On Saturday morning, many eyes were focused on Iowa, in anticipation of the Ames Straw Poll. That quickly changed paced at 1 PM EST. The eyes of conservatives everywhere shifted to South Carolina, where Texas Governor Rick Perry (with swagger bigger than the State of Texas) declared his candidacy for President.
What will Perry's impact be? Will he be the "game-changer?" The answer is maybe. For reasons I hope to explain, on paper, Rick Perry brings more to the table than any nominee for President in the GOP since Ronald Reagan.
Some have offered complaints about the lack of real depth in the Republican field. Frontrunner Mitt Romney was indeed a governor, but a governor of only one term that by the election will have ended 8 years ago. He didn't seek re-election. Pawlently likewise won in a challenging environment, but has also been out of office for some time now. Michelle Bachmann's "experience" involves giving a few speeches on CSPAN. I believe the GOP faithful have been seeking not so much someone of ideological red meat, but of someone not just with proven leadership credentials, but active leadership. That is why the darlings of conservatives are those like Chris Christie and Scott Walker. It is why people are enthralled with Paul Ryan. In high school, most of us would've picked on Paul Ryan. Yet he is a leader.
Rick Perry has this quality. He is America's current longest serving governor. He has won re-election for governor three times. With every election, he continues to advance his agenda forward. There are some who think that Texas is a weak governorship. Perhaps. Yet we conservatives I think need to remember something: the power of shaping culture. Those currently in power in the Texas GOP more or less have had their experiences shaped by Rick Perry's rule. Over the past decade of Texas politics, one way or another, has been shaped by Rick Perry. That is leadership.
Of course, if you want conservative credentials, Perry has them. He is the "unite the clans" candidate. He not only advocates positions pleasing to fiscal hawks, social conservatives and foreign policy conservatives, but he holds them genuinely, and has since becoming a Republican over twenty years ago. Bachmann may have the ability to give a great speech, but her lack of experience has been criticzed. She will need every boost the straw poll provides once she collides with Perry.
Finally, you can tell a lot about the man's talents when you look at the list of his enemies. Once it became clear he would enter the race, President Obama's machine began going after him. First, in one of the greatest howlers I've heard in awhile, the Obama machine attempted to take credit for the job creation success story that is Texas. When that obviously didn't work (is anyone really going to believe that Obama has been a big job creator in one state yet epically failed in the other 49?), the left switched gears. Now it is that while yes, jobs have been created, these are mostly minimum wage jobs. Some of Perry's conservative opponents (mainly Bachmann fans) have picked up this line of argument.
They will use it to their own destruction. In today's tough labor market, many people employed are under-compensated. Yet they still take the job, because a low paying job beats no job at all. There was a time when a job was viewed as something to be valued because of the intrinsic value of work. That still resonates. Quite simply, you have to start (or begin anew) somewhere. For a Democrat, this line would be even more suicidal. If you want to have yourself classified as completely out of touch with the middle class, start publicly attacking these kind of jobs. If you want to annoy the young, keep at it. These young work minimum wage jobs throughout college, saving up a little money to pay off those loans and work their way up in the world.
So Perry has leadership, he has conservative credentials, and he has the right kind of enemies. Is that enough? Again, maybe. This is the first time Perry has entered a national contest. He can, should, and will be tested. If he can survive that contest stronger, he certainly looks poised to be one of the biggest game-changers Washington has had in some time.
Showing posts with label Barrack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barrack Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The Downgrade Debacle
In a bombshell yesterday, Standard and Poor's downgraded America's credit rating for the first time in history. We've had a AAA credit rating since 1917. Through both World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, several recessions, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, nobody ever considered downgrading our AAA rating. Indeed, we are in an "unprecedented" time. This is the only time someone actually did it.
Yet is this really a bombshell? There are some who criticize the ratings agencies for their faulty analysis. (Indeed, President Obama has claimed they messed up their math by a whopping two trillion.) Yet the issue must be looked at objectively. Even S & P is right on occasion. Our debt now is 100% of the GDP. The medium-term projections are scary for entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), and the long-term projections are catastrophic. Sooner or later, we will have to end "Medicare as we know it" because we cannot afford it. Many people in my generation (at 28 years old) realize deep down what people try to deny: Social Security will not be available to us when we retire. To show our seriousness about paying for our existing entitlements we cannot afford as is, we then added yet another massively expensive entitlement under the pretense it would reduce costs, a claim the Administration no longer tries to make.
In addition to the massive spending problem, there is a weak economy. Whoever caused it for the moment I'll ignore. At the current rate of growth, it will take the majority of this decade just to get back to the level of growth seen before the crisis in 2008. Eventually, interest rates will have to be raised, and the outpouring of the money spigot will have to cease. This will damage our economic outlook, and make our debt crisis even more daunting.
Finally, there is the political polarization in Washington. Once again, I'm not going to comment on if this is a good or a bad thing. I simply recognize it for what it is. In previous times of crisis, politics was far more regional than ideological. You had conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Those days are done. Both parties are far more ideologically rigid. Overall, this might be a good thing. (It offers competing visions clearly defined for one.) Yet the downside is neither side is willing to compromise to get things done, because those visions are diametrically opposed to each other. A president who believes in "redistributive change" and "spreading the wealth around" will never find willing common ground with a party whose very existence today is to oppose the re-branding of America along the lines of the social democratic state. This stark polarization has also led to frequent changes in government. We are in between the formation of another political age, and everyone is trying to establish their own mandate like the ones of McKinley (who ushered in an era of Republican dominance in his era), FDR (whose New Deal Coalition set the tone of even Republicans for 30 years), and Reagan (whose vision and policies set the tone of American politics from 1980 to 2008.) Those expecting some "grand bargain" out of such conditions are deluding themselves.
Outside of a huge embarrassment, what does this mean? Ed Morrisey speculates that the economic damage might not be catastrophic. Maybe. Maybe not. We are in uncharted waters here. It could take us back into a double-dip recession, or it could not. One thing is for sure: there will be massive uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to unpredictability. Unpredictability, more often than not, leads to economic troubles.
All of this reinforces my previous view on the debt ceiling debate: there were no clear winners. Nobody "benefits" politically from this downgrade. Yet the blows are not shared equally. The buck stops with the President, as Harry Truman was so fond of saying. There is no way to spin this: President Barrack Obama is the first President of the United States to suffer a credit downgrade on his watch. He came to office promising radical change for America. That radical change has arrived, albeit not the change he had in mind. His solution (raise taxes) does nothing to actually address the problem. At the very least, it kicks the can down the road. Nothing short of fundamental tax reform (which lowers rates but ends most tax credits/deductions) will work on that front. Anyone think Obama has the ability to make that happen, even if he wants to? (Which I think part of him does.) I've been saying all year that Obama's chances for re-election were 50-55%. In light of today's events, that's no longer possible. At best, 45%. Realistically, 40%.
Yet what do Republicans do? Until Obama is out of office, there isn't much they can do. You can't get a balanced budget amendment. You can't enact the Ryan budget. The only thing you can do is hold the line, and score a few skirmish victories over coming continuing resolutions and the like. This puts added pressure to nominate a serious candidate in 2012. Sorry Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. Much as some might deny it, that goes double for you Sarah Palin. Just in case, they better make room for Tim Pawlenty. Jon Huntsman? Did any Republican actually support him to begin with? The only serious candidate right now is Mitt Romney, and he is about to be joined by Rick Perry. They alone command the auctoritas necessary to lead a unified Republican Party behind a Republican President. They alone amongst the GOP crowd would be able to receive the Imperium from the American people to begin enacting real reform.
Yet out of those two, only Romney is actually running you say? If you want something different, then you better stop "praying for rain" and start "making it rain" at Perry for President HQ.
