Saturday, January 31, 2015

If Romney Ran, This Is How Left Wing Media Was Going After Him

Note: This was written a day before Romney announced he was not running.  However, I am still publishing it because it exposes the political bias of one of the most leading newspapers in the country.

In the always Democrat-loving Washington post, there was a recent article: "How big is Mitt Romney’s California house? Here, compare it to yours".

The writer, Philip Bump, obviously knows that 99.99999% of his readers don't own an 11,000 square foot plus home; or, even one half that size.

So, what you do is enter the square footage of your home and then push a button that reads "OK. Humiliate me!".  (Note: I added the exclamation point because I feel its what the writer was thinking when he, or whoever helped him, designed the software)

After doing so, an image representing the size of your house is then superimposed on an image of the first and second floor plans and garage of Romney's California home.  Of course, after you see the results, your wealth envy is supposed to take over and you are supposed to become angry at this rich white guy.

Basically, the sole purpose of this exercise is to disqualify Romney from ever talking about income inequality because rich people simply aren't allowed to talk about ways to improve wealth disparity of others.  Even though Romney founded a company that created 5,400 good paying jobs which, in effect, reduces income equality.  My guess is that the only job the writer of this article ever really created was his own.

But, perhaps, the writer believes that only people below Romney's wealth level are qualified to talk about income inequality.  Thus, Romney with a net worth of $250 million is disqualified.  Yet, it is OK for the $195 million Democrat John Kerry to talk about it.  This, aside from the fact that his wife is a billionaire.  And, of course, Nancy Pelosi, with a net worth of a mere $35 million, can say all she wants as well.  Obama, too, at just $12.2 million -- the 21st richest of all Presidents -- is a shoe-in to talk about income disparity if the $200 million rule is applied.  Even though, under his watch, we have record numbers of poor; the rich got richer; and income inequality deepened.

Then, there's poor Hillary Clinton. With her and Bill's combined wealth at $55 million, she is wholly qualified to talk about how to elevate the poor in America.  Especially, if she runs for President. Now, isn't she?

This whole Washington Post article is nonsense.  People like Romney, only became super rich because they created companies that created jobs.  And, that kind of job creation is why the U.S. is one of the top five countries in the world; when measured by the five elements of the United Nation's Human Development Index: life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life.

Personally, I would prefer to listen to a job-creator like Romney talk about how to reduce income inequality by stimulating the private sector than any Democrat who only believes that poverty can be erased through handing out taxpayer money.  If the latter was true, why, then, after 50 years of the Democrat's War on Poverty, do we still have such record high levels of it?

I think this article was written out of fear.  The fear that Romney might get nominated and elected President in 2016 and actually do something that Democrats can't seem to do: Create jobs and lift people out of poverty by not simply giving handouts.  A fact that would seriously wound the liberal opinion that only government spending keeps people out of poverty.  In fact, if the government does create a job, it is primarily because the top 10% of income earners pay 71% of all taxes.

Lastly, before I get the typical drivel comment from some Democrat that Romney's Bain & Company took over other companies and cut jobs, you need to know the facts.  Bain generally took over companies that were in or near financial trouble. Companies that probably would go bankrupt and, as such, result in an even greater loss of jobs.  Now, while 22% continued on to bankruptcy and in many cases were forced to close their doors, 70% became success stories and, as such, bankruptcy was averted and jobs were saved.  The final 8% continued to struggle and continue to remain in business for at least 8 years after Bain divested itself.


Philip Bump: Washington Post: How big is Mitt Romney’s California house? Here, compare it to yours:

Washington Post hires ultra-liberal former union bully: Bump:

Bain & Company:

Mitt Romney's Worth:

Kerry's spouse worth $1 billion / Amount is twice what was thought:

2011: The 50 Richest Members of Congress:

Nancy Pelosi defends income equality push:

Barack Obama Worth:

Obama is right to be worried about income inequality — it’s gotten a lot worse under his watch:

Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise:

Clinton's Net Worth:

Human Development Index: List of Countries:

That's rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record:

Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up:

Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That:

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs':;postID=434593128244509030

Democrat Senator and possible Democrat nominee for the Presidency Elizabeth Warren:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

Top 10% Pay 71% of all taxes: 2014 Tax Day Chart: Who Pays the Most?:

Romney at Bain Capital: Big Gains, Some Busts - WSJ:

Friday, January 30, 2015

Obama's Delusional Stance On Higher Education

In the 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama said that "by the end of this decade, 2 in 3 job openings will require some higher education.  2 in 3!  Yet, we still live in a country where too many bright, striving Americans are priced out of the education they need".

So, as is always with this President, his solution is to throw money at the problem by providing free community college tuition.  However, despite what Obama says, we don't have a real funding problem for higher education; especially for the poorest among us.  There are enough federal and state grants, scholarships, and low interest student loans to send any "bright, striving" American kid to college.

The major problem is that there are too few bachelor and associate degreed jobs for the number of graduating students.   In the latest projection for those completing a 2-year or 4-year program in 2014, 31% will not find a job and will wind up living at home with Mom and Dad.  Of those who do find work, 45% of the 4-year degreed students and 57% of the 2-year degreed students will end up only finding jobs that don't require the degrees they hold.  Simply, trying to graduate more college students will only exacerbate these statistics unless, and until, more college level jobs are created.  Something that just isn't happening with Obama's over regulation of the economy.

There's another problem with higher education in this country, and why graduates can't find work that is equal to their educational level, and that is their chosen course of study.

All too often, students graduate with majors that give them little or no chance of finding related employment.  Very few businesses are interested in hiring someone with a Bachelor of Arts in Literature or Poetry, or some obscure and specialized antiquities' degree.

Beyond that, too many college students are being graduated without the necessary business skills of "critical thinking, analytical reasoning, document literacy, writing and communication".  A College Level Assessment test by the Rand Corporation found that 40% of those graduates being tested lacked those very critical skills.  Another study found that the average college student can only read at a 6th or 7th grade level.  As a result, those students get weeded out at job time by presenting a poorly or illogically written resume or by coming off as less well-educated in the interview process; leaving them to only find non-degreed work.

Additionally, because our students lack skills, 65,000 jobs a year go to legal immigrants with H-1B work visas that require a college degree.  Thousands more are taken by L-1 Transfer visas that allow foreign workers to fill U.S. jobs as long as they are transferring in from within the same company.

Essentially, Obama's "free" community college proposal makes a false promise that he is solving a problem when, in fact, the real problem lies with our broken pre-college educational system, plus the fact that he has failed miserably in creating quality high-paying jobs.


Obama: Community college should be ‘as free and universal in America as high school’:

 More Than Half 2014 College Grads Are In Jobs That Don't Require Degree:

Test Finds College Graduates Lack Skills for White-Collar Jobs: Forty Percent of Students Seen Ill-Prepared to Enter Work Force; Critical Thinking Key:

The average college freshman reads at 7th grade level:

Nearly three-quarters of hiring managers complain that millennials – even those with college degrees – aren’t prepared for the job market and lack an adequate “work ethic":

Obama Imposed 75,000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014:

Work Visas:

Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones:

Thursday, January 29, 2015

A Nor'Easter Blizzard Called Juno and Climate Change

Well, it didn't take but minutes after the Nor'Easter blizzard event named Juno hit New England on January 26-27 for the climate alarmists to come out of the woodwork and declare this to be proof of climate change.  In fact, one science writer for National Geographic couldn't wait for the aftermath.  He wrote his article the day before the storm hit. In support of his assessment, he produced this graphic:

In prefacing this, he wrote: "Such heavy storms have increased by more than 70 percent in the past six decades in the Northeast, according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment report."  So, after reading that, and then seeing this graphic, one immediately concludes that the change in precipitation rates took place in just the last 60 years. Also, understand that his chart is supposedly based on the intensity of the top one percent of storms each year.  Not to be confused with total rainfall amounts in each year.

But, you need to look at the fine print at the bottom of the graphic.  That 71% increase in New England is based on a comparison of the years 2001-2012 and the years 1901-1960.  By doing that, 40 years from 1961 to 2000 are omitted; and, I'm sure intentionally in order to accentuate and skew the report.   Also, the start period of 1901 is odd since weather records go back to the late 1800's in New England.  Is it possible that the years prior to 1901 were a lot wetter than even the period of 2001 to 2012?  And, why wasn't a decade by decade, 100+ year graph of rainfall intensities used to prove the writer's point?  Wouldn't that have been a more accurate and scientific presentation in support of his opinion?  But, of course, not if those missing 40 years would ruin your story! What we will never know is whether or not precipitation rates have been heavier in the decades and centuries prior to keeping accurate records.

It seems as if, climate change science statistics, always involve the appearance of  (and sometimes proven)  data manipulation in order to prove its existence.  Perhaps that is why one in four Americans don't believe that global warming is man made and another 36% are mixed (not sure) on the topic; while only 39% are certain and actually worried about it.

If that pro-climate change article at the prestigious National Geographic organization is based on manipulation, it is truly sad.  Also, if so, it would once again prove that climate change is more politics than science.


National Geographic:  Blizzard of Nor'Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change:

U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming:

NASA Scientists Admit Only 38% Chance 2014 Was Hottest Year:

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate:

2014: Another Year Without Global Warming: " global warming for 18 years 3 months since October 1996":

Quiet Atlantic hurricane season spares U.S. for ninth year running:

With Ice Growing at Both Poles, Global Warming Theories Implode:

Report: 95 Percent Of Global Warming Models Are Wrong:

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming:

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Domino's Pizza Says ObamaCare's Fast Food Calorie Display 'Unworkable'

Beginning next year, ObamaCare mandates that every fast food chain must clearly display the calorie counts for every item on their menus.  While compliance is possible for a hamburger joint with limited menu selection, it is extremely difficult for a pizza chain, like Domino's.  There literally offer 34 million possible pizza combinations. From different sizes, to different amounts of cheese and other ingredients.  But, if Domino's doesn't comply there could be substantial fines and up to a year in prison (I assume for each store manager in violation).

My problem with the calorie count rule is that we've been down this road before with no measurable success.  In 1990, the Democrats in Congress handed President George H.W. Bush a piece of legislation called the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act which he signed into law.  Under it,  manufacturers of any packaged food items would have to provide the kind of nutrition data that we see  today.  At the time, the obesity rate in this country was 20.5% of the adult population.  Today, despite calorie labeling from the1990 law, obesity has grown to be in excess of 36%.  A 76% increase in just 24 years.

For years, providing nutrition information has been a hefty expense for the food industry.  Because the  FDA requires accurate nutrition data on labels, companies, and now fast food restaurants, are forced to hire expert analysts to provide the nutritional breakdown of every item they sell. In addition, each fast food chain will spend millions to replace all existing menu boards to comply with this new 391-page regulation.  And, of course, we will pay for it all with higher prices.

Simply, I don't think this law will slow or reduce the obesity rates in this country one iota.  Just as the 1990 rule never did. People in the mood for a Big Mac or a cheese and sausage pizza are not usually in the mood to count calories. Once again we have another fool's errand by the Democrats; and I'm sure, Michele Obama.


Domino’s to Obama Admin: Calorie Rule is ‘Unworkable’:

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990:

Calorie counts: Coming to a restaurant, movie theater, vending machine near you:

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Obama's Increased Capital Gains Tax on the Rich Will Hurt the Middle Class

In the State of the Union address, President Obama argued that the rich should pay higher taxes on their wealth so the middle class can be strengthened by increased tax breaks.  Of course, this is the classic populist, class-warfare, and wealth redistribution argument that Democrats have used forever.
It is based on the false promise that raising taxes on the rich will somehow reduce income inequality in America.  Quite frankly, this is an admission by the President that the middle class is hurting under his watch. Yet, despite all of the tax increases on the rich over the years, we have the greatest gap in income distribution in this country's history.

In the President's latest tax-the-rich scheme, he proposes raising the capital gains tax to 28% for those couples making $500,000 or more; arguing that this is the same tax rate we had under Ronald Reagan.  In doing so, he knows that the Republican-controlled Congress won't buy into it because they believe, like I do, that raising taxes on capital gains stifles innovation and the growth of businesses.  Also, the Reagan argument is a canard because 28% was the top tax rate for everything in Reagan's days of tax reform. Today, the top rate is 39.6%.  Also, that 28% is in addition to a 3.8% surcharge for ObamaCare that didn't exist when capital gains under Reagan were at 28%.  But, forget all those "lies" about taxes under Reagan.  In the mind of any Democrat like Obama, all they can see are a bunch of rich people making even more money by investing in stocks.  That, of course, is a very naive view of what happens when wealthy people invest in the market.

When you or I buy 100 shares of a stock, we will do very little to effect its price.  But, when a rich investor buys 5,000 or 10,000 or even more shares of a stock that you own, it's a big thing and, the  price will jump on a trade like that.  Further, it sends a signal throughout the investment community that your stock has some big investor(s) interested in it.  This, in turn, attracts more buyers and the price will climb on increasing buy-order volumes.  Simply, big investors help raise small investors up as well. So, every day, the 50% of the middle class that own stocks are being helped by wealthy investors.

So, why is a new 28% tax on capital gains so bad?  It means that big investors will have 28% less money available to reinvest and, thus, pull more small investors -- mostly in the middle class -- along with them.  Since taking office, Obama has already raised the top capital gains rate from 15% to 23.8% plus a 3.8% ObamaCare tax on investment.  Now, he wants 28% plus the 3.8%.   

Every time the Democrats attempt to tax the rich, they end up hurting the little guy in some fashion.  In 1990, the Democrats thought they had the perfect tax-the-rich scheme by creating a luxury tax on expensive cars, boats, jewelry, and furs. It backfired when consumers stopped buying as many items in these categories.  As a result, thousand of workers in those related industries lost their jobs.  Some businesses went belly up.  Ultimately, in just two years, the same Democrats who passed the luxury tax had to repeal it in order stop the bleeding of jobs and businesses.

Now, in another attempt to tax the rich and help the middle class, Obama may wind up hurting the very people he intends to help.


Obama’s proposal to raise the capital gains tax drives sharp wedge between parties:

Only half of all middle class Americans invested in stocks: Down from 66%:

IRS Announces 2014 Tax Brackets, Standard Deduction:

Paying Obamacare's 3.8% Investment Tax?:

Special Report: 25 Years After [Reagan] Tax Reform:

The Democrats Still Haven't Learned From Their 1990 Tax-The-Rich Fiasco:

The Obama tax proposals: Tailored cuts and hikes:

Monday, January 26, 2015

What Didn't Happen When 99 Weeks Of Unemployment Insurance Went Away

In his latest State of the Union address, President Obama touted his record on jobs and the economy in the last year.

This is sort of laughable when you think back to the beginning of last year when he and the Democrats were arguing to retroactively re-extend the 99 weeks of federal unemployment benefits that expired on December 28, 2013.  Something that those heartless Republicans in the House of Representatives allowed to happen.  As a result, 1.3 million out-of-work Americans with 400 thousand children saw their pay checks simply disappear in a GOP attempt to save $26 billion a year in federal spending.

In arguing the reinstatement of benefits, the President painted a picture of coming doom and gloom ahead.  The GOP ignored all those warnings and the benefits were never reinstated.

So, what dire predictions did the Democrats make and what really happened?

First, throwing 1.3 million people into the streets to fend for themselves was supposed to stall our fragile economic recovery.  Well, we know that didn't happen because, otherwise, the President wouldn't be patting himself on the back for how great the economy was is 2014.

Then there's the prediction that unemployment would go up without those benefits being extended.  Nancy Pelosi even went so far as to say paying people not to work actually creates jobs. OK?  In January 2014, the unemployment rate went down from 6.7% to 6.6% from the month prior when the benefits were cut for 1.3 million people.  Now, a year later, it sits at 5.6%.  Dropping the unemployment rate by a full percent is not quite the doom that was predicted.

Then, there was the argument that poverty would increase.  This is too early to answer because the Census Bureau data on U.S. poverty in 2014 won't be available for a few more months.  But, on this one, the Democrats may be somewhat correct.  It is highly possible that some number of those that lost unemployment benefits fell into poverty; or, at least until they found new jobs.  However, being in poverty isn't necessarily as bad as it sounds. This is because of all the so-called "safety nets" that are afforded those entering that status in this country.  In fact, most people in poverty have benefits that are greater than those earning a middle-class salary.  Besides getting a welfare check, they also get free healthcare (Medicaid); subsidized food through food stamps; child care, and housing assistance; and, the list goes on.

Simply, the Democrats love to give billions of dollars in federal money away to buy votes.  And, when anyone tries to cut a program because it is ineffectual and wasteful, they balk by predicting nothing but disaster.  This is much in the same way they balked when welfare reform was enacted under an agreement between President Clinton and a GOP Congress. The cutting of that program also caused many dire predictions that never materialized.

The bottom line is that there is so much waste in the federal budget that is simply sitting there so that the Democrats lay claim to your votes by giving all kinds free stuff from programs they sponsored.  Someday, the continuance of this kind of mindset will lead to complete economic destruction.  This in the same way that entitlement crazy countries such as Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, and Greece are on the verge of bankruptcy today.


2015 State of the Union: Obama Touts Economic Gains, Vows to Protect Signature Laws:

Obama: Extend unemployment insurance – CNN:

Unemployment Benefits Are Ending for 1.3 Million Americans. What's That All About?:

Nancy Pelosi Claims Unemployment Insurance Creates Jobs. Is She Right?:

Labor Force Statistics by Year:

"Poverty" pays better than middle-class employment:

How the Dire Predictions for Welfare Reform Turned Out:

Not just Argentina: 11 countries near bankruptcy - USA Today:

PIIGS - Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain:

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Why the Silence on Sgt. Bergdahl Court Martial Investigation?

In early October, reported that the Bowe Bergdahl court martial investigation was complete.  The investigation was conducted to determine if Bergdahl was guilty of desertion and gave material support to the Taliban that could have resulted in directed attacks on U.S. military positions in Afghanistan.

Now, if you are not familiar with the Bergdahl story,  this soldier's release from being held by the Taliban was done in an exchange for 5 extremely high value detainees at Guantanamo Bay.  This in Obama's quest to empty the Guantanamo Bay detention facility so it could be closed, as he promised all the way back to his campaigning days in 2008.

It seems to me that if Bergdahl was innocent of desertion and collusion with the enemy, we would have heard it by now and he would have been free to either stay in the Army or be discharged.  However, the four months of silence since October seems to imply that he is guilty and, because of that, Obama has a problem on his hands.  If, in fact, Bergdahl is a traitor to his country, the President made a massive mistake by trading him for those Taliban commanders.  And, the public outcry will be massive.

I am assuming that he has been found guilty and, it will be interesting to see how Obama plans to keep that fact secret over his next two years in office.   Obviously, something's afoot because, not once, has this country's press/media been able to question Bergdahl about how he came to be captured by the Taliban and the rumors that he provided them with material assistance.

The only way Obama will be forced to disclose the Bergdahl investigative report is if the media starts pounding the desk for that report.  But, given the their liberal slant and constant protection of the President, don't count on it.


Report: Bergdahl investigation completed | TheHill:

Bowe Bergdahl was traded for 5 Taliban commanders: