As I said back in November, Newt's campaign is beginning to fall apart. Another shooting star has fallen. It's time to get serious.
Paul's rise is troubling. To put it mildly, it sends the wrong message. An isolationist at the top of the ticket? Someone who thinks the Civil War was a bad idea? Or saying there was 'glee' in the Bush administration after 9/11 because now they had an excuse to invade Iraq? Or saying we need to take out the CIA? Then there's the bigoted newsletters. . . and this is just stuff I found browsing on the web!
Monday, December 19, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Romney Prefers To Lose Primary Than Renounce RomneyCare
The voters just might accomodate his preference.
--dmac
Rasmussen NH poll
The latest Rasmussen NH poll is out. Romney's lead is still comfortable, but it has shrunk.
Over a week ago I noted a poll which saw a large drop in Romney's support and characterized it as a collapse. I don't know much about that particular pollster to know if it is reliable or not. Other polls coming out since then have not shown the same low level, and only one had any prior data points to determine any trend. The Rasmussen poll seems to agree with the general trend, though I don't think it really consitutes a collapse.
10/25 11/28 chg
Romney 41 34 -7
Gingrich 8 24 +16
Paul 11 14 +3
Huntsman 7 11 +4
Cain 17 5 -12
Perry 4 2 -2
Bachmann 3 2 -1
Santorum 1 1
Other/Undec 8 7 -1
What's interesting is that the gains by Huntsman and Paul are exactly the amount of the loss by Romney. And the gain by Gingrich is almost exactly the amount of the total lost by Cain, Perry and Bachmann. When I do a similar analysis of the NH Journal/Magellan poll, the same pattern holds. It looks like Gingrich's gains are mainly from consolidation of the conservative base, which makes sense, rather than from a serious threat to Romney's base. And it makes some sense that Huntsman would get a second look from establishment type Romney supporters. What doesn't make as much sense is the increase in support to Ron Paul coming at the expense of Romney (if that is in fact what is happening). I guess it could be independents not being excited about Romney and giving Paul a closer look.
I have a hard time seeing Romney losing enough support to either Huntsman or Gingrich to endanger a primary win and to justify heavy campaigning in NH. But it's worth keeping an eye on.
--dmac
Monday, November 28, 2011
Bandwagon?
So, I'm on the Newt bandwagon? Ryan, you cut me to the quick :) Hey, somebody has to provide some analysis here besides alternately marveling and decrying that the GOP electorate hasn't realized that Mitt is the obvious best candidate. I'm not sure why that puts me on the Newt bandwagon.
The implication of jumping on the bandwagon is that I'm not considering who I'm associating with, just substituting the crowd's assessment for my own. Leave aside the fact that I've not declared support for Gingrich, or even opposition to Romney, I've been pretty consistent in pointing out Newt's drawbacks. While I think his ascent is of a different character than Perry's or Cain's and has the potential to be much more durable, I have pointed out that he could implode as well. I think my eyes are pretty wide open.
What amazes me is that you could write, "If the electorate can forget the mistakes of the past, then Romney has a serious problem. . . but the problem is there are so many mistakes to forget," with no sense of irony. Do you really think that Romney has no mistakes which the electorate needs to forget in order to fully support him? Do you really think he has fewer than Newt? I had written in a previous post, "He [Gingrich] has as much as Romney to explain in his record. However, he has more in his record to recommend him as well, so don't be surprised if he gets more benefit of the doubt." I stillthink that's a better statement of the situation. If either Romney or Gingrich gets the nomination, it will be because the electorate can forget, or at least put aside, mistakes of the past. But I think there's a lot more forgetting required in Mitt's case, and there's a lot more good to remember in Newt's.
Right now, the biggest thing to recommend Mitt as the nominee over Newt is that Mitt is polling better against Obama. Surely you recognize the fluidity of that as well? I think a clear-headed assessment of each candidate's vulnerabilities in the general election is in order and their ability to respond. Right now, I don't see a clear advantange in the vulnerability category. I don't have much faith in Romney's ability to do timely messaging. I think Gingrich has the edge there, but we'll get to see it in action to fully evaluate now that he's the (current) front runner.
--dmac
Friday, November 18, 2011
It's about to "vet" serious
I'm disappointed, David. Jumping on the Newt bandwagon so early. As we've discussed, if this race is anything it's incredibly fluid. The opposition research on Newt is immense and will come out fast and furious over the next few weeks as demonstrated here, here and here. Yes, he should be taken seriously. Much more serious than any of the other 'fly-by-nighters' that have crossed Romney's way in the past. In fact, I would argue Gingrich is the only other serious candidate in the field.
The only question I have is whether or not there's enough time for the stuff to come out and settle. Romney's opposition research team has got to be burned out by now with all the 'flavor-of-the-month' candidates that have flown by but as I said, Gingrich is different.
If the electorate can forget the mistakes of the past, then Romney has a serious problem. . . but the problem is there are so many mistakes to forget.
- Ryan
The only question I have is whether or not there's enough time for the stuff to come out and settle. Romney's opposition research team has got to be burned out by now with all the 'flavor-of-the-month' candidates that have flown by but as I said, Gingrich is different.
If the electorate can forget the mistakes of the past, then Romney has a serious problem. . . but the problem is there are so many mistakes to forget.
- Ryan
Gingrich surge / Romney collapse in NH
Not sure this is the direction Romney wants to be going in NH. This poll has consistently had Romney polling in the 36%-42% range (he was at 41% last month), even when Perry and Bachmann combined for 28% in August and when Cain "surged" to 20% last month.
The ascendency of Gingrich here has been a little different. He has not only taken the support from Cain, Perry and Bachmann, he has apparently taken support from Mitt as well. A drop from 41% to 29% in just a month where you are supposed to be a shoo in doesn't look good. Also, the undecided has been steadily declining--13% in August, 9% last month and only 5% in this poll.
--dmac
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Amazing poll numbers
The new Fox News poll has Newt in front with 23%, ahead of Romney by 1 point. Cain has slid to 15%.
The interesting numbers are in the breakouts for questions 7, 8 and 9 on the matchup of Romney, Cain and Gingrich against Obama. Mitt is the only one that beats Obama, 44-42. Cain and Gingrich lose 47-38 and 46-41 respectively. What is interesting is that no matter which GOP candidate is running, between 9% and 13% of Republicans in the poll indicated they would actively pull the lever for Obama. And between 24% and 28% of those identifying as conservative would vote for Romney. Not that they are undecided or would not vote, but would vote for Obama. Incredible.
Mitt generates the fewest defections from both Republicans and conservatives (9% and 24% respectively) and Cain the most (13% and 28%). What that tells me is that Romney supporters, partisan Republicans and "conservatives", are the most likely to defect and vote against the party's nominee if it isn't their guy.
--dmac
Florida is key
As we have discussed, Florida is key to the nomination as it was in 2008. Romney and his camp seem to agree.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/romney-counting-florida-win-gop-nomination-white-house
On another note, Erickson believes Cain is done. So do I. I do not believe he can recover this late in the race.
Here comes the Gingrich stuff.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-17/gingrich-defends-payments-from-freddie-mac-as-he-gets-increased-scrutiny.html
- Ryan
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/romney-counting-florida-win-gop-nomination-white-house
On another note, Erickson believes Cain is done. So do I. I do not believe he can recover this late in the race.
Here comes the Gingrich stuff.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-17/gingrich-defends-payments-from-freddie-mac-as-he-gets-increased-scrutiny.html
- Ryan
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Ineptocracy
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers
- Ryan
- Ryan
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
re: Air Coming Out
Cain's slide in the polls have nothing to do with either the foreign policy debate on Saturday (he did not hurt himself terribly) or either of these two "gaffes". And he isn't suffering from a comparison with well polished Romney since his support is not flowing to Romney. The big driver in Cain's slide is a combination of the sexual harassment allegations, his campaign team's inept handling of them, and Newt's consistent shining in the debates. While the GOP is still generally supportive of Cain and don't want to see him drop out, he still has the aura of damaged goods. And, yes, there is a certain amount of not-ready-for-prime-time that hurts him, but it isn't his rambling on foreign policy but the disarray of his campaign team.
Cain certainly isn't as smooth as Romney. But I'm not sure that hurts him so much with those who are not inclined to support Romney. Romney's smoothness as he stakes multiple positions on Libya, doesn't so much make him look like a foreign policy genius as it reinforces the usual suspicion about him(i.e., he'll take whatever position is convenient at the time). I'm not so sure that Cain's deliberateness in answering the Libya question makes him look like a bumbler to anyone but the Romney establishment crowd. Note that we don't have the actual question he was asked, just his fumbling. I seem to remember that being a defense of Romney when he was doing his tap dance / side step on the Ohio ballot issues. I don't have a big problem to the answer Cain finally gave on Libya. I would like to see Romney's (final) answer to how he would have handled it differently.
The collective bargaining "gaffe" is a non-issue. It's kind of like Palin's "Bush Doctrine" gaffe. The problem is in the question. Federal employee unions do have collective bargaining rights. If the reporter wanted to definitively nail Cain as uninformed or against orthodoxy, he should have specified collective bargaining for wages and benefits in the question. Cain very well may have thought they have bargaining rights on wages and benefits. I don't think you can assume that. And I don't think you can assume that Cain didn't wasn't thinking about work rules, safety, etc. The fact that there is a union is clearly an indication there is some measure of collective bargaining rights. Of course there would be some incredulity when a reporter stated there wasn't. At the same time, Cain could have turned the tables and demonstrated he was aware of the difference and forced the reporter to clarify.
I've said before that Cain needs to up his game. My defense above notwithstanding, I don't think he has. I think he is a perfectly capable candidate, and that is where I differ from the hard core Romney supporters. I think the fighting the sexual harassment fires has prevented him from addressing and closing his gaps. And with Newt demonstrating the depth and polish Cain lacks, and without the bombshell charges to fight, the not-Romney crowd is taking notice.
I think your predictions on how the primaries play out are pretty safe. I don't see Bachmann, Santorum or Huntsman surviving past Iowa either. I think Romney has a real chance in Iowa as long as Cain maintains a significant level of support. I could see Iowa falling in love with Newt, in which case it's not a squeaker. If Newt stays strong, I think Romney needs to either win Iowa or be a close second in order to get the nomination. And I think he could do it. He has the resources and organization, and that counts for a lot in Iowa. I think that would set him up for a strong showing in SC and FL.
I'm not sure I agree that Newt's infidelity will get a lot of play from either Cain or Romney. Romney is too classy to make an issue of it (though his supporters certainly might). The last thing the Cain campaign wants to do is start throwing infidelity stones, so I don't expect much of that out of his camp (though you never know with that crew). If it comes, I expect it from Bachmann or Santorum. Newt's failing in that area plays to their strengths, and they both have the temperment to make it an issue. I think it will be a bigger issue in the general election, just as Romney's Mormonism will be a bigger issue in the general. The left loves to be tolerant of moral failings and exotic religious belief, except when those failings or unusual beliefs afford the opportunity to paint conservatives as moralistic hypocrits or weird religious kooks.
I expect what Newt will get peppered with most is his list of heresies. The marriage thing is certainly a marker of his character in my mind, but I think what it marks has already played out in his record. He has as much as Romney to explain in his record. However, he has more in his record to recommend him as well, so don't be surprised if he gets more benefit of the doubt.
Predictions -- subject to revision, of course :)
Iowa -- Close between Romney and Gingrich, very possibly with Romney getting the edge if he works the organization hard
NH -- of course Romney big, but possibly with Gingrich showing strong
SC -- Gingrich, but Romney could be very close second if he wins Iowa
FL -- Romney if Cain maintains decent level of support-- otherwise, Gingrich
--dmac
The sound you hear is the air coming out of another non-Romney candidate's campaign
Back on 10/19, I said,
"Cain – Got beat up at the beginning on his ‘sound bite’ tax plan by better prepared challengers this time around but he still can’t answer detailed questions about the plan; he’s very weak on foreign policy and that will come out in the next debate, it’s foreign policy-only; my prediction: his poll numbers will start to sag after the next debate when folks realize he’s not as strong as they initially thought."
As predicted, here's one of a few foreign policy gaffes he's experienced over the last few days:
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/15/milwaukee-journal-sentinel-editor-describes-cains-libya-gaffe/
To reiterate, Cain is not prepared for prime time. He did not expect to be in the position he is in as a front-runner and his lack of preparation shows. His other gem in the video above relates to supporting collective bargaining for federal workers.
As a comparison, Cain's gaffe FAR exceeds the gaffe Perry had in not remembering the 3rd agency he wants to cut. There's no comparison.
I'm confident either Cain or Romney will be reminding the Republican primary electorate of Newt's past personal indiscretions in the near future. It remains to be seen if it matters or not.
As of now, I see it breaking out like this:
IA - Newt wins in a squeaker (Cain, Romney, Newt move on; Bachman and Santorum drop out)
NH - Romney wins going away (Huntsman drops out)
SC - Toss up
FL - Toss up
- Ryan
"Cain – Got beat up at the beginning on his ‘sound bite’ tax plan by better prepared challengers this time around but he still can’t answer detailed questions about the plan; he’s very weak on foreign policy and that will come out in the next debate, it’s foreign policy-only; my prediction: his poll numbers will start to sag after the next debate when folks realize he’s not as strong as they initially thought."
As predicted, here's one of a few foreign policy gaffes he's experienced over the last few days:
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/15/milwaukee-journal-sentinel-editor-describes-cains-libya-gaffe/
To reiterate, Cain is not prepared for prime time. He did not expect to be in the position he is in as a front-runner and his lack of preparation shows. His other gem in the video above relates to supporting collective bargaining for federal workers.
As a comparison, Cain's gaffe FAR exceeds the gaffe Perry had in not remembering the 3rd agency he wants to cut. There's no comparison.
I'm confident either Cain or Romney will be reminding the Republican primary electorate of Newt's past personal indiscretions in the near future. It remains to be seen if it matters or not.
As of now, I see it breaking out like this:
IA - Newt wins in a squeaker (Cain, Romney, Newt move on; Bachman and Santorum drop out)
NH - Romney wins going away (Huntsman drops out)
SC - Toss up
FL - Toss up
- Ryan
I may have to eat my words
I've frequently said that Newt would never be president. That may still be safe. But he showing some scary strength in the polls. I think he has a real chance of being the nominee.
He has shot to second in the CNN/ORC national poll and only a couple points behind Romney. The latest PPP national poll has Gingrich in the lead with an astounding 28% with Cain a close second at 25%. Back in early September, Romney was polling at 18%. He got a bump in early October to 22% (when Cain was at 30%) but is back down in this poll to 18%. Though the ordering is a bit different in this poll from the CNN/ORC, the directional dynamics are the same. That is, Romney remains stagnant, Cain has shed support and Gingrich has surged.
The crosstabs of the PPP poll are not real good news for Romney. I think they may reveal Gingrich to be an even bigger threat than Cain was (yes, past tense). Romney enjoys pretty good favorability numbers across age, gender and Tea Party. Gingrich is showing very strong favorabililty across all age groups, with both Tea Party and not-TP and, surprisingly, both genders. Not only that, enjoys strong favorability with the supporters of the major not-Romney candidates (Cain, Perry, Bachmann), and good favoribility with Romney supporters. As it stands now, Gingrich is poised to peel supporters from Cain, Perry and Bachmann to consilidate the not-Romney support in a way none of the others could do at this point. And he could peel support from Romney as well. Romney supporters have seem to dislike Cain and Perry (over 50% view them unfavorably) but over 50% view Newt favorably, the only other candidate they view favorably.
Romney's hopes were to have the not-Romneys remain divided leaving Romney with a plurality and/or to have Romney be everybody else's second choice and peel off supporters from other candidates as they factor in electability. Newt may get a plurality outright (as he does now in this poll). I think it a real possibility that Cain supporters figure that Newt is a stronger candidate and make an easy shift to Gingrich giving him a large plurality. Same for Perry supporters unless Perry starts to improve.
We'll see if Newt can pull together a strong campaign staff (or maybe he already has) that can withstand and respond to the attacks that will be coming his way now. But we've already seen the candidate himself is a nimble and resilient force so that a weak staff would not be as big a detriment (in the short term) as it obviously was to Cain.
Folks like me who like all the candidates (except Huntsman and Paul) will need to calculate between Romney and Gingrich. On electibility, will Romney's Bain days hurt him more than Newt's marital infidelity and House Speakership. On risks to conservative agenda, who will be more likely to stray from orthodoxy. Right now, it's a toss up on both electability and risk.
--dmac
Monday, November 14, 2011
Up, up and away -- revisted
A while back, Ryan was crowing about Romney gaining momentum. And I disputed his analysis here, characterizing Romney as having flat, topped out support. The release of a slew of CNN/ORC polls prompted discussion. At that time, Romney was +1 ahead of Cain in the national.
Well, a new CNN/ORC national GOP poll is out, and Romney is +2! Momentum! Except, Romney has gone from 26% support to 24%, a loss of 2 points. So it appears Romney is still stuck and gaining no traction, at least for the moment. As I said in my rebuttal, "Right now it's a race between Gingrich and Perry to unseat Cain for the not-Romney position." This latest poll shows Cain declining from 25% to 14%, a loss of 11 points! And it looks like Gingrich is making a strong run and beating Perry in the not-Romney race, surging from 8% in the previous poll to 22% in the current.
Ryan has been eager to write the Cain candicacy's obituary, and it looks like it's finally time. I cautioned earlier about drawing too many conclusions from one poll. But I think this is inidicative of how things will unfold (or unravel) for Cain. Also, I heard an anecdote from Erick Erickson about the recent Rasmussen Florida GOP poll that, while Cain came out on top, each day his support was declining as the allegations unfolded. The perfect storm brought Cain to prominence, and the perfect storm looks to be taking him out and blowing Gingrich in.
I think Gingrich is really the last man standing. And he has a history of going off the reservation such that he could implode as well. The good news for him is the time is much more limited for that to happen. The bad news for him, given the amount of baggage he has (both political and personal), there almost certainly is dirt to be dug and he will have even less recovery time when it starts flying. Though he presents well now as a conservative idealogue, his history of going off the reservation has to make him at least as big a political risk as Romney for conservatives. And I think at crunch time, electibility and political risk will be the main tradeoff in conservatives' calculations.
I've made fun of Romney's stagnant support. But he is still in a pretty good position. He hasn't done or said anything really terrible. He is acceptably conservative to most of the party. He presents well. As the time gets closer to the primaries, many more people are going to be looking at electability. Cain was suspect on that score even before the allegations and has to be considered damaged goods (unless he can show definitively all are false and that he is a vicitim of a hackish political takedown). Newt has a lot of political baggage and his personal life will present the same type of problem with women voters that Cain now has. Perry has continued to be irrelevant. That leaves Romney as the most electible by process of elimination. And not only that, the polls continue to show that in matchups with Obama (although "generic GOP candidate" still polls best--but he ain't running).
Romny isn't rising yet. But it's just a matter of time.
--dmac
Monday, October 31, 2011
re: Off Topic: Andy Grove
Your Andy Grove article is not so off topic as it may seem. There is an element of the GOP that is just fine with crony capitalism--dressed up in concern for the unemployed and the middle class, to be sure, but crony capitalism nonetheless. And with unemployment so very high this political season, it is understandable that the rhetoric, even on our side, would emphasize jobs and the middle class. But so far, most GOP candidates have confined themselves to proposing solutions that focus on removing obstacles placed by government (e.g., regulations) and encouraging economic growth. If there really is a sizable cabal of GOP voters who look favorably on government solutions, especially the kind envisioned by Mr. Grove, that is a cause for grave concern. Because Mr. Grove is profoundly wrong. It would be economically foolish to further insinuate the government into the economy and politically foolish for the GOP as well.
It is troubling that Mr. Grove wants to emulate the Chinese system of economic planning. I guess there's a place for Republicans that like centralized economic planning--I just think it's in a (locked) closet or on a dusty shelf. The preference of conservatives for small, hands-off government is predicated on the idea that a) there is a dearth of economic expertise in politicians and bureaucrats which raises severe doubts about their competence for such visionary planning, and b) the nexus of business and government leads inexorably to corruption, collusion, corporatism and crony capitalism. If we think that it is appropriate for government to play market visionary, on what basis do we object to Obama's venture capital gambles on "green" energy? Surely not on principle if we subscribe to Mr. Grove's ideas. Then it must be on competence, or incompetence in the case of Obama and his minions. But I and most conservatives see Obama as the rule for government competence, not the exception. And we view it extremely foolish to establish or perpetuate a "competing" venture capital function in the government that is numb to the consequences of its failures, blind to its own limited vision, and so easily guided by political connection rather than economic prudence and pure public interest. I wonder what Mr. Grove thinks about the sugar tariff/corn subsidy/ethanol mandate unholy trinity? I wonder what Mr. Romney really thinks about that as well. I think most Republicans would like to see that banished to the Lake of Fire. But the political stranglehold a few large agribusinesses in collusion with "green" activists have managed to create with this scheme at the expense of high food and fuel prices on the beloved middle class is just abominable.
As I said, with unemployment high, it is understandable that the political rhetoric--even on our side--emphasizes jobs. But to want a jobs-centric policy? That's crazy for a business or a government. There is no business that is in business for the purpose of producing jobs, except perhaps trade unions. And the idea that jobs are "exported" as if they are real products with some intrinsic, independent value is a favorite theme of unions. We see how well their "job-centric" approach works in almost every industry they infect. It's easy to cast a disapproving eye when jobs are "exported" to China. However, that same mentality is not restricted to foreign targets. Job-centric thinking gives rise to the unsavory strong-arm tag team of big labor and government in cases like Boeing, pitting Seattle unions against South Carolinians. Or the efforts of UPS to use political influence to bring FedEx under the same union bonds (the disparate treatment itself a product of government meddling). There is no limit to us-vs.-them with a "job-centric" policy.
Further institutionalizing a "job-centric" policy is economically foolish. But it is also politically foolish, especially for the GOP and especially as Mr. Grove envisions it. Who do you think the people naturally receptive to such rhetoric would trust to administer a "job-centric" policy? Captains of Industry in collusion with government bureaucrats playing venture capitalist as Mr. Grove seems to favor, or Democrat union operatives? If you think tax breaks for corporate investment as an indirect means of stimulating economic activity and job growth suffers from populist skepticism, just wait until Perry or Romney try to make the case with a Grove-style scheme of tariffs and a taxpayer and consumer financed venture capital slush fund ("Scaling Bank" as Mr. Grove calls it). Can you imagine the cries of corporate welfare? And they'd be right!
Mr. Grove invokes the veteran demonstrations of 1932. But he learns the wrong lesson from history. The high unemployment that prompted those demonstrations was not from free trade or exported jobs. It was a direct result of exactly the kind of tariff regime, implemented for exactly the same reasons, that Mr. Grove is so warmly attracted to. And they were enacted by a smart, technocratic problem solver like one some in the GOP today would like to see get our nomination. Smoot-Hawley was a bad idea in 1930 (when unemployment was 7.8%), as was the Tariff of 1828. Contrary to Mr. Grove's belief, no one "wins" a trade war. I have no problem keeping the protectionist arsenal intact and using the threat of it as a kind of mutually assured destruction gambit in trade negotiations. But the idea that it is winnable is a dangerous thing, just like the idea that a nuclear war was winnable. Should Romney embrace such a view, he would rightly be called a Latter Day Pyrrhus of Epirus.
--dmac
It is troubling that Mr. Grove wants to emulate the Chinese system of economic planning. I guess there's a place for Republicans that like centralized economic planning--I just think it's in a (locked) closet or on a dusty shelf. The preference of conservatives for small, hands-off government is predicated on the idea that a) there is a dearth of economic expertise in politicians and bureaucrats which raises severe doubts about their competence for such visionary planning, and b) the nexus of business and government leads inexorably to corruption, collusion, corporatism and crony capitalism. If we think that it is appropriate for government to play market visionary, on what basis do we object to Obama's venture capital gambles on "green" energy? Surely not on principle if we subscribe to Mr. Grove's ideas. Then it must be on competence, or incompetence in the case of Obama and his minions. But I and most conservatives see Obama as the rule for government competence, not the exception. And we view it extremely foolish to establish or perpetuate a "competing" venture capital function in the government that is numb to the consequences of its failures, blind to its own limited vision, and so easily guided by political connection rather than economic prudence and pure public interest. I wonder what Mr. Grove thinks about the sugar tariff/corn subsidy/ethanol mandate unholy trinity? I wonder what Mr. Romney really thinks about that as well. I think most Republicans would like to see that banished to the Lake of Fire. But the political stranglehold a few large agribusinesses in collusion with "green" activists have managed to create with this scheme at the expense of high food and fuel prices on the beloved middle class is just abominable.
As I said, with unemployment high, it is understandable that the political rhetoric--even on our side--emphasizes jobs. But to want a jobs-centric policy? That's crazy for a business or a government. There is no business that is in business for the purpose of producing jobs, except perhaps trade unions. And the idea that jobs are "exported" as if they are real products with some intrinsic, independent value is a favorite theme of unions. We see how well their "job-centric" approach works in almost every industry they infect. It's easy to cast a disapproving eye when jobs are "exported" to China. However, that same mentality is not restricted to foreign targets. Job-centric thinking gives rise to the unsavory strong-arm tag team of big labor and government in cases like Boeing, pitting Seattle unions against South Carolinians. Or the efforts of UPS to use political influence to bring FedEx under the same union bonds (the disparate treatment itself a product of government meddling). There is no limit to us-vs.-them with a "job-centric" policy.
Further institutionalizing a "job-centric" policy is economically foolish. But it is also politically foolish, especially for the GOP and especially as Mr. Grove envisions it. Who do you think the people naturally receptive to such rhetoric would trust to administer a "job-centric" policy? Captains of Industry in collusion with government bureaucrats playing venture capitalist as Mr. Grove seems to favor, or Democrat union operatives? If you think tax breaks for corporate investment as an indirect means of stimulating economic activity and job growth suffers from populist skepticism, just wait until Perry or Romney try to make the case with a Grove-style scheme of tariffs and a taxpayer and consumer financed venture capital slush fund ("Scaling Bank" as Mr. Grove calls it). Can you imagine the cries of corporate welfare? And they'd be right!
Mr. Grove invokes the veteran demonstrations of 1932. But he learns the wrong lesson from history. The high unemployment that prompted those demonstrations was not from free trade or exported jobs. It was a direct result of exactly the kind of tariff regime, implemented for exactly the same reasons, that Mr. Grove is so warmly attracted to. And they were enacted by a smart, technocratic problem solver like one some in the GOP today would like to see get our nomination. Smoot-Hawley was a bad idea in 1930 (when unemployment was 7.8%), as was the Tariff of 1828. Contrary to Mr. Grove's belief, no one "wins" a trade war. I have no problem keeping the protectionist arsenal intact and using the threat of it as a kind of mutually assured destruction gambit in trade negotiations. But the idea that it is winnable is a dangerous thing, just like the idea that a nuclear war was winnable. Should Romney embrace such a view, he would rightly be called a Latter Day Pyrrhus of Epirus.
--dmac
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Romney Flip-Flops
Northeastern University's William Mayer: "After studying presidential nominations for 30 years, I've never seen somebody who has so completely renounced his past record when he decided to run for president." |
Friday, October 28, 2011
Off topic: Andy Grove is making sense
I've always liked Andy Grove and I really like his idea of having a US job-centric policy. We need to find ways to both innovate and scale in the US. Both are important. It's the reason the US is the most innovative country in the world. Save the last 15 or so years, we've always done that.
There's a lot of talk about the 'knowledge worker'. What does that mean? Is that a bunch of people sitting around the table with a bunch of good ideas? If so, let me know how that works out for you. We need American workers who innovate, build, produce, and deliver goods and services. All are important. Exporting jobs has always been a short-term solution to a much bigger problem. How do we find incentives for American businesses to keep jobs in America while making it profitable for them and economical for the consumer? Answer that question and you'll earn my vote.
A non-existent middle class is a huge problem for America and American businesses. We need to find ways to grow the middle class and Grove's concept, although not a perfect solution, is a good way to begin the dialogue.
- Ryan
Andy Grove: How America Can Create Jobs
There's a lot of talk about the 'knowledge worker'. What does that mean? Is that a bunch of people sitting around the table with a bunch of good ideas? If so, let me know how that works out for you. We need American workers who innovate, build, produce, and deliver goods and services. All are important. Exporting jobs has always been a short-term solution to a much bigger problem. How do we find incentives for American businesses to keep jobs in America while making it profitable for them and economical for the consumer? Answer that question and you'll earn my vote.
A non-existent middle class is a huge problem for America and American businesses. We need to find ways to grow the middle class and Grove's concept, although not a perfect solution, is a good way to begin the dialogue.
- Ryan
Andy Grove: How America Can Create Jobs
Surpising slam on Romney
At least it surprises me. I've always considered George Will one of those establishment elites. I just figured he would be a big fan of The Most Serious Candidate Ever.
--dmac
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Well oiled machine of a serious candidate...
...can still break down once in a while.
I give Romney very little benefit of the doubt here, but I guess it is possible he really was unprepared or used by in-fighting Ohio pols. Either way, not a good day for the most serious, well organized candidate. It reinforces all the negative perceptions that dog Romney.
--dmac
re: Up, up and away
I think it's more like "Stable, stable and topped out" :)
But seriously, I don't see how you can make a claim of "gaining momentum" or "peaking" from a single source poll with only one data point. And I don't see how your candidate can be described as peaking of gaining momentum when his support has been pretty stable and the big changes have been among his competitors.
The general election polls have the most data points and are better suited to evaluating momentum or peaking. If you look at the CNN/Time/ORC polls for the general, the latest has Romney +1 (where did you get +2?) with 26%. If you look at the previous CNN/Time/ORC poll from back in late September, Romney was at 21% (and -7 against Perry). Cain was at 7% in that poll and is at 25% in the latest. That, my friend, is what momentum looks like.
Romney has was polling in the mid-twenties back in June. He's climbed back up to that level after dropping to the high teens when Perry jumped in. As Perry and Bachmann imploded, he's managed to get back to where he was. And how solid is the CNN/Time/ORC latest +1? Well, there are two later polls, CBS/NYT and Fox, which have Cain at +4.
As far as Iowa goes, I'm not sure I trust the CNN/Time/ORC poll to tell me that Romney is gaining momentum since there is only one data point. It is the later poll by a couple of days. But the next most recent poll, Rasmussen 10/19, has Cain +7. I consider Rasmussen the gold standard in polling, but the other recent polls are consistent with those results, Univ Iowa +10 and Insider Advantage +8. The CNN poll may indicate some slippage for Cain, but without more data we just can't know. I'll wait for the next Rasmussen for Iowa to come out.
South Carolina, not much to hang your hat on there. Very limited polling, and only three polls in October. NBC/Marist and CNN/Time are more in sync on the Romney support (28% and 25% respectively), and NBC/Marist and Insider Advantage are more in sync on Cain support (31% and 32% respectively). CNN/Time's Cain support looks too low and Insider Advantage's Romney support looks way low. I think the best you can say until we get more polling is that Cain and Romney are neck and neck in South Carolina. Again, I'm waiting for a Rasmussen for South Carolina.
Florida is just as muddy. Romney's support has been pretty consistent in the low thirties in October across the three polls. I don't know how much stock to put in CNN/Time's 18% Cain support in comparison to the 32% and 30% for NBC/Marist and Insider Advantage respectively. The CNN/Time poll is a few days later, but I seriously doubt that Cain has really lost 12 points in a few days. Since it is Florida, and there are a lot of retirees and no state income tax, it is possible that over the last week or so Floridians have suddenly woken up to the fact that Cain's 9-9-9 is a consumption tax and are balking. I think I want to see a few more data points before I subscribe to that theory. For now, I'm just suspicious of the poll. Let's wait for Rasmussen.
Not too much to say about Nevada. PPP has had pretty consistent results for Romney in the mid-twenties to low thirties. The interesting poll there is the Magellan Strategies. At the end of August, it was Romney 24%, Perry 29% and Cain 7% with 19% undecided. And then 10/19-20, it switched Romney 38%, Cain 26%, Gingrich 16% and Perry 7% with only 3% undecided.
Romney has been playing it safe waiting on his competition to implode or to remain divided. He hasn't really been making significant advances on his own merits. We'll see if Perry can revive himself. He's getting some buzz on his flat tax, and more positive buzz on his premium support plan for reworking Medicare. But the longer Cain keeps from imploding, the less likely that he will. We'll see if he can beef up his organization and bone up on some of the policy areas he's light in. Right now it's a race between Gingrich and Perry to unseat Cain for the not-Romney position. The longer it takes for that race to settle out, the better for Romney.
--dmac
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Up, up, and away
It appears Romney is beginning to gain momentum and peak at the right time.
Iowa - +3
NH - +27
SC - +2
FL - + 12
NV - +1
General - +2
. . . but if we've learned anything this cycle, nothing is a sure thing.
Iowa - +3
NH - +27
SC - +2
FL - + 12
NV - +1
General - +2
. . . but if we've learned anything this cycle, nothing is a sure thing.
re: focus on actuals
Ryan,
That is some pretty tortured spin, my friend.
It looks pretty clear he was asked explicitly whether he supported those ballot issues in particular. And it is clear from his statement that he was avoiding publicly supporting the specific ballot issues. The only out he possibly has is that he was ignorant of the content of the particular ballot issues and how they to the efforts he expressed general support for. And indeed, he does say "I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives." However, he was at a phone bank specifically tasked with ginning support for the ballot issues. He really was not briefed on what they were doing? Come on. And, as you note, he expressed support for "
Let's focus on actuals
Regarding Romney's comment in Ohio, it's amazing to me how excited the media is to jump on a story even when there isn't one. When you go to the source of the comment (the CNN article) you'll find a) the author never explained the specific question he asked Romney and b) His actual quote does not indicate he does not support Kasich. In fact, it says just the opposite - he does support it.
Here's the quote in context within the original article:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/romney-avoids-weighing-in-on-ohio-union-fight/
"Romney expressed generic support for Kasich's efforts to curtail union rights, but he would not say whether he supports or opposes the specific measures.
"I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues," Romney said, only after repeated questions from reporters. "Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here."
That does not sound like someone who isn't taking a position on the issue. In fact, he has always supported the Kasich plan. Here's his support on his Facebook page back in June:
http://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/137218066355610
This appears to be yet another example of a quote taken out of context based on an answer to an unknown question. Back to your regular programming.
Here's the quote in context within the original article:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/romney-avoids-weighing-in-on-ohio-union-fight/
"Romney expressed generic support for Kasich's efforts to curtail union rights, but he would not say whether he supports or opposes the specific measures.
"I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues," Romney said, only after repeated questions from reporters. "Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here."
That does not sound like someone who isn't taking a position on the issue. In fact, he has always supported the Kasich plan. Here's his support on his Facebook page back in June:
http://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/137218066355610
This appears to be yet another example of a quote taken out of context based on an answer to an unknown question. Back to your regular programming.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Romney Plays To Type
When the casting call comes for the calm, confident, knowlegable businessman, or for the quick thinking policy wonk, or the clear-eyed leader, the name from central casting is Mitt Romney.
Unfortunately, when the call is for the inconstant ally, the pandering politician, the Machiavellian pragmatist, the same actor emerges. And once again, Mitt Romney plays to this type with his reticence in supporting Governor Kasich. It's hard to imagine a performance more suited to destroy credibility with the conservative base than to show up to a phone bank making calls in support of OH SB5 and then refuse to publicly support it.
So, add this sorry episode to Mitt's filmography alongside the ethanol subsidies, pandering to Michigan voters in 2008, "governing as pro-life", climate change tweaking. I had said that what bothered me about Romney and Gingrich was you never knew when they were going to go off the reservation. I think Romney is increasingly answering that question with "whenever you need him most."
No doubt Mitt's mainstream media publicity crew will seek out another Jeffress type to make comments on Mormonism and the nexus of religion and politics to distract us from this latest horror flick. And to give Mitt the opportunity to play the other role he plays so well--persecuted martyr who rises above the narrow bigotry of the GOP to lecture us about our duties under the Constitution.
Romney is increasingly stuck in roles that garner him critical acclaim from the beltway and establishment party types, but the box office draw is very limited.
--dmac
No Bubble Burst Yet
As Ryan said here, "it's a little extreme to say this is the end of his campaign," and the new CBS/NYT poll shows how right that was. Conducted 10/19-10/24, it should reflect at least some of the supposed "shock waves" from his abortion comments. And it doesn't. The trend in this poll seems to be showing that Cain is consolidating the not-Romney support. The number of undecided voters has declined 8 points since September. Gingrich is still holding in there as the not-Romney spoiler.
The upcoming Gingrich-Cain mano a mano could be the big event that either consolidates the not-Romney under Cain or refractures it into a Gingrich-Perry-Cain split leaving Romney free to walk into the nomination with his steady, but unstellar, low-twenties support. Or, the upcoming foreign policy debate could do the trick and finally make the Tea Party believers in Romney (or at least unbelievers in Cain, et al.).
--dmac
Monday, October 24, 2011
This Could Be Real Interesting
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281122/cain-gingrich-set-spar-robert-costa
A Gingrich-Cain extended debate. Wow. This is probably awesome news for Romney. He should use some of his campaign funds to televise it. The appeal for Gingrich is obvious: the Tea Party is the big bloc of the not-Romney crowd, and right now Cain is the favorite. If Gingrich can deftly exploit Cain's weaknesses (and it is pretty obvious he has some) and present himself as the master and commander of the issues from the conservative high ground, certainly Gingrich's calculation is that he could be the one with the near 30% support. This looks like a big risk for Cain, but also a big opportunity. Gingrich will make substantive points and his critiques will not be cheap pizza jokes. If Cain can rise to the occasion and hold his own, he could perhaps solidify his support as the not-Romney candidate. But if not...
I don't know how much of a second look a Gingrich demolition of Cain would garner him. I have the feeling that it would do more to give Perry a second look. And I doubt Perry would be "willing to bump plans with you, brother" with Newt. Especially if Gingrich makes Cain look (even more) uninformed.
Cain needs to bring his A game everywhere. But especially if he steps into the ring with Gingrich. Because I'm sure there will more than just sparring.
--dmac
A Gingrich-Cain extended debate. Wow. This is probably awesome news for Romney. He should use some of his campaign funds to televise it. The appeal for Gingrich is obvious: the Tea Party is the big bloc of the not-Romney crowd, and right now Cain is the favorite. If Gingrich can deftly exploit Cain's weaknesses (and it is pretty obvious he has some) and present himself as the master and commander of the issues from the conservative high ground, certainly Gingrich's calculation is that he could be the one with the near 30% support. This looks like a big risk for Cain, but also a big opportunity. Gingrich will make substantive points and his critiques will not be cheap pizza jokes. If Cain can rise to the occasion and hold his own, he could perhaps solidify his support as the not-Romney candidate. But if not...
I don't know how much of a second look a Gingrich demolition of Cain would garner him. I have the feeling that it would do more to give Perry a second look. And I doubt Perry would be "willing to bump plans with you, brother" with Newt. Especially if Gingrich makes Cain look (even more) uninformed.
Cain needs to bring his A game everywhere. But especially if he steps into the ring with Gingrich. Because I'm sure there will more than just sparring.
--dmac
I'm Conservative, Really
http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/281157/romney-touts-conservativism-katrina-trinko
Ok, the part I want to pick at is the idea that because Gingrich supported an individual mandate somehow Romney's individual mandate is immune from criticism as unconservative. Gingrich himself noted in 2005 that his views were "not sounding as right wing" as they should. http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-and-gingrich-once-foes-find-common-ground/17400/ Also from that article, Gingrich admitting being focused on "constructing," and it was evident that he saw an active role in the government in solving problems. This is essentially the criticism I have leveled at Romney at various times. Despite Gingrich's heresies (yeah, the individual mandate) and betrayals (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/gingrich-explains-scozzafava-endorsement-slams-right-wing-critics.php), I think he has a grasp on conservative principles--he just chooses to wander from them when it suits him, especially when enthused with ideas or "constructing". I think Romney tends conservative, but is not so grounded in conservative principle but is more of a problem solver, a technocrat. But at the end of the day, the things that make me nervous about Gingrich are what makes me nervous about Romney. They both can talk a pretty good game (though Romney's attempt here is lame), but you never know when they'll go off the reservation.
Jonathan Adler has a pretty good treatment of the whole "individual mandate is a conservative idea." Should come in handy in the general election.
So, it seems like we had this big debate in the conservative camp back in the 1990's and conservatives largely rejected "conservative" big government intervention. William F. Buckley once described George H. W. Bush as "conservative" but not "a conservative." I'm not among those who write Romney out of the conservative movement. But I think of all the GOP field, Buckley's distinction is probably the most apt for Romney. At best, Romney is working on an outdated version of conservatism.
--dmac
Vintage Romney
Romney expressed a muddled position on subsidies in his book "No Apology", ran to the left of Pawlenty on ethanol subsidies to help knock him out, and now moves back to a muddled position now that Pawlenty is out and Bachmann is toast. Perhaps a fairer assessment is that Romney expressed a more adventurous position in "No Apology", moved back to the old orthodoxy earlier in Iowa, and now is moving back to his more adventurous position as it becomes the new orthodoxy.
Romney--leading from behind :)
--dmac
re: Bubble
It is surprising that Cain didn't either leave his answers as a general pro-life support or give a detailed explanation of his position, especially the thinking behind his caveats. He apparently knew this might be a sticky issue as far back as his contemplated runs for office back in the 1990's. If he has qualifications or limitations to his support of the pro-life agenda, he needs to get those out there and deal with them up front and clearly. Because he should know that the other GOP candidates are going to try to out-pro-life each other (except for Mitt, that is). I guess it is possible he gave an extended answer that got edited, but then again he should know the tricks that the liberal media does. It is a fool's errand to talk fine points of social policy with the liberal media.
I think this is a more balanced, and better reported, piece on Cain's not-so-evolving views:
Cain's clarification here is more in keeping with his past statements, though actually seems a bit tougher:
The bubble bursting? NRLC seems still satisfied with candidate Cain.
I'm not sure how much his refusal to sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge will hurt him. I won't with me. I think his objections to signing the pledge are appropriate...as are Romney's:
I think Cain's assessment of the hard-line pro-life activists was correct. They don't leave any wiggle room for the tough issues, and one suspects they are not willing to leave those tough issues to the political process. It is not enough to have a long and consistently held position. You need to have a clear and concise statement of that position ready at hand. And a candidate would do well to stay out of the minefield of personalized hypotheticals like the liberal media loves to pose. The only candidate who could successfully navigate those would have been Huckabee, and he ain't running.
I don't see this helping Romney much, except perhaps to keep the not-Romney camp fragmented. We'll see if this helps resuscitate Perry. In Iowa, the latest Rasmussen, taken after the interview, has Cain in the lead:
Perhaps the news of Cain's "debacle" is slow to get out (quite possible given it's just now hitting Elephants in the Room) and his support will decay. I wouldn't get too excited yet. But Cain does need to step up his game.
