 |
| Getty Image Chip Somodeville |
The two sparring front runners in the Republican nomination process have provided absolutely nothing that could be labeled innovative to move this country forward in the second decade of the 21st century. Instead, they focus on portraying each other and President Obama in a negative light. The word Republican has become synonymous with the word "no". The President's State of the Union address last night was delivered with optimism and ideas about moving this country in a positive direction. In fact, he included a few ideas that I had suggested in a note to him--ideas that many others had suggested as well, I'm sure. Obama mentioned taxing companies that outsource jobs overseas and rewarding companies that hire and maintain a workforce in this country.
Let's review some facts about where the United States stands today, as compared to what existed when Obama was elected in 2008. The financial meltdown occurred in September 2008, leaving a legacy of economic chaos when Obama took office in 2009. Much of the bailout plan was started under the Bush administration, although the Obama administration provided bailout money to the auto companies after he took office.The financial institutions that received money under Bush continued business as usual and paid large bonuses to executives, despite having borrowed astronomical amounts from taxpayers. I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions, but I place my vote on GM and Chrysler and remind readers that Ford did not take bailout money.
When Obama moved to the White House, al Qaeda was thriving and Osama bin Laden was alive. Today, bin Laden no longer exists and many other al Qaeda leaders have been killed, thus weakening the terrorist organization. During Libya's internal strife in the wake of Arab Spring, Obama chose a measured approach that relied on NATO forces on the ground and did not commit American forces to lead the charge. In January 2009, we still had a huge number of troops in Iraq. Obama ended that in December 2011.
I could wax on with additional information, but I now turn to Romney and Gingrich. Romney worked for the financial establishment, and, as his 2010 taxes show, paid a 13.9% tax rate because much of his income came from investments, which are taxed at a much lower rate than earned income such as many of us pay on our salaries. For particulars, Romney's tax forms can be found online.
Gingrich paid a 31% rate for 2010 income, but that doesn't reflect wealth that he accrued in previous years, and his taxes are a bit involved because of his foundation. Suffice it to say, both candidates are among the 1%. I remind readers that Warren Buffett has repeatedly stated that millionaires should pay a higher tax rate than those earning less than a million, and Patriotic Millionaires group agrees. Most Americans in a similar age bracket to the candidates have not earned $1 million in 10 years, let alone one tax year.
Ham on Wry urges voters to avoid using just one issue to elect a president in 2012. We don't need same ole, same ole mentality when approaching the complexities of modern living and global issues. That admonition applies to Congress as well. President Obama rightfully chastised them last night for their inaction this session, and voters must remember that at the polls later this year.
Neither Gingrich and Romney offer inspired leadership.The Republican Party's only hope is an unannounced, dynamic candidate with a track record of accomplishment in the last few years. If the current candidates reflect the best and brightest Republicans have to offer, we're doomed. Gingrich has already failed his leadership test and Romney doesn't appeal to many of the voters looking for a candidate to whom they can relate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment