The Leader We Deserve

The conventions are over, and the debates are approaching. But as voters decide which campaign message to approve, it is important to take a look back at President Clinton’s speech from the DNC, where he made the point that, “Since the 1960s…our economy produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million.”

Clearly Democrats, although in power for a shorter time, created better conditions for job growth than Republican administrations. But why is that?

It’s because Democrats understand that no one in this country is completely self-reliant. Although my parents started their own business and “built that”, they understand that in addition to their hard work, they also needed a society that invested in great teachers and rewarded those who play by the rules.

Democrats understand that when 98% of Americans are suffering, the top 2% also suffer. Although my parents have been very fortunate, they understand that when the middle class has less disposable income, their business suffers as well.

Democrats understand that investments in education, infrastructure, and healthcare are good for everyone. Take healthcare as an example. Put aside the morality argument. Forget about the fact that for years, insurance companies placed life-time caps, dropped coverage, and overcharged patients in return for very little care. Purely economic, if a large chunk of your paycheck goes to paying medical bills, you’ll have less money to buy goods/services. Not to mention that insurance companies were neglecting 30 million new customers that they now have thanks to Obamacare.

Democrats understand that government can help when no one else is willing to. It took a strong national government to get us out of the Great Depression in the ‘40s. It took a strong national government to pass the Civil Rights Act in the ‘60s. And it took a strong national government to bailout Wall Street and save the Auto-industry to ensure that capital continues to flow and that we don’t slip into another Great Depression.

No one is arguing that our economy is fully out of recovery. The recent jobs report last Friday proved that. But facts are facts, and we should not forget that it was President Bush’s policies that got us into this mess in the first place, and those are the same policies that Governor Romney is advocating for.

Thanks to the leadership of President Obama, our financial system is stronger today than it was 4 years ago. Because of his Wall-Street Reform, taxpayers will never again have to bailout “too-big-to-fail” banks whose failures to cover their losses jeopardized our economy.

Thanks to the leadership of President Obama, our economy is stronger today than it was 4 years ago. We are no longer losing over 700,000 jobs a month, the American Auto-Industry is no longer failing, and unemployment is no longer above 10%.

Thanks to the leadership of President Obama, our national security and foreign policy are stronger today than they were 4 years ago. Every President in recent history has worked for nuclear control. But it was Obama who actually worked with Russia to sign the new START Treaty (whereas Romney argues that our biggest threat today IS Russia). It was Obama who repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, proving to our soldiers that “love of country, not love of another, determines loyalty”. It was Obama who successfully worked with our allies to take down Gaddafi without any U.S. casualties (whereas Romney says we needed to act unilaterally without any regard to our allies). It was Obama who, even contrary to the advice of some in his own team, gave the order to take down Bin Laden (whereas Romney once said “It's not worth moving heaven and Earth and spending billions of dollars just to catch one person”). And it was Obama who ended the war in Iraq, as promised, and created a plan to end the war in Afghanistan (I’m not sure what Romney thinks since he’s been consistently flip flopping on this issue).

And thanks to President Obama, our nation’s healthcare system is stronger today than it was 4 years ago. First, it is NOT a government-run program (and for those that argue it is, I would examine President Regan’s EMTALA that mandated hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay). It is NOT a tax (just listen to Romney describe how the Individual Mandate is simply a penalty for those who don’t take personal responsibility to get insurance). And it does NOT increase costs, run up the deficit, or bankrupt Medicare (the non-partisan CBO estimates it saves taxpayers about $1000 a year, reduces our deficit by $200 billion, and saves Medicare recipients $6500 per year).

Time and time again President Obama has tried to work with the Republicans, even so much so that sometimes his own base was frustrated. But on every measure, even those which they have supported in the past, the Republican leadership has shown obstruction and bitter partisanship.

When Obama argued for a Stimulus, which Republicans have traditionally agreed to, they all voted against it. When Obama argued for the Individual Mandate in Healthcare, which was a Republican idea in the first place, they all voted against it. When Obama tried to reduce our deficit, Republicans signed a tax pledge and refused to compromise no matter how much Obama was willing to reduce spending.

So yes, I support President Obama, more now than in 2008. I support him because he truly puts partisan politics aside to work for the American people.

He is the kind of leader America deserves.

The Truth About Medicare

Medicare was designed as a guarantee that citizens over 65 will have adequate medical care regardless of how healthy or wealthy they are.  The Romney/Ryan plan would change this.

Romney and Ryan both call for turning Medicare into a voucher system. Seniors would be given a certain amount of money each year to buy health insurance on their own. If that amount isn’t enough to pay for the kind of coverage you need, you pay the difference out of pocket. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, this will force seniors to pay an average of $6,500 a year more for their insurance.

Because of the system in place today, Medicare's size allows the government to negotiate its rates. However, if it loses many of its healthier enrollees to private insurers (because they feel they can do without insurance), Medicare will likely lose bargaining power with its providers, making it harder and costlier for seniors who need healthcare.

Unlike the Romney-Ryan plan, President Obama’s plan actually achieves billions in savings without cutting payments to Medicare beneficiaries.

Prior to the new healthcare law –under the Medicare Part D program—seniors initially paid 25 percent of their medication costs while Medicare paid the rest. However, once they reached a certain spending limit (the coverage gap commonly known as the “donut hole”), beneficiaries were required to pay the full costs of their prescription drugs out of pocket.

What Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ie. Obamacare) does is make the program more affordable by gradually closing the donut hole and reducing wasteful spending by private insurers. This will lower premiums, increase savings, and extend the life of Medicare ( click here for more details ).

The Romney-Ryan plan, by contrast, achieves its savings by turning Medicare into a voucher whose value doesn't keep up with expected increases in healthcare costs -- thereby shifting the burden onto Medicare beneficiaries.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to turn Medicare over to the private market. And as was the case before Obamacare, where private insurers dropped coverage for patients who had preexisting conditions and were deemed “risky”, seniors would face the same fate.

The underlining message is who should bear the burden. Time and time again, whether it is with Romney’s plan to lower the tax rates for the top percent (which means that taxes on the middle-class will be higher); or with Romney’s plan to decrease the size of the federal government (even when states are barely able to keep teachers police officers on payroll), we have seen the Republican Party shift greater burdens to people with less bargaining power.

But what Republicans need to understand is that we’re all interdependent on one another in all walks of life.

That is the choice in this election. 

The Need for Growth

"I came in and the jobs had been just falling off a cliff. I came in and they kept falling for 11 months and then we turned around and we're coming back. And that's progress. And if you're going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected, somehow jobs should immediately turn around, why that would be silly. It takes a while to get things turned around.”

-Governor Mitt Romney (Press Conference, 6/24/2006)

Although our economy has created 4.5 million new jobs since President Obama took office; although we have prevented another Great Depression; and although Democrats have been continuously fighting to create more jobs, we need to continue promoting policies that have been proven to work, and discontinue those that have failed.

Many of these failed policies stem from the notion that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Since our nation’s founding, we have depended upon a strong national government to open up opportunity, ensure equality, encourage competition, and keep our democracy strong. Thus, the only way to continue improving the state of our union is to understand that government is not the cause of our problems, but rather the solution to them.

The government shouldn’t decide who gets married. But in the same way that government needed to step in when certain states enacted the racist Jim Crowe laws that restricted certain freedoms to a minority group, we need a government that can stand up for all those who are discriminated against.

The government shouldn’t tell a business owner how to run his/her business. But if the actions of a company impedes on the free market opportunities of other businesses, as is the case with monopolies or companies that are “too big to fail”, then we need government to enact certain regulations that strengthen the principles of capitalism.

The government shouldn’t use taxpayer dollars to bailout certain industries. But when there are no private lenders willing to invest in an industry that creates millions of domestic jobs and is essential to the economic prosperity of a nation, we need government to step in and save jobs.

The government shouldn’t dictate how private health insurers treat their customers. But when insurance companies mislead patients and misuse premium dollars, we need government to “promote the General Welfare” of its citizens and strengthen the privately-run healthcare industry to provide access and affordable care to all.

And the government shouldn’t enact policies that raise taxes on the wealthiest. But when this class of citizens pays a significantly lower effective tax rate than the rest of society, or when their lower rates come at the expense of middle-class families, we need government to ensure that “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules,” (Obama).

Clearly we are on the right track and we’re making progress. But in order to ensure that we continue to move this country forward, we need another term for President Obama and the continued leadership of the Democrats.

Taxes and Taxes Oh My!

President Obama is once again asking Congress to have the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. Specifically, he is proposing that all Americans receive a continuation of the Bush tax cuts (at 35%) on the first 250k of their incomes, and pay the Clinton-era rates (39%) for any income earned above that level.

At first glance, it would appear that this economically-sound proposal would receive immediate approval from the “deficit-hawks” and the “fiscally responsible”. But then again no change worth making comes easy.

Republicans claim that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on any income earned over 250K would hurt small businesses, hurt the job creators, hurt our growing economy, and hurt all working-class Americans. But despite the partisan rhetoric seen on Fox News, the facts are indisputable.

First, a recentTreasury analysis found that only the top 2 percent of all households, and only the top 2.5 percent of small-business owners, would face higher taxes from our president’s call to expire the tax cuts on the wealthiest. But for these individuals, I assume paying anything more than the 15 percent rate that their capital gains/dividend yields are currently taxed at is asking for too much.  

