comMITTed to Romney!

Usher in the New Year, with a SMILE

Share on Facebook

Share This

When a newly elected politician prepares to head to Washington, that free spending den of iniquity, I always hold my breath, half way waiting to get sold out, but still hoping against hope that THIS TIME IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. In the case of Jason Chaffetz, so far so good.

Rep. elect Chaffetz’ first co-sponsored bill will require a balanced federal budget. The cynical among us might say that this is just window dressing and has no chance of passing. Probably it won’t pass. It will get some of us thinking that maybe the problem with the enormous deficits we have been running is that Congress is genetically incapable of disciplining itself and unless we come up with a way of handcuffing these people to some form of frugality, we will continue to bleed red ink at a time we can ill afford it.

Kudos to Rep. Chaffetz, keep up the good work!

~~John Cronin~~

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705273910,00.html

After he is sworn into office next week, Rep.-elect Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said among the first things he will do is co-sponsor a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.

“Fiscal discipline is my No. 1 priority. Without it, we are not able to do anything else,” Chaffetz said Monday.

He added, “The state constitution in Utah requires a balanced budget. This works well for Utah and will work well for our country.”

Conservatives for years have pushed such a constitutional amendment — and often introduce it on the first day that Congress convenes. But they have been unable to get it through Congress. Such amendments must be passed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and then be ratified by legislatures in three-fourths of the states.

“Federal government spending is out of control. Washington obviously lacks the discipline to live within its means. We cannot be all things to all people. We are $10 trillion-plus in debt, and the number is growing every day,” Chaffetz said.

“This is unacceptable and unsustainable. I am committed to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal budget. We cannot continue to run this country by putting more debt on a credit card,” Chaffetz said.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122964897338520479.html

A note to all those visitors who will soon flood Washington for the inauguration: Be careful of the “swamp.”

That would be the swamp Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to drain when she led her party to victory in 2006. The GOP had been rocked by scandal, and Mrs. Pelosi and Democrats won, in part, by promising to clean up the “culture of corruption” that pervaded Washington.

Instead, Democrats now have an image problem. The real issue isn’t so much Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s Senate-seat auction, as it is the focus that his scandal has directed toward a wider assortment of Democratic troubles. This isn’t great timing for Barack Obama, who campaigned on cleaner government.

The Blagojevich drama is titillating enough, and local Democrats’ dithering over how to fill Mr. Obama’s seat guarantees it will remain a storyline longer than is comfortable. But the Illinois drama has also thrust new light on the ongoing ethical controversies of House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. At the rate the House Ethics Committee is receiving complaints — over Mr. Rangel’s real-estate problems, tax problems, his privately sponsored trips to the Caribbean, and donations to his center in New York — this too will make headlines for a while

Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune published a new story about Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who racked up $420,000 through a series of suspicious real-estate deals. Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, came under scrutiny this fall for questionable earmarking. West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan has been under investigation for a separate earmarking mess. And then there’s Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, who has yet to answer questions about the sweetheart mortgage deal he received from Countrywide.

One unfortunate side effect of Mr. Obama’s long coattails was that they helped the party’s more ethically challenged members get re-elected. Pennsylvania’s Paul Kanjorski and John Murtha, who both struggled to keep their seats because of earmarking travails, will continue to answer questions about their actions. Mrs. Pelosi lost a problem when Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson — with his $90,000 in freezer cash — lost in November. Yet she has potentially gained a new headache with Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., who may have wanted that Obama seat a little too much.
There are more. Shockingly, this has happened despite all those campaign-finance laws, and Congress’s legislation to ban lobbyist lunches. The members took credit for those publicity stunts, and went right back to their “culture” of earmarking.

The speaker’s reluctance to tackle these problems is odd considering she is a seasoned pol who surely knows nothing sucks the life out of a party more quickly than a good round of tittle-tattle. The Republican crew of Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney sank the GOP easily enough, quite aside from its other problems.

Mrs. Pelosi must also know Republicans are belatedly getting their own house in order, at least in terms of optics. The GOP is lucky that most of its worst offenders, such as Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, have now been dealt with by federal prosecutors or voters. To further inoculate his side, House Minority Leader John Boehner also recently moved to strip Alaska Rep. Don Young — allegedly under federal investigation — of his top slot at the resources committee. He intends to turn Democratic infractions into a political story. He knows how easyMrs. Pelosi’s problem is politics. Her refusal to temporarily remove Mr. Rangel from Ways and Means is in part a reticence to further anger the Congressional Black Caucus, which remains steamed that she worked for Mr. Jefferson’s ouster from his seat on Ways and Means. Worse, next in line for Mr. Rangel’s slot is Rep. Pete Stark, an off-the-charts liberal who Mrs. Pelosi would struggle to leash.

Is Mr. Obama taking notes? The president-elect is discovering the limits of his campaign strategy of ignoring inconvenient questions. One of his great achievements this year was to convince voters that his meteoric rise was unconnected to the Chicago political machine. His silence in the Blagojevich scandal has mainly served to make people wonder if that was true.

His Clinton-era appointments threaten to unleash their own round of stories, from a rehash of Eric Holder’s role in the Marc Rich pardon, to Bill Clinton’s foundation donors. And Mrs. Pelosi’s congressional problems threaten to become his own. Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reyes and Mr. Murtha — to name but a few — all head bodies that will be central to Mr. Obama’s agenda.

One of President Bush’s mistakes was his refusal to police the spending and earmarks that led his party to temptation, or to push his party to quarantine its liabilities. If the president-elect wants to avoid the same error, he might consider what his promises of good government mean in practice, especially as regards his own party.

Write to kim@wsj.com

Share on Facebook

Share This

According to this article, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada may be vulnerable in his upcoming re-election bid. For any Nevada Mittheads who would like to get involved in helping replace Sen. Reid with a conservative Republican, this would be a great opportunity to start the process of rebuilding the party of Lincoln and Reagan. If you would like to volunteer to help the campaign of the eventual Republican candidate, please let me know via the comments section of this post or you can email me at: jtc1767@Yahoo.com.

This will tie in with our Brainstorming For Romney effort that was held on Dec. 16. We need to have political activists who don’t like the way the Party has been going for much of the last eight years to step forward and take on strategic responsibilities within the states that will have Senator’s seats in play.

Your participation can take several paths, including phone banking, neighborhood canvassing, fundraising, organizing rallies, opening your home for coffees, distributing signs, speaking at local Republican clubs and both blogging in support of your state’s candidate and writing letters to the editor of your local newspaper.

If we can start an organization in each state that has a potentially vulnerable incumbent and get the groundwork laid well in advance, we can be in very good shape to ramp the effort up when the timing is right.

~~John Cronin~~

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033501646236333.html

By T.W. FARNAM

WASHINGTON — Sen. Harry Reid will command the biggest party majority of any Senate leader in a quarter century when the new Congress convenes in January. But the Nevada Democrat is already worried about his own re-election fight in 2010.

Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising.

Starting early could help Sen. Reid avoid the fate of his predecessor, Tom Daschle, who was Democratic leader for a decade before losing his re-election bid in South Dakota in 2004. The current Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, narrowly won re-election in Kentucky this year.

Sen. Reid “saw what happened to Tom Daschle and Mitch McConnell,” said Republican Sen. John Ensign, Nevada’s the other senator. “He saw the consequences of being the majority leader or the leader of one of the parties.”

Jon Summers, a Reid spokesman, said Sen. Reid knows he will be a Republican target in 2010 and has been preparing for his re-election campaign for some time. He added that Sen. Reid’s leadership position in the Senate is an asset, not a liability. “Being the majority leader means he can do things no one else can.”

Democrats have picked up a combined 13 seats in the past two election cycles. In 2010, more Republicans than Democrats are up for re-election, and Democratic incumbents appear to be well-positioned overall.

Sen. Reid, however, faces a potentially tough fight. A recent Research 2000 poll of likely voters put his approval rating at 38% and his disapproval rating at 54%, a possible reflection of voters’ displeasure with gridlock and partisanship in Washington. And while Nevada broke for President-elect Barack Obama by 12 percentage points in November, the state voted for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

As Senate majority leader, Sen. Reid is expected to play a critical role in shepherding Democratic priorities through the Senate, with a full docket of legislation up for consideration in the first year of the Obama administration.

Sen. Reid traveled to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico late last month to meet with campaign contributors. A spokesman for Sen. Reid said he expects to have $3 million in his campaign account at the end of the year, up from about $2.75 million on Oct. 1. Sen. Reid spent $7 million in his 2004 race.

Two Democratic Senate colleagues, South Dakota’s Tim Johnson and Oregon’s Jeff Merkley, have sent emails to their supporters seeking contributions to Sen. Reid’s campaign.

“Republicans are going after Harry Reid’s Senate seat in 2010, and we can’t afford to lose a great Democratic leader,” Senator-elect Merkley wrote in his email.

Who might square off against Sen. Reid is unclear. Nevada’s Republican lieutenant governor, Brian Krolicki, declared his candidacy last month but was subsequently indicted for suspect accounting practices during his time as state treasurer. He has denied the charges.

Another potential GOP candidate is former Rep. Jon Porter, who lost his House seat representing an area outside of Las Vegas in November after serving three terms. The Research 2000 survey showed Sen. Reid beating Mr. Porter 46% to 40% in a potential 2010 race, an uncomfortably narrow margin for an incumbent.

Democrats say Nevada is a former swing state that has swung to their camp. The party now has a 100,000-person registration advantage there.

In 2004, the last time Sen. Reid was up for re-election, the number of registered Republicans and Democrats was about the same.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The field for RNC chair has gotten crowded and it seems that former Mike Huckabee campaign manager, Chip Saltsman, in an attempt to stand out in the crowd, may have foul-balled his chance at becoming the next head of the GOP, by sending a controversial satirical CD to RNC committee members.

~~John Cronin~~

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/12/26/fight-for-the-rnc-chairmanship-heats-up/?mod=rss_WSJBlog

Susan Davis reports on politics.

The six-way race for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee is intensifying as some party members are pushing to hold a preemptive meeting in early January to screen the candidates, according to the Washington Times.

However, one of the candidates, Chip Saltsman, the former presidential campaign manager for Mike Huckabee, may have made a fatal move in his bid after The Hill newspaper reported today that Saltsman sent a 41-track parody CD to the RNC’s 168 member committee that includes a song entitled “Barack the Magic Negro.”

The song, to the music of “Puff the Magic Dragon,” was first popularized on Rush Limbaugh’s conservative radio show. It was written by Saltman’s pal and conservative satirist Paul Shanklin.

The “We Hate the USA” parody CD also includes satirical songs such as “Wright place, wrong pastor,” a reference to President-elect Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and “The Star Spanglish Banner.”

“Paul Shanklin is a long-time friend, and I think that RNC members have the good humor and good sense to recognize that his songs for the Rush Limbaugh show are light-hearted political parodies,” Saltsman told The Hill.

Maybe. Or Maybe Saltman’s gag gift will turn off committee members mindful of the fact the party is losing support among minorities and that mocking Obama—with high approval ratings and today listed as the most admired American—may not be the best way to give the GOP that more “inclusive” vibe it’s been searching for since their November losses.

Prospective GOP party leaders may also want to leave the word “negro” in any context to conservative satirists and not tie it to the national party committee–good satire rarely translates in to smart politics.

The potential for further discord was highlighted in today’s Washington Times, which notes that a “power struggle” is playing out behind the scenes as some RNC members are advocating for a special session on Jan. 6 to hear presentations from all six current candidates. The RNC is currently scheduled to pick the next party chair at their winter meeting three weeks after the proposed session.

They include Saltsman, current RNC Chair Mike Duncan, South Carolina GOP Party Chairman Katon Dawson, Michigan GOP Party Chairman Saul Anuzis, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

The special session is seen as a move to level the playing field for all candidates and dilute any influence President George W. Bush’s political machine still holds at the RNC. The Washington Times reports that state party chairs from California and North Dakota are agitating for a special session, among others.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I know that the title of the post probably won’t get me much love, but hear me out.

I am so sick of conservatives, Republicans, et al…making constant attacks against the President Elect. It bugs me about as much or more as those on the left who constantly attacked the Bush Presidency and didn’t give him much if any support to do his job. Now a Democrat has been elected President (and by a majority of the country I might add) and the so called “conservatives” and “Republicans” are in attack mode before the guy’s even been sworn in as President. Now, I don’t know about you but I respect the office of President and I find it at least disingenuous at most flagrant to do this. What about uniting the country behind our new President. Or are we going to continue to play the same tune and dance and use the tactic of negativity negativity negativity like we did in the 2008 campaign season. If anyone hasn’t noticed IT DID NOT WORK or do we think that if we try it again it might work? It’s a losing and I might add stupid strategy.

I think we need to give our new President a shot to run the country. I’m not saying we support every initiative that he puts forth, but can we at least see what he’s going to do before going into destruct mode? I think that President-Elect Obama has done a pretty good job at choosing his cabinet. Heck, despite his complete disagreement with our current President on the Iraq war, he has decided to keep his Secretary of Defense. I think that’s really saying something. He’s chosen people who fought against him in the Primaries to be a part of his administration. I think that’s pretty smart.

While I think it’s cool that all of us Romney supporters are staying together, and can reminisce about the past and look toward the future. I don’t necessarily believe that launching all these groups to push for him to run in 2012 is necessarily the smart move. Look what happened last time. I should know more than most. I started the first blog site promoting him for President for 2008. And I did it a full 3yrs plus before the election. Mr. Romney spent lots of time in Iowa way before the campaign got into full swing. I think that this may not have been the best move. People are sick of electioneering. They want a freaking break from it. Now I’m not saying we can’t have our own groups to talk about the future in politics, but we really can go overboard. Trust me, I know.

I have decided to step back from politics. It’s not to say that I don’t think about it. I am a political junkie. I still read politics, but I’m not giving my heart and soul to it right now. I’m enjoying my life, enjoying my kids, getting into some hobbies that I practically forgot I had due to my never-ending work to get Governor Romney elected. I think that we all should be doing this. Trust me, after doing it for 3 yrs plus, you’re not as fresh and on your message once the real campaigning begins. Not to say that I regret anything I did the last campaign cycle. I learned a great deal, and had I not jumped as soon as I did last time I wouldn’t have gotten to know as many as all of your wonderful visitors. I’m just saying I’ve learned a lot about how NOT to do things, and I’m taking all of this and will most definitely apply it next go round.

I guess that’s it for me for now. I hope it made sense. I hope you’re all having a very happy holiday season, with the love of your families around you.

Warmly,

Ann Marie Curling
Founder - comMITTed to Romney, formerly Elect Romney in 2008

Share on Facebook

Share This

I wanted to bring this controversy to the attention of our readers, not to promote any in depth discussion of the differences in understanding of Christian theology between the LDS Church and other Churches, but because I see a definite link between this ongoing in fighting amongst fellow conservatives and the electoral loss we just endured.

We have had a debate on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ for over 2,000 years. If past experience is any guide, it doesn’t look good for settling this anytime soon, so my suggestion is that we all respectfully agree to disagree on some points of theology, and to turn to those areas where we do agree, namely on our shared values and conservative political philosophy.

While some Evangelicals have dedicated themselves to pointing out the differences that do exist, they have had a “throw the baby out with the bath water” approach to this past election. They rejected the most full spectrum conservative, Pro Life Republican since Reagan, because of theological differences, and in doing so, they helped elect the most liberal, pro abortion President-elect ever. Wow! Do they yet realize what they have done? The so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” ( negating any law which tries to limit the scope of the abortion industry ) has already been written and awaits the signature of soon to be President Barack Obama. The “Fairness Doctrine” bill designed to silence ALL conservatives, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists and Latter Day Saints, awaits the signature of soon to be President Barack Obama. Embryonic stem cell research funding bills await his signature, too.

While the theology police were out on patrol for any deviation from doctrine, this is what they unwittingly unleashed.

I don’t mean to impugn their motives. They are passionate in their defense of dogma, but I just wish they would have realized the truth of what Romney supporters have been writing and talking about for the last two years. Mitt was running for President, not Pastor. If all of us on the right don’t take away some very hard earned and very expensive ( in terms of human life consequences ) lessons from this in fighting over theology when politics and policy should have been the focus, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that cost us: 1. the Presidency 2. the House 3. the Senate 4. maybe the right to filibuster toxic bills 5. maybe the Supreme Court 6. Independent voters. What a terrible price to pay for the luxury of indulging ourselves in a hissy fit.

Of course, that’s all water under the bridge now. We can, however, learn from our mistakes and resolve never to repeat the errors made in the 2008 election. We can resolve that we will follow the Constitution in 2012 where it says: “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public trust under the United States.” ( Article VI )

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/joel_campbell/?id=5597

James Dobson’s Focus on the Family ministry has pulled from its CitizenLink Web site an article about talk show host Glenn Beck’s book “The Christmas Sweater” after some complained that Beck’s LDS faith is a “cult” and “false religion” and shouldn’t be promoted by a Christian ministry.

When contacted Friday, a Focus on the Family worker at the ministry in Colorado Springs, Colo. confirmed that the article had been pulled at this link and read a prepared statement for callers who had called about the Beck article:

“You are correct to note that Mr. Beck is a member of the Mormon church, and that we did not make mention of this fact in our interview with him. We do recognize the deep theological difference between evangelical theology and Mormon theology, and it would have been prudent for us at least to have pointed out these differences. Because of the confusion, we have removed the interview from CitizenLink.”

All other questions about the controversy were directed to a ministry media spokesman who would not be available until Jan. 2. Calls to Beck’s offices Friday went unanswered. A link to the story still remained on the Front Page of www.glennbeck.com.

Apparently, the controversy was fueled on Dec. 22, when an anti-Mormon group called Underground Apologetics issued a release through Christian News Wire which read:

“Focus on the Family has a story on Glenn Beck, a Mormon, on their CitizenLink Web site. Glenn Beck was a CNN host and will move to Fox News in January. Beck is currently promoting his book, ‘The Christmas Sweater.’ The CitizenLink story focuses on Beck’s faith and why he wrote ‘The Christmas Sweater.’

“While Glenn’s social views are compatible with many Christian views, his beliefs in Mormonism are not. Clearly, Mormonism is a cult. The CitizenLink story does not mention Beck’s Mormon faith, however, the story makes it look as if Beck is a Christian who believes in the essential doctrines of the faith.

“Through the years, Focus on the Family has done great things to help the family and has brought attention to the many social ills that are attacking the family.

“However, to promote a Mormon as a Christian is not helpful to the cause of Jesus Christ. For Christians to influence society, Christians should be promoting the central issues of the faith properly without opening the door to false religions.”

Underground Apologetics president Steve McConkey said in an interview that he had not read Beck’s book, but understood its message. He felt that the work was suspect based on what he understands about Beck’s faith. McConkey said he had not asked Dobson’s ministry to remove the article from its site.

The Mormon Media Observer contacted Karla Dial. identified as a freelance reporter living in Colorado Springs, and received an e-mail response that said:

“I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on that in any forum, but thanks for asking.”

Because the offending article is no longer available at citizenlink.org, the Mormon Media Observer is reprinting it in its entirety from an archived record. Here is also a link to an Amazon.com video about the book.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Wall Street Journal Online

In Hoc Anno Domini

When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar.

Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.

But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression — for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?

There was the persecution of men who dared think differently, who heard strange voices or read strange manuscripts. There was enslavement of men whose tribes came not from Rome, disdain for those who did not have the familiar visage. And most of all, there was everywhere a contempt for human life. What, to the strong, was one man more or less in a crowded world?

Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.

And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent this gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.

So the light came into the world and the men who lived in darkness were afraid, and they tried to lower a curtain so that man would still believe salvation lay with the leaders.

But it came to pass for a while in divers places that the truth did set man free, although the men of darkness were offended and they tried to put out the light. The voice said, Haste ye. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

Along the road to Damascus the light shone brightly. But afterward Paul of Tarsus, too, was sore afraid. He feared that other Caesars, other prophets, might one day persuade men that man was nothing save a servant unto them, that men might yield up their birthright from God for pottage and walk no more in freedom.

Then might it come to pass that darkness would settle again over the lands and there would be a burning of books and men would think only of what they should eat and what they should wear, and would give heed only to new Caesars and to false prophets. Then might it come to pass that men would not look upward to see even a winter’s star in the East, and once more, there would be no light at all in the darkness.

And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

This editorial was written in 1949 by the late Vermont Royster and has been published annually since.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/12/21/global-crisis-auto-oped-cx_jt_1222tamny.html

Political Economy

By: John Tamny

Why paralyze the natural process?

When the U.S. Senate blocked Congress’s attempt to save the U.S. carmakers earlier this month, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino made the claim that if federal money wasn’t freed up soon, the United States would no longer have an auto industry.

Good political theater for sure, but even if bankruptcy for the Big Three were to mean that each would vanish, the U.S. would still have a vibrant auto sector–albeit one overseen by foreign carmakers. By Perino’s strict definition, the U.S. also lacks industries that produce televisions, watches and cameras, but near as this writer can tell, there’s been no discernible economic decline as a result

According to the economic xenophobes in our midst, we impoverish ourselves when we send money to foreign producers for all manner of goods including “foreign” oil, but the very protests made by people of the protectionist variety reveal the folly of their reasoning. Indeed, in order for us to buy the surplus of foreigners, it must be that we’ve replaced formerly American industries with new ones such that we have the means to buy that which we no longer make.

As is well known now, the Bush White House has contorted TARP in order to save the Big Three, but those celebrating this turn of events might want to contain their glee. Indeed, if high levels of employment were the root cause of economic growth, we could create countless jobs by simply outlawing ATMs, computers and tractors. Jobs would be plentiful, but thanks to the erasure of those innovations of the mind, our longer-term reward would be greater poverty due to reduced economic productivity.

So while federal dollars may well have saved the U.S. carmakers for now, let’s not delude ourselves with the notion that this will enhance our economy. More realistically, the laws of comparative advantage tell us that we will render our nation poorer by wasting our limited human and physical capital on work that could be done by others.

Where cars are considered, foreign automakers have shown for quite some time that they can make what we want, and they can do so far more profitably than firms possessing a U.S. address. That being the case, tax dollars spent to duplicate those efforts will be money wasted rather than a form of economic stimulation.

More broadly, all this hand-wringing over the presumed negative impact of automobile-related job losses speaks to a massive misunderstanding of what makes economies grow. Economies falter when work effort is duplicative, and they grow when finite capital is redeployed in order to create new goods that fulfill a previously unmet market need.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Wishing the entire Romney family a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from their friends at Committed to Romney!!

~~John Cronin~~

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had told him, and took unto him his wife.

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Matthew Ch.1, V 21-25

Share on Facebook

Share This

Very interesting article that offers more evidence that liberals need to “walk the walk” and not just “talk the talk.”

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.

So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Nero fiddles while Rome burns. Our esteemed politicians continue to kick the can down the road so that they can all get political cover in case the stimulus plan fails.

Gov. Romney offers some of the advice that caused him to be labeled by Jim Kramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, “the best businessman in North America.”

~~John Cronin~~

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTdlNDlmMGYzYWJlMzFkMDhiOTE4YWMyYmUyNDA4ZTQ=

What is Washington waiting for? The inauguration is less than five weeks away: At the rate we’ve been going, another 500,000 jobs will be lost by then. The downward spiral is deepening and accelerating: Congress and the president must act now.

American families have lost about $11 trillion in net worth as securities and home values have plummeted. This translates into about $400 billion less annual consumer spending, net of government safety-net funding. Exports won’t grow to make this up, as the dollar has strengthened with investors worldwide clamoring for its relative security. Investments won’t make up the gap either, as bank loans and secondary-market financing have shrunk and as fresh equity is virtually non-existent.

So this is surely the time for economic stimulus. But — and this is the crucial point — the government can’t just make itself bigger and more oppressive in the guise of stimulating the economy. That would make matters worse. Nor should we forget that fiscal stimulus is but one part of the solution. As Christina Romer, Barack Obama’s designee as chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors concluded from her study of the Great Depression, bad monetary policy was its greatest cause and good monetary policy was its most effective cure. The Fed should continue to expand the money supply. And, it should confirm that it will not tolerate deflation — the pain of inflation pales in comparison.

That being said, a stimulus plan is needed without further delay, and there are some things that Republicans should insist on.

The first is that tax cuts are part of the solution. Harvard professor and economist Greg Mankiw points out that recent research confirms that tax cuts have a greater multiplier effect than new spending — more economic bang for the federal buck. We should lower tax rates for middle-income families and eliminate their tax on savings altogether — no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. Let’s also align our corporate tax rate with those of competing nations. These actions will rapidly expand consumption and investment, and right now, time is of the essence.

On the spending front, infrastructure projects should be a high priority. But because infrastructure projects involve engineering, environmental studies, permitting and contracting, they can take a long time to actually boost the economy. Spending to refurbish and modernize our military equipment is urgently needed, and it has a more immediate impact on the economy. A great deal of our armament was damaged or lost in the Middle East, and the rest is long overdue for maintenance.

We should also invest to free us from our dependence on foreign oil, not by playing venture capitalist, but by funding basic research in renewables, material science, combustion, nuclear reprocessing, and the like. During the 2008 campaign, virtually every candidate agreed on the need for an “Apollo-like mission” to achieve energy independence. Now is the time to start.

Cities and states will clamor for government dollars. Like the Big Three automakers, states should first take advantage of the downturn to do some needed cost cutting and restructuring. State employee numbers, pensions, and health-insurance premium sharing — as well as duplicate and ineffective agencies and programs — should be high on the hit list. State budgets should be brought in line with those of the most efficient of their comparables. And the federal government should look to ease the burden of mandates on states, like Medicaid.

Republicans should also lay down a gauntlet: All new spending projects should be selected by the responsible federal agency according to published criteria, not by congresspersons and senators based upon favors and politics. Republicans should commit to vote no on any stimulus bill with earmarks that have not been voted upon by their entire body.

There is a danger that new spending and deficits will lead to runaway inflation, flight from the dollar, and another economic crisis. It is essential, therefore, that Congress and the president commit to reform entitlement spending as soon as the economy recovers. With the footing of our long term economy at risk, with entitlements already reaching 60 percent of federal spending and with baby boomers nearing retirement, this can be delayed no longer.

We must also be careful to avoid burdening the economy with excessive regulation in response to the need to reform regulatory oversight of the financial sector. Going too far could cripple the entire industry, further tightening the credit markets. And we should make it clear that Washington will not act to virtually impose unions on small business by eliminating the right of workers to vote by secret ballot in the workplace. This “card check” payback for the AFL-CIO’s support of the Democrats would devastate business formation and employment.

The Democrats may want to wait for Obama, but the country needs action now. Republicans can — and must — play an important role in shaping a stimulus bill that makes sense for America and lays a foundation for future prosperity and growth.

— Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Wouldn’t it be cosmic karma if Huckabee and Palin fought each other to a second place tie in Iowa in 2012, while Mitt Romney cruised to a win without even breaking a sweat?

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16710.html

Former John McCain pollster Bill McInturff said Thursday that in a potential 2012 GOP primary, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would have a leg up on her rivals because she is “well-suited” to campaign in Iowa.

McInturff pointed to the fact that despite a bruising presidential campaign, Palin’s favorability ratings among Republican voters is still extremely high. While Palin comes with some baggage among the general electorate, for Iowa, where former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee successfully drew a large number of social conservatives to his winning bid, she has strong prospects.

“She’s a candidate that would be well-suited to doing well in Iowa,” McInturff told reporters at a breakfast in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. He conceded that Palin creates “a sharply different reaction with swing voters and core primary voters” but said the latter “are not anywhere close to the center.”

If Palin is weighing a potential run, McInturff said that difference and the advantage it gives here is something she is keenly aware of. “She has a very strong political instinct,” he said. “She has a sharp and calculated instinct.”

Reflecting back on the presidential campaign, the pollster said that the McCain campaign had a brief window where they believed victory over President-elect Barack Obama was possible. But that hope was dashed when the campaign’s back was broken by the financial crisis.

“If we had to collapse America’s economy, I wish it had been on Dec. 15 instead of Sept. 15,” he said. Leading up to the financial crisis, he said, the campaign was prepared to launch an offensive to exploit the lingering uncertainties voters had about Obama, but that when the markets crashed, “You didn’t have a presidential campaign anymore, you just had the two campaigns reacting to this.”

“People had substantial and serious concerns about this guy,” McInturff said of Obama. “But if you give people a choice between a proven failure and an uncertain future, they will always choose the uncertain future,” he added, referring to the contrast between Obama and the damaged GOP brand.

The pollster also said the crisis changed McCain’s normal instincts as he tried to demonstrate a presidential level of leadership. For instance, he said, “If John McCain was just a U.S. senator, I cannot imagine him supporting the bailout. . . But you’re not going to be a senator, you are going to be president of the United States.”

Even after the financial crisis, McInturff said the Arizona senator was still within striking distance of Obama until former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed the Democrat. “We had three days where after the Powell endorsement the bottom just fell out,” he said.

Early into the afternoon on Election Day, McInturff said the McCain campaign knew that Obama’s victory was imminent as it read exit poll data. He said, though, that nobody was mourning the loss like they were “sappy volunteers.”

“Your job is to fight like hell, even if you’re getting beat with a baseball bat on the way out,” McInturff said.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Excellent article by Arthur Laffer on why Obama’s stated intention to try to reconfigure the country’s massively complicated and inter-related energy structures will only succeed in seeing taxes sky rocket and energy production plummet. If that’s not a prescription for a new Depression in America, I don’t know what is.

~~John Cronin~~

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122956305965116735.html

The only way to get there is job-killing taxes.

By ARTHUR B. LAFFER
This week in Chicago, President-elect Barack Obama introduced key members of his new energy and environmental team and gave a statement expressing his administration’s ambitious goal to make America energy independent. While his desire to do so is sincere, such a strategy would be disastrous for our economy.

The platitude of “energy independence” makes zero economic sense. Yes, it’s true that many nations that supply us with oil are run by anti-American governments. But unfortunately embargoes don’t overturn despotic regimes. More often than not they harden them, as in Zimbabwe, North Korea and Cuba. Since the U.S. is so reliant on oil, embargoes will hurt the U.S. as much, if not more, than the countries of OPEC. The issue of how to handle the anti-American nature of oil-exporting nations is not for the Commerce Department, but for the White House, the State Department and perhaps the Department of Defense.

The U.S. currently imports some 60% of the oil we use. To imagine an energy-independent U.S. today is to envision gas at $20 or more per gallon and a true depression. President Dwight D. Eisenhower tried oil import tariffs in the 1950s, as has every president since. Yet never before has America’s reliance on foreign oil been greater than it is now.

While energy independence for the U.S. would enormously increase the price of oil at home, it would have the exact opposite effect in the rest of the world. Cheap oil for countries like China would surely not benefit the U.S. or the world’s environment. Businesses that use oil would move offshore, costing American jobs while still polluting the world’s environment. Artificial energy independence is neither a good foreign policy nor a good domestic economic policy

Mr. Obama’s team is also prejudiced against offshore drilling and nuclear power. Goodness knows no one wants oil splattered all over our beaches, but if we don’t drill offshore, Indonesia will. Surely our safeguards are better than Indonesia’s. Any trade-off of Indonesian offshore drilling with U.S. offshore drilling is a no-brainer. Offshore drilling would also further the goal of decreasing U.S. reliance on oil from hostile nations without losing the beneficial gains from trade.

Pursuing nuclear power is another important option if we aim to reduce our carbon footprint and reliance on oil from hostile nations. Currently the U.S. is way behind the curve. Given the vast proliferation of nuclear power world-wide, its cleanliness, its efficiency, and its low cost, surely nuclear should not be “off-the-table” as the Obama team contends.

The Obama team’s chatter about creating jobs in alternative renewable energies is hollow to say the least. Here’s why: Any serious attempt to reduce carbon emissions must ultimately rely on a very large tax on the use of fossil fuels. And a very large tax on fossil fuels as an add-on to the taxes we already pay would drive the economy deeper into the ground — with or without alternative renewable energy jobs.

The only real solution is Al Gore’s proposal to offset a carbon tax dollar-for-dollar with either an income or payroll tax reduction. If a carbon tax increase were offset dollar-for-dollar with an income tax rate cut, I for one would strongly support the policy. The economy would benefit because the progressive income tax does far more damage than a carbon tax would, and we’d use less oil. It’s a win-win situation. Yet this perspective appears to be totally outside the Obama team’s ken.

It’s telling that Mr. Obama and his appointees kept pointing to the successes achieved by California as examples of what should be done on a national level. Whenever California’s current policies — full of taxes and regulations that are crippling its economy — are held up as a model, you know the speaker has a lot to learn.

Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of “The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy — If We Let It Happen” (Threshold, 2008).

Share on Facebook

Share This

For 100 years, Harvard Business School has produced a veritable who’s who of American corporate leaders and innovators. Now, on the occasion of the school’s centennial, CNBC takes you inside the hallowed halls for a student’s eye view of the mystique and the pressure-filled realities of higher education at it’s highest level. Featuring interviews with HBS graduates Jeff Immelt, Meg Whitman, Steve Schwarzman and others.

Reported By: Carl Quintanilla

Wednesday, Dec., 17—10P ET/PT

CNBC First In Business Worldwide

Also being interviewed is Harvard Business School Graduate and Baker Scholar, Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished in the top five of his class in HBS’s joint MBA/JD program. Call your friends and family and let them now this is the man we think is best qualified to be President in 2012 and the credentials I just mentioned are a big part of why he is our pick to lead the country.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This