Why We Will Have President Perry in 2013

Why would Obama lose the election in 2012?

The short answer is that he has not yet begun to fight.  Ever.  He has never picked a position and held it, come hell or high water.  He chooses to negotiate from the weak position even when he holds the strongest cards.

And he tries to get along with people who are determined to see him fail, and have very publicly stated so at every opportunity they can.

The man can deliver a great speech.  He can say all of the right things, and he proved that in the time leading up to the 2008 election.  But speeches do not lead, they do not get the job done.

A weak president doesn’t inspire anyone.  A weak president will always have a weak party leadership in Congress.  Right now, Congressional Democrats need a strong president.

Right now, instead of focusing on what almost ninety percent of the American people want the president and Congress to focus on — jobs — they are having a silly fight over raising the debt ceiling.  The debt ceiling, an artificial contrivance established by Congress in 1939 is not Constitutional, and can actually be overridden by Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

President Obama and Congressional Democrats are getting themselves bogged down in arguments on raising the debt ceiling instead of just pushing ahead with jobs and other revenue increases.  If the Republicans want to stand in the way of raising the debt ceiling, LET THEM.  Right now, the only thing keeping them going is the fact that we are even having this discussion.

Instead, the better approach for Obama and the Democrats is to frame the discussion where it should be — we have a revenue problem, NOT a spending problem.

Our debt is where it is at precisely because of lower revenue — mostly because of the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and  an unfunded Medicare Part D.  Couple that with a high unemployment or underemployment and we end up with a rising public debt — because nobody is paying into it.

It is a pretty simple math equation.  The answer is simple:  raise taxes and close loopholes.  The problem is, the minute you point that out, the screeching from the Right starts.  “Raising taxes is a job killer!” they shout.  “We don’t want to raise taxes on the very people who produce the jobs,” they cry. Then there was that old chestnut from 2003 when the Bush tax cuts were first debated:  “I never got a job from a poor person”.

The fact of the matter is that I am a “job producer”.  So are you, and everyone else around you.  WE are the job creators — WE create the need for jobs.  If I am buying a widget, there had to be someone who provided the materials for that widget, someone else who designed that widget, other people who manufactured that widget, people to get that widget to the store, people at the store to sell it to me.  My need for just that one widget requires the need for several other people to have jobs to provide me with that widget.

Because those people have jobs, they too might have a need for a widget or even a gadget.  Their need creates a larger demand, therefore requiring even more people to work.  Each one of those has a need and … well, you see where this goes.

The more of us working, the more of us paying taxes, which lowers the debt.

Contrary to the “Trickle down”  “supply-side” economic model that has been experimented with for the past thirty years and failed, it is the “bottom-up” model that actually builds a strong economy and creates prosperity.  Put more money and opportunity in at the bottom, and it will rise up to the top carrying everyone with it.

Unfortunately, President Obama doesn’t seem to see it that way.  Or if he does, he doesn’t want to fight for it.

This morning I read the following paragraph in the Washington Post:

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

Why?  Because of some warped sense of “bipartisanship”?   Is Obama the only one who hasn’t figured out that the Republican’s definition of “bipartisanship” is substantially different than any other definition?  The definition of bipartisanship to a Republican is where you can get a few Democrats to agree with a Republican position without compromise.

Social Security and Medicare have been on the Conservatives radar for decades.  This is just the latest attempt to weaken both programs.  But instead of standing his ground, Obama seems willing to open the doors and let the looting begin — all in the name of “getting along”.

Do you think that the Republicans plan on honoring any kind of a plan that Obama makes?  Think again.  From the same article:

Before the meeting, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters that “comprehensive tax reform, both on the corporate side and the personal side,” is under discussion as the negotiators look for ways to close loopholes while also lowering tax rates for businesses and individuals. But he reiterated Republican opposition to tax increases on those he said are the economy’s main job creators.

There’s that meme again — tax increases on those “job creators”.  Hey, Boner, where ARE those jobs that the tax cuts were supposed to create?  For twelve years we’ve had these tax cuts on the rich and each year there are less jobs.  Even though the marginal tax rate for corporations is 35 percent — down from the 39 percent during the Clinton years — we have fourteen million less jobs today than we did in 2001.  But wait a moment, Boner, we both know that while the marginal tax rate is currently at 35 percent, that isn’t what most of the large corporation and the rich are actually paying, don’t we?  General Electric, for example is paying somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 percent.  Some are paying even less than that.  And EACH of them have been reducing their job rolls for each of the past ten years.

But while the President is trying to at least get the Republicans to agree to closing the loopholes so that the rich and the large corporations actually PAY the marginal tax rate of 35 percent,  the Republicans want to offset the closing of the loopholes by lowering the marginal tax rate even further.  Closing the loopholes and forcing the rich and the corporations to pay the marginal rate will increase revenue, and lower the debt over time.  But the Republicans do not want to raise revenue.

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

The President is throwing the Democrats under the bus.

Hey Obama!  The easiest way to fix Social Security is to raise the contributions to the program.  Increase the income cap from $106k to $250k per year and Social Security will be funded from now on.

Obama is quickly working on becoming irrelevant, and irrelevance does not translate into winning elections.  It is a sad thing to say that the only thing the Obama team is counting on for reelection is the current crop of Republican challengers.  But if he continues in the direction he is going, a ham sandwich will look good in comparison.

Enter Rick Perry.  Everyone knows that he is probably going to make a last-minute jump into the race to “save” the Republicans from themselves.  By waiting, he avoids the Iowa and New Hampshire Insanity Tour and can show up as a fresh, viable candidate to run against Obama.

Because of Obama’s lack of force and steadfastness, Perry is likely to come out on top.