The Not Quite Knute Rockne Moment Of The Romney Campaign

"Play like you're positive on the victory, even though
they're leading big now." 

- Knute Rockne

In sport, the coach usually has an inspirational talk with his team before sending them out on the field. Typically, he and his assistant coaches have also spent more than just a bit of time pumping up the media and fans before the big game.

In that vein, this letter has been sent to the mainstream media and other interested parties by the Mitt Romney campaign in advance of the first Presidential debate. Give it a read and then we’ll chat.

From: Beth Myers, Senior Adviser

To: Interested Parties

Date: September 27, 2012

Re: 2012 Presidential Debates

In a matter of days, Governor Romney and President Obama will meet on the presidential debate stage. President Obama is a universally-acclaimed public speaker and has substantial debate experience under his belt. However, the record he's compiled over the last four years – higher unemployment, lower incomes, rising energy costs, and a national debt spiraling out of control – means this will be a close election right up to November 6th.

Between now and then, President Obama and Governor Romney will debate three times. While Governor Romney has the issues and the facts on his side, President Obama enters these contests with a significant advantage on a number of fronts.

Voters already believe – by a 25-point margin – that President Obama is likely to do a better job in these debates. Given President Obama's natural gifts and extensive seasoning under the bright lights of the debate stage, this is unsurprising. President Obama is a uniquely gifted speaker, and is widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history. This will be the eighth one-on-one presidential debate of his political career. For Mitt Romney, it will be his first.

Four years ago, Barack Obama faced John McCain on the debate stage. According to Gallup, voters judged him the winner of each debate by double-digit margins, and their polling showed he won one debate by an astounding 33-point margin. In the 2008 primary, he faced Hillary Clinton, another formidable opponent – debating her one-on-one numerous times and coming out ahead. The takeaway? Not only has President Obama gained valuable experience in these debates, he also won them comfortably.

But what must President Obama overcome? His record. Based on the campaign he's run so far, it's clear that President Obama will use his ample rhetorical gifts and debating experience to one end: attacking Mitt Romney. Since he won't – and can't – talk about his record, he'll talk about Mitt Romney. We fully expect a 90-minute attack ad aimed at tearing down his opponent. If President Obama is as negative as we expect, he will have missed an opportunity to let the American people know his vision for the next four years and the policies he'd pursue. That's not an opportunity Mitt Romney will pass up. He will talk about the big choice in this election – the choice between President Obama's government-centric vision and Mitt Romney's vision for an opportunity society with more jobs, higher take-home pay, a better-educated workforce, and millions of Americans lifted out of poverty into the middle class.

This election will not be decided by the debates, however. It will be decided by the American people. Regardless of who comes out on top in these debates, they know we can't afford another four years like the last four years. And they will ultimately choose a better future by electing Mitt Romney to be our next president.

It’s a damn good thing that Ms Myers is not a football coach because Knute Rockne she ain’t. Imagine any football coach contacting the media and advising them that his team was probably going to lose on Sunday because the other team had better coaching, a better quarterback and….well….were just better at it the game than his team even though their record sucked.

While she did take the obligatory shots at the record of President Obama, she spent as much time positively fawning over his rhetorical and debating skills, even detailing his past successes.

Everything Ms Myers wrote is true. President Obama is an experienced debater and an excellent orator. It is equally true that his record in office is one of the worst in modern history. It seems to me that if you want to win the election, you just keep pounding away on that record rather than laying down in front of the world and admitting that your ‘boy’ doesn’t stand a chance in the big game. You might just as well toss in the towel and admit that your campaign is done.

I’m  wondering why in hell anyone would be supporting someone they think is going to get the stuffing kicked out of them in a debate with his opponent. Does Ms Myers lack confidence in her candidate to the point where she believes he is incapable of holding his own against President Obama? If that is the case, how could she possibly believe he could hold his own with Congress or world leaders, especially with the likes of the President of Iran? (I’d use his name but I can’t pronounce or spell it properly.)

What would ever possess an election campaign to publicly undercut its own candidate and lower expectations of his performance? I suppose some will think that it is a devilishly clever strategy to create a bit of over-confidence in the Obama ranks with the intent of blind-siding him during the debate. Give me a break. If that was the strategy it was clearly poorly thought out and the result of desperate over-thinking…..or perhaps not thinking at all.

I’m also wondering how Mitt is feeling after this underwhelming public endorsement from one of his senior campaign advisers. Imagine that metaphorical football coach getting the lads together in the locker room and telling them they were about to get the Bejesus kicked out of them on Sunday because they weren’t as good as the other team. That’s definitely not one of those inspirational speeches that gets recorded for posterity or that drives a team to strive for victory.

Hollywood doesn’t make too many movies about coaches who announced in advance of the big game that their team didn’t have the experience or measured up to the other team; so for pity’s sake, don’t expect much from them.

It continues to amaze me at just how bizarre this election campaign continues to become.

Personally, I think the entire problem with elections is exemplified by this presidential campaign. There is too much money, too much spin and too much strategy. What is lacking is a rational discourse on the record of the current president and specifics about policy to get America back on its feet from his challenger. Somehow that doesn’t seem important though. There is so much focus on winning that the actual purpose of the election has been long forgotten.

It’s more of a popularity contest now than a process to select the best person to govern the country. It’s like an America’s Got Talent audition without the good will, the humour or the talent but an overabundance of stage moms behind the curtain.

Churchill was right. Democracy is the worst form of government, it’s just better than all the rest. Isn’t it a shame that it’s the best we could come up with? I hate to admit it but some days, dictatorships and monarchies start to look attractive to me. Even if kings, queens and dictators didn’t govern all that well; we wouldn’t be any worse off than we are now and at the very least we wouldn’t have put up with a year-long circus of division and stupidity at horrendous expense.

I think we should just elect a king or a queen and divide the $10 billion being wasted in this election campaign amongst everyone. Those in favour raise their hands and say aye. Those opposed can go ahead and tune in to the debates next week although we already know who will win; the Mitt Romney campaign has made that clear.

You don’t think Ms Myers actually is a Democrat do you? Nah, me either…but….

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Follow The Bear on Twitter: @maggsbear or connect on Facebook: Maggie's Bear

A Democracy of Trivial Pursuit

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent

about things that matter." 

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Some days it is difficult to believe that thousands of men and women have given their lives to protect the freedoms and rights we have. Day after day during various election campaigns, I watch pointless polarized arguments over trivial minutia rather than serious debate about the real issues that we face and that are of concern to us all.

The mainstream and social media become aflame with opinion, most of which is unencumbered by something as inconvenient as facts or analytical thinking. It is noise and buzz and chatter that is passed along as if it actually meant something.

It doesn’t!

The presidential election in the United States will cost upwards of $10 billion and has already consumed the better part of a year. It is an obscene expenditure and parody of democracy and for all that time and expense, what have we really learned?

Not much. People have lined up to support the President or the challenger with mindless partisan rhetoric they parrot endlessly. When confronted with real facts, they spin, dodge and weave with more dexterity than an NBA point guard.

For months, for example, the left has been whining about Mitt Romney’s tax returns and they were finally released; more than 550 pages of them in fact. The documents even included returns for the past few years which was over-kill but nonetheless, it didn’t stop the hyperbole or even slow it down. Instead, people now criticize how much Mr. Romney actually paid or talk about his off-shore accounts or, if you’re a Democratic U.S. Senator, accuse Mr. Romney of falsifying his returns.

It’s almost as if people can’t think for themselves any more. They’re just ventriloquist dummies with a political party’s hand up their ass making their mouths work.

Even sheep think more independently.

I had a comment left on my blog yesterday that referred to Mitt Romney’s tax rate as a joke. I’ll tell you what's a joke. It’s people who can’t think beyond their bias, people so bereft of the ability to think critically and so unwilling to examine facts objectively, they’d rather sink with the ship than let go of whatever opinion they cling to so desperately.

Let’s look at the facts, not the spin from either side, just the facts of Mitt Romney’s tax returns.

Mitt Romney’s income is primarily investment income which is taxed differently than salaried income. There is a reason for this. Investment income has already been taxed once. Consequently, just as all Americans who earn investment income, Mr. Romney received a rate reduction under the tax code because of the nature of his income. Barrack Obama, by contrast, earned most of his income in the form of salary which is taxed differently but in the end, it all amounts to the same thing. 

Both men followed the tax code as it is written into law. Because of his sizable donation to charity, Mr. Romney earned a very large tax deduction which reduced his tax rate to 14%. That charitable tax deduction is available to every American citizen and is in place to encourage people to contribute to their communities through charity.

It should be noted that Mr. Romney did not take the full allowable charitable donation tax deduction even though he was fully entitled to do so.

In 2011, Mitt Romney earned $42 million. He paid $6.2 million in taxes, donated $7 million to charity and another $4.1 million to his church. In other words, far from being the greedy, evil 1% money-grubber that the Democrats were desperate to paint him, Mitt Romney paid taxes and made donations  equivalent to 41% of his income. 

The national average for charitable donations is approximately 3% of income. Mitt Romney donated slightly more than 26% of his income.

Those are simple facts but it won’t stop the left from accusing him of not paying his fair share. They will whine that he should have paid more in taxes rather than give to his church and to charity. Don’t try to make sense of that attitude. I’ve wasted too much time trying to figure it out and the logic escapes me.

So how does the evil capitalist stack up against others with a dog in this race? Let’s take a look at some of his critics and supporters.

In 2011, Joe Biden and his wife donated $995 to charity on income of just over $300,000. At 0.3%, that doesn’t come close to the national average even though it is a significant increase for the Biden’s over previous years when they donated less than 0.1%. It doesn’t, however, measure up to former Vice-president Al Gore who, along with his wife, donated 7% of their income to charity during his last two years in office.

To their credit, President Obama and his wife have increased their charitable donations as their income increased. In 2011, the President donated 5.7% of their income to charity and the President took 100% of the allowable tax deduction as is his right under the tax code. Senator John McCain, another right-wing capitalist pig, donated 25% of his income. Newt Gingrich donated less than 3%.

How much a politician, or anyone for that matter, contributes to charity is a personal decision and has nothing to do with whether or not they are capable of governing and leading the country. But look at all the time that has been wasted and that will continue to be wasted on this non-issue. There was no smoking gun in the Romney tax returns but consider how much time and energy were squandered over it to the point that it was like watching a dog worrying a bone. There was no meat left but that dog just kept on gnawing anyway.

There are people across America right now and, indeed, around the world asking a far more serious question than how much tax did Mitt Romney pay. The question many are asking is:

What in the hell happened to the United States and to Americans?

The United States used to be a nation that applauded success. It celebrated initiative and achievement. Much of the world's great industrial and technological advancement came from Americans like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Henry Ford and countless others. Along the way, they created hundreds of thousands of jobs and provided significant prosperity for people across the country and around the world.

It was called The American Dream; a nation where anyone could rise up from nothing and become successful.

Americans were an innovative, creative and positive people. Now it’s all whining and accusation; a negativity that borders on manic depression. Success is vilified and accomplishing wealth has become an evil thing. It’s sometimes seems like America’s best days are behind it and the country we once knew and admired no longer exists.

Even the President demeaned the idea of individual accomplishment and success with his “you didn’t build this” comment. That statement is so unlike the attitude that built the United States, that it is astonishing that any American politician would actually think it let alone say it out loud.

It wasn’t so long ago that America was the strongest nation in the world and the president was considered the world's most powerful leader. It wasn't strong simply because it had a large standing army and enough nuclear weapons to destroy the solar system. It was attitude and character that made America strong. There was a national pride and confidence that is long gone.

If other nations didn’t always agree with U.S. foreign policy, they respected the focus and strength of American resolve and determination. Now, teenagers and thugs with guns, rocks and homemade bombs attack American consulates and terrorists kill its diplomatic staff without reprisal.

Where once America stood strong against those that threatened it's security, it now apologizes for having offended those that attack it.

The nation’s economy is in the toilet, unemployment is a disgrace, poverty is on the rise, random violence is breaking out in cities across the country, the country’s foreign policy is a confused mess and through it all, Americans are arguing about a candidate’s tax returns or the president’s birth certificate, the latest Romney foot in the mouth gaff or how often the President has played golf.

Give me a break!

While I grant you it would be a wonderful thing for a nation to only have to worry about trivia like that, the simple reality is that they are not only unimportant, they are inane in context of the state of the union and the world today.

There are 23 million Americans unemployed and more than 26 million who go to bed at night not knowing from where their next meal will come. Half of those people, 13 million, are children. The true unemployment rate is over 10%, the national deficit has jumped from $10 trillion to $16 trillion in just four years and neither Congress nor the White House showed enough leadership to have come together and successfully passed a budget during this administration.

Despite that, those who support the President are more focused on accusing anyone who doesn't of being a racist.

Despite a fast approaching deadline that will see program spending slashed by $1 trillion and taxes increased by as much as 5% unless Congress and The White House arrive at a solution, Congress has adjourned until after the election season and the President was too busy chatting on The View and David Letterman to attempt to negotiate a deal. This despite the fact that the bond rating agencies have issued a strong warning that the United States is facing another downgrading of its credit rating. That will result in even higher interest payments on the national debt, further depriving the government of much needed money to fund its operations.

America has lost its influence in the world. Despite entreaties from the President to not attend, 127 countries attended a conference in Iran this past week. So little influence does the U.S. now have, even the Secretary General of the U.N attended despite a request from the President that he not.

Two men are running for president. It is probably the most serious responsibility in the developed world but very few, including the candidates themselves have offered serious and informed debate on the real issues. It’s all attack, spin and counter spin. Anyone who believes that approach to selecting a world leader will provide a future guarantee of prosperity and security for the nation is seriously deluded. It is a circus of misinformed, polarized opinion and nothing more and which will accomplish even less.

I have always liked and respected the United States and I particularly like Americans. I have always found them a friendly, compassionate and dynamic people. If they were sometimes arrogant and opinionated, they were also fiercely loyal and invariably the first to arrive with aid at the scene of a natural disaster somewhere in the world. We could always count on America and Americans to be among the first to offer a helping hand to those who needed it.

We now live in a era when it is more important than ever before to know who your friends are and upon whom you can depend. It wasn't so long ago, we all knew we could depend on the United States as trading partner, friend and ally. Today nobody, including some of America's closest allies like Canada and Israel, really know where they stand with the United States. If your closest allies are scratching their heads in wonderment, you can only imagine what those, who didn't like you to begin with, are thinking. 

It makes me wonder what happened to this great nation and I’m not alone. People around the world, including many Americans are asking the same question.

And that, my friends, is a far better question to ponder than Mitt Romney’s tax returns or all the other trivial nonsense being screamed across the mainstream and social media these days. If Americans want to regain the country they once had, they need to examine both the record of this President and the campaign platform of his challenger with an objective and critical eye before making a decision when they go to cast their ballot.

The simple truth is that in this new and very dangerous world, Americans can no longer afford the luxury of mindless partisanship and ill-informed debate.

None of us can.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Follow The Bear on Twitter: @maggsbear or connect on Facebook: Maggie's Bear

Paying Your Fair Share

There’s a lot of talk these days about fairness. It seems that almost everyone, is demanding that everyone else pay their fair share. Because so many seem to confuse what is fair with what is convenient for their particular circumstance, I thought I’d go back to the source and look up the definition of the word fair.

Fair is defined as “a gathering held at a specified time and place for the buying and selling of goods such as an exhibition, as of farm products or manufactured goods, usually accompanied by various competitions and entertainments”.

Oops. Sorry, wrong definition of fair. Let’s try that again.

Fair is defined in the Oxford dictionaries as “treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination”. That’s more like it. Everyone is equal and everyone is treated equitably. Clearly when it comes to societies we’re quite a distance from achieving that goal and there is some work to be done if this is going to be accomplished.

Most people think that fairness can only be achieved through wealth redistribution, a sort of a Robin Hood attitude that sees one or more sectors of society taking from other sectors and redistributing it more fairly. That seems like it might make sense except it leaves off another part of the definition of the word fair which is “being in accordance with relative merit or significance”.

And that is a big part of the problem in all this discussion about paying your fair share.

It isn’t based on merit, it is based on want and envy. How inconvenient. The idea that society will somehow become fairer by treating others less fairly is also covered in the definition of the word fair; “superficially true or appealing; specious”. It may be appealing to many to demand the rich pay more but it is a superficial approach to things.

In fact, that is a big part of the problem with the entire discussion of wealth redistribution and fairness. It is very superficial and has nothing to do with the real issues facing society and merely trades one form of inequity for another. Most people who are demanding the wealthy pay more taxes have no clue how much money those with high incomes actually contribute to society through various taxes and donations.

The problem isn’t that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share. If you look only at income taxes, it is true that they pay attractively low rates but when you factor in property taxes, charitable donations, provincial taxes, capital gains and GST, they pay quite a bit more than for which many give them credit.

Both Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney had pretty much the same tax rate of just over 20% last year but when you factor in Romney’s other contributions and charitable donations, he actually coughed up almost 39% of his income. It seems a little unfair to accuse him of not paying his fair share under those circumstances.

I’m not defending Mitt Romney or the rich nor do I think they should pay less than the rest of us. Quite the contrary, I fully support everyone paying their fair share but for me, the operative word is fair and that means everyone is treated in exactly the same way.

Too many who are demanding that others pay more are also demanding more government entitlement for themselves. Students demand more taxation on the rich so that they can have reduced and even free tuition. That, my friends, has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with “I want.” Trying to rationalize the demand for reduced or free tuition is one thing but accusing others of not paying their fair share in order to satisfy that demand is something else entirely.

It’s just another form of vested self-interest at best and greed at worst.

I’m not picking on students because the same attitude permeates our societies at all levels. Everyone wants everyone to pay their fair share but nobody wants to give up their share of entitlements and consequently, fairness is a relative term for most these days.

There is a big furor over Romney’s comment about 47% of Americans not paying any income tax. I think his comment was ill-advised and I definitely don’t believe that the majority of the 47% are either deadbeats or tax cheats. Quite the contrary, I believe they are simply following the tax act as it is written and are, therefore, doing nothing wrong. They aren’t the problem. The tax act is. It isn’t progressive and it isn’t fair. In every democratic nation on earth, it is an overly complex unfair mess.

There is something wrong in a society where 47% of people, other than those below the poverty line, pay no taxes at all but demand others pay their fair share. It doesn’t matter what the reasons are for the rich, middle class or other special interest not paying taxes, it is a systemic inequity that completely undermines any concept of fairness for all.

For decades, governments have alternately pandered to different sectors of the electorate by offering tax incentives and entitlements that weren’t necessary or that we could afford. The result has been an absurd level of debt and an incredible lack of fairness in tax policy and social programs. Governments have further compounded things by trying to use tax policy to socially engineer society, alternately raising taxes on corporations and then lowering them when they realized it was causing unemployment, raising then lowering taxes on sin products like cigarettes only to raise them again and tinkering with the tax act for the rest of us like a kid with ADD.

Now governments, which have pretty much dug themselves into a financial hole so deep that even taxing taxes as some do isn’t helping. The solution? Increase tax rates on the most successful and call that progressive taxation.

True fairness would require all including, corporations, citizens, charities, NGOs, foundations, churches, academic institutions and that strange guy who lives down the street in the spooky house, pay exactly the same percentage of their income to the government with no deductions.

Pick a number; 10% for example (and easy math). If everyone pays 10% of their income, then someone making $20,000 a year pays only $2000 in taxes while someone earning $2 million pays $200,000.  Unions, churches, charities and others that live off the taxpayer either directly or indirectly through generous tax exemptions for their supporters would suddenly be contributing just like the rest of us.

The current system even with higher tax rates for those earning higher incomes is inequitable. We call it progressive taxation but it is anything but. We have different tax rates for different income levels but how fair is it for someone who earns $100,000 per year, for example, being bumped to the next tax bracket while someone earning $99,999 stays at the lower level? It isn’t fair and that inequity can only be fixed by requiring that everyone pay the same percentage of their income in taxes.

Even that, however, won’t produce absolute fairness. That will only be achieved when we agree that there are too many entitlements for various groups and sectors of our society, many of which are not essential and most of which are anything but universal.

Clearly the poor and the working poor need our support although simply handing them a monthly pittance and a handful of food stamps hasn’t achieved much judging from the numbers we see begging on, and sleeping in, the streets of our cities these days. Handing out tax deductions to the middle class for day care and sports activities for their children isn’t fair either because it excludes those who do not have children but who are expected to contribute to those entitlements for others through their taxes nonetheless.

Some jurisdictions have an allowable deduction for mortgage payments but no deduction for those who pay rent. Other jurisdictions allow a deduction for a small portion of  rent but home owners cannot deduct any of their mortgage payment. That hardly treats all citizens equitably which not only defies logic but any sense of treating everyone fairly.

Government should go back to what it was intended to do; maintain infrastructure, healthcare, education, defense and common issues the nation requires of it including an unemployment insurance program to which we all contribute.

Government should provide, on behalf of us all, a safety net for those who need a hand up but if we are to achieve true fairness, the rest of us should go back to depending on ourselves for our livelihood instead of on government.

Anything less is merely the unfair, overly complex mess we have now and that hasn’t worked too well for us lately. That won’t prevent all those, at all income levels, who have a vested self-interest in protecting their entitlements and tax advantages from demanding others pay their ‘fair share’ though. The simple truth is that what constitutes fair share is in the eye of the beholder and doesn’t actually have anything to do with fairness whatsoever.

It never did. Fairness may well be what many are demanding but if the truth were told, it is the last thing most actually want.

RELATED POSTS

The Redistribution Of Wealth
http://bearsrant.blogspot.ca/2012/08/the-redistribution-of-wealth.html

Entitlement Addiction
http://bearsrant.blogspot.ca/2012/04/entitlement-addiction.html

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Follow The Bear on Twitter: @maggsbear or connect on Facebook: Maggie's Bear

The New Jerusalem - An Intolerant World Where Opinion Rules Fact

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a
chance to get its pants on."- Winston Churchill

I’ve received lots of tweets, emails and blog comments in support of the things I write but I’ve also received some that take exception to it. I don’t have a problem with that. As I have written before, I welcome debate and differing opinions but while the odd differing opinion has been reasoned and thought through, most of it is simply to call me an idiot, or words to that effect.

Today I was called a capitalist 'lickspittle' and even if I wasn’t 100% sure I knew what a capitalist lickspittle was, I was pretty sure it was much more than simply being an idiot.

I have noticed, over the past while, that people who feel their opinions are threatened increasingly turn to name calling rather than debate on the issues or the facts, as the best they can do in response to something with which they don’t agree.

It isn’t unique to any one group and is as prevalent in the 1% ad it is in the 99%; on the left and as it is on the right.  I consider it less an insult and more an indication of how poorly thought through on the issues most name-callers are and how insecure they are about their position. Either that or it is simply a belief bordering on fanaticism that makes them so intolerant and strident.