Imagine the huge impact on the U.S. if we could find jobs for teen age males and engage them productively before they get themselves into trouble. What a boon this would be for America. The beauty is that it doesn’t require a government program. It simply requires more freedom, freedom to let each worker sell his or her productivity for what the market will bear. More…
By Tom Quiner
The theme of Barack Obama’s campaign is fairness.
Taking his cue from the Occupy Wall Street Crowd, he targets capitalism and Big Business as the root cause of our problems. Envy is the foundation of his message: you are downtrodden because the “rich” are making money on your backs. The job of government is to take from the rich and redistribute it to the ninety-nine percent in the name of fairness.
Mr. Obama obviously cannot run on his record. It is a disaster, but irrelevant to the legions of voters who buy into the politics of envy. He’ll be tough to beat.
The second theme is liberty, as touted by Ron Paul.
Mr. Paul deserves credit for delivering a consistent message that our freedom is dependent upon adherence to the Constitution. In that sense, he is the anti-Obama. Mr. Paul’s take on the Constitution swerves to the Left in the realm of foreign policy. Most don’t buy into the isolationism he touts. But I respect much of what he says economically, even though his style grates on me.
My concern is that too many Americans are apathetic about their freedoms. Team Obama is targeting our religious and economic liberties with a brazen disregard for the Constitution.
They have expanded the budget of government, the number of federal union employees (90% of whom vote Democrat), and federal regulations at the expense of the Constitution and liberty.
Ron Paul’s message of Liberty is vital. Will it resonate?
The third theme is Prosperity.
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum all espouse this theme in some form or other. Mssrs. Romney and Santorum gear their rhetoric a little more strongly toward “job creation,” which isn’t bad. But the only way, the ONLY WAY Republicans can win is with a strong, unabashed message of economic prosperity.
Unfortunately, Mitt Romney carries so much baggage, he probably can’t beat the incumbent. His experience at Bain Capital, right or wrong, feeds into the perception that he represents the 1%, that his experience pits him in an adversarial role against the ninety-nine percent.
I’m in the marketing business and perception is reality.
Can Mitt Romney change the perception that he is an elitist? It will be tough. The media will side with Obama. They will trumpet the president’s class-warfare rhetoric to every corner of the earth.
I’m concerned that Mr. Romney can’t sufficiently galvanize conservative voters. His record as Governor of Massachusetts is abysmal. He signed Romneycare into law, the model for Obamacare. Everyone already knows that. They don’t know that his record for appointing judges was also poor with many liberals getting appointed to the bench.
He left office with a dozen unfilled judgeships for his liberal successor, Deval Patrick, to fill.
His association with Bain Capital makes Mr. Romney suspect, too. Bain Capital gives money to lots of politicians. When you look at the politicians they gave the most money to, 26 out of 29 were Democrats.
They gave money to Ted Kennedy.
They gave money to Al Franken, John Kerry, and Anthony Weiner.
Mr. Obama’s prescription for economic growth is Keynesian-oriented, or in other words, Obamanomics Lite with loose-money monetary policy and targeted tax cuts to politically-favored classes.
Newt Gingrich has a fabulous economic plan, but he is bogged down in a tit-for-tat campaign with Romney.
In tonight’s debate, I’d like to see the Republicans proclaim a positive message. They should take their cue from Ronald Reagan who exuded hope in this excerpt from a 1964 speech:
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ” ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’ “
Or this excerpt from his 1985 inaugural address:
“We are creating a nation once again vibrant, robust, and alive. There are many mountains yet to climb. We will not rest until every American enjoys the fullness of freedom, dignity, and opportunity as our birthright. It is our birthright as citizens of this great republic.”
Or this excerpt from his 1981 inaugural address:
“It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work — work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”
And finally, savor his positive characterization of the beauty of the free enterprise system:
“We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success — only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.”
Three themes are on the table in this campaign: fairness, liberty, and prosperity.
Prosperity is THE message that will resonate with the most people.
By Tom Quiner
I like something about each Republican candidate.
There is something I very much like about Rick Santorum: he is authentic.
This is a huge deal in the year 2012. Many Republicans look at Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich and have concerns about what they really stand for.
Independent voters have legitimate concerns about what Barack Obama really stands for (see: Do you really trust Barack Obama more than Newt Gingrich; and “Gingrich v Obama: who is really more trustworthy?”)
Rick Santorum, along with Ron Paul, stand out for presenting a consistent, authentic message. Agree or not, voters have little doubt that Rick Santorum is sincere in his convictions. If he is elected, we know what we’re getting. That case can’t be made with Mitt Romney. Although I think we can count on Newt Gingrich to deliver high stakes conservative accomplishment, too many Republicans and Independents don’t share my confidence.
Not so with Rick Santorum. Wall Street Journal columnist and best-selling author, Peggy Noonan, describes him with hefty adjectives that make us stop and listen closely. She describes him as “intelligent, accomplished, experienced, highly sophisticated, someone not screaming a slogan or selling a book.”
In other words, serious.
His economic plan is pro-growth, but not as robust as New Gingrich’s. He wants to simplify the tax code by reducing deductions and rates. Good.
He wants to lower capital gains tax rates. Good. President Obama, his economic instincts always exactly wrong, wants to increase it. Newt Gingrich, though, wants to eliminate it which would have a tremendously positive impact on new business and job creation. Although Gingrich’s plan is better, Santorum’s instincts are good on everything except this: he wants a targeted reduction in corporate income tax rates for manufacturers.
Sounds good, but we don’t government picking winners and losers. Both parties have done way too much of this over the years. Mr. Obama’s embarrassing green energy industrial policy is the latest case in point.
Like every candidate, Rick Santorum has some winning ideas, some that look to be less winning when it comes to the economy. What he offers more than every single candidate, though, is character.
That is worth a lot.
By Tom Quiner
Just when you think the media can’t crane to the left any further, they surprise you.
Take ABC’s George Stephanopoulos with this question in last night’s Republican debate:
[Do you believe] “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”
Think about this question.
As Mitt Romney, the target of the question, pointed out, no state is interested in banning contraception.
No candidate is calling for a ban on contraception.
Not even the Catholic Church is calling for legislation to ban all contraception. (The Church believes that “contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love.” They only call for the ban of contraception approaches that are known abortifacients.)
Mr. Stephanopoulos’ goal was to simply stir the pot and try to get Republicans in trouble with a ridiculously obtuse hypothetical question.
Stephanopoulos was joined by another ABC liberal, Diane Sawyer, in setting up questions to pit candidates against each other and portray them in as unfavorable light as possible. One line of questioning involved the sensitive subject of gay marriage.
Newt Gingrich turned the tables with a sharp retort:
“I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?”
Quiner’s Diner has written on all of these subjects. [See “The relentless assault on our religious liberties.] The MSM is pointedly disinterested in the same subjects. I wonder why?
Kudos for Mr. Gingrich for re-framing the question properly. I’d like to see all the candidates employ this technique more frequently.
I thought Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman came across very strong last night. However, so did Romney. Ron Paul came across in his usual uninspiring squeaky whine. Rick Perry did pretty well for Rick Perry.
The two top conservatives, Santorum and Gingrich, need to focus their sites on Romney. Gingrich, in particular, needs to expose Romney’s economic plan for what it is: Keynesian economics, or in other words, Obama Lite. Gingrich alone presents a robust Supply Side economic approach that creates jobs by the bucket full.
Santorum, like Obama, wants to choose winners and losers with targeted tax rates for manufacturers. Let’s not discriminate. Gingrich’s approach benefits all and will put the economy in overdrive quicker than you can say, “Barack Obama, former president of the United States.”
By Tom Quiner
There is only one way Republicans can beat President Obama next year. They must run a pro-growth campaign.
Ronald Reagan did it so beautifully. He appealed to the proven track record of American free markets, limited government and taxation, and the glory of entrepreneurship, which is essentially the exact opposite of the Obama approach.
Independent voters are more suspicious of Republicans, whether that’s fair or not. But they respond overwhelmingly to a positive campaign that sells market-driven pro-growth policies. Again, just look at Ronald Reagan’s success.
Our biggest problem isn’t really the national debt, it is slow economic growth imposed on America by Obamanomics.
Each of the Republican candidates have good ideas to promote growth. In reviewing them, Newt Gingrich has the best plan.
Unlike Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, Mr. Gingrich calls for a return to the monetary policies of the Reagan era that reigned in inflation. The loose money policies of the Obama years weakens the dollar and sets the stage for a hidden tax on Americans: inflation.
If we want to get America’s economy jump-started fast when Mr. Obama leaves office, Gingrich’s approach to lower corporate tax rates will be a God-send to our economy. He proposes a 12.5% rate compared to Perry’s 20%, Romney’s 25%, and Obama’s 35%.
Do you know where most of the new jobs come from in this country? From fast, young, growing companies. Retained earnings fuels their growth. Mr. Gingrich recognizes that these companies can use their own earnings better than Big Government to create jobs and grow the economy.
This is exactly what Ireland did in 1995, and their economy exploded, growing at a robust 7.4% a year ever since.
One of my friends who is an Obama supporter found it amusing that I didn’t like the payroll tax cut which Congress recently renewed. He said, “I thought you never met a tax cut you didn’t like.”
Well, the corporate tax rate cut is one I love, and Newt Gingrich has the best plan. If the Gingrich plan is passed, get your resume’ ready, because employers will be hiring again.
The capital gains tax is another tax that has a tremendous impact on the economy and job creation. Mr. Gingrich along with Rick Perry, have the best approach on this tax: eliminate it! Mitt Romney would keep it for wealthier Americans, and President Obama, whose instincts are always wrong when it comes to the economy, wants to raise it.
Why is cutting this tax such a big deal? Because 100% of new jobs come from start up companies. Start ups need investors, sometimes known as “Angels” to provide the start up capital to launch their enterprise. The higher the capital gains rate, the less money those Angels have to invest in dynamic, new companies that create the jobs and prosperity that has made America so great.
Unlike President Obama and Mitt Romney who pick winners and losers with their approach to tax reform, Newt Gingrich’s approach benefits everyone.
Would the Congressional Budget Office like Newt’s approach? No … because their static analysis is incapable of factoring in the surge of new tax revenues the government will enjoy as the economy explodes, just as it did under Ronald Reagan.
[Critics of Ronald Reagan talk about the high deficits during his terms. That was due to a profligate Congress, not a government starved for cash. Congress rejected Mr. Reagan’s budget 7 out of 8 years. Had they implemented it, the budget would have been balanced by 1989.]
Here’s what I’m saying: economic growth means everything to creating jobs and solving our debt problems. Under Obamanomics,long term growth is only projected to be 2.1% . The present value of future revenues is $1900 Trillion. If economic growth increases to merely 2.5%, they double to $3,800 Trillion.
After Reaganomics was passed, GDP grew by 7.4% in 1984 and averaged 3.4% during his two terms.
Economic growth solves a lot of problems. Newt Gingrich has far and away the best economic plan of all the candidates. If you want a higher paycheck and more jobs in this country, vote Newt.