A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.
Unknown
Blog Readership Update
Readership over November was the highest since May and sustained a pageview recovery since August.
The GOP Responds to Dem's Demagoguery on Payroll Tax Cut:
Mixed Review
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Dems think they have the GOP trapped on the extension of the payroll tax cut. Let me make my position clear: I oppose the President's "one-year' extension (in fact, expansion), which includes extending the current 2-point FICA payroll tax holiday to 3.1 points--half of the payroll tax percentage. Obama does similar tweaking on the employer match side, boosting the cost of the extension from $112B to $265B. It wants to pay for this through a job-killing permanent 3.25% surtax on millionaires. I also oppose short-term gimmicks for reasons I've discussed earlier, e.g., Friedman's permanent income hypothesis; gimmick taxes/tax cuts are usually gamed by the participants. The surtax gimmick is a de facto rewriting of the rules underlying the social security: FDR wanted to avoid mingling general revenue from dedicated payroll taxes, because he felt general revenues exposed social security to spending cut decisions. The major point I raise is the payroll tax holiday has exacerbated the unfunded entitlement liabilities, and we should not be tampering with taxes until the programs have been reformed to the point of stability. Obama and his Democratic cronies have constantly dodged long-term fixes to the Ponzi scheme entitlement problem
Speaker Boehner has made clear that class warfare tax hikes like the millionaire surtax are dead on arrival, and new government expenditures must be fully paid for. However, the Speaker and Senate Minority Leader McConnell have come out in support of extending the EXISTING payroll tax holiday (thumbs DOWN!) but pay for it and add more money for narrowing the deficit, through federal employee pay freeze extensions and reducing the federal employee payroll through attrition (thumbs UP!)
I can understand that the GOP leadership doesn't want to be seen as ceding the middle-class tax cut issue to the disingenuous Dems, once again, as usual, trying to buy their way through yet another election. I just think short-term tax cuts are bad economic policy, and my position would be to use the Dems' desire to deal with payroll taxes as the opening round of discussing long-overdue social security reform.
Bring It On: Gringrich vs. Romney
Any faithful reader to this blog can probably predict where I stand on this (if not, read my ad lib in yesterday's Political Humor feature). I will be publishing an endorsement post soon (which, with $5, will buy the winner a cup of coffee at Starbucks).
I will say this much starting out: a battle between Romney and Gingrich is indeed the survival of the fittest in this field, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, they are the brightest, most articulate politicians in the field. I have been a severe critic of the GOP strategy which seems to be replaying the Reagan election and issues one election after another; it's a little like the boy whom cried wolf: after a while it becomes so predictable, people tune it out, and you don't win many hands of poker by showing your opponents the hand you're playing while they keep theirs covered. Gingrich has done a lot of work since leaving office as Speaker on policy issues; in fact, on occasion in some of my posts, I've made reference to some of his websites, e.g., during the health care debate and discussions on assigned risk pools. I think, though, he has spread himself a little thin and probably went a little too far when he started pushing his conservative approach towards alternative energy (and filmed, in jaw-dropping fashion, a joint spot with Nancy Pelosi: hint to Romney: line up a lot of political ads with that shot.). We already have a jack-of -all-trades, master-of-none, attention deficit disorder President without prior executive experience.
Romney had a testy exchange with Bret Baier recently on Special Report. Romney is already signaling a fairly predictable strategy that I myself would have outlined: Newt Gingrich is the ultimate Washington insider, a generation on Capitol Hill, rising through the ranks. One could also raise the ethical charges leading to a historic bipartisan rebuke, the strategic blunder over the government shutdown with Clinton, the 1998 election debacle resulting in open rebellion against the Speaker's reelection and his subsequent resignation as Speaker and from Congress, and his post-Congressional lobbyist career, including reportedly $1.6-1.8M for Freddie Mac in a consulting retainer through 2008, one of the bankrupt duopoly GSE's. (He became a critic of Fannie and Freddie after his lucrative gig of up to $30K per month stopped.)
Now, I say to my fellow conservatives, what do you think it means that Clinton and the White House have had some complimentary things to say about Gringrich and some nasty things about Romney? Who do you think Obama would want to run against: an experienced business executive and former governor of a blue state whom can run as an outsider and point to a bipartisan record--or a fellow Washington insider, someone whom has made a lot of money with his Washington connections after leaving office, a Speaker whom was rebuked by the Congress, with high negativity among moderates and independents and repeatedly losing each and every matchup poll against Obama (until a very recent Rasmussen poll, which shows a narrow Gingrich lead within the margin of error).
I think most conservatives' misgivings with Romney deal with nuanced positions; I would have this advice for Romney: you are going to be asked the same stupid questions over RomneyCare and other things. You need to react to these things--and I agree with Bill O'Reilly with this--with a sense of humor, like water off a duck's back. One of the things I always knew to do in the classroom was never to scream at students (and I've heard students do and say some incredibly rude things in class); if a student asked me the same question for a fourth time in a 15-minute time span, I answered it. For me, it was a no-brainer--I can spent 10 seconds answering the question, or three minutes yelling at a student about not paying attention. You aren't going to win any points with the other students, most of whom are probably thinking, "There but for the grace of God go I." We already have a highly defensive President. It doesn't help to be seen as impatient on Fox News, an outlet popular with conservatives because unlike every other competitor, it provides more balanced coverage.
Romney needs to take out Gingrich sooner than later. A lot of Gingrich's support is soft--the same fickle support that has been handed off from Bachmann to Perry to Cain and now to Gingrich. (I have to admire how Gingrich, similar to how McCain survived in 2007 after his campaign imploded, stayed in the game long enough to get his turn as the non-Romney candidate.)
FactCheck has a good article out debunking the DNC's latest anti-Romney ad. Here is a key extract:
- "The DNC says Romney flip-flopped on the Wall Street bailout — when, in fact, he has consistently supported its original intent but opposed Obama’s decision to extend TARP and use its funds for other programs, including the auto bailout."
- "The DNC also claims Romney changed his position on the auto bailout. The fact is Romney consistently called for a “managed bankruptcy” similar to what was later undertaken, but he opposed the use of federal funds by both Bush and Obama."
- "The video casts Romney as a one-time supporter of Obama’s stimulus. In fact, Romney favored a smaller stimulus and opposed the “excessive borrowing” of Obama’s plan as the “wrong course.”"
- "The DNC video also portrays Romney as supporting the Obama health care plan. Not true. He has consistently defended his Massachusetts law as right for his state, but opposed imposing it on other states by federal law."
- "Similarly, the DNC claims Romney supported Obama’s education program, Race to the Top. But, again, Romney supported some of the program’s goals, but he said those kinds of issues ought to be handled at the state level, not federal."
"President Obama went shopping and he wandered into a book store. Rick Perry said, 'When I'm president, that will never happen. There will be no book stores.'" - Conan O'Brien
[You know what that means: Obama mustn't own an iPad or Kindle. No doubt he's hoping for Queen Elizabeth to next gift him with a custom iPad loaded with her favorite Barack Obama moments, quotes, books and speech transcripts.]
An original:
- McDonald's has outsmarted the Big Nanny San Francisco progressive local government trying to ban the sale of Happy Meals with toys by selling toys for a nominal donation by requiring purchase of a Happy Meal. Personally, I'm waiting for McDonald's to introduce the adult version of the Happy Meal. My first suggestion for the surprise inside: a picture of the White House with a moving van in front of it.
10 "Spent too much time picking a cool name for the committee"
9 "Got distracted by Congress' new 'Donkey Kong' machine"
8 "Wasted time trying on each other's hairpieces"
7 "When your options are to solve the national debt crisis or see the new ‘Twilight’ movie, you see the new ‘Twilight’ movie"
6 "Quit early to get in line for the Black Friday sale at Annie Sez"
5 "It's the curse of the chupacabra"
4 "We're assembling a special committee to come up with excuses"
3 "It's Robert Wagner's fault"
2 "Hey, normally it takes us twice as long to get nothing done"
1 "President Santorum will figure it out"
[4 "The meeting room was full of green kyptonite."
3 "I've been sick over the last several weeks; I'll release my medical excuse as soon as my ObamaCare physician sees me."
2 "We had the draft of an agreement, but Barney [George W. Bush's dog] ate the papers."
1 "Everyone knows that the end of the world is 12/21/12; why worry about a 10-year budget deal?"]
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
Judy Garland, "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas"
