This issue at hand is neither about Bain Capital, private equity firms, nor about capitalism. It is about Mitt Romney’s judgment, morality and character. It was Romney’s decision to base his candidacy, in large part, on his background as a portfolio manager. Thus, it is entirely legitimate to ask questions about whether he is accurately presenting how he conducted himself during that career. This is of particular note considering Romney likes to wrap himself in the free market flag when his whole political career has been as an anti-business Progressive.

Bain is in the profit making business. They are not in the job creation business. Reports by the Wall Street Journal and others contradict Romney’s claims that it was his goal at Bain Capital to make companies more successful. Instead of accepting the responsibility to answer questions about his business background, the Romney campaign is throwing up a smokescreen about an attack on capitalism. Can someone explain to me how RomneyCare is free-market capitalism?

There is a huge difference between capitalism and ‘predatory capitalism’ or ‘corporate raiding’. The latter is more of a chop-shop mentality of ‘creative destruction.’ It is still a form of capitalism, sure, even if not held in high regard. That is not the issue. And, I agree most capitalism is moral… the problem is that people defend ALL OF IT equally. You cannot. But, the court of public opinion doesn’t do nuance very well.

No rational person would defend ALL matters of transportation equally; drunk driving, car hijackings, exploits of TSA agents in airports; are abusive or exploitative practices. As is a car salesman who knowingly sells you a lemon where the car will predictably break down 6 months later. Hereto, it is a free market transaction, right? It is capitalism, too. Yet, most people can’t bring themselves to parse their defense of capitalism to stop supporting predatory sectors like banking, fashion, or chemicals.

Mitt Romney has been a rank opportunist throughout his political career. Mitt Romney was a clever money-making opportunist throughout his business career. The leveraged buyout business, which does not have to be an evil business, is a business that is ripe for heartless exploitation of vulnerable companies and individuals. Lets not forget Private Equity and Hedge Funds monetized and helped destroy the housing market 2000-2008. There are unsightly elements to capitalism. And, those that played the game walked away making millions.

But, like many capitalistic sectors, Romney’s business had ugly elements in it. A business practice known as ‘getting back your bait’ or “Plunder and profit” is distasteful, yet it is still capitalism. What is not capitalism is when Romney likens work at Bain Capital to Obama’s auto industry bailout. Does this mean that Romney thinks his tenure at Bain involved crony capitalism of the sort Obama practiced with GM? Or, can we not ask that?

What about Romney benefiting from a $10 million federal bailout and pocketing $4 million dollars directly? It’s not difficult to understand why Romney is not against federal bailouts, having been the beneficiary of them. Perhaps Romney should explain to us how TARP and federal bailouts are free-market capitalism? Romney’s main accomplishment in his one term as governor was RomneyCare, which openly funded abortions for a $50 co-pay. Do Romney supporters call that capitalism too?

Bain defunded pension funds and kept the money – when companies went bankrupt, the pensions had to be paid out of ERISA – government insurance – paid for by those of us who pay taxes. A federal government insurance agency ponied up $44 million to bailout one of Bain Company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

While at Bain, and as Governor, Romney showed an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill. Romney’s Bain made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider being “corporate welfare.” It is a commitment that carried over into his term as governor. Bain Capital has been a corporate welfare hog under Romney’s tenure and beyond. If one can make millions of dollars whether a company succeeds or fails then where is the risk-taking Romney speaks of so fondly?

Bain, at times, pursued a practice of socializing their losses to banks and pension insurers while privatizing their gains in the same kind of Wall Street practice that led to the mortgage crisis. They leveraged government assistance to boost profits. Is it anti-capitalist to ask if an average worker is an expendable line on a spreadsheet as that worker’s tax dollars were needed to bailout Bain and financiers? And let’s note; as a supporter of the TARP Wall Street bailout, Romney’s “creative destruction” applied only to Main Street, not Wall Street.

Corporate restructurings are not the same as the predatory practices of some corporate raiders. Romney’s rhetoric ignores the fact that private-equity [PE] companies like Bain are equally known for destroying jobs as they are for creating them. Corporate raiders are known for their “turn and burn” quick buckaroo artistry; pirates whose company’s business model use exploitation, asset-strips, debt-compounding, fee-generation, and jobs-outsourcing. Romney’s job at Bain was not to create jobs – it was to make money.

And, asset stripping is NOT especially an intrinsic feature of jobs growth, as it leaves a flood of human distress in its wake. “Predatory capitalist” pursuits are legal and part of capitalism, but it is not necessarily the type of business experience or character that makes one worthy of the White House, or as a ‘jobs creator’ or helpful to electability. Romney helped create this leveraged buyout business model; the technique was to take over a company, load it up with debt and then pay themselves a huge dividend and fee, leaving the company without much cash and burdened with debt.

The actions of Romney’s firm are detailed in the 2009 book by financial reporter Josh Kosman, The Buyout of America: How Private Equity is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy. The chapter that focuses on Romney and Bain Capital is aptly titled “Plunder and Profit.” The record shows that Romney did well at making a lot of money for himself and his partners and investors but not always so well by way of any of the other stakeholders, including employees, in the companies he was involved with.

Bain is Romney’s entire claim to business experience, and business experience is Romney’s primary claim to the White House. It should be noted that none of Romney’s business experience translated to job creation while he was Governor. Over 3.5% of the adult working population within MA left the state during his tenure due to no jobs. He was rated 47 of 50 Governors in job creation and the economy. And this chart illustrates his pathetic performance. Yet, Romney touts his executive, CEO, job-creating experience.

This manufactured claim from the Romney camp and GOP Establishment, which many have fallen prey to, is neither about Bain Capital, private equity firms, nor about capitalism. Nor was it when Romney strategist attacked Meg Whitman as a “vulture” capitalist. It is about Mitt Romney’s judgment and character. It is not anti-capitalist to say that some types of business experience are negatives in a presidential candidate. To claim so, goes to the heart of fitness to Romney’s character.

Job losses and bankruptcies are an inevitable byproduct of the capitalist system. But, Romney’s Bain argument does not translate to knowing how to create jobs on the national scale. By any small measure, his job creation record was an undeniable failure as Governor. At some point, Romney needs to show the facts rather than just make claims. Romney claims that he will be able to create jobs better than Obama because of his experience in the private sector (Bain). How so?

What specifically about Romney’s Bain business experience prepares him for the presidency? Did Romney’s vaunted business experience translate to economic/job growth in Massachusetts? The record shows NO. If Romney’s going to claim he created 100,000 jobs, why is it unfair to say a presidential candidate should have to meet their claim? This is a smokescreen from Romney who is afraid to be accountable for his business experience that he himself touts. In turn, Romney prefers to hide and downplay the private equity side of Bain. Corporate raiders only seek conditions where a corporate raider recoups all expenses, acquires early payouts and makes huge profits.

And, where is Romney’s tax return? Why won’t he release it, like Obama hasn’t? Romney won’t release his tax returns because most of his income is unearned. Thus, he pays less tax than Warren Buffett. It’s foolish to think a man’s career isn’t fair game. If a predatory debt collector, who used abusive business practices, were running for President, should that narrative not be openly discussed? Ethical capitalism depends on individual morality. This is about character and judgment. Romney’s business model, the one he’ll be known for in this coming election, is a form of capitalism and legal, but it is not held in very high regard.

Romney and Bain Capital is a ready-made target for the brand of “class warfare” that Obama has been warming up for the past year or so. I don’t need to envision the upcoming Bain attacks in a general election to be hyper skeptical of Romney and his chances of success. Romney is unelectable. Obama and his billion-dollar campaign will go after Romney with the “Capitalism is bad” mantra with vengeance. It already started. That is what the OWS 99% versus 1% is all about. And yet, we are falling into the same trap as John McCain’s “there is nothing to fear from Barack Obama” mantra.

Take a look and listen to the 2012 Obama narrative:

Romney’s Bain took government bailouts. They shorted the pensions so that they had to be reimbursed by US taxpayers. Romneys Bain purposefully dumped toxic assets into companies they “deemed” as sacrificial for building their own wealth and the wealth of other companies they held. They would use one company’s assets to back further loans to buy out other companies until they had sucked the original company dry and walked away with the profits – as the original company was forced to declare bankruptcy. They used money from Foreign countries to do this and exported some jobs to those countries.

There were success stories; Staples and Steel Dynamics. But Romney’s rhetoric ignores the fact that private-equity companies like Bain are better known for destroying jobs than for creating them. This is why the issue is about character and judgment. There’s legitimate reasons to critique Romney. If Mitt doesn’t care what happens to people because of his business decisions, how do I know he’ll care what happens to people because of his political decisions? The vary nature of a corporate raider is cutting jobs. Pundits upset over attacks on Romney’s Bain days; reveals the true nature of the predatory, but legal side of capitalism.

In late 1979, during an economic strategy meeting, Ronald Reagan was talking about his upcoming presidential campaign. At one point, somebody expressed concern that John Connally, the former governor of Texas and another presidential candidate, was gaining support among corporate chief executive officers, with all the financial support and credibility that that entailed.

Reagan said this didn’t bother him at all.

“Let him have the Fortune 500,” he said. “I want our campaign to stand for Main Street, not Wall Street. I want us to stand for the worker, the shopkeeper, the entrepreneur, and the small businessman.”

Addendum

Leverage Buy-out Background

Bain has a venture-capital [VC] arm — where investments in fledgling start-ups are made, and a private-equity [PE] arm — where corporate buyouts are pursued. In some cases, not all, Romney was a ‘predatory capitalist’ or ‘corporate raider’ who overtly bankrupted companies. That was his PE career. It was neither the unmitigated success that he sometimes claims, nor was it ’always’ the heartless “vulture capitalist” firm that his critics portray. But, Romney helped create this leveraged buyout business model. And, it is this model that is not necessarily the type of business experience that makes one worthy of the White House – nor for jobs creation.

Here is how it works:

Private equity [PE] firms operate through leveraged buyouts. They buy companies, then they burden the companies with debt while trying to make the balance sheets look good, often by cutting costs – workers and pension benefits – to flip the companies for a profit. They put a small amount down, say, 20%, and the companies they’re buying borrow the rest from banks making them responsible for 80% repayment. Suddenly, a company that had a reasonable debt load, if any, is subjected to crushing repayment obligations.

What makes this work is a tax loophole that allows the interest on the loans to be tax deductible. Government encourages investment by making interest tax deductible for businesses who want to borrow money for capital equipment or expansion. But here, the debt exists so investors can cleverly buy a company without much risk to themselves. By deducting the interest on the debt, the company reduces its tax liabilities and can use that money to make its debt payments.

Got it so far? Spend little, borrow big, evade taxes and get control of a lucrative asset.

Now the fun starts. To make a company look more valuable to a potential buyer, the companies are managed for short-term gains. PE firms make “deep cuts in spending’— just the opposite of expanding job and economic growth – then have the companies borrow even more money and use it to pay the owners (themselves) distributions and dividends, on top of management fees.

When companies managed by PE firms do go bankrupt, as many do, crippled by debt and gouging, the PE firms have already made a tidy profit from high transaction fees, management fees and dividend payments. It’s the employees and creditors who lose big. So, the technique was to take over a company, load it up with debt, and collect nice fees and huge dividends, leaving the company without much cash and lots of debt.

Romney was a corporate raider while at Bain Capital. Most raiders are not interested in building companies. They are interested in making money for their investors, even if that means hurting the stakeholders of companies. Chop shop. That is what they do. That is how they make money. Newt is doing us all a favor by clearly showing us now how Romney will be rendered unelectable in the general. The issue is one of values, character and judgment and whether Romney is fit to be our President.

In the movie Pretty Woman the character Edward Lewis, [played by Richard Gere] a corporate raider was working on a hostile take over of a ship building company; bust the company, up sell it’s parts, and make a huge profit. In the end though, after being influenced by his paid escort he decided that his investment in the ship building company would be used to help the company grow, succeed and prosper. Is asking Romney, which was his mode of operation at Bain Capital really anti-business?

Electability: Gingrich

If you want to get rid of Obama, you have to first defeat Romney.

Jeffrey Andersen of the Weekly Standard penned an interesting article titled: “The case for Newt Gingrich” on December 31, three days prior to the Iowa caucus, questioning the assertion that Mitt Romney is the most electable candidate in the GOP field. Recall that before Barack Obama trounced John McCain in 2008, Mr. McCain trounced Mr. Romney. The enthusiasm gap does not favor Romney, as the one candidate who has led in the polls all along, is “Anybody But Romney.” The predictive markets still push a Romney victory just as the Washington establishment has chosen Romney as a victory fait accompli. They claim he’s the most electable, the safe bet. Fine; let’s play along.

First of all, let’s stipulate that this election will be about jobs, the economy and ObamaCare. And secondly, lets stipulate there are certain states that are critical to win on the electoral map. Beyond the fact that Obama is culpable to his record on jobs and the economy [Emphasis mine], Andersen points out, if one were to design a Republican opponent tailor-made to Obama’s liking, that opponent would be uniquely vulnerable to Obama’s main rhetorical thrust (making class-warfare arguments), uniquely unsuited to take aim at Obamacare (RomneyCare), and uniquely strong in states that are unlikely to matter in the general election race. In all three of these ways, Romney is made to order for Obama – while Newt Gingrich, is not.

The Vulnerabilities

Romney’s Massachusetts electoral record hardly inspires confidence. He was elected in 2002 but couldn’t crack 50% of the popular vote. By the end of his first and only term, he had an anemic 34% approval rating and a 65% disapproval rating. Sound familiar? Survey USA ranked Romney’s popularity 48th out of the 50 governors. As Governor, he passed a host of new tax and fee increases, hitting the corporate world hard and devastating job creation. Sound familiar? Romney squeezed out a net gain in payroll jobs of just 0.9%, compared with job growth of 5.3% for the nation as a whole. Sound familiar? Read more about Romney’s MA economic record here.

By comparison, over the same period, job growth in Texas was 6.9%, in Utah it was 9% and in Minnesota it was 3.5%. By the end of his fourth year, the Massachusetts economy was so bad that 3.5% of the state’s adult population fled the state. This Boston Globe chart explains why Romney’s popularity plummeted. With that, the supposedly electable Romney limped away rather than face the voters again. He would have lost the 2006 reelection. But not until he purged records, scrubbed emails and wiped computer data from state central computers. Romney’s unforgiving fiscal record puts him on an equal playing field with Obama. Obama just took away a key wedge issue from the GOP.

And, think about it. It’s going to be very difficult to criticize Obamacare when you have to defend Romneycare. Especially after stating: “Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good.” Obama just took away health care as a key wedge issue from the GOP. It is going to be very difficult to defend tax cuts too when Romney raised millions and millions in taxes and fees as Gov of MA. This, in addition to passing over Republican lawyers for 75% of his judicial vacancies naming instead Democrats and ‘Indy’s. Is Obama going to be lucky enough to have Republicans nominate a candidate whose weakest issue are socialized health care, taxes, jobs and economy?

What happens in the general election if Romney has to face Obama on these key Romney pillars?

• Romney’s Massachusetts was ranked 3rd lowest in job creation among 50 state Governors

• Romney raised taxes and fees on MA businesses and residents by $750 million annually

• Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts. Obama extended them.

• Romney is ObamaCare’s architect; believes RomneyCare should be “model for the nation”

• Romney lauded: “I’m moderate. My views are Progressive… regardless of party label”

• Romney’s conversion to pro-life is suspect; ongoing support of homosexual rights is not

• Romney’s environmental advisers now work in Obama’s White House for the EPA

• Romney supports Arne Duncan’s and Obama’s Education Secretary’s reforms

• Romney supported TARP bailouts

• Romney supported Obama’s stimulus bill

• Romney grew MA government employment 7.2%; overall spending increased 20.7%

• Romney led MA GOP into holding the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War

In contrast, please read about Newt Gingrich’s Credentials.

In an opinion piece in The Street by Anton Wahlman titled: “Why Gingrich Remains Most Likely to Win,” Wahlman pen’s that Romney’s luck at this stage is that the 75% opposition remains so fragmented that he looks like a winner at 25%. Romney’s problem is the same mathematics that he faced already a year ago — or for that matter four years ago. Romney has a ceiling, perhaps at 25% to 30%. In a fragmented race, that makes a candidate look very strong. But when the music stops, one non-Romney candidate will occupy more than 50% of the chairs. In 2008, not only McCain but also Huckabee finished ahead of Romney. A candidate unable to beat either McCain or Huckabee — despite spending more money — cannot be a strong candidate.

Where Mitt Romney vehemently denied Ronald Reagan, instead embracing Ted Kennedy, Gingrich fully embraced Reagan. To date, Gingrich has faced far fiercer attacks — both from the Washington establishment and from his rivals than Romney has. But that would change quickly if Romney were actually to become the nominee. Romney has gotten off easy so far. There is a reason why the liberal media slammed Bachman, Perry, Gingrich and Cain non-stop when they were the front-runners but hasn’t said anything about Romney other than conservatives need to get used to him as the nominee.

The financial advantage that has afforded Romney the luxury of pummeling Gingrich with negative ads will disappear with Obama. In a GE, Romney would then face the war chest of Obama, while Gingrich would actually acquire a war chest. If you still don’t believe the Obama-friendly media are hoping Romney wins the GOP nomination, Google: “Mitt Romney money picture” and ask yourself why the media are – for now – holding back this unseemly photo. The media will turn on Romney faster and with greater vengeance than they did McCain in 2008, and when they do, his poll numbers will crater like McCain’s did. The Democrats tested negative ads on Romney in the early fall with successful results, Romney’s numbers dropped, then the Democrats slithered back.

Current national polls show Romney and Gingrich virtually tied. But, let’s forget the polls and predictive models for now. November 2012 is a long way off – and at this point during the Carter – Reagan election – the Gipper was down 30% in the polls. Gingrich has appeal in the GE because he stands for ideas and results at a time when both parties have failed. He is the only candidate who can both beat Romney and Obama. Just as Reagan proved, a leader who can espouse conservative principles clearly and unapologetically, those “independents” will flock to him.

Romney would suppress conservative and evangelical turnout in a GE leading to an Obama victory. Romney can’t undercut ObamaCare if he is the nominee. Obama would pursue a class warfare gambit against Wall Street Romney. It’s all part of the 99% vs. 1% strategy. Romney will be a custom-made villain for Obama as Bain Capital gutted companies, made millions and got a federal bailout with Romney benefiting. Romney, who would not have won reelection, only served as Governor for 4 years, allowing Obama to claim he now has more ‘experience.’ All told, the Obama machine then goes to work on the electoral map.

The States

Jeffrey Andersen: When contemplating the places on the map where Romney would provide the GOP with the greatest electoral advantages, the answer would seem to be in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast. But none of the states in those regions, save New Hampshire, would be up for grabs in a close race. Instead, Romney would merely succeed in helping the party lose the likes of California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, by more respectable margins.

Because of the nature of the electoral map this time around, the key to victory won’t be whether Republicans can win in Democratic territory but whether Obama can, once again, win in Republican territory. In that vein, the election will likely come down to whether the Republican nominee can hold three mildly GOP-leaning states: Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. If the Republican nominee wins these (and if other states go according to form), then Obama would have to sweep New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to win, which he isn’t likely to do.

On the other hand, if the Republican nominee loses even one of these three key states, then the advantage would tilt to Obama. And if the state that’s lost is either Florida or Ohio (and especially if it’s Florida), the GOP nominee would essentially have to win Pennsylvania. The problem is that, in presidential elections dating back to 1960, Pennsylvania has always been less favorable to the GOP than Ohio has been, and it’s been less favorable than Florida in 12 of the 13 elections over that span (with the success of Georgia’s Jimmy Carter’s in Florida versus Michigan’s Gerald Ford being the only exception). In other words, the Republican nominee simply cannot afford to lose Florida or Ohio, and probably cannot afford to lose Virginia.

The fact that Gingrich is from neighboring Georgia, as opposed to Massachusetts, would presumably help him in Florida, as would his demonstrated strength among senior citizens. (Gingrich is from the Silent Generation and is four years older than Romney, who is a Baby Boomer.) Gingrich’s being from Georgia, as well as currently living in Virginia, would also presumably help him in the Old Dominion. Moreover, a GOP candidate who loses in Virginia would also be in danger of losing North Carolina — which would essentially seal that nominee’s fate — so it’s an added advantage that Georgia borders the Tar Heel State.

Ohio seems more like Gingrich country, and it would seem that way even if Ohio voters hadn’t recently rejected an individual mandate to buy health insurance like the one that Romney still stands by in Massachusetts — and even if that rejection hadn’t been unanimous across all 88 of Ohio’s counties. Obama’s class-warfare strategy seems designed to play well in Ohio, and — partly because of this — it would seem to be a place where it’s particularly important to talk early and often about Obamacare. Thus, in addition to his regional advantages in Florida and Virginia, Gingrich might well pose a more formidable challenge to Obama than Romney would in the Buckeye State — which Republicans have won every time they have ever won the presidency.

In politics, political fortunes can wax and wane. And weak incumbents can defeat even weaker challengers. But, structurally, 2012 is not at all friendly to Obama. In 2008, Obama won NC by less than 1 percent – 0.3% in fact. In Florida, he won by 2.8%. In Virginia, Obama won by 6%. In 2010, the entire Ohio River valley and Upper Midwest outside of Cook County Illinois rejected Obama. And, the Republicans control all the major governorships and legislative state houses in just about every one of those states. North Carolina voted for a D candidate once in 40 years pre-Obama. Virginia last voted for a D candidate – NEVER.

The Summary

Romney cannot get the Republican voter base behind him. He has a ceiling of 25-30% among Republican Primary voters, his public record of holding completely opposite positions inspires little confidence, and the ever-critical evangelical voter and conservative base will not go to the ballot box for him in a general election. He shares too many positions with Obama; EPA mandates, RomneyCare, Tax-fee increases, liberal appointments to judicial vacancies, miserable job-creation record, pro-abortion, gay advocacy, and gun control, among others. And, like Obama, the unlikable, cold and calculating Romney will say anything to anyone to advance himself.

The one person Democrats and Obama want to run against most is Romney; the DNC war room has been working on this for over a year. The 99% vs. the 1%, ring a bell? Wall Street vs. Common man. More class warfare. If you want to get rid of Obama, you have to offer an alternative. Romney is not an alternative. On jobs, the economy and socialized health care, Obama and Romney reside in the same sandbox on results. Where Gingrich campaigns for the rule of law, Romney seeks the continued status quo. Only Newt can unite the various wings of the Republican conservative base and play well on a national level.

If candidates seem repentant, most voters will forgive. Gingrich’s ‘foibles’ are well known. Click here to read Newt’s responses to his record and positions on those issues. Most of Gingrich’s verbal missteps made were that of a private citizen not as congressional record in governing; voters will have to weigh these against his conservative voting record and virtues. Once a politician becomes this well known, new scandals do less damage and old/rehashed scandals mean even less. No candidate in the race can match Gingrich’s career advocating and achieving conservative reforms in government. And, no candidate has led a national movement in electing a Republican majority.

Voters should recognize Gingrich’s “concrete accomplishments.” In an election where the imperative is to repeal Obamacare, Gingrich is the candidate who defeated Hillarycare. In an election where unemployment is 9%, Newts credentials are 4.2%. In an election where spending is out of control, Gingrich is the only candidate who last balanced the budget. Gingrich is better prepared to challenge the media on Obama’s record; the premise of the questions that the biased media asks – and just as Reagan knew the enemy was the media – so does Gingrich. And Newt, like Reagan before him, does not shrink from the attack.

If you want to get rid of Obama, you have to first defeat Romney.

Decorum is fo suckas. Obama vs. Romney, Obama wins.

Please read: Credentials; Gingrich.

Profound Speech: Newt Gingrich – From Nov 2009 [Same as Above]

What Mitt Romney does not want you to see:

Resources:

Newt Gingrich: Solutions
Newt Gingrich: Answers
National Taxpayer Union: Scoring
American Conservative Union: Scoring
The Romney Scorecard: Romney RINO
Club for Growth: White Paper
Gingrich’s daughter: Misinformation
Gingrich’s daughter II: My Father
The Evangelical Case for Newt Gingrich: Article
Social Network & Grassroots Supporters: Get Involved

Credentials: Gingrich

“Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: ‘If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.’ If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.” - Thomas Sowell

The Introduction

There’s more to picking a Presidential candidate than just conservative platitudes. A President must be a statesman. And to have become President, one has to have earned their credentials. A credential is a specific qualification or achievement that shows you are qualified. A record of achievements. Unique attributes. Evidence or testimonial which bearer’s competence. In picking a President, my candidate has to have an orderly worldview, clarity of vision, proven credentials, and ability to lead and motivate the majority with conviction.

And, when the brilliant Thomas Sowell endorses Newt Gingrich, I sit up.

Gingrich ran the House as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and was Minority Whip from 1989 to 1995. His accomplishments in government dwarf anything his rivals have managed to achieve nationally. When Newt became Speaker in 1995 congressional approval was about 20%. When he left the Speakership four years later, it was about 60%. Now it’s 11%. When Newt left the Speakership, the national debt was about $3 trillion. Now, its $15 trillion. When Newt left the Speakership, unemployment was 4.2%. Now, its roughly 9.0% for three years standing.

The crowd who are excoriating Gingrich are the exact same misfits that helped add $12 trillion to the debt, driven-down congressional approval to 11% and increased unemployment by a staggering 5%. Why do I care what the hell these people have to say? Who are they to deride Gingrich’s lack of leadership when they have showed none themselves? They’ve shunned conservative policy for over a decade, and favored Beltway influence-peddling at the expense of the people long after Gingrich exited. Gingrich’s agenda is a serious threat to the central planning mentality that permeates the ruling elite inside the beltway.

The Credentials

As a congressman, Gingrich was a Reagan Coalition member and Reagan Revolution fighter. As Speaker, he led the Republicans to their first House majority in over 40 years and the GOP finally broke the New Deal coalition that had dominated American politics for more than a half-century, moving policy substantially to the right for our nation. We all benefited as a result. This Reagan, Gingrich, Republican majority-aligned coalition also directly led to the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union.

As Speaker, he allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right and led his new Republican majority (the Republican Revolution) to pass the Contract with America, cut the deficit, cut taxes, reformed welfare, blocked Clinton’s agenda including HillaryCare, balanced the budget four years running, and extended the great, long-standing Reagan economy throughout the nineties. By comparison, Romney, a one-term MA Governor, vehemently denied Reagan; aligned himself with Ted Kennedy; and lost the most legislative seats for Republicans in MA since the Civil War.

Gingrich’s pro-life voting record is sterling at 98.6%, 70 out of 71 votes, and twice helped pass the end of partial-birth abortion in Congress, before Clinton vetoed it; a true encouragement for anyone who cares about babies being protected in the womb. His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union rings in at 90%. And the National Taxpayers Union’s Annual Scorecard on reduced spending and taxes gave Gingrich an “A”, for his last four years in office, ranking him #1, #4, #2 and #11 and as one of the most conservative members in Congress for the Republican party.

Of all candidates, Gingrich’s record “stands alone” in his policy achievements and successful leadership portfolio. During his Speakership, a blistering 11 million jobs were created (nearly 3 million per year), $400 billion in debt was paid off, 60% of welfare rolls were reduced, and taxes were cut for the first time in sixteen years – including the largest capital gains tax in history. That’s an immovable fact. Taken together, as a Reagan conservative, Gingrich has already proven his high office credentials as U.S. House speaker.

Gingrich’s 21st Century nine-point “Jobs and Prosperity Plan” borrows a page from Reagan’s 1980 economic platform. It is not just Reaganesque, it is Reaganomics, cryogenically frozen in 1981, thawed 30 years later, and pumped full of Newt-style steroids in order to save the American people from our nations slow systemic job growth. The pro-growth, pro-job, economic recovery plan features massive tax cuts, less government spending (through privatization of entitlement programs), interest-rate hikes, and rampant deregulation.

Gingrich, who blames excessive regulation for the 2008 financial crisis, also wants to advance Reaganomics by repealing the Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley laws governing the financial sector. He would reorient the Federal Reserve entirely toward taming inflation, axing the pursuit of full employment from its congressional mandate. He would cut spending by fundamentally restructuring safety-net programs, turning Medicaid into block grants to states and allowing Americans to opt into privatized accounts for Medicare and Social Security, eventually phasing out payroll taxes in the process.

The foundation is classic supply-side, trickle-down, Laffer-curve economics, which Gingrich’s economic advisers predict will unleash a Reagan-like boom that will eventually generate enough tax revenue to balance the federal budget. Gingrich calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment; and would move to zero-based budgeting, where every dollar must be justified domestically and in foreign aid; and his plan outlines how he’ll cut government waste, inefficiency and duplication all across the board. Notably, anyone planning to introduce ‘Lean Six Sigma’ into government is serious about slicing the bureaucracy.

Finally, no other candidate has listed a Day One Plan. As part of his 21st Century Contract with America, Gingrich has pledged to issue a series of Executive Orders to create jobs and help undo the damage of the Obama administration on the first day of his administration. Altogether, one could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth, limited government direction who understands the significance of the founding principle that we were created equal by our Creator (God) and endowed with certain unalienable rights.

The Attributes

Gingrich has a keen understanding of our nation’s history, including its founding. No candidate in the race can match Gingrich’s career advocating and achieving conservative reforms in government. And, no candidate has led a national movement in electing a Republican majority. Credentials matter. Our nation is in crisis. And Gingrich, a transformational leader, is uniquely prepared to turn over the rotten apples cart. As Rev Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesley in San Diego elegantly notes, Gingrich has:

Been vetted. Gingrich has his definite weaknesses, but so did Reagan. Based on what we know, he has walked through the biblical steps of forgiveness. Gingrich’s ‘baggage’ is well known – both positively and negatively; marital history; Pelosi couch; Heritage mandate to sword-off HillaryCare; and we all know it is relevant. Voters will have to weigh these against his good virtues. But, as Thomas Sowell warns: “voters should recognize Gingrich’s “concrete accomplishments” over his ‘personal life’ baggage.”

Intellectual depth and breadth. Even his critics stand in awe of his capabilities. No other candidate is as intellectually sound. His breadth and depth of knowledge of history and politics markedly transcends his opponents. His knowledge has brought wisdom. We need wisdom. His keen intellect is a gift from God.

Historical understanding. A knowledge of history makes one wise. His grasp of history and the constitution gives him an enormous advantage in understanding the solutions to today’s problems. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” If Gingrich can supplement his intellectual gravitas with a deliberate, solid moral compass — his presidency could spark a rebirth of the principles of American liberty.

Achieved “elder statesman” status. Statesmanship conveys a quality of leadership that inspires – bringing people together. A nation so traumatized by weak leadership, how can anyone dispute the mans knowledge of the issues, history of the issues from an American historical context, and his 21st Century solutions.

Knowledge of Washington, DC. We need someone who cannot be “bullied” by the system but rather someone who will ‘bully’ the system. Washington, DC is brutal. And Gingrich is a hard-charging warrior. An outsider, Gingrich understands Washington and should be measured by the list of enemies he’s made among the establishment. What good is having a solid, constitutional, pro-life, pro-marriage, Christian president in the White House, if one is unable to move legislation and dismantle bureaucracies. He has the credentials to navigate Washington DC.

Communication skills. Reagan did not speak to the core of conservatives. Reagan spoke his conservative principles to the core of America as a whole. Reagan had a gift for optimism. He always spoke of the future. Reagan communicated wide-reaching ideology and complex policies in terms ordinary people could understand. No one has the capacity to think through issues and articulate them better than Gingrich. I would rather have a leader who is vast with ideas, than the total lack of solutions that we’ve experienced from our leaders in both parties for years.

A yearning for American Exceptionalism. There are nearly 200 nations with constitutions. Only one nation has sacred documents that specifically state that our rights are given by our ‘Creator’ to “We The People”. We need a compelling leader who can march us back to greatness. Americans have long embraced a notion of superiority; the “shining city upon a hill” that Ronald Reagan described. Our American values and our history are unique and worthy of universal admiration. Gingrich is able to articulate ‘the psychology of optimism’ considerably better than any elected official I have seen since Reagan.

An understanding of moral differences. It is no longer a case of “right vs. left” but “right vs. wrong.” Marriage does not seek a new definition. Tearing up a baby in the womb is not “left.” It is wrong. Stealing funds from future generations and spending it is not “left.” Its wrong. The 9th Circuit Court’s removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is not merely “left.’ It is wrong. Gingrich understands the moral component and the perils of our rapidly disappearing freedom and he grasps the threat posed by loss of religious liberty.

An understanding of war. America is in a moral and economic war. A war that will determine whether America, as she was conceived, survives free expression of the will of the people, or ideas imposed on the nation from an elite. In war, one needs a sophisticated warrior, one who understands the nature of fighting and winning – and losing. Gingrich is that warrior. He is a warrior made for this war. Failure to grasp this one key issue could cost us our future.

Churchillian fortitude. We face serious dual enemies: the radical left secularist and radical Islam, both with the capability of destroying our historic America. The left has almost succeeded. Gingrich is right by seeing the dual dangers. Few seem to grasp it. But he does. We need a president who will not waver. Churchill was flawed, as are all people. But Churchill was needed by Britain, just as America now needs Gingrich’s leadership. We must have a Winston Churchill.

Most Electable Conservative. Most Liberals will hate him, but the Tea Party and taxpayers won’t; the lovers of liberty, guardians of life and defenders of national security will support him. As the non-Romney conservative candidates fall-off and consolidate, Newt’s numbers will rise. Gingrich has appeal in the GE because he stands for ideas and results at a time when both parties have failed. He is the only candidate who can both beat Romney and Obama — and who has a proven track record as a conservative. Reagan proved it beyond any doubt; given a leader who can espouse conservative principles clearly and unapologetically, those “independents” will flock to him. Romney would suppress conservative and evangelical turnout in GE.

The Challenges

There should be no objection to the cataloguing of any candidate’s failings, and Newt has certainly made his share of mistakes, just as Reagan did, but they are far outweighed by his unique gifts. Gingrich has taken positions and done things in his personal life I don’t agree with, but to his credit he has been transparent, has shown humility, and a willingness to continue to be transparent. I trust a man who has made mistakes, and publicly expressed his regret for them, more than I trust a man, who conceals his past. Obama concealed his past in 2008. We see the same in Mitt Romney in 2012.

The GOP Establishment does not like conservatives. The Republican establishment and the Beltway elite ruling class hates Gingrich. This “hate Newt” strategy is eerily similar to the ‘hate Reagan’ strategy. They didn’t like Ronald Reagan either. He was classified as ‘radical’ ‘unfit’ ‘unqualified’ ‘not electable’ – most of the opposition coming from his own party who were threatened by his conservative flank. In gaining national appeal, Reagan stood above the dishonest criticism and carried on. Reagan was the insurgent candidate in 1980, and Gingrich should be the insurgent candidate in 2012.

Establishment Republicans, who benefit from business-as-usual in Washington, fear a great ideas-based crusade that builds a national citizens movement behind reducing the scope and intrusiveness of the government. They’re worried about losing influence, power and privilege. While party-elite insiders claim Gingrich is “of the establishment” and “hated by the establishment,” those same insiders know he is capable of having a closer relationship with the American citizen than the present party members. Newt, by his nature, will not toe the Establishment line.

Many don’t know that a large reason Gingrich is despised by the Republican Establishment is because, when he was speaker, he appointed people to leadership positions that he felt were the best candidates to help accomplish his goals – going over the heads of the Establishment Republicans who felt that it was “their turn”. He also ignored the ‘entrenched old-timers’ advice to “go it slow” and went full throttle. Did he get things done? Yes. Did he ruffle lots and lots of feathers in the process? Yes. Gingrich does not toe the party line.

The 2012 battlefield is not against Obama. His record is indefensible. Struggling families don’t need reminding how they feel. The war will be won or lost against the biased left-leaning media, which prop Obama up. That is where the war will reside. What candidate understands that the media is not their friend? As Romney opines he’ll work well with ‘good Democrats,’ Gingrich challenges the premise of the questions that the biased media asks. Just as Reagan knew the enemy was the media so does Gingrich. And Newt, like Reagan before him, does not shrink from the attack.

The Summary

In an election where the imperative is to repeal Obamacare, Gingrich is the candidate who defeated Hillarycare. In an election where unemployment is 9%, Newts credentials are 4.2%. In an election where spending needs to be reined-in, Gingrich is the candidate who last balanced the budget. By his past accomplishments, he understands these issues better than any other candidate. Gingrich led the friendly forces to victory and he was the target of the enemy forces to defeat. None of that is even in dispute.

For too long, as a center-right nation, we have allowed the voice of our frustration go unchallenged as some judicial court just removed the nativity scene from the courthouse lawn. Not Gingrich. Laying out the constitutional and philosophic wrongness of the underpinnings of that removal, Gingrich “cuts off the enemy at the knees.” And yet some, when the warrior comes to our defense, condemn the protector. Part of Reagan’s pledge to get government off the backs of the people included returning the courts to what he deemed their proper and limited constitutional roles, as Gingrich has: “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution.”

For the reasons set forth, only someone trying to distort a persons record for political expediency could argue Gingrich is not a conservative. To call Newt a “Progressive” or “frugal socialist” when his actual record of national accomplishments utterly dwarfs other candidates in the race – strikes me as beyond absurd. I gladly dissent from those who can’t debate the merits of a man in the context of historical accuracy. The obsession with personal past deeds and purity is to distract the discussion from present day crisis that America now faces.

The next President will fill 3 or 4 vacancies on the Supreme Court; repeal Obamacare; balance the budget; cut the size and scope of government; and tackle tax-code, border security and entitlement reforms. Gingrich is a bona-fide change agent who said he wants to slenderize government “fundamentally,” “historically” and “categorically.” He knows his path to greatness is to dismantle the nanny state socialism that has permeated Washington and return our nation to “Americanism” “Exceptionalism” and true “Capitalism.” The country is looking for a bold leader.

This is not just another election. This is it. The stakes are high. Credentials matter.

Gingrich’s overall record shows he has done more to advance the cause of conservatism across our nation than any of his opponents. He recognizes the threats to America from without and within, and is unafraid to tell the truth. Gingrich is stern, intelligent, and experienced with the fortitude we need as the next leader of this country. The GOP establishment is scared of Gingrich just as they wanted no part of Ronald Reagan. He is a man who isn’t restrained by Washington convention, but who instead has consistently bucked custom to get things done.

To date, Gingrich is the only American politician who committed to balancing the federal budget and succeeded. I can’t imagine anyone who would bring the intellectual vigor and conservative agenda to the table as Gingrich would. I have absolutely no fear that a President Gingrich will lead the country in a conservative direction starting in 2013. Please read: Electability: Newt Gingrich. Below is one of the most profound speeches I’ve ever listened to. With no teleprompter, his delivery is effortless, with clarity of thought. From Nov 2009:
[Click Full Screen - bottom right]

Resources:

Newt Gingrich: Solutions
Newt Gingrich: Answers
National Taxpayer Union: Scoring
American Conservative Union: Scoring
Club for Growth: White Paper
Gingrich’s daughter: Misinformation
Gingrich’s daughter II: My Father
The Evangelical Case for Newt Gingrich: Article
Social Network & Grassroots Supporters: Get Involved

From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: BLS

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 120,000 jobs last month and claimed that the unemployment rate fell to 8.6% in November. Specifically, private employers added a net gain of 140,000 jobs last month while governments, meanwhile, shed 20,000 jobs, mostly at the local and state level, resulting in a net gain of non-farm payroll employment rise of 120,000.

Employment trended up in retail trade, leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, and health care. More than half the jobs added were by retailers, restaurants and bars, a sign that holiday hiring has kicked in. Retailers alone added 50,000 jobs. Leisure and hospitality added 22,000, with food service and bars up 33,000. In all, growth in non-farm payroll employment (+120,000) was lower than the 12-month average (+131,000).

And, the number of people who quit looking for work was 315,000. Once folks exhaust their extended unemployment benefits they’re no longer counted as being unemployed even if they are not working. Those are the people who after 99 weeks or more of being unemployed have said, “I’m done. I’m through looking.” So they’re not counted. Therefore, the universe of jobs available in the country is down by 315,000. That is called the labor force participation rate.

So, the Labor Force Participation Rate dropped 0.2% to 64%, from 64.2% in October, representing 315,000 fewer job seekers or put another way, 315,000 people leaving the workforce. Weekly unemployment claims have consistently been near 400,000 and only 120,000 jobs were created, BUT that equals a 0.4% drop in unemployment number? And, 120,000 jobs were created and 315,000 fell out of the labor force, and this moved unemployment down 0.4%?

With the unemployment rate hovering at or around 9.1% for the past two years, only the most politically deranged and woefully ignorant could possibly believe the hiring of 120,000 people could trigger a half-percent drop in the rate. We’re dealing with a serious form of manipulation of data. It is a corrupt number. You need at least 120,000 non-farm payroll jobs per month just to keep up with the population growth.

So, lets cut to the chase.

The key reason for the sharp drop was that hundreds of thousands of people had stopped looking for work coupled with a temporary up-tick in seasonal jobs. Yet, people left the workforce more than people found jobs at a rate of nearly 2:1. The average duration of unemployment rose from 39.4 to 40.9 weeks previously. That is your “improving” jobless picture in a nutshell. The trend indicates deep structural unemployment.

This is how it works: 120,000 people find work, 315,000 quit looking; those 315,000 are no longer called unemployed. Add those two numbers together and you get a grand total of 435,000, and that 435,000; the government says are no longer unemployed today. So 435,000 jobs were created. Just as we use a bogus method [fuzzy math] to justify federal spending with baseline budgeting, we also use bogus methods to calculate unemployment rates. Who are you going to believe the Government or your lying eyes?

And over time, when the job universe shrinks, so does the unemployment rate. Consider this: The job universe from January 2009 when Obama was sworn in to the present is down roughly 2.5 million jobs. There are 2.5 million fewer jobs in our country in the three years since Obama has been in office. You shrink the workforce by 2.5 million people and you can report that the unemployment rate went down. More people leave the workforce than found jobs, and unemployment rates goes down – and that’s a dirty little secret.

Even if you are generous, and assume half the people leaving the workforce retired (not due to a lack of job opportunities), this report means that one person is finding a job for every person that is giving up. That’s on top of the alarmingly high pool of people still looking for work but cannot find it. Job seekers have simply STOPPED LOOKING and retailers have ramped up temporary seasonal hiring. Half the 120,000 jobs came from either retailers or temp job agencies. And the Christmas surge in hiring will drop-off after the Christmas holidays.

When the unemployment rate declines, you want to see both employment and participation increase as discouraged workers return to the labor force. Today, we got the former, but not the latter, making the 0.4-drop suspect. You can also guarantee that the unemployment rate will give back some of its decline in the coming month. The change in total non-farm payroll employment for September was revised upward from +158,000 to +210,000, and the change for October was revised upward from +80,000 to +100,000.

There is no silver lining in this report for Obama as it relates to the job picture – or for America’s unemployed. The average workweek was unchanged at 34.3 hours, with hourly earnings falling two cents. Really makes me want to pop the champagne. From the corrupted statistical summary released today, this is how outlandish this report is; 0.4 divided by 8.6 equals 4.65% decrease. At that rate of decline, unemployment will be 0% in just about 20 months! Isn’t Obama wonderful?

Unless 263,000 jobs are created each month over the next 5 yrs, America will have a higher unemployment rate in Oct. 2016 than it did in Dec. 2007. How realistic is it that the US economy can create 15.8 million jobs in the next 60 months? People drop out of the labor force and some plop onto food stamps. When that happens, the aggregate debt grows, and the burden then just shifted from private debt to public debt. It’s much like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Friday’s numbers is all calculated to create a false impression of economic recovery and a healthier job market. Yet, there were over 400,000 applications for unemployment compensation reported yesterday. Let me make this caveat for the agent provocateurs. Some, whose benefits have run out, may have decided to stay home with the kids or go back to school; start their own business, but are not “on the radar” yet; happily working under the table; or are almost-retired and are marking time until social security kicks in.

Not ALL are running around looking for jobs. But, assume most are. Labor force measures are based on the civilian non-institutional population 16 years old and over. The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder – those who have no job and are not looking for one – are counted as “not in the labor force.”

The true unemployment using U6 numbers is 16%. What is U6? The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the government reports the U-3 rate), but also count “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” The U3 is a government marker and that is what is reported. U3 is made up of people looking for work and people who have lost their jobs.

When you quit looking for a job, you’re only counted in the U6 number, which is not the one reported by the BLS. The U3 number is. So you drop out of the system altogether, you’re no longer counted by the Obama regime. Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. For a more detailed explanation on U3 and U6 click here.

Obamanomics, i.e. EPA regulation’s, Obamacare, drilling shutdowns, threatened tax increases, out of control Fed spending and Trillions in new debt and the resulting debased dollar is poison to job creation. We have three years of proof. No President since FDR has ever won reelection if unemployment was over 7.5%. The Great Blizzard of dishonest government statistics continues under this Regime. This 0.4-drop is Bull$#@!

The US workforce is moving from discouragement to despair. Obama’s economy is Jimmy Carter malaise on steroids. Joe Goebbels had nothing on these guys. The job market is dead.

Charts:

Labor Force Participation Rate:

People Not In The Labor Force:

People Who Want A Job Now:

And Average Duration Of Unemployment:

Romney Fiscal Plan: Hypocrisy or Idiocy?

Rome is burning. The federal government has a spending addiction. Our nation has made more than $63 trillion in unfunded promises, to be paid for by future generations. Those who are awake, agree we have to cut spending in a major way. It is what drives many of us. The solution is to reduce federal spending.

And yet, Washington, D.C.’s, bipartisan, multi-decade “borrow-and-spend” agenda and the U.S. national debt crisis is still on the fence with no resolution in sight. Yes, trash the needless bureaucratic departments and agencies and “dismantle” the size and scope of intrusive government. This is a fairly straight-forward point. It is a concern as old as our Republic.

Washington spoke about it… But, Jefferson said it best:

“I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.”

Romney Fiscal Plan

On November 3,2011, Mitt Romney presented his fiscal plan in USA Today outlining a deficit-reduction plan that he said would slash federal spending and “economize, simplify and make smarter government.” Smarter Government, eh? Romney sets a target of returning federal spending to around 20% of the economy by the end of four years.

To get there, he says he’ll apply a disjointed formulation of a simple cost-benefit test across the government: “Is this program so critical, so essential, that we should borrow money from China to pay for it?” Notably, Romney claimed he would “eliminate every government program that is not “absolutely essential.”” Eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential, eh?

Romney’s platitudes sound good until you realize Romney’s spending “cuts” would expand the federal budget by 8% over the next four years and Mr. Romney does not eliminate a single cabinet-level department. Not one. Zilch. Nada. Let me repeat. Romney does not eliminate a single cabinet-level department. That doesn’t suggest a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility.

From Jacob Sullum: Romney’s goal of cutting $500 billion from projected federal outlays in 2016 would, at best, leave the budget about 8% higher than it is now and only 11 % lower than it would be without any attempt to restrain spending. The implication: Mitt Romney thinks 89% of what the federal government does is “absolutely essential.”

Cutting the amount of an increase in spending is not a ‘cut’. It is only a reduction in the increased rate of ‘spending’. All together, Romney’s proposed cuts represent less than 3% of federal spending in 2011 and less than 8% of the $1.3 trillion deficit. Romney’s increase in the size and scope of government is hardly a commitment to fiscal responsibility. By contrast, Ron Paul’s plan would balance the budget by 2015.

Specific Romney cut highlights:

• Romney’s spending “cuts” would expand the federal budget, at best, 8% by 2016.

• Romney claimed he would “eliminate every government program that is not “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney does not eliminate a single cabinet-level department.

• Mitt Romney thinks the Department of Housing and Urban Development is “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney thinks the Department of Education is “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney thinks the Department Energy is “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney thinks the Department of Commerce is “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney thinks the EPA is “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney thinks the National Endowment for the Arts is “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney thinks the National Endowment for the Humanities is “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney thinks funding NPR and PBS are “absolutely essential.”

• Mitt Romney does not cut one government worker. He would reduce the federal work force only through attrition.

• Romney said he would align federal compensation with the private sector, which he said would save more than $40 billion by 2016.

• Romney didn’t endorse private Social Security accounts so younger workers can build up wealth that they would own and be able to pass along to heirs. Instead, Romney would endorse “progressive indexing,” essentially an income test that would slow the increase in future benefits for wealthier seniors and gradually raise the retirement age.

• Romney wants to “eliminate Title X family planning programs which cost roughly $300 million a year.

• Romney wants to “eliminate subsidies for the unprofitable Amtrak” which he says would save $1.6 billion a year.

• Romney says he would repeal ObamaCare, thereby saving $95 billion in 2016. Though, according to the CBO, the $95 billion reflects how much federal spending would be cut, not how much the repeal would reduce the deficit. Health-care repeal would cut the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, not $95 billion. That is because the health care law raises some taxes and cuts Medicare spending, changes that would also be repealed.

• Romney favors block grants for Medicaid to the states capped at inflation plus 1%, which means Governors would lead a wave of federalist experimentation. The proposed cuts would reach $200 billion a year by the end of the decade.

• Romney embraces about two-thirds of Paul Ryan’s “premium support” Medicare plan giving all seniors a defined cash contribution to choose among private insurance options. Missing from his plan is how the premium-support payments would grow over time.

• Romney would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act saving $10 billion a year.

• Romney would increase Defense spending.

Summary

Underwhelming. The idea of eliminating programs is always preferable to proposals than make overall spending reductions. The latter path can simply be negated by future Congresses by increasing the spending again, whereas elimination of the program makes it much more difficult to recreate them. Romney simply has no credibility when he promises to “eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential.”

Instead of zeroing NEA out, Romney makes “deep reductions” in NEA’s funding, which was $155 million this year, or 0.004% of the $3.7 trillion federal budget. And to think, getting rid of three Arts programs; the NEA, the NEH and the CPB [CPB provides funding for both NPR and PBS] would save less than $1 billion a year, about 0.02% of the total budget. What does it say about Romney’s commitment to fiscal restraint that he can’t even go that far?

Romney said he would “consolidate, eliminate and streamline federal departments, agencies and offices following a stem-to-stern review.” But gave no detail. Romney claims he would take a stand against ‘foreign aid’ or giving taxpayer money to “countries that oppose America’s interests” but then does not name any in his plan, which in any event, accounts for just 1% of federal spending. Could he possibly be more vague?

The biggest change is more of a nod to voucherizing Medicare, though keeping the old system for those who want it. Typical Romney. Have it both ways. Where are the $100B required annual savings in Social Security, Medicare and Defense? Name some victims other than Amtrak passengers and ballet companies. Next he’ll claim he can balance the budget by eliminating the White House Christmas card.

There is pervasive institutional dishonesty when it comes to D.C.’s budget math. A classic example is the way politicians rig the system so a “spending cut” takes place if the budget grows by, say, 6% instead of 8%. The nefarious D.C. budget math is explained here by Dan Mitchell during an interview with Judge Napolitano.

Romney is full of platitude and pander [stronger language deleted by author]. He has no intention or plans to cut much of anything, but is making symbolic attacks on things Republicans traditionally don’t like. It’s the most predictable, cliché list of pseudo-cuts I’ve ever seen, proving once again that Romney is a principle-free opportunist. With Romney, we would only be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic:

Mr. Romney does not eliminate a single cabinet-level department.

Mr. Romney’s spending “cuts” would expand the federal budget.

Mr. Romney thinks 89% of what the federal government does is “absolutely essential.”

It is laughable how Mitt Romney tries to pass himself off as some champion for fiscal restraint, a candidate with grassroots Tea Party ideals with a history of job creation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Romney’s record as Massachusetts’s governor is that of a liberal progressive; higher taxes, high unemployment and bigger government. And, this chart from the Boston Globe on Massachusetts’s economic performance during Romney’s tenure brings home the point.

Instead of reducing federal spending Rome would continue to burn under Romney.

To learn more about the real Mitt Romney and his governing record, click here.

Source:

Absolutely Profligate by Jacob Sullum

Mitt Romney, Mitchell’s Golden Rule, and “Absolutely Essential” Government Spending by Dan Mitchell

GDP is made up of: Y=C+I+G+{(X-M)} …where Y=GDP.

C=Consumption, I=Investment, G=Government Spending, (X-M)=Net Exports, X=Exports, M=Imports.

[PRNewswire] — The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis today reported 2.5% growth in real gross domestic product [GDP] – the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States – for the third quarter [Q3] of 2011 according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA]. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 1.3%.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis goes on to say that the acceleration in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected accelerations in personal consumption expenditures
[PCE] and in nonresidential fixed investment and a smaller decrease in state and local government spending that were partly offset by a larger decrease in private inventory investment.

So, Q3 GDP came in at 2.5%, nearly double the pace of the previous month, eh? And, the report projects that consumer spending increased by around 2% after rising by only 0.7% in Q2? And, a sizable increase in business fixed investment is expected to have occurred too together with roughly unchanged housing activity, while government spending declined. Something doesn’t feel quite right here. These numbers puzzle me.

Economist use bulk carload freight and transport indicators as one of the primary measures of economic activity. When you look at port traffic and rail traffic there is reason to be concerned. For port traffic, there is less traffic coming in for September but more outgoing. Port traffic and cargo order piles are down. In fact, the five busiest container ports in the U.S. said that imports in August 2011 were lower than or even with 2010 volumes.

It’s not just port traffic that is down. Rail traffic has been ticking up all year until towards the end of September when it too went flat. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., which moves more containers between ships, rail and trucks than any other U.S. railroad, didn’t experience a traditional holiday peak in volumes this year. Normally you would expect port and rail traffic to pick up with the Holiday season coming.

On the consumer side, where spending is reported to have picked up; disposable personal income increased $17 billion [0.6%] in Q3 and the personal saving rate — saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 4.1% in the third quarter, compared with 5.1% in the second. This points to consumers spending their savings. That is not a good indicator for future consumption. And, PCE is often revised from the advance report as receipts and reports are collected.

And, where better to go to observe consumer-spending indicators than the world’s largest consumer-products company. So I went and glanced at Proctor & Gambles earnings. From Bloomberg: P&G “reported a 1.9% drop in their quarterly net income as higher costs for raw materials countered price increases and sales gains in emerging markets.” So lets see:

A. “Price increases across all divisions and regions… boosted sales by 4% in the quarter.”

B. “Total sales at P&G, which last year generated two-thirds of its revenue from outside the U.S., advanced 8.9%…” and;

C. “The cost of doing business has gone up.”

So, a simple translation: (a) price increases [inflation] (b) non-US sales (c) escalated cost in raw materials [inflation] (d) currency depreciation – all seem like factors. The price of goods is the reason GDP grew as food and energy prices rose even though food and energy are not calculated in Obama’s inflation index. We’re just kicking the can down the inflation highway. Who you gonna believe – the government or your lyin’ eyes?

What does all this mean?

Consumers are tapping their savings and levering up again. Increased consumer spending came from cuts in the savings rate rather than from gains in income. People are tapping into their savings and retirement funds. Equity outflows are occurring [401k's]. It’s phantom growth. Most of the GDP growth is from inflation, pushing up PCE. It’s not real growth. This is under-reported inflation and over-reported GDP. Inflation spread over the GDP deflator; oldest trick in the Keynesian book.

And, continued woes in the housing market are overshadowed by consumer concern over the anemic labor market; highlighted by the decline in consumer sentiment back to 2008-09 levels. This weak sentiment will limit the rise in consumption through the holiday season and right into winter. Sustained economic growth above 2.0% is simply unlikely. Growth will slow down again in the Q4 and throughout 2012.

Withheld employment taxes by the Treasury are on a downward trend meaning that employment is failing to grow. Slow employment growth means slow labor income growth which bodes poorly for more robust consumer spending which itself makes up 70% of the US economy. Business investment, inventory, and exporting hold the other key to how much growth can be anticipated through the first half of 2012.

That 2.5% number will be revised down as usual…to about half of what they claim now…there is no double dip, because we never left the last recession and are still spiraling downward. Most business leaders see contraction in their sectors not expansion. And, Goldman’s own proprietary Goldman Sachs Analyst Index, a survey of Goldman’s equity analysts across a range of sectors, reported on Oct. 29th, ‘the economy is weak and got worse in October.’

Given inflation is running away at above 4% per annum the words “1% growth” are also statistically adjusted to meaningless [ie. 3% short]. There is a problem with how quarterly GDP reports are presented by the media in isolation from dependent issues such as national debt, government spending and unemployment. When we say the GPD ‘grew’ by 2.5%; in terms of dollars and cents, it means the economy has grown by ‘just’ $443 billion (2011 Q1-Q3) so far.

If you layer that over our catastrophic national debt, devaluation of our currency
through ‘stimulus’, pervasive unemployment rate and Obama’s 2011 existing $4.0 trillion expenditure… the NET growth of 2.5% just evaporated. But when you’re going over the precipice you’ll grab on to anything. Economists say it typically takes growth of 3% or better to prompt businesses to start hiring again to meet stronger demand for their products.

2.5% GDP, my ass… This is beyond Orwellian. A new category must be made: Obamwellian.

Mitt’s GOP Plank – Talking Points

Mitt Romney opposed the two most successful conservative policy efforts of the last 30 years… the Reagan policies of the 1980`s and the Contract With America of the 1990`s. I have always been impressed with any so-called ‘self-proclaimed conservative’ or ‘Republican’ who parrots discredited Keynesian economic thinking, believes in man-made climate change and embraces government ‘mandates’ and social engineering.

There is nothing in Mitt Romney’s record that indicates that he is anything other than a liberal progressive Republican ‘masquerading’ as a palatable conservative. Mitt Romney represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party and everything that has left us dying in a ditch. Pretend conservatives are what got us to where we are and are what will completely destroy us if allowed.

Conversely, ‘thinking conservatives’ support free markets, constitutionally limited government, and fiscal responsibility and oppose politicians from both parties who do not. They understand that conservatism ‘cannot be redefined’ to fit the mold of whoever the candidate is. But enough of the preamble. ‘The Mitt Romney Republican Plank’ are statements Romney has made in support of liberal progressive policies and/or he governed as such:

Each bullet point is a documented link.

• Romney states he’d keep parts of ObamaCare: “Repeal the bad. Keep the good.”
• Romney believes in individual government mandates “I like mandates.”
• Romney believes RomneyCare and thus, ObamaCare should be “a model for the nation” because, he has said so.
• Romney is the architect for ObamaCare. And, his three advisers met at the White House twelve times to craft the ObamaCare act.
• Romney lauded: “I’m moderate. My views are Progressive… regardless of party label.”
• Romney believes liberal judges should be appointed to the courts. Mitt passed over GOP lawyers for 75% of 36 judicial vacancies naming instead Democrats and Independents appointments.
• Romney is an advocate for same-sex rights. Mitt Romney nominated not one, but two, known homosexual liberal gay-marriage activists as judges in Massachusetts.
• Romney was for ‘gay marriage’ before he was against it.
• Romney issued an official state proclamation celebrating “Gay Youth Pride Day” even though there was no legal reason requiring him to do this. Here is the Proclamation from the Governor’s office.
• Romney opposed the Boy Scouts’ policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters and prevented the organization from participating publicly in the 2002 Olympics.
• Romney believes taxpayers should pay for, and the government should subsidize, abortion. Mitt supported abortion funding in his Romneycare plan.
• Romney placed a Planned Parenthood member on the Mass Health Care board. He did not place a pro-life member on his board.
• Romney’s conversion to the pro-life position is suspect and his ongoing support of homosexual rights is not.
• Romney’s environmental advisers now work in Obama’s White House for the EPA.
• Romney’s appointment of environmental adviser John Holdren is troubling. Now a member of the Obama White House, Holdren holds some very extreme views. He has talked of forced abortions, confiscation of babies, mass involuntary sterilization and he is an advocate of de-developing America and population control.
• Romney was for Cap and Trade before he was against it, or sumthin.
• Romney lauded Cap-and-Trade as “good for business” according to a 2005 Boston Globe report.
• Romney in Manchester, NH, in June of 2011 stated: ‘man-made global warming is real.’
• Romney believes in tax and ‘fee’ increases on corporations and residents. Mitt raised taxes and fees on Massachusetts businesses and residents by $750 million annually.
• Romney had a net payroll jobs gain of less than 1% over 4 years; 0.09% to be exact in job creation, compared with job growth of 5.3% for the nation as a whole.
• Romney was 47th out of 50 Governors in job creation and economic growth.
• Romney ranked: Massachusetts was ranked third lowest in job creation and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy.
• Romney lead a 14% decline in Massachusetts manufacturing during his tenure when the rest of the nation saw only 7%.
• Romney oversaw a 3.5% out-migration in population in his state during his tenure.
• Romney increased the local tax burden from 10% to 10.6% of per capita income.
• Romney’s record led the Club For Growth to ultimately give Romney a “C” on fiscal issues after concluding that he “broke his verbal commitment” to not raise taxes in Massachusetts.
• Romney had the 2nd worse score on fiscal issues out of the 25 freshmen Republican Governors according to a rating by the Cato Institute.
• Romney’s economic performance during his tenure is summarized by the Boston Globe in this chart titled: “Massachusetts’s economic performance”. This chart is informatively brutal. [If you receive a 404 Not Found error. Keep refreshing the link. It'll come up.]
• Romney’s jobs record was worse than Michael Dukakis’
• Romney believes climate change is a man-made hysteria, because Mitt believes man has directly influenced global warming.
• Romney believes ethanol should be federally subsidized.
• Romney believes in mandated socialized medicine, because Mitt has stated RomneyCare is “one of his best assets” and ‘is a conservative view.’
• Romney opposes the Flat Tax. At least, until Mitt said he loves the flat tax last week, or something. But Romney’s 159-page jobs plan doesn’t have a flat tax in it.
• Romney supported gun control measures. He supported the Assault Weapons ban and the Brady Bill, but now claims to be 2nd Amendment supporter.
• Romney now embraces “the 99%”. Not the ‘53%’…or the ‘1%’.
• Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts.
• Romney did not support the two most prolific conservative movements of the last 30 years; The Reagan Revolution and the Contract with America.
• Romney did nothing about ‘right to work laws’. Then, in October 2011, he refused to endorse Ohio’s union referendum limiting collective bargaining. The next day he reversed himself.
• Romney favored an increase in the minimum wage by indexing it.
• Romney embraced Obama’s stimulus bill, because in Mitt’s hardcover book “No Apology,” he wrote Obama’s stimulus bill would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.”
• Romney supported TARP bailouts.
• Romney supports Arne Duncan’s and Obama’s Education Secretary’s reforms; and as video shows, praised ‘Race to the Top’. Romney also supported No Child Left Behind
• Romney’s overall spending grew 20.7% over four years as Governor of Massachusetts.
• Romney grew government jobs on state payroll in Massachusetts by 7.2%
• Romney believed in 2008 illegal immigrants here already should be granted citizenship, saying: “the 12 million or so ‘illegals’ already here should be granted citizenship.”
• Romney’s business experience did not show him to govern as a conservative in Massachusetts.
• Romney was listed as No. 8 in a 2005 list of Top 10 RINO’s in the Republican Party by Human Events.
• Romney supported the re-nomination of Ben Bernanke after the housing collapse.
• Romney “is not a conservative.” The conservative Republican base is “not happy” with Mitt Romney, says Rush Limbaugh.
• Romney led Massachusetts Republicans into holding the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War.
• Romney has raised more money from lobbyists, wealthy special interest groups, especially K Street, and lobbyist-linked political action committees, than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

The real Mitt Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He will alter his past, exaggerates his record and traffic in ambiguous language. That puts Romney and Obama in the same sand box. Romney is a manufactured candidate. He moderates his stripes, but he doesn’t change them.

Romney overstates his accomplishment and understates the side effects. Romney doesn’t apply principle, he manages image; his own image, like Obama. Nobody can choreograph political theater and distortions of failed policies like Romney and Obama. There’s just one requisite for being a conservative political leader, and that is that you actually are one. Mitt Romney is no conservative. And, conservatism cannot be redefined to fit the mold of whoever the candidate is.

This is the Republican plank that conservatives are expected to rally around? For as much progress as the Tea Party and the conservative movement has made, is Obama lucky enough to have Republicans nominate a candidate whose weakest issue is Romneycare, jobs, and a terrible MA economy? Romney has a penchant for obfuscating his true positions in order to advance his political ambitions. Mitt Romney is a panderer. Beware. Our country is at stake. The end.

“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush” - Mitt Romney

For a full essay on Mitt Romney click here.

Mitt Romney’s Greatest Hits…

“Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations. Romney’s tax policies were not helpful for many small businesses. When Romney took many IRS subchapter ‘S’ businesses in Massachusetts and almost doubled their tax rates, it was an important disincentive to investment, growth and job creation.” - Peter Nicholas, founder of Boston Science Corporation CEO

Romney: 47 outta 50 – Fiscal Fail

In Massachusetts, Romney passed a host of new tax and fee increases, hitting the corporate world hard and devastating job creation. Mitt Romney has represented himself as a tax cutter. But HE IS NOT. He is a ‘fee’ increaser. A liberal Republican who governs like a progressive and disguises himself as a palatable conservative. The power to tax is the power to destroy. High tax rates destroy the incentive to invest and work and destroy economic growth and job creation.

When we think of government revenues, we tend to immediately think of taxes. But government also levies many ‘surcharges’, ‘tolls’, ‘fines’ and ‘fees’. Politicians tend to regard fees as more palatable to voter ears than taxes and all lawmakers play political semantics between “tax” and “fee”. If it walks like a duck… Fee’s, taxes; call it anything you want …it is built-in inflation. Fees are a stealth tax. Revenues are a tax.

Romney increased over a hundred ‘state fees’ as Massachusetts Governor on residents by $432 million annually. These fee hikes were all proposed by Romney; they were not items originated by the Legislature. And, he increased various taxes on businesses by $309 million annually, via three “corporate loopholes” closing packages, one each in 2003, 2004 and 2005. In all, Romney raised state government fees and taxes by $750 million dollars a year.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn’t. He claims he only raised mandatory government “fees.” But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees. His “fees” had nothing to do with services and everything to do with the purpose of taxes: raising revenue. Duplicate licenses, are not “services” that government provides; they are simply licenses needed to comply with government-established mandates.

As a presidential candidate, Romney says he opposes revenue-boosting tax increases. But back when he was Massachusetts’ governor, he bragged about them. The Romney administration in 2004 and 2005 quietly highlighted the state’s tax and fee hikes in a presentation as part of an effort to persuade the financial rating agencies Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings to improve the state’s bond ratings.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal and Politico, and made public through freedom of information requests, the Romney administration’s bullet-point presentations to the agencies touts the strength of the state’s budget, thanks in part, to a 2002 tax increase that he opposed. The documents, 27 pages of confidential “discussion materials” [Part 1, 2, 3, 4] and a 50-page presentation focused on the 2005 budget and highlights ‘higher fees’ and newly ‘closed loopholes’ that Romney championed himself. In March 2005, Standard & Poor’s eventually upgraded Massachusetts to AA from AA-.

These ‘revenue enhancements’ of “tax loopholes” would add “$269 million in additional recurring revenue” to state coffers, the presentation noted, along with $271 million in ‘increased fees’. But on the campaign trail this summer [2011], Romney blasted Obama’s call for similar revenue boosters to help reduce the nation’s debt. Seems Romney forgot this himself as he tried to manage his states own budget deficit. Romney’s case to S&P is a far cry from the anti-tax absolutism he decries on the stump as his own history on tax policy is riddled with inconsistencies.

“It’s straightforward,” the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation told McClatchy Newspapers in 2007. “He raised corporate taxes.” And, according to the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the state’s largest business lobbyist group, “These certainly were tax increases and indicating he balanced a budget without raising taxes is misleading at best,” adding, “we respectfully disagree.” Romney erred in pursuing tax increases to pay off the states budget deficit and ‘rainy day fund’ instead of pursuing robust economic expansion policies.

Politicians revenue-raising measures often use ‘closing tax loopholes’ as a reason to increase corporate taxes by changes in tax policy. In Romney’s case, according to the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, ‘some were real loopholes but by and large they were increases in corporate taxes.’ Such disputes between business and government are relatively common in fiscal policy. Harder to square with Romney’s public rhetoric, is the presentation’s blunt claim of credit for the deeply contested 2002 tax increase.

Source: RomneyFacts.com

Puzzling that Romney raised taxes on business by a total of $309 million. But, he then tried to raise taxes on hotels, but was stopped by the Democrat legislature. He nickeled and dimed increased fees on marriage licenses, gun registrations, gasoline deliveries, property-deed certificates, and at the time also joined a coalition lobbying congress to tax Internet activity. Romney increased taxes the moment he signed RomneyCare too. Half of RomneyCare’s new spending was financed by the federal government, or more aptly put, you, the taxpayer. Click here to watch the Cato Institute discuss the parallels of RomneyCare and Obamacare.

Romney’s tenure was clearly not a triumph for small-government activism. But it was a triumph for sex offenders. Romney decided not to raise fees for convicted sex offenders; vetoing a $75 fee required by law to register with the state. When campaigning for Governor, Mitt refused to sign a “no new taxes” pledge, calling it “government by gimmickry.” His signature wasn’t necessary, he claimed. Remember this when you hear Romney proclaim: “I have vetoed many bills as Governor.” …or “I didn’t raise taxes.”

Any fee assessment that raises money in excess of what is needed to defray costs is a tax. In another of his “hit and runs,” he even supported a tax on out-of-state commuters. According to Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue figures, the total amount New Hampshire taxpayers surrendered to Massachusetts grew from $213.6 million in 2002 to $248.9 million in 2006, a 16.5% increase. When the bill came to his desk, he signed it, and didn’t veto it. Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes.

Source: New Hampshire Union-Leader

All this lead to the Club For Growth ultimately giving Romney a “C” on fiscal issues after concluding that he “broke his verbal commitment” to not raise taxes in Massachusetts. And, the non-partisan and highly respected FactCheck.org says Romney “increased fees and shifted some of the tax burden back to the local level.” Moderates and liberals are adept at revenue-raising sleight-of-hand; when another tax increase would raise voter ire, they simply deem it a toll, fine, fee or a “surcharge.” The independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation puts the revenue total of fee hikes and tax loophole-closings at between $740 and $750 million a year.

Romney trumpets his business experience and sites this record of taking Massachusetts from a $3 billion dollar deficit to a one billion dollar surplus. But the cost of his balanced budgets and his tax policies were devastating for small business… taking aim at mugging IRS subchapter ‘S’ businesses and almost doubling their tax rates. Small Businesses combined employ more people than Fortune 500 companies and are the backbone for job creation and economic growth.

Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by “$2 billion.” Sometimes he claims he cut it “$3 billion.” The deficit was actually $1.3 billion according to Factcheck.org and he balanced the budget mostly with tax and ‘fee increases’, and his marginal spending cuts predominantly came through government consolidation and duplicative waste. Any spending reductions Romney touts occurred in just one year, 2003. Other years, spending rose every year, often far faster than the rate of inflation. In 2006, he restored several prior spending cuts.

Romney’s spending record started off decent, but like most politicians, it degraded over time. During his first two years in office, the general fund budget grew at a pace of 0.1% and 4.1%, respectively. The next two years, however, spending skyrocketed. In FY 2006, spending jumped 7.6%, and in FY 2007, it grew a whopping 13%, hardly indicative of “fiscal conservatism.” Of Romney’s assertion about the 2005 budget surplus, ‘There never was a $1 billion surplus,’ countered the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. And, Governor Deval Patrick agreed.

Romney’s unforgiving fiscal record is as flawed as Obama’s. By the end of his four years in office, Massachusetts had squeezed out a net gain in payroll jobs of just 0.9%, compared with job growth of 5.3% for the nation as a whole. At Romney’s swearing in, the MA unemployment rate was 5.6%. When he left office it was 4.7%. The states unemployment rate was influenced by a steady out-migration of working-age adults during the Romney years. From start to end, 222,000 wage earners or the equivalent of 3.5% of the state’s population fled the state while the rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs. Between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed residents declined by 8,500.

By comparative purposes, over the same period, job growth in Texas was 6.9%, in Utah it was 9% and in Minnesota it was 3.5%. But Massachusetts was only one of two states to have no growth in its resident labor force between 2002 and 2006. However, it’s worth noting, there was an increase of over 3,000 public employees on the state government payroll. Overall, there were roughly 430,600 government workers in Massachusetts when Romney’s term ended; an increase of 7.2% from when he began.

Romney represents himself as a tax cutter and a job creator, but the record states otherwise. When you look at his past record, and his only service in public office, you learn Romney governed as a big-government liberal, who favored revenue-raising measures; taxes and fees. His past contains a mixture of limited accomplishments and some very troublesome side effects that beg to be explained. Details on Romney’s governing performance:

• Under Mitt Romney, from 2003 to 2007, Massachusetts ranked 47th among all 50 states in job creation. Net result: 50th out of 50 after first year, 47th after four years.

• As governor of Massachusetts, Romney raised state government fees and taxes by three quarters of a billion dollars a year. During his four year tenure, Romney nickeled and dimed Massachusetts families and individuals with over a hundred fee increases. Cato found that Romney increased annual state fees by $500 million as governor and proposed two corporate tax increases totaling close to $400 million a year

• The local tax burden increased from 10% to 10.6% of per capita income during Romney’s governorship, according to analysis by the Tax Foundation [Boston Globe, 6/29/07].

• In real dollars, the per capita tax burden increased $1175.71 during Romney’s term.

• Romney refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts.

• Under Romney’s stewardship, Massachusetts manufacturing jobs declined by more than 14% – double the national rate (Boston Globe, 7/28/07) and the third worst record in the country. Nationally, manufacturing dropped only 7%.

• By the end of his fourth year in office, Massachusetts jobs growth was an ‘anemic’ 0.9%, compared with job growth of 5.3% for the nation as a whole during the same period. This, after four years. That puts Romney and Obama on a level playing field.

• Mitt Romney’s jobs record was worse than Michael Dukakis’.

• Out of the 25 freshmen Republican Governors rated by the Cato Institute on fiscal issues, Romney had the 2nd worst score.

• Massachusetts ranked third lowest in job creation and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy

• The Boston Globe highlights Massachusetts economic performance during Romney’s tenure in this chart

• On his watch, state spending grew from $22.3 billion to $28.1 billion, an annual budget increase of 6.5% during his tenure. Overall spending during Romney’s tenure increased 20.7%

• On all key labor market measures, Massachusetts not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but also ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution during Romney’s term

No matter how you slice the data, under Romney, job creation and economic growth were devastating. Romney passed a host of new tax and fee increases, hitting the corporate world and mugging small businesses. Over four years, he squeezed out a net gain in payroll jobs under 1% for the private sector. His overall spending increased 20.7%, while expanding government bureaucracy and growing the number of state employees in government jobs 7.2%.

Right before the 2002 election, Romney ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a “no new taxes” governor and a ‘jobs creator.’ But his history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric. Candidate Romney tells us one thing. His record proves another. Ignore candidate Romney’s words. Look at elected Governor Romney’s deeds. Romney has been rewriting his past. Mitt Romney is no fiscal conservative.

Business experience does not guarantee a person will govern as a conservative. And, the evidence is overwhelming that Romney’s business experience did not help him govern as a conservative. There have been many liberal presidents with business experience; one that comes readily to mind is Jimmy Carter. And, the RINO population is full of America’s leading businessmen supporting the candidacy and policies of Barack Obama.

The real Mitt Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He will alter his past, exaggerates his record and traffic in ambiguous language. That puts Romney and Obama in the same sand box. Romney is a manufactured candidate blinded by political ambition. He moderates his stripes, but he doesn’t change them.

Romney doesn’t apply principle, he manages image; his own image, like Obama. Romney falsely implies he is the man of the hour. He also overstates his accomplishment and understates the side effects. In his zeal to capture conservative hearts, on the stump, Romney will sound like the house that Reagan built, but will then move-in and govern under a Rockefeller tent.

Nobody can choreograph political theater and distortions of failed policies like Romney and Obama. They are similar in this regard. Romney speaks in grand-sounding platitudes that are music to conservatives’ ears, and only hopes you don’t check the details. Platitudes are like that — the devil is in the details, and Romney’s “details” always entail more, bigger government, mandates, and meddling, the opposite of what his platitudes promise.

There’s just one requisite for being a conservative political leader, and that is that you actually are one. Romney is telling you what you want to hear, not who he is. Dishonesty runs inherent in his claims. Making sneaky distinctions allows clever pivots. Mitt Romney has a truth problem. Mitt Romney has a problem with authenticity. Mitt Romney has an identity problem.

With job creation and the poor economy at the forefront in the next election, can we afford to be wrong? Can we afford another politician who disguises and alters his intent? For as much progress as the Tea Party and the conservative movement has made, is Obama lucky enough to have Republicans nominate a candidate whose weakest issue is Romneycare, taxes, and jobs? …[sounds of crickets]

For the full story on Mitt Romney, read: “An Essay on Mitt Romney.”

Mitt Romney: “I’m not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values. That’s not what brings me to the race. [Romney video at the 1:15 mark]

Know Your Frequency

The congeniality competition within the Republican ranks and the political hypocrisy from candidates reflects the problems of sincerity and truth in politics today, and how we deal with it reflects our own slipping into hypocrisy ourselves.

There’s just one requisite for being a conservative voter, and that is that you actually are one. Lying or fabricating about being one doesn’t make you one. And, the world seems to be full of those who helpfully want to redefine conservatism.

Well, thanks, but no thanks. The death of conservatism has always been a touching illusion of the left. The canyon between conservatism and Progressivism is vast and wide and having any rational discussion of the merits of big government with one who is blinded with Statist ideology is nonsensical.

But that is not what I am talking about. The political landscape is littered with false choices. Ideological purity is not the same as standing on principle. And, winning at all costs at the expense of principle usually results in not winning at all.

Of course, most people are not one hundred percent one thing. The truth is most people are mixtures of certain philosophies or viewpoints depending on the subject. But they still have a core belief system or unbending principles.

Consider this: Jefferson was a Democratic Republican. Adams was a Federalist. Lincoln was a Whig turned Republican. Teddy Roosevelt was Republican turned progressive. Goldwater was a reactionary turned libertarian. Von Mises called himself a liberal. Label-thinking displaces critical thinking.

Many have come to a point in their life where party identification has become far less important to them than Founding Principles. Many have taken to simply calling themselves an American, an Independent or a conservative, instead of the party identification: Republican.

Whatever the label, or self-identification, when it comes to government, there is nothing more compassionate than pure conservatism itself as it allows one to control their lives without interference. As long as the people aspire to live free – conservatism will always have a home.

Conservatism, of course, is a governing philosophy, not a political party. It’s about economic freedom, free-flow of markets, limited government, individual liberty, rule of law, national sovereignty, individual and states’ rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights and all of our Constitution, and traditional Judeo-Christian values.

Core conservative values are found in the fundamental tenets of Judeo-Christian tradition and thought: that all individual rights are “natural rights”, in other words, we are born with them. These natural rights are bestowed upon us by God, NOT by government.

If our rights were given to us by the government, then the government could alter them on a whim. Our God-given, natural rights include the right to life, liberty and freedom, and the right to defend ourselves, our homes, and our property. The Founders’ Intent is contained within the US Constitution.

To the Progressive mind, ‘free’ health care and ‘free’ education are ‘collective Rights’. Liberals believe power and income are derived from government, not the individual, ultimately believing justice, not law, is the means of their governance.

Conservatism did not lose the last election in 2008, conservatives did. As witnessed in 2010 mid-term elections, conservatism wins. Conservative principles are timeless, and will outlast any politician. The timeless principles of conservatism are right and remain right regardless of those who want to redefine it.

As Rush Limbaugh once told the CPAC crowd:

‘We need no new policy ideas. Conservatism cannot be reshaped or reformed, and those who suggest otherwise must be “stamped out.”’

In other words, true conservatism has unbending principles. Conservatism, when expressed clearly and without apology, is the only ideological choice that recognizes and promotes freedom and liberty for all citizens, not just selected groups. No left turns, there is only one direction.

But, just as good people are leading lives unconnected with their core values, too many conservatives are leading lives unconnected with their core principles. They have abandoned their ‘frequency’ and the basic betrayal of conservative principles by conservatives themselves, for political expediency, illustrates how party lines have become blurred.

Knowing your ‘frequency’ requires you to know what you stand for; your unbending principles; and your core values. If you don’t own your own mind, who does? Do you have unbending principles? If you don’t, then don’t expect the candidate you voted for to. A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.

Conservatism is a set of principles and ideals that are true and timeless in both campaigning and governing. Conservatism is way of thinking that precedes the Republican Party. Values are held accordingly. And, as Limbaugh says: “They don’t float, they don’t bend, they don’t shape.”

Conservatism cannot be redefined to fit the mold of whoever the candidate is. If you review a politicians past history honestly, it is easy to start weeding out certain candidates based on his or her past record and deeds. Conversely, it’s also easy to identify a candidate who shares your core beliefs and has the vision that you expect to cast your vote.

Reagan himself stated that conservatism is a ‘three-legged stool’ comprised of a strong defense, a strong economy and strong social values. Anything short of that and the GOP marginalizes its coalition as it collapses when any of the legs are missing.

A case in point. In the 2008 election, the top three GOP contestants were each emblematic of one of the legs of the stool, and each attempted to shore up their standing with the other two “legs” they lacked:

… Mike Huckabee: Social leg
.. John McCain: Defense leg
… Mitt Romney: Economic leg

Of course, any comparison to the above mentioned being a Reagan conservative would be offensive. Reagan conservative voters who spend a lifetime advocating conservative principles only to throw them away to embrace a particular said candidate marginalizes and fractures its base.

I have learned to be a warrior of truth. At times, it seems too many ‘conservatives’ aspire to a Progressive group think mindset. That is, they emote, like a Progressive. In one of Ann Coulter’s latest masterpieces, Demonic, Coulter writes: “conservatives don’t hero-worship our candidates.” Really Ann?

Know your frequency.
]]> http://klsouth.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/know-your-frequency/feed/ 5 Kelly supreme_court_stupid_jerk_313855 http://klsouth.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/election-2012-44s-tipping-point/ http://klsouth.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/election-2012-44s-tipping-point/#comments Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:41:21 +0000 klsouth http://klsouth.wordpress.com/?p=1626 ]]>

Tipping Point.

The distinction between personal popularity and job approval is central to understanding the nuances of polling. Samples too, are important when taking, and therefore understanding, these polls. Is it Adults? Likely voters? Registered voters? If it’s RV, what is the demographic mix? Women, college graduates, 24-30 age group, black, Hispanic, seniors? Etc, etc, etc.

Gallup’s final poll before the 2004 election showed Kerry was ahead among registered voters by 2 points, while Bush was ahead among likely voters by 2 points. The final election result? Bill Clinton had high personal unfavorables but high marks for job approval. He was re-elected (thanks Ross Perot) because people approved of his job performance even though they had a very low opinion of Clinton as a person. Obama appears to be the polar opposite of Clinton.

On its face, the idea that an incumbent officeholder can be reelected when more Americans disapprove of his or her job performance than approve seems unthinkable. But, personal popularity and job approval is not the same thing. Obama’s job approval is hovering around a miserable 38% in the latest Gallup Poll. But Democrats will point to the fact that his personal favorable ratings are still above 50%.

In a well-written piece by Reid Wilson of the National Journal Wilson points out, there is a partial correlation, pollsters say, between a politician’s job-approval ratings and favorability ratings. Favorability ratings generally represent a ceiling, above which job-approval ratings do not rise. And poor job-approval ratings, over the long term, can prove a drag on an incumbent’s favorability ratings.

A short-term drop in approval ratings doesn’t portend a corresponding drop in personal favorability – and a high personal-favorability rating can bolster a lousy job-approval rating – but when favorable numbers begin to descend, it’s an ominous sign for anyone planning to run for another term.

In a related vein, Larry Sabato shrugs off Obama’s sagging approval numbers citing that three predecessors — Truman, Reagan, and Clinton — were reelected after having suffered polling in the 30’s in their first term. Three others were not reelected — Ford, Carter, and Bush 41. Reagan and Clinton may have hit the 30s, but their numbers rebounded because the economy improved.

Meanwhile, Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels will tell you that a candidate’s personal favorability only matters at the margins. He notes a candidates’ image (traits) as having only a modest impact on election outcomes. He cites Bush-Gore as an example. Conversely, NY Post’s John Podhoretz notes that unless something extraordinarily dramatic comes along for Obama, the incumbent President is doomed, citing, conclusions that are inescapable from the history of US presidential politics since 1945.

Like all fads: bell-bottoms, leg warmers, a pet rock, the shine eventually wears off. But, polling consistently shows that the majority of Americans view Obama favorably, even while they increasingly disagree with his job performance. But as many know, ‘likeability’ isn’t a trait that people look for in a person when they are having a difficult time providing for their family. We need roughly 500,000 jobs a month for 10 years to get back to unemployment levels that we enjoyed during most of the Bush years.

Americans too began to view Bush as personally unfavorable at about the same time. A July 2005 Pew survey showed 51% of Americans had a favorable impression of Bush. By late October, that number had sunk to 46%, then stayed in the high 30’s for most of the rest of his term. Bush’s job-approval rating led the way down, and once the favorable ratings followed; there was no way to recover politically.

To note, personal favorability is one of the big reasons why Bush won in 2000 over Gore. For that matter, it’s why JFK beat Nixon in 1960. Some observers have opined who could possibly like a pencil-neck serial liar, who blames everyone else; a beleaguered Democratic first-term, incompetent president, overseeing a deteriorating economy, with scarce energy and soaring gasoline prices, and a stubborn willingness to maintain a big spending, redistribution, milk the rich, over-regulated destructive course.

Obama is NOT likeable. He’s a cold, distant fish. Perhaps, some people don’t want to admit they don’t like him, not even to themselves, for fear of being viewed as racist. But, Presidential approval can change substantially over the course of a year and we have more than a year between now and Election Day. Polls showed Reagan and Carter tied the 72-hours prior to Election Day. Indy’s or “Reagan Democrats’ surged him past the finish line in the final days.

Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research dissected both the relationship between approval ratings and electoral success and the relationship between personal favorables and electoral success. Three things stand out from their analysis:

1. While President Obama’s is in deep trouble now, it is too early to make a prediction about his standing next November.

2. For most Presidents, job approval and personal favorables are similar and a poorly regarded President loses, while a well-regarded President wins.

3. While Democrats like to paint the picture that Obama can repeat Truman’s miraculous win of 1948, his ratings of the moment have more in common with Gerald Ford in 1946 — a personally well-regarded President, whose administration voters judged a failure, and who lost his bid for re-election.

After ’94 Clinton pivoted and reluctantly worked with the Republican Congress. Obama has taken the historic defeat he suffered in November 2010 and insists the public wants him to double down on his socialist policies. The establishment media, who has invested heavily in Obama, soon will begin selling the idea that Obama’s personal approval ratings are favorable. I have already noticed shifts to ‘Adult’ samples instead of ‘Likely or Registered’ voters. This seems to skew the numbers toward Obama.

Polls shape public opinion rather that reflect it. None of these polls are accurate. They are excluding key voter groups; corpses, household pets, cartoon characters, illegal aliens, felons, institutionalized patients, union goons and pseudonyms – all still firmly behind Obama and the Democrats. Oh. I forgot. Hollywood actors and actresses too.

Is Obama in deep trouble facing an electorate where fewer than two-in-five voters think he’s doing a good job? None of this matters. Thanks for reading. Fifteen [15] more months of bad economic news, foreign crises, and 8% to 9% unemployment and we’ll see a repeat of 1980. Carter lost 43 states and this guy makes Carter look like Calvin Coolidge. Regardless of what Obama’s personal favorability rating is come Nov 2012 – it’s the economy and jobs stupid.

Lowest Gallup approval rating by presidents since Truman: