Paul Ryan Actually Tells the Truth...Almost

My home state had the wonderful privilege of a visit from Paul Ryan recently.  While I normally disagree with everything that comes out of this man's mouth (because it's either a lie or complete nonsense), I actually found a statement in his speech with which I agree.  In the speech, Ryan referred to the Senate as a dysfunctional pit where important issues wallow.  For once, I completely agree.

Of course, the reason for this is because Senate Republicans are following the party line and blocking every bill that they come across.  Let's look at a few important examples from this year alone:

June 2012 - Senate Republicans block the Paycheck Fairness Act
This bill "sought to bar companies from retaliating against workers who inquire about pay disparities and open pathways for female employees to sue for punitive damages in cases of paycheck discrimination." 

July 2012 - Senate Republicans block the Disclose Act of 2012
This bill would have required independent groups who spend unlimited amounts of money on attack ads during elections to disclose the names of donors who contribute more than $10,000.  What's very interesting about this is that, only 12 years ago, 14 Republicans who opposed the act voted for a very similar disclosure.  Those Republicans include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain.  Both of these Senators are quoted as supporting disclosure:

Senator McConnell - "why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?"

Senator McCain - "I promise you this. I promise you there will be huge scandals… because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it… we don’t know who, who contributed it, and there is too much corruption associated with that kind of money. There will be major scandals."

July 2012 - Senate Republicans block the Bring Jobs Home bill
This bill was intended to reward companies for bringing jobs from overseas back to the United States, a practiced termed "insourcing."  The bill would also have ended the tax deductions that companies could take on the costs of moving jobs out of the country. 

You can see why I would agree with Ryan in his assessment of the dysfunction in the Senate.  What he didn't mention is that the dysfunction is coming from Senate Republicans.  I will warn him, if he keeps this up, he might someday actually utter a completely honest and intelligent thought.  That would tear the GOP apart.

210,000 Jobs Added in August...Republicans Should Panic

Bad news for Republicans...the latest report estimates that the private sector has added about 201,000 jobs in August.  I've reported before that Obama's job record has been skewed by Republicans to make it look like he hasn't gained any ground, when we have actually added millions of jobs under his watch.  With these latest figures, even the misleading argument that looks at the figures from the day he took office is almost nullified. 

Here is the breakdown based on the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

• Obama took office at the end of January in 2009.
• From February 2009 through December 2009 we lost 4,242,000 jobs.
• In 2010 we gained 1,027,000 jobs.
• In 2011 we gained 1,840,000 jobs.
• With the figures for August added in, we have added 1,260,000 jobs so far in 2012. 
• The net job loss is only at 115,000 jobs from when Obama took office.

What this means for the GOP is that, by the time October rolls around, we will have added more jobs than we lost since the day Obama took office.  What will they complain about then? 

In reality, (which is that place Republicans refuse to visit) we have added over 3 million jobs since the time Obama's policies have really had time to take effect.  Looks like the Romney campaign will have to come up with another lie or misleading fact to base his candidacy on now.

Update 9/10/12:
Unfortunately, the numbers for August weren't as high as we were led to believe.  However, it doesn't mean that this post has changed...only the numbers.  I still believe that Obama is responsible for more job growth and that we can even surpass the number of lost jobs by election day. 

Romney/Ryan Promises Celebrated Overseas

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan announce in their speeches at the Republican National Convention that they will create 12 million new jobs in the next four years.

In related news...celebrations erupted throughout countries like China and India as the people recieved news of investments expected to bring 12 million new jobs to their countries. 

Election 2012: Romney Economics

It’s time. I’m going on the offensive against Romney. It has pretty much been decided that Romney is going to be the Republican candidate. If, for some reason, Ron Paul pulls of his coup at the convention and is able to secure the nomination I’ll move my sights on to him.

For now, we’ll attack Mitt. I’m going to look at Mitt through his record. If you read my other blogs, you will learn that I don’t believe in unsubstantiated claims. I will support my claims with facts. The claims will easily demonstrate why this man has no business becoming the next President of the United States.

Let’s look at one of the major complaints people have about the U.S., and how Mitt’s record is on this subject. While every poll is slightly different based on the wording of the questions, there is one result that seems to be prevailing. The most important issues to the majority of Americans are the economy and jobs. I’m rolling these into one category because they are so closely tied together.

Now I could try to attack every business deal Mitt has made. I’m not interested in doing that. I don’t think it’s necessary. I prefer to look at the overall impact of his involvement with the businesses he has touched. I have noticed two glaringly important facts about his involvement in business.

     1. Executives make a lot of money when he gets involved with a business. Many times right before the company fails miserably.

     2. The average worker suffers when Mitt has a hand in the company. This is a result of everything from job losses to pension cuts.

On the first point, I will say that this is exactly what everyone I know has been screaming about over the last couple of years.

***Here’s a slightly off-topic rant about this.***

 

Executive pay has gotten way out of control. Why? Not because they are so good at their jobs. In fact, Forbes did a study on the highest paid CEO’s and the best performing CEO’s. Here are some interesting results:

 

• Jeffrey Bezos – Amazon CEO – Ranked #1 in performance; Ranked 470 in pay

• John Hammergren – McKesson CEO – Ranked #1 in pay; Ranked 121 in performance
  
   

If only companies were all run by people like Jeffrey Bezos, our economy would probably be much healthier. The average CEO now makes approximately 231 times what the average worker makes. Do they work harder? Not a chance. Do you want to know a secret about executive compensation? It’s rigged. Executive pay is somewhat complicated, but it boils down to the two things. The CEO’s pay has to be approved as “fair” by the board of directors, and it is sometimes determined by outside consulting firms. The fun part is that many CEO’s serve on the boards of the CEO’s that serve on their boards. This means all of these buddies get to approve each other’s compensation packages. If your friend approved a ridiculous increase in your pay, would you turn around and deny his? I doubt it. The companies who use outside consultants are just as fun. The companies who do the consultations are often used by the company in other areas of consultation. So, if they refuse to recommend a generous compensation package for the CEO, they may be looking at the loss of a lucrative contract down the road.

***Getting back on topic.***

 
So how does this relate to Romney? A very significant portion of executive compensation is based on stock and non-salary benefits. (Remember this the next time you praise any CEO for giving up a million dollars of salary for a cause. They are still getting millions in compensation.) This is where Romney and his boys at Bain made their money. They would purchase stock in these companies. They would work very hard to find ways to improve profitability. In most cases that involved reducing the average worker’s benefits, laying off employees, and streamlining costs in any way possible. These companies would incur great amounts of long-term debt, but their short-term results looked great. This drove the price of the stock way up. When the executives felt that their value was at its highest, they could then sell the stock and make hundreds of millions in profits. As they relinquished command of these companies, they could wash their hands of a company that had mountains of debt. Then, in a few years, when the debt became insurmountable, the company would fail or file bankruptcy. The Bain executives would get to claim that they had no hand in this problem because they sold out years ago. They tend to forget that they put the company in the position in the first place. For a man who is making his run for office based on the idea that he will reduce the budget deficit, this doesn’t seem like the best approach. So yes, Mitt, you did make a great deal of profit. However, as President Obama said, as President “your job is not just to maximize profits.” If Romney’s history holds true, he will streamline government by cutting jobs and increasing profitability. Then, right before we fall into a terrible economic downturn, he will cut and run.

How will he do it? Let’s look at his economic and job plans. From his own job plan, I take the following:

“A complementary step would be to align the wages and benefits of federal workers with market rates and then work to reduce the overall size of the federal workforce by 10 percent (pg. 143).”

The current size of the federal workforce is estimated just over 4.4 million people. So this man, who claims that he wants to create jobs, plans to eliminate 440,000 jobs in the U.S.? Why? Do the American people not have enough problems with the private sector eliminating jobs? Is the federal workforce that large? No. In fact, from 1962 to 1995, the federal workforce was always higher than it is now. The federal workforce declined from 1996 until right before the recession in 2008. At its peak, the federal government employed over 2 million people more than it employs today. But, go ahead Mitt. Cut those jobs. It seems to be what you’re good at…

 
That leads me into my next problem with Mitt Romney’s plan for the economic future of the U.S. He has a history of hurting the average worker. Not only did he work to reduce pensions and benefits for workers in an effort to increase the bottom line, Bain owned companies that were pioneers in the outsourcing trend. This was done while Romney was actively running Bain. Romney recently stated that “[China has] been able to put American businesses out of business and kill American jobs.” Really, sir? And who has been helping them do that? When President Obama remarked about the obvious hypocrisy in his stance compared to his track record, Romney could only reply with “President Obama confirmed today that he will continue his attacks on the free enterprise system…My campaign is offering a positive agenda to help America get back to work."

No, sir. I believe that he was attacking the fact that you are a hypocrite who will say whatever you think people want to hear. While this is not really unusual for a politician, the fact that you are loudly basing your platform on the fact that you are a successful businessman, but your success has been at the expense of the American workers, you lose all credibility. When you tell us that you will create jobs, but plan to eliminate almost half a million jobs when you take office, you are a liar. When you refuse to answer the many questions raised about inconsistencies in your history and platform, you are a coward. A good businessman? No. A profitable businessman for yourself and a few investors? Yes. But, who are the investors in this situation? Romney would have you believe that it’s the American people. Wrong. The PACS are the investors. They are the ones working so hard to get Romney elected. They are the ones who would benefit from his presidency. We are the ones who would pay the price.

You don’t have to like Obama. You don’t have to agree with everything he says or does. Economic recovery and job growth have been slow and agonizing, but it is growth. We are adding jobs and increasing GDP. To put a man with a record of destroying jobs, outsourcing, and creating huge profits on the backs of the American workers in the Oval Office is tantamount to middle class suicide. We know what we will get with Obama. More work towards recovery and growth. What will we get with Romney? Richer executives? A weaker and smaller middle class? Fewer jobs? How can this possibly be a better option than the recovery we’re experiencing now?

Buzzwords

Earmarks! Conservative! Liberal! Amnesty! Illegals! Taxes! Spending! Obamacare! Jobs! Debt! Job Creators!

Heard enough? Are you ready to walk into the polls and cast your vote for me? No? Why not? Most likely, you will walk into the polls and vote for a candidate this November with little more than a list of buzzwords you heard from their commercials or from some political analyst. I’ve seen a trend in the recent elections that has been disturbing me. Many political ads and commercials have been using buzzwords to entice voters lately. Now I have no problem with the use of buzzwords. I know a little bit about marketing and I know that buzzwords are a part of marketing that is used every day in advertising. This isn’t about the use of buzzwords along with clever marketing…it’s about people voting simply on buzzwords.

Oh, you don’t do that? Well, let’s test that statement. Have you said, “The government can’t just keep spending” anytime recently? Or maybe you’ve talked about how the country is going so far into debt? I doubt that very many can honestly say that they haven’t uttered something along these lines in the last few years. So the next question is, what do you really know about these topics? What is the country’s debt? What was it before the incumbents took office? How does the government spend money? What is the debt ceiling? What does Keynesian economics mean? Does our government practice this? If you can answer these questions accurately, then this post doesn’t apply to you. If not, you may have fallen into the buzzwords trap along with the majority of the country.

Seriously, what do they really tell you when you listen to an analyst or watch a commercial? Let’s take a look at a typical commercial from the recent primaries. This commercial was for Richard Mourdock, a candidate running against 35 year Senator Dick Lugar. This commercial has absolutely nothing to say. There are some checklists though…they have Dick Lugar with the words “Bailouts,” “Tax Hikes,” and “Obama Justices.” Then they have one with Mourdock with the words “Opposes Bailouts,” “Fights Obamacare,” “Balanced Budget,” and “Less Debt.” There is literally no substantial information or justification for voting for this guy except for the fact that he knows how to use buzzwords. Ask yourself…what is his record? What are his qualifications? Don’t know? Maybe because they don’t want to tell you anything if they know they can get the votes by using a few key terms with no real meaning. Here’s the scary thing…he won the primary. A 35-year incumbent lost his seat to buzz words. Now, I’m not saying that I would want Lugar in office. I had a problem with him that had nothing to do with any of the buzzwords. I think that some people had the same problem concerning his residency, which cost him dearly. Regardless…he still lost to a man who campaigned with buzzwords.

This brings me to the use of social hot topics to scare people into voting. While I’m vehemently against political parties (a topic for a later blog), I do recognize that the chances of them going away any time soon is insanely slim to none. Unfortunately, what I have seen many politicians doing lately is using social issues as selling points to scare people away from voting for the other party. Both sides use gay marriage to scare people – immigration has become an issue – and if I hear one more thing about the President’s nationality or religion, I might just snap. First, unless you are gay, why in the hell does it matter to you if marriage between two homosexuals is legally recognized in the U.S.? If you believe marriage is a legal contract, then the government has no right to refuse marriage based on a religious belief. If you believe that it is a religious institution then THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO REGULATE IT BASED ON A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Here’s the bottom line…it comes up before elections because one side says that if you vote for the other party gays will be able to marry and we’ll all go to hell, turn gay ourselves, or your marriage will mean nothing and your spouse will leave you. This is to scare you into voting how they want you to vote. The other side presents the issue hoping to look like the defenders of the weak riding in on their stallions to defeat the evil oppressors. While I must say that I do support gay marriage, I would really love to see something actually done about the issue so that the political pandering would all just go away.

Immigration – good grief. Everyone is blaming everyone else for the immigration problem. Here’s the fix…build a big ass wall. It will put a crap load of people to work and reduce the amount of illegal immigration. But, wait! Don’t forget that it has to be paid for…so your taxes will have to go up. You can’t have everything you want. To fix this immigration problem the government will have to spend money. Deal with it and stop letting the politicians scare you into thinking that we will lose our sovereignty and become Mexico, Jr. if you don’t vote for them.

The last one that I will briefly address is the nationality and religion of the President. Here’s the thing…stop questioning it. It’s old and boring. The man will not be removed from office. His credentials have been checked, verified, and re-verified so many times that he is probably the most confirmed citizen in United States history. Every court case that has been lost trying to prove he’s not is just adding to the mountain of evidence that there is no justification for this garbage. Oh, and I do believe that this has everything to do with the man’s race. Don’t like being called a racist? Deal with it. If you are still questioning this after this amount of time and all of the evidence that has been put forth, you are doing it for reasons of race. If you say otherwise, you are a liar, sir.

Now his religion. Oh my gosh…he’s a MUSLIM! Well, he’s not…but that’s a great way to scare the hell out of the ignorant rednecks in the U.S. After 9/11, the words Muslim and Islam have almost become profanity. Who gives a crap if the man is a Muslim? Since when did that have any bearing on his Presidency? Oh, I forgot…it’s because bigotry against Muslims is accepted now that a few extremists who called themselves Muslims (which I take issue with) attacked and killed a bunch of Americans. As I have written before…these kinds of views are the most unpatriotic and offensive views that I can imagine coming from citizens of this great country. A few weeks ago, my cousin was interred in Arlington National Cemetery after he was killed in action serving as a Marine. Do me a favor and don’t spit on his grave, the graves of those like him, and the face of those who have served and still serve to protect our freedoms by spreading your hate and fear. This is a nation of acceptance and tolerance. If you are afraid of a Muslim in office then you belong elsewhere. And if you allow this kind of garbage to sway your vote, then you are as bad as those who spew this filth in the first place.

These people think that you are dumb. They think that they can throw a bunch of words with no substance at you and you will run right out and cast your vote for them. The question is: are you going to prove them right? Are you going to vote for buzzwords, or for a representative?