Friday, December 2, 2011

Will Gingrich Demonstrate How You Handle a Spotlight?

Gingrich seems a strange political animal, as there would be as I like to call it, "many versions of him."

There's the "Regeanesque" version of Newt. The "Moderate Model" of Newt. The "viscous Newt" who shuts down the government and tries to impose labor upon children. The "friendly Newt" that reaches across the aisle to create balanced budgets and cares for the environment.

With such a career, many people will perceive Newt in many ways.

Of course, there is also the fiasco of his marital situation. Only one other president in our history has had a divorce (Ronald Reagan). However, I don't see how anyone could take political advantage of Reagan's circumstance, given that it involved a miscarriage and no ill will with his ex. Newt on the other hand...

Newt needs to continue what he's doing now: emphasize that he's had an epiphany with God since his divorce days, and keep appealing to voters as the "idea" person. There's little precedent for how a candidate properly handles personal baggage like Newt's but then again, it might be adequately old news enough for people not to care.

Fortunately for Newt, "morality appeal" is unlikely to be the decisive factor for Primary 2012. Rather, candidates seem to rise, fall, or stagnate based on whether they apostate from conservatism, fused with a general inexperience in communicating with a national audience.

Ron Paul
- An old front runner of 2008, his massive based is secured by a refreshing adherence to the constitution.

* He alienates on any instance of foreign policy. Inert overall.

Mitt Romney

- Mormonism. Little to no effect.

- "Generic." Little to no effect.

- Honed campaign skills. Source of a maintained frontrunner status.

* Romneycare. Stagnates potential. Would otherwise be frontrunner unchallenged. *Inert Overall

Rick Perry

- Racism charge connected to a rock on his ranch. No effect.

- Calls Social Security a Ponsi Scheme. No effect.

- Not the "best" at his first debate, but survives. Still a chance in future debates. Maintains frontrunner status.

* Talks about giving illegal's benefits. Suddenly crashes and burns.

Herman Cain

- Amateur Advertisement featuring Mark "The Smoker" Block. No effect.

- 999 attacked as a VAT. Defends it expertly. No effect.

- Infidelity Charges. Oddly his fund-raising goes up. Maintains frontrunner status.

* Has a series of major Foreign Policy gaffs (the "Rick Perry" moment on Libya). Throws off game. Shortly withdraws from the race.

Its most curious as to what Newt will do about his potential red flag on issues such as immigration, stem cell research, and moments such as the infamous global warming video with Pelosi.

Nevertheless, Newt seems extraordinarily adept at framing unorthodox stances in a manner that labels him as a centrist who delivers on conservative ideals.

A wily old pro in dealing with a media spotlight, Newt is not to be underestimated. Perhaps he'll show previous frontrunners how its done.

--David Morris

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Sigh. Another Fiscally Momentous Occasion

The national debt surpassed 15 Trillion today.

~David Morris~

True Irony Noted In Obamacare

With Obamacare to be reviewed by the Supreme Court come February, the outcome of the historic case carries dangerous implications for federal power. Ironically however, Obamacare may still leave a legacy of downsizing the government, regardless of outcome.

According to a recent report by Gallup, the American People favor the repeal of the Affordable Care Act 47% to 42%. This continues to coincide with other major polling agencies such as Rasmussen, which as found a median disfavor of 56% for bill since its original passage in 2009.

Regardless of the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court, one cannot help but note a certain irony also included in the Gallup report: the negative impact on the principle of government mixing with health care. To think that only five years ago, 69% of the people conceded "that to provide health coverage" was among the chief duties of government. Thanks to Obamacare evidently, this sentiment has dropped 19 Points, now at 50%.

The "third rail" of politics holds that certain "sacred" programs (such as Medicare) are politically suicidal to reform. Changes towards the general attitude of government involvement such reported here however, perhaps offers a new hope for those who have long sought to reform our government's ultimate spending program before its too late.

Could Obamacare's historical legacy be a tale of such backlash against government, that the people finally grew ready to reform programs that were already in trouble? Only time will tell, but it would be an true irony if such proved to be the case.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

My thoughts on the Herman Cain alleged maybe-so-maybe-not sexual harrassment charges from supposedly over a decade ago.

Something tells me that authentic conservative voters feel the same way. If anything, its the media that is looking foolish in the manner they are attempting to destroy the man over something that is such a non-issue.

Can we get back to talking about tax and entitlement reform please?
~David Morris~

Thursday, October 27, 2011

A United States of Adult Dependence

The youth is the future, as often said. Thanks to the crushing effects this economy however, our youth is finding it difficult to grow up.

