Robust Economy Gives President Obama The Upper Hand In SOTU

Promising really cool social programs is an easy panacea for civil unrest- especially when world economies collapse, because it only increases the deficit, and deficits don't matter anymore. One might argue that even national debt is a necessary evil within a global economy, but addressing national debt is a lot more important to smart politicians than insuring we operate within a balanced budget.  When economic recovery reaches a peak, our impression of deficit spending changes dramatically and thoughts extend towards social investment and away from deficit fears.

Enter tonight's State of the Union address which will establish a credible argument for the need to balance our nations income disparity deficit by implementing "hard to argue with" social investment measures that most republicans are either quietly or vocally in favor of.  These items of middle class security have always been within the presidents vision for America and within the agreeable majority of congress, but the last remaining opposition to his tax code dreams are all of the past accomplishments of the Obama era.

Plainly put, Barack Obama is a victim of his own success.  At this stage in the chess match, Obama opponents are simply risking every piece on the board while trying to keep their king from being captured. The president is not after their king since his economic ideology is in lock step with their own.  Since democrats are blocking Obama's trade plans, the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) will be quietly included into an address that will scream of a greater focus on the middle class family.  Trade expansion never finds uninterested GOP ears, but it will not view well on film if Obama and his new republican cohorts pretend to play nice on television.  Cuban normalization efforts are also a preparation for Obama trade dreams as well.

Obama will ultimately get everything that he wants in the end because he is dangling the cash carrot as a lure and republicans can't resist a bite.  What he will not get is the impression that he accomplished it without a fight. In other words, everybody will add stuff to the final bill/s and pretend they had no choice. Tonight's speech is nothing more then a prelude to the TPP hustle that will allow the Keystone XL pipeline to get approved and a couple of other cool social programs like free community college for middle class kids (poor kids already get Pell Grants) or a child tax credit that middle class people with kids can actually take advantage of.(poor people already have multiple child tax credits).


There has always been some false notion that American presidents can pull the strings of the world economy which is typically the key to America's economy.  Presidents can not pull any strings, but nonetheless, good economies are credited to them along with the bad ones. If Obama was indeed the cause of a sputtered recovery than he is singing Al Green tunes in the Oval office for the trend that he is enjoying now. What is the benefit of all of this?  Improved poll numbers for the president and increased power to grab the ear of the public at large.  43% of things spoken during the SOTU address get enacted into law, especially by presidents who've recaptured their moxie.

Congress might fight and kick, but there is always something to be said for the will of the people and of the power of the president to influence that will.  There is also something special about the power of the internet to take your message directly to the public and gauge their response to the details you provide.  In an unprecedented fashion, Barack Obama has basically laid his entire SOTU speech out for public consumption and republican response.  By doing so, he gets to place his winning hand on the table against a republican hand that can only beat him if it offers up a better alternative vision. The move also allows him to snuff out the republican response and prepare his counter in advance as well.

Joni Ernst (R- Iowa)

If the economy keeps blowing up- cheap gas and expanded trade says it will- the trickle down theory must show dividends or redistribution will happen by other means.  Like he did with healthcare, President Obama has stolen the tax code mechanism away from his republican opponents who typically find means of returning wealth to the American people by way of the tax code. Joni Ernst (Iowa), the republican assigned to play the impossible hand of republicans will give the response to tonight's SOTU address.  Ernst is the sacrificial lamb that has been cornered into saying that we must DO more, DO less, or DO nothing at all.  Neither will sound better than Obama's address.

Is it an accident that the upstart Ernst has to do this job and not one of the party elite?  I think not.

Mitt Romney Sounds Like Occupy Wall Street and Reaganomics Is Dead

The death of Reagan republicanism has now begun.

If you are older than forty or simply plugged into politics and economics, you realize the myriad of meanings that one might be trying to imply when using the term "Reagan Republican".  On one hand Reagan was popularized for his Hollywood flair that proved magnetically irresistible to a nation thirsty for a leader who knew how to play the part.  Add to his image the credit for defining republicanism behind the supply-side economic theory- Reaganomics, that spell check now recognizes just fine, and Ronald Reagan's name alone can help you win elections.

Upon deeper investigation, Reaganomics might be worse than Reagan's war on drugs.  In 2011, Adam Martin of The Wire.com reported on studies showing that Reagan's war on drugs had an adverse impact on the price of drugs overall. Studies revealed that Reagan era DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) efforts included poisoning the ground against future marijuana growth after a drug bust, forcing the transition to pesticide resistant harder drugs that were easier to grow, cheaper to distribute and vastly more profitable. Today, the need to mug grandma is less necessary when 30 minutes of pan handling will suffice. (thewire.com)  Petty crime has been drastically reduced nation wide- but mostly as a result of rampant expansion of  cheap drug use in addition to excessive  incarceration of criminal drug addicts as a result of mandatory sentencing.

No worries.  Studies have long since uncovered the truth about the war on drugs and the war on crime.  While these conservative constructs have soiled the reputation of the republican presidents that started them, Reaganomics has painted the party red as it offered republicans a unified message, even while it remained an untested theory.  In fact, the long standing theory of Reaganomics worked better for republicans in the form of a theory because no one could functionally dispute the darn thing either way. .

Gerrymandering and the great state of Kansas have fixed all of that.

In 2010, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback ran for office and won his job flying under the flag of Reaganomics.  Immediately, Kansas and Brownback had the majority, and the temerity to actually test the theory.

It hasn't worked yet- and even as the nation watches the stock market set new records every month, Kansas has not been able to reap the rewards that Reaganomics  and Brownback promised.

According to a  Washington Post article,

Brownback promised that the efforts would drive economic growth, create jobs and stabilize the Kansas budget. But the state is now reporting a more than $300 million revenue shortfall. The poverty rate increased. The state’s economy expanded a total of 2.3 percent in inflation-adjusted terms over the past two years, half the rate of its four neighbors. And Kansas’s credit rating has been downgraded. (Goldfarb, Zachary A., July 30, 2014, Washington Post) 

In order to curtail the shortfalls, Brownback is pursuing hefty sales taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, taxes that affluent smokers and drinkers will absorb easily, while poor people will suffer mightily. The expanding wealth of the wealthy and the expanding wage gap that feeds their wealth is finally something that even rich folks are concerned about as they are losing sight of their vital consumers while speeding off down America's economic highway.  Even Reaganomics recognizes the value of the consumer.

At some point in recent history, we've also seen a recognition that the trickle down can't work if rich people with stockpiles of water are afraid of drought. When the economy turned, the crisis reaction of corporations was to recession-proof themselves with a secondary damn slashing staff and wages while stashing enough profits to weather future droughts. America's recent storm of riches has flooded the primary damn so much that the water would not only trickle, it would flood were it not for that secondary damn imposed against staff and wages.

The failure of the trickle down theory is a rusty spout.  President Obama's State of the Union address will focus on redistribution efforts because in America, the bulk of wealth passes from family member to family member and never makes it way back into the mainstream.  With every economic downturn, the wealth capacity of the wealthy widens right along with the income disparity that drives it.  Absent the interruption of some redistribution effort, the trend can only exacerbate. Whether redistribution finds its way into the tax code or into federal minimum wage laws- or both- or neither is the only remaining question about economic recovery in America, because Reaganomics is dead even though the eyes appear open.

In an interview on his way to Dodge City — where he would sign legislation creating a “National Day of the Cowboy” — Brownback said he regretted referring to his plans as an experiment. But he defended his tenure, saying it represented a Ronald Reagan-style approach to governance that eventually would rebuild Kansas’s economy after a long slide. (Washington Post) 

Reaganomics may be dead, but the powerful impact of its namesake lives on. In the face of abject failure, the name Ronald Reagan can still save the day.

As for the non-Reagan approach to economics?  States that increased their minimum wage last year actually saw higher reductions in unemployment, a key indicator of economic vitality.  Despite an improved economy on a national level, low wages continue to challenge the feeling of a real recovery although data proves that the recovery is both real and sustainable. Not only is the trickly faucet not dripping, no one even knows how to force a trickle- outside of using progressive approaches towards economic disparity (see; redistribution).

Mitt Romney recently threatened to make his pursuit of the presidency a three-peat by declaring the importance of dealing with international affairs and income disparity as primary reasons that he's considering another run.  Since Mitt now realizes that little Russia is a nuisance compared to the big Soviet Union that was dismantled during the end of the Cold War, then this mega-rich republican's reference towards income disparity is curious for sure. If the trickle down theory officially does not trickle fast enough to drive economic recovery, what can any republican candidate do about income disparity that doesn't constitute redistribution (see; socialism) in the end?

Huh Mitt?  Take your time.  You've got roughly two years to come up with an answer.

Pursuit of the Presidency: "Uncle Sugar", Mike Huckabee, Rises To The Top Of GOP Race

Political prognostication is an evolving industry.  Back in the day, cable networks across the nation were flooded with mystical offerings like the famous Miss Cleo.  Sure, there are those who like the fun and intrigue of a good reading, but most people find it to be nothing more than entertainment, much like what we do everyday in professional sports.  The Miss Cleo's of modern political punditry are finding a similar demand to this mystical mayhem of old.

And what does Miss Cleo say about the prospects for the next republican presidential candidate?

Right now Uncle Sugar has taken a lead in the conservative run at the presidency.  Miss Cleo reserves the right to change her visionary prediction (as poll numbers change), but right now, Mike "Uncle Sugar" Huckabee has taken the lead.

Few would have expected him to even gain support for the presidency after failed attempts in the past.  In a recent speech, Huckabee denounces women who can't control their libido enough to pay for their own birth control without the help from Uncle Sugar. This statement got as much notice from those who support his thoughts as it did from those who never met their uncle named sugar.

For the laymen who did not catch his coin of phrase, Uncle is a reference to Uncle Sam and Sugar is a reference to the term Sugar Daddy, a man who pays a woman (non-prostitute) for her time and wares. What he did not quite realize is that whoever takes over the role of president becomes the embodiment of this mythical "Uncle Sugar" that he speaks of.  If Huckabee seeks to become president, he will also become Uncle Sugar.

Since those who actually respond to polls will segment their support from the list of the most likely's, no one candidate has gained a larger percentage than the 14% support that Uncle Sugar possesses.  I have seen polls that show Mitt Romney at or near the top (14%-15%), but no one yet believes that Ann Romney will let him run again. However, the mere notion that Uncle Sugar is leading the pre-preseason race speaks to the most resounding force in the republican party right now.

The religious right is ready to place its fingerprint on this race.  They are tired of losing with left leaning candidates because invariably, you will look back on your failures and always wonder if the compromise was the cause.  A moderate candidate might just make it through again, simply because prudence dictates these things, but this will be a bruising battle to win the party nomination.

Uncle Sugar might appeal to Tea Party religiosity, but he does not seem equipped to raise the money it takes to give more bruising then you take in a primary battle, and comes off as a bit too sour to become that sweet uncle we depend on to support our pleasures.

Next Post:  Pursuit of the Presidency: Rand Paul, The Libertarian Champion

Ann Romney: "You know, we lost, but truly the country lost by not having Mitt as president.”

Not that I'm saying I told you so, but I told you so.

America has it's own party of dissent, and anything that feels like government (or government as usual) brings these folks out of the woodwork._______

The cover picture to the movie "Mitt" is one of him fresh after Ann scrambles his hair up at the end of a tough debate.  The caption reads "Whatever side you're on, see another side".  Why? 

If the answer is to sell the Netflix movie to the masses then I would understand the caption.  Since I watched that movie days ago when Mitt gave it away for free on YouTube, I am left asking why.  Either Mitt is in collaboration with the release of this movie, or he is in breach of some copyright law.  

When you finish watching this film you are left with a certainty that Ann Romney could never endure another run. Now Ann Romney seems ready to publicly lament the failure of America to make the correct choice. In the film, his family seemed happier that he lost than Barack himself. However, his consistent need to remain relevant since the defeat is not being driven by financial reason's.  The only thing that compels Romney or Palin or Cain or any of those political mouthpieces that keep  swallowing microphones is the vision of another chance, or appearance checks.  Romney is so wealthy that he probably loses appearance checks in route to the bank, so its becoming harder and harder to disregard his constant pursuit of relevancy. 

According to Mitt, the person that was hired to capture this video was given the freedom to use it as he pleased just as long as he waited until after Romney's presidency, which didn't happen.  Are we suppose to assume that this was pro bono filming with the payment being the ownership of the film? Most people would hire him to document your story, pay him for his effort and keep your home movie to yourself.  Some of this footage goes all the way back to the first run at the presidency.  It shows a few interesting self deprecating moments in which he describes himself as the flipping Mormon, but if you look carefully his is not really attacking himself but deeply contemplating on how to destroy the notion.

Mitt Romney has been called the flipping Mormon from way back when he ran and won the governors race in Massachusetts.  To a business man, every obstacle is nothing more than a brainstorming session and a coordinated plan away from becoming forgotten history.  This business man has accomplished so much in the world of profit generation that he simply turns voters into a monetary achievement and stacks them up like gold.  

What Romney is missing is that it he is trying to make his story history, which is the only story that can get him elected.  He is treating America like the next  business deal in which you simply need to clarify the assets from the liabilities more clearly than the opposition.  Most importantly, Mitt Romney is doing one of the most dangerous versions of Monday morning quarterbacking.  Mitt is listening to the discontent with Obama to sooth his own campaign failures.  

Mitt is becoming so utterly confused by the voices of  Obama dissent, he hardly recognizes that many of them are the same one's who did not like George Bush either.  America has it's own party of dissent, and anything that feels like government (or government as usual) brings these folks out of the woodwork.  They are the one's who uncovered Area 51 even if they were wrong about what is in it.  Right now they are researching 9-11 conspiracy theories.

Mitt Romney has allowed that same crowd to trick him into thinking that he simply miscalculated his corporate takeover plan a bit.  

As for Ann?  

You know what ride or die wives do.  They complain, and then they jump in the car.

Is Mitt Romney Still Campaigning? Romney Reveals Inside View Of Presidential Campaigns

The Mitt Romney documentary was posted free to YouTube by Mitt Romney himself.


The freedom he exhibited in giving this film away on YouTube pales to the free access to his life that we enjoy from the intimate view represented in this documentary.

I initially only watched the trailer and still felt the pain and anguish from Mitt and his family as they endured the process of fighting, and ultimately losing the battle.  While he exposed some real vulnerability in the making of this film, it has only reignited the question about who is Mitt Romney, and is he electable for the highest post in the land?

My knee jerk reaction to this expose was that it was simply too much.  Gravitas typically demands restraint from overly intense moments of sensitivity, nor can you be overly revealing of personal insecurities.  After all, you are  the head of the free world. In further consideration, I see exactly who Romney is attempting to appeal to with this film and I sense that it is not by chance that we are seeing it now.

According to Mitt Romney and the filmmaker who created the documentary, he could do anything that he wanted with the film footage just as long as he did not release it during a Romney presidency.  The assumption of such an agreement was that Romney would win and this would be a really cool inside look at an over achieving man earnestly pursuing a new goal.  Since he did not win, the filmmaker was free to use the footage as he saw fit.  Are we buying this story, or is there more than meets the eye.

Personally, I am not really sure whether this film ruins his chance at future office or benefits him.  In the eyes of those who don't see the strength in being vulnerable, this may have hurt him, but in the eyes of those who appreciate vulnerability, he has gained some image points.  Is it pure coincidence that a film that could improve Mitt's "binder full of women" image came along just in time for 2016?  Doesn't giving this film out for free on YouTube undermine the filmmakers profit, or has Mitt compensated the film maker to do what he hired him to do all along; get rid of those binders and improve his image among women?

If there is one thing that you learn from this documentary, it should be that campaigning is hard.  Hard on the candidate and harder on those who love them.  You should also learn that Mitt's family never seemed in favor of what he wanted to do, they are simply in favor of Mitt.  The stress that exudes from the camera in the eyes of Mrs. Ann Romney is palpable to say the least.  Mrs. Romney suffers from MS and has to maintain a strict medical regimen to keep the disease at bay. When Mitt jokes about using pills to stay calm on the stump, I immediately had visions of where he could get such pills.  Yet, in the end I was most convinced about one really noticeable Mitt Romney trait.

Mitt Romney really, really, really hates to lose.  No, really.

Enough to run again?  Maybe!


Related Post:  

Romney Film Exposes Washington D.C.'s Taste For Roasted Duck...(especially lame duck)

Romney Film Exposes Washington D.C.'s Taste For Roasted Duck...(especially lame duck)

The Netflix documentary on the Romney campaign came out and offered a revealing exposure to a strong man enduring a trying process (full video).  Some have said this film could have bridged the gap in offering the humanity that Romney lacked.  Others believe it was way too revealing of his vulnerabilities and makes him unable to ever run for president again.  While I have yet to see the film (see link above), I keep thinking about Romney as a candidate when I stretch my mind towards who will be our next president.

If not Romney or Christie or Ryan or Rubio, than who?  Republicans are not tingling over any candidate because they are terrified about the fantastic four, Bill and Hillary, Barack and Michelle.  Obama has already handed over his campaign engine to the Hillary for president prospect team even though she has yet to announce.

Obamacare is more than a signature piece of legislation, it is an historical marker.  It's success will return credibility to the president that was lost during the ACA roll out.  Its failure will return the republicans to the white house with little demand for an opposing agenda outside of a repeal.  No matter what opposing idea that conservatives offer over the next two years, they will still have the demand of getting it to the office of the president for approval.  Way too much of the republican agenda has been attached to deficit reduction anyway. Deficit reduction is always reasonable in theory but does not gain much bi-partisan support in the midst of a sputtering economy.

Despite the screams from the masses for a solution to the healthcare crises, republicans must double down on the destruction of Obamacare and put a little more heat on Obama in the process.  The botched roll out put this duck on the fire and those who crave roasted lame duck are determined to throw every log they have at this fire to make sure Obama's goose gets fully cooked. A powerful president in any election has the risk of overwhelming republicans in every election, including the upcoming elections of 2014 and 2016.

The house will remain in the hands of republicans, but the senate and the white house are up for grabs.  Grab them all and the game changes for republicans.  Lose any two and the republican goose will be cooked and  feasted on by democrats for a few years.

In Washington D.C., roasted foul is the rave, especially from the hind quarters of the opposition.