Why Obama Thinks Romney is Lying

Obama stunk up the stage, no one is questioning that.  Even Seth Meyers on Saturday Night Live had a hard time finding ways to take jabs at Romney’s debate performance.  That means Romney did something special in that first debate.  So what do you do when your opponent so completely mops the floor with you that your most loyal allies can’t even find a nice thing to say?  Accuse your opponent of lying.

In fact, Obama hasn’t just accused Romney of lying.  Obama has accused Romney of so completely abandoning his beliefs and principles that Obama didn’t even know how to respond.  The spin now is that Obama was so shocked by how far Romney would go to lie about his record that Obama was overcome with moral outrage and simply couldn’t get over it enough to respond or call him out.

That’s right, when Romney said he actually doesn’t want to cut taxes on the rich by $5 trillion and raise taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for it, Obama figured every American out there would know that was an outright lie.  When Romney said he wants a healthcare plan that is determined by the states but ensures that people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage, Obama figured he wouldn’t have to respond to such an obvious distortion of the truth.  Or perhaps Obama was so disgusted by Romney’s lies that he simply couldn’t stammer out a response.

Obviously that’s a bunch of baloney to try to excuse the worst debate performance since…well maybe ever.  Or is it?

Barack Obama is a pretty smart guy, but surely he tunes in to watch his friends in the mainstream media talk glowingly about him and attack Romney.  When the Tax Policy Center said that Romney’s tax plan was going to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for a tax break for the rich, Obama may have actually believed them.  When Chris Matthews and the left portray the Republican party as some sort of gathering of vampires seeking to suck the life-blood out of the poor and minorities, perhaps Obama began to actually think such wild leftist representations of Republicans must be accurate.

When Obama said that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion for the rich and raise taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for it, maybe Obama truly believed that was an honest attack.  When Obama, who himself cut $716 billion out of Medicare, talked about Romney taking away Medicare for seniors, maybe he thought the charges were accurate.  And since the debate, perhaps the leftist media has Obama convinced now that Romney would actually like to put Big Bird in the unemployment line.

Republicans really aren’t evil.  We don’t want to raise taxes on the poor.  We don’t want to do horrible things to people’s “lady parts” as one Obama internet ad suggested.  We don’t want to put blacks back in chains as Biden suggested.  Honestly, we don’t want to keep Hispanics out of the country or go to war with every country with a majority Muslim population.  Republicans are not racists by nature either.

If Obama doesn’t figure out that the other half of the country isn’t evil, he will look just as lost and bewildered in the next debate too.  And in the next debate, if Romney doesn’t admit to being a monster who wants to chain women to the kitchen sink or station troops at churches to stop gay weddings, I’m sure the Obama campaign will try to get more mileage out of the “Romney is a liar” argument to defend his next debate performance.

Obama’s Medicare Hypocrisy. “It Ain’t Right”.

New Romney Ad Continues to Put Democrats on The Defensive Among Senior Citizens

   Bookmark and Share  As Democrats continue to try to turn Medicare into Medi-Scare, a liberal tactic designed to make senior citizens fear the Romney-Ryan economic plan,   Mitt Romney has put out a new ad that continues to turn the tables on President Obama.

The newest ad called “It Ain’t Right”, (see ad below) uses President Obama’s own words to demonstrate how President Obama is the ultimate hypocrite.  The thirty second spot takes a statement that Obama often repeated when he was campaigning for President in 2008, and compares it to the actions he carried out as President.

In 2008, then Senator Obama criticized Republican presidential nominee Senator John  McCain for an economic plan that the left claimed would have cut $882 billion out of Medicare.  Whether that figure and that characterization of McCain’s plan was true or not, Obama declared that making such cuts to Medicare “ain’t right“.

The newest Romney ad on this issue points out once again that as President, through the creation of Obamacare, his massive government takeover of healthcare in America, President Obama cut over $716 billion out of Medicare.  The Romney commercial then goes on to ask what would candidate Obama say about President Obama’s cuts to Medicare?  The answer is exactly what Senator Obama said about such cuts in 2008…..”It Ain’t Right“.

This Romney-Ryan commercial is just the newest one in a string of ads on the Obama Medicare cuts that the Romney campaign has aired ever since Paul Ryan was added to the Republican presidential ticket over two weeks ago.  It is part of a successful strategy that has helped inoculate the G.O.P. from the traditional fear mongering that Democrats resort to in elections when they try to scare senior citizens in to believing that the G.O.P. will push Grandma off the cliff or force Grandpa to live on a steady diet of cat food.

But the newest ad also highlights the hypocrisy of the President and it does so in a way which slowly tries to set the stage for the Romney’s campaign’s ability to counter the future attempts by the Obama campaign to portray Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper.

The left will undoubtedly try to revive both Romney’s 1990’s conversion from being an abortion rights liberal Republican to a right-to-life conservative Republican and his opposition to the national Obamacare plan after creating Romneycare for Massachusetts.  Ahead of those future accusations, the Romney campaign is  offering their own examples of President Obama’s own flipping and flopping on the national agenda.

The President’s opposition to Medicare before making deep Medicare cuts of his own will be just one example of that.  Another example will be based upon a 2008 quote made by then Senator Obama which White House 2012 stumbled upon and highlighted in the video below.

In that video, we see how President Obama claimed that the President Bush or his policies were “unpatriotic and irresponsible” because of the large debt that he accumulated.  Four years later and President Obama is now in the position of having to explain to voters why his doubling of the debt accumulated by George Bush is not also “unpatriotic and irresponsible”.

No matter what excuse President Obama may try to offer in his defense, he has demonstrated a level of hypocrisy and a propensity for flip-flopping that gives voters good reason to doubt how deserving of a second term President Obama is.  The new Romney ad on Medicare is just a two pronged attack that drives that point home while also turning the tables on the traditional liberal fear mongering of senior citizens who are now being forced to realize that it is President Obama and Democrats who are taking away their saftey net.

Bookmark and Share

Doc Barack And His Medical Assault On Seniors

Paul Ryan deserves a high-five. Why? Oh, by simply pointing out that Obama cuts $700 billion from Medicare. That, of course, changes Medicare into a positive for the Republicans. That’s right, Medicare is now an attack issue for Republicans.

Can it be? After all, how many decades have Democrats relied on the Medicare-hammer to pound Republicans like nails?  Two? Three? Perhaps more? Whatever the answer, it’s been a long time with plenty of bruises.

So, take a moment, let it sink in. It’s not everyday politics changes this dramatically.

Say it. Come on, you can do it. Ready — Obama cuts $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obama-care.

Feels good, yes?

Republican Connie Mack IV, a recent primary winner in Florida, got in on the act. “In the state of Florida you’re gonna have the presidential election … and you’re gonna have a Senate election. There’s only two people in those races that have voted to gut Medicare, and that’s Barack Obama and Senator Nelson. They took $700 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obama-care.”
Doc Barack cuts Medicare for Obama-care. Mm, mm, delicious.

Say it again, you might as well, it helps the cause. If word gets out — and it better — Democrats may never get another senior vote. They can’t say it nor can they defend it. Obama cuts $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obama-care. We can pile on, too. Let us not forget, Obama-care is the largest tax increase in the history of history, too.

Mack continued, “I think President Obama and Sen. Nelson are kind of living in glass houses right now and playing catch with rocks.”

Think back to the ugly days during the Obama-care debates, Democrats sensing they were losing the fight, claimed Obama-care wouldn’t be a monstrosity. Do you recall the accounting trick of collecting Obama-care taxes (revenues) for a decade but providing services (expenses) for just six years and Democrats saying ‘see, it saves money’? Do you recall the double-talk — ‘it’s a tax, oops, sorry, it’s a penalty, no it’s a tax, no it’s a penalty’.

The gimmicks and word-play are coming back to haunt Democrats now.

The Romney/Ryan plan makes no changes to Medicare for people 55 years of age or older. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats are stealing $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obama-care.

We know Obama-care is a bad thing for myriad reasons. And we know with his controversial ruling, Chief Justice Roberts told us to solve our own problem. He tied Obama and Obama-care to the same fate. If you want to rid yourself — and your children and their children — from Obama-care, you must do away with Obama. It is that simple.

And now we know something else.

If you want to explore this further, there’s a good article at the National Review.

And you can watch Rich Lowry engage liberal commentator Rachel Maddow regarding the reality of the Medicare cuts. She’s left stammering and stuttering.

Doc Barack steals $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obama-care.

It’s got a nice ring to it, yes? And the best part is, it’s true.

Bookmark and Share

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Team Obama’s Latest Attacks On Ryan Asks “Why The Hell Romney Picked” Him

  Bookmark and Share  In what can only be considered the epitome of the liberal hypocrisy that is a fundamental component of the thought process that Democrats undergo, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina recently issued a letter to supporters which tries to convince them to make a financial donation to the President’s reelection effort by claiming Paul Ryan was selected as Romney’s running mate for the sole purpose of raising money from radical Republicans for  his own campaign.

Laced throughout the letter are a litany of lies, a host of hysterically hypocritical claims, and a dubious dose of deceitful distractions designed to do for the Obama campaign all that the letter claims Romney is trying to do by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate.  It even asks “why the hell” did Romney pick “this guy” and claims that the reason is so that Romney could “reassure and inspire ultra conservative ideologues and corporate interests that they will have one of their own a heartbeat from the presidency”.

With the President’s campaign spending money at a pace that is quickly becoming faster than his ability to raise money, this letter is simply trying to fire up his base and motivate them to finally start donating.  The letter also seems to indicate that many people who have been Obama supporters in the past have not yet made any donation to his campaign this time around.  That would help explain the air of desperation that this letter reeks of and why President Obama is finding himself having to even deceive even his own supporters.

To understand just how deceptive the President is being, let us break the letter down.

A.- “Congressman Paul Ryan is the poster boy for the extreme Republican leadership in a Congress whose overall approval rating is 12 percent”:

  1. If that were true, Congressman Ryan would never have drawn brutally harsh criticism for his 2008 vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and subsequent vote for the auto bailout, both of which seem to fly in the face of Ryan’s conservative based economic ideology.  However, at the time when the world economy teetered on an unprecedented collapse because of crumbling financial institutions which were freezing lending and thereby halting worldwide commerce, Paul Ryan allowed himself to temporarily forsake ideological purity for what was seen as the immediate need for practical measures to avert a crisis.  TARP was a massive interference in the free market that was sold to Ryan and 90 other House Republicans as a necessary evil to prevent an economic collapse caused by greedy bankers and toxic assets. Predictions that ATMs would be empty, payrolls would be unmet, and that checks would be valueless, provided the incentive to believe that civil disobedience would become the norm and that Armageddon was just one evolution of the earth away, allowed Ryan to compromise his traditional approach to such matters. But that ability to compromise is not an indication of rigid extremism, it was the sign of a man who was willing to make the hard choices needed to provide what at the time were perceived to be suitable and necessary solutions for unique problems involving unique circumstances.
  2. If Paul Ryan was such an extremist, how does Team Obama explain away Ryan’s winning of seven elections in a congressional district that went for Michael Dukakis in 1988,  Clinton in ’92 and ’96, Al Gore in 2000, and Obama in 2008?
  3. If  Paul Ryan is so radical how is that Erskine Bowles, a liberal described Paul Ryan as “amazing” and called the Ryan Budget that liberals are trying paint as too extreme, to be “sensible, honest, and serious”?  Bowles a two time candidate for U.S. Senate from North Carolina happens to have been  President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff and was President Obama’s co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  According to some on the left, if given a second term in office President Obama is likely to have Bowles replace Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

Cleary, Paul Ryan is not the irrational, radical, extremist that liberals are falling over themselves as they rush to make him out to be and it is also quite obvious that Paul Ryan is far more popular than the left want you to think.

B.- “His plan to dismantle Medicare is deeply unpopular with the general public, and especially undecided voters”;

  1. First, Paul Ryan’s budget plan, does not dismantle Medicare, it reforms it by making it solvent and preserving it for future generations.  President Obama is the one who reduces Medicare spending under Obamacare which creates what he calls the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of 15 unelected government bureaucrats, who will ration care to seniors by underpaying doctors and hospitals.  Ryan’s plan gives seniors more control over their own health dollars by allowing them to choose the plan that provides them with the best value for their money through free market competition.  Furthermore; those who are over 55 will have the option to stay under the old plan.  The Ryan plan simply allows future beneficiaries to put a voucher toward “private health plans,” which  would be regulated by the government and required to offer coverage to all beneficiaries.  So the Ryan plan, does not dismantle Medicare!
  2. Second, the claim that Ryan’s plan is unpopular, especially among undecided voters, is to say the least am unreasonable stretch of reality. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll asked Americans whether they would be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who “supports changing Medicare for those under 55 to a system where people choose their insurance from a list of private health plans and the government pays a fixed amount, sometimes called a voucher, towards that cost.” 38% are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports Ryan’s Medicare reform, 37% are less likely to vote for that candidate, while 18% say it makes “no difference” in determining their vote, and 7% are not sure.  This does not paint the picture of the electoral death wish that liberals are painting for Romney’s decision to select a running mate who has the courage to present an actual plan to reform a broken system that needs fixing.
  3. A new Gallup/USA Today poll shows that the age group that Democrats would hope to scare the most by Ryan’s Medicare reforms, senior citizens, are actually most receptive to his budget which outlines those Medicare reforms. The poll finds 48 percent of seniors (those 65 and over) support Ryan’s plan over President Obama’s plan, while 42 percent back the president. That’s the highest total among the age groups tested.

That all tends to contradict Jim Messina’s claim that Ryan’s proposals are as unpopular as the left would like us to believe.

C.- “Here’s the calculation: Mitt Romney doesn’t need or expect Paul Ryan to convince even one undecided voter to cast their ballot for him. That’s not what he’s on the ticket for.”:

  1. Forty percent of voters identified themselves as politically independent in 2011. According to a  2011 Gallup poll more voters identified themselves as politically independent than ever before.  The poll showed that 40 percent consider them independent, a new high that surpassed  previous record of 39 percent in 1995 and 2007.  Gallup’s historical data shows that the proportion of independent voters in 2011 was the largest in 60 years and little has occurred to change that in 2012.  So why would Mitt Romney assume that he doesn’t need a running mate who can appeal to self-described independent voters?
  2. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Sunday and released Monday indicated that among independent voters Ryan’s favorable rating jumped 20 points, from 19% Wednesday through Friday, to 39% over the weekend.  Does that sound like the selection of a running mate who will not be used to appeal independent voters?
  3. If selecting Paul Ryan for Vice President is not in part, an attempt to appeal to independent voters, I must again ask  how Team Obama explains away Ryan being elected and reelected six times in a swing district that has voted for every Democrat presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis in 1988?
  4. Most independent voters are fiscally conservative and appreciate the type of fiscal responsibility and sanity that Paul Ryan represents.

Those factors demonstrate the illegitimacy of the second claim in the Obama campaign letter.  To suggest that Ryan can’t appeal to independents and that Mitt Romney is not even concerned with winning independent voters is either an indication of just how profoundly unintelligent Team Obama is, or of how absolutely disingenuous they are.

D.- “That means tens or even hundreds of millions more dollars for the Romney campaign and the array of outside groups supporting him — and if current trends hold, more than 90 percent of that money will be spent on TV ads — lying, distorting and trashing Barack Obama”;

  1. As demonstrated by Politifact even before the 2012 campaign began, President Obama was already the reigning king of negative campaign ads. No candidate has run more negative ads in American history than Barack Obama did in 2008.  It is how he defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democrat’s presidential nomination and how he won the presidential election. Given that undeniably truth alone, is not obvious that President Obama is guilty of using the majority of his money for the same thing he suggests is an evil practice that Republicans will conduct?
  2. President Obama has now officially spent more money on his campaign and done so more quickly than any incumbent in history. So far he has spent well over $100 million on television commercials, outspending Mitt Romney by 5-1, and in some battleground states Obama has outspent Romney by as much as 8-1.  Even more damaging is the fact that as reported by Forbes, 85 percent of the President’s advertising has been a barrage of negative attack ads aimed at Mitt Romney.

So can someone please tell me why President Obama’s campaign is trying to actually demonize Mitt Romney for following the President’s example and competing in the climate that he created?

The answer is simple.  The President and his supporters have a tremendous problem.  It’s the President’s record.  It’s a record so dismal that it makes it impossible for the Obama campaign or their surrogates to promote his candidacy with any positive reasons to vote him.  Can the President run ads touting the longest sustained high rate of unemployment we have seen in history?  Can he run ads promoting his accumulating a national debt that is greater than the sum total of the debt accumulated by Washington to George H.W. Bush combined?  Can Barack Obama offer Americans a “Morning In America-like” Ronald Reagan style ad?  Hardly.  This has demoralized the left and the President’s supporters.  As such, polls indicate that Republicans are far more engaged in the campaign than Democrats or unaffiliated voters  are and this Obama fundraising is indicative of that.  The only way Obama can inspire his vote is to breed a degree of hatred for his opposition that provides the motivation for them to go to the polls and vote against the Romney-Ryan ticket.

This fundraising letter from the Obama campaign manager is a sure sign of just how desperate things are getting for Team Obama and the Democrat Party.  This letter not only incorporates all 3 aspects of the left’s 3D strategy of distortion, distraction and division, it also highlights the degree of absolute hypocrisy and total lack of integrity behind the Obama reelection effort.  But what I find most striking about it is that the Obama campaign finds it necessary to raise money among his own supporters by offering them so many lies and distortions.  If Obama is willing to decieve his own supporters in order to raise money from them, how far you do you think he will be willing to go in decieving undecided voters?

Bookmark and Share

Why Obama/Biden are Scared of Romney/Ryan

The morning of the Ryan pick, Obama already had a graphic up from the “truth” team declaring that Ryan was going to raise taxes on 95% of Americans, ban birth control, end Medicare, end green energy, and so on.  The only things they left out were shoving Grandma off a cliff in her wheelchair and poisoning us with e.coli.  But why go overboard when Mitt Romney can already use cancer to kill people.

On the other hand, word on the street is that Biden had to change his pants after the 60 minutes interview with Romney and Ryan.

It’s not that Obama is the one that cut $700 billion out of Medicare.  It’s not that Obama’s green energy initiatives remind everyone of Solyndra.  It’s not that Obama is lying when he says Romney/Ryan would raise taxes on 95% of Americans.   It’s not that Most Americans don’t want to force pro-lifers to pay for other people’s $5 birth control that destroys after conception.  It’s more that Ryan is smarter and more articulate than the other three on the tickets.

Don’t hate me, Palin fans, but Ryan is not a cheerleader.  He is a teacher.  He turns platitudes into tangible facts that people can hold on to.  Obama and the Democrats are running around with the mantra that Ryan will get rid of Medicare.  But anyone who is paying attention knows that it was Obama who cut popular programs like Medicare advantage.

Ryan, on the other hand, wants to give seniors the same options for healthcare that Congress has.  He wants to put choices in their hands.  The scary thing about Ryan is that he actually is understandable on these points, and he has the credibility.  No one has worked more on the US budget and solutions to Medicare, Social Security, and healthcare than Paul Ryan.

Democrats aren’t scared that Biden is an inarticulate gaffe machine.  They have the media on their side.  All Biden has to do is coherently string ten words together in a debate without telling someone in a wheelchair to stand up or make an Indian 7/11 joke and the press will announce he exceeded expectations.

Democrats are scared because the media can only do so much.  Eventually Paul Ryan will be heard, and he speaks a language even independents can understand.

Bookmark and Share

America Deserves Better: New Romney Ad Questions Obama’s Character

   So far President Obama and his allies have run what is absolutely the most expensive and negative campaign campaign in history.   So you probably won’t see President Obama airing many ads that focus on his accumulating more debt than any other President in American history, or his attempts to wage class warfare, or how strong the Obama economy is and how low the unemployment is.   In fact, you may not see President Obama and his supporters air any ads that offer an honest assessment of his record.  That’s because like the President’s reelection team, most Americans realize that President Obama’s record contains little to boast about.   That fact has forced the President’s campaign and those who are assisting his reelection effort, to resort to airing a barrage of attacks ads that go after Mitt Romney personally.

The latest and most despicable example of these personal attacks ads came from a pro-Obama Super PAC called Priorities USA Action, a group which is run by former high level officials in the Obama Administration who left their positions so that they could play an active role in the President’s reelection campaign.  In the newest ad from these people, Mitt Romney is blamed for the death of a man’s wife.

Prior to that ad,  in addition to some other less than flattering descriptions, the Obama camp began accusing Romney of being a felon and most recently a tax evader.  But this is politics so many people largely just wrote it off as typical political propaganda and business-as-usual.  But even those who found such attacks as below-the-belt but not out of the ordinary for politicians, have been a bit taken back by the audacity of an attempt to suggest that Romney killed a woman because of decisions made by a company, five years after Romney left that company.  The stunningly despicable charge was so outrageous that prior to naming Paul Ryan his running mate, the Romney campaign was compelled to  make an issue out of it and as you can see in the ad below, they made it a big issue.

Unlike the convoluted thinking behind the anti-Romney ads being produced by pro-Obama forces,  Romney’s anti-Obama ad is simple.  But sometimes all one needs is the simple truth and in this case, the truth is on Romney’s side.

As stated in Romney’s ad, “Doesn’t America deserve better than a President who would say or do anything to stay in power?”

The question is a good one and not just from a political standpoint.

Politically, that rhetorical question and the obvious answer to it, is filled with promising electoral benefits for Romney.  It forces voters to question the President character and motives and it forces them to wonder just how valid the President’s case for reelection is.  The Romney ad helps to cast an image in voters minds of a President who is desperate and irresponsible. Romney’s “America Deserve Better” ad simply lays out the facts and forces people to wonder why President Obama is and supporters are so desperate that are having to make outrageous accusations and avoid the issues confronting our nation.

Romney’s “America Deserves Better” ad may now be lost in the shuffle since all the headlines were consumed by his nominating Paul Ryan for Vice President.  However; given the glee that Democrats have shown over the desire to demonize Paul Ryan for his being the architect of a federal budget that preserves Medicare, does not raise taxes and cuts $6 trillion dollars from the national debt, it is clear that lefties and their messiah, President Obama,  will forge ahead  nd demonstrate how desperate they are by continuing to distort, defame and demonize both Mitt Ryan and Paul Ryan.    At some point, they will again go too far in their attacks and this “America Deserves Better” ad will find itself or a similar version of it, back in the rotation on the airwaves of many swing states such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and now Wisconsin.

Without a positive record to run on, Team Obama is sure to continue stretching the truth but exactly how far can they stretch the truth in their endless attacks before something snaps in the minds of voters who want leaders that are more concerned with solutions than accusations?   Now that Romney has picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, I have feeling we will find the answer to that question sooner rather than later.

Bookmark and Share

What Does Paul Ryan Bring to the Ticket?

 Bookmark and Share  By picking Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, Democrats will claim that Mitt Romney, a wealthy and heartless robber baron who has killed people through his business dealings, has picked a running mate who pushed grandma off a cliff and is trying to make the wealthy richer by starving the poor.  Democrats will claim that the Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan aligns the G.O.P. with it’s most damaging and ideologically extreme policies.

Less than two hours after nominating Romney for Vice President, the Obama-Biden campaign went up with a new website that can be found when one goggles Paul Ryan or ask the questions who is Paul Ryan?  Typing that question on your keyboard will bring up barackobama.com/paul-ryan,  an Obama  website that defines the Romney-Ryan ticket as the “go back team”  and claims that Paul Ryan is the architect of a plan to end Medicare as we know it and which raises taxes on the middle-class in an attempt to create tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

An hour after Romney named Ryan as his Vice President, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina issued a statement claiming that Congressman Ryan “is best known as the author of a budget so radical The New York Times called it ‘the most extreme budget plan passed by a House of Congress in modern times’.”

So it is clear that Democrats are ready to do exactly what they were expected to do ——- escalate their political terrorism and double down on their class warfare tactics.   But they do so at the risk of falling right into the trap which Republicans have baited with with a tempting target that has hidden in it the issues that lie at the heart of the 2012 election —– the budget and the economy, the two issues which Democrats must avoid if they want to be elected.

By endorsing Paul Ryan as his running mate and embracing the Ryan approach to fiscal sanity, Romney has dared Democrats to continue their fear mongering.  And if Democrats continue to take the bait, they will be ensuring that the very issues they are trying to make voters fear the Romney-Ryan ticket for, are the very issues brought to the forefront of the campaign.  The selection of Ryan as his running mate is both courageous and brilliant.  It demonstrates that Romney is committed to fiscal responsibility and unafraid of defending conservative economic policies against the harsh distortion and demonization of demoncrats.  But by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has also plotted a brilliant strategy that now puts him in control of the political agenda by reframing the campaigning on the big issues which lie at the heart of our nation’s future.

While Obama and his fellow demoncrats try to describe the fiscal responsibility of a Romney-Ryan ticket in divisive class warfare terms, they will be forcing the Romney-Ryan ticket to explain their ideas and shed the truth on those ideas.  By going on the attack, demoncrats will be forced to actually have to debate the economy and the budget, something which they would rather not address.   The liberal strategy of distractions and distortions will give Republicans the opportunity yo fully explain the big fiscal decisions that will have to be made but which demoncrats refuse to address.

The demonization of the Romney-Ryan economic policies will provide Republicans the perfect chance to explain why it is not Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney who are endangering Medicare, but that it is the status quo of the the left and their nominee President Obama, which is endangering Medicare.   The attempts to demonize Romney and Ryan and scare senior citizens into believing that Romney and Ryan are throwing them under the bus, the ensuing national debate will force the truth out and shed the light of day on the facts that Ryan’s entitlement reforms not only reduce the national debt by $6 trillion dollars without raising taxes on anybody, but that it makes Medicare solvent and preserves it for generations to come, without making a single change to the program for those born prior to 1954.

Beyond Romney’s selection of Ryan taking control of the political agenda, it reinforces the impression of a leadership team that has the courage to propose bold plans and actual solutions that demonstrate an ability to get our nation back on track, something which the Obama-Biden team has been unable to do.  It also corners the market on the critically important independent swing vote which is made up largely of fiscal conservatives who want ideas turned into actions and actions turned into solutions more than they wish to hear politicians turn distortions into accusations.

In addition to placing someone on the Republican ticket who can appeal to independent voters, having Ryan as Romney’s running mate makes the usually blue state of Wisconsin fertile territory for Republicans.  History demonstrates that running mates can increase a tickets plurality of votes in their home state’s by as much as four percent.  Before nominating Ryan, the RealClearPolitics average of the most recent polls in Wisconsin has President Obama leading Romney by 5.4%.   Now with Ryan on the ticket there is good reason for Republicans to target that state in the months ahead, and as such, Wisconsin is likely to be deducted from the current projections of President Obama’s electoral college count.  And while Ryan’s popularity in neighboring Midwest states combined with his appeal to blue collar workers and personal background has still to be measured,  at this point in time he  can’t be seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in that region.

But picking Paul Ryan was much more than an attempt to select a regional nominee or a candidate who could help deliver a particular case.    It was a decision to pick a national nominee that would reframe the campaign and focus it on the big issues, the tough but unaddressed issues which Democrats are trying to avoid but will now be forced to confront because of Paul Ryan’s solutions and Mitt Romney’s courage to fight for those solutions.  Picking Paul Ryan will force voters to have to choose between two clearly different paths for our nation.  One path is a series of  tax and spend policies of an Administration which has refused to address our problems or even admit that the problems exist, and which has turned our economic woes into such a systemically debilitating problem that it is now the biggest threat to our national security.  The other path seeks to be hoinest with the American people and stop pretending that federal treasury is an ATM machine that issues a staedy and endlesss stream of free cash.  This other path is one which acknowledges our problems and addresses them by making tough decisions, to implement bold solutions and reforms that will help to prevent the United Sates from following in the footsteps of Greece.

What does Paul Ryan bring to the Republican ticket?

He brings us the opportunity to confront the demons that are haunting our economic health and the chance to slay them before they consume us.  He brings the promise of an issue oriented debate that reclaims the narrative of this election in a way that will allow it to focus on the problems that we face instead of the the distortions that left tries to create.   He also brings to the ticket the bait that will entice Democrats to take their class warfare strategy and lies to an extent so profoundly outrageous and exaggerated that they will lose what little credibility they have remaining.

Bookmark and Share

The Myth of the Obama Recovery

Depending on how you read the jobs report, you might think we are well on our way to economic recovery.  At least if you read the headlines.  Well, we should be.  In three short years, this President has increased the debt more than any President in the history of our country combined.

What do we have to show for it?

Think about it.  Think of all that we have accomplished with the last $6.3 trillion in debt.  We won two world wars, at various times brought unemployment down to 4.4% (most recently under the economic policies that supposedly got us into this mess), fought five other major wars, four major undeclared conflicts, and assisted in several other wars, gave hundreds of billions back in tax cuts, sent a man to the moon, maintained a shuttle program, bought over half the land in the country, rebuilt after a civil war, implemented civil rights, built socialistic retirement, healthcare and welfare systems, helped produce 5% and higher GDP growth, built every crumbling and non crumbling bridge in the United States today, and created a massive bureaucratic infrastructure covering roads, education, homeland security, and our entire regulatory system.

So what has Obama done with $6.5 trillion in debt?  He has brought 5.7% unemployment down to 8.3%.  Oops, I meant up to 10% and then down to 8.3%.  We have managed to get GDP just over 2% for a fleeting couple quarters.  We did continue two major conflicts which accounts for almost a trillion of Obama’s $6.5 trillion in debt.  But he didn’t do anything to stop the conflicts, and in fact started another one in Libya.

A lot of that money went in to funding failed green energy projects, such as Solyndra, which were owned by Obama’s supporters.  A lot of money went towards bailing out Wall Street and making the United States a shareholder in failed companies like Citigroup, GM and Chrysler.

One of Obama’s large debt contributions was in the form of extended unemployment benefits to make the victims of his economic policies comfortable enough to not complain.  This year when he runs on a platform of how he cut taxes, be assured that no member of the media will ask him about the taxes he has forced states to collect to fund their own broke unemployment compensation funds, and pay interest on federal loans of unemployment funds, all of which has been passed on to business owners of every size.

The amazing thing is that in his term so far, Obama has spent the equivalent of more than one full year of United States private sector GDP.  Nearly half of that has been in the form of debt.  Stop and think about that for a minute.  And yet, with more debt than every other President combined, Obama is ecstatic with an 8.3% unemployment rate?  There is something seriously wrong with this.

But it gets worse.  There is unemployment and real unemployment.  What’s the difference?  The 8.3% represents only people who are still looking for a job.  If you counted the same number of people who were looking for a job in 2007, the unemployment rate would be at 10.3% and that hasn’t changed  since 2009.

Ezra Klein at the Washington Post notes this disturbing trend which seems to show little variance in the unemployment rate when you consider people who have stopped working.  That means that with $6.5 trillion in new debt, more than all other Presidents combined, Obama hasn’t managed to increase job growth, he has just managed to increase the number of discouraged workers who are willing to settle for his extended unemployment welfare program.

