The Final Debate of 2012

Last night the Presidential debates saw some competition with the NLCS in game 7 and the Lions visiting the Bears; okay no one really tuned into the football game unless you were in those markets. The debate moderated by Bob Schieffer was on foreign policy - or on Middle East policy. Much of the debate stationed itself in the Middle East dealing with the fallout from the Libya embassy attack, the threat of a nuclear Iran, the devastation in Syria and how to back our ally Israel in the area.

While there was a brief entanglement on China, there was very little discussion of foreign policy outside of the Middle East. I do agree that the unstable nature of the Middle East poses a threat to World Peace, there is a lot more going on that the next President of the United States will need to address. Namely the economy.

The United States makes up 5% of the world population yet we consume nearly 35% of the worlds goods and resources. Countries like Russia, India, Brazil and China are seeing their middle class exploding as we did back in the 50's. Combine that will a United States economy that is slowing to a growth rate of 1.3%, our government needs to assist businesses located here in trade abroad. I know many of you are wondering how can a small government person look to the Federal government to assist business in trade outside of the United States.

It is simple. The role of the Federal government is to be that buffer in trade with foreign nations along with providing a solid infrastructure, security of private property, and settle disputes between the States. Outside of that, the Federal government needs to step out of the way and allow the States to deal with other issues of the day. But I digress.

A number of polling done after the debate has President Obama beating Governor Romney but as the commentary went along the question rose - Will the performance move the needle back to President Obama as Governor Romney had gain a lot of momentum from the first debate?

With two weeks left we will find out the answer to that question. The other observation from last night's debate was the masterful pivot that Governor Romney made from the extreme Right wing aspect of his base to the center. The pivot is similar to the one that Governor Clinton made during his campaign against President Bush. Two weeks to go and it will be interesting to see where the money is being spent and the places the candidates visit.

To those that live in states that will are already decided, when you go to the poll to vote find another candidate other than the major two to cast your die for that more closely aligns with your ideals. By doing this you will potentially give that third or fourth party increased status and we may just be able to end the gridlock in Washington D.C.

Are Americans on the cusp of a Second American Revolution?

After getting back this morning from a business meeting and setting up quiet time for the kids, I started my daily task of clicking through my internet list of new outlets. I came across this link on the Drudge Report: Paper: Will Washington's Failures Lead to Second American Revolution? (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542171/201007301830/Will-Washingtons-Failures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx). The article is written by Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins and discussed if changes by the current regime are doing "more harm than good" and if "Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives." While the article does call out, briefly, President Clinton and G W Bush it evokes a warning that President George Washington had in his farewell address in regards to public credit and the revenue source from which it is paid back. So I looked up President Washington's farewell address to gain some context, especially after the recent dust up with words being said not in full context leading to knee jerk reactions, and read firsthand the thoughts of our first US Constitutional President.

Here is a link to the entire address: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html . The consideration made in the article, by Christian and Robbins, was if Obamcare through it's "insidiously powerful" new rules and regulations; the Dodd-Frank power grab that will allow the President to "control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation"; or the attempts by the Obama administration and the EPA "to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation…" will lead to a "Second American Revolution." While I believe armed insurrection is a thing of the past in the United States, a sentiment among the populous may be gaining strength. The catalyst of how strong the populous movements of the Coffee and Tea Parties become lie in the decision Congress makes in regards to the expiring Bush tax cuts.

In President Washington's farewell speech he warned:

    As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

A friend of mine on Facebook recently posted an article that was spurned from Governor Tim Pawlenty's statement, "I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors" (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/29/tim-pawlenty/tim-pawlenty-says-us-not-undertaxed-compared-its-c/). To which the article posted pointed out that in a sample graph in 2007, established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), compared the United States overall tax burden to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and ranked us with 30 other OECD countries. The results were, in 2007, the United States overall tax burden was 28% of GDP and the average of the 30 OECD countries is 36%. The authors of the article did talk to several experts to gain their take and they cautioned interpreting the results as it does not paint a complete picture without taking into consideration deficits of the countries. As William Ahern, the director of policy and communications at the Tax Foundation, cautioned about solely drawing a conclusion from the OECD chart that, "a country with a low tax-to-GDP ratio may have a substantial deficit, and in time, that deficit will put upward pressure on taxes."

Since Obama has taken office, and one can even go back to Bush's term, America has increased the deficit percentage in regards to GDP substantially. The Congressional Budget Office reports that, "Over the past few years, U.S. government debt held by the public has grown rapidly—to the point that, compared with the total output of the economy, it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II. The recent increase in debt has been the result of three sets of factors: an imbalance between federal revenues and spending that predates the recession and the recent turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending that derive directly from those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to the conditions. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=116590). This is precisely what President Washington was warning us about. Our elected officials need to "cherish public credit" and understand that "to have Revenue there must be taxes" to abuse these tenets, as we have seen over the past 10 years, is an "inconvenient and unpleasant" assault on our peace, prosperities and freedoms.

Could we see a Second American Revolution? Has the ruling class embedded themselves in far enough that the only method of removal is by force? Does the current oligarchy of political power preclude Americans from making transformative decisions at the ballot box?

Free Speech?

The above billboard appeared in Mason City, Iowa and compares Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Now flash back to when Bush was in office and the following sign was held at a protest rally of Iraq war.

Both signs draw comparisons between sitting presidents and Hitler; yet one is blasted as racism while the other is lauded as free speech. Are both displays of free speech? What makes the comparison of Obama to Hitler racist? Plus, what is the fascination of comparing our President with Hitler? Is the current comparison to invoke Hitler's spirit for economic development? Hitler too did inherit a severe, actually more severe than Obama's claim, and brought Germany sustained economic growth until the Nazi Party crafted the "Final Solution" and sought out more land from neighboring countries. While the White House has held off comment to the recent billboard its owner, Kent Beatty, sees the billboard as "freedom of speech" but back peddled a bit by saying, "It doesn't reflect our views, necessarily" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_re_us/us_iowa_obama_billboard_3).

Which brings back up the question: Does the comparison of Obama to Hitler represent free speech or racism in action? How does it differ between comparing Bush and Hitler?

Debt rises to incredible heights yet Americans are blind

This morning I am reading Star Tribune and various other news sites I follow when I came across this headline: CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/) in the Washington Times. The headline enough raised my ire and should every American. Now, I have been railed against for my push of smaller government, more freedom and lower taxes platform. I hope this article puts things in perspective for those that believe I am "chicken little" on the size and scope of government.

The article notes that the Federal public debt when Obama took office was $6.3 trillion or $56,000 per household. That number has expanded to $8.2 trillion or $72,000 per household today. The CBO estimates that by 2020 we are on path to reach a debt of $20.3 trillion or $170,000 per household. I understand and acknowledge that Republicans, especially under Bush, lost their fiscal conservative way which lead to the historic election of Barack Obama. I recall last year when the unemployment rate hit 10% Vice President Biden noted that the Obama administration did not realize how bad the economy was and their numbers were off.

James Horney, a federal-budget analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said, " The biggest part of the deficit difference [between the Obama's administration and CBO numbers] is lower tax revenue due to the different economic assumptions." Horney is correct that the Obama administration has a rosary outlook but it is that thinking that tripped them up last year as unemployment surpassed 10%. We need to get Americans back to work and being productive. Too many of our manufacturing jobs are being outsourced and due to our mounting debt America is put in a conundrum. The conundrum is protecting America jobs while not alienating our ATM; China.

Sure the Fed could print money hand over fist but that will only lead to inflation and a deeper recession. So how do we jump start the economy and reverse the trend this article warns? To start we need to demand that our government go on a diet and that Americans be held accountable for their actions. Right now Obama is proposing incentives that will encourage banks to rework mortgages that are underwater for those that are unemployed. This new incentive will create more debt for taxpayers and further our co-dependence on Government solutions. It is unfortunate that people are losing their jobs and making the house payment is tough but that does not mean the government is the answer.

When will Americans realize that entitlements, cash for clunkers, tax credits and health care reform legislation are only hurting the future of America? We need to wake up and demand that government shrink and allow the private sector be allowed to work. We need to demand that more States Attorney General join the fight for State Rights against the growing tyranny of the Federal Government. Obama did not start us down that road but he is standing on the accelerator with both feet.

Obama 'Joker': Art or "Dangerous"??

A poster posted around Los Angeles challenges acceptance of our freedoms as citizens of the United States while the artist remains a mystery. I came across the article in the Chicago Tribune this morning. In doing a search on the topic it appears that The Drudge Report was the lead viral catalyst to the story. The poster is of President Obama in the likeness of Health Ledger’s role as the Joker in “The Dark Knight” (see below for poster).

Earl Hutchinson, Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President, stated the “Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery. It is mean-spirited and dangerous.” Not sure how it is dangerous. The response by Mr. Hutchinson does reflect an undercurrent of a thin skinned American society. To add to the poster the word “Socialism” is listed below the picture.

As Noel Sheppard points out in his article, (Obama Joker Poster Stirs Outrage, Bush Joker Poster Not So Much)”Yet, when Vanity Fairs Politics & Power blog published a somewhat similar visual representation of George W. Bush last July, nobody seemed to complain.” Is political satire a one-way street? A big reason why people flock to the United States is because of freedom of speech.

Saul Relative comments (Obama Joke Poster: A Contradiction) that the artist attempt to paint President Obama as an “evil trickster, a jesting madman, a person in disguise” missed the mark and “...the image falls apart in its effectiveness. Because anyone who knows anything about the Joker, it is that there is nothing about him that is concerned about the common good. In other words, there isn’t a socialistic bone in his body. The joker steals for the power of it, the fun of it, and the disruptive force of it.” All elements that appear to contradict the Joker Obama and the assertion of “Socialism”, perhaps the artist was bringing satire to the famous Hope poster that followed Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign.

While the artist’s intention of the poster may be in line with Thomas Lifson interpretation (President Obama ‘Joker’ poster asks ‘why so socialist?’) of “Open mockery of Barack Obama, as disillusionment sets in with the man, his policies, and the phony image of a race-healing, brilliant, scholarly, middle-of-the-roader”, the real question is if the depiction steps too far over that satirical line or is it free speech?

Rep. Frank at it again....

Here we go again. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is at it again. This time Rep. Frank is asking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to “make appropriate adjustments” in regard to mortgage guarantee’s for condos. Currently, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are “no longer guarantee mortgages on condos in buildings where fewer than 70 percent of the units have been sold” according to a Reuters report (Fannie, Freddie asked to relax condo loan rules: report) Reuters also reports, in the same article, that “Fannie Mae will also not purchase mortgages in buildings where 15 percent of owners are delinquent on condo association dues or where one owner has more than 10 percent of units.”

The Wall Street Journal in an article Barney the Underwriter echoes Reuters report with “After two years of telling us how lax lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made, Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condo developments with high percentages of unsold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development.” Does this make sense? Isn’t this how America got into a recession? Can America afford a second housing bubble as many predict is about to occur?

If America cannot then why in the world do we want to lax lending practices anywhere? Common sense and learning from history is not taking place here. Rep. Frank does wield a lot of power in Washington evident by his ability to take a parts dealership off the chopping block, when GM and Chrysler were deciding to scale back operations, in his home district.

Rep. Frank was on O’Reilly Factor last night. Last time Rep. Frank showed up on O’Reilly Factor the conversation ended in a shouting match and didn’t accomplish much. While they talked on an array of topics with one of them being Rep. Frank’s request to lax lending practices. O’Reilly challenged Rep. Frank to defend the Wall Street Journal report that he is looking to lax rules on condo mortgages. Rep. Frank response was, “with the condiminiums we are not talking about sub-prime or poor people. We do have this problem in cities with vacant properties causing serious problems to the cities. What I want is to say his heres the rule, they have a rule that they will not finance a condiminium unless 70 percent of the units in the building is already sold; I am not talking at all if that borrower can pay for them. They should not allow any borrower who cannot pay for it to do it. But I think they have a fisious cycle. If you won’t fund anybody until its 70 percent it will never by 70 percent and you have a serious problem with cities and vacant properties.” Rep. Frank also claimed that he “was opposed to the sub-prime mortgages”.

Really, that is why in 2000 Rep. Frank quipped, in response to a report that Freddie and Fannie may be insolvent because of the guaranteed sub-prime loans, “no federal liability there whatsoever.” Than in 2003 when President Bush pushed for reform after Fannie and Freddie inflated earnings report by $10.6B, Rep. Frank quipped, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Now that brings us back to the topic at hand. Rep. Frank feels, as he said on the O’Reilly Factor, that unless something is done to assist condominium developments with less than 70 percent units sold we will “have serious problems with cities and vacant properties.” Perhaps it’s the current housing market that has seen an increase in the number of homes for sale. According to Realestateabc.com, the inventory of homes on the market “rose to 3.97million units, an 8.8 percent increase from the 3.737 million in March.” That being said, if not offering lower rates (subprime) how else does Rep. Frank see condiminium developers filling the remaining 30 + percent vacancy rate that Freddie and Fannie are refusing to offer loans to?