Straw Poll

As predicted, the Straw Poll broke Pawlenty. Beyond that, nothing should really be taken away from it. As an Iowa native, Bachmann always had a big advantage. Her advantage will be less in the Caucus but still noteworthy. It is also interesting that Perry, as a write-in candidate who didn't participate in the recent debate, received more votes than Romney, who was on the ballot and acquitted himself well in the debate.

The conventional wisdom has already narrowed the field down to Romney and Perry. Both have the fund-raising power that the other candidates lack. Both have executive experience, unlike most of the field. I have reservations about both.

Romney: Of course, Romneycare is a lodestone, mostly because it nixes Obamacare as a line of attack. He also parrots the climate change nonsense. It is also troubling that his 'conservatism' has been a slow and politically-motivated conversion. However, he speaks very well, has had a private sector job, and plenty of executive experience. I suspect I will be disappointed by a President Romney though not as disappointed as I am with President Obama.

Perry: Ron Paul had it right when he noted that Perry is from a Right-to-work state with no income tax and a business-friendly environment; Perry would have to make an effort to screw up the economy in relation to the other states. I am troubled by his longevity in office: he is the longest serving governor in state history, having just been elected to an unprecedented third term. Plus, he had finished out the last two years of Bush's 2nd term. Reminds me of FDR. Career politicians are usually trouble. Another downside is that he is the Texas Governor so soon after another Texas Governor was president. But, like Romney, I'd be less disappointed by a President Perry than a President Obama.

Time will tell if the conventional wisdom is valid.

10 to 1 Cuts vs. "Revenue"

Much has been made of the question in last night's debate where the candidates were asked if they would walk away from a budget deal that promised $10 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases. The candidates unanimously walked away. And so they should. The cuts never happen, as Reagan discovered with TEFRA. He was promised $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increase. He got the tax increase but future Congresses were not bound by the $3 in cuts which never materialized. No matter the ratio, the tax increase will come but the cuts won't. It's like that email where the Nigerian lawyer promises you a million dollars if you forward him $500. Sounds like a great deal. Do you walk away? What if it was $10 million? $100 million? The ratio is irrelevant.

If you change the tax code, the new tax structure continues until modified by some future Congress. On the other hand, cuts don't have that same structural longevity. If Congress cuts Program B by $1 billion this year, there is nothing to prevent them from restoring it next year. Worse still, the Congress can play the 'We would have spent' game. How does that work? Well, Congress was planning on spending $5 billion on Program C but instead only spent $4 billion. That's counted as a $1 billion cut. A cut should be when you look at what you spent last year and spend less than that amount. Such rarely happens. However, oddly enough, it happened last year. Lacking a new trillion dollar stimulus, 2010 saw a 2% reduction in federal spending. Before that, the last time spending was less was 1955.

If someone offers 10 to 1, one should skip the taxes and just take the $9 in cuts. Same difference, right? If someone offered you $10 if you paid them a dollar, wouldn't it be easier if they just gave you $9? Should give you the same balance, right? But that's not the point. That's not the goal of the person offering 'cuts' for taxes. A tax for cuts deal is doomed from the start and should never be accepted, no matter what ratio is offered.

The Debate

It was a mildly entertaining and sometimes fiery debate. Not easy to declare a winner.

- Romney did well though his defense of Romney-care as consistent with the 10th Amendment was weak. It is hard to believe in small government on the federal level while supporting large government at the state level. Still, he is correct. There were established state churches when the Bill of Rights was approved, though no one mentions that. The Bill of Rights exists to limit the federal government, not the states. Other than that, he came off well.

- Bachman was mired in defending herself from repeated attacks from Pawlenty. It was often distracting how much she had to reply to attacks. One attack stuck, in that she has a limited list of accomplishment but Congressmen seldom have much in that regard, especially if you believe in limiting government. Even so, it was massively unfair of Pawlenty to pin anything the Congress did on her, since she is but 1 vote among 535 Congressmen. She may not be on the winning side but she votes right, even Pawlenty would have to admit that.

- Pawlenty was desperate. I found him generally annoying, too often jumping on opponents very directly. Though he was on attack, he lost his battle with Bachman. Very difficult for a man to attack a woman and come away the winner; ask Rick Lazio. Worse, no one attacked him except in response to his attacks. When Pawlenty spoke, he either attacked someone or defended his record. Not a good impression.

- Paul was sometimes brilliant and sometimes obtuse. The liberty agenda is great but at times Paul saw no difference between war and crime. A foreign terrorist is not a criminal who should get the benefits of US trial. Geneva convention says we can stand them against a wall and shoot them. Let's go with that. Still, I'd be willing to try Paul's isolationist foreign policy if I could get his domestic policy. Abolish the Fed!

- Huntsman was better than I expected. Of course, that doesn't say a lot. And, though it has only been a short time, I can recall nothing memorable about what he had to say. But he left a good impression.

- Santorum was overlooked. He got irritated by the lack of questions that came his way. It did seem that Romney and Bachman had an unusually high portion of the time. Santorum was probably the most socially conservative person there. He jousted with Paul several times, notably on states rights (Paul would let the states do as they please where Santorum held there were limits, mentioning polygamy). Well-spoken and passionate.

- Cain was good on economics but less so on everything else. He needlessly announced that he had studied up on foreign policy, thereby revealing to a new audience an earlier gaffe. After prefacing his comment with that, he gave an adequate answer about Afghanistan.

- Gingrich was strong. He jumped down Chris Wallace's throat in response to a question about his resigning campaign staff, calling it a gotcha question. His answers were often the most thoughtful. He and Paul were the only ones who proposed that the entirety of US foreign policy needed rethinking. He and Romney were the best debaters.

Most of these candidates have very little riding on the Straw Poll. However, it could be a make or break for Pawlenty. I'm leaning toward break.

Debt Ceiling Failure

There is much rejoicing in Washington over the Debt Ceiling compromise. There is much talk that the Tea Party has won, getting cuts but no tax increases. Please! This is a failure. The debt ceiling will rise more than $2 trillion, the largest increase to date. Notice, that was a DEBT ceiling. Debt is increasing under this plan. Oh, but there are cuts, right? No, not really. The promised cuts are in some distant future and, even if they all come to pass, it is a pittance. We have a deficit of more than a trillion dollars but plan to cut a trillion over the next ten years? So, we'll only have deficits of $900 billion? Failure. Epic failure.

The government brings in $200 billion a month but spends $300 billion. That cannot continue. The spending must drop to meet income, the sooner the better. This deal makes it unlikely to happen in the next year and a half. DC is in denial. Bankruptcy looms and the politicians refuse to recognize the obvious. Those few who have tried to honestly address the problem have been attacked by rivals who know it is true. We are on the road to Greece but can't seem to change course.

Difference in Standards

Remember a few months back when Christopher Lee - the Republican Congressman from New York - was discovered to have posted a shirtless picture of himself online? What happened? Oh yeah, he resigned the very night that it came to light. His fellow Republicans weren't going to accept this sort of behavior or the distraction that would be associated with it. The Republicans have since lost Representative Lee's seat to the Democrats in the recent special election.

Now, what about Congressman Weiner. The night the issue appeared, he lied. Then as the scandal festered, he lied some more. Then it was starting to boil so he called in all the networks and lied again. As the lies inevitably failed, Weiner came out and admitted it. See, he's taking responsibility for his bad behavior. Well, only because he couldn't avoid it any longer. So, did the Democrats follow the Republican standard and demand Weiner resign posthaste? No. They're going with an ethics investigation. Even if Weiner did resign, the Democrats are unlikely to lose the seat.

Which party is holding its members to a higher standard of behavior?

Romney: the New McCain

Mitt Romney entered the race this week and already I'm disappointed. First, he still backs Romneycare. If government mandates that you have car insurance if you want to drive, that's one thing. One can opt not to drive and bypass this cost. The cost is associated with a privilege (i.e. driving). But when government mandates that you have health insurance if you want to not be a criminal, that's something entirely different. Granted, Romney has a point when he argues there is a difference between a state-mandate and a federal government mandate. He is arguing for federalism. Let the states be laboratories and great ideas will spread while bad ones will wither away. A federal mandate doesn't allow for bad ideas to wither away. But here's the thing: how can the electorate believe you want to restrain government when you clearly didn't at the state level? Furthermore, how can you make Obamacare a campaign issue when you have the albatross of Romneycare to bear? He neutralizes a huge campaign issue with his stance. Strike one on Romney.

During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Romney stated his belief that humans contribute to global warming. "It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors." As I have said many times before, the earth was hotter 1000 years ago and there were no SUVs. At one point, the earth was so hot that Maine was in the tropics and northern Alaska was a rain forest. But this time around, it's our fault and we need to take measures that will have no demonstrable effect other than to impoverish our economy. Moreover, China will not participate in this folly, thus assuring America's relative decline. Strike two on Romney.

The campaign has hardly begun and he's already got two strikes against him. I would prefer him to Obama but he looks like this year's McCain.

Disincentive to Create US Jobs?

Boeing is opening a facility in South Carolina to build the 787. A US company creating high-paying jobs inside the United States. Should be great, right? Wrong. The National Labor Relations Board is not happy.

The labor board's complaint filed earlier this month alleges Boeing decided to build a $750 million aircraft assembly plant in South Carolina because it was concerned about strikes by union workers in the state of Washington. Associated Press

Ah. South Carolina is a right to work state. The Washington unions will suffer if production moves. Can't have that. So, the NATIONAL Labor Relation Board has decided to come down on the side of Washington over South Carolina. Playing favorites? The question then becomes this: What incentives is the NLRB creating? Well, if NLRB gets its way, Boeing won't open a facility in SC. The WA unions will benefit, right? Not necessarily. The NLRB can only complain within the US. Boeing might instead escape union strikes by locating overseas, which will benefit neither SC nor WA.

Manufacturing has been fleeing the US because of things like this. Every job that has fled overseas is because it is cheaper to produce there. Even with the shipping costs, it is still cheaper. Unlike the service economy which must be close to its clients, manufacturing can escape overbearing government by leaving the jurisdiction. Businesses can, like people, vote with their feet.

End the Fed

Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, had the first ever press conference in the nearly century history of the institution. He said not to worry about inflation and that unemployment should slowly decline over the next two years. I beg to differ. Sure, employment should improve but inflation is coming. Look at the price of gold: it was going for $880/oz. in Jan. 09 but is currently trading at $1540/oz. Silver has gone from $11/oz. to $49/oz. in that time. Gas and food are also climbing. Oh, the government will assure you that gas is going up because of speculators and greedy oil companies. Never mentioned will be that with each new dollar that is printed, the ones in your wallet become less valuable.

The primary purpose of the Fed was originally to keep the money stable, make it a reliable store of value. Inflation is anathema to that. However, governments love inflation. Inflation is a tax. Inflation allows government to continue spending or to pay off debts with devalued currency.

None of what I say would come as a revelation to Bernanke. So, he knows inflation is coming. He knows that to rein it in will require a rise in the interest rate which will choke off job-creating investment. None of this is new. He, better than most, knows where these policies have led in the past. What is he thinking? He didn't explain it in his unprecedented press conference.

Debt Ceiling

I am generally a big fan of Charles Krauthammer but his recent take on the looming debt limit crisis is troubling. Why is it an 'adult moment' to get yet another credit card to pile up more debt? Shouldn't the adult thing be to stop spending beyond our means? The Republicans are falling all over themselves with their plans to cut $100 billion of spending. Oooh! Will that reduce the deficit from $1.4 trillion to $1.3 trillion? Wow, that's some cutting. Tragic and painful as it may be, we need to cut a bit more deeply than that. Racing toward the cliff at 75 mph rather than 80 mph still leaves us hurling into the ravine.

There is talk of defaulting if we don't raise the debt ceiling. How does that work? I've already borrowed for my mortgage and I'm on time with my payments but if I fail to borrow more, I'll have my house in foreclosure? No, I don't think so. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the spending will have to slow down immediately to the rate of incoming revenue. Wow, what a concept! Spending within our means.

Sadly, this is just another political football. If the Republicans try to hold the line at $14.3 trillion, the Democrats will not join in. Economic disaster may follow and the Democrats will blame the Republicans and vice versa. So, what to do? Wait for 2012 and the chance that they win both the Senate and the Presidency? Risky. The car may have already gone off the cliff. I vote to slam on the brakes and shut the government down if need be. The spending must stop, the sooner the better. It will be unpopular no matter when it is done so best to do it right out the gate. The House controls the purse strings and it must choke off the funds. Get on TV every night and say "We don't have the money" over and over again. It has the benefit of being true.

Oklahoma City Redux

Yes, already I read stories that Congresswoman Giffords was shot because of the vitriolic rhetoric from, just for example, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Movement. Those darned right wingers are pushing people to violence again. When Obama says you must 'punish your enemies' or wants to know 'whose ass to kick' or has his 'boot on the neck' or such, that isn't vitriolic rhetoric. However, when Sarah Palin 'targets' the 8th District in AZ with a graphic showing a cross hair, well, that's over the line. Of course someone is going to go on a shooting rampage.

Much like the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building last year, this guy is a crackpot. I watched a couple of his YouTube slide shows and they were pretty kooky. He really does talk about mind control through grammar and declares that sadly only 5% of Americans dream. Of interest, he had a list of his favorite books on his profile. Nothing by any contemporary right wingers but he did mention We The Living (Ayn Rand), The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx), Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler), The Republic (Plato), and Meno (Plato). Notably missing are any books by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, Bill Buckley, etc. A classmate of his reportedly says he was a left winger.

As a congresswoman has been shot, there is already a push to provide security for all members of congress. I vote no. You don't change policy for one incident. When congressmen are being gunned down on a regular basis, then we can talk. If we change nothing, the vast majority (99%+)of congressmen will be fine. In any case, we can't afford yet another federal agency.