Congratulations Barack Obama–A Post Election Risk Assessment

Yesterday, Barack Obama was re-elected President of the United States.  To those of you who supported the President, it is my hope that your faith in your cause will be realized in ways that speak to the higher aspirations you believed in.
For me, it is disappointing that this man was re-elected using the most negative and shameful tactics I have witnessed in my lifetime. To those few Obama supporters who supported him with reason and argument, you have my respect.  For the vast, vast majority of you, who used bumper sticker slogans and character assassination, I am deeply disappointed, have lost a little respect, and say to you flatly, you did not serve this country well or with dignity.  I am so tired of hearing the four horseman of the Democratic apocalypse (i.e. Republicans are either 1) Bigoted, 2) Racist, 3) Uncaring or 4) stupid).  These four fundamental characteristics form the foundation of nearly every Democratic attack.  Go back across this campaign and you will see how each has been used either alone or in combination to paint a demonic picture of Mitt Romney in particular and Republicans in general.  This character assassination may have won you the election, but you have lost the respect of thinking people in America.
I fear for our country in a way like never before in my lifetime.  This re-affirmation of this President has put this country at serious risk that will fundamentally change this country and how we see ourselves in ways no election before.

Barack Obama and the Risk of Disaster from this Election

There are several risk areas that I see.  These areas in and of themselves are neither good nor bad, they simply carry with them significant risk of a very undesirable outcomes.  So, here are my predictions for the next four years and beyond that, if realized, will lead to irrevocable steps that will transform this country from a land of opportunity to one of increasing government servitude and European Style Socialism.

Health Care

Mr. Obama has achieved the most sweeping health care reforms since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The reform law takes a big step toward universal health coverage, a final piece in the social contract.  With his re-election, there will be no stopping this flawed entitlement.  It carries a great risk that there will be a drive to bring about universal health care coverage administered by the federal government.  I predict it is only a matter of time as independent health care companies and insurance providers are squeezed and more and more people migrate to a government option. At some point, health care providers will become employees of government and the destruction of our economy and health care system will be complete.  This will lead to rationing of services and delays in testing/treatment.
Beyond the impact on care will be the impact on the relationship between health care workers and government officials. I predict that as this huge segment of the economy transforms to a government run entity, there will be a rise of health care service unions modeled after teacher’s unions.  With such an enormous part of our economy dependent on the Federal Government for their livelihood and with a corruptible health care worker service union, we will see the funneling of public dollars going for those candidates that promise the most benefits to health care workers.  This is likely to become the greatest source of corruption this country has ever known.
Further, there will be a spillover effect for all service employee unions and ultimately all unions.  The union movement will be strengthened overall and, as a result, taxpayers and consumers will likely suffer.

The Economy

Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression. The economy was cratering when he took office in January 2009. By that June it was growing, and it has been ever since (although at a rate that disappoints).  If President Obama is able to implement his economic agenda by hiring more teachers, firefighters, police officers, it is likely that there will be some short term burst to the economy as those workers spend their dollars.  However, it is likely that small businesses and entrepreneurs, that have generally formed the backbone of classic economic recovery will continue to be under-represented in the recovery.  Because of this, we will get reduction in jobless claims but a lower overall economic growth that is likely to stay below 3%.
The president will continue to push infrastructure projects that will again provide economic impact in those local areas of the country where the infrastructure occurs.  However, there is significant risk that these projects will be done inefficiently and with an eye toward making the participating construction companies more dependent on government officials for their livelihood.  Again, this direct funding by the public sector to these private sector companies means that there will be enormous risk of graft and corruption.  It has the potential of furthering an incestuous relationship between the companies that are recipients of the contracts and the elected officials who direct the funding.  When this happens, “public” officials become even more insulated from the electorate.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

 

The Federal Debt

 

