Ann Coulter may have a point

Much has been made about the upcoming Republican nomination for President and the gentlemen involved in the race. Gingrich has the experience that will serve him well if he were nominated, while Paul has the budget sense this nation needs. Santorum is a solid choice for the social conservative, and Romney is a really nice guy. But is that all that we need to know? Of the four mentioned, Santorum and Romney have clearly distanced themselves from the pack and will in all likelihood divide the remaining delegates between them. So what does that mean for the current issue of the budget? Should we be concerned that Romney is all nice guy and won't have the sand to make the hard decisions to make this country fiscally solvent? In her blog from today, Ann Coulter discusses Romney's record as the head of state of North Korea, I mean Massachusetts and how he can help with our national spending problem.

This is a timely article in that it addresses one of the hot buttons for the upcoming election, the national budget. I mentioned in a previous that I lean towards the right and find myself agreeing with more conservative ideals, particularly from a fiscal standpoint, so I was interested to read how one of the Republican candidates for president might be able to get the US towards a balanced budget. Now, I don't think that Coulter means to say that based on his record we will definitely balance the budget, but he has a better track record as governor than Ronald Reagan does, and that is saying something. Coulter is usually addressing the conservative audience when she updates her blog or weighs in on national television programs and that is probably the case here. I have not independently verified her facts, but again she is syndicated nationally and has a good reputation in the journalist community on both the left and the right. While not going so far as to endorse Romney, she is highlighting how he can help with balancing the budget. Since she compares Romney with Santorum and even Reagan as governor of California, and how Romney was able to balance the budget in one of the bluest (most liberal) of states while it was largely controlled by democrats. Not only did he balance the budget, he cut taxes and tripled the size of the rainy day fund. It seems that he did this by increasing user fees for certain services such as hunting licenses, taking the bar, and court filings. He also created tax free holidays that increased spending in the private sector and shrunk the Health and Human Services department from 13 divisions to 4. It seems like all of these acts would translate to a national level and could really help our debt crisis. I am certainly no economist, but these plans do sound like fiscal policies I could get behind. Her assessment of his predicted course of action seems well thought out and very reasonable.

In her blog, Coulter states that we need Lizzie Borden in the White House. While I don't care for the comparison, I agree with her reasoning that based on his record as governor, Romney could very well be the man we need in Washington to work on the budget and rein in government spending. He has worked against a state assembly that didn't hold his views and that demonstrates to me that he can reach across the aisle, so to speak. She convinces me that from a budget standpoint, Romney is a very good choice for the Republican nomination for president.

Editorial critique of an article - The GOP’s gasoline alley

I an article today in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank discusses the Republican efforts to steer blame towards the Obama administration for rising fuel costs across the nation. This is a column labelled left-leaning by the paper and it is clear that Mr. Milbank is directing his comments to those that tend to be more liberal than conservative. I initially began reading this article because like all Americans I have been forced to pay a little more at the pump in recent months, although I have to admit life as it is for me currently dictates that I am not able to change driving habits as much as I might otherwise do. But I was a little disappointed in his explanation of the issues at hand and the lack of actual information he was providing. I know this is supposed to be an editorial Mr. Milbank, but there should be a little substance, don't you think? I agree that the issue of rising gas prices has been highly politicized, but that is certainly nothing new. I remember when H. Ross Perot was running for office in the 90's and he was vilified for his discussion of increasing gas prices to over $2/gallon to help offset government spending. All Mr. Milbank discusses is essentially how ludicrous Republicans are for blaming the current administration for higher prices at the pump. He describes that oil output has increased since 2008, and from what I understand that is the truth, largely due to the increase in active oil leases in the U.S. in that time period. What he fails to mention is that the majority (if not all - I can't find definitive information) of these new oil leases were approved by the Bush administration and have just gone into effect in the last few years.

Mr. Milbank also discusses the hypothetical situation of the U.S. shutting down production totally, and the effect that would have on the price of gas nationwide. Apparently, Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) put this question to Charles Drevna of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and used that as a platform to smear Democratic leadership, accusing them of actually wanting higher gas prices. When pressed, Drevna said that prices could tip $10/gallon at the pump. While I don't believe anyone actually wants higher prices, other than the backbone of OPEC nations, I do find it interesting that the current administration has been reluctant to approve the Keystone Pipeline, a project that would increase our oil producing capability significantly. 

The most disappointing point Mr. Milbank makes, however is the comment that follows, intimating that even if we, the 3rd largest producer of oil at 9.1 million barrels/day, shut down production completely we might not see prices similar to Europe, which range from $3.42-6.48 according to CNN. Not only does that display a lack of basic economic theory, it demonstrates that he is more intent on inflaming the issue than rationally looking for a solution. But he's a columnist, and opinions are his bread and butter. As he says in the closing lines of his piece, "In this fight, the facts don’t matter." Well said sir.