Talking Points: Tea Party Debate

If you were watching the Tea Party Debate last night, then you missed a great football game. Yes, I spent the evening basking in the glow of my television as two Michigan quarterbacks threw for a Monday Night Football record amount of yards. I flipped over to the debate for may be ten seconds and heard Herman Cain speak, but I missed the majority of the action.

I don't know how many of you missed it, but I'm going to review the main talking points.

Social Security:
Mitt Romney attacked Rick Perry for calling it a Ponzi Scheme:

In the debate, Romney chided Perry for referring to Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and vowed to protect the program. Romney called such language "over the top" and said that Perry wrote in his book "Fed Up!" that the entitlement program is unconstitutional.

Rick Perry responded by saying that Romney was using the term to scare seniors. While that may be true, Perry did say that in his book. What's more important to me is that Romney is taking the offensive. My big knock on him has been that he is not very assertive in the debates. He seemed to really leave his mark last night.

I expect him to show that he is serious about being president and taking control of the Republican primaries.

Rick Perry, meanwhile, wrote this op-ed in USA Today:

For too long, politicians have been afraid to speak honestly about Social Security. We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come.

So basically, he says we should talk about it, but doesn't give a solution. He didn't provide a solution last night either. He will continue to get pounded on this and other matters of entitlement reform until he comes up with a proper plan for making Social Security financially viable.

HPV:
Perry also continues to be attacked for making young girls get HPV vaccinations. Michelle Bachmann has been the most offended by this:

"To have innocent little 12-year old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong," Bachmann says in her e-mail requesting donations, titled "I'm Offended.

Perry has been weak in defending himself. The thing Republicans seem most offended by is the fact it was passed through an executive order rather than through the legislature.

It's an effort to help these young women healthy. I don't see how you can't strongly defend yourself against that.

Regardless, it does bring into question Perry's values. He has admitted that he would have liked to have gotten it through the legislature, but there's also questions of chrony capitalism in this matter. Bachmann again:

She returned to that line of attack on NBC’s "Today" show. “It’s very clear that crony capitalism could have likely been the cause” of the HPV vaccination program. She ripped Perry for deciding to implement the program through a 2007 executive order.

Crony capitalism or not, I don't know how big an issue is. Yeah, it has brought into question Perry's character, but there are other flaws with Perry related to bigger issues.

Immigration:
While I don't see this as being a huge issue, Perry also came weak on immigration:

Third, immigration. In Texas, Perry has extended in-state, taxpayer-subsidized tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. It's a sensible policy, as it brings them into the fold and gives them the opportunity to improve their lives and contribute to the wider economy. But his opponents slammed Perry hard for a policy they called "amnesty." Romney was straightforward in stating what is, for most conservatives, gospel: This is a nation of laws, and we follow the laws.

As a border state, Perry should have a stronger opinion or more connected policies regarding immigration, but he failed once again. Even Jon Huntsman ripped him on it:

Even Jon Huntsman, when he wasn’t making baffling jokes about Kurt Cobain, told Perry his claim that he couldn’t secure the border was “pretty much a treasonous comment.”

Perry responded to the attacks with this:

"What we did in the state of Texas was clearly a states right issue. And the legislature passed with only four dissenting votes in the House and the Senate to allow this to occur," he said. "We were clearly sending a message to young people, regardless of what the sound of their last name is, that we believe in you. That if you want to live in the state of Texas and you want to pursue citizenship, that we're going to allow you the opportunity to be contributing members in the state of Texas and not be a drag on our state."

I'm not quite sure how well that's going to fly, especially with Tea Party voters. Anything that suggests providing subsidies is a hot button issue. Giving these benefits to illegal immigrants is, as Bachmann put it, "not the American way."

Also notable was Rick Santorum's flub:

Former two-term Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested that Perry's support for the Texas DREAM act was a ploy to attract Latino voters.

"What Governor Perry's done is he provided in-state tuition for -- for illegal immigrants. Maybe that was an attempt to attract the illegal vote -- I mean, the Latino voters," Santorum said, quickly correcting his flub.