To move from one's parents is often a crucial step towards full maturity. This crucial phase is being stifled, delayed, and curbed by the Great Recession however, given impact reports by the Pew Research Center. Of those living in what they define as "multigenerational homes"; seven in ten of these households are with adult children under the age of thirty.

Furthermore, Pew finds that 37% of adults ages 18-to-29 are either unemployed or out of the workforce. In an effort to evade poverty, more individuals are moving back in with relatives or acquire a roommate as a form of informal charity shelter. Many have been forced to return to a state of childhood dependence despite their best effort at independence. Among those of age 25-to-30 who living with their parents, 35% claim that they once lived independently on their own.

College enrollment has also sky-rocketed as of late as another avenue of escape. Unfortunately, disappointment often waits on the other side of graduation. To illustrate, take the number of graduates in May 2011 compared to the number of jobs created that very same month.

A total of 3,205,000 post high school degrees were accredited in May of 2011, yet only 54,000 new jobs were created at that month. With a labor market already approximated at around 198 million people, such a ratio of new-jobs-to-new-graduates spells easily falls short of whats necessary to launch the promise of a new generation into the labor market. Even the most optimistic of estimates places a rate at 130,000 jobs per month if a return to pre-recession levels is to be obtained. The 84,000 jobs created in October, though a "recent high" still falls woefully short of a solution.

Since the days of the baby-boomers, college enrollment has gone up by 15.6%. Never before has a generation arisen with the promised of highly developed talent and education, prepared to lead us into the new, service-based economy of the Information Age. Without the opportunity to put these talents to practice however, suppressed income and dismal dependence will prove to be the killer of this Dream.

~David Morris~

Friday, October 21, 2011

When doing research on how much an iPhone would cost if it were made in America, I came upon a random comment on the interwebs about China.

One of those random yet incredibly articulate types of comments that you just can't help quoting for truth.

It carries my thoughts about China precisely. Being unethical to flat out plageriaz of course, I simply wish to make sure due credit is due.
michael reynolds January 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm

You guys know there’s always a “China,” right? Just in my lifetime “China” was the USSR, OPEC, Japan and the EU.

There’s always some super-villain out there that’s going to outwit us, buy our crown jewels, outwork us and so on. In retrospect it’s always obvious that it wasn’t going to happen. Obviously the USSR was backward and under the thumb of a genuinely asinine political regime, obviously OPEC would eventually crumble, obviously Japan was a small, culturally isolated country with an aging population, obviously the EU was never going to be as smoothly integrated as they hoped.

Here’s what I think is obvious about China. They are poor. Dirt poor. There’s money in Shanghai and Hong Kong, but most of China might as well be Kazakhstan. They suffer from an imbalance between rural and urban that makes Nebraska and Manhattan look like identical twins. They are poisoning their rivers and air. They offer no freedom of expression or democratic political recourse while at the same time the poor out in the provinces can see Chinese billionaires and free Americans and South Koreans and understand for the first time just how screwed they are. They have one hope for continuing stability: an endless upward growth rate that is never, ever going to happen because as we’ve learned from our own real estate market, nothing goes up forever.

They have potential trouble on every border: Vietnam, North Korea, Russia, the Stans, India. And then there’s history. Show me where and when China was ever a dominant power in the world at large. It’s been a long, long time. And it’s been a long time because China is a barely-governable mess and has been for centuries. It is still a barely-governable mess.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t react, just that we shouldn’t freak out.

~David Morris~

Thursday, October 20, 2011

How Much Is the 99% Anyway?

The Occupy Protesters claim that they represent "the 99%" of Americans. Of course, this is but exaggeration and rhetoric. So just who are these people, what do they belief, and what do they represent?

An interesting article by the Wall Street Journal catches my eye in addressing the issue.

~David Morris~

Herman Cain and the 9-9-9

Herman Cain has recently shot up in the GOP polls, demonstrating himself even as a general election threat to President Obama. With such positioning however, comes increased scrutiny. To that cause, critics have chosen the centerpiece of Cain's message as their attack point: the 999 Tax Plan.

The scrutiny is hot concerning the proposal, and the power of articulate persuasion in light of such criticism will be critical if Cain is to maintain momentum. Among the largest concerns is that the business portion of the plan amounts to a defacto Value Added Tax.

A value added tax is a consumption based taxed levied on every stage of production, which ultimately leads to a higher tax incidence for the consumer. Most European nations have adopted such a tax structure in modern times, and the reputation of their results cause unease among some American tax reformers. With background training in economics, I was able to personally conclude that this charge a defacto VAT was indeed palatable (with the exception of exported products, which are exempt under 999).

The latest debate did not grant Mr. Cain the opportunity to truly address his critics, but the American Enterprise Institute recently granted him a better platform from which to defend himself. Cain acknowledges that one could technically describe the business portion of his tax as a VAT. He reminds us however, that the primary fear of a Value-Added Tax is to have it imposed on top of other tax codes, as opposed to having such plans replace such codes.

"It is frustrating when people want to call it a VAT Tax. It doesn't matter what you call it." said Herman Cain. "The reason that some of my opponents want to call it a VAT, is because they want scare people because of what happened in Europe. They have both. They have a VAT tax, but they got multiple VAT Taxes. Technically, that last retail tax of 9%, you can call it VAT, but it only happens one time. The difference is that in Europe, it happens multiple times."

Mr. Cain then made the point that at every stage, profits are already taxed in an invisible VAT-like manner. In a loaf of bread, a farmer must pay taxes on his profit, truck driver who delivers the flour pays taxes on his profit, as does the baker, the grocery store owner, ad nausea. Ultimately, these compound taxes are still paid by the consumer in the final pricing of items. The difference is that his plan makes such taxes more visible.

Mr. Cain went on to explain that in the long run, as one who has been studying tax policy for 15 years, the Fair Tax would be superior over the long run, as it puts the consumer completely in charge in how much they pay in taxes. WIth a 100% consumption tax he believes, we would see a significantly boost the economy.

Personally, this economist held doubts concerning the 999 Plan as a viable reform plan. Mr. Cain himself remains confident in his carefully constructed plan. In the aftermath of his AEI defense, I concede that the plan is nonetheless a viable improvement to the current tax

So long as in practice, his claim of a "single VAT" rather than a multiple one holds true.

~David Morris~

Friday, October 14, 2011

Protesting the Status Quo

I wrote earlier about the threat Herman Cain poses to the race business. Come Sunday, at the Martin Luther King dedication ceremony, a group of African Americans intend to protest the black establishment that has so eroded the black community.

Martin Luther King Jr was a registered republican according to his niecce. To see black conservatives protest those who have hi-jacked his dream as race-baiters is encouraging. It is for such reasons I pray that, should Herman Cain take the nomination, an incidence of black conservatives begins to rise.

He will have to win on his ideas and merit of course. So far, so good however. The major test it seems shall be his skill in defending his 999 plan. Such a plan appears to take elements of the flat and fair tax, leaving me with little doubt that it would boost the economy over the current tax code.

The real scrutiny of course, is whether or not it is passable. To be so, such a plan would likely require republican supermajorities in the House and Senate, similar to how Barack Obama held the same advantage his first years.

Time will tell whether such a plan will truly be on the table however. Again, Herman Cain has to officially earn the nomination first afterall. The primaries are next year. In the meantime, Cain cannot afford to stumble. Should this occur, we could see an upset by Newt Gringrich, or, disappointingly, Mitt Romney.

~David Morris~

Thursday, October 13, 2011

I'm with the 99%!

Down with corporations!

Burn it! Burn it all down man!

Ignore that the computer I'm typing this on is by Apple, the mouse by microsoft, while using headphones by Sony to listen to videos by Youtube.

The corporations, we gotta take them all down man!

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Am I the only one who sees the true threat of Cain?

Herman Cain just may represent the greatest threat to the viability of the democrat party since the 1960s. The reason why is simple:

Because he is black. And he's a republican.

Worse yet: He could be remembered as the successful second black president who immediately followed the failures of the first black president. With such a legacy, he just might create a new wave of open-minded voters within the black community.

Such a wave would carry truly dangerous implications for the democrat party.

For the past 40 years, Democrats could more or less take the African American vote for granted. Paradoxically however, many of these minority voters are not invested in the standard liberal agenda that the Democrats have come to represent. Particularly amongst those within the minority demographic who are middle class and church going.

Such members of the black community tend to not be too keen on homosexuality, are critical of abortion, value the presence of God, and are concerned about a cultural war on Christ. These African-Americans desire a return to values whereby a young man pulls up his pants, fathers are present for their children, and that one takes responsibility for one's life. The Pew Research Center describes such voters as New Coalition or Hard-Pressed Democrats, and make up the majority of the minority wing of the democrat party.

The issue of race has habitually guided the vote of such centrist African-Americans, despite an alignment more in tune with social conservatism. Under the popularized notion that democrats best represent minority interests, they minds have been generally closed to the idea of voting republican. It is among such members of the community that Herman Cain describes as "brain-washed," given that much of their news diet resides in traditional media.

Obama received 95% of the black vote in 2008. At present however, his approval among blacks is at a historic low of 58%. Among the disillusioned, some might turn to Herman Cain as a potential redeemer to the "historical narrative" of the nation's first minority presidents. Doubtlessly, democrats would still consume the majority of black turnout. With Cain however, a record number of the demographic would (for the first time in many of their lives) vote republican.

That's when they begin to see the contrast. And where the possibility for long term democrat damage begins.

Obama, as our first black president, has governed from a hard left stance that has put liberalism on full display. Never before has the failure of big government been more prevalent to the American people, with 75% of the people agreeing that the nation is on the wrong track.

Assume Cain takes the presidency. With a reputation a "problem solver," presume he succeeds everywhere Obama (and to an extent, Bush) has failed. He delivers on restored fiscal sanity, sensible yet sensitive reforms to entitlements, and above all else, jobs. An ideologue and communicator of the same clothe as Ronald Reagan, presume he's remembered just as well; as a president that oversaw the return of "Morning in America."

Under this premise, such contrast between the first and second black presidents would deeply resonate within the African American community, enough to possibly shift voting patterns permanently. Under eight long years of a Cain success story, future democrats may one day discover that they control the black vote only to the extent that they control the hispanic vote.

The consequences to the democratic base would be disastrous.

"[In 2004]...the strongest Democratic groups are African Americans, non-Christian whites, and New Minorities" writes Earl Black, a professor of political science at Rice University. "No other group matched African Americans in the magnitude of partisan advantage. Among black voters there was a 71-point gap in party bases."

Since 1972, blacks have voted for the democrat candidate for president at an average of 86.6%, with a deviation of only 4.1 points. Compare to the Latino vote, by which only 62.8% of the demographic is cemented within the democrat party at a much higher deviation of 6 points.

Democrats rely on a contestable though solid majority of Hispanic support. Without the edge provided by a veritable monopoly on African Americans however, the party could have long found itself without the numbers to win elections.

Herman Cain possesses the greatest threat to this monopoly in 50 years. Electorally, the democrat party is already a half sinking ship due to the actions of the Obama Administration. The results of his presidency has already resulted in the lost of independents, and embarrassing stronghold defeats from New Jersey to New York.

If history determines that the long term political consequences of Obama equated to a new open-mindness among blacks thanks to the ascension of Herman Cain, such a blow could prove to be the final death nail of the democrat party as we know it.

~David Morris~

Friday, September 30, 2011

A few days ago, a certain celebrity made claims that the tea party was racist.

Sadly, this is but a microcosm of what is wrong with black america. In the meantime, republican's continue to display their fiery racism by elevating Herman Cain to frontrunner status following the Florida Straw Poll.

~David Morris~

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Solydra Factory: Only the Best for Government Company

Solyndra may be belly up, but at least it goes out with style. Constructed by union workers at a total cost of $733 million (of which proceeds from the government's $535 million loan guarantee was utilized), the Solyndra facility featured robots that sung Disney toons, 19 loading decks, and localized rail lines for moving product across its 300,000 square feet (approximately 5 football fields).

“The new building is like the Taj Mahal,” said John Pierce, 54, a San Jose resident who worked as a facilities manager at Solyndra.

Situated in "Silicon Valley;" which hadn't seen factory construction in 10 years given that its the 4th highest real estate area in the nation (and as such, most developments are simple offices), further frills included professional landscaping for the front, 4 electric car recharge stations, and a glass covered conference room. It even featured a fully equipped spa with state-of-the-art shower displays; to enable employees to relax after the daily grind, comfortable in profitability of their work.

Of course, the problem was that the factory never was worthy of profit to begin with. Despite the lack of prevalent demand for their signature "cylindrical" panel design, in 2009 such modules were touted to the Department of Energy as superior in the cost effectiveness of their construction and installation. This in comparison to traditional flat panels, whose production is currently dominated by Chinese manufacturers.

However, this cost advantage could hold only as long as the price of a primary component for flat panels, polysilicon, remained high. A comparable parallel would be citing a "cost advantage" for electric cars given the premise that oil prices never recede. This was the assumption in 2009, but by the time Solyndra became operational in January of 2011, commodity prices for flat panel components had plunged. Solyndra's claim of cost competitiveness with the conventional design of Chinese flat panels was completely nullified.

Even without the price fallout, hasty construction of the factory left the company with equipment that proved both high maintenance and unreliable.

“A significant percentage of the product we built went into a dumpster because it was defective,” said Craig Ewing, 55, a former maintenance technician. “It seemed like the company accepted that,” he said.

Solyndra executives also neglected to perform a proper cost analysis on their procedures. According to solar industry analyst Peter Lynch, the factory spent $6 per device. To remain competitive, they would have to resale it at $1 to $3 per device. The mass scores of defective product aside, Solyndra's business model wouldn’t even cover half of its costs.

The more we learn about the company, the harder it is to believe that such a waste of taxpayer money could occur. To review, without real demand to prop it up Solyndra's business model laid precariously on a presumption of high commodity prices for competitors. Creating products, many of which didn't even work, Solyndra soon found itself backlogged with overly expensive inventory. Fifteen months of decline later, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6th. 1,100 jobs "created or saved" by Obama's stimulus package went with it.

As for the factory itself, the taxpayer may be stuck with it for the time being, a harrowing reminder for anyone driving down Interstate 880 in Fremont, California.

~David Morris~

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Vice Presidential Picks

As the GOP Presidential debates continue, speculation begins to arise on who would make for the perfect running mates for the current front runners.

Mitt Rommey is designated as an "establishment republican" type who can appeal to the center under more generalized electoral conditions. From a tactical standpoint, a tea-party running mate capable of energizing the base would be thus be indispensable to a Rommey campaign. Ones such as Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann would bring a positive intensity among tea-partiers that would address Mitt's weakness in that area.

Rick Perry on the other hand, is already a tea party draw. However, his style credits him as less suited than Rommey in the art of dealing with the other side in a manner that doesn't scare moderates. As such, running mates such as one such as Newt Gringrich or Paul Ryan would be ideal. In addition to their detailed ideas on the issues, potentials such as these carry the political experience of dealing staunchly yet safely with the other side.

For either candidate however, Marco Rubio would prove an excellent running mate. Young and charismatic, he would lock down the Florida vote while simultaneously making certain other Latino states, such as New Mexico or perhaps even California, far more competitive. Even if California went to the democrats regardless, money spent defending their stronghold would assist Republican efforts abroad.

The coming months will be crucial to the future of the nation. With Obama looking to be a one term president, the efficacy of the next republican ticket to seriously tackle the nation's issues will be extra-ordinarily watched. As Americans, we can only pray for a ticket capable of restoring hope.

~David Morris~

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

CNN Debate - Non-Issues Drag Down Perry

During the CNN debate last night, much hoop-la was made about Governor Perry signing an executive order to mandate vaccination against STD for teenage girls. Though he apologizes for his methodology, I believe the way he handles the response successfully lead to his embarrassment among his rivals, among whom Micheal Backmann gained the most.

He also allowed himself to be embarrassed on his stance on those wishing to seek citizenship while in study. My inner libertarian found this stance appealing, but my inner conservative shook his head on how Perry lost the initiative on the framing battle. He should have made mention of how it was a LEGAL path that he implemented intended for guest workers with Green Cards. He should have emphasized that as Governor of Texas, he understood that there was a fine line between being anti-ILLEGAL immigration, and simply being anti-immigration. From this position of strength, he could turned the issue back on his rivals on whether they understood the difference.

For all the stumbling Perry made, I could not help that these attempts to pull him down were based on non-issues. Personally, I took somewhat of a liking to Perry for having the courage to call our current entitlements the Ponsi Scheme that it is. In order to get rid of the 800 pound gorilla in the room, acknowledging is presence is necessarily the first step towards removing it. And ultimately, it takes a president to lead on this. With the nation in a crisis mentality, now has never been a more perfect opportunity to educate the nation on the issue, especially considering evidence that the people are becoming ever wary of the program's condition.

Rommey's insistence on sticking to the tried and true framing methods of social security however was discouraging, for it brings doubts as to whether he would take the steps to seriously address the entitlement crisis. Somehow, I find myself drawn to the case of Perry the more that establishment republicans refuse to show a courageous commitment to addressing all of the nation's entitlement woes, not just simply Obamacare.

~David Morris~

Friday, September 9, 2011

I bumped into an old friend of mine as I paid a visit to my university today.

Being in the bubble of campus life, he was surprised to learn that Obama had fallen so utterly in favor lately, and inquired on how this has happened. Let us informally count just some of the ways shall we?

-He is the first to see a credit downgrading of the USA.
-He has quadrupled down on failed stimuli after failed stimuli.
-The American people now owe $50,000 in debt for every man woman and child.
-He shoved an unconstitutional healthcare reform that threatens to exacerbate that industries cost issues.
-Demagog rhetoric has increased despite his promises to make the discourse more "civil."

-Unemployment remains at 9%. With underemployment, 18%. After you account for the shrunken labor market. Without such accounting, the unemployment rate would hang at 10% (underemployment 20%).
-His departments and regulations harass the people who create jobs and wealth.
-Unions are the only ones he apparently cares for.
-He fails repeatedly to negotiate even moderately to the center.
-He shows no empathy given his lavish vacations and stunts such as the death star bus.
-He diminishes the office with unpresidential ploys such as directly blaming the opposition, fear-mongering calls for real reforms, and calling joint sessions that are but campaign speeches.

And the big one: People are simply terrified for the future of this nation. Thanks to him.

~David Morris~

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

My Job Creation is Bigger Than Your Job Creation

During the RNC debate, there was a bit of a spat where candidates took shots at each other over who had the bigger job growth percentage.

Either way, so long as its better than Obama's, I'm liking what I'm seeing from these candidates.

~David Morris~

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Low Congressional Approval Numbers. What Else Is New?

As Obama's approval numbers crumbles to newer levels of low, those who'd front for the president lament in the knowledge that he is electable no longer. Some attempt to take solace however, in citing the historically low approval of Congress as well. Perhaps this a sign that opponents will be seen as equally undesirable; that a glimmer of reelection hope would yet remain upon a level-field of equally dispersed scorn.

There is are fallacies within this retreat however.

Problem #1: Congress is a multi-headed hydra.
-Ask say, a Missourian what he thinks of "congress" and he'll likely tell you that he disapproves. Ask him what he thinks of HIS congressman and you might get a completely different answer.

Problem #2: Only constituents matter.
-Individual congressman don't need to worry about what the entire nation thinks of them. As such, congressional approval has varying degrees of relevance based on the one's area of their district.

Problem #3: Its much less visible compared to executive elections.
-Unlike the president, whose every move is tracked and every multi-issue approval rating is daily documented, for the hydra that is congress, data on the approval of a specific member is difficult to track unless he's been making headlines as of late. Even then, these approvals take the nation into account as well, a repeat of same flaw of Problem #2.

Take this relatively recent poll on Paul Ryan for instance. Bear in mind, most congressmen are not tracked at all.

Congress has always possessed relatively low approval ratings as an entire entity due to such issues. Therefore, a clear understanding of the entity is generally on display only at around election time, when a map detailing the race of specific districts is on display, creating a clearer picture over who is in politcAL safety and who is at risk.

Unfortunately, such maps are scarcely maintained afterwords in a manner that enables us to tell for whom congress' approval is a particularly bad omen. Citing the approval of Congress, an entity with 535 differing people composed of it, therefore holds 535 differing cases of electoral correlation. If you are Barny Frank (who won his 2008 re-election 52 to 43%), the approval of the congress may mean little to you. If you hailed from a contestable area district, then perhaps it would correlate with your elective outlook.

One thing is for certain however:. The congressional rating tells nothing of the Presidential election. His ratings on the other hand, do. And right now, were the election today, Obama would lose. Simple as that.

There is no solace in blaming Congress.

~David Morris~

Friday, August 12, 2011

Republican Debate:The Return of Gringrich Relevance?

Nearly everyone "won" during the Iowa Caucus debates last night. However, if I had to give my top three picks, I'd say that Rommey, Cain, and especially Newt Gringrich came out on top.

Gringrich was an especial surprise given the "fight the press" offensive style he took, and clearly established himself as the one not only with the most ideas, but the specifics on how to pass his ideas. It was almost "Chris Cristici-ish" how he conducted himself in that debate: as a fighter with the know-how and no-prisoners attitude to get things done.

Rommey and Cain lived up to expectations, coming off as the most presidential with their clear messaging and allusions to executive experience. Rommey's compliments to Cain himself as a fellow executive also elevated both. Nonetheless, I opine that Cain could have gone even further had the debate shifted in a manner that would have enabled him to relate his background specifically to the questioning.

Overall, it was a night of excellent ideas that sharply contrast to the failed presidential administration we deal with now. If one candidate elevated himself the most however, I would give it to the conviction of Gringrich.

~David Morris~

Friday, July 15, 2011

Obama Economy Facts

I stumble upon the following post recently. It makes a cutting point worth remembering.

Obama Economy Facts

~David Morris~

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Memos in Pressured Writing

Lately, my final graduate course drills me in the art of writing policy memos.

Being timed, I maintain these samples unedited or touched up, for to do so would defeat the purpose of such exercises.

The following I am particularly proud of:


One page limit, under the fictional premise that I am a staffer of Paul Ryan (R-WI). The phone suddenly rings. Its Ryan himself, requesting a snap memo in response to a recently published research document challenging his block grant proposal. I must summarize and recommend on how to counter-argue. He's due on television in one hour.

I have 30 minutes to respond.

Link #1 - Regarding Medicaid Counter Arguments


One page limit, under the fictional premise that I am a staffer of Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He has skimmed Chairman Kent Conrad's (D-ND) March 9, 2011 opening statement on elements for tax reform and expenditures. He requests a critique of the statement and a recommendation of whether he should support or oppose the position of Senator Conrad.

I have 30 minutes to respond.

Link #2 - Regarding the stance of a opposing party Senator.


Four pages, under the fictional premise that I work for Reince Priebus, Chairman of the RNC. With the 2012 campaign under draft, I'm requested of a short memo on how to treat the issue of Paul Ryan's proposal for Medicare.

One week time limit.

Link #3 - Regarding Ryancare Strategery

~David Morris~

Monday, June 27, 2011

Same Old Song; Hard New Tunes

To resolve our current budget problems, some amongst the democrat elite have desperately exposed tax rates as high as 70%.

The main problem with the tired old song of simply "raising taxes" is that our debt is quickly exceeding our revenues. To review, U.S. GDP currently stands a approximately $14.4 trillion, with the U.S. Government receiving ~$2.2 trillion of this via taxes. At 14.7% of GDP, these revenues are the second lowest as of 1950. Spending however, is expected at ~$3.7 trillion for FY2011, resulting in a deficit of $1.71 trillion that must be borrowed to pay for other services. With such exploding deficits as of late, our total National Debt quickly grows beyond 70% of GDP.

Simply "raising taxes" out of this fiscal hole remains the primary mantra of Democrats. However, even with a 100% tax rate effective immediately, current spending levels would continue to push us towards crisis. The following video illustrates:


It is clear that prior to any talks of raising taxes rates (supposedly in order to raise revenues), spending cuts are required. Now the subject of intense negotiation amongst leaders within the Democrat and Republican parties, the primary political caveat however, is that outside potential reductions in military spending, the details of such cuts are to be quite painful for all sides. Particularly in regards to entitlement spending.

To better one's understanding of why our crisis shall require hard decisions, try your own hand at returning the United States back to solvency here, via a simulator brought to us by the Committee for a Responsible Budget.

~David Morris~

House Courage Under Crisis

It is admirable that House Republicans are displaying backbone concerning the negotiation of a credible plan to cut our deficit.

How did we come to this current standoff in Washington? It begins earlier in March, as Representative Paul Ryan(R) authors a serious challenge to democrat spending policies with his "Roadmap for America's Future," now adopted as the official House Budget Proposal for FY2011. In a display of leadership, President Obama then punts to Vice-President Joe Biden in developing a democrat counter-proposal to this so called "Ryan Plan," due by this month of June. Unsurprisingly, this counter-proposal essentially amounts to "raise taxes on the rich" as the principle solution to the crisis. In negotiating with Biden's committee last week, House Republicans staunchly rejected their recommendations in the face of looming concerns regarding the debt limit of the U.S. Government. With little time left on the clock, tonight the punter-in-chief will have no option other than to directly negotiate with the Senate Majority and Minority leader.

A test of leadership is upon Obama. Will he demonstrate true bipartisanship by negotiating a plan that House Republicans can support? Failure to do so not only further undercuts his electoral chances, but brings us closer towards failure in the acquisition of House authorization in raising the debt limit. To fail in raising this limit would lead to a default by the federal government, forcing a crisis of austerity measures upon the American people.

With so much at stake both politically and economically, House Republicans continue to hold position regarding debt limit authorization, demanding first from democrats serious measures to reduce spending levels. This decision to risk government default is not easy for the GOP. Without a true plan to reduce our deficit however, it nonetheless remains the courageous and responsible choice. May they continue to demonstrate such spine for the good of the republic.

~David Morris~

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Mitt Romney the Frontrunner?

According to our media, that is the case.

That makes no sense.

Here is why.

~David Morris~

Monday, May 2, 2011

Welp, we can give Obama Credit. Applauds to USAF.

Last night, I, like most of America, was pleasantly surprised to learn that they finally found Osama bin Laden and delivered closure to the tragedy of 9/11 by means of a bullet to the head.

I applaud the careful approach the military took in patiently piecing the intelligence together concerning the infamous Saudi's location. Most of all, I applaud the manner by which they decided to strike.

Reportedly, there were several options for staging their assault, options that could've included airstrike, or raiding to capture rather than kill, and whether to communicate our intent with local allies. Instead, Obama took what I agree was the best course of action: Sending in the Navy Seals unannounced to the Pakistani officials in order to personally deliver his neutralization and capture his resistless shell for U.S. custody, in order to provide true verification that indeed, the shadow of bin Laden was dispelled.

Burial "at sea" (with the exact coordinates unknown) in accordance to Islamic values was also a excellent strategic maneuver. Islamic Extremists would no doubt spin the death of bin Laden as a recruiting tool regardless of how we struck. A physical burial site, combined with the notion that he was buried under the "barbarous" ways of western infidels would've added potency to this inevitable propaganda. Potency that is otherwise mitigated.

Overall, I'll concur that Obama did the correct thing in how the raid was handled. A simple airstrike would have been framed as cowardly by our enemies, risked the escape of bin Laden (adding to his mythos), and had it slain him we would've lacked verifiable evidence, leaving America feeling somewhat less satisfied. By having boots on the ground, this raid once eventually declassified will be docume as one of the most celebrated examples of a successful military operation in our modern history, adding greater mythos of the expertise of the American military compared to aerial strike. There is an extra element of relief for the public in knowing that that his death at American hands was truly hand-delivered.

For once, Obama inarguably did right by the country. Pity this seems to be the exception and not the rule. If only he could make it a habit to be favorably decisive.

With new found closure over the threat of Public Enemy #1, hopefully we can resume work on addressing the current greatest threat to our national security. Were only Obama able to tackle that one with similar competence. Unfortunately, he's seems content to vote "present."

~David Morris~

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

What lunacy be this?

Truly, what nonsense be this?

The answer, is that its the type of nonsense now in charge of our government, and I postulate that the majority of Americans do not agree with the impact of policies born of this sadly defunct mindset. The following quote comes to mind as part of my response to this advertisement:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson.

Clearly, vigilance was meant against those such as these. Those who are woefully misguided on the basics of economics, conned into believing that life was better and somehow more "moral" prior to the advent of that terrible system called capitalism, and that the forced destruction of said system would improve the quality of life for all. Alas, if only we could flip a switch and return to the tribal days. Or at least our feudal era. Ah nostalgia.

Not that such archaic systems could support our population, meaning that many of these young people shown above would not have been given the opportunity to even in the absence our modern free societies. The possibilities created by the post industrial system have proven to be boundless over the past few centuries, but without proper education they nonetheless go unappreciated. Explaining how lunacy such as that witness'd above can be feasible. Bringing to mind another widely cited quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."--Edmond Burke

Education. That is the key. In this time of tumult and crisis, those who believe in freedom cannot afford to remain silent. It is the only manner by which we can hope to stop the damage caused by those who have been ill educated on why the modern era is the best in history, and why their ideas are a regress towards depressing conditions.

For the greatest depression the world has ever known, was not the one in the 1930s that lasted for 15 years. Nigh, its the one that lasted for 10,000 years. The depression that was the pre-industrial world.

~David Morris~

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Chris Christi: Leadership Towards National Solvency

I was able to get a front row seat at AEI today, as Chris Christi delivered a speech on fiscal discipline. He essentially articulated of the achievements obtained by means of holding fast on conservative policy without fear of "public backlash" on doing the right thing, and the need to extend such principals of leadership to the federal level.

Most memorable to me shall be the Q&A session, considering that I was able to personally ask him a question. My query pertained to the notion that before the third rail is to be de-electrified, some republicans argue the need to target "low hanging fruit" first. To win so called "symbolic" victories before public opinion can permit the green light on reforming the true threats of insolvency found in entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.

As I had hoped, Christi's response was one of optimism that the political game had indeed changed, and with it, the time has now come to throw away the old playbook. When he first started his job, he too was told that his approval ratings would be punished for the bold decision of "talking to people like adults" regarding their government expectations; to explain to constituents that they've been lied to and deceived all these years, and that the time to climb out of the finiacial hole shall be rough but fully necessary. Such honest tactic has rewarded him according to Christi (who now enjoys a 54% approval rating), such courage is working for Andrew Quomo in his backyard of the state of New York (enjoying a 77% approval with a platform that mirror's Christi's), and such courage will work on the national stage.

To this particular concerned citizen, the account was a shot of optimism. At last a politician no longer looking to make excuses. It is well known that there isn't much "low hanging fruit" out there in the form of earmarks to begin with, and for many who voted for fiscal discipline in 2010, a fear remains that "spending cuts" will once again amount to nothing more than inconsequential trimmings.

To paraphrase Christi's theme on the topic of fighting the necessary battle, we must understand that people will feel lied to and decieved as we explain the bad news regarding beloved programs. They will initially boo and jeer at the messenger. As leaders for financial solvency, it is up to us to explain that they have every right to feel that way, considering they've been lied to and decieved by generations of politicians. It must be explained that we who are the first to be telling people the truth. Do that, and such courage shall be rewarded.

Were only there were more politicians out there willing to take the risk of leadership that our impending crisis requires. Time shall tell of those who were willing to answer the Governor's call.

~David Morris~

Friday, January 28, 2011

Partisanship at every level.

The Finiacial Crisis panel issued its analysis today on the roots of the Great Recession. Unsuprisingly, given the deadpaned theme of rulership that has come to be associated with this administration, it was found biased heavily towards the left.

~David Morris~