--dmac
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The bubble is bursting. . .
| His baffling answers on Meet the Press, prisoner exchanges, and now this. . . although, I'm somewhat surprised he botched this topic. More than anything, it displays a candidate who's unprepared for the big stage. While I agree it's a little extreme to say this is the end of his campaign, certainly this will send a few shock waves through Iowa. As I mentioned earlier, the upcoming foreign policy debate in November will add to his woes and focus the primary on a two-man race between Romney and Perry. Newt is fun to watch, but unless he wins a shocker in Iowa I can't see him gaining much traction. - Ryan | |
| Cain's Abortion Blunder Source: thedailybeast.com His pro-choice rhetoric shocked pro-lifers. Will conservatives trust him now? Michelle Goldberg reports. |  |
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
All In The Family
Tyler,
I'll address your last paragraph first. Romney's tax plan is the weakest of his 59 points (or however many of the 59 it includes). And that's why he's not talking about it. The 25% corporate tax is a good step. The repatriation of profits is a step in the right direction. Neither addresses the distortions introduced by the current income tax. The elimination of taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest ONLY for those making less that $200K is laughable. As I replied to Ryan, that is just political gimmickry. No revenue scheme is going to be free of introducing distortions, but there are many who think a consumption tax introduces the least amount of distortions to incentives. That is not a fringe or uninformed view. Nor is it delusional.
Cain may be naive that his plan will pass Congress. I suspect he is savvy enough to know that the particulars, if it should pass, would likely be different than his version. But, even if it just resembles it, it will be a fundamentally different approach than what we have now. It will be much flatter and much broader. Romney's "long term" plan, i.e., Bowles-Simpson has already provoked its own firestorm. The idea that it could be enacted quickly is likely as big a pipe dream as Cain's 9-9-9. Even extending the Bush rates (Romney's short term plan) is quite contentious, much less making them "permanent".
Don't mistake my defense of Cain and his plan from demagoguery as being excited about a tax discussion. As I've told Ryan many times, there is little that government can do to generate economic growth. Therefore, focus on programs designed to do that generally, or increase employment particularly, is not something I am inclined to view as productive topic for conservatives. I am interested in what a candidate intends to do to roll back government. And Romney has some good stuff in his 59 points. But I don't expect any quick effects from either tax policy changes or regulation relief or reductions in government spending. I am very sympathetic to the argument that the uncertainty around taxes is inhibiting new investment and employment and that relieving that uncertainty is one thing the government can actively address by making the current rates permanent. Otherwise, the best tax scheme and regulatory rollback are long term issues that is important, but are a distraction from the fiscal and political problem of entitlements.
On the other hand, there is going to be a huge debate over social security, Medicare/Medicaid. There will be plenty of class warfare rhetoric on any proposals to reign those in. And the class warfare crowd will bring taxes into it whether it's on the front burner of our agenda or not. If there ever was a time to fundamentally address the tax structure, it is now. Because it will be relevant to addressing spending if for no reason than it being what will bring the opposition to the table. But long term economic growth and capital allocation will be key to addressing the entitlement time bomb and having a discussion about the best tax policy is worth putting out there. It may not be as big a distraction as some, including me, might think. It could well be complementary.
I think it very unfortunate that Romney and his supporters have taken the easy road of discrediting Cain's plan by ad hominem. Despising his small war chest is petty (and foolish considering how much good Romney's war chest did against underfunded McCain and Huckabee last time). Writing off his idea of a consumption tax, whether 9-9-9 or Fair Tax, as delusional is hardly the kind of debate we need in the party. A big chunk of this party is tired of the GOP establishment who have no real vision of conservative government and whose first impulse is to cut a deal. There is a kind of arrogance in the objections to Cain that reminds folks of that establishment.
--dmac
P.S. it might be wise to not make too much use of imagery like "tar baby" and "mark of Cain", especially when directed at Cain. Herman Cain would probably not be offended, but you can be sure it will be used against Romney by Democrats who have no love for Cain in order to paint the GOP as racist and to raise Romney's religion as an issue.
I'll address your last paragraph first. Romney's tax plan is the weakest of his 59 points (or however many of the 59 it includes). And that's why he's not talking about it. The 25% corporate tax is a good step. The repatriation of profits is a step in the right direction. Neither addresses the distortions introduced by the current income tax. The elimination of taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest ONLY for those making less that $200K is laughable. As I replied to Ryan, that is just political gimmickry. No revenue scheme is going to be free of introducing distortions, but there are many who think a consumption tax introduces the least amount of distortions to incentives. That is not a fringe or uninformed view. Nor is it delusional.
Cain may be naive that his plan will pass Congress. I suspect he is savvy enough to know that the particulars, if it should pass, would likely be different than his version. But, even if it just resembles it, it will be a fundamentally different approach than what we have now. It will be much flatter and much broader. Romney's "long term" plan, i.e., Bowles-Simpson has already provoked its own firestorm. The idea that it could be enacted quickly is likely as big a pipe dream as Cain's 9-9-9. Even extending the Bush rates (Romney's short term plan) is quite contentious, much less making them "permanent".
Don't mistake my defense of Cain and his plan from demagoguery as being excited about a tax discussion. As I've told Ryan many times, there is little that government can do to generate economic growth. Therefore, focus on programs designed to do that generally, or increase employment particularly, is not something I am inclined to view as productive topic for conservatives. I am interested in what a candidate intends to do to roll back government. And Romney has some good stuff in his 59 points. But I don't expect any quick effects from either tax policy changes or regulation relief or reductions in government spending. I am very sympathetic to the argument that the uncertainty around taxes is inhibiting new investment and employment and that relieving that uncertainty is one thing the government can actively address by making the current rates permanent. Otherwise, the best tax scheme and regulatory rollback are long term issues that is important, but are a distraction from the fiscal and political problem of entitlements.
On the other hand, there is going to be a huge debate over social security, Medicare/Medicaid. There will be plenty of class warfare rhetoric on any proposals to reign those in. And the class warfare crowd will bring taxes into it whether it's on the front burner of our agenda or not. If there ever was a time to fundamentally address the tax structure, it is now. Because it will be relevant to addressing spending if for no reason than it being what will bring the opposition to the table. But long term economic growth and capital allocation will be key to addressing the entitlement time bomb and having a discussion about the best tax policy is worth putting out there. It may not be as big a distraction as some, including me, might think. It could well be complementary.
I think it very unfortunate that Romney and his supporters have taken the easy road of discrediting Cain's plan by ad hominem. Despising his small war chest is petty (and foolish considering how much good Romney's war chest did against underfunded McCain and Huckabee last time). Writing off his idea of a consumption tax, whether 9-9-9 or Fair Tax, as delusional is hardly the kind of debate we need in the party. A big chunk of this party is tired of the GOP establishment who have no real vision of conservative government and whose first impulse is to cut a deal. There is a kind of arrogance in the objections to Cain that reminds folks of that establishment.
--dmac
P.S. it might be wise to not make too much use of imagery like "tar baby" and "mark of Cain", especially when directed at Cain. Herman Cain would probably not be offended, but you can be sure it will be used against Romney by Democrats who have no love for Cain in order to paint the GOP as racist and to raise Romney's religion as an issue.
Some late Vegas debate reaction
I finally got a chance to view it tonight. Here's my take.
Overall – Newt’s point at the end, for me, was the strongest. ‘Maximizing bickering is probably not the road to the White House’. Americans are not looking for more anger. They want more solutions. Stop trying to win style points and do two things: provide realistic solutions to complicated problems in an optimistic, hopeful way. That’s true leadership. In no particular order . . .
Perry – Why did he come back to his ‘gotcha’ line regarding Mitt and his landscaping company 3 separate times? I don’t think I’ve ever heard a moderator say ‘I think he’s addressed that’. Ouch. The more important question: Did he really believe that was a strong point? That being said, this was by far his strongest performance to date, but I believe it’s his high water mark. Not good enough for him to dig himself out of the hole he’s in.
Santorum – Was he on stage? Best answer of the night was explaining to the Latino community the basic building block of society is the family. He’s right and we need to talk more about rebuilding families as the basic unit of society. Why did he talk so strongly about winning in PA when he lost there so badly?
Bachmann – Owned the strangest quote of the night: “Hold on Moms”; Three questions: Was that a soccer mom shout out? Why didn’t she answer the initial question about cutting $500M from the defense budget? Why did she have to interject something at the end that added zero value? She won the Iowa straw poll. Too bad that didn’t mean anything.
Gingrich – Quoting the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. . . Is he just showing off? Can we appoint him as ‘Chief Thinker’? He challenged Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas style no-moderator 8 hour debate . . .No matter who wins the nomination, I think they should allow Newt to take on Obama. I’m salivating already. . . they could set it up as pay-per-view and donate the proceeds to pay off the debt.
Romney – Other than his opening comment ‘I’ve heard worse’ on the religion question, he hit a homerun with his response; well thought out and universally applied; throughout the whole night, he flat out took Perry to task; it was like the Varsity vs. the JV; he did lose it at one point in a tussle with Perry; completely unnecessary but shows how personal it’s been getting behind the scenes. Reference my earlier post on the no-holds-barred approach Perry’s inner circle likes to take and you’ll learn why.
Cain – Got beat up at the beginning on his ‘sound bite’ tax plan by better prepared challengers this time around but he still can’t answer detailed questions about the plan; he’s very weak on foreign policy and that will come out in the next debate, it’s foreign policy-only; my prediction: his poll numbers will start to sag after the next debate when folks realize he’s not as strong as they initially thought
Paul – I like him challenging the other candidates to be more specific on what they’re going to cut in the federal government but cut aid to Isreal? C’mon Paul. That’s a non-starter.
On the topic of defense spending – No one is willing to cut a dime. Really? We’re broke. Why can’t we agree we’re going to focus on cutting fraud, waste, and abuse in the defense department? If as a party we agree we want to stop wasteful spending, then we should stop wasteful spending everywhere!
One serious question: How would Reagan fare in these debates given the current political environment?
One not-so-series-question: Who will Wayne Newton endorse?
- Ryan
re: Going Deep (rather, piling it deep)
Ryan,
The problem with linking to stuff is that some people will actually go and read it. First, you link to a couple of articles which praise the economic sensibility of Cain's plan as if they somehow were an indictment of its soundness. The political hurdles are not insignificant, especially when our side takes to demogogery of it, but there was nothing critical of the basis approach or doubt that if enacted it would accomplish its intended ends. And now you link to "Romney's" "plan" as if it were some detailed and original proposal. And the highlights you call out are pretty much the content.
Romney's short term plan is to make the Bush tax rates permanent. And permanently eliminate the Death Tax (which again is a Bush proposal, but a good one nonetheless). So much for original, well-thought out proposals. His only original addition is to eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest for taxpayers making less than $200K. That is gimmickry. That is not going to be a huge tax break for those people, because they don't typically have a lot of their income from those sources. Consequently, it's not going to free up much capital for investment either. It is purely a move to triangulate between those who advocate for lower taxes on investment income and those who are populists who want tax breaks for middle class earners but not the wealthy.
Romney's long term tax plan is even shorter on specifics. He punts to Bowles-Simpson. That's his specific long term plan. And "specific" is kind--he actually punts to the "approach taken" by the Commission as "a good starting point for the discussion," while offering no alternative rate brackets or assumptions of his own. The Bowles-Simpson tax plan is actually three options, only two of which are actually specific proposals (the third punts to the Finance and Ways & Means Committees and the Treasury to enact unspecified tax reform). Those two options fit on three power point style slides. Romney's 13 pages consist of nothing more than vague aspirations for a what a tax plan should look like, wrapped around citations of Bush tax rates and Bowles-Simpson proposals, and no major wrinkle of his own to offer. Lots of style, but little substance of his own.
Since "Romney's" long term "plan" is actually Bowles-Simpson, or a derivative of it, it is fair to assume that it would meet with the same reception that Bowles-Simpson did. That is, it would come under fire on several fronts. The inclusion of health insurance premiums as taxable income, the elimination of deductions and credits, the taxation of dividends and capital gains as ordinary income, and the fact that it actually is a net tax increase on everyone (though a bigger increase on higher incomes) would find enemies among many groups should Romney propose it. And if you take some of the less radical options, you really are only tinkering around the edges at that point.
Since "Romney's" long term "plan" is actually Bowles-Simpson, or a derivative of it, it is fair to assume that it would meet with the same reception that Bowles-Simpson did. That is, it would come under fire on several fronts. The inclusion of health insurance premiums as taxable income, the elimination of deductions and credits, the taxation of dividends and capital gains as ordinary income, and the fact that it actually is a net tax increase on everyone (though a bigger increase on higher incomes) would find enemies among many groups should Romney propose it. And if you take some of the less radical options, you really are only tinkering around the edges at that point.
So, Ryan, I think my criticism was warranted more than I expected.
--dmac
--dmac
It must run in the family. . .
A guest blogger's take (my brother):
When every member of your party running for president all agree that your plan will raise taxes on the middle class, there is something very wrong. Also, when a centrist research group finds the plan will raise taxes on 84% of Americans BEFORE the democrats get to it, now its just "very dangerous" as the tax hawk himself Grover Norquist warned.
Cain's plan (I can't bear to repeat the numbers) is ill-researched, un-vetted, and too complex for even Herman to understand. He is running a campaign with barely 30 staff members (when they're not packing up and heading for the exits) with only 3 people propping him up in the state of New Hampshire. His funds are abysmal, in fact, he spent 700K more than he took in from July to September. Not exactly a fiscally sound move. Seeing the obvious fragility of his campaign, I can only imagine how chintzy his economic team must be to put together 999.
I get why "dmac" and others are so excited about a tax discussion, but much like obamacare, it's a discussion that veers off the path of increasing jobs. Taxes are the easy target because they're so much of an abject disaster and a burden on most Americans that cleaning it up sounds like the sexy/daring thing to do. The fact is this type of tax reform is not going to happen fast enough to make a difference in time to get the economy working again. Congress can't even pass a kidney stone, let alone collectively shove the IRS into the rubbish bin. Even if republicans took the Senate and Cain was elected, 999 still wouldn't happen and that's a fact. It's a tar baby. Newt hit the nail right on the head tonight, this type of tax discussion commands so much debate and analysis, it distracts from the "Elephant in the room" which is jobs. Of course the argument will be, "Taxes effect the economy" and that's true, but you have to approach it feasibly and present ideas that can pass congress quickly. We're in a crisis. Anyone could point to the tax code, government subsidies for oil companies, Bernanke, foreign aid, the war in Afghanistan, and so much more to illustrate ways to help the economy. But nothing would make a more positive impact on the whole of our economy than dramatically reducing unemployment ASAP. Put people back to work, put money in people's pockets, and simply put in place a more permanent tax situation that the big companies and banks can rely on. Take away the uncertainty, strengthen the middle class, and you loosen up the stranglehold on credit and housing. This is more than taxes, it's everything and "everything" has to include at least 59 points, not three numbers.
The argument about the 9% effectively being a VAT tax is a valid one. Hawaii has a "General Excise Tax" that is effectively a VAT tax with a different name, so their products are taxed every time they are sold from manufacturer, to distributor, to store, to consumer. Ever tried to get a $5.00 foot long in Hawaii? It doesn't exist. As a result, Hawaii enjoys the highest utility rates, the highest food prices, the highest gas prices, and the lowest manufacturing of any of the 50 states. Contrary to popular belief this is not because it is an island. It is well frequented and easily stopped on by shipping vessels and the like. Hawaii's high prices are the result of it being the only state that has this tax. The only way it survives is from huge government subsidies from Washington and revenue from tourism which in on the decline.
Separately, states that currently have no sales tax, such as Oregon and New Hampshire, are not going to want to adopt one. Especially with such high property taxes. Similarly states that have a sales tax depend on that revenue and won't get rid of it. Sales tax in many states would breach 16% under the mark of Cain. Sorry, couldn't resist.
I don't see how dmac can say that "the truth hasn't come out yet" about Romney's plan or that his plan "doesn't fundamentally address the weaknesses and economic disincentives in the current code". What do you call a reduction of the corporate tax rate to 25%? Or a tax break for companies that bring their billions back to the United States that is overseas. Or the elimination of taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains for low or middle income earners. Or the elimination of the estate tax. All of these items don't seem to be hiding any "truth" to me. This is straightforward stuff. Each is a logical approach to reforming the tax code in a way that would stimulate the economy and pass congress. This is not to mention any of the spending cuts he's proposed. His plan may be "unimaginative" in the sense that it's not brand new ideas, but let's not confuse imagination with delusion as Cain's plan does. Romney's plan will act fast and could actually pass.
Tyler
When every member of your party running for president all agree that your plan will raise taxes on the middle class, there is something very wrong. Also, when a centrist research group finds the plan will raise taxes on 84% of Americans BEFORE the democrats get to it, now its just "very dangerous" as the tax hawk himself Grover Norquist warned.
Cain's plan (I can't bear to repeat the numbers) is ill-researched, un-vetted, and too complex for even Herman to understand. He is running a campaign with barely 30 staff members (when they're not packing up and heading for the exits) with only 3 people propping him up in the state of New Hampshire. His funds are abysmal, in fact, he spent 700K more than he took in from July to September. Not exactly a fiscally sound move. Seeing the obvious fragility of his campaign, I can only imagine how chintzy his economic team must be to put together 999.
I get why "dmac" and others are so excited about a tax discussion, but much like obamacare, it's a discussion that veers off the path of increasing jobs. Taxes are the easy target because they're so much of an abject disaster and a burden on most Americans that cleaning it up sounds like the sexy/daring thing to do. The fact is this type of tax reform is not going to happen fast enough to make a difference in time to get the economy working again. Congress can't even pass a kidney stone, let alone collectively shove the IRS into the rubbish bin. Even if republicans took the Senate and Cain was elected, 999 still wouldn't happen and that's a fact. It's a tar baby. Newt hit the nail right on the head tonight, this type of tax discussion commands so much debate and analysis, it distracts from the "Elephant in the room" which is jobs. Of course the argument will be, "Taxes effect the economy" and that's true, but you have to approach it feasibly and present ideas that can pass congress quickly. We're in a crisis. Anyone could point to the tax code, government subsidies for oil companies, Bernanke, foreign aid, the war in Afghanistan, and so much more to illustrate ways to help the economy. But nothing would make a more positive impact on the whole of our economy than dramatically reducing unemployment ASAP. Put people back to work, put money in people's pockets, and simply put in place a more permanent tax situation that the big companies and banks can rely on. Take away the uncertainty, strengthen the middle class, and you loosen up the stranglehold on credit and housing. This is more than taxes, it's everything and "everything" has to include at least 59 points, not three numbers.
The argument about the 9% effectively being a VAT tax is a valid one. Hawaii has a "General Excise Tax" that is effectively a VAT tax with a different name, so their products are taxed every time they are sold from manufacturer, to distributor, to store, to consumer. Ever tried to get a $5.00 foot long in Hawaii? It doesn't exist. As a result, Hawaii enjoys the highest utility rates, the highest food prices, the highest gas prices, and the lowest manufacturing of any of the 50 states. Contrary to popular belief this is not because it is an island. It is well frequented and easily stopped on by shipping vessels and the like. Hawaii's high prices are the result of it being the only state that has this tax. The only way it survives is from huge government subsidies from Washington and revenue from tourism which in on the decline.
Separately, states that currently have no sales tax, such as Oregon and New Hampshire, are not going to want to adopt one. Especially with such high property taxes. Similarly states that have a sales tax depend on that revenue and won't get rid of it. Sales tax in many states would breach 16% under the mark of Cain. Sorry, couldn't resist.
I don't see how dmac can say that "the truth hasn't come out yet" about Romney's plan or that his plan "doesn't fundamentally address the weaknesses and economic disincentives in the current code". What do you call a reduction of the corporate tax rate to 25%? Or a tax break for companies that bring their billions back to the United States that is overseas. Or the elimination of taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains for low or middle income earners. Or the elimination of the estate tax. All of these items don't seem to be hiding any "truth" to me. This is straightforward stuff. Each is a logical approach to reforming the tax code in a way that would stimulate the economy and pass congress. This is not to mention any of the spending cuts he's proposed. His plan may be "unimaginative" in the sense that it's not brand new ideas, but let's not confuse imagination with delusion as Cain's plan does. Romney's plan will act fast and could actually pass.
Tyler
Going deep
Dmac - Regarding your comment: "Mitt's plan has been characterized as mere tinkering around the edges."
Here's Romney's plan for your review.
http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf
He lays out a well-thought out, achievable 13 page plan (not 100) just on tax policy. Some highlights:
"Mitt Romney will push for a fundamental redesign of our tax system."
"We need taxes to pay for the operations of government. But they should be collected by a system that is simple and fair, and that causes the least possible disruption to the productive economy."
"If anything, the lower rates established by President Bush should be regarded as a directional marker on the road to more fundamental reform."
"In the long run, Mitt Romney will pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system that includes lower and flatter rates on a broader tax base."
That doesn't sound like someone who is tinkering around the edges. It sounds like a viable action plan for getting things done.
Here's Herman Cain's plan:
http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999-for-web-10-12.pdf
It's a two-page flyer (if you include the giant self-portrait with the sun beating down on him).
I don't mind the criticism if it's warranted, but let's be realistic.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
re:Truth Comes Out
I'm not sure I'm reading what you're reading. The truth that comes out in that article is not that the plan is silly, but rather is a sound, economically beneficial plan. The objections in this are purely political, not economic.
We're still waiting for the truth to come out about Romney's plan. But that's probably because no one cares at this point because it is a largely unimaginative and does not fundamentally address the weaknesses and economic disincentives in the current code. And so there's nothing to really talk about. Like it or not, Cain has done the most to advance discussion about tax policy and its effect on the economy beyond the current regimen of targeted cuts and preferential treatment of favored businesses.
--dmac
We're still waiting for the truth to come out about Romney's plan. But that's probably because no one cares at this point because it is a largely unimaginative and does not fundamentally address the weaknesses and economic disincentives in the current code. And so there's nothing to really talk about. Like it or not, Cain has done the most to advance discussion about tax policy and its effect on the economy beyond the current regimen of targeted cuts and preferential treatment of favored businesses.
--dmac
re: Can we just admit it's a VAT
"For the record, I believe everyone in America needs to pay taxes... But let's not have this conversation now."
How very Romneyesque. "I really believe it" but we all know "but let's not have this conversation now" (or ever) is always the waiting in the wings.
The two columns you linked are good treatments, and neither consider the plan "silly". I would say that Cain's plan has been more closely examined than Romney's. Perhaps it would be instructive if Romney would hit the main points of his plan in more detail. So far, most of what I've heard about it is from other candidates picking on his Obama-like treatment of capital gains. And Mitt telling us what he expects the results of his plan to be and referring us to the details for our own further reading (if you have time for 100+ pages).
Mitt's plan has been characterized as mere tinkering around the edges. More defense and explanation of his own plan and less ridicule of Cain's is in order.
--dmac
How very Romneyesque. "I really believe it" but we all know "but let's not have this conversation now" (or ever) is always the waiting in the wings.
The two columns you linked are good treatments, and neither consider the plan "silly". I would say that Cain's plan has been more closely examined than Romney's. Perhaps it would be instructive if Romney would hit the main points of his plan in more detail. So far, most of what I've heard about it is from other candidates picking on his Obama-like treatment of capital gains. And Mitt telling us what he expects the results of his plan to be and referring us to the details for our own further reading (if you have time for 100+ pages).
Mitt's plan has been characterized as mere tinkering around the edges. More defense and explanation of his own plan and less ridicule of Cain's is in order.
--dmac
The truth comes out!
An architect of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan says he should drop sales tax
Superstar WaPo blogger Jen Rubin is not a fan of Herman Cain’s tax plan and its VATastic aspect:
But clearly whatever the economics of the Cain plan, it is running into some political trouble, particularly the sales tax piece. Here are some stunning, jaw-dropping comments from the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore on Larry Kudlow’s radio show on Saturday (which I was also on):
October 18, 2011, 2:20 pm
Superstar WaPo blogger Jen Rubin is not a fan of Herman Cain’s tax plan and its VATastic aspect:
What is interesting is that, far from being an anti-Washington tax scheme, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan resuscitates one of the worst, old ideas floating around European capitals and Washington. Moreover, it repeats one of the central flaws of past VAT schemes; it doesn’t replace the income tax code, it adds another new tax and revenue stream.A few thoughts here: a) I come down on the side that the Europe has embraced value-added taxes to fund its love of big government, not that VAT revenues necessarily drove the expansion of government; b) I think a VAT would be a great replacement for the current income tax system. My preference is a VAT along the lines of the Hall Rabushka flat consumption tax. It would end the bias against investment and in favor of consumption. Very pro-growth; c) I don’t buy the idea that the VAT would be a hidden tax, especially with a H-R variety where firms get to deduct wages as a cost—but then those wages are taxed at the household level.
But clearly whatever the economics of the Cain plan, it is running into some political trouble, particularly the sales tax piece. Here are some stunning, jaw-dropping comments from the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore on Larry Kudlow’s radio show on Saturday (which I was also on):
I love the idea [of a 9 percent national sales tax]. As you know, Art Laffer and I helped design the plan. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the American people and the voters do not want a national sales tax. He’s going to have to replace that national sales tax with a 9 percent payroll tax. And if you do that it’s a total winner. … I’m surprised how hostile people are to the sales tax. When we designed this plan, I thought people would go along with the 9 percent sales tax. But the point is they won’t. And why not just do a payroll tax. It’s the devil we know …Then Kudlow asks Moore if he is going to tell Cain to pull the sales tax:
Yeah, yeah I am. … But I want to be very, very clear on this. I am not bearish on this plan. If you could put in place the 9-9-9 plan, oh my God, it would be like steroids in the economy. … You would have a million jobs a month if we put this in place. … I love the concept of it .. But the American people will not go for a national sales tax. They’re just afraid of it. …http://blog.american.com/2011/10/an-architect-of-cains-9-9-9-plan-says-he-should-drop-sales-tax/
Re: Conservative Press Easy on Cain
Soft bigotry of low expectations? You really want to stand with Joe Klein on that?
The conservative press consists of more than The Weekly Standard. There has been criticism of Cain's lack of breadth from National Review contributors. Plenty of scrutiny and criticism of his 9-9-9 plan there. The fact is, elements of the plan have been proposed by conservatives over the years. Eliminating exemptions and flattening (or making completely flat) the rates have been proposed. There have been conservatives who have proposed a VAT. Conservatives have been saying for years that the tax structure is too progressive and the base needs to be broadened. Objections that the plan is too simple, opens up a new avenue of taxation, causes some people to pay more are not substantial. And hardly any of the criticisms have been any more substantial than those.
As far as foreign policy, I don't think any of the candidates have been asked any particularly tough or good questions. Without benefit of intelligence (no snark now, you know what I mean), none of the candidates are going to be able to give a definitive policy position. I think Cain would ask the right questions and make sound decisions. He's had to walk back his answer on whether he would ever consider a trade similar to the one Netanyahu just made. It's easy to categorically say no. Perhaps the answer he gave is not a good political answer. But I think his caveats about needing access to all the intelligence and facts are key and that in the absence of them he could not categorically rule it out an honest and sound response. I find it refreshing that a candidate is willing to admit that he doesn't know everything.
Cain a jerk? Cain an ignoramus? The veiled affirmative action accusations in "soft bigotry of low expectations"? If Romney supporters want to join hands with Klein in his bilious assessment of Cain, be my guest. It will do nothing but further solidify what people object to in Romney as a technocratic, elitist, establishment candidate.
--dmac
The conservative press consists of more than The Weekly Standard. There has been criticism of Cain's lack of breadth from National Review contributors. Plenty of scrutiny and criticism of his 9-9-9 plan there. The fact is, elements of the plan have been proposed by conservatives over the years. Eliminating exemptions and flattening (or making completely flat) the rates have been proposed. There have been conservatives who have proposed a VAT. Conservatives have been saying for years that the tax structure is too progressive and the base needs to be broadened. Objections that the plan is too simple, opens up a new avenue of taxation, causes some people to pay more are not substantial. And hardly any of the criticisms have been any more substantial than those.
As far as foreign policy, I don't think any of the candidates have been asked any particularly tough or good questions. Without benefit of intelligence (no snark now, you know what I mean), none of the candidates are going to be able to give a definitive policy position. I think Cain would ask the right questions and make sound decisions. He's had to walk back his answer on whether he would ever consider a trade similar to the one Netanyahu just made. It's easy to categorically say no. Perhaps the answer he gave is not a good political answer. But I think his caveats about needing access to all the intelligence and facts are key and that in the absence of them he could not categorically rule it out an honest and sound response. I find it refreshing that a candidate is willing to admit that he doesn't know everything.
Cain a jerk? Cain an ignoramus? The veiled affirmative action accusations in "soft bigotry of low expectations"? If Romney supporters want to join hands with Klein in his bilious assessment of Cain, be my guest. It will do nothing but further solidify what people object to in Romney as a technocratic, elitist, establishment candidate.
--dmac
Can we just admit it's a VAT?
Cain has an issue telling the American people what his tax plan is all about. It's a VAT America. That's not good. It raises taxes on everyone making less than $100k per year. If that's you, then watch out. Memo to Republicans: This is NOT a good general election strategy. It would be very easy for Obama to develop the talking points for the general election. Please don't distract us from our message: Obama's polices haven't worked and we need him out of office.
Here's one take:
http://blog.american.com/2011/10/cains-9-9-9-tax-plan-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Pozen weighs in along with a lot of other smart folk:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/1017_999_tax_plan_pozen.aspx
For the record, I believe everyone in America needs to pay taxes. There's a fundamental problem with one person paying taxes and driving on a highway while the guy next to him drives on the same highway and doesn't pay a dime of taxes to construct the same road. But let's not have this conversation now. Not in this economy. We can't distract the American people by harping on a silly tax plan when we need to be having far more substantive conversations.
I just read that AEI has a foreign policy only debate in November. I can't wai. I'll finally stop hearing 9. . . 9. . . 9. . . 9. . .I feel like I'm stuck in one of those old, creepy Twilight Zone episodes.
- Ryan
Here's one take:
http://blog.american.com/2011/10/cains-9-9-9-tax-plan-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Pozen weighs in along with a lot of other smart folk:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/1017_999_tax_plan_pozen.aspx
For the record, I believe everyone in America needs to pay taxes. There's a fundamental problem with one person paying taxes and driving on a highway while the guy next to him drives on the same highway and doesn't pay a dime of taxes to construct the same road. But let's not have this conversation now. Not in this economy. We can't distract the American people by harping on a silly tax plan when we need to be having far more substantive conversations.
I just read that AEI has a foreign policy only debate in November. I can't wai. I'll finally stop hearing 9. . . 9. . . 9. . . 9. . .I feel like I'm stuck in one of those old, creepy Twilight Zone episodes.
- Ryan
CNN Debate
Just a few thoughts on tonight's CNN debate:
Enjoyed Huntsman's performance much more tonight :)
Cain has to get some rebuttals beyond exhorting us to check the math for ourselves on attacks to his 9-9-9. I think there are some, but he needs to get some people looking at the critiques and address the substance and provide specific counter points. I don't think he did badly tonight. He's having to walk back his statements about releasing terrorists. At least he's walking them back.
Romney needs to thank Rick Perry. Perry attacked him on his vulnerabilities, but in such a clumsy and specious way that Romney looked good anyway. He should have stayed away from the religion issue. Newt had perhaps the best response and Romney just couldn't resist opening his mouth. He should have stopped at "I've heard worse." Not really thrilled with his statement that he created jobs when he was in the private sector and would do so as President and "not just watch others create jobs." Uh, actually I want the President to just watch others create jobs. His job as President is to get government out the way of others creating jobs. It's those little things Romney slips in that worries me about his fundamental outlook.
Bachmann will probably maintain her current (low) support for a while, but she didn't do anything to reclaim support from other candidates.
Santorum made some good points, but his delivery and demeanor just undercuts any of his substantial points he makes. I can hardly believe he made an extended point about him being the best candidate because he's the only one to win election in a swing state. That's a pretty hard argument to make when you got turned out of office by 18 points in a swing state. At least Mitt had sense enough to run for president before he could get turned out of office in Massachusetts.
Gingrich is just so smooth and substantial in these debates. He has a way of getting to and addressing the heart of the question. At least he saved his "lean six sigma" stuff for Greta after the debate. He'll never be president. But he is as able a defender and expositor of conservatism as there is today.
Perry had succeeded in lowering the bar so much in previous debates that he practically guaranteed a better performance tonight. He was definitely more engaged. But his attacks on Romney were just so clumsy. I was embarrassed for him. He started sounding serious and substantial on how to secure the border. But then he went back to attacking Romney as "the worst of them" for the illegal immigrants his lawn service hired. I think it was Ramesh Ponnuru observed that Perry seems to have a problem finishing a point and seems to get lost before he wraps it up. I think he's spot on on that observation. I expect Perry to shed more support. He would be a disaster as the nominee.
Not much to say about Ron Paul. A voice of profound clarity, like Gingrich, on some things. And profoundly obtuse on others. And always fixated on the Fed. He'll be in for the duration.
It's still a Romney / Cain showdown, with Gingrich running a little interference for Cain while the others hammer Romney.
--dmac
Enjoyed Huntsman's performance much more tonight :)
Cain has to get some rebuttals beyond exhorting us to check the math for ourselves on attacks to his 9-9-9. I think there are some, but he needs to get some people looking at the critiques and address the substance and provide specific counter points. I don't think he did badly tonight. He's having to walk back his statements about releasing terrorists. At least he's walking them back.
Romney needs to thank Rick Perry. Perry attacked him on his vulnerabilities, but in such a clumsy and specious way that Romney looked good anyway. He should have stayed away from the religion issue. Newt had perhaps the best response and Romney just couldn't resist opening his mouth. He should have stopped at "I've heard worse." Not really thrilled with his statement that he created jobs when he was in the private sector and would do so as President and "not just watch others create jobs." Uh, actually I want the President to just watch others create jobs. His job as President is to get government out the way of others creating jobs. It's those little things Romney slips in that worries me about his fundamental outlook.
Bachmann will probably maintain her current (low) support for a while, but she didn't do anything to reclaim support from other candidates.
Santorum made some good points, but his delivery and demeanor just undercuts any of his substantial points he makes. I can hardly believe he made an extended point about him being the best candidate because he's the only one to win election in a swing state. That's a pretty hard argument to make when you got turned out of office by 18 points in a swing state. At least Mitt had sense enough to run for president before he could get turned out of office in Massachusetts.
Gingrich is just so smooth and substantial in these debates. He has a way of getting to and addressing the heart of the question. At least he saved his "lean six sigma" stuff for Greta after the debate. He'll never be president. But he is as able a defender and expositor of conservatism as there is today.
Perry had succeeded in lowering the bar so much in previous debates that he practically guaranteed a better performance tonight. He was definitely more engaged. But his attacks on Romney were just so clumsy. I was embarrassed for him. He started sounding serious and substantial on how to secure the border. But then he went back to attacking Romney as "the worst of them" for the illegal immigrants his lawn service hired. I think it was Ramesh Ponnuru observed that Perry seems to have a problem finishing a point and seems to get lost before he wraps it up. I think he's spot on on that observation. I expect Perry to shed more support. He would be a disaster as the nominee.
Not much to say about Ron Paul. A voice of profound clarity, like Gingrich, on some things. And profoundly obtuse on others. And always fixated on the Fed. He'll be in for the duration.
It's still a Romney / Cain showdown, with Gingrich running a little interference for Cain while the others hammer Romney.
--dmac
Why is the conservative press so easy on Cain?
 | |
|
I can't understand why no one is challenging Cain on any of the tough issues. Joe Klein makes some very valid arguments. Cain needs to provide substantive answers to tough questions especially in the foreign policy arena.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cain in not a series candidate. He never expected to be in this position otherwise he would have run a completely different campaign. He would have hired actual economists to provide him advice rather than his wealth advisor in Ohio. The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/17/the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations/ | |
Monday, October 17, 2011
Cain ahead in Iowa, huge lead in SC, close second in Florida
Cain has an 8 point lead over second place Romney in Iowa:
He has nearly double the support of second place Romney in South Caroline:
And he's just 2 points behind Romney in Florida:
We'll see if this begins to fuel fundraising. He's the hot commodity right now (or "flavor of the month" for those inclined to support Romney) but we'll see how well he responds to the increased scrutiny.
--dmac
Cain 43%, Obama 41%
| http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/ election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups |
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
The base of the Democratic Party
Somehow I don't remember Tea Party events transpiring like this. . .
The battle of Wall Street: Violence erupts as police clash with protesters after they force Bloomberg to back down over 'eviction'
A clean-up was put on hold and supporters of the protesters streamed into Zuccotti Park in the morning darkness today, forming a crowd of several hundred chanting people.
Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049137/Occupy-Wall-Street-Violence-erupts-police-clash-protesters.html
15 October 2011
www.dailymail.co.uk
The battle of Wall Street: Violence erupts as police clash with protesters after they force Bloomberg to back down over 'eviction'
A clean-up was put on hold and supporters of the protesters streamed into Zuccotti Park in the morning darkness today, forming a crowd of several hundred chanting people.
Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049137/Occupy-Wall-Street-Violence-erupts-police-clash-protesters.html
15 October 2011
www.dailymail.co.uk
Friday, October 14, 2011
Liberal bent. . .but makes some sense
Herman Cain: Flavor of the Month
By Eugene Robinson
WASHINGTON -- Just be patient and you, too, can lead the polls for the Republican presidential nomination. Witness the ascent of Herman Cain.
Don't laugh. "There's a difference between the flavor of the week and Haagen-Dazs Black Walnut, because it tastes good all the time," Cain told reporters this week. "Call me Haagen-Dazs Black Walnut."
All right, go ahead and laugh. Cain will surely respond with what has become his all-purpose retort: "As my grandfather would say, I does not care."
At the moment, though, we don't have the option of not caring. According to a stunning new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Cain now tops the GOP field with support from 27 percent of Republican primary voters, compared to 23 percent for Mitt Romney and just 16 percent for Rick Perry.
This is Herman Cain we're talking about. The former pizza executive who has never held public office -- and who considers that fact one of his prime qualifications for the highest office in the land. The African-American Republican who proudly says he "left the Democrat plantation a long time ago." The major-party presidential candidate who developed his revolutionary -- and nonsensical -- tax reform plan by ignoring all those smarty-pants economists and seeking the advice of a Cleveland accountant.
Such is the state of affairs in the Republican Party these days. With apologies to Mr. Black Walnut, he does seem to be the flavor of the week. There was a time when GOP voters thought Donald Trump might make a dandy opponent for President Obama. Then the focus shifted to Michele Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll and saw her national numbers soar. Then Perry entered the race and reigned briefly as front-runner before sabotaging his candidacy by showing up at a debate.
You knew things were getting weird when a non-candidate, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, dominated the race for weeks. Now, with Cain's emergence as a top-tier contender, things have gotten even weirder.
Cain's contribution to American political discourse thus far is a novel debating technique: When confronted with inconvenient facts, say they're wrong.
I've experienced the Cain Maneuver first-hand. During an on-camera interview several weeks ago, he told me that he doesn't support privatization of Social Security accounts, but instead favors "the Chilean model." As it happens, I once covered Chile as a foreign correspondent for The Washington Post. I know that the Chilean pension system, for better or worse, is studied in universities and think tanks as a model of privatization.
I pointed this out to the candidate. He told me I was wrong. He said what Chile had done was "personalization," not "privatization." There was, he maintained, a clear difference. He did not attempt to explain what this difference might be.
Cain uses this clever up-is-down approach to counter criticism of his signature "9-9-9" plan for tax reform. Cain wants to scrap almost all of the federal tax code and replace it with a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent corporate tax and a 9 percent federal sales tax. Cain says he was helped in developing the proposal by Rich Lowrie, a financial adviser in Ohio whose degree is in accounting, not economics.
As Cain's opponents pointed out in the last debate, the 9-9-9 plan is ridiculous. Most economists who have looked at the proposal say it couldn't produce nearly enough revenue for the federal government to function. Moreover, it obviously puts a greater burden on the middle class while cutting taxes for the wealthy.
Cain dismisses these objections by saying that they are "incorrect." That's it -- "incorrect." Case closed.
In Cain's world, things are that simple. In the real world of GOP politics, not so much.
The Cain boomlet owes to two factors. One is that while his economic ideas may be crazy, they are specific and bold. The other candidates mostly confine themselves to saying their policies will be different from Obama's -- without specifying how they might be different from, say, those of George W. Bush. Cain gets points for effort and likability.
The other factor is that the conservative wing of the party really doesn't like Romney. He may be the eventual nominee but for now, the search for an alternative will continue. When Cain's rocket fizzles -- and quite likely it will -- perhaps the well-financed Perry will make a comeback as the anti-Romney, assuming he finds a way to survive those danged debates.
So enjoy the flavor of the week while you can. Ice cream does melt.
Don't laugh. "There's a difference between the flavor of the week and Haagen-Dazs Black Walnut, because it tastes good all the time," Cain told reporters this week. "Call me Haagen-Dazs Black Walnut."
At the moment, though, we don't have the option of not caring. According to a stunning new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Cain now tops the GOP field with support from 27 percent of Republican primary voters, compared to 23 percent for Mitt Romney and just 16 percent for Rick Perry.
This is Herman Cain we're talking about. The former pizza executive who has never held public office -- and who considers that fact one of his prime qualifications for the highest office in the land. The African-American Republican who proudly says he "left the Democrat plantation a long time ago." The major-party presidential candidate who developed his revolutionary -- and nonsensical -- tax reform plan by ignoring all those smarty-pants economists and seeking the advice of a Cleveland accountant.
Such is the state of affairs in the Republican Party these days. With apologies to Mr. Black Walnut, he does seem to be the flavor of the week. There was a time when GOP voters thought Donald Trump might make a dandy opponent for President Obama. Then the focus shifted to Michele Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll and saw her national numbers soar. Then Perry entered the race and reigned briefly as front-runner before sabotaging his candidacy by showing up at a debate.
You knew things were getting weird when a non-candidate, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, dominated the race for weeks. Now, with Cain's emergence as a top-tier contender, things have gotten even weirder.
Cain's contribution to American political discourse thus far is a novel debating technique: When confronted with inconvenient facts, say they're wrong.
I've experienced the Cain Maneuver first-hand. During an on-camera interview several weeks ago, he told me that he doesn't support privatization of Social Security accounts, but instead favors "the Chilean model." As it happens, I once covered Chile as a foreign correspondent for The Washington Post. I know that the Chilean pension system, for better or worse, is studied in universities and think tanks as a model of privatization.
I pointed this out to the candidate. He told me I was wrong. He said what Chile had done was "personalization," not "privatization." There was, he maintained, a clear difference. He did not attempt to explain what this difference might be.
Cain uses this clever up-is-down approach to counter criticism of his signature "9-9-9" plan for tax reform. Cain wants to scrap almost all of the federal tax code and replace it with a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent corporate tax and a 9 percent federal sales tax. Cain says he was helped in developing the proposal by Rich Lowrie, a financial adviser in Ohio whose degree is in accounting, not economics.
As Cain's opponents pointed out in the last debate, the 9-9-9 plan is ridiculous. Most economists who have looked at the proposal say it couldn't produce nearly enough revenue for the federal government to function. Moreover, it obviously puts a greater burden on the middle class while cutting taxes for the wealthy.
Cain dismisses these objections by saying that they are "incorrect." That's it -- "incorrect." Case closed.
In Cain's world, things are that simple. In the real world of GOP politics, not so much.
The Cain boomlet owes to two factors. One is that while his economic ideas may be crazy, they are specific and bold. The other candidates mostly confine themselves to saying their policies will be different from Obama's -- without specifying how they might be different from, say, those of George W. Bush. Cain gets points for effort and likability.
The other factor is that the conservative wing of the party really doesn't like Romney. He may be the eventual nominee but for now, the search for an alternative will continue. When Cain's rocket fizzles -- and quite likely it will -- perhaps the well-financed Perry will make a comeback as the anti-Romney, assuming he finds a way to survive those danged debates.
So enjoy the flavor of the week while you can. Ice cream does melt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)