By Herman Cain
April 30, 2012
As we move into the general election campaign, with Mitt Romney facing
Barack Obama in the presidential race, it’s important not to lose
perspective on the very real differences between the two. That starts
with the recognition that Obama has made some astonishingly
ill-conceived decisions as president, and that Romney would never have
done these things.
During a party’s nominating process for president – of which I was a
part on the Republican side in this cycle – candidates do everything
they can to differentiate themselves from each other. As the candidates
focus on these differences and the media plays up the resulting
conflicts, you could almost get the impression that some of us would
have preferred Obama to some of our fellow Republicans.
Please!
Not only do I prefer Romney over Obama, it’s not even close. This is not
to say that every proposed policy of Romney’s is exactly what I would
propose. But in stepping back and looking at the big picture, you have
to recognize that the next president’s task will be to fix enormous
problems. You would want the new president, above all else, to be
someone who would never have been so foolish as to make the decisions
that a) created the problems; or b) made them worse.
Here are nine examples:
Mitt Romney would never have thrown $862 billion down a rat hole,
claiming it to be “economic stimulus” that would keep unemployment from
rising above 8 percent. Then, three years later when unemployment was
still struggling to get back down below 8 percent, he would never be so
brazen as to claim such a move had actually been successful.
Mitt Romney would never have signed ObamaCare into law. I know some
think otherwise because the plan he implemented as governor of
Massachusetts had some similar elements. But
ObamaCare was sold to the public with blatantly dishonest numbers and
hidden taxes, and rammed through Congress via a series of political
giveaways that would embarrass the most shameless of con artists.
Whatever your disagreements with the structure of MassCare, Romney would
never have done any of that. And if an ObamaCare repeal reaches
Romney’s desk, he will sign it.
Mitt Romney would never have exploded the deficit to more than $1
trillion a year, then allowed his Treasury Secretary tell the chairman
of the House Budget Committee, regarding plans to fix the problem, “We
don’t have a definitive solution, but we know we don’t like yours.”
Mitt Romney would not be running around claiming that businesses need to
pay more in taxes. He would not try to tell CEOs what to do with their
cash reserves (although he could do so much more competently than Obama,
since unlike the president he actually knows a lot about business),
because he knows that is not the president’s job. He understands that
businesses are the ones who create jobs, and the last thing we need when
the economy is struggling to create jobs is to increase the tax burden
on businesses.
Mitt Romney would not attack people for being successful. He would not
encourage the middle class to resent successful people, but instead
would encourage them to learn from those who have been successful, and
to seek opportunities from them.
Mitt Romney would never have promised the Russians he would give them
what they want on missile defense as soon as he didn’t have to worry
about those pesky voters anymore.
Mitt Romney would never have stonewalled efforts to make crucial energy
supplies available to Americans, as Obama has done on everything from
the Keystone XL pipeline to the opening of domestic oil supplies in
offshore locations and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mitt Romney would never have let Congress get away with not passing a
budget at all for three years, while running up the nation’s credit card
at unprecedented levels through a series of continuing resolutions that
escape the light of public scrutiny.
Mitt Romney would never have blamed someone else for the continued
impact of problems he was elected to fix – as Obama does endlessly.
This list could go on, but these nine are the some of the biggest things
– and the big things matter most of all. Everyone involved with a
primary campaign hopes their party will nominate the absolute perfect
candidate, and when your guy doesn’t make it (or for some of us like me,
when you don’t make it), you can fall into thinking that all is lost.
There are actually people running around saying there is no difference
between Romney and Obama.
People. Get a grip. The differences are huge. And it starts with
understanding how many truly horrendous decisions Barack Obama has made
since he took office, and recognizing that Mitt Romney is a man with
solid experience and good judgment – and that he would never have made
any of them.
That alone offers a compelling argument for sending President Obama an
invitation – to the inauguration of Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013. I
trust he will attend.
April 23, 2012
An Army of Davids
April 23, 2012
By Herman Cain
It's tough being the underdog in any fight. But if a group of underdogs get together and work together, they can win. That's the American people up against big government. We the People are fighting the political class.
The federal government has become too big, too bureaucratic, and too controlling of our everyday lives, and they want to control us even more every day, with every session of Congress. As a result, We the People are losing more and more of our liberties every day.
This administration is trying to tell us which cars to drive, which light bulbs to buy, what foods to eat, where not to take a vacation, how much health care we can have, what to believe, who to believe, how to live, how to spend our money, when to die, where to build a new plant for a business, and what fairness ought to be – using our money!
Are we asleep, or just plain dumb and stupid?
Fairness is the liberty to make decisions about our lives and our money. But this administration is doing everything it can to take away our liberties with government mandates and income redistribution gimmicks like the Buffet Rule.
To make matters worse, we continue to see our tax dollars wasted on losing businesses and extravagant spending by government agencies while the national debt continues out of control.
In the Holy Bible, David was selected to fight the giant Philistine Goliath, because his brothers and the rest of the soldiers did not want to take on the task. It's called a lack of courage. David was surely courageous, and because he thought “outside the box,” he found a way to defeat Goliath with a single stone and a sling shot.
He won! He killed Goliath.
The political class in Washington, D.C. has become the big government Goliath. We the People must be an Army of Davids to take our liberties back from Goliath.
We have more than one stone and a sling shot. We have the right and responsibility to vote, the power of the Internet and the power of the people. But we have to use that power wisely and collectively to stop the erosion of our liberties.
Here are two things you can do:
• Join and support a citizens' organization dedicated to causes in which you believe. My www.cainconnections.com website comes to mind where we are focusing on solutions to our nation’s biggest problems. But there are many other groups that can help keep you informed and involved. With the right information, we can hold the people we elect accountable. We must do so continually even after they are in office.
• Remain inspired that we can make some bold and significant changes in D.C.
Many members of the political class want you to believe bold changes cannot be made, because many of them like the status quo, which will eventually cause this country to collapse.
We cannot allow that to happen. It would be a tragedy for us all, and especially for our grandchildren.
"Let it be borne in mind that the tragedy of life does not lie in not reaching your goals. The tragedy lies in having no goals to reach for." - Dr. Benjamin E. Mays
Join the Army of Davids, so we can win!
By Herman Cain
It's tough being the underdog in any fight. But if a group of underdogs get together and work together, they can win. That's the American people up against big government. We the People are fighting the political class.
The federal government has become too big, too bureaucratic, and too controlling of our everyday lives, and they want to control us even more every day, with every session of Congress. As a result, We the People are losing more and more of our liberties every day.
This administration is trying to tell us which cars to drive, which light bulbs to buy, what foods to eat, where not to take a vacation, how much health care we can have, what to believe, who to believe, how to live, how to spend our money, when to die, where to build a new plant for a business, and what fairness ought to be – using our money!
Are we asleep, or just plain dumb and stupid?
Fairness is the liberty to make decisions about our lives and our money. But this administration is doing everything it can to take away our liberties with government mandates and income redistribution gimmicks like the Buffet Rule.
To make matters worse, we continue to see our tax dollars wasted on losing businesses and extravagant spending by government agencies while the national debt continues out of control.
In the Holy Bible, David was selected to fight the giant Philistine Goliath, because his brothers and the rest of the soldiers did not want to take on the task. It's called a lack of courage. David was surely courageous, and because he thought “outside the box,” he found a way to defeat Goliath with a single stone and a sling shot.
He won! He killed Goliath.
The political class in Washington, D.C. has become the big government Goliath. We the People must be an Army of Davids to take our liberties back from Goliath.
We have more than one stone and a sling shot. We have the right and responsibility to vote, the power of the Internet and the power of the people. But we have to use that power wisely and collectively to stop the erosion of our liberties.
Here are two things you can do:
• Join and support a citizens' organization dedicated to causes in which you believe. My www.cainconnections.com website comes to mind where we are focusing on solutions to our nation’s biggest problems. But there are many other groups that can help keep you informed and involved. With the right information, we can hold the people we elect accountable. We must do so continually even after they are in office.
• Remain inspired that we can make some bold and significant changes in D.C.
Many members of the political class want you to believe bold changes cannot be made, because many of them like the status quo, which will eventually cause this country to collapse.
We cannot allow that to happen. It would be a tragedy for us all, and especially for our grandchildren.
"Let it be borne in mind that the tragedy of life does not lie in not reaching your goals. The tragedy lies in having no goals to reach for." - Dr. Benjamin E. Mays
Join the Army of Davids, so we can win!
April 19, 2012
The ‘Buffett Rule’: Small (and dumb) thinking about big problems
I have to give President Obama this: He is not very good at governing,
but he has a rare talent for making it appear that he’s at least talking
about solutions to problems, when in fact he is talking about total
nonsense that doesn’t solve anything.
Granted, it helps that the media who are supposed to be holding your feet to the fire are credulous sycophants who swallow up every word you say. But still, Obama’s performing quite a magic trick by getting people to take him seriously when he talks about the so-called “Buffett Rule” as a way of dealing with the deficit.
This, in case you haven’t heard, is the idea that anyone who makes $1 million a year or more should pay a minimum of 30 percent of it in federal taxes, regardless of the form the income takes. Why does the form matter? Because not all income is taxed in the same way. If most of what you earn is investment income, you only pay the 15 percent capital gains tax.
This prompted billionaire investor (and big time Democrat) Warren Buffett to write an op-ed decrying how unfair it is that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Now it turns out his secretary is paid $200,000 – so Warren might be a swell guy to work for – but leaving that aside, let’s say this policy was enacted and every $1 million earner had to pay a minimum of 30 percent in federal taxes.
Obama’s big idea yields pretty small results. The blog Political Math has calculated that enacting the Buffett Rule would yield maybe $4 billion a year in new revenue to the Treasury. The deficit is $1.2 trillion. So with the Buffett Rule – assuming a static analysis of the change in the tax code and its impacts – the deficit would be cut to $1.196 trillion.
Some plan.
But it’s even worse than that. The Buffett Rule is just the latest example of Obama wanting to punish success, and twisting the tax code in yet one more way to enforce this punishment. The tax code is a mess of deductions and loopholes for things politicians like, and punitive measures against things politicians don’t like.
If the Buffett Rule were to be enacted, everyone who earns more than $1 million a year – and does so largely from investment income – would be getting double-taxed (even worse than they are now), because investment income results from after-tax earnings that you put at risk. If you earn $100,000 and pay a 36 percent tax on it (leaving aside state and local taxes), you’ve got $64,000 left. If you invest it and make a $10,000 profit, the government wants you to pay 15 percent on that too (and if it was up to Obama, it would be way more than 15 percent). But if the investment doesn’t pan out and you lose your after-tax earnings, does the government send you a check to help cover your losses?
Of course not.
So under the Buffett Rule, you could pay 36 percent on your income when you first earn it, then another 30 percent on what you earn from the after-tax income you put at risk.
That’s stupid!
The whole idea of my 9-9-9 plan is that all income (as well as all business revenue and retail sales activity) is taxed only once and never twice. It eliminates all the loopholes, deductions and penalties. Everything is simple and straightforward.
Oh, and under 9-9-9, Warren Buffett’s secretary would never pay a higher rate than he does. It’s just that I don’t have a problem with him or anyone else making $1 million. They’ll pay their fair share, which is the same share percentagewise as everyone else, and then they can invest their wealth in the growth of American prosperity.
Only a clueless president would complain about this, and propose to enact a tax that discourages investment while making such a tiny dent in the deficit, you’d need a microscope to even see it. But that’s the president we have – small thinking and a tiny impact on very big problems, of which he just might be the biggest.
Granted, it helps that the media who are supposed to be holding your feet to the fire are credulous sycophants who swallow up every word you say. But still, Obama’s performing quite a magic trick by getting people to take him seriously when he talks about the so-called “Buffett Rule” as a way of dealing with the deficit.
This, in case you haven’t heard, is the idea that anyone who makes $1 million a year or more should pay a minimum of 30 percent of it in federal taxes, regardless of the form the income takes. Why does the form matter? Because not all income is taxed in the same way. If most of what you earn is investment income, you only pay the 15 percent capital gains tax.
This prompted billionaire investor (and big time Democrat) Warren Buffett to write an op-ed decrying how unfair it is that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Now it turns out his secretary is paid $200,000 – so Warren might be a swell guy to work for – but leaving that aside, let’s say this policy was enacted and every $1 million earner had to pay a minimum of 30 percent in federal taxes.
Obama’s big idea yields pretty small results. The blog Political Math has calculated that enacting the Buffett Rule would yield maybe $4 billion a year in new revenue to the Treasury. The deficit is $1.2 trillion. So with the Buffett Rule – assuming a static analysis of the change in the tax code and its impacts – the deficit would be cut to $1.196 trillion.
Some plan.
But it’s even worse than that. The Buffett Rule is just the latest example of Obama wanting to punish success, and twisting the tax code in yet one more way to enforce this punishment. The tax code is a mess of deductions and loopholes for things politicians like, and punitive measures against things politicians don’t like.
If the Buffett Rule were to be enacted, everyone who earns more than $1 million a year – and does so largely from investment income – would be getting double-taxed (even worse than they are now), because investment income results from after-tax earnings that you put at risk. If you earn $100,000 and pay a 36 percent tax on it (leaving aside state and local taxes), you’ve got $64,000 left. If you invest it and make a $10,000 profit, the government wants you to pay 15 percent on that too (and if it was up to Obama, it would be way more than 15 percent). But if the investment doesn’t pan out and you lose your after-tax earnings, does the government send you a check to help cover your losses?
Of course not.
So under the Buffett Rule, you could pay 36 percent on your income when you first earn it, then another 30 percent on what you earn from the after-tax income you put at risk.
That’s stupid!
The whole idea of my 9-9-9 plan is that all income (as well as all business revenue and retail sales activity) is taxed only once and never twice. It eliminates all the loopholes, deductions and penalties. Everything is simple and straightforward.
Oh, and under 9-9-9, Warren Buffett’s secretary would never pay a higher rate than he does. It’s just that I don’t have a problem with him or anyone else making $1 million. They’ll pay their fair share, which is the same share percentagewise as everyone else, and then they can invest their wealth in the growth of American prosperity.
Only a clueless president would complain about this, and propose to enact a tax that discourages investment while making such a tiny dent in the deficit, you’d need a microscope to even see it. But that’s the president we have – small thinking and a tiny impact on very big problems, of which he just might be the biggest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)