I don't think attacking a race of people is a good idea, Mr. Santorum.

Jobs:
Romney finally made a strong case for Perry's record:

It's easy to do well when you have everything going for you. In Massachusetts, which is one of the most liberal states, Romney didn't have a lot going for him. He had a democratic state senate. He had high taxes. There were jobs leaving the state. There were a lot of things going to the other way.

From Fact Check:

Romney is correct that Massachusetts was losing jobs month after month for nearly a year before he took office. Those losses stabilized in his first year, and the state then began to see job growth. According to BLS statistics, over the entirety of Romney's term in office, the ranks of Massachusetts' employed went from 3,224,600 to 3,270,400. That’s a 1.4 percent increase. However, that was far slower growth than the national average, 5.3 percent. In fact, as Perry and Huntsman correctly pointed out at the debate, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the length of Romney's term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.

So what's the difference between the rate at which Massachusetts was losing jobs and the job growth that Romney had? Are we not talking turn around? Or are we just focusing on job growth?

Isn't this a legitimate question to see whether he did turn things around even if at a slow pace?

General Impressions:
It sounds like Perry is losing his lead or he's suffering from being the front runner at the moment. As the front runner, he is taking the brunt of the crossfire from his opponents. He has a target on his back and the rest of the candidates, even Michelle Bachmann, are hitting it.

The most important thing to me was to see Mitt Romney actually take control and assert himself. He took command and showed that he is passionate about wanting to be president. He showed them that he means serious business. That's what stood out to me.

The rest of the candidates aren't legitimate contenders to me. Bachmann is this year's Sarah Palin. Ron Paul still isn't a viable mainstream candidate. Rick Santorum isn't really making any headway. I've been very disappointed with Jon Huntsman who has yet to be in bloom.

As the candidates continue to debate, we'll learn more about how things are going to turn up. It seems now that there are two horses with the rest nipping at their heels.

Under the Microscope: Job Creation

Since I called out Obama for not knowing how to create jobs, I guess I should tackle this issue.

My main beef with Obama is that he's using fiscal stimulus to try and create jobs. The way he's spending just isn't working. The economy continues to suffer even as he's spending billions of dollars "creating jobs:"

What’s clear, however, is that the Obama Administration badly needs a re-start after a(nother) disastrous August that saw the president’s numbers drop to record lows and the country descend deeper into economic pessimism.

Assuming that the jobs report shows in the neighborhood of 60,000 jobs created, it would provide fodder to Obama’s Republican critics who have long argued that not only are his policies not working but that the administration has little idea what else to do to make things better.

Despite this, it seems that President Obama wants to do more of the same:

President Barack Obama signaled Monday he'll propose a major infrastructure program and an extension of a payroll tax break in the jobs speech he planned to deliver Thursday before a joint session of Congress.

While the state of this country's infrastructure is a topic for another day, at what point will Obama realize that "creating" construction jobs is creating work not jobs. Once these projects are completed, there's nothing left to do unless you spend more money on improving infrastructure. It's just a spending spiral that he's creating. You can't do that.

The GOP has not made job growth a priority:

But issuing a call for jobs isn't as simple as it may seem. While the new jobs numbers present the GOP with an obvious issue with which to hammer the president, Republicans in Congress and out on the campaign trail have spent much of the year focused on a different economic area: fiscal austerity and proposals to pare the big federal budget deficit.

However, it seems that it will become a more contested issue. Mitt Romney outlined his plan today:

Standing in front of a large banner that read “Day One, Job One,” Mr. Romney detailed the 10 actions he would take the first day of his presidency. Five of them are executive orders, and the other five are pieces of legislation that he would send to Congress and request action on within 30 days.

“The right course for America is to believe in growth,” Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, said at McCandless International Trucks. “Growing our economy is the way to get people to work and to balance our national budget.”

The way I see it, in terms of the difference to approaches, Romney is putting the money back into the households and to the businesses, while Obama is using that money to spend on creating jobs. Clearly it's more efficient Romney's way. I'm not convinced that how great an effect it will have.

Jon Huntsman had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning:

Our entrepreneurs are harmed as much by overregulation as by overtaxation.

I believe that this is more the way to go.

Henry R Nothhaft had this to say yesterday:

We know, for starters, that 100% of net job growth in the U.S. comes from entrepreneurial start-ups, as a Kauffman Foundation report documented in 2010. If you took start-ups out of the picture and looked only at large or incumbent businesses, job growth over the last 35 years would actually be negative. In the words of Kauffman's Tim Kane, "When it comes to U.S. job growth, start-up companies aren't everything. They're the only thing."

While big companies may have to hire or fire people from time to time, they're, for the most part, mature companies. They're not going to continue to grow. The new technologies that are born and the new jobs are spurred by small businesses:

As I noted in an article last year with retired chief judge Paul Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles patent appeals, simply clearing the patent backlog could create up to 2.25 million jobs by 2014. And it wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime, since the patent office is the only self-supporting agency of the federal government.

The problem with the current government is that they're not spending money right. I don't trust a government that is going to take tax payer money and misappropriate it in misguided band-aid programs.

While I'm not satisfied with the Republicans' plans thus far, I feel their plans will better alleviate the troubled economy because it will allow households and firms to choose where to spend that money. Deregulation has been mentioned by several candidates, but there hasn't been a specific plan laid out. Hopefully, as the election trail heats up, the candidates will be pushed to come up with specific ways to fix the economy and to create jobs.

The Forgotten Son: Ron Paul

Ron Paul always seems to not be taken seriously. It's unfortunate. After all, he's the one who said governments should have less influence on people's lives. He campaigned hard on it in 2008. Now, it seems everyone else is capitalizing on his original message. He continues to be forgotten:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The media's ignoring of Ron Paul hasn't gone unnoticed in the mainstream media either:

By now, pretty much everyone agrees Ron Paul was ignored by the media following his second place finish in the Ames straw poll on Saturday. Whether or not the media blackout was justified due to his less-than-favorable campaign prospects is subject to debate.

So what are Paul's prospects? We can judge some of it by his ability to raise money right? Well, he's cash:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised $1.8 million in 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday, a major online "money bomb" timed to coincide with his 76th birthday. This is the fourth time Paul has raised more than $1 million in a day this campaign cycle, and a signal that he will have the money to compete as long as he wants for the Republican presidential nomination.

Paul is still behind Romney and Perry as far as raising money, but the man is raising more money than Michelle Bachmann at this point. He's not going away. And with all that money, he should not go away quietly.

He's also polling well in New Hampshire:

On the ballot Romney remains in a strong position. He leads all candidates with 36% of the vote. However, Perry, making his first appearance in the NH Journal poll, debuts with a strong 18%. Ron Paul continues to impress despite relatively little media attention with 14%. And Bachmann earns 10%. All other candidates were in single digits.

So despite the lack of media attention, Paul continues to raise money and do well in the polls. You've got to still wonder why no one's considering him a serious contender. Is the media attention the only thing keeping him from being a serious contender.

Yet we see all these other candidates that seemingly have no chance getting media attention. Rick Santorum continues to get attention, despite finishing a distant fourth place. Even Jon Huntsman is getting more attention than Ron Paul. What's the deal with that:

Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.

Even more worrying is the fact that not only is Paul getting outshined in media coverage by his fellow candidates, but also by the potential Presidential candidates.

The Tea Party is using a radio blitz for Sarah Palin. Everyone under the sun are waiting for a Paul Ryan or Chris Christie to throw their hat into the race.

It's unbelievable.

In many ways, by not giving Ron Paul fair time or attention, he is becoming a forgotten man in this race. However, the extent to which people are going to ignore him is ridiculous. Palin, Ryan, and Christie aren't even in the race, and attention should not focus on them until they decide they want to serve our country. Huntsman and Santorum are not campaigning nearly as well as Paul, yet they are both getting the mainstream treatment. Whether you like Ron Paul or not, you should agree his voice should at least be heard. The media blackout on Ron Paul is anti-American.

Let the man have a voice.