Steve Parkhurst

Boom!

2012-01-25T13:26:00.001-06:00

The RNC is out today with a tremendous video called Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record. This is tremendous. Send some money to the RNC for this ad.

The Texas Economy

2012-01-24T13:14:00.016-06:00

Texas Comptroller Susan Combs has launched a great website for all the world to see.

From the website:

The Texas Economy strives to provide you with the latest news, trends and analysis on issues affecting the state’s economy. Our mission is to present hard-hitting data, information and insights on a wide variety of topics of concern to Texas policymakers, businesses and taxpayers.

Take a look, tour the site and see what intrigues you. Every state, city and municipality should be finding ways to be much more transparent and open about their governing processes. These locales should also be open to feedback and ideas from the public. Take Houston for example: a city with 2 million people and with 5 million people in the surrounding area. The city of Houston now elects 17 members to the city council, which includes the mayor. I doubt these 17 people have all the answers for 2 to 5 million people. Opening the doors and shining a light on the business of government will help is spend less and get more.

Obama's Failures Continue

2012-01-23T13:51:00.000-06:00

From The Hill today via email, by Erik Wasson:

President Obama will release his 2013 budget one week late, an administration official said Monday.

Under the law, the budget is to be released on the first Monday in February, but the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be releasing the 2013 budget on Feb. 13.

The Obama administration also delayed the release of the budget last year, waiting until Feb. 14.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the delay is symptomatic of a fiscally reckless administration.

"I am deeply disappointed in this President’s abdication of leadership when it comes to prioritizing Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. The decision to delay the release of his budget again could not come at a more precarious moment for our fiscal and economic future," Ryan said.

Score another one for Paul Ryan.

Perfect Description

2012-01-22T18:09:00.002-06:00

Take a look at this tv description for Hussein Obama's State of the Union speech on Tuesday. This appeared in the January 27 edition of Entertainment Weekly. Thanks to K (she knows who she is) for sending this along.

Newt Takes South Carolina

2012-01-21T18:13:00.000-06:00

Here were the first screen shots from Drudge:

then....

Jan 20, 2013

2012-01-20T09:33:00.000-06:00

One year from today, a new President will replace the disaster that has been Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya.

Perry Out, Endorses Newt, South Carolina Votes Saturday

2012-01-19T10:20:00.000-06:00

Governor Rick Perry is set to remove himself from the Presidential race today and endorse Newt Gingrich. The line in the sand is being drawn. The race is between Newt and Romney, and Saturday's election is the last stand. Newt must win in South Carolina to remain the top choice for those opposed to Romney's brand of conservative politics.

Is Your Community Worth Saving

2012-01-18T21:01:00.000-06:00

My friends over at Ruraltopia have an interesting new post Is Your Community Worth Saving. I suggest you join me in following these guys, they are quality writers about some issues important to communities. Most pressingly, I hope you will answer their question, "How would you answer an outsider when asked, “Is your community worth saving?”.

Newt Educates Race-Baiter, Race-Hustler Juan Williams

2012-01-17T11:26:00.003-06:00

The Reorganization Man

2012-01-14T13:22:00.002-06:00

Heading into a three day weekend, Saturday's Wall Street Journal has a tremendous editorial, The Reorganization Man. Below are a few of the better tidbits from the editorial.

There he was in the East Room, explaining that "the government we have is not the government we need." That's for sure, and Mr. Obama even added the Gingrichian theme that "We live in a 21st-century economy, but we've still got a government organized for the 20th century. Our economy has fundamentally changed—as has the world—but our government, our agencies, has not."

-------

Proposals for government reorganization are the elevator music of politics, always present but never leaving much of an impression. Newt Gingrich says he's running in part to apply Lean Six Sigma best practices to the bureaucracy. Al Gore famously drew up a scheme for "reinventing government" in the late 1990s. He abandoned it after the airline unions revolted amid his attempt to reinvent the Federal Aviation Administration.

-------

This is a President who last year promised a review of all regulations while riding the greatest rule-making wave in American history. Now he's calling for leaner government without mentioning ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, which create so many new boards and commissions that government auditors (literally) can't even count them. We suspect many in the White House were laughing themselves when they came up with this one.

Starbucks Blonde - The Verdict

2012-01-11T23:38:00.005-06:00

I tried the new Starbucks blend today. I really liked it. I know others do not, but I felt it was smoothe and not too acidic. At least for now, it's a nice break from the Pike Place Roast. If you've tried, I'm interested in your thoughts.

It's Almost Here

2012-01-11T10:55:00.015-06:00

Dodgers pitchers & catchers report to camp on Feb 21, the rest of the squad reports on Feb 27, with the first full team workout on Feb 28.

What's Next For Michael Bloomberg

2012-01-07T11:49:00.000-06:00

I recently read this article in Fast Company from the August issue about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his philanthropic endeavors. Even though the article is dated, it's well worth reading.

Romney

2012-01-04T11:43:00.000-06:00

The lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, Iowa's Opening Skirmish, was interesting. But, here is the takeaway line worth noting and sharing:

The real issue is that Mr. Romney is a cautious, conventional politician in a year when many GOP voters want someone willing to fight for bolder change. On the economy in particular, Mr. Romney is offering the least ambitious plan for growth. Mr. Romney unveiled his 59-point jobs plan in September, and if you can remember two of them you'll win most family trivia contests. His refusal to rule out a value-added-tax is also troubling, especially if Democrats ever won the House during his Presidency.

Also, be sure to look at the Daniel Mitchell piece, Will Republicans Hand the Left a VAT Victory?.

My Day

2011-12-30T20:10:00.005-06:00

As you can see, I'm ready to welcome the new year in style, I'm a party machine.

Transformational Change Gets Some Coverage, Sort Of

2011-12-28T16:18:00.000-06:00

Left-wing columnist Eugene Robinson had an article in today's paper that is a good example of many points I have made here on this blog in several posts this year. Robinson calls for transformational change, yet he obviously doesn't fully understand the real meaning of transformational change and the real changes that are needed in this country.

After World War II, the GI Bill dramatically boosted the percentage of Americans with college degrees. That one piece of farsighted legislation prepared a generation to run the industrial economy that was forged by the war — and helped absorb the excess labor that resulted from mechanization of the agricultural sector. We now need transformation on a similarly grand scale.

On the highlighted sentence, we agree. But, Robinson continues:

And it's important to recognize that while long-term debt isn't the most urgent problem facing the nation, it has to be addressed. Transformation, after all, isn't cheap.

Well, transformation can be cheap, especially if you're cutting. Robinson's leftist leanings tell him that what we really need is more spending, but focus the spending. This is where he starts to show his lunacy.

But our leaders, beginning with Obama, can't settle for playing small ball. As he campaigns for re-election, the president's task is to explain why this is a time to think big — and why we have no choice.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this President to think any bigger than the $1 billion his campaign plans to raise and spend to sell his version of history to the American public.

Robinson had much potential with this column. But he let his devotion to left wing ideology override the points he could have made. Robinson loves him some Obama, and that's fine. But when these hacks pretend to be more than they really are, their writings are little more than the characters printed on paper in China, North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela.

Editorial: Badly Written Bad Rules

2011-12-27T14:07:00.000-06:00

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal is also worth looking at. This editorial highlights some of sheer stupidity that passes for government "work" and "effort" these days.

Then there's the Affordable Care Act. Christopher Conover and Jerry Ellig of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, in a trio of forthcoming papers, systematically examine every rule issued to date to create the new health-care entitlement.

They conclude that "the federal government used a fast-track process of regulatory analysis that failed to comply with its own standards, and produced poorly substantiated claims about the ACA's benefits and costs"—including an upward bias for benefits, a downward bias for costs, and numerous material omissions. Little wonder for a law that contains the phrase "the Secretary shall" 1,563 times.

-----

Mr. Obama has made clear that the rules will keep coming, but at least his team could try to write good bad rules. Probably too much to ask.

If you think you're getting your money's worth from any chamber of your government, please let me know.

As Iowa Goes, So Goes Iowa

2011-12-27T13:49:00.001-06:00

In today's Wall Strett Journal, Michael Barone offers a very interesting piece. Below, a few of the highlights worth keeping in mind as we head into the last week of campaigning in Iowa:

But the Iowa Republican caucuses have a poor record in choosing their party's nominees. In the five presidential nominating cycles with active Iowa Republican caucus competition, the Hawkeye State has voted for the eventual Republican nominee only twice—in 1996 for Bob Dole, in 2000 for George W. Bush—and only once was the Iowa winner elected president.

- - - -

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad has been complaining for months that too few Republican presidential candidates in this cycle have been spending time in the state, doing retail campaigning in all or some substantial percentage of Iowa's 99 counties. True enough, Rick Santorum has done events in all 99 and Michele Bachmann is on a bus tour that will take her to all 99 too. But both Rick Perry and Herman Cain jumped to leads in Iowa polls without much personal campaigning there.

If I were running the Iowa Republican Party, I would be seeking to vastly increase the turnout at the Jan. 3 caucuses. After all, those who turn out can be recruited to help in future Iowa Republican campaigns. I would be especially interested in attracting new young voters; the median age of 2008 caucusgoers was nudging up toward 60.

Yet despite polls showing that Republicans are enthusiastic about the coming campaign and determined to defeat Barack Obama, Iowa Republican insiders are predicting that turnout will not exceed and may not even reach the 119,000 of 2008, when Republicans were dispirited about their party's chances. Puzzling.

One thing I take away, I don't think most people would want their candidate to win in Iowa. Probably better to do well in South Carolina and New Hampshire, both of which have a better record of actually choosing the Republican nominee.

We Need More Lights

2011-12-20T07:09:00.000-06:00

I saw this tweet a few days ago, and I thought it was worthy posting here. Think about this over the holidays.

“Why does a guy down the street from us put 135,000 Christmas lights up? This sign explains it.”

Crazy Ron Paul ENDORSED Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney in 2008

2011-12-16T19:15:00.014-06:00

Ron Paul, the guy who endorsed Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney in 2008, is now possibly the Republican nominee in 2012?

See the Wall Street Journal, 9/10/2008: Ron Paul Endorses the Third-Party Field

“Presidential elections turn out to be a charade more than anything else,” Paul said, and so he urged his supporters to vote for candidates who would expand the debate beyond the major party’s platforms.

Ron Paul (far left) at a news conference with third-party candidates at the National Press Club. From left: former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney from the Green Party, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, and Ralph Nader. (AP)

A phone call from McCain backer Phil Gramm yesterday was not enough to garner Paul’s endorsement and didn’t stop the Texas congressman from gathering the welterweights of the presidential race for an announcement of their common principles.

Solutions Ad

2011-12-15T12:31:00.000-06:00

The Newt Gingrich campaign is out with a new ad today, which I think is very strong. Take 30 seconds to watch We Need Solutions:

Overestimating Romney

2011-12-10T13:44:00.000-06:00

Aside from getting votes, he’s a great candidate.

An interesting column from The Weekly Standard about Romney's so-called electability. The column, well worth reading in its entirety, closes with this:

More evidence of voters’ coolness toward Romney came in a recent Public Policy study, which took snapshots from 13 states both early and late in 2011. In all 13 states, he became less popular as the year progressed. Even more telling were Romney’s negatives—which increased in tandem with his name recognition. As Romney began campaigning more actively, voters became less favorably disposed toward him.

None of this is meant as a judgment on Romney’s worthiness as a candidate or accomplishments as a governor. But it is worth understanding that if elections are markets and candidates products, then Mitt Romney’s problems this time around aren’t some great mystery.

It’s just that no matter where he’s run, whether in primaries or statewide elections, he’s never sold particularly well.

WSJ Video: Why Mitt's Attacks Won't Work

2011-12-09T23:26:00.000-06:00

Must Listen: Mark Levin Audio

2011-12-09T12:42:00.001-06:00

Mark Levin calls out so-called conservative outlets for supporting Romney

Article: Newt the Supply-Side Sizzler

2011-12-08T23:30:00.000-06:00

I thought this column by Larry Kudlow was so good that I decided to reprint it here (yellow highlights are my own):

Say what you will about former Speaker Newt Gingrich. His philosophy, his policy proposals, his track record, his campaign, and all the rest. But the one thing you have to acknowledge about Gingrich is that he’s a sizzler. He has a way with words. And he’s as good a communicator as anyone in modern politics.

In my CNBC interview with Gingrich this week, he slammed President Obama’s tax-the-rich, class-warfare attack on bank’s and businesspeople. He hammered Obama, calling him a hard-left radical who is opposed to free enterprise, capitalism, and “virtually everything which made America great.”

It was a brutal, frontal, hard-hitting attack on the president. He called Obama “the candidate of food stamps, the finest food-stamp president in American history.” He said, “I want to get equality by bringing people up. [Obama] wants to get equality by bringing people down.” He said, “I want to be the guy who says, ‘I want to help every American have a better future.’ [Obama] wants to make sure that he levels Americans down so we all have an equally mediocre future.”

Now, I haven’t heard any of the other GOP candidates offer that kind of response to Obama’s recent class-warfare speech. Maybe I’m missing something. But I haven’t heard it from Mitt Romney or the others in a sizzle fashion, which is the way Gingrich operates.

Frankly, Romney ought to be beating back Obama right now. He should at least be asserting that America’s free-enterprise, capitalist system rewards success, not punishes it, and that free-market economics — including supply-side tax-cut policies, worked in the 1920s under Calvin Coolidge, in the 1960s under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and again in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan.

In fact, Bill Clinton joined with Gingrich in the 1990s to slash the capital-gains tax, cut spending, and enact welfare reform, all of which kept the Reagan boom going. Over 40 million jobs were created in the two decades that followed Reagan’s supply-side tax cut.

Gingrich made a special point during our talk to reestablish his supply-side bona fides. He said to me, “you’re a witness to this. I was part of [Jack] Kemp’s little cabal of supply-siders.” And then came Gingrich’s most sizzling point: “You can make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get to be rich, because I helped pass the legislation.”

So I asked, “Have you ever made that argument to him?” And Gingrich said, “I am as of right this minute. Just occurred to me.” He went on to say that Romney “should be thanking me because I did the macroeconomic things necessary to make his career possible.”

This is a Gingrich putdown of Romney, is it not? The former Massachusetts governor’s primary attack on Gingrich is that he spent his whole life in professional politics, and therefore doesn’t understand how to grow the economy and create jobs. Romney, of course, had a terrific private-sector career at Bain Capital. And he rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. But Gingrich’s putdown here suggests that without supply-side economic policies, somehow Romney wouldn’t have succeeded. And that neuters Romney’s attack on Gingrich.

Seems to me that Romney needs to respond to the Gingrich putdown. And he needs to make his case in the Gingrich sizzler context.

Years ago, as a rookie running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, Romney disavowed Ronald Reagan on a number of occasions. Later on, in 1996, Romney ran ads attacking Steve Forbes’ presidential run and flat tax. Since then, Romney has come into the Reagan camp, and that’s fine by me. He also bills himself as a tax reformer. But outside of a corporate tax cut, Romney has offered no across-the-board tax-reform plan for individuals and small-business owners.

He needs to do this if he’s to fight back against Gingrich. He needs to reassert his supply-side credentials and clarify his policy path to prosperity.

Please make no mistake. I am not endorsing here at all. I have a very high regard for Mitt Romney. What I’m looking for is strong competition for tax-reform ideas. Gingrich has a 15 percent optional flat tax. Rick Perry has a 20 percent plan. Herman Cain had 9-9-9. Jon Huntsman has a strong Bowles-Simpson-type tax reform. But where is Romney?

Romney has a good budget-reform program and has endorsed Paul Ryan’s health-care reforms. He has a sound regulatory-rollback strategy. He has moved towards sound money by saying he will not reappoint Ben Bernanke. But at the top of Reagan’s economic-growth plan was an across -the-board tax cut. And it worked.

Republican primary voters are highly supportive of supply-side tax-reform ideas. If Romney is to stop his slide in the polls, and reposition himself as the GOP campaign’s leader, he must respond to Newt Gingrich with a pro-growth tax-reform plan that sizzles.

– Larry Kudlow, NRO’s economics editor, is host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and author of the daily web log, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.

Newt Gingrich Addresses The Republican Jewish Coalition

2011-12-07T21:01:00.005-06:00

This was a particularly good speech Newt Gingrich gave Wednesday before the Republican Jewish Coalition. Toward the middle of the speech (about 18:00) is what I consider to be one of the better lines from the former Speaker, with regard to appointing Ambassador John Bolton to e Secretary of State, along with new guidelines for the future State Department to follow.

The final few minutes of the speech where Newt talks about his work with Jack Kemp and the issue of getting people out of poverty was absolutely tremendous.

Romney Is Not The One

2011-12-07T20:53:00.000-06:00

So in the battle for the nomination in the GOP Presidential field, it has come down to Newt vs. Mitt. We have been told recently of all the bad things that Newt has supposedly done, and we have been told that Newt is a RINO or worse, a democrat in disguise.

Matt Lewis writes a piece today that highlights a couple of things for me that I think are telling about Romney, who I don't view as very conservative. It turns out that John Sonunu is doing much of Romney's bidding lately, as Romney pretends to be above the fray.

Apparently Newt was not invited by Sonunu to a re-election meeting for President George H. W. Bush in 1990. The reason Newt was not invited; because he was a thorn in the President's side and worked against the infamous "read my lips, no new taxes" budget deal. That's a plus for Newt in my column.

As Lewis also notes, Sonunu also gets credit for hoisting Justice Souter upon us. This is another stike against Romney.

So Long Colonel Potter

2011-12-07T20:13:00.001-06:00

As a fan of M*A*S*H, this was a sad day. View the short video below:

"America Is Magic"

2011-12-07T12:39:00.004-06:00

Take 4 minutes to watch this:

Newt Gingrich Interview With Sean Hannity

2011-12-05T16:43:00.001-06:00

Take a listen to Newt Gingrich on Sean Hannity's radio show from Monday, December 5, 2011.

Comparing Ads

2011-12-05T11:59:00.000-06:00

Speaker Gingrich is out with a great new 1 minute ad:

After watching the new Gingrich ad, take a look at President Reagan's 1984 ad "It's Morning In America Again":

Worth Noting

2011-12-04T20:22:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney 1994 ad for Senate on Kennedy's negative ad campaign. His slogan was "The Change We Need." http://www.youtu.be/C4aMT97UGok

Balance The Budget, If Not Now, When?

2011-12-02T08:12:00.003-06:00

This post originally appeared at US Daily Review.

The House Republicans Thursday released a pretty interesting graphic depicting a few reasons why Congress should support a Balanced Budget Amendment.

As can be seen in the image below, even if the Balanced Budget Amendment does not become law, there are still enormous problems within the federal government that need to be fundamentally transformed. One of the most appalling figures to me is that 40 cents of every 1 dollar this country spends in borrowed money. How does a county dig out from that kind of debt? How would an individual do it?

You don't have to be a partisan, one way or the other, to see that we have major problems at the federal level. This starts at the local level though. The people of every community must start taking back their country. This isn't done the way the parasites of Occupy Wall Street have done it. It is done by getting down to your city hall, your county government offices and even the school boards. Start forcing all governments to justify their spending. Run for office yourself if you have to. The federal government is doing too many things that can be handled at the local level, and when the federal government gets involved, costs go up while efficiency and effectiveness go down.

Seriously. 40 cents for every one dollar. When does it stop? Will we eventually be borrowing $1.25 for every $1.00?

Drudge Report Headline Today

2011-11-30T16:35:00.001-06:00

Newt Gingrich Interview With Hugh Hewitt

2011-11-29T23:10:00.000-06:00

Tuesday Hugh Hewitt interviewed Newt Gingrich for what turned out to be 3 segments. Below you will find all 3 parts of the interview.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Newt Gingrich Picks Up A Big Endorsement in NH

2011-11-27T10:55:00.001-06:00

Sunday has been a very good day thus far for Newt Gingrich. Take a look at today's New Hampshire Union Leader Endorsement. I've put together a small report on the whole situation over at US Daily Review. I suspect Fargo Bachmann is sharpening her knives yet again, trying to figure out what else she could inaccurately accuse Newt Gingrich of. Fargo Bachmann has become a joke, she has been in freefall since her Iowa victory, but in reality, the field was not set in Iowa. Fargo Bachmann also had about 12 people show up to her Iowa book signing in Iowa on Saturday. She and Team Fargo blamed this on a publisher mixup. Oh well.

For the Junkies of Occupy Wall Street, Get Real

2011-11-25T08:02:00.005-06:00

Great Screed

2011-11-15T01:46:00.004-06:00

Watch this video, you'll love it.

Romney Logo

2011-11-01T08:02:00.005-05:00

Says it all:

Continuing The Tax Debate

2011-10-29T20:14:00.010-05:00

A few days ago I blogged about the tax reform debate our country needs.

Speaker Newt Gingrich has placed within his 21st Century Contract with America what I think is probably a better version of the flat tax program Governor Perry has proposed, and I think Speaker Gingrich's explanation is concise and easily understood. Read it below, let me know what you think.

JOBS AND PROSPERITY PLAN: TAX SIMPLIFICATION WITH AN OPTIONAL FLAT TAX

My legislation will also include an optional flat tax of 15% or less. All tax filers would be given the option to pay their income taxes subject to current income tax provisions or to pay under a lower single rate of taxation with limited deductions. A revenue neutral flat tax reform would save hundreds of billions of dollars in compliance costs each year and would eliminate the need for taxes on savings, dividends, and capital gains.

This optional flat tax system will create a new personal deduction of $12,000 for every American. This deduction is well above the current poverty level, ensuring that this new system does not unfairly target the poor. The current $1,000 tax credit for each child aged sixteen or younger would also apply, as would the current earned income tax credit (EITC).

An optional flat tax reform will be simple: tax returns can be done on one sheet of paper. Subtract from income a standard deduction and deductions for charity and home ownership, multiply the result by the fixed single rate of taxation of at most 15%, and the process is over.

Gone will be the stressful hours spent figuring out whether your military service or marital status will adversely affect your return. No more headaches trying to determine where estimated tax payments go. Tax preparation fees could be money spent on something more rewarding.

Such an optional flat tax system would create a new standard deduction, which would be above the established poverty level, meaning an optional flat tax would not unfairly target the poor.
An optional flat tax would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. And if a person had twice as much income as another, he or she would be taxed twice as much. Furthermore, a single rate tax structure would eliminate taxes on savings, capital gains, and dividends. Saving would increase and businesses would expand to create new jobs.

This concept of an optional flat tax would give American taxpayers an opportunity to choose simplicity versus complexity and a single rate over a lot of deductions.

Because the flat tax is optional, it does not raise taxes on a single person or unfairly impact seniors, lower income workers, or the poor.

Must Read Article About The Flat Tax

2011-10-29T11:29:00.003-05:00

Flat-Tax Fever Grips GOP

Supply-side economists, naturally, are delighted by the GOP’s newfound commitment to pushing the flat-tax, which gets rid of loopholes and offers a rate that remains consistent regardless of income for taxpayers above the poverty level.

A broader tax base helps lower rates. Supply-siders say that would reduce the incentive to manipulate the system while substantially reducing the estimated $480 billion that Americans spend each year to comply with the tax code. The result, they predict, would be an economic boom.

“There’s not one of the candidates we have running in this primary who would not change the tax codes dramatically in this direction,” Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, widely considered the father of supply-side economics, tells Newsmax. “And that makes me very proud of the Republican candidate base, to be honest with you.

“And I’m ashamed of the Democrats,” Laffer says, “because they used to be the party that opposed the Republican naysayers, the Barry Goldwaters and Bob Doles, who never saw a tax increase they didn’t love … Now, the Democrats have gone to the dark side, and we’ve got to bring them back!”

The Tax Debate Our Country Needs

2011-10-25T21:02:00.000-05:00

With Chairman Mao, or uh, Obama in charge on the nation, we can expect little in the way of positive tax reform that would relieve the burden on the American population.

Enter the Republican Presidential candidates. There are many good ideas on the table, and most of them reform the current system. If we continue to just tinker with the current system, we will continue to get nowhere. Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, even Jon Huntsman, and now Rick Perry have offered attempts to change the tax system.

The Wall Street Journal has written this piece called The Flat-Tax Sweepstakes. The column is a good read, but here are three paragraphs that make the case:

Rick Perry joined the GOP's tax reform sweepstakes on Tuesday, proposing an optional flat income tax of 20%, among other fiscal and economic reforms. We'll get to the details, but the larger story is how the drive for a flatter, simpler, more pro-growth tax code is taking center stage in the Republican Presidential contest.

Mr. Perry joins Newt Gingrich, who has proposed a 15% optional flat tax; Jon Huntsman, whose reform proposal would cut the top individual rate to 23%; and Herman Cain and his now famous 9-9-9 plan. House Republicans included a reform with a 25% top rate in their budget earlier this year. All of this ferment shows that whatever one thinks of the candidates as potential Presidents, most of them are trying to meet the political moment with reforms to address our major economic challenges.

-------

The good news is that Mr. Perry and most of his competitors are thinking big, with proposals that will reverse the U.S. slide to high-debt, slow-growth stagnation. President Obama wants to portray the economic debate as pro-growth government spenders vs. the austerity of budget cutting. But the real debate is over whether government or the private economy is the main engine of prosperity. The flat tax puts Republicans on the side of private growth and government reform, a potent combination. Perhaps Mr. Perry and his comrades can even coax Mitt Romney to join the party.

Barack Hussein Obama's Wife In 2012 Campaign Mode

2011-10-20T08:19:00.006-05:00

Taken from Drudge Report. As you can see, Michelle Obama poses for a picture pretending like she's a normal person.

Newt Now

2011-10-19T23:24:00.002-05:00

Stimulus 2.0

2011-09-29T15:26:00.012-05:00

This column originally appeared at US Daily Review.

As I mentioned here on US Daily Review last week in my column titled "Avoiding The "S" Word", Stimulus II, the son of the first stimulus disaster was indeed presented Monday by the current President. The so-called American Jobs Act is more of the same. This is not surprising from a failed President, and a man who had never created a job or balanced a budget prior to or during his reign as President, unless it was with taxpayer dollars.

What the current President has done is created a plan that would take money from the people, and from the "big, bad evil" corporations, and put it toward government jobs. The current President has chosen to increase taxes on business and close so-called loopholes, rather that freeing up much needed capital so that American businesses can build bigger and hire more. I understand the President not wanting to go with the latter plan, that would not create enough votes for his re-election campaign. A plan where he creates government jobs and takes money from the business community, well that helps with his anti-capitalist base.

View this chart and see for yourself:

In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had this to say about the current President's plan, "Anything that is akin to a stimulus bill is not going to be acceptable," he said. "Over half of the total dollar amount is so called stimulus spending. We have been there, done that. The country cannot afford more spending like a stimulus bill."

As I have suggested before, if the current President were serious about job creation, the first two things he would do to address the high unemployment rate would be to reduce job-killing regulations and cut job-killing tax rates. Instead, the current President opts for more job-killing regulations, more job-killing tax increases and more government spending.

When the current President gave his campaign speech during a joint session of congress last week, he kept repeating, "pass this bill right away". This was an obvious attempt to show leadership from a President who has not been able to do so in any other way after 32 leaderless months in office. His bill that he wanted passed right away, is more of the same, as Majority Leader Cantor said, it is more of the same, it is more of what has already failed.

The Wall Street Journal also pointed out today, "The White House says the tax changes would take effect in 2013 and estimates they would raise $467 billion in additional revenue over 10 years." So if you are one of the many unemployed Americans, don't worry, Obama's so-called jobs plan will be put into effect in just 15 short months, be sure to go to the current President's website and signup for emails on progress of that "plan".

It was amazing to watch and think during the Republican presidential debate last night, that any one of the people on that stage, will do more for America and job creation as President-Elect in November and December of 2012, than the current President has actually done while in office. We just have to hope that the Hopers and Changers who find themselves unemployed this go-round will be on the side of capitalism and free markets, and not on the side of government funded, government mandated attempts at job creation.

Hopefully Stimulus II is DOA. It is worth noting that the bill itself is not designed to gain passage. It serves two purposes: It is something the current President can say he presented to congress; and hen congress does not pass the bill as is, the current President has a campaign weapon.

Avoiding The “S” Word

2011-09-24T15:34:00.002-05:00

This column originally appeared at US Daily Review.

I saw this piece by The Hill a few days ago. With a headline and that would have made George Orwell giddy, "Pelosi Drops The Word "Stimulus".

The Left, clearly losing their war on jobs and their war on our nation's economy, is trying to repackage the same failed programs and legislation that did not work before. They are not proposing their usual jobs killing tax increases, this time they are trying to pretend they are watching out for the taxpayers and actually wanting to reduce taxes.

As I witnessed the current President's campaign speech on Thursday night, and as I heard one platitude after another, I realized he was talking about more stimulus, this time without actually calling it stimulus. The current President was also desperate, his speech came across to me as if he was begging or pleading. It was a campaign speech afterall, I guess he was pleading for four more years of malaise.

The Wall Street Journal had a staff editorial on Friday, well worth reading in its entirety. But there was one big takeaway worth staying focused on:

"Mr. Obama spoke last night as if he is a converted tax-cutter, asking Republicans to expand and extend the payroll tax cut that expires in December for one more year. Along with tax credits for certain businesses that hire new employees, he says this will cut unemployment, and no doubt it will lead to some more hiring.

But what happens in 2013 when those tax rates expire and Mr. Obama pledges to hit thousands of those same small businesses with higher tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends? He seems to think businesses operate only in the present and will ignore the tax burdens coming at them down the road. This is the same reasoning that assumed that postponing ObamaCare's tax and regulatory burdens until 2014 would have no effect on business hiring in the meantime."

Shovel ready jobs for infrastructure was a big feature of the current President's campaign speech. Does the current President not understand that infrastructure jobs is money spent by the government, and where does that money come from? Yes, the taxpayers. So once again, taxpayers get to foot this bill for infrastructure jobs. This is a surreal cycle to look at. The Left thinks this is real job growth. I know the current President knows all of this, which is why this speech was really nothing; a non-starter. If the Left really wants to create jobs, why not just have the government hire people to clean beaches, rivers and other waterways? The government could hire people all day long, all year long to do meaningless jobs (some are called bureaucrats), and call it employment or a "jobs plan".

But what about jobs that last for many years? What about jobs that people turn into careers? Yes, someone has to dig the ditches. Not all jobs in America will be glorious and lead to riches. Not everyone is looking for those jobs.

One final comment from the Wall Street Journal editorial:

"The larger political subtext of Mr. Obama's speech is that if Congress doesn't pass his plan, he'll then campaign against Republicans as obstructionist. Thus his speech mantra that Congress should "pass it right away." This ignores that Mr. Obama has been the least obstructed President since LBJ in 1965 or FDR in 1933, which is how we got here.

He passed $830 billion in stimulus, $3 billion for cash for clunkers, $30 billion in small business loans, $30 billion for mortgage modification, the GM-Chrysler bailouts, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, credit card price controls, Build America Bonds, jobless benefits for a record 99 weeks, and more."

It continues to interest me that after 32 months in office, the current President still doesn't have a plan and he still has not proposed something that reaches across the aisle, yet his speeches proclaim to do both. I would have more confidence in this temporary President if he had managed a Domino's Pizza or a White Castle at some point in his "career". I would at least imagine that he had experience hiring and firing, balancing budgets and at least looking at profit and loss statements. For a guy that hasn't done any of this, the words on the teleprompter being read by a guy with a great education really don't establish confidence in my mind.

Stimulus by any other name is still stimulus; stimulus which doesn't stimulate. The Left can keep avoiding the big bad "S" word; the rest of us can keep pointing to it. Only in America.

A Labor Day Lesson

2011-09-21T15:40:00.000-05:00

This column originally appeared at US Daily Review.

On this Labor Day past, I was driving through a neighborhood and the road was right along side a local high school's track and soccer field. I drove by around 1pm, and I had heard previously that the high was going to be 95 degrees.

Obviously, for Labor Day, school was not in session. Yet, at 1pm, there were some clusters of individuals working out on the track and on the soccer field. At a brief glance driving by, none of this looked coordinated, this looked like kids out trying to work on something specific, looking to improve their skills or their game.

As the sun beamed down on this area, and as I kept driving and left the track and field in the distance, I thought to myself what a great example those kids are to the people in our nation, and the people overseas, who expect something for nothing. Recently, in the wake of the London riots, there have been stories about the appalling lack of accountability they see over in Great Britain. One doesn't need to look much further than this recent story that points out that 370,000 households had never had any paid work in the 16 years that the statistics have been kept. Furthermore, nearly one in 50 kids lives in a home where a parent has never worked. Without my being judgmental, I think we can all see a problem here. And then we, and Londoners, wonder why the riots happened and why these kids looted and committed other crimes?

But I digress. Our current President created a surreal, if not bizarre, atmosphere in America when he literally promised people in 2007 and 2008 that they would get something for nothing, if they put him in the White House. I won't get into calling this form of governing one name or another. I will get into identifying this as a problem and signifying what that problem means.

What were these kids promised by being out in the hot sun, running laps on the track by themselves, or kicking a line of soccer balls trying to hit the same upper right hand corner of the goal each time? If the President had been there, he would have told them to stay on the couch, someone else will be running laps or scoring goals, and we'll make sure we take their laps and those goals and share them with you, so you don't need to be out here doing all this extra work.

It is easy to look like you are working hard when others are around to see, but there is also that saying about courage being what you do when no one else it watching. No one was watching these kids working, except for the passersby. These kids, whether driven by work ethic, by pride, by their peers or by their families, they were working extra to make them and their teams better.

There's a lesson in here for all of us. Each one of us makes the whole of America better. You don't have to go run laps in the heat, you can volunteer in a church, help an elderly neighbor with yard work or painting part of their home that might be in disrepair. You can coach some kids in a sport and lead by example. Many kids do not live in two parent households, volunteering as a coach is a way to help kids like this who might need just one more adult in their life asking "how was school today" or "what kind of homework will you be working on tonight". This adds up to accountability.

I was heartened to see these kids out there working. It reminds me that there is a spirit in America, a spirit that says if I work hard enough, I will choose my own path, it won't be chose for me. Holidays can have interesting meanings and interesting takeaways. I never expected what I saw or learned on this Labor Day.

Clearing The Tabs - Read It All

2011-09-17T15:30:00.018-05:00

Obama's America: Prosperity Lost - American Thinker

Your Lemonade Stand & The Government - Blog, Via @jjauthor

New Blog Post: Our Moral Dilemma | We Texans

18 Signs The Collapse Of Society Is Accelerating

Let Private Enterprise Solve Obesity Problem, Not Government

The U.S. Must Support Israel At the U.N.

2011-09-16T16:00:00.000-05:00

This column appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 16, 2011

By Rick Perry

The historic friendship between the United States and Israel stretches from the founding of the Jewish state in 1948 to the present day. Our nations have developed vital economic and security relationships in an alliance based on shared democratic principles, deep cultural ties, and common strategic interests. Historian T.R. Fehrenbach once observed that my home state of Texas and Israel share the experience of "civilized men and women thrown into new and harsh conditions, beset by enemies."

Surrounded by unfriendly neighbors and terror organizations that aim to destroy her, the Jewish state has never had an easy life. Today, the challenges are mounting. Israel faces growing hostility from Turkey. Its three-decades-old peace with Egypt hangs by a thread. Iran pursues nuclear weapons its leaders vow to use to annihilate Israel. Terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians from Hezbollah and Hamas continue. And now, the Palestinian leadership is intent on destroying the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the conflict with Israel in favor of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations.

The Palestinian plan to win that one-sided endorsement from the U.N. this month in New York threatens Israel and insults the United States. The U.S. and the U.N. have long supported the idea that Israel and its neighbors should make peace through direct negotiations. The Palestinian leadership has dealt directly with Israel since 1993 but has refused to do so since March 2010. They seem to prefer theatrics in New York to the hard work of negotiation and compromise that peace will require.

Errors by the Obama administration have encouraged the Palestinians to take backward steps away from peace. It was a mistake to call for an Israeli construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, as an unprecedented precondition for talks. Indeed, the Palestinian leadership had been negotiating with Israel for years, notwithstanding settlement activity. When the Obama administration demanded a settlement freeze, it led to a freeze in Palestinian negotiations. It was a mistake to agree to the Palestinians' demand for indirect negotiations conducted through the U.S., and it was an even greater mistake for President Obama to distance himself from Israel and seek engagement with the hostile regimes in Syria and Iran.

Palestinian leaders have perceived this as a weakening of relations between Israel and the U.S, and they are trying to exploit it. In taking this destabilizing action in the U.N., the Palestinians are signaling that they have no interest in a two-state solution. The Palestinian leadership's insistence on the so-called "right of return" of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel's sovereign territory, thereby making Jews an ethnic minority in their own state, is a disturbing sign that the ultimate Palestinian "solution" remains the destruction of the Jewish state.

The U.S.—and the U.N—should do everything possible to discourage the Palestinian leadership from pursuing its current course.

The U.S. should oppose the statehood measure by using our veto in the Security Council, as President Obama has pledged to do, and by doing everything we can to weaken support for the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the General Assembly. The U.S. must affirm that the precondition for any properly negotiated future settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is the formal recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state behind secure borders.

Since the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, the U.S. has provided more than $4 billion in aid to the Palestinian Authority. This year alone, the Obama administration is seeking to secure $550 million in funding for Palestinians. The U.S. has an interest in the development of Palestinian civil society and institutions. We should encourage Palestinians who are more interested in building a prosperous future than in fueling the grievances of the past.

Our aid is, and must remain, predicated on the commitment of the Palestinian leadership to engage honestly and directly with the Israelis in negotiating a peace settlement. Their threatened unilateral action in the U.N. signals a failure to abide by this commitment.

We must not condone and legitimize through our assistance a regime whose actions are in direct opposition to a peace agreement and to our vital interests. The Palestinian people should understand that their leaders are now putting this much-needed support in jeopardy and act in their own best interests—which are also the interests of peace.

Mr. Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, is running for president of the United States.

Job promotion need not cost a lot

2011-09-07T11:33:00.006-05:00

This column originally appeared in the The Columbus Dispatch.

By Thomas J. Donohue

It seems like every politician in Washington has a jobs plan these days — or is at least promising one. While the focus is welcome, Americans are right to question whether the ideas are sound and whether all the talk will translate into action. At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we believe the time for rhetoric has come and gone. Twenty-five million Americans are unemployed, underemployed, have given up looking for work or are brand new in the workforce and can’t find jobs. They deserve to hear detailed, common-sense ideas that will at least jump-start job creation. What they aren’t interested in are empty promises or temporary, artificial government jobs that won't last but will add to the deficit.

There are some practical, private-sector ideas that can be quickly turned into action. We’ve put them together into a plan we're sending to the president and every member of Congress:

• Expand trade and global commerce. Congress has the tools to open new markets and create new American jobs by passing the pending free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Doing so would save 380,000 jobs and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The administration can immediately modernize export controls, allowing U.S. businesses to expand trade to the tune of 340,000 new jobs. We must also complete a Trans-Pacific Partnership and initiate trade talks with the European Union to spur U.S. exports to global economies. Congress can take immediate steps to safeguard 19 million intellectual-property-related jobs and create new ones by passing a patent-reform bill, along with legislation to shut down rogue websites.

• Produce more American energy. Let American energy workers responsibly develop all sources of domestic energy. By opening up offshore resources, we could create almost 250,000 new jobs. Expanding access to federal lands for oil and gas exploration would add 530,000 new jobs. Development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, as well as other resource-rich shale reserves, could generate 116,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania alone by 2020. And approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, connecting Canadian oil fields to refineries in Texas, would support 250,000 energy jobs.

• Speed up infrastructure projects. Passing a multiyear highway bill with adequate funding would enable states and communities to plan projects, hire employees and prevent layoffs. Removing regulatory and permitting obstacles to 351 stalled energy projects would create 1.9 million jobs annually. Eliminating impediments to $250 billion in global private capital for infrastructure projects here at home could create 1.9 million jobs in 10 years.

• Welcome tourists and business visitors. The travel and tourism sector already accounts for $700 billion in revenues and 7.4 million American jobs. We can create 1.3 million more jobs by 2020 just by restoring the U.S. share of the travel market to its 2000 level. We can do so by removing the hassle factor of visiting the United States, expanding the visa waiver program, promoting America as a premier travel destination and reforming the visa application process to ensure consistent, fair and timely procedures without compromising security.

• Streamline permits and provide regulatory certainty and relief. America’s economy and job creators need relief from a staggering amount of new regulations and mandates. The president should issue an executive order prohibiting agencies from issuing discretionary regulations that would have a substantial economic impact — until the economy improves.

• Pass job-creating tax incentives. Congress should swiftly enact pro-growth tax measures that stimulate business expansion without adding to the deficit. A repatriation holiday — reducing taxes on profits earned overseas — could bring at least $1 trillion back to America, creating 2.9 million jobs over two years of implementation. Congress should also temporarily reduce the capital-gains tax rate to help companies restore their balance sheets and free up cash for investment and hiring.

Timely action could significantly ease uncertainty, get existing capital off the sidelines, spur business and consumer activity and create American jobs — without adding to the deficit.

Now that Congress and the president are back in Washington, they must get to work so the 25 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed can find work. Join us — and our network of three million businesses — in urging lawmakers to act now.

Thomas J. Donohue is the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

My Interview on KNTH Radio

2011-08-29T23:56:00.000-05:00

The Starbucks Presidential Primary

2011-08-24T12:38:00.004-05:00

This column was originally published by the US Daily Review.

The Republican nomination process so far this season has been pretty intriguing to me, and it’s also been pretty comical in some respects.

This past weekend we witnessed something pretty unique in my opinion. On Saturday afternoon Governor Rick Perry officially declared his candidacy, less than 6 hours later the Iowa Straw Poll results were known, and on Sunday morning Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the race. Enter stage right, exit stage left.

Now, this week we’re hearing that Congressman Paul Ryan and Governor Chris Christie are both taking steps, talking to people and focus grouping their candidacies. I am a big Paul Ryan fan. I typically refer to him as Jack Kemp Jr. I was a huge Jack Kemp fan as well. Ryan learned at the feet of the master and it shows in his policies and his approach. Governor Christie has taken it right to the unions of New Jersey. Christie has been outspoken, he’s been a soundbite machine and he’s avoided much controversy. He has also managed to rein in an out of control state during the awful conditions of the Obama Economy.

So with people here and there advocating for Ryan and Christie to get into the race, I’ve started to realize that we’re really witnessing The Starbucks Presidential Primary. So many people want so many things in a candidate, and until they find their perfect blend, I think they’re going to keep throwing names out there. I’m actually amazed that with as many candidates as we have, and had with Pawlenty’s departure, that people still can’t find what they want in a candidate.

I equate this to Starbucks in the following way: We’ve got people accustomed to walking into a Starbucks, looking at the menu for 3 minutes and then saying “I’d like a tall…no a venti, vanilla mochachino, light on the whip, non-fat, with a sprinkle of cinnamon and then two splendas added after it’s mixed, oh, and yes on the caramel syrup on top”. These same people are now choosing our nominee and even the candidates. They don’t realize you can’t order Paul Ryan’s looks, Romney’s wallet, Bachmann’s accent, Cain’s “voice of Othello” (as Jack Kemp called him once), light on the Paul, Newt’s mind and Perry’s bravado, and put together a Starbucks drink that leaves me looking at the menu wondering where that is on there, or if the customer just made it up.

Our party right now is a great example of the free market system working. Candidates enter the market place, they make a profit or they don’t, and they leave gracefully when they are no longer sustainable. And don’t misunderstand me, I’m not being critical of anyone here. Eventually, unlike the typical market place where the customer can walk away without ever making a choice, a choice will have to be made in 2012. Some will walk away without making a choice, but most will stick around and find the candidate they agree with the most, or the candidate that gets closest to their ideals.

I remember as a kid, every now and then I would go spend the weekend at my grandparents. On Sunday morning my grandfather would grab the Sunday paper and he and I would venture to a local diner where he would order coffee. The choices back then were regular or decaf, and decaf was understood to be nasty, burned, and not very desirable. We’ve come a long way in coffee choices now, thanks to Starbucks. Choice has now extended to the Republican presidential field, more so than ever before.

Maybe one day we will have a Twitter Presidential Primary, one where the candidates don’t even make personal appearances, they can either communicate to the nation via 140 characters at a time, or they can’t. Those that can not, they will be gone. Those that can, might just tweet the words:

From @PresidentElect: ”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of theUnited States, and will to the best of my…”

From @PresidentElect: ”…ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.”

Until that time, we’re working and living in the here and now. I’m headed to Starbucks…to buy a newspaper.

Newt Gingrich for President

2011-08-12T13:20:00.001-05:00

A Great Video By Students For Rick Perry

2011-08-08T15:15:00.000-05:00

Hope For Change In 2012 - NEWT

2011-07-01T18:33:00.003-05:00

Senator Marco Rubio's Maiden Floor Speech

2011-06-15T19:30:00.008-05:00

On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Senator Marco Rubio delivered his maiden speech on the floor of the United States Senate. Focusing on themes of "The New American Century," Senator Rubio celebrated the "American miracle" that allows so many to achieve their dreams and resolved that we all continue to fight for America's role as a shining city on a hill.

Paul Ryan Updates Medicare Plan with More Facts -- Left Still Offers Nothing

2011-05-25T18:11:00.001-05:00

2011-05-14T19:40:00.013-05:00

GreenWala had an intriguing post recently on How To Brew The Perfect Cup Of Coffee. The entire post is insightful, but they narrow it down as follows:

It boils down to these steps:
Buy top quality coffee.
Use clean, odor-free, but not distilled water.
Keep coffee hot after brewing in a thermal carafe.

Higher Education: Another Sacred Cow?

2011-05-10T06:55:00.002-05:00

Guest Column By Holly Hansen (@hollyshansen)
(this column originally appeared at Williamson County Conservative)

One positive result of our nation's economic difficulties is the renewed impetus to hold taxpayer-funded- entities accountable, and to implement reforms where applicable. Unfortunately, when Governor Perry attempted to apply those standards to Texas Institutions of Higher Learning, we discovered a whole new herd of sacred cows.

Governor Perry has been a proponent of State Higher Education reforms for quite some time, but he renewed his push this session in light of our current economic difficulties. In his inaugural address, Perry challenged universities to establish a $10,000 four-year degree. Most university personnel ridiculed the proposal and claimed it was impossible. But is it?

According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, per-student operating costs at universities in Texas have grown dramatically; in 1991 statewide average per-student was $10,665, but by 2008 it had increased to $18,571, a 74.1% increase. This explosion in costs is largely due to administration and faculty trends. Administration costs have increased by 52% over the last decade, and nationally non-teaching staff now make up for 79% of personnel. (Sound familiar? Like our tax-payer funded public school system on steroids?)

Not only has higher ed seen an unhealthy growth in non-instructional personnel, it seems universities are not making the most of the instructional staff they have. According to a Texas Performance Review, faculty at research universities only teach 1.9 courses each semester, and nationally nearly 22% do not teach at all. Many of these tenured professors enjoy six-figure salaries, and while certainly a few are contributing valuable research, most are publishing obscure articles in obscure journals read only by an obscure few.

These factors, along with a general lack of accountability, are driving up the cost of a college degree in Texas. But instead of facing economic realities, many folks in Texas' higher education bureaucracy prefer to blame the State, blame the Governor, blame the Republicans; blame anyone rather than enact common sense reforms. They have sought not only to demonize Governor Perry, but to 'kill' messengers who dare to suggest reforms like having professors actually teach classes; hence the outcry against University of Texas advisor Rick O'Donnell. Such has been the hue and cry that Lt. Governor Dewhurst and TX House Speaker Joe Straus have been pressured to create a new Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education Governance, Excellence and Transparency. It appears that the committee's purpose is not to seek efficiencies and reforms for higher ed, but to police the reformers.

As with the debate over reforms for public education, we again seem to be up against educrats who insist there is not one iota of waste anywhere in the system, and threaten that any reform attempts will destroy higher education forever and ever, amen. Never mind that Texas' higher education system is always demanding more funds from taxpayers at the same time tuition rates are skyrocketing and students are graduating with ever more debt. Unfortunately for both taxpayers and students, Higher Ed is looking like yet another sacred cow.

Remembering Jack Kemp

2011-05-02T06:17:00.004-05:00

The mighty Jack Kemp died two years ago today. Read a little something about supply-side economics in his memory today.

Americans Divided Over Ryan vs. Obama Deficit Plans

2011-04-28T07:46:00.009-05:00

Gallup is out with a new poll demonstrating what most of us already know: The GOP is incapable of unifying and communicating on Paul Ryan's health care proposal. This is all you need to know:

U.S. adults are evenly split in their reactions to the major deficit-reduction plans being debated in Washington. Forty-four percent prefer the Democratic plan proposed by President Barack Obama, while 43% say Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's plan is better.

Until we get better explaining to the people, this will continue to be the norm, and we will lose people, then we'll lose elections.

Paul Ryan Proposes Serious Budget; The Left Attacks, Offers Nothing

2011-04-05T18:24:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, Congressman Paul Ryan proposed a serious governing document for America, called The Path to Prosperity (read the plan here), it's a great place to start the national dialogue about so many issues. The response from the Left is typical. They have begun to attack Ryan, the GOP and the budget proposal, all of this while never offering a serious proposal of their own.

First, you should read Congressman Ryan's op-ed in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal.

Second, you should read this tweet from Leftist San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi: "The #GOP Ryan budget is a path to poverty for America's seniors & children and a road to riches for big oil #GOPvalues" When you stop laughing at poor Nancy and her standard madlib, fill in the blank template, you should contact your congressman and make sure they are on board with this budget.

Finally, in my recent posts, I have been calling for Transformational Change. This governing proposal is a small step in the right direction. Government will still play too large a role in our lives under this proposal, but this proposal is a step in the right direction.

The Flat Tax: How it Works and Why it is Good for America

2011-04-02T19:25:00.006-05:00

Take 7 minutes and watch this very important video from Cato Institute's Dan Mitchell as he discusses the Flat Tax.

TX Rep Kolkhorst Moves HB5 Out of Public Health Committee

2011-03-31T10:49:00.001-05:00

by Pondering Penguin, this column originally appeared here.

Texas State Rep Lois Kolkhorst is chairwoman of the Public Health Committee. As the Chair of the House Committee on Public Health, she helps manage the state's multi-billion dollar health care system and works to set priorities for the Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees thousands of state employees at five state agencies.

Rep Kolkhorst sponsored HB5 - Relating to the Interstate Health Care Compact and it has been voted out of committee on a vote of 5-0. By coming together with other states, Texas can manage the state's Medicaid mandates as the costs rise in the coming years.

According to Texas Public Policy Foundation, the coming budget obligations for Medicaid in Texas will be staggering.

As legislators are well aware, Article II has consumed an increasingly larger percentage of the state's budget, with Medicaid demanding the lion's share. It is also the least flexible due to the restraints placed on Medicaid by the federal government. Recent changes in federal law with the passage of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) removed most of the remaining options.

Texas general revenue Medicaid spending, after adjustments for inflation and population, will increase 866 percent between 2009 and 2040. Meaningful opportunities to stem the growth of health care spending are hard to come by because the Legislature has been hamstrung by certain provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and by the acceptance of ARRA funds that restrict lawmakers from making significant changes to Article II, particularly with regard to Medicaid.

Rep Kolkhorst believes that joining in with other states with the Interstate Compact option, it may be the only constitutional shield to be found to fight Obamacare. States can manage their needs better than the federal government. Currently there are 18 states coming together, with the potential for 12 more. After passing in the State Legislature, then the bill would be sent to Congress where it would be voted on. Every state has to work within the same perimeters. Block grants would be distributed.

With the current budget shortfalls facing every state, Interstate Compacts make sense.

I'd like to thank Pondering Penguin for writing this post and allowing me to post it here. I encourage you to visit Pondering Penguin and engage in the conversation there as well.

Government vs. Philanthropy

2011-03-30T19:31:00.000-05:00

In thinking about my recent posts about the need for Transformational Change in America, this call came in to Rush Limbaugh on 3-15-11 that really had me saying out loud "that's a great example of what I'm talking about". Listen to the call here, and be sure to read the notes on the screen:

This call and it's content needs to be considered. Philanthropy needs to be looked at again in this country, and frankly I think philanthropic endeavors need to be reinvigorated. Philanthropy will always, no matter what, do better than anything government does. So, add this to the list of things we need to discuss.

Happy Birthday???

2011-03-23T17:14:00.001-05:00

My second niece arrived this morning. She is healthy and already talking about supply-side economics and she has already asked for her uncle to send her some books about Ronald Reagan, she realizes there is no time to waste.

I always see these numbers for what part of the nation's debt a child "born today" is responsible for. A little research reveals that this new beauty just inherited her share of the national debt, which equals $29,178. That number will be $49,694 for a child born in 2020, and it could obviously increase.

Both of these monetary figures are ridiculous. And when you think that in just 9 years, not only will the population increase, but that each person share of the debt will increase 59%, I hope you agree with me that this system is unsustainable.

It's time for real change. It's time for transformational change. As each niece has been born, I look at these little ones, and I realize this is no longer about me. It's about them and one day it's about their children when they become mothers.

So, with that, the ideas I've been working on in recent weeks are still in development and there will be more soon.

In the meantime, I welcome my niece to the world, I hope her 18 month old sister will embrace a lifetime of being a big sister and I hope we get serious about reforming this ridiculous, out of control situation for the future generations.

Happy Birthday little one.

A Trivial Question About Presidential Candidates

2011-03-10T15:33:00.001-06:00

I was talking with a friend a few days ago about the upcoming 2012 Presidential election. As we talked about candidates, my friends list of potential candidates was interesting to me, and one thing stuck out to me: none of the names on the list were people currently serving in Washington DC. As I pointed that out to my friend, the response was, "Exactly".

We discussed this for a while. It was pointed out to me that those in Washington just serve as members of the "peanut gallery". I realized that Obama came from the Senate, and while he was able to criticize President Bush from his then (and current) role as national Commentator-In-Chief, he was never a leader before and that has hindered him from being effective as Marxist-In-Chief.

So, does it help someone like Newt Gingrich who served in Congress, then left Congress to run for President later? What about Herman Cain, a man who has actually run businesses, created jobs, achieved profits and balanced a real budget? What about Governors like Time Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie?

I'm interested in hearing what you think about this. Should our nominee be from outside of the Congress? What about names like Jim DeMint or Paul Ryan? I used the word "trivial" in the title of this post, I did that because I want a serious national discussion and dialogue about the real questions of our time. If the 2012 election turns into a non-sensical popularity contest, that gets us nowhere.

Remove Leftist Jesse Jackson Jr. From Congress Yesterday

2011-03-09T17:03:00.000-06:00

Leftist Jesse Jackson Jr. has clearly presented himself as a clear and present danger to America. This uneducated moron is understandably overmatched in the US Congress. This Leftist here clearly puts a voice to the problems facing those of us looking for Transformational Change, as he sees the Constitution of the United States as an open ended opportunity to have government do everything imaginable.

One specific critical point to demonstrate Jackson's mental weakness, he asks "how many schools would such a right build from Maine to California". There is no shortage of schools in this country Jackson. There is also no shortage of money for schools. What there is is a surplus of teachers unions protecting failed teachers and a flawed system. Students in this country are benefiting in places where government is not in charge. Read my recent posts about Transformational Change in Education to understand this better.

The Examples Just Keep Coming

2011-03-09T14:39:00.000-06:00

In my efforts to look at Transformational Change in government, this is an amazing time to be a news junkie and writer. This video below of a speech that Leftist Harry Reid actually delivered in the US Senate chamber, is an opportunity to see the largesse that needs to be cut from the things that the federal government spends money on.

Here is the text of that video so that you can actually see this stupidity:

"The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1,, eliminates National Public Broadcasting...It eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts. These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist."

I don't think you can watch this video, and then read the words, and still believe that government spending is not out of control and that Transformational Change is not needed.

And before you attempt to tell me that we need PBS, NEA, NEH and NPR and all this other nonsense, realize that I don't want the federal government funding this sort of leftist propaganda in any case. The Constitution does not call for this sort of heavy-handed intervention. If PBS and NPR are so great, let the market place decide that and fund it. Pacifica Radio is also full of leftists who hate America, but unlike NPR and PBS, Pacifica finds fellow travelers to pay the bills. The same should apply to NPR and PBS. It's time to stop paying for these things. Let's minimize the functions of government, keep more money in our communities and keep more of our own earnings.

ObamaCare vs. the Post Office - Should Government Handle Either?

2011-03-08T17:23:00.000-06:00

There was a great, short post over at The Weekly Standard today that is certainly worth looking at. So much was said in so little space.

"The problem is, America’s Founders wrote the following words (penned at Independence Hall) into our Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power…To establish Post Offices and post Roads.” Meanwhile, Obamacare may contradict the Founders’ vision of limited government and liberty more completely than any legislation ever passed in our nation’s history. The only good thing about Obamacare is the backlash against it, which has reignited national debate over the proper scope of government and has generated renewed interest in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and our founding principles. But it doesn’t help to advance those principles to suggest that Obamacare is like the Post Office.

It didn’t take 2,700 pages to found the Post Office. The Post Office doesn’t try to run what will soon be one-fifth of our economy. It doesn’t cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. It doesn’t compel Americans to buy health insurance. It doesn’t consolidate heretofore unthinkable levels of power in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other unelected officials."

As my readers know, I think the Post Office has become an unmanageable system for the federal government to handle. The Post Office has not turned a profit in many years. But, the larger points here are fantastic and it's good to see validation for what I've been talking about here in previous weeks.

How Many More Ways Could We Possibly Stifle Small Business?

2011-03-07T15:20:00.000-06:00

I came across an interesting column today over at OpenMarket.org, discussing how to help small businesses across America. I recommend the entire column, but the three highlighted sections below merit particular attention.

"Paychex, Inc., a payroll service provider that works with many small businesses, recently commissioned a survey. They asked small business owners their thoughts on the economy, and what the biggest obstacles are to growing their businesses. The most common gripe? Regulation. 47 percent of small business owners say that regulations have “slowed or prevented” their business from growing."

This is where bureaucracy gets in the way of real economic growth. Damn, just get out of the way and let those with initiative and drive and capital investment put people to work.

"If Congress is genuinely interested in helping small businesses while speeding up economic recovery, it’s time for a different approach."

Can you join me in saying "Transformational Change"?

"Federal regulation alone costs $1.75 trillion to comply with. Congress should lighten the load. 47 percent of small business owners say that regulation has made their business grow more slowly. Letting that 47 percent grow more quickly would go a long way toward getting the economy growing again."

Almost $2,000,000,000,000 (yes, that's 12 0's) just to comply with regulations!

What To Do About Rising Gas Prices

2011-03-05T19:45:00.001-06:00

You have no doubt seen gas prices on the rise in recent weeks and months. What solutions do you have for bringing down gas prices?

You do realize that rising gas prices make consumer goods rise in price too, right? While gas is getting closer to $4 per gallon, will you like it when it gets to $8 per gallon? All the transportation costs of consumer products will increase.

Book Review - A Chance To Make History

2011-03-03T20:44:00.005-06:00

A Chance to Make History: What Works and What Doesn't in Providing an Excellent Education for Allby Teach For America founder Wendy Kopp is a current look at a positive force for education improvement in America. Education books about various educational programs are released each year, but as numbers change, the books become outdated and less accurate, or less applicable. So, A Chance to Make History, released in 2011, and with stats reported from the latter part of 2010, is a very good current snapshot of the education system in America.

Right at the outset, I wish I had the book in electronic format so I could easily count the number of times the words “transformation” or “transformational” were used. I think this word was the right choice for the needed reforms in American education. I do think those word uses were incorrectly applied in some instances, where the words were another way or saying “better”, “different” or “changing”. What American education truly needs is Transformational Change.

Calling for such change is another way of saying that the current system is beyond being fixed by piecemeal measures, or tinkering around the edges. As was pointed out in this book, more money and more funding is not always the answer. In many cases we are simply spending more for the same, mediocre results.

What A Change to Make History clearly demonstrates is that private enterprise can achieve better results than can any level of government, such as local or federal. There are several instances where not having to deal with any government bureaucracies allowed innovators and investors the chance to get in and do the work of educating children. One great quote to illustrate this:

"Post-storm, there was no bureaucracy left, and it really was an open opportunity for people to come down and get schools open quickly, schools that could be designed to close the achievement gap right from the start." (p. 96, in reference to post-Katrina New Orleans)

I understand that Teach for America does get some federal funding, but that most of its funding is philanthropic and received from donors. I object to the federal government being involved in education at all. If government has to be involved, I would prefer to see them solely fund organizations such as Teach For America. Get the bureaucrats who look at numbers and studies and decide the fate of students across the country that they have never seen and will never see, out of the way of state and local education authorities.

The federal government has proven it can not manage large, complex systems well. Look at the post office, which recently had to be bailed out to the tune of $11 billion. If the federal government had to go to a rational bank and apply for a loan to fund the Department of Education, and if they presented the current model for education as their business plan, they would be laughed out of the building, denied the loan, and shut down for good.

Specifically, A Chance to Make History is an enjoyable read, it is a narrative, with stories that the author comes back to time and again. It is a hopeful book, and a positive book when you see the positive results. I felt the book, at 218 pages, was a quick read, and frankly I could have kept reading. Fortunately, the book is loaded with some great footnotes for further research. Finally, this book might be seen very much as a sort of brag sheet for Teach For America. I’d advise readers to get over that fact and focus on the results oriented focus of the book instead. Whether it’s through Teach For America or similar efforts, let’s start transforming education in this country by unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit that can be found in our 310 million citizens. Let’s start at the local, community level and build up from there.

I'll close with this quote from page 113:

"I believe part of the reason that the achievement gap has not narrowed in an aggregate sense over the past two decades, despite all the energy and resources invested in education reform, is that our policy makers and influencers have been so obsessed with finding a quick fix that we have gone lurching from one silver-bullet solution to another rather than embracing the big idea of transformative education and engaging in the very hard work of implementing it. Equally distracting, we have also spent inordinate amounts of energy blaming one group or another-"silver scapegoats," we could call them - when there are clearly larger systemic issues at play. The fact is that our system was not initially designed with an understanding of what it would take to change the path predicted by students' socioeconomic background."

The time for Transformational Change in American education, is now.

National Start-A-Business Month

2011-03-01T05:41:00.000-06:00

I can't speak to anything specific about LegalZoom.com, I have never used their services and frankly I don't know anyone else who ever has. But March is National Start-A-Business Month over at LegalZoom. Find out more about it here. Even if it's just a set of reduced prices for their services, the idea of someone encouraging entrepreneurs to try something new is a good idea to me.

WSJ Blurb - Brief Post for Now

2011-02-22T21:04:00.005-06:00

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal had an interesting little blurb in one of it's two editorials that I'm going to come back to in an upcoming post, but I figured the blurb was worth posting now.

Medicaid isn't in trouble because it is badly run, though of course it is. The problem is that it has become so vast and is meant to fill so many political demands that no one can truly control it. Given the Obama Administration's rigidity, this is not the best reform moment, but unlike his predecessors, Mr. Cuomo seems to recognize that these liabilities can't be repaired at the margins. The real test will be if he starts to do the politically difficult work of scaling Medicaid down.

My readers will note that their reference to "repaired at the margins" sounds a lot like the "tinkering around the edges" phrase I often use. It all means the same thing. Again, I'll come back to this editorial in a day or so, but I felt this was worth posting now. The final point of focus, is that Medicaid has simply gotten out of control. As the editorial suggests, this is no time to make marginal changes, to "tinker around the edges", it's time for an overhaul. More later.

Transformational Change in Education Might be the Place to Start

2011-02-19T20:40:00.008-06:00

A great column appeared in the Houston Chronicle today.

As we are watching Professional Leftists in their true form carry out their childish acts in Wisconsin, we see some good examples of what happens when adults are in charge.

Houston has attracted entrepreneurial educators from across the globe, many, like Tarim, drawn by the University of Houston, Rice and nearby Texas A&M. Other educational entrepreneurs were not new to the country, but were new to Houston. Feinberg, Levin and Barbic were among an army of young, idealistic TFA corps members from out of state drawn to Houston to save urban schooling. Houston has the nation's largest TFA chapter. Unlike many cities, Houston welcomed TFA rather than seeing corps members as taking jobs from locals.

So what makes Houston different? First, the Houston Federation of Teachers never had the power to keep out TFA or hamstring KIPP and other charters. But that still left a bureaucracy, which, as Jay Mathews writes, resented KIPP's notoriety and success. Before KIPP became a charter, the Houston Independent School District central office investigated KIPP, and at one point reassigned its classrooms. Political leadership saved the day. HISD Superintendent Rod Paige publicly praised KIPP and intervened when bureaucrats attacked. Paige also had HISD serve as an incubator for YES Prep. As Barbic recalls, "A lot of superintendents would have seen that innovation and tried to kill it, but Paige did the exact opposite." Paige's successors have followed his lead, fashioning a public school system that can compete with the charters.

In a couple of my recent posts where I have discussed some ideas suggesting we need Transformational Change, this article highlights two sections where I think this absolutely applies.

Highlighted in yellow, entrepreneurial and entrepreneurs suggest the type of thinking and the type of people we need to transform the nations education disaster. This is the new thinking we need. This is where the new solutions that work will come from. Highlighted in orange, is the old thinking, the continual path to ruin and inefficiency. The orange highlights are the way to stop progress.

Newt Gingrich has discussed a newer model, called Entrepreneurial Public Management to replace bureaucratic public administration. A more scholarly paper on Entrepreneurial Public Management can be found at AEI. As I have been thinking about how we reform, and therefore transform the current system(s) in America, this seems like a very logical place to start. Obviously the teachers unions will be the biggest problem. Anyone who has seen the documentary Waiting For Superman knows what I'm talking about. Think about that "rubber room" in New York. And think about the all-out assault the Professional Left launched against Michelle Rhee, for the crime of, hold your breath, WANTING CHILDREN TO LEARN, gasp. Fortunately, Michelle Rhee is able to do her own thing now.

So, I see a clearer path now than I did a few days ago. I'm still working and thinking about how we get to a point of Transformational Change and what that looks like. I hope you're working on it or thinking about it as well and I welcome your ideas and collaboration.

Do we really need 5,100 more IRS agents?

2011-02-16T00:10:00.005-06:00

A brief editorial in the Wall Street Journal should make you ask a few questions, after your skin stops crawling:

President Obama's fiscal 2012 budget doesn't cut much of anything (see above), and certainly not the Internal Revenue Service. The White House is requesting that the most beloved of all government agencies get an additional 5,100 agents next year, no doubt to wring further tax revenue from Americans. The White House wants to give the IRS a 9.4% raise in fiscal 2012, to $13.28 billion. Reuters reports this would allow for a roughly 5% increase in agency manpower to 100,537, including $460 million more for tax enforcement than in 2010.

I'm not for more government, but I will advocate for a big government idea to make a larger point.

What if instead of hiring 5,100 new IRS agents, the government instead gave 5,100 people $500,000 under the watchful eye of the Small Business Administration, and let them go out and create real jobs, and real wealth in America? We could play with the numbers one way or the other, at the high end this is $2.5 Billion. $250,000 instead would be $1.25 Billion. Something like that would be a real stimulus, not creating more government workers.

The Time Is Now

2011-02-15T19:23:00.005-06:00

Friends, the time is now, to figure out where this country is headed. I figured I would say this at some point during the Obama Regime's Reign, but I figured it would be closer to the Marxist-In-Chief's re-election run, and not now, in February 2011. Shoot, it's not even April 15th, Tax day. It's just a Tuesday night in America.

I don't yet know the format this will take; meaning I don't know what the blog posts will look like, what the graphics will look like or what the overall approach will be. It might vary and not flow well at all, but the theme will be the same.

The bottom line is, we can no longer continue down our current path as a nation. We cannot keep spending on everything that our government views as necessary for one reason or another. But, saying "stop spending" is not enough. What does that really get us? Cut a few billion dollars here or a few billions dollars there; drops in the ocean. This is what I refer to as using a teaspoon to clear water off the deck of the Titanic.

What we need is transformational change. That means tough decisions. No, it won't be easy, certainly not as easy as continuing the spending that got us to this point of disaster in the first place. If you want more tax increases, we'll you've gotten them. Have you paid attention to the prices rising all around you? Everything you buy has increased in price since January 20, 2009. So your cost of living has increased, you want to pay more taxes on top of that? What are you getting in return for your taxes each year? Where does is stop? When does it stop? The time is now.

I think the first question needs to be; What do you view as the fundamental role of the federal government? I think we'd all agree that a military is necessary. But, I'm not even willing to make that assumption definite. In my mind, we have to get back to finding out what the basic functions of the federal government need to be, then we build up from there. So, you tell me, let's start with that.

The time is now.

Memories of Ronald Reagan at 100

2011-02-06T13:52:00.003-06:00

So many people are documenting their thoughts about Ronald Reagan on this, his 100th birthday, so I will give in to the temptation and offer some of my memories as well.

My earliest memories of President Reagan go back to my third grade year. One of my best friends at the time (Mike M., he knows who he is) and I stood up in front of our class and each recited the 40 Presidents at the time, in order. And of course, at that time Reagan was the 40th and last President. Mike M. and I both got extra credit for doing this, and we were the only two in the entire 20-25 student class to do this.

Our third grade class wrote letters to the White House when we were studying the Presidency. Each student who mailed a letter, received a package in the mail which contained an 8x10 of President Reagan (the now infamous bust shot of Reagan with the American flag in the background), a book/magazine about the White House (a book/magazine that I still have to this day) and a letter from the President thanking us for writing and encouraging us to study further. Yes, I realize this was not a personal letter, but the 8x10 got thumb-tacked to my bedroom wall, how many third graders can say that? What can I say, I always thought President Reagan looked cool. He was the same age as my grandfather, and I thought that was cool too. My grandfather would have been 100 later this year, I'll write about that in due time.

In 1984, my classroom did a secret ballot vote for Reagan vs. Mondale. The 22-1 defeat I suffered that day was made better when I read about the landslide victory the next morning on the front page of the San Antonio Express-News. I'll take 49-1 across the country every time.

Finally, I remember President Reagan speaking to the country the day the space shuttle Challenger exploded. My class at the time was watching tv live when the shuttle took off, as we were studying astronomy and all the teachers in America were especially intrigued with Astronaut (and teacher) Christa McAuliffe being on that space flight. I remember President Reagan speaking to the country, and especially singling out the students of America, practically talking directly to us. Again, it was like grandpa was speaking right to me.

I was an adult when President Reagan revealed he was suffering from Alzheimers. I was living in Georgia, working on a congressional campaign, when the President died in 2004. I have been to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, three times, the first time being in 1999. I have even visited the Library there as a researcher, where I was able to look at papers from the archives. I have twice been able to stand where the President is buried, where he will forever face the sunsets in the west, when the sun drops below the mountains of Simi Valley at the end of each day.

Anyway, those are my recollections for this momentous day celebrating a momentous man.

Reagan Super Bowl XLV Tribute

2011-02-05T22:22:00.000-06:00

An Interesting Night In America

2011-02-02T00:24:00.001-06:00

Tuesday evening was rather interesting if you cared enough to pay attention. Two events took place that I wish took place way more often.

In Washington DC, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean took part in a 90 minute debate hosted by the George Washington University College Republicans and College Democrats. If you watched the debate on C-SPAN, you'll probably agree with me that the issues and the substance covered was quite impressive. Obviously, your humble author here never agrees with Howard Dean, but he gave responses and opinions that allowed for substantive debate. Speaker Gingrich was, well, Speaker Gingrich. One of the top thinkers in our party, along with Paul Ryan who I will mention next, Newt offered a very sane argument for American Exceptionalism along with conservatism throughout many of his answers.

Congressman Paul Ryan, someone whose praises I sing (or blog) about regularly, hosted a nationwide conference call for his new Political Action Committee named the Prosperity Project. I joined the call and I heard Congressman Ryan hold court with callers across the nation. I was actually very impressed with the questions and I was even more impressed with Ryan's interaction as he would actually converse with the callers and he would offer real life stories to help relate the point he was trying to make.

The Congressman addressed issues from across the board, typically from the fiscal angle. There was a focus on retirement savings, real health care reform, national debt and taxes. In his usual fashion, Congressman Ryan gave answers that while complex, they made sense and they could be understood. Paul Ryan is very much the future of the conservative movement.

As I stated at the outset, this was an interesting night. In 1858, Lincoln and Douglas debated seven times for 3 hours each time. Can you imagine if we had anything similar to that today? Our Presidential debates have been dumbed down to "tell us in 90 seconds how you would handle Iran". That's not serious dialogue. We often see forums, and there is nothing wrong with forums, but typically there are 2 to 5 experts who already agree on the same thing, they just come about it different ways. The forums are often formal ways to compare notes.

We rarely see non-candidate debates between two people, just to talk out loud about ideas. Interestingly, the last debate like this that I can recall was about environmental issues in 2007, it also featured Speaker Gingrich, and he debated Senator John Kerry. I'd like to see more of this. We should demand it of our elected officials and of our political leaders who may not be elected officials. Notice that neither Gingrich or Dean is an elected official. Bravo to both of them.

Nine Words That Could Change The Debate In America

2011-02-01T00:29:00.003-06:00

This past week I heard possible Presidential candidate Herman Cain say something a couple of times. I wanted to elaborate on it, and describe what I think it means. Mr. Cain is not shy about taking questions when he is speaking with a group of people, or even while hosting his radio show. People frequently ask things such as "how will you get Congress to pass this bill" or "how do you expect to get this done when other Presidents have failed". Cain is very quick to say nine simple words, "when the people understand it, they will demand it". I think there is great power in those nine words.

I hear the nine words and immediately think back to Ronald Reagan. One could argue that Citizen Reagan made his first big foray into national politics in 1964 when he gave his speech on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater, a speech dubbed "A choice, not an echo". If one goes from 1964, then counts Governor Reagan's years leading California, his campaign in 1976, his speeches in 1977 and 1978, and then his Presidential run that started in 1979 and ended when he left the Oval Office in 1989, that is 24 years that Ronald Reagan, Governor Reagan and President Reagan was telling the tale of America. I call it a narrative, and I'm not alone.

Many times, Reagan did not just give speeches, he told a story that captured attention, he got people to believe in what he had to say, and he had the citizens of America on his side in many of the policies he pursued. Reagan never really stopped telling the story, as a public figure, he told the story until he left office. Though he may have never actually said the nine words "when the people understand it, they will demand it", Reagan obviously lived by the idea.

In modern day politics there is not much time to explain issues and policies. There is no such thing as a candidate educating the public. Not for lack of trying, but there never seems to be enough interest in it. Political campaigns too often turn into popularity contests and big media wars with tv ads and radio commercials than tell us who they are, but little else. Then, at some point in the campaigns, it becomes time for the ads to turn negative, and at that point, civil discourse turns bad, and we are more likely to hear why a candidate is bad, not why the candidate is worth voting for, and we certainly aren't getting educated about issues and policies.

Enter Herman Cain. A man not willing to let a question go unanswered. If he doesn't have an answer, he'll be forthright enough about that to tell you, and then tell you he will find an answer. He's not about to blow smoke or improvise. Take issues like the Fair Tax, immigration reform or health care. Issues with no easy, simple answers. But they are issues where Mr. Cain is able to really elaborate on specific points, tell us why we should want it, and then rally us to want it for America. If America is understanding and then demanding, a President is doing his job. It will take another great communicator to right the ship as it currently sails.

Voters will eventually go the polls to determine the Republican nominee for President. I hope the voters will get beyond some of the trivial questions we often ask ourselves, and instead will ask themselves which candidate will do the best job of challenging America to be better, which candidate will do the best job of communicating our message to America and which candidate will do the best job of putting "us" back into the process.

For me, these questions trump the questions about which candidate can raise the most money, which candidate can invest the most personal wealth or which candidate looks the best with a rifle in their hands. I want to win. Let's choose the candidate with the best chance to reach, inspire and convince the most Americans. In my opinion, that man is Herman Cain. With nine words in his arsenal, the rest of us can now get to work.

Ed Martin for U.S. Senate - Missouri

2011-01-31T10:29:00.003-06:00

This morning Ed Martin of Missouri announced he will be running for the United States Senate. This is great news for Missourians, and America. Ed Martin would be a great addition to the U.S. Senate in 2013. Ed ran one of the smartest campaigns I've ever seen in 2010, but he came up a little short. The district in which Ed ran for congress was not designed for a Republican. It leans heavy democrat, yet Ed almost pulled off the victory.

There is a lot of time between now and November 2012. Ed Martin is worth watching now. Get involved, donate money and spread the word, let's start taking back the Senate by starting with Missouri.

Newt Gingrich Responds To Obama SOTU

2011-01-27T20:50:00.001-06:00

By Newt Gingrich

When I first heard that President Obama was using "winning the future" as the theme of his state of the union I thought it was ironically funny.

I wrote a book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" in 2005. I used the title "Winning the Future" to make the case that the future was not automatically ours, that we Americans were not winning the future with our current policies and that we would have to make real changes to win.

My book was also a warning to Republicans. It was a serious critique of the Republican failure to thoroughly rethink and replace failing government policies and institutions. I was suggesting the Republican Congress, after a decade of power, and the Republican administration were not being bold enough, creative enough or conservative enough.

They didn't listen and suffered the consequences in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I looked forward to the State of the Union address to see how President Obama would build on this theme of winning. Winning implies a real contest. Winning implies losing is possible.

As you can imagine my conservative vision of winning the future by replacing failing, left wing bureaucracies with conservative, free market alternatives was radically different than President Obama's.

After telling us government is failing (with a cute story about three different departments dealing with salmon) he then proposed more power and more money for the very institutions he has just suggested were ineffective and inefficient.

However, what was most depressing about President Obama's State of the Union address was not its big government liberalism, its clever maneuvering to keep all the big government of the last two years, or its failure to admit how much liberalism had failed to create jobs.

What really saddened me about the President's State of the Union address was its shallowness and lack of serious dialogue.

For three years we have been in the worst economy since the great depression. Millions of Americans are suffering from unemployment. We just learned that first time applications for unemployment benefits jumped by 51,000 last week. Housing prices are continuing to struggle.

What has the president learned from these three years of failure? What should we change to get back to job creation? Why should we expect more spending by failing bureaucracies (President Obama's version of investment) to work?

The world is becoming more dangerous. The Bush strategies did not stop the dangerous North Korean and Iranian regimes from pursuing nuclear weapons. Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda are still killing innocents in brutal terrorist attacks. The Obama strategies have been no more successful than the Bush strategies. What has the president learned from the failure of "engagement"?

The United States continues to send $400 billion plus overseas even though we have huge energy reserves here at home. Instead of proposing immediate steps to use American energy to create American jobs, the president repeated his fantasy of jobs in the future created through bureaucratic spending on technologies that are currently unavailable.

What serious plans does the president have to control spending and balance the budget? Freezing spending at its current unprecedented high levels will barely make a dent in the projected deficit. The deficit is now almost twice as large as the entire government was in 1983 when I proposed a freeze on spending to President Ronald Reagan.

Sadly, there is no Obama plan for winning the future.

There is an Obama plan for protecting big government, for pouring more money into broken bureaucracies, for borrowing several trillion more from the Chinese dictatorship.

President Obama is on a path to lose the future while pretending to change things.

The Republican House of Representatives should aggressively move forward and propose a scale of change to genuinely win the future.

Let the American people see the contrast and let the American people decide if they want big government, high taxes, economic decay and dangerous cuts in defense.

I believe the American people want to genuinely win the future and will prefer a future of smaller government, more entrepreneurship, more genuine investment within a free market, more replacement of failing policies and institutions and a lot more honesty about the real change we need.

Let the debate begin.

Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and is a potential Republican presidential candidate.

Paul Ryan Dominates

2011-01-26T21:03:00.002-06:00

The title here says it all. Congressman Paul Ryan dominated with his speech Tuesday night. The whole speech could be viewed as a highlight. But, two sections particularly struck me:

"We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative – not political clout – determines who succeeds."

And this:

"We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That's the real secret to job creation – not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.

Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.

These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The American story has been cherished, advanced and defended over the centuries."

Arizona And Discourse In America

2011-01-08T21:19:00.006-06:00

Because of the political nature (by this I mean that a politician was apparently targeted) of the shootings that took place in Tucson on Saturday, I have been thinking about politics for most of the day. As we have learned more and more about the murderer, it has become apparent that he was a very troubled person. One of the things most apparent to me in the aftermath of the shootings is the heated, rhetoric filled dialog from everyone. This has really had me thinking a lot about discourse in this country, and I have taken that a step further in looking at the 2012 Presidential election.

Since July of 2010 I have firmly been supporting Herman Cain for President in 2012. I saw Mr. Cain speak at an event in Austin hosted by American for Prosperity on July 4th weekend. His speech that day from the beginning to the end was filled with hopeful comments. But beyond the "hope" I heard, I heard unconventional rhetoric, new ways of saying sold things. I started following Mr. Cain's radio show and his writings again, as I had in 2004 when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia.

Mr. Cain has said something that has made me a believer of his, and I'll paraphrase, but when he's been asked about his conservative views, he says "Conservative? You bet, I call it common sense." Touche.

Recently on his radio show, Mr. Cain released and read what he called Common Sense Solutions: The People's Platform for America. If you don't know Herman Cain, you have some catching up to do. But Herman is a thinker, it's part of what made him a business success for many years. The People's Platform for America is a well thought out, intelligent list of issues in America, but it's a list with real solutions, smart solutions.

Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about my commitment to Herman Cain during the day today. I believe now, more than ever, that Herman Cain could start a level of national discourse that we need, and a level of discourse that lifts America up, rather than one that polarizes and places blame. If you agree with me, enlist to help Herman if and when he files for Presdident at www.DraftCain.org

Newt Gingrich: Assange Is Engaged in Warfare and Terrorism

2010-12-05T21:09:00.002-06:00

Education secretary urged his employees to attend Sharpton's rally

2010-09-01T20:25:00.002-05:00

Yet another reason that the Federal Department of Education needs to be eliminated and those powers returned back to the states. Like these people had nothing better to do with the innumerable problems with education in this country.

President Obama's top education official urged government employees to attend a rally that the Rev. Al Sharpton organized to counter a larger conservative event on the Mall.

"ED staff are invited to join Secretary Arne Duncan, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and other leaders on Saturday, Aug. 28, for the 'Reclaim the Dream' rally and march," began an internal e-mail sent to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday.

AP-GfK Poll: Most attuned voters tilt toward GOP

2010-08-31T13:34:00.002-05:00

Huh, no surprise here.

Congressional races often turn on local concerns and the candidates' character, factors that may yet sway many races this year. But many analysts think the public's widely sour mood — just 35 percent in the AP-GfK poll said the country is headed in the right direction — means this year's campaigns could be widely influenced by national issues, especially the economy.

"The economy is poor, we're muddling through in Afghanistan, we're not making much progress in the war on terror," said Paul Goren, a University of Minnesota political scientist who studies voting behavior. "Every once in a while national issues can intrude. It looks like there's a good chance this will be one of those elections."

The vast majority of this poll is no surprise. Educated Republicans were not the ones looking for television cameras on election day in 2008 talking about Obama paying their mortgages, car payments and filling up their cars with gas.

The Sonar Image Of The Titanic's Debris Field Is Bigger Than Expected

2010-08-29T19:44:00.002-05:00

Anything to do with Titanic always intrigues me, this story is no exception.

2010-08-27T12:42:00.004-05:00

Sylvia Spivey - For Texas House Representative District 137

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

2010-08-23T19:21:00.001-05:00

I'm sure the Obama Regime wasn't expecting this.

Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.

The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation's Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.

Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit - Available at BSRemoval.com - feat. Br...

2010-07-18T20:07:00.000-05:00

No other words needed.

Are Political Consultants Stupid?

2010-07-17T19:00:00.001-05:00

I was intrigued by a tweet today and it led me to a couple of articles about political consultants.

I am a political consultant. Please keep reading anyway. I consider myself one of the good guys though, and I'll tell you why. It's for the very reasons that political consultants were disparaged in these articles. To elaborate further, the points that Newt Gingrich made in the Washington Post are exactly right, and our firm does the opposite of what Newt wrote about.

GPH Consulting is made up of people who grew up in the activist side of politics, some of us are still precinct chairs at the grassroots level. We believe in building the conservative movement, through the Republican party, in every race that we are involved in. We look for candidates willing to work their communities and go door to door to deliver their message, because only when we talk with everyone will we all win. We know our history, we have conservative principles and we try to elect good, competent people to office each year. We're not marketers turned political consultants who view a man (or woman) in a suit as a product we're trying to push with a couple of soundbites. We believe in more than just direct mail and tv ads. We believe in the conservative cause.

We are and have been supportive of groups like RagingElephants.org and Latino National Republican Coalition, groups going into communities that our party will traditionally write off and engaging voters who rarely if ever hear from Republican candidates.

I feel that no race, no district anywhere, should be seen as "off the table". When we cede ground to the opposition, the voters lose by not having a real choice, and eventually we all lose by having unchecked representation that can run wild in the halls of power.

Matt Lewis did a nice summation of what Newt said, and he also went back as far as 2007 to show that Newt was saying these things about consultants back then. In some of Newt's 2008 and 2009 speeches he would also make similar comments about political consultants. Melissa Clouthier also followed up with some insights. I appreciate that Matt and Melissa both used identifiers like "most" and "many" rather than "all" or "every", so I did not take offense to what either of them said.

I posted this blog back in April trying to warn our side not to give up ground so early in 2010, to keep fighting, to keep engaging, because we have the opportunity before us to build a long term movement based on freedom and prosperity. Just assuming we're going to win and assuming we have enough districts to have a majority is not enough. Let's make sure we're building our databases of emails and voter interests so that when 2012 comes around, we can be on better footing with the Obama machine than we were in 2008.

I would say to Matt and Melissa both; I understand your concerns and what you're saying, but rest assured that there is at least one consulting firm out here doing right by our cause. You may recall, just two weekends ago, I was with both of you at the AFP Summit in Austin, how many other consultants did you count in that crowd?

July 4th, 2010

2010-07-04T14:20:00.004-05:00

I wanted to take a minute to post some thoughts for the 4th of July. Rather than try to re-create anything new, I thought I would link to a couple of items from the last year that are worth re-posting.

Thoughts on the 4th of July

All Honor to Jefferson

I spent Friday and Saturday of this July 4th weekend in Austin at the Americans For Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit. We heard many inspiring speakers and learned many interesting tactics for promoting liberty and defending America. I don't know how many people actually attended the Summit, but the number of people that actually were there was quite impressive. All of these people could have been doing any number of other things, but we were all in a hotel in Austin sharpening our minds and honing our skills. It's great to live in America.

Happy July 4th.

Presidential Names For 2012, My Own Speculation

2010-07-01T15:36:00.008-05:00

There's a lot of talk about the 2012 campaigns. It's early yes, and as much as I hate the early speculation before we're even at the November 2010 elections, allow me to join in the early speculation and go against my own preferences.

Here are my top contenders, in no particular order:

Congressman Paul Ryan - He has said he won't run and he states that his young children are the reason why. I see no reason not to take him at his word, but it doesn't mean I can't hope he'll run (and there's no reason he couldn't be a contender in 2016 and 2020). Congressman Ryan is pure and simply one of our movement's best idea generators. Ryan created the Roadmap For America's Future, a solid plan which is exactly counter to everything Barrack Hussein Obama has offered in his first 20 months in office. Ryan's congressional website is one of the better house websites around. Recently Ryan delivered the Republicans weekly address. One of my favorite lines from that address: "Let’s make the tough, forward-looking choices that will restore the promise and prosperity of this exceptional nation".

Herman Cain - I personally met Herman Cain in Georgia in 2004 when he was running for United State Senate. What a dynamic and captivating individual. Cain has maintained a public presence in recent years and I think he could be building his national name ID slowly but surely. He hosts a daily radio show on WSB in Atlanta, he writes and he speaks, traveling the country this summer with Americans For Prosperity speaking at the conferences in various states. Cain has a great personal story, growing up the son of a car driver who drove around wealthy business men, then later leading the resurgence of Godfather's Pizza chain.

Governor Mitch Daniels - Governor Daniels was recently told by Newt Gingrich to lead the media to believe he hasn't ruled out a run for President, that they would take him more seriously and give him more national coverage. So, I admit to not being sure what to make of the Governor's words and actions. Either way, Daniels has been an innovator and a real leader in Indiana. Earlier this year, George Will penned a column where he played out a scene in a future President Daniels administration. Mark McKinnon also weighed in with his thoughts on a Daniels candidacy.

Governor Chris Christie - The new Governor of New Jersey is making many friends in conservative circles online. Some of Governor Christie's speeches have been blunt and to the point. He has taken on the media. He visited with citizens at a Town Hall, and his speech became known as the "Day of Reckoning". He even told a teacher who was complaining about teacher pay that she didn't have to teach, this speech also generated a great line when the Governor said "unlike the United States of America, the state of New Jersey can't print money" with regard to people unhappy with certain budget cuts. Pragmatism at its finest. Not sure America is ready for that.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - For the record, I don't think Newt will run. I think he will lead people to think he is so that he is taken seriously as he proposes ideas, gives speeches and writes books, employing the strategy he suggested to Mitch Daniels above. Newt's work at American Solutions stands online in the depth and ideas he offers. A recent speech Newt delivered in Detroit could have been seen as a launching pad for anyone else in any given year, but for Newt it was business as usual: Ideas, ideas, ideas.

Liz Cheney - For those not familiar with the former Vice Presidents daughter and her qualifications, a brief bio will enlighten you. Liz Cheney has been a frequent and effective critic of the Obama Regime. Last year, Liz Cheney gave Anderson Cooper an education on CNN when he showed up less than prepared. A google search will reveal any number of great links to Cheney's writing and tv appearances. Cheney's group, Keep America Safe, released an ad earlier this year about Eric Holder and the DOJ. Cheney took some flack, but Erick Erickson at Red State came to her defense, here you can see both the ad and Erickson's response. Finally, in March of this year, Newsweek weighed in on Cheney at 2012. We'll have to wait and see.

I recently heard someone say they were sick and tired of Governors and Senators always being our candidates for President. I can see the sentiment there. I won't work my way down a list and automatically eliminate anyone who is or has been a Governor or Senator, but based on my list, Paul Ryan, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Liz Cheney would be good possibilities. I would also argue at this point that Governors Daniels and Christie are not typical of Governors past. Daniels has led Indiana during difficult times, he has made tough decisions and he has done some great things for the state through his leadership. Christie was elected, took office and has begun to act in the age of Obama, in times of extreme difficulty for America and for New Jersey, and for a Republican in New Jersey.

So that's my two cents, I am open to hearing what you think. Much like Obama was a no one in 2004 and got elected President 4 years later, is it possible we have no idea who the people are who will be our candidate(s) in 2016 and 2020?

Is This Banking In 2010?

2010-06-06T14:41:00.005-05:00

I just saw a Wells Fargo commercial that made me think. I've only seen it one time, so there might be some misinterpretation and some incorrect paraphrasing, but I'm pretty sure I heard what I heard.

There is a guy and his girlfriend in their home, and the guy wants to restore an old motorcycle from his dad. He says something like "It's my dream to restore it", the girlfriend says, "It's my dream for him to finish it". Ok, her line was pretty funny, it made me laugh. Based on the visuals, it looks like the motorcycle is in their house/apartment, so it's certainly an eyesore and an obstacle, for her, us guys can work our way around such arrangements.

Then the banker at Wells Fargo chimes in. She says she showed this guy how to save money to be able to invest in restoring this motorcycle. The guy then comes back and says something like "they take some of my money and set it aside for me". Uh, wait, what?

I'm not sure which is more pitiful; the bank advertising that as part of their services they will take your money and set it aside for you, or the fact that people can't somehow go to the bank and say "I'd like to open a savings account please". Most banks allow for online banking which would allow you to transfer whatever you'd like from your checking account to your savings account. One bank who's commercials I have seen, I want to say it's Bank of America, allows you to set up automatic transfers from checking to saving, so that once a week or once a month (you decide how often) the bank will transfer the money for you.

Ok, so what am I missing here? Fire away.

Yes, Prime Minister

2010-05-11T20:22:00.005-05:00

The events that took place today in London were nothing short of remarkable. If you were able to watch any of the proceedings during our 1pm-3pm hours (CST), you know what I'm talking about.

During that time, Gordon Brown resigned as Prime Minister, he then left 10 Downing Street to head to Buckingham Palace where he gave the Queen his resignation. Then, within minutes, David Cameron went to Buckingham Palace where the Queen asked him to form a government, he agreed, and with that a new Prime Minister made his way to Downing Street to get to work.

Upon arriving to 10 Downing Street, Cameron gave this speech, with no notes and no teleprompter.

The dynamics of the election last week and some of what led to the changes today, will be stuff of history. We'll be reading about it for years to come I'm sure. One of the people who had led Obama's campaign in 2008, Anita Dunn, was a key player in Cameron's campaign. It's no coincidence that "change" was part of the Conservative Party logo and message this year.

As I touched on before and will write more about later, the Cameron campaign was a conservative model that we should look at following parts of here in the United States going into 2010. From the "contract with young people", to their "contract for jobs", to their "quality of life manifesto", I think the Conservative Party put forth one positive proposal after another and they earned the trust of the people of Britain (yes there is a hung parliament, but the number of seats that changed hands was overwhelming).

One thing we must understand, and learn to live with, it that in those proposals, people may not have agreed with the Conservative Party 100% on each idea in each proposal. However, the party itself was bold enough to say "here is where we stand, where does the other side stand?". I think when you make the choices that clear, people will always follow the logical options and the ones based on the most common sense

Conservative Offense Must Be Keeping Gordon Brown Awake At Night

2010-05-02T12:04:00.004-05:00

As I reported yesterday, Conservative Party candidate for Prime Minister, David Cameron, introduced what is known as "A contract between the Conservative Party and you".

Obviously, I was impressed. Then, I woke up this morning to see that the Conservative Party has now introduced a "contract for jobs". In my opinion, this contract is full of common sense solutions. One of the highlights was this:

"introduce Work for Yourself, a new scheme to help unemployed would-be entrepreneurs start their own business by giving them access to a business mentor and start-up loans."

I happen to think this overall concept is great, it's something we should have been doing here since the beginning of the internet boom. I do wonder about the word "scheme" though. Maybe overseas that word carries a different connotation, but here, that word sounds under-handed and negative.

The election is four days away. The Conservatives are on serious offense right now. I almost can't wait until the 10pm and 11pm hours here in the States for the new articles to start hitting the British websites in their early morning hours. You have to assume Gordon Brown wants to respond, which would mean Cameron is controlling the debate. I suspect we'll have four more days of full throttle offense from Cameron and the Conservatives on their way to victory on Thursday.

Britons Adopt "Contract" Theme

2010-05-01T20:38:00.004-05:00

On Thursday afternoon I tuned it to watch the third and final Prime Minister debate from across the pond, you can watch the entire debate here. As mentioned here before, this is the first time these debates have ever been televised. One bit of irony for me was the way Gordon Brown mirrored Richard Nixon. Not necessarily the Richard Nixon from the first ever televised Presidential debates in 1960, but the later Nixon on the 1968 and 1972 campaigns. So the "television thing" is something we Americans could claim as our idea, now adopted by the Britons some 50 years later.

Now, the guy at the top of the ballot for the Conservative Party, David Cameron, has proposed a "contract" to 3.5 million independent voters. He went through many of the same rituals that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans did in 1994, such as signing a giant version of the contract in front of a crowd. The "contract" also includes a suggestion to the voters that if the promises are not met, they are to "vote us out" in five years.

A good report on this new development can be found here:

The contract sets out 16 different pledges – five to change politics, five to change the economy and six to change society.

They include controlling immigration, cutting the pay of Government ministers and raising standards in schools.

The two-page document – entitled “A contract between the Conservative Party and you” – is also used to rebuff Labour allegations that Mr Cameron is secretly planning to remove some benefits, including the winter fuel allowance and other state perks for pensioners.

The contract can be found here in full.

If you haven't paid attention to this process overseas, it's worth looking at because I think the Conservative Party is doing many things we would do well adopting here in the lead up to 2010 and 2012. In that final debate, in a somewhat heated moment where the candidates are actually afforded more dialogue than ours are afforded, there was this great comment spoken by David Cameron:

"But do I want to cut taxes on all businesses, particularly small businesses to get the economy moving? You're damn right I do."

If you go to the CSPAN feed of the debate and advance to 35:54, you'll see the comments in full. We don't hear candidates talk like that here.

We've heard the saying that "life mirrors art", well in this case, countries are mirroring countries through their political systems. With the expected results this week in Britain, where the Conservative Party is now poised to lead for the first time since 1997, we might do well to remember what worked and what didn't, and see if we can do some mirroring of our own. Elections like these, and the recent elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia show that when we intelligently and passionately take our message to the voters, we win elections.

First Name:
Last Name:
Address:
City:
Zip:
Home Phone:
Cell Phone:
Email:
IM Handle: