Experience – Romney vs Obama

U.S. sugar policy – a job killer

Sugar sugar (Photo credit: dhammza)

The article goes on to discuss the loss of jobs to overseas in order for companies to escape the high sugar prices. As you know, sugar is in much of the food you consume, so you are paying premium prices every time you go to the supermarket. Again, a law that benefits only the chosen few and robs from the general population. We need a robust Sunset policy that will rid the government of their ability to continue rewarding special interest groups without the necessity of transparency. 

Excerpt: Sugar Subsidies: Bitter about paying artificially high prices for the non-artificial sweetener everyone uses just so a politically connected family can enjoy the sweet life? It’s time lawmakers put a lid on the honey pot.

An Iowa State University study has found that the federal sugar program costs U.S. consumers roughly $3.5 billion a year and deprives the workforce of 20,000 jobs. This New Deal-era framework of barriers on sugar imports and of price supports for domestic sugar is a racket that benefits only a few, in particular the Fanjul family of Florida.

In a letter to House leaders, a group of lawmakers from both parties call U.S. sugar policy “the last of the command-and-control commodity programs that has yet to be reformed.” The 22 representatives insist that Congress should “have a robust debate about sugar policy during consideration of the 2012 farm bill.” 

They write: “No other farm program is deliberately designed to transfer income from American consumers and workers to a small, but ‘special,’ interest group of sugar processors and growers.”

Read full Investors Business Daily article here.

Eagle Standing Guard

This picture was taken at the National Cemetery in Minneapolis , MN on a June morning – and appeared in the Minneapolis Star/Tribune..

Election 2012 – a voice from the past

The full article can be read on Examiner.com.

Excerpt: Many years ago, a man many of you are too young to remember, ran a campaign for President based on the following beliefs: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests “, I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” 

Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats succeeded in painting Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, as a reactionary, and in 1964, this resulted in the largest landslide victory ever, in a Presidential election. The leftist floodgates were opened and President Johnson ushered in his “great society”.

Read the rest of my article on Examiner.com here.

Obama venture capital successes – none

Image via CrunchBase

This article is from the Washington Post and cites a number of the taxpayers’ “investments” in the business of clean energy. As a venture capitalist, Obama is a total failure. And he does it with our money. At least Romney and his partners had a stake in the outcomes of their investments. Nothing like the risk of losing your own money, to sharpen your wits and business acumen. Obama has neither wit nor business acumen to sharpen, nor is he using his own money. 

Excerpt: Despite a growing backlash from his fellow Democrats, President Obama has doubled down on his attacks on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. But the strategy could backfire in ways Obama did not anticipate. After all, if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity — and that record is not pretty. 

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures: 

Read article for examples of Obama’s failed investments of taxpayer monies. 

All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs. 

Now the man who made Solyndra a household name says Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital “is what this campaign is going to be about.” Good luck with that, Mr. President. If Obama wants to attack Romney’s alleged private equity failures as chief executive of Bain, he’d better be ready to defend his own massive public equity failures as chief executive of the United States. 

Read full Washington Post article here.

Who is Barack Obama?

Cover via Amazon

Reading the full article gives you an idea of the deception Obama and the MSM used to elect the most far left President of our time. 

Excerpt: Who is Barack Obama? Obama the presidential candidate presents himself as a man who has loved America from his earliest childhood, a man proud of his mixed-race roots who comfortably transcends polarized racial politics, a man who eschews the ideologies of Left and Right, an optimistic healer. But in his critically acclaimed autobiography, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama is something else entirely.

Obama published his autobiography in 1995, when he was in his mid-thirties. Unlike most books by politicians, which are concoctions of clichés penned by ghostwriters, Dreams was clearly written by Obama himself. Unlike most politicians, Obama can write and loves language. (He was contemplating a career as a novelist at the time he wrote Dreams.) Most important, Obama wrote his autobiography after he had become a political activist but before he was a politician; the book is therefore candid in a way a conventional politician’s memoir would never be. 

Read full National Review article here.

Obama vs Mr. Uncommitted

General Motors is becoming China Motors

Black on black violence is the problem

Walter Williams has a unique perspective on the racist culture in the United States.  He is not afraid to point out the self serving rhetoric of the Sharptons and Jacksons as they go  about their business of throwing fuel on the fire of racial unrest.  White on black crime is not the problem unless you include the acts of the Democrat/Liberal establishment in their “cradle to grave” programs meant to keep blacks down on the plantation.  

Excerpt: Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery. 

The magnitude of this tragic mayhem can be viewed in another light. According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. It’s a tragic commentary to be able to say that young black males have a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.  

Read full article here.

Committee Investigation Outlines White House’s Role in Backroom Health Care Negotiations

Logo of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The meaning of the word transparency seems to escape our President as do so many facts that don’t make it to his teleprompter. This is a developing story that should prove interesting as the information is released.

Excerpt: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), today released new information that confirms the White House played a pivotal role in cutting a “deal” with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the details of which have never been fully disclosed to the public. The latest revelations come as part of an ongoing investigation launched more than a year ago to allow Congress and the American public to understand the process that was used to write legislation that fundamentally transformed the nation’s health care system.

Today, a staff memo distributed to Republican members of the committee provided further information regarding the development of the “deal,” and the parties involved in negotiating specific policy outcomes to secure support for the legislation. Based on email exchanges and other primary source material, it appears the deal was reached not solely between PhRMA and the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, but that top personnel in the White House were involved in negotiating and approving this deal. The committee’s investigation determined that the White House, specifically Office of Health Reform Director Nancy Ann DeParle, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, actively engaged in these negotiations while the role of Congress was limited. Their involvement in these previously undisclosed negotiations is particularly noteworthy since it contradicts the president’s promises of transparency.

And as the memo highlights, the important question to be answered is what the White House got in return.

Read full House Committee memo here.