Tag Archive: 2012 election


Webcast: Rick Santorum’s electability and the food police

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
February 20, 2012
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Broken promises: Obama fails to halve the deficit in his new budget

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
February 11, 2012

Obama's fiscal responsibility in a nutshell. Source: USDebtClock.org

Last night, the White House officially released President Obama’s budget proposal for the year. Sadly, under this plan, excessive spending will continue, and the wealthy will be forced to bear the costs of our government’s voracious appetite for tax dollars. Despite his pledge to soak the rich, President Obama has failed to cut the deficit and has thus broken his promise with the American people. Back in 2009, our leader promised to “halve the deficit” by the end of his presidency. However, under the president’s proposal, the deficit will actually grow from that of the 2011 budget.

President Obama has failed in two main ways. Firstly, he has proven utterly incapable at cutting spending. The president’s proposal cuts $360 billion from entitlements but does so over the course of ten years. Once President Obama is reelected, he could easily pass a second budget that eliminates or reverses these cuts altogether, as a one-year budget plan has no real authority over an entire decade of spending. Beyond this, however, no real cuts exist in his plan. More government subsidies and massive “shovel-ready” infrastructure programs eat up the savings from crippling defense cuts and the end of the Afghanistan War.

President Obama has also failed to create jobs. In spite of his growth of government entitlements and infrastructure projects, the number of people not participating in the labor force has skyrocketed, and officially measured unemployment numbers have only slightly decreased. To top this off, Obama’s stimulus programs and government bailouts have only made the situation worse for the industries they were intended to save. The economy is now sicker than ever, yet President Obama keeps prescribing the wrong drug.

I think that President Obama should try a new approach. He should slash entitlement spending and preserve the integrity of our nation’s defense by keeping defense cuts to a minimum. Along with reiterating his promise to halve the deficit, President Obama should promise to cut taxes across the board and to support a balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, our liberally-minded president will never do any of this, but we always have 2012 to look forward to.

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

Obama’s election prospects dim

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
February 1, 2012

This election prediction is based upon President Obama's current approval numbers. Clearly, there's a lot of red.

On the left is an election prediction based upon President Obama’s current state-by-state approval numbers. Clearly, as the sea of red indicates, our president will have some seriously difficulties when the election arrives this November.

In a new Gallup poll, state-by-state results show a dismal situation for President Obama. His approval number, averaged across all the states, is an abysmal 44%, and in swing states, things are similarly awful. In Pennsylvania and Florida – crucial swing states – the president’s approval numbers are 45% and 43% respectively. And it even gets worse for the president: in my notoriously-liberal home state of California, President Obama’s approval barely ekes out a majority, with 50.1% of poll respondents approving of Obama’s performance as leader of the free world. Ouch!

The Gallup poll also made comparisons between President Obama’s approval ratings last year and his ratings this year. Below is an excerpt from the Gallup’s poll analysis:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

Even in home-front states like Hawaii, President Obama is having great difficulty holding on to his devoted followers, and only three states posted “marginal increases” from his approval numbers last year. Clearly, what Republicans are doing is working very well thus far. By revealing the utter failures of President Obama’s economic policies, conservatives have greatly increased the knowledge of concerned voters and have put President Obama in a very difficult position. Hopefully, the downward trend of Obama’s approval numbers will continue until he is ousted from office this coming November.

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

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

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

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

Perfect timing and a solid record is Santorum’s recipe for success

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
December 31, 2011

A victory in Iowa would give Santorum a much needed boost in later primaries. Pictured: Santorum, Perry, and Romney (left to right)

Dissatisfaction with Mitt Romney has contributed greatly to the volatility and fluidity of the GOP race thus far. Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich have all had their turns in the limelight, and under successive waves of intense public scrutiny, all of them have sputtered to a halt in the polls. Now, thanks to this roiling tide of voter displeasure, former US Senator Rick Santorum is rocketing into the top tier of the Iowa caucuses. However, I think that Mr. Santorum’s success could be much more permanent than that of the other contenders in this GOP primary.

First, Mr. Santorum has time on his side. The caucuses are taking place only a few days from now – on January 3rd – and because of this, it will be difficult for Santorum’s opponents to dig up enough dirt on the former senator to dissuade caucus-goers from casting their votes for him. Unlike the one-poll-wonders before him, Rick Santorum has the opportunity through this upcoming caucus to show undecided voters that he is the best and last chance for the conservative elements of the Republican Party to seriously challenge Mitt Romney for the nomination.

