidate 1984 - Ronald Reagan - incumbent 1988 - George H-W. Bush - sitting VP and previous Presidential candidate 1992 - George H-W. Bush - incumbent 1996 - Bob Dole - previous Presidential Candidate 2000 - George W. Bush - powerhouse name brand 2004 - George W. Bush - incumbent 2008 - John McCain - previous Presidential candidate Of the whole bunch, only George W. Bush in 2000 hadn't previously run for President. And the name "Bush" ain't no hay. (4) The Open Primary Effect There is no Democratic Presidential race of any consequence and in many states (such as South Carolina), there are "open" primary systems, meaning that Democrats and Independents can choose to participate in the Republican primary if they choose to sit out the Democratic one (which won't be meaningful.) In many other states with "closed" primaries (such as New Hampshire), Independents still have the choice. Even in the states with "completely closed" primaries (such as my home state of New Jersey), you can still switch party registration very close to primary day to vote in the GOP primary and then switch back afterwards. My point in all of this is that there will likely be a sizable contingent of Democrats and Independents voting in GOP primaries this season. Does anyone think they will be backing Rick Perry? Don't get me wrong...Perry is the definitive betting favorite at this stage. But so was Rudy Guliani. My money is still on Romney, but it's still early and a lot can still happen.
Why Asking for ID Isn't a Good Thing
In Rolling Stone this month, Ari Berman writes an excellent piece on a recent campaign by the GOP in some states to place additional requirements on voters in 2012. The story is linked here. Requiring ID to vote sounds fantastic in theory -- who wouldn't want to stop ineligible voters from showing up? But it creates huge problems in states where 10% of the population has no state issued photo ID card and that population is largely poor and minority. I'm all for stopping voter fraud, but there is zero evidence of any election in the US in the past 20 years where widespread voter fraud existed. If we are truly worried about the wrong person showing up and a poll (and believe that someone would risk 7 years in prison to cast ONE false vote), there are simple checks that have been in place for years in many states, including cross-checking actual signatures against ones recorded on a voter registration form or requiring commonly available non-photo ID such as a utility bill (who, after all, is going to NOT vote but give their utility bill to someone else to vote falsely?) Does the Tea Party really believe that you should be REQUIRED to get a government ID in order to cast a vote, often at a cost? Doesn't that sound a lot like requiring people to buy a product or service, something they are suing the Obama Administration over as unconstitutional? If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Is Rick Perry Ready for Primetime?, Where Will the Jobs Come From?
Federal Reserve Treason?
Texas Governor Rick Perry's entry into the 2012 Presidential race has turned the contest on its head. Perry, hardly a well-known national figure before this year, instantly became the national man to beat, surging to the front of polls of Republicans. Well Romney still holds a comfortable lead in New Hampshire and Michelle Bachmann will undoubtedly be competitive with Perry in the Iowa Caucuses (Romney is more or less conceding Iowa), Perry has jumped to first in the betting odds overnight (his odds of receiving the nomination are 37%, Romney's are 30%, according to Intrade.)
But Perry has stumbled out of the gate, stopping just sort of calling Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake (who has originally appointed by President George W. Bush) a traitor and implying he would get roughed up if he came to Texas. He has Karl Rove calling him a lightweight and major GOP figures questioning his intellect.
The George W. Bush comparisons are flying fast and furious, and for obvious reasons. Perry followed Bush as Governor of Texas, both have stepped on their words at times and questions about the intellectual horsepower of both persist. And both have that signature Texas twang.
I look at Rick Perry and see a different parallel. In 2008, a conservative, experienced, southern politician was more or less begged by conservatives in the establishment to get into a race that was being fought between a moderate establishment candidate and a series of conservatives who couldn't win a general election. When this candidate finally got in the race late, he instantly vaulted into the top 2 in polling, but quickly flamed out as he ran a horrible campaign that failed to live up to the pre-candidacy expectations. That man was former Tennessee Senator and former star of Die Hard and Law and Order, Fred Dalton Thompson. I think Perry is this year's Thompson. Conservatives liked the idea of his candidacy but will soon sour on the reality. Assuming Perry shows up for the debate September 7th, we'll get the first glimpse of if I'm right.
