Does Obama Think the Government is "Jobs R Us?"

Verizon wireless has a very effective ad campaign featuring a little girl named Suzy and her lemonade stand.  Suzy sits on her corner selling her homemade drinks and then, while using her dad's smartphone as a calculator, she suddenly realizes that her lemonade stand has much more potential than she could have ever imagined.

In a series of events, Suzy brainstorms, tests her product, repackages it, hires employees, expands her business, raises money and voila, Suzy's lemonade is available in retail stores.

Who would have guessed that this would be the perfect 2012 presidential election ad?

This ad perfectly captures Mitt Romney's message that entrepreneurs fuel the economy---small businesses lead to job growth---venture capital money is not evil---and businesses, not government, drive the economy.

Just imagine for one moment if Suzy had to face the regulations that President Obama would like to impose on successful businesses.

Suzy would probably be fined for violating child labor laws, her friends / employees would unionize, Suzy would be required to provide health care for each of them, she would have to comply with strict and imposing regulations on where and how she buys her lemons and then at the end of the day, Suzy would be required to give up half of her profits because it just would not be "fair" to all the other children in the neighborhood who didn't do a lemonade stand.

***

Many political analysts would argue that this year's election is going to be a referendum on capitalism.  I think they are right.

Although the left may not admit it, their disdain for capitalism is becoming increasingly clear.  Attacks on Mitt Romney's successes, his wealth and his business experience have been relentless as the Obama team attempt to portray Mitt Romney as a wealthy, greedy job killer who immorally pursued wealth accumulation.

Mitt Romney responds to it by arguing that attacking his business, his career experience and his successes are an attack on the American Dream.  Furthermore, he argues that to label him a "job killer" simply because he helped businesses become more profitable is a perfect example of how this president does not understand free enterprise.

Over the weekend, political commentator Britt Hume appeared on Fox News Sunday.  He said, "The president and his team seem to think that the idea of creating wealth is unrelated to creating jobs.  Every business person who runs a hamburger stand understands you are trying to make a profit, and that the business of making a profit has jobs as a bi-product. It's not as if there is a favorite industry called 'Jobs R Us,' which is in the business for the purpose of creating jobs."

Hume went on to say, "That isn't how it works, and I think it makes the president sound to people who are not deeply sophisticated about Wall Street like he doesn't get how the whole system works."  He continued, "I think it may be in fact be true that he doesn't get how the whole system works."

Brit Hume might be right, the president just might not get it.  After all, he has never run a business, never managed payroll, never expanded a company and never had to shut down a company because it struggled to make ends meet.

The president does not get it.

***

In this reelection year, President Obama continues to attack free enterprise and private equity.  He continues to advocate that higher taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth and a more prosperous nation.  The biggest problem with his theory?  The government does not have a good track record of it and furthermore, our government has a despicable spending problem.

Are we really supposed to believe that our politicians will use discretion in how they would allocate an increase in tax revenue?  

Unfortunately, our politicians appear to be bound to lobbyists, they have favors to return to their highest campaign donors, and their allegiances are tied to their political party leaders.  Let's be honest, they are always planning their reelection.  Will they really be able to discern between what is right vs. their obligation to repay a favor?

We just saw this happen with President Obama's funding of clean energy resources.  He used billions and billions of tax dollars to fund programs and finance clean energy companies with the hope it would stimulate the economy.  As time has passed, even billions and billions of dollars could not help those companies thrive and most of them have gone bankrupt.

Controversy is now swirling around the fact that most of these clean energy companies were owned by some of Obama's biggest campaign donors.  A new book by the Hoover Institution details that 4 out of every 5 renewable energy companies backed by the Energy Department were "run by Obama fueled financial backers."

Heritage Action for America put together a list of clean energy companies that have received tax payer funds.  Most of these companies are struggling or have already filed for bankruptcy.

• Evergreen Solar
• SpectraWatt
• Solyndra (received $535 million)
• Beacon Power (received $43 million)
• AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
• Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
• SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
• First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
•  Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
• Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
• Amonix (received 5.9 million)
• The National Renewable Energy Lab
• Fisker Automotive
• Abound Solar (received $400 million)
• Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
• Solar Trust of America
• A123 Systems (received $279 million)
• Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
• Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
• Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

We must ask ourselves, did President Obama use true discretion in how those billions of dollars were allocated?  Or was he tied to a campaign debt?

We are fools to think that our current politicians and leaders have the ability to use true discretion.  They repeatedly fund broken programs, they permit billions of dollars to fund pork projects, they fund projects for their allies, they borrow trillions of dollars, they don't repay those loans and they refuse to limit their reckless spending habits to the confines of a budget.

Therefore, I have a very difficult time supporting the president in increasing taxes with the hopes that it will stimulate the economy and lead to job growth and prosperity.  I do not have the confidence that our leaders will use true discretion in how that money would be spent.  

Unlike the president, I do not believe that the government is the best forum for job creation.  To use Brit Hume's words, I don't think the government is a "Jobs R Us."

Reuters Image

Mitt Romney gets it.  He understands how free enterprise works and and what actually fuels job creation.  For 25 years, he was trained in how to help business thrive.  For 25 years, he analyzed what it takes for businesses to be profitable so they can expand and hire more employees.  Mitt Romney became an expert at it and he was extremely successful at what he did.

As I mentioned yesterday, Romney founded a company and over the years, its investments have been successful 80% of them time---only 5% have ended in bankruptcies.  Can the same be said of the investments made by our president?

For our troubled economic times, isn't Romney's experience what we really need?

Mitt Romney is coming to Washington DC with a unique set of skills.   Mitt Romney has spent his career surrounded with entrepreneurs like "Suzy."  He gets her.  He knows that Suzy will do a much better job with her money than the government ever could with its attempt to redistribute it.

Go Mitt.

Expecting More from Our Leaders

Despite resistance from many Democrats, the president is continuing to annihilate Mitt Romney's resume and portray Bain Capital investments as everything that his wrong with capitalism in America.

The other day, in front of a group of reporters, the president defended his attacks on Romney's business experience.  He said, "The main goal of a financial firm like Romney's is not to create jobs.   Their main goal is to create wealth for themselves and their investors."  He went on to say,"Sometimes jobs are created...sometimes it goes the other way. Workers get laid off. Benefits disappear.  Pensions are cut.  There may be value for that kind of experience, but it's not in the White House."

Image from wired.com

The president wants to discredit Romney's record and portray him as a hollow man driven by profit and that Americans should fear someone who tramples on those who get in the way of his wealth accumulation.

Is the president accurate?  Should we fear Mitt Romney?

The answer is emphatically, no.

It is ridiculous to insinuate that we should fear an individual who time and again went into financially broken companies and made them stronger.  It is ridiculous to insinuate that Americans should fear an individual who has a 25+ year track record of being accountable with other people's money.  It is ridiculous to suggest that Bain Capital is full of "vampires" and "vultures" when Bain's reports indicate that its investments have been successful 80% of the time and that only 5% of the firm's investments ended in bankruptcies.

But has Mitt Romney had a perfect career?  Has he been successful at everything he did?  Absolutely not. And Mitt Romney has never tried to act under that assumption.  He talks about the successes of his career, but what makes Mitt Romney so unique is that he is also willing to recognize his failures.

Mitt Romney will be the first to admit that not every investment went as he had hoped or planned.  He has frequently admitted frustration and deep disappointment for failed investments that resulted in job losses and heartache for laid off employees.

But when his company is successful 80% of the time and experienced real failure only 5%, is there a chance that the Obama campaign is choosing to focus on bad?  Is he choosing to distort the real picture of this American company?

Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu argues that it is absolutely fair game to use Bain in the campaign, but only if you talk about Bain as a whole.  He said, "If you want to talk about Bain on cherry-picking basis that's a distortion."

Darren Hauck/Reuters

Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that his investors were always cautious with the companies they invested in and in the event that they were unable to help resuscitate a broken company, they carefully learned from their mistakes.

Can the same be said of this administration?

When was the last time that we heard contrition or an apology from a DC politician?  When was the last time we heard an apology from this president for the $5 trillion spent in just 3 1/2 years?  Money that has failed to stimulate our economy.

Instead, we have watched an administration in just three+ years, throw money at programs hoping each time that it would be the trick to revive our staggering economy.  As I said here, it has been like watching individuals throw darts at a dart board.  Each time crossing their fingers to hit the mark.

But the president has promised that attacks on Bain will continue and he will continue to brand Romney  as a "reckless" and "immoral" individual.  However, as they scrutinize and vilify, there is one blaring truth that they will never be able to say:  Mitt Romney nor anyone on his team has ever grossly overspent the money they were allotted.  In his entire 25+ years, Mitt Romney never borrowed an unthinkable $5 trillion without ever devising a plan to repay the debt.

Can the same be said of this president?

Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

Can we imagine for a moment if Mitt Romney had been this type of investor?  Would the media ever have stood by and allowed him to get away with it?  Would the media have tolerated an individual whose organization recklessly spent/ borrowed $1.6 trillion annually and never hinted at a plan to repay it?

The answer is of course not, nor should they.

But this president is given a pass on his 3 1/2 year record and the media seems perfectly willing to blame the immoral reckless spending on an "inept" Congress.

***

The Romney campaign released this campaign ad highlighting some unknown details of Obama's first-term investments where billions and billions of dollars were made for clean energy solutions.

Most of these clean energy investments were to companies owned by some of Obama's biggest Democrat donors.  In just a few short years, most of these investments have failed causing these companies to shut down--jobs lost---money wasted--peoples' lives affected.  Billions and billions of tax dollars have been lost.

Who is accountable for this loss?

It seems almost ironic that this president wants to hold Mitt Romney accountable for the jobs lost at a steel plant or one paper company, yet the trillions he lost on failed programs are brushed off as "politics as usual."

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

This is not okay.  Apparently Obama agrees.  As I mentioned above, he said, "Sometimes jobs are created...sometimes it goes the other way.  Workers get laid off.  Benefits disappear.  Pensions are cut.  There may be value for that kind of experience, but it's not in the White House."

We should expect more from our leaders.

Fortunately with Mitt Romney, we can.

Go Mitt.

Obama's Debt Outrage--Is it for the Right Reason?

Our president is finally showing outrage over the debt that has accumulated under his watch.  Last night, standing in front of a group of supporters in Iowa, he finally voiced his outrage---but his outrage was not exactly what you would think.

He wasn't outraged or apologetic for the $5 trillion spent in just 3 1/2 years.  He wasn't outraged over the insatiable spending habits of Washington DC politicians.  And he still isn't outraged that members of his own party in the Senate have yet to pass a budget to fiscally control themselves.  No, none of this seems to bother him.

President Obama's outrage is simply that Mitt Romney is holding him accountable for it.  He is taking offense that Romney says that debt is sweeping the nation like a "prairie fire."

(Apparently, the president doesn't like it when people hold him accountable for his own record).

He would much rather blame his predecessor, pivot away from his own record and then distract voters with hot button issues.

Blame. Pivot. Distract.

***

Last night, Obama told his supporters, "He left out some facts.  His speech was more like a cow pie of distortion.  I don't know whose record he twisted the most: mine or his."

I am not exactly sure what the president meant.  Hasn't anyone in his administration ever provided him a copy of the US deficit / financial records for his first term?

Is he possibly unaware how much debt has been accumulated under his watch?  Didn't someone explain to him that he assumed responsibility for every dollar borrowed and spent from the moment he was sworn into office?

Because let's be honest, the president can't exactly cry ignorance.  He undoubtedly knows the gravity of America's financial stability, well, I stand corrected, at least candidate Obama in 2008 certainly did.  Candidate Obama knew those deficit numbers like the back of his hand.  He had scrutinized and analyzed every frivolous Bush expense.  He boldly criticized President Bush for the exorbitant $4 trillion that was accumulated in 8 years.

(FYI, that's $4 trillion in 8 years compared to $5 trillion in 3 1/2 years).

As I mentioned here, Candidate Obama frequently attacked Bush for his 8 year reckless spending spree and even went as far as branding him "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic."

Jim R. Bounds  /  AP

Back in 2008, candidate Obama was a bold and refreshing voice of reason and advocate for fiscal responsibility.

Is he that same person?  Why not?  What has changed?

Could it be that the role he assumed as President of the Free World is a much harder job than he could ever have imagined?  Or worse yet, was all of his "fiscal responsibility" talk just a bunch of campaign rhetoric meant to seduce voters?

Either way, President Obama needs to have the courage to own it.  It happened under his watch.  Like it or not, this $5 trillion mess is tied to his presidency.

***

This morning the Romney camp responded to the president's attacks.  Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said, "A president who broke his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term has no standing when it comes to fiscal responsibility."

But the Obama Administration appears unfazed.  In fact, they are now synchronizing their message and are blaming Mitt Romney and the media for distorting Obama's fiscal record.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary warned reporters earlier this week not to "buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this Administration.  I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness."

Carolyn Kaster/AP

Could Carney be feeling a little bounce in his step after reading a report published by Market Watch?  This article written by Rex Nutting makes the assertion, "The Obama spending binge never happened."

Although the Fact Checker for the Washington Post cited numerous falsities in Nutting's data, the White House is now clinging to the notion that somehow they have been fiscally disciplined.

Please.  This is ridiculous.   And no matter how hard Carney and President Obama try, numbers---$5 trillion of them---don't lie.

***

For now, I am sure we are going to hear congratulatory speeches about Obama's "fiscal sobriety" and see plenty of pats on the back, and see plenty of phony "outrage" over Romney's attacks, but fortunately for Mitt Romney, this time around, people are very engaged in the election.  Voters are paying attention.

Credit: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

I would be willing to be that the only "BS" people will see is the incessant pattern of:  Blame. Pivot. Distract.  Voters will continue to question why the president's fiscal "outrage" only surfaces when Mitt Romney holds him accountable for his $5 trillion fiscal train wreck.

By November, I am confident that the real "outrage" will simply be that this president allowed that $5 trillion wreck to happen and we have nothing to show for it.

America deserves more.

Go Mitt.

Is it "Fair" to Demand "Fairness?"

During President Obama's news conference on Tuesday, he once again reiterated a recurring theme of his presidency---fairness.  The president argued that Mitt Romney's career taught him to maximize profits for investors, but as president, his job is to "figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot."

Reuters Image

Fairness?  He thinks that is his job?  According to whom?  The word "fairness" is never mentioned in Article II of the Constitution where it lays out the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Branch of Government.

(No wonder it feels a little contrived.  No wonder it feels like pandering.  It is).

But constitutional relevance or not, "fairness" is now part of our political conversation and this president is doing everything he can to make sure that it sticks.

Why?

Obama is a masterful campaigner.  He knows that the word "fairness" invokes a sense of security, good manners, kindness and brotherly love.   Obama is trying to portray himself as the "Empathizer-in-Chief."  But as I have argued before here, empathy does not grant one the ability to know how to fix problems.

He wants us to believe that taxing the wealthy will somehow level the economic playing field in America and enable everyone get a "fair shot."  He argues that taxing the wealthy will help the poor, eliminate our debt and stimulate job creation.

By Carolyn Kaster, AP

I believe that he is wrong.  I would argue that advocating fairness and promising a "fair shot" is a mirage that can never succeed in our free enterprise system.

Furthermore, it is vital to ask ourselves, is it fair for our government to demand economic fairness?

***

The president wants to create the illusion that taxing the wealthy ---those making $250,000 or more---will somehow level the economic playing field.   He continues to demonize the wealthy and give false hope to the desperate that taxing the wealthy will somehow help move from them from poor to the middle class.

This is a mirage.  History has shown us that true and lasting wealth distribution cannot last if the government is responsible for that redistribution.

Obama wants us to believe that our overspending, ideological driven political leaders will know how to help those who need it most?  The same leaders who repeatedly fund astronomically expensive and broken programs such as the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare, etc.  These leaders will suddenly know how to get individuals to move from the poor to the middle class?

Image from Abeeer

When has this been successful?

President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush each lowered taxes on capital gains---meaning they lowered taxes on the wealthy.  With each decrease, our government tax revenue increased compared to the 1980s when capital gains taxes were substantially higher.

Under Clinton and Bush, the wealthy were not demonized.  They were encouraged to take their money and redistribute it into the economy through investments and new business opportunities.  This led to a stronger economy.  This led to job growth.  This led to higher tax revenue for our government.

It was effective wealth distribution that complimented free enterprise in America.

***

It is vital that people understand that wealth in America is not divvied up like a pie.  Obama would like us to believe that there is just one "pie" and that the wealthy are somehow hoarding it for themselves.  He wants us to believe that the wealthy are evil, bad people who have robbed the "pie" from the poor and refuse to share it with everyone else.

This is far from the reality.

Prosperity in America is not limited to "one pie."  Prosperity in America is limitless.  There can be limitless "pies."  There is room for everyone.  It is not limited to race, education, sex, or nationality.  Wealth is attainable for all of us.

And contrary to Obama's rhetoric, the wealthy don't inhibit others from becoming wealthy.

The truth is, the wealthy help the poor.  They donate to charities.  They use their investments to fund businesses.  They loan money.  The wealthy breed the entrepreneurial spirit in America.  The truth?  The wealthy create jobs in America---much more so than the government.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy is a very risky move.  It means that there is less money available to invest in new business growth.

Instead, the government collects it and then stands in the middle to "redistribute."  But there are too many hands in the pot.  Too many lobbyists waiting for their handouts.  Too many pork projects to fund.  Too many corrupt politicians.  Too many broken and bankrupt programs to fund.

Artificially imposed economic fairness doesn't work.

***

The same can be said for the artificial fairness imposed in children's sports programs across the country. Many programs have adopted the "fairness doctrine."  There are no scores.  There are no winners.  There are no losers.  Just participants.   Everyone gets a trophy.  The playing field has been leveled.

What parents and "fairness" advocates refuse to acknowledge is that a level playing field does not make weak players become strong.

Is it fair to make all players equal?  What about the players who are really good?

Derek Jeter, Lebron James, Tim Tebow, Venus and Serena Williams and Michael Phelps became exceptional because they were not limited.  Can you imagine how different it would have been if someone told them, "You are just a little too good.  Quit hogging all the talent.  Could you please give away some of your talent to the weaker players?  Or better yet, please hinder your talent so the other players don't feel bad."

This would obviously be foolish.  Leveling a playing field does not make the weak strong.  If anything it inhibits growth.  It stifles potential.  It sets limitations.

I would argue that government imposed "economic fairness" is just as foolish.

*** 

It is becoming increasingly clear that our president does not understand how free enterprise works.  He thinks government programs can and should offer all the solutions.  While government programs do serve a valuable purpose in the aid of the poor, government programs don't offer the only solutions.

Obama continues to argue the need for tax increases to solve America's tax and revenue problems.  But as any conservative would respond, "We don't have a revenue problem in America, our politicians have a spending problem."

Mitt Romney is going to continue to show America that Obama's policies are hindering economic growth and that artificially imposed "economic fairness" will stifle growth and limit prosperity for everyone.

Charles Dharapak/AP Photo

This president has been seeking "fairness" from the day he took office, but his quest has proven to be a distraction from his ability to find real and lasting solutions to our economic problems.  Seeking "fairness" has seen the longest period of unemployment over 8% since the Great Depression.  Seeking "fairness" has not sped up the slowest and most anemic economic recovery since WW II.  Seeking "fairness" has encouraged our government to accumulate an astronomical $5 trillion in debt.

Seeking fairness has been a distraction.

Fortunately for us, Mitt Romney is not easily distracted.  He will be laser focused on achieving real solutions for real economic growth.  He understands that a strong and thriving economy is the best way to distribute wealth.

His career shows that financial stability is attainable---his resume shows that he can make it a reality.

Go Mitt.

Are Bain Attacks Backfiring on the President?

President Obama and his team are doing everything they can to discredit Mitt Romney.  This week the president and his team have launched their most brutal and deliberate attacks on what they clearly view as Mitt Romney's greatest strength---his 25+ years in business.

They are trying to portray him as a relentless, heartless business tycoon and to be frank, they want to make the case that Romney's "vampire" training in private equity has made him unfit to be in the oval office.

Reuters image/Jason Reed

Is it true?  Should Americans be worried that someone from the private sector could actually harm America?

Well, the president certainly seems to think it is.  And he has made it abundantly clear that he is going to expose that Romney's career made him an empty man who was only driven by profit and the desire to make money for a selective few.

However, there is one crucial detail that the president and his team have blatantly removed from their attacks.  This president has never had a problem with the private equity sector.  In fact, he has always been willing to rub shoulders with the best in the industry.

Fact?

Last week it was reported that on the very day the Obama camp released the GTS steel ad attacking private equity and the role that Mitt Romney played in the closure of the GTS plant (click here to read more), President Obama just so happened to spend that evening in New York City at a fundraiser in the home of Hamilton James.

image from business insider.com

For those not familiar with this name, Hamilton James is the president of the largest private equity firm in America, Blackstone Group.

The president's attacks on Bain Capital and disgust with private equity are beginning to lose all credibility.

Is this a double standard?

That night, President Obama was faced with a unique dilemma.  Based on his campaign, our president doesn't appear to like private equity.  So that evening presented a perfect opportunity to speak directly with those most heavily involved in the practice---he was surrounded with individuals with direct ties to the private equity sector.

Did our president take the opportunity to share his distaste for the tactics used by private equity firms?

The answer is of course not.  He wined and dined with the $35,800 a-head donors and raised over $2 million for his campaign.  Apparently, not one word was mentioned about his "outrage" over the tactics the donors use to make a profit to pay for the hefty fundraising price tag.

Image from FoxNews.com

Hypocritical?  Absolutely.

I like to call it, "selective outrage."  It's phony.  It's manipulative.  And it shouldn't be brushed off as politics as usual.

***

The biggest problem with this campaign strategy?

As the president attacks Romney, he ends up attacking the private equity industry as a whole.  Private equity is not the evil of America.  Far from it.  Private equity plays an instrumental and integral role in business creation in this country.  Should the entire industry be vilified because one individual just so happens to be the president's political rival?

Many business leaders are beginning to voice serious concern for the president's tactics and attacks.  But even greater concern to the president is that Democrats, including many closely affiliated with the Administration are exposing his attacks as unwarranted.

The president is beginning to take some heat for it.

Sunday on "Meet the Press," rising star in the Democratic party, Newark Mayor Cory Booker voiced his frustration with the Obama Administration's attacks on Bain capital.

He said, "If you look at the record of Bain Capital, they have done a lot to support business, grow business.  This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides.  It's nauseating to the American public.  Enough is enough.  Stop attacking private equity, stop attacking Jeremiah Wright.  This stuff has got to stop, because... it undermines to me, what this country should be focused on."

(I can only imagine the panic in that NBC greenroom).

NBC Photo

The fallout and backlash from these harmful statements made by an Obama ally was quick and relentless.  As the day progressed, Booker's stinging statements and criticism of the president, appeared to be the "criticism heard round the world."

As no surprise, within a few hours of his "Meet the Press" appearance, Booker released a Youtube video retracting his criticism as he voiced his concern for Romney's career tactics and then reiterated his strong support and endorsement for President Obama's reelection efforts.

Please.

The Romney camp immediately pounced and released this campaign ad.

Wow.  Ouch.

Is President Obama listening?

Apparently not.  At a news conference in Chicago yesterday, the president continued to defend his attacks on Mitt Romney's record.  He said, "Governing requires a different set of skills and priorities than private enterprise."

Well, what about the set of skills that he brought with him to the oval office?

Did the resume of a law professor / community organizer create the right "skills and priorities" needed to to help our country emerge from the deepest recession since the Great Depression?

The blaring truth is that the "skills" Obama brought to the White House have proven to be completely insufficient.  He has never run a business.  He has never managed a payroll.  He has never had to be the leader of a bitterly divided group of people.

Mitt Romney certainly has.

President Obama is in over his head and his skills can't help him.

***

The president has made it abundantly clear that the Bain attacks will persist.

The question remains, will it work?

Image from ABC News

George Will was asked this same question on Sunday's ABC News Roundtable discussion with George Stephanopoulos.  George Will's response was profound.

He argued that these attacks won't be effective because the people making this argument against Bain Capital are the same individuals who have seen 365,000 jobs lost since the day the recovery started in June 2009.  Will said, "Think of that.  A recovery that subtracts---from the total jobs in the country."

***

The president is hoping that his charm and eloquent speeches will create enough distraction for his base to remain gullible.  It won't work.  Mitt Romney knows how to defend himself and he will continue to show that the president's "selective outrage" over private equity is phony at best.

Fortunately for Romney, it is only May and voters are paying attention to every detail of this election.

People---including Obama's close allies---are beginning to see that his attacks are as empty as his promises.  Empty attacks and empty promises that are only made when it is politically advantageous.

This time around, I hope it doesn't work.

America deserves better.  We should demand more and expect more from our leaders.

Go Mitt.

Two Surprising Gifts from President Obama to Mitt Romney

The last few weeks have been a gift for the Romney camp---and who would have guessed that the gift would come straight from his rival, the president himself.

For starters, President Obama launched his highly anticipated reelection campaign and by all accounts, it was a flop.  His speech was a far cry from the "brilliance" we saw in 2008.  His message lacked substance and absolutely no specifics for what his second term agenda would be.  It left many supporters and members of the media scratching their heads saying, that's it?

 CBS image.  Haraz N. Ghanbari/AP Photo

For weeks, we have watched our president jump from issue to issue, (War on Women, Gay Marriage, Fairness, Evils of Bain Capital, etc) each time hoping that he'll identify the right hot button topic to rally his base and weaken his opponent.

His strategy has not worked.

Mitt Romney is surging in the polls---many polls show him leading the president nationally and tied in most swing states.  Independents and women appear to be abandoning the Obama ship and then, given the president's recent evolution to support gay marriage, the evangelical right are now firmly rallying behind Mitt.

It goes without saying that Obama's campaign is off to a rocky start.  His fundraising dollars were down from last months'  fundraising totals and to make matters worse, his totals for the month were nearly equal to the amount raised by Mitt Romney.

It is only May and yet, this is happening for Mitt Romney, the "weak" Republican candidate who was supposed to be "too damaged" from the primaries to rally his base.  The candidate who is "too out-of-touch" and "too wealthy."  Mitt Romney, the candidate who was portrayed by the media as never standing a chance to go up against this popular president and his fundraising machine.

MSNBC Image / Reuters

I guess they were wrong.

But in the past 10 days, there are two surprising gifts that the president and his team have handed to Mitt Romney.  Namely, they have revoked two weapons from their arsenal that can be used down the road to discredit Mitt Romney.

What are these gifts?

#1 They can no longer brand Mitt a "Flip-Flopper"

The Obama campaign strategists have aggressively tried to portray Mitt Romney as a "flip-flopper."  White House spokespeople and Democratic Strategists have jumped at every opportunity to brand him as an uncommitted politician who lacks conviction and core principles.  They are quick to remind voters that Mitt Romney's change of position on key issues reflects and individual who panders to voters to win elections.

Problem?

From now on, thanks to the President's evolution to support gay marriage, Mitt Romney simply needs to respond to the attacks as a "misunderstanding."  He can simply say, "Oh, I am sorry, the White House misspoke.  I didn't "flip-flop," I simply evolved."

The media and the Obama team have given Mitt Romney the best rebuttal possible to the flip-flopping title.  "Evolving."  Brilliant.

(The Mitt Romney camp and his supporters express their gratitude).

***

#2 Attacks on Religion are now off limits

On Thursday, New York Times reported that a Conservative Super PAC, though not affiliated with the Romney campaign, was planning to run a negative ad focusing on controversial statements made by Obama's spiritual leader and former pastor, Reverend Wright.

Image from Businessinsider.com

The backlash from the left was quick and relentless.

Starting at 5:42 AM, Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod tweeted, "Will Mitt stand up, as John McCain did? Or allow the purveyors of slime to operate on his behalf?"

Throughout the day, dozens of tweets and countless statements were released from Democrat operatives.  Brad Woodhouse, Communications Director for the DNC tweeted, "If @MittRomney can't clearly denounce the type of scum bag tactics planned by his allies as outlined by the NYT he's not fit to lead."

Even White House spokesman Jay Carney jumped in.  He said, "To launch a multimillion dollar divisive attack campaign is not what the American people want.  I think there are moments when you have to stand up and say that is not the right way to go."

Clearly, the left has a problem with using a candidate's religion or their religious leaders in attack ads.

Problem with all of this outrage?  Mitt Romney completely agrees---Romney would also appreciate attacks on his religion to stay out of this election cycle.

ABC News Image

Mitt Romney refused to engage in the controversy.  When asked about the Reverend Wright ad he simply reminded the media that the Super PAC is not affiliated with his campaign and by law, he cannot interact with them.  Then he confidently said, "I want to make it very clear: I repudiate that effort.  I think it is the wrong course...I hope that our campaigns can respectively be about the future and about a vision for America."

Mitt Romney is being praised for his response and even Wolf Blitzer of CNN says that Romney's approach is "smart politics."  (Click here to read article).

I am sure the Romney camp would like to thank David Axelrod and the DNC spokespeople for setting this precedent so early in the election season:  Attacking religion is dirty politics.

They are right.  It is.

(Mitt Romney and members of the Mormon faith would like to thank them).

***

Two invaluable gifts for Mitt Romney.  Thank you Mr. President.

Now the election can stay focused on the issues.  No more talk of flip-flopping, no attacks on religion.  Just the facts.  Just the issues.  Just the economy.

Perfect.

Mitt Romney can now stay focused on reminding Americans how little has progressed since Obama took office.  Although Obama will complain about how bad things were when he took office, Mitt Romney is going to remind people how bad things have remained since he took it.

Getty Image

Mitt Romney is going to talk about the trillions of stimulus that failed to stimulate.  He is going to talk about the high unemployment.  He is going to talk about the president's inability to lead a divided Congress to find real compromises.

Mitt Romney can continue to argue that this election needs to turn on who has the best plan for jobs?

As President Obama avoids running on his record and tries to somehow inspire us to look "Forward," voters will fail to be inspired and will see that it is just a desperate plea for us not to look back at all that has failed in 3 1/2 years.

Mitt Romney is going to show his plan for a better America.  He is going to show America that real "Change" is possible---but this time around it will be change for the better.

Our president appears to be a little disoriented.  His rock star status has diminished and he is trying to re-establish what he stands for.  But the danger for his campaign?  If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

We deserve better.

Go Mitt!

Debt, Collateral & Accountability

Anyone who has gone through a home purchase knows that the process to apply for and secure a home loan is surprisingly tedious and ridiculously complicated.

hardmoneyloansnortherncalifornia.com

The amount of paperwork, verification and signatures needed to secure a home loan is outrageous.

It can be quite intimidating.

By the last signature, a buyer certainly feels the weight of their purchase and the responsibility in assuming a debt that will take 30 years to repay.

Banks certainly take a risk, but aside from the interest they earn, the single biggest incentive for the bank is that the house is the collateral.  They know that people feel an obligation to pay their mortgages or they will lose their homes.

The collateral keeps the borrower accountable for the debt.

***

Just think for a second how different borrowing is for our political leaders in this country?

Politicians draft up legislation with unthinkable price tags---literally trillions and trillions of dollars for expensive, inefficient, unproven and mostly, broken programs.

Getty Images

How are they paying for it?  After tax payer revenue has dried up, borrowed money from China covers the rest.

This lovely borrowing system has been going on for decades.  Today, America's debt  / deficit stands at a staggering $15.7 trillion and counting. (www.treasurydirect.gov).

According to the usdebtclock.org, the total debt per US citizen is $183, 378.  That puts the debt per US family to $692,810.

I don't know about the average person, but the fact that our government leaders have passed this debt onto each of us seems totally unfair, completely uncalled for and quite frankly, immoral.

Who is holding these leaders accountable?

Furthermore, what is the collateral on their debt?

***

This cycle continues year after year.  Decade after decade. Trillions upon trillions.  No politician has been able to adequately address the amount of overspending by our government or effectively come up with a significant plan to eliminate it.

Where is the outrage?

When Candidate Obama ran in 2008, he hinted that he was different.  He portrayed himself as being unlike his predecessors.  He boasted that he could be trusted to be fiscally responsible.

He heavily criticized President George W. Bush.  Obama said, "The problem is the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 24 presidents. #43 added 4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back---$30,000 for every man, woman and child.  That's irresponsible.  It's unpatriotic." (Fargo, ND 7/3/08)

As the Romney campaign has highlighted, Candidate Obama once promised to go through the budget, "line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making new ones we do need work better and cost less." (Denver, CO 8/28/08)

Has he done any of it?

Absolutely not.  Instead, his record reflects that his claims of fiscal responsibility were nothing but empty rhetoric used in a stump speech to pander to voters.

In just 3 1/2 years, this president has spent way more than he was allotted.  He has increased our debt by $5 trillion.  He once called President Bush "unpatriotic" for the debt he created.  What does he have to say about his $5 trillion contribution?

***

Will Mitt Romney be any different?

There is one blaring reason why Mitt Romney will be different: He has been trained to be accountable.

Mitt Romney has made a career out of being accountable with other people's money.  For years, he managed millions and millions of investors' money.  These years gave him hands-on training to never spend more than he takes in.

Romney has been trained to use discretion.  Unlike President Obama, Romney never had access to an unlimited amount of borrowed money.  Instead, he had to learn how to budget and account for every dollar and every expense.  His career reflects an individual who knows how a budget works.  He has always had to spend within limits.

Why?

For 25+ years, Mitt Romney knew that if he wasn't accountable and fiscally responsible, he would get fired.  This is how he has been trained.  This is how he made a living and he was exceptionally good at what he did.  This training led to tremendous growth under his watch.

This is what makes him different.

America deserves more.   It is time for a leader who not only knows what to say, but more importantly knows how to act.

We must remember that something is terribly wrong in this country when it is harder for a homeowner to secure a $200,000 loan on a home than it is for a politician to rack up trillions in debt.

It is time for some accountability---because the only collateral that voters have for this reckless debt is to remove the reckless politicians.

It is time to collect.

America needs Mitt.

Does Obama have a record to stand on while he attacks Mitt Romney?

President Obama and his campaign staff are painstakingly watching the polls...and it is only May.  This week's shift from gay marriage to the economy is a perfect reflection of it.

Yesterday the New York Times reported, "Most Americans suspect that the president was motivated by politics, not policy when he declared his support for same sex marriage."

They revealed the results of a NYT / CBS News poll showing most Americans suspect that the president was motivated by politics rather than policy when he declared his support for same sex marriage.  "Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed said that they thought that Mr. Obama had made the announcement mostly for political reasons."

This is undoubtedly concerning for the White House.  It shows that the president's historic evolution to support gay marriage appeared "calculated rather than principled."

Ouch.  It is never a good thing for a politician to appear insincere.

***

So how did the White House react to this poll?

They changed the conversation...again.   This time around they were forced to change the conversation to a topic that they have been desperately trying to avoid: the economy.

They did it with an attack on Mitt Romney's business record.

The White House released a six-minute ad vilifying the role that Mitt Romney and Bain Capital played in GST steel, a Kansas City, Missouri steel company.  Bain Capital invested in the plant in 1993, but by 2001, the mill filed for bankruptcy and shut down.

The closure resulted in 700 workers losing their jobs.

The ad depicts Mitt Romney and his partners as heartless, business tycoons who aggressively pursued wealth over compassion for the livelihood of those working at the plant.

Image from Bostonglobe.com

Interviews from disgruntled employees who described Mitt Romney as a "vampire," make the ad somewhat effective.  But there is one detail that the Obama camp blatantly failed to mention: Mitt Romney was not even actively managing Bain Capital when the steel company filed for bankruptcy---he was working full-time as CEO to salvage the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic games.

Is it fair to blame him?

Another blaring truth?  In the 1990s, America's steel industry as a whole was in real trouble---cheap imports were crushing the steel industry.  Two dozen steel companies filed for bankruptcy around the same time as this Kansas City plant.

Can Mitt Romney be blamed for the failure of the entire steel industry in America?

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post wrote a fascinating perspective today on this Obama ad.  He acknowledged that GST steel was in trouble long before the Bain investment.  He referenced an article in the Kansas City Star in 2001 which showed that in 1970, the plant had 4,500 workers---but by 1983, that number had plummeted to 1,500 workers.

Why?

Poor market conditions, poor equipment, stiff competition, expensive labor costs and cheap imports had already forced layoffs years before Bain Capital showed up.

As Kessler mentioned, in the 1990's, the steel industry in America was on the brink of collapse.

(Facts---they always offer the the most accurate perspective).

The Obama campaign chose their facts to use "selective distortion" for their political gain.

Truth? The steel industry in America crumbled not from the evils of Bain Capital investments, but rather it crumbled from an unforeseen surge of cheap imports.

Reuters Image

GST steel---like the other two dozen plants---didn't stand a chance.

***

So how did the Romney camp react?

Well, unlike his response to attacks on Bain Capital during the South Carolina primary, this time around Romney welcomed the change of conversation.

This time, Romney is ready.

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said today, "We welcome the Obama campaign's attempt to pivot back to jobs and a discussion of their failed policies.  Mitt Romney helped create more jobs in his private sector experience and more jobs as Governor than President Obama has for the entire nation."

Reuters Image / Rebecca Cook

As Romney campaign strategist Ed Gillespie pointed out, the ad is simply a reflection of this Administration's complete lack of understanding of the free market and private enterprise.

Better yet, the ad allows Romney to remind voters of Obama's dismal record of job creation.

We will undoubtedly hear a lot about Obama "saving the auto industry,"  but as Byron York of the Washington Examiner wrote, Obama doesn't want anyone to remember that during his rescue of GM and Chrysler, 700+ dealerships were shut down and the New York Times reported in 2010 that as a result of the closures, tens of thousands of jobs were lost.

Does President Obama really have a record to stand on as he attacks Mitt Romney?

The answer is no.

***

In the past two weeks, Obama has been desperately hopping from issue to issue with the hopes that something will stick.

It isn't working.

Today's polls show Romney leading Obama by 3 points.  If attacking Bain doesn't work, the message will probably change again on Monday, but it goes without saying, the Obama camp should be worried.

Furthermore, it is only May and they are already using their "big gun" attacks against Romney.  Will voters be bored with the Bain attacks by November?

Credit: AP Photo/Julie Jacobson

The Obama camp is surely on notice.

Romney is focused.  Romney is not easily distracted.  Romney's message is resonating.

Mitt Romney has found his feet.

Go Mitt!