HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA: Are the Rich Republicans clamouring to undermine this democracy again?

Keywords or Terms: America’s Independence Celebration; 236^th Year Happy Birthday; Uncle Sam; President Obama; President Lincoln; Gettysburg Address; Rupert Murdoch; Jack Welch, Governor Mitt Romney; Race for the White House

In case you haven’t heard, America is two hundred and thirty six today! There are those who still argue that the appropriate celebration should have been July 2^nd; however, all of us are excited for Uncle Sam as he blows his 236^th Candle, while we all celebrate from sea to shinning sea. If there is anything that the nearly two hundred and fortieth year of this democracy has taught us, is that there is always going to be an economic boom followed by a depression or subsequent recession before there comes a recovery and a boom. It isn’t that this experience is painstaking for millions who suffer during a down turn in the economy; rather, it is the fact that many political aspirants who have sought to sit over Uncle Sam’s throne, or presented themselves as the messiah during our recessions or depressions, have exploited the dynamics in government, businesses and consumers.

The associated crisis during our down turns has often presented an opportunity for political aspirants to present the voters with misinformation in form of campaign advertisements in order to gain support for their ambition(s). The booms and bursts dynamics of our economy are often intricate and many long standing politicians believe the voters are ignorant of these dynamics. Attempt to misrepresent the facts surrounding our alternating recessions and booms, is so appealing to many of these politicians, that each begins to believe many of the lies in their campaign advertisements. For example, Governor Romney’s campaign does not have a winning strategy; yet it is all about denying health insurance to millions of Americans and protecting the health care freeloaders. His campaign is about protecting the wealthy at the expense of millions; it is about fanning obstructionism to all progressive ideas and initiatives. Republicans will like to assume that voters are gullible and will accept whatever is put forth by their party. The gory strategy of the Republicans is: once you can tell the lies as often as you can, the voters will start to believe them as TRUTH! If one challenges Republicans as being devious, tendency is for them to be dismissive; often indicating that the voter or public hardly understands what the problem is.

But, it isn’t the denials from the politicians that is often annoying; it is the fact that these lies are bolstered by many in private businesses who have taken advantage of many loop-holes in the present arrangement in government, businesses and consumers; especially, our taxation codes. Two days ago, it was reported that two business moguls, Rupert Murdoch and Jack Welch, supporters of Mitt Romney’s candidacy for the White House, are clamoring for the presumptive Republican nominee to dump his campaign staff. Their twittering preconception is that unless Mitt Romney does this, the current status-quo of the Presidential campaign puts the Republican nominee at a disadvantage to the present occupant of the White House's oval office. 

There are probably million of reasons why these industry titans want Mitt Romney to change his campaign organization; however, what is apparent to many American voters is that: these two moguls are known for very many deceptive practices in whatever industry they have led, in order to get ahead. For example, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has been caught in many devious practices in business and government, including bribing government officials in Britain and probably, Australia. There are credible information to show that Murdoch’s investments are not often in the interest of his adopted nation or investment heaven. A dossier of events surrounding the British phone scandals that nearly brought the current Prime Minister of Britain down is just one example of how devious one of these Romney’s supporter has been. How about John Welsh? Well, probably not as devious as Rupert Murdoch; however, if we begin to ask genuine questions, not clown questions, regarding his governance of General Electric and or other corporations he is serving on the Board, one will surely find some reasons to believe that his intentions are not completely in the interest of the nation's taxation code.

Rather than being deluded with the support of Rupert Murdoch and John Walsh for Mitt Romney’s campaign for the White House, all voters must ask the great question: what do these multinational corporation moguls stand to gain, if Mitt Romney ever wins the fall elections? The American economy is on a life support; the European Economy is hostage to many defaulting or about to default European Countries; and, the choices open for the rest of the world’s economy, except for the Asian’s giants, is probably limited unless America’s economy heals; and, heals quickly! There is the notion that when America’s Economy gets a cold; the rest of the world’s economies get pneumonia. There is hardly any fantasy, those huge investors, Rupert Murdock, John Welsh, Woody Johnson (New York Jets Owner) and Randy Falco (CEO Univision), are holding a back door meeting, or will be holding future back door meetings, that are hardly in the interest of all Americans. This land is our land, the poor and the rich; attempt therefore to make decisions regarding its organization or re-organization of government, businesses and consumers, must be made by us all. There is no room for another monopoly of our government by a few ruthless capitalists; whose only ambition is to amass wealth, often at the expense of the rest of us.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of the rich and powerful have become nervous; they have become uncomfortable regarding this ruling; and, many of their Republican legislative stewards in congress, have vowed and re-affirm their conviction to repeal the health care reform law. Is there any reason for this? This is a law that is acclaimed to add about thirty million Americans to the health insurance roll. Is there anything wrong with having health insurance for the poor and under privileged? This point was brought home to me when I read that, elks like the Rupert Murdoch and John Walsh are seeking to get the presumptive Republican Nominee, Mitt Romney, to dump his campaign team. 


Is there something to it, why these moguls are interested in Romney junking his campaign troops? Does the assertion by Romney’s Press secretary insisting that the candidate has confidence in his campaign team mean anything? Well, there is hardly a smoke without fire! These huge capitalists may be worried about the surge in polls of the recent occupant of the White House. They may be worried about what plans they have in store for America that the voters may find out sooner than later. American voters must be concerned about their economic freedom, their liberties and their privacy. American voters must be worried that with low citizen participation in the organization of this democracy, some rich few may hijack the essence of how this democracy is conceived to work by our forefathers. Whenever a few oligarchs get together to discuss how they would rather like a Presidential campaign to be organized or succumb to twittering about other possible options for their candidate to prevail, it is time for the average American to watch out!


That dream of our fore-fathers: we hold this true to be self-evident that all men are created equal; and the promise from President Obama that, if the nation can just hold tight for more time, that our economy will soon bounce back, may just be in jeopardy. There are already suspicions that the financial sector is full of all types and forms of collusion, information withholding and more, that are grinding the system and making the system function inefficiently; hence the under-performing economy. All these businesses are ran by men of huge financial wealth, who are deciding to come together to ensure their candidate of choice wins. If capitalistic oligarchs are more concerned about how another millionaire is arranging his campaign for the White House and casting aspersion on the administration of a President who puts the interest of the middle income earners and the poor, upfront in administrative agenda, then many Americans must be concerned about their economic and political freedom. The odds that the rich would be looking out for the poor, is fleeting; and, the trickle down economics concept being peddled by the presumptive Republican nominee is a rouse; and, will hardly work in the interest of many Americans.

The same economic predicament that the nation is in, were caused by back door collusion and dealings of the rich to give each other an edge and tax cuts which have ballooned our debts. It is not that Democrats are necessarily innocent of deficit spending while occupying the White House; however, they have taken care of more Americans during their administrations, than the Republicans. Huge spending on wars that leads to depressions and post-war traumatic experiences for our nation and many of our heroes, are not necessarily how we all want our taxes spent. With a few more months to the fall election, the rich are concerned about their candidate loosing the debate and campaign for the White House; they are worried that they would not be able to get the huge jumbo war jets, planes, ships, tankers, ammunition and war uniforms contracts, if President Obama remains in office. American voters must understand this; and appreciate what herculean force we are against and why we must continue to give support to the man who has our interest at heart, President Obama!

Calling an American President Socialist is nothing new! Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was called a socialist by Republicans while he fought to implement social welfare programs during the 1930's depression, including food stamps, unemployment insurance, early child care support, housing assistance and direct cash assistance, all programs that have kept millions of Americans away from poverty. Same goes for Lyndon B. Johnson in his quest to eliminate poverty and racial injustice under his Great Society initiative. The Medicare initiative under the Social Security Act of 1965 was termed a socialized medicine by the same Republicans. Today, Medicare Benefits has sustained many of our elderly who would have gone under poverty without this program. Americans are not surprised that President Obama is called a Socialist in his quest to pass and implement the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Law. The fact that this law is going to benefit over thirty million Americans without Health Care Insurance is not lost.

It is important to appreciate that anytime a Democratic President has sought to implement social welfare program(s) that will benefit many more Americans, including the poor, Republicans have often resorted to name calling. Incidentally, many Americans can read within the line: if the program is not going to benefit the few ‘one percenter’, the program is a socialistic idea. However, if the program is going to benefit the richest few among us, it is free enterprise! The objective of this Democracy as construed by our fore-father 236 years ago, is not to limit freedom to a few privileged ones, but to provide freedom (economics, political, social and more) for the greatest number of people, for the greatest number of time or years that they roam this land of the free, brave and star and spangle banner!

If the celebration of our Independence today means anything, it is the fact, we operate a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is hardly a government of the few and privileged! As we celebrate our independence, we must recall the embodiments of President Lincoln's Gettysburg speech: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The reality of that speech still resonates today, as we attempt to build a more just and equal society; as we strive to embark on another social welfare milestone, where a man’s or woman’s access to better health care is not judged by the wealth of his heritage or those acquired by him or her in the process of commerce. Let us therefore be compassionate and forbearing to our neighbors for it is the right thing to do. Spend some time with the poor and underprivileged and you’ll find how hard and frustrating it is for them to get something as simple as a dental appointment. Rather than adding more tasks to their to-do list, let us be more compassionate and caring, even if Republicans feel we are out of our minds. Let the rich and privileged hold their back door meetings; whatever is unfair and unjust will be exposed in due season and time! Let's therefore celebrate this 236th independence anniversary remembering those who gave their all, so that this great democracy will never perish!

U.S. Supreme Court Historic Health Care Ruling: Implication for the General Elections

Keywords and Terms: Affordable Care Act; Chief Justice Roberts; 5-4 Vote Spread; United States Congress; Commerce Clause; Congress’s Power to Tax; CNN; FOXNEWS; Rush-to-Judgement; A Good Day for Democrats and America.

Exasperating! That’s what some Republicans call it. Too Exasperating! All manner of Republicans were frustrated when they heard that the United States Supreme Court upheld the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act in its entirety in a 5-4 Vote spread. In an unimaginable and unthinkable way, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court, agreeing that the United States Congress acted within its powers to raise and collect tax. And since the core mandate in the law, requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty could be construed as effectively a tax, the United States Congress is within its power to pass this law in 2010. The surprise for many critics of the law came from the fact that the law was not distinctively separated on the Commerce clause for rejection; rather, the United States Supreme Court upheld the law based on the settled issue that Congress has a broad power to levy taxes.

Regardless of who was to be impacted and what form of cynicism would emanate from Supreme court’s decision, the justices took their responsibility seriously and very poignantly, voted to strike a piece of the law as unconstitutional; however, ruling the lynch-pin of the act, the mandate, constitutional as it can get. The supporting Justices, John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor had issues with the possibility of the federal government expanding the Medicare program to reach more people through arm-twisting of states or design to bring them into fold. The following justices ruled against the law: Anthony Kennedy; Samuel Alito; Clarence Thomas and Antonio Scalia. Although the federal government was going to pick up the bill at 100% under this expansion of the Medicaid program at the state level, with state picking up 15% of the bill after about two years, the court was still not impressed and believes this provision, is heavy handed. Chief Justice Roberts, like other supporting justices, felt strongly that this provision may violate the constitution, as the Federal Government had the upper hand to punish the state that refuses to participate in the new dispensation under the new law. In effect, subscribing Justices to Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act still believe that this aspect of the law, taking away Medicaid funding in totality from states that refuse to participate fully, unconstitutional.

Although the complete decision from the highest court in the land seems not to have thrilled too many Republicans, there are reasons to believe that it was a triumph for many Democrats and millions of Americans without health care insurance. A clear and pure understanding of why Justice Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the U.S Supreme Court on this occasion, would probably never be known, for it is difficult to know what transpires completely in the mind of a judge in a landmark case like this. Although there were clues that this case could go either way after the oral arguments before the court about three months ago, the rows of critics who were ready to thumb down Obama’s Administration, as always showing disregard for the constitution, were rather huge and unbelievable. Peering through the rows of placards from demonstrators before the courts, one could have accepted, if the court had ruled against the law; and this, many Democrats were presumably afraid of, but were still willing to live with in a difficult circumstance like this. 


To appreciate the difficult dynamics of this ruling, while the US Supreme was releasing its judgment as upholding the law,  two huge cable networks, CNN and FOXNEWS notably, were reporting that the court had ruled the law unconstitutional. It was actually an embarrassment and nightmare for the networks which their audience will never forget; and this actually, shows how dicey the anticipated decision from the court. It is reasonable to construe that cable news networks are largely biased and are actually, in the business of rushing-to-report news that is in fact erroneous. It is also reasonable to note that on this occasion, unlike the expectations of many in the right, the United States Supreme Court defaulted on good reason and judgement as it articulated its grounds for ruling in favor of the constitutionality of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As far as we know today, the court draws the distinction between activity and inactivity, as it ruled to accept the constitutionality of all the provisions in the law, except one. The distinction was likened to participation and none participation on a line item tax code; and, penalizing those who are not participating or remaining inactive with respect to the tax provision. Interestingly, the act was developed and discussed at both the House and Senate Tax sub-committee; and, this probably vindicate the construction of the mandate as a tax as construed in the lead opinion of Chief Justice Roberts while upholding the law. The legitimacy of the United Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts was actualized with the decision that was handed down and never again will a President assume that his nomination to the highest court in the land, with a preconceived ideological leaning, will always rule in favor of the ideological ground.

Chief Justices John Roberts established his independence with three presuppositions in  opinion that would now be remembered as the foundation of the affirmation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: 1) The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause; 2) That clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it; and, 3) In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance; such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax. With these statements, Chief Justice Roberts probably changed the faith of close to three million Americans without really knowing it! If you ask any layman to decipher his presuppositions, they will be as mystified as many people; yet it is true, the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act, is constitutional and will remain that way for a long time to come; so sayeth the Chief!

Once again, on the totality of the decision, Democrats were thrilled, while Republicans imagined this day was not good for freedom and all the principle that this country hold dearly; with some of the republicans labeling the honorable Chief Justice, a traitor. At the State level, Washington Sate Governor Christine Gregoire inferred the following as a result of the affirmation of the law as constitutional: 1) Fifty thousand more Washingtonians will have health care insurance coverage; 2) Sixty thousand Senior Citizens will benefit from continued prescription drug coverage benefits; 3) Three hundred thousand Washingtonians will be able to take advantage of the health care exchange that is to be mounted under the law; and 4) Increased adult children coverage; among others. Other state governors believe that the law is a good law and will implement it as rapidly as possible. Unfortunately, Republican presumptive Nominee, Mitt Romney still believes the Affordable Care Ac is a bad law and promises to repeal it. Many observers of congressional lawmaking insist that Mitt Romney will have much of a harder time repealing this law, as there are many provisions in the law that Americans love and would hardly part with, since the inception of the law and actually benefiting from the largesse of the law.

At the National level, the upholding of the law, presents more appeals to ardent supporters and opens up the opportunity for conviction of those who had their reservations before now. The magic of the constitutionality of the mandate is that it creates in the minds of skeptics, the reality that this law is going to be around for some while. While there were some reservations in the tone from Mitt Romney, regarding the upholding of the law, he still accepts that the court has ruled the law constitutional. Unfortunately, he has made the repeal of the law as the first thing he will like to do, once he is elected the President of the United Sates. An ambition that many Democrats are saying, not so fast, Governor Romney! For Democrats, the upholding of the law as constitutional ensures that at least 90% of Americans will have access to health care insurance, no one will be turned down for pee-existing condition and more adult children will remain on their parent’s health care insurance. Effectively, more lives will be saved, money saved and the Medicare program will work out for states that have chosen to participate for the betterment of their citizens. For all these and more reasons, the affirmation of the law is a good day for America and Americans, who believe that we all deserve some healthy future.

Power of the Presidency, U.S. Immigration Plan, and the Politics of harvesting Latino and or Hispanic Votes!

 

Keywords or Terms: President Obama; DREAM ACT; Executive Order; Halting Deportation; Illegal immigrants; Amnesty; Path to Citizenship; Gov. Mitt Romney, Green Card; Advanced Degree Holders; Military Service; Constitutional Authority.

Change: the nation found itself with the greatest revolutionary change regarding how America treats its immigrants or addresses the issue of undocumented immigrants. At stake was the issue of continued existence of close to twelve million undocumented immigrants in the United States. To bring about the promised change, President Obama did what he felt is possible in the absence of congressional support for an immigration reform bill. What President Obama did for undocumented immigrants, some of whom are disproportionately classified as Latinos and or Hispanics are as follows: 1) Halt future deportations of undocumented immigrants under the age of thirty who can arguably show they arrived in the United States before their 16th birthdays; 2) Allow for work authorization for the next two years for younger undocumented immigrants, as long as they hold a GED, have no felony convictions and no more than two misdemeanor convictions. Will this amnesty or waiver involve appreciable change in the way the nation considers the issue of illegal immigration? Or, will it change the President’s fortune with Latinos and Hispanic communities with legal voting rights across the nation?

Regarding the first question, the President has masterfully attempted to change the discussions on illegal immigration during an election year, especially by creating a barrier block between Latinos and Hispanic voters and the presumptive Republican Nominee. To concerned Latinos and Hispanic voters, here is what the President has done on the nation’s immigration problem: 1) without usurping constitutional authority of congress, he has chosen to ignore congressional mandate on enforcements of existing law by issuing an executive order; an order that has gained greater appeal among  many independent voters, many of whom are Latinos and Hispanics; 2) rejuvenated hope for close to one million affected parties or undocumented immigrants, who are living here for reasons beyond their fault; 3) Make good on the implementation of some of the provisions of the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act), that has been advanced as one of the legs of the tripod solution to the issue of illegal immigration; and, 4) Arouse once again, an interest in addressing a national problem that Republicans are astutely against, especially the Tea Party group in the Republican Party.

The President articulated these points as he contrasted his speech against Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. His argument, as trite as critics may want many of us to believe, is indeed a change from where the nation was about a week and a half ago, on the issue of illegal immigration. He attempted to walk a fine line between sounding critical and probably dismissive of his opponent’s argument over what has transpired since his election in 2008; precisely, the state of the economy and how it has impacted people of various political persuasions.

Since he released the executive order, reactions from voters have been either positive or negative, with majority independent groups affirming support for the new policy. For whatever insightfulness the order has garnered, the Republicans remain unsatisfied with how the President has gone about resolving this issue temporarily, calling it, either an amnesty or a path to citizenship. A few, including Republican Representative Steve King, have sworn to file a suit challenging the President’s authority to effectively conduct an immigration policy; hoping to undo the President’s authority to bypass congress. The dynamics of the executive order and criticisms from the Republicans are these: the immigration issue has been entangled in the campaign for the oval office; and, the question over whose side the Latino voters are likely to default come November 6, 2012. Now, going by the reception of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in the outgoing week in Florida, one is tempted to give an edge to President Barack Obama.

The politics of the executive order is that it places the presumptive Republican Nominee, Mitt Romney, in a box. With the Press on his heels for response, the presumptive Republican nominee has not been able to fathom an effective response to the President’s order. When pressed by CBS Bob Shaffer, if he will change the President’s executive order if elected, all Governor Romney said is that whatever he is going to initiate with respect to illegal immigration under his administration, will effectively overtake the executive order. Pressed even further and harder, if he will repeal the supposed amnesty, Mitt Romney failed to make a commitment.

Political pundits indicate that the reason why Romney has been unable to give an upfront response is because he is aligned with the Tea Party faction in the Republican Party. Supporters of the President executive order, indicate that the order is a ray of hope for many youthful Latinos and or Hispanics, who have been languishing in somewhat of a hopeless limbo, before the order. Quoting one of the supporters of the President’s action, this actually indicates that he truly gets it - the greatest concern of nearly all undocumented immigrants at this time, is the fear that their families will be broken apart, if the United States government continues to deport at the very unprecedented rate under President Obama.

Changing the Law: Supporters of the executive order further indicate that President Obama not only brought about renewed interests in resolving the immigration problem, but also huge insightfulness that could change the debate on how to move forward regarding resolution of illegal immigration, when congress gets around to debating the issue. Unfortunately, Senate republican leader Mitch McConnell insists that if the executive order leads to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, then it is arguably an amnesty; and, Republicans are truly against that. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) sees the executive order as a backdoor opportunity to allow people to vote; Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of House Judiciary Committee, interprets the executive order as a breach of faith with the American People; an executive ploy that blatantly ignores the rule of law; and, a huge policy shift that may serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants and amnesty.

Many objective observers or independent voters see the President’s action as a last ditch effort to get things done in the absence of true support for immigration reform from both chambers of congress. We now know that the Dream Act, S. 2205, initially introduced in Oct, 2007, by Senator Dick Durbin, and Co-sponsored by Charles Hagel and Richard Lugar, remains out there for deliberation or consideration. We also know that the 2010 re-introduced New Dream Act, Bill S.3992, with numerous changes to S.2205, is also out there for attention. Further, it is no secret that in May 2011, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reintroduced the DREAM Act, with former supporters, Senator John McCain (R-AZ); Jon Kyl (R-AZ); Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator John Corny (R-TX), holding back their initial support for the bill. No wonder the bill failed to carry the required votes to prevent a filibuster in congress. In addition, if the State of California is able to accomplish passing the DREAM Act in their state within a short time of consideration, why is anyone blaming the President for issuing out an executive order, or doing part of what Congress has failed to do, which effectively brings a dream to reality for close to one million young undocumented immigrants? For the records, there are about three pieces of legislation and an executive order that congress can begin to act on, right this moment, if they want to correct for whatever anomaly or disagreements they have with the President issuing an executive order.

Complicated politics: Attempt by Democrats under President Obama to pass the Dream Act in 2010 lame-duck session met some vociferous antagonism from Republicans. As the  presumptive Republican Nominee was striving to boost his image with the Latinos and or Hispanics this week, he is probably finding out that the hard-core conservative Republican stance on undocumented immigrants is hardly going to work. This is probably one reason, why Mitt Romney sees the executive order as an attempt by President Obama to secure Hispanic votes, in a tight election landscape. In an attempt to win over more Latino voter for his aspiration for the White House, Mitt Romney advances the following hyperbolas: give green cards to advanced degree holders and those who serve in the Military. His stance on self deportation by illegal immigrants remains. While criticizing President Obama for advancing the amnesty order only to curry votes from Hispanics, Mitt Romney failed to offer details of his own proposals that Latinos and or Hispanics can believe in; and, which might help him make inroads into Latinos and or Hispanic votes, come November

There are some apprehensive supporters of Mitt Romney’s campaign, who say, it is probably too late, if not completely infeasible for Mitt Romney to recalibrate his statement during the Republican Party Primaries. One will recall that in the heat of the Republican Nomination debates and process, aspirant Mitt Romney said that those illegal immigrants will self depot. A laughable proposal, which critics’ retort, those who self-deport can easily self-reenter as usual! When another Republican aspirant, Governor Rick Perry of the State of Texas, cautioned about such a proposal, he was effectively ridiculed by Republican conservatives who support aggressive anti-illegal immigration stance. To this group, Mitt Romney’s position was best; and, Rick Perry’s, a disdain and unacceptable! The chicken has finally come to rousts towards the general election, as it has become rather difficult for Governor Mitt Romney to do an Etch-A-Sketch on the immigration issue.

Summing it up – changes in the immigration landscape appear to have crept into the 2012 Presidential Campaign politics and no one can stop it now. It is disheartening to realize that the President had resorted to an executive order to accomplish what the United States Congress has failed to do. To hackle the President for issuing the executive order; or, bastardize his action as circumventing the constitution, may actually be naïve, since the constitution gives the Presidency the power to issue executive order as it deems fit, absent Congressional authority. Two things that are incontrovertible from here on, the executive order from the Presidency will remain for the next two years as long as President Obama remains in office. The executive order may have changed the President’s fortune for the better with Latinos and the Hispanics in the Presidential Campaign for 2012.

Romney’s Goal as a President: Get rid of fire fighters, policemen and teachers!

Keywords or Terms: Public Safety Officers and First Responders; Monetary and Keynesian Economics theories; Government Expenditures or Programs; Stakeholders; Profits vs. Non-Profit; Trust and Commitment; Illusion and Doubts.

What’s not to like about a Presidential Candidate who wants to get rid of fire fighters, policemen and teachers? That’s quintessential Republican! (I can hear you laughing aloud). The presumptive Republican Party flag bearer has been quoted as saying, getting rid of first responders, public safety and or last point of defense professionals, fire fighters, policemen and teachers in Wisconsin, is a positive change. To quote him appropriately: "[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." To the presumptive Republican Party Nominee, what the nation needs right now, is getting rid of public safety officials. This is exactly how to help the American people, if you are Governor Romney!

Now, except Mitt Romney has plans to turn America into another third world country or banana republic, it maybe in his interest to rethink this type of lousy loose talks, that is characteristic of some Republicans, who would like to privatize everything, including their mother’s social security check! In case Governor Romney is oblivious to some facts, local and state government expenditures, benefit directly or indirectly from some federal government programs and expenditures. Except his resentment of such government expenditures is just a bluff or slip, we, as the nation, will expect the presumptive republican nominee to be circumspect; and, abstain from making comments that is tantamount to ignorance. Investing in first responders like firefighters, policemen and classroom teachers are necessities, not luxuries. These types of expenditures guarantee that we are prepared to handle society eventualities; prevents unnecessary huge government spending in times of huge catastrophes; and, make room for a well educated labor force that can handle the management of a better future.

Once Again, we know Republicans are critical of increased government spending during recessions. Incidentally, given the gap in American household spending in the past three years, the only other option available to government under Keynesian Economics theory is to expend money, to help stimulate economic activities that would help generate employment. Conservative Republicans subscribe to the Monetarist Economics theory; wherein, the mantra is to shrink government by cutting government spending; hoping that this will help the economy grow better. Unfortunately, this idea or concept has been tried before under Republican Administrations, and it has failed woefully. The failures of excessive tax cuts, unyielding management of the economy and a choice to engage in two foreign wars are parts of the reasons for the dilemma we are going through, not the employment of public safety officials!

Notwithstanding, Republicans continue to subscribe to the failed doctrine of Supply-side Economics; one that has led the nation nowhere, except misery. Republicans continue to criticize Obama’s Administration for increased government expenditures on stimulus programs and plans; most of which went to save police officers, teachers and firefighters jobs in many states across the federation. In the world of Republicans, it is a proven fact that increased government expenditures do not help increased economic activities, nor make good on the gap in households expenditures during recessions. To these men and women of doubt, anytime government expend money to bring back life to the economy, the government is trying to tell the people how to think, what to do and what not to do. Except such increased government spending is used or earmarked to save banks, defray taxes for big multinational corporations or engage in wars, such investments are necessarily unacceptable; or sacrilegious!

Frankly, there lies the ignorance; there lies the unfortunate confusion regarding what government ought to be doing for the public; and what misinformed Republican politicians would like to get away with, with the public. The premature obsession with cutting down on federal deficits, by cutting down on government expenditures, is only but an illusion. Without some government investments or spending, the current recession will still be around or take a longer time to overcome. If we don’t have business activities going on, either through government spending or increased household expenditures, government can’t collect taxes; and without revenue coming into government, the likelihood is, government will go a borrowing or engage in printing money; which ends up increasing inflation. These are all economics jargons that many of us do not appreciate, want to deal with, or would rather ignore. It is on the notion of out site is out of mind, that Mitt Romney and his campaign team are playing on. Yes, increased government spending may help balloon our deficits temporarily; however, without it, the economy would be in doldrums or worse shape. Further, many of us would rather have our first responders available for our safety, rather than stay ignorant and delusional about what is expected of our government and what is expected of us as citizens.

Spending money on crucial public safety officials is synonymous with planning ahead for a rainy day. If we are to engage in the after-the-fact doctrine, or subscribe to reasoning like those of Mitt Romney and his Republican cohorts, who are often inconvenient with increased government spending in times of recession, then we are setting ourselves up for huge failures. Subscribing to the notion that we hardly should invest in the employment of firefighters, policemen and teachers, is a recipe for disaster or greater troubles, in times of emergency. It is much easier and prudent to invest in teachers and first time responders rather than offering tax brakes to people and corporations that do not need them. To hands off investments in aforementioned professionals is to lack good judgment in state and local government governance; and by extension, national government. If there is a trick to jobs creation without increased government expenditures in times of recession, we believe many governments that came before us, will have done that; or, engage in this endeavor.

Reading too much meanings to the result of Wisconsin governor’s recall vote, or characterizing the failure of the recall vote in Wisconsin as tantamount to cutting back on investments in the employment of firefighters, policemen and teacher is not only short sighted, it explains why Mitt Romney must not be voted into the Presidency. He has shown too much ignorance regarding what is essential for America and what confused Republican Party members are seeking for America. Now, from Romney’s statement, we can now understand why Republicans want to get rid of the United States Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services; repeal the Affordable Care Act and get the nation into militarism, in preparation for engaging in another lousy and unnecessary war. Once again, whatever economic problem the nation is going through, has very little to do with employment of public safety professionals like firefighters, policemen and teachers. If the presumptive Republican Nominee does not believe me, let him move to an outpost without firefighters, policemen and teachers!

Given the gap in household spending and current government investments in stimulus programs, given the exasperating banking crisis in Europe, and the unyielding problems of unemployment worldwide, it is imperative that we begin to ask Mr. Romney the following questions:

• What are the major initiatives that you would like to bring into the White House regarding permanent employment and absence of future recessions in America?
• What, outside the criticism of employment of public safety officers and teachers, do you plan for re-juvenating employment in state and local governments?
• What is happening inside your campaign regarding your foreign policy agenda and how to move America ahead on the wars that we are currently committed?

Once we can get clear answers to these questions, we can now start to consider your suitability to replace the current occupant of the White House. Going by your current pronouncement regarding cutting jobs of our first responders and public safety officials, we hardly can predict what you’ll do, if we voted you into the office of the Presidency. We just don’t trust you as understanding the current problem of the nation. For us, the nation is not a business enterprise where everything is measured by how much profit you can bring to the stake holders!

Governor Romney, like his Republican Tea Party Membership, wants to take back his country!

Keywords or Terms: Defensive Argument; Public and Private Economic Sectors; Racist and Unconscionable Comments and leadership; Civility; American Politics; Bureau of Labor Statistics; All Men are created equal; Rights of every men or women are threatened, when the rights of one is abridged; Presidential candidate's responsibility; and, Free and Fair Election.

The Obama’s Campaign team’s central challenge, in addition to reelecting their candidate into White House oval office, includes fighting back criticisms when their candidate makes an oral or vocal slip. It is tempting to believe that their candidate is above board, that his comment was literary taken out of context; however, there are some slips that put a candidate on the spot, one that makes it seem he hardly has the grasps of what was going on with the American Economy. A subsequent clarification of what is now considered a slip may have helped put in perspective what the President meant to say; however, one slip like this puts the campaign team on the defensive. The Obama’s Administration might have been making comparative assessment between the economic performances of the private against the public sector, in its attempt to explain away the grinding nature of the current national economic environment; however, when the assessment or comment comes out as if the President was out of torch, then things get really murky and muddy. Further, when  the presumptive Republican's candidate response to the President's slip borders on extremity, like he wants to take back his country, one starts to wonder about the question of civility in American Politics once again. 

For several months, the American economy has been growing, but not at the pace that everyone will like. The latest statistical data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics seems for a while a hot topic in the Presidential campaign process; however, one gets the feeling that half of the pundits hardly know what they are talking about, when they start to accentuate a meaning more than what the data shows. Politicians themselves have been falling over topics in labor economics they hardly understand. The poor jobs creations in a tepid economic environment and the less than stalwart unemployment statistics have nearly put Obama’s Administration in the defensive. The Obama’s campaign team has thought long and hard on their chances come November 2012, due to the jobs situation. What the campaign team does not need, is their candidate drawing attention to what may be considered a nemesis. The truth is, the economy is in a slump for now and the unemployment statistics is improving, no matter what many pundits will tell you. The Bureau of labor statistics has been doing unemployment data aggregates and for all you may doubt, the labor market, is scheduled for an upward swing. Yes, the European Economies may have been testy and twisty for the recovery of the American Economy; however, the Obama’s campaign team can do without their candidate shooting himself in the foot. Saying that the private economic sector is doing better than the public’s easily serves as a fodder for opponents, especially the Republican members of congress and their presumptive flag bearer!

Notwithstanding the error from President Obama, many political observers and gurus wonder why the Romney’s campaign team introduced to the debate what will be considered, a racist or unconscionable comment. Governor Romney indicated he and his cohorts will like to take back their country in response to President Obama’s slip. A comment to which many say: is that really appropriate? Everyone wants this election to be about ideas; great ideas that will help the nation move further, not get meshed in a campaign of race and racism. The reality is that our economy and national debts are out of whack; and what we now need are both philosophical and practical arguments that will provide answers to our fiscal problems and under-performing labor market.

Years of tax cuts have failed the economy and our nation's fiscal health. The extension of  President Bush’s tax cut, which President Obama is vehemently against, has been a bane of contention regarding how to move the economy ahead. The latest comment from President Clinton regarding an extension of these taxes only for a limited time seems compelling; however, it has not provided the more convincing argument for further give-aways to millionaires among us; a policy decision that has continued to pile up on our debts; and, keep the national economy in poor fiscal health. If Mitt Romney wants to engage in constructive debates, it is advisable that he keeps his campaign’s message to the issue of the economy and what he truly understands about the labor market; rather than, what will be construed as a racist and unconscionable comment, from someone who will like to fill the shoes of the leader of the free world. It is known that Mitt Romney subscribes to tax cuts that will further aggravate our poor fiscal health. It is also known that given the opportunity, the presumptive Republican flag bearer, will like to do away with Medicare the way many of us know it today. What we hardly know, is that he completely subscribes to extreme views held by the Tea Party faction in his party.

To constrain the Obama’s campaign team, Governor Mitt Romney may choose to spur debates in the area of improving America’s Economy or laying foundation for spurring economic growth and jobs proliferation. Making unproductive comments just for the sake of winning election will not just cut it for many American voters, knowing that about ten million of them are out of work, and there are chances that continued European banking crisis may hold back our economic progress and performance. And if Romney wants to avoid further controversy about his candidature, he is better off, distancing himself from the Tea Party Republican group. To be sure that Mitt Romney is not intentionally bending over to the Tea Party group for the sake of votes, it is better he remains civil, as the whole country, and probably the whole world, is watching what is going on in America's presidential campaign exercise. To make volatile comments regarding taking back America for a privileged group is a recipe for another debate far away from presidential campaign and exercise.

Presidential campaigns are expected to be uplifting; for, many observers expect them to be battle(s) of ideas, not prejudices. To keep the extremists at bay, Mitt Romney’s and the President’s campaign team must endeavor to be positive and intellectually stimulating in their campaign for the White House. Alongside distancing themselves from controversial and extreme groups, each party's flag bearer and their campaign teams must appreciate that this nation is greater than one party, one person or group. Presidential campaigning might include positioning yourself to win the election; however, this must not be done on the platter of bigotry; or, at the expense of civility and welfare of the nation. Most of all, to make one’s campaign for a national office credible, a political office seeker must endeavor to extend an umbrella of inclusiveness for all groups he is seeking to serve. A President is expected to pledge to defend all citizens of the nation, not attack any factional members of it. To continue to fall to the level of saying, I will, or we will like to, take our country from the opposition, is to portray an image of an outsider of the opposition; or synonymous to incivility in political discuss. Governor Romney response to President Obama's slip is unconscionable; and hardly appreciated by many Americans, Democrats and Republicans.

In other words, if Governor Mitt Romney wants himself to be considered a credible candidate or leader who is seeking the highest office in the land, he must make substantial investment in political ideology, resourceful arguments and comments that do not ostracize any group in the country. National Election's victory does not necessarily depend on huge political monetary contributions or attempting to classify others as outsider; rather, a candidate must endeavor to see himself as a unifier, a quality essential to successful leadership in a multicultural society. Campaigning for votes to special interest group(s) may impose a huge constraint or burden on a political candidate; however, at the stage of this country’s development, we would rather vote and celebrate an inclusive leader, one who is cautious of the makeup of the country, rather than defer to one, who sees anyone different from him or her as an outsider. We would rather accept transparent arguments based on facts; rather than a fiction of taking back our country from our present leader and President. Given the changing nature of America’s demography, we are certain that our future leaders will have to be dealing with issues and concerns of a multicultural society, not a monoculture one, as in the past.

Canvasing for votes from a multicultural demography in Presidential elections is evident and plausible in the coming decades; anyone seeking the office of the President therefore, must hardly see himself as a leader of one group as against another. The 2010 US Census has shown that the composition of this nation is titling away from a monoculture one; and any prospective leader must quit seeing this country in the context of a monoculture society. The past obsession of votes from just one segment of society is past long gone; and, probably would not be back very soon. Thus, when Mitt Romney subscribes to comments that indicate that he is hardly sensitive to the minority among us; then he is not ready to lead. If his ambition is to subscribe to clandestine faction or groups in his political party, then it is not impossible that many voters will declare that he does not possess the humbling and necessary qualities to lead a huge and diverse nation as ours.

Even, if your campaign team and manager are identifying with a strategy that portray you as hostile to other groups in the community you are attempting to serve, it is your duty to advise them that you will hardly stand for that position as you perceive your strategy as one of inclusiveness. Critics may argue that Obama's Administration is adhered too strongly to the Keynesian economic theory; however, what they will never say is that his administration is non-inclusive. President Obama's Administration has been inconclusive, even to groups which some of his supporters find abhorrent. In addition, President Obama's critics may not like how he has handled the American Economy, what they will never say is that, he is not a responsive leader. These are but two great reasons, why Republicans in many states will still vote for him, despite their reservation on how he has handled the economy. The most recent polling in the Wisconsin Governor's recall election bears this out: there are voters who voted for Scott Walker in the recall election, who will always vote for President Obama over Governor Mitt Romney!

There are so many potential obstacles to a candidate's victory in an election; bigotry must not be one. A progressive and reflective candidate would need to avoid controversies that could threaten or tarnish his authenticity. Mitt Romney must by now be wondering why some prominent conservative groups in his party are still not welcoming to his candidacy. It should have hit him that many voters, even within his party, still do not consider him as authentic. The relevant question here is why? Would these conservative Republicans, many in the Tea Party faction, want to roll back history; or, expect minorities to roll over like a fat dog, and get their tummies scratched or what? Buried in the hearts of some of these groups is the apprehension that Mitt Romney hardly seems to be authentic; just as they doubt the authenticity of the Republican flag bearer, so also they seek the abridgement of the right of minorities. For Governor Romney to subscribe to their position, is for him to cast himself in their like. This and other reasons are why many voters see Romney as unfit and probably a flip-flapper! Would this change? Would voters see him in other light? Answers to these and more questions are better found in Mitt Romney' actions an comments, henceforth. And as things stand regarding the campaign for the White House oval office, if he continues to make statements, that are considered as elitist, non-inclusive and probably racist, the more he can be sure, he will not have this people on his side come November, 2012.

The Moral of Rising Unemployment: Why Presumptive Republican Nominee may not ride the latest data for too long?

Keywords or Terms: Unemployment Problem; Wall Street funk; Bureau of Labor Statistics; United States Congress; Moral latitude; Republican Party and Nominee; President Obama and Administration; History; Anthropologist; Positive, Believable, Open minded, Responsive, Integrative; and Forms of Government

The greatest challenge for the Obama’s Administration has been keeping down the unemployment rate. Unemployment data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the month of May, 2012 hardly vindicate current public policies designed to address this cyclical problem of our economic system. The United States Congress, which has failed to accede to President Obama’s proposals for a jobs bill, hardly has the moral authority or latitude to pronounce that, the Obama’s Administration has not been doing much to fight the uncanny problem.  Although Republican members of congress may want to ride this complex problem since it plays very well to the advantage of their party’s flag bearer, failure to appreciate the hegemonic unemployment, hardly portrays these lawmakers as responsive to the immediate needs of the electorate and the public. Policy discourse of tackling unemployment tend to emphasize social economic deprivation of the masses; and when politicians in congress or aspiring prospective opposition party nominee, attempt to pun on an handicap or the failures of an existing administration, the scenario of public understanding of where this group is coming from is rather blatant: Pure Politics! The fact that Wall Street is in a funk is surreal and very discouraging at this time. Can opposition politicians continue to play on a singular failure of the current administration hoping to unseat the administration with overwhelming criticisms?  Can an opposition party be seen as responsive, if their memberships in the primordial lawmaking body fail to address the specific challenge facing the whole society? Can a flag bearer of an opposition party be seen as visionary or inspirational, if his campaign strategy is to deride current effort by the sitting administration without offering genuine alternatives?

From whatever source the Romney’s campaign team may be drawing its energy to unseat President Obama, obviously their vision of this nation hardly resonates with logical observers of economic indicators. Unemployment is a cyclical problem unfortunately associated with our economic system. The political realm of replacing a sitting administration every four years hardly resonates with the trough years of greater unemployment; i.e., an unemployment rate greater than four percentages. A President or a party's nominee may believe that he could bring down unemployment by initiating bills to resolve the problem; however, he still needs the backing of congress. Presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, may think he will be ennobled by an effort to resolve the unemployment problem, once he is voted into office; however, he still needs the support of congress to actually make a difference. Change hardly comes without cooperation. The challenge for Obama’s Administration has not been the failure of leadership or desire to bring about change in the unemployment rate; rather, it is that he has not received the needed support from congress to make a difference; as many Republicans have vowed to make him a one term President. Thus, the issue before the country is not the failure of President Obama to resolve the unemployment problem, but the failure of our political system of government to function as our fore-fathers conceived it. 

Our system of government and politics are only strengthened, where there is collaboration between at least two arms, or among the three arms of government, executive, legislative and judiciary. And regarding the current unemployment problem, the collaboration is even more important, when the executive and legislative arms are working closely together to do the work of the people. When the legislative arm, the United States Congress, is riddled with lawmakers determined to undermine the efforts of the executive branch to solve a nagging national problem, then the whole system fails. As Lord Pope said, for forms of government let fools contest, for what is best administered, is absolutely best. And as surmised by John Adams, the happiness of society is the end of government. If Republicans hardily communicate ease, comfort or happiness to the greatest number of people in the society, then they are least able to provide happiness to the people; and neither can they be the better alternative.

The central symbol or engineering of the three arms of government is based on the assumption that men and women, who end up as members in the three arms of government, will not have, or hold malice. The highest level of incivility experienced by the current administration could easily be traced to malice; and if I am not wrong, although the jury is still out, my response will be race. Now factor out the issue of race, the nagging unemployment problem has been with the nation, since day one of the Obama’s Administration. And except one has been living in space, the current inhabitant of the White House has made several efforts to fight the unemployment problem, including spending money to turn around the tide of fortune in jobs creation and reaching out to the other aisle of party politics. While he has made several pleas with Republican lawmakers to cast aside their reservations, differences or malice, his creative vision regarding solving the national unemployment problem has met poor response and sometimes antagonism. Republican lawmakers have stayed on the President's way to revitalize the American Economy. 

Seasoned Republican lawmakers and leaders do not see any benefit to their party, if President Obama’s vision and initiative are allowed to work; and, have increasingly argued against the President’s initiatives and proposals. Now, if the focus of our lawmakers is to work in the interest of the voters who have elected them into office, it should not be much of a problem, if the lawmakers pass the current bill before congress that will help stimulate employment in the public as well as private sectors. However, Republicans in congress are not ready to show leadership in this area; their attention is directed towards helping their party’s flag bearer to unseat President Obama. If the character of lawmaking is to influence the future of the led for better; then the failure(s) of the current congressional body has been monumental. If the construed intention of the President of the United Sates, Barack Obama, is to get the backing of congress to pass bills that will ameliorate the unemployment problem, the unconscious making of partisanship in congress, is leaving the nation in the dearth, by the failure to act or their abysmal effort.

The congressional indifference, is not only destabilizing the economy, as it has increased uncertainties in the market, which has led to the funk on Wall Street and a single day dip or drop in the stock market, two phenomenons hardly seen in close to half a decade or more, it has created room for doubt in the effectiveness of the executive branch. The inaction of congress to work with the current White House has led not only to the failure in the market, but also increased unemployment from last month, potential increased mortgage loan defaults, increased divorces and destruction of homes, and uncommon dislike for the current administration. If the ambition of the Republican lawmakers is to unravel Barack Obama's Presidency, they may just find themselves holding the bag, if the voters turn against them out of frustration. If the image of future Republican Administration is to undo every effort or bills passed by President Obama, then they are in for a rude shock, as their dream will only come true; if at all, if the Republican Party obtains majority in both chambers of congress. Without the last assumption happening, no one can see Republicans making much of a difference, no matter how they tout this promise in campaigns, or on the Republican Party’s platform come their convention. The best form of political leadership is found where there is collaboration; not unusual antagonism as we currently have with Republicans in government.

Will Republicans be seen as responsive to solving the problem of unemployment? If republicans continue to play evolving antagonisms, if their memberships continue to fan hate for the occupant of the White House, except he is a Republican, then they can hardly be seen as showing leadership in this sphere of national concern or realm of public concern. To bring about desired change, a party and its stalwarts must be positive, believable, open minded, responsive and integrative. These common characteristics as espoused by historians and anthropologists are essential for motivating constructive social change. Without these facets, republicans can hardly create an optimistic future for America, neither can they point a new direction for America and its unemployment problem, nor will they be seen as responsive to the needs of the country, nor integrative in their efforts. 

One is already seeing part of this failure, in the Republican Party’s campaign to unseat the present occupant of the oval office. For example, the presumptive Republican nominee has not been able to truly galvanize all his party’s member behind his candidacy. Just today, Candidate Ron Paul supporters in Washington State were actively jeopardizing and confronting Mitt Romney’s candidacy in their party’s convention. Not only are there not enough positive vibes for Romney’s candidacy, there are still elements of reservation in many past republican Presidential aspirants, who contested against Mitt Romney in the Republican Primary, about the viability of his candidacy. While many Republicans will like to believe that Mitt Romney is their choice candidate, many conservative Republicans and tea party faction, least buy into the flag bearer’s candidacy. Becoming truly integrative Party is an ethos of a forward looking party, the Republican Party has or continue to ostracize the LGBT community, disown minorities like the Hispanic and pro-choice groups; and still insist, it is a forward looking party. 

Providing a place for every shade of American is a sure way to revitalize a party; antagonizing to the extent of bringing down the whole political system, especially in the aspect of passing bills, is a sure way to define, a less than open institution. The nation’s experience of how Republicans have stood in the way of congressional progress in the past four years is a sure definition of a besieged culture within the Republican Party. If the primary goal of the republican leadership is to remain obstructionists, then the party is due a cataclysmic explosion. If the image of the Republicans Party is to be dynamic and responsive to the need of Americans, then there is a future for the party.

The economic problem that bemoans America is at this time, more than unemployment. There are mired of challenges considering the failing European economy; an economy that ours is remotely tied, even when we attempt to deny it. The unstable economic failure or monetary policies in Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and more, is pointer to something untold: if your prime customers are in debt or failing to make their note payments on time, it is unlikely they will be able to buy from you. When your major customers are under tight credit situation, it is unlikely, they will be increasing their orders and that means, huge factory inventory in America and consequential unemployment. At this time, can America afford a non-visionary or inspirational leader? Hardly so, if you ask me! If Mitt Romney is running an Etch-A-Sketch campaign, his leadership could hardly be visionary or inspirational. If he stands too much like a picture without the energy to communicate his plan for and to America, he is not the ideal person at this time. If all he can offer is standing before a company that failed because of reasons beyond President Obama’s Administrative actions, then, he is more of a finger pointer rather than a problem solver. He will likely point finger at what failed and not at the lessons learned!

One of the greatest qualities of a leader is someone with the ability to confront the challenge of a society with a vision hardly matched by an opponent or events surrounding him and the society. He must be someone who is always seeing the cup half-full rather than half empty. The absences of optimism and ability to articulate a plan forward by Mitt Romney, are making many voters, especially in the Republican party, still refusing to throw their weights behind his candidacy. Can a party’s nominee, who is unable to motivate his party members or set out new direction for his party’s membership, able to carry the weight of burden of national leadership during austere time? Can Mitt Romney as presumptive Republican nominee generate enough enthusiasms to carry the day come November 6, 2012? These are questions for Republicans to answer. They are also reasons why the Republican Nominee, Mitt Romney, may or should not be celebrating the ticking up of the national unemployment rate; nor deriding efforts of the Obama’s administration?

Clash of Political Ideologies: Why Bain Capital Matters?

Keywords or Terms: General Elections; White House; Mitt Romney; Barack Obama; Republican Party; Democratic Party; Individualism; Community Effort; Gaffe; Mayor Cory Booker; Bain Capital Record for Mitt Romney; Clash of Ideologies; Job Creator;  and, 2012 General Elections.

What is the state of campaign for the 2012 general elections? During the Republican Primary, Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee of the Grand Old Party portrayed himself as the inevitable nominee; and, intuitively believed that he could run an ‘Etch-A-Sketch’ campaign to get himself into the White House as Mr. President. During the Republican primary, each Republican aspirant offered his own perception of what the 2012 campaign is supposed to be or is all about; and genuinely believed that each offered the best alternative to the present occupant of the White House oval office. The end of the Republican Party primary revealed that at least, none of the alternative aspirant, is better positioned to compete against President Obama. At most as perceived by Republican voters who somewhat deferred to Mitt Romney as the GOP’s best hope for the November 6, 20102 general contest, the contest is going to be tight; and, Mitt Romney has most money and a national campaign infrastructure that could give the present occupant of the White House, run for his money. 


Democrats and some Republican voters consider themselves opposed to Mitt Romney’s philosophy of where America should be going; or, what the 2012 general election must be about. Members of Tea Party faction in the Republican Party waged an open warfare against Mitt Romney’s candidacy; citing that he is hardly conservative enough. Democrats, out of principle and philosophy negate Mitt Romney’s advancement of being a job creator; partly because he has been out of the business of creating jobs for over a decade; and, some unsubstantiated claims from the presumptive Republican Party Nominee as a job creator while at Bain Capital, the alternative asset management firm. The gaffe from an attention grabbing surrogate of President Obama, Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, New Jersey, on Meet the Press this weekend, highlighted a part of Mitt Romney’s business record at Bain Capital, the firm that advertises itself as always aligning its interests solely with its investors’ long-term objectives. Thus, going by the Philosophy of Bain Capital and records of Mitt Romney as the corporation’s CEO, it is not an aberration that President Obama’s campaign team wants American voters to consider the presumptive Republican nominee’s record while at the firm.

Every voter understands that this year’s general election has to be greater than whatever any of the two presumptive candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, might be conceiving as the best for the nation. But what does this mean? In traditional general elections, two major parties present their platform and ask voters to accept either platform as the best form of approach to move ahead for America. While each party’s flag bearer offers a choice of the way ahead by contemplative messages or advertisements; the candidates themselves attempt to highlight their individual accomplishments while in office either in the public or private sector, or both. While each candidate sometimes offers too rosy claims of their accomplishments, one or two of the presumptive candidates attempt to go beyond what is probably true about his candidacy and accomplishments. The challenge for voters is to pick that candidate; whose party’s platform and advertised accomplishments represent their individual interests and or position at the moment.  This is often a rather difficult task. Political campaigns in a general election are sometimes part illusion, and part reality; candidates offer so many convincing and sometimes contrary positions that make the voter confused and sometimes disillusioned; yet, he or she is left to make a choice. Often, the voter becomes flabbergasted by a candidate’s claim that they develop a hatred for the candidate and or his party’s position. To help the voter do a better job at picking the ideal candidate which closely represents their interest, the blog today will contemplate one issue of claim: the record of Mitt Romney while he was at Bain Capital, the equity investment firm. What is true about Mitt Romney’s claim as a job creator? What is the condition of the American Economy today? And, are we not better off today than we were four years ago?

Individualism or Community Effort Doctrine

Two main philosophies of choice or campaign messages are being offered to the voters for consideration in the upcoming general election. The first one- Mitt Romney’s rugged individualism thesis- partly vindicated by historical political American experience; and, probably partly by singular experience under another Republican President, Ronald Reagan. Romney’s argument is predicated under ideological conflict. The narrow sense that all Americans are gifted and each must make it on his or her own. That point is correct in a narrow sense: the ruggedness of individualism brought America successes; however, many of those successes will not have appreciated but for some government assistance – corporate or individual welfare! Mitt Romney fails to appreciate that many successes that you find in America takes root in government initial humongous expenditure, which many overlook; yet, are necessary for the kind of residual wealth which many claim are reasons of their individual effort and or success.  For example, the Internet began as a government program or project; today’s launching of a rocket into space by a private enterprise took its root in huge government investments into space odyssey; and some known wealth creation, only come out of the mercy of government continued patronage. As a matter of fact, there are some current wealth adduced to individuals in current dollar terms that are solely out of government subsidies or continued patronage.  The million dollar subsidy in the energy, agriculture and other industries are so integral to the wealth and successes of participants in those industries that it will be disingenuous to continue to claim that such successes come out of individualism or ruggedness of independent initiative of one American.

Mitt Romney’s wealth which has not been ascertained this current year, since he has refused to make public his tax filing, if properly scrutinized will have some of its roots in government subsidized programs or projects. The Internal Revenue Service exists to collect taxes; however, it is an entity that has returned money to many wealth creators; including Bain Capital. Wealth creation by all American Corporations are dependent on the security within the borders of this nation; including stability, maintained military arsenal and status; maintained international political relations, financing of many international bodies, including NATO;  where American government’s contributions cannot be underestimated. If many nation member of international bodies are giving accolades and deferments to USA for its huge contribution to the sustenance of many of their programs, how come individual Americans, living fat on taxpayers money in terms of subsidies, tax deferment and more, are claiming individual ruggedness as reason for their wealth and or success?

Mitt Romney’s claim as a job creator may be justified by some of his years as a CEO at Bain Capital; however, there are many testimonies that show that Romney’s claims are biased, since many, if not all of the said jobs created, were at the expense of other jobs lost by Americans. In effect, it is probably a zero sum game, since Bain Capital puts as his first goal and obligation, the long-term interests of it investors. Furthermore, since Bain Capital is a company that undertakes the dissolution of corporations or entities that it considers as inefficiently ran, no one knows the criteria used, except those within or affiliated with Bain Capital, in an effort to make profit. It is probably acceptable that the corporation would marginalize the interest of citizen A to benefit citizen B, in its way of doing business. Where then is the job created?  Effectively, Mitt Romney has to destroy some people’s jobs in order to create jobs for other people. No one can say, with all certainty and better estimates, that jobs destroyed by Bain Capital were replaced by other similar jobs and remuneration, in better efficient corporations. As a matter of fact, no one has proven beyond doubt that many of the private equity firms on Wall Street are making corporations more efficient or effective while maximizing wealth for their investors. Hence, Romney cannot clearly accentuate to himself or any corporation he has led, a net job creator logo or banner. That rugged individualism that he is espousing as the better route for America to take at this stage of our economic malaise or development, is at least suspect, if not completely dismissible, in light of the bouncing back of the American Economy after the recent recession.

Other less sensational claims have been adduced to Mitt Romney that will not be discussed here, as they are somewhat outrageous, outlandish and probably unrealistic. We acknowledge the following: the merits of Supply Side Economics; the demonizing of Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act, the credit for saving General Motors in restructuring - these are all but campaign propaganda. No objective American must be impressed by these claims. They are all but propaganda to help Mitt Romney’s candidacy in probably a tight-faced and closely contested general election. Unfortunately, vulnerable Americans with average ninth grade education may be impressed; however, if many of these people truly evaluate many of Romney's campaign messages of achievements, they will actually see Mitt Romney’s candidacy for what it is: a facade! Such is the world of political campaigns for the White House oval office sometimes!

The second model or philosophy advanced by President Obama: A community focused initiative, that we are all in the boat together and what affects one crew member, affects all on the boat. To paraphrase the President's words: "[Americans] value shared sacrifice! We have that shared optimism and belief in an America where hard work pays off and responsibility are rewarded, and anyone can make it if he or she tries – no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out." This thesis is also shared in America’s historical political experience; from social progressives, including the social justice and environmentalism doctrines. This philosophy is variously ingrained in Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism; Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom; Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. They are concepts that are hardly appreciated by conservatives; however, they are always ready to reap their rewards, either in terms of corporate welfare or tax refunds that they initially antagonized at their introduction by progressives on the floor of congress.

The manner of President Obama’s progressive doctrine offered in his campaign for a second term may succinctly be found in John F. Kennedy's definition of a liberal: "someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grips us.” The orthodoxy of this definition is probably grounded in how President Obama has administered this country in the past three and a half years; and, probably serves as the foundation of his future leadership if he wins a second term. From equal pay for equal work between men and women, to the revocation of Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the military and most recently, the insinuation that LGBT community should have the same opportunity of marrying whomever they choose, just as heterosexual people are doing, President Obama has shown that he is dedicated to fairness and firmness is addressing many issues facing our nation. As unwholesome this philosophy or doctrine is to conservatives, it has served this nation well in the way Obama has led and must, to his credit, form the foundation of his first term accomplishments. From saving General Motors and jobs to killing America’s Number one enemy, Osama bin Laden, one can assertively say, liberalism of the Obama's administration has served the nation well on many fronts, including civil right's recognition for members of our nation who have felt left out of the promise of America. From flexibility in enforcement of some laws considered unconstitutional to consideration of immigration issue, where a minority group feels disenfranchised with respect to landed status with green cars or path to citizenship.

Deferring to President Obama' campaign team, the triumph of Bain Capital for its investors, is a bad omen for job creation. The flip side: What is good for workers is not necessarily good for equity firm investors. The unnavigable success and claims of Mitt Romney as a job creator, is at the expense of middle income earner's survival in modern day America. The raging debate on how to restore growth and prosperity in America cannot be absent of fairness, if we are to avoid similar protest of the Tea Party movement in the Republican Party. In the universe of investor capitalists, the welfare of other Americans is hardly much of a concern. The growing inequality and poverty in America, which President Obama sees partly as a result of inequity in opportunities, which he is also attempting to correct, is very much contrary to the positions of Mitt Romney and the Republicans, who subscribe to the concept of : everyman for himself, God for us all. The Republicans, through their nomination of Mitt Romney as their flag bearer fail to understand the pains of the middle income earners. Since the 2008 recession, this group has seen their income shrink far more than any other income group since the second world war, lost huge ratio of their retirement savings or nest egg, suffered humiliation from long-term unemployment, loss of mortgages and homes, high rate of divorces and marriage disillusions, all over what is happening in America's economy; and, where the nation is heading.

One can contrast Mitt Romney's position and or philosophy to that of President Obama's; and, one will come out  with several contentious positions; none of which will deny America's free market system is still alive; and calling for fairness and a human face in the market place. While individual autonomy is distinctive and encouraged in a free market economy, there is still room for everyone to come to the table of success and feel welcomed. Men and women who lost jobs under equity firms reorganization efforts, complain that there is hardly a shared sacrifice and success in in many equity firms' purported effort to make American Corporation efficient. Many equity firms leave their employees holding the bag after eradicating about ten percent of existing jobs prior to equity firms' buyouts. Romney says he is not running on his record as Governor of Massachusetts; but his performance at Bain Capital. Romney says he created 120,336 net jobs in 24 companies he bought and reorganized at Bain Capital. All these he accomplished after buying and dismantling 100 companies as Bain's CEO, Mitt Romney. Romney's performance could be termed either way: Romney failed in net jobs creation in seventy six companies; and or, if he can create 120,336 net jobs in 24 companies, he could probably create four times that, if his performance ratio is as good in the other seventy-six firms bought over. An indisputable fact is that equity firms are working for their investors and customers, not necessarily creating jobs; and successes or failures of these private equity firms, do not necessarily lead to jobs' creation. The equity firms may help improve productivity of the businesses they buy over, however, like vulture, once they dismantle companies, they are ready to harvest their investments and profit as fast as they can, even at the expense of loss of jobs and or human sufferings.

Present Status of American Economy

There are now promising and probably, higher level of performance of economic indicators for Americas Economy. Building strength in America's Economic indicators are showing that we are moving right along, or in the right direction, as promised by the Obama's Administration when he asked for stimulus money from Congress and taxpayers. The fundamental transparency of leadership found with President Obama is a core part of possible future economic growth; and this may serve as a case for President Obama's second term and support from American voters. The risks taken by Obama's Administration when the economy was in a free fall in the tail end of 2008 and early 2009, exemplifies promise that is now being harvested by many companies that are turning or being turned around; and, which have contributed to employment increases or job growth in the past twelve months. Further, the development on Wall Street, while still tepid, shows that there is potential for increased economic expansion if we can stay the course. Congressional Republicans who withheld help for stimulus spending, health care and financial reforms are finding out that their strategy to frustrate the Obama's Administration has not worked as they had intended.


Sink or swim, isn't a smart policy; and it is not the most effective doctrine for helping out those who have been suffering from current recession. Promising unattainable heights, in the context of job creation is very elusive, if a new President jettisons some of the policies that have brought us out of the worse recession since the 1929 depression. Promising unattainable goal in elections campaign adds is like fooling the electorate hoping that they will take a bite and jettison the current successes of the present administration. Climbing out of tedious recession is difficult, but requires painstaking forbearance. Similar cyclical recession to that of 2008 has been here, putting our capitalistic system into question; however, every time this has happened, the nation has always climbed out of the hole better than when we went in. The usual problem is: how to ensure that the American public is patient enough to reap the reward of past suffering at the unset of the recession. The promise of President Obama's second term is not full-proof; however, a bird in hand is better than two in the bushes.

Better Off or Worse Off

There is a raging debate among voters regarding if they are better off or worse off from four years ago. Most enlightened voters see much improvement and believe that better days are ahead for America. The fears and rumor mongering going on in the Republican party cannot dissuade support for the continued Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, II.  Equally important to the administration is the need to advance continued successes in the realm of the American Economy, despite antagonism from Congressional Republicans. Sometimes, signs of effort made by an Administration aren't apparent to the voter or persons at the receiving end of a slow economy. Holding off support by congressional lawmakers may make the effort of an administration look dismal. An administration likewise, might fail to trumpet its own successes as much as needed to encourage support from voters. For the incumbent, it is important to continue to encourage average Americans to persevere and dissuade misinformation from the republicans that undermine the efforts that are yielding fruits from decisive decisions of this administration. It is important for the Obama's Administration to continue to emphasize that the sink-or-sink doctrine advanced by the individualist, are not good for our current economy; and probably, may be unacceptable considering the American value of shared sacrifice, which has been in place since the advent of this democracy.