The latest negotiations between the White House and Congress to avoid the fiscal cliff centers around the "balanced approach" supported by President Barack Obama during the recent campaign.
Now, the President seems to be focused almost entirely on raising taxes for the most successful Americans, while the Republicans seem to be touting the approach once favored but now seemingly abandoned by the President -- increasing revenue and making spending cuts. Without significant spending cuts, though, the Republican-controlled House simply will not agree to raise taxes on the highest-earning Americans. In contrast, the President has outlined a specific plan for raising taxes on Americans earning over $200,000 as individuals or for married couples earning over $250,000, but has avoided any details whatsoever on how he would cut the federal budget.
But does America have a revenue problem, or does it have a spending problem? If you're like me, once people begin talking about trillions upon trillions of dollars, it's nearly impossible to fathom. But once you put the debt into context in numbers that people can understand, you begin to see a much clearer picture.
If America were a household, and we took away five zeros to make the numbers manageable, we would be earning about $25,000 per year (total annual government revenue). This year, however, we will spend about $38,000 (national budget), which means that we had to put about $13,000 on our credit card (annual deficit), bringing our total credit card debt to about $164,000 (total national debt). This year, the interest alone on that debt will cost us about $4,500, nearly one-fifth of what we took in.
By taxing the most successful Americans more, the President will add about $16,000 to our household income over the next 10 years, which equates to a paltry $1,600 per year. However, his most recent budget projections show a deficit of at least $10,000 per year which will be added to our credit card debt. This means that by the end of his second term our total household debt will be well over $200,000. In just eight years, this President will have added about half -- $100,000 -- of our nation's total credit card debt. The interest alone on our debt will cost our household around $6,000 per year by 2016, if interest rates remain low.
Adding to this national financial mess is the fact that our entitlement programs are growing much faster than any increases in our revenue. Within two decades, the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare will consume 100% of annual revenue, leaving nothing for education, defense or anything else. If the trend of spending more than we take in continues, couple of decades the interest alone on our national debt will consume 100% of our annual revenue.
America is facing a fiscal cliff of increased taxes for nearly all Americans on January 1, 2013, if Congress and the President can't agree on a plan to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. Our nation faces a much bigger precipice -- a Grand Canyon-like cliff -- if we don't address the debt problem and growing entitlement programs that will bankrupt this country and send the entire world into a deep depression.
As one can see, America does not have a revenue problem. We simply have been spending, and continue to spend, money we just don't have.
This President has done more to bankrupt this country than any other President before him.
One way or another, though, this spending will stop -- either through managed budget cuts and a well-defined plan to cut our debt -- or through a bankruptcy and deep depression that will be much more painful for all Americans.
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
The Voice of Reason: What a Difference a Generation Makes
Over the weekend, I thought back to the tumultuous days of the 1960s and early 1970s.
I remember the images on my black and white television of those anti-war protests all over the U.S., with young people in the tens of thousands marching in various cities and occupying college administration buildings. Young people marched on the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, protesting the Vietnam War and our federal government. They were met by police, who used mace indiscriminately on protestors and bystanders. The protestors chanted, "The Whole World's Watching," as television cameras captured images of the police fighting back the protestors.
The young people in those crowds were the offspring of those who experienced World War II, a generation that nearly saw its rights taken away by the Germans, Japanese and Italians. Many of those young people had parents who were killed or injured in World War II, and they also had many friends and family members who were either injured or killed in the Vietnam War. With the military draft still in force, these young people certainly had skin in the game, so to speak. They protested the Vietnam War with a passion, perhaps because at any time they could be forced by their government to fight in a war they didn't feel was necessary or just.
Although I was a little too young to participate in those protests, my father was seriously injured in World War II and had to live with pain every single day for the rest of his life. I knew a lot of young men from my hometown who never made it home from Vietnam. I learned from my father, who grew up in the Great Depression, that our rights were worth worth fighting for, even if it meant giving up your own life.
During this time period, young people, more than any other age group, questioned the decisions and motivations of our federal government, and rightly so. Young reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post were among those from this age group who doggedly asked tough questions and uncovered sources within the federal government in order to report the truth about the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup. Their reporting, and the reporting of others, forced a President, Richard Nixon, to resign, not because of the original burgulary of political offices at the Watergate Hotel, but because he was deeply involved in the coverup to keep others from learning who was involved in the original break-in.
While thinking about life in the 1960s and 1970s this weekend, I began comparing the young people of today to the young people of yesteryear. Young people from both time frames are similar in some ways, including their impatience, but they are vastly different in other ways, including their belief in and support for our federal government. While young people of 40 and 50 years ago had a healthy disbelief for anything the government told them, the young people of today seem to blindly follow the federal government, especially this President.
I have to wonder how the young people of yesterday, as well as the reporters in their age group, would have reacted to a President who clearly avoided calling violence on our consulate the result of terrorism, although intelligence before the attack pointed to a growing terrorist threat, and intelligence immediately after the attack indicated that a terrorist group had carried out a well-planned, coordinated assault.
Young people back then became very angry when their President and government clearly lied to them. Young people of today don't even seem to want to know the truth.
I wonder how those young people of yesterday would have reacted to an Administration that ignored pleas for additional security at the consulate or to an Administration that clearly dragged its feet in sending in military assistance to save American lives. I also wonder how those same young people would have reacted to a federal government whose policies have devastated so many of their peers economically, with only one out of two recent college graduates able to find a job in their field. Young people in the 1960s and 1970s would have been protesting in the streets if jobs weren't available to them. After their parents had sacrified life and limb so that their children would have a better life, those children, as well as their parents, would have demanded opportunities better than the previous generation of Americans. Today, being out of work and living with your parents is apparently the new normal in America.
For some reason, the young people of today just don't seem to care with the same fervor how easily our rights can all be taken away. They also don't even seem to believe that our federal government should be viewed with a cynicism. That's always been the American way -- to distrust government. This friction between citizens and government was ingrained in our fabric even before America was a country. We forged our own union because of an oppressive British government, and we have remained a country because our citizens have fought valiantly to preserve those rights and also to hold our government accountable to we the people.
Somewhere along the way, the healthy skepticism our young people have had for government has become an unhealthy allegiance. Sadly, if young people blindly follow government, our democratic form of government is at great risk for this and future generations of Americans.
I remember the images on my black and white television of those anti-war protests all over the U.S., with young people in the tens of thousands marching in various cities and occupying college administration buildings. Young people marched on the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, protesting the Vietnam War and our federal government. They were met by police, who used mace indiscriminately on protestors and bystanders. The protestors chanted, "The Whole World's Watching," as television cameras captured images of the police fighting back the protestors.
The young people in those crowds were the offspring of those who experienced World War II, a generation that nearly saw its rights taken away by the Germans, Japanese and Italians. Many of those young people had parents who were killed or injured in World War II, and they also had many friends and family members who were either injured or killed in the Vietnam War. With the military draft still in force, these young people certainly had skin in the game, so to speak. They protested the Vietnam War with a passion, perhaps because at any time they could be forced by their government to fight in a war they didn't feel was necessary or just.
Although I was a little too young to participate in those protests, my father was seriously injured in World War II and had to live with pain every single day for the rest of his life. I knew a lot of young men from my hometown who never made it home from Vietnam. I learned from my father, who grew up in the Great Depression, that our rights were worth worth fighting for, even if it meant giving up your own life.
During this time period, young people, more than any other age group, questioned the decisions and motivations of our federal government, and rightly so. Young reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post were among those from this age group who doggedly asked tough questions and uncovered sources within the federal government in order to report the truth about the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup. Their reporting, and the reporting of others, forced a President, Richard Nixon, to resign, not because of the original burgulary of political offices at the Watergate Hotel, but because he was deeply involved in the coverup to keep others from learning who was involved in the original break-in.
While thinking about life in the 1960s and 1970s this weekend, I began comparing the young people of today to the young people of yesteryear. Young people from both time frames are similar in some ways, including their impatience, but they are vastly different in other ways, including their belief in and support for our federal government. While young people of 40 and 50 years ago had a healthy disbelief for anything the government told them, the young people of today seem to blindly follow the federal government, especially this President.
I have to wonder how the young people of yesterday, as well as the reporters in their age group, would have reacted to a President who clearly avoided calling violence on our consulate the result of terrorism, although intelligence before the attack pointed to a growing terrorist threat, and intelligence immediately after the attack indicated that a terrorist group had carried out a well-planned, coordinated assault.
Young people back then became very angry when their President and government clearly lied to them. Young people of today don't even seem to want to know the truth.
I wonder how those young people of yesterday would have reacted to an Administration that ignored pleas for additional security at the consulate or to an Administration that clearly dragged its feet in sending in military assistance to save American lives. I also wonder how those same young people would have reacted to a federal government whose policies have devastated so many of their peers economically, with only one out of two recent college graduates able to find a job in their field. Young people in the 1960s and 1970s would have been protesting in the streets if jobs weren't available to them. After their parents had sacrified life and limb so that their children would have a better life, those children, as well as their parents, would have demanded opportunities better than the previous generation of Americans. Today, being out of work and living with your parents is apparently the new normal in America.
For some reason, the young people of today just don't seem to care with the same fervor how easily our rights can all be taken away. They also don't even seem to believe that our federal government should be viewed with a cynicism. That's always been the American way -- to distrust government. This friction between citizens and government was ingrained in our fabric even before America was a country. We forged our own union because of an oppressive British government, and we have remained a country because our citizens have fought valiantly to preserve those rights and also to hold our government accountable to we the people.
Somewhere along the way, the healthy skepticism our young people have had for government has become an unhealthy allegiance. Sadly, if young people blindly follow government, our democratic form of government is at great risk for this and future generations of Americans.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The President Continues to Be Empty Suit of Broken Promises and Pathetic Record
After returning home this weekend after a week on the road, I've had a little time to re-watch the latest the Presidential Debate that was held on Tuesday, October 16.
What amazed me while watching this debate the second time around was how little the President had to say in terms of his plans for a second term. Apparently he has no plans, except to enact more of the same failed policies that have devasted this country, especially the middle class, during the past four years.
In short, this President continues to be an empty suit of broken promises, a pathetic economic record and no articulated plans for the future. His only campaign strategy appears to be smearing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a man with a proven record as a job creator and leader of government.
While Romney talked about how he worked collaboratively with Democrats to pass legislation while Governor of Massachusetts, the President blamed the Republicans, including his predecessor, George W. Bush, and the Republican House, for the current state of the economy.
While Romney talked about a clear path toward energy independence, the President talked about his support of coal and oil, although his policies have devastated the coal industry and hindered the development and transportation of domestic and Canadian oil that could dramatically decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East and our prices at the pump. His rhetoric during the debate certainly hasn't matched his policy agenda.
Ask any coal miner if the President's policies have helped or hurt their industry and you'll receive a resounding answer: The President is killing their entire industry, one unreasonable EPA regulation at a time.
While the President proudly cited the jobs that have been created during his first term in office, Romney pointed out that the jobs created under the Obama Administration haven't even kept pace with population growth or the loss of jobs under this Administration. As Romney astutely and accurately explained, fewer Americans are working today than when this President took office. Romney also compared his exemplary record as a job creator in the private sector to the President's dismal record leading this country out of a recession.
While the President discussed how he would like to address comprehensive immigration reform in a second term, Romney promised that he would address this major issue in his first term as President. In contrast, the current President did nothing when he had a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for the first two years he was in office, and has done nothing since to move immigration forward in Congress.
While the President merely mentioned how he would like to reduce the deficit, Romney cited his own experience turning a deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts, while also pointing out that the current President has dramatically increased our nation's debt in just four years.
Simply put, the debate was a comparison of a leader with a proven record of achievements to a community organizer who would like more time to do what he's been unable to do or hasn't even attempted in four years. The debate came down to Romney talking about the record of what he's done as a business leader and governor -- creating jobs, reducing deficits and working across party lines -- compared to the President saying he would like to accomplish those same things if given another four years.
The debate featured a candidate spelling out his five-point plan to revitalize the American economy, with the President asking for more time to continue the same policies that have resulted in massive unemployment, record poverty and year-over-year slowing of our Gross Domestic Product.
In my 54 years on this Earth, I have never seen an election with such a stark contrast in the top two Presidential candidates. Although the President's rhetoric may sound soaring to some, his words ring hollow -- if you take the time to listen intently to what he has to say and closely examine his record of non-accomplishments.
I have to believe that Americans are smart enough to spot a used car salesman when they see and hear one. We'll all find out on November 6.
What amazed me while watching this debate the second time around was how little the President had to say in terms of his plans for a second term. Apparently he has no plans, except to enact more of the same failed policies that have devasted this country, especially the middle class, during the past four years.
In short, this President continues to be an empty suit of broken promises, a pathetic economic record and no articulated plans for the future. His only campaign strategy appears to be smearing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a man with a proven record as a job creator and leader of government.
While Romney talked about how he worked collaboratively with Democrats to pass legislation while Governor of Massachusetts, the President blamed the Republicans, including his predecessor, George W. Bush, and the Republican House, for the current state of the economy.
While Romney talked about a clear path toward energy independence, the President talked about his support of coal and oil, although his policies have devastated the coal industry and hindered the development and transportation of domestic and Canadian oil that could dramatically decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East and our prices at the pump. His rhetoric during the debate certainly hasn't matched his policy agenda.
Ask any coal miner if the President's policies have helped or hurt their industry and you'll receive a resounding answer: The President is killing their entire industry, one unreasonable EPA regulation at a time.
While the President proudly cited the jobs that have been created during his first term in office, Romney pointed out that the jobs created under the Obama Administration haven't even kept pace with population growth or the loss of jobs under this Administration. As Romney astutely and accurately explained, fewer Americans are working today than when this President took office. Romney also compared his exemplary record as a job creator in the private sector to the President's dismal record leading this country out of a recession.
While the President discussed how he would like to address comprehensive immigration reform in a second term, Romney promised that he would address this major issue in his first term as President. In contrast, the current President did nothing when he had a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for the first two years he was in office, and has done nothing since to move immigration forward in Congress.
While the President merely mentioned how he would like to reduce the deficit, Romney cited his own experience turning a deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts, while also pointing out that the current President has dramatically increased our nation's debt in just four years.
Simply put, the debate was a comparison of a leader with a proven record of achievements to a community organizer who would like more time to do what he's been unable to do or hasn't even attempted in four years. The debate came down to Romney talking about the record of what he's done as a business leader and governor -- creating jobs, reducing deficits and working across party lines -- compared to the President saying he would like to accomplish those same things if given another four years.
The debate featured a candidate spelling out his five-point plan to revitalize the American economy, with the President asking for more time to continue the same policies that have resulted in massive unemployment, record poverty and year-over-year slowing of our Gross Domestic Product.
In my 54 years on this Earth, I have never seen an election with such a stark contrast in the top two Presidential candidates. Although the President's rhetoric may sound soaring to some, his words ring hollow -- if you take the time to listen intently to what he has to say and closely examine his record of non-accomplishments.
I have to believe that Americans are smart enough to spot a used car salesman when they see and hear one. We'll all find out on November 6.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Our Watchdog Media Is Sound Asleep
As a former journalist, I'm amazed at what passes for journalism today. Although I admit that I strongly support Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, I don't pretend to be a journalist in this blog. Often through this blog, though, I have pointed out the obvious bias of those in the mainstream news media who are paid to report the news fairly and accurately.
In recent blogs, I wote about a recent revelation that would be covered extensively by the news media -- if a Republican President were in the White House. According to information uncovered by the ACLU, the Obama Administration has quadrupled the use of warrantless wiretaps.
Another story that seems to be developing almost by the hour is alleged attempts by the administration to cover up what it knew about the attack on our Libyan Embassy and when it knew it. Recent reports seem to indicate that although the administration attempted to frame the attack as the result of a "spontaneous" demonstration, others within the administration knew in the hours following the attack that it was well-planned and highly-coordinated. Reports are also now indicating that additional security for the embassy and the ambassador was requested in the days prior to the attacks, yet additional security was not provided.
But Barack Obama is President and it's clear that the vast majority of the left-leaning news media want him to win reelection, so we haven't seen as much coverage about these issues as we would if a Republican were in the White House. I thought I'd do some research to see just how biased the coverage has been.
I did an internet search using Google as my search engine to see which news media organizations have reported on these two major issues.
For the first search I entered the words, "Obama quadruples use of warrantless wiretaps," to see what I would discover. The first page I pulled up contained nine hits, only one of which was from the regular news media, Fox News. I also did a search using the same words, but omitted the word, "Obama," thinking that it might provide me with slightly different results. Again, the only regular news media hit was from Fox News.
While Fox News apparently found a story newsworthy about how warrantless wiretaps have been expanded, potentially infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN apparently did not find the story important enough to report. Even after searching on the first three pages, I did not find a single instance of coverage by these mainstream media companies. Not one.
Next, I entered the words, "Libya cover up" to see what I would find. Again, going three pages deep in the search, I found extensive coverage by a wide variety of news organizations, including the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, but I did not find a single instance of coverage by ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, other than one story by ABC News. That ABC News story popped up in my search only because a reader commenting on the story used the words, "cover up." Sadly, the only American daily newspaper that showed up in this search was the Washington Examiner, a conservative-leaning newspaper.
I was astonished at the lack of coverage by the mainstream news media on two major issues with national significance.
One other fact that amazed me was that I did not find a single instance of coverage by the nation's two leading newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times. The two mainstays of journalism that broke the Watergate story and the Pentagon papers, respectively, are apparently sitting on the sidelines regarding the vast expansion of surveillance powers by our federal government, the bungling of embassy security and a subsequent potential cover up to help a President win reelection.
The vaunted Fourth Estate, the watchdog for the American people, is sound asleep when it comes to watching this President and his administration.
In recent blogs, I wote about a recent revelation that would be covered extensively by the news media -- if a Republican President were in the White House. According to information uncovered by the ACLU, the Obama Administration has quadrupled the use of warrantless wiretaps.
Another story that seems to be developing almost by the hour is alleged attempts by the administration to cover up what it knew about the attack on our Libyan Embassy and when it knew it. Recent reports seem to indicate that although the administration attempted to frame the attack as the result of a "spontaneous" demonstration, others within the administration knew in the hours following the attack that it was well-planned and highly-coordinated. Reports are also now indicating that additional security for the embassy and the ambassador was requested in the days prior to the attacks, yet additional security was not provided.
But Barack Obama is President and it's clear that the vast majority of the left-leaning news media want him to win reelection, so we haven't seen as much coverage about these issues as we would if a Republican were in the White House. I thought I'd do some research to see just how biased the coverage has been.
I did an internet search using Google as my search engine to see which news media organizations have reported on these two major issues.
For the first search I entered the words, "Obama quadruples use of warrantless wiretaps," to see what I would discover. The first page I pulled up contained nine hits, only one of which was from the regular news media, Fox News. I also did a search using the same words, but omitted the word, "Obama," thinking that it might provide me with slightly different results. Again, the only regular news media hit was from Fox News.
While Fox News apparently found a story newsworthy about how warrantless wiretaps have been expanded, potentially infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN apparently did not find the story important enough to report. Even after searching on the first three pages, I did not find a single instance of coverage by these mainstream media companies. Not one.
Next, I entered the words, "Libya cover up" to see what I would find. Again, going three pages deep in the search, I found extensive coverage by a wide variety of news organizations, including the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, but I did not find a single instance of coverage by ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, other than one story by ABC News. That ABC News story popped up in my search only because a reader commenting on the story used the words, "cover up." Sadly, the only American daily newspaper that showed up in this search was the Washington Examiner, a conservative-leaning newspaper.
I was astonished at the lack of coverage by the mainstream news media on two major issues with national significance.
One other fact that amazed me was that I did not find a single instance of coverage by the nation's two leading newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times. The two mainstays of journalism that broke the Watergate story and the Pentagon papers, respectively, are apparently sitting on the sidelines regarding the vast expansion of surveillance powers by our federal government, the bungling of embassy security and a subsequent potential cover up to help a President win reelection.
The vaunted Fourth Estate, the watchdog for the American people, is sound asleep when it comes to watching this President and his administration.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Prepping Romney for Debates
In the past couple of weeks, Republican nominee Mitt Romney has spent considerable time preparing for his upcoming debates with President Barack Obama, according to numerous reports.
Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has played the role of President Obama in these practice sessions with Romney.
On paper, these debates should be a slam dunk for Romney, as the President is overseeing an economy that has produced record unemployment, record poverty and a record number of Americans on foodstamps. In fact, the August jobs report showed that for every American who found a job last month, four Americans simply gave up looking for work because the prospect of finding a job was so bleak.
As much as we might like to believe that the debates should produce an easy Romney win based on the economic facts of this President's record, we also know that President Obama has shown he is a formidable opponent.
With the polls essentially showing the race tied, Romney needs to not only do well in these debates; he needs to win them. He can win them easily if he simply turns every attack back on the President and his record.
Let's say that the President attacks Romney's work at Bain Capital. Romney's response should be something like this:
Mr. President, I won't apologize for being successful in America. I'm proud of this success. The fact is that we did something at Bain Capital you were unable to do with this economy -- we took companies that were struggling and helped to make them successful and create more good-paying jobs for more Americans. We were able to create tens of thousands of jobs, and although we weren't successful all of the time, the vast majority of companies we invested in and supported were successful, saving the jobs of thousands of Americans. As President, I would enact policies that would allow more Americans to start businesses and achieve the American dream. In contrast, Mr. President, you took an economy that was struggling, and you've made it worse. The August jobs report showed that for every job created in your economy, four Americans simply gave up looking for work. That's not forward, Mr. President, that's backward.
See how easy it is to turn around an attack on Romney's success back on the President? Every response by Romney needs to be an attack on the Obama economy. Let's say that the President tries to make Romney's tax returns an issue during the debates. How should Romney respond?
Mr. President, a number of people in your party have tried to make my tax returns an issue because they want to distract the American people from your record as President. I have met my legal obligations not only in terms of releasing my tax returns as a Presidential candidate, but I have also met my legal obligations in terms of paying taxes. The fact is, Mr. President, that I have been successful in business and that I will bring that same experience building businesses and creating jobs to the White House, if elected. With some 23 million people out of work, underemployed or have simply given up looking for work, we need someone in the White House who knows how to build businesses and create jobs. I know how to do this, Mr. President. My record shows this. Your record shows that you clearly don't.
Again, any attack on Romney needs to be turned into an attack on the President's record. Let's say that the President tries to deflect blame for his economy into an attack on Republican policies by saying that Romney wants to take America back to the policies that got America into financial difficulty in the first place. Romney can say something like this:
You know, Mr. President, I find it incredible that nearly four years after you took office you continue to not accept any blame whatsoever for the current economy. At some point, Mr. President, you have to quit blaming others and take responsibility for your policies that have made a bad economy worse. I'll say this to the American people. The buck will stop with me if I'm elected as your President. If I'm elected and if the economy is in the same place or worse three and one-half years after I take office, I won't blame my predecessor. It will be my fault and I will accept responsibility. In fact, if the economy is not a lot stronger and significantly more Americans are not working three and one-half years after I'm elected, I won't deserve a second term, and I pledge to the American people that I simply would not run again. That is my pledge. The President pretty much said the same thing after he was elected, that if things weren't significantly better three years later that he would be a one-term President. The fact is, he doesn't deserve a second term based on his own stated level of expectations. You aren't better off; you're worse off. This President doesn't deserve a second term; he deserves a pink slip.
Romney should also use this opportunity to connect with the American people, differentiating himself from the President, while highlighting his record:
My fellow Americans, I know that you're hurting. The last four years, you've seen our economy go from bad to worse. Many of you aren't working or are working in a part-time job when you need to work full time to support your family. As Americans, we're patient, but we're not seeing things get better. Four years ago, you may have voted for Hope and Change, but today you hope you can find a good job, and the wage you're earning is closer to pocket change than what you can raise a family on. You're paying double the price for gasoline than when this President took office, and the prices at the grocery store have gone up significantly too. I know because I do the shopping in my family You walk out of the grocery store with a couple of bags and it's $100 or more, and you fill up your gas tank and it may be another $60 or more, when it cost only $30 four years ago. How can you afford to pay these higher prices when you've lost a job or are working part-time? You can't. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Based on what I see at the gas pump, at the grocery store and in the dismal monthly jobs reports, I would say that the answer is unequivocally no. Under this President, America has faced record unemployment nad record poverty. The August jobs report showed that for every American who found a job, four other Americans simply gave up looking for work because the prospects were so bleak. That's not forward; that's backward. While you and your family have faced these challenges, your President has played over 100 rounds of golf and has attended more fundraisers than his last few predecessors combined. If I don't turn around this economy in three and one-half years, it will be my fault, not my predecessor's. My pledge to you is that if I am fortunate enough to be elected as your President, I will work hard every day for you and your family. I will put my expertise growing jobs in business to work growing jobs across this country. I will put my expertise as a governor, chief executive and head of the Olympics to work putting Americans back to work. No one will out work me as I work for you.
As you can see, Romney can turn every attack from the President back on the President, because his record has been so pathetic. If Romney can stay on offense, focusing on the President's record of economic failure, I truly believe that his debate performance can turn this close race into a rout.
I'm looking forward to the first debate on October 3. I have a strong feeling that Romney is also looking forward to the debates -- much more so than President Obama.
Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has played the role of President Obama in these practice sessions with Romney.
On paper, these debates should be a slam dunk for Romney, as the President is overseeing an economy that has produced record unemployment, record poverty and a record number of Americans on foodstamps. In fact, the August jobs report showed that for every American who found a job last month, four Americans simply gave up looking for work because the prospect of finding a job was so bleak.
As much as we might like to believe that the debates should produce an easy Romney win based on the economic facts of this President's record, we also know that President Obama has shown he is a formidable opponent.
With the polls essentially showing the race tied, Romney needs to not only do well in these debates; he needs to win them. He can win them easily if he simply turns every attack back on the President and his record.
Let's say that the President attacks Romney's work at Bain Capital. Romney's response should be something like this:
Mr. President, I won't apologize for being successful in America. I'm proud of this success. The fact is that we did something at Bain Capital you were unable to do with this economy -- we took companies that were struggling and helped to make them successful and create more good-paying jobs for more Americans. We were able to create tens of thousands of jobs, and although we weren't successful all of the time, the vast majority of companies we invested in and supported were successful, saving the jobs of thousands of Americans. As President, I would enact policies that would allow more Americans to start businesses and achieve the American dream. In contrast, Mr. President, you took an economy that was struggling, and you've made it worse. The August jobs report showed that for every job created in your economy, four Americans simply gave up looking for work. That's not forward, Mr. President, that's backward.
See how easy it is to turn around an attack on Romney's success back on the President? Every response by Romney needs to be an attack on the Obama economy. Let's say that the President tries to make Romney's tax returns an issue during the debates. How should Romney respond?
Mr. President, a number of people in your party have tried to make my tax returns an issue because they want to distract the American people from your record as President. I have met my legal obligations not only in terms of releasing my tax returns as a Presidential candidate, but I have also met my legal obligations in terms of paying taxes. The fact is, Mr. President, that I have been successful in business and that I will bring that same experience building businesses and creating jobs to the White House, if elected. With some 23 million people out of work, underemployed or have simply given up looking for work, we need someone in the White House who knows how to build businesses and create jobs. I know how to do this, Mr. President. My record shows this. Your record shows that you clearly don't.
Again, any attack on Romney needs to be turned into an attack on the President's record. Let's say that the President tries to deflect blame for his economy into an attack on Republican policies by saying that Romney wants to take America back to the policies that got America into financial difficulty in the first place. Romney can say something like this:
You know, Mr. President, I find it incredible that nearly four years after you took office you continue to not accept any blame whatsoever for the current economy. At some point, Mr. President, you have to quit blaming others and take responsibility for your policies that have made a bad economy worse. I'll say this to the American people. The buck will stop with me if I'm elected as your President. If I'm elected and if the economy is in the same place or worse three and one-half years after I take office, I won't blame my predecessor. It will be my fault and I will accept responsibility. In fact, if the economy is not a lot stronger and significantly more Americans are not working three and one-half years after I'm elected, I won't deserve a second term, and I pledge to the American people that I simply would not run again. That is my pledge. The President pretty much said the same thing after he was elected, that if things weren't significantly better three years later that he would be a one-term President. The fact is, he doesn't deserve a second term based on his own stated level of expectations. You aren't better off; you're worse off. This President doesn't deserve a second term; he deserves a pink slip.
Romney should also use this opportunity to connect with the American people, differentiating himself from the President, while highlighting his record:
My fellow Americans, I know that you're hurting. The last four years, you've seen our economy go from bad to worse. Many of you aren't working or are working in a part-time job when you need to work full time to support your family. As Americans, we're patient, but we're not seeing things get better. Four years ago, you may have voted for Hope and Change, but today you hope you can find a good job, and the wage you're earning is closer to pocket change than what you can raise a family on. You're paying double the price for gasoline than when this President took office, and the prices at the grocery store have gone up significantly too. I know because I do the shopping in my family You walk out of the grocery store with a couple of bags and it's $100 or more, and you fill up your gas tank and it may be another $60 or more, when it cost only $30 four years ago. How can you afford to pay these higher prices when you've lost a job or are working part-time? You can't. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Based on what I see at the gas pump, at the grocery store and in the dismal monthly jobs reports, I would say that the answer is unequivocally no. Under this President, America has faced record unemployment nad record poverty. The August jobs report showed that for every American who found a job, four other Americans simply gave up looking for work because the prospects were so bleak. That's not forward; that's backward. While you and your family have faced these challenges, your President has played over 100 rounds of golf and has attended more fundraisers than his last few predecessors combined. If I don't turn around this economy in three and one-half years, it will be my fault, not my predecessor's. My pledge to you is that if I am fortunate enough to be elected as your President, I will work hard every day for you and your family. I will put my expertise growing jobs in business to work growing jobs across this country. I will put my expertise as a governor, chief executive and head of the Olympics to work putting Americans back to work. No one will out work me as I work for you.
As you can see, Romney can turn every attack from the President back on the President, because his record has been so pathetic. If Romney can stay on offense, focusing on the President's record of economic failure, I truly believe that his debate performance can turn this close race into a rout.
I'm looking forward to the first debate on October 3. I have a strong feeling that Romney is also looking forward to the debates -- much more so than President Obama.
Friday, September 7, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Jobs Report Shows Obama's Policies Aren't Working
While working for an electric utility, I worked for a regional vice president who had the rugged good looks of Daniel Craig and the booming voice of Fred Thompson. After moving up through the ranks and becoming one of the company's top executives, his ascension stopped. He actually moved down quite a few notches, exiled to an office doing little to nothing until he retired.
One of the executives later told me that "they had finally figured him out," and that "he was just wasn't very smart."
I could have told them that. But I'll share more about this with you later.
The fact is that people often look at the wrapping on the package, instead of considering what might be inside that package. On the outside, the package might be neat, colorful and shiny, but it is only just the covering. It's what's on the inside that counts, whether you're considering a present, or a President.
President Obama's speech to the Democratic National Convention yesterday evening featured the soothing voice of one of America's greatest orators. He shared lofty goals about creating millions of new jobs, restoring America's manufacturing prominence, cutting college costs for young people and hiring more thousands of teachers. What was missing, though, were the details -- the strategies that will help America reach those goals. Sadly, he proposed no policy changes in a second term that would be different from those in his first term that have failed so miserably.
One day after the President's soaring speech, America returned to Earth with the release of the August jobs report.
Even the most generous expert would say that the report clearly does not point to an economy that is "turning around." To the 23 million Americans out of work, though, the report has to be viewed as disappointing and devastating.
The report featured a downtick in the overall unemployment rate from 8.3% to 8.1%, but only because 368,000 Americans simply stopped looking for work and were no longer included in the data. A paltry 96,000 jobs were created, significantly fewer than the number of jobs required just to keep pace with population growth.
To put this report in perspective, consider this: For every new job created, four Americans stopped looking for work because the jobs outlook has become so bleak.
One day after the glitz and glamour, the rhetoric and rationalizations, the wrapping is clearly off our President and his party. What's left is a jobs report that provides indisputable proof that the policies of the current administration have failed.
For some reason, after listening to some of President Obama's speech yesterday and reading the jobs report today, I thought of my old boss, the vice president. I thought about his good looks and great voice, but how little he really had to offer. I learned early on what the top executives learned years later: This man didn't have any common sense and just wasn't very smart. I learned this as he was just beginning his climb up the organization, when he was a district manager.
We had experienced an afternoon thunderstorm that left a couple of hundred customers without power. With power restored to all but about a dozen customers in one area, this manager stopped the crews from working for a couple of hours, taking them milk and cookies. When our plain-talking dispatcher found out that his crews weren't working to restore power to the few remaining customers because they were enjoying milk and cookies with their district manager, he yelled to his crew on the radio: "Get your butts to those customers now. You can have all the $#@!^# milk and cookies you want once we have all power restored!!!" Believe it or not, this is a true story.
This company manager and our President have a lot in common. Instead of restoring power to customers, the manager had crews drinking milk and cookies. Instead of focusing on creating jobs early in his first term after millions of jobs were lossed due to the financial meltdown, the President expended his political energy passing healthcare reform. And now, three years later, with the economy still sputtering, the President has spent significantly more time playing golf, attending fundraisers and giving speeches than working to create jobs by meeting with his cabinet and jobs council, or working with and leading Congress to pass jobs legislation. Those activities that the President enjoys, but don't create jobs, are the milk and cookies of this President.
I actually think that Clint Eastwood summed it up most eloquently and succinctly in a recent interview to explain why he took the time to speak at the Republican National Convention:
“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
If Clint has sized up our President, I have to believe that the American people can't be far behind. The jobs report simply tore the shiny package off of his convention speech and his record of the past four years, revealing what was inside all along.
Nothing.
One of the executives later told me that "they had finally figured him out," and that "he was just wasn't very smart."
I could have told them that. But I'll share more about this with you later.
The fact is that people often look at the wrapping on the package, instead of considering what might be inside that package. On the outside, the package might be neat, colorful and shiny, but it is only just the covering. It's what's on the inside that counts, whether you're considering a present, or a President.
President Obama's speech to the Democratic National Convention yesterday evening featured the soothing voice of one of America's greatest orators. He shared lofty goals about creating millions of new jobs, restoring America's manufacturing prominence, cutting college costs for young people and hiring more thousands of teachers. What was missing, though, were the details -- the strategies that will help America reach those goals. Sadly, he proposed no policy changes in a second term that would be different from those in his first term that have failed so miserably.
One day after the President's soaring speech, America returned to Earth with the release of the August jobs report.
Even the most generous expert would say that the report clearly does not point to an economy that is "turning around." To the 23 million Americans out of work, though, the report has to be viewed as disappointing and devastating.
The report featured a downtick in the overall unemployment rate from 8.3% to 8.1%, but only because 368,000 Americans simply stopped looking for work and were no longer included in the data. A paltry 96,000 jobs were created, significantly fewer than the number of jobs required just to keep pace with population growth.
To put this report in perspective, consider this: For every new job created, four Americans stopped looking for work because the jobs outlook has become so bleak.
One day after the glitz and glamour, the rhetoric and rationalizations, the wrapping is clearly off our President and his party. What's left is a jobs report that provides indisputable proof that the policies of the current administration have failed.
For some reason, after listening to some of President Obama's speech yesterday and reading the jobs report today, I thought of my old boss, the vice president. I thought about his good looks and great voice, but how little he really had to offer. I learned early on what the top executives learned years later: This man didn't have any common sense and just wasn't very smart. I learned this as he was just beginning his climb up the organization, when he was a district manager.
We had experienced an afternoon thunderstorm that left a couple of hundred customers without power. With power restored to all but about a dozen customers in one area, this manager stopped the crews from working for a couple of hours, taking them milk and cookies. When our plain-talking dispatcher found out that his crews weren't working to restore power to the few remaining customers because they were enjoying milk and cookies with their district manager, he yelled to his crew on the radio: "Get your butts to those customers now. You can have all the $#@!^# milk and cookies you want once we have all power restored!!!" Believe it or not, this is a true story.
This company manager and our President have a lot in common. Instead of restoring power to customers, the manager had crews drinking milk and cookies. Instead of focusing on creating jobs early in his first term after millions of jobs were lossed due to the financial meltdown, the President expended his political energy passing healthcare reform. And now, three years later, with the economy still sputtering, the President has spent significantly more time playing golf, attending fundraisers and giving speeches than working to create jobs by meeting with his cabinet and jobs council, or working with and leading Congress to pass jobs legislation. Those activities that the President enjoys, but don't create jobs, are the milk and cookies of this President.
I actually think that Clint Eastwood summed it up most eloquently and succinctly in a recent interview to explain why he took the time to speak at the Republican National Convention:
“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
If Clint has sized up our President, I have to believe that the American people can't be far behind. The jobs report simply tore the shiny package off of his convention speech and his record of the past four years, revealing what was inside all along.
Nothing.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The Voice of Reason: President's Tax Increase Will Put More Americans Out of Work
"The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession. Because that would just suck up, put more demand on the economy and put businesses in a further hole."
The President said this three years ago, but this year, an election year, the President apparently feels differently. He has made making high-income Americans pay their "fair share" a centerpiece of his campaign. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted on Wednesday to end the Bush-era tax cuts for couples earning over $250,000 a year or single earners making more than $200,000 per year.
I find it interesting that the dialogue in the news media is that no one wants taxes to increase for middle-income Americans, but at the same time Democrats and the President believe that the tax cuts for the rich should not continue. Has anyone else notice this subtle difference in semantics? Has anyone else noticed how the Democrats, President and the lamestream news media frame this issue? Why is it that not extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class would be a tax increase, but extending the same law for affluent Americans would result in "tax cuts for the rich?"
This is class warfare, plain and simple, and it's despicable. The President opposes the extension of tax cuts for high-income Americans because he is using this issue for political fodder. Never mind that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will take away billions of dollars utilized for job creation. Never mind that unemployment remains at 8.2% and that the growth in our economy has slowed to a crawl. Never mind that even the nation's leading financial experts predict that increasing taxes on anyone now could be devastating to an already-struggling economy.
The nationally-respected accounting firm of Ernst and Young issued released a study just this week indicating that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, as the President and the Democrats are proposing to do, would result in a reduction of nearly three-quarters of a million jobs.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/18/ernst-and-young-obamas-tax-increase-would-kill-710000-jobs/ Let me repeat those numbers. Raising taxes on top earning Americans will result in a reduction of an additional 710,000 jobs in America. at a time we desperately need jobs.
The truth about this issue is that it isn't about fixing the economy or putting Americans back to work. This issue isn't even about trying to drive down the deficit, because the President's proposed budget over the next several years increases our deficit significantly. This issue is about one thing -- a President using every political trick possible as he works feverously to be reelected, even if it further slows the economy and leaves more Americans jobless.
Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you.
-- President Barack Obama, 2009
The President said this three years ago, but this year, an election year, the President apparently feels differently. He has made making high-income Americans pay their "fair share" a centerpiece of his campaign. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted on Wednesday to end the Bush-era tax cuts for couples earning over $250,000 a year or single earners making more than $200,000 per year.
I find it interesting that the dialogue in the news media is that no one wants taxes to increase for middle-income Americans, but at the same time Democrats and the President believe that the tax cuts for the rich should not continue. Has anyone else notice this subtle difference in semantics? Has anyone else noticed how the Democrats, President and the lamestream news media frame this issue? Why is it that not extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class would be a tax increase, but extending the same law for affluent Americans would result in "tax cuts for the rich?"
This is class warfare, plain and simple, and it's despicable. The President opposes the extension of tax cuts for high-income Americans because he is using this issue for political fodder. Never mind that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will take away billions of dollars utilized for job creation. Never mind that unemployment remains at 8.2% and that the growth in our economy has slowed to a crawl. Never mind that even the nation's leading financial experts predict that increasing taxes on anyone now could be devastating to an already-struggling economy.
The nationally-respected accounting firm of Ernst and Young issued released a study just this week indicating that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, as the President and the Democrats are proposing to do, would result in a reduction of nearly three-quarters of a million jobs.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/18/ernst-and-young-obamas-tax-increase-would-kill-710000-jobs/ Let me repeat those numbers. Raising taxes on top earning Americans will result in a reduction of an additional 710,000 jobs in America. at a time we desperately need jobs.
The truth about this issue is that it isn't about fixing the economy or putting Americans back to work. This issue isn't even about trying to drive down the deficit, because the President's proposed budget over the next several years increases our deficit significantly. This issue is about one thing -- a President using every political trick possible as he works feverously to be reelected, even if it further slows the economy and leaves more Americans jobless.
Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)