At CPAC Marco Rubio showed some of the traits that make him a leading candidate for Vice President no matter who the Republican nominee happens to be. He mixed humor and personal narrative.

Rubio spoke with a degree of awe about arriving in the Senate. He wondered to himself, “How did I get here?” But after spending time in Harry Reid’s do-nothing Senate he looked around and wondered, “How did they get here?”

Getting more serious he talked about President Obama’s State of the Union address and how the president scrupulously avoided talking about his record. Why? Well, Rubio explained, for two years President Obama had a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate, which until the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy and the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace him, they had a filibuster-proof majority. So for two years he got everything he wanted and since then, everything has gotten worse.

So what did Obama say in the State of the Union address? He chose to pit Americans against each other. He is trying to sell the American people on a bill of goods that says we are a zero-sum society. That is, for someone to get ahead, someone has to get pulled down. But that is not true, but Obama needs us to believe it so that he can get people to vote for him.

Rubio then related to his own family saying that he felt his father and grandfather were better men than he, but Rubio has advanced as far as he has because he was born in the greatest country in the world.

He then made a telling point. He said that Republicans try to attract followers by arguing who is more like Ronald Reagan. Do you ever hear Democrats argue about who is more like Jimmy Carter?

What is government’s role, he asked? We should have an understandable tax code so that individuals and businesses can make decisions for business reasons not tax reasons. We need regulatory reform. Yes, we all want clean air and clean water but with sanity. We don’t have an energy policy, we have energy politics. While in office for three years President Obama had no plan for Medicare, but as soon as Republican Paul Ryan came up with a plan, he attacked it.

Summing up, Rubio said that President Obama seems to be a really good father; he seems to be a really good husband; but he is a terrible president. I couldn’t agree more.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by shannonpatrick17

First we were told we had to pass the stimulus bill because if we didn’t unemployment would rise to 9%. The good news was that there were hundreds of shovel ready project raring to go. Later we learned that “shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected.” $800 billion dollars of squandered stimulus dollars later, unemployment is at 9%. But what about a real shovel ready project that doesn’t need taxpayer dollars?

There is a $7 billion project called Keystone XL that will build a pipeline from Canada to bring heavy crude oil to refineries in Texas and Oklahoma. It is estimated it will create 20,000 jobs. It will also help us rely less on oil from the unstable Middle East. The project needs the approval of the State Department because it crosses our northern border. That’s approval, not taxpayer funding. Okay, before all the environmentalists come out of their chairs,

In April 2010 and again this August, State produced multivolume environmental impact statements that concluded the pipeline would have “no significant impacts” on the environment. — Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011

So in the midst of bus rides and hectoring us that we need to pass this jobs bill now (where have I heard that before?), Obama decides to vote “present”. He has pushed the decision on the Keystone pipeline out 12-18 months until after the 2012 election. He doesn’t want to lose the environmentalists by slipping on a banana. (BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). So expect to hear more about those “do nothing Republicans”. You know, those Republicans who have passed fifteen bills to help create jobs that Harry Reid in the Democrat controlled Senate will not even allow to come up for a vote. I can understand them opposing the Republicans. What I can’t understand is not voting on the bill either for or against. So who is really doing nothing? Say what you mean, mean what you say.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by roberthufstutter

Throughout out the Republican campaign process, Herman Cain has been portrayed as an interesting candidate, but with no serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. What I found was the most curious logic was on the O’Reilly Factor the other night. Bill’s reasoning that Herman Cain won’t win the nomination was because the most important thing to Republicans was to unseat Obama and that independents won’t vote for Cain because he is too conservative.

A 2010 Gallup Poll showed that about 42% of Americans described themselves as conservative, 20% as liberal and about 35% moderate. So, if Herman Cain were to win the Republican nomination, independents would not vote for him because he is too conservative, but where does that lead? It would lead you to the conclusion that they would vote for Barack Obama instead and where, exactly, does he fall on the political spectrum? No American president is or was further left on the political spectrum than Barack Obama. So given a choice between a strong conservative candidate and a strong liberal candidate we are supposed to believe that, naturally, moderates are going to vote for the far left guy. If you check your math, a conservative in America today only has to hold his base and grab 25% of the moderates to win. A progressive candidate has to hold his base and grab 75% of the moderates to win.

But Republicans keep falling into the trap that O’Reilly is claiming. We say, uh oh, a conservative can’t win because the main stream media tells us that, so we go wobbly and pick someone who appeals to the moderates. What we end up with is a liberal (the Democrat) and liberal light (the moderate Republican) and we get our clocks cleaned (see John McCain).

I would have no problem seeing Herman Cain on the debate platform facing off against Barack Obama. In these troubled times, who better than someone who has actually turned around two companies (Burger King in Philadelphia and Godfather’s pizza). He learned the Burger King business by going through the company’s training “boot camp” where he actually worked at the grill. What has Barack Obama ever worked at in the private sector? Herman Cain can give an inspirational talk for 30-45 minutes without a teleprompter. I don’t know about you but I felt pretty embarrassed to listen to the master communicator, Barack Obama, stop in the middle of  a speech to tell the teleprompter operator to move the speech up a few lines. Barack Obama thinks he’s the Wizard of Oz, but he should turn around to see that the curtain has fallen to the floor.

Another knock on Cain was his lack of knowledge about foreign policy. How much did Bill Clinton know about national defense, other than how to dodge the draft, before he was elected president? How much did Barack Obama know about anything before he was elected? They are not the same in their experiences. The presidency is an executive position, and what counts is executive experience. Governors have it, generals have it, CEOs have it; legislators do not. What a legislator decides to do carries no weight unless he can get a large number of fellow legislators to agree and go along with him. Everything an executive decides to do has an impact, some large, some small but an impact nonetheless.

We are in the mess we are in because Obama didn’t understand that coming into office and he has yet to learn it. His signature program, ObamaCare, was just thrown over the wall to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to finish the details and when it was done it was an abomination.  When in doubt, Obama goes into campaign mode. Herman Cain comes up with solutions. They may not be perfect, they may undergo some changes, but they are serious solutions to real problems, not just another transfer the wealth program.

Herman Cain deserves a serious look for who he is, what he stands for, and what he has accomplished. Don’t write him off because some political pundits think they know the formula for winning. If you don’t believe me, ask Marco Rubio, or Rand Paul, or Bob Turner, or Mike Lee.

That’s my opinion; I’s like to know yours.Please comment below.

Democrat Tim Bishop recently sent an e-mail to his constituents blaming Republicans, although they only hold the House while Democrats hold the Senate and the White House, for being against bipartisanship. So what does Tim Bishop do when the opportunity for bipartisanship presents itself? He cements his far left credentials by voting against it.

Three free trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, passed the House by wide margins (262-167, 278-151, 300-129, respectively). They passed the Senate by similarly large margins (66-33, 83-15, 77-22, respectively). President Obama supports the passage of all three. So, Tim Bishop, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid hung tough in their fight against a strong bipartisan measure.

Proponents of the trade deals, including Mr. Obama, Republican leaders and centrist Democrats, predict that they will reduce prices for American consumers and increase foreign sales of American goods and services, providing a much-needed jolt to the sluggish economy.  — New York Times, October 12, 2011.

The House also passed a measure that would provide expanded benefits for workers who lose their jobs to foreign competition.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hailed the deals Wednesday as an important victory for American foreign policy. And she said she expected that the South Korea pact alone would create 70,000 American jobs. “By opening new markets to American exports and attracting new investments to American communities, our economic statecraft is creating jobs and spurring growth here at home,” Ms. Clinton said at a Washington event.

Perhaps instead of having to fight Washington so that Long Island vintners can get their wine bottles and labels approved, Tim Bishop should encourage the US Trade Representative to promote those wines to Columbia, South Korea and Panama. How about Tim Bishop doing something useful rather than spending money we don’t have, loading debt upon his constituents to pay for government spending elsewhere in America, trying to prop up a bankrupt postal service, and asking constituents how we can make Washington bigger and more costly and get more deeply involved in our lives. Please, Tim, don’t help us any more.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by jatraveler

I just finished reading a great new book, EntreLeadership by Dave Ramsey. It is mainly a business book but he has a great chapter on delegation called “Mastering the Rope — Delegation: The Best Way to Build a Business Bigger than You.” He stresses the importance of getting delegation right and it points to why we are in the mess we are with President Obama at the helm.

Ramsey uses the metaphor of a rope. He starts by applying the concept to raising children. “Visualize that I have a rope attached to you, and the more worthy of trust you have proven yourself the more I will lengthen the rope.” It is a similar process with people you hire. Ramsey writes, “When you delegate to someone improperly you will make a huge mess and add more drama to your life than you can stand. But when you properly prepare your organization’s culture, hire and keep only the right people, build unity and loyalty, recognize achievement…then delegation will become the joy of your life.” Ramsey learned a number of these lessons over twenty years in business, some of them learned the hard way, by screwing it up first, and figuring it out second.

So how does this apply to President Obama? Think about his signature “achievement”, ObamaCare. After formulating the concept he not only threw it over the wall to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he threw the rope over the wall too. Pelosi and Reid put it all together while Obama golfed and made speeches. What came back was a three thousand page hideous monster, that everyone on team Obama had to drag across the finish line. Even Pelosi famously said, “We’ll have to pass it, to see what is in it.”

Since Obama never spent a day in the private sector, it is not surprising that he had no idea how to delegate. If you are one of the minions surrounding him, you are not going to be apt to tell him either. You want the responsibility and the rope, so that no one is looking over your shoulder.

Obama started as a community organizer. What does a community organizer do? He finds an issue and then fires up a bunch of people to chant slogans about the issue, march in large numbers to a designated place at a designated time, and the community organizer demands compliance with his solution to the issue. There is no delegation. The masses aren’t given any responsibility. The organizer just needs their numbers. It is similar to what we are seeing with the Wall Street protests today. Grab a video camera and go ask them what they stand for and what they want to change, and most of them won’t be able to tell you other than spouting slogans and bromides.

So President Obama has no idea how to delegate, and as Ramsey predicted Obama has made a huge mess and added more drama to all of our lives than we can stand. Not quite, “No drama, Obama.” Dave Ramsey learned a lot of his wisdom in the trenches for twenty years. We don’t have twenty years for Obama to figure it out. We can’t afford one more year, even though we will have to. But we don’t have to go any farther than that.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by Beverly and Pack

Round one of the great debt debate is over. Now we move onto rolling up our sleeves and actually start cutting. The bad news is that President Obama and Harry Reid wasted no time in calling for tax increases despite their agreement to a debt deal that included no tax increases. The good news that the spending cut targets are minimums, there is nothing stopping Congress from making bigger cuts and if we ignore all the hand wringing and the “terrorist” smears, it may not be as hard as we think.

It’s called the “Penny Plan (HR 1848),” the brainchild of Florida Congressman Connie Mack. It is ridiculously simple and here is how it would work.

• Cap spending at current 2011 levels minus net interest and then cut one penny out of each dollar in spending, that is, 1%.
• For each of the next six years, cut the baseline from the previous year (less 1%) by another penny, or 1%.
• After six years expenditures should be down to 18% of GDP, the budget will be balanced and we can start paying off our debt.
• Future budgets would be capped at 18% of GDP

Photo by Dovina is Devine

After negotiating a debt limit deal that included no tax increases, the ink was hardly dry on the paper before President Obama and Harry Reid started talking about what? That’s right, tax increases.

We hear it over and over again that the rich must pay their fair share. It is often parroted by the likes of Warren Buffet and Matt Damon. “I can pay more,” they say. I say, what’s stopping you? The Treasury has an account set up just for folks like you who feel you are not taxed enough. As Buffet has said, “I could give away 99% of my wealth and my family would still want for nothing.” Movie actors like Damon get paid tens of millions for a single film. It’s nice that the “I can’t spend it faster than I make it crowd,” volunteers that we all have to pitch in. But what happens when a sacred progressive program gets in the way?

Take rent control. In New York City, rent control is a sacred progressive program. “We need affordable housing for the middle class or they will be driven out of the city.” Rent control was responsible for many abandoned buildings in the 1970s and 1980s that turned into drug dens or were set ablaze, because landlords couldn’t raise rents to cover their costs so they just walked away. Tax revenue to the city walked with them. But don’t you dare challenge rent control and put those poor people on the street. Meet the defendant in case No. 7666/11, whose landlord claims she is not entitled to rent control on her apartment. Her name is Faye Dunaway. Yes, that Faye Dunaway. Her landlord argues that this is not her primary residence and that she lives, votes, and registers her cars in California. The rent stabilization rules require tenants to live in the apartment they are renting as a primary residence. Her rent for the one-bedroom walk-up is $1,048.72, but if allowed to rise to market rates it would probably be around $2,318 per month. Would Ms. Dunaway be forced to move to Queens if her rent increased?

How about former mayor Ed Koch. While he was given a mansion to live in, as all mayors are during their tenure, in his case twelve years, he never let go of his rent controlled apartment in Greenwich Village. How would he makes ends meet if he had to pay market rent? After all, isn’t that the purpose of the law to help rich white Democrats pocket more dough? Okay it wasn’t fair to single out white Democrats, how about Charlie Rangel? He had four rent controlled apartments. Three of them were adjoining, so he had some of the walls knocked down to make a really swell place. What about the fourth, you ask? Oh, that was for his district Congressional office. Rangel whose salary alone puts him squarely in the top 5% of all earners used to chair the committee that writes the tax laws, but seemed to have a problem remembering such things as income from a villa in the Dominican Republic so he didn’t exactly pay all his taxes. He’s still serving in Congress and not a guest of the IRS in prison. I guess he used the famous Steve Martin defense, “I forgot.”

Perhaps all the little people who the progressives argue need things like rent control would be helped if the rich Democrats would only get out of their apartments.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by BlueRobot

A contentious battle has concluded today with the passage of the debt limit deal. It was a hard fought battle where no one is entirely happy with the outcome. Before we leave this field of battle, we should take stock of the accomplishments and the players involved.

President Obama

President Obama is damaged goods. His poll numbers have been falling due to the economy and he was disengaged in the debt limit debate until the very end. He has angered the left, the right, and the center. According to Scott Rasmussen, the only reason his approval rating is not lower is that he still has strong, albeit reluctant, support from Democrats. The economy is not likely to improve with him at the helm and the silver lining of the flaws in the debt deal, is it won’t help him on the economy although he managed to push another round of this past the election.

Vice President Joe Biden

Gaffe machine Joe Biden went beyond the gaffe by saying the Tea Party was a band of terrorists. Terrorists? Biden and the main stream media get all clutched up when it comes to calling real terrorists, terrorists, but easily call patriots and a large percentage of Americans, terrorists. It is a badge of dishonor he will carry for a long time.

Senator Harry Reid

Senator Harry Reid has proved, that while an adept parliamentarian in using procedures to try to play Goliath against “David” John Boehner, he just can’t get it done. He couldn’t or chose not to pass a budget for over 800 days. President Obama’s own budget went down to ignominious defeat 97-0 in his chamber. He didn’t bring Cut, Cap, and Balance up for a vote in the Senate because to do so would be lose-lose. If he brought it up he would have to defeat it. If he defeated it, many of the  twenty-three Democrat senators up for election in 2012, would  be on record for more spending and against sound fiscal policy and against two-thirds of Americans who support it. When he and President Obama hit that ball back over the net by saying Boehner walked out of the talks, that Obama has been left at the alter, etc., Boehner couldn’t just ignore it, from a political perspective, he had to respond. And so he prepared another round to put the ball back in the Democrats court. Reid tried to gut that proposal to stuff it with his own and send it back to the House but Boehner outflanked him by copying Reid’s bill and put it up for a vote, the result being it went down in flames. Reid could not even get his own version passed in the Senate. In the end the negotiations proceeded with Obama, McConnell, and Boehner; Reid was sidelined.

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi was Obama’s right hand legislator slamming through ObamaCare, stimulus, TARP, etc. She has been essentially muzzled. When the final deal was negotiated she agreed with one of her members that this was a “Satan sandwich with a side of Satan fries.” Satan? Write that one down folks, it will come in handy along with , “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.” She voted for the deal, but told her members to “vote your conscience.” Sounds like “every man for himself.”

John Boehner

Sell out. Traitor. He got rolled. He is done. Not strong praise for playing the role of David, controlling one-third of the legislative power against two-thirds. But he must be doing something right when the New York Times editorial board screams

There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.

Terrorists, hostage taking, brinkmanship. One need only look back to where this started: just raise the debt limit without condition just like every other debt limit increase. The taxes that Obama and the left wanted, were declared a non-starter; cuts equal to or greater than the amount of the debt limit increase were held firm; a vote on a balanced budget amendment in both houses and although it is not likely to pass, every member of Congress will have to go on record where they stand on it. Would this have even seen the light of day in Reid’s Senate without this deal?

There is a lot not to like in the deal, but it is a lot better than where it started. Most important is that it has brought the debt and the consequences of dealing with it into laser focus. It is up to the Tea Party to keep it there over the next fourteen months with a simple question, “If you want the spending to continue, elect Democrats; if you want to get our fiscal house in order, elect Republicans.”

 Mitch McConnell

McConnell also gets scorched for selling out, making deals to undermine real reform, etc. McConnell is the equal if not the superior parliamentarian to Reid. Many of us do not understand how the “sausage” is made in Congress and do not like it when we see it, but McConnell does. Remember when there were only forty Republican senators in the Senate it was McConnell who held them all together, even the RINOs, until Scott Brown was elected to be able to block legislation. It was McConnell who checked Harry Reid’s maneuver to sneak through his version of a deal with a simple majority. It prompted the news conference with Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer to chant, filibuster, filibuster! But McConnell and his deft maneuvering has been holding down the fort until reinforcements arrive.

The Tea Party

The Tea Party was not in complete agreement on this deal but everyone should take something positive out of this. This debate would not have happened at all without them. This would have passed quietly with no strings attached without the efforts of the Tea Party. Some members took a hard line that there should be no increase in the debt limit at all. Others argued caution that the political reality of only controlling one-third of the legislative process meant fighting for the best deal possible, without seeking a “bridge too far,” and triggering Treasury not sending out some checks. If that happened, which checks those would be is anyone’s guess. If the most political damage could be done and tagged to the Tea Party through that process, the left could turn a big defeat into a big victory. With seventy percent of the public disgusted with the process in Congress, if the blame could be hung on those “stubborn, inflexible, terrorist” Tea Party members, instead of having momentum to pick up more seats in November 2012, it could be turned around to “get those crazies out of there,” which would mean electing more RINOs and more Democrats and the disaster that would follow. The spirited debate in  the Tea Party was a good thing, one side kept pulling for a better deal, the other provided enough resistance to keep it from going over the edge. The goal is to get as close to the edge as possible without going over.

Where We Go From Here

Some are saying the deal will allow tax increases when the joint committee convenes. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Boehner and McConnell, if they are smart, will appoint hardliners to the committee. My suggestions: Paul Ryan, Allen West, Connie Mack from the House and Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Jim DeMint from the Senate. I believe there is zero chance that they would vote for a tax increase, regardless of what the Democrats want. Even if such a calamity would come to pass, it would still have to get through the House and I don’t see that happening.

Where do we go from here? We need to get more like minded people elected to Congress and the White House. This deal was by no means a great deal, but it was far better than no deal. We often lament that many people in America are just not focused on what is going on in Washington and what it means to us. This debt debate was front and center on the national news for weeks. This is something we need to leverage and expand on. We have come a long was since the fall of 2008 in getting people involved, getting them interested, and getting them educated. This event is an opportunity to get more people enraged and engaged. We must seize the opportunity, formulate the message, and drive it home as we close in on November 2012.

Consider if we had a great budget deal, everything we wanted. The stock market would rebound, the economy would start to recover with some uncertainty lifted, and if the employment picture improved, who do you think would take credit for it? It would be Obama crowing all day, every day, how it was a tough struggle, but he alone saved the day. Everything bad was Bush’s fault, but everything good was his doing. Therefore American must obviously give him four more years. A imperfect deal is a gift. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth; ride it to the finish line.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Drawing by Red State

Okay, so we have heard Harry Reid, flanked by Durbin and Schumer, scold the Republicans for stonewalling. Today we learn the news that another Democrat was bluff called to find they have nothing.

The Republicans passed a budget. Harry Reid didn’t even bother, for over two years he didn’t even try. President Obama presented a budget, pulled it back, then submitted  another. Harry Reid put it up for a vote and couldn’t pass it; he didn’t even vote for it himself. No one did. It failed 97-0.

The Republicans passed a solution called Cut, Cap, and Balance. Harry Reid held a vote to not vote on it. There is sat in the Senate while President Obama and Harry Reid said the Republicans wouldn’t compromise, they were the captives of the Tea Party. But the real question is compromise with what? Reid had nothing.

The Republicans passed another solution and sent it to the Senate and again, Harry Reid tabled it. We then had the somber press conference where Reid, Durbin and Schumer talked about those stubborn Republican extremists. Reid then crafted his own solution and the House immediately put it for a vote. What a concept, actually voting on a measure from the other side. It went down in flames and it was bipartisan 246-173. Now the test was whether Harry Reid could pass Harry Reid’s bill in the chamber Harry Reid controls. No. Or should I say that President Obama stopped tweeting long enough to call Reid and tell him to hold off on the vote, giving Harry a fig leaf to save him from the embarrassment of not being able to pass anything.

What is galling is how the main stream media is lapping up whatever slop the president and Harry Reid serve up. They can’t get anything passed and somehow it is the House that passes bill after bill to govern, that is holding things up.

November 2012 is coming and Harry Reid will remain in the Senate regardless, but if we are smart we can push him to a back bench by replacing enough Democratic senators and then we can finally get our fiscal house in order.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Instead of Moe, Larry, and Curly, I am listening to Dick, Chuck, and Harry. That is Durbin, Schumer and Reid. They are lecturing us because Leader Mitch McConnell won’t agree to suspend normal Senate rules to make their mockery easier to advance. Let’s revisit their performance so far:

• The Senate, under Reid, hasn’t passed a budget in over 800 days, more than two years, even though the law requires it
• They have not written any appropriation bills, instead just passing continuing resolutions, that is, spend away as we have been spending all along
• The House passed Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Senate voted to table it, which means they voted not to debate or vote on it
• The House passed a second bill that the Senate again voted to table that.
• The Senate had an opportunity to support President Obama’s budget and the Democrat controlled Senate voted it down 97-0. They couldn’t muster one vote in favor.

But somehow it is the Republicans and the Tea Party who are responsible for impending economic doom. It is not 9.2% unemployment; it is not 0.4% and 1.3% economic growth for the first half of the year. Harry Reid is crying in his beer because he can’t get enough votes in the chamber he controls for his own measure.

If not for the Tea Party and the new members of Congress that they supported, President Obama’s credit card would keep charging our future over a cliff.

Shameless.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.