The Talking Points Are Out

Friday, Standard & Poor’s, one of the largest credit rating agencies, downgraded America’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. This was the first time in history that America’s credit rating has been downgraded. Downgrades are a sign that the credit rating agencies are losing faith in a nation’s ability to repay its debts. It didn’t take long for the Democrat Party to cobble together talking points and protect President Obama either. By Sunday the Democrats were on message and blaming the downgrade on the TEA Party. Both David Axelrod and John Kerry were out publicly calling this a TEA Party downgrade on the Sunday talk shows.

For the last few months, the Democrats, President Obama and the Republicans (led by the TEA Party Freshmen) have argued over raising America’s debt ceiling. Democrats and Republicans battled over the actual debt ceiling increase while the TEA Party freshmen focused on lowering the actual debt numbers instead of increasing the borrowing limit. Marco Rubio implored the Congress to focus on lowering the debt instead of raising the debt ceiling and the TEA Party Republicans put forth a Cut, Cap and Balance plan that called for $4 Trillion dollars in cuts to the more than $14 Trillion national debt, a cap on future spending and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

S&P issued the following statement with its downgrade of the U.S. credit rating:

– We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating.

– We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

– The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.

– More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

 – Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.

 – The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case…

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

As you can see, S&P plays the fence on the exact answer to the debt crisis but their focus is in fact on the debt burden and not the borrowing limit. They suggest a need for “progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues”. Now, each of us has to make a decision on whether we believe that raising taxes or cutting spending is the right answer but for those who look objectively at all of the facts, the best course of action is clear. We’ve absolutely GOT to reduce our spending and reform entitlements. Interestingly, the CBO released a report this weekend that shows that Social Security outlays already exceed collected revenues and in fact, without major reforms, our Social Security system is in jeopardy of complete collapse within the next 30 years or so. For current recipients, this means nothing at all if ones view is only of what directly affects them. If you look at it more broadly, that means people who are 30 years of age today and who have paid and still pay into the Social Security system may not see the fruits of their labors. Raising revenues instead of reforming entitlements or cutting spending is a feel good discussion. Sticking it to those who have more than we do is always more palatable than reducing our own comfort levels but if life teaches us anything, it’s that the easy way is hardly ever the right way. Even the most extreme of revenue increase plans does absolutely nothing substantial in the long term. 

Check out this video from Bill Whittle and then you tell me, address spending or “raise revenues” (a.k.a increase taxes, especially on the rich)?

 

CREW continues to attack an exonerated O'Donnell

So, Melanie Sloan, the Soros attack animal who leads CREW, still hasn’t gotten the message.  Very well then.  Enough is enough.  America is sick and tired of these kinds of unfounded, wasteful accusations based on politics and not evidence.  It’s time we had a new dialogue in America.  It’s time that we talked about the issues and really discussed facts and not fear mongering.  We’ve got to get away from the President erroneously claiming that “I cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will be sent out on Aug. 3 if a debt ceiling agreement isn’t reached.”  This is complete hogwash, the facts are that there are two kinds of spending in Washington, Mandatory spending, like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense; and the second is Discretionary spending which encompasses everything else the government spends money on, like shrimp fitness, Jell-O wrestling and curbing the drinking of Chinese prostitutes.  While Obama and the Democrats are pressing the idea that simply increasing our spending limit is the answer, Republicans are looking to make the cuts to sustain our nation.  Ask yourself this, if you made $20,000 per year, owed your credit card company $140,000 and your debt limit is $150,000 which has already been increased a dozen times, is the answer to curbing your debt limit another increase?  Any rational thinking person knows the answer is no, it’s cutting your debt, paying off that credit card and understanding your limits.

The reality is that simply cutting discretionary spending, even if you cut all of it, wouldn’t fix our debt situation.  The real beef when it comes to our federal budget is in the Mandatory spending.  In 2011 (as of 9AM on July 22), our largest budget items are Medicare/Medicaid ($822.5 Billion), Social Security ($715.4 Billion) and Defense ($701.8).  They are followed by Income Security/Welfare ($421.8 Billion), Interest on the Debt ($212.6 Billion) and Federal Pensions ($212 Billion).  We have a national debt over $14.5 Trillion that works out to $46,577 of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States.  Think about that for a moment when you hear “fair share”, if you’re pregnant or just had a baby, your child automatically owes $46,577.  As soon as he/she is born, they start life with more than $46,000 of debt.  Do you think it’s fair to start your son or daughter out owing money before they can even crawl?  We have to start addressing the largest items in the budget instead of ignoring them.  The Democrats would have you believe that income tax revenue is the answer, taking as much as you can from the richest Americans is the answer and attacking corporations is the answer.  You can explore that here, where you will see what happens if you go ahead and “soak the rich”.  The current federal tax revenue is almost $2.2 Trillion while our budget is more than $3.5 Trillion (the Big 6 budget items above, total $3.086 Trillion alone) and the top 50% of wage earners (over $33,048) pay more than 97% of the taxes.  With that said, the top 1%, those earning more than $380,354, pay more than 38% of the federal personal income tax.  What’s fair?  Should they pay 40%, 50%, 60% of the federal income tax?