Yet is this really a bombshell? There are some who criticize the ratings agencies for their faulty analysis. (Indeed, President Obama has claimed they messed up their math by a whopping two trillion.) Yet the issue must be looked at objectively. Even S & P is right on occasion. Our debt now is 100% of the GDP. The medium-term projections are scary for entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), and the long-term projections are catastrophic. Sooner or later, we will have to end "Medicare as we know it" because we cannot afford it. Many people in my generation (at 28 years old) realize deep down what people try to deny: Social Security will not be available to us when we retire. To show our seriousness about paying for our existing entitlements we cannot afford as is, we then added yet another massively expensive entitlement under the pretense it would reduce costs, a claim the Administration no longer tries to make.
In addition to the massive spending problem, there is a weak economy. Whoever caused it for the moment I'll ignore. At the current rate of growth, it will take the majority of this decade just to get back to the level of growth seen before the crisis in 2008. Eventually, interest rates will have to be raised, and the outpouring of the money spigot will have to cease. This will damage our economic outlook, and make our debt crisis even more daunting.
Finally, there is the political polarization in Washington. Once again, I'm not going to comment on if this is a good or a bad thing. I simply recognize it for what it is. In previous times of crisis, politics was far more regional than ideological. You had conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Those days are done. Both parties are far more ideologically rigid. Overall, this might be a good thing. (It offers competing visions clearly defined for one.) Yet the downside is neither side is willing to compromise to get things done, because those visions are diametrically opposed to each other. A president who believes in "redistributive change" and "spreading the wealth around" will never find willing common ground with a party whose very existence today is to oppose the re-branding of America along the lines of the social democratic state. This stark polarization has also led to frequent changes in government. We are in between the formation of another political age, and everyone is trying to establish their own mandate like the ones of McKinley (who ushered in an era of Republican dominance in his era), FDR (whose New Deal Coalition set the tone of even Republicans for 30 years), and Reagan (whose vision and policies set the tone of American politics from 1980 to 2008.) Those expecting some "grand bargain" out of such conditions are deluding themselves.
Outside of a huge embarrassment, what does this mean? Ed Morrisey speculates that the economic damage might not be catastrophic. Maybe. Maybe not. We are in uncharted waters here. It could take us back into a double-dip recession, or it could not. One thing is for sure: there will be massive uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to unpredictability. Unpredictability, more often than not, leads to economic troubles.
All of this reinforces my previous view on the debt ceiling debate: there were no clear winners. Nobody "benefits" politically from this downgrade. Yet the blows are not shared equally. The buck stops with the President, as Harry Truman was so fond of saying. There is no way to spin this: President Barrack Obama is the first President of the United States to suffer a credit downgrade on his watch. He came to office promising radical change for America. That radical change has arrived, albeit not the change he had in mind. His solution (raise taxes) does nothing to actually address the problem. At the very least, it kicks the can down the road. Nothing short of fundamental tax reform (which lowers rates but ends most tax credits/deductions) will work on that front. Anyone think Obama has the ability to make that happen, even if he wants to? (Which I think part of him does.) I've been saying all year that Obama's chances for re-election were 50-55%. In light of today's events, that's no longer possible. At best, 45%. Realistically, 40%.
Yet what do Republicans do? Until Obama is out of office, there isn't much they can do. You can't get a balanced budget amendment. You can't enact the Ryan budget. The only thing you can do is hold the line, and score a few skirmish victories over coming continuing resolutions and the like. This puts added pressure to nominate a serious candidate in 2012. Sorry Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. Much as some might deny it, that goes double for you Sarah Palin. Just in case, they better make room for Tim Pawlenty. Jon Huntsman? Did any Republican actually support him to begin with? The only serious candidate right now is Mitt Romney, and he is about to be joined by Rick Perry. They alone command the auctoritas necessary to lead a unified Republican Party behind a Republican President. They alone amongst the GOP crowd would be able to receive the Imperium from the American people to begin enacting real reform.
Yet out of those two, only Romney is actually running you say? If you want something different, then you better stop "praying for rain" and start "making it rain" at Perry for President HQ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)