Time To focus On Policy Not Personality

As the Republican primary season gets into full swing and the pretenders are winnowed from the contenders we think it is time to focus on the policies of the candidates rather than their personalities.  Romney's flip-flops, Newt's lack of discipline and Paul's vision form outer space all make for good copy but; but they don't tell us where they would take the country.

As you listen to the various speeches and debates you will hear certain phrases, labels and buzz words repeated over and over again: fiscal conservative, small government conservative, tax cuts, job growth, job creators, intrusive regulations, immigration reform and last but not least…repeal “Obamacare”. 

Let’s focus on the four policy issues that all the candidates seem to dwell on the most…lower taxes, less regulation, job growth and the repeal of Obamacare.

Lower taxes - The Republicans say that we need to cut taxes; particularly taxes on the rich and the corporations that create jobs.  The current tax policy is the one implemented by Republican President, George W. Bush.  It includes the lowest tax rates in our country’s history. The tax structure is such that it contains loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans to pay a smaller percentage in taxes than the help who service their needs.  In spite of statistics showing that many corporations are now making record profits; corporations use these same tax loopholes to avoid paying any taxes at all.  Some corporations not only do not pay any taxes but they get government subsidies to help their “struggling” bottom lines.  Our question is…how much lower can you reduce taxes than zero? We need more revenues to get out of our economic malaise.  Simply cutting taxes won’t solve the problem.

Intrusive Regulations – Republicans say that businesses are not prospering because of intrusive regulations that hamper business.  We wonder how intrusive theses regulations can be when, as previously stated, corporations are posting record profits. Republicans have successfully blocked the President from initiating many of his reform policies so the regulations currently in place are the same ones that were operable during the Bush years.  Need we remind Republicans that the lack of regulatory oversight is what allowed the predatory banking practices that trashed the economy to go on?  Are they suggesting that we allow those practices to continue?

Job Growth – The Republicans say that the President’s policies are killing job growth.  This statement is simply false.  The Bureau of Labor and Statistics states that we have had 24 months of continuous job growth under Obama after losing jobs at a rate of 740,000 per month under George Bush.

Repeal Obamacare - Republicans want to repeal Obamacare.  We agree that the President’s Affordable Health Care Act needs work.  However, repealing it will discontinue some of the provisions that are wildly popular such as: no cancellation for pre-existing conditions, the ability to take your coverage with you if you change jobs and the ability to allow children to remain on their parent’s policies until the age of 27.  When asked what their solution to Obamacare would be they say increase competition by allowing insurance companies to market across state line.  This increased competition will lower costs.  If Republicans would do their homework they would know that insurance companies can already market across state lines.  They must simple agree to abide by the laws of the individual states in which they do business.  States Rights!!!...a concept Republicans hold dear.   This position is admirable; but as proven by the out of control increase in insurance costs prior to the passing of Obamacare…ineffectual.  Rising health insurance costs are still a huge problem in this country.  Obamacare did not go far enough; and Republicans have no solution to fix the problem.

So as we watch these primaries unfold and we listen to the candidates criticize the President we should ask them this simple question:  what is your solution to the problem?  If their answer is a return to the policies of 2000-2008 we have definitive proof that that won’t work.  The free spending, deregulatory policies of the Bush years are what led us to this mess.

Therefore, when analyzing the policy solutions offered by the candidates always remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.     

 

Numbers Show Obama Policies Working

According to the just released Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the country added 200,000 private sector jobs in December;  bringing the total number private sector jobs added in 2011 to 1.6 million.  The report also states that the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5%; the lowest in three years.

Republicans have been telling us for years that the President’s economic policies have killed job creation in the private sector.  They have said that the uncertainty brought about by this President has frightened off the job creators. 

So let’s set ideology aside and look at the facts.

When President Obama took over the White House the country was losing private sector jobs at a rate of 740,000 per month.  The country had been continually losing private sector jobs since 2007.  Since this President began implementing his policies the country has witnessed two consecutive years of job growth: 836,000 in 2010 and 1.6 million in 2011.  While these numbers are not strong enough to guarantee that the economy has righted itself they are certainly a huge reversal from the decline of 2007-2009, and a positive sign that the economy is moving in the right direction.

So what caused the turn around?  Was it the stimulus, the bank bailout, the auto industry bailout, the passing of “Obamacare” or perhaps the draw down in Iraq?  Republicans argue that each of these events were little more than an intrusion on our lives by big government and that each in their own way contributed to the decline of the economy.

We would argue that the government saw the economic decline and understood the disastrous effects it was would have on the American people if it were allowed to continue unabated.   Unlike the administrations holding power during the Great Depression, this administration chose to do something about it.  The steps they took weren’t pretty and they flew in the face of traditional capitalistic values.  No all of the policies implemented by this President worked as planned; but the job numbers and economic growth indicators indicate that they did what they were intended to do…stop the bleeding and right the ship.

Republicans say that the government should only do those things that the private sector cannot do.  That is exactly what this administration did.  By implementing their economic policies the Obama administration stopped the economic freefall, stabilized the banks, saved 3 million jobs that depended on the auto industry and curbed the unfair practices of the health insurance industry.  But  perhaps most important of all these practices instilled confidence by showing the American people that the government would not stand by and allow the country to crumble even at the risk of interfering with the hallowed principles of the free enterprise system.  Private industry could not have accomplished those things.

Make no mistake the country is far from being where it needs to be economically.  But if not for the vision and the economic policies of this administration the country would be in far worse shape than it is today.

The Republicans are wrong on this one.  The President got it right.  The numbers prove it.        

Viewing The World From A Windowless Room

“This (Defense Plan) is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America.  The President has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.  This strategy insures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs.”

Republican Representative Buck McKeon (CA.)

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee

Such was the Republican response to the President’s plan for a smaller, cheaper and more efficient military.

The President, unlike his detractors, understood that the country, plagued by a lagging economy, increasing debt and a war weary electorate, no longer had the money or the stomach for the unbridled expansion of our military capabilities.  The President also understood that Iraq and Afghanistan signaled the end to massive land assaults carried out by hundreds of thousands a boots on the ground.  Future wars may need to be waged but they will be carried out by drones in the air and Special Forces and Black Ops on the ground.

In formulating this strategy the President listened to the oft repeated advice of his Republican foes: “listen to the generals.”

“It is a sound strategy.  It assures that we remain the pre-eminent military power in the world.  It preserves the talent of the all-volunteer force.  It takes into account the last 10 years of war.  Our strategy has always been about our ability to respond to global contingencies whenever they happen.  This does not change…wherever we are confronted and in whatever sequence, we will win. ”

General Martin Dempsey

         Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

The United States maintains the largest most expansive military force in the world. Our military capabilities exceed those of our nearest competitor by tenfold.  Our military superiority will continue under the President’s plan.  What will change, as recommended by the generals, is the manner in which we defend ourselves.

Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility.  They demand that we reduce the size of government and cut government spending.  But if you talk about cutting the military they sing a whole different tune.  It’s ok to cut entitlements, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, aid to the needy and other social programs on which hundreds of millions of poor and middle class people depend.  If you cut those programs you are fiscally responsible.  But if you try to cut the military you are unpatriotic and hate America

One could say that Representative McKeon and his Republican colleagues are out of touch with reality.  One might describe them as residing in a windowless room from which they view the world through a crack induced haze.  But that would excuse their reckless and irresponsible behavior.

    

Obama Goes On The Offensive

The President traveled to Ohio to announce his recess appointment of Richard Cordray as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Cordray’s appointment had received 53 approval votes in the Senate but not the 60 needed to avoid a Republican filibuster.

 The Presidents appointment angered Republicans who had successfully blocked White House efforts to appoint a director since the CFPB was formed as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The bill was passed into law in July of 2010; but the CFPB has remained dormant because much of its enforcement capability lies in the authority granted the director. 

Naturally the banking industry is less than enamored with any sort of regulation, and they have tasked their lackeys in the Republican Party to block the CFPB.  Message heard loud and clear.  Fearing that the President would use his authority to make a recess appointment if the Senate was not in session for three consecutive days; Senate Republicans went  so far as to implement a little known rule to keep the Senate technically in “pro-forma” session…even when no business was actually being conducted.

Upon learning of Cordray’s appointment, Republicans took to the microphones in waves to denounce the President’s decision.  Mitt Romney called the appointment “more Chicago style politics.”  Speaker Boehner called it "an unprecedented power grab."  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said: “President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people by recess appointing Richard Cordray a director of the new CFPB.”  Some Republicans even questioned the President’s constitutional authority to make recess appointments while others threatened legal action.

Let’s set the record straight.  The President’s recess appointment is hardly unprecedented.  Past Presidents have routinely made recess appointments.  President Obama has made 28 recess appointments since taking office; an average of less than 10 appointments per year.  To put that into perspective we checked the record of some of Obama’s predecessors and found that George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments during his two terms; an average of 21.3 per year.  President Clinton made 139 appointments (17.4/year); and George H. W. Bush 73 appointments (18.3/year). 

But the President who took the biggest advantage of his authority to make recess appointments is one of the most revered by Republicans…Ronald Reagan.  Reagan made a whopping 243 recess appointments during his two terms; and average of 30.75/year. 

This appointment was a brilliant, though late in coming, political move by the President.  He traveled to Ohio, an important swing state, to appoint a wildly popular favorite son to head a critical agency formed to protect consumers against the predatory practices that ruined the economy.  And should the Republicans be foolish enough too legally question the constitutionality of the appointment…the White House could only be so lucky.  Imagine the firestorm in the press as the headlines scream: REPUBLICANS SUE TO BLOCK FORMATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY.

The Republicans tried once again to deprive the President of a victory.  They placed ideology and politics ahead of what was good for the country.  It took extra innings…but the President got the “W”. 

        

             

ROMNEY WINS!...and loses.

Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucuses edging a surging Rick Santorum by 8 votes.  Considering that early on in the campaign Romney supporters held out little hope of a positive result in Iowa; last night’s win is a major victory.  But that victory comes shrouded with some very real concerns.

As a moderate candidate Romney did not appeal to the more conservative culture in Iowa.  So the campaign downplayed the contest and maintained a low key attitude about their chances.  Better to keep expectations low and spin any nominal success positively than go all in and be embarrassed by defeat.  But while the Romney campaign was tamping down expectations they were secretly building an infrastructure in case things turned their way.

Suddenly Romney began to gain ground as Iowa voters became more and more convinced that he was the only candidate running who could win a general election against the President.  The Romney people made the calculation that a win in Iowa followed by a guaranteed victory in New Hampshire might just clinch the nomination early.  So the Romney campaign went all in, and along with their supportive Super Pacs poured millions into the state.  The result was a victory with 25% of the vote.

And therein lays the problem. 

Mitt Romney defeated Rick Santorum by 8 votes.  They both garnered 25% of the votes cast.  Romney spent millions; saturating the state with campaign ads, robo calls and coffee cloches.  Santorum, with little more than the clothes on his back, did it the old fashion way.  He knocked on doors, shook hands and kissed babies.  His first meet and greet was attended by one voter.  In the end he fought Romney to a statistical tie.

Mitt Romney has been campaigning for President for the past 5 years.  He has spent tens of millions of dollars in search of this goal.  And yet he is in the exact same place he was 5 years ago; unable to pull in more than 25% of the vote while the other 75% keep searching for someone who is NOT Romney.  For all his effort Romney has still not connected with the vast majority of Republican voters.

Prior to last night’s vote the conventional wisdom was that if Romney did well in Iowa and won New Hampshire the party would be over before it started.  Not anymore.  Rick Santorum’s surge changed all that.  Ron Paul, who pulled in 21% of the Iowa vote isn't  going anywhere either.  And an angry Newt Gingrich has promised to spend his every waking moment going after Romney.

Santorum has the wind at his back; and while he has no chance in New Hampshire his evangelical message will resonate well in the next competitive contest; South Carolina.  Santorum would be well served to bypass New Hampshire, conserve his resources, raise more money and make a huge push in South Carolina.

Meanwhile Romney is left to sit and wonder what he needs to do to connect with voters and break through that 25% ceiling.  After Five years of campaigning and millions of dollars spent he has yet to make his case. 

Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucuses last night; but his victory was a hollow one.        

      

Tonight's Loser...The American People

As we write this the Iowa Caucuses are just getting underway.  And while the winner will not be known for a few more hours there is already a clear loser in this election process…the American people.

Over the past few weeks we have watched the seedy side of politics reach and all time low.  Thanks to the Supreme Court Citizen United decision, Romney supporters have been able to influence this election in a way never before possible. 

Citizen United is the case wherein the Supreme Court ruled that major corporations and wealthy individuals could anonymously donate unlimited sums of money to the candidate of their choice.  Super Pacs, who are separate and autonomous from the candidate they support, are able to use this ruling to collect vast sums of money from wealthy donors which they use to run an avalanche of attack ads against their opponents.  Because the candidate and his campaign are prohibited by law from communicating with or co-ordinating the activities of these Super Pacs, the candidate is able to sit above the fray untouched by the venom and lies prevalent in these ads.  And nobody has taken advantage of this ruling better than Mitt Romney.

Three weeks ago Newt Gingrich had soared to the lead in the polls.  Gingrich held 30% of the vote while Romney continued to be locked in at 25%.  That same week Restore Our Future, a Super Pac supportive of Romney but separate from the Romney campaign, began to run what would eventually be over 1200 attack ads against Gingrich.  Restore Our Future spent over 2.8 million dollars viciously attacking Gingrich, the one opponent Romney feared.  Three short weeks later, as the doors opend for the Iowa Caucuses, Gingrich’s support has plummeted to 15%; essentially knocking him out of contention in Iowa.

The Citizens United decision has provided an opportunity for the very wealthy to anonymously buy an election.  Citizens United has effectively eliminated or at the very least unfairly limited the chances of a middle class citizen ever reaching elected office.  Elections are no longer about issues and stump speeches and leadership.  Elections are about money…more now than ever before.  The long term effects of this ruling are frightening.

Sadly, this is not what the founding fathers envisioned.  Those of us who raised these concerns when the ruling was issued can take little solace in saying “I told you so.”

It is however ironic that Newt Gingrich, who was once a vocal supporter of the Citizens United decision, now finds himself its first victim.        

             

Let The Voting Begin

After enduring eight months of speeches, 13 debates, thousands of meet and greet events, and millions of dollars of campaign ads the good people of Iowa will flock to 1,744 caucus locations and cast their vote for the Republican nominee for President of the United States.  As the witching hour approaches there are several things which could affect a still very fluid situation.

Enthusiasm - To call the crowds at the numerous candidate events sparse would be kind.  Routinely Iowans attending these events are vastly outnumbered by the press.  Frightened Iowans have been spotted cowering in the corner besieged by journalists from all over the globe.  At times it appears that the Swedes are more interested in these candidates than the locals.  Mitt Romney has consistently maintained his “25% of the vote” status for months with the remaining 75% left to be carved among the other candidates.  Can Romney finally break through that 25% ceiling?  If he can does that mean voters are finally accepting him as the only candidate who can defeat the President.

Romney – Early on the Romney camp did not believe they would do well in Iowa clearly, ceding the win to Ron Paul.  But as the months wore on Romney gained his footing in the state and slowly and quietly began to build an infrastructure in case things started turning in his favor.  Sensing that he might have a chance to win Iowa and use that victory to secure the nomination quickly, pro Romney super pacs ramped up their efforts, pouring millions of dollars into attack ads against the one opponent who they feared could derail their run to the nomination: Newt Gingrich.  You cannot watch a TV show in Iowa without being subjected to a negative ad besmirching the character and capabilities of Newt Gingrich.  These ads seem to be working as Gingrich’s numbers have plummeted while Romney maintains his solid 25%.  Will Romney’s strategy give him a surprising win or will all the negativity back fire in his face?  One thing is certain…anyone winning but Newt is good for the Romney campaign.

Santorum – Rick Santorum is the only candidate to travel to all 99 counties in Iowa.  He has knocked on tens of thousands of doors, attended coffee cloches in living rooms and sat around hundreds of kitchen tables.  Hampered by his paltry war chest Santorum has done it the old fashion way…and it is working.  The Santorum campaign has experienced a huge surge over the past week and now ranks second behind Romney with 16% of the vote.  It is Santorum who has benefited most from Newt’s plummeting poll numbers.  Can Santorum win this thing and use it as a springboard to stay in the race?  It seems more than possible.

Gingrich – The Gingrich campaign has been devastated by tsunami of attack ads purchased by the Romney super pacs.  Gingrich, who doesn’t have the funds to fight back, can do little more than challenge Romney to a one on one debate and encourage Iowans to speak out against negative tone of Romney’s ads.  Gingrich has done his best to control his temper over the attacks.  He has vowed to remain positive and focus his comments on the issues and the President’s record.  Up until yesterday he was doing pretty well at keeping that promise.  No more!  Yesterday a seething Gingrich announced that beginning Wednesday his campaign would spend all the money they raised over the last quarter (9 mil.) to do something none of the other candidates have done thus far…attack Romney.  Gingrich attends to lay bear Romney’s record and expose Romney for the fraud he believes Romney to be.  Asked yesterday by a CBS commentator Norah O' Donnell if he thought Romney was a liar Gingrich responded simply, forcefully and effectively…”yes”.  Gingrich plans to go all out at Romney when they appear together next Sunday on Meet the Press.  Gingrich is pissed…and one place Romney does not want to be is sharing a live stage with a pissed Newt Gingrich.

So who will win?  The prognosticators say Romney is the favorite with Santorum closing at the finish.    Too close to call.

It's time to vote.  At the end of the evening we will finally have the only polling result that really matters.