Since it’s the end of the year I thought it’d be a nice thing to do the bests and worsts of 2011.
Most Impactful Politician-Paul Ryan: Aside from the President (who would always win) the politician with the most impact this year is House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. His Path to Prosperity has been the most discussed, analyzed, and debated policy paper of the year. His colleagues in Congress think the world of him; every Republican in the House signed on to the Path to Prosperity budget. At age 41 he has a bright future ahead in whatever he decides to do.
Most Overrated Political Story-Occupy Wall Street: If there was one group more overhyped, over-covered by the news, it has to be the OWS movement. The news media tripped over themselves to proclaim that this was the left’s answer to the Tea Party, the next great protest movement, the way to revive the Democratic Party, what every you wanted to call them, the media did. Now however, the OWS movement has been shown to be what it always was; a pathetic joke.
Luckiest Politician-Mitt Romney: Mitch Daniels didn’t run. Paul Ryan didn’t run. Mike Huckabee didn’t either. Chris Christie is his top surrogate instead of top opponent. Tim Pawlenty has been out of the race for 6 months. Now, with 8 days to go before the Iowa Caucuses, his top opponents are Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. If that isn’t a lucky hand, I don’t know what is.
Unluckiest Politician-Rick Perry: On paper, the Texas Governor should be one of the front-runners for this race. He comes from the largest consistently red states in America, he’s been Governor for over a decade, he raised a ton of money, and right as he jumped into the race, he was at the top of the polls. Yet in a year where debates have dominated the process, the Texan’s disastrous performances have sent his numbers tumbling. While an Iowa comeback is possible, it’s certainly not the scenario that Perry and his campaign envisioned when the Governor jumped into the race back in August.
Biggest Flash in the Pan- Herman Cain: The pizza mogul surged to the top of Republican polls after the Florida Straw Poll and was bolstered by his catchy (although hardly practical) 9-9-9 Plan. Two months later, dogged by accusations of sexual harassment and unfaithfulness, Cain was out of the race.
Biggest Disappointment- Tim Pawlenty: The Minnesota Governor was hailed as the man who would be king; the guy who would be the alternative to Mitt Romney. George Will hailed him as the most likely nominee. But Pawlenty never caught on. His one moment in the spotlight was his bizarre attack on “Obamneycare” on Sunday and then refusing to say it again in at the New Hampshire debate on Tuesday. It made Pawlenty look weak, and he never recovered.
Biggest Losers- Dictators and Terrorists: Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali deposed. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak toppled. The Mad Dog Qaddafi put down. The Dear Leader Kim Jong Il is now the dead leader. Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency of Russia is looking less certain. Bashir al Assad’s regime is looking precarious in Syria. And most pleasingly, Osama bin Laden came down with a nasty case of bullet to the face. It wasn’t a great year for tyranny in the world.
If there are any more categories or different choices for the above categories, have at it in the comments.
It’s that time again. Enjoy:
The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs.
GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department’s standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient.
DOE’s light bulb rules — authorized under a 2007 energy law authored signed by President George W. Bush — would start going into effect Jan. 1. The rider will prevent DOE from implementing the rules through Sept. 30.
Few overreaches of the nanny-state have created more ire than the ban on 100W incandescent light bulbs that was set to take effect this New Year’s Day. Signed into law by George W. Bush, it is a prime example of the so-called “elites” deciding that we mere mortals are incapable of making our own decisions, and therefore they must make them for us.
Well, it’s nice to know that the ban has been postponed to at least September 30th next year — about a month before election day.
Of course, our moral superiors didn’t give up without a fight.
Environmentalists and clean energy types have tried to mount a last-ditch defense, with plans for a Friday press conference that includes representatives from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Philips Electronics North America, Consumers Union, the Alliance to Save Energy and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Republicans for Environmental Protection also hoped to shame its GOP brethren into backing down.
“In the real world, outside talk radio’s echo chamber, lighting manufacturers such as GE, Philips and Sylvania have tooled up to produce new incandescent light bulbs that look and operate exactly the same as old incandescent bulbs, and give off just as much warm light,” said Jim DiPeso, the group’s policy director. “The only difference is they produce less excess heat and are therefore 30 percent more efficient. Same light, lower energy bills. What’s not to like?”
Umm, the price? Those new bulbs also cost more. That seems to be a detail these busy-bodies have forgotten to mention for some strange reason. I can’t image why.
The turmoil of the Republican nomination process, and the unhappiness of a large part of the party with all the choices, has led to recent speculation that we might have a brokered convention and/or the nominee might be someone not in the current field.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must note that I am not an unbiased observer on this point, since I count myself among those who look at the current field with disappointment (well, okay, ‘disappointment’ is a weak word – ‘revulsion’ is more like it).
Sean Trende assessed the possibility of a brokered convention, and rated the chances as low, which I think is fair. But that there is any realistic chance is remarkable – it has been sixty years since either party’s convention has gone past the first ballot.
So what are the factors that could cause a brokered convention this time?
The factor that, added to the above, may mean a late entrant has a chance to emerge as the nominee from a brokered convention is that the nominating process is back-loaded.
Let’s examine that last point first, because it brings into question the idea that it is now impossible to enter the race. Let’s say that someone decided to enter after Iowa and New Hampshire (it would, of course, have to be someone who has the name and the establishment support to credibly do so). The following fifteen states have filing deadlines three weeks or more after New Hampshire votes, giving time (maybe) to get on the ballot:
These states have a total of 742 delegates and most vote in April-June, giving a new candidate time to campaign. The strategy would probably be to concentrate on New York and Pennsylvania, which vote in April. Victories there would lead to May-June wins in other states (see the chart on Sean’s article for voting dates). A candidate who captured a big piece of the 742 delegates could prevent anyone else from getting the nomination and would go to the convention with a strong argument as to why he (to randomly select a pronoun) should be the compromise choice.
Let’s say that when the dust settles in June, the scoreboard looks something like this:
In this scenario, Romney and Gingrich have so soiled each other that they are unacceptable to too much of the party and are too wounded to battle Obama. After a nasty campaign, it’s unlikely that 350 Romney delegates could be persuaded to switch to Gingrich, or vice versa. That leaves Late Entrant and Paul. We know it won’t be Paul, so …
As the headline should make clear, this is not a prediction. I’m not even saying it is at all likely. But I do think it is just barely possible, and its slim chances seem to be growing.
This has been the strangest campaign I’ve seen in my five decades of following politics. There’s no reason to think it can’t get weirder still.
One final point: Can we put a name to the Late Entrant? The obvious choices are Daniels, Christie, Ryan, and Jindal. My pick, of course, would be Daniels, but unless the Women’s Caucus of the Daniels household has had an epiphany, that isn’t happening. Christie has endorsed Romney and this scenario involves Romney staying in all the way (I don’t see a brokered convention if he’s knocked out early), so eliminate Christie.
Jindal would be possible if Perry is eliminated after Iowa or New Hampshire. Ryan has not endorsed, so he could still get in. John Thune? Suggestions are welcomed.
As segments of the GOP have moved more towards Paul’s views we have the first rumblings that he could actually pull off a win. Internal polling from Mitt Romney and Rick Perry shows Newt Gingrich slipping, according to Politico.
“Sources didn’t provide specific numbers on how far he’s slipped, but it’s perceptible in both camps’ numbers… The person who is holding strong, according to the internal numbers, is Paul, who has a true shot of winning the caucuses, according to several Iowa Republican insiders surveying ground games and energy.”
I’m not a particular fan of Ron Paul, and I’m not going to vote for him, but I do kind of like this add:
No word on the size of the buy, but Politico reports it will be…ahem…big.
As always, posted without comment.
- Barack Obama 46%
- Mitt Romney 44%
- Barack Obama 51%
- Newt Gingrich 40%
- Barack Obama 43%
- Mitt Romney 43%
- Barack Obama 52%
- Newt Gingrich 36%
Just returned from my annual trip to Washington DC with my 8th graders and was once again awed by the wealth of educational experienced there offered at no out of pocket cost. Notice I did not say it was free. I am fully aware that the Smithsonian, monuments and various educational centers are paid for with tax dollars. However, I think this is a good use of our tax money and would support more of it. Where that money should come from is the budget of the Department of Education.
For anyone following the recent GOP presidential debates the idea of eliminating the Department of Education will come as no surprise. Ron Paul has long made the case for killing it, and Rick Perry added it to his plan as well. (At least I think he did; he of course wasn’t too sure of what he thought). This has actually been a rallying cry in the conservative movement for decades.
I do not disagree with the idea that the D.O.E. is actually detrimental to public schools. It puts out unfunded mandates, tries to micro-manage local curricula and generally meddles in the way all overly-large bureaucracies do. A local school will almost always be run better by the locality.
One example is in the federal push towards technology. While there are certainly benefits to teaching technology to our students, the government works at such a necesarily slow pace that by the time ideas and procedures filter down to the local level they are often already outdated. And that is to say nothing of the fact that it is in reality impossible to train students for the jobs of the future. If recent history has taught us anything it is that we can not predict what the jobs of the future will actually be with any technical certainty.
Schools need to focus on teaching what is timeless: critical thinking, rhetoric, logic and problem solving. No matter what changes the future may bring, these skills will always stand by our students.
The liberal knee-jerk reaction to the idea of eliminating the fed from public education is to cry out that if we do we would have public schools resorting to teaching creationism or some other hot button issue.
To this I respond, so what?
What is the goal of a school? It is to foster intellectual curiosity and provide students with the tools to satiate that curiosity. No single curricula point is going to derail that. There are plenty of well educated, thoughtful and honest citizens of this country who hold that creationism is true. Just because I personally do not agree with them, does it really make me a better citizen, community member or productive member of society? Of course not.
Where I differ from the Rick Perrys and Ron Pauls of the world is that I still believe the federal government has a role to play in educating the citizenry. This is what my recent journey to our nation’s capital reminded me. The fed gets the most bang for it’s buck when it focuses on grand scale education rather than micro-managing the day to day teaching of students. The Smithsonian Museums are a perfect example of public education spending done right. Here anyone can go to view, learn and participate in a variety of educational activities.
I live in Massachusetts and in Boston we have an excellent science museum. However, if you are a family of four or five the cost of visiting this museum can be prohibitive. If the government wants to foster true intellectual curiosity in an egalitarian fashion why not subsidize a museum rather than throw money into a black hole of bureaucratic red tape throughout the public school system.
Another idea based off of the DC model would be to fund state historical museums/living history centers. Even the most jaded American can’t help but feel some pride when visiting the Jefferson or Lincoln Memorial in Washington. Why couldn’t this concept be duplicated on a more local scale?
The Occupy crowd have clearly gone too far, but one of their underlying motives is understandable. They have a lack of connection to the system. They have no sense of community, no sense of being in this together. Therefore they operate from a more selfish, “what-can-the-government-do-for-me perspective. The government should do more to foster a sense of national pride.
I am not naive. I am also not suggesting that a few museums are going to solve our nation’s problems. But I am suggesting that we may want to look at how we promote intellectual curiosity and civic pride and that perhaps re-purposing the D.O.E. could be a place to start.
After all at it’s core a conservative is one who wants to conserve. Our collective past and educational future need conservation too.Cutting spending is always good, but sometimes spending smartly also helps.
Tonight’s off-year elections come complete with a depressing development out of Ohio, as a massive majority of the state’s voters cast ballots to repeal Republican reforms to public sector collective bargaining:
In a political blow to GOP Gov. John Kasich, voters handily rejected the law, which would have limited the bargaining abilities of 350,000 unionized public workers. With more than a quarter of the votes counted late Tuesday, 63 percent of votes were to reject the law.
Given Gov. Scott Walker’s successes at keeping the public behind his own attempts to reform the public sector in Wisconsin, as demonstrated by the Prosser victory earlier this year, as well as by the Democrats’ failed attempt to win control of the Wisconsin state senate via recall elections, today’s results in Ohio call into question the political potency of Gov. John Kasich. A former congressional bean counter, Kasich made a brief run for the presidency during the 2000 election cycle, culminating in a lackluster and short-lived single-digit candidacy. It’s certainly possible that John Kasich is simply a poor politician who was ushered into office during the wave election of 2010 and who lacks the necessary skills to move the dials of public opinion rightward in the state of Ohio.
Whatever the case, this sort of lopsided result may suggest that Ohio will be significantly less “red” in the coming election cycle than it has been in the last few presidential elections. It’s possible for Republicans to win the White House without Ohio, but to construct such a scenario is challenging. The reality is that a Republican victory will probably include the state of Ohio, though it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Ohio actually gives Republicans a narrower margin of victory than a few formerly bluer states such as Wisconsin and New Hampshire.
“I like to think that every time in the debates that Rick Santorum boasts about his rock-ribbed willingness to make the tough choices and indisputable conservative bona fides, Sen. Patrick Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, shoots a mildly icy glare at the television. He probably doesn’t, as he’s one of the nicest guys in politics.” Jim Gheraty, National Review.
OK, so I’m a little bit bitter. I like Rick Santorum, and always have. I think a lot of the slurs against him perpetrated by the left range from unfair to disgusting. But something about his current more-conservative-than-thou schtick has got my back up. Maybe it’s because, in 2004, I was an organizer for Students for Toomey, while Santorum was telling Pennsylvania voters that “Arlen [Specter] is with us on the votes that matter.” But I think it’s a bit rich for one of the guys who pretty much ensured Arlen Specter’s primary victory in the closely-fought 2004 primary race to be talking about other people’s conservative apostasies. Let’s recap: Pat Toomey was exactly the sort of rock-ribbed conservative Santorum was in the senate; pro-life, a fiscal hawk and a seriously thoughtful policy wonk. He had a history of winning in what started as a pretty strongly Democratic district; this was by no means an O’Donnell candidacy, and his general election opponent would have been an ultra-liberal Philadelphia congressman of the quite probably beatable variety. Arlen Specter was…pretty much still Arlen Specter. I’m not one for casually throwing around the term RINO, but that’s partially because, having had Arlen Specter as my senator, I know what the term meant before it was robbed of all meaning. But Rick Santorum made the political calculation that it was better to have the fifty-percent-with-us-on-a-good-day Specter, who would trash liberal Joe Hoeffel in the general, than Pat Toomey, a rock-ribbed conservative who might have had a more difficult time in November. Did Santorum’s endorsement matter? Well, Specter beat Toomey by 1 percent of the primary vote, and Rick had iron-clad popularity with the Republican base, so I’ll let you be the judge. I don’t begrudge Santorum this calculus, though I still think he was wrong. He certainly wasn’t alone in making it (I’m looking at you Karl Rove and the entire GOP establishment circa 2004), and Arlen certainly betrayed a lot of people, deeply and personally, when he switched parties. But for Santorum to act now like he’s the only “real” conservative in a room full of compromisers and flip-floppers is just the slightest bit disingenuous, no? Every candidate who runs for President has, at some point in their political life, said or done something that will displease the party faithful. As my one-time favorite Tim Pawlenty put it, we’ve all got some “clunkers”. Maybe you think Mitt Romney’s comments on abortion in 1994 or 2002 trump Santorum’s tireless and effective efforts to reelect hard-core pro-choicer Arlen Specter in 2004, or Cain’s recent muddiness on the issue. But there’s no such thing as a perfect conservative in this or any race, if you measure “conservatism” along strictly ideological grounds. I was certainly willing to let by-gones be by-gones with Rick in 2006, when I volunteered for his unsuccessful re-election campaign. But none of these guys or gals ought to be pretending to be a “perfect conservative”, because in no case is it actually true. It’s up to primary voters to determine who the most electable conservative in the race is. But if any of them claim to have a perfectly unblemished record, don’t buy it.
At one time, AT&T held a monopoly on almost all telephone service in the US. Their manufacturing arm was a company called “Western Electric”. My first job out of college was working for them.
Western Electric was founded in Chicago in 1869. I found that curious. When I asked the old-timers of the company why it was called “Western” Electric when it was founded in Chicago which even then was in the middle of the country, they replied that the original owners were from New York, and to them anything west of the Hudson River was considered “Western” America.
I experienced a similar phenomena growing up in Oregon. The vast majority of the state’s population lives west of the Cascade Mountains in the Wilmette Valley. I grew up in Ontario. Ontario sits right on the banks of the Snake River, the boundary between Oregon and Idaho. You can’t get much further east in Oregon and still be in Oregon.Yet when I mentioned to someone who lived in the Wilmette Valley that I was from “Eastern Oregon”, the most common response I got was, “Oh, so you’re from Bend?”.
Now if you look at a map of Oregon, you will find that while Bend is east of the Cascades, it is actually west of the state’s center-line. Yet because it was “east” of the people living in the Wilmette Valley, they considered it “Eastern Oregon”.
Herman Cain has received a lot of attention and traction in the polls largely due to his 9-9-9 plan. It is understandable why. It is catchy, easy to remember and most important bold. If there is one thing groups as diverse as OWS and the Tea Party can agree on it is that we need to do something large and creative to get out of our current situation.
Cain should be applauded for getting this conversation started. It is in the spirit of this conversation that I write this post. I wrote a while back on another site about the concept, or philosophy, of Distributism. I am neither an expert in, nor a proponent of, this idea but I think it deserves an honest vetting.
It has been getting some play lately in certain traditionalist conservative circles. Rod Dreher has brought it up in connection with OWS; and British Red Tory, Phillip Blond discusses its potential in the Washington Post.
For those unfamiliar with this nearly 100 year old idea here is the CliffNotes version from Wikipedia:
According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
While Cain’s 9-9-9 plan seems to be lacking in intellectual rigor, Distributism has a well thought-out philosophical grounding. Whether a Republican candidate could tailor it to appeal to a primary audience I do not know. So I ask the grassroots readers here. What do you think?
Steve blogs regularly at his own site.
All of the FEC reports are out now. Here’s my rundown on Rick Perry. (See the Mitt Romney rundown here).
Top level numbers first:
That is a solid kick off quarter for Perry. (Note: the quarter that you kick-off your campaign should be one of the strongest.)
Perry didn’t eclipse Romney’s Q2 kick-off of $18 Million but his $17 Million take in Q3 means this race is far from over.
Here’s my question though. Perry’s unitemized number is extremely low in my opinion. For a guy who kicked off his campaign at a Blogger’s forum I would expect the lower-end donations to be larger than 4% of the total donations. By comparison, Romney saw 14% of his donations unitemized. (more…)
Thought I’d share this with you all. I can’t figure out how to get NBC’s videos embedded but here’s the link to RealClearPolitics which has it. Enjoy.
Here are the just released top level fundraising numbers for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign for Q3 and the primary cycle-to-date:
|Romney Q3||Romney Q2||Romney CTD|
|- No. itemized||13,815||45,014||58,829|
|- Ave. itemized||$874||$381||$497|
Romney is on a higher burn rate in Q3 now that the campaign is until full swing. While the number of itemized donors was down, the average dollar amount was up. In other words, Romney was able to bring in significant money with fewer high end contributors. Also note the decent uptick in unitemized contributions. An excellent sign that Romney can grab the Internet donors as well.
Here’s a select comparison of Q2 and Q3 disbursements with top dollar differences.
|DIRECT MAIL PRINTING AND POSTAGE||$2,721,308||$696,715||$2,024,593|
|RENT & UTILITIES||$280,285||$108,729||$171,556|
|CAMPAIGN PROMOTIONAL ITEMS||$152,233||$10,109||$142,124|
|DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES||$271,854||$173,296||$98,558|
|PRINTING & DESIGN SERVICES||$106,413||$30,492||$75,921|
|AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES||$75,520||$871||$74,649|
|MOBILE PHONE EXPENSE||$32,381||$3,487||$28,894|
|SELECT CATEGORY TOTALS||$10,391,147||$3,569,984||$6,821,163|
Notice the direct mail costs are kicking in which is common after 2 quarters. (For example, the mail cost billing can be deferred by the vendors for 90 days). Romney had about 30+ staff members in Q2 and is now pushing 60.
Bottom line: Romney is still in great position but needs to build on the momentum to win the money game in Q4.
Reading Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death has been an eye opening experience for me, and the recent string of GOP non-debates has only made the point of this book clearer. Postman’s premise is that television precludes serious thought or discussion because the medium itself sets the agenda. That agenda is always…always, entertainment.
