-
Recent Posts
- Kamala’s brother-in-law fleeced taxpayers for billions to give to left-wing groups and lawyers | New York Post | 8.24. 24
- Coming: Global Political Recalibration
- Clark Judge: FDR, Reagan, and European Nationalism | NatCon Rome 2020
- Lady Gaga Tells All
- Trial Lawyers Use COVID-19 to Prey on America’s Corporations | Real Clear Policy | 12.1.20
Categories
- Book Reviews (12)
- Communication Strategy (23)
- Constitution and Law (14)
- Economic Policy: General (33)
- Economic Policy: Health Care (30)
- Economic Policy: The Great Financial Crisis (15)
- Economic Policy: US Debt Crisis (32)
- Education Policy (1)
- Global Issues (57)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2008 (18)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2012 (43)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2020 (5)
- Political Commentary: General (122)
- Politics & Policy (6)
- Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Administration (11)
- Speeches/Lectures (9)
- Uncategorized (6)
Archives
- September 2024
- March 2023
- July 2022
- April 2022
- December 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- November 2019
- December 2018
- September 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- June 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- June 2006
- October 2005
- August 2005
- March 2005
- November 2004
- August 2004
- June 2004
- December 2003
- October 2003
- August 2003
- April 2003
- July 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- May 2001
- December 2000
- June 2000
- January 1995
- August 1994
- August 1992
- June 1991
- July 1990
- September 1989
- July 1989
- March 1989
Tags
2012 2012 election Benghazi campaign constitution debt debt crisis Democrats economy election 2012 Energy Financial Times fiscal cliff foreign policy Gingrich Global Warming GOP Hoover Digest hughhewitt HughHewitt.com Immigration IRS National Review New York Post New York Times Obama Obamacare Republicans Ricochet Ricochet.com Romney Russia Scandal Senate SOTU speech Supreme Court Syria Tea Party Trump U.S. News Ukraine Wall Street Journal war Washington Times
Obama versus Romney, a choice not of how to fix the fiscal mess but if to fix it – President No versus Governor Yes | HughHewitt.com | 08.21.12
With a little short of a week to go before the Republican convention, the campaign has taken a startling turn. Cautious, bland Mitt Romney didn’t just pick a running mate when he tapped Paul Ryan. He bet his entire campaign on grabbing the forbidden third rails of American politics: Social Security and Medicare. At this moment, it looks as though the bet could pay off, big time.
When Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan stood together at the U.S.S. Wisconsin dockside, the Democratic Party apparatus watching on TV thought that Santa Claus had arrived in summer. One of the truisms of American campaigns is that no one – and certainly not a Republican – can survive proposing fixes to vastly underfunded Social Security and Medicare. So in selecting Ryan, Mr. Romney didn’t simply touch one electrified rail or the other. He grabbed them both at the same time, as well as the live wire of cutting domestic discretionary spending.
Ever since that day, the Democrats have been attacking Ryan 24/7. They took a baseball bat to the congressman’s reputation – and they had practice. For months they had been smashing Mr. Romney with every incredible charge they could concoct (“felon”; “lady killer,” literally). But they overdid it, and this part of their campaign is becoming a national joke.
And it seems to have had close to zero impact, as least of the kind the Democrats expected. Instead of driving down the GOP ticket’s numbers, the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls have remained exactly where they have been for weeks, in close to a tie, with the lead in each poll going back and forth and the candidate who is ahead in one, trailing in the other.
Yet even as the polls have not changed, the Democratic campaign has paid a price. The president’s previously impregnable personal approval numbers have hit an air pocket of late. Any man who would put his stamp on all those attack ads can’t be the prophet of hope and change voters so adored four years ago.
Here is the irony. If the Romney-Ryan ticket prevails in November despite what some are calling the dirtiest campaign in modern history, these down-in-the-gutter tactics may prove the essential predicate to the new president’s ability to get results. There will be no question that Mr. Romney has gone to the people about reforming spending and entitlements.
Some say the Romney-Ryan budget numbers don’t add up. Yet voters know that no actual plan is more than concept car at this point. There will be endless rounds of economic and financial modeling at OMB and CEA. Both houses of Congress will be involved in designing and building the production model. The current picking apart of the Ryan Plan in the media is irrelevant to where a Romney administration might go next year.
What matters now is basic intent, not spreadsheets. When it comes to the fiscal future of the U.S. government, the distinction between the two tickets is not how but if — not how to fix the problem but if to fix it at all.
Here is the simple, sad fact: In four years in office, the Obama administration has not presented a single serious plan for addressing the fiscal crisis of the U.S government. Indeed, the president’s speeches suggest that we could see a dramatic increase in federal spending after Election Day.
Meanwhile, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said that the nation’s debt burden is our biggest single national security threat. And many serious economists like Harvard’s Robert Barro are telling us that all these public sector expenditures are draining the nation’s job creating vitality.
At this moment, then, in the week before Republican delegates convene to nominate Mitt Romney for president, our choice on fiscal matters is very simple: a president who will acknowledge virtually no need to cut spending, close the deficit or do anything about the massive unfunded liabilities in our major entitlement systems, versus a challenger who, if elected, will carry into office a mandate such as no president has ever had to reform the federal establishment’s entire fiscal posture.
For a couple of weeks, the race has been interesting. Now it is getting exciting.