The Occasional Observer

9 comments:

SheaHeyKid said...

As of right now, the polls suggest that Huck will win Iowa and McCain will take NH. That said, I think Mitt will pull off Iowa since he has backing of National Review and Rush has recently been all over Huckabee (negatively), which I think will hurt Huck's #s. NH is tough to call, but I think if Mitt wins IA he will win NH; if he loses IA he will also lose NH.

I think Obama will take Hillary in IA.

To pick up on the previous threads from MB and Fredo about taxes and spending, I say the following:

(1) A MAJOR problem with this country's tax code is no regional consideration for federal tax rates. What appears to be a reasonable income living in the midwest is not even close to sufficient in the Northeast or West coast. I think the disparity in cost of living among various regions around the country has become too significant to ignore in federal tax rates. You need an income that is at least 50-75% higher to live in Northeast or West coast at same level as elsewhere. I'm not suggesting that the federal tax rates should be engineered to equalize everything: it should still remain more expensive to live in Northeast or West coast due to other advantages (proximity to good schools, hospitals, culture, whatever). But some adjustment should be made.

(2) S.S. will have to be addressed in some fashion by both parties in the next 10 years. Whether it's through increased retirement age, reduced benefits, higher taxes, personal savings account options, or some form of all these things is unknown, but status quo will bankrupt the country if S.S. and Medicare are left unchanged.

(3) At a minimum, military spending needs to be revisited. If not cut, it certainly needs to be re-apportioned, since at present it's not even going to things I consider basic: soldier salaries, VA benefits, proper armor on vehicles, etc. Military budget is still designed around big standing armies for state-sponsored battles. While this is still a risk with China and perhaps a few other countries, more likely is what we have seen recently: localized engagements with small bands of terrorists/insurgents.

I may be wrong on this, but I still think a FiCon with suitable financial creds (Mitt, Bloomberg as independent) could make a legit run by selling a believable plan for fixing entitlement programs and taxes. Of course, all politicians consider this the 3rd rail and certainly don't want to touch it before being elected. Polls consistently show that Iraq and economy are top two issues, so I think any Republican who puts together good plans on these points has a shot.

1/03/2008 8:18 AM

SheaHeyKid said...

One other point: if both Mitt and Hillary lose IA and NH, I think there is a lot to the idea that candidates are starting public campaigns too early. Newt was suggesting voter fatigue with candidates who were in their faces for too long, and late-joining candidates would have an edge. I think joining late has two advantages, if timed properly. First, you are the fresh face, and a lot of people rally around that early burst of excitement. Second, the less time you are in the race, the less time the media and your opponents can dig up dirt or pick apart your record.

It seems like a well-funded candidate with energy (i.e., not Fred) would do well to have privately started to build support in mid-to-late '06, but not announced publicly until summer '07, or perhaps even early Fall as Newt suggested.

1/03/2008 8:25 AM

Fredo said...

Link please! I haven't seen a poll describing Iraq as the top issue in months. Now that we're winning, a majority still seem to want the troops home now, but the urgency has gone out of their movement. If you've seen a poll showing Iraq as a top issue in the past month, please point me there.

As to your tax policy points:

(1) Not indexing the income thresholds for geographic regions is, as you say, horrendously unfair.

Reform to correct this problem will never, ever happen. Never. Ever.

30 states with 2 Senators each stand to lose in the deal. 60 votes would be required in the Senate to make such a change happen.

The fair tax or flat tax is certainly a more likely (while still a longshot) solution for helping Northeasterners. But even with both of those solutions, the prebate (fair tax) and exempted income thresholds (flat tax) will still be more favorable to those in low cost areas.

(2) S.S. will be addressed in some fashion in the next 10 years out of necessity. Whether we rethink it entirely to reduce the commitments of the federal government, or merely make the minimum changes necessary to keep the program solvent will be the political dividing line.

The opportunity to reform Medicare will happen sooner, as health care will be a front burner issue for the next President in the beginning of his term. If the GOP wins, the President should press forward with a free market reform of the health care system that will help contain costs, and make private insurance, self-insurance, and government programs all cheaper. If the marketplace improves, government assistance should be able to be reduced proportionately.

(3) Military spending as a % of GDP is still below the Cold War level. Does that make sense in a time of war? Are we in a time of war? Is our military budget inflated due to rampant waste and corruption? Should our commitment to Marine Expeditionary-type forces be ramped up, and traditional Army mechanized infantry units ramped down?

No. Yes. Possibly. Yes.

1/03/2008 8:37 AM

SheaHeyKid said...

Here's a link from WSJ, indicating that if you have to pick a single issue (that is, you can't lump health care AND economy/jobs together), then War in Iraq is still #1.

WSJ

Here's another one from Kaiser.

Here's a story on a Gallup poll.

All polls I've seen where people have to pick one issue still has Iraq as clear #1. If you lump health care w/economy to make a "domestic" issue, then that is #1.

I agree with you that regional indexing of federal tax rate will never happen. Flat tax or national sales tax is more likely in our lifetime.

1/03/2008 9:31 AM

Fredo said...

Rasmussen, whom I trust the most, has a much more detailed poll of issue priority that they perform monthly.

Check it out here:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/trust_importance_on_issues

Iraq in like 6th on the list of important issues. Don't know why, although I'd guess it has to do with their methodology: Rasmussen is the only one who breaks out Iraq from Nat'l Security/GWOT. What that means is that everyone who supports Iraq as part of the GWOT prioritizes the GWOT, while those who view Iraq as some Bushian monstrosity prioritize Iraq on its own. I think this gives a better indication of where the electorate sits.

1/03/2008 10:01 AM

SheaHeyKid said...

I couldn't get through on that link but found a Nov. '07 poll on rasmussen that listed ethics/corruption as #1, economy as #2, GWOT as #3, and health care as #4. If this holds, I still think Mitt is best candidate for Repubs. The best candidate from both parties for ethics is McCain (only one who is truly trusted), but beyond that I think Mitt matches up well. He has no skeletons in his closet so no ethics problems (could be a question with Huck and Rudy); he clearly can do economy (took a deficit in MA and turned it into a surplus by cutting spending, lowering taxes; good business success); and he is the ONLY candidate who has ever actually done anything in the field of health care (could be pro or con, depending on who picks apart his plan, but at least he actually brokered a deal that was market-based and could serve as a starting point model).

I think if Rush continues to attack Huck, I don't see how he could win nomination since at that point NR and Drudge will support Mitt, Rush is for Thompson or Mitt, and WSJ will likely go Mitt or Rudy (unless Bloomberg runs).

1/03/2008 10:22 AM

Fredo said...

sorry bout that.

Link is here.

1/03/2008 10:54 AM

Fredo said...

Ethics will be an issue for both Rudy and Huck, and a strength for both Mitt and McCain. Of course, if the Dem candidate is Hillary, that neutralizes the issue as a potential liability for Rudy & Huck, though there is still an opportunity cost.

Obama probably has the most strength of the Dems in the "good government" category.

1/03/2008 12:23 PM

Fredo said...

Mitt will have the entire "establishment" punditocracy behind him once Fred's gone and the Rudy folks start getting scared of Huck. McCain getting a stranglehold on the early states and some big mo' (coupled with better electability numbers) might be the only thing that stretches it out and keeps Mitt from consolidating control of the race.

1/03/2008 12:43 PM