The Rise and Fall of Newt Gingrich

Newt was floundering around after a sub-par fifth place finish in the New Hampshire Primary, and needed something to dig into and gain traction to propel his way forward.  Along came ABC News and John King.  Last Friday, the morning of the biggest debate in the career of Newt Gingrich, ABC News came out with an interview with one of his former wives explaining how the man had asked for an open marriage because he was having an affair.  What topic did John King, the CNN moderator for the debate that night, bring up as the first question?  You guessed it, that interview:

The State of The State of the Union

Last night, Obama gave his State of the Union address. Sadly, due to a scheduling issue I was unable to see the first half. Of what I saw, I enjoyed parts of it and did not enjoy others as much. This blog will center on the financial aspect of his speech.

One of the points Obama made during the address was his firm belief in a graduated tax scale. He detailed a new plan, called the "Buffet plan," which basically says that all families earning over one million annually would be required to pay 30% federal income tax. In addition, this plan would eliminate families that earn that much wouldn’t be allowed to take deductions for mortgage interest, health care, retirement or child care. Obviously, charitable contributions would still qualify for tax breaks.

I like this plan, even though I'm typically a very conservative financial thinker -- that is to say, I support traditionally conservative policies, such as less government spending. However one issue I disagree with is the idea of a flat income tax. I believe that there should be some sort of graduated income tax, based on what you can afford to pay.

Facts back me up on this one. In a theoretical study done by Cornell's Robert Frank, a study was done that proved that higher tax rate for the wealthy did not decrease their spending power. This sounds impossible, but the wealthy who spend millions of dollars on lobbyists for tax cuts would not change their spending practices whatsoever in the event of a graduated tax. This is proven in history -- following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts in the late 80's and early 90's, the unsubstantial amount of excess capital they would have possessed would have provided low utility and satisfaction.

In addition to that, if across the board tax cuts are imposed continuously, the end result (assuming no increase in output exists) is more wealth for everyone, but also a rise in inflation, basically negating the increase in money by having a lower tax rate.

Finally, by having the rich pay a higher tax, it allows the government to have more revenue. When government spends money, it becomes income to a large number of citizens. This pumps money into the economy, to the people who are not wealthy. In terms of spending, the times when tax cuts are applied to the rich, we have seen that the economy will contract. The only fundamental way to increase the economy in terms of spending is to increase taxation on the rich.

Like I said earlier, I typically shade to the right on financial issues, but I think I'm with Obama on this one.
Something I was NOT with Obama on was the way he made higher education sound like a right and not a privilege. It is not. Plain and simple, if every single person who attended high school ended college, a college degree would mean absolutely nothing. And, trade jobs that are typically filled by skilled laborers who have high school degrees would be vacant. That would be bad for the economy.

Another issue on education, Obama called for every single state to require students to remain in school until they were 18 or they graduate. Once again, some students are just A) Not dedicated to learning, B) Do not care about getting a degree, or C) Would be better served by joining the military or a trade job. Requiring students to stay in school is an idealistic idea that sounds good on paper, but would not help our country in the long run. If anything in education needs to be reformed, its the teaching system that allows teachers to get tenure after 3 years, and stop trying. Not fixing the students who will never be successful in the first place.

All in all, Obama made some good points. What was your opinion on the speech?

The Oil-Pipeline fiasco

Looking back over time, when a current president up for re-election is trying to gain more support, they will suddenly become more moderate, cross party lines more, and basically do everything they promised to do from the start.

A great example of this is Bill Clinton. With the backing of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, he was able to begin the process of balancing the budget prior to the 1996 election, which he won. By cutting government spending, he won the support of many moderates for the election, some of whom would have voted Republican without that strategic move.

This year, Barack Obama, the incumbent, has a chance to do the same thing. In what figures to be a very close election, and with huge issues such as the war on terrorism, the pesky economy and growing debt and prevalent (and polarizing) social issues such as abortion at the forefront of this election, Obama had an opportunity to win some support from the moderates by signing a bill legitimizing an oil-pipeline from the tar sands of Canada to the refineries in Texas.

In what was a stunning political move to many, he did NOT sign the bill.

This move made a huge splash in the political world.

It did not make any sense in terms of increasing the votes he would get, but it does set an interesting precedent in terms of doing the right thing.

The far right would rather see myself on the ballot than another four years of Obama. Signing this bill would have no effect on their vote.

The environmentalists who adamantly opposed this bill were already Obama supporters, and will vote Democrat if they put up a real donkey in honor of their party’s symbol. So, by signing this bill, Obama was not trying to get votes from the environmentalists.

What that leaves is the moderates, some on the right and some on the left, including me, who for the most part do not like the signing of this bill. Obama did not sign this bill, and it will cost him votes.

Does this mean the unthinkable?

Did Barack Obama make a political move that — and please, stay with me on this one — was a part of his platform, because he believed it was the right thing to do?

Sticking true to his guns, a United States president made a political move that cost him votes, despite pressure from lobbyists, congress and the public, because it was what he believed in, was one of the things that got him elected.

Like him or not, like his political motives or not, like his decision or not, what Obama did took some balls.

I gained a lot of my respect back for Mr. Obama this past week. He not only refused to sign the bill into law because it was what he believed in, but he also proposed a new bill (that is not to say he drew up a blueprint for a new pipeline, but he detailed why he didn’t sign the bill and the issues attached to it) that explained where the pipeline would have to go to avoid interfering with an environmentally unstable area.

Gotta love that!

The political landscape is changing drastically, and currently my vote is up for grabs. But by doing what I did not support, the very opposite of what I wanted to see, but by sticking to his guns, Obama gained some respect from me. Let’s see if he can impress me further!

What is the most important aspect of a person’s political stance?

South Carolina: the whirlwind that was

10 days ago today, Mitt Romney won the state of New Hampshire on a wave of momentum that carried him from a tight-second place finish in Iowa (originally declared the winner, after re-voting it turned out Rick Santorum won). He seemed to be in complete control of the Republican race, and I all but declared him the winner right then and there.

The race turned to South Carolina. Romney strolled in on that wave of momentum, with a lead in straw polls on Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Santorum. But then the game changed — and quickly.

Why I Don't Want to Support Mitt Romney

Despite being registered as such, I don't like to refer to myself as a Republican, I'm much more representative of a Conservative.  Hence the title, I'm not the biggest of fans of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.  Since the field is down to just four candidates now, as opposed to seven just a couple weeks ago, the anti-Romney vote (The majority of true Conservatives) is now being
split between just two people, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.  Romney appeals to the more moderate voters, and the fact that his poll numbers have hovered around 20-25% during the majority of the campaign shows that Conservatives are tentative to give him a shot, electing instead to exhaust all of the other possibilities.  Yesterday, one time (Although very brief) frontrunner Rick Perry dropped out of the race.  With him being a strong Conservative, his votes will most likely go in the direction of Newt Gingrich who has been surging after his undeniably impressive debate performances this week, or Rick Santorum, as they share similar values.  However, as long as Gingrich and Santorum are both fighting for that demographic, and Ron Paul remains in his own little world, Romney will remain the frontrunner.  This alone is why Rick Santorum, my favorite candidate, needs to drop out of the race.

And then there were 4: GOP Primary

With the news of Texas governor Rick Perry dropping out of the Republican Primary, the former Republican clusterfuck has been left to a four horse race.

Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum remain in the running.

Currently, I would say it is clearly Romney in the lead. He won (contested) Iowa, definitively won New Hampshire and is the straw poll leader in South Carolina. It is safe to say that with a few more states under his belt, Romney can all but walk away from this thing as the winner.

So, any conservative out there who dislikes Romney for whatever reason, it is time to follow my esteemed colleague Chris Talone and begin to make sacrifices.

Chris is and has been a Rick Santorum supporter since the beginning. But in a conversation with him earlier today, he said he wants Santorum out of the running, and for him to throw his support to Newt Gingrich, similar to what Rick Perry did earlier today.

As a supporter of Santorum, one might ask why he would want Santorum to drop out. The answer is simple, and also very telling.

Chris is so against Romney, that he would rather see his candidate drop out, so that the more conservative supporters of Santorum are forced to support Gingrich, which will inevitably topple Romney as the current favorite.

He's right of course, with Santorum out of the picture, his supporters would rather be called a liberal than support Romney. They would then vote for the most conservative remaining candidate, Gingrich. Ron Paul is on his own little planet somewhere, technically a Republican, but more of a libertarian. The vote would be split essentially between Romney and Gingrich, with the more moderate conservatives supporting Romney and the more "extreme" supporting Gingrich.

I wonder aloud to all of my loyal readers, assuming any of them are Republicans who are passionate about the nomination, to tell me: what is it about Romney that is so bad? I have my own opinions, and I know Chris's reasoning. But it seems to me like some moderates would rather see Obama as president again before Romney. Let me know what you think!

SOPA: Where do you draw the line?

A lot has been made of the new SOPA and PIPA bills that are currently on the floor of Congress. But if you’re like me, you haven’t really figured out exactly what they are, or how they will affect our current internet use.

So I did some digging, and found out.

SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, basically is designed to tackle the problem of foreign-based websites that sell pirated movies, music and other products on the web. So, at its roots, it sounds like a good deal. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, hereafter the MPA, 13% of adults have watched pirated movies online, and this illegal action has cost Hollywood billions.