Monday, April 25, 2011

Mitt Romney op-ed: Obama is Not Serious About America's Financial Health

Mitt Romney shows his stuff in this latest op-ed in the New Hampshire Union leader. It's clear that Romney is on top of his game when he talks the economy and that Obama is out of his element:
America received a giant wake-up call when Standard & Poor’s, the bond rating agency, announced that it was changing the outlook on its highly prized AAA rating for U.S. Treasuries to “negative” from “stable.” This is the first ratings warning for the United States since S&P began evaluating our creditworthiness in 1941.
S&P’s action is a significant marker of our country’s deteriorating economic position.
Treasury bond ratings matter — they are measurements of the fiscal strength of the country. The better the bond rating, the lower the cost of borrowing. And the costs of borrowing by the federal government are, of course, ultimately carried by the taxpayer.
So, what was the White House response?
Obama’s top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, downplayed the event, saying, “I don’t make too much about it.” The President himself went on a weeklong campaign swing highlighted by six fundraisers and sharp partisan attacks against Republicans for their attempts at deficit reduction and entitlement reform.
The main job of any executive — whether a CEO, a governor or a President — should be to avert these dangers, or work to repair them. When I took office in Massachusetts, we faced job losses and a fiscal crisis that had the potential to shake the faith of the credit raters in our bonds. We went to work to convince S&P and the other rating agencies that we were committed to reducing spending to balance our budget. I met personally with these officials in my office in Boston, and I traveled to New York City to meet them in their offices. S&P responded in 2005 with a credit rating upgrade that acknowledged the state’s sound fiscal management and the improving strength of its revitalized economy.
Read the rest of the op-ed on Romney's Facebook page HERE.

Donald Trump the Hypocrite

Donald Trump said this in an interview with the DesMoines Register:
"I will not do anything to enhance the chances of Barack Obama being president, and that includes running as an independent," he said by telephone.
That in itself sounds like a great statement from someone who is loyal to the party he hopes to represent. BUT WAIT, the interview isn't over yet:
 "So the only way I would run as an independent would be if the polls show I couldn't lose," he said. "But even that scares me, because anything can happen.".....

......He also said, "If I ran as an independent and didn't win, Barack Obama would win by a landslide because I would take almost all these votes away from the Republicans."
NO S#@T Donald!

To listen to the interview, click the audio bar below:

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Charles Krauthammer: 2012 Racing Form

H/T Bosman for Graphics

Unified Field Theory of 2012:
  • Axiom One: The more the Republicans can make the 2012 election like 2010, the better their chances of winning.
  • Axiom Two: The less attention the Republican candidate draws to him/herself, the better the chances of winning.
  • Axiom Three: No baggage and no need for flash.


The Early Line:


Michele Bachmann 20-1
Haley Barbour 7-1
Mitch Daniels 6-1
Newt Gingrich 12-1
Tim Pawlenty 5-1
Mitt Romney 5-1



Long Shot: Donald Trump
Likely not running: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee
More likely not running - 2016 Bench: Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley

Read the full story here:

Massachusetts and Nevada seen as critical for Democrats in 2012

.....“The Democrats should be absolutely obsessed with this race,’’ said Jeffrey Berry, Tufts University political scientist. “Yet there doesn’t seem to be a national urgency.’’.......

..........But if Democrats take both Nevada and the Bay State, Republicans would need to practically run the table in other close races to win a Senate majority, a steep, uphill path to power. Senate Democrats hold a 53-to-47 advantage over Republicans, including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats.

“Massachusetts and Nevada . . . are the two important places where they absolutely must put the seats in play,’’ said Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks political races. “Democratic insiders know if they can play offense in some places and pick off one or two Republican seats that just makes it a whole lot easier to hold the Senate.’’
The full story is HERE.

DHS/ICE: Tales of Incompetence

Here's a story sure to make you feel all warm and comfy:
Even as President Barack Obama continued the U.S. military intervention in Libya’s civil war--with armed Predator drones beginning patrols over that North African country on Thursday--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing immigration laws, could not account for 10 Libyan men it had caught and released inside the United States since July 2009.

......10 Libyan men were shown in the database as being both booked in by ICE and booked out--but what happened to their cases after they were booked out was not indicated. Their “Case Category” and “Case Status” columns were blank......
Read the full story here.

Donald Trump: Had enough?

NYC board: Trump skipped 21 years of primaries

Iowa activists not sold on Trump caucus campaign

Donald Trump Phones In To Challenge Eliot Spitzer On Net Worth Speculation:



The Donald trumped on abortion question?
........The exchange (pertains to video below) was reminiscent of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s response to a similar question during the 2008 presidential campaign. In one of a series of interviews with CBS News’ Katie Couric that were widely seen as damaging to Palin’s image, the vice presidential nominee was asked: “Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?” Palin responded, “I do. Yeah, I do.”
Given that the Supreme Court used the “right to privacy” reasoning as the foundation for the Roe ruling, anti-abortion activists and candidates have long insisted no such right exists......



Donald Trump's bankruptcies whittle away at his reputation as a great businessman
TV star and developer Donald Trump tells his Tea Party followers the nation needs a President who is a "winner, not a loser" - and he's just the guy for the job.
What he doesn't talk about is a recurring pattern of Trump companies filing for bankruptcy to dodge creditors and distance him from business failure.
The full tory is HERE.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Feel-good conservatism - A threat to the GOP

I've been doing some thinking over why some people say things they know are stupid. Liberals, for example, are famous for this (although they are for from the only people who engage in the practice).

They just wanna feel good.

There is a big different between feeling good and being good, and everyone who has ever been good knows that you don't always feel good while you are being good. Sometimes, doing what's right is tough and makes you feel heartless.

Politically, this takes various expressions. Take entitlement reform for example. Who doesn't feel heartless saying the US has to reform social security and at a minimum tell all those who are still young or middle-age that once they retire, they won't be getting a pension from the government (which for a lot of people means they won't be able to retire at all, or at least not until they are 75 or something)?

If you're conservative, however, you should care about being good, not feeling good. It really doesn't feel good to support entitlement reform, but anyone who has taken a look at the federal budget and where the money is spent can tell you that the budget cannot be balanced without it. And without balancing the budget, the country is bound to go bankrupt at some point in the future.

Would rather feel good, or would you rather be good? Liberals choose feeling good. It makes them feel like such heroes when they talk about taxing the rich and not betraying the elderly.

Sadly, many conservatives make the same choice. Cutting taxes as a solution to everything is the most obvious example of "feel-good conservatism" as I would like to call it. Pablo called it "talk radio conservatism", but I think what really unites all these people isn't talk radio as much as their desire to "feel good".

Being good means thinking about both sides of the story; thinking both short term and long term and learning from experience. This means you may have to take unpopular stances at times, but if you believe that belonging to the good guys is important, you have to do it.

Cutting social security doesn't give you that warm, fuzzy feeling in your stomach that you get from talking about cutting taxes and defunding NPR (or from talking about "change we can believe in" for all that matters), but it is a much more urgent issue. Unless the US has a plan for balancing the budget by 2013, the AAA credit rating will be gone (in another post, I'll explain how 2012 candidates should deal with that). It's impossible to balance the budget without cutting entitlements (take a look at the numbers yourself if you don't believe me).

It's time to toughen up. Feeling good is for liberals. We're conservatives and we should be good, no matter how it makes us feel. I remember from reading Economics in one lesson (one of the first books in economics I read which really got me interested in the field) that:

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

That, I think, summarizes things quite well. And it is something for conservatives in general to consider as well, not just economists. It doesn't give you the same warm, fuzzy feeling to consider long-term effects and society as a whole - it's actually quite a boring process, but it has to be done by anyone who claims to be worthy of occupying the White House, or for that matters worthy of representing the American people in the House and Senate.

If conservatives want to prove themselves worthy of governing, they need to stop all that feel-good nonsense and get real about what has to be done. We have to tell the people that "this might hurt a little". We will have to say things that can't be turned into catchy slogans. Right now, it seems unlikely that the "feel-good conservatives" who are more interested in symbolic fights are going to let go of the party. Those feel-good conservatives are exactly the kind of people who would vote for Donald Trump if he were to run as an independent; his tough talk about China and the birth certificate is like music to their ears (these conservatives seem to hate Obama so much they would probably like to see his death certificate rather than his birth certificate).

If we can get back to discussing real solutions to real problems, then we deserve to win in 2012. We may or may not win, but even if we don't, we can certainly say we deserved it. If we don't, not only do we not deserve to win, but in the long term we won't, because sooner or later the public is bound to understand we're not really interested in solving the problems the country faces.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Please leave a comment.

Intrade: 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee

I have only included Intrade's TOP 10 Picks as of 04-22-11. I posted the Intrade Top 10 back on April 15th as well. I was curious to see if THE MONEY was buying the Trump hype. IT'S NOT! He's actually gone down since last week.

 To view the intrade specifics on any particular candidate, RIGHT CLICK the photo below. Choose, "Open Link in New Window:

President Obama's poll numbers tank on the Economy

Americans are more pessimistic about the nation’s economic outlook and overall direction than they have been at any time since President Obama’s first two months in office, when the country was still officially ensnared in the Great Recession, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Amid rising gas prices, stubborn unemployment and a cacophonous debate in Washington over the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations, the poll presents stark evidence that the slow, if unsteady, gains in public confidence earlier this year that a recovery was under way are now all but gone.

The full story is HERE.
The crosstabs can be viewed HERE.

Union Bosses: Forget About The Law


Union Bosses and White House Advisors Bob Park and Rich Trumka admitting they are overriding US Law & Sovereignty with The International Labor Movement. Could Obama and the unions get any cozier?:


On a lighter note, here's a 1977 Saturday Night Live take on a song that most of us older folks can remember from years past. Times sure have changed:

Friday, April 22, 2011

Mike Huckabee picks an unnecessary fight with Glenn… loses badly

Earlier this week, Glenn said that he was not excited about the possibility of a Mike Huckabee presidency and said that he felt that politically, Huckabee was a progressive. Mike Huckabee did not take kindly to the comments, and responded to Glenn on Huckabee’s website. Glenn addressed those comments on radio this morning, and explained why he said what he said:

The full story is here.

ARG Survey: Mitt Romney the Big Winner in New Hamphire

If the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary were being held today between (names rotated) Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Herman Cain, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Sarah Palin, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Charles Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Donald Trump, for whom would you vote?
Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Republican primary voters living in New Hampshire (422 Republicans and 178 undeclared voters (independents)). Sample Dates: April 16-21, 2011 Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points.
The full story is HERE.

China is not a threat

In conservative circles, China is always a boogeyman. Few people know anything about China or chinese monetary policy. I am now going to explain, in as simple terms as possible, why China is not a threat, despite their huge dollar reserves and the fact that if they were to dump those, the dollar would be destroyed.

The Chinese currency used to be pegged to the dollar, until as late as last year. Still, it's not entirely "floating"; the chinese government has just allowed "greater flexibility". If your currency is pegged to the dollar, you need to keep dollar reserves. Let's say your currency is supposed to be worth 10 % of the dollar, then you need to keep 1 dollar for every 10 units of your currency there is in circulation. Hence the dollar reserves. In China's case, they may have enough reserves to destroy the US dollar in case they were to sell these reserves, but let's think about it:

What were to happen if they sold their dollars?

Suddenly, they wouldn't be able to keep their peg anymore. If their currency is worth 10 % of the dollar, and the dollar is worth zero, that means their currency would be worth 10 % of zero which is... zero.

What are the odds that China would destroy their own currency like that? And while they don't have the currency technically pegged right now, they still want to keep it within a "range" of values against the dollar. China may not belong to the "good guys", but they're not stupid.

Quite the opposite. China has recently started to strengthen their bands with Russia. This is a good idea, since it makes them less vulnerable if (when?) the dollar does indeed collapse. The thing about Russia that makes its future prospects way better than the US is the lack of debt. The Russian national debt is less than 10 % of GDP (the US is above 60 % and rising). This is a smart move by China, who realize that the US economy just isn't what it used to be.

What is it that makes investors buy American bonds? It's fascinating, really, and I think there are two explanations:

1) The US, after all, has a great credit rating - for now. It has never defaulted before, always managed to somehow pay of its debt even when things have looked dark.

2) Investors are gambling on a new dollar rally. See, when the financial crisis broke out in 2008, the US dollar suddenly started to gain, much to the surprise of economists in my home country of Sweden. The US dollar went from being worth around 6 Swedish crowns to something like 8 Swedish crowns, and it all happened over the course of a few months. The same thing happened to the euro, which was worth 9 crowns before the crisis, and 11:50 at its peak just a few months later. The explanation was that investors were fleeing from small currencies such as the Swedish crown into "safe", big currencies like the euro and the dollar. When you buy a foreign bond, you must consider the exchange rate. Suppose you're a Swedish investor, buying a US bond with a 5 % interest rate. Now suppose the dollar loses 5 % of its value (in terms of Swedish crowns); then you will have made no gain at all. On the other hand, suppose you bought a 3-month treasury bill with a 1 % return or something on september 1, 2008, and three months later the dollar is 25 % stronger - then you've made a 26 % return with on a risk-free asset.

If you, as a non-US investor, think there is going to be a new financial crisis, and if you think the market is going to react the same way as it did during the last financial crisis , it makes perfect sense to buy American bonds and dollars right now because the return may very well be skyhigh. This has another consequence: If many investors are doing this as of now - holding american bonds/dollars because they are hoping for another dollar rally - that means the value of the dollar is likely inflated, since part of the demand for the dollar is based on expectations that are unlikely to come true (the next financial crisis may very well lead to the US defaulting and the dollar losing most of its value).

Back to China. Are there any circumstances under which they would sell their dollar reserve? Yes. If they thought the US dollar was going to collapse, they would try to sell their dollars before the collapse (just like if you think a company you own shares in are going bankrupt, you'll sell your shares in that company as soon as possible). Up until recently, the whole idea of a US default was ridiculous. Now, with Standard & Poor's warning that the US might lose its credit rating, that is definitely no longer the case. If the US does lose its rating, you may see the Chinese dumping the US dollar, not to mess with America, but because they fear it will become worthless soon enough anyway. Such a dumping would only fasten the US demise (a demise that is certain to happen anyway if nothing is done about the deficit).

A rational investor diversifies his portfolio. Say an investor holds 50 % of his money in risk-free assets (such as short-term bonds in countries with stable economies), 30 % in medium-risk assets and 20 % in high-risk assets. The only risk-free asset he holds is US bonds. Now let's say the US loses its credit rating - it turns out that those US bonds aren't risk-free at all. This will cause this investor to sell those bonds and buy some "real" risk-free assets (he may keep 20 % or so of the US bonds if he considers them to be medium-risk). It's a simplified example, but the point is that demand for risk-free assets is greater than that of risky assets, which is why risky assets need to provide a higher return than those that are risk-free. In this case, it means a higher interest on the national debt.

Some conservatives like to claim that China could threaten to sell their dollars to intimidate the US into doing whatever China wants it to do. While technically possible, there is simply no reason why they would sell their dollars unless they thought them to be highly overvalued. If China were to start to act irrationally, investors would notice and refrain from investing there (if they are stupid enough to sell perfectly fine US dollars, who knows what they will do next?).

It is vital for the US to keep its AAA rating, or else the Chinese - and everyone else who are currently holding US dollars - might get cold feet, which would lead to a financial crisis which wouldn't be the worst since the Great Depression, but actually worst. In my next post, I'll explain how Republican candidates should deal with this threat of a downgrading.

China is not a threat. The American founder who said that the US was never going to be destroyed from the outside but could be destroyed from within was right.

The threat is from Washington DC, not Beijing.

Allen West: Obama a 'Low-Level, Socialist Agitator'

Here is Congressman Allen West last night "On The Record" with Greta Van Susteren:

Gallup Poll: Huckabee, Trump, Romney Top GOP Field for 2012

Donald Trump debuts in a first-place tie in Gallup's latest update of Republicans' preferences for the party's 2012 presidential nomination among potential contenders. Trump ties Mike Huckabee at 16%, with Mitt Romney close behind at 13%. Sarah Palin is the only other potential Republican candidate to earn double-digit support........

......Trump's strong showing in Republican nomination preferences is partly a function of his high profile. Currently, the top vote-getters are generally the best-known Republicans. Lesser-known potential candidates such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and Rick Santorum have more limited support on the nomination ballot at this point.


That is a typical pattern in early nomination preference polls. Once campaigning gets underway in earnest later this year, and after the initial primaries and caucuses next year, some of the currently lesser-known candidates may emerge as stronger candidates, and some of the better-known candidates may fade.
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 15-20, 2011, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,047 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of Republicans, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
The Full Story is HERE.