Where Will the Working Class Work?
A stable democracy demands an economy where the working and middle classes exist and can work in jobs that support a decent standard of living. Throughout history, different structures have emerged that support growing economies in ways that support broad employment. Agrarian economies had the population working in fields, planting and harvesting crops. After the industrial revolution, the working class moved to higher value work in factories as farming became more automated. The 1990s saw the dawn in the US of the service economy, with more people working in call centers, retail stores and financial services and fewer in factories as manufacturing started to move abroad.
So, with 9% unemployment now, where will the jobs come from? Apple, the crown jewel of American innovation and the most value company in the world doesn't even crack the top 50 employers in the US. The top 5? Wal-Mart, McDonald's, UPS, Sears and Home Depot. Three retailers, a fast food restaurant and a parcel delivery service. It hardly feels like the 21st century economy.
The risk, of course, if broad swaths of the population either remain unemployed or work for peanuts (or Big Macs) at McDonald's and economic wealth continues to concentrate amongst the gifted few that land the big dollars in capital markets or as an executive at Apple, is that the majority of Americans will no longer feel the system works or that they have a stake in the economy. The lack of a stable middle class is extremely destabilizing, as is evident in much of the third world.
So how do we solve this? We should have an industrial policy that focuses on the industries that generate middle class jobs, as Germany has done with high-end manufacturing. Our problem is, we have no political will to create such a coordinated policy and the deficit taints the possibility of serious reinvestment in the economy.
Until that changes, expect the wealth gap to continue to grow.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Texas Governor Rick Perry's entry into the 2012 Presidential race has turned the contest on its head. Perry, hardly a well-known national figure before this year, instantly became the national man to beat, surging to the front of polls of Republicans. Well Romney still holds a comfortable lead in New Hampshire and Michelle Bachmann will undoubtedly be competitive with Perry in the Iowa Caucuses (Romney is more or less conceding Iowa), Perry has jumped to first in the betting odds overnight (his odds of receiving the nomination are 37%, Romney's are 30%, according to Intrade.)
But Perry has stumbled out of the gate, stopping just sort of calling Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake (who has originally appointed by President George W. Bush) a traitor and implying he would get roughed up if he came to Texas. He has Karl Rove calling him a lightweight and major GOP figures questioning his intellect.
The George W. Bush comparisons are flying fast and furious, and for obvious reasons. Perry followed Bush as Governor of Texas, both have stepped on their words at times and questions about the intellectual horsepower of both persist. And both have that signature Texas twang.
I look at Rick Perry and see a different parallel. In 2008, a conservative, experienced, southern politician was more or less begged by conservatives in the establishment to get into a race that was being fought between a moderate establishment candidate and a series of conservatives who couldn't win a general election. When this candidate finally got in the race late, he instantly vaulted into the top 2 in polling, but quickly flamed out as he ran a horrible campaign that failed to live up to the pre-candidacy expectations. That man was former Tennessee Senator and former star of Die Hard and Law and Order, Fred Dalton Thompson. I think Perry is this year's Thompson. Conservatives liked the idea of his candidacy but will soon sour on the reality. Assuming Perry shows up for the debate September 7th, we'll get the first glimpse of if I'm right.
Where Will the Working Class Work?
A stable democracy demands an economy where the working and middle classes exist and can work in jobs that support a decent standard of living. Throughout history, different structures have emerged that support growing economies in ways that support broad employment. Agrarian economies had the population working in fields, planting and harvesting crops. After the industrial revolution, the working class moved to higher value work in factories as farming became more automated. The 1990s saw the dawn in the US of the service economy, with more people working in call centers, retail stores and financial services and fewer in factories as manufacturing started to move abroad.
So, with 9% unemployment now, where will the jobs come from? Apple, the crown jewel of American innovation and the most value company in the world doesn't even crack the top 50 employers in the US. The top 5? Wal-Mart, McDonald's, UPS, Sears and Home Depot. Three retailers, a fast food restaurant and a parcel delivery service. It hardly feels like the 21st century economy.
