I happened upon an article today which details how college is nothing more than a giant money making scam.  Most of the points it made amounted to "college is expensive," which, of course, it is, but the overall thrust of it was that college is a losing bet that only suckers take.

Which is, of course, bunk.

Herman Cain has urged Americans to "do the math" on his 9-9-9 plan, a tax reform package which would replace the whole of the US tax code with all its convolutions and deductions, with a simple system of a 9% flat income tax, a 9% sales tax, and a 9% corporate tax.  The math is pretty stark; by any reasonable measure, Cain's plan amounts to a significant tax INCREASE for the majority of Americans.  Indeed, the bottom 80% of Americans would see their total tax burden go UP under Cain's plan.

Yet Cain's tax reform package still enjoys widespread support from the Republican rank and file.  

These people are by no means rich.  Most Republican voters fall, economically, into the same strata as most Democratic voters.  The rural poor (who vote Republican) more or less balance out the urban poor (who vote Democratic) and the middle classes shake out fairly evenly too.  That means that Republicans who support Cain's plan either haven't done the math (and probably don't care to) or support it despite its impact on their personal bottom line.

Much the same can be said of other flat tax proposals, the so-called Fair Tax (which has its own complications), and a host of others besides.  What all of these proposals share, however, is the commonality of simplicity.  

The US Tax Code is stupidly complicated.  

Campus alerts have been lifted.  Classes will be canceled at Virginia Tech's Blacksburg campus for the remainder of the day.  The Univeristy has a press conference scheduled for 3:15 pm today.  

More than anything else, the juvenile, irresponsible, and wholly unnecessary fight over the debt ceiling highlights the uncomfortable reality that only half of this country's political system is within spitting distance of reality. Over the course of the last thirty or so years the Republican party has transitioned from the party of fiscal responsibility to the party of irrational fantasy-based politics: Fox News, birther conspiracy theories, and paranoid delusions of a socialist dystopia are, sadly, only the tip of the iceberg and what started out as a novel way to motivate the party base has metastasized into a full-blown industrial strength dose of crazy now aimed squarely at the US Dollar itself.

The 2012 election has been in full swing for a while now but, with rare exception, it has been a series of local stories.  Today it goes national.  Major candidates running for the Republican nomination for President will meet in New Hampshire today in the first nationally televised debate of the contest.  

Once the debate kicks off this article will serve as a discussion board for the debate-in-progress.  In the meantime, however, I would like to offer some predictions as to the general tone and tennor of the debate before it happens.

Now that Trump, like Palin, has been relegated to "national joke" status and the Gingrich campaign has literally ceased to exist in Iowa, it would seem that the largely undisputed front-runner for the Republican Primary is Mitt Romney. But while his rivals seem to be dropping like flies, Romney's campaign, propelled largely by the candidate's winning personality and strong name recognition, is starting to show signs of faltering. Romney's recent decision to skip the influential Ames Straw Poll - an informal early sampling of the Republican Presidential field - isn't the first indication the Romney campaign faces long-term viability problems. The campaign is not beset with the structural problems faced by Gingrich, the crisis of public confidence experienced by both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, nor the rather unfortunate Google issues dogging Rick Santorum (don't say you haven't been warned).  Nonetheless, Romney's campaign, strong as it looks right now, has some serious obstacles to overcome and, if the Ames poll is any indication, neither Romney nor anyone on his campaign has a good notion of how to address them.

Once again the American right rides to the defense of Sarah Palin, this time in response to a gaffe she made on the campaign (?) trail in Boston, Massachusets.  Speaking of Paul Revere's famous "midnight ride" Palin said he "warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

"Warned the British?"  Are we talking about the same Paul Revere?

From Newsmax:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh says that, if he were President Barack Obama, he would not want to face a staunch conservative such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin because she carries a frightening message — that he is beatable. Limbaugh also said on Fox News Thursday night that the GOP establishment fears Palin as well.

Given the real lack of exciting and viable Republican candidates for President it is no surprise that conservatives might flock to someone with Sarah Palin's star power in the run-up to the Republican Primaries.  Elections are not won by the downcast and defeated; Republicans need to believe that Obama is beatable and they need to believe that they have a candidate who can do it.

Today's story comes from TPMDC, not because they have any sort of exclusive on it, but because their headline best addresses the importance behind this story.

Newt Gingrich's walk back tour reached its zenith Tuesday night, as Gingrich personally apologized to Paul Ryan for dismissing his Medicare plan as "right wing social engineering." In an added twist, Gingrich claims that the merest mention of his extensive condemnation of Ryan's budget from Sunday's Meet The Press by Democrats is now out of bounds as a result.

"Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate," he told FOX's Greta Van Susteren. ""When I make a mistake, and I'm going to on occasion, I'm going to share with the American people that was a mistake becuase that way we can have an honest conversation."

Just to be clear, on May 15th, Mr Gingrich was posed the following question from MSNBC's David Gregory:

"Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare , turn it into a voucherprogram where you give seniors... ...some premium support and -- so that they can go out and buy private insurance?"

Mr Gingrich replied:

"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left- wing social engineering . I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

From PoliticsUSA

If it isn’t the death of Bin Laden, then what is raising Obama’s approval numbers? The answer can be found in Obama’s personal popularity. Obama remains very personally popular. Overall 72% of battleground state voters personally like Obama. Of this group, 48% approve strongly of Obama the person, another 24% somewhat approve, 10% were unsure, 4% somewhat disapprove, and 15% strongly disapprove.

It's a little early to begin prognosticating the 2012 elections but polls are always a good place to start.  There is a lot of good data in the latest numbers from this Politico/GWU poll which serves to set expectations for the 2012 race but PoliticsUSA boils it down nicely.  The simple truth is that Americans vote out of ignorance.  Poll after poll shows Americans are woefully ignorant on huge swaths of the political landscape.  Indeed, it has become almost a partisan sport to show up with cameras at the other side's rallies and ask "average voters" even the most rudimentary of questions.

Come November of next year a disturbingly large number of Americans are going to cast a vote for the guy with whom they'd like to have a beer.  Indeed, failing some devistating issue fumble on the part of the White House, the "have a beer" vote will decide the election much as it always has.  

This is no great secret among political operatives; indeed, it is one of the major reasons that political campaigns, despite numerous pledges to the contrary, almost always devolve into personal attacks and mudslinging.  The only sure way to win office is to convince the average voter that you are running against a scumbag.  

The alternative is to try to win on issues.  

From Congressman Ron Paul's website:

Mr. Speaker, many Americans who the government wishes to deny the ability to purchase unpasteurized milk have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level.

I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting individual rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate shipment of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption.

First off, this is just not going to happen.  No matter how fervantly Congressman Paul objects to the notion of "pasturization without representation" the US Congress is simply not crazy enough to lift the ban on interstate sale of raw milk.  Despite that, Paul's hackneyed campaign to allow it reveals a great deal of what is fundamnetally wrong with libertarianism in practice if not in theory.

Raw milk has no credibly demonstrated health benefits; it is a well known health risk; and despite Congressman Paul's statements to the contrary, the regulation of interstate commerce is the very definition of an appropriate act of Congress, the founders' intent notwithstanding.  

Let's take these issues one at a time.  

From today's New York Times:

Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans would insist on trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts in exchange for their support of an increase in the federal debt limit sought by the Obama administration to prevent a government default later this year.

As the world's oldest functioning democracy, the United States has a number of odd eccentricities built into its system of government, among them, the Debt Ceiling.  The Debt Ceiling is an artificial limit, imposed by Congress upon itself, which caps the amount of money the US Government can owe.  So long as the National Debt is below the Debt Ceiling the US Government can operate like any other business or institution, using short term loans to balance out its irregular income stream.  

From today's New York Times:

Linking two of the politically volatile issues of the moment, Senate Democrats say they will move forward this week with a plan that would eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies and divert the savings to offset the deficit.

Many issues in American Politics are about priorities and ideology.  Democrats tend to think government programs can do some good; Republicans tend to disagree.  There are few issues in which boil down to objective facts and figures and which allow a dispassionate and rational economic decision; the Senate Democrats have found one of them.

At about 11pm EST on Sunday Evening the White House announced that Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks and the most wanted terrorist in the world is confirmed dead.  CNN reports that Bin Laden and other members of his family were killed "by a US military asset" in a mansion in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. 

Thirty-Eight Billion Dollars. That is the net cut from the US budget after a week of hard fighting under the Damoclean Sword of an impending government shutdown. The House Republicans came to Washington with a mandate - they claimed - to cut spending and cut spending they have, to the tune of about $123 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

Unfortunately, as CNS News reports, in that same week, the US budget deficit climbed some $54.1 Billion.

This is the fundamental failing of the Congressional Republicans and the GOP as a party. On the campaign trail these deficit hawks talk a good talk but in the halls of power, their willingness to nip and tuck where necessary abandons them.

The United States' federal budget is massive -- on the order of $3.8 Trillion dollars -- with about $1.3 Trillion of that in deficit spending. A $38 Billion cut is less than one-tenth of the way to one-third of a solution to that problem.

One tenth of one third of a solution -- as close as makes no difference to nothing.