As the US election for president draws closer, dirtier the debates become. This does not only extend to President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but to the voters themselves. Since this election is so important to the United States, people who have not previously paid much attention to politics–myself included–have been roped into the huge battle for control. The battle has now been dragged into cyberspace.

Facebook has exploded with status and picture updates about the election and who individuals support, which creates tension among friends who are supporting different candidates. I know some of my friends are hardly talking to one another strictly because of fights they have had about politics.

My family and I have an agreement to not discuss politics because we support opposing candidates, and the fights would always turn ugly when the subject came up. However, the rest of the country is letting everyone know their position for the election; political conventions and rallies are happening left and right because everyone wants to get support for their candidate. In other elections, people were not as passionate about who they planned on voting for.

Sure, the election campaigns were aired on TV and everyone was subjected to the annoying phone calls sponsoring a candidate, but friends and families were not torn apart because of politics. Meanwhile, both candidates are trying to make themselves look as saintly as possible while simultaneously trying to make their opponent seem like the anti-Christ. The presidential debates have been the most public display of this goal. The debates have caused a huge stir with voters with trying to determine who “won” the debate.

Romney had better stage presence while Obama looked like he did not want to be there. Obama kept trying to play off of Bill Clinton and emphasizing how horrible George W. Bush was while not taking ownership of any of his own shortcomings. During Obama’s reign, the country’s deficit tripled and he added more debt than any other president combined.  But none of this is his fault, only Bush’s. Obama kept twisting Romney’s plan for taxes, which Romney defended and said that Obama was purposely misleading the public.

Romney continually challenged Obama, who never really defended himself fully. Since the debates, others have tried to make excuses as to why Obama did not seem to be present and involved. However, all the debates have done is created more of a gray area while the public decides which candidate is the biggest liar.

With the debates over, political commercials are always on TV. It has gotten to the point that I refuse to watch any TV until after the election craziness is over. Neither candidate is perfect, and it gets to be very depressing watching Romney have commercials saying how horrible President Obama is while Obama projects the opposite sentiment.

The election is a month away, and it is sure to get much worse before the ballots are collected and tallied. November is guaranteed to be a political bloodbath.   Image Courtesy of   new-york-city

The article 2012 Presidential Election, A November Bloodbath appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Democratic National Convention is in its last -and most important- day. President Obama will talk today at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte to his delegates and to the entire American nation. The delegates have already shown their trust in Obama by appointing him as the Democratic Candidate for this year’s coming election.

Today, it will be Obama’s turn to show he trust his supporters, by accepting the delegates nomination. Attendees and viewers at home are expecting a speech that will convince supporters as well as undecided voters that he is the man for the job and that America should send him back to the White House for another four years.

His speech will be full of promises, but perhaps not with as many as there were four years ago. Back then, the democrats believed that Obama was the person who could transform the world into a better place. It was an elections with come of the highest participation rates in American history. Democrats were so excited that the organizers even had to change the venue where Obama delivered his nomination speech during the last DNC in Denver in 2008, where 75,000 people attended.

Today, excitement has cooled down a little bit among democrats as many has been disillusioned by the failure to live up to the chants of hope and change. Obama’s only option is to convince the skeptics that a second term in office it is necessary in order to realize the “hopes” and accomplish the “changes.”

Last week during the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL, Romney accused Obama for not making good on his promises. It is to be seen whether Obama will spend his time refuting Romney’s attack or explain what he is going to do during the next four years to make a successful and permanent change in the American society. Otherwise, according to last weeks’ polls, the undecided voters might go to Romney.

Even though Romney did not come up with a clear program, his attacks against this last legislature were not superficial. During the past four years, the world has seen how each of Obama´s promises have fallen into a hole: the American unemployment rate has grown into historical figures (8.2%), immigration problems have not been solved — in fact, the number of deportations keep on growing, oil dependency upon the Middle East is still an issue, there are still troops in Afghanistan, and Iran has become a bigger threat.

During Wednesday’s program at the DNC, former president Bill Clinton went through all these issues and explained that more time is needed.

But will America wait for four more years on results? Will Obama be able to get the support of this undecided voters? Will he be able to once again inspire the chants that made so many people dream of a better tomorrow four years ago? The answers to these questions might be found during tonights speech on Charlotte.

Image Courtesy of    Barack Obama

The article DNC 2012: Is Obama Strong Enough to Win? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Denver, U.S.A. — “Mitt Romney is the architect of Obamacare,” said Jefferson George, president of the conservative tax-exempt group American Right To Life Action. “Romney has already implemented what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton only dream of: homosexual marriage, tax-funded abortion on demand by health care reform with the individual mandate, robbing religious freedom from pro-life hospitals. The list is long. If anyone believed the ‘lesser of two evils’ con, they’d have to vote for Obama.”

“Strategists say that independents decide elections,” said Darrell Birkey, the ARTL research director overseeing the new RepublicansAgainstRomney.com website. “So the only way for pro-lifers to get candidates who won’t kill unborn children is to become independent enough to oppose liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual politicians like Mitt Romney.”

Agreeing with ARTL is the longtime vice president of the nation’s first “right to life” group, Colorado Right To Life. “The Republicans Against Romney site documents that the excuses the campaign makes for Mitt’s anti-child, anti-free-market, anti-family actions are nothing but lies,” said Leslie Hanks. “Sadly, conservative talk show hosts lap it up and repeat the lies. This website even offers a$100 reward for corrections to errors of fact.”

According to the site, Romneycare is fundamentally a liberal, socialist program with its individual mandate that saps the federal treasury. Romney’s top consultants aided the development of Obamacare and put Planned Parenthood on the “health” committee that, from day one, offered $50 tax-subsidized abortion on demand. And still today Romney plans to nominate justices “like John Roberts,” who upheld Obamacare.

RepublicansAgainstRomney.com documents that Mitt Romney claimed to be pro-choice in 1994, pro-life in 2001, pro-choice in 2002, pro-life in 2004, pro-choice in 2005, pro-life in 2006 and then funded abortion in 2006. In 2012, he’s back to supporting abortion for “health reasons,” the loophole opened by the Supreme Court’s Doe v. Bolton opinion that allows all abortions, as in Colorado for example, throughout all nine months.

“And ironically,” adds Birkey, “the ’legitimate’ rape issue is Romney policy, not a Todd Akin policy. The congressman advocates protecting every child, but it’s Romney’s rape exception that requires determining whether or not there was a rape.”

Image Courtesy of   Gage Skidmore

The article American RTL Launches RepublicansAgainstRomney.com appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In the streets of downtown Tampa, dual preparations continue as the city braces for tropical Storm Issac and the Republican National Convention. Convention officials delayed the start of the events from Monday afternoon to Tuesday as a safety precaution. Issac is not projected to hit landfall in Tampa, but that will not stop massive amounts of rain and strong winds from shutting everything down for a day.

There is one thing, however, that will continue to work inside the Forum center and serves as a loud remainder of what this election is about. That item is a large clock keeping track of the amount of financial debt, added each second. Tampa may be worried about the impending storm of Issac, but the entire country is facing a debt storm that is bearing down on everyone like a category 5 hurricane.

The optic of the clock is a perfect anchor for one of the foundational fights that will be played out this presidential election. President Obama will fight to make this election about Romney’s taxes, women’s rights, and Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. The President’s surrogates and spokespeople will attempt to distract voters away from the economy.

Thus far, they have done an excellent job of doing so. But, the fiscal cliff that the spending of the Obama administration has enacted is a problem that Romney must keep front and center in the campaign. Nothing does that better than the backdrop of a debt calculator displaying the massive bill the country is racking up.

This is a message that the republicans must take to heart as well. The last two weeks have seen the Romney camp get bogged down over Medicare and the comments of Senate candidate Todd Akin regarding rape and abortion. The economy and the debt are problems one and two. They cannot afford to get caught in the Obama trap of defending themselves and talking about things that have nothing to do with those issues.

Many in the media will play along with President Obama and will be all too willing to cover other issues. Optics is one way around this obstacle. Do not just talk, show. Judging by the large and ominous clock clicking up every second of the convention speakers’ speeches, the Romney campaign may be on their way to making this election about what it needs to be about.

The article Romney Must Focus On Debt Storm appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Most Hollywood stars usually support Democrats, but, like in everything in life, there are some exceptions: Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, Donald Trump and Kid Rock are all supporters of Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Clint Eastwood told Romney supporters in a Sun Valley fundraiser, “Now more than ever do we need Gov. Romney. I’m going to be voting for him.” In February, Eastwood told Fox News at the time that he was not affiliated with or supporting any politician. But now the ‘Mystic River’ director’s mind has changed.

Eastwood also said that he hoped Romney would be able to install a  “decent tax system that we need badly… so that there’s a fairness and people are not pitted against one another as who’s paying taxes and who isn’t.” Clint Eastwood has become a big supporter of Romney’s; he is arguably the most important celebrity in favor of the former Massachusetts Governor.

Former ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ protagonist Chuck Norris has also shown his support for Mitt Romney. In an opinion article he stated “I believe that Mitt has the skills and organization to defeat Obama and stop his fundamental transformation of America. We all know what four more years of increased socialistic decisions would do to our country.”

Kid Rock is also doing campaigning in favor of Romney, the artist’s anthem ‘Born Free’ has become Romney’s official campaign song.

The famous Donald Trump has also endorsed Mitt Romney, “Mitt is tough. He is smart,” Trump said, with Romney at his side, at a brief announcement at a Las Vegas hotel bearing his name.

The ‘Apocalypse Now’ star Robert Duvall is also hosting a fundraiser for Romney in September. The National Journal has published on its site Duvall’s fundraising invitation at Middleburg, Virginia, in which the general reception will cost $2,500, a VIP photo reception at the entrance will cost $10,000, and a dinner will cost $25,000.

Another famous Hollywood celebrity that is supporting Mitt Romney is Jerry Bruckheimer, the film and TV producer, creator of ‘CSI’ and ‘Pirates of the Caribbean,’ who donated the maximum individual donation amount allowed to Romney’s campaign in March. Bruckheimer hasn’t always donated money to the Republicans, in the past he has used it to donate in favor of Democrats.

In 2008 President Obama had most celebrities’ support; Musicians like Will.I.Am produced viral campaign videos for him. In 2012 he still has most of the celebrity support, but Romney certainly has more celebrity power than McCain did. President Obama is still way ahead of Romney: he has recently dinned with George Clooney, exchanged quips with Spike Lee in a New York City townhouse and met with Lady Gaga in a fundraiser organized by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, in which the singer, one of the few people that has more Twitter followers than Obama, paid the maximum campaign donation of $35,800 for access to the event.

Image Courtesy of   Gage Skidmore

The article Mitt Romney and his Celebrity Power appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In parts one through four of our series on the Affordable Care Act, we have examined a few of the benefits that are seen as the most desirable provisions of the law, things like no pre-existing condition, no-cost birth control, and the ability for children to remain on their parents’ plans. There are other benefits, like cash subsidies to assist in the purchase of the ACA health care plans that will be examined later in the series. For part five, we will skip ahead and discuss the law as it relates to small business and corporate America.

Who Must Comply with Obamacare?

Under the ACA law, any business with more than 50 full-time employees must offer health insurance to its employees. This health insurance plan must be compliant, meaning the benefits of the plan must meet or exceed the minimum benefit thresholds in the ACA law. If a company does not offer a plan or has a plan that does not meet the minimum standards, then the employer will be assessed a tax fine of $2,000 per employee. This provision is not quite as straightforward, however, because technically the company is only supposed to pay the fine for employees who are eligible to receive subsidized health care costs.

Since everyone is mandated to have coverage, that means the fine would apply to all employees, not just the ones receiving government subsidies. In addition, the first 30 employees are exempted from the fine. For example, a company of 51 workers would pay a $2,000 fine on 21 workers (51-30=21) or $42,000. A good guide for explaining different scenarios can be found at the National Federation of Independent Business website.

If you have fewer than 50 employees, you are not required to provide health insurance. However, if you have up to 25 employees, the government will provide a tax credit if you have employees earning at least $50,000 per year and offer health insurance. In 2013, the tax credit amount is 35% of your annual cost for health insurance premiums and goes up to 50% after 2014.

However, that is only if your average employee salary is $20,000 or less. If the average salary is higher than $20,000, then the tax credit will be reduced by a factor determined by how much the average salary is above $20,000. In addition, if the company has more than 10 employees, regardless of salary average, the tax credit will be reduced. Lastly, there are no tax credits allowed for employees considered “highly compensated.”

For the ACA law, highly compensated is considered anyone making over $80,000 a year. If you noticed how the first sentence in this paragraph contradicts with the numbers in the third sentence, that is not a typo. It is contradictory, but that is what is written in the ACA law. You can find this information at the healthcare.gov and on page 319 of the ACA law.

Implications

The number one implication of the small business and employer provision is the flooding of potential ACA recipients into the system, resulting from employers dropping coverage. Most proponents of the ACA law have dismissed this idea as conservative scaremongering at best and corporate greed at worst. That, however, is because they are not the ones writing the checks. This is a simple math equation. The increase in required ACA benefits increases the costs of the health insurance premiums, because more items are covered.

At current levels, the Kaiser Family Foundation puts the average cost of employee health insurance at $15,073. Only $4,129 of that is paid by the employee, meaning close to 11,000 of the costs is paid by the employer. The ACA coverage mandates will increase those premiums, but even at current levels, paying a $2,000 per person fine is better than $11,000. This is simple math, and as you move into companies that have 5,000 or more employees, you are now talking about saving hundreds of millions of annual costs. Make no mistake, many companies will take this option.

For the companies that bite the bullet and provide health insurance, their costs will increase. This will be because of higher premiums charged by the insurance companies for having to cover more health care benefits and for costs related to keeping up with the regulations that come with the law. There is no definitive way to determine the costs accurately ahead of time, but the Congressional Budget Office projects the costs of ACA to be double what they originally projected.

To be fair, the CBO estimates were for the first 10 years. New projections that go out 11 years have the cost down 0.64%. Why the CBO would go out just one year on their projections is a little strange, especially given the paltry reduction in costs it would show. More telling is that the projection is based on additional revenue provisions that would pay for the law. This is always the problem with the CBO; it only answers questions based on the paper and assumptions put in front of them.

If any of those figures are wrong, if something is left out (like payments to doctors left out by Democrats when the bill was originally submitted), or the revenue gathered is less then projected, then the whole analysis is thrown off. Garbage in, garbage out is the old saying. The primary common sense question to this is simple: When has any government program ever cost less than promised? The answer is never.

The other implication is that the country may see an increase in temporary agency usage. Companies on the cusp of going past 50 employees and either wish to expand or have no choice to can avoid that employee threshold by going through temp agencies. This will alleviate some added costs to them, but only marginally as the temp agencies will also be charging a higher fee per employee supplied.

Lastly, small businesses will not get near the benefit from the tax credit. As discussed above, employers cannot have more than a $20,000 in average salary to receive the full tax credit. If you have higher salaries, the tax credit percentage goes down. Any company that can only afford to pay an average salary of $20,000 or less, in all likelihood, cannot afford to pay for health insurance regardless. Look at the numbers: With an average employer cost of $11,000, an employer could get a $5,500 tax credit, and they pay the other half.

However, $5,500 dollars is a quarter of a $20,000 salaried employee’s pay. A business that small cannot afford to pay that. They cannot afford to risk going under just to satisfy some politician’s belief that paying for health insurance is the right thing to do–no matter the cost. Also, this tax credit does nothing for large employers because they are not eligible. If you have 51 or more employees, you cannot get a tax credit at all. Because of this, there is no incentive.

The primary problem is political and social philosophy intruding on policy and business. Things like health care, time off, vacations, etc., used to be called fringe benefits. They were there to create greater employee loyalty and a way to compete for better employees. They were, in short, extra benefits. Today, they are seen as items that are owed to employees.

The President and the Democrats have determined that health insurance is a right, and if the government cannot get a bill through for single payer, then employers are responsible for paying for that right. Whether this is true (health insurance as a right) is an argument for a different day. The point here is when you approach policy that way, then you end up with bills that have consequences far beyond what is written or intended. Businesses exist to provide a product or service, and make a profit. That is all. They are not smaller surrogates for government to be enlisted in the care and feeding of the population.

The article Part Five: Affordable Care Act appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Who Mitt Romney’s running mate will be is still uncertain. Expectation levels are high because the elections are only a few months away. Republicans around the country know that this decision will be crucial in their aspirations of returning to the White House.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has a serious chance of becoming Mitt Romney’s running mate. He would certainly help the Republican Party in their aspirations of regaining the Hispanic voter’s support, which currently favors the Democrats. Rubio served in the House of Representatives from 2000 to 2008 and was elected as a Senator in 2010. Senator Rubio’s political skills, which include a fluent Spanish and high popularity among  Hispanics, would definitely help Mitt Romney to win states with high Hispanic population like Florida, New Mexico and Arizona. 

Ana Navarro, a Politico columnist, referred to Senator Rubio as the anti-Palin. She explained that the population of Alaska during Sarah Palin time as a governor was of 700,000, on the other hand, Senator Rubio represents a state of more than 19 million people, Florida is also a state with a variety of cultures in which practically every U.S. demographic group is represented.

Condoleezza Rice is another name that has appeared as a possible candidate for the vice-presidency. The Former Secretary of State will surely be able to help Romney in foreign issues.  But Condoleezza Rice’s deep involvement in George W. Bush government might not help her because of the bad public image that Bush government has in these days. Also, the fact that Rice is not married doesn’t make her an ideal candidate to the most conservative base of the Republican Party.

Ohio Senator Rob Portman also has great possibilities. He is the Senator of Ohio, one of the swing states that could determine this election. He was elected in 2010; he won with a margin of 57 to 39 percent, winning 82 of Ohio’s 88 counties. His campaign focused on common-sense conservative ideas to help create jobs and get the deficit under control. He helped Romney in the victory against Santorum in the Ohio primaries and the public opinion sees him as a safe pick.

Republican strategist Mark Weaver said that Senator Portman’s organization level in Ohio is very deep and he also “has so many people that are committed to helping him that would all come the way of Mitt Romney.  And in a close state like Ohio, the difference of having someone like Portman on the ticket could be the win.”

Another possible vice-presidential candidate is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal; he recently referred to President Obama as “the most liberal, most incompetent President in the White House since Jimmy Carter.”  Governor Jindal also responded to President Obama’s declaration that the private sector was doing fine by saying: “The private sector is not doing well when 23 million Americans are unemployed and underemployed in this great country. This president, the private sector is so foreign to him he might need a passport to actually go visit and he might need a translator to help him talk to folks in the private sector.”

Governor Jindal supported Texas Governor Rick Perry in the Republican primaries; he started supporting Mitt Romney until Rick Santorum dropped on April 10. This particular aspect could be taken into account by Romney and does not benefit Jindal at all, because it is clear that Governor Jindal preferred Governor Perry as the Republican candidate, but still Bobby Jindal would have his chances because he is considered one of the rising stars of the Republican Party.

These were just some of the names of possible vice-presidential candidates. There are many more, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or the former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Who knows if there might be a surprise in Romney’s nomination, like there was in the 2008 election when John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate?

Image Courtesy of  Gage Skidmore

The article Who Will Be Mitt Romney’s Running Mate? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The battle for money has started, and Republicans and Democrats are already working on their fundraising. In the last two months the Republican Party has collected more money than the Democrat Party, but November is still far away, so things could change during these new few months.

Fundraising is crucial to win an election and President Obama knows it; in the 2008 election, according to the Federal Election Commission, he raised $ 778,642,962. Meanwhile, his opponent John McCain raised $383,913,834.And the result is well known: Barack Obama became President of the United States.

The 2012 electoral campaign is telling  us a complete different story than the 2008 campaign. The Republican Party is raising considerable amounts of money. In June they broke their record, when they announced raising $106 million for Mitt Romney’s campaign and the Republican National Committee. Barack Obama’s campaign has just announced that they raised $71 million in June.

The Democratic Party has indeed faced difficulties in financing the Obama campaign. In May, Mitt Romney raised nearly $77 million, compared to Obama’s $60 million for the same month. It is a complicated scenario for the Democratic Party and if things continue there is a strong possibility the Republicans will end up raising close to one billion dollars for their presidential campaign.

The Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, recently said in an announcement: “If we don’t take this seriously now, we risk finding ourselves at a point where there is too much ground to make up.”

In a recent video, Jim Messina tried to encourage  people to donate. In the video he assured viewers that 1.3 million people have already donated and explained that during the last quarter they had more than 200,000 new donors. Another statistic he gave is that 98% of all donations were $250 or less and that the average donation was about $55. He also expressed that money is needed in order to build the kind of grass roots campaign that they will need in November.

The aim of this video is to prove the support the Democrats have nationwide and to demonstrate that their money comes from the people, who give little money but at the end it sums a lot, and that is were the Democrat Party strength comes from. Messina criticized the way the Republican Party is raising money and said that “last week, the Republican Party filed a court brief, asking the corporations be allowed to contribute directly to campaigns” to prove that, rather than the people, the Republican Party donors are the big corporations.

The Democratic Convention is near and they are looking for funds to host it, with their goal being $37 million. In the 2008 Convention they raised $61 million, but this time around they are having problems raising enough. This is unlike the Republicans, who do not seem to have any trouble  in raising their $55 million goal for their Convention in Tampa.

Image Courtesy of  Gage Skidmore

The article The Battle for Money in the 2012 Election appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

“If I’m fortunate enough to become the next president, it is my expectation that Fidel Castro will finally be taken off this planet,” Mitt Romney told to a group of Cuban exiled and political leaders in Miami on January. With this short sentence he showed the world that he is not willing to conceive of Cuba as a friend, as long as Raul and Fidel Castro are still alive.

It seems that Mitt Romney dreams of a free Cuba and is willing to make his dream come true. He also wants to be everything Obama isn’t, so in the Cuba issue he would follow the same plan. If Obama, at the beginning of his presidency, adopted an appeasement strategy, Romney in his campaign assured he would harden the sanctions against Cuba if he is elected president. His plans are clear: the embargo would come to an end when Cuba is free, and free means with the Castro’s out of sight. It is clear that he wants the Cuban community’s support for presidential election.

But in these hard economic times, this strategy may not attract as many Cuban voters as he expects. Cubans are decisive in a crucial state like Florida. Most politicians try to gain their support by criticizing Castro, because most of their ancestors escaped the island when the Castro regime started in 1959. But in this period of crisis, most Cuban voters just think about the economy as their priority. Maybe in a time of prosperity, the priority of the Cuban voters will be the position of the presidential candidate over their country, but not in these hard times.

But Mitt Romney has bigger plans than the Cuban community support. He wants the entire Latin community support; he reassured citizens that he is interested in Latin American issues and clearly expressed the route that he will follow, referring to the relations with the different Latin American governments, if he is elected president. Romney believes that Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela and declared enemy of the United States,  and Fidel  Castro are serious threats for the United States.

That leaves the country members of ALBA (The Bolivian Alliance for the People of Our America), an alliance proposed by Chavez as an alternative to the FTA (Free Trade Area of the Americas, proposed by the United States) without hope of having good relations with the United States in the nearby future.

But Romney may not be the biggest threat toward Chavez. His real enemy is his sickness.Although president Chavez real health condition is a mystery; the fact is, he hasn’t been present in Venezuela during the last months, and it is very difficult to run a country and win an election just by Twitter. Chavez’s health will be a crucial issue during the next months because it will condition the relationship between the United States and Latin America. Also, if Venezuela falls, it is almost certain that Cuba would fall, because Venezuela is the country’s stronger economic supporter.

The future of the United States and Latin America is a mystery. We still have many questions without an answer, like if Romney would be elected president or if Chavez’ health would make him able to compete in the October elections against Henrique Capriles. All these answers are crucial and would determine the future of the continent.

Image Courtesy of  Gage Skidmore

The article Mitt Romney, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The US elections are wide open. Anyone can win; the polls show that Obama and Romney are virtually tied, the future is uncertain and the elections are only six months away, anything can happen.

Normally a president in the United States is reelected, the history of the country has shown it, if everything in the country goes the way it should, reelection is almost certain.

Obama won the election in an historical campaign; he was seen as the new hope, Bush government didn’t end well so the Republican Party was very weak, Obama took advantage of their weakness to become stronger, he declared himself the anti-Bush because he knew that the country had a common enemy and it appears that he learned well in school that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

John McCain, a former war hero, who competed against him had no chance of winning, he was seen as a continuation of George Bush, so Obama was elected president and the Democrat party returned to the white house.

Most of the world thought Obama would be a great president, one of the reasons they elected him was because the country was tired of the war on Iraq, and Obama promised to bring the troop backs very soon.

But the economy had other plans, and Obama’s government has not been as good as expected, the financial crisis has been rough, and something that you have to know is that when the economy is bad, people forget about anything else and just focus in their pockets and will vote for anyone that will give them a little economic relief, during this times of crisis what will determine who will win an election are not your social policies or a new stadium you are planning to build, what will really make you win is how many new jobs you promise to create or if people really believe that you would not increase taxes.

Economy has been the Achilles Heel of Obama’s government, and it doesn’t seems that things would get better in the next six months, they might just get worse depending on what happens in Europe, which is involved in an uncertain situation with the victory of the socialist Francois Hollande in France and with the results of the elections in Greece where the two major parties don’t have enough parliamentarians to form a government, so the elections may be repeated.

Mostly the economic issue could convert Mitt Romney into the next United States president; he would try to take advantage, like Obama did in the past election, of the hope of the people that with a new government thing would get better.

He would try to magnify Obama’s political mistakes so people would associate economic crisis with Obama, it’s a fact that we are immersed in a worldwide economic crisis and that it has not been Obama’s fault, but Romney would try to show the people that if the government had acted they way they should, then the United States would be out of the crisis by know.

Obama’s electoral campaign has a clear goal: to reconnect his government with the liberal sector of the country, witch has been the traditional sector that votes the Democrat party, that’s why a few days ago he announced that he supports gay marriage, he also wants to attract Hispanic and Afro-American voters who are disappointed with him.

Mitt Romney has one clear advantage over Barrack Obama and it is that he is perceived as a moderate republican, the contrary of Rick Santorum, because he was governor of Massachusetts, which is one of the most liberal states in the country.

The disadvantage is that he has less charm than Obama and also he is not such a good speaker as Obama. Also Romney has been a very successful businessman so Obama is trying to persuade the voter to perceive Romney like the typical rich that is trying to acquire political power to favor the big corporations.

But Romney could take advantage of the fact that he is a good businessman by counterattacking Obama saying that in order to create more wealth the United States needs a men who has been a good CEO, not someone like Obama who doesn’t understand about business and failed in his presidency.

Only time would tell who would win the election, and unless something extraordinary happens, that favors or dooms a candidate; it would be almost impossible to be certain of who will win this election. The strategies are already set, so now we have just to wait for the country to respond.

Image Courtesy of   Third Way

The article US Elections 2012: Uncertain Panorama appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney has opened a six-point lead (46%-40%) over President Barack Obama in Virginia, according to The Roanoke College Poll.

The two were statistically tied in the College’s February poll. Republican George Allen maintains an eight-point lead (44%-36%) on Democrat Tim Kaine in the likely November matchup for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia. The margin is unchanged from last month.

The Roanoke College Poll interviewed 603 Virginia residents between March 24 and April 5 and has a margin of error of +/-4%. Screening for registered voters (N=537) reduces Allen’s lead to seven points (46%-39%) and Romney’s lead to five points (46%-41%).

“While Mitt Romney fares well in the top-line numbers of this poll, looking beneath the surface suggests that his position is somewhat precarious,” said Harry Wilson, director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research.

“The commitment of his supporters lags significantly behind the commitment of President Obama’s supporters in several areas. While his lead over Obama has widened in a month, his favorable/unfavorable numbers and the fact that Virginians think Obama better understands their needs do not bode well for the likely Republican nominee.”

“The Allen/Kaine race has not changed since the last Roanoke College Poll. It is also interesting that Kaine is actually winning among Virginians with the highest income.”

“The results of this poll indicate a very high level of dissatisfaction on the part of Virginians. Approval of Obama and McDonnell and Congress are all down slightly, and perceptions of the state and the country have declined as well.

Both Presidential candidates have higher unfavorable than favorable ratings. Virginians are a disgruntled group right now.”

Image Courtesy of    Gage Skidmore

The article Romney Opens Lead Over Obama but Faces Enthusiasm Gap appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

For an example of the fluidity of campaign finance rules, as well as the tangled web of connections between candidates and super PACs, look no further than the digital consulting firm Targeted Victory.

So far, the firm’s hauled in $4.1 million working for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and American Crossroads, the super PAC launched by GOP strategist Karl Rove. Just down the hall, its neighbors in Arlington, Va., include an office housing four other companies working for Romney, American Crossroads or the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.

With the rise of super PACs, the jet-fueled political action committees that can take unlimited contributions, many campaign finance watchdogs have focused on the hundreds of millions of dollars being raised this presidential election cycle. But after the most recent campaign filings came in last week, ProPublica decided to track the other side of the equation: Where the money goes.

Our analysis found that more than $306 million has been spent so far by major super PACs and the five leading presidential candidates. In some cases, payees serve both candidates and the super PACs aligned with them, raising the specter that groups may be working together in ways that violate the rules, campaign finance experts said. We also found instances in which overseers of some political action committees directed hefty fees to their own companies, a legal form of self-dealing.

Among the top 200 payees, there were dozens of firms about which little is known. With generic names like Financial Innovations, Election Connections, Postage for Direct Mail Fundraising or Strategic Media Services, it’s sometimes unclear who runs them or exactly what they do. Many have short histories: Four of the six top-paid consulting firms for Winning Our Future, the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich, have been launched since July.

At the same time, familiar names cropped up regularly among the top earners. Democratic strategists David Axelrod, Ronald Rosenblith and Barack Obama’s team from 2008 are back in place. On the Republican side, there were companies connected to Karl Rove, Carl Forti, David Carney and Michael Dubke.

Targeted Victory’s initial manager was Tony Feather, a close friend of Rove’s who served as the political director of the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000. Feather also co-founded longtime GOP consulting firm DCI Direct and its sister firm, FLS Connect. Targeted Victory co-founder Michael Beach oversaw the national voter turnout program for the Republican National Committee in the 2008 election cycle.

Like some other outside spending groups, super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds, but they are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns.

Yet the rules governing “coordination” have been narrowly interpreted and rarely enforced by regulators. As long as candidates and super PACs don’t discuss the granular ins and outs of their spending, such as the placement and length of election ads, they can discuss strategy. Candidates can even help raise money for super PACs, or even, say, ask their father or good friend to donate.

Campaign-finance experts say there’s plenty of room for activity that average people would consider “coordination” that legally doesn’t count. They also said when consultants work for both a super PAC and a candidate, regulators should question whether they are operating independently.

“Any time it’s the same individual who is providing advice and services to a campaign and a super PAC, there is the danger of coordination,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine who runs the Election Law blog. “I’m sure most of the individuals playing these roles are getting legal advice on what they can and cannot do. The human brain being what it is, though, I think it is very difficult to separate those roles.”

Expenditure records show that a company called TargetPoint Consulting provides “survey research” to Mitt Romney’s campaign while also doing “direct mail consulting” for Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC. In February, the founder told The New York Times that while he understood it could look “ridiculous,” his company had gone to great lengths to prevent improprieties, setting up a firewall between employees working on the different campaigns.

Even when the ties between super PACs and candidates are less direct, spending records show how their spheres overlap. For example, partners of GOP polling company Public Opinion Strategies set up NMB Research, a polling company that works for Restore Our Future. One Public Opinion partner, Neil Newhouse, serves as the chief pollster for Mitt Romney’s campaign.

American Crossroads uses four of the same consultants as Restore Our Future and three of the same consultants as Romney’s campaign. (This is hardly a shock: Carl Forti, a former political director for Romney, is political director of American Crossroads and senior strategist for Restore Our Future.) TargetPoint Consulting works for all three groups, although it’s only done $1,700 worth of work for American Crossroads.

On the Democratic side, NGP VAN, a company that sells software that helps with fundraising and FEC compliance, has done work for both the Obama campaign and two super PACs backing Obama. The Obama campaign has paid NGP VAN $130,000; the two super PACs have paid it less than $17,000.

Beyond potential coordination, the analysis done by ProPublica also showed how some who have set up super PACs are directing donors’ cash into their own pockets.

GOP strategist Nick Ryan, a former aide to Rick Santorum, for instance, started his direct-mail and telemarketing firm, Global Intermediate LLC, shortly after launching the pro-Santorum super PAC, the Red White and Blue Fund. Global Intermediate is now the second-biggest vendor for Red White and Blue, earning almost $1.9 million so far.

While Ryan couldn’t be reached for comment, the super PAC’s spokesman, Stuart Roy, acknowledged in an email to the Los Angeles Times in February that Ryan’s participation with Global Intermediate was “no big mystery, they have done our phones and mail programs in multiple states (very effectively, I might add).”

Candidates are prohibited from using campaign funds for personal use and must pay “fair market value” if they hire companies run by relatives or other insiders, but super PACs, like regular PACs, have no such restrictions. For years, the FEC has asked Congress to expand the ban on candidates using campaign funds for personal use to PACs. So far, Congress has not acted.

“My standard sound-bite advice is 2018donor beware,’ when giving to any political action committee,” said Paul S. Ryan, of the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center.

Some insider transactions are on a smaller scale. A man named Gary Franchi Jr. runs both Revolution PAC, a super PAC known for its Ron Paul action figures, and Restore the Republic, a social networking site for Paul followers. Since last July, Revolution PAC has been paying Restore the Republic more than $1,700 a month for office rent. When asked if the office had telephones, desks and computers, Franchi replied: “Oh, yeah.”

But the office turned out to actually be a box in a Northbrook, Ill., UPS store. Franchi did not return follow-up calls for comment.

by Kim Barker and Al Shaw ProPublica, March 28, 2012, 1:02 p.m.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/newshour/

The article Campaign Spending Shows Political Ties, Self-Dealing appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Things are starting to look dim for Republican candidates Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum as Super Tuesday’s results revealed that Mitt Romney is definitively the front runner for the GOP spot for the election this coming November. But the real question is whether he will be able to beat out President Barack Obama for the presidential term of 2012 to 2016.

Romney was victorious in six of the ten states on Tuesday including Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, Alaska, Idaho and Vermont. Santorum followed with three wins in the states of North Dakota, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Gingrich trailed with only one win in Georgia and Ron Paul still has not won a single state’s primary or caucus.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, easily won the state’s vote with a turnout of approximately 72% voters in his favor. Surprisingly though, only about 20% of all registered Republican and Independent voters showed up to the polls to cast their ballots on Tuesday, according to Brian McNiff, who is the spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin. This is a significant drop from all presidential primaries in 2008 where about 45% of registered voters cast their ballots for both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Massachusetts State Representative George Peterson is positive that there will be a much higher turn out for the general election in November. Peterson stated, “People feel very strongly about this race and they are not happy where this country is headed.” Peterson also added that he sees, “a 60% percent turnout in the presidential race, and having Romney and Senator Brown on the ballot will be extremely helpful to all Republicans in the Legislature.”

In order for any presidential candidate to make it to November, one thing is important above all: Monday. And Romney has that. Massachusetts Party Chairman John Walsh claims that over the past seven years, Romney and his supporters have spent over $200 million in order for Romney to receive the Republican Party’s nomination. While Romney might have the money to get there, it’s going to be hard for the people of the state of Massachusetts to forget that the state ranked third lowest in the country as job creation and manufacturing declined over twice the national average during the time that Romney served as Governor there.

Despite Romney’s wins, none of the other Republican candidates have dropped out of the race — yet. The next state Romney must tackle is Kansas on Sunday and then Mississippi and Alabama on Tuesday. However, strategists believe that Santorum has a good chance of winning those states because he has strong supporters there. Santorum could be the only thing standing in the way of Romney being the Republican candidate for the presidency. Based on polls, Santorum is favored by those making less than $100,000 a year, non-graduates, independents, and people under the age of 65.

In the long run, Romney is looking to be the Republican nominee up against current President Obama in November, but before then, it looks as if he is going to have to beat out his Republican rivals. For Romney, it could be a long and drawn-out race until April, when the states of Maryland, Delaware, and Connecticut get to vote, as well as the District of Columbia. At that time, things will be much clearer as to who will go up against Obama in November.

Image Courtesy of    http://www.flickr.com/photos/newshour/

The article Will Romney’s Super Tuesday be Enough to Win Him the GOP? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum flailed against each other through most of the Republican presidential primary in Mesa, Arizona on Wednesday night, but both assailed President Obama for not taking a more aggressive stance towards Iran.

Romney called Obama’s policy towards Iran, “his biggest failure,” and said the Iranian threat to stop the flow of oil to the west and drive up gas prices “pales in comparison” to the threat of the Iranian regime getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

The United States should have intervened during the Green Revolution in 2009 when protesters rose up against the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Romney added. When the Iranian regime pressed ahead with efforts to produce nuclear fuel, the US should have put in place “crippling sanctions,” he said.

Santorum agreed that Obama hasn’t supported sanctions and is too timid to stand up to the Iranians. “We need a new president or we will have a cataclysmic situation,” said Santorum. He agreed that Obama should have come to the aid of the pro-democracy movement in Iran, but stumbled a bit during his tirade, calling Iran “the world’s most most prolific proliferator of terrorism.”

Both men agreed that the United States should do more to help the pro-democracy movement in Syria, although they stopped short of calling for direct military intervention. Santorum called Syria “a puppet for Iran” in the Middle East and Romney said the turmoil in Syria presented a critical time for the United States to change the balance of power in the Middle East. He said the US should consider turning to Turkey or other allies in the region to help overthrow the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Santorum stumbled again when he said that Obama had not demanded that Assad leave office. In a statement to the United Nations on February 4, Obama said Assad should step down, stop the killing of his own people, and allow the pro-democracy movement to run its course. It was the latest of many similar statements Obama has made since the protests in Syria began last year.

Newt Gingrich joined the chorus of tough talk, but added that if the United States got rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and eased restrictions on oil exploration, the country would produce so much gasoline that it could ignore Iran’s threats to stop oil shipments to the west.

Gingrich said he wouldn’t necessarily oppose a preemptive strike against Iran by the Israelis. “If you think a madman is about to get nuclear weapons and you think he is going to use those nuclear weapons, then you have an absolute moral obligation to defend the lives of your people by eliminating the capacity to get nuclear weapons,” said Gingrich. Ron Paul struck his usual contrarian pose on foreign policy, saying that the US has already overextended and nearly bankrupted itself with militarily intervention.

“There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon,” said Paul, to a chorus of cheers and jeers from the audience. And even if Iran did acquire a weapon, he continued, that’s not an excuse for immediate military action. Paul said the Soviet Union had over 30 thousand nuclear weapons, “but we still talked to them.” Eventually the Soviet Union collapsed, he continued. “It was because they bankrupted themselves.”

Paul said that al-Qaeda’s intention was to “bog down” the United States with military intervention in the Middle East, and so far, they’ve succeeded. “We’ve spent more than $4 trillion dollars over the last ten years in the Middle East,” said Paul, suggesting that if those who favor military intervention against Iran won’t listen to constitutional or moral arguments, perhaps they will listen to a financial one.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Republican Candidates Talk Tough on Iran appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Mitt Romney has been, and continues to be, the candidate to beat for the Republican nomination. He has come under fire from every other nomination contender, as well as from the Obama campaign on the left. He is criticized for being “out of touch” with the middle class, as well as for shutting down companies and eliminating jobs under Bain Capital, the private equity firm which he used to run.

His fortune, which is somewhere between 190 million and 250 million, makes him one of the wealthiest men to run for office in recent times. He has described the amount that he made from speaking engagements as “Not very much.” This amount is revealed to be $374,327, an amount that, well into the six figures, is far higher than the income of the average American.

Criticized by opponents for not releasing his tax forms, Romney is beginning to succumb, admitting to paying somewhere near 15% in his taxes. This percentage means that most of Romney’s income is from investments, as opposed to from ordinary income, which is taxable by up to 35%.

This makes him one of the 200,000 millionaires who pay less in taxes than the average person who makes over 100,000 dollars a year. According to the Christian Science Monitor, if some of his Republican opponents had their way, Mr. Romney would be paying even less in taxes.

Coincidentally, Mitt Romney opposes the Buffett Rule, also known as the Millionaire’s Tax, which would increase the minimum tax rate paid by millionaires, ensuring that they pay at least the same percentage that middle class income families do. According to the New York Times, any time he is asked about taxes being raised on the wealthy, Romney deflects the question, insisting that the size of our government must be shrunk.

The bigger issue may be that the IRS values investments more than it does ordinary income. Regardless, the current tax rates make it so that those who make many times over the average income, such as Mr. Romney,  have to pay a much lower percentage in taxes than a middle class family.

Furthermore, Mr. Romney negotiated a retirement deal with Bain Capital that provides him with a substantial share every year. This will be even more income that will not fall under ordinary income, and so therefore only 15% percent will be subject to taxation. As a candidate, Romney has advocated policies that would continue to benefit people like him whose income comes mainly from investments.

Mr. Romney will perhaps be continued to be seen as out of touch, and these recent revelations will doubtlessly be unhelpful to his candidacy.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/wacphiladelphia/

The article Mitt Romney Reveals Tax Rate Percentage Paid appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

At a speech at the Citadel Military College in South Carolina on October 7, Mitt Romney outlined some of his goals for American foreign policy if he wins the presidential election in 2012. He made two large promises: first, he pledged to reverse cuts in defense spending, and second, he vowed to deploy missiles and ships.

He also assured the audience that he would rebuild the US economy, reverse President Obama’s “massive defense cuts,” and increase the number of soldiers in the military by 100,000. However, Obama has only slowed down the rate of increase in the defense budget, not cut spending. In the current fiscal year, Obama requested $533 billion for defense.

When Obama took office, the budge was $513 billion. In April, he asked the Pentagon to find where it would be feasible to cut spending by $400 billion in the next 12 years. Romney also wants to increase shipbuilding from nine ships per year to 15 ships per year. However, shipbuilding has been decreasing steadily since the 1980s because wars were concentrated on land.

Building military ships has not been a priority of the Pentagon for the last 10 years. The Navy said it needs a minimum of 313 ships. It currently has 284 ships, which is up from the 278 ships it had in 2007. The 24 Navy Aegis ships are equipped with missile defense technologies. Missile defense was another of Romney’s concerns.

Romney said he would like to intensify military presence against the Iranian regime “by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in eastern Mediterranean and one in Persian Gulf.” The US currently has full-time military presence in the Persian Gulf, but none in the eastern Mediterranean.

At the Republican candidate debate on October 11, Romney received some hard questions from fellow candidates about his healthcare initiatives and his decision to support the Wall Street bailout of 2008-2009.

Rick Perry asked about the Massachusetts healthcare plan that requires uninsured residents of the states to obtain healthcare. The plan served as a template for Obama’s healthcare plan. Romney claimed that the plan does not raise taxes or cut Medicare; however, he claimed that the Obama plan does.

The next Republican party debates will be on October 18 in Las Vegas. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum will be attending the debate sponsored by CNN and the Western Republican Leadership Conference.
Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Election 2012 : Mitt Romney’s Promise to Reverse Military Spending Cuts appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Mitt Romney made his first major foreign policy address at the Citadel Military Academy last Friday, which tackled the threats to the country’s security and how he is planning to solve them. His foreign policy plan includes taking eight steps in his first 100 days in office as well as believing in the “American Century.”

Mitt Romney didn’t hold back as he discussed the threats facing America including President Obama’s shortcomings in his foreign policy. Critizing President Obama for ‘massive defense cuts,’ Romney stated, “I will not surrender America’s role in the world, this is very simple if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I’m not your president.

You have that president today.” On day one in office, Romney proposed to focus on rebuilding the economy, reverse massive defense cuts, and not weaken America’s military. Romney concentrated on the threats that the United States currently faces and potentially faces in the future.

The international threats included discussing a powerful nuclear Iran against the United States and the Taliban gaining power in Afghanistan again. He also included a vital issue directly facing America which is the Mexican border and the drug cartels in the region in combination with the failure to secure the border.

With these problems come solutions, and according to Romney the solution to a safer world is to make America the strongest nation in the world. He states, “God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers.

America must lead the world, or someone else will.” His plan to make America the strongest country in the world includes the eight steps he will take his first 100 days in office. The steps include the construction of a bigger Navy, which involves increasing ship building from 9 to 15 ships a year.

He aims to strengthen relationships with allies including Mexico and Israel. He also states he will enhance deterrents against Iran, commit to a robust national missile defense system, and use soft power resources in the Middle East. He plans on launching a campaign for economic opportunity in Latin America and conducting a full review of transition in Afghanistan.

Lastly he hopes to order interagency initiative on cyber security. Some people have commented that Mitt Romney’s foreign policy stance resembles that of former George W. Bush’s. Romney did an effective job at addressing the threats that face the country, where the Obama administration has lacked effective solutions, and the steps he plans on taking once in office.

With an attempted terrorist plot against the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to Washington by two Iranian men, just days after Romney’s speech, there seems to be justification for Romney’s forceful policies on terror prevention and America’s security.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Mitt Romney Combats Foreign Policy appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The rift between Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry seems to widen. The Romney campaign stated on Wednesday that they have considered Perry’s idea about allowing states to run social security. “We reject turning the program over to the states,” Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told The Huffington Post in an email.

The Romney campaign issued six detailed questions for the Perry campaign about how a state level social security program would run. Gail Gitcho, communications director for Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said Perry wants to “dismantle” Social Security.

“He has refused to answer questions on what the Social Security program would look like at the state level,” Gitcho said in the campaign’s release. “Governor Perry has the opportunity to clarify his proposal while he is in Florida — a state with an extraordinarily high number of retirees and near retirees.” The six questions take Perry’s idea seriously, raising logistical issues about the change.

Some of the questions include,  ”Would individuals retain national Social Security numbers or would each state administer its own system?”  or “What would happen to the Trust Fund that accrued while the [federal] system was in surplus? … How would those funds be equitably allocated to the states?”

A Perry campaign spokesman has not yet responded to a request for comment Wednesday. Although Romney also does not have any specific plan for social security, he has offered more details than Perry. In his 2010 book, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness,” Romney said he would consider raising the retirement age at which Americans become eligible for Social Security, with exceptions for those physically unable to work.

He also said he would be willing to reduce benefits for “high-income individuals” by using the consumer price index rather than the wage index to determine payouts, and to give younger workers the option to “direct a portion of their Social Security tax to a private account.”

Perry has called social security a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie.” These bold statements have won him some fans with members of the conservative grassroots. But, these statements have also opened him up for criticism nationally.

Romney’s campaign has tried to go after the substance of Perry’s past comments about moving the program to the state level and the questions about Social Security’s constitutionality that Perry raised in his 2010 book, “Fed Up.” The two will meet again in a scheduled GOP debate on Thursday in Florida.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Romney Asks Perry Tough Questions on Social Security appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The debate that took place at the infamous Ronald Reagan Library gave those who tuned in the opportunity to formally see where the eight GOP presidential candidates stand on some of the most burning issues facing the country. It was clear that two candidates carried the spotlight throughout the night. Romney and Perry didn’t waste any time and began their heated battle right from the start.

Each dealt with tough questions, and both were confronted on issues of job creation in their state and their plan for the economy. Romney, who was bumped down by Perry in recent polls to a second place, showed an adequate performance at last week’s debate. Romney was able to stay composed and focused even when faced with questions regarding some of his weak spots, such as healthcare.

Romney’s health care plan, often referred to as “Romney Care,” was one topic that Romney couldn’t avoid answering — the main reason being that all other candidates oppose Romney’s healthcare bill because it resembles that of President Obama. He will have to expand on the difference between his and the President’s in future debates.

Romney was also confronted with his ideas for job creation when questioned about his poor ranking as the 47^th state for job creation within his ten years as governor. Romney responded, “We were able to turn around the job losses and at the end of four years we had the unemployment rate down to 4.7%. That’s a record I think the president would like to see. As a matter of fact we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in this entire country.”

He also used his experience in the private sector to promote his foundation for forming jobs. Rick Perry, who is now in the lead in the GOP presidential election, is known to be inexperienced in live debates compared to the other candidates. However, this didn’t show and Perry was able to answer many questions, with only a few fumbles.

Perry was also faced with the topic of job creation and economy. He was asked about economic issues that surround Texas such as having the lowest minimum wage in the country and being one of eight states with the highest level of poverty.

Perry responded, “What Americans are looking for is someone who can get this country working again, and we put the model in place in the state of Texas. When you look at what we have done over the last decade we have created one million jobs in the state of Texas, the same time Americans lost 2 1/2 million.”

Although a good answer, Perry dodged many of the questions being asked and instead responded with his track record of creating jobs. The fact that Mitt Romney and Rick Perry were in the spotlight last at the first debate could indicate the direction of the race for the presidential nomination.

Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to President George W. Bush during his presidential campaign, responded to last week’s debate as, “great theater, good fireworks. Rick Perry is the front-runner and he did nothing last night to knock himself off that status. Mitt Romney was solid as he has been in the recent debates.”

With both candidates showing no signs of giving up, it will be exciting to see if the upcoming debates continue to play out like a boxing match between Romney and Perry, or if other candidates will want to step in for the fight.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Romney and Perry Battle for the Lead appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

It has already begun. The presidential election is over a year away, but former candidates are beginning to endorse their peers. Tim Pawlenty, who dropped out of the race last month, has placed his support behind Mitt Romney in an email to supporters on Monday.

“President Obama has failed to meet America’s economic challenges. … Fortunately, America may get a second chance: Mitt Romney is running for president, and I am proud to endorse him,” said Pawlenty in an email message sent out by the Romney campaign.

“[Romney] believes in the bedrock conservative ideals of limited government and free enterprise,” he continued. “He will stand up for America’s allies when they are threatened, with fortitude. And he will face down our adversaries. He is a formidable person, and he will certainly be a formidable president. Our allies can count on it, and our enemies should expect it.”

“He’s formulated an economic plan-a set of alternatives to the government-oriented programs that Barack Obama has put in place-that is unparalleled in the history of American electoral campaigns. By pressing for fundamental change in the way that Washington taxes and spends, issues regulations, uses energy, interacts with our major trading partners, and deals with our labor force, he fully envisions a way to place America back on the path toward rapid economic growth and full employment.”

Pawlenty also appeared on Fox News on Monday morning. He stated that Romney has significant experience in the private sector, which has influenced his decision to support the former Massachusetts governor. He also criticized Texas governor Rick Perry, specifically Perry’s reference to social security as a “ponzi scheme.”

“Governor Romney wants to fix Social Security — he doesn’t want to abolish it or end it,” Pawlenty said. “He doesn’t believe it should be thrown out — he thinks it should be reformed and fixed.” Responding to questions about his previous criticism of Romney’s health-care program, Pawlenty said he talked to Romney about his concerns and came away reassured.

“Mitt Romney is 100 percent dedicated and committed to repealing Obamacare,” Pawlenty said, citing Romney’s pledge to grant the states waivers from the federal law. Pawlenty will be a national co-chair of Romney’s campaign. He told Fox News that he had no vice presidential aspirations.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Pawlenty Endorses Mitt Romney appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Last Wednesday’s debate between Republican presidential hopefuls highlighted the sharp ideological divide between Texas governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as the two clashed over Social Security.

During the debate at the Ronald Regan Presidential Library, Perry called Social Security an unsustainable “Ponzi  scheme” and claimed that it gave young workers a false sense of security.

This echoes the arguments in his 2010 book Fed Up! in which he claimed that Social Security was unconstitutional and should be replaced with “retirement safety net that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme, but rather will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.” In recent weeks, Perry has also advocated transferring responsibility for Social Security to the states.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, came out in defense of Social Security, saying that its problems can be fixed. In particular, he advocates raising the retirement age and eliminating benefits for wealthy individuals. Perry’s decision to attack Social Security is a very risky move.

It has been an established part of the American political landscape since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, and politicians have traditionally been wary of attacking it because of its bipartisan support.

Writing to his brother in 1954, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower even went so far as to say that “should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”

However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Social Security is in danger. By 2023, forecasts predict that the income of the Social Security program will no longer be sufficient to meet its expenditures.

Predicted demographic shifts suggest that, by 2035, there will be less than three income earners supporting each retiree who receives Social Security benefits. Unless Congress acts, the Social Security Trust Fund could be drained by 2036.

Perry is almost certainly hoping that his strident criticism of Social Security will resonate with grassroots members who are eager to roll back the power of the federal government. He also seems to believe that the GOP needs to field a candidate who is diametrically opposed to President Obama.

“The point is we need to have a nominee that doesn’t blur the lines between themselves and the current resident of the White House,” Perry told an audience in Orange County, California on Thursday. If Perry continues down this road, he certainly won’t have to worry about being confused with Obama.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/maysbusinessschool/

The article Mitt Romney And Rick Perry Fight Over Social Security appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has launched his own jobs plan ahead of the president’s address to the nation on Thursday. On Tuesday, Romney detailed his 59 specific proposals to improve the nation’s economy and create jobs.

“At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way,” Romney wrote in an opinion piece in USA Today that previewed his 160-page plan. “The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.”

Romney’s plan, no surprise, includes lowering the tax rate for corporations to encourage more corporations to keep profits in the U.S. This comes just weeks after Romney stated that “corporations are people.” Romney also proposes to eliminate tax on interests, capital gains and dividends. Romney’s campaign stated that these proposals specifically target middle class Americans, however few middle class Americans pay those types of taxes.

Romney criticized Obama for expanding federal regulations. He announced a proposal to ensure that new regulations at government agencies do not cost money. If a new set of rules raises costs for businesses, Romney would require that a different set of regulations be eliminated.

“I have spent most of my career in the private sector starting new businesses and turning around ailing ones. Unlike career politicians who’ve never met a payroll, I know why jobs come and go,” Romney wrote in USA Today, again a jab at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has held public office since he was elected as a Texas state representative in 1985.

Democrats criticized Romney’s plan, even before he rolled it out. Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the Democratic Party, said: “Mitt Romney has promised an economic plan that is bold and sweeping. But if the past months have shown anything, what Americans are really likely to get is more of the same tired rhetoric and worn out ideas which have failed America in the past.”

Although there is nothing new or different in this plan (lower taxes, reduce regulations), at least Romney is proposing something. The Republican Party in general has not offered any real solutions to the economy. The Republicans are known as the “Party of No” for a reason.

They are quick to criticize the president, congress and everyone else without suggesting any alternatives. Of course, the hocus pocus magic of lowering taxes and reducing regulations does not help the economy (see: George W. Bush’s 8 years) but  Mittens is trying to set himself apart in the crowded GOP field.

Frontpage / Shutterstock.com

The article Mitt Romney Unveils Job Plan appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As Rick Perry’s campaign gains momentum, a jittery Mitt Romney has attempted to target the issue most likely to be his opponent’s weakness: immigration.

Speaking to Republican Hispanics in Tampa, Romney said that “we must stop providing the incentives that promote illegal immigration.” He reminded his audience that, as governor, he vetoed legislation to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants and worked to make it easier for state troopers to enforce immigration laws.

Although Romney did not mention Perry by name, it was clear he had the Texas governor in his sights. In 2001, Perry signed a version of the “Dream Act” that allowed illegal aliens to obtain in-state tuition. And although he calls for a crackdown on illegal immigration, he shows little enthusiasm for Arizona-style legislation.

The issue of illegal immigration has become a hot button issue for the GOP in recent years, which presents the party with something of a problem as they attempt to woo Hispanic voters. In the run-up to the last election, Mitt Romney took a hard line on immigration and, as a result, he won just nine percent of Florida’s Cuban vote and twenty-one percent of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote in the Florida Republican primary.

In recent remarks to the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, Romney said that he was “a great proponent of legal immigration.” “Many of you are living proof of the unique strength of America that is constantly renewed by new Americans,” he added.

Romney’s attack comes as a recent poll by Magellan Strategies shows Perry with a five-point advantage among Republicans in Nevada, a state that backed Romney in the last election. Romney has also come under sustained attack from certain elements of the Tea Party.

Many Tea Partiers view him as ideologically suspect because he signed Massachusetts’ 2006 health care reform, a law that provided inspiration for President Obama’s own health care reforms. Consequently, some of their activists have taken to protesting Romney’s attendance at conservative functions and are actively working to undermine his campaign in battleground states.

However, this opposition has set off something of an internal struggle within the Tea Party movement, as many local groups object to the idea of outsiders coming in and telling them who to support.

In a belated bid to court Tea Party votes, Romney will address some of its members in New Hampshire on Sunday, September 4. The next day, he will take part in gathering hosted by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), a prominent supporter of the Tea Party.

Evan Meyer / Shutterstock.com

The article Mitt Romney Attacks Rick Perry Over Immigration appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney put on his boxing gloves on Tuesday and began to swing at top rival, Rick Perry. Romney spoke at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in San Antonio and seemed to take aim at Perry without mentioning his name. When talking about whether Obama is responsible for the recession, Romney alluded that Perry is a “career politician.”

“I am a conservative businessman. I spent most of my life outside of politics, dealing with real problems in the real economy,” Romney said. “Career politicians got us into this mess and they simply don’t know how to get us out!”

Romney’s advisors state that the “death by a thousand cuts” strategy will target Perry. Romney’s camp doesn’t believe that the Texas governor, who has been in office since 2000, can be defeated by any one thing.

The strategy instead will focus on highlighting the most negative aspects of Perry’s public record. Although Romney is starting to attack Perry, the plan is also to wait on Rep. Michele Bachmann. Romney’s aides believe that she will soon be forced to go on the offensive against Perry.

However, Bachmann’s camp is content to remain on the sidelines for as long as possible and let the first and second place contenders duke it out. Romney’s strategists think she won’t be able to wait long because of Perry’s surge in the poll numbers. “I think given her financial situation she can’t wait that long,” the Romney adviser said.

Jamie Burnett, who was Romney’s political director in New Hampshire in 2008 but is unaffiliated this cycle, said that “every day that goes by there is less oxygen for [Bachmann] in this primary field.” “[Perry's] stealing a lot of her oxygen.

It’s quickly becoming a two-person race,” Burnett stated. Romney’s camp also believes that Perry will hang himself during the three upcoming debates scheduled in September. “We went through Hurricane Palin and Hurricane Huckabee and Hurricane Trump,” the Romney adviser said, referring to the bright light celebrity names that stoked interest earlier this year: former Alaska Gov.

Sarah Palin, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and businessman Donald Trump. Referring to Perry, the adviser said: “This is just one more hurricane, but I think we’re at the end of hurricane season.”

The first debate is scheduled for Wednesday in California.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/wacphiladelphia/

The article Romney Comes Out Swinging appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has burnished his climate skeptic credentials by casting doubt on the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Romney said that, although he agrees that the world is getting warmer, he is not sure whether or not the increased temperatures are caused by human activity.

“Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” “What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to,” he continued.

Shortly after announcing his candidacy in June, Romney caused a stir in conservative circles by calling for action to limit pollutants in order to combat climate change.

“I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing,” he said.

Surveys have shown that many Republicans are skeptical of the idea of anthropogenic global warming, and Romney may well have feared that his previous statement was undermining his support. Although he was once the Republican front-runner, recent polls show him trailing Texas governor Rick Perry.

Perry has already established himself as a leading climate skeptic. He has been a vociferous critic of the Obama administration’s climate change policies, and has criticized the Environmental Protection Agency on a number of occasions. Perry has even gone so far as to accuse climate scientists of manipulating data in order to obtain grant money.

Such stalwart opposition to the Obama administration’s environmental policies has already earned Perry the endorsement of Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe. When announcing his decision, Inhofe accused Romney of being “a little mushy” on environmental issues. Last month, Romney’s camp attempted to draw a distinction between ‘greenhouse gases’ and ‘pollutants.’

“Gov. Romney does not think greenhouse gases are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and he does not believe that the EPA should be regulating them,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Humans emit it every time they exhale.”

Although many in the GOP may question global warming, a 2010 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks,” and most climate scientists across the globe endorse this thesis.
Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The article Mitt Romney Emerges As Climate Skeptic appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney spoke at the Iowa State Fair on Thursday, making a classic Freudian slip that was immediately pounced on by his opposition. Speaking to a rowdy crowd on the afternoon of the Republican debate, Romney declared that “corporations are people.”

An audience member asked Romney why he was focusing on entitlement reforms to reduce the deficit instead of asking corporations to share part of the burden. Romney shot back, “Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings my friend.”

The Democrats wasted no time slamming Romney over the comments. “This is what Mitt Romney is going to run on? Corporations are people? Really?” said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. “There’s a great message for people struggling to get by and trying to make ends meet. Don’t complain — corporations are people too!”

Speaking at the Des Moines Register soapbox, Romney was also interrupted by a heckler who asked if he supported “scrapping the Social Security payroll cap so that rich people pay their fair share into the trust fund?”

Romney responded, “There was a time in this country where we didn’t celebrate attacking people based on their success. We didn’t go after people because they were successful. I’ve watched this president go across the country attacking people, and I… and I am… if you want to speak, you can speak. But right now it’s my turn, so let me continue.”

Romney, clearly flustered, continued. “If you don’t like my answer, you can vote for someone else,” he said.

Romney’s attack comes just two days before the Ames straw poll in the state, an important indicator for the primary next year. Although Romney will appear on the ballot in Iowa, he has not been actively campaigning in the conservative state.

“As you know I participated in a major way in a straw poll four years ago,” Romney said in addressing his decision to forego the straw poll during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Wednesday night.

“Some of the benefit I already was able to accrue based upon what happened last time around… I want to use my financial resources and my time this time to actually get delegates, not the straw polls — they are nice but don’t get you delegates — I’m not going to participate in the straw polls anywhere in the country.”

Image of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/wacphiladelphia/

The article Mitt Romney “Corporations are People” appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.