Last night’s debate on Bloomberg TV focused on the US
economy. This was a good choice by debate sponsors, because the
American people are focused on the economy out of self-defense. The abject failure of President Obama and his gaggle of academic charlatans
and Wall Street Wonderboys to grasp even the basics of business, is no surprise
to economic conservatives. If one is overly kind, one could call the state of our current economy “iffy”.
For that reason alone, people are ready to hear Republican ideas to repair the economy.
The debate was an opportunity for Republican presidential
candidates to discuss their thoughts on the economy in more detail than other
formats have allowed. Many of them, including Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and
Mitt Romney made good use of the format. Others did not do as well.
Texas Governor Rick Perry didn’t lose the economics debate
last night, but it may eventually cost him the nomination anyway. Perry needed
a reversal in direction for his campaign and his lackluster performance did not
do that. He will continue to slide in the polls because he gave no reason for
the slide to stop.
Perry is right, of course, on his statements about the
necessity to utilize our natural resources to save the economy. He mentioned it
several times but never ventured beyond the painfully obvious. Simply put, Perry never connected the dots. There was no analysis; no
linking of job production outside of the energy sector; and most importantly to
his campaign, no burning reason why voters should stick with the Perry
bandwagon.
Perry could have easily pointed out that we need relatively inexpensive
energy to increase production of both goods and jobs. Less expensive goods - and lower transportation costs - means more exports in all sectors, which means more jobs. Less expensive products are more
affordable to America’s middle class. Common
