#CarlyFiorina and Zero-Based Budgeting

We noted yesterday one way that the Congress can get the budget under control and reduce spending. Another is zero-based budgeting, which is supported by Republican candidates Carly Fiorina and Jeb Bush and former candidate Rick Perry.

Zero-based budgeting is a simple concept in theory, but a difficult one in practice: it requires each federal agency to justify each project in its budget request each appropriations cycle. Rather than the “baseline budgeting” being done now, where the previous year’s budget is taken as the starting point, and then an increase figured in, zero-based budgeting would require that each program be considered, and added or not added, with each appropriation.

In 2000, during Jeb Bush’s tenure as governor, Florida was one of the first states to enact an eight-year cycle of agency reviews to help it better evaluate budgetary requests. The effort was abandoned a few years later after state legislatures found the process expensive and time-consuming, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Well, yeah, it’s tough, so tough that the federal government hasn’t done it since Jimmy Carter was President. But just because it’s tough doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done again. However, it doesn’t have to all be done at once: it could be implemented for two agencies the first year, then two more the second. Coupled with our suggestion of moving to two-year appropriations, with half of the budget done one year and the other half the next, it could be managed. In one four year term, the next President could get eight major federal departments onto zero-based budgeting.

Just think how much junk gets added into a budget one year, and then, because baseline budgeting is used, it simply continues for year after year after year. Carly Fiorina plans to move to a zero-based budgeting system, though few of the details have been released, and her campaign website doesn’t have the specifics.

Fiorina Hits Government Waste: ‘Just Plain Abuse And Corruption’

Alex Pappas | Political Reporter | June 11, 2015

“Every single agency” of the federal government has wasteful components, according to Carly Fiorina, who said she’d push to implement a new budgetary tool to eliminate inefficiencies across government if elected president.

During a conference call with reporters Thursday, The Daily Caller asked the Republican presidential candidate if she would get rid of any federal cabinet departments or agencies as president.

“While it might feel good to name two or three agencies that we could eliminate all together, the truth is every single agency has vast amounts of inefficiencies, ineffectiveness (even worse), duplication, just plain abuse and corruption,” Fiorina said.

Fiorina called for “zero-based budgeting” to prevent wasteful programs from slipping through the cracks every year.

“Not only would be know where every dollar is being spent, but we ask every agency to justify every single program every year,” Fiorina said.

Carly Fiorina campaigning at the Iowa State Fair

There’s more at the link.

Zero-based budgeting isn’t exactly a glamorous issue, and sometimes the stresses and requirements of campaigning for office shunt the policy wonkishness to the sidelines, but Mrs Fiorina was a hard-driving CEO at Hewlett-Packard, and she made some enemies there, including Walter Hewlett, son of H-P co-founder Bill Hewlett. It’s arguable that pushing zero-based budgeting could cost Mrs Fiorina any chance of carrying Virginia, with its sizable population of federal government workers in the suburbs around Washington. “Some tough calls are going to be required,” Fiorina said. “When you challenge the status quo, you make enemies. I made a few.” If she wins the election in 2016, actually implementing zero-based budgeting would make her a whole lot more enemies . . . but it would be the right thing to do to get our huge federal budget under control. It’s only when you really know what is in the budget, and every line item has to be justified and explained, that we can ever hope to manage it.

President Obama and “soft power.”

From Patterico’s Pontifications:

Putin “Orders” U.S. Fighter Planes Out of Syria, Bombs non-ISIS Opposition

Filed under: General — JVW @ 1:31 pm

As we know, our lead-from-behind President has happily left the mess in Syria (a mess that he partly inherited but largely exacerbated with his own fecklessness) to our new and staunch ally Russia. Now we hear from Fox News that Russia is demanding that U.S. planes stop flying in Syrian airspace.

According to the Jerusalem Post, U.S. officials are said to be ignoring the request, but given the general weakness exhibited by the Obama-Kerry axis, and given their desperation to wash their hands of the whole mess, would it surprise any of us to discover that within a week or so we are no longer conducting flying missions over Syria?

There’s more at the link, and, as always, Patterico’s site is full of reader commentary.

Vladimir Putin took the measure of Barack Hussein Obama early, and has been conducting Russian policy based on it; he understands that our 44th President has no stomach for hard work or leadership, really knows nothing about the world at large, and is consumed by the liberal position that the United States has been overly aggressive on the world stage in the past.

The term is “soft power,” coined by Joseph Nye in the 1980s, meaning the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion. Dr Nye argued that a country needs to employ both hard and soft power, but our President seems to have forgotten the necessity for hard power as well. Dr Nye himself wrote, in 2013, that Russian and China don’t really understand soft power, and don’t use it well, concluding:

China and Russia make the mistake of thinking that government is the main instrument of soft power. In today’s world, information is not scarce but attention is, and attention depends on credibility. Government propaganda is rarely credible. The best propaganda is not propaganda. For all the efforts to turn Xinhua and China Central Television into competitors to CNN and the BBC, there is little international audience for brittle propaganda. As the Economist noted about China, “the party has not bought into Mr. Nye’s view that soft power springs largely from individuals, the private sector, and civil society. So the government has taken to promoting ancient cultural icons whom it thinks might have global appeal.” But soft power doesn’t work that way. As Pang Zhongying of Renmin University put it, it highlights “a poverty of thought” among Chinese leaders.

The development of soft power need not be a zero-sum game. All countries can gain from finding each other attractive. But for China and Russia to succeed, they will need to match words and deeds in their policies, be self-critical, and unleash the full talents of their civil societies. Unfortunately, that is not about to happen soon.

This assumes a Western democracy type of thinking on the parts of Russia and China, an assumption which couldn’t be further from the truth. China has been enslaved by Communism for almost three generations, and while Russia is nominally a democracy — yeah, right — President Putin is a former KGB officer, and values democracy and freedom just as much as you’d expect from such a man.

The leadership of Russia and China aren’t really interested in soft power, except in places where it might save them a few rubles, but are very much interested in hard power, because that is what they know, and that is how they rose to power in the first place.

President Obama doesn’t know this or understand this, and seems thoroughly taken aback when Russia and China play hardball with him; why that just isn’t nice, that just isn’t fair!

Soft power might get a country what it wants on occasion, but if a country’s leaders aren’t willing to use hard power when necessary, it will always fail when confronted with hard power. And that’s why Vladimir Putin treats Barack Obama as his flunky, because he can.

Two stories, and two points, from The Wall Street Journal.

The first story:

Big Tax Cuts, and Deep Deficits, Seen in Donald Trump’s Plan

By John D. McKinnon | September 29, 2015 @ 1452 EDT

Donald Trump’s tax plan would cut taxes by far more than other presidential candidates’ proposals, but that also means it would deepen deficits by more – at least $10 trillion over a decade — according to a think tank analysis.

The analysis by the business-backed Tax Foundation undercuts Mr. Trump’s claim that his tax plan would not add to the federal government’s rising long-term debt. In announcing his plan, a campaign document said that the proposal “doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.”

By comparison, Marco Rubio’s plan would cut taxes and increase deficits by $1.7 trillion, Jeb Bush’s by $1.6 trillion and Rand Paul’s by about $1 trillion, the Tax Foundation said.

“It [the Trump plan] is by far the biggest tax cut of any of the announced plans,” said Scott Hodge, the organization’s president. The group found that the Trump plan would increase deficits by $12 trillion when its economic effects are ignored.

A Trump campaign spokeswoman said in a statement that the Tax Foundation analysis didn’t take into account the policy changes that would be used to offset the plan’s reductions.

“Even accounting for that, their figures seem wildly off the mark, especially compared to how they scored similar provisions for Jeb Bush’s plan,” the campaign said.

The Tax Foundation denied that, saying it included all the changes it could model.

One basic problem for Mr. Trump’s plan is that its rate reductions are so large that it’s hard to find enough raisers to offset them, Tax Foundation officials suggested. The Trump plan would lower the top rate for individuals to 25% from 39.6%, and the top rate on all business income to 15%. The current top corporate rate is 35%.

Yes, taxes are too high, and spending is way, way, way! too high, but the solution is not to increase deficits wildly.

The second story:

Senate Passes Bill to Fund Government Through Dec. 11

The bill is expected to receive the House’s approval and Obama’s signature before a midnight deadline

By Kristina Peterson | Updated Sept. 30, 2015 11:16 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The Senate on Wednesday passed a short-term spending bill keeping the government running through Dec. 11, putting Congress on track to avoid another government shutdown with little time to spare.

The House is expected to approve the spending bill later Wednesday and send it to President Barack Obama, who is expected to sign the legislation before the government’s current funding expires at midnight.

The bill passed the Senate on a 78-20 vote, with the support of 32 Republicans and all 46 members of the Democratic caucus. All of the opposition came from Republicans.

There’s more at the link.

This is the omnibus spending bill which conservatives wanted to use to defund Planned Parenthood, but outgoing Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have forced it through without that cut, because they were just deathly afraid that President Obama would veto it, and the Republicans would be blamed for a government shutdown.

This is entirely the Republicans’ fault: if they had passed the annual appropriations bills when they were supposed to have passed them, and the Planned Parenthood appropriation was the issue at hand, only the appropriation for Health and Human Services would have faced a Presidential veto . . . and I’d have been perfectly happy if HHS was closed down. When they don’t do their first job, funding the government, and depend on continuing resolutions, they surrender the power of their majority.

We published, on the old site, exactly how the Republicans could make their majority, then only in the House of Representatives, work for them:

The Republican wins in Congress give them more power, but the Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. We’ll be told that the House Republicans will have to compromise, but what they will really have to do is present real, solid alternatives.

The first place they can start is to revamp the entire budget process. Right now, the budget of the United States is passed in twelve omnibus appropriations bills, several of which fund more than one federal department. These bills are just plain huge, and, as a consequence, legislators insert controversial items in with non-controversial ones, in appropriations bills which cover so much that they can’t be rejected. The Republicans should pass appropriations in smaller, tighter bills, bills which can be read and understood and which, if rejected by the Senate or vetoed, won’t shut down whole sections of the government, but which will impact the government in smaller, more narrowly tailored ways.

Along with that, by passing appropriations measures every year, the whole budget process gets stacked up and harder to review. The answer is simple: pass half of the appropriations bills for two-year periods, and then, the next year, pass appropriations bills for the other half of the budget for two-year periods. In that manner, each year the Congress will have to pass appropriations for only half of the government, allowing more time for scrutiny and consideration.1

The way we do things now stacks the deck in favor of higher spending: congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike, insert their pet projects, different agencies ask for things they want, special interest groups lobby for things which they think are good, and it all gets pushed into huge bills with far-too-little scrutiny. If the Republicans were to adopt these two simple ideas, they would be well-supported, and really uncontroversial, and the Democrats in the Senate would pretty much have to accept them (for political reasons), but they would reduce the pressure on ever-higher spending.

The Republicans didn’t do this, and, of course, Common Sense Political Thought was such a small blog that it’s very probable than no one in Congress ever heard of it, much less read it. But, worse than not reading it and passing many, much smaller appropriations bills, the Republicans have not passed even the twelve annual appropriations bills, leaving the omnibus continuing resolutions bills as the only way to fund the government.

They have to do better than this.
_________________________

  1. There is only one constitutional restriction in this, the provision in Article I, Section 8, which says that the Congress has the power “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” Such restriction implies that the Framers believed that Congress could appropriate for other things for periods longer than two years.

If it annoys the editors of The New York Times, it must be a good idea!

Taking Note - The Editorial Page Editor's Blog

Representative Trey Gowdy.Credit Cliff Owen/Associated Press

The choice House Republicans make to replace John Boehner as speaker will say a lot about how the party is going to handle its current identity crisis. Will it finally take governing seriously, or will it go on using its majority in Congress to shut down the government, hold show votes on health care reform, stymie President Obama and try to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president?

The current conventional wisdom holds that the leading candidate is the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy of California. Mr. McCarthy, at least, said on Monday that it is time to stop “governing by crisis,” and that he would look for “the most conservative solution I can find.” That might, possibly, hint that he is open to compromise.

His promotion, however, would leave the majority leader spot open. And, as Jennifer Steinhauer reports today, some in the party are hoping to elevate Trey Gowdy to that position.

Mr. Gowdy, of South Carolina, was elected in 2010 and built a reputation sponsoring marginal and often bizarre bits of legislation, like the 2014 bill that would allow the House of Representatives to sue the president of the United States if it did not like the way the president was enforcing the law.

He’s a big supporter of repealing the Affordable Care Act and, of course, of denying federal money to Planned Parenthood.

There’s more at the link, of course, and while I really, really wanted to copy and paste the whole thing, I resisted temptation.

Basically, Mr Rosenthal doesn’t like the idea that conservatives who did something really radical like win elections should have any real voice in the House of Representatives. They should be good little soldiers and just go along with what their betters tell them to do. When Mr Rosenthal asks, “Will it finally take governing seriously, or will it go on using its majority in Congress to shut down the government, hold show votes on health care reform, stymie President Obama and try to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president?” what he fails to realize/doesn’t want to acknowledge is that the voters elected Republicans precisely to “stymie President Obama and try to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president.” John Boehner is leaving office as Speaker of the House because he has been too much of a go-along-to-get-along Republican, who should have been using the Republican majority “stymie President Obama and try to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president.” If he had been that kind of Speaker, he’d have won the accolades of Republicans across the country and wouldn’t have had to resort to pettiness and petulance on his way out.

So, if the editors of the Times are appalled that Representative Gowdy might become Majority Leader, then I naturally support Mr Gowdy becoming Majority Leader. It’s time we had a solid conservative in that position.

Mr Gowdy has said that he is not running for the job, which should please the editors of the New York Times, but we need a strong, real, conservative in that position.

Another one bites the dust?

According to a report from The Hill, Purple PAC, one of the SuperPACs supporting the presidential campaign of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has stopped raising money for the libertarian Senator.

The Hill also reported that Paul will attend fundraisers on Wednesday and Thursday for his reelection to the Senate.

Dr Paul’s presidential campaign never really had any traction; it’s time for him to quit.

Statement Examples for Research Papers

Hey all, my label is Charlotte Craig, and that I have worked as an assistance writer author for years. Yes – a long time! Did I go into this work? I needed to work from home possess some control over exactly how many hours and what these hours were, be compensated effectively for that function I-do and do something beneficial and fascinating. Continue reading ‘Statement Examples for Research Papers’ »

The candidates are asking for last minute campaign donations . . .

. . . but, if you miss the last minute, not to worry, they’ll still accept donations! Tomorrow is the end of the third quarter, when candidates have to file campaign expense reports with the Federal Elections Commission, and I’m receiving email solicitations for campaign donations, that we’ve just Got To Get In before the end of the quarter. This is the first one I’ve received from John Kasich:

Kasich for America

Dana, I am running for President because I believe that together we can offer voters a positive vision of a stronger America and end the divisiveness that has plagued our country for too many years.

We have a critical fundraising deadline this Wednesday and I could use your help to keep up our momentum.

I am very proud of my conservative record; leading the effort to balance the federal budget, eighteen years of national security experience on the defense committee, two election victories as governor in THE key swing state of Ohio, and record tax cuts in Ohio, along with more than 300,000 jobs created..

It’s a record that was only possible with the hard work of a great team and I hope to earn your support and your vote. Will you chip in $25 or more right now to help with our September fundraising goal?

Since announcing my candidacy in July, our team has continued to grow stronger and it seems like we’re announcing major endorsements almost every day!

Several recent polls show that I am the only Republican candidate defeating Hillary Clinton in both Ohio and New Hampshire. With your help, we can build on this support and win.

Dana, together we can strengthen America.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

-John

John Kasich
Governor of Ohio

My biggest problem with this donation solicitation letter is that he asked me to “chip in $25 or more right now,” but if you follow the link, while you can select the amount of your donation, it defaults not to $25.00, but $50.00; that’s kind of cheesy, at best, and wholly misleading at worst. Carky Fiorina sent a similar donation request, asking Can I depend on you to chip in $13 right away, to help grow our support?, and $13.00 is one of the given options,1 but it does not automatically default to any given contribution level.

This is a long article, due to the reproduced campaign contribution letters reproduced, so I’ll put the rest after the break: Continue reading ‘The candidates are asking for last minute campaign donations . . .’ »

  1. The others are $3.00, $25.00, $50.00, $100.00, $500.00 and “Other”.

Donald Trump releases his tax reform plan

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has finally told us what he’s going to do as President, if he is elected, on something other than immigration. From Patterico’s Pontifications:

Trump: I’ll Have Government Take Care of Everybody’s Health Care and Raise Taxes on the Very Wealthy

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:35 am

“The Policy Proposals of Donald Trump” sounds like one of those “thinnest book in the world” jokes, but Bernie Sanders Trump was on “60 Minutes” last night talking policy. In a long-form interview, it’s actually quite surprising how his usual vapid platitudes give way to serious, specific proposals, when he has the time to sit down and really explain them.

Haha just kidding:

Scott Pelley: What’s your plan for Obamacare?

Donald Trump: Obamacare’s going to be repealed and replaced. Obamacare is a disaster if you look at what’s going on with premiums where they’re up 40, 50, 55 percent.

Scott Pelley: How do you fix it?

Donald Trump: There’s many different ways, by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, “No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private. But–”

Scott Pelley: Universal health care.

Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

And from The Wall Street Journal:

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Middle class, businesses get break, but overseas profits would face a one-time 10% levy

By Monica Langley and John D. McKinnon | Updated Sept. 28, 2015 11:43 a.m. ET

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled an ambitious tax plan Monday that he says would eliminate income taxes for millions of households, lower the tax rate on all businesses to 15% and change tax treatment of companies’ overseas earnings.

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

Many middle-income households would have a lower tax rate under Mr. Trump’s proposal, but because high-income households generally pay income tax at much higher rates, his proposed across-the-board rate cut could have a positive impact on them, too. For example, an analysis of Jeb Bush’s plan—taxing individuals’ incomes at no more than 28%—by the business-backed Tax Foundation found that the biggest percentage winners in after-tax income would be the top 1% of earners.

Mr. Trump’s plan appears designed to help him, as the GOP front-runner, cement his standing as a populist—though that message is complicated by the fact that the billionaire, like other Republican leaders, would eliminate the estate tax.

There’s more at the link.

So, Mr Trump is going to cut everybody’s taxes, and see to it that everybody gets health care? How, I have to ask, is that going to work? Here is Mr Trump’s plan, from his campaign website:

The Trump Tax Plan: A Simpler Tax Code For All Americans

When the income tax was first introduced, just one percent of Americans had to pay it. It was never intended as a tax most Americans would pay. The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money.

For those Americans who will still pay the income tax, the tax rates will go from the current seven brackets to four simpler, fairer brackets that eliminate the marriage penalty and the AMT while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II:

Income Tax Rate Long Term Cap Gains/ Dividends Rate Single Filers Married Filers Heads of Household
0% 0% $0 to $25,000 $0 to $50,000 $0 to $37,500
10% 0% $25,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $37,501 to $75,000
20% 15% $50,001 to $150,000 $100,001 to $300,000 $75,001 to $225,000
25% 20% $150,001 and up $300,001 and up $225,001 and up

With this huge reduction in rates, many of the current exemptions and deductions will become unnecessary or redundant. Those within the 10% bracket will keep all or most of their current deductions. Those within the 20% bracket will keep more than half of their current deductions. Those within the 25% bracket will keep fewer deductions. Charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions will remain unchanged for all taxpayers.

Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American’s taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth.

Well, one thing is certain: it would encourage a whole lot of couples who are now just playing house to go ahead and get married! And my taxes would certainly decrease, by a fairly significant amount. But I’m very leery on how Mr Trump’s plan is going to generate the same revenue — he claims that his proposal will be revenue neutral — and how he intends to cut total government spending sufficiently to reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit.

Let me be clear about this: I absolutely hate paying taxes! But, despite that hatred, I realize that there are certain services which we need and demand from government, and those things have to be paid for, and they are paid for with our tax dollars. The real problem isn’t taxes; the real problem is that we spend too much, and too much of what we spend is spent at too high a level of government. We need to return state level functions to the states, and local level functions to cities, counties and municipalities.

There’s more of Mr Trump’s plan at the campaign site link above.

Why the left despise Carly Fiorina

Apparently, to be a powerful and respected woman, you may hold only a set of carefully restricted views! From The New York Times:

Carly Fiorina Both Repels and Enthralls Liberal Feminists

By Amy Chozick | September 28, 2015

When the novelist Jennifer Weiner watched the second Republican presidential debate with her two daughters on Sept. 16, she felt a sense of pride at seeing the lone woman on stage, Carly Fiorina, hold her own against Donald J. Trump.

Carly Fiorina speaking on Thursday at Converse College in Spartanburg, S.C. She also visited an anti-abortion pregnancy center in the city. | Credit Travis Dove for The New York Times Click to enlarge.

Then Mrs. Fiorina denounced abortion and Planned Parenthood in a graphic monologue that thrilled many conservative Republican voters but left Ms. Weiner appalled.“It’s so weird — she looks like one of us, but she’s not,” said Ms. Weiner, who in addition to being a best-selling author is an influential feminist with a large social-media following. “You’re on the bus with her until she starts talking about Planned Parenthood.”

As Mrs. Fiorina’s presidential campaign gains traction — and as the focus on her statements about Planned Parenthood intensifies — liberal women across the web are expressing conflicted feelings about her candidacy. At times, there is gratification at watching a woman forcefully take on Mr. Trump; at other times, horror at Mrs. Fiorina’s conservative policy positions, which these women see as anathema to the feminist cause.

“Can you love a campaign but hate a candidate’s policies?” read the subtitle of the writer Robin Marty’s Sept. 18 essay on Cosmopolitan.com titled “Carly Fiorina Is the Candidate I Wanted Hillary Clinton to Be.”

Mrs. Fiorina has encouraged feminists to take her seriously.

There’s a lot more at the link, but it’s almost entirely on one subject: abortion. You can read it, but it’s pretty much tedious. The feminist left are utterly appalled that a female candidate might not find abortion to be some sort of secular sacrament — and there was a twitter hashtag #shoutyourabortion which encouraged women to talk about the positive aspects of slaughtering their unborn children — and might, just might, think that an unborn child is a living human being.

The left tried the same ploy in 2008 and 2012: opposition to abortion was equated with opposition to all forms of contraception, something which no Republican presidential candidate has advocated. The idea that Planned Parenthood, a private organization, shouldn’t be receiving $500 million in federal subsidies because of their abortion business is morphed into wicked Republicans want to deny women contraception.

In reality, Republicans, including Mrs Fiorina,1 have advocated making oral contraceptives an over-the-counter medication, rather than something available only by prescription.2

None of this is surprising, of course: we had already said that, now that she was a top tier candidate, the left — as well as her Republican opponents — would be coming after Mrs Fiorina with sharpened blades. What the left simply don’t understand, and really cannot comprehend, is that Mrs Fiorina isn’t running to become the first female President of the United States, she’s running to become President of the United States. She happens to be a woman, yes, but that isn’t really an important part of the equation for Republicans; we care that she is running on her accomplishments rather than on her genitals.

The Times story, if you go on beyond the point I quoted, becomes less a story about the differences between Mrs Fiorina and the feminist left than an editorial-masquerading-as-a-news story, one the author apparently hopes will undermine Mrs Fiorina’s candidacy.

You see, the left are horrified that Mrs Fiorina, like Sarah Palin before her, succeeded in life not by playing the woman card, but by getting in the arena with men and fighting for position as an equal. If a woman succeeds in the professional world, in competition with men, she must make obeisance to feminism and the left because not giving all of the credit to feminism means that, shockingly enough, such women might not agree with their political positions, either.

But conservatives? We value achievement, we value working for what you have, we value a real equality which says, “Go out and compete, show us what you can do,” rather than the false equality of professional feminism which tells women that they must have help from the left or they will always be behind. We believe in real equality; the left never have.
_________________________

  1. The Washington Post used Mrs Fiorina’s photo to illustrate the article.
  2. Interestingly enough, some of the feminist groups oppose this:

    The Republican-proposed bill on Capitol Hill, to the dismay of women’s health advocacy groups, does not guarantee insurers would continue to cover the cost, as most plans are now required to do under the Affordable Care Act. NARAL Pro-Choice America called the proposal “nothing but political pandering to trick women and families into thinking we are covered while dismantling one of the most critical gains in the Affordable Care Act.”

    The goal, apparently, isn’t easier access to contraception, but getting the government to provide it.

It’s curtains for Carly!

She handled herself well!

Stage Backdrop Collapses Behind Carly Fiorina During Speech

By Brian Roth | Updated at 11:28 PM CDT on Sunday, Sep 27, 2015

A curtain backdrop appeared to collapse behind Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina as she spoke in a San Antonio campaign event.

Several women were seen rushing to shield Fiorina after the bunting and curtain frame crippled, sending frame piping and cloth falling to the ground.

After Fiorina returned to the front of the stage, she immediately asked if everyone was okay – then someone yelled “Trump!”

“Trump, Hillary, it could have been lots of people,” said Fiorina.

There were no reports of injuries.

There’s more at the link.

To me, this is just an amusing campaign trail story, a slight accident in which no one was hurt, but it did show that Mrs Fiorina can be calm and cool when the unexpected happens. Then again, we already knew that.