Author: webuiltitblog

As I write this blog, there are 47 days to Election Day, and most polls show Mr. Obama slightly ahead of Mr. Romney, although within the margin of error.  I know that history is full of examples of big comebacks in the last few weeks before Election Day, (Harry Truman and Ronald Regan come to mind), and some analysts have questioned the validity of some of the polls, but, that said, Romney’s situation is puzzling at the very least if not downright troubling.

The issues are all on the side of Romney and the GOP.  Some examples: (1) A deep recession with no end in sight; (2) over 8% unemployment with an equal amount of people underemployed and a goodly number of people who have given up and left the workforce; (3) a $16 trillion debt, which increases minute to minute, and no plan to repay it;  (4) a nuclear threat in Iran;  (5)  widespread violence in the Middle East, including an assassinated ambassador; and (6) general disrespect throughout the world.  Clearly, Mr. Obama has been “in over his head” and needs to be replaced.

Why, then, do the polls show what they show ?  I believe:

1.  Mr. Romney’s campaign strategy has been too benign.  He needs to attack Mr. Obama’s record forcefully, particularly the economy.

2.  Mr. Obama is very likeable; Mr. Romney is not.  This is just their respective personalities , and it is very difficult to change.  Mr. Obama is the kind of guy one would like to hang out with for a weekend, maybe have a few beers, tell a few jokes, just not as President. That does not mean Mr. Romney cannot win.  After all, few people were as disliked as the late Richard Nixon, even before Watergate.

3.  When you see Mr. Obama on the campaign trail you realize that he is better at running for office than in performing the job once he has won it.  That was how he fooled the majority of us in 2008. He ran one of the best campaigns I can remember, but he has been one of the worst presidents I can remember.  So far, Mr. Romney has not been able to match him as a campaigner, but I think he will make a better president. I also think Mr. Obama will prove to be the better debater.

Mr. Romney still has time to turn this around in the next 47 days.  For the sake of the country let’s hope he does so.

So far, the polls indicate that the election will be very close.  Although Mr. Obama appears to be leading, his lead is well within the margin for error.  Anything can turn the election one way or the other.

Everyone except his most ardent supporters acknowledges that his achilles heal is the economy.  There is no need to rehash the details.  They are well known. The general perception is that even though he was handed a bad economy, his policies have not improved matters.  Indeed, they have made matters worse, and things show no signs of improving anytime soon.

History has demonstrated that one of the few ways in which a sitting president can be defeated is by being held responsible for a bad economy (e.g. Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter).  But, in this case, Ben Bernanke may have ridden to the rescue, intentionally or not.  His recent announcement that the Fed will inject substantial funds into the marketplace and maintain short term rates at or near zero percent has given a short term, artificial boost to the stock market.  Of course, it could also trigger inflation in the long run, but that would occur after the election.

In the meantime, a rising Dow gives people optimism that the economy will improve since the Dow is known to be a leading economic indicator.  Furthermore, according to USA Today in 90% of the elections held since 1900 the incumbent has won when the Dow has risen in the two months preceding the election.

Why would an astute person like Mr. Bernanke expect QE3 to help the economy when QE1 and QE2 did not, or was there an ulterior political motive?  Nobody knows for sure.  Will his action swing the election to Mr. Obama?  Time will tell.

President Obama and the Democrats have been denigrating, disparaging belittling the 1%ers.  But, who are the 1%ers?  How many are there? Are you one?

In 2011 the US Census Bureau reported that there were 115 million households in the US and a total population of 312 million, which would identify just over 1 million households as 1%ers, more than one might think.   A recent CNBC study reported that the income cut-off to qualify as a 1%er was $343,000.  (Obviously, this is a national average.  If you make that much and live in New York City you might not feel rich, but if you live in Dallas with no state income tax it would be a different story.)  Most 1%ers did not identify themselves as such.  They, like most Americans, had an inflated impression of how much Americans earn.

1%ers are not a monolith as Mr. Obama and the Dems would have us believe.  Membership in the 1% group is not constant; new members are continually being added and subtracted as households become more or less successful from year to year.  To be sure, there are some who fit the old cliche –  WASP, born wealthy, belong to country clubs, were educated at prep schools and Ivy League Universities and inherited substantial wealth. But, a recent study published in the NY Times denotes that the group also includes entrpreneurs, self-made businessmen, doctors, business executives, entertainers, professional athletes, and others and includes all racial, religious and ethnic groups.  Moreover, a majority advised they did not inherit any money.  Furthermore, virtually all of the 1%ers achieved their status through some or all of the following: talent, hard work, a strong family unit, and education, including post-graduate degrees.

Additionally, the NY Times study found that, politically, 1%ers ran the gamut from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat.  Many were not opposed to paying more taxes, even though they currently pay about 25% of all federal taxes, but they are dismayed at how the government wastes the tax money it does collect.  Also, many of them are sensitive to some of the criticisms leveled at them and feel that the 99% don’t understand what they went through to achieve their success.

For example, doctors typically don’t begin to earn any money at their profession until their early 30’s, and, even then, they may spend most of their professional life paying off their mid-six figure college and medical school debt.  Entrepreneurs and small business owners must be creative and endure sometimes years of 24/7 work schedules, disrupted family life, substantial risk and long odds before succeeding, (only to be told by the President and the Dems that “You Didn’t Build it).”  Professional atheletes face long odds, damaged bodies and short careers  Everyone focuses on the rare $100 million contract, but for every one of those there are thousands of fringe players or players who never make it.  The list goes on.

In other words, there is more than one side of the 1%er story.  Alarmingly, in a recent study the Pew Research Center concluded that Americans were more concerned about conflicts between the rich and poor than conflicts among races or any other group. Instead of denigrating, deriding and belittling their success, President Obama, the Dems and the other 99% should applaud it and seek to emulate it.  That’s the American Way and the way it’s been since the founding of the Republic.

I am 67 years old.  For the first 63 years of my life, Americans, for the most part, earned their wealth and income through  capitalism, free enterprise and hard work much like they had since the beginning of the Republic.  Yes, there were and are laws within which one is required to operate,  but basically if you were smarter and worked harder than the next guy and took advantage of whatever opportunities came your way, you ended up with more wealth and income. You did not rely on the government or other people to support you, except for the very basics and temporarily at that. (Note: I am not referring to people who are disabled or have legitimate need for assistance.)

When I was starting out in my career, I observed many people with more wealth and income than me. I didn’t resent them.  I didn’t feel I was entitled to part of what they had.  My attitide was to aspire to work harder to achieve what they had and become wealthy like them.  Most of my contemporaries felt the same way.  In the end, some of them have been more successful than me; and some less successful.  I don’t resent or envy the more successful ones and feel I am entitled to some of their wealth, and as far as I know, my less successful friends feel the same way about me.  That’s the “American Way.”

In the last few years, I believe a sense of entitlement has developed whereby a large portion of the less wealthy look at the more wealthy with the attitude “You don’t deserve all the wealth you have;  I want some of it; I am entitled to it.”  I believe that this not so subtle shift in attitude originated with and has been encouraged by President Obama’s socialist philosophy and wealth redistribution policies.    I believe his “you didn’t build it” quote was indicative of how he really feels. Moreover, all this talk about the “1%” versus 99% only serves to divide the country by creating more envy.

A good President is a President of all the people and tries to unify the country, not divide it.  Mr. Obama’s policies are dividing it, and we need a change.

The turmoil in the Middle East is continuing, most notably in Egypt where the police and military are hard pressed to control the rioters.  The Obama Administration’s response has continued to be tepid.  Today, Hilary Clinton, who represents the Obama Administration, characterized the attacks as “misguided,”  stating that they “fly in the face of the better society many in these countries recently fought for…”  Furthermore, “we will… keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.  What kind of ridiculous double talk is that?   That’s almost like calling the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor “misguided.”

I am not advocating war or even invasion.  However, there are stronger steps that could be taken against the nations that cannot control their radical groups.

1.  Reduce or suspend foreign aid.  This would send a stronger message.

2.  Issue a warning to US citizens not to travel to these countries.  The best way to protect American civilains is to keep them out of Egypt, Yemen, and other countries where there is rioting in the first place, not to have to deal with murder, kidnapping and other incidents after they occur.  This will have an added benefit of hurting Egypt’s economy, which depends, in large part, on tourism.

3.  Recall non-essential embassy staffs and/or dependents for their safety.

Finally, everyone please stop making excuses for these terrorists. Yes, the film was reprehensible, but it was no excuse to kill an ambassador and other innocent people.  Diplomatic immunity is, has always been, and must remain sacrosanct.

One of Mr. Obama’s failings that has not received the reportage it deserves over the last four years has been his weak, indecisive foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.  Mr. Obama has been trying to be even handed, to be everyone’s friend.  As a result, the US has nobody’s friendship, trust nor respect.  For example, he has been taking our biggest ally and only consistent and true supporter in the Middle East, Israel, for granted.  To wit, he has flip flopped on whether Jersulem should be the capital; he has not taken a strong enough stance against Iran to curtail its development of nuclear weapons; and he has insulted Prime Minister Netanyahu by telling him that he is “too busy campaigning” to meet with him in New York when Mr. Netanyahu comes to the UN later this month.  On the other hand, he has been consistently conciliatory toward Egypt, the Palestinians and various Islamic militant groups.

For example, the attacks this week were outrageous, and merited a strong response. Perhaps, they would not have happened at all if our Middle East policy had been more forceful and proactive, particularly around 9/11.  Even so, Mr. Obama’s response was tepid, particularly with respect to Egypt.  ( “I don’t think we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” )  What does that mean?  Sending warships to the Med was a good move, but we need to ensure that all the murderers and their leaders are caught and brought to justice.  Also, Mr. Obama should instruct Mr. Morsy in the strongest terms that his failure to protect the US embassy was unacceptable, and a recurrence will result in sanctions, maybe a suspension of foreign aid.

This incident was Mr. Obama’s first “3:00 AM call.”  I believe that both his preparation and his response were inadequate.

Are you better off today than you were four years ago?  That’s the question we ask ourselves before every presidential election, and this year is no different.  To be sure, some people are better off, such as the people who have been able to enter the US illegally through our porous borders, criminals who receive light sentences or get released from jail early to commit more crimes and many recipients of social services and other benefits from the federal and state governments that those overburdened entities can no longer afford to provide.

In fact, we have been assured by President Obama, Vice President Biden, many prominent Democrats, and their celebrity supporters that we are all better off (even if we don’t realize it or think so).   It reminds me of that old Grouco Marx joke:  “Are you going to believe what I tell you or what you see with your own eyes?”  Of course, a cynic would say that personally Obama and Biden are truly better off than they were four years ago, because four years ago they were merely US Senators.  Today, they are the President and Vice President, respectively.

Between now and election day the Dems will likely trot out some examples of everyday, hardworking people who legitimately are better off.  It will not be hard to find some examples in a country of 300 million people.  But, don’t be fooled.  The overwhelming majority of people are not better off.  Not the 15% unemployed and underemployed; not the millions who, frustrated by their inability to find employment, have given up and left the workforce; not the college graduates with tens of thousands of student loans to repay and no immediate prospects of doing so; and certainly not the motorists who have to pay up to $5.00 per gallon for gas at the pump. Furthermore, after four more years of Mr. Obama we will be even worse off.

The Dems continually tout themselves as the party of compassion.  They want to help disadvantaged people.  That’s fine.  I support government assistance for people who legitimately need it.  So, I’m sure, does Mr. Romney.   The key is to weed out those who are gaming the system.  Our governments no longer have the money to continue on the current path.  Many state governments are insolvent.  The federal government is $16 trillion in debt.  This debt will have to be repaid someday, somehow, someway.

So, make a choice.  Who do you feel more sorry for?  Who is more important to you?  The gamers who are bleeding us dry, or your own children and grandchildren who will have to repay the massive debt someday.  If you make the right choice your children and grandchildren will thank you.

President Obama is running for re-election during arguably the worst recession since the Great Depression, a recession that his economic policies have prolonged and exacerbated.   Despite the fact that he has not articulated any clear and realistic plan to resolve it, he is running neck and neck with Mitt Romney in the polls.  You may ask yourself: How can this be so, particularly since history tells us that presidents running for re-election during bad economic times almost always lose.  Recent examples include Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.  Absent a unifying crisis, such as a war, historically Americans have “voted for their pocketbook” and thrown out the incumbent.

I believe the answer is likeability.  The polls show that a majority of people view President Obama as a nice guy and genuinely like him more than Mr. Romney.  This has translated into a voting preference for enough of them to create a virtual dead heat in the polls.  Unfortunately, we are not selecting someone to hang out with for the weekend; we are selecting a President to lead us out of a very serious economic crisis.   Personally, I also like President Obama; however, I do not think he done well enough to earn a second term.

Ask yourself: God forbid, if you needed a very serious operation would you want a likeable surgeon of average competence or an unlikeable one who was very competent.  Personally, if my life were at stake, I would want the best surgeon regardless of his personality.  Well, the economic life of this country is at stake.  It doesn’t need a nice guy.  It needs the best man available regardless of personality.  Hopefully, enough voters will realize this in November, and history will repeat itself.

President Obama would have us believe his economic policies have America on the right track, and everything will be all right if we would only give him a second term.  Does he seriously expect voters to believe that?  Yes, he inherited a bad economy, but his policies have clearly exacerbated the situation.  Consider the facts:

1.  Unemployment remains stubbornly in excess of 8%, and that does not include all the persons who are underemployed and who have given up and left the workforce.  Include them, and the rate jumps to more like 15%.

2.  As reported today, job force participation has sunken to the lowest percentage in 60 years.

3.  The price of gas at the pump is extremely burdensome, over $5.00/gallon in some locations.

4.  The national debt is over $16 trillion and rising by the second.

By any objective measurement, our economy is in dire straits.  Our government has mortgaged our futures and those of our children and grandchildren.  In the process, the USA is in danger of losing its economic leadership position in the world.

Four more years?  We cannot afford four more months! In four more years president Obama’s socialist-leaning wealth redistribution policies will have likely turned us into Greece,  Four years ago President Obama took office amid great fanfare and great expectations.  It has not worked out.  It is time to cut our losses.  It is time for a change!

Quick now.  What is the capital of Israel?  Officially, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, and it has been since the 1949 Armistice Agreements following the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.  Most people agree with that historical fact and would support it remaining so.  But, according to the original Democratic Party 2012 platform, President Obama and the Democratic Party are not so sure.  After 60+ years, that plank was removed from the Dems’ platform.  By whom and under whose authority?  Nobody knows or will admit it.  Confused?  You’re not the only one, but that’s the kind of failed and fractured leadership we have seen for the last four years.

Now, faced with the prospect of alienating the strong pro-Israeli vote, both Jewish and non-Jewish, in Florida and perhaps other battleground states the Dems have suddenly flip flopped their position at their convention.  Following a voice vote the Dems now tell us that Jerusalem “is and will remain the capital of Israel.”  This revisionism makes one wonder if George Orwell is running the show.  Also, it should be noted that this amendment was passed by a questionable vote that had to be called three times by the convention chairman before a questionable majority of “ayes” could be heard.  At the time, it appeared that less than half of the delegates were present, and the amendment’s passage was greeted by a chorus of boos.

Can we expect another flip flop on this position after the election if Obama wins?  Lets hope we don’t find out.