Why not Ryan?

Let me start out by saying, I'm a big fan of Paul Ryan.  I think Representative Ryan has the chance to play a major role in the future of the GOP and this country.  I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 20 years, he is referred to as President Ryan.

All that being said, I think it would be a really bad idea if Paul Ryan were to run for President.  While the intellectual class of conservatives love him, there's no chance he can win.  Let us count the reasons why.

1.)  No House member has been elected President since 1830.  Let me repeat that so the record is perfectly clear:  No Sitting House Member has Been Elected President Since 1830!  There are those who try to insist that things are different nowadays.  No, they really aren't.  House members are viewed as intensely ideological, which they are.  Americans do not like intensely ideological presidents.  Barrack Obama had to hide his ideological streak.  Now that it has come out, how do the American people like it?

By the way, anyone check out the approval rating for House Republicans?  They are doing what they have to do.  Yet the idea that they are going to swing independents is the height of absurdity.

2.)  He has no executive experience.  In 2008, we elected a legislator with zero executive experience.  We are still trying to get ourselves out of that mess and atone for that mistake.  To those who say "The problem with Obama isn't that he is inexperienced, but that he is liberal!", I say the problem with Obama is he is inexperienced and liberal.  We've survived liberal Presidents before.  Some of them may have even performed relatively admirably.  Obama presents a unique threat to this country.  His incompetence makes many problems even worse.  Since he never had to learn to actually compromise to get things done, he really expected the world to just bow to his will.

There is more to politics than right ideology.  Ryan shows incredible promise.  Yet as of right now, he is not there yet.  Give him time.

3.)  Get ready for some serious optics.  I'm not talking about the "Mediscare" campaign, though Democrats will launch that with unbelievable intensity.  Coming very soon, Republicans have to produce a budget.  Who runs the budget process?  Oh yeah, Paul Ryan.  Are we ready to defend from possible conflict of interest allegations that Ryan is using the budgetary process to further his presidential ambitions, should he run?  Do not think for a moment if the charges are true or not.  That's irrelevant.  The question is, are you going to be able to competently prove otherwise?

4.)  Many people champion Ryan's potential candidacy due to his strength on entitlement reform, and how no Republican understands the issue better.  I say that is all the more reason he needs to stay in the House and work on the rules under a Republican administration.  Up until the past few months, this would be a credible reason to get involved.

The problem with politics is that things change.  The issue that matters right now is jobs.  We cannot address our long-term problems without seriously addressing our short-term problems.  A Republican President needs to make the economy his primary issue.  This includes tax and regulatory reform.  If you haven't been paying attention, these are, as Joe Biden would say, a big 'effin deal.  Oh yeah, you also have to worry about repealing something called Obamacare.  Switch up the order any way you want, but those are the top 3 things which are immediate priorities for a Republican administration.  Want to show me where you can get all these things accomplished, then enact sweeing entitlement reform within the first three years? 
Entitlement reform is something everyone knows we have to deal with, but in the mind of the voters, it is secondary.  There's no trying to get around this.  We also have to consider the issue of trust.  When you do something as big as entitlement reform, you really need to establish trust with the American people, and you need a mandate to specifically do entitlement reform.  Get the economy on track, and entitlement reform becomes easier fiscally and politically.  Bush found this out in 2004.  He was re-elected, and decided out of nowhere to push for private investment accounts for Social Security.  A bold plan, much to like.  It failed miserably, and it proved a preview of his second term.

Notice how Romney's numbers are doing pretty strong where he is the front runner?  Even his known stance on Romneycare, anathema to conservatives, and he is acting as the front runner.  Why?  Because of the economy.  It is so poor right now, people want to do whatever they need to do so they can get it fixed again.  As a result, many are overlooking Romney's transgressions and heresies on conservative issues.

What does Ryan bring to the table on this front that more experienced candidates do not?

5.)  Finally, we like to idolize our heroes.  Rush Limbaugh wonders if it is a sin to love a man, because he loves Chris Christie.  We all know that's nonsense.  Chris Christie advocates global warming, cap and trade, comprehensive immigration reform, amongst other things anathema to his biggest fans.  Yet we overlook those things.  Why?  Because on the things that matter, and his station in life, Christie gets the job done for Republicans.

The same with Ryan.  He is not the ideologically pure conservative some make him to be.  He backed TARP.  He backed the bank and auto bailouts.  He's taken previous votes on S-CHIP and the like.  John McCormack of the Weekly Standard quotes Ryan thus:

Really clear. The president’s chief of staff made it extremely clear to me before the vote, which is either the auto companies get the money that was put in the Energy Department for them already — a bill that I voted against because I didn’t want to give them that money, which was only within the $25 billion, money that was already expended but not obligated — or the president was going to give them TARP, with no limit. That’s what they told me. That’s what the president’s chief of staff explained to me. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want them to get TARP. We want to keep TARP on a [inaudible]. We don’t want to expand it. So give them that Energy Department money that at least puts them out of TARP, and is limited.’ Well, where are we now? What I feared would happen did happen. The bill failed, and now they’ve got $87 billion from TARP, money we’re not going to get back. And now TARP, as a precedent established by the Bush administration, whereby the Obama administration now has turned this thing into its latest slush fund. And so I voted for that to prevent precisely what has happened, which I feared would happen.

Anyone really see this answer surviving under intense questioning?  The answer satisfies the intellectuals, but it is something only a wonk could make and love.  Ryan favored the auto bailouts because if they didn't pass the auto bailout, the money would come from TARP.  So Ryan voted for the auto bailout, and we still got the money from TARP, in addition to bailing out a failed company, whom we have lost a lot of money over, and still will. 

If Ryan knew the bill was going to pass anyways, why go along with it?  If you view the auto bailout so toxic, vote against it!  What we have here is a failure of nuance.  People understand there's a difference between states passing an individual mandate and the federal government passing one.  They just think the individual mandate was a horrible idea, and that is why Romney found himself in hot water (and still could.)  What Ryan describes sounds like a typical Washington political game, where in the end, the American taxpayer got screwed.  On the issue of the auto bailouts, the position Romney took as a more conservative position than the one Ryan took.

If Ryan simply stated "look, I had to vote with my district.  You can't vote against the auto bailout in the Midwest in a purple district and expect to live", I'd respect that honesty.  Thad McCotter operates basically off of that understanding, and it is has never stopped me from voting for him, as he is my congressman.  His answer sounds like "i voted against it before I voted for it." 

So in summation, Ryan:

1.)  Doesn't have experience
2.)  Doesn't have a record of job creation
3.)  Would be staking his campaign on the wrong central issue (putting the cart before the horse)
4.)  Has an answer which, if he gave it to the media or in a debate, he would get flogged mercilessly.

I think Ryan has an impressive future ahead of him.  Let him continue in that future, rather than getting involved in something he cannot win.

Perry Enters, Game On!

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.

Debate Wrapup

               I will confess before starting, I did not watch the Republican Debate as it happened on Thursday.  I was too busy with must see JV.  The only thing I love more than politics is Justin Verlander pitching.  Yet I’ve studied the debate and read commentary from all sides.  Here are my thoughts. 

                There were two winners in this debate.  First was Fox News.  Normally, people paint them as a talking points machine for the right.  Yet during this debate, the moderators forced the candidates into some very uncomfortable positions, and asked tough questions of actual relevance.  When Chris Matthews and the like moderate, they care little about the issues.  They care about making the GOP look bad.  In this debate, issues of relevance were front and center, both about the platforms of the candidates, and the candidates themselves.

                The second winner of the debate was Texas Governor Rick Perry.  Everybody knows he is getting into the race this weekend.  Since he isn’t formally in, he avoided all the carnage and bloodletting Thursday night.  He also was able to build up some nice dossiers on where the weaknesses of each candidate are.  Out of those who actually attended, the winner was Mitt Romney, for reasons I hope to explain later.

                Before that, I would like to tackle a few broad observations:

1.)     For the health of the Republican Party in the future, Ron Paul and his descendants to the fourth generation should be barred from all future Republican Presidential debates.  This is not simply because the Congressman advocates positions I disagree with.  It’s not even because I think at times he experiences paranoia in his worldview.  Whatever he wants to think, legalizing (not just decriminalization, a controversial but debatable stance) smack and prostitution not only has no place in the position of the Republican Party, but of sane American politics. Last night he went even further.  When asked about Iran and nuclear weapons, the Congressman expressed little problem with Iran having nuclear weapons.  That is an opinion beyond the pale of sanity. 

There are those who oppose military intervention in Iran.  (I’m one of them.)  Yet to say that the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon being no big deal is absurd.  He complains that they were no different than the Soviet Union.  Everybody knows there is a difference.  The Soviet Union was still concerned with rational things and rational power.  The very purpose of the Iranian regime (especially in those who currently have power) is not based on foreign policy realism, but rather revolution and chaos.  The Soviet Union wasn’t promising to wipe a country off the face of the earth, Iran is.  While we didn’t like India getting the bomb, we also resigned ourselves to that reality.  Why?  India isn’t a nation ran by theocrats promising genocide who directly support terrorists.  The idea Israel has nothing to worry about if Iran has a bomb certainly isn’t something the Israelis are buying.  Again, these positions are so far removed from basic sanity, they don’t deserve airtime on a Presidential debate.  He can go give a few speeches and win a few irrelevant straw polls, but the Presidency is for serious grownups.

2.)    There was a point in the debate where Republicans were asked to give a show of hands if they would reject a deficit reduction deal that involved a ratio of ten dollars of spending cut for every one dollar in tax increases.  Predictably, the candidates all battled to see who could raise their hand the highest.  I groaned for a few reasons.

The first reason is that they are lying through their teeth.  If they could balance 2012’s budget with that ratio, they would do it in a heartbeat.  I understand the need to pander to the base and give a few red meat speeches.  I even indulge in them myself at times.  Yet let’s not show we are blatantly blowing smoke.

You should respond to this issue as such:

Well I would say that is certainly a good starting point in negotiations.  In the past, future cuts have been promised in exchange for immediate tax increases.  Those future cuts never materialize.  I would ask Congress to rectify this situation based on recent precedent.

Speaker Boehner enunciated during the debt ceiling debate that any increase in the debt ceiling must be paired with spending cuts.  I would go one step further.  Any tax revenue for the year coming from tax increases must be paired with real immediate deficit reduction of a ratio of at least 3 to 1.  If you want to raise 20 billion in additional tax revenue next year, I want at least 60 billion in spending cuts.  Since I doubt Democrats will do that, then we offer them tax reform.

 This is not as hard as it sounds.  Eliminating just 75% of farm subsidies (which go to the richest 10% of farmers)would provide not only around 17 billion in revenue next year, it would also count as eliminating one of the worst forms of corporate welfare around.  Or we could eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for around 25% of taxpayers and save even more.  Be willing to give them this.  We have no business defending it anyway as conservatives who favor the free market.  Then say, okay, we’ve offered over 100 billion annually in new revenue, now give us a down payment on entitlement reform where we begin to means test Medicare and Social Security so millionaires are no longer treated like those who make 40,000 a year.

The art of negotiation is getting as much as you want for giving up as little as possible.  If Obama made such an offer, you call his bluff.  If he has nothing (and no Democrat would ever offer such credible spending cuts in today’s party!), then force them to prove why ending corporate welfare is a bad thing.  Use that to win re-election, then take credit for achieving real tax reform that ends corporate welfare, and lowers rates for individuals, while still being at worst neutral and at best a revenue raiser.  This is also how any Republican President would deal with Democrats, no matter what they said in that debate.

Now I would like to close with my individual assessments of the candidates performances, in order from best to worst.

1.)     Romney:  As long as he did nothing stupid, he was going to win this debate again.  He did nothing stupid.  Even gave a few good answers.  He looked like the one adult in the room.

2.)    Santorum:  He performed magically in this debate.  He demonstrated the absurdity of both Bachmann and Paul’s assertions on the 10^th Amendment by appealing to the views of the Founding Fathers as individuals who advocated morality just as much as anything else in their viewpoints.  Madison said the Constitution could only work with a moral populace, and Santorum explained why.  He reminded the Party of Lincoln that they should operate according to the spirit of Lincoln’s worldview.  His hammering Paul on Iran was great theatre.  Just a shame he is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

3.)    Gingrich:  Like always, Mr. Gingrich knows how to handle himself in a debate and a speech.  He is the smartest guy in every room, and he knows it.  He proved that with some of the policy positions in the debate tonight.  Yet try as he might to deny it, his campaign being a wreck is a valid question.  Gingrich can sink ships, but he has no clue how to sail them.  That is as true today as it was in 1994.  As a result of that, he is also irrelevant.

4.)    Pawlenty:  Is he finished?  Who knows?  I happen to think he won’t advance much farther, but he put in a relatively solid performance.  Some of his jokes were way too canned, but he showed he is willing to fight.  I wish he would’ve dropped the idea that it is Bachmann’s fault we had Obamacare, and instead asked the proper question:  Congresswoman, you claim you have led the fight against numerous Obama programs.  Can you find anyone in Congress outside of Michelle Bachmann who views you as taking leadership positions on these fights?  If he asks that question, sure, he gets viewed a jerk.  Yet people will forget his question, and focus on her answer, or lack thereof.

5.)    Bachmann:  She handled herself better than I expected under fire.  Yet I didn’t expect much.  She had to know eventually someone would question her on her paper-thin resume.  Her answers were to try and deflect the blame on others for their supposed sins.  That might work on Pawlenty.  That won’t work against the well-oiled very disciplined Romney team.  She also won’t be able to use it with credibility against Rick Perry, who has the charisma and bona fides of Bachmann amongst the Tea Party, but has actually accomplished something in his life in government.  She barely bested Pawlenty, walking away wounded.  If she loses the straw poll this weekend, expect the rest of the field to collectively finish her off.

6.)    Cain:  His line about people needing to learn to take a joke was a great line.  He is clearly having the time of his life running for President.  Good for him.  Yet that time is going to end soon.  He hasn’t shown any real maturation on ideas, and his statement about Romney’s Mormonism in the eyes of Georgia voters was colossally stupid.

7.)    Huntsman:  Dude, why the heck are you here?  I’ve yet to see one Republican supporter of Huntsman.  Actually, I’ve yet to see an American citizen who supports Huntsman who isn’t on Huntsman’s staff or family.  It isn’t that he is too liberal or too conservative.  Rather, everyone reacts to our candidacy the same way Sonny from A Bronx Tale related to life:  Nobody cares.

8.)    Paul:  Dude, just leave here, and never come back.

9.)    Charlie Sheen:  Ron Paul is stealing your gig, you better sue him.

10.) Barrack Obama:  The chances of Bachmann being nominated are now smaller, and they were already pretty small.  Good luck running on how good the economy is!

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.

Dr. Sowell on the Debt Ceiling and the Tea Party

One of the greatest influences on my understanding as a conservative comes from Dr. Thomas Sowell.  One of the few voices of the original conservative movement left, he has always laid out the case for limited government and the free market in economics.  While people flock to the vitriolic blogs for their red meat, it falls to those like Dr. Sowell to actually make sure the conservative movement retains ideological coherence.

That is why I view his latest column important.  Yesterday I had a discussion with a Tea Party advocate who claimed Dr. Sowell opposes not only the Boehner plan, but raising the debt ceiling at all.  Being a student of Dr. Sowell's work, I was skeptical.  I had reason to.

In the article, Sowell savages those conservatives who oppose the Boehner plan, and offers some timeless political wisdom.  He recognizes, like everyone else, that you can't get everything you want in an imperfect world.  Being unable to obtain the perfect, you then have to weigh your options against the competing goods.  Simply liking something does not mean being able to obtain it.    That isn't being a "sell-out."  A sell-out is a complete abandoning of your previous worldview, and adopting the opposite.  Calculating how to accomplish a goal is a nasty business.  Some purists might not like it, but it isn't a sell-out.

A second major point is something that should be obvious but isn't:  We live in a republic that has a democracy.  A republic is built around an innate fear of one man amassing too much power.  To limit that ability, structural checks are placed upon the leader.  Two of those structural checks are elected by the popular vote.  Due to the checks placed upon any one man (or group) becoming too powerful, you are forced to negotiate and compromise to enact something.  The best legislative victories are those which move the country closer to the perfect ideal you advocate, yet still maintain a chance of passing.

