The unofficial Obama and Romney VP speculation thread

[Mormon Red Death]

Michigan had a democratic govenor for 8 years before Snyder. Jennifer Granholm and she was a complete disaster. The absolute worst governor in history. Since Snyder has been in office unemployment has gone from 11.3% to 8.3%. Michigan has a balanced budget (from a 1.5 billion dollar deficit) and he has stepped in with emergency financial management where cities (Mainly Detroit) couldnt do it.

Michigan's Rainy Day Fund went from $2.2 million when Snyder went in office to $504 million today. Combine that with a balance budget and debt payback. Govenor Snyder is doing a great job.

[calicoug]

Where to begin? Let's start with the highlighted items:



Europe has yet to try austerity - they haven't really lowered spending at all.

Well that's just not true- at least not the economies in Europe that are suffering. Greece and Spain, for example, have slashed spending. Here's a fantastic article from The Economist on this very point:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-0

The deficit will not fix itself - it will require the politicians to a) Spend less than they have or b) Slow the rate of spending increases and/or c) Increase tax receipts.

Again not true. Literally zero action is required from Congress or the President to eliminate the deficit. With literally no action from Congress, the Bush tax cuts will expire automatically. The spending cuts agreed to last year by both parties will automatically take effect. Just those two events would eliminate the deficit. Not in a good way, mind you, but the deficit would be gone. This doesn't even take into consideration increased tax revenue as the economy continues to make up ground or savings from termination of the war in Afghanistan.

You ought to read up more on this. Here's a good article from Bloomberg on this very point:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke calls the end of 2012 “a fiscal cliff.” The Bush tax cuts are set to expire. The $1.2 trillion spending sequester, enforcing cuts in the defense and domestic budgets, is set to go off. Various stimulus measures -- including the payroll tax cut -- are scheduled to end. “Taken together,” writes the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “these policies would reduce ten-year deficits by over $6.8 trillion relative to realistic current policy projections -- enough to put the debt on a sharp downward path.”

In fact, if Congress gridlocks -- and what does Congress do these days but gridlock? -- we face the prospect of too much deficit reduction too fast. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that barreling over the fiscal cliff would increase unemployment by 1.1 percent in 2013.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...al-itself.html

I think there are many far more sensible paths we could be following right now than eliminating the deficit automatically, but the simple fact is that with ZERO actions by anyone the deficit will terminate rapidly. Too rapidly.

Raising tax rates will not necessarily increase tax receipts. Economic growth will raise tax receipts, but is hampered by tax increases and uncertainty.

Troops coming home will reduce costs, but not nearly to the extent needed.

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will absolutely increase revenues. I haven't heard a single serious economist argue to the contrary. It may not be the ideal scenario for increasing revenue (I would argue it isn't), but it certainly will raise revenue.

[Maximus]

The spending cuts are not nearly enough to eliminate the deficit.

[oxcoug]

Well that's just not true- at least not the economies in Europe that are suffering. Greece and Spain, for example, have slashed spending. Here's a fantastic article from The Economist on this very point:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-0

Re this blog post (not really an article) from Ryan Avent (a proud graduate of North Carolina State and an aggressive advocate of new stimulus and new quantitative easing) - it's surprisingly lacking in detail. He says that "cuts are happening in spades" but his graph shows the projected cuts for a three year period including the rest of 2012 and 2013, without specifying a single concrete spending reduction that has taken place during this alleged austerity riot. If you're making a claim w/ nothing but a vague graph that includes projections for the next 18 months, but don't cite a single concrete cut, I am left skeptical.

He also fails to refute the critique from Veronique de Rugy and others that the alleged "austerity" has been levied mostly through tax increases, not spending cuts - in 2011-12, spending in the UK increased from $1.15 trillion to $1.2 trillion, and public pensions have yet to be reformed. Instead, the government increased the capital gains tax, national insurance tax and value-added tax along with other fees and duties. How on earth does anyone take the "austerity" kvetching abt the UK seriously when spending there increased in 2011-2012?

The essence of expansionary austerity is a balanced approach that leans more on cuts than tax increases. European "austerity" has done exactly the opposite.

With the actual UK numbers in mind, it's not hard to understand why Avent steers clear of specifics in making his case.

[oxcoug]

With the actual UK numbers in mind, it's not hard to understand why Avent steers clear of specifics in making his case.

I'd add - my dive into Avent's blog post has achieved one thing - I'm now slightly less confident than I was in the quality of analysis I take for granted from the Economist.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I've mentioned this before, but I'm surprised that David Petraeus's name doesn't come up more. The most important functions and the functions where a president has the most authority and latitude are foreign and military affairs. Clearly Petraeus is qualified in that regard. And how would the Obama administration attack him? They called him to be their CIA Chief. Of course the proclamation coming from that unnamed Romney adviser that they would be selecting "a boring white guy" could be a head fake. Petraeus very well could be dry and boring personally but the pick itself would be startling.

Another point, news came out this morning that Rubio isn't being vetted for the VP spot. Aside from his obvious strengths as a good orator and being able to cogently argue conservative points, Rubio is just too young and inexperienced. His amount of experience in the Senate is even less than what Obama had when he started running for President -- and that's really saying something.

So it comes down to guys like Pawlenty, Daniels, Portman and Snyder -- and perhaps David Petraeus. There are a couple huge issues with Petraeus: 1) Would he even accept being a running mate with Mitt Romney; 2) From what I've read Petraeus hasn't voted in 10 years because he viewed it as a conflict of interest for him to vote on his civilian leaders, I've heard that he's fiscally conservative but socially moderate. While, IMO, that's the combination that people actually want in this country, it may not satisfy the GOP base.

[LA Ute]

I'll go out on a limb and call it for Jindal.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I'll go out on a limb and call it for Jindal.

I forgot to list Jindal, but yes I think that may be his best pick outside of someone like Petraeus.

[oxcoug]

I'll go out on a limb and call it for Jindal.

Are you claiming knowledge, or intuition?

[Jacob]

The spending cuts are not nearly enough to eliminate the deficit.

To which spending cuts do you refer? I have seen no proposal of spending cuts by a national politician that would eliminate the deficit in a short time. However, it is true that you can cut enough spending to eliminate the deficit entirely in the first year, if you really wanted to.

[LA Ute]

Are you claiming knowledge, or intuition?

No knowledge whatsoever, just good old deductive reasoning combined with gut feeling. Jindal makes sense on several levels - both politically and experientially, and in light of what Mitt has said about wanting a running mate who is qualified to step into the presidency. It's also undeniable that he adds some serious ethnic diversity to the ticket.

[Surfah]

I think my governor would make a fine VP.

[LA Ute]

I think my governor would make a fine VP.

I do too but he makes it too easy to frighten uninformed voters with two white guys, one a scary Mormon and the other a scary Evangelical. But that's just me.

[Surfah]

I do too but he makes it too easy to frighten uninformed voters with two white guys, one a scary Mormon and the other a scary Evangelical. But that's just me.

Bob is Catholic. Went to Bishop Ireton for HS, Notre Dame for undergrad and Boston U for grad.

I think he could help on that front with Obama's war on religion. Plus he's popular in VA and could deliver a crucial swing state.

[YOhio]

Bob is Catholic. Went to Bishop Ireton for HS, Notre Dame for undergrad and Boston U for grad.

I think he could help on that front with Obama's war on religion. Plus he's popular in VA and could deliver a crucial swing state.

Lol! LAU is so uninformed.