By David Cowan

More Commentary @ www.economicparables.com

The metaphor works well, and many liberals see it as the perfect strategy, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

First, there are many concerned liberals who think President Obama is making a conservative-leaning deficit deal, and they are frustrated by what they believe is his conservative-leaning deficit strategy.

The examples they cite are that the White House did not try to tie a debt ceiling vote to the extension of the Bush tax cuts last December, conceded linking any increase in the ceiling to spending cuts, and whenever Republicans dug in their heels President Obama gave ground.

Some liberals are not so worried about this, they think President Obama has a cunning plan, and is giving ground as part of his grand strategy. While Republicans are using the debt ceiling to force bigger spending cuts, President Obama is getting Democrats used to the idea of bigger spending cuts than they would like.

“Cunning, yes?” They say.

They also say, with a more conservative looking deal at the end, President Obama will come out looking good to voters and this will boost his chances of  re-election.

This is Obama, the conservative in sheep’s clothing.

However, inside lurks a Wolf.

On the other side of the 2012 election are the Tax increases much loved by liberals.

The strategy is that President Obama is making concessions because he knows taxes are scheduled to increase when the Bush-era tax rates expire… just after the election.  Whatever deal the Republicans strike by August 2^nd will have a sting in the tail.

Are you ready for this?

The New York Times accuses the Republicans of being ideologues, and, of course, President Obama is determined. Why is it that whenever conservatives dig their heels in they are being ideological, but when a liberal does it is a determined effort?

The Republicans need to stand strong on the economy, and it provides a moment for one of the 2012 candidates to come out to champion the economy. Whoever does will have a shot of winning in 2012. However, if the winning candidate has not taken the main chance then in November 2012 they will be conceding to a second term President Obama on the eve of tax hikes they have no control over.

Then we will see who the ideologue is, because President Obama can finally stop campaigning and seek to do what his ideals dictate.

So, who needs enemies? I said I will look at all the candidates, so today, before I get back to some of the serious contenders let’s look at some of the no-hopers with their hat in the ring. These are candidates who will at best be invisible and at worse do some damage to the credibility of the
conservative challenge to Barack Obama.

Listed in alphabetical order, this is the Class List of Fails, so they all get an F.

First to Fred Karger, there is so little to say here. Karger is touted as the first openly gay candidate for the presidency, suggesting in the delusional reinvention of history by the gay community that there have been so many closet candidates up to now. That his orientation means he stands no chance with the vast majority of conservative voters is hardly worth stating, but neither are his economic ideas. He trots out recent orthodoxy, opposing outsourcing and the shift of manufacturing centers out of the country, and says incentives are needed to convince American companies to stay put and invest locally. His slogan on the economy is “Jobs First: We need to keep jobs in America.” He says, “I am a fiscal conservative; I come from a finance background.   I want to work to strengthen our economy.  I believe in the private sector.”  Final soundbite-me, he told Fox News Radio, “Ronald Reagan was the ultimate optimist.  He basically talked us out of the last Recession, and I want to bring that kind of optimism back.”

Teacher’s Report: I’m sorry, but saying you got business experience and paying homage to Ronald Reagan is not going to get you anywhere. It is ideas that are needed, and needed fast!

Next up is Andy Martin, who you may know better as the source of the chain mail and online reports questioning the citizenship of President Obama and the claim that he is a Muslim. He says “Obama plays for keeps. He plays rough, and that's the only way to beat him, and I'm the only one that is tough enough to do that." He says he represents “genuine conservative values and a practical, creative approach to solving America's economic problems.  “Jobs come first; working families are his priority,” he says and he will “stand up FOR Main Street and stand up TO Wall Street.”

Teacher’s Report: Very cute. Sit down Andy, it isn’t going to happen.

Teacher’s Report: You can chop him off your list.

Next on the cakewalk is Tom Miller, who advocates a very specific list of economic actions, including not authorizing an increase to the U.S. debt limit, amortizing the estimated $16 trillion deficit over 30 years, and ordering a full audit of the Federal government. He will immediately terminate all bailout and tarp programs and recover the money. Miller believes the National debt is a threat to National security and the status of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. He believes he will “re-empower, once again, the American people with the freedoms that they need to rebuild our economy back into being a producing Nation.” Miller will terminate the Federal minimum wage and support the free market to determine private sector wages. There are lots of specifics on his website, and actually looks the best of this class, however….

Teacher’s Report: Sorry, but it isn’t Miller time.

Running on low fuel, Buddy Roemer is the former Louisiana Governor and former Democrat campaigning for finance reforms. He wants to impose a $100 limit on disclosed contributions
per individual. At a Tea Party rally, he said the current system is “disastrous, it’s dysfunctional." Most recently, he served as the founder, CEO, and President of Business First Bank, a small business
community bank with approximately $650 million in assets that took no bailout money from the federal government. Two days ago he tweeted “Saturday challenge - Jobs: Stop sending jobs overseas, Small Business Deregulation, energy independence, $100 limit on giving – free to lead.”

Teacher’s Report: Too much former and too little leader, time to bail out Buddy.

Vern Wuensche took tenth place in the 2008 Iowa and New Hampshire primaries by spending only $36,000. In 100 days, he visited over 6,000 local businesses and churches in 242 towns in both states. He believes that business thrive on character. He wants to eliminate the right of
public workers to unionize, allow the right to work without being a union member, and, repeal
the minimum wage allowing wages to be determined by the free market. He also demands that a cost benefit analysis of any environmental regulation be required.

Teacher’s Report: Vern, you have some sound economic principles, but stop wasting your money.

Teacher’s Report: Santorum believes a lot of things, but few believe he is anything but a
big government Republican beating out a tune he doesn’t know the words to.

There are three simple steps required to get America working at its best again, but they will require a giant leap in faith by politicians. The final space shuttle launch is perhaps a metaphor for where America is today. America has been travelling the European road towards secularism and dependency in recent years. This journey was not embarked upon by President Barack Obama, though he has hastened the journey’s end greatly.

This European road is one where the apparatus of State is the repository of morality, rules and decisions. This leaves its civil dependents free not to care, because the State cares for society’s ills, it is somebody else’s problem. This is the selfishness of liberalism, it leads to abdicating personal responsibility for the community and leaving the State to deal with it and legislate.

Morality becomes defined by what the rules say you can and cannot do. The responsible individual is therefore one who keeps to the rules, which are increasingly defined by a remote governing and law-making process. The liberals who drive these new rules don’t care about the Poor, or Race or all the other things they pontificate on so eloquently. They are only interested in the IDEA of the Poor, Race and other classes who live far from their zip codes. They can have the best of both worlds: live their own nice life free of any conscience because they care about classes.

The outcome of this is moral malaise, economic stagnation and ever growing cost of government. Sound familiar? Look around you, do you see the evidence?

This mentality has to change, and it is a big ask. It is a giant leap. What is needed is not just a change of leader, but a change in attitude in America. This needs to be a mixture of commitment to the faith and enlightenment ideals which founded America, and, a commitment to applying these
ideals to making a better tomorrow.

Liberals like to dismiss all the talk of the Constitution and Founding Fathers by the Tea Party and Conservatives as being at best nostalgic and at worse backwards. It is not. It is integral to
understanding the solution to America’s current ills.

So, what about the three steps? They are:

Step 1: Repent and Pray, and remember what the American Ideal means

Step 2: Focus on growing the economy

Step 3: Cut Government deep

The first step:

The hubris of government is rooted in the Enlightenment without God, something the Founding Fathers never intended. The negative proposition of the Founding is that we only progress knowing that we are answerable to a higher order, to God the Creator. This is because of the Fallen
nature of humanity. The positive proposition of the Founding is that we progress because God fills us with Hope. This is the uniqueness of the American ideal, which is an ideal for all humanity not just Americans.

Hence, we repent because of our weakness and we pray because of the Hope that God inspires within us to innovate, create for ourselves and community, and to help each other: family, friends and community. The obsession with “human rights” is a denial of this combination of weakness and hope, placing confidence in regulation and courts. Instead of court being the outcome of wrongs, it
becomes the starting point of establishing “rights.” The starting point should be God and individuals caring for each other, placing confidence in God to guide us.

The second step:

All the talk about cuts, deficits and taxes is placing the emphasis in the all the wrong places. They are of a secondary order, not just in this list of three steps but in the economic approach now needed. The
economy thrives on confidence and energy. Both have been sapped in recent years. During the last presidential campaign, candidate Obama talked up the doom and gloom of the economy, resulting in companies taking more drastic actions they would have ordinarily. Had 2008 not been an election year, the economy would still have entered a recessionary cycle but it would not have been as deep as it has been. Of course, the candidate figured that as President he would be the economy’s savior. How wrong he was!

There is a need to cut government, not just to save money but to stop the dependency and return people to a focus on economic growth. This means people being entrepreneurial, realizing the economy is not a fixed pie to be shared out by government. When you’re short of pie, you bake
some more! This means people out of work looking for ideas and opportunities, and for those in work they need to innovate their businesses and take the right kind of risks to generate new business. In short, individuals and businesses need to dig deep to solve problems.

This also means a consumption that is not just consumerism and speculation, but also investment in self and family. The disposable society figured we could dispose of responsibility as well. The great lesson of this recession is that far too many people and organizations had built their economic well-being on shifting sands.

The Third Step:

The 2012 candidates have to be prepared to address voters in a call to taking back responsibility from government. When people say “We want our country back” they should be saying they want to take responsibility back. Governments do not fix economies; they only tax entrepreneurial energy and dollars. Government has an important role as servant of society, but it makes a very poor master.

These are the small steps, but for politicians they are a Giant Leap. These are not popular suggestions, I know. They do not satisfy human selfishness. Adam Smith, that great Scottish enlightenment figure, distinguished between selfishness and self-interest. It is self-interest which
is the motor of the economy, and candidates need to take a giant leap to explain and inspire people as to what is in their self-interest and in the self-interest of America.

Only then will this economy grow at the rate it needs to and to sustain America. The nation needs to raise up a leader who can lead from the heart, not just their own heart but the beating heart of America, and this starts by reminding the American voters of the Soul of America.

Let’s start with Step One. Jesus said, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” This is the campaign slogan America needs right now. The current debate is not about the economy. The economy is not the driver of things to be, that is Socialist philosophy. The economy is the reflection of things that are, and right now the economy is reflecting the struggle for the soul of America.

You know you’re in trouble when Warren Buffet comes out of the woodwork to offer a plan. And, you know you’re in bigger trouble when you kind of agree with him.

Buffet’s plan is this: "I could end the deficit in five minutes.  You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”

Buffet says he was only half joking, but it may be recorded as one of his more sensible observations. The reality is that the debt talks are theater pure and simple.

Look at the backdrop: We are in a new presidential election cycle, which complicates matters.

Then look at President Obama taking center stage. Maybe a reason why the Leftists are going so negative on Obama here is that even they recognize a guy wanting to keep the lead role, sorry running for election, when they see one.

Entering Stage Left is his most trenchant critic Paul Krugman, writing reviews that he hopes will close this show, but he has difficulty closing a toilet seat at the best of times. He says, “let’s be frank. It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the GOP’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth.”

Yes, Mr. Krugman it is the simple truth. However, theater is about fantasy so let’s move to the next Scene. President Obama says “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.” Krugman says this is conservative ideology, since government should not budget like families, and argues businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers. There’s a reason for that Mr. Krugman at a time when the economy is actually growing, it’s called confidence and politicians are knocking the stuffing out of the economy in a staged fight.

So let’s go to the next Act, and the dramatic scene featuring the President addressing the audience directly. Obama says the debt ceiling should not "be used as a gun against the heads" of Americans to retain breaks for corporate jet owners or oil and gas companies, using some of his most direct dialog to date. He wants to reduce the deficit, in part, through new tax revenue raised by closing loopholes and tax subsidies. Beneath the rhetoric to the audience, however, is a soliloquy to the Democrats of good old fashioned class warfare.So, entering stage Right, the Republicans oppose measures that raise taxes, demanding steep reductions in the US budget deficit as the price of a debt increase.

Leftist rag The Nation (I refer you to the earlier point of Krugman closing the toilet seat), says, “Republicans have been negotiating in bad faith, unwilling to compromise even an inch on their extremist and absolutist positions. Some are no longer willing to come to the table at all.” Leftists sing a chorus that the Republican Party is threatening to default on the nation’s debt and this will sabotage the global economy on the basis of narrow ideological goals. A new verse is being added as you read this, namely that the President should invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.”

Democrats and Republicans remain "far apart on a wide range of issues," Obama, said wringing his hands as he adjusted his teleprompter prop. "Everyone acknowledged that we have to get this done before the hard deadline of Aug. 2 to make sure America does not default for the first time on its obligations. And everybody acknowledged that there's going to be pain involved politically on all sides."

Meanwhile, the Opening Night of this show, August 2, is fast approaching and the cast are still fluffing their lines over raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

At yesterday’s rehearsal, all the lead cast turned up and "All the leaders came here in a spirit of compromise and of wanting to solve problems on behalf of the American people." So, it will be alright on the night!

President Obama hopes Sunday's dress rehearsal will pave the way for the "hard bargaining" necessary for a deal, because "Everybody acknowledges that there's going to be pain involved politically on all sides," he said. 

And, the chorus joined in with a handful of officials on both sides of the aisle indicating they are ready to give ground.

With all this improvisation, let’s just remind ourselves of the script:

·         Public debt was $14.3 trillion on 31 May, up from $10.6 trillion when Obama took office in January 2009

·         Congress has voted to raise the US debt limit 10 times since 2001

·         The largest expenditures of the projected $135 Billion deficit include: $80.9 Billion on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, $72.9 Billion on government agency expenses, $31.7 Billion on Defense, and $29.0 Billion on Interest on Treasury securities.

