Stopping the Madness

This November, voters will deliver a referendum on Barack Obama and his policies. As every major news organization has reported, it doesn't look good for the Democrats. Given how destructive and coercive their policies are and have been, is this a surprise? I have been following the impending elections very closely, and I think Republicans will control both houses of Congress when the dust settles. While I'd like to post my reasons for the House, the sheer number of races makes it too cumbersome. So, let me give you my reasons why I think the Senate will switch parties come November.
First of all, as it currently stands, Democrats control 57 seats, Republicans 41, and there are two Independents--Joe Lieberman (CT) and Bernard Sanders (Vermont). Both of these senators caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving the Democrats a 59-41 majority. So, for the Republicans to take the Senate, they need a net of ten seats. Sounds like a tall order, doesn't it? Well, it may not be so far-fetched. First of all, let's look at open Republican seats that are in danger. The only state where an open Republican state is somewhat in danger is in Florida, where Charlie Crist has left the Republican party and is running as an independent. However, his Republican opponent, Mark Rubio, is running a good campaign, and in fact the latest poll shows him turning the tide and running up by five points. This poll may be an outlier, but I don't think so, especially since Rubio is using Harry Reid's Hispanic gaffe to his advantage.
The other open Republican seats appear safe. In Ohio, Rob Portman has consistently polled higher than his opponent, Lee Fisher, and the gap continues to widen in Portman's favor. In Kentucky, Rand Paul's RCP average is +6.5%, but recent polls put him up anywhere from 8-10 points. In New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte enjoys commanding poll leads over Paul Hodes, with her RCP average at +8%, and in North Carolina, Richard Burr is running away from Elaine Marshall. His current advantage stands at +7% and is growing.
Now let's look at open Democrat seats. We have Colorado, where Michael Bennett, appointed by Barack Obama, is trailing Ken Buck, a surprise winner in the Republican primary. This is a close race which will become more clear now that the primaries are over. Buck has enjoyed a lead over Bennett in hypothetical match ups--now the match up is real. Keep an eye on this one. In Illinois, Republican Mark Kirk maintains a 2.3% RCP average over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. This is within the margin of error of most polls, but it has been consistent, and the failure of Giannoulias' family bank seems to be hurting him, especially since he used the bank to tout his business acumen. (Oops!) This would be a great pickup for Republicans since it is Barack Obama's old seat. In Nevada, Harry Reid (below, right) is in a statistical tie with Sharron Angle, but that has come down from a double digit lead. Reid spent a lot of money running negative TV ads when Angle had none , but now that she has money in the bank and is running commercials of her own, she has stabilized the race and erased that lead. I feel that Reid's stand on immigration vs. Angle's will hurt him greatly in the general election.
In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak (D) has consistently trailed Pat Toomey, and it appears the gap is widening, as the latest poll puts Toomey up by 6%. In North Dakota, John Hoeven's poll numbers show an advantage anywhere from 43-54% in his bid to replace retiring Democrat Byron Dorgan. In Arkansas, John Boozman is cruising to victory over sitting Democrat senator Blanche Lincoln. He currently enjoys a 25% lead in the polls. In Delaware, Joe Biden's old seat will probably go to Republican Mike Castle over Chris Coons, as Castle is currently polling anywhere from 10-13% ahead.
There are two states where normally Democrats cruise to re-election, but not this year. In Wisconsin, Russ Feingold is locked in a race with Ron Johnson that is statistically a tie, but in which the momentum seems to be going Johnson's way, and in Washington State, Patti Murray is in a similarly close race with Mark Rossi. That brings up two states which, to me anyway, are wild cards. In California, Barbara (call me "Senator") Boxer (top left) is only up 4% in the RCP average against former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, which is within the margin of error of most polls. More tellingly, Fiorina has narrowed the gap consistently over the last few months, despite a bruising primary season of her own. Boxer consistently polls under 50%, which is dangerous for an incumbent. Lastly, in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal leads Linda McMahon by an RCP average of 14%. However, using the Quinnipiac poll as an example, his lead was 33% in March, 25% in May, 20% in June, 17% in July, and currently stands at 10%. McMahon, who once was CEO of WWE and has shown she's not afraid of using her own millions, may be benefiting from Blumenthal's admitted embellishing of his military service. Also, the Republican primary season is now over, and McMahon is now the official candidate, which may help her further. I don't think Republicans will take this seat, but it's not out of the question.
So, here is how I think it will shake out. I think Republicans will take most or all of the currently rated toss ups, plus a couple of open Democrat seats which are definitely going Republican. Specifically, I see Republicans winning in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, North Dakota, Illinois, Nevada, Delaware, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Washington State. These are all open seats that Democrats currently hold, and it would result in a net 10 for the Republicans. Add to this mix the formerly crazy notion that Barbara Boxer could lose her seat to Carly Fiorina and that Linda McMahon might just be able to close the gap in Connecticut, and you see that the chances for a Republican takeover of the Senate is within reach. Wouldn't you just love to see Harry Reid go away?

Insanity is...

It was announced this past week that Christina Romer (left), President Obama's top economic advisor, is leaving her job. This is the same Christina Romer who, when Obama was selling us his snake oil "stimulus", promised that if it passed, unemployment wouldn't exceed 8% and it would have been 7% right now as of this writing. Oops! It actually went over 10%, and is now stuck at 9.5%. Most economists, as I've said before, believe that it is only that low because hundreds of thousands of people have given up looking for work and left the work force. We don't count those people as unemployed for some reason.
In a previous post I linked to a list showing how preposterous some of the "stimulus" spending really was. Collecting ants for study, replacing new sidewalks, and replacing windows in closed visitor centers were just a few of the wasted expenditures. The point is that the massive, almost $1 TRILLION boondoggle didn't target the money correctly. I pointed out that we could have just made up jobs and that we'd have been able to put 7.5 million people to work at $40,000 per year or longer with that money. I also pointed out how ludicrous that would have been--almost as ludicrous as what was passed. How should the "stimulus" have been spent? It should have gone to spur investment, and investment creates jobs. Imagine that! But of course Obama couldn't do that. The left wing would have howled that we were "cutting taxes for the wealthy". They don't want to cut taxes for those who create business and, therefore, jobs. They want to tax them and tax them and tax them some more. That is how Democrats claim they will pay for everything--by taxing the wealthy and making them pay "their fair share". Forget that the wealthy already pay a disproportionally high tax rate and that 49% of Americans pay no tax at all. Logic doesn't enter into Democrats' thinking.
So what do the Democrats want now? You guessed it! Another round of stimulus spending! Don't they get it? Don't they understand that they are bankrupting this country? Under Obama's budget blueprint, the deficit will be almost $20 TRILLION by the year 2020, at which time debt service (i.e. the interest on the deficit) will be the #1 expenditure in our budget. This is, of course, assuming we don't implode like Greece before then. However, chances of that happening grow every day. If that happens, this country will be ruined, millions more will be out of work and will have to turn to government handouts to survive. I believe that is what the Democrats want, and how they plan to control the population. But what I believe isn't relevant. The point is that they want more "stimulus" spending, when the first trillion dollars didn't work at all. I was in business for many years, and there is a saying in business that applies here too. Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So, by this definition, the Democratic party has become the party of the insane..
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are the ones pushing this agenda. They have been in charge of the US purse strings since 2006. Will the American people continue to let them run things, hoping it will be different as well? If they do, then the American electorate is also trying the same thing and expecting different results. That would also make the American electorate, well...insane.

What a waste!! A better solution...

Now that the "stimulus" is starting to be accounted for, we are beginning to see just what a boondoggle this whole sham really was. The money--your tax money--has been spent on everything from replacing windows in closed buildings to collecting ants. That's right. It was a total waste, and very little of it was used to actually stimulate the economy. It's no wonder it didn't work. A group led by Senator Tom Coburn has been looking into this unbelievably huge waste of taxpayer funds and has compiled a very interesting list. Check out where your money has gone:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e1e0624e-d02a-42d4-9dbb-f5b9f21b3572

I've said before that the money should have been spent on things like tax incentives to spur investment--the kinds of things that would have actually created jobs. However, in light of the fact that Democrats are now looking to spend more of your money on more "stimulus", I have a better idea. Let's just make up jobs! Do the math--$900 Billion dollars could put 7.5 MILLION people to work for three years at an average salary of $40000! Actually, since unemployment benefits wouldn't be needed, we could put them to work for longer! We'll task someone with making up job titles. For instance, maybe someone could count the number of commercials on TV (Commercial Counter), and someone else could see just how many potato chips come in each bag depending on brand (Director of Chip Accountability)! These people would spend money, thereby stimulating their local economies, and they would pay taxes as well, thereby bringing some of the money home so Congress can waste it too!
If this sounds ludicrous, that's because it is. This is why government should not get into the business of trying to create jobs--because the list you will access if you click the link above is what you get when you have hundreds of Democrats trying to micro-manage the economy. Let's get it right, cut taxes on capital gains and investment and get this country rolling again. Who cares how mosquitoes breed?