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, August 12, 2011
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~
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~
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~
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~
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
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 documehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnted 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~
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 documehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnted 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~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)