The Voice of Young Conservatives Blog

Every self-respecting hero has a villain. Someone to provide some contrast; to show just how good they really are.

Americans have already crafted their villain – the national debt. They are literally terrified by its powers. To be fair, they have a right to be afraid. The national debt is growing out of control, and worse, growing beyond our ability to pay for it.

Much to their chagrin, Democrats have become the embodiment of that evil. Under their watch the annual deficit, the difference between the amount of money our government pays out versus the amount it takes in, has reached historic levels. As the CBO wrote in their latest Budget and Economic Outlook, “relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years.” The largest of course being last year. These deficits are beginning to pile up, causing our national debt to double in five years and triple in 10. Sadly, that is not even the most terrifying projection. According to CBO projections under its “alternative fiscal scenario,” which makes bottom-line adjustments for likely policy choice, our debt will reach 180 percent of GDP in just 25 years.

Interestingly, President Obama seems to relish the role of villain. Despite bipartisan calls to stop the spending, he proposed yet another round of government stimulus totaling $50 billion.

Sensing that they are losing the deficit debate (and their hope of maintaining the majority along with it) Democrats have been scrambling to come up with their own villain. Over the past few weeks it seems they have conjured one up – House Minority Leader John Boehner.

The recent line of attack began two weeks ago after Boehner gave an speech on the economy in Cleveland. Democrats immediately leaped into attack mode, believing they could use Boehner as a weapon against Republicans. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said after the speech,

“We will be using it to encourage our candidates to draw a clear distinction between continuing on the road to recovery or turning back the clock to the failed Bush economic agenda.”

Attempting to establish the theme, President Obama continued painting the villainous picture in his Labor Day speech. Speaking in Milwaukee, Obama referred to “the Republican who thinks he’s going to take over as speaker. I’m just saying, that’s his opinion.” Then it got a little more personal, saying “pay no attention to the man with the fake tan.” Apparently, Boehner is akin to Lord Voldemort, or “he who must not be named.”

But in a speech yesterday Obama became a little more bold, continuing the Boehner-bashing in a much more direct manner. In the speech Obama explicitly references the Minority Leader eight times, tossing in a few more thinly veiled references for good measure. “There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner,” Obama said, “there were no new ideas.”

Ironically, in arguing that Boehner has nothing but recycled ideas, Obama attempted to pitch one of his own – another round of stimulus. But the irony was lost on our President who seemed taken aback by the fact that Boehner “said no to these projects.”

Beyond the substance of the speeches it is clear that Democrats are doing their best to cultivate a villain that is not them. It is a smart political play. The concept of good versus evil is well ingrained in the subconscious of every voter. We view politics through a narrative lens, carefully crafting a storyline by deciding whether candidates are heroes or villains. Democrats are doing their best to exploit this frame of reference. To which I wish them the best of luck. With unemployment trending the wrong way, government stimulus a proven failure, and government deficits reaching historic heights, it will be tough to beat out the national debt as the villain of choice in voter’s minds.

But I don’t expect them to stop trying. Watch carefully in President Obama’s press conference today to see how many times he invokes the name John Boehner. Will he break his previous record of eight?

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Japan is known for placing a high value on education and technological innovation. They are the home of such worldwide brands as Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, and Nintendo just to name a few. Yet despite an incredible corporate history their nation is struggling. If we continue down the same policy path the United States will follow a similarly stagnant path.

Japan’s problems began in 1990s which came to be known as “The Lost Decade.” The 80s were a time of incredible prosperity. Interest rates were low, research and development was booming, and real estate prices were zooming skyward. Then the bubble burst. Stock prices crumbled and real estate fell through the floor, spraying banks’ ledgers with red ink. Credit dried up, investment plummeted, and public consumption of goods shriveled.

The problem should sound very similar, but how about the responses?

Japan’s response was an utter disaster. A series of governmental missteps that perpetuated rather than solved the crisis. First, they attempted three major fiscal stimulus packages totaling 6 percent of GDP (by comparison ours was around 5.7%). They were remarkably unsuccessful, with economic growth barely topping 1 percent following the government stimulus.

Why were they so unsuccessful? As the American Enterprise Institute explains, “the packages were poorly directed–largely toward unproductive public works projects and credits to small businesses that were no longer economically viable.” The government also bailed out many large companies in an attempt to keep the economy liquid. But many of these companies were only surviving because of the constant drip of government funds. When the fresh funds stopped the firms collapsed.  But their largest policy mistake was raising taxes in an attempt to make up for the enormous government debt caused by their earlier trials with stimulus. The higher taxes, especially the increase in the consumption tax (VAT), led to a further reduction in available investment capital and worsened their economic downturn.

Nevertheless, here we stand, our government having followed almost step-by-step the failed Japanese model.

Poorly targeted stimulus heavily reliant on public sector projects? Check.

Disregarding free markets and creating a moral hazard with “too big to fail” policies? Check.

Enormous government stimulus package followed by looming tax increases? Check.

Pointing out the failures of government policy doesn’t do much good, so what could we have done differently? Although I don’t dare attempt to create an entire policy prescription, here are some lessons I learned from studying Japan’s Lost Decade.

First, the government should extricate itself from the folly of stimulus. Federal governments have proved inept at accurately targeted where money needs to be injected into the economy. Instead, stimulus creates unnatural disruptions in the economy, the result of money not going where it is needed most. Our huge monetary investment left us with very little to show for it other than enormous debt.

Second, despite the increased deficit, the government must resist the temptation to raise taxes. The reckless spending has led to historic levels of debt and deficit which has naturally spooked many consumers and businesses. They are rightly afraid that the government will eventually be forced to course-correct, but rather than do so with spending cuts, will increase taxes. Such uncertainty compounds the economic problems we face. To avoid the same contraction in investment as Japan President Obama should immediately renounce his plan to raise tax rates on business profits, dividends and capital gains. These will act as marginal tax increases on the very capital the Federal Reserve has been struggling to make liquid over the last two years.

Third, avoid deflation at all costs. Japan fell into a deflationary spiral in which consumers had a continual incentive to delay purchases as real prices continued to fall. In a deflationary economy businesses also have little reason to invest since simply sitting on cash becomes a great investment. So as consumer demand and private investment falls, so to does economic growth, thus exacerbating the deflationary crisis. To avoid this the federal government should rescind any unspent stimulus funds towards a policy of quantitative easing. This is a process in which the Federal Reserve increases the supply of money by buying up financial assets – the most helpful in our case being money-backed securities and corporate bonds. Such a process fights the threat of deflation with the benefit of increasing banks ability to lend rather than mire itself in underperforming stimulus projects.

History is about learning lessons. Japan and the United States share a heritage of innovation, hard work, and entrepreneurship. How sad it would be if we also share in their economic woes as a result of Washington’s stubbornness.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

“Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority … negotiate in good faith.”

Sounds fair enough, right?  This is actually an excerpt from President Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope”.  While campaigning for office, Obama led many to believe that he was going to “unite” America.  We were a country that was more partisan than ever, and it was his prerogative to change that.  According to his book, proof in the excerpt above, he believes that compromise and give-and-take are the hallmarks of this change. I like that. It makes sense. Well said Mr. President! Which then bears the question, where is this cooperation that you so eloquently spoke of?

Now, to be quite fair, Republicans haven’t been all that enthused about working with Democrats either. Not, mind you, because they are Democrats, but because the ideas that they have put forth violate the conservative principles Republican believe is the correct course to get us back on the path to growth

Nevertheless, it appears we have finally, finally found some common ground. Republicans have been fighting for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone. President Obama, in a too little too late attempt to appear fiscally responsible (or is it really just a continuation of social engineering?) decided that he is going to draw the line on continuing tax cuts for the top earners.

So John Boehner conceded. He backed down from demands of permanence and agreed to extend the tax cuts for only two years. Long enough to help propel us out of the crisis but short enough that it wouldn’t have the long-term negative budgetary effects that the President decries.

Peter Orszag, former White House budget director and one of President Obama’s top advisers, was the first to float the idea of a two-year extension. In a column for the New York Times Orszag wrote that

This month, the Senate will be debating an issue with significant implications for both — what to do about the Bush-era tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether

Compromise. There’s that word again. But the former budget director had reasons for allowing the cuts to remain beyond bipartisanship. He argued that “no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned.” Orszag explained that higher taxes “now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand” for goods.

A reasoned response from a liberal thinker. Tax cuts aren’t usually his cup of tea, but given the dire situation of our economy he is willing to concede to a temporary extension of the pro-growth tax cuts.

Sadly the day after Orszag’s column, the New York Times posted a story entitled “Obama is Against a Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts.” Our president expressed his unwillingness to follow John Boehner to take a step toward the middle. Rather than shed his partisan pride and give an inch, President Obama has decided, even in the face of arguments by one of his former top economic advisers, to stick to his guns. He argues that the nation can no longer afford the cuts (ironically enough on the same day he formally announced $50 billion in new stimulus). Sadly he is wrong. As Orszag and conservative economists argue, the economy can’t afford not to extend the tax cuts.

Apparently Orszag was wrong when he said “no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse.” In his decision to never compromise, Obama does.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director (hat tip Reiley Hooper)

It is amazing how far we have come. Four years ago Democrat Jennifer Granholm won the Michigan governor’s race by 14 percent over her Republican challenger. But after years of economic mismanagement that has destroyed the state economy, Michigan, like so many other states, is looking for a change of direction.

The Republican ticket, headlined by Rick Snyder and Brian Calley, is the embodiment of that change. Snyder is a man who knows a lot about creating jobs. He was one of the principal founders of computer-giant Gateway. Not one to be content with success Snyder then went out to found Avalon Investments, which has invested in 24 technology start-up companies, and Ardesta, which has eight companies in its portfolio. Between these two companies alone Snyder has created more than 400 jobs in Michigan and more than 1,000 nationwide.

Beyond job creation he also knows a lot about the importance of young adults becoming involved in politics. In Snyder’s words, our generation’s involvement is the “once chance” to “reinvent Michigan.” It’s a big responsibility, but if we’ve learned nothing else from the past two years, it’s that we have to be the one’s to fight for a better future because you can bet the current leadership in Washington won’t.

Check out the videos below in which he, and his Lt. Governor candidate speak to College Republicans on the importance of getting involved:

Candidate for Governor Rick Snyder:

Candidate for Lt. Governor, Brian Calley

President Obama’s carefully crafted cult of personality seems to be crumbling. It seems people have finally stopped drinking the Kool-Aid.

A new ABC poll out this week finds that for the first time that a majority of people disapprove of the way President Obama is handling his job. With their figurehead falling, Congressional Democrats are in the weeds. The same poll finds that likely voters now favor the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate in a generic ballot poll by a 53 to 40 percent margin. That is the largest GOP lead since ABC first began asking the question in 1981.

The result it that Democrats, who once did everything they could to align themselves with the President, are now doing everything they can to distance themselves from him.

Take his $50 billion infrastructure plan, the latest in a series of big-spending initiatives designed to kick start hiring. Surprise, surprise the plan was met with big cheers amongst the labor-union filled crowd in Milwaukee. But it is receiving much more tepid support among Democratic incumbents in Washington. As Scott Conroy of RealClearPolitics reported, a top campaign aide to a Democratic candidate said of Obama’s plan,

“Nothing translates better to jobs than projects on infrastructure, but that being said, when we have only eight weeks until the election, this is just not what people want to hear,” the aide said. “And I don’t think anybody who’s up for reelection really wants to try to sell this.”

The reason? Because voters have made clear again and again that they are tired of Washington’s addiction to spending. Now, campaigning Democrats are trying to make clear that they have heard the message. Take a recent TV ad for incumbent Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL) which highlights how he “voted against the bailouts, against stimulus spending, against the massive government healthcare,” and the “trillion dollar federal budget.” Or Jason Altmire (D-PA) who heralds his independence from Washington with an ad saying “I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the President…And Nancy Pelosi.”

These are but a few voices in the growing chorus against Washington spending. But spending is not the only place Democrats are changing their tune. Not too long ago Democratic leaders in Washington were touting their historic healthcare reform, believing it to be a major accomplishment that they could sell to voters in November.

Turns out voters want a refund. But what is more surprising is how quick Democratic candidates have been to offer them one. It seems former President Clinton’s advice to wavering Democrats that, “I think it is good politics to pass this and to pass it as soon as they can…The worst thing to do is nothing,” wasn’t exactly true. Now, the few Democrats who didn’t fall for the Clinton-Obama tag-team sales pitch are doing everything they can to highlight their “no” votes. As Politico reported,

“[P]arty officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an add now.”

Quite the contrary Democrats are running ads specifically highlighting how they have been against Obamacare the whole time. Virginia Democrat Glen Nye touting the fact that he “vot[ed] against the healthcare bill because it cost too much.”

This batch of Democrats doesn’t stop there. If they are against the notion of the any new stimulus funds and don’t like their party’s signature piece of legislation might as well disassociate from being a Democrat completely, right? Frank Kratovil (D-MD) uses an add to plug the fact that he is “one of the most independent members of Congress” and Bobby Bright (D-AL) calls himself an “independent conservative.”

Democrats are running from everything. One-time party savior Barack Obama? Nope, want nothing to do with him. Government stimulus in a down economy? Are you nuts, more spending? Historic healthcare reform bill? Ha, we would have never voted for that budget busting Obamacare. Are you a Democrat? No, no. Disregard that (D) by our name, we’re really independently moderate Blue Dogs who just listen to our constituents.

But attempts to shed the Democrat label isn’t the path to winning elections. America needs people in Washington who stand for conservative values regardless of whether the poll numbers tell them that is the way to win this year. Big-government, big-spending policies didn’t succeed at anything beyond burying us beneath a mountain of debt. So voters, don’t be fooled as you watch Democrats flee from a burning building – they are still the one’s who set the fire.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” By that definition President Obama has gone insane. Or perhaps he’s not so much insane as he is just suffering from a bout of memory loss. Does he not remember how badly his previous effort at pumping money into the economy went? Nevertheless, here we are, a year and a half later and creeping unemployment remains undeterred by the federal government’s intervention and the President is pitching another stimulus.

By politically necessity this one is much smaller. He’s decided to take a piecemeal approach, breaking the approach into three prongs: (1) $50 billion in infrastructure improvements, (2) a R&D tax credit extension, and (3) an investment tax rebate. Nevermind that President Obama attempted to sell his $800 billion stimulus plan last February by listing previous “failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis” including “that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures.” Sounds to me like he’s embraced the piecemeal approach. Must be that memory loss.

The worst of the plan is President Obama’s decision to throw $50 billion at infrastructure improvements. After all, what happened to all those “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs that the first stimulus was supposed to contain? An even better question was posed in this Investor’s Business Daily editorial,

But why in the world do we need another stimulus when we’re not even close to exhausting the funds allocated for the last one?

This when $275 billion of the original $838 billion has still yet to be doled out. More specifically, less than a third of the $230 billion allocated to infrastructure projects has been spent. So with literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure investment still pending, why are we tacking on an additional $50 billion?

Well, because it sounds good. 150,000 miles of roads will be rebuilt. 4,000 miles of rail will be constructed or maintained. 150 miles of runways will be rehabilitated.

But while Obama was clear about how many miles of pavement or tracks would be laid, there was never a hint of how many jobs would be created. Apparently, the government is finally getting out of the “jobs created or saved” business. What it should be getting out of is the stimulus business altogether. The first one was an utter failure. In the last quarter the economy grew at 1.6 percent – not even fast enough to keep unemployment stable, much less than the speed necessary to actually create jobs. In fact the economy shed 54,000 jobs in August, a depressing finale to what was billed as the “Recovery Summer.”

The only true history made by the stimulus bill was the record levels of debt and deficits it has wrought upon America’s balance sheet. As the CBO wrote in their latest Budget and Economic Outlook, “relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years.” I’m betting you could guess what year had the largest. Things are not projected to get much better. As the CBO explains, “Beyond the 10-year budget window, the nation will face daunting long-term fiscal challenges . . . Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt over time would reduce long-term economic growth.”

$50 billion is not the cure to our problems, it only adds to them. The economic multiplier effect of Keynesian economics only works in theory. In the harsh reality we live in businesses care little for economic theory. They care about their bottom lines. They care about an uncertain policy environment clouded by an activist government. They care about how much taxes they are going to have to pay now, and in the future, as we are forced to pay for this unprecedented spending binge.

Democrats have already gone “all in” on their original stimulus package. They gambled with taxpayer money and lost. Now they want to ante up another $50 billion. But they’ve tried spending us out of this recession over and over again. Can we really expect different results this time around? A sane question likely to be ignored by an out-of-touch Washington.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Young adults have often been overlooked in politics. Historically, we haven’t voted in as great of numbers as older Americans which has often led to our interests being ignored when it comes time to draft legislation. This is changing. Young adults are waking up to the fact that today’s deficit spending is really just taking money away from our future.

That is why College Republicans are more active than ever, providing an outlet for young adults to express their frustration with the short-sighted politicians who are running (and ruining) Washington. As we set out on our grassroots field campaign Operation Red November we’ve had the chance to speak to some of the future leaders of our party.

Check out what some of the leading politicos from our target state of Florida had to say about College Republicans:

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush:

Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Rick Scott:

Republican Party of Florida Chairman John Thrasher:

If, like me, you spent the majority of your Labor Day weekend watching college football and cooking out then you likely missed President Obama’s enormous announcement. We’re going to stimulate the economy. I know, I know, it’s an absolutely shocking plan, the likes of which have never been seen or tried before. Here’s the deal, we’re going to pump billions of government money into the economy, sit back, and let the economy roll. It’s a surefire plan. Guaranteed results.

Or should I say, guaranteed to fail. There is simply nothing new about President Obama’s latest Keynesian stimulus package. In 2008, President Bush and Nancy Pelosi teamed up (weird right) and passed $168 billion in stimulus – a combination of federal spending and tax rebates – that was going to act as a “booster shot” for the economy. Oops, unemployment continued to skyrocket.

Undeterred, Congressional Democrats, now with President Obama in office, passed an $814 billion plan. The mother of all stimulus. The largest stimulus package ever attempted. Considering the hype this was much more than just a “booster shot,” this was the freakin’ cure for cancer. Turns out it wasn’t even enough to cure our economic woes. The package was famously predicted to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent and get the economy back on track to growth. Oops, unemployment remains above 9.5 percent and new predictions show it rising as high as 10.1 percent next year. Even the most optimistic of assessments reveal that the stimulus reduced unemployment by 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points not exactly bang for our buck.

Then we get cash-for-clunkers, the homebuyers tax credit, mortgage relief, and jobless benefit extensions, none of which was enough to nudge the economy out of the recession.

So after three years and $3 trillion in new federal debt what exactly do we have to show for it? The economy lost 54,000 jobs in August and the economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent in the second quarter. Neither of these numbers is encouraging. The private sector isn’t even hiring fast enough to keep up with everyone entering the workforce much less make a dent in the unemployment rate. Economic growth is well below the 2.5% needed to keep unemployment at its current rate, nevermind what we actually need to promote job creation.

But here we stand, forced to do something to get this economy on track. Down one path lay more stimulus. Keynes is beckoning us to follow him down this path. It’s a road we’ve travelled before. It was a dark economic path, littered with the bodies of failed economies. We ran into a dead-end. Not only that, we were mugged on the way back, our money ripped from our pockets. Down the second path lay recovery. The path is overgrown, having not been travelled in quite some time, and its contours are unclear. It involved less government spending, a dedication to reducing the uncertainty businesses face, and allowing individuals and businesses to keep more of their money. We can see Great Britain and Germany starting the journey down this road apparently encouraged by what they’ve found. Nevertheless, we’ve been standing at this intersection for months, debating the merits of each road.

Finally, we’ve taken our first step. And which way did we decide to go? President Obama has led us down the dark and dreary path of government stimulus. Surely, things will be different this time! That dead-end will have surely relocated.

Obama’s latest bone-headed stimulus step is $50 billion in new infrastructure spending. Even more ominous, it was described as the first installment of a six-year transportation strategy. My natural first response, what happened to the original $105.3 in the original stimulus bill that was designated for infrastructure investment?

At the time the stimulus was passed President Obama even made a point to say,

“We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s.”

What is he going to say to sell us this new bill? It’s the single largest new investment in national infrastructure since about 16 months ago? Doesn’t quite have the same historical ring. So if $105 billion in infrastructure investment didn’t create the jobs promised or even put us on the path to, as President Obama said in a recent speech, having “the best infrastructure in the world,” then is another $50 billion really going to do much? Seems unlikely.

In his attempts to sell the new stimulus bill President Obama mocked Republicans by saying “We’ve tried what they’re peddling.” But who is the “they” President Obama is referring to. Because we’ve tried the stimulus Democrats are currently peddling. We’ve tried it more times than I care to count and all we have is record levels of debt and deficits to show for it. And frankly, we’re not buying it anymore.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

I don’t get the chance to say this very often, but good work Mr. Obama. After nearly two years and $3 trillion in failed stimulus bills, President Obama’s economic team finally stumbled across something that could actually help the economy. The President’s proposal, which will be laid out Wednesday in Cleveland, will allow companies to write off 100 percent of their new investments immediately.

Let’s explain what this is, and what this isn’t. This isn’t a sea change. This is progress. Companies can already deduct new investment expenses, but current law forces them to spread the tax deduction over a number of years. The change would allow companies to take the full deduction upfront and thus keep more of their money now. A good idea, but don’t expect full employment over night. As reported by the Wall Street Journal,

“N. Gregory Mankiw, of Harvard University, and another former CEA chairman under President Bush, questioned whether the Obama proposal would have a big impact. Businesses can already take out a bank loan at extremely low interest rates to pay for new investments in plants and equipment, but they are not doing so, he said. It’s unclear why they would make those investments for a tax break.”

Almost regardless of the effectiveness the move signals that President Obama is ready to deviate from the Keynesian playbook. They aren’t ready to abandon it. Just look at the boneheaded $50 billion new infrastructure stimulus he’s proposing as evidence of that. But they are at least open to new ideas. Isn’t it amazing what the threat of devastating November losses will do to Democrats once-tightly held ideals.

This should be considered a step forward because it is a plan designed to unleash business investment, not government investment. The government is notoriously ineffective at picking effective uses for our money. Given the opportunity they’ll spend $150,000 to see how monkeys react to cocaine (No, I’m not exaggerating). Fortunately, tax write-offs such as this keep the government’s grubby little hands out of the equation. Businesses, whose bottom lines are dependent on good investment decisions, are the ones who get to decide how to spend the cash. This is a much more natural flow of money into the economy that creates far fewer market distortions and unintended consequences.

The benefits are all speculation. The details of the President’s plan won’t be released until tomorrow. If you’ve learned anything about the past few years – Obama is extremely talented at making things sound good, but Democrat lawmakers are equally as talented as screwing it up. As we’ve seen before the devil will be in the details.

There should also be questions about the timing. Conservative economists have been asking for this type of credit long before President Obama took office. Economic growth has been stagnant for too long. Unemployment has been persistently high. So why now? The cynic in me (live long enough in D.C. and you’ll become one too) wonders if it doesn’t have something to do with the elections.

Democrats’ November fortunes are dimming by the hour. They’re only going to be in Washington for a couple weeks before returning home to fight for reelection, likely not enough time to pass this legislation given recent trends. So could it be that this last minute economic push is nothing but a PR move? A morsel for Democratic lawmakers to take home to their constituents to show that they are doing everything they can to fix the economy? The timing of the bill is suspect, appearing to be calculated more on the needs of struggling Democratic constituents than struggling businessmen.

Nevertheless, hopefully this is a positive step forward. A step away from government-centric spending bills that have done little to kick-start our economy yet have done a lot to mortgage our future. But this is only a fraction of what needs to be done to unshackle the private sector.  If President Obama is truly serious about saving the economy, and not just the Democratic majority, he’ll focus on eliminating the economic uncertainty his prior bills have caused.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

We’re heading into the home stretch. We’ve rounded the final corner and are now speeding towards the November finish line. If you haven’t figured it out I’m talking about the upcoming elections where Democrats are trying their best to stay ahead of the Republicans in the race for Congressional control. But Democrats appear to be running out of fuel, the result of a failed “Recovery Summer” and the consistent lack of results from their tax-and-spend policies. Republican’s on the other hand have filled up their gas tank, fueled by voter response to their vision of change.

Voter’s desire for a new perspective in Washington is most clear when there is money on the line. In this cash-strapped, job-hunting society, the only thing we care about more than money is what diet Kim and Khloe Kardashian are on this week (or, if you’re a guy, the fact that the NFL starts next week). But still, money is king. It is what gives us the roof over our heads, puts food on the table, and puts the kids through college. Without Mr. Franklin and Mr. Grant backing up our country (for me its more like Mr. Washington and Mr. Lincoln) it will be impossible for us to remain an economic superpower.

This importance is evidence in the polls. According to Gallup, 93 percent of those polled believe that the economy is at least “very important” in determining their vote in the fall. That is trailed only slightly by job (92 percent) and federal spending (81 percent). That means three of the top four voting cues all have one thing in common – money – either the ability to earn it or the concern that Congress is mishandling it.

Saying an issue is important doesn’t necessarily tell you very much, so let’s dig a little deeper into the numbers. Now that we know everyone is anxious to have a few more greenback’s in their pockets, the key question is which party do you believe can help you do that?

Of those polled by Gallup, 49 percent believe that Republicans would do a better job at fixing the economy while 38 percent believed Democrats would do a better job. That’s a +11 for the GOP. Americans also said they trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issue of jobs, albeit by a slimmer 5 percent margin. But rather than analyze issue by issue, there is a greater trend at play here. Of the nine issues asked about in the polls Americans trusted Republicans more than Democrats on seven of them (and healthcare was essentially a tie).

Democrats have squandered our trust. In October of 2006, just prior to Democrats’ making major gains following George Bush’s reelection, Democrats led on all eight issues polled at the time. Americans reward trust and punish any breach of it. We were given reason to hope that the “Washington way “would be changed. Promise after promise was thrown at us. Everything from a promise to “drain the swamp,” to a promise to pay for “every dime” of their plans, to a promise that if the stimulus passed unemployment would fall below 8 percent. But none of it came true. Promises of change were dashed against the rocks of the same old Washington. Nothing is different, except for now things are worse.

The economy is comatose, largely the result of uncertainty caused by overregulation and the necessity of tax hikes to pay off our crushing debts. Unemployment remains high because no companies are willing to make the commitment to hire unless the government makes a commitment to back off. And federal spending has soared with years of historic deficits still ahead. For better or worse Americans care a lot about money, and the government hasn’t given us much reason to trust what they are doing with it. Their seeming addiction to the “spend, spend, and spend some more” mindset is leading us into serious trouble. They spend on stimulus, they spend on bailouts, they spend for healthcare reform. I can’t even list all their spending bills because I just don’t have the room.

Americans live within a budget. We are forced to balance our checkbooks, keep our accounts in the positive, and make regular payments on any debts we have. Why should we trust a Democratic Party who thinks they play by different rules? We shouldn’t. Or given the recent poll results perhaps it would be more appropriate to say – we don’t. Fortunately, with November right around the corner we’ll soon have an opportunity to show them just how much we appreciate their breach of trust.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director