Democrats say that if republicans are so worried about the national debt and deficit they should be willing to raise taxes on the rich. Republicans say that if democrats are so interested in economic growth and putting Americans back to work, they should not propose tax increases. If the President and Congress are serious about spurring economic and employment growth and reducing the debt and deficit they need to at least agree that reducing government waste serves both partisan interests, as no one benefits by wasting precious tax revenue. Critics will say such an approach won’t go far enough, but no one can deny that making obvious if relatively small cuts are better than no cuts at all. Starting small may just be the wake-up call Washington politicians need to remind them they have a huge and unique responsibility as stewards of our hard earned tax dollars.
Moreover, if taxpayer perception of the magnitude of government waste turns out to be realistic, those obvious and easy spending cuts may be more than the politicians imagine. A 2011 Gallup poll found that Americans--young and old, regardless of political affiliation or level of education--generally believe the federal government wastes more than half of every dollar it spends. The government expects to spend nearly $3.8 Trillion this year, which means we the people believe that nearly $2 Trillion will be wasted. More than 40 cents of every spent dollar, more than $1.5 Trillion, will be borrowed money, which makes our financial situation even more outrageous and unsustainable. Even more shocking is the fact that more Americans, given their perception of waste, don’t seem more outraged and have not applied more pressure to political leaders to act swiftly and decisively on the matter.
The non-partisan Government Accountability Office recently released a report identifying billions in annual waste and potential cost savings available if only our political leaders would acknowledge and address the frightening big picture that our nation faces. The report highlights so much redundancy, overlap, fragmentation and operating inefficiencies attendant to so many government agencies and programs, one must question whether Congress, which funds all those programs and agencies, is paying any attention to the ongoing fiscal management of government at all.
Casual readers of that voluminous GAO report, or even mere reviewers of its table of contents, will fully appreciate the potential significant savings that could result from even a modest reduction in government waste. Capturing those savings would be an excellent first step or down payment on a comprehensive program to review, evaluate, reform and modernize a government budget that has been neglected and abused for far too long.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Stock Market Rally May Be a Sign of Irrational Exuberance
As the S&P 500 Index hits a five year high, many observers suspect that the long awaited rotation from bonds to equities is now underway and likely to propel the market to all time highs. The irony is that most evidence to support the bullish view is the direct result of an unprecedented Federal Reserve policy designed to prevent a stock market collapse and a deep and protracted global economic depression. The fact is that equities have never been so cheap compared to bonds and the housing and financial sectors of the economy seem to be recovering nicely in recent months. Bears know that the Fed’s commitment to keep interest rates near zero indefinitely has been a key factor in fueling the stock market rally and spurring the recovery in housing and bank asset prices.
Regardless of mindset, both bulls and bears know that a market attaining its current lofty level is ripe for a meaningful market correction and sooner rather than later. Additionally, bears know that most if not all of the many serious domestic and global challenges that caused the 2008 financial crisis still hang over us, even if the talking heads appear oblivious to them recently. Bears are skeptical and believe that the economic recovery might be illusory, especially considering that all major global economies—US, Euro Zone, China, and Japan—continue to face significant political, economic and financial headwinds. Consequently, it should be apparent to even the most optimistic observers that there is now far more downside risk than upside potential in the stock market, at least until there is some convincing evidence that the “powers that be” understand that measures to postpone dire circumstances may work in the short term but do not provide a permanent fix to the long term challenges we face.
Furthermore, bulls know that a recovering economy will prompt the Fed to take away the monetary punch bowl and let interest rates rise in an attempt to avoid overheating the economy and precipitating runaway inflation. History shows that the Fed does not often respond appropriately and in a timely manner and uncertainty about future Fed policy, in addition to the effectiveness of the policy itself, could easily cause a major stock market correction. Rising interest rates will surely weigh heavily on the stock market too as they reduce corporate earnings, exacerbate our national debt and deficit and hinder the finances of already struggling municipal and state governments.
Regardless of mindset, both bulls and bears know that a market attaining its current lofty level is ripe for a meaningful market correction and sooner rather than later. Additionally, bears know that most if not all of the many serious domestic and global challenges that caused the 2008 financial crisis still hang over us, even if the talking heads appear oblivious to them recently. Bears are skeptical and believe that the economic recovery might be illusory, especially considering that all major global economies—US, Euro Zone, China, and Japan—continue to face significant political, economic and financial headwinds. Consequently, it should be apparent to even the most optimistic observers that there is now far more downside risk than upside potential in the stock market, at least until there is some convincing evidence that the “powers that be” understand that measures to postpone dire circumstances may work in the short term but do not provide a permanent fix to the long term challenges we face.
Furthermore, bulls know that a recovering economy will prompt the Fed to take away the monetary punch bowl and let interest rates rise in an attempt to avoid overheating the economy and precipitating runaway inflation. History shows that the Fed does not often respond appropriately and in a timely manner and uncertainty about future Fed policy, in addition to the effectiveness of the policy itself, could easily cause a major stock market correction. Rising interest rates will surely weigh heavily on the stock market too as they reduce corporate earnings, exacerbate our national debt and deficit and hinder the finances of already struggling municipal and state governments.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Do Blue States Subsidies For Red States Indicate Their Fiscal Superiority?
The realization that nearly 40% of President Obama’s electoral support came from the five fiscally disastrous and chronically blue states of California, Illinois, Michigan, New York and New Jersey apparently hit some raw nerves. Some critics countered with the fair point that red states recover more federal tax dollars then they pay and are consequently subsidized by blue states that pay more than they receive. That assertion is arithmetically correct but the interpretation that somehow red states should be thankful for the generosity of blue states and are financially or fiscally inferior to blue states is fanciful.
First, a significant portion of federal tax revenues flow back to residents of all states as Social Security and Medicare payments, which for the most part have been earned by recipients who paid into those programs during their entire working lives, so they should never be confused as gifts of charity and are certainly not the result of the beneficence of blue states. States also receive significant federal tax revenues for national defense and military spending, which protect everyone, especially coastal blue states, at least more so than interior red states.
Second, blue states generally pay more federal taxes than they receive because their residents and businesses are more affluent. Ironically, if President Obama wins the fiscal cliff negotiations and raises taxes on the wealthy, that blue state-red state tax disparity will widen, but, not to worry, that effect should be short-lived as long term trends show that affluent folks continue to leave high tax/high cost blue states for red states; over time the disparity should narrow.
Third, blue states, not red states, need a financial overhaul. The five states identified herein recover federal tax revenues ranging from only 61 cents (New Jersey) to 92 cents (Michigan) per dollar their residents pay in federal taxes, with the remaining three states receiving approximately 75-80 cents per tax dollar they pay. Those states are trying desperately to stay financially solvent by raising state and local taxes, which for New York, New Jersey and California are already among the nation’s highest.
Those states carry enormous debt epitomized in the extreme by California’s whopping $618 billion; they carry debilitating budget deficits, epitomized by the nation’s worst at $44 billion in Illinois; and carry smothering unfunded state government worker pension and healthcare liabilities that amount to as much as 43%, 37% and 31% of the respective state GDP’s of Illinois, New Jersey and California.
If allowing those states to keep more of their federal tax dollars would enhance their financially viable, such a policy should be considered, but let’s not kid ourselves, there will be no quick fixes to their problems.
First, a significant portion of federal tax revenues flow back to residents of all states as Social Security and Medicare payments, which for the most part have been earned by recipients who paid into those programs during their entire working lives, so they should never be confused as gifts of charity and are certainly not the result of the beneficence of blue states. States also receive significant federal tax revenues for national defense and military spending, which protect everyone, especially coastal blue states, at least more so than interior red states.
Second, blue states generally pay more federal taxes than they receive because their residents and businesses are more affluent. Ironically, if President Obama wins the fiscal cliff negotiations and raises taxes on the wealthy, that blue state-red state tax disparity will widen, but, not to worry, that effect should be short-lived as long term trends show that affluent folks continue to leave high tax/high cost blue states for red states; over time the disparity should narrow.
Third, blue states, not red states, need a financial overhaul. The five states identified herein recover federal tax revenues ranging from only 61 cents (New Jersey) to 92 cents (Michigan) per dollar their residents pay in federal taxes, with the remaining three states receiving approximately 75-80 cents per tax dollar they pay. Those states are trying desperately to stay financially solvent by raising state and local taxes, which for New York, New Jersey and California are already among the nation’s highest.
Those states carry enormous debt epitomized in the extreme by California’s whopping $618 billion; they carry debilitating budget deficits, epitomized by the nation’s worst at $44 billion in Illinois; and carry smothering unfunded state government worker pension and healthcare liabilities that amount to as much as 43%, 37% and 31% of the respective state GDP’s of Illinois, New Jersey and California.
If allowing those states to keep more of their federal tax dollars would enhance their financially viable, such a policy should be considered, but let’s not kid ourselves, there will be no quick fixes to their problems.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Media Bias: Was History Channel's Postponement of Series Finale Politically Motivated?
The History Channel just completed an eight hour series, The Men Who Built America, about five influential capitalists that almost single-handedly transformed a broken, tired post-Civil War America into a global super power: Vanderbilt (Shipping/Railroads), Rockefeller (Oil), Carnegie (Steel), JP Morgan (Finance), and Ford (Autos). Capitalists will cheer and communists will jeer these men but all will enjoy this extraordinarily interesting story of their lives, their deals and their interactions with each other as they propelled America into the world’s top economy and amassed unsurpassed personal fortunes. During the height of their careers Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan were collectively worth in today’s currency some $1 Trillion.
This is an excellent series that everyone should see. However, it is particularly curious that its finale was scheduled to air two days before Election Day but was postponed at the last minute until November 11th because of “unforeseen circumstances.” After viewing the finale, one must wonder if those “unforeseen circumstances” included the potential for that episode to inadvertently help republicans during the elections two days later. The 50-year period depicted in the series touches upon many themes relevant to the election narrative this year, including the role of capitalism, class struggle (99% vs. 1%), labor unions, the role of government regulation, to name a few.
The first six hours of the series, which aired repeatedly during October, clearly made the case for the incumbent president and democrats. Those “robber barons” were depicted as greedy and ruthless and were reviled by nearly everyone in their time; they screwed their customers, their workers, their partners and each other, a pattern that supports the democrat agenda to expand the role of government to reign in and regulate the wealth and influence of the rich and powerful. Given the relentless and slanderous attacks against Bain Capital, Mitt Romney and republicans generally as self serving, greedy capitalists, viewers are likely to draw comparisons between those men and today’s republicans.
However, by delaying the finale, viewers must wait until after the election to find out that those titan figures set up foundations to distribute much of that wealth for the benefit of mankind, through charitable organizations that survive to this day. Additionally, despite all the brutality and hardship inflicted by those men, those men made America the unrivaled economic and military superpower of the 20th century; a nation positioned and destined to defend the free world against tyranny during two world wars.
Our entire way of life today began with the achievements of those men; railroads unified the nation and along with steel made our dense cities possible. Oil and autos made subsequent suburbanization inevitable. Those men also gave us companies that today are known as General Electric, Exxon, Chevron, U.S. Steel, Ford and scores more. The series also makes the point that brutality and ruthlessness was the by-product of the speed with which those industries were expanded and consolidated. We can never know whether a slower, more genteel, less disruptive evolution would have ultimately yielded similar prosperity. Series closing commentary underscores the point that those men and their entrepreneurial spirit “built” modern America, despite our president’s claim about today’s entrepreneurs to the contrary. All of those mitigating factors must weigh into the evaluation of the critics of capitalism.
Was the finale’s postponement an unfortunate coincidence or a deliberate attempt to influence the election? We may never know. If finding politics in a seemingly innocuous postponement of a TV series sounds far-fetched, it is at least consistent with other seemingly innocuous delays by this administration, including and most recently the stonewalled investigation into the Libya attack (Sept 11), the attempted Iranian attack on our drone (Nov 1), and most recently the resignation of CIA Director (Nov 9) for transgressions obviously known well before the election. The American people still wait for adequate answers by this administration. In that light, questioning the motivation for postponing the finale of this politically relevant series is probably not as far-fetched as it might initially seem.
This is an excellent series that everyone should see. However, it is particularly curious that its finale was scheduled to air two days before Election Day but was postponed at the last minute until November 11th because of “unforeseen circumstances.” After viewing the finale, one must wonder if those “unforeseen circumstances” included the potential for that episode to inadvertently help republicans during the elections two days later. The 50-year period depicted in the series touches upon many themes relevant to the election narrative this year, including the role of capitalism, class struggle (99% vs. 1%), labor unions, the role of government regulation, to name a few.
The first six hours of the series, which aired repeatedly during October, clearly made the case for the incumbent president and democrats. Those “robber barons” were depicted as greedy and ruthless and were reviled by nearly everyone in their time; they screwed their customers, their workers, their partners and each other, a pattern that supports the democrat agenda to expand the role of government to reign in and regulate the wealth and influence of the rich and powerful. Given the relentless and slanderous attacks against Bain Capital, Mitt Romney and republicans generally as self serving, greedy capitalists, viewers are likely to draw comparisons between those men and today’s republicans.
However, by delaying the finale, viewers must wait until after the election to find out that those titan figures set up foundations to distribute much of that wealth for the benefit of mankind, through charitable organizations that survive to this day. Additionally, despite all the brutality and hardship inflicted by those men, those men made America the unrivaled economic and military superpower of the 20th century; a nation positioned and destined to defend the free world against tyranny during two world wars.
Our entire way of life today began with the achievements of those men; railroads unified the nation and along with steel made our dense cities possible. Oil and autos made subsequent suburbanization inevitable. Those men also gave us companies that today are known as General Electric, Exxon, Chevron, U.S. Steel, Ford and scores more. The series also makes the point that brutality and ruthlessness was the by-product of the speed with which those industries were expanded and consolidated. We can never know whether a slower, more genteel, less disruptive evolution would have ultimately yielded similar prosperity. Series closing commentary underscores the point that those men and their entrepreneurial spirit “built” modern America, despite our president’s claim about today’s entrepreneurs to the contrary. All of those mitigating factors must weigh into the evaluation of the critics of capitalism.
Was the finale’s postponement an unfortunate coincidence or a deliberate attempt to influence the election? We may never know. If finding politics in a seemingly innocuous postponement of a TV series sounds far-fetched, it is at least consistent with other seemingly innocuous delays by this administration, including and most recently the stonewalled investigation into the Libya attack (Sept 11), the attempted Iranian attack on our drone (Nov 1), and most recently the resignation of CIA Director (Nov 9) for transgressions obviously known well before the election. The American people still wait for adequate answers by this administration. In that light, questioning the motivation for postponing the finale of this politically relevant series is probably not as far-fetched as it might initially seem.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Re-elected President Obama now faces “Sophie’s Choice” on Fiscal Cliff
Re-elected President Obama has a difficult choice to make during his second term. He can stick to his principles and remain loyal to the majority of folks who re-elected him, and hope for the best. Many think that will likely fail him and the nation, leaving America foundering economically and him with a miserable legacy as a failed president. Or, alternatively, he can put the welfare of the nation above his personal ideals, work in earnest with republicans, just as President Clinton did in the 1990’s. That approach worked for Mr. Clinton and just might spur a robust economic recovery, thereby leaving him with a presidential legacy to rival the best in history.
The President’s management of the economy during his first term was at best disappointing. Many think that continuing his liberal agenda with more big government, characterized by more spending, more taxes and more regulation will yield more debt and more deficits and ultimately more disappointment. A large part of the President’s political base hails from states that not only want more of the same, but indeed practice what they preach; so much so that it has lead many of them to financial ruin. Many of the blue states are a fiscal disaster. Five states, which account for approximately 40 percent of electoral votes that re-elected the President, are among the fiscally weakest in the nation: California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and New York. Those and other blue states will continue to weaken as the exodus of population and business from those bastions of big government to fiscally strong red states continues. It is inevitable that the Federal Government will be called upon at some point to bail out many of those blue states, but who will bail out the U.S Government if the nation follows their lead into financial oblivion?
President Obama was re-elected by a narrow margin at this particular point in time by the narrowest of popular margins, by a voter base that represents about 25 percent of the adult population that could potentially have voted in that election. However, millions of businesses and residences have been electing for years to leave blue “big government” states in favor of red “small government” states. The lesson is simple and clear. Instead of fighting republicans that have proven they know how to manage their own fiscal affairs, the President should seek their advice and counsel. Otherwise, and if he emulates the fiscal practices of the states that by-in-large elected him, he is likely to fiscally weaken the nation further and irrevocably, which will be a disaster for the nation and his legacy as President of the United States.
The President’s management of the economy during his first term was at best disappointing. Many think that continuing his liberal agenda with more big government, characterized by more spending, more taxes and more regulation will yield more debt and more deficits and ultimately more disappointment. A large part of the President’s political base hails from states that not only want more of the same, but indeed practice what they preach; so much so that it has lead many of them to financial ruin. Many of the blue states are a fiscal disaster. Five states, which account for approximately 40 percent of electoral votes that re-elected the President, are among the fiscally weakest in the nation: California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and New York. Those and other blue states will continue to weaken as the exodus of population and business from those bastions of big government to fiscally strong red states continues. It is inevitable that the Federal Government will be called upon at some point to bail out many of those blue states, but who will bail out the U.S Government if the nation follows their lead into financial oblivion?
President Obama was re-elected by a narrow margin at this particular point in time by the narrowest of popular margins, by a voter base that represents about 25 percent of the adult population that could potentially have voted in that election. However, millions of businesses and residences have been electing for years to leave blue “big government” states in favor of red “small government” states. The lesson is simple and clear. Instead of fighting republicans that have proven they know how to manage their own fiscal affairs, the President should seek their advice and counsel. Otherwise, and if he emulates the fiscal practices of the states that by-in-large elected him, he is likely to fiscally weaken the nation further and irrevocably, which will be a disaster for the nation and his legacy as President of the United States.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Private Equity Funds Are Good for the Economy but Should Pay More Taxes
Mitt Romney and Bain Capital have been attacked by the opposition as greedy rich folks that destroy the economy and the lives of average Americans. However, more than 90 percent of the capital invested in private equity funds like Bain is actually supplied by huge institutions such as public and private pensions whose pensioners typically receive 80 percent of fund profits.
To earn those profits, private equity funds target and acquire dysfunctional companies, add capital, inject management know-how and then recycle prosperous businesses to the economy. Most acquisitions are not hostile or forced by acquirers and target companies often recognize that their survival may hinge upon the acquirer’s capital and management talent. Many recycled companies are transformed into profitable and productive employers for the economy.
The owners of successful private equity funds make superhuman returns and tons of money because they buy good businesses cheaply from distressed sellers motivated to save their companies, leverage their tiny equity positions with huge amounts of debt and other investor equity and further enhance returns by recycling target companies to profitability quickly.
Whether private equity funds are moral or fair is for philosophers to decide. However, those activities are legal and they are as moral or as fair as anyone seeking to buy a home in this distressed real estate market by seeking out a short sale from a motivated seller eager to shed the weight of an upside down mortgage; or as fair as buying a home needy of repair or improvement with an eye toward flipping it quickly for a tidy profit; or as moral as a buyer taking on a mortgage as large and as cheaply as possible. Isn’t that essentially what private equity funds do with businesses?
Private equity funds should not be vilified for what they do. However, they should pay higher taxes. Not because they are rich, but because the capital gains tax they pay for most of their income does not derive from their capital gains. Preferential tax treatment for capital gains was enacted because of the realization that for most investors the capital they invest has already been taxed to them previously as wage or other ordinary income and because they need some additional incentive to take the risk of losing their money in investments. As indicated herein, 90 percent of private equity fund capital comes from third party investors who bear the risk of any investment losses, so most of the income earned by private equity fund owners is really contingent fee income for a job well done, and that should be taxed as ordinary income.
To earn those profits, private equity funds target and acquire dysfunctional companies, add capital, inject management know-how and then recycle prosperous businesses to the economy. Most acquisitions are not hostile or forced by acquirers and target companies often recognize that their survival may hinge upon the acquirer’s capital and management talent. Many recycled companies are transformed into profitable and productive employers for the economy.
The owners of successful private equity funds make superhuman returns and tons of money because they buy good businesses cheaply from distressed sellers motivated to save their companies, leverage their tiny equity positions with huge amounts of debt and other investor equity and further enhance returns by recycling target companies to profitability quickly.
Whether private equity funds are moral or fair is for philosophers to decide. However, those activities are legal and they are as moral or as fair as anyone seeking to buy a home in this distressed real estate market by seeking out a short sale from a motivated seller eager to shed the weight of an upside down mortgage; or as fair as buying a home needy of repair or improvement with an eye toward flipping it quickly for a tidy profit; or as moral as a buyer taking on a mortgage as large and as cheaply as possible. Isn’t that essentially what private equity funds do with businesses?
Private equity funds should not be vilified for what they do. However, they should pay higher taxes. Not because they are rich, but because the capital gains tax they pay for most of their income does not derive from their capital gains. Preferential tax treatment for capital gains was enacted because of the realization that for most investors the capital they invest has already been taxed to them previously as wage or other ordinary income and because they need some additional incentive to take the risk of losing their money in investments. As indicated herein, 90 percent of private equity fund capital comes from third party investors who bear the risk of any investment losses, so most of the income earned by private equity fund owners is really contingent fee income for a job well done, and that should be taxed as ordinary income.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Citizen Romney Must Take Charge of the Presidential Debates
Mitt Romney needs to accomplish three objectives at this Wednesday’s debate with President Obama. First, he needs to show that he can relate to average Americans, and that he is indeed one of us, with the same concerns, doubts and fears about the future of our country. Second, he needs to induce the President to answer questions about his economic policies and take responsibility for his numerous failures during his first term. Third, he needs to accomplish one and two by neutralizing the debate moderators that are, for the most part, egregiously biased in favor of the President, and likely to lob him creampuff questions and/or accept answers filled with rhetoric and pabulum.
Mr. Romney can accomplish all three objectives by not merely being presidential candidate Romney, but also Citizen Romney. Americans need to see him as a concerned citizen first, and a political candidate second. Romney needs to refocus the President’s narrative to answer the tough questions about the economy and get the answers we as Americans need to make an informed decision on Election Day. Candidate Romney must then layout his economic plan and vehemently and specifically contrast how the American economy and how middle class Americans will benefit from the new economic policies of a Romney administration. Americans are frustrated with the lack of serious media coverage of the shortcomings of this administration or its Republican challenger’s ideas for improving our situation, and Mitt Romney will be performing a great service to us and our political system by cutting through the president’s rhetoric and the mainstream media bias against him by engaging the President in a serious substantive debate about the economy and our future.
Mr. Romney needs to channel a bit of Newt Gingrich, when Mr. Gingrich challenged debate moderators and highlighted the liberal media biases during the Republican primaries debates, and a bit of Jorge Ramos and Maria Salinas, Univision TV anchors during a recent interview, when they relentlessly demanded that the President answer tough questions about immigration. A bit of respectful pushback against the media and the president will go along way to shedding some desperately needed light and balance on what has thus far been a dangerously one-sided narrative in favor of the president.
Without compromising too much of an otherwise even-keeled demeanor, Mitt Romney needs to approach this first debate with extreme urgency, not only because his political career may hinge upon it, but because the fate of our country and indeed the free world may also depend upon it. If Mr. Romney follows this prescription, and repeats it in subsequent debates later this month, he will succeed in winning the hearts and minds of undecided American voters.
Mr. Romney can accomplish all three objectives by not merely being presidential candidate Romney, but also Citizen Romney. Americans need to see him as a concerned citizen first, and a political candidate second. Romney needs to refocus the President’s narrative to answer the tough questions about the economy and get the answers we as Americans need to make an informed decision on Election Day. Candidate Romney must then layout his economic plan and vehemently and specifically contrast how the American economy and how middle class Americans will benefit from the new economic policies of a Romney administration. Americans are frustrated with the lack of serious media coverage of the shortcomings of this administration or its Republican challenger’s ideas for improving our situation, and Mitt Romney will be performing a great service to us and our political system by cutting through the president’s rhetoric and the mainstream media bias against him by engaging the President in a serious substantive debate about the economy and our future.
Mr. Romney needs to channel a bit of Newt Gingrich, when Mr. Gingrich challenged debate moderators and highlighted the liberal media biases during the Republican primaries debates, and a bit of Jorge Ramos and Maria Salinas, Univision TV anchors during a recent interview, when they relentlessly demanded that the President answer tough questions about immigration. A bit of respectful pushback against the media and the president will go along way to shedding some desperately needed light and balance on what has thus far been a dangerously one-sided narrative in favor of the president.
Without compromising too much of an otherwise even-keeled demeanor, Mitt Romney needs to approach this first debate with extreme urgency, not only because his political career may hinge upon it, but because the fate of our country and indeed the free world may also depend upon it. If Mr. Romney follows this prescription, and repeats it in subsequent debates later this month, he will succeed in winning the hearts and minds of undecided American voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)