Category Archives: Politics

Romney Remarks About Voter Dependency

Posted on by

Mitt Romney made the astonishing mistake of speaking freely at a private fund raising event. How could someone who has campaigned for so long have forgotten that everything is says in public will be recorded and analyzed for possible anti-Romney ads? Also, how could he have gotten his facts wrong?

I won’t bother to look for a link to add for the comments, because they are everywhere. I haven’t seen the Obama ads quoting their favorite parts, but I’m certain that’s because I haven’t watched much television in the past couple of days. He said, “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 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, you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for the president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of lower taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so mu job is to not worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

People who don’t pay taxes either are those who don’t make much money, have more deductions than income, or have good advisors who can see that income is sheltered from taxes (such as income from tax-free municipal bonds.) Many of those who don’t pay taxes are elderly and young people who can’t find jobs other than perhaps a low-paying part time job. I expect that some portion of those people will be more attracted to Romney than to Obama. I do see that Mr. Obama has a solid 47 percent of the vote, but a large part of that number are people who are loyal liberals/progressives/Democrats. Many of them are very well paid and pay significant amounts of taxes. I’ve seen data that well over fifty percent of lawyers voted for Mr. Obama.

I believe Mr. Romney was onto something. I do think it is true that Mr. Obama believes a primary role of government is to redistribute wealth to “make things fair.” I also believe that there are many voters who will vote for him for that very reason, and that his only challenge is to make certain that those who think he will look out for their “entitlements” will go to the polls.

What Mr. Romney should have done was to read or paraphrase a quote from Thomas Jefferson. “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Or he could have paraphrased the quote from Adrian Rogers, “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it.  You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it.  Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else.” He also could have mentioned that the top ten percent of earners pay 71 percent of income taxes. Mr. Obama says that isn’t enough to be “fair.”

Climate Change Continues

Posted on by

I’ve written in previous blogs that I think Al Gore and the others who pound the drum of manmade global warming should change the title of their mantra to “climate change.” They would finally be right this if they predict climate change, because the climate has always changed and it always will. The warnings in the 1970s were that man was going to create a global cooling climate disaster. The climate did change, but there was a warming trend instead of the predicted cooling. Some researchers responded by developing computer models that correlated warming temperatures to carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. They never mention the oceans warm when the sun is more active and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. Man has no control over the warming of oceans that causes higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A recent Denver Post editorial took both Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney to task for not proposing more aggressive actions to battle climate change. Much of the basis for the editorial is the low level of Arctic ice coverage. The Sea and Ice Data Center indeed does show that ice levels dropped below the average levels and the 2007 levels beginning around the first of August. I expect the Post was also influenced by the record number of over 90 degree days this summer. However, there are other indications that “catastrophic global warming” is not occurring. A web site that has numerous graphs of the average temperature of Gulf of Mexico waters shows 2011 had one of the largest drops in temperature in eighty years.

The book Climatism reviewed on that link of this web site is a good place to start if you want to read details of why man is not the cause of global warming and most if not all of the efforts to develop alternative energy sources are doomed to fail because of simple economics.

Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. were at a twenty year low last year because significant amounts of power are being generated with recently inexpensive natural gas. Power generated with natural gas creates half the carbon dioxide compared to coal. One report says that it is expected there will be 175 coal burning plants will be replaced by natural gas plants over the next five years.

Michael Mann of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University seemed to be grumbling about the improvements created by the shift from dirtier-burning coal to natural gas. He commented that “ultimately people follow their wallets on global warming.” Roger Pielke, Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado had a bit different take. He said, “There is a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources.”

Some environmentalists aren’t happy about the good news. They don’t like the “fracking” that has resulted in production of huge amounts of natural gas and caused the price of the fuel to drop by more than half. They believe the practice will pollute underground water sources and cause leakage of methane to the atmosphere despite the belief by many government officials that the practice is safe if done properly. My suspicion is that those who are grumbling are mostly worried that there will be even less emphasis on development of expensive solar and wind generated energy. “Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up, unable to compete on a grid now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel.” The massively advertised “shift to renewable energy” has added scant amounts of power generation. “Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation’s electricity in 2011…and solar power was far less.”

I won’t be in the grumbling camp. I find it refreshing that ingenuity and economics have resulted in improved air quality.

Selecting a Presidential Candidate

Posted on by

There were three articles in the Sunday, September 02, 2012 Denver Post that were pertinent to the choice for voters. The first was titled “Evaluating Obama’s grade on economy by Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post. People usually “vote their pocketbook,” so the state of the economy is crucial to both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney. Mr. Samuelson leads his article with, “President Obama’s economic report card is at best mediocre. I’d give him a C-plus while acknowledging that presidents usually don’t much influence the economy…For the first six months I’d award him an A-minus; for the rest a C-minus or D.” The latter grade is based on the insistence of Mr. Obama at focusing on the health care law (for his legacy) despite the fact the complex law discouraged job creators from expanding their businesses. The battle over the health care law also created gridlock between the two political parties that dominates politics in Washington, D.C.  Mr. Samuelson writes that there is no way of knowing whether Mr. Obama’s missteps have weakened the economy. “My guess is that Obama’s errors have had a modest effect.”

The second article is by Dave Maney, and is titled “Third vision needed.” The article proposes that Republicans are good at clearing impediments to economic change while Democrats are good at identifying those needing help. The author writes that Democrats “…prescribe an attack on healthy parts of the body to somehow cleanse it and make the sick parts well again. It’s like stabbing yourself in the stomach because you’re having a heart attack—it brings zero relief but lots of additional pain” But then he turns to the Republicans and says “We just need to go back to the way things were in 1984, and we’d be in great shape.” That is characterized as being equivalent to telling an ailing patient in his 70s that they would feel better if they were still 40. I didn’t read an alternative between the two visions presented by the two parties except something to the effect that we need to do things differently in the different world.

My favorite article was titled “American optimism in eye of the beholder” by Ann Sanner and Calvin Woodward of The Associated Press. According to the article, young people continue to be optimistic while older people are pessimistic. There are examples of those in their 50s who have lost optimism for their retirement goals because of the layoffs and reduced value of investments. One fifty year old woman is quoted as saying that she firmly believes in the American Dream “…but in the sense of dreaming it, not grasping it. I’m not seeing anything to strive for; I guess….I’m settling.” “Nearly two thirds lack confident that life for today’s children will be better than it has been for today’s adults…”

There are several disturbing statistics about the pessimism of older voters and the continued optimism of younger people despite their college debts and the dismal employment situation. Mr. Obama has noticed younger people are happier with the current economic situation, and he has arranged many of his campaign appearances on college campuses. No one can accuse him of not being politically astute.

The Amateur

Posted on by

the-amateurThe subtitle of this book by Edward Klein is “Barrack Obama in the White House.” The book begins with a detailed discussion of what is supposed to have been a very private discussion between Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton. Bill is pleading with Hillary to run against Mr. Obama in the 2012 primary. Chelsea agrees with Bill, but Hillary refuses and wants to wait until 2016. The quoted conversation ends with Bill declaring that Barrack Obama “…is an amateur.” I wondered about the truth of the conversation, which wouldn’t likely be carried out in front of anyone the Clinton’s could not trust completely.

It is later pointed out that Americans love amateurs who succeed, and Barrack the candidate certainly did thrill his supporters. Unfortunately Barrack the skilled campaigner has been revealed to have few of the talents needed to lead and communicate with the country. Presidential historian Fred I. Greenstein observed, “With all of Obama’s rhetorical brilliance and flash, he went into the phone booth as Superman and came out as Clark Kent.”

There is considerable information about Michelle Obama, Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, and the people who are the key advisors to Mr. Obama. I’m more interested in Mr. Obama, so I don’t intend to say much more about the others.

There are an astonishing 862 reviews on Amazon, and the average rating is four and a half out of five stars. The half results from the one hundred one star reviews. One of those said “It is difficult to know where this author received his information. He does not use any quotes to substantiate his allegations.” However, I will say in defense much of the information in the book is based on public record and agrees with information in news reports.

I found the book easy to read and mostly interesting. Much of the public record about Mr. Obama in his youth continues to be thin. He apparently was nearly invisible in college, displayed no intellectual curiosity, and wrote no scholarly articles as a young law professor. However, he had written his autobiography by the time he was thirty. He was elected to the Illinois Senate and hardly showed up at all. (He voted “present” on most issues.) He demonstrated no interest the legislative process, but he did enjoy giving speeches.

Mr. Obama married Michelle Robinson at the age of thirty, and the most significant adult influence on him during that time and for many years to follow was the controversial Jeremiah Wright whose sermons “…encouraged a victimization mentality among his black parishioners.” When Mr. Obama says “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody, he is channeling Jeremiah Wright.” The media followed the same approach with the reporting about Wright that they followed with just about any potentially negative story about Mr. Obama. They did not report it. (It has been said the power of the press is not in what they report. It is in what they decide not to report.) The media was swooning over Mr. Obama, and they made little effort to vet him as he campaigned for the Presidency.

There is much information about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, which begins with the ideas that American exceptionalism is misguided and that American power has done more harm than good. He very much wants the Muslim world to gain respect for at least him if not the country, and he thinks that Israel needs to bend to the Palestinians. He forbids the use of the term “Islamic extremism.” He much prefers to be travelling and speaking to adoring foreign crowds to governing or dealing with Congress in any manner. He was said to have commented that he did not want to waste precious hours talking with “congressmen from Palookaville.” He is described as a thin-skinned, haughty, and exceedingly proud man.

Perhaps the scariest part of the book is the description of a secret meeting with several presidential historians where it appeared the historians were being asked about the most admirable traits of great presidents. One of the attendees observed that Mr. Obama “…seemed to be looking for a presidential identity not his own…endlessly trying on new presidential masks.” The meeting was judged by the author to reveal Mr. Obama “…didn’t have the faintest idea 1) who he was; 2) why he had been elected president; and 3) how to be commander in chief and chief executive of the United States of American.” “In short, he didn’t know what he didn’t know.”

But he did and does have devout fans. Oprah Winfery encouraged his apparent messianic complex by referring to him as “The One,” which is a reference to both Jesus Christ and Neo from The Matrix. Joe Biden, in typical Joe Biden fashion, told a gathering that Barrack Obama had been unable to attend “…because he’s getting busy for Easter. He thinks it’s about him.” It is said his personality most closely matches Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was being asked about appointments, and made it clear that he owed no one anything. He explained “Remember that God ordained that I should be the next President of the United States.”

Mr. Obama has been so inept at so many aspects of being President that The Onion News Network broadcast a fake “…story that the real Barrack Obama had been kidnapped just hours after the election and replaced by an imposter.” The book asks whether the centrist, pragmatic, post-partisan leader vanished, or, “Did he ever exists? Was he a figment of his own imagination, or of our imagination—or both?”

Chapter 7 is titled “Bungler in Chief,” and lists many of Mr. Obama’s failures. He loves signing ceremonies, but has little interest in what is being signed. Perhaps his most embarrassing failure was his decision to go to Copenhagen to convince the Olympic committee to select Chicago as a site for future games. He had many friends in Chicago who would have had handsome profits if the city was chosen. He gave his speech, and Chicago came in fourth out of four. Of course that isn’t the only embarrassing failure, and the Solyndra fiasco immediately comes to mind.

There are interesting observations about the current presidential campaign. First, it is written that the Republican (who we now know to be Mitt Romney) will have to run against not only the Democratic campaign but the full force of the liberal media. They are already gearing up a campaign that Barrack has made mistakes, but he has learned so much he deserves a second term. Axelrod “…has ripped a page out of Harry Truman’s 1948 playbook …he demonizes his opponent and runs against a ‘Do-Nothing’ Republican Congress and its wealthy supporters.” The last pages of the book list all the things Mr. Obama does not want America to remember on Election Day.

George F. Will recently wrote about Barrack Obama, “…people who like the idea of him, but not the results of him.”

Romney Pick of Paul Ryan

Posted on by

I have seen news reports of hecklers shouting at Paul Ryan in some of his first campaign speeches with accusing words such as “Why do you want to destroy Medicare?” I suppose the origin of that question is from a Democratic ad on the Internet that accuses, “Paul Ryan’s plan would end Medicare as we know it.” The anti-Ryan ads are playing frequently in places such as Florida where the votes of older residents are crucial. I wonder how long it will be before they resurrect the ad that portrays a Ryan look-alike dumping an elderly woman out of a wheelchair over a cliff.

Both ads bring to mind the observation that it is easier to tell a lie than to explain the truth. Mr. Ryan’s proposals are intended to improve the fiscal strength of Medicare. There would be no changes at all for the older people the ads are intended to scare.  People under 55 would have the option enrolling in Medicare or being given a voucher to enroll in a private insurance policy.

So let’s get this straight. The Ryan proposal would not change anything for anyone over 55 and it would give people 55 and under the option to stay on the program or shop for health care coverage. The proposal is in response to the fact that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will have insufficient funds to maintain benefits in twelve years. Apparently ending Medicare as we know it means that bankruptcy is preferable to fixing the program. My suspicion is that some politicians can’t accept the idea that people might chose to manage their own affairs instead of depending on government.

I want Mr. Ryan to respond to the hecklers “I want to save Medicare!” Politicians who refuse to do anything to fix broken entitlement programs remind me of the meek townspeople in the old Western movies who hide and watch while the hero takes his six shooters out to the street to defend the town. We need fewer politicians who hide and watch while criticizing those who take the risk of proposing changes. The Congressional Budget Office has warned Medicare will go bankrupt without changes. Is proposing changes to make the program better than hiding and watching while it goes bankrupt? I vote yes.

China’s Megatrends, The 8 Pillars of a New Society

Posted on by

china-megatrendsThis book by John and Doris Naisbitt is a follow-up to his book “Megatrends.” The authors lived and travelled in China, did extensive interviewing, and developed an institute to analyze what had launched the country from the poverty and backwardness under Mao to becoming an economic power with many millionaires and a growing middle class. China is described as being created into an entirely new social and economic system and political model. The system is described as a “vertical democracy.”

Some of the reviewers on Amazon reflect the discomfort I felt when reading the gentle criticism of the control imposed by the Communist government. Late in the book the authors write about the “three T’s,” which are “Tibet, Taiwan, and Tiananmen.” They then give a scathing criticism of Tibet, saying that 90 percent of the people live as serfs in comparison to the millions of Chinese who have been pulled out of poverty by the economic growth engineered by the central government. Taiwan is described as having China as its largest trading partner. Tiananmen receives harsh although brief criticism. It is described as a tragedy that is still casting clouds over China. And, as much sympathy as we have for China, it has not yet done enough to sweep those clouds away.

The descriptions of how Deng Xiaoping began turning China into a free market powerhouse with government control after Mao’s death is a fascinating story. On the question of why the country decided to use capitalism under communist control is explained by Deng with the aphorism, “It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.” The current leader Hu Jintao is quoted as saying, “We will improve policies to encourage people to start businesses.”

There is a discussion of the primary conflict between socialism and capitalism over freedom and fairness. “Do we choose a system where all are equally treated so that no one gets too far ahead? Or do we choose freedom for individuals who through their talents and hard work gain levels of achievements far above others?” It seemed to me the author answers that in the book. The people in China who succeed through talent and hard work are allowed to have much more than others, and the system, according to the author, is working.

The Olympics is undoubtedly a good example of what strong government control can accomplish. The Olympics were considered a great success at the cost of $1.9 billion for venues and $42 billion for infrastructure improvements. The fact that 1.5 million people had to move out of their homes makes it obvious that the construction would have been difficult or impossible in a less authoritarian system.

China opened to foreign support and technology transfer to begin development, restricted foreign shareholdings, and strengthened Chinese corporations by encouraging fierce competition among them. Deng commented when touring a Ford plant in the U.S., “We want to learn from you.” However, the U.S. failed to understand the true meaning of that statement. There is a description of opposing Chinese warlords preparing for battle. One sent twenty boats packed with straw across the river separating them, and the other army unleashed a huge assault with arrows. The boats were pulled back and the 100,000 arrows that were collected to be used against those who had shot them. The Chinese who left to learn in other countries and return to build businesses are called “sea turtles.”

What has been accomplished required more than learning from successful foreign companies. The government had to emancipate the minds of the people to make them the engine to the economic successes. Education was emphasized, and people were taught they could succeed with work instead of coasting along and getting what everyone else was getting. The book mentions the eighteen impoverished famers on a collective that wasn’t growing enough food for survival who secretly agreed to divide the collective in Xiaogang village into private plots at risk of being prosecuted. The result was a marked increase in grain production. Their example became a model for converting State Owned Enterprises into successful free enterprise companies. The government frames the policies and priorities and the people create their own roles. Progress is made “while sustaining order and harmony.” This system is compared to the political system in the U.S. where frequent elections freezes the government into inaction while the politicians posture for reelection.  In China, “The constancy of the ruling political party allows long-term planning without the disruption and changing politics of thinking and acting that are focused on elections.”

The book does address problems created by corruption, and describes how the government is working with limited success to eliminate corruption from government. The terrible pollution problems are also discussed. One “sea turtle” commented that she knew she was home when she breathed the polluted air. The book discusses censorship, and mentions that the U.S. has a history of censoring books such as Lady Chatterley’s Lover. I didn’t see how that equates to, for example, the censorship of the Internet. The book mentions two things that surprised me about that. First, it blames companies such as Cisco for building the equipment that allows the censorship. Then it mentions, “Few in China complain about Internet control.” I felt myself wanting to use the crass, “Well duh! when I read that.

China has problems created by the one child policy. There is a large excess of young men. There also is the problem of “six-pocket little emperors,” or little boys with two parents and four grandparents who have no one else to spoil. Oddly, the censorship of the Internet is said to be necessary to keep children from becoming addicted to being on the computer all the time.

I’m guessing the authors would explain the surprisingly low average of three stars of Amazon reviews as being caused by what they call the continuing misunderstanding Americans have of the Chinese people. We impose our views of democracy and freedom when we consider China. The authors end their book with the observation, “To what degree it will match western perceptions troubles on the West. China has its own goals and dreams. How to get there, China and its people will decide.” The Chinese people are accustomed to and comfortable with government control. They don’t care whether the control is a capitalist country with a communist coat. “The Chinese believe in performance legitimacy. If the government governs well, it is perceived as legitimate.” China has achieved its transformation by “actually decentralizing power more than any country in the world.” China calls its market economy “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The United States is evolving toward socialism with American characteristics.