I’ve laid out facts above and I’ve asked questions of you, as a person.  What’s the right answer?  Is there any way to get to even without cutting spending on the Big 6 budget items?  After watching the Eat the Rich video, seeing the facts about taxes and our debt, can you see any way to get around some cuts to our largest budget items?  So why are the Democrats stalling with a discussion about raising our debt limit?  Because they can use the line, “Well, ok, the Republicans can play chicken with America’s credit rating if they want to but we can’t guarantee that Social Security checks will go out on time.”  They know that you, the average American, the senior, the soon to be retired, the bleeding heart will panic and demand that we continue to be irresponsible with our money.  It’s totally ridiculous.  The Big 6 get paid before the shrimp treadmills, before starving artists and before Jell-O wrestling.  It’s time to stop believing it just because it scares us.  Look it up, find it be true yourself, do your own homework and don’t take my word for it.  Look up the facts I cite and decide for YOURSELF what is true.  I ask you to do the same thing for Melanie Sloan and Christine O’Donnell.  Sloan’s attacks are purely politically based and they are not rooted in any facts.  The few so-called facts she has cited turned out to be outright lies by a man who had no knowledge of any of the events of which he spoke.  We’ve got to question everything she says and take her words with a grain of salt.  Every charge thrown at O’Donnell has ended up being totally false and yet how can we continue to levy a stigma against her?  Imagine if someone accused you of molesting their child who you had never even met and those charges were found to be completely false.  Would you want that accusation to remain on your record regardless of the outcome?  Is that “fair”?

New Castle County/ public employees reach sweet deal with taxpayer dollars

Readers of this blog will remember back in January when we did a story on a report from the Wilmington News Journal confirming an allegation made during the 2010 U.S. Senate campaign that New Castle County was broke.  Dace Blaskowitz, a political independent, found that the "NCCo government is simply unsustainable" and that the answer to their rampant overspending has consistently been higher and higher property taxes and sewer fees.  You may also remember that Mr. Blaskowitz found that 75% of New Castle County government costs are tied up in personnel and that is after a 2.5%paycut in 2009 and anotherin 2010.

Blaskowitz suggested a reduction in staff levels and contraction of benefit obligations yet New Castle County has gone on a hiring spree lately.  He also suggested some minimal concessions from the unions with regard to pay/benefits might be necessary to close the gap between revenue and expenditures.  The Clark Administration has said that it will work with the unions but that it is getting serious about the County finances.  Today however, sources within the County unions confirm that a deal has been reached and will be signed tomorrow.  The deal is reported to be a two year deal with county employees contributing $1200 per year to a healthcare savings fund.  In exchange for this surcharge payment, county employees will get a 5% increase (covering their two 2.5% reductions in the past 2 years) plus 3 new paid fulough days each year.  County employees will not have any holidays or current off time taken away.  Sources say that County Council Executive Paul Clark will sign the deal tomorrow afternoon.

Does this mean that our County finances are back in order?  Just a month ago when County Council passed the FY 2012 budget, Clark was talking about another 2.5% cut and other concessions from the unions.  In fact, his budget passed, despite strong opposition from Council President Kovach with the specific plan to make those cuts.  Kovach cited concerns that the budget did not properly address the current debt and also questions as to how unions would rollback 5% of their pay and then agree to ANOTHER cut of 2.5%.  Also, is it possible that the 3 extra paid furlough days are equal to that 2.5% cut?

Job Losses and Toll HIkes: Markell's legacy of pain

Since Jack Markell took office in 2008, following 8 years of the most corrupt administration in Delaware's modern history, Delaware has indeed experienced "change".  Both Governor Markell and President Obama promised a healthy dose of change in their 2008 campaign.  For my money, I'd trade all of the change they gave us for some jobs.

