And Then There Were Eight

Eight GOP candidates that is.

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is out. He ran an ineffective campaign. Perhaps he was limited, no matter what. I’ve seen reports that suggest that. I know that early on I found him very impressive and refreshing, and then it seemed like all the spark went out of his campaign when he refused to criticize former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) on ObamneyCare during the first debate.

But wait, there were eight just last week. And there’s still eight. So, nothing’s really changed. Well, except for the fact that the group became much more dynamic and tilted a bit further to the right. Both of those are good things.

Good luck in the future in whatever you decide to do, Mr. Pawlenty. I’ve enjoyed seeing your tweets on Twitter and look forward to hearing more from you. Public policy polling says that a campaign for Senate for you is a “non-starter” unless you want to be defeated twice in one cycle, but I believe that once again, PPP is trying to make the news, rather than report it. Go for it, if that interests you.

What Do You Call A 20% Reduction In The Corporate Tax Rate?

I know what you’re thinking. “Oh boy, Chris is going off on taxes again. Where’s the snooze button?” But if you want to fix our economy, with a lasting fix, it’s going to take fixing our taxes.

Anyway, back to the question. What DO you call a 20% reduction in the corporate tax rate?

Liberals call it a “fantasy”. I call it a good start.

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) released his economic plan last week. Neal Boortz has a good summary.

As we gear up for the Republican debate tonight, here’s a look at Tim Pawlenty’s economic plan that has some liberal’s tight-chested.  He believes that he can implement a national economic growth goal of 5%.  Here’s how:

• Take the business tax rate all the way down to 15% from 35%
• Get rid of all the deductions and quit taxing foreign earnings of American companies
• Make small-business S-Corps or LLC partnerships eligible for the new low corporate rate
• Simplify our income tax to two rates of only 10 and 25%
• Abolish taxes on capital gains, interest, dividends and estates
• Sunset all economic regulations
• Apply a "Google test," whereby if you can find a federal government good or service on the Internet, the federal government doesn't need to run it.

I’m on board with all of this. I’d prefer the FairTax over his two tiered flat income tax, but I’m not a purist. Right now as long as it cleans up the tax code I’m happy. His elimination of investment taxes is fantastic. The part about elimination of deductions appears to only apply to the corporate tax and not the individual, which is unfortunate, but again, it’s a good start. The “Google test” is a terrific idea.

But…about that corporate tax rate. 15% is still at least 15% too high. I don’t agree with the people who say we need to eliminate corporate tax breaks. We just need to give them all to everyone. Let me be blunt. Corporate taxes accomplish no good purpose. All they do is obfuscate the tax code unnecessarily and prevent business from using their resources to produce their goods and services. They are always a net drain on business productivity.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll keep saying it. Businesses don’t pay taxes. Never have. Never will. They pass the tax burden on to their customers in terms of higher prices, their employees in terms of lower wages and benefits, and their stockholders in terms of lower dividends. There are conflicting studies on which of those three groups tends to get stuck with the highest percentage of the bill, but in the end it doesn’t matter. All three of these are a drain on the economy.

1. Higher prices means fewer goods and services are sold.
2. Lower wages and benefits for employees means they won’t buy as many goods and services from other companies.
3. Lower dividends means less investment or reinvestment. Less capital for businesses means less investment in their future in terms of research and personnel.

Here’s something else I’ve been saying since 2008. You want to end this “economic downturn” we’re in (I can’t call it a recession right now…not until it’s formally declared a recession again), then eliminate the corporate income tax. Yes, you have to do a little more work than just that or every person in the country will immediately incorporate, but compared to reinventing health care in the United States, this is easy. Do just this one thing and we get to positive and sustained economic growth starting almost immediately. Yes, it really is that easy.

I linked this article by Megan McArdle at the top of the page, but it’s worth re-linking. She goes into far more detail about how corporate income taxes negatively effect business growth and investment. She also examines why progressives should be for it as well. Read the whole thing, but I’m just going to grab her last point, because it brings up something I haven’t mentioned even tangentially.

Without the corporate income tax, a lot of the incentive for lobbying would go away  Not all of it, by any means--I am not trying to paint some halcyon future here.  But an enormous amount of effort goes into lobbying for tax laws, and politicians often reward favored constituent businesses with little sweetheart fillips to the tax code. Conversely, apparently neutral changes to the tax code often turn out to be excellent ways to hamstring your competition, particularly small businesses who cannot afford a huge tax department.

Want to get corporate money out of politics?  Want to erode the power of the Chamber of Commerce?  Take away one of their primary motives to get involved.

We’ve been hearing a lot about corporate money in politics recently and about crony capitalism from both sides of the aisle. If you really think that either or both of these are problems, then you should be in agreement with me about corporate taxes.

GOP Debates: Round 2–New Hampshire

Last night, the leading declared contenders for the GOP nomination for President squared off in New Hampshire. If you missed it, you’re not alone. The only people that tune in for debates like this in the middle of June the year before the election are people that are paid to do so, political junkies like me, and people with money to drop.

If you’re interested, you can find my thoughts on the first debate here.

The night had some clear winners and losers, and some people who got stuck in the mud in the middle. Overall, I was impressed. Even the weakest of the candidates had some good moments. And, just to be balanced, I don’t think anyone was pitch perfect through the entire night.

The strongest performance of the night was by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-05). She was solid from beginning to end, only stumbling a little bit on the follow-up question on gay marriage (she’s for a Constitutional amendment, and for states rights—that’s not impossible, but it is confusing). Maybe a couple of her answers seemed a little over-rehearsed, and she dropped to talking points once or twice, but that’s nit picking. I was impressed with her, as I always am when I see her interviewed.

She had the strongest performance, but she wasn’t the “winner”. Last time I thought former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) had the strongest performance, but Herman Cain (R-GP) might have been the winner, due to making himself known. Similarly, I think former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was the winner last night. As the perceived frontrunner, what he has to do is show up, look Presidential, not screw up, and not get hammered too much by the other candidates. He cleared that bar easily. He had a couple of weaker answers, but  think you’d have to be a conservative policy wonk to really catch that. In short, he showed why he’s the frontrunner.

The biggest losers of the night were CNN, the moderator John King, and former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I thought during the first debate that Palin really needed to be there. Last night that felt even more true. The field is starting to look set now, and those in the field are going to be gaining momentum and attention from those with money and political pull. She’s starting to hurt her chances by not declaring. A lot of this is true for Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) as well, but I think all of the Texas references last night help him a bit. Texas is about the only thing keeping America’s economy afloat at the moment, and that’s hard to hide.

As for CNN and King, neither should be allowed to ever do a Presidential debate again. The format was awful, not giving candidates time to answer detailed policy questions with the necessary details. King was rude and annoying, constantly interrupting with “uh” to get the candidates moving or back on topic, sometimes before they’d finished a single sentence. I could deal with all of that, though, but there were subtleties that were even worse. The entire debate seemed designed around protecting President Barack Obama (D-USA) and Mitt Romney. There were very few questions on topics that harm either of them. What about jobs, inflation, foreign wars, $4 gas, cap and trade, energy subsidies, and entitlement reform? There was one question early on about the Ryan plan, and another directed at Pawlenty regarding his ObamneyCare statement this weekend. I know having 7 people there makes it challenging, but surely it’s possible to better than that. The debate was painful to watch, and not because of the candidates.

Speaking of which, here’s a friendly word of advice to GOP Presidential candidates. I know all about President Ronald Reagan’s (R-USA) 11th Commandment, and I know that we need to make this election a referendum on Obama, but unless you want Romney to be the nominee, you’re going to have to take some shots at him as well. And when the moderator gives you a nice slow pitch right down the middle of the plate, you need to hit that one out of the park. Yes, I’m talking to you, Tim Pawlenty. Why couldn’t you back up your ObamneyCare statement? Surely you had to expect a question about this? Awful. Truly awful.

As much as I was impressed with Pawlenty during the first debate, his performance last night, especially during the first hour, was a huge disappointment. He did seem to gain strength as the night wore on, something he shared with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06), and Herman Cain. I thought all three stumbled early, but picked up in the second hour. Newt fumbled again discussing his position on the Ryan plan. He needs to figure out how to answer this question, or just drop out.

Cain’s biggest problem, though, wasn’t himself, but that for long periods of the night, he was basically ignored by King and the questioners. I think former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) also suffered from this to a lesser degree. What I saw of Santorum impressed me much more than last time around. He seemed much more relaxed and composed. I just wish I’d seen more of him.

Ok, have I left anyone out? Oh yes. My statement about Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) from last time still applies. He was Ron Paul. Brilliant about some things and frighteningly scary about others. Fortunately for him, since the debate topics shied away from foreign policy to such a degree, he didn’t get as many chances to show just how scary he can be. In fact, on most of the domestic policy questions he made good points and good sense. His one answer on Social Security and Medicare may have been the right one “shut them all down”, but it’s not going to win over many voters, even in the GOP.

Overall, I was impressed with the field. Any of these people would be a great improvement over the current occupant of the White House. I have some more thoughts on the candidates themselves, but that’s a topic for another post.

If you missed the debate or just want to watch it again, here’s the vid, courtesy of The Right Scoop.

The GOP Candidates-The Bad

As promised, now the bad.

(No, I’m not going to do an Ugly, but if you look at this list, I’m sure you can find some ugly)

• Mitt Romney – Wow, where to begin. He’s the left most person in the field. He’s got RomneyCare hanging around his neck, supports ethanol subsidies and believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
• Newt Gingrich – I think he learned too much from President Bill Clinton (D-USA). He’s too much into this whole “national conversation” thing, and seems like he’s always triangulating lately. He also believes in AGW, and to be blunt, his campaign so far has been a disaster. As I have said previously, he’s a 20th century politician. I really don’t feel that he understands the Tea Party and the angst there.
• Tim Pawlenty – Definitely has some green roots and supported cap & trade while governor. He says he’s learned from that, but there are some other things he needs to have learned from as well. He hasn’t always been a small government politician. Right now he appears to be saying the right things, but is he just saying them to get elected, or because that’s what he feels? Call me cynical, but I worry.
• Herman Cain – His outsider status is going to be a problem in the general election. He clearly has issues with foreign policy as well. Also, I fear that the MSM will use his race in a subtle fashion to attack him and the GOP. I can just imagine someone saying, “Look, the GOP is trying to show they have a black man too. But there are so few in the GOP they couldn’t find one with actual political experience to run.” If you don’t think Chris Matthews is capable of saying something like this, you haven’t been paying attention. I really hope I’m wrong on that, but I fear I’m not.
• Michelle Bachman – I don’t believe in legislators as Presidents. I never have, and our current President sure hasn’t changed my mind. Also, she’s a firebrand. I think that works for her in the House, but not sure it’s a winning feature in the White House. Let her run for Governor of MN, learn to be a Chief Executive, and then I’m solidly behind her in 2016 or 2020, depending on 2012 outcome.
• Ron Paul – Well, he’s Ron Paul. He’s an isolationist, and he’s out there on a lot of things.
• Rick Perry – As I said on the good page, I just don’t know that much about him. I do remember in those articles over the last few years that I scanned, that I wasn’t always happy. I can’t name any specifics though. I’m not the best even keeping up with local politics even in my own state, much less someone else’s. Yes, I realize that sounds odd for someone who is so much for Federalism. I’d love to pay more attention to local politics, but our top heavy federal government doesn’t allow me to do so.
• Gary Johnson – His performance in the first debate was absolutely dismal. He didn’t give a single answer that I liked. So, I’m pretty much down on him on every single issue.
• Sarah Palin – As a candidate she has a lot to overcome. Also, while I admire her desire to run an unconventional campaign, I doubt the ability of such a campaign to succeed on a national level. She has an image that has been created by the MSM, and it is the image that most people see in their minds when they think of her. And, fair or unfair, the “quitter” label is going to be stuck with her for the rest of her life. Also, I think her adamant stand on the debt ceiling issue would come back to haunt her as a President. It has all the makings of a “Read my lips” moment.
• Jon Huntsman – I missed him on the Good, so I’ll have to go back and add something. But he’s well liked by the MSM, which is all conservatives should need to know about him. He’s a big government politician and pro choice.

That’s the bad. And, sadly, there’s a lot of it. I can probably support any of these people should they win the nomination, but it will be extremely difficult for me to pull the lever for Romney, Johnson, or Huntsman. I’ve previously said I’ll never do it for Romney, but our current President is slowly making me reconsider that position. I’m pretty worried about the future of our country should President Barack Obama (D-USA) be re-elected, so despite my significant misgivings about Romney, and what he means to the future of the USA and the GOP, I’ll probably have to support him.

The GOP Candidates-The Good

My Twitter timeline is full of statements good and bad about various GOPers these days, and I keep finding myself wanting to retweet with comment. Unfortunately, most of my comments would be 1) negative, and 2) comparative to former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I’m really trying not to be an “all Palin, all the time” sort of person, so I’ve been mostly resistant to tweeting.

However, my fingers are still twitchy, so I’m going to write a couple blog posts about what I like and dislike about the various mainstream candidates and speculative candidates.

All comments are based upon what I know of these people right now, and are my opinion only. Remember, this post is only about the good things. The bad things are coming later.

• Mitt Romney – He’s probably more capable of winning the independent vote than any other candidate. And he understands economics better than just about anyone else in the field
• Newt Gingrich – An absolutely brilliant individual, capable of thinking outside the box, and a genuine font of knowledge when it concerns U.S. history, and the implications of the future. Also understands the need for getting the public on your side, having learned this the hard way from President Bill Clinton (D-USA)
• Tim Pawlenty – Showing some real strength so far in the campaign season, definitely trying to court the Tea Party movement.
• Herman Cain – Smart outsider who understands businesses and what makes them grow. He supports the FairTax and also is not afraid of calling out the President where he’s wrong.
• Michelle Bachmann – Definitely has staked out the Tea Party movement as her core constituency. Taking a principled stand where taxes and the size of government is concerned.
• Ron Paul – I like some of his libertarian views, particularly where he stands on marriage. I’m in total agreement with him. We need to get government out of the marriage business. Yes, I realize that’s not as easy as it sounds, but it’s the right solution. Oh, and I’m with him on the Federal Reserve. That would be the best thing about a Paul presidency, seeing him demanding the Fed turn over their books.
• Rick Perry – To be honest, I don’t know the Texas governor all that well. I remember glancing through several stories over the last few years with his name on them and being mostly pleased with what I saw, but I don’t remember any specifics. Will have to do more research if his candidacy appears more likely.
• Gary Johnson – Give me a minute. I’ll think of something. Oh yeah, I read that he supports the FairTax.
• Sarah Palin – Since her emergence in 2008, she has been on the right side of every issue, and she has an opinion on all of them and has voiced them loudly and clearly to anyone who’s bothered to listen. What I like most about Sarah Palin is that she recognizes the MSM as the enemy and treats them as such, going around them to get her message out, rather than through them. She also has been willing to attack President Barack Obama (D-USA) on his stances much more than any other political figure.
• Jon Huntsman – He has some nice foreign policy credentials as Ambassador to China, and he’s a strong proponent of real tax reform, something that’s a big issue to me personally, in case you haven’t noticed.

There are other candidates and speculated candidates listed here, but I honestly don’t believe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) or Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) are running. As for the others, I think only John Bolton has a chance of making any noise at all, and even his noisemaking potential appears minimal.

UPDATED: Added the bit about Ron Paul and the Fed.

UPDATE 2: Forgot Jon Huntsman. Added.

New Vids from Cain & Pawlenty

Cain:

 

Nice to see him solidly back on the FairTax bandwagon. His support had seemed a little shaky lately.

Pawlenty:

 

Pawlenty’s vid is a little weak, but overall I’m still impressed with his campaign—so far. He’s not a perfect candidate, by any means, and he might still be left of me, but at least he’s in the same ballpark, and he understands the problems America is facing. I want to see more attacking from him and less touchy-feely stuff like this video though.

The Obligatory ‘Daniels Is Out’ Post

Well, I talked about Pawlenty and Cain. You didn’t think I was going to skip Mitch did you?

Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) made it official this weekend. He’s not running for President. From his statement:

The answer is that I will not be a candidate. What could have been a complicated decision was in the end very simple: on matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more.

I am deeply concerned, for the first time in my life, about the future of our Republic. In the next few years Americans will decide two basic sets of questions: Who’s in charge here? Should the public sector protect and promote the private sector or dominate and direct it? Does the government work for the people or vice versa?

I was never a fan of Daniels as a Presidential candidate. I documented some of the reasons in an earlier post. But I also think that the MSM would have tied him to President George W. Bush (R-USA) (Dems still like to run against Bush—they plan on doing it again in 2012), and would have pointed out that his record as a fiscal hawk is severely tarnished by his tenure at the OMB under Bush.

And, there’s the marriage, divorce, re-marriage issue. No, I’m not going to go into the details. If you’ve been following, you know. If not, find out someplace else. This isn’t a gossip blog.

I did think that he would likely have been the de facto frontrunner had he entered, as I mentioned earlier. Right now, I think that role falls to Pawlenty, who clearly has some momentum. Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) can still shake up the race, but I think the window is starting to close on that. Pawlenty and Cain and others are starting to hit their stride in the campaign now. Palin, even with her rabid supporters, will have to play catch up, if she doesn’t officially enter soon. I figure she has until the end of June to make it official. After that, she moves to a spoiler role.

The Obligatory ‘Pawlenty Is In’ Post

Yes, I know it’s a couple days old. Sue me. I’ve been busy.

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) officially announced on Monday that he’s running for President.

Here’s the vid, and it’s very good:

My twitter feed is full of Pawlenty love these days, from the right wing punditocracy. I said earlier that I thought he won the first debate, so that’s not surprising to me. He clearly knows that like Daniels, he has to overcome being labeled as “boring” and has been working to do so. He’s been spirited, combative, and truthful.

This last week he has campaigned in Iowa against ethanol subsidies and in Florida for Medicare and Social Security reform. Gutsy calls. And showing that he understands the problems and wants to make sure all of America understands the problems. President Bill Clinton (D-USA) used to give one campaign speech in one state, and then say completely the opposite in another. He was working the crowd that was with him at the time. And he was very good at it. Instead, Pawlenty is doing just the opposite. He’s telling the truth, where it most needs to be heard.

I have my share of concerns about him. We’ve previously discussed his issues with cap & trade, but it’s not just that. There are indications of “big government conservatism” all through his record as MN Governor. Has he seen the light? Or is he just reacting to the Tea Party momentum? Hard to say.

But at this point, I would not be surprised at all for him to be the GOP nominee. Still a year and more away, but until (and possibly even after) former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) officially enters the race, he’s the leader of the anti-Mitt crowd.

The Obligatory ‘Huck Is Out’ Post

Watch here:

Official statement here.

Who benefits? Not Romney. Probably (in order), Daniels, Palin, and Pawlenty. Daniels, if he enters now becomes the de facto front runner. Romney may be listed as the front runner for a while yet, but after his disastrous defense of RomneyCare he’s not getting the nomination. His candidacy is over. The best “anti-Mitt” will win the day. If Daniels enters, that looks like him, as he’ll also win over the “anti-Palin” crowd from the old guard GOP who fears her. If Daniels stays out, then Sarah likely becomes the prohibitive favorite, should she enter. If both stay out, I think we can start talking about Pawlenty’s general election chances.

One thing that might benefit Palin, even if Daniels enters, is that she’ll likely be better at courting Huckabee and his supporters than Daniels. But that may not be enough, as Daniels is going to be a money machine, from the whales at least.

And Round One Goes To…

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) was the clear winner in last night’s GOP debate. He was energetic, focused, and on message. He handled the question about his former support of cap and trade very well. “We did the research and discovered it was a bad idea. I was wrong.” As long as the big names stay out (Huckabee, Gingrich, Daniels, Romney, Palin), he has to be considered the frontrunner, and may still be even after some of them enter.

Herman Cain (R), and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) also distanced themselves from the rest, but each had some problems as well. Cain is clearly uncomfortable talking about foreign policy, and while a FairTax supporter, his defense of it was very weak. Santorum seemed defensive and awkward at times and used the word ‘I’ far too often. Still, both of them were on message more than they were off.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) was, well, Ron Paul. He speaks the libertarian game very well. But too many mainstream conservatives regard him as a wacko for him to be considered a serious threat. Still, any support he gets just shows the GOP that they need to consider the ideas of the libertarians. Every time he opens his mouth though,  I get a knot in my stomach from wondering what he’s going to say.

And that brings us to the last of our intrepid debaters, former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM). How can I put this? Well, he stunk. I honestly hope I don’t have to sit through another debate with him as a participant. He was petulant and stumbled through his answers. His answer on how he’d respond to pro-life critics (he’s pro-choice) was terrible. His drug answers weren’t much better. And he just seemed very uncomfortable up on stage. In fact, his only good moment of the night was during his closing statement. It was the only time he looked like he was having fun, and he got in a plug for his website.

Focus groups thought that Cain won the debate and Santorum came in second. I’d say that Cain gained the most last night, but I don’t think he won. Still, he was good enough that people are going to start paying attention to him, which is what he needs. Santorum’s high praise was due almost entirely to his attack on ObamaCare which was very well done.

In all, I think that the heavyweights that skipped this one made a mistake. It was a very good debate, and clearly it’s going to give momentum to Pawlenty, Cain, and Santorum heading into the summer.

Opinions on debates tend to be highly subjective, and depend, more often than not, on your presupposed opinions before the debate even started. Therefore, I present the following videos of the debate in its entirety, so that you may watch and judge for yourself.

GOP Nomination Process Begins Today

It begins. The circus we call the nomination process.

Today we will have the first of countless GOP debates between the candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination for President. Who’s going to be there?

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, businessman Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will face off in Greenville, S.C., in the Fox News-sponsored debate that begins at 9 p.m.

All names that are on everyone’s short list, I’m sure.

Many people have opined on why most of the major names are not here (Romney, Gingrich), and also on why so many expected candidates (Palin, Daniels) have not even thrown their names in the ring yet. I have no opinion on why, but I do think that it’s about time to get this party started. I think a candidate who has not made an official declaration by mid-summer will likely be in trouble. Time will tell.

Anyway, since this is the start, it’s worth taking a look at something I wrote over 2 years ago:

At this point, a 2-term Presidency for Mr. Barack Obama (D-USA) seems a near certainty.

[…]

What’s the #1 question in voter’s minds when they go to the polls to re-elect an incumbent or vote in a new President?

“Am I better or worse off now than I was 4 years ago?”

It’s hard to see how most people will answer that as “worse”. I certainly hope that most people won’t. That would mean that we really are in a “depression” and not a “recession”. Because otherwise, because of or in spite of Mr. Obama, the economy should have recovered to some degree by then.

Well, we seem to have missed the “depression” many were worried about, but I’m not sure too many people will say that they’re better off then they were in 2008 at this point. We are still at nearly 9% unemployment, and the only reason it’s even that low is because so many people have given up looking for work. Gas prices are through the roof. Inflation is digging deeper into people’s pockets, people that haven’t gotten any raises in three years. The housing market is still in free fall. And people are again talking “recession”. Add all that up, and it’s ugly.

Still, the election is 18 months away from tomorrow. Quite a bit of recovery could occur between now and then. It would be foolish to expect it, based on the recovery we’ve seen so far. But, you never know.

So, tonight the five men listed above will bring up some of these facts, and tell us how they’re going to fix them, and how stupid the other four men are. Be sure to tune in. 9 pm EDT on FNC.

T-Paw Responds