Archive for August, 2010

As elections are drawing nearer, the hype is growing for this “right swinging” revolution.  This is most clearly evidenced by the latest Gallup poll.  Taken on August 30th, the latest generic ballot poll finds that the GOP has surged to a 10 percent lead just two months before the November elections.  It is not hyperbole to say that this is historic.

The previous record lead for the GOP in the Gallup poll was a tie between the 1994 and 2002 elections.  They were at only 5 percent!  In other words, we’ve doubled the generic ballot lead compared to 1994 – best known as the Republican Revolution. That year Republicans were able to capitalize on the perceived failures of President Clinton and Congressional Democrats to take 54 seats and capture both houses of Congress.

Lots of things are looking up for Republicans. Healthcare is more unpopular than ever, Democrats are being forced to distance themselves from their once-champion Barack Obama, and despite (or possible in spit of) historic government spending, our economy remains stagnant. Not only that, but the GOP doesn’t even need to win as many seats as 1994 to take back control of Congress. On paper we’re looking at a wave election. But the elections aren’t over, the results are not in, and nothing should be taken for granted. There is still a need to recruit the undecided and encourage those who haven’t yet registered to vote, to do so.

First goal is to take control of the State.  Currently, the Democrats are holding the majority of Gubernatorial seats. But that is likely to change. As Republican strategist and former Bush chief of staff explains in the Wall Street Journal,

A quick survey of the political landscape shows six of the seven Democratic governors running for re-election are polling under 50% and in danger of losing, while all six GOP incumbents seeking re-election are expected to win. In the 24 open gubernatorial contests, Republicans lead in 15 and are tied in three others.

With redistricting approaching, winning in the states will be more important than ever. But perhaps even more importantly, governors are showing that the states can truly be “laboratories of democracy” whose experiments can highlight the successes of conservative policy. Just take a look at what Chris Christie has done in New Jersey, Mitch Daniels has done in Indiana, Bob McDonnell has done in Virginia, or Tim Pawlenty has done in Minnesota if you doubt the national agenda shifting power that state leaders can have.

Republicans will not merely be content to win at the state level. The national stage has been set to make large gains in the House where Nancy Pelosi’s leadership has taken us on the path to record deficits. To regain control the GOP will need to win at least 39 seats, a difficult, but not impossible task. But to succeed we cannot rest on our laurels. For instance in places such as Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina, and South Carolina the incumbent Democrat is leading by a mere 1 percent. This is a year in which every vote counts. Let’s let Democrats know that their vote on a price-raising healthcare bill, a deficit-busting stimulus bill, and a regulatory mess of a banking-bill weren’t forgotten. Their vote counted, and so will ours.

The Senate is projected to be a more difficult reclamation project.  Even with the projected 7 seat gain we will fall just shy of the majority.  Nevertheless, if the historic generic ballot and voter enthusiasm numbers aren’t enough to make you believe that anything is possible this November then I don’t know what is.

Over the past year the liberal experiment has been on full display. The government has reached ever-further into our lives, Keynesian economic models have been implemented, and the welfare state has exploded. None of it has worked. America’s economy continues to be weighed down by the cost of government, wrapped up in red tape, and forced to carry new regulatory burdens. Is it any surprise we’re getting nowhere?

Now, while staring at reduced job opportunities and lower salaries, we are staring tax increases in the face. Someone has to pay off the government’s debt, and surprise, surprise, that someone is us. The spend-and-tax culture in Washington has got to change. Fortunately, the ballot box provides us a lever to begin that process. This election represents the chance to recapture our own futures that are currently being spent away by our so-called representatives. In states throughout the country we’ve seen the benefits that fiscal conservatism can bring, it’s time to take those success stories nationwide. It’s time Washington got out of the way and let Americans do what they do best – create, innovate, and build. The generic ballot test is a clue that time is coming.

by Brandon Greife and Reiley Hooper

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laid out the three guiding principles of the economic stimulus package: that it be “timely, temporary and targeted.”

More than a year later, it is clear that none of these principles has been fulfilled.

Timely? As CBS News reported as recently as August 16, almost all of the stimulus money has been awarded, but that is very different from it all being spent. For instance, the U.S. Department of Energy has doled out $30.2 billion worth of stimulus grants, but only paid out $6.2 billion. Or Detroit, which has spent less than 1 percent of the $8.8 million in stimulus funds it was given. All told, after nearly 18 months after passage, more than half of the stimulus funds devoted to investment projects has not been spent.

Temporary? The New York Post reported today that “some of the more popular stimulus programs look likely to be made permanent – in which case, the “temporary” fix could end up costing more than $3.2 trillion. What should we have expected? The government loves to create programs, the appearance of doing something often leads to votes, but they are loath to take anything back. Government programs are like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube, it is darn near impossible to get it back in.

Beyond the continued spending, one thing that is certainly not temporary is the debt burden that it has caused.  A recent CBO estimate found that the cost of the economic stimulus package was $814 billion – a significant reason why our government has run record deficits for the past two years. Those compounding deficits could have serious long-term consequences for our economy. The CBO admits as much, saying in a report that the long run costs of each additional dollar of debt crowds out about 33 cents worth of private investment. In other words, higher spending now leads to lower GDP later.

Targeted? This, more than any other “guiding principle” is where the stimulus has missed the mark. Things like $554,763 to replace the windows in a visitor’s center that has been closed since 2007, or $1.9 million spent to study photograph ants, or $89,298 spent to replace a new sidewalk with a newer sidewalk that leads to nowhere but a ditch.

The waste is obvious. But even more nefarious is the idea that President Obama made a conscious decision to “target” his own pet projects rather than surefire job creators. As TIME reported last week,

But in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s effusive Recovery Act point man, “Now the fun stuff starts!” The “fun stuff,” about one-sixth of the total cost, is an all-out effort to exploit the crisis to make green energy, green building and green transportation real…

Whereas Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers wanted a “textbook Keynesian response” and “argued for tax cuts and income transfers to get cash circulating quickly,” Obama wanted something else. As TIME reported,

“Obama and Biden also saw a golden opportunity to address priorities; they emphasized shovel-worthy as well as shovel-ready.”

I’m sorry, but in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression the only priority the Obama administration should have been addressing was the lack of jobs.

Worse, Obama’s pet projects may actually hurt us fiscally in the long-term. Moreover, other nation’s experience with implementing a green economy suggests that their may be a net job loss.  For instance, Spain has lost two jobs for every one jobs created with windmills and solar farms.  In Denmark, a study finds that the cost of each green job to the government costs $90,000 to $140,000 annually and once the government handouts end, so do the jobs. Germany’s green bubble also burst after a prominent think tank found that,

“Germany’s PV [solar energy] promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).”

Obama’s high-speed rail plans will likely cause similar problems. As Steve Forbes explains,

“Bottom line: All of these rail projects couldn’t pass even a laugh test in the private sector, yet they will soak up capital that otherwise could be used for productive purposes. Almost all high-speed rail schemes around the world operate at a loss. Even those touted as turning a profit are usually helped with off-balance-sheet government subsidies.”

For a list of other reasons why Americans should be skeptical when Vice President Joe Biden says, “Now the fun stuff starts,” check out this AP Fact Check on Obama’s latest stimulus assertions.

Contrary to Pelosi’s assertions the stimulus has proven to be neither timely, temporary, nor targeted. But those are not the rubrics by which the success of the stimulus will be ultimately judged. The bottom line for most Americans is whether it created jobs. The answer to that, more than any other factor, is the reason for its failure.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

You don’t have to be a conservative from Wisconsin to appreciate Congressman Paul Ryan. From his well-articulated opposition to the President’s Government-run health care plan to his bold statements against both the TARP bailout and debt-inflating American Economic Recovery Act of 2009, Paul has positioned himself as a star-in-the-making in the Republican Party.

Now a sixth-term congressman from the Wisconsin 1st District who is up for reelection in 2010, Paul has cemented his position in congress as a passionate advocate for fiscal responsibility. Already a ranking member of the Committee on The Budget, he is also a member the far-reaching House Ways and Means Committee, and belongs to the Subcomittees on Oversight and Health.

This week, Paul was willing to give me some time out from his hectic schedule to give me a bit of an insider’s perspective on the issues facing him in the House of Representatives through the 2010 election.

1. IF YOU WERE CHARGE OF AUTHORING THE FEDERAL BUDGET FOR THE COMING YEAR, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU WOULD DO TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT AND BEGIN THE PROCESS TOWARD REDUCING AND ELIMINATING OUR NATIONAL DEBT?

Well, I’m currently the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee and one of the responsibilities I have is to offer an alternative budget to that proposed by the President. If the American people have their say, hopefully I will be authoring the federal budget in the next fiscal year as Chairman of the House Budget Committee. As I’ve done in the past, I would put forward a budget that reins in spending, gets our debt and deficits under control, and promotes policies which get companies hiring and the economy growing.

The budget for the federal government, just like for businesses and families, sets priorities and forces difficult – but critical – decisions. This year, for the first time in modern history, the Majority will fail to even propose a budget, which is a total abdication of responsibility and especially troubling given the enormity of our fiscal challenges.

Congress has failed to address the urgent need to control Federal spending, reform our entitlement programs, and spur job creation and economic growth. I’ve put forward a comprehensive reform plan – ROAD MAP FOR AMERICA – focused on tackling our generation’s greatest challenges: fulfill the mission of health and retirement security, lift our crushing burden of debt, and restart the American engine of growth and prosperity.

2. NOW THAT GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE REFORM HAS BEEN PASSED, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE REPUBLICANS DID A SATISFACTORY JOB OF STATING FREE MARKET ALTERNATIVES TO THE PLAN? COULD CERTAIN CONCEPTS HAVE BEEN STATED DIFFERENTLY?

I introduced one of the first comprehensive health care reform proposals this session called the Patients’ Choice Act, a free-market alternative to fix what’s truly broken in health care. The Patients’ Choice Act secures universal access to affordable health coverage, not by expanding government, but by reinforcing the role of consumers – patients – in a truly competitive marketplace.

Democrats control the White House and Congress – and decided early on to shut Republican and the American people out of the legislative process. The entire health care debacle was a missed opportunity for true patient-centered reforms that attacked the root-drivers of health inflation. Alternative reforms were rejected, the government-run overhaul was jammed into law, and the American people are already feeling the costly consequences of this deeply flawed law.

Republicans must not tire in their effort to repeal this costly misstep and advance true reform.

3. THE SENATE MAY BE WORKING ON A PLAN TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT WILL ALLOW THE EPA TO IMPOSE CAP-AND-TRADE-STYLE ENERGY TAXES. IF SUCH LEGISLATION IS PROPOSED AND DEBATED IN THE HOUSE, WHAT KIND OF A PLAN DO YOU AND OTHER REPUBLICANS HAVE TO DEFEAT IT?

The cap and trade bill passed the House last year by a seven vote margin after the Speaker successfully twisted the arms of her fellow Democrats to support it. Since then, this national energy tax has stalled in the Senate.

The goal of cap and trade is to lower global temperatures by a fraction of a degree over the course of the century. The bill would kill manufacturing jobs here at home, while our competitors have made clear that they have no intention to unilaterally impose similar harm to their economies. Studies have shown that for every one ton of carbon we reduce in our economy, countries like China and India would increase theirs by about three tons. Economically and scientifically, the cost benefit analysis of cap and trade doesn’t add up. It will put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage and as a result, we will see higher taxes and energy costs, more manufacturing jobs heading overseas, and more emissions in the atmosphere.

The American people have clearly rejected this misguided proposal, and it has thankfully stalled in the Senate. Yet there have been troubling reports that the President may have the Environmental Protection Agency proceed with capping emissions without any Congressional consent. Earlier this month, the Senate voted down a resolution of disapproval from Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases without Congress passing legislation by a vote of 47-53. Looking at how the Majority has rammed through the health care overhaul and legislation on financial services, it’s not out of the question.

4. FROM WHAT YOU SEE EVERY DAY, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY OF YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE UNITED IN THEIR EFFORTS AND COMPREHEND THE HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY THEY MAY HAVE TO TURN THIS CONGRESS AROUND IN THE FALL?

Absolutely, I see the next few elections as realignment elections, where we have a clear choice of two futures. We can either choose to reclaim the American idea and restore the founding principles that made our nation the envy of the world, or we can continue down the path of a European style, cradle-to-grave social welfare state – where higher levels of government spending and debt leave future generations an inferior standard of living.

More and more of our leaders are recognizing the critical importance of the next few elections. In the House, you see the ascension of a younger class of reformers in the Republican Party. Individuals like Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Mike Pence – people who were back-benchers during President Bush’s Administration, who fought the decisions that were being made, but who have now ascended into positions of leadership, and they are going to make sure we don’t make the same mistakes if the American people entrust us with the Majority this fall.

It’s critical that we show people how we will be different from the current leaders in Washington, and that’s why we have to run on specific ideas. My experience with the Roadmap for America’s Future has taught me that the American people are ahead of the political class in Washington. They are ready to be talked to like adults. I feel that Republicans are returning to their core principles of limited government, individual freedom, free enterprise and if we present these ideas to the American people, I believe we can start restoring the American “idea” and get our country on the path to prosperity.

5. GIVEN THE POLITICAL CLIMATE THIS YEAR, WHAT OTHER KINDS OF BOLD ACTION WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE TAKEN IN CONGRESS IF THE REPUBLICANS WIN HANDILY IN NOVEMBER?

There is still a long way to go between now and November, but the first thing we have to do is get a grip on our nation’s debt and deficits, which have been primarily driven by government spending. In this session of Congress, the Majority has approved $1.8 trillion in spending increases and $670 billion in new taxes. They are doing this at exactly the same time we are running record deficits and we are seeing European countries, which followed a similar borrow-and-spend approach, coming undone.

I will continue to advance bold proposals that actually cut government spending, reform our entitlement programs, and modernize our tax code. These three things would go a long way to show the American people, the world and the markets that we are not accelerating our lurch towards a European-style social welfare state.

posted by Scottsblog at the Midwest Regional College Republicans blog

Read more of the great work they are doing at: http://ourcrnc.blogspot.com/

President Obama is enjoying his vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. I’m not here to begrudge the man some time off. But while he’s been swimming in the Atlantic the political sandcastle’s his administration has built are being washed away.

The administration’s economic policy successes were all built for short-term success without consideration of the long-term harm.  As Josh Brown described on the blog The Reformed Broker,

We were promised stimulus, programs and policies that would have lasting effects.  What we got instead was a trillion dollar sand castle.  Now that the inexorable tides have eroded away our leadership’s best-laid (and funded) plans, someone needs to be held accountable. . . In hindsight, virtually all of the fiscal stimulus and extraordinary programs adopted by this administration now look like they merely forestalled the inevitable.  Hiring has not happened and in the meantime, housing is headed down another leg and the almost-resillient consumer is back to playing hard-to-get.

Cash for Clunkers created an artificial bubble that led to a boom for car sales and car manufacturers. As soon as the government removed the incentive the bubble popped and the car market collapsed. It turns out that the only thing the program really did was convince a bunch of people who may have bought a car in the next year to buy a car during this particular month. Ditto for programs like the First-Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit.

But the mother of all sandcastles – the stimulus – is now eroding back into the earth, leaving a gaping hole of government debt in its place. The overwhelming majority of the stimulus has already been spent. What do we have to show for it? The number of jobless claims has risen in each of the past four weeks and last week it hit its highest point in nine months. A report issued today by the U.S. Commerce Department found that the economy only grew by 1.6 percent in the second quarter. For some perspective, the economy needs to grow at about 2.5 percent just to keep unemployment from going any higher. Even larger growth would be needed to begin to combat the pervasive joblessness that now plagues our nation.

Even if you’re willing to argue that the stimulus was a success in terms of keeping unemployment down it appears that it merely delayed our problems. Unwilling to admit this fact, many liberal thinkers have taken to thinking that we should have simply built a bigger sandcastle. Given the economy is still sputtering, it’s obvious that $800 billion just didn’t do the trick, so we should have gone bigger! Nevermind the fact that the U.S. stimulus was the largest governmental infusion of funds amongst any nation and the biggest in U.S. history, including the Great Depression.

Regardless of what we should have done, the stimulus is what we did. Now we find ourselves unsure about whether the stimulus created any jobs but absolutely sure are nation’s finances are in dire straights. Rather than attempt to understand the forces of the tide, the Obama administration hastily built economic sandcastles. Should be be that surprised that they have now washed away?

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

“Only when people and communities are given more power and take more responsibility can we achieve fairness and opportunity for all”.  Sounds like another quote from our beloved Thomas Jefferson, right?  This actually comes from the Prime Minister of the U.K., David Cameron, and his Big Society Programme.

The Big Society Programme was written up earlier this year as a plan to reduce the national debt of the U.K. and transfer power into the hands of its citizens and communities.  “Big Society” is the counterpart to “Big Government”.  Cameron’s plan to save his nation from a sure economic death is outlined by five major bullet points:

Give communities power to control their future

• Encourage a zeal for charitable activity on the community level
• Transfer power from central to local governments
• Give more power to private sectors in public services
• Open government information to the public

What is it that these “Red Coats” are understanding that we aren’t?  Cameron must have Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman on speed dial, because this type of non-intervention hasn’t been in practice since the days of Reaganomics.  Give power to the people and their local communities and the whole nation will rise, that is the gospel of this administration.  Sounds logical enough, but the question is…does it work?

The ultimate goal of the Big Society is to empower communities so that you can dissolve power away from central government. Less responsibilities leads to reduced costs and diminished deficits, all very good things. As Claire Perry explains the goal on the U.K. Conservative Party’s Blue Blog,

Although the “Deficit Deniers” on the Labour benches like to accuse our government of making cuts in public spending for ideological purposes, the main reason given by the Treasury team for tackling Labour’s budget deficit sooner and harder was to restore our international economic credibility and keep long term interest rates lower for longer.

Thus far it has been an enormous success. Directly following the implementation of “Big Society,” the 10 year interest rates fell .4%. Why exactly is that important? Bond interest rates are a pivotal sign that investors’ faith in the market is remaining high. As the federal government divorces itself from the risk of default, interest rates will fall, the result of the market’s assessment of the risk of losing their investment. Interest rates don’t sound as sexy as say…job creation, but in the long term they are equally important, especially for a nation trying to escape a burdensome national debt.

So if limited government spending, limited government regulations on private sector, and well…just limited government seems to be working… then what is the U.S. doing?  The current administration has found it in our best interests to take the complete opposite approach.  When us mortal humans go into debt, there are various steps necessary to getting out.  The first step is to STOP SPENDING MONEY.  No matter how much money you make, if you spend more than you earn, YOU WILL GO INTO DEBT.  It isn’t a concept for upper-division economics classes, this is a concept young children understand.  Why can’t our government seem to grasp this concept?

It has been stated that the American people want to have their cake and eat it too.  We want to have our high-spending programs, yet not spend a dime. Moreover, we want to spend without any impact on the market’s judgment of our ability to pay any of our debts back. In other words, let us spend as much of we want and you don’t worry your pretty little head over it. But as our debt reaches into the tens of trillions of dollars that logic isn’t going to fly with bond investors forever.

Hopefully, this sentiment is changing.  We are waking up and realizing that now is the time to pay for our mistakes.  England didn’t wait for their debt to become out of hand before it was too late, and I believe that Americans have that same priority.  The only way to accomplish this task is to take over Washington this fall.  We need to get people into office who are willing to become fiscally responsible for Americas runaway debt.  We need to take a hint from the U.K.’s successes and imply them in our own country.  We need to change.

by Reiley Hooper

We’re a bunch of extremists. Or at least that’s what E.J. Dionne says. Personally, I’m surprised. I simply, and at least in my own mind rationally, thought I was just concerned about the impact of today’s spending on my future. I also happen to disagree with the liberal point of view on a number of issues, namely the size and role of government. Is that really what qualifies for an extremist these days?

Then again, E.J. Dionne seems to have developed a recent fascination with his “GOP has gone nuts” thesis. Here’s a sample of his recent article titles:

• Primaries Show GOP Extremism
• The Politics of “No”
• The Politics of GOP Stupidity
• Time to Stand Up to the Right Wing

I think he’s got something against the Right. But here’s the key question: is that “something” real, or simply the rantings of someone whose party’s November hopes are dimming faster than Jennifer Aniston’s career.

His latest article sheds some light on the answer. Moreover, you really don’t have to read past the first line to see it. In it Dionne argues that,

“Republicans are in the midst of an insurrection. Democrats are not.”

Hmm.  As an example, or to be more specific, his only examples, Dionne points to the primaries in Florida and Alaska. In the spirit of writing a blog post rather than a tome, I’ll dismiss the Florida example. Party-favorite Rick Scott, didn’t lose to billionaire businessman Jeff Greene because of any sort of “insurrection.” Scott wasn’t some super right wing fanatic who beat out McCollum because of his Tea Party-esque chops. No, he won, because he spent a bazillion dollars on the race. $50 million to be precise – an unprecedented amount of money for a Florida gubernatorial race.

So Dionne’s got one shining example of this so-called Republican “insurrection.” But has he cared to look in the mirror at his own party?

Democratic candidates nationwide are hoping to win by doing their best to look least like the Democratic candidate. Examples are popping up everywhere. Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly, seeking a third term, aired a new TV ad highlighting how independent he is. The ad says, points out that he voted against “Nancy Pelosi’s energy tax on Hoosier families.” Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL) put up an ad touting how he “voted against the bailouts, against stimulus spending, against the massive government health care” and the “trillion dollar federal budget.” Rep. Jason Altmire’s (D-PA) ad features a man saying “I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the president” while a woman chimes in “…And Nancy Pelosi.”

Lest you believe that this is just a few isolated incidents I’ve chosen to make a point, check out some more examples compiled by ABC, here.

The various ads highlight the growing fracture, or “insurrection” to steal a term from Dionne, that is growing within the Democratic Party. If you can name an issue I can guarantee they are fighting over it. Stimulus? Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said “it is unclear as to whether recovery act funds are going where they are needed most.” The need for more stimulus? Rep Gerry Connolly (D-VA) says “I think we have just got to get serious about the deficit.” Immigration reform? Rep. Luis Gutierrez uses words like “disillusionment” and “betrayal” to describe President Obama’s lackadaisical stance towards reform. He adds, “we’re going to make it uncomfortable for the Democratic Party.” Or how about the Ground Zero mosque? Politico reports that “several House Democratic sources said they are furious with the White House for keeping the debate over a New York mosque in play for two weeks.

Dionne has gone to great lengths to highlight the divisions within the Republican Party. He argues that Republicans are being dragged to the far-right which ultimately will cost them in November.

What he fails to realize is that Democrats are doing their best to drag their party back to the middle, but is running into the wall of their party’s leadership. Their inability to tack right will ultimately be what costs them in November.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Two days ago House Minority Leader, and Speaker of the House hopeful, John Boehner made public his criticisms of the Obama administration’s failure to stimulate the economy.

In what has been viewed a first test of his Speaker chops, Boehner ripped into Democrats’ economic plans (or lack thereof). He criticized the job-killing tax hikes Democrats hope to pass in a down economy. He demanded the President denounce the job-killing bills like a national energy tax and card check. He called for bipartisan efforts to repeal the job-killing paperwork mandates of the healthcare bill. Bottom line: he’s really against job-killing.

Although he may have over-used the phrase, his point remains true: over the past two years Democrats have done a lot more to discourage, rather than encourage, job creation. He argued that Washington must be aware of not only the intended results of their legislation, but also the unintended consequences.

Take something big like the stimulus. Pumping money into a down economy sounds great both in theory and practice. But, Democrats failed to think of the long term negative pressure that enormous government debt has on private investment. Or take something small like cash-for-clunkers. Getting old cars off the road while creating a boom period for struggling car makers seemed like a great idea. But, Democrats failed to consider what would happen to the market when their artificial stimulus was removed.

The point is that Democratic policies, however well intentioned, have side-effects. Sadly, the most prevalent side effect thus far has been uncertainty. Big businesses are afraid of pending regulatory burdens and are now sitting on their cash reserves rather than gamble on hiring. Small businesses are wary of looming tax hikes and red tape and are going into survival mode rather than hire mode.

Then came Vice President Joe Biden’s response. First, let me compliment Mr. Boehner on the strategical brilliance of giving an economic speech when the President was on vacation. Joe Biden, in all his folksy charm (read: tendency to put foot in mouth), is no President Obama when it comes to undressing Republican attacks on the economy.

Fortunately for Democrats Joe Biden flashed his rhetorical brilliance, thoroughly dismantling Boehner’s claims, and reminding America why President Obama chose Viden as his right hand man. Ha. Who are we kidding. All Biden did was pull his best imitation of a scared child, point his finger, and yell “Nu uh! It’s YOU GUYS fault!”

Even “you guys” is a little generous. The finger of blame was pointed specifically at one person. Bush. The Democratic totem of all things evil. Don’t have an answer? Blame Bush. Something goes wrong? It’s Bush’s fault. Bill didn’t live up to expectations? Bush doomed it to fail. In other words the specter of a guy who has been out of office for two years has somehow infiltrated the collective psyche of a party who has done its best to distance itself from his policies. I guess it beats coming up with real answers.

In Biden’s words, “Mr. Boehner is nostalgic for those good old days, but the American people are not. They don’t want to go back, they want to move forward.” But in the same breath that he declared people are tired of looking backwards he brings up the Bush administration. Which is it? Are we going to point fingers at who is to blame for the problem are we going to work towards the future.

Of course the Vice President did make some salient points. He disputed Republican’s notion that the tax cuts would have a dire impact on a significant number of small businesses. Then again he ignored the statements from his own party showing that the top 2% of earners purchase 33% of the goods being bought. How taxing them will help us claw out of this recession is beyond me.

Biden also discusses the new CBO report showing which outlines the good that the stimulus package has done for the economy. Of course he omits that the CBO was also the one who initially predicted that because of the stimulus unemployment would average about 9% in 2010. Thus far we haven’t crossed below 9.5% (masked even further by the fact that a significant number of the population has dropped out of the workforce). So if their models failed to predict unemployment in the past how can we trust the model they use to assess the effects of the stimulus bill?

Finally, Biden discussed all the super-awesome projects the administration is about to kick off. He seemed especially keen on the job creating effects of high speed rail. I’ll leave it to Steve Forbes to explain why that is one of the most bone-headed ideas ever. Take it away Steve…http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/11/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html?boxes=opinionschanneleditors

We don’t need Biden, or even Boehner, to understand the economic troubles we are in. Our future is looking more bleak by the day. Our economy remains stagnant and now we have trillions of dollars in debt to show for it. This country needs a change, and no-Joe, I’m not talking about a return to the Bush-era, but I’m also not talking about the Obama brand of change. Because frankly, that change has taken us from bad to worse.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Americans are often derided as arrogant. If you’ve ever been to France, tried to speak French, and gotten the stink-eye from a native Frenchmen, you know. But why shouldn’t we be proud? We fought, and won, our independence from an oppressive monarchy, we became a worldwide paragon of Democracy, and we grew to become the largest economy on the planet. Not to say that we’re perfect (see: our 13.5 trillion debt). Nevertheless, we’re still the envy of the world. Right? Well, Australia would tell you “no.”

The Tea Party movement in the United States is not some anomaly. Contrary to the popular Democratic meme, the fiscal responsibility sentiment extends well beyond the hearts and minds of “crazed red-necks” in the trailer parks of America’s armpit. The notion that a country has a responsibility to its citizens not to sink itself into trillions of dollars in debt turns out to be a rather global concept.

Just look at Australia. As the elections for Parliament have begun, early polling has shown that its citizens would prefer not to sell their souls to the debt-Gods in order to fund a few more government programs. The Coalition, a group consisting of three conservative parties, headlined by the Liberal Party (editor’s note: the Liberal Party is actually conservative in Australia. What did you expect from these guys? They drive on the wrong side of the road.) is looking to steal around 17 seats from their left-wing counterparts.

If the Liberals win it will be historic. Australian politics are the paragon of predictability. Not so this time around. In a coup, Liberals recently overthrew their unpopular Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, choosing instead to go with the more conservative (but still liberal) Julia Gillard. But with Gillard still sagging at the polls Australians appear prepared to dump a first-term government for the first time since 1931! Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Why is Labor facing a loss? As The Australian reports,

The unerring message from Labor since its 2007 victory is that Canberra governance knows best; witness the flawed design of the economic stimulus, the complex scheme to price carbon, the government control of the National Broadband Network and the Canberra-crafted mining tax. On each issue the key element was the Canberra power structure dictating to the people.

[The Liberal candidate] Abbott’s political revolt is against this hubris on behalf of the common man, taxpayer and worker.

Sounds a lot like what is going on in America right? Flawed stimulus package? Check. Attempt to pass cap-and-trade? Check. Attempted government control of a previously free media? Check. But Democrats can actually do the liberal blokes down under a few better. Adding insult to injury they managed to pass a government-centric healthcare reform that promises to raise costs and a banking reform bill that explodes the size of government and fails to fix the problems that caused the crisis.

On the other side of the coin, we’ve got a political revolt “against this hubris” in the form of the small government and fiscally responsible Tea Party.

They’re not standing alone. Today’s student is looking forward to a future in which they can have a job, or more broadly, a future where they will not be burdened by the financial foul-ups of their forefathers.  We are demanding financial responsibility from our government.  This decade may be remembered as a time of overspending and racking up debt, but we will fight to write the next decade, OUR DECADE, as a generation that took control of our fiscal future. This November will be the beginning of a “New America”, which will surprisingly look more like the “Old America.”  An America that refuses to spend more than it takes in, one where government gets out of the way of businesses, and that refuses to pass the bad decisions off today onto its children.

“I sincerely believe… that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” - Thomas Jefferson

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

This has been the summer of poorly named projects. First we’ve got the follow-up season of Jersey Shore that was actually shot in…Miami? Then we got the President’s “Recovery Summer” in which the economy…continued to lose jobs? How are those two things in any way related? They’re not.

Nevertheless, who did they think they were fooling? At MTV, the home of My Super Sweet 16, Disaster Date, and Teen Mom, we don’t expect much better. But really, this kind of branding flies in Washington? Then again, misnomers reign in DC. Democrats have tried a trillion different names for the trillion dollar spending package they promised would create jobs. Last year Barney Frank said,

“I’m not supposed to call it stimulus. The message experts in Washington have told us that we’re supposed to call it the recovery plan. I was puzzled by that…Most people would rather be stimulated than recover.”

Regardless of what you call it, it didn’t work. If it was a stimulus it wasn’t exactly stimulating and if it was a recovery plan it hasn’t led us to much of a recovery.  Now the messaging geniuses at the White House decided to frame the last three months as the “Recovery Summer.” Bad move.

In their seemingly infinite naïveté, Obama and his crack team of advisers saw that thousands of projects funded by the stimulus bill were going to be coming into effect over the summer. Surely, this would spur the much-ballyhooed job creation the administration has been crowing about right! Right? Wrong. Despite Vice President Joe Biden’s declaration that the economy would soon be pumping out 250,000 to 500,000 new jobs a month, our economy has hit a wall.

In August state initial claims for unemployment benefits increased 12,000 to 500,000, the highest since mid-November. Moreover, the 9.5 percent unemployment rate has remained at about the same level as it was in May. Finally, home sales plunged in July, falling 27 percent, the steeping one-month drop since we began keeping the statistic in 1968.

We’ve got more signs pointing towards a double dip than any sort of private sector recovery and the President’s “Recovery Summer” tour is taking a break on the beaches of Martha’s Vineyard.

But things are bound to get better right? Sure, we may have been burned by the Recovery Summer, but there’s always Fall. We’ll have the Autumn Comeback, or the Fall Resurrection, or the Harvest Rebound (thanks thesaurus.com). Sadly, my Magic Eight Ball, which happens to be filled with economists, says “outlook not so good.”

As Economic Policy Institute economist Josh Bivens told ABC:

Two thirds of all stimulus dollars will have been spent by the end of the summer, Bivens said. The economy grew 3.7 percent in the first quarter of 2010 but slowed to 2.4 percent in the second quarter.

Economic growth is “going to drop rapidly for the rest of this year and the Recovery Act is going to add zero. It will have run out,” Bivens said.

As the economy remains on life support, the prognosis for Democrats’ November chances grows more bleak. A new Washington Post poll finds that a mere 27 percent of Americans see the economy as improving. It’s unsurprising then that the same poll finds that a new low of 43 percent approve of Obama’s handling of the economy.

As it turns out, people are smart enough to flip past the title page. Even Snookie knows that Recovery Summer simply doesn’t mean anything without any actual recovery.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

The golden rule of politics: Never let your opponent frame the debate. Not quite, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but work with me here, this is Washington.

The biggest battle for position is currently over the Bush tax cuts. Democrats are attempting to frame the debate so that Republicans are up to their old tricks, helping the rich at the expense of the poor.

Paul Krugman’s latest column pretty much sums up the liberal storyline.

We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

There are two enormous rhetorical flaws with this approach that I’d like to address. First, Democrats attempt to single out the rich is purely a partisan word game.  Contrary to the favoring the rich philosophy Democrats keep pushing, Republicans want to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Second, for Republicans, reducing government spending is the end, reducing the deficit happens to be a beneficial byproduct of achieving that end.

Republicans aren’t the party of the rich. We’re not looking out for their interests at the expense of everyone else’s. No, we’re simply maintaining ideological consistency. We want everyone to be able to keep as much of their money in their pocket as they can. Democrats myopia neglects the fact that they agree with Republicans on almost all of the tax cuts. But rather than admit to the consistency they employ a clever rhetorical trick that makes them look really good and Republicans really bad. Keith Hennessy explained the language trick today in his blog,

Most DC Democrats try to have it both ways – they talk about “preventing tax increases on the middle class” but oppose “extending tax cuts for the rich.”  This rhetorical inconsistency masks a parallel situation in law and policy.  Either they’re both extending tax cuts, or they’re both preventing tax increases.

Same action, different verb. Regardless of which tack you choose, let’s at least be intellectually honest. Of course, such parallels don’t help Democrats with their message. “Promoting tax cuts for everyone “is not nearly as provocative as “extending tax cuts for the rich.” The fact is Republicans aren’t out to rob from the poor to give to the rich. We’re out to stop the government from robbing from anyone at all. And sadly that is exactly what the debate has devolved into.

When it comes to deficits, private citizen’s money is only viewed through the lens of government need. As Hennessey explains,

In this view of the world, revenues belong to the government and are allocated by policymakers as gifts to those who need or deserve them.  When you hear that “we cannot afford to cut taxes” and “we should not give tax cuts to ______,” you are hearing this philosophy.

The problem with this philosophy is that ultimately, whatever the government spends, is not in and of itself government money. Citizens are relatively happy to donate a portion of their income to the government to ensure that certain infrastructure gets built, and certain services get done. However, citizen’s money should not be used as merely a subsidy for the largesse of our government. The debate must never be framed in such a way that the moral imperative lies with taxpayers to pay for the expenditures of its government. The imperative always lies with government to justify its expenditures in the context of how much it is taking from taxpayers.

Can the government justify its current spending levels? If not, can they justify asking more from any taxpayer before first looking for places to cut?

That concept it tied closely with the second fallacy of Democrats’ attempt to frame the debate over extending the tax cuts. Republicans are deeply concerned about the deficit. However, we recognize that the deficit problem is part and parcel of the greater government spending problem. As Congressman Mike Pence said recently on Meet the Press,

“I think it’s apples and oranges. Here in Washington, DC they talk about tax cuts the same way they talk about spending increases as if the government owned all the money…I think deciding on a government spending increase is very different on whether or not we allow American people to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars.”

That is the fundamental difference that Democrats fail to grasp. Republicans are all for lowering the deficit, but they aren’t for raising taxes to do it, especially not when government spending is at its highest point in history.

Moreover, let’s dispel the notion that Democrats are truly concerned about the tax cuts impact on the deficit. They are always the first to cite the Tax Policy Center’s figure that extending the tax cuts for the “rich” would take away $680 billion in potential revenue over the next 10 years. What you never hear them say is that the cost in lost revenue of extending the total package of tax cuts is $3.1 trillion. Then again Democrats justify the cuts for the rest of society by saying that they will stimulate consumer demand so that we can escape the recession. Fortunately Gerry Connolly (D-VA) has the perfect response: “it’s important for members to remember the top 5 percent of earners generates 30 percent of consumer spending.”

In other words, if Democrats really believe their own logic, then we get the biggest bang for our buck would come from extending tax relief to everyone. Then again, as we discussed earlier, internal consistency is not exactly Democrats’ strong suit.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director