It's as predictable as the tides: At any sort of opportunity, liberals and the Drive-By Media will tell us how any Republican candidate is stupid. They will also tell us how any Democrat candidate is brilliant. It's so predictable, I can't believe people are surpised that Texas Governor and Republican frontrunner Rick Perry is being called stupid by the Media.
The culprit this time is Politico. In an article last week entitled "Is Rick Perry Dumb?" (1), that very claim was levied. The article claimed that Perry is "Not an ideas man," and claiming "Advisers and colleagues have informed much of his thinking over the years."
It's nothing new, of course. In 2000 and throughout his Presidency, we were told how George W. Bush was as sharp as a bowling ball, and who can forget Diplomat Clark Clifford calling Ronald Reagan an "amiable dunce."
Meanwhile, liberals are always "brilliant" and "so smart we couldn't comprehend them." Al Gore is a genius and apparently an environmental scientist (even though his degree is in journalism and his private sector experience was as a reporter). He was also a C Student at Harvard (similar grades to what George W. Bush earned at Yale).
John Kerry, another person who was so much smarter than George W. Bush. He must have been a straight A student, right? Nope, he was a C student too.
Barrack Obama, we’re told, is uncommonly brilliant. His college records have not been released, but something tells me if he had a 4.0 GPA we would’ve heard about it. Also, I generally don’t expect someone who does a fair amount of blow in college to be a tremendous scholar (that’s cocaine for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).
Of the last four Democrat Presidential nominees that we were told was brilliant, only one has legitimate academic claim to that title, and that’s Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes Scholar. So liberals told us that that 100% of the last four Democratic nominees were brilliant, evidence backs 25% of the claim. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, I suppose.
Here’s my point: Calling Democrats brilliant and Republicans dumb is a talking point. It’s an overused talking point at that, and one that the Drive-By Media gleefully helps spread. It’s the same reason that they completely ignored it when then candidate Obama said he was planning to visit “All 58 States” or when President Obama pronounced the “p” in “Navy Corpsmen.” (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it’s pronounced “CORE-MEN.”)
If George W. Bush said there were 58 states or mispronounced corpsmen you better believe there would’ve been Saturday Night Live skits, liberal comedians like Kathy Griffin lampooning it, and widespread ridicule. When it’s a liberal, the Media suddenly understands the concept of misspeaking.
Rick Perry is not dumb. It takes intelligence to have 37% of all new jobs created in America be created in Texas, where you are the governor. It takes intelligence to be re-elected Governor of Texas in 2002, 2006, and 2010. In Texas, they don’t let you hang around when you’re not getting the job done. The United States Air Force is not fond of letting dunces achieve the rank of Captain, while we’re at it.
Bottom line, the Democrat Party, liberals in general, and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media will absolutely call whomever ends up being the GOP nominee as bright as a two-watt light bulb. It’s guaranteed. It is more likely see widespread humility amongst Yankee fans and dogs and cats living together in harmony than Democrats failing to call the GOP nominee a drooling nincompoop. It’s guaranteed. Also guaranteed: those of us in the New Media, from talk radio to Fox News to humble bloggers like myself will be there to call the Drive-Bys out on their baloney.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Politico - Is Rick Perry dumb?
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Obama has Nothing Positive to Run on in 2012
Election season has officially begun in America. The Republican field is in full swing and even the President has started his campaigning (although he calls it other things). So many conservatives are excited for 2012, and a few are concerned that the American people might make the same mistake twice and re-elect Obama.
Here is my question: What is Obama going to campaign on, "Yes we can?" Really? We can? Why haven't you done it if we can? Oh wait, we've tried your ideas and it's failed. Stimulus? Failed, twice. Obamacare? Nobody wants it. Unemployment won't go past 8%? What's unemployment again? (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it's 9.1% and 18.2% under employment according to Gallup) Shovel ready jobs? Weren't so shovel ready, now where they, Mr. President?
Here's my point: President Obama cannot go to the American people and say "give me four years more and I'll do more of what I've been doing and bring you similar results," at least not if he wants to win. He can't run ads like this:
A lot of people would LOVE to go back to where things were four years ago. Under the leadership of President Obama, people feel like this:
That doesn't speak well for Obama. President Obama can only say "Yes we can...blame everyone but my administration." He'll say it's Bush's fault, he'll blame earthquakes, killer bees, whatever he has to do to deceive Americans. But he can't run on his record, because his record is awful. The President is in trouble in 2012, because he has failed to do what he promised. We aren't better off. The only promise he kept was "change"...unfortunately he changed in his bad policies.
Here is my question: What is Obama going to campaign on, "Yes we can?" Really? We can? Why haven't you done it if we can? Oh wait, we've tried your ideas and it's failed. Stimulus? Failed, twice. Obamacare? Nobody wants it. Unemployment won't go past 8%? What's unemployment again? (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it's 9.1% and 18.2% under employment according to Gallup) Shovel ready jobs? Weren't so shovel ready, now where they, Mr. President?
Here's my point: President Obama cannot go to the American people and say "give me four years more and I'll do more of what I've been doing and bring you similar results," at least not if he wants to win. He can't run ads like this:
A lot of people would LOVE to go back to where things were four years ago. Under the leadership of President Obama, people feel like this:
That doesn't speak well for Obama. President Obama can only say "Yes we can...blame everyone but my administration." He'll say it's Bush's fault, he'll blame earthquakes, killer bees, whatever he has to do to deceive Americans. But he can't run on his record, because his record is awful. The President is in trouble in 2012, because he has failed to do what he promised. We aren't better off. The only promise he kept was "change"...unfortunately he changed in his bad policies.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Guest Post: 100 Reasons To Call Me A Tea Partier!
It is rare that I feature a guest poster and even rarer that said guest post wasn't specifically requested on a particular topic. However, once in a while, a fellow blogger writes something that is so dead on that I want to feature it on Biblical Conservatism. Today is on of those rare days. So please welcome today's guest poster, Melody Kite!
1. I am a Tea Partier, because I believe our Founding Documents were inspired by God, and that those rights are God given.
2. I am a Tea Partier because I uphold and defend The United States Constitution.
3. I am a Tea Partier because we are Taxed Enough Already.
4. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our elected officials should be held accountable for their policies, votes
5. I am a Tea Partier because I like to sing the National Anthem, and I stand when it is played
6. I am a Tea Partier because I like to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and I stand and place my hand on my heart when I pledge my allegiance.
7. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in the limited government outlined by the US Constitution.
8. I am a Tea Partier because I accept my First Amendment Responsibility and Obligation.
9. I am a Tea Partier because I believe an engaged and informed voter protects against Government Abuses.
10. I am a Tea Partier because my fellow Patriots help me to stay informed.
11. I am a Tea Partier because I demand our Government live within it's means.
12. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this Republic is Over Regulated.
13. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this Republic needs Entitlement Reform.
14. I am a Tea Partier because I insist that Obama Care be repealed or overturned by the United States Supreme Court.
15. I am a Tea Partier because I insist that the Dodd Frank Bill be repealed or overturned by the United States Supreme Court.
16. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that ALL US coded laws should be enforced at every Government level, Local, County, State and Federal.
18. I am a Tea Partier because I support our Troops.
19. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Free Speech.
20. I am a Tea Partier because the Main Stream Media is biased.
21. I am a Tea Partier because I think an armed citizen is a good thing.
21. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Freedom of Religion.
22. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that our elected officials should read the bills they pass.
23. I am a Tea Partier because I do not believe in Deficit Spending.
24. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should drill here drill now immediately.
25. I am a Tea Partier because I think that the TSA should be eliminated.
26. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in a robust National Defense.
27. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Keynesian Economics is a failed Economic Model.
28. I am a Tea Partier because I believe like Ronald Reagan in the shining city on the hill.
29. I am a Tea Partier because I refuse to have our legacy be a crushing indebtedness for future generations to inherit as a result of fiscally irresponsible leadership by Democrats.
30. I am a Tea Partier because I have a solemn obligation to those who have given their all that I do with a ballot what our nation has asked those in our Armed Forces to do with a bullet.
31. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should end the IRS and have a Flat Tax.
32. I am a Tear Partier because I support the Connie Mack One Cent Solution.
33. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the Senate should produce a Budget.
34. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in a Balanced Budget Amendment.
35. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Affirmative Action is bad for America.
36. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that an intact family is the building block of a healthy society.
37. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that elected officials who violate their oath of office should lose their retirement benefits.
38. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that elected officials who break their oath of office should be prosecuted.
39. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that every candidate should have full disclosure of birth records, college records, service records and tax records and that those records be a matter of public record.
40. I am a Tea Partier because I am against the Federal Government suing states that have modeled Immigration Bills after coded US laws on the books.
41. I am a Tea Partier because I celebrate Easter, Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
42. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that signing onto UN policy driven by despots, thugs and Communists is bad foreign policy.
43. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that TARP was a bad unexplained crisis, and that all TARP funds should be paid back.
44. I am a Tea Partier because I did not support the 2nd Stimulus.
45. I am a Tea Partier because I did not support the GM & Chrysler Bailouts.
46. I am a Tea Partier and I do not believe Geithner, a Tax cheat should be Secretary of the Treasury.
47. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support the appointment of CZARS who write policy outside of Legislative Oversight.
48. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Eric Holder should resign.
49. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Operation Gun Runner broke US laws.
50. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Carole Ann Browner should resign.
51. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Lisa Jackson should resign.
52. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Ken Salazar should resign.
53. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Stephen Chu should resign.
54. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Sonja Sotomayor should never have won appointment to the
United States Supreme Court.
55. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Elena Kagan should not have been appointed to the Supreme Court
56. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the President of the United States should only bow when he is in prayer.
57. I am a Tea Partier because I believe it is dangerous fiscal policy for our enemies to hold our debt.
58. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Nidal Hassan should have been condemned by a Military Court Marshall and sentenced to Death by a Firing Squad.
59. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that is 11 years past time to bring the perpetrators of the attack on the USS Cole to Justice and they be tried by a Military Tribunal.
60. I am a Tea Partier and I support the US war on Terrorism.
61. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that no enemy combatant should be given US Miranda Rights.
62. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the Underwear bomber should be tried by a Military Tribunal.
63. I am a Tea Partier because I support Israel.
64. I am a Tea Partier because I support Enhanced Interrogation Techniques for Enemy Combatants.
65. I am a Tea Partier and I believe we should not be bombing Libya.
66. I am a Tea Partier because I think that Eric Holder should have prosecuted the New Black Panther
Party for Voter Intimidation in Philadelphia in the 2008 Presidential Election.
67. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Janet Napalitano should seal the border.
68. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the US Federal Government should be subject to Sunshine Laws with the exception of our national security.
69. I am a Tea Partier because I support Darrel Issa's Committee Investigation of Operation GunRunner.
70. I am a Tea Party because I believe that God should be part of a funeral service at National Cemeteries if the family so wishes.
71. I am a Tea Partier because I am offended by Obama's Ramadan Addresses.
72. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support registered Socialist and Registered Communist holding public office.
73. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support the Federal Government awarding Grants to Universities & Colleges, whether they are Private or State Or County Institutions.
74. I am a Tea Partier because I am opposed to Federal, State, County or Municipal Unions.
75. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Republicans should stand on Principle.
76. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should not be trading jobs, and manufacturing to buy allies.
77. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Free Markets.
78. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that what my local municipality can do the county should not, what my county can do the state should not, and what my state can do the Federal Government should not.
79. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Right to Work Laws.
80. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that DADT is bad policy for the Military.
81. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the DOMA laws should be enforced.
82. I am a Tea Partier because I do not believe that our taxes should be used for PBS.
83. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the Federal Government is too large.
84. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the United States Government should not be restoring mosques around the world.
85. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in the Right To Life and I am against abortion.
86. I am a Tea Partier because I believe every voter should show a picture ID and their voter registration card.
87. I am a Tea Partier because I believe all illegal aliens should be sent back to their country of origin.
88. I am a Tea Partier because I do not engage in politically correct discourse.
89. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in profiling.
90. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our nation is under threat from those who would do us harm, which includes Progressives, Islamic Terrorism and those who find our Constitution fatally flawed.
91. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Iran is a threat to this nation.
92. I am a Tea Partier because I proudly wave old glory.
93. I am a Tea Partier because I believe I have a responsibility to actively participate in my First Amendment responsibility to address our elected officials to address my opposition to their policies.
94. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in protecting the founding ideals of this Republic.
95. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in traditional American values.
96. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in personal responsibility.
97. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our government has strayed from it's founding principles.
98. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this nation is the worlds last best hope.
99. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in American Excellence and Exceptionalism
100. I am a Tea Partier because my participation in the Tea Party drives the Mainstream Media, Pundits on the left, Democrats, Progressives and socialist crazy!
Melody Kite is a Conservative Blogger from the great state of Texas. You can read her blog at http://perfectionunderaredumbrella.blogspot.com/ and follow her on Twitter.
A montage of pictures from the 9/12/2009 March on the Capitol
1. I am a Tea Partier, because I believe our Founding Documents were inspired by God, and that those rights are God given.
2. I am a Tea Partier because I uphold and defend The United States Constitution.
3. I am a Tea Partier because we are Taxed Enough Already.
4. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our elected officials should be held accountable for their policies, votes
5. I am a Tea Partier because I like to sing the National Anthem, and I stand when it is played
6. I am a Tea Partier because I like to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and I stand and place my hand on my heart when I pledge my allegiance.
7. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in the limited government outlined by the US Constitution.
8. I am a Tea Partier because I accept my First Amendment Responsibility and Obligation.
9. I am a Tea Partier because I believe an engaged and informed voter protects against Government Abuses.
10. I am a Tea Partier because my fellow Patriots help me to stay informed.
11. I am a Tea Partier because I demand our Government live within it's means.
12. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this Republic is Over Regulated.
13. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this Republic needs Entitlement Reform.
14. I am a Tea Partier because I insist that Obama Care be repealed or overturned by the United States Supreme Court.
15. I am a Tea Partier because I insist that the Dodd Frank Bill be repealed or overturned by the United States Supreme Court.
16. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that ALL US coded laws should be enforced at every Government level, Local, County, State and Federal.
18. I am a Tea Partier because I support our Troops.
19. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Free Speech.
20. I am a Tea Partier because the Main Stream Media is biased.
21. I am a Tea Partier because I think an armed citizen is a good thing.
21. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Freedom of Religion.
22. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that our elected officials should read the bills they pass.
23. I am a Tea Partier because I do not believe in Deficit Spending.
24. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should drill here drill now immediately.
25. I am a Tea Partier because I think that the TSA should be eliminated.
26. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in a robust National Defense.
27. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Keynesian Economics is a failed Economic Model.
28. I am a Tea Partier because I believe like Ronald Reagan in the shining city on the hill.
29. I am a Tea Partier because I refuse to have our legacy be a crushing indebtedness for future generations to inherit as a result of fiscally irresponsible leadership by Democrats.
30. I am a Tea Partier because I have a solemn obligation to those who have given their all that I do with a ballot what our nation has asked those in our Armed Forces to do with a bullet.
31. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should end the IRS and have a Flat Tax.
32. I am a Tear Partier because I support the Connie Mack One Cent Solution.
33. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the Senate should produce a Budget.
34. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in a Balanced Budget Amendment.
35. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Affirmative Action is bad for America.
36. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that an intact family is the building block of a healthy society.
37. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that elected officials who violate their oath of office should lose their retirement benefits.
38. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that elected officials who break their oath of office should be prosecuted.
39. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that every candidate should have full disclosure of birth records, college records, service records and tax records and that those records be a matter of public record.
40. I am a Tea Partier because I am against the Federal Government suing states that have modeled Immigration Bills after coded US laws on the books.
41. I am a Tea Partier because I celebrate Easter, Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
42. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that signing onto UN policy driven by despots, thugs and Communists is bad foreign policy.
43. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that TARP was a bad unexplained crisis, and that all TARP funds should be paid back.
44. I am a Tea Partier because I did not support the 2nd Stimulus.
45. I am a Tea Partier because I did not support the GM & Chrysler Bailouts.
46. I am a Tea Partier and I do not believe Geithner, a Tax cheat should be Secretary of the Treasury.
47. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support the appointment of CZARS who write policy outside of Legislative Oversight.
48. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Eric Holder should resign.
49. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Operation Gun Runner broke US laws.
50. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Carole Ann Browner should resign.
51. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Lisa Jackson should resign.
52. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Ken Salazar should resign.
53. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Stephen Chu should resign.
54. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Sonja Sotomayor should never have won appointment to the
United States Supreme Court.
55. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Elena Kagan should not have been appointed to the Supreme Court
56. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the President of the United States should only bow when he is in prayer.
57. I am a Tea Partier because I believe it is dangerous fiscal policy for our enemies to hold our debt.
58. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Nidal Hassan should have been condemned by a Military Court Marshall and sentenced to Death by a Firing Squad.
59. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that is 11 years past time to bring the perpetrators of the attack on the USS Cole to Justice and they be tried by a Military Tribunal.
60. I am a Tea Partier and I support the US war on Terrorism.
61. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that no enemy combatant should be given US Miranda Rights.
62. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the Underwear bomber should be tried by a Military Tribunal.
63. I am a Tea Partier because I support Israel.
64. I am a Tea Partier because I support Enhanced Interrogation Techniques for Enemy Combatants.
65. I am a Tea Partier and I believe we should not be bombing Libya.
66. I am a Tea Partier because I think that Eric Holder should have prosecuted the New Black Panther
Party for Voter Intimidation in Philadelphia in the 2008 Presidential Election.
67. I am a Tea Partier because I believe Janet Napalitano should seal the border.
68. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the US Federal Government should be subject to Sunshine Laws with the exception of our national security.
69. I am a Tea Partier because I support Darrel Issa's Committee Investigation of Operation GunRunner.
70. I am a Tea Party because I believe that God should be part of a funeral service at National Cemeteries if the family so wishes.
71. I am a Tea Partier because I am offended by Obama's Ramadan Addresses.
72. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support registered Socialist and Registered Communist holding public office.
73. I am a Tea Partier because I do not support the Federal Government awarding Grants to Universities & Colleges, whether they are Private or State Or County Institutions.
74. I am a Tea Partier because I am opposed to Federal, State, County or Municipal Unions.
75. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Republicans should stand on Principle.
76. I am a Tea Partier because I believe we should not be trading jobs, and manufacturing to buy allies.
77. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Free Markets.
78. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that what my local municipality can do the county should not, what my county can do the state should not, and what my state can do the Federal Government should not.
79. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in Right to Work Laws.
80. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that DADT is bad policy for the Military.
81. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that the DOMA laws should be enforced.
82. I am a Tea Partier because I do not believe that our taxes should be used for PBS.
83. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the Federal Government is too large.
84. I am a Tea Partier because I believe the United States Government should not be restoring mosques around the world.
85. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in the Right To Life and I am against abortion.
86. I am a Tea Partier because I believe every voter should show a picture ID and their voter registration card.
87. I am a Tea Partier because I believe all illegal aliens should be sent back to their country of origin.
88. I am a Tea Partier because I do not engage in politically correct discourse.
89. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in profiling.
90. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our nation is under threat from those who would do us harm, which includes Progressives, Islamic Terrorism and those who find our Constitution fatally flawed.
91. I am a Tea Partier because I believe that Iran is a threat to this nation.
92. I am a Tea Partier because I proudly wave old glory.
93. I am a Tea Partier because I believe I have a responsibility to actively participate in my First Amendment responsibility to address our elected officials to address my opposition to their policies.
94. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in protecting the founding ideals of this Republic.
95. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in traditional American values.
96. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in personal responsibility.
97. I am a Tea Partier because I believe our government has strayed from it's founding principles.
98. I am a Tea Partier because I believe this nation is the worlds last best hope.
99. I am a Tea Partier because I believe in American Excellence and Exceptionalism
100. I am a Tea Partier because my participation in the Tea Party drives the Mainstream Media, Pundits on the left, Democrats, Progressives and socialist crazy!
Melody Kite is a Conservative Blogger from the great state of Texas. You can read her blog at http://perfectionunderaredumbrella.blogspot.com/ and follow her on Twitter.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party Isn't Going Anywhere
The Drive-By Media has been pushing the idea that "the Tea Party's power has peaked" in recent weeks. I'm here to tell you that's wishful thinking on the part of the Left. The Tea Party's power hasn't begun to peak.
Let's start by examining what birthed the Tea Party in the first place:
- Barrack Obama's liberal policies in general.
- Obama and the Democrats ramming Obamacare down our throats.
- The Republican party's failure to be legitimately conservative and spending money like liberals.
Just for the record, Obama is still governing like a liberal, Obama and the Democrats are still refusing to even allow an Obamacare repeal to come to a vote, and the GOP is still playing the Washington political "compromise" game and thus costing us our AAA credit rating from Standard and Poors. Although some Republicans, namely the Tea Party, are doing exactly what they were sent to Washington to do.
People are still mad at the way the government is running. 79% of Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction, including 63% of Democrats. (1) The President's approval rating sits at 42% according to Rasmussen (2) and 39% according to Gallup (3) as of Thursday's samples. Self described Independents approval of the President is down to 35% according to another Gallup poll earlier this week (4), making Obama's only above 50% rating with Democrats.
Nothing in this data suggests that the Tea Party is going to disappear. People are still, to use the term, "mad as Hell." The healthy outlet of that anger is the Tea Party and is carried out in peaceful protests and the ballot box.
The Drive-By Media is hoping against hope that the Tea Party will disappear. I'm happy to disappoint you liberals, the Tea Party isn't going away. We stand for conservatism and the Constitution, God and country. We're going to keep fighting the good fight because America is worth fighting for. No amount of hoping is going to turn the nation into a nation of liberals. We aren't. As long as you try to push your liberalism on us, there will still be a Tea Party. Deal with it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Rasmussen: Right Track or Wrong Track
(2) Rasmussen: Obama Approval Index History
(3) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
(4) Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center
Let's start by examining what birthed the Tea Party in the first place:
- Barrack Obama's liberal policies in general.
- Obama and the Democrats ramming Obamacare down our throats.
- The Republican party's failure to be legitimately conservative and spending money like liberals.
Just for the record, Obama is still governing like a liberal, Obama and the Democrats are still refusing to even allow an Obamacare repeal to come to a vote, and the GOP is still playing the Washington political "compromise" game and thus costing us our AAA credit rating from Standard and Poors. Although some Republicans, namely the Tea Party, are doing exactly what they were sent to Washington to do.
People are still mad at the way the government is running. 79% of Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction, including 63% of Democrats. (1) The President's approval rating sits at 42% according to Rasmussen (2) and 39% according to Gallup (3) as of Thursday's samples. Self described Independents approval of the President is down to 35% according to another Gallup poll earlier this week (4), making Obama's only above 50% rating with Democrats.
Nothing in this data suggests that the Tea Party is going to disappear. People are still, to use the term, "mad as Hell." The healthy outlet of that anger is the Tea Party and is carried out in peaceful protests and the ballot box.
The Drive-By Media is hoping against hope that the Tea Party will disappear. I'm happy to disappoint you liberals, the Tea Party isn't going away. We stand for conservatism and the Constitution, God and country. We're going to keep fighting the good fight because America is worth fighting for. No amount of hoping is going to turn the nation into a nation of liberals. We aren't. As long as you try to push your liberalism on us, there will still be a Tea Party. Deal with it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Rasmussen: Right Track or Wrong Track
(2) Rasmussen: Obama Approval Index History
(3) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
(4) Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Set Tax Rates Will Create Jobs, Tax Holidays Will Not
As we near discussions for the 2012 budget, the Obama Administration wants to continue the 2% tax holiday on payroll taxes that was included in the extension of the Bush Era tax rates in 2010. Republicans remain skeptical of this particular extension, and it is causing some questions to the legitimacy of the GOP's stance on taxes. After all, wouldn't letting this tax holiday expire be the equivalent of a tax increase? In the strictest sense of the term, yes, it is a tax increase. It's a nominal one and, to use liberal logic, it's just "letting a cut expire."
For the record, there are two major differences in "letting each rate expire." One, the Obama tax holiday was legitimately intended to be temporary. The Bush rates were never meant to be temporary, it was simply a compromise to stop a Democrat filibuster. (If you don't believe me, explain why Bush spent the following years trying to make the cuts permanent?) Two, allowing the payroll tax holiday to expire would cost an individual making $30,000 per year only $16 per month. Ending the Bush rates would cost the same individual $125 per month. An extra $16 per month has basically no stimulating effect. Take $16 per month from a budget and that person can get one less Big Mac value meal. Take $125 into that person's monthly budget, now you've made a difference in their life. That is precisely what the end of the Bush tax rates and return to the Clinton rates would do to that person who makes $30,000 per year - increase their taxes by 5%.
The reason making tax rates permanent will create jobs is simple: Business owners are wary of hiring right now, because they cannot do a proper Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). For those of you who don't have a business degree, a CBA is a system of deciding whether or not a particular business action is ultimately a good business decision. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, a good business decision is one that ultimately helps the company become more profitable.) As it pertains to hiring, a business will do a CBA to find if the additional profits caused by the work of the new hire will sufficiently exceed the cost of employing said individual. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, that's "Does that employee make the company more money than the company pays them?")
Businesses will hire when they know what the CBA for each hire is going to be. Not knowing what the corporate tax rates will be will not let large businesses do a proper CBA, and not knowing what the personal income tax rates will be stops small businesses (who file as sole proprietorships). Small businesses are, statistically, the most likely to hire new workers.
Now you may ask, won’t that payroll cut at least help those small businesses in hiring? I’m glad you asked: the answer is no.
Payroll taxes have a ceiling of $102,000. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means you don't pay taxes on a penny above $102,000.) A cut of 2% of that amount isn’t helpful. It amounts to $2,040. With the Federal minimum wage currently at $7.25, a small family restaurant could hire one person at minimum wage for seven weeks. What do you think the CBA is going to be for hiring one person for 7 months at minimum wage going to be? I’ve run a business, one that did employ minimum wage employees, and I can tell you the CBA for hiring that one employee for three months is not positive. That money is better in the bank.
Now an income tax reduction for that same business can make a big difference. Let’s take a small business whose total incoming revenue is $1,000,000 and files its taxes as a sole proprietorship. That means this person’s taxes are $40,000 per year lower under the Bush rates than they would be if taxes were raised back to the Clinton rates. $40,000 more in that businesses budget can hire two new full time minimum wage employees and one part time employee or one higher paid workers who make double minimum wage. Or, maybe hire one new person and give a raise to their other employees.
Or maybe hire one person and take the other $10,000 and invest it in advertising which can potentially grow your business and really increase their revenue. That sort of investment can double the revenue of a business and thus give it the chance to hire more employees and add more jobs. (1) While we’re at it, the more employees in a restaurant, the more supervisors that will be needed. That means white collar management jobs open up.
So, just to clarify: 5% income tax can give small businesses enough money to hire two to four people full time permanently. A 2% payroll tax reduction can give a business enough money to hire one person as a temp for less than two months.
To be clear, I’m in favor of government doing with less pretty much whenever possible, whether that be in payroll taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes sales taxes. That said the Democrats and Obama are trying to pass this off as stimulating the economy. I’ll go ahead and make a prediction here: The liberal talking point is going to be “we tried tax cuts, it didn’t work.”
All tax cuts aren’t created equal. It all comes down to how much money is kept in people’s pockets. 2% of payroll taxes isn’t much to a business owner. 5% of income taxes to a sole proprietorship can be huge because it’s 5% of a sole proprietorship’s income is 5% of that business’ total revenue. 2% of payroll taxes will be at most $2040.
Ultimately this policy will do next to nothing. It’s a largely symbolic measure for Obama to try to claim tax cutting credentials and probably claim his tax cuts don’t work. At the end of the day, I’m in favor of extending the tax holiday, but ultimately what will stimulate the economy is real income tax cuts, across the board for all wage earners, not small payroll tax cuts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Never and Will Never Work
For the record, there are two major differences in "letting each rate expire." One, the Obama tax holiday was legitimately intended to be temporary. The Bush rates were never meant to be temporary, it was simply a compromise to stop a Democrat filibuster. (If you don't believe me, explain why Bush spent the following years trying to make the cuts permanent?) Two, allowing the payroll tax holiday to expire would cost an individual making $30,000 per year only $16 per month. Ending the Bush rates would cost the same individual $125 per month. An extra $16 per month has basically no stimulating effect. Take $16 per month from a budget and that person can get one less Big Mac value meal. Take $125 into that person's monthly budget, now you've made a difference in their life. That is precisely what the end of the Bush tax rates and return to the Clinton rates would do to that person who makes $30,000 per year - increase their taxes by 5%.
The reason making tax rates permanent will create jobs is simple: Business owners are wary of hiring right now, because they cannot do a proper Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). For those of you who don't have a business degree, a CBA is a system of deciding whether or not a particular business action is ultimately a good business decision. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, a good business decision is one that ultimately helps the company become more profitable.) As it pertains to hiring, a business will do a CBA to find if the additional profits caused by the work of the new hire will sufficiently exceed the cost of employing said individual. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, that's "Does that employee make the company more money than the company pays them?")
Businesses will hire when they know what the CBA for each hire is going to be. Not knowing what the corporate tax rates will be will not let large businesses do a proper CBA, and not knowing what the personal income tax rates will be stops small businesses (who file as sole proprietorships). Small businesses are, statistically, the most likely to hire new workers.
Now you may ask, won’t that payroll cut at least help those small businesses in hiring? I’m glad you asked: the answer is no.
Payroll taxes have a ceiling of $102,000. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means you don't pay taxes on a penny above $102,000.) A cut of 2% of that amount isn’t helpful. It amounts to $2,040. With the Federal minimum wage currently at $7.25, a small family restaurant could hire one person at minimum wage for seven weeks. What do you think the CBA is going to be for hiring one person for 7 months at minimum wage going to be? I’ve run a business, one that did employ minimum wage employees, and I can tell you the CBA for hiring that one employee for three months is not positive. That money is better in the bank.
Now an income tax reduction for that same business can make a big difference. Let’s take a small business whose total incoming revenue is $1,000,000 and files its taxes as a sole proprietorship. That means this person’s taxes are $40,000 per year lower under the Bush rates than they would be if taxes were raised back to the Clinton rates. $40,000 more in that businesses budget can hire two new full time minimum wage employees and one part time employee or one higher paid workers who make double minimum wage. Or, maybe hire one new person and give a raise to their other employees.
Or maybe hire one person and take the other $10,000 and invest it in advertising which can potentially grow your business and really increase their revenue. That sort of investment can double the revenue of a business and thus give it the chance to hire more employees and add more jobs. (1) While we’re at it, the more employees in a restaurant, the more supervisors that will be needed. That means white collar management jobs open up.
So, just to clarify: 5% income tax can give small businesses enough money to hire two to four people full time permanently. A 2% payroll tax reduction can give a business enough money to hire one person as a temp for less than two months.
To be clear, I’m in favor of government doing with less pretty much whenever possible, whether that be in payroll taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes sales taxes. That said the Democrats and Obama are trying to pass this off as stimulating the economy. I’ll go ahead and make a prediction here: The liberal talking point is going to be “we tried tax cuts, it didn’t work.”
All tax cuts aren’t created equal. It all comes down to how much money is kept in people’s pockets. 2% of payroll taxes isn’t much to a business owner. 5% of income taxes to a sole proprietorship can be huge because it’s 5% of a sole proprietorship’s income is 5% of that business’ total revenue. 2% of payroll taxes will be at most $2040.
Ultimately this policy will do next to nothing. It’s a largely symbolic measure for Obama to try to claim tax cutting credentials and probably claim his tax cuts don’t work. At the end of the day, I’m in favor of extending the tax holiday, but ultimately what will stimulate the economy is real income tax cuts, across the board for all wage earners, not small payroll tax cuts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Never and Will Never Work
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The Tea Party is not Synonymous with the Republican Party
Like it or not, the Tea Party is one of the most powerful entities in American politics. It was the Tea Party that lead the Republican Party to victory in 2010. I believe it is the Tea Party that will help defeat Obama and win back the Senate in 2012. Yet many people think the Tea Party is synonymous with the Republican Party. I'm here to tell you as a card carrying Tea Party member, we aren't the same thing as the GOP.
Let me explain, first and foremost, who the Tea Party is (and is not). We are Americans who are fed up with the way Washington is spending our money (that's right, our money). We believe in the Constitution of the United States and freedom. We believe that the government that governs least governs best. We want the minimal amount of government possible to protect our essential freedoms.
We are not anarchists; we do recognize government is an unfortunate necessity. We are not opposed to taxes, we just want taxes to be kept at the lowest possible level to maintain those freedoms. We are not opposed to a social safety net and programs like unemployment, we just don't want that net to be a hammock. We aren't racist, we are just opposed to a liberal President who just so happens to be black. (We didn't like Lydon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry either, and they were/are white men.) We aren't opposed to some government regulation to protect the consumers from unfair business practices and to maintain legitimate capitalism (i.e. disallowing business trusts) but we are opposed to regulations that cripple businesses (i.e. CAFE standards on automobiles that require technology that doesn't exist yet).
We are also not mainline Republicans. We are, by default, largely registered Republicans, but that's not the same thing as being in line with mainstream GOP values. The Tea Party is a movement of conservatism. (1) The Republican Party is unfortunately not living up to it's conservative history (2). The GOP too often compromises conservative good ideas with liberal bad ideas to ultimately come up with mediocre ideas. The GOP is often far too concerned with being seen as "reasonable" and "compromising" to do the right thing. Take the recent Debt Limit debacle. The Tea Party plan called for $4 Trillion in cuts over 10 years, a sum that Standard and Poors said would prevent a credit rating reduction. The GOP compromised, and the nation was hurt by it. The elected members of the Tea Party fought that compromise. (3)
Make no mistake about it: There are differences between the Tea Party and the GOP. For starters, the Tea Party has many Democrats and Independents in the fold. The common thread is conservatism and Constitutional values. We stand for more than Washington politics as usual. The Republican Party was and is a willing participant in Washington's failures. However, we are not the Republican party...yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) I am a Conservative, not a Republican
(2) The Real History of Democrats and Republicans
(3) Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - Assigning Blame
Let me explain, first and foremost, who the Tea Party is (and is not). We are Americans who are fed up with the way Washington is spending our money (that's right, our money). We believe in the Constitution of the United States and freedom. We believe that the government that governs least governs best. We want the minimal amount of government possible to protect our essential freedoms.
We are not anarchists; we do recognize government is an unfortunate necessity. We are not opposed to taxes, we just want taxes to be kept at the lowest possible level to maintain those freedoms. We are not opposed to a social safety net and programs like unemployment, we just don't want that net to be a hammock. We aren't racist, we are just opposed to a liberal President who just so happens to be black. (We didn't like Lydon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry either, and they were/are white men.) We aren't opposed to some government regulation to protect the consumers from unfair business practices and to maintain legitimate capitalism (i.e. disallowing business trusts) but we are opposed to regulations that cripple businesses (i.e. CAFE standards on automobiles that require technology that doesn't exist yet).
We are also not mainline Republicans. We are, by default, largely registered Republicans, but that's not the same thing as being in line with mainstream GOP values. The Tea Party is a movement of conservatism. (1) The Republican Party is unfortunately not living up to it's conservative history (2). The GOP too often compromises conservative good ideas with liberal bad ideas to ultimately come up with mediocre ideas. The GOP is often far too concerned with being seen as "reasonable" and "compromising" to do the right thing. Take the recent Debt Limit debacle. The Tea Party plan called for $4 Trillion in cuts over 10 years, a sum that Standard and Poors said would prevent a credit rating reduction. The GOP compromised, and the nation was hurt by it. The elected members of the Tea Party fought that compromise. (3)
Make no mistake about it: There are differences between the Tea Party and the GOP. For starters, the Tea Party has many Democrats and Independents in the fold. The common thread is conservatism and Constitutional values. We stand for more than Washington politics as usual. The Republican Party was and is a willing participant in Washington's failures. However, we are not the Republican party...yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) I am a Conservative, not a Republican
(2) The Real History of Democrats and Republicans
(3) Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - Assigning Blame
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The Left's Attack on Fatherhood
Recently I found myself watching one of my favorite father-son movies, “Frequency” from 1999. (1) I won’t delve into the plot of the movie, but I will say I strongly recommended it. Yet it got me thinking about the importance of fathers in the lives of children. Now, more than ever, it seems that fatherhood is under attack in America by the Left. For the Biblical Conservative, this presents a serious problem.
I am proud to say I have a great father who taught me how to be a man. My Dad is my hero and my confidant. He is the man who taught me how to throw a baseball and how to ride a bike. He taught me the important things in life, like how a man should treat a woman and how a big brother ought to look out for his younger siblings. He taught me the less important things, like how to tell a joke and how to mow a lawn. When I was young, my Dad took me to church and took me to baseball games. To this day, he is one of the most important people in my life. I also had another great man in my life, my maternal grandfather. He taught me how to change a tire and how to tell a good story. Papap and I shared a love of history and of classic cars. We went to museums together and to car shows. From the day I was born until he passed away in 1999, he added to all the great things my Dad taught me and continues to teach me. Papap and my Dad are my two heroes.
I have been blessed in a way that far too many people are not these days. I have been blessed with a wonderful father, and to boot a second great male influence in my life in Papap. Far too many kids are without that important influence. There are situations which are beyond anyone’s control where a parent is widowed and left to raise their kids as single parents. That cannot be avoided. But that was not how God created parenthood to be.
God had a perfect plan for the raising of children. It involved two parents, one male and one female parent. It also involved those two parents being joined in the covenant of marriage for life. Marriage was God’s plan for creating children. In the Bible tells humans that we should be fruitful and multiply, that is to procreate (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL that’s “make babies.”):
Then God blessed them, and god said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. – Genesis 1:28
In another place, God says this:
Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
For those of you from Palm Beach County, “fornication” is all sex outside the boundaries of marriage. So, according to God’s plan, all sex should be reserved for marriage and all else is sin. And as any doctor, biologist, or individual over the age of twelve, sexual intercourse is indeed the way to create a child. It is possible to achieve the physiological process without intercourse, but that requires a major derivation from the way children have been conceived for centuries.- Hebrews 13:4
This is God’s plan for children. A father and a mother, married, raising that child together. The father brings certain things to the child as does the mother. I look at my own childhood, and perhaps this situation will sound familiar to you as well, for an example. As a child, many times I would fall down and hurt myself in some minor way. My mother’s reaction was to give me a hug, kiss my boo-boo and make it better. My dad’s reaction was to pick me up, playfully toss me in the air and make me forget about my scraped knee. As I grew older, Dad taught me the proverbial “rub some dirt on it” male attitude that helped me learn how to not let a small bruise stop me.
This is one small example of the ways mothers and fathers are different in the training of a child. I learned certain things from Dad that Mom wouldn’t have taught me alone. I grant you, I know if my father had unfortunately died while I was a child, Mom would’ve ensured that I had another father figure to hold that place (most likely Papap, or my other grandfather, or one of my uncles) to fill that role. But there are certain things I needed a father to teach me.
Unfortunately, the world today, lead by liberal “open-mindedness” has done its very best to steal the necessity of a father away. The liberal attack on the father started with something I consider to be a good thing: contraception (that’d be birth control, for those of you from Palm Beach County). Prior to the widespread availability of such contraception methods as condoms and the birth control pill, most women were afraid to have sex outside of marriage for fear of impregnation and the social shame that went with being an unwed mother. Once those methods were available, the risk of impregnation dropped with sex out of wedlock, making more women willing to take that risk. (As a general rule, men, on the other hand, with our usual characteristic restraint, were pretty much ready to take that risk even without contraception.)
However, since no form of birth control (save for abstinence) is ever 100% accurate, there was still some risk involved that kept many away from sex. Even a 5% chance, combined with the shame that still existed with pregnancy out of wedlock, was enough to stop many, many people. Liberalism struck again in 1973 with the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. (2) Liberalism went into full attack on family values with Roe v. Wade by teaching that it was acceptable to destroy a human life for the sake the comfort and convenience of the mother. As a matter of fact, that mother could destroy that child before anyone else knew she was pregnant.
While we’re at it, the lack of shame that used to come with pregnancy outside of marriage is something that Liberalism has robbed from our society. It’s a good thing for people to be ashamed of sin. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. If one is having sex outside of marriage and is impregnated, they have public evidence of that sin. Shame stops people from doing things they ought not do.
I understand there are circumstances where this ideal is not possible, through no failure of the parents. An example of this is a widow or widower whose spouse has died. This is unfortunate and unavoidable. However, I believe it is necessary for the remaining parent to find some surrogate to replace the lost parent. I don't mean that parent should get married as quickly as possible, by any means. There are other ways to find the necessary surrogate.
One great way to do this is through a grandparent, or an aunt or uncle. I know one woman who is a widow who lives with her parents so that her father, her children's grandfather, can be that stand-in father figure. God bless that grandfather, by the way, for fulfilling that role.
In a world that's determined to ignore the way the family was designed to operate, this is a fight that needs to be continued. Even without referencing God, you cannot argue that it takes one male parent and one female parent to procreate a child. The left is attempting to ignore the role of a father, but children need both Mom and Dad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Frequency (IMDB Article)
(2) Roe v. Wade
I understand there are circumstances where this ideal is not possible, through no failure of the parents. An example of this is a widow or widower whose spouse has died. This is unfortunate and unavoidable. However, I believe it is necessary for the remaining parent to find some surrogate to replace the lost parent. I don't mean that parent should get married as quickly as possible, by any means. There are other ways to find the necessary surrogate.
One great way to do this is through a grandparent, or an aunt or uncle. I know one woman who is a widow who lives with her parents so that her father, her children's grandfather, can be that stand-in father figure. God bless that grandfather, by the way, for fulfilling that role.
In a world that's determined to ignore the way the family was designed to operate, this is a fight that needs to be continued. Even without referencing God, you cannot argue that it takes one male parent and one female parent to procreate a child. The left is attempting to ignore the role of a father, but children need both Mom and Dad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Frequency (IMDB Article)
(2) Roe v. Wade
Monday, August 22, 2011
Interesting Trend in Obama Approval Ratings
Those of you who read Biblical Conservatism regularly know that one of the things I take time to do is follow the President's approval ratings on a daily basis in an effort to understand the the trends of the President's job approval. In the past few weeks, I've noticed something quite surprising: The President is losing the uniformed non-voter even faster than he's losing those of us who are paying attention.
Why does this matter? Simple. President Obama was elected largely based on a style over substance platform that included minimal experience, a voting record filled with votes of "present" and few specific plans explained in favor of repeatedly saying buzzwords like "hope" and "change." People who aren't very informed were MORE likely to vote for Obama. In short, the President has lost support with people who pay so little attention that they're persuaded by pretty words...and I think we can all agree that's the best thing Obama has going for him.
Where do I get this observation? As always, using the two polls I trust, Gallup's poll (1) of adults and Rasmussen's poll (2) of likely voters. Here's the last week's trend:
Day: Gallup (adults) Rasmussen (likely voters)
Saturday (8/13) 42% approval 43% approval *
Sunday (8/14) 39% approval * 44% approval
Monday (8/15) 41% approval 44% approval
Tuesday (8/16) 39% approval * 44% approval
Wednesday (8/17) 40% approval 43% approval *
Thursday (8/18) 40% approval 43% approval *
Friday (8/19) 40% approval 45% approval
7 - Day Average: 40% approval 43% approval
* Denotes lowest rating for the week
For the record, I'd be inclined to disregard the two point increase to 45% on Friday. One trend that I've noticed in Rasmussen is the President gains a couple points whenever he's out of sight and out of mind. He goes on vacation and gains two points. He often picks up two or three points over the weekend because he's not out reminding us that he is a lousy President (for example, giving the same speech recommending the same failed solution to a problem for the umpteenth time). During a campaign, the President won't be out of sight and out of mind.
It's an intriguing trend, really. Obama's losing more disinterested people than he is losing the involved voters. Some might think this is a good sign for the President, but let me assure you it's not, for two reasons. First of all, the President's handling of specific issues, like the economy, is consistently rated lower than his overall job approval.
On July 31st, Rasmussen conducted their last poll of the President's handling of the economy. Likely voters gave him 36% approval (3). His overall job approval on that day was 46% (2). The President's approval on important issues like job creation and the economy are consistently well below his overall approval. This is not a good sign for a President who wants to be re-elected.
Essentially, you're looking at a small group of likely voters who fall into the "somewhat approve" range who can find one or two things where they think the President is doing a decent job, but are also very willing to vote for a better candidate.
More importantly, once again, the type of person who is likely to show up and vote is informed and pays attention to things like results from policies. Pretty speeches don't convince an informed person that they're seeing success when they are seeing failure. Pretty speeches don't convince an informed unemployed person that they'll have a job when they've been looking for a year.
Mark my words: If Obama loses the uninformed people who are convinced with style over substance, he's headed for a big defeat in 2012.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
(2) Rasmussen: Obama Approval Index History
(3) Rasmussen: 50% Give Obama Poor Marks On Economy
(4) Rasmussen: 50% Favor Jobs Tax Credits for Hiring Young Veterans
Why does this matter? Simple. President Obama was elected largely based on a style over substance platform that included minimal experience, a voting record filled with votes of "present" and few specific plans explained in favor of repeatedly saying buzzwords like "hope" and "change." People who aren't very informed were MORE likely to vote for Obama. In short, the President has lost support with people who pay so little attention that they're persuaded by pretty words...and I think we can all agree that's the best thing Obama has going for him.
Where do I get this observation? As always, using the two polls I trust, Gallup's poll (1) of adults and Rasmussen's poll (2) of likely voters. Here's the last week's trend:
Day: Gallup (adults) Rasmussen (likely voters)
Saturday (8/13) 42% approval 43% approval *
Sunday (8/14) 39% approval * 44% approval
Monday (8/15) 41% approval 44% approval
Tuesday (8/16) 39% approval * 44% approval
Wednesday (8/17) 40% approval 43% approval *
Thursday (8/18) 40% approval 43% approval *
Friday (8/19) 40% approval 45% approval
7 - Day Average: 40% approval 43% approval
* Denotes lowest rating for the week
For the record, I'd be inclined to disregard the two point increase to 45% on Friday. One trend that I've noticed in Rasmussen is the President gains a couple points whenever he's out of sight and out of mind. He goes on vacation and gains two points. He often picks up two or three points over the weekend because he's not out reminding us that he is a lousy President (for example, giving the same speech recommending the same failed solution to a problem for the umpteenth time). During a campaign, the President won't be out of sight and out of mind.
It's an intriguing trend, really. Obama's losing more disinterested people than he is losing the involved voters. Some might think this is a good sign for the President, but let me assure you it's not, for two reasons. First of all, the President's handling of specific issues, like the economy, is consistently rated lower than his overall job approval.
On July 31st, Rasmussen conducted their last poll of the President's handling of the economy. Likely voters gave him 36% approval (3). His overall job approval on that day was 46% (2). The President's approval on important issues like job creation and the economy are consistently well below his overall approval. This is not a good sign for a President who wants to be re-elected.
Essentially, you're looking at a small group of likely voters who fall into the "somewhat approve" range who can find one or two things where they think the President is doing a decent job, but are also very willing to vote for a better candidate.
More importantly, once again, the type of person who is likely to show up and vote is informed and pays attention to things like results from policies. Pretty speeches don't convince an informed person that they're seeing success when they are seeing failure. Pretty speeches don't convince an informed unemployed person that they'll have a job when they've been looking for a year.
Mark my words: If Obama loses the uninformed people who are convinced with style over substance, he's headed for a big defeat in 2012.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
(2) Rasmussen: Obama Approval Index History
(3) Rasmussen: 50% Give Obama Poor Marks On Economy
(4) Rasmussen: 50% Favor Jobs Tax Credits for Hiring Young Veterans
Friday, August 19, 2011
Obama's Poll Numbers Have Been Bad for Months
A lot of sources have recently been talking about President Obama's recent low approval numbers, especially the 39% approval he was given by Gallup in the last week. (1) However, what hasn't been report as widely is the fact that the President's approval ratings have been rather lousy for some time now.
As usual, our sources will be the two most trustworthy polling organizations; Rasmussen Reports' daily tracking poll of likely voters (2) and Gallup's Daily poll of American adults. As usual, please remember that polls of likely voters are usually a better judge of how well a President will do in his re-election campaign than adults.
First, let's look at Gallup, whose poll of adults gave Obama approval as low as 39% (2) this week:
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% was 6/9/11
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% for consecutive days was
6/1/11 - 6/2/11
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% for a full week was 5/6/11-5/10/11
Now, let's look at Rasmussen, whose poll of likely voters gave Obama approval as low as 43% (3) this week:
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% was 6/9/11
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% for consecutive days was
5/28/11 - 5/29/11
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% for a full week was 5/6/11 - 5/10/11
That's just the last time President Obama hit 50% or higher. For the record, the highest he hit in those days was 52%. His poll ratings for this entire year, save for a relative handful of days, has been 49% or lower.
The Drive-By Media wants us to think that Obama's mediocre to low approval numbers are new, but they aren't. They've been mediocre to bad for over a year. Obama has been Jimmy Carter levels of unpopular pretty much since his honeymoon period ended in 2009. This is not new. The American people have disapproved of Obama's policies for quite some time now. The only change is the Drive-By Media has started to pay attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Obama's Approval Hits New Low
(2) Rasmussen: Obama Approval Index History
(3) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
As usual, our sources will be the two most trustworthy polling organizations; Rasmussen Reports' daily tracking poll of likely voters (2) and Gallup's Daily poll of American adults. As usual, please remember that polls of likely voters are usually a better judge of how well a President will do in his re-election campaign than adults.
First, let's look at Gallup, whose poll of adults gave Obama approval as low as 39% (2) this week:
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% was 6/9/11
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% for consecutive days was
6/1/11 - 6/2/11
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% for a full week was 5/6/11-5/10/11
Now, let's look at Rasmussen, whose poll of likely voters gave Obama approval as low as 43% (3) this week:
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% was 6/9/11
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% for consecutive days was
5/28/11 - 5/29/11
- The last time President Obama's approval was at/above 50% for a full week was 5/6/11 - 5/10/11
That's just the last time President Obama hit 50% or higher. For the record, the highest he hit in those days was 52%. His poll ratings for this entire year, save for a relative handful of days, has been 49% or lower.
The Drive-By Media wants us to think that Obama's mediocre to low approval numbers are new, but they aren't. They've been mediocre to bad for over a year. Obama has been Jimmy Carter levels of unpopular pretty much since his honeymoon period ended in 2009. This is not new. The American people have disapproved of Obama's policies for quite some time now. The only change is the Drive-By Media has started to pay attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Obama's Approval Hits New Low
(2) Rasmussen: Obama Approval Index History
(3) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Obama's Waste of Time (and Money) Tour
Today, President Obama is concluding his three day "listening tour" where he is, predictably, claiming to be focusing on jobs (and when he's claimed to focus on jobs for the last 2 years and 8 months, he was...ummm). He's also wasting money...OUR money. The truth is the President is campaigning, and he's doing it on the public dime. More importantly, something tells me Obama ISN'T listening to what America is saying, mainly because they're telling him something he doesn't want to hear.
Fact: 66% of Americans supported the Cut, Cap and Balance plan during the debt limit debate and 74% favor passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. (1) Obama ignored them.
Fact: Obama's approval rating in the President's job approval are 39% - Gallup (2) and 42% - Rasmussen Report (3). Clearly, Americans don't want Obama to continue on the same path.
Fact: In 2010, Obama's policies were "shellacked" by the American people, who voted for a change of direction.
Fact: 54% of Americans want Obamacare repealed. (2) Yet Obama ignores the possibility of repeal.
Fact: President Obama didn't listen to the American people as it pertains to any of these issues over the past nearly three years, because if he did, he would have changed policies.
Why should we believe he'll listen now? The answer is we shouldn't believe it for a moment. (If you do believe Obama is listening to us, I've got a beautiful piece of ocean-front property to sell you in Iowa and I'll give it to you for a rock bottom price.) The President has shown to be completely tone deaf on what the American people want. Obama is a rigid idealouge who is far more concerned with advancing his liberal, socialist agenda than he is with helping the country. He is absolutely ignoring what the people want because it's devastating to his political ends.
The people want a balanced budget, and Obama agreed to a set of cuts which, if they happen in their entirety, only reduces the deficit by only 15% and continues to add about $1.5 Trillion to our national debt each year. (5) For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means Obama only agreed to do 15% of what the American people specifically wanted.
What makes this worse is the fact that the taxpayer's money is being spent. This is a political tour that is kicking off Obama's reelection campaign. I understand that incumbents campaign, I truly do. I also understand that said campaigning out to be done using campaign funds, not spending $1.1 Million in taxpayer money. (6) Oh, and while Obama is out lecturing us to buy American products, his bus tour is using Canadian made buses. Mr. Obama, if you were going to blow $1.1 Million in taxpayer money, couldn't you have at least bought American made buses?
This tour is an example of Obama's typical tin ear politics. He's not listening, and he does not care what the people want. He just wants us to foot the bill for his liberal politics. Well, Mr. Obama, I hope you're listening: We don't want your liberal policies! In 2012, the American people will send you that message in a way that you can't ignore it...by voting you out of office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) CNN Poll Shows 66% of Americans Support Cut, Cap and Balance
(2) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
(3) Rassmussen Report: Obama Approval Index History
(4) Health Care Law
(5) Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - By the Percentages
(6) AP: Secret Service using new $1.1 million buses for Obama Midwest trip
Fact: 66% of Americans supported the Cut, Cap and Balance plan during the debt limit debate and 74% favor passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. (1) Obama ignored them.
Fact: Obama's approval rating in the President's job approval are 39% - Gallup (2) and 42% - Rasmussen Report (3). Clearly, Americans don't want Obama to continue on the same path.
Fact: In 2010, Obama's policies were "shellacked" by the American people, who voted for a change of direction.
Fact: 54% of Americans want Obamacare repealed. (2) Yet Obama ignores the possibility of repeal.
Fact: President Obama didn't listen to the American people as it pertains to any of these issues over the past nearly three years, because if he did, he would have changed policies.
Why should we believe he'll listen now? The answer is we shouldn't believe it for a moment. (If you do believe Obama is listening to us, I've got a beautiful piece of ocean-front property to sell you in Iowa and I'll give it to you for a rock bottom price.) The President has shown to be completely tone deaf on what the American people want. Obama is a rigid idealouge who is far more concerned with advancing his liberal, socialist agenda than he is with helping the country. He is absolutely ignoring what the people want because it's devastating to his political ends.
The people want a balanced budget, and Obama agreed to a set of cuts which, if they happen in their entirety, only reduces the deficit by only 15% and continues to add about $1.5 Trillion to our national debt each year. (5) For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means Obama only agreed to do 15% of what the American people specifically wanted.
What makes this worse is the fact that the taxpayer's money is being spent. This is a political tour that is kicking off Obama's reelection campaign. I understand that incumbents campaign, I truly do. I also understand that said campaigning out to be done using campaign funds, not spending $1.1 Million in taxpayer money. (6) Oh, and while Obama is out lecturing us to buy American products, his bus tour is using Canadian made buses. Mr. Obama, if you were going to blow $1.1 Million in taxpayer money, couldn't you have at least bought American made buses?
This tour is an example of Obama's typical tin ear politics. He's not listening, and he does not care what the people want. He just wants us to foot the bill for his liberal politics. Well, Mr. Obama, I hope you're listening: We don't want your liberal policies! In 2012, the American people will send you that message in a way that you can't ignore it...by voting you out of office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) CNN Poll Shows 66% of Americans Support Cut, Cap and Balance
(2) Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
(3) Rassmussen Report: Obama Approval Index History
(4) Health Care Law
(5) Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - By the Percentages
(6) AP: Secret Service using new $1.1 million buses for Obama Midwest trip
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Warren Buffett: Another Liberal who Presumes to Speak for All
As I'm sure you've heard by now, billionaire Warren Buffett is running his mouth and saying that the rich, like him, should pay more in taxes. Combine that with President Obama's "millionaires and billionaires" rhetoric, which ignores the fact that many "millionaires" make less than $250,000 per year because they are business owners that are sole proprietorships, and all we have is talking points from a uber-wealthy liberal and Democrats who want to spend more.
Here's the bottom line: Warren Buffett is welcome to do whatever he'd like to do with his money. It's his property. If Mr. Buffett feels he isn't taxed enough, the address to send extra money to is:
The point that gets ignored by liberals is one of personal property. I've said it countless times: It's not the government's money, and it's not the population's money. Warren Buffett is rudely presuming to tell all people what they should do with their money in the form of taxes. Neither the government nor the people are inherently entitled to someone else's property (money is property, folks) in any way, regardless of how much of said property they own.
Taxes are an unfortunate necessity. Nobody will argue that. There ought to be, however, responsibility with that necessity. There are certain things government naturally ought to do. It is reasonable to tax the population to pay for said services. The military is one of the primary reasons governments are formed. Military is provision for a common defense. Ditto for police departments. Services like fire departments and ambulances are best handled by government. Road repairs are in teh same boat. Public schools fall under this category. However, with the exception of the military, the best way to handle all these things is local government. (1)
What Buffett is doing is stating what he is willing to do with his property then stating that all other wealthy individuals should also submit to increased taxation based on his own choice. Furthermore, wealthy individuals are often very generous with their money, they just want to direct where that generosity is sent.
I've said before and I'll say it again, government is not the best organization to care for those in genuine need. There were people who were unemployed and in need of assistance before the New Deal put in place the government safety nets that we have now. Yet we didn't have widespread starvation in America. Why? Because private charities, churches, and individuals cared for the needy. Even in the Great Depression there wasn't widespread starvation. Those breadlines that are always depicted in historical representations of the Depression were run not by government but by private charities like churches.
Bottom line, Warren Buffett is making a political statement. He's a liberal. He's promoting liberalism and using his own station in life to do it. Once again, if Mr. Buffett feels he is undertaxed, he is welcome to send whatever he feels his "fair share" is to:
Here's the bottom line: Warren Buffett is welcome to do whatever he'd like to do with his money. It's his property. If Mr. Buffett feels he isn't taxed enough, the address to send extra money to is:
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Feel free to send in whatever money you think will put you up to being taxed enough by your own standards. Anyone else who feels that they aren't taxed enough are welcome to donate what they feel is their own "fair share." The point that gets ignored by liberals is one of personal property. I've said it countless times: It's not the government's money, and it's not the population's money. Warren Buffett is rudely presuming to tell all people what they should do with their money in the form of taxes. Neither the government nor the people are inherently entitled to someone else's property (money is property, folks) in any way, regardless of how much of said property they own.
Taxes are an unfortunate necessity. Nobody will argue that. There ought to be, however, responsibility with that necessity. There are certain things government naturally ought to do. It is reasonable to tax the population to pay for said services. The military is one of the primary reasons governments are formed. Military is provision for a common defense. Ditto for police departments. Services like fire departments and ambulances are best handled by government. Road repairs are in teh same boat. Public schools fall under this category. However, with the exception of the military, the best way to handle all these things is local government. (1)
What Buffett is doing is stating what he is willing to do with his property then stating that all other wealthy individuals should also submit to increased taxation based on his own choice. Furthermore, wealthy individuals are often very generous with their money, they just want to direct where that generosity is sent.
I've said before and I'll say it again, government is not the best organization to care for those in genuine need. There were people who were unemployed and in need of assistance before the New Deal put in place the government safety nets that we have now. Yet we didn't have widespread starvation in America. Why? Because private charities, churches, and individuals cared for the needy. Even in the Great Depression there wasn't widespread starvation. Those breadlines that are always depicted in historical representations of the Depression were run not by government but by private charities like churches.
Bottom line, Warren Buffett is making a political statement. He's a liberal. He's promoting liberalism and using his own station in life to do it. Once again, if Mr. Buffett feels he is undertaxed, he is welcome to send whatever he feels his "fair share" is to:
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Or, if he'd like his "fair share" to be useful, he can donate more money to charity. He can otherwise feel free to leave other people's property alone and not volunteer it for them in the name of his own politics. I have no right to demand other middle class Americans give the same to charity as I give just because I choose to budget it. It's my money (my property), and I choose to use said property to give to my church. That is my choice. I have no right to demand all people do the same.
Also, as I've said many times before, a "millionaire" is not the same thing as a billionaire by a large margin. The owner of a small pizza place which employs four people who owns his own home is often a "millionaire" because he's a sole proprietorship. That guy might make $50,000 in salary, but his income is listed as over $250,000 because of the total revenues coming into the business, and his net worth is over $1,000,000 because of the value of said business.
In short, Mr. Buffett, feel free to do with your money whatever you'd like. If you want to send more money to the government, one final time, the address is:
(1) Note: Local government is superior because I can knock on the doors of my local government office with easy. A short drive across town is all that's required to visit local government. It would take me an hour of my day total to drive there, knock on the door, speak to someone, and drive home. Driving to Albany would take me four hours to drive there, plus actually finding the person I need to speak to, waiting, finally speaking to them, then driving four hours home. Driving to Washington takes 7 hours. I couldn't do it in one day without skipping sleep. Local government is far more accountable.
Also, as I've said many times before, a "millionaire" is not the same thing as a billionaire by a large margin. The owner of a small pizza place which employs four people who owns his own home is often a "millionaire" because he's a sole proprietorship. That guy might make $50,000 in salary, but his income is listed as over $250,000 because of the total revenues coming into the business, and his net worth is over $1,000,000 because of the value of said business.
In short, Mr. Buffett, feel free to do with your money whatever you'd like. If you want to send more money to the government, one final time, the address is:
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Do the rest of the world a favor, however, and stop speaking for every person in your income range. Please speak for yourself and shut up otherwise. Put YOUR money where your mouth is, send more money to the address above so that you personally are paying YOUR "fair share" as you personally consider your "fair share" to be. You have the freedom as an American to send more money to the government. Speak for your self and only yourself, otherwise, kindly shut up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Note: Local government is superior because I can knock on the doors of my local government office with easy. A short drive across town is all that's required to visit local government. It would take me an hour of my day total to drive there, knock on the door, speak to someone, and drive home. Driving to Albany would take me four hours to drive there, plus actually finding the person I need to speak to, waiting, finally speaking to them, then driving four hours home. Driving to Washington takes 7 hours. I couldn't do it in one day without skipping sleep. Local government is far more accountable.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Obama's Approval Hits New Low
The Drive-By Media wants us to buy that Obama will be tough to beat. He’s not one bit tougher to beat than he was five days ago. And five days ago Obama wasn’t tough to beat.
– Biblical Conservatism, May 4, 2011 (Five days after Osama Bin Laden was killed)
Just over three months ago, I wrote those words. Today, I pleased to tell you that my prediction was correct. In a new Gallup poll (1) released on Monday, the President’s approval rating has hit a personal low: 39%, with 54% disapproving of the job he is doing. 39% approval, my friends, does not re-elect Presidents. (Side note: What precisely is wrong with the other 39% of Americans?)
In the interest of consistency, I will remind you that Gallup polls American adults, not voters. That said, as I have also chronicled, polls of registered voters and likely voters tend to swing farther to the right.
This is bad news for President Obama, and proportionally good news for America. Even the Drive-By Media has failed to keep the President in the nation’s good graces. Why, you may ask, has the President found himself in America’s proverbial dog house?
The answer, of course, is there is absolutely nothing President Obama can point to and say “Re-elect me and I’ll give you more of what we’ve had in my first term!” More of the same from Obama would mean more spending with zero results and more blaming of Bush.
Ronald Reagan could offer Americans more of the same, by 1984 the economy was growing by leaps and bounds and unemployment was dropping. As much as it pains me to admit this, so could Bill Clinton, although I would argue Clinton, and the nation, could thank Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress for that far more than President Clinton. In 2004, George W. Bush could say that. In 2004, President Bush could boast first and foremost three years after the September 11th attacks without a second attack on American soil, not to mention unemployment at 5.5% and dropping.
Three months ago I told you Obama was imminently beatable. Today, I’m happy to tell you I was correct. Obama’s policies aren’t working. Similar policies have not worked in history in other nations, and they won’t work now. To quote Ronald Reagan, “In our present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” All Obama is offering is more of the problem. Today, I’m pleased to tell you only 54% of Americans don’t want more government. They don’t want more Obama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Gallup Presidential Approval Poll 8-14-11
– Biblical Conservatism, May 4, 2011 (Five days after Osama Bin Laden was killed)
Just over three months ago, I wrote those words. Today, I pleased to tell you that my prediction was correct. In a new Gallup poll (1) released on Monday, the President’s approval rating has hit a personal low: 39%, with 54% disapproving of the job he is doing. 39% approval, my friends, does not re-elect Presidents. (Side note: What precisely is wrong with the other 39% of Americans?)
In the interest of consistency, I will remind you that Gallup polls American adults, not voters. That said, as I have also chronicled, polls of registered voters and likely voters tend to swing farther to the right.
This is bad news for President Obama, and proportionally good news for America. Even the Drive-By Media has failed to keep the President in the nation’s good graces. Why, you may ask, has the President found himself in America’s proverbial dog house?
The answer, of course, is there is absolutely nothing President Obama can point to and say “Re-elect me and I’ll give you more of what we’ve had in my first term!” More of the same from Obama would mean more spending with zero results and more blaming of Bush.
Ronald Reagan could offer Americans more of the same, by 1984 the economy was growing by leaps and bounds and unemployment was dropping. As much as it pains me to admit this, so could Bill Clinton, although I would argue Clinton, and the nation, could thank Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress for that far more than President Clinton. In 2004, George W. Bush could say that. In 2004, President Bush could boast first and foremost three years after the September 11th attacks without a second attack on American soil, not to mention unemployment at 5.5% and dropping.
Three months ago I told you Obama was imminently beatable. Today, I’m happy to tell you I was correct. Obama’s policies aren’t working. Similar policies have not worked in history in other nations, and they won’t work now. To quote Ronald Reagan, “In our present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” All Obama is offering is more of the problem. Today, I’m pleased to tell you only 54% of Americans don’t want more government. They don’t want more Obama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Gallup Presidential Approval Poll 8-14-11
Monday, August 15, 2011
Looking at the 2012 GOP Field after the Ames Straw Poll
This past week has been an interesting one as it pertains to the 2012 Republican Primary season. After the debate on Thursday, the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday, and the entrance of Texas Governor Rick Perry, we’ve seen a lot shake out in the race.
Generally speaking, we have seen the beginnings for a shakeout of the field. In many ways, we’ve seen who is a real candidate for the nomination, which candidates have a chance to be on the eventual GOP ticket but not as the Presidential nominee, and which candidates are pretty much in the race to whistle “Dixie.” We’ve even see one candidate, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, drop out of the race. So let’s actually break down who is, to borrow a term from American Idol, is in it to win it, who is in it to be a Vice Presidential nominee, and who is just whistling “Dixie.” (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, whistling “Dixie” means “wasting their time.”)
Please note: All of these things can change, remember, it’s four months until actual votes are cast.
Real Nominee Competitors
Mitt Romney: This is the obvious one, of course. He’s the GOP frontrunner, he leads pretty much every national poll. (Although, we must remember, national polls are not a good prediction of who will win the nomination, because primaries are held over time, and as we move along the process, candidates drop out and their supporters are sent elsewhere.) Romney is not my first choice, by far, however, he’s a far better choice than Barrack Obama. So would be any candidate in the race, or most people in existence, a few intelligent dogs I’ve met (including my parents golden retriever Buster) or the Looney Tune rooster Foghorn Leghorn.
Michelle Bachmann: Congresswoman Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday. She is the Tea Party favorite in the race, and, as the field looks now, my personal choice to be the Republican nominee. Bachmann’s showing in the Straw Poll, a show that, regardless of what the Drive-By Media is telling us (largely because they wish it were true, not because it is true), the Tea Party is going to be a huge player in this election.
Rick Perry: Governor Perry did not participate in the Iowa Straw Poll Saturday; as a matter of fact he wasn’t an official candidate until Saturday. I will be honest, I don’t know a lot about Governor Perry. He was George W. Bush’s Lieutenant Governor before Bush was elected President. Perry ascended to the Governorship in 2000 when Bush resigned as President-Elect, but has been re-elected on his own three times. From what I’ve read, he has legitimate Conservative credentials. At any rate, he’s a legitimate contender, at least for now.
Vice Presidential Contenders
Herman Cain: I like Cain, I really do. He’s got real business experience in the business world. Unfortunately, the last time we elected a person with zero political experience to the White House, he was five-star General Dwight Eisenhower. I’ll be honest, I don’t see him winning the nomination, even though I do honestly believe he is qualified. However, Cain would make an excellent Vice Presidential Nominee. He’s got real business credentials, he’s a legitimate Conservative, and it would also be fun to be able to throw that back at Liberals who claim racism when people don’t like Obama.
Rick Santorum: Santorum’s candidacy reminds me a bit of John Edwards’ candidacy in 2004. (Not in terms of policy, mind you, but in terms of his place in the race.) I don’t see him as President. I can, however, see him as the #2. He’s a legislative guy with legitimate Conservative credentials who can debate. He gives a good speech and debates pretty well. I’m not saying with certainty I see him as a top flight Vice Presidential nominee option. But I do see him as a potential option.
Whistling Dixie
Ron Paul: I know I have at least one reader who is an avid Ron Paul supporter, and perhaps others, so I’ll apologize to you now. That said, I don’t see Ron Paul winning the nomination. He’s off the path from most mainstream Republicans. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong in his policies. Unfortunately, he’s the GOP’s answer to Dennis Kucinich. Like him or not, agree with him or not, he’s not going to get the nomination. I know he came in 2nd at the Iowa Straw Poll, but I’ll just be realistic here. Also, as far as Paul as a VP option, I don’t see Paul setting aside his firmly held beliefs to support the eventual nominee’s policies. (By the way, I respect the heck out of him for that.)
Jon Huntsman: Huntsman is the Drive-By Media’s favorite RINO Republican. They’re trying to pass him off on us because he’s a wimpy RINO who would play the lame compromise game. He’s in the same category as Bob Dole and John McCain. In our modern climate where Conservatism is the philosophy that a plurality of Americans supports and with the Tea Party leading the way, a candidate like Huntsman is going nowhere. (Thank you Jesus that a RINO doesn’t have a chance.)
Newt Gingrich: Gingrich is someone who I thought had a chance to be a game-changer and a real Presidential candidate…in 1996 or 2000. He was the leader of the 1994 Republican Revolution. Unfortunately, the political life expectancy on the national stage is only about five to ten years. There are younger candidates who are bursting on the stage like Michelle Bachmann, like Rick Perry. There are more young candidates who are new to the Senate or early in their Governorships that will be the next generation of national candidates, like Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Rand Paul (Ron might not have a snowball’s chance of being President himself, but he could be the President’s father), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Gingrich is yesterday’s news, and he’s going nowhere in 2012.
Tim Pawlenty: Governor Pawlenty dropped out of the race, so I think this is self-explanatory.
There are one or two potential candidates who may enter the race, like former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (here’s hoping) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Guliani.
I would put Palin in the “real contender” category, noting that Michelle Bachmann’s poll numbers were in the same low levels nationally as Palin’s are before the American people got to see Bachmann personally (and find out she isn’t a fire-breathing dragon or whatever else liberals claim about her).
I would put Guliani in the “Whistling Dixie” category for two reasons. One, like Gingrich, he’s yesterday’s news. Two, many Americans don’t see being a Mayor as a legitimate stepping stone to the Presidency. Personally, I believe being Mayor of New York City requires is akin to being the Governor of a state like Rhode Island, North and South Dakota. For that matter states like Virginia and Massachusetts have smaller populations than New York City. Personally, I wanted Guliani to run for Governor of New York, largely because he’s about as Conservative as one can get in New York State.
Friends, the field is starting to form levels. It is possible these levels will see adjustment. However, we’re starting to see the tiers form. Changes can happen, remember, votes won’t be cast for four months, but for now, we’re seeing the race start to shape up.
Generally speaking, we have seen the beginnings for a shakeout of the field. In many ways, we’ve seen who is a real candidate for the nomination, which candidates have a chance to be on the eventual GOP ticket but not as the Presidential nominee, and which candidates are pretty much in the race to whistle “Dixie.” We’ve even see one candidate, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, drop out of the race. So let’s actually break down who is, to borrow a term from American Idol, is in it to win it, who is in it to be a Vice Presidential nominee, and who is just whistling “Dixie.” (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, whistling “Dixie” means “wasting their time.”)
Please note: All of these things can change, remember, it’s four months until actual votes are cast.
Real Nominee Competitors
Mitt Romney: This is the obvious one, of course. He’s the GOP frontrunner, he leads pretty much every national poll. (Although, we must remember, national polls are not a good prediction of who will win the nomination, because primaries are held over time, and as we move along the process, candidates drop out and their supporters are sent elsewhere.) Romney is not my first choice, by far, however, he’s a far better choice than Barrack Obama. So would be any candidate in the race, or most people in existence, a few intelligent dogs I’ve met (including my parents golden retriever Buster) or the Looney Tune rooster Foghorn Leghorn.
Michelle Bachmann: Congresswoman Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday. She is the Tea Party favorite in the race, and, as the field looks now, my personal choice to be the Republican nominee. Bachmann’s showing in the Straw Poll, a show that, regardless of what the Drive-By Media is telling us (largely because they wish it were true, not because it is true), the Tea Party is going to be a huge player in this election.
Rick Perry: Governor Perry did not participate in the Iowa Straw Poll Saturday; as a matter of fact he wasn’t an official candidate until Saturday. I will be honest, I don’t know a lot about Governor Perry. He was George W. Bush’s Lieutenant Governor before Bush was elected President. Perry ascended to the Governorship in 2000 when Bush resigned as President-Elect, but has been re-elected on his own three times. From what I’ve read, he has legitimate Conservative credentials. At any rate, he’s a legitimate contender, at least for now.
Vice Presidential Contenders
Herman Cain: I like Cain, I really do. He’s got real business experience in the business world. Unfortunately, the last time we elected a person with zero political experience to the White House, he was five-star General Dwight Eisenhower. I’ll be honest, I don’t see him winning the nomination, even though I do honestly believe he is qualified. However, Cain would make an excellent Vice Presidential Nominee. He’s got real business credentials, he’s a legitimate Conservative, and it would also be fun to be able to throw that back at Liberals who claim racism when people don’t like Obama.
Rick Santorum: Santorum’s candidacy reminds me a bit of John Edwards’ candidacy in 2004. (Not in terms of policy, mind you, but in terms of his place in the race.) I don’t see him as President. I can, however, see him as the #2. He’s a legislative guy with legitimate Conservative credentials who can debate. He gives a good speech and debates pretty well. I’m not saying with certainty I see him as a top flight Vice Presidential nominee option. But I do see him as a potential option.
Whistling Dixie
Ron Paul: I know I have at least one reader who is an avid Ron Paul supporter, and perhaps others, so I’ll apologize to you now. That said, I don’t see Ron Paul winning the nomination. He’s off the path from most mainstream Republicans. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong in his policies. Unfortunately, he’s the GOP’s answer to Dennis Kucinich. Like him or not, agree with him or not, he’s not going to get the nomination. I know he came in 2nd at the Iowa Straw Poll, but I’ll just be realistic here. Also, as far as Paul as a VP option, I don’t see Paul setting aside his firmly held beliefs to support the eventual nominee’s policies. (By the way, I respect the heck out of him for that.)
Jon Huntsman: Huntsman is the Drive-By Media’s favorite RINO Republican. They’re trying to pass him off on us because he’s a wimpy RINO who would play the lame compromise game. He’s in the same category as Bob Dole and John McCain. In our modern climate where Conservatism is the philosophy that a plurality of Americans supports and with the Tea Party leading the way, a candidate like Huntsman is going nowhere. (Thank you Jesus that a RINO doesn’t have a chance.)
Newt Gingrich: Gingrich is someone who I thought had a chance to be a game-changer and a real Presidential candidate…in 1996 or 2000. He was the leader of the 1994 Republican Revolution. Unfortunately, the political life expectancy on the national stage is only about five to ten years. There are younger candidates who are bursting on the stage like Michelle Bachmann, like Rick Perry. There are more young candidates who are new to the Senate or early in their Governorships that will be the next generation of national candidates, like Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Rand Paul (Ron might not have a snowball’s chance of being President himself, but he could be the President’s father), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Gingrich is yesterday’s news, and he’s going nowhere in 2012.
Tim Pawlenty: Governor Pawlenty dropped out of the race, so I think this is self-explanatory.
There are one or two potential candidates who may enter the race, like former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (here’s hoping) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Guliani.
I would put Palin in the “real contender” category, noting that Michelle Bachmann’s poll numbers were in the same low levels nationally as Palin’s are before the American people got to see Bachmann personally (and find out she isn’t a fire-breathing dragon or whatever else liberals claim about her).
I would put Guliani in the “Whistling Dixie” category for two reasons. One, like Gingrich, he’s yesterday’s news. Two, many Americans don’t see being a Mayor as a legitimate stepping stone to the Presidency. Personally, I believe being Mayor of New York City requires is akin to being the Governor of a state like Rhode Island, North and South Dakota. For that matter states like Virginia and Massachusetts have smaller populations than New York City. Personally, I wanted Guliani to run for Governor of New York, largely because he’s about as Conservative as one can get in New York State.
Friends, the field is starting to form levels. It is possible these levels will see adjustment. However, we’re starting to see the tiers form. Changes can happen, remember, votes won’t be cast for four months, but for now, we’re seeing the race start to shape up.
Friday, August 12, 2011
New Gallup Poll - Obama's in DEEP Trouble in 2012
Since the beginning of this blog in December of 2010, I've been telling you that President Obama is in trouble, electorally speaking, in 2012. Early this week, Gallup just backed it up. According to six months of Gallup's rolling daily approval polls, the President is over 50% approval in only sixteen states. (1) (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means if the election was held today, the President would likely lose 34 states.
(2)
(1)
(1) Obama Job Approval 50% or Higher in 16 States and D.C.
(2) Map Courtesy of the Washington Examiner
(2)By the numbers according to gallup, 18 states have very low approval for Obama, so much so that you can reasonably expect that Obama will lose those states hands down. There are, by the math, 156 electoral votes are firmly going to the GOP. The 16 states where Obama does have approval ratings would provide 173 electoral votes for Obama. That means there are 209 votes up for grabs. Guess what...those 209 belong to states where the President has below 50% approval. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, that means if the election was held today, Obama would lose those states and their electoral votes.)
(1)Remember, the electoral college, with the exception of two states (ME and NE), gives each states electoral votes in their entirety to the winner of that state's popular votes. Four states, (ME, MI, WI, and WA) are at exactly 50% approval for the President. That means 42 electoral votes are pretty much up for grabs.
The breakdown, however, if the election was held today, and if these approval ratings bear out, the final would be:
Republican Candidate: 323 electoral votes
President Obama: 173 electoral votes
Undecided: 42 electoral votes
Remember, 270 votes are needed to win. Even if Obama sweeps the four states that are at 50%, he still loses in a landslide.
Friends, the President is in DEEP electoral trouble in 2012. A Generic Republican has been beating Obama for several weeks now. Now, looking at this Gallup poll, we see what Obama's fate would be in the electoral college...it's not good for Obama, but great for America.
So, as the guy who's been telling you how imminently beatable Obama is for months, I'd like thank Gallup for proving it. To the Republican Party, now is not the time for a gray area RINO moderate nominee. Bring on the real Conservatives, because 2012 is looking more and more like our year!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Obama Job Approval 50% or Higher in 16 States and D.C.
(2) Map Courtesy of the Washington Examiner
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - Assigning Blame
For the past few days, we've delved into the problems with the debt limit deal that was signed last week. Today, we're going to talk about who is to blame for this bad deal, and there is plenty to go around.
Before we get to the deal, I'm going to tell you who ISN'T to blame: the Tea Party. Despite what the President and the Drive-By Media are trying to tell us, the Tea Party tried to do the right thing. S & P gave a specific recommendation to avoid a drop in our credit rating: cut at least $4 Trillion over the next ten years. The Cut, Cap and Balance plan did just that and more. When the House was given the chance to vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, they passed it. Then Harry Reid refused to let it see a vote in the Senate. Many Tea Party members even refused to vote for the deal that was ultimately passed. I’ve said since the election that we need to keep a separate scorecard for the Tea Party. In this debate, the Tea Party gets A’s.
Now to pass out blame: I’m going to break with my usual pattern here, and start with the old guard Republicans. This includes the RINOs, but it’s not just the Republicans in name only to blame here. There are some legitimate Republicans who caved on this deal. Speaker Boehner, I’ve defended you, but you are chief amongst the cavers.
Speaker Boehner and other Republicans acted in fear. Typical of modern GOP, there was a widespread fear that if the GOP didn’t pass a debt limit increase, the Drive-By Media would be super mean to Republicans and call them mean names and generally pick on them and ultimately blame them for the default. Just for the record, what would you call what’s going on now?
The Drive-By Media and Liberals in general were always going to blame the Republican Party. They’ve tried to blame the Tea Party for the S & P credit rating downgrade, which we’ve already shown is as ridiculous as finding an emotional engineer. (To any engineers reading, I have the utmost respect for engineers. My hero, my late grandfather, was an engineer. No offense intended.) The choice for the GOP to avoid blame didn’t exist. What did exist was a choice between being criticized for doing the right thing or being criticized for doing the wrong thing. The GOP chose to do the wrong thing.
I for one am absolutely sick and tired of the cowardice shown by the old guard GOP. We put you back in power so you could do things the right way, not play politics as usual. You’ve chosen to play politics as usual. As a Tea Party member, I can guarantee you that you will be facing primary challenges in 2012 in the best case scenario. (Speaker Boehner, that means you.) At worst, if wiser heads do not prevail, you may have just divided the GOP.
Now to the Democratic Party and President Obama: You had no plan, but continually shot down every plan suggested. You continued to demand tax increases in a bad economy with unemployment remaining above 9%, a move that would have been poison to the economy, because it’s page one in your playbook. Rather than do the right thing for the American people, you demonized the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that 66% of Americans supported and refused to even let it come to a vote. When I called the GOP cowards, I saved some for you too. You were too cowardly to do the right thing in favor of sticking to your politics.
America is not Liberal. We do not want your redistributionist policies. That’s why you have to lie about them to get elected and pretend to be moderates. In 2010 we shellacked you. In 2012, be ready for more of the same as the Tea Party continues to take over the American political scene.
In the end, this bad deal is bad for America. Even with the cuts included, we will be doubling our debt in the next ten years. It is a mathematical certainty that if we continue to spend in deficits to this degree we will ultimately be bankrupt. It is time to get our fiscal house in order, and that means real, significant cuts in spending. $2.1 Trillion in cuts is not enough. We needed to get to the point where we are cutting $16 Trillion over ten years. We cannot afford more of this spending. It’s time to get really serious about cutting spending. With the exception of the Tea Party, no one in elected office is serious. That means it’s time to get rid of them. 2012, here we come!
Before we get to the deal, I'm going to tell you who ISN'T to blame: the Tea Party. Despite what the President and the Drive-By Media are trying to tell us, the Tea Party tried to do the right thing. S & P gave a specific recommendation to avoid a drop in our credit rating: cut at least $4 Trillion over the next ten years. The Cut, Cap and Balance plan did just that and more. When the House was given the chance to vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, they passed it. Then Harry Reid refused to let it see a vote in the Senate. Many Tea Party members even refused to vote for the deal that was ultimately passed. I’ve said since the election that we need to keep a separate scorecard for the Tea Party. In this debate, the Tea Party gets A’s.
Now to pass out blame: I’m going to break with my usual pattern here, and start with the old guard Republicans. This includes the RINOs, but it’s not just the Republicans in name only to blame here. There are some legitimate Republicans who caved on this deal. Speaker Boehner, I’ve defended you, but you are chief amongst the cavers.
Speaker Boehner and other Republicans acted in fear. Typical of modern GOP, there was a widespread fear that if the GOP didn’t pass a debt limit increase, the Drive-By Media would be super mean to Republicans and call them mean names and generally pick on them and ultimately blame them for the default. Just for the record, what would you call what’s going on now?
The Drive-By Media and Liberals in general were always going to blame the Republican Party. They’ve tried to blame the Tea Party for the S & P credit rating downgrade, which we’ve already shown is as ridiculous as finding an emotional engineer. (To any engineers reading, I have the utmost respect for engineers. My hero, my late grandfather, was an engineer. No offense intended.) The choice for the GOP to avoid blame didn’t exist. What did exist was a choice between being criticized for doing the right thing or being criticized for doing the wrong thing. The GOP chose to do the wrong thing.
I for one am absolutely sick and tired of the cowardice shown by the old guard GOP. We put you back in power so you could do things the right way, not play politics as usual. You’ve chosen to play politics as usual. As a Tea Party member, I can guarantee you that you will be facing primary challenges in 2012 in the best case scenario. (Speaker Boehner, that means you.) At worst, if wiser heads do not prevail, you may have just divided the GOP.
Now to the Democratic Party and President Obama: You had no plan, but continually shot down every plan suggested. You continued to demand tax increases in a bad economy with unemployment remaining above 9%, a move that would have been poison to the economy, because it’s page one in your playbook. Rather than do the right thing for the American people, you demonized the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that 66% of Americans supported and refused to even let it come to a vote. When I called the GOP cowards, I saved some for you too. You were too cowardly to do the right thing in favor of sticking to your politics.
America is not Liberal. We do not want your redistributionist policies. That’s why you have to lie about them to get elected and pretend to be moderates. In 2010 we shellacked you. In 2012, be ready for more of the same as the Tea Party continues to take over the American political scene.
In the end, this bad deal is bad for America. Even with the cuts included, we will be doubling our debt in the next ten years. It is a mathematical certainty that if we continue to spend in deficits to this degree we will ultimately be bankrupt. It is time to get our fiscal house in order, and that means real, significant cuts in spending. $2.1 Trillion in cuts is not enough. We needed to get to the point where we are cutting $16 Trillion over ten years. We cannot afford more of this spending. It’s time to get really serious about cutting spending. With the exception of the Tea Party, no one in elected office is serious. That means it’s time to get rid of them. 2012, here we come!
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - Credit Rating Reduced
All this week we've been discussing reactions to the Debt Limit deal reached last week. Today, we're going to talk about the issue of our dropped credit rating by Standard and Poors.
Two weeks ago, S & P stated that there was a 50/50 chance that, if the debt deal did not consist of at least $4 Trillion in cuts over 10 years, that the United States would lose it's AAA Credit Rating. After the deal, S & P dropped our rating to AA+. It was predicted in many places, by the way, including here at Biblical Conservatism. (1) This deal fell tragically short of the $4 Trillion that S & P said would allow the United States to avoid the rating decrease (fell short by nearly half, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).
As Rush Limbaugh commented Monday, Obama has spent so much time talking about what he "inherited from George W. Bush." Well, as Limbaugh noted, Obama inherited a AAA credit rating from Bush. He has officially squandered it by failing to make sufficient cuts to our deficits over the next 10 years. S & P stated in it's report that included the credit rating drop,
"Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow." (2)
For those of you who haven't studied economics, that the spending cuts are not enough to offset the growing debt burden. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means we're going to continue to owe lots and lots of money while bringing in not enough money to pay for the lots and lots of money we owe.
Further, S & P has stated:
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. (2)
For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means our rating could drop more. We are on a trajectory to eventually have our entire budget be required to service the debt, or borrow money to pay the debt, at any rate it's a path to bankruptcy, eventually. We cannot continue to add $15 Trillion or so to our debt every decade. Ultimately, we will drown in debt. We will dream of having an AA+ credit rating at that point.
We needed to make much larger cuts and move toward a balanced budget to be able to return our national credit to the AAA rating and we need to get to a point where we are paying off our debt. I've been in debt. I've paid it off by intentionally not incurring new debt and living on less money than I had coming in. I didn't get out of debt by continuing to charge more on my credit cards. Make no mistake about it, we deserved this downgrade.
Further, we were not downgraded because the Tea Party demanded larger cuts. We were downgraded because we failed to cut ENOUGH. S & P told us last week that if we didn't cut at least $4 Trillion we would quite possibly see our rating cut. We failed to cut $4 Trillion, and our rating was cut. We spend too much and we borrow too much. Period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Debt Limit Alone Won't Save AAA Credit Rating
(2) United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative
Two weeks ago, S & P stated that there was a 50/50 chance that, if the debt deal did not consist of at least $4 Trillion in cuts over 10 years, that the United States would lose it's AAA Credit Rating. After the deal, S & P dropped our rating to AA+. It was predicted in many places, by the way, including here at Biblical Conservatism. (1) This deal fell tragically short of the $4 Trillion that S & P said would allow the United States to avoid the rating decrease (fell short by nearly half, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).
As Rush Limbaugh commented Monday, Obama has spent so much time talking about what he "inherited from George W. Bush." Well, as Limbaugh noted, Obama inherited a AAA credit rating from Bush. He has officially squandered it by failing to make sufficient cuts to our deficits over the next 10 years. S & P stated in it's report that included the credit rating drop,
"Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow." (2)
For those of you who haven't studied economics, that the spending cuts are not enough to offset the growing debt burden. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means we're going to continue to owe lots and lots of money while bringing in not enough money to pay for the lots and lots of money we owe.
Further, S & P has stated:
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. (2)
For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means our rating could drop more. We are on a trajectory to eventually have our entire budget be required to service the debt, or borrow money to pay the debt, at any rate it's a path to bankruptcy, eventually. We cannot continue to add $15 Trillion or so to our debt every decade. Ultimately, we will drown in debt. We will dream of having an AA+ credit rating at that point.
We needed to make much larger cuts and move toward a balanced budget to be able to return our national credit to the AAA rating and we need to get to a point where we are paying off our debt. I've been in debt. I've paid it off by intentionally not incurring new debt and living on less money than I had coming in. I didn't get out of debt by continuing to charge more on my credit cards. Make no mistake about it, we deserved this downgrade.
Further, we were not downgraded because the Tea Party demanded larger cuts. We were downgraded because we failed to cut ENOUGH. S & P told us last week that if we didn't cut at least $4 Trillion we would quite possibly see our rating cut. We failed to cut $4 Trillion, and our rating was cut. We spend too much and we borrow too much. Period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Debt Limit Alone Won't Save AAA Credit Rating
(2) United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - The Trigger Cuts Problem
Yesterday, I began our response to the bad debt limit deal that was passed last week. Today, we'll deal with the issues of the automatically triggered cuts that will go into effect if the necessary cuts are not specifically chosen.
The problem with the automatic triggers included is that the $1.5 Trillion in trigger cuts are set up to be split evenly between domestic spending and defense spending. That means $750 Billion, spread out over 10 years, goes right to our national defense. That translates into $75 Billion in cuts each year. That is A LOT for one department to deal with, especially considering That is out of a defense budget of about $660 Billion. (Note: Since there is no 2010 or 2011 Federal Budget, thanks to Obama and the Democrats, I have to use 2009 spending levels for these numbers.) It’s a pretty big cut, 11.3% in total.
Now I’m asked frequently by people I debate with why Conservatives consider defense spending to be untouchable. Please read this: It’s not untouchable, provided said cuts don’t harm our ability to protect ourselves. To quote one of my favorite movies, “We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be defended by men with guns.” It’s a true statement. Unfortunately, our nation cannot be defended in this world with a citizen militia. It’s simply not possible. To return to the John Locke foundation of government for a moment: Provision for a common defense is one of the primary purposes of government. So to mix in that much of the cuts into defense spending is irresponsible, especially considering that programs like Medicare and Social Security, which are causing far more deficits just by proportion, see so much less.
Let’s also consider the percentages $2.891 Trillion was the total Federal spending, discretionary and mandatory. A cut of $750 Billion per year out of that total is cutting just under 2.6% from the remaining budget. So this deal cuts 11.3% of defense spending, but only 2.6% of other spending? That is preposterous. Our problem is not military spending, despite the fact that liberals would have you believe that $100 Billion in spending on Iraq and Afghanistan per year and $130 Billion in tax cuts (no, I am not saying tax cuts cost money, I’m just explaining the fallacy in liberal rhetoric) explains $1.65 Trillion deficits. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, $230 Billion DOES NOT equal $1.65 Trillion. Liberals won’t tell you what costs the other $1.42 Trillion in deficits are from other spending.
It’s Liberalism 101: The only thing we can cut is defense, because liberal politicians will make rouge nations love us anyway (how’s that worked out). When half the cuts come from defense and the other half come from the rest of our domestic spending, that’s a bad policy. Yes, I believe some defense cuts are reasonable. $100 Billion or so is going to be cut automatically by the ending of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard soldiers tell me that the 1990s peace dividend was good for the military because it required them to become more fiscally responsible. But automatically cutting 11.3% of our military budget is a dangerous gambit, one that makes us less safe.
The problem with the automatic triggers included is that the $1.5 Trillion in trigger cuts are set up to be split evenly between domestic spending and defense spending. That means $750 Billion, spread out over 10 years, goes right to our national defense. That translates into $75 Billion in cuts each year. That is A LOT for one department to deal with, especially considering That is out of a defense budget of about $660 Billion. (Note: Since there is no 2010 or 2011 Federal Budget, thanks to Obama and the Democrats, I have to use 2009 spending levels for these numbers.) It’s a pretty big cut, 11.3% in total.
Now I’m asked frequently by people I debate with why Conservatives consider defense spending to be untouchable. Please read this: It’s not untouchable, provided said cuts don’t harm our ability to protect ourselves. To quote one of my favorite movies, “We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be defended by men with guns.” It’s a true statement. Unfortunately, our nation cannot be defended in this world with a citizen militia. It’s simply not possible. To return to the John Locke foundation of government for a moment: Provision for a common defense is one of the primary purposes of government. So to mix in that much of the cuts into defense spending is irresponsible, especially considering that programs like Medicare and Social Security, which are causing far more deficits just by proportion, see so much less.
Let’s also consider the percentages $2.891 Trillion was the total Federal spending, discretionary and mandatory. A cut of $750 Billion per year out of that total is cutting just under 2.6% from the remaining budget. So this deal cuts 11.3% of defense spending, but only 2.6% of other spending? That is preposterous. Our problem is not military spending, despite the fact that liberals would have you believe that $100 Billion in spending on Iraq and Afghanistan per year and $130 Billion in tax cuts (no, I am not saying tax cuts cost money, I’m just explaining the fallacy in liberal rhetoric) explains $1.65 Trillion deficits. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, $230 Billion DOES NOT equal $1.65 Trillion. Liberals won’t tell you what costs the other $1.42 Trillion in deficits are from other spending.
It’s Liberalism 101: The only thing we can cut is defense, because liberal politicians will make rouge nations love us anyway (how’s that worked out). When half the cuts come from defense and the other half come from the rest of our domestic spending, that’s a bad policy. Yes, I believe some defense cuts are reasonable. $100 Billion or so is going to be cut automatically by the ending of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard soldiers tell me that the 1990s peace dividend was good for the military because it required them to become more fiscally responsible. But automatically cutting 11.3% of our military budget is a dangerous gambit, one that makes us less safe.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Reactions to the Debt Limit Deal - By the Percentages
To my regular readers: I apologize that it has taken nearly a week for me to offer my response to the debt ceiling deal that was passed by Congress last week. As my notes on my “Treatise on Biblical Conservatism” that was posted last week stated, I was on vacation and unable to pen a response. However, the silver lining to this delay is the ability to see the reactions to the deal that happened in the past week and thus the ability to respond to them. Quite frankly, there is too much to deal with in one day’s posting, so we’re going to analyze this deal over the next few days.
Last week, Democrats and Republicans agreed to increase the nation’s debt limit by $2.1 Trillion in exchange for cuts in the amount of $2.5 Trillion. Since that deal was struck, there have been many, many commentaries on the deal. Nearly a week after the deal was signed; it’s time for a Biblical Conservatism reaction.
It’s an insufficient deal, pure and simple. Many of my fellow Conservatives are calling this a bad deal, and I’m forced to agree. It’s bad for America, because it failed to begin to deal with the real spending issues our nation is currently facing in any real way. Yes, there were $1 Trillion in immediate caps in spending, which are insufficient, but at least a positive step, and a demand for $1.5 Trillion to be cut in the following 10 years. On the surface, it seems like a start, albeit a very slow start.
Yet there are problems with this deal. Today, we’ll deal with the first issue, the deal by the percentages:
Let’s be generous and assume those cuts happen. After all, there is a provision in the deal that has been passed into law that requires those cuts to happen…so if the committee that has been created by the law does not enact those cuts, they will be automatically triggered. (There’s a huge issue with the nature of those triggers which we will discuss later.) We’ll also be generous to Congress and assume that the GOP will, at the very least, disallow any new spending by Obama and the Democrats, and thus we will assume that the 2011 spending levels (remember, there was no budget, thanks to Obama and the Democrats) will be maintained for the next ten years. So we’ll assume a $3.82 Trillion in expenditures annually and $2.17 Trillion in incoming revenue, meaning an annual deficit of $1.65 Trillion.
So, if we simply assume maintenance of those amounts, we’re staring down the barrel of $16.5 Trillion in new deficits (and thus new debt) in the next ten years. With the $2.5 Trillion in cuts spread across the next ten years, that’s a mere $250 Billion in cuts per year. It’s not very much. It leaves us with $1.4 Trillion in deficit spending each year. With the cuts included in the debt deal, we are down to a mere $14 Trillion in new deficit spending and thus new debt in the next 10 years. That means, with these cuts, we’re down to just under DOUBLING our debt in the next 10 years. That is not only unacceptable, it is absolutely irresponsible!
Liberals are guaranteed to try to tell you that we can make up that difference by, what else, taxing the rich, but friends, that is a lie. We cannot make up $1.4 Trillion in budget deficits by taxing the wealthy. It’s been said many times that if we were to confiscate every dollar earned over $250,000 per year and it would not make a dent in that deficit. It’s not going to make a difference.
Cutting a lousy $250 Billion each year is NOTHING. It’s not going to save this country from bankruptcy. Obama and the Democrats are not willing to make the cuts that need made. There is not enough money to keep programs like Social Security and Medicare alive for my generation. I’m paying social security taxes every paycheck, and I can basically guarantee that I will never see a dime of that money back, because right now Obama and the Democrats want to keep buying votes on the backs of the American taxpayer.
The Republicans aren’t getting off scot-free either. Speaker Boehner cut a deal that isn’t doing enough. I will grant them a bit more grace because I honestly believe a better deal would have happened with a Republican Senate and President. That being said, the GOP has a severe losers mentality. We are constantly on defense. Even though 2/3 of Americans supported the Cut, Cap and Balance plan, the GOP accepted this bad deal.
Americans are on our side, yet the Republican Party keeps acting like we have to eat the crumbs off the table. To be more specific, the old guard Republicans are used to accepting the crumbs off the table. I’ve had enough of it, and I know you have too. The Tea Party, on the other hand, has stood up for what was right and did their best to protect the American people.
I will continue to say that a third party is not the answer. A third party means Obama wins a second term. Ronald Reagan famously stated that what we need is not a third party, what we need is a revitalized second party. The Tea Party has business to conduct, no question. The place to conduct it is not going to be in the general election, but in the primaries.
Speaker Boehner needs to face a primary challenge, not because he isn’t Conservative enough…I believe in his heart he truly is a Conservative…but because he is a political coward. He’s afraid of the media saying mean things about him. He’s afraid to not be a part of the political elite. There are Conservatives in the House of Representatives who won’t cave. Paul Ryan is one. Another, if she doesn’t get the GOP nomination for President, anyway, is Michelle Bachmann. There are others as well.
Make no mistake about it, the answer is not for the Tea Party to become a third party. The answer is for the Tea Party to BECOME the Republican Party. Two election cycles at best, and we’ll be the GOP. That means no more bad debt deals, no more bad budget deals, no more political games. That, my friends, is the answer.
Tomorrow, we’ll continue discussing the debt deal by discussing the automatically triggered cuts that will go into effect if the bipartisan committee does not come up with the necessary cuts for the next ten years.
Last week, Democrats and Republicans agreed to increase the nation’s debt limit by $2.1 Trillion in exchange for cuts in the amount of $2.5 Trillion. Since that deal was struck, there have been many, many commentaries on the deal. Nearly a week after the deal was signed; it’s time for a Biblical Conservatism reaction.
It’s an insufficient deal, pure and simple. Many of my fellow Conservatives are calling this a bad deal, and I’m forced to agree. It’s bad for America, because it failed to begin to deal with the real spending issues our nation is currently facing in any real way. Yes, there were $1 Trillion in immediate caps in spending, which are insufficient, but at least a positive step, and a demand for $1.5 Trillion to be cut in the following 10 years. On the surface, it seems like a start, albeit a very slow start.
Yet there are problems with this deal. Today, we’ll deal with the first issue, the deal by the percentages:
Let’s be generous and assume those cuts happen. After all, there is a provision in the deal that has been passed into law that requires those cuts to happen…so if the committee that has been created by the law does not enact those cuts, they will be automatically triggered. (There’s a huge issue with the nature of those triggers which we will discuss later.) We’ll also be generous to Congress and assume that the GOP will, at the very least, disallow any new spending by Obama and the Democrats, and thus we will assume that the 2011 spending levels (remember, there was no budget, thanks to Obama and the Democrats) will be maintained for the next ten years. So we’ll assume a $3.82 Trillion in expenditures annually and $2.17 Trillion in incoming revenue, meaning an annual deficit of $1.65 Trillion.
So, if we simply assume maintenance of those amounts, we’re staring down the barrel of $16.5 Trillion in new deficits (and thus new debt) in the next ten years. With the $2.5 Trillion in cuts spread across the next ten years, that’s a mere $250 Billion in cuts per year. It’s not very much. It leaves us with $1.4 Trillion in deficit spending each year. With the cuts included in the debt deal, we are down to a mere $14 Trillion in new deficit spending and thus new debt in the next 10 years. That means, with these cuts, we’re down to just under DOUBLING our debt in the next 10 years. That is not only unacceptable, it is absolutely irresponsible!
Liberals are guaranteed to try to tell you that we can make up that difference by, what else, taxing the rich, but friends, that is a lie. We cannot make up $1.4 Trillion in budget deficits by taxing the wealthy. It’s been said many times that if we were to confiscate every dollar earned over $250,000 per year and it would not make a dent in that deficit. It’s not going to make a difference.
Cutting a lousy $250 Billion each year is NOTHING. It’s not going to save this country from bankruptcy. Obama and the Democrats are not willing to make the cuts that need made. There is not enough money to keep programs like Social Security and Medicare alive for my generation. I’m paying social security taxes every paycheck, and I can basically guarantee that I will never see a dime of that money back, because right now Obama and the Democrats want to keep buying votes on the backs of the American taxpayer.
The Republicans aren’t getting off scot-free either. Speaker Boehner cut a deal that isn’t doing enough. I will grant them a bit more grace because I honestly believe a better deal would have happened with a Republican Senate and President. That being said, the GOP has a severe losers mentality. We are constantly on defense. Even though 2/3 of Americans supported the Cut, Cap and Balance plan, the GOP accepted this bad deal.
Americans are on our side, yet the Republican Party keeps acting like we have to eat the crumbs off the table. To be more specific, the old guard Republicans are used to accepting the crumbs off the table. I’ve had enough of it, and I know you have too. The Tea Party, on the other hand, has stood up for what was right and did their best to protect the American people.
I will continue to say that a third party is not the answer. A third party means Obama wins a second term. Ronald Reagan famously stated that what we need is not a third party, what we need is a revitalized second party. The Tea Party has business to conduct, no question. The place to conduct it is not going to be in the general election, but in the primaries.
Speaker Boehner needs to face a primary challenge, not because he isn’t Conservative enough…I believe in his heart he truly is a Conservative…but because he is a political coward. He’s afraid of the media saying mean things about him. He’s afraid to not be a part of the political elite. There are Conservatives in the House of Representatives who won’t cave. Paul Ryan is one. Another, if she doesn’t get the GOP nomination for President, anyway, is Michelle Bachmann. There are others as well.
Make no mistake about it, the answer is not for the Tea Party to become a third party. The answer is for the Tea Party to BECOME the Republican Party. Two election cycles at best, and we’ll be the GOP. That means no more bad debt deals, no more bad budget deals, no more political games. That, my friends, is the answer.
Tomorrow, we’ll continue discussing the debt deal by discussing the automatically triggered cuts that will go into effect if the bipartisan committee does not come up with the necessary cuts for the next ten years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)