No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Politics – National' Category

January 7, 2012

The “Not Quite Thunderdome” Debate

by @ 11:56. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

It’s been a while since we’ve had the chance to poke fun at this group of mediocre candidates.

Since last we gathered….Michelle, I’m a tax attorney and, and GARDISIL!, Bachmann has dropped out.

That leaves the following line up for a debate that may not be quite Thunderdome, but will likely have just as many bloody noses.

Mitt, How’s my air? Does my hair look ok?, Romney continues to lead by default.

Ron, Just because lots of whackos follow me doesn’t mean I’m a whacko, Paul moved into the top tier of candidates with an Iowa third place finish.

Rick, Pork, it’s not just the other white meat, Santorum

No more Mr. Nice guy Newt Gingrich, Rick, why can’t the whole country be like Texas, Perry and Jon, I supported Obama until I wanted to run for President, Huntsman will also be on board for tonight’s festivities.

Join Steve and me…sober or otherwise, for fun. One of us should get here by about 7:45 Central or so.

And, as an added bonus, Steve has committed to cover the Hair of the Dog debate tomorrow morning while I travel with the Things to another wrestling match.

December 24, 2011

Virginia’s Presidential primary a 2-way race between Romney and Paul

by @ 10:20. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

In case you were in a cave this week, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann failed to turn in any signatures to get on Virginia’s March 6 Presidential primary ballot, while Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich had enough of their under-12,000 signatures (11,911 and 11,050 respectively) signatures invalidated by the Republican Party of Virginia that they too missed the 10,000 (with at least 400 from each of the 11 Congressional districts).

That reminds me of Rep. John Nygren’s (R-Marinette) epic failure to get onto the recall ballot for the right to face Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay). He turned in over 440 signatures, saw that number reduced to 424 on the Government Accountability Board’s initial review, and saw the GAB, at the urging of the Democrat Party of Wisconsin, strike another 26 to leave him 2 short.

For those of you wondering whether the 10,000 threshhold is so strenuous, nobody but the best-funded candidates can make the grade, do note tha the candidates could start collecting signatures back on July 1, and thus had over 5 1/2 months to get to 10,000. Further, there were 6 candidates on the 2008 Republican and 6 candidates on the 2008 Democrat Virginia primary ballots, including Dennis Kucinich on the Democrat side.

The kicker is there is no such thing as a write-in candidate in a Virginia primary, which makes the Gingrich campaign’s call for a write-in campaign moot. That is different than Wisconsin, where a write-in candidate can get a spot on the general ballot in a recognized party’s spot (Republican, Democrat and Constituion Parties) if he or she gets 5% of the number that voted in the most-recent gubernatorial election and almost immediately after the primary complies with registration requirements.

The next bits of actual news (barring somebody shoving his or her foot in the mouth, or a successful court challenge from the Perry or Gingrich campaigns) in the Presidential campaign will be on January 3, and there is a Wisconsin component. Not only is that the day of the Iowa caucus, but it is the day the Wisconsin Presidential Preference Selection Committee meets. This group, consisting of the Republican and Democrat party chairs, a national committeeman and national committeewoman from the two parties, the Assembly speaker and minority leader, the Senate president and minority leader, and a chair selected by the 10 aforementioned, will choose who they believe should be on Wisconsin’s primary ballot on April 1.

There is a way for those not chosen by the party bosses to get on the ballot – collect 1,000 nomination signatures from each of the 8 Congressional districts between 1/3 and 1/31.

December 17, 2011

Double-dipping, Texas-style

by @ 0:28. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

(H/T – Allahpundit)

If you’re in Wisconsin, unless you’ve been in a cave the last several months, you’ve heard of the practice of double-dipping, as various state and local employees “retired” and then returned to state/local employment, sometimes to their old jobs in a pre-planned move a month later, collecting both the salary of the job and the pension. Indeed, the situation has become so far out of control that Rep. Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville) introduced a bill to limit the practice among those who “retire” and subsequently come back to work at least half-time at a position.

According to the Texas Tribune, Texas governor, and candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, Rick Perry one-upped that back in January. After an official with the Texas Employee Retirement System contacted him to tell him that he was eligible to do the career politican version of the double-dip, telling him that he “would be rather foolosh to not access what (he had) earned”, Perry did so, adding a gross pension payment of $7,698 per month to his $11,083 per month salary as governor.

The pension is being paid out as though Perry was a member of the “employee class”, despite Perry being an elected official for the entirety of his service to the state of Texas and continuing to serve as governor with no “sit-out” period. How? Let’s walk through it:

  • Generally, elected state office-holders can choose to participate in the Texas ERS on the “elected class” track. That gives, upon departure from office (and only as long as one isn’t in a state elected office), a pension equal to the number of years of service (including military service) times 2% of the district judge salary (currently $208.33 1/3 per month), not to exceed 100% of the district judge salary ($10,416.66 per month).
  • Non-elected state office-holders and employees automatically participate in the Texas ERS on the “employee class” track. One can qualify for a pension with no reduction if one is at least 60 years old and one’s age and length of service (including military service) equals or exceeds 80 years. For those who entered the “employee class” track after August 2009, that is the average of the 48 months of highest salary (it used to be 36) times 2.3% times the number of years of service.
  • Elected officials can transfer the entirety of their service (including military service) to the “employee class” track. Since the two tracks are “separate”, one can “retire” as an “employee”, collect a pension as a “retiree”, and still remain in elected office.

While Perry may not have been responsible for the abusive system, he is responsible for fully-participating in the abusive system.

December 15, 2011

Last call before the Iowa Caucus (?) debate drunkblog

by @ 9:38. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

At least promoter/broadcaster Fox News is promising tonight’s debate will be the last one before Iowa begins the delegate selection process. The debate is at 8 pm Central, and we’ll fire it up about 7:45. The 12/27 NewsMax debate, which before moderator/potential third-party candidate Donald Trump dropped out had only two candidates scheduled, is in serious doubt now.

