It’s simply hard to imagine this passes for a Presidency.  At what point does he become simply too much for the senses?  Sure we have had some interesting and bad Presidents before – recently in fact.  Nixon changed our view of the Presidency for the worse.  Carter was beyond ineffectual.  Bush 41 broke a huge promise. Clinton wagged his finger while lying – and a bit more than that.  But this President is truly something and it’s not just the facts that are bad – it’s his excuses and manners that make this Presidency so incredibly bad.

Let us count the ways:

A.  The Economics.

This list is well known by now – but that doesn’t mean it is highlighted by the Media as it would be of a Republican was president.

1. Unemployment at 9% for a historically long time.  According to Obama he inherited this mess and blames President Bush and ATMs.  Yes Obama believes automation, like ATMs, is to blame – as if such automations like automobiles (accounting for nearly 20% of our economy) and computers (creating employers like EBAY and Microsoft)  are the cause of our unemployment.  Beyond that, Obama joked that he was wrong about “shovel ready” projects, created the “Saved” jobs category out of thin air, and claimed that the stimulus bill would prevent unemployment from going above 8%.  What’s missing, of course, is a plan to lower unemployment – let alone actually lower unemployment.
2. Gas Prices.  They are currently 85% higher than when he took office.  He shut down our Gulf oil production for ideological not actual reasons and delayed a Canadian pipeline for political reasons.  When Bush 43 saw high gas prices, the Media told him to go his friends in the Middle East to ask them to raise production.  Since Obama wanted $5 gasoline all along, he has no plan to lower energy prices and the Media doesn’t harp on the issue.  Meanwhile the economy is hurt badly because of the higher costs of energy that reduce purchasing power and hurt employers everywhere.
3. Foreclosure/Home Mortgage Crisis.  This is the one part of the economy that actually is in a crisis that is “the worst since the Great Depression” – a phrase Obama is fond of overusing.  Obama has continued the policy of bailing out the Banks for foreclosure related losses, encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts instead of reforming them and now he has sued the very Banks he bailed out because of their foreclosure practices – and no, there is no plan in sight let alone true relief.
4. The Deficit.  It has quadrupled under Obama.  Yet he says inherited it – and rather than change it, spending has actually gone up each of this 3 years.  Obama’s solution: have other people come up with a plan – he was traveling or on vacation. When it failed, he said he knew it would fail.  So Chris Christie rightfully asks:  What are we paying Obama for?

(more…)

While Obama tours the country promoting his personal donation plan, the Republican Presidential hopefuls are in a pitched battle for the nomination and arguing which tax simplification plan is best. Threatened with the possibility of rate cuts, the Media and politicians trot out the usual suspects of lies about tax hikes and tax cuts.  This is a battle Republicans must win and, to do so, they need to expose those lies.

Keep in mind that the battle between those who create wealth and those that want to redistribute it, mainly politicians, is as old as civilization itself.  We read of tax battles and even reform in every age, like Urukagina’s tax reductions in Babylonia/Sumer in 2350 BC.  Equally venerable are the constant set of demagogic lies by those against tax cuts and simplification.  It is important to note that politicians like complicated tax codes and high tax rates because they control those rates and dispense the loopholes and regulations that complicate the tax code.  Tax simplification means they lose power.  As a result, resistance to tax reform is more often the rule than reform. As for the lies, they abound, so let’s consider just a few:

Lie # 1: Tax cuts cause deficits/Tax hikes balance the budget.  The Media and the Left often say that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts led to deficits while Clinton’s tax hikes led to a balanced budget. In truth, according to the IRS, federal tax revenues rose dramatically after the overall Reagan tax cuts/reforms (98%) and the Bush tax cuts (a record $700+ billion). This is just as they did after the Harding/Coolidge cuts (61% revenue increase) and after the Kennedy/Johnson cuts (62% revenue increase).  Those are the four major income tax reductions we have had since the inception of the income tax in 1913 and every time revenues rose after they were in place – every time.

So did the tax rate cut cause a deficit? The lie, of course, is to blame the revenue gathering mechanism (tax code/rate cut) instead of the revenue spending mechanism, i.e. Congress/Presidents.  The spenders kept spending – often at an accelerated rate when they saw the new revenues.  Thus, the fault for continuing deficits lies not with tax rate cuts, which produced higher revenues, but with politicians who spent too much.

