All things Health Care and our Environment

Republican Candidate Gingrich wants to take us to the Moon!

2012-01-27T15:28:00.000-08:00

Keywords: Space Odyssey; Moon Trip; Political Gimmickry; Florida Primary; Dreams and Promises; Vote Harvesting; and Republican Candidates

Five weeks ago, Republican candidate Gingrich was about left dead on the road to nomination for the Republican flag bearer for the November 2012 contest. Then came South Carolina and the venomous politician came alive whipping all other Republican candidates to a stupor. With a more than an ambitious momentum, candidate Gingrich proceeded to Florida attempting to take the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney, to task. Gingrich's ticket was going to be the one to beat according to his campaign staff; then, came yesterday in Jacksonville, Florida, when Candidate Gingrich made probably the most fatal comment or advancement. Gingrich proposed for America to go back to the moon! This proposal could have endeared Gingrich to the thousands of Southern Floridians who lost their jobs from the slow pace of activities at the Kennedy Space Center; however, the proposal is not going to make him a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney probably made it clear to Gingrich, when he responded that he would have fired an executive from one of his lauded companies that made such a proposal. Do you share this view? Did Gingrich overestimate this proposal of his, considering the realities on the ground? The blog today explore these questions.

If you believe political pundits and gallop polls gurus, Mitt Romney would be able to tie up the Republican Party nomination with the oncoming Florida Primary vote. Many Conservative Republicans and probably the Godfathers in the Republican party are probably embracing Mitt Romney, after a long reminiscence. Candidate Gingrich however, still insists that he is in the race to win it all; and no matter what the establishment Republicans think, he is the ideal candidate that can beat President Obama come November. Its permissive and ambitious for Gingrich to think he stands a chance after last night performance in the Republican primary debate. However, candidate Mitt Romney had probably painted candidate Gingrich in a large brush: Not suitable for nomination; or, as flag bearer for Republican Party!

While Republican Candidate Gingrich has offered another grandiose idea, wanting to take America back to the moon in his second term, the reality of a humongous national debt; and, a trove of unemployed and under-employed Americans, make his radiant proposal, unfeasible at this time. The magnitude of our debt, the under-performing factory output, the less than crystal Gross Domestic Product, and the more than tepid effort from congress to change the course of the national ship, make Gingrich grandiose proposal, impractical if not suicidal. This is why some critics of Gingrich indicated that this candidate says so many things under so many circumstances or contexts that you start to wonder if he is not only full of air. To this critics, candidate Gingrich offers a grandiose idea one day, the next, he offers another that can easily be construed as malady. Supporters of the former speaker of the U.S House of Representatives insists however that the fact that critics can't dream big and grandiosely, does not mean Gingrich's proposal on the moon trip, is necessarily unfathomable or ridiculous.

When voiced, Gingrich's dream for a back-to-moon voyage probably seemed romartinique; and, probably thought provoking to the extent that you want to say quintessential Gingrich: "An idea as big as the ego of the former speaker!" Even as you think over the historical experience of his generation, the idea of not having a space program would have been considered, impossible or unjustifiable under whatever circumstance. However, things have changed in this country and our debt-to-capital ratio as a nation is not the same as what we had after the second world war or the 60's or 70's. The dialogue over what we should do with the space program or our achievements so far in the space program, will continue for a long while; however, for all practical purposes, this nation is not in a financial health to continue investing billions in the space program; especially when there are millions of Americas loosing their homes and our children and their unemployed parents, are sleeping on the streets and using convenience stores bathrooms as clean-up area. Tasha: Times-a'-changing!

Millions of Americans are feeling economically vulnerable. Many Americans who have built their wealth on 401K's and retirement plans and some, on the equity in their homes, are finding that the American dream is now a nightmare, because of what Wall Street has done to them and their investments. To stand before this wounded group and propose that the nation directs its attention to going back to the moon, is probably worth being booed over. The nation wants and love grandiose ideas and proposals; however, those ideas are better at a time, when the basics of life have been taken care of. When hunger and shelter deficiency are the focus of a group, it is hard to accept or get tuned to an idea that could probably cost the nation billions of dollars that could help alleviate these stresses. When men and women with college degrees are practically begging for any job to keep afloat; and, work experienced heads of families, who are now unemployed for more than six months or more, are relying on their unemployment insurance payments to secure the roof over their head, it is hard to convince these people to support an idea that looks so far fetched in these austere times.

Even as the nation attempts to dig itself out of the current rot and the industrial complex attempt to find its way out of the darkness of under utilization of capacity, the space industrial complex cannot expect some patronage at this time. Gingrich's proposal may have revealed our glorious days of advancements in space technology; however, our current financial situation makes this proposal too much of a fiction. Floridians like many Americans understand that Newt's proposal seems to be out of torch with reality. How do you invest in space explorations when health care coverage and insurance are still being debated as to their necessity? How do you subscribe to pumping billions into going to the moon, when our industries are working under capacity and unemployment problem nearly killing the nation? How do you convince men and women in their golden years, who have lost all their investments due to the atrocities on Wall Street, to get on board with an idea better left to other eras?

During the Republican Primary debate in Jacksonville, Florida, yesterday, the debate got super heated with Romney and Gingrich going at each others throats. In a rather bizarre altercation, the issue of what politicians advertise as their position on issues, including what should be the official language of communication in America, Romney found himself denying an advertisement that characterized Gingrich as depicting Spanish as a Ghetto language. The uniqueness of this altercation brought fore-front, ridiculous claims and assertions from political opponents that attempt to paint the other candidate as inadequate, unwholesome, anti-immigrant or what have you. Political gurus say that is part of the game: You attempt to undo your opponents and if possible, throw everything at him or her including the kitchen sink!

As each Republican candidate for the nomination exercise attempts to bring voters around to their point of view or position, you expect claims and pronouncements that may be outlandish. Republican Candidate Gingrich's proposal for a trip to the moon fall into this outlandishness. Some Americans may find his proposal out of place in a dire straits economy, but for a few, the fact that Gingrich is espousing an idea of going back to the moon, is like romanticizing with a dream held dearly by them; even if it means doing so at the expense of other people's welfare. Politicians will do anything to woo voters; however, it goes beyond saying that some proposals are scandalous or polyandrous for the moment. Many residents of Southern Florida with affiliation with the Kennedy Space Center, will want to return to the old and golden days of the space odyssey. The Republican Political debate in Florida yesterday gave Gingrich the opportunity to sell these probably romanticizing gullible few, the snake oil!

Do you share Gingrich's proposal? Some will answer this question with affirmation. There are chances that restarting actively the space odyssey all over again, will create employment opportunities for many who are out of work in Southern Florida. There are tens of thousands Floridians who reportedly worked on the space program in the past who are now out of employment. When this group heard for the first time, Gingrich's proposal, they knew he was attempting to woo their vote; they probably did not envisage a truism in the notion of the nation going back to the moon at this time. As grandiose and probably appealing to this few, the idea would hardly fly at this time for the general populace. Americans always want to look forward to brighter days; they are eternal optimists and probably over simplistically optimistic to the extent of bravado; and this is why they saw Gingrich's proposal as a possibility. To this groups, I'll probably say: Dream On, its part of the whole package!

A Personal Reflection on the 2012 State of the Union Address

2012-01-25T09:22:00.000-08:00

Was the President of the United States of America ever more inclusive? Is the President ever not more preemptive of what is to come? Was the President ever not more Presidential? For whatever changes that may come, Obama proved himself to be very executive and firmly decisive to make change a reality in this speech. Historically, many state of the union addresses are a collection of achievements and projections; however, Obama introduced something yesterday, a promotion of the manufacturing industry, an industry, that we have a comparative advantage over many countries. The sliding scale of manufacturing industry in this nation is now being challenged and Obama has shown to be a huge drum major for espousing the benefits of manufacturing in the growth of America's Economy. The blog today, reflects on the content of the state of the union address.

Before our reflection, here is the full text of the President's Speech:

January 25, 2012 --

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought -- and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. (Applause.) For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. (Applause.) For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. (Applause.) Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. (Applause.) Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we've done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. (Applause.) My grandfather, a veteran of Patton's Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share -- the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) What's at stake aren't Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.

Let's remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. (Applause.)

Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like this never happens again. (Applause.)

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now. As long as I'm President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. (Applause.)

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last - an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

Now, this blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number-one automaker. (Applause.) Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back. (Applause.)

What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can't bring every job back that's left our shore. But right now, it's getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. (Applause.) Today, for the first time in 15 years, Master Lock's unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity. (Applause.)

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. (Applause.)

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let's change it.

First, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it. (Applause.) That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home. (Applause.)

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. (Applause.) From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America. (Applause.)

Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers. (Applause.)

So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away. (Applause.)

We're also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we're on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule. (Applause.) And soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago. (Applause.)

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules. We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration - and it's made a difference. (Applause.) Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It's not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. (Applause.) There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you - America will always win. (Applause.)

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can't find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that - openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work. It's inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. (Applause.) My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, and Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers - places that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help that they need. It is time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work. (Applause.)

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every state in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning -- the first time that's happened in a generation.

But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies -- just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. (Applause.) And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn. That's a bargain worth making. (Applause.)

We also know that when students don't walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state -- every state -- requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18. (Applause.)

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. (Applause.)

Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle-class families thousands of dollars, and give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years. (Applause.)

Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.

Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that. Some schools redesign courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it's possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. (Applause.) Higher education can't be a luxury - it is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: the fact that they aren't yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn't make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office. The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. (Applause.)

But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away. (Applause.)

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) It means we should support everyone who's willing to work, and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. (Applause.) Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year. (Applause.)

Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don't gut these investments in our budget. Don't let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.

And nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. (Applause.) Right now -- right now -- American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right -- eight years. Not only that -- last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. (Applause.)

But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. (Applause.) A strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. (Applause.) And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. (Applause.) Because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy. (Applause.) And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock - reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground. (Applause.)

Now, what's true for natural gas is just as true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it's hiring workers like Bryan, who said, "I'm proud to be working in the industry of the future."

Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas, shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. (Applause.) I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.

We've subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. (Applause.) It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs. (Applause.)

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven't acted. Well, tonight, I will. I'm directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history - with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year. (Applause.)

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here's a proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs. (Applause.)

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We've got crumbling roads and bridges; a power grid that wastes too much energy; an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. (Applause.)

There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren't the only ones who were hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who've seen their home values decline. And while government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

And that's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates. (Applause.) No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust. (Applause.)

Let's never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. (Applause.) Rules to prevent financial fraud or toxic dumping or faulty medical devices -- these don't destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.

There's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. (Applause.) I've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense. We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill -- because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. (Applause.) Absolutely. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. (Applause.) I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men. (Applause.)

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system's core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, or start a business, or send their kids to college.

So if you are a big bank or financial institution, you're no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. You're required to write out a "living will" that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail - because the rest of us are not bailing you out ever again. (Applause.) And if you're a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices -- those days are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them. (Applause.)

We'll also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people's investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there's no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That's bad for consumers, and it's bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I'm asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. (Applause.) This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.

Now, a return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. (Applause.) People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let's agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

When it comes to the deficit, we've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else - like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. (Applause.)

Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up. (Applause.) You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get a tax break I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference -- like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know that's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last. (Applause.)

Now, I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt, energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right about now: Nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?

I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad -- and it seems to get worse every year.

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let's take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow. (Applause.) Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa -- an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what's broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything - even routine business - passed through the Senate. (Applause.) Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. (Applause.) For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days. (Applause.)

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it's inefficient, outdated and remote. (Applause.) That's why I've asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy, so that our government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people. (Applause.)

Finally, none of this can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.

I'm a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. (Applause.) That's why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and states. That's why we're getting rid of regulations that don't work. That's why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.

On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.

The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there's nothing the United States of America can't achieve. (Applause.) That's the lesson we've learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.

Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America. (Applause.)

From this position of strength, we've begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America. (Applause.)

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana'a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qaddafi was one of the world's longest-serving dictators - a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change cannot be reversed, and that human dignity cannot be denied. (Applause.)

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it's ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings - men and women; Christians, Muslims and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.

And we will safeguard America's own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)

But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our ironclad commitment -- and I mean ironclad -- to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. (Applause.)

We've made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease; from the blows we've dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about. (Applause.)

That's not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us. That's not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin, from Cape Town to Rio, where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years. Yes, the world is changing. No, we can't control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs - and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way. (Applause.)

That's why, working with our military leaders, I've proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I've already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber-threats. (Applause.)

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. (Applause.) As they come home, we must serve them as well as they've served us. That includes giving them the care and the benefits they have earned - which is why we've increased annual VA spending every year I've been President. (Applause.) And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our nation.

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we're providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I'm proposing a Veterans Jobs Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her. (Applause.)

Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white; Asian, Latino, Native American; conservative, liberal; rich, poor; gay, straight. When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates -- a man who was George Bush's defense secretary -- and Hillary Clinton -- a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job -- the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other -- because you can't charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there's somebody behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Our Reflection

In a time of financial crisis like this, the President made the case for closing the loop holes in our tax code. Republican Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney may soon find himself in even deeper trouble than overcoming Republican aspirant Newt Gingrich, if Congress accepts the notion that all money that comes into your coffers are earned income, whether from providing services or investments portfolios. The US Justice Department may have to seek more information, why an American Investor maintains bank accounts in Switzerland and Cayman Island or anywhere else, while nursing the ambition of becoming the President of this country.

It is very revealing to know that Republican candidate Mitt Romney only closed his off-shore account in Switzerland in 2008. Was this out of a gesture to the Federal Government initiative to make Americans pay their due taxes? Was this out of loyalty or an underlying urge to set a background for his run for the Office of the Presidency in 2012? Candidate Newt Gingrich demanded that Candidate Mitt Romney release his tax papers about two weeks ago. Mitt Romney initially bulked; however, the pressure of the primary results in South Carolina probably forced him to do the right thing. The questions that continue to arise in our minds are: How many Americans are out there dodging or attempting to dodge American Taxes, or take advantage of the loop holes in the US Tax Codes by opening up foreign accounts? How much revenue is being lost by US Treasury from this practice? Do these rich Americans consider this practice a wrongdoing?

In a world, where the Security and Exchange Commission, wiped the slate clean for life-time criminal corporations with repeated infractions, what is wrong in the President advancing that members of congress do not continue to take advantage of insider information in amassing wealth at the expense of the nation and treasury. In a time when the Security and Exchange Commission treats Wall Street criminals, who have nearly brought the whole world's economy to a grinding halt, as bosom friends, what is wrong in advancing the notion that there is deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street? What exactly should we expect when watch dog agency like the Security Exchange Commission is suspected of systematically destroying records of preliminary investigations of bad conduct on Wall Street that continue to destroy America's Economy while enriching the few one-per-centers? How do we ensure that everyone is paying their fair share of taxes when staffers of watchdog agencies are being directed by their bosses to dispose of documents that can show how fraud was committed during the mortgage debacle that nearly brought America's economy into complete destruction. There just need to be a place for accountability if we are to dig ourselves out of this rot we have found ourselves because so many people, institutions, state and federal regulatory agencies, have continued to look away while atrocities are being committed by rich investors and Wall Street gurus. Do we have to wait longer until these greedy investors cart the whole house away?

The President made a case for a smarter and efficient government. This is hardly new. However, the unique tying of this proposal to government spending on infrastructure gets to the core of stimulus spending. Was the federal stimulus spending of the past three years effective and efficient? Did it create jobs and save the nation money? Did it create avenue for the government to get Americans back to work and hence, paying taxes once again? Can we have smarter and efficient government by spending our way out of a recession? These are important questions and ones to be asked in the debate of the upcoming general elections? For now, for whatever reason, not-enough-stimulus investment, misdirected stimulus spending, or inefficient management of stimulus funds releases, there are causes to suspect that we have not been able to truly capitalize on federal stimulus investment to create enough jobs for many Americans out of work.

Was the President pushing the boundaries of political jujitsu and general anticipation of debate questions over his management of the economy in the past few years? You know, the President may be attempting to leverage the chances of questions regarding the under performance or sluggish economy in the upcoming general debate? Thus, for some, he is actually setting a stage for his reelection campaign with this speech and proposal. Many Neoclassical economists probably side with the President that during recession, government spending ultimately has to replace lost private consumption or spending to stimulate economic recovery; however, Monetarists will argue otherwise. What is probably iffy though is this: we can hardly achieve efficiency in stimulus spending when the economy is in a slump or tail spin and the government is hardly attempting to effectively monitor fully, if the size of spending is adding to the nation's deficit, disproportionately.

The Sharks in the Republican Party are probably circling around the speech, attempting to pin holes in some of the touted achievements of the Obama Presidency. However, can they really pin a hole in the fact that Obama got Osama, while Republicans were unable, after nearly spending the nation to penury? This is not a made up fact, Obama has the best foreign policy successes of our time; some to be envied by many past Republican Administrations. Imagine, clearing out the 'big kahunas' of the Al Qeida group; taking out or replacing some dictators in the Middle East; and ending the Iraq war! Just about the time he was giving this speech, his Navy seals were rescuing another American and Danish hostage from pirate marauders in Somali. Obama is King at keeping the fire under the feet of the enemies of progress no matter where they are across the globe.

According to Republicans, the monster in the President's speech is the tone that the Federal Government can and will do everything for everyone; noting that the President is seeking to finance this huge aspiration by taxing those rich Americans currently paying less than 15% taxation on their investment earnings. This include the aspirant Mitt Romney and many who are now called the one-per-center by the Occupy Wall Street Group. In the middle of the speech, the President classifies himself as part of those that need to be taxed to provide for those lacking and mostly in the middle-income group! Democrats insist also that this proposal is not a class war, rather, it is an attempt to make America's Tax Regime fairer and balanced. The populist case or theology of taxation advanced by President Obama are long overdue. Some taxpayers claim to have subsidized the wealth of many in the one-per-center group; and thus, it is time for this group to support the nation in a time of financial stress. A theology that many Democrats are saying: AMEN!

President Obama's State of the Union speech calls for funding of education and training for many more Americans; a proposal that has been christened as a home-run by education advocates. To some great extent this is very true. Many states have seen decline in educational funding and high school graduation rate. For example, in my home state of Washington, the governor is proposing to cut higher education funding by 50% this budget year. This is very disheartening and the the President's proposal is heartening, as it sorts to demonstrate how important increased educational investment is essential to manpower development and economic growth. We need to put people back to work, we need to train workers of the future; but more importantly, we need at least a workforce with a minimum of high school diploma. We need better educational and training opportunities for many of our citizens. This is why this proposal is the jewel of this speech. President Obama makes a case for a well educated work force that can stand the huge competition from advancing and developing nations of Asia!

It goes without saying that an advancement calling that we give tax breaks to manufacturers making products within our shores or those willing to relocate to economically depressed areas within the states, is in order in the dynamics of the economy. In fact, tax reforms that could make a change in manufacturers' and corporations' behaviors are long overdue. Lawmakers and political campaign expediencies make this proposal imperative. Some Democrats and Republicans have indicated that faulting this proposal will be tantamount to being unpatriotic. For a host of reasons, it is about time the administration start rewarding those businesses that create jobs in America, considering what we have been through recently in this nation. So, the proposal to give a tax break to committed corporations to our economy and jobs creation, must be applauded.

It is also fitting to hear the President say that many Americans differ in their perception of issues of taxation, health care, energy safety, education and much more. No one can disagree with this assertion, because there are so many issues with these items that continue to be burdensome for our lawmakers in congress. However we cannot continue to enable our policymakers to obscure the importance of some of these items if we seek advancement in our nation's economy and health. We cannot continue to enable our government to cut education and expect advancement in the information highway or the Internet as it is known by some. The nation's disgust with congressional performance emanate from how congress has handled many of these items. Sadly, the extreme right continues to hold Congressional Republicans ransom; and, this has made it difficult to achieve much at this time. Unless the far right, especially the Tea Party yield, we might as well forget making any progress on these items before the November, 2012 elections!

Conservative Purification of Federal Employees: the satire in Candidate Gingrich’s ideological war on Americans!

2012-01-15T23:39:00.000-08:00

Keywords or Terms:Conservatives, Liberals; ‘Revamp and Standardize’; Republican Aspirant; FederalEmployees; Federal Retirees; Office of Personnel Management; “President Gingrich”; January, 2013; FOX NEWS; Reverend Mike Huckabee; Dictator; Committeeof Conservative Republicans; and Conservative-Values Board of Assessment for FederalEmployees”

Candidate Gingrichwants to ‘revamp and standardize’ public policy on employment according to theepistle of the new right conservative messiah. To purify the nonsensicalliberal leanings of federal employees or to ensure that federal employees arenot, and do not, turn 'lefties' or share liberal views, let's terminate anysuspected federal employees of this unacceptable crime! Here comes the McCarthyera all over again: “By all means possible, let’s drop the lefties under thebus, whether illegal or not!” To ensure federal employees are qualified and agood fit for the touted conservative values shared by candidate Newt Gingrich,let’s screen them for their personal views. Let’s schedule their appointment,retention, advancement or termination not for their ability to perform theduties as contained in their job’s description, but for their individual andpersonal views.

Former Speaker ofthe United State’s House of Representatives wantsto fire public employees based on personal views. Given the choice, NewtGingrich, one of the Republican aspirants for the November 8, 2012 Presidentialcontest, wants to terminate public employees with liberal views. As if playingto the fancy of conservative wing of the Republican party and viewers ofReverend Mike Huckabee program on FOXNEWS, Speaker Gingrich says: “I think anintelligent conservative wants the right federal employees delivering the rightservices in a highly efficient way and then wants to get rid of those folks whoare in fact wasteful, or those people who want to frankly dictate to the restof us,” Gingrich said in response to a question from a federal employee at theforum.” According to the great and probably most adulterous Republicancandidate to ever run this decade, with lackluster performances in the IowaCaucuses and New Hampshire Primary, who is trying to woo the conservativeRepublican voters in South Carolina,any Federal Employee with ideological left leaning, should be shown the door.

Inferring from hispronouncement, Gingrich wants Office of Personnel Management, directors,mangers and supervisors to check for the liberal views of their staff based ona conservative barometer that determines who is essentially conservative enoughto work for the federal government. The new conservative barometer to beinitiated by “President Newt Gingrich” would standardize the evaluation andretention of federal employees based on a conservative calibrator! A calibratorcrafted by the Republican conservatives for the rest of us; and, if we don’tmeet up to who is conservative enough, show us the door from federal employmentservice. The self-identified conservative, but not so favored Republicanaspirant for nomination for the 2012 November contest, will like to eliminateall liberal views and values in any federal government agency and re-affirm thechastity of being conservative!

Reverend MikeHuckabee gave Newt Gingrich enough time to represent himself on his show onSaturday; and, did he truly offer some insightful comments that will startleany employment lawyer or make a Judge on the Federal or state court circuits orbench go comatose. “President Gingrich” wants office of personnel management toparticipate in personnel actions against employees, contrary to the currentprovisions of employment laws, never to advance or terminate employees based onrace, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition,marital status, or political affiliation. “President Gingrich” wants to hireand fire federal employees, use a webcam to check and score federal employeesfor their conservative or non-conservative (liberal) views – that’s the new America to lookforward to in January, 2013.

To overcome themessy experience of firing the Air Controllers under President Reagan, “PresidentGingrich” wants to second guess or get ahead of the Federal Employees, byensuring that they are conservative enough to occupy a federal post, from themail room guy to the Secretary of the Agency! “President Gingrich” wants aplatform for interviewing prospective federal employees using the conservativephilosophical ideology in lieu of existing legal employment framework and laws.The Office of Personnel Management has to fill future positions in federalemployment based on the conservative values of the Republican Party andprescription of the new “President Gingrich” come January 2013.

In the opinion ofthe 67 year-old former speaker of the House, employment, retention andpromotion of Federal Employees have not been essentially conservative enough;he would like to try a process that ensures that employees that seem to beliberal leaning in their thinking or writing, can easily be terminated withoutdue process. For the soon to be “President Gingrich”, the fact that we havesome liberal federal employees, is too disheartening and unacceptable. Giventhe forthcoming change, the soon to be enthroned “President Gingrich” willestablish a committee of conservative Republicans to conduct periodic oversightover all Federal Agencies regarding how conservative enough they are; or, towhat degree they deviate from conservative values as prescribed by him and hiscohorts; majority of whom may be Tea Party members.

“PresidentGingrich” wants to encourage hiring and firing of federal employees based onthe prescription of Tea baggers! Since liberal leaning federal employees seemto be obstructionists on the job, it is better to implement this new order ofbusiness, where all federal employees will swear to an oath to uphold theconservative doctrine of ‘hear no evil, see no evil or say no evil’ of anyemployees or policies that are in proper conservative status as determined bythe Republican “President Gingrich”. If a liberal leaning employee isidentified after employment into federal service, it is the duty of othervetted and ascertained conservatives in federal employment to expose thisemployee as not being conservative enough at all cost. To improve theemployment process into federal service, “President Gingrich” wants tointerview prospective employees into federal service based onconservative-friendly questionnaires that are to be prescribed and implementedin secrecy; or, with content firmly entrenched in conservative values; andnewly employed federal employees “determined” as conservative enough to retaintheir various positions based on their hierarchical position on the ladder ofconservativeness.

Exploring conservativeness,through the use of kitchen-cabinet questionnaires prescribed by the newlyinaugurated “President Gingrich”, is not only in order; it is the sin-qua-nonof any recruitment into federal service come January 2013. A termination lettermust be issued to existing federal employees who fail to measure up to theconservative threshold duly identified and prescribed by “President Gingrich”and his cabinet. Generally, all entry-level federal employees must gather inthe ‘hall of conservativeness’ in all federal agencies to receive training,conferences or workshop on the first day of employment, on the expectedconservative values of federal employment. All federal employees will beexpected to receive guidelines on adherence to conservative values. Insituations, where the mid-career federal employees are found to be slacking-offon conservative values, they must be interviewed, re-trained and intermittentlymonitored by the soon to be newly established “Conservative-Values Board ofAssessment for Federal Employees” under the conservative icon, “PresidentGingrich”!

In daily round ofconservative pep-talk to be given-out on a roaster of morning assemblies’ atall federal agencies, federal employees are expected to imbibe the newlyintroduced ethos of conservativeness as espoused by “President Gingrich”. Alltruly identified and ascertained conservative federal employees are superior toall others. They must lead the conservative training workshops on how to beconservative enough; and, offer opportunities to show their dedicationregarding advancements and promotions on federal employment. As part of thefederal agencies' advancement credo, all federal employees are expected todiscuss conservative thoughts and offer reactions suitable for maintaining theconservative ethos as prescribed by “President Gingrich.” Regional Directors ofFederal Agencies are compelled to use a weekly camera session to link and bringall federal employees in their domain, to ensure that that ethos ofconservativeness are alive and thriving under “President Gingrich”!

When working withfederal employees suspicious of having left leaning and liberal values, theessence of conservativeness must be espoused and reiterated by the most highlyconservative staff in the department. For example, all liberal judges, who aresuspected of attempting to re-write federal laws through their rulings; and,who are out of line with conservatively-accepted values of his royal highness,the doyen of conservative values, “President Gingrich”, will bereplaced. Just as a liberal Judge can and must be replaced under the newlyintroduced conservative-enough barometers, efforts must be made to terminatejudges on the federal bench, who may be suspected of promoting liberal valuesin their rulings or judgments. It is hoped that through the new dispensationunder “President Gingrich” many federal employees and Americans will becomemore conservative.

Former federalemployees, who have retired with full-benefits, who were suspected to have beenliberal or held lefties-views, must be informed through the federal gazettethat their meritorious services were lacking of conservativeness; and, as suchwill be ducked in their retirement payments for lacking the quality of a welldeserved retirement benefits for former federal officials with the dulyacceptable conservative values. The conservative federal officials will compilethe list of less conservative former federal employees and the right-wing mediawill read-off their names on daily bulletin immediately after the inaugurationof “President Gingrich”.

N.B:

For those federalemployees and retirees, who are alarmed by the new pronouncement of the formerspeaker on Saturday, and future “Dictator President Gingrich”, never worry;don’t be alarmed, Newt has the slightest and probably the least likely prospectto get through Floridaprimary. In short, he has a zero chance of being the Republican nominee comesNovember, 2012. Finally, this nightmare of a politician and Republicancandidate is a star gazer, who is just holding on to the thread of survival ina very brutal nomination process for the Republican flag-bearer for the 2012general elections.

Venture Capitalist or Vulture Capitalist: What category does Bain Capital fall into?

2012-01-13T23:54:00.000-08:00

Keywords or terms: Venture Capitalism; Vulture Capitalist; Bain Capital; Mitt Romney; Rick Perry; Job loss; Unemployment line; DDi Corporation; Heartless and Brutal Candidate; Unfounded job's creation number; Private Equity Firm; Financial Regulations Exploitation

In the current Republication nomination race for theNovember 2012 contest, we are in confusion at best. Many Republican voters arepaying attention to what the candidates are saying, how they say it, who issaying what, where it is being said, and which of the candidates we cannotafford to ignore. Remember Rick Perry? The candidate that cannot remember allthe three federal agencies he is going to eradicate if he ever became thePresident of the United States? Yes, that Governor from the lonestar state introduced two lexicons to the vocabulary of political gurus whohave been tracking what the candidates are saying. This time, the lexicons areVenture Capitalism or Vulture Capitalism. These lexicons would have been amouthful for a Democrat; but here again, the Republicans are doing the dirtyjob for us. Bravo!

It is the difference between the two differential lexiconsused to describe the front runner for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney,which continues to bemuse many of us: Is the governor of the lone star statedescribing his opponent as a vulture? Wow, One ready to dismember companies,turn a huge load of employees to the Unemployment line, make a quick profit andmove on to the next? Is the governor of the lone star state cautioning thevoters that Mitt Romney is in the business of destroying jobs and not creatingany? What about that branding of: I am the job creator and President Obama iskilling jobs? Is that brand tainted? Is that brand completely worthless by now?What must Republican voters be thinking at this time: Are we about to nominatea cold hearted, probable heartless and brutal candidate, who enjoys firing workers to represent us in the coming November contest? Are we about to open theoval office to a man that drove miles with his family dog on the roof of a car,to suffer the pains and pangs of the adversities of weather? Are Republicans sodesperate to the extent that they will choose a candidate that would ratherlook out for his pocket and his venture capitalist partners than the largerinterest of the nation’s workforce?

I once talked with a CEO of a private equity firm and all hesays he is in the business of, is: how to hunt down another failing or about tofail firm, restructure it or pay someone to restructure it; and if impossible,tear the damn thing down and sell it in pieces. He talks about the essence ofmaking companies work efficiently and if they don’t, so be it; we’ll take our money andhead out to the next company. “Our job is not solely to make all companies turn outprofit to their investors or employees; rather, it is to satisfy our interestto make a quick one, even at the expense of employees.” The business demandsdedicated CEO’s with a pennant for turning companies around, off-loadingworkforce where and when necessary; and, occasionally, if expedient, to lookout for making more or the hugest returns or profit for the private equityfirm. This is probably what many Americans may find despicable, as theydetermine that these venture capitalist firms are hardly interested in thetotal package except for one thing: Making a quick buck under high pressure,and where possible, which is often, blasting off with millions into their bank accounts, withoutcaring whose loin is being gutted.

It isn’t the successes of capitalism that many observers areagainst or frown on; rather, it is the brutal consequences of these equityfirms practices as they go about marauding firms, destroying lives byterminating companies’ employees and damaging the communities they leavebehind. It isn’t the huge profits that the equity firms enjoy that the publicdenounce; or the expansive nature of the unusual restructuring once an equityfirm takes over a company’s management; rather, it is how cold hardheartedly eachof these marauding equity firms damage our communities, our states and our beloved America.There is nothing wrong in making an inefficient firm work better.Unfortunately, there is a lot to loose, when the private equity firm fails tohave the patience to understand what exactly are the problems leading to a company'sinefficiency; and making effort to resolve them and or getting the troubled firmback on its feet. The private equity firms are torch and go, and this isprobably what Governor Rick Perry and many fair minded people find unacceptablein the way, an equity firm once led by Mitt Romney, go about its business. ToGovernor Perry and other Republican contestants: Romney and his ilk are hardlyVenture Capitalist, but Vulture Capitalist! This depiction is damning to saythe least; however, it may be irrelevant regarding Republican voters' choice of acandidate to represent their interest in the November, 2012 contest.

At this time in the race, Governor Romney has described hiscritical opponents, as frustrated and offering their criticisms out ofdesperation. Romney's assessment may have some credence; however, the opponents' criticisms are notwithout merit. How can Governor Romney explain away how he still retains over1.3 million shares of DDi Corporation, a corporation that was restructured by BainCapital, decade after he was away from Bain’s management? Romney has been calculatedto have netted millions from DDi restructuring and massive employees layoff, evenyears after he had left the management of Bain Capital? Has Romney reflected overhow many jobs were lost, lives destroyed and wealth amassed in his multiple acquisitions,management and demises of many American corporations? Will Governor Romney agreethat he did not create 100,000 jobs as recently claimed after being exposed that he once said he created 10,000 jobs in an earlier campaign run forSenate against Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts?The more the governor continues to make inconsistent statements or statementsthat look more like falsification of record, the more people find him as incredibleand a flip flopper! This type behavior does not auger well for any candidate seeking the highest office in the land.

Will the evidence of slash and burn practices engagedby Romney and Bain Capital absolve him of thriving at the expense of theworking class? Can a leader who has been associated with ruthless business practicesworthy of the office of the Presidency? Can Romney’s devious, untruthful, two-faced behavior and practicesbe triggered off when elected into the office of the Presidency? What does thefuture hold for American workers, if their elected President chooses topractice the profit first and people last doctrine that has netted him and hiscohorts millions at the expenses of workers? Can Governor Romney get before acrowd of Mormons and or all Americans and testify that he has not assuage the rights of employees inmany of the companies he has been involved in restructuring? Even worse, canthe Governor attest that he has not done one of the current contestants for theRepublican nomination wrong in Iowa through his PAC advertisements? These areunavoidable questions that need answers from the potential Republican nominee andflag bearer in the November 2012 contest for the White House's oval office.

In campaign politics, voters expect high integrity of thecandidate seeking their support. Voters expect that candidates do not embellish their past records ofclaims. Further, voters frown over candidate's claims that weaken theircredibility; or, position the candidate in poor light towards the contest. In addition, whether voters increase their financial contributions or not to a candidate's campaign chest, depends on how credibly they perceive the candidate's message. It is perhaps feasible, that once voters notice that a candidate is untruthful, has credibility issues, they begin to shy away from him or her and instantly withhold further monetary contributions. When you are in a campaignmode, everything a candidate says must not be found in a gossip fodder. Many of the claimsmade by Romney and many of the candidates on the Republican campaign trail arebeing vetted by some independent organizations who are now serving as the people's watchdog. A few of the vetting organizations haveeven introduced credibility index measure that makes some of the candidate’sclaim laughable. Candidates must realize that voters will hardly offer theirsupport or money, when words coming out of the candidate’s mouth are hardlysubstantiated and or, looks more like embellishments.

Many voters hardly put stock in a politician seeking officewith incredible and devious claims. When devious records or unsubstantialclaims are flagged, candidate had better correct the records or they becomelaughing stock to the voters and public. For example, a candidate that is part of areligion that castigates the black race as evil cast of Cain, who hold firm tothis belief and broadcasted the same in France and any other places he wasengaged in missionary work for his religion, lacks the upper moral grounds toclaim that he is a changed person and hardly subscribes to this religious bigotry.A candidate must avoid operating in a vacuum or assume that he can easily paperover his past, simply because he is a front runner. For Governor Romney toclaim that his Mormon religion hardly has a bearing on his way of life orhow he directs the affairs of his political office seems somehow unreal, especially when people are circumspect regarding what his religion is all about? To be truly upfront with the voters,a candidate must endeavor to make clear his stand, even on issues of corporatecorruption and immigration. Candidate Obama gave a speech regarding the views of his past pastor while he was seeking the office of the Presidency in 2008; and, did not shy away from voters' reservation regarding the issues of race relation in America. Romney may want to borrow a leaf from candidate Obama on this one; and, some other issues regarding his candidacy, even within his political party.

Making inconsistent or incorrect statements that make the candidateseem like a fair-weather friend or a flip flopper, hardly portrays the candidateas honest, dependent and reliable in the position of political authority. Many observerssuspect that Mitt Romney has taken time to probe all the skeletons in his cupboardregarding his claims or assertions regarding his candidacy for the office ofthe President. It is not enough to be a Republican Party front runner; or,touted as most likely to beat President Obama come November 2012 contest forthe White House? A promising candidate’s past endeavors or engagement in theposition of authority may be frowned upon; especially, when they are perceived tobe on the wrong side of the welfare of ordinary people. No one wants aheartless and in-compassionate leader in the oval office. There are zillion ofcandidates who want to occupy the office of the Presidency; however, very fewof them can qualify based on past or previous leadership activities and or experience. It is notthat voters, especially Republicans, cannot appreciate previous efforts by Romney to turn around failingcompanies or the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City; it is the fact that there are otherleadership and religious issues that continue to dog his candidacy, especiallywhen and where he offers dubious explanations like corporations are people andhe enjoys firing people?

For whatever reasons, many Republicans are still attuned toanother candidate but Mitt Romney. If the Governor is very logical andobjective, he must ask himself, why are his party's members not completely or trulyembracing his candidacy? Why has his candidacy not muster a threshold of support of more than thirty percent or so, among Republicans? Why are conservative Christian groups considering his candidacy as a sham as his religion is suspected to be a cult? Answers to these questions, will enable him re-write orburnish the script for his candidature. For now, being a venture capitalist atBain Capital may not be working for him, based on what is being reported as his activities andexperience as the CEO of that equity firm. He may choose to ignore the current criticismsregarding his stewardship at Bain Capital; however, in a national contest, hecan be rest assured that more information regarding his behavior, personality andreligion would be dogged out by the Democrats; and, more questions asked of the wonder boy of Vulture Capitalism; oh, excuse me, Venture Capitalism!

Iowa Caucuses Results: Romney isn’t better than Santorum?

2012-01-03T23:58:00.000-08:00

Keywords or Terms: MittRomney (First); Rick Santorum (Second); Ron Paul (Third); Newt Gingrich (Forth),Rick Perry (Fifth); Michelle Bachmann (Sixth); Huntsman (Seventh); SocialIssue; Born-Again Evangelical Christians; Mormonism; Iowa; New Hampshire; SouthCarolina; Florida

For more than four years, Mitt Romney campaigned for theoffice of the Presidency, yet he came just slightly ahead of Rick Santorum asone of the Republicans seeking that highest office in the land. Theconversation today could have focused on the performance of a unique candidate inthe Iowa Republican primary and a documentation of hard data, but the time is notyet ripe to talk about that. What is upper most at this time,is to reiterate some questions again: Is Santorum the counter weight to Romney? WillRick Santorum draw Romney into a Social debate on Abortion and other respectiveissues that Santorum has made part of the basis of his candidacy? Is Santorumthe answer from the Born-Again Evangelical Christians to Mormon Mitt Romney? Theanswers to these questions may be provided in the coming months; but what weknow from Iowa Caucuses is that the Republican flag bearer is hardly settled at this time.

It seemed it was a virtual tie for a long time between RickSantorum and Mitt Romney on primary results across Iowa;however, late data has shown that a rematch in New Hampshire Primary may help Republicansget their bearing better than Iowa.And if not, maybe the primary results from South Carolina or Florida primaries will shed more light on which of theRepublican aspirants will get to carry the Republican flag. With 99% Iowa precincts reporting,here is the break down of the result: Rick Santorum (30, 007 – 25%); Mitt Romney (30,015 – 25%); Ron Paul (26,219– 21%); Newt Gingrich (16,251 – 13%); Rick Perry (12.592 -10%); MichelleBachmann (6070 – 5%); and Huntsman ( 744 – 1%). Although Santorum may be at a disadvantage in going on because of the size of his campaign war chest, it is likely this result is a positive sign for Republicans who seek an alternative to Mitt Romney. What may the result mean for others who could hardly care about Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum?

The first message from the Iowa caucuses is that mainstream Republicans in the heartland of America arestill looking for that ideal candidate that will replace Mitt Romney. Second,the Born-Again Evangelical Christians find it difficult to vote for Mormon MittRomney. Is religion a very important variable in American Politics; or, has thenation actually buried that bias with JFK? Are Social issues more or less relevant inmodern day Republican nomination process? Is there really a paucity of Reaganomics Republicanswho can take the mantle to fight for the so touted Republican ideals? Thecomplex problem surrounding the economy is number one for many Americans;however, does a campaign strictly based on the question of job creation or social issues translate into votes against President Obama? Can Rick Santorum put together grassrootssupport in South Carolina and Florida to flush downMitt Romney? Will another candidate from the old conservative wing of the Republican Party rise to throw a huge wrench into the puzzle?

We have seen in the past when an obscure candidate in States' primaries, jump in front out of nowhere, challenging the status-quo or probably the front-runnercandidate, the process of nomination becomes more fascinating and the public may enter into a state of despair over who is likely to be the flag bearer. Iowa’s Republicans answered some rather muddy questionsand some of them are: 1) Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann are not ready forprime time Presidential campaign and nomination process; 2) Mud slinging campaigntactics can bring out a tough meanness in a presidential aspirant – ask Newtwhat he thinks about Mitt after the Iowa caucuses?; 3) Ron Paul is a little bittoo extreme for many Republicans, if not the whole of America; 5) RickSantorum re-asserts the conviction that retail politics, face-to-face campaigns,down to the door steps of the voters do produce essential results – though timeand labor intensive, retail politics is the real deal! Come tomorrow, we may get some candidates dropping out of the nomination process, while others will choose to move ahead. Today's result emphatically shows that the process of nomination for the highest office as construed by Iowans, works

Within the next few months, blood-letting among the Republicanaspirants will offer the Democrats the opportunity to see how voters perceiveeither Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum as viable candidate for the highest office in the land?Republicans are being told that the old rules hardly apply anymore. Where the winning candidatesare not exactly what the hard core Godfathers of the party are looking for, change or hiccups may develop in the nomination process; and, this may spell other challenges for the party and insiders regarding who becomes the party's flag bearer in a generalelection? Six months from now, the myth may explode, but until then, we are allleft with the realities of what the Iowaprimary has or are forcing the Godfathers in the Republican Party to deal with? The results from the Iowa caucuses may be cuddled by some very hard coresupporters of Mitt Romney; however, there is a huge faction of Republicans whodon’t want Mitt Romney to be the nominee and who will insist that an alternative candidate steps in to deal with what seem to be an impending nightmare. By October 2012, the difficult experience of ascertaining what Iowa's true result actually means will have been settled and the battle for the oval office begin. Hopefully, Republicans will have their somewhat consensus party flag bearer, by then.

Democrats need to understand that the Iowa caucuses results are actually good news.Here are Republicans quite unsure if they actually want their front runner ornot; or, whether they would rather wait for results from other State’sprimaries or caucuses to stand firm on their party’s flag bearer. If Republicanswant to generate good favor, they may as well go along with whoever of the candidatesthat seem to be garnering the necessary fellowship to be the flag bearer; or assome put it: “the likely Republican candidate that can unseat President Obama.”Intra-party acrimony will do the Republicans no good after the bad bloodbetween Mitt and Newt from the way the former ran his campaign in Iowa; or, how the Mitt Romney’sor Ron Paul’s PAC ran the mudslinging bonanza that probably skewed the resulttowards specific candidates.

Democrats must set up a triage to determine who is going tobe the Republican flag bearer. Democrats must take from the lesson of CandidateObama’s 2008 nomination as the flag bearer for their party. If Democrats want toinfer from the Republican’s Iowa’s caucuses result, the choice of the party’s Godfathers may not end up being the flag bearer for the Party in the generalelection. Further, the front runner in any primary is beatable by otheraspirants; and, the fact that a presumptive candidate may loose or given the run for his or her money, is not only plausible, it must be expected. To develop a strategy that will address the not soperfect state caucus results from Iowa, where the first or winning candidateonly led the second candidate by 8 votes, will be challenging but will beinteresting for all political gurus. Everyday henceforth, Democrats must now believe that they have a better chance than yesterday, as the winning and plausible Republican nominees are known to have said things like, Corporations are also people and Obama always sided with America's enemies? Haba, A treasonable President, Mr. Santorum?

Obama’s campaign team do not need to develop a campaign strategythat counters Mitt Romney argument for his candidacy for the office; rather, a broadbased campaign strategy that anticipates another candidate like Rick Santorum orany other Republican. The answer to the question who is President Obama likely toface from the Republican Party maybe challenging for now; however, in anotherthree months we will get a clearer view of what is coming before us. Stateprimaries or caucus may not provide quick answer to the question of who islikely to be the opposition candidate. Voters at primaries or caucuses tend tojunk or embrace a candidate depending on what ensues from debates and subsequent state’s primary results. No candidate must rest onhis oars, as the battle for Party’s nomination hardly emerges, until the fatlady sings; in other words, as Yogi said: It is not over until it is over!Goodnight.