The big news is from Rasmussen, which has the current NotRomney experiencing the almost-inevitable bust after the boom. It has Mitt Romney leading at 23%, up from 20% and second last month, Newt Gingrich at 20%, down from the leading 32%, Ron Paul at 18%, up from 10% and fourth (behind the departed Herman Cain last time), and Rick Perry at 10%, up from 6% and a multi-way tie for fifth.

As always, you’re on your own for liquor; between the bells and the blue-light words you’re going to need it. Shoebox and I will once again be using CoverItLive, so you don’t need to refresh to keep up. Do feel free to comment in the window below; unless we get too many people, once we see you there, we’ll probably auto-approve you (unless we have no clue who you are). If, for some reason, you don’t see the window, you should mash here.

How much down the UAW hole again?

by @ 3:16. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

It’s been a while since I last ran the numbers on the transfer of taxpayer wealth to UA…er, bailout of GM, Chrysler, and their affiliated credit companies. Due partly to the profit turned today by the UAW VEBA on GM’s bankruptcy, and due partly to wild claim from Car Cza…er, Commissar Steven Rattner that the taxpayers will get back all but $14 billion (I think The Right Scoop misquoted from the clip due to an off-camera cough) of the auto-related bailouts, it’s time to once again go through what has and has not been recovered. Thankfully, the Treasury Department has a PDF-ed spreadsheet to help track all the changes between last October’s look and the end of November 2011. Before I do, however, I have to note Zip caught the expiration of yet another Obama statement – that the Treasury would be paid back in full for the auto bailouts.

To review, back in the beginning of October 2010, $65.89 billion of the $72.59 billion spent on old General Motors, new Government Motors, old Chrysler, new Chrysler/UAW Motors/Fiat, Chrysler Financial, and GMAC/Ally (more-correctly called Government Bank), including $0.04 billion in notes taken out by new Chrysler I was previously unaware of, was still outstanding. Since then, the Treasury has recovered:

  • $13.50 billion from the sale of some of its common stock in GM between 11/18/2010 and 11/26/2010, leaving it with a 32.04% stake.
  • $2.14 billion from the early buyback by new GM of all the Series A preferred stock held by the Treasury.
  • $0.11 billion of the $0.99 billion in loans that remained at old GM, paid to the Treasury on 3/31/2011, 4/5/2011 and 5/3/2011 as old GM was liquidated.
  • $5.46 billion from new Chrysler to “fully” extinguish the TARP loans, including the previously-undisclosed notes, on 5/24/2011. However, $3.5 billion of that repayment appears to have come from an Energy Department loan program meant for modernization of assembly plants dedicated toward fuel efficient/”clean” vehicles.
  • $0.56 billion from Fiat for the remaining 6.6% stake (plus the rights to “excessive” proceeds from the sale of the UAW’s share of new Chrysler) the Treasury held in new Chrysler on 7/21/2011.
  • A bit under $0.01 billion ($9.67 million) as the last bit of cash was wrung out of the remains of old Chrysler, credited on 12/29/2010.
  • $2.67 billion from Ally for the extinguishing of the Trust Preferred Securities held by the Treasury on 3/2/2011.
  • $0.79 billion in dividends on preferred stock in Ally between November 2010 and November 2011.

The $25.24 billion recovered over the past 13 months brings the amount still outstanding from the bailout of the auto industry down to $40.65 billion. The Treasury also converted 110 million of the nearly 229 million perferred shares it held in Ally to 531,850 common shares to give it control of 73.8% of the common shares.

The remaining claims on assets the Treasury holds are:

  • 500,065,254 common shares of new GM. At yesterday’s close of $19.47 per share, the Treasury would get about $9.73 billion (give or take brokerage fees) if they were able to sell their 32.04% stake.
  • $0.88 billion in loans still owed by old GM, which will likely never be recovered.
  • A continuing stake in whatever assets can still be liquidated from old Chrysler, likely to be very minimal.
  • 118,750,000 Series F-2 Preferred shares in Ally Financial, which if Ally does not pay $5.94 billion plus any outstanding dividend (9% annual dividend, or $0.53 billion per year) to extinguish the preferred shares, will be converted to, at the present value, 513,000 common shares in Ally at the end of 2016. The dividend through the end of 2016 would net the Treasury $2.67 billion.
  • 981,971 common shares in Ally, which represents 73.8% of the outstanding common shares in the privately-held company.

Last year’s estimate of $17 billion down the UAW hole once all the dust settles still seems quite operative, assuming the government is willing to let go of both GM and Ally. If it’s not willing to let its seizures go, then far more money will have gone down the UAW hole.

Let’s compare that to the UAW take. I previously covered the all-but-guaranteed $28.39 billion in post-bankruptcy payments from GM (not counting anything from the sale of the UAW’s stock in GM, currently worth $3.12 billion) on $20.36 billion in pre-bankruptcy liabilities from GM the UAW VEBA will get, and except for the dividend payments that have now made UAW’s profit official, nothing has changed. I hadn’t covered the UAW’s recovery schedule of the $10.5 billion owed it by old Chrysler as, up until earlier this year, it had not fulfilled its (voluntary) promise to file reports with the SEC. Now that it is filing the reports, that can be tracked.

Much like it did from GM, the UAW received the cash set aside by old Chrysler pre-bankruptcy for the VEBA. In this case, it was about $1.5 billion. For the remaining $9 billion in unsecured claims against old Chrysler for its VEBA, the UAW received what is currently a 44.7% stake in new Chrysler (after various options exercised by Fiat diluted its initial 67.7% stake) and a $4.59 billion unsecured note carrying an effective 9% annual interest rate and maturing in July 2023. While the repayment schedule is back-loaded, payments did begin in 2010, with a $315 million payment in 2010 and a $300 million payment in 2011. Assuming all the payments are made, the UAW will get $9.16 billion.

That does not include any money it might get from the liquidation of its stake in new Chrysler. That is limited to $4.25 billion (plus 9% compounded annually starting from 2010, or about $5.05 billion if Chrysler goes public in January 2012 and the UAW sells its entire stake) with any excess going to Fiat after Fiat bought the Treasury’s rights to that excess for $60 million and the Canadian government’s rights to that excess for $15 million. Fiat also holds a call option to buy up to 40% of the original UAW stake between mid-2012 and mid-2016 for, depending on whether Chrysler has gone public, either the going stock price or a formula.

December 9, 2011

Hey Hey Ho Ho

by @ 14:44. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

Another debate is about to go!

Join us, sober or drunk. This one is sure to be a lot of fun!

December 6, 2011

The Solis “Miracle” – less than what was claimed

by @ 11:22. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

The Right Scoop flagged me to an interview Labor Secretary Hilda Solis did on The Bill Press Show yesterday (or at least it was posted yesterday) and asked whether I could look into a few claims she made at the beginning of the interview:

  • Over the last 22 months, the economy added 3 million private-sector jobs.
  • Over the last 21 months, the average private-sector job gain was around 160 thousand.
  • Both numbers were significanly better than the George W. Bush record.

It took a bit longer than I thought because I wanted to be a lot more thorough than the Labor Secretary, but it isn’t exactly all that Solis claims.

The first bit is the closest to the truth. Using the Current Establishment Survey (the part of the jobs report that differentiates between the non-farm private-sector jobs and the government jobs), the economy did gain 2,926,000 jobs between January 2010 and November 2011. While it is a bit of a stretch (like Ford’s stretch of the 302 V-8 into “5.0L”), it’s close enough for government work.

Unfortunately, the 21-month recovery in private-sector jobs, from February 2010 to November 2011, saw an average gain of 140,333 jobs per month. I don’t call overestimating reality by over 14% close, especially when the CES covers roughly a third of all workers (or somewhere just north of 40 million).

The last item on the list requires a rather lenghty bit of explanation. I could go the very-cheap route and point out that for the entirety of the Obama administration (starting with the change from January 2009 to February 2009 as the January surveys are taken before the Presidential inauguration), the private sector lost an average of 37,120 jobs per month, while over the 8 years of the Bush administration (again starting with the January 2001-February 2001 change and ending with the December 2008-January 2009 change), the private sector lost just an average of 6,800 jobs per month despite a full recession and 2/3rds of a second. That would be way too easy, however.

I could also compare the first 21-month stretch of unbroken private-sector job growth under Bush to the current streak under Obama (average of +152,860 jobs/month to +140,333 jobs/month), but Bush’s streak began far later than Obama’s. In fact, it was exactly one year later into the recovery, August 2003, that the jobs market stopped producing CES private-sector losses.

Using the CES numbers, the private sector added 705,000 jobs between July 2002 and April 2004, for an average of +33,570 per month. The private sector added 2,947,000 jobs between February 2010 and November 2011, for the aforementioned average of +140,333 per month. However, if the 22-month time frame is narrowed down to the last 6 months, the Obama recovery (May 2011-November 2011) lags behind the Bush recovery (October 2003-April 2004), with an average of +132,830 per month compared to an average of +144,500 per month.

The bad news is the CES, while it covers an estimated 1/3rd of the labor force, double-counts those who hold multiple jobs and pretty much misses those who are either self-employed or working at a start-up. The Current Population Survey, though it is far smaller than the CES because it covers “only” 60,000 people each month, is still an order of magnitude bigger than your typical political survey, counts multiple job-holders only once and covers the portion of the survey who are self-employed.

The CPS chart that comes closest to the non-farm private payroll CES is the private wage-and-salaried non-farm workers chart. Between July 2002 and April 2004, 1,987,000 more people found private-sector wage/salaried work (an average of +94,620 per month), while between February 2010 and November 2011, 3,103,000 more people found private-sector work (an average of +147,760 per month).

However, that still doesn’t include the self-employed. While 299,000 more people were self-employed between July 2002 and April 2004, 364,000 fewer people were self-employed between February 2010 and November 2011.

Adding the two together nets 2,286,000 more people either self-employed or employed by a private entity between July 2002 and April 2004 (an average of +108,860 per month), and 2,739,000 more people either self-employed or employed by a private entity between February 2010 and November 2011 (an average of +130,430 per month). The same “last-6-month” metric shows the same lag for the Obama recovery – +111,170 self-employed/private employed per month between May 2011 and November 2011, and +132,830 self-employed/private employed per month between October 2003 and April 2004.

November 30, 2011

Must See Wednesday – Bill Whittle explains the fundamental difference between the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy Movement

by @ 15:26. Tags:
Filed under Politics - National.

Bill Whittle just destroys the myth that there is anything in common between the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy Movement in 5:50…

I could try to summarize it, but all I would be doing is messing with near-perfection.

November 26, 2011

GOP members of the Super Committee – We were willing to give the Dems 89% of the tax revenues, and 91% of the tax hikes, they wanted

by @ 22:48. Filed under Budget Chop, Politics - National, Taxes.

In an editorial in the Washington Post, the Republican members of the failed Super Committee ripped the Democrats for insisting on no less than $1,000,000,000,000 in additional taxes between FY2012 and FY2021 versus the Congressional Budget Office extended-baseline between 2012 and 2021. They also admitted that the $250,000,000,000 in additional taxes versus the CBO extended-baseline proposed by Sen. Pat Toomey (Real Disappointment-Pennsylvania) was but half of the additional tax increase they were willing to give the Democrats.

Before I get to the details of that, however, I do have to deal with the disingenuous part of the op-ed:

Why do Republicans believe our proposal is preferable to the automatic 2013 rate increases? Apart from the fact that our economy could not withstand the almost $4 trillion tax increase, it would directly and adversely affect small-business investment decisions. Business decisions are highly sensitive to the rates of the capital gains, dividends and death tax, as well as marginal tax rates. That’s why Republicans would leave them alone and raise revenue instead by limiting personal itemized deductions and credits that have much less impact on investment decisions by small-business owners.

That $3,949,000,000,000 tax increase from not extending the parts of current tax policy the Republicans wanted extended, as well as another $761,000,000,000 tax increase from expiring/expired tax policy the GOP didn’t mind seeing expire, was already baked into the “debt deal” that created the Super Committee. While the method of getting the $39,221,000,000,000 in revenue the CBO August 2011 baseline anticipates between FY2012 and FY2021 was not specified in the “debt deal”, the fact that the CBO extended-baseline is the starting point means that the end result, and its attendant $4,710,000,000,000 tax increase, has been stipulated to by anybody talking about “additional” tax revenues.

