Will Obama face a Democratic primary challenge?

President Obama’s approval ratings are plummeting as the summer of discontent draws to a close. The most recent polls show the president’s approval ratings at or near historic lows. Gallup showed the president with a 38 percent approval rating at the end of August, while a Rasmussen poll from early September showed that only 19 percent of voters strongly approve of President Obama’s job performance and that 40 percent strongly disapprove. A Gallup poll taken in early August showed Obama’s approval in Georgia at 48 percent.

Recent economic reports offer evidence that the president’s approval rating will not rebound in the near future. In August, the U.S. economy lost exactly as many jobs as it created for a net change of zero in the unemployment rate. Home prices are slightly higher than July, but down substantially from 2010. U.S. GDP growth was approximately one percent in the second quarter. Government estimates for both the first and second quarters were later revised down. Taken together with other economic vital signs, this means that it is likely that the economy is falling into a second recession in spite of everything that President Obama has tried.

As far back as February, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich called for Democrats to mount a primary challenge against President Obama. Now with Obama’s policies failing and his approval rating dropping, it seems that the field is open for other progressives to challenge the president’s re-election. However, with less than six months to go until the first primaries of the 2012 election season, time is running out for Democratic challengers to enter the race. The Georgia primary is tentatively set for March 6.

In the wake of the catastrophic Democratic losses of 2010, few Democrats seem eager to challenge President Obama for the right to face the Republican challenger. With the economy continuing to falter and many of Obama’s legislative victories, such as Obamacare, still deeply unpopular with voters, the election will likely be an uphill battle for Democrats.

Historically, primary challenges to incumbent presidents are also an uphill battle. The election of 1896 is that last time that a sitting president who wanted to run again was refused the nomination by his party. In that year, President Grover Cleveland lost the Democratic nomination to William Jennings Bryan. Arthur Sewall was nominated for vice president. Bryan also received the nomination of the Populist Party, although with a different vice presidential candidate. Thomas E. Watson of Thomson, Ga., who later served as a Georgia senator, became the Populist candidate for vice president. Bryan, Sewall and Watson lost to the Republican candidates, William McKinley and Garrett Hobart.

An additional problem in challenging Barack Obama is that any Democrat who ran against the president would be open to charges of racism. Many of President Obama’s supporters have leveled this charge at conservatives and Tea Party members who have criticized the president’s policies and would be likely to use the same tactic against a fellow Democrat.

Being labeled as a racist would make it almost impossible to win the Democratic nomination. A 2009 Gallup poll showed that 19 percent of Democrats were black. Another 11 percent were Hispanic. Charges of racism would seriously inhibit a candidate’s ability to win the votes of this third of the Democratic Party.

Further, President Obama continues to enjoy strong support from black voters. Exit polling from 2008 by Politico showed that 96 percent of blacks voted for Obama. A more recent Gallup poll shows that although the president’s support among blacks has declined slightly, 83 percent still approve of him and would presumably vote for him. This is compared to 40 percent approval from the nation at large and 75 percent approval from all Democrats. Because black voters make up a significant portion of the Democratic Party and have an above-average approval for the president, it becomes even more difficult for a challenger, who may not be a minority, to win the necessary votes for the nomination.

These factors together with the short time until the first primaries make it unlikely that President Obama will face a challenge from the left for the Democratic nomination in 2012. Potential Democratic candidates, sensing another Republican sweep, will choose to wait until 2016 and run either as Barack Obama’s successor or as a challenger to a Republican incumbent.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/democratic-primary-challenge-unlikely-for-president-obama

The end of western civilization

The pages of history are littered with the ruins of empires and civilizations. School children learn about ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Churchgoers are privy to the history of ancient Israel. These civilizations disappeared and their remnants became subject to other, more powerful, empires.
Even in modern times, empires have disappeared, sometimes before our very eyes. Britain won and lost three empires in America, Africa, and India over the last 300 years. Russia saw the disappearance of both the Tsarist and the communist empires in the 20^th century. The rise and fall of the Third Reich of Germany occurred in less than 20 years.
Given that empires and civilizations around the world have proved fleeting throughout human history, it isn’t absurd to think that American and western civilization will someday be replaced by some new world power. Given the current state of affairs in the western democracies, it isn’t even absurd to think that day might be rapidly approaching.
Since WWII, the trend in Europe and North America has been toward more economic socialization. The result of this trend has been increased social spending and declining military budgets. Large parts of national economies were given over to entitlements and salaries and benefits for government workers. Retirement ages did not keep pace with increases in life expectancy, so younger workers were taxed to support retired workers for ever-increasing periods of their lives. This naturally led to slower economic growth, which increased the need for social spending as well as increasing national debt.
As the economy slowed in 2008, the pressure to continue social “safety net” spending led to rapidly increasing national debts. The situation finally became untenable for some countries. Notably, Greece became the canary in the coal mine as it neared default and was forced to implement austere budgets. The debt crisis was by no means limited to Greece, however, and has been spreading throughout Europe. It is also threatening to cross the Atlantic as the U.S. federal debt reaches levels not seen since the closing days of WWII.
The fundamental problem faced by the social democracies, including the U.S., is that mushrooming obligations for entitlement programs are crowding out other government responsibilities. As Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with the increasing interest payments required to finance the increasing debt, take up an ever greater share of the federal budget, it leaves less money to pay for everything else, from national defense to roads and bridges.
The response of many European nations over the past few decades has been to whittle away at defense budgets to pay for more social spending. In effect, much of Europe is relying on the goodwill of their neighbors and the U.S. military for protection. In recent months, we have seen how a small, sustained bombing campaign in Libya has stretched European military budgets to the breaking point, even without committing ground forces. Most western nations would probably not have the resources to wage a sustained major war, even if their national survival was at stake.
If, as President Obama and the Democrats seem to want, the United States follows suit with more domestic social spending and a smaller defense budget, it would leave the western world vulnerable to the aggressors of the world. The most obvious threat is from radical Islamic nations and groups. Most notably, Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them via ballistic missiles. If the Muslim world aligns behind a nuclear Iran, the prospect of millions of jihadists backed up by nuclear weapons is a grim one.
Other nations that would seek to expand their role in a post-western world include Russia and China. The physical and economic sizes of these nations make them forces to be reckoned with. Russia, under the practical rule of Vladimir Putin, has rid itself of much of its communist bureaucracy even as it cracked down on dissent at home and launched a series of aggressive moves against its neighbors. China is expanding its military presence in the Pacific with a new aircraft carrier and an advanced technology stealth fighter that could threaten U.S. air supremacy.
The end of western civilization or the American “empire” would not necessarily mean the end of the United States. It might take the form of a decline in American power and prestige to the point where the U.S. can defend its own borders, but not project peace and stability to the far corners of the world. For example, American support has kept Taiwan free from communist rule since 1949 in spite of the fact that communist China claims the island as part of its territory. Similarly, U.S. pressure on Russia in 2008 helped to end the Russian invasion of Georgia after five days. A decline in American power would likely mean an expansion of totalitarianism around the world.
The effect of socialistic policies on economic growth is evident not only by looking at different countries, but also from examining different states. States such as Michigan and California that follow the social democracy model of high taxes and extensive social services are experiencing stagnant growth while states with low taxes and a business-friendly regulatory climate, like Texas and North Dakota, are leading the nation in economic growth. Georgia ranks 15 out of the 50 states in the economic freedom index compiled by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
There are no certainties in life, but the best way to preserve American civilization seems to be to return to the policies that made the country strong in the first place. Ultimately national security depends on a strong economy along with a strong military. The current series of elections and showdowns over deficit spending represent a crossroads in which Americans are deciding whether to travel the path of the social democracies into debt and irrelevance or return to its roots.
Photo credit:  Public Domain/Bjarki Sigursveinsson
Read this article on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-end-of-western-civilization

9/11 changed commercial aviation

As a professional pilot, my life has been strongly impacted by the attacks on 9/11. On September 11, 2001, I was a flight instructor for a training academy in Florida. That morning, I was in the school's computer lab when the Internet connection went down.

A short time later, a student said he had heard on the news that an airplane had hit the World Trade Center. My first assumption was that it had been an accident involving a small general aviation aircraft. When reports of a second airplane hitting the WTC came in, I realized that it was a deliberate attack.

Read the rest of this article on Yahoo.com:

http://news.yahoo.com/9-11-changed-commercial-aviation-232300742.html

Photo:  Public domain/Wikimedia

Why the Republicans are considering a tax increase

Recently the story that Republicans are in favor of allowing the payroll tax to increase over President Obama’s opposition has been making the rounds on the internet. The story, presented as evidence of Republican hypocrisy on taxes, is more complex than it seems.

The cut in the payroll tax stems from last year’s compromise to extend the low, Bush-era tax rates for all Americans. A provision of the compromise deal lowered the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for employees during 2011. Employers were still required to pay the full 6.2 percent for their portion of the payroll tax. The self-employment tax was also cut by two percent. If not extended, the payroll tax will return to 6.2 percent for employees at the end of the year. The employer portion will remain the same.

The tax cut obviously did not stimulate economic growth. Economic indicators have trended negative over the past few months leading many economists to predict that a second recession is increasingly likely.

Speaking to the Associated Press, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) said, “It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn, but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again."

The payroll tax cut is an example of the most ineffective type of tax cut, one that is temporary, targeted, and tiny. From the beginning, the payroll tax cut was only meant to last for a year, which means that it would not affect long term economic decisions. It was targeted to employees, and did not apply to the employer match, where it would have had a greater impact.

Perhaps most important, the payroll tax cut was tiny. For a worker earning $50,000 the two percent tax cut is worth $1,000 for the year. However, the taxpayer does not get this savings all at once. It is prorated throughout the year in each paycheck. This means that the true savings is only $83 per month. If a worker is paid weekly, it amounts to only $20 per paycheck. This is not even enough to buy a tank of gas and is barely noticeable to most workers.

Social Security payroll taxes only apply to the first $106,800 of income. Therefore, the largest savings that any worker would realize from the tax cut, no matter how much they earn, would be $2,136. This translates to $178 per month or $41 per week.

Conversely, the payroll tax is used to fund Social Security which, under current estimates, will go bankrupt by 2036. That year the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will no longer be able to pay benefits without using current taxes. In 2010, Social Security expenditures exceeded revenues. Social Security is already operating in the red.

For 2010, Social Security tax receipts were $865 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. Half of this money was paid by employers and half, $432.5 billion, was paid by workers. The two percent tax cut would be equivalent to $8.65 billion. This figure is slightly more than one percent of Social Security’s 2010 expenditures of $700 billion.

Since the payroll tax cut was too small to produce economic growth, it follows that allowing it to expire would have a minimal impact on the economy. Even a small impact might tip the scales toward recession though. On the other hand, the increased revenue might be able to buy a little more time to reform Social Security before the entitlement program goes bankrupt. The money in question is a tiny part of Social Security’s annual expenditures. Neither option is likely to be palatable for Republicans.

Nevertheless, it is likely that Republicans will agree to extend the payroll tax cut. Former house speaker and current presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was quoted by Talking Points Memo as saying, “I think it's very hard not to keep the payroll tax cut in this economy. I don't know what Republicans are going to say but I think it's very hard to say 'no.' We're going to end up in a position where we're gonna raise taxes on the lowest income Americans the day they go to work and make life harder for small businesses.”

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/why-the-republicans-are-considering-a-tax-increase

 

Photo credit:  Keerati / http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1939

Economist proposes “space alien” stimulus

In a tacit admission that the left is out of ideas on how to fix the economy, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently proposed a new stimulus program in the form a military buildup to ward off an invasion by extraterrestrial aliens. Drawing upon the history of the Great Depression and an episode of “the Twilight Zone,” Krugman postulated on CNN that government spending on military hardware to combat aliens would revitalize the U.S. economy in short order. Krugman subscribes to the Keynesian belief that World War II and the debt-financed military buildup that followed finally ended the Great Depression after ten years of FDR’s debt-financed social programs failed to restart the economy.

In reality, the military buildup of the 1940’s and the New Deal stimulus programs were very similar. The military draft that removed hundreds of thousands of workers from unemployment rolls had civilian equivalents in the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration and other New Deal government organizations that hired workers for make-work projects. Similarly, government orders for military hardware that busied factories were akin to New Deal construction projects commissioned by the Public Works Administration and the Civil Works Administration.

Krugman doesn’t actually believe that an alien attack is imminent. He merely favors a hoax to provide a rationale for spending:

“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat - and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that - this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake there aren't actually any space aliens.”

“There was a Twilight Zone episode like this, which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.”

Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, misses several important points here. The most obvious is that the U.S. is already at war. We don’t have to invent an extraterrestrial enemy because we have a very real terrestrial enemy in the form of Islamic terrorist groups. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused wear and tear on military equipment. The government could spend money to replace and refurbish our existing military hardware, as well as purchasing more F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II advanced technology fighters that would ensure air superiority against a new generation of high-tech Chinese and Russian fighters. The F-22 is a built by Lockheed Martin at its plant in Marietta, Ga. Presumably real world military spending is not large enough in Krugman’s eyes.

The second point that Krugman misses is that spending on WWII did not actually jumpstart the economy. The problem is that removing hundreds of thousands of idle workers from the economy and purchasing millions of dollars of tanks, aircraft, and other equipment is not a change that could be sustained indefinitely. When the war was over, as the armed forces demobilized these workers would likely return to the unemployment line and the factories would go idle if the government did not fund new New Deal programs to provide jobs and demand for material goods. In reality, this is not what happened.

In the Wall Street Journal, Burt Folsom, author of “New Deal or Raw Deal,” notes that Congress, led by Georgia Senator Walter F. George, rejected President Truman’s attempts to revive New Deal policies after the war. According to Folsom’s research, Congress reduced income tax rates across the board, cut the corporate tax rate, and repealed the Excess Profits Tax. According to tax.org, the tax reforms and reductions began even before the war ended with the Tax Adjustment Act and the Revenue Act of 1945. The Revenue Act of 1948 was smaller, but included more comprehensive and controversial reforms.

Senator George, a resident of Vienna, Ga. who served on the Senate Finance Committee at the time, is quoted by Folsom as saying that if the tax reform “has the effect which it is hoped it will have, it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total  revenue." As a chart on USgovernmentrevenue.com shows, federal revenues increased dramatically in the 1950’s even though tax rates were lower than they had been during the New Deal and war years.

Finally, Krugman ignores the fact that federal debt levels today are much higher than they were at the onset of WWII. Data from USgovernmentspending.com reveals that the federal debt as a percentage of GDP is almost as high today as it was at the end of WWII, not the beginning. The government could afford to spend billions on tanks and armies in 1941 because, even after a decade of New Deal spending, the federal debt was less of a burden than it is today. If the U.S. tried to engage in another massive military buildup today, the debt would shortly become unmanageable and the result would either be a default or inflation (which Krugman also advocates).

Krugman’s idea of an anti-alien buildup is simply a sci-fi twist on the same old Keynesian policies that have failed to work for President Obama in the past. President Obama should instead follow Senator George’s example and enact broad-based, permanent tax reforms that would encourage businesses to invest.

Photo credit:  Vince DeVries/Wikimedia

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/economist-proposes-space-alien-stimulus

Meet the candidates: Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman was born in California, but grew up in Utah. His father is the founder of Huntsman Corp., a global chemical company.

Huntsman dropped out of high school in his senior year in order to pursue a music career as keyboard player for his band, “Wizards.” His website notes that with “priorities adjusted,” he earned a G.E.D. and entered the University of Utah the next fall. After taking two years to serve as a Mormon missionary to Taiwan, Huntsman returned to enroll at the University of Pennsylvania where he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in International Politics.

His political career began almost immediately, first as an intern for Senator Orrin Hatch and then as a staff assistant to President Reagan. Huntsman has served in a variety of appointed diplomatic positions beginning with the first Bush administration. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development, and Ambassador to Singapore for President George H. W. Bush. In the administration of George W. Bush, he was a Deputy Trade Representative and a Trade Ambassador. He also served as President Obama’s Ambassador to China until he resigned to run for president. While in China, Huntsman’s name was censored from internet searches by the Chinese government after he was captured on video at a Jasmine Revolution protest.

Huntsman has also held elected office, serving two terms as governor of Utah. He was a very popular governor, winning re-election with more than 70 percent of the vote. According to the Deseret News, his approval ratings were as high as 90 percent.

Huntsman’s tenure as governor was marked by business-friendly policies and tax cuts. He introduced an optional flat tax with a lower rate and cut the state sales tax on food according to the Cato Institute. The institute also notes that spending increased 10 percent annually during his tenure, however.

Huntsman also has a business experience with the family firm. According to Project Vote Smart, he has served as CEO of the Huntsman Family Holdings Company and the Huntsman Cancer Foundation as well as Chairman of Huntsman Corp. He has also served as a board member for numerous charitable organizations.

Huntsman has a strong record on diplomacy and economic policy, but his record on social issues will cause problems with many Republican voters. He is a supporter of civil unions for homosexual couples, although he does believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. He has also stated in a tweet that he believes in evolution and global warming. In a 2007 video clip, Huntsman also said that he was “comfortable” with a “requirement” for health insurance.

Huntsman does have a conservative position when it comes to abortion. He supports a right-to-life amendment according to the Salt Lake Tribune. As governor, he signed several bills that limited abortions including a parental notification law and a law that required that women be informed that a fetus can feel pain.

In the most recent Real Clear Politics average of polls, Huntsman placed second to last with 2.2 percent of respondents supporting him. The only candidate to fare worse was former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. In an Insider Advantage poll of Georgia voters, Huntsman received only one percent. He may boost his numbers in Georgia when he comes to Atlanta this week. He will attend fundraisers on August 23 and meet with Georgia Republican leaders on August 24.

Jon Huntsman has a strong economic and foreign policy background, but his moderately liberal stance on social issues is troubling for conservatives. He would likely appeal to libertarian-leaning Republicans if Ron Paul were not already in the race and more well known. Nevertheless, his deep pockets make it possible for him to continue the race even with little support.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-jon-huntsman

Rick Perry takes lead in Georgia

Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has been a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination less than a week, has jumped to a commanding lead in Georgia. In an Insider Advantage poll released on August 19, Perry was preferred by 24 percent of likely voters in Georgia.

The second place candidate, Georgia native Herman Cain, was selected by fifteen percent of the respondents, trailing Perry by nine percent. Another Georgian, Newt Gingrich, finished a distant third with nine percent.

Michelle Bachmann, winner of last weekend’s Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, was in a fourth place tie with fellow Republican woman, Sarah Palin, who has not announced her candidacy. Both women had eight percent. Putative national frontrunner Mitt Romney finished fifth among Georgians with only six percent, one fourth of Perry’s support. Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman finished last with five and one percent respectively. Former senator Rick Santorum and Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, did not rate separately in the poll, but were included in the four percent of Georgians who chose “other.” Support for Tim Pawlenty, who has already withdrawn, would also be included in this category.

Significantly, twenty percent of Georgians are still undecided about who to vote for. The Georgia primary will be held on February 7, which leaves less than six months for the candidates to compete for the fifth of the Georgia electorate that remains undecided.

The result of the Georgia poll may be a harbinger for the nation at large. The most recent Real Clear Politics average of polls shows Romney and Perry in a statistical dead heat, where Romney has a slight edge. However, most of the national polls were taken before Perry’s candidacy announcement. The single poll taken in the past week by Rasmussen Reports is the only one that shows Perry with a lead. In that poll, Perry leads Romney by a margin of 29-18 percent. The remaining candidates are confined to single digits in the RCP Average.

Photo credit:

Jonathan Blundell/Wikimedia

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/perry-takes-lead-among-ga-voters