American political history includes periods so distinctive that they came to be known as Eras.  They include The Jacksonian Era (1820s), The Gilded Age (1830s to 1890s) and The Progressive Era (1890s-1920s). There was also the Era of Good Feelings between 1816 and 1822.  It was dubbed that because partisan strife was said to be minimal.  How minimal?  In 1820, James Monroe was reelected without opposition.  Today is far removed from such a time and place.  Partisanship has been on the rise since the mid 1990s and has reached such heights, you could make the argument that we are living in The Divided Era of American Politics.

Long removed from the electoral landslides of Republican Ronald Reagan, his Reagan Democrats and his 3^rd term under Bush 41, we have had a succession of Presidents that have been besieged by partisan wrangling.  Democrat Bill Clinton never received the majority vote and lost the Congress in 1994.  Republican George W. Bush 43 lost the popular vote, went on to increase his party’s presence in Congress in 3 straight elections, but then lost the Congress and left with an approval rating below 40%.  Democrat Barack Obama’s approval ratings dropped at record pace during his first year and one half in office and the US Congress endures record low approval ratings in the low teens.

The nation’s big state Governors have also endured tough times.  California’s current Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is suffering from sub 40 approval ratings while his Democrat predecessor Gray Davis was recalled.  In New York, the incumbent Democrat Governor David Patterson’s ratings were so low he was chased from his reelection bid.  In neighboring New Jersey, the last election cycle saw an affluent incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine lose amidst low ratings.

Even our electoral map is divided.  So, if we consider that nearly 20 year bipartisan history, along with the scope of partisanship today and the prospects for division over the next two years, is it fair to say we entered The Divided Era of American Politics?  If so, what caused it?  Was it the fault of our leaders Presidential and Congressional?  Was it simply a matter of bad policies?  Does an electorate hooked on ever-increasing government programs now have expectations that simply cannot be met by a lumbering bureaucratic welfare state?  Or has the 24/7 Media Era made it impossible for Presidents and Congresses to succeed because of too much scrutiny?  After all, the media shielded FDR by not showing pictures of him in his wheelchair and today the list of candidates brought down for private matters grows with every cycle.

(more…)

California is facing nearly The Toughest of Times.  We face historically high unemployment, perennial budget crises and more.  Don’t think it could get any worse?  Think again.  If Jerry Brown is elected, in one short stroke, he could deal a potentially crippling blow to the California economy before it gets a chance to get back on its feet.

Even for a committed political observer, volunteer and commentator such as myself, it seems implausible – but true – that the stakes for elections grow with each successive election.  For California, the 2010 gubernatorial election unquestionably could be the most important election ever – and not necessarily for a good reason.  If Jerry Brown is elected, he and his fellow Democrats could deliver a devastating blow to California.

We well know that California’s unemployment rate is above 12%.  We also know that well over 100,000 people are leaving California on a yearly basis.  Beyond that, California faces an exodus of businesses – large and small alike.  So it can be no surprise that state revenues have declined nearly $40 billion over the last three years as a result of the declining taxpayer base.

We also well know why California is having a tougher time than many other states.  In recent years, California is consistently ranked near the bottom of states in which to do business.  According to Joseph Vranich, president of JV Executive Consulting Inc. in Irvine:  “It’s no mystery what causes companies to leave California: High taxes, undue regulation, workers’ comp costs, a legal environment stacked against businesses and lengthy and costly construction permitting requirements.”  Indeed, California finished tied for last in the Country in Forbes’ Overall Tax Burden survey measuring tax burdens and structure.

(more…)

*Recently Jonah Goldberg as the question:  When Did the Rules Change? Today, I offer this explanation . . .

American politics today is said to be rather partisan.  Perhaps we do live in what could be called The Divided Era of American politics.  Although, it should be noted that we have lived in far more partisan eras such as the time Federalists and Anti-Federalists engaged in a far more fearsome battle than today with noble results.  But even if we do live in The Divided Era, perhaps the most important dynamic driving American politics today is not a philosophical divide between Republicans and Democrats, or between Conservatives and Liberals.  The dynamic driving politics today is the simple belief that government is so far out of control as to completely defy common sense.

Recently, I spoke to someone who told me he was a Democrat years ago when he lived in Pennsylvania.  Until recently, he thought of himself as a moderate Republican.  Now, however, he has been having thoughts that he is a “right winger.”  I asked him what in particular was making him think that way.  The answer was simple: government spending beyond rationality.

Note the issue driving him was not a fight over spending priorities as we used to know.  It was not a question of guns or butter nor a tension between education funding and law and order.  His concern was that government spending was so far past what common sense could justify.   Countless Americans think just like that former Democrat turned potential right winger because of examples like this:

• Obama says that he inherited a trillion dollar deficit (not true) – yet he forged ahead with a trillion dollar “stimulus” spending bill which featured far more spending than stimulus.
• One day Obama says we must get spending under control yet the month before he pushed a new trillion spending program – the Health Care Bill.
• Nancy Pelosi claiming that unemployment checks create jobs.
• Nancy Pelosi claiming that millions of dollars for condoms should have been in the stimulus bill because that spending would have a stimulus effect.
• Nancy Pelosi demanded the passing of the Health Care Bill so we could “see what was in it,”
• Obama saying “my policies that got us out of this mess,” and, of course
• Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see adding to a national debt already 5 or 6 times larger than yearly federal revenue.

On a more local note of irrationality, there is city manager of a town of 36,000 people near LA making $800,000 per year while the police chief of that same town makes nearly 50% more than the police Chief of Los Angeles – a city more than 100 times larger!  When asked about it, the City Manager “was unapologetic, saying he could earn just as much in private business.”

(more…)

The focus of American politics is often on the East Coast.  The interplay between Washington DC and the major media outlets on the East Coast often results in West Coast politics being as much as an afterthought as  college sports are to eastern writers.  This year, however, is different because the West features some of the highest profile races in the Country – races that can be won by Republicans.

The races that are grabbing that attention – which attention is likely to grow – are: (1) the Nevada race for Senate pitting the Democrat Leader Harry Reid against newcomer and the Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle, (2) the Washington State Senate Race between the Democrat incumbent Patty Murray and a yet to be determined Republican , and in California (3) newcomer Republican Meg Whitman v. Jerry Brown for Governor, and (4) newcomer Republican Carly Fiorina v.  Democrat incumbent Barbara Boxer for US Senate.

In each of those races, the Republican has more than just a chance to win.  In California, the latest polling shows the Republican Whitman statistically tied with the Democrat Jerry Brown,(B) 44 – (W) 43.  Whitman is proving to be an incredibly determined candidate and is more than matching the spending on the Left in support of Brown.  How worried are the Democrats about that race?  The Democrats Governor’s Association, in a very rare move, spent money to attack Whitman during the Republican primary.  Perhaps more telling, the LA Times recently ran an article chronicling Brown’s troubles entitled:  “Brown’s frugal campaign may be too little, too late.”

In the race for Senate, Boxer’s slim lead over Fiorina is within the margin of error 44-41 – but within that Field poll is even more trouble for Boxer.  Her unfavorable rating jumped from 39% to 52% over the last year.  Combined with Boxer’s high name identification, that poll indicates that Boxer will have a hard time convincing the voters who already know her – and don’t like her – to vote for her in this anti-Washington, non-incumbent year.   Fiorina, on the other hand, has a big upside potential and is a dynamic candidate who will be better funded then any of Boxer’s prior opponents in a state favorable to women candidates.

(more…)

Recent polling has made it clear that the top concerns of the voters are the two sides of the same coin: out of control government spending and deficits.  For decades on end, the wise have warned that a reckoning day would have to come to deal with decades of fiscal mismanagement.  In California, that day is here.  We need a leader strong enough to tackle the problem head on – Jerry Brown has made it very clear, he is not that person.

Keep in mind that leadership is not a function of getting elected.  Indeed, the vast majority of those elected are not real leaders – even among Presidents.  Think about it.  How many great Presidents have we had over the last 100 years?  You should be counting four or less – and if you do, you realize that real leadership is rare.

Among the many qualities required of leadership, vision ranks at the top – along with a plan on how to achieve that vision.  It turns out that if you want people to follow you, it is a good idea to tell them where you want to go.  If you are elected, a credible means to achieve your plan – and then resolve to see it through- are beyond necessary if you want to achieve your goals and maintain the support of the electorate.  In these days of an ever demanding electorate, the support a newly elected official receives is more easily kept than recovered and the only way to keep is to execute on that credible plan from day one and consistently.

Sadly, Running Man Jerry Brown simply does not have leadership qualities.  He loves to run for office – but once in office, he lacks the necessary leadership skills to succeed.  In the face of the exhaustive and  detailed plan of Meg Whitman, outlining a series of reforms to put California back to work and correct the fiscal problems of this state – Jerry Brown lacks the most elemental prerequisites of a leader:  a vision and a plan.

(more…)

As the saying goes, this would be funny, if it was not so serious.  As each day of the Obama Administration wears on, the disconnect between reality and the Administration, between America and Washington, just keeps growing.  Consider these examples among many:

The Bank Bill:  Does it bother anyone that the same Congress that is giving us $1.5 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see is writing a 2000 page bill telling banks how to balance their books?  Unfortunately, by almost all accounts but Congress’ – this bill will make lending more difficult, and therefore prolong our recession, at the same time it exposes America to more bailouts for lack of leverage reform.

Russia Spies:  According to a Justice Department official the charges are “’the tip of the iceberg’ of a Russian intelligence conspiracy against the United States.”  Obama knew about the charges prior to a meeting with the Russian President but there is no word on whether he brought it up let alone scolded the Russians.  To the contrary, according to the State Department: “the arrests merely show that the two countries have not yet reached the level of “trust and cooperation” where they can be completely open with one another” and Obama “had no “personal reaction” to the case and that the arrests should not hurt the administration’s attempts to mend fences with Moscow. “I do not believe that this will affect the reset of our relationship with Russia,” according to White House Spokesman Gibbs.  I am certain Putin (and Iran, the Taliban, and anyone else fighting the US) are so very relieved.

The Oil Spill.  Government regulations push oil drilling farther and farther offshore thereby making it a riskier undertaking.  BP takes even more risks and together we get an enormous spill.  Obama says he is in charge of the clean-up – literally – yet day after day after day (70 to be exact) Obama stopped skilled, foreign parties from helping and allowed the damage to increase well and way beyond what should have been the case.  Obama wants BP’s shareholders (they own BP and they are the people paying the price) to pay for it all but shouldn’t BP’s shareholders wonder why the US government made the problem worse and, therefore, demand what lawyers call a finding of comparative fault? – thereby making the US government (you and me) pay for some of the damage?

(more…)

The longest days of summer are proving to be even longer days for Obama.  His approval ratings are mired in the mid 40s, primaries herald losses for Democrats and the Gulf Oil spill is turning out to be more slippery for Obama than BP.  All in all, Obama is failing both Alinsky and Michael Dukakis and the Democrats are headed toward losing the House.

In 2009, Obama chose confrontational politics.  He appointed Rahm Emanuel, known more for his hard ball tactics than his diplomacy, for his Chief of Staff.  Out of the gate, he pushed through a “stimulus” bill along partisan lines instead of seeking a bi-partisan solution, i.e. a mixture of tax cuts, regulatory relief and federal spending in lieu of pure deficit spending.  Obama then proceeded to push Cap and Trade and Health Care – again along strictly partisan lines.  In doing so, his administration spoke more than disparagingly of those opposing his policies.  To many, Obama was outright demonizing his opponents much like Saul Alinksy would advocate.

As the calendar turned onward, and the economy predictably failed to turn upward, the Democrats and the Obama Administration received the shock of a Kennedy lifetime when the otherwise barely known Scott Brown pulled off a stunning victory by taking the “Kennedy seat” away from the Democrats and giving it back to the people.  Unbowed by such political tea leaves, and warnings from prognosticators, Obama pushed the Health Care Bill through along partisan lines and with the promise that people will be able to keep their existing health care.  Now nearly 60% of Americans want that bill repealed and that is before the emerging stories about not being able to keep their existing health care, based on the regulations being written, have begun to take hold.

Then came the Gulf Oil spill.  At first, Obama nearly ignored the emerging problem.  Since then, he “sued” BP and alternatively claimed he was in control but that there was nothing he could really do.  It is rather known, at this point however, that he could have easily waived the Jones Act to allow non-union remediation efforts and he could have accepted foreign help that would have reduced to scope of the spill.  So bad is his performance that even his most staunch supporters on the far Left have questioned his ability to command.

All of which bring us back to Alinksy and Dukakis.

(more…)

Nearly every election year, a series of analysts and candidates suggest to American voters that the election that year may be the most important of its age.  In retrospect, few can argue that the election of Obama has not been momentous.  The midterm election of 2010 may be a turning point as well – especially for American business.

For decades, American business has wined, dined and lobbied the American politicians. Some have sought preferential tax benefits for themselves or their industries.  Others have sought preferential regulations or corporate welfare for the same reasons.  Still others feed the alligator that is government in hopes that it will be kind to them in the future while it consumes others today.

Perhaps no greater example of the latter mentality exists in California.   Year after year, business interests donate millions of dollars to Democrats in the hope that they will act reasonably.  The coup de grace of which was the 2002 election for Governor between then Governor Gray Davis and challenger, and business man, Bill Simon.  Under no uncertain terms, Simon campaigned on lower taxes and regulations.  Davis offered record deficits and coming tax increases – not to mention an ever increasing regulatory burden.  Incredibly, Big Business gave to Davis three to one over Simon.  They did so because they did not give Simon much of a chance and they wanted to curry favor with Davis – hoping he would be kind to them when he won.

Without a doubt there were two losers in that election.  Simon lost by less than 5 points (far closer than business imagined) and California businesses now face the highest combined tax and regulatory burdens in American history.  In other words, California businesses have received a very poor return on their investments into California Democrat politicians – so much so that California’s desert neighbor, Nevada, leads the nation in new business development.

(more…)

The days of pausing between primary and general elections are over.  The stakes for election these days are simply too high.  Our problems are great and we need leaders up to the task.  Jerry Brown, in but two days, proved to everyone that he is not up to the task.

Going Negative Because Brown Has No Plan.

Ultimately, voters prefer to vote for something over voting against something.  The greatest of our leaders seek not just to get elected – but to get elected with a mandate for action.  In order to achieve that mandate, a leader must provide a clear road map of where he or she wants to take the state or the country.  To be sure, campaigns – especially between candidates of the same party – feature negative ads – especially down the wire.  But if we learned anything from the Whitman/Poizner race, it is something we already knew: if the voters perceive your first action is to go negative – then you will drive up your own negatives as well – and they may never know what positive you have to offer.

Before we get to Jerry Brown, it is important to note that there can be little doubt that Meg Whitman has a plan.  Months ago she published a stunning 48 page brochure on that plan.  It is stunning because most politicians don’t want to go on record with such exactitude lest they open themselves up to criticism.  Leadership, however, doesn’t pause for fear.

In that 48 pages, you can find Meg’s 3 point plan (1) to create jobs, (2) cut spending, (3) and fix education.  Those are incredibly pressing problems and her focused plans tell me that she already knows the first lesson of a new government executive:  don’t chase too many rabbits at once – lest you catch none of them – and so she plans to veto the hundreds and hundreds of yearly bills outside those 3 priorities.

(more…)

Plain and simple: Meg Whitman will be the next Governor of California.   After a long primary season, the general election matchup is set.  Brown v. Whitman.  Yesterday v. Tomorrow.

Here are your 7 reasons why Meg Whitman will be the next governor of California.

7.  Meg is News.   The news media follows, well, news.  New candidates, especially dynamic candidates, are written about and get on the news more than candidates that have been around awhile.  Jerry Brown is the anything but new – and hardly news.

6. Meg is Tireless.  Meg will be everywhere throughout this entire cycle.  Brown, by contrast, hasn’t been in a heavily contested statewide race in decades.  Many question whether he has another such race in him.  Brown simply will not be able to keep up with Whitman.

5.  Meg is Extraordinarily Determined.  Anyone that has spent any amount of time with Meg Whitman knows she is an extraordinarily focused person.  eBay wasn’t built in a day and it wasn’t built on hope.  Whitman proved in her primary campaign that she is goal oriented and categorically determined to meet those goals.  Losing is not in her vocabulary.

(more…)

The United States’ economic troubles are mounting and already prodigious.  While it’s true that Obama inherited a mess – created by government – he has made our economic problems progressively (pun intended) worse.  Amidst that failure, however, Obama has accomplished something that is simply hard to believe.

Before I get to that stunning achievement, it worthy to consider just how bad the employment picture really is.  Since the Great Depression, unemployment has reached this neighborhood of 10%, i.e. nearly double the historic average, only one other time.  That was during the early 1980’s.  That unemployment was brought on by the combined bad economic (read: “political”) decisions of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.  All combined, they produced high unemployment and high inflation in addition to new terminology – stagflation.  In order to wring inflation out of the system, President Reagan’s economic remedy eventually produced a record 92 months of growth but started with unemployment above 10%.  In fact, unemployment was above 9% for 18 months before steadily dropping to 5.3% at the end of Reagan’s two terms.

When Obama got his so-called stimulus package (read: record pork-barrel bill) passed, he promised that unemployment would not rise above 8%.  It has now been above 8% for 15 months – it has been above 9% for 12 months.  Obama openly admits that unemployment will be a problem for a long time to come.  He could not be more right considering that he is proposing a series of huge tax hikes, i.e. the expiration of the Bush tax cuts along with his cap and trade energy plan which is more rightly named “cap and tax.” Beyond that, Obama’s health care legislation has imposed huge regulatory costs on American business – costs which come at the expense of American jobs.  Those are some of the reasons there is so much talk of the possibility of a double-dip recession. Quite frankly, an unemployment rate above 8%, if not 9%, for another 24 months is a real possibility.

Unemployment that is nearly double the national average, and at a 30 year high with no end in sight, is incredibly bad and of deep concern to many Americans.

(more…)

“Leadership is practiced not so much in words as in attitude and in actions.”

True leadership is a rare attribute.  While many people have exhibited an ability to get elected, even to the presidency, that doesn’t make them a great leader.  To demonstrate the point, ask yourself how many great presidents we have had over the last 100 years.  If you count four or less, and you should, then you understand the point.  Based on nearly a year and a half of the Obama Presidency, it is likely he will be closer to the bottom four, instead of the top four, as he demonstrates his leadership by litigation mentality.

Leadership by litigation is reference to his penchant to litigate, not solve problems – to attenuate them, not end them.  Consider that Obama, the attorney, is facing a growing number of crises:  (1) a failing economy, (2) a growing number of terrorist attacks, and (3) the gulf oil crisis.  Each of those crises is getting worse, not better, and it is Obama’s lack of leadership skills that are to blame.

Working backwards, rather than demonstrate action on the gulf oil spill, i.e. approving Bobby Jindal’s request to form barrier islands or to approve the Saudi mid-ocean cleanup method, Obama is stalling on those suggestions and many more – but he is willing to file a lawsuit against BP.

With regard to terrorist attacks, the facts demonstrate that, despite Obama’s talking to the World, the number of domestic attacks rose dramatically.  Obama’s response? – have attorneys prosecute them.  And on the economy, Obama has done nothing more than talk and pander – mostly blaming Business and Bush for the problem but not acting in rational manner – unless you are one of the few people in the world who think that mimicking Greece represents economics.

At the outset of this editorial, I quoted the legendary CEO of International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) Harold S. Geneen.  He said that “Leadership is practiced not so much in words as in attitude and in actions.”  That could be a diplomatic way of saying you cannot talk your way out of a challenge – at least not for long – you must act.

(more…)

Hillary Clinton touched off an age old discussion this week about whether the rich are paying their “fair share.”  It is, of course, one the Left’s most used demagogic cries and one of its biggest proponents is former Labor Secretary now University Professor Robert Reich.  He was on Larry Kudlow’s show recently demonstrating, in glaring fashion, the Left’s the case for big government and higher tax rates.  It was a case study on why the American economy is slumping today.

What is Fair?

Hillary, Nancy, Harry, Obama and many others on the Left use the fair share argument, which is nothing more than a class-warfare tactic, as a prelude to raising tax rates to pay for social welfare programs. Stephen Moore, who was also the show and has been fighting this fight for years, and ably so, pointed out that the top 2 ½% of income tax payers pay the same amount in income taxes as the bottom 97 ½%.  It is also fact that the bottom 50% of income earners pay almost no income tax at all. If that is unfair in the minds of the Left, then clearly they want a chosen few to pay for everything and believe FDR when he said: “increasing the tax paid by individuals in the higher brackets . . . was the American thing to do and increasing still further the taxes paid by individuals in the highest brackets was even more the American thing to do.”

Of course, the problem with such policies is that wealth moves in the form of businesses and their owners moving away, along with sensible people realizing that it is not worth their time to risk everything only to have the state confiscate their rewards, and for still others to simply engage in tax evasion such as under reporting income and bartering.

(more…)

Recent financial headlines provide a remarkable glimpse into America’s future if we stay on the same track we are now.  From Bloomberg news we learned:  “US Stocks fluctuate amid concerns European debt crisis hasn’t run course.”  Meanwhile, the IMF predicted that the “US national debt will soon reach 100% of GDP.”  Sadly, the World’s, the United States’ and California’s (16% of the US Economy and the 9th largest economy in the world) financial prospects are far worse than those headlines recognize.

The US economy is nearing $15 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP) per year.   The national debt it carries on the books is nearly that high and will certainly reach it, and far surpass it, within 2 years given the trillion dollar deficits that are predicted as far as the eye can see.  Of course, off the books, in accounting that would make Enron blush, the US government has $75 trillion or more in long term unfunded liabilities.  On a more short term basis consider this: the US Government revenues are running below $3 trillion dollars per year – yet its debt is over $13 trillion and growing.  In other words, the existing US debt is 4 to 5 times its current revenue.

Imagine if you will, if your credit card debt was 4 times your current income and the income you are likely to earn in each of the next 4 years.  There is not a bankruptcy attorney in the country that would not tell you that it is time to declare bankruptcy.  For its part, California is projected to have unfunded liabilities as high as $600 billion or 6 ½ times it current revenues.   Sadly for the US and California taxpayers, bankruptcy is simply not an option.

All of which brings us to the European debt crisis – which has anything but run its course.  Indeed, German Chancellor Merkel said this about the recent bailout of Greece: “We didn’t do more than buy time . . .” to get their collective government houses in order.  Meanwhile, USA Today, whose financial reporting is rather blunt at times, featured this headline: US “Investor fears ignite sell-off.”

(more…)

Just four months apart, there were very different results in the special elections for the “Kennedy Seat” and the “Murtha Seat.”   Each race was to replace a long-standing Democrat icon.  Each race held out high hopes for Republicans in an anti-incumbent environment.  Yet the results were not the same.  While no two races are exactly alike, the different results, in similar races, provides an important warning for Republicans.

The Similarities.  The race to replace Kennedy and Murtha included many similarities.  There is no question that there is an anti-Washington and therefore an anti-incumbent wave crossing America.  High unemployment and even higher deficits, combined with a sense that government is no longer by the people is worrying many an incumbent.  The manner in which Health Care was passed and the very nature of that government take-over continue to weigh on the minds of voters.

An incredible 56% of voters, on the day of the Murtha replacement election, still want the health care bill repealed.  No greater examples of the intensity of the anti-Washington fervor can be found in the fall of Senator Bennett in Utah (a long time conservative) and  in the fall of Charlie Crist (backed by the Republican establishment).

Beyond that, the Kennedy/Murtha races did not feature huge personalities stepping up to take the seats.  Instead, more local/regional candidates ran.   Despite those similarities, however, there was a different outcome.  The Republicans picked up the Kennedy seat – despite longer registration odds – and lost the Murtha seat.  The reasons why are telling.

(more…)

Three times in the television era, voter anger has led to midterm losses approaching or exceeding 50 seats for the President’s Party. In 1966, 47 seats were lost, 48 seats were lost in 1974 and 52 seats were lost in 1994. In only one of those cases, however, did the Party that gained seats turn that voter anger into a long term mandate: 1994. The question this year is whether Republicans will follow the successful model of 1994 or make the same mistakes the Republicans made in 1966 and the Democrats made in 1974.

Voter Anger Equals Election Losses. In 1966, despite an economy growing at over 6% per year, Democrats and Lyndon Johnson lost 47 House seats. They managed that feat, in defiance of the “It’s the economy stupid” theory, by angering a significant portion of the voting populace with noneconomic policies on the Vietnam War, Civil Rights and the Great Society. That dynamic deflated Johnson’s approval rating to just 49%. In 1974, voter anger arose over an ethics backlash against the Republicans, i.e. Watergate, and a bad economy. Combined with Ford’s post pardon approval rating of 47%, the Republicans lost 48 seats. In 1994, despite a growing economy and 5 million new jobs dating back into the final year of the Bush Administration, Clinton’s approval rating was 46% and the Democrats lost 52 seats. Clinton gaffes and his decision to push through the largest tax increase in history – despite his promise to enact a middle class tax cut – fueled voter anger that year.

Anger Does Not Equal A Mandate. Obviously, voter anger, even with a good economy, can lead to poor Presidential approval ratings. Those Presidential approval ratings below 50% resulted in an average midterm loss of a staggering 49 seats. Even so, the combined elections of 1966, 1968, 1970 and 1972 did not bring a Republican majority in Congress. Despite big gains in 1974, the Democrats barely won the Presidency in 1976, lost seats in 1978, and lost the Presidency by a wide margin in 1980. In other words, those big election gains were not transformed into enduring mandates.

There is an obvious reason why.

(more…)

If you will, imagine Slobodan Milosevic, during the early part of his reign, threatening to wipe Great Britain off the map. Imagine further, that after he made that statement, he announced that he was in the process of obtaining nuclear missiles.  Undeterred by such comments, the UN, appoints Milosevic’s country to its Commission on Human Rights.  Great Britain, understandably angered by such comments and a lack of World action, calls for renewed diplomatic action and increased sanctions.  Shortly thereafter, The Prime Minister of Great Britain visits the United States.

The President of the United States, however, agrees to only meet in private and refuses to take a picture with the Prime Minister.  Thereafter, the President calls for a loosening of the sanctions against Milosevic and says not a word about the appointment to the Commission on Human Rights.

I suggest to you that if that had come to pass, not only would Great Britain be beyond outraged, but US allies around the globe would sink back in their chairs and wonder if the US could be trusted as an ally at all.

As difficult as that scenario was to imagine is not near as difficult as it is for Israel today.

(more…)

The passage of the Arizona border illegal immigration law is causing virtually unprecedented reactions around the Country.  The top California Senate Democrat (he of the state with huge deficits and serious unemployment) wants to ignite a trade war with Arizona.  San Francisco’s Mayor has cut “official” travel to Arizona.  Staged protests on the Left have turned violent (in contrast to the peaceful tea parties) and the White House is considering court actions in lieu of an immigration bill, i.e. they would rather sue than legislate.

Much Ado? It is worthy to note that the law passed by Arizona “merely echoes federal immigration statutes” – at least according George Will and PoliticalFact.com.  Existing federal law requires:

“Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

According to Arizona’s Governor : “”Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal statute.”

So why are some on the Left going so far overboard?  It may well be it is because they have no issues to run on this Fall.

(more…)

On April 15th, it is always a worthy enterprise to reflect on one of the major motivations of the American Patriots that caused them to break away from England. Of course, I am referring to “Taxation Without Representation.” Today, we know from the Tea Parties multiplying around the Country that Gerald Berzan is quite to say right that “Taxation with representation ain’t so hot either.” Perhaps that is why Douglas Adams declared that he was “spending a year dead for tax reasons.”

In that lively spirit, I give you my Top 10 Anti-Taxation Quotes with my annotations:

No. 10.

“In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” Benjamin Franklin. It is hard to start anywhere else. The little known full quote is “Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” The Founders, who framed a Constitution to protect us from government, did not dare consider an income tax. Franklin obviously did not trust future politicians.

No. 9.

“I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.” Milton Friedman. The 1st of two Friedman quotes in this countdown brings up the question: Why the Republican Party is (or should be) so anti-tax? Franklin obviously warned us. Friedman accepted his warning and knew that unless we fought them at every turn, taxes would be more than inevitable.

No. 8.

“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” Legendary Judge Learned Hand. I guess it turns out Joe Biden was wrong?

No. 7.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” The first of John Marshall’s 2 quotes in the countdown: Simply stated, but sadly not well understood: that maxim also applies to income as well – which is why higher rates result in less tax revenue. Later Alan Greenspan would say that “Whatever you tax, you get less of.” It REALLY is that simple – if only our politicans would learn that lesson.

(more…)

President Obama, in words and in deeds, is once again pushing forward with his agenda to rid the World of Nuclear weapons. Obama believes (1) that the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to lead because we are the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon and (2) that if we do so, our example will make the world a safer place. The question is whether Obama is simply that naïve or is he just posturing?

A broad view of Obama’s policies should well leave many, including terrorists and provocative nations, to consider whether Obama is simply weak on defense.  Indeed, Obama’s latest comments on nuclear weapons came just hours after the US Pakistani embassy, i.e. US territory, came under attack – not to mention the Christmas day bomber, the Ft. Hood Shooter, Iran’s continuing snubs, North Korean missile launches and more.  As I wrote earlier this year, in my article, Obama’s World Peace Offensive Yields Few Peace Dividends, one has to question what tangible benefits Obama’s policies have provided to the cause of peace let alone our security.

This latest Obama peace offensive, the reduction in the amount and the use of nuclear weapons, quite possibly could be his ultimate demonstration of being weak on defense.  That is so because the record demonstrates that nuclear weapons have been the ultimate guarantor of peace.

(more…)