As for the “much less impact”, that’s a bunch of Bravo Sierra. The “rich” and “near-rich” aren’t exactly dumb; they would have quickly realized that what the federal government put in their right pocket, they vacuumed out the left at a faster rate, and the non-profits who depend on donations from the “rich” and “near-rich” would have been hit hardest.

Now to the other third of the GOP betrayal on taxes:

The essence of the plan was to dramatically reduce the deductions and credits wealthier taxpayers can claim to reduce their tax liability. That would generate enough revenue to both permanently reduce marginal rates for all taxpayers and provide more than $250 billion for deficit reduction. Added to other receipts, taxes and fees, the Republican plan amounted to more than $500 billion in deficit reduction revenue and $900 billion in spending reductions.

In order for an amount to be counted as “deficit reduction revenue”, it would have to make the FY2012-FY2021 revenue number larger than $39,221,000,000,000. Fortunately, since the resulting reduction in debt service is also scored for the purposes of debt reduction, any tax hike is slightly less than the amount of deficit reduction. While I haven’t seen any actual scoring of the final GOP plan, assuming it would raise taxes equally each year on an inflation-adusted basis, it would need to result in roughly $478,000,000,000 in new taxes beyond what was already baked in.

That brought the total amount of taxes the Republicans were willing to offer to $39,699,000,000,000, a $5,188,000,000,000 increase from extending current policy, and (using static analysis) a tax take of 20.9% of GDP in FY2020 (where it would be in FY2021 with no tax-code changes and no economic collapse) and 21.1% of GDP in 2021, both new national records. That, however, was not enough for the Democrats. From the op-ed one last time:

At no time in the negotiations did the Democratic committee members drop their insistence that, one way or the other, any deal had to include a trillion dollars in new taxes.

Adding $1,000,000,000,000 to the CBO extended-baseline revenue would bring taxes to $40,221,000,000,000, a $5,710,000,000,000 increase from extending current policy. Assuming the economy doesn’t enter a recession like it has the 5 times since World War II that the federal tax take broached the 19% GDP barrier, the new national record of 20.9% GDP would have been reached in FY2017, and reset every year thereafter with it hitting 21.3% GDP in FY2021.

As for the percentages in the title, the GOP offered up just shy of 89.5% of the tax revenues and, compared to extending current tax policy, 90.9% of the tax increases, the Democrats demanded. Indeed, the GOP continued its decade-long assault on the near-rich by targeting them and only them for removal of tax deductions while holding the poor essentially harmless, and the ‘Rats couldn’t hear them over Queen’s “I Want It All”.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pm4fQRl72k[/youtube]

Revisions/extensions (8:42 am 11/28/2011) – Emperor Misha links and has a kick-ass close:

So yeah, the collapse of the StuporCommittee was really the best thing that could have happened and, furthermore, it is pretty clear to us that there is a LOT more housecleaning that needs to be done in the GOP next year.

November 19, 2011

The Family Leader “Thanksgiving Family Forum” (or the Not Romney Debate) drunkblog

by @ 15:18. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

Today’s sponsor, The Family Leader, is starting this one a bit early at 4 pm Central. Since there’s no TV coverage, CitizenLink was kind enough to provide a webcast (embedded below for your convenience). As always, we’ll be using CoverItLive, so you don’t have to refresh anything to keep up, and also so you don’t have to reload the embed.

Neither of the Mormons will be part of this one; Romney because he declined, Huntsman because he wasn’t invited. Newt Gingrich has become this week’s Not-Romney flavor, mostly because of his performances in these debates. Let’s see if one of the other also-rans can rise to claim the mantle of Next-In-Line™ for the 2016 campaign (assuming, of course, the absent Next-In-Line™ doesn’t win in just under a year).

November 16, 2011

$15,033,607,255,920.32

by @ 21:29. Filed under Budget Chop, Politics - National.

Yesterday (yes, yesterday, even though the announcement was today), the gross public debt outstanding crossed the $15 trillion mark. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI, and my Congresscritter), marked the occassion with a video…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-yVjQzq7W0[/youtube]

From the ABC News story on this (H/T – Allahpundit):

The debt has expanded at an alarming pace, from $7.5 trillion in 2004 and $5.6 trillion in 2000. At the current rate, Debtclock.org reckons that the debt will top $23 trillion in 2015, though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts the estimate at $17.6 trillion.

Back in August after a protracted fight, Congress voted to raised the national-debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion to $17 trillion, while requiring $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction by 2021.

It also represents an increase from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008 and $10.9 trillion from the point Obama signed the FY2009 appropriations back in March 2009.

Point of order; there never was $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction demanded by, or even suggested by, Congress’ passing of the Budget “Control” Act. The Congressional Budget Office scored an initial $895 billion (or if you prefer, $0.895 trillion) of “deficit reduction” (versus a “modified” baseline that assumed a $1 trillion reduction in the spending on the Global War on Terror that everybody else assumed), with an additional $1.2 trillion of “guaranteed” “cuts”. Even if one includes the SuperDuperÜber Committee’s goal of $1.5 trillion of “deficit reduction”, that only brings the total to just under $2.4 trillion. I will note, however, that the CBO assumed a lower interest rate in their August review than they did in March, which combined with other “tecnhical” changes resulted in a $0.329 trillion chop in the projected 10-year deficit.

Speaking of the Budget “Control” Act, here’s the real reason why the “clean” (i.e. no spending limits/no supermajority to raise taxes) “Balanced” Budget Amendment is getting consideration – as long as the amendment is titled “Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States”, the debt ceiling can go up by another $1.5 trillion regardless of what the SuperDuperÜber Committee does (or more-likely, doesn’t do).

November 5, 2011

Cain/Gingrich Debate

by @ 9:41. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest, Politics - National.

Yah didn’t think we’d miss one of these did you?

Steve and I will be drunk blogging the Lincoln/Douglas style debate tonight. The debate starts at 7 PM central and is covered on CSPAN.

Prior to this week, this debate while interesting, would have been missed by a lot of people due to the LSU/Alabama game. Instead, I think a lot of people will watch to see whether Cain can get back on his game and whether he can go toe to toe with Newt. On the other side, there fair evidence that Newt is “Plan B” for many Cain supporters. This may be Newt’s one chance to kick a leg out of the Cain campaign’s wobbling stool and pick up some momentum.

November 3, 2011

Time for an Adult to be President

by @ 10:51. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest, Politics - National.

I’ve seen numerous blog posts and tweets complaining about the GOP Presidential debates.  Some complain that there are too many and we’re getting the same answers over and over again (did you know Michele Bachmann was a foster mom?).  Some complain that there are too many candidates involved and it dilutes the ability to answer questions.  Yet others complain that either the format or the fact that most of the questioners are from the hard left, puts the candidates at an automatic disadvantage in communicating their positions.

To some extent, all of the gripes about the debates have some validity. However, I think the complaints miss an important point.

One by one as the various candidates have flashed, or surged or gained viability, they’ve gotten scrutiny and vetting that Barack Obama avoided for an entire campaign.

The scrutiny has told us much about these top tier candidates. It’s shown us that Mitt Romney is not a conservative, is unrepentant in his implementation of Romneycare and has had more positions on more issues than John Kerry, who served in Vietnam. If it weren’t for the long tradition of the GOP nominating the “next in line,” Romney would already be a footnote in this campaign.

The scrutiny has shown us that the great anticipation of Rick Perry (I’ll admit, I thought he could be a contender at one point) was all about anticipation and nothing about substance. Perry is probably a very smart guy but he is unable to convey that in any of the debates. Combine this with Perry’s penchant for answering questions from a Texas context rather than an American context and it’s no wonder he’s having a tough time recovering from what should have been some easily recoverable early issues of Gardisil and the tuition break for illegals. I’m beginning to believe that Perry had so many people clamoring for him to enter the race that he thought he didn’t need to work at the campaign. I think he believed he was a shoe in for merely showing up. At least that’s what his on going sputtering suggests to me.

Once Romney and Perry sputtered, attention turned to Herman Cain. Again, in candor, I liked a lot of what I heard from Cain. His business experience clearly comes through as he consistently gives specific, actionable recommendations for many of the issues facing the country. However, like the previous two, a bit of time in the spot light has shown Cain to be lacking in the ability to close the deal.

I like the fact that Cain comes from outside of politics. However, it’s this very issue that is his weak spot. Cain seems unaware of the realities of what it takes to get through a campaign and engage a governmental bureaucracy that will be anything but friendly to change from an outsider. From his numerous “I didn’t say that,” responses, the non denial denial of the alleged harassment claims and subsequent inability to handle the media issue, to his 9-9-9 plan that would require a hurculean effort to move through Congress but is only a transition plan to a flat tax plan, Cain just seems like he’s not ready for big league politics.

My point in this is not to say I won’t vote for any of these 3 gentlemen. In comparison to Obama, any of them would be superior. My point is two fold: First, the debates have given us a chance to see each of these candidates hit first place, get some vetting and see how they react. In this, we have gotten a better sense of how each of them would handle a bare knuckle contest with Barack Obama. Second, I think we all realize that regardless of who we end up nominating, there is no Reagan in the mix. In fact, the best we’re going to get out of this year’s candidate slate is one fairly flawed endorsee.

Given the realities that I’ve noted, I’ve decided that the candidate who will get my support in the primary is Newt Gingrich. Ok, I hear the groans. Come on, honestly, is there a debate that you’ve watched that you didn’t walk away saying something like, “Geez, Newt is the only one that sounds like he knows what he’s doing,” or “I don’t think he can get elected but Newt should be a VP or at least on someone’s cabinet.” I know you I have and I’m betting you have said or thought those things. Yes, Newt is flawed, but show me a candidate who isn’t AND show me a candidate at this point who isn’t SERIOUSLY flawed! Really, you think Mitt isn’t a seriously flawed candidate? Whether any of the allegations against him are true or not, Herman Cain has proven he is not ready to play in the big leagues of professional government mud wrestling. Perry? Puhlease!

My support for Newt is two fold: First, he’s the smartest guy in the group and with nearly no exception, has a policy answer that is conservative (OK, we have to work on his answer to ethanol a bit). Second, for all of Newts character flaws, they’ve already been vetted. Newt has been in the limelight so long I doubt there are any October surprises to let loose on him.

At the end of the day I don’t think it is OK to just beat Obama. Yes, that is the first step but we need to have something more. We don’t need someone who can just beat Obama, we need someone who can fundamentally change what is happening in Washington. We need to dismantle the EPA, reign in or eliminate the Department of Education, defang the Depart of the Interior, so on, so on, so on. I think the only person who has the knowledge of DC workings and the intellect to maneuver through or around them and that is Newt Gingrich. While he may not be your first choice, I’ll bet in your heart of hearts, you know that’s right.

October 29, 2011

Occupy Madison permit non-renewed due to whack jobs

by @ 11:10. Filed under Politics - National, Politics - Wisconsin.

No, the pun is not intended; The Daily Cardinal reports one of the main reasons the Occupy Madison street-use permit was not renewed was because a number of them were whacking off in public. Indeed, the behavior was so bad that a hotel next to the former occupied site felt the need to escort its employees to and from bus stops.

Another item that Madison officials had an issue with was the lack of restroom facilities. They reportedly are refusing to issue another permit until and unless the Occupiers secure some.

So, what did the Occupiers do? They marched down the street to Olin Terrace, on the shore of Lake Monona. Note the lack of restroom facilities or all-night hours in the city park.

The Isthmus notes that the expired/non-renewed permit wasn’t sought with the entire group’s up twinkles, so I doubt that the move to Olin Terrace has legal blessing.

The other reason for the move can’t exactly be discounted either. Madison’s Freakfest has been known to get quite violent.

October 20, 2011

The $35B Hostage

by @ 16:17. Filed under Budget Chop, Economy Held Hostage, Politics - National.

In an effort not to be seen as a lame duck President, or worse yet, completely irrelevant for his last year in office, President Obama is fighting harder and harder to pass legislation, any legislation that could be viewed as populist.  One such effort at populism is his effort to pass a jobs bill.

After getting shut down by his own party on a jobs bill that was a smaller version of the original stimulus plan, Obama has decided to try to slip through individual components.  The first effort of piecemeal has been whittled to $35B and is ostensibly focused on hiring or keeping police, fire fighters and teachers employed.

Obama let Biden loose yesterday to stump for the new jobs bill.  In attempting to make a point for passage of the bill, Biden said:

“In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city. In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes, just to pick two categories, climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields. God only knows what the numbers’ll be this year for Flint if we don’t rectify it.”

When confronted on his remarks, Biden followed up with:

“Let’s get it straight, guy. Don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight,” Biden responded. “I said rape was up three times in Flint. Those are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder is up, rape is up, burglary is up. That’s what I said.”

Joe, Joe, Joe….

Joe attempts to argue that the number of police officers are the single largest reason for the number of violent crimes, especially murder and rape. He makes this assertion by using statistics from a microcosm, Flint Michigan, and wants us to believe that they extend to the country as a whole.

If you would ask Joe, he would tell you that we are woefully short of police and other law enforcement personnel. Under Joe’s logic, we should be seeing unchecked increases in violent crime during the current economic times. Joe may want to check with the FBI on what their statistics show. The FBI statistics clearly show that over the past few years, violent crime has been coming down. That fact is true on both a total basis as well as based on the rates per 100,000 population. In fact, contrary to Biden’s view of near anarchy, rapes per 100,000 were down to levels not seen since the mid ’70s and murder rates not seen since the early 60s.

OK, so I think it’s safe to say that Flint has bigger issues than the number of police they have on the street. At best, they are an outlier to national statistics. But, let’s says Biden is right, let’s say we do need more police to reduce rapes. If that is true, why is the administration only putting $5B of the bill towards policemen? Does Biden believe that $5B will eliminate rape completely in the United States? If not, what will he tell the woman whose rape would have been prevented by the $1 spent beyond the $5B? Will he tell her that teachers were more important? Will he tell her that firefighters were more important? Maybe Joe will tell her that additional DMV clerks were more important than her physical safety and self esteem?

Doesn’t matter how you slice it Joe, your comments are bad logic if I am kind and asinine if I’m honest. If you really believed what you were saying, you would put every last dollar of the $35B to hire police. Even then, there would be one woman who’s officer wouldn’t be hired inside of the $35B and she would be raped as a result…at least according to Joe. I guess we can just refer to this poor woman as the $35B hostage.

October 18, 2011

B-Team Debate Drunkblogging – It’s Vegas, Baby!

by @ 15:27. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

After Shoebox handled last week’s debate solo with the usual aplomb, I’m back this week, even if my lungs don’t want to be. CNN (ugh) will be running tonight’s Western Republican Leadership Conference debate from the Sands Expo and Convention Center/the Venetian Hotel and Casino. The Venetian and I go back a ways; the only non-union property on The Strip hosted RightOnline and Kruiser Kabana last year. The Other McCain, future ambassador to Vanatu, is reporting live from the scene of the crime.

The debate starts at 7 pm Central; Shoe and I will open things up about 6:45. Bring your own favorite alcoholic beverage (preferably a lot of them). If the CoverItLive window doesn’t open for you, mash here.

Tuesday Hot Read – Phil Kerpen’s Democracy Denied: How Obama Is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him

by @ 0:09. Filed under Politics - National.

Americans for Prosperity’s Vice President for Policy Phil Kerpen has become a good friend of mine over the last 4 years. He decided to give me an advance copy of his book, Democracy Denied (list price $24.95, Kindle version $9.99), a look at how President Obama is abusing the regulatory process to implement what the voters explicitly rejected in the 2010 elections (and indeed, what Congress rejected when his party controlled it). It’s out today, so go grab it.

One of the first things I tend to notice when reading political tomes is the footnotes. The number of them tends to reflect how well-researched the tome is, and Kerpen did a lot of research. The notes section starts on page 275 and extends for a full 40 pages.

A helpful touch Kerpen included are liner notes scattered throughout the 275 pages of text. I won’t lie; it really helps in doing a quick-read book review. It also helps in highlighting, in sound-byte form, the particular point Kerpen is making in the section.

Books of this type typically explore the problem at length before setting out the proposed solution. Kerpen chose a different path; after a brief explanation of the problem of no legislative (Congressional) oversight of executive-branch rulemaking, he set out the case for a solution – the REINS Act. The story behind the REINS Act is not your typical one; its source was not from DC, or even a statehouse (though it is somewhat similar to Wisconsin’s legislative review of any proposed rule). Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) and Kentuckian Lloyd Rogers were separately wondering how to fight back against EPA overreaches like forced stormwater consent decrees. I’ll let Kerpen take over:

Then, the answer came to him (Davis) from Rogers. It happened in late August 2009, when Rogers called Davis and requested a meeting. Rogers talked about one of their favorite topics–the consent decree and the enormous impact it was having on fees. And then Rogers, according to Davis, laid out a very simple–profound, really–proposition.

Rogers said: “How come you guys can’t vote on these things?” and he handed Davis a piece of paper with a paragraph of text. It was the big idea, the idea that would become the REINS Act. This is, verbatim, what the piece of paper said:

Proposed legislation:
In adherence to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 1…”All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” All rules, regulations, or mandates that require citizens, state or local governments financial expenditures must first be approved by the U.S. Congress before they can become effective.

The real meat of the book is the numerous avenues of overreach Obama and his administration have taken. From the never-in-writing-until-imposed carbon dioxide regulations to the attempt to silence dissent on the internet, from the attempt to force unionization down businesses’ throats to PlaceboCare, from Dodd-Frank to land-and-ocean grabs to put America in the dark, Kerpen outlines the attempt to get the Obama agenda rammed through by every means available. From the initial attempts to get each piece through Congress legislatively when Democrats had total power to how (outside PlaceboCare and Dodd-Frank) the pieces initially failed, from the extra-constitutional attempt to implement the legislatively-failed agenda items through executive agencies to how the pushback has begun (in some cases, somewhat-successfully) and how in each case it must continue, Kerpen outlines the recent history of each piece of Obama’s agenda.

The last full chapter illustrates how even Obama and his fellow Democrats realize that this process is quite unseemly. Of course, their idea is to spray the proverbial potpourii to merely mask the odor; Kerpen quotes Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to illustrate; “[Obama] senses what the public wants. And it is a little bit Nineteen Eighty-Four-ish. He’ll tell you he agrees with you, while at the same time doing the exact opposite. So, a lot of big words and high-flowing rhetoric, but not a lot of substance.”

Kerpen closes with a powerful call to arms:

Turning (Robert) Higgs’s crisis theory on its head, we may have now reached a crisis point in the workings of our system of government, a crisis of unchecked regulartory power that threatens to render Congress irrelevant and trample our economic freedoms. This crisis, made clear by the ambitiousness of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” can, if well communicated, arouse enough opposition to reverse a multi-decade trend toward ever-greater regulatory power.

This time, it can be different. This time we can win.

October 11, 2011

Another GOP Debate

by @ 8:57. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest, Politics - National.

Things are getting interesting:

Palin and Christie are definitely out.  The field is set.

Bachmann and Hunstman are no where to be seen on the polling but are still showing up to debates…for how long?

Johnson is invited.  Will he answer any question without starting with “I will pass a balanced budget!”

Ron Paul won a straw poll…or did he?  Does it mean anything anyway?

Reports are out suggesting that Romney’s team were advising Obama on how to do a healthcare mandate.

Perry seems to have lost all positive energy.

According to the MSM, Herman Cain is not really a black man.

All these things are likely to be discussed or commented on during the live blog tonight.  The debate starts at 7 PM central.  I’ll probably get started a bit before that.  Drunk or sober, you’re all invited!

October 6, 2011

Liberal Republicans told me if I supported Sharron Angle, an extremist would be the Class III Senator from Nevada…

by @ 21:29. Filed under Politics - National.

…and they were right! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada, Class III) twisted the rules of the Senate like a pretzel to deny the Senate the ability to vote on Obama’s Son-of-Porkulus bill.

I would label this another exhibit of how the Senate GOP is nothing more than the minority half of the bipartisan Party-In-Government, but I’ve run out of letters. Own it, RINOs.

Revisions/extensions (9:22 am 10/7/2011) – After further review of the Senate rules (specifically V and XXII), I am convinced Senate Minority “Leader” Mitch McConnell wanted precisely this result. If he wanted to maintain the tradition (which, actually, is a violation of the Senate rules) of allowing the minority to offer non-germane amendments after cloture, he would have given written notice of the motion to suspend the rules yesterday and have it taken up today.

October 5, 2011

21 of the last 25 months

by @ 16:43. Filed under Social Security crater.

For those of you who think that Social Security is doing just fine (cough…Mitt Romney…cough…Harry Reid…cough), I’ve got some bad news for you. The Office of the Chief Actuary has finally caught its financial operations reports up to the present after not updating it for several months. The numbers are, in a word, horrible:

  • Except for the “double-taxation” (both quarterly estimated income tax and taxation of benefits) months of January and June, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program has not had a monthly positive primary (cash) balance since July 2009.
  • The 12-month OASI primary deficit peaked at $20.16 billion in the June 2010-May 2011 period, and isn’t expected to ever become a surplus again by the Social Security Trustees, the Congressional Budget Office, or me. My re-estimation of the 2009 Trustees’ intermediate-case scenario, the last one I have any confidence in, has that never dropping below $10.6 billion (in the February 2012-January 2013 period).
  • The last time the Disability Insurance program had a monthly primary surplus, and indeed, the last time it likely will ever have a monthly primary surplus, was April 2009. If it weren’t for the temporary ability to monetize the DI “Trust Fund”, in most months, less than 75% of the scheduled benefits would be able to be paid out as its annual primary deficit has crossed the $34 billion level on annual costs of just over $131 billion.
  • Speaking of the DI “Trust Fund”, its book value has dropped below $165 billion, and even with interest paid, its annual “burn rate” has crossed the $25 billion level. That makes it likely the person who serves the next Presidential term will have to deal with an exhausted DI “Trust Fund”.

Ponzi Scheme?

First things first; since it is written as law, Social Security cannot meet the illegality portion of the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Of course, if what Charles Ponzi did was written into law as being lawful, it wouldn’t meet the illegality portion of the definition either.

While a full collapse of a Ponzi scheme is almost always the end result of the process, the point where it collapses with the promoter still around is when that promoter is unable to return what he or she promised to the “investors”. Because it is a compulsory government entity, Social Security will always be taking a lot of money and paying “something” in benefits unless a majority of Congress has the gumption to call “Bravo Sierra” on the wealth-transfer scheme and pull the plug.

It matters not a whit that Social Security is a defined-benefit plan rather than a defined-contribution one. Actually, that’s not quite true; the fact that Social Security is a defined-benefit plan means that when it becomes unable to meet the payments promised, or when the terms are altered for those already in the system (I’ll be generous and say “heavily” invested in the system to cover only those who are at least 55 years old), it also meets the “inability to meet returns” definition of a Ponzi scheme regardless of whether it continues to pay benefits.

As current law stands, the only sources of funding for both the DI and OASI programs are the payroll taxes (supplemented this year by transfers from the general fund to replace the temporary cut in the payroll tax), the taxes on benefits (really, just a recapture of money that has the effect of reducing net benefits and net cost) and the “Trust Funds”. Once the “Trust Funds” run out of money, or the SSA is unable to monetize them, the net benefits paid out in a particular month are limited to whatever comes in via the payroll tax (or more-properly, what is projected to come in via the payroll tax, less any interest due the Treasury on that particular “float”) that month.

That’s where the primary deficits loom large. For 21 of the last 25 months, the OASI program needed additional funding from the monetization of the “Trust Fund” to fully-pay its scheduled benefits, while the DI program needed additional funding from the monetization of its “Trust Fund” for the last 28 months and all but 22 of the last 97 months since its latest (and probably last) dip into the red began in August 2003.

October 4, 2011

Communis…er, Occupy Wall Street goons release their “demands”

by @ 17:52. Filed under Politics - National.

Via Fred (no, I won’t give the proto-Commies the traffic), here’s their list of demands, along with a heaping of fisking:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Unless they’re trust-fund babies (with the emphasis on babies), they won’t exactly be able to afford the Starbucks and iPads that have sustained them anymore.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Because that’s worked out sooooooooo well for Canada, Great Britain, Cuba, North Korea,….

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

I believe the Soviet Union tried that. The quality of both goods and medical services, quite frankly, sucked precisely because the factory worker and the doctor serving the narod were paid the same. I also believe that, the machinations of Mad Vladmir Putin notwithstanding, the Soviet Union is as dead as fried chicken.

Demand four: Free college education.

I’m surprised they didn’t say “free bongs”.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

And exactly how many of them drove their Nissan Leafs and Trek bicycles to Lower Manhattan? This ought to be renamed, “Travel for me but not for thee.”

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

How convenient of the Communis….er, Occupy Wall Street crowd to put this right after the previous demand in their manifesto. Since there won’t be any transportation or energy, the second coming of the Works Progress Administration will be even less useful than the first.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Again, how are they going to recharge their Leafs and iPads without any fucking electricity? Only a couple of them will be as lucky as the Krazy Kims they want to emulate, though eventually most of them will end up in the other well-lit places, namely the prison camps.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Translation – Kill The Man!

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

I note they’re not telling Castro and Krazy Kim to open up their borders.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, where he always won “re-election” with 110% of the vote?

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

“You fucked up. You trusted us with your money.”

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

“And our children will be no better with debt.”

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union

But, but, but I thought that equal-and-inflated wages for all meant that there would be no need for a union.

September 29, 2011

Kanavas out, Thompson sucking money back into donors’ wallets

by @ 8:31. Filed under Politics - National, Politics - Wisconsin.

Former state Senator Ted Kanavas announced he won’t be entering the race to be the GOP nominee for the soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat currently held by Herb “Nobody’s Senator” Kohl (who apparently decided owning an NBA team during a lockout that may well last the entire season before the election might be a political liability). I can say the decision is mildly disappointing, and the reason for the decision is more than mildly disappointing. Quoting from the linked press release (via WisPolitics):

It is evident that if former Governor Thompson enters the race, his entry would tie up many resources. Privately, many donors stated that they would refrain from supporting anyone out of respect for Thompson’s 45 year political legacy. Those factors ultimately led me to my decision.

News flash to those donors; the Democrats won’t reciprocate.

September 27, 2011

Why the POR Economy is not recovering

by @ 11:01. Filed under Economy Held Hostage, Politics - National.

(H/T – Monty)

This is a few months old, but this piece from Rob Arnott relayed by John Mauldin explains why we’re headed into a double-dip recession (all emphasis in the original):

Consider a simple thought experiment. Let’s suppose the government wants to dazzle us with 5% growth next quarter (equivalent to 20% annualized growth!). If they borrow an additional 5% of GDP in new additional debt and spend it immediately, this magnificent GDP growth is achieved! We would all see it as phony growth, sabotaging our national balance sheet—right? Maybe not. We are already borrowing and spending 2% to 3% each quarter, equivalent to 10% to 12% of GDP, and yet few observers have decried this as artificial GDP growth because we’re not accustomed to looking at the underlying GDP before deficit spending!

From this perspective, real GDP seems unreal, at best. GDP that stems from new debt—mainly deficit spending—is phony: it is debt-financed consumption, not prosperity. Isn’t GDP, after excluding net new debt obligations, a more relevant measure? Deficit spending is supposed to trigger growth in the remainder of the economy, net of deficit-financed spending, which we can call our “Structural GDP.” If Structural GDP fails to grow as a consequence of our deficits, then deficit spending has failed in its sole and singular purpose.

By this measure, the economy is no better off than we were in 1998. Indeed, our soverign debt problem is even worse than it appears. From the conclusion:

Even our calculation of the national debt burden (debt/GDP) needs rethinking. Is the family that overextends correct in measuring their debt burden relative to their income plus any new debt that they have accumulated in the past year? Isn’t it more meaningful to compute debt relative to Structural GDP, net of new borrowing?! Our National Debt, poised to cross 100% of GDP this fall, is set to reach 112% of Structural GDP at that same time, even without considering off-balance-sheet debt. Will Rogers put it best: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

September 22, 2011

Fox Presidential Debate Live/Drunk blog

by @ 12:10. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

Join us tonight for the Fox Presidential debate. You can join sober or drunk, your choice. My guess is that even if you join sober, you’re going to want to drink by the end of it. I’ll try to get this going about 15 minutes before the official go time.

September 5, 2011

APP Palmetto Freedom Forum liveblog

by @ 12:44. Filed under 2012 Presidential Contest.

This effort from American Principles Project, starting at 2 pm Central, promises to be a rather unique experience. They invited all the GOP candidates, both actual and potential, who had at least a 5% average in a recent version of RealClearPolitics’ average of polls to appear one at a time before Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and APP founder Robert George. Since the potential candidates who qualified, Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani, didn’t respond to the invite, and Texas governor Rick Perry had to go back to Texas last-minute to deal with the wildfires in his state, that means we’ll get Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney.

The forum will be on both CNN and Townhall with the latter also carrying a post-forum show.

Do try to be on your best behavior this time around; I’ll try not to swear even when dealing with Paul. Besides, we’ve got a full-throated drunkblog of MSNBC’s Wednesday debate ready to go. The “old” liveblog method of often-paraphrased questions in italics, in-line answers in plain text and in-line comments in parentheses will apply for as long as I can keep up. As always, CoverItLive will be handling the hosting, which means that you shouldn’t need to refresh to get the latest.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]