Former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has endorsed Gov. Jon Huntsman for President.

Ridge said Thursday that Huntsman’s experience as a governor, businessman and ambassador make him “uniquely qualified to lead America to a more secure, prosperous and competitive future. He has the experience we need to rebuild our nation’s economic foundation and reduce our crushing debt.

“I know Jon to be a serious, insightful leader who will bring together people from across the political spectrum to solve the many challenges we face, both at home and around the world.”

I doubt this matters much, but maybe it can help kick up some McCain support in New Hampshire for the failing Huntsman campaign.

PPP (D) Missouri 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 47% {45%} [44%] (47%)
• Barack Obama 43% {43%} [43%] (41%)

• Rick Perry 47%
• Barack Obama 45%

• Barack Obama 47% {46%} [44%] (44%)
• Newt Gingrich 45% {44%} [44%] (45%)

• Barack Obama 47%
• Michele Bachmann 43%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 50% of the vote in Missouri. In 2004, George W. Bush received 53% of the vote in MO.

(more…)

PPP (D) Favorability Survey of Ex-Presidents

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• John F. Kennedy 74% / 15% {+59%}
• Ronald Reagan 60% / 30% {+30%}
• Bill Clinton 62% / 34% {+28%}
• Gerald Ford 45% / 26% {+19%}
• George H.W. Bush 53% / 35% {+18%}
• Jimmy Carter 45% / 43% {+2%}
• Lyndon Johnson 36% / 39% {-3%}
• George W. Bush 41% / 51% {-10%}
• Richard Nixon 19% / 62% {-43%}

(more…)

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 46% (46%) {43%} [46%] (49%)
• Michele Bachmann 33% (38%) {39%} [39%] (27%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted September 12-13, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted August 27-28, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 8-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the polls conducted May 1-14, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Quinnipiac Virginia 2012 Senatorial Survey

• George Allen 45% (42%)
• Tim Kaine 44% (43%)

Among Independents

• Tim Kaine 42% (38%)
• George Allen 40% (46%)

Among Men

• George Allen 51% (47%)
• Tim Kaine 41% (40%)

Among Women

• Tim Kaine 47% (45%)
• George Allen 39% (37%)

Survey of 1,368 registered voters was conducted September 7-12, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 2.7 percentage points among all registered voters; +/- 4 percentage points among GOP primary voters. Results from the poll conducted June 21-27, 2011 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Today, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com had an interesting article (not written by Silver himself) about how the Tea Party may influence, and even decide, the Republican nominee:

In The Party Decides, the political scientists Martin Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller argue that one thing is likely to make political parties nominate a centrist: losing. Specifically, the longer a party is out of power—that is, the more presidential elections it has lost in a row—the more likely it will nominate a moderate candidate. Parties that have been out of the White House for only a short time are more willing to nominate a candidate closer to the ideological pole.

…For example, in 1984 and again in 2004 the Democratic Party had been out of office for only one term. The party nominated Walter Mondale and John Kerry, respectively. But in 1992, having been out of office for 12 years, they nominated Bill Clinton, who was probably more centrist than Mr. Mondale or Mr. Kerry.

Of course, this evidence hardly portends that Rick Perry will win and Mitt Romney will lose. But it does suggest that 2012 could be a year in which the GOP does, to quote Mr. Cohen and colleagues, “test the limits of voter tolerance” by nominating a candidate like Mr. Perry.

Judging by the some of the public representations of the mood of the party grassroots – callers into prominent talk radio programs, audience reactions at the candidate debates, and even some of the commenters on this site – most Republicans do seem to favor nominating a candidate of the more unabashedly conservative variety this time around.

Indeed, other pundits, like our own DaveG, have postulated that concerns about electability will take a back seat to the sheer enthusiasm and passion of the base, which, in the event of a loss next year, would pave the way for a more mainstream nominee – someone like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, or Mitch Daniels – in 2016, all of which would support John Sides’ contention.

Today, the Michigan legislature took another step forward in the process to officially set their GOP primary on February 28, alongside Arizona. And so our debate/primary calendar looks like this:

Did I miss an event? Let me know in the comments. Please note that this calendar contains only the major Republican debates, not the myriad of “forums” that various groups sponsor throughout the primary season.

A quick reminder on primary and caucus dates: the South Carolina Republican Party chairman, Chad Connelly, has sole authority over the date of that state’s first in the South primary. He has announced that he will wait and see what other states do with their primary dates before officially moving off of February 28th. It is widely expected that he will move the SC primary back to either February 14 or 21. Once SC moves up, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Iowa will most likely move up as well.

In Florida, a committee appointed by the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, and the Governor will choose the date of the Florida primary. They have indicated that they want Florida to be the fifth state in the process regardless of what date that lands them on. The group was talking about March 1, 2, or 3 before Arizona and Michigan jumped ahead of them — none of which fall on a Tuesday. So it is incredibly difficult to guess with any level of certainty what day Florida will fall on. All we know is that it will be before February 28th.

RNC rules say that states must choose their primary or caucus dates no later than October 1, so theoretically we should know the final calendar in the next 15 days. However, RNC rules haven’t really meant much thus far in the process, so who knows how long this game will be played.

Here’s an interesting item in the blogosphere this afternoon concerning the Congressional Debt Panel and its deliberations:

A bipartisan group of 36 senators urged the joint committee on deficit reduction Thursday to exceed its legal mandate and cut the deficit by as much as $4 trillion by embracing tax reform and entitlement cuts.

The group was led by Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Mark Warner (Va.), members of the Gang of Six, a group of senators who worked for months on deficit reduction ideas and unveiled a similar proposal in the days just before Congress accepted the debt deal with much more modest goals early in August.

The group’s message to the panel, dubbed the “supercommittee,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D): “Be brave, be bold, go big.”

Let’s hope this leads to something.  Read the full story here.

Time Magazine has an interview and cover story on Rick Perry which provides an interesting insight into the Presidential hopeful. Here’s a few excerpts:

TIME: Now that you’ve been in the race for while, do you feel pressure to temper some of your rhetoric, like calling the Obama administration socialist?
PERRY: No, I still believe they are socialist. Their policies prove that almost daily. Look, when all the answers emanate from Washington D.C., one size fits all, whether it’s education policy or whether it’s healthcare policy, that is, on its face, socialism.

TIME: But you know there’s concern that you use controversial rhetoric, like calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.”
PERRY: There may be someone who is an established Republican who circulates in the cocktail circuit that would find some of my rhetoric to be inflammatory or what have you, but I’m really talking to the American citizen out there. I think American citizens are just tired of this political correctness and politicians who are tiptoeing around important issues. They want a decisive leader. I’m comfortable that the rhetoric I have used was both descriptive and spot on. Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme has been used for years. I don’t think people should be surprised that terminology would be used.

No one gets confused about the point I was making, that we have a system that is now broken. We need to make sure that those on Social Security today — and those approaching it — know without a doubt it will be in place. It will not go away. We’ll have a transitional period for those in mid-career as they’re planning for their retirement. And our young people should be given some options. I don’t know what all of those options need to be yet, but they know instinctively that the program that is there today is not going to be there for them unless there are changes made.

I don’t get particularly concerned that I need to back off from my factual statement that Social Security, as it is structured today, is broken. If you want to call it a Ponzi scheme, if you want to say it’s a criminal enterprise, if you just want to say it’s broken –they all get to the same point. We need, as a country, to have an adult conversation. Don’t try to scare the senior citizens and those who are on Social Security that it’s somehow going to go away with the mean, old heartless Republican.

TIME: How would you change Social Security? Would you consider private accounts or raising the retirement age?
PERRY: We are having a national discussion now about a lot of different options: raising the [retirement] age, doing it in a structured way for the younger worker, some options from the standpoint of private accounts — all of those ought to be on the table. The idea that we’re going to write a Social Security reform plan today is a bit of a stretch from my perspective. I have accomplished one of the things that I wanted to do by talking about it. Americans are paying attention.

Check out the full piece for some more insight into the mind of Rick Perry.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant / Pundit League and Tweets far too often.

The day prior to the MSNBC debate, Rick Perry held a 6-point lead over Mitt Romney on the trading boards. The day after the CNN debate, Romney found himself six points ahead of Perry – a twelve point swing in one week. There is little doubt that Perry injured himself at the two debates he’s participated in thus far – the only question is how badly. Since the second debate debacle, Perry has regained his footing and closed the gap to three points. Romney is pushing close to his own record high of 40.4 points, and the two front runners now combine for 77% of the total:

Only candidates who have announced an official candidacy or who have greater than a 3% chance at the nomination are included.

The election of a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic congressional district in New York City spells it all out for Barack Obama in 2012, i.e., D-E-F-E-A-T.

There are always many subfactors in a special election such as this one, but there is only one overriding factor that could account for the decisive outcome, the unpopularity of the president. NY-9 has not elected a Republican congressman since 1920. It has 3-1 registration favoring the Democrats. 40% of its Brooklyn and Queens population are Jewish. The Democatic nominee was an Orthodox Jew, a state legislator, and a member of a respected local political family. His opponent was a 70 year-old Roman Catholic who had previously not held any political office. Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer had represented most of this district for 18 years before becoming a senator, The incumbent, Anthony Weiner, had resigned because of a scandal, but had been a Schumer staffer and was his hand-picked successor. Schumer is (I should say “was”) the most powerful New York politician today. Until last night, it was unimaginable that a Republican could win this seat.

Also, last night in a Nevada special election, the Republican won a landslide victory to replace a Republican congressman who had been appointed to the U.S. senate when a recent vacancy occurred. That district was Republican, but margin of victory reflected the fact that local Democrats didn’t even try to win.

Democratic incumbents across the nation, even those in “safe” districts and “safe” states, will now face a very sober fact this morning, to wit, they face an even more disastrous election next year than even 2010 was. If NY-9 can vote 54-46 for an unknown Republican, no house or senate seat is truly “safe” in 2012.

The problem for the Democrats is Barack Obama. It was not only his economic policies which provoked the result in NY-9, it was Mr. Obama’s foreign policy. Jewish voters overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama’s election in 2008, but his unambiguous hostility to America’s historic alliance with Israel has taken a toll on his support. As Israel becomes increasingly isolated in the midst of the current upheaval in the Middle East, its alliance with the U.S. becomes more and more important. Even many liberal Jewish voters who support Mr. Obama’s domestic policies are growing apprehensive about his foreign policy.

Most importantly, in addition to Democratic incumbents and challengers who intend to campaign next year, there is the vital group of Democratic strategists, campaigners, and consultants whose very well-being requires Democratic victories next year. These men and women must now face the implacable reality that the top of their ticket next year might lead to political disaster.

And how big might that disaster be? Recent surveys of 2012 gubernatorial, senate and house races by the highly-respected Rothenberg Political Report (full disclosure: I contributed to this publication for 20 years) paints a bleak picture for Democrats, especially in gubernatorial and senate races. After NY-9, the picture becomes bleaker for U.S. house races as well.

In 2009, I wrote on these pages that President Obama’s policies would lead to huge losses in 2010. The final results were quite close to my predictions. Now in 2011, I will suggest that if Barack Obama runs for re-election, and current economic conditions continue, the 2012 elections will lead to an even greater majority for Republicans in the house, possibly 60 GOP senators or more, and a new resident in the White House. The Democratic Party, furthermore, will cease to function as we now know it, suffering the kind of massive rejection that one of the major parties suffered in Canada a few years ago. (It did eventually recover.)

There was a Democrat who won big in New York last night, however. That is Governor Andrew Cuomo. Having initiated already successful conservative policies to turn things around in the Empire State, he is now the most powerful and popular Democratic politician in the state, and should Mr. Obama decide not to run next year, a very attractive possible “fresh face” nominee for a party desperately needing new blood and good news.

_____________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.

Bloomberg National Republican Primary

• Perry – 26%
• Romney – 22%
• Bachmann – 9%
• Palin – 8%
• Paul – 8%
• Cain – 4%
• Gingrich – 4%
• Santorum – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%

General Election Matchups

Among Adults:

• Obama – 48%
• Romney – 43%

• Obama – 49%
• Perry – 40%

Among Likely Voters:

• Romney – 48%
• Obama – 45%

(No numbers were included for the Obama/Perry race among likely voters.)

Survey of 205 registered Republicans and 997 adults was conducted Sept 9-12.

This is, of course, Perry’s smallest lead over Romney since entering the race.

Field Poll California Republican Primary

• Romney – 28%
• Perry – 20%
• Palin – 8%
• Gingrich – 7%
• Paul – 7%
• Bachmann – 6%
• Cain – 4%
• Huntsman – 2%
• Santorum – 1%

Favorability Ratings Among Republicans

• Romney – 54/27
• Perry – 50/19
• Bachmann – 35/35
• Palin – 35/55
• Gingrich – 34/45
• Paul – 26/42
• Cain – 25/15
• Santorum – 17/19
• Huntsman – 15/22

Favorability Ratings Among General Election Population

• Romney – 34/40
• Perry – 25/46
• Bachmann – 19/53
• Palin – 18/74
• Gingrich – 19/58
• Paul – 22/47
• Cain – 14/28
• Santorum – 10/32
• Huntsman – 14/28

General Election Matchups

• Obama – 51%
• Romney – 38%

• Obama – 54%
• Perry – 35%

Survey of 333 likely GOP primary voters (+/-5.6%) and 1,001 registered voters (+/-3.2%) was conducted September 1-12.

Insider Advantage Florida Republican Primary

• Perry – 29%
• Romney – 20%
• Gingrich – 9%
• Bachmann – 8%
• Cain – 6%
• Paul – 5%
• Santorum – 2%
• Huntsman – 1%

Survey of 456 registered voters was conducted Sept 13 and has a margin of error of +/-4.5%.

The first of many polls this morning, from the swing state of Virginia via Quinnipiac:

• Perry – 25%
• Romney – 19%
• Paul – 8%
• Palin – 7%
• Cain – 6%
• Bachmann – 5%
• Gingrich – 4%
• Santorum- 2%
• Huntsman – 1%

General Election Matchups

• Romney – 44%
• Obama – 42%

• Obama – 44%
• Perry – 42%

• Obama – 48%
• Bachmann – 37%

• Obama – 50%
• Palin – 35%

Survey of 591 likely primary voters (+/-4%) and 1,368 registered general election voters (+/-2.7%) was conducted Sept 7-12.

Also in this poll: Governor (and probable Veep shortlister) Bob McDonnell enjoys the highest approval ratings of any Governor in the country at 61/21, tied with Andrew Cuomo (D – NY).

It is with sadness that I announce to the R42012 community that former Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming has died at his ranch near Big Horn, Wyoming.  Senator Wallop was part of the group of libertarian-leaning conservative western state Republicans elected to the US Senate during the 1970′s who paved the way for the Reagan Revolution and who served as principal advocates for Reagan’s programs in Congress.  I had the honor of knowing Senator Wallop and was a great admirer of his intellect and devotion to principal, all the while maintaining that delightful sense of Western friendliness and informality.  Wallop was one of the early advocates of a high leverage space-based ballistic missile defense system that became the foundation of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983.  He was a major advocate for Reagan’s economic and tax reform agenda.  In his successful campaign for the Senate in 1976, running against the incumbent Senator Gale McGee, Wallop’s campaign produced one of the most memorable TV commercials of that era, featuring a cowboy on a horse toting an outhouse.  The commercial was intended to dramatize the absurd demands of EPA regulations on Wyoming ranchers.  Wallop was a legend of the American West and a staunch advocate of individual freedom.  Also of note:  Wallop served as co-chairman (along with Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger) of Steve Forbes’ presidential campaign in 1996.

Read the obit from Politico here.  Read a collection of Malcolm Wallop quotes here.

House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan, who has been issuing policy videos to explain parts of the Path to Prosperity. The first one was about the deficit, the second about Medicare, and this new one is about tax reform:

Here’s a link to the House Budget website that also has a useful Q&A section that helpfully rebukes some of the standard Democratic talking points.

So Governor Perry, Governor Romney, are you looking for a wickedly smart, young, party-unifying, easily crushes Joe Biden in a debate, swing-state choice for Vice President? This author would strongly suggest you look at the Gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reuters/Ipsos 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 49% (48%)
• Mitt Romney 43% (40%)

• Barack Obama 49%
• Ron Paul 42%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Rick Perry 42%

• Barack Obama 51% (50%)
• Jon Huntsman 37% (30%)

• Barack Obama 54% (53%)
• Michele Bachmann 36% (33%)

Survey of 932 registered voters was conducted September 8-12, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 48% (44%) Democrat; 39% (40%) Republican.  Results from the poll conducted May 5-9, 2011 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Amidst all the justifiable Republican excitement over last night’s two special elections, pundits across the political spectrum are trying to interpret what the wins of Congressmen Elect Turner and Amodei may mean for the 2012 election. Republicans must be feeling a certain amount of glee–and Democrats a certain amount of panic–at the results. I do think there are some modest lessons we can draw from last night. Obama has got to be concerned about catastrophically losing the white vote, and in particular the white Jewish vote. The president’s reelection campaign  should also be at least a little concerned about Nevada, and can’t take much solace in the fact that a moderate state senator and former party chairman beat the elected state treasurer. Harry Reid’s loss looks increasingly less like a statewide trend-setter, and more candidate-driven. I think Shelley Berkley probably has more to worry about based on last night’s Nevada results–the margin of victory in particular–than does the Obama campaign, but it is certainly not a good sign.

Nevertheless, we need to be very cautious about over-interpreting special election results. Remember that, in 2009-2010, the three special elections Republicans most vigorously contested–NY-20, NY-23 and PA-12–were all losses. The only Republican wins were in heavily Democratic LA-02 (technically a run-off in late 2008, against a scandal-plagued incumbent) and HI-01 (a divided Democrat field). Djou and Cao–as well as Democratic special election winner Scott Murphy– lost in the general election. This bad win-loss record didn’t stop Republicans from nearly running the tables in 2010. Additionally, Republicans lost the most conservative district in New York earlier in the year after Chris Lee’s resignation. There are trends in all of these New York races to be sure. Every losing candidate endorsed by the major party– Tedesco, Scozzafava, Corwin and Weprin–was a member of the NY state assembly, for example, and third party bids in NY-23, NY-26 and NY-09 were seemingly non-trivial factors. But we should be cautious about trying to build a robust understanding of 2012 based on these races. Special elections are notoriously tricky to interpret, and often hinge on local factors. Obviously, Republicans have got to be feeling better than Democrats about the political trajectory of things right now. But let’s not get cocky just because we won a seat we haven’t won since the 1920s. The NY-23 special election victory of Bill Owens, I believe, led Democrats to attempt to prop up a whole host of fake tea party candidates, in the hope of drawing Republican votes away from the eventual nominee (see, for example, the Pat Meehan and John Runyan races). Outside of New York, these efforts proved unsuccessful. Republicans should avoid drawing some grand lesson from NY-09, and trying to project it over the rest of the country.

There is one lesson we can, however, draw from the special elections; the importance of party unity in a general election. In both NV-02 and NY-09, the local parties pulled together behind one candidate, and those who didn’t get the party nod avoided third party bids (not always a given in New York special elections). As a result, Republicans have won a seat once thought out of reach, and defeated one of Democrats’ top-tier elected officials in a swing state. Hopefully, the special election victories will, at least for a moment, remind us that our own internal party squabbles are nothing compared to the real 2012 electoral battle, our attempt to remove Barack Obama from the presidency. These weren’t Romney victories or Perry victories, but Republican victories, and we need to be prepared to rally around our nominee–whoever that might be–to win a much bigger Republican victory in November 2012.

PPP (D) 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Rick Perry 31%
• Mitt Romney 18%
• Ron Paul 11%
• Newt Gingrich 10%
• Michele Bachmann 9%
• Herman Cain 8%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Jon Huntsman 2%

If the Republican Presidential race came down to just Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

• Rick Perry 49%
• Mitt Romney 37%

(more…)

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal.

As we all know, the Romney/Perry/Pundit affair of the last ten days has focused on Social Security. As a member of the Debt-Paying Generation who doubts I will never get back what the government is forcing me to pay in to the program, I would like to take a few moments to get away from the politics of the discussion. The rhetoric aside, there are a number of myths that must be proven wrong if the American people are to make an educated choice in the forthcoming GOP primaries.

1. The program’s worker-to-recipient ratio is solid for some time.

• Recent Labor Department data shows that while we have over two workers per Social Security recipient, we only have 1.75 private sector workers per recipient. This is important to note since, as the number of public employees grows under both parties, and thus private-sector dollars are recycled from the IRS and Treasury to workers and back again, this disparity will only get worse.

2. We can, as Senate Majority Leader Reid says, wait until the 2030s to tweak Social Security.

• As James Agresti of Just Facts shows, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has underestimated the expected long-term solvency of the trust fund for a decade now. Additionally, about a month after Kavon co-authored an op-ed on Daily Caller talking about the tax implications of not reforming Social Security and Medicare, the official SSA estimate of the time until the trust fund is unable to fully fund promised benefits was brought from 2037 to 2036.

3. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.

• Social Security falls under the Securities & Exchange Commission’s (SEC) definition of a Ponzi scheme. And while the author of the linked piece says the intent to defraud may not exist with Social Security, I would argue that the way the program was set up for failure by Congress while lying about the program’s solvency, and therefore kicking the proverbial can down the road for the sake of re-election, would put anyone else in jail for fraud. Members of Congress, of course, simply get re-elected for doing this.

4. Related, and to take from a USA TODAY editorial, the defense that government legitimacy makes accusations of Ponzi scheme irrelevant.

• I think this analogy works fairly well in response: “[USA TODAY’S first point fails: a government declaration of legality no more renders a Ponzi scheme a legitimate mode of investment than it renders slavery a legitimate mode of employment.”

• Additionally, in 1996 (h/t to the above link), Paul Krugman said the following about Social Security:

“Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).”

5. Social Security doesn’t impact the national debt.

• In an interview published on Race42012 earlier this year, Mr. Agresti put this myth to rest based upon data he has gathered:

Social Security absolutely has an impact on the national debt. As I wrote [in 2001]…“Social Security in its current form is a tool that politicians can use to drive our country into debt without the public knowing about it. Between 2001 and 2010, the Social Security program is projected to collect 5,502 billion dollars in taxes and spend 4,726 billion dollars on benefits and administrative overhead. This leaves $776 billion in surpluses. If things remain as they are, the law requires that all of this money be loaned to the federal government. Once this money is in the hands of the federal government, it is up for grabs.”

I wrote this back in 2001, and it came to pass just as explained, except for the obvious fact that the surplus was not as great as projected. By law, Social Security surpluses must be loaned to the federal government. Hence, as long as the federal budget is in deficit, any such surpluses become a part of the national debt. This system imposes a double penalty on many taxpayers. For the past few decades, workers have paid more in Social Security taxes than what was needed to pay Social Security benefits. The resultant surpluses were then loaned to the federal government, which, in turn, spent this money. Now that Social Security is paying more in benefits than it collects in taxes, the federal government must pay back the money that it borrowed from Social Security. The irony is that many of the same taxpayers who paid these “surplus” Social Security taxes that were loaned to the federal government are now stuck with the bill of paying back this money to the Social Security program.

On top of this, because of the tax cut/stimulus agreement brokered by President Obama and the Republicans in December…[T]his law decreases the Social Security payroll tax during 2011 by two percentage points and requires that monies equivalent to the decreased payroll taxes be transferred to the Social Security program from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. Since the general fund is in serious deficit, this money transferred to Social Security must be borrowed, and thus, it adds directly to the national debt.

Unfortunately, in the final analysis, neither Perry nor Romney should earn respect from conservatives for their respective positions on Social Security. To paraphrase Erick Erickson, Romney is suddenly pretending that a) the principled conservative position is to pander to seniors, and b) Social Security needs to be defended as successful and just needs a few tweaks. While tweaking could have been enough 20 years ago— back then, we could have made a few tweaks that would have had significant impacts now, as the long-known demographics catch up to us— it’s certainly not now. 20 years ago we were a few miles into a 100-mile drive, and a few degrees of change would have significantly altered the final destination. A few degrees of change at mile 96 do little to alter the final destination.

On the flip side, while Perry is using the right aggressive language, his recent USA TODAY op-ed held nothing but hard truth platitudes. No solutions, no attempts to raise the discussion beyond “Social Security is a badly-run program.” Sorry, governor- platitudes are worse than tweaks. As inadequate as Romney’s pandering is, at least he offers some ideas that would delay the day of reckoning.

I have yet to choose a candidate to support this time around- Mitch Daniels was my guy- but Romney just eliminated himself from my radar by pandering. Perry, whose views on the death penalty and crony capitalism leave me cautious, has to offer some solutions that will work. If he doesn’t, conservatives may abandon the GOP for its lack of a real conservative candidate, as they did in 2008. This would leave President Obama in power come 2013, and would basically guarantee the Debt-Paying Generation a lifetime of higher taxes, lower or no entitlements and fewer employment opportunities.

PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Rick Perry 33%
• Sarah Palin 13%
• Mitt Romney 10%
• Herman Cain 9%
• Ron Paul 9%
• Newt Gingrich 6%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Someone else/Undecided 12%

(more…)

PPP (D) West Virginia 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Rick Perry 32%
• Mitt Romney 14%
• Sarah Palin 14%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Herman Cain 5%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Someone else/Undecided 14%

(more…)

CNN/ORC Survey on President Barack Obama

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 43% {45%} (44%)
• Disapprove 55% {54%} (54%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling:

Foreign Affairs

• Approve 47% {50%} (47%)
• Disapprove 50% {47%} (50%)

Unemployment

• Approve 39% {37%} (37%)
• Disapprove 59% {62%} (60%)

The economy

• Approve 36% {34%} (34%)
• Disapprove 61% {65%} (64%)

Survey of 1,038 adults, including 943 registered voters, was conducted September 9-11, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 24-25, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 5-7, 2011 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

So says the AP. Congratulations to Congressman-Elect Bob Turner!

So Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced yesterday that Arizona will hold its Republican primary on February 28 — a move that, for the first time officially, sent the early primary calendar reeling.

But trying to figure out exactly what it means is just as big a mess. You can look for the early primary calendar on ten different sites and come away with ten different calendars. Nobody seems to agree on what the GOP primaries will shape up to be at the beginning of 2012. How can that be?

Well, it all depends on what factors you take into consideration. Some folks use the default dates held over from the 2008 primaries. Some extrapolate back from certain states, making educated guesses where the chips will fall. Some base their calendars off of when Florida might go; others don’t take Florida into consideration until they make their official move. Some places use a combination of a number of different methods. There’s a ton of different ways to compile an early states calendar.

But here’s what we know for sure: of the states that will be contested prior to the March 6 Super Tuesday, Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, and now Arizona are the only four states that have officially and legally set their primary dates. That means at this exact moment in time, our early calendar looks like this:

February 6: Iowa
Between February 6-18: New Hampshire
February 18: Nevada
February 28: Arizona, South Carolina

Now, here’s the rub: everyone knows there’s no way the calendar is going to stay like that. South Carolina has already announced they will not share their primary date with Arizona, and are planning on moving theirs up. Most likely, that will mean a February 21 date for South Carolina, although again, that’s not set in stone.

Once South Carolina moves up, that may or may not cause Nevada to move. If Nevada moves, Iowa is likely to move into January in order to give New Hampshire some space. But again, this is all speculation.

And here come the other wrinkles in the plan: namely, Michigan and Florida. Michigan will vote this Thursday on when to hold their primary. Practically everyone expects them to hold it on February 28 along with Arizona – so pencil them in on that date.

Florida, however, has announced that it doesn’t care what date it goes on, they just want to be the fifth state in the process no matter what. That means going sometime after South Carolina (which will potentially be on February 21) but before Arizona and Michigan on February 28. Since elections are generally held on Tuesdays, this leaves Florida without many good options. So – and here guessing plays a large role once again – Florida may well land their primary on February 21, causing South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Iowa to move even further back into January.

So with all that said, there are numerous ways this thing could play itself out. Before putting too much stock into any calendar anyone puts out there, you have to know all the assumptions behind it for it to be of use.

Understanding that, here is one way the calendar may play out:

January 23: Iowa
January 31: New Hampshire
February 4: Nevada
February 14: South Carolina
February 21: Florida
February 28: Arizona, Michigan

As an additional side note, some calendars list Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey falling into this early state time frame as well. That is based solely on their 2008 primary dates; all three states are expected to move their primaries back — Missouri to March, Wisconsin to April, and New Jersey to June.

Gallup 2012 GOP Favorability Survey

Name Recognition

• Sarah Palin 97%
  
• Rudy Giuliani 89%
• Newt Gingrich 86%
• Mitt Romney 86%
• Michele Bachmann 84%
• Ron Paul 81%
• Rick Perry 75%
• Rick Santorum 54%
• Herman Cain 48%
• Jon Huntsman 46%

(more…)

From the official release:

Our nation needs a leader in the White House who understands the role of government and our economy. Governor Rick Perry has the strongest record of job creation, fiscal discipline, and executive branch leadership among the presidential candidates. As a governor, Rick Perry created a tremendous blueprint for job creation and as President, I know he will get America working again. I consider Governor Perry a friend and I am proud to endorse his campaign for President.