Archive for January, 2012


Santorum can capitalize on the GOP bickering

Filed under: Posts — 1 Comment
January 30, 2012

Bickering does not look presidential. Pictured: Gingrich (left), Romney (right)

At the recent Florida debate, I couldn’t shake off a creeping sense of discontent with the endless stream of petty personal attacks flowing between presidential contenders Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. It was annoying and even repulsively ironic at times to see these self-proclaimed “conservatives” throwing their values into the gutter to launch ridiculous assaults on one another. One particularly frustrating moment occurred when Newt Gingrich challenged Mitt Romney on his investments in a blind trust that possessed holdings in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After Gingrich made the ridiculous assertion that Romney’s investments – which were made through a blind trust (key word is blind) – contributed to the thousands of foreclosures that have racked the state of Florida, Romney fired back, saying that Gingrich had invested some of his own money into Fannie and Freddie as well!

The bickering finally ended when debate moderator Wolf Blitzer moved the original question regarding the dismantling of Fannie and Freddie over to Rick Santorum. After answering the question, Santorum said this:

The bigger issue here is these two gentlemen, who are out distracting from the most important issues we have by playing petty personal politics…can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress and used the skills he developed as a member of Congress to advise companies – and that’s not the worst thing in the world – and that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy because he worked hard and he’s going out and working hard, and you guys should leave that alone and focus on the issues!

Unfortunately, as evidenced by the last 48 hours on the campaign trail, neither Gingrich nor Romney have taken Santorum’s call very seriously. Putting that aside, however, this was a defining moment for Rick Santorum’s campaign. Voters want to hear policy, not petty politics and bickering, and through this debate moment, Santorum connected with these voters in a very deep manner. Although Mr. Santorum has not picked up in Florida, I think it is still possible for him to pull off a late primary victory if Gingrich and Romney continue to display the same shameful bickering that characterized last week’s Florida debate. However, Santorum will need to leverage his excellent performance in the debate into real results, and fortunately, he is doing so in exactly the right way. Campaigning after Thursday’s debate, the former US senator decried the “gutter politics that [voters have] been seeing in this race” and expressing his disgust for candidates – like Romney and Gingrich – who seem to “do anything that’s necessary” to win an election. This message was very successful in the Florida debate, and it will likely continue to help Santorum as the primary process continues to press on toward the future.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Will Obama’s college plan work?

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
January 28, 2012

A free market solution to the tuition dilemma would be far more effective than a government program. Pictured: Obama speaking to students at the University of Michigan.

While campaigning in Michigan yesterday, President Obama announced a plan to curb student tuition costs in order to give everyone a chance to profit from a quality college education. Although well-meant, the president’s government-centered plan will ultimately be a big loser for college students across the United States.

Currently, the federal government subsidizes student loans heavily and appropriates $1 billion annually to underwrite these loans. President Obama’s proposal would octuple federal loan spending and bring it to a sizable $8 billion. Also, his plan would provide a merit-based awarding of loan funds to colleges. Schools that keep tuition rates down under the plan would receive more federal loan money than schools that fail to do so. Overall, this is a decent plan, but with a glaring flaw: it involves more government subsidies.

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul in particular has offered the most candid perspective on the failure of our student loan system. His bold plan eliminates the Department of Education altogether and gradually phases out student loans, putting pressure on colleges to lower their tuition costs and offer more sensible loan plans than their competitors. By letting the free market work, colleges that offer a quality education for a low price will be rewarded by a clamoring wave of applicants, while those that raise prices too much or lower their standards for educational excellence will suffer devastating decreases in student enrollment. Thus, prices would be reduced significantly across the board, giving even poorer Americans a chance to go to college and get a degree. By contrast, government subsidies encourage colleges to increase tuition by giving these colleges access to government funds for the distribution of student loans.

Obama’s plan could even be entirely appeasement. Handing out (borrowed) money to students from middle-class families could constitute an attempt to buy votes this upcoming November. However, if President Obama really cares about controlling costs, he should really take a closer look at a free-market approach to education.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

The campaign implications of the State of the Union

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
January 26, 2012

President Obama says that without his leadership, the economy and the state of our country could be worse. However, it is an argument that won't fly.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night was more of a preview of his new campaign strategy than an actual review of our current situation as a nation. Our growing deficit and our debt crisis, the two elephants in the room, were barely mentioned by President Obama, who preferred to spend his time bemoaning the success of wealthy Americans and pitting rich against poor. Fortunately, if these items are any indication of President Obama’s reelection strategy, Republicans should defeat him easily.

President Obama’s new strategy seems to depend on two central tactics: the first being to wage war against the rich in America and the second being to marginalize the problems that his administration has perpetrated. Pitting the rich against the poor and demonizing the successful in America will allow President Obama to essentially shift the blame for our current economic crisis onto the wealthiest Americans, who represent a minority in the United States. Castigating the rich can indeed win some voters, as some Americans are jealous of the wealth and prosperity of others. Fortunately, however, scapegoating the successful is not an effective strategy in the long term because it invites criticism from those on the right. Republican leaders have already decried President Obama numerous times for his divisiveness and for his pursuit of class warfare.

The more dangerous campaign strategy of the president is one that diminishes the real magnitude of the problems to which he has greatly contributed. Our national debt has increased by several trillion dollars since President Obama’s election back in 2009, and things are getting worse by the day. The United States debt currently sits at an alarmingly high $15.2 trillion, and Obama’s attempts to control spending have been quite literally non-existent. In fact, Mr. Obama has been more dedicated to increasing spending over his first term than he has been dedicated to decreasing it, as evidenced by Obamacare and the infamously wasteful stimulus programs that he championed. The economy continues to be driven into a ditch as disappointed, dispirited Americans continue to leave the workforce in droves and artificially suppress the unemployment rate, and the wanton waste of taxpayer dollars on government-funded messes like Solyndra shows an utter lack of stewardship of the hard-earned money of Americans by the Obama administration. All of these issues present major shortfalls for Obama’s reelection campaign, so the president’s new strategy is to simply minimize these topics. For example, the president has been attempting to diminish his failure at managing the American economy by saying that things could have been worse. However, be assured that whomever the Republican Party nominates to face the president this year will definitely focus on these topics and will make the president account for his failures. It is up to voters to listen to the truth and to realize that President Obama’s shortcomings far outweigh any of his supposed virtues.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Obama and the fairness doctrine

Filed under: Posts — 2 Comments
January 23, 2012

President Obama believes in an economy of equal results. I believe in an economy of equal opportunity. Pictured: President Obama's January 2011 State of the Union address.

“We can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.” -President Obama in a video to supporters

As the election nears, President Obama has been greatly increasing the volume of his populist appeals. His calls for tax hikes on the top 1% of Americans and for economic “fairness” have become commonplace in his public appearances. However, while President Obama believes that his policies are the solution to income inequality and our current economic crisis, I believe that these same policies will cripple the foundations of our country’s values and principles and will only perpetuate the very problems that these policies attempt to solve.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the United States of America declared that every person shall be entitled to the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” When Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wrote this line, they did so to emphasize that the members of a free society do not by any means achieve outright happiness from their government. It is the personal pursuit of that happiness that is most important in a free society, and this is where President Obama and I differ. President Obama wishes to extend the size of government to provide for the happiness and security of American citizens. Obamacare, the stimulus programs, and the takeover of General Motors all are clear examples of President Obama’s government-cures-all philosophy. Meanwhile, contrary to the president, I believe that market-based reforms are needed to truly conform with the basic values of our country’s founding. The utilization of private health insurance programs in Chile has led to the commercialization of hospitals and health care, which has in turn lowered costs and raised care quality for consumers. Contrary to the government handouts that have characterized President Obama’s presidency (read Solyndra), across-the-board tax cuts offer significant financial relief to all businesses and job-creating innovators, not just big businesses with billion-dollar lobbying forces or political campaign donors.

The past few years have shown that Barack Obama’s economic philosophy has failed miserably. Under President Obama’s policies, record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamps and other forms of government welfare, and more Americans are unemployed than under the Bush administration. Still more Americans have given up looking for work all together and have resigned themselves to a life of dependence on government. Obviously and unfortunately, the equal result promised by President Obama’s philosophy has worked, but it has made life worse for Americans across the board. This November, Americans will decide between this failed policy and the tried and tested solutions offered by the philosophy of equal opportunity. Let’s hope that we make the right decision.

Ronald Reagan put it nicely.

<object width=”420″ height=”315″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/6ixNPplo-SU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param></object>

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

SC debate: highlights and analysis

Filed under: Posts — 1 Comment
January 19, 2012

A South Carolina win would leave Newt Gingrich in a favorable position to be the next anti-Romney.

Now that the field of GOP candidates had winnowed down significantly, the CNN South Carolina debate is crucial. A poor performance by Mitt Romney could provide an opportunity for one of the remaining candidates to achieve a crucial victory in South Carolina.

However, the debate has just ended, and it seems that Romney has had an average performance. He has done an excellent job focusing on Barack Obama instead of his fellow candidates. When asked if he had any regrets about his campaign, Romney said that he wished that he had not wasted time attacking other candidates; instead, Romney said that he should have focused upon Barack Obama’s failed presidency. However, on the other hand, Romney had great difficulty fending off attacks from his opponents effectively. The former Massachusetts governor had great difficulty on both abortion and his tax returns, which he has not yet released. Overall, Romney’s performance was average, if not poor.

Rick Santorum is in a tenuous position in the polls, and his decent performance tonight will not improve his chances in the South Carolina primary. Santorum’s emphasis on social issues gives him an opportunity to differentiate himself from the other candidates, which is a big positive in a primary race. However, the narrowing field causes voters to weigh Santorum’s focus on social values against his debating skills. Given that Newt Gingrich is pro-life and is an extraordinarily skilled debater, swing voters will likely fall behind Newt as the next not-Romney and will disregard Santorum’s increased emphasis upon social issues.

Ron Paul had a decent performance tonight as well. His comments regarding the Federal Reserve and our economy were sound and intelligent, but as usual, his radical foreign policy positions will cause Reagan conservatives to shy away from him in the South Carolina primary.

Newt Gingrich did an excellent job at the debate, even in the face of intense controversy surrounding him and his ex-wife. Gingrich was crisp, coherent, and articulate throughout the debate, and he did an excellent job deflecting John King’s inappropriate, probing question regarding the controversy with his ex-wife. His answer brought the crowd to their feet, but more importantly, it showed Gingrich’s ability to avoid sensitive issues. Gingrich was purposeful and direct in his response to John King, which highly contrasted Romney’s halting and inarticulate responses regarding his own personal controversies.

Based on this debate, I would say that Gingrich is well-positioned to win South Carolina and move on to be the next not-Romney. However, unless Santorum drops out after South Carolina, Gingrich’s chances of becoming the GOP nominee for the general election will dim significantly.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Unemployment to rise? What it means for Obama

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
January 15, 2012

If unemployment begins to rise again, President Obama's already lacking economic platform will disappear completely. Pictured: An unemployment line.

President Obama has long held that the gradual decrease in unemployment is the direct result of his stimulus spending programs and other big government economic policies. However, in a speech two days ago in Indiana, Charles Evans – the president of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank – expressed his concern that this decrease in unemployment is only “transitory.” Moreover, Evans warned of the possibility of an increase in unemployment by the end of the year. If Mr. Evans is correct, could President Obama’s reelection bid this year be doomed?

Firstly, President Obama’s reelection chances depend heavily upon the economy. In a CBS News poll conducted from Jan. 4-8, 55% of respondents said that the biggest problem facing the United States today is the economy and job creation. Discounting those who answered “other” (22%), the nearest runner-up answer of any remote specificity was “politicians and government,” polling at a minuscule 5%. Economic concerns have also been reflected in President Obama’s approval rating. According to Gallup polling data, President Obama’s approval numbers have improved by six percentage points from September 2011 to January 2012. Interestingly, this improvement corresponds with a .6% decrease in measured unemployment. Thus, if unemployment continues to trend downward, President Obama will be viewed more favorably by voters this November.

On the other hand, however, an increase in unemployment would severely cripple President Obama’s reelection bid. His economic argument centers on two main points: the first being that his policies have reduced the duration of the recession, and the second being that increased regulation protects consumers and encourages job growth. An increase in unemployment would greatly reduce the effectiveness of these arguments because such an increase would indicate both the continuation of the recession and the negative impact of Obama’s regulations on the economy. Thus, President Obama would have an abysmal record of job creation in an election season where the economy is the most important issue. Doomed? I’d certainly say so.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

The folly behind the assault on Bain Capital

Filed under: Posts — 1 Comment
January 13, 2012

Gingrich's attacks on Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital amount to an attack on the long held conservative principle of economic freedom.

Particularly in the past few days, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney has been taking heavy fire over his work at Bain Capital, a private equity firm. These attacks have largely focused upon the so-called “creative destruction” of jobs that is perpetrated by private equity firms in their attempts to rescue flailing companies from the brink of collapse. However, upon analysis, these attacks on Romney’s record are utterly unfounded, and they reveal a frightening willingness on the part of struggling candidates to betray their values in order to win the nomination.

Romney’s time at Bain Capital was enormously successful for both Bain and the companies it assisted. During Romney’s tenure at Bain, a certain office supply store received investment funds and guidance from Bain Capital. Over 1,500 US stores and 90,000 jobs later, Staples Incorporated is one of the world’s most successful office supply outlets in existence. Sports Authority, a sports equipment store, gained over ten thousand jobs thanks to Bain Capital’s financial and consultative interventions in the business.

Of course, some of Bain’s ventures were not all that successful. Sometimes, after cutting jobs and performing restructuring, the private equity firm could not keep their client companies afloat. However, this is simply the nature of a freedom-based economic system. Bad decisions, poor ideas, changing markets, and just plain bad luck can cause otherwise promising enterprises to implode. In an economic system of choice and freedom, this is a fact of life, but over the long term, job losses caused by capitalism are recouped and reversed by the innovative, dynamic nature of a freedom-based economy.

The idea that economic freedom is the best means of creating jobs is a crucial cornerstone of conservative political thought. Despite this, Republican candidates have been distancing themselves from this critical principle in order to improve their chances in the nomination race. Newt Gingrich, who has likened himself to Ronald Reagan in his efforts to further the values of economic freedom, has been Romney’s most vocal critic regarding Bain Capital. In fact, Newt’s super PAC released a 27-minute hit piece on Romney’s time at Bain Capital that featured numerous stories of disgruntled employees who lost their jobs when Bain Capital restructured their employers’ companies. Another presidential contender, Rick Perry, has called Romney a “vulture capitalist,” yet is a self-proclaimed supporter of economic freedom and capitalism. Given these remarkably liberal stances, I am concerned that both Gingrich and Perry are giving up their conservative values in favor of attacking Mitt Romney, the front-runner of the GOP race. This is very worrisome yet ironic; both Perry and Gingrich have attacked Romney for flip-flopping, and now they are doing so themselves!

Economic freedom sometimes means making tough choices that lead to the loss of jobs, and unfortunately, Mr. Romney has had to make a lot of these hard decisions. However, it is important to remember that over the long term, a freedom-based economy creates an abundance of innovation and jobs. Romney’s competitors need to put aside their petty attacks and give Mitt his due for his positive work in the private sector as a partner at Bain Capital.

By the way, be sure to check out my first YouTube video!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

The scoop on New Hampshire

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
January 10, 2012

By choosing to waste precious days in moderate New Hampshire, Rick Santorum has squandered his chance to defeat Mitt Romney (right).

According to polls, New Hampshire – the second crucial state of the Republican primary election – is leaning heavily toward Mitt Romney. According to Real Clear Politics, Romney on average has polled a whopping 20 points ahead of his nearest competitor. Given that Romney has a huge lead, it seems that the former Massachusetts governor would easily clear the path to his nomination with a decisive victory.

However, this is not the case. Mitt Romney has focused a great deal of attention on New Hampshire. He has vigorously campaigned throughout the state and has championed his record of creating jobs and a balanced budget while serving as Massachusetts governor. Yet because of Romney’s intensive efforts in the state, expectations are extremely high for him. A surprisingly strong performance by Ron Paul or Rick Santorum could punch a hole in Romney’s seemingly unbeatable candidacy. In my view, a strong performance would constitute a single-digit gap between Romney and the second-place candidate.

New Hampshire, in my view, has nearly killed Santorum’s candidacy. The former US senator has never been in a position to win in New Hampshire. Even after his stunning performance in Iowa, Rick Santorum has not received any radical improvement in his poll numbers. However, despite this, Santorum wasted precious days of momentum by campaigning in a state that he could not win instead of getting ahead of his competition and building a strong foundation for victory in the decisive South Carolina primary. As Santorum is in a dead heat with Mitt Romney in South Carolina according to recent polls, this decision could prove to be fatal for his campaign.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, suffers from a different problem. His isolationist and extremely liberal foreign policy has discouraged conservative voters, yet have gained popularity among Democrats and left-leaning moderates. However, as conservative support is crucial in Republican primaries, Paul will likely disappear after New Hampshire and South Carolina.

UPDATE: Fox News has called the NH race as a double-digit victory for Romney. Without a win in South Carolina, Romney will take the GOP nomination unchallenged.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Unfair: supporters of Obamacare receive vast majority of waivers

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
January 8, 2012

Through his distribution of health care waivers, President Obama has forced American small businesses and taxpayers to shoulder the costs of his massive entitlement health care program.

On Friday, several government agencies released a flurry of information in a classic afternoon news dump. According to some of the documents released that day, labor unions received a stunning 89% of all Obamacare waivers since the Obama administration revamped application rules last summer. And, shockingly (not really), labor unions were the biggest supporters of Obamacare during the law’s passage back in 2009 and 2010.

Throughout President Obama’s term in office, cronyism has abounded. I have written several articles like this one about his irreverent waste of taxpayer dollars for the appeasement of his donors. However, the distribution of health care waivers to President Obama’s donors is more serious because it reveals that the Obama administration has pursued the implementation of Obamacare without regard to its numerous negative impacts on everyday Americans. If President Obama really believed that the health care law would be great for everyone, he would never have distributed waivers to any unions! Yet, our president has placed the appeasement of his political supporters above the welfare of American small businesses and taxpayers, who will now be forced to shoulder the costs of Obama’s not-so-affordable Affordable Care Act.

In all fairness, however, some responsibility for this inappropriate cronyism falls upon the labor unions themselves. These unions stood by President Obama throughout the passage of his health care bill despite its negative impacts on working families and everyday Americans, robbing the paychecks of their workers to financially support the law. And now, as Obamacare moves ever closer to becoming fully implemented, these unions are looking for even more protection from it because if they pass the costs of Obamacare onto their members, these members could become angry enough to pursue paycheck protection legislation to stop union dues from going to political campaigns and passing unfavorable bills. However, paycheck protection would effectively end the reign of labor unions as the greatest political force in the United States, and thus Democrats – who have long milked the unions during election season – would never get on board with such legislation.

Yet, President Obama should take the most blame for the corrupt distribution of health care waivers. As president, he has an obligation to protect and defend the Constitution for all Americans, not just the ones that keep the money flowing. It’s about time for him to truly honor his country and start to fight the political corruption that has defined his term in office.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

War? Iran, Israel, and the US plan military exercises in the Gulf

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
January 6, 2012

The Persian Gulf (pictured) could be the site of a major Middle Eastern conflict.

In the latest dramatic twist with the rising tensions in the Middle East, the US, Israel, and Iran are all planning simultaneous military exercises in the Persian Gulf in the upcoming weeks.

Iran announced their latest escapade just as details emerged of a American and Israeli air missile defense training exercise in the Gulf. Grandiosely titled “the Great Prophet,” Iran’s new military exercise will be much larger than the country’s previous naval exercises in the Sea of Oman.

Iran has threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, specifically to target the crucial oil traffic that passes through the waterway. And as Europe and the United States continue to pursue tough sanctions on Iran, a closing of this strait by Iranian naval units seems more and more likely as Iran’s economic desperation increases. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would be a highly aggressive and potentially catastrophic move. War could ensue!

However, this curious motley of military exercises in the Gulf is even more dangerous. A stray missile, torpedo, or a misplaced mine would be interpreted as an act of war by the party falling victim to such an event. Should Iran accidentally (or purposefully) attack a US or Israeli military unit and kill any personnel, the entire Middle East as well as NATO would move quickly to intervene. It wouldn’t take long for a global conflict to erupt if peace could not be quickly restored between the US and Iran.

Our difficulties with Iran currently need to be solved. Iran’s leaders are attempting to prove that they can bend the United States to their will, but given the narrow assortment of choices that our country has in this situation, the US should capitulate and move our training exercise well beyond Iran’s training zone. By doing this, we can keep peace alive for a little while longer and reduce tensions at least temporarily.

By diffusing tensions, the US would gain a significant advantage over Iran in terms of global perspective. If Iran continues its hostile and aggressive actions in the Middle East even after the US pulls back in a gesture of peace, it will become clear to the rest of the world that Iran is a belligerent power that is not truly committed to peace. This will help the US coalesce global support for tougher sanctions on the country and even military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers