Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Walker to Drop Out (Updated with Official Statement)
From the New York TimesGov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
UPDATE: Excerpts from Gov. Walker’s official statement, which was emailed this afternoon.
Published in GeneralAs a kid, I was drawn to Ronald Reagan because he was a Republican and a conservative. But most of all, I admired him because of his eternal optimism in the American people.
That thought came into my head when we were all standing at the Reagan Library last Wednesday. President Reagan was good for America because he was an optimist.
Sadly, the debate taking place in the Republican party today is not focused on that optimistic view of America. Instead, it has drifted into personal attacks.
In the end, I believe that voters want to be for something and not against someone. Instead of talking about how bad things are, we want to hear about how we can make them better for everyone…
To refocus the debate will require leadership. While I was sitting in church yesterday, the pastor’s words reminded me that the Bible is full of stories about people who were called to be leaders in unusual ways.
Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the race so that a positive conservative message can rise to the top of the field. With that in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately.
I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current frontrunner. This is fundamentally important to the future of the party and – ultimately – to the future of our country.
There’s focus and there’s focus. Walker didn’t get into the race until July in large part because he was focused on state issues. Those issues were genuinely time consuming, so whereas some candidates were “not running” while they engaged in fundraising for their PACs, endorsement gaining, debate practice, and such, Walker was actually not running; I don’t believe that any other candidate is similarly focused on their “day job”, with Jindal coming closest.
As Leigh notes, we now have a key state supreme court race starting up, and a lot of Wisconsinites can either support one or the other. With no Democrat Wisconsinites in the national race, it’s helpful to have Walker and activists be able to focus on getting Rebecca Bradley onto the court.
Another is that it would involve an acceptance that he’s in the wilderness for a while, and there just isn’t the time remaining in the campaign. Specifically, I don’t think he’d have made it into the October 28 debate, particularly if they cut the numbers, and it seems likely that that’s going to be the deathknell for all the affected campaigns.
One of the ironies is that the next two debates are both on more cerebral channels (CNBC and Fox Business/ WSJ), and the latter is in Wisconsin. They ought to have been his best shots, but if you miss the criteria, you miss the criteria.
When he produced a more solid policy platform than any of the other candidates running, maintained his conservatism, and connected his successful reforms in Wisconsin with the reforms he hoped to make as President. When did he not?
Obama’s legislative agenda defeated? Compare the Democratic opposition to Bush, which saw tax cuts, the AUMF, bankruptcy reform, many FTAs, the Surge, and other conservative priorities pass.
They’ve cut spending; the debt is set to go down next year.
Labor unions are dramatically weaker. The fence is mostly built, and e-verify now covers much of the nation. Tax rates are lower.
It’s true that there’ve been no agencies that have been eliminated, but Ex-Im is gone.
They’ve created substantial Congressional majorities supporting entitlement reform, and the Ryan Plan creates surpluses within the budget window. I can go on at greater length if need be.
Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, the various slap downs of Obama’s efforts to expand his office, the return to Federalism… there’s a lot of good stuff from the Republican judges within your timeframe.
Outside their supermajority, what have Democrats gained that outmatches Republican gains? To me it seems pretty clear that the last fifteen years have mostly gone well for us.
I moved to Madison, WI, to support him. I was told I’d have an interview this week. Happily, it seems to have worked out better than it might have sounded; Mrs. of England likes the idea of Madison (she should join me permanently in a few weeks), and it looks like there’s other stuff I can do out here.
James, I gather you missed the other news — he actually has an appointment to make. Crooks passed away unexpectedly yesterday. Walker started out with condolences to that family.
He will appoint Rebecca Bradley (almost as certain as the sun rising). She will be running as an incumbent next spring.
That is good to know. I have a hunch you are in the minority.
James, under nobody’s prediction is the debt going next year or any year. The deficit may be trimmed temporarily, but those are disparate terms.
Have we resolved what magic beans we are planting to achieve 10 years of 4%+ growth per annum with never a hint of slowdown or recession, an unprecedented feat, to achieve the republicans mythical returns.
We can debate much about Ryan’s plan, but what isn’t debatable by his own admission is we must have uninterrupted GDP growth greater than 4% for a decade for any chance of it coming to fruition.
Welcome to the great northern Midwest, we look forward to Mrs. Of England joining you soon.
When you say support is that support or $upport?
Walker is a good man. He started as my pick, but slowly declined for reasons that I think amounted to his lack of experience on the national stage. I wish him well and hope he comes back some day.
What metric shows the national debt declining and our budget running surplus next year?
What metric shows federal spending declining. Discretionary – yes, but that is a sliver.
What fence is mostly built? When the Bush tax rates expired that was one of the largest tax increases in years and made the code the most progressive since Jimmy Carter.
If that sticks and isn’t re-authorized, but I hope you are correct.
This is mathematical fantasy. The Ryan plan creates no such thing unless you count an enormous increase in taxes taken by the federal and imaginary growth rates as a plan.
Republicans authorized large increases in SNAP.
Obamacare, stimulus. Not sure how those have gone for us.
I don’t think so. Objectively Perry and Walker had the best Conservative track record at actually governing. Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Carson have no such experience.
In what universe? Certainly not ours.
And you know that they’re maneuvering to end the sequester, right?
[Fun fact – it’s actually relatively easy to pay off our 19 trillion dollar debt – all we have to do is run a $500 billion budget surplus for 38 consecutive years].
You are either very desperate or very foolish, my friend.
Could you explain this? US debt has gone up every year for decades. The debt went up under Reagan and with Newt as speaker. Where are you getting information that we will have a surplus next year that will allow the debt to go down?
He’s mistaken. Debt as a percent of GDP is expected to go down next year (and a few after). Total debt will continue to go up. Spending goes up.
CBO: “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025“
I think he means deficit.
The deficit as a percentage of the GDP goes down? The total debt is 100% or more of the GDP.
Here’s a link to the latest CBO estimates. You’re mistaken, the answer to your question is at the link.
“Debt held by the Public” is less than 100% of GDP. “Total debt” (i.e. if you include the bonds held by the Social Security “trust fund”) is in excess of 100% of GDP.
A fair point, but your scare quotes around trust fund are key. If you owe money to yourself it’s not really debt. One part of the gov’t owes money to another part. They’re never repaying it, so it’s not really debt.
Unlike borrowing money from your IRA, the gov’t will face no consequences from that failure to repay.
If I owe money to myself that is scheduled to eventually be paid to other people then it really is debt. So if we assume that the government will eventually be paying out the proceeds of the social security trust fund to non-governmental recipients (i.e you and me), they WILL be repaying it, so it is really debt.
Think of it as an (inadequate) NPV monetization of future SS outlays.
Gov’t might not, but anyone on social security will, since the current law would impose roughly a 33% cut in everyone’s monthly check the day the “Trust Fund” goes broke. Doubt they’ll have the courage to really do that, instead they’ll cheapen the dollar until they can pay the interest on it, but that too will eventually fail.
The link doesn’t work.
This shows how bad I am at making predictions. My top two choices were Cruz and Walker. Cruz is who I really like best, but Walker seemed like the more realistic choice.
Honestly, if I could know with metaphysical certainty which candidate was mostly likely to beat the Democrat, I’d probably just vote for that one. Of course, “you know who” would be the exception.
So what happens to those trust receipts when SS runs a deficit? They are presented to the Treasury which has to issue more general obligation debt to fund.
They may not be publicly held, but we the people are liable. Specifically our posterity.
Neither do CBO’s projections.
Sorry about that. Here it is. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50724
What’s to stop Congress from just saying SS was a mistake and we’re not going to pay it? Or cut payments way back.
What’s your recourse?
Debt is a contract between two parties. SS is not a contract.
The chart there shows that deficit as a percent of GDP goes down next year (slightly). So that either means the deficit will be a bit smaller, or else will grow more slowly than GDP. Debt will grow either way.
However the chart does show 4 years of actual surplus in the late 90’s, so during that period the debt really did shrink.
When the special trust receipts carry the full faith and credit of the United Stats, same as Treasury GO’s.
We can default on the SS obligation because they don’t carry full faith and credit, but the trust receipts do. It is difficult to bifurcate them.
James is currently traveling, but he wanted me to note to everyone that he meant debt, not deficit. He’s measuring debt as a percentage of GDP. By doing so, we have a more accurate way of determining its impact on the economy than in simple nominal terms.