Gingrich has just made such a fatal and terrible error, going to Romney’s LEFT on immigration, it will play up for everyone the reality hidden in Gingrich’s campaign and ignored for some time – a history of critiquing conservative policies when it suited him. Gingrich mocked the idea of ‘self-deportation’ – that we could and should simply ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAW through worker verification and in so doing, encourage less of to happen:

“You have to live to in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and automatic $20 million a year income for no work to have a fantasy this far from reality,” Mr. Gingrich said. “This is an Obama-level fantasy… He certainly shows no concern for the humanity of people who are already here.”

Via HotAir, Jorge Bonilla calls it “heartless 2.0″ an act of His-pandering towards lawlessness at its worst:

However, his [Gingrich]  statements at today’s Univision forum disqualify him, in my opinion, from further consideration among those of us who respect the Rule of Law.

Breaking the Republican boycott of Univision (at least, among Presidential candidates) was in bad form.  This boycott came about as a result of Univision’s attempts to coerce Senator Marco Rubio into an interview.  Gingrich was the first to announce that he’d break the line in order to sit down with Jorge Ramos.  What’s worse, he did so in order to attack Mitt Romney’s immigration positions.  In so doing, he smeared Romney as an “anti-immigrant”, which is what Univision and the Hispanic Left label anything that is not an unprotected, wide open border.

Such demagoguery is an insult to those of us that are of Hispanic origin and support fair immigration reform.  There are a great many of us who silently support immigration reform which is respectoful to those who paid the price and played by the rules.  We get smeared enough in the Hispanic media, without having to hear such pap fly from the mouth of someone who aspires to challenge our Demagogue-in-Chief.  Such language is acceptable if you are currying the favor of the Jorge Ramoses and Ruben Navarretes of the world, but is well beneath someone who aspires to the Presidency of the United States.  It is particularly troubling that Gingrich seems to readily reach for the language of the Left when attacking his primary opponents.

History will note that the end of Rick Perry’s campaign was neither his “oops” moment, nor his “third agency” faux pas.  Perry’s goose was cooked the minute he smeared opponents of the DREAM Act as “heartless”.  As far as I’m concerned, Heartless 2.0 is also the end of the Gingrich campaign.

I thought Joe Scarborough was being facetious or his mischeivous MSNBC self when he said that “Newt Gingrich is not a conservative” on Sunday. He declared both Romney and Gingrich were not conservatives, and mentioned how conservatives fought him in the House in the 1990s. “Look it up” he challenged. Well, some folks are looking things up, and Gingrich’s grandiose claims of conservative credentials are coming under fire and starting to look more threadbare. This may well be the Heartless 2.0 harpoon that sends Gingrich back into a tailspin.

We’ve swept a lot of warts and deviations from conservatism to get a ‘not-Romney’ candidate. After a demagogic and hispandering comment like this, one wonders – is it worth it?

The ‘optics’ of Romney’s financial disclosures aren’t great. He is an immensely rich guy who paid a lot in taxes. The headline reads:

Romney Paid 13.9% Tax Rate on $21.6 Million in 2010 Income

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-paid-13-9-tax-050000877.html

Well, that will cause some umbrage – “Hey, I pay more than that.” None of us are paying more than $3 million in taxes, but for those of us in the 35% rate and who’ve paid Social Security and Medicare on top, it’s a real WTF moment. We certainly have paid more than 14% of our income, unless we are quite poor, and even those folks pay social security at that rate.  My own reactions?

How did he escape AMT?

Only $3 million? Why that’s not even enough to cover a single Michelle Obama vacation!

But then I had to recall WHY the 15% was put in there. This was and is to reduce double-taxation.

Dividends come out of company earnings and are already taxed 35% at corporate level. So when he paid $3 million on $20M in earnings and most of it 15% qualified dividends, he was getting dividends on $20M in corporate earnings that were ‘qualified’ because they were  ALREADY TAXED. They were taxes at 35%. So getting $20 million in dividends means he got dividends that had already been taxes AT 35%* or another $7 MILLION.

SO IN REALITY $10 MILLION ON $20 MILLION IN QUALIFIED CORPORATE EARNINGS ENDED UP IN TAXES. This is being largely missed in the question of ‘why is it only 15%’ answer.

If you are a free market conservative, even if you are not favorably disposed to Romney, it’s important to point this out. The Democrats are eager to gut this and the rest of the Bush tax reform and will go after it as unfair. It’s not lower rate than regular earnings overall. We need to point out the double taxation and the fact that Romney and others who get qualified dividends are actually having those earnings taxed at an overall 50% tax rate.

Redstate has had a habit of giving advice to the Presidential contenders on what to do. The recent famous example being Erick Erickson calling a play for Team Perry, and then – wow, incredibly – Perry delivered it like Tim Tebow making a long pass for a touchdown, making a graceful exit and delivering a Gingrich boost in one fell swoop.

After Mitt Romney’s not-good, terrible, broken-inevitability-dreams result in SC leaves one almost sympathetic for the guy. Okay, well, maybe not. But even so, we can try to play the Karl Rove game and imagine what advice we would give Romney if we were the political strategist for Romney.  Here’s what I would say:

First, get that tax return monkey off your back. Release them already. They’ll show what people already know. You are rich and paid a lot in taxes. Hopefully you will be smart and make a point to note that you paid in full and on time and crack jokes about Tim Geitner when you say it.

Second, stand up for yourself. Newt showed how it’s done. Defend your personal record. Blame liberals and the media. If you really did close down factories and give people pink slips, make it like you did these folks a favor, giving them a shot at the American dream by getting them out of some dead-end job. Tout your successes and insist that the only criticism of your venture capitalist days comes from communist sympathizers.

Third, it’s now a mano-a-mano race. Only Gingrich can stop you and if you beat him in Florida, well the Establishment can light up a cigar. ‘Massachusetts moderate’ is your tag, what about “Newtron bomb”? Newt in South Carolina showed you another lesson of political warfare – the best defense is a good offense. Go on the offense. People didn’t hear how much better you are. They didn’t hear how you ran a state, and these other guys are mere legislators – and not just that, two of them fired legislators (We’ll leave out that part of how you left your post in 2006 because the Massachusetts voters would have kicked you out anyway, but … ). Why let Newt, the guy who WAS the establishment for 4 years and has been in DC for 30 years, be the ‘outsider’ candidate? You’ve been in office for a mere 4 years (just dont let the other guys mention you’ve been running for another dozen). Lift every line you can from Perry that wasn’t a flub to underscore that you are the ‘outsider’, ready to come in and fix Washington that’s been screwed by all those legislator clowns and lobbyists.

That’s what I’d tell him.

But they already know this. We see the Romney Machine is already putting the wheels in motion on just this strategy. They are correcting their tax record flub and releasing something this Tuesday, tamping down that story. Romney is already in interviews and speeches today pointing barbs at Newt, re-raising the Fannie-Freddie line of attack deployed in Iowa.

But we will know if Romney has adopted the full strategy only if we get a “Romney unleashed” media meme, where AP or some other outlet mentions something like “fiery” and “passion” and “defends himself” in a story about a Romney speech. Does there even exist technology that can make Romney get unscripted, passionate and fiery?  If you can get a robot to dance … 

There I said it. For years, I’ve been wondering what it was that was ‘off’ about Ron Paul.It got crystallized in tonight’s debate in South Carolina. Oddly, though, despite Ron Paul basically fibbing and blundering through several answers, his online minions have him ‘winning’ tonight’s debate, a debate where Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum especially articulated multiple excellent conservative points moreso than Ron Paul.

Tonight’s debate, a new revelation of Ron Paul’s obscurantism and self-contradiction came into play with his non-answer to the question of whether he would order the hit on Osama Bin Laden. Amazingly, Ron Paul placed himself to the left of President Obama, wondering aloud about how we would feel if a Chinese dissident was offed on our soil. Until Newt schooled him on a few facts. Such as: OBL ain’t no dissident. OBL was living right in a military town, under the nose of Pakistani military. The ISI was rife with double-dealers and we could not trust the Pakistani govt to keep any operational secret. So asking permission from them would have been tantamount to letting OBL go.But worse, the debate revealed Ron Paul as a bloviated gas-baggy flip-flopper, unable to clearly admit that his policies would have resulted in OBL still be at large.

Ron Paul supporters claim that Ron Paul is more in keeping with our founding father’s view of things. Really. Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli and Washington, well, he kicked butt when the Whiskey Rebellion came up. That generation and the Andrew Jackson generation that followed had their way, and it certainly wasn’t the way of preaching ‘golden rule’ to enemies. The Golden Rule makes sense for civil society, but when you are in a state of war with cruel enemies, it’s wiser to follow this Rabbinical saying: To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the innocent. We know that appeasement to aggressive enemies can lead to war. Being soft on terrorism leads to more terrorism. Ron Paul’s approach to terrorism is a maddening Carteresque blunder-mashup of ‘bug out everywhere’ and ‘do nothing’.

Ron Paul is not a ‘purist’: That myth should have been clear once his defense of earmarks – no better than the worst RINO pork-barreller – “well, you have to get the money for your district”. He was against it before he was for it.

Ron Paul is not an expert on the Constituion: Tonight we saw him get corrected by Santorum over why a ‘state’s rights’ approach to gun lawsuits makes not a lick of sense. See, Ron Paul made it sound like the Federal govt couldn’t or shouldn’t get into the business of tort laws for gun owners. What he failed to acknowledge is that these are matters of interstate commerce, and that as commerce, lawyers can ‘forum shop’ their claims around to the most desirable lawsuit-happy state. One bad state and its rulings can bankrupt companies and thereby destroy the commerce – and the exercise of our second amendment right – to citizens in other states. This is not the only time Ron Paul has incorrectly wrapped himself in an interpretation of the constitution that doesn’t make sense or at minimum is not the only way to think about things. He uses it as a crutch many times.

Ron Paul has done nothing: In his years in Congress, Ron Paul has not ONCE gotten any hearings, any serious consideration or any bill filed or voted on to get even close to a 0% tax rate. Not even close. It’s simply a ‘nice wish’  but he has not been a leader – or even a co-sponsor or follower – of real and serious budget cutting efforts. Did he write his own budget? No. Has he worked with JSC group? No. He’s the ultimate loner. Which, in an institution that requires a majority to get your way, is another way to do nothing.  But it’s worse than nothing, because while Ron Paul has been in Congress and getting paid by taxpayers for over a dozen years, the Federal Government spent $29 trillion. What has Ron Paul done to stop it? Precious little it seems.

His followers, many of whom are friends I admire,  either have a mistaken view that he IS a leader or don’t care. They are voting his principles – liberty, etc. So Ron Paul gives speeches about liberty, while taking the earmarks that go to his district, and he rides the popularity of his following and milks it like he did his Gold Bug investment newsletters of earlier years. Ron Paul’s role to get out there and say provocative things and take strong ‘principled’ positions, where he makes no effort to actually put into effect.  As such, he is the ultimate protest vote. No Ron Paul voter ever has to take responsibility for the fact that we are going to hell in a hand basket.

There’s another less charitable way to look at this ‘principled prophet’: He is nothing more than a gasbag who says a lot but does nothing.

I am not interested in being merely right, I am interested in fixing what is wrong and making things better. I don’t WANT the world to go to seed, and for us to lose our freedom, our decency and our prosperity. We want, in our conservative movement, people who can work together to make that happen. Ron Paul has been a pied piper leading many freedom-lovers to follow his brand and his gig. But that path has led us to act in ways that harm our self-interest:

1. We put the talkers ahead of the doers: Trump, Cain, Ron Paul, what do they have in common? Great talkers with no political accomplishments. Newt and Santorum’s recent gigs? FoxNews contributors. Governors – Perry and Huntsman – barely got attention. Talkers have crowded out doers (Newt is at least a proven doer via his Speakership experience).

2. We are divided and follow personalities and not ideas as the main core. Ironic for a campaign focussed on ‘liberty’, but you can see it in the fact that his fanatic followers falsely claim ‘only Ron Paul is acceptable’, attacking other candidates as insufficent to a degree no other campaign’s supporters engage in.  No real and effective politician would meet the purity test, so you have a catch-22. They can only follow someone who has no chance of actually getting a 51% consensus.

The conservative movement will be much healthier when the ‘liberty lovers’  move beyond Ron Paul and find a more balanced, effective and true advocate for freedom. That’s what bother me about Ron Paul – he may be holding us back.

No Republican candidate in the era of primary politics has won without winning Iowa or New Hampshire. Now that Romney has won both, he is the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination. The talk of Romney being a weak frontrunner is meaningless when the real weakness and questions surround the rest of the field.  Romney is the prohibitive favorite because there is no credible and strong challenger to Romney at this time.  Romney must feel it tonight, because his speech went after Obama in a way that sounded like a warmup for the general election.

Ron Paul is Romney’s best friend in this race. By sucking in liberty-loving hard conservatives and doubling it up with anti-war independents, Ron Paul has managed several things. One is attention to his issues, but another is to split and divide the ‘Reagan coalition’ voters in the ’3 legged stool’ peeling off small-Government conservatives but delivering an anti-marriage, pro-drug-legalization and anti-military message that is a poke in the eye to national security and social conservatives. Ron Paul is the greatest challenge for the Reagan coalition, a threat to conservative unity, and a gift – unintended – to the status quo establishment by offering an unelectable offering that bleeds off voters behind a Quixotic candidacy.

John Huntsman staked his candidacy on NH, and came it third,  achieved by re-using McCain slogans and independent-appealling. What of that?  Independent voters was 50% of the New Hampshire electorate. Most of them voted for Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.   Hunstman  tried to spin third into a victory.  In reality, Huntsman has no place left to go, except a single digit performance in future states.

Santorum’s bounce was muted, and with Gingrich and Santorum both fighting for 4th and 5th place, neither can claim a strong enough showing to best the other as the  “conservative choice” – this is the best situation for Romney, made even better with Rick Perry trying to recapture some fire. This is not a good result for social conservatives.

Newt Gingrich and his Bain attacks are failing to dent Romney but is now unwisely inserting anti-capitalist populism into the race. Mary Matalin on CNN: “The conservative intelligensia are agast” at the attacks on Romney’s efforts at Bain. Gov  Perry is falling into the same trap, talking about items that just make them sound desperate and small-minded and overtly populist.  This tactic leads to losing any reason for picking them over Romney – for if they aren’t going to be stronger conservative, if they don’t have a stronger conservative agenda and alternative, they will be no better than Romney. Newt Gingrich has since Iowa managed to damage his own image without visibly denting Romney’s poll ratings.

Rick Perry had no speech. He ended up with a press release about the conservative alternative. Only 1% of New Hampshire voters felt we need a Perry alternative to Romney.

Even though every Romney alternative did poorly, nobody left the race. The continued fractured field helps Romney. We are now in a position where Romney is likely to win South Carolina over the fractured field.

What else  lost? Perry’s “let’s go back to Iraq” and Santorum’s sabre rattling lost. They were bested by Ron Paul, picking up isolationist and anti-war vote support, and by Huntsman, calling to get out of Afghanistan. Social conservatism is losing, as the social conservative Santorum was not able to extend into other parts of electorate.  In short, the lack of  conservative alternative is related to the  fact that conservative unity is fracturing, as different components of the Reagan coalition has decided to find a different ‘favorite’ – none of whom could claim to be full-bore best conservative on all three legs of Reagan’s conservative coalition. This fracturing is the real serious problem we face, far more serious than the mere fact that a more conservative candidate can’t rise to outpoll Romney.

If it’s not ironic enough that we are running the author of Romneycare to go up against the President who gave us Obamacare, let’s ponder the irony that we may have to depend on someone from the Romney wing of the party to keep the Reagan coalition together.   Meanwhile, there is a Staples commercial going on during the  coverage of the election tonight – point Romney.

I’ve found myself defending Santorum from the claims that Santorum is some phony conservative – a ‘neo-con’ and a ‘big Government conservative’ – and in the process of researching found that, not only is Rick Santorum the conservative I believed he was, but that he has fiscal and economic bona fides that should make small-Government conservatives quite willing to support him.

Part of the attacks on Santorum, by making Santorum part of some Bushian plot to spending wildly, sadly repeats the Democrat talking points by blaming Bush for “the huge debt our nation now faces” as if somehow Bush was the worst drunken sailor of spending, ignoring the fact that Democrats created the last $5 TRILLION in new debt since 2006 (after Santorum left office, btw).

If we want to vet Santorum for real and not just throw talking points … let’s go to the record. The record will show that Santorum was and is a solid, mainstream conservative Congressman and Senator. In the 1990s, Santorum was a part of the Gingrich-led Congress that balanced the budget. And in 2002 to 2006 the budget deficit went to $250 billion – high but nothing like the level under Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Claims that Santorum is a big-government conservative are simply contrary to his full record and his conservative agenda as a candidate for President, where he wants to repeal Obamacare, cap spending at 18% and follow the Ryan roadmap and pass the BBA.

One source is Club for Growth, who give excellent summaries of where candidate stand and how they acted on economic and fiscal issues. Key points on Santorum:

Santorum has consistently supported broad-based tax cuts and opposed tax increases either by sponsoring key legislation or by casting votes on relevant bills.  Some high profile votes include:

• Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993
• Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997
• Voted NO on a cigarette tax hike in 1998
• Voted YES on repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1999
• Voted YES on the 2001 Bush tax cuts
• Voted YES to repeal the Death Tax in 2002
• Voted YES to the 2003 Bush tax cuts
• Voted YES to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006

On spending:

On spending, Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar.  In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, he was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system.   He also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies.   When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed.   He also voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

More recently, when he was out of Congress, Santorum opposed TARP , the stimulus , the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

Club for Growth notes he deviations and issues on big-spending ticket items under Bush, including No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, which Bush got most Congressional Republicans to support. They note his solid support for school choice, for Social Security entitlement reform, and some ‘mixed bag’ items in regulations: He voted NO on the oppressive McCain-Feingold bill in 2002. They also note with interest this:

One of those exceptions came in 2009, in the special election for Congress in New York’s 23rd district.  Santorum was the second high profile potential presidential candidate (Sarah Palin was the first) to endorse Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava.  This showed leadership for the limited government cause because of the timing of the endorsement, coming before establishment Republicans had figured out that Scozzafava was a losing candidate.

