I posted that last blog entry from my phone using the WordPress for iPhone app, and it was super easy.
It’s one of those things that I knew existed, and that I knew I could be using, but just hadn’t tried yet. Hopefully I can turn that into more consistent blog posts in the future.
I haven’t really blogged much at all lately, let alone about the Republican presidential primaries or the candidates. I will say this: I did not think, going into the process, that Mitt Romney would win. But after the first two contests, I’m pretty convinced, barring some drastic development, that he will. Here’s a little blurb about each candidate, and my opinions on each.
UPDATE (11 p.m.): Politico reports Jon Huntsman is out and will endorse Romney on Monday.
Newt Gingrich — Going negative is bringing Newt’s campaign to an end. When he was staying positive, his poll numbers soared. And when he was hit with negative attacks, he was wounded, but not fatally. Going negative himself, though, changed the angle he was coming from and made his candidacy much more cookie-cutter. If, by some turn, someone besides Romney is the nominee and wins the election, Newt would be a great chief of staff, but I doubt that happens in a Romney administration after everything that’s gone down in the last couple weeks.
Jon Huntsman — It’s kind of surprising that Huntsman hasn’t taken off more. He made a big mistake, though, running to the center instead of to the right. It’s possible to run as a pragmatic conservative and pick up the independent/centrist vote the way Huntsman was aiming to. Instead, he largely alienated himself from the field. He has a really great record as governor and ambassador, but his service in the Obama administration and his excess media attention raised red flags with a lot of conservatives. He explained that all very well, but never took off. He’s a good bet for Secretary of State or some other major diplomatic appointment in a Republican administration.
Ron Paul — I’m pretty sure Ron Paul will stay in through the convention, and that he’ll get a significant amount of delegates. His goal is likely to use that bloc of votes to gain concessions in the party platform. He’s the most principled of the bunch, and if he had presented his foreign policy differently (the Iran thing is killing him), he might be doing better, because his domestic policies are spot-on. He’d be a great Treasury Secretary.
Rick Perry — I love Rick Perry’s platform. I greatly respect his guiding principles and I think he’s got the right ideas. But I can’t stand to listen to him talk. And I cringe when I think of him representing America abroad as president. If you could combine Romney’s presidential composure with Perry’s principles, we’d have a real winner. But unfortunately that’s just not the case. Perry has a future, but likely not as president. Maybe he’ll leave the race after South Carolina and jump into the race for Texas’ U.S. Senate seat. Who knows.
Rick Santorum — Rick Santorum is a big-government conservative. He is not someone that believes in the supremacy of individual liberty. Coming out of an administration that aims almost exclusively to curb freedom, that’s the last kind of nominee the GOP should consider. I will give him the concession of not being as out of the mainstream on social issues as he has been portrayed, but I have a fundamental disagreement with his philosophy of government and I hope his momentum fizzles.
Mitt Romney — If he wins South Carolina and Florida, it’s over. The exit polls from New Hampshire were extremely interesting, and if the polls in SC and FL are similar, it will be very telling. Romney won almost all demographics in New Hampshire. Conservatives, moderates, evangelicals, Catholics, people who view the Tea Party positively, etc. etc. etc. If that continues, it goes to show that despite misgivings about his principles and background, electability will trump all of it to make people vote for Romney anyway.
This is an interesting point, in that conservative talk show hosts and bloggers and pundits keep pushing this idea that conservatives don’t want Romney and won’t vote for him. Even though, up to this point, they are. If Romney’s momentum continues and he snags the nomination early, that’s going to have to stop because it plays into the narrative that Republicans are too fractured and disgruntled to win. In addition, it makes them look disconnected from the grassroots in the same way they argue that the “liberal” mainstream media is disconnected from mainstream Americans, undercutting their credibility.
South Carolina and Florida will be really telling in all of this, and might end the process before it’s really had a chance to play out and develop even more. Hopefully the divisive and spiteful tone that things have taken of late will simmer down a bit.
They’re taking a temporary vacation for a while.
I’m working on re-tooling the blog part of this site in a way that’ll be more conducive to me posting every day, and in the process of figuring out how to do that, I’ve hidden all but some of the more “fun” posts. I still want to use my blog as a way to flex my political writing muscles and show that I can write intelligently about that stuff, so until I can get this back on track and more consistently updated, I put the old posts away until I figure out how they fit into whatever new plan I come up with. Stay tuned.
A class and two big papers are all that stand between me and my master’s.
“Folks on the left like Paul Krugman and Rahm Emanuel have been arguing that the economy’s still tanking because the stimulus package wasn’t big enough, proving that hindsight is 20/1,000. I say, Republicans should come back with, ‘Well the Bush tax cuts weren’t big enough either.’ What do you have to say to that, Congressional Democrats? Nothing! Iced.”
From S.E. Cupp’s post-election column, which contains plenty of other gems.
This is the second part of a series of posts which will analyze the issues on the ballot in Missouri and in Columbia.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 1
Proposed by the 95th General Assembly
(First Regular Session) SJR 5
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to
require the office of county assessor to be an
elected position in all counties with a charter
form of government, except counties with a
population between 600,001-699,999?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs
or savings to state or local governmental
entities.
This one is kind of weird. I would usually be all in favor of having more local officials elected rather than appointed. But there’s a strange provision in here that I don’t really understand: “Except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999.” The only county in the state that falls into that category is Jackson County, the county where Kansas City is. Why are they specially exempted from this position? And even if there is a legitimate reason to exempt them, what happens when their population grows over 700,000? Because of the suspicious provision, I’d vote no.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 2
Proposed by the 95th General Assembly
(First Regular Session) HJR 15
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to
require that all real property used as a
homestead by Missouri citizens who are former
prisoners of war and have a total
service-connected disability be exempt from
property taxes?
The number of qualified former prisoners of war
and the amount of each exemption are
unknown, however, because the number who
meet the qualifications is expected to be small,
the cost to local governmental entities should be
minimal. Revenue to the state blind pension
fund may be reduced by $1,200.
Why not? I’m down for giving veterans tax benefits.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3
Proposed by Initiative Petition
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to
prevent the state, counties, and other political
subdivisions from imposing any new tax,
including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of
homes or any other real estate?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs
or savings to state or local governmental
entities.
Basically this is a preemptive strike against a double-tax on real estate in the state. Real estate purchases are already subject to local and state sales taxes. This just prevents an additional special sales tax from being levied on top of that. Other states are voting on similar provisions this November. I’d vote yes.
This is the second part of a series of posts which will analyze the issues on the ballot in Missouri and in Columbia.
Shall Missouri law be amended to: - repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets; - require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every 5 years thereafter; - require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be phased out over a period of 10 years; and - prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget? The proposal could eliminate certain city earnings taxes. For 2010, Kansas City and the City of St. Louis budgeted earnings tax revenue of $199.2 million and $141.2 million, respectively. Reduced earnings tax deductions could increase state revenues by $4.8 million. The total cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown.
Proposition A is being framed as a local control issue, with opponents arguing that it would prohibit cities from taking on a new source of revenue if they so choose. While in principle I agree with the idea that most policies should be made at the lowest level of government possible, that principle is outweighed by the fact that the income tax has already become too pervasive in our country, and stopping it from expanding at the local level is a step closer to rolling it back completely.
The other thing I like about this initiative is that it requires that the people in the cities that already have an earnings tax — St. Louis and Kansas City — be given the opportunity to vote on whether or not to retain the tax every five years. This gives citizens some say in their taxation and whether or not they feel like they are getting their money’s worth from their government (my guess is that the answer is no).
The measure would eliminate a deduction for people affected by the earnings tax on their state tax returns, and raises the local control issues I mentioned before, but the opportunity to strike a blow at the income tax, even in a small way, is one that shouldn’t be wasted.
I’m going to try to do a series of posts over the next two weeks about the various candidates and issues on the ballot in Missouri on Nov. 2. The first of these that I’d like to share some thoughts on is Proposition B, the so-called puppy mill initiative.
This is one of the many initiatives that is being funded by out-of-state interests on the November ballot. The Humane Society of the United States and other animal rights groups from outside Missouri have largely bankrolled the efforts to get it on the ballot and get it passed. Essentially it would codify a whole new set of regulations for dog breeders and create a new crime of operating a puppy mill that would have certain penalties.
Now, there are already a set of regulations in place by the state on breeders and kennels, and local authorities also usually have sets of regulations and standards that breeders and kennels must follow. There’s not a whole lot of new things this initiative would do except expand the state’s regulatory framework at the cost of cities and counties.
The most ridiculous thing about this measure, however, is that its proponents are trying to use increased regulations and statutes to go after people who don’t follow regulations and statutes to begin with. The people who operate real puppy mills don’t care what the state says about quality of care of their animals, and the people who do care do the things the statute would require anyway. And, like I said before, a lot of those things are already covered by existing state laws or local regulations. The only people this law would affect are legitimate breeders who follow the rules, not the people who don’t follow them to begin with.
The AKC has come out against this measure, and rightfully so. I’m all for making sure pets are treated properly, and I think the proponents of this measure have the right ideas at heart, but the way they’re going about it is not the best. The money being spent on its ballot placement and passage would be better spent lobbying for better enforcement of existing laws, not more legislation and regulation.
Fall weather finally hit today, and in addition to wearing a sweater, I decided to break out the Crock Pot again. I found a recipe online for Skyline Chili, the chain from Cincinnati. I decided to give it a go and it really turned out well.
The finished product
I put it in a bowl, Skyline-style, with some spaghetti and a mound of cheese.
In the bowl
It was super good. I’d def recommend it, especially as the weather gets chillier.
