Last week, your wonderful (not to mention humble) blogger, while ruminating on the prospects of a Christie entrance into the Repub primary season, made the NJ governor the focus of a blog post. Earlier this week, as we inched closer and closer to the filing deadline, we received an answer: a definitive "no." The rotund governor had decided against entering the race.
I will not rehash some of the obstacles that Christie would have faced if he had decided to enter the race; but feel free to read my blog post on the subject!
The media's attention had been fixed on Christie and his impending announcement. Certain outlets mentioned how both Perry and Romney (the so-called "front runners") had disappointed the Repub base and that the base was looking for a redeemer--I selected that word for an obvious and sarcastic reason. Christie had the credentials to mount a significant challenge but decided against launching a campaigning crusade.
With Christie as a non-issue, where does that leave the Repub field? The Christian Science Monitor, earlier this week, asked this question in a different way: "Who Wins Chris Christie's Campaign Donors: Mitt Romney or Rick Perry?" It's a fascinating question and one that is, perhaps, the most worthy of investigation.
Rick Perry reported $17 million in donations during quarter three, as compared to Romney's $13 million. In quarter two, however, Romney registered an impressive $18 million. Translated, Perry and Romney have war chests roughly equal. The major Repub donors uncommitted remain prime audiences for the two media recognized "front runners."
This week, Romney secured a not-so-small victory; Ken Langone, co-founder of Home Depot, has announced that he is now backing Mitt Romney. To be sure, Langone brings deep pockets and some friends who have significant net worth themselves.
Meanwhile, FT.com ran an article on Friday discussing Cain's apparent surge in popularity. The former pizza guy and head of the Kansas City FED has proposed overhauling the entire tax system and replacing it with his so-called "9-9-9 plan." According to the authors of this FT article, Stephanie Kirchgaessner and James Politi, it is Cain's "9-9-9 plan" that is "attracting voters' attention." I am confident that his plan has sparked an interest, but I am reluctant to affix complete credit to the plan. But, then again, who cannot find interest in the statement "Our tax code is the 21st century version of slavery."? This gem was included in a Cain campaign ad from last month.
While we are on the topic of tax and tax reform, why not talk about Ron Paul's proposal? Abolish the IRS and repeal the tax code! While we are at it, we might also want to repeal the 16th amendment! A little revolutionary sentiment is good from time to time.
The FT article observes that Romney remains in the lead and that the Cain surge may be temporary. After all, Cain does lack "a serious fundraising base" (to quote the article's authors). And how much money has Romney raised? And Perry?
Cain is a maverick of sorts and what is a maverick to do?
Friday, October 7, 2011
The Poor Job Market: Obama's Challenge
WSJ.com ran an interesting article on Friday, discussing the current unemployment rate and the poor state of the job market; the website requires a membership login but, as per usual, the article includes a nice teaser summarizing the key points.
Last month (September), employers in the U.S. added some 103,000 jobs. (This news was surely embraced by those economists and commentators who eagerly watch for signs of economic improvement.) And, while 103,000 jobs is surely an improvement over the previous months' figures, it is still a somber (and sobering) indication that the U.S. economy remains on unstable footing.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the total number of unemployed Americans sits uncomfortably at some fourteen (14) million--a terrifically terrible number. In August, hiring in the private (which is to say, productive) economy stalled, leading some commentators to opine that we were beginning to enter another pronounced, and potentially, prolonged economic slump. Recently, however, the Labor Department modified its estimate of the number of jobs created in August 2011: they had previously estimated the number at zero--yes, zilch--and now they are claiming the real number is 57,000. While I certainly welcome that number of 57,000, I am forever dubious of the government's official numbers, excluding those from the GAO.
But, I return to the government's statistics--I mean, can I really ignore them? Of course not!
The "National" unemployment rate hovers around 9%. This statistic--a macro number--doesn't always afford the observer with a real indication of the true nature of the employment market. To be sure, 9% remain without work, but the state of the job market remains more paralyzed and uncertain than any individual stat could reveal.
On the inflation front: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' always informative website, the Consumer Price Index rose 0.4 percent in August (as reported on September 15, 2011); unfortunately, numbers for September have yet to be released, although I am confident that they have been tabulated. Interestingly, the food index itself rose 0.5 percent, after rising 0.4 percent in July. The energy index rose 1.2 percent, after rising an uncomfortable 2.8 percent in July. I will resist the temptation to provide analysis on these numbers, but I will say that it is important to keep a focus on the economic data, especially in the campaign season.
Not long ago, President Obama unveiled his "American Jobs Act," aimed at addressing at least a solid portion of the economic mess. Two key tax measures included in this Act are: 1.) cutting the payroll tax cut in half for 98 percent of businesses and; 2.) a complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages. Two non-tax reform measures are: 1.) modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country and; 2.) making immediate investments in infrastructure. Expectedly, the Repubs responded in uniform opposition.
For many, the Obama presidency has been a failure on the domestic policy (i.e., economic policy) front. While the stock market enjoys its roller coaster ride, overall data remain unimpressive, bordering on worrisome. FED Chairman Ben Bernanke has emphasized the FED's willingness to intervene should the situation deteriorate, but he also has simultaneously encouraged Congress "to do more." Does he mean more fiscal stimulus or fiscal restraint?
The Repubs have capitalized on the economic situation and have exploited it for political benefit. Obama's challenge remains the economy more broadly and the job market more specifically. At 9.1% unemployment and not much indication that the number will be substantively reduced, the Repubs can claim that American needs a new policy path--a new trajectory. Within Obama's challenge may exist the Repubs ultimate political tool.
Last month (September), employers in the U.S. added some 103,000 jobs. (This news was surely embraced by those economists and commentators who eagerly watch for signs of economic improvement.) And, while 103,000 jobs is surely an improvement over the previous months' figures, it is still a somber (and sobering) indication that the U.S. economy remains on unstable footing.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the total number of unemployed Americans sits uncomfortably at some fourteen (14) million--a terrifically terrible number. In August, hiring in the private (which is to say, productive) economy stalled, leading some commentators to opine that we were beginning to enter another pronounced, and potentially, prolonged economic slump. Recently, however, the Labor Department modified its estimate of the number of jobs created in August 2011: they had previously estimated the number at zero--yes, zilch--and now they are claiming the real number is 57,000. While I certainly welcome that number of 57,000, I am forever dubious of the government's official numbers, excluding those from the GAO.
But, I return to the government's statistics--I mean, can I really ignore them? Of course not!
The "National" unemployment rate hovers around 9%. This statistic--a macro number--doesn't always afford the observer with a real indication of the true nature of the employment market. To be sure, 9% remain without work, but the state of the job market remains more paralyzed and uncertain than any individual stat could reveal.
On the inflation front: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' always informative website, the Consumer Price Index rose 0.4 percent in August (as reported on September 15, 2011); unfortunately, numbers for September have yet to be released, although I am confident that they have been tabulated. Interestingly, the food index itself rose 0.5 percent, after rising 0.4 percent in July. The energy index rose 1.2 percent, after rising an uncomfortable 2.8 percent in July. I will resist the temptation to provide analysis on these numbers, but I will say that it is important to keep a focus on the economic data, especially in the campaign season.
Not long ago, President Obama unveiled his "American Jobs Act," aimed at addressing at least a solid portion of the economic mess. Two key tax measures included in this Act are: 1.) cutting the payroll tax cut in half for 98 percent of businesses and; 2.) a complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages. Two non-tax reform measures are: 1.) modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country and; 2.) making immediate investments in infrastructure. Expectedly, the Repubs responded in uniform opposition.
For many, the Obama presidency has been a failure on the domestic policy (i.e., economic policy) front. While the stock market enjoys its roller coaster ride, overall data remain unimpressive, bordering on worrisome. FED Chairman Ben Bernanke has emphasized the FED's willingness to intervene should the situation deteriorate, but he also has simultaneously encouraged Congress "to do more." Does he mean more fiscal stimulus or fiscal restraint?
The Repubs have capitalized on the economic situation and have exploited it for political benefit. Obama's challenge remains the economy more broadly and the job market more specifically. At 9.1% unemployment and not much indication that the number will be substantively reduced, the Repubs can claim that American needs a new policy path--a new trajectory. Within Obama's challenge may exist the Repubs ultimate political tool.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
CSPAN Video 9: John Tanner's Witness Testimony
John Tanner, then head of the Voting Rights section of the Justice Department, provides his witness testimony to Congress. He talks about the progress that both he and his section have made in eliminating voting discrimination and other injustices. At the start of this segment, he again apologized for a comment he had made regarding minorities; at the National Latino Congreso in LA, he absurdly proclaimed, "Minorities don't become elderly like white people do. They die first." Tanner's testimony gives an interesting insight into the continuing role the Justice Department plays in combating voting discrimination.
CSPAN Video 8: Brian Lee, Round 2
From the same interview: Brian Lee responds to a couple of interesting CSPAN call-in questions. The first caller asks Lee how we could go about permanently implementing some of the Voting Rights Act provisions (e.g., use of Federal voting monitors); the second caller asks about political corruption in the voting process. Lee's answers are interesting and timely, even in 2011. A notable Lee quote from this segment: "People need to feel that they have a stake in the government."
CSPAN Video 7: Brian Lee Chats
Brian Lee, Chairman of the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, talks about voting discrimination and the continued relevance and importance of the Voting Rights Act. Lee emphasizes the significance of Section 5 of the Act. Lee's interview gives the viewer a new perspective on the role of the Justice Department in preventing voting discrimination. According to Lee, voting discrimination is still a serious concern.
Jockeying for the Title
On Friday, Texas Governor and Repub presidential hopeful Rick Perry assured a New Hampshire Town Hall Meeting that he--and he ALONE--was best positioned to challenge Barack Obama in a general election. Even more important to this particular audience was Perry's claim to be the most genuine and conservative--genuine conservative?--of the Repub candidates. This speech was only the most recent in a long series of speeches that Perry and the other GOP presidential contenders have made over the last few weeks. In each speech, each candidate--from Perry to Romney to Bachmann--has jockeyed for the title of most conservative. "Contests of Conservatism" have been waged, with each candidate fighting for that ever coveted title.
In the speech, Perry continued a line of association that was started by his campaign: trying to highlight similarities between Romney and Obama. As Perry said, "We need a nominee for the Republican Party who is a clear contrast with Barack Obama." This strategy is potentially both beneficial and wise. If the Perry camp can paint Romney as a left of center candidate who desires to increase government and the GOP base (i.e., the hardliner camp) accepts the painting as provided by Perry, then Perry could defeat Romney in some of the "important" states. Perry's strategy to equate Romney with Obama could serve him well going forward. Romney has been encountering many of the same challenges as he did in 2008: he is having some difficulty with appearing genuinely conservative. As Governor of Massachusetts, he pursued a less-than-conservative agenda, implementing policies that conservatives have a habit of criticizing. Perry knows this and is maximizing his political return on it.
Interestingly, according to Yahoo, Perry's message has not been well received in New Hampshire, especially among that state's more moderate Republicans. Suffolk University published results from a recent poll that "put Perry's support at 8 percent against Romney's 41 percent." Not only is New Hampshire not responding to Perry's message, but NH is also showing that Romney offers the GOP something that the other candidates do not. What that something is probably differs from voter to voter, but the poll results are telling ... and staggering. Romney's pronounced lead over Perry indicates the GOP in NH is unwilling to afford any title or victory to Perry, even as he continues to jockey for the title.
During and after the speech, "a pair of Romney supporters handed out a book titled 'Rick Perry's Plan to Get America Working Again.'" Perry was featured on the cover waving a gun and most of the pages of the book were blank. I'm glad to see that humor--specifically, politically calculated humor--has not been lost. These little anecdotes make campaigns, and blogging about campaigns, enjoyable. Kudos to those Romney supporters. An "A" for humor. A job well done.
In the speech, Perry continued a line of association that was started by his campaign: trying to highlight similarities between Romney and Obama. As Perry said, "We need a nominee for the Republican Party who is a clear contrast with Barack Obama." This strategy is potentially both beneficial and wise. If the Perry camp can paint Romney as a left of center candidate who desires to increase government and the GOP base (i.e., the hardliner camp) accepts the painting as provided by Perry, then Perry could defeat Romney in some of the "important" states. Perry's strategy to equate Romney with Obama could serve him well going forward. Romney has been encountering many of the same challenges as he did in 2008: he is having some difficulty with appearing genuinely conservative. As Governor of Massachusetts, he pursued a less-than-conservative agenda, implementing policies that conservatives have a habit of criticizing. Perry knows this and is maximizing his political return on it.
Interestingly, according to Yahoo, Perry's message has not been well received in New Hampshire, especially among that state's more moderate Republicans. Suffolk University published results from a recent poll that "put Perry's support at 8 percent against Romney's 41 percent." Not only is New Hampshire not responding to Perry's message, but NH is also showing that Romney offers the GOP something that the other candidates do not. What that something is probably differs from voter to voter, but the poll results are telling ... and staggering. Romney's pronounced lead over Perry indicates the GOP in NH is unwilling to afford any title or victory to Perry, even as he continues to jockey for the title.
During and after the speech, "a pair of Romney supporters handed out a book titled 'Rick Perry's Plan to Get America Working Again.'" Perry was featured on the cover waving a gun and most of the pages of the book were blank. I'm glad to see that humor--specifically, politically calculated humor--has not been lost. These little anecdotes make campaigns, and blogging about campaigns, enjoyable. Kudos to those Romney supporters. An "A" for humor. A job well done.
Room for One More? Will Christie Enter???
The WaPo has published an AP article quoting several AP sources who are maintaining that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has decided to reexamine his initial refusal to enter the GOP race. The result of this reexamination will be revealed in the coming few days, we are told. This news is interesting and, depending on the result, may alter the Republican playing field. So let's examine it in greater detail.
Chris Christie has some scars from warring with New Jersey's resident liberal power players. He has some strong Conservative policy credentials, and his rhetoric appeals to both the Tea Party and the Republican base. Gov. Christie supports less regulation, more fiscal restraint, and less taxation. An ideal Repub? Difficult to say, but surely a qualified candidate.
If Christie decides to enter into the presidential race, political pundits will be sure to have a field day. But a late entry raises an interesting question: how will Christie's late announcement (candidacy) appear? From my vantage point, he risks appearing indecisive--reluctant to declare his desire for the White House. His "candidacy speech" would have to be framed in such a way as to dispel any thought of Christie as being a late player or, more to the point, indecisive.
The article also notes that Christie will have to make an announcement in the not too distant future, since the filing deadlines in the primary states are a mere few weeks away. Christie does not possess the luxury of having ample time to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a Christie campaign for the White House.
The GOP has yet to yield a clear front-runner. Perry and Romney have traded both leads and victories, but both men have been challenged by non-front runners, like Cain, who have been able to secure pronounced victories over these purported "front-runners." The GOP's field appears convoluted--lacking a clear and concise vision and direction. Some prominent GOP donors have requested for Christie to enter the race; their hope is that a Christie candidacy would give the Repubs the focus and leadership that they so desperately need.
Christie plays to the cameras; in this way, he is very much like Ronald Reagan. He provides eccentric one-liners in response to questions. This trait would assist him in challenging the current GOP candidates and, possibly, Barack Obama in the general election. As the article notes, Christie has previously declined willingness to enter the race because "he wasn’t ready, because his wife wouldn’t let him and because 'I’m not crazy, that’s why.'” All three responses reveal his high level of comfort with the media and with his own ability to respond to the media's inquiries.
While many questions still remain surrounding Christie and his forth-coming announcement, one thing is clear: a Christie candidacy would make for some interesting political reporting and, for my purposes, blogging. Stay tuned!
Chris Christie has some scars from warring with New Jersey's resident liberal power players. He has some strong Conservative policy credentials, and his rhetoric appeals to both the Tea Party and the Republican base. Gov. Christie supports less regulation, more fiscal restraint, and less taxation. An ideal Repub? Difficult to say, but surely a qualified candidate.
If Christie decides to enter into the presidential race, political pundits will be sure to have a field day. But a late entry raises an interesting question: how will Christie's late announcement (candidacy) appear? From my vantage point, he risks appearing indecisive--reluctant to declare his desire for the White House. His "candidacy speech" would have to be framed in such a way as to dispel any thought of Christie as being a late player or, more to the point, indecisive.
The article also notes that Christie will have to make an announcement in the not too distant future, since the filing deadlines in the primary states are a mere few weeks away. Christie does not possess the luxury of having ample time to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a Christie campaign for the White House.
The GOP has yet to yield a clear front-runner. Perry and Romney have traded both leads and victories, but both men have been challenged by non-front runners, like Cain, who have been able to secure pronounced victories over these purported "front-runners." The GOP's field appears convoluted--lacking a clear and concise vision and direction. Some prominent GOP donors have requested for Christie to enter the race; their hope is that a Christie candidacy would give the Repubs the focus and leadership that they so desperately need.
Christie plays to the cameras; in this way, he is very much like Ronald Reagan. He provides eccentric one-liners in response to questions. This trait would assist him in challenging the current GOP candidates and, possibly, Barack Obama in the general election. As the article notes, Christie has previously declined willingness to enter the race because "he wasn’t ready, because his wife wouldn’t let him and because 'I’m not crazy, that’s why.'” All three responses reveal his high level of comfort with the media and with his own ability to respond to the media's inquiries.
While many questions still remain surrounding Christie and his forth-coming announcement, one thing is clear: a Christie candidacy would make for some interesting political reporting and, for my purposes, blogging. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)