Take the recent debates for example. Due to the fact that there are 8 (or 9) people on the stage, and due to the fact that the moderators must keep the show moving, the candidates rarely have enough time for a well structured sentence, never mind a cogent argument.
Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was the main topic of the most recent event, yet does anyone feel like they know the ramifications or implications of this plan? Of course not, and the fault is not entirely Cain’s. How can he explain the intricate details of a complete restructuring of the tax code in a one minute sound bite. Even given the fact that he had 4 or 5 opportunities to do so, the expectation of a reasoned response is ludicrous.
One moderator brought up the fact that one analysis of the plan found it seriously lacking. His response? The analysis contained inaccurate assumptions. OK, fine, then what are the right assumptions? We were never able to get to that because the moderator, and in truth the audience, wanted to move on to the next point, the next one liner, the next zinger.
And what about Romney’s health care law? Instead of an actual argument either for or against it we simply get more talking points about mandates, as if the very fact that the federal government mandates something makes it wrong. But the government mandates things all the time (driver’s licenses, car insurance, pasteurized milk, education). The real argument isn’t about a mandate, it is about whether or not health care is best run by a bureaucracy or by a free market company. I’d love to really see that argument played out in full, but it will never happen.
Here is my dream for a real debate. Limit the participants to 4 candidates. Let each one spend 15 minutes detailing a plan on health care, tax structure or job growth. Then spend the following 15 minutes with the opponents questioning the speaker. This would give each candidate a full half hour to really get into a topic.
It won’t happen. We are sure to hear Cain chant 9-9-9, and Perry make empty promises about energy independence at least another half a dozen times, and we will be non the wiser for it.
Steve blogs regularly here.
-An economic/energy plan that is pro-growth, pro-small business, pro-big oil and green-
I know, the subtitle seems like an oxymoron right? But stay with me. This idea could save our nation, making the 21st century just as America-dominant as the 20th. Or, it could be an opportunity to poke holes in this and make me look like an amateur- that could be fun too, right?
First, let me admit right up front that I am not an economist; I do not have an MBA from Harvard; I have never been an elected official. However, I am a reasonably intelligent guy who enjoys reading and writing about politics and policy. After spending a few days researching I have stumbled across an idea that I think could be a unifying one for any of the 2012 candidates for the Republican nomination. We could bring together all conservatives and pick off a generous portion of pro-climate change greens as well.
But I need your help.
I know here at Race42012 there are a number of people with more experience in this area than me, and I am counting on you guys to vet this idea. Tell me where it goes wrong. Why won’t it work. Who knows, we may be able to create a grassroots conservative movement that deals with specifics, not just angry rants and platitudes.
The first component of this plan comes from something I found on NPR of all places. I had heard about the oil boom in the American West before, but it was this article that really opened my eyes to the possibilities it presents. Turns out the United States has a very real chance to become the leading source of oil for the foreseeable future:
Two years ago, America was importing about two thirds of its oil. Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, it imports less than half. And by 2017, investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts the US could be poised to pass Saudi Arabia and overtake Russia as the world’s largest oil producer.
Amy Myers Jaffe of Rice University says in the next decade, new oil in the US, Canada and South America could change the center of gravity of the entire global energy supply…
The US, Jaffe says, could have 2 trillion barrels of oil waiting to be drilled. South America could hold another 2 trillion. And Canada? 2.4 trillion. That’s compared to just 1.2 trillion in the Middle East and north Africa.
Jaffe says those new oil reserves, combined with growing turmoil in the Middle East, will “absolutely propel more and more investment into the energy resources in the Americas.”
The United States should actively promote this drilling by any means available. With the growing demand in countries like China and India, this could become an enormous opportunity for economic growth. Trade deficits could vanish virtually overnight. Someone is going to feed developing economies oil- why not us? This part of the plan is obviously beneficial to big oil and large business. But the snowball effect could lead to benefits for others as well.
Spur on small business growth with a radical change to the tax policy that even the greens will like.
The second part of this plan comes from Walter Russell Mead- no neo-con to be sure, but an intelligent thinker nonetheless. Here is his idea (emphasis mine):
It has long seemed to me that replacing the payroll tax (the employer and employee taxes for Social Security and Medicare) with a revenue neutral carbon tax would shift the tax burden from job creation and wages to carbon consumption. This would be good social policy in the United States whether or not you are worried about global warming. It would encourage employment and accelerate the development of a high tech and service economy in the US.
This tax shift, not hike, would free up companies to hire without bringing on new tax expenses. It would also encourage the development of green technologies in a much more free market manner. The recent Solyndra affair highlights why government subsidies for selected technologies will not work. It makes the government the decider on which ideas are profitable and not the free market. If companies want to lower their tax bills they will develop innovative ideas on their own. This is how to use capitalism for good social policy and profit.
The (nearly) immediate benefits of this plan seem solid:
However, there is a long term benefit as well. Eventually a peak oil event will occur- oil is not limitless after all. Countries like China and India will eventually desire greener alternatives as well. With America leading the way in green innovation, developed not through government intervention, but through free market competition, our economic security would seem to be assured for a long time to come.
OK, now it is your turn. Where is my reasoning off? From this layman’s view this plan seems like a winner. If a 2012 candidate took it on- someone with the business acumen and real-world experience to really sell it- it could unite conservatives, independents and even a few greens. This would surely be a winning combination.
Steve writes regularly at his own site.
- Perry – 38% (11)
- Romney – 23% (30)
- Paul – 9% (9)
- Bachmann – 8% (16)
- Cain – 5% (5)
- Gingrich – 5% (8)
- Santorum – 3% (3)
- Huntsman – 2% (2)
Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted August 27-31 and has a margin of error of +/-3.1%. Numbers from their July 17 poll are in parentheses.
So with everyone in Washington suddenly worried about jobs (only nearly four years after the recession started, over 2.5 years since President Obama took office, and eight months after the GOP became the majority in the House of Representatives), it’s clear what the debate and media focus will be full of this week. Romney, Huntsman, Obama, and the House GOP are leading the charge on this, and everyone else is bound to fall in line.
However, let’s not let a little thing like 9.1% average unemployment and 25% unemployment for teenagers take us away from the heart and soul of the 2012 race for many politicos: bashing the other team. And with that in mind, here is a three-fer to attack the President with:
1. Obama’s policies, a continuation of bad Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and pretty much every other modern President’s policies on immigration, have let around seven million illegal immigrants take jobs in America. With Friday’s employment numbers showing 14 million Americans unemployed, this means illegal immigrants are preventing unemployment from being lower than five percent.
2. An audit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) found $4.2 billion in tax refunds went to illegal immigrants. (H/T to Hot Air.) Claims for the program under which the tax refunds were given have jumped from $953 million in 2005 to $4.2 billion in 2010.
3. Obama should work with Republicans to simplify our tax code, eliminating this kind of improper use of taxpayer funds. He should stop doing a backdoor amnesty. And he should join with Republicans in giving law-abiding Americans the opportunities to find work that his stimulus, Cash for Clunkers and his many other failed programs have been unable to do.
The one-line takeaway: An IRS audit shows 4.2 billion of your tax dollars went to illegal immigrants because of a loophole, while PolitiFact says seven million illegal immigrants have taken your jobs. What is President Obama doing about this? He’s pushing a backdoor amnesty and playing golf.
P.S. This is why I stick to writing about the Debt-Paying Generation, jobs, etc. from a policy perspective, and bash both parties- I feel like my hands are dirty after such a party-hack post… I need to go wash my keyboard now.
Even liberal news outlets, such as San Francisco’s NBC station, recognize that the failure of Solyndra this week is a major blow to Obama after his ceaseless talk about green jobs, and his equally ceaseless use of the word ‘investment’ as a euphemism for ‘government spending’ (if putting $535mil in a company like this is his idea of a good investment, I’m glad he’s not my financial advisor).
President Obama faces political catastrophe in the form of Solyndra — a San Francisco Bay area solar company that he touted as a gleaming example of green technology. It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.
It’s worth noting, by the way, that a major investor in Solyndra, George Kaiser, was a big donor to Obama in 2008. But I’m sure that played no role in Solyndra getting half a billion taxpayer dollars. As an aside, I guess one of the 1100 people who will be losing their jobs in the shutdown has already lost his/hers – the webmaster. I say that based on a look at their homepage. Perhaps the White House might loan them some help to get that image removed.
Even before the Solyndra shutdown, Walter Russell Mead had this excellent piece on the green jobs illusion. He offers several examples, of which I’ll cite only one:
On his recent jobs tour Obama stopped at a Johnson Controls plant in southern Michigan, which received $300 million in green grants and plans to create a whopping total of 150 jobs, at a cost of $2 million per position.
When, as Mead notes, even the New York Times has figured it out (“Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show”), you know that the game is over.
Related: Here’s a handy summary from Hotline of candidates’ positions on global warming. It’s already outdated, though; the same day it was published, Mitt Romney adjusted his position to being a bit more of a skeptic.
A Bit of Nostalgia
While wandering the streets near where I’m staying in the London burbs, I saw this sign at a gas station:
The prices induced a wave of nostalgia. They are, of course, in pounds per liter, and convert to about $8.35 per gallon – which should make you feel better if you’re driving somewhere this Labor Day weekend.
The Jewish Candidate
According to this article, sent to me by MWS, some Jewish donors are withholding funds from Mitt Romney because they would rather contribute to fellow Jew Michele Bachmann.
Some Jewish donors are telling fund-raisers for Romney, a Mormon, that while they like him, they’d rather open their wallets for the “Jewish candidate,” who they don’t realize is actually a Lutheran, The Post has learned.
“It’s a real problem,” one Romney fund-raiser said. “We’re working very hard in the Jewish community because of Obama’s Israel problem. This was surprising.”
I pass it along for amusement purposes, since I can’t really believe that any serious Jewish donor would not know that Bachmann isn’t Jewish.
Should Ugly People Be Protected from Discrimination?
This guy thinks so. I’d love to know how they would determine who qualifies. Perhaps some version of ‘Hot or Not?’
Sixty Trips to Get a Permit
So this guy gets a permit to operate a food truck in Detroit. After making about sixty visits to city hall over a six month period. Does anyone have any questions about why Detroit is, er, Detroit?
Failed Candidates Who Changed History
C-SPAN is going to have a series starting this week on candidates (such as Barry Goldwater) who lost, but had a huge impact on the course of history (perhaps larger, in some cases, than the winner). Looks interesting, for history nerds like me. There’s a video and discussion of the show at the link.
The Outcome of Kelo
Kelo v. New London wasn’t merely a low point in the history of the Supreme Court, it appears to be a low point for New London as well. After stealing people’s homes and giving the property to a developer … the development failed and the city ended up with a big empty lot.
Survey of 676 likely caucus goers was conducted August 22-23, and has a margin of error of +/-3.77%. Numbers from the July 13 survey are in parentheses.
US Attorney Says Murdered Border Agent’s Family Aren’t Crime Victims
Giving the family of murder victims status as victims themselves is pretty much standard practice – allowing them to participate in the trial and to speak at the sentencing. These rights are granted under the federal Crime Victims Rights Act. Usually, it is the defense that tries to block such participation.
In the case of the murder of Brian Terry, however, it is the US Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, who is objecting. Brian Terry was killed with one of the 2000 weapons that the feds’ ‘Fast & Furious’ fiasco put into the hands of the Sinaloa Cartel.
And guess who was in charge of Fast & Furious: Dennis Burke.
No wonder he doesn’t want the family to testify. He wants this whole thing swept under the rug as much as possible (a task in which the Obama Administration and the mainstream media are assisting him).
I shouldn’t need to add, but I will – Burke is a loyal acolyte of Janet Napolitano, having been her chief of staff when she was governor.
It’s time for me to admit it – I’m cisgendered.
Among my many weirdnesses is that I’m fascinated by words, and a recent newsletter on words alerted me to a relatively new one – cisgendered. The prefix ‘cis-‘ means ‘on this side’, which is the opposite of ‘trans-‘. As you might guess, the need to create a word to describe people who are not transgendered is driven by political correctness – we could not, of course, call them ‘normal’. Such a judgmental word.
The term ‘cisgendered’ is used [instead of the more popular 'gender normative'] to refer to people who do not identify with a gender diverse experience, without enforcing existence of a ‘normative’ gender expression.
Have You Had Sex with Rick Perry?
Continuing the sexual theme, a Ron Paul supporter in Texas is running the following full page ad in a popular Austin weekly:
As if our politics had not gone deeply enough into the gutter.
You can read a little about the wacko who placed the ad here.
Although the Perry campaign responded by pointing out the guy’s record of nuttiness, I preferred Ad Age’s response (in part):
The Imperial Presidency: If you don’t think the pomp of the presidency has gotten out of hand, take a look at the motorcade film here.
Which Republican candidates despise each other?: A handy guide to who hates and fears whom.
Latino Approval of Obama Plunges to 49%: Which may explain why he decided to effectively grant amnesty by executive fiat.
Posting will be irregular (and at odd hours) for the next several weeks, since I’m out of the country on a business project. But, as always, please feel free to add your own Miscellany in the comments.
One of my favorite movies is the 1995 film, Rob Roy, a story about, among other things, the danger of concentrating too much power in too few hands. In the film, the character Rob Roy is a hard-working man of high ethics who is enjoying a prosperous life via the sweat of his brow. But the protagonist soon finds his life torn asunder, with his wife raped, his wealth confiscated, and his village burnt to the ground, and a death sentence on his head to boot. The protagonist’s misfortune, however, came not from his own doing. Nor did it constitute collateral damage from some sort of messy military conflict that, while unfortunate, turned out to be necessary in the grand scheme of things. Quite to the contrary, Rob Roy found his entire life taken from him due solely to a petty, personal squabble between two men of nobility who were constantly trying to humiliate, embarrass, and trump one another’s actions, for no other reason than personal amusement.
