The 5 Topics That Matter the Most This Election
Every voter should read this before heading to the polls this November.
We all want a more prosperous, safe and friendly America, and I argue that most of us want the same United States of America that our Founding Fathers imagined when they drafted the Constitution over 200 years ago.
The path we've been on the last four years is not moving us toward a more prosperous and efficient economy, and we need a change in leadership. We need leadership, period. In my opinion, our current President has never been a true leader. How could he be- he's never led anything but a campaign for the next office!!! He spent his entire Senate term running for the office of President. He has proven effective at rallying supporters, but like the recent Occupy protesters, he doesn't stand for anything, and as such he isn't capable of leading effectively.
Read on to learn about the two candidates' stances on policies that matter most this election year, and why Mitt Romney is the better candidate.
Whose plan will create the most jobs?
President Obama's plan has been in place for four years now, and despite what he tells the American public, it hasn't created jobs. When Obama took office in January of 2009, unemployment was at 7.8%. By October of the same year, it was up to 10.0%. And acording to the most recent report, it's still at 7.8%. 
Admittedly, he did take office shortly after the economic freefall began due to the housing crisis and collapse of Lehman Brothers. But to claim he can make jobs for every sector by dumping freshly printed money into infrastructure is incredulous. Tell me you've waited all your life for the chance to build sidewalks and roads in the scorching summer heat. Come, now.
Romney's plan to create jobs is actually a five-part plan:
- Achieve energy independence on the continent by developing our own natural resources.
- Improve the trade deficit and trade relations with other countries.
- Provide education and retraining for tomorrow's jobs that will stimulate further growth in the economy.
- Cut the deficit and reduce the size of government bloat.
- Champion Small Businesses to encourage lasting economic growth and personal independence.
As a businessperson myself, I believe strongly in Romney's ability to create growth through investments in growth-oriented technologies, trim wasteful spending, and creat economic growth in a sustainable manner. While Obama has returned the employment figures to the state in which he inherited them (at least that's what the report says), there is nothing prompting me to argue that the natural laws of economics would not have done the same thing without outside interference.
Libya, Russia, Syria, and Egypt, oh my
President Obama may or may not still have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; I don't know. Romney clearly has no ties to any such group. The closest Romney comes to any form of extremism are his beliefs in capitalism and his religion, Mormonism. Those are nowhere near the views of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose credo ends with "...death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."
This lofty goal, to die for Allah, is extremism at its finest. The so-called prophet Allah (I'm not Muslim, and I don't believe in the prophet's teachings, nor that he was a prophet) is advocating that all who follow him should aspire to die in upholding his teachings is what psychologists call 'ego-centrism.' In other words, it's all about Allah. Not humanity, not God, but Allah and his reputation.
We need a leader that will work for all people, not just the ones whom he is tied to. Not the ones he likes the most. Not the ones he was told to like.
Not that I believe in Mormonism, either. Any group that requires you to ride around on a bicycle all hours of the day in a shirt and tie, in all seasons, is a bit wackadoo in my opinion.
I think John Maxwell said "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."
We are clearly failing in our foreign policy address under the current administration.
If taxes are unavoidable, then we should just dive right in and pay as much in taxes as we can? Of course not. Like death, they should be minimized and avoided where possible.
Since neither you nor I control tax policy for the American people, we must elect a President that is capable of (and interested in) producing a more sound, reasonable, and fair tax policy for all income earners.
Should the wealthy be taxed at a higher rate than the middle-class? They already are. Every time you earn enough money to get into the next tax bracket, you pay more in taxes.
Is raising corporate taxes a way to produce more revenue for the government? Yes. But it is not a useful step in promoting corporate growth, as evidenced by Scott McNealy (the founder and former CEO of Sun MicroSystems) in his rant on Romney's website.
I'm well aware of the value of taxation: we have an incredible infrastructure that most other countries only dream of having. Our public education system, although facing its own struggles right now, is still tops in the world. And no other place on the planet provides the same amount of national parks as America does. But increasing taxation is not a sustainable revenue-increasing strategy our government should embark upon.
Obama's tax policy (not what he says, what he has done) has been to consistently mislead the American public with his rhetoric about how the Republicans have actually raised taxes on the middle class and the poor. In fact, Obama has increased the spread between what the top earners pay and what the lowest earners pay. According to the July 12, 2012 CBO report entitled “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009,” the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of federal taxes while earning 13% of all income in 2009, which is down from 2007 when the top 1% paid 40%. That 1% difference may seem insignificant, until you calculate the actual dollar amount, which comes out to just over $10.5 billion dollars. Ten billion dollars is a lot of tax money from just 1% of income earners. And we know that the bottom 40% didn't pay any federal taxes, in fact they received benefits equivalent to 10% of all federal tax receipts.
Can Obama be trusted when he's talking about taxes? No, because he doesn't understand them. He's never had to meet a payroll, or work extra hours to make sure his employees' families have a place to work and continue adding value to others. Obama's only ever worked for himself, and not in a self-employment capacity. The problem is, Obama's had three and a half years to do something positive with regard to taxes, and he hasn't done a thing. Tax credits that are set to expire in 2013, 2014 and beyond are actually going to hurt the middle class, and President Obama has left them in place.
On the other hand, Romney's plan "...to overhaul and to dramatically simplify the current tax code..." and "...eliminate taxes on savings for the middle class..." aligns perfectly with what Obama claims he wants to do but hasn't. What Governor Romney wants to do is to simplify the tax code, implement a fairer, flatter tax code, and reduce the corporate tax rate to 25%. This is not a matter of differences in philosophy, this is a matter of difference in policy and of results, and we have yet to see any positive results from the current administration.
Where we get our energy matters.
Romney's plan includes liberating Americans from energy barons like the Middle East, while creating jobs for nearly 3 million. By opening up the Keystone XL pipeline and authorizing individual states to pursue energy creation within their borders, Romney's plan will create an international energy partnership that will benefit all Americans while limiting negative impact on reduced trade with the Middle East. I think we all agree that's a good thing.
Not organizing, leadership.
President Obama has been in his professional career the following:
- Community Organizer at a housing project in Chicago
- Professor at the Univ. of Chicago for 12 years
- Illinois State Senator, 1996-2000 and 2002-2004
Nowhere in that list is any position of job creation, budget financing, or overall responsibility. It is rather unsettling to me that a man with his credentials yet no leadership experience would be given the highest authority position in the greatest nation on Earth. Sure, he's handsome. Yes, he's a good orator. And yes, he ran against a slightly buffoonish candidate, John McCain. At least McCain had some skin in the game. He risked his life in service to his country during the Vietnam war, and was a prisoner of war from 1967 until 1973.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has served his nation well. Through direct involvement at Bain Capital, the investment capital firm where he served as President and Managing General Partner, Romney helped launch Staples, Inc., which as of 2012 employed over 90,000 associates worldwide. Romney's greatest asset in successfully buying other companies and then returning them to profitability is his ability to critically understand the key details of an organization, its operations, and its strategy, and work with his team to produce astounding results. Some of these success stories include Sealy Corporation (mattresses), Domino's Pizza, home furnishings and technolody company Brookstone, and sporting goods giant Sports Authority.
While there are no given numbers for how many jobs Romney has actually created, or how much money he is responsible for contributing to the nation's economy, it is obvious that his success is well-deserved and that he is more than capable of successfully leading this country. And there you have my 5 reasons why you should vote for Mitt Romney during this election.