The straw that breaks the elephants back?

President Obama taught Americans about demand side economics today in a speech designed to kick-start action in Congress and allow Republicans to show they are serious about John Boehner's so far empty slogan "...Republicans most important action is to create jobs, jobs, jobs."  His presentation was inspiring and showed his sincere concern for America's middle class as well as his understanding about real solutions to initiating economic prosperity for all Americans.

Specifically he spoke about and elaborated on the cornerstones of improving the economy.  These are:

1. Good Jobs with decent wages and benefits.  His efforts will be towards recognizing companies that keep jobs in America and treat their employees fairly.

2. Education programs to prepare children for global competition.  He spoke about the need for pre-school for all 4 year olds; improving school infrastructures; reversing the student loan rate increase and making college affordable for all Americans.

3. Home ownership.  He wants to encourage ownership based on solid foundation of fair and clear rules and asked Congress to take action to encourage families to refinance at low rates.

4. Secure retirement.  He believes America has an upside down system where the wealthy get generous tax exceptions to save but the lower classes do not get the same breaks.  He wants to allow the middle class to save money and belay fears of poverty in retirement.  He reminded Congress that passing immigration reform makes undocumented workers pay their taxes and shores up social security.

5. Health Care focus.  He wants Americans to have security in knowing neither accident nor illness will cause you to lose your savings.  The affordable care act means a better deal for people.  Private insurers will compete for your business.  Pre-existing conditions will have to be covered.  Health care costs are being driven down.  Some states are finding that premiums will  be 50% lower.  The Affordable care act ensures health insurance coverage for 26 year olds under their parents plan.  He does not know why Republicans want to repeal such a benefit for people.

6. Rebuild opportunity for those who have not made it.  The President believes that too many are still in poverty.  He recognizes that America does not guarantee success and people need to be self-reliant.  But he wants there to be a quality of opportunity and upward mobility available for everyone.  The American idea is that you can make it if you work hard, but opportunity is harder to find over the last 30 years.  We must do more to give every American the chance to make it to the middle class.
He wants to rebuild run down neighborhoods.  He again calls for raising the minimum wage.  He believes economic growth will benefit everyone when it comes from the middle class out and not top down.  Even without Congress he says he will do whatever is in his power to focus on that philosophy.  He is calling on the private sector to step up and for Democrats to redesign or get rid of non-workable programs.

7. Republicans must work with the President to find common ground.  President Obama thinks there are Republicans who privately agree with his policies in Congress now but they are afraid of retribution from their party.  He identifies Republicans in Congress as the greatest obstruction that hampers economic growth.  Republicans must now lay out their ideas.  He reminds them that you can't just be against something.  He insists they must be for something.  He is ready to work with Republicans if they have any ideas.  He says if Republicans have any better  ideas then they should stop taking ludicrous repeal votes and share their ideas with the country.  The President will not accept deals that do not meet the test of strengthening hard working families.

Still focused on the Republican obstruction in Congress,  the President says that doing nothing will lose a part of the character of America.  The American dream will be lost and the position of the middle class will erode further.  Money politics will destroy our country more.  Fundamental optimism will give way to cynicism.  He warns "that's not the vision of America we should settle for."

The President appeals to the moral compass of Republicans to stop the fighting in order to think about the American way of life.  Making America special is not to focus on making the few wealthy.  It's about making America benefit.  It's an American dream; not Obama's dream or Sally's dream or John's dream.

Unfortunately, demand side economics flies in the face of Congressional Republicans view of the

pathway for economic success.  According to Republicans since Ronald Reagan, supply side economics is the way to trickle down prosperity to the lower levels of society.  This means bolstering the wealthy with tax cuts and government money while reducing government spending on the public infrastructure and reducing government spending that benefits the weakest in society.

One must remember that Republican majority leader John Boehner assigned Paul Ryan to create their proposed budget.  Paul Ryan is a firm believer in Ayn Rand's anti-Christian policies of survival of the fittest.  As such his proposed budget slashes government programs that benefit the general public and the poorest in society in favor of tax cuts and government subsidy entitlements for the wealthiest Americans.  Even though Republicans will stand fervently united in their faith of supply side economics, economists have identified the undeniable fact that only the wealthy benefit from it.

From demand comes business profits.  Without demand, businesses will hold onto their cash reserves, remove jobs to be more in line with decreased demand and find cheaper ways to produce their products.

This is exactly what we have seen in the rush to manufacture in foreign countries, finding cheaper foreign workers, suppressing unions, hiring temporary and part-time workers instead of higher paid full time employees and keeping wages for Americans low.  Without demand, any business would not survive.  American workers who are the product consumers provide businesses with that demand.  Bolstering the working class would benefit businesses and improve the economy for everyone.

So will Republicans rally around President Obama's vision of economic prosperity?  My opinion is that they would rather ruin our economy by disallowing debt ceiling increases than changing this basic misunderstanding that they have about economics.

So what will the President's speech accomplish if our government is still obstructed by Republicans?  Perhaps I give more credit to the American voter than is due, but I believe this speech will setup the failure of Republicans in the 2014 mid-term elections.  Any thinking American voter will understand the concept and should be fed up with Republican obstruction.

This speech may be the straw that breaks the elephants back.

The real scandal isn't at the IRS

The IRS is tasked with the responsibility to review applications for tax exemption.  In what is known as the 501(c) process, organizations can apply for tax exemption by providing information which proves to the satisfaction of the IRS, that they are non-political, social welfare type organizations whose primary function is not to advance a political agenda.

The IRS has recently come under attack by Republicans in Congress who claim that the IRS over-stepped their authority when it came to reviewing tax exemption applications from Tea Party type organizations.  The outrage of Republicans is evident  in the chambers of Congress where Republicans led by Darrel Issa, chair of the special investigative committee, have sworn to get to the bottom of the connection of IRS wrong-doing with the White House and more importantly with President Obama.