This sort of abuse of power, of course, was supposed to disappear upon the advent of democracy, when the concept of one-person, one-vote would prevent the few from dominating the many. Indeed, the great concern of small-d democrats was that the many may end up dominating the few once democracy was instituted. Interestingly, it has taken just two and a half centuries for the world’s greatest democracy to seemingly revert back to the model of the Everyman twisting in the wind as his supposed betters toy with destroying his life and livelihood in order to do nothing more than get under their opponents’ skin. And everything comes full circle.
The recent battle over the debt ceiling was a low point for democracy in America, as the nation’s two major political parties acted not as statesmen, but as showmen, holding the country hostage in a perverse game of “chicken” in order to see which side would give in to the relatively meaningless demands of the other. And the demands were indeed meaningless. No amount of fiddling around the edges of taxes and spending are going to solve the country’s debt crisis. The only solution is structural reform in a number of areas where government interacts with American life. But the politicians in Washington don’t want to hear about that. They simply want to use this and every other crisis to continue their half-century battle over the cultural and economic revolutions of the late 20th Century, with Republicans’ convinced that the biggest problem in America is NPR, and Democrats certain that all of our problems will go away if marginal income tax rates are raised by 4 percentage points for upper income Americans.
But these issues are petty indeed, and the fact that both parties essentially held the American economy hostage in order to obtain “bragging rights” is evidence that our democracy may be nearer to its end than its beginning. Again, our debt problem is a structural problem, and a structural problem requires a structural solution. But structural solutions tend to create seismic change, and seismic change creates winners and losers, the latter of whom are inclined to vote against those public officials at the ballot box who enacted such change in the first place. If Washington were filled with statesmen, though, we’d see grand compromises in order to enact those structural changes that are necessary to save the nation from decline, and from drowning in debt.
The structural changes that are needed are well known to most policy wonks, and third rails to most politicians. The tax code needs to be restructured to reward savings and investment, to close loopholes, and to allocate capital more efficiently. The way that government interacts with health care needs to be restructured to lower costs. Anyone who’s looked at the long-term Medicare and Medicaid projections knows that. Social Security needs to be restructured to provide a greater rate of return to an aging population. Education needs to be restructured to direct money away from public employee benefits and security and towards students, and to slowly deflate the student loan bubble that has transformed colleges and universities into the equivalent of subprime mortgages. Defense needs to be restructured in a way that re-evaluates America’s commitments around the world.
But all of these things are hard. And politicians don’t come to Washington to do hard things. They come to Washington to fight about whether we’re going to be Red Americans or Blue Americans, fueled by the desires of scores of aging Baby Boomers who have nothing better to do than get hot and bothered while watching Fox News and listening to talk radio, enjoying their Social Security and Medicare benefits while calling and emailing their Republican elected officials and informing them that they’d better vote to destroy the country, or else. The Boomers, still on a quest for personal validation, would rather take the country down with them than admit that the cultural revolution of the 1960s might be a settled issue.
Even more pathetic though were the cowering candidates for president, so terrified of the news-entertainment complex that constitutes the right-wing media that many of them all but hid in their respective offices until a deal was reached. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman remains a notable exception, showing that he is neither a coward nor crazy by endorsing a deal to raise the debt ceiling, and possibly providing himself a path to the presidency in 2016 should a president with a 40 percent approval rating be re-elected over a Republican field that has failed to earn the respect of the nation. Jon Huntsman is a statesmen. The rest are barely men at all.
It is indeed ironic for a democracy to become a “tyranny of the minority,” but such a dynamic is the logical consequence of the collapse of a national sense of civic duty. When the broader population is content to be placated by bread and circuses, the substantive decisions about the direction of our nation will be left to public officials disproportionately influenced by collections of interests, and by those voters who are so ideologically wedded to a particular point of view that they demand fealty to their articles of faith and not to matters of fact. It is the latter, of course, that those who we elect to public office must address in order for the nation to survive, as a democracy or otherwise.
No matter who our eventual nominee is, one of the first things the Republican presidential candidate will have to decide is who he (or she) puts on the ticket as VP. Traditionally, many candidates choose from the pool of their defeated rivals, hoping to select a running-mate who has survived the vetting process in tact, but will bring something to the table which they themselves lack. One might, for example, imagine Mitt Romney selecting someone like Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain as a VP, to try and court disaffected tea partiers. In my opinion, however, it would behoove the eventual nominee to look beyond his/her former opponents. Thus, here are a few suggestions for possible running-mates who are not running for President, and the plusses, and minuses, they bring to the table.
1. Luis Fortuno:
I’ve been a Fortuno-watcher since his successful resident commissioner run in 2004, but for those not familiar with a man called the “Chris Christie of the Caribbean” by sum, here are the highlights. Fortuno was elected Resident Commissioner (that’s the sitting but non-voting Puerto Rican member of the house) on the ballot-line of the New Progressive Party, the statehood party in Puerto Rico. While the NPP is considered the slightly more conservative party in PR, most NPPers elected Resident Commissioner, like those of the Popular Democratic Party, sit as Democrats; Fortuno broke with this tradition, and sat as a Republican. He was endorsed in that race by the Club for Growth, and, in 2008, ran for Governor of Puerto Rico, and won comfortably. All reports are that Fortuno has governed quite conservatively while in office–hence the “Christie of the Caribbean” nickname, and with a particular eye toward shrinking the size and scope of the Puerto Rican government. As a governor of one of our extra-continental territories, Fortuno has gained international experience greater than most governors. Needless to say, his selection would send a powerful message about the GOP’s openness to Hispanic voters.
Down sides: Fortuno suffers from low name recognition (how many of you, my readers, have heard of him)? In addition, he would probably need to establish residency in one of the states; so long as it was a different state than the nominee, he’d be fine on this angle. I’m not enough of an election law expert to know how much of a problem this actually is, but it could be a hick-up. There’s also the “not ready for the national stage” issue. Sarah Palin was caught off-guard by her selection as the nominee, and attacked brutally once that selection was made. Fortuno would have to be ready for this level of scrutiny on day 1; is he ready, and equally to the point, willing, to go through that?
Conclusion: I think Fortuno would be an excellent choice for any of the top-tier candidates. If he is indeed a Christie-like figure who is Hispanic and has some international experience, he could be ideal. He would need more vetting, but could be a huge win.
2. Bobby Jindal:
He’s a young governor with a planet-sized brain, who has governed Louisiana, and can boast considerable accomplishments. Democrats are not really fielding a candidate against him in 2011, meaning he should cruise to reelection. What he lacks in charisma, he makes up for in pure intellect, and he has a great American Dream story. There’s very little not to like about Bobby Jindal.
Down sides: Jindal flubbed his 2009 SOTU response pretty badly (not that it’s really possible to give a stellar SOTU response). This is mostly important because it demonstrates that Jindal isn’t likely to light up a crowd with his charisma. If a candidate is looking for flash, Jindal might not be the guy. Also, can one actually make it to the top in LA without skeletons? Jindal seems clean in that regard, but the media will go after the eventual VP nominee like dogs on a bone. There’s also the question of whether Jindal will actually want it. He’ll be just starting his second term, and may feel he has unfinished business in LA he needs to take care of before seeking the national spotlight.
Conclusion: Another very very solid choice I could get excited about. Perhaps a better match for a candidate who can excite the base, but who needs to counter a light-weight narrative.
3. Bob McDonnell:
Though he’s been eclipsed of late by Chris Christie, the man who won at the same time he did, Bob McDonnell is an impressive figure in his own right. He’s governed Virginia well, and sports very good approval ratings in a must-win state for Republicans. McDonnell is a solid social conservative, though not in a super-demonstrative way, and the so-con card has been played against him–hard–already by the beltway media, with no result whatsoever. McDonnell is a good speaker and, beneficially, might actually be interested in the job, as he’s term limited in 2013 anyway.
Down sides: Three years as governor isn’t a lot of experience, and could be pounced on by the Obama campaign. McDonnell’s so-con stuff could be more of an issue in a national election than it was in Virginia, though it would be a stretch.
Conclusion: It’s a little early, but I think this is overwhelmed by the potential plusses. A solid choice for any northern Republican candidate looking to add some southern support.
4. Marco Rubio:
Do I really need to discuss the plusses Rubio would bring? Let me pick up on a few aside from the obvious he’s-a-ridiculously-charismatic-Hispanic-from-a-swing-state ones. He’s on the senate foreign relations committee, meaning he’ll have more of a foreign policy bent than you’d expect from a first-term senator. He actually won non-Cuban Hispanics in Florida, which might translate to greater shares of the Hispanic vote nation-wide. Finally, he would make it incredibly difficult for Obama to win Florida.
Down sides: Two years in the senate really isn’t enough time to build the kind of experience you want from a VP candidate. Also, Rubio might be a bit too Bushlike for some in the tea parties, once he moves to a national level.
Conclusion: I’d prefer to save Rubio for 2016 or 2020, but would still love him as a VP pick.
4. Pat Toomey:
His 2004 campaign was one of the first I ever worked on. He was tea party way before it was cool, but has made peace with the notably prickly PA GOP establishment. His credentials as a full-spectrum conservative are hard to beat, and he’s played an out-sized role in economic matters even as a first-termer. Oh, and he could put PA in play.
Down sides: pretty much the same as Rubio. Plus, he’s not a super-charismatic guy; more of a policy wonk (though he does fire people up).
Conclusion: Another excellent choice, but perhaps too soon.
5. Susana Martinez:
A conservative Republican, Hispanic woman governing a swingy border state, who has 52 percent approval ratings when many other newly-elected Republicans are taking it on the chin? The case for her is self-evident.
Down sides: Plucking a governor halfway through her term is risky, both for the presidential candidate and the governor’s future political career. Martinez is definitely one to watch, but should we perhaps get her reelected first?
Conclusion: I really, really like Susana Martinez, but it’s almost certainly too soon.
6. Nikki Haley:
She’s got the same plusses as Martinez, but is perhaps a shade more conservative and not from a swing state.
Down sides: The same minuses as Martinez as well.
Conclusion: I also really like Haley, but it’s probably too early, and she doesn’t seem interested.
7. Allen West:
He’s a fiery tea party sensation, African-American, with an impressive (and controversial) military background. Plus, his district could get tougher after redistricting, or cease to exist altogether. A West selection would be an instant hit with the base.
Down sides: The media attack on West would be brutal, relentless, and make Sarah Palin 2008 look like an elementary-school kick-ball game by comparison. Also, a first-term congressman is a bit thin on qualifications.
Conclusion: way too soon, but a rising star nonetheless.
8. Chris Christie:
Everybody knows Chris Christie, and why his selection as VP would be awesome.
Down sides: He really doesn’t seem interested in the slightest. Plus, we actually may need him more as governor of New Jersey than in the VP slot.
9. Tom Coburn:
Mr. conservative, a dedicated spending hawk who has nevertheless demonstrated an ability to work across the isle. Has a great personal story.
Down sides: Oklahoma is pretty solidly in the red column already.
Conclusion: An excellent choice for someone like Romney, Huntsman or maybe Pawlenty.
10. Paul Ryan:
He’s super-intelligent, and has been out-front on the issues nearest and dearest to the public’s concern at the moment.
Down sides: He’s already being demagogued, and we almost certainly need him in the house more than we need him as VP.
Conclusion: He needs to fight the good fight in congress.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
The Johnson campaign has literally JUST produced this video:
The spot does an excellent job of highlighting Johnson’s concrete accomplishments as Governor. If he could just get the attention and recognition he deserves, his history could really impress voters.
Over the years, I have developed an increased interest in the influence of sociological and cultural trends on politics and their varying influence on the outcomes of particular elections at different times. An excellent piece for Sunday reading is an op-ed by the respected political analyst Michael Brone in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. Titled “The Surprising Roots of Liberal Nostalgia,” Barone succinctly explains why America was not ready to elect a pro-freedom, limited-government conservative as president in 1964 but was fully prepared to do so in 1980. Most interestingly, Barone suggests that contemporary liberals, characterized by Obama, seem to have a longing for the unquestioned confidence in big institutions (and thus authority structures) that characterized American politics in the 1940′s, 50′s and 60′s:
There’s a longing on the left for the golden years of the 1940s, ’50s and early ’60s. Income distribution was significantly more egalitarian than it is today, and Americans had far more confidence in big government, the wisdom of our elected officials, and the ability of Keynesian spending policies to stimulate economic growth.
Hence the search for policies that will somehow get us back to those golden years. The Obama Democrats have been desperately trying to increase membership in labor unions, to the point of threatening to close down Boeing’s new Dreamliner plant in South Carolina. They passed an $814 billion stimulus package and ObamaCare. And they’re still itching to raise tax rates on high earners, though they botched it when they had supermajorities in Congress.
But the America of the past is a different country to which we can’t return. As Andrew Levison recently lamented in the Nation magazine: “Doubts about the ability of government to create jobs reflect not only a disbelief in Keynesian remedies for unemployment but also the profound doubts many Americans have about government in general.”
Still, liberals pine for what I call America’s Midcentury Moment. It was the product of World War II, lasting from 1940 until the mid-1960s when the wartime experience wore off and the emerging baby boomers led culture and politics in another direction. For those of us who grew up in those years, the Midcentury Moment seemed the norm in American experience. But in fact it was the result of a unique time in U.S. history, when a united nation was mobilized for total war and Americans were, literally or figuratively, put into uniform.
It started in the months before Pearl Harbor, as President Franklin Roosevelt mobilized the nation and its economy for the war he believed necessary to eradicate the scourge of Hitler and fascism. In September 1940, he signed the bill instituting the military draft. One year later ground was broken on the Pentagon, which remains the largest office building in the world. American industrial firms were enlisted into war production. Rationing began soon after war was declared. Auto production was ended, with assembly lines turning out Jeeps and tanks and aircraft.
Unions agreed not to strike in return for government encouragement of unionization and higher wages. Government spending rose to 40% of gross domestic product, financed partly by confiscatory taxes on high earners and even more by mass voluntary purchases of war bonds. Big government, big business and big labor all united in the effort to deliver on what Roosevelt promised in his speech one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor: “[T]he American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.”
This massive mobilization reshaped our national mores for a generation in ways that we find hard to comprehend. At one time or another 16 million Americans served in the military. The equivalent proportion of today’s population would be 38 million Americans serving in the military over the next three and a half years—something none of us can imagine. Nor can we envision ourselves paying taxes at World War II rates, accepting rationing of butter and meat and rubber, doing without new cars, or putting most of our wage and salary increases into low-interest government bonds.
Only by keeping in mind those experiences can we fully appreciate the exhilaration that came from victory. In two words with catchy internal rhyme—”righteous might”—Roosevelt conflated the ideas that the American people were both strong and good.
Victory in World War II conferred enormous prestige on the leaders of the big units—big government, big business, big labor—who had led the war effort at home. No wonder that levels of confidence in the big units and their leaders remained high for a generation—higher, I suspect, than they had ever been before the Midcentury Moment and higher, certainly, than they have been since.
No wonder, also, that Americans in the Midcentury Moment were unusually conformist, content to be very small cogs in very large machines: They married and bore children at record rates for an advanced society; they worked as organization men and flocked to mass-produced suburbs; they worshipped in seemingly interchangeable churches. This was an America that celebrated the average, the normal, the regular.
The liberals who long to return to the Midcentury Moment seem to forget that it was a time of enormous cultural uniformity that stigmatized being unmarried or unchurched or gay. The huge menu of lifestyle choices from which we can choose today was a very short menu with very few choices then.
It could not last. Baby-boom children, raised in prosperity, were not content with being small units in large machines. The Berkeley student activists in 1964, before the major escalations in Vietnam, held signs reading, “Do not bend, staple, fold or mutilate”—I am not just another IBM card. The military draft, which more than anything else initiated the Midcentury Moment and was supposed to apply equally to everyone, was by 1965 so riddled with exceptions and loopholes that the sons of the well-to-do were largely exempt from military service in time of war. Similarly, the tax code in the early 1960s had enough exceptions and loopholes that high tax rates on high earners were eminently avoidable.
Vietnam, urban riots, Watergate, stagflation—all undermined confidence in big government, big business and big labor, and by the late 1970s the Midcentury Moment was long gone. It has not returned and it is hard to conceive of circumstances in which it could. Big labor is no longer big, except for the public-employee unions. Big business has been subject to enormous change to the point that the Fortune 500, fairly stable during the Midcentury Moment, has seen new firms enter and old ones disappear at record rates. As for big government, its prestige has never fully recovered, leaving the military as one of our few respected institutions and the civilian government largely concerned with transferring money from current earners to the elderly at rates that are economically unsustainable but politically difficult to alter.
So the Obama Democrats, partially successful in expanding the size and scope of government, largely unsuccessful in reviving private-sector unions, are on the defensive politically. As Mr. Levison and other liberals recognize, most Americans don’t accept Keynesian economics and don’t favor expansion of government as they did during the Midcentury Moment. Thus the Democrats’ 2012 campaign strategy seems aimed more at discrediting Republican alternatives than seeking endorsement of their own policies.
But there is a more fundamental contradiction here, for the Midcentury Moment’s confidence in big institutions was inextricably connected with an acceptance of a cultural uniformity that almost all of today’s liberals, and probably most non-liberals, would find unacceptable.
Mr. Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of “The Almanac of American Politics,” published by National Journal.
Barone’s piece tends to support a theory of mine that the roots of the Reagan Revolution (to a reasonable degree) can be found in the rebellion of the Baby Boomers that began in the mid ’60s.
That’s the takeaway from this piece on a potential Perry bid, the odds of which are now even money according to Perry confidants. In addition to the belief that Perry may be a bit too Southern-fried for the country at large, Perry skeptics seem to be questioning whether the fiery Texan has the fire in the belly for a presidential run:
Few Republicans will say it publicly, but many party elites believe Perry would have difficulty moving beyond the sort of sharply-delivered platitudes he’s honed before Texas’s conservative electorate.
Even in the Lone Star State, many GOP insiders don’t think their governor has the chops to take his game to the national stage.
For many Republicans, it’s also not clear whether the party and the country is ready for a Texas governor whose macho manner is almost a steroid-enhanced version of the previous one they elected president.
John Ryder, a longtime Tennessee GOP committeeman who attended Perry’s speech Saturday, said some in the party would like another candidate in the George W. Bush model.
But others would ask: “Do we want to do that again?” Ryder said. “That would be Perry’s challenge.”
The betting in Republican circles is moving toward a Perry run, but skeptics aren’t convinced he wants to do the unglamorous work involved in campaigning for president. In their view, he’s always enjoyed national attention and Washington invitations so an extended flirtation with a White House bid would seem to be a logical extension of this penchant for the spotlight.
These sorts of criticisms are reminscent of the Fred Thompson candidacy from four years ago, which also began later than it should have, and which came complete with an uber-federalist candidate from Dixie who was supposed to save the party from its RINO frontrunners. Also, as this piece confirms in the case of Perry, both potential candidates even sported spouses who were reportedly pushing for a run. Whether Gov. Perry ends up being this cycle’s Fred Thompson remains to be seen.
This guy’s starting to grow on me:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry vetoed 23 bills on Friday, including legislation that would have outlawed sending or reading text messages while driving.
Lawmakers approved the texting ban last month, but Perry called it an “overreach” and “government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.”
Perry also struck a handful of spending lines in the state budget.
Unlike the most recent president from Texas, Perry is an authentic product of the Lone Star State, hence his curious cocktail of libertarianism and evangelicalism, a mixture that George W. Bush pulled off about as well as his urban cowboy schtick. Bush was always at heart a New England patrician in red state clothing; he was motivated by his Aristocratic sense of Noblesse Oblige, hence his authoritarian presidency.
Perry also knows how to use his veto pen, something that Dubya never did quite master. Should the Texas governor take the plunge, he will be an interesting addition to the race to say the least.