The Washington Post/By: Michael S. Rosenwald

Former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been reappointed to Marriott International’s board of directors, the Bethesda hotel company said yesterday.

Romney, the former chief executive of Bain Capital, served on Marriott’s board for 10 years before resigning to run for governor in 2002. He was also chief executive of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics Organizing Committee. At Marriott, he will chair a newly formed finance committee, overseeing the company’s financial performance and how it spends money.

In other news,

Meg Whitman to run for governor of…California

MSNBC.com/By: Sajid Farooq

Meg Whitman, the former president and chief executive of eBay, is setting her sights on the most powerful CEO position in California. The former Mitt Romney endorser will announce her intentions to run for governor in four to six weeks, according to reports cited by CNBC

Share on Facebook

Share This

This year’s federal spending will hit 24-25% of GDP. Just think of it. One quarter of our GDP goes to Washington, not to be spent or invested the way individual Americans or private businesses both large and small decide, but the way a craven, corrupt Congress and out of control bureaucracy decide.

We have lost control of our government. Those who lust for unbridled power have won what I can only hope is a temporary victory. We have written the Treasury Sec’y a $700 billion blank check and this was only the down payment. More spending is coming, a tidal wave of spending. Even if the “stimulus” works short term to prevent a disastrous deflation, this money still has to be paid back. No matter what Obama says about tax cuts now, higher taxes are coming. Inflation is coming, too. Inflation is nothing more but a silent, insidious tax, levied by the Federal Reserve, without a single public hearing or authorizing vote.

At some point, foreign investors ( mainly China and Japan ) will say no, thanks, to our latest debt offerings. At some point, America, if it continues on it’s current path, will lose it’s AAA credit rating. The consequences of that are dire. Is it possible that are current crop of Congressional politicians are so dense, so utterly ignorant of economics, that they can’t see this coming?

I think we have to assume that the answer to that question is, yes. They are that dense. It has become abundantly clear to me that they will not stop unless we force them to stop. I don’t want to debate the issue with them. I want the American voters to rise up and send the politicians who are destroying this country a very clear message. You will vote to eliminate the wasteful spending that is causing these massive deficits, as soon as the economic crisis shows sustained signs of leveling off, you will move to cut the budget, end programs that duplicate other programs, cut the layers of federal bureaucracy that serve no purpose but to shuttle stacks of paper from one floor of a federal building to another or, failing that, we will sweep Congress clean in 2010 and then again in 2012 until we can elect representatives who are smart enough to follow our instructions.

I know that I have called for this several times before, but here goes. If everyone reading this will get involved on a personal basis, things will start to change. Write to your Congressional delegations on a regular basis. Recruit at least three friends or family members who will do the same thing. Use the Internet to spread the message. When a crucial vote comes up in Congress, get on the phone to your representative’s offices and let them know how you want them to vote. If they know we are watching, they will “vote their districts.”

Thanks for letting me vent. I want to see this country and it’s citizens succeed. When we return to sound fiscal and monetary policies, I believe we will succeed.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Despite a strong campaign by supporters of Mormon blogger Stephanie Nielson and fans of singing sensation David Archuleta, the staff of Times and Seasons (http://www.timesandseasons.org) has selected Mitt Romney as 2008 Mormon of the Year.

“During 2008, Romney concluded the most credible presidential campaign of any Mormon to date and dominated the U.S. national news early in the year like no single Mormon has in recent memory,” organizer Kent S. Larsen said in an e-mail Wednesday. “He garnered a great deal of both praise and criticism, gaining him significant endorsements as well as important detractors. . .On the international scene, numerous press articles mentioned Romney’s membership in the Mormon Church, thus contributing to the image of the church abroad.”

The Mormon of the Year designation is a recognition of the effect the person or group of persons has had during the past year and “should not be seen as an endorsement [Romney's] political positions or aspirations,” Larsen added.

Last week, Larsen first nominated five well-known members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the honor: Romney, Archuleta, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Mormon novelist Stephenie Meyer, and JetBlue founder David Neeleman. He excluded the LDS Church’s First Presidency (including the prophet) and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles because their overwhelming influence would guarantee their selection every year.

Larsen then invited the public to make other suggestions, which he compiled into a lengthy list and asked readers to vote on their favorites.

Several named Nielson, a Mesa, Ariz., Mormon, whose writing about motherhood had attracted a large online following. In August, a small airplane carrying Nielson and her husband, Christian, crashed, leaving the couple with burns covering nearly 30 percent of their bodies. Nielson’s sister, Courtney Kendrick, has continued to update Nielsen’s blog, nieniedialogues.blogspot.com, as well as organizing online auctions and inspirational messages for her sister.

“The site, a diary of home life that [Nielson] started in 2005 for close friends and family, had attracted a small but ardent following, thanks to its upbeat dispatches about marriage, home décor, entertaining and the art of raising four children ages 6 and younger,” Alex Williams wrote in the New York Times on Sept. 6. “To her admirers, she was Supermom.”

After the accident, readership on the site spiked from 1,000 to more than 20,000, the Times reported.

Nielson’s nomination raised the issue of what constituted Mormon of the Year. Was it fame, moral courage or being a good example of LDS values? Many argued she did more for the faith than anyone else.

“Stephanie and Courtney have changed my life,” wrote one voter known only as “SJC.” “I knew nothing about LDS before them, and now I have faces and names and morals and reasoning behind the church . . . stories about their upbringing and their community, their traditions.”

But Larsen reminded voters that “how righteous the person is or how faithful they are to the teachings of the LDS Church isn’t the point. . . [Stephanie and Courtney] obviously have a base of very loyal fans, but most of the world has never heard of them.

In the end, Times and Seasons staff went with Romney, Larsen said, because he had “the greatest impact or influence on Mormons and Mormonism in 2008.”

pstack@sltrib.com

Share on Facebook

Share This

~~John Cronin~~

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123094029415750267.html?mod=b_hpp_barrons_most_viewed_day

The bubble in Treasuries looks ready to pop, sending prices on government debt sharply lower. But just about every other corner of the bond market beckons — and could provide competitive returns with stocks, even if the equity markets have a strong 2009.

THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT BUBBLE TODAY may involve one of the safest asset classes: U.S. Treasuries. Yields have plunged to some of the lowest levels since the 1940s as investors, fearful of a sustained global economic downturn and potential deflation, have rushed to purchase government-issued debt. The market also has been supported by comments from the Federal Reserve that it, too, may buy long-term Treasuries. - As a result, the benchmark 10-year Treasury note yields just 2.40%, down from 3.85% as recently as mid-November. The 30-year T-bond stands at 2.82%, and three-month Treasury bills were sold last week for a yield of just 0.05%. - Many investors argue it’s dangerous to buy Treasuries with such low yields. While a holder can expect to get repaid in full at maturity, the price of longer-term Treasuries could fall sharply in the interim if yields rise. The 30-year T-bond, for instance, would drop 25% in price if its yield rose to 4.35%, where it stood as recently as Nov. 13. The bear market may have begun Wednesday, when prices of 30-year Treasuries fell 3%. They lost another 3% Friday. - ”

Get out of Treasuries. They are very, very expensive,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., warned recently. Pimco runs the country’s largest bond fund, Pimco Total Return (ticker: PTTPX). - Treasuries offer little or no margin of safety if the economy unexpectedly strengthens in 2009, or the dollar weakens significantly, or inflation shows signs of reaccelerating. Yields on 30-year Treasuries easily could top 4% by year end.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The first was that a schlub like Al Franken could be elected to the U.S. Senate. I know there will be lawsuits and that the Dems have postponed plans to seat the illustrious Mr. Franken, but still, the mere fact that this clown has gotten as close as he has is an indication of how far we have sunk as a nation. Twenty years ago, I used to change the channel when a skit on SNL would feature this bore. If you would have predicted that someday this guy would be a U.S. Senator or even an almost U.S. Senator, I would have wondered about your brain chemistry.

The second headline that was viewed in disbelief was: “Hamas: Israel sanctions the killing of children.” Hamas SPECIALIZES in the killing of children, Israeli children, Arab children or any other children unlucky enough to be in the vicinity of one of their bombs when they go off. Hamas is one of the most violent, corrupt and cynical organizations on the face of the earth. They love violence when they can practice their deadly craft with impunity, but when the Israeli Defense Force comes after the child murdering cowards they scurry down into their spider holes and wait for the “international community” to call for a “humanitarian cease fire” which gives them a breather and allows Iran to re-arm them with ammunition and missiles. Here’s hoping the IDF sends Hamas back to the Stone Age.

The third headline was from Sen. Diane Feinstein of California. The Senator is miffed that she wasn’t “informed” by Barack Obama about his plans to nominate Leon Panetta as the new head of the CIA. Actually, this headline caused a double rub of the eyes. The first rub because Mr. Panetta has ZERO experience in the intel community and the second rub came because O hasn’t even taken office and already the honeymoon is over. It’s roughly the equivalent of a newly married couple getting into an argument in the limo on the way to the airport, as they head off to Aruba.

It’s stuff like this that keeps me hooked on politics and world events. Truly, never a dull moment!

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

BLITZER: And welcome back to LATE EDITION. I’m Wolf Blitzer in Washington. For my next guest, a precarious situation in the U.S. automobile industry is certainly a family affair. The former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s father led American Motors back in the 1950s. Some have suggested that Governor Romney would be a good choice, by the way, to spearhead the industry’s recovery, to in effect become the car czar. We’re going to talk about that, the economy, and a lot more. The governor is joining us from Salt Lake City.

But first, I want to get your reaction, Governor Romney, to what’s happening in the Middle East right now. Are you with the Israelis? Are you with the Palestinians right now? Where do you see this situation unfolding?

ROMNEY: Well, you look at the — their current circumstances in Gaza, and you say to yourself, why in the world did Israel allow the rockets to be blasted into Israel year after year, 6,400 rockets shot into Israel without real military response?

From the very beginning, there should have been response to say this is unacceptable. Hamas was very clearly not a government intent on helping their people. When sovereignty was give on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, they didn’t build roads, they didn’t build hospitals, they didn’t build schools or businesses. Instead, they bought rockets, millions and millions of dollars worth of rockets. They were intent on destroying Israel. And in a circumstance like that, Israel has no choice but to take military action. They’re taking it now. It’s terribly unfortunate. But the cause of this is the constant attack over the last several years by Hamas.

BLITZER: The Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus on Friday railed against Barack Obama , and he said this. I’m going to play the little clip and translation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KHALED MESHAAL, HAMAS LEADER (through translator): Mr. Obama, your beginning is not good. You got involved and you had a statement regarding the issue of Mumbai, but you would not get involved and say anything about the enemy’s crime against Gaza. Enough of your double standards, oh, western nations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you have confidence that the incoming president is, from your perspective, going to do the right thing as far as the Middle East is concerned?

ROMNEY: I believe that Barack Obama is firmly behind Israel’s right to protect itself. He said so time and time again in debates as well as in statements since his election. The United States is committed to doing what’s right here. This is obviously a big question for a lot of countries because they look at the opportunity to trade with over a billion Muslims, many of them angry with regards to the Palestinian effort. But, in fact, Israel is in the right in this circumstance. They are an independent nation. They’ve been attacked time and time again by Hamas. And an independent nation has a right to protect itself against this kind of attack.

BLITZER: What do you think of this national security team that he’s putting together, the president-elect, with Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state, Jim Jones, the retired U.S. marine corps commandant, the national security adviser, and holding onto Robert Gates as defense secretary?

ROMNEY: I think you have to be pretty encouraged. If you’re a conservative, obviously conservatives have had some difficulty with Hillary Clinton over the years, but she does have experience and she has some perspective with regards to foreign policy that I think will be useful. And General Jones and of course continuing with Secretary Gates is very, very encouraging. These are people who have been tested time and time again. I don’t think you’re going to see a dramatic departure from the historic commitment that we have to peace and prosperity in the world and the cause of democracy.

BLITZER: He’s talking about a $750 billion economic stimulus package. He wants it to be passed as soon as possible. It’s unclear if whether it can be passed before he’s inaugurated on January 20th. What do you think about this proposal?

ROMNEY: Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress would have dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could assign that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.

I’d move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We’ll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies. But let’s not make this a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects.

That would be wrong. You’ll see Republicans fight that tooth and nail if that happens. Let’s do what’s right for the economy, and let’s not do what’s a political expedient move.

BLITZER: The economic bailout that the president approved for Chrysler and for General Motors just a couple of weeks or so ago, you’re not thrilled by that, are you?

ROMNEY: No. I think we lost an opportunity there, and maybe we can get the opportunity again in the next several months. But frankly, the U.S. auto industry, the domestic manufacturers, have every reason to thrive and to succeed in this country. There’s no reason for them to continue to lose share as they have over the past 20 years, if they are restructured. And if the excessive costs which they have in health care, in retiree benefits, in work rules, and in labor rates, if those things are brought in line with the foreign manufacturers who make cars here in the U.S., if they’re brought in line, the domestic manufacturers can succeed.

But we had the opportunity to do that, to bring the costs in line, the UAW balked, the industry balked, managers balked in the various company, and the job didn’t get done. And just bailing them out and funding a continuation of the historic loss of market share is not good for the industry long term. I want this industry to thrive and grow, and it can.

BLITZER: Do you think that they can come up with a plan, the auto industry, by the end of March, which they’re supposed to do, now that they’ve been given this lifeline?

ROMNEY: Well, it doesn’t take very long to come up with a plan. The answer for what’s necessary for the industry is pretty straightforward. The question is whether management and the unions will actually take the necessary action. And the only way that they’re going do that is if they realize they don’t have any alternative. And when government is willing to write checks and became them out and continue the status quo, they’re just funding a continuation of the decline of the industry.

You’re going to have to stand up to the UAW and to management and say, these are the changes that have to happen, and if you do these things, we’ll give you the financial relief you need, and if you don’t, we’re not going to help you at all. And that’s the only kind of leverage I think that’s going to get the UAW and management to take the necessary action.

BLITZER: You said you liked the president-elect’s national security team he’s putting together. What do you think about his economic team?

ROMNEY: You know, there are some very good people there. I’m very pleased with the person that’s going to be running Treasury. He’s a capable, experienced individual, having run the Federal Reserve or been chief of the Federal Reserve in New York. I’m very hopeful.

ROMNEY: Look, this is a time when we’re all hopeful for the president-elect. He was kind enough to call our home when my wife was ill, and he said that he and Michelle had my wife in their prayers, and I said, Mr. President-elect, Ann and I have you in our prayers. And we do.

All Americans — Republicans, Democrats, Independents — want to see this president successful. He’s chosen good people. If they do the right thing and put politics to the side and instead focus on what’s right for the nation at such a critical time, we’re all going to be behind him.

BLITZER: I notice in “The Wall Street Journal” on December 27th they ask you for your 2009 resolutions. Among your professional resolution, you said this, “I want to help restore balance in Washington. Our democracy needs two strong parties if we are to deal effectively with the challenges our nation faces.”

On a personal note, you said stop wearing a suit and tie to bed, which was very cute. But let’s talk a little bit about the Republican Party right now in opposition. Who is the leader right now of the Republican Party?

ROMNEY: Well, the great thing about our party right now is there’s no one leader. We have voices from Washington as well as across the nation. You just heard from Governor Sanford, but there are other great governors across the country that are making a real difference, Haley Barbour , Bobby Jindal . I won’t go through the whole list, but you’ve got quite a group of Republican governors and then of course in the Senate and the House, you’ve got strong voices.

And we’ll be listening to those voices. Senator McCain continues to have an influence in the party of significance. And I think you’re going to find that we will, as a party, represent a strong and viable pathway for America to strengthen our economy. That’s issue number one right now, is to get this economy going again, not with old political favors being paid back and earmarks being applied but, instead, by taking action to reduce taxes on the American people and on American business.

BLITZER: Who’s your choice to be the next chairman of the Republican National Committee?

ROMNEY: You know, I haven’t weighed in on that, Wolf. There are several good people who are running. In some respects, I’d hope for a very visible and prominent name to step forward. But that hasn’t happened to date. I don’t think it’s likely to at this stage, but there’s some folks who have been running the state parties and their respective states and some have also been running the national republican committee already.

So, among them, I think you’ll find that the committee chooses someone who can guide our party at a critical time. But really, I think the most powerful voices of the party are going to be elected officials in the Senate, in the House, and in governors’ offices.

BLITZER: You’d probably be a pretty good candidate if you wanted to throw your hat in the ring. Is that something you’re interested in doing?

ROMNEY: Not interested in that race, thanks. I’m going to continue to fight for electing conservative Republicans across the nation. I’m going to do that by fund raising, by giving speeches, by writing op-eds, doing whatever I can to talk about the need to have a strong second party in this country and balancing the overwhelming lead that the Democrats have in Washington right now.

BLITZER: Governor Romney, happy new year to you and your family. Thanks very much for joining us.

ROMNEY: Thanks, Wolf. Good to be with you.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The historic precedent I am using to base my opinion on is the post WW I inflation in Germany.

~~John Cronin~~

Welcome to ATR’s RNCDebate.org website.

What political response has the RNC made to address the potentially inflationary effects of the massive growth in the money supply we have seen as a result of the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve’s efforts to stimulate the economy in the wake of the bursting of the credit bubble?
John Cronin | PERMALINK | January 03, 2009 • 7:32PM | Q#: 436 | Vote TOTAL: 0

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’ll grant you that, especially in hard left circles, the prospect of another Romney run in 2012 is as welcome as the news from your dentist that you need a root canal. Be that as it may, although nothing can be guaranteed this far in advance and we will of course have to wait for Gov. Romney to declare his intentions, one way or the other, my own personal opinion is that Gov. Romney enjoys the blood sport of politics and relishes the thought of getting back in the game in 2012.

If that is what he and his family decide, we here at Committed to Romney will re-start the campaign with glee and abandon!

~~John Cronin~~

Postmodern Conservative

By: James Ceaser

While 2012 is far off, at least one scion is already prominently mentioned as a presidential contender: Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, made a credible bid at the Republican nomination in 2008, and is widely expected to run again. His father, George Romney, first achieved fame as chief executive of the now-defunct American Motors, and parlayed his CEO reputation into six years as governor of Michigan. He sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, until a gaffe made him a national laughingstock (he said that a trip to Vietnam had given him a “brainwashing”). His son Mitt followed in his father’s path, building a successful business career before entering politics and mounting a losing but respectable challenge to Senator Edward Kennedy. Romney then burnished his managerial reputation by taking over the administration of the troubled 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. He returned to Massachusetts to be elected governor, where he began a shift to the right, which continued during his bid for the Republican nomination last year. Mitt Romney shows many of his clan’s more positive attributes - good looks, a knack for business (an asset in troubled economic times), a large personal fortune, an appealing family — but it remains to be seen whether his devotion to Mormonism will serve as an obstacle, now more to those on the Left than evangelicals, to his further ambitions. 




Share on Facebook

Share This

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5014F120090102

By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Governors of five U.S. states urged the federal government to provide $1 trillion in aid to the country’s 50 states to help pay for education, welfare and infrastructure as states struggle with steep budget deficits amid a deepening recession.
The governors of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin — all Democrats — said the initiative for the two-year aid package was backed by other governors and follows a meeting in December where governors called on President-elect Barack Obama to help them maintain services in the face of slumping revenues.

Gov. David Paterson of New York said 43 states now have budget deficits totaling some $100 billion as tax revenues plunge.

“It’s clear that the federal government needs to step in and jump-start the economy,” said Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.

The latest package calls for $350 billion to create jobs by building or repairing roads, bridges and other public works; $250 billion to maintain education; and another $250 billion in “counter-cyclical” spending such as extending unemployment benefits and food stamps, which are typically a responsibility of the states.

The remainder would be used to fund middle-class tax cuts, stimulate the embattled housing market, and stem the tide of home foreclosures through a loan-modification program.

Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey said he hoped some of the $700 billion authorized by Congress in the Troubled Asset Relief Program would be available to help the housing market.

The governors said during a conference call with reporters that the plan had been discussed with Congressional leaders and the incoming administration, which had indicated its willingness to help.
“The Obama team has been very receptive in listening to us,” said Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin. He said “quite a number” of other governors back the initiative.

The Republican Governors Association, however, said the level of federal aid being sought would create a burden for the future.

“The proposal by the Democratic governors goes beyond things like ’shovel-ready’ infrastructure projects and is essentially a bailout of these states’ general funds,” Nick Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association, said in a statement. “Now is the time to focus on finding cost-effective ways to provide essential services without burdening future generations with ever greater debt.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

The article deals with some of the leading figures in the election, but I wanted to excerpt the part that deals with Gov. Romney. I know this can be categorized as “water under the bridge” but it is still encouraging to hear another opinion from the political right, other that the Mike Huckabee looneys who are forever decrying doctrinal deviations.

~~John Cronin~~

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

The Republican contest may well end on Tuesday, but I sense little relief and much unease. In terms of avowed programs, policies and approaches, Mitt Romney was the more conservative candidate, and his even-keeled air won many friends. He offered executive experience and business acumen. As for how he came across, here is Mike Deaver on Ronald Reagan: “This is a face that when the baby sees it, the baby smiles.”

His supporters tell me he will fight to the end. The conservative establishment still has hopes. But the great unruly base may be doing some redefining.

If you go by the Florida returns, maybe this year positions aren’t everything. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who suffered 5½ years in the Hanoi Hilton. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who has endured a lifetime in the rounds in Washington and survived as antispending, antiabortion and pro-military. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the old fighter jock who’ll keep the country safe in a rocky time ahead. And maybe Republicans on the ground are saying: He earned it.

The conventional wisdom is Mr. Romney can’t win it while Mike Huckabee’s in it. If Mr. Huckabee dropped out, Mr. Romney might pick up his conservatives. But Mr. Huckabee seems very happy running, and perhaps happy thinking of his future as the Mitt slayer in the party of John.

Mr. McCain seems to me to have two immediate problems, both of which he might address. One is that he doesn’t seem to much like conservatives, and never has. They can’t help admire him, but they’ve disagreed with him on so many issues, and when they bring this up his demeanor tends to morph into the second problem: He radiates, he telegraphs, a certain indignation at being questioned by people who’ve never had to vote in Congress and make a deal. He’s like Moe Greene in “The Godfather,” when Michael Corleone tells him he’s going to buy him out. “Do you know who I am? I’m Moe Greene. I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders.” I’ve been on the firing line, punk. I am the voice of surviving conservatism.

This doesn’t always go over so well. Mr. Giuliani seems to know Mr. McCain is Moe Greene. Mr. Huckabee probably thought “The Godfather” was kinda violent. Mr. Romney may be thinking to himself, But Michael Corleone won in the end, and had better suits.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

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

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

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

~~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 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

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

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

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

~~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

~~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

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

~~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

~~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