Perhaps because Republicans are blinded by the rush that getting a chance to implicate the President of wrong-doing elicits, they are missing some of the important facts which could, and by all rights should, turn the tide of wrong-doing onto their constituents.

First, to even refer to an organization as a Republican group implicates them as being political.  This violates the meaning of a 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 and should not entitle them to tax exemption.  Even so, the IRS approved applications for many obviously Republican political groups such as the "Tea Party Patriots" the "American Patriots Against Government Excess", "National Tea Party Group" and "Tea Party Radio."  If you have any doubt that these organizations are primarily politically focused, all you have to do is go to their web sites to see it for yourself.

So why did the IRS approve these applications?  If they followed their own guidelines, they should have known that these organizations were primarily involved in politics.  So what did they base their  decisions on?  Despite what the right wing media and Republicans in Congress are attempting to convey, the IRS did not make their decisions based on the names representing these organizations.  They could not have, otherwise they would not have approved the applications.  They made their decisions based on the information that the organizations provided.  

It appears a safe bet that the information provided to the IRS by the applicants was insufficient to implicate the organizations as political action committees.  If this was done by the applicants to  intentionally mislead the IRS review, then it is a crime which is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.  That is the real scandal here.  These organizations might have knowingly hidden information from the IRS in order to get unfair and undeserved tax advantages.  That sounds familiar.  Where have we seen this before?  Oh yeah, Romney was pretty good at that.

Lindsey Graham

Now in a relentless pursuit to find something bad to pin on the President, Senator Lindsey Graham (R- SC) is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the entire IRS "scandal".  This could be the best thing that ever happened for the IRS and the worst thing for the Tea Party Patriots and their Republican leadership.

If a special prosecutor is called who is impartial, then I predict that the IRS and the President will be cleared of any wrong-doing.  Furthermore, some unhappy Tea Party organizations will be paying for their arrogance and deception when the real scandal is revealed.  Perhaps clearer Republican heads will prevail and convince Graham to drop the idea before the truth can be known.

That would be a pity.

Can we learn anything from Republican accusations about Benghazi?

Serious concerns or political posturing?

Like Mitt Romney before them, Republicans in Congress would like to turn the deaths of four Americans serving their country in Benghazi, Libya into fuel to burn the Democrats in the next election.

Despite the public statements of Darrell Issa that Republicans are not targeting President Obama or Hilary Clinton, the outrage of Republicans is aimed at the so-called "cover-up" which the Republicans claim that the Obama administration is pursuing and not in finding ways to prevent such a tragedy in the future.

Presented below is a brief description of the Benghazi incidents at the US diplomatic offices and the CIA annex.  Perhaps we can learn from this information to focus on prevention and escape the disgraceful accusations that Republicans are making for political gain, at least for a little while.  I have highlighted in red font any sections that we might learn from for later discussion.  

There were about seven Americans in the US diplomatic offices in Benghazi, Libya when 125 to 150  armed terrorists attacked the building on the evening of September 11, 2012 around 9:40PM local time.  That night four Americans would die.

A Diplomatic Security Service Agent sounded the alarm that an attack was underway.  DSS special agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management  officer, into a secure area.  Other agents left for another building to retrieve their weapons but could not return because of enemy gun fire.

Benghazi Consulate

The attackers entered the main building and set fires with gasoline.  The thick smoke made Stevens, Smith and Strickland move to a bathroom but the smoke made them decide to exit the safe area.  Strickland left through a window but Stevens and Smith did not follow.  Although Strickland returned several times he could not find them.  Strickland returned to the roof where he radioed for help.

Three agents returned to the building and found Smith's body but could not find Stevens.

The Regional Security Office placed calls for help to the CIA building in Benghazi and the embassy in Tripoli but the calls were cut off.  The Global Response Staff at the CIA office, led by Tyrone S. Woods, made a plan to mount a rescue operation into the Benghazi diplomatic compound.  By 10:05 PM they embarked on the rescue operation.

When arriving at the diplomatic offices, the rescue team found Sean Smith who was unconscious and later died.  They could not find Stevens and decided to return to the CIA annex with the survivors and Smith's body.  On the way back they were attacked by an armed force but were able to make it back.

Around 1:00  AM Ambassador Stevens was found by local citizens and taken to a hospital where he was administered CPR for about 90 minutes but died from smoke asphyxiation he incurred while trapped in the building.

After midnight, a second attack on the CIA annex began.  CIA defenses were able to withstand the attack until the early morning hours.  At that time Libyan government forces met up with seven American reinforcements from Tripoli at Benghazi airport.

Around 5:00AM the Libyans and American forces arrived at the CIA annex to deliver 32 American  survivors back to evacuate through Benghazi airport.  Minutes after arriving, they were met with heavy enemy fire.  They took up defensive positions.

With a lull in the gun fire, Glen Doherty began searching for his friend Tyrone Woods.  He found him manning an MK46 machine gun on the roof of the annex.  Minutes later Woods was hit by mortar fire and killed.  After retaking a new position Glen Doherty was killed by a second mortar explosion.  

The remaining survivors escaped serious injury although fired upon while leaving as they were being evacuated to the airport.

The CIA had successfully rescued six members of the State Department, evacuated about thirty Americans out of Benghazi and recovered Smith's body.

Some sensitive documents remained in the diplomatic offices.  Some listed the names of Libyans working with Americans and some relating to oil contracts.

Here are some quick and easy things I think I have learned from this.

Agents that might have helped Stevens and Smith left the building where Steven's was hiding in order to get their weapons which were stored in a separate building.  My learning:  US embassies and diplomatic buildings should have a mini-arsenal conveniently located in each building where personnel are located.

The attackers entered the building and set fires.  These fires were apparently not put out by any fire extinguishers or automatic sprinkler systems in the buildings.  My learning:  US Embassy and diplomatic buildings should all be built with fire sprinkler systems.

