Politics, Government & Public Policy: August 2012 Archives
Actually it's pretty clear what likely happened: the spellers began their spelling from stage-left, their left-hand sides based on the way they were all facing. The far-left guy probably put up an "O", and President Obama followed with an "H". The spelling comes out backwards for the camera, but is correct from the perspective of the participants.
But yeah, it's pretty funny!
(And no, the image wasn't simply reversed... check out the letters on the red shirt behind the quartet.)
(HT: Rachel Weiner, Instapundit.)
Some former special forces and intelligence operatives are claiming that President Obama has leaked secret national security information to make himself look good before the election. You make the call.
I really like Romney's characterization of Obama's election strategy (and the Democrats' in general).
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee accused the president of running a dirty and petty campaign. "He demonizes some. He panders to others," Romney said. "His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces."
The Democrats thrive on identity- and group-base politics. This group versus that group. It is intentionally divisive and it attracts votes by pitting groups against each other.
There's no doubt that individuals in different groups often have different political agendas, but I think the goal should be for the federal government to operate in the zones of commonality. This would mean that the government would be much smaller, but that each program could be designed to achieve 70%+ support from the public. As it is now, very few government programs even get a majority of support.
Congressman David Camp says that tax reform is coming in 2013 no matter who wins the election.
His twin goals are, first, to back America away from the 2013 tax cliff "so that no one's taxes go up," and second to pass tax reform, creating what he calls "a fairer, flatter and simpler tax code that lowers rates, gets rid of lobbyist loopholes, and creates more growth and jobs." Those two goals are pretty much the polar opposite of what the president is seeking.The surprise is that Mr. Camp remains upbeat about accomplishing both, including finally cracking the code on tax reform by the end of next year. It's a sure thing if Mitt Romney wins, he thinks, and even possible in a second Obama term. "The next president, no matter who that is, is going to have to lead on this issue," he insists.
This is certainly a minority opinion--so why the optimism? "We're facing a train wreck with the tax system in 2013. Pretty much the whole tax code expires next year--the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the Alternative Minimum Tax hitting the middle class, the estate tax, and all the rest. Given the weakness of the economy, voters are going to demand that we get this done."
Sounds optimistic, but then that's kinda refreshing.
This article presents two very different views on the looming defense sequestration. It begins:
As the defense industry and its allies in the Pentagon and Congress stepped up their drum beat Wednesday about the dangers that scheduled automatic cuts in the defense budget pose to national security and the economy, there could be little doubt that Congress and the White House will block or defang those cuts by the end of the year.
Which makes it sound like the sequester is DOA, right? But look at the end of the article:
Foreign policy and defense expert Gordon Adams of the Henry L. Stimson Center wrote this week that the current projection of a flat defense budget is "the most moderate and shallow build down we have ever experienced" since the end of the Korean War. He said the last three defense build downs saw defense resources actually fall, on average, 30 percent in constant dollars over ten years. Even with a sequester, the overall cut of an additional $500 billion, in round numbers, would be only 17 percent, and that's from a budget that was projected to grow."We're a long way from doomsday,"Adams said, adding that "all the political hair tearing, garment rendering, and teeth gnashing" by defense executives and lawmakers was unfounded.
So, perhaps in the end it will be easier to do nothing, and the sequester will happen. I'm sure there will be a lot of posturing and playing chicken, but in the end if the sequester is to be prevented the repeal will require 60 votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Apparently President Obama really dislikes Mitt Romney.
When President Obama talked about Mitt Romney in recent months, "aides picked up a level of anger he never had for (Hillary) Clinton or (John) McCain," writes Politico's Glenn Thrush in Obama's Last Stand, which will be out on Aug. 20.Thrush notes that Obama "began campaign preparations feeling neutral about Romney, but like the former governor's GOP opponents in 2008 and 2012, he quickly developed a genuine disdain for the man," according to excerpts released by Politico.
Maybe Obama feels this way because he sees that Romney has a strong chance of winning. There was a strong chance for Hillary to beat Obama, but no need to dislike her because she was the presumptive nominee all along. John McCain ran a weak campaign throughout.
