In my humble opinion of course.

The Union Leader this morning:

Ashooh for Congress: Best person to fight for NH

We have waited on an endorsement in the 1st Congressional District race because, frankly, we weren’t sure who would be the best person to send to Washington. But while both Rich Ashooh and Sean Mahoney have impressed us with their ideas and business backgrounds, we think Ashooh makes the better, more thoughtful case on the issues.

Ashooh has also run the better campaign, with no hint of the nastiness and skulduggery that has gone back and forth between the Mahoney and Guinta camps. Former Mayor Frank Guinta has not impressed us at all; and Mahoney’s double-talk on amnesty is a far cry from Ashooh’s clarity on that and other subjects.

Ashooh’s work for BAE Systems, the company that does so much to defend America’s fighting forces, gives him a leg up on knowing the labyrinth that is Washington and how to clean house. As New Hampshire’s largest manufacturer, BAE has given Ashooh broad experience in being competitive, innovative, and tight-fisted with a buck.

Ashooh’s volunteer work in the New Hampshire community is extensive, from the Christa McAuliffe-Alan Shepard Discovery Center to the USNH Board of Trustees to the Easter Seals Veterans Count committee.

All have added value to the New Hampshire experience.

Ashooh, the youngest of seven and the grandson of immigrants, has a passion for our republic that burns bright. We have seen it on the campaign trail. We would love to see it in Washington.

Superb.

Happy Tuesday night, everyone.

Huh? What? Where am I?

I must have fallen asleep.

Because the real question of the week isn’t who’s playing campaign kindergarten games.

The real question is what CD-1 candidate has the Message, Money and Momentum heading into the final week of the primary.

And that’s the only question.

Questions for the long weekend: What political scoop do you not yet know about?

The link to the answer broke on Facebook this morning:

Welcome to Mr. Hearst’s house, James!

In New Hampshire? Check!

With a Paul Hodes for Senate bumper sticker? Check!

Finally!!!

A documented touchdown for Team Hodes !!!

And small signs of the ground game Team McCain ran in the Granite State still abound.

Like this lonely soldier, keeping watch from the back of a street sign up by the Mall of New Hampshire:

And Republicans and Democrats in Washington claim that they can CUT taxes in this environment:

House Republicans’ first move in the majority would be to extend tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) suggested Wednesday evening.

Pence, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said that House Republicans would look to extend the tax cuts they helped President George W. Bush pass in 2001 and 2003, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

“Well, we’re going to stay focused on Election Day. But I think before that, we’re going to continue to demand that this administration and this Congress make it clear that no American will see a tax increase in January of next year,” Pence said during an appearance on CNBC.

“So the first thing that we will do is try to preserve the tax relief of 2001 and 2003 for all Americans — for all small businesses and family farmers. But we also want to look at the kind of across-the-board tax relief, the kind of tax relief that will encourage capital formation, to get this economy moving again,” the Indiana Republican and potential presidential candidate added.

Pence’s assertion adds to the litany of pledges the GOP has made to voters as the fall’s midterm elections approach. Republicans have made taxes a key part of their electoral assault against Democrats, who largely (led by President Obama) favor extending the tax cuts except for the wealthiest earners.

Hogwash.

The whole tax cut “debate” is pure pandering by both Republicans and Democrats.

No serious lawmaker or economist believes that Washington can tax cut their way out of our current massive money hole. The only way to right our financial ship of state is through massive spending cuts coupled with tax increases.

Britain is already trying to figure out how to do it.

Via the Economist:

Radical Britain
Britain has embarked on a great gamble. Sooner or later, many other rich-world countries will have to take it too
Aug 12th 2010

OF ALL the politicians elected to high office in the West in the past few years, David Cameron seemed the least revolutionary. There was certainly none of the thrill of Barack Obama’s elevation. Even set against his peers in Europe, Mr Cameron seemed to offer less disruptive élan than Nicolas Sarkozy and a less intriguingly ruthless career than Angela Merkel. Here was a pragmatic toff, claiming the centre ground back from a Labour Party that had lost its vim. When Mr Cameron failed to win the election outright in May and had to share power with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats, many feared a government as underwhelming as his election campaign.

Yet within its first 100 days the Con-Lib coalition has emerged as a radical force. For the first time since Margaret Thatcher handbagged the world in 1979, Britain looks like the West’s test-tube (see article). It is daring again—not always in a good way but in one that is likely to be instructive to more timid souls, not least Mr Obama and his Republican foes.

The most obvious audacity of hope lies in the budget, unveiled by George Osborne, the new chancellor of the exchequer, in June. To balance the books, he raised some taxes, notably VAT, but three-quarters of the savings will come from spending cuts. Most government departments will shrink by a quarter, though Mr Osborne excluded the National Health Service from his savagery. In the heated debate between Keynesian economists (who worry that a weak world economy needs more government spending) and fiscal hawks (who believe deficits must be tackled now to stave off Grecian disaster), Britain is the prime exhibit for tough love.

Meanwhile, the Con-Lib coalition is pushing ahead fast with plans to overhaul the British state: schools, the health service, the police and welfare all face dramatic change. A lot more government data are being made public. Unusually for the Tories, there is talk of increasing civil liberties and imprisoning fewer people; and in another sop to the Liberals, Britons next year will vote on a change to their voting system.

London calling to the faraway towns

Inside Westminster people like to point out that none of this is entirely novel. For instance, other countries—notably Canada and Sweden—have slashed budgets sharply, though they did so at a time when the rest of the world economy could pull them along; the school reforms are based on Blairite ideas (blocked by Gordon Brown). But there is a danger of missing the wood for the trees. The onrush of so many projects at one time is certainly daring: not since Mrs Thatcher has a British politician seemed in quite so much of a hurry to do a lot. And, again as with Thatcherism, there is a hint of a big idea.

For some time Mr Cameron, prompted by his closest domestic adviser, Steve Hilton, has talked about creating a Big Society, with more citizen volunteers taking on the state’s work. In office this vague idea has formalised into radical decentralisation: handing power to parents to run schools, to general practitioners to run the NHS, to local voters to pick police commissioners. In many cases, rather than just reduce the supply of the state, the Tories want to reduce the demand for it, changing a culture in which Britons have looked to government for services and answers they could provide themselves.

Why has Britain suddenly become audacious? Ideology has something to do with it. The Tories retain a Thatcherite edge—and one of the (few) beliefs they share with their new Liberal allies is a fear that the state has got too strong. Another factor is the country’s overcentralisation—arguably the greatest in the West. So much power has been grabbed by Whitehall that it is much easier than elsewhere to identify bureaucracy to hack at. Meanwhile, the lack of checks and balances in Britain gives even a coalition prime minister near-dictatorial powers to get laws passed quickly—something Presidents Obama and Sarkozy must envy.

Yet the main prompt has been necessity. The Tories inherited such a massive budget deficit (11% of GDP) that there was little political upside in postponing the pain. Indeed, if there is a spiritual godfather of Britain’s punk politicians, it is that old Celtic headbanger, Gordon Brown. If he had not trashed the government’s finances before the recession, Mr Cameron, who back then was muttering about “sharing the proceeds of growth”, might have had a “muddling through” alternative.

There could be a row going on, down near Slough

As with all gambles, it could go wrong. The biggest danger is that fiscal tightening throttles the recovery: Mr Cameron may need a less hasty plan B. Similarly, many Tory bets, such as the elected police chiefs, could have done with a pilot project. There are possible rifts, even over the Big Society. Mr Osborne’s focus is slimming the state, Mr Hilton’s is decentralising it, which may need cash to lure in “social entrepreneurs” (see article) and local volunteers. And opposition will grow. Teachers and doctors (many of whom supported Mr Clegg) seldom welcome change. In swathes of Britain, including Scotland, the state accounts for the bulk of the economy.

Two of the Tories’ obstinacies look especially worrying. First, they should have used their disastrous inheritance as an excuse to break their promise to maintain NHS spending: even a 5% cut in that bloated department would have eased pressure elsewhere. And second, their redesign of the state is limited by their mistrust of local councils, often a more logical place to devolve political power to than unelected busybodies.

So a gamble it remains. But it is one that in general this newspaper supports. Throughout the rich world, government has simply got too big and Mr Cameron’s crew currently have the most promising approach to trimming it. Others—and not just the tottering likes of Greece and Spain—will surely follow. That includes America. At present, unlike in the 1980s, there is no Reaganesque echo from the other side of the Atlantic: despite the Tea Partiers’ zeal, the Republicans seem as clueless as Mr Obama in producing a credible medium-term plan to balance America’s budget. But pretty soon, as in Europe, somebody will have to come up with one—and Britain, for better or worse, is likely to be the place they will come to for ideas.

Stop the pandering, Pence.

And let’s get serious, America.