Archive for September, 2012

Romney’s Mondale Moment

Thursday, September 27th, 2012

*********************************************************************

The Republican candidate rips a page from Walter Mondale’s 1984 campaign playbook

*********************************************************************

In 1984, Walter Mondale faced President Reagan in his bid for a second term. In part because of Mr. Reagan’s arms build-up, the deficit had reached (Gasp!) $185.4 Billion ($409.27 Billion in today’s dollars). Mr. Reagan was taken to task by Democrats for “mortgaging our future” (where are those deficit hawks now as we have had 4 straight trillion dollar-plus deficits under President Obama?).

At the height of deficit hysteria that year, Walter Mondale said in his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” For both his honesty as well as lousy judgement, Mr. Mondale was rewarded that year by the electorate with a landslide loss to Mr. Reagan (Reagan won almost 59% of the popular vote and 97% of the Electoral College votes [a bygone era when people looked at the candidates and just didn’t stampede to the promise of “change” or “hope” only to be disappointed and wonder what happened).

Mitt Romney wants to emulate Walter Mondale’s tax “honesty” that earned the Vice-President a landslide loss in 1984

____________________________________________________________________

Perhaps given a speech by the same person on his campaign staff who slipped him the 47%  speech Mickey, Mr. Romney on Wednesday told an Ohio crowd that while he would work to lower tax rates on businesses and individuals, they shouldn’t “be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I’m also going to lower deductions and exemptions.”

This was an emphasis on the deficit resulting from the Romney campaign reaching out to independent voters, who polls say remain deeply concerned about growing levels of government debt.

This position is a perfect strategy on the road to victory, for President Obama. By saying that he will not reduce taxes significantly, Mr. Romney does several things, none of which are good for him.

First, he angers (if not disheartens) the Conservative base that he will need to show up in force on election day. They are rightfully looking for and expecting someone who understands that the taxpayer (outside the 47%) is being soaked at the federal, state and local level. Second, he alienates Independents and even wavering Democrats who also think taxes are too high and who are desperately seeking an alternative to Mr. Obama. In short, Mr. Romney becomes a “tax collector for the welfare state.” If Mr. Romney wants to play President Obama’s game of deficit reduction by focusing on tax revenues and not spending, Mr. Obama will win every time.

Mr. Romney needs to focus his efforts on growing the economy by reducing regulations and taxes, a tried and true formula (see: Ronald Reagan, 1980s).

Governor Romney must not fret over his critics who see the world through static shades. This is the same crew that believes Reagan’s tax cuts will destroy the 1980′s economy despite the fact that we are over 20 years past the ’80s. It has been long shown that permanent marginal rate reductions on all kinds of income (ordinary, capital) allow the growth of a wider tax base resulting in more tax revenue, despite the lower rates. If Mr. Romney is really concerned about the deficit, he’ll “expand the pie” via tax rate cuts and even address spending.

Finally, someone needs to tell Governor Romney that there’s only 6 weeks, not 6 months, to the election. The closer we get to election day, the less likely Mr. Romney will be able to shovel up these messes he habitually deposits on the campaign trail.

-I.M. Windee

Congress Says “Do As We Say, Not As We Legislate”

Tuesday, September 25th, 2012

*********************************************************************

How dare taxpayers follow the law!

*********************************************************************

Politics is perhaps the only place where utterly absurd  statements can be made and somehow taken seriously.

The latest such example resulted from a series of reports, issued by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, that addressed corporate tax practices. The reports indicated that corporate behemoths like Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard used accounting strategies to minimize their U.S. tax bills by shifting profits in and out of the U.S.

“Major U.S. corporations are increasingly earning their profits here but shipping them overseas to avoid paying the taxes they owe,” lamented Senator Carl Levin.

Above: Senator Carl Levin is aghast that taxpayers adhere to the tax code he has helped write

______________________________________________________

Presumably, Sen. Levin does not mean that the corporations legally owe and are liable for taxes on such profits under the laws of the U.S. What he likely means is that, as a politician and not legislator, he sees a honey-pot that he wishes he could tap into but the Internal Revenue Code, as written by him and his colleagues, does not allow he and the rest of the spendthrift congress to get their paws on it.

Mr. Levin is likely using the “fairness” trope, as in “if the corporations were fair, they would just keep the profits in the U.S. and pay the taxes on it.”

Putting aside that one person’s fairness” is another’s misguided Robin Hood redistribution, businesses as well as individuals have every right, as Justice Learned Hand so eloquently stated 80 years ago, to exercise tax avoidance: “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” Good luck to the Chairman of a corporation who decides that his duty is not to increase shareholder wealth but fatten the coffers of government by remitting more corporate taxes than legally required.

And when last checked, there was nothing in the Constitution or any law ever written, including those sponsored by Mssr. Levin, that stipulates that more than the legally required amount of taxes should be remitted to the government if people of the good senator’s ilk don’t think the law doesn’t prescribe enough of a tithe to Uncle Sam. Thus, Mr. Levin’s call for corporations to pay more taxes than they should under existing law is effectively chastising them for following the law.

Which gets us to what Mr. Levin really meant. It is no surprise that HP and Microsoft are not a major presence in his home state of Michigan. Thus, he is in full-throated disgust with the perfectly legal tactics they use and he’s ready to storm the tax code Bastille.

Have at it, Senator! Conservatives and economists of all stripes have long said that the social engineering that is baked into the tax code (via credits, exemptions and other goodies), is inefficient and distorts the flow of capital and makes us poorer as a society. But don’t be surprised if your tax reform prosthelytizing falls on deaf ears within your chamber. The dirty little not-so secret is that the carve-outs and other giveaways in the code are a result of lobbying and pet ideologies by none other than your fellow congress-mates, from both sides of the aisle.

With a little luck, the senator will also carry his crusade on to other government subsidies, like those of the auto industry, at which point he will have not only preached but practiced the virtue of consistency (a rarity for any politician).

-I.M. Windee

Ignore the Reality Behind the Campaign Rhetoric

Tuesday, September 18th, 2012

*********************************************************************

Like the Wizard of Oz, President Obama wants us to ignore his failures; hence the rhetorical pistol-whippings of Mitt Romney when he stumbles into the truth

*********************************************************************

If this Fall’s presidential election were to be decided on policy, ability to lead or even vision for the country, Mitt Romney would win, hands down. But if the campaign is to be decided by billowing rhetorical smoke and mirrors, as it appears it might be, President Obama will not only retain the White House but for overcoming such a weak case to re-elect him, he might earn king-for-life status.

The latest verbal faux pas (which in this campaign means telling the truth) that Mr. Romney stumbled into was saying at a fundraiser this past May “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That, that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.” Romney went on to say that “these are people who pay no income tax. 47 percent of Americans who pay no income tax.  So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” He said his job “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Above: Like the Wizard of Oz, President Obama wants us to ignore his failures behind the campaign rhetoric

___________________________________________________________________

One of the problems with what he said is that it is predominantly true. Despite the harried discussion about taxes and “fair share,” a large portion of Americans do not pay any income tax, which is well below the 15% rate that Mr. Romney pays and has been burned at the public stake for.

And when it comes to entitlements like social security, medicare or even unemployment benefits, the vast bulk of the “99%” fully expect and feel entitled to everything they get and then some. Try convincing blue-hairs, clutching their social security check and a picture of FDR, that they have taken more from the system than they paid into and that perhaps benefits should be pared back. That alone will cause a trip to the emergency room, paid for by the government. So, too, with government workers who in many cases get rich medical and pension packages along with wages above private industry norms.

The tough truth of the matter is we have become an entitlement society. So Mr. Romney can be accused of his usual in-artful delivery, but certainly not for telling mistruths.

Still, Mr. Romney, one of these months (with only 1 to go before the election), must understand that Democrats will do anything to change the subject from the reality of a lackluster economic recovery, caused by their policies. Hence, the fabled Republican wars on [fill in the blank]. Think of it as a variation of the Wizard of Oz’s “ignore the man behind the curtain”: ignore the anemic recovery behind our campaign demagoguery of the Republicans.

Which leads to what Governor Romney should be talking about if he wants to win the election: economic growth which brings jobs. Lamenting the cultural lineal descent since the 1960s, resulting in the entitlement mentality so prevalent, is a great idea: for a white-paper or think-tank debate. But it does nothing to inspire the electorate to cast a vote for the messenger of such somber news.

What people wish to hear is how Mr. Romney will set the conditions so that there is no longer a need or desire for entitlements. To wit, Mr. Romney must show how he will implement policies that allow growth, of the kind of the Reagan ’80s, that will bring prosperity which everyone will aspire for.

If Mr. Romney only wishes to bemoan American decline, the voters will rightfully pick the candidate who does such best (as well as promotes it): President Obama.

-I.M. Windee

Clinton Nostalgia

Wednesday, September 12th, 2012

*********************************************************************

President Obama’s policy intransigence allows the country to debate the degree of government in our lives; Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” merely deferred the matter for the ignoble cause of prolonging his career

*********************************************************************

Of all of the mind-melds that President Obama and his policies have put on this country, from class warfare to promoting national self-doubt, perhaps the most notable consequence from them has been a blossoming nostalgia for the days of Bill Clinton.

Predictably, stalwart Democrats look back wistfully at the 1990s and see an America that was set right after what they see as the disastrous Reagan years. But what to make of conservative precincts who also share a desire for a president with the governing style like Mssr. Clinton’s?

To refresh memories, Bill and Hillary Clinton (recall their “2 for the price of 1″ sales pitch in the 1992 campaign) rode to power thanks to a perfect electoral storm: a strong third-party candidate in Ross Perot who disproportionately sapped votes from the incumbent, George H.W. Bush, who was lackluster and befuddled as a candidate for his re-election. Ever the opportunists, the Clintons saw that the country might have tired of the tapped-out incumbent, so they beat the campaign slogan drum of “change” and won the White House.

What followed was a heavy-handed governing style by them that resulted in 8 years of internecine warfare predominantly with congressional Republicans but even with his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate.

As President, Bill Clinton was a political chameleon who cared first and foremost about his own fortunes; Barack Obama is the opposite

_____________________________________________

When Mr. Clinton entered the White House, his focus was on health care and he dispatched his co-president/wife to formulate a sweeping health care bill on their terms, for congress to rubber-stamp. The proposed plan that they had was very similar to ObamaCare’s command-and-control program. When Democratic Tennessee Congressman Jim Cooper came up with a more free-market based approach that attracted wide bipartisan support which still would have achieved the Clinton’s ostensible goal of bringing more people health care coverage, it was summarily rejected by Team Clinton and brought Hillary Clinton’s wrath; Mr. Cooper was lucky he was not fished out of the Potomac (or found in a park like Vince Foster). Any chance of a health care law died by late summer of 1994 and given the fallout, Democrats lost both houses of congress in a historic defeat and the Clintons holed up in the White House plotting their political survival.

In came the policy-smart but politically tone-deaf Newt Gingrich leading the House majority Republicans along with the honorable but equally tin-eared Bob Dole in charge of the Senate. Probably not believing their luck, the Clinton’s proceeded to play rope-a-dope with them on everything from delaying welfare reform until right before the election in 1996 to the government shutdown and culminating in the ill-advised impeachment of President Clinton (given the slippery nature of Mr. Clinton, Mssrs. Dole and Gingrich should probably be happy that they did not wind up being convicted instead of Clinton).

And though long forgotten, the 500 or so FBI files, many on political adversaries of the Clintons, which the White House inappropriately requested (“Filegate”, as opposed to “Travelgate”, “Whitewater,” and the other imbroglios too numerous to list) were a not so subtle reminder that the Clintons knew how to play hardball, and not the lucidity-lacking brand of Chris Matthews. Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman of the Nixon White House could’ve been students, and not teachers, of the Clintons.

All the while this was happening, President Clinton claimed to be governing under the guise of bi-partisanship via “triangulation”: that Nirvanac ground that placed him between what he characterized as partisan congressional Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, such was not the case. Mr. Clinton clung to high tax rates (39.6% for ordinary income and 20% for capital gains) as well as balancing the budget through steep defense cuts, justified by the end of the Cold War (“the peace dividend”). And when it came to military matters overseas, he oversaw the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole, with little but symbolic responses. At a moment when he could have had Osama bin Laden liquidated in the late 1990s, he swung into his U.N. mode and called in the lawyers for debate while bin Laden got away only to be heard from a few years later on 9/11. These were all Liberal machinations, albeit costumed in post-partisanship. So the assertion that Bill Clinton somehow learned from his mistakes is, to adapt a phrase from George W. Bush,  fuzzy history. The Clintons merely went sub rosa with their Liberal predilections. In short, an appropriate synonym for “triangulation” is “duplicity.”

All of which contrasts with President Obama.

For anyone who doubts Mr. Obama’s convictions (clearly Liberal), his statement a few years ago that “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term  president” says it all. This is a man who believes what he believes in and does not make major policy changes for political expediency, let alone survival.

****************************************

While President Obama’s inflexibility may cause discomfort for many, it has achieved, for Conservatives in particular and the country in general, what Bill Clinton’s ballroom dancing never did: bringing the debate of the size and degree of government front and center.

If nothing else, at least voters will be able to say they had a clear and important choice to make this election. And with some luck, more thought will be given than in 2008 before the lever is pulled in the ballot box.

-I.M. Windee

Inherit the Mess: The Democrats’ Twilight in America

Wednesday, September 5th, 2012

*********************************************************************

The Democrats’ campaign slogans “We inherited this mess” and “It could be worse” do not inspire confidence nor make the case to elect them and could wind up defeating them

*********************************************************************

With the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, Democrats have adopted a message that they, and President Obama specifically, inherited a mess. And to reinforce such thought, they state that without Democrats in power the past 4 years, it could have been worse. This theme has been amplified this week at the Democratic National Convention.

It is indisputable that the financial meltdown of 2007-2009 was one of the worst in many decades and Mr. Obama clearly did inherit a lousy economy. Regardless of what anyone says, there is plenty of blame to spread to both parties. But for those of us who can recall Candidate Obama’s message of “hope and change” in 2008, the failure to allow the economy to recover and the rationalization that he shouldn’t have been expected to preside over a healthier economic rebound is a marked contradiction from what he promised 4 years ago.

Democrats claim that they inherited a mess and thus have effectively been street-cleaners after a horse parade

_________________________________________________

More importantly, such is not a posture taken by prior successful presidents who did not inherit optimal situations.

Addressing just a few prior “presidential fixers”:

  • President Reagan clearly did not inherit a good situation as his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, along with a Democratic Congress, left the economy in tatters (high inflation, high unemployment, low growth [sound familiar?]). Yet he miraculously turned things around instead of whining and blaming the prior administration. Conversely, Mr. Carter also inherited a lousy economy from the Nixon/Ford administrations and proceeded to make things even worse, resulting in his one-term status.
  • FDR inherited the Great Depression and while he had policy mistakes, no one can fault him for not trying and succeeding to some degree in turning a bad situation around.
  • President Lincoln, if history teachers and books can be trusted, did not throw up his hands and claim that he inherited an intractable mess which could not be solved. He met the challenges of his day head on, with rather positive results.
  • George Washington was handed a nascent republic with many problems. Officially inaugurating what would become a great American tradition, he rose to the occasion and saw his two terms through that ended with a better situation than what he started with.

And there’s many less celebrated examples of other presidents also “earning their pay” by tackling the tough jobs that inherently come with the position.

The Democratic position of the backward-looking view of “it could be worse” is not what this historically can-do country is all about. America’s attitude and approach is more aligned with the Reaganesque forward-looking philosophy of “things should always be better,” as they progressively were under President Reagan’s reign. To contrast with Mr. Obama’s “gut-it-out America” message, 28 years ago Mr. Reagan’s re-election theme was “morning in America,” as Mr. Reagan sailed to a landslide victory.

An irony that could result from Democrats’ incessant reminders of the “mess” they inherited will be to create an even crankier electorate that was unhappy to begin with. When voters are disenchanted, the incumbents, in this case President Obama and Democrats, are the big losers of such a sour mood.

Democrats should be careful about the defeatism they now sow as such could result in reaping the bitter fruits of electoral loss in November.

-I.M. Windee

An Open Letter to President Obama

Saturday, September 1st, 2012

*********************************************************************

Thanks for pointing out your alleged Republican Wars on Humanity but may we talk about jobs?

*********************************************************************

Dear President Obama-

I know you are preparing for the Democratic convention next week and a fierce rebuttal to the Republican convention that just occurred so I will make this “fairly” quick.

First, thank you for your public service. While I may not agree with many of your policies (more later), there’s no question that you wish to serve this country and do what you believe is best for it. Given the grief that you have to endure from opposing politicians, the media and even your own party, you are to be commended for showing up in the Oval Office each day with the sunny demeanor you have. I don’t think I could do it.

Above: I.M. Windee writes a letter to the President

Still, as stated prior, I take exception with many of your policies, and not just because I am a Conservative and Republican.

Let’s start with health-care. It’s great that you want to see everyone have coverage but as you found out when you cut over $100 billion from Medicare to pay for such, your aspiration has a price. If it didn’t, Republicans would be all for universal coverage quicker than you could say “Hillary-Care.” I guess that’s one of the big differences between you and your Liberal colleagues versus Mr. Romney and Conservatives: recognizing that if you wish to give to Paul, you must take from (tax) Peter. That’s just the way it is. The government coffers are not some magical horn of plenty that wealth is magically belched out from. Government relies on the people it governs (read: the taxpayer). Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it must be recognized so that there is no surprise when some parts of the citizenry get cramped feelings over what government does with the resources it has.

Which gets us to the unfortunate phenomenon this world (and perhaps the universe) is gripped in: limited resources. When you say with too much ease that “the rich” should pay more in taxes (I believe “fair share” is your justifying term), some think you are a bit too blithe in such thinking and don’t realize that the people you are targeting, while perhaps wildly wealthy, only have a finite amount of resources. And when you take away a portion of their wealth, they have that much less to use in such things as investment that creates jobs. Perhaps it’s an eccentricity that the wealthy need to be cured of, but that’s how they operate at this point in evolution. So maybe more care and thought should be given before using higher taxes willy-nilly to balance your budget deficits. Just a thought.

And while we’re on the subject of “the rich,” we unemployed (and perhaps much of the citizenry) don’t care what Mitt Romney and his ilk pay in taxes, whether he is waging some “war on [fill in the blank],” or any other superfluous demagoguery that may serve you politicians in a campaign but does nothing for us. All we care about is whether the “1%” plan to hire any of us, and if so, when?

I realize you probably cringed when I mentioned the unmentionable: jobs. I’m sorry and do not mean to create discomfort. We’ll quickly change the subject to Mitt Romney’s taxes and the fabled gastro-intestinal distress he had from a bad bean burrito late one night while in college but a few words on this thorny subject of (un)employment are a must. If it makes you feel better, such term makes me feel queasy as I am a member of your “Hope and Change Brigade” (the unemployed). While I can only speak for myself and not my jobless brethren, it just seems that getting gainful employment is likely near the top of all our concerns and is what we most want you and Mr. Romney to speak about. Yes, yes, I fully agree with your campaign and MSNBC allies that the many Republican wars on you name it should be foremost in the campaign discussion. Yet the bill collectors that call me each day don’t seem to care about such; they just want money from me which I can only get from a job, which I don’t have. So here’s what I think is some good advice (if I’ve yet to offer any): at least feign some concern about us jobless.  You don’t even need to take any responsibility for the lackluster recovery. Just blame George Bush (either one, your pick) or Richard Nixon or even Herbert Hoover (2 always-reliable scapegoats for Democrats); most of us are so punch-drunk that we won’t give it much thought so long as you speak somewhat within our zone of concern.

And speaking of jobs, there are those of us who think you might have put the cart before the horse. To wit, you did a lot of Liberal social policy engineering before you allowed the sputtering economy to recover and pay for your agenda. Again, I don’t wish to cause any heartburn for you but I’m just giving you a heads-up as to what’s happening outside the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Perhaps if you win a second term, you can focus on the economy and letting it grow. Maybe not.

One final word on…..jobs (last one, I promise). When you can have upwards of 20,000 jobs created and increase oil supplies which will lower energy and consumer prices, take the opportunity (and run). Yes, I’m talking about the XL pipeline. If you don’t believe me on this, ask the unions who would’ve filled such jobs. I know they have your ear. Realize that as Ronald Reagan timelessly put it: recession is when  your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose yours. There are a lot of us in a Depression.

Finally, please do something with Vice-President Biden. All of my concerns above are magnified whenever I hear him speak. He seems like a decent fellow but he does not give me the comfort zone of someone who can get an adequate handle on officiating the White House Easter Egg Roll, let alone major policy matters. Add him to the list above of reasons why you should be commended for not holing up at Camp David and taking multi-month vacations each year.

I hope some of this helps and if you could, please extend the unemployment benefits for several more years. I understand better now that just like much of ObamaCare is interdependent upon each other, so too are your fiscal, tax and regulatory policies intertwined with your plan for prolonged unemployment benefits. It all makes sense now, and I’m sorry for ever questioning such wisdom.

An aspiring taxpayer,

-I.M. Windee