Since Jack Markell took office and named Alan Levin as Secretary of the Delaware Economic Development Office, Delaware has experienced a net loss of 36,000 jobs.  That means that today, there are 36,000 Delawareans who cannot find work.  Meanwhile, as the layoffs keep coming, Markell and Levin do nothing.  Markell just inked a deal with China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, to invest in Delaware bio tech.  In reality, this deal doesn't do squat to create jobs.  It provides Markell with a photo op and a favorable news story which gives the appearance of him actually doing something.  If anything does come of it, Markell has just invited China, America's largest debt holder, to purchase their way into the Delaware economy.  Since Markell took office, Delaware's industrial footprint has died.  Some may think that is by design, and while that might seem outrageous, there certainly has been a real and wholesale loss of blue collar jobs in Delaware's private sector.  I find it difficult to believe that Markell and Levin don't WANT to create jobs but I submit to you that GM and Chrysler (closed in 2008 under the Minner Administration where Markell served as Treasurer) left the state which left thousands of Delaware Autoworkers without jobs, Valero closed and shed nearly 1000 jobs, HSBC and Wilmington Trust cut more than 1200 jobs, DuPont and AstraZeneca have laid off more than 1,000 workers and scores of small businesses around the state have closed.  Even with the purchase of the Chrysler plant by U of D, Fisker moving into the GM Plant and the new owner of the Valero plant moving in, Delaware faces a net loss of 36,000 jobs.  In January alone, Delaware shed 700 jobs and the unemployment percentage stayed flat at 8.5%.  Even the News Journal, not known for displaying the failures of Delaware Democrats, has had to admit that the employment picture in Delaware is not good.  The Markell Administration has consistently talked about the budding Delaware bio tech industry, green energy jobs, healthcare and financial services as being Delaware's economic future yet the only thing materializing in those areas is government spending and job cuts.  Healthcare dropped 600 jobs in January while banks and finance companies have been shedding Delaware jobs by the thousands since the passage of the financial regulatory bill. 

Regulations, especially as they pertain to the environment in Delaware have increased and so has Delaware's spending.  In fact, Delaware's personnel costs and the cost of government services are so high that there isn't an opportunity for the state to commit to creating a pro-business climate.  Markell and the General Assembly have been content to focus on social issues like homosexual equality and gimmicks like Markell's bottle bill rather than to address Delaware's problems with job creation and spending.  In 2011, Delaware faces a $377 million budget shortfall that must be closed by the General Assembly and the Markell Administration.  This is the 3rd straight increase in budget gaps under Markell and his accounting gimmicks and tricks will only work for so long before it becomes undeniable that Delaware has a spending problem.  I only hope that enough of us wake up by 2012 to stop this train before it totally derails.

Speaking of shortfalls, DelDOT (whose budget is a mere 8.5% of the entire Delaware budget...dwarfed by education and health and social services) is facing a shortfalls totalling "$1 Billion over the next 5 years and more than $3.7 Billion through 2023" says Jeff Montgomery of the News Journal.  State Senator Robert Venables from Laurel doesn't think the General Assembly understands the severity of the problems (and he's a Democrat by the way) and outgoing DelDOT head Carolann Wicks says that "We're now down to the core programs, primarily,".  Still, the following excerpt from Jeff's story is chilling:

Filling the budget gap without cutting back on projects would require more than $169 million in new revenue just for the budget year that begins July 1, an amount DelDOT officials said could be raised with $85 million in new taxes or fees and an additional $85 million in borrowing.

By 2023, however, the single-year shortfall could grow to nearly $498 million.

Confining DelDOT spending only to "core" maintenance, safety, operating and vehicle replacement spending would still leave a $125 million gap next year that would rise to a cumulative $545 million by 2016 and nearly $1.4 billion by 2023, officials said.

State officials have blamed a combination of rising costs, growing demand for services, inadequate funding and rising debt-service payments for the trust fund's quandary. Payments on past loans and interest alone now amount to about $123 million a year.

Folks, this is STAGGERING.  Even if we ONLY spent money on core services from DelDOT, we're looking at a $125 million gap in 2012.  That's no new roads, no updates that aren't critical, no new bus routes, etc.  The blame from the state officials goes not on poor planning, excessive borrowing and administration failures but on the INTEREST for the debt they ran up.  Folks, the payments for the past debt alone total $123 million per year.  So next time you hear that Delaware's financial situation is better than the federal government and that we have nothing to worry about, remember that DelDOT...who makes up just 8.5% of the state budget pays out an amount equal to about 1/3 of the FY2012 budget shortfall.

There is an interesting sidebar in Jeff's story:

TOP REVENUE-GENERATING OPTIONS

Impose $1 per barrel fee for crude oil barge transfers in Delaware Bay: $100 million

Raise Del. 1 weekday toll to $2, weekend toll to $3: $36.4 million

Raise all I-95 tolls by $1: $24.5 million

Shift DelDOT operating funds from Trust Fund to General Fund: $14.1 million yearly for 10 years
Eliminate trade-in discount for new vehicle document fee: $12.2 million
Charge toll for new Indian River Inlet bridge: $7.6 million
Hike vehicle registration fee by $10: $6.7 million
Raise Del. 1 commercial vehicle toll by $1: $4.5 million
Increase gas tax by 1 cent: $4.5 million
Shift Paratransit service costs to General Fund: $4.3 million yearly for 10 years 

 

HIGHEST-RANKED TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND REVENUE OPTIONS

$1 increase in Del. 1 commercial tolls: $4.5 million

10 percent fee on sale of Delaware tags: $15,000

Illegal sign fees: $9,000

Shift Paratransit service costs to General Fund: $4.3 million yearly for 10 years

Double current $25 fee for driver's license suspension reinstatement: $510,000

$10 additional for driver's license permanent renewal: $87,000

Increase revocation reinstatement to $200 from $143: $230,000

Double late registration renewal fee to $20: $831,000

Double over-size vehicle permits to $40: $903,000

Double fee for paratransit trips outside regular transit corridor: $2.1 million

These are the ways that the special planning board that the Markell Administration created has come up with to "fix" the problems.  You'll notice that there are a lot of fee increases and toll charges but no real cuts.  Oh, and you'll see that they recommend shifting costs...which only hides the costs in the General Fund budget instead of spotlighting it like the rest of the transportation spending.

This is how Delaware Democrats deal with our problems.  They bury them.  We saw it with Chris Coons in New Castle County as we are finding out, his accounting gimmicks masked the fact that our County is bankrupt and in danger of becoming insolvent and we've seen it now at the state level.  The only way we're ever going to fix our problems is to make big changes in the way we do things.  Delaware is in trouble.  We've got to cut spending, cut regulations to bring jobs back to the state immediately and reduce the size and scope of government at all levels.  If we don't make some real changes, face some pain today and get our house in order, we're going to face FAR worse pain in the future. 

Blaskowitz lays out his report

Yesterday, Dace Blaskovitz, who set New Castle County a buzz with his report on county government finances and their dire situation, wrote an op-ed in which he detailed what he believes is the problem with county government.  His report received lots of attention when columnist Ron Williams wrote his own opinion piece agreeing with Dace.  Blaskovitz states that "NCCo government is simply unsustainable" in his report and points out that "from 2005 to 2010, NCCo property tax rates increased 55 percent. Sewer rates increased more than 60 percent from 2005 to 2011."  Despite these increases, New Castle County government outspent revenues and blew through a previous surplus.  "From 2000 to 2009, pension assets increased $9 million, while the county's unfunded accrued actuarial liabilities increased over $140 million."  This includes problems like "The county pension assets currently total about $350 million", and "The retiree health care cost is a nearly $250 million unspoken future black cloud."

Blaskovitz takes particular aim at the county's pension, retiree health care and the number of employees because the county has let things get so out of control.  He cites an example of retired New Castle County police officers who "receive a never-ending, no-cap 3 percent compounding COLA. Therefore, most NCCo police will average...the same compensation in their retirement as when they were employed. For reference, an NCCo police officer with five years experience is paid around $85,000 a year (in salary alone)."  Dace points out that 75% of the county's spending occurs in the personnel field.  The size of county government is astounding, the county employs around 1,500 people and most are full time employees.  This places New Castle County government in the list as the 5th largest employer in the State of Delaware, with more employees than Barclays Bank and ING Direct combined (state government is the largest).  New Castle County has "Almost 100 full-time county employees are paid close to or more than $100,000. With few exceptions, gold-plated health care extends to the grave."

Blaskovitz smacks readers in the face with his honest assessment of the county financial situation (where was this in October when former County Executive Chris Coons was lying to the public about New Castle County I wonder) when he writes, "after years of delaying executive decisions, hoping an economic bounce would magically undo the dilemma, dwindling reserves are now forcing a day of reckoning."  Dace further points out that the unions aren't done asking for more and more county tax payers.  He doesn't just spotlight the county problems, Dace presents solutions that I for one agree with.  He suggests that "citizens should demand a reduction in head-count. NCCo's actuary has pension and health care proposals waiting for action. Salaries have to reflect the balance sheet. Perhaps a spending oversight board would assist in fiscal restraint."  He even calls for the possibility of merging or consolidating New Castle County, municipal and city infrastructure where practicable which is something that Republican County Council President candidate Tom Kovach has pointed to as an area he would work to attack immediately.  While the Democrats who joined Blaskovitz and Republican Wayne Smith on the committee that put together the report issued a suggestion that the county raise taxes AGAIN, Dace suggests that " it is unconscionable for "revenue enhancements" to even be mentioned in our report."  He calls for county government to tighten its belt instead of heaping their bad financial practices on the people of Delaware.

New Report: New Castle County is BROKE!

The News Journal is only 2 months late in reporting a startling fact that may have turned the tide of the November elections.  In an article printed today (January 5^th 2011), columnist Ron Williams laid out the news that New Castle County is flat BROKE!  This news did not come from the Caesar Rodney Institute or a conservative think tank but straight from the incoming County Executive Paul Clark’s own transition team.  A report from Dace Blaskovitz, a member of Clark’s transition team, shows that now Senator Chris Coons lied to the citizens of Delaware when he said that New Castle County’s finances were in good shape and misrepresented the job he did as County Executive.  Despite calls by Coons’ opponent, Christine O’Donnell to investigate the actual state of the county’s finances, the Wilmington News Journal ignored the obvious dire straits that New Castle County faces and instead relied on a report by credit rating agencies that New Castle County received a AAA bond rating  as proof of sound fiscal practices.  The same rating agency that gave New Castle County a AAA bond rating failed to anticipate failures at the nation’s top banks, AIG and GM/Chrysler. 

