John Palm, Editor
GCN Live.com

While the media-anointed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has begun campaigning against President Obama, Ron Paul continues his near stealth-like overtake of Republican delegates in state after state, highlighted this weekend by his campaign’s victory in Minnesota.

Just last week, the Ron Paul camp released a memo saying they would not be campaigning in the states that have yet to hold its primaries. The national media took this as a concession of the GOP nominee to Mitt Romney, but those close to the campaign say it was anything but.

It has been known that Ron Paul and his grassroots supporters have been attempting to take as many delegates as possible, even after a state’s primary has been held. The Ron Paul campaign’s stance appears to be unless a delegate has officially given their vote at a state’s convention, their vote is still up for grab.

This weekend, Ron Paul personally attended the Minnesota GOP convention held in St. Cloud, Minn. The result: Paul took 12 of 13 available delegates bringing his total in Minnesota to 32 out of 40 delegates overall.

“This is one of the greatest states that I have witnessed, where I have seen the transition, where the enthusiasm’s there,” exclaimed Paul to hundreds of activists at the Minnesota convention.

In addition, Paul took votes in Romney’s home state of Michigan, as well as Vermont and Virginia.

“Victories in Minnesota and other states demonstrate that Ron Paul supporters possess the adaptability, organizational muscle, and unmatched enthusiasm required to continue winning delegates in upcoming contests,” stated Ron Paul’s 2012 National Campaign Manager John Tate.

Tate continued, “We’re also pleased to see Ron Paul supporters engaged in party-building to broaden the activist and voting base that will advance Republican majorities for many years to come.”

Minnesota’s Star Tribune wrote an article detailing the weekend’s convention and the controversial political movement that Ron Paul’s campaign is fueling within the established Republican party. The report also contains a video report from St. Cloud – site of the convention.

Below is a video from Ron Paul supporters giving an idea of what they feel is being missed in the mainstream media: Ron Paul’s actual support and delegate count.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Ted Lacksonen
Political Realities and Country Thinker

Today I explain Romney’s total lack of comprehension of, and disregard for, the Constitution—the only defense we have against the growth of government.

America's future? With Obama or Romney... Yes.

Yay Gun Control!

At the Libertarian Party National Convention, I spoke with nominee Governor Gary Johnson, and his biggest concern with Romney is in the area of gun control, and with good reason. Yes, the NRA has endorsed him (which has many members livid), but the organization’s rationale is “he won’t be as bad as Obama.” (Have you noticed that’s a recurring theme with this guy?)

Once again, I will let Romney choke on his own words. From his campaign website:

Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes . . . As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners.

Really? Massachusetts is ranked as a “tie” with New York for the state with the toughest gun control laws. He did nothing to support expanded gun rights, and the statement above is, to put it politely, inaccurate.

Anecdotally, I spoke with a Massachusetts delegate at the LP National Convention, and it was Mitt Romney’s gun control policies that drove him out of the Republican Party! Not only does Massachusetts have severe caliber limitations, the Bay State also has gun registration that requires gun owners to register not only which weapons they own, but where the weapons are kept. So if you move a gun from your house to your office, you have 30 days to notify authorities of the move or face felony charges and a permanent loss of the right of gun ownership. These are the kind of laws Romney says are “just right.”

But please read what the Political Guide has to say about Romney and gun control:

Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts’s history of gun control advocacy.

In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws . . .

. . . He stated that his views did not line up with the NRA.

So, in Mitt Romney’s Constitutional universe, gun registration and other strict controls are perfectly legitimate under the Second Amendment. No wonder Romney scares the heck out of presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson when it comes to gun control.

Romney, Same Sex Marriage, and the Constitution

Last week President Obama thrust the issue of same sex marriage into the spotlight by coming out in support of same sex marriage. And, as cannot be disputed, the first law to recognize same sex marriage in the U.S. bears Mitt Romney’s signature. (As a libertarian I give both of them some credit for their positions, even though conservatives don’t.)

But what has me disturbed are the Constitutional arguments being bandied about now that this hot-button issue is back in the spotlight. Both Obama and Romney have come out and said it is a states’ rights issue. Last week, Romney said the following:

“I’m not running on marriage and marijuana, those are state issues, right? Aren’t they?” he said.

(I had to titter when it seemed like he was asking reporters for help with Constitutional interpretation, as well as the implication that federal marijuana laws are Unconstitutional!)

If marriage is a states’ rights issue, DOMA is Unconstitutional, and President Obama is justified in ordering the Justice Department to stop defending it!

But consider Romney’s campaign website:

As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act—a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton—but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

So is marriage a federal issue or a state issue, Mr. Romney? And if it’s a federal issue, could you please direct me to the relevant clause in Article I that authorizes Congress to interfere in an area that has long been held to be an exclusive area of state jurisdiction?

This is typical Constitutional flip-flopping from Romney, which shows he has no underlying Constitutional principles. You may disagree with presidential candidate Gary Johnson when he says that gun registration and marriage licensing restricted to heterosexual couples are both Unconstitutional, but you will never hear him waver on those positions because they are ingrained in his political being. Romney has no such Constitutional keel, and his flip-flopping on same sex marriage is another in a litany of examples.

Conclusion

Virtually every time Mitt Romney opens his mouth he becomes a more dangerous candidate in my estimation. Mind you that I have just presented a short list of reasons not to vote for him.

I anticipate that federal spending under Romney will be as high or higher than under Obama. We will go off the fiscal cliff with either.

And unless the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law, ObamaCare will be implemented on schedule, with perhaps a few tweaks, regardless of whether Romney or Obama is sworn in next January.

And, as any conservative or libertarian knows, the key to a restrained, responsible government is for it to operate inside the confines of the Constitution. As I have demonstrated, Romney is either clueless about the Constitution or plays it fast and loose (or both). As such, I expect him to be as much of a law breaker as Obama if elected, although Romney will violate a somewhat different subset of Constitutional provisions.

His oath will be to protect and defend the Constitution, although it’s clear he doesn’t know what that means. At least as a law professor Obama admitted that he interprets the grand old document in a contorted manner. With Romney I cannot discern any underlying Constitutional theory, and he seems to “wing it” without regard to the actual text.

If you view the lay of the land as I do, it is completely rational not to vote for Romney, the threats and cajoling of partisan Republicans notwithstanding. If you choose to pull the lever for him in November I will not call you irrational, a crybaby, or any of the other platitudes being slung about by Romney supporters. But, I think you will regret your decision.

Perhaps now you can understand that Governor Johnson is not kidding when he says that he would rather die than vote for Obama or Romney. He and many of his supporters like me agree that the country dies if either is elected.

When he told the story of his NPR interview to a group of supporters at the LP National Convention, I chimed in that I didn’t have his strength, and would have to vote for Obama if my life depended on voting for one of the two Big Party candidates.

When asked why, I said the answer was simple:

Obama can only get 4 more years.

To which another supporter replied:

Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don’t.

Touché.

For news and commentary that strives to recognize the reality of politics, visit Political Realities.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Ted Lacksonen
Political Realities and Country Thinker

Anyone who has read my writing knows I am a proud member of the Libertarian Party, and am working on the Johnson/Gray campaign.

Choosing between Obama and Romney is like deciding whether you prefer Thelma or Louise behind the wheel

But, along with conservatives who are refusing to vote for Romney, I have been subjected to a litany of accusations. “You just want Obama to win,” some say. Others call those of us in the neither-Obama-nor-Romney camp crybabies, whiners, hotheads, idiots, and a litany of other names. Besides being a blatant attempt to bully a vote from another, it’s just flat-out incorrect.

It comes down to expectations. Many of us know that the country is bankrupt, and that we have very tough times ahead of us if we don’t get our act together in short order. Our national debt presents the greatest existential threat to our nation in generations, if not our nation’s history. When it comes to Romney, the question becomes: Do you think he’s up to the heady task before him?

There are perfectly rational reasons to say either yes or no. For example, the owner of this site, LD Jackson, is a perfectly sane, rational individual who has endorsed the guy from the Bay State. I can say with full confidence that he has well-reasoned justifications for his endorsement.

Similarly, I am more-or-less sane, and I can say with confidence that I would not vote for Romney for any elected office. I, too, have perfectly rational reasons for my decision. Yes, I am a card-carrying Libertarian. But I am not opposed to his candidacy because he’s from another party; I’m in the LP because the Republican Party consistently does things like nominate Romney for president!

The primary difference between those who support Romney and those vehemently opposed to his candidacy is the former are more likely to believe what he is saying now, and the latter what he did as Governor (as well as many of the things he’s currently saying). He has a liberal track record, period. Universal health care. New taxes on businesses. Gun control. Same sex marriage (which I applaud; most conservatives do not). Nominated liberal justices to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. His liberal track record is undeniable.

But first, let me be perfectly clear on one thing: Barack Obama has been a disaster of a president, and the country is in deep trouble if he is reelected. I just don’t buy into the “anybody but Obama” shtick. That line is an attempt to shield Romney from serious analysis, and nothing more.

And let me be perfectly clear on another thing: if Romney wins in November, the country still goes into the dumpster. Perhaps slightly later than if Obama is reelected, but maybe not. If you agree with that point, your refusal to vote for the Republican is perfectly rational and justified.

Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson said the following during the National Convention, and I think he captures the flavor of my views pretty well:

I was on NPR’s All Things Considered yesterday. The question was, “You’re on the torture rack, they’re going to kill you, who are you going to vote for? Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama?” I said, “Look, I’ve climbed Mount Everest. I know what it’s like to hunker down and do what it takes. Take this to the bank: I would rather die.” Collectively, the country does not need to die.

I agree with Governor Johnson that the country dies whether Obama or Romney wins in November. I will spend the next two days defending my position. Had the GOP nominated a qualified candidate such as Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, my criticism would be much more subdued. After all, by wanting to set social issues aside, Daniels sounds more libertarian than conservative these days!

That said, let me go through what I anticipate from a Romney administration. You can argue with my expectations, but you will be hard-pressed to say it is illogical to vote a different way if you believe these things.

Spending Will Be Higher Under Romney than Obama

Our soaring national debt presents a grave existential threat to our nation. Solving the problem will take enormous courage and political capital to accomplish. Everything—and I do mean everything—must be on the chopping block. All things; large, small, and everything in between. Trimming on the margins will not save our country.

So what has Romney proposed? He wants to increase defense spending faster than President Obama. In typical Washingtonese, he calls it reversing Obama’s defense “cuts” because Obama has lowered the growth trajectory of defense spending. Keep in mind that defense spending is roughly tied for second place with Social Security as a category of spending.

And what about the largest category of spending, Medicare? Romney wants to reverse Obama’s “cuts” there, too, and save Medicare “as we know it.” To be fair, the so-called cuts were part of the ObamaCare deal, and so far haven’t materialized. But when looking at projected deficits, at least on paper Romney wants to add $100 billion-plus to anticipated deficits.

And what about welfare entitlement reform? Let the man say it himself:

I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.

And most recently, Romney supported the extension of student loan subsidies without offsetting budget cuts as House Republicans wanted. This is to the tune of $6 billion, which probably exceeds all of Romney’s proposed budget “cuts.” As Richard Viguerie at Conservative HQ wrote:

Apparently Romney’s strategy for the fall campaign will be, “if you can’t out bid Obama, at least join him.”

And what about the 2009 stimulus bill? In his autobiography No Apology, Romney supported that, too, just like Bush’s $150 billion stimulus. He thought it should have been modified, but he supported it nonetheless. You can expect more of the same.

So why do I say spending will be higher under Romney than Obama? In addition to the reasons I have just stated, if reelected, Obama’s spending will be limited as long as the GOP remains the minority Party of No. But, as I’ve said before, the First Rule of American Politics is that it is easier to increase spending than to cut it. Democrats, who will control enough of the Senate to control any budgetary outcome, will grumblingly agree to increase defense spending, but will block any substantial cuts. The First Rule will prevail, and spending will increase faster with the Republican in the White House than Obama.

Consider the six major categories of federal spending: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, Non-defense discretionary, Mandatory, and Interest.

Medicare and Social Security spending will increase due to the Baby Boom retirement. Medicare and Medicaid spending will increase due to health care inflation. The Interest expense is set to increase, and is the fast growing segment of the budget. Romney wants to increase Defense spending. He doesn’t want to tackle welfare reform (“Mandatory” spending.)

That leaves Non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for only 18% of the budget, and shrinking fast as a percentage. Reduce it to zero and we don’t even cut the deficit in half.

The numbers simply do not work out for Mr. Romney—or the country if he is elected. Based on what I’m hearing from the campaign trail, his proposed spending increases exceed his proposed spending cuts. We are in serious trouble if he is elected.

Romney Will Not Repeal ObamaCare

That Mitt Romney is the “Godfather of Universal Health Care in America” is not in dispute. He took the Bay State far further than even the Democratic controlled state legislature had intended. Yet the former Governor who never calls himself Governor is now claiming that he supports the repeal of ObamaCare.

His opaque Constitutional argument to justify repeal doesn’t withstand even the most cursory review. That should lend comfort to conservatives; another Republican presidential nominee who plays fast and loose with the Constitution.

He claims that RomneyCare is Constitutional, but ObamaCare is not. Why? Does Congress lack authority to provide health care services? If so, Medicare and Medicaid are Unconstitutional. I haven’t heard a peep out of him on that one.

As late as 2010 he still supported duplicating the Massacusetts model across the country in his autobiography No Apology. Sensing the potential political backlash from conservatives, the offending portion was removed from the paperback edition! Romney has even said that he “likes insurance mandates” and that “they work”—even during the 2008 presidential debates!

And even early in the 2012 campaign he was in the ObamaCare “reform” camp. Rick Santorum (who I rarely compliment) effectively forced Romney to adopt repeal as a position. And even then, as Santorum frequently noted, the former Governor never pressed the argument with much zeal and Santorum was correct to hammer him for giving away an important issue.

The bottom line is that repealing ObamaCare is going to require a lot of political capital. It will require relentless pursuit to accomplish. There is no evidence that Romney will be willing to make the political sacrifices necessary to repeal ObamaCare, especially since it’s a brand new position for him—if it is indeed his position—and he does not defend it vigorously. (Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t switch back to “fixing” ObamaCare by November.)

Indeed, it’s highly doubtful he actually believes in repeal in the first place. He’s a forked-tongue politician who will say anything to snare your vote. And when you look at his political past, at one time or another he has tried out every possible position on everything.

My expectation is this: He will go through the motions of pretending to repeal, will blame Democrats for obstructing with a wink-and-a-nod, and then they will all sit down and “fix” ObamaCare—something even Democrats admit needs done.

Romney repeal ObamaCare? Ain’t gonna happen.

The conclusion, Part 2, will be published tomorrow.

For news and commentary that strives to recognize the reality of politics, visit Political Realities.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

By Jason Lewis
GCN Live.com and Jason Lewis Show.com

The president himself has admitted, if not in so many words, that the so-called Buffett Rule is little more than a gimmick.

Bringing in $4.7 billion per year won’t do much to solve $1.4 trillion dollar deficits. And, the administration concedes, this latest attempt at soaking the rich does little to spur growth.

But what’s especially galling for those with a bull’s-eye on their back is the pious specter of Messrs. Obama and Buffett demanding higher taxes while deliberately ducking — albeit legally — the tax man themselves. Just how is it you make a moral argument about “fairness,” all the while eschewing your self-described moral obligation?

In the last couple of years, it appears that Mitt Romney, Warren Buffett and President Obama have had effective income tax rates of 15.4 percent, 17.4 percent and 20.5 percent, respectively. All took sizable advantage of charitable deductions, which taken together with other taxpayers costs the Treasury $52 billion annually.

This pales in comparison, however, with the tax code’s biggest loophole, the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income. According to the Congressional Research Service, that amounts to more than $164 billion per year in foregone federal revenue, barely surpassing another middle-class tax break, tax-deferred pension contributions.

So why then is the president so obsessed with the Buffett dodge? True, when not preaching to the rest of us, the Oracle of Omaha has studiously kept his corporate salary at a minimum (i.e., less than his secretary’s), thus avoiding a 35 percent top rate on ordinary income.

By deriving the bulk of his annual wealth from his investments, Buffett enjoys the lower 15 percent rate for capital gains and dividends. But the “rule,” levying a 30 percent rate on any income for folks like Romney, Buffett and Obama, represents a massive new tax on investment and ignores the fact that corporate profits are already taxed at 35 percent before any gain is realized and even after any dividend is distributed.

Moreover, history shows that the “demand” for capital gains is, in economic terms, the most of elastic of all. If rates go up, gains simply aren’t realized, depriving the government of revenue. If rates decline, then revenue tends to rise along with after tax earnings. This is exactly what has occurred every time the capital gains rate was adjusted over the last four decades.

Regardless of the numbers, the larger ethical question remains. If paying more of one’s income in taxes is such a moral imperative, why haven’t those screaming the loudest for more government revenue voluntarily complied with their own rule?

No one forced the president or Warren Buffett to arrange their affairs in such a way to minimize their individual burden. It is, after all, one thing for those who think taxes are already too high to take advantage of every conceivable strategy to lower their effective rate. It’s quite another for those sanctimonious liberal souls yearning for “fairness” to do the same.

Call it the triumph of hypocrisy.

Contrary to popular myth, the wealthy already pay their “fair” share, with just 10 percent of the nation’s highest earners shouldering 70 percent of the income tax burden. And when you include the distribution of all taxes on the rich, the top 1 percent have an effective rate of 29.5 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the Tax Foundation reports that 58 million filers had no income tax liability whatsoever in 2010.

Yet if lower taxes on investment income so offend the sensibilities of the revenue-raisers, let me suggest a modest proposal: Lower the top marginal rate to, say, 20 percent, then tax all sources of income at that rate. Presto — you’ve done away with the Buffett dodge without raising taxes overall.

Don’t hold your breath — because this runs directly counter to the administration’s increasingly transparent strategy of raising taxes on a select few while taking larger and larger numbers of voters off the roles entirely for crass political gain.

Jason Lewis is the host of The Jason Lewis Show talk radio show, which airs on GCN and many radio stations across the country Monday through Friday 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Central Time. Listen to the show On Demand.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.