Mitt Romney’s weekend interview in the Wall Street Journal seems to add weight to conservative doubts about his candidacy.

Romney doesn’t seem to get it: the 2012 election is about the size and cost of government.

We already have a “smart” president with ambitious plans who thinks he knows better. That hasn’t worked for our economy, and has damaged trust in our democracy.

Romney says “America doesn’t need a manager,” but his plans reflect what the Journal euphemistically calls “positive technocratic thinking.”

Though Romney may be more “sober” than his rival Newt Gingrich (or, less charitably, more timid than the former Speaker), he evidently shares with Gingrich an enthusiasm for what the federal government could do, if only he were put in control.

Given that Ron Paul’s radical foreign policy is a non-starter, and that several other candidates–however well-meaning–could not manage the mundane task of qualifying for the Virginia ballot, or withstand the media scrutiny of a long campaign, Republicans are feeling new doubts about the current field.

They are all better than Obama; the question is–are they the best Republicans can offer?

As Republicans have wrestled with that question, a few have floated the idea of a “brokered convention,” at which the party’s nominee would be chosen through back-room negotiations and contested ballots instead of the pro forma roll calls of recent decades.

Given Romney’s struggle to provide the clear alternative to Obama that Americans so desperately need, the party should consider whether a brokered convention is feasible as a fallback option.

Here, then, are the top ten Republicans who could be nominated at a brokered convention. Some declined to run earlier, and should reconsider; all would provide a stronger contrast to President Obama than Romney or Gingrich is providing at the moment.

***

10. Rep. Eric Cantor

The Whip united the caucus against the disastrous stimulus in 2009. In the debt ceiling debate, he reportedly held out against new taxes in any final agreement. Moreover, he has made clear that his vision for the country’s future is plainly different from Obama’s.

***

9. Sen. Jim DeMint

The conservative stalwart has provided key support to Tea Party candidates, and has challenged the compromise politics of the Republican establishment.

***

8. Gov. Bobby Jindal

Recently elected in a landslide to a second term, he has fought political corruption and brought competence and leadership to a state long lacking both. Despite a rocky national TV debut in 2009, Jindal is a ruthless and effective campaigner.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Ted Cruz to discuss his race for the US Senate, his ideas for entitlement reform, and how he would fix the economy.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

A Test for the Tea Party in Texas Senate Race
Ted Cruz: on a mission to save the country
Coffee and Markets Archive: Ted Cruz on His Race for the Senate in Texas
TedCruz.org

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Ted on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the latest consumer spending numbers, China’s push to corner the market on rare earth minerals, and Solyndra as the perfect example of Obamanomics.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Prices Rising, But Spending Slows as Income Posts Drop
Employers hit by unemployment tax hikes
Rare Earths Fall as Toyota Develops Alternatives
DEMINT: Venture socialism
Venture Socialism: the Logical Endpoint of Obamanomics
Energy Department Is No Venture Capitalist
Crony Capitalism: $737 Million Green Jobs Loan Given to Nancy Pelosi’s Brother-In-Law
Chu takes responsibility for a loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Senator Jim DeMint to discuss the fallout from the debt ceiling debate, the danger of Congress’ new super committee and his new book The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changed America, Washington, and Me.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

DeMint: Debt Deal Puts America at Risk
S.C. senators: Debt deal misses target
DeMint’s leadership PAC battles leaders’ in fight for future of Senate GOP caucus
The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changed America, Washington, and Me
Senator Jim DeMint

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Senator DeMint on Twitter

The debt limit increase debate is heating up and conservatives have put together one fascinating proposal as a means to get spending cuts in consideration for a debt limit increase:  The Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge.  Conservatives seem to be coalescing around this idea, because no other concrete ideas have been put on the table as a precondition for conservatives to allow an increase of the debt limit.  A senior Senate source tells Capitol Confidential that “this is everything.  This is the the big push for conservatives on the debt limit fight.”

The House is controlled by Republicans, yet the Senate is controlled by Democrats.  Divided government makes it hard to pass conservative ideas.  Hard, yet not impossible.

The debate on the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution (FY2011 CR) was a case study on how NOT to negotiate with liberals.  The House can pass solid conservative legislation and appropriations bills, yet the Senate can defeat these ideas with inaction.  And they did on the FY2011 CR fight.  Senator Harry Reid (R-Nevada) defeated Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) Continuing Resolution by not scheduling a debate on the measure. The original House passed FY2011 CR contained massive cuts to spending, yet Reid beat it back by not doing anything and awaiting the inevitable panic by House leaders who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  Instead of daring the Senate to just never pass a bill and let the government shut down, the House blinked and sent over short term spending bills, then negotiated a final bill that was bad policy.  The House negotiated against themselves and conservatives ended up with a Continuing Resolution that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, actually increased spending by $3.3 billion.  The leftists over at the Daily Kos made fun of Speaker Boehner for the spending increases in the FY2011 CR.   The resolution of the debate on the continuing resolution for conservatives was an epic failure.

Hopefully conservatives have learned a lesson and will not make the same mistake again.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca and Senator Jim DeMint to discuss the attack on Boeing by unions and the NLRB, their threat to Right to Work states and the debt ceiling debate.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Should Bond Buyers Bet on Stalling US Economy?
Another Labor Board Power Play
Boeing faces NLRB persecution
The NLRB’s Opening Of Pandora’s Box Beyond Boeing

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter
Follow Senator DeMint on Twitter

(more…)

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Oklahoma) introduced legislation to stop taxpayer subsidies to public radio and television. CPB-funded television and radio programs are distributed through National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Since 2001, CPB has received nearly $4 billion in taxpayer money.

“Our nation is on the edge of bankruptcy and Congress must make some tough choices to rein in spending, but ending taxpayer subsidies of public broadcasting should be an easy decision,” said Sen. DeMint. “Americans struggling to make ends meet shouldn’t be forced to fund public broadcasting when there are already thousands of choices for educational and entertainment programming on the television, radio and web. President Obama’s own bipartisan debt commission proposed ending these unnecessary subsidies to public broadcasting. NPR boasts that it only gets 2 percent of its funding from taxpayers and PBS gets about 15 percent, so these programs should be able to find a way to stand on their own.”

“Politicians in Washington should focus their attention on eliminating the more than $200 billion in duplicative spending GAO highlighted this week and stop defending indefensible subsidies for public broadcasting,” said Dr. Coburn. “The federal government has no business picking winners and losers in today’s highly competitive media environment.  NPR and CPB will do just fine without largesse from Washington.”

(more…)

South Carolina is one of the few states where school choice supporters have been working to pass a great education tax credit program that’s broad-based and well-structured (please excuse me if I sound like a cattle-breeder or wine-taster).

Senator Jim DeMint has been a real champion of choice for SC and the country, and he has a great new video promoting education tax credits (brought to you  by South Carolinians for Responsible Government, the guys in the trenches for good policy there).

The lead-in hits it perfectly; school choice is about self government, and public education means an educated public, not government-run schools.

(more…)

Evidently, at least one member of Congress thinks that $500,000 of your tax dollars is appropriate to construct a fish passage barrier for salmon in Alaska.  Although the Republican conference in both the House and Senate has sworn off earmarks, it seems that some in the Senate need one last feast at the trough of pork barrel spending before 2011.

The Senate is considering a catch all spending bill for the year, called the Omnibus Spending Bill that funds the federal government until September 30, 2011.  This bill is almost 2,000 pages long and is loaded with at least $8 billion in earmarks.

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) said on the Senate floor yesterday:

At 12:15 p.m. this afternoon, my office received a copy of the omnibus appropriations bill. It is 1,924 pages long and contains the funding for all 12 of the annual appropriations bills for a grand total of over $1.1 Trillion. It is important to note that the 1,924 pages is only the legislative language and does not include the thousands of pages of report language which contain the details of the billions of dollars in earmarks and, I’m sure, countless policy riders.

Senators Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) and Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) have pledged to force the Senate to read the bill.

The AP reports that “Earmarks feast on pork one last time before diet.”

(more…)

This week, the Senate GOP will have a showdown on Sen. Jim DeMint’s proposal to ban earmarks for two years. Senate GOP Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who apparently missed entirely the point of the elections two weeks ago, is trying to rally his caucus to scuttle the ban. The vote will be by secret ballot, so there is really no telling how the vote may go.

On Friday, Big Journalism Editor Dana Loesch interviewed Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds about the dust-up.

There’s a battle brewing over Earmark reform in the Senate, and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma appears ready to make it very public.

Inhofe has emerged as the chief opponent to DeMint’s anti-earmarking efforts and has quietly been preparing for this fight for months. He said Tuesday that he will deliver a “pretty strong statement” on the Senate floor Monday that will accuse DeMint of favoring earmarks until they fell out of political vogue.

However, DeMint has already acknowledged his past as an Earmarker and Inhofe has voted for a similar measure in the past. That turns any charge of simply playing politics back on him. This is also another example of the continued influence of the Tea Party movement. DeMint already has ten Senators lined up behind him. There’s said to be concern among Senators as to how a failure to act might reflect upon members up for re-election in 2012. The Tea Party has already shown its willingness to primary incumbents with which it disagrees. To paraphrase an old movie icon, Do you feel lucky, Senator? Well, do ya? (more…)

Appearing Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY.) told host Christiane Amanpour he would push for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This is an idea whose time has come. In 1994, Republicans campaigned– and won — on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the Contract with America). Back then; the deficit was just $203 billion. Today, the national deficit is at $1.4 trillion (that’s roughly $3,500 for each American, and some $14,000 for each family of four in deficit spending just this year alone).

Most states require their elected officials to balance their budget each year, but no such requirement impedes the reckless spending of the United States federal government. A constitutional amendment would bar the federal government from spending more money than it brings in each year — and require a supermajority in order to raise taxes. This is not a radical idea, but the consequences of failing to enact such a measure cannot be overstated.

Fortunately, as evidenced by the Tea Party movement, there appears to finally be the political will required to get this done. Newly elected Republicans simply must realize they weren’t elected to merely “trim” spending or “slow down” the rate of government growth, but rather, to cut, de-authorize and balance the budget. (If they fail to grasp this fact, it will be a short and depressing two years).

It is also worth noting that the conservative movement is united behind this cause.

(more…)

In today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson, Francis Cianfrocca and Ben Domenech talk about the latest housing numbers, controversy in Alaska’s Senate race, the decline of the Clinton political coalition, and who’s going to have Obama’s ear on economic policy with his evaporating policy team. We’ll also chat about a list of the decade’s top movie villains, which shockingly doesn’t include the ship computer from WALL-E. You’re listening to Coffee and Markets, brought to you by the New Ledger, for Friday, September 24th, 2010.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment.com and Stephen Clouse and Associates. We’d also like to let you know that we’ve set up a standalone site at CoffeeandMarkets.com for easier browsing of our past broadcasts.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Politico: Jim DeMint chides GOP senators for protecting Lisa Murkowski
Morning Jay: Goodbye to the Clinton Majority, Those Lucky Dems, and More!
Strassel: Why Business Bashing Has Flopped
Idler: The decade’s best in film villainy
TNL: 150 Movies You Really Ought to See

Will higher tax penalties on investment really spur jobs and faster economic growth? Most commentators would say no. It’s really a matter of economic common sense. But Tim Geithner says, Yes!

Speaking to a group in Washington this week, the Treasury secretary said that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would imperil the fragile economic recovery. He argued that government needs the revenues from those top-end tax hikes. So failure to raise taxes would harm growth. And then he went on to say that the trouble with the wealthy is that they save more of their tax breaks than do other groups.

Okay. Are you confused now? Most people would be.

Let’s start at the top. The coming tax bomb would raise the top marginal tax rate on capital gains from 15 to 20 percent, on dividends from 15 to 20 percent (or perhaps all the way to 39.6 percent), and on top incomes from 35 to 40 percent. Meanwhile, the estate tax could go as high as 55 percent.

Now, it is indisputable that cap-gains, dividends, and estates are essentially investment. What’s more, most successful earners who pay top personal tax rates are by near all accounts the folks who are most likely to save and invest.

But Mr. Geithner is suggesting the economy doesn’t need more saving. This thought was echoed by Jared Bernstein, a top White House economist, who told me in an interview that the saving and investment multipliers for economic growth are way below the stimulative effects of government transfer payments, such as more aid to state and local governments and further extensions of unemployment benefits.

Echoing that thought, the Senate this week voted to approve $26 billion in aid for state and local governments — partly funded, by the way, by an $11 billion yearly tax increase on the foreign earnings of U.S. multinational corporations. Here, too, a tax on profits is a tax on investment. The Senate also rejected an amendment by South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint that would extend all the Bush tax cuts.

In effect, pulling all this together, the position of the Democratic party in power in Washington is that transfer payments (taxing and borrowing from Peter to pay Paul) are good for growth, and that investment is bad.

Go figure.

(more…)

The New START Treaty is an idea that may harm American national security.  The agreement between the United States and Russia purports to reduce nuclear weapons between two superpowers, yet, in an effort to get the Russians to sign the Treaty, President Obama may accede to a side agreement that will end missile defense.  Missile defense is a means to protect the United States from a rogue nuclear missile and a deterrent to a missile attack from Russia.  Any agreement to dismantle missile defense would a mistake.

The Treaty is officially referred to as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.  On April 8, 2010, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the treaty.  The New START Treaty, 111-5, was signed in Prague on April 8, 2010 then submitted to the Senate on May 13, 2010.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has had numerous hearings on the treaty and intends on a vote before the August recess.  For this treaty to pass, 67 Senators need to vote in favor of ratification.  The Democrat Caucus only has 59 members, therefore they need 8 Republicans to support the treaty for it to pass.  Republicans have the power to block this treaty or to stop consideration until the next Congress.

The White House has been very aggressive in efforts to get this treaty passed by the end of the year.  On Friday, Peter Baker of the New York Times reported that “with time running out for major votes before the November election, the White House is trying to reach an understanding with Senate Republicans to approve its new arms control treaty with Russia by committing to modernizing the nuclear arsenal and making additional guarantees about missile defense.”  The only way for this Treaty to pass in the Senate in a manner that would truly protect missile defense would be to add a reservation during Senate consideration of the treaty.  A reservation, offered during the consideration of the treaty much like an amendment to legislation, specifically stating that a diminution or reduction in missile defense is not on the table and not part of any side agreement would have the desired outcome of protecting missile defense.

(more…)

Greece, Portugal and President Barack Obama have at long last combined to turn the common Washington wisdom about government spending on its head.

Washington insiders insisted for decades that those who say they favor fiscal restraint in the abstract really want more government benefits – regardless of cost. As a result, neither Republicans nor Democrats have made serious attempts to restrain spending.

Republicans usually promise to cut spending but have instead concentrated on keeping taxes low and arguing, not entirely incorrectly, that lower taxes stimulate economic growth and produce more revenue. The problem is that this argument has given Republicans an excuse to talk tough while doing little to fight spending.

Democrats have been even worse. They have simply tended to argue that deficits and debt don’t matter. In the sixties and early seventies the late Hubert Humphrey derided fiscal conservative concerns about growing deficits and debts as irrelevant since “we only owe the money to ourselves.” That was before the Chinese bought up our debt and before interest on the debt threatened to eat up more tax revenues than the Cold War.

(more…)

Sources on the Hill tell Big Government that the nomination of Ben Bernanke to remain Chairman of the Federal Reserve is in deep trouble.  A Senior Capitol Hill Staffer said to Big Government, “if [Senate Majority Leader] Reid does not file for cloture tonight, I don’t think they have the votes to confirm him.”  The Wall Street Journal thinks the vote will be “tight,” yet the White House is spinning that they have the votes.  Hill sources say that this nomination is trending in the wrong direction for the Obama Administration and many on the Hill are stunned by the news that, according to CNBC, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has announced her opposition to the nomination.  There is growing opposition to this nominee remaining in charge of the Federal Reserve for a second term.

Senators have made public statements indicating that there may be non-public information that is hurting this nominee.  Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said that “the Fed continues to stonewall Congress and the public.”  Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) referenced “ongoing examinations by Congress and the GAO of the Fed’s AIG bailout” and that there are “unpleasant facts for the Fed and Chairman Bernanke” that will come out after “full public disclosure of all information about the AIG bailout” that has only been shared with “select Congressional Committees and the GAO.”  Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said, “it is vitally important that Congress has the ability and time to adequately review the Federal Reserve’s bailout of AIG.  Although some of our offices have had time to review some of the documents, not all are available at this time and Congress should wait until GAO’s review before proceeding with his nomination vote.” (more…)

On Christmas Day, what was intended to be a far worse terrorist attack was narrowly thwarted, thanks to the prudence and bravery of a handful of airline passengers and flight crew.  No one knows yet how Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (aka “Farouk1986″) made it past every airport security checkpoint, with bomb materials literally strapped to his groin, and boarded a Northwest Airlines flight ultimately headed for Detroit.  Nor does anyone know how the 23-year old made it onto one watch list but not the no-fly list.

But the now infamous PantyBomber incident has since sparked a heated debate over workers in the Transportation Security Administration that has both Democrats and Republicans fuming, and labor unions chomping at the bit to wage a war of an entirely different kind.

In October, 2008, then candidate Obama wrote a letter to John Gage, President of the American Federation of Government Employees union, promising collective bargaining rights to TSA workers and vowing to make it a priority for his administration.

(more…)

From the Washington Times:

Charles Rangel (D-NY) was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970.

Sen. Jim DeMint says Washington politicians are like fruit on the vine: the longer they hang around, the more rotten they get.

The South Carolina Republican – hearkening back to the days of the party’s “Contract with America” – on Tuesday offered a fix to the corrupting influence of “permanent politicians,” introducing an amendment to the Constitution that would limit Senate members to three six-year terms and House members to three two-year terms.

“As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power,” said Mr. DeMint, who is running for a second term next year. (more…)