In the show Chorus Line, the opening song ends with the lines:

Who am I anyway?
Am I my resume?
That is a picture of a person I don't know.

What does he want from me?
What should I try to be?
So many faces all around, and here we go.
I need this job, oh God, I need this show.

Yeah, the show must go on Mr. President…it’s time for your close up.

Tim Pawlenty says he has a fiscal record which shows fortitude, taking on public worker benefits and cutting government spending “before it was cool and popular.”

A former two-term governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty does have the appeal to connect with people. In Minnesota he focused on grassroots issues, balanced the state’s $4.3 billion deficit without raising taxes, and reformed the state’s health care. He was on the short list to become John McCain's running mate in 2008.

However, the big question remains, “Tim who?”, and which factions of the GOP will he attract? Some say he has a Reaganite formula of being part social conservative and part fiscal conservative. Pawlenty labels himself a “Sam’s Club Republican,” a reference to his humble roots in an appeal to working-class Republicans.

To help us all, he’s written a book, "Courage to Stand: An American Story," to introduce us to his life story and his vision for moving America forward. Arguably he could become the compromise candidate, but this is not the best place to be and he should resist taking poll position on this front.

Tim Pawlenty wants the America to aim for an accelerated economic growth rate. In a speech delivered at the University of Chicago, Pawlenty outlined the policies he says can reinvigorate the nation’s. “Let’s start with a big, positive goal,” Pawlenty said, and “let’s grow the economy by five percent, instead of the anemic two percent envisioned currently.”

This is not a bad place to start, given the focus on cuts and recognizing that the economy is already growing. The problem is it is not growing fast enough for America, it is anemic.

Pawlenty said that President Obama was “satisfied with a second-rate American economy produced by his third-rate policies. I’m not.”

Among his key economic ideas are a cut in the business tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent, and elimination of “special interest handouts, carve-outs, subsidies, and loopholes” in the tax code.

Pawlenty also argues the federal government should not be responsible for the financial health of private companies, and that ailing banks should be allowed to fail. He believes the auto industry should have filed for bankruptcy, and the stimulus was too much and ineffective.

In one speech, Pawlenty said “Mr. President, stop taxing the American people into oblivion, stop spending them into bankruptcy, and the next time you have a chance to address the young people of America, maybe you should apologize for dumping this crushing amount of debt on [them].”

In short, Pawlenty says, “It really boils down to those who believe in freedom, individual responsibility and opportunity, those who believe in markets and the growth of private enterprise versus those who believe in the growth of government.”

Does his record support this strident tone?

During his first term as Governor, he only challenged the liberal establishment on tax-burden issues and the signing of pro-life initiatives, but little else.  In fact, he often cooperated to enact huge bonding bills, big stadium subsidies, light-rail and commuter-rail subsidies, environmentalist mandates, and a minimum-wage hike.

He says he will be eager to use his veto pen, yet he has signed off on a host of environmentalist policies and nanny-state regulations.

On the environmental front, as head of the National Governors Association Pawlenty worked with Democratic governors to promote a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions and “renewable-energy” requirements. 

As far as Nanny goes, Pawlenty signed a statewide ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and many “public areas.” He authorized bonding to acquire more parkland and light-rail-routes. He banned service fees and expiration dates on gift cards. He gave law enforcement the authority to pull over and issue a ticket for anyone not wearing a seatbelt. He instituted more mandates for the use of child booster seats. Pawlenty’s Minnesota was the first state to ban the use of BPA plastic in products for small children.

“We can fix our economy,” Pawlenty pledged during his Chicago speech, “Our people are ready to get back to work. We just need to give them tools to get there. And get the government out of the way.”

It seems that big government is in the eye of the beholder.

Teacher’s Report

Pawlenty has some good fiscal conservatism at the heart of his economic policy, but fiscal conservatives will see it as still bleeding Nanny thinking and “Green” blood. He may have some toughness in his economic thought, but will he build the authority to back up any toughness?

On Government Jobs

"The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America's working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation. Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000. Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt."

Many of these jobs are needed in a Nanny state, Tim. Make your decision which way you want to go from here.

Government Spending

 “The U.S. attorney general recently announced that the Justice Department is beefing up its efforts to fight financial fraud such as Ponzi schemes. Good. The agency should start by reviewing the spending habits of the federal government, which is running the largest Ponzi scheme our country has ever seen.”

True, cutting spending and size of government is key to the future.

Healthcare

Pawlenty joined in a lawsuit on behalf of his state to declare “Obamacare” unconstitutional, and offers his own five-point plan:  (1) Incentivize patients to be smart consumers, (2) Pay for performance, (3) Liability reform, (4) Interstate health-care insurance, and (5) Modernize health insurance. He says “Runaway costs are the underlying reason that so many citizens do not have access to health care and that our system needs reform. Rather than focus on cost-cutting reforms like the ones I described, Democrats focused solely on expanding access.”

The five points are a start, but much more is required to fix it.

Taxes

He calls for a change in individual tax rate by making two rates: 10 percent for those making $50,000 or less (those who do not currently pay income taxes would still be exempt) and couples at $100,000 or less, and a 25 percent rate for all income above those levels. “A one-third cut in the bottom rate to allow younger, middle, and lower-income families to save and build wealth. And a 28 percent cut in the top rate to spur investment and job creation.

Question is will people use the tax cut to save and build wealth?

Energy & Environment

Pawlenty says America must stop relying on foreign energy, drill in ANWR, extend tax incentives for energy efficiency, give business incentives to invest in energy research, support locally-owned clean energy and wind sources, and achieve 25% renewable energy by 2025. He believes EPA is stifling the economy, and regulation of greenhouse gas emissions costs both business and consumers, and destroys jobs.

Business will innovate in the environment where there is business to be had, but once government sets the targets then there is a tendency to inflate business rather than grow.

At a congressional picnic in 2006, President George W. Bush called him “that rock and roll dude.” An ex-rocker with The Flying Squirrels and a guy who set up his own law practice, the boy from Michigan Thaddeus McCotter has a flying red squirrels chance of getting the GOP nomination.

With fightin’ talk, he’s taken a shot at the guy in poll position and the guy in the job, saying “Motor City hospitality dictates a Michigan message to Mitt that our struggling families, entrepreneurs and workers can’t afford policies that make Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama less than rivals, and more like running mates.”

The American Conservative Union as consistently named McCotter a winner of their Ratings Award, which recognizes recipients’ commitment to liberty, personal responsibility, traditional virtues, and national security. First elected in 2002 to Congress, McCotter states he focuses his efforts on preserving and promoting manufacturing and small businesses, the back bone of our community's economy.

McCotter understands America is living in an age of globalization, and believes challenges include unaccountable government bureaucracies and out-of-control spending; the social and economic upheavals of globalization; the rise of Communist China; and the war for freedom against terrorism. The five core principles McCotter centers his campaign around are:

1.   Our liberty is from God not the government

2.   Our sovereignty is in our souls not the soil

3.   Our security is from strength not surrender

4.   Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector

5.   Our truths are self-evident not relative

He saves his most stinging commentary for President Obama, writing in the Washington Times recently “To wit, President Obama’s erroneous, radical and professed intent to have government lay the foundations of a new American economy. Previously, the federal government sought to regulate our economy. Today, this leftist government wants to re-create our economy. Such hubris ignores the reality that the most prosperous and equitable economy in human history was created by the American people, not the federal government, and it rejects America’s revolutionary experiment in freedom and limited government. If, as under Obamacare, the federal government can arbitrarily and radically re-create our economy, it is no longer limited and subservient to the sovereign American people.”

In contrast, McCotter states “a leftist Administration has taken America in a ‘new direction’ - back to the 1970s. The Left has proven too costly, too crazy, and too quick, giving Americans: more deficits and debt, more spending and taxes, more unemployment, more government, and less freedom.”

McCotter argues the federal government exists to serve the American people, so we must shrink the bureaucracy and restore fiscal integrity. Prosperity comes only from the private sector. Massive bailouts and government “stimulus” have failed. Middle-class earnings are falling further behind and upward mobility has slowed. This endangers the fabric of our society and causes daily, pressing concern for most American families.

He explains, “We need a President who understands that big government seeks to bury our freedom, and who instead will bury big government. A President who will make the tough but fair choices to rein in out-of-control spending. A leader who knows that investing in American industry and cultivating entrepreneurial small businesses are key to job creation and growth. A President who puts in place policies that fulfill the promises made to our greatest generation and the truly needy, while ensuring that future generations are not left behind. A President who will stand proudly with our allies and stand with unflinching courage against the enemies of freedom.”

All good red meat. However….

He voted for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would have given the Unions even more power over business. To be fair, McCotter has since said his vote was “a mistake.” So, how many more “mistakes” has he made? He voted: YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending

·         YES on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief.

·         YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler.

·         YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy

·         YES on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices.

·         YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing.

·         YES on regulating the subprime mortgage industry

This does not suggest he is a radically fiscal conservative. In fact, he seems to look a lot like the pedestrian candidates we already know and love, not.

Teacher’s Report

Thaddeus McCotter talks a lot about what needs to be done and his support for small business, but his voting record will be thrown at him as fast as a flying red squirrel every time he gets into an economic debate. While he has some solid views, there is still a lack of specifics, which for a largely unknown candidate means we have too many known unknowns.

Grade: C+

Subject Card:

Big Picture.

Shrink out-of-control government and end its spending binges. Yeah, we get that.

Reform our tax system to reduce the burden on working families and small businesses by cutting taxes, while eliminating loopholes. The current tax system penalizes employers and slows the creation of jobs. The U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest of any developed country in the world.  Our government must simplify the tax code and provide economic incentives to businesses that invest in U.S.-based jobs. The individual-tax system must be fairer and flatter. Fix our healthcare and Social Security systems for current and future generations. Americans should have consumer choice. So, all the usual tax stuff. Point is, the tax changes will generate their own costs and regulatory burden, so it is not really the main point.

Our senior citizens should not have to worry about their access to healthcare, which is why we must not reduce medical benefits to anyone over the age of 55.  For the less fortunate and most vulnerable among us, we must provide a safety net for those who cannot afford a basic level of catastrophic coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions. So, future generations still have to pay for the lack of healthcare planning by older generations? Harks back to health being a human right, rather than an individual responsibility.

In its current form, America’s Social Security system is the largest Ponzi scheme in history, and it is only a matter of time before it collapses under the weight of federal debt and failed national leadership. The time to act is now. But, we all know you won’t?

Empower the private sector for an economy that creates good, well-paying jobs to reduce reliance on imports. Do people in the market not empower themselves?

We need a new approach to regulation in Washington – one that reduces onerous and pointless rules that hamper businesses, without sacrificing the maintenance of competitive markets, safe work environments, and clean air and water. There you go! The robbing Peter to Paul school of economic attended by oh so many of the candidates.

We must seek to restore vibrancy and prosperity to the American economy and the American middle class by dismantling destructive concentrations of power – in banking, in government and in education. Let’s start with that middle one first, shall we?

End Communist China’s mercantilist trade policy.  Isn’t this for China to do?

The true cost of the financial meltdown caused by our banking system is in the trillions of dollars. TARP, a government fiasco, bailed out banks that the government deemed too big to fail, which rewarded them for wrecking our economy. Which is why you voted for some of these measures?

Have an energy policy based on making all domestic options available. Nothing new here, move on.

On the environment as we responsibly transition from fossil fuels to alternative energies, we need to continue seeking reliable, cost-efficient sources of energy by pursuing maximum energy production and free-market, green technological innovations. This includes providing research and development tax credits for businesses and tax deductions for homeowners who increase their energy efficiency. Let’s look at Gingrich again, shall we?

The last time I saw Newt Gingrich he was making his way to the CPAC podium to strains of “Eye of the Tiger” and wild applause. Will we ever hear strains of “Hail to the Chief” for Newt? He certainly remains a giant of the Republican Party, with power and ideas, but his influence was greatest in the 1980s but do we need to go back to the future?

One thing is for sure, the nation needs a new contract!

Gingrich looks back to the Reagan years to remind people of what can be done by Republicans, saying "The Reagan recovery, which I participated in passing, in seven years created for this current economy the equivalent of 25 million new jobs, raised federal revenue by $800 billion a year in terms of the current economy, and clearly it worked… It's a historic fact."

The jobs figure he cites is pretty accurate, but many contest the accuracy of his federal revenues figures. What is true is the Reagan years were an era of growth, and there is some longing to return to make a return. However, as a novel on nostalgia put in its opening line, “the past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

Or, put another way, nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.

This is the problem for Gingrich, quite apart from his own team quitting recently. Harking back to the Reagan years and the Contract is not going to sell, for it is the future that people are uncertain about. We can be sure of President Reagan’s principles, and most apply today, but we are in a different place.

Gingrich offers America his “prosperity plan”. He says "Creating jobs and getting back to 4% unemployment is the most important step to a balanced budget," And his website states America only works when Americans are working. The plan on offer includes a number of policy proposals, but they quickly fall into the same old categories: taxes, monetary policy, jobs, energy and healthcare.

However, his record does not encourage me to think he is the economic brain he likes us to think he is. On China he worked for Most Favored Nation (MFN) status, he backed “free trade” agreements sponsored by international organizations (NAFTA, CAFT & WTO), and his famous “Contract” led to an increase in government spending on social welfare and bureaucracy. Most concerning is his environmental agenda, so-called “Green Conservatism.” In his support for environmental public-partnerships he is offering us Clintonomics and a program of wealth redistribution.

Teacher’s Report

As a 2012 candidate, Gingrich is very much yesterday’s man. That said, he does spell out a reasonably detailed plan, but still contains at its core the idea that government runs the economy. For this reason, and his own campaign fiscal and people management, Newt Gingrich gets a low grade.

Grade: D

Report Card

Taxes

Stop the 2013 tax increases to promote stability in the economy.

Make the United States the most desirable location for new business investment through a bold series of tax cuts, including: Eliminating the capital gains tax. Move toward an optional flat tax of 15% that would allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard, saving hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year. In the right direction, but not unique to Gingrich.

Monetary Policy

Strengthen the dollar by returning to the Reagan-era monetary policies that stopped runaway inflation and reforming the Federal Reserve to promote transparency. Balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches. I like his statements about deregulation, but this will be cancelled out by his environmental proposals.

Jobs

Remove obstacles to job creation imposed by destructive and ineffective regulations, programs and bureaucracies. Yeah, we got that.

Energy

Implement an American energy policy that removes obstacles to responsible energy development and creates jobs in the United States. "Contrary to popular belief, America has more energy than any nation on earth. All that's keeping us from becoming energy independent is a lack of political will to do so," says Gingrich. Today's high gas and energy prices are entirely a function of bad government policies. Newt has an American Energy Plan that would maximize energy production from all sources--oil, natural gas, wind, biofuels, nuclear, clean coal, and more--and would encourage clean energy innovation without discouraging overall energy production. He says there is a need to remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles, end the ban on oil shale development in the American West, give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing to give them an incentive to allow offshore development, reduce frivolous lawsuits that hold up energy production, finance cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties, and, replace the Environmental Protection Agency, which has become a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices, with an Environmental Solutions Agency balancing better environmental with impact on job creation and energy costs. His environmental proposals will cancel out the energy plans, hard to see how he pulls this all off.

Healthcare

Repeal and replace Obamacare with a pro-jobs, pro-responsibility health plan that puts doctors and patients in charge of health decisions instead of bureaucrats. "We must repeal and replace the left's big government health bill with real solutions that will lower costs and improve health outcomes," says Gingrich. The big government Obamacare approach does not address the root causes of America's health care crisis. Instead, it creates layers of new taxes, regulations, and bureaucracies that will ultimately make our problems worse, not better. Gingrich wants a fundamental reform of entitlement programs with the advice and help of the American people:

·         Make health insurance more affordable and portable

·         Create more choices in Medicare

·         Reform Medicaid

·         Cover the sickest with a High Risk Pool set up by each state to cover the uninsured who have become too sick to buy health insurance.

·         Protect consumers

·         Extend Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) throughout the health care system.

·         Reward quality care by changing the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement models

·         Reward health and wellness to encourage, incentivize, and reward healthy behaviors.

·         Stop health care fraud by moving from a paper-based system to an electric one.

·         Stop junk lawsuits, speed medical breakthroughs to patients, inform patients and consumers of price and quality, and invest in research for health solutions.

Some useful ideas here, but don’t see all this adding up to a strong market-based plan, nor does it point to individuals taking responsibilities. Probably drinking the European Kool-aid.

Cain has the business experience. As President and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, took just 14 months to return Godfather’s to profitability and led his management team to a buyout of the company.

Cain has slain a political dragon or two before. On national TV, Cain challenged then President Clinton about his healthcare plan the negative effect it would have on business. He said “Quite honestly Mr. President, your calculations are incorrect. In the competitive marketplace, it simply doesn’t work that way.” Newsweek named Herman Cain the primary saboteur of Hillarycare.

Cain is right to point out that “every time this administration or Congress tries to fix a problem, it gets worse.” He is also right that the real, not the Real, answer is less government, less spending and less taxation.

The economy is not completely heading south, but at 1.8% GDP growth is very weak for America, while Jon Huntsman’s pals in China are growing at close 10%. Cain says Democrat policies will lead to America being “approached with outstretched palms by the Chinese to pay back the billions upon billions we owe them.”

Cain attacks Obamacare as a bureaucratic and costly nightmare, President Obama and the liberals in Congress have dismantled the free market health care system and replaced it with health care “deform,” and “under the guise of making health care a ‘right’ for all people, President Obama and the liberals in Congress instead extended the tentacles of government.”

He points out the clock is running on tackling the debt ceiling, and highlights that not knowing the tax rates for 2013 is an unnecessary uncertainty hanging over businesses and investors.

Hope and change promised by Obama have not happened, and Cain says “The administration continues to say that the economic hole was deeper than expected. If so, they should have stopped digging.”

The federal government should not, Cain exhorts, be in the business of picking and choosing industries they support financially. This happens in the form of subsidies, and special tax breaks in which the government “plays favorite” with one industry and in turn, hinders the competitiveness of another. The federal government also impedes economic growth by interfering in the employer and employee relationship.

“Let’s get real!” says candidate Cain. Is he the real deal then? Having stated the same problems as the other Republican candidates, what ideas does he have?

Cain says President Obama keeps asking for more time, but more time is not going to change anything. He says “To change the economic course of this nation, we must change the occupant of the White House, electing someone who understands the power of empowerment.”

This point of empowerment is an important one for him to make, because we need to shift emphasis from government responsibility to individual responsibility. But this comes at a price, and some folks want the government to nanny them. Cain has to nail this point in his campaign, and explain individual responsibility is not just for self, but for family and local community. This is how we make change at grassroots levels.

As the former CEO of the Godfather's Pizza chain, clearly Cain understands business. This is good, better than another career politician, lawyer or community organizer. He says "As a businessman, I have an economic vision that implements real business principles. Economic guiding principles help you develop and test right ideas."

These ideas include:

Cain wants to create a job for every home in America. Well, Herman business does this, not government.

Taxes on corporate and personal income should be capped at 25 percent, and calls for an end to the capital gains tax. To which I can add it is a way of punishing hard work and wise decisions.

Production must precede consumption in the United States. In a recent blog, I said the economy is an engine being used to pull a load it is not supposed to. Cain adds to this, saying "The engine of our economy is the business sector. We need to fuel the engine."

Federal income tax should be replaced by a national sales tax, and Social Security needs to be restructured to give folks the opportunity to invest in their own retirement funds. Great idea, let people decide their future for themselves!

On energy, Cain says it is essential to empower the energy sector with a real energy independence plan that removes government barriers to maximizing all of our energy resources. In fact, the real problem is achieving oil independence. We are already electricity-independent. We just need to break our addiction to oil by getting government out of the way responsibly. This is good, but you need to explain the cause and effect here.

The value of the dollar dependable, "And that all starts with bringing down debt," he said, adding "Prosperity is the natural state of our free market system. And I want to create perpetual prosperity for America."

GRADE: A

TEACHER’S REPORT

Herman Cain has been more precise than most in setting out some specific proposals, beyond stating what is wrong with the current administration. He has the business experience that would make him a good CEO for America in economic terms. He scores highly here with a straight A in economic terms, but whether his other policy ideas will work is quite another matter, and there is still an elusive A+ to be awarded.

SUBJECT REPORT:

Herman Cain’s has laid out his core subjects in a 5-step plan to help boost the economy and create jobs.

1) Lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent.

We must empower our economy with lower taxes on businesses and workers. All we have to do is look at the success of the 1960s and 1980s. Okay, we got that Herman. America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, so this is a good start but Cain needs to be more ambitious and aim for even lower levels.

2) Take the capital gains tax rate to zero.

The capital gains tax is really double taxation and more, because it is isn’t companies who pay taxes, it is people and the tax accumulates with each transaction involved in the cost of any given item. This needs to be driven home just as President Reagan said, “There’s a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn’t put them there!”

3) Take the tax rate on the repatriation of foreign profits for US companies to zero.

Most nations tax their companies on a territorial basis, while America taxes on a worldwide basis.

4) Cut the entire 6.2 percent payrolls tax for workers and employers for 1 year.

Not sure this will achieve much, but better than nothing.

5) Make the tax rates permanent or indefinite.

This will remove some of the uncertainty for business planning, and provides an incentive for business growth. Many businesses in America have funds they are protecting, and it’s no good locked up, but even more dangerous if put out to work in Obama’s economy.

Jon Huntsman clearly has a great deal of foreign policy experience, but that isn’t going to get America back to work. America wants, needs, growth. Hardly surprising then that Huntsman chose to highlight the economy, rather than foreign policy, when he announced his candidacy. However, he seems to be running to catch up on the issue.

Huntsman boasts a fiscal conservative record based on a statewide flat tax, business incentives and private school vouchers. However, he can also “boast” his support of cap and trade as a response to climate change, his backing of civil unions for gay couples, and his support for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

As Utah governor, Huntsman indeed had a conservative economic record overhauling Utah's tax code to make it more modern and attract business investment. Forbes even named Utah the best state for business in the union, and Governing magazine called it the best-managed state.

In 2005, in his first State of the State speech, Huntsman said of the radical tax code, "This can truly serve as an economic development tool to encourage entrepreneurs to keep their businesses located in our state and reinvest their capital time and time again."

Can we expect the same kind of talk in a State of the Union address? Probably not.

This is the problem for Jon Huntsman. If you’re thinking of buying candidate Huntsman, you’re not going to get Governor Huntsman.

Huntsman accomplished a new flat state income tax of about 5 percent, reduction of the sales tax on unprocessed food from 4.75 percent to 1.75 percent, and nearly $30 million in tax credits for industries such as renewable energy development and mining. He didn’t get as far as eliminating the 5 percent corporate income tax, but got credit for trying. In 2007, he signed a bill providing a tuition voucher for up to $3,000 for private-school students, though this was overturned by a referendum the following year.

But then Huntsman became a victim of environmental fashion, supporting cap in hand trade.

Criticized for this, Huntsman defended himself, "The Republican values I'm speaking to are right out of ... Teddy Roosevelt's playbook. He taught us all to revere our land, to leave a legacy ... to the next generation."

Revere the land? Yes. The right policy to achieve this? No. Two different things.

Anyway, he’s changed his tune now. He says "Cap-and-trade ideas aren't working; it hasn't worked, and our economy's in a different place than five years ago.

Huntsman’s public statements trot out the usual liturgy of economic policies, but there is little detail, even less on his website. A few sound recordings bleating on about the economy ain’t going to cut it, Jon.

Of course, we know that the positions someone takes as governor or senator is not necessarily the same as what they say in their presidential bid.

Yes, he emphasizes restoring fiscal discipline, jobs and stability to the economy. But, so do the others. So does Obama for that matter.

This former Ambassador to China says “We are about to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got. This is totally unacceptable and totally un-American. What we need now is leadership that trusts in our strength. Leadership that doesn’t promise Washington has all the solutions to our problems, but rather looks to local solutions in our cities, towns and states.”

He warns that in less than a decade, all federal revenue will have to go toward Medicare, Social Security and interest payments on the debt if hard choices aren’t made now.

Okay Jon, so what hard choices are you going to make? Where’s the policy?

Of course, Huntsman draws on his China junket, and has argued China needs a "Market-based" currency, but what exactly did he do to push the Chinese government to allow its currency to appreciate to a fair market value against the dollar when he was in the job? A bit rich to now saying China’s currency must rise in value.

This does not bode well for a President Huntsman.

Huntsman says President Obama has failed on the economic front and the country is fiscally in “bad shape.” He says “On the economic side, there are no signs of success, very little. You look at unemployment, you look at the environment in which jobs supposedly can be created, when you look at the debt level and you look at all the economic indicators, it would suggest that we're in bad shape.”

Bad shape? What kind of description is that? Does Huntsman think all the nation needs is a little fitness and exercise? The economy is more than in bad shape!

According to Democrats,if Jon Huntsman disagreed with President Obama's economic policy, he never voiced it during his time in the administration. A senior strategist to the president's reelection campaign, David Axelrod told CNN that Huntsman's recent criticism of Obama's "failed" economic policy is "in conflict with what he communicated to us in 2009." Axelrod said he discussed the economy with Huntsman a trip to Shanghai in late 2009. "If he had suggestions on the economy, he had an excellent opportunity to suggest them then, where we were all together in China,"

Axelrod also stated Huntsman praised for Obama. "He was encouraging on health care. He was encouraging on the whole range of issues. He was a little quizzical about what was going on in his own party. And you got the strong sense that he was going to wait until 2016 for the storm to blow over."

Huntsman’s website says “Jon's not running on rhetoric. He’s running on his record – a record that delivered results for Utah, and that will deliver results for America, as well.” He needs to offer clearer and tough ideas on how he will change things,; and convince the republican base that the results he delivered in Utah are the same results he can deliver for America. A big ask.

HUNTSMAN REPORT CARD

TEACHER’S  REPORT

Huntsman has a patchy record, being made patchier by cozying up to the last administration. He needs to try harder on the economy, and first revisit some of the approaches he took as Governor, and then to spell out in detail what policies and ideas he will bring to the office. His attempts to appeal to a broader base is cancelled out by Republicans not trusting him to flip-flop and other voters thinking he’ll revert to type. Best to say it clear Jon, and stick to your principles, which is what the office of the President needs right now.

Rating: C+

SUBJECT REPORT

Here are some of the specific ideas Huntsman offers:

Getting down the deficit: In Utah, the state’s budget deficit increased dramatically during his tenure

Tax: He supports a flat tax, and instituted one in Utah but hasn’t done too well

Corporate taxes: ultimately unsuccessful in eliminating them completely in Utah, but made the effort

Healthcare: opposes Obamacare, but no clear plan for the future

Stimulating the Economy: said back in 2009 that the stimulus package of $870 billion was too small, enough said!

Environmental costs: Still believes in climate change, has to be a concern here that he falls victim again if president

Supports the Balanced Budget Amendment: One of the paltry statements on the economy on his website stats: Let there be no equivocation: Governor Huntsman supports a federal balanced budget amendment. As governor, he balanced the budget every year – including during turbulent times. When the economic crisis struck, he did not raise taxes or rely on accounting gimmicks. Instead, Jon and the legislators cut hundreds of millions of dollars to address the shortfall. Gov. Huntsman also signed into law the largest tax cut in state history. He implemented a flat tax on income. And he did all this while nearly tripling the size of the state’s Rainy Day Fund.

I thought Mitt Romney had the best chance against Obama in 2008. But, is Mitt Romney the man to fix the economy in 2012? The economy does need fixing, big time, but how?

On Obama, Romney states the blindingly obvious when he says "The president has failed the American people on the economy. President Obama has presided over one of the worst economies in modern history—millions of jobs have been lost, record numbers of Americans are in danger of losing their homes, and personal bankruptcies have skyrocketed. With more than 20 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or who have stopped looking for work. President Obama has neglected the fundamental tasks of creating jobs and growing our economy.”

Naturally, we can expect voters to resonate with the age-old election question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? But, is the problem too big to pull old stunts and shout old slogans?

Romney believes his experience solving economic problems is what is needed. His website says he has “the experience and know-how to create jobs and help businesses grow. He spent over twenty-five years in the private sector, building businesses and creating jobs. Elected Governor of Massachusetts during an economic slump, Mitt Romney fought hard to make his state job-friendly and business competitive.”

"I understand how jobs are created and how they are lost," he said. "For me, this is not an academic position or one I learned as a politician, it is something I have learned as a small businessman."

Romney scores highly on his understanding of business, the spirit of American capitalism, love of liberty and a pioneering spirit of innovation and creativity. He is right to say under President Obama’s leadership Washington is smothering these values at home and sapping America’s influence abroad.

Romney gets this bit right: instead, Obama’s focused his efforts on an anti-jobs, anti-growth agenda that has significantly expanded the role of the federal government. But he argues from the wrong starting point.

Romney falls into the usual trap of thinking governments create jobs. They do not. They destroy jobs. Oh sorry, they do create jobs: for their friends, by growing government departments and increasing regulations which need whole new or expanding bureaucracies around them. Romney will need to revoke the policies which have only succeeded in creating more of the uncertainty and obstacles to investment that threaten the economic vitality of America.

His website says “Over the course of this campaign, Mitt will lay out a detailed plan for what he will do as President to jump-start economic growth and help create jobs, based on defined principles” Where will the ideas come from, and will they stack up?

He says we need to right-size government by cutting spending, repealing Obamacare, and ending wasteful programs YES TO THIS!

He then gets back on track:

The mission to restore America begins with getting our fiscal house in order. President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb Washington’s appetite for spending, the national debt will grow to the size of our entire economy this year. As President, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and bring much-needed reforms to entitlement programs. Mitt will work toward balancing the budget, reducing the size and reach of the federal government, and returning power to states and the people.

Bottom line? As a 2012 candidate, Romney made a good candidate in 2008. It is hard to see where the new ideas are going to come from in the Romney campaign.

ROMNEY REPORT CARD

TEACHER’S  REPORT

Everyone knows Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, but there is no vision here. This will be another president failing to tackle healthcare, which is predicated on big government, dependency and welfarism. Tackle that, but be prepared to be unpopular. There is a lot of attention on this losing issue, but Mitt Romney needs to define the need for fiscal conservatism and the specifics of policy, draw a picture! There is a need for market reform and re-educating the American public to wean the nation off debt and Welfarism.

RATING: B-

SUBJECT REPORT

Here are some of the specific ideas Romney offers:

Exercise fiscal responsibility to restore economic opportunity. GOOD!
Romney will cut spending to finally move our nation toward a balanced budget, be more fiscally conservative than Bush and stop borrowing unhealthy sums to pay for what we already cannot afford. He will place a hard cap on federal spending, curb federal spending by repealing Obamacare, the federal takeover of health care that is scheduled to cost taxpayers one trillion dollars over the next ten years.

Reform entitlement programs to keep them solvent and put America on a path to prosperity. YES? BUT HOW?

Romney believes that the federal government should publish a balance sheet each year—just as it requires public companies to do. Over the course of his campaign, Mitt will propose the specific steps he will take as President to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security. VAGUE

Our economic future depends on fundamental reform. NO DETAIL

Repeal and replace President Obama’s health care law
On his first day in office, he will issue an executive order paving the way for waivers from Obamacare for all 50 states. Then call on Congress to fully repeal Obamacare. WHAT WILL YOU OFFER AS AN ALTERNATIVE?

Give states the responsibility, flexibility, and resources to act
Empower states to expand health care access to low-income Americans by block-granting funds for Medicaid and the uninsured. AGAIN, ALTERNATIVE?

Empower individuals to purchase their own insurance
Expand the tax deduction to also include those who buy their own health insurance. YES!

Focus federal regulation of health care on making markets work
Federal regulation of health care should be limited and focused and use limited federal regulation to correct common failures in insurance markets, while eliminating counterproductive federal rules. Individuals and small businesses should be allowed to form purchasing pools to lower insurance costs and improve choice. WHAT OTHER REGULATORY REFORM IS PLANNED?

Reform the broken medical liability system
Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation and offer reforms, such as alternative dispute resolution or health care courts. YES!

Make health care more like a market and less like a government program
The market reforms Mitt is proposing will drive down costs, better inform consumers, and improve the quality of health care in our nation. WHERE’S THE DETAIL?

 By David Cowan 

$14 trillion in Debt: is America an Eagle or a Turkey?

What is needed is a President who will articulate market economics and reduce the load the economy is expected to carry. Social problems are not going to be fixed by spending and social engineering, but by a nation confident in its own markets and, most importantly, individuals confident in their sense of self and community.

Spending and revenue are continually heading in opposite directions, and America now has a staggering $14 trillion debt load. Both the current and next president need to act. We can’t hope for much from the present incumbent, but can we expect much more from a Republican president?

Hard decisions will need to be taken. The first, and most obvious decision, is to ensure dependency on government is severely reduced. So, no Obamacare. There needs to be a military scaling back. So, no wars of choice. The answer is not to increase taxes either, the Democrats are happy to do that. Raising taxes just keeps the vicious cycle of government growth going.

Hard decisions will also need to be taken by individuals. Americans take pride in standing on their own two feet, yet too many have their hand firmly clasped to a government crutch. The difficult question you have to ask is this: is this me, or is this just other people?

When housing prices rose and life was good, I didn’t hear anyone complaining about how much their property was worth or how much credit they were getting. Given the economic laws of gravity, where does anyone have the right to complain on the way down? We’re supposed to prepare for that, and we didn’t. Most of us cannot pin this on the bankers, we have our own responsibility.

The nature of welfarism is that it creates dependency, and then like a cancerous sore it grows. This dependency is a mindset, and we have to be concerned about the current state of the American Mind.

These are not popular messages. They are the truth of the matter. Politicians are not famous for telling the truth. Do we have a candidate in the Republican fold able to tell unpopular truths? Is there such a candidate?

In the coming days I will be looking at the various Republican candidates and assessing their economic thinking. As Clinton said, it is the economy. With debt soaring like an eagle in the sky, America needs a president who can tame this bird, not one that will stuff the nation like a turkey.

Tomorrow: First off is Mitt Romney.

There is a fundamental division between liberals and conservatives about what the economy is supposed to do.

Liberals want the economy to sustain their social engineering plans and make the world in their own image. Liberals see the economy as servant to social community. Conservatives see the economy as a way for a disparate set of individuals and organizations to interact in the most neutral way, because the economy is not a welfare state. Conservatives see the economy as a tool for individuals working for a better future.

Both sides are finding it hard to say much good about the market economy. Liberals can’t bang on about greed as much, because there is much less to be greedy about. They can bang on about how the market created the problems we face, so they need to fix it and manage the new economic growth when it comes along. Conservatives can only bang on about cutting taxes and letting the market recover by a new burst of wealth creation.

If the 2012 election is going to be about “the economy, stupid”, then we are not seeing much imagination from the current field of candidates. What we are seeing is a worsening sense of confidence in the economy, both in America and Europe.

Independent research shows that Americans do not approve of the way Democrats in Congress are handling the economy, they believe the economy is getting worse and have less confidence in real estate than in recent months. You can find the raw data here: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/

Meanwhile, in Europe there is growing crisis illustrated by the problem of Greece. The reality is that Greece is exposing the corrupt vision of a united Europe, the multitude of economic sins covered up by the fig leaf of a Euro, and socialistic economic thinking is placing a greater load on the aging population as immigrants waltz into what little wealth there is. To make matters worse, governments are indulging in wars of choice, paid for by the dwindling wealth.

When we entered this recession, candidate Obama’s campaign rhetoric made matters worse. Yes, there was a recession. Yes, companies were taking actions to reduce costs and labor. Yes, Obama made matters worse in his desire to set himself up as the Messiah of economic good. President Obama is now economically reaping what he has ideologically sown.

Government does not create wealth; it is a consumer of wealth. What is the economy for? It is to produce wealth. If the economy is the engine, it is individuals who are stoking the boiler. The problem today is the load the engine is pulling is getting heavier and heavier, loaded with debt, regulations and social demands. We need leadership that understands what the engine is for and can lessen the load, before the engine burns out altogether.

There is only one thing to say about Western actions in Libya: we will live to regret it.

Here’s the scenario. We make limited impact by taking out the big installations, and mission creep leads to action on the ground. After all, you can’t get a little bit pregnant in these situations.

The reason for going in is absurd: humanitarian intervention.

Were the causes of this concern not present when the West was helping to restore Gadhafi’s reputation? When the British Prime Minister Tony Blair was giving him a helping hand? When Public Relations companies in London were drooling over his business (UK is the centre for international terrorist PR)? When academics from the London School of Economics to Harvard University were throwing their principles out the window for money, like prostitutes? When the Lockerbie bomber was released?

Scratch the last point, that’s the rights of the dead on Pan Am Flight 103; those rights aren’t important.

So, let’s revisit humanitarian intervention: the timing is wrong.

So, we go in all guns blazing to the music of President Obama’s humming, mmmh, maybe, mmmh maybe not, mmmh, what do you think Mmmichelle?

And where is the President at this time? Let’ see. We have a war in Afghanistan. A war in Iraq. The Middle East is a powder keg. An economy shot to pieces back home. The President is swanning around Latin America. Maybe he likes it this way, going AWOL: Absent WithOut Liberals annoying him.

Back to Libya. The second the first shells are fired, the Arab league is complaining. This will be the ONLY legacy of this action. The Arab world and Islamic fundamentalists have yet another excuse to bash America and the West, and we paid for it all! Talk about dumb.

More commentary at www.economicparables.com

By David Cowan

Origins are important. If we face problems today in our faith, we can turn to the origins of our faith and seek guidance on what to do.

To be Jewish is an ethnic question, and a Jew may lose faith but remains Jewish. A Jew’s origins are in the covenant between God and His people, and so Jews going back to their origins of faith can look to the covenant, its conditions, and to the land God has promised to His people and their descendants. The biblical history reveals the plight of the Jews and the violence shed in keeping this land.

A Muslim going back to the origins of Islam faces a more difficult problem. It is no doubt politically incorrect to say this, but Islam was established by violence. While analysts and politicians are keen to portray Islam as really a religion of peace, it is difficult to argue against those who advocate violence when their founder used it so effectively himself. Initially Mohammed sought to establish Islam in peace, but when he was rejected He took up the sword and conquered.

If Christians look to their role model, they find a Jesus who went to the cross, put to death by the State. It is difficult to advocate violence, and it is difficult to have high confidence in the State either. We may look at bloody episodes in Christian history, but if we go back to the origins of Jesus and follow His example, then it is impossible to justify it. In a non-violent act, except the violence humanity did to Him, Jesus in his rejection took up His cross and conquered.

Each faith makes claims to the same God of Abraham, and each takes a different path from Abraham to today, as I discussed yesterday.

Secularism makes no such claim. Secularism is rooted in humanity, and seeks to establish human rule by human norms, not divine norms. The secular answer to these religious claims is to pretend they are all essentially the same. They are human attempts to be spiritual. Each faith, however, has believed historically in claims of revelation by God to humanity, not the other way round. To the Jew Jesus is a heretic, to the Muslim he is one of the prophets on the path to the seal of the Prophet Mohammed, and to Christians he is the Son of God. It is a denial of human intelligence to claim these all mean the same thing.

Ultimately, secularism buckles under the strain of its own intellectual weight, as it twists this way and that to deny religious claims. It becomes its own tyranny, from which any religious claims will revolt, and they frequently do. What is needed in the world is an effort by religious groups to learn to live with the fact they disagree, not by secular pretense that they are all the same.

Recent decades has seen secularism, and the denial of religious claims, take hold of political relations. Yet, religion has been making “a comeback”. If we go to the origins again, we see that there will always be Jews who claim their land, and, there will always be Muslims who claim theocratic rule. This is in the religious DNA, and it explains why the problems of the Middle East are always intractable, and why they will always remain that way.

Yesterday, I wrote that Paul tells us in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Christianity does not have a theocratic impulse, and while there has been Christian political rule this can be contrasted with the origins of the faith. Jesus did not seek to establish a place in the land or in the government, but in the hearts of men and women. Home is where Christ is, not the power or location of the land.

The Christian role is to be a beacon in the world, seeking to draw people into Christ. To paraphrase Martin Luther, you can try and rule the world with the Gospel but you would have to fill it with real Christians first! Real Christians have Christ in their heart, not a lust for power.