(more…)

In 2008, candidate Obama famously dodged a serious question by telling America that the question was simply “above [his] pay grade.” Three years into his Presidency, voters around the country are clearly voicing their opinion that being held accountable for the failing economy is not above his pay grade.  Even in California, perhaps America’s last bastion of liberalism, voters are finally turning on Obama.

Around the country, the numbers all point to Obama losing in next year’s Presidential election.  Generic Republicans beat him in polling match ups.  Following Democrats’ loss of the House last year, Republicans just won a special election for a seat in New York that they haven’t held since 1923.  Perhaps the most telling number, unemployment is above 9% (with no real improvement in sight) and no President has won re-election with unemployment above 8%.

In California, however, a majority of voters have stood by Obama.  For most of this year, a strong majority of voters approved of Obama’s job performance.  Now suddenly, Obama’s ratings took a sharp turn for the worse and, for the first time, less than a majority of voters in California approve of his job performance – just 46% to be specific.

Given that the economy has not changed much over the last year, the question could be asked:  Why have California voters suddenly turned on Obama?

(more…)

American political fortunes have long been tied directly to the economy… so you would think that politicians would do a better job understanding how to improve the economy.  We know consumer demand is down – because consumers don’t have the money or home equity they used to have.  That alone is keeping the economy down.  Businesses, however, are said to have money but they are not spending or investing it.  Why? Because for them it’s the early 1920’s all over again.

Our so-called brilliant, Nobel Prize-winning President, for months, has exhorted American businesses to hire employees and invest – as if wishing for an economic recovery would make it so.  Recently, however, Democrat and mega-businessman Steve Wynn told the country – and Obama, if he was listening – why cash rich business is not hiring and investing.  According to Wynn, “this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime . . . those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President . . .”

President Calvin Coolidge used to say, “The chief business of the American people is business.”  Even so, business doesn’t invest just for fun – they invest for profit – and they don’t invest if they think the risk of not making an acceptable profit is too high.  I wrote “acceptable” because business weighs the fact that even if they make money, it will be taxed.  As such, a business must decide not only if it will be able to make a profit, but will the profit be so much that it would be worth the trouble/risk after taking taxes into consideration.  Keep in mind business knows that it carries all of the downside risk and that government will take a good portion of any upside.  If at some point the risk gets too high, business investment and spending is stalled.

Today, Steve Wynn, and much of American business, believes that the risk of not making a decent profit is too high for several reasons.  For instance, business doesn’t see sufficient consumer demand – so they don’t stock their shelves or expand production as they otherwise might.  Regulations and the threat of more regulations are so high that they hold back money to pay for future costs.  Taxes and the threat of higher taxes are also high – and that too causes business to hold back spending in order to pay those future taxes.  As a result, business investment and spending is stalled.

(more…)

Signs of debt crisis strain are everywhere these days.  Despite over $14 trillion in US debt, the Left is calling Republicans extreme for wanting major cuts.  On the other hand, Obama has no written plan but is acting like a born-again deficit hawk going after corporate jets.  Even better, some are touting the bonuses of hedge fund managers as a tax gold mine.  The latter sentiment is yet more proof that politicians on the Left just don’t get economics – at all – and also highlights one of America’s worst problems.

For those that have been following, it turns out that certain bonus income of money managers is taxed at a 15% rate (like dividends) instead of potentially 35% (like ordinary income).  The tax laws allow for that lower rate if they hold onto the bonuses for a certain period of time.  Non-Real World politicians and economists are crying foul – asserting it is unfair they get that break – and claiming that as much as $20.7 billion could be collected if that loophole is done away with.

Such is the state of “good enough for government” thinking.

You see, Non-Real World politicians and economists see the world like a calculator: change a tax rate and collections rise.  In the Real World, human behavior adjusts to laws that change – sometimes dramatically so when it involves taxes. Just ask American Founder and Supreme Court Justice John Marshall who stated that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

Take the 1920’s for instance.  The Democrats had increased the top marginal tax rate to over 70%. That increase greatly diminished or nearly “destroyed” incentives for individuals.  Indeed, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew W. Mellon noticed that rather than taking risks with their capital, capitalists were parking their money in tax-free government bonds.

(more…)

If you look at statements made by Ben Bernanke over the last several years on the US economic outlook, they are not a model of consistency, let alone confidence building.  Indeed, they reflect an economy that appears to be stopping and starting – subject to the vagaries of the world not driving the world’s economy. Many other economists are similarly uncertain as to why our economy is in such trouble.  Real-world Americans, however, have no such confusion.

In April of 2010, the Federal Reserve Chairman said the economy had “staying power.” In August of 2010, Bernanke said, “The economy remains vulnerable to unexpected developments.”  Early last month he stated: “U.S. economic growth so far this year looks to have been somewhat slower than expected.”  Later in the month, he let us know that “We don’t have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting.”

On the other hand, we hear stories of banks and corporations flush with cash.  For his part, Obama appears focused on luxurious corporate jets and the Left tells us (falsely) that taxes are at the lowest they have been in 50 years.

So why is the economy underperforming to their great confusion or surprise?

There are many reasons – but one central one.  First, among the many reasons, are businesses’ fears of the costs of doing business in the future, including the costs of Obamacare. Adding to those fears are the costs of regulations (Obama’s and state regulators) and, of course, higher taxes.  Also among the many reasons are the national debt and the debt of our states.  Those amounts are so far past rationality and are paired with future entitlement requirements that are way beyond unsustainable.  Combined, they produce economic fear, which translates quickly into economic caution which equals less economic activity.

(more…)

Politicians, being what they are, tend to have an inflated view of what they can do. Some claim to create jobs while others claim to raise taxes. In truth, they are limited to passing political laws. Once enacted, those laws run into the laws of economics – which have never been repealed and have been largely the same since the beginning of time. The results are often different than those intended – and so it is for Jerry Brown, whose policies fly in the face of economics and Californians are paying the price.

Few can doubt the magnitude of the economic problems facing our once Golden State. Unemployment is above 12% and underemployment is above 20%. Over 1.3 million less people are employed today than a decade ago. California homeowners have lost over $1.7 trillion in equity in the last 4 years – an amount nearly equal to the entire state economy. That combination has resulted in California suffering the worst of the nation’s foreclosure crisis including startling figures such as in Fresno, where 46.7% of the mortgages are under water, i.e. the mortgage is larger than the home value.

California businesses face taxes among the highest in the nation, even higher regulatory burdens and, just around the corner, potentially large workers’ compensation rate increases. It’s no wonder CEO Magazine ranks California 51st in the nation (behind Puerto Rico) as a place to do business.

All combined, these economic problems have resulted in revenue problems for California governments because people without jobs don’t pay taxes; homeowners without equity spend and borrow less; and businesses with mounting costs have lower profits. That’s economics – not politics.

For Jerry Brown, however, economics remains a mystery to say the least.

(more…)

Since the beginning of government, the ambition of those who spend money has rarely been matched by the ability of citizens to pay for government.  Modern day America, California or Greece are not exceptions to the rule, just examples of yesterday on a more grand scale today.  As perpetual as that problem is  - so too is the argument over the best way to raise tax revenue.  In simple terms, lower tax rates produce a more vibrant economy and higher revenues over time.  Higher tax rates do the exact opposite.  Heading into 2012, the Country cannot afford for Republicans to lose that economic argument.

The issue of taxes produces perhaps the greatest display between real politics and false economics.  Politicians throughout time have passed laws claiming to raise taxes.  In truth, politicians pass laws that raise tax rates.  That is a political process.  From there, the laws of economics take over.

In general, throughout all time, people adjust their behavior in reaction to political laws by acting in accordance with economic laws which are driven by human nature.  So if the penalty for speeding went up to $5000 per ticket – the number of people who speed would be reduced.  If the penalty for making income increases, i.e. taxes, rises – the amount of income actually made or reported will be reduced over time as well.

Today we are faced with astronomical deficits nationally and in many states.   The debt repayment obligation for California next year alone is larger than the budgets of 21 states.  What should governments do?  Should they politically raise tax rates? Or should they economically lower rates?  The answer is the latter and if Republicans (1) fail to make the argument why in 2011 and 2012, as this article implies they will, Grover Norquist, Tom Coburn duel over tax hikes , and (2) don’t stop simply saying NO to so-called tax increases, then Barack Obama will be reelected.

Consider this argument for cutting tax rates to raise revenue:

(more…)

All across the land, it would seem that there is but one story to be written regardless of the locale – and budget cuts are that story.  For years, rational legislators and commentators have warned American voters, and those legislators that have thrown economics to the wind, that spending beyond our means will lead to government meltdowns – and so it is today.

Here in California, during the recent State of the State by California Governor Jerry Brown – remarkable only for its brevity – Brown demanded more tax increases to “solve” the State’s now perennial budget crisis.  In doing so, he decried politics as usual but demanded policies as usual.  California has become the tax and spend capitol of the world (outside of Washington DC) and its budget next year will feature a $7.65 billion in debt repayment alone – more than it spends on public universities and more than the overall budget of 21 states.  By comparison, Wisconsin’s $137 million deficit seems quaint compared to California’s $20 billion+ deficit.

Brown also falsely claimed in his State of the State that no one was giving ideas on where else to cut and that if Republicans (and voters) didn’t go along with his tax hikes, he would cut deeper into education.  Brown didn’t offer to cut the state bureaucracy – he threatened to cut education funding – as Democrats are wont to do in order to scare voters.

(more…)

What is going to happen next in Egypt?  According to Mubarak, “the result will be extremism and radical Islam.”  Others aren’t so sure.  What is certain is that the risk factor in the Middle East has risen again.  That means the world’s oil supply is at risk as well.  A wise country would do what it could to insulate its people from that risk.  It is beyond a serious question as to whether the United States will.

Revolutions are not things of certainty. For instance, once underway, the ideals and prospects for the French Revolution once were touted by the likes of our own Jefferson and Madison. Washington, the soldier among the three, was far more circumspect.  The freedom won by the likes of the Marquis Lafayette in the early days of the French Revolution was lost not long after in the ensuing chaos.  Lafayette, the same man who helped win our Revolution, would eventually be jailed for years while many thousands died in The Terror before Napoleon dashed any hope for democracy.  So much for the foresight of our 3^rd and 4^th Presidents – they fanned the early embers only to see those embers engulf a nation.

Our current President encouraged those taking part in the first Act of Egypt’s current drama.  Given that it was the military of Egypt that removed an intransigent Mubarak and now run its streets, it can hardly be said that freedom has been assured.  The difficult part lies ahead.  The only certainty in front of us now is uncertainty.

Returning to the French Revolution, its affects were hardly restricted to the French.   International trade was affected and the rise of Napoleon brought serious concerns of war in the United States and actual wars to Europe.  Egypt may play a similar role today.

Will Mubarak be right about the future of Egypt?

(more…)

Once again, the World is witness to the revolutionary aspirations of a people long suppressed. Today it is Egypt. Yesterday it was Tunisia and decades before that Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Iran.  The Russians endured their own revolution in the early 1900’s and the French in the 1800’s.  We had our own in the century before and there have been others in between.

So what will become of Egypt?   Will true democratic reform follow? Or will their aspirations be hijacked in an exchange of rulers more interested in their power than others freedom?  While the courses of revolutions are rather unpredictable, the answer likely lies with the nature of Egyptian society.

Some transitions, whether catalyzed by an internal revolution or outside regime change, succeed and are witness to an enlightened new rule; others fail and either relapse into prior existences or merely exchange one set of rulers for what the French philosopher Voltaire would say were others, only less refined.

Another 18^th Century French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was more stark when he wrote that

“People accustomed to masters will not let mastery cease … Mistaking liberty for unchained license, they are delivered by their revolutions into the hands of seducers who will only aggravate their chains …”

So why do some transitions succeed where others fail?  The answer lies in the political and economic maturity of those who would rule and the disbursement of economic power. The French Revolution, which began the year after Rousseau’s death, featured great economic disparity between the rulings classes and an underclass that mistook their inspired but sudden liberty for unchained license.   Unaccustomed to governing and with a limited commercial underpinning, the property they destroyed was not their own.

In the end, the divergence between their aspiration to govern and their ability to govern left them vulnerable to seducers.  The chaos, which included the Reign of Terror and the deaths of thousands at the hands of “reformers,” was finally quelled by the order of another master in the form of Napoleon – thereby fulfilling Rousseau’s warning.  The Russian Revolution followed a not dissimilar pattern and featured a similar, scarce middle/commercial class for whom self-governance was a stranger.

(more…)

The Media is aflutter these days about the imminent return of the economy.   Of course, it marks a stark contrast to the manner in which they covered the Bush economy.  In the months leading up to the 2008 election, the Media was talking the economy down.  Now they are attempting to talk it up.  No amount of Media optimism, however, will change some basic dynamics which will keep the economy in its weakened state or worse for years to come.  As you go through these reasons, keep in mind that consumer spending makes up, and has for years, approximately 70% of the US economy.

1.  Historically High Unemployment.  The unemployment rate remains historically very high.  History also tells us that unemployment takes longer to recover than other economic indicators.  That certainly applies to our current economic troubles.  Despite Pelosi’s claims about how unemployment checks create jobs, the magnitude of our unemployment translates directly into a historically high lack of consumer purchasing power.  That’s true for the 9.8% of unemployed Americans and their families – not to mention those affected by the much higher underemployment rate of  17+%  – and those dependent on consumers.  No one expects unemployment to fall rapidly and therefore this will continue to hurt the US economy for years.

2. The Foreclosure/Mortgage Crisis.  The magnitude of the continuing foreclosure/mortgage crisis continues to be grossly under-reported by the press. (Surprise).  Many believe that foreclosures will actually increase in 2011 over the approximately 1.2 million that occurred in 2010.  Combined with the 2009 numbers, that means over 3 million foreclosures in a three year period.  That depresses housing prices and hurts the housing industry overall which, historically, has led the way in past recoveries.  Worse yet, estimates of the number of mortgages “under water,”  (homes whose mortgage is higher than the value of the home) continues to rise – not to mention those homes which have less equity than the costs of sale.

Looking at it another way, the Federal Reserve believes Americans have lost $6 trillion in home equity since 2006.  All of that translates into nervous homeowners with much lower – if not lost – purchasing power.   That won’t turn around in time for Obama either given his policies.

3. Rising Gas Prices.

(more…)

During the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that the rich didn’t “need” the Bush tax cuts. Despite an economy that hasn’t responded to his record deficit spending – otherwise known as the “stimulus” – Obama and his talking heads still oppose maintaining the Bush cuts. Any such opposition, however, is rooted far more in demagoguery than in economics. In truth, the coming tax hikes will hurt the economy in many ways, including exacerbating the foreclosure crisis and ensuring a bad economy for years on end.

Of course, it has long been the strategy of the Democrats to engage in class warfare when it  comes to  tax cuts. Obama’s belief that the Bush tax cuts were for people who  “don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them,” is just the latest incarnation of that tired theme. In today’s economy, which features an ongoing foreclosure crisis unlike any other over the last 40 years, nothing could be further from the truth.

Common sense thinkers, including Reagan, JFK and Keynes, well know that lower tax rates lead to greater incentives and greater economic activity and therefore greater tax revenues over time. Tax increases, on the other hand, reduce incentives and economic activity and therefore result in less tax revenue. During a bad economy like today, the latter effect can be accelerated and the current foreclosure crisis is a dangerous case in point.

Consider, if you will, Contra Costa County, California, which is some 30 miles east of San Francisco. Most would consider it a well to do area. Indeed, by the numbers, those living in Contra Costa have the 5th highest per capita income of all California counties and 45th in the nation. To be sure, among the over one million residents of Contra Costa, there are many Contra Costans who Obama would consider “rich” – and therefore who don’t “need” the Bush tax cuts.

(more…)

In politics, there is an old adage that if they are not shooting at you, you are irrelevant.  If so, you may well be able to judge the relevancy of someone by the amount of fire they are drawing.  A year ago, the “Tea Party” was merely “astro-turf” in the eyes of those on the Left.  Today, they are more than extreme in the eyes of the Main Stream Media, the Democrats leadership and Left in general.   But is that really the case?

Before we answer the question, keep in the mind the intensity of the attacks facing the Tea Party participants today.  They are referred to as “earth-shatteringly stupid,”(Rolling Stone Oct. 14 edition)  “racist,” “hard-right,” and, of course, “extreme” – the latter of which will produce over 2.7 million Google hits.  It also was the recent subject of Obama’s characterization of “the Republican Party as all but taken over by Tea Party extremists.”

So how extreme are the Tea Party participants.  Let’s take a look.

Among the Tea Party Groups, one of the most prominent is the Tea Party Express.  I have attended a few of their rallies and found that they have championed the following slogans at one time or another on the side of their tour bus:

• Stop Out of Control Spending!
• No Government Run Healthcare!
• Reduce the Size & Intrusiveness of Government!
• End the Bailouts!
• Stop Raising our Taxes!

Do those slogans represent extreme views?  Let’s see what a few people have to say about them.

(more…)

If something stays the same, has it been cut?  The answer is a resounding YES in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Demo-nomics.  Of course, I am speaking of the Democrats’ claims that Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage when the issue really is whether certain tax rates will remain the same or go up.  Such folly is, to be generous, not the only upside down element of Demo-nomics under which we vassals must toil.  Here is your guide to some of the more prevalent illusions . . .

1. Extending the current rates = a Tax Cut.   It is not so much a subtle tactic by the Democrats to frame the discussion by claiming that the Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage.  Remember that he who frames the argument often wins the argument.   The literal and basic premise of this Demo-nomics subtlety is that the rates, by all rights, should be higher.  By pedaling their line of argument, however, the status quo becomes change - and it is they who are heroes for cutting them again from where they think ”should” be.

In truth, who is to say tax rates should be this high?  After all, when the income tax was ushered in by Democrat Woodrow Wilson the top rate was only 7%.  Shouldn’t the question be:  Why are we keeping rates so very high?  Obviously not in the world of Demo-nomics.

2.  Tax Cuts Are A “Windfall” for the Rich.   This too is a brilliant job by the Democrats of framing the issue.  According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, “windfall” is defined as “an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage.” Incredibly, so pervasive is this canard that one of the examples Websters uses for the word windfall is: “They received a windfall because of the tax cuts.”  Of course, in 99%.9 of the cases, a tax is a government taking of money you have earned and probably not so suddenly but after a year of hard work.  A tax rate cut, therefore, does not result in a gain – what it really represents a smaller loss for you – just not in the world of Demo-nomics.

(more…)

The New York Times’ headline said it all: “Democrats plan political triage to retain House – Fear Republican Wave.”  Indeed, there will be a wave of losses for the Democrats stretching from coast-to coast this Fall.   No clearer indication of that is the declared Democrat strategy for the Fall election:  “We are going to have to win these races one by one.”  That same strategy was declared by the Republicans in the 2006 election – an election that cost Republicans the House.  Amidst even stronger resentment today, the Democrats won’t win 435 different elections either and will lose the House.

The truth about Congressional elections is that a not insignificant percentage of the population barely knows the name of their Congressman or Congresswoman.  Far less know the details of the actual policy views of their representative.   By the time they get to the ballot box, however, most voters know how they feel about the direction of the country, the economy and have a general opinion about the job the President and Congress are doing.  That’s why so many prognosticators pay attention to the Generic Congressional ballot, consumer confidence, the Presidential approval rating and Party identification.

Further, while it is true that incumbents have a significant edge in ordinary years, when it comes to Congressional elections in this mass-media era, large swings in one direction or another are based on the pervasive feeling about the Partys in general, i.e. the Party brand  - not the individual candidates.  Put another way, we no longer live in an age where all politics are just local.

So in 1994, the Republican’s took over Congress not so much because Republicans had so many better candidates – although they likely did on the margin – but that the Contract with America presented an attractive brand for the Republican Party as whole and the direction it wanted to take the Country. The Democrats, on the other hand, were branded as tax-raisers.   In 2006, the view the country had of free-spending Republicans as a whole was not so flattering and the Republicans wound up losing the House.

At a large meeting of Republicans insiders in early 2006, I specifically asked a Congressional election strategist whether the Washington Republicans intended to run 435 different elections that Fall or run one national election.  The answer to my question was exactly what I did not want to hear.

(more…)

What a difference a year makes in the character of Democrats.  In 2009, the Democrats in Congress were believing press accounts about the demise of the Republicans Party and the conservative movement.  Amidst those false tailwinds, the Congressional Democrats took on America and its institutions.  As the 2010 midterms approach, however, many of those same Democrats have turned tail and are running away from Pelosi, Reid and Obama amidst headlines like:  “Democrats seek separation from Nancy Pelosi.”  Unfortunately for them, it is too late to run away.

Former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts famously said that “Character is doing what’s right when nobody’s looking.”  Watts, of course, was assuming that when the whole world was looking even politicians would do what was right.  In 2009, the whole world was looking at the Democrats.  Would they build a new level of consensus by charting a middle course?  Or would they follow Reagan’s paradigm that Democrats campaign in the middle and govern on the Left?

Sure enough, Reagan proved right and the Democrats proved arrogant.  According to Eric Cantor, a leading Republican in the House, Obama told him “elections have consequences…and Eric, I won” when discussing tax policy. Cantor also says Obama once told Republican leaders to “stop listening to Rush Limbaugh…and do what’s right for the people.”

Turns out Democrats stopped listening to voters and hardly did what was right for America.  On issue after issue, they ignored public sentiment in favor of their ideological agenda.  The stimulus bill passed on partisan terms.  Cap and Trade was pursued with partisan ideology.  The Health Care Bill was passed despite widespread opposition by Americans – including voters in the Kennedy seat and civilian terrors didn’t make legal common sense to most Americans any more then suing Arizona for a law that mirrored existing federal law.

Now that polling shows an unprecedented Republican advantage going into the Fall elections, many Democrats are not willing to stand by the leaders they supported earlier this year.

(more…)

Recently, I wrote an article stating that our national political discussion has moved beyond philosophy.  Many voters think that government has lost any semblance of common sense when it comes to spending.  Economically, the discussion lacks common sense as well and there is no place where that is more evident than California.  So much so that, in my view, the election of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer – along with Barack Obama – will lead to unemployment north of 16%.

Now, the prediction business is, of course, fraught with danger – but not looking ahead is a worse crime in my view.  Two years ago, I said that the economy would be bad for 6 years if Obama was elected.  I said that because the markets understood then and know now that a big government agenda was not the cure that was needed.  They intimately understood what Ayn Rand said years ago that “the cure that is always offered . . . is more of the same poisons that caused the disasters.”  Sure enough, the same poisons have been tried for the last two years and the consensus among the fair minded is that the US economy will be bad for years to come.

One overlooked reason for the national trouble ahead is what government has done to the California economy. The California economy has been crippled because its #1 industry, agriculture, has been crippled by environmental policies that have placed the fate of an imported bait fish over the needs of farmers, employees and families.  By shutting off the water supply to farmers, government is strangling Central Valley farming which is why locals state that “Water = Jobs.”   But the effect hardly stops there.  California is over 16% of the national economy.  So the real equation is “Water = Farming = Jobs = the California Economy ≈ National Economy.”  Put another way, you cannot cripple the California economy and expect the National economy to recover.  All combined, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, the Democrat controlled Congress and Barack Obama will only makes things worse.

(more…)

Pollsters and pundits alike most often concentrate on the marquee political races.  The Florida Senate race garners national attention because of its intrigue and its national implications.  In California, there is a battle for Governor that will decide the direction of the Golden State.  Just below that surface, however, is a key race that could prove every bit as momentous and which may be key to the future of regaining our limited government heritage – the race for California State Controller.

At first blush, it is a race between a big government, union-supporting incumbent – Democrat John Chiang – and a conservative, limited government reformer, State Senator Tony Strickland.  While there are many races that may fit that description, the Controller’s office is not just another political office.

Keep in mind that despite intervals between Republican and Democrat Presidents, Republican and Democrat Governors, Republican and Democrat Legislatures and Congresses, the size of the federal and state governments has exploded since the 1960’s.  The quaint, 1960s, pre-Great Society, federal budgets of $130 billion have given way to a $4 trillion dollar monolith.  Many state budgets, including California’s have seen similar growth.

That explosive growth, under the watchful eyes of both parties, occurs because more often than not, political discourse is a simple matter of what can government do and how can we fund it.  Far less often do meaningful discussions occur about making government accountable for the money it already has.  If limited government is to make a comeback, the latter must take precedence over the former and (1) today’s environment is the time to do it and (2) the California Controller’s race is the election on which to make that stand.

(more…)