Category: Uncategorized

Ah, to be a member of the treasured middle class!  Everybody loves you.  Everybody wants your vote.  Nobody wants to raise your taxes.  They promise they will raise the taxes of the rich people, whoever they are.  As we say in New York, “I have this bridge for sale.”

But who are the “middle class,” and who are the “rich people?”  The answer is, it depends.  It can be complicated, but generally it depends on where you live and the sources of your income.  For example, an annual income of say $100,000 in a high tax, high expense area such as New York City does not go nearly as far as in say, Nebraska.  Also, if the $100,000 is derived from a small business that enables the proprietor to write off certain expenses the money goes a lot further than $100,000 earned in salary.  Most politicians use the upper range cut-off of $250,000, so I’ll go with that, but keep in mind that if you make that much and live in a high expense, high tax area you probably feel like you’re middle class, not rich.

Anyway, in my opinion all this rhetoric surrounding the candidates’ respective tax plans is a typical political smokescreen for the following reasons:

1.  Regardless of who wins, his tax plan will not sail through Congress intact.  It will have to be negotiated, refined and massaged.  Any politician who gets too specific with respect to a plan he will deliver is just blowing smoke.  So, if you want to criticize Messrs. Romney and Ryan for being too general about their plan at least recognize that they are being realistic about the process.

2.  Raising tax rates on just the rich will not stimulate the economy nor reduce the deficit and debt substantially.  Besides, whether you’re counting $250,00 + earners, millionaires or 1% ers, there aren’t enough of them!  Somehow, someway, the middle class always ends up paying more, even if it’s through deduction, IRA, credit and exemption phaseouts, state taxes, property taxes, school taxes, sin taxes, bridge and tunnel tolls, car registration fees, etc.

3.  Don’t focus on just the tax rates.  Far more insidious are things like the alternative minimum tax, the marriage penalty, and exemption and deduction phaseouts.  The AMT was passed in the 1960s as a “rich man’s tax,” but it was not indexed to inflation.  Consequently, at this time if you make over $80,000 you will likely have to pay an AMT.  Politicians have never granted relief from this because it brings in a lot of revenue, and it flies beneath the radar.  People are hung up on tax rates.  The marriage tax was eliminated by the Bush tax cuts.  It means that a married couple with the same income as 2 single people pays more tax.  The candidates are not talking about these items, but their potential impact on the middle class is huge.

In conclusion, don’t be fooled by the rhetoric on both sides.  Any tax plan proposed is only a guideline, an insight as to the candidate’s thinking.  It will still have to be refined in Congress.  Far more important to you is the extension of the Bush tax cuts, protection from the AMT and the marriage tax. Moreover, regardless of who wins, don’t think that tax increases will be limited to the rich.

The VP candidate’s debate on October 11 was interesting and entertaining, but it will probably have virtually no impact on the election.  Each side was pleased with their candidate’s performance, and as usually happens, assigned their spin doctors to tell anyone within earshot how their man won.  According to a CNN/ORC International Poll taken after the debate Ryan won narrowly 48% – 44%.  But, the poll had a 5% margin for error, so it was really a virtual deadheat.

Some observations:

1.  Martha Radatz, the moderator, did a better job of controlling this debate than Mr. Lehrer did the last one.  I felt that she focused a bit more on foreign policy at the expense of domestic policy, but, perhaps, that was because it is her main area of expertise.

2.  Mr. Biden achieved his main objective of coming out strong and attacking the GOP’s positions, including Mr. Romney’s 47% comment, which Obama had failed to do.  (Mr. Ryan had a snappy retort ready that Mr. Biden knows that “sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”)  He was definitely “scrappy Scranton Joe,” not “Gentlemen Joe.”

3.  On the other hand, I found Mr. Biden’s excessive interrupting and use of dismissive hand and facial gestures rude and distracting.  I felt it detracted from his performance.  Indeed, Charles Krauthammer’s analysis was that someone who listened to the debate on the radio would have likely concluded that Mr. Biden had won, whereas someone who had watched on tv would likely have concluded that Mr. Ryan had won.

4.  Mr. Ryan, who made his reputation on economic issues, demonstated a strong knowledge of foreign policy, holding his own with Mr. Biden, whose expertise is in foreign affairs.

5.  Both men were prone to exaggerations and bending of the facts, but that is normally the case in debates and in political speeches, in general.  We have come to expect and even accept that to some extent.  That is why many of us are so negative about politicians and politics, in general.  Some notable ones centered around medicare, their respective tax plans and abortion positions.  At this point in the campaign, each side has twisted the “facts” to such an extent that I don’t see how the voters can ever discern the real truth.  Therefore, I have concluded that each voter has to make a choice based on the best information available knowing it is not the whole truth;  decide which candidate you believe will do better for you based on the information available.

6.  Mr. Biden committed one serious exaggeration if not an outright lie, or maybe he was covering up a serious lack of knowledge.  That was concerning Libya.  He insisted that the administration had no knowledge of Ambassador Stevens’ cable requests for additional security as well as a recent assassination attempt on the British ambassador.  This information is coming to light now pursuant to an ongoing Congressional investigation headed up by Jason Chavitz (R) Utah.  Mr. Biden would have us believe that a midlevel State Department official made the security decision without consultation from superiors and without the White House’s knowledge.  Furthermore, he claimed it was influenced by budget cuts forced on the State Department by Republicans.  Those assertations do not seem credible.   According to Mr. Chavitz the State Department’s budget has actually increased  118% over the last 5 years.  Also, common sense would tell one to be extra wary given the climate in the Middle East, especially around 9/11.  I expect this issue will fester through the election. I also expect Mr. Romney to follow-up on it at the next debate.

All that said, as I said in previous blogs history shows us that vice presidential debates have virtually no impact on the election.  Even following Lloyd Bentsen’s destruction of Dan Quayle, the Bush-Quayle ticket won handily.  After next week’s Presidential debate everyone will be talking about that and the VP debate will have become a footnote to history.

In a previous blog I wrote that the Obama administration tried to blame the attack on the US embassy in Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the US ambassador, on a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video.  This fiction was fed to us repeatedly for eight days by Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Mr. Obama, himself, through press conferences, talk shows and other venues.  I guess the Administration was hoping that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.  For those eight days, neither the mainstream press nor the Congress dug deeply enough to ferret out the truth.  Finally, on September 19, the Director of Counterterrorism released a statement classifying Ambassabor Stevenson’s death as resulting from a terrorist attack.  (I guess he didn’t get the memo.) Following that, the information dam burst.

Since then, the following pieces of information have become apparent with respect to this horrible incident:

1.  Two of the embassy’s security teams were withdrawn in August, leaving it vulnerable, particularly on the anniversary of 9/11.

2.  Following the attack, the Obama administration engaged in an organized cover-up to hide the truth.

Now that the truth, or at least part of it, has been exposed some questions still remain.  For example:

1.  Who authorized the removal of the security teams from Libya? Was it Mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton or some lower level functionary with or without their knowledge?  In any event, someone should have realized the potential danger of that action on the eve of 9/11.  Furthermore, one or both of those persons should bear the ultimate responsibility for the action.

2.  Who organized the cover-up?  I’m not sure what is worse for Mr. Obama, that he knew about it and knowingly participated in it, or that he didn’t know and should have known.

3.   How will this whole incident affect the election?  It should be a factor because it demonstrates one more example of lack of leadership as well as weakness in the face of international terrorism.  How much of a factor will probably depend on how the mainstream press plays it and how much the voters care about it. As we know, the mainstream press has been very sympathetic to Mr. Obama, so I wouldn’t expect a massive hue and cry about this from them.  As far as the voters are concerned, to the extent they are engaged, it is about the economy and jobs.  Perhaps, the GOP can get some mileage out of it if they can make an issue out of at the debates.  At the very least, it should give voters cause for concern about Mr. Obama’s leadership, truthfulness and lack of experience in foreign affairs.  In an election this close, anything can be the deciding factor.

The sole vice presidendial debate of this election cycle will be held October 11 between Vice President Joe Biden and  Congressman Paul Ryan.  Most observers expect this debate to be lively and entertaining, but how much will it it really matter?

Historically, how much have VP debates or, the VPs themselves for that matter, affected the election?  The answer, is not much. Keep in mind, that the conventional wisdom is that voters overwhelmingly decide their vote based on the top of the ticket.  Thus, unpopular VP choices, such as Nixon, Agnew, Quayle, and others did not cause their running mates, Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush, respectively, to lose.  Even after  probably the most famous “gotcha,” (when Lloyd  Bentsen told Dan Quayle “I knew John Kennedy.  John Kennedy was a friend of mine.  Senator, you’re no John Kennedy.”) Bush-Quayle won the election.

On the other hand, this particular VP debate carries some added intrigue for the following reasons:

1.  Mr. Biden will be under pressure to reverse the momentum that Mr. Romney built up last week in the first Presidential debate.  Mr. Romney’s victory in the debate was followed up by the expected “bounce” in the polls.

2.  His supporters are counting on him to “expose” Mr. Ryan as a right wing conservative on social and economic issues.

3.  They are hoping and expecting “scrappy Scranton Joe” to show up, not the “Gentlemen Joe” of 2008 vs. Sarah Palin.  For example, I will be very surprised if he does not criticize Ryan on his foreign affairs inexperience, his budget plan, opposition to the auto bailout that “saved” GM and thousands of jobs in Ohio (“GM is alive and bin Laden is dead.”), privatization of social security and Mr. Romney’s 47% comment.

4.  For his part, Mr. Ryan’s objective will be to maintain the momentum that Mr. Romney created last week.

5.  His supporters are counting on him to display his knowledge and energy before a national audience, which is not that familiar with him.

6.  I expect him to bring up a few of Mr. Biden’s gaffes, such as “the middle class has been ‘buried’ under President Obama.”

As we all know, the race is extremely close.  The latest Pew Poll shows Mr. Romney up 49% – 45%.  The latest Gallup poll shows President Obama up 50% – 45%.  Both are within the margin of error.  Moreover, as I have written in other blogs, most states are locked in for one candidate or the other.  Only nine appear to be in play, and they will decide the election. Furthermore, many of each candidates’ supporters, perhaps as much as 30%, are “soft,” that is, open to being persuaded to switch.  Many of them are domiciled in these nine states.  In an election this close, with that many undecided and “soft” supporters everthing becomes significant, and anything can swing the election, even the VP debate.  Stay tuned.

In the aftermath of the first Presidential debate Mr. Romney has received the expected bounce in the polls.  Last night, Rasmussen, who I believe has been the most accurate of all the pollsters in recent election cycles, published the following results in his latest poll:  Florida – Romney up 49% – 47%; Ohio – Obama up 50% – 49%; Virginia – Romney up 49% – 48%.  If you’re a Romney supporter that’s good news as he was trailing or statistically even in each of those states before the debate.  If you’re an Obama supporter you can say “well, after my guy’s poor showing Romney’s only even, and he has to win all three states to have a realistic chance.”  Plus, Obama figures to come back strong and determined in the next debate. So, there’s something for each side to hang their hat on.  Historically, a bounce was to be expected.  The questions is, is it temporary, or the start of a momentum switch to Mr. Romney?  No one knows for sure. Time will tell.  Stay tuned.

Voter viewing was surprisingly high, around 80 million not counting those who followed it by computer.   Pretty good for a populace that is supposedly turned off and distracted.  I have said all along that I don’t mind so much which candidate people vote for as long as it is an informed vote, not one cast out of predisposition, ignorance or indifference.

As I said a couple of days ago, most observers and analysts on both sides thought that Mr. Romney won the debate.  Some Dems, however, felt compelled to make excuses for Mr. Obama. Some of them strained credulity and insulted voters’ intelligence.  For example, Al Gore stated that Mr. Obama’s performance was adversely affected by Denver’s thin air.  (He stated that Mr. Obama had only arrived in Denver at 2:00 pm that afternoon, which, according to Mr. Gore, did not afford him enough time to acclimate himself to the altitude.  Mr. Romney, on the other hand, had been in Denver for three days prior to the debate.) Another Dem commentator, Michael Eric Dyson, a Georgetown University Sociology Professor, theorized that Mr. Obama could not speak vigorously and frankly lest he “come off as an angry black man.”  I don’t think either statement will have much credence with mainstream voters.  Gore sounded foolish and Dyson is known to be a far left activist who was just using the “race card” as an excuse. In any event, these excuses and others like them made the Dems seem petty and sore losers.  They would be better served to accept defeat and try to do better next time.

Romney suporters should temper their exuberance by remembering that it was only the first of three debates, and Mr. Romney needed a win a lot more to sustain his candidacy.  Mission accomplished.  He now has to withstand an expected vigorous Dem counterattack to maintain his momentum and then continue to press his advantage in the ensuing debates.

Can you see the future?  I can.  I’m not saying that I can tell whether the stock market will go up or down or who will win the World Series.  That would be a neat trick and, of course, very lucrative.

But, what I can do is see the future of the US if Barack Obama gets re-elected.  What’s more, so could you if you have an open mind and use some common sense.  All you have to do is look at the economies of the socialist countries of Western Europe.  Greece would be the best example, but Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, and the UK would also do.  They all have one thing in common – socialist economies of varying degrees abounding with entitlements.  Greece is virtually bankrupt.  It just doesn’t know it yet.  It has had to be bailed out several times by its lenders, the major banks in Europe and the US.  Its economy is in a shambles.  Unemployment is high; productivity is low; people cannot retire and live decently; there is considerable political and social unrest.  Naturally, every group blames others for the problems rather than themselves.  The reality is the problems have been years in the making, are extremely complex and not so easily solved.  The other Western European countries, except for Germany, are following along the same path, but they are just not there yet.

In the past four years Mr. Obama has demonstrated, by both word and deed, that his economic policies are consistent with those of the aforementioned Western Europe nations.  All of his actions have served to discourage business, redistribute wealth, expand entitlements, expand the role of government as opposed to free enterprise and initiative, and increase the national debt.

Americans must look at Greece’s situation and realize that could be us in a short time if we keep on the current economic course.  Some voters say “We don’t know where Mr. Romney stands on certain issues.”  “He’s not specific enough.”  That’s a fair point, however, I say look at Western Europe and you see empirical evidence of where four more years of Obamanomics will take us.  Unless, you are a far left liberal or a Romney hater, the only logical conclusion is to reverse that old expression and take the”devil you don’t know over the devil you do.”

Prior to last night’s debate, virtually all analysts, and even his own supporters, agreed that it was critical that Mr. Romney win or, at least, give a strong performance.  He was losing in most polls, including in the battleground states.  In addition, donors were getting nervous, and some of the other GOP candidates running for election were reportedly having misgivings about his perceived weakness at the top of the ticket impacting their own candidacy.

Following the debate most observers, even many Democrat-leaning analysts, agreed that Mr. Romney had won.  A CNN poll taken right after the debate ended found that 67% of the respondents thought Mr. Romney had won versus 25% for President Obama.  Fox News polled a Focus Group of uncommitted voters who had watched the debate in isolation with a Fox analyst.  Following the debate, over 80% of them said, based on Mr. Romney’s performance they would now vote for him.  His campaign contributions should increase dramatically.  He needs it as he is currently being outspent in the battleground states by 2:1.  Mr. Romney may have saved his candidacy, at least temporarily.

Mr. Romney was forceful without being disrespectful and was on top of the facts.  President Obama seemed distracted and, in general, not at his best.  I expect he will do better next time.  Often, in Presidential debates how something is said is more important than what is said as “facts” cannot be verified on the spot and can later be “spun” more than one way anyhow.  I think Mr. Romney’s presentation was better.

1.  He explained his tax plan in sufficient detail to allay fears among middle class voters, clearly and succinctly explaining that he would not raise taxes on the middle class.  This was a major concern going in.  He explained he would lower tax rates across the board, which are the same rates small business pay.  This would encourage them to hire more workers, thus reducing unemployment.  More people working equals more tax revenue. He would “pay” for this by reducing some deductions and exemptions, wasteful government programs and transferring some Federal programs to the states where he feels they belong anyway. President Obama pushed him hard on this issue, but could not rattle him on this, and ultimately, had no answer.

2.  President Obama and Mr. Romney also discussed Obamacare, which Mr. Romney wants to replace.  They clashed on the relative merits of Obamacare versus Romney’s plan, particularly with respect to pre-existing conditions and Medicare.  Mr. Romney scored points by citing the $716 billion taken from the Medicare Fund to help pay for Obamacare as well Obamacare’s use of a board of unelected bureaucrats without medical training with authority to decide medical issues.

3.  Regarding Governance, the difference between the two became obvious.  In summary, the Dems want government to do more, what Mr. Romney labeled “trickle down government.”  The GOP prefers more individual self-reliance and free enterprise.  President Obama and Mr. Romney clashed on the relative advantages and disadvantages of those philosophies. Mr. Obama had no good answer as to how to repay the $16 trillion debt.

The GOP is hopeful that last night was a turning point; the Dems view it a bump in the road.  In any event, it is premature for the Romneys to begin selecting furniture for the White House.  Last night’s “win” should yield a temporary bounce in the polls, but it may not necessarily translate into a permanent one.  Moreover, regardless of what the national polls may say, it will be the nine battleground states that really count and, within that group, Florida and Ohio, in particular. The election could very well be decided in those two states.  They are the largest of the group, and no Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio. In addition, there are three debates left for the Dems to come back.  But, at least Mr. Romney can now begin to build some momentum.

The mainstream media has been exhibiting a pervasive and continuous bias in favor of President Obama throughout the current election cycle.  There have been many examples of this.  The latest example is the terrorist attack on the US embassy in Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the US ambassador.  Stop for a minute and digest the level of this atrocity.  We are not talking about killing an armed combatant or even a tourist; we are talking about assassinating an ambassador with diplomatic immunity who is supposed to be under the protection of the Libyan government.  When was the last time you heard of a foreign ambassador being assassinated?  How about never?  Can you imagine the furor if the Iranian or Syrian ambassador to the US had been assassinated on US soil?

The mainstream media has been treating this event as an unfortunate accident.  “Oh, it was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-muslim video.”  “Oh you have to excuse Libya.  The government doesn’t really have control over the country.”   To that, I say bull____ !  As we say in NY, if you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you.

The timeline of this event was as follows:

9/11- Four Americans, including Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador, were assassinated in Benghazi.

9/12 – President Obama released a tepid statement condemning the attack.  Then, rather than deal with matters directly by  meeting face-to-face with world leaders who happened to be in NY for meetings at the UN, flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

9/16 – Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN, issued a statement calling the attack spontaneous.  Does anyone think she acted on her own initiative?  Again, there’s that bridge.

9/16 – The same day, a top Libyan official contradicted her calling the attack pre-planned.

9/19 – Matthew Olsen, Director of National Counterterrorism Center, confirmed it was a terrorist attack

As I said, the Obama Admnistration tried to portray the attack as a spontaneous “demonstration” in response to a video that portrayed Mohammed in a negative light.  But, the facts and subsequent events do not support this and, in fact, make that analysis seem naive and ridiculous.  Firstly, the “demonstrators” used AK-47s and other heavy weapons that terrorists would use as opposed to demonstrators, who would have used bottles and rocks.   Secondly, there have been worldwide demonstrations at other US embassies since then indicating some coordination. Thirdly, the attack came on the anniversary of 9/11.  Despite what President Obama would have us believe, it appears that Al Quaeda is enjoying a resurgence.

The mainstream press’ underreporting and mischaracterization of this incident has been outrageous.  Pat Caddell, Democratic Pollster, has opined that any other president would have been crucified.  He drew a comparison to President Bush’s “Katrina moment,” when President Bush was crucified by the press. These incidents should have been touted as examples of Mr. Obama’s failed Middle East policy of appeasement.

Does anyone remember Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s?  How did that turn out?  Did Mr. Obama study history at Harvard?

Also, the press has not reported, in depth, on the US’s lack of preparedness, particularly in view of the anniversary of 9/11.  Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, should bear some culpability here, but she has largely escaped criticism along with Mr. Obama.  It should be noted that the Washington Post, instead of running stories on this, ran a front page story on Mitt Romney’s high school hazing incident.  I guess the powers that be at the Post considered that to be more newsworthy.  So much for their credibility and objectivity.

I always thought that the voters were too smart to be fooled by the bias coverage of the press. Based upon the polls I have seen, however, it seems that they may not be.  Many of them may be too distracted by their personal lives or just don’t care enough.  I hope I am wrong about this, but we will see on November 6.

Romney supporters are hoping he will win all three Presidential debates decisively, pass President Obama in the polls and ride that wave of momentum to the White House on November 6.  Possible?  Sure.  Likely?  History says no.  Read on to see why.

The three debates between President Obama and Mr. Romney are October 3 on domestic policy, October 16 in a town hall format and October 22 on foreign policy.  In addition, there will be one debate between Vice President Biden and Mr. Ryan on October 11 on foreign and domestic policy.  There is great anticipation surrounding these debates, particularly among Romney supporters.  They view the debates as a chance, perhaps the last chance, for their candidate to explain his policies to the voters clearly and specifically and to convince them to vote for him over President Obama.  Most political analysts on both sides have been saying that, barring an unforeseen event (e.g. the financial crisis of 2008 or another terrorist attack), the election will be decided by the debates and the turnout on Election Day.  The turnout part of the analysis is obvious; everyone would acknowledge that a high turnout would favor the Democrats.  History shows, however, that the debates, while a factor, have not been as major a factor in deciding elections as we might think.  We tend to remember famous sound bites or instances from these debates and, in hindsight, ascribe more significance to them than was the case at the time.

A few examples:

1.  The Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 was the first televised debate.   Many people remember or have heard that Kennedy “won” the debate because he was personable and charming on television whereas Nixon appeared to be”shifty,” “sweating,” “pale,” and had a 5 o’clock shadow.  Also, he was not feeling well and his general appearance was hurt by the fact that he did not use professional make-up like Kennedy.  It is important to note, however, that in 1960 many people listened to the debate on the radio, because they did not have a television.  Interestingly, it was reported that the majority of the radio listeners thought Nixon had actually won the debate.  Although this debate helped Kennedy because it enhanced his exposure to the country, it is debatable whether or not it was decisive.  It should be remembered that the race was tight before the debate and remained tight to the end.

2.  The Carter-Reagan debate in 1980 became famous for two of Mr. Reagan’s lines: “There you go again” and “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  Mr. Reagan was very personable, at ease and entertaining.  Mr. Carter was stiff and on the defensive.  Mr. Reagan won the election going away, but was it because of the debate?  The debate performance was a contributing factor, but Stuart Spencer, Mr. Reagan’s political strategist in 1980 recollects that the momentum was already swinging Mr. Reagan’s way for two weeks prior to the debate.  The debate continued and, perhaps, accelerated it.  Also, he admits that had Iran released its hostages before the election instead of afterwards, the election results might have been different despite the debate results.  Incidentally, Stuart says Mr. Reagan won by pounding away repeatedly at a simple message: cut taxes, strong defense, fight communism, and make Americans feel good about themselves again.  Substitute “terrorrism” for “communism” and add the economy and jobs, and there’s the message Mr. Romney should be using.

3.  One of the biggest “gotcha” moments in debate history occurred during the vice presidential debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.  Dan Quayle, a handsome, personable man with not much between the ears, was trying to compare himself to John Kennedy.  Mr. Bentsen interrupted him and said: “I served with Jack Kennedy.  I knew Jack Kennedy.  Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.  Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”  Hilarious,  but it had no effect on the election, which was won by Bush-Quayle.

The foregoing does not auger well for Mr. Romney.  A decisive win is highly unlikely.  Most likely, the result of the debates will be inconclusive, and few people will be swayed by them.  Each side will claim his man “won,” and the other person misconstrued the facts and mislead the listeners.  In fact, many, if not most, of the very undecided voters Mr. Romney is counting on reaching will probably not even pay attention (as has been their habit all along).  Don’t forget, we are in an age of short attention spans and multiple distractions.

The analysts will line up along party lines. The voters who bother to watch will be “rooting” for their guy.  Thus, they will perceive he did better than the other guy.  They will hear what they want to hear and what reinforces their opinions.  They will tune out or discount opposing views.  In the end, unless someone commits an historic gaffe, which, given the format, the degree of preparation and the experience of the particpants is unlikely, no significant change in the polls will occur. In order to win the election, Mr. Romney will need more than a strong showing at the debates, although it would be a good start.

It is well known that President Obama has the strong support of young people.  (A recent Associated Press-GfK  Poll found that 61%% of registered voters aged 18-29 favored Mr. Obama vs 30% for Mr. Romney.)  The question is why?  I understand that they may think he is hip and cool and he brings an excitement that is attractive to young people.  Additionally, young people are generally predisposed to be more liberal.  But, if a young voter were to look beyond the razzle dazzle to the substance inside to ascertain who is better for me and my future, he or she would be hard-pressed to justify his support of Mr. Obama.

Consider the following:

1.  The level of unemployed youth remains stubbornly high – 17% vs 8% for the population as a whole.  The most recent rate for African American youths was 29%.  If you can’t get a decent job, you can’t start your life, e.g. start a career, get married, raise a family, etc.

2.  In four years under Mr. Obama’s watch the US debt has jumped to $16 trillion.  That number is the 500 lb. gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about, but it will have to be paid back someday.  Seniors and middle aged people won’t be around to worry about paying it back.  Guess who will be?  That’s right – today’s young people and unborn generations.  That debt will be a tremendous drag on the US economy for their entire lives, and, if the government decides to print more money, it could lead to double-digit inflation like we had in the 1970s.

3.  In addition to running up our debt and bankrupting several States, Mr. Obama’s entitlement policies have jeopardized the social security fund.  Independent projections indicate that young people will have to work longer (well past the current retirement age of 65), and will receive much less benefits than the current generation.  So, saving for your retirement will be virtually all your responsibility.

In summary, if I am a 21 year old college graduate about to look for my first job and maybe vote in my first Presidential election I have a lot to think about.  Do I vote for the candidate who provides the sizzle (Obama) or the steak (Romney)?  Remember, I’m not picking someone to invite to my frat house for a party; I’m picking a President who will hold my future and those of my family in his hands.