Two months ago Congress and the Bush Administration, with the support of the two Presidential candidates, approved “a bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purpose of providing stability to the economy”
Well my retirement account certainly has not shown any stability. Since that bill was signed into law, and more so since President-elect Obama won his election, the stock market which is typically a leading indicator of the economy has dropped thousands of points.
I am hesitant to even comment on how that financial assistance bill is being implemented because its use and abuse seems to change daily. I will admit that I was a reluctant supporter of the intent of the bill because I do believe that the federal government has the responsibility to ensure the stability of our financial system and interstate commerce.
I should have known when Secretary Paulson initially submitted a three page letter detailing his plan, and Congress increased its size to more than a hundred pages, that the intent of the plan to unfreeze Wall Street and the banking system so they could begin lending again to businesses and individuals, was doomed to failure.
Hearing that the Treasury no longer plans to use the $ 700 billion dollars in approved funding from the bill to buy and hold troubled mortgage assets as it originally planned to do, and that Congress wants to use tens of billions of those dollars to save the Detroit auto industry, I am truly starting to fear that our government is simply rolling the dice on how to safely guide our country through the current economic downturn.
So how do we put the financial assistance bill to proper use? Simply put, we need to get American consumers and businesses spending again. But how? We need to focus on ways to get money into the banking system.
I believe that the financial assistance money should be primarily used to get banks to start loaning again. As in home mortgages. Personal equity lines. And business lines of credit. Charge minimal interest to the banks for that money so they can then offer loans at below market rates to their customers. And I believe that we still need to provide funding assistance to mortgage holders so they can renegotiate their troubled mortgages with consumers to keep more foreclosed homes from further dampening the real estate market as long as the consumer has a verifiable source of income to support the new payments.
We should not, I repeat not, use the financial assistance funds to stabilize non-financial industries. At the time of writing this column, President-elect Obama and the Democrats are pressing the Bush Administration to provide capital infusions into the American auto industry which is failing because of its high labor and rich healthcare costs. I am also against money going to the troubled airline industry or other sectors lobbying for a piece of the action.
The whole idea of using taxpayer money to bailout private industry from their own mistakes is difficult for me to swallow. But since the process has started, I can only hope that our government experts will protect the taxpayers’ money while also making the safest choices on which types of financial assistance to provide.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Economic Solutions - November 2008
During the recent worldwide banking panic both Presidential candidates looked completely lost and gave me little confidence that either had the personal knowledge or experience to lead this country out of the current downward economic spiral. And President Bush, despite his Harvard MBA, was unable to properly explain the situation to the American public.
Our country has worked its way through such down cycles in the past and it will do so again. But the path to that success will be impacted by the other priorities of our next President. Hopefully his advisors will provide the necessary reality check so that most of the promises made on the campaign trail become just a memory of rhetoric rather than a roadblock to recovery.
How can our country get back on track to again lead the world in the creation of prosperity? What should our next President be prepared to do in his first months in office in 2009? While I certainly do not claim to have all of the answers, I hope that many of my suggestions, which are detailed below, find their way into his economic blueprint.
Several years ago a book was published called The Millionaire Next Door. It was based on the success of people from all walks of life who had worked hard, saved wisely, and played by the rules. There are no shortcuts to success. Our next President needs to remind our citizens that those basic principles are the key to our future recovery.
The good news is that America has an opportunity to get back to those basics while also solving another major challenge to our future. And that opportunity is solving our dependence on foreign energy sources. By building more nuclear power plants now, drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska’s ANWAR sector and off the shores of our continent, by perfecting techniques to extract energy from oil shale, and by increasing our efforts to build affordable and effective solar and wind solutions, we will create millions of new high paying American jobs.
America has also lost thousands of jobs to overseas manufacturers. Our high corporate taxes encourage firms to move their operations elsewhere in the globe where taxes are lower. Imagine how many of our producers would bring their jobs back if they could use the savings from lower taxes to invest in their plants and people rather than paying onerous amounts to our government. I propose the use of tax credits for increased expenditures on facilities and for new net jobs rather than simply lowering tax rates which might not generate similar activity.
Our next President also needs to increase personal savings by eliminating taxes on interest income while keeping capital gains taxes at 15%. Doing so will increase the funds available for banks to loan while continuing to reward investors and entrepreneurs for helping to directly fund businesses. And lastly, the next President needs to eliminate the death tax which limits the savings that parents pass on to their future generations.
Our country has worked its way through such down cycles in the past and it will do so again. But the path to that success will be impacted by the other priorities of our next President. Hopefully his advisors will provide the necessary reality check so that most of the promises made on the campaign trail become just a memory of rhetoric rather than a roadblock to recovery.
How can our country get back on track to again lead the world in the creation of prosperity? What should our next President be prepared to do in his first months in office in 2009? While I certainly do not claim to have all of the answers, I hope that many of my suggestions, which are detailed below, find their way into his economic blueprint.
Several years ago a book was published called The Millionaire Next Door. It was based on the success of people from all walks of life who had worked hard, saved wisely, and played by the rules. There are no shortcuts to success. Our next President needs to remind our citizens that those basic principles are the key to our future recovery.
The good news is that America has an opportunity to get back to those basics while also solving another major challenge to our future. And that opportunity is solving our dependence on foreign energy sources. By building more nuclear power plants now, drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska’s ANWAR sector and off the shores of our continent, by perfecting techniques to extract energy from oil shale, and by increasing our efforts to build affordable and effective solar and wind solutions, we will create millions of new high paying American jobs.
America has also lost thousands of jobs to overseas manufacturers. Our high corporate taxes encourage firms to move their operations elsewhere in the globe where taxes are lower. Imagine how many of our producers would bring their jobs back if they could use the savings from lower taxes to invest in their plants and people rather than paying onerous amounts to our government. I propose the use of tax credits for increased expenditures on facilities and for new net jobs rather than simply lowering tax rates which might not generate similar activity.
Our next President also needs to increase personal savings by eliminating taxes on interest income while keeping capital gains taxes at 15%. Doing so will increase the funds available for banks to loan while continuing to reward investors and entrepreneurs for helping to directly fund businesses. And lastly, the next President needs to eliminate the death tax which limits the savings that parents pass on to their future generations.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Vote McCain – October 2008
In August 2007, I wrote in this column that John McCain was likely to end his Presidential bid because of rejection by the Republican base of his original stand on immigration reform and because of his frequent bi-partisan efforts with Democrats. I was obviously wrong.
During the Florida Presidential primary election in January, I voted for Mitt Romney only because Fred Thompson had already dropped out of the race. McCain was not even a consideration for me. But the Republicans in Florida chose John McCain during that primary election and soon thereafter he won enough Republican delegates throughout the country to become my party’s candidate for President.
Similarly, most of my Democratic friends believed that their candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton, would be the Democratic candidate for President. Some were prepared to fight for her all the way through the Democratic convention before publicly – if not privately - coming together behind Barack Obama. Frankly, I believe many of them either plan to stay home on November 4th or vote for McCain.
I am now a changed man. Something happened to me while watching the Republican convention. I saw a new McCain. He was not stiff on stage, he talked about libertarian beliefs important to me, he gave me confidence in his background and skills to be our next Commander in Chief, and he selected Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice-Presidential choice. And what a choice she was!
The Republican convention, and the media storm about Palin, crushed any remaining momentum which Obamamania had in Middle America and, as I write this column, the McCain-Palin ticket is basically tied in the national “likely voters” polls and is in striking distance of Obama in likely Electoral College votes according to most analysts.
But polls don’t vote. People do. So the only poll which will matter takes place on November 4th when Americans fill in those ballot circles, push those touch screens, or pull those levers. And I hope you will join me in doing so for John McCain. I also suggest you take advantage of Early Voting to avoid the long lines on Election Day.
To me the choice is clear between McCain-Palin and Obama bin Biden. Every four years candidates and their talking heads tell you that this may be the most important election in the history of our country. But this time, I agree with them. As our country continues to mature with millions of new citizens and voters who come from countries in which the government plays a bigger role in their lives than our federal government currently does, we are at a decision point as to whether our country should go down the path of those European and Latin American socialist models or continue primarily as a free market economy with the necessary regulations to keep it efficient.
Barack Obama has multi billion dollar plans to expand the role of government and has a scheme to pay for his nanny state by increasing taxes on the small businesses that are the biggest creators of jobs in this country as well as on the other most productive members of our society. He calls those folks rich. I call them evidence of the American dream that already pays the bulk of federal taxes. John McCain wants to keep that American dream alive by keeping taxes low. He knows that lower taxes actually generate more government revenue. And he knows the problem is not needing more revenue but rather simply needing to spend less. McCain will also end pork barrel spending like the nearly $1,000,000,000 (that’s one billion) that Obama requested in his three years in the U.S. Senate for his political cronies in Illinois.
Barack Obama wants to mandate that parents buy healthcare for their children or face large fines and penalties. He wants to mandate that businesses offer retirement plans for their employees or face fines and penalties. He wants to increase the earned income tax credit which is actually a government handout to those who do not pay federal taxes at the expense of those who do pay taxes. John McCain wants to give Americans the choice to determine the best health plans for their families and he wants younger Americans to be able to self-direct a small portion of their Social Security taxes.
The recent near collapse of our financial markets and the ongoing problems in the housing market are a good test of crisis leadership for both candidates. Frankly neither candidate seemed up to the test when the stock markets plunged in mid-September. Obama stuttered without having his teleprompter to guide him, while McCain failed to properly explain his comment that, despite the challenges of higher energy costs and the stalled housing market, that the American economy will pull through this current down cycle as it always does.
As to their economic ideas, if Barack Obama plans to bring back the same Clinton economic leadership team that deregulated Wall Street in 1999 and ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while he also raises taxes and limits international free trade, it may be time for me to move to New Zealand. Should John McCain win, I hope that he will continue to rely on the wisdom of Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke who, working in a bi-partisan manner with Congressional leaders, brought necessary calm to Wall Street and Main Street as our country finishes working through the subprime mortgage mess.
John McCain also knows that a strong military and a willingness to use that strength to battle radical Islamists and to spread democracy throughout the world is an obligation of the United States. Obama wants to pull our troops out of Iraq before we have fully secured victory and he wants to appease our enemies around the world. Even after Barack recently acknowledged that the Iraqi troop surge was a spectacular success, he said he still would not have supported it if given the chance to vote again! Obama also blew it after the recent Russian-Georgian conflict when he failed to initially chastise the Russians before finally following McCain’s footsteps in doing so.
Much has been made about McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin for his Vice-President. Even Obama admitted that her experience as a Mayor and a Governor was a tougher training ground than the “yakking” (his word) he has perfected in his brief U.S. Senate career. Sarah Palin is like a young Ronald Reagan who will bring a fresh perspective to Washington. Even the American public agrees that she and McCain will do a better job of working across the aisle in Congress than Obama who has voted nearly 100% with the positions of his liberal backers and constituencies.
The choice is clear. If you want the Washington elite to get more involved in your life at your expense, and if you want our national pride to be less important than our reputation at the United Nations, then vote for Barack Obama. If you still believe in the American dream of entrepreneurism, independence, self-reliance, and a strong military, then join me in voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4th. Our country’s future is at stake. Please remember to vote.
During the Florida Presidential primary election in January, I voted for Mitt Romney only because Fred Thompson had already dropped out of the race. McCain was not even a consideration for me. But the Republicans in Florida chose John McCain during that primary election and soon thereafter he won enough Republican delegates throughout the country to become my party’s candidate for President.
Similarly, most of my Democratic friends believed that their candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton, would be the Democratic candidate for President. Some were prepared to fight for her all the way through the Democratic convention before publicly – if not privately - coming together behind Barack Obama. Frankly, I believe many of them either plan to stay home on November 4th or vote for McCain.
I am now a changed man. Something happened to me while watching the Republican convention. I saw a new McCain. He was not stiff on stage, he talked about libertarian beliefs important to me, he gave me confidence in his background and skills to be our next Commander in Chief, and he selected Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice-Presidential choice. And what a choice she was!
The Republican convention, and the media storm about Palin, crushed any remaining momentum which Obamamania had in Middle America and, as I write this column, the McCain-Palin ticket is basically tied in the national “likely voters” polls and is in striking distance of Obama in likely Electoral College votes according to most analysts.
But polls don’t vote. People do. So the only poll which will matter takes place on November 4th when Americans fill in those ballot circles, push those touch screens, or pull those levers. And I hope you will join me in doing so for John McCain. I also suggest you take advantage of Early Voting to avoid the long lines on Election Day.
To me the choice is clear between McCain-Palin and Obama bin Biden. Every four years candidates and their talking heads tell you that this may be the most important election in the history of our country. But this time, I agree with them. As our country continues to mature with millions of new citizens and voters who come from countries in which the government plays a bigger role in their lives than our federal government currently does, we are at a decision point as to whether our country should go down the path of those European and Latin American socialist models or continue primarily as a free market economy with the necessary regulations to keep it efficient.
Barack Obama has multi billion dollar plans to expand the role of government and has a scheme to pay for his nanny state by increasing taxes on the small businesses that are the biggest creators of jobs in this country as well as on the other most productive members of our society. He calls those folks rich. I call them evidence of the American dream that already pays the bulk of federal taxes. John McCain wants to keep that American dream alive by keeping taxes low. He knows that lower taxes actually generate more government revenue. And he knows the problem is not needing more revenue but rather simply needing to spend less. McCain will also end pork barrel spending like the nearly $1,000,000,000 (that’s one billion) that Obama requested in his three years in the U.S. Senate for his political cronies in Illinois.
Barack Obama wants to mandate that parents buy healthcare for their children or face large fines and penalties. He wants to mandate that businesses offer retirement plans for their employees or face fines and penalties. He wants to increase the earned income tax credit which is actually a government handout to those who do not pay federal taxes at the expense of those who do pay taxes. John McCain wants to give Americans the choice to determine the best health plans for their families and he wants younger Americans to be able to self-direct a small portion of their Social Security taxes.
The recent near collapse of our financial markets and the ongoing problems in the housing market are a good test of crisis leadership for both candidates. Frankly neither candidate seemed up to the test when the stock markets plunged in mid-September. Obama stuttered without having his teleprompter to guide him, while McCain failed to properly explain his comment that, despite the challenges of higher energy costs and the stalled housing market, that the American economy will pull through this current down cycle as it always does.
As to their economic ideas, if Barack Obama plans to bring back the same Clinton economic leadership team that deregulated Wall Street in 1999 and ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while he also raises taxes and limits international free trade, it may be time for me to move to New Zealand. Should John McCain win, I hope that he will continue to rely on the wisdom of Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke who, working in a bi-partisan manner with Congressional leaders, brought necessary calm to Wall Street and Main Street as our country finishes working through the subprime mortgage mess.
John McCain also knows that a strong military and a willingness to use that strength to battle radical Islamists and to spread democracy throughout the world is an obligation of the United States. Obama wants to pull our troops out of Iraq before we have fully secured victory and he wants to appease our enemies around the world. Even after Barack recently acknowledged that the Iraqi troop surge was a spectacular success, he said he still would not have supported it if given the chance to vote again! Obama also blew it after the recent Russian-Georgian conflict when he failed to initially chastise the Russians before finally following McCain’s footsteps in doing so.
Much has been made about McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin for his Vice-President. Even Obama admitted that her experience as a Mayor and a Governor was a tougher training ground than the “yakking” (his word) he has perfected in his brief U.S. Senate career. Sarah Palin is like a young Ronald Reagan who will bring a fresh perspective to Washington. Even the American public agrees that she and McCain will do a better job of working across the aisle in Congress than Obama who has voted nearly 100% with the positions of his liberal backers and constituencies.
The choice is clear. If you want the Washington elite to get more involved in your life at your expense, and if you want our national pride to be less important than our reputation at the United Nations, then vote for Barack Obama. If you still believe in the American dream of entrepreneurism, independence, self-reliance, and a strong military, then join me in voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4th. Our country’s future is at stake. Please remember to vote.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Retirement Crisis – September 2008
As our country readies itself for the upcoming Presidential election, I hope that the candidates will go beyond their usual topics of “affordable healthcare”, “Iraqi war”, and “oil drilling” and spend a greater amount of time debating their solutions for our country’s impending retirement crisis.
With the first baby boomers born in the mid 1940’s now reaching the magical age of 62, our country is running out of time to resolve the expected funding shortage for Social Security for the rest of us and for protecting the millions of workers whose traditional employer pension plans are becoming the responsibility of the federal government when their employers go out of business.
I hope that most of you know that Social Security retirement checks are funded on a pay as you go basis as FICA taxes collected today are used to fund Social Security checks for currently retired workers whose own taxes were used to fund checks for previous retirees. Fortunately, there are still enough current workers to fully fund today’s Social Security checks. However, that is not expected to be the case in the years ahead.
Every few years, Congress holds a series of “blue ribbon commission” meetings to come up with a short term fix for this problem. But we need a long term solution sooner than later. So what plans do our Presidential candidates have for this challenge?
Barack Obama’s latest economic blueprint includes a plan to impose a new 4% FICA payroll tax on those individuals earning more than $ 250,000. But he would not implement this new tax for 10 years! Yes, 10 years from now when he is not even President! And he has a plan to have the federal government give up to $ 500 per year to every worker earning less than $ 75,000 for deposit into their own personal IRA retirement account if they will save at least $ 1,000 per year with their own money. I’ll give him credit for encouraging personal retirement accounts but I am strongly against requiring high income Peter to pay for low income Paul’s personal retirement plan since Peter’s income taxes will be likely funding those government handouts to Paul.
John McCain has no published plan for social security reform other than saying that the current program “is a disgrace”, and that “all options are on the table”. He was a supporter of President Bush’s plan to allow younger workers to self-direct a portion of their FICA taxes into their own managed retirement account which I also favor. President Bush was not afraid to touch the infamous third rail and propose such a plan which the Democrats would not permit to proceed in Congress. I just wish that Mr. Straight Talk McCain would not hesitate from discussing his specific ideas for reforming our failing Social Security program. And post his plan on his campaign website.
Barack Obama also has a plan to create Automatic Workplace Pensions in which all employers will be mandated to either offer retirement plans such as a 401(K) or Simple IRA or be required to set-up a payroll deduction plan for its employees to contribute pre-tax dollars into their own IRA plan. I applaud his economic advisers for proposing such a plan and wish that McCain would propose something similar although his plans for keeping all taxes low will provide Americans with the money to fund their own accounts while Obama’s overall higher income and investment taxes will limit the amount of money that workers will have available to save for their retirements.
Let’s hope that this important Social Security issue will be a topic of the upcoming Presidential debates. It is a known predicament and it needs to be discussed. While Obama has the edge for proposing something, his plan to delay any change in the funding mechanism for 10 years is indicative of his naivety on the seriousness on this and other issues.
With the first baby boomers born in the mid 1940’s now reaching the magical age of 62, our country is running out of time to resolve the expected funding shortage for Social Security for the rest of us and for protecting the millions of workers whose traditional employer pension plans are becoming the responsibility of the federal government when their employers go out of business.
I hope that most of you know that Social Security retirement checks are funded on a pay as you go basis as FICA taxes collected today are used to fund Social Security checks for currently retired workers whose own taxes were used to fund checks for previous retirees. Fortunately, there are still enough current workers to fully fund today’s Social Security checks. However, that is not expected to be the case in the years ahead.
Every few years, Congress holds a series of “blue ribbon commission” meetings to come up with a short term fix for this problem. But we need a long term solution sooner than later. So what plans do our Presidential candidates have for this challenge?
Barack Obama’s latest economic blueprint includes a plan to impose a new 4% FICA payroll tax on those individuals earning more than $ 250,000. But he would not implement this new tax for 10 years! Yes, 10 years from now when he is not even President! And he has a plan to have the federal government give up to $ 500 per year to every worker earning less than $ 75,000 for deposit into their own personal IRA retirement account if they will save at least $ 1,000 per year with their own money. I’ll give him credit for encouraging personal retirement accounts but I am strongly against requiring high income Peter to pay for low income Paul’s personal retirement plan since Peter’s income taxes will be likely funding those government handouts to Paul.
John McCain has no published plan for social security reform other than saying that the current program “is a disgrace”, and that “all options are on the table”. He was a supporter of President Bush’s plan to allow younger workers to self-direct a portion of their FICA taxes into their own managed retirement account which I also favor. President Bush was not afraid to touch the infamous third rail and propose such a plan which the Democrats would not permit to proceed in Congress. I just wish that Mr. Straight Talk McCain would not hesitate from discussing his specific ideas for reforming our failing Social Security program. And post his plan on his campaign website.
Barack Obama also has a plan to create Automatic Workplace Pensions in which all employers will be mandated to either offer retirement plans such as a 401(K) or Simple IRA or be required to set-up a payroll deduction plan for its employees to contribute pre-tax dollars into their own IRA plan. I applaud his economic advisers for proposing such a plan and wish that McCain would propose something similar although his plans for keeping all taxes low will provide Americans with the money to fund their own accounts while Obama’s overall higher income and investment taxes will limit the amount of money that workers will have available to save for their retirements.
Let’s hope that this important Social Security issue will be a topic of the upcoming Presidential debates. It is a known predicament and it needs to be discussed. While Obama has the edge for proposing something, his plan to delay any change in the funding mechanism for 10 years is indicative of his naivety on the seriousness on this and other issues.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Bully For McCain – August 2008
Bully! Bully! So said Republican President Teddy Roosevelt whenever things were going well. What would he say now 100 years after the end of his two Presidential terms? How would he use his so-named Bully Pulpit to answer Democratic “the sky is falling” campaign tactics?
And can Senator John McCain who is running to join Teddy Roosevelt in that exclusive club of Presidents say Bully! Bully! as he defends attacks from Barack Obama on today’s economic, foreign policy and social issues?
Senator McCain recently said that he considers himself in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt who was known for tight fiscal strategies, big stick foreign policies, and leading environmental views. From what I read and hear about John McCain, he truly does share many of Teddy’s philosophies.
He, like Teddy, does not like to spend your federal tax dollars and he has rarely requested funding for wasteful government projects. Even his vote against the original Bush tax cuts was because of pork loaded onto that bill by others in Congress. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has proudly pushed for $ 930 million in pork in his brief 3 years in the Senate.
While the Democrats have tried to lampoon McCain for his economic knowledge, he fully understands the importance of not raising taxes on the middle and upper classes as Obama plans to do. McCain correctly believes that once the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, capital investment in the economy will soar while McCain will cut back the size of the federal government which grew fatter the past 8 years. Increased tax revenues from those investments combined with less government expenditures will help bring the federal budget closer to balance.
On foreign policy issues, Senator McCain has demonstrated Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick philosophy by being the leading proponent for the surge strategy in Iraq which turned the momentum towards victory resulting in the Iraqi Prime Minister saying it is almost time for the U.S. to start drawing down its troops. Senator McCain recently toured Central and South America to demonstrate his belief that NAFTA has been good for our county and to lobby for the Columbia free trade agreement with one of our best allies in Latin America. Obama was against the Iraqi surge and he is against NAFTA and the Columbia trade agreement.
In 1902, Teddy Roosevelt created the first national park at Crater Lake, Oregon. The current day Environmental Defense Fund calls him the greatest conservationist president. Will Senator McCain live up to that reputation? The EDF praised Senator McCain for his efforts to pass the Climate Stewardship Act regarding global warming. Senator McCain also continues to hold firm on his vote against expanding domestic drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. I believe that Teddy would be proud although I personally do not agree with either of those McCain positions. But at least Senator McCain will take a pragmatic approach to environmental issues as opposed to Obama who will always parrot the beliefs of the liberal media and activists.
John McCain was not my preferred Republican candidate for the Presidency but he will be a far superior successor to Teddy Roosevelt’s White House than will be Barack Obama whose policies and beliefs more closely follow the failed strategies of former President Jimmy Carter.
And can Senator John McCain who is running to join Teddy Roosevelt in that exclusive club of Presidents say Bully! Bully! as he defends attacks from Barack Obama on today’s economic, foreign policy and social issues?
Senator McCain recently said that he considers himself in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt who was known for tight fiscal strategies, big stick foreign policies, and leading environmental views. From what I read and hear about John McCain, he truly does share many of Teddy’s philosophies.
He, like Teddy, does not like to spend your federal tax dollars and he has rarely requested funding for wasteful government projects. Even his vote against the original Bush tax cuts was because of pork loaded onto that bill by others in Congress. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has proudly pushed for $ 930 million in pork in his brief 3 years in the Senate.
While the Democrats have tried to lampoon McCain for his economic knowledge, he fully understands the importance of not raising taxes on the middle and upper classes as Obama plans to do. McCain correctly believes that once the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, capital investment in the economy will soar while McCain will cut back the size of the federal government which grew fatter the past 8 years. Increased tax revenues from those investments combined with less government expenditures will help bring the federal budget closer to balance.
On foreign policy issues, Senator McCain has demonstrated Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick philosophy by being the leading proponent for the surge strategy in Iraq which turned the momentum towards victory resulting in the Iraqi Prime Minister saying it is almost time for the U.S. to start drawing down its troops. Senator McCain recently toured Central and South America to demonstrate his belief that NAFTA has been good for our county and to lobby for the Columbia free trade agreement with one of our best allies in Latin America. Obama was against the Iraqi surge and he is against NAFTA and the Columbia trade agreement.
In 1902, Teddy Roosevelt created the first national park at Crater Lake, Oregon. The current day Environmental Defense Fund calls him the greatest conservationist president. Will Senator McCain live up to that reputation? The EDF praised Senator McCain for his efforts to pass the Climate Stewardship Act regarding global warming. Senator McCain also continues to hold firm on his vote against expanding domestic drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. I believe that Teddy would be proud although I personally do not agree with either of those McCain positions. But at least Senator McCain will take a pragmatic approach to environmental issues as opposed to Obama who will always parrot the beliefs of the liberal media and activists.
John McCain was not my preferred Republican candidate for the Presidency but he will be a far superior successor to Teddy Roosevelt’s White House than will be Barack Obama whose policies and beliefs more closely follow the failed strategies of former President Jimmy Carter.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Obamanomics - July 2008
Change! Barack Obama based his hard fought Democratic primary victory on that single word. He gave lots of speeches and issued even more talking points about how he was going to change our country for the better.
And now he is taking that campaign promise of change to his general election contest against Republican John McCain. But what are the changes he is promising and how will they impact you?
In this month’s column I will focus on several of the economic changes an Obama presidency will bring to our country. In the months ahead, I will shine my spotlight on his intended changes to other domestic and international policy issues.
Some say change is all that most tax payers will have in their wallets when Barack finishes with his restructuring of the tax code. No Presidential candidate has won a general election in recent times by promising to increase taxes on most voters. Let’s hope that trend continues.
Barack believes increasing the dividend and capital gains tax on investments on the so called rich will not affect the middle or lower classes. He believes such passive income should be taxed the same as earned wages. Of course he does not mention that the funds originally invested to earn those dividends and capital gains were already taxed once when they were earned as wages. And that tens of millions of Americans count on those ongoing dividends and gains to supplement their wages or retirement funds.
Perhaps the biggest impact of Barack’s economic plan will be its impact on small businesses. He wants to increase the annual wage level to which social security taxes are collected from the current $ 102,000 cap to a higher level or to a secondary starting point which he is still calculating. That would subject small business owners’ additional wages to the already high 15.3% tax. For their higher paid employees, the small business owner will also be responsible for paying the employer’s 7.65% matching FICA tax on the employee’s higher wages. Those increased taxes will either be passed along to customers or will lessen the pool of funds available to hire new workers, give raises, or invest back in the business.
Barack Obama’s lack of understanding of basic economics is also evident in his plan to impose a “windfall” profit tax on the oil industry. It is too bad Barack is not old enough to fully remember that concept failed during the Carter presidency. The fact is that oil company profit margins are typically lower than most other industries in this country and that any windfall taxes would simply be passed along to the consumer in higher gasoline costs. But Obama does not care about $ 4.00 gasoline since he recently said that he only wished that the increased gas prices had taken place more slowly. Apparently his plan for the greening of America is to hope that conventional energy sources get so expensive that only alternative sources will be desired by the consumer.
I wish I had more space in this column to detail the countless other failings of the Obama economic plan including his failure to talk about reducing government spending. But I have confidence that John McCain will do that job for me as the presidential campaign continues in the months ahead.
And now he is taking that campaign promise of change to his general election contest against Republican John McCain. But what are the changes he is promising and how will they impact you?
In this month’s column I will focus on several of the economic changes an Obama presidency will bring to our country. In the months ahead, I will shine my spotlight on his intended changes to other domestic and international policy issues.
Some say change is all that most tax payers will have in their wallets when Barack finishes with his restructuring of the tax code. No Presidential candidate has won a general election in recent times by promising to increase taxes on most voters. Let’s hope that trend continues.
Barack believes increasing the dividend and capital gains tax on investments on the so called rich will not affect the middle or lower classes. He believes such passive income should be taxed the same as earned wages. Of course he does not mention that the funds originally invested to earn those dividends and capital gains were already taxed once when they were earned as wages. And that tens of millions of Americans count on those ongoing dividends and gains to supplement their wages or retirement funds.
Perhaps the biggest impact of Barack’s economic plan will be its impact on small businesses. He wants to increase the annual wage level to which social security taxes are collected from the current $ 102,000 cap to a higher level or to a secondary starting point which he is still calculating. That would subject small business owners’ additional wages to the already high 15.3% tax. For their higher paid employees, the small business owner will also be responsible for paying the employer’s 7.65% matching FICA tax on the employee’s higher wages. Those increased taxes will either be passed along to customers or will lessen the pool of funds available to hire new workers, give raises, or invest back in the business.
Barack Obama’s lack of understanding of basic economics is also evident in his plan to impose a “windfall” profit tax on the oil industry. It is too bad Barack is not old enough to fully remember that concept failed during the Carter presidency. The fact is that oil company profit margins are typically lower than most other industries in this country and that any windfall taxes would simply be passed along to the consumer in higher gasoline costs. But Obama does not care about $ 4.00 gasoline since he recently said that he only wished that the increased gas prices had taken place more slowly. Apparently his plan for the greening of America is to hope that conventional energy sources get so expensive that only alternative sources will be desired by the consumer.
I wish I had more space in this column to detail the countless other failings of the Obama economic plan including his failure to talk about reducing government spending. But I have confidence that John McCain will do that job for me as the presidential campaign continues in the months ahead.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Petro Politics - June 2008
For the past several years the Democrat leadership in Congress, in concert with environmentalist lobbying groups, has blasted the Bush administration for not doing anything about global warming allegedly caused by mankind’s growing demand for oil and other fossil fuels.
I have already written about my thoughts on climate change in a previous column many months ago. In that column, while dismissing the charges that man is to blame for natural climatic cycles, I nonetheless applauded all efforts to minimize our use of imported oil for national security reasons.
And when it was politically convenient, the Democrats also rushed to their microphones with ideas on how to halt our needless consumption of petroleum products and save the planet.
Last summer Democratic Congressman John Dingell, Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, floated an idea to impose an additional 50 cents per gallon gasoline tax based on his economic analysis that higher fuel prices would cause consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars and, thus, less oil products.
Even back in 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed an additional 26 cents tax on gasoline as part of his planned BTU tax on fossil fuels. Then Vice President Al Gore - of more recent global warming fame - defended that proposal as a good way to start reducing the use of automobiles.
So why are the Democrats now complaining about the high cost of gasoline? They should be applauding the ever increasing price of fuel for our automobiles. Especially since it appears that Dingell and Clinton were correct in their elementary economic assumptions about the elasticity of gasoline.
Recently, the media has been reporting that the market value of gas guzzling SUVs have plummeted as American consumers start looking again at smaller, more fuel efficient, cars and trucks. Mass transportation systems around the country are reporting record ridership levels. And Washington, D.C. recently introduced a bicycle sharing plan similar to that used in Amsterdam.
I am old enough to remember the last time the American public was faced with record gasoline prices. The year was 1979 and our country was led by Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Similar to today’s cries from the liberal media and their Democratic cohorts in Congress, everybody blamed the big oil companies at that time. Back then, the issue was actually a decrease in supply from the Middle East. Once supplies increased again, gas prices returned to normalcy.
Today, it is also not the fault of oil companies. Instead, it is again a market phenomenon but this time with a twist. Not only are we are faced with an unprecedented increase in worldwide demand for oil, we also have a weak dollar which has forced the price of oil to increase so that our international suppliers can maintain their revenue streams relative to their currencies.
So while the world awaits a stronger dollar and an influx of new oil discoveries thanks to the profits possible from high oil prices, it is fun to watch the politicians – especially the Democratic presidential candidates – debate how to reduce the price of gasoline even while the high price and the marketplace are helping to decrease the consumption of oil products and their supposed impact on global warming.
I have already written about my thoughts on climate change in a previous column many months ago. In that column, while dismissing the charges that man is to blame for natural climatic cycles, I nonetheless applauded all efforts to minimize our use of imported oil for national security reasons.
And when it was politically convenient, the Democrats also rushed to their microphones with ideas on how to halt our needless consumption of petroleum products and save the planet.
Last summer Democratic Congressman John Dingell, Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, floated an idea to impose an additional 50 cents per gallon gasoline tax based on his economic analysis that higher fuel prices would cause consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars and, thus, less oil products.
Even back in 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed an additional 26 cents tax on gasoline as part of his planned BTU tax on fossil fuels. Then Vice President Al Gore - of more recent global warming fame - defended that proposal as a good way to start reducing the use of automobiles.
So why are the Democrats now complaining about the high cost of gasoline? They should be applauding the ever increasing price of fuel for our automobiles. Especially since it appears that Dingell and Clinton were correct in their elementary economic assumptions about the elasticity of gasoline.
Recently, the media has been reporting that the market value of gas guzzling SUVs have plummeted as American consumers start looking again at smaller, more fuel efficient, cars and trucks. Mass transportation systems around the country are reporting record ridership levels. And Washington, D.C. recently introduced a bicycle sharing plan similar to that used in Amsterdam.
I am old enough to remember the last time the American public was faced with record gasoline prices. The year was 1979 and our country was led by Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Similar to today’s cries from the liberal media and their Democratic cohorts in Congress, everybody blamed the big oil companies at that time. Back then, the issue was actually a decrease in supply from the Middle East. Once supplies increased again, gas prices returned to normalcy.
Today, it is also not the fault of oil companies. Instead, it is again a market phenomenon but this time with a twist. Not only are we are faced with an unprecedented increase in worldwide demand for oil, we also have a weak dollar which has forced the price of oil to increase so that our international suppliers can maintain their revenue streams relative to their currencies.
So while the world awaits a stronger dollar and an influx of new oil discoveries thanks to the profits possible from high oil prices, it is fun to watch the politicians – especially the Democratic presidential candidates – debate how to reduce the price of gasoline even while the high price and the marketplace are helping to decrease the consumption of oil products and their supposed impact on global warming.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Mortgage Mess - May 2008
I am starting a waiting list for anybody who is interested in buying a new Bentley or Rolls Royce with no money down, 1% financing for the first few years, and no income qualifications for borrowing the money.
And the Democrats in Washington will make sure that the 1% interest rate becomes fixed if I cannot ultimately afford a true market rate. Or better yet, President Hillary Clinton will stop the financing company from repossessing the car if I cannot make my payments.
Of course, the financing wizard who arranged my loan knowing that I cannot afford the car will be protected and get to keep his high commission from the loan even if he is falsely assuring me I will be able to resell the car in a year for a large profit. And the car dealer already made their fat profit. What a deal for all!
Certainly you realize I am really writing about the housing and mortgage industries which are going through tough times right now thanks to the unchecked speculation of virtually everybody in the industry. And now Uncle Sam plans to come to the rescue.
When more than 98% of mortgages are being paid on time, why should our federal, state, and even local governments come to the rescue of the 2% who made bad financial decisions? And why should buyers of foreclosed homes get a proposed $ 7,000 tax credit which will only cause sellers of non-foreclosed homes to lower their prices by at least that amount.
And should builders be allowed to apply current accounting losses to previous years during which they happily accepted deals knowing that all real estate booms eventually come to an end? Whatever happened to the expression “those that live by the sword, die by the sword?”
There are many reasons for the current problem. From mortgage brokers and bankers who were more interested in booking loans for their commissions rather than verifying that borrowers could really afford them, to builders who presold entire condominium buildings or home developments before breaking ground without caring about the ultimate intentions of their buyers.
But ultimately the responsibility falls on the individuals who obtained below market adjustable rate or interest only mortgages that enabled them to buy more expensive homes than they could otherwise afford. Or to those who simply “invested” in the real estate market believing there would always be a market to flip their houses or condos.
I still remember attending a real estate investment show held by a mortgage broker who had tried to talk me into an interest only loan for my current home. Frankly, the folks who attended the show did not appear to be sophisticated, financially viable, buyers. But that didn’t stop the developers from Fort Meyers, Port St. Lucie, and Orlando from signing them up for deals. Interesting how those three markets are now among the leaders in the Florida real estate collapse.
So where do we go from here? Should the Democrats in Congress (with President Bush along for the ride) rescue the distressed homeowners who are in financial despair while letting their easily identified mortgage brokers and developers keep their profits? Or should we let the marketplace naturally resolve the situation? I’m rooting for the latter.
And the Democrats in Washington will make sure that the 1% interest rate becomes fixed if I cannot ultimately afford a true market rate. Or better yet, President Hillary Clinton will stop the financing company from repossessing the car if I cannot make my payments.
Of course, the financing wizard who arranged my loan knowing that I cannot afford the car will be protected and get to keep his high commission from the loan even if he is falsely assuring me I will be able to resell the car in a year for a large profit. And the car dealer already made their fat profit. What a deal for all!
Certainly you realize I am really writing about the housing and mortgage industries which are going through tough times right now thanks to the unchecked speculation of virtually everybody in the industry. And now Uncle Sam plans to come to the rescue.
When more than 98% of mortgages are being paid on time, why should our federal, state, and even local governments come to the rescue of the 2% who made bad financial decisions? And why should buyers of foreclosed homes get a proposed $ 7,000 tax credit which will only cause sellers of non-foreclosed homes to lower their prices by at least that amount.
And should builders be allowed to apply current accounting losses to previous years during which they happily accepted deals knowing that all real estate booms eventually come to an end? Whatever happened to the expression “those that live by the sword, die by the sword?”
There are many reasons for the current problem. From mortgage brokers and bankers who were more interested in booking loans for their commissions rather than verifying that borrowers could really afford them, to builders who presold entire condominium buildings or home developments before breaking ground without caring about the ultimate intentions of their buyers.
But ultimately the responsibility falls on the individuals who obtained below market adjustable rate or interest only mortgages that enabled them to buy more expensive homes than they could otherwise afford. Or to those who simply “invested” in the real estate market believing there would always be a market to flip their houses or condos.
I still remember attending a real estate investment show held by a mortgage broker who had tried to talk me into an interest only loan for my current home. Frankly, the folks who attended the show did not appear to be sophisticated, financially viable, buyers. But that didn’t stop the developers from Fort Meyers, Port St. Lucie, and Orlando from signing them up for deals. Interesting how those three markets are now among the leaders in the Florida real estate collapse.
So where do we go from here? Should the Democrats in Congress (with President Bush along for the ride) rescue the distressed homeowners who are in financial despair while letting their easily identified mortgage brokers and developers keep their profits? Or should we let the marketplace naturally resolve the situation? I’m rooting for the latter.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Thank You President Bush! - April 2008
When did it become unpopular to believe in a strong and prosperous United States of America?
Judging by the comments of the Democratic candidates for President and from reading and listening to media pundits and my opposing columnist, it appears that the Presidency of George Walker Bush has been a failure.
During his term in office, President Bush overcame a weakening economy inherited from the Clinton administration and the 911 tragedy by implementing a series of strategic tax cuts which again unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit which had helped build America.
And President Bush rebuilt a military weakened and demoralized during the previous eight years. The armed forces under his leadership took down an oppressive regime in Afghanistan which had provided training and refuge to those who had terrorized the world. He also rid the world of a tyrant in Iraq who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and regularly threatened his neighbors.
I am thankful that President Bush has served our country well since his first election in 2000. I can only imagine what the United States and world would look like today if Albert Gore had won his own state of Tennessee during that election and had become our 43rd President.
If Gore had become President, would he have nominated such solid individuals for the United States Supreme Court as John Roberts and Samuel Alito? I think not and am thankful that President Bush ultimately submitted those names including nominating Mr. Roberts to be the Chief Justice.
To be fair, President Bush has not been without faults. I have written frequently about them including his big spending ways and tendency to be fiercely loyal or stubborn rather than pragmatic at times. Despite record tax receipts flowing into Washington from his tax cut, President Bush spent all of that money and then some to fund such time bombs as the prescription benefit plan for Medicare and other federal government mandates including the No Child Left Behind Act. I am not one to favor burdening our future generations with the debt necessary to meet President Bush’s spending sprees.
Apparently the Democrats and liberal media think that President Bush has a few more faults than I have noted. Just type President Bush accomplishments into any internet search engine and you will see lots of sites created to joke or lambast him for one issue or another including his controversial decisions to not sign the Kyoto Protocol or to utilize aggressive wire tapping to root out possible harm against our homeland. About the only issue with which I do agree with those anti-Bush sites is that he is not the world’s most eloquent speaker.
I believe that President Bush will be valued by future generations as a President who led our country through challenging times when those against western ideals and freedoms sought to destroy our way of life. Hopefully the 44th President of the United States, when he or she takes office in January 2009, will continue that fight.
Judging by the comments of the Democratic candidates for President and from reading and listening to media pundits and my opposing columnist, it appears that the Presidency of George Walker Bush has been a failure.
During his term in office, President Bush overcame a weakening economy inherited from the Clinton administration and the 911 tragedy by implementing a series of strategic tax cuts which again unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit which had helped build America.
And President Bush rebuilt a military weakened and demoralized during the previous eight years. The armed forces under his leadership took down an oppressive regime in Afghanistan which had provided training and refuge to those who had terrorized the world. He also rid the world of a tyrant in Iraq who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and regularly threatened his neighbors.
I am thankful that President Bush has served our country well since his first election in 2000. I can only imagine what the United States and world would look like today if Albert Gore had won his own state of Tennessee during that election and had become our 43rd President.
If Gore had become President, would he have nominated such solid individuals for the United States Supreme Court as John Roberts and Samuel Alito? I think not and am thankful that President Bush ultimately submitted those names including nominating Mr. Roberts to be the Chief Justice.
To be fair, President Bush has not been without faults. I have written frequently about them including his big spending ways and tendency to be fiercely loyal or stubborn rather than pragmatic at times. Despite record tax receipts flowing into Washington from his tax cut, President Bush spent all of that money and then some to fund such time bombs as the prescription benefit plan for Medicare and other federal government mandates including the No Child Left Behind Act. I am not one to favor burdening our future generations with the debt necessary to meet President Bush’s spending sprees.
Apparently the Democrats and liberal media think that President Bush has a few more faults than I have noted. Just type President Bush accomplishments into any internet search engine and you will see lots of sites created to joke or lambast him for one issue or another including his controversial decisions to not sign the Kyoto Protocol or to utilize aggressive wire tapping to root out possible harm against our homeland. About the only issue with which I do agree with those anti-Bush sites is that he is not the world’s most eloquent speaker.
I believe that President Bush will be valued by future generations as a President who led our country through challenging times when those against western ideals and freedoms sought to destroy our way of life. Hopefully the 44th President of the United States, when he or she takes office in January 2009, will continue that fight.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Obamamania - March 2008
I enjoy listening to a good speaker. Hearing messages of hope and change spoken in a careful cadence of alliterations is very powerful stuff regardless of whether those words fail to include any specifics.
And when it is preached by a person who is filling a void of national purpose felt by today’s young voters and providing a glimmer of party allegiance to those typically not engaged in political elections, you have the recipe for a national mania.
An Obama mania that is. Just ask Hillary Clinton whose carefully planned political career was always supposed to end with her in the White House as President. Now her only connection to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be that of having been First Lady for eight controversial years.
Hopefully the American voters will start to see beyond Obama mania and start listening to what he plans to do to the United States if he becomes our next President. Because if he is elected, and the train wreck that could be created if his coat tails brings veto proof majorities to Democratic control of Congress, I believe our country will begin the transformation to European style socialism which I have been predicting for years.
Barack Hussein Obama proudly tells his flock of faithful that he plans to transform the United States by requiring the “rich” to share more of their hard earned wealth with the rest of America which will pay even lower income taxes or get even bigger earned income tax credits and other government handouts.
This potential redistribution of wealth via government fiat, along with less focus on providing incentives to corporations so they can stay competitive in the world economy, could create a downward spiral of stagnation requiring even higher taxes to feed the ever increasing role of the federal government in our lives as is being promised by Obama.
I have been debating my friends for years about when the impact of the millions of new citizens who have come to the United States from countries with socialist governments will affect our voters’ expectations of the role of government. Unfortunately, I believe Obama will be the agent of change to fulfill that demand.
Funny that he wants to take us to the left while most major European countries have realized the failure of their ways and are moving to the right. Look at Germany and now France who are following the successes of Great Britain and Ireland in remaking their economies.
And when I say to the left, I mean to the far left. Obama was the most liberal U.S senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. Obama actually makes Hillary Clinton look like a conservative (when she is not promising $ 5,000 checks to each baby born in our country).
If Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for President, there will be many months of media and voter scrutiny of his voting record and platform. Hopefully the American public will look beyond his laudable oratory skills and realize that his promise of change is to remake our government into a complete cradle to grave provider for all Americans paid for the most productive members of our society.
Let the general election campaign begin!
And when it is preached by a person who is filling a void of national purpose felt by today’s young voters and providing a glimmer of party allegiance to those typically not engaged in political elections, you have the recipe for a national mania.
An Obama mania that is. Just ask Hillary Clinton whose carefully planned political career was always supposed to end with her in the White House as President. Now her only connection to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be that of having been First Lady for eight controversial years.
Hopefully the American voters will start to see beyond Obama mania and start listening to what he plans to do to the United States if he becomes our next President. Because if he is elected, and the train wreck that could be created if his coat tails brings veto proof majorities to Democratic control of Congress, I believe our country will begin the transformation to European style socialism which I have been predicting for years.
Barack Hussein Obama proudly tells his flock of faithful that he plans to transform the United States by requiring the “rich” to share more of their hard earned wealth with the rest of America which will pay even lower income taxes or get even bigger earned income tax credits and other government handouts.
This potential redistribution of wealth via government fiat, along with less focus on providing incentives to corporations so they can stay competitive in the world economy, could create a downward spiral of stagnation requiring even higher taxes to feed the ever increasing role of the federal government in our lives as is being promised by Obama.
I have been debating my friends for years about when the impact of the millions of new citizens who have come to the United States from countries with socialist governments will affect our voters’ expectations of the role of government. Unfortunately, I believe Obama will be the agent of change to fulfill that demand.
Funny that he wants to take us to the left while most major European countries have realized the failure of their ways and are moving to the right. Look at Germany and now France who are following the successes of Great Britain and Ireland in remaking their economies.
And when I say to the left, I mean to the far left. Obama was the most liberal U.S senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. Obama actually makes Hillary Clinton look like a conservative (when she is not promising $ 5,000 checks to each baby born in our country).
If Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for President, there will be many months of media and voter scrutiny of his voting record and platform. Hopefully the American public will look beyond his laudable oratory skills and realize that his promise of change is to remake our government into a complete cradle to grave provider for all Americans paid for the most productive members of our society.
Let the general election campaign begin!
Friday, February 01, 2008
Run Mike Run - February 2008
With the Republican and Democratic 2008 presidential candidates battling each other, and the Democratic controlled Congress continuing to play partisan games with the Republican President, is it time for our fellow citizens to elect a candidate who is not from either of the major political parties.
Our citizens have had such an opportunity in almost every election in modern times to elect such candidates. None have won. In several cases, however, their presence on the ballot did have an impact on the final results of the presidential election. Once again, there are rumors and excited anticipation that a legitimate independent candidate may be on the ballot this coming November.
This year’s flavor is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He even attended a recent “national unity” conference in Oklahoma at which well known Democrats and Republicans came together to discuss how to break the hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, DC.
Before I given my thoughts on Mr. Bloomberg, let’s first digress into the reality of independent candidates in modern times. For as long as I can remember, there has always been a non major party candidate running from a derivative of the Socialist Workers Labor Party. The Libertarian Party has usually fielded a candidate (including current Republican candidate Ron Paul who ran on that label in 1988). George Wallace ran as a segregationalist candidate in 1968. There is also perennial candidate Ralph Nader of the Green Party who has run three times since 1996. And Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan have run as candidates from the Reform Party which was founded by Mr. Perot in 1992.
Of particular note have been Mr. Nader, Mr. Perot, and Mr. Buchanan. Each of their candidacies had an impact on the eventual winner of that year’s presidential race although Mr. Buchanan’s was more of an asterisk since his presence on the 2000 ballot only had an impact in Palm Beach County when he allegedly received votes from enough confused voters using the infamous butterfly ballot to allegedly cost Al Gore the election.
The Democrats continue to blame Mr. Nader for drawing votes from their candidate in 2000 and 2004 while the Republicans will never forget how Mr. Perot probably cost George H.W. Bush another term in 1992 while allowing Bill Clinton to rise to power.
Which brings me back to potential independent candidate Mayor Bloomberg. This is a man who should really form a party called the Chameleon Party since he switched his party allegiance from Democrat to Republican so he could run – and win – in the New York Mayoral race and then recently dropped the Republican party moniker to register as an Independent (also known as a Non-Affiliated Voter in some states).
Despite his enormous riches obtained in a very admirable way as the founder of a financial information company, I do not believe Mr. Bloomberg can win a national election for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, is organization. Let’s face it, any successful campaign requires a solid grass roots effort to get out the vote. While he can buy plenty of mass media ad coverage, and he can probably hire many temporary laborers to walk the neighborhoods and work the polls for him, I just do not see how he can put together a team of passionate volunteers to take his campaign to the proper level.
And then there is his record. His supporters will say he changed public education in New York City, made the city safer, and kept the city on a strong financial footing. Isn’t that what former New York Mayor and current Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani is claiming also?
Of course Rudy put New York on a better financial path by cutting taxes multiple times while Mr. Bloomberg has raised them. Mayor Mike even attempted to institute a commuter tax on folks from New Jersey and Connecticut who work in New York. Mr. Bloomberg also has exhibited Clintonian tendencies by waiting to measure public sentiment before commenting on many major issues. Will his passive, nice guy, image play well across the country?
Recent published reports on Mayor Bloomberg have stated that he is prepared to spend up to $ 500 million of his personal wealth on his possible presidential campaign. He is also supposedly spending a notable amount of money on polling in all 50 states to determine his potential campaign strategies to put him in the White House. Most importantly, he is counting on being the media darling of the presidential campaign to aid in his positioning as the real agent of change for our country.
Mike Bloomberg sums up the potential downside of his candidacy when he jokes about whether America is ready to elect a “5′ 7″ billionaire Jew from New York who’s divorced and running as an independent to become president of the United States.” Only time will tell if his self-effacing opinion is a enough of a concern to the American voter.
Personally, I hope Mayor Bloomberg will run because I believe he will draw a large portion of his votes from Democrats unhappy with their own candidate after a brawling, racially charged, primary election. He will also draw a large portion of the independent, non-party affiliated voters throughout the country who usually provide enough of a swing to impact the presidential election. In other words, I believe he will win enough votes to keep a Republican in the White House for the next four years. Run Mike run!
Our citizens have had such an opportunity in almost every election in modern times to elect such candidates. None have won. In several cases, however, their presence on the ballot did have an impact on the final results of the presidential election. Once again, there are rumors and excited anticipation that a legitimate independent candidate may be on the ballot this coming November.
This year’s flavor is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He even attended a recent “national unity” conference in Oklahoma at which well known Democrats and Republicans came together to discuss how to break the hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, DC.
Before I given my thoughts on Mr. Bloomberg, let’s first digress into the reality of independent candidates in modern times. For as long as I can remember, there has always been a non major party candidate running from a derivative of the Socialist Workers Labor Party. The Libertarian Party has usually fielded a candidate (including current Republican candidate Ron Paul who ran on that label in 1988). George Wallace ran as a segregationalist candidate in 1968. There is also perennial candidate Ralph Nader of the Green Party who has run three times since 1996. And Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan have run as candidates from the Reform Party which was founded by Mr. Perot in 1992.
Of particular note have been Mr. Nader, Mr. Perot, and Mr. Buchanan. Each of their candidacies had an impact on the eventual winner of that year’s presidential race although Mr. Buchanan’s was more of an asterisk since his presence on the 2000 ballot only had an impact in Palm Beach County when he allegedly received votes from enough confused voters using the infamous butterfly ballot to allegedly cost Al Gore the election.
The Democrats continue to blame Mr. Nader for drawing votes from their candidate in 2000 and 2004 while the Republicans will never forget how Mr. Perot probably cost George H.W. Bush another term in 1992 while allowing Bill Clinton to rise to power.
Which brings me back to potential independent candidate Mayor Bloomberg. This is a man who should really form a party called the Chameleon Party since he switched his party allegiance from Democrat to Republican so he could run – and win – in the New York Mayoral race and then recently dropped the Republican party moniker to register as an Independent (also known as a Non-Affiliated Voter in some states).
Despite his enormous riches obtained in a very admirable way as the founder of a financial information company, I do not believe Mr. Bloomberg can win a national election for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, is organization. Let’s face it, any successful campaign requires a solid grass roots effort to get out the vote. While he can buy plenty of mass media ad coverage, and he can probably hire many temporary laborers to walk the neighborhoods and work the polls for him, I just do not see how he can put together a team of passionate volunteers to take his campaign to the proper level.
And then there is his record. His supporters will say he changed public education in New York City, made the city safer, and kept the city on a strong financial footing. Isn’t that what former New York Mayor and current Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani is claiming also?
Of course Rudy put New York on a better financial path by cutting taxes multiple times while Mr. Bloomberg has raised them. Mayor Mike even attempted to institute a commuter tax on folks from New Jersey and Connecticut who work in New York. Mr. Bloomberg also has exhibited Clintonian tendencies by waiting to measure public sentiment before commenting on many major issues. Will his passive, nice guy, image play well across the country?
Recent published reports on Mayor Bloomberg have stated that he is prepared to spend up to $ 500 million of his personal wealth on his possible presidential campaign. He is also supposedly spending a notable amount of money on polling in all 50 states to determine his potential campaign strategies to put him in the White House. Most importantly, he is counting on being the media darling of the presidential campaign to aid in his positioning as the real agent of change for our country.
Mike Bloomberg sums up the potential downside of his candidacy when he jokes about whether America is ready to elect a “5′ 7″ billionaire Jew from New York who’s divorced and running as an independent to become president of the United States.” Only time will tell if his self-effacing opinion is a enough of a concern to the American voter.
Personally, I hope Mayor Bloomberg will run because I believe he will draw a large portion of his votes from Democrats unhappy with their own candidate after a brawling, racially charged, primary election. He will also draw a large portion of the independent, non-party affiliated voters throughout the country who usually provide enough of a swing to impact the presidential election. In other words, I believe he will win enough votes to keep a Republican in the White House for the next four years. Run Mike run!
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The New Year - January 2008
Another year. Another set of political predictions. First to the national elections.
On January 29th, I plan to vote in the Republican primary for former Senator Fred Thompson. I will not join the chorus of Broward County party elite backing Rudy Giuliani or those voting for Mike Huckabee, in part, because of his appeal to the faith oriented voters. I believe Senator Thompson’s conservative voting record and his specific plans for our country still make him the best choice as I have said for several months. But I believe that Huckabee now has the advantage to win our state.
I hope that Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic primary because I believe she is the best Democratic candidate running. While I disagree with many of her more socialist ideas and tax increase plans, I believe she is more of a realist in what is needed to lead this country than are the other Democratic candidates. And if this is to be the year that the Democrats take back the White House, I would certainly prefer her more than naive Barack Obama or populist John Edwards.
We also have an important vote on January 29th regarding the proposed changes in our property taxes. These changes include new portability for our Save Our Homes savings, increased homestead exemptions, and a new cap on commercial property value increases. Personally, I believe the proposed changes are far too little and too late but I plan to vote for them because I have little faith that our do nothing Governor has the backbone to get the state legislature to pass radical property tax changes or to modernize our sales tax system by eliminating many of sales tax exemptions currently allowed.
In the next few weeks or months there will be a vote at the Broward County Commission regarding the regional mega mall called The Commons which is planned for western Davie. To those Commissioners who read this column, I ask you to evaluate the zero sum impact of the project on the county. In other words, will the project bring a net increase in jobs and revenue to the county without causing a similar loss of jobs and property values at other outlets? I believe this monstrous mall will be a killer for Pembroke Lakes, Broward Mall, Coral Springs Mall, Sawgrass Mills and to most Weston retailers. And with our county in a severe water draught, can we afford to allocate precious water rights to an unnecessary project like The Commons?
For those readers living in Cooper City, you also will be electing several Commissioners and a Mayor. All I can say is that I am thankful that I now live in Davie because the Cooper City Commission has become an embarrassment to its residents from its conduct before and during meetings. Hopefully you have carefully read the articles contributed by each candidate to this publication and will choose those who have solid business management backgrounds which they can offer to your city.
And lastly, I expect that the Chicken Little Environmentalists will continue to try and convince the world that Greenland has always been covered in ice and that Iceland has always been covered in green. My point is that global warming is a cyclical event just as was the coming ice age prediction a few decades ago. But let’s take advantage of this uncertainty to buy more fuel efficient cars and trucks and invest in solar and wind generation technologies so we can lessen our dependence on oil from such places as Venezuela, Iran, and Nigeria.
Let me close by wishing you and yours a healthy and happy New Years!
On January 29th, I plan to vote in the Republican primary for former Senator Fred Thompson. I will not join the chorus of Broward County party elite backing Rudy Giuliani or those voting for Mike Huckabee, in part, because of his appeal to the faith oriented voters. I believe Senator Thompson’s conservative voting record and his specific plans for our country still make him the best choice as I have said for several months. But I believe that Huckabee now has the advantage to win our state.
I hope that Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic primary because I believe she is the best Democratic candidate running. While I disagree with many of her more socialist ideas and tax increase plans, I believe she is more of a realist in what is needed to lead this country than are the other Democratic candidates. And if this is to be the year that the Democrats take back the White House, I would certainly prefer her more than naive Barack Obama or populist John Edwards.
We also have an important vote on January 29th regarding the proposed changes in our property taxes. These changes include new portability for our Save Our Homes savings, increased homestead exemptions, and a new cap on commercial property value increases. Personally, I believe the proposed changes are far too little and too late but I plan to vote for them because I have little faith that our do nothing Governor has the backbone to get the state legislature to pass radical property tax changes or to modernize our sales tax system by eliminating many of sales tax exemptions currently allowed.
In the next few weeks or months there will be a vote at the Broward County Commission regarding the regional mega mall called The Commons which is planned for western Davie. To those Commissioners who read this column, I ask you to evaluate the zero sum impact of the project on the county. In other words, will the project bring a net increase in jobs and revenue to the county without causing a similar loss of jobs and property values at other outlets? I believe this monstrous mall will be a killer for Pembroke Lakes, Broward Mall, Coral Springs Mall, Sawgrass Mills and to most Weston retailers. And with our county in a severe water draught, can we afford to allocate precious water rights to an unnecessary project like The Commons?
For those readers living in Cooper City, you also will be electing several Commissioners and a Mayor. All I can say is that I am thankful that I now live in Davie because the Cooper City Commission has become an embarrassment to its residents from its conduct before and during meetings. Hopefully you have carefully read the articles contributed by each candidate to this publication and will choose those who have solid business management backgrounds which they can offer to your city.
And lastly, I expect that the Chicken Little Environmentalists will continue to try and convince the world that Greenland has always been covered in ice and that Iceland has always been covered in green. My point is that global warming is a cyclical event just as was the coming ice age prediction a few decades ago. But let’s take advantage of this uncertainty to buy more fuel efficient cars and trucks and invest in solar and wind generation technologies so we can lessen our dependence on oil from such places as Venezuela, Iran, and Nigeria.
Let me close by wishing you and yours a healthy and happy New Years!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)