Let’s End the Identity Crisis

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, made these pathetic, opening remarks at the last Republican debate: “I want to get something completely clear, because there’s been a lot of talk about this. This party is going to support the nominee — whoever that is — 100 percent. There’s no question about that.” Why would he even say that? Is it a lame attempt to try to unify the party and ask the candidates to play nice? What these politicians still don't seem to understand is that the people are having a political revolution. I wrote about this August 2, 2015 when I explained The Birth of the Electoral Paradigm Shift. “The message that Mr. Trump brings to the game is resonating with the electorate. Perhaps they see in him somebody who is not a professional politician!” I think that this article about “Why I support Trump – and resent the elites trying to destroy him” is a must read analysis by John C. Kluge. Think about this:

 

“Our country is going broke, half its working-age population isn’t even looking for work, faces the real threat of massive Islamic terrorist attack and has a government incapable of doing even basic functions. Meanwhile, conservatives act like cutting Planned Parenthood funding or stopping gays from getting marriage licenses are the great issues of the day and then have the gumption to call Donald Trump a clown. It would be downright funny if it wasn’t so sad and the situation so serious.

 

“It is not that I think Donald Trump is some savior or an ideal candidate. I don’t. It is that I cannot for the life of me — given the sorry nature of our current political class — understand why conservatives are losing their minds over him and are willing to destroy the Republican Party and put Hillary Clinton into office to stop him. All of your objections to him either apply to many other candidates you have backed or are absurd.”

http://nypost.com/2016/03/05/why-i-support-trump-and-resent-the-elites-trying-to-destroy-him/

Continuing with this line of thinking, the following was reported in the news:

“Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute's annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.

“The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump. (The meeting was not planned to be a strategy session on how to stop the GOP front-runner, but rather evolved into one, as a subsequently obtained agenda makes clear.)…

 

"The key task now, to once again paraphrase Karl Marx, is less to understand Trump than to stop him," Kristol wrote. "In general, there's a little too much hand-wringing, brow-furrowing, and fatalism out there and not quite enough resolving to save the party from nominating or the country electing someone who simply shouldn't be president." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d

 

It’s a pretty sad day in our democracy when a cabal of the elite considers doing something to keep the establishment in power. “A highlight of the gathering was a presentation by Rove about focus group findings on Trump. The business mogul's greatest weakness, according to Rove, was that voters have a very hard time envisioning him as "presidential" and as somebody their children should look up to.” This, of course, coming from the same person who went ballistic on election night 2012 saying that Romney was going to win. ."  Even worse, “…Bozell told Bloomberg News [,] If I had 1/100th of Karl Rove's money, I would have been more productive than he was. Republican advisor Rick Tyler attacked Rove in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "They lost every race. It was a colossal failure," he said. "They went out with their power points and convinced people to give money, but it was as pathetic a performance as I've ever seen...Clearly, Rove has too much control over the purse strings." http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/11/11854/biggest-loser-2012-election-karl-rove

 

It is a sad day when you have people who are as rich and powerful as these people who are trying to subvert the democratic process of allowing the choice of the nominee by we, the people. It is difficult to imagine how all of the voters in all of these primaries would feel if their choice of the candidate is suddenly thrown out at the last minute by the establishment. So much more could be done if all of these resources were allocated in a positive way.

 

“Instead, Mr. Trump’s challengers are staking their hopes on a set of guerrilla tactics and long-shot possibilities, racing to line up mainstream voters and interest groups against his increasingly formidable campaign. Donors and elected leaders have begun to rouse themselves for the fight, but perhaps too late….Two of Mr. Trump’s opponents have openly acknowledged that they may have to wrest the Republican nomination from him in a deadlocked convention.” http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=3&referer

“GOP leaders are grasping for a last-ditch idea stop Trump from claiming the nomination, from talking about a contested convention to discussing whether to rally around a yet-to-be-determined third-party candidate. All are long shots at best and would likely have the effect of ripping the Republican Party apart in irreparable ways.” http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/rubio_kasich_ponder_whether_th.html

“With a few days before major Republican primaries in states such as Florida and Ohio, the Republican establishment has turned their attention to creative ways to defeat conservative businessman Donald J. Trump, who appears to be unstoppable.

 

“Now, it’s been confirmed that a major group of Republican donors and insiders are working hard to convince former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (a Republican) to run for President!

 

“Apparently, the plan is to have her run as an independent.” http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-republican-candidate-enter-presidential-race/

There are a lot of citations in this article; there is a reason for that. You just can’t make this stuff up! I didn’t want any of my readers to think that I was in a room somewhere dreaming of alternatives; what I have presented is the reality of what the Republican establishment is trying to do. In the process they are showing the citizens of the USA what a fractionated, arrogant, self-serving bunch of people they are and that they have no identity – all the while worrying about Trump destroying the “branding” of the party! The establishment must decide which is more important: electing Donald Trump President or losing the White House to the Democrats? A Republican third-party candidate, besides ruining the Republican Party’s chances of winning the election, would destroy the party. I have one last scenario to present:

“If Trump sweeps Florida and Ohio, he could clinch the nomination by winning just more than half of the remaining bound delegates that are in play on Tuesday and afterward, according to scenarios developed by Josh Putnam, a political science lecturer at the University of Georgia and blogger at Frontloading HQ….But Trump remains basically the only candidate who appears likely to get the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the Republican National Convention. Under all four possible Florida-Ohio scenarios, Cruz would need at least 77 percent of remaining delegates to clinch the nomination -- a feat that seems unlikely at this time.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/12/how-florida-and-ohio-could-make-or-break-donald-trump-this-week-visualized/

 

Regardless, as Mr. Kluge says in his previously cited article: “Perhaps none of this means anything to you, and the movement has left me behind. If it has, I think conservatives should understand that it is leaving a lot of people like me behind. I can’t see how that is a good thing.”

 

____________________________________

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

2016 Fantasy Election

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

This is a fascinating election! The people, the electorate, have basically forced the Establishment element of both parties to actually consider their input during this nomination process. I say that tongue-in-cheek because the people are clamoring, but the Establishment is not listening – and it is beginning to become more evident in both parties that this is true. It is a tragedy that big money has more influence over the process than the entire population of the United States of America.

It is amazing to read the myriad of articles disparaging Donald Trump. People calling him a carnival barker, a performer, hateful, loud mouthed, bigoted – the list goes on and on. The truth of the matter is that the electorate is ready to throw the nonperforming, nonresponsive, professional politicians out of office – and the Establishment is scared and crying like a bunch of babies. The main street media bears a lot of responsibility in this perception. A large majority of the population is having an adverse reaction to the continuous bias of the media who are ignoring journalism and writing opinions masquerading as journalism – and creating an atmosphere of entertainment rather than presenting real-world problems and asking for intelligent solutions. The pre-election season resembles more of a contest than an attempt to cull the nominees by setting criteria and selecting the most qualified candidate.

Poll after poll are presented in an attempt to sway people’s opinions to their candidate. People want to vote for a winner – not a loser. It makes sense except that the polls are so skewed and biased, that it is difficult – if not impossible – to really determine who’s ahead. Take this poll for example: “The study posited that voters, when interviewed by pollsters via telephone, are reluctant to admit their support for a controversial candidate whose critics have painted him as racist. In self-administered online interviews, on the other hand, they will be more likely to admit their support. And that will more likely reflect their eventual decision in the privacy of a voting booth…. Overall, the study found that Trump performs about six percentage points better in online surveys compared with those conducted by phone. In a sample of nearly 3,000 Republican voters, the Morning Consult study found that Trump garnered 38% support with online respondents, 36% with respondents who were robo-called, and 32% among live-interviewed voters.” http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theory-going-around-donald-trump-001457776.html  And this was not even an attempt to intentionally misrepresent a poll!

I labeled this article the Fantasy Election for a reason. I’m going to advance a scenario – just for the fun of it! The idea occurred to me when I read this article: “Donald Trump may have eased some Republican fears Tuesday night when he declared his intention to stay inside the party. But if their angst has been temporarily eased at the prospect of what he would do if he loses, they still face a far more troubling, and increasingly plausible, question. What happens to the party if he wins? …This is not the usual rhetoric of intraparty battles, the kind of thing that gets resolved in handshakes under the convention banners. These are stake-in-the-ground positions, strongly suggesting that a Trump nomination would create a fissure within the party as deep and indivisible as any in American political history, driven both by ideology and by questions of personal character. Indeed, it would be a fissure so deep that, if the operatives I talked with are right, Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run—from the Republicans themselves.” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-third-party-bid-213449  Can you fathom the arrogance of this action after all of the hoopla surrounding making Trump give a promise that he would not run as a third-party candidate? Unbelievable.

Now, let’s look at the Democratic side of the aisle. What was first thought to be a runaway nomination for Hillary Clinton now looks as if Bernie may not only catch her, but he might beat her! For example: “Did you know that there’s a Democratic presidential primary too? Sure, Hillary Clinton maintains a big lead in national polls and has all the endorsements. Sure, she’s almost certainly going to win the nomination. But if I were running the Clinton campaign, I’d still be a little nervous. Clinton’s lead in Iowa isn’t safe; Bernie Sanders could win the caucuses. And with expectations for her as high as they are, a Clinton loss in Iowa (or even an underwhelming win) would cause her campaign a lot of heartache.” http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-can-still-catch-hillary-clinton-in-iowa/

All of the aforementioned was a very small fingernail sketch so that I could present my main theme. What if, on November 8, 2016, the ballot looked like this: Republican Party: Donald Trump; Republican Party, third party candidate: Marco Rubio; Democratic Party: Hillary Clinton; Democratic Party, third-party candidate: Bernie Sanders. Assuming all of the normal constitutional processes have been met, all candidates are registered in every state, etc., what if this became the selection for the American people and what would it mean?

Almost assuredly it would go to the U. S. House of Representatives: “The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation….Most states have a ‘winner-take-all’ system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate….After the presidential election, your governor prepares a ‘Certificate of Ascertainment’ listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year.” http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Now the big question: “What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes? If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.” http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270

I have called this a Fantasy Election because Bernie Sanders will probably not run as a third-party candidate. What a shame – this could have been a very interesting race! (p.s., I won’t even discuss the possibility of a split-ticket for the vice president!)

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Please, Republicans: Stop It!

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

From NRSC Senior Staff operative, Ward Baker, “Observations on Donald Trump and 2016:

 “The place is Cleveland, Ohio. The date is July 21, 2016 and Donald Trump has just accepted the nomination of the Republican Party for President of the United States.” Wow! https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/memo-on-donald-trump-from-ward-baker-to-nrsc-senior-staff/1898/

In my mind, in his memorandum of September 22, 2015, Mr. Baker is the first person as a senior Republican Party operative to actually present an intelligent analysis on how to win the presidential election. Even though this memorandum presents recommendations for potential Senate candidates, it should have been addressed to the Republican Party in general. Mr. Baker has captured the essence of what this election is all about: “…this time it is harder to predict an outcome because of the volatility of the electorate. Trump has risen because voters see him as authentic, independent, firm,--- and believe he can’t be bought.” I have written a couple of other CitizenOversight postings about this topic before; I still believe that there has been a paradigm shift in the electorate in this election cycle.

Mr. Baker makes several recommendations for other Republican office seekers if Mr. Trump is the nominee. I found this to be especially important because it is how all of the presidential candidates should be conducting themselves. If the other presidential candidates keep making insulting, derogatory comments about each other, no Republican nominee will win; the electorate will be poisoned by their own negativity. After all, who wants to vote for a nominee whose own party won’t support him? Here are some of the more salient points of Mr. Baker’s memo: “People talk about problems, not issues. So, focus on problems and not issues and offer your solutions. Avoid Washington-speak (legislation, bills, insider talk) in favor of Main Street common sense …. Understand the Changing Environment and Recalibrate Now. The Trump phenomenon exists because Washington politicians promise change, but don’t deliver. Your job is to deliver.”

Another excellent observation made by Mr. Baker: “Trump Can Hit the Right Chord. We may not like it, but Trump has connected with voters on issues like trade with China and America’s broken borders.” How about this one for a very common sense observation: “Trump Rises Because People Understand Him…. Don’t insult key voter cohorts by ignoring that America has significant problems and that Trump is offering some basic solutions. Understand the populist points that Trump makes and ride that wave.” I call this one, “Don't throw the baby (the winning strategy) out with the bathwater (Mr. Trump)”! The Establishment has become so fixated on denying Mr. Trump the nomination that they’ve lost sight of the primary mission: win the White House!

Continuing, it just keeps getting better! How about this for a winning strategy: “We Can’t Afford to Depress the GOP Vote. Spending full-time criticizing our own nominee will ensure that the GOP vote is depressed. That will only serve to topple GOP candidates at every level.” And one final nugget of wisdom: “Covering the Trump Bet. Conventional wisdom has counted Trump out on several occasions. But, Trump continues to rise and the criticisms seem to make him stronger. Trump has been gaining Democratic adherents and he’s solidifying GOP cohorts who feel they have been totally ignored by the Washington Ruling Class. If the environment aligns properly, Trump could win. It’s not a bet most would place now, but it could happen.”

We are now at the end of a two term Democratic administration. I’m not going to say anything about that, but I will say that Mr. Trump has changed the campaigning landscape in several ways. For one thing he refuses to be intimidated by the media, Democratic Party – even his fellow candidates and the entire dissenting Republican Party. Secondly, he has exposed many of his running mates to be the RINO cowards they are. Say what you will, but Mr. Trump is a leader – and that’s what the country needs now. Third, the party has historically chosen the candidate; but this cycle it appears that voters will have more of a say in who the candidate is.

The GOP establishment is desperate and doing everything they can to derail him. Once again they are proving that they are the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. There are so many divisions within the electorate; there are so many signals that change is coming; there are so many turf wars; and most important – there is no leadership within the party to unite and back one candidate. Say what you will, but Mr. Trump sees the big picture – and reacts to it – like a leader should – even though it is politically incorrect and perhaps unpopular.

It will be interesting to see whether or not Mr. Trump decides to run as a third-party candidate. I believe that he has held up his end of the bargain; and I believe that the Republican Party – and his fellow candidates – have continued to disparage, belittle, and criticize him – thereby opening the way for him to run without violating his agreement. In a way – although it would hand the presidency to the Democrats – it might cause the existent Republican Party to become a rump organization – thereby allowing a true, moderately conservative political party to become the Phoenix that will be successful in the next presidential election. I hope that the Republican establishment realizes this could be a possibility and quits the campaign to stop his candidacy; they need to listen to the people, get behind him, quit carping, and move on with a strategy to capture the White House.

Another candidate may overtake Mr. Trump or he may lose on his own. However, he now leads in all of the primaries (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/) The GOP establishment is going to be at a crossroads in the very near future: what do we do if Mr. Trump wins all of the primaries? It could happen – and if it does, they should be focusing on getting voters into the booths to pull the lever for Mr. Trump as the Republican nominee. I hope that somebody like Mr. Baker gets a larger voice in the final decision!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Congressional Kairos: The Time Has Fully Come

Guest Columnist: Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr.

[Editor’s Note: The 2014 Elections should be very straight forward as history favors the opposition party during off-year elections in a President’s second term. Some trends already point in that direction: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/195889-expanded-2014-senate-map-boosts-gop-confidence. However, Republicans have seized defeat from the jaws of victory in both 2010 and 2012 with “kooky” Senate candidates and highly divisive primaries. The GOP is already proving its own worst enemy http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140119/OPINION01/301190003. As usual, Don’s article is a thoughtful assessment of the current situation.]

This is going to be a tough pill to swallow. I believe that the Republican Party does not stand a chance of winning any seats in the upcoming Senate elections – unless it makes substantial changes – soon. I will just present excerpts from a variety of articles and sources. Does anyone else see trouble if there is no change?

As of December 31, 2013 a Real Clear Politics poll – an average of seven other national polls – show that 13.1% approve of Congress and 81.0% disapprove. Good or bad for Republicans? You be the judge. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

From Gallup Politics dated December 11, 2013: “Americans continue to see the Democratic and Republican parties unfavorably, as a year marred by high-profile policy failures for both parties comes to a close. The Republican Party's favorability has improved slightly to 32% from an all-time low of 28% in October during the government shutdown, while 61% now view the GOP unfavorably. The Democratic Party -- on the defensive recently for the flawed rollout of the healthcare website -- maintains a favorable rating of 42%. But a majority of Americans, 53%, now see the party unfavorably, up from 49% in October.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/166202/democratic-party-maintains-favorability-edge-gop.aspx

From Gallup Politics dated January 8, 2014: “Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx 

The article continues in the next two paragraphs:

“Americans are increasingly declaring independence from the political parties. It is not uncommon for the percentage of independents to rise in a non-election year, as 2013 was. Still, the general trend in recent years, including the 2012 election year, has been toward greater percentages of Americans identifying with neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party, although most still admit to leaning toward one of the parties.” 

And,“The increased independence adds a greater level of unpredictability to this year's congressional midterm elections. Because U.S. voters are less anchored to the parties than ever before, it's not clear what kind of appeals may be most effective to winning votes. But with Americans increasingly eschewing party labels for themselves, candidates who are less closely aligned to their party or its prevailing doctrine may benefit.”

From the Center for Responsive Politics: Let's look at Senate reelection rates. In 2008 it was 83%; 2010 it was 84%; in 2012 it was 91%. “Senate races still overwhelmingly favor the incumbent, but not by as reliable a margin as House races. Big swings in the national mood can sometimes topple long time office-holders, as happened with the Reagan revolution in 1980. Even so, years like that are an exception.” http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php?cycle=2012

This analysis, done by Larry J. Sabato, for Politico Magazine, highlights my concerns:

“Ultimately, the 2014 battle for the Senate, which Democrats now hold 55-45, is close. It will be an enormous shock if Republicans do not gain seats and at least reduce the margin of Democratic control. If the GOP can restrain its cannibalistic instincts and tendency to nominate flawed candidates[emphasis mine], then to retake the Senate it need only match the post-World War II average gain of six seats for the party out of power in the White House in the sixth year of two-term administrations. At this point, I’d set the over/under on Republican gains in the Senate at 3.5, and I’d take the over—meaning a net gain of four or more Senate seats for the GOP. If Republicans end up dipping under, they will have had their third consecutive underperformance in Senate contests. On the contrary, if even a modest-sized wave develops for Republicans next fall, the third time could be the charm for the GOP’s goal of a Senate takeover.

“The ebb and flow of politics is one of the few constants throughout American history, and 2014 will be no exception. The GOP fared well in 2002 and 2004, then it was the Democrats’ turn in 2006 and 2008. Since then, the back-and-forth cycle has speeded up, with Republicans winning handsomely in 2010 and Democrats in 2012. In the quick “surge and decline” politics of our highly polarized era, the early bet has to be on Republicans to do well in 2014—despite themselves [emphasis mine].” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/midterm-elections-republicans-really-could-win-2014-101802.html#ixzz2pqQqq03b

From a previous post by me on Citizen Oversight on February 25, 2013 on the statistical possibility of a Republican takeover of the Senate: “Now, to the interesting part; consider the following statistics. When there is a Democratic President and a Republican Senate, the Republicans controlled 52 seats and the Democrats controlled 47 seats (vacancies cause the unequal numbers). When there is a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, the Democrats controlled 55 seats and the Republicans controlled 43 seats. In the 113^th Congress (2013- 2015), with a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate, the Republicans control 45 seats and the Democrats control 55 seats (the two independents are considered Democrats for this analysis). But this brings up an interesting question: since the Republicans are statistically projected to win in 2014, how will this occur since they will need to keep the existing numbers and win at least six more seats?

“To answer this question, I did some research and found the following discussion of extreme interest: Twenty-one of the 35 seats up for election are now held by Democrats. Moreover, most [sic] the states that will be casting ballots for the Senate in 2014 are Republican leaning: 7 of the 21 Democratic-held seats are in states carried by the former Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, while just one of the Republican seats is in a state won by President Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/can-republicans-win-the-senate-in-2014/#more-38683

“I would encourage everyone to read the complete analysis by Nate Silver. It is excellent! He continues:

“Are the conditions favorable enough to make Republicans odds-on favorites to gain six seats and win the Senate majority? Not quite. Six seats are a lot to gain, and Republicans are at risk of nominating subpar candidates in a number of races. But it would not take all that much to tip the balance toward them….

“Summing up the possibilities across all 35 Senate races yields a net gain of four to five seats for Republicans, just short of the six they would need to win back the majority.

“However, the margin of error on the calculation is very high at this early stage…. If Republicans swept all the “lean” and “tossup” races, they would gain a net of eight seats from Democrats, giving them a 53-to-47 majority in the 114th Congress. If Democrats swept instead, they would lose just one seat and would hold a 54-to-46 majority. Considering the uncertainty in the landscape, estimates from betting markets that Democrats have about a 63 percent chance of holding their majority appear to be roughly reasonable.

“It is more than just a little bit exciting to see Political Hysteresis at work projecting a 53 to 47 Republican majority when one of the greatest American statisticians and psephologists, Nate Silver, opens the door to the possibility of a Republican win in 2014 – by the same numbers!”

http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/2013/02/political-hysteresis-part-deux.html

[The Cook Political Report published this chart on December 19, 2013: http://cookpolitical.com/senate/charts/race-ratings for specific projections.]

I really do not like opening my analysis with so many quotes from other sources, but the facts are the facts; and after reading several articles, the above analysis prevailed in all of them. The conservative base is necessary for the survival of the Republican Party; trying to broaden the Party’s image by changing the messaging further dilutes the Democratic-Republican differentiation that exists now. These and other issues are dividing the Party; but how can the Party ever hope to win elections when it can’t even agree on the critical platform planks that the Republican candidates need to promote and defend?

Given this scenario, to bring all of the groups into a big tent coalition without alienating the conservative core of the Republican Party will be a very difficult task. I would even go so far as to say that it could not occur before the election season begins. So from my perspective, I would like to suggest the following: the Republican Party needs a big ticket, one that all Americans can agree on; and an issue so great that it would transcend all political positions. May I suggest term limits for Congress?

The Heritage Foundation states: “Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean Up Congress”: “Such substantial public support suggests widespread distaste for careerism in politics, as well as a conviction that continual infusion of fresh blood into the federal legislature will be good for both the Congress and the country. 

Support for term limits extends to significant majorities of diverse demographic groups: polls show that majorities of men, women, blacks, whites, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all favor term limits, typically by 60 percent or better…. Term limits are a vital political reform that would bring new perspectives to Congress, mandate frequent legislative turnover, and diminish incentives for wasteful election-related federal spending that currently flourish in a careerist congressional culture.” 

[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/08/bg994nbsp-term-limitsnbsp-the-only-way]

I would suggest that the Republican Party reframe the debate to not say “What is good for the Republican Party?” Rather, what the message should say is “What is good for the American people?” The Republicans should have this as their central theme for each of their candidates: “If elected, I will bring all of the powers of this office into play to enact legislation that will create term limits for Congress.” If presented sincerely, I cannot help to believe that it would attract voters from all political spectrums, thereby marginalizing the debate on some other issues where the Republican Party is viewed unfavorably.

It is inevitable that term limits will be implemented. If it is not legislated as an amendment, it is inevitable that an Article V Constitutional convention will be called. Wikipedia summarizes this as follows: “Depending upon whether or not rescissions between 1988 and 2010 in some of states that had previously petitioned for such a Convention during the 1970s and 1980s are in fact valid, then Ohio's 2013 petition is either the 19th or the 33rd. If Ohio's 2013 petition is deemed to be the 33rd, then the Nation is currently again just one state shy of an Article V Convention being triggered.” 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution 

Why not take the initiative and do term limits now? If a full-blown Article V Convention is called, Pandora's Box will be reopened – and I'm sure that the Law of Unintended Consequences will prevail if the entire Constitution is put on the drawing board to be reworked.

I would recommend that everybody read The Heritage Foundation article cited above. It was written in 1994; but the analysis and conclusions reached then – are even more obvious today. The author's conclusion from this study: “It is difficult to overstate the extent to which term limits would change Congress. They are supported by large majorities of most American demographic groups; they are opposed primarily by incumbent politicians and the special interest groups which depend on them. Term limits would ameliorate many of America's most serious political problems by counterbalancing incumbent advantages, ensuring congressional turnover, securing independent congressional judgment, and reducing election-related incentives for wasteful government spending. Perhaps most important, Congress would acquire a sense of its own fragility and temporariness, possibly even coming to learn that it would acquire more legitimacy as an institution by doing better work on fewer tasks.” [Ibid]

The idea that the RNC will have as its centerpiece campaign slogans which are anti-Obamacare, and the advertisements will probably work – but not all the way. People are tired of the negativity that the Republican Party pushes; but by this fall, we, the people, will have “read” and “lived” through this monstrosity. So provide a constant reminder of its failure; but provide some original thinking so the electorate can see that we want to build as well as tear down. I would be very surprised if embracing term limits did not electrify the electorate and cause that tremendous, independent base to gravitate towards the Republicans.

_______________________________________________________

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The Law of Attraction and How to Win Elections

Guest Columnist: Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr.

[Editor’s Note: In normal times a rational Republican Party would be taking full advantage of the chaotic failures of the Obama Administration and making substantial strides toward victory in 2014 and 2016. However, these are not normal times and the Republican Party is far from rational. Apocalyptic conservatives have decided it is better to kick over the existing political table than to construct an alternative one. This fixation on the negative and silence on viable alternatives is tearing apart the GOP.]

Michael Losier offered this definition of the Law of Attraction in his book Law of Attraction, Wellness Central Edition: “I attract to my life whatever I give my attention, energy and focus to, whether positive or negative.”

One thing about the Law of Attraction: it has spanned centuries, geographic locations, religious beliefs, and business backgrounds to survive, intact, as a concept in which it is acknowledged that we can control our own destinies through our thoughts. Although recent scientific advances provide explanations beyond people's intuitive feelings about their thoughts and outcomes, it is a fact of life that over time people have recognized that the way they think would influence their lives. This also happens when a group of people assemble and focus on a common theme (e.g., let’s elect this person!). It is not Karma (cause and effect); it is directed thought which can produce a positive outcome.

Different authors have stated how powerful the mind is in different terms. For example, Aristotle said: “The energy of the mind is the essence of life.” And Norman Vincent Peale said: “Change your thoughts and you change your world.” These are just generalized statements where the author recognized the power of the mind and thinking. And how about Maya Angelou: “If you don't like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude.”

We should be ever mindful of how we live our lives; we should develop an overall concept of existence that will always facilitate well-meaning, positive thoughts. Marianne Williamson states it in her book The Law of Divine Compensation in this way: “If you think of yourself as being at the effect of a random universe that does not care about you, then you will experience your life that way. If you think of yourself as being at the effect of a loving universe that does care about you, then you'll experience your life that way. No matter what is happening in our lives, we choose how we wish to think about it.”

So, how does this affect the Republican Party? The Tea Party, which could be a very positive force, is hell-bent on promoting the most conservative people they can find and are tearing the fabric of the Party apart – regardless of whether they will win or not. What is the longer term strategy: to eliminate moderate Republicans or to win elections? With the 2014 elections looming, the Republican Party has to decide its fate: stop beating up on each other and focus on electable candidates. Like it or not, look at Virginia. Mr. Cuccinelli is probably a nice guy, but his conservative position hurt him. Look at New Jersey. Regardless of one’s personal feelings about Governor Christie, analyze his election success. He won in a Democratic state – and look at the demographics of the people who voted for him. He won votes from an electorate that the Republicans would like to think they are cultivating.

Nick Carey of Reuters reports: ‘If we have to get hurt in the polls in order to save the country from financial ruin, so be it,’ said Ben Cunningham, a long-time conservative activist in Tennessee involved in efforts to find a challenger for Senator Lamar Alexander. Really? Are you listening to yourself, Mr. Cunningham? It’s not about the polls; it’s about electability and winning the contest. Indiana’s Senate seat was lost in 2012 after Senator Lugar was ousted in the primary by a Tea Party candidate; who won that time? Not the Republican; a safe, incumbent’s seat was lost. There are other examples of the Republicans losing sight of the end game: keeping control of the House, capturing the Senate and putting a Republican in the White House in 2016. Let’s face it: if you are a true Republican, would you rather see moderate Republicans controlling government or liberal Democrats? And it’s not going to happen unless the Republican Party quits acting like a loose assembly of petulant children.

I’m going to offer a suggestion. Think positive thoughts about all of the Republican candidates. Focus on winning! This means that sometimes, even as a conservative Republican, you will have to bite your lip and vote for the candidate that can win – versus the candidate that is your favorite – for whatever reason.

Attraction requires you to visualize what you want, focus on what you want, and take action to attain what it is you want. The Law of the Attraction does not operate within a timetable. It is our current thinking which invokes the Law of Attraction. However, it works; and it will impact your life – positively or negatively. Republicans need to think positive thoughts; they need to put aside the intra-party fighting and agree on the common goal of winning elections. Agree to disagree, but do so constructively. And when the time comes, go to the voting booth and pull the lever for the Republican candidate. Failure to do so means there will probably never be a Republican president again – and fewer wins in the national races. The electorate has changed; the Republican Party better, too.

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

GOP BODY SNATCHERS

Published in POLITICO
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/opinion-scot-faulkner-jonathan-riehl-the-gop-body-snatchers-97102.html
By Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl

In the classic 1956 sci-fi film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, an alien race comes to Earth and begins turning humans into “pod people.” Their bodies are left intact, but their minds are regrown, rending them humanoid robots under the aliens’ command. Unrecognizable to neighbors, the pod people take over until nothing is left of human society.

At the time of its release, the film was seen as a metaphor either for communist takeover (according to conservatives) or an ironic criticism of the irrational fears of communist takeover (according to liberals). Today, we think the body snatchers conceit perfectly fits another trend: the takeover of the responsible conservative movement -- or least what is left of it. A small faction-within-a-faction -- government-decrying, religious-fanatic, anti-science -- have turned thinking Republicans into pod people.

There is growing concern that while Republicans may dominate off-year congressional elections, their ability to win a presidential election is diminishing. The crisis on the right revolves around two issues: demographic trends working against the GOP in the general election, and insanity working against the GOP in the nomination process. Extremist outliers now dominate both the public face and internal organization of the Republican Party. It is time to snatch these bodies back, and to steer the debate toward more concrete issues: America’s role in the world and the global economy; cultural divides over how to address environmental issues; our healthcare system and the costs of aging families; and bridging multicultural divisions in our country and around the globe. These are the issues the GOP needs to address head-on, with input from a wider range of perspectives.

The evidence of Republicans at war with themselves and with reality mounts daily. Even those recognized as seemingly “rational” Republican and conservative voices, both in elected office and the punditocracy, are pandering to religiously radical, inward-focused factions. The result is a GOP fixated on the roughly 10 million people who listen to conservative radio and television pundits, instead of projecting messages of inclusion and hope to 230 million registered voters.

It was not always this way. In 1988, George H.W. Bush coasted to the third Republican presidential landslide in a row. The GOP won five of six post-Great Society presidential elections, four by epic-sized landslides. In the elections of 1972 and 1984, the Democrats won only one state each, plus the District of Columbia. Up through 1984, the modern Republican Party had perfected appealing to voters across the political spectrum. Broad themes and accomplishments -- the economic growth after the Carter years, reversing the decline of the U.S. military, winning the Cold War, and generally re-energizing national morale -- neutralized internal factions and ideological differences within the Republican Party, while the Democrats were still healing from their Vietnam and Civil Rights meltdowns.

Although President Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” would eventually help lead the Democrats out of their wilderness, there were signs of the radicalization of the GOP as early as Ronald

Reagan’s second term. First and foremost, the United States and the West were winning the Cold War. It would take until Nov. 9, 1989, for the Berlin Wall to fall, but many within the Reagan administration and the conservative movement knew events were unfolding to end the Soviet Empire and free Eastern Europe, which the Republicans had made a key rallying point for years. As this happened, and with the American economy booming, core Republican and Independent constituencies lost their fervor to fight. Unfortunately, Republican leaders failed to develop or articulate a “third act.”

Into this vacuum stepped faith-based Republicans, also known as “TheoCons.” The TheoCons, including national politicians and the religious coalitions backing them, entered GOP circles during the 1978 off-year elections. Many were evangelicals who supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election, hoping that Carter’s devout Christianity would usher in policies friendly to their Christian worldview. Their disappointment led them into the Republican Party. GOP leaders and Reaganites were grateful for these additions to the larger coalition, but they were also wary of the TheoCons’ preference for big government. While the Cold War raged, Republicans told the TheoCons to “wait their turn” at policy formulation.

The TheoCons used their time in waiting to methodically take control of the Republican Party at the county and state levels. Their fervor for biblical policies and evangelical beliefs easily overwhelmed the waning legions of GOP Cold Warriors and independent libertarians. This is not a criticism of the Tea Party movement alone; the TheoCons poach from this camp as well as a separate cohort of religiously driven conservatives who have been part of the conservative coalition since the late 1970s.

Fast forward to 2012, and the Republican Party of the 21st century looks more like 16th-century Europe, when doctrinaire Catholicism and fervent Protestantism were literally fighting over hearts and souls amid the Reformation. Science and medicine were locked in the realm of superstition. Absolute dictators ruled everywhere. It would take another 100 years before the beginnings of rational thought, scientific inquiry, and liberal democracy took root.

That is the fundamental problem of today’s Republican Party: Its philosophical “outliers” have become its activist core. This has infected Republicans at all levels, from the state house, to the Congress, governors, and the presidential contenders. Virtually any Republican candidate who wants to run and hold office, must at least give lip service to an activist government based on biblical imperatives. We know from personal experience, over recent years, that in some circles, in order to obtain the GOP nomination, raise funds, and attract campaign volunteers, Republicans must not only embrace biblical creationism, but also go on the record supporting the concept of a “young Earth” -- the creationist belief that our planet was formed in seven days, starting on March 18, 3952 B.C. (though dates vary). They must also agree to expand the size of government to enforce biblically based policies, like the absurd anti-sodomy debate going on in Virginia.

For GOP leaders, officeholders, and candidates who are afraid to confront the TheoCons, the dilemma is no longer about how to put this genie back in its bottle but how to placate this faction internally without broadcasting the fragmentation to the broader public. The TheoCon body snatchers have turned a Party of the Enlightenment and liberty into the pod people of science fiction movies. Many meetings among Republican fundraisers, caucuses, and party leaders have enforcers -- local activists -- ready to alert their fellow pods to heresy. Shrinking numbers and electoral defeat only strengthens the pod people’s hold on the party. More and more Republicans fall asleep under their spell, only to awake and join them.

The invasion of the GOP body snatchers is not just hurting the legacy of the Republican Party and conservative movement. It is hurting America’s ability to conduct a civil and sensible national debate. When the process of positive political dialogue is invaded by pod people, it ceases to be possible. Everyone has an interest in fighting the invasion.

Scot Faulkner was chief administrative officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and director of personnel to President Ronald Reagan. Jonathan Riehl is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations, a former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and instructor in communications at Wake Tech Community College in Raleigh, N.C.

Republican Opportunities Lost

This was published in RollCall

http://www.rollcall.com/news/faulkner_and_riehl_republican_opportunities_lost-222193-1.html?pg=1

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

Republicans are wondering how to confront President Obama’s second term “second wind”. In recent weeks, Obama has proven he is no Lame duck. His new initiatives, new appointments, and winning the word wars on the budget, have overwhelmed Republicans both in Congress and among their pundits. After ceding 789 days of political positioning to their opponents since the GOP’s 2010 victories, Republicans have now spent the first weeks of 2013 contemplating their navels while bungling opportunities to make a difference.

Only in the Republican’s parallel universe could supposedly intelligent people sift through the electoral debris of 2012 and think that their only challenge is creating better campaign ads with better media soundbites. Worse, they arrived at this epiphany after listening to political consultants, who derive their income from creating these campaign ads and soundbites. These are the same consultants who spent hundreds of millions the GOP’s money being 100% wrong in their assumptions, polls, and predictions throughout 2012.

Congressional Republicans in particular should look into the mirror to find who to blame for their current predicament.

Since decisively winning the November 2, 2010 elections, Republicans in Congress and their acolytes in the conservative media, have missed hundreds of days of opportunity to define themselves and present compelling alternative policies. The reality is that Republicans have no platform. In fact, they no longer have a coherent idea of who they are. They are also so “inbred” in their politics that they no longer see the need for making a rational case for any of their stands. There is simply no content behind their message.

The dreadful examination of Sen. Chuck Hagel is a case in point. Hectoring diatribes from fellow Republicans over the war in Iraq only perpetuate the image of conservatives unwilling to reflect on their actions in light of the facts. Never mind that as a traditional conservative, Hagel’s view on the Iraqi misadventure was much more in line with decades of conservative thinking prior to the NeoCon takeover of GOP foreign policy.

The recent Pew Survey shows Americans disapprove of Republican Congressional leadership by 66% while only 19% approved. That is a staggering 47 point negative. Gallup’s survey is equally horrific, with 25% approving and 67% disapproving for a 42 point negative gap.

These dreadful scores are only part of the problem. President Obama and Congressional Democrats are framing the Fiscal Cliff/Debt Ceiling/Budget battle in ways highly favorable to their cause while painting Republicans into a microscopic corner. This is smart rhetorical strategy, and stands to marginalize the GOP into oblivion.

Politics often comes down to defining the terms of battle, something both parties have excelled at during different moments in history. Democrats have the upper hand at this particular moment. Republicans, even moderates (those few that remain), are now called “extremists.” Democrats, even radicals, are now called “Progressives." Government spending is now called “investment,” thanks to a spin factory gem from Bill Clinton. Spending cuts of any magnitude are dismissed as damaging to America’s economic recovery. The Republican response is either mired in bureaucratic language unknowable to normal people, or piled up with hyperpartisan rhetoric that leaves no room for compromise.

As the Hagel hearing demonstrated, Republicans have been vague about government waste and the need to cut spending. They trumpet their ideology, but ideology is not governance -- and Americans continue to see the President as more competent in that task. The problem is that the GOP never issued a meaningful indictment or offered a prosecution brief. It is also sad that Republicans refuse to admit that the bureaucracy and spending at the Pentagon are as bloated as any other department. Republicans seem to fixate on shiny objects, like rows of medals on uniforms, instead of targeting wasteful spending and management at the DOD.

Perhaps this is what the psychologists call cognitive dissonance -- Republicans are now mostly unwilling to hold serious hearings on government spending or mismanagement, because many of them blindly supported Bush-era spending boondoggles both foreign and domestic. Bereft of principle, and caught in hypocrisy of their own making, Republicans have little to stand on. The GOP did not even hold hearings on Senator Tom Coburn’s annual Waste Report, a longtime staple of reasonable oversight. Only CSPAN’s BookTV gave Coburn a proper forum to discuss his exhaustive and highly credible research on government waste.

Having one party dominate policy and legislation while the other retreats into mindless and sporadic venting of anger is unhealthy for America. Those who wish to hold power accountable, and desire a reasonable dialogue on the role and cost of government in the 21st Century, must stage an intervention. The elephant is sick and its infirmity harms all of us.

The Republican Party Needs a Paradigm Shift

[Guest Contributor - Donald Mutersbaugh]

The Republican Party needs a paradigm shift. The Party has become fossilized by preferring the familiar to the unfamiliar, the proven to the unproven, and not shifting its election strategy to the changing times and culture. It's as if the Republican Party exists within a bubble that totally ignores the storm outside. I do not believe that tweaking and in-flight modifications are going to work; a major overhaul needs to be done.

One of the first things that has to be decided is whether the Republican Party is to continue to be a Party of set principles and attitudes or whether it should become a living party that adapts to the changing circumstances and the culture of the times. Inherent in this decision is whether the Republican Party wants to have a firm stand on a plethora of issues that will define it as a Party of unbending conservative, rich, white, males [perception]; or, whether it wants to stand a chance of winning any future elections. A complete rethinking of many issues is necessary, including how to attract people of color – African-Americans and Latinos. A new attitude needs to be developed concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters. The other major block of voters, the female population, needs to be invited back into the Party with a more realistic outlook on the issues that are of primary concern to them – and not the Republican establishment.

Out of this will come another set of hurdles that will need to be addressed; these are all centered on perception versus reality. Allowing the mainstream media and others to define what the Republican candidate and agenda are of course presents a problem from day one. Very little progress will be made winning the electorate as long as the message is not getting through the way the Party and candidate wish it to. The voter perception of what the candidate and Party platform stand for when the lever is pulled will be based on that frame of reference – and not necessarily the reality of what is really being presented. A paradigm change is inevitable.

The Republican Party needs to establish an alternative to the mainstream media. It is of primary importance that a communications plan be developed which bypasses the mainstream media and goes directly to the public. The Party has to make a decision that the mainstream media will attack conservatives regardless and that they should basically ignore them and work around them anyway possible to get the message directly to the people. The Republican Party also needs to get into a more sophisticated electronics game communicating a soft message about the Party and what it's doing to make for a better America (e-mails, blogging and tweeting, Facebook). Mental inertia has to be overcome when trying to convince voters that there is a new platform in place so that the word “Republican” doesn't evoke the negative image that the word apparently has today.

Another major decision that might need to be made: delegate more activities and finances to the state and local parties. The Republican Party needs to strengthen its grass roots organizational structure. This is especially important to a strategy of bypassing the mainstream media. One way to help in this effort at the national level might be to form several rapid response teams which could be deployed quickly to key states. These units, consisting of 10 to 15 people who are trained in a variety of political activities, should be specialists and professional organizers. These rapid response teams could be deployed to assist each of the statewide organized Republican committees.

Currently, it is estimated that the United States has approximately 47% of the people on some form of government entitlement. I personally believe that the number is greater, maybe even more than 50%. This becomes a very large problem because we are moving into a world in which there are more takers than givers. It appears that we have a government of: “Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy): a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.” [http://www.urbandictionary.com]. On first blush this may seem to be humorous; but in reality, it is quite scary.

The revolution and the paradigm change are necessary; the question is how to resolve the crisis and facilitate a paradigm change without completely destroying the Republican Party. There will have to be some deep soul-searching and negotiation to assimilate all ideologies while differentiating what the Republican Party really stands for within the context of the current culture. Unfortunately, it might take a generation to implement the changes necessary to bring the Republican Party back into parity with the majority of the voters. Something has to be done or the Republican Party needs to resign itself to continual losses in the political arena. While there might be parochial gains within state legislatures, governorships, and occasionally a U. S. House of Representatives or U. S. Senate seat, competing at the national level for the position of President of the United States will be difficult at best, and perhaps, futile in the long run.

________________________________________________________

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives.

Raising Revenue Responsibly

This article was published on the History News Network

 http://hnn.us/articles/how-solve-fiscal-cliff-problem-responsibly

There are three legs to the stool of Federal Fiscal Solvency - Cut spending, entitlement reform, and revenue generation. Few of the Washington power players are realistically discussing any of these, but revenue has generated the most polarized rhetoric.

All our lives are impacted by the way our Federal Government raises the $2.9 trillion it needs to function. That is why it is important that any revenue element of a “Fiscal Cliff” deal is weighed not only for the amount, but for its “tax incidence”.

“Tax incidence” charts the various ways government amasses its revenue and how these ways impact individuals, industries, demographics, and “geographics”. Our current “progressive rate” income tax system and the strategic reform proposals of the flat tax, fair tax, and Value Added Tax (VAT) all generate significantly different impacts on our individual spending habits and our overall national economy.

Tax policy punishes or promotes economic activity either with intended or unintended consequences. Government tax policy has become social policy, resulting in an amazingly complex and voluminous tax code. The federal tax code is over 5.6 million words or 3,458 pages – seven times longer than the Bible, depending on the edition. Each page, sentence, phrase, and punctuation of this Tax Code, and its countless regulations, instructions, and manuals, determine winners and losers within the economy. These regulations are further subject to equally voluminous interpretation through administrative and judicial rulings.

There are nearly an infinite number of ways individuals, companies, and an array of other entities, can navigate this tax landscape. Lost in this morass is the original intent for many of these pathways and how they are supposed to positively guide economic behavior while raising desired revenue.

Democrats obsess over raising tax rates on the wealthy, and Republicans remain vague about “tax reform”. Thankfully, one person has conducted a detailed review of the Federal Tax Code and found $992 billion in possible tax saving/new revenue over the next ten years – without raising tax rates.

In July 2011, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) issued his “Back in Black” report. http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=deficit-reduction

“Back in Black” is a 624-page detailed, line by line, analysis of how the Federal Government can cut waste, achieve operational efficiency, and find the revenue needed to get out of debt.

Coburn’s final section (pages 558-624) addresses how decades of tax policy decisions have created a multitude of opportunities for special interests to avoid taxes, or obtain tax incentives and subsidies, while harming the general populace (pushing the tax burden onto others and driving up the debt).

Reviewing some of Senator Coburn’s examples of how our tax code runs amok is instructive and sobering. Coburn’s ideas represent the most economically neutral opportunities for new revenue and should be part of any strategic “Fiscal Cliff” agreement.

Subsidizing millionaires - Individuals with over a million dollars in income benefit from more than $7 billion in tax relief annually through the mortgage interest deduction. Under current law, homeowners can deduct the interest paid on home mortgages for primary residences and vacation homes loans of up to $1 million, resulting in lost federal revenue of nearly $88 billion. Even a yacht can be considered a second residence—as long as the luxury boat has a “sleeping, cooking, and toilet facility” and an individual lives in it for at least two weeks a year.

Subsidizing foreigner gamblers - Americans must pay taxes on their winnings at horse and dog tracks in the United States, but not foreigners. This deprives the Federal Government of $30 million over the next ten years.

Subsidizing Hollywood – In order to encourage Hollywood to produce feature films and television programs in the United States, entertainment companies may deduct up to $15 million in certain costs associated with the production of television episodes and movies where at least 75 percent of the compensation costs are for work performed on U.S. soil. Allowing Hollywood to benefit from this accelerated cost recovery results in federal revenue losses of at least $30 million a year.

Allowing fraud - Within the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), individuals without a valid Social Security Number (SSN) claim $1.780 billion a year, or $17.8 billion over ten years. Congress has not provided the IRS with adequate authority to deny these fraudulent claimants.

No documented impact – The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is supposed to hold every federal activity accountable for actually achieving intended results. GPRA is routinely ignored, not only for federal expenditures, but for tax expenditures. Two examples are Empowerment Zones (EZs) and Renewal Communities (RCs). EZs and RCs are federally designated poverty or distressed areas where businesses and local governments receive federal grants and tax incentives in exchange for locating and developing in these zones. Nearly $1.8 billion in grant incentives provided to EZs and RCs have been allocated since 1993. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Inspector General at Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have not found any tangible improvement in community outcomes.

Bailouts without end - The IRS has excluded major Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients from certain tax obligations for potentially the next 20 years. These TARP recipients may avoid paying more than $90 billion combined in taxes because of this special tax treatment. This includes AIG, which has accumulated over $25.6 billion in carry-forwards and other tax-deferred assets; New GM, which will avoid as much as $45.4 billion in taxes because of the Treasury Department‘s exemptions; and Citi, which will use $23.2 billion in carry-forwards and other credit carryovers in just one year.

Malfeasance - The Internal Revenue Service found nearly 100,000 civilian federal employees were delinquent on their federal income taxes, owing over $1 billion in unpaid federal income taxes. The federal government has also failed to collect more than $62 billion in penalties owed by swindlers, criminals and others cited for violating federal laws and regulations and this amount has increased dramatically.

It is truly sad that none of these issues were discussed during the 2012 campaign. Republicans, in particular, could have avoided being branded as coddling millionaires. Each side is equally guilty of over politicizing these serious management and economic issues. The fact that Senator Coburn’s published report has remained in the policy wilderness for the last seventeen months is unconscionable.

Conservatives at a crossroads: Harold Hill vs. William F. Buckley

Published in Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84101.html
By: Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl


The GOP’s trouncing has triggered a wave of “soul searching” typical in its post-election timing, but more significant in its impact for our politics and for the conservative movement — if there is one. We think not. The conservative crisis of 2012 is not just a crisis of messaging; it is a crisis of conscience.


The cast of characters now presenting themselves as conservative leaders bear nothing in common with the intellectual cadre that brought the movement to prominence in the 1960s and 1970s. For months we watched in horror as a parade of Harold Hill hucksters mouthed empty tea party phraseology, followed the advice of Dick Morris and Karl Rove, and parroted Frank Luntz’s magic words — all the while selling a boy’s band that simply does not exist. Their polls, their news, their understanding of America, are a façade. The people of River City — the conservative base — were willingly sold a bill of goods. They got their reality check on Nov. 6.

Like the traveling salesman from “The Music Man,” the right’s media echo chamber has captivated the townsfolk. It is full of rapid-fire talkers, fearless pugilists and moralistic re-enforcers. To be clear, media access and its persuasive power have always been central to the conservative cause. But how far we have come from the days when William F. Buckley, Jr. hosted a PBS program called “Firing Line,” where conservatives of all stripes, liberal intellectuals and policymakers debated issues in depth. Today the conservative base prefers the endless recitation of things it already believes.

In a larger sense, the problem extends far beyond the “dumbing down” of a noble policy movement into cartoonish diatribes mouthed by one-dimensional personalities. It’s not about bad messaging. It’s the lack of any coherent framework or foundation for that message.

The movement, once a coalition of cold warriors, traditionalists and free marketeers, no longer exists. Buckley did not preach an ideology; he helped maintain a fusion of different factions. The key players, and candidates, came from very different camps but were united in a fundamental understanding of the limited role of government and the power of the individual. These groups often disagreed. But their differences were worked out through reasoned debate and exchange, guided by a 300-year provenance dating to John Locke and earlier.

What we see today, in contrast, is a dialogue of empty sets of talking points with no intellectual content or critical thinking to back them up — epitomized by Mitt Romney’s foundationless candidacy that pandered to a shrinking and ideologically extreme base. But conservatism, as it was understood by those who built the movement in the postwar years, was never an ideology. The great conservative philosopher Russell Kirk wrote in the early days that properly understood conservatism is not an ideology, but rather “a mood.”

Ideology and ideologues were imported into the party in recent years, especially by extreme theocratic types whose embrace of an intrusive Big Government is in fact antithetical to Republicanism and conservatism. Others, including the neoconservatives, embrace expanding government for their adventurist war agenda abroad and anti-libertarian activism at home.

A different conservative intellectual legacy extends back to Edmund Burke and beyond, a legacy emphasizing the long view over the short one, which thrived not on political marching orders but on debate and diversity. It is a tradition that dates to the dawn of Western civilization and the invention of democracy grounded in the practice of rhetoric. The modern conservative media machine, in its vapid self-congratulation, is a total negation of this tradition. While a few survivors still try nobly to maintain the real conservative tradition, their voices are drowned out by those who want to blame the media, demographics, Obama flimflams, and anything else — except themselves.

The two authors here come from different generations and our own politics are not in line with each other all of the time. Still, we have both studied conservatism, and share an admiration for the movement built over the past 60 years. We are saddened to observe what has become of its legacy — and its cast of pretenders to the throne. If you are a Republican, it is a sad day for your party and the movement that built it. If you are a believer in American democracy, it is a sad day for the country.

Scot Faulkner was Director of Personnel for Reagan-Bush 1980 and Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich. Jonathan Riehl, J.D., Ph.D., is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations.

What were they thinking?

Elephants supposed to “never forget”, but do they ever learn? They didn’t learn much from being defeated in 2008 [see http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/2008/11/perdition.html  ]


The 2012 elections provide a new cornucopia of lessons learned. Only time will tell if any of them sink in. Here are just a few of them…

Getting out the Vote
Project ORCA was a dismal failure. It was supposed to either supplement or supplant local Republican GOTV efforts. It did neither. Poorly trained and clueless ORCA workers siphoned resources away from real voter efforts. Worse – ORCA was an ill-conceived band-aid for the decades-long decline of Republican precinct capabilities.

Democrats figured out years ago that early voting would be a boon to their cause. Republican leaders hung onto getting out their vote on Election Day – ceding up to thirty days of voting opportunities to the Democrats. Worse – if Republican rhetoric is to be believed – that their supporters work for a living and are family focused – then why assume that these busy working people will either get up early to stand in long voter lines before going to work, or delay being with their families after work to stand in long voter lines? OCRA not only shrunk GOP voting efforts to one day – it shrunk it to the first and last hours of the voting day. No wonder 3 million less Republicans voted in 2012 than 2008.

Voter Fraud
There is always some voter fraud. This happens in the original voter registration or in counting the votes. Republicans chose to ignore these facts to focus on possible irregularities during actual voting. Countless days and weeks of activism, along with mountains of political capital, was spent on solving the one part of the process that worked. Imagine if all this Republican effort was spent on early voting. It also gave the Main Stream Media (MSM) an easy and ongoing target to pummel the GOP.

War on Women/Gays/Science/Privacy
No matter how much conservative talk radio and Fox News denies it, there are large swaths of Republican activists and elected officials, especially at the state level, who yearn for the 10th Century over the 21st. It is a fundamental contradiction to real conservatism and Republicanism to selectively promote unwarranted and aggressive government intervention into personal lives. You cannot assert there is either no or only a limited role for government in society and then create a huge “BUT” flashing in neon lights for imposing narrow theocratic-based dogma.

Originally, faith-based activists within the conservative and Republican movements stood for getting liberal dogma out of schools, homes, and churches. Sometime in the late 1980s things flipped around to replacing left-wing onerous government interventions with right wing ones. Outbursts by Republican Senate candidates were not isolated incidents. They were a mere sampling of a tragically obtuse thread of anti-intellectual totalitarianism that undermines both the movement and the party.

It is long overdue for Republican and conservative leaders to have their own “Sister Souljah” moment with fanatical theocrats. This moment is named for the pivotal Bill Clinton speech where he sealed-off racial hatred in rap music from mainstream public discourse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

Bush Legacy
The Bush dynasty diverted the conservative movement and the Republican Party into an agnostic pandering abyss. [See my earlier post http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/2012/06/wrong-track.html  ]

Bush 41 purged conservatives from the Executive branch, raised taxes, expanded government, bungled the end of the Cold War, bungled Iraq, and undermined everything Reagan stood for. Why revere him?

Bush 43 turned conservativism and Republicanism into micro-targeted pandering mush. He bungled Afghanistan, launched a totally unnecessary and dilatory war in Iraq, reduced America’s influence in the rest of the world to fixate on Iraq, undermined civil liberties, and expanded government. Why revere him?

Conservatives and Republicans can and should revere true the leaders of our movement as timeless role models – Presidents Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Reagan; intellectual leaders Buckley, Goldwater, and countless other thinkers ranging back to the Enlightenment. None were perfect, and true independent thought requires critically assessing their legacies, but their writings, speeches, and actions will always remain the touch stones from which 21st Century conservatives and Republicans get their bearings.

A few words about Romney

Romney could have won. His flawed campaign was no where near the fool’s errand of McCain 2008. However, there were numerous opportunities lost and self-inflicted wounds that sank him.

No theme – the conventional wisdom was that 2012 had to be about Obama or Romney would lose. How many think 1980 was only about Carter? Americans in 2012 felt powerless. They were being harmed by an out of control economy. They feared a world spinning out of control. They no longer trusted an unaccountable government. Romney could have spoken to these issues, but didn’t.

Bain – What the federal government needs most are Bain-like teams tearing apart, rethinking, and restructuring every agency and program. Romney could have proudly asserted his value proposition of committing to this long overdue weeding of the federal garden. Instead, he ran from Bain and its positive impacts, ceding the field for his opponents to demonize his strongest credential. When pressed on cutting federal programs Romney opted for going after Big Bird instead of using the question to discuss $650 billion in annually documented waste and how his management background could do something real.

Rope a dope – Why did Romney allow Obama to carpet bomb him from April through August? This period of negative ads created a deficit that was almost insurmountable. Why didn’t Romney run ads about his saving the Olympic movement during the Olympics? Why did he make this historic accomplishment a pre-primetime throw-away at the National Convention? Why did it take a pre-convention Fox news interview at his home to finally show he was a normal human? It is sad that highly intelligent and successful Republican business people (Steve Forbes, Pete DuPont, and now Mitt Romney) cannot connect with the party of business. They should all go back and read about how successful utility tycoon Wendell Willkie became a folk hero during his presidential run in 1940.

Class warfare – Republicans chided Obama and the Democrats for fermenting class warfare. Why oh why then did Romney spew his own version of class warfare? “47%” was a gift that kept on giving to the MSM and the Democrats. First, who in their right mind today, thinks that in this world of smart phones anything they do or say outside of their own home will not be documented and shared if it is deemed stupid enough? The “47%” comment is the antithesis of the type of empowering and inclusive conservatism espoused by the late Rep. Jack Kemp. His world view was that everyone can and will become a conservative once they realize how the free market is in their best interest. This positive message has been drowned out by vapid negativity among the so-called conservative and Republican leaders.

2016 & Beyond
There remains a small hope that (1) Obama and the Democrats will overplay their hand, creating backlashes and opportunities, and (2) that the next generation of Republican leaders – Jindal, Christie, Martinez, Fallin, Haley, Rubio, and others at all levels of government, learn from the past while shaping the future.