My opinion about potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates

One of my friends has recently (yesterday) written on his blog:

“Ron Paul’s age is going to be an issue for sure, but the man will draw supporters and on economic issues involving trade, debt, spending, printing money out of thin air, etc, etc, there is no one smarter or better. He does deserve consideration.”

You must be kidding. ANYONE is smarter or better than RP. He’s a moron who spends every day lecturing other people about issues he knows nothing about.

Regarding the rest:

Pawlenty: I don’t know enough Pawlenty to judge him, although what he has said so far is good. Maybe he’d be a good presidential nominee, maybe he wouldn’t be.

Romney: Hmmm, what should I say about Romney? On the one hand, he’s been vigorously fighting for low taxes, limited government and a strong defense, and against disarmament policies, tax hikes, bailouts, the porkulus and the crap-and-trade scheme. On the other hand, he’s the author of a state socialized medicine scheme (he signed the relevant legislation with a grinning Ted Kennedy in the background), and he’s liberal on social issues (although he claims he’s not).

Petraeus: I respect General Petraeus, so I’ll just say that the time Republicans spend daydreaming about President Petraeus would be better spent identifying viable presidential candidates.

Daniels: The guy is liberal on social and defense issues. He wants a huge reduction of defense spending. HELL NO!

Mike Pence: I like him, but a mere Congressman would not be a good presidential candidate.

John Thune: A freshman Senator would not be a good president. Vide barack Obama.

Jim Demint: Hell yes! Except that he’s a senator, not an executive.

Fred Thompson: Not really. A guy who doesn’t even want to run for the Presidency will never win the primaries, let alone the 2012 general election.

Bobby Jindal: He’s an accomplished governor, but he’s too young, his opinions on most issues are not yet known, and he said that he does not want to run for the WH during the next presidential election.

Sarah Palin: She’s an accomplished governor, and has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. She scares the ‘Rats to death, electrifies crowds, and attracts more grassroots fans than any other Republican. She has over 2 million fans on FB, while no other Republican has even half a million fans on that website (except maybe Romney). She’s a conservative who, unlike all of us, had actually to PROVE herself as such, by making decisions about, for example, whether or not to abort her own child. Because of her policies, Alaska’s economy is growing, the state has a budget surplus, spending has been reduced during her term by 14% in real terms, and a new pipeline from AK to the CONUS is now being built by American workers. However, Palin has made her mistakes, she’s polarizing, and many Americans remain unconvinced that her 2009 resignation was the right choice for Alaska.

Mike Huckabee: The most liked of all Republicans, a damn likeable guy, Huckabee runs the most highly rated political cable news TV show these days. He has been consistently beating Obama in the polls for several months, and has served as governor for 10.5 years. But if America cannot trust him to protect Americans from criminals, how can he be trusted to protect Americans from OBL, Putin, Kim Jong Il, Ajad, Chavez and Assad?

Newt Gingrich: The best, most qualified, most accomplished of all the potential 2012 Republican candidates, bar none. He’s a towering giant compared to the others. He’s a staunch conservative and offers America a complete, specific, credible portfolio of CONSERVATIVE POLICIES which serve as stark alternatives to Obama’s socialist policies. The root cause is that Obama believes that adult Americans are utterly unable to manage themselves, their families and their businesses wisely, prudently and responsibly, and so, they need to be micromanaged by the federal government. Gingrich rejects this ludicrous belief, and considers Americans to be responsible adults who can easily be trusted with huge responsibilities.

IN SHORT: Newt Gingrich should be the GOP’s 2012 nominee.

A ranking of American states by the Tax Foundation

The Tax Foundation annually ranks American states by “state business tax environment”, and the FY2010 ranking is available here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf

The higher the rank of a state is, the better business tax environment it is, i.e. the more business-friendly the tax regime of that state is.

Alaska – until July 2009 governed by Sarah Palin – is ranked third. That means its tax regime is the 3rd most pro-business tax regime in the US. It levies a high CIT rate but no PIT and no general sales taxes. Alaska trails only SD and Wyoming.

Nevada, which levies no income tax and relies on taxes on casinos (LV is in Nevada), is ranked 4th.

Liberal states – the same states which are now experiencing high unemployment rates and a high number of corporation delocalizations – are the ones with the most oppressive tax apparatuses. New Jersey ranks 50th, which means its tax regime is the most oppressive one in the US. New York was ranked 49th. California, governed by Arnold Schwarzennegger, ranks 48th; its taxes are absurdly high and cannot generate sufficient revenue for its huge, bloated, liberal bureaucracy. Intel has recently set up a facility in Arizona (ranked 28th).

Ohio, governed by Ted Strickland, ranks 47th. Not surprisingly, since Strickland was elected, over 1 mn Ohioans were laid off by their employers.

Iowa, governed by Chet Culver, ranks 46th; MD ranks 45th; Rhode Island, the smallest state in the Union, ranks 44th. Pawlenty’s Minnesota ranks 43th, i.e. eighth-worst.

Wisconsin was ranked 42nd, and Vermont was rated 41st. Arkansas – thanks to liberal governors Mike Huckabee and Mike Beebe – ranks 40th. Mike Huckabee raised taxes, on net, by a larger amount of money than Clinton did (as governor).

North Carolina ranks 39th; CT ranks 38th; West Virginia, the 2nd poorest state of the Union, ranks 37th. Massachusetts, governed by Deval Patrick, ranks 36th.

My conservativemetre

Yesterday, I’ve devised and published my conservativemetre, a table which measures how conservative politicians are. It’s the best such device in the world.
1) How does it measure politicians:
It includes a wide range of issues (e.g. the FairTax, the American nuclear arsenal, and federal pork-barrel spending). Currently, there are 27 issues listed in that table. Every politician’s speeches and record related to that issue are measured by how conservative they are. That is, he’s measured by how conservative he is on that issue.
Each candidate receives 0 points for each issue on which he’s liberal, 1 point for each issue on which he’s moderately conservative and 2 points for each issues on which he’s ultraconservative.
For example, Fairtax is one of the issues on which politicians were measured. Giuliani opposes it but favours a flat income tax, so he’s moderately conservative on that one. So he received 1 point for it. Hunter, Huckabee, Thompson and Tancredo favour the FairTax, so they’re ultraconservative on that issue. So they received 2 points each for it.
His total number of points is then countered against the total number of points available (currently 54, because there are 27 issues) to calculate a percentage. That percentage is his final badge, which will indicate how conservative he is.
2) How well must someone fare to be declared a conservative by me:
To be a conservative politician according to me, your cons. percentage in the CM must be no less than 75%.
3) How many politicians have been measured:
So far, 8. These 8 politicians are or were all 2008 presidential candidates.

America needs a better economic stimulus

Photo by the Gazeta Agency.

During the Floridian Republican Debate, moderated by Tim Russert of MSNBC, Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee called on the US government to spend more on freeways, and rightly claimed that the US economy would be stimulated if it did.

Huckabee thus echoed US Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who was criticised for his proposal by Michelle Malkin. source

But the USA’s infrastructure – while it’s great – cannot be taken for granted. It needs to be radically improved.

What America needs is a new freeway Act, which will radically expand the American freeway network, which, although it is 75000 kms long, is scarce compared to the giant American territory (the US is the world’s 3rd largest country after Russia and Canada). Also, several American freeways (e.g. the I-405 and the I-5) are overcongested, so the existing freeways must be modernised.

This is a list of my proposals – a list of the freeways that should be built or modernised. Examples:

1) the part of the US-1 road from Miami to Key West should become a freeway;
2) All US Army, USMC and USN bases, and some USAF bases (e.g. Davis-Monthan AFB), should be connected to each other by freeways;
3) the Hot Springs National Park should be connected to the freeway network;
4) as should be 4 villages around Lake Winnipesaukee (NH);
5) Alaska should be connected to Canada by a freeway.

America depends on freeways, which are the ways through which most American passengers travel. Not railways. Not airports. Not ships. It is freeways that are most commonly used by the American people. If built, my proposed freeways would:
1) reduce ‘travel times’;
2) de-congest American roads;
3) save fuel;
4) reduce GHG emissions;
5) reduce the number of people dying each year;
6) give the US military a better road network (which was important for the US to win the American-Soviet War (1945-1991) and the First Gulf War (1991))
7) return $6 for every $1 invested in them to the American people; and
8) make America even more democratic than it is now, by allowing people to travel freely.

As of today, $50 bn of the $150 bn economic stimulus has not yet been given by the US government, so rather than give it, it should improve the American freeway network, so that Americans will have more roads like the one depicted in the photo included in this post.

The USA’s future President should choose either Huckabee or Giuliani as his Transportation Secretary. Both of them have plans that would improve the USA’s infrastructure.

On August 3rd, 2007, Melanie Morgan claimed that the residents of Minnesota are no longer endangered after the I-35 bridge collapsed:

There’s one big difference between the bridge collapse and the terrorist attacks of September 2001: the imminent danger to the residents of Minnesota has now passed; the danger our citizens face from Islamic jihadists has not.

Melanie Morgan’s article

No, Melanie, the residents of Minnesota (and all other Americans) are STILL endangered by America’s infrastructure, which is great, but insufficient for 300 million Americans who are employed by the world’s #1 economy. You are wrong, Melanie. Americans will only be safe when their infrastructure, for which they pay usurious taxes (like the federal diesel excise), will be modernised.

And, as Rudolph Giuliani said some months ago, the federal government cannot mend this alone. It needs partners – state and local governments.