At first, Romney’s tax plan sounds pretty good.  Cut every bracket by 20%, including the top brackets.  Who could argue with that?  Of course, it doesn’t solve the complexity of taxes or cut into the billions of dollars America spends preparing taxes like Newt’s Flat Tax would, but it does lower taxes across the board, right?

No.  Romney went on to say that his tax plan would be revenue neutral, meaning overall it would not be a tax cut.  He would pay for the plan by limiting deductions for the top 1%.  According to Bankrate.com, that means that Romney would effectively raise taxes on every American who makes more than $343,000.  His populism perpetuates his timidity and presents us with a consumerism driven plan that will not grow the economy any more than Obama’s stimulus packages, or Obama’s own tax plans.  Romney appears to be appealing to the “99″.

Romney may think he will score points by taking shots at the top 1%, but here is the real problem. Deductions are already limited for the mega-rich like Romney.  Romney’s tax plan will create a donut hole tax hike on upper income earners that will become basically irrelevant to someone who makes as much as Romney. His tax plan would result in a 3% tax hike for himself, assuming he targets charitable contributions as one of the deductions he limits.

Based on average itemized deductions for individuals who make more than $250,000, someone just over the top 1% threshhold of $343,000 could end up trading a tax cut of $24,000 from the reduced rates for a tax hike of up to $25,000 from losing their deductions.

In order to make this tax plan more effective in raising taxes on the mega-rich to pay for it instead of small business owners, Romney will have to target deductions that are not already currently limited.  For example, you can only claim a deduction for mortgage interest on the first $1.1 million in debt principle.  That means that someone with a $5 million dollar home won’t be affected as negatively by Romney’s tax plan as someone with a $1 million home.  However, if he decided to limit deductions on charitable giving, that could result in the mega-rich paying for Romney’s tax plan instead of small business owners.  Is that something Romney is prepared to do?

Romney’s plan is a timid one because it does not seek to decrease taxes and spending, it simply seeks to move money around from business owners and investors to consumers.  That is Liberal Taxation 101.  Romney’s plan follows the same Liberal analogy of taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring them in the shallow end in order to fill it up.  It may win some moderates and independents, but it will not win over conservatives who want to see lower taxes all around and lower government spending to pay for it.  We also don’t want to see more money being taken from economic producers and being put towards government waste instead.

Romney’s plan does nothing to simplify taxes, and in fact will make it much worse for upper income earners.  He is adding another level of complexity to how deductions are calculated and making it more difficult for economic producers to plan for the future.

Romney has yet to issue substantive details, but for now I give his tax plan an F.

According to Roemer;

“Tomorrow, I will formally end my bid for the GOP nomination…. as the GOP and the networks host debate number twenty-something this evening, they have once again turned their backs on the demogratic process by choosing to exclude a former Governor and Congressman.

I have decided to take my campaign directly to the American people by declaring my candidacy for Americans Elect.

Also, after many discussions with the with the Reform Party, I am excited to announce my intentions of seeking their nomination.”

Roemer’s decision to withdraw from the Republican race for President comes as a releif to the other contenders……….NOT!

Roemer had hoped to take the nation by storm with a mix of conservative oriented T.E.A. movement, anti-establishment sentiments and the generally liberal, anti-capitalist, sentiments of the Occupy rioters whodue to relatively cold Winter weather, temporarily put on hold their plight to turn the nation in to a socialsit cesspool.

Roemer hoped to unite the two with a message that attacked the incompetence of Congress and the undue influence of K Street on Capitol Hill.

While there is a good message top be fopund there, Buddy Roemer was not the the incompetence of Congress.

But this got me thinking, isn’t Obama a theocrat?  Obama definitely believes in the religion of Global Warming.  How can we forget Obama’s speech that generations from now people will look back and see his Presidency as the moment that the oceans would stop rising and the planet would begin to heal?  And Obama has accomplished his religious purpose by stifling American energy production, funneling billions of dollars to “green” energy, and engineering a takeover of a large portion of the US auto industry.  No where is federal ownership of private companies or green energy subsidies in the constitution.  These are things that Obama has done under the loose legislative framework of the stimulus package and TARP.

What about Obama’s belief in social justice?  Obama’s presidency is a prime example of liberation theology in action and the search for the religious concept of social justice.  Obama has taken Christ’s commands to give to the poor, help the afflicted and needy, and he has turned those things into federal responsibilities mandated by law.  No longer must someone tithe or give in order to be charitable.  Obama, like the Presidents before him, has turned the federal government into the largest charitable organization on the planet.

Obama invoked God when it came to his housing bill.  He indicated that God wants the federal government to provide jobs to people.  Obama unwittingly danced around a conservative idea of self-sufficiency while promoting his bill as God’s will.

Unlike Bush, who used faith based organizations to defray costs of social programs, Obama has leveraged the government’s relationship with faith based organizations to infiltrate them with his own social justice theology.  Obama now holds these institutions hostage by threatening them with fines and forcing closures of charities who don’t obey the radical liberal theology.  The unholy infiltration of religious institutions by the religious left has led to things like closures of Catholic orphanages.  This is all part of the Obama religion.

When it comes to taxes, Obama famously misquoted Jesus, saying that to those whom much is given, much will be required.  Of course, Jesus may have had spiritual things in mind.  But Obama’s interpretation is that people who have a lot (because if you have wealth it must have been given to you) should pay more in taxes according to Scripture.

Early on in Obama’s Presidency, CBS noted that Obama invoked Jesus Christ far more often than evangelical Christian President George W. Bush did.  Obama invoked God several times in his prayer breakfast speech, crediting God for his inspiration on everything from Obamacare, which forces Christians to pay for abortion, to Dodd-Frank.

Obama is a global warming believing social justice Christian, and he has tailored his governmental policies around that.  Included in Obama’s religious view of social justice is a brand of social equality for women that demands that contraception and abortion be provided by employers, even if the employers are religious institutions.  Access to abortion at no cost to the mother is a less advertised plank of mainstream liberation theology.  Don’t be fooled by his lack of explicit rhetoric on the issue, Obama’s theology inspires his determination on providing free federal abortion more than it does any piece of Wall Street regulation.

So why are we scared of Rick Santorum?  Don’t be fooled into thinking that it is because Santorum is the theocrat.  It is because Santorum is not a liberation theocrat.  Santorum does not believe that the government should redefine marriage.  Santorum does not believe that the federal government should provide equality of circumstances and end the perceived societal oppression of blacks and women.   Santorum is much closer to the brand of Christianity that authored the first amendment, not Obama’s brand that seeks to overturn it.  He believes that baby murder should be illegal, not free and equally distributed.

Once upon a time, the GOP agreed with Santorum.  Today we are too afraid of Obama’s faithful followers and their witch hunts.  GOP candidates are refusing to speak up for personal freedom, responsibility, and the lives of the unborn because they see Santorum burning at the stake.  In fact, some establishment GOP’ers are standing along side the liberation faithful, tossing sticks on the fire to prove their own loyalty to the social liberal faith.

Make no mistake, 2012 is all about religion.  Will we continue to have freedom of religion and self determination?  Or will we all be forced to become worshipers of Obama’s God, even more so than we are already.

Rick Santorum’s surge is consistent Texas Governor Rick Perry’s at his peak. A little higher than Herman Cain’s surge and slightly than Newt Gingrich’s lofty pre-Christmas heights, and nobody can rule out another Gingrich surge either.

The current debate involving the Catholic Church and Obama Administration has in no doubt aided the Santorum surge, with his values based appeal to the conservative support base. One has to wonder whether the much publicised spat was a strategically placed controversy by the Obama Administration to kill off Romney’s bid, or a calculated risk on their part however; Santorum’s rise is potentially the most serious yet. The previous negative advertising used by the Romney campaign against in particular, Gingrich may not be as effective in this instance. I asked the question some weeks ago, what does Romney stand for?

Herein, lays Romney’s biggest flaw in his campaign to date. He has been effective in ripping apart previous challenger’s surges without people asking what does Mitt Romney stand for? In this instance Santorum, unlike previous challengers has demonstrated an ability to learn, identify himself clearly and definitively as the social values candidate, while at the same time, slowly but steadily attacking Romney on his record in public office. Santorum is oozing confidence at present and appears sincere, natural and passionate on whatever issue he is speaking about.

Santorum combines a deeply held social conservatism with a genuine blue-collar appeal. Romney has appeared out of sorts at CPAC constantly using the phrase “Conservative values” and at one point referring to himself as “Severely Conservative”, he has also seemed uneasy and unnatural when trying to appear passionate on describing his love for his native birth state Michigan, appearing almost desperate, when citing his love of the trees and lakes in one speech, ouch! Romney has also found it troublesome to shake the label of being out of touch and being a member of social elite attributed to him by the Obama team.

The Romney campaign has already made large ad purchases, which are not likely to feature positive Romney bio slots. The problem the Romney Campaign has is their inability to frame a negative attack label on Santorum to date. Turning negative has contributed to the surge in unfavourable feelings voters have about Romney, and independents like other voters favour a politician who plays dirty. This presents the risky proposition that any such negative attack ads may not work and actually be used against Romney himself. Romney has been unable to manipulate Santorum’s electoral weakness on cultural issues, as Santorum has gone to great lengths and efforts to question the role of women in the workplace and in the military, and emphasise his opposition to contraception.

Santorum on the other hand has a strong record on supporting global health programs and earned a reputation for being a champion of faith-based anti-poverty efforts. Santorum also appears to be a more acceptable candidate to the GOP establishment who raced to attack former speaker Gingrich when he assumed the front runner status, the language and commentary used in their description of Santorum is subtlety complimentary, yet composed.

Another major factor working against Romney in Michigan is his well-publicised opposition to the federal bailout of General Motors who only last week announced its largest ever profits in history, which undermines Romney’s argument that bankruptcy would have been a better way to go for the auto companies. This makes Santorum’s appeal to ordinary blue collar worker all the more prominent in the state’s primary battle.

Romney has failed to win over supporters and the conservative base despite six years of campaigning largely due to a fundamental lack of enthusiasm. He has to win Michigan it is as simple as that, it is a battleground state in the general election and a failure to a secure victory here, will raise new doubts ahead of the critical Super Tuesday contest and Romney’s fragile front-runner status once and for all.

Romney’s best chance of victory is message, he needs to give voters and supporters a clear vision on where he will take the country and present a break-out policy initiative to seize the upper hand. He can no longer depend on his tried and tired tactics of highlighting his business credentials, attacking President Obama’s record and tearing down fellow GOP rivals.

Romney needs to inspire American’s and give them a reason to vote for him. One good policy initiative, which he can take to the country, may enable him to display a dynamism, passion and level of enthusiasm that will make him the all-appealing stand-out candidate. Failure to change step and stick with the old tried and tested tactics will only lead to his challenge for the highest office in the land falling apart slowly but surely.

Not so with Obama.  Obama has no fear of those middle of the road voters as demonstrated by his decision to force religious institutions to to pay for abortions.  In fact, it’s been a long three years so many might not remember that one of the first things Obama did in office was reverse the United States’ Mexico City policy making it so that our tax dollars are going to pay for abortions overseas.  Obama’s latest budget is textbook tax and spend liberalism.  Instead of funding our military, Obama’s budget cuts funding for our troops and adds funding to buy off radical Islamic groups in the middle east.

Is Rick Santorum as radical as advertised in comparison?  There is no question that Santorum is a very conservative Christian.  There is no question about whether he has been paying attention in church for the last 20 years.  Santorum may or may not use contraception, but would he really ban it?  One thing is for sure, he wouldn’t make catholic charities and institutions pay for it.

There is a candid interview circulating liberal circles because of some things Santorum says about his social conservative values.  In the interview he also talks about the limited size of the Federal government, but most liberal bloggers are ignoring that part.  Santorum also talks about moving more funding to the states and decentralizing of the government.

Santorum is not nearly as radical as Obama because Santorum does not believe the government is the answer to everything.  However, Santorum does have an unhealthy view of the government’s role in encouraging the traditional family.  Santorum would do what every politician before him and likely every politician after him would do and would use the tax code to encourage the traditional family and the bully pulpit to keep the national conversation going on the way a family should be.  Basically that puts Santorum in the same class as every politician except Ron Paul and Rand Paul.  But don’t expect a flat tax from Santorum.

Part of Santorum’s problem is that his bully pulpit is easily mistaken for gestapo type policy advocacy where government officials would enter people’s homes and steal their condoms lest they have sex with their spouse for any reason other than procreation.  Let’s get real.  Santorum is not Obama.  I doubt he will have websites where you can report your friends who disagree with him.

Santorum may make it easier for states to ban abortion.  Since when is that not a plus for conservatives?  Oh yeah, since we became scared of the moderates and independents.  Just a refresher for my conservative friends, abortion can be the brutal, torturous death of a human being.  Best case scenario, it is the end of a human life.

I don’t agree with Santorum on some social issues.  The question is, when Santorum talks about what he believes, is he saying what he will do as President or simply what he believes to be true?  Obama doesn’t say what he believes on the campaign trail, then he forces his beliefs on the country.  Santorum needs to be clearer about what he will implement as President.  In this interview he says many things that liberals have jumped on, but at 24:04 Santorum gives a key response to the question of what his ideas about education would look like on the federal level.

“It wouldn’t happen on the federal level.”

He needs to say that more.

Why are Democrats defecting after a deal had been worked out?  Because the current payroll extension bill makes new federal employees contribute 3.1% to their own pensions.  Apparently we should share sacrifice and have skin in the game unless you are a federal employee.  Currently they contribute .8%.  The government picks up the rest of the tab and returns on the pension are guaranteed.

Meanwhile, many middle class Americans contribute anywhere from 3-10% to their 401k plans with no guaranteed returns and a maximum 3% matching contribution from their employers.  However, Democrats have characterized the plan to increase federal employee pension withholding as a budget war on federal employees.

Democrats appear to have figured out that they are succeeding in blaming congressional gridlock on Republicans.  It also appears that their strategy is to maximize gridlock even if it hurts the middle class.  But if Americans figure out why Democrats are holding up this tax cut extension, sentiment could turn pretty quick.  Democrats are betting against the intelligence of American voters.