In fact, although Obama will be running on the myth of jobs saved and created, in actuality there are 2.4 million fewer people working today than there were when Obama signed the stimulus in 2009. The number of people who have jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is down to 139 million from 141 million in 2009.

For those keeping score, it was 127 million in 2001.  Do the math.

Take the Ron Paul quiz

Ron Paul is suddenly looking like a potential runner up in Iowa.  Supporters are hoping that this is his turn to rise to the top.  Paul is a constitutionalist, he is consistent, and a lot of what he says makes sense.  But what does Ron Paul say?  What are his policy stances beyond legalizing drugs, opening the border, bringing the troops home, and eliminating the department of education?  Take the Ron Paul quiz and find out what you really know about this potential runner up in Iowa.  No cheating, no googling, no going to his website.  Here you go:

Ron Paul on taxes:

A. Fairtax, get rid of the IRS!

B. Flat Tax, replace the current system

C. Modify current system, but keep a progressive tax

D. No changes

E. Other

Ron Paul on Abortion:

A. Make all abortion illegal

B. All abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother

C. Keep abortion legal and accessable

D. Let the states decide if abortion should be legal, but keep it legal on a federal level

E. Other

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage:

A. Thinks gay marriage should be completely legal

B. Let the states decide who can get married

C. Supports DOMA, but would not take further action if the courts overturn it

D. Supports constitutional amendment to define marriage

E. Other

Ron Paul’s family history:

A. Been divorced multiple times

B. Never been married

C. Successful marriage and family

D. Troubled marriage with affairs

E. Other

Why is Ron Paul wealthy? Check all that apply:

A. Years as a doctor (also opposes Obamacare)

B. Years as a congressman (while supporting term limits)

C. Consulting for large Wall Street firms (including lobbying)

D. Large portfolio in gold and mining stocks (and supports gold standard and mining earmarks)

E. Kickbacks and bribes (especially from bailed out companies)

Ron Paul on earmarks and pork:

A. Opposes all earmarks and pork barrel spending

B. Supports earmarks as part of the process but does not use them

C. Supports earmarks and has “brought home the bacon” in his district

D. Supports only necessary earmarks to prevent committees from making those choices

E. Other

Ron Paul on Entitlements:

A. End Social Security and Medicare

B. Social Security and Medicare are government promises, leave them alone

C. Private accounts and state block grants

D. Optional private accounts, leave Medicare alone

E. Other

Ron Paul on Healthcare:

A. Status quo

B. Repeal Obamacare and let states decide, anything from Massachusetts style to any other state

C. Expand HSA accounts and allow insurance purchases across state lines

D. Individuals must buy insurance or pay for care received

E. Other

Ron Paul on Energy:

A. Drill here, drill now

B. All of the above approach

C. Pursue green energy, eliminate fossil fuels

D. Tax subsidies for green energy, eliminate the EPA

E. Other

Ok, you took the quiz.  Now do the research.  If Ron Paul becomes the next front runner, he is going to be vetted.  One of the reasons Newt hasn’t crashed and burned yet despite the onslaught from all sides is because he has put all his flaws on the table, admitted his stupid mistakes, explained where his ideas have changed and why, and has been open about what he believes, even when it means taking the heat.  The reason Romney has not crashed and burned is because he has successfully argued why he would not take the Massachusetts mandate to DC.  On the other hand, Cain fell flat on his face because of accusations that came out of nowhere, a flawed 999 plan, and stumbles on foreign policy.

Paul has not been vetted.  Until now, no one took him seriously.  If he is your guy and you want him to win, or you are rightfully taking a second look at him, now you know if you actually know what he stands for.

Cain and Gingrich Capital Rise With Debate

Mitt Romney should take notice.  The Cain/Gingrich debate is EXACTLY what Conservatives are looking for.  It is something today’s liberals and Republican posers simply won’t do.  The two candidates from Georgia sat down with no time limits, no moderators, and no attacks on each other, they spent an hour and a half laying bold, smart, outside the box proposals on the table.  They complemented one another and tossed questions to each other that built each other up.  It wasn’t about me versus you.  There was no mud, no dirty politics.  It was pure and simple ideas and a clear demonstration why these two candidates deserve every Conservative’s consideration.  If Mitt Romney is smart, he will be begging to be part of the next debate, because his fiscal conservative, establishment support is not going to win him this primary by itself.

At the beginning of the debate, Cain and Gingrich stood side by side and joked about what the 2012 ticket might look like.  Actually, that’s not such a bad idea.

I got done watching the debate feeling much better about the GOP field this year.  Cain has been boxed in by his 999 plan in previous recent debates.  In this debate be broke out and showed that he is a far more complex and intelligent candidate.  He finally had a chance to explain his Social Security private option.  Their mutual respect and support helped lend Cain additional credibility.

Newt has been stellar in uncomfortable media run debates.  He soared even more in this debate.  Newt oozes leadership, and even in this debate was in charge.  It would be interesting to see if Newt would still rule the roost with Romney at the table as well.  At any rate, to the extent that this debate is replayed and seen by more Americans, Newt’s star will continue rise.  This debate highlighted Newt’s intelligence and communication skills.

Hopefully we will see more of these type of debates, and hopefully many more people will watch them.  And if the GOP wants to win in 2012, it would be great to see if Obama would step up and give this format a shot.

Operation Old TEA Bag: President Obama’s Inevitable Reelection Strategy

Bookmark and Share As the sun came up over Brooklyn on September 13th, 2011, Lewis Fidler received a phone call reminding him to support Democrat David Weprin in the special election taking place in CD-9. 
 The recent special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District did more than just elect a Republican to a seat that hasn’t been in the hands of the G.O.P. since 1923. As evident in Bill Clinton’s get-out-the-vote phone call, it also shed some light on the desperation of Democrats and what direction they will throw the ball in when they try to salvage their 2012 election fortunes with a last minute Hail Mary pass.  It offerred us insight in to the type of campaign that President Obama will resort to once he catches on to the fact that things like his third stimulus plan and his latest spending program to create jobs aren’t working for the country and aren’t being bought by the people.

In the race that pitted liberal incumbent Democrat Assemblyman David Weprin against retired businessman, Republican Bob Turner, Democrats struggled to find the issues that their candidate could run on to win voters over. Initially they did not even do that. At first it was assumed that as always, whichever Democrat they ran, would sail to victory and succeed sex texting addict Anthony Weiner. But then in August, Democrat polling showed something strange. It showed that Democrat Weprin was not getting the amount of support that Democrats usually get. This then suggested to them that they actually had a real and competitive election on their hands.

So they got to work and started to develop the issues they would campaign on.

What they found was that Weprin and Democrats had no positions on the issues that would excite voters and convince them that Weprin was their man. Even in a relatively liberal district like the ninth, there were no issues which Democrats held a popular position on.

There was the issue of gay marriage which Weprin recently supported the passage of in the New York State Assembly. But with a heavy Hassidic Jewish population in the ninth, legalizing marriage between two people of the same sex was far from popular.

There was the issue of our national debt. On that issue, Weprin held a typical Democrat line which supported big government and big government social programs. But even in a left leaning district like the one that spans the working class neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens, voters know that our debt has become a deepening crisis for our nation and as such, they understand that more government spending is not realistic. That left Weprin with the opportunity to use the traditional liberal language of tax increases to pay for all the spending. But in the middleclass communities of NY-9, tax increases, even for those who earn $250,000 or more, doesn’t really go over well. The ninth congressional district is comprised largely of those people in the middle……the ones who get hit from both ends and are not poor enough to benefit from government social programs, but are not wealthy enough to take advantage of the tax loopholes and credits that the political establishment has arranged for. So these people did not want to hear the Obama “make the rich pay their fare share” rhetoric. Many of them are afraid that a liberal definition of “rich” would include them.

There was the issue of immigration. However on that issue, Weprin has a liberal “Dream Act” position that does not solve the illegal immigration issue that impacts on his district’s residents. They do not want their money going to fulfilling the dreams of illegal immigrants. These people, many of which remember seeing the World Trade Center from their windows and worked within its shadows, want our borders secured.

So like many other issues, that was out.

There was Israel. After all, with a population of Jewish voters that is disproportionately larger than in many other districts throughout the nation, as an Orthodox Jew himself, Weprin could certainly and convincingly argue his support for Israel and ride high on the popularity of that point. Unfortunately though, being a Democrat, most voters linked Weprin to President Obama’s unfriendly policies towards Israel. And Weprin’s argument to voters that they should trust him on israel because he would fight for Israel from within, didn’t have wings.

Short of a total condemnation of President Obama by Weprin, the Jewish vote in his district simply viewed Weprin as a congressional rubberstamp for Obama’s polcies.

The further Democrats went down the list of issues important to the middleclass voters of the ninth, the more they realized that there were no issues which allowed them to present a position that they could derrive district-wide support for.

So what is a candidate with a competitive election ahead of him to do?

Why, resort to the liberal playbook, of course!

That meant scare citizens. That meant to try and distort the Republican position to preserve Social Security and Medicare for those on it and those expecting to soon be on them. It meant denying the Republican position to preserve those programs for future generation with reforms that will strengthen Social Security and medicare. It meant do your best to make vulnerable senior citizens believe that if a Republican won, they would deny them the money that many seniors have come to rely upon.

That was a good start but Weprin and his Democrat strategists and Washington puppet masters needed something else to attract some voters outside of the senior citizen demographic. That’s when the orders from Washington came down. And that is when the strategy to run against the TEA Party came into play.

So in early August Operation Old TEA Bag went into effect. That is when Weprin campaign spokesperson Elizabeth Kerr first argued the following:

“Bob Turner’s doing anything he can to distract voters from his plan to end Medicare as we know it, which would cost seniors in Brooklyn and Queens an extra $6,400 every year,” .

And from there, the tactics to scare senior citizens began

Then when the news that Standard & Poor’s had downgraded the country’s credit rating because of fiscal uncertainty came out and dominated the headlines, Weprin’s campaign defined Bob Turner as a TEA Party extremist and charged that because of their “irresponsible demands”, “Republican Tea Party extremists” facilitated the downgrade and the fallout from it.

From that point on, the Democrat campaign for Congress in NY-9 began.

It was a constant barrage of trying to make the TEA Party the enemy that voters had to unite against. It was a never ending campaign to define Bob Turner as the TEA Party candidate. In Between those lines of attack was tossed in the same old scare tactics intended to frighten senior citizens that predate the Reagan Administration.

For his part Bob Turner campaigns argued;

“Career politicians like David Weprin have taxed and spent this country into a crisis. They have jeopardized the entire social safety network by irresponsibly borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend,”

And as one Turner campaign aide put it;

“Businessman Bob Turner is running to protect Social Security and Medicare for every American over 55 years old and to put those essential programs on a sustainable path for everybody younger than that.”

But Bob Turner didn’t just defend himself against Operation Old TEA Bag. He spent most of his time denouncing the Obama policies that even urban, middle-class Democrats have lost faith in. Like the days of Ronald Reagan, Bob Turner found himself addressing a new generation of Reagan Democrats. Democrats who do not appreciate the condition of our nation and do not have faith in the direction their Party is heading in under a liberal President.

Yet as the campaign continued and the polls tightened, D.C. Democrats from the DCCC, DNC, and from the state and local Party apparatus, double-downed on their last hope……Operation Old TEA Bag. Even when only days before the special election was to take and polls showed that Turner turned the tables and was now ahead of Weprin, Democrats found themselves desperately trying to make a success of their fear campaign of senior citizens and their efforts to make the TEA Party the common enemy.

The plan was perfect. It even concluded on a high note…….a recorded phone call from former President Clinton which tied the TEA Party and Medicare together as he stated “and he’ll oppose the TEA Party plan to destroy Medicare” But ultimately, what Democrats thought was the perfect strategy, proved to be as unsustainable and useless as their economic policies.

Like driving a car on empty, it was a last ditch, desperate attempt to run a camping not on any issues, just on fear. The only problem is that in the end, senior citizens were less afraid of distortions about Bob Turner than they were of the truth about the current direction our nation is headed. In the end, the voters of the ninth district decided that the TEA Party was not their problem. Democrats were.

