Steven Birn
Steven Birn Speaks

President Obama’s first campaign speech of the year, the State of the Union, was the opening of what will be a 10 month class war.

Obama demands that the rich “pay their fair share.” He trots out Warren Buffet’s secretary, claiming she pays a higher tax rate than her boss. First, we should recognize that tax rate and amount paid are two different things. Second, we should recognize that Buffet earns most of his money as capital gains. The capital gains rate is 15%. The IRS reports that 97% of Americans pay less than 15% in income tax. Meaning that if Buffet’s secretary actually pays a higher rate than her boss, she’s likely earning in excess of $200,000.

If one were to listen to Obama one would believe that there are hoards of billionaires running around the country screwing the rest of us out of what’s “rightfully” ours. Unfortunately the IRS data suggests something quite different. 2009 is the most recent year of IRS data available. There were only 8.274 Americans who had income over $10 million. (see table 1.1, 2009) Those people had total income of $240 billion. So even if the government were to tax these people at 100%, the truth is that it wouldn’t fund the government a whole month. Mind you we have a Federal budget that is almost $4 trillion. Currently this group pays $6 million in income tax a piece, totaling around $50 billion. Obama wants to double that (assuming everyone is only paying capital gains) to $100 billion. That won’t even pay for a week of the Federal government’s budget.

In fact, if we taxed people earning over $1 million at a rate of 100% the Federal government would only take in $726 billion in tax revenue. That doesn’t even pay for the Federal government at current spending rates for 3 months. Keep in mind we’re talking about taxing at 100%. Obama is talking about raising taxes on these people from 15 to 30% assuming these folks are earning all of their money from capital gains, which we know many on the lower end are not.

The amount of revenue raised via Obama’s proposed tax increase is peanuts compared to the size of the Federal budget and the Federal deficit. Let’s say the government manages to take $100 billion in additional revenue based on Obama’s tax increases. That will reduce the budget deficit from $1.4 trillion to $1.2 trillion. The havoc it would create in the market though would be much greater. Faced with the inability to earn a fair return on an investment, people with money to invest will be less likely to take risks. After all, if there is a limited reward for risk taking most people won’t take the risk. It will be good for low risk investments but bad for the sort of high risk investments that move the economy forward.

In other words, Obama’s proposed tax increase will do nothing for the budget deficit but will substantially harm the economy. Thankfully it has no chance of passing because the House Republicans won’t even consider such a bill. That is however exactly what Obama wants. Remember, this is a class war battle Obama is waging. He’s pretending like there are billionaires out there not “paying their fair share” when in reality they are already. Half the people in this country don’t pay income taxes, those making over $200,000 pay the vast majority. The hoards of billionaires out there not paying “their fair share” simply don’t exist based on the IRS data.

Truth has never mattered to the Obama administration. It’s going to be up to the Republican nominee, presumably Romney, to present the truth to the American people. So far Romney hasn’t done it. We can only hope he takes on Obama head on over this stuff. Tax increases on the rich simply won’t bring in revenue sufficient for cutting the deficit. Furthermore, the harm that increased taxes will cause far outweigh the potential minor benefits. Class warfare cannot be allowed to win.

Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.

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

Michael Fields
Political Realities

Much has been made in the days following Obama’s State of the Union speech about the presence of Warren Buffett’s secretary alongside Michelle Obama, and the president’s support for a minimum tax rate on millionaires.

Warren Buffett's secretary, Debbie Bosanek, sat in First Lady Michelle Obama's box and was mentioned in the State of the Union address, though not by name, by the President. She's just over the First Lady's left shoulder, wearing glasses.

The so-called Buffett Rule would require individuals with an income above $1 million per year to pay a minimum tax rate on their income of 30%. This, Buffett and the president say, is only fair. I think that blanket statement is wrong and can damage the economy; but I think there is a basis of truth and logic in thinking there are elements of the current tax laws for millionaires that are unfair and leave them paying less than a reasonable tax rate on certain income.

The most simplistic approach to thinking about tax rates is this: if I bust my butt every day to earn enough money to house, feed, clothe, and generally care for family why should I be paying a much higher tax rate than a retired multimillionaire couch potato clipping bond coupons and earning dividends? There are several answers to this question that dispel this thinking but there is also some truth to the accusation. Dividends are payments from corporations to shareholders – after-tax payments. In other words, corporations pay taxes on their income (presumably) and the remaining money can then be allocated to shareholders as a dividend. Taxing that dividend distribution amounts to double taxation and this is the basis for the argument to eliminate taxes on dividends or, at least, keep them at levels substantially below income tax rates. I support this view and think dividend income should be kept at current 15% levels. Unfortunately, this changes at the end of 2012 when dividends will revert to being taxed at regular income tax levels.

The other big income item for wealthy hedge fund managers and investors is capital gains taxes. These too are at 15% for long term holdings of greater than 1 year (the rate increases to 20% at the end of this year) and keep taxes down for the wealthy. This I find troubling and believe there is ample room for a more nuanced approach. From my perspective there is a HUGE difference between buying IBM stock and making money on the investment versus investing money in a budding company and making money if the company succeeds. Buying the stock of an established company on a listed stock exchange is hardly the same as providing vital capital for a new and growing company. I’d have no problem seeing the gains on the IBM stock trade taxed at regular income tax levels while the gains on venture capital investment are taxed at substantially lower levels (if not at zero). Of course introducing such a dramatic change in tax rates on listed stock capital gains would be an immediate disaster for the stock market so it would require a very long period of introduction – even 10-20 years of slow, deliberate rate hikes which would undoubtedly be changed by future Congress… such is our political system.

Hedge funds are generally created to trade actively, earn excessive gains, and provide investors with outsized returns. In general, they provide no marginal benefit to society, they create no new businesses, no new jobs, no anything except inordinate income for successful managers and investors. And yet both the managers and the investors get incredible tax breaks. The gains are very often long-term so the returns to investors are taxed at 15%. The managers, who invest nothing but get paid out a percentage of the profits generated by their investing prowess, also pay only 15% on their take of the profits. They get a tax break called “carried interest” that effectively says they are earning income based on risk-capital (even though it isn’t their capital at risk) so the income they receive should be taxed the same as the investors. This is sheer lunacy. That is income, pure and simple. It’s no different from the bonuses received by Wall Street traders and those bonuses are taxed as regular income. This is really a pet peeve of mine – drives me absolutely nuts.

The Democrats continual harping on the “fair share” language seems to be resonating with a lot of Americans. In poll after poll 70-75% of respondents support an increase in the tax rates of the wealthiest Americans – pretty easy to say “yeah, tax the rich guy more.” But that’s a resounding majority and I admit I’m surprised that few conservatives support the measure since “we the people” have clearly spoken in those polls. I’m equally surprised that there isn’t a greater hue and cry over the Dems chosen method of tax breaks to stimulate the economy – a “temporary” reduction in Social Security taxes. Of course it’s a clever method to choose since it’s extremely progressive (the rich get relatively little as a percentage of income and Warren Buffett gets nothing while his secretary gets her full share) but it does nothing for the elderly and unemployed and it leaves a growing hole in the Social Security fund that will need to be made up for later. Why not reduce SS taxes for only the lowest income earners and reduce tax rates .25% for low and middle income tax brackets. Too much class warfare there if we don’t do it for the rich too? I don’t think so – the rich aren’t stupid enough to make an issue about not sharing in a fractionally lower tax rate at a time when there is a potentially monumental tax rate increase in their future.

All the noise out there right now over “fair share”, class warfare, the 99%, and “we the people” strikes me as totally misplaced and directionless. They blunt the real argument — that Obama and Congress have failed by caving in to the demands of the loudest and most partisan elements of their parties. Obama failed miserably by ignoring Simpson-Bowles because it contained a few items that would offend some of his constituents. And then he failed to introduce any plan that would address meaningfully our deteriorating financial picture. The GOP failed miserably by fawning over Grover Norquist and drawing an ill-advised line in the sand against any and all tax increases. It’s sad that not a single GOP presidential candidate was willing to accept even a $1 tax increase for every $10 in spending cuts. Seriously? Conservatives wouldn’t accept a $500 billion tax increase combining higher rates on the wealthy and the elimination of tax disparities if it was accompanied by $5 trillion in spending cuts where the timing of both were well matched? How do we make progress when both sides have taken such strict positions?

There is some rumbling about introducing Simpson-Bowles as a bill in the Senate. It may pass a majority but either way it will go nowhere in the House. Still, it would be good to see a truly bipartisan plan get some airtime so the American people see who wants to act and who wants to play politics. Congress’ approval rating is in single digits and it’s time we saw who are the people’s representatives and who are the pure politicians…and then let’s throw the bums out.

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.

Two articles by the American Free Press on Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s political inconsistencies and shady business acumen.

Pat Shannan
American Free Press

Mitt Romney: Chameleon in a Three-Piece Suit

Amidst the media muckraking, Mitt Romney still seems to be “anointed” by the hidden powers, the South Carolina surge by Newt Gingrich notwithstanding, causing many to examine the constant flip-flopping of the former liberal Massachusetts governor now posing as a conservative presidential candidate.

TV comic Stephen Colbert made a direct hit when he quipped the day before the Palmetto State primary that “The only difference between Mitt Romney and a statue of Mitt Romney is that a statue never changes its position.” One New York newspaper said, “Romney cannot decide who he is.”

Both summations are accurate. An outspoken “pro-lifer,” Romney and his wife have been financial supporters of the pro-choice Planned Parenthood that supports abortion clinics nationwide.

When he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney supported “full equality” for gays and lesbians, a pledge that won him support from homosexual Republicans. But 12 years later, when going up against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney’s record was clear on the subject: He had become an opponent of gay marriage. In 1994, Romney had opposed the federal marriage amendment but in 2007 supported it.

Romney supported “assault weapon” bans and the Brady Bill, and as late as 2002 was in favor of gun confiscation laws in Massachusetts. But in 2011, obviously romancing America’s conservative vote, Mitt joined the NRA prior to announcing his current candidacy.

In the case of illegal immigration, Romney has spoken both “for” and “against” it so often that news commentators realized his drift was determined by that day’s podium location.

Similar to the attitude of Democrats who want to scream “racist” whenever one points out Barack Obama’s shortcomings, Romney backers are quick to say that anyone who doesn’t like Romney must be “anti-Mormon.”

The Salt Lake City connection to the president that should concern all Americans the most is the blood oath vows taken by devout Mormons such as Romney professes to be. These are of a higher priority than the presidential oaths (or any other) because the taker has sworn to follow the instructions of his church leaders under penalty of death, according to a former high-ranking Latter Day Saints member now a Christian minister.

A vocal critic of the “cesspool of pornography,” Romney did nothing for the nine years he sat on the board of directors while Marriott Hotels made millions from showing porno movies on hotel TVs.

Here Romney’s cagey reticence could be tied to his relationship to Chicago’s billionaire Crown family, which became rich as “war profiteers” in WWII and every war since. The Crown family is also reported to have earned a large part of its fortune in recent years from the pornography industry. Notorious for supporting both opposing party candidates, Susan Crown, granddaughter of the company’s founder, has been supporting Barack Obama since 2003 and is now investing in Romney because of his willingness to wage war in the Middle East for Israel.

All of these facts and rumors aside, Romney’s appointment of Michael Chertoff as head of his Counter-terrorism and Intelligence Advisory Committee should be all the information Americans need, to be aware of this candidate’s loyalty to the New World Order. Chertoff, as head of the criminal division of the Department of Justice, oversaw the FBI cover-up of 9-11 and the disposal of evidence refuting the government’s false version of what happened on 9-11.

Ralph Forbes
American Free Press

Romney Is Wall Street’s Ace in the Hole

Mitt Romney, the iconic symbol of “American capitalism,” has proved to be nothing but a Barbie’s blow-up Ken doll for the perverted plutocrats on Wall Street. Romney is a disciple of the “Greed is Good Gurus.” He followed in the footsteps of the infamous Ivan Boesky, the Wall Street crook who plundered U.S. free enterprises in the 1970s and 1980s. “Ivan the Terrible” was a role model, not only for Romney, but the fictional corporate raider Gordon Gekko, who said: “I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator.”

Mitt needed $300 million to take over two Texas department-store chains, Bealls and Palais Royal, to form Specialty Retailers, Inc. Bain Capital made a $175 million profit. Romney sold out just before disaster struck. The Bain-“rescued” department-store company went bankrupt—drowning in $600 million of debt.

GS Industries Inc. is another Romney “success.” The steel manufacturer had been solid for a century, employing generations of Americans—until Bain cut more than 1,750 jobs—and sank it into bankruptcy. When Bain took it over, it had $1 billion in revenue and employed 3,800 people worldwide as the largest producer of carbon wire rods in North America. Bain Capital used $24.5 million to get GS Industries. In seven years Bain took $58.4million profits and annual management fees of about $900,000—plus multimillion-dollar dividends.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned America to beware of the military-industrial complex—but the internationalists who hijacked the Republican Party want untold billions for $400 toilet seats—but not one cent to protect American workers.

No wonder the Wall Street banksters are Romney’s top donors: Goldman Sachs—$367,200; Credit Suisse Group—$203,750; Morgan Stanley—$199,800; HIG Capital—$186,500; Barclays—$157,750; Kirkland & Ellis—$132,100; Bank of America—$126,500; PriceWaterhouseCoopers—$118,250; EMC Corp.—$117,300; JPMorgan Chase & Co.—$112,250; Bain Capital—$74,500; UBS AG—$73,750; Wells Fargo—$61,500; Blackstone Group—$59,800; Citigroup Inc.—$57,050; as of last report Romney filed with the FEC.

This is just chickenfeed for Romney and his ilk, who dismiss $374,327 in speaking fees as “not very much.” The real money is hidden in “super-PACs” because corporations have more rights than people—“of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.” Orwell was right. The pigs are rewriting the law of the land.

For more no-nonsense, uncensored, and independent news like this, visit American Free Press online.

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

GCN Live contributor Steven Birn and GCN host and online contributor Josh Tolley were kind enough to give us their differing analysis of the current state of the GOP presidential race – along with a few other political talking points – in a piece we like to call 7 Questions.

1. What have the first three primaries told you about the Republican presidential race?

Steven Birn (SB): We’ve learned a couple things so far. First, you’ll get a truer sense of what the Republican rank and file wants in the south. Iowa and New Hampshire allow independents and Democrats to vote, which skews results. Most of the southern states don’t allow such persons to vote in GOP primaries. Second, we learned that Newt Gingrich is a fighter and Mitt Romney is weak under pressure.

Josh Tolley (JT): It has told us the Republican voting base is lost at sea. Here is a President with tanking approval numbers that we haven’t seen since Jimmy Carter. If the Republican party had the pulse of the Republican voting base we wouldn’t be seeing a campaign that is led by two candidates the Republicans were ashamed to claim as their own just a few short years ago. When a party is so weak that it has to puke up a couple rejects and still are in danger of losing to the worst President in over a generation, they are revealing their disconnect with the American people.

2. In one sentence for each remaining candidate, what about each one concerns you the most?

SB: Romney’s inability to articulate the conservative position on any subject is very concerning. Newt’s history of self destruction ought to concern everyone. Rick Santorum’s smug looks and lack of money ought to concern conservatives. Ron Paul’s absurd foreign policy should concern every American.

JT: Newt Gingrich is a globalist wrapped in conservative clothing and a chameleon’s skin with either no understanding of what America is or an intent in this heart which America has been fighting to prevent. Mitt Romney is the safe establishment plant who protects the same corrupt interests that Obama has been serving over the past three years. Santorum concerns me from the standpoint that he can pull the social/moral conservative vote which is starting to realize Newt and Mitt are not conservative at all. Ron Paul concerns me because I don’t think he is doing enough through his messaging to bridge the gap between those who understand what conservatism really is and those who still believe this one party – two name system lie which has been shoved down our throats for decades.

3. What do you make of Mitt Romney’s release of his tax records? What do you make of Newt Gingrich’s affiliation with Fannie and Freddie Mac?

SB: Romney’s tax returns are none of our business and irrelevant. Newt’s firm doing consulting work for Freddie is likewise irrelevant. A $300,000 annual contract is small potatoes for both Freddie and Newt’s firm. Both of these issues are irrelevant and shift focus away from what’s important: Barack Obama’s dismal record as President.

JT: Mitt Romney’s release of his tax records really doesn’t reveal too much to me. Come on, did anyone really not know he was rich? He played the same tax game all of those who pay taxes play while showing he believes his religious convictions. If he does a good job getting the attention away from the fact he is rich, it actually shows a man who puts his money where his mouth is. Newt Gingrich is a completely different situation. Newt worked for a corrupt government integrated company in a sub-contracted manner and we are supposed to believe that this man who has numerous ethical violations in the past was just a highly paid historian who just happened to be Speaker of the House?

4. Considering Rick Santorum won Iowa and was competitive in other states AND Ron Paul has the strongest and most loyal base, do either Santorum or Paul still stand a chance for the GOP nomination?

SB: Santorum has a shot because debates are the great equalizer in this race. He does a good job debating and so long as Newt and Romney are cat fighting over nothing Santorum looks Presidential. Ron Paul has zero chance at the nomination because his foreign policy is so far outside the mainstream of the GOP that not even his sound economic policy can save him.

JT: No. Santorum right now is running for a place in the next administration. They know he will pull the conservative and religious vote that Newt and Mitt seem to be spitting at and come summer the lead on the ticket will need all the help from that voting base they can get. Ron Paul is probably the candidate with the best chances of beating President Obama in November as he has the largest amount of “real” pull power with Democrats and Independents. If the GOP really wanted to win they would run with the candidate who pulls the largest number of non-GOP voters (that’s what wins elections) and since they don’t seem to want to do that, it would be a safe bet to say Ron Paul will not be allowed to win the nomination.

5. Did the Monday and Thursday debate have a significant impact on the Florida Primary? How and why?

SB: Monday’s debate won’t change anything in Florida because it was the worst performance by a moderator and a network so far. Brian Williams and his local high school sidekicks were dreadful. About all we learned is that Romney thinks Castro will meet his maker, Newt thinks he’s going straight to Hell. Meanwhile the economy stinks, prices are going up and the Federal debt inches towards $16 trillion. Williams wasn’t interested in those issues, I suspect because they make Obama look bad. The debates matter, just as much as money right now.

JT: The roll of the Florida debate is really just to help the establishment decide which candidate, Romney or Newt, wins the hearts and minds of the GOP fan base. Right now we see Newt playing to the “frustrated” establishment while Mitt is playing to the “old school” side of GOP voters who think the answer to bringing back America is as easy as getting Obama out of the White House. The debates are basically a thermometer at this point to gauge the amount of heat the GOP fan base will want to see play out in this election cycle once the incumbent enters they fray.

6. How do you think President Obama’s State of the Union address affected the countries politics? Was it uniting or divisive? Was it about the state of the country or was it a platform for his reelection?

SB: Obama gave another re-election campaign speech in the House last night. It won’t unite anyone, though it won’t divide us further. In two weeks will anyone have remembered this speech? If not, then the speech was, if not a failure, irrelevant. At best the speech will shore up the far left and get them on board for the fall.

JT: President Obama has pretty much lost all relevance as an ambassador of change by this point. When even the liberal media starts getting on his case about failed promises and hollow speeches, there is no longer a teleprompter to pull this lame duck back up. Now, taking away the fact that nobody believes he will bring change and results, he can still wreck some havoc on this nation in the form of division and class warfare. Even though he knows better, he is using tax and class as things that would divide the public. So while we are distracted by the lie of taxing the rich, the systematic dismantling of this nation through the perversion of the Constitution and the selling of sovereignty can continue in broad daylight. The real shame is that if the American populace was wise, we would take these political lies and use them to unite against a common threat.

Clearly his intention was to present his case for re-election. You can take his campaign speeches, his other State of the Union speeches, and compare them with his actions and see they don’t match up. Leaving us with three options, he is either lying to our face without knowing it (which is a mental health condition), he is not capable of performing his job duties, or he is willingly deceiving those he swore to lead for the sole purpose of keeping the White House, and the power it provides, for another four years.

7. What would be your preferred Republican presidential ticket and why (President and Vice President)? What do you think the GOP presidential ticket will actually be?

SB: I wish it was Cain/Bachmann or Cain/Rubio. I was never completely sold on Cain but he had a very innovative platform, which is more than can be said for the four remaining candidates. I don’t know if Newt has it in him to pull this race off. But if he does, a Newt/Rubio or Newt/Jindal ticket would be very strong. I wouldn’t be shocked if Newt at least approached Rand Paul.

JT: I think it will be Romney/Christie most likely. Romney gives the traditional Republican candidate while Christie would bring the Tea Party and Newt Gingrich supporters. Other VP possibilities would be Allen West, Mitch Daniels, and Bobby Jindal.

As far as what I would like the ticket to look like, I’m a bit torn. On one side I would like to see a Ron Paul ticket with a strong personality and presence as his VP, either a military personality or a solid business character to counter Ron’s nice old guy image. A Rand Paul/Michael Savage ticket might be fun, just as a counter to what we have been corrupted by over the past 4 administrations. On the other side, part of me would like to see a Barack Obama/Harry Reid ticket. NOT because I support what those two are trying to shove down our throat but because America is so comfortable with our destruction at the hands of these sort of politicians that perhaps if it continued to the point where more people felt the boot of tyranny on their neck we would wake up and fight for what makes people more than animals and our nation more than just a piece of land. We have a tendency to think that if we get the right leader in the White House then we, as citizens, can just sit back and not work at living out our freedoms. This is a very dangerous place to be and a vulnerable mindset to have as a nation. My fear is that if Romney, Newt, or Santorum win we will lose our freedom, sovereignty, and success even faster because we would be under the false impression that we have an “anti-Obama” and that is was only Obama that caused our problem when in reality it was our own ignorance and ability to maintain ground which we already had.

Bonus Question: Of all the issues – social, economic, foreign, etc. – what is the most important to fix for the future well-being of our country? How can this be accomplished?

SB: So long as the nation continues to legalize and fund abortion, so long as the illegitimacy rates are as high as they are, so long as the family is destroyed via illegitimacy and no-fault divorce and so long as the Christian faith is left behind in the hearts of the people and politicians, we have no hope to get any better. But there is hope if each of us individually returns to the Christian faith and to the church. We can build up from there. But until then, all the fixes proposed will just be Band-Aid on an underlying problem: The lack of true Christian faith in this country. Nobody wants to hear it but it needs to be said.

JT: Freedom is the most important issue at the moment. We are at a place where if we lose our freedom we cannot have an impact on the social issues, we cannot have an impact on our economic issues, and we certainly cannot have a positive impact on foreign issues. Most people make the mistake of thinking that the freedom issue is just fodder for talk show hosts and that freedom is not being lost but rather just being transformed. This mistake in thinking is made even more dangerous when you understand we cannot put this genie back in the bottle. With the advancements in technology, a glowingly intertwined world stage, and a lack of values in the hearts of people, it is now or never in making our stand for the preservation of what we need most…freedom.

This is why some candidates, like Ron Paul, do not always have to be agreed with on policy but still make good candidates because freedom is preserved. Where as there may be up sides to these other candidates but all of those remaining are pushing for a lack of freedom in some way, shape, or form. When freedom is lost for one person, it is lost for every person.

To bring freedom back we need to do a better job of living out the freedom we have. For a couple decades now we have all been proud of the freedoms we have been blessed with but we didn’t practice those freedoms. This is like having a tool in the garage, it is yours, you know you have it, but if you never use it you will continue to believe it is yours, you will still tell everyone how great it is but someone could steal it and you would never know it until one day you need it and it is no longer available.

One of the key elements to living out and regaining freedom is to reinstate our grasp on free enterprise. Free enterprise is the fuel for freedom. You can look at the decline of entrepreneurship and a rise in the loss of freedom.

Previous 7 Questions article:
- 7 Questions: Ron Paul

Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.

Josh Tolley is the host of The Josh Tolley Show, which airs on GCN Monday-Friday 9:00-11:00am 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.

Thursday evening, CNN presented the final Republican debate before Tuesday’s Florida Primary.

Participants: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

CNN Highlights:

Entire Debate:

Steven Birn
Steven Birn Speaks

January 26th Republican Debate Review

Last night was the last debate for a month (the peasants rejoice!). This time Wolf Blitzer moderated for CNN, a minor step up from Peter King. Blitzer spent 10 minutes a piece on moon colonies and whose wife would make the best First Lady. All terribly important issues facing America today. On several occasions when candidates tried to address Obama, Blitzer stepped in and tried to get them to fight with their fellow candidates. The first half hour was spent listening to Newt and Romney cat fight while issues such as venture socialism (Solyndra), Fast and Furious and judges were ignored. In other words, the expected left-wing bias of CNN at play.

Before we go any further can we put an issue to rest once and for all? Newt’s firm was paid $300,000 a year for five or six years from Freddie Mac. Such money is peanuts for Freddie Mac, which sees billions pass through it every year. This is a non issue. Likewise, Mitt Romney’s tax returns are a non issue. He has a blind trust, which means he has no idea what the trustee is investing in. Sort of the definition of a blind trust don’t you think Newt? Also in a pathetic attempt to attack Romney ABC has discovered that Mitt’s tax return didn’t include $1,700 in income from a Swiss account. (again a blind account) In a tax return of $20 million this is the best ABC can come up with. Can we put this pathetic nonsense to rest already?

Rick Santorum perhaps did the best tonight because he tried to get Newt and Romney to stop cat fighting with each other. He came off as the most reasonable last night. His answers weren’t bad either. He displays a terrific knowledge of Central and South American politics and he has a clear vision for our nation in that region. Something that couldn’t be said for the other three candidates. Santorum was perhaps at his best when he subtly brought up the life issue during his monologue about his wife. Over all a terrific performance that would probably win Florida if Newt weren’t in the way.

Romney clearly got the best of Newt last night. Newt thought he was going to make a big show of Mitt’s investments in Freddie Mac and Goldman Sachs and was completely shot down by the fact that Mitt has a blind trust. Thus Newt looked like a complete fool. It never got any better for Newt last night. He didn’t have any zingers, no answers that wowed anyone. It was a poor performance, really three in a row for Newt. Let’s face it, the first South Carolina debate was his best by far. It’s all been down hill from there.

While Romney got the best of Newt a couple of times, he looked like a complete fool on occasions. Santorum had his big above the fray comment trying to get Newt and Mitt to knock it off. Blitzer then comes back after a break and tries to get it going again. Romney took the bait and went on the attack when he could have and should have taken the higher ground like Santorum had suggested. Over all though it was a decent performance. It should be concerning to the rank and file though that Romney never seems to answer a question with any specifics. For a candidate whose conservatism is questioned you would think he would at least make an effort to propose a few specific conservative plans.

Ron Paul’s policy with regard to Cuba and South America is ridiculous. We should not be trading with Castro and we should not be letting Chavez run wild in South America. Trade is great, it’s one way to limit Chavez’ influence. But it isn’t the only way and we should be directly opposing the leftist dictator.

Win: Santorum took the high ground, the question is whether conservatives will be fed up with Newt enough to swing to him.

Place: While Romney never took the high ground, he got the best of Newt. But will he ever adequately defend the conservative position on anything?

Show: Newt hasn’t had a good debate since a week ago Monday. Having a month off from debates won’t be good for him though.

Big Loser: Wolf Blitzer and CNN once again proved their left-wing bias by trying to get the candidates to focus on themselves rather than Obama and by asking absurd questions on absurd topics meant to hurt one particular candidate.

Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.

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