Williams goes on to point out that Clark’s transition team has recommended yet ANOTHER increase in property taxes.  Coons raised them three times during his terms in office including a 25% spike in 2009 coupled with a 5% pay cut for County employees.  The alternative to another tax increase is a combination of leaving open vacant positions and/or the laying off of more than 120 workers.  Blaskovitz confirmed what Ms. O’Donnell and her campaign staff had been saying though out the campaign, that the County’s fiscal situation was much worse than Coons was admitting to.  According to the report filed by Blaskovitz and former House Majority leader Wayne Smith, the county’s debt has more than doubled in the last 5 years while property taxes went up 55% and sewer fees went up 60%.  These numbers are in line with what the O’Donnell campaign had told the public and what the News Journal had refused to point out throughout the election.   Despite claims by Coons that he had cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the county budget, Blaskovitz points out that “government spending outpaced revenues”.   Blaskovitz writes, "while the county's unfunded accrued actuarial liabilities increased over $140 million. Retiree health cost is nearly $250 million," and he points out that pension assets went up by $9 million since 2000 when Coons took over as County Council President under Tom Gordon.

Coons had spent the campaign telling Delawareans that he had managed to keep New Castle County’s head above water despite a tumultuous economic time period.  In retrospect, Coons succeeded at simply burying the problems NCC faces.  Blaskovitz goes on to say, "So after years of delaying executive decisions hoping an economic bounce would magically undo the dilemma, dwindling reserves are now forcing a day of reckoning."  As O’Donnell had pointed out repeatedly throughout the campaign, much to the chagrin of those listening, Blaskovitz (whose financial resume is extensive), suggests that these problems cannot (and never could) be solved by raising taxes and fees but instead by “immediate belt-tightening”.   This report shows that Chris Coons and his Democrat comrades lied to the people of Delaware during the campaign and it shows what Coons will do as a U.S. Senator.  At a time when we need MORE fiscal responsibility, we have sent someone with less.  At a time when we need MORE openness and transparency in Washington, Delaware has added more deception and “creative accounting”.  At a time when we need real leadership in Washington, we have sent a man who buckles under pressure, lies to his constituents and buries the truth.  In the end, this may have been averted if the people of Delaware had heard this kind of unbiased information from an independent source like, the Wilmington News Journal.  Unfortunately, this information came 2 months too late for Delawareans to really understand the man they sent to Washington.  Perhaps they should have sent a woman.

Donald Trump to run for President in 2012

That's right folks.  "The Don" is more than considering it.  He's told close friends and relatives to get ready because after "The Apprentice" wraps up he's announcing it publicly on NBC.  That's the report from Newsmax who cites sources close to Trump.  Only time will tell, Trump has flirted with the idea of running before but nothing materialized.  With that said, Donald Trump has been a leading opponent of Obama and his policies and is rabidly pro-defense.  Trump was willing to cut Obama slack early on but his tone has hardended over the last couple of years as he has seen the direction in which Obama is driving the country. 

Trumps largest concerns are jobs and the economy, America's standing in the world, our weakening defense and China holding our debt.  Trump has some interesting ways to tackle these concerns as well, including an interesting plan to tax China and using those revenues to pay down our debt with China which would lock the nation into a cycle of debt reduction.  Basically the idea is that China will HAVE to pay the tax if it wants to recoup it's investment in American debt.  Could China call the debt and eat the losses?  Perhaps, but Trump obviously thinks it's unlikely and given that Donald Trump has grown and grown and grown as a businessman, I'm inclined to believe him.  He's also recently inserted himself into the NYC Mosque controversy and offered to put up a portion of the money needed to move the mosque to a location more conducive to building bridges and providing access to Muslims. 

Weighing Trump down is a 14 yr old case involving a New Jersey widow whose home Trump tried to have the government condemn so he could expand his casino.  This suit was CLEARLY in violation of the right to property and was not a proper use of eminent domain.   Has "The Don" changed his tune?  Is this worse than 30 years of attendence at Reverend Wright's church?  Is it more harmful than being a radical socialist for ones entire life?  Only time will tell but Newsmax has a poll that shows Obama up 53-47 over Trump right now.  If the economy worsens, as Trump lays out his plan, he is likely to close that gap.  If nothing else, this will be an interesting primary and general election cycle.