This is interesting because Newt Gingrich went a different way and endorsed the non-conservative Scozzafava. Club for Growth summarizes thusly:

On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average.  More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others.  He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary.  But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.

I would add that the deviations from conservative positions were consistent with supporting his consituents interests.

Another source is VoteSmart. It shows a 100% prolife position. His National Taxpayer rating is 76%. ACU ratings in the 80-90% range.Some other positions:

Here are his ratings from when he was in Congress:

American Conservative Union — 88%
National Right to Life Committee — 100%
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%

Now remember, this is Santorum’s House ratings, in a DEMOCRAT district. How many Republicans in Democrat areas vote this conservative? Kirk? Snowe?  That’s conviction!  Santorum is NOT a ‘big government conservative’ but an across-the-board mainstream conservative with a solidly conservative voting record, albeit marred with the support for earmarks and some spending bills that many Republicans in Bush eara fell prey to.

Yet another source that looks at Santorum’s record is Jen Rubin, who likewise absolves Santorum of the phony claim that he is a big-government conservative:

“While in Iowa, Texas Gov. Rick Perry tried to begin a line of attack on Rick Santorum claiming that the former Pennsylvania senator is a big-government conservative. That attack seems poorly thought through (shocking, I know from such a meticulous campaign) for several reasons.

First, Santorum is to the right of Perry in some important ways. Santorum opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program; Perry wrote a letter on the day of the Senate vote urging Congress to pass legislation to avert a meltdown. Santorum, as we saw in the debates, is likewise to the right of Perry (and Newt Gingrich, for that matter) on immigration.

Indeed, Santorum’s supposed deviations from conservative orthodoxy are similar those of his rivals. He voted for earmarks and highway funds. Gov. Perry took the money. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D; Gingrich lobbied for it, and Perry said in a debate that he wouldn’t repeal it.”

“And finally, Santorum has put together an aggressive spending reduction plan. He’s for the balanced-budget amendment. He’s embraced Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. He’s in favor of Social Security reform, against energy subsidies, for privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and in favor of repealing Obamacare. The guy is no liberal when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Is he to the right of Gingrich? Yes. To the left of Ron Paul? Yes. But so are most GOP voters.”

Where Santorum deviated from the conservative line, like his vote on NAFTA and his support for earmarks, he was doing the exceptional thing, and  those deviations were in most cases catering to his constituents. But UNLIKE most Northeast Republicans, that ‘catering’ did not extend to abandoning conservative principles again and again. They’ve been the exception to the rule that Congressman and Senator Rick Santorum held. With his support for lower taxes, prolife and profamily policies, conservative Judges, for balanced budgets and entitlement reform, against McCain-Feingold, for school choice, against TARP and Frank-Dodd.  Rick Santorum has  had a solid and mostly consistent conservative voting record.

Santorum further has a solid and conservative agenda for President. Romney timidly talks of getting spending maybe down to 20% of GDP. Rick Santorum fully supports the Republican balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP. He wants lower tax rates for all, going to a 10%/28% two tier tax rate and lowering corporate tax rates.

While Gingrich criticized the Ryan roadmap, Santorum embraced it. Newt supported Medicare Part D, supported at one time healthcare mandates, and supported all the Bush programs that conservatives object to in Santorum’s voting record.  Romney has gone further of course, embracing not just TARP, but healthcare mandates and failing to even fully criticize the Obama stimulus spending.  Only Gingrich or Santorum will wage a campaign that fully challenges Obama’s whole agenda and actually works to repeal it. Newt has pegged Mitt Romney rightly as a Massachusetts moderate, but Newt is not without flys in his ointment either, from global warming to embracing Hillary, Pelosi and Al Sharpton (!) at various times in attempts to ‘reach across’ bipartisanly.

The bottom line is that between Newt, Santorum, and Romney .. Santorum is the one who is most fiscally conservative and who will have the most fiscally conservative administration as President.

Both Newt and Santorum are conservative. Just not perfect conservatives. For those who say that Santorum is not a ‘true conservative’, I would argue simply that if an 85% ACU rating and leadership on conservative issues in Congress for almost 2 decades is not enough, you will NEVER find a ‘true conservative’ in the Presidential field.

For the rest of us without that fine a filter, yes, Rick Santorum is a ‘true conservative’. Conservatives will be happy with his SCOTUS picks, his support of our military, his support for life, his tax reform and entitlement reforms, his pro-energy policies, his economic growth agenda, his fiscally responsible budgets, and his appeal to get America working again.

Conservatives are seeing a bit of the same GOP primary train wreck that we have seen before: Conservative base voters flit between a number of non-viable candidates, judging harshly any deviance from conservative orthodoxy enough to sideline effective candidates, while the establishmentarians pick a non-conservative “next in line” guy, fund him,  and get to work getting him nominated. If GOP history is any guide, the ‘next in line’ guy (Dole in 1996,McCain 2008, Romney 2012) gets the nomination.

The only time ‘next in line’ worked for conservatives was 1980, when Reagan came back from his near win in 1976.

Conservatives have known this time around it would be Romney or … someone else, and for 12 months the GOP pre-primary was about finding the ‘not Romney’ conservative candidate to avoid the calamity of blowing our chance at getting a conservative in the White House, in a year when the Democrat incumbent is very vulnerable.  We all have our favorites, but the real challenge has been to find a credible consistent conservative who can beat Obama. The polls have been volatile because voters are thinking – Trump? Palin? Perry? Bachmann? Cain? Santorum? – each were considered, boosted then put back. In August, Tex Gov Rick Perry joined the race and I felt he would be the ‘it’ candidate to bring executive experience and conservative credentials together and pull it off. His campaign got an initial boost, but withered.

Four years ago, I found the results in Iowa distressing – a big-government conservative called Huckabee won the state on the backs of  Christian pandering, with a consequence that I corretly estimated would lead to a McCain nomination – a poor choice and a non-conservative. We should not be so disheartened at the results in Iowa yesterday. We saw a 3-way split of the GOP wings of the party:  Santorum won the conservative vote, Ron Paul the libertarian votes, and Romney the establishment and moderate “lests just beat Obama” vote.

Lest we think Iowa disserved us here, we need to recognize the dynamics: We get the candidates we have, not the ones we wish. Iowa didnt have a perfect candidate to pick, but the electorate managed to find Santorum more compelling than Perry, Gingrich, Bachman and the rest.

In a fine late-night speech, Santorum gave a heartfelt and eloquent testimony to his heritage, his values and the vision he will bring as President. I heard a man more conservative and eloquent than George W Bush or McCain or GHWBush … in fact more eloquent than any candidate since … Reagan.

Advice to conservatives: We have 2 real choices here. Support Rick Santorum or settle on Mitt Romney. Any other choice would lead to Romney winning.

Can Santorum win? Is he conservative enough? Santorum’s conservative credentials will be questioned, but don’t fall prey to the fallacy of imperfection, as the question is not ‘who is perfect?” its who is best? And Santorum is pretty awesome for a blue-state Republican. With an ACU rating in the 80s, He managed to be in the top 10 most conservative Senators while representing blue State Pennsylvania. His fiscal votes were the most conservative of any northeast Republican, and his prolife and pro-family convictions have caused him enough media grief to be a badge of honor ( a la Quayle).

As for his electability, let us remember that while Santorum lost in 2006 bloodbath year, Romney didnt even run for re-election, knowing he’d be beaten. And Newt never had to run in the kind of tough electorate Santorum has. Facing Obama, Romney will be tagged the Wall Street plutocrat, and it will stick. Yes, they will call Santorum an extremist, but they will call any Republican who properly opposes gay marriage and abortion on demand the same. Santorum, by winning, showed his electability.

Where does that leave the rest of the field? Be wary to consider Newt Gingrich as viable at this point because the real result of any restart in Newt’s campaign. What gave newt his boost in the last 2 months was the recognition of him as the man with ideas. Well, he seems to have chucked that in the past week with his vengeful gloves-off comments vis a vis Romney. Perhaps newt is doing the conservative base a service doing this, but that is no way to get nominated. Newt going forward will split conservative votes and Newt’s ‘damaged goods’ reputation due to his personal issues make it hard for him to recapture any momentum.

Ron Paul has been considered a self-limiting candidate who cannot win the nomination. Iowa didn’t change that. It does however remind us that libertarian-oriented small-government folks need to be a part of our coalition, and we ignore and malign that part of the coalition at our peril.

It’s over for Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman. Pack up and go home. This makes my prior hopes and predictions of Rick Perry success a nullity, but we need to get real: Perry’s late and ineffective campaign was sunk by poor debate performances and lack of preparation and lack of a real conservative agenda that he could articulate. I’m sorry I didn’t predict that just as Rick is sorry he didn’t do better on stage. “Oops”.

If ‘next in line’ moderate Romney wins the epitaph will be the same as on prior primaries:  Conservatives lost this primary before it began because we needed to pick one credible, strong, electable, consistent conservative … and get behind him or her 100%. We didnt so the choice went to someone else chosen by others. Maybe there is no such 100% conservative candidate in the race, but Iowa has made the choice a bit easier for us:

They chose Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.

Consider the GOP ballot be these two men now. The rest have been voted off the island. Who’s your choice? In my view, the clear conservative preference should be Rick Santorum. Caterwauling, complaining, carping, backbiting or attempts to revive the corpses of dead campaigns will only prove that the conservative crack-up continues.

Texas Governor Rick Perry chances for winning the Republican nomination are looking more imperiled now than ever, with poll numbers showing Herman Cain as the rising star, taking much of the conservative and Tea Party support that was briefly his. Beset by stories about rocks, religion, in-state tuition, and changes of heart about what he said in debates, Perry has been out of his groove and blown his initial lead.

Perry has to do two things and one last chance before the calendar and the race dynamics chew up his chances. The first is get a clear, substantive and distinguishing conservative agenda out there, to show people what they will get if he wins. The second is to articulate to show he can be a communicator of our conservative agenda – back to the main fiscal and economic  issues that are his strengths.

Perry’s message has to contrast with the two other real candidates in the race at this point – Cain and Romney.  Taxes is his opportunity. In Romney, we have a ’59-point’ plan that is so many points because it is so small. It’s a plan to negotiate and tinker. Cain’s 9-9-9 is the hot, bold plan. But with a sales tax being added, the viability and sellability of that plan is being questioned.  It’s both interesting and encouraging that Perry is leaning on Flat Tax proponent Steve Forbes for advice:

Rick Perry, who will unveil his economic plan starting with an energy speech on Friday, did not get a chance to answer that question during the New Hampshire debate. But his campaign told me Wednesday that Steve Forbes is among those advising the Texas governor. Forbes, chairman and editor in chief of Forbes Media, ran for president in 1996 and 2000 and pushed both times for a flat tax, private Social Security accounts, and medical savings accounts.

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/the-campaign-whisperers-1704229.story

When Steve Forbes proposed the Flat Tax in the 1990s, Mitt Romney got so upset about it, he decided to put an ad out attacking the proposal. Romney’s capital gains rate cutoff is very “unflat tax” and locks in place our current progressive-tax complexity and burden. If Perry makes the Flat Tax the centerpiece of his economic plan, he can contrast with Romney, and then bring in other bold-yet-realistic conservative agenda items to round out a full economic program:

• Tax reform – a flatter, fairer system via the Flat Tax.
• Energy independence via drill now and ‘all of the above’ energy policies.
• Entitlement Reform via Social Security choice.
• Balancing the budget and controlling spending via BBA, and ‘cap and balance’. Reassert Federalism by returning money and decisions to states.
• Regulation and federal tort reform – repeal Dodd-Frank, etc.
• Healthcare reform – repeal Obamacare, replace with Healthcare Freedom Act (MSAs, buy insurance across state lines, etc.)

Several items will be “gimme” items that all candidates agree on, but the Flat Tax is still out there as an idea, unowned by any candidate. When we talk about side issues, we have “lost the plot” on what 2012 should be about. When we over-focus on one idea, like 9-9-9, we focus on a tree while forgetting the forest. All of these ideas will have to tie back to “Get America Working Again”, and if they do, you have a program not just for a primary, but a program to win an election and a mandate.   Perry  can offer a realistic “I have done conservative bills before, I can do this conservative agenda” approach that will contrast with those who havent governed, and those who have governed but not conservatively.

Is he up for it? I am hopeful that he does plan to roll out a substantive agenda and that he is talking to the right advisors.

It’s useful to compare this year Republican primary with the one 4 years ago as a template, because in all GOP primaries, there are key groups and constituencies. 4 years ago, there never emerged a consensus conservative candidate, and as a result, we got a ‘maverick’. What about 2012?

Mitt Romney is this year’s McCain, the ‘establishment’ candidate. The moderates and establishment are always flocking to the ‘electable’ guy, which to them means the one with the least sharp-elbow conservative positions. So we get the grassroots vs establishment tug of war. Even though his agenda is no much different, Mitt’s position and base of support has shifted from 2008. We as a party want a more conservative candidate. Many of us conservatives who were interested in Romney in 2008 have a ‘no sale’ sign out for Mr Romneycare, while moderates have him … or Huntsman. No wonder Romney leads among moderates.

Rick Perry is this year’s Mitt Romney. In 2008, Mitt tried the ‘check box’ approach but couldn’t close the sale as a convincing conservative. Rick Perry, other than his party-switching past (shades of ex-Democrat Reagan?), has all the prolife progun pro-10thA fiscal conservative social conservative boxes checked. He has a better shot at convincing people he’s a real conservative than Mitt can, thanks to 10 years of fiscal conservatism and a much more conservative state to hail from, but he’s had to navigate between some uber-conservative red meat statements (“ponzi scheme”) that might cause general election trouble, and his soft / non-conservative immigration policy. But his most serious lack is the ‘where’s the beef?’ on his plans, one that is more visible when running against the wonkish Gingrich, Mr 9-9-9 Cain and “I have an 80page economic plan” Romney.

Herman Cain is this year’s Mike Huckabee. He beat out the self-imploding Michele Bachmann for the Tea Party seed to get to where he is, which is now top tier. He’s the conservative ‘heart and soul’ candidate, the long shot who is actually expressing eloquently what needs to be said (except when he makes a gaffe). He has an opening because Rick Perry’s poor debate performances and immigration position are causing some conservative / Tea Party second guessing.

Sarah Palin is this year’s Fred Thompson. Some long for her entry, but if she had the fire in belly to run … she’d be in there by now. Either she doesn’t run or the year’s biggest fizzle campaign would ensue. (No, just because other conservatives are imperfect stumblebums doesnt mean she will save the day. Once she’s in a debate, it will be obvious that her generic conservative statements are EXACTLY what 5 or 6 other candidates are saying.)

Michelle Bachmann blew her chance by over-reaching on Gardasil and is now the Duncan Hunter of the 2012 race.

Rick Santorum is the Sam Brownback of the race. Who was that? Exactly.

Ron Paul is this year’s Ron Paul. Irreplaceable! Although Gary Johnson is trying, he’s failing, and Gary Johnson is the Dennis Kucinich. One wonders if he and Huntsman even belong in this party’s primary.

Jon Huntsman is the wannabe McCain, but can’t even rate being this year’s Rudy. He’s not gotten important enough to even flop. He should run against Obama as a Democrat.

Newt Gingrich also is irreplaceable, and I am glad he is running; almost as the adult in the room when the rest of the field falls for the media traps, he has consistently put it back on the media during debates. My only comment is that he should have run in 2008 because there was no equivalent back then and we needed that.

If this race goes the way 2008 went, Perry/Cain split and Romney wins. OTOH, a race more like 2000 where Bush ran as the bit-more-conservative than McCain, ie a Perry v Romney 1on1, Perry wins. The ball is in Perry’s court to make it a 2000 like race. If he steps up his game, gets more ‘right’ on immigration, get serious solid wonky plans for conservative governance, he wins. If Perry doesnt put it together, Cain can win if he keeps the gaffe factor down; his positions, plans and values are just what the primary voters want. If neither of the above happen, Romney wins, and we rationalize it by saying, correctly that …

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN 2012 IS DEFEATING OBAMA.

The Republicans need a vigorous, clear, strong response to Obama’s Job Bill. Accepting Obama’s failed big spending stimulus rehash as-is would be a huge step backwards for fiscal responsibility. Congressional Republicans have adopted a cautious approach, and Republican House leaders sent this message:

“We share your desire for bipartisan cooperation, and assume that your ideas were not presented as an all-or-nothing proposition, but rather in anticipation that the Congress may also have equally as effective proposals to offer for consideration,” the leaders wrote.

Making a deal is politically smarter than just saying ‘no’, but the ‘compromise’ path will take us to a bad bill, just like the debt ceiling ‘deal’ that does the wrong things. We need to have a bold and clear alternative and we need the House Republicans to put it together, pass it, and dare the Senate to pass a similar bill to create jobs. There is a man who has the right plan: Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz’s Growth and Jobs Agenda is a 12-step plan to get America working again:
1) Repeal ObamaCare.
2) Kill Cap and Trade.
3) Stop the National Labor Relations Board from Attacking Jobs in Right-to-Work States.
4) Revoke the Offshore Drilling Moratorium.
5) Restrain Abusive Environmental Enforcement.
6) Repeal Dodd-Frank.
7) Slash Corporate Tax Rates.
8. Champion Tax Reform.
9) Cut the Federal Budget and Reform Entitlements.
10) Rein in the Fed and Ensure Sound Money.
11) Allow Small and Medium Companies To Opt out of Sarbanes-Oxley.
12) Pass a Strong Balanced Budget Amendment.

Here’s a video on it:

In the debt-ceiling debate, the Republicans use cut, cap and balance as a vehicle to show what the conservative approach was to fixing our debt crisis. We need to take this opportunity to show again what the conservative approach is to get America working again. The Ted Cruz 12-step plan would make a good blueprint for that alternative.

PS. Ted Cruz is not in Congress, but deserves to be. He is running for U.S. Senate in Texas.

The Social Security exchange between Romney and Perry in the debate tonight crystallizes the fault line in the Republican party: the play-it-safe establishment versus the conservative populist tell-it-like-it-is wings.

It reminded me of when in a 1987 debate, George HW Bush decided to call Pete DuPont’s idea of social security choice “a nutty idea”. “That’s a nutty idea Pierre” George said of DuPont’s plan to allow young people to opt out of social security.
From Nov 1987 New York times:

In Houston, Mr. Bush branded as a ”nutty idea” and ”dumb” the proposal by the former Delaware Governor to create an option to the Social Security System. Mr. du Pont contends such an optional retirement system is needed to assure that Social Security remains solvent in the 21st century and to assure benefits to the ”baby boom” generation now in its 30?s and 40?s.

”It’s not nutty, it’s not dumb, George,” Mr. du Pont has been declaring in recent days. ”It’s a way that young people can save for the future, it’s a way that Social Security can be saved and it’s one of those ideas that someone running for President ought to be putting forth to meet a real concern around the kitchen table for millions of American families across the country.”

Boy, George sure put THAT nut in his place, eh! Only 20 years later, his own son, George W Bush, stumbled trying to sell a reform package not too different from Pete DuPont’s ‘nutty idea’. The idea remains stillborn.

Since the time of Eisenhower, the Republicans have fought a half-hearted battle to fix or change what is at heart an old fashioned, out-of-step Ponzi Scheme. Social Security ‘works’ because anyone locked into a lifetime of taxes will demand their money ‘back’. And then some, if Congress is in the mood.

Attempts to fix this system have foundered because of Democrats demagoging the issue, cowardly politicians (like GHWB and Romney) and a populace stuck in a system that is unchangeable due to the weight of its own inertia and its demographic and actuarial scheme. The very Ponzi-ness of the scheme makes it hard to reform.

Romney tonight called this system a success, not a failure. Politically it is very successful, but economically, Romney should know better.

Just think how better off we might be if 20 years ago Pierre’s “nutty idea” of fixing social security was tried. We might not be in the terrible mess we are.

Here is what the Trustees of Social Security and Medicare are saying in 2011:

“Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983.

“The financial conditions of the Social Security and Medicare programs remain challenging. Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

“The long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon.”

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

So, alas, not just Pete DuPont, but Rick Perry is right. The status quo is not acceptable. The Ponzi Scheme is edging closer to the abyss. If we do not make changes, and make them soon, the system will collapse and the effects will be wrenching – huge tax increases, lower benefits or both. Or worse. Look at Greece for the limits of govt debt and public sector burdens.

Romney has done far worse than Bush did in 1988. Not only is he actively opposing what is in fact a correct characterization (“Ponzi Scheme”) he doubled-down by calling the system sound AND implying casting doubts on the system would make Perry unelectable.

Romney adviser Stuart Stevens exulted over what he called a politically suicidal moment by Perry, emailing to POLITICO:

“He has lost. No federal candidate has ever won on the Perry program to kill Social Security. Never has. Never will.”

Romney has sent a very BAD signal catering to the liberal media – he will NOT have the guts to take on real Social Security reform. He has undercut GOP reform attempts. He will use phony Democrat talking points (“kill Social Security”) to attack those who will. It’s a reminder of Romney’s ad against the flat tax in the mid 1990s.

The bottom line is this: We have been waiting for a ‘conservative’ moment, where we could actually fix the serious problems of the liberal welfare state. In 1988, we blew it when we elected a non-conservative who failed to advance any real conservative agenda items and even broke his promise not to raise taxes. He became a one-termer.

In 2012, we have a HUGE mountain to climb, to reverse the worse 4 years in American governance since … a long time. We need bold conservative leaders who are willing to be bold enough to say the politically incorrect things and propose serious conservative reforms that will truly make a difference. Romney’s “That’s a nutty idea Pierre” moment was an indication that, on entitlements at least, he’ll stick to the pale pastels instead of the bold conservative colors.

To Counter Romney’s advisor: Romney has lost. No federal candidate has ever won on the Romney program to be another George HW Bush.

Pundits are noticing the eerie parallels between Obama’s Jobs Speech and President Carter’s Malaise speech – almost three years into his first and only term, Carter gave the infamous ‘malaise’ speech to reboot his Presidency, dogged by both domestic economic challenges and foreign policy setbacks. The dour speech did more to gell the mood of the country than fix it. We figured out then that the problem we had was not a crisis in confidence so much as a crisis in leadership. America regained our confidence when we regained good leadership under Reagan.

So what can Obama say that would break the spell of our shaken and weak economy and get more jobs created? As he looks into his bag of BigGovtJobMaking tricks, he finds there is nothing left not done. After $1 trillion stimulus bills and $5 trillion in debt, every Keynesian button – expect “more of the same” – has been pushed. Already the White House is tamping down the expectations on the ‘Jobs Speech’, as it become noticed that he will say very little that is new. It’s all been done before. Courtesy of IBD:

Obama’s real goal at this point is a desperate one: the one job he most wants to save is his own. Some economy watchers are already saying its too late; GDP growth, if we are lucky enough to avoid a double dip, will be perhaps 1.5-2.5% on average now until election day, leaving unemployment not much lower than the 9.1% rate of today. The total number of jobs on election day 2012 will be perhaps 1 million LESS THAN ON ELECTION DAY 2008. No President since Hoover has had such a bad record.

Proposing yet another Government gimmick giveaway program, green jobs, purple jobs, whatever jobs, via government subsidies, will not cut it. These are tiny band-aids, and how will “More cowbell” of deficit spending stimulus fix the problem when it hasn’t done much so far? Now, if he had a magical epiphany that caused him to shed his leftwing ideological predilections, he MIGHT come up with a real and different economic plan, that had this in it:

1. 18 month Federal regulatory moratorium. Repeal/halt all EPA regulation on CO2.
2. Tax reform (a la Coburn and Simpson Bowles) to cut rates and close loopholes,  make permanent the Bush tax levels and/or make permanent adjustments that are not tax increases.
3. Payroll tax relief that is permanent and wedded to social security and entitlement reform.
4. Long-range plan to balance the budget and cap the debt, to keep and upgrade our credit worthiness.
5. Obamacare repeal. Repeal the taxes, the job-killing mandates, and the subsidies that are unaffordable.
6. Pass all pending free-trade deals.
7. Deregulate healthcare to lower costs – allow prescription drug imports, allow purchase of health insurance across state lines, etc.
8. Repeal/reform Frank-Dodd and Sarbanes-Oxley, in ways that will revive venture capital, IPOs and capital markets and avoid the too-big-to-fail taxpayers-on-the-hook moral hazard.
9. Focus on reviving US manufacturing, get corporate tax laws changed to encourage repatriation of capital. Pay for lower taxes on production with consideration of 5% BTT (business transfer tax) on imports.

When you consider the big-ness of the above agenda, consider the ultimate smallness of spending even $100 billion or more on ‘stimulus’; deficit spending like this is ineffective and has delivered jobs at exorbitant costs (around $300,000 per created job). Would Obama propose this conservative market-oriented agenda? Hardly. This reverses much of his regulatory overreach and tax-and-spend agenda. But failing to move in this direction will be his undoing. He has already passed, implemented and tried his agenda – it failed. Either he reverses and changes course, or he’s a goner.

The Republicans will have a serious responsibility to step up and propose a serious and credible alternative plan, hopefully using some ideas as above, with the key principle that long-term economic growth, not short-term gimmicks, needs to be our policy objective. To that end, we need to avoid the distortions of temporary tax holidays at this time.  That may have been appropriate to get us through the 2008-2009 crisis, but we now face a different dynamic. We need to end the problem of ‘uncertainty’ by advocating for regulatory reform, and end to new regulations, and the need for more permanent solutions – permanent tax reform, permanent entitlement and spending reform that gets us to balance, and permanent changes to encourage production and wealth creation in the US.

Republicans have the opportunity to get their bolder ideas out there and offer something different and better.  I certainly hope that if Obama does embrace some of the above items,  whether tax reform, regulatory relief or other items, the Republicans leave the door open for compromise. We will need a new leader in Nov 2012, but our country can’t wait until then for some economic relief, and another Obama stimulus ‘rerun’ won’t cut it. We need serious private-sector job creation and we need it now. As the proverb has it: Fortune favors the bold. Dear Republicans:  Be bold.

If we are to fix our economic problems here in the US, we are going to have to answer one basic question:

How do we create economic value in the United States in the 21st century?

How we create economic value is more important than our deficit, our debt, or even the question of jobs. It is the fundamental question, but the one question that doesn’t get asked, especially in the partisan foodfight of politics. Without economic value, there are no ‘jobs’ worth working for, and no retirement from those jobs for which you can save. The forces of economic creative destruction have made the answer to that question trickier than in the past. Do we manufacture more, even in the face of offshoring? Where is our competitive advantage, in a world where talent is on tap globally via an internet connection? What’s our labor advantage when our education system ranks lower than dozens of other countries and India produces engineers willing to work for less?

While those questions go unanswered our elites fiddle with the worst sort of financial engineering. It has been a source of frustration to me that all the elites, even up to our Fed chairman, seem to lack an understanding of the roots of the financial instability that has beset us in recent years. We face a continued danger.  Perusing the bearish ZeroHedge website, I found this pertinent comment:

All this financial innovation and shadow banking was not created in a vacuum. Keynesian monetary fiat central banking and policies of promoting growth by fixing the price and availability of credit has drowned the system with liquidity. Demand for capital is what should determine credit growth. Policies promoting uneconomic credit compress credit profitability. Banking capital is forced to reach for a satisfactory return in ever more risky ways as the core economic function of banking is destroyed by government sponsored excess lending capacity. All the eggheads quoted fault a lack of regulation and a failure of free markets. What they should conclude is a failure of Keynesian credit schemes that interfere with a free market for capital.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/visualizing-how-bank-americas-reserve-accounting-errors-are-one-giant-subprime-cdo

What has been the source and cause of that excess liquidity? A surplus of savings, combined with a desire of elites to control and mitigate economic pain. Ironically, by holding down risk-free interest rates, and by monetizing credit, we have created bubble after bubble. This is not new. In 1998, the Asian crisis, fomented by stock market and currency booms that went bust, took down economies and Governments. In the wake of that and due to fears of impending Y2K problems, the Fed help inflate the internet bubble. When that went bust, the Fed again decided to ‘go easy’ and fomented the next bubble – housing. Government fiscal, monetary and regulatory actions combined to prop up the sub-prime housing bubble.

Since the bursting of that bubble, the Fed under Bernanke has been desperately using the hair of the dog that bit us, more and more monetary ease, to push the economy forward. That effort is now looking like pushing a rope. Like an addict who is strung out too much, there are no ‘highs’ left, just the dependency on monetary ease that has us hooked on low interest money, large government deficits, and pathetic growth. If we want to know how that goes, look at Japan, 20 years since their bubble burst, and their economy is still trapped.

The world now is grappling with the Last Big Bubble – the mother of all bubbles in fact – the Big Government Debt Bubble. Like the internet bubble, housing bubble and prior bubbles, this one is a false prosperity built on unsustainable debt, debt accumulated when credit was (too) easy. The European Sovereign Debt crisis, one of the causes of recent stock market tumbles, is all about the potential default on debt of Greece, Portugal, and other European nations, all mired in the combination of high debt and low growth.

The Obama policy of Keynesianism-on-crack, creating $1.4 trillion deficits, adding $5 trillion in debt in 3 short years, with long-term projections in his budget to send our debt/GDP ratio past 200%, has all been about feeding that Government bubble in order to ‘help’ the economy. That bubble-nomics doesn’t work, and it’s not hard to see why. Just as mal-investment in the internet or housing bubble just created economic pain when the bill came due, so too it happens that when you pay for non-economic behavior with Government money created out of thin air or via debt, you are not creating wealth. Rather, you are stealing wealth from one taxpayer, either now or in the future, to consume wealth. The process is inefficient enough that on balance more wealth is destroyed than transferred.

Once we realize that the roots of our current economic malaise are in fact the same as the roots of the crisis in 2008, we must realize that nothing that has been done since 2008 has actually addressed the root problem. What we have been doing in the United States, and the true root of our economic crisis, has been we have attempted to use financial engineering to solve our problems and create prosperity.  Bernanke’s QE1 and QE2 are financial engineering. As was TARP. As is the artifice of ‘stimulus’ through fiscal deficits, dollar dilution, and a number of other conjuring tricks to try to squeeze some increase in spending and investing out of a populace skittish of uncertainty in a country that continues to tax, borrow, spend and regulate our private sector to death.

Why have we done this? Like a company that forgets its core business of creating value, we have done this because our elites are failing to ask the fundamental question and get the right fundamental answer. The question is NOT  “How do we avoid a negative GDP number in Q4?” or “How do we get 1 millions created before my re-election?” They are asking the wrong questions because attempting to answer the right question is so hard:

How do we create economic value in the United States in the 21st century?

The elites, befuddled by pleas for band-aids and bedazzled by the quick-fix of ‘free money’,  have led us to adopt noxious, counterproductive economic quackery. Continuing down the Keynes-on-crack approach, we are saddled with green boondoggles, corporate welfare,  an unaffordable welfare state, and debts that will yield bankruptcy.

Yet all is not doom-and-gloom. For the same forces of economic creative destruction are forces of economic salvation for those who adapt. After all, any system, production process, idea, method or company that seeks to usurp an incumbent must meet the challenge of being better – faster, cheaper, higher quality. And despite the tumult of financial crises and a slow economy, innovation marches on.

The world has 4 billion cell phones, 10 times more than a decade ago. The size of the  internet and the capability of computer chips continues to double every 18 months.  In his essay, “Software is Eating the World”, Marc Andreeson remarks on the creative destruction wrought by software technologies. And he notes a particular bright spot for the US. The landmark names in the new economy, the software makers -  Microsoft, Google, Zynga, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Salesforce – are predominantly (but not exclusively) American.

The elites at the Commanding Heights of the economy have been asking the wrong questions to arrive at the wrong answer. Their attempts to avert short-term economic pain have blown up the very bubbles that are the root of our economic crises. They were and are over-focussed with our economic consumption, comfort and under-concerned with the real economic value our economy creates. The correct answer to the correct question of creating economic value is apparent when considering how America has moved forward in the past 30 years – technology and innovation applied to market goods and services.

For America to succeed economically it needs to: Be the world’s hub of innovation and the knowledge-based economy. Be the hub of new company formation and new economy value creation. Make all sectors of the economy as efficient and productive as possible through new technology. As a society, we will have to wean ourselves off of financial engineering and the false promises of spending money we don’t have and return to real engineering and real value creation. We face some serious questions and challenges, to keep our innovation edge, to increase high-value manufacturing in the USA, to keep the pipeline of entrepreneurial innovation going.

If we focus on answering the RIGHT question, we are far more likely to find a way out of our crisis and back on the path to prosperity.

It wasn’t that long ago that what I now predict as inevitable would have been unthinkable. A few months back, Gov Perry was wrestling with a Texas-sized budget shortfall, Trump was at the top of the primary polls, and when asked, Perry responded that he lacked an interest in running for President.

At this time, what America desperately needs is an economic policy that works for America, that restores American jobs, American manufacturing, American economic strength and growth. With 9% unemployment and an economy that is flatlining – it’s the jobs, stupid. Perry’s slogan “Get America WORKING again” is the correct counterpart to the failures of Obama. The Obama experiment has failed. The candidate we need is one who will challenge fundamentally the whole failed edifice of massive deficits, Obamacare mandates and Government control, the over-spending and over-regulating, and the failed Keynesian ‘stimulus’ claims.

In just one week, Perry has done more than any candidate since Trump to get under the Obama team’s skin, and he has done it on the right issues and right grounds: It’s jobs, it’s spending, it’s the debt, it’s the deficit.

Why Perry and not Bachmann, Romney, Cain, or even Palin? There are points to recommend other candidates, but only one candidate can tout such successful, conservative, long-standing executive branch governance:

• 10 years of experience as Governor of one of the largest and most job-creating states in the nation.
• A consistent pro-life, pro-gun and pro-traditional marriage record.
• Presided over 10 years of balanced budgets, including two times where Texas was faced with serious shorfalls, and despite the usual liberal handwringing and demands to deplete the Texas rainy day fund and raise taxes, Perry and the Republicans in the Texas lege did neither, keeping the spending in check.
• Passed tort reform and presided over other policies that have been business-friendly and helped Texas lead in job creation.

Perry hits the right spots in both being Tea Party fiscal-conservative  (a la Bachmann, Cain) while also having the executive Governing experience to tout a record (a la Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, etc). Voter don’t need to choose between a moderate ex-Governor versus a conservative with thin governing experience. Perry is more ready to be President than Obama. Sarah Palin, if she does not run, will likely endorse him as she endorsed him in 2009.

There will be much more that Perry will bring to the table. Sure, there is  plenty for his detractors to bring. You don’t be Governor of a big state for 10 years without some questionable decisions or controversy, and already the liberal media knives are out for Perry, pouncing on every statement. But there is something else Perry can bring besides a record of conservative governance that should satisfy the braod swath of conservative Republican voters. Perry can fight, and he can win.

As the survivor of multiple campaigns, Perry has learned what worked and what didn’t work. Back in 2009,  Perry was facing a challenge from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.  To many, and early polls suggested, he was a goner. But in July 2009,  I predicted a Perry victory and that KBH would stay in the Senate.  I was right. On April 15th, 2009, I joined fellow citizens in Austin at a Tea Party. Two statewide officials were there – Michael Williams (Railroad Commissioner, who is now running for Congress in Texas CD-25), and Governor Rick Perry. Gov Perry got heat for ‘secession’ comments, but his support of that “Tea Party” rally and others helped solidify his position with the voters longing for leaders to stand up to DC; he ran and won the GOP primary by running against Washington DC (and Kay “bailout” Hutchison). When EPA tried taking over Texas regulators and overriding their rules, Texas fought back and sued; Perry took Obama to task over the Federal failures to secure the border;  Perry said no to the ‘race to the top’ funding with strings; and Perry refused to go along with the Federal govt to change unemployment compensation to chase stimulus dollars.  Perry has shown the stark policy differences we face and in the process got a lot of political mileage by standing up to the Washington leviathan.  Perry stood with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as he joined with other state AGs in the lawsuit against Obamacare.

When I predicted a Perry victory in July 2009, I did it in response to an interesting statistic – Perry’s twitter followers far outnumbered Kay Bailey Hutchison’s; Perry tapped the social networks, online media, and developed  an innovative and efficient 2010 campaign, built around a compelling message. A new breed of campaigns on the Republican side in 2010  took lessons from Obama’s 2008 campaign and leverage social media and related technologies. It’s both telling and instructive that Rick Perry used the Redstate gathering to announce for President. It’s a recognition of Redstate and online activism as a nerve center for conservative thought and action.

Perry has the record, he has the conservative credentials and record, he has a good record on jobs to tout a better way, and he has the campaign skills and organizational savvy to go the distance and win both the primary and the general election. That is why in one short week, he has bested every other candidate, included supposed front-runner Romney, in polls; that is why the media and Obama campaign have already started attacking him. Some are noticing that the Obama and media attacks don’t hurt him, and for an interesting reason. These attacks are ignoring the electorate. George Will, when asked if Perry was smart to go to the Houston prayer rally, replied “Very smart.”  Jon Huntsman is dismayed that Perry doubts global warming? Wow, is Huntsman also on the Perry payroll? that’s like giving Perry free advertising.

In 1920, Warren Harding won one of the biggest blowout elections in the 20th century, running at a time to economic despair on a campaign of a “return to normalcy”. What Harding and his voters saw in the Wilson-era enlarged Federal government was an abberation from the American way. Not only did President Harding restore the balance – ‘normalcy’ -  reducing taxes, spending and Federal Government interference left over from a regulated WWI economy – he restored the economy and set off, with his successor Calvin Coolidge, the Roaring Twenties. In the 1980s, President Reagan presided over a similar restoration after the malaise and stagflation of the Carter era.

As 2012 approaches, the American cycle of experimenting with liberalism, experiencing its failures, then rejecting it, will have to happen again. There has been a lot of talk in recent years of the “new normal”, but there is nothing normal about massive deficits, 9% unemployment, and the downgrading of our credit. America as we knew it seems to be slipping away. We have one last opportunity to make it right in 2012, to restore America’s greatness and to “get America Working again.” Rick Perry will win the Republican nomination on his combined strength as a solid conservative and an experience and successful governor. He will run against the failed Obama economy by touting Texas success and pointing the way to a more successful model – creating jobs, opportunity and private sector growth, instead of deficits, dependency and government control. Obama will try to make Perry the next GWBush III, but he will fail to sway voters with it. Rick Perry will pull one from the Reagan playbook and ask: “So how’s that last 4 years of change worked out for you?”

For all these reasons, Texas Governor Rick Perry will be our next President.

This deal saves Harry Reid’s hide and guts the Ryan/House FY2012 budget in one fell swoop:

At one point in the negotiations, the 2012 budget was to be slashed by $36 billion. The final number of cuts: just $7 billion. And just to ensure we don’t have another bruising government shutdown fight over cuts in September, the deal deems and passes the 2012 budget. Yes, that’s right, the old Gephardt Rule or Slaughter Solution, is back

http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/01/five-things-for-liberals-to-like-in-the-debt-ceiling-deal/

We have known all along that FY2012 is where the rubber meets the road, a 9 year forecast can be changed 8 more times. What is REAL are: Tax law changes, and THIS YEARS SPENDING. Everything else is smoke-n-mirrors.

We should be cutting FY2012 by $100-200 billion, and the $36 billion is not, as this Liberal says, “slashed”, that is a 1% nick. That number would be pitifully small and barely acceptable, if there were other good things in it. What we see here, at $7 billion,  is a Democrat budget number.  What we see in the trigger and the backstop, are Democrat favored cuts. As we saw in April, details in the last-minute ‘deal’ emerge that prove that the Democrats wrote the details.

Apparently, Harry Reid meeting with McConnell and Boehner are two sheep and one wolf sitting together and deciding who is going to get sheared.

This deal is NOT good enough. Conservatives need to fight back and regain the cuts in the FY 2012 budget. We must not relent in cutting the spending.

Both Boehner and Reid have plans now, and the good news that they both have the formula of ‘some amount of cuts for some amount of debt ceiling increase’. The GOP won; the Democrats blinked.  Are we done? Nope. We need to get good cuts. I have a proposal, a path to Compromise that will give us (at least some) good cuts and a quick agreement: a 50/50 split on cut selection.

Frankly, Senator Reid’s plan is oddly better for Republicans. It gets us the cuts the House GOP asked for and it takes OFF the table the risk of tax increases, either now or in a cooked-up deal later on. Why did Senator Reid do that? It’s clear Senator Reid is about PROTECTING HIS DEMOCRAT SENATORS FROM TOUGH VOTES. It’s also clear that he cannot abide a real serious budget reform or entitlement reform. He can do the spending cuts though, because there are literrally trillions in fat in the Obama budget.

Now we all know what the problem with a Reid/Pelosi plan will be: It will be their ‘cuts’, fake phony out-year cuts, double-counting of cuts already taken, ‘cuts’ on a baseline that wont happen. The hilarity of a $1 trillion ‘cut’ because, get this, the wars are ending … um, so last week Reid, Pelosi and Obama were planning to EXTEND THE WAR and this week they are not?

See, their idea of cuts is to pretend to spending some money, then say “on second thought, lets not do that” and call that a ‘cut’.  We are going to get had if there is $2.5 trillion of that kind of ‘cut’.Do we then haggle over each cut? There isn’t time.  But there is a simple, non-partisan/bi-partisan way to handle this!

Each side, Republican House and Democrat Senate, gets to specify one half of the cuts. A true 50/50 split that allows each side to go in whichever direction they deem fit on ‘their side’.  We pick the real, up-front cuts, they pick the out-year ones.We pick on domestic discretionary, they pick on military, etc. The Democrat cuts still have to be real and quantifiable.

Why this is a win-win: The Democrats are at least in a 50/50 position on this; WE PICK THE CUTS THAT LOCK IN THE FY 2012 BUDGET WE WANT. It just so happens that $1 trillion is the 10 year impact of about $100 billion in real FY 2012 cuts … which just so happens to be the Ryan/Cut-Cap-Balance FY 2012 spending levels. They can do whatever they want in the out years, it will be dishwater and meaningless. But we will get $1.2 trillion, enough to get what we want for FY 2012.

Winning!

If Senator Reid balks at this, we have the Boehner 2 stage plan in our hip pocket. Reid wont like it because it puts the double squeeze on his Senators, he’d rather do it in one bite. How can he insist on a 50/50 split being unfair?

This is looking like a Democrat cave on the tax issues, but s happened in the April deal, the devil will be in the details of the ‘cuts’ and conservatives will surely be disappointed if we dont press the point to get good, real cuts and not phony one.  The FAIREST way to get it done and do it quickly enough to get a bill done fast is to give each side 50% of the cuts to specify, and we load in the cuts in cut, cap and balance.

This will be a true “half a loaf” deal, but given that we have only half the Congress, half a loaf is a good step forward.

“Cut, Cap, and Balance failed in the United States Senate with four votes shy of 50. The vote was 51-46 to table.”

What this news means: Majority of the members of both Houses of Congress supports Cut, Cap and Balance. It got 46 of 100 Senators and 234 of 435 House members to support it – 52% of the members of Congress.

It’s the only viable, solid and real plan out there.  Even if the cut, cap and balance plan is not fully approved in the Senate, its strong level of support indicates that it can be and it should be the basis and framework for any final agreement to go forward. There are other vague, fuzzy, promises-now-disappointment-later plans, but they cannot be the basis of agreement in the way this can.

It’s been noticed that Senator Harry Reid, the do-nothing control freak of the Senate, failed to allow this plan to be modified in a way to make it viable for passage. Here is a comment at the LA Times:

So, rather than ammend the bill to make it into something that they could agree with, they just killed it.  How does that make any sense?  The only actual bill that has been introduced during this entire debate is now completely off the table.  Hopefully the pubilic is paying attention to this.  And where is Reid’s plan?

Yet in fact, this vote, far from actually killing it, tells us that its only 4 Senators short of being supported by both Houses.

“There’s no question that the fiscal challenges in front of us demand a bipartisan solution, but the clock’s running,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a floor speech Thursday night. see:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59661.html#ixzz1Sqt4G4Xr

You know you are close to the target when the FUD and the flak starts flying thick and fast. Democrats are wheeling out their old sturdy workhorse campaign gambit – “They are killing Medicare”.  See Senator Conrad in action. Well.  It’s time for us to respond to this political gamesmanship with a few key points:

The Senate has not produced a budget in 2 years.  The Senate knew about the debt ceiling 6 months ago, but Harry Reid has yet to put a debt ceiling increase bill on the Senate floor. Their inaction and incompetence, including Sen Conrad’s failure to even make public his ‘secret budget’, puts our nation at risk.

