We’re counting on you, Carolina. You can do it!

You are very much in our mind.

Go Mike!

Fredo8 has released Senator Thompson’s plan for reducing Federal government spending

In 2007, the federal government’s spending rose to an astounding $2.8 trillion– the equivalent of $22,000 per household. Growth in federal government spending, however, rarely translates into better services for the American people. Solutions for many public policy problems are best found in the private sector, and then at the State and local level–not in Washington, DC

Unfortunately, the plan reveals a poor grasp of the problem, and no real solutions to runaway Federal spending. Here are a few examples (in no particular order).

Fred sez:

“Medicaid costs have also been increasing dramatically. Providing tax credits to Medicaid-eligible individuals and families to allow them to purchase private insurance will increase the options for low-income individuals, expand personal choice, and should reduce costs as well.”

Medicaid is a state administered welfare program, the primary eligibility requirement is poverty. A tax credit in this instance would be useless, as the intended beneficiary is not on the tax rolls. Unless, Fred is proposing a refundable tax credit, in which case he is actually proposing a new spending program, completely based upon some expected cost savings.

Fred sez:

“Expand Means-testing of Medicare. Requiring wealthier seniors to pay more through higher premiums, increased co-pays, and higher deductibles is a reasonable and equitable approach that would go a long way to reducing Medicare costs.”

Means testing? Penalizing the wealthy? Is Fred taking a page out of the Dem playbook?

Fred sez:

“Providing Voluntary Personal Retirement “Add-On” Accounts to Supplement Benefits. These accounts would act like a private-sector employer 401 (k) plan and provide government matching funds for every contribution made by the participant.”

Since this is a “supplemental benefit”, the matching contribution represents a massive new spending program, and does nothing but add to the unfunded liability.

Fred sez:

“Indexing the Social Security Benefit Formula for Prices, Not Wages. This action would go a long way toward resolving the impending bankruptcy of Social Security while ensuring fairness by making sure future retirees receive the same amount as current retirees in real terms.”

This is actually a great idea. But, it will be portrayed by political opponents as a reduction in benefits.

Fred sez:

“Government also does a poor job of prioritizing the areas that do require regulation, as it tends to respond to political demands, or the perceived need, rather than the actual need. Therefore, we must require cost-benefit analysis of all significant government regulations and proposed legislation, using modern economic and scientific analyses.”

Cost benefit analysis? No. This is nothing but bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Actually, this could be a good issue for him if he could boil it down to meaningful language that communicates the problem. Rather, Fred should say that to make government accountable to the people, then government agencies and entities will be required to be accountable under the same system of regulation as private industry. OSHA, ERISA, ADA, and SOX, to name just a few of the more onerous ones.

But, don’t just take my word for it. Read it all, and decide for yourselves.

Our Opinion
Nashua Telegraph 11/25/1975
Mr. Reagan’s Record
Ronald Reagan, or so the ultraconservative legend runs, brought the yeasty state of California to the brink of perfection during his two terms as governor.

Since his tenure as governor constitutes his first and only governmental service and experience, Mr. Reagan and his flacks make much of it; too much, in fact.

When he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination last week, Mr. Reagan performed the obligatory “mess in Washington” routine and promised to clean it up tidily, using the techniques he employed as governor of California to “manage government more efficiently.” “We found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the federal level.” So much for the rhetoric. Now for the record:
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state budget soared from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion — a more than 100 per cent increase.

While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state sales tax was increased from 4 per cent to 6 per cent, the corporate income tax was increased from 5.5 per cent to 9 per cent, and the top personal income tax was increased from 7 per cent to 11 per cent.

While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the number of state employees increased by 5.7 per cent. This is the mart who promises to cut armies of employees off the federal payroll, who promises to balance the budget, who promises to begin paying off the national debt and who, to top his program of conservative delights, promises to cut taxes to boot.

Some people may be charmed by Ronald Reagan’s pitch; some people may even be persuaded, but the difference between promises and performance, between the Reagan rhetoric and the Reagan record is a difference that should be made plain to the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation.

Several of my friends on the right have questioned the conservative bona fides of Mike Huckabee. I thought this editorial from Reagan’s first run for the nomination against incumbent Gerald Ford was interesting. The Republican establishment was clearly against Reagan, and his run for the 76 nomination was unsuccessful.

Mike Huckabee is no Ronald Reagan. But, a fair comparison of the of the governance by both the Reagan administration in California, and the Huckabee administration in Arkansas shows some striking fiscal simlarities.

If Mike Hukcabee wants to win this election, he needs to serious up on National Security issues, speak clearly on foreign policy matters, and outline his vision for carrying forward the war on terror.

Fiscal conservatism is important. Social conservatism is important. But neither of them mean much at all without national security.

also at Nuke’s

Bill Kristol writing in the NY Times (yeah, I know how odd that looks), with his take on last night’s GOP forum…

…the most interesting moment in Saturday night’s Republican debate at St. Anselm College was when the candidates were asked what arguments they would make if they found themselves running against Obama in the general election.

The best answer came, not surprisingly, from the best Republican campaigner so far — Mike Huckabee. He began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind Republicans that these contrasts have been central to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and comfortably make the socially conservative case in an electorally advantageous way.

Huckabee went on to pay tribute to Obama for his ability “to touch at the core of something Americans want” in seeming to move beyond partisanship. And, he added, Senator Obama is “a likable person who has excited people about wanting to vote who have not voted in the past.” Huckabee was of course aware that in praising Obama he was recommending himself.

I was watching the debate at the home of a savvy, moderately conservative New Hampshire Republican. It was at this moment that he turned to me and said: “You know, I’ve been a huge skeptic about Huckabee. I’m still not voting for him Tuesday. But I’ve got to say — I like him. And I wonder — could he be our strongest nominee?”

He could be. After the last two elections, featuring the well-born George Bush and Al Gore and John Kerry, Americans — even Republicans! — are ready for a likable regular guy. Huckabee seems to be that. He came up from modest origins. He served as governor of Arkansas for more than a decade. He fought a successful battle against being overweight. These may not be utterly compelling qualifications for the presidency. I’m certainly not ready to sign up.

Still, as the conservative writer Michelle Malkin put it, “For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification.” And they speak to younger voters who are not yet committed to the G.O.P. In Iowa, Huckabee did something like what Obama did on the Democratic side, albeit on a smaller scale. He drew new voters to the caucuses. And he defeated Mitt Romney by almost two to one, and John McCain by better than four to one, among voters under 45.

I admit that I had not seen that comment by Ms. Malkin. In fact, as a Huckabee supporter, it has become almost painful, and frustrating to surf over to most any of the A-list blogs lately. HDS has infected them to the point that I would rather not even read their pages anymore. Their threats to sit out the election, or even support the donk candidate is not only not divisive, but to me, infuriating. If Huck is the straw that breaks it for them, then their opinions are based less on fact, and more on fear.

One thing that I noticed last night was the fact that all five candidates are worthy. I can support whomever gets the nod, but for me, Huck’s the guy.