RNC Chairman debate

So, I confess, I KIND OF watched the RNC chairman's debate yesterday (I'm replaying it as we speak which is what inspired me to write this).  I will say that when I was poking around the net today, I found an AWESOME critique by Bryan Preston over at Pajamas Media which I'm urging all of you to read.  The inclusion of SBA as a sponsor seems to have focused the debate more on social issues and as Preston points out, that has little bearing on the RNC Chairman's ability to do his job.  With that said, the idea is to find the MOST conservative candidate who can win and among Republicans, (as we saw here in Delaware) you're able to find strong conservatives and elect them. 

Candidates
Ann Wagner
Wagner has conservative credentials.  She's done great things in Missouri and she has plenty of political experience.  Most of the candidates talk about raising money, Saul and Ann really come forward with some specifics which is good.  Ann's plans don't quite sound as well thought out but she makes a good case.  Ann Wagner points out that the PEOPLE are the ones who decide who wins the primaries and that the RNC needs to focus on recruiting candidates, fund party, victory and GOTV efforts across the country.  Supports legislative efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  Cited a lack of focus on the real issue of debt as a failure and also said that the people would decide if we are on the right track or wrong track.  Danced around the question a bit.  Cites many of the TEA Party values as absolutely critical for people to be considered a Republican.  Three Pillars: Fiscal Conservatism, National Defense, Social Values - a Chairman should espouse all of these values.  Brings grassroots groups to the table to build coalitions in Missourah (sorry Ann! it's there) especially pro-life groups.

Saul Anuzis
Saul REALLY gets it.  He understands that funding is priority, followed closely by management skills and he certainly has the message.  He's backed by TEA Party groups across the country and is a breath of fresh air among a sea of also rans.  Understands that the state parties need to drive the message and the GOTV efforts but that the RNC should support it with funds.  Anuzis feels that the primary should be the determination and not the state party electors.  Believes that marriage between a man and a woman is a cultural and religious belief that is worth fighting for.  Saul breaks down the failures of the party.  He explains that the Republican Party lost its way and shifted ever to the left becoming more like Democrats and he points out that when the Republicans act like Republicans they win, when they act like Democrats they lose.  Understands that this is a "2nd chance" not a mandate and that if the Republican Party doesn't move back to its conservative base and principles, the voters will throw them out again.  If they are with us 80% of the time, they are a Republican.  The chairman should support the platform at least 80% of the time.  Worked WITH the grassroots groups in every way that they could and is ready to run toward issues and not away with them.  Understands the balance of ALL issues (including social issues) in the party platform.  Ready to build coalitions across the party platform.

Maria Cino (no website)
She's a lobbyist, which turns me off already.  She sounds like she feel entitled and her talk about retiring debt is interesting but I'd ask, if she's so good, how come the RNC is $20 million in debt?  She talks about beating Obama but she supports Obamacare.  Given a question about races like Delaware, where Christine beat Castle, she dodged the question.  She talked about how the RNC should support the candidates that the state parties and the voters choose...thanks captain obvious.  My question and the one asked is, did you see the victory by Christine as a triumph of principle or a disaster?  Believes in the party platform.  Cites McCain-Feingold as a mistake and then losing our way on spending.  Cutting spending and cutting deficits wins elections.  Agrees with Ann Wagner on the party platform.  Wants to continue building coalitions and calls for a state victory plan due in April (while Delaware is bracing for a new state chairman!)

Michael Steele
I think he's got balls even running in the first place.  He's got his talking points going, he has a few one liner zingers but he's got a record and like he says, it speaks for itself.  He takes credit for the RNC sweep this year but it's disingenuous.  Make no mistake Steele, you won because the TEA Party allowed you to win.  Many forget that Steele was no TEA Party friend early on and here in Delaware he only barely made it a priority to meet with the candidate who had the most attention this year (O'Donnell).  He clearly DOESN'T understand what's going on.  To take credit for the grassroots movement is...well it's simply disrespectful and ignorant of reality.  Steele makes a good point about the RNC not getting involved in state party business but I think he misses the fact that some state (like Delaware) have structures that are not conducive to building unity.  The RNC would do well to counsel states like Delaware on how to improve their process to promote unity.  Steele understands that marriage is between a man and a woman as a matter of tradition.  In his view, the definition of "family" may change but the party will support the ideal of marriage as traditionally defined.  Believes that the GOP walked away from the Contract with America and that Democrat lite does not sell well in the public.  Also says that the party stopped reaching out to people.  Cites outreach as necessary to growing the party, reaching out to minority categories.  Supports moderation as a leader and does not want to create a litmus test to determine eligibility to be a Republican.  In favor of building more coalitions but worked AGAINST the TEA Party groups early on.

