Ryan Romney Obama POTUS - The dots.

As I sit at my desk this morning, I believe I understand the basic problem.

America is not a democracy, it is a republic.

In democracy, everyone votes and the majority rules. However, our founders saw the distinct possibility that in a genuine democracy, the majority might stomp on the rights of the minority, so they created a republic. In a republic, people vote and rely on its elected representatives to do the right thing for the majority and for the minority. The elected representatives are charged with the responsibility to examine and understand the issues and vote according to their own conscience, in our stead.

But then what is the problem? The POTUS race resembles more of a democratic voting structure than a republic voting structure. Although it is possible to be elected president with less than a majority vote because of the electoral college, it is unlikely. The problem is that 99% of  Americans can not grasp the complex details of the issues. Who can? That is the basic argument for  a republic. The elected officials are elected to understand the complex issues.

For example, Congressman Ryan has studied the budget for many years. He is a subject matter expert. We are not. The rest of us, including many of our elected officials,  are pure neophytes. Many Americans can not understand their bank statements much less a trillion dollar federal budget that requires several thousand page reports just to enumerate all the budget items. The point is the issues are complex and astute Americans can not even agree on the facts. Do lower taxes create jobs or not? As a result we have many unsupported, but honest opinions that create insurmountable honest disagreements.

What is left?

A POTUS vote based on appearance, advertising, oratory, facade and allegations.

I do not know the answer. Do you?

Ryan is the oval office ticket.

Pending an unvetted closet skeleton, Romney made a wise choice.

Ryan, a young but seasoned congressman from Wisconsin, was recommended for VP, as if anyone cares, in this blog several months ago. Ryan is an articulate analyst and a budget expert. Between Romney, Ryan, Obama and Biden, Ryan knows the details of the budget better than anyone on the ticket. In a debate, Ryan will wipe the smile off of Biden's face with a factual towel.  Ryan, for me, is a person with the subject knowledge to make genuine recommendations for change and Romney may be just the person to sell them.

Romney picked a VP who is a genuine addition to his campaign and not a subtraction. Further, Ryan is 42, a physical exercise fanatic so they say, and he will appeal to the younger crowd, which Obama did 4 years ago when he was 46.

Recently, Wisconsin, a liberal stronghold, showed signs of righteous intelligence when voters failed to oust the republican governor who stepped on the unions feet with a dose of economic realty. As I understand it, the wealthy Kansas Koch brothers contributed significantly to the republican side of the Wisconsin issue. No doubt their support will follow Ryan.

As a sidebar, I did know the president of a manufacturing company in Kansas that Bain/Romney brought in to wind down that Bain investment. He did tell me as I recall, the investors, of which he was one, made a wheelbarrow full of money. When that business was shut down, he moved to California to the next target. As I visited with him at his home 16 years ago, I did not know that that steel business would be the subject of Obama TV ads much later.

I any event, I do not know Obama, Biden, Romney or Ryan. What I know is based on what I read that others have written, which makes any original opinion of mine less than unique. Despite this lack of original research, I still conclude that Romney may now give Obama a real run for the oval office. And the TV debates now seem even more attractive for the Fall reality season.

Hello Romney- A Big Idea.

Hello Romney--Another big Idea.

Give student loans the same interest rate that the banks borrow at.  Certainly education of our young people is an investment in America's future and their interest rate should be as low as the bank's get. Shouldn't they?

The Obama administration is extracting a toll on students, America's future, that is obscene. While banks borrow money at 1% or less, they loan it to students at 7% or more not counting loan initiation fees of  up to 4%.

With college tuition approaching tens of thousands of dollars per year, student loans are more common than ever before. In medical schools, student loans are essential. What better way to encourage science and health care is there, than to allow students to borrow money for education - interest free. It is certainly as worthwhile an objective as bailing out banks, the automotive companies and AIG.

Let's bail out the students with interest free loans. Or at least, Mr. POTUS candidates, make the interest tax deductible. Come on POTUS candidates. Let's kick start  education with interest free loans.

Spread this message. Maybe Romney will get it.

Romney's Big Idea

Romney is teasing us by saying, he has a big idea that will turn on America again. He has his finger on the switch.


He is not discussing the idea and has given few hints about what it is. I did read one report that said he claimed it will create 10 million jobs in the first year. Hopefully, he means 10 million jobs for Americans in America.


I am all for the big idea and believe it is what America needs. I have gone on record that my suggestion for the Romney big idea is "Cure cancer by 2020." There are many other big ideas that are a combination of private sector and public sector initiatives. I do hope that Romney's idea is not something that will require a debate and passage by congress. If that is the case, it will most likely remain an idea and not a reality.


What your big idea suggestion is for Romney? 

While we are waiting.

While we are waiting for the Obama v Romney real battle to begin, I thought I would share with you a few great sites that are worth taking a look at. They were passed to me by the leader of the Mac User Club in Palm Desert, California.

This amazing website that will give you 360º photo tours of many of the world’s most amazing sites. Click on the site that is of interest to you, then click on the larger image in center of screen. Soon the view loads and you can use your mouse to peruse the entire 360º. Totally awesome!! Here is the link: http://www.airpano.com/List-Aerial-Panoramas.php

And someone passed along this video of some old time favorite clowns. This is just a joy to watch and remember and I thought you would all enjoy this little review of times gone by: http://www.yourememberthat.com/media/10939/Send_In_The_Clowns/#.UBmxgjH3tmY

Lastly, I received this site from a friend and think it is well worth passing along to all of you as it may save a life. It essentially asks if you would know what to do in the case of a sudden cardiac arrest and the use of the AED that is now in many public places. Please watch this video and pass it along to your friends and family: http://www.heartrescuenow.com/

Not economics, but still a good story.

I had an epiphany last night. I watched a Michael Caine movie, Flawless. The story is about a destitute old janitor who outsmarts the evil, wealthy London diamond merchants, who were responsible for his wife's death. He extracted $100 million from them in a most ingenious scheme. The writer piqued my interest because I was as puzzled as anyone in the story as to how Caine had done it. I watched to discover the answer while the characters teased me with suspense.

The scheme, while plausible, was likely impossible, but so what, I was rooting for the characters. Caine gave all the money to his reluctant young female accomplice, who spent the rest of her life giving the money away to worthy causes. At the end of the movie, I smiled to myself and let out a modest scream, "Now that was a great story." The epiphany came then.

I realized something about myself and my own dreams.

I write. Ergo, I am a writer.

I struggle to transport a reader on a journey to a distant place with words. A place that exists once a upon a time in a far away land where the reader's current problems remain far behind. A safe haven if only for a few hours.  A place created by  fascinating characters who follow their own dreams to a place we wish we could go. A place where good is victorious. A place where the the underdog struggles against formidable adversaries and eventually conquers the overdog. A place where principle trumps money. A place where moral principles flourish and guide our characters along a winding road densely populated with life's temptations.

I was transported to such a place last night. And it occurred to me at the end of my short journey that I write to create just such a journey for my readers. I have not done that yet to the extent I wish. I have work to do.

It also occurred to me that all writers must eventually reach the same conclusion I did. I now know that I write to take a reader on a similar journey to a far away place in a far away land. A place where the reader smiles to themselves, and can not resist exclaiming out loud, "That was a great story, " and wants to visit again."

That's a writer's dream.

I am a writer.

The POTUS battle is about to start.

In a short time, the battle for the American presidency will truly begin. Up until now, the war has been merely surgically applied, scouting skirmishes that pierce, poke and prod at each other's defenses in an effort to identify weak areas for later exploitation. Despite these probes, no real sustainable weak areas have been found in each candidate.

The strongest offensive blows, though delivered passionately and articulately by partisan pundits, seem only glancing and fade away with an equally persuasive defensive barrage. The defenses on both political sides are remarkably extraordinary, which reflects the experience of the staff that works on these ramparts for both the republicans and the democrats.

Romney's international trip is another skirmish. It is more facade than practical. I, for one, do not care about his critical comments about the London Olympics, or the fact that he softened them in a later meeting with David Cameron. The Bain capital saga is a non-issue too. The economy will not sit still in one direction long enough for either side to make a favorable case. If there is a shoe to drop, it is a well kept secret.

Like most American voters, I am waiting for the substance discussion to begin. Aren't you?

I hope I am not disappointed. Again.

You did not build that.

It is genuinely disappointing to me that with all the important issues to address, Romney must attack Obama for making the infamous, "You did not build that" remark. The inference the repubs like to make is OBama is discrediting people who alleging build businesses on their own. Obama is not stupid so we all know that is not what he meant; and Romney is not stupid, but he acts stupid when he asserts that Obama meant something Romney knows Obama did not. And it is insulting to Americans that repub's believe that repetition will take the remark out of context into an unintended meaning.

Steve Jobs would be the first to admit he did not build Apple computer by himself. He had Wozniak and a host of other genius designers and experienced executives around the world.   Obama is not alone when he recognizes that entrepreneurs have a host of other institutional support such as the constitution, which sets the stage for the protection of intellectual property, to a legal system that enforces laws, to an SBA that makes $millions of small business loans to help entrepreneurs get started and to a society that enables freedom for an entrepreneur to act on vision and create innovation. And do not forget the venture capitalist who kick in the start-up capital. Romney from his Bain days, knows this better than anyone, because often the Venture Capitalists, like Bain Capital, take partial credit for business success because they supplied the risk capital. No entrepreneur is an island.

Obama will have to answer for his comment in the context of which it was spoken. And he will during the debates.  It will be a non-issue. A phrase, that is taken out of context and proffered by the repubs as a defining statement of Obama's beliefs in American entrepreneurs, is  an extraordinary waste of repub's time.  Even with $30 million of repub's silly high gloss video TV ads claiming Obama does not understand business, it just won't resonate.

If the repubs wish to bring down an elephant, they need to bring more weapons than a BB gun phrase that can easily be deflected. The repubs have numerous weapons to fire at serious economic issues, not at trivial targets of token comments by Obama, reckless as they may be. Americans deserve a conversation on the issues not soundbites on isolated Obama comments.

Ron Paul is the only non-candidate that still speaks with common sense. If he is on the ballot, I may vote for him out of allegiance to my own personal beliefs.

Obama. LIBOR. Bernanke. Geithner. Romney. POTUS.

Romney may be delighted with the LIBOR scandal. It may just be the weapon he needs to finally destroy the seemingly impenetrable, but clearly worn-thin, shield of trust that protects Obama. Even the true believers may have their Obama dogma shattered by the unfolding of LIBOR, Geithner and the Banks. Let me explain it this way. 

LIBOR is the interest rate that banks charge each other for lending to each other.  It is set daily by a panel of 18 banks. It is supposed to represent each of the 18 banks cost of borrowing. But it is based on "estimates" not "actual" borrowing costs. Banks want to keep it low. Why?

Because LIBOR is also related to the interest rate that banks pay to bondholders and to investors in savings accounts. A low LIBOR rate means that a bank pays less to savers and to bond holders. In other words, a low LIBOR rate benefits banks. It makes sense therefore that banks, being frail and human, would want to set low LIBOR rates. The  evil snake, in the tree, is that the banks set the LIBOR rates based on what they "say" they are charging each other for loans, not what they are "actually" charging. For example; if Barclays bank was actually paying 8% to borrow money, it would not want other banks to know about it so they might report a borrowing cost of only 2%, which makes them look financially healthier than they actually are. However, when the LIBOR rates are set deliberately low, big investors and big bond holders receive less interest.  Ergo, they complain in the courts and the LIBOR scandal unfolds.

But wait. Are there not some benefits to low LIBOR rates? Yes, some mortgage holders with adjustable rate loans pay less interest to the banks because the lower the LIBOR rate the lower the interest payment they pay. Correct, but the Shakespearean rub rears its intransigent head and rubs the banks the wrong way again. Why? Because the people who lost money on the low LIBOR rates can sue the banks, and other "proximity entities," for fraud and likely recover some of their losses. However, the banks can not recover any funds from anyone that gained. As a result, the practice of reporting low LIBOR rates for their own benefit is a Pyrrhic victory for the banks.

Romney wins on this scandal because it appears that both Bernanke and Obama's Treasury Secretary Geithner may have been proximity entities. Most of us do not know what LIBOR even means, but the TV commentators. and PACs will explain this definition until we all know it by heart.  

Remember, before you apply the lash, follow the cash.

Keep me alive. 

Robert Reich and David Brooks Opine Without support.

I read the editorial opinions at the back of the newspaper. Do you?

If you do, then you are no doubt as disappointed as I am. The writing is wonderful and the editorialists, such as Robert Reich or David Brooks can turn a clever phrase like a well designed race car gracefully turns a sharply banked curve. But when the phrase turning is over, the editorials lack evidence to support the opining. For example, recently I read, studied if you will, editorials by Reich and Brooks.

Reich first. His title was " More evidence we must break up big banks." I carefully examined each of his 500 word editorial and I could find no evidence to support his title. He asserted that the large global banks have all conspired to control interest rates and as a result have ripped off trillions of dollars from people like you and me. His example of this massive grift was the allegations, currently filling the financial news, that Barclay's Bank was controlling interest rates in London in deference to their own profits. Without offering any specific evidence, Reich makes a giant leap for the world and induces that we must break up the big banks to avoid more "abuses," which he also fails to enumerate.

Next to Reich's column was 500 words by David Brooks. His title was "A split that foreshadows America's national suicide." His editorial was even more void of evidence to support his title than Reich's. Let me summarize Brooks' editorial. Rich kids have more advantages than less rich kids. College educated parents read to their children more than parents who did not attend college.  Rich kids play more after school sports than less rich kids. And the Reich-like giant leap forward; if America does not change this unacceptable situation, then "The alternative is national suicide." Not only does national suicide defy reasonable explanation, but it is unnecessary hyperbole for an editorial that should be rational, educational and thoughtful rather than reckless, defenseless and careless.

Lest I am accused of being guilty of that which I opine about, let me conclude with a simple suggestion that you examine a few editorials and make your own independent determination.

I guess what bothers me the most is they get paid to opine without evidence.

My hope is better than yours.

Obama is waiting. For what? To counter Romney’s assertion that under the supreme court ruling Obama misled Americans, when he said that Obama Care would not raise taxes on the middle class. Obama will insist that his position is still true.  And even if he did truth stretch a little, he is forgiven because he is a politician and that is what we have come to expect from that specious species. 

However, Obama Care changes many of the tax regulations, (enumerated in my blog of July 6, 2012) but it is a stretch for the republicans to prove Obama Care raises taxes on the middle class. The middle class escapes virtually  untouched. Further, it is a waste of conservative intellectual effort to argue against Obama on this tax issue, particularly when Romney, as a Governor, is vulnerable himself.

And contrary to conventional wisdom, the election is not about the economy.  The election is about hope. Who brings it? Who sells it? Whose hope is better than the other? After we beat up Obama Care, the election will succumb to the issue of hope. It is a seductive spirit, lacks genuine accountability, lacks measurement and is the single spirit that Pandora did not let out of the box. I know, I wrote a novel about it.

Obama Care will become a non-issue soon after the debates begin. Obama will proffer that the health care act is not perfect, but it has some positives, which it has; Romney will be asked to proffer an alternative plan, which he has not. And if he did, it would no doubt be easy rebuttal material.  It has taken two years to get a minimal understanding of Obama Care so it is unlikely anyone could explain a Romney alternative plan in a series of  60 minute televised debates.

With the economy flat and no huge change looming on the horizon, the republicans have a problem. They have no basis for winning. They offer no alternative programs that clearly distinguish them from the democrats. Both sides sell hope. But it is not enough to ask Americans to purchase Romney’s hope in deference to Obama’s hope, solely on the basis of faith. Romney needs to appeal to a higher goal for America. Cure cancer. Feed the homeless. Oil independence. Ask Newt, he has some large ideas.

For me, I hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Obama Care or Obama Tax - Truth Revealed.

Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay because of the President's healthcare law:

A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 18.8%--if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8%. (WSJ)

A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ)

Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org)

The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. Right now, any medical expenses over 7.5% of AGI are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be 10%. (ATR.org)

The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%.  That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org)

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)

A "Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org)

A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.)

A tax on medical devices costing more than $100.  Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)

Obama tax and universal medicare.

I am not impressed by the label switch from Obama Care to Obama Tax. The label is meaningless to me even though it is meaningful to its constitutionality. The rhetoric on both sides of the issue still fail to address the central issue. How do we keep the cost of  medical care under control and within the means of all Americans? ObamaCareTax does not address this issue and that is why a majority of physicians and nurses who are at the center of the real health care delivery issues reject Obama's program. Disagree? Ask 5 physicians their opinion.

Regardless of the label, I am in favor of providing health care for all Americans paid for by all Americans. It is the cheapest option for each of us. The economic argument in favor of this approach is simply that spreading the  cost of health care over the largest population group, rationally reduces the cost to each of us. I know that many of my readers will reject this notion on the basis of suspected health medical-care quality concerns, but I support this notion on the basis of economics. Other countries provide national health care, and their citizens live just as long as we do and on average, often longer.

Insurance companies have argued persuasively and successfully that the larger the group, the less expensive the individual insurance premiums. Insurance companies have based their premiums on this actuarial principle for years. It makes sense to me. The largest group possible in America is all Americans. Ergo, this group would have the lowest premiums for each of us. That's right healthy people would pay the same premium as their sickly neighbor, but guess what? if their neighbor recovered and they became sick, their insurance premiums would stay the same.  And vice versa for all of us. And no, that does not mean we reject private care physicians and private care hospitals. Public and private institutions have lived side by side for centuries.

The arguments against universal health care are fading into oblivion.  Hopefully, my grandchildren shall be relieved of reading obscure statements from their insurance companies and trying to understand the rational of a 10-day hospital stay that cost $234,000.  The only remaining significant institutional opponent to universal health care is the insurance companies that increase health care cost by an estimated 30% because they are the intermediary that would be disintermediated under universal health care.

Watch the news and look for a resurgence of support for Universal Medicare. The solution to the problem of health care costs has always been available, it just needs a new label. Here is an idea. I am on Medicare. I pay for it. Make Medicare available to all Americans with no restrictions.

Please pass this blog to your friends so I can keep on.

Click to make a donation. Stay in touch.

The penalty for having income.

Everything that can be said in a general way about the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act has already been said. However, there are many things that can still be said in a specific way.

For example and more specifically, how does the ACA effect my pocketbook? You can get the answer to this question. The link below describes, after you answer a few questions about yourself, the ACAs impact on you, or me, as I took the survey this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you

The ACA looked pretty good for me. It told me that my health insurance expense will go down by 50% in 2014. Specifically, I pay approximately $7,000 per year now and in 2014 my health insurance cost will be capped at approximately $3,500. I have a call into Blue Cross now to see if they have the same information. What do you bet they tell me I am crazy? After I analyzed the survey and its answers, it is clear that the main thing you do not want is income. You are severely penalized for having income.

I took the test for my son. The survey reported he will be eligible for medicaid in 2014 and may be eligible for coverage on any out of picket expenses. However, these are state administered programs, and it also stated that if any state does not want to comply with these requirements, then they do not have too.

Go to the link above and take the survey.

Obama and HR 3590 for some light reading.

I have been critical of the Obama health care legislation like many people. The legislation is Obama-care, as it is usually called. The truth is I know few details about the legislation except what is reported in the media. So tonight, I decided to read the bill. After a while, I felt lost like the buffalo.

It is HR 3590. And it is, according to my PDF page counter program, 2409 pages long. After searching through 20 pages of a tinyish printed index, I went directly to Title IX, page 1904, Revenue Offset Provisions. I am not absolutely sure, but it seemed this section was going to explain how the bill's cost was going to be financed.

However, after reading this section, or trying to read this section, I am sure of one thing, the tax preparers and litigators have additional job security in HR 3590. It is obtuse. The situational irony for me was reading the blurry section describing the legislation transparency program. I suspect a person with a law degree, advanced education in syntax construction and significant experience in Boolean algebra could make sense of the legislative language. Boolean algebra is required because of the many sets, subsets, inclusions, exclusions, conjunctions, disjunctions, derivations, axiomatization, negations, exceptions, and if-then conditional logic statements that permeate the legislation. Am I kidding? No! Take a Google look at HR 3590 and have some Advil handy..

I am not suggesting the HR 3590 is bad because it is difficult to understand. Why? Because I sense most legislation is difficult to understand. I am suggesting, however, that part of the conspicuously confusing and politically polarizing debate over the legislation is created by the sheer difficulty in interpreting what the bill means and its genuine impact on the delivery of and the financing of medical care to Americans.

I wonder how many congress persons  have actually read this legislation? Maybe a few. But then the number, who understand it, must be a significantly smaller percentage.

There was one section that explained the excise tax on businesses. I gave up understanding how to compute this excise tax. There was another section describing a tax on medical devices. I gave up on calculating the medical device fee too.

In fact, I just gave up. I will read some more tomorrow.

Follow me.

Obama says America can help Spain's Banks.

Does anyone know where I can send Tim Geithner a copy of my book, A Basic Guide to Finances." I understand he is in Spain.


According to knowledgeable sources, Obama has sent Tim Geithner to help out Spain's banks. The sources say that "U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Spain’s deputy prime minister, Soraya Saenz de Santamaria, met to discuss Spain’s plans to bolster banking system. The Pair discussed progress Spain made on fiscal, structural reforms, Spanish government's plans to strengthen financial sector and support recovery and job creation, and broader challenges facing Europe, global economy...". 


Never fear for Geithner is here.


The real question in my mind is why, with all the unsolved financial problems in America, is Obama worried about Spain's banks. I understand the world connected theory, but that is too simplistic an explanation for my investigative mind. Although I have no inside supporting evidence, my notion is that American banks have loaned Spain's banks a pot full of money. Why? So American banks could  capitalize on the high Spanish interest rates with money borrowed from the treasury at spartan interest rates. American banks have no doubt, as usual, leveraged these loans at more than 10 to 1. As Steve Martin said in The Jerk, "It's a profit thing." Ergo, Geithner has to get involved to bail out American banks. But wait? Does Geithner know how to do this? Does he have the experience? Has he been successful? Do not be surprised if the name Goldman Sachs emerges somewhere in the flurry. 


Why is Geithner involved? Because Obama does not want another financial crisis to start before next December.


Follow Me.

Romney. Obama. Bush. Clinton. Ron Paul. The economy.

Who is at fault for our economic problems? Are we a prisoner in a box like Pandora?

Romney blames Obama. Obama blames Bush. Bush blamed Clinton. Clinton blamed the other Bush. And so on. Sound familiar? Of course, the republicans and the democrats blame each other. That is America's political leadership chain. Rather than produce a chain of great leaders, America produces a chain of presidential political finger pointing. Ron Paul blames both of them and all of them.  He may be "right." Correct anyway. And me? Who do I blame? It's not relevant.  Why? Because it seems that we Americans are content with assessing blame, rather than assessing a candidate with a possible solution. I cast off the blame consideration in favor of catching any prospective candidate solution.

If you listen close to the rhetoric of both candidates, you do not hear solutions. You hear blame. On the other hand, Obama is still selling hope and a large part of Americans are still buying. Americans never give up hope. It is part of the American culture.  In contrast, Romney is selling his Bain bridge as his golden gate to the oval office. The Bain bridge, built on the premise that his Bain experience translates into presidential experience, unfortunately collapses under the weight of  the most superficial examination.  Can either candidate make a difference in the economy? No. Maybe yes. And I do not reach that conclusion from apathy or cynicism. The fact is America has no one to sell to anymore, relatively speaking.

In America's economic boom years, we sold more products to other countries than we purchased. If they did not have the money to buy our goods, we loaned them money so they could purchase American made: TVs, radios, computers, lumber, ships, electronics, engines, automobiles, trucks, tractors, food, steel and knowledge just to name a few things. Now our old customers make the products themselves and often sell them back to us. America has no one to sell things to any more, that is, even if we could make them, like we used to.

The solution? America has to reinvent itself for the 21st century. Look for the candidate who does not saturate his stump talk with a quagmire of blame, but raises his voice and shouts for creative solutions.

FOLLOW ME

The Obama Brand v the Romney Brand?

I’ve been speaking publicly for the last year about Obama’s Consumer Protection Bureau. It has been noticeably quiet in protecting consumers. But I understand it only has a $100 million budget so we shouldn’t have to many expectations to soon. I am surprised that Obama hasn’t counted the CPB as a job creation activity by his administration because he seems to have a penchant for counting every single job.

It is this Obama activity that, to me, is irksome, annoysome, burdensome, and tiresome. When the Consumer Protection Bureau was announced, it was a major public event. It was manifest destiny revisited. It was transformational. Now, nothing has happened. I do not feel any more consumer protected than I did before. Do you? It made great press for awhile, and that seems to be the Obama brand. 

The question is will Romney truly take advantage of these Obama brand snafu’s? I doubt it.  

In contrast, I believe that the Democrats will continue to push the evil Bain experience button right through the campaign. Obama may be successful in distinguishing Obama as a government expert and Romney as a business expert.  Romney may have created the basis for his own demise by distinguishing himself as the only candidate with business experience. Now that Romney has branded himself in that manner, he may very well have created a brand the people won’t buy. 

Obama, has also one advantage that a non-incumbent does not have-unfettered access to a 747 airplane, a press entourage and an unlimited travel budget.

I expect some contentious debates in a few months.

Read More

Tornado hits Obama's labor department.

From my iPhone.

The spin that Obama's labor department puts on the unemployment rate has higher wind speeds than an Oklahoma tornado. It is not enough they do not count people who have stopped looking for work. It is not enough that last week they started reporting the number of jobs created relative to the people looking for work. That spin stopped turning quickly.

This week's spin. The labor department began reporting the number of states that have low unemployment percentages. Obama's labor department reported that South Dakota's unemployment percentage is decreasing - 25  people found jobs. Meanwhile, California's unemployment rate increased to 10.9%. Another 25,000 people are out of work. All of these unemployment spins serve to create a whirling cloud of smoke hiding the real fire burning in the empty stomachs of the unemployed.

What is the spin, you ask? The Labor department reports 50% of the states are doing fine.

Next week's likely spin is - there are plenty of jobs, it is just that the unemployed live in the wrong places.

Obama's troops are the master of the spin.


Follow me Why not?.

“This campaign is just getting going. It’s going to be fun." Says who?

Where is Romney going? What path is he genuinely committed to following? 

I have been wrong so much lately that you would think I would learn. But I don't. I still predict an Obama victory in November.  

My evidence is circumstantial, but it makes sense to me. For example, today Romney was reported to have said the following: “This campaign is just getting going. It’s going to be fun." 

And More. 

“Yeah there are challenges and there are days that you get beat up in the newspaper and you don’t worry about it because you don’t read them – ha ha,” Romney said at a Tax Day Tea Summit, hosted by the Independence Hall Tea Party Association.

The “ha ha” spoils it for me. The laugh punctuates an aloof  man who does worry about the newspaper comments. After all, how else do you know that you were beaten up in the newspaper if you do not read them? He reads the newspapers.  He better. 

When I search between the lines of Romney’s comments, I always discover a man who is truly having fun with running for President. I do not begrudge him the fun, but somehow his cavalier comments demean the serious of the office. His attitude and language lack the characteristic passion always present in committed leaders.

Obama persuades. He believes what he says. I am not sure that Romney does. Romney may just like to live in a nice house in Washington DC.

What do you think? Do you smell a a lack of genuine commitment by Romney? I want my POTUS candidates to have "fun" playing golf, but running for president is serious work for serious people.