Over the last month or so, President Barack Obama’s campaign has been hammering Mitt Romney over his time at Bain Capital, making charges of outsourcing and carelessly throwing around potential illegal activity. But voters aren’t buying it. In fact, a new Gallup poll shows that voters trust Romney more on the economy than Obama and view his time at Bain Capital as a positive:
Despite concerted Democratic attacks on his business record, Republican challenger Mitt Romney scores a significant advantage over President Obama when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs, a national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney’s background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation’s economic problems over the next four years.
It seems a day doesn’t go by that I don’t see or hear someone complaining about jobs going overseas. They invariably want the government to do something to keep jobs on American shores. They blame “greedy corporations” for seeking profit and not looking out for the interests of Americans who desperately need jobs.
Well, those Americans really do need jobs, so here are some helpful tips to help bring those jobs back to American shores.
1. End the unions
Unions are a large chunk of the reason many companies have looked overseas for labor. Unions, which once existed as a way to deal with abusive management, now seek to line pockets. Not just theirs, but those of their members. Through collective bargaining, they have jacked up wages for what are often unskilled positions to a point that borders on the ridiculous. In some cases, that border is crossed. Reports of auto workers with high school educations making six figure incomes while not filling any kind of management role are a prime example.
The thing is, non-union shops in the same industries often pay comperable wages. They simply expect more work out of their employees, minimizing the number of people required. Companies want the best workers they can get, and even without unions you won’t see wages plummet. The best and brightest want to be compensated, and they will be.
However, if unions continue to push for more and more, then more and more companies will seek to move their operations overseas.
2. End the EPA
There’s been a lot of nonsense lately over Mitt Romney’s tax returns, with Barack Obama’s “truth team” claiming on Twitter that since Obama has released his forms for the past decade, he is better suited to lead this country. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has called for them while refusing to give out her own. But she isn’t the only one. From Politico:
Over the past three months, McClatchy Newspapers asked all 535 members of the House and Senate to release their tax records. Only 17 — or just over 3 percent — handed over the documents. Another 19 percent said they wouldn’t release them. The remainder didn’t respond to McClatchy’s request.
While members of the executive branch are expected to release their tax records either while running for office or as part of the vetting process for Cabinet appointments, members of Congress aren’t held to the same standard. While they fill out annual disclosures, those forms aren’t as detailed as a tax return.
Mitt Romney must be trying to bore the American people into electing him this November. There is no real bold, inspiring vision behind his campaign other than “Obama sucks”. Nor should we really expect anything bold from a man who has been on both sides of most political issues. Romney’s campaign also shows an unwillingness to buck the conventional Beltway wisdom and propose any bold solutions to our nation’s problems. Mitt Romney is running a “safe” campaign, but I fear he maybe running too safe of a campaign to defeat Barack Obama in November.
More evidence of how safe (ie. dull) of a campaign that Mitt Romney is running is who has already been excluded from speaking at the GOP convention in Tampa next month:
Texas congressman Ron Paul isn’t the only prominent Republican to be denied a speaking role at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Tampa. Here’s another high-profile snub from the Mitt Romney camp… Nope, the woman who was the HIT of the 2008 Republican National Convention — not to mention the party’s VP nominee — Sarah Palin, has not yet received an invitation to speak at the 2012 shindig. Must be stuck in, ahem, e-mail. But, as Palin told The Daily Beast, she wasn’t surprised. And not because she hasn’t endorsed her party’s nominee, Mitt Romney, other than to tout him someone who isn’t President Obama and has a pulse.
Over the last few weeks, the Obama campaign and their friends in the main stream media have had a field day. First, going after Romney for having a Swiss bank account and several offshore accounts. This line of attack, has been followed by a relentless series of attacks over exactly when Mitt Romney left Bain Capital.
Both of these attacks were opportunities for Romney and his campaign team to turn the tables aggressively on Obama and on the media. At a time when unemployment remains over 8% and with our nation teetering on the verge of fiscal collapse, the Obama/media fascination with the minutiae of Mitt Romney’s background is an example of grotesque political slight of hand. It is the ultimate distraction from the issues that matter most.
Unfortunately, Mitt the timid and his camaign have - so far - failed miserably at fighting back.
On the issue of the offshore accounts, why didn’t Romney come forward and say “yes, I had accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, but guess what? There is absolutely nothing illegal about these accounts and, indeed, these accounts are the product of an overly complex and uncompetetive tax code that Obama and Democrats are hell bent on defending!”
On the issue of when he left Bain, why hasn’t Mitt and his campaign said “who cares!?” What if Romney was still at Bain after 1999? Does that suddenly change Obama’s failed record as President? Does that suddenly balance our budgets? Does it suddenly create jobs? Of course not. Why in God’s name is the Romney campaign taking the bait on these distractions?
If Mitt the timid thinks he can just run out the clock and win this election, he is sorely mistaken. The Obama campaign has shown how ruthlessly it will distort and distract, and Obama has the giant megaphone of the main stream media as his willing accomplice.
Early last month, Ron Paul conceded that his delegate total wouldn’t be enough to contest Mitt Romney for the Republican Party’s nomination in Tampa. Paul did, however, note that his supporters would be at the GOP convention in August, looking to make some changes to the party’s platform.
Paul had also hoped to earn a speaking slot at the convention, which would have been possible with wins in five states. Unfortunately, that hope seemed to die this weekend when Paul’s supporters were unable to score a majority of delegates in Nebraska:
Paul’s forces had hoped to pull out a victory at the Nebraska majority of delegates here would have guaranteed their candidate a speaking slot at the GOP convention in Tampa late next month.
Under party rules, a candidate cannot have his name entered into nomination at the convention unless he has won a majority of delegates in at least five states. Paul had won four.
In the end, Paul won only two delegates, to Romney’s 32.
Some will no doubt say that the Ron Paul Revolution hit with a thud since the campaign failed to gain a significant number of delegates with which to shake up the convention. They will say that this shows that Paul’s message was limited. However, Jack Hunter puts it all into a perspective:
A lot of people have asked me about Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. Does it mean I now support Mitt Romney? Does it mean that Rand has abandoned the libertarians? Are the Pauls fighting? Is it part of some two-pronged Paul-Paul strategy to get some respect from the mainstream GOP for Rand’s presidential run in 2016 or 2020?
While I wasn’t exactly thrilled to see Rand endorse Mitt Romney, there are some reasons that this endorsement makes sense. Plus, in four (or eight) years when Rand runs for president, those who criticize him for the endorsement now won’t care about it then. On the other side of that coin, those delighted by the Romney endorsement won’t have the “not a team player” card to play at that time.
It’s also important to remember that endorsements these days mean almost nothing. Like a free toothbrush at the dentist’s office, anybody who really wants an endorsement can get one. If Rand Paul wants to endorse Romney as a candidate, that’s fine with me. Plus, Paul is an elected Republican with real presidential possibility. In what universe would endorsing someone other than the GOP nominee make any sense for him?
Rand’s endorsement of Romney the candidate means nothing to me. But if Rand endorses Romney’s philosophy, we’ve got issues. Playing nice within the Party is one thing; jumping on the big government bandwagon is something else entirely.
You can imagine my delight when I saw this article from Rand Paul. He is very direct in his criticism of the Obama administration, especially since Obama campaigned on a platform of ending wars and since his election, he has done the exact opposite. Obama deserves this criticism.
Brian Doherty, whose written a history of the libertarian movement and, most recently, a history of Ron Paul’s two most recent campaigns for the Presidency, writes today about what might come next for the movement that has sprung up around the retiring Texas Congressman now that his campaign, and his political career, have come to an end:
While Ron Paul has no future in politics, the Ron Paul machine and his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, will. That’s why the political pros in the Paul movement don’t appreciate acting-out like Richard Gilbert’s lawsuit. That’s also why Rand Paul risked the wrath of his father’s hardcore fans by endorsing Mitt Romney, just as soon as Ron Paul admitted he would not win.
Senator Paul knows he needs to reach beyond his father’s 10-15 percent base in the primaries to more mainstream, red-state, talk-radio Republicans. He can’t do that by marking himself as a traitor to the party. So he stands behind nominee Romney and plans to actively campaign for him.
But he also can’t mark himself a traitor to the Ron Paul cause. So Rand Paul followed up his endorsement by calling out Romney in the pages of National Review for Romney’s declaration that he would have the authority as president to start a war with Iran. That sort of foreign policy adventurism — especially when done without respect for Congress’s traditional constitutional power over declaring war — is anathema to the core Ron Paul crowd, and Rand Paul condemned it.
I saw this post over the weekend, and I’ve wrestled over whether or not to do this, but I can’t be silent. There are a lot of readers here who also read Daily Paul, and a lot of you aren’t going to like this, but something needs to be said. Here goes:
Ron Paul won’t be the GOP nominee this year.
I know the convention isn’t until later this summer. I know there are unbound delegates. I know there’s a law suit trying to unbind delegates. I know you believe he’s going to win, but he’s not.
Don’t misunderstand me, either. I don’t enjoy admitting this. I really wanted him to win. I’ve shared before how he’s singlehandedly responsible for making me care about politics. I’m a big fan, but it’s time that all of us grasp the reality that he’s not going to be our nominee.
Now we’re in this critical point in the campaign season. We can admit defeat and press forward for liberty, or we can be the crazy people in the corner with ridiculous law suits and fuzzy math. Let’s not be the crazy people. Pressing forward for liberty is the right choice to make.
Working for freedom for some might mean biting a lip and following Rand Paul in his endorsement of Mitt Romney. For others, it’ll mean supporting Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate on the ballot. But no matter which path you need to take, take it. Don’t be the crazy guy in the corner counting “what if” delegates and trying to convince people that your math is right.
Ron Paul has reached us with his message. This liberty movement sparked by the message of freedom will go on. Paul’s presidential campaign, unfortunately, will not. It’s time we all grasp that reality.
I’m not going to pretend for a minute that I think that Romney is the best thing to happen to America. He has not committed to seriously cut spending, he’s been pandering to his social conservative base so much we can’t expect improvements on that front, and I don’t expect him to end the wars. But, when I look at the data out there, I think that he will win the election in November. Not handily, not by a landslide, but it will be a win.
My reasoning comes down to three points:
- It’s the Economy, Stupid
- Majority of Americans Opposed to Big Government
- Obama’s Support Fading
It’s the Economy, Stupid: This one is fairly simple. The economy is in tatters. Roughly 13 million Americans are out of work. The unemployment numbers are just horrific for recent college graduates, one of the biggest support groups for Obama ‘08, half of whom can’t find work. Obama’s stimulus programs have been abject failures. But there’s one datapoint in particular that has only started getting attention recently.
That’s the “civilian labor force participation rate.” Essentially, the civilian LFPR is the percentage of Americans who are either working or are unemployed but are looking for work. That means that if you’re not sending out job applications and have given up, well, congratulations—you’re no longer unemployed! (At least in the minds of the analytical mentats of the Bureau for Labor Statistics.)