The idea of not raising the debt ceiling is not an option.  As much as Tea Partier's might hate to hear it, Cap, Cut, and Balance is not an option either.  A balanced budget amendment doesn't solve a problem outright, and would take years to get enacted.  What would we do until that point?  Of equal anathema to conservatives are tax increases in both the realm of principle and practice.  (Seriously, who really wants to raise taxes right now in this kind of economy?)  Even though tax reform couldn't happen (and who seriously though it would during this debate), Republicans still scored a victory by removing tax increases from the table.

Those Tea Party members advocating opposition to the Boehner plan have no credible alternative.  As mentioned before, CCB can't pass the Senate, and doesn't actually solve the problem.    The idea you can force the executive branch to prioritize payments in a default to your liking is folly.  If your default position is indeed default, then you are adopting what Dr. Sowell calls a "rule or ruin" philosophy.  If you can't have all the power, you will do your best to ensure nobody has any power.  When people act this way, they don't last very long in politics.

The final point made by Dr. Sowell is again something that should be obvious:  there is a world of difference between the priorities of Rush Limbaugh and a Congressman.  Rush Limbaugh first and foremost is worried about ratings.  Any idiot can go on the air and spout conservative platitudes.  (Indeed, turn on talk radio and you will hear precisely that more often than not.)  It takes someone with true talent to make these views marketable.  Yet it also requires being "principled" in taking absolutely no compromise ever.  Who is going to turn into someone who advocates anything other than equating Barrack Obama as a mix between Sauron, Darth Vader, and Barney?  Rush Limbaugh can safely do what he feels the need to do without worry.  People won't vote him off EIB because they disagree with him.

Yet a Congressman can lose an election.  If you want to detonate America's economy simply to make a point, voters will want to make an equally forceful point in the next election.  Their priorities are about winning elections and advancing their ideologies.  You can't do the latter without the former.  The Tea Party was sent to Washington to act like adults as well as be stricter guardians of our finances.

This they have achieved.  Who would've thought 2 years ago that going into the final stretch of his Presidency, we would have a Republican House and Democrats would officially abandon their love with high tax rates?  Yet it has happened.  In addition, we are actually cutting spending.  We all wish it were more, but there are actual cuts, and those cuts magnify over the future as a smaller pie is available due to baseline changes.

Given the small amount of Tea Party members, that's quite an achievement.  Yet they cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good.  If they do so, they will deserve everything they get, and Republicans will suffer greatly.

@Obama: Your Move

                A friend asked me this week how I thought the debt ceiling debate/discussion was going in Washington for Republicans.  My reply was that they overplayed their hand, and Obama was beginning to take the advantage.  While true, we should never underestimate the ability of Obama to screw up paradise.  Before we look at how he did that, lets look at how we got here.

                When I wrote on this issue previously, I tried to make two points, which Republicans didn’t follow:

1.)     The debt ceiling has to be raised.

There are many things that Obama is wrong about.  Yet the President was right on one thing.  Default isn’t an option.  You have to raise the debt ceiling eventually.  Some Republicans (especially Tea Party Freshman) seem to think you don’t have to honor your debts, that American can simply walk away from them.  They are just like Obama in one aspect: both sides would sacrifice everything as long as it meant destroying the other.  Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) even said we should lower the debt ceiling, forcing Americans to make massive European-style austerity cuts.  The entire point Republicans made when passing Paul Ryan’s budget was that forced austerity was bad, and that we can manage our finances without resorting to such economy-killing measures.  Then again, Mr. Broun was one of the few open birthers in Congress, so this shouldn’t be surprising.

2.)    Focus on the way money is spent in the future, not current spending

The temptation to demand huge spending cuts is indeed very tempting.  We want to get something out of Obama right away.  Yet spending cuts now do nothing to change the bad system currently in place where it is far too easy to raise spending.  Republicans for the most part ignored this, and demanded serious spending cuts to current programs, including entitlement reform.  Part of me admires their bravery.  Yet I’m far more concerned about preventing future presidents, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, from going on spending benders the way the last two Presidents (one Democrat, one Republican) went on.

                President Obama, give him credit, played his response nicely.  He professed to offer serious spending cuts and entitlement reform, but offered tax increases alongside it.  That tax increases would torpedo the economy is beside the point.  Obama knew they wouldn’t back tax increases.  Yet he understood that spending cuts and entitlement reform in exchange for raising the debt ceiling was a bad deal for him.   Republicans need the debt ceiling raised just as much.  (See #1.) Since they wouldn’t back tax increases, the entitlement reforms he was professing to propose would never occur, so he would never actually have to be specific.  That must be remembered.  To this date, nobody has offered any specifics of what is going to be done.  President Obama figures his plan needs no substance. 

                This is all about politics.  He wants the debt ceiling raised just long enough to get him through the election.  Part of him I am sure would not mind a default, if it meant Republicans were damaged.  Such a default wouldn’t be long, and once Republicans capitulated, he would get his way.    Sam Nunn famously said about politics “Never take a hostage you aren’t willing to shoot.”  President Obama has proven time and time again, he is not afraid to shoot the hostage.  In a fight between the President and Congress, the President has the advantage.

                This became apparent when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered a very convoluted plan in response to Obama’s act.  In short, it would give Obama the authority to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.  Democrats could vote against it or for it, but in the end, Obama would get what he wanted.    This was a retreat.  Republicans weren’t surrendering, but they clearly wanted out of the situation they dug themselves into.

                Then Obama got sloppy.

                Part of the entire charade was to have a sense of calm and coolness that is befitting the President.  Since he holds all the power, he needs to act like it.  He forfeited this earlier this week.  During negotiations at the White House with congressional leaders, he became visibly enraged by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. (R-VA)  Cantor offered a short-term debt ceiling increase that gave them the breathing room to work out a long-term deal and debt reduction thrown in.  The reasoning made sense.  President Obama had been stating that not only must we raise the debt ceiling, but we must also put forth a credible deficit reduction package, otherwise the debt ceiling won’t matter, our credit would still get downgraded.

                President Obama boldly refused, stating a deal must have tax increases, and must get him through the election.  Announcing he would hang his Presidency on the issue, he vowed to veto a short-term move.  Threatening that Republicans better not “call his bluff”, he angrily stormed out of the room.  With this move, Republicans suddenly had life again.  The President dismisses you from a meeting.  He doesn’t storm out of his own meeting.  Why was he so angry with a move that would’ve given him everything he needed?  Simply put, the move wasn’t politically expedient.  Once Republicans saw this, they knew what they had long suspected:  Obama had no plan.

                The past two days have only confirmed that.  During a press briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney explicitly said he couldn’t figure out what was worse:  a default or having to vote on the debt ceiling again in six months.  The answer to this question is:  of course a default is worse, that is why we are doing our best to prevent it!  The question became, worse for the country, or Obama’s re-election prospects?  This image was reinforced during today’s press conference.  Given ample opportunity to do so, Obama refused to reveal one dollar or one program he would cut.  This was the perfect time to at least show a little bit of what he wanted to do, putting pressure on Republicans.

                Since he has no plan, events are moving on without him.  As of right now, Barrack Obama is irrelevant in the debt ceiling debate.  Sensing the moment, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor have announced they will vote next week on the finally revealed House Plan to raise the debt ceiling.  The plan would raise the ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars, but also include 2.4 trillion in spending cuts.  A vote on a balanced budget amendment would be held right after.  (To prevent the two from being coupled.)  Are they bluffing?  I am led to believe that if they are bringing forth a plan, they have the votes to pass it.

                The Democrats in the Senate are in the works for offering their own plan in the absence of leadership from Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced he has entered into negotiations with Senator McConnell over his plan on the debt ceiling.  He does so out of naked self-interest, and I’m okay with that.  He sees how vulnerable his colleagues are in 2012.  They need to say they voted to increase the debt ceiling, as well as offering spending cuts.  So far, it appears that 1.5 trillion in spending cuts have been attached to McConnell’s plan.  Both raise the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion.  McConnell’s plan does it over 3 installments, whereas the House does it all at once.  Either way, tax increases are off the table, and spending is cut. 

                If the house plan passes (which is likely) then Democrats are faced with a choice.  The Senate Republicans will support the House measure first.  (McConnell’s plan is a last resort.)  Does Harry Reid obstruct it or permit it to a vote?  If it comes to a vote, it will pass.  If he blocks it without an alternative, Democrats have chosen default.  Or he can choose to cut 1.5 trillion instead.  This isn’t a compromise between the Republican Party and the White House.  It’s a compromise between the Senate GOP and the House GOP.  Does Obama dare veto it?  He would have to offer a plan of substance instead.  Reveal that plan, and he faces a revolt from his base.  Admit you don’t have a plan, and he has no credibility.  Pass the plan, and you must sell to your base that Republicans beat you a third time since December 2010.  He would come out of this with nothing.  Republicans will have thwarted his goal of raising taxes, and they managed to enact serious spending cuts.

                Of course, the House could fail to pass the plan, doubtful as that may be.  If they pass it, they called Obama’s bluff, and realized he had nothing.  Your move, Mr. President.

The Problem of Obama's Inner Circle

It is said that a man can be defined by those he associates themselves with.  If this is true, then we have a great understanding of the measure of a man that is President Barrack Obama.

One the one hand, he has the rigid ideologues.  Some of these were "czars" like Donald Berwick (who wants to do whatever he can to provide us with socialized medicine) or Van Jones (the disgraced 9/11 truther/hard leftist), who was canned by the administration for the crime of being liberal in public.  For the ideologue, their worldview trumps everything else, including reality.  They are not as interested in equitable results for all, as the imposition of their worldview.  It is a very power hungry nature.

As he heads into re-election, President Obama has tried hard to present himself as the one sensible adult in Washington and a pragmatist.  Yet you cannot be what you cannot be.  Obama is neither sensible or a pragmatist, and this is demonstrated by his advisors.

Take the National Labor Relations Board and their demonizing of Boeing.  Boeing decided to build a new plant in South Carolina.  In a struggling economy, a big company decides to give considerable investment.  What's the problem?  The problem is that South Carolina allows workers to decide for themselves if they should be in a labor union.  Labor unions hate the complexities of giving workers the freedom to be represented by the union, or (more importantly) someone else, themself. The NLRB claims that since Boeing has a compulsory union plant in Washington State, it is wrong for them to build in one in a right to work state.  Worse, it is engaging in "retaliation" against those Washington workers for joining a union.  That the Washington plant is seeing its producitivty and employment increase is irrelevant.

What could be behind such a mindset?  In a seemingly unrelated story, Energy Secretary Steven Chu.  In an effort to promote the environmental movement, a Democratic Congress banned older light bulbs in exchange for new "energy efficient" lightbulbs that are costlier, give less light, and are a toxic hazard if they break.  Mr. Chu justified this rationale as follows:

"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money,"

In their mind, they can decide best if you are wasting your money.  Ergo, they should be able to limit your choice so you do not waste your money.  Despots normally do not speak in such naked terms of control.  Traditionally, it has been understood that in America, you can use your money how you see fit, provided it is not for criminal means.  Money is the fruit of private property.  In order for it to be private, one must have discretion over it.  What qualifications does Mr. Chu have to dictate how people can best spend their money?

When one looks at all the regulations President Obama has passed or favored, the same arrogance comes into play.  People in distant places will be able to decide for you if you are wasting money on health care.  If they think you are, they will simply take away the choice of that healthcare.  Distant "enlightened" men in Washington will decide for your business if the location you are wanting to set up shop in is "wasteful."  If they deem it so, they will do whatever they can to take away the choice of where to have your business located.

This is inherently dangerous.  What if a certain state is key to a President's re-election campaign, and he decides to use regulation to prevent a business from relocating to a state that he is already going to lose?  What if a company does a lobbying effort to promote their product as the most "efficient" and their competitor as "wasteful."  Who is to decide?  Some people might place a premium on safety.  Therefore, the newer lightbulbs are not worth the cost.  What criteria does Mr. Chu place on those competing factors to determine what is and isn't "wasteful?"  Should companies be allowed to influence that decision with their money?

This is how corruption in government spreads.  You get someone who thinks they know best, or at least that they should be in the position to know best and decide the most minute of matters for everyone else.  There is nothing pragmatic or moderate about it.