Running Out the Clock

Romney and running out the clock… Dems begin to press the panic button… Greenberg’s and Carville’s advice… Dems win AZ-8 special election… After primaries in ME, NV, ND, and VA, Senate races finally take shape… Eric Holder, political punching bag… Jamie Dimon testifies on Capitol Hill… And Romney addresses Business Roundtable meeting at 11:45 am ET.

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Brooke Brower, and Natalie Cucchiara

*** Running out the clock: With less than five months until Election Day, Mitt Romney and his team are running a campaign that would make Dean Smith (and his Four Corners offense) or Jim Tressel (and his grind-it-out gameplan) proud. If you're ahead -- or within striking distance -- against a talented opponent, you start running out the clock. Take, for instance, Romney's reply yesterday to a reporter’s ropeline question about whether he thought Democrats were taking his recent remark firefighter and police jobs out of context. "I'm not going to talk about that," he said. (Romney also has ducked reporters’ ropeline questions on Syria, JP Morgan, and even Wisconsin.) Or consider all the interviews he does with FOX (especially its cherry-picked programs vs. its newsier anchors) compared with other news outlets. Or think about the fact that the Romney camp isn't planning (for now) on delivering any new policy speeches. The message Team Romney is essentially giving: “We're going to talk about what we want to talk about -- and to whom we want -- and not talk about the rest.”

Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices

*** But does a president get to control what he talks about? It’s impressive message discipline. And as Smith and Tressel proved, you can win tons of games -- and the ultimate prize every once in a while (especially if your opponent makes mistakes) -- by running out the clock. But here’s something about sitting in the White House: A president often doesn’t get to pick and choose the issues he has to deal with. Think of many of the events in the past five years: the financial industry’s collapse, the European debt crisis, the BP oil spill, the Arab Spring, the violence in Libya and Syria, and the list goes on. While a president gets to pick his domestic priorities (tax cuts, education, and Social Security for George W. Bush; health care and financial reform for Barack Obama), so much of the job is reacting to unplanned events. Ironically, the very issue Romney wants to talk about -- the state of the U.S. economy -- is something that presidents have little control over, especially compared with foreign policy (which they have A LOT of control over). And yet how long can Romney go without going into more detail about how he would handle the various unplanned issues that he would have to deal with if he wins. Take Syria. We know he doesn’t like how the president has handled this situation but how would a President Romney deal with Putin and Assad? He’s provided no clues and his campaign appears to be making sure there’s little opportunity (for now) to find out.

NBC's Mark Murray discusses whether President Barack Obama's message on the economy is working.

*** Dems press the panic button: While Team Romney appears to be running out the clock and displaying an impressive ability at message discipline, the Obama White House and campaign are dealing with Democratic Party that’s beginning to panic after a rough last two weeks. “Is it time for Democrats to panic?” the Washington Post’s Tumulty asks. “That’s what a growing number of party loyalists are wondering, amid a rough couple of weeks in which President Obama and his political operation have been buffeted by bad economic news, their own gaffes and signs that the presumed Republican nominee is gaining strength.” One criticism from the Democrats cited in the piece is how insular Team Obama is, a criticism that has dogged the Obama political team beginning Feb. 10, 2007 (the day Obama announced). This story illustrates two of the Democratic Party’s and Obama White House’s worst traits -- pressing the panic button (especially when nothing fundamental about the race has changed in the past two weeks) and ignoring outside voices (which is a criticism we continually hear about the Obama team). Former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon puts it well in the piece: “[The Obama campaign folks] are not any more or less smart than they were four years ago. The dynamics are just different. This time, the wind is in their face instead of at their back.”

Romney Accuses Obama of hiding Agenda

WASHINGTON—Mitt Romney, fresh off of three momentum-building wins in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of "rhetorical excess" and of muddling his second-term agenda in order to win re-election.

"He wants us to reelect him so we can find out what he will actually do," Mr. Romney told a gathering of newspaper reporters and editors at a Washington hotel. "With all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for President Obama's hide-and-seek campaign."

The former Massachusetts governor leveled his latest charges at the president from the stage where Mr. Obama slammed the GOP front-runner a day earlier for supporting a Republican budget blueprint that he called a "radical vision" and "thinly veiled social Darwinism."

Election 2012

• Romney Rolls Up Three Wins
• Santorum Prepares for Last Stand
• Obama Blasts 'Trojan Horse' GOP Plan

The back-and-forth comes as the president and Mr. Romney engage more directly ahead of an expected match-up in the general election, and amid signs that Mr. Romney has opened a nearly insurmountable lead in the GOP contest. Mr. Romney was addressing the Newspaper Association of America the day after his sweep of Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Romney draw new battle lines with the president by expanding on earlier criticism of Mr. Obama that came after the president was heard on a live microphone asking his Russian counterpart for more time and flexibility to negotiate a nuclear-arms treaty between the two countries.

"He is intent on hiding," Mr. Romney, seeking to extend the significance of the president's remark to areas beyond foreign policy. "You and I will have to do the seeking."

While Mr. Obama remains personally popular, Mr. Romney is seeking to raising doubts about the president's character. Such doubts have been less prominent in the primary campaign, with candidates instead unleashing repeated broadsides against unpopular policy measures, including the economic recovery package and the new health-care law.

Mr. Romney accused the president of shifting positions to curry favor with voters ahead of the election, saying that "Candidate Obama" has "experienced a series of election-year conversions." As evidence, he cited Mr. Obama's recent calls to lower corporate tax rates, reduce regulations and develop more domestic oil, coal and natural gas.

The Obama campaign quickly turned the obfuscation charge back on Mr. Romney.

"From completely rewriting his record of more debt, more spending, fewer jobs and bigger government in Massachusetts to misleading on the President's record of promoting economic security for the middle class, there was very little in Mitt Romney's speech today that bore any resemblance to reality," said Lis Smith, an Obama campaign spokeswoman.

Mr. Romney also blasted the president for, in his words, mischaracterizing the House-passed Republican budget, which seeks deep cuts in agency spending and proposes a revamp of Medicare for future retirees.

"President Obama came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making, and criticized policies no one is proposing," he said. "It's one of his favorite strategies—setting up straw men to distract from his record."

The president and Mr. Romney are both painting the race as a contest between two starkly different visions for the country. Mr. Obama criticizes Republicans for offering what are, in his view, draconian cuts to social safety nets while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans, in turn, criticize the president for failing to bolster employment while piling debt on an already fragile economy.

"The November election will have particular consequence," Mr. Romney said Wednesday. "It will be a defining event."

He used the rest of his speech to deliver familiar criticism of the president's stimulus plan, the new health-care law and his attacks on over-regulation.

Mr. Romney largely steered clear of his remaining rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. His only mention of the primary came in response to a question from the moderator of the event about whether he had asked any of his GOP opponents to exit the race.

"I hope that we're able to resolve our nomination process as soon as possible, of course, because I'd like to focus our time and attention on those key battleground states and raising the funds to be somewhat competitive with the president and his billion-dollar quest," Mr. Romney said. "We have a real challenging road ahead of us, but I believe we will rise to the occasion."

Mr. Romney also offered a pointed critique of the news business for trading speed and frivolity for substance and responsibility.

"In 2008, the coverage was about what I said in my speech," Mr. Romney said, referring to his initial White House bid. "These days, it's about what brand of jeans I am wearing and what I ate for lunch."

He added, "I find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality control. I miss the days of two or more sources for a story."

Write to Patrick O'Connor at patrick.oconnor@wsj.com

The Tea Party Making All The Right Moves?

Well, it didn’t take long for the Tea Party to wilt under the Special Interest Political pressure. All the promises of “fixing a broken Washington” has not become a “moot” point to 12 freshman congressional members who, during their first campaigns said there needed to be a “new” spirit in Washington, one that wouldn’t buckle to special interest groups and would keep their political interest with the needs of the people who elected them.


"Book your Key Largo getaway now," reads the invitation, obtained by CBS News. The hosts are veteran congressmen Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, Pete Sessions, of Texas, "and 12 of your favorite Republican freshmen!"


The 12: Sandy Adams (Fla.), Quico Canseco (Texas), Rick Crawford (Ark.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Sean Duffy (Wis.), Stephen Fincher (Tenn.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Daniel Webster (Fla.), Mike Grimm (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Jim Renacci (Ohio) and Cory Gardner (Col).


I have several pairs of shoes that are older than the time they have “served” the constituents of their respective communities and still have given in to the status quo.


The sad part is that they succumbed to veteran senators who seem hell bent on turning these “idealist” to the dark side and certainly would make Darth Vader proud. Especially when you consider that these freshman are still two years away from their re-election campaigns.


There is a bright side to this story and that is, we the people really can’t say that the Republican congress is not hard at work. Unfortunately, it’s not the type of work we elected them to do. But don’t worry too much, the freshman will still get paid their $170,000 per annum from those that elected them.

Palin Heart Newt

Editor's note: S.E. Cupp is the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" and co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She is a columnist at the New York Daily News and a political commentator for Glenn Beck's GBTV.

(CNN) -- Far be it for me to offer unsolicited advice to Sarah Palin. She's built a very successful career out of going rogue and certainly doesn't need any tips from me.

And, as an occasional pundit, a political influencer and a private citizen, she's free to throw her weight behind anyone she wants.

But I just have to say it: Newt Gingrich? Really?

Now, I'm not in the camp of conservative elites who think she's seen her best days and should politely retire to obscurity. If anything, the premiere of "Game Change" on HBO on Saturday is proof that she's still relevant; she's got considerable influence over a certain wing of the party.

S.E. Cupp

And so with great power comes great responsibility. Is Newton Leroy Gingrich the most responsible pick?

Of all the remaining candidates, in fact, the one that makes the least sense is Newt. Mitt Romney I could see, if she wanted to bring the party together. Rick Santorum I could see for his social conservatism, strong Christian faith and similar family stories. I could even see Ron Paul for his "throw the bums out" and "end the Fed" rogue-isms. But Newt?

When rumors first started swirling that Palin might back the former House speaker and self-appointed "cheerful" candidate, Gingrich was surging then. She said she'd vote for him in South Carolina if she could. She wanted to keep the primary alive, she said. And, playing to Newt's strength at the time, she urged "more debates" and "more vetting of candidates."

Julianne Moore's Palin '100% sourced'

Analysis: Gingrich not connecting

Palin leaves door open for 2012 run

Gingrich: 'I'm the tortoise'

But now, with Newt's ham-fisted campaign out of mojo, and no debates on the horizon, it would seem like a good time to jump off that train and get behind Romney or Santorum.

Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? "I have appreciated what he has stood for," she said. "He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses."

Again, Palin's free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.

What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She's for small government; he's shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he's the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.

And he's hardly been an "underdog." With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he's enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn't. If Newt's been an underdog, I'm sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.

The truth is, Newt isn't the "little guy" in any sense of the word. And if that were truly Palin's criteria, there are actual little guys, such as Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson to champion.

Or even better, she doesn't have to support any of them.

Maybe Palin's got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.

But I'm sure she knows what she's doing.

‘Stop-Newt’ Republicans Confront Base Unwilling to Take Orders

Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Two days after Newt Gingrich defeated Mitt Romney in the South Carolina presidential primary one of Romney’s big-name backers offered a grim prediction for his fellow Republicans.

“The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handing the election over to Obama,” former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty told reporters on a Jan. 23 conference call. “I think that’s shared by a lot of folks in the Republican Party.”

Pawlenty’s comments echoed those being uttered publicly and behind the scenes by elected Republicans, party activists, fundraisers and pundits, who represent a portion of the party establishment -- a “stop-Newt” caucus -- populated largely by people who have known the former U.S. House speaker for decades.

The question is: Can they?

For two decades, the Republican Party has seen an erosion of its traditional, top-down hierarchy, a decline aided by Gingrich himself in 1990 when he led a House revolt against a budget agreement negotiated by President George H.W. Bush that raised taxes. The rise of the anti-tax Tea Party wing in 2009 splintered the internal levers of power further, making it even harder to impose a choice on the rank-and file.

“There really is no Republican establishment left that can control anything,” said Matthew Dowd, a onetime aide to President George W. Bush and now a Bloomberg Television contributor. “Some try to act like they are in charge, but the fraternity is now running the campus.”

South Carolina Dynamics

Those dynamics were on display in South Carolina. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, lost by 12 percentage points even after campaigning throughout the state with Governor Nikki Haley and just a day after receiving the endorsement of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Haley, who rose to power with Tea Party backing, didn’t deliver either her state or its grassroots activists.

Meanwhile, Gingrich’s campaign gained momentum after Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who also has support from the Tea Party faction, said she’d vote for Gingrich in South Carolina if only to extend the length of the primary.

Similar signs of an insurgence came to light in the 2010 midterm elections, when Nevada voters tapped Sharron Angle -- a Tea Party-endorsed politician opposed by many of the state’s prominent Republicans -- to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And Delaware Republicans chose Christine O’Donnell over former governor and nine-term U.S. House Representative Mike Castle to seek an open Senate seat. Both Angle and O’Donnell lost.

‘Voters in Charge’

“The voters are now in charge, and Republican leaders need to come to terms with that,” Dowd said. “The media needs to drop the myth that there is a Republican establishment capable of orchestrating anything more than a one-float GOP parade.”

Romney’s campaign, backed by well-known party strategists and fundraisers, has kept up a steady rollout of endorsement announcements from Republican elected leaders that demonstrate his broad support among the insiders. As of Jan. 20, he had the nods of five governors, 14 senators and 59 U.S. House members. That compares with two governors and a dozen congressmen who have endorsed Gingrich, according to Democracy in Action, a political web site that tracks endorsements.

‘Terrified About Newt’

“There are a lot of major players in the Republican Party who are terrified about Newt,” said Gary Gerstle, a specialist on social and political movements a Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “At a more conventional moment in American politics, the establishment would count for a lot more, but this is not a conventional moment. There are now big segments of the Republican Party that will not bow down to the establishment.”

Gingrich -- who served 20 years in Congress, four of them as speaker, and then began a lucrative career in Washington consulting on federal policy -- has been working to turn party leaders’ angst about his candidacy to his advantage, portraying himself as a candidate feared by the ruling class.

In a Jan. 24 message to supporters, he wrote, “The establishment is right to be worried about a Gingrich nomination because a Gingrich nomination means that we’re going to change things.”

The Romney-Gingrich face-off is bringing the simmering power struggle between the Republican grassroots and the party establishment to the fore, said Richard Viguerie, a veteran Republican direct-mail strategist and the chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.

Internal Power Struggle

“There is a war going on here between the grassroots and the establishment,” said Viguerie, who is backing former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. “People in the grassroots see the Republican establishment as part of the problem, not part of the solution, and Gingrich has the ability to go over the heads of the Republican leaders.”

At the root of the concern about Gingrich is whether he will be able to appeal to the broader U.S. electorate. Polls indicate that he has high unfavorability ratings and wouldn’t fare well in a head-to-head matchup against Obama. A January Gallup study found that all national political figures are viewed negatively. Still, “Americans have become more intensely negative in their evaluations of Newt Gingrich -- who now has the lowest score overall,” the study concluded.

Independent Voter Turn-off

Gingrich’s branding of Obama as a “food stamp president,” for example, may not play well with independent voters, whom a Republican nominee would have to win over to have a chance of ousting the president.

Some prominent Republicans say there’s not yet enough of a consensus that Gingrich is unelectable to give rise to a concerted effort among party operatives to thwart his ascent.

“I haven’t seen that there’s an all-hands-on-deck movement to try to block any candidate -- Newt or anyone else,” said Frank Donatelli, the chairman of GOPAC, a training organization for state and local Republican candidates once headed by Gingrich, and a former top party official.

The last time there was such an effort was in 1996, he added, after Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary and prominent Republicans quickly coalesced around Bob Dole, who ultimately claimed the nomination.

“I haven’t heard that kind of alarm emanating about Newt,” Donatelli said.

Former Pennsylvania Congressman Bob Walker, a senior adviser to Gingrich’s campaign, said each time Romney rolls out a new endorsement or dispatches a one-time colleague to criticize Gingrich’s record, it bolsters the former speaker’s argument to voters that he’s their ally against a party machine that doesn’t care about them.

“It took them a little bit of time to realize that Newt Gingrich is capable of beating Obama, but now, I don’t think that they’re going to listen to party bosses anymore,” Walker said. “Newt is basically channeling the people’s anger.”

--Editors: Jeanne Cummings, Mark McQuillan.

To contact the reporter on this story: Julie Hirschfeld Davis in Washington at jdavis159@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net

A reprint from Bloomberg Businessweek

Same Old, Same Old

President Barack Obama has come under fire again as he is asking legislators to approve a $1.3 trillion hike in the debt-ceiling this past week. A request brought on not by failure of the president, but a failure, again, in the legislative standoff between the president and Congress.


Texas Governor, Rick Perry used his pursuit of the Republican Presidential campaign as a platform in the national spotlight to urge congress to reject the President's request telling a small audience in South Carolina that it would mean the government would have to print more money and that would devalue the dollar even further.


"The president again went to Congress to ask them to raise the debt ceiling. Than means they're going to print more money, they're going to spend more money. The dollars in your pocket are going to be devalued even more," Perry said. "I hope the members of Congress send a very clear message to the president. Not now, not again, absolutely not, Mr. President."


The request is part of an agreement reached in August between the White House and Congress to raise the debt limit to $15.2 trillion while creating a "super-committee" that unsuccessfully sought to reach a bipartisan deal last fall.


Perry says the president needs to trim his budget and cut spending, an idea that everyone seems to agree with. However, spending cuts alone is not the answer and no one wants to raise taxes or lose their entitlements. Billionaire Warren Buffett has gone so far as to challenge congressional Republicans a financial deal that could reap millions to the deficit. He, as reported to Time magazine, will match all donations to the deficit by the Republican congressional members and will triple match every dollar Senate Republican  leader Mitch McConnell.


Buffett has emphasized that his offer is a "firm offer".

House Republicans push for new payroll tax cut talks

A reprint:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led House of Representatives will set the stage on Tuesday for a showdown with Senate Democrats over a payroll tax cut extension that is becoming a proxy for 2012 election year battles.

The tax legislation has become the latest in a string of battles in Congress this year, all of which have contributed to widespread public discontent with Washington politicians.

When the House votes on Tuesday it will in effect be rejecting a bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly on Saturday and calling for formal negotiations with the Democratic-led Senate.

The Senate bill would set a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut with the aim of crafting a full-year tax cut extension early next year.

The House move will cast doubt on the future of the popular payroll tax cut, which is caught up in a high-stakes game of brinkmanship between the two political parties that some say could backfire.

Washington gridlock is fueling an anti-incumbent mood among voters heading into next year's elections.

"Our members do not want to just punt and do a two-month short-term fix where we have to come back and do this again," House Speaker John Boehner said late on Monday after a closed meeting with fellow Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shot back that the House should allow an up-or-down vote on the two-month stop-gap plan. "I am happy to continue negotiations on a yearlong deal as soon as the House of Representatives passes the Senate's bipartisan compromise, and prevents a tax hike from hitting middle-class families," Reid said.

Several Republican lawmakers publicly agreed with Reid.

The bipartisan two-month deal crafted by the Senate came after efforts at a full-year tax cut failed.

At stake is much more than politicians' reputations and their 2012 re-election chances. If Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on extending the tax cut that expires on December 31, 160 million Americans will begin 2012 with less money - about $1,000 a year for the average worker - in their paychecks.

That, economists fear, could dampen, or even end what little economic growth there is as the United States struggles to right itself after the deepest recession in decades and severe debt problems in Europe that could infect America.

Not only would workers' taxes go up in a couple weeks if the two sides cannot find a quick compromise. About 2.2 million people who have suffered long-term unemployment will see benefit checks cut off by the middle of February. And doctors treating elderly Medicare patients also will see their reimbursements cut.

Once the House on Tuesday requests a new round of negotiations, as expected, the next steps are unclear.

"We are not coming back, we are not appointing negotiators until they pass the Senate compromise," Reid's spokesman Adam Jentleson insisted.

President Barack Obama already has delayed a Hawaii vacation. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday said, "The president has made clear that he wants Congress to get this done, that he is here now and will be here as Congress tries to sort this out." But Carney did not make clear how Obama might bring the two sides together, or whether he will even try.

(Editing by Christopher Wilson)

As the Deadline Approaches...

Congress is at it again. Another deadline is at it's critical point to keep the government funded and congress wants to hurry up and get it passed so they can go on yet another break. The problem is the territorial wars are back at it with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate and White House, and this time it may just come down to a compromise. 


Republicans introduced a $915 billion spending bill in the House on Thursday trying to force the Democrats to pass the legislation that would keep the U.S. Government funded beyond this weekend when the "Holiday" break is set to occur.


And again it comes down to another deadline for the bill to be passed as the government shutdown would be in just two days. The temporary funding measure set to expire on Friday would, if not renewed or revised, shut down major services run by the departments of defense, education, health and labor.


But both Republicans and Democrats are arguing over how to extend an expiring payroll tax cut that would affect 160 million Americans and each side is attempting to use the bill as a bargaining chip. Included in the bill are funds that would provide crucial government functions such as patrolling the U.S. borders, but has little chance of passing unless the Democratic-controlled Senate can agree that the bill is complete. But at the White House request, the Senate Democrats are attempting to force the Republican "hands" to agree on payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits even if it means delaying their "vacation".


In other "news":


The House voted 283-136 for the $662 billion measure Wednesday night, a rare bipartisan vote the reflected the strong support for annual legislation that authorizes money for the men and women of the military as well as weapons systems and the millions of jobs they generate in lawmakers' districts.

The Senate was expected to clear the bill Thursday and send it to President Barack Obama.

The House vote came just hours after the administration abandoned a veto threat over provisions dealing with the handling of terrorism suspects.

Applying pressure on House and Senate negotiators working on the bill last week, Obama and senior members of his national security team, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had sought modifications in the detainee provisions.

Negotiators announced the changes late Monday, clearing the way for White House acceptance.

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

"I told you so..."

My last post of November 14th was about the upcoming failure of the "Super Committee" to reach any sort of agreement and I was right. The deadline past without much fanfare by any media reporting or political backlash. It proves once again the truth about Washington being broken. The only winner was President Obama, that is, if his real purpose was to highlight that a "two-party" system can no longer provide for the American people, he succeeded.


On Saturday night, December 10th, the latest round of Republican debates was featured and for the most part, I haven't watched any of the others, but there was literally nothing else on television besides Christmas shows I have already seen, so I decided to watch most of the sparring by the six major contenders. Honestly I think ABC and Yahoo would have been better off simulcasting The "Grinch Who Stole Christmas" rather than a night of misleading speeches by those that can't decide on who their enemy is. 


Yes, there were a few light moments on stage. Mitt Romney offering a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, a faux pas that could take serious numbers away from Romney. Michelle Bachmann and her consistent reminder of her "tragic" upbringing of being in a broken family. And, even the sparring between Romney and Newt Gingrich arguing about who was the closer friend to Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.


I really have no idea who might have won the debate as there was more sparring among the participants than actual posturing on key election topics. Maybe Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, or former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania actually came out on top because I heard very little from them about anything. 


I guess it's true that it's not what is said, but what you hear. For example, Romney incorrectly stated that President Obama said Israel must "go back" to the 1967 borders. That is simply not true! Obama stated Israel should go back to those borders as a starting point for "mutually agreed swaps".


Perry states that over the past 11 years Texas, under his leadership, has created over a million jobs, while there has been over two million job losses across the rest of the country. A statement that is both misleading and false. Numbers are inflated by Perry to make himself look good because as a matter of fact the U.S. has only lost 897,000 jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the same period of time.


The one thing this over-used forum has proven is that it's really difficult to know who a Republican should vote for. With little criticism lobbed at Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, maybe they can sneak away some of the lead of the career Washingtonian, Newt Gingrich. I wish you good luck when you finally go to vote in the primaries across country. My advice...eennie meanie minee mo!

November 23rd Deadline

Once again Senior Citizens and the military are coming under attack by Congressional members as the Super Committee wrangles with the fast closing deadline of November 23rd to make policy recommendations to their fellow members of  $1.2 trillion dollars in budget reductions. And once again it is becoming apparent that the wealthiest Americans are still off limits.


It baffles the minds of those of the middle and lower classes  as to why they are always the target of budget cuts and program reductions. Why is the military always thrown out as the bait to get us to understand the difficult decisions that lie before the policy makers? One must admit that while the middle and lower classes are the reason these politicians are in office, they are the one’s ignored. Remember, the middle and lower classes make up a majority of the voters, who by all counts, feel these members of congress are looking out for them and that’s why they vote they way they do. It is also important to realize that the military is doing all the dirty work and keeping us safe so we can continue to elect these misfits. But if the mainstream American is voting on emotion only without really looking closely at the policies of those running for reelection, I guess we shouldn’t complain when our taxes are increased and our entitlements are reduced.


Why doesn’t it anger the American people when a deadline, as important as this one, is once again ignored and congress can take a week off. Obviously they feel they can reach a consensus in ten short days and Americans should not worry. They are, after all, looking out for our best interest because they owe us for their elected position and everyone knows it’s the American people they care most about and not the “fat-cats” of Wall Street or the special interest groups or the richest of us all. No, they are only concerned with us mediocre and common citizens. Yeah, right. And oh by the way, they had better hurry so they aren’t late for their annual Thanksgiving break as well.


And, one more thing, no matter what happens in this vote or when these members of congress come up for reelection, one thing is certain, even if they are not reelected they still will have the healthcare insurance and retirement pension to count on. 

Myths and Truths About Social Security

Exploding 5 misconceptions that threaten the system

Reprint from AARP Bulletin of 11/1/11: by: Jane Bryant Quinn 

It happened during the stock boom of the 1990s, and it is happening again. Social Security is coming under attack. The first challenge arose from hope — that savers would get more retirement income for their money if they bought stocks. But the idea of privatization was not popular with the public.

See also: Social Security recipients welcome 3.6 percent COLA.

Now, the attack comes from fear ­ ­ — that Social Security has serious financial problems and can only fail. Younger people lean more toward change than older people do. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted a year ago found that 60 percent of adults who aren't retired expect to get nothing — zero — from Social Security in their older age.

Myth No. 1: Social Security is going bankrupt. No, it's not. Even in the unlikely event that nothing changes and the program's entire surplus runs out in 2036, as projected, checks would keep coming. Payroll taxes at current rates would cover 77 percent of all the future benefits promised. That's true for young and old alike, and includes inflation adjustments.

Myth No. 2: I'd be better off if I'd kept my Social Security taxes in my own investment account. Hmmm ­ ­ — you're saying that you'd faithfully put that money aside, every year of your working life, in a mix of stocks and bonds, without ever skipping a year, drawing on your nest egg or selling when the market dropped? Few such paragons exist.

You'd need to invest far more than you probably realize to match the benefits Social Security pays. As an example, take a 65-year-old couple with a single breadwinner who earned the average wage. At retirement, they'd currently get about $2,170 a month, plus inflation adjustments, for life, the Urban Institute reports.

To equal that sum in private savings, they'd need to have about $580,000, says Michael Kitces, director of research for Pinnacle Advisory Group, and the money might last only 30 years. How many average earners are likely to save that much?

Myth No. 3: In 1983, Congress made changes to Social Security to build a fund that would pay for boomers when they retire, so it's not fair to change benefits now. No, Congress did not intend to "advance fund" the boomers, according to a study of the record by Charles Blahous of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. It raised taxes and cut some future benefits to cure an imminent insolvency. The trust fund reserves — now $2.6 trillion — were a by-product of the decisions made. Congress never veered from its vision of intergenerational compact: Working people pay for those who don't, or can't, work anymore. On the flip side, the compact requires older people to make some concessions so that younger people can afford it.

Myth No. 4: You should get out of Social Security the amount you put in. No. Social Security is not an individual investment program (see Myth  No. 2). Your taxes paid for the earlier generation of retirees. Current workers are paying for you. The total amount of your benefit depends on how much you earned, whether you get a spousal benefit, when you retire and how long you live.

Myth No. 5: Social Security helps old people, not younger people like me. Wrong. It provides income support to qualified widows and widowers with young children, as well as orphans. Just as important, it saves young families from the cost of supporting older parents who, without Social Security, wouldn't have enough money to live on. It also provides benefits for workers who become disabled.

My final point … and it isn't a myth, it's a fact. If young people switched their payroll taxes into private accounts, the government would have to borrow $6.5 trillion or more (depending on the details) to keep paying out benefits to current retirees.

That means higher deficits, higher income taxes, further slashes in spending, or all three. It's smarter — and cheaper — to fix the current program and put everyone's mind at rest.