Stevens and Smith were overcome by smoke inhalation.  There were no respirators or air supply lines in the safe area.  My learning: American Embassy and Diplomatic building safe areas should all be stocked with respirators and self-contained oxygen supplying units as standard safety equipment.

Sensitive documents were left behind.  This may endanger some of the allies of America.  My learning: Sensitive documents should be scanned and stored on computer storage devices and then destroyed.  The storage devices should be stored in specially constructed file cabinets that can safely self destruct at the push of a button.

These things would all cost money, so the Republicans in Congress will probably block any such ideas as they did once already.  People should not forget that it was the Republicans who denied the State Department $300 million in order to beef up Embassy security around the world.  This should also be a lesson learned: Republicans in Congress are willing to put American heroes in harms way and then when the inevitable worst thing happens, they are the first to point fingers away from themselves.

Of course, there may be other lessons to be learned from the attack on the diplomatic buildings and CIA annex in Benghazi, but trying to place blame on the Obama administration for the attack or for a cover-up serves no good purpose for America.  But then Republicans have demonstrated over and over, that they are the party that stands for no good purpose.

Republicans have proven that they hate this President with all their thoughts, words and deeds.  They are willing to push this story for any damage it can do and will insist that there is a link directly to the President, even when the facts prove otherwise.

        

Sequestration: How has it affected you?

On March 1, 2013 Congress allowed the United States to fall victim to one-sided, across the board government spending cuts.  The sequester is one sided, because revenue is not an element.  It is across the board, because most government spending accounts will be cut back without consideration for the importance of the spending.

Ironically, Congressional salaries are unaffected by the cutbacks even though that element of government spending is assumably one that most of America would agree should be cut.

The effects that the sequester will have on American society and the economy has been varied depending on the source of the observation.

Democrats, including the President have expressed grave concerns that society and the economy will suffer as a result of the cuts.  Although the President has said  the economic effects will not be catastrophic, he issued concerns about a sluggish recovery and has pointed out that certain individuals will suffer as a result.  Being a President of all the people, he has concern for those who depend on the government for essential services.

Republicans, including House speaker Boehner, have essentially welcomed it and expect it will go a long way to reigning in the wild spending that the government has supposedly become accustomed to and which otherwise would have, in their opinion, ruined our economy.  Never mind that the facts prove otherwise.  Republicans have been planning the sequester in their arsenal of tools to eliminate government for a few years now.  A powerpoint slide prepared by John Boehner shows this was a Republican plan since 2011.

With Boehner being a leader of the Party that protects the assets of the rich, he expressed his demands in Congress that any substitute for the sequester would not include an increase in taxes or closing tax loop holes for the rich.  In my opinion, Republicans in Congress follow two philosophies that are essential to their existence; a "head in the sand" philosophy and an "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy.

Regardless of the opinions of others, I want to give you a chance to record the impact that the sequester has had on you.  For that reason I have created the poll at the top of the side-bar.

The poll questions are intended to be answered by American citizens, however citizens of other countries may respond if they believe the American sequester has an impact on them.

A few explanatory notes about the poll questions:

You can only select one answer, so please try to select the most accurate answer for your situation.

I used the term "essential" to describe government services, without which you are severely affected either physically, medically, psychologically, educationally or financially.

I used the term "nice to have" to describe government services, without which you suffer some form of minor inconvenience, such as waiting longer in TSA screening lines at the airport.

I realize that the effects of the sequester may become worse on particular individuals as time goes on, so if you have not voted, please feel free to take the poll at any future date.  You can see the results of the polling at any point in time by visiting any blog on my site.  I will record the results over time and report back on the time related results in a future blog.  In the past, blog polls have not received a lot of responses, but I encourage you to participate in this important research.

Thank you for your participation.

You can have my gun when you can pry it from my psychotic lunatic hand and cold dead heart...or something like that

Ever wonder what kind of person would make a statement like the one used to show the fervor which gun advocates mimic when they are faced with legitimate regulations that would make public gun ownership safer?  "You can have my gun when you can pry it from my cold dead hand."  The visual you get from the statement obviously explains that the spokesperson is willing to die without ever giving up his or her gun.

Of course it was an important member of the advertising committee of the National Rifle Association who got the phrase started.  From there, Charlton Heston, that great patriot and holy man of the movies, serving as the President of the National Rifle Association, uttered these words in rebellion to that terrible American government who obviously wanted to take away guns from ordinary citizens so that they (the government) could become a militaristic dictatorial monarchy.  A little deluded, don't you think?

Have you seen the lunatics like Alex Jones who have come out as a leader for gun advocacy on the Piers Morgan show?  How about James Yeager, the CEO of Tactical Response?  He is not just a gun advocate, he is also a civil war advocate and is willing and ready to start killing people as soon as the government does anything to reduce his access to guns. (Of course just yesterday he pulled a Mitt Romney and reversed his position by saying it was not the right time yet for such actions.)

In an effort to sell more guns, the NRA found a way to raise gun ownership to a level equal to patriotism.   In so doing, it gave a lot of people who could not, to that point in time explain their fascination with guns, a worthy reason for having them.  They are patriots.  Just like the founding fathers who created the second amendment.

Now don't get me wrong.  I don't think that all gun owners are psychotic lunatics.  Only those who think the United States Government, with all its checks and balances, it's constitution, being a government of, for and by the people, would ever consider of its own volition, turning into a militaristic dictatorial monarchy.

Reasonable gun owners exist everywhere and recent polling shows that a large majority of American citizens want some sort of gun controls legislated by the United States government.  So why does the Republican Party leadership appear to be as adamant as the lunatic gun owners in their statements against gun regulation?  Why does the Republican leadership do anything anymore?  Who knows?  I warned you about them in earlier blogs.  Rand Paul has recently come out against gun control, calling the administration a monarchy if they think they can control guns.  Another Republican accuses President Obama of exceeding his constitutional rights making him impeachable if he uses his Presidential power of Executive Order to initiate gun control.

Is the concern over the so-called entitlements of the second amendment so important that we should allow psychotic idiots guns?  Should we not require background checks on individuals who want to buy guns and ammo?  Do gun owners require automatic weapons used in the military for maximum kills?  Should we allow all guns to be sold to anyone?  It would seem to me that if the purpose of arming citizens is to protect them from their own government, then we should allow anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns to be sold.  Why not a nuclear bomb for every family so they can retaliate in case the government goes nuclear on its own citizens?  Perhaps the Republicans can legislate government subsidies to allow private wealthy persons to purchase their own air force.

And I say "so-called" entitlements because there is still confusion about the true meaning of the second amendment.   I believe an interpretation of the second amendment that does not extend individuals rights to guns.  The amendment as adopted by Congress states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Supreme Court Building

From the moment the 2nd Amendment was enacted until 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in a number of cases, that the 2nd Amendment did not protect individual gun ownership.  With the arrival of the NRA and conservative Supreme Court judges influenced by them, in 2008 the Supreme Court completely reversed their prior rulings in a case called District of Columbia v Heller.  So the current law of the land is that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual's gun rights.  I believe the modern Supreme Court of Antonin Scalia was wrong and I believe they were influenced by the campaigning of the NRA.

The first words of the Amendment's text "a well regulated militia" show the focus of the amendment's creators.  A militia is an organized group of armed individuals with a paramilitary purpose, intended to physically defend the people under their jurisdiction.  When our early fragile government was first created, there was concern that the Loyalists or some other group loyal to the King of England might rise up to take the country back for the British.  The second amendment creates the establishment of a militia to help prevent that from happening.  Since the subject of the second amendment is the militia, we can assume that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" stated in the latter part of the amendment is meant to define the right to such a militia and not individual gun ownership rights.  I believe that this was how the founding fathers intended it to be.  Only if every member of the citizenry was a member of the militia, could the second amendment imply that they would all have the right to guns.  I don't believe the creators thought that all members of the citizenry would be members of a militia.

Even if I am wrong or if the creators intended for the second amendment to grant individuals rights to guns, it leaves open how the states should regulate the whole process.  We still need to define who should be allowed to possess guns and which guns they should be allowed to possess.  So regulations of this type at least, should not be considered infringement.

The NRA represents weapons manufacturers.  Weapons manufacturers are large corporations that operate wholly on the profit motive.  As a general rule, corporate America strongly fights against anything that might affect their profits.  The deaths of innocent children might have been avoided if gun regulations had already been in place that prevented a lunatic from getting hold of a military type weapon.  Gun regulation will help.  Let's not make it necessary for others to die so that the weapons manufacturers can prosper.

Dems get high on "smokin" Joe Biden (and that's no malarky)

Vice President Biden

President Obama owes Joe Biden a debt of gratitude tonight because the Vice President's performance in the Vice Presidential debate is sure to widen the gap in the polls between the President and Romney with the President soaring high.

Vice President Biden was fierce.  He never allowed Ryan to make inaccurate claims either about Republican plans or Democratic policies.  He even broke into Ryan's monologue on numerous  questions to call him out on his inaccuracies.  Vice President Biden spelled out the differences between Republican and Democratic policies on every topic presented by the moderator.  Some of those where the differences between the two men were greatest is described below.

He was able to remind viewers of Romney's flip-flops.  He reminded them of Romney's malevolence with 47% of Americans and Ryan's discontent with 30% of them.  He pointed out Romney's outrageous behavior in using the attack on the US embassy in Libya for political gain.  He reminded viewers that Democrats are the guardians of medicare and social security and asked them the question "Who would you trust to protect those institutions...the party that introduced and protected it since its inception or the Party that has been fighting against it since the beginning?"

About Iran, Ryan indicated that the administration's position is weak and giving mixed signals when we supposedly separate ourselves from Israel and say that all options are on the table.  He implied that because of that, Iran was working faster to make a nuclear bomb.  The Vice President challenged Ryan's attack on the administration's policies, showing that the sanctions against Iran are working and supported by our allies across the world.  He gave confidence that the intelligence being supplied to the government about Iran's capabilities with nuclear weapons was accurate and that the United States would never let Iran develop a nuclear bomb.

About the economy, Ryan repeated the claims that the President has had enough time to solve the problems and has not kept his promises of 6% unemployment.  He mislead the conversation by saying that the jobless rate was going in the wrong direction despite the fact that the Obama administration has seen a constant and steady increase in employment since the President took office.  The recent news of the lowest unemployment rate since 2008 did not seem to make an impression on Ryan, or he didn't believe it.  He gave no specifics on how a Romney Presidency would improve the jobs situation other than the empty promise encapsulated in Romney's speeches about reducing the tax burden on the job creators.  Biden noted that if they (Republicans) were in favor of improving the economy perhaps they should not stand in the way of the American Jobs Act offered by President Obama or perhaps they should allow the middle class tax break to go through without holding it hostage to a tax break for the wealthiest of Americans.

Viewers never got to understand the details of Romney's tax plan and supposed elimination of tax loopholes because Ryan could not give any solid examples.  He only stated that they had a framework of 20% across the board tax cuts.  We never got to see the math.

On defense spending, Ryan went on about proposed cuts by the Democrats that would weaken the military.  Vice President Biden made it clear that the joint chiefs of staff do not want or need the kind of military budget that Romney is proposing.  Further he made it clear that the cuts in military spending and other government budgets are required now as the result of an agreement that the Republicans wanted if the super committee could not agree on budget deductions being worked on earlier this year.

In a modified view of abortion, Ryan indicated that Romney would be against abortion except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother.  These conditions were never part of Romney's recent policies and do not abide with the Republican platform.  Vice President Biden noted the change in policy and indicated that he agrees with the right to life on a personal level, but he would never impose his personal beliefs on others whose faith or beliefs may oppose his.  He reminded us that a Party's belief in that area should not violate existing laws or require the government to interfere with or control women's health issues. He added that a Romney Presidency would likely select Supreme court judges (two of whom may be retired during the next President's term) who would support Romney's view on abortion rights.  Romney has declared that he is going to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Roe v Wade during his Presidency.

"Smokin" Joe Biden did the job that Obama needed him to do.  The bounce in election polls is sure to follow.  Way to go Joe!

Before the VP debates: My assessment of how it will go

Remember the first Presidential debate?  President Obama was put into a state of shock by the abrupt policy changes Mitt Romney decided to take effect immediately as of that debate night.  The President failed to call Romney on these and because of that, led some uniformed voters to see Romney's enthusiastic lies as facts.  Even though the Republican Campaign Committee has taken much of what he said back, the President has paid for his failure to respond to Romney's claims by loss of support in the polls.

It appears that Romney's exaggerated policy changes were just another move in this "chess game" for  the Presidency.  Being so far behind in the polls and having had so much bad press about his actions, words and deeds in this campaign, my guess is that Romney's campaign decided that they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by lying to voters to soften Romney's conservative views and improve his appeal to undecided voters.  After all, you have to win the Presidency first before you can carry out your actual policies.

Ryan

Biden

Tonight Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan are debating each other.  I have to cite some of the differences that I think will make the first VP debate more honest and a better read of actual stances of the two contestants that voters can use to compare them.

Even though they are offensive to many voters, Paul Ryan believes that his policies are correct.  Having a somewhat slanted view of reality based on his faith in Ayn Rand's teachings, Ryan strongly believes in survival of the fittest.  Bill Clinton has aptly named this the "you're on your own" policy.  This belief system leads to such Ryan policies as removing the social safety net from the least fortunate Americans by cutting budgets for those services.  It leads to his desire to change social security into a privatized business.  It leads to Ryan's policies to reduce Medicare to a voucher system.  At the same time, Ayn Rands anti-Christian dog-eat-dog teachings taught Ryan that the most fit and powerful should receive the entitlements in society.  This leads to his policies of reducing taxes on the very rich without consideration for how the shortfall in tax revenue will be made up, even if it means that the less fortunate will pay or lose out for it.  Ryan will not run away from those beliefs.  Unlike President Obama's debate, there will be no surprises for Vice President Biden.

Ayn Rand

Vice President Biden will have an excellent opportunity to show middle class Americans that Ryan-Romney policies will hurt them.  I believe he will enthusiastically cite specific examples of their differences.   

Vice President Biden should reassure Americans that the Democratic Party is the Party of the middle- class while emphasizing that Republicans are the Party of the wealthy.   He should expose the Republicans' true stance on social issues, women's issues, tax plans, jobs plan and military spending and the effects those will have on people and on the deficit.  He should never let any of Ryan's debate  attacks stand un-returned.  If he can do those things he should revive the support of America back to President Obama.  

This debate means a lot and could turn the tide of popular opinion back to Obama.   Perhaps you don't agree but I believe President Obama should get a huge bounce in the polls because of Vice President Biden's victory this night.    

Obama loses 1st debate and the moral is never have a debate with a professional liar.

The man who recently told 47% of America that he can't worry about them because they are moochers on the government that he can never help, may have just won over some of those who are independent voters who he is hoping didn't take his earlier comments seriously.

Romney

Obama

Mitt Romney's personal performance on stage in Denver tonight during the first Presidential debate may have just saved his political career and made President Obama's fight to reclaim his office much more difficult.

The lack-luster performance of President Obama is sure to leave many of his supporters disappointed.  When I witnessed this, at first I thought that he was tired or ill or just didn't want to be at the debates this night.  Then I began to realize what may have actually happened that put him into what appeared to be a bad mood.

The first question was  about differences in economic policies.  President Obama answered honestly by explaining his idea was to build the economy from the middle-class out and not top-down.  He stated his views just as we have heard them over and over again during his campaign speeches.  He complained that Romney's tax plan to reduce top earners and corporate taxes as well as adding $2 trillion for military spending that the military did not ask for would increase the deficit and was not good for the economy.  He did not think it was good for the economy for government to give oil companies $2 Billion annual subsidies nor did he think that government tax credits for sending jobs overseas would help create jobs in America.  He favors eliminating the oil company subsidies and giving tax breaks for those companies that bring jobs back to America.

When the question was asked to Mitt Romney, his approach was to turn on the etch-a-sketch at full steam and change the policies that he has stated on the campaign trail and documented on his web-site.  Mitt is no longer for a top-down economic approach.  Now he is for a middle out approach that preserves middle-class tax cuts and does not reduce the tax burden of top earners.   He adds that he sees the economy improving by gaining energy independence, increasing free trade, giving workers skills training, balancing the budget and helping small business.

That's when I knew President Obama was going to have a difficult time during this debate.  When I realized he was arguing with a pathological liar.

A distinct advantage that Romney had going into this debate was that he was sure of what President Obama's policies were.  He could count on the President to state the facts as he always had.  Romney knew the President wouldn't lie.  Governor Romney knew his enemy, so to speak.

The President, on the other hand only thought that he knew what Romney would say.  Being a man of honor, President Obama was annoyed by the fact that Romney chose debate night to change his policies yet again, and you could see the disbelief in the President's face.  Now the President was in a bind.

The President reacted to Romney's lies in a gentlemanly yet impotent way. President Obama's facts were correct in each case, yet they did not hit the mark with the audience.  Even more troubling was the potential for uninformed voters to believe Romney's lies simply because he presented them more enthusiastically than the President's facts.

Romney's lies continued by claiming that President Obama was removing $716 Billion from Medicare and that he (Romney) would return that to Medicare by repealing ObamaCare.  He claimed that 15% of hospitals and 50% of Doctors would not treat patients on medicare because of the drastic cuts to it by Obama's policies.  He said that small businesses were dropping health-care for their employees because it was too expensive.  He indicated that small businesses reported to him that they are less likely to hire because of ObamaCare and that ObamaCare would add $2500 to the expenses of the average American's health care costs.  He shook his etch-a-sketch to say that under his replacement for ObamaCare a person could take government insurance if it was cheaper.  That he would allow young adult children to remain on their parent's policy.  That he would allow insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.  He lied about ObamaCare saying that it requires a board of health experts to determine what kind of individual care a person could get.

President Obama rejected all of these ideas but with much less enthusiasm than Romney had in presenting the lies.  This may have made the President appear to be less confident than Romney, even though he was being truthful and correct.

Dodd-Frank Act

Romney even said some things that have been widely unpopular with voters, but he said them with such enthusiasm, he may have made some people think that this hard medicine was needed to get our economy back in order.  For example, he admitted that anyone under 60 years old would be subject to his voucher insurance program that would go into effect when they would have otherwise received Medicare insurance.  He was in favor of repealing the Dodd-Frank bill that put controls on the banking industry and Wall Street brokers as a result of our financial meltdown.  But even with that he shook his etch-a-sketch and said he would only repeal parts of the bill that he didn't like.  (This is in spite of his own website calling for complete repeal of all Obama era legislation.)  He admitted that he would repeal ObamaCare, and right after that discontinue government support to the Arts and Humanities and PBS.  Good-bye Sesame Street.

Big Bird of Sesame St. fame

Given a chance to describe how they would work across partisan lines, President Obama told of only the positive interactions that he had with Congress (of which there were a lot) and decided not to implicate the Republican obstructionists for the legislation they have blocked.  Mentioning this may have worked against him and since this was not Romney's fault, I think he made a wise choice.  

On the same question, Romney may have gained points by saying that when he was sworn in as Governor of Massachusetts he had a mostly Democratic legislature and that he learned early on how to work along bi-partisan lines.

Overall, Romney attacked more, appeared more enthusiastic and appeared more prepared.  It was Romney's etch-a-sketch moments that appears to have really caught President Obama off-guard though.  The President just doesn't seem to know how to react to a flim-flam man and showing disgust seems to be how he handled it.  Unfortunately for him and for Obama supporters everywhere, this may ultimately be how he lost this debate.

An approval rating meter was displayed on the TV screen so that we could judge how Independent voters in the audience were reacting to each of the men.  That was interesting to watch, but a suggestion for the next debates which may have more significance to viewers would be to have the two men wear lie-detectors.

Fed promises unlimited mortgage security purchases...should we be worried?

Ben Bernanke

The Federal Reserve Board today, indicated that in attempts to restore jobs to the economy, they will be purchasing upwards of $40 Billion per month in mortgage securities.  Should we be worried?

While it seems that the short term goal of reducing interest rates for banks and business will most probably work, is the longer term goal of increasing jobs going to be guaranteed from this strategy?  I seriously doubt it.  And here's why.

If you follow the demand side theories of job creation, then you would expect increase in demand to be the major factor in creating new jobs.  This demand theory is supported by President Obama.  Consumers are the source of new demand for business.  Consumer spending is dictated by the amount of cash available to them after necessities spending.  The primary source of this cash for most middle-class workers is take-home pay from a job.

If you follow supply side theories of job creation, then you would expect anything that reduces the expenditures of business should automatically allow them to spend on new hiring.  The new demand part of the equation is not really important in this theory.

While some middle-class workers have 401K's the increase in the value of these accounts due to the Fed's actions will not give them any immediate spending capacity since the cash in the 401K can only be accessed after retirement without significant financial penalties.

Those elderly retired persons who have 401K's may see some immediate benefit to their cash available, but these people are already retired and are not looking for jobs.  It is also doubtful that this extra cash would be a new source of demand for businesses as most retirees would probably need the extra cash for necessities and not luxury items.

It does not appear that the Feds actions today will do anything to help spur significant new demand.  So the only hope of creating new jobs would be based on the Feds belief in supply-side economics.

The main recipients of the benefit of reduced interest rates and increased stock market prices are wealthy investors, banks and businesses.

One might think that with this cash, business will be motivated to grow and at the same time hire.  But we know that most US Corporations are already sitting on the largest cash reserves they have had in decades.  They are not using these funds to grow or hire, although some are buying up competitors businesses and consolidating the workforce by layoffs of excess personnel.  This is the reverse of what the Fed is shooting for.

We also know from the history of Corporate America for the last 30 years or so, supply side economics does not work for creating new jobs.  When American Corporations were allowed to have significant tax breaks, American jobs were not increased, they were actually decreased.  Over the last twelve years or so, we have lost close to ten million American jobs to outsourcing to foreign countries.

One hope for creating new jobs using supply-side arguments is new small business start-ups.  With low interest loans, new small business start-ups might increase, but with interest rates already extremely low, and small business start-ups not currently saving our economy or producing significant jobs, this option does not look promising.

The Feds approach to creating new jobs supports supply-side economics and from my observations at least, has little chance of creating new jobs.  Millionaires and billionaires will be happy with their new cash inflow, but are very unlikely to use the opportunity to hire without demand requiring it.

In order for jobs to be created, we also need a significant increase in demand across all industries.  If new technologies or new products are not being developed, then we need to support the middle-class with increased wages, federally funded jobs, returning jobs to America and other work supports to give them the ability to increase demand until government and business research brings new products to market.

President Obama's American Jobs Act meets all of these requirements.  We need the Republican Congress to stop filibustering the Act and do the job that Americans want them to do.  They need to approve the American Jobs Act.  We Americans need to re-elect President Obama.

Time for Republicans to put up or shut up on jobs, jobs, jobs

One year ago today, on September 8, 2011, President Obama submitted to Congress his American Jobs Act.  The bill is intended to facilitate the economic recovery in a number of ways.  It was supported by over 62% of Americans at the time.  Economists supported the Act, saying that it would prevent recession in 2012, increase GDP by 2% and return two million workers to the work force.

However, in the midst of the economic crisis, the bill got no support from Republican Congressmen, was filibustered and died.  The obstructionists were very proud of themselves for voting against this bill and the economic recovery act as well.  A true back-handed lesson to all of us if we think that Republicans in Congress want to represent the middle class as they claim.

Well, President Obama is going to give them another chance to put up or shut up about jobs and helping the middle class.

On the Campaign trail, one day after the Democratic Convention, President Obama is again asking Congress to fulfill their common goal of improving the economy in what has so far been an empty Republican pledge to work on "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" by approving the American Jobs Act.

The highlights of the American Jobs Act are:

1. TAX CUTS TO HELP AMERICA’S SMALL BUSINESSES HIRE AND GROW

• Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.
• A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).
• Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment. 
• Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

2. PUTTING WORKERS BACK ON THE JOB WHILE REBUILDING AND MODERNIZING AMERICA

• A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.
  
• Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
  
• Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet- ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
  
• Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.
  
• A New “Project Rebuild”, which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations.
• Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation’s spectrum.    

3. PATHWAYS BACK TO WORK FOR AMERICANS LOOKING FOR JOBS

• The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years: As part of an extension of unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President’s plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility to use UI funds to best support job-seekers, including:

             › Work-Sharing: UI for workers whose employers choose work-sharing over layoffs.
             › A new “Bridge to Work” program: The plan builds on and improves innovative state programs where those displaced take temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job training.
             › Innovative entrepreneurship and wage insurance programs: 
States will also be empowered to implement wage insurance to help reemploy older workers and programs that make it easier for unemployed workers to start their own businesses.

• A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers. 
• Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
  
• Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

4. TAX RELIEF FOR EVERY AMERICAN WORKER AND FAMILY

• Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.
  
• Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket.

5. FULLY PAID FOR AS PART OF THE PRESIDENT’S LONG-TERM DEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN.

• To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. 

Below is the original presentation to Congress on September 8, 2011.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/2011/September/090811_AmericanJobsAct_Enhanced_HD.mp4


 

Republican optimism is so refreshing it's like drinking soured milk

Mean old white men taking their football and walking off the playing field.  That's how I'm seeing the Republican Party lately.  It doesn't matter to them that the economy is in the dumps and that the American people who they are sworn to represent are suffering.  They will obstruct progress on economic improvement by simply refusing to play.

Many authors have written about this do-nothing Congress that we have been saddled with during this administration's term but writing about it doesn't help.  President Obama, in giving them the benefit of the doubt said that he believed Republican obstruction would end if he were re-elected.  His reasoning included the assumption that there would be no longer any reason to block legislation in his last term because there would be nothing for the Republicans to gain by it.  Now the Republicans, by way of Mitch McConnell have said they won't cooperate with Obama even if he wins the upcoming election.

America should be outraged.  Once again they are throwing America out the window for their own selfish reasons.  This Party does not represent you America.  They are a bunch of angry old white men who think that they are above the Americans they represent.  How many of you voted for your Republican leaders so that they could do nothing but obstruct progress and prevent resolution of problems?  These fools say that if a coach doesn't have any wins in three years, you'd boot him out.  So it follows that if the players all sat down on the playing field during every game in spite of their coach, you should be looking for better players.  

These worthless idiots are showing you how little they care about you.  They are all nice and cozy with their high paying government sponsored jobs with terrific insurance plans and excellent retirement plans.  They are already taken care of.  They do not care about you.

Republican leaders have proven that they are liars.  They have proven that they are obstructionists.  They have proven that they do not represent you.  What are they still doing in office?  

Your vote is the key.  Don't waste it.  Vote Democratic in all elections and let's get this country back on the right path.

Stark comparison between RNC and DNC conventions

The first day of the Democratic convention was inspiring.  It was a stark contrast to the first night of the Republican Convention.  Unlike the Republicans, the Democratic speakers were excellent.  The messages were right on.  And no one lied.

If you recall, the Republicans used that first Convention night to allow their Republican Governors to boast about the great job they had done in their states.  None of them really had much to say about Romney and seemed to be selling their Party instead of their Presidential candidate.  Each of them were sure to continue the lies about Obama's out of context words, his supposed $716 Billion medicare theft and their belief that he is taking the work requirement out of welfare.  One was left with the impression that Republicans are pessimistic, boastful liars.

This night the Democrats showed they are the intelligent, honest and in-touch Party.  Each speaker had positive messages and all focused on the capabilities, experience and accomplishments of President  Barack Obama.

They personalized Obama-Care, showing how much it meant to a real person whose child needed multiple operations on her heart.  The operations were so expensive that at six months old, the child would have used nearly half of her lifetime insurance cap if it weren't for Obama-Care eliminating the lifetime cap limitation.  With another heart operation due in the months after the election she worried because if Romney repealed Obama-Care, she didn't know what she would do.

Democrats fought back against the lies that the Republicans have been telling and attacked Romney's business affairs for having off-shore accounts, not investing in America and for not being transparent with his taxes.

All of the speakers did an excellent job. Two in particular were especially inspiring.  

Deval Patrick has been the Governor of Massachusetts since Mitt Romney left the office.  Patrick brought out the failures of Mitt Romney as a Governor of his state and energized the base with emotionally charged language that supported President Obama and emphasized his accomplishments.  It was the most powerful speech of the night.

President and daughters watching convention

Michele Obama gave a very touching explanation of her history and life with President Obama.  Her story showed the close connection that she and President Obama have with the middle-class.  She explained how his life experiences are what motivate him to help the middle-class.  You could see from the audience reaction that she really had an emotional connection with them.

Judging from this first night, the Democratic Convention should give President Obama a big boost in the public opinion polls.  I think I just witnessed the beginning of the end of Mitt Romney's political career.

If Romney's speech is all it takes to convince America that he should be President, then America isn't listening

After three days of self indulgent speeches by Republican Governors and repeated lies about the out of context words 'you didn't build that' and false statements about Obama's hidden agenda to screw the elderly by stealing from medicare,  I was actually looking forward to Romney's speech.  I wanted to hear for myself how this potential President of the United States would explain how he plans to make things better for the people of this great country.

But, if you're someone who is not easily impressed, a thinker, or use to dealing with facts, then you were probably disappointed by Romney's address to the Republican National Convention.

After getting by all the fakery about being concerned that Obama was unsuccessful and that America deserved better, Romney started getting into the complaints about the current administration.

Romney's explanation of Obama's failure is based on the fact that he does not have business experience.  It may seem reasonable to ordinary Americans that a CEO would be a good person to fix our struggling economy, but is this necessarily true?

The most important thing driving the actions of a Corporate businessman like Romney is to make a profit through the sale of goods or services.  A government not only does not sell goods or services, it also does not have a profit motive.  A government is driven by concern for all members of it citizenry.  Sometimes that concern is in the form of social programs to help Americans through times of hardship.  Sometimes it means building an infrastructure of roads, bridges and technology that benefit society and provide citizens and businesses a means to accomplish more.  In Corporate America, times of economic difficulty usually mean that a Corporate CEO takes actions to reduce those elements of cost that he believes are not indispensable.  Interpreting this into a CEO-President Romney terms, this means cutting those social programs that the government provides.  As expected Romney was short on explanations of how his business experience at Bain Capital would help him be a better President than Obama.  How much he believes the importance of business experience may have been exposed today when he mis-spoke and called America a "Company" instead of a "Country."

Romney dismisses the idea that the economic problems we have been experiencing were the result of the Bush Presidency.  He simply states that Obama should just accept the blame for it because he hasn't gotten us out of it yet.  This is as anti-intellectual as stating that the person sent in to help fix a mess confess that he created the mess because he wasn't done cleaning up yet.  People have to realize that the  recession we are in is the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.  That disaster took nearly fifteen years to get resolved.  Instead, Romney would return to Bush era practices that caused our present economic situation.  Additionally, Romney would not mention that there are many signs that the economy is improving and has been since Obama came into office.  Obama's policies are working despite all the obstruction that Republicans in Congress have caused in order to prevent him from being successful.  As they have stated themselves, Republicans in Congress had a most important objective to obstruct everything Obama proposed in order to make him appear to be impotent and unsuccessful.  They did this in the midst of the economic disaster and they did it to the detriment of the American people they are sworn to represent.

Jobs under Bush (red) vs Obama (blue)

Romney claims that Obama crushed the middle class because there are no jobs.  He does not admit that since Obama has been in office new jobs have shifted their negative trend from the Bush era and have been on a constant increasing trend.

Romney says that Obama hates small business and intends to increase taxes on small business.  He does not admit that Obama has only reduced taxes on small business since he has been in office.  Obama's newest proposal for taxes does not increase tax on small business.  Government programs such as the Small Business Administration are strong and helping small businessmen and women everyday.

In his speech Romney continues the lie about Obama stealing 716 Billion dollars from medicare to fund Obama-Care.  I hope everyone knows that this lie which has been disproved by numerous independent sources will not become true simply because the Republican leadership re-states it over and over again.

His speech took on a very militaristic character at one point.  I thought for sure he was against cutting the military budget because he has plans to start a war with Iran if he was elected.

Romney concluded his speech with promises to the American people.  Romney gave no detailed explanation of how these promises will be accomplished so I guess he just wants us to trust him.  He promised:

1. Twelve million new jobs.  It has been estimated that we are currently on a path to accomplish this without any new Romney actions within four years, so I guess this one is possible, but still an empty promise.

2. Energy independence by 2020. This claim is made even though Romney is critical of Obama's interest in  funding research on new forms of energy.  Romney has signed onto the Oil and Coal coalition as well, so I guess he intends to drill and dig more in America.  We have been told many times by the oil companies when they increase gas prices, that oil is in limited supply.  So over the long term how does Romney expect to become energy independent?

3. Create new trade agreements and punish any country that cheats.  Which countries and how punishment would be carried out was left to our imagination.

4. Assure that the "job creators" investments won't vanish.  Romney will also cut the deficit and balance the budget.  None of this is explained, but protecting the wealthy  investors sounds like tax law reform and Wall Street regulation is not high on Romney's agenda.

5. Reduce taxes on business.  I guess this is to support the job creator lie or maybe to give more credence to the possibility that the job creators really will turn away from American workers as an effective threat against having their taxes raised.

6. Repeal (and now replace) Obama-Care.  I can't believe Romney thinks taking health insurance away from the American people will be seen as a good thing to anyone except die-hard (and healthy) Republicans.  Again Romney gives no explanation on any of this.

In concluding his speech, Romney's additional unexplained rhetoric included statements that seemed intended as a band-aid to cover what has recently become controversial about Republicans.  He vows to care for the sick, statements apparently made to soften the view that he intends to repeal Obama-Care.  He claims that he will respect the elderly, seemingly trying to change the popular view that Republicans like he and Ryan have plans to change Medicare into a voucher program.

Empty promises claiming certainty of success may sound good but without details give us no factual information to evaluate whether they will ever be achievable.  I guess we'll need to listen closely to Romney's explanations if they exist in future appearances.

I'm so looking forward to the Presidential debates in October.  Perhaps by then Romney will have better explanations for his promises.  If not, President Obama will walk all over him.

Romney's head will be spinning and he'll probably have to admit that his Party really was not only responsible for the current  economic disaster, but also responsible for blocking  progress on resolving it.