George W. Bush

Mitt Romney, Free Enterprise, And Capitalism On Trial: Is The Future Of America ONLY For The Elite Wealthy?

Ronald Leave a comment

It is extremely ironic that we are seeing a bitter debate in the Republican Party over the virtues, morality and future of American free enterprise and capitalism, in the process of picking a Republican candidate for the Presidency in 2012.

Mitt Romney, a man who became obscenely wealthy at the expense of thousands of middle class workers who lost their jobs due to an equity company (Bain Capital) whose only purpose was PROFIT over people, and who now wishes to promote a tax plan much worse in its inequity than the tax cuts of George W. Bush, has caused a split with Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin demanding accountability, while Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Guiliani and just about everyone else wants this split and heated debate to end, as it only helps Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

For the first time in memory, the whole concept of the goodness of unbridled capitalism is under the microscope, and this is good, as if the system continues without change and much greater regulation, there is the danger of violence and bloodshed by an aggrieved majority of the population, rather than peaceful recognition of the need for radical change to avoid such tragedy!

The great inequity of wealth, and the exploitation of the majority of Americans by a small, greedy group of entrepreneurs cannot continue, and this elite had better recognize that before a turning point is reached that will help no one, and hurt the social stability of America in the future!

Romney Tax Plan Worse Than Bush Tax Cuts: The Further Victimization Of The American People!

Ronald Leave a comment

Anyone who wants to be fair minded knows that George W. Bush bankrupted the nation with the massive tax cuts for the top one percent of the population between 2001-2009.

But now Mitt Romney has a tax plan that is far worse than George W. Bush perpetrated on the American people.

The Romney tax plan would do the following:

1. Millionaires would receive TWICE the tax cuts under Bush.

2. Sixty percent of the tax cuts would go to the top one percent, more than under Bush.

3. Romney claims he wants to balance the budget, but it would not occur with his tax plan, and in fact would raise the debt levels even more than now. There would be perpetual deficits, even with draconian spending cuts.

4. 22 million middle class households with children would pay more taxes, and lose the benefit of higher education tax breaks.

5. Finally, the benefits given the rich through corporate loopholes would be retained, including for oil companies, yacht owners, horse breeders, corporate jet owners, and equity firms such as Bain Capital, making their effective tax rate lower than middle class families.

Mitt Romney’s 59 point plan is a major attack on the middle class, and a further promotion of the elite wealthy, and everyone needs to understand that when they vote for President this November!

The Republican Tradition Of “Next In Line” For The Presidential Nomination

Ronald 1 Comment

The Republican Party has developed a tradition of choosing the “next in line” for their Presidential nomination in the past half century, with the one exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964, which became a total disaster.

Witness:

1960–Richard Nixon was “next in line” as Vice President to succeed Dwight D. Eisenhower.
1968–Richard Nixon was “next in line” after the Goldwater debacle, as a “second chance” for the “workhorse” of the Republican Party.
1976–Gerald Ford had succeeded Richard Nixon, and was therefore “entitled” to the nomination of the party.
1980–Ronald Reagan had fought the “good fight” against Gerald Ford and carried the conservative tradition of Barry Goldwater, so was “next in line”.
1988–George H. W. Bush had finished behind Reagan in 1980, and served as his Vice President loyally for eight years, so was “next in line”.
1996–Bob Dole had competed and lost to Bush in 1988, had also competed for the nomination in 1980, and run with Gerald Ford for Vice President in 1976, so was “entitled” to the nomination.
2000-George W. Bush wished to carry on the tradition and heritage of his father, who had been defeated by Bill Clinton, with the assistance of third party candidate Ross Perot in 1992, so was seen as “next in line”.
2008–John McCain, who had been the leading opponent of George W. Bush in 2000, was seen as “next in line”, “entitled” to the nomination of the party.
2012–Mitt Romney ended up second, losing to John McCain in 2008, so is seen by many as “next in line” for the nomination.

Of course, in none of these elections did the “next in line” gain the nomination just for the asking, and that will not happen in 2012 either, but it is, in historical terms, an interesting state of affairs!

Crossing Party Lines To Serve A President: The BEST American Tradition!

Ronald Leave a comment

Following up on Jon Huntsman’s defense of serving President Obama as Ambassador to China for two years, when one looks at American history, one sees many examples of public figures crossing party lines to serve a President of the other party, a commitment that is in the BEST American tradition of bipartisanship and service to country.

A look back reveals many examples of such bipartisanship and putting the country ahead of party, as witness the following examples:

President Barack Obama

Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation
John McHugh, Secretary of the Army
Jim Leach, Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities
Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve

President George W. Bush

Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation

President Bill Clinton

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense

President George H. W. Bush

Robert Strauss, Ambassador to the Soviet Union/Russia
Richard Stone, Ambassador to Denmark

President Ronald Reagan

Mike Mansfield, Ambassador to Japan
Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Ambassador to the United Nations
William Bennett, National Endowment for the Humanities
Secretary of Education

President Jimmy Carter

James Schlesinger, Secretary of Energy
Lawrence Eagleburger, Ambassador to Yogoslavia

President Gerald Ford

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ambassador to India and to the United Nations

President Richard Nixon

Sargent Shriver, Ambassador to France
John Connally, Secretary of the Treasury
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ambassador to India

President Lyndon B. Johnson

Henry Cabot Lodge, Ambassador to South Vietnam and to West Germany
Edward Brooke, Kerner Commission on Civil Disorders

President John F. Kennedy

Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense
C. Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury
McGeorge Bundy, National Security Adviser
Henry Cabot Lodge, Ambassador to South Vietnam

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Martin Durkin, Secretary of Labor
William McChesney Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury

President Harry Truman

Warren Austin, Ambassador to the United Nations

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy
Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
William Donovan, Head of the Office of Strategic Services
John G. Winant, Ambassador to Great Britain
Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

President Herbert Hoover

Benjamin Cardozo, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

President Warren G. Harding

Pierce Butler, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

President Grover Cleveland

Walter Q Gresham, Secretary of State
Theodore Roosevelt, Civil Service Commissioner

President Rutherford Hayes

David Key, Postmaster General

President Ulysses S. Grant

Caleb Cushing, Ambassador to Spain

President Abraham Lincoln

Edwin M Stanton, Secretary of War
Andrew Johnson, Military Governor of Tennessee

This is quite a list of distinguished Americans who served their country for a President of the other party, and Jon Huntsman, as Ambassador to China for two years, adds to that distinct list, and it should NOT disqualify him to run for President of the United States!

The Multiple Problems Of Rick Santorum: Why He Would Be A Nightmare For America!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum comes across as handsome, personable, a good speaker, and willing to look people directly in the eye when he meets them.

But these strengths are outweighed by his many shortcomings, as witness:

Rick Santorum was extremely unpopular among his Republican colleagues in the US House of Representatives and US Senate, from John McCain to Jim DeMint, a wide range within a narrow based party.

Rick Santorum became the biggest promoter of “pork”, known as “earmarks”, and made all the right connections with business people so that he has enriched himself since his defeat in the Senate reelection contest of 2006, where he lost by the massive margin of 17 points, despite his 12 years of Senate seniority.

Rick Santorum has a confrontational, take no prisoners approach to his “enemies”, and has absolutist views on many issues, which means he would not unite the American people, and would cause a bigger rift, a bigger chasm, a bigger division, than has existed under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. He does not have the personality or nature to compromise, or to promote unity. The political atmosphere would be far worse, much more poisonous in a Santorum Presidency, and antagonistic to his “enemies”, more anti media than anyone since Richard Nixon!

Rick Santorum believes in a muscular foreign policy, and would engage America in more overseas military adventures without any pause, which makes him very dangerous.

Rick Santorum has no concern for the poor or the struggling middle class, as he has demonstrated so often, since he believes that no one is responsible to pay more taxes to help the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged, and that we have no social responsibility to each other. He would be the most right wing candidate since Barry Goldwater, but worse than Goldwater, who was a libertarian in many ways, and would not approve of Santorum’s invocation of “Jesus”, and Santorum’s narrow view of Christianity. Santorum would have no problem going back to a theory of Social Darwinism, prevalent in the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

Rick Santorum believes there is no right to privacy including his opposition to abortion in all circumstances; his extreme condemnation of gay rights in all of its forms; his opposition even to contraception; and his desire to have divorce made more difficult, forcing unhappy couples to stay together as long as they have children under the age of 18. He also believes that consenting adults do not have the right to consensual sex in their own homes!

Rick Santorum claims to speak for the working class, because of his own blue collar family background, including his grandfather, who migrated from Italy and worked in the coal mines, but really he is personally quite wealthy, and only really has shown political concern for WHITE working class, which he is appealing to, and not concern for African Americans or Hispanics, with his statements and actions attacking any assistance or support of the advancements of these minority groups, which have been left behind.

Rick Santorum showed he was not a “compassionate” conservative as President George W. Bush claimed to be, when he said that “pre-existing” conditions involving health care should be given higher premium rates because their “habits” led to the pre-existing conditions, even when a mother saying her child had developed health issues and could not get insurance, questioned him this week at a campaign rally in New Hampshire. Santorum has no compassion or concern for anyone not wealthy, and this is supposed to be a “good Christian”? This is the true hypocrisy of Rick Santorum, promoting selfishness and greed, not what Jesus Christ promoted! And yet, Santorum claims he is the “JESUS” candidate! What an outrage!

Rick Santorum is dangerous to America, as he would promote a repeal of the New Deal and Great Society; would advocate military interventions overseas; would destroy the safety net that exists for those less fortunate and less healthy; and would promote government intrusion in the private lives of Americans, including their sexual behavior.

This is a prescription for a totalitarian government socially, but laissez faire economically, all in the name of JESUS! Just what the Founding Fathers worked so strongly against! We are NOT a theocracy, and the thought of it is enough to make one terrified!

Proper And Smart Move For Obama To Make Recess Appointments For Consumer Financial Protection Bureau And National Labor Relations Board

Ronald Leave a comment

President Obama has been stymied constantly on appointments to various government agencies by Republican filibusters in the US Senate.

The Republicans are not contending that Obama’s appointments are not qualified, but simply playing politics and refusing to approve appointments to necessary positions on important government agencies.

So the President, in another example of aggressiveness, has made a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, former Ohio Attorney General, to be the heed of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency formulated by Elizabeth Warren, who knew she would never be approved to head the bureau, so is running for the US Senate.

Recess appointments are allowed in the Constitution to prevent Congress from paralyzing government by refusal to fill positions in government agencies. Barack Obama has not been the first President to do this, with George W. Bush using the power extensively, most notable with John Bolton as a recess appointment to be United Nations Ambassador.

Cordray’s appointment will be effective for two years, to the end of 2013.
And Obama also made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, another government agency that Republicans wish to paralyze, but Obama took action and should be commended for it.

This is the fighting Obama that should have been there from day one, fighting the GOP, but after nearly three years of trying to get along and work with Republicans, Obama is following the aggressive tactics of Democratic Presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Bill Clinton! Kudos to him!

Further Evidence Of Insignificance Of Iowa Caucuses, And Significance Of New Hampshire Primary!

Ronald Leave a comment

So much attention is paid to the Iowa Caucuses, but the more one examines them, one realizes how unimportant to history Iowa really is.

Only George W. Bush and Barack Obama have won the Iowa Caucuses and gone on to being elected President. Jimmy Carter fell behind “Uncommitted” in 1976. One could say that since the two most recent Presidents won Iowa, that it is an indication of the changing role of Iowa, but that is really highly doubtful!

At the same time, New Hampshire’s Primary HAS been VERY significant in picking Presidents, as Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John F. Kennedy in 1960 won the state, and Republicans Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980, and George H W Bush in 1988 also won the state.

The Iowa Republican Caucuses Historically: A Waste Of Time!

Ronald 1 Comment

The Iowa Caucuses, which have existed since 1972 for the Democratic Party and competitively for the Republicans since 1976, have been largely a “waste of time” as far as picking future Presidents, and even Presidential nominees.

At least, the Democrats have chosen Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, with Carter, Clinton and Obama going on to the White House.

But the Republican Caucuses have been much less successful and representative of what happened. Only Bob Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 have gone on to be the nominee, and only Bush being elected and reelected. There was no actual vote between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in 1976, and Reagan lost in 1980 and ran unopposed in 1984, and the same for George H W Bush in 1988 and no opposition in 1992.

The point is that the Iowa Caucuses gain an inordinate amount of attention, but only maybe a bit more than 100,000 people participate, far fewer than a primary in percentage of voters, and therefore, it has never been seen as a reliable barometer of who a future Presidential nominee or winner might be!

So don’t tend to think that the results in Iowa will matter, as the New Hampshire primary has ALWAYS been a much better barometer for the fortunes of Presidential candidates, since it emerged in 1952.

A Major Positive For Barack Obama In 2012: The Hispanic-Latino Vote

Ronald 1 Comment

Many Hispanics and Latinos are unhappy with President Barack Obama, due to the deportation policies of the administration, seen as considerably tougher than under George W. Bush; and to the continuing economic difficulties faced by them, a higher unemployment rate than whites.

But yet, it seems clear from a survey of the Pew Hispanic Center that Hispanics and Latinos will back Obama by 2-1 over any Republican opponent.

The reason is the constant anti Hispanic and anti Latino statements of Republicans running for the Presidency, and the Republican membership of Congress.

Also, jobs, education and health care matter most to Hispanics and Latinos, and on all three, the GOP is seen as unfriendly and antagonistic to the values and concerns of those groups.

John McCain received 31 percent of the Hispanic and Latino vote in 2008. George W. Bush had done better, with about 40 percent. It seems clear that whoever the Republican nominee is, he is unlikely to get much more than 20 percent, if that.

And only Cuban Americans are likely to vote in the majority for the Republican nominee for President, while Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and other Central and South American Hispanics will certainly back Obama overwhelmingly!

President Obama’s Vacation Time Under Dispute: Give Me A Break!

Ronald 2 Comments

President Obama will be off to vacation in his home state of Hawaii after signing the Tax Cut legislation that the Republicans finally agreed to in the House by unanimous consent this morning.

Of course, whenever Obama takes ANY vacation time, it is a hot dispute to Fox News Channel and the GOP!

But the facts are that Obama has only taken 61 days vacation in nearly three years in office.

Compare that to George W. Bush who took 180 days up to this point of his Presidency, and Ronald Reagan who took MUCH more time off, enough to make one wonder if he was really on the job!

But, of course, really, no President is ever off the job, as the job goes with him.

So it is all petty stuff when a President is told he may not get away, particularly when Congress takes inordinate amounts of time away on vacation EVERY year!