Mitt Romney is a leader with the skills, the background and the character that our country needs at a crucial time in its history. Following four years of failed leadership, the hopes of our country, which have inspired the world, are growing dim; and they need someone to revive them. Governor Romney is the man for this moment; and he and I share one commitment: we will restore the dreams and greatness of this country.
…
For the last 14 years, I have proudly represented Wisconsin in Congress. There, I have focused on solving the problems that confront our country, and turning ideas into action; and action into solutions.
I am committed, in mind and heart, to putting that experience to work in a Romney Administration. This is a crucial moment in the life of our nation; and it is absolutely vital that we select the right man to lead America back to prosperity and greatness.
That man is standing next to me. His name is Mitt Romney. And he will be the next president of the United States
…
Let me say a word about the man Mitt Romney will replace. No one disputes President Obama inherited a difficult situation. And, in his first 2 years, with his party in complete control of Washington, he passed nearly every item on his agenda. But that didn’t make things better.
In fact, we find ourselves in a nation facing debt, doubt and despair.
This is the worst economic recovery in 70 years.
Unemployment has been above 8 percent for more than three years, the longest run since the Great Depression. Families are hurting.
We have the largest deficits and the biggest federal government since WW II.
Nearly 1 out of 6 Americans are in poverty–the worst rate in a generation. Moms and dads are struggling to make ends meet.
Household incomes have dropped by more than $4,000 over the past four years.
Whatever the explanations, whatever the excuses, this is a record of failure.
…
I represent a part of America that includes inner cities, rural areas, suburbs and factory towns. Over the years I have seen and heard from a lot from families, from those running small businesses, and from people who are in need. But what I have heard lately troubles me the most. There is something different in their voice and in their words. What I hear from them are diminished dreams, lowered expectations, uncertain futures.
I hear some people say that this is just “the new normal.” High unemployment, declining incomes and crushing debt is not a new normal. It’s the result of misguided policies. And next January, our economy will begin a comeback with the Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class that will lead to more jobs and more take home pay for working Americans.
…
I believe my record of getting things done in Congress will be a very helpful complement to Governor Romney’s executive and private sector success outside Washington. I have worked closely with Republicans as well as Democrats to advance an agenda of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and job creation.
I’m proud to stand with a man who understands what it takes to foster job creation in our economy, someone who knows from experience, that if you have a small business—you did build that.
At Bain Capital, he launched new businesses and he turned around failing ones – companies like Staples, Bright Horizons and Sports Authority, just to name a few. Mitt Romney created jobs and showed he knows how a free economy works.
At the Olympics, he took a failing enterprise and made it the pride of our entire nation.
As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with Democrats and Republicans to balance budgets with no tax increases, lower unemployment, increase income and improve people’s lives.
In all of these things, Mitt Romney has shown himself to be a man of achievement, excellence and integrity.
…
We Americans look at one another’s success with pride, not resentment, because we know, as more Americans work hard, take risks, and succeed, more people will prosper, our communities will benefit, and individual lives will be improved and uplifted.
…
The commitment Mitt Romney and I make to you is this:
We won’t duck the tough issues…we will lead!
We won’t blame others…we will take responsibility!
We won’t replace our founding principles…we will reapply them!
We will honor you, our fellow citizens, by giving you the right and opportunity to make the choice:
What kind of country do we want to have?
What kind of people do we want to be?
We can turn this thing around. Real solutions can be delivered. But, it will take leadership. And the courage to tell you the truth.
Mitt Romney is this kind of leader. I’m excited for what lies ahead and I’m thrilled to be a part of America’s Comeback Team. And together, we will unite America and get this done. Thank you.
A great pick to hammer home the economy and tax reform, and Ryan is one of the few in Congress to have presented a detailed plan to get us back on track in America.
UPDATE 8/11: It’s Official — Romney/Ryan. At least I came close with the Virginia angle yesterday long before the VP site and time announcement was made. I’ll take that. And I’ll take a Romney/Ryan ticket.
Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia is Romney’s VP pick. You heard it here first! Here’s my Top 10 List why:
The contest to meet Mitt and his VP ends at 23:59 on August 10.
Romney will be in Virginia with McDonnell on Saturday, August 11
Romney needs Virginia to win, and Virginia also has a crucial Senate seat (George Allen) to win
Virginia is the third-best state to do business: a robust, low-tax state — a must-have for Romney and the economy
As a Governor, McDonnell is more expendable than someone in the Senate or House
McDonnell has the leadership skills as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association
There you go! UPDATE: It’s confirmed Mitt will announce at 9am in Norfolk, VA. No planes needed for transporting the elusive VP pick. Kicks off a multi-state tour, with several stops in Virginia. And, check out www.mittromney.com. See who is on the front page — it’s not Paul Ryan.
UPDATE #2: Nothing from Bob McDonnell’s Twitterfeed for 9 hours now.
UPDATE #3: Rubio, Portman, Pawlenty all ruled out. Nothing about Bob McDonnell still and it’s after 1am
UPDATE #4: Bad storms in Virginia. Not good airplane weather
“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.
The new Socialist President, Francois Hollande, announced the latest “get rich quick” scheme for France: impose a 75 percent tax on the portion of anyone’s income above a million euros ($1.24 million) a year. Under the guise of Patriotism, Hollande is seeking that the rich “pay extra tax to get the country back on its feet again.” Parliament will consider the initiative next month as a means to improve France’s finances as the Euro crisis rages on in Europe.
Unfortunately, this should come as no surprise to France’s wealthiest. Mr. Hollande has matter-of-factly stated, “I don’t like the rich”, and now he has a measure to put money where his mouth is. As the NYTimes reports:
Taxes are high in France for a reason: they pay for one of Europe’s most generous social welfare systems and a large government. As Mr. Hollande has described it, the tax plan is about “justice,” and “sending out a signal, a message of social cohesion.”
Outrageous.
While some support Hollande’s proposal, others are rightly concerned with the Laffer Curve effect; namely, that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counterproductive for raising further tax revenue. Indeed, such a result was seen most recently in England this past spring; as a money-grab measure, the highest tax margins were increased to a 50% tax on the wealthy. I wrote about this last month, when income tax and capital gains revenue receipts were down after the implementation of the controversial measure — and much of England’s leadership was surprised at the result.
Thomas Sowell observed quite aptly: “I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money”.
Yes, Hollande’s attitude and tax plan will drive away more businesses and investors from France’s already fledgling economy, because the highest income earners will have had enough. The last time a socialist was elected President in France — Monsieur Francois Mitterrand in the 1980’s — there was some flight of the wealthy from the country. Expect to see the same result if such a crushing and counter-productive piece of legislation passes in September.
In that case, let the capital flight commence to the USA!
1) President Obama has spent more campaign cash more quickly than any incumbent in recent history
2) The price tag: about $400 million from the beginning of last year to June 30 this year, according to a New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission records, including $86 million on advertising.
3) With less than a month to go before the national party conventions begin, the president’s once commanding cash advantage has evaporated, leaving Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee with about $25 million more cash on hand than the Democrats as of the beginning of July
Let’s couple these points with a recent report from the Hill:
The president spent $58.1 million in June despite bringing in just $45.9 million, meaning his reelection effort ran a deficit of more than $12 million dollars for the month. And the president spent an whopping $32.2 million in television ads, along with $4.5 million in online ads, over the 30-day period. The Romney campaign, by contrast, spent $10.4 million over that period on advertisements.
The total national debt is $15.8 trillion, increasing nearly 50% from the $10.6 trillion in debt when Obama took office. Additionally, the debt held by the public is up to $11 trillion from $6.3 trillion when Obama began his presidency, which is a 75% increase. Though it is commonly cited that Obama accumulated more public debt than all the other prior presidents combined, he falls $1.7 trillion short right now — though that is not too far off.
Another interesting statistic is that calculating the federal spending debt as a percentage of the GDP yields that Obama is higher than the last five presidents. The Office of Management and Budget statistics show that the debt percentage increases were: Reagan, up 14.9%; Bush 41, up 7.1%; Clinton, down 13.4%; George W. Bush 43, up 5.6%; and Obama, up 21.9%. Thus, Obama’s spending debt increases exceeded that of the last five presidents.
So right now, Obama’s campaign spending is the highest in recent history, and his campaign posted deficit spending last month. We know that his campaign is sending out multiple donation pleas daily to his supporters, just as Obama is talking about raising the tax margins in order to generate more government revenue. The most ironic part is that Obama is more than happy to attend and accept $35,000+ a-plate fundraising dinners, but then at the same time excoriates “millionaires and billionaires” and the “top 2%” for the sake of election class warfare rhetoric.
I guess these expensive campaign fundraisers is Obama’s interpretation of making sure the wealthy “pay their fair share” (to him).
After being caught by surprise on Tuesday at a press conference, Jay Carney admitted he did not know that Ohio military base — to which President Obama would be flying and landing — on August 1, would be closed due to defense cuts.
“What is holding us up right now is the Republican refusal to have the top two percent [of earners] pay their fair share,” Zients said in response to a question from Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.).”
At least one lawmaker rightfully called out Jeffrey Zients, director of OMB who made the remark. Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio responded in kind,
“We’re not usually in the habit of hearing such partisan comments in what is really a bipartisan committee,” Turner said. “We don’t usually hear people throw around ‘Republican’ and ‘Democrat,’ but you have, very, very well. I want to commend you on your broken record of partisanship.”
“Zients’ comments are pretty brazen in light of the $800 billion in wasted taxpayer dollars that was supposed to (but didn’t) stimulate the economy and which were, in effect, paid for by $800 billion in defense cuts,” said Gary Schmitt, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “And is he really suggesting the country’s national security be put at risk because the administration want to raise taxes (on more than the top 2 percent) in order to save PBS, Amtrak, and the Education Department?”
The possible military cuts (sequestration) would cut troops at several levels, affect medical benefits, military housing, and more. This would happen if $1.2 trillion in budget cuts are not found. As part of the “automatic trigger” put in place from the failed Super Committee last year, President Obama endorsed and signed the sequester plan.
But instead of offering alternative solutions to avoid this from happening on January 2nd, unlike the Republicans and the Ryan Plan, Obama and the Democrats have not offered another option. Resorting to the same old tired class warfare rhetoric doesn’t solve any real problems; it only makes the White House look more desperate as the campaign season limps along.
Class warfare is a key component of Obama’s policies and re-election rhetoric. The components of such a tactic are easily recognized: 1) the political opponent will hurt those among us who are most vulnerable (elderly, poor, etc); 2) the political opponent does not care about the “middle class”; 3) the political opponent wants to benefit those most advantaged (the rich/elite). The third point of this strategy is the one that is most popular with Obama, as he continuously and intentionally rails against “millionaires and billionaires” in order to separate that particular population from mainstream America.
Besides the obvious baseness of such an argument coming from the President of the United States, it is critically important to note that he doesn’t actually ever define a millionaire or billionaire. The amount of true millionaires and billionaires are so few in number, that taxing them more – as Obama plans to do – will not help with any significant deficit reduction. His assertion is pure dishonest political speech because you cannot possibly create enough revenue from the millionaire/billionaire population even if you were to tax them at 100%. Our fiscal situation is so dire in this country that an increased tax on this group in any large or small amount solves nothing.
Unfortunately, none of this matters to Obama. He intentionally throws the labels around so that they conveniently fit whatever emotive language will coerce voters and supporters to rally behind his outrageous fiscal policies. It is classical class-warfare: antagonizing lower socio-economic groups against the “rich”.
Obama has stated his intent to raise the marginal rates on the top income earners, (aka the “rich”, “wealthy”, or “top 2%”). Yet according to the IRS, the threshold for this bracket is actually 200K for individual taxpayers or 250K for married couples. These incomes are certainly no where near millionaire or billionaire amounts.
Since there is a clear federal definition for a group of taxpayers whom Obama is targeting for tax increases, Obama really has no right to say millionaires and billionaires as a collective for the highest income earners. But he uses the generic terms anyway. By making it sound like one kind of people, it pits the average/middle-class against “the other guy”. And if he actually tried to define that other guy instead of resorting to generic terms, it would include a lot of people who would be upset to be included.
History shows us that higher tax rates results in less – not more – tax collections. Democrats like to wax poetic about the high rates of 70% and even 91%. What they fail to comprehend or deliberately don’t explain is that at those times, there were an enormous amount of tax shelters such as real estate, so that people could legally lower that taxable income and would not have to actually pay the outrageous tax rates.
With the IRC reforms of 1986, Reagan reduced the tax rates to 28% in exchange for getting rid of the tax shelters. As a result, the amount of federal income collected was more at 28% and a clean tax code than at 91% and tax shelters, because at 28%, it really wasn’t worth the time, cost, and effort to hide money. If the tax rates are going to rise again – in addition to state and local tax hikes – the tax burden in this country will be staggering. People will do one of two things: 1) start finding ways not to pay it like they did when the rates were outrageous or 2) stop working and investing so much because it’s just going to get taken away from them. When that happens, it’s not good for the economy.
Blindly going after “millionaires and billionaires” (who earn $200,000 or more) is simply a tactic Obama uses to pit classes against one another for political gain. Imposing higher taxes on that segment of the population most able to invest in and aid our recovery is true economic ignorance. Why take additional money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who have proven their ability to mismanage and squander income?