It is also important to understand that the main reason businesses are not creating more jobs is because of the decreased demand for their goods and services. Put simply, if people don’t have money to spend, the economy cannot grow. Therefore, we need to ensure that the middle-class (ie. the REAL job creators) are provided the same opportunities the wealthiest have, including affordable healthcare, lower taxes, and access to higher education.

Second, the notion that Obama’s policies have bankrupted our nation is blatantly false. It was due to the leadership of the last Democratic president that the economy generated 22 million net new jobs, and income levels for all Americans grew at historic levels. On the other hand, it was the policies of the last Republican administration that took a $200 billion surplus and drained it to a $1 trillion deficit. Ironically, these same failed policies are being proposed by the “pro-business” “job-creating” Republican nominee for president.

It is because of President Obama and his so called “socialist” policies that we are not in another Great Depression: unemployment is lower than three years ago; home foreclosure rates are lower than three years ago; we are safer than we were three years ago; more people have healthcare than three years ago; the American auto-industry is stronger now than it was three years ago; and there have been more jobs now than there were three years ago.

Third, no one in the Democratic Party resents wealth. What we resent is the distribution of wealth to the very rich; when profits are privatized while losses are socialized; when the few wealthy individuals get tax credits on the backs of millions of working class Americans; where the very rich have continued to prosper while the 98% of the population have not.

And why not simply extend all the Bush tax cuts? Because we can’t afford to. Therefore, the loss in revenue from continuing the tax cuts on the top 2 percent needs to be balanced with equal cuts in something else. Unfortunately, these cuts are usually taken from programs that are specifically designed to benefit a middle-class family living paycheck to paycheck.

Given this choice, we need a president who understands that “our prosperity has always come from an economy that's built on a strong and growing middle class…so that's why I believe it's time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, folks like myself, to expire,” (Obama). 

I Like Obama'care'

http://www.carlsontoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/partsC.jpg

And so should you!

When our president passed the Affordable Care Act, Republicans claimed it was not the correct solution to the healthcare problem. Republican leaders also want you to believe that if they were in control, they would offer a solution. But they have had control of the House since 2010 and have not yet offered anything to the American people. Instead of proposing any substantive alternatives of their own, they have focused solely on repealing “Obamacare”. But how is this a policy?

Even when they had a unified government during the last Bush administration – with control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency – they were still unable to come up with any real solution (instead they decided to focus on depleting our nation’s surplus by forging two wars and passing tax-cuts for the wealthiest Americans). The only time they offered something substantive to the healthcare debate was in the 1990s, when they proposed the individual mandate.

So, as a truly bipartisan leader, Obama decided to put the Republican’s sole contribution to the healthcare debate into his healthcare law in 2009, when the Democrats had a unified government. In other words, when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, Obama still chose to reach across the political isle (something that angered some in his own base) in the spirit of compromise. He didn’t have to. But Obama wanted to elevate politics to a level he promised in his 2008 campaign, and he did so in the most moderate and transparent way possible.

But instead of appreciating the president’s efforts, the Republican leadership chose obstruction. They have not only used the Senate filibuster more than twice as much as ever in the history of the Senate, but they have said numerous times that their sole priority is to defeat Obama. They have been unwilling to come up with any real solutions of their own, with the exception of saying “No” to everything our president has proposed.

Even now, after the Supreme Court upheld the only solution to fixing our nation’s broken healthcare system, the Republicans’ only alternative solution: repeal Obamacare.

They continue to spend every day of President Obama’s administration to try and distort the facts. They claim that Obamacare would raise taxes, increase the size of government, increase our deficit, put granny on a death panel, hurt business owners, hurt doctors, and hurt insurance companies. But it is critical for the health and safety of our nation that we sort through fact from fiction. Here are just a few facts. If you don’t believe me, let me know WHY:

The Individual Mandate is NOT a tax. It is only a penalty for those who do not take the personal responsibility of buying health insurance. The idea, proposed by Republicans, ensures that no one gets a free handout and that the rest of us taxpayers need not bailout or pay for someone else’s healthcare. In fact, because of Obamacare, nearly 13 million Americans will receive a rebate check that comes from a provision of the law that punishes insurers who spend too much of policyholders' premiums for boosting company profits instead of paying for their medical care.

Obamacare does NOT run up our country’s deficits. According the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare reduces deficits by $210 billion.

Obamacare is NOT a government-run program. All it does is stay true to capitalistic principles of the free market and prohibit insurance companies from maintaining monopolies on your insurance policy. The reason that we needed the federal government to get involved in the first place is because before Obamacare, most states had no solutions of their own (with the exception of Romneycare). There were millions without coverage, and millions more who were forced into bankruptcy when they got sick and couldn’t afford healthcare

Obamacare IS about the economy and jobs. If a large chunk of your paycheck goes to paying for rising healthcare premiums that you cannot afford, you don’t have much money left over to help businesses grow. Furthermore, if you are sick and are forced into bankruptcy, you are no longer self-sufficient. Instead, you are forced to rely on free handouts. In doing so, you cost the average taxpayer $1000 in increased premiums due to your visits to the ER. In doing so, you become a drag to the economy.

Obamacare IS a moral issue. In our nation’s history, we have always benefited from expanding rights to a group of people who have otherwise been denied those privileges. Think about the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Although it may have been seen as a distraction from “jobs, jobs, jobs”, we knew that it was the right course of action for our country. In the same way, I don’t see how it is okay for people to go bankrupt if they cannot afford healthcare. I don’t understand how it is okay to deny people coverage for a pre-existing condition. Morally, it is not right.

Don’t let others distort the facts. Click here for more information and let me know what you think: http://www.barackobama.com/health-care?source=socnet_20120628_BO_FB_HEALTH_CARE_TOOL_SIGNON&utm_medium=fb&utm_source=bo_fb&utm_campaign=socnet_20120628_BO_FB_HEALTH_CARE_TOOL_SIGNON

I support Romney

After nearly 4 years of President Obama, it is clear that we need to change the direction of our nation. We need to return to a time when we promoted the “general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, and when we believed that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

A President Romney will do just this and restore America to greatness. Here’s how:

1.      If elected, Romney will finally repeal the socialist law known as Obamacare, which unjustly leaves the American health-insurance industry in the hands of private insurers and bankrupts our nation by prohibiting these companies the right to deny people coverage due to preexisting conditions. The law hurts doctors by giving them greater dependence from insurance companies; it hurts small business owners by giving them tax subsidies to fund their employee insurance plans; and it hurts the working family by requiring that at least 80% of their premium dollars pay for actual healthcare rather than executive bonuses or other administrative costs.

2.      If elected, Romney will use his experience in the private sector to create jobs by ending the anti-business policies of the Obama administration that used taxpayer money to bailout the U.S. auto-industry when no private lenders were willing to invest. He will also undo Wall-Street Reform (Dodd-Frank), which hurts the free market by requiring big banks to have more cash on hand to cover losses, invest their federally backed dollars responsibly, and take away big bonuses from failed CEOs.

3.      If elected, Romney will end the class warfare created by the Obama administration by continuing to have billionaires like Warren Buffett pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. He will continue the successful trickle-down policies of the Bush administration by keeping corporate loopholes open and ensuring that the job-creators get tax breaks before the job-holders do.

4.      If elected, Romney would support the fundamentals of our democracy by banning devoted and monogamous gay couples from getting married, and telling gay soldiers that they are unpatriotic because of whom they chose to love.   

5.      If elected, Romney will finally cut back on big government, preventing another disastrous stimulus package that hired more firemen, more policemen, and more teachers at a time when private companies stopped hiring.

Mitt Romney is clearly the right choice for President of the United States. After all, who else can help move America forward?

The BAIN Initiative

As the 2012 Presidential election heats up, voters are faced with a critical decision: pick a man who has had great success in the private sector, or pick a man who has had great success in the public sector.

It is first important to note there is a stark difference between the private sector and the public sector. Success in one does not necessarily translate to success in the other. Mr. Romney thinks otherwise.

There is no question about Mr. Romney’s enormous success in the private sector. As head of Bain Capital, his work with the private equity firm has created massive payoffs for his investors and has rightfully earned him respect as a triumphant businessman. However, creating wealth and creating jobs are two very different things.

When Mr. Romney touts his private sector experience as “the main calling card for why he thinks he should be president,” his time at Bain Capital must be examined at a further depth.

What must also be examined is his experience in the public sector, primarily as Governor of Massachusetts. Specifically, during his tenure as Governor, Massachusetts dropped to 47^th in job creation. He also advocated that we “let Detroit go bankrupt”, criticizing Obama for his Auto-Bailout. But we can all agree that if we took Mr. Romney’s “business” advice, our recovery would be in a much worse position that it is today. Instead of having two and half years of consecutive private sector job growth, our economy would have lost millions of jobs.

No one, including the President, is criticizing Romney’s success at Bain Capital, the private sector, or private equity firms. In fact, President Obama has supported the principles of capitalism to a much greater extent than his opponent (via Wall Street Reform and the Buffet Rule, which promote equality of opportunity, NOT equality of outcomes).

But when Mr. Romney claims that his business experience is the sole reason why he would do a better job as President than Obama, the American people have a right to ask questions. As President Obama mentioned in his press briefing earlier this week:

"When you're president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off, and how are we paying them for their retraining? Your job is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters so that they can attract new businesses. Your job as president is to think about how do we set up an equitable tax system so that everybody's paying their fair share that allows us then to invest in science and technology and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow.”