Tag Archives: GOP

business news, national news, political news

'Transfer of wealth' talk likely to surface

Can we now discuss one of President Obama’s key points in his State of the Union speech?

It’s about that tax cut for the middle class.

He took considerable pain Tuesday night to extol the virtues of middle-class Americans and the work they do to make our country strong economically. He wants to give middle classers — folks like my wife and me — a break on their taxes. To pay for it he wants to ask more of wealthy Americans. They need to pay more in taxes to finance the tax relief he’s planning for the rest of us.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-have-one-word-for-president%e2%80%99s-proposals-and-veto-threats-%e2%80%98no%e2%80%99/ar-AA8pnAq

Those on the right and far right have a term for it. We’ll hear it. It’s called “transfer of wealth.”

Let’s try to set the record straight.

As I understand the meaning of the term “transfer of wealth,” what would have to occur is that the federal government would have to actually take money earned by rich folks and give it to not-so-rich folks. Legend has it that Robin Hood did that in medieval England when he “took from the rich and gave to the poor.”

That’s wealth transfer.

What I heard the president propose Tuesday night was nothing of the kind.

A tax cut for the middle class wouldn’t deprive rich Americans of their wealth. They’d still be rich. They’ll get to keep their yachts, fancy cars, summer/winter homes and all their bling.

The middle class would get to pocket a little more disposable income to spend on things they want or need.

All this being said, I do understand GOP criticism of the president for proposing something he knows won’t ever be enacted into legislation he can sign into law. On that score, Barack Obama has proved his political deftness, as his proposal was met in the congressional chamber with applause from Democrats and silence from Republicans. How do you suppose that looks to millions of middle-class Americans watching who actually favor a tax break?

I don’t intend to tolerate any demagoguery about wealth transfer in describing what the president has pitched.

How about debating the proposal on its merits: Do the folks who control Congress favor a tax break for middle-class Americans or not?

 

national news, political news

Now it's Santorum, again, thinking about '16

Good grief. Now we have a former senator from Pennsylvania climbing aboard the GOP Presidential Bandwagon.

Rick Santorum is considering another run for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

That’s right. Rick Santorum!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rick-santorum-criticizes-mitt-romney-114374.html?hp=r3_3

This is a big deal. The senator ran for the White House in 2012 and declared war against those who use contraception to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. Santorum, a devout Catholic, doesn’t believe in contraception — in accordance with church doctrine. Contraception became his signature issue, to the dismay of Republicans who actually employ contraceptive measures to prevent pregnancy.

Santorum washed out of the 2012 GOP primary season, but he might be coming back for more.

I believe Republican primary voters need to ask one critical question: If the voters of his own state refuse to re-elect him to the U.S. Senate in 2006, why should he ask all Americans to cast their presidential vote for him in 2016?

Santorum lost his re-election bid to Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat.

When the ballots were counted, Casey had 59 percent of the vote; Santorum had 41 percent.

Where I come from, that’s what I call a landslide loss.

 

 

national news, political news

GOP plans fewer debates in 2016

3 Comments

Even though I generally like to see candidates for high office mix it up in public, I have to applaud the Republican National Committee’s decision to scale back the number of debates its presidential candidates will wage in 2016.

It’s down to just nine of them, about half the number of debates that took place prior to the 2012 GOP convention.

The 2012 GOP primary campaign was an exercise in ridiculousness as the field kept showing up weekly prior to elections in states. The field was winnowed down as candidates dropped out from the previous primary voting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/16/rnc_announces_nine_presidential_debates_125285.html

Even stranger was the stagecraft associated with many of these joint appearances. The candidates would stride onto the stage to applause from the audience, and to shrieks and shouts from their particular fans in the crowd.

They’d wave and point to people they recognize — which always is an odd sort of gesture that politicians do to “connect” with voters.

The GOP is expecting a large field of candidates. RealClearPolitics indicates as many as two dozen Republicans currently are considering a run for the White House. Holy cow! What if all of them declare their candidacies?

The field will narrow quickly, although I’m quite certain it’s going to be a stronger field of contenders than the gaggle of goofballs that ran for the presidency in 2012. Yes, there were serious candidates among the field, but Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann? C’mon.

I’m happy to see the RNC coming to its senses on the number of debates. Now it has to figure out how to lend seriousness and decorum to each of them.

Let’s start by eliminating the show-biz entrance.

national news, political news

'Spunk' drives Obama's poll spike? Perhaps

Polls are fun to follow. I do so regularly.

The most interesting and authoritative poll is actually a compilation of public opinion surveys. RealClearPolitics.com compiles the results and publishes a running average of all the polls. The key subject of these polls is President Obama’s approval ratings.

Lately, they’re going up … significantly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/14/obamas_new_spunk_lifted_ratings_white_house_says.html

As of this morning, the president has earned a rating of just less than 45 percent of Americans who approve of the way he’s doing his job.

Two quick points about these findings.

(1) They belie the notion that Obama’s poll numbers are “plummeting, skidding, spiraling downward” or whatever nasty verb the right-wing media keep using to describe his standing among Americans.

(2) White House aides believe the polls reflect his newfound “spunk” in dealing with the loyal opposition that now controls both legislative houses of the U.S. Congress. I agree with that, to a point. I think they reflect Americans’ continuing distrust of Congress, whose approval rating is still languishing at around 14 percent, according to RealClearPolitics’ poll average.

Juxtaposed with Congress’s dismal standing among Americans, the president is looking pretty good.

What does all this mean for the future? My strong hunch is that it means Congress needs to govern more and obstruct less. Believe it or not, view is that Americans actually want their federal government to work for them. It takes cooperation between the two governing branches — the White House and Capitol Hill.

Pay attention, folks.

 

political news

'Candidate' Jeb quits boards

Jeb Bush sure looks like a presidential candidate to me.

The former Florida governor has announced he is quitting all the for-profit boards on which he is a member in preparation for his now-expected run for the presidency in 2016.

Smart move, Jeb.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/jeb-bush-quits-all-private-sector-non-profit-boards-113914.html?hp=l1_3

Another possible Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has expressed concern about Bush’s financial dealings. Hey, if anyone knows something about personal financial controversy, it’s Mitt — with his own Bain Capital history serving as something of a drag on his own 2012 presidential campaign.

Bush has been out of public life for more than a decade. He’s got that “Bush brand” with which he must contend. Not the one set by his father, George H.W. Bush, the 41st president, but the one of his brother, George Dubya, the 43rd president.

Is the nation ready for yet another Bush in the White House? I think not.

But Jeb is doing what he needs to do to start setting the stage for another Bush candidacy.

Actually, he’s a pretty good Republican wannabe-candidate, particularly on immigration. He’s a moderate on that issue, presenting a far different approach to immigration reform than his TEA party rivals within the GOP.

My hunch is that he’s going to run. Will he be nominated? I won’t predict that outcome.

If nominated, can he beat the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton? I most assuredly won’t go there, either.

Stay tuned.

 

national news, political news, State news

No 'oops' for Perry next time around

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is soon to be a “former” governor — and a likely current candidate for the president of the United States.

He vows there will be no repeat of the infamous “oops” moment in late 2011 when he couldn’t name all three of the federal agencies he said he would cut from the federal government.

In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, Perry said he’ll be better prepared if he decides to run again for the White House.

He’s also got that felony indictment alleging abuse of power to get worked out one way or the other.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/rick-perry-oops-wont-be-my-obituary/ar-BBgD52T

The most interesting element in the story attached to this blog post is how Harwood sizes up the potential 2016 GOP field with the 2012 cast of characters. The next Republican field is likely to include some serious politicians with serious ideas about how to solve serious problems.

That clearly wasn’t the case in 2012. The GOP field included a cabal of clowns: Herman “9-9-9” Cain? Michelle “Democrats are Communists” Bachmann? Rick “Say ‘No’ to Contraception” Santorum? Newt “I Impeached an Unfaithful President While I was Cheating On My Wife” Gingrich?

The next field, which might include Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, is much more credible than the previous field of candidates.

Perry will have to do battle with a much more serious band of GOP brothers (and maybe) sisters.

Oh, but he says he’ll be ready.

We’ll see about that.

 

International news

GOP fires back at torture report

To no one’s surprise, U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans have their own version of whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” made America safer in the wake of 9/11.

They say the tactics saved lives and protected the country against further harm.

The GOP senators say the tactics were necessary to gather intelligence that led eventually to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-senators-defend-cia-alternate-report-113434.html

Intelligence panel Democrats are standing by their assertion — correctly, in my view — that American intelligence officials and military leaders could have obtained all of that information and protected Americans without subjecting terror suspects to torture.

So there it is: yet another political schism has erupted on Capitol Hill.

As Politico reports: “The GOP report decried the (Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne) Feinstein study, arguing that it contained ‘faulty analysis, serious inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fact’ to create a series of false conclusions about the counterterrorism program’s effectiveness and the CIA’s interactions with Congress and the White House.”

So, the other side has responded with what it contends is accurate analysis and objective examination of the facts. Is that what they’re saying?

I’ve noted already that this discussion is going to turn into a liar’s contest over time. One side is going to accuse the other of deceit. It’ll go back and forth.

I’ll just stick to my assertion that “enhanced interrogation” can — and should — include tactics that do not include the physical torturing of enemy captives. I’d even allow for sleep deprivation that would include round-the-clock badgering of detainees as a way to make ’em squeal.

Still, the debate rages on.

political news

Palin actually makes sense … more or less

Hell froze over this evening.

It happened the moment I read an online account of an interview that former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did in which she proclaimed her desire to see a woman “on both sides of the aisle” campaign for the presidency in 2016.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/sarah-palin-2016_n_6297570.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Why did hell freeze over? I actually agree with Palin.

Then she talked some more about the next presidential race and said she gets asked whether she intends to run for the White House in two years.

Would the ex-governor be the Republican who runs, probably against Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Perish the thought. No, blow that thought to smithereens, never to be mentioned or even thought of ever again!

Sarah Barracuda must not run for president. Then again, were she to run, she might be exposed for the intellectual fraud that she’s always been. But the Republican Party is full of serious politicians who are committed to fulfilling their public responsibilities — unlike Palin, who quit halfway through her only term as Alaska governor. Reality TV and Fox News beckoned with big bucks. Moreover, New Mexico has a competent governor in Susana Martinez; Oklahoma is governed by Mary Fallin; newly elected U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa might turn out to be a pleasant surprise.

Palin for president? Good grief, no. A billion times no!

However, I concur with her desire to see women in both major parties suited up for a run for the presidency. It well might be time to cross that important political threshold.

 

national news, political news

So long, D.C. bipartisanship

Perhaps you’ve noticed during the time I’ve been writing this blog that I’ve called for more bipartisanship in Washington, D.C., and in Austin.

Well, my desire to see both parties working together for a change hasn’t changed, other than it might have been intensified. I was hopeful for a more bipartisan atmosphere in Washington after the mid-term election. The president said he wanted it. The new Republican majority leader said the same thing.

We can kiss it goodbye.

President Obama is going to issue an executive order today that will enrage his Republican “friends.” It will tinker a bit with immigration policy, deferring deportation for millions of illegal immigrants, as well as strengthen border security.

I think it’s a good plan, but the incorrect strategy. I wish he would wait. And no, the president is not plowing new ground with this action. He’s doing the same kind of thing on immigration that Republican presidents dating back to Gerald Ford have done.

Still, Obama is going to stick it right back in the eyes of Republican leaders in Congress. He said he’s “waited long enough” for Congress to act. Some in D.C. are talking about impeachment, which is a ridiculous notion on its face.

But the era of even pretending to want bipartisanship in Washington appears to be over.

It’s unclear what the outcome will be for the remainder of Barack Obama’s term as president. A friend of mine, an Australian journalist with a keen interest in American politics, mentioned to me in a recent email that he predicts a miserable and torturous slog toward the end of the Obama presidency. He believes — as I do — that Republicans are feeling emboldened now that they’ve taken control of the Senate and strengthened their grip on the House.

And the president’s response to that bold new opposition? Why, he’s digging in his heels and daring them to fight.

It need not end this way — but it surely will.

 

national news, political news

Don't shut down the government

Mitt Romney is quite capable of making sense.

Take his view on a threat to shut down the federal government to get back at President Obama for enacting an executive order to help fix a broken U.S. immigration system.

The crux of Romney’s view on that idea? Don’t do it, Republicans.

Will someone on Capitol Hill listen to the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/224320-romney-more-productive-ways-to-fight-obama-than-shutdown

The tea party crackpots are threatening to shut ‘er down by withholding money to fund the government past its Dec. 11 deadline. They’re going to get angry if — and likely when — the president signs an executive order that delays deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants.

I agree with them that the president need not pick this fight. But he’s likely to do it.

The Republicans’ response really shouldn’t include shutting down the government. In case they have forgotten, a lot of Americans rely on the federal government. Many thousands of them draw their paychecks from the government, for example.

Romney was asked on “Face the Nation” this morning about a possible shutdown. “Well, I think there’s got to be more productive ways for us to be able to impress on the president the need to work for a permanent solution, as opposed to a temporary stop-gap solution,” Romney replied.

Shutting down the government punishes people who have been turned into political pawns.

Is that what Republicans really and truly want to do?

Listen to Mitt, OK?