In addition to this, Rick Santorum is a solid candidate, despite his being overlooked by conservative Republicans for almost the entirety of the primary thus far. Before his current ascent in the polls, no one – except me – was talking about Rick Santorum’s strong debate performances or his consistent social conservative credentials. However, now that Mr. Santorum is rising in the polls, caucus-goers will remember these strengths as they go to vote on January 3rd. Also, unlike former front-runner Rick Perry, Santorum’s difficulties with voters during the primary season lay in his lack of mainstream support and momentum, not policy. The former senator places great emphasis upon family and is an intense pro-life advocate: both of these positions are mainstream in the Republican Party. Also, Santorum promises to roll back federal regulations, to fight for a balanced budget amendment, and to repeal Obamacare. All of these are intensely popular positions that are held by both conservatives and moderates alike.

Santorum could end up being just another footnote on Romney’s nomination. However, given Santorum’s record as a consistent conservative and as a strong debater, I believe that a win in the Iowa caucuses could propel Santorum to the nomination later this year and I can say with certainty that the former senator is the most capable not-Romney yet.

Have a Happy New Year, everyone! Please check in tomorrow for our exciting project reveal!

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

Obama’s new campaign message: “It’s not my fault”

Filed under: Posts — 4 Comments
December 11, 2011

Obama cannot placate the millions of Americans who want real change by offloading blame.

In Kansas last week, President Obama spoke at Osawatomie High School and laid out what seems to be a blueprint for his 2012 election run. He decried capitalism as a system that has “never worked”, used the “gaping” wealth inequality in the United States as an example of the failure of free enterprise, and railed against corporate greed and excess. If this speech is any indication of a new Obama campaign slogan, I would say that the phrase “It’s not my fault” would sum up his message quite nicely.

To his credit, Mr. Obama has chosen the only campaign strategy that could get him reelected. No one is particularly pleased with the income inequality that currently pervades our nation; by attacking this inequality, President Obama could come out on top in 2012. However, the success of Mr. Obama’s strategy hinges entirely upon the knowledge of the average American voter.

History makes it clear that free-market capitalism is truly the best economic system in the world for all involved. In a previous blog post, I outlined the history of capitalism and its positive impacts, namely the ability of capitalism to lift even the poorest people out of their poverty and into great riches. An excellent example of such an individual is Andrew Carnegie, of whom you can read about here.

How about other economic systems? Socialism is a system in which everyone’s money is taken by a central authority and redistributed as that authority sees fit, or in other words, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.”  Firstly, socialism is inherently corruptible. Those with wealth can very easily escape the net of the government through connections with government officials and bribes, while in capitalism, government is not in the business of equalizing wealth or providing special benefits to certain individuals or groups, and – in a sense – this makes a government that fosters capitalism incorruptible. Secondly, socialism operates as a highly subjective institution of social justice. Who should be able to decide who is contributing to society and who is not? Those who are entrusted with the power of making this decision will simply make their best effort to enrich themselves, even if their contribution to society is minimal. And if the distribution of income under socialism were not subjective, it would be purely based upon financial contribution to society, and therefore the wealthy would gain the greatest benefit of such a system! Communism is a system that aims to establish a classless society that collectively owns everything, but under communism, government is required to keep order and to provide a center of authority. Thus, the true owner of everything under communism is the government, and in order to maintain power, communist governments often take drastic steps. In the Soviet Union, communist leader Joseph Stalin exterminated millions of “counter-revolutionary” leaders to consolidate his authority over the country. Historians believe that during the rule of the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong, tens of millions of people died directly or indirectly from his massacres of political enemies and his communist policies.

President Obama believes that the best way to solve income inequality is to take from the wealthy and give to the poor. He has endorsed the Democrats’  proposed millionaire surtax and has constantly demanded that the wealthy “pay their fair share”, echoing the words of Karl Marx (“from each according to his ability…”). However, even a cursory glance at history shows that the alternatives to capitalism are not that good after all. Despite this, the “capitalism” of America is deeply flawed. Overbearing government regulations and special tax benefits give big companies that can lobby for special benefits and waivers a massive advantage over smaller competitors. By removing regulations and tax loopholes and dramatically reducing tax rates, President Obama can bring our economy closer to the free-market capitalism that has made our country great and can get America working again.

If the average American looks at Obama’s policies and sees them for what they are (a drag on the economy), our president’s latest campaign strategy will get him nowhere. However, it is the responsibility of all American voters to educate themselves before the ballot box so that we aren’t stuck with another four years of the doldrums.

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

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers