About that Perry Debate Blunder

Everyone has their own take on Perry's debate meltdown, in which he froze while attempting to remember the names of the departments he would eliminate.  Many of Perry's ardent supporters are devastated by this seemingly fatal mistake.  However, I would point to two observations about Perry's utter lack of ability to articulate his message.

1) This was bound to come out at some point.  Whether he was able to remember the three departments tonight or not, the result would have been the same.  Perry would have been a debater in the general election debates.  The bottom line is that you can survive the general election as a mediocre debater, but not a disastrous one.

2) Despite the fact that many suggest Perry's hear is in the right place (conservatism), do we really want to nominate someone who cannot articulate those convictions?

It is an unfortunate end to a very promising candidate.  I never thought I would say this, but I'm beginning to wonder if Newt Gingrich is the only electable alternative "conservative" to Romney.

A Conservative Look at Perry's Economic Plan

When Herman Cain proposed his 9-9-9 plan, many conservatives became energized, despite their misgivings with the fine print of the plan.  It wasn’t so much the details of the proposal that excited the base, as most conservatives intuitively recoiled from a consumption tax; it was the boldness of the plan that resonated with them.  Cain’s 9-9-9 brought some excitement to a race that was defined by a frontrunner who offered 160 pages of banal fluff.  Nevertheless, his plan was too flawed to be utilized as a viable rallying cry in the general election.  Perry appears to have proposed both a viable and bold economic plan, albeit with some inevitable flaws.

Here is a synopsis of all of the major components.

Tax Plan

The centerpiece of the plan is a flat individual income tax of 20%.  This would serve as a vehicle for massive economic growth, as it offers a huge tax cut for job-creators who currently pay as much as 35%.  However, unlike the traditional Steve Forbes flat tax, this proposal would keep the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state and local taxes for those earning less than $500,000 (over 99% of taxpayers).  It would also offer a standard deduction of $12,500 per household members.  Consequently, a family of four earning $50,000 would have a zero tax liability.  Update: Phillip Klein reports that the employer tax exclusion for healthcare would remain until Obamacare is repealed.

Moreover, the entire system would preserve the option to remain under the current tax code.  As such, the 47% who have zero tax liability and the 29% who have a positive tax liability (as a result of the EITC and Additional Child Tax Credit), would have no incentive to move to the flat tax.  Accordingly, there would be two shortcomings to this plan:

Chris Christie is Intellectually Dishonest

Earlier today, Chris Christie endorsed Mitt Romney for president, describing him as “a real hero in Republican circles.”  During his announcement, he disparaged conservatives who oppose Romneycare, by suggesting that any attempt to compare it to Obamacare is “completely intellectually dishonest.”  Governor Christie might want to look in the mirror or step down as a prominent spokesman for the Republican Party.
Any attempt to suggest that the two healthcare plans are fundamentally different is completely intellectually dishonest.

Romney on Romneycare


“Let me tell you this about our system in Massachusetts: 92 percent of our people were insured before we put our plan in place. Nothing’s changed for them. The system is the same. They have private market-based insurance.  We had 8 percent of our people that weren’t insured. And so what we did is we said let’s find a way to get them insurance, again, market-based private insurance. We didn’t come up with some new government insurance plan.” (FoxNews-Google Debate, Sept. 22)

Reality


Like every egregious government intervention in the private sector, MassCare drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion.  Massachusetts individual health premiums are now the highest in the nation.   The other 92% are being forced to pay higher premiums for what is no longer “market-based insurance.”  The 8% that are “uninsured” were put on government programs, primarily Medicaid.  That’s exactly what Obama seeks to do with Obamacare.  The costs will be even higher once the federal government stops subsidizing Romneycare through extra Medicaid grants.

Romney Finally Getting Hit on Romneycare

While there is much needless focus on whether a Mormon can be elected, there is much less focus on whether the man who created the antecedent to Obamacare can win the Republican nomination.  Until recently, the Republican presidential field has largely left Romney unscathed.  That is about to change, as Rick Perry goes full throttle on Romneycare.  Here is his latest ad:

The Bipartisan Social Security Demagoguery Must End Now

The source of the 76-year old monstrous lie 

The recent Social Security demagoguery that has been propagated by Mitt Romney and other big-government apologists is truly repugnant.  Accusing those who desire to preserve and expand personal retirement – of eliminating Social Security for seniors is akin to an arsonist blaming firefighters for fanning the flames.  It was the very big-government statists like Romney who obfuscated and corrupted the original intent of Social Security; it is the modern day constitutional conservatives who desire to solve the SS insolvency – with a solution that corrects those vices.

On October 29, 1936, in a campaign speech that was rife with virulent class warfare, FDR spoke at length of his one-year old Social Security Act.  He told the assembled crowd of blue collar workers in Wilkes-Barre, PA that their payroll taxes would be “held by the Government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.”  He referred to Social Security as an insurance program numerous times throughout the speech, concluding that “in effect, we have set up a savings account for the old age of the worker.” (emphasis added)

It’s a shame Congressman Joe Wilson wasn’t around during the speech.  He would have bellowed out an emphatic “YOU LIE.”  As Walter Williams noted, from the inception of Social Security, its advocates lied to the American people by categorizing the program as a secure savings account or insurance plan, with a defined distribution commensurate to the original contribution, which would be guaranteed as an irrevocable right.  The original government pamphlet on Social Security promised that “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. … The checks will come to you as a right.”

It is conservatives – those who criticize its current stewardship as a Ponzi scheme – who seek to preserve and restructure the program to reflect the way it was originally advertised.  Unfortunately, the original Social Security Act was written by malfeasants who deliberately misled the public about the true nature of the law.

Mitt Romney's Political Platform is a Ponzi Scheme

His transient political views are unsustainable in the GOP primary.
Mitt Romney might feel that entitlement reform is an electoral loser, but it is precisely his unprincipled Mittness Protection Program of a political platform that will lose him the nomination.  Republicans are looking for a leader – and leaders show courage by articulating bold solutions to our most consequential public policy problems, such as retirement security; not by ducking behind them and palavering liberal demagoguery.

You see, Romney's political platform, much like Social Security, is a Ponzi scheme.  His convictions, like the Social Security Trust Fund, are vapid of substance.  He supplies his current political platform with capricious policy stances that serve to sustain perceived political benefits in the future.  In that sense, his is the ultimate career politician, albeit an unsuccessful one.

He thinks that by offering 160 pages of tepid fluff, with a one-sentence oblique reference to Social Security insolvency, he will be served well in the general election.  He is also wagering that spewing Mediscare-style demagoguery will carry him through the primary.  Well, it didn't work for his father against Barry Goldwater in 1964; it certainly won't work in the era of the Tea Party and a mature, well-oiled conservative base.


Republican voters are looking for somebody who will lead public opinion, by turning the tables on Obama's Mediscare tactics.  Our nominee must complete his sentences and explain why the fact that SS is a Ponzi scheme – is reason enough to engender full-scale reform.  He must show how Obama's status quo will lead to draconian cuts, higher taxes, and delayed retirement, while his (or her) plan will preserve and expand retirement security through the empowerment of the individual, instead of government schemers.

What is Karl Rove's Plan for Social Security?

Karl Rove is joining the left-wing/Romney camp alliance against Rick Perry's candid statements about Social Security in his book, Fed Up.  Even Baghdad Jim McDermott is praising Karl Rove's broadside on Perry.  Earlier today, on Good Morning America, Rove had this to say about Perry's condemnation of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme in his book:

What they’ve done thus far is, I think, inadequate. Which is to basically say, “look, we didn’t write the book with the presidential campaign in mind.” Well, okay, fine. But they are going to have to find a way to deal with these things. Because, as you say, they are toxic in a general election environment and they are also toxic in a Republican primary. If you say Social Security is a failure and ought to be replaced by a state-level program, then people are going to say: “What do you mean by that?”

Actually, Karl, the Perry campaign hasn't done an inadequate job of disavowing his stance on Social Security.  In fact, he hasn't disavowed it at all; he has doubled-down on it.  Last week, Perry reiterated his convictions by wisely clarifying his Social Security stance as directed towards younger workers: “It [Social Security] is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they’re working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie.  It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can’t do that to them.”

We all know that Mr. Rove has a trenchant view of conventional wisdom, but maybe this election won't follow conventional wisdom.  Maybe this time, people are looking for someone to purvey the truth to the American people.

And what is the truth about Social Security?

OK, Obama, Repeal the Entire Payroll Tax..But Save Social Security

After Labor Day, Obama plans to unveil his highly unanticipated jobs plan.  Much like his first jobs plan, this one will include massive stimulus handouts to special interests, prodigal infrastructure spending (as much as $556 billion), unprecedented extensions of unemployment benefits, and more welfare transfer payments.  Concurrently, he will inveigh against "rich" job creators and offer a healthy dose of vapid rhetoric regarding regulatory reform.  However, there will be something new – something more appealing to the skeptical electorate; extending the one-year cut in payroll taxes.

Obama intuitively knows that his failed Keynesian policies have been checkmated, and will no longer resonate with the public.  Accordingly, he plans to one-up Republicans in their own playbook, by offering a tax cut.  He will request that Congress renew the payroll tax cut for another year, keeping the employee's share of the tax at 4.2%.

While conservatives support any and every tax cut they can achieve, Obama knows that they are tepid regarding the payroll tax holiday.  Unlike most other broad-based, universal taxes, the payroll tax is used to fund a specific expenditure, and perhaps, the most important one – Social Security.  As Congressman Jeb Hensarling observes, “not all tax relief is created equal.” If we fail to collect such a whopping sum of the tax that purveys the trust fund, won't we bankrupt Social Security even further?  At a time when Social Security Disability Insurance is already running dry, Obama plans to bankrupt the old age trust fund by another $120 billion.

Oh, whoops, I forgot; there is no trust fund.  It has been run like a Ponzi scheme all along.

Rick Perry Nails it on Social Security

Rick Perry, more than any other candidate, has had the courage to call out Social Security for the Ponzi scheme that it is.  Yesterday, he made it clear that he is not backing away from the position he articulated in his book that Social security must be reformed for the younger generation:

(Video-courtesy of the left-wing site, Think Progress, that thinks there is something wrong with reforming Social Security so young workers aren't forced into a Ponzi scheme.)

Perry vs. Obama at Age 22

A picture is worth a thousand words.

George W. Bush in 1999 vs. Rick Perry in 2011

How Much We Have Grown As Conservatives 

Watching Governor Rick Perry’s speech at the Red State Gathering, I was struck by the degree to which conservatism has grown at the highest levels of electoral politics, including presidential elections, over the past decade.

Twelve years ago, another Texan, George W. Bush, announced his presidential bid by ushering in a new era of conservatism.  At the time, following the longest Republican exile from the presidency since the ’60s, many conservatives were willing to jump on the bandwagon of the first viable Republican candidate, irrespective of his veiled insults to conservatism.

Here is an excerpt from President Bush’s announcement speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on June 12, 1999:

“I’m running because my party must match a conservative mind with a compassionate heart. [...]
It is conservative to insist on education standards, basics and local control. It is compassionate to make sure that not one single child gets left behind.
I know this approach has been criticized. But why? Is compassion beneath us? Is mercy below us? Should our party be led by someone who boasts of a hard heart? I know Republicans – across the country — are generous of heart. I am confident the American people view compassion as a noble calling. The calling of a nation where the strong are just and the weak are valued.
I am proud to be a compassionate conservative. I welcome the label. And on this ground I’ll take my stand.”

The inconspicuous implication of Bush’s newfound dictum was that pure, unadulterated conservatism, while perspicacious in theory, lacked inherent compassion in its application.  He felt that it must be tempered with big government handouts and control over the educational system.  Consequently, upon assumption of the presidency, President Bush ushered in a new era of big government conservatism; an oxymoron, if there ever was one.  He governed with a muddled concoction of conservatism (pro-life and tax cuts) mixed with “compassion” aka statism (the largest expansion of government at the time).  And as the saying goes, the rest is history.

Rick Perry's Announcement in South Carolina

In case you missed it, here is Rick Perry's announcement speech at our very own Red State Gathering in Charleston, South Carolina:

You can read the full text of this historic announcement here.