The House passed a budget, and now has passed a solution to the debt ceiling limit: Cut, Cap and Balance. 234 Members signed on to this plan: The Cut – $100 billion next year, a gentle and moderate 3% reduction in FY 2012; the Cap, which offers a glide-path to reducing the burden of
Government back to the level it was in the latter Clinton years (Govt/GDP ratio of 19%); and the Balance, a balanced budget amendment to keep Congress in check from spending money we don’t have and keep the burden of Government in bounds.

Democrat control of Congress has led to a budget increase of 40% in only 4 years, and under Obama the public debt skyrocketed from $6.2 trillion to $9.7 trillion. So the Democrats have dug a hole, have NO PLAN to get us out, and are shrieking, moaning and wailing against this and any plan that does solve the problem.  Their opposition to this moderate and sensible plan is proof enough that they do not believe in any real limits on Government spending, taxing and power. Medicare spending does NOT even go down, so why the hyperbole? It’s over-heated rhetoric design to deflect from the complete LACK of any real solution on the part of the Democrats.

We are witnessing the disintegration of liberal welfare statism, and the acolytes of Big Government are lashing out violently while staying in denial over the basic unaffordability and economic contradictions of their progressive dreams. They are in denial, and are lashing out at those who point out the true – we much lower our spending.

Here’s what the Republicans must do – defend Cut, Cap and Balance, get as many votes for it as possible in the upcoming Senate vote, stand firm that this is the framework for a solution, and say:

“Cut, Cap and Balance is the only realistic framework for compromise, and the sooner the liberal Democrats admit this, the sooner we can get to a reasonable agreement.”

In the weekend talking head shows, Charles Krauthammer and Senator Marco Rubio point out a curious missing feature in Obama’s ‘proposals’: Real numbers. Details. Specifics. Substance.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: [The President] talks a good game. “Oh, I’m prepared to do entitlements, I’m ready to do entitlements.” Not once has he ever enunciated in public – other than all these leaks which I don’t trust for half a second – one structural change in entitlements, and without that, everybody over the age of nine knows we are not going to get a handle on the debt. So let’s hear him say it in public once.

Marco Rubio, parrying Bob Scheiffer’s ‘why don’t you play nice with the President?’ questions:

MARCO RUBIO: “OK, so where’s the plan? Where’s the president’s plan? I’ve never seen a piece of paper with the president’s name on it that’s his plan to solve this crisis. I’ve seen press conferences. I’ve seen lectures that he’s given to the Congress. I’ve seen these press avails where the camera comes in and takes a bunch of pictures. I haven’t seen a plan. Where is the president’s plan?“

In fact, the President, as is his style, waited until late in the process, inserted himself in it by criticizing other proposals and making demands and deadline for others to meet, yet does not have a specific plan of his own. His positions are, as Speaker Boehner put it, like jello.

The lack of any substance is curious enough, and the corresponding lack of actual legislative language or record is even more disturbing. Yet even more bizarre is the media radio silence over this salient fact, and their pretense at treating media leaks as authoritative, and treating declarations as a substitute for substance.

So when in Inside Washington, Nina Totenberg toted the state press party line and declared that Obama had offered a $4 trillion ‘grand bargain’, Krauthammer hammered back:

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: So why is it when he offered the big deal, the $4 trillion deal…

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: The grand bargain.

TOTENBERG: …the grand bargain, Republicans backed away from it?

KRAUTHAMMER: When did he offer that?

TOTENBERG: He offered that last week.

KRAUTHAMMER: Where?

TOTENBERG: In, he did it, publicly and in negotiations.

KRAUTHAMMER: In your leaks? What’s in the $4 trillion?

TOTENBERG: But Charles.

KRAUTHAMMER: Give me a number. Explain to me what’s in it.

TOTENBERG: Why is it, in two, in matter of two days, Republicans backed away from that and said we don’t want it?

KRAUTHAMMER: You accept everything he says, a $4 trillion deal, if you don’t have a single item in it that you can enunciate.

TOTENBERG: Well, I’m not at the table. Perhaps you are, but I’m not.

KRAUTHAMMER: Well then how does he expect America to accept something in which he explains nothing?

….  you have a completely compliant, pliant, supine press accepting every leak out of the White House. Tell me, we have been told, I’ve heard it again and again that the President’s prepared to do, to make cuts in entitlements. Name me one.

Why is the media not noticing the stunning lack of specifics in the Obama proposals? Why is the media not noticing the fact that the Senate has not acted on a budget in two years, and, unlike the Republicans, has no legislative language to actually pass the debt ceiling increase?  If the answer is simply – well, it helps the President’s position – that explains much about media bias. They are pushing a meme that the Republicans turned down some ‘great deal’ to shift blame on Republicans for not compromising, when, in fact, Obama has failed to come half-way. The Republicans have NOT turned down a ‘grand bargain’.  They turned down a parlor trick served as jello.

Yet it begs further the question, why aren’t the Republicans not making a bigger deal over the lack of substance, lack of legislative action, and lack of specifics in Obama’s proposals or in the Senate? They need to. The Emperor has no Clothes. The President has no plans for dealing with our debt and deficit in a genuine and serious way.  Bravo to Senator Rubio for making this point, and note for other Republicans: Follow Rubio’s lead.

Krauthammer quotes via Newsbusters.

It’s the Arrogance, Stupid!

It is sad and unfortunate that the Liberal Establishment is so disdainful of the “Tea Party” Republicans, that they don’t bother listening to what they are saying. And what are they saying? The #1 threat to America is not the current (perhaps phony) debt ceiling increase, but the fundamental threat to America’s financial future due to a Government that is spending far, far above its means.

This is not about political gamesmanship, but about ‘turning the country around’. If you think America is heading over a waterfall due to a government that taxes, borrows and spends too much, you will wanting no part in ANY action that takes us closer to the edge. Passing a debt ceiling without starting to fix the fiscal issues of overspending is such an action.

Had the President and his acolytes stopped lecturing and started listening for a change, they would detect that, no, there is no interest at all by conservatives and Republicans in harming the economy, either short-term or long-term. The conservative/Republican real interest is in helping the economy long-term by reducing the size, scope, cost, influence and burden of government, so it returns to a sustainable and rational level relative to our economy.

Given this, the question is ill-posed. The RIGHT question is: Will a debt ceiling ‘deal’ get us further along that path towards a sustainable and less burdensome government than a ‘no deal’ scenario or not?

If it DOES, then the “Tea Party” will bite. What deal would that be? The Tea party agenda would be – Obama-care repeal, the BBA, large spending cuts, and spending caps; these are what would elicit a ‘yes’. ANY tax hikes would be a “NO”. Since Obamacare repeal would be off-the-table from the Democrat side, and ‘entitlement reform’ the conservative way and liberal way are so far apart the twain cannot meet, and since BBA is likely a bridge too far for Democrats … we are left with Spending Cuts.

So we know EXACTLY what will elicit a deal that can stick: A bill with sufficient spending cuts that tells the Tea Party that they will be further along the long-term path to sustainably smaller government than a ‘shutdown crisis’. Is it enough? If its just a few trillion off of $45 trillion in 10 year spending plans, that 5% cut from Obama’s plans will not be enough for many. Ryan budget for FY 2012 however would be.

Either the Obama administration and DC Democrats know this fully and are engaged in partisan gamesmanship by trying to bait the Republicans into a no-deal crisis, or they are clueless and have not listened. It’s very dangerous to get drunk on your own rhetoric, and most of the anti-Tea Party rhetoric from the liberal side is bilgewater unfit for intelligent consumption. the bottom-line:

A REAL and SERIOUS effort towards lowering spending and toward fiscal responsibility would get conservatives in the House to a deal. Smoke and mirrors and gimmicks and brow-beating and ‘my tax hikes or the highway’ will … not.

“But it seems to me that if I’m right and at a macro-level it is politically in the interest of the Republican party to let the government default on its debts” This is dubious on many levels. An axiom – the Republicans ALWAYS get the blame. There is genuine desire by politicians on both sides NOT to muck things up, and McConnell plan can be viewed in that light. However, that desire is curiously lacking in Obama’s behavior. The ‘crisis’ is something Obama seems to be wanting, as his behavior has been to make a deal harder to reach, and he is trying to score far too many partisan points against the very people he is supposed to be talking to. The ‘default’ option is an option of the President, he could sign an order to make sure the interest on debt is paid first, taking that whole concern off the table. Yet, he doesnt do that; rather, he raises the stakes with the fearmongering-type statements of calamity. These are pressure-tactics, not consensus-building tactics.

By Aug 2nd, there will be either a spending-cut-only ‘deal’ bill, e.g compromise between Biden $2T cuts and cut, cap and balance, or there will be no deal at all. (McConnell’s plan B is an abortion, a bill that cuts the legs from under the House wont get through the House, and it adbidcates too much to the President.) The ‘no deal’ will be a political failure for both sides and for which both sides will deserve and get blame. It will not be a boon for Republicans, nor for Obama, nor for the country. Call it a ‘lose/lose/lose’ option.

The media may try, and even succeed, in blaming Republicans for the breakdown. In reality, the breakdown will have been caused by the liberals mis-reading and failing to listen to what the Tea Party Republicans were saying.

Originally posted as a comment  at http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/07/14/ok-john-so-should-the-republican-party-tank-the-economy-if-so-i-have-an-idea-how-they-can-do-it/#comments.