The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It

Posts tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

I seldom reblog posts – but this one by Tom Quiner makes a lot of sense and I hope that all of my followers will take a few minutes to read it.

A Heapin' Plate of Conservative Politics & Religion

By Tom Quiner

Samson sleeps with a machete under his bed.

His neighborhood isn’t a very nice place, so the machete serves as his security blanket. He lives on the wrong side of the tracks in a place called Gugulethu, as in Gugulethu, South Africa.

His skin is black; his blood is red; and his heart is pure gold.

My son, Mark, went to South Africa on business, and to my chagrin, spent a night in Samson’s abode. No harm came to him, but in the morning, Samson asked if the bed bugs bothered him.

Samson lives in abject, material poverty by most American metrics.

Who is this South African guy with the biblical name?

Samson lived with us for nearly a year back in 1998 and 1999 as part of the Simon Estes exchange program. Mr. Estes is an Iowa native with international renown in the world of opera…

View original post 757 more words

RICHARD HAYES SPEAKS (AND WE SHOULD LISTEN)

Perhaps the name Richard Hayes doesn’t ring a bell with you.  No doubt in the next few days that will change.  Mr. Hayes is a Sanitary Engineer (garbage collector) who apparently works on the route that includes Mitt Romney’s house in San Diego.

AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) has produced a new attack ad featuring this gentlemen.  The copy reads:

“My name is Richard Hayes, and I pick up Mitt Romney’s trash.  We’re kind of like the invisible people, you know. He doesn’t realize, you know, that the service we provide, you know, if it wasn’t for us, you know, it would be a big health issue, us not picking up trash.”

“Picking up 15, 16 tons by hand, you know that takes a toll on your body.  When I’m 55, 60 years old, I know my body’s going to be break down. Mitt Romney doesn’t care about that.”

I’m not quite sure what the thinking was that AFSCME employed in creating this ad using one of their members.  I know that the going rate for salaries for people in Mr. Hayes’ profession range nationally between about $35,000 – $55,000 per year, depending on the area.  So Mr. Hayes would be required under Federal Law to file an income tax return and presumably pay some amount of Federal Tax to the Treasury.  Thus, he is one of the 53%  – not the 47% that Mr. Romney described as “committed to voting for the President,” – although I think that might well be his intent.

Perhaps we’ll find a little more about their thinking later as there are apparently two additional ads which are forthcoming – I presume with the same theme.  And what is that theme?  Mitt Romney is an insensitive, uncaring SOB who is out to rape the poor of the last dime of their entitlement dollars.

In truth, I wouldn’t want Mr. Hayes’ job if it paid three times the amount he earns performing his duties.  And I probably don’t have the physique to be able to discharge his responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.  I believe he makes a valid point about the potential health threat if he and his fellows were to walk off the job.  In fact, it was exactly for reasons of public safety that Sanitary Engineers in several major cities were ordered to cease and desist from the strikes on which they embarked during the last several decades.  On this point he is absolutely correct.

Furthermore, I believe his statement about having a broken body when he is older is also probably true, unfortunately.  We have seen the relatively short professional life spans of NFL players due to on-the-job related injuries, including brain traumas.  At least pro football players receive significant compensation for risking their bodies and their futures – a risk that I’m sure they evaluated before they made the decision to play the game.

Perhaps it is ironic but today, when I first saw this ad, it happened to be one of the semi-weekly garbage collection days in my neighborhood.  What is more ironic is that I actually had something at the curb to be picked up.  I had managed to accumulate one half of a medium-sized garbage can and had it out and waiting for the crew.  That was the first time I had placed any refuse outside in five pick ups.

I work diligently to buy things with minimum packaging and to recycle and compost as much as I possibly can – for environmental reasons.  The fact that this makes life easier for Mr. Hayes’ fellow Sanitary Engineers here in Las Vegas is a definite plus.  To me they are not invisible – as I always remember them with some homemade preserves during the Holidays and frequently offer them a cold beverage in the summer heat.

But let’s return to the point of the commercial – that Mr. Romney must be a hard-hearted and uncaring person because he doesn’t have an intimate relationship with those who provide scavenger service at his various residences.

Is there any reasonable person out there who believes that Madonna, Warren Buffett, Lady Gaga, Tiger Woods, Lee Saunders (the President of AFSCME who just won election over a reform candidate who pledged to reduce the salaries of the union’s top honchos), or Presidents Clinton or Obama are on a first name basis with those who provide the same service to them?  Let’s get real people.  I doubt that any of those I have named even knows when their garbage is collected.

However, despite the main thrust of the ad at disparaging Mr. Romney, there is an important lesson to be learned from it.  That is with regard to Mr. Hayes and all the others whom he believes have been “dismissed” by Mr. Romney.

If you’ve been a reader for several months you may remember that at one point in my life I had my own executive search and temporary help business.  The search business dealt with mid to upper management white collar individuals and the primary focus of the temp business was on support staff for people who held mid-level corporate positions.

Although I would be hard pressed to document it, I am guessing that during my twenty-six years in that business, I interviewed no less than ten thousand people, both for our clients and for my own staff.  After the first thousand or so, if I say so myself, I became pretty good at interviewing.

Now, if I as an interviewer were to review Mr. Hayes’ statement (transcribed exactly as it appeared on Yahoo News) as his introduction to our firm, I would give him the courtesy of a cursory interview, because I believe that we ought always to be courteous, but I would never have considered him for any positions which we had available.  I would probably have recommended that he would have better opportunities if he were to apply to a firm specializing in people who had greater numbers of job openings for which he might qualify – a firm such as Manpower or other day labor temporary help agencies.

This would not have been a dismissal of Mr. Hayes as a human being.  Rather, it would be a realization that the gentleman had either received or chosen to accept only a very limited and probably not very good education.  His speech told me that without needing to review his application.  I know because I have taken my time to interview many Mr. Hayes’ – and if I doubted that assessment I would only have had to look at their applications to confirm my conclusions.  I guarantee that basic words which we use every day would have been misspelled and that the handwriting would have been difficult to read.  I’ve seen it hundreds of times.

Does that make Mr. Hayes an “unimportant” human being?  I don’t believe that any of us has the right to make that sort of assertion about anyone.  But it does make him a poorly educated one – a man with few employable skills.  That is most likely the reason that he is doing the work he is doing – not because Mitt Romney “looks down on him” or has “dismissed” him.

There is a lesson we should all take from Mr. Hayes and all the other Mr. and Ms. Hayes’ in America.

Fundamental to our problems in America is that the quality of education for which we were once renowned has fallen – and it’s fallen dramatically.

We are willing to give movie stars and professional athletes millions of dollars a year to entertain us, paying them directly through the money we spend on tickets.  But we are not willing to recognize those gifted teachers who are educating the next generation by offering them incentive raises based on the quality of the work they provide.  That is because we apparently, as a nation, consider entertainment far more vital than education.  Could this be one of the reasons that so many American jobs have moved overseas to be done by workers who were better educated than our own?

I think that Mr. Romney is too much of a gentleman to “retaliate” with a similarly negative ad to the ones that AFSCME has produced.  But I can’t help but wonder what someone riding the garbage truck that services the White House would have to say to him, should he encounter President Obama.  That is, if the President weren’t attending to important matters of state on the golf course.

HOW TO FIX THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Every once in a while, the Chicago Tribune published a story about someone who worked for the City of Chicago but was living in a suburb.  This resulted in the termination of the individual from his city job as it was a requirement that in order to hold a position with the city, an employee had to live in the city.  If you think about it, this makes some sense.  The theory is that if a person’s work quality affected the quality of services he received, he was more likely to put more effort into his job and turn out a better product.

Now that Chicago has gotten back to normal – that is the teachers in public schools have returned to work after their strike – I thought about the principle that the City of Chicago employed regarding the residential status requirement for its employees and wondered why the Chicago Board of Education doesn’t employ the same for its teachers.

By this I am not referring to a residency requirement – which when I lived in the City was a requirement for assignment as a teacher.  Rather, I was wondering why it is that there is no requirement that teachers send their children to Chicago’s public schools.  The fact is that in Chicago, nearly four out of ten teachers choose to send their own children to private schools – and apparently their current salary of $71,000 to $76,000 a year is sufficient to enable them to do so, despite their not being able to negotiate the 16% raise for which they struck.

Think about it for a moment.  Four out of ten Chicago public school teachers apparently do not think highly enough of the school system in which they teach to entrust their own children’s education to it.  And those numbers are not dissimilar to the numbers of public school systems in other large cities.  Who is better able to understand the quality of education our children are receiving than those who are providing it?

For years we have talked about offering a voucher system for elementary education which would allow parents to make schooling choices that are in the best interests of their children.  Those efforts, strongly opposed by a variety of self-interest groups, including teachers’ unions, have gone nowhere.  Part of the argument in opposition to the idea is that, “parents, particularly poor and uneducated parents, are not in a position to make a good choice.”  While I dislike that paternalistic and demeaning view of the uneducated as unable to make an intelligent choice because of their own ignorance, think about the fallacy inherent in that argument against vouchers.

Let’s take an uneducated inner city person who receives a voucher.  What is the worst thing that can happen in her decision making process?  She doesn’t have the knowledge to do anything with it other than to pack up her child and send her to a Chicago public school – the same as now.  But what if only 10% of those parents decided, instead to use that voucher at a Charter or Parochial or some other Private School instead?  Given the fact that test scores which children educated in that environment achieve are significantly higher than those children who have a public education, that would give at least those 10% a better opportunity to have a better life and to be more productive people.

It would be unfair to measure education simply as a product of sitting in a classroom.  We know that a positive and nurturing home environment where there is an emphasis on the importance of learning is also an important factor.  That is something over which we have no control.

But the fact that some number of those who received an education voucher would choose to use it for their children by rejecting the public school alternative in favor or something else, suggests that in that very decision, those parents are likely to provide just such an environment.  Why deny them, and more importantly, their children, the opportunity?

Romney has taken a lot of heat for saying that “class size” doesn’t matter.  I’ve only heard that attribution on Obama ads so I don’t know if it is accurate.

I was fortunate to have been born to parents who thought a good education was extremely important.  Mom got a job so that they could afford the private school education they provided me.  My graduating class from Junior High had a whopping 26 students in it.  Logic suggests that I received more attention from my teachers than if my class were three times that size.  So if that is an accurate statement that Governor Romney has made, I would disagree with him and ask him to reconsider his thinking on the subject.

On the other hand, the teachers of the Chicago Teachers Union have demonstrated that small class sizes do not necessarily result in a better education for their students.  During their strike, they reduced their class size to zero.

Fortunately, that didn’t affect the children of the forty percent of them who send their kids to private schools.

WHY RADICAL ISLAM WANTS AN OBAMA VICTORY

In “Dreams From My Father” President Obama discusses extensively his father’s anti-colonial spirit and motivations.  Were this simply a documentary about his father and not a blueprint for the President’s own view of the world, the book might have been better titled, “Dreams Of My Father.”  I can only presume that the President, a person with several college degrees, made a conscious choice in entitling his work.

It will come as no secret that the most fundamental goal of most extreme Islamic cadres is this – the complete and utter destruction of Israel.  Those are not my words but theirs.

Corollary to that is the undermining of those governments it sees as supporting the continuance of the Israeli state – notably the United States and the United Kingdom ( but pretty much any western, non-Islamic country may be included in the list).

The United States is an obvious choice for their anger as this country has been a stalwart in supporting the tiny Israeli state militarily and philosophically, at least until the current Administration took office.  And Great Britain, who accepted the responsibility of providing a safe environment for the Jews who chose to immigrate to Palestine by the mandate of the League of Nations, is also an obvious target for their anger.

Americans have a very limited and often incorrect view of Islam.  They view most Muslims as nomadic Arabs, riding around the desert on camels and brandishing scimitars.  The fact is that while the most holy places of Islam, Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia, most of the world’s Muslims are not Arabic.  This confusion is added to by the fact that all prayers and services in Islam, wherever they are conducted, are offered in the Arabic language – a requirement the Prophet Muhammad set out in the Koran and in various hadiths (sayings attributed to him).

If we were to look at the Muslim perspective in terms of today’s software technology, Islam would be God’s Revelation 3.0; Christianity 2.0; Judaism 1.0.  Islam is, of course, God’s ultimate revelation.  There is no religion 4.0 waiting in the wings to be unveiled.  We have seen that whether it is for religious or secular reasons, whenever anyone or any group believes itself in possession of “ultimate truth” there are no boundaries that may not be breeched in their attempt to “purify” the world according to their sense of righteousness and correctness.

As examples we have the ruthlessness of Joshua (famous for the battle of Jericho), we have the Inquisition, we have Hitler and Stalin, and today we have radical, fundamentalist Islam.  All are outgrowths of the same mentality – they believed that they and they alone were right – and would brook no interference from any who would stand in their way.

To return to the title of this post, why would radical Islam want to see an Obama victory?  Perhaps it is because they feel that of the two candidates, he would be less decisive in supporting the State of Israel than Governor Romney, thus allowing them to pursue their goal of annihilating the country and its people.

What support can I offer for this speculative theory?

First, the greatest and longest lasting colonial empire of all time had to be the British Empire on which, at one time, the sun never set.  Consider how Obama’s anti-colonial father, once a subject of that very empire in his native Kenya must have viewed these intruders in his land.  And if he passed those views along to his son, would that not explain why our relationship with our closest ally has become strained under the Obama Administration.

Second, consider the remarks that were made recently by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  He has been warning that Iran is extremely close to developing sufficient enriched uranium to make an atomic device.  In recent days he did everything but endorse Mitt Romney for President of the United States.  It is clear that he feels that his country has a greater chance of surviving a potential new holocaust under a Romney presidency than under one at which Obama is at the helm.

In a curious way, the views of radical Islam and of President Obama dovetail.  If we are to believe that the President shares his father’s views on colonialism, then it is not a far reach to see why radical Islam is comfortable with him because they also have an anti-colonial viewpoint – seeing the State of Israel as a colony created through the aegis of the Western powers – a colony of which they believe they are the rightful owners, endowed in that status by Allah.

The State Department initially categorized the attack on the the U. S. embassy in Libya as a spontaneous, unorganized reaction to the You Tube video which demeaned the Prophet Muhammad.  After several days of reviewing the events around this tragedy, the State Department changed its view and determined that the attack was anything but disorganized but was as well co-ordinated and planned as the events that took place on 9/11/01 here at home.

Why this attack at this particular time?  It is not hard to conjecture that with what has been widely advertised as a hotly contested and close Presidential race, it was to give support to incumbent Obama.  People have a tendency to stay with the same horse in a crisis, thinking that at least that horse knows the race course, even if he’s lagging behind the field.  Ask those who voted President Bush into a second term because of the then ongoing war in Iraq how well that theory worked for them.

There is no question in my mind that Mitt Romney is a lightweight in international affairs.  There is also no question in my mind that President Obama hasn’t bulked up very much on the subject either in his four years in office.  And lastly, there is no question in my mind that one of the brightest politicians on the planet, Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is perhaps in the best position to know, has thrown his support in favor of a Romney presidency.

That suggests that Israel’s arch-enemy, radical Islam would prefer President Obama for a second term and will do it’s best to see that he is re-elected, by whatever means they have at their disposal.

ROMNEY’S 47% COMMENT

It took less than a week for Team Obama to put together a commercial attacking Mitt Romney for “dismissing” 47% of the population who do not pay Federal Income Taxes.  They’re obviously on the job.

If you actually listen to Romney’s comments, (recorded surreptitiously by an Obama supporter) you will hear what Romney clearly said.  He didn’t “dismiss” this group as people.  He dismissed them as potential voters for his campaign.

In a campaign, no matter how large the numbers of dollars that are available for advertising, they are still limited and the intelligent candidate will want to commit them where they can do the most good.  Romney’s spending this money to try to gain a few votes from the 47% he referenced would probably have as much value as the manufacturer of the “Day After Pill” would receive from marketing its product on Catholic TV.

This is not a point that is lost on Team Obama – despite their moral indignation about Romney’s comment.   This is exactly their tactic as they spend their own advertising dollars.

If you try to find an ad for Obama on CNBC you will have to look long and hard.  They simply do not air there – or at least not frequently enough that I have seen any.  So is Obama “dismissing” the segment of the population that is CNBC’s potential audience?  Perhaps so.  The 53% who have worked hard, saved money and invested and who do pay Federal Income Taxes.  Well, it’s okay to write them off I suppose.  Clearly that is consistent with the President’s policies.

But I found my most telling example of how Obama deploys advertising dollars on one station in particular – TV Land.  This station features reruns of formerly successful sitcoms and offers some original programming as well such as, “The Soul Man” – a sitcom about a newly ordained black minister and billed by the station as “classic family comedy.”  In the ads  that run promoting the show, The Soul Man’s wife can be seen making the statement, “Lack of bootie makes you moody.”  I guess it doesn’t meet my definition of family comedy – but then I’m not watching it.

In the morning hours TV Land shows three classic comedies consecutively (which do meet my definition of family comedy).  They are, “Leave It To Beaver,” “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” and “I Love Lucy.”  They were written at a time when sitcoms were about white families (this is before black-Barbies were created) and, as is typical of the times depicted middle class, two parent families dealing with the business of life and raising their kids.  There were no hints of sex – in fact to conform to the custom of the times, these married couples’ bedrooms featured twin beds on which they slept.  And, of course, there was no obscenity used in the dialogue.

Now what is interesting is that I have rarely seen an Obama ad on any of these three shows – and I spent a week tracking these ads (which I will say are plentiful on this station) in part out of curiosity and in part so I would have material for this post.  My conclusion is that the President simply doesn’t consider middle class white families as part of the audience he hopes to draw to him on Election day.

As I mentioned, TV Land is deriving their fair share of Obama-tising dollars.  Last weekend they ran a “Roseanne” marathon.  Now I have to admit that I find that particular show terribly depressing.  Nevertheless, I had it on (muted) for over eight hours this past weekend just to do some ad tracking.  And here’s what I found.  Obama ads appeared an average of 8.3 times an hour during this marathon!

It’s obvious that team Obama considers the audience likely to watch “Roseanne” as being a part of his core constituency – the exact constituency that he criticized Romney for “dismissing.”  And I think that he is right – and in that correctness has, in fact, validated Romney’s statement.

Consider the characters in “Roseanne.”  You have a blue collar family trying to keep their heads above water despite the fact that both have low-paying jobs.  It’s an unfortunate hand to mouth existence for them and their three (later four) kids.  Both parents are morbidly obese which, according to the National Institutes of Health, is inevitably going to result in all sorts of medical conditions which will be paid for by the Medicaid that they are receiving on the show.  With their limited (high school diploma) education, there are few career paths open to them to improve their situation.  But the writers for the show snagged one – which I refer to as the Great American Dream – Roseanne, in a late episode wins a huge payout together with her sister by playing the lottery – thus escaping her life of poverty and dependence on government assistance.

Now you may ask, is the President playing to his audience?  Of course he is.  And it would seem like overkill to keep repeating advertising to an audience which already is 99% committed to him.  So why do it?

The answer is turnout.  This election will not be decided by who has the best message and the best economic plan; by who has the greatest insight into foreign policy; by who is most in touch with the people on social issues.  This election will be determined by how many of us get out and vote.

Interestingly, the Obama ads which appeared most frequently on “Roseanne” were ones which promoted fear. “Romney’s going to take away your benefits.” When people are dependent on the government for their meager existence you can be sure that will stir up some feelings. (That there is no truth in some of these statements is irrelevant to the issue).

By the way, the second most frequently-aired commercials during the “Roseanne” marathon were produced by makers of motorized chairs for people who had impaired mobility.  “We’ll work with your insurance and Social Security to get you your chair – at little or no cost to you,” goes the copy for one of these ads.

We all know – at least if we’re honest – that everything costs something.  So if these handicap-assistive chairs are free or at little cost to the recipient – who do you think is paying for them?  I guess it’s the 53% of the population to whom Romney has turned his attention and focus.

WHY JIMMY DURANTE COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT

Some of my younger readers may be unfamiliar with Jimmy Durante.  That is unfortunate as he was one of the more important comics and radio personalities of his era.  But beyond his professional career he was much more – a truly charitable and loving human being.

Durante was born in New York in 1893 and passed away in 1980.  He was the youngest of four children born to immigrant Italian parents and dropped out of school in the eighth grade to become a full-time ragtime pianist.

He was active in vaudeville and wrote a song which became his theme song, “Inka Dinka Doo.”  That, together with the nickname, “The Schnozolla” because of his oversized proboscis and his television signoff “Goodnight Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are,” (as he admitted years later, a tribute to his first wife who had passed away), were his signature trademarks.  As were his gravelly voice and unique punctuation of speech.  He was, during his time, an American icon.

Jimmy Durante never had children of his own, which was unfortunate since he loved kids so much.  But he found an outlet for this love by raising money for children who needed medical help or were abused.

A devout Roman Catholic, in 1958 on the Feast of the Assumption, he was presented with a three foot tall cup by the Al Bahr Shriners Temple.  The inscription read, “JIMMY DURANTE THE WORLD’S MOST FAMOUS COMEDIAN.  It’s bigger than your nose, but smaller than your heart.”

Durante was actively involved in raising money through the Fraternal Order of Eagles for “his kids”.  He regularly appeared at Eagles’ conventions and fundraisers, performing for free and refusing reimbursement for travel expenses.  When he made a plea for contributions, he would say, “It’s for da kids.”

So why would Jimmy Durante never had made it as a candidate for President of the United States?  If the current climate and thinking prevailed during his lifetime, his very acts of charity might have undermined his election to the White House.  Or so it appears to this writer based on the unfortunately irrelevant buzz over candidate Romney’s tax returns.

Let me be honest, I had hoped but didn’t expect, that this campaign would be about substance.  Well, my hopes might have been dashed but my expectations are intact.

So, since so many of the (very, very many) ads which camp Obama has been airing point to Mitt Romney’s tax returns as a reason that people should not vote for him, I thought it might be interesting to put this whole income tax business in perspective.

Implicit in the ads is the suggestion that by paying 14% of his income, there is something nefarious going on with Mr. Romney’s responsibility as a taxpaying citizen.  Of course, that is never said in the ads – but that is certainly the clear implication – at least to this viewer.

There is something definitely wrong with our tax code.  We’ve discussed this in numerous posts.  The President thinks we can “fix” it by raising the amount we charge upper income tax payers.  This is roughly the equivalent of trying to stem the catastrophe that befell New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina by having a few thousand people stand outside in the downpour, each of them holding a thimble to collect the waters.

The system is convoluted and unfair in many ways to many taxpayers.  It should be scrapped and something that is equitable and understandable should replace it.  Just think of the supernumeraries at the IRS whose jobs could be eliminated and the consequent reduction we would experience in bloated bureaucratic salaries – a great first step toward balancing a budget.  But that may be then and this is now.

As long as we have to deal with the framework of tax payments under the current law, let’s look at the reason that Mitt Romney pays at such a comparatively low rate.  Most of the discussions I’ve heard on this subject deal with his paying at lower capital gains rates, a form of income which holds a preferred status under the current law.  That is in part true.  And the reason that capital gains are so treated is that they represent a return on investment, a return on risk capital, the risk capital that catapulted America into the greatest economic dynamo on planet Earth.

But setting aside that economic argument, there is one other thing that “distorts” Mitt Romney’s income tax rate.  That is the amount of his charitable contributions.  By my math, if Romney chose not to give away a penny each year rather than the $3 Million or so that appears on his returns, his effective income tax rate would just about double to 28%.  But that would still leave him and his wife with well more than $2 Million in their pockets – even after paying taxes on this money.

When Jimmy Durante appeared without accepting any fees for entertaining during his fundraising events, he “Did it for da kids.”

While I don’t have any special insight into Mitt Romney’s mind, perhaps the reason that he and his wife are so generous is that it is for the pure and wholesome virtue of giving for the sake of giving.  Would that we had more citizens who were like-minded.

BILL CLINTON SPEAKS

As the second most elder statesman of the Democratic Party (Jimmy Carter holding the place of honor at the top), former President Bill Clinton has made an ad for President Obama.  I suspect that you might have seen it as it has been aired a great deal.

I will say that the ad is a substantial improvement over other ads of the Obama campaign.  There is no mention of Bain Capital (which Clinton told Obama to leave alone), no mention of Mitt Romney causing people’s death by denying them health insurance benefits, just a generally positive and, on the surface reasoned ad why the former President feels we should entrust our vote to giving the incumbent another four years in the White House.  At least that’s how it starts out.

The ad begins with Clinton saying, “To me this election about who is most likely to get us back to full employment.”  My ears perked up the first time I heard this opening line.  Had Clinton gone over to the Romney camp?

Well, that’s about as much as the former President has to say about why he supports an Obama second term until the end where he talks about “Obama’s plan – rebuilding America from the ground up and investing in education and innovation.”  For some reason, when I heard that line an image of Nuremberg, Germany after the British bombing came to mind.  In order to build it “from the ground up” you have first to destroy what is already there.

NurnbergBombDamage[1]

President Obama is well on his way to accomplishing the destructive part during his first term in office.  Perhaps President Clinton has more faith in his “plan”  to accomplish the second part if given another four years than the evidence would suggest.

The body of the ad contains an assertion that attacks, although more subtly than other Obama ads, Gov. Romney’s “plan” to ease the tax burden on the wealthy than is now the case and to do so at the expense of the middle class.  Of course, that statement is simply untruthful.

Governor Romney’s plan is merely to leave tax rates unchanged for ALL taxpayers.  Those rates, commonly known as the Bush tax cuts, have been extended several times by both Democrat and Republican majorities in Congress and signed into law.

The truth is that President Obama’s tax plan is merely to increase taxes on our wealthiest tax payers without any consequent reduction in taxes on the middle class or anyone else.  And as everyone knows, this is a great campaign point but it serves to accomplish nothing in terms of actually balancing the Federal budget.

If you were to confiscate 100% of the income of the wealthiest tax payers representing the top 10% of all personal income reported, it would be insufficient to balance the budget.  And even Obama hasn’t come up with that proposal – yet.

Additional tax revenues would help balance the budget.  A growing, rather than the stagnant Obomaconomy which we have had delivered to us by the man in the White House would naturally increase the amount of revenue the Federal government received – whatever the rate at which it would be taxed.

But at the same time, we have to make cuts to the money that we spend – deep cuts – in order to get back to a place of fiscal order and responsibility.  It amazes me that with every economist from the far left to the far right in agreement on this point, it seems to escape President Obama’s attention and the attention of Democrat legislators in general.

Sadly, government has a very bad habit.  No matter how much money it receives it finds a way to spend more.  That can work for awhile, but eventually you run out of people who are willing to lend you money.  Check out modern Greece for an example from current events.

I do appreciate the fact that this ad is, as I have said, more subtle in its attack approach than the previous efforts from team Obama.  The President has apparently come to the realization that as Dinesh D’Souza points out in his movie, “2016, Obama’s America,” that the greatest asset he has is that he is likeable and that people want to help him.

I’d like to help him too – by allowing him to find a new job for which he is better qualified.  The removal of his meandering and indecisive policies would be the biggest shot in the arm that America could receive.

Tag Cloud