Santorum Surge II

If there is anything I've learned regarding politics, it's to expect the unexpected.  Actually that's not just politics but in life in general.  Obviously the unexpected doesn't happen all the time - then it wouldn't be unexpected.  But think about seminal events in recent history - or just your own personal history.  At the moment that said event was occurring, often we find ourselves saying, "If you would have told me 3 months ago that X - I wouldn't have believed you. "  If you would have told me that a Freshman Senator named Barack Obama (rhymes with Osama) would be our first black President elected in 2008, in 2004 - I would have laughed in your face.  But by that time the events had been set in motion.  Grant it, a lot still had to happen for the pieces to fall into place but the big ones, the structural ones, were already set (namely Clinton scaring other serious contenders away except for Edwards, Obama being extremely capable at organizing and building an organization around him, a core of Democratic support - possibly the most engaged 10-20% that would not settle, Bush winning re-election forcing him to account for his shitty tenure- had Kerry won he would have gotten blamed and would have lost bad in 2008, probably) . 

This sort of realization of how events unfold led me to predict, WRONGLY, that we would see marijuana legalization in four years (right after Obama was elected).  But you can see how it could have happened - Obama is elected and leaves states to their own devices, Schwarzenegger had publicly stated he was in favor of it as a tax generating project, a sagging economy and growing deficit, Ron Paul had bolstered the libertarian republicans about freedom in general, public opinion was moving in the right direction and as of right now support for medical marijuana is above 50%), the media was increasingly addressing the issue as a serious topic to discuss as opposed to a joke or as some way to deride "stoners"- this is important as key mover of public opinion.  Despite all this, and that for some inexplicable reason, Obama has gone back on his "leave it to the states policy"- legalization has not happened (although that was probably  50-50 bet anyway).  Hey, you win some, you lose some.  A few pockets of the country have legalized but unlike gay marriage, a wave of change has not followed it yet. 

My point is, is that despite Romney being the clear front runner early  (Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean anyone) and still by delegate count - you never saw him catch fire.  Obama actually faced this as well being the insurgent 4 years ago, but eventually Edwards attacked Hillary causing her to sling mud, making her look dirty. Obama talked about hope and change. And he snuck Iowa out of his back pocket (unbeknownst to us at the time he actually had an advantage over Clinton because of his superior ground game) lending him some immediate legitimacy.  The difference between Romney and Obama though, is that Romney is/was a known quantity.  Obama was not.  And despite being the conservative's conservative 4 years ago, nobody trusts him now.  The base is LOOKING for a reason to not vote for this guy. 

I don't know about historical precedents in this sort of situation - but the republicans have a nominating process where , depending on MI, AZ, and Super Tuesday, any one of the possible nominees, won't be able to secure the nomination (w/o super delegates).  Brokered convention?  Establishment pick that won't piss off the base? Christie, Palin, Jindal…. This much is certain, someone must be nominated.  But the establishment, despite the weak economy, already didn't think they could beat Obama (evidenced by the weak field) and now the economy may be improving.  LITERALLY anything is possible, Paul, Santorum, CHENEY, even Pawlenty (who should be kicking himself).  Whatever happens, I won't be surprised.

Romney as nominee - 50/50

I'm not in the tank for Obama.....

....so here are my criticsms so far.

1) Robert Gibbs- I'm actually going to say big ups to Scott McClellan for suggesting the current press daily briefing be changed.  It is a collossal waste of time.  1) Gibbs is getting annoying.  He sounds like a Bushie who drank the Kool-Aid only he's shilling for Obama instead.  This may not be his fault.  That's sort of the job description.  And 2) if he's not authorized to say anything, at least nothing the press doesn't already know, why even have the Q&A?  McClellan suggested having different experts come on certain days and the press can ask the experts (say someone from Treasury one day, NSA, Defense, and State the next, Labor the next etc.) questions regarding their expertise but they won't get blood from a turnip and so they won't try.  Then, Gibbs would only need to address the press when there is some big general news or scandal.   seems more efficent and useful to me.

2) Stimulus- The more I read obsidian wings and different economists the more I think this is just retarded.  But as I understand more (namely that this really is a House bill, not Obama's) the more it makes sense.  Here's my stimulus plan.  It would be two bills. It's easy to sell as 2 bills, I totally disagree with the pundits that say it has to be one because the republicans won't feel obligated to support the 2nd one after all the spending of the first.  Newsflash, they're not supporting this one.

Bill 1) Immediate stimulus.  It should get passed immediately regardless of republican obstruction.  

a. Reduce EVERYBODY's marginal tax rate.

b. Extend unemployment benefits.  

c. Add retraining/ tuition assistance for laid off workers.

d. Add some small business bs

e. suspend takation rules on bonuses.  

Make all this last indefinitely but review it every 9 months with strict metrics on when it should be renewed and when it should be suspended.  

e. Subsidize local mass transit for a year through either funding projects that are already started or reducing fares.  

Bill 2) Longer term works projects type stuff.

a. Fix infrastrucutre.  

b. Add highspeed rail in the various corridors that the republicans were talking about.  

c. OVERHAUL the tax code- simplify it and automate it.  Automating requires d.

d. Begin a government information database initiative.  The combination of c and d may pay for a lot of the new tax burden this stimulus will stick us with.  But it won't be effective for 4-5 years.  Imagine, never having to file a tax return, or the most complicated government applications being reduced to 2-3 clicks of a button.  What would the collective effect of the increase in happiness, reduced cost to consumers, businesses, and the government, increase in effectiveness of government programs because adoption would spike to 100% of those targeted, the improvement in sociological studies because of that data, and the increased tax revenues because loopholes would be eliminated?  It would be awesome.

e. Commission the reorganization of freight routes in the country.  This costs business almost $50B or $100B a year, I can't remember which but either way it's a lot.  

f. Adopt parts of Pickens plan(namely the wind farm part).  

g. Subsidize solar panel purchases for a year.  Reexamine program after that.

h. Authorize the construction of nuclear power plants.  

i. Invest in the electrical grid of the country.

And I like the idea of the "Bad Bank."  

And w/o the bad bank, if the cost of the 2 bills comes in under $700B (I have no clue what that marignal tax cut would do-but it would cost a lot), then there's probably still some political will to spend $150-200B on patching together Healthcare.  If they do it right, patching together healtcare could pay for itself in several years and then add stimulus (to businesses) after that, and possibly help pay down the stimulus debt. That's a lot of wishful thinking.  Doing the analysis might be fun.

Certainly there are more things that could go here, but I'm no expert.  But if this was the thrust of the bill this would be remarkably easy to sell to the American public and the republicans would HAVE to go along otherwise they would be obstructing.  As it is now, this is a flawed stimulus and the republicans are sounding less obstructionist by the day.  Someone like myself who believes in Obama and a "new kind of politics" wonders why he himself couldn't advocate something closer to what I've proposed and then put the screws to his own party.  The man has a mandate.  Congress does NOT.  I know he wants to be nice and conciliatory but if people are bad faith actors (THE ENTIRE HOUSE) he needs to show them who's boss.  This plan would be the spawn of evidenced based thinking so anyone who would disagree would have to argue it on the merits.  Right now the republicans are able to do that because  the bill is very flawed.  They couldn't with a good bill.