I've personally been out of the job market for the past year. Being as such, I've been approached by Fox News to share my side of the story.
The worst thing about this story, I feel, is that I'm not alone.
~David Morris~
Friday, December 14, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Immediate Economic Impact of Election Results
Massive layoffs. Spike in official unemployment rates across the nation. Return to recession.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Romney vs Obama. The Final Day.
Tomorrow marks an historic election. A choice between the principles that built the United States as the last and greatest hope for mankind, or its down the path of just another failed state. Despite what the polls may say, I predict a sizable Romney victory.
What worries this blogger is the makeup of the senate. By painting themselves as fiscally conservative. Democrats may manage to hold on to their senate majority. This could see the continue of a senate that refuses to pass a budget, and make in all the more difficult for Romney to implement the steps necessary to truly recover the economy in both the long and short terms.
With the polls tied for Romney and Obama at 48%, turnout will be the deciding factor. Given the republican advantage measured by Pew and Gallup, combined with historic pattern of incumbent electoral totals averaging 2 points below their approval rating, Romney remains set for victory.
It remains to the people to secure it.
What worries this blogger is the makeup of the senate. By painting themselves as fiscally conservative. Democrats may manage to hold on to their senate majority. This could see the continue of a senate that refuses to pass a budget, and make in all the more difficult for Romney to implement the steps necessary to truly recover the economy in both the long and short terms.
With the polls tied for Romney and Obama at 48%, turnout will be the deciding factor. Given the republican advantage measured by Pew and Gallup, combined with historic pattern of incumbent electoral totals averaging 2 points below their approval rating, Romney remains set for victory.
It remains to the people to secure it.
Monday, October 15, 2012
No matter how he dresses it, the President has no case.
As we approach the second of the presidential debates, many on the left side of the isle offer messaging advice on what the president needs to do to clinch victory from Romney, such as offering a vision, calling Mitt out as a liar, and being energetic.
I predict that whatever comes that may in the final debates however, no performance by Obama will be able to reverse this momentum change in time.If but for a simple reason that can be put succinctly:
Life sucks. And no one is blaming Mitt Romney for it.
Regardless of Obama's performance, its unlikely that Mitt have a meltdown equitable to Obama's own, so a well articulated case will only be seen as a tie at most. In holding his own, Obama will bump enthusiasm among his base. Alas, cold hard economic reality is simply stacked against the incumbent, forever barring him from independents who've chosen to switch their vote from 2008. Stacked in a matter that gives the challenger an endless arsenal of counter-attacks regardless of how much Obama tries to paint his opponent as a heartless liar who hates middle America.
As of this right, the Right Direction/Wrong Track stands at 39.8 to 54.8.
People are living the dismal statistics of Obama's stewardship, and its hard to vote against one's own overwhelmingly negative outlook for the future.
~David Morris~
I predict that whatever comes that may in the final debates however, no performance by Obama will be able to reverse this momentum change in time.If but for a simple reason that can be put succinctly:
Life sucks. And no one is blaming Mitt Romney for it.
Regardless of Obama's performance, its unlikely that Mitt have a meltdown equitable to Obama's own, so a well articulated case will only be seen as a tie at most. In holding his own, Obama will bump enthusiasm among his base. Alas, cold hard economic reality is simply stacked against the incumbent, forever barring him from independents who've chosen to switch their vote from 2008. Stacked in a matter that gives the challenger an endless arsenal of counter-attacks regardless of how much Obama tries to paint his opponent as a heartless liar who hates middle America.
As of this right, the Right Direction/Wrong Track stands at 39.8 to 54.8.
People are living the dismal statistics of Obama's stewardship, and its hard to vote against one's own overwhelmingly negative outlook for the future.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
My Main Reaction to the First Obama-Romney Debate
The president flopped. So I'm told. One flop in particular had me in such a brain freeze that the rest of the debate became but a haze.
Barack Obama accused Mitt Romney of wanting to cut taxes by $5 trillion. When talking taxes, you normally use rates. Not whole numbers.
The federal government takes in a whole number of $2.3 trillion. So if Romney cut 100% of all current taxes, that'd be a $2.3 trillion cut. You're still $2.7 trillion dollars short of $5 trillion.
So after some simple arithmetic, basically, the president accused Romney of wanting to cut taxes by around 217%?
Huh?
~David Morris~
Barack Obama accused Mitt Romney of wanting to cut taxes by $5 trillion. When talking taxes, you normally use rates. Not whole numbers.
The federal government takes in a whole number of $2.3 trillion. So if Romney cut 100% of all current taxes, that'd be a $2.3 trillion cut. You're still $2.7 trillion dollars short of $5 trillion.
So after some simple arithmetic, basically, the president accused Romney of wanting to cut taxes by around 217%?
Huh?
~David Morris~
What Romney Needs to Say
Today marks the first debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. To this point, now marks the golden opportunity for the GOP challenger to create a stark contrast between himself and the incumbent.
A list of points and contrasts I hope to see:
-Framing Obama as aloof and uncaring, given how much golf the current president plays as Americans suffer.
-Reminding Americans that we don't have to accept Obama's failed policies in energy and economic growth.
-Remind that the only reason we have 8% unemployment is because people keep dropping out.
-Constant and consistent attacks on Obama's record. The president needs to be on the defensive. For once.
~David Morris~
A list of points and contrasts I hope to see:
-Framing Obama as aloof and uncaring, given how much golf the current president plays as Americans suffer.
-Reminding Americans that we don't have to accept Obama's failed policies in energy and economic growth.
-Remind that the only reason we have 8% unemployment is because people keep dropping out.
-Constant and consistent attacks on Obama's record. The president needs to be on the defensive. For once.
~David Morris~
Friday, August 31, 2012
It was full.
In the release of his theatrical documentary "2016: Obama's America," Dinesh D'Souza synthesizes the personal journey of President Barack Obama with an examination of how "the dreams of his father" motivates the 44th president. From the meeting of his parents, to the selection of his mentors, D'Souza follows Barack across four continents all the way to the white house, with the attitude of anti-colonialism taking central focus. Better than any alternative motive, D'Souza claims, anti-colonialism becomes the prime explanation as to this president refuses to triangulate for the good of the country, and leaves a bone chilling prediction of the future should he win reelection.
Now, as for my impressions, this particular conservative went with his family to view the film on a random 7:10 showing on a Monday. Personally I would recommend the film, as it provided insights unknown even to a critic of the president such as myself. For those less politically inclined however; for those who appeared to be learning of the president background for very first time, the reactions were telling.
For some it seemed, the radical communism of his parents and mentors was a deep revelation. The rational link between such ideals and the policy actions of the president was of stunned surprise among some in the crowd. Gasps could be heard from those to hear for the first time of Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Barack Obama, and the extraordinarily anti-american theology he preach to the president for over twenty years. From the ruthless tactics of the Chicago School to how his career started with aid from unrepentant terrorist, everyone it seemed, had a insight into Obama resonating deeply within their heart.
For me, to learn of Barack's half-brother, and the implication behind why the president would leave him abandoned to destitution in a small Kenyan hut was most unexpected; a cold insight into the true nature of the 44th president.
Personally however, the revelation of greatest emotional impact wasn't to be found in the film itself, but in the broader experience of having seen in in theaters.
You see, my family and I had arrived at the theater by 7 o'clock - a safe ten minutes before the previews began. I had just purchased popcorn and drinks whilst my family had already went ahead.
I stepped into the theater.
I turned the corner to face the seats.
I looked up from the popcorn I held, expecting to instantly spot my family.
And I did a double take.
...
The theater was full.
...
Mind you, not quite as jammed as say, the Dark Knight or certain other mega hollywood record breakers one might experience.
But it safe to say that it was full. Already.
Ten minutes before the previews would even start.
On a random Monday.
My family and I were not alone I realize, as I took my seat next to them. Five minutes later, I can distinctly recall other individuals displaying the very same look of surprise as they too would step in:
Turning the corner. Looking up with the expectation that as a "niche" film, they'd have any pick of the seats. Discovering that the theater was full. On a Monday.
It was full.
...
This was not a niche film.
And once it began, all eyes were upon it for the full one hour and twenty-nine minutes that it played. This film had filled a theater, and for its complete run time, not a single individual got up to refresh themselves.
So above all else taken from the presentation, from the radical ideologies of Obama's associates, to the link between the president's decisions and his search for a father's love.
Above all else, this revelation ~that the theater was full~ would cause a tear to shed. I was not alone to watch this film. None were alone, to watch this film.
We the People, watched this film.
~David Morris~
Now, as for my impressions, this particular conservative went with his family to view the film on a random 7:10 showing on a Monday. Personally I would recommend the film, as it provided insights unknown even to a critic of the president such as myself. For those less politically inclined however; for those who appeared to be learning of the president background for very first time, the reactions were telling.
For some it seemed, the radical communism of his parents and mentors was a deep revelation. The rational link between such ideals and the policy actions of the president was of stunned surprise among some in the crowd. Gasps could be heard from those to hear for the first time of Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Barack Obama, and the extraordinarily anti-american theology he preach to the president for over twenty years. From the ruthless tactics of the Chicago School to how his career started with aid from unrepentant terrorist, everyone it seemed, had a insight into Obama resonating deeply within their heart.
For me, to learn of Barack's half-brother, and the implication behind why the president would leave him abandoned to destitution in a small Kenyan hut was most unexpected; a cold insight into the true nature of the 44th president.
Personally however, the revelation of greatest emotional impact wasn't to be found in the film itself, but in the broader experience of having seen in in theaters.
You see, my family and I had arrived at the theater by 7 o'clock - a safe ten minutes before the previews began. I had just purchased popcorn and drinks whilst my family had already went ahead.
I stepped into the theater.
I turned the corner to face the seats.
I looked up from the popcorn I held, expecting to instantly spot my family.
And I did a double take.
...
The theater was full.
...
Mind you, not quite as jammed as say, the Dark Knight or certain other mega hollywood record breakers one might experience.
But it safe to say that it was full. Already.
Ten minutes before the previews would even start.
On a random Monday.
My family and I were not alone I realize, as I took my seat next to them. Five minutes later, I can distinctly recall other individuals displaying the very same look of surprise as they too would step in:
Turning the corner. Looking up with the expectation that as a "niche" film, they'd have any pick of the seats. Discovering that the theater was full. On a Monday.
It was full.
...
This was not a niche film.
And once it began, all eyes were upon it for the full one hour and twenty-nine minutes that it played. This film had filled a theater, and for its complete run time, not a single individual got up to refresh themselves.
So above all else taken from the presentation, from the radical ideologies of Obama's associates, to the link between the president's decisions and his search for a father's love.
Above all else, this revelation ~that the theater was full~ would cause a tear to shed. I was not alone to watch this film. None were alone, to watch this film.
We the People, watched this film.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
An August Recap of Obama Tactical Errors
Originally drafted 8/09/2012
Busy volunteering for the Romney campaign has left me with little time to blog. Let us return with a commentary of the latest predictable gaffs of the Obama Administration.
First, you didn't build that.
Naturally, this will be the king of gaffs for the Obama Administration going forward. In a rare moment, Obama actually spoke honestly about his ideals. Ironic, as given the reaction of the crowd, he no doubt thought himself as having knocked it of the park.
And no doubt, his internal polling after the fact has boomeranged into knocking him downward on polls, having granted the GOP a powerful piece of ammunition to utilize once the post-convention attacks from Romney's camp truly begins.
Next, this ad addressing Mitt the Murderer
At last, we come to the greatest issue of our day. Red or Green?
Truly, if ever there was a reason not to vote for Mitt Romney, its his refusal to take a stance on such important issues of the day such as "red or green" or "what's your favorite superpower." Combined with how the fate of the country is somehow tied to Romney's tax returns, surely such issues are readily exploitable by the Obama campaign in his cruise to decisive victory.
In all seriousness, the days of softball sheltering questions cannot last indefiniitly. With Obama still vulnerable, the final 70 days will continue to draw a sharp contrast between the collected appearing Mitt Romney and an incumbent that continues to implode in his presentation.
~David Morris~
Busy volunteering for the Romney campaign has left me with little time to blog. Let us return with a commentary of the latest predictable gaffs of the Obama Administration.
First, you didn't build that.
Naturally, this will be the king of gaffs for the Obama Administration going forward. In a rare moment, Obama actually spoke honestly about his ideals. Ironic, as given the reaction of the crowd, he no doubt thought himself as having knocked it of the park.
And no doubt, his internal polling after the fact has boomeranged into knocking him downward on polls, having granted the GOP a powerful piece of ammunition to utilize once the post-convention attacks from Romney's camp truly begins.
Next, this ad addressing Mitt the Murderer
Whoever arranged this latest ad for
the Obama campaign clearly underestimated the gullibility of the audience. Even
those in the media who are utterly dedicated to Obama found themselves
flabbergasted at the SuperPAC responsible for the advertisement,
which attempted to distastefully link Mitt Romney and his tenue at Bain Capital
with the death of “Joe the Steelworker's” wife.
Several issues,
1.
Romney was not active at Bain Capital (he left
in 1999) when Joe’s steel factory was shut down (in 2001). After attempting to
save it for eight years, the economic recession of 2001 simply took its toll on
the industry, to no fault of Bain Capital.
2.
Joe was laid off in 2001. His wife died in 2006.
And she was employed.
3.
The biggest problem of all of course, is the
very message that its trying to convey: That Mitt Romney is a murderer. Despite
the guttural politics most on the left are willing to play nowadays, there are
still lines that simply go too far. Accusation of racism, bullying, not paying
his taxes, outsourcing or apathy towards the “poor” is one thing. But downright
murder simply serves to remind the audience of the complete desperation the
President must be at to try and stick such a link to Mitt Romney.
This is all endemic of a larger
problem for Team Obama. Unable to stand on their record, they’re only option is
to make the opponent out to be a radioactive monster. Try as they might with
McCarthy-ite tactics, Mitt proves heavily fortified against character assassination
out of this race. Both candidates are tied, yet the true negative ad campaigns
have yet to begun. As Obama exhausts his options this early in the race, he
leaves himself highly vulnerable to Mitt’s message in the coming months.
At last, we come to the greatest issue of our day. Red or Green?
Truly, if ever there was a reason not to vote for Mitt Romney, its his refusal to take a stance on such important issues of the day such as "red or green" or "what's your favorite superpower." Combined with how the fate of the country is somehow tied to Romney's tax returns, surely such issues are readily exploitable by the Obama campaign in his cruise to decisive victory.
In all seriousness, the days of softball sheltering questions cannot last indefiniitly. With Obama still vulnerable, the final 70 days will continue to draw a sharp contrast between the collected appearing Mitt Romney and an incumbent that continues to implode in his presentation.
~David Morris~
Friday, June 15, 2012
Obama Penalizes the Legal
Obama justifies this executive order by saying that these
young illegals will make "significant contributions to society" and
that "it's right."
Well what about all those young people who come here legally?
I have personal friends who legally came here while under sixteen who'll get
deported if they can't find H1 visa sponsors (which aren't cheap). What about
them? Are you simply going to toss them work visas too? What about
international university students who must return to their home after they
graduate, whom we know are trained
with skills we could use. Are they also going to get free visas simply
"because its right?"
Are you honestly penalizing them by rewarding those who
broke the law to get here? President Obama, are you honestly going to look at true
contributing aliens in the eye and say "too bad about your visa, your
first mistake was come here legally?" As far as I'm concerned, illegal is
illegal. You can't pick and choose by executive order which is which.
You think a constitutional lawyer would know this.
~Alexis Morris~
Govenor Walker "Only Survived"
Last night was a night of decision for the State of Wisconsin. In 2010, Governor Scott Walker won by 6 percentage points in a climatic battle of economic sense over unions embellishments. Believing the gubenatiorial race to be in contest, media humdrum touted that this could be implicative of the November election. This quickly lost steam as the night dragged on.
Having won his recall now by 7 points, much of the media since settled to describe Govenor Walker's repeat victory over Tom Barret as to have just "survived." In my opinion, most would call it a "decisive defeat" at the least. Perhaps even use the term "landslide."
The Daily Show presented a genuinely entertaining spoof on the results.
"Did you not hear us the first time?"
~David Morris~
Having won his recall now by 7 points, much of the media since settled to describe Govenor Walker's repeat victory over Tom Barret as to have just "survived." In my opinion, most would call it a "decisive defeat" at the least. Perhaps even use the term "landslide."
The Daily Show presented a genuinely entertaining spoof on the results.
"Did you not hear us the first time?"
~David Morris~
The Obama Implosion
With the victory of Scott Brown, the failure of the Bain Capital attacks, and the pathetic job growth of only 65,000 in June, we grow privy to witnessing a unique implosion of an administration.
Let us recount what their strategy has been thus far:
Attack Romney's Wife ~ Backfired.
Attack Romney's Dog ~ Backfired.
Attack Romney for being an alledged Bully ~ Backfired.
Attack Bain Capital ~ Extreme Backfire.
What's most interesting to me is the backfire on Bain capital. Not only did it simply not work on deflecting the issue, it actually caused a mutiny among democrats with friends in capital equity, the infamous "sterling business record" endorsement by Bill Clinton being the most (in)famous of late.
With so many new attempts to frame the opposition under negatives, they return to "the only thing we have left" as a young David Axelrod once put it:
Blame Bush.
Will it backfire?
~David Morris~
Let us recount what their strategy has been thus far:
Attack Romney's Wife ~ Backfired.
Attack Romney's Dog ~ Backfired.
Attack Romney for being an alledged Bully ~ Backfired.
Attack Bain Capital ~ Extreme Backfire.
What's most interesting to me is the backfire on Bain capital. Not only did it simply not work on deflecting the issue, it actually caused a mutiny among democrats with friends in capital equity, the infamous "sterling business record" endorsement by Bill Clinton being the most (in)famous of late.
With so many new attempts to frame the opposition under negatives, they return to "the only thing we have left" as a young David Axelrod once put it:
Blame Bush.
Will it backfire?
~David Morris~
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The drag on economy continues, and throughout the latest news cycle, one cannot help but to continue noticing the distraction tactics used by the Obama Administration.
The latest ploy concerns the reputation of Romney at Bain Capital. Emphasis has been placed upon a steel plant that was ultimately shut down over eight years after Romney himself ceased to work there. Most ironic about this tactic is that it leaves Obama particularly vulnerable to the hypocrite counter-tactic, simply at the mention of Solyndra.
As always, in the end it will come down to what vision each candidate is able to project for the future. Obama's record has yet to be fully exploited to Romney's advantage, as he occupies his time in consolidating base support. Come fall, it will be up to former governor to juxtapose himself as a credible leader who can translate his experience into a better direction for the nation. Should he succeed, combined with the right Vice President and the right attacks on his opponent's record, and a solid victory can be envisioned for the republican candidate.
For now, it remains uncertain just who will emerge victorious given the ample opportunities for the political winds to change between now and November. Especially when one factors the individual politics of the keymost battleground states to be in play this election. This excellent article by Stephen Green has more on that topic.
~David Morris~
The latest ploy concerns the reputation of Romney at Bain Capital. Emphasis has been placed upon a steel plant that was ultimately shut down over eight years after Romney himself ceased to work there. Most ironic about this tactic is that it leaves Obama particularly vulnerable to the hypocrite counter-tactic, simply at the mention of Solyndra.
As always, in the end it will come down to what vision each candidate is able to project for the future. Obama's record has yet to be fully exploited to Romney's advantage, as he occupies his time in consolidating base support. Come fall, it will be up to former governor to juxtapose himself as a credible leader who can translate his experience into a better direction for the nation. Should he succeed, combined with the right Vice President and the right attacks on his opponent's record, and a solid victory can be envisioned for the republican candidate.
For now, it remains uncertain just who will emerge victorious given the ample opportunities for the political winds to change between now and November. Especially when one factors the individual politics of the keymost battleground states to be in play this election. This excellent article by Stephen Green has more on that topic.
~David Morris~
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Distractions Continue
Latest Gallup polling puts Romney ahead of Obama. Why, does the mainstream media ask?
It is truly fascinating to observe such implosions on the left. Touting the "improvements" of the economy and Obama's "likability," the denial of Obama's highly threatened candidacy has witnessed several types of self-delusion as of late:
Romney's Gender Gap With Women.
Fallacies:
•Most job losses in the past three years has been among women.
•Only young, unmarried age group susceptible to "war on women" issue distraction tactics.
•Obama still less popular among women compared to 2008.
•Romney has a reverse gender gap among men against Obama.
Obama's Likability Advantage Against Romney
Fallacies:
•Carter was also "likable." People are not going to vote for excuses.
•Nixon, despite low likability, was primed for reelection before scandal.
•Romney still injured from primary battle. The right VP pick could potentially turn this around.
•The negative ads to remind the people of Obama's record has not begun yet.
Latest among the attempts to distract is Romney putting a dog on the roof of his car. Such irrelevance is bound to ultimately backfire on the patience of the American people.
Nonetheless, expect more attempts to divert the true issues of the day.
~David Morris~
It is truly fascinating to observe such implosions on the left. Touting the "improvements" of the economy and Obama's "likability," the denial of Obama's highly threatened candidacy has witnessed several types of self-delusion as of late:
Romney's Gender Gap With Women.
Fallacies:
•Most job losses in the past three years has been among women.
•Only young, unmarried age group susceptible to "war on women" issue distraction tactics.
•Obama still less popular among women compared to 2008.
•Romney has a reverse gender gap among men against Obama.
Obama's Likability Advantage Against Romney
Fallacies:
•Carter was also "likable." People are not going to vote for excuses.
•Nixon, despite low likability, was primed for reelection before scandal.
•Romney still injured from primary battle. The right VP pick could potentially turn this around.
•The negative ads to remind the people of Obama's record has not begun yet.
Latest among the attempts to distract is Romney putting a dog on the roof of his car. Such irrelevance is bound to ultimately backfire on the patience of the American people.
Nonetheless, expect more attempts to divert the true issues of the day.
~David Morris~
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Rick Santelli On the Idea of Taxing Ourselves Out. of the Crisis
A burn to all soldiers of class warfare. A simple illustration of math from Rich Santelli.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Mitt Romney. Eh.
So many excellent GOP candidates this year. So many fallen. With Santorum officially out of the running, the time dawns upon many that "Mr. Inevitable," Willard Mitt Romney, has truly proven to be the last man standing. Barring a convention upset by Newt or Ron Paul,
At what price one must ask? The negative, marginal victory nature of Mitt's wins leaves many a conservative voter feeling mum about the result. The weak positive intensity among his base must be repaired prior to November. Simultaneously, the Obaminable Machine has promised the most outright dirty, negative campaign to be seen in modern history. They have prepared specifically for the former Massachusetts governor, and will do everything in their power to characterize Romney as a "heartless, rich white republican." The wrong gaffe at the wrong time could be all that it takes.
It shall be seen just how aware of this the Romney campaign is. It is true that Romney's comparative advantage lies in his appeal to moderates. Now he'll require a vice-presidential pick that can sate the fears of the base, whilst continuing to fight back a reputation a faux conservative.
Above all however is this:
He must take the gloves off when it comes to President Obama.
This is to be a election won on offense, not defense.
Considering the nature of his apparent nomination, perhaps the Romney campaign understands this already.
~David Morris~
Monday, April 9, 2012
E Plubis, Divitorium - Out of Many, Division
Obama's un-presidential actions towards the Supreme Court last week should come as no surprise. He simply does as a community organizer does: Divide.
Wall Street vs. Main Street.
99% vs. 1%.
Republicans vs. Old People.
Private Health Insurers vs. Health Customers.
"Green" Energy vs. Viable Energy.
War on Catholics.
War on Women.
War on the Tea Party.
Is it any coincidence that all these new means to divide ourselves, only now miracoulously coincide with the election of Obama? This individual does not think so.
So why the surprise of a new War on the Supreme Court?
~David Morris~
Wall Street vs. Main Street.
99% vs. 1%.
Republicans vs. Old People.
Private Health Insurers vs. Health Customers.
"Green" Energy vs. Viable Energy.
War on Catholics.
War on Women.
War on the Tea Party.
Is it any coincidence that all these new means to divide ourselves, only now miracoulously coincide with the election of Obama? This individual does not think so.
So why the surprise of a new War on the Supreme Court?
~David Morris~
Monday, March 26, 2012
A Morning Meeting With Paul Ryan
As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressmen Ryan's position has proposed several bold solutions to America's varied debt and entitlement crisis, and not without controversy. As the congressmen continues to draw headlines with his proposals, cross-examination into his "Roadmaps" ever continues.
On March 22nd, Ryan sat down with the Heritage Foundation concerned with latest revisions to his proposals. The introduction of means testing for medicare was highlighted as among key improvements to his plan, set to balance by the 2020s. Throughout the meeting, Ryan criticized the CBO for its baseline budgeting projections, as well as the President for his weakness on cost cutting, particularly in the area of defense.
Though Ryan himself identifies $300 billion in Pentagon waste that could be eliminated, he insists that the President's $400 billion reduction in pure defense spending would threaten our superiority given an unexpected conflict. Without such superiority, he reminds us, far more soldiers are put at risk.
Ryan concluded on a hopeful note for his proposals, as he finds support whenever the American people are "spoken to as adults."
Scholar Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute offers further analysis of the Ryan revisions.
~David Morris~
On March 22nd, Ryan sat down with the Heritage Foundation concerned with latest revisions to his proposals. The introduction of means testing for medicare was highlighted as among key improvements to his plan, set to balance by the 2020s. Throughout the meeting, Ryan criticized the CBO for its baseline budgeting projections, as well as the President for his weakness on cost cutting, particularly in the area of defense.
Though Ryan himself identifies $300 billion in Pentagon waste that could be eliminated, he insists that the President's $400 billion reduction in pure defense spending would threaten our superiority given an unexpected conflict. Without such superiority, he reminds us, far more soldiers are put at risk.
Ryan concluded on a hopeful note for his proposals, as he finds support whenever the American people are "spoken to as adults."
Scholar Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute offers further analysis of the Ryan revisions.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
A Single Fire - Part II
My last discourse concerned a question with the development of energy. Why, with the abundance of sources available to us, is the energy industry nonetheless restricted by onerous regulation?
Is it to prevent accidents? We addressed the basic reality of life that accidents can and will happen. Tying it with the analogy of a burnt down home, we note that such accidents do not result in the halted production of housing in general.
Yet somehow this reality of accidents is routinely utilized to block the generation of new energy capital. Save for those favored by government of course. Methods of generating energy that "actually works" however, routinely faces insurmountable regulatory impediments.
It is valid to theorize that, in the end, the justification for such burdens has little to do with preventing accidents. Private companies, who pour millions into the creation of their capital (be it a hydroelectric dam, coal mine, oil rig, genie magic self-perpetuating turbine, or otherwise), are naturally incensed to prevent their loss.
When major accidents occur, one naturally takes to the self to review what happened and to ensure that such events scarcely occur evermore. Not only does the victim reflect, but witnessing neighbors (or rival companies in the case of industries) also join in the interest of reviewing what happened, leading to the self-imposed refinement of internal safety protocols.
A concept known as "risk assessment" is borne of the invisible hand, with entire firms and corporate sub-departments dedicated to cause of loss prevention. Regardless of bureaucratic third-parties who may decide to take advantage of the spectacle in the name of "public safety."
If the true subconscionable purpose for regulations is not about accidents, what else could is be? There are those who postulate that its simply about protecting the "environment" as a general concept. To which you must ask, "Whose environment?"
Globally, the climate simply is beyond our hands and control. Planetary climates et al are destined to change and morph regardless of any life on their surface, and human history is rife with instances whereas the scare of environmental failure on a planetary scale is found to be empty.
Its true that environmental externalities can occur on scales small enough to affect human interests however. How a proposed method of extraction affects the living of fishermen or ranchers is perfectly valid. None wants to suffer smog directly imposed onto their own backyard. Being told that its "for the good of the market" is certainly no solace.
In such cases, the proper observance of property rights and contracts provide solutions where all are better off, both economically and environmentally. Justice for land holders at risk for being negatively impacted is preserved by simple title and deed. And given their necessary cooperation, brutishly sloppy methods of energy extraction are swift to go out of style.
Energy providers, in their own self-interest against liability claims from their landlords, are thus compelled to innovate towards a reduction of their externalized impact upon others. Such is market efficiency. Producers are better off for having expanding their product, at-risk land owners are better off from the provision of royalties, and the all-important consumer is better off from lowered prices.
Recently, such has been the case for energy companies in fact. Contrary to what policy makers in Washington may proclaim, new oil development over the pass four years resulted from this very notion of contracts between private entities, while development on federal lands has shrunk.
Truly, if the hundreds of impediments to energy development were justified by environmental concerns, why develop old technologies such as windmills? Windmills have been documented for harm brought to avian life, resulting in a far more visible impact compared to the fracking and horizontal drill techniques that permit conventional producers to locate far off-site.
If anything, proponents for alternative fuels would champion nuclear energy above all given its ultimate appraisal as a win-win source for energy. A win for the market as it provides on scales necessary to truly compete. A win for the environment as the summarized concept is to simply dig naturally radioactive material from out the ground, slowly deplete its ambient energy, and then return the material to the very ground from whence it came.
Yet even nuclear is denied with routine regulatory interference, same as the traditional resources of petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Hysteria over inevitable incidents (now matter how well their containment fail safes may have worked) is utilized as a politic scapegoat to deny the free-market expansion to human energy needs. Unworkable alternatives are instead ginned up, despite that they to (inherent to all things when one is trying to start a fire or create a spark) hold their own types of risks, even if they were to deliver.