The risk, of course, if broad swaths of the population either remain unemployed or work for peanuts (or Big Macs) at McDonald's and economic wealth continues to concentrate amongst the gifted few that land the big dollars in capital markets or as an executive at Apple, is that the majority of Americans will no longer feel the system works or that they have a stake in the economy. The lack of a stable middle class is extremely destabilizing, as is evident in much of the third world.
So how do we solve this? We should have an industrial policy that focuses on the industries that generate middle class jobs, as Germany has done with high-end manufacturing. Our problem is, we have no political will to create such a coordinated policy and the deficit taints the possibility of serious reinvestment in the economy.
Until that changes, expect the wealth gap to continue to grow.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Bachmann Wins Straw Poll, Perry In, Pawlenty Out
Bachmann Beats Back the Ron Paul Machine
Ron Paul has a knack for good showings in straw polls, a fact evidenced many times over his previous attempts at running for President. His support base is obviously a minority of the Republican party, but they are highly enthusiastic, show up and Paul is always well funded. So it is not insignificant that Michelle Bachmann was able to show up as a Presidential newbie and beat Paul in the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, the first official test of GOP Presidential candidates in Iowa.
Front-runner Mitt Romney had basically not decided to participate, probably a savvy move since he was not going to win either the straw poll or the Iowa caucuses, which cater to the more conservative wing of the party. His strategy is to dominate the more moderate New Hampshire primary and ride that win to national victory.
Jon Huntsman was also not in the game, as an even more moderate candidate than Romney. His strategy is...well...I'm honestly not really sure. He has no shot that I can see against Romney in New Hampshire and will get swamped by the right wing in conservative states like Iowa and South Carolina. But I digress.
The results of the straw poll were as follows:
Michelle Bachmann -- 29%
Ron Paul -- 28%
Tim Pawlenty -- 14%
Rick Santorum -- 10%
Herman Cain -- 9%
Rick Perry (Write-In) -- 4%
Mitt Romney -- 3%
Newt Gingrich -- 2%
Various Others -- 1% (Jon Huntsman - 0.4%, Thaddeus McCotter 0.2%, etc.)
These results solidify Bachmann's standing as the Tea Party alternative to the more mainstream Romney, but she has to look over her shoulder at Rick Perry, a Tea Party darling who has actually governed.
So, in my book the winners are:
Bachmann -- solidified as a legitimate candidate.
Paul -- encouraging enough to him to keep running (although he has no shot at actually getting the nomination.)
Santorum -- 10% means that the underfunded Santorum will keep getting invited to debates although I give him zero chance of getting the nod.
Cain -- similarly, a 9% showing makes him a legitimate alternative, but again, with no chance of the ultimate prize
The big losers:
Pawlenty -- staked his campaign on a win in Iowa (more on that in a second.)
Gingrich -- it is obvious at this point that the conservative establishment Republican delights neither conservatives nor the establishment. He should probably drop out, but I think he is enjoying the stage.
McCotter -- okay, he wasn't getting invited to debates anyway. But betting your whole campaign on Ames and getting 0.2% is pretty pathetic for the a guy who actually holds elected office.
Perry Gets In
Rick Perry will be THE subject of the next Republican Presidential debate on September 7th. And he is instantly in the top 2 candidates. He brings to the race an unblemished economic and social conservative and a great economic story in Texas. His liabilities will be that he is far less polished and likely not to be as strong a debate performer as front-runner Mitt Romney and that he has expressed some views in the past that would be huge liabilities in the general election, including expressing potential support for Texas succession (although if you read the actual quote, it is less extreme than it is usually represented, but still bad) and a very absolutist view on social and religious issues.
His candidacy clearly hurts Michelle Bachmann as he is a more polished and accomplished representative of the same basic points of view. Bachmann inspired early and is still in the game with the Ames win, but it gets harder and harder for her, with the race looking a lot like a mainstream New England moderate pitted against a southern conservative, a classic GOP civil war.
Pawlenty Out
Recognizing the reality on the ground, Tim Pawlenty is exiting stage left. It's a shame, in a way. Pawlenty had a great record as a moderate governor of a purple state. He was smart and accomplished. But Pawlenty never established a core constituency, moderates were already aligned to Romney and conservatives far preferred Bachmann or Perry. Pawlenty bet the farm on the Ames poll, and after not being able to crack the top 2, exiting stage left this morning.
This is a three-way race between Romney, Perry and Bachmann at this point. The others will make a little noise, Paul with libertarians, Santorum with social conservatives and Cain with the populist talk-radio crowd, but none can win the nod.
Lots more debates and lots of time to come. Heck, Sarah Palin could even get in (although I'd advise against it, I think she'd get rolled against this field.)
Let the games continue.
Ron Paul has a knack for good showings in straw polls, a fact evidenced many times over his previous attempts at running for President. His support base is obviously a minority of the Republican party, but they are highly enthusiastic, show up and Paul is always well funded. So it is not insignificant that Michelle Bachmann was able to show up as a Presidential newbie and beat Paul in the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, the first official test of GOP Presidential candidates in Iowa.
Front-runner Mitt Romney had basically not decided to participate, probably a savvy move since he was not going to win either the straw poll or the Iowa caucuses, which cater to the more conservative wing of the party. His strategy is to dominate the more moderate New Hampshire primary and ride that win to national victory.
Jon Huntsman was also not in the game, as an even more moderate candidate than Romney. His strategy is...well...I'm honestly not really sure. He has no shot that I can see against Romney in New Hampshire and will get swamped by the right wing in conservative states like Iowa and South Carolina. But I digress.
The results of the straw poll were as follows:
Michelle Bachmann -- 29%
Ron Paul -- 28%
Tim Pawlenty -- 14%
Rick Santorum -- 10%
Herman Cain -- 9%
Rick Perry (Write-In) -- 4%
Mitt Romney -- 3%
Newt Gingrich -- 2%
Various Others -- 1% (Jon Huntsman - 0.4%, Thaddeus McCotter 0.2%, etc.)
These results solidify Bachmann's standing as the Tea Party alternative to the more mainstream Romney, but she has to look over her shoulder at Rick Perry, a Tea Party darling who has actually governed.
So, in my book the winners are:
Bachmann -- solidified as a legitimate candidate.
Paul -- encouraging enough to him to keep running (although he has no shot at actually getting the nomination.)
Santorum -- 10% means that the underfunded Santorum will keep getting invited to debates although I give him zero chance of getting the nod.
Cain -- similarly, a 9% showing makes him a legitimate alternative, but again, with no chance of the ultimate prize
The big losers:
Pawlenty -- staked his campaign on a win in Iowa (more on that in a second.)
Gingrich -- it is obvious at this point that the conservative establishment Republican delights neither conservatives nor the establishment. He should probably drop out, but I think he is enjoying the stage.
McCotter -- okay, he wasn't getting invited to debates anyway. But betting your whole campaign on Ames and getting 0.2% is pretty pathetic for the a guy who actually holds elected office.
Perry Gets In
Rick Perry will be THE subject of the next Republican Presidential debate on September 7th. And he is instantly in the top 2 candidates. He brings to the race an unblemished economic and social conservative and a great economic story in Texas. His liabilities will be that he is far less polished and likely not to be as strong a debate performer as front-runner Mitt Romney and that he has expressed some views in the past that would be huge liabilities in the general election, including expressing potential support for Texas succession (although if you read the actual quote, it is less extreme than it is usually represented, but still bad) and a very absolutist view on social and religious issues.
His candidacy clearly hurts Michelle Bachmann as he is a more polished and accomplished representative of the same basic points of view. Bachmann inspired early and is still in the game with the Ames win, but it gets harder and harder for her, with the race looking a lot like a mainstream New England moderate pitted against a southern conservative, a classic GOP civil war.
Pawlenty Out
Recognizing the reality on the ground, Tim Pawlenty is exiting stage left. It's a shame, in a way. Pawlenty had a great record as a moderate governor of a purple state. He was smart and accomplished. But Pawlenty never established a core constituency, moderates were already aligned to Romney and conservatives far preferred Bachmann or Perry. Pawlenty bet the farm on the Ames poll, and after not being able to crack the top 2, exiting stage left this morning.
This is a three-way race between Romney, Perry and Bachmann at this point. The others will make a little noise, Paul with libertarians, Santorum with social conservatives and Cain with the populist talk-radio crowd, but none can win the nod.
Lots more debates and lots of time to come. Heck, Sarah Palin could even get in (although I'd advise against it, I think she'd get rolled against this field.)
Let the games continue.
Friday, August 12, 2011
A Feisty Debate
They Came to Play
Here is my quick review of debate performances from last night from the GOP candidates for President:
Mitt Romney -- on point, on message, side-stepped questions about his moderate record and venture capital past deftly. Lacked the passion to inspire the right, who didn't like him anyway, but continued to solidify his status as the mainstream front runner, a status he will need when Rick Perry gets in this weekend.
Michelle Bachmann -- a sub-par performance versus her coming out party at the last debate. Engaged in pointless squabbling with Tim Pawlenty which helps neither of them. Pawlenty is at about 3% in the polls...why is Bachmann wasting her venom on him when Romney is the real opponent?
Ron Paul -- debates just aren't his specialty. I have a soft spot for Paul and his credible and consistent commitment to libertarian values. But he is far too professorial and not nearly engaging enough at these forums. He wins points for being out front on auditing the Fed, a step the entire field has jumped on now but that Paul has been advocating for years.
Jon Huntsman -- utterly uninspiring. I give him points for sticking to his guns on his moderate positions, although that won't likely help him with the GOP primary and caucus crowd, except in open states, but Huntsman had very little in the way of original ideas or inspiration.
Newt Gingrich -- one of his best performances. For the first time, looked and sounded like a credible candidate, put forward real ideas and took on the moderators. Probably too little, too late for Newt, but fun to watch.
Tim Pawlenty -- didn't miss his second chance to go after Romney. Did a much better job of exposing his record than last time and had much more concise, coherent answers. Still a bit of a bore.
Herman Cain -- the fact that Romney was praising him shows you all you need to know -- Cain is a side show with no real chance.
Rick Santorum -- unexpectedly strong performance from the conservative firebrand. But he is in dead last in the polls, having failed to bring in even his conservative base. May not even get invites to future debates.
Winners?
Romney and Gingrich
Losers?
Bachmann (how fast is her star fading?), Huntsman
In my view, the door is still wide open for Rick Perry. I don't think any of the rest of the field can take down Romney.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Here is my quick review of debate performances from last night from the GOP candidates for President:
Mitt Romney -- on point, on message, side-stepped questions about his moderate record and venture capital past deftly. Lacked the passion to inspire the right, who didn't like him anyway, but continued to solidify his status as the mainstream front runner, a status he will need when Rick Perry gets in this weekend.
Michelle Bachmann -- a sub-par performance versus her coming out party at the last debate. Engaged in pointless squabbling with Tim Pawlenty which helps neither of them. Pawlenty is at about 3% in the polls...why is Bachmann wasting her venom on him when Romney is the real opponent?
Ron Paul -- debates just aren't his specialty. I have a soft spot for Paul and his credible and consistent commitment to libertarian values. But he is far too professorial and not nearly engaging enough at these forums. He wins points for being out front on auditing the Fed, a step the entire field has jumped on now but that Paul has been advocating for years.
Jon Huntsman -- utterly uninspiring. I give him points for sticking to his guns on his moderate positions, although that won't likely help him with the GOP primary and caucus crowd, except in open states, but Huntsman had very little in the way of original ideas or inspiration.
Newt Gingrich -- one of his best performances. For the first time, looked and sounded like a credible candidate, put forward real ideas and took on the moderators. Probably too little, too late for Newt, but fun to watch.
Tim Pawlenty -- didn't miss his second chance to go after Romney. Did a much better job of exposing his record than last time and had much more concise, coherent answers. Still a bit of a bore.
Herman Cain -- the fact that Romney was praising him shows you all you need to know -- Cain is a side show with no real chance.
Rick Santorum -- unexpectedly strong performance from the conservative firebrand. But he is in dead last in the polls, having failed to bring in even his conservative base. May not even get invites to future debates.
Winners?
Romney and Gingrich
Losers?
Bachmann (how fast is her star fading?), Huntsman
In my view, the door is still wide open for Rick Perry. I don't think any of the rest of the field can take down Romney.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
All Sizzle and No Steak, Could Perry Disrupt the GOP Race?
How the "Grand Deal" is Rapidly Turning Into NothingIt's quite an interesting narrative around the debt ceiling. Historically, debt ceiling increases have been non-events in American politics. The right of the government to borrow is authorized by law. From the country's inception until 1917, Congress individually reviewed every bond issuance. In 1917, realizing that the country's affairs and balance sheet had become far too complex for such micro-management, Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act, which authorized blanket federal borrowing, up to a preset limit, at the time, $8 billion. Since that time, Congress has continually raised the limit as inflation and deficit spending have driven the debt up over time. Historically, these increased have passed easily. Congress passed debt increases in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 with little fanfare (do you even remember a debt ceiling debate during the Bush Administration?)
This time however, the newly minted House GOP majority, buoyed by Tea Party activists, saw an opportunity to set the stage for their fiscal policy goals by demanding major deficit reduction in return for the ceiling increase. House Speaker John Boehner set the standard that at least $1 in debt-reducing initiatives must pass for every $1 increase in the debt ceiling. Rep. Paul Ryan laid out the House GOP blue-print which called for radical changes to entitlements and a whole bunch of non-specific cuts to discretionary spending (the Ryan Plan set targets but did not actually say WHAT it would cut beyond entitlements.)
It now appears that the GOP was bluffing and doesn't actually want a deal. Why do I say that? Because President Obama has embraced their somewhat silly position around the debt ceiling (the debt ceiling is a product of laws Congress already passed, so why do they suddenly act shocked and demand cuts when the check comes?) and pushed for a grand bargain, a $4 trillion deal over 10 years that would include 85% spending cuts and 15% new revenues, with the new revenues being generated solely by closing corporate and wealthy tax loopholes. He even put entitlements on the table.
No dice, says the GOP. "Everything" is on the table say John Boehner and Eric Cantor, "everything" that is except tax increases. With taxes sitting at their lowest level in 60 years and the President proposing only the most symbolic of tax hikes, the GOP position is somewhat absurd.
Now it is the GOP, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, who are pushing for either a much smaller deal or a gimmick by which Congress would agree to debt ceiling increases in a way that allows the GOP to vote against them but still let them happen.
I've been critical of President Obama's negotiating tactics in the past - I thought he cut a horrible deal on the Bush Tax Cuts and gave away a ton of leverage and I thought that he gave the GOP 80%+ of what they wanted in the Fiscal 2011 budget. But, I admit, I was wrong about this one. He has played it masterfully.
The GOP looks hypocritical and is stuck defending why they would walk away from $3+ trillion in spending cuts because they don't want Exxon-Mobile or private jet owners to lose their special tax exemptions. They look unserious about deficit reduction and like they are simply pandering and playing politics.
In short, the GOP is losing the debate and is scrambling to figure out there new position. Boehner, who actually wants a deal, is wedged by Eric Cantor, who has no interest in legislation. Several others in the GOP have expressed openness to closing tax loopholes, including conservative Tom Coburn and moderate Lindsey Graham. But it looks like there will be no deal.
So, the can gets kicked down the road and the GOP loses credibility. What a shame.
Rick Perry Could Make Waves
It looks increasingly likely the Texas Governor Rick Perry will enter the GOP 2012 Presidential field. He is a compelling candidate in many ways - he obviously has executive experience, he has strong conservative credentials (which is obviously very helpful in GOP primaries and caucuses) and he is a good speaker. In short, he is Michelle Bachmann with more credibility.
His entry would clearly be bad for Bachmann as they would be fighting for the same set of voters. Moderates and those most interested in general election victory would still back Mitt Romney, although conservatives who were holding their nose and supporting Romney because they viewed him as the only credible general candidate, might jump ship.
So, in short, how relevant Perry would become depends on where he pulls his support from. If he steals support mostly from Bachmann, he will simply solidify Romney's national lead. If he stills primarily from Romney, he could win or he could open the door for Bachmann to win with a plurality of Tea Party voters and talk radio listeners.
Either way, in what has become kind of a ho-hum field, Rick Perry's entrance adds an element of excitement.
This time however, the newly minted House GOP majority, buoyed by Tea Party activists, saw an opportunity to set the stage for their fiscal policy goals by demanding major deficit reduction in return for the ceiling increase. House Speaker John Boehner set the standard that at least $1 in debt-reducing initiatives must pass for every $1 increase in the debt ceiling. Rep. Paul Ryan laid out the House GOP blue-print which called for radical changes to entitlements and a whole bunch of non-specific cuts to discretionary spending (the Ryan Plan set targets but did not actually say WHAT it would cut beyond entitlements.)
It now appears that the GOP was bluffing and doesn't actually want a deal. Why do I say that? Because President Obama has embraced their somewhat silly position around the debt ceiling (the debt ceiling is a product of laws Congress already passed, so why do they suddenly act shocked and demand cuts when the check comes?) and pushed for a grand bargain, a $4 trillion deal over 10 years that would include 85% spending cuts and 15% new revenues, with the new revenues being generated solely by closing corporate and wealthy tax loopholes. He even put entitlements on the table.
No dice, says the GOP. "Everything" is on the table say John Boehner and Eric Cantor, "everything" that is except tax increases. With taxes sitting at their lowest level in 60 years and the President proposing only the most symbolic of tax hikes, the GOP position is somewhat absurd.
Now it is the GOP, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, who are pushing for either a much smaller deal or a gimmick by which Congress would agree to debt ceiling increases in a way that allows the GOP to vote against them but still let them happen.
I've been critical of President Obama's negotiating tactics in the past - I thought he cut a horrible deal on the Bush Tax Cuts and gave away a ton of leverage and I thought that he gave the GOP 80%+ of what they wanted in the Fiscal 2011 budget. But, I admit, I was wrong about this one. He has played it masterfully.
The GOP looks hypocritical and is stuck defending why they would walk away from $3+ trillion in spending cuts because they don't want Exxon-Mobile or private jet owners to lose their special tax exemptions. They look unserious about deficit reduction and like they are simply pandering and playing politics.
In short, the GOP is losing the debate and is scrambling to figure out there new position. Boehner, who actually wants a deal, is wedged by Eric Cantor, who has no interest in legislation. Several others in the GOP have expressed openness to closing tax loopholes, including conservative Tom Coburn and moderate Lindsey Graham. But it looks like there will be no deal.
So, the can gets kicked down the road and the GOP loses credibility. What a shame.
Rick Perry Could Make Waves
It looks increasingly likely the Texas Governor Rick Perry will enter the GOP 2012 Presidential field. He is a compelling candidate in many ways - he obviously has executive experience, he has strong conservative credentials (which is obviously very helpful in GOP primaries and caucuses) and he is a good speaker. In short, he is Michelle Bachmann with more credibility.
His entry would clearly be bad for Bachmann as they would be fighting for the same set of voters. Moderates and those most interested in general election victory would still back Mitt Romney, although conservatives who were holding their nose and supporting Romney because they viewed him as the only credible general candidate, might jump ship.
So, in short, how relevant Perry would become depends on where he pulls his support from. If he steals support mostly from Bachmann, he will simply solidify Romney's national lead. If he stills primarily from Romney, he could win or he could open the door for Bachmann to win with a plurality of Tea Party voters and talk radio listeners.
Either way, in what has become kind of a ho-hum field, Rick Perry's entrance adds an element of excitement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
