Why I Voted For…

I got my absentee ballot in the mail yesterday, and for the first time in memory I wasn’t looking forward to filing it out.

Don’t get me wrong, I love voting. I know mathematically speaking my vote means nothing, but as we saw in Iowa and Maine, a vote does count, and it does matter. I feel it is important for people to voice their opinion on politics. Go out and cast your vote, at least then you have a leg to stand on when you argue that so-and-so is a bad politician or ruining the country.

Either way, this GOP primary has been tough. Not just for the candidates, but for the voters. This is a tough field to gauge. On the one hand you have Mitt Romney, who was seen only four short years ago as the “conservative alternative” to John McCain. Now? People are searching for a “conservative alternative” to Romney. Some people believe Rick Santorum is that alternative, but it is becoming clearer that he is only more conservative on the social issues, and when it comes to the size and scope of government, Santorum could be classified as a big government republican.

Then there’s Newt Gingrich, who says really awesome things…sometimes. I find myself loving Gingrich one minute, and hating him the next. He’s erratic and unpredictable. I think he has great ideas, but poor ways of communicating them. He comes across as angry, which isn’t necessarily a poor trait considering most of the country is angry right now, but we don’t need a leader who is running around like a chicken with his head cutoff. We need a cool, calm, and collective leader who will get the job done.

Early in the campaign, back when he was polling in low single digits, I thought Santorum was that guy. I could see him being a leader, I could see him putting on that hard hat and going into Ground Zero. It kind of clicked. But he’s got some serious question marks economically and with his voting record. I’m concerned about his stance on earmarks, and I’m worried about some of the things he’s said in the past biting him the butt.

I started to look at this election from the perspective of general election voters and electability overall. Who would appeal most to independent voters, a vital voting bloc that needs to be corralled by the republicans, and honestly it’s a voting bloc that is dying to be enticed by a GOP candidate. The vast majority of Obama’s job approval erosion has come from the voters in the middle. They want someone else.

Which brings me to an interesting Gallup poll. 51% of respondents said Obama was too liberal, only 33% said Romney was too conservative, and only 38% said Santorum was too conservative. More people said Romney and Santorum were just right than said Obama was just right. 50% of independents said Obama was too liberal. Furthermore 50% of Americans said they disagreed with Obama on the issues. But more said they agree with Obama than Santorum or Romney. Which is interesting considering a majority said he was too liberal, and as we know from past Gallup polling, only 20% of the country identifies themselves as liberal.

Now there’s a couple of caveats on this polling. Obviously the agreement on the issues thing is up-in-the-air for Santorum and Romney right now, the contrast with Obama will become starker in the general election, then that number will truly matter. But the poll paints a weak outlook for Obama, certainly an up hill battle for his campaign. The majority of Americans disagree with him on the issues, how could he possibly win reelection?

Simple; he’s a good speaker, he can persuade people, he’s personable, he’s likeable, he can pretend really well that he’s a good leader. He’ll say, I need four more years to get my agenda done. He’s a great orator, but a poor leader. I really believe that the GOP needs a candidate that can hit Obama where it will really hurts; on leadership.

The right already has a leg up on the issues, this is still a center-right country. A majority disagrees with Obama on the issues, and that’s only bound to grow larger. But he can still portray himself as a leader.

So, for me this election is about who can beat Obama. And subsequently that is about who can challenge Obama on leadership skills. And even deeper its about who’s electable.

Looking at all the candidates, Mitt Romney fits all those characteristics. Out of the entire GOP field he has the most leadership experience. I’ll gladly take executive experience at the state level over congressional experience any day. He has the experience in the private sector that I like, and he’s been heavily vetted in two election cycles. We know all there is to know about Mitt Romney, there are no more skeletons in that closet.

Meanwhile, it seems the Rick Santorum dirt is just breaking ground. Every day there’s something else that comes out about him, and if it doesn’t damage him in the primary race, it will certainly damage him in the general election. I also believe some of his social views, which I generally agree with, are low hanging fruit in the general election. Mitt Romney holds many of the same views, without the bombastic soundbites to support those views. Rick Santorum is very outspoken, and I like that, but his way of communicating his beliefs can sometimes come across as crass and derogatory. That will hurt him.

Newt Gingrich has great ideas, but I seriously question his leadership. I’ll be honestly, the personal life bothers me. It shows a lack of integrity. And he has had questionable ethics in the past. I’m looking for honesty and integrity, and I don’t think he has it. I love his communication style, it’s straightforward, honest, and to the point, and it is largely spot on. But he’s also prone to gaffes and comments that are in the heat of the moment, not entirely thought through. That will hurt him in the general.

And then there’s Ron Paul. I don’t agree with him on many foreign policy issues, so there’s that. But furthermore I think he hasn’t been vetted at all. In these two elections no one has taken him seriously, so no one has worked to find the dirt on him. There have been a few issues, but nothing has stuck. He does have an army of supporters that seemingly blindly support him no matter what is revealed about his past, but that actually bothers me. It’s too Obama like.

Taking this all into account, it became clear that Romney was the wise choice. He might not be as conservative as I’d like, but he’s conservative on the right issues; the economic ones. He understands the economy and what will make it grow, and he has the leadership skills that are necessary to run the country. That is what’s important right now.

So my absentee ballot is in the mail, with the bubble for Romney filled in. I wouldn’t color myself an enthusiastic supporter, but I think he’s our best shot at beating Obama.

–jb

Is this Real Life?

Sometimes Obama makes me feel like this…

Literally a day after saying in his State of the Union speech that we need to put aside our differences and get stuff done AND claiming for the third straight year that we need to do something about illegal immigration, Obama travels to Arizona and visibly snubs GOP governor Jan Brewer who was asking Obama to visit the southern border and work on illegal immigration.

President Barack Obama and his deputies publicly snubbed Arizona’s Republican governor when she welcomed him at the Phoenix airport.

Gov. Jan Brewer met him at first stop of his five-state campaign swing with a hand-written letter asking him to visit the state’s southern border, which is a hotbed of illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

But Obama suddenly turned cold, claiming that her Nov. 2011 book mischaracterized their previous White House meeting in June 2010. He then quickly walked away.

Is this real life? Sadly, yes.

–jb

Could Obama Step Aside?

Obama Contemplates not running again...just kidding!

According to Dick Morris, that might just be the case.

In an interview with conservative radio icon Sean Hannity, former President Clinton adviser and campaign manager Dick Morris stated that, after speaking with a Democratic strategist, he thinks it is “very possible” that President Obama might acquiesce to requests from the Democratic leadership in Congress and bow out of the 2012 race, leaving the door open for him to return sometime in the future.

So, what’s the point of this?

I see this as a two fold solution…

1.) Obama is becoming more unpopular by the day. People have begun to attach the sour economy to him and the Democrats, so unless the economy rebounds insurmountably in the next year, he’s going to face an uphill battle for reelection. Furthermore, he is tarnishing the Democrats attempt to paint themselves as job creators and economy savers. So it is very likely that the GOP will retake the Senate as well.

Remember when Crazy Eyes ran the House?

If the Democrats lose the Senate and the White House, that would be one of the most stunning turnarounds in Washington’s history. Just think, in early 2009 the Democrats had a majority in the House, a super-majority in the Senate, and the White House. And now three years later there’s a chance the GOP will have pulled a complete 180. That’s crazy, and you can make a good case that Obama is mostly to blame for that.

From that standpoint it makes sense to get him off the ballot. Over the last two years Obama has consistently show that his “brand” has worn off. He’s campaigned for several failed congressional campaigns, and reports show his early fundraising is severely down from last election cycle. If Obama pulls a Lyndon Johnson and goes all-in on this year and says “I’m focusing on fixing this economy, and I’m not running again so I don’t have to worry about the partisan red-tape,” the Democrats can instantly change the stereotype that they’re lazy on the economy and only making matters worse.

2.) If Obama doesn’t run again he can steal a move from another former president; Grover Cleveland. The Democrats view Obama as a prolific politician that, if not for the economy, would be very popular and would do wonders to advance the Democrats brand and therefore their agenda.

He’s a good speaker, polls still show he’s likable, and he is a masterful fundraiser and campaigner. Why waste such good talents on eight years on infighting and down years for the Democrats? Why not pull him out of the race, take the Senate loss that is inevitable anyway, and retain an all-star of the party? Sure he could only serve one term in the future, but he could swoop in and save the country in a grandiose way and finally reclaim the Democrats image of being job creators, savers, and geniuses.

While it makes sense, it won’t happen. There is one major component missing from this logic…Obama has a lot of hubris. And by a lot I mean enough to fill Air Force One to capacity. The man is arrogant and despite his policies falling flat on their face (see the stimulus and ObamaCare) he still believes he can fix the economy with his populist speeches and big government Band-Aids. He’s too stubborn to admit he’s done wrong, and he is certainly too stubborn to even consider abandoning a second term at the most powerful position in the world.

I’ll be honest, it would be great if he decided not to run again, but it won’t happen. Obama will not be our generation’s LBJ or Grover Cleveland.

-jb

Boehner Walks Out, Debt Talks Dead

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.”

Those are the wise words of Senator Barack Obama. Oh what a difference five years makes.

In 2006 when Obama voted no on a debt ceiling increase, claiming it would have continued Washington’s bad spending habits, he also took the time to take a shot at then President George Bush for failing to lead on the issue.

Now, we’re in the exact same scenario, but the rhetoric is a complete 180. The debt ceiling has to be raised less the government can’t pay their bills and all hell breaks lose. And that leadership thing? Well, Obama’s a great leader, he’s made so many sacrifices in this debate.

Today House Speaker John Boehner walked out of the debt meetings citing differing “visions” from the President. In other words, Obama sees the country going one way, and Boehner and Republicans see it going another. Obama wants to “raise revenues” to fix the debt, the republicans want to focus on spending cuts.

Obama has done little but whine and moan during this entire process, largely ignoring the issue until late May. He delegated the debt problem to a commission, ignored their findings, started another commission with Vice President Joe Biden as the overseer, Biden once again proved to be worthless, and then finally decided it was time for him to step in and get something done. Once again, Obama failed to lead on this issue.

“I expect them to have an answer as to how they expect to get this done in the next week.” – That’s one of the most telling Obama quotes of the day. He expects them to have an answer, he doesn’t expect himself, just them.

Let’s not forget, the republicans are the only party in these debates that have drafted a plan to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending in the process. They passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance proposal, it’s good legislation, although I do agree that it is too time crunched to debate a constitutional amendment. None-the-less, the democrats, and the White House, have not drafted a plan during the entire course of these debates.

Even the “Gang of Six” were able to come up with a compromise. It was a plan that saw hope early on, but died with time.

So, what should Obama have done in this situation, what would a leader have done?

Simple:
- Make clear to the American people that the government plans to meet its obligations and come to a compromise
- Make clear to the American people that in the event the government does not meet the deadline, they will send out social security checks and other payments
- Call all parties to the table (Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell)
- Discuss what each party wants in a debt ceiling plan and instead of focusing on differences, begin by drafting a plan built around the agreements each have
- Once a plan for agreements has been drafted, begin discussing disagreements, keeping a keen eye on what sub-compromises might be available for each disagreement
- Take all plans seriously, and do not publicly admit you’ll veto any plan (that simply complicates the discussions)
- As the leader, be the cool, calm, and collective one – don’t show too much emotion but make it known that the buck stops with you

Obama failed to lead for a variety of reasons:
1.) He played politics – Despite the fact that he scolded Congress and republicans specifically for playing politics, he managed to hold news conference after news conference in which he claimed he was doing all the giving and republicans wouldn’t budge. In that situation, stay quiet until a plan is decided, it does no good to publicly scold the other side of the aisle.
2.) He did not communicate well with the Americans people – He repeated told the American people what they believed, instead of listening to them. He falsely claimed 80% of them wanted revenues included in a deal. He didn’t assure them that government obligations to them in the form of social security and veterans payments would be a priority in the event of a default. And he disrespected the American people and the media.
3.) He did not remain cool, calm, and collective – He stormed out of one of the debt talk meetings in what was obviously a coordinated effort to gin up support for his plan and paint a picture of “Obama fighting for you.” He got too personal, too political, and didn’t listen to the other side.

Liberals will claim that republicans are at fault for all of the above as well, and I wouldn’t necessarily argue with that point. However, as President and as the leader of the talks, you are held to a higher standard. You are expected to command the room, be respectful to all sides, and eventually broker a deal. The rules are not the same for the leaders and those being lead. Period.

Obama continually made the point that he had compromised many cuts that his base would not be happy about. He never missed an opportunity to tout that aspect of his “negotiations.” To which the American people replied, big deal. You’re expected to make compromises that your base may not like, we’re not going to pat you on the back for doing what’s right for the general population. That would assume that, by default, you do what’s right for special interest and the base, not the people as a whole.

Ultimately, this revelation of Boehner backing out, hurts Obama. The American people view him as the leader of these discussions, and the leader does not let the talks crumble. If Obama had at least treated the republicans with respect in this debate, they would have stayed and continued the discussion. But instead he was stubborn, egotistical, and callous towards them. That’s not how you lead.

Yes, we have a budget deficit in Washington. But we also have a leadership deficit. We are in desperate need of someone who can throw party affiliation aside and get deals done, for the better of the country. Obama has proven he can’t, and won’t, do that. Good news, we can change that in 2012.

–jb

Obama’s Spending Cut Bluff

During the debt limit debates last week, Obama famously stormed out of the meetings and told Eric Cantor, “don’t call my bluff.”

What bluff was The One speaking of? His sudden attraction to spending cuts.

The President has made a big stink lately about how we can no longer “kick the can down the road” in regards to spending and the deficit. Lately, he’s sounded more like Paul Ryan than Paul Krugman. Unfortunately for Obama, budget proposals speak louder than words, and the only budget that the President has released to the public screams increased deficits and debt.

…The only budget proposal President Obama’s has publicly revealed in 2011 would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, increase the deficit by $26 billion this year, $83 billion next year, and $2.7 trillion over the next decade.

Nothing historically speaking would give any indication that Obama wants to make serious cuts in spending. He is in campaign mode, and when campaign mode is turned on, anything goes. Or, should I say, whatever the American people want, they will hear.

According to a new Gallup poll, 55% of Americans are worried that the government will raise the debt ceiling with no major cuts to future spending. Only 35% are worried that no compromise is met and an economic crisis occurs. So when the President tells the American people they’re “sold” on raising the debt ceiling, he’s only half right. The American people are sold…if it includes major cuts in future spending.

Hence why Obama is all of a sudden the poster child for spending cuts.

But again, policy speaks louder than words.

The House Rules Committee is expected to take up the measure Monday, and it is likely to receive a floor vote on Tuesday. The measure would cut spending in fiscal 2012 by $111 billion, cap future spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product and allow for the debt ceiling to be increased if a balanced-budget amendment is approved by Congress and sent to the states.

Sounds like a good plan to me. The cap on spending as a percent of GDP is actually pretty low when comparing to historic averages, it’s usually around 18.5% of GDP. And a balanced budget amendment would force Congress to actually care about what they spend our money on. Currently, there’s no accountability and they spend as if there’s no limit on the country’s credit card.

However, there’s one prominent politician that doesn’t seem to like this proposal. Barack Obama.

Gee, I thought he was the newly crowned champion of fiscal responsibility, oh well.

“Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility,” the White House said in its statement. “Increasing the federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.”

What in the history of this country makes you think that fiscal responsibility can be restored without setting some arbitrary spending levels? We’ve had a spending problem for decades, we’ve known about it for decades, and nothing’s been done. If set a spending limit and make it law, we’ll suddenly be forced to spend within our means.

We’ve raised the debt ceiling 60 times before, we’re about to make it 61, and unless it’s tied to a balanced budget amendment or some hard and fast rules on spending, we’re going to have to raise it a 62nd, 63rd, and 64th time, and likely much more than that. Congress has given us no proof that they can spend responsible, none.

The administration also called the proposal, “extreme, radical [and] unprecedented.”

Good. Clearly the “status quo” isn’t working, so I’d say we need something “unprecedented.”

However, the key is that the republicans have a plan. That’s 1,000% more than the democrats or the White House can say. They talk about fiscal responsibility and spending wisely, yet they have no plan to execute that. Their plan seems to be, “well, we’ve learned our lesson, trust us, in the future, we’ll spending responsibly.”

Uh, no you won’t.

Don’t get me wrong, the republicans don’t exactly have a crystal clear record of fiscal sanity either, but at least their offering up proposals to restore sanity. While the republicans actually work to solve this problem, the democrats have been picking their nose and itching their butts.

Eric Cantor did call Obama’s bluff. He was holding a pair of twos and was going all in. He’s a great actor; pretending that he cares about spending, but everything we have on the record about Obama proves he’s more concerned with increasing the debt than decreasing it.

And despite what Obama thinks, the American people see through that, and know he’s pulling their leg.

–jb

The Current #188 – Debt Limit Limbo

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The Current #188 – Debt Limit Limbo
Sunday July 17, 2011
Hosts: Jacob Bodnar and Jared Weseman

Presented by Budget Rent-a-Car
Next time you rent from Budget, make your reservation at Budget.com/current and save 10% on most any rental, or if you are renting for at least a week, a massive $30 off a weekly rental.
The Current Podcast is a paid affiliate of Budget.

STORIES
Debt Limit Compromise still not achieved
Obama walks out on talks, “takes it to the American people”
Obama Gaffe #1 – Claims 80% of Americans want tax hikes in the deal
Polls suggest not quite that high
Obama Gaffe #2 – Not sure if social security checks will go out if US defaults
Obama Budget Director: We don’t have a priority list for spending if default happens
Shelia Jackson Lee says Obama doesn’t get respect because he’s black
Senator Barack Obama circa 2006 explains why he voted against debt limit increase
Harry Reid explains his no vote in 2006 as well
2012 Presidential Election
Gingrich in deep debt, mostly on private plane travel
Bachmann only raises $4 million in second quarter
Ron Paul releases first TV ad
Rudy Giuliani seriously eyeing presidential run
Rick Perry almost certainly running
“Generic Republican” extends lead over Obama
Everything Else
Obama doesn’t know his own birthday
Woman gropes TSA agent
Nanny State Update: Government shuts down another lemonade stand

FOLLOW US
Jacob’s Twitter
Jared’s Twitter
Facebook Page
Live Stream – Sundays at 7:30pm – Live.RedTIE.tv
RSS Feed

Out of Touch

In his third press conference in 17 days, President Obama stood in front of the American people and told them what they were thinking.

He told the American people that they were “sold.” He told the American people that he was listening to them, and that republicans were more concerned with ideology and playing the Washington way.

Then he preceded to lie about what the American people believe.

Obama made the claim that 80% of the American people support raising revenues (fancy talk for tax increases) as a way to come to an agreement on the debt limit.

At best, the number is somewhere around 43%, according to a Gallup poll. A Rasmussen poll shows that “just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling.”

Well, there goes the argument that you understand the American people better than the Republicans.

There’s no doubt that everyone in this debate is in re-election mode. The 2012 election will be here before you know it, and it looks as though the debt limit talks are going to sway a lot of people one way or the other. Mitch McConnell has already stated that if the country does default it will have catastrophic results for the republicans electorally.

However, we have to remember, Obama has launched a re-election campaign, he’s in campaign mode as well. Is it any surprise that before this 17 day marathon of press conferences, Obama hadn’t held one since March? Of course not, the campaign wasn’t in full swing back then. Now, the debt limit is a major topic, and a major election issue, Obama needs to capitalize on it.

But he’s doing a rather poor job. He is the president, a deal should go through him. But instead Obama sat on the sideline until about four weeks ago. And now that he’s in the debate…well, it hasn’t gotten much better. It seemed a deal was close, then entitlements somehow got taken off the table and tax increases became a center piece. Instead of bringing people together, which was a campaign promise of his, it seems the sides are growing further apart.

Gosh, I thought Obama was the guy who would unite us and bring us together. We were tired of the bickering, that’s why we voted for him (well, I didn’t, but other people did). Has he come through on that promise at all? Or any of his promises outside of health care?

That’s a big, fat, no.

The administration is claiming that a deal will get done and the government won’t default, yet Obama himself opposes a short term solution that buys more time to argue the cuts. Wait, I thought default would send the world into a financial fireball, the likes of which won’t be seen for another fives years when global warming kills us all.

This is all politics, for both sides. They’re both stubborn, someone needs to step up, bring a real compromise to the table, and avert the crisis. Where are the real leaders at?

–jb

4,000 Words, Not a Single Solution

In a 4,000+ word speech today, Obama manged to outline no new proposals for cutting the deficit, said that everything should be on the table in bipartisan discussions, then talked about why the republicans were wrong and said Medicaid and Medicare shouldn’t be on the table.

The speech was so long and so boring it appeared to put Vice President Joe Biden to sleep for a solid 30 seconds. Note to Joe: you’re the flippin’ vice president, they’re going to have a camera on you, is it going to take until year four to figure that out?

Obama’s plan didn’t need 4,000 words, I can explain it in just a few: some cuts, raise taxes, don’t touch Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security (after all it’s an election year.)

So, with the being said, let’s get into the meat and potatoes of Obama’s speech.

Claim #1

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

For starters, the spending problem goes back a lot further than the 1990′s, or even the 1980′s. This thing traces back to the 1930′s. We never seemed to have consistent debt problems until FDR’s New Deal. That’s not a coincidence.

Furthermore, it certainly wasn’t the wars and the prescription drug program that drove us into this fiscal crisis. We certainly didn’t do ourselves any favors from 2001 to today, but on January 20, 2001 the national debt was still at $5 trillion. So we had a problem long before Bush came to Washington. Even going back to January 20, 1993 the national debt was still at $4 trillion.

The idea that the Bush tax cuts made the problem worse is a fabrication. Fact is from 2003 to 2006 federal revenues grew by about $625 billion according to the CBO.

And the idea that the tax cuts went to “every millionaire and billionaire” in the country is extraordinarily misleading. The Bush tax cuts, for the 15,000th time, went to EVERYBODY. And the largest rate reduction went to the lowest earners, who went from a 15% rate to a 10% rate. The tax rates in 2001 were: 15%, 27.5%, 30.5%, 35.5%, 39.1%.

The rates in 2003 were, and still are today: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%. The lowest earners got a 5% rate reduction, while the wealthy got a 4.1% reduction.

Also, Obama actually makes a very good point here…well, he does in theory. He says we added millions in spending early on last decade with no way of paying for it. Which is partially correct, after all tax revenues did increase. However, he begins to spell out the fundamental problem with tax increases in this statement. Just because you increase revenues does not mean that politicians will begin spending within the constraints of those new revenues.

For instance, you raise revenues by $1 trillion. What’s more likely to happen, the government runs a surplus and begins paying off the debt, or the government finds more things to spend money on to the tune of $1 trillion? It’s clearly the latter. We’ve raised revenues in the past and it never seems to fix the problem, that’s because there’s a good number of politicians who just turn around and start spending that money, instead of putting it towards paying down the debt.

Claim #2

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

This is all very true, so why not do something about entitlements? To this point Obama has been mum about cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. I’m sorry, he hasn’t been entirely mum about Social Security, he claims it’s not in a crisis, despite the fact that it will go bankrupt this year.

By the way, all those college kids that voted enthusiastically for Obama, I want you to look Obama in the face when he inevitably comes to your campus, and ask him if you’ll be getting a social security check when you retire. Because he’ll say yes and be lying to you. Ask him why he thinks the program isn’t in a crisis when, if we don’t do anything about it, our generation won’t be getting social security because it will bankrupt the government.

So after Obama explicitly said that we cannot just focus on the 12% in discretionary spending, that we have to put everything on the table, he then attacks the GOP’s proposal to…well, put everything on the table. He claims that the GOP’s budget and it’s reform of Medicaid and Medicare will “lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.”

Really Obama? Medicaid and Medicare have been around since 1965, that’s a total of 46 years. We’ve been a country since 1776, or 235 years. Which means we’ve had Medicaid and Medicare for about 20% of this country’s history. So no, reforming Medicaid and Medicare would not lead to a fundamentally different America than we’ve known throughout most of our history because throughout most of our history we haven’t even had Medicaid and Medicare.

He goes on to paint a little bit of a fearful image, “It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them.”

But, gee, I only thought Glenn Beck was a fear mongerer. Look, the idea behind cutting the deficit is so we can repair our bridges and our roads. The idea to not having a $1.6 trillion deficit (like Obama’s last budget had) is so we can address those issues.

He goes on for about another three stanzas whining and crying about how this vision is an America where we have no health insurance and no car insurance and no butterflies and no candy, no apples, no automobiles, no sunny days, no clowns, no balloons, and we all live in a cloudy world where it rains 23 hours out of the day and we have to drag ourselves out of bed in the morning because the republicans took away any reason for us to ever want to leave the house again.

This speech was a campaign speech. It was not a policy speech, it was not a let’s fix this speech. It was pretend. He extended an arm across the isle for about five seconds until he quickly yanked it away and said, “gotcha!” He claimed he wanted everything on the table, and then quickly took off Medicaid and Medicare and didn’t even mention Social Security. There was no new proposals or policies, he again avoided any mention of policies from the debt commission, which he put together. And his only solution seems to be higher taxes, despite the fact that we’re still recovering from an economic collapse.

At least the Republicans put together a specific proposal that would cut the deficit. Obama has no specifics, he has broad ideas, but nothing solid.

Let’s be honest, if Republicans weren’t putting pressure on him to cut spending, he wouldn’t. This speech would have never happened and we would be continuing down a path of amazingly outrageous debt and high taxes. That’s the Obama way.

He’s serious about one thing, and one thing only. Getting re-elected and gaining more power. Let’s make sure he doesn’t get his wish.

–jb

Microsoft May Move Jobs Offshore

Why on Earth would Microsoft, a company born straight from American ingenuity and creativity, want to move jobs out of the United States?

One word; taxes.

Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”

I’ve written about this dumb tax plan before. Currently the U.S. taxes foreign profits from U.S. based subsidiary companies only if those profits are brought back to the United States. If the company decides to reinvest them in the foreign country they’re taxed at that country’s tax rate.

Of course companies often decide to leave the profits there because the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Obama’s plan would tax all foreign profits at the full rate, whether they were brought back to the States or not.

Obama claims that this would create an incentive for companies to bring the profits back to the United States. But clearly that’s not the case. Microsoft is thinking about moving a significant number of jobs outside the U.S. to avoid paying that high tax. What Obama’s plan will do is drive companies out of this country. If he really wants to provide an incentive to bring that money back home he should either lower the corporate tax rate, or tax foreign profit at a much lower rate, like 5%, and only if they’re brought back to the States.

As I said in my previous post on this subject, Obama’s lack of a coherent plan displays the government’s lack of knowledge about technology. And yes, I know Obama can use the internet and email on his Blackberry, I mean they don’t understand how technology has changed business. After all, his tax plan might drive out the largest information technology corporation in the world.

Think about it, what’s stopping Microsoft from moving out of the United States? Nothing.

Sure it would be a logistical pain for Microsoft to move their entire operation to another country, but moving their headquarters wouldn’t be all that tough. Only the head guys would go, they could still maintain a division in the States. It would no longer be Microsoft headquartered in the United States with a division in Ireland, it would be Microsoft headquartered in Ireland with a division in the United States.

Is that what we really want? Of course not. But again, what’s stopping them? Steve Ballmer stops just short of suggesting that.

Just think of how many companies are like Microsoft. Companies that are not bound to the United States by any tangible resource, they could easily move their corporate headquarters if they so please.

That’s what the government doesn’t understand. Technology has enabled businesses to do business anywhere in the world (isn’t that the tag line of a Sprint commercial?). Our economy is no longer dominated by agriculture or U.S. based natural resources, it’s dominated by information. And information can be accessed and processed anywhere there’s an internet connection. Technology has made communicating so easy that a company can be headquartered in Germany but market to the United States.

Once Obama, and the government in general, realize this fact they’ll hopefully see that they are competing with other countries. They have to be mindful of the value other countries are providing. We are falling behind when it comes to taxation, if we don’t wake up and realize it we could very easily lose a huge corporation.

Hell, Microsoft’s already got one foot out the door.

–jb