Recently the Romney campaign has faced criticism from voters
of all parts of the political spectrum over comments made during a May
fundraiser, in which Governor Romney blasted the 47 percent of the American
population that does not pay federal income taxes. Referring to them as “freeloaders,” Romney
continued with the assertion that these voters will not support him anyways in
the election, lopping off a huge portion of the electorate to which he will
appeal. I understand that the Governor
was speaking at a fundraiser, amidst a couple hundred people firmly in support
of him. Looking at the issue from a more
populist perspective, and seeking to give Governor Romney the benefit of the
doubt, I still find myself still coming up short to support him on his
comment. Consider:
As a college student
and a dependent of my parents, I work part-time and pay federal income
tax. However, most of the time it is
returned to me at the end of the year, in the form of a tax return. Does this
series of actions put me in with the 47 percent?
Let's be honest, Governor... money's tight when you're in your 20s.
I’m not the only college student in this country who works
to make a financial dent in my education.
I’m also not the only conservative-leaning college student in that
category. The last thing I wish to be
called is a “freeloader,” considering I do what I can to finance a horribly
inflated college education without having to rob Peter to pay Paul at the very
end. I want to pay for my education the
old way; however, I don’t want to be lumped into a category considered
“unproductive” in the process. With the
ambition to get a job that makes an impact on American foreign relations
directly out of my master’s program, as well as very low student debt, I don’t
consider myself at the moment a particularly large burden on the American
taxpayer. If I’m not paying taxes on the
bottom line at the moment, please be patient with me.
President Obama is by
all means a divider, with his incendiary commentary regarding the rich and
misguided statements against those with traditional cultural values. Mitt Romney, through a candid comment made
amongst a group of loyal supporters, positioned himself as someone no
different.
Don't lose NASCAR fans, Governor... just don't.
I used to give Governor Romney credit for not stepping on
his tongue while building relationships with the American middle class. I understood that he was out of touch
(comments related to being friends with NASCAR and NFL owners, yet not having a
lot of personal interest in either sport, come to mind), but to make a comment
that divides an electorate to which he was trying to appeal was beyond
ill-advised. I just heard on the Jerry
Doyle Show last night that Romney now polls lower than Obama among NASCAR
fans… NASCAR fans?!?!?! We’re talking about an interest group, mostly
from the American South, who finds its niche among American culture through
movies such as “Talladega Nights” and “Viva Las Vegas.” If any group was expected to vote Republican
in 2012, it was those frequenters of America’s answer to the Circus
Maximus. Anyone who believed Governor
Romney was out of touch before the comments surfaced received quite the
vindication afterwards. I wanted him to
be a “uniter” so fiercely… Unfortunately, even one video clip these days can
leave the sourest of tastes in a voter’s mouth.
If Jerry Doyle speaks accurately, I’m baffled.
You can build all the
support you want among groups in which you poll among the weakest; but once
you’ve lost the base, you’ve, well, lost.
Governor Romney’s comments were not just damaging because of
the divisive implications: he also found
a way to alienate part of his base.
Seniors, who have trended Republican in the past three elections in
spite of constant Republican cries for Medicare reform, now find themselves in
a bind because they fall into the same category I feel that I’ve fallen
into. I’ll still support the Governor in
the end, but pissing off the base is about as useful to a political campaign as
fumbling the snap is in football. If
there is anything the Republicans need to show up in droves in November, it is
the political and ideological base. If
Governor Romney believes that the rich serve as his niche, then perhaps his
comment is well-appointed; unfortunately, that group just does not carry the
weight necessary to carry the popular vote.
Republicans will discuss back and forth over the next couple
weeks as to how exactly to field the reaction to Governor Romney’s
comments. Some will attempt to forget
them, others defend them tirelessly.
Others (like me) will plead for Governor Romney to watch his mouth. In the context of a presidential election as
crucial as the one in November, any divisive slip-up will perpetuate the
“Divider-in-Chief’s” (borrowing this brilliant term from Kate Obenshain - http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/10/obenshain-obama-is-the-divider-in-chief/) reign
over not only the White House, but the metaphorical driver’s seat on re-uniting
the sides of the American political spectrum.
Not all of it is Greek to me... just a headline and a few words...
Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Americans and Europeans have been
at odds, to say the least, about American culture and the role of the United
States on the global scene. Pick up a
copy of The Guardian, Die Welt, Le Monde, O Globo, The Times of India, or
publications from whichever country you choose, and you will find anti-American
editorials and/or coverage of anti-American political action abroad. As the primary recipients of the criticisms,
members of the American Right struggle to skim even the news section while they
sift through the paper. As a result,
most readers prefer to remain stateside to get their news.
I write
this piece today to suggest a new approach to my fellow Republicans: stop
being afraid of foreign opinion. Not
everyone hates us. Here is how I got
to this point:
Remember that the United States still has
allies in the world. In most cases, European
right-wing newspapers and online sources are going to support at least some
American initiatives in the world and are worth reading against the
conventional anti-American screed written elsewhere.
Many of you might have experience reading a British
periodical (many of my political science professors have suggested either The
Economist or The Guardian, neither of which come to my surprise). You might have found articles such as these,
should you have visited the opinion website:
“Mitt Romney is too rational for a deluded Republican base (Guardian),”
or “Mitt Romney’s problems: Elite
defection (Economist).” In spite of the
headlines (and the comments, if you choose to peruse them), it takes a
well-read individual to understand that, like in the United States, other
countries have a variety of periodicals that cover the spectrum. To my friends on the right, I would suggest
The Telegraph (www.telegraph.co.uk), a
prominent right-leaning newspaper based in London. While I do not mix well with its pro-European
editorials, it also gives space for Eurosceptics such as Daniel Hannan, of
Youtube fame (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs). These opinions, though full of language and
terms understandably foreign to Americans, still give a set of metaphorical
water wings to the readers as they broaden their horizons. Keeping to the Anglosphere, I also suggest
Australia’s Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au),
Canada’s Toronto Sun (http://www.torontosun.com/)
and South Africa’s Sunday Times, specifically the politics section (http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/). Pointing these out leads me to the next
conclusion:
Foreign opinions matter because they often
give insight from perspectives that American writers miss.
Smacking down Marxism, Brazilian style!
One of my favorite foreign political commentators is the Brazilian philosopher
Olavo de Carvalho (www.olavodecarvalho.org/english),
and I found him through my frustration with Brazilian politics, having studied
it the past couple years. For those with
little to no background on Brazil, the country has been under firm control of
the left since 2003, but still operates under a largely backward political
structure. Political clientelism runs
rampant, no matter which side takes control.
Olavo writes as a ruthless critic of political leftism, pointing out errors
and fallacies through his weekly radio show, True Outspeak. He also gives insight on the American
political scene, as he lives and operates today out of Virginia. Regardless, Olavo gives opinions from a Latin
American perspective, which integrates opinions on political culture that we Americans
are not accustomed to seeing. Tim
Stanley, from Britain’s Daily Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/timstanley/),
is another favorite. One of the first
steps you can take, as a conservative committed to being better-read, is to
pick two foreign authors and mull over what they write. They will help you understand not only
international anti-American opinion better, but also gain a new perspective on
American politics that you may not have conceived in the past. With that, a final point:
Reading foreign opinion gets you out of the
“grid.”
I
could have lumped this point into the previous one, but I wanted to explain
separately the pitfalls of limiting yourself to only American opinion. It is true that the right and the left hold
divergent opinions in the United States, like any other country, but our
prominent issues are not issues in other countries. Take Brazil, for example: how do you structure the abortion debate in a
country where abortion is illegal, except in cases of rape or incest? Moreover, how can we criticize President
Obama’s healthcare law without gaining opinions and insight from foreigners who
have fallen victim to a universal healthcare system? In a debate concerning issues rather than ideology,
the foreign angle is vital to applying the concepts of a new law on our
society. Although we do not always share
the same cultural values as France or Brazil or India or Australia, the effects
of reform still have economic consequences that any sensible conservative can
see and apply to our current situation.
I
appeal to my fellow conservatives by simply saying that the American story does
not always tell the whole story.
Consider picking up a foreign publication this week, and see what you
can find. Sometimes the opinions of a
Telegraph, a Financial Times or a Sun can help to shape a well-founded opinion
just as much as the Wall Street Journal or the American Spectator. Food for thought.
Conservatives and Republicans are
constantly vilified as heartless, evil monsters when they propose austerity
measures. My liberal friends often ask me, “How can you put someone out in the
cold when they have nothing to live on?” It doesn’t help that conservatives
usually don’t make their own case very well either. The top argument in favor
of cutting welfare payments is often that there is some “welfare queen” who is
cheating the system and loafing around on others’ tax dollars. Mitt Romney
recently exacerbated this misconception when he said (as out of context as it
may be) that he “doesn’t care about the very poor,” because they have a safety
net. I feel it’s important for Americans to know that not only is it the most
economical plan to cut public assistance (or even eliminate it entirely), but
it is the most moral as well.
Get a man this excited about fishing, and he'll feed a community...?
The old adage goes that, “If you
give a man a fish, you’ll feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish,
you’ll feed him for a lifetime.” No other quote perfectly synopsizes how I feel
about poor relief quite as well as that one. By subsidizing poverty, we are not
helping to eliminate it, but rather, we are perpetuating it. Those receiving
the payments are the true victims. They never get the opportunity to practice self-reliance,
and therefore become just another cog in the machine that results in roughly a
third of those on welfare being comprised of second generation recipients. And
still, 15% of the country remains below the poverty line, even as big
government doubles-down on its initiatives.
Believe it or not, welfare is not
that old of an institution in the United States. It was prominently introduced
by Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 to combat the Great Depression. The new
government expansion eliminated any need for private-sector companies like the
Women’s Christian Association and the Charity Organization Society, which had
existed to do the same job. Even with this act of “compassion,” the U.S.
suffered through unemployment above 20% for the rest of the decade. We will
never know what might have happened had FDR been willing to put his trust in
the free market and the good faith of American individuals and charities.
That brings us to the largest
misperception about what would happen without welfare. Many seem to think that,
without help from the government, the streets would be filled with homeless
people, slowly starving to death. But in reality, we would not suddenly see Americans
en masse, in the streets begging.
Without the government to bail them out, it is only human nature for people to
do what is necessary to live and prosper. Instead of sitting back while working
minimal hours and waiting on a government check, a man might realize he’d better
look long and hard for a second job if he wants to keep his electric on. As a
result, he would gain life experience he would have never had otherwise, and
would improve society as a whole.
As alluded to earlier, not everyone
would be able to prosper on his own. And that is where soup kitchens, food
banks, private charities, and churches would come into play. It is well known
that Americans are some of the most compassionate and caring people on this
planet. With citizens now having more faith in the tax system and better
knowing the way in which their money is being spent, not only would they feel
more inclined to help, they would also have to pay less in taxes, resulting in
them having more discretionary income to give to the charities that help the
poor. Citizens would no longer have to worry about someone “cheating the
system,” or think that they should hold their money when someone asks for a
little help, because the government should have them covered. By eliminating
welfare and other public assistance programs, we would save our government
billions of dollars, and create a better society, where every American can
live, prosper, and better him or herself.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been in the news quite a
bit lately, due to it having just held its presidential primary election. While Puerto Ricans cannot vote in the U.S.
presidential election, both Republicans and Democrats allow residents of the island
to elect delegates to their national conventions. Mitt Romney won the primary with an
overwhelming 83% of the vote, but most of the media attention was caused by
Rick Santorum's contention that Puerto Rican statehood was undesirable, because
English is not the official language of the island and would create linguistic
conflicts with the mainland. This comment cost Santorum dearly, as the vast
majority of those who identify with the GOP on Puerto Rico are members of the
New Progressive Party, which advocates strongly for admittance as the 51st
state.
While Santorum was widely (and correctly) criticized for his
remarks, what would the impact of Puerto Rican statehood be, both for the
island and the rest of the United States? To understand this issue, we must first
examine Puerto Rico's current, unique status within the United States. Since 1917, Puerto Ricans have been full
citizens of the United States, and any who move off the island to the mainland
have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other U.S. citizen. Since 1952, Puerto Rico has been known as a
"Free Associated State," a status in-between full statehood and
independence, which is similar (though not identical) to the statuses of Guam,
the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Under the FAS, Puerto Ricans have most of the rights of mainland citizens, such
as constitutional protections and liberties, full use of the U.S. federal court
system, protection of the military and federal agencies, and representation
abroad through the Department of State. The major differences between Puerto Rico
and any state are political representation and taxation. Puerto Ricans (who
have their own fully functional commonwealth legislature and governor) cannot
vote in presidential elections, and instead of electing congressmen and
senators, can send one non-voting delegate to Congress. However, Puerto Ricans
are also exempt from federal income taxes. Corporations doing business with entities
other than the U.S. government are also exempt from a variety of federal taxes
and regulations. At the same time, Puerto Ricans are not eligible for a variety
of social welfare programs; for instance, Medicaid spending is capped at 15% of
what it would be if Puerto Rico was a full state.
Thus the implications for Puerto Rican statehood would be
largely two-fold: firstly, what effect
would it have upon federal elections and political processes; and secondly,
what would the effects be on federal tax revenue and expenditures? It is challenging to predict how Puerto Rico
would vote in elections since it has its own vibrant two-and-a-half party
system, with supporters of statehood largely backing the mainland GOP,
continuing the FAS backing Democrats, and the remainder of independence
supporters largely ignoring mainland politics.
On the whole the statehood and GOP supporting NPP has been more
successful lately, which should give Republicans hope. In addition, Puerto
Ricans tend to be extremely anti-abortion and socially conservative in general,
which would align them more with the GOP. On the other hand, Puerto Ricans in the U.S.
tend to vote Democratic, either strongly so (New York) or slightly (Florida)
depending on the state they live in. Additionally,
the increasingly hardline stance taken by Republicans in the South and
Southwest towards Hispanic immigrants would probably not endear the party to
Puerto Ricans, even if immigration issues are much less salient than among
Mexican-Americans.
Puerto Ricans would probably benefit from statehood, even if
the U.S. Treasury would not. While
Puerto Rican residents would now be liable for federal income taxes, the low
levels of per-capita income would leave most Puerto Ricans with no income tax
liability whatsoever. In 2009, the per
capita income in Puerto Rico was about $19,000, extremely high for Latin
America, but well below that of the poorest US state Mississippi ($36,000.) A
study by the Heritage Foundation concluded that just making Puerto Ricans
eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (of which 59% would be eligible upon
statehood) would cost taxpayers more than the total remitted by Puerto Ricans
to the Treasury. In addition, Puerto Rico would be eligible for full Medicaid
and Medicare spending, instead of just 15%, as well as all other federal social
welfare programs. Ironically, Puerto
Rican statehood is far more popular on the mainland than in Puerto Rico, even
though the island would quickly become per capita the largest beneficiary of
social spending in the U.S.
How about one issue that would not arise with Puerto Rican
statehood? You guessed it, Santorum's linguistic fears. Contrary to his
statement, English is one of the two official languages of the island and a
required subject in all Puerto Rican schools. Almost all islanders have some
English proficiency, and over a third are fully fluent in English, a number
considerably higher than Louisiana and New Mexico when they were admitted to
the Union. In the end, though it is
difficult to conclude on whether Puerto Rican statehood is a certainty in the
near future, the case for its admission as our nation’s 51st state
is one that gains strength with each generation.
Over the past few months, pundits in
the media have openly fantasized about a scenario where no Republican
presidential candidate earns the 1,144 delegates needed to win a
first ballot nomination. This would plunge Republicans into what is
known as a “brokered convention”, where all 2,286 delegates are
free to vote however they please. It would also mean that the
Republican nominee would not be chosen until August 30th,
which most political experts regard as being catastrophically late.
If you are a Republican and the above
paragraph frightens you, worry not, the media is full of dramatic
amateurs, who are ignorant of party rules, state by state
polling,basic arithmetic, and intellectual honesty. Based on those
factors, it is clear that Governor Mitt Romney will clinch the 1,144
delegates needed for nomination prior to the convention. Here we will
go through each state, and based on party rules and available
polling, attempt to make a realistic delegate allocation projection.
In the Missouri
beauty contest vote held in early February, Rick Santorum beat Mitt
Romney 55%-25%. Newt Gingrich was not on the ballot however, and he
will be for the caucus. So if we assume that
Gingrich peels
15% off of Santorum's total, we are left with results similar to what
we saw in neighboring Kansas, with Santorum winning 40%-25%-15%. So
taking the most negative possible projection for Romney, we can
predict the delegates to be proportioned as something like, Santorum
35, Romney 12, Gingrich 5.
New Delegate
Count
Romney: 508
Santorum: 271
Gingrich: 146
March 18th
Puerto Rico
Caucus: 23 Delegates Winner Take All
Given that
Romney has won commanding majorities among Hispanics in every state
or territory with a measurable sample, and has the endorsement of
popular Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno, he should win a lopsided
victory here.
New Delegate
Count
Romney: 531
Santorum: 271
Gingrich: 146
March 20th
Illinois
Primary: 69 Delegates Proportional by Congressional District
The most recent
poll taken in Illinois shows Romney with a 35-31 lead over Santorum.
Gingrich and Paul poll 12 and 7 percent respectively. Romney recently
went on the air with a $1 million TV purchase, something Santorum
won't be able to match. Given Romney's propensity for closing strong
in Midwestern states, it is impossible for me to imagine Santorum
winning here, and my bet is he loses by a number in the high single
digits. In projecting the delegates, we can look to Michigan, while
projecting it to go slightly more in Romney's favor, so something
like 41-28 in Romney's favor, again trying to be cautious.
New Delegate
Count
Romney: 572
Santorum: 299
Gingrich: 146
March 24th
Louisiana
Primary: 46 Delegates, Proptional
Most recently,
polling showed a tight three way race: Santorum 25, Romney 21,
Gingrich 20. I would expect the final results to be similar to
Mississippi, where they finished 33-31-30, except for shifting some
of Gingrich's support to Santorum based on momentum, for a delegate
total of something like Santorum 21, Romney 15, Gingrich 10.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 587
Santorum 320
Gingrich 156
April 3rd
Wisconsin
Primary: 42 Delegates, Winner Take All
Maryland
Primary: 37 Delegates, Winner Take All
Washington D.C:
19 Delegates, Winner Take All
These three
winner take all contests provide major opportunity for delegate
pickups. Rick Santorum failed to qualify for the ballot in D.C,
meaning those 19 delegates should easily go to Romney. Based on
Maryland's ideology and demographics, which closely resemble New
England, where Romney has yet to lose, it is tough to envision it
going to Santorum, making those 37 delegates likely to go to Romney.
Wisconsin is a bit tougher to project, but since the two closest
states to them geographically and demographically, Ohio and Michigan,
went to Romney narrowly, we will predict it to follow. This day looks
likely to deliver a big prize for Romney, as he garners 99 delegates,
while his opponents combine for zero.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 686
Santorum 320
Gingrich 156
April 24th
Pennsylvania
Primary: 72 Delegates, Congressional District
New York
Primary: 95 Delegates, Proportional, Winner Take All if someone
reaches 50%
Connecticut
Primary: 28 Delegates, Proptional, Winner Take All if someone reaches
50%
Rhode Island
Primary: 19 Delegates, Proportional Delaware Primary: 17
Delegates, Winner Take All
On
the surface, April 24th
should be an outstanding day for Mitt Romney. To start with the small
states, Romney will certainly win Delaware, giving him all of their
17 delegates. He will likely win Rhode Island with a percentage well
over 50%, and where Ron Paul will likely finish in second, so being
generous to Paul, we project a 13-6 split. I expect this case to also
hold true in Connecticut, except that it becomes winner take all if
someone is over 50%, which I would expect Romney to reach, giving him
all 28 of their delegates. While no polling is available in these
three states, Romney has yet to lose in a single New England state,
and his margins have generally grown throughout the campaign. New
York is also likely to give him a big boost. While the most recent
poll shows Romney up only 38-31 over Santorum, the substantial number
of undecideds figure to break Romney's way, especially when one
consider that Romney and McCain combined for about 75% of the New
York Primary vote in 2008. This may be an optimistic hedge, but
Romney seems likely to edge 50% of the vote, giving him the big
delegate prize of the night with 95 delegates. In Santorum's home
state of Pennsylvania, Santorum currently leads by 18 points, a
margin I would expect to tighten. However, to give Santorum the
benefit of the doubt, lets project that margin holds, and he wins 45
of the 72 delegates, with the other 27 going for Romney. That gives
us a nightly total of Romney 180, Santorum 45, Paul 6.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 866
Santorum 365
Gingrich 156
Paul 73
May 8
North Carolina
Primary: 55 Delegates, Proportional
Indiana Primary:
46 Delegates , Congressional District
West Virginia:
31 Delegates, Congressional District
After a brutal
month, Santorum returns to more friendly territory. Given its
proximity to Pennsylvania, its ultra conservative and impoverished
demographic, I expect Santorum to sweep West Virginia, with Gingrich
and Romney perhaps earning a few delegates, so project that as
Santorum 25, Gingrich 4, Romney 2. Indiana should follow the pattern
of most Midwestern states, which have gone for Romney by narrow
margins. Also consider the fact that Santorum has gone through a
brutal month, where he has only won one primary. So figure those
delegates split in half, with each winning 23. North Carolina should
be the most favorable for Romney, as its demographic has begun to
look more like Florida than the other Southern states. I would still
expect it to be close, but with Romney winning a delegate victory of
about 25-20-10 (Romney-Santorum-Gingrich). Overall, it looks like
Santorum has the advantage for the night, but not by much, with the
following tally: Santorum 58, Romney 50, Gingrich 14.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 916
Santorum 423
Gingrich 170
May 15
Nebraska
Primary: 35 Delegates
Oregon Primary:
28 Delegates, Proportional
Nebraska is very
typical of the states Santorum has done well in, and I would expect
him to win a percentage near 50, making it likely he will carry
virtually all of the states 35 delegates. Oregon figures to follow
Washington, which was a close contest between Romney and Paul. It is
also purely proportional, so Santorum might pull out a delegate or
two. That one I would project something like 14-12-2
(Romney-Paul-Santorum). May 15th ends with a tally of,
Santorum 37, Romney 14, Paul 12.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 930
Santorum 460
Gingrich 170
Paul 85
May 22nd
Kentucky
Primary: 45 Delegates, Proportional
Arkansas
Primary: 36 Delegates, Proportional
While this
landscape is favorable to Santorum, the proportional rules make it
unlikely he will amass a significant delegate advantage. Kentucky
seems to fall into Santorum's region of strength, so I think he will
get something like a 25-12-8 advantage from it
(Santorum-Gingrich-Romney). Arkansas figures to be a bit more
Gingrich friendly, resulting in a closer three way race with the
delegates being split 13-12-11 (Santorum-Gingrich-Romney). This gives
us a tally of Santorum 38, Gingrich 24, Romney 19.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 949
Santorum 498
Gingrich 194
Paul 85
May 29th
Texas Primary,
155 Delegates, Proportional
The most recent
Texas polling has Romney leading Santorum 32-30, with Gingrich at 19.
If these numbers don't shift dramatically, then the delegates will be
split heavily, with Romney winning around 65 , Santorum about 60 and
maybe 30 for Gingrich. At this point Romney is in range of the
delegates needed to win the nomination prior to the convention.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 1,014
Santorum 558
Gingrich 224
Paul 85
June 5th
California
Primary: 172 Delegates, Winner Take All by Congressional District
New Jersey
Primary: 50 Delegates, Winner Take All
South Dakota
Primary: 28 Delegates, Proportional
Montana Primary:
26 Delegates, Proportional
New Mexico: 23
Delegates, Proportional
If the delegate
estimates I have made to this point are even in the ball park, Romney
is certain to lock up the nomination by June 5th. He leads
in California by over 20 points. With a lead that large it seems
impossible that Santorum leads in any district. To be as fair and
conservative as possible, I will just posit that he wins 4 of the
states 53 districts for a delegate total of around 15, leaving Romney
with 157, putting him over 1,144 and making him the 2012 Republican
Nominee for President of the United States. New Jersey is a
guaranteed Romney win, giving him all fifty of their delegates. South
Dakota and Montana are both likely to go to Santorum by insubstantial
margins, perhaps by a combined 28-22-2-2
(Santorum-Romney-Gingrich-Paul). New Mexico is likely to go
overwhelmingly to Romney so give him about 17 delegates to 5 for
Santorum. That puts our nightly total at :Romney 246, Santorum 48,
Gingrich 2, Paul 2.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 1,260,
Republican Nominee
Santorum 606
Gingrich 226
Paul 87
June 26th
Utah Primary: 40
Delegates, Winner Take All
Romney will win
the Mormon State by over 90% of the vote. He will easily capture all
40 of the state's delegates.
Final Delegate
Count
Romney 1,300,
Republican Nominee
Santorum 606
Gingrich 226
Paul 87
In closing,
while he is unlikely to do it before June, Romney should easily clear
the 1,144 delegates necessary to be nominated on the first ballot of
the convention. I project him finishing 156 delegates above the
threshold, meaning that unless I made a massive mistake somewhere, he
will be above what is needed to avoid any complaints about rules,
procedure etc. at the convention. What is demonstrated even more
clearly is that Santorum, and Gingrich, are unable to reach the
threshold, and that all they can do is hope to throw the contest to a
brokered convention, something that is unbelievably deleterious to
the party's goal of defeating Barack Obama.
“Warren
Harding was our worst president.” The previous declaration is one
that egghead academics have uttered countless times over the course
of the past 90 years, and one that is patently false, and
intellectually lazy. When one takes the time to look at the entire
record of the Harding Administration, they will find it filled with
monumental achievements. The president's policies served as a
modernizing and transformative force for America during the early
1920's.
“We need to
cut spending,” is a refrain heard from presidential candidates in
every election since the dawn of our republic. Unlike virtually
everyone who has said this, President Harding actually did cut
spending, and cut it dramatically, from $6.3 billion in 1920, to $3.3
billion in 1922. This was in large part due to his signing of the
Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created the Bureau of the
Budget ( he precursor to the Office of Management and Budget).
Additionally, President Harding also signed legislation in 1922 that
included some of the sharpest across the board tax cuts in American
history, lowering the top marginal income rate from 73% to 25%.
Harding also signed the Revenue Act in 1921, which cut the corporate
tax rate from 65% to 50%. These supply side cuts actually resulted in
an increase of tax revenue, and helped to cut the national debt by
one third.
In addition to
cutting taxes and spending, Harding helped modernize the American
economy with significant investment in infrastructure, when he signed
the Highway Act in 1921, helping to establish some of the first
modern roads. He was also the first president to invest in preventive
medicine, by signing the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act in 1921, which
required doctors to regularly examine healthy pregnant women and
children to keep them from getting sick.
Along with his
economic achievements, Harding was the most pro-civil rights president since Abraham Lincoln. He was the first 20th
Century President to advocate political, educational, and economic
equality for African Americans, and followed up on that ideal by
appointing several to federal positions. Harding also spoke in favor
of anti-lynching legislation, pledging to sign the Dyer Bill, which
would have increased penalties on those convicted of lynching. The
bill met defeat in the Senate due to a Democratic filibuster.
Most famously,
Harding signed legislation establishing the Veteran's Bureau, which
eventually evolved into the Department of Veteran's Affairs. This
legislation modernized America's approach to taking care of its
returning soldiers, allowing 300,000 World War I veterans to
receive needed medical care, and helped to open up educational
opportunities for them.
Finally, Harding
provided leadership on another important front: our freedom to party.
Harding openly defied the Volstead Act during Prohibition, by
drinking whiskey during his poker games and serving wine to White
House guests at formal dinners. This act of leadership helped
embolden Americans to ignore one of the most unpatriotic and
un-American laws in our nation's history and contributed to the
“Roaring Twenties” atmosphere of the decade.
To conclude,
Harding's two years in office were filled with more accomplishments
than most presidents achieve in eight. His supply side economic
agenda helped stimulate one of the most robust periods of growth in
American history. His policies helped cut the federal budget in half,
and reduced our debt by a third. He was one of the first presidents
to invest heavily in infrastructure, which helped modernize the
American economy. His advocacy for Veteran's Affairs helped many
returning soldiers receive the care they needed. He had the patriotic
audacity to personally reject the absurdity and insanity that was
Prohibition, and encouraged his countryman to do the same. With all
of these facts taken into account, only a foolish stooge could call
Harding a failed president, despite the corruption of a handful of
his subordinates. Harding's low standing amongst historians is due to
intellectual laziness, and nothing more. He was enormously popular in
his time, winning the election with over 60% of the popular vote, and
was seen as a shoo-in for reelection before his death, as his
contemporaries saw the direct benefit from his leadership. If we
could elect a president in 2012 who was able to cut the federal
budget in half, reduce our national debt by a third, and stimulate a
decade of robust economic growth, we would leap for joy, and probably
ignore any corruption with gleeful ignorance. In other words, America
could use another Warren G. Harding.
There has been a
tremendous debate throughout our country’s history on how the Office of the
Presidency should function, and in particular just how much power should be
given to the President. This was one of the central issues that faced
our Founding Fathers, and even today is a topic of debate among various
scholars. I agree with Gene Healy of the
Cato Institute that America has been consumed by a “Cult of the Presidency”. This term is used to describe the issue of
expanding Presidential powers that our country has witnessed over the last few
decades. With the growing influence that the President has gained, many
American citizens have become enamored with the office, and look towards the Commander-in-Chief
in times of peril and flourish. I think
that the general public certainly desires (and somewhat expects) the President
to solve problems on a wide range of scales, both large and small.
With the growing
influence of the office come more responsibilities. In recent years especially, we have seen the
President take on issues of a massive variety and wide scale. A prominent example comes to mind when former
President George Bush was expected to acknowledge the issue that former Vice
President Al Gore made very public: global
warming. Not only did Bush need to make
the decisions to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but he also had to decide the
best strategy to pursue with the conflict in Iraq. This exemplifies the wide change in dynamics
that the American people expect the President to deal with.
When the public
thinks of politics, it focuses mainly on the President. The public does not understand, or I think
care enough, to learn a great deal about the House or the Senate, important
parts of the political puzzle. I would
go as far as to contend that the average American citizen knows more about the
President’s personal life then can even name five members of Congress! A large part of this “Cult of the Presidency”
is the idea that most citizens put blame on the President for failure to get
legislation passed, and don’t consider the difficulties that Presidents face
when negotiating with Congress. Sometimes
this underestimation of Congress can even be traced back to Presidents
themselves. During an interview with
President Truman during his last night in office, he indicated that Eisenhower
would expect the Presidency to work just like the military, where those at the
top would give orders and expect compliance. Truman concluded the interview by saying,
“Poor Ike, he’ll find it very frustrating. He will give orders and nothing will
happen.” Part of this problem is the media and the attention that they give to
the president. They almost treat him as
a celebrity. They stress coverage on the
wrong items, very little on legislation and a lot on their personal life. An example can be found with how much press
was given to the dog that the Obama family received upon moving into the White
House, or how women across the country kept close watch on the fashion sense of
Jackie Kennedy.
We're just not that efficient, Ike...
I believe that these
exaltations of the President started relatively recently. One of the first
recent Presidents to have an entire nation looking upon them in a time of need
was Franklin Roosevelt. He was a very
charismatic public speaker who was adored by many within the nation for his
Great Depression relief programs he put into place, collectively known as the
“New Deal”. His New Deal legislation greatly expanded the government and
connected with people on an emotional level, since many of their futures were now
in the hands of Roosevelt. His great
popularity and trust from the American people to guide the nation through
crises like the Great Depression and World War II, led him to be the only
president to be elected to 4 terms in office, which before that time and even
today is unheard of.
