FFM

How can Mitt Romney be the protector of free markets and small business when he will be indebted to the cronies who are destroying free markets? On July 19, 2012 the Financial Times reported Paul Ryan saying, "Both political parties have fallen victim to “partnership” with large and well-connected companies, especially in energy, housing, finance and healthcare. Republicans have been guilty of confusing our pro-market principles with pro-entrenched business policies.... A growing coalition of reformers ... reject this pernicious crony capitalism. Our solutions promote an opportunity society, one that is rooted in the US commitment to free enterprise." Based on the source of their campaign funds, how is the Republican ticket going to say no to those filling their coffers?

Ryan appears to have borrowed Romney's Etch-A-Sketch. Per news reports Romney believes abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. Ryan's position is all abortions, except if the mother's life is in danger, should be illegal. Paul Ryan believes that getting an abortion is taking of a human life and is wrong. Ryan has effectively stated that he will overlook the taking of "innocent lives" because his running mate has deemed it to be OK and Romney is after all the head of the Republican ticket. How can Ryan remain part of a ticket if it is going against one of his core beliefs? If he is not willing to take a stance on "life" on what other core beliefs is he willing to sacrifice to become Vice President?

This is best news I heard in some time. Per Walter Shapiro on Yahoo! News today titled,  Barack is not impressed: The president’s reluctance to kowtow to the very rich "The New Yorker succinctly summarizes the Democratic problem in its headline: “SCHMOOZE OR LOSE–Obama doesn’t like cozying up to billionaires. Will it cost him the election?” The Politico e-book, “Obama’s Last Stand,” by Glenn Thrush makes the identical point about the President: “He was also hurt by his own aversion to massaging demanding Democratic donors–many of them Clinton Democrats who never liked him in the first place.”" This compares to Paul Ryan and his running mate making statements about crony capitalism, but taking action showing they are part of the cronies . Obama, if you keep acting like that you might just get elected.

Here is how it is. Here is what must be done. 1. Prohibit Corporations and Unions From Financing Political Campaigns by Amending The Constitution 2. Enforce Anti-Trust Laws against Oligopolies & Monopolies! 3. Bring Our Deficit Under Control and amend tax code! The above are long term goals that will eventually bring more equally to the economy. The above goals will not be accomplished overnight and we need to do something that will bring the unemployment rate down now. We need to invest in infrastructure for our future and for jobs now.  Read More

Paul Ryan, in a Financial Times article on July 19, 2012 titled   Republicans Must Return to Free-Market Principles ,  said the following. "Both political parties have fallen victim to “partnership” with large and well-connected companies, especially in energy, housing, finance and healthcare. Republicans have been guilty of confusing our pro-market principles with pro-entrenched business policies. ...A growing coalition of reformers ... reject this pernicious crony capitalism. Our solutions promote an opportunity society, one that is rooted in the US commitment to free enterprise." Was Paul Ryan and his running mate Mitt Romney rejecting crony capitalism when: 1. Ryan met with Sheldon Adelson at his casino in Las Vegas? How much has he contributed to Romney's campaign so far this year? Is it true by the time the election takes place he will have contributed over $100 million? Does Ryan see this as acceptable?

I am not a member of the Tea Party Express. They deserve much credit for getting the nation to address our debt problem and how our government operates. Per their website they profess that "Tea Party Express is considered the largest and most successful political action committee within the Tea Party movement." Below is their mission statement . After the mission statement are my comments regarding their objectives. I don't believe we are far apart except I support Obama. "We are committed to identifying and supporting conservative candidates and causes that will champion tea party values and return our country to the Constitutional principles that have made America the “shining city on a hill". Tea Party Express is proud to stand for six simple principles: 1. No more bailouts, 2. Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government, 3. Stop raising our taxes, 4. Repeal Obamacare, 5. Cease out-of-control spending, 6. Bring back American prosperity." Here

The Godfather, the head of the Mafia, played by Marlon Brando, would help an acquaintance needing a favor and say, "some day, and the day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me." This is exactly what the oligopolies, both corporations and unions, do with our representatives in Washington. They give them campaign bribes and in return expect, and receive, favors in the future. When the Godfather asked for a favor, no one refused. Until this is changed in Washington, nothing else will change. Here is what needs to be done.  More

Although unsaid, and not proven, the Ryan plan anticipates that the cost of health care will be less under his voucher plan because the patient will have skin in the game and use his vouchers more wisely. The flaw under the voucher system is each individual will need to buy the best insurance he can with the voucher and then we are back in the same boat. What the health industry charges for its services and how often the services are used are back in the hands of the providers, with the cost covered by the insurance companies.

We need to learn how to compete globally. If all countries do not play by "free market rules" you don't have free markets. I believe in free markets and I concur with Milton Friedman that free markets, in order for them to work properly, must have a referee so that all players are competing on a level playing field. Each player in the market must not be allowed to destroy the market and turn it into an oligopoly. If this happens society loses. Capitalism is here to serve society. Society is not here to serve capitalism. A problem with global markets is there is no strong referee to punish countries that do not abide by free market principles. It is not easy to force China not to manipulate its currency. It is difficult to require China, South Korea and Japan to remove the tariffs placed on imports of automobiles from the U.S.

The entry of Paul Ryan in the mix hopefully will bring out the details of just how each side proposes to get the debt under control. On April 13, 2011 President Obama said the following regarding his fiscal policy. " So this is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in tax expenditures -- spending in the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, protecting our commitment to seniors, and protecting our investments in the future."

1. Are many banks too big to fail and should we consider breaking them up?? 2. Is the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United OK, or should it be repealed? 3. Should anti-trust legislation be implemented to break up monopolies and oligopolies? 4. Should we get out of Afghanistan? 5. Do free markets need an umpire as ascribed by Milton Friedman: "But we cannot rely on custom or conscious alone to interpret and enforce the rules; we need an umpire. These then are the basic role of government in a free society; to provide a means where we can modify rules, to mediate differences among us on the meaning of rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on the part of those few who otherwise would not play the game." 6. Should the health care law be amended to bust up the oligopolies in the insurance industry? 7. What is more important to our long term survival; education or military? 8. Should there be no tax increases on the super wealthy? 9. Do you believe Goldman Sa

There has to be an Obama mole on Romney's campaign team. Picking Ryan could not be a better choice for the Democrats and Obama. Ryan gives Romney Wisconsin. In the remainder of the country the lines have been drawn deeper in the sand. Romney already has the hard line conservative vote. Obama has the liberals. The battle is in the middle and Paul Ryan is no where in the middle. By many, he is considered the architect of the Republicans scorched earth plan to control our debt: no tax increases on the wealthy, no cuts in defense, severe cuts in entitlement programs and no investment in infrastructure to improve our production capabilities in the future while providing jobs now. I am sure Obama will be discrete about it, but he must remember to thank Romney. More

"In a statement late Thursday, the Justice Department said there was “not a viable basis to bring a criminal prosecution” against Goldman or its employees after a Congressional committee asked prosecutors to examine if the bank had been involved with any illegal acts related to several mortgage deals." S.E.C. and Justice Dept. End Mortgage Investigations Into Goldman , New York Times, August 9, 2012 This is a disgrace! 1. How is it that Goldman Sachs convinced the Justice Department that it was feasible to combine thousands of sub prime mortgage loans that were poorly underwritten into an investment grade quality investment?

The "what do you want to hear" candidate is at it again. The biggest issue in this campaign is trust. Romney comes across as a "transaction guy", instead of a "relationship guy". Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr., George W. and Obama are all relationship guys. People who are transaction oriented tend to focus on the deal. They want to sell you a house, sell you a used car or sell you a mortgage.  They don't think beyond the single transaction. As a result they get away with over promising. When Bain was negotiating to buy a company they knew they would not be dealing with the seller again so they could promise anything. Romney became successful at it.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recently had an excellent article on how new developments in the domestic natural gas industry has the potential of setting us free from our dependency on oil from the middle east. He also points out that it could also cause us to relax our efforts to find alternative energy sources that are more friendly to the environment. He is absolutely correct that natural gas has bought us time and we need to use it wisely.  As the data below indicates, we have less time than many think. 

Updated 8/3/12: A charter member of the Tea Party movement addressed my questions below and I posted his responses immediately below my questions. The remarks in blue are my comments to his response. I tried to post my comments to his blog; however, he took them down. I guess he did not want his readers to see them. 1. Are many banks too big to fail and should we consider breaking them up?? 2. Do free markets need an umpire as ascribed by Milton Friedman: "But we cannot rely on custom or conscious alone to interpret and enforce the rules; we need an umpire. These then are the basic role of government in a free society; to provide a means where we can modify rules, to mediate differences among us on the meaning of rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on the part of those few who otherwise would not play the game."

The quote below sounds like it was written by a lobbyist for the banking industry. "A bit of recent history: none of the institutions that toppled like dominoes in 2008 — the investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the insurance company American International Group — were commercial banks." Regulate, Don't Split up Large Banks , New York Times, July 31, 2012 That is because they were bailed out and not prosecuted for their wrong doing. Further, and maybe more importantly, they are oligopolies that hinder competition and take advantage of their control of the industry. The five largest banks in the country have more assets than the GDP of our nation. With that kind of size and power, it is naïve to think they cannot effect the price and quality of services and interest rates offered to the public. It allows them to be less efficient than if they had to compete in a free market.