Posts Tagged ‘Economy’

Counter Intuitive Comments from Perry

August 17th, 2011 by John Feehery

“I mean, printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history, is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion”.

That was Rick Perry’s comment about Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve.

Karl Rove said that the comments “went too far.” Others called them unpresidential. The current President, Mr. Obama, said it was a sign that Mr. Perry wasn’t quite ready for prime time.

From an historic standpoint, the Texas Governor’s statement was more than a little bit interesting. Perry has positioned himself as a conservative populist. A hero to social conservatives (witness the National prayer service thing he hosted). He also fancies himself to be a populist, fighting against Washington and New York banking interests.

Historically speaking, though, his fight against Bernanke’s easy money policy is a fight for New York banking interests. This was most notable in the fight in the late 19th century between interests that wanted a bimetal system that would expand the money supply by basing the currency on both silver and gold, and those who wanted to constrict the money supply by basing it purely on a gold standard.

The Ames Straw Poll

August 11th, 2011 by John Feehery

So why are so many political reporters traipsing to Iowa this August?

Well, it must be the Ames Straw poll, a tradition like no other.

The Iowa Republican party plays host to this political beauty contest that has little actual bearing on the actual race for the White House.

Since the straw poll was first started in 1979, it has picked exactly one candidate who went on to become President, George W. Bush.

In fact, since 1980, the Iowa caucus system itself has picked exactly one candidate who went on to become President.

If that is the case, then why should we care what Iowans decide at the Ames Straw poll?

Who cares if Michele Bachmann wins? Who cares if Ron Paul comes in second?

Well, to be candid, we shouldn’t care.

Unless, of course, you are Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty probably needs to do pretty well if we wants to raise enough money to stay in.

But Pawlenty has bigger problems than Ames, Iowa.

Right now, he doesn’t look like he will be able to compete long-term even if he was able to convincingly sweep the straw poll.

Obama Should Get A New Job

August 9th, 2011 by John Feehery

Barack Obama just turned 50 years old. He is still a young man (by contemporary standards). He still plays basketball regularly, he likes to golf, he enjoys spending quality time with his daughters.

I have an idea for him. He should announce that he is taking a break at the end of next year from politics. Instead of running for re-election, Mr. Obama should tell the country that he is going into private business.

He has plenty of time to run again should he discover that he still has some work he wants to finish as President.

He can always run again. He can pull a Cleveland. Grover Cleveland was the only President to win in two non-consecutive terms, although he lost to Benjamin Harrison in between. Obama can take the high road and leave while the leaving is good.

The President needs some real world experience. Imagine how much better he would do with the experience of having to meet a payroll or worry about the P&L Statement. Imagine how much more sympathetic he would be if he actually understood how his health care law would make it harder to hire people. Imagine if he actually understood that by “spreading the wealth around,” the government actually makes it harder for the economy to grow.

The War on Bacon

August 4th, 2011 by John Feehery

An interesting story caught my eye in the New York Times today, about the rise of a radical right-wing group in, of all places, Sweden.

Swedes are concerned that they are losing their national character because of the high influx of immigrants from Muslim countries. The Times noted the resentments of one typical Swedish family:

“Michael Ahlgren, who lost his job as a security guard for the Red Cross just before Christmas, wears a tattoo of the Swedish flag on his shoulder and voted for the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist party that shocked the country by winning nearly a quarter of the votes for the city council here in 2006. He and his wife are outspoken in their resentment: the government spends money on refugees, they say, but their daughters’ school lunches have barely any vegetables and, to accommodate Muslim religious practice, no longer offer pork sausages.”

The lack of vegetables doesn’t seem like that much of a big concern. The pork sausages? Now, that is a reason to get mad.

This is not just Swedish problem. It has spread to the United States.

Scaring Seniors Backfires

August 3rd, 2011 by John Feehery

The President turns 50 tomorrow, which is a big deal, especially to the President’s fundraisers, who are doing their best to milk it for all it is worth. Apparently, they are throwing a big bash for him in my hometown of Chicago. My invitation must have got caught up in my spam filter.

50 isn’t nearly as old as it used to be (especially if you are 47, like a blogger I know pretty well), and to many old-timers who depend on Social Security and Medicare to survive, 50 is pretty darn young.

I was talking to a neighbor of mine who happens to be a big Democratic activist, and he told me about how panicked his 84-year old mother was over the possibility that she wasn’t going to get her Social Security check.

She comes from a generation where they listen closely to their political leaders, and when the President says that Social Security checks may not be delivered because America can’t pay its debt, that generation takes those threats seriously.

Remember Charlie Stenholm

July 28th, 2011 by John Feehery

Charlie Stenholm, the former Congressman from Texas

Charlie Stenholm, the former Congressman from Texas, perennially sponsored and pushed for a balanced budget to the Constitution. Charlie was a Democrat, and sponsoring the balanced budget amendment helped him immeasurably in many, many campaigns.

Old Charlie could vote like a Democrat on most things, but sound like a fiscal hawk because he was the sponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Congress after Congress, the balanced budget amendment would come up for a vote, and Congress after Congress, the BBA would just barely die in the House. One year, it even passed the House and it almost passed the Senate. Ironically, it was a Republican – Mark Hatfield — who ended up killing it in the Senate when it did pass the House.

House Republicans are now pushing the Senate to take up a balanced budget amendment as part of the Cut, Cap and Balance plan. That all sounds very well and good, and as a good little Republican, I support the concept of the Cut, Cap and Balance plan.

But I have one little nagging concern about the CC and B plan.

The Limits of the Bully Pulpit

July 26th, 2011 by John Feehery

President Obama has not been shy lately in trying to use the power of the bully pulpit to get his way on Capitol Hill.

It is not clear that his bully pulpit approach is working.

I listened to the President’s address last night on the radio (yes, I went old school), and predictably, I found his comments to be unconvincing. He talked about his balanced approach (which, to be clear, is different than a balanced budget; which is a pipe dream in his vision of the future), he blamed Republicans for being stubborn, he talked about raising taxes on the wealthy (which nobody in Congress includes in their plan), and then he used the same rhetoric he has used time and again.

I doubt the speech worked well for the President. He has been pounding on these message points for weeks, and if anything, his poll numbers have grown worse. Both Gallup and Rasmussen have found that the President has hit historically high disapproval ratings.

Bad Reason, Good Reason

July 21st, 2011 by John Feehery

Bad reason: Opposing the grand bargain because you think a grand bargain would help President Obama get re-elected.

Good reason: Opposing the grand bargain because you think raising taxes will hurt the economy.

Bad reason: You strongly support a tax increase because you want to stick it to Republicans.

Good reason: You want to get rid of tax breaks and loopholes because you think it will help create jobs and make the economy stronger.

Bad reason: Taking a pledge to not raise taxes because you want to get Grover Norquist off your back.

Good reason: Deciding to take only one pledge – the pledge to defend and protect the Constitution, because you think that a politician who can’t think for himself and use his best judgment shouldn’t be elected in the first place.

Bad reason: You want to cut spending because you want to stick it to poor people who should be working hard just like you do.

Good reason: You want to cut back on spending because you believe that in the long run, if we don’t scale back our government spending, our nation could face financial ruin.

A Grand Bargain?

July 20th, 2011 by John Feehery

I love when the Senate comes up with a grand bargain. It gets all the Washington insiders excited. The pundits love grand bargains. The media goes crazy over grand bargains.

I remember when the Senate came up with a grand bargain on immigration a couple of years ago. Ted Kennedy and John McCain came together to hammer out a comprehensive approach to fixing our borders and allowing illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship. Mel Martinez (a good guy and my wife’s former boss) went around town talking about how they were going to jam this agreement through the House.

The House balked on immigration and my guess is that they will balk on this latest grand bargain.

It is rare that the Senate can completely jam the House on issues as big as entitlement spending and taxes. As much as it might disdain the lower body, under our Constitution, the Senate cannot unilaterally impose laws without getting the House to pass them too.

Now, on the merits, I think a grand bargain sounds grand.

I agree with the President that we have a unique opportunity to do some common-sense things to cure our debt problems.

Fixers and Breakers

July 19th, 2011 by John Feehery

There are two kinds of politicians.

Fixers come into office to fix things. They seek to fix problems for their constituents, fix the legislative process and fix government.

Breakers come into office to break things. They seek to take down the political order, break up the status quo and destroy icons.

Fixers occupy the political middle on both the left and the right. They like to work within the system, they don’t demonize their opponents; they tend to be workhorses who find the media a necessary, but tedious evil.

Breakers occupy the political fringes on both the left and the right. They hate the current system. They hate their opponents. They tend to be show horses who use the media to carry their message.

Breakers can become fixers, but fixers rarely become breakers.

Newt Gingrich was a breaker. Denny Hastert was a fixer.

John Boehner is a fixer. Nancy Pelosi was a breaker.

Both Bush’s were fixers, as was Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama started as breakers. Franklin Roosevelt campaigned as a fixer, became a breaker when he took the White House (his Hundred Days was a prime example of how the breaker operates) but became a fixer during the Second World War.