Reince Priebus
He makes a case for himself and his working with conservatives in Wisconsin.  Reince could be effective in teaching state party leaderships how to work with the TEA Party.  Stresses unity and cooperation which he does in a way that keeps himself above the fray and he shows the RNC as a broker of power between state parties, TEA Party groups and conservative single issue groups.  Reince thinks everything has to mean something and he thinks the chairman should be a conservative Republican.  Reince supports the way Delaware currently operates but what he misses is that in his home state of Wisconsin, he worked WITH the TEA Party  and grassroots groups to come up with palpable candidates before the primary.  In Delaware the state party ignored the movement and subsequently came up lame in their nomination.  Also believes marriage is between a man and woman and that no one should lose their dignity.  Does not believe the courts can rewrite the Constitution and define marriage.  He believes the biggest failure of the party in the last decade has been not sticking to principles and he cited having to hold "our noses and voting for Republicans that didn't uphold the basic principles of our platform."  Believes that the RNC chair out to take a chance and go out and support the conservative platform every chance they get.  Thinks we need a chairman that will go out there and be PROUD to be a Republican.  Cites pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-bailout people as people who "might not be a Republican".  Has a track record of working WITH grassroots groups and building solid coalitions.

My take:
Look, the chairman has a job to do.  That job is tough!  Bryan over at Pajamas Media points out the nuts and bolts of the gig but it's more than that.  RNC chairman has to tie the whole party together and expand the message.  Every single one of these candidates makes a case and a point on some issues.  I've laid out responses by the candidates throughout the first 40%-50% of the debate and you can watch the rest on your own.  I'm going to tell you, while Bryan sees things differently than I, I think we end up with the same two front runners.

Reince Priebus comes across VERY smart and VERY congennial.  The only problem is he sometimes doesn't sound very honest.  That doesn't mean he isn't and I'm not questioning his integrity but he comes across a bit slick.  He almost sounds like a used car salesman but maybe that's just his Wisconsin accent.  Neither here nor there, I LIKE what he had to say.  The problem for him is that he doesn't seem to live what he says.  The law firm he works for is a huge supporter of Obamacare.  For those of us who believe in TEA Party principles it is almost expected that someone who wants to be a leader of this movement stand for the principles in his or her personal life as well as publicly.  Many would expect Reince to leave that firm and move to another.  Fair or unfair I think it is a valid question for Reince to answer.  Why not leave the firm?  Are there no other firms?  Is the partnership at that firm more important than standing on principles?  and for those of us looking at this, if his answer is that his family well being and money was more important, does that disqualify him?  For me, I think it's a difficult road.  I worked for JP Morgan Chase during the time when they received bailouts and I made the decision that a job outside of the bailout process, with no input into that tactic was important and the alternative (unemployment) was not acceptable.  Until I see where Reince was involved directly in this effort, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Priebus was also a little flustered, did not look confident behind the mic at all times and simply doesn't inspire confidence in his look and speech.  His words make sense but the way he presents them sometimes betrays him.

Saul Anuzis simply gets it.  He, like Reince, has built a red wall in his otherwise blue state.  Anuzis understands that we have to get back to being Republicans at heart and that there is room for disagreement but that the chairman should be a strong conservative.  He understands the correct order of things.  He knows that fundraising will drive the message and GOTV and that the states should be responsible for moving those things forward with RNC monetary support.  He also knows that it is important that the PEOPLE, through the primary system make the decisions and not party leaders.  He sees a real need for the party to present a united front and to reform their own state primaries to ensure that the people and the party don't butt heads (like we did here in Delaware).  He's a strong conservative and he understands that the RNC should be a strong support mechanism for the state parties.  He does not have any of the Obamacare baggage that Reince does and he knows how to use social networking and technology to make fundraising easier and more effective and to drive the message.  Saul looked comfortable and sounded confident which made his ideas all the more palpable.  Hes also honestly believes in his principles and with an absence of anything in the past to the contrary, I think he's the real deal.  Apparently Tom Ross agrees with me about him.

About The Rest - we can't afford to let these people walk away if they don't win.  Every single one of them needs a seat at the party table.  None of them can really be "counted out", as backroom deals often make their way into politics (shocking right?) but I find them to be the long shots.

Ann Wagner - She's a great conservative thinker with political experience.  She'd be a great boon to the party as someone who can support, groom and engage candidates for national offices.  I hope she takes a role with the RNC that allows her to put forth this talent, perhaps as a "scout" or trainer for candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, President, etc.  She's not likely to be our next RNC chairwoman but of the rest, she is the best.

Michael Steele - Steele is fighting an uphill battle that is only partially his own fault.  The GOP had already been in decline when he took over and he is right, when he took office it was hard to find anyone who wanted to be a Republican (and some "Republicans" like Castle yearned to be Dems) much less give money to a GOP with no identity.  Steele fought the TEA Party/conservative movement early on and you can sense some of that in his answers.  Steele would just as soon make the GOP Democrat Lite (despite his suggestion to the contrary) if it meant a bunch of R's elected.  Well that's what got us where we were in 2008.  Finally, Steele takes credit for the GOP wave election in 2010.  Well, he deserves credit for getting the hell out of the way and keeping his mouth shut but make no mistake, Steele did NOTHING to help the wave.  This was the TEA Party election Mr. Steele.  It was the grassroots movement flexing its muscle and carrying you across the finish line.  I wonder how you even went into $20 million of debt by doing nothing.  Perhaps if you spent less time filing FEC complaints against good conservative candidates, you wouldn't be in debt.  Steele isn't likely to win.  I'd put his chances at 30% but don't count him out completely.  With all of this said, I think Steele is KEY to GOP outreach efforts especially to minority groups and his help MUST be retained to work on the message that is presented to minority groups.

Maria Cino - Ok, so I didn't like her from the word go because the first thing I saw was "lobbyist" and the second was "Pfizer" and the third was "supported Obamacare".  She is not my choice for RNC chair but she made some compelling points and a look over her she cited McCain-Feingold as a mistake, along with losing our way with spending.  Not exactly rocket science but good points.  Look, Maria has done a great job in the past with the GOTV efforts and I think she would make a great GOTV/Coalitions Director.  That said, she really hasn't got a shot at being Chairwoman despite the support of Delaware's Priscilla Rakestraw (the longest serving National Committeewoman and one of the more disliked Delaware Republicans).

Let me know what you think.

Gov. Dupont is a TEA Partier

Former Delaware Governor Pete Dupont is one of the most respected living politicians in the state and when he speaks, Delaware listens.  Gov. Dupont is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other national publications.  During his tenure as Governor, Delaware experienced a rapid and expansive growth and for that reason, Delaware looks to him as a leader to this day.  He is a fiscal conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, cut the taxes, reduce the spending and adhere to the Constitution.  Pete Dupont is in fact, a TEA Partier.  Gov. Dupont even honored the Delaware TEA Party groups by being the headline speaker at the 2010 Wilmington Tax Day TEA Party held annually at Dravo Plaza.  He addressed a crowd of hundreds who turned out on April 15th and he called for government to reduce spending, cut taxes and shrink the size of government across the board. 

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week, Gov. Dupont explains the Nov. 2nd elections and calls Obama to the carpet.  He calls for Obama and the new Republican majority in the House to shrink government and remove burdensome regulations so businesses can expand again, cut taxes to stimulate the economy as the Reagan, Kennedy and Coolidge administrations did before them, reduce government spending by cutting discretionary spending and finally to repeal and replace Obamacare with common sense alternatives.  He cited a 136 page rule inserted by DHSS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that places the federal government into a role traditionally held by the states.  He left out however, a regulatory reform from the radical Dr. Donald Berwick and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that will create the much maligned "Death Panels" that Democrats (including President Obama) promised would be removed from the health care law.  Berwick's rule will allow doctors to be paid for providing "end of life counseling" which will be used along with "Comparative Effectiveness Research" to determine the most cost effective future treatments.  By creating an incentive for doctors to "counsel" seniors as to how long they may or may not want to live, the government is effectively removing choice from the equation.  Medicare doctors, who already enjoy a unique control over their patients, will have a financial reason to ensure that every patient receives counseling on how long they should live. 

In the end, Dupont calls on the new Republican House to "Get to it" and begin the work to reform government.  Understanding that the road will be hard and paved with bumps, the new Congress and the improved Senate must fight to reduce the size of government, limit spending, reduce the tax burden and replace Obamacare with common sense reforms while returning choice and competition back to the people and the states.  Gov. Dupont is a TEA Partier at heart and he espouses the values and the principles which we hold dear.  In Delaware, we could not have a better man to look to for guidance as a grassroots movement.  I join Governor Dupont in his support of the new look Congress.  "Let's get to it".

Trouble a brewing

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck is often ridiculed by the left for his "conspiracy theories".  Beck has routinely warned about events that people have considered crazy which have in the long run proven true.  The unemployment number rising above 9%, the rising price of gold and the Fed's quantitative easing scheme come to mind.  Recently Glenn has been warning about a "big event" that will threaten the stability of America and possibly the world. 


Isn't it strange that North Korea has been ratcheting up attacks against South Korea in recent days, sending all of Asia into a tail spin?  Meanwhile, China has recently began buying tons of gold.  This is after buying more U.S. debt than any other nation (the Fed is actually the largest holder) and buying up a rather large chunk of the world's natural resources.  China has been quite vocal about the government's accounting tricks and has openly questioned the out of control spending of the Obama administration.  With their region in turmoil and their current position as a financial superpower, China just may be in a position where it can call in the U.S. debt load.  Beck may just have hit yet another nail on the head but only time will tell.  If Washington doesn't right the ship and do it fast, you can bet that China doesn't need to sit around and wait for us anymore.