Underneath Santa's bulky red suit beats the heart of a Republican. He owns a small business employing hundreds. His North Pole firm is non-union. His business accepts no government aid. He believes in charity, giving away billions worth of toys every year. He even has a traditional marriage.
Christmas would be a lot different if Mr. Claus was a Democrat and the federal government was in charge of overseeing the holiday.
No children could perch on Santa's ample lap. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would deem it too hazardous for kids.
Santa would deliver no gifts to children in households earning $250,000 and above. These children would be assessed taxes on their allowances to pay for toys for middle class kids.
Children who requested Ken and Barbie dolls would be surprised Christmas morning to discover Ken and Bruce under their tree. The dolls come with a California marriage certificate.
Santa's workforce would not pass muster with the feds. Too many elves. Quotas would be established to insure the North Pole business employed more hobbits, jihadists and transvestites.
Every girl and boy would receive the same exact gift to make Christmas more fair. Santa may be pro-choice, but that doesn't apply to toys.
Santa would trade in his sleigh and eight tiny reindeer for a Chevy Volt and eight tiny Prius. However, the jolly man would only be able to visit four homes between each charge.
After squeezing down the chimney, Santa would confiscate all guns in the house. He would turn over the weapons to the feds, who would peddle them to Mexican gangs.
Santa would leave voter registration cards and cell phones in the stockings of households receiving federal handouts.
Children of Hollywood couples would put out large piles of cash for Santa's Political Action Committee. In return, Santa would overlook their naughtiness.
Each boy and girl would get a contraceptive and a video on safe sex. Santa would also leave behind his unlisted North Pole cell phone number and a topless photo of himself.
Santa would rip all religious symbols from the walls and holiday trees in homes. Exceptions would be made for Muslin households.
Homes in states that have approved marijuana use would be visited several times on Christmas eve. Even Santa needs to boost to make it through the holidays.
Instead of cookies, Democrat households would leave an apple and a stalk of celery for the overweight St. Nick to comply with First Lady Michelle Obama's healthy eating guidelines.
Federal anti-discrimination guidelines would prevent Santa from yelling, "Ho-Ho-Ho." The government insists the traditional greeting is insensitive to ladies of the night.
Santa would no longer refer to the holiday as Christmas. It would be renamed Entitlement Day to reflect how children of Democrats view their right to toys.
As you can tell, Christmas would be pretty dreary if Santa was a Democrat.
Let's keep Christmas Republican and free of government intrusion.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
GOP Bumper Sticker: Boot Boehner
House Speaker John Boehner appears to be doing his best Neville Chamberlain impersonation in the fiscal cliff negotiations with President Obama. Chamberlain, England's former prime minister, was infamously duped into appeasing Germany in 1938, only to watch Adolph Hitler unleash a wretched war that engulfed Europe.
Boehner has played the modern day role of Chamberlain by negotiating with a president who has no appetite for compromise. Obama has washed his hands of reforming entitlements, paring the federal budget and trimming the deficit. In return for nothing but empty promises, Obama has demanded the GOP capitulate and raise tax rates on America's top earners.
This is not a negotiating ploy. The president believes, because he won a second term, that Americans share his vision of the United States: a country overburdened with debt, saddled with bloated entitlements and handcuffed by federal budgets that depend on ever increasing amounts of debt.
With the media's collaboration, Obama has fooled many into thinking he wants a deal. He doesn't. Dunderhead Boehner has not figured that out. How else do you explain why he keeps trotting up to the White House like a puppy starved for a head pat? The speaker should have ended the sham long ago by refusing to bargain with a president bent on coercing Republicans to abandon their principles in exchange for meaningless offers for future action on federal spending.
The bumbling Boehner has been outflanked, outmaneuvered and out smarted in the negotiations. He has ceded the national narrative to the president by focusing on entitlements instead of the national debt, an issue that concerns most Americans. He has angered his own party by throwing in the towel on tax increases. If that wasn't enough, he has failed miserably in his role as party spokesperson. His news conferences have been irksome, stilted and insipid.
Republicans must overhaul their tactics to save face. Fortunately, they still have time to salvage a modicum of respect by making these four changes.
1. Force a vote on raising tax rates on the top bracket. Forget trying to knit a grand bargain. Obama will never agree to the GOP laundry list anyway. He never made any pretense he was in the mood for a bargain. Make this solely about a tax boost. That is the only issue that matters to Obama. He needs a win to placate his base. Serve it up to him on a platter. He's going to get it anyway.
2. Vote "present" when the tax increase plan floats to the House and Senate floor. Republicans should make the Democrats own this tax increase. They can do this by simply voting "present" to show their disapproval. Even some Democrats may balk at rubber stamping the president's proposal. When the economy craters, make Democrats defend the hike in the 2014 mid-term elections.
3. Ditch talk of entitlement reform as part of a bargain. Democrats know as well as Republicans that entitlement programs are on a suicidal march to bankruptcy. However, they want the GOP to suffer the consequences of any measures that reduce benefits to recipients, especially seniors. That's why they have gleefully watched as Boehner harped on entitlements. Democrats would be only too happy to sign an agreement that alters entitlements just so later they could claim the GOP held a gun to their heads. They want Republicans blamed for taking away seniors' aid.
4. Republicans should shift the focus to the 2013-2014 federal budget. Once the tax increase passes, the GOP should compel the administration to produce a budget that can be voted on in both houses of Congress. Obama and Democrats have dodged votes on fiscal budgets the last three years because their spending excesses would be unmasked. They prefer secret negotiations instead. A budget battle provides the GOP with the ideal forum to reign in deficits, lower debt, rehabilitate entitlements and cleave federal spending.
However, nothing will happen as long as Mr. Appeasement shepherds the House. Neville Chamberlain resigned the premiership in 1940 after his disastrous bargain with Germany. Boehner needs to take a lesson from history and vacate the office of Speaker of the House while there is still time to save the republic from an economic calamity.
Boehner has played the modern day role of Chamberlain by negotiating with a president who has no appetite for compromise. Obama has washed his hands of reforming entitlements, paring the federal budget and trimming the deficit. In return for nothing but empty promises, Obama has demanded the GOP capitulate and raise tax rates on America's top earners.
This is not a negotiating ploy. The president believes, because he won a second term, that Americans share his vision of the United States: a country overburdened with debt, saddled with bloated entitlements and handcuffed by federal budgets that depend on ever increasing amounts of debt.
With the media's collaboration, Obama has fooled many into thinking he wants a deal. He doesn't. Dunderhead Boehner has not figured that out. How else do you explain why he keeps trotting up to the White House like a puppy starved for a head pat? The speaker should have ended the sham long ago by refusing to bargain with a president bent on coercing Republicans to abandon their principles in exchange for meaningless offers for future action on federal spending.
The bumbling Boehner has been outflanked, outmaneuvered and out smarted in the negotiations. He has ceded the national narrative to the president by focusing on entitlements instead of the national debt, an issue that concerns most Americans. He has angered his own party by throwing in the towel on tax increases. If that wasn't enough, he has failed miserably in his role as party spokesperson. His news conferences have been irksome, stilted and insipid.
Republicans must overhaul their tactics to save face. Fortunately, they still have time to salvage a modicum of respect by making these four changes.
1. Force a vote on raising tax rates on the top bracket. Forget trying to knit a grand bargain. Obama will never agree to the GOP laundry list anyway. He never made any pretense he was in the mood for a bargain. Make this solely about a tax boost. That is the only issue that matters to Obama. He needs a win to placate his base. Serve it up to him on a platter. He's going to get it anyway.
2. Vote "present" when the tax increase plan floats to the House and Senate floor. Republicans should make the Democrats own this tax increase. They can do this by simply voting "present" to show their disapproval. Even some Democrats may balk at rubber stamping the president's proposal. When the economy craters, make Democrats defend the hike in the 2014 mid-term elections.
3. Ditch talk of entitlement reform as part of a bargain. Democrats know as well as Republicans that entitlement programs are on a suicidal march to bankruptcy. However, they want the GOP to suffer the consequences of any measures that reduce benefits to recipients, especially seniors. That's why they have gleefully watched as Boehner harped on entitlements. Democrats would be only too happy to sign an agreement that alters entitlements just so later they could claim the GOP held a gun to their heads. They want Republicans blamed for taking away seniors' aid.
4. Republicans should shift the focus to the 2013-2014 federal budget. Once the tax increase passes, the GOP should compel the administration to produce a budget that can be voted on in both houses of Congress. Obama and Democrats have dodged votes on fiscal budgets the last three years because their spending excesses would be unmasked. They prefer secret negotiations instead. A budget battle provides the GOP with the ideal forum to reign in deficits, lower debt, rehabilitate entitlements and cleave federal spending.
However, nothing will happen as long as Mr. Appeasement shepherds the House. Neville Chamberlain resigned the premiership in 1940 after his disastrous bargain with Germany. Boehner needs to take a lesson from history and vacate the office of Speaker of the House while there is still time to save the republic from an economic calamity.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Warren Buffet: The Orifice of Omaha
Billionaire blowhard Warren Buffet is leading a one-man band to drum up support for hiking taxes on his pals in the upper earning bracket. The once publicity shy businessman has become a media darling and a personal shill for President Obama during his high-profile class warfare campaign.
Most Americans know little about Buffet, dubbed the "Oracle of Omaha" for his ability to cherry pick undervalued companies for his firm, Berkshire Hathaway. His net worth has been estimated at something north of $46 billion. But he is less than forthcoming about his immense wealth.
The 82-year-old, self-described agnostic has invested billions in companies ranging from railroads to candy companies, jewelry chains, insurance underwriters, newspapers and furniture stores. Buffet scrupulously avoided the limelight for most of his career until he recently became infatuated with notoriety.
In his latest evangelical outreach, Buffet lectured the country on how jacking up taxes would boost the morale of those unwashed middle class Americans. His sermon was delivered as the president stumped on the moral imperative to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income families.
The 82-year-old, self-described agnostic has invested billions in companies ranging from railroads to candy companies, jewelry chains, insurance underwriters, newspapers and furniture stores. Buffet scrupulously avoided the limelight for most of his career until he recently became infatuated with notoriety.
In his latest evangelical outreach, Buffet lectured the country on how jacking up taxes would boost the morale of those unwashed middle class Americans. His sermon was delivered as the president stumped on the moral imperative to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income families.
The pomposity of Buffet is only eclipsed by his hypocrisy.
For starters, Buffet's army of lawyers and tax accountants at Berkshire are contesting nearly $1 billion in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims against his companies. One of the firms, NetJets, sued the government over $642.7 million in back taxes, interest and penalties.
The sanctimonious Buffet could set a good example for corporations by paying his business taxes.
While Buffet scolds others about paying their fair share of taxes, the iconic billionaire has taken deliberate steps to shield as much of his income as possible from the IRS. For instance, Buffet has shifted billions of dollars into a private charity to skirt paying billions in taxes.
Buffet pays a lower tax rate than most Americans earning $250,000 and up because the majority of his wealth has been generated by stock ownership, which is taxed at a lower rate than wages. That helps explain why the industrialist lobbies for higher tax rates on those wretched small business people.
The hypocrisy doesn't end there.
Included in Buffet's portfolio of companies are life insurance firms that peddle estate planning products that help the wealthiest Americans lower the amount of taxes they pay the government. When taxes are raised, it fuels demand for even more tax shelters, which benefits Buffet's legion of companies.
Buffet's support for President Obama's soak-the-rich scheme is not entirely altruistic either.
The moneyed mogul counts Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) among his holdings. Obama's push to grow the government bureaucracy has benefited GEICO, a company that serves a large portion of the federal workforce.
Buffet also hit the jackpot when the president derailed the multi-million dollar Keystone Pipeline project. Obama's decision opened the doors for the tycoon's railroad company (BNSF) to haul oil across the country at a higher rate than it would have cost to pump the crude over a pipeline.
Yet the media has cloaked Warren Buffet in a sheen of self-righteousness.
Buffet, like Obama, isn't really interested in tax fairness. The narcissistic magnate wants to ingratiate himself to the president to secure preferential treatment for his sundry industries. Buffet has always finagled every advantage to enrich his vast portfolio.
If he wants to "boost the morale" of the middle class, Warren Buffet should shut up. A little more silence from the Orifice of Omaha would be a welcome relief for all Americans.
If he wants to "boost the morale" of the middle class, Warren Buffet should shut up. A little more silence from the Orifice of Omaha would be a welcome relief for all Americans.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Middle Class Malarky
Even for a man with a penchant for political exploitation, President Obama's rhetoric on the extension of the Bush tax cuts has plumbed new depths of demagoguery. In a desperate gambit, the White House warned that failure to reach a tax deal would sack middle class families' Christmas shopping plans.
"The president believes Democrats and Republicans should come together to renew middle class tax cuts," the White House said in a statement that predicted retailers' Christmas stockings would be stuffed with lumps of coal if the Republican-authored tax cuts were allowed to expire.
The crass appeal from the White House painted the president as a champion of the middle class, a favorite theme of the Obama campaign during the election. What makes the empty oratory so odious is the fact that the Obama presidency has been no friend of the middle class.
On practically every economic measure, middle class Americans are worse off than four years ago.
Annual incomes for the middle class have plummeted an average of $4,520 since President Obama took office in 2009, the year the recession officially ended. The Census Bureau reported that median income has belly-flopped to $50,054. That's a 4.1 percent decline from 2009.
The median income level is the lowest it has been since 1995, nearly two decades ago. The president and his economic policies have failed miserably to deliver a recovery for the middle class. In fact, the middle class has fallen further behind under Obama.
During the Obama presidency, the ranks of the middle class have shrunk. Pew Research found that 51 percent of all adults fell into the middle income tier in 2011. In 1971, more than 60 percent of Americans were included in the middle income echelon.
Middle American earners' share of the household income pie also has diminished. Middle income households account for 45 percent of all earnings. Just two decades ago, middle earners' share of total income was 62 percent, according to Pew Research.
Meanwhile, health care premiums have skyrocketed $3,000 since Obama assumed the presidency. Inflation has hijacked 6.62 percentage points of purchasing power from the middle class in the last four years.
Obama has saddled Americans with national debt that stands at $51,972.66 for each middle class man, woman and child. Appallingly, that means Greece's national debt per person is now 35 percent lower than the United States, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Yet Obama has the audacity to claim the tax extension will save the middle class from financial ruin. Who is he kidding? Obama's real agenda isn't to lift the middle class.
The president wants to stoke the fires of class warfare, pitting the middle class against the wealthy in an effort to create divisions that will promote income redistribution. The rich are Obama's bogeymen, blamed for everything that can't be pinned on former President George W. Bush.
Another year of Bush's tax cuts will not cure what ails the middle class. Economic growth across every industry is the shining hope for the middle class to recover from the losses suffered under the current administration.
Without a robust economic rebound, even Santa Claus won't be able to rescue the middle class.
"The president believes Democrats and Republicans should come together to renew middle class tax cuts," the White House said in a statement that predicted retailers' Christmas stockings would be stuffed with lumps of coal if the Republican-authored tax cuts were allowed to expire.
The crass appeal from the White House painted the president as a champion of the middle class, a favorite theme of the Obama campaign during the election. What makes the empty oratory so odious is the fact that the Obama presidency has been no friend of the middle class.
On practically every economic measure, middle class Americans are worse off than four years ago.
Annual incomes for the middle class have plummeted an average of $4,520 since President Obama took office in 2009, the year the recession officially ended. The Census Bureau reported that median income has belly-flopped to $50,054. That's a 4.1 percent decline from 2009.
The median income level is the lowest it has been since 1995, nearly two decades ago. The president and his economic policies have failed miserably to deliver a recovery for the middle class. In fact, the middle class has fallen further behind under Obama.
During the Obama presidency, the ranks of the middle class have shrunk. Pew Research found that 51 percent of all adults fell into the middle income tier in 2011. In 1971, more than 60 percent of Americans were included in the middle income echelon.
Middle American earners' share of the household income pie also has diminished. Middle income households account for 45 percent of all earnings. Just two decades ago, middle earners' share of total income was 62 percent, according to Pew Research.
Meanwhile, health care premiums have skyrocketed $3,000 since Obama assumed the presidency. Inflation has hijacked 6.62 percentage points of purchasing power from the middle class in the last four years.
Obama has saddled Americans with national debt that stands at $51,972.66 for each middle class man, woman and child. Appallingly, that means Greece's national debt per person is now 35 percent lower than the United States, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Yet Obama has the audacity to claim the tax extension will save the middle class from financial ruin. Who is he kidding? Obama's real agenda isn't to lift the middle class.
The president wants to stoke the fires of class warfare, pitting the middle class against the wealthy in an effort to create divisions that will promote income redistribution. The rich are Obama's bogeymen, blamed for everything that can't be pinned on former President George W. Bush.
Another year of Bush's tax cuts will not cure what ails the middle class. Economic growth across every industry is the shining hope for the middle class to recover from the losses suffered under the current administration.
Without a robust economic rebound, even Santa Claus won't be able to rescue the middle class.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Business Faces Its Own Cliff
Forget the media's slobbering infatuation with the so-called fiscal cliff. Ominous signs indicate the nation's economy may be skidding into another recession irregardless of how the political theatre plays out in Washington.
First, no one argues the fiscal cliff presents a clear challenge. Deep budget cuts and tax increases will kick-in next year unless Congress and the president strike a deal. But Congress and the president created the crisis because they were unable to reach a compromise months ago.
With most media eyes fixed on Washington, a financial caldron is simmering unnoticed.
Businesses throughout the country are losing steam. Corporate profits during the third quarter were surprisingly weak. Only 36 percent of the companies reported earnings that exceeded investor expectations for the months July through September.
Perhaps, they doesn't sound like such a big deal. However, Wall Street economists point out the norm is for 56 percent of the companies to perform better than estimates. Even more disturbing, business revenues have dipped one percent below year-ago levels after steadily rising throughout 2012.
It's true that profits inched upward at many blue chip firms, but improvements have been generated by reductions in both costs and people. Even with the austerity measures, profits rose a scant 1.1 percent from last year's third quarter. That is the lowest business growth in three years.
The laggard results portend a dramatic economic shift. In the third quarter of 2010, companies averaged earnings growth of 36.6 percent. In 2011, the increase was 17.3 percent for the same quarter. This quarter's 1.1 percent hike pales by comparison. Business momentum has stalled.
The list of companies reporting slowing sales and revenues read like a who's who of American business. Microsoft, General Electric, McDonald's, Google, Intel, IBM and Caterpillar all delivered disappointing financial numbers.
In an omen of things to come, many companies have begun shedding jobs. Since the year began, firms have laid off 352,185 workers. In October, job cuts spiked an alarming 41 percent, according to Challenger Gray and Christmas, the nation's oldest outplacement counseling company.
Don't expect the outlook to change in the fourth quarter. A Business Roundtable survey of corporate executives found their economic outlook had plummeted to its lowest level since 2009.
Some politicians and business people have blamed the fiscal cliff for the current business slump.
Their explanation is fallacious because most businesses already assume a compromise will be reached to avoid a catastrophe, according to surveys of corporate executives. The truth is a few businesses are blaming the "cliff " to shift the responsibility for their management's poor performance.
A more plausible explanation for declining results is the impending implementation of Obama Care. Businesses are reluctant to hire and expand because of costs associated with the plan. For instance, many service, hospitality and retail industry firms are trimming employee hours to avoid the threshold that requires mandatory insurance coverage, according to workforce strategy firm Mercer.
Despite the looming crisis, Washington bureaucrats keep cranking out cheery employment and economic figures. Declining business sales and revenues are reality, not some government report. The nation's economy is sinking into its second recession in less than a decade, no matter what Washington's flattering numbers say.
Unless the business climate improves soon, the fiscal "cliff" may seem more like a mere bluff.
First, no one argues the fiscal cliff presents a clear challenge. Deep budget cuts and tax increases will kick-in next year unless Congress and the president strike a deal. But Congress and the president created the crisis because they were unable to reach a compromise months ago.
With most media eyes fixed on Washington, a financial caldron is simmering unnoticed.
Businesses throughout the country are losing steam. Corporate profits during the third quarter were surprisingly weak. Only 36 percent of the companies reported earnings that exceeded investor expectations for the months July through September.
Perhaps, they doesn't sound like such a big deal. However, Wall Street economists point out the norm is for 56 percent of the companies to perform better than estimates. Even more disturbing, business revenues have dipped one percent below year-ago levels after steadily rising throughout 2012.
It's true that profits inched upward at many blue chip firms, but improvements have been generated by reductions in both costs and people. Even with the austerity measures, profits rose a scant 1.1 percent from last year's third quarter. That is the lowest business growth in three years.
The laggard results portend a dramatic economic shift. In the third quarter of 2010, companies averaged earnings growth of 36.6 percent. In 2011, the increase was 17.3 percent for the same quarter. This quarter's 1.1 percent hike pales by comparison. Business momentum has stalled.
The list of companies reporting slowing sales and revenues read like a who's who of American business. Microsoft, General Electric, McDonald's, Google, Intel, IBM and Caterpillar all delivered disappointing financial numbers.
In an omen of things to come, many companies have begun shedding jobs. Since the year began, firms have laid off 352,185 workers. In October, job cuts spiked an alarming 41 percent, according to Challenger Gray and Christmas, the nation's oldest outplacement counseling company.
Don't expect the outlook to change in the fourth quarter. A Business Roundtable survey of corporate executives found their economic outlook had plummeted to its lowest level since 2009.
Some politicians and business people have blamed the fiscal cliff for the current business slump.
Their explanation is fallacious because most businesses already assume a compromise will be reached to avoid a catastrophe, according to surveys of corporate executives. The truth is a few businesses are blaming the "cliff " to shift the responsibility for their management's poor performance.
A more plausible explanation for declining results is the impending implementation of Obama Care. Businesses are reluctant to hire and expand because of costs associated with the plan. For instance, many service, hospitality and retail industry firms are trimming employee hours to avoid the threshold that requires mandatory insurance coverage, according to workforce strategy firm Mercer.
Despite the looming crisis, Washington bureaucrats keep cranking out cheery employment and economic figures. Declining business sales and revenues are reality, not some government report. The nation's economy is sinking into its second recession in less than a decade, no matter what Washington's flattering numbers say.
Unless the business climate improves soon, the fiscal "cliff" may seem more like a mere bluff.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Election 2012: The Last Word
Ever since President Obama galloped to a second term, the nation's media and political pundits have been draping black crepe paper over the GOP brand. These nattering nitwits have declared the Republican Party is officially dead or at the least no longer relevant.
Their conclusions are based on shifting demographics and Hispanic turnout for Obama. Their theories are rooted in research showing Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the nation. Furthermore, the Hispanic voting bloc represented a sizable advantage for the president.
No one would argue either conclusion. However, most voters shared the GOP's positions on major issues, according to some eyeopening, post-election data from Pew Research. It wasn't the Republican label that fell out of favor. Voters mainly liked Obama better than challenger Mitt Romney.
Perhaps that sounds too simplistic. But the research confirms that most of the drivel about the "lessons to be learned" from the 2012 election is misleading. Facts often have a habit of getting in the way of strongly held opinions.
Let's start with the GOP standard-bearer's political positions. Nearly 50 percent of those who voted disapproved of Obama Care, according to Pew's exit polling. More than half were opposed to an activist government. Fully sixty percent thought the economy was sick. Voters even told pollsters the economy was their top issue.
Those numbers suggest Romney should have won in a cakewalk since most voters agreed with his positions on the election's defining issues.
Conventional wisdom also has made much of the Hispanic vote, which Obama carried 71-to-27 percent. While the margin was significant, it fell short of Bill Clinton's performance in 1996 when he racked up 72 percent. However, Hispanics represented only 10 percent of total voters in this year's election, nearly the same as recent presidential races. Forty-eight percent of Hispanics did not vote.
Observers have underscored the president's gains among minorities. Little has been said about Romney's strong showing compared with John McCain's performance in 2008. Romney posted gains with men (+4 percentage points), whites (+4 points), younger voters (+6 points), Catholics (+6 points) and Jews (+9 points). That means all those groups were less supportive of Obama.
Astonishingly, Romney also carried the independent vote by a 50-to-45 percent margin. In 2008, independents were credited by many with the Obama victory. The president captured 52 percent of the independent vote while McCain managed only 44 percent four years ago.
Obama also tallied 4.2 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. On the other hand, Romney was able to pick up only 782,967 more votes than McCain, indicating Republican voters were not wildly enthusiastic about the former governor. Total voter turnout was down by 3.4 million from 2008.
All those contradictions to conventional wisdom beg the question: "Then how do you explain the Obama win?"
The election boiled down to likability. Pew found that 53 percent of voters viewed Obama favorably versus 47 percent for Romney. Throughout the campaign, Romney's favorable ratings were at historic lows for a presidential candidate, Pew Research reported.
To underscore the conclusion, consider that voters gave Obama high marks for being "in touch" with ordinary people by a 53-to-43 percent margin over Romney. That 10 percentage point gap was even more pronounced among women.
Based on that finding, it comes as no surprise that Obama won the women's vote by a decisive margin of 56-to-44 percent, according to exit interviews conducted by Gallup. Romney had an eight-percentage point edge with men, winning 54-to-46 percent. That means the gender gap was 20 percentage points, the largest ever in a presidential election claimed Gallup.
In his analysis of the data, Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut commented: "...Most observers are overstating the gravity of the GOP's problem. In particular, they are paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was..."
The chief lesson from the election can best be summed up this way: voters say issues are important, but in many cases, they cast their ballot for the person they like best.
That may be hard to swallow for political junkies. Unfortunately it is a sign of the times. People are either too busy or too lazy to study the issues and candidates in depth. Their votes too often are swayed by candidates' personality, style and charisma.
In spite of the research, political elitists will continue to sound the death knell for the Republican Party. But reports of the GOP's demise are greatly exaggerated.
The GOP is not a political dinosaur. But the party must quit nominating presidential candidates who look and act like one.
Their conclusions are based on shifting demographics and Hispanic turnout for Obama. Their theories are rooted in research showing Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the nation. Furthermore, the Hispanic voting bloc represented a sizable advantage for the president.
No one would argue either conclusion. However, most voters shared the GOP's positions on major issues, according to some eyeopening, post-election data from Pew Research. It wasn't the Republican label that fell out of favor. Voters mainly liked Obama better than challenger Mitt Romney.
Perhaps that sounds too simplistic. But the research confirms that most of the drivel about the "lessons to be learned" from the 2012 election is misleading. Facts often have a habit of getting in the way of strongly held opinions.
Let's start with the GOP standard-bearer's political positions. Nearly 50 percent of those who voted disapproved of Obama Care, according to Pew's exit polling. More than half were opposed to an activist government. Fully sixty percent thought the economy was sick. Voters even told pollsters the economy was their top issue.
Those numbers suggest Romney should have won in a cakewalk since most voters agreed with his positions on the election's defining issues.
Conventional wisdom also has made much of the Hispanic vote, which Obama carried 71-to-27 percent. While the margin was significant, it fell short of Bill Clinton's performance in 1996 when he racked up 72 percent. However, Hispanics represented only 10 percent of total voters in this year's election, nearly the same as recent presidential races. Forty-eight percent of Hispanics did not vote.
Observers have underscored the president's gains among minorities. Little has been said about Romney's strong showing compared with John McCain's performance in 2008. Romney posted gains with men (+4 percentage points), whites (+4 points), younger voters (+6 points), Catholics (+6 points) and Jews (+9 points). That means all those groups were less supportive of Obama.
Astonishingly, Romney also carried the independent vote by a 50-to-45 percent margin. In 2008, independents were credited by many with the Obama victory. The president captured 52 percent of the independent vote while McCain managed only 44 percent four years ago.
Obama also tallied 4.2 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. On the other hand, Romney was able to pick up only 782,967 more votes than McCain, indicating Republican voters were not wildly enthusiastic about the former governor. Total voter turnout was down by 3.4 million from 2008.
All those contradictions to conventional wisdom beg the question: "Then how do you explain the Obama win?"
The election boiled down to likability. Pew found that 53 percent of voters viewed Obama favorably versus 47 percent for Romney. Throughout the campaign, Romney's favorable ratings were at historic lows for a presidential candidate, Pew Research reported.
To underscore the conclusion, consider that voters gave Obama high marks for being "in touch" with ordinary people by a 53-to-43 percent margin over Romney. That 10 percentage point gap was even more pronounced among women.
Based on that finding, it comes as no surprise that Obama won the women's vote by a decisive margin of 56-to-44 percent, according to exit interviews conducted by Gallup. Romney had an eight-percentage point edge with men, winning 54-to-46 percent. That means the gender gap was 20 percentage points, the largest ever in a presidential election claimed Gallup.
In his analysis of the data, Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut commented: "...Most observers are overstating the gravity of the GOP's problem. In particular, they are paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was..."
The chief lesson from the election can best be summed up this way: voters say issues are important, but in many cases, they cast their ballot for the person they like best.
That may be hard to swallow for political junkies. Unfortunately it is a sign of the times. People are either too busy or too lazy to study the issues and candidates in depth. Their votes too often are swayed by candidates' personality, style and charisma.
In spite of the research, political elitists will continue to sound the death knell for the Republican Party. But reports of the GOP's demise are greatly exaggerated.
The GOP is not a political dinosaur. But the party must quit nominating presidential candidates who look and act like one.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Thank Raymond Weeks For Veterans Day
Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Raymond Weeks, a little known World War II veteran. Weeks launched a one-man crusade 65-years ago to honor military personnel who served their country. His tireless campaign prompted Congress to officially recognize Veterans Day in 1954.
The bill signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower capped a seven-year effort by Weeks. November 11th was designated as the official observance. At exactly 11 a.m. on that day, a wreath is laid at the tomb of the unknown soldiers buried on a Virginia hillside overlooking the Potomac River.
Understanding the significance of the time and date requires a bit of background. Major hostilities in World War I ended at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 with Germany's signing of the armistice.
The day was officially crowned Armistice Day in 1926 by Congressional action. Although it is still celebrated, especially in Europe, Armistice Day has given way to Veterans Day as an official holiday for U.S. federal workers.
Armistice Day had already begun to fade from the scene when Weeks opened his campaign in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1947, he organized the very first parade to recognize war veterans in his hometown. Even then he dreamed of expanding the idea beyond his city.
His plan was not only to honor America's war dead, as Memorial Day does, but to recognize all veterans who served in the country's armed forces.
The patriotic Weeks bent the ear of every politician and military general who would listen. He struck pay dirt when he presented his proposal to Eisenhower while the general was serving as the Army's Chief of Staff. Eisenhower remembered the Alabama veteran's idea after he was elected president.
Congress passed legislation on June 1 of 1954 renaming Armistice Day as Veterans Day. The historic act included this language: "...let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly" to "preserve our heritage of freedom."
The man who conceived the idea served as director of the Birmingham National Veterans Day celebration for 38 years until his death in 1985. For his noble efforts, Weeks was recognized by President Ronald Reagan, who presented him the Presidential Citizenship Medal in 1982.
Each Veterans Day should remind every American of the nation's heroes who sacrificed to serve their country, including those who gave up their lives. If you are too busy to attend a parade, tribute or a memorial service, at least take a moment to silently thank these selfless women and men.
Don't forget to also pay tribute to Raymond Weeks. He proved that an ordinary person can make a difference in the greatest country on this blessed earth.
The bill signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower capped a seven-year effort by Weeks. November 11th was designated as the official observance. At exactly 11 a.m. on that day, a wreath is laid at the tomb of the unknown soldiers buried on a Virginia hillside overlooking the Potomac River.
Understanding the significance of the time and date requires a bit of background. Major hostilities in World War I ended at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 with Germany's signing of the armistice.
The day was officially crowned Armistice Day in 1926 by Congressional action. Although it is still celebrated, especially in Europe, Armistice Day has given way to Veterans Day as an official holiday for U.S. federal workers.
Armistice Day had already begun to fade from the scene when Weeks opened his campaign in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1947, he organized the very first parade to recognize war veterans in his hometown. Even then he dreamed of expanding the idea beyond his city.
His plan was not only to honor America's war dead, as Memorial Day does, but to recognize all veterans who served in the country's armed forces.
The patriotic Weeks bent the ear of every politician and military general who would listen. He struck pay dirt when he presented his proposal to Eisenhower while the general was serving as the Army's Chief of Staff. Eisenhower remembered the Alabama veteran's idea after he was elected president.
Congress passed legislation on June 1 of 1954 renaming Armistice Day as Veterans Day. The historic act included this language: "...let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly" to "preserve our heritage of freedom."
The man who conceived the idea served as director of the Birmingham National Veterans Day celebration for 38 years until his death in 1985. For his noble efforts, Weeks was recognized by President Ronald Reagan, who presented him the Presidential Citizenship Medal in 1982.
Each Veterans Day should remind every American of the nation's heroes who sacrificed to serve their country, including those who gave up their lives. If you are too busy to attend a parade, tribute or a memorial service, at least take a moment to silently thank these selfless women and men.
Don't forget to also pay tribute to Raymond Weeks. He proved that an ordinary person can make a difference in the greatest country on this blessed earth.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
How Romney Lost the Election
Most pollsters got it wrong. Many media pundits blew it. Few predicted the kind of electoral tide that swept Barrack Obama into a second term in the White House. The question on lots of Republicans' minds this morning is: How did this happen?
In his victory speech, President Obama tipped his hat to supporters and campaign workers. But he never mentioned the one group that aided his reelection more than any other: the partisan American media. If that sounds like sour grapes, the facts argue otherwise.
But Mitt Romney cannot lay all the blame at the feet of the media. His campaign never got its footing until the presidential debates, when too many voters had already made up their minds. Here is a review of what went wrong for Romney.
1. Romney Branded Early: Romney was never able to overcome the negative image created by the Obama campaign. Obama's ad blitzkrieg and the campaign's vipers nest of surrogates spent most of the summer and fall painting an ugly picture of Romney. He was too rich, too inexperienced, too out of touch. That caricature was firmly entrenched in voters' subconsciousness by the time Romney began introducing himself to the nation.
2. Romney Gave Obama a Pass: Like John McCain before him, Romney never personally attacked Obama. While the president's campaign was slinging mud, the Romney folks tried to stick with the issues. That may earn Romney praise in some quarters, but it lost him the election. Both McCain and Romney had lots of ammunition to use against Obama, but they were intimidated over being branded a racist. The last two Republican presidential campaigns are models of how to lose an election. Candidates who play nice finish last in presidential politics.
3. Media Hammered Romney: The mainstream media showed early it would abandon all pretense of journalistic fairness to plunge a dagger in Romney's chances. No sooner had Romney cinched the nomination when the The Washington Post ran a 5,400 word pseudo expose about how a teen aged Romney had pinned down a boy and cut his hair. That set the tenor for the media coverage. But it wasn't just the usual suspects (NBC, CBS, ABC). Online media was solidly in Obama's camp. That made a difference, especially with young voters.
4. Media Buried Bad News: Not only did the media bludgeon Romney, but faux journalists suppressed, twisted and misreported any hint of bad news for the Obama campaign. There was a virtual blackout in the mainstream media over the fallout from the murder of the U.S ambassador in Benghazi. The government-supported gun-running operation known as "Fast and Furious" disappeared as quickly as it became a news item. Economic and unemployment numbers, which appeared at odds with reality, were never questioned. Most Americans now may never know the truth about the stench surrounding the administration's missteps.
5. Turnout Conundrum: Final numbers are still dribbling in from the states, but an early analysis appears to indicate that Obama will grab less popular voters than he did in 2008. So how did he win? While Obama did worse among some constituencies, his campaign was successful in increasing turnout, particularly among Latinos and other ethnic groups. The Romney camp was late to the game in several states, such as Pennsylvania, that came into play during the campaign's waning days. More data will be available in the coming days, but at least initially, it appears the so-called "enthusiasm" gap for Obama was more wishful thinking than reality.
Many Republicans and independents awoke this morning with a case of election flu, including symptoms of regret, despondency and chagrin over the prospect of Barrack Obama's second inauguration.
But there is one fact that should comfort them. Four years from now, the long American nightmare will be over.
In his victory speech, President Obama tipped his hat to supporters and campaign workers. But he never mentioned the one group that aided his reelection more than any other: the partisan American media. If that sounds like sour grapes, the facts argue otherwise.
But Mitt Romney cannot lay all the blame at the feet of the media. His campaign never got its footing until the presidential debates, when too many voters had already made up their minds. Here is a review of what went wrong for Romney.
1. Romney Branded Early: Romney was never able to overcome the negative image created by the Obama campaign. Obama's ad blitzkrieg and the campaign's vipers nest of surrogates spent most of the summer and fall painting an ugly picture of Romney. He was too rich, too inexperienced, too out of touch. That caricature was firmly entrenched in voters' subconsciousness by the time Romney began introducing himself to the nation.
2. Romney Gave Obama a Pass: Like John McCain before him, Romney never personally attacked Obama. While the president's campaign was slinging mud, the Romney folks tried to stick with the issues. That may earn Romney praise in some quarters, but it lost him the election. Both McCain and Romney had lots of ammunition to use against Obama, but they were intimidated over being branded a racist. The last two Republican presidential campaigns are models of how to lose an election. Candidates who play nice finish last in presidential politics.
3. Media Hammered Romney: The mainstream media showed early it would abandon all pretense of journalistic fairness to plunge a dagger in Romney's chances. No sooner had Romney cinched the nomination when the The Washington Post ran a 5,400 word pseudo expose about how a teen aged Romney had pinned down a boy and cut his hair. That set the tenor for the media coverage. But it wasn't just the usual suspects (NBC, CBS, ABC). Online media was solidly in Obama's camp. That made a difference, especially with young voters.
4. Media Buried Bad News: Not only did the media bludgeon Romney, but faux journalists suppressed, twisted and misreported any hint of bad news for the Obama campaign. There was a virtual blackout in the mainstream media over the fallout from the murder of the U.S ambassador in Benghazi. The government-supported gun-running operation known as "Fast and Furious" disappeared as quickly as it became a news item. Economic and unemployment numbers, which appeared at odds with reality, were never questioned. Most Americans now may never know the truth about the stench surrounding the administration's missteps.
5. Turnout Conundrum: Final numbers are still dribbling in from the states, but an early analysis appears to indicate that Obama will grab less popular voters than he did in 2008. So how did he win? While Obama did worse among some constituencies, his campaign was successful in increasing turnout, particularly among Latinos and other ethnic groups. The Romney camp was late to the game in several states, such as Pennsylvania, that came into play during the campaign's waning days. More data will be available in the coming days, but at least initially, it appears the so-called "enthusiasm" gap for Obama was more wishful thinking than reality.
Many Republicans and independents awoke this morning with a case of election flu, including symptoms of regret, despondency and chagrin over the prospect of Barrack Obama's second inauguration.
But there is one fact that should comfort them. Four years from now, the long American nightmare will be over.
Monday, November 5, 2012
And The Winner Is....
There are three metrics that will determine the outcome of Tuesday's presidential election. They are, in order, turnout, turnout and turnout. With the latest polls predicting the race is virtually deadlocked, the candidate that coaxes the most supporters to the voting booths will win.
If you doubt this prognosis, look no further than the 2008 presidential race. In that election, there was a ten percentage point gap between Democrat and Republican voters. Exit polls conducted by Gallup showed Democrats made up 39 percent of total voters. Republicans represented 29 percent. The remaining 32 percent were mostly independents.
Turnout mattered to President Obama because he won nine key battleground states by less than five percent of the total votes cast. Those states were: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado and Iowa. Recent polling data suggests nail-biters again this election.
As further evidence of the impact, when George W. Bush nipped Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Republicans had an edge in turnout. Exit polling found 39 percent of all people who voted were Republican, while 37 percent self-identified themselves as Democrats.
Gallup's polling this time suggests that Republicans will outnumber Democrats by one percentage point (36 percent versus 35 percent). Although there are many other polling outfits, non-partisan Gallup is the gold standard with 75 years experience in global research.
Most polls, except for Gallup, have sampled more Democrats than Republicans. In other cases, pollsters have assumed Democrat turnout will surpass Republicans. That explains why most polls predict the race is tied or give a razor-thin margin to the president. But the turnout numbers are wrong.
In 2008, the turnout was the largest in American history. More than 132 million people marked ballots, representing 56.8 percent of the voting age population. That was 10.3 million more votes cast than the 2004 election, when 55.3 percent of the voting population elected to participate.
An indicator of turnout is early voting. Gallup released a new poll reporting that more Republicans than Democrats have already voted by a margin of 19 to 15 percent. People leaving the polls were asked to reveal their vote: Romney holds a 52-45 percent margin in the exit interviews.
In the 2008 election, the president fared better in early voting. Polling data asserted that Obama had a 54 to 39 percent advantage over challenger John McCain. Many Republicans, suffering from a lack of enthusiasm for the Arizona senator, stayed on the sidelines that election.
This election night watch three key states for an early indication of the likely outcome. New Hampshire, which has voted for the winning candidate in seven of the last eight presidential elections, could be a harbinger of momentum. Other early reporting states Virginia and Florida hold keys to the electoral outcome.
As results are tabulated in those states, all eyes will turn to Ohio and its 18 electoral voters. The president won Ohio last time, but benefited from a record turnout from young voters, aged 18-24. For example, voting surged 90 percent in the precinct where Ohio State University is located.
In the last 10 presidential elections going back to 1972, Ohio has voted for the winning presidential candidate. Will that trend hold true this time?
The prediction here is that Mitt Romney will occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year.
Enthusiasm levels for the president are flagging, even among his die hard base. The youth vote will dip below last election's record levels. Independents will swing toward the challenger. GOP voters are more energized than last election. Republican turnout will undo the president's reelection.
Romney will win the popular vote: 50.9 vs. 49.1 percent. He will claim 290 electoral votes to the president's 248. However, it would not be a surprise if Romney surpassed 300 electoral votes on his way to a landslide, ignited by the late momentum he has enjoyed.
After the election, Democrats will cry foul and dredge up all sorts of bogeymen. Expect demands for recounts. Romney voters will be branded racists. The media will claim Obama was robbed of victory. Attorney General Holder will launch an inquiry.
But it will all be in vain. President Romney will take the oath of office on January 20.
If you doubt this prognosis, look no further than the 2008 presidential race. In that election, there was a ten percentage point gap between Democrat and Republican voters. Exit polls conducted by Gallup showed Democrats made up 39 percent of total voters. Republicans represented 29 percent. The remaining 32 percent were mostly independents.
Turnout mattered to President Obama because he won nine key battleground states by less than five percent of the total votes cast. Those states were: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado and Iowa. Recent polling data suggests nail-biters again this election.
As further evidence of the impact, when George W. Bush nipped Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Republicans had an edge in turnout. Exit polling found 39 percent of all people who voted were Republican, while 37 percent self-identified themselves as Democrats.
Gallup's polling this time suggests that Republicans will outnumber Democrats by one percentage point (36 percent versus 35 percent). Although there are many other polling outfits, non-partisan Gallup is the gold standard with 75 years experience in global research.
Most polls, except for Gallup, have sampled more Democrats than Republicans. In other cases, pollsters have assumed Democrat turnout will surpass Republicans. That explains why most polls predict the race is tied or give a razor-thin margin to the president. But the turnout numbers are wrong.
In 2008, the turnout was the largest in American history. More than 132 million people marked ballots, representing 56.8 percent of the voting age population. That was 10.3 million more votes cast than the 2004 election, when 55.3 percent of the voting population elected to participate.
An indicator of turnout is early voting. Gallup released a new poll reporting that more Republicans than Democrats have already voted by a margin of 19 to 15 percent. People leaving the polls were asked to reveal their vote: Romney holds a 52-45 percent margin in the exit interviews.
In the 2008 election, the president fared better in early voting. Polling data asserted that Obama had a 54 to 39 percent advantage over challenger John McCain. Many Republicans, suffering from a lack of enthusiasm for the Arizona senator, stayed on the sidelines that election.
This election night watch three key states for an early indication of the likely outcome. New Hampshire, which has voted for the winning candidate in seven of the last eight presidential elections, could be a harbinger of momentum. Other early reporting states Virginia and Florida hold keys to the electoral outcome.
As results are tabulated in those states, all eyes will turn to Ohio and its 18 electoral voters. The president won Ohio last time, but benefited from a record turnout from young voters, aged 18-24. For example, voting surged 90 percent in the precinct where Ohio State University is located.
In the last 10 presidential elections going back to 1972, Ohio has voted for the winning presidential candidate. Will that trend hold true this time?
The prediction here is that Mitt Romney will occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year.
Enthusiasm levels for the president are flagging, even among his die hard base. The youth vote will dip below last election's record levels. Independents will swing toward the challenger. GOP voters are more energized than last election. Republican turnout will undo the president's reelection.
Romney will win the popular vote: 50.9 vs. 49.1 percent. He will claim 290 electoral votes to the president's 248. However, it would not be a surprise if Romney surpassed 300 electoral votes on his way to a landslide, ignited by the late momentum he has enjoyed.
After the election, Democrats will cry foul and dredge up all sorts of bogeymen. Expect demands for recounts. Romney voters will be branded racists. The media will claim Obama was robbed of victory. Attorney General Holder will launch an inquiry.
But it will all be in vain. President Romney will take the oath of office on January 20.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Media Collaborators Flunk Economics
President Obama and his cadre of ideological clones have been doing somersaults, celebrating the government numbers on unemployment and economic growth. The cheerleaders in the media have linked hands with the administration, performing journalistic handstands to mark the turnaround.
The coordinated attempt to brainwash voters in the final days of the presidential election is without precedent because it involves collusion with supposedly non-partisan government agencies. Skepticism about the federal data has been met with stinging administration rebukes.
Yet heading into October, most financial experts agreed the economy was comatose. Leading indicators showed only a weak economic pulse. Then two government agencies released data on unemployment and expansion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that raised eyebrows.
The opening propaganda volley was fired by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reported the nation's unemployment rate inexplicably nosedived to 7.8 percent in September. The turnabout occurred after 43 consecutive months of unemployment rates above eight percent.
According to the statisticians, the economy added a staggering 873,000 jobs in a single month, following three months of stagnation. The jump was the nation's largest gain in workers in 29 years, despite little change in economic activity.
Retired General Electric CEO Jack Welch was the first to challenge the data. The president's Propaganda Minister Jay Carney and the media sheep tried to silence the former executive by ridiculing him for daring to suggest the numbers were cooked.
Welch had good reason to be skeptical. The data appears at odds with reality. The nation's plodding economic expansion does not explain the extraordinary job gains.
The bureau's glowing job numbers were based on in-person and telephone interviews of 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Households are selected in each state by the census organization to represent the entire country. Each sample includes 75 percent of the same households that participated in the previous month's survey.
Surveys are notoriously flawed. They depend entirely on the honesty of respondents and the accuracy of the interviewer in recording answers. In the aftermath of the unemployment drop, critics expressed concerns about the methodology.
They had grounds to question the veracity.
As part of each monthly report, government statisticians at the bureau also examine the actual payrolls of 141,000 businesses. In September, the inspection found 114,000 jobs were added. That is a discrepancy of more than 600,000 jobs between the payroll data and the household interviews.
No plausible explanation has been forthcoming from the media or the government statisticians. It is further evidence that the media has abdicated its role as government watchdog to avoid spoiling the president's reelection chances. The media and the administration had one more trick up their sleeves.
Last week the Commerce Department issued an "estimate" showing growth of 2.0 percent in the third quarter for the GDP, a measurement of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy. The Obama Administration backflipped and the media cartwheeled.
The improvement surprised the nation's top economists. In a survey of 48 financial experts, their consensus was the economy would grow by 1.8 percent, according to the USA Today. For the second quarter, the GDP growth had been an unimpressive 1.3 percent.
There was a a little noticed nugget buried in the commerce report. Most of the growth could be attributed to federal government spending, which rose 9.6 percent in the third quarter after tumbling 0.2 percent in the second quarter. Surely that wasn't a coincidence.
In addition, not a single media outlet called attention to the cautionary language contained in the department's report, which emphasized the third quarter figures were an "advance estimate based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision."
Isn't it convenient, too, that revised figures with more complete data will not be released until November 29, some 23 days after the election?
Yet Americans are supposed to trust the media when it claims the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Commerce Department are beyond rapprochement. Really? Government data is constantly being updated to correct figures already in the public domain.
As a recent example, the press breathlessly proclaimed that jobless claims fell to 342,000 for the week ended October 13, marking the lowest number since February of 2008. Long after the news grabbed headlines, the Labor Department quietly corrected the figure by raising it to 388,000.
A democracy demands a vigilant and impartial media. The United States has neither.
The coordinated attempt to brainwash voters in the final days of the presidential election is without precedent because it involves collusion with supposedly non-partisan government agencies. Skepticism about the federal data has been met with stinging administration rebukes.
Yet heading into October, most financial experts agreed the economy was comatose. Leading indicators showed only a weak economic pulse. Then two government agencies released data on unemployment and expansion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that raised eyebrows.
The opening propaganda volley was fired by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reported the nation's unemployment rate inexplicably nosedived to 7.8 percent in September. The turnabout occurred after 43 consecutive months of unemployment rates above eight percent.
According to the statisticians, the economy added a staggering 873,000 jobs in a single month, following three months of stagnation. The jump was the nation's largest gain in workers in 29 years, despite little change in economic activity.
Retired General Electric CEO Jack Welch was the first to challenge the data. The president's Propaganda Minister Jay Carney and the media sheep tried to silence the former executive by ridiculing him for daring to suggest the numbers were cooked.
Welch had good reason to be skeptical. The data appears at odds with reality. The nation's plodding economic expansion does not explain the extraordinary job gains.
The bureau's glowing job numbers were based on in-person and telephone interviews of 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Households are selected in each state by the census organization to represent the entire country. Each sample includes 75 percent of the same households that participated in the previous month's survey.
Surveys are notoriously flawed. They depend entirely on the honesty of respondents and the accuracy of the interviewer in recording answers. In the aftermath of the unemployment drop, critics expressed concerns about the methodology.
They had grounds to question the veracity.
As part of each monthly report, government statisticians at the bureau also examine the actual payrolls of 141,000 businesses. In September, the inspection found 114,000 jobs were added. That is a discrepancy of more than 600,000 jobs between the payroll data and the household interviews.
No plausible explanation has been forthcoming from the media or the government statisticians. It is further evidence that the media has abdicated its role as government watchdog to avoid spoiling the president's reelection chances. The media and the administration had one more trick up their sleeves.
Last week the Commerce Department issued an "estimate" showing growth of 2.0 percent in the third quarter for the GDP, a measurement of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy. The Obama Administration backflipped and the media cartwheeled.
The improvement surprised the nation's top economists. In a survey of 48 financial experts, their consensus was the economy would grow by 1.8 percent, according to the USA Today. For the second quarter, the GDP growth had been an unimpressive 1.3 percent.
There was a a little noticed nugget buried in the commerce report. Most of the growth could be attributed to federal government spending, which rose 9.6 percent in the third quarter after tumbling 0.2 percent in the second quarter. Surely that wasn't a coincidence.
In addition, not a single media outlet called attention to the cautionary language contained in the department's report, which emphasized the third quarter figures were an "advance estimate based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision."
Isn't it convenient, too, that revised figures with more complete data will not be released until November 29, some 23 days after the election?
Yet Americans are supposed to trust the media when it claims the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Commerce Department are beyond rapprochement. Really? Government data is constantly being updated to correct figures already in the public domain.
As a recent example, the press breathlessly proclaimed that jobless claims fell to 342,000 for the week ended October 13, marking the lowest number since February of 2008. Long after the news grabbed headlines, the Labor Department quietly corrected the figure by raising it to 388,000.
A democracy demands a vigilant and impartial media. The United States has neither.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Earth to Obama: US Has a Spending Problem
Listening to the president the past four years, it's clear he views hiking taxes as the only way to grow government revenue and slice the yawning federal deficit. Imagine his shock when he realized this month that tax receipts actually rose last fiscal year without an increase in federal income taxes.
Even with those evil Bush-era cuts in force, tax revenues increased six per cent in fiscal 2012, which ended September 30. Washington collected three percent more in personal taxes. Corporations coughed up an increase of 34 percent over fiscal 2011.
Despite the healthy growth in tax revenue, the nation recorded a $1.089 trillion deficit in 2012. This marks four straight years of trillion dollar deficits. To pay for the deficits, the United States is expected to bump up against the $16.39 trillion debt ceiling before the end of 2012.
The cumulative federal debt will likely reach 70 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of the year, according to this month's estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That would be the highest level since World War II. It was 40 percent when George W. Bush waved goodbye to Washington.
Without significant changes, the CBO warned that federal debt could hit 90 percent of GDP by 2022. If that sounds ominous, consider this: the financially distressed country of Spain is on pace to reach the 85.3 percent mark by the end of this year.
How did the United States arrive at this financial precipice?
In his first two years in office, President Obama boosted federal spending by 28 per cent. His latest budget proposal for 2013 would tack on another $1 trillion in debt. The administration's long-term forecast calls for a stunning 57 percent increase in government outlays by 2021.
Over the previous 50 years, spending has averaged 20.2 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Last fiscal year, federal government expenditures topped 24 percent of GDP.
As a result of the spending binge, America is drowning in a ocean of red ink.
Without a major policy shift, the U.S. is barreling toward a financial meltdown of epic scale. If that sounds alarmist, just read the CBO report of August 22, chronicling the Mount Everest of debt that has accumulated since Barrack Obama vowed to "cut the deficit in half" during his first term.
"If current policies are continued, it would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective," the non-partisan CBO stated in its chilling review of federal deficits and spending.
President Obama's answer to spiraling deficits is escalating taxes. Obama has promised to raise the top tax rates for nearly every major federal tax. That includes levies on capital gains, corporate dividends, death taxes as well as soaking high-earners with a 20 percent increase in personal tax rates.
Forcing Americans to give up more of their hard-earned income to Uncle Sam is not the answer. That will only kill the puny economic growth that Obama has presided over during his four years. Spending must be addressed if the nation is serious about curbing runaway deficits.
It is delusional and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Economic growth, not taxes, is the best way to increase federal revenues. A booming economy, accompanied by spending cuts, would enable the government to address the cataclysmic deficits.
Like so many things during the last four years, the same media that harped on the Bush era deficits has elected to treat the current financial crisis as mere political theatre. It can't be Obama's fault. Yet the numbers do not lie. America is in worse financial shape than at any time since World War II.
The nation is spending itself into ruin. The country cannot afford four more years of Barrack Obama.
Even with those evil Bush-era cuts in force, tax revenues increased six per cent in fiscal 2012, which ended September 30. Washington collected three percent more in personal taxes. Corporations coughed up an increase of 34 percent over fiscal 2011.
Despite the healthy growth in tax revenue, the nation recorded a $1.089 trillion deficit in 2012. This marks four straight years of trillion dollar deficits. To pay for the deficits, the United States is expected to bump up against the $16.39 trillion debt ceiling before the end of 2012.
The cumulative federal debt will likely reach 70 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of the year, according to this month's estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That would be the highest level since World War II. It was 40 percent when George W. Bush waved goodbye to Washington.
Without significant changes, the CBO warned that federal debt could hit 90 percent of GDP by 2022. If that sounds ominous, consider this: the financially distressed country of Spain is on pace to reach the 85.3 percent mark by the end of this year.
How did the United States arrive at this financial precipice?
Over the previous 50 years, spending has averaged 20.2 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Last fiscal year, federal government expenditures topped 24 percent of GDP.
As a result of the spending binge, America is drowning in a ocean of red ink.
Without a major policy shift, the U.S. is barreling toward a financial meltdown of epic scale. If that sounds alarmist, just read the CBO report of August 22, chronicling the Mount Everest of debt that has accumulated since Barrack Obama vowed to "cut the deficit in half" during his first term.
"If current policies are continued, it would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective," the non-partisan CBO stated in its chilling review of federal deficits and spending.
President Obama's answer to spiraling deficits is escalating taxes. Obama has promised to raise the top tax rates for nearly every major federal tax. That includes levies on capital gains, corporate dividends, death taxes as well as soaking high-earners with a 20 percent increase in personal tax rates.
Forcing Americans to give up more of their hard-earned income to Uncle Sam is not the answer. That will only kill the puny economic growth that Obama has presided over during his four years. Spending must be addressed if the nation is serious about curbing runaway deficits.
It is delusional and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Economic growth, not taxes, is the best way to increase federal revenues. A booming economy, accompanied by spending cuts, would enable the government to address the cataclysmic deficits.
Like so many things during the last four years, the same media that harped on the Bush era deficits has elected to treat the current financial crisis as mere political theatre. It can't be Obama's fault. Yet the numbers do not lie. America is in worse financial shape than at any time since World War II.
The nation is spending itself into ruin. The country cannot afford four more years of Barrack Obama.
Monday, October 15, 2012
What the U.S. Can Learn From France
Since President Obama considers raising taxes on the wealthy a patriotic duty, he should ponder the recent fallout in France after that country's new socialist leader zapped millionaires. The maneuver has fueled a selling frenzy of pricey real estate and triggered an exodus to tax friendly nations.
The great escape began when candidate Francois Hollande pandered to his Socialist Party faithful by vowing to levy a 75 percent tax on all personal income that exceeds one million euros a year. Many figured it was an election stunt. But President Hollande has rammed through the new tax and signaled he wants to increase taxes on businesses, too.
The confiscatory tax, scheduled to take affect later this year, has sent shivers through France's top earners. About 500 residences worth more than one million euros have gone onto the Paris market since May. Lawyers report an unprecedented number of calls from prosperous executives wanting to flee France.
The country's wealthiest man made no secret of the fact he is seeking citizenship in neighboring Belgium. Bernard Arnault, chief executive of luxury brand Moet-Hennessy Louis Vuitton (MHLV), wants no part of Hollande's soak-the-rich scheme.
The French media acted with outrage. Hollande scolded Arnault for being unpatriotic. Socialists and trade unions squealed with delight. However, Hollande's public approval ratings have nosedived. The French president has no one to blame but himself and his lousy political acumen.
In defending the tax, France's top man claimed the revenues would help reduce the nation's hefty budget deficit. However, the tax revenue from an estimated 30,000 wealthy earners would make-up a tiny fraction of the 33 billion euros needed to help balance France's budget.
The tax does nothing to address France's economic woes. The country recorded zero growth in the second quarter. Unemployment ticked up to 10.3 percent, the highest in more than a decade. Raising taxes will blunt any chance of economic recovery.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Hollande and his socialist pals have ripped a page right out of the playbook of Barrack Obama. If the U.S. president gets his way, America will be treated to the same sort of spectacle.
It is political naiveté to think sharp increases in taxes will be met with passive resignation. As France is discovering, the new levy is stifling business growth, drying up capital for new ventures and motivating foreign companies to consider alternative locations for their investment.
The draconian tax, aimed at the wealthy, has harmed every French citizen and splintered the nation by pitting one class against another.
Don't expect America's socialist president to learn from his French connection. President Obama is determined to hoist the top tax rate to 39.6 percent on every couple earning $250,000 or more. Why stop there? In 1963, the United States' highest individual income tax rate stood at 91 percent.
Democratic Party President John Kennedy lobbied for a lower rate. After his death, Congress sliced the rate on the largest earners to 70 percent. President Reagan trimmed the top rate to 50 percent in 1982. He went a step further in 1988, dropping it to 28 percent, igniting the longest sustained economic boom in the nation's history.
The French lesson should be painfully obvious. Higher taxes often hinder economic growth by reducing consumer spending and investment. In the midst of the current U.S. economic malaise, the idea of a tax hike on any wage earner deserves public scorn.
It is rotten political and economic policy.
The great escape began when candidate Francois Hollande pandered to his Socialist Party faithful by vowing to levy a 75 percent tax on all personal income that exceeds one million euros a year. Many figured it was an election stunt. But President Hollande has rammed through the new tax and signaled he wants to increase taxes on businesses, too.
The confiscatory tax, scheduled to take affect later this year, has sent shivers through France's top earners. About 500 residences worth more than one million euros have gone onto the Paris market since May. Lawyers report an unprecedented number of calls from prosperous executives wanting to flee France.
The country's wealthiest man made no secret of the fact he is seeking citizenship in neighboring Belgium. Bernard Arnault, chief executive of luxury brand Moet-Hennessy Louis Vuitton (MHLV), wants no part of Hollande's soak-the-rich scheme.
The French media acted with outrage. Hollande scolded Arnault for being unpatriotic. Socialists and trade unions squealed with delight. However, Hollande's public approval ratings have nosedived. The French president has no one to blame but himself and his lousy political acumen.
In defending the tax, France's top man claimed the revenues would help reduce the nation's hefty budget deficit. However, the tax revenue from an estimated 30,000 wealthy earners would make-up a tiny fraction of the 33 billion euros needed to help balance France's budget.
The tax does nothing to address France's economic woes. The country recorded zero growth in the second quarter. Unemployment ticked up to 10.3 percent, the highest in more than a decade. Raising taxes will blunt any chance of economic recovery.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Hollande and his socialist pals have ripped a page right out of the playbook of Barrack Obama. If the U.S. president gets his way, America will be treated to the same sort of spectacle.
It is political naiveté to think sharp increases in taxes will be met with passive resignation. As France is discovering, the new levy is stifling business growth, drying up capital for new ventures and motivating foreign companies to consider alternative locations for their investment.
The draconian tax, aimed at the wealthy, has harmed every French citizen and splintered the nation by pitting one class against another.
Don't expect America's socialist president to learn from his French connection. President Obama is determined to hoist the top tax rate to 39.6 percent on every couple earning $250,000 or more. Why stop there? In 1963, the United States' highest individual income tax rate stood at 91 percent.
Democratic Party President John Kennedy lobbied for a lower rate. After his death, Congress sliced the rate on the largest earners to 70 percent. President Reagan trimmed the top rate to 50 percent in 1982. He went a step further in 1988, dropping it to 28 percent, igniting the longest sustained economic boom in the nation's history.
The French lesson should be painfully obvious. Higher taxes often hinder economic growth by reducing consumer spending and investment. In the midst of the current U.S. economic malaise, the idea of a tax hike on any wage earner deserves public scorn.
It is rotten political and economic policy.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Obama Czars Deserve Fate of Russian Tzars
They are shadowy figures. Most enjoy six-figure salaries. Few appear in public. Their activities are cloaked in secrecy. They are seldom held accountable. Yet they wield enormous power. Even the media can't determine exactly how many there are. But their numbers are growing.
They are the czars of the Obama Administration.
Since taking office, President Obama has installed personal advisors in so-called czar positions in the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch. At last count, there were about 45. In addition, there may be as many as 18 other unfilled czar jobs. But those numbers remain circumspect.
Those crowned czars by Obama include: Car Czar, Climate Czar, Drug Czar, TARP Czar, Technology Czar, Terrorism Czar, Oil Spill Czar, Safe Schools Czar, Science Czar, Regulatory Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Pay Czar, Green Energy Czar and Great Lakes Czar.
And that's just a partial list. Virtually every one of these czars has shared responsibilities for issues that are under the purview of either Cabinet level executives or heads of the endless list of federal government departments. The amount of redundancy is staggering.
These czars are largely unaccountable to Congress. Their activities often are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the individuals to operate with almost no public scrutiny. That provides cover for the czars to conduct their activities in secrecy.
In 2011, the House tacked on an amendment to a spending package to defund a select list of czars. After it was approved, it went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate. President Obama breathed a sigh of relief and quietly began plans to expand the czar regime.
In fact, as part of the bogus American Jobs Act the president proposed a whole new group of czars. These faceless autocrats will be charged with managing more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer funds to construct bridges, highways, waterways and other infrastructure projects.
Doesn't the Department of Transportation have responsibility for those matters? Why does the nation need another layer of bureaucracy?
The media should demand answers to those questions from the president. No way that will happen.
Instead, the mainstream media looks the other way while President Obama continues to build a shadow government that operates out of view from the prying eyes of taxpayers who are funding the excesses of his administration.
In fairness, President George W. Bush dabbled in czars, too. But Obama has raised the number as a way to avoid having to seek Senate confirmation for often controversial appointees. Some of the more disreputable Obama czars have disappeared never to be heard from again.
Independent Judicial Watch has sued in federal court to gain information about the specific activities of some czars. An impartial media would have exposed long ago the idea of giving unaccountable officials the power to regulate and control wide swaths of the economy and government.
In a democracy, there is no room for czars. Americans should demand an end to the practice. Even Russia's swooning infatuation with tzars came to a close in 1917, some 96 years ago. It's time for the U.S. to follow suit.
They are the czars of the Obama Administration.
Since taking office, President Obama has installed personal advisors in so-called czar positions in the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch. At last count, there were about 45. In addition, there may be as many as 18 other unfilled czar jobs. But those numbers remain circumspect.
Those crowned czars by Obama include: Car Czar, Climate Czar, Drug Czar, TARP Czar, Technology Czar, Terrorism Czar, Oil Spill Czar, Safe Schools Czar, Science Czar, Regulatory Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Pay Czar, Green Energy Czar and Great Lakes Czar.
And that's just a partial list. Virtually every one of these czars has shared responsibilities for issues that are under the purview of either Cabinet level executives or heads of the endless list of federal government departments. The amount of redundancy is staggering.
These czars are largely unaccountable to Congress. Their activities often are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the individuals to operate with almost no public scrutiny. That provides cover for the czars to conduct their activities in secrecy.
In 2011, the House tacked on an amendment to a spending package to defund a select list of czars. After it was approved, it went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate. President Obama breathed a sigh of relief and quietly began plans to expand the czar regime.
In fact, as part of the bogus American Jobs Act the president proposed a whole new group of czars. These faceless autocrats will be charged with managing more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer funds to construct bridges, highways, waterways and other infrastructure projects.
Doesn't the Department of Transportation have responsibility for those matters? Why does the nation need another layer of bureaucracy?
The media should demand answers to those questions from the president. No way that will happen.
Instead, the mainstream media looks the other way while President Obama continues to build a shadow government that operates out of view from the prying eyes of taxpayers who are funding the excesses of his administration.
In fairness, President George W. Bush dabbled in czars, too. But Obama has raised the number as a way to avoid having to seek Senate confirmation for often controversial appointees. Some of the more disreputable Obama czars have disappeared never to be heard from again.
Independent Judicial Watch has sued in federal court to gain information about the specific activities of some czars. An impartial media would have exposed long ago the idea of giving unaccountable officials the power to regulate and control wide swaths of the economy and government.
In a democracy, there is no room for czars. Americans should demand an end to the practice. Even Russia's swooning infatuation with tzars came to a close in 1917, some 96 years ago. It's time for the U.S. to follow suit.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Three Big Lies About Obama Care
President Obama's propaganda machine to indoctrinate Americans about the benefits of his health care reform law has relied on the "Big Lie" technique. The president has repeated his fabrications at every opportunity counting on the echo chamber in the media to broadcast the fallacies.
Left unchallenged, the misinformation has become accepted fact. Even well-informed people refuse to believe the convincing evidence about the falsehoods perpetuated by the administration. The blame rests with the media, which has failed its duty to fact-check the president.
Americans will soon learn the hard way about the president's deception. Once the law's health insurance mandate goes into affect in 2014, most people will be shocked by the reality of Obama Care. The president hopes Americans have short memories about his promises.
Here are the president's three biggest whoppers about the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010:
"If you like your (current health care) plan, you can keep it."
There is absolutely no guarantee and it depends entirely on what your employer does. Companies will have a disincentive to offer health insurance. Employers who decide to forgo offering health insurance will have to pay a tax of $2,000, which is far less than what it costs most major firms to provide health care benefits to each employee.
Take the example of Southwest Airlines. Under Obama Care, the company would expect to pay $414 million annually to provide health care to its employees or it could drop coverage and fork over $111 million in taxes. The financial discrepancy will encourage firms to end employee plans.
House Republicans released a study in May that found 71 of the 100 Fortune companies it surveyed could save $28.6 billion by eliminating health care plans and paying the $2,000 government tax.
No wonder a recent McKinsey and Co. report found 30 to 50 percent of current employers would dump company-sponsored health plans by 2014 when the mandate goes into effect.
The Congressional Budget Office had even worse news. It found as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage under what it calls a "worse case scenario."
Even that scenario may be too rosy. Starting in 2018, a 40 percent excise tax will be slapped on taxpayers who are covered by a high-cost health insurance plan, the so called "Cadillac"coverage offered by many large companies.
Under any scenario, your current health care coverage will not be the same that it is today. That is a guarantee.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
That assumes your doctor will not opt out of Obama Care. A survey conducted by the non-partisan Doctor Patient Medical Association reported that 83 percent of doctors have considered leaving their current practice over the new health care law.
The disturbing finding comes at a time when the medical profession is forecasting severe shortages of doctors to meet the new demands for health care. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the deficit could be 50 percent worse in 2015 than originally forecast.
A new study published in the journal Health Affairs predicts 16 million people will be added to the rolls of Medicaid in 2014. Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states, serves low-income families. Under Obama Care, millions without insurance today will wind up on Medicaid.
However, the study documents that nearly one-third of doctors today are not accepting new Medicaid patients. This will exacerbate the looming issue of doctor shortages. If the AAMC estimates prove correct, it could mean a scarcity of 91,500 doctors nationwide.
A recent report from the Heritage Foundation says Obama Care will "accelerate the decline in doctor-owned private practices because more physicians will only accept patients who can pay cash." The reason is Obama Care significantly reduces reimbursements to doctors for many patient services.
Chances are good that your doctor will not accept the lower reimbursements. Many physicians only will cater to people who can afford to pay for their own care or they will leave medicine.
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."
Of all the preposterous claims, this one earns the booby prize for crass dishonesty.
To fund health care, the new law creates 19 new types of taxes and fees over the next decade to raise $500 billion. The billions will be paid by businesses and individuals. According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, about 73 million taxpayers earning less than $200,000 annually will be saddled with tax increases.
This month the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that nearly six million Americans, mostly middle class, will face tax penalties for failing to carry health insurance coverage once the individual mandate takes effect in 2014.
Even these new taxes will likely fall short of the funding requirements. The original price tag for Obama Care was $944 billion over ten years. In May, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost over the next ten years at $1.856 trillion, about $912 billion more than the original forecast.
Obama Care cannot be paid for without taxing Americans of every economic level.
How could the president of the United States think Americans are so gullible?
For Barrack Obama, the answer to that question is obvious. When you have a self-inflated view of your own intelligence, you are convinced everyone else can be easily duped.
Left unchallenged, the misinformation has become accepted fact. Even well-informed people refuse to believe the convincing evidence about the falsehoods perpetuated by the administration. The blame rests with the media, which has failed its duty to fact-check the president.
Americans will soon learn the hard way about the president's deception. Once the law's health insurance mandate goes into affect in 2014, most people will be shocked by the reality of Obama Care. The president hopes Americans have short memories about his promises.
Here are the president's three biggest whoppers about the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010:
"If you like your (current health care) plan, you can keep it."
There is absolutely no guarantee and it depends entirely on what your employer does. Companies will have a disincentive to offer health insurance. Employers who decide to forgo offering health insurance will have to pay a tax of $2,000, which is far less than what it costs most major firms to provide health care benefits to each employee.
Take the example of Southwest Airlines. Under Obama Care, the company would expect to pay $414 million annually to provide health care to its employees or it could drop coverage and fork over $111 million in taxes. The financial discrepancy will encourage firms to end employee plans.
House Republicans released a study in May that found 71 of the 100 Fortune companies it surveyed could save $28.6 billion by eliminating health care plans and paying the $2,000 government tax.
No wonder a recent McKinsey and Co. report found 30 to 50 percent of current employers would dump company-sponsored health plans by 2014 when the mandate goes into effect.
The Congressional Budget Office had even worse news. It found as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage under what it calls a "worse case scenario."
Even that scenario may be too rosy. Starting in 2018, a 40 percent excise tax will be slapped on taxpayers who are covered by a high-cost health insurance plan, the so called "Cadillac"coverage offered by many large companies.
Under any scenario, your current health care coverage will not be the same that it is today. That is a guarantee.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
That assumes your doctor will not opt out of Obama Care. A survey conducted by the non-partisan Doctor Patient Medical Association reported that 83 percent of doctors have considered leaving their current practice over the new health care law.
The disturbing finding comes at a time when the medical profession is forecasting severe shortages of doctors to meet the new demands for health care. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the deficit could be 50 percent worse in 2015 than originally forecast.
A new study published in the journal Health Affairs predicts 16 million people will be added to the rolls of Medicaid in 2014. Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states, serves low-income families. Under Obama Care, millions without insurance today will wind up on Medicaid.
However, the study documents that nearly one-third of doctors today are not accepting new Medicaid patients. This will exacerbate the looming issue of doctor shortages. If the AAMC estimates prove correct, it could mean a scarcity of 91,500 doctors nationwide.
A recent report from the Heritage Foundation says Obama Care will "accelerate the decline in doctor-owned private practices because more physicians will only accept patients who can pay cash." The reason is Obama Care significantly reduces reimbursements to doctors for many patient services.
Chances are good that your doctor will not accept the lower reimbursements. Many physicians only will cater to people who can afford to pay for their own care or they will leave medicine.
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."
Of all the preposterous claims, this one earns the booby prize for crass dishonesty.
To fund health care, the new law creates 19 new types of taxes and fees over the next decade to raise $500 billion. The billions will be paid by businesses and individuals. According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, about 73 million taxpayers earning less than $200,000 annually will be saddled with tax increases.
This month the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that nearly six million Americans, mostly middle class, will face tax penalties for failing to carry health insurance coverage once the individual mandate takes effect in 2014.
Even these new taxes will likely fall short of the funding requirements. The original price tag for Obama Care was $944 billion over ten years. In May, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost over the next ten years at $1.856 trillion, about $912 billion more than the original forecast.
Obama Care cannot be paid for without taxing Americans of every economic level.
How could the president of the United States think Americans are so gullible?
For Barrack Obama, the answer to that question is obvious. When you have a self-inflated view of your own intelligence, you are convinced everyone else can be easily duped.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Shabby Treatment of Cancer Icon
Nearly three million breast cancer survivors enjoying active lives today owe a debt of gratitude to Nancy G. Brinker. Her promise to her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, inspired a movement to conquer an ugly disease that will strike more than 226,870 women this year, according to the American Cancer Society.
In 1982 when Komen succumbed to breast cancer at age 36, Brinker took upon her shoulders the burden of raising awareness of the disease. She faced a steep uphill struggle. No one talked openly about breast cancer. In fact, some newspapers even balked at using the words in print.
There were precious few resources to assist women with breast cancer. There were no support groups. Mammograms were not considered a mandatory part of women's health care. Only a handful of breast cancer treatment options were available to women.
All that changed thanks to the courageous efforts of Brinker.
Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure was launched in 1982. Under Brinker's tireless leadership, the organization broke the silence surrounding breast cancer. The group lifted the profile of breast cancer and energized scientists to tackle a cure.
Brinker also enlisted the help of breast cancer survivors and activists to hike government funding of breast cancer research. She created the Susan F. Komen Race for the Cure, raising billions of dollars for breast cancer research, screening and treatment. She put breast cancer on the nation's agenda.
Her crusade has produced results. After increasing for more than two decades, breast cancer incidences fell by about two percent a year from 1999 to 2005. Death rates also declined sharply, tumbling to three percent of all breast cancer cases. Once breast cancer was a death sentence.
For all her contributions, Brinker has been savaged by the media and the bullies at Planned Parenthood for a single policy move. Earlier this year, the Komen foundation announced it was reconsidering its financial support for Planned Parenthood, incurring the feral rancor of the pro-abortion crowd.
A firestorm ensued that threatened to cripple the foundation's fundraising. Brinker was personally attacked by the same Planned Parenthood activists who had benefited for decades from her foundation's largess. The ungrateful pro-abortion advocates reacted like spoiled brats.
Twenty-six members of the U.S. House and Senate signed a letter pressuring the foundation to renew its grants to Planned Parenthood. After weeks of blistering media coverage, Brinker was forced to apologize publicly and reverse her foundation's stance.
Despite the restoration of the grants, Planned Parenthood's bullies were not mollified. They continue their relentless campaign of intimidation by boycotting the foundation's chief fund raiser, the annual Race for the Cure, in cities across the country.
That led founder Brinker to step down recently from her role as chief executive of the organization after 30 years at the helm. Because Brinker will retain a management role, the media and the pro-abortion brutes remain unimpressed. They are determined to oust her from the organization.
The controversy should sadden every women. Brinker has done more for women's health than Planned Parenthood or any single person. For her unselfish dedication to the cause, she has endured withering attacks for a single policy decision that was later rescinded. Her apology fell on deaf ears.
Women concerned about cancer cannot remain silent. Nancy G. Brinker gave voice to a movement that changed the course of women's health care. In return, she deserves every women's vocal support, not the verbal mugging administered by Planned Parenthood.
In 1982 when Komen succumbed to breast cancer at age 36, Brinker took upon her shoulders the burden of raising awareness of the disease. She faced a steep uphill struggle. No one talked openly about breast cancer. In fact, some newspapers even balked at using the words in print.
There were precious few resources to assist women with breast cancer. There were no support groups. Mammograms were not considered a mandatory part of women's health care. Only a handful of breast cancer treatment options were available to women.
All that changed thanks to the courageous efforts of Brinker.
Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure was launched in 1982. Under Brinker's tireless leadership, the organization broke the silence surrounding breast cancer. The group lifted the profile of breast cancer and energized scientists to tackle a cure.
Brinker also enlisted the help of breast cancer survivors and activists to hike government funding of breast cancer research. She created the Susan F. Komen Race for the Cure, raising billions of dollars for breast cancer research, screening and treatment. She put breast cancer on the nation's agenda.
Her crusade has produced results. After increasing for more than two decades, breast cancer incidences fell by about two percent a year from 1999 to 2005. Death rates also declined sharply, tumbling to three percent of all breast cancer cases. Once breast cancer was a death sentence.
For all her contributions, Brinker has been savaged by the media and the bullies at Planned Parenthood for a single policy move. Earlier this year, the Komen foundation announced it was reconsidering its financial support for Planned Parenthood, incurring the feral rancor of the pro-abortion crowd.
A firestorm ensued that threatened to cripple the foundation's fundraising. Brinker was personally attacked by the same Planned Parenthood activists who had benefited for decades from her foundation's largess. The ungrateful pro-abortion advocates reacted like spoiled brats.
Twenty-six members of the U.S. House and Senate signed a letter pressuring the foundation to renew its grants to Planned Parenthood. After weeks of blistering media coverage, Brinker was forced to apologize publicly and reverse her foundation's stance.
Despite the restoration of the grants, Planned Parenthood's bullies were not mollified. They continue their relentless campaign of intimidation by boycotting the foundation's chief fund raiser, the annual Race for the Cure, in cities across the country.
That led founder Brinker to step down recently from her role as chief executive of the organization after 30 years at the helm. Because Brinker will retain a management role, the media and the pro-abortion brutes remain unimpressed. They are determined to oust her from the organization.
The controversy should sadden every women. Brinker has done more for women's health than Planned Parenthood or any single person. For her unselfish dedication to the cause, she has endured withering attacks for a single policy decision that was later rescinded. Her apology fell on deaf ears.
Women concerned about cancer cannot remain silent. Nancy G. Brinker gave voice to a movement that changed the course of women's health care. In return, she deserves every women's vocal support, not the verbal mugging administered by Planned Parenthood.
Monday, September 10, 2012
How Obama Can Win In November
Psssst. Press your ear to the computer. Here's a secret no Republican wants to share. It will help Barrack Obama secure a second term. Lean closer. Don't let any Democrats listen in. This is how the president can win the election. Scare the hell out of those receiving government assistance.
Of course, this is not a new strategy for the Democratic Party. Every election cycle the party of donkeys accuses Republicans of trying to shove granny off the cliff or push the poor into a ditch or strip women of their health care benefits. It's what desperate Democrats do.
However, in this election year with dependence on the government at record levels, expect the rhetoric to ratchet up. Nearly one in five Americans receives some form of government financial support. And their numbers are mushrooming under the Obama Administration. That's no coincidence.
When John F. Kennedy was president, 21.7 million Americans were dependent on Uncle Sam. Today, the number of people getting some form of federal aid has nearly quintupled to 100 million recipients, excluding those on Social Security or Medicare.
Figures released by the Democratic-controlled Senate Budget Committee in August calculated there were 80 different means-tested welfare programs administered by the federal government. The roles of food stamp and Medicaid recipients have swollen under President Obama, according to the report.
As a result, the federal government is now spending the most money in the country's history to subsidize Americans. It is the reason 70 percent of the federal budget is dedicated to government assistance programs for housing, health, welfare, food, retirement and student aid.
According to a Heritage Foundation study, it is conceivable that the average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748 annually. That is more than the nation's average disposable personal income of $32,446. Is it any wonder more people prefer the government dole to a job?
The growth in government dependency will continue to explode as more baby boomers retire. In excess of 77 million seniors will begin drawing checks for Social Security in the next 25 years and receiving benefits from Medicare.
But don't blame seniors because they were forced to pay into the bankrupt system. They played by the rules. Sizable numbers will never get back every dime they forked over to a government that borrowed from the Social Security System and left it with nothing but a pile of paper IOU's.
The real moochers are those who contribute zero to fund federal giveaways. About 46 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, reports the Tax Policy Center. Yet many are receiving government benefits. They are the people President Obama never mentions when he waxes eloquently about taxes and fairness.
In the coming weeks, expect Obama to claim that Romney wants to take away Social Security, force students to pay back government loans, end health care benefits for the sick and dying, jerk food from the mouths of babies and toss the poor out of their government subsidized housing.
If that doesn't tilt the election, the president can always use the ultimate weapon.
Obama can shake his fist and declare: "Under Romney's idea of fairness, nearly every American will have to pay taxes." That will frighten nearly half of all Americans enough to produce a November victory.
To plagiarize President John F. Kennedy, America has too many people who want to know what government can do for them, instead of asking what they can do for their country.
Of course, this is not a new strategy for the Democratic Party. Every election cycle the party of donkeys accuses Republicans of trying to shove granny off the cliff or push the poor into a ditch or strip women of their health care benefits. It's what desperate Democrats do.
However, in this election year with dependence on the government at record levels, expect the rhetoric to ratchet up. Nearly one in five Americans receives some form of government financial support. And their numbers are mushrooming under the Obama Administration. That's no coincidence.
When John F. Kennedy was president, 21.7 million Americans were dependent on Uncle Sam. Today, the number of people getting some form of federal aid has nearly quintupled to 100 million recipients, excluding those on Social Security or Medicare.
Figures released by the Democratic-controlled Senate Budget Committee in August calculated there were 80 different means-tested welfare programs administered by the federal government. The roles of food stamp and Medicaid recipients have swollen under President Obama, according to the report.
As a result, the federal government is now spending the most money in the country's history to subsidize Americans. It is the reason 70 percent of the federal budget is dedicated to government assistance programs for housing, health, welfare, food, retirement and student aid.
According to a Heritage Foundation study, it is conceivable that the average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748 annually. That is more than the nation's average disposable personal income of $32,446. Is it any wonder more people prefer the government dole to a job?
The growth in government dependency will continue to explode as more baby boomers retire. In excess of 77 million seniors will begin drawing checks for Social Security in the next 25 years and receiving benefits from Medicare.
But don't blame seniors because they were forced to pay into the bankrupt system. They played by the rules. Sizable numbers will never get back every dime they forked over to a government that borrowed from the Social Security System and left it with nothing but a pile of paper IOU's.
The real moochers are those who contribute zero to fund federal giveaways. About 46 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, reports the Tax Policy Center. Yet many are receiving government benefits. They are the people President Obama never mentions when he waxes eloquently about taxes and fairness.
In the coming weeks, expect Obama to claim that Romney wants to take away Social Security, force students to pay back government loans, end health care benefits for the sick and dying, jerk food from the mouths of babies and toss the poor out of their government subsidized housing.
If that doesn't tilt the election, the president can always use the ultimate weapon.
Obama can shake his fist and declare: "Under Romney's idea of fairness, nearly every American will have to pay taxes." That will frighten nearly half of all Americans enough to produce a November victory.
To plagiarize President John F. Kennedy, America has too many people who want to know what government can do for them, instead of asking what they can do for their country.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Drug Wars: How Shortages Threaten Health Care
Imagine you are hospitalized with a life-threatening cancer. Your oncologist recommends treatment with a chemotherapy drug called fluorouracil. The hospital has no supplies of the drug and its regular wholesaler has no inventory on hand. You face a grim future unless the drug arrives soon.
Meanwhile, as the hospital scrambles to locate the drug, unscrupulous firms are inundating the facility with emails and faxes offering the hard-to-get chemotherapy drug at exorbitant prices. The hospital is left with an untenable choice. It can pay an outrageous amount of money, perhaps as much as several hundred times the customary price, or it can wait months for the normal supply chain to catch up with demand.
Confronted with those paradoxical options, many hospitals pay the extortionate markup to take care of their patients.
Unfortunately, this scene is being played out too often in hospitals and health care facilities across the country. This growing trend is documented in a newly issued federal report prepared by congressional staffs. Until now, not much was known about how the gray market companies acquired the drugs when hospitals were unable to obtain them.
The report is entitled, "Shining Light on the Gray Market: An Examination of Why Hospitals Are Forced To Pay Exorbitant Prices For Prescription Drugs Facing Critical Shortages." It was released July 25, but has attracted precious little news coverage in the mainstream media.
That's too bad because Americans need to know hospitals are being bilked out of millions of dollars by these so-called gray market companies which take advantage of regulatory loopholes to reap unconscionable profits.
The explosive report describes how individuals established fake pharmacies for the sole purpose of buying up drugs that were in short supply. Instead of dispensing the drugs to patients, these faux pharmacies peddled the drugs to wholesalers owned by the same individuals or their shell companies. The conniving businesses then sold the drugs with astronomical markups to desperate hospitals.
Using this and similar schemes, these gray market firms marked up some drug prices by as much as 3,000 to 4,000 percent over the conventional contract price. The price-gouging is not illegal, but a handful of companies have been shuttered for violating state licensing laws covering pharmacies and drug wholesalers.
Despite enforcement efforts, drug shortages are becoming more common. Nearly every hospital in the United States (99.5% to be exact) reported at least one serious drug shortage in 2011, often forcing delays in treatments or procedures. Drug shortages quadrupled between 2005 and 2011.
Many drug shortages can be traced to manufacturing problems. When drug makers decide to shut down facilities for quality issues, it interrupts the steady flow of drugs. However, unethical gray market firms exacerbate the problem by quickly snapping up all available supply, creating a crisis.
In many cases, the medications in short supply are administered for cancer treatment. Examples include drugs to treat colon, stomach, breast and pancreatic cancer. The list also includes supplies commonly used in hospital emergency rooms, such as anesthetics for surgery and electrolytes for intravenous feeding.
The price tag for the shortages is staggering and escalating. A 2011 report by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists estimated insufficient supplies of drugs cost the nation's hospitals more than $400 million in a single year. Ultimately, these costs are passed on to insurers, businesses and patients.
The federal report on gray market drug firms is a wake-up call for states. Tougher enforcement is required to make certain pharmacies and drug wholesalers operate within the law. In some cases, stricter licensing requirements are needed to weed out unscrupulous operators.
Americans need to be assured hospitals and health care facilities have adequate supplies of drugs for treatment in medical emergencies. Life is too precious to allow the gray market practice to continue endangering lives and threatening medical treatment.
Monday, August 27, 2012
TARP: More Fraud, Less Transparency
The Department of Treasury's recent report on TARP can justifiably lay claim to the title of best fiction written this year. It is a glossy, self-congratulatory piece of puffery that ignores the rampant fraud in the program, turns a blind eye to mounting taxpayer losses and offers little transparency.
The laudatory analysis, issued July 10, was presented to Congress to provide an assessment of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion bail out of Wall Street banks, automobile companies, homeowners and multinational insurance firm AIG in 2008.
"By any objective standards, TARP has worked," the fluff piece boasts. "It did so at a cost that is far less than what most people expected at the time the law was passed." Whoever authored that tripe has a future in writing fairy tales for children.
For a more unbiased critique of the massive taxpayer rescue, consider the report card from the Office of the Special Inspector General for the TARP program. Its unflattering review was released July 25, a little more than two weeks after Treasury's self-aggrandizing essay.
The document lists 150 criminal and civil investigations involving fraudulent use of TARP funds. To date, 67 individuals have been convicted and 28 have been handed prison terms for their roles in the schemes which siphoned off millions of taxpayer dollars.
Court orders for restitution, forfeiture and civil judgements have eclipsed $4 billion. Chances are slim the Treasury Department will ever see a penny of that money.
In addition, Treasury has written off losses of $15.6 billion that taxpayers will never get back. That amount does not include another $4.5 billion in TARP funds dumped into housing rescue programs without expectations of a payback, according to the inspector general.
The inspector general's office verified that taxpayers are still owed $109.1 billion as of June 30. The biggest chunk of that amount includes outstanding loans made to General Motors, which carries a $50 billion TARP debt on its books. Of course, the media has ignored the inspector's findings.
In February, the Office of Management and Budget report for fiscal 2013 contained an estimate of the likely taxpayer losses under TARP. The forecast, provided by the Obama Administration, pegged the number at $67.8 billion. That was an increase of $14.6 billion from the 2011 estimate.
Noting the staggering losses, Inspector General Christy Romero used harsh language to describe the recalcitrant Treasury Department's handling of TARP.
"...There was often a lack of detailed and complete documentation of government decision-making during the financial crisis and TARP," testified Romero before a House Committee. In her report, Romero cited the Obama Administration's refusal to answer questions about bailouts of General Motors and Delphi Automotive.
Romero's predecessor, Neil Barofsky, also has minced no words in his assessment of the government program. He has accused the administration of "resorting to trickery" to cover up how "badly TARP has failed."
Not surprisingly, the Obama Administration no longer brags about how TARP saved America from stumbling into the financial abyss.
In spite of the Treasury Department's fanciful report designed to burnish its image, TARP stands as a shameful example of why so many Americans have lost faith in their government.
The laudatory analysis, issued July 10, was presented to Congress to provide an assessment of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion bail out of Wall Street banks, automobile companies, homeowners and multinational insurance firm AIG in 2008.
"By any objective standards, TARP has worked," the fluff piece boasts. "It did so at a cost that is far less than what most people expected at the time the law was passed." Whoever authored that tripe has a future in writing fairy tales for children.
For a more unbiased critique of the massive taxpayer rescue, consider the report card from the Office of the Special Inspector General for the TARP program. Its unflattering review was released July 25, a little more than two weeks after Treasury's self-aggrandizing essay.
The document lists 150 criminal and civil investigations involving fraudulent use of TARP funds. To date, 67 individuals have been convicted and 28 have been handed prison terms for their roles in the schemes which siphoned off millions of taxpayer dollars.
Court orders for restitution, forfeiture and civil judgements have eclipsed $4 billion. Chances are slim the Treasury Department will ever see a penny of that money.
In addition, Treasury has written off losses of $15.6 billion that taxpayers will never get back. That amount does not include another $4.5 billion in TARP funds dumped into housing rescue programs without expectations of a payback, according to the inspector general.
The inspector general's office verified that taxpayers are still owed $109.1 billion as of June 30. The biggest chunk of that amount includes outstanding loans made to General Motors, which carries a $50 billion TARP debt on its books. Of course, the media has ignored the inspector's findings.
In February, the Office of Management and Budget report for fiscal 2013 contained an estimate of the likely taxpayer losses under TARP. The forecast, provided by the Obama Administration, pegged the number at $67.8 billion. That was an increase of $14.6 billion from the 2011 estimate.
Noting the staggering losses, Inspector General Christy Romero used harsh language to describe the recalcitrant Treasury Department's handling of TARP.
"...There was often a lack of detailed and complete documentation of government decision-making during the financial crisis and TARP," testified Romero before a House Committee. In her report, Romero cited the Obama Administration's refusal to answer questions about bailouts of General Motors and Delphi Automotive.
Romero's predecessor, Neil Barofsky, also has minced no words in his assessment of the government program. He has accused the administration of "resorting to trickery" to cover up how "badly TARP has failed."
Not surprisingly, the Obama Administration no longer brags about how TARP saved America from stumbling into the financial abyss.
In spite of the Treasury Department's fanciful report designed to burnish its image, TARP stands as a shameful example of why so many Americans have lost faith in their government.
Monday, August 20, 2012
The 22 Billion Dollar Question
What could the nation do with $22 billion? Fund research to cure cancer? Build hospitals in under served rural areas? Issue grants to study Alzheimer disease? Bankroll shelters to house battered women? Support efforts to end cruelty to animals?
There are many good uses for that large sum of money. Unfortunately, the $22 billion already has been spent and not a single worthy cause benefited.
Instead those billions ended up in the pockets of politicians. From 1998 through 2010, groups, individuals and corporations funneled more than $22 billion into federal campaigns to help elect candidates for president, senate and the house.
Those eye-opening dollar signs were calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group which publishes the numbers on its website, OpenSecrets.org. The figures do not include the millions spent in local and state elections every year.
The media would have you believe that most of that money lined the pockets of fat-cat Republicans. However, in recent elections, Democrats hold a decided edge over their GOP brethren, outspending Republicans in three of the last four election cycles.
This election year will likely be no different. According to the latest data, President Obama has outspent his challenger Mitt Romney by more than $70 million. Obama has tallied $204 million in spending versus $131 million for the former governor.
Some political pundits are forecasting spending in this presidential election will eclipse $2 billion. Obama is doing his part to reach that plateau. The president already has hosted 197 fundraisers since launching his re-election campaign in 2011, triple the number (86) George W. Bush held for the entire 2004 campaign, according to a report in USA Today.
The mind-numbing dollars showered on political candidates raise legitimate questions about the impact on elections. The cash tsunami has corrupted the political system, stymied good candidates from running and made influence peddling a Beltway parlor game.
Here are three common sense suggestions on how to take most of the money out of politics:
FREE MEDIA: Every candidate for federal office gets a limited amount of free air time on television along with gratis radio and newspaper ads. The media donates the advertising space and writes it off its corporate taxes. If necessary, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could force television and radio stations to cooperate as a license requirement. Outside of news coverage, candidates cannot buy another smidgen of advertising.
TIME LIMITS: Candidates for federal offices cannot begin campaigning until three months before the election. No exceptions. Today's campaigns are prolonged marathons which add millions to the cost. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, there are time restrictions on campaigns.
THREE DEBATES: The four major networks host three debates for president, senator and representative. No more, no less. The debates would give every voter a chance to near the candidates. Questions would be submitted in advance to help candidates prepare and to eliminate the media's penchant for reserving its harshest questions for Republicans.
With these modest changes, spending on campaigns would plummet. The biggest losers would be the television networks, who depend on federal campaigns to generate billions of dollars in advertising revenue to fill up their corporate coffers.
This campaign season television stations are expected to grab 75 percent of political advertising budgets. Research firm Washington Analysis projects $4 billion could be spent on advertising this year on behalf of federal, state and local campaigns across all media platforms, including the internet.
For that reason, big media will lobby furiously against any change in the status quo.
This campaign season television stations are expected to grab 75 percent of political advertising budgets. Research firm Washington Analysis projects $4 billion could be spent on advertising this year on behalf of federal, state and local campaigns across all media platforms, including the internet.
For that reason, big media will lobby furiously against any change in the status quo.
Without change, the cost of American elections will rocket into the stratosphere. From 1998 to 2010, election spending for federal candidates, including president, soared by 125 percent. When will the political arms race end?
Never.
Not unless Americans elect candidates dedicated to reforming the current political system. Now, finding a candidate willing to forfeit the political pot of gold may be nearly impossible.
But there are at least 22 billion good reasons to make this a priority for the nation.
Not unless Americans elect candidates dedicated to reforming the current political system. Now, finding a candidate willing to forfeit the political pot of gold may be nearly impossible.
But there are at least 22 billion good reasons to make this a priority for the nation.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Dirty Harry Plays Dirty
Shameless Harry Reid, the Democratic Party's Grim Reaper, is the least qualified person in America to lecture anyone on the issue of financial disclosure. The Nevada senator has a dreary record of lapses in personal financial reporting and a checkered past of ethical blunders.
It was comical to watch the pompous Senate majority leader taunt Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney over a scurrilous charge that the former governor had not payed taxes for 10 years. Reid offered no proof, yet the mainstream media hounded Romney to answer the uncorroborated slur.
Romney placed the onus on the dour Reid, telling him to "put up or shut up." Undeterred, Reid has continued to launch one salvo after another against Romney. The media has dutifully bandied the insinuation without bothering to shine a light on Reid's past ethical improprieties.
It is time for Romney to counterattack and there is plenty of ammunition at his disposal.
In 2006, Senator Reid was embroiled in a serious ethics scandal involving financial reporting. He was forced to amend his personal filings with Congress over a Las Vegas land deal after news organizations got wind of the shadowy trail of ownership changes that went unreported.
The dubious transaction involved property that netted Reid a cool $1.1 million in 2004. The Democrat collected the tidy profit despite the fact he had not personally owned the property for three years. That raised the eyebrows of news organizations that reported at length on the business deal.
After the chicanery was exposed, Reid tried to cover his tracks. He amended his ethics report with 42-pages of camouflage, admitting he had not disclosed salient facts about the original transaction. In the filing, Reid also divulged that he had failed to report two other land deals to Congress.
Ethics attorneys at the time questioned whether Reid had violated Senate rules. But he managed to sweep the whole sordid mess under a Congressional rug, where it has remained until now.
There have been other ethical issues nipping at Reid's heels. In 2006, Reid was linked to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Associated Press (AP) reported that Reid intervened in government matters at least five times to help Abramoff's Indian tribal clients.
In addition, Reid's staff "regularly had contact" with Abramoff's team about legislation affecting other clients. Documents obtained by AP showed that Abramoff's lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen contacts, phone calls and meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.
Reid piously claimed all that attention had no affect on his votes. Surely it was just coincidental too that Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbyists and clients. A grateful Abramoff once threw a cozy fundraiser for Reid at his Washington office.
Hypocritical Harry even had the audacity to call for other lawmakers to come clean about their tainted relationships with Abramoff at a January 16, 2006 Washington news conference.
As he has always done, the officious Reid dodged an ethics investigation. Meanwhile, Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery and earned jail time.
For dirty Harry Reid to call anyone on the carpet for ethical misconduct is the height of absurdity. If Reid wants to spotlight blatant dishonesty, he needs to look no further than the nearest mirror.
It was comical to watch the pompous Senate majority leader taunt Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney over a scurrilous charge that the former governor had not payed taxes for 10 years. Reid offered no proof, yet the mainstream media hounded Romney to answer the uncorroborated slur.
Romney placed the onus on the dour Reid, telling him to "put up or shut up." Undeterred, Reid has continued to launch one salvo after another against Romney. The media has dutifully bandied the insinuation without bothering to shine a light on Reid's past ethical improprieties.
It is time for Romney to counterattack and there is plenty of ammunition at his disposal.
In 2006, Senator Reid was embroiled in a serious ethics scandal involving financial reporting. He was forced to amend his personal filings with Congress over a Las Vegas land deal after news organizations got wind of the shadowy trail of ownership changes that went unreported.
The dubious transaction involved property that netted Reid a cool $1.1 million in 2004. The Democrat collected the tidy profit despite the fact he had not personally owned the property for three years. That raised the eyebrows of news organizations that reported at length on the business deal.
After the chicanery was exposed, Reid tried to cover his tracks. He amended his ethics report with 42-pages of camouflage, admitting he had not disclosed salient facts about the original transaction. In the filing, Reid also divulged that he had failed to report two other land deals to Congress.
Ethics attorneys at the time questioned whether Reid had violated Senate rules. But he managed to sweep the whole sordid mess under a Congressional rug, where it has remained until now.
There have been other ethical issues nipping at Reid's heels. In 2006, Reid was linked to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Associated Press (AP) reported that Reid intervened in government matters at least five times to help Abramoff's Indian tribal clients.
In addition, Reid's staff "regularly had contact" with Abramoff's team about legislation affecting other clients. Documents obtained by AP showed that Abramoff's lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen contacts, phone calls and meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.
Reid piously claimed all that attention had no affect on his votes. Surely it was just coincidental too that Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbyists and clients. A grateful Abramoff once threw a cozy fundraiser for Reid at his Washington office.
Hypocritical Harry even had the audacity to call for other lawmakers to come clean about their tainted relationships with Abramoff at a January 16, 2006 Washington news conference.
As he has always done, the officious Reid dodged an ethics investigation. Meanwhile, Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery and earned jail time.
For dirty Harry Reid to call anyone on the carpet for ethical misconduct is the height of absurdity. If Reid wants to spotlight blatant dishonesty, he needs to look no further than the nearest mirror.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Playing Chicken With Freedom of Expression
Thousands flooded Chick-fil-A restaurants last week with a blunt message: Americans are sick and tired of the insidious campaign to silence public expression of religious beliefs. They've had their fill of the anti-religious media, hate-mongering gay extremists and the cultural dictators running the Democratic Party.
The latest firestorm was sparked by an interview in Baptist Press with Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy. In the publication and in a subsequent media appearance, Cathy endorsed traditional marriage between a man and a women.
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about," Cathy said.
Cathy did not use discriminatory language. He did not bash gays and lesbians. He did not condemn relations between members of the same sex. He simply aired his own personal views on marriage in response to questions by interviewers.
His stance can hardly be called heterodox. Voters in 31 states have approved ballot issues defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Even President Obama claimed in 2008 that he shared the same viewpoint of marriage and used the "C" word in explaining his perspective.
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," candidate Obama said. "For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union." (Note to Democrats: This quote was published in The New York Times.) Strangely, gay activists were mute in their response.
Yet as soon as Cathy's comments were brought to the media's attention, news outlets unleashed a torrent of outrage. Pandering politicians deliberately twisted Cathy's words and mischaracterized his intent. Intolerant gay extremists piled on, using venomous language to convict Cathy of hate-speech.
Overnight, the president of one of the nation's most successful, privately-owned fast food chains was branded an ignorant homophobic bigot.
Democratic mayors in Chicago, Boston and the San Francisco made it clear that Chick-fil-A was no longer welcome in their cities. "Enlightened" Chicago City Alderman Proco "Joe" Moreno leaped into the fray declaring, "Because of this man's ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward."
The flap attracted the attention of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The group's senior attorney Adam Schwartz acknowledged that government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but it cannot "punish someone for their words."
"When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination," Schwartz pointed out.
Schwartz is right. But don't be fooled by the foot-stomping same-sex zealots. This shabby episode is not about the rights of gays.
In today's America, the media elite and its shrill voices in the Democratic Party are on a mission to censor any public expression of religious values. They have made it clear that comments about faith have no place in the school, workplace, military, government, sports or in any public venue.
Forget the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression. It only applies to speech deemed correct by self-annointed cultural bullies. They decide when and under what circumstances a citizen can voice personal religious beliefs.
Dan Cathy is just the latest victim in a long list of public figures ruthlessly threatened with boycotts and economic blackmail by those who disagree with a person's right to utter their convictions. If the anti-religious enforcers win, all Americans, including gays, will lose the right to be heard.
Americans must demand that the religious oppressors quit playing chicken with their right to free speech.
The latest firestorm was sparked by an interview in Baptist Press with Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy. In the publication and in a subsequent media appearance, Cathy endorsed traditional marriage between a man and a women.
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about," Cathy said.
Cathy did not use discriminatory language. He did not bash gays and lesbians. He did not condemn relations between members of the same sex. He simply aired his own personal views on marriage in response to questions by interviewers.
His stance can hardly be called heterodox. Voters in 31 states have approved ballot issues defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Even President Obama claimed in 2008 that he shared the same viewpoint of marriage and used the "C" word in explaining his perspective.
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," candidate Obama said. "For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union." (Note to Democrats: This quote was published in The New York Times.) Strangely, gay activists were mute in their response.
Yet as soon as Cathy's comments were brought to the media's attention, news outlets unleashed a torrent of outrage. Pandering politicians deliberately twisted Cathy's words and mischaracterized his intent. Intolerant gay extremists piled on, using venomous language to convict Cathy of hate-speech.
Overnight, the president of one of the nation's most successful, privately-owned fast food chains was branded an ignorant homophobic bigot.
Democratic mayors in Chicago, Boston and the San Francisco made it clear that Chick-fil-A was no longer welcome in their cities. "Enlightened" Chicago City Alderman Proco "Joe" Moreno leaped into the fray declaring, "Because of this man's ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward."
The flap attracted the attention of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The group's senior attorney Adam Schwartz acknowledged that government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but it cannot "punish someone for their words."
"When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination," Schwartz pointed out.
Schwartz is right. But don't be fooled by the foot-stomping same-sex zealots. This shabby episode is not about the rights of gays.
In today's America, the media elite and its shrill voices in the Democratic Party are on a mission to censor any public expression of religious values. They have made it clear that comments about faith have no place in the school, workplace, military, government, sports or in any public venue.
Forget the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression. It only applies to speech deemed correct by self-annointed cultural bullies. They decide when and under what circumstances a citizen can voice personal religious beliefs.
Dan Cathy is just the latest victim in a long list of public figures ruthlessly threatened with boycotts and economic blackmail by those who disagree with a person's right to utter their convictions. If the anti-religious enforcers win, all Americans, including gays, will lose the right to be heard.
Americans must demand that the religious oppressors quit playing chicken with their right to free speech.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
In light of the looming stalemate over extending the Bush tax cuts, the mainstream media has resurrected catcalls about political polarization. If Republicans and Democrats could just get along, the nation would be better off, goes the media's disingenuous whine.
The talking heads and their keyboarding cousins act as if the current discord is a new phenomena. Many claim today's churlish political climate is the worst ever. Pundits pine for the days when bipartisanship was a Washington hallmark.
The problem with the media's hypothesis is that it's sheer nonsense. American politics, for better or worse, have always been fractured, chaotic and emotionally charged. Sharp divisions between the parties have existed for as long as their has been a democracy. It is a deliberate distortion to suggest otherwise.
The dirty little secret is that the news outlets have a vested interest in creating political dissension because they believe confrontation lures viewers and sells papers. Reporters seek out those with opposing views, the more extreme the better, to produce compelling stories dripping with controversy.
That's why the media shoulders much of the blame for Americans' frustration with the tone of political discourse. Online, on radio, in print and over the airwaves the constant negative media drumbeat has shaped the public's view of Washington's political stew.
There is no denying the media's influence. Most Americans depend exclusively on big media for their news about Beltway politics. Media conglomerates belch political drivel almost non-stop, 24-hours a day. That is a relatively new development, but the politics have never been polite.
In fact, there has always been mean-spirited edginess to American politics. President John Adams was skewered for being toothless and senile by his opponents. Andrew Jackson was branded a jackass so often that the donkey became the symbol for the Democratic Party.
Don't forget Thomas Jefferson's running mate Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton over political skulduggery. A trademark of the American political experience has been partisanship, name-calling and bitter personal disputes. Like it or not, democracies are often messy like that.
Many in the media lay the blame for the current partisanship at the feet of the two parties. Both are accused of adhering to entrenched political ideology instead of embracing compromise. This too is a misguided notion perpetuated by the lame-stream media.
Throughout history, the two parties have more often that not embraced positions that are polar opposites. Think slavery and abolition during President Lincoln's tenure. Or the row over big government when President Franklin Roosevelt presided over the country.
Actually, competing ideologies are a good thing because it gives voters a clear choice. When the two parties have been in harmony, the media and voters grumble there is not "a dime's worth of difference" between them. You can't have it both ways.
Despite the natural tension between political parties, the nation's elected leaders have managed in the past to put aside acrimonious differences and work together. In every case, there has been a president willing to risk political capital to negotiate the compromise. Examples abound in recent years.
President Ronald Reagan famously collaborated with Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neil to make changes in Social Security, despite opposition on both sides of the aisle. President Bill Clinton and his nemesis House Republican leader Newt Gingrich joined together to pass a landmark welfare reform bill.
Even the much maligned George W. Bush reached across the party divide to Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy in passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, establishing national education standards for public schools.
Which brings us to today's political impasse in Washington.
President Barrack Obama cannot point to a single example during the last four years when his leadership was critical in reaching a middle ground on any national issue. His signature Obama Care law was jammed down the throats of Republicans.
If the media really wants to find out why the current House and Senate are so dysfunctional, they need look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The truth is President Obama has no intention of trying to mediate for the grand solutions championed by the American media elite.
He is the chief reason we can't all just get along.
The talking heads and their keyboarding cousins act as if the current discord is a new phenomena. Many claim today's churlish political climate is the worst ever. Pundits pine for the days when bipartisanship was a Washington hallmark.
The problem with the media's hypothesis is that it's sheer nonsense. American politics, for better or worse, have always been fractured, chaotic and emotionally charged. Sharp divisions between the parties have existed for as long as their has been a democracy. It is a deliberate distortion to suggest otherwise.
The dirty little secret is that the news outlets have a vested interest in creating political dissension because they believe confrontation lures viewers and sells papers. Reporters seek out those with opposing views, the more extreme the better, to produce compelling stories dripping with controversy.
That's why the media shoulders much of the blame for Americans' frustration with the tone of political discourse. Online, on radio, in print and over the airwaves the constant negative media drumbeat has shaped the public's view of Washington's political stew.
There is no denying the media's influence. Most Americans depend exclusively on big media for their news about Beltway politics. Media conglomerates belch political drivel almost non-stop, 24-hours a day. That is a relatively new development, but the politics have never been polite.
In fact, there has always been mean-spirited edginess to American politics. President John Adams was skewered for being toothless and senile by his opponents. Andrew Jackson was branded a jackass so often that the donkey became the symbol for the Democratic Party.
Don't forget Thomas Jefferson's running mate Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton over political skulduggery. A trademark of the American political experience has been partisanship, name-calling and bitter personal disputes. Like it or not, democracies are often messy like that.
Many in the media lay the blame for the current partisanship at the feet of the two parties. Both are accused of adhering to entrenched political ideology instead of embracing compromise. This too is a misguided notion perpetuated by the lame-stream media.
Throughout history, the two parties have more often that not embraced positions that are polar opposites. Think slavery and abolition during President Lincoln's tenure. Or the row over big government when President Franklin Roosevelt presided over the country.
Actually, competing ideologies are a good thing because it gives voters a clear choice. When the two parties have been in harmony, the media and voters grumble there is not "a dime's worth of difference" between them. You can't have it both ways.
Despite the natural tension between political parties, the nation's elected leaders have managed in the past to put aside acrimonious differences and work together. In every case, there has been a president willing to risk political capital to negotiate the compromise. Examples abound in recent years.
President Ronald Reagan famously collaborated with Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neil to make changes in Social Security, despite opposition on both sides of the aisle. President Bill Clinton and his nemesis House Republican leader Newt Gingrich joined together to pass a landmark welfare reform bill.
Even the much maligned George W. Bush reached across the party divide to Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy in passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, establishing national education standards for public schools.
Which brings us to today's political impasse in Washington.
President Barrack Obama cannot point to a single example during the last four years when his leadership was critical in reaching a middle ground on any national issue. His signature Obama Care law was jammed down the throats of Republicans.
If the media really wants to find out why the current House and Senate are so dysfunctional, they need look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The truth is President Obama has no intention of trying to mediate for the grand solutions championed by the American media elite.
He is the chief reason we can't all just get along.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Why Obama Care Is Here To Stay
While the mainstream media was dissecting the Supreme Court decision, the government labyrinth inside the Beltway was quietly doling out millions of dollars to hire bureaucrats to implement Obama Care and drafting thousands of pages of new health care regulations.
Those Americans who still hold out hope for repeal of the law must come to grips with the new reality. The high court's ruling makes repeal an unachievable dream. If that sounds fatalistic, consider that in the long history of the United States not a single entitlement has been eliminated by Congress.
Once the bureaucrats are in place, there is no turning back. The Health and Human Services (HHS) has hired computer programmers, technicians and managers. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has bulked up its payroll to enforce the new tax (penalty) on individuals and companies as part of the health care mandate.
There are 13,000 pages of regulations governing how doctors and hospitals are supposed to practice medicine under the new law. And HHS is spinning out more rules every week. More than 180 boards and commissions have been been created to oversee the new law's provisions.
Even a new Congress and administration will be hard pressed to undo it all. Millions of Americans are already receiving benefits. They would attain victim status if any attempt is made to alter Obama Care. The mainstream media salivates at the notion that Republicans would tamper with health care benefits.
Imagine television cameras capturing weeping mothers with pre-existing medical conditions. Newspaper headlines about young people dropped from the parents' insurance. Radio interviews with uninsured migrant workers struggling with catastrophic illnesses. It won't be pretty.
The GOP has shown it cannot withstand media pressure. Republican leaders have blinked too often in the past two years when the media amped up its attacks. Battles over the budget are a prime example. Every time Obama threatens to shut down the government, Republicans crayfish under the media glare.
GOP leadership lacks the spine to weather a withering media offensive. Perhaps, a President Romney would make a difference. But history suggests otherwise. The former Massachusetts governor was known more for comprising than confrontation during his tenure.
That's why the Supreme Court decision stings. It was the last best hope for those who believe the law will fundamentally change health care for the worse.
For that reason, apologists who defend Chief Justice John Roberts are dead wrong. By siding with the liberal minority, the jurist enshrined Obama Care as the law of the land. Forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo he sprinkled throughout his opinion. It doesn't matter. The law stands.
No matter how contorted the decision, it emboldened Obama Care proponents and the federal bureaucracy to move full speed ahead.
Americans are stuck with health care reform that most oppose.
It may not be popular to say so, but it is the sad reality.
Those Americans who still hold out hope for repeal of the law must come to grips with the new reality. The high court's ruling makes repeal an unachievable dream. If that sounds fatalistic, consider that in the long history of the United States not a single entitlement has been eliminated by Congress.
Once the bureaucrats are in place, there is no turning back. The Health and Human Services (HHS) has hired computer programmers, technicians and managers. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has bulked up its payroll to enforce the new tax (penalty) on individuals and companies as part of the health care mandate.
There are 13,000 pages of regulations governing how doctors and hospitals are supposed to practice medicine under the new law. And HHS is spinning out more rules every week. More than 180 boards and commissions have been been created to oversee the new law's provisions.
Even a new Congress and administration will be hard pressed to undo it all. Millions of Americans are already receiving benefits. They would attain victim status if any attempt is made to alter Obama Care. The mainstream media salivates at the notion that Republicans would tamper with health care benefits.
Imagine television cameras capturing weeping mothers with pre-existing medical conditions. Newspaper headlines about young people dropped from the parents' insurance. Radio interviews with uninsured migrant workers struggling with catastrophic illnesses. It won't be pretty.
The GOP has shown it cannot withstand media pressure. Republican leaders have blinked too often in the past two years when the media amped up its attacks. Battles over the budget are a prime example. Every time Obama threatens to shut down the government, Republicans crayfish under the media glare.
GOP leadership lacks the spine to weather a withering media offensive. Perhaps, a President Romney would make a difference. But history suggests otherwise. The former Massachusetts governor was known more for comprising than confrontation during his tenure.
That's why the Supreme Court decision stings. It was the last best hope for those who believe the law will fundamentally change health care for the worse.
For that reason, apologists who defend Chief Justice John Roberts are dead wrong. By siding with the liberal minority, the jurist enshrined Obama Care as the law of the land. Forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo he sprinkled throughout his opinion. It doesn't matter. The law stands.
No matter how contorted the decision, it emboldened Obama Care proponents and the federal bureaucracy to move full speed ahead.
Americans are stuck with health care reform that most oppose.
It may not be popular to say so, but it is the sad reality.
Monday, July 16, 2012
What Mitt Can Learn From Trump
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been dodging a daily blitzkrieg of mud-slinging attacks from the Obama tag team of surrogates and their accomplices in the media. As a result, the mild-mannered Romney has spent most of his time deflecting barbs, forcing him to abandon his economic message.
With Barrack Obama's lackluster record dangling like an albatross around the president's neck, his deputies have unleashed a toxic string of vicious charges against the Republican as part of a campaign strategy aimed at tarring Romney's image. It is the only way Democrats can win.
That explains why Democrats have smeared Romney as a filthy rich Wall Street pawn with offshore accounts, questionable tax returns and a dubious record of outsourcing jobs and shuttering unprofitable businesses while he was at Bain Capital. New scuzzy attacks hint Romney's behavior may have involved criminal activity. Oh, and, Romney's a Mormon, too. Does it get any scarier than that?
The barrage of half-truths and deliberate distortions has allowed Democrats to paint an unflattering picture of the GOP standard bearer. The implication is that wealth, even if it is legally acquired, precludes Romney from occupying the White House.
President John F. Kennedy could have set fire to his cash stockpiles and still had more money than Romney. But in President Obama's America, wealth is evil. People who have money are objects of derision. Being poor and dependent on the government is more honorable.
Romney will lose the election unless he takes a lesson from Donald Trump.
Like him or not, Trump got under Obama's skin during his short-lived, whirlwind presidential talk show tour. Trump unmercifully attacked Obama. The tone was civil but unrelenting. One charge in particular exposed the thin-skinned Obama's aversion to stinging criticism.
Trump questioned Obama's birth certificate at every opportunity. Others had done the same, but not in such a high-profile manner. After years of adamantly refusing to release his birth certificate, Obama relented in April of 2011 to dampen the firestorm ignited by Trump.
It proved nothing yet underscored a fatal flaw in Obama's character. When someone turns up the political heat, the president wilts under the pressure.
Trump was the first politician to personally attack Obama. Hillary Clinton backed off after husband Bill was branded a racist for merely suggesting Obama might be ill prepared to be president. Timid John McCain practically swooned at the mention of Obama's name during his presidential campaign.
Mitt Romney has an opportunity to change the tenor of the race. He needs to hold a news conference and announce that he has a message for the president. Here's what he should say.
"Effective today, every specious charge from President Obama, his surrogates and his allies in the media will be met with a swift and immediate counter attack of my own. I am not going to stand still while the president makes a mockery of our political system by trashing my character with lies.
"Therefore, I plan to thoroughly vet my opponent so the American people can finally hear the truth about Barrack Obama. Voters need to know about his relationships with hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright, terrorist William "Bill" Ayers, convicted swindler Antoin "Tony" Rezko and the shadowy George Soros.
"Since the media has no interest in exposing the truth about the president, I will. I would prefer to talk about issues, but the president has made it clear he would rather wallow around in the mud. I am happy to oblige, if that's what it takes to get him to abandon his scorched earth campaign and return to a serious discussion of his handling of the economy."
Mitt Romney has the credentials to be the next president of the United States. Now we will find out if he has the political gumption to take off the gloves and fight back against the Obama-sanctioned campaign to destroy Romney with character assassinations.
If he ducks the fight, Romney will have only himself to blame when he takes it on the chin in November's election.
With Barrack Obama's lackluster record dangling like an albatross around the president's neck, his deputies have unleashed a toxic string of vicious charges against the Republican as part of a campaign strategy aimed at tarring Romney's image. It is the only way Democrats can win.
That explains why Democrats have smeared Romney as a filthy rich Wall Street pawn with offshore accounts, questionable tax returns and a dubious record of outsourcing jobs and shuttering unprofitable businesses while he was at Bain Capital. New scuzzy attacks hint Romney's behavior may have involved criminal activity. Oh, and, Romney's a Mormon, too. Does it get any scarier than that?
The barrage of half-truths and deliberate distortions has allowed Democrats to paint an unflattering picture of the GOP standard bearer. The implication is that wealth, even if it is legally acquired, precludes Romney from occupying the White House.
President John F. Kennedy could have set fire to his cash stockpiles and still had more money than Romney. But in President Obama's America, wealth is evil. People who have money are objects of derision. Being poor and dependent on the government is more honorable.
Romney will lose the election unless he takes a lesson from Donald Trump.
Like him or not, Trump got under Obama's skin during his short-lived, whirlwind presidential talk show tour. Trump unmercifully attacked Obama. The tone was civil but unrelenting. One charge in particular exposed the thin-skinned Obama's aversion to stinging criticism.
Trump questioned Obama's birth certificate at every opportunity. Others had done the same, but not in such a high-profile manner. After years of adamantly refusing to release his birth certificate, Obama relented in April of 2011 to dampen the firestorm ignited by Trump.
It proved nothing yet underscored a fatal flaw in Obama's character. When someone turns up the political heat, the president wilts under the pressure.
Trump was the first politician to personally attack Obama. Hillary Clinton backed off after husband Bill was branded a racist for merely suggesting Obama might be ill prepared to be president. Timid John McCain practically swooned at the mention of Obama's name during his presidential campaign.
Mitt Romney has an opportunity to change the tenor of the race. He needs to hold a news conference and announce that he has a message for the president. Here's what he should say.
"Effective today, every specious charge from President Obama, his surrogates and his allies in the media will be met with a swift and immediate counter attack of my own. I am not going to stand still while the president makes a mockery of our political system by trashing my character with lies.
"Therefore, I plan to thoroughly vet my opponent so the American people can finally hear the truth about Barrack Obama. Voters need to know about his relationships with hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright, terrorist William "Bill" Ayers, convicted swindler Antoin "Tony" Rezko and the shadowy George Soros.
"Since the media has no interest in exposing the truth about the president, I will. I would prefer to talk about issues, but the president has made it clear he would rather wallow around in the mud. I am happy to oblige, if that's what it takes to get him to abandon his scorched earth campaign and return to a serious discussion of his handling of the economy."
Mitt Romney has the credentials to be the next president of the United States. Now we will find out if he has the political gumption to take off the gloves and fight back against the Obama-sanctioned campaign to destroy Romney with character assassinations.
If he ducks the fight, Romney will have only himself to blame when he takes it on the chin in November's election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)