Earlier this week, Mitt Romney penned an op-ed in the Detroit News criticizing the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers.  In it, he stands by his position at the time of letting the companies go through a managed bankruptcy, which was eventually done by Obama, and touts his Michigan roots as the son of former American Motor Company and Michigan Governor George Romney.  Romney goes on to blast Obama, calling the bailout and subsequent caving to union demands “crony capitalism on a grand scale”.

In some respects, he is right.  How Obama and the bankruptcy courts got away with nationalizing and handing GM and Chrysler over to the United Auto Workers union is beyond me.  If that weren’t enough, Chrysler’s “secured creditors” were completely thrown under the bus, while the UAW got an ownership share of the new company.  Given the President’s track record with unions, such as the Boeing move and NLRB, it shouldn’t be much of a shock, but how the court-system let it pass is a mystery.

Romney may have been trying to blast the President for crony capitalism, but he made a grave mistake by criticizing the auto-industry to Michiganders (me included).  Since writing the piece, media outlets from both sides of the aisle have taken swings at Mitt.  Newsmax ran a story called “Detroit to Romney: Get Real on Auto Bailout“, while the Huffington Post declares that “Romney’s stance on the auto bailouts doesn’t reflect local feelings on the economy”.  Even CNN commentator LZ Granderson, a Detroit native, said that Romney’s “not family. Not anymore”.

Voters in Michigan seem to agree with the media; in recent polls, Romney’s numbers have tanked, while Santorum continues to rise.  Both still trail Obama head-to-head, but in a historically Democratic state, a win for the socially conservative Pennsylvania Senator would be a big blow to Romney’s campaign.  But why are they so upset?

Its pretty simple: Michigan’s economy lives and dies with the auto industry.  There is strong union support, mostly because virtually everyone has a family member in one, and even stronger support for the Big Three.  So when Obama swooped in to save the auto-industry, he virtually bought a large chunk of voters.  Not only that, but those same companies that were hemorrhaging money and shedding jobs before the bailout are now hiring workers and adding shifts.  People in Michigan see this and credit Obama, whether right or wrong, with saving the auto-industry, Michigan’s economy, and thus their jobs and livelihood.  To Michigan voters, it was a personal attack.

I predict a hardy Santorum win on February 28th.

If Santorum does win, I think one thing it will demonstrate is how much Romney hurt himself with his scorched earth approach to his competitors. Romney has not set himself up as a policies or ideas candidate.  Instead he has set himself up as the “not the other guys” candidate.  Romney has correctly calculated that Ron Paul supporters would rather see four more years of Obama than vote for someone who has insulted Ron Paul.  So he hasn’t.  On the other hand, Romney knows conservatives will suck it up and vote for him if their guy loses.

What Romney didn’t seem to calculate was what effect his being the presumptive nominee and Ron Paul’s disappointing finish in Iowa and South Carolina would do.  Or what vetting Newt to death would do.  Now Social Conservatives, unburdened by the fear of a Ron Paul ascendency and no longer split now that Newt has descended into irrelevance, are freer than ever to vote their conscience.  It’s no longer about electability.  If you want to know what Social Conservatives with nothing to lose look like, look at the polls in Michigan.

But here is where it gets interesting.  Romney may be on the verge of losing Maine to Ron Paul.  Santorum is capitalizing on the mandatory abortion pill provision Obama has decreed.  Newt is all but finished with no momentum and the March 1 debate canceled.  Suddenly, Santorum is looking more viable than ever.  If Mitt loses Michigan, we could see the impossible: Barack Obama versus Rick Santorum.

Included in the President’s proposal is around $1.5 trillion in new revenue coming from tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.  These tax raises take various forms; a 9% raise in capital gains tax rates, the dividends rate jumps 25% from 15-40%, the carried interest tax on investment partnerships rise from 15 to 39.6%, and the estate tax rises to 40%.  In addition, the budget calls for allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, raising the top-level income tax rates to 39.6%.  Then there’s the new “Warren Buffet Rule“, which requires all those making more than $1 million per year pay at least 30% of their gross income in taxes.

Obama signing The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

Perhaps the most damning, however, is the tax hike on businesses; Obama has yet to announce his new corporate tax rates, but included in the budget is a “financial crisis responsibility fee” on large banks that amounts to $61 billion, taxing energy companies $30 billion over a decade by ending tax cuts, $148 billion in new taxes on multinational corporations, and another $87 billion by changing how businesses value their inventory.

In all, that amounts to an estimated $1.5 trillion, or $1.9 trillion according to Paul Ryan, dollars in new tax revenues.  Somehow Democrats think that by taxing businesses and the rich and spending it on social programs, infrastructure projects, and new government jobs that it will help boost the economy and speed up the recovery.  Obama says that if everyone pays “their fair share”, middle and lower-income people will benefit, its assumed from expanded social programs or new job creation.

The problem is that Obama is dead wrong.  First, this class warfare “fair share” rhetoric is disingenuous at best.  The wealthy that will be hit by his tax hikes already pay roughly 40% of all income taxes and 25% of total taxes. An astonishing 70% of all income taxes come from only the top 10%.  In fact, 79 million Americans, or a stunning 46.5% of Americans pay absolutely ZERO taxes, roughly 50% paid no federal income taxes, and 30% actually had a net income from the government.  This is likely to continue since, contrary to the administration’s unemployment rates, the percentage of the population currently employed is the lowest its been in decades, around 63%.  Obama must have a different definition of fair than the rest of us, because 10% of the population paying 70% of the income taxes and 50% completely carrying the other half seems pretty unfair to me.

It isn’t the top tax payers or corporations that get hurt when corporate and business taxes are raised, however, but its the common, everyday, middle-class individuals that get hurt the most.  It might be nice to imagine a corporation taking out the extra money from increased tax rates from its profits or revenue, but in reality those taxes are passed on to consumers, employees, and shareholders.  Corporations will raise prices on consumers to make up the profit they lost to taxes, making everyone pay more for the same products.    In an effort to ease the price hikes, some of the taxes will be at the expense of employees as the business isn’t able to pay their salaries, asking for concessions, lay-offs, and putting a freeze on new hires.  Finally, the shareholders, which includes employees and anyone else who has the corporation’s stock in their 401k, pension, or IRA, are hit by lower dividends, capital gains, and value.

Graph showing corporate income tax rates as a percentage of income in industrialized nations. The U.S. comes a close second to Japan

Second, raising tax rates on individuals and businesses are not going to promote growth but do the opposite; both harm economic growth.  That $1.5 trillion isn’t going to come from nowhere; its money that would otherwise be invested back into the economy.  Sure, the government will spend some of that money on stimulus-style projects such as infrastructure projects, healthcare, and welfare programs, but it has been proven time and time again that the private sector is far more efficient and productive at investing money than government.  In reality, Obama is actually removing money from the economy, which obviously decreases money available for growth, and moves it to another sector of the government’s choosing, such as “green” energy (see Solyndra). No new wealth is being created, no new jobs, new investment, nor new growth.  It is merely redistributing the money, and as this administration has obviously shown, government knows best (hint of sarcasm).  Less money in the hands of individuals and businesses means less demand for goods and services, investment and slower growth.

Not only will the higher tax rates remove money from the economy, but it will discourage new investment, entrepreneurship, and risk-taking, with similar results.  Investors will be discouraged because there is less money to be made.  Taking risks would be less profitable, and thus less attractive, as the government takes an ever larger and larger share of the profits made on investment.  Entrepreneurs would be less able to obtain capital, and those that could may be discouraged from doing so because it would be less profitable as a result of the higher taxes.  It would become smarter and more profitable for both businesses and people to save their money rather than reinvest it into the economy.   All lead to less job creation, less innovation, and less investment.  Or put simply: less growth.

An example of the Laffer Curve with a 70% maximum rate.

Finally, higher tax rates could translate into lower tax receipts.  It’s whats known as the Laffer Curve, and it shows how progressively higher tax rates eventually translate into lower tax revenue.  The most basic reason behind the Laffer Curve is that after a certain point, increasing gross income reduces net income, or making more money becomes less profitable as the government takes an ever larger share.  This eliminates the incentive to working harder, expand business, increase production, or invest.  Corporations and wealthy individuals would also actively seek ways to pay lower taxes on their income and savings.  Some will horde their money in savings accounts, while others will invest in products with no dividends or invest in Roth IRAs, Exchange Traded Funds (ETF), or long-term positions to avoid the capital gains taxes.  Others would move their money, corporations, or investments in off-shore tax havens.  The result is capital flight, where investors move their money to foreign investments, as happened in France before it enacted its wealth tax.  On the state level, and possibly national and international, corporations and individuals may leave entirely, taking their tax revenue with them.  Detroit is a prime example; over the past 30 years as the middle-class and wealthy people left the city the tax-base disappeared and revenue plummeted.  Today Detroit is facing a severe debt crisis and possible takeover by a state-appointed Emergency Financial Manager.

In the end, all the Democrats and President Obama are doing by raising taxes is moving money from one or many sectors to another.  No new wealth is being created, nor is the economy growing.  The tax money used on infrastructure and healthcare would have been spent, probably more wisely, by the private sector on investment, jobs, and growth.  Had that money remained in the private sector it would have been more productive and resulted in more economic growth because of government inefficiency, waste and corruption.  Less capital in the economy and private sector means less investment, expansion, demand, and jobs. What the U.S. needs is wealth creation and economic growth, and that is achieved through free-market economic principles, lower taxes, and less regulation.

Related articles

• Obama’s Budget Blather (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Barack Obama’s Budget to Nowhere (usnews.com)
• Does Obama really believe his own statist blather? (examiner.com)
• Obama Legacy: When Campaigning Interferes With Governing America (mikesright.wordpress.com)

While all of the rallies and kumbaya politics sounds warm and fuzzy, this penchant for the positive seems to have left a bad taste in the mouths of GOP’ers around the state. Georgia will not be on these candidates’ minds as Romney, Santorum, and Paul have all formally declined appearing at the CNN Super Tuesday Debate to be held March 1 in Atlanta. These candidates appear to give the cold-shoulder to both Georgia and Ohio whose states actually have the largest delegate counts up for grabs Super Tuesday and partnered together for this event. With only Newt Gingrich on board, it seems this event will more than likely be canceled.

Should Georgia GOP’ers be offended? R.C. Hammer, a Gingrich spokesperson, tweeter this response earlier “@MittRomney spits in Georgia’s face and cancels Atlanta debate appearance. #CNN.” If this is indeed how it appears Georgia’s primary voters, they will have the chance to spit back Super Tuesday.

Do you think it is a smart move for any of the leading candidates to skip this debate? Have you heard enough and already know who you are voting for? We will know the answer in a few weeks.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7648068/web-exclusive-the-republicans-fading-colours.thtml

CPAC Review essay by White House 2012 writer David Cowan published on The Spectator magazine website

 

Growing up in the 1960s, my primary school in Cambridge had an outdoor roofless boy’s toilets, and we happily enjoyed urinating up the wall. It was a sign we were getting further up the school when one day we were able to urinate over the wall itself — much to the annoyance of people on the other side. This memory came to mind this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington DC over the weekend, the annual gathering of some ten thousand political activists. This year CPAC was a pissing contest to see who was the most conservative.

The three Republican frontrunners, Santorum, Romney and Gingrich, in that order, sought to reach the base and convince activists about their conservative qualities. The themes they all offered were: what’s wrong with the Obama administration; a shopping list of what conservative policies would work better; an appeal to American exceptionalism; and a return to the founding principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The three candidates are looking for the right to fight an Obama administration seen as somewhat Carteresque, from failed election promises through to the ideological infighting. Obama, though personally liked (Ann Coulter joked he would make a nice neighbour, unless you’re Chinese, then he’d keep borrowing stuff), is seen as ineffective and evasive.

To reenergise America, the candidates laid claim to the mantle of Ronald Reagan, frequently invoking his name and sunny disposition. Yet herein lies the rub. Reagan defeated Carter with ideas for the economy and foreign policy, successfully combining a conservative vision and charm to appeal to swing voters. At CPAC 1974, Reagan gave his famous ‘bold colours, not pale pastels’ speech, asserting conservative principles. This weekend showed that some of the colours have long since faded.

Things were certainly off-colour last time I was here, back in 2009, as defeated activists sought to pick themselves up after Obama’s coronation. The biggest cheers then were for Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, as they offered succour. Newt entered to his incongruous theme tune ‘Eye of the Tiger’, but instead of entering stage right he walked in through the crowd, parting them Moses-like, shaking hands and hugging supporters.

The danger three years on is, of course, an election that will see CPAC 2013 take place after a second Obama inauguration. Expect then a sinking sense of what might have been. For many American conservatives a Republican failure this year will exacerbate what they fear most: n irreversible dependency culture and Europeanisation. Daniel Hannan flew into DC to warn on just this point, expressing his amazement to rapt delegates that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror, overtaking them.

Back in 2009 something else happened at CPAC. Sarah Palin was slated to speak, but failed to appear either in person or via a hastily announced satellite link. This was the signal that Sarah was taking the celebrity high road, rather than the political low road. This year, however, she did appear as closing speaker to offer the benediction — but not the one most people expected. She did not endorse Gingrich, as he himself alluded to in his own speech by quoting her husband Todd. She called for unity, but convoluted as ever, Palin said ‘whoever our nominee is we must work together to get him over the finishing line, and then next year we will have a true conservative in the Oval office’ — only to go on Fox news on Sunday afternoon to say she is still to be convinced Romney that is indeed a conservative.

Despite this, and despite the Santorum surge, Romney will see this conference as mission accomplished — reinforced by the CPAC Straw Poll narrowly backing his candidature. Out of the three candidates it looks seemed that Romney pissed the highest this weekend. And, while still divided, all the delegates would agree about who should be standing on the other side of the wall, on the receiving end.

The pressure is again being mounted by some in the conservative media for former Speaker Newt Gingrich to withdraw from the GOP race. I sound a word of warning to conservatives against any such move and in fact, urge them to support Speaker Gingrich in whatever way possible going forward and will explain why.

Today, the influential conservative magazine National Review called for Newt Gingrich to leave the Republican primary contest. Repeating its past criticisms of Gingrich the magazine’s editorial said “it would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee.”

I refute this call for a variety of reasons but above all, Republicans need to be careful what they wish for. This GOP race has perhaps being the most widely covered, and without doubt volatile in presidential race history. The reasons for this are many; the introduction of the Super Pacs, the media war between liberal and conservative media outlets, the vast amount of debates and finally social media have transformed this race.

This 2012 election race is I believe, a final opportunity for Americans to divert their great nation away from decline and direct themselves back onto a course of recovery, restoration and once again be the world’s leader in all sphere’s of influence.

If you believe commentators growth, consumer spending, manufacturing, house prices and stock prices are all on the upward trend and unemployment is coming down and the green shoots of a recovery are starting to gather steam. This may on paper be all true at present however; it is the unforeseen and often, quickly dismissed issues, that will determine the real future outlook for most American’s in the coming generations.

The primary function of government has come to be understood as being the protection of the people’s rights from foreign nations and the government itself. These rights, as we all know, are the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This function of government could not be clearer. It is this failure of government and the lack of an individual with a proven track record to address the issues of the national debt, spending, entitlement reform and pursue a strong foreign policy that are the real threats.

I will state, that I do not believe these very real threats and dangers facing America are all down to President Obama; they have been decades in the making. President Obama however; has failed to halt the decline and above all, has been unable to get all branches of government working for the people effectively under his stewardship that has been his biggest failure.

The U.S. National debt is approaching $15.4 trillion dollars; $4 trillion dollars of this debt has been added in three years under President Obama alone. Commentators in the U.S. often cite Greece as the potential end result for the U.S. if it fails to alter course. I say forget Greece, total European Union debt stands at around $14 trillion dollars however, its 27 nations account for a bigger share of global gross domestic product, possesses a much larger internal market and has a population of over 500 million compared to the U.S. population of roughly 310 million people. The debt burden per person (capita) stands at $48,258 for every American with the U.S contributing 37 per cent of the increase in global debt from 2007 – 2011 and 40 per cent from 2011 to 2016, it is only a matter of time before these financial constraints strangle America’s future and prosperity.

In recent years, all too often have U.S. recommendations or initiatives become to be ignored or dismissed by other leading nations on issues ranging from trade negotiations, military threats, peace efforts,  right through to addressing the recent global economic crisis.

I respect Mitt Romney, and if he is the eventual nominee for the GOP, he’ll have my total support in the race and I believe America will improve to an extent economically under a Romney Presidency. Respectfully, Ron Paul has some very valid and excellent ideas and arguments on a domestic level however; his approach to foreign policy concerns many and justifiably so. Then there’s the latest rise of Senator Rick Santorum. I think he is a strong valued & principled man however; putting the very real challenges of ineffective government, economic and global threats together, I do not believe he is capable of being the type of president America needs at the present time. Santorum is well versed on the issue of Iran however; like Governor Romney, when you take them onto broader international issues and threats, they simply haven’t got the depth of knowledge or experience to hit the ground running from the start.

Conservatives and independents need to be honest with themselves and ask, if they really want to defeat President Obama in the coming fall election. The GOP as a party needs to offer a strong platform and contrast to President Obama and the Democratic Party in terms of policy and vision.

The election is not about personality or an American Idol type contest, this is a decisive moment in history, and as I’ve always maintained, a turning point for America and its future. Don’t be swayed by populist media commentators and partisan coverage. In order for the U.S. to remain the global leader it has become, the entire manner in how the government in Washington operates needs to be addressed.

I’ll say something controversial here, regardless from what side of the political divide you come from, entitlement reform needs to be addressed urgently and fundamental changes made. There needs to be wholesale change of the tax system at all levels and finally, spending needs to be brought back under control and a balanced budget achieved within the next five years.

This leads me onto former Speaker Gingrich, who I’ve always believed substantively, to be the candidate with the most potential. He’s an individual whose strong conservative arguments and mastery of the issues are sometimes ignored due to past behaviour. He’s already been carpet bombed with negative advertisements from the Romney campaign in Iowa and Florida already. Attacked like no other candidate by the mainstream media in this election cycle, and then by many from within his own party. People need to ask why this is? It is not coincidence, or is it due to any past behavourial mishaps on his part. It is because Gingrich has the ability to communicate a sharp contrast between conservative policies and values against the Obama Administration’s better than any other candidate in the field.

Gingrich poses a real threat to the opposition and status quo, he has many achievements during his long political career, playing a key role in passing welfare reform in the 1990’s. He not afraid to upset members within his own party to pursue a vision, a vision he has laid out in his “21^st Century Contract with America,” better than any other candidate in the field. It is an organic plan containing some bold but substantive ideas and solutions to the nations’ problems and challenges.

He wants to remove regulatory barriers to boost economic growth understanding fundamentally that less government is the key, not bigger government. He has also worked to and achieved balanced budgets and a budget surplus with former President Clinton.

Gingrich has the proven ability to work across party lines in the national interest, even if it costs him personally and politically. He wants to provide a healthcare system that works; he values and recognises the need for a well educated young nation and values entrepreneurship and innovation. I don’t perceive a candidates’ willingness or preparedness to work with the other party as a weakness, I see it as a distinct positive in these most of crucial times. Above all, I believe he possesses the desire, passion and enthusiasm to lead America from the front and get Washington working effectively again for the people.

I believe any of the other three candidates could be a good Vice-President however; in order to defeat President Obama in the coming election, it will require someone who has the experience, proven ability and vision to transform America and secure its future. America needs a strong president and someone in the Oval office who will not shirk the difficult decisions, and who will ensure a strong and powerful military exists to defend the nation and its people. This is an election of opportunity, and my fear is that conservatives and independents won’t see it in the all important context of securing America’s future for generations to come.

This presidential election race is more about the future and the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Only by choosing a capable and confident leader can America’s future be won! The nation needs strong leadership and a person willing to work with everyone in its interest and Newt is that candidate.

“I voted for Barack because he was black. ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them … That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn’t mean [bleep] to me.”

- Samuel L. Jackson

I beg to differ, Mr. Jackson.  There are many of us Americans who vote for candidates because of their message.  believe it or not, many of us think our vote actually means something more than racist solidarity.  If national elections boil down to which skin color and gender holds the majority in our country, then our country is doomed to a very quick and painful death.  I hope Jackson has a change of heart and decides to educate himself on the issues before the 2012 election.  One thing is for sure: ignorant people elect terrible leaders.

Jackson went on to eloquently suggest that Obama wasn’t enough of a (N-word) because he isn’t scary enough, and that he needs to become more of one in his next term.  Yes, that sounds like exactly what our country needs.  God save the electorate from people like Samuel L. Jackson.

For several years now the conservative movement has allowed private charity to flirt with and even get in bed with the Federal Government under the understanding that private organizations can use federal dollars much more efficiently than government bureaucracies.  Then along came Barack Obama.  It makes me think of Star Wars and Darth Vader’s line “Pray I don’t alter the deal any further”.

The problem is that conservatives abandoned their principles.  Trusting a pro-family, pro-conservative President in George W. Bush, we signed on to faith based initiatives.  Perhaps we never expected a President who would leverage those relationships to gain control over Christianity and use Christian institutions to spread liberalism.  We never expected a President who in three short years would be to the point of forcing Christian institutions to provide abortion pills or suffer the consequences.

The Government cannot protect our sacred institutions.  The government is using our tax dollars to control our sacred institutions.

The problem is that only one candidate in this has talked about the sort of shrinking of government necessary to get the government out of the charity and faith business altogether.  While he has appeared impotent when pressed, Ron Paul is the only candidate who will actually say that the government doesn’t belong in the insurance business or the charity business.  Mitt Romney would bring us back to the George W. Bush days when faith based initiatives allowed faiths to still manage themselves.  Newt and Santorum would certainly respect religious freedom, but would also strengthen the ties between government and faith based organizations with the same deadly good intentions W had.

This is not an endorsement for Ron Paul, but it is an acknowledgement that when it comes to the responsibility of Christians and community, Paul is more in line with the 2010 freshmen, and older wise sages like Huckabee, who must rise to the top if conservatism and freedom of religion is to survive in our country.  Perhaps Newt, Mitt and Rick will be persuaded by Paul on this like they were on the Fed.

But the passing of Whitney Houston struck even me.

I am of Whitney’s generation, and her voice became an iconic part of my generation.  Her music entertained us and touched us and she was a true American success story.  But as with all things, nothing is perfect and in the end, her struggle with addiction and drug abuse sullied an otherwise pristine image.   It was a battle that will prevent her from being served up as a “perfect” role model, but it was also a side of Whitney that I can’t help but relate to our own nation’s situation.

Like Whitney, our nation is exceptional. In fact it is the exceptionalism of our nation that allowed Whitney to excel.  Like Whitney our nation is strong and beautiful.  But also like Whitney, we have our demons and in  similiar fashion to Whitney, our greatness can not be taken for granted. We must understand that our greatness must be preserved and protected.  We must avoid turning successes into excuses, and wealth into dangerous excesses.  We can never take our greatness for granted and  must choose our national path very carefully.  We must realize that with our strengths come weaknesses that we must overcome.  We all hoped that Whitney would have eventually  overcome hers.

Whitney now leaves behind a legacy of musical greatness.  Her recordings will always echo the wonder that was her but we will also be left wondering what could have been.  Let us all hope that the same must never be wondered about our nation.

Exceptionalism is not something to be taken granted. It is something to be cherished.  I just hope that enough Americans truly cherish our national exceptionalism and are willing to preserve it and I can’t help but wish that Whitney Houston cherished herself as much as many of us did.