Unless Democrats start singing a different a tune, they will still be the problem in 2012. And just as Operation Old TEA Bag did not work for them in CD-9, it will not work for them in the 2012 elections. With few accompishments of his own to point toand with most Americans wanting to repeal his signature achievement…..Obamacare, President Obama is likely to  do little else but resort to scaring senior citizens and trying to run against the TEA Party.  Operation Old TEA Bag did not end in the streets of Brookjlyn and Queens.  It is really only just starting at Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bookmark and Share

Seven Versus One

The debate is over and there is a clear loser.  Whether by pact or we just got candidates this good, Obama was the only one with a target on his back last night.  Even Pawlenty wouldn’t take the obvious bait to attack front runner Mitt Romney.  The result was a debate of seven on one, and the One wasn’t there to defend himself.

The other loser in last night’s debate was CNN’s John King who amidst annoying grunts failed to turn the candidates on one another.  Even when he tossed Palin’s name out as an easy target for Republicans seeking to moderate, the response came from Tim Pawlenty and it was perfect.  Joe Biden has failed in every aspect as a Vice President, his views on Iraq were completely wrong, and Sarah Palin would be a better president than Biden or Obama.

Can Bachmann break through media created stereotypes?

The candidates handled tough hot button issues amazingly well also.  The shining example here was Michelle Bachmann who deflected an easy gotcha by making it clear that the role of the President and the role of the states in determining the fate of gay marriage is not equal.  She provided a balanced states rights view, while promising to protect the states from the courts if it came to that.  The other good answers on gay marriage were Ron Paul, leave it to the church and get government out, and actually Rick Santorum who explained that a constitutional amendment would require the approval of 75% of the states, something opponents rarely mention.  Cain appeared to struggle the most on the muslim staff question.

While there were no clear winners, I believe this debate showed two classes of candidates.  Michelle Bachmann led her class of fired up TEA Party approved candidates fighting for principled social and fiscal conservatism with unmeasured attacks against Obama and willingness to take heat for their views if deemed controversial.  Cain is included with this group, although he appears now more as a TEA Party candidate who jumped in feet first and now is searching for substance beyond catchphrases and buzz words.  He did not find that moment last night.  Ron Paul’s anti-establishment libertarianism may catch up to him this year when all the Revolution liberals realize that he does not support any federal entitlement programs.  Santorum failed to set himself apart as anything but a sacrificial lamb for 1st term George W. Bush style conservatism.  While they all performed well, Bachmann outshined this group.  Given the TEA Party’s success in 2010 and their conservative appeal, I would not write this group off.

The other group becoming apparent are the “intellectual”, restrained conservatives in Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty.  Their answers would not pass a soundbite test, but they were clear, well thought out, and flawless.  At the same time, these three touted socially conservative views and credentials which should make each one palatable for any Republican voter.  Newt was in a tough place and would need to be the only shining candidate last night to pull his campaign out of the rubble.  His performance was near flawless and enough to start the rebuilding process, but not good enough to bring him in from the dog house.  And while he may be right about ensuring that America is on board with the Paul Ryan plan, he is sure to take more heat for some of his comments last night.

Tim Pawlenty was perhaps the closest thing to a winner last night.  He made a great case for his pro-life record, perhaps settled some social conservatives with his call for his stance on homosexuality, connected with union and blue collar America, and magnanimously skipped a golden opportunity to play John King’s game and trash the front runner.  While the left-wing media rakes Pawlenty over the coals for his choice, conservatives should take a much closer look at a candidate who knows the enemy.

Mitt Romney will remain the front runner after last night.  The campaign has been nearly effortless for him sofar, and he made no mistakes that would cause him to lose his front runner status last night.  But he shouldn’t get too comfortable.  With Huntsman entering the race and with Rick Perry and Rudy Guiliani mulling Presidential runs of their own, the space Romney and Pawlenty occupy could get real crowded real quick.

In the end, the field last night did what they had to do.  They stayed focused on the economy and Obama.  They did not bite on questions obviously designed to turn them against each other and other Republicans.  They agreed with one another publicly and showed that any one of them is better than and can beat Barack Obama in 2012.

Gary Johnson Shoots the Moon in NH

Gary Johnson is in. He announced Thursday morning outside the New Hampshire statehouse that he intends to run on a platform of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cutting defense, Medicaid and Medicare by 43% each, raising the retirement age for Social Security, and legalizing marijuana.

Johnson stated that he has never supported the Iraq war, and while he once supported the war in Afghanistan, now believes that it is time to bring the troops home. AP reports that Johnson made the official announcement to about a dozen supporters.

Johnson is a relatively obscure candidate who served as governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. He received a mix reception at CPAC earlier this year and is generally viewed as outside of the Republican mainstream. However, he is sure to turn some independent heads. In addition to calling for a repeal of Obamacare, Johnson also called for a repeal of the Republican passed Medicare Part D prescription drug subsidy.

Johnson is not considered by most to be a contender, but he hopes to change that with a strong showing in libertarian leaning

Gary Johnson puts it all on the line in New Hampshire

New Hampshire. Johnson feels that New Hampshire can rocket him “…from obscurity to prominence overnight with a good showing in New Hampshire.”

Paul Ryan v. The Fed

Ben Bernanke is warning the US of a dire future filled with high interest rates, crushing debt, and a weak dollar. He is calling on Congress to save the day. However, Bernanke is also warning Republicans to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Bernanke has just cause to be concerned. After the Fed’s $600 billion cash creation used to buy US debt, Republicans are focusing on limiting the Fed’s ultimate fiscal power. Led by Paul Ryan, Republicans are looking to take away the Fed’s responsibility to create jobs. This would mean a much less powerful position for Ben Bernanke.

Normally, such an idea would be discarded. But after years of Fed manipulation creating no job growth and looming inflation that Bernanke swears is not there, the public might be ready to rein in the Fed’s power. Even crazy idea’s like Ron Paul’s idea to audit the Fed are gaining traction. Congressional oversight of the Fed? Truly a novel concept.

If Paul Ryan succeeds in bringing down the Fed’s unlimited economic power, he will be a household name by this time next year. But it won’t just be taking on Bernanke that makes him infamous.

Republicans are betting on austerity. They are counting on cutting debt and returning more money to the private sector as the way to restore our economy. Across Republican run states and in DC this is the strategy. Paul Ryan has been chosen to spearhead this effort. His ambitious plans include revamping Social Security and Medicare, and spending cuts in many areas politicians are normally wary about touching. If it works quickly, Paul Ryan could be very popular in 2012.

%d bloggers like this: