Election Day Stupidity---Get Out and Vote!

One of the most hotly contested elections in recent history will be decided today.  It seems everyone who has a voice is encouraging people to get out and vote.  Today I saw something that I find deeply disturbing.  I saw posts from two people with military experience refusing to vote. 

Let me say that I understand that not everyone will vote.  Some people don't care.  Some don't understand.  Some don't feel like they are well enough informed.  Here's my problem:  these people entered a profession in which they put their lives at stake for our ability to vote.  Now, they also protected the right to choose.  So they have every right to exercise the ability to abstain.  The issue is that they expressly stated that they will still complain about the outcome of the election. 

The posts stated that they didn't like any of the candidates.  They included all of the Presidential, congressional, and local offices in this blanket statement.  My response to this is that elections aren't about liking a person.  It is about choosing the person who you believe will best perform the duties of office.  There are many candidates that I don't particularly like or dislike that got my vote.  I simply believe that they are the best candidate for the job.  You don't get perfect choices in this world.  Complaining about it does nothing.  You have to do something.  If that means choosing the best person for the job now and working to support a  better person later, then that's what you do.  What you can't do is refuse to choose, and then complain about the choices everyone else made. 

I was discussing this with my wife and she had a wonderful analogy for the situation (of course, it's a food analogy because she's a chef and her mind works in food).  Let's say a person was at a party and the group needed to order pizzas to feed everyone.  Each person was polled about the toppings they wanted on each of the pizzas.  If you don't really like any of the toppings you could choose to abstain.  But by abstaining you give up the power to complain about the toppings chosen by others.  If you cast your vote, even for toppings that had no chance of making it onto the pizza (let's say anchovies), then you could complain about the decisions.  This is the burden of choosing to abstain.  My immediate response to anyone who refuses to vote will be to ask what they did in the election to improve the situation.  Doing nothing will never improve the state of affairs. 

So even if you feel uninformed...get out and vote!  There are multiple tools out there to help you choose the candidate that fits your beliefs.  Here are a couple:

ISideWith.com

Project Vote Smart

These sites make it easy for you to choose your candidates.  There is no excuse for not voting other than pure laziness.  Just remember, if you exercise your right to abstain....that includes your right to complain.

Jon Husted...Secretary of Suppression

It seems that every day I am hearing some new regulation that has been put in place by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted.  Pretty much all of them are attempts to suppress votes in Ohio.  His attempts to suppress votes have gone as far as the Supreme Court, which refused to allow him to end early voting this weekend.  He has reduced the hours for early voting, sent absentee ballots to every voter in Ohio with incorrect dates, and tried to write misleading language into the ballot.  Interestingly enough, the unethical moves by Husted are all to benefit his own political party. 

I expect the Secretary of State to make some minor changes that benefit his or her own party, but this guy is getting ridiculous.  He has done everything except attempt to ban Democrats from voting in the election.  My question would be, how many unethical changes does a Secretary of State have to make before he is found guilty of abusing the powers of his office and get removed?  I don't know what the line is, but I'm sure that he has crossed it. 

It is insane that his antics are being allowed, particularly in a state that is as important in an election as Ohio.  In my opinion he should be charged with abuse of office and removed.  He now ranks up there with morons like Rush Limbaugh as one of the biggest douchebags in American politics. 

Election 2012: Latest Poll Results

There is a very interesting election shaping up.  The latest polls show Gov. Romney leading President Obama by less than one point.  The very interesting piece is that, even though Romney is leading in the national polls, he is losing the electoral college estimates based on the polls.  Here's the electoral college forecast I've created using the latest poll information from Real Clear Politics. 

Real Clear Politics takes the most current polls from various organizations and averages them.  Their averages are used by news sites on all sides of the political spectrum from MSNBC to Fox News (two of the most politically biased news organizations in mainstream media).  I used the RCP average to award each state to the candidate leading in the polls for that state.  The only perfect tie was in Colorado.  I gave that state to Romney to make the results more even. 

After doing all of this, I came up with Obama winning the election by 24 electoral votes.  This means that the results could be off a little and Obama would still win the election.  If the President lost New Hampshire and Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, or Wisconsin he would still win the election.  With only about a week and a half until the election, this is great news for those of us who support the President.

What it doesn't mean is that anyone can sit back and let their vote go uncounted.  Get out there and use your vote.  Vote early if that option is available to you.  Either way, don't let one of the few rights that we have to control our government go to waste.  Vote Obama 2012!

Conservative CEO's Using Voter Intimidation to Support Romney

In probably the most disturbing trend in recent political history, we have seen a rash of companies threatening the jobs of their employees based on the outcome of the Presidential election.  These threats have been veiled in the guise of potential problems that the companies would face if Romney isn't elected; however, unless you are an unquestioning follower of Republican propaganda, you can easily see this for what it is - voter intimidation.

The most politically correct threat has been made by the Koch brothers.  They sent a "voter information packet" to their employees.  In the letter including in the packet, the employees were told that, although they were free to vote for whomever they chose, "many of [Koch's] more than 50,000 US employees and contractors may suffer the consequences" based on the outcome of the election.  They also included an op-ed by David Koch endorsing Romney and one by Charles Koch condemning Obama. 

The next threat, from ASG Software Solutions CEO Arthur Allen, was a lot more direct.  In an email to employees, Allen stated, "I can tell you, if the US re-elects President Obama, our chances of staying independent are slim to none....If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company, I don’t want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come." 

In probably the most disgusting display of coercion, David Siegel of Westgate Resorts emailed his employees a very blatant threat.  This email stated, "The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration....If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company....This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."  Allen also claims credit for getting Bush elected.  He told Bloomberg, "I had my managers do a survey on every employee [8,000 total]. If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore."  He said he made sure all of the employees who supported Bush got to the polls and surveyed them afterwards to see how many people wouldn't have voted if it weren't for his efforts.  He says 1,000 people did and claims that this was the deciding factor in Florida.  This is a guy who is currently constructing the largest home in America, a 90,000 square foot lakeside residence with an estimated value of $65-$75 million.  If that's not enough to convince you that this is a threat instead of concern about the business, Siegel told Reuters in July that "We're the most profitable we've ever been."  He also hired 1,500 new employees and said he has had to fend off banks that are throwing money at him.  So he's in such dire straights that his company is the most profitable it's ever been?

This is the worst example of thug behavior that I have ever seen.  These companies might as well have management standing at the polls with baseball bats.  I'm sure people would rather face the threat of physical pain to the threat of losing their livelihood.  I'm sure it will be deemed legal because they told the employees that they could still vote for whomever they want, but unless you are a fool you will see this as coercion and voter intimidation.  However, this is no different than a manager telling an employee, "you don't have to sleep with me, but you might lose your job if you don't."  If they had done that, they would all be facing sexual harassment charges.  These men should be held accountable to the law and imprisoned.  There is no place in a free society for executives to determined the outcome of elections through threats to the lives of their employees. 

Register and Vote!

November 6 is only 30 days away!  After the first debate, we've seen a conservative base that has been charged up and ready to vote.  Liberal and moderate voters should take their queue from the conservatives and make sure that they are ready to vote on election day.  If you support Obama, or even just recognize the fact that Romney can't tell the truth and is a terrible option for the presidency, get yourself registered and get to the polls.  Don't let Romney steal the election on lies and impossible math. 

Some people have already seen their voter registration deadline come and go.  Many people are only days away from the deadline.  Click here to check your state's deadline.  

Not sure if you're registered?  Not sure where to vote?  Click here to check your registration and find your polling location.  Finally, get out there and vote!  No matter what your viewpoint, you have no business complaining about the government if you refuse to exercise your power to make a change. 

The Pot and the Kettle

It’s kind of funny.  As I’m writing this, I realize that, this blog didn’t start out as a conservative-bashing forum.  I also didn’t previously identify myself as a Democrat or liberal.  While I still won’t declare myself as a Democrat, I do now proudly proclaim myself liberal.  I have backed into this position over the last few years of listening to Republicans and conservatives spout nonsense that they say is in my best interest.  The scary thing is that I live in the “heartland of America.”  This is code for conservative hell.  I am basically behind enemy lines.  Maybe I should change the name of this blog…just a thought.  This post is a discussion of some of the hypocrisies that have driven me to this point.

I’ll start with the thing we are all so very sick of hearing about:  healthcare reform.  I’m not talking about whether it’s good or not, I’m more concerned with the outrage that all of the conservatives have about it.  You may have heard in passing that Republicans were the first group to suggest many of the reforms that the current law has implemented.  This is a fact that conservatives have glossed over every time I have heard it mentioned.  What everyone is talking about is the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 (HEART Act).  This bill looks very similar to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  In fact, a look at the areas covered in the two bills leave only a handful of differences.  The most notable differences include the fact that the PPACA included the expansion of Medicaid, eliminated lifetime limits on coverage, and extended coverage for children up to the age of 26.  What is did include was an individual mandate.  What I find most interesting is that the HEART Act was sponsored by a Republican, Senator John H. Chafee.  I’ll go one step further – it had 20 co-sponsors.  Of those 20, 18 were Republicans!  Notable names on the list include Arlen Specter (when he was Republican), Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Bob Dole.  So this party, which is screaming that the United States as we know it has ended because of the PPACA, is actually responsible for the first proposal of the majority of the PPACA’s provisions.  Did you know this?  I mean really understand.  Think about it before you cast that vote in November.  The same people telling you that they will “protect your freedoms” are actually the ones to originally propose the very legislation about which you are complaining.

So we move on the economy.  If I never hear the words spending or deficit again I could die a happy man.  I keep hearing conservatives (which I use interchangeably with Republicans for the purpose of this post) talk about how spending is out of control and we can’t keep running these kinds of deficits.  My response is usually related to the fact that our country runs on Keynesian economics.  For those of you who don’t know what this means, here is an overly basic run-down:  run deficits during a recession and surpluses during a boom.  What I don’t usually get into is the hypocrisy that exists when Republicans are in power versus the times that they are not in power.  While I’m sure I can go into multiple examples of this…I’ll stick with words from the elephant’s mouth.  In a meeting with the Secretary of the Treasury in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney was warned that the extreme budget deficits of that time were threatening the economy.  According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Cheney told him that “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.”  He continued by saying, “We won the midterms [congressional elections]. This is our due.”  Sooooo, they matter now?  Just not during the Reagan and Bush administrations?  Oh, I forgot, they earned that right by convincing the voters that they would actually work to improve their lives.  It’s their “due.”  

The last issue is the one something I have been hearing constantly since the Ron Paul bandwagon started to roll - The Constitution.  According to most of the conservatives I know, everything Obama has done since he took office has been unconstitutional…including the fact that he took office!  Try getting into a debate with a conservative about the merits of Obama’s term without his ethnic background or religion being questioned.  But, I digress…we will talk about the Constitutionality of Obama’s actions.  The healthcare debate doesn’t take much discussion.  It’s been before the Supreme Court, and the PPACA has been found Constitutional.  Unless anyone has the training and experience to refute the opinions of the five justices who determined that this was Constitutional (Including Justice Roberts – shocking), then all of your arguments are immediately moot. 

So let’s look at some other issues.  We’ll start with the mild uproar over the action in Libya.  People claimed that Obama’s decision to strike Libya without Congressional approval was unconstitutional.   This is a slightly more complicated matter.  First, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military.  Congress is granted sole authority to declare war.  How many conflicts have we been in that weren’t actually declared a war?  So they were pissed because he did it without their permission.  Get over it.  Complicating this further is the fact that we never sent troops into Libya.  The surgical strikes used in the action managed to rid the world of a tyrant without the cost of American soldiers.  Dare I mention – John McCain is even quoted as saying, “I think the administration deserves great credit…Obviously, I had different ideas on the tactical side, but the world is a better place.”

On the other side of the coin, we have the Patriot Act.  This legislation was passed in 2001 and signed into law by President Bush a month and a half after the 9/11 attacks.  Basically, it reduces the requirements necessary for law enforcement to gather intelligence on people in the United States.  Here are some scary provisions:

Ø  A search can be executed without a warrant if an FBI agent provides a National Security Letter – and a gag order is instituted on the ISP’s, banks, credit card companies, and phone companies who must turn over the information!

Ø  Section 215 of the act allows the government to obtain records by simply showing “relevance” to a terrorism of espionage investigation.  Notice that I didn’t say “probable cause” as is defined in the Fourth Amendment.

Ø  “John Doe” roving wiretaps can be issued which do not name a target, place, or facility to be monitored.  (Senator Rand Paul’s Letter of Opposition to the Patriot Act)

So do the people that are so worried about the constitutionality of the PPACA have anything to say?  I see days of uproar over a tax and healthcare issue, but the government can get a blank ticket to spy on anyone they want without a warrant?  However, we’re not hearing about this right now because it was championed by a conservative.  You had better believe that, if Obama had introduced this legislation, we would be hearing about how he was turning the U.S. into a police state where no one would have any freedom. 

This list could go on forever…conservatives want a smaller government, but they want to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of us, etc.  But I’d like to get this posted so I’ll end with a thought.  One of our greatest founding fathers, George Washington, warned us to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism,” in his farewell address.  What would you consider an imposture?  A group pretending to be morally outraged by legislation that they proposed themselves originally?  The same group crying out that we can’t handle the deficits that two of their own administrations ran?  The very same group that claims that the President has been acting unconstitutionally while they have passed a law that defies the people their constitutional rights?  All of this is being done in an effort to convince the people that they are the true patriots of our country.  While we seem to have forgotten most of what Washington warned us about, I implore you to heed his advice. 

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?