So once more we must ask, "Why?" Subconsciously, why do the proponents of Big Government seek scapegoats to justify the squelching of true energy development? The rationale is simple:
More energy means more freedom, and more freedom always means less power for the state.
~David Morris~
Is it to prevent accidents? We addressed the basic reality of life that accidents can and will happen. Tying it with the analogy of a burnt down home, we note that such accidents do not result in the halted production of housing in general.
Yet somehow this reality of accidents is routinely utilized to block the generation of new energy capital. Save for those favored by government of course. Methods of generating energy that "actually works" however, routinely faces insurmountable regulatory impediments.
It is valid to theorize that, in the end, the justification for such burdens has little to do with preventing accidents. Private companies, who pour millions into the creation of their capital (be it a hydroelectric dam, coal mine, oil rig, genie magic self-perpetuating turbine, or otherwise), are naturally incensed to prevent their loss.
When major accidents occur, one naturally takes to the self to review what happened and to ensure that such events scarcely occur evermore. Not only does the victim reflect, but witnessing neighbors (or rival companies in the case of industries) also join in the interest of reviewing what happened, leading to the self-imposed refinement of internal safety protocols.
A concept known as "risk assessment" is borne of the invisible hand, with entire firms and corporate sub-departments dedicated to cause of loss prevention. Regardless of bureaucratic third-parties who may decide to take advantage of the spectacle in the name of "public safety."
If the true subconscionable purpose for regulations is not about accidents, what else could is be? There are those who postulate that its simply about protecting the "environment" as a general concept. To which you must ask, "Whose environment?"
Globally, the climate simply is beyond our hands and control. Planetary climates et al are destined to change and morph regardless of any life on their surface, and human history is rife with instances whereas the scare of environmental failure on a planetary scale is found to be empty.
Its true that environmental externalities can occur on scales small enough to affect human interests however. How a proposed method of extraction affects the living of fishermen or ranchers is perfectly valid. None wants to suffer smog directly imposed onto their own backyard. Being told that its "for the good of the market" is certainly no solace.
In such cases, the proper observance of property rights and contracts provide solutions where all are better off, both economically and environmentally. Justice for land holders at risk for being negatively impacted is preserved by simple title and deed. And given their necessary cooperation, brutishly sloppy methods of energy extraction are swift to go out of style.
Energy providers, in their own self-interest against liability claims from their landlords, are thus compelled to innovate towards a reduction of their externalized impact upon others. Such is market efficiency. Producers are better off for having expanding their product, at-risk land owners are better off from the provision of royalties, and the all-important consumer is better off from lowered prices.
Recently, such has been the case for energy companies in fact. Contrary to what policy makers in Washington may proclaim, new oil development over the pass four years resulted from this very notion of contracts between private entities, while development on federal lands has shrunk.
Truly, if the hundreds of impediments to energy development were justified by environmental concerns, why develop old technologies such as windmills? Windmills have been documented for harm brought to avian life, resulting in a far more visible impact compared to the fracking and horizontal drill techniques that permit conventional producers to locate far off-site.
If anything, proponents for alternative fuels would champion nuclear energy above all given its ultimate appraisal as a win-win source for energy. A win for the market as it provides on scales necessary to truly compete. A win for the environment as the summarized concept is to simply dig naturally radioactive material from out the ground, slowly deplete its ambient energy, and then return the material to the very ground from whence it came.
Yet even nuclear is denied with routine regulatory interference, same as the traditional resources of petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Hysteria over inevitable incidents (now matter how well their containment fail safes may have worked) is utilized as a politic scapegoat to deny the free-market expansion to human energy needs. Unworkable alternatives are instead ginned up, despite that they to (inherent to all things when one is trying to start a fire or create a spark) hold their own types of risks, even if they were to deliver.
So once more we must ask, "Why?" Subconsciously, why do the proponents of Big Government seek scapegoats to justify the squelching of true energy development? The rationale is simple:
More energy means more freedom, and more freedom always means less power for the state.
~David Morris~
Friday, March 2, 2012
A Single Fire - Part I
Let me tell you a story.
One day, a house in your neighborhood caught on fire.
The firemen came down, cleaned it up as they are meant too.
Now, I'm sure this is the part where you'd think the rest would be left between the homeowner, his insurers, and any liability claims specific to his case.
Imagine however, that I take offense to that.
"We need a full investigation into the homes of each and every home," I declare."And regulations to ensure that such an accident never, ever happens again. A house burned down in YOUR neighborhood after all. That makes everyone suspect!"
Applauded for my magnificence, we proceed to launch warrant-less searchs of everyone's home for whatever we may perceive to be a fire hazard. Throw some fines around if we find anything we deem "hazardous" and make everyone - even and especially those who already take exemplary care of their homes - pay for expensive new safety devices that we feel would make you "ultra safe." Finally, we heavily restrict the construction new neighborhoods entirely. Why build today if a small few might - a big might -burn on us later?
All as punishment because one of your neighbors had an accident. All because I, your benevolentdictator concerned citizen can't accept the reality that accidents can and will happen, and maybe its just best to deal with each case on a individual basis, rather than demonize and punish an entire neighborhood of independent-from-each-other households.
Such is the analogy of successful energy companies. Energy is a volatile thing. As in neighborhoods, its a truly rare event when a catastrophic accident occurs within an energy sector. Yet they will occur. In both cases, emergency workers justifiably show up to clean up the immediate hazard. In both cases, aftermath involves liability insurance claims for any further damages in the interest of proper justice.
Unlike in the aftermath of a burned down house, it will not be left alone at that point once a successful energy industry has but a accident to their history. The media will use the burning of an oil rig or the malfunction of a nuclear plant to demonize its entire sector. Guilt by association, that one case will be used to justify the constriction of every energy plant in the sector.
Moratoriums will be imposed whilst we conduct our "investigation." Mandates for expensive new "safety" devices shalt be declared, even such protocols fail to make well-managed plants any safer, and extremely frugal permit laws will outright ban the expansion of new energy infrastructure to meet the demands of new generations.
The key is that this always seems to be the case for "successful" energy industries. If solar power or windmills actually began to compete as a marketable efficient source of energy, we will not be surprised to see them suddenly villianized.
Why, one could discover the existence of genies and leprechauns and benevolently dedicate pure magic itself as our new source of "hazard free" energy! Still, it seems unsurprising that such a source will become onerously regulated once it begins to prove itself in the market.
Why?
Perhaps its not about preventing accidents or environmental harzards. More later.
~David Morris~
One day, a house in your neighborhood caught on fire.
The firemen came down, cleaned it up as they are meant too.
Now, I'm sure this is the part where you'd think the rest would be left between the homeowner, his insurers, and any liability claims specific to his case.
Imagine however, that I take offense to that.
"We need a full investigation into the homes of each and every home," I declare."And regulations to ensure that such an accident never, ever happens again. A house burned down in YOUR neighborhood after all. That makes everyone suspect!"
Applauded for my magnificence, we proceed to launch warrant-less searchs of everyone's home for whatever we may perceive to be a fire hazard. Throw some fines around if we find anything we deem "hazardous" and make everyone - even and especially those who already take exemplary care of their homes - pay for expensive new safety devices that we feel would make you "ultra safe." Finally, we heavily restrict the construction new neighborhoods entirely. Why build today if a small few might - a big might -burn on us later?
All as punishment because one of your neighbors had an accident. All because I, your benevolent
Such is the analogy of successful energy companies. Energy is a volatile thing. As in neighborhoods, its a truly rare event when a catastrophic accident occurs within an energy sector. Yet they will occur. In both cases, emergency workers justifiably show up to clean up the immediate hazard. In both cases, aftermath involves liability insurance claims for any further damages in the interest of proper justice.
Unlike in the aftermath of a burned down house, it will not be left alone at that point once a successful energy industry has but a accident to their history. The media will use the burning of an oil rig or the malfunction of a nuclear plant to demonize its entire sector. Guilt by association, that one case will be used to justify the constriction of every energy plant in the sector.
Moratoriums will be imposed whilst we conduct our "investigation." Mandates for expensive new "safety" devices shalt be declared, even such protocols fail to make well-managed plants any safer, and extremely frugal permit laws will outright ban the expansion of new energy infrastructure to meet the demands of new generations.
The key is that this always seems to be the case for "successful" energy industries. If solar power or windmills actually began to compete as a marketable efficient source of energy, we will not be surprised to see them suddenly villianized.
Why, one could discover the existence of genies and leprechauns and benevolently dedicate pure magic itself as our new source of "hazard free" energy! Still, it seems unsurprising that such a source will become onerously regulated once it begins to prove itself in the market.
Why?
Perhaps its not about preventing accidents or environmental harzards. More later.
~David Morris~
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Obama's Re-election and Energy
While some among Washington Circles boast the electability of Obama given economic improvements, others such as Dick Morris presents a substantial interpretation of recent polling trends.
Much of what Dick Morris claims rings of truth. Adding to his analysis of course, is the looming state of energy come 2012. As predicted in prior observations, gas prices have once again become politically relevant. Gas stands at an average of $3.79 as of the end of February, with no "silver bullet" to fix it for the Obama Administration.
Predictably, speculators and oil companies shall be the usual scapegoats of the left. Investigations for price fixing shall be launched as democrats continue to mock the "simplistic" notion of drilling on American Soil.
Given the abundant resources available in North America; now with an overwhelming support that drilling should be done, its unlikely that such tactics will be enough to save the incumbent administration. Especially fused with continued disapproval on the economy overall; stubbornly remaining at around 60% even in light of recent "improvements."
With Gas Prices set to reach painfully record highs, it would not be unsurprising if even deep blue states were at play. Areas in California have already broken the $5.00 mark in light of recent fears in the middle east.
Much of what Dick Morris claims rings of truth. Adding to his analysis of course, is the looming state of energy come 2012. As predicted in prior observations, gas prices have once again become politically relevant. Gas stands at an average of $3.79 as of the end of February, with no "silver bullet" to fix it for the Obama Administration.
Predictably, speculators and oil companies shall be the usual scapegoats of the left. Investigations for price fixing shall be launched as democrats continue to mock the "simplistic" notion of drilling on American Soil.
Given the abundant resources available in North America; now with an overwhelming support that drilling should be done, its unlikely that such tactics will be enough to save the incumbent administration. Especially fused with continued disapproval on the economy overall; stubbornly remaining at around 60% even in light of recent "improvements."
With Gas Prices set to reach painfully record highs, it would not be unsurprising if even deep blue states were at play. Areas in California have already broken the $5.00 mark in light of recent fears in the middle east.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Celebrating the Stimulus Anniversary.
Three years to this day, the benevolent one, Barack Hussein Obama, signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka, the Stimulus Package. With this massive government intervention of outdated and grotesquely implemented Keynesian economics, we were promised 5% growth and unemployment no higher than 8 percent.
Thanks in large part to it, every man woman and child now owes short of $50,000 (before unfunded liabilities) a piece as the Obama administration breaks deficit records. In a scant three years, 4.7 trillion has been added to the debt.
What have we gotten in exchange?
A real unemployment rate of 16%, a shrinking labor market down to 58% (whereas 65% is considered normal), near doubled gas prices, kids moving back into their parents homes with delayed opportunities to get married and start homes, a gutted housing market, and 45 million people on food stamps.
Good job Mr. President.
~David Morris~
Thanks in large part to it, every man woman and child now owes short of $50,000 (before unfunded liabilities) a piece as the Obama administration breaks deficit records. In a scant three years, 4.7 trillion has been added to the debt.
What have we gotten in exchange?
A real unemployment rate of 16%, a shrinking labor market down to 58% (whereas 65% is considered normal), near doubled gas prices, kids moving back into their parents homes with delayed opportunities to get married and start homes, a gutted housing market, and 45 million people on food stamps.
Good job Mr. President.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Romney and the American Poor
Romney's gaffe on the poorest Americans currently circulates across the media.
Herein lies a teachable moment however. Though Romney's poor choice of words rightly harms his political image, certain truths about American impoverished demonstrates that the poor scarcely requires a government that increasingly "cares" for them.
In the following video, Bill Whittle communicates what is essentially the same principle behind Romney's statement. The difference being that it makes more sense coming from Bill.
Even compassionate.
Herein lies a teachable moment however. Though Romney's poor choice of words rightly harms his political image, certain truths about American impoverished demonstrates that the poor scarcely requires a government that increasingly "cares" for them.
In the following video, Bill Whittle communicates what is essentially the same principle behind Romney's statement. The difference being that it makes more sense coming from Bill.
Even compassionate.
Romney Gaffe
During his victory run around Florida, Romney let's slip that "he doesn't care for the very poor."
Not the most inspiring of attitudes from a potential commander-in-chief. America longs for a positive message not seen since Reagan: of an America that lifts all of it's citizens.
It's doubtful that the soundbite will cause too much damage on it's own, but it unfortunately adds to Romneys image as an out of touch member of the elite.
Not the most inspiring of attitudes from a potential commander-in-chief. America longs for a positive message not seen since Reagan: of an America that lifts all of it's citizens.
It's doubtful that the soundbite will cause too much damage on it's own, but it unfortunately adds to Romneys image as an out of touch member of the elite.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Obaminable Machine
As the Republican primary carries on, the Obama Campaign quietly prepares.
With the power of a "billion-dollar warchest" that totals at around $242 million, the machine quietly reserves ad air over key battleground states, trains hundreds of campaign leaders in the art of voter turnout, and hires the best in the business in new media marketing.
The U.S.S. Obaminal has all the appearances of a mighty warship. Armed with an airwave monopoly for the crucial months of October and November, high caliber advertisements designed to cripple the opponent and embellish the achievements of the Obama administration will be poised to sell the public on 4 more years.
Such spending is all for naught if no one buys of course. History is filled with expensive flops afterall. New Coke anyone?
How about that Titanic?
As always with reelection politics, the state of nation come election day will prove the most potent advertisement of all, be it for or against the incumbent. The crew of the Obaminable has the work cut out for them on icebergs to evade.
1) The Real Unemployment Rate
2) Gas Prices
3) Obamacare in the Courts
4) The Growth Rate
Such factors play into the most significant question of all in presidential politics: is the nation moving in the right direction?
No presidential campaign machine yet, no matter how exquisite, has proven to survive where the answer has been "no."
-David Morris
With the power of a "billion-dollar warchest" that totals at around $242 million, the machine quietly reserves ad air over key battleground states, trains hundreds of campaign leaders in the art of voter turnout, and hires the best in the business in new media marketing.
The U.S.S. Obaminal has all the appearances of a mighty warship. Armed with an airwave monopoly for the crucial months of October and November, high caliber advertisements designed to cripple the opponent and embellish the achievements of the Obama administration will be poised to sell the public on 4 more years.
Such spending is all for naught if no one buys of course. History is filled with expensive flops afterall. New Coke anyone?
How about that Titanic?
As always with reelection politics, the state of nation come election day will prove the most potent advertisement of all, be it for or against the incumbent. The crew of the Obaminable has the work cut out for them on icebergs to evade.
1) The Real Unemployment Rate
2) Gas Prices
3) Obamacare in the Courts
4) The Growth Rate
Such factors play into the most significant question of all in presidential politics: is the nation moving in the right direction?
No presidential campaign machine yet, no matter how exquisite, has proven to survive where the answer has been "no."
-David Morris
Monday, January 23, 2012
Gingrich Back in Center
Newt Gingrich has once again surged following his decisive victory in South Carolina. In a true upset, Newt Gingrich secured 40% of the vote when just a week ago, Romney looked set to secure the state by 10 points.
If anything can be attributed to this gain, Newt's debate performance may once again be touted as a chief cause. The momentum gained by his address to his populist rout against the mainstream media on his personal past, always a savvy political tactic given that conservatives have learned to distrust by eighty percent margins, and just so happens to be a tactic he alone seems willing to play.
With this upset victory, Gingrich proves himself more than a flavor-of-the-month "not Romney," and early polls indicate a strong lead for Gingrich going into Florida. Time will tell if this momentum holds true.
~David Morris~
If anything can be attributed to this gain, Newt's debate performance may once again be touted as a chief cause. The momentum gained by his address to his populist rout against the mainstream media on his personal past, always a savvy political tactic given that conservatives have learned to distrust by eighty percent margins, and just so happens to be a tactic he alone seems willing to play.
With this upset victory, Gingrich proves himself more than a flavor-of-the-month "not Romney," and early polls indicate a strong lead for Gingrich going into Florida. Time will tell if this momentum holds true.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Steady Fall of Economic Freedom
Announced last week, the Heritage Foundation regrettably downgraded the United States of America to 10th place.
To put in perspective, in 2007, a scant 5 years ago, the United States of America was rated as number 4 in the world, with a rating of 82 on a 100 point scale for freedom. Heritage has since noticed a steady decline however, now placing us at a mere 76.3, placing us below the likes of Ireland.
Much to do with democrat administration is cited as cause for this severe downgrade. In 2007, unemployment was 5.5%, the national debt stood at 8.8 trillion. Today, with an 2011 unemployment rate of 9.6% and a national debt that stands at 102% of GDP, the direction of the country is clearly on the wrong path.
To put in perspective, in 2007, a scant 5 years ago, the United States of America was rated as number 4 in the world, with a rating of 82 on a 100 point scale for freedom. Heritage has since noticed a steady decline however, now placing us at a mere 76.3, placing us below the likes of Ireland.
Much to do with democrat administration is cited as cause for this severe downgrade. In 2007, unemployment was 5.5%, the national debt stood at 8.8 trillion. Today, with an 2011 unemployment rate of 9.6% and a national debt that stands at 102% of GDP, the direction of the country is clearly on the wrong path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)