Currently we are over $16 Trillion in debt at the federal level.  It is predictable that by the end of this year, we will break through the $17 Trillion barrier.  Of all the risks of this election, this one is the most predictable and has the potential to wreak havoc in ways that are both significant and devastating.  Here the risk is multifold.  The interest on the debt is non-negotiable and represents billions of dollars that is essentially unavailable for spending on anything else.  If interest rates rise, the bite of this would squeeze other programs in ways that limit our options.
The President’s plan is to propose spending cuts with a caveat that for every $2.50 in cuts, there will be a $1.00 increase in taxes.  If this pathway is achieved, then we may see some modest attenuation of the federal debt.  However, one must ask, “At what cost”.  Every dollar that is taken out of the private sector that is used to pay down the debt is a dollar that is unavailable to create economic growth.  One of the proposals that the President makes is to treat Capital gains taxes like ordinary income.  This would raise the effective rate of those taxes from 15% to something around or north of 30%.  What this would do is to create a powerful drag on investments and make the ROI analysis riskier.  This would have a detrimental effect on capital formation and would seriously hamper potential growth from small businesses and entrepreneurs.  So here again, we see small businesses and entrepreneurs impacted leading to less participation in the economy than in previous recoveries.
The other scenario is to inflate our way out of debt.  I predict that this maybe the more likely scenario as budget compromise may prove challenging with the continued divide of Congress.  By purposely generating dollars through the fed, it ultimately would lead to inflation.  This inflation from a federal debt perspective would be good as it would shrink the size of the debt relative to the economy.  However, again one must ask “At what cost”. 
Inflation is a terrible beast that consumes and devastates all, but particularly those on fixed incomes.  In addition it stifles investors because why would I want to lend money to anyone when my future earnings are being paid back in dollars that are worth less?
Make no mistake, because of this election, we will pay for this debt either with an economy that is slower growing than it otherwise would be or through inflation that would be incredibly destructive (or both).
 

Foreign Affairs

Mr. Obama and his administration have been resolute in attacking Al Qaeda’s leadership, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. He has ended the war in Iraq.
I believe that we have yet to fully realize the consequences of the administrations policies.  The Benghazi attack and attendant follow up reveals a deeply flawed internal communication structure, but worse calls into question the integrity of what is being revealed to the American people.  The current approach toward the middle east and the rest of the world will put our nation at risk in ways that we can not imagine at the present time.  The proposed cuts to the military also puts our national security at risk.
There will be significant risk of an attack on this country that could make 9/11 small by comparison.

 

The Supreme Court

The future of the nation’s highest court hung in the balance in this election.  The President will make at least one appointment to the bench, possibly two.  These appointments could institutionalize several key trends in this country.  There will be key cases that will run the full spectrum of social issues.  Our society will accelerate its drive toward non-traditional lifestyles.
Perhaps the biggest threat will come in the form of stifling free speech.  Free speech is at risk of being reduced through decisions that will impact how much money can be spent in elections.  This will limit our citizens from being able to hear all sides of an issue, not just the popular side.
Another risk will be that in the name of protecting groups from “hate speech”, the justices will likely codify and sanction attacks on most if not all institutions that espouse traditional values.  The attacks on organizations such as the Boy Scouts will likely extend and expand until anyone who espouses traditional values will be ostracized as “hate-mongering”.

Civil Rights

There is a significant risk that under the guise of extending civil rights, there will be an accelerated drive toward an amoral society.  An “anything goes” mentality and the self indulgent will triumph over the self-less.  We will be at risk of having government take a bigger and bigger role in defining acceptable behavior.  Further, our non-government institutions will either wither away and starve due to lack of funding or support or they will be fully co-opted by the government.
By 2016, we will be well on our way to a society in which the federal government will be more dominant, more of our citizens will be at the mercy of that government for their livelihood and we will be less a society in which an individual can truly succeed without the assistance of someone in the government.  This creates an environment in which corruption becomes likely and a despot become possible.  

A Dark Future?

Perhaps.  I do not say that all of these things will happen, only that we are at risk that they will happen.  Will we survive?  I suppose we will, but this country will likely be a very different one than the one I grew up in, more like France or Argentina and less like the land of opportunity we have known.  There is a significant risk to the “American Dream”.  Like Castro’s Cuba, where paradise is just around the corner and that paradise would be realized except for those terrible Americans who are holding back the people, your government will preside over a deteriorating US Economy while your Democratic leadership will tell you that prosperity is just around the corner if we can just get rid of those bigoted, racist, miserly and stupid Republicans.  If you want a preview of that, look no further than the one party rule of Washington, DC or California.
I usually end this by offering the hopeful “Let Freedom Ring”, but I am afraid that bell may have been rung for the last time, so I will simply signoff with….

End

Romney and the Social Issues

Recently one of my Facebook friends made the following observation about the election.  She said, “Why are conservative bigoted white men wasting so much time and energy fighting homosexuality? It may take years, decades, who knows...but the LGBT community will eventually win the fight. They'll be able to marry, have rights with respect to their significant others, to be open without ridicule, etc. So why is the whole planet wasting SO much time dealing with this issue? Isn't it exhausting?”

So who are these conservative white men that she is referring to?  I consider myself a conservative who also happens to be white and male and here is where I am at on this issue.  If the citizens of a state, either through their elected officials or through direct referendum choose to expand the definition of marriage and confer these rights on same sex couples, I will respect the law and its citizens.  I feel that my position is shared by many thoughtful conservatives who like Bill Bennett, former secretary of education under Reagan who said on a Daily Show with John Stewart, “John, why do you keep harping on the gay rights agenda? you won! Its over.  Time to move on.”  This was in response to a brow beating that Stewart was giving Bennett on the subject even though it was neither brought up by Bennett nor did it have anything to do with the book Mr. Bennett was there to promote.

Most Conservatives/Republicans can identify with Bill Bennett.  The Gay/Lesbian agenda is a train that has left the station.  It is rolling and not worth fighting over, there are bigger issues to deal with.  For the most part, we simply want to avoid the question and avoid the inevitable beatings.  Its not as if we think that expanding the definition of marriage in this manner is a good idea (we don’t), we simply are resigned to the inevitable expansion/adoption of this right in our communities and have made a decision, it is not worth fighting for.

Not one major Republican leader actively promotes any policy that would suggest that they would interfere with a State’s right to determine its own laws when it comes to most social issues including the marriage issue.  Mitt Romney is a big state’s right guy and this issue would be way, way down on his agenda of items requiring action.  My evidence for this?  In neither of the two debates was the issue brought up.  I have not heard any major policy speech by either Romney or Ryan address this issue from a policy perspective.

Here is what I do hear from Mitt Romney: First, the economy is suffering, GDP has been growing more slowly for the last two years, jobs are down, people are suffering because they cannot find decent work at decent wages.  Secondly, our federal debt is over $16 trillion dollars.  Over the past 3 1/2 years the current administration has added to the debt by over $1 trillion annually.  Finally, we have an administration who is not leveling with the American people about our foreign policy as evidenced by the nearly two week time frame in which the situation in Benghazi was blamed on a you tube video by various administration officials including our Ambassador to the UN, when overwhelming evidence pointed to this being a terrorist attack.  Why would the administration mislead the American public on this issue for such a long period of time, even when their own investigators were saying otherwise?  Why would our State Department deny requests for additional security made by the Ambassador’s staff?

When I consider the issue of whether Frank can get married to Matt or Lisa can get married to Susie in the light of these three fundamental issues that lie at the core of what a federal government should be doing, the gay agenda does not hold a candle.  And I like Bill Bennett (and other thoughtful conservatives) are begging “ENOUGH ALREADY, YOU HAVE WON THE DEBATE ON THE ISSUE” lets move on to more important topics such as:

• Economic Growth and Job Creation
• Balancing the Federal Budget and returning our country to fiscal sanity
• Operating with a realistic and honest foreign policy that respects our allies, condemns acts of terror, pursues foreign policies that are designed to keep this country and its citizens safe.

These are the critical issues.

There is no credible evidence that a Romney/Ryan administration would focus on much if anything beyond these three critical issues (with perhaps the exception of education).  Yes I know social values are one topic of 27 issues addressed on his website, but I would argue that there is nothing in his speeches nor his advocates talking points that suggest that this would be anything besides a low priority issue.  According to his own website, his top issues are: 5 Point Plan, jobs for Economic Growth, Foreign Policy, Smaller, Simpler, Smarter Government, Taxes.  So the Social Issues don’t make it into the top 5 and is relegated to three paragraphs as one of 27 overall issues.  The threat to the GLBT community is way, way, way overblown.

So your concern for the Gay Lesbian agenda is Straw Man.  Meant to point to something that fires up peoples concerns but at the end of the day has little meaningful substance.  Stop with the straw man already, YOU WON!!!!  Let’s focus on the most important issues, jobs and the economy, creating a plan to get the budget under control and a foreign policy that avoids the murder of Ambassadors and keeps American’s safe.

What say you?

Is it a truly Affordable Health Care?

I am continuing to ask others what is important in this election.  Recently I have been getting the Affordable Care Act as a main issue and reason to vote for Obama.  One gentleman noted that without Health Care Reform, he would not have insurance.

I responded with a personal dilemma that I hope helps put this into perspective and as a Senior I am wondering if I am not alone on this.

I want to share with you something that is being impacted by the upcoming election that affects me personally.  I am asking all of you who support Obama, especially those of you who consider the Affordable Care Act to be the main reason for supporting Obama to reflect on my situation and help me to understand why I should vote for Obama.

Many of you know that I have a form of cancer called indolent, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.  This requires aggressive treatment from time to time and I am looking at a possible bone marrow transplant over the next several months.  While I am not certain what the overall cost will be, I am certain it will be well in excess of $100,000. 

We have been blessed with a good job that has allowed me to purchase decent insurance at a rate that has been fairly affordable.  One way we have tried to manage our health care expenses and to more directly be responsible for our health care costs is that I chose a higher deductible (about;$7,000) and opted for a health savings account (HSA).  We have funded this HSA with the difference between the deductible and our anticipated out of pocket expenses.

Because of Obama's So Called Affordable Health Care plan, beginning in 2013, I will only be able to set aside $2,500 annually into my HSA.  This means that I will be "on the hook" without tax assistance for the difference between my deductible and $2,500.

This leaves me with a dilemma.  My choices would be keep the high deductible, take the 2,500 into the HSA account and pay out of pocket the nearly $5,000 of the difference between my deductable and the HSA without consideration against my after tax income.  This means that at my current tax bracket, I must earn $6,100 in order to have a net of $5,000 for my deductible.

My other option is pay nearly double my monthly premiums in order to get my deductible down to close to $2,500.  In either case, the so called Affordable Care Act makes my health care less affordable.

So when Obama tells you that he is not raising taxes on the middle class, I submit my situation as evidence piece number one that he is being less than honest on this matter.  I am confident that this is not the only situation in which this legislation has not fully represented the costs, especially to seniors who often need the most health care.

So you tell me, how is the Affordable Care Act helping me and why is it in my best interest to re-elect the President?  I'll be listening.

What Issues Are Important to You in This Election?

Why I Am Voting FOR Mitt Romney and Not Merely Against Obama

For some time now I have been asking many people this simple question: "For you, what are the key issues of this campaign"?

I have been delighted to hear both the willingness to engage on the subject and the wide range of issues that people consider when voting. It has been illuminating and educational.

When those I have engaged in this conversation have the respect to turn the question back on me, here is my answer....

3 Critical Crises

Our country is facing a series of crises of unprecedented magnitude. While we could engage on many, for me the focus must be on 3 critical concerns:

1)  Economic Growth

2)  the federal debt

3)  National Security

 

To me these three critical issues dwarf all other considerations.

 

Why? Because no matter your stand on education, health, social issues, etc., (all worthy of concern) no meaningful action, one way or another, can truly take place, until we get our own house in order. To be concerned about who should be allowed to marry who or how health care should be distributed, is a little bit like choosing between removing my valuables from  a safe or saving the lives of people in a house that is in flames.  Clearly, if we have time and it is safe, you want to do both. Unfortunately I am afraid that we don't have the time to even have that discussion.

When lives are at stake, the priority should be on saving lives.

Economic Growth

In this election, the first and most dangerous fire is jobs and the economy. However, it is not merely about how many people we put to work but also what kind of economic philosophy is going to drive our country going forward. Here are our choices as I see them.

Do we work to restore a commitment to prosperity and the creation of wealth, or one in which we merely put people to work?

The President’s plan is one that relies on direct funding of work with little or no regard of the source of those funds.  To be clear, I believe in the great work of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and road construction workers. As the son of a man who taught unselfishly for 50 years, I can testify to the difference that one teacher can make in the lives of a human being.

But we need to take a step back to understand that what allows for great teachers to flourish is an underlying healthy economy that generates enough wealth to support the hiring of great teachers, firefighters and police officers. Small Business, Entrepreneurs and owners of private enterprise are the creators of goods, products and services.  These products and services, when they are successful, lead to wealth creation, good jobs and the ability to provide sufficient funding for necessary public works, schools and the services that protect all of our citizens, especially the most vulnerable. So, a vibrant economy is critical, because without it, all other services, programs, and initiatives become "at risk" regardless of their merit.

Mitt Romney Has a Better Approach

Instead of directly funding the middle layers of our economy in which the government takes the role of directing the funds of the wealthy and future taxpayers to our noble teachers, firefighters, etc, Mitt Romney proposes that the role of government  should be to encourage private sector growth, by freeing up funds, primarily through a fair and level tax policy and reasonable regulation that promotes private investment, creating opportunity for wealth creation and solid jobs for all. The wealthier all of us are as citizens, the more we have available to extend the judicious use of citizen led initiatives, including but not limited to government programs to address the wide range of the social challenges we face.  Simply put, people, with the freedom to invest and take risks, will do a better job of creating a wealthier society that impacts us all than well meaning, but limited government bureaucrats.

Federal Debt Secondly we have a federal debt  that is out of control. It is irresponsible and unconscionable that we would allow the federal debt to increase to $16 trillion. This puts at risk future prosperity and limits the options that we have available for the necessary work of government. I simply will not stand by to pass along this large debt to my children and their children.  It is immoral and unfair.  It also saps our nation’s ability to meet our basic responsibilities.

 

How so?  With every dollar that we spend on the interest servicing our debt, we lose a dollar for other necessary programs. This means every dollar sent to China to service the debt is a dollar we don't have for social security, medicaid, healthcare, programs for education, national  security – or anything else, just name it. This is a beast that must be controlled and the most powerful way to approach this is to combine a sensible way of reigning in the spending, combined with a “pedal to the metal” fueling up of economic growth. Bear in mind that for every 1% rise in the GDP we contribute almost $700-$800 billion is added revenue for the federal government. This is why having economic growth is the number one priority for taming the federal deficit.  Having success with this first and most important issue makes the tough work of the second much easier.  Most of the pundits who are looking for the specifics in the Romney/Ryan plan and state in pontificating terms "that it does not add up", are guilty of looking at the economic world from a static perception. It does not add up because they have no faith in the power of an American economy unleashed. Imagine what would happen to our government revenues if we could coax and extra 2% RISE OUT OF THE GDP? Why it might be enough to raise even the fortunes of California.

 

Here, Mitt Romney along with his partner Paul Ryan have an absolute sterling record of success in managing and controlling budgets and turning around difficult situations so that success could be achieved.  Whether   you look to his work in the private sector, his volunteer work during the winter Olympics, or his unpaid leadership as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt has a superior track record of success in turning around challenging situations and leaving many much better off.

 

Foreign Policy Finally our current foreign-policy is a disaster. The question isn't should we have a foreign policy that enhances the security of the United States and leads to a safer world? That is a nearly universally shared goal. The better question is, how do we best achieve that? 

Here again I think that Romney has a distinct and positive solution. First and foremost he clearly differentiates himself from the president by calling for a stronger commitment to military and defense spending. It's a sensible 20% of GDP commitment to military spending which is consistent with our level of commitment for over 40 years.  Having the interest payments on our debt going to fuel Chinese expansion of their military is unconscionable.  If we reduce the level of payments to the Chinese we can afford to update and modernize  our own military, thus  enhancing  the strength of our military force. Obama has proposed over $500 billion in cuts to the military and a reduction in our military force. Compared to Ronald Reagan’s successful foreign policy initiatives, Obama couldn't provide a more diametrically opposed philosophy.   Ronald Reagan famously demonstrated, the effectiveness of “Peace Through Strength” -- and I believe that Romney brings that same essential proven successful philosophy to his approach on foreign-policy. Drones and Special Forces alone will not provide us the security nor offer us the options that come from a military that cannot be challenged. All foreign issues are not simply “criminal actions” that necessitate a limited police like response.  Nothing is as potent as having a complete top to bottom military that is second to none.

Now some may challenge this with, “How can we afford a military buildup when we are struggling with deficits?”  A sensible question.  I respond with three points:  It is a matter of priorities: 1) Economic Growth, key to all other issues.  2) Reduce foreign interest payments with fair budgets, 3) maintain security spending @20% of GDP.  This means that we manage security spending in a manner that is affordable and makes economic growth and reduction of foreign debt payment THE critical issues in order to achieve those security goals.

This then allows the United States to project influence into dangerous parts of the world and have our influence be taken seriously. I believe that the current administration's approach puts at serious risk our standing in the world.

 

So there you have it, these are my top issues and reasons for voting for Mitt Romney and not necessarily against Pres. Obama.

 

Mitt is a man who was successful in turning around businesses with  and setting them up for sustained success.  He turned a troubled Olympics around, , guiding the 2002 Winter Olympics into one of the most successful endeavors in Olympic history.  Finally, he demonstrated his ability to be an effective leader in a government executive position.  As governor of the state of Massachusetts, he was able to bring an out-of-control budget under control, while at the same time managing the education standards of that  state  in such a way that they were envy of others.  

We must elect Mitt Romney not merely to defeat President Obama, but because he is the right man at the right time that will tackle these three most important issues in a manner that, I believe. will help turn this country .

These are my issues and concerns.  That is why I am voting for Romney and not necessarily against President Obama!

What are your issues and concerns?

Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney

Why Mitt Romney is Unlikeable. A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney's not being "likable" or that he doesn't "relate well" to people. Frankly, we struggled to understand why. So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this "unlikeablility."     Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney: 1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief. 2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS. 3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?) 4. Can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary. 5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School... and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed. 6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today's America? 7. Represents an America of "yesterday", where people believed in God, went to Church, didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS! 8. Has a family of five great sons....and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn. 9. Oh yes.....he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest. 10. And one more point.....pundits say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that's because he made that money HIMSELF.....as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn't understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unrelatable to Americans. My goodness, it's a strange world, isn't it? ***************************************************** Personal Information: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney. He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old. His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan. He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children. Education: B.A. from Brigham Young University, J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University Religion: Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints Working Background: After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary. After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney. In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States. In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy. He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit. Some Interesting Facts about Romney: Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people. Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply and many others. He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year. He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years. He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years. He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years. He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years. He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity. Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men. And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income.... Just for comparison purposes,Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%. Mitt Romney is Trustworthy: He will show us his birth certificate He will show us his high school and college transcripts. He will show us his social security card. He will show us his law degree. He will show us his draft notice. He will show us his medical records. He will show us his income tax records. He will show us he has nothing to hide. Mitt Romney's background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States. You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won't desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility. I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won't like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney's background can do it. But, on the minus side, he never was a "Community Organizer", never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US.

 

Why I will be watching the Democratic Convention this week

Many know of my leanings politically, so it may surprise some of you to know that I will likely be watching most of the Democratic Convention this week from Charlotte with attention and a desire to glean from it what can help me make the best informed choice.

A question I have been asking a lot of people recently is “What are the issues that are important to you this election”.  It is a question I am asking with sincerity because I am convinced that people make choices because it “makes sense to them”, so whenever I encounter a point of view that doesn’t make sense to me, I first ask myself the question, “how does the world occur to this person?”  Often, I find that even when I end up disagreeing with a course of action, I am better informed about the underlying principles and goals of the other person.  This can provide a better space in which to engage in a discussion that can lead to a better decision for all.

So, why am I going to watch the Democratic Convention?

First, I believe it is our civic duty to be an informed electorate.  It is simply not enough to depend on media outlets from MSNBC to FOX News and everything in-between to filter what we should know.  It is important to listen to each party's unvarnished presentations and combine that with additional research to form a more informed decision.

Second, there is a huge difference between skeptical and cynical.  If we take the position that the parties deserve no respect out of a cynical belief that both are corrupt and unworthy of our attention, then we make ourselves victims of the process.  Certainly, it is healthy to be skeptical, to question the authenticity and validity of claims and statements, but when we take the position that everything that is put out by a party is unworthy of consideration because it is inherently false and misleading, we abdicate our rights and powers as citizens to maintain this republic as an institution that is worth preserving and has the possibility of making a difference for our lives and the lives of future generations.

Third, I believe that at the core of each of the parties, when you consider their ideals and aspirations, each has something worthy to offer.  Oversimplifying a bit, to me the Republican party stands for maximizing personal freedom and responsibility, it intends to create an environment of opportunity that allows for individuals to grow as far as their hopes, dreams, ambitions and hard work will take them and strives to keep government out of our lives as much as possible.  For me the Democratic Party stands for justice, caring for those who struggle to care for themselves and fairness for all.  It stands for a shield to those who otherwise would not have a voice in our society.  This is the magic of our two party system.  I believe that given the right questions, respecting these ideals, much good can be accomplished in our society.

Do each of the parties fall short of these ideals?  Of course!  After all they are made up of human beings, and I have no illusion that individuals, unbridled by constraint are capable of selfish, irresponsible and despicable acts.  I see no lack of evidence of examples of foolishness and intentional and unintentional exploitation on both sides of the aisle.

So it is how I listen to the convention presentations that make the difference to me.  Out of a foundation of considering the respective parties at their ideals, I listen for what is the essence of the issue.  I ask myself the following questions:

1)      What is the real problem we are trying to solve here?  For example, is the question “should we preserve Medicare as it is?” or is a better question, “How can we insure that our senior citizens who need it, have access to quality healthcare that is both sustainable and does not demand so much from our citizens that it puts at risk our economic well-being?”  I suggest that the second is the better question.

2)      What are the hard facts regarding the problem?  Are we operating out of assumptions?  Or are we making fact based informed decisions?  In too many situations, our aspirations color our thinking and we come to poor decisions based on misinformation and bias.

3)      What options (to solve the problem) should we consider?  Do the options a) solve the problem? b) Does not create new problems that exceed the value of the problem that is being solved?

4)      Finally, what are the costs of implementing the solution?  How well do we understand the total costs?  (Not merely the $ costs)  Do the costs exceed the value of the problem solved?  If they do, it would argue for no action, at this time, until better, more affordable solutions can be implemented.

So, I will be listening to this week’s convention, from a position of each party’s best ideals, working to avoid cynicism, but with a healthy skepticism to what the speakers say.  I will apply my four point process to evaluate proposals and work toward making the best decision I can to elect leaders that will address the issues in a constructive way that will lead to a better tomorrow for ourselves, our families and the next generation.

I hope you will join me in this endeavor.  We may not always agree on priorities and methods to achieve a better future, but if we work together with respect, we will move our country forward in a way that leads to a more prosperous and just society.

Is the Tea Party Selfish and Bigoted?

Recently an acquaintance  wrote a Blog entitled: Who's Sorry Now.  In the Blog the writer begins with some statements that are allegedly attributed to the "Tea Party" and then goes on to state that their views on who makes up the tea party and their motivations.

Below is my point by point response to their allegations.  Tell me what you think.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red,

I have a different take on your characterization of the tea party. 

In your post, you begin by stating, “The Tea Partiers have a lot of interests, most of which consist of things they are against.”

This is not how I find people who support the tea party.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I find members of the tea party to be genuinely for principles of liberty and the values embedded in the constitution.  In fact, this is it’s mission statement taken from the teaparty.net website…

The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded, Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:

• Limited federal government • Individual freedoms • Personal responsibility • Free markets • Returning political power to the states and the people

You claim the “They are against government”.  I disagree, as noted above they are for limited government which is something quite different from “against government”.   You state that they “aren’t all that concerned over its regulating Wall Street.”  On this one, you may have a point.  But you see it is not because no one cares about the corruption and self-serving actions taken by individuals during the Wall Street meltdown.  Rather, the tea-party is for “Personal Responsibility” and holding those individuals who contributed to the meltdown accountable for their actions.  The best way to do this is to have a vibrant court system in which injured parties have the right to recourse.  In addition, where federal and state laws have been broken, those responsible should be brought to justice.  Additional regulation makes companies and institutions beholden to bureaucrats rather than clients and customers.  An environment where bureaucrats  hold significant sway on businesses and business decisions often leads to inefficient responses to customer needs and higher costs to meet the regulations which we the consumer then pay for.  Further, and perhaps more dangerous, is the risk that what may start out as a well-intentioned program with well-meaning civil servants evolves into a corrupt system in which government bureaucrats become susceptible to bribes and other forms of corruption so that companies yield to a temptation of focus on achieving influence rather than serving customer needs.  This is the dark side of regulation.

You said, “ They’re against immigration”. First, I go back to the mission statement and ask, in what part do you see anything that has to do with immigration?  What evidence exists that they are against immigrants.  The tea party members that I know don’t hate immigrants, they respect and admire immigrants.  A mantra that is shared with the tea party is one that is on all of our money, “E Pluribus Unum” , “Out of many, One”.  This is a uniquely American principle that says, the rights embedded in our constitution are available for all regardless of blood line or ethnic background.  Yes, we may have come from many different backgrounds but regardless of our ethnic heritage, we are all Americans and have a common creed that binds us such that any individual is free to pursue happiness in their own way.  Finally, I personally have enormous respect for those who came to this country and properly pursued citizenship.  A wonderful couple I know have shared with me their long a arduous journey to citizenship from their native Nairobi.  My respect for them is unbounded.  Regardless of your stance on the issue of immigration, I simply think that is unfair that this wonderful couple invested themselves into the legal immigration process while others simply cross the borders and take up residence.  What is fair about that?  Either we should allow all people from all countries to come to the US without regard to any standards or immigration policy or we respect the need for a rationale policy of how we manage the process of integrating those from other countries into our society.  It is absolutely unfair to single out one group, primarily from one country and provide them with a special standard that is not applied to others from the rest of the world.

You said, “They don’t like paying taxes, but don’t seem to care much one way or the other about high income tax cuts or other benefits like the multitude of loopholes that benefit the very rich.”  The issue here is one of free markets vs government solutions.  First, it is well documented that the top earners in our country already pay a disproportionate share of taxes.  According to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of all Adjusted gross earners pay 36.73% of the Federal Income Tax.  The top 5% of AGI pays 58.67% of the Federal Income Tax.  Now you apparently feel that is not enough.  My question is what do you think is the right % that the top 5% should pay?  Nearly 60% is not enough????????  From my point of view, this a a grossly unfair burden on a very limited number of individuals and makes us as a nation even more dependent on the success of these individuals for our total tax revenue.  This seems like a risky proposition to me.  Our revenue fortunes rise on these individuals success.   With so much of our present revenues dependent on the success of these individuals, wouldn’t it make sense to encourage even more success for them as this would translate into higher government revenues?

You said. “They dislike people of color on general principle” again, where do you find that in any of the tea party principles?  This is not my experience at all.  Have I ever seen a nut who claims some tea party affiliation ever rant in a thoughtless bigoted manner?  Simple answer yes!  Still that is not an indictment of the entire group.  Evidence of bigotry and stupidity is something that is not limited to a few kooks who claim tea party affiliation.  I see evidence of crazy bigoted behavior on all sides of the spectrum.  (I can send you a you tube link that documents clearly racist behavior against a group of white supporters of a candidate in the Richmond, VA area from the last election cycle, while police simply looked on with little regard)  My point here is that the bigoted and senseless behavior of a few should not indict an entire group.

Finally, you state, “Most of them don’t care about outsourcing jobs because their number is currently top heavy with pensioners”.  I have a different interpretation, going to the principle of free market ideals.  Another way to describe outsourcing is “free market” of capital and labor.  If a shoe manufacturer is forced to maintain a US work force and the labor costs are much more that a competitor, then the finished goods for each will have different prices for similar quality shoes.  The US company must either charge higher prices to maintain margin and therefore lose share or they choose to charge the same price in which case their margins are squeezed.  In either case, this ultimately leads to the shoe manufacturer going out of business and then all of the jobs are lost.  That is not how to create jobs my friend.

Ok, that is enough for today.  Thank you for letting me offer you my point by point response to your provocative post.  I welcome your respectful response back.

LetFreedom_Ring