Paul Ryan

            The day come – Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has announced House Budget Committee Chairman and southern Wisconsin seven-term Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate. Romney, proving to be savvier with social media than the last GOP presidential nominee, announced his VP pick earlier this morning through a smartphone application. This announcement came around the same time as the Romney campaign issued a press release which stated, “Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan: America’s Comeback Team.” Romney and his team are branding the VP choice, further making this election about the economy since Ryan is known for working towards less government spending and holding taxpayers accountable. By picking Ryan, Romney is also keeping healthcare at the center of the political debate. Ryan’s budget plan appears to also bring major changes to our country’s Medicare and Medicaid. Without a doubt, taxes and spending will continue to be among the hot topics discussed in this political race.

            Romney officially announces Ryan as his running-mate to the U.S.S. Wisconsin, which happens to be Ryan’s home state. Was this planned, or could this just be some big coincidence? These two appear to agree on policy and data issues which makes for a strong team. During an NBC Chuck Todd interview this past Thursday, prior to the world hearing who Romney’s running mate would be, Romney mentioned his VP pick would be someone with "vision,” noting his running mate would be one who "adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country” For the conservatives of this country, Ryan has been somewhat of a hero. For liberals though, this VP nominee is a target because Ryan is a bit more radically conservative than Romney. Honestly though, Romney is fairly middle-of-the-road when it comes to being a republican (or part of any political party for that matter), and he is often critiqued as being too liberal for GOP-ers. A more conservative running-mate might be just what Romney needs to commandeer the Oval Office.

            Typically a vice presidential pick has little effect on the overall race, but could greatly effect a presidential nominee’s campaign. For Romany though, his VP choice may have a large impact on the result of the 2012 race for the White House. The right-wingers of the GOP party have been on Romney’s case from the beginning, since Romney has some liberal tendencies for a Republican. Many are calling Ryan a bold choice. Regardless, this choice is one which will most definitely bring enthusiasm to the Republican ticket. Leading up to this day, Republicans seemed to be pulling Romney in two directions: some wanting him to pick a safe running mate in order to portray Romney as a steady leader, while others were pushing for Romney to make a risker move since this GOP tends to come off as boring to some and not a true conservative to others. It would appear Romney and his team sided with the latter as being the right move.

            Independence Hall Tea Party PAC president Don Adams called Romney’s choice a “brave selection,” and one which shows that “Governor Romney takes the debt crisis so seriously that he's willing to risk his campaign on the Ryan budget plan—which seriously addresses the Federal government's disastrous and suicidal spending levels.” In a prepared statement put out by the Romney campaign Ryan said, "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.” According to this newly chosen running mate, Romney and Ryan “won't duck the tough issues—we will lead." And to lead is just what Romney looks to do by adding this fiscal conservative with financial leadership to his ticket. Though Ryan is rather unknown outside budget and political circles, soon people will know Ryan better than he may feel he knows himself. Ryan does seem to bring what Romney has been lacking: detailed ideas for fixing our country’s budget. Not to mention, this VP choice leaves many democrats speeches, especially those who for months now have put Romney down as running on the sole purpose of being anti-Obama. This 42-year-old vice presidential pick will bring youth to the GOP ticket, as well as a strong Midwest presence which could get some states who voted blue in 2008 to vote red in 2012.

            This decision by Romney shows Romney is a risk taker running a bold campaign, a politician who can adapt, and a Republican who isn’t all about generalizations the way the Democratic Party has been portraying him. Though it may look like Romney is willing to give up his business policies and desire for executive experience, Romney needed something new to really push his numbers to Obama’s level. Romney is putting more weight on some of his previously made plans by picking Ryan as his right-hand-man, giving the right-wing something more to vote for than anti-Obamaness (i.e. a ticket that now includes a stronger belief in low taxes and a free market). Some are worried Ryan might be like Sarah Palin, a short-term fix with a surge of energy for Republicans that doesn’t last long, but this might simply be talk from the other side of the aisle by people who worry that Ryan might be just what Romney needs to beat Obama this November. Could R&R be the team for you? They seem Ready and Reliable – Romney and Ryan.

Suburbia vs. Swing States, the Economy & our Electoral College

            The majority of urban voters are in favor of Obama. The majority of rural voters are in favor of Romney. It looks like those living in the suburbs will therefore be deciding the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, and a recent poll by the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University concludes just that. According to the poll Obama and Romney are tied among suburban voters, but the GOP candidate has an edge among registered independent suburban voters. Predications for election outcomes vary depending on such factors as voters’ gender, economic status, race, and the amount of college education. But if suburbanites are in fact deciding the outcome of this race, the economy is likely to be the largest factor. Support for the current president changes with suburbanites’ faith in the economy. With upwards of 70% of these people are still dissatisfied with the direction in which our country seems to be headed and a nearing half are living paycheck-to-paycheck, support for Obama in suburban areas could be dwindling.

           Obama visits the Ohio Air National Guard base today where he may run into some animosity from people unhappy about the President’s proposal to cut the military budget. Obama may also feel the disappointment from people who think the high unemployment rate over the last four years is the President’s doing, and blame the President for the layoffs involved in the closing of the Ohio American Energy’s coal mine. For the Romney campaign though, political news from Texas this morning may inspire this GOP team. Last night’s political runoff in this southern state shows America’s right leaning states may be moving even further towards the conservative side, as wanting stronger conservative leadership in Washington is becoming more popular. Texas’ Ted Cruz joins Florida’s Marco Rubio as yet another Tea Party Republican candidate to make it into the Senate. According to ABC News Political Director Amy Walter this means Washington will be as polarized and uncompromising as ever. Therefore, whoever wins this year’s Presidential race may have a great deal of bipartisan work to do over the next four years if any bill proposals are to be passes.

            Instead of building a solid future economic plan like those in suburbia would like, or boasting about why we should elect him over his opponent like most of America would prefer, both Presidential candidates are putting their money on negative advertisements in hopes of convincing the public not to vote for the other guy. While Americans feel the President can do a great deal to help the economy, Mr. President is doing nothing. Obama sees he has the leg up in most of the key battleground states and therefore his campaign doesn’t see it to be worthwhile to take risks which may give Romany and his team the ammunition to fire back. Romney’s side to this debate really isn’t any better: Romney says he wants to lessen the deficit, cut taxes, and bring down spending, but he gives no information on how he plans to accomplish such things. It’s unclear if one guy can out-do the other with negative advertising, but we will for sure find out. If this Presidential race has proved anything it is that Presidential candidates do not have to actually care about the economy if they just plan their campaign around negating their opponent.

            One should never put all of his or her eggs in a single basket, and its arguable both presidential candidates have done so with relying on negative advertising to give them their seat in the White House. While one poll might point out the plausibility of the suburbanites of American choosing who will lead us for the next four years, another poll by CBS News, the New York Times, and Quinnipiac University finds that significant swing states are leaning left with very little chance of changing their minds. Perhaps then the suburbs may not be as important as we originally thought, and the importance should really be placed on swing states. With all this talk surrounding the swing states in America, how important is a swing state voters’ vote versus a non-swing state voters’ vote? We have grown up being told that all of our votes matter; that every single person’s vote is important. Some however do not believe this to be the case. Regardless of why the Electoral College was originally put into place, it would appear it was established because those running this country did not believe the American people could pick the President themselves, therefore needing supposedly more intelligent and more qualified people to pick the country’s Commander-In-Chief. I’d like to believe we Americans are educated enough to choose our leader without having to rely on others to choose for us, but with people believing everything they hear on television and the radio about our candidates I sometimes feel it is a good thing the Electoral College is still around, no matter how outdated and irrelevant it might actually be. Let’s face it, if you’re a republican in California or a democrat in Texas, you’re state’s delegates are almost guaranteed to vote against you. When it comes down to it, the next U.S. President will probably be chosen by a mere one million people from swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Citizens of swing states have had to deal with an overwhelming amount of (negative) campaigning from both sides of the aisle, and they can only expect the campaigns to become more intense over the next few months as we continue to approach Election Day.

Possible Political Pause

            There was speculation over the last few weeks as to when Romney would choose his running mate. With headlines saying he was ready to announce his pick any day now, people wondered if he would announce his VP candidate earlier than usual in efforts to divert attention away from his tax returns and the Bain Capital fiasco. But with the Olympics right around the corner, an early draft pick was probably not the greatest of ideas (guess this explains why he hasn’t picked his right-hand-man just yet). A presidential candidate usually announces his running mate right before the party convention in efforts to create a great deal of buzz and excitement that hopefully lasts until Voting Day. Any major political announcement right before the Olympics could potentially just die short. According to some, the Olympic Games have the capability of bringing American politics to a hard stop. This could work in Romney’s favor, as any previous negative punches from the Democratic Party may be forgotten about, and any new smears might not make headline news – or may have to be put on hold and therefore have a chance of being outdated by the time the Olympic Games end. But one might wonder: could Presidential campaigning really go on a two-week hiatus?

            MSNBC has already made clear it will be airing non-stop Olympic coverage until 6PM pretty much every day over the next two weeks. Already it looks like we’re therefore preparing for less politics; not to mention, pre-Olympic coverage leading up to the actual Olympics basically took over much of the media in this country. With Romney overseas and the Olympics now taking center stage (post-theater-shooting in Aurora, Colorado), politics could be in for a vacation. The negative campaigning has been overwhelming and voters want – practically need – a break from all the mudslinging. It’s time to focus on something a bit more positive for the next two weeks: passion for our country. It’s too bad nationalism like this knocks on our doors during events like the Olympics, but appears almost nonexistent when it comes to politics in this country.

            The Senate and the House go on recess from August 6^th to September 10^th, so whatever isn’t hashed out next week will be put on hold for five weeks. Though the 2012 Summer Olympics are just about to be in full swing, whatever happens politically in the next week is extremely important. Not only is Romney looking to establish himself on an international level, time is ticking for Congress: We’ll only be one hundred days away from Election Day by the end of this weekend, and therefore Obama and Romney are headed towards the home stretch and truly need to kick it into high gear.

2012 Olympics & Romney’s Overseas Tour

            The Olympic Opening Ceremonies took place earlier today, but what does this mean for the political scene in America, specifically our Presidential race? While Congress had a brief outcry over the USA Olympic uniforms being made overseas instead of in the U.S. – as if this is the most important issue we’re facing today – we’ve now semi-put this behind us and are welcoming the beginning of these Summer Games. Mitt Romney, having been involved in Olympic planning in the past, has made headlines lately as newspapers around the country seem to want his opinion on London 2012. What seemed to be a hesitant attitude regarding whether London was prepared for the Olympics, was ironed out when Romney made it clear the city is most definitely ready.

            In a six-day diplomatic outing, Romney looks to push economy talks aside and draw attention to another important aspect to being Commander-In-Chief: Foreign Policy. Obama made a very similar move during the 2008 Presidential race and it proved to be a success. It remains to be seen if Romney will be as lucky. Romney plans to visit Britain, Israel, and Poland on this tour. The London Olympics could help Romney on the road due to his positive contribution to the Salt Lake City Olympics back in 2002. Obama didn’t visit Israel on his first overseas trip, which could also help Romney in gaining pro-Israel and Jewish votes, as well as place Obama in a light of not living up to his 2008 assurances.

            Romney’s first overseas stop is Britain, where he is celebrating the start to the 2012 Olympics, most likely in hopes to make good with our allies across the pond. He may however have had a few missteps along the way: forgetting the name of the head of the Opposition Labour Party, not realizing some words in the British language have different meaning than they do back home, disclosing meeting with a secret British intelligence service, etc. Romney might hit some bumps in the road while he is overseas as his foreign policy group is comprised of a number of individuals who worked under the Bush Administration. In liberal countries like those Romney is visiting, this probably won’t help his cause. The Obama team will most likely spin the start to Romney’s trip as proof of Romney lacking foreign experience. We might learn from Romney’s tour that it just might be harder to please on the world stage than it is on the national stage; people are usually more comfortable when they have home field advantage. Even if the media claims this to be a rocky start for this GOP’s overseas visit, foreign tours aren’t a bad move for Presidential hopefuls. Just as Obama successfully went abroad in 2008 when he was on the ticket for fulfilling the seat in the Oval Office, perhaps this trip can prove to be just as positive for Romney.

Gun Control & the 2nd Amendment

            Our Founding Fathers set up this country to be the greatest country in the world. Looking at how far we’ve come, it’d be hard to argue these men did a poor job in laying our country’s foundation. However, time has passed since the Constitution was written, and with time comes change. An amendment which sat near and dear to the hearts of many citizens during the early days of America is our right to bear arms; so much so this right is the second section to our Bill of Rights. After events like the recent movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado I can’t help but wonder if this amendment is a little outdated. The reasoning behind the 2^nd Amendment was to prevent the U.S. from becoming a dictatorship and to not allow totalitarian power into the country. Those writing the Constitution wanted to give as much power to the people as possible, as we feared we could someday slip back into a governmental rule similar to what we dealt with under the British. Seeing how much has changed from then to now, how important is it to still have an amendment which makes sure our citizens are able to be armed? If the government does something we disapprove of, it seems old-fashioned to say we will physically fight back using weapons.

            The shootings at Columbine high school, at Virginia Tech, in Tucson Arizona, and now in Aurora Colorado, were all accomplished using weapons which had been legally purchased. This begs the question, should we do something about our gun laws in this country? The 2^nd Amendment says the government should not “infringe” on people’s right to have firearms, as “a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State.” It doesn’t appear any of these massacres were completed by individuals who had any intention of being part of the militia. As long as we as citizens can bear some sort of arms then our government isn’t exactly “infringing” on this right. We have restrictions when it comes to drugs, voting, running for office, and drinking alcoholic beverages in this country – why can’t we draw a line and put in place stricter regulations when it comes to the buying, possessing, and using firearms?

            Hand guns and rifles can be used for recreational sporting and hunting purposes, and often make individuals feel safer and more protected. Assault weapons on the other hand have no purpose other than to kill. There is no reason why a regular citizen needs to own an automatic or semiautomatic gun. These types of assault weapons are really made for professional use only. This includes military, and perhaps some police enforcement. It can be argued if more people are armed perhaps we will be able to stop crazy people who plan and perform such awful events like the shooting which took place this past weekend in Aurora. But would we actually be safer if more people are armed, or would we be better off if less people owned and carried around weapons? In hindsight, letting the Brady Bill lapse and expire in 2004 probably wasn’t the best decision. Yes, if someone really wants to obtain a gun he will find a way to do so, whether it’s illegal or not. But this does not mean we cannot, or should not make it harder for these people to get their hands on such weapons.

           New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently called upon President Obama and Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to talk about gun control. Neither candidate has taken a stance on how they feel about the 2^nd Amendment, as this would be political suicide given the extremely polarized feelings this topic seems to cause. People around the world tend to view America as being fairly gun-obsessed since it is illegal to own such weapons in many other countries. However, since we do have the right to bear arms, as noted in the Constitution, it makes sense we as citizens wouldn’t want that right to be taken away: if the government takes away one of our rights, it sets a precedent that it is alright to take ways other rights/freedoms in the future. Therefore, the 2^nd Amendment may never be abolished, and given how well Prohibition worked out the chances of successfully abolishing the 2^nd Amendment are slim thanks to underground markets. Regulation of the 2^nd Amendment may however be necessary.

            Regulations such as requiring gun owners to purchase insurance for their weapon(s), similar to how we are required to purchase insurance in order to drive vehicles, might be a step in the right direction. Another type of regulation which may lower the changes of shooting tragedies becoming realities would be to require those with guns to take classes in order to gain the proper education needed prior to owning and operating such weapons. We can also regulate gun control by requiring individuals to pass psychological exams to make sure weapons aren’t being put in the hands of people with unsound minds, or by establishing a follow-up program to keep better and more up-to-date tabs on gun owners. Making it illegal to purchase and own automatic and semiautomatic assault weapons in this country, unless for military purposes, might not be a bad idea either. Let’s be honest: what reason, other than the intention to kill, is there for average citizenry to need possession of such weapons? Sure, any changes to the 2^nd Amendment or any added gun regulations may not be instated right away. Mayor Bloomberg seems to have hit the nail on the head with this one though – there’s no harm in starting up conversation about gun control both inside and outside Congress.

Perfection

            It almost seems pointless to make any promises in today’s world if you are a politician. The people of this country have a preconceived notion that whatever you tell them is a lie and that all politicians are corrupt. The American people stopped trusting politicians so long ago that anyone who has as much as a slight interest in political science now gets labeled as deceitful, dishonest, and devious. America has the false impression that one must be perfect in order to be president. Is there a reason why we feel the need to hold politicians to a higher standard then we hold just about everyone else in our lives, sometimes even including ourselves? I understand politicians are in the public light and therefore they naturally open themselves up to criticism on a level equal to that of celebrities. I also understand that if you chose to run for president you should probably have an extremely clean record, since anything you have done, no matter how little it was or how unimportant it may seem, will make its way back to the surface. This being the case, who would even want to run for president? You have to have lived your entire life as if you were walking on eggshells, which really means you’ve never lived. Who wants a president who isn’t in touch with themselves or reality?

            Here’s a reality check for anyone who thinks Presidential candidates need a picture-perfect past: perfection doesn’t exist; no one is perfect; no one is without faults. As Vince Lombardi once said, “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.” We need to push our politician’s blemishes aside and let these people do their job. Until we do this, Paul Levinson’s essay titled “Can Only Angels be President?” might hold more truth than we’d hope. We cannot place presidents and Presidential candidates on such high pedestals. If we do, we’re simply setting these politicians up for failure – we forget they too are just human beings. Imagine what could be accomplished if the American people spent half the time they spend on trying to dig up all the dirt on our politicians’ past on something more important for this country – maybe we’d all be better off.

            Mr. Obama has entered a dark time in this political race as the majority of his campaigning techniques now appear to be more about trying to hurt Romney than help the President get reelected. As a voting individual I’m sick of the negativity, which seems like a stunt straight out of grade school. It’s time to grow up Mr. President. Maybe you should spend a little more effort running this country and a little less time attaching your opponent (just a thought). When Romney asked Obama for an apology for attacking this GOP nominee without actual evidence to back up his claims, the President said no and stated he will continue his negative campaigning. Mr. Obama, I thought you sat in the Oval Office, not the third row of a second grade classroom. Let’s focus on more important topics, please. I saw a tweet recently which read, “Politics is going to be so much cooler when our generation, growing up with Facebook and twitter, start running for office.” My response went something like this: “I think it'll be a bit scary… we're all doomed in the future!” We nitpick over people’s military records, birth certificates, and tax returns; I don’t want to even think about what politics in this country is going to look like when we start fishing through status updates and Facebook photos.

Tax Returns, Precedents, & Morality

            No one can deny that Mitt Romney is a very wealthy man; this is public knowledge. But how rich is this Presidential candidate? If Romney would cough up more of his tax returns we just might find out. But it seems some want the tax returns just to see how much this man is actually worth. Sure, people can make the claim that since Romney is promoting himself as a man who can fix this country’s economic problems, ‘We The People’ should get to see his personal economics. But that’s just what tax returns are – personal. When did the right to privacy go away? The whole ordeal over Romney’s taxes is not unlike Obama’s birth certificate talks – it’s getting blown out of proportion and causing people to lose track of what is actually important when it comes to the Presidential race.

            Nowhere does it say a Presidential candidate has to fork over their tax returns, as it is arguable this would be an incredible invasion of privacy. While Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel accuse Romney of hiding something, they cannot actually back up their claims, and their only response is telling Romney to prove them wrong by showing his tax returns. Steve Schmidt, one of John McCain’s 2008 campaign strategists, said McCain’s choice to choose Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney as his running mate had nothing to do with Romney’s taxes, saying Democrats who say this “have no way of knowing any of the basis of that statement. It’s rhetorical flourish.” Since Romney’s taxes have become somewhat of a hot topic, Schmidt’s opinion of the whole issue did not stop there when it came to a recent article in the Huffington Post. "It's totally unfair. They don’t know any of the facts," Schmidt said of the inference about Romney's tax returns. "But it's hard to refute. And the bottom line is the American people don’t trust politicians so nobody gets the benefit of the doubt and the utterance of the accusation does damage. People believe you’re hiding something. It's wrong, it's unfair, but it's life in the big leagues.”

            Interestingly, it was Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, who set the precedent for Presidential candidates to release their tax returns, releasing 12 years’ worth of tax information when he ran for the Republican nominee in 1968. Though he has only released one year of taxes as a Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney released 23 years of taxes to Senator McCain when he was vetted for the Vice Presidential running mate spot during the last Presidential election. It can be argued America should be able to see Mitt’s taxes as they can supposedly somehow benefit us voters, and that his taxes are just as much professional as they are personal and therefore releasing them is not an invasion of privacy. If Mitt doesn’t have anything to hide, releasing his tax returns to the public shouldn’t be a big deal. But it still doesn’t seem right that he should be forced to do so if he doesn’t want to. This is America, isn’t it? It’s supposed to be the land of free choice, no?

            It’s a lose-lose situation for Mitt, as he doesn’t have to release his tax returns, but not doing so could cause great damage to his campaign. It should be noted that any teenager who ever babysat and got paid in cash, an under-the-table transaction, and did not claim that money as income is guilty of depriving our country of taxes just as much as Romney is with his off-shore accounts. According to the law, these babysitters might actually be more at fault than Romney, as these transactions took place in the country. Having off-shore accounts is not illegal, though the money is still subject to being taxed. Yet, according to bank secrecy there is no obligation for an off-shore bank to declare any income in any of their accounts. Though it may not be moral in everyone’s eyes, let’s be honest – I’d probably not believe you if you told me you wouldn’t open an off-shore account if you had Billions of dollars. And since when is morality an important trait for being a great president? Last time I checked John F. Kennedy was anything but moral during his time in the While House, and he was still loved by many… perhaps too loved by some.

Too Vague, Too Specific

            Our economy has been on the fritz for a while now, and our current President has done little to help the situation. This sounds like a recipe for disaster for President Obama now that we’re approaching election time, as one would think the Republican nominee would hold a fairly large lead over Obama in the polls thanks to the current economic situation. This does not however seem to be the case, as Romney still trails behind Obama in some of the key states needed to win his spot in the White House. There are a few reasons for why this seems to be happening, and both Romney and the American people may be to blame.

            Romney’s campaign thus far appears to be somewhat of a snooze fest. While Obama works his social media tactics, continues to capture audiences with his speech presentation talents, and appears to have a larger young-voter following, Romney hopes to enter the Oval Office by repeatedly blaming Obama for our awful economy. This position from the GOP-ers can be taken as somewhat negative, and could use a little spicing-up if Romney is actually serious about winning this election. Perhaps Romney should tell us why and how he wants to do what he wants to do, instead of just saying he’s going to do it (i.e. tax cuts, getting rid of the deficit, the importance of a smaller government, etc.).

            When in the public’s eye it is impossible to please everyone. What does a person do when it seems half the people want one thing from you and the other half want something else? It clear the American people do not know what they want. But it is unclear where to draw the line between too vague and too specific when it comes to the campaign trail. It seems Romney is at this very fork in the road at this point in the 2012 political race. Running his campaign along the lines of freeing America from the reign of Obama has been seen as smart politics by some, giving Romney a fairly good chance at taking home a victory come this November. Yet, this calls for a rather vague, potentially boring campaign since any specifics in his platform would be a clear target for his Democratic opponent.

           It has been said, “The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward.” But it must also be noted, the bigger the risk the bigger possibility for failure. Simply judging by history Mitt Romney is not the biggest risk taker, suggesting he lives by the saying, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.” For anyone who refuses to take risks, there is a chance the public will perceive you as being sort of bland. Before Obama uses this as the bases for his next negative advertisement punch at Romney, trying to define this Republican by something he is not, Romney has a choice to make and some pros and cons to consider: take a risk by taking a clearer stance on important political issues, or risk being viewed as somewhat generic.

ObamaCare vs. RomneyCare – Fact Checking!

            With the House voting on the repeal of ObamaCare once again today, what could be better than taking some time to reflect on the past and return to an issue which is still semi-relevant in the healthcare bill debate: ObamaCare vs. RomneyCare, particularly the length of the two bills. One of the many hot topics in the 2012 political election is the condition of the United States’ economy. Discussion of our economy often leads to discussing ObamaCare, officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). During the CNN-hosted Republican Debate in Arizona in late February 2012, audience member Gilbert Fidler from Gilbert, Arizona asked the GOP candidates, “Since the first time in 65 years our national debt exceeds our gross national product, what are you going to do to bring down the debt?” A contender for the Republican nomination at the time, Senator Rick Santorum stated, “Obviously, the first thing we need to do is repeal ObamaCare.” Ever since winning the GOP nomination, Romney has started using a similar, if not identical statement regarding repealing ObamaCare in many of his speeches (this didn’t turn out in Romney’s favor in his speech to the NAACP earlier today, but that’s a whole other story). Whether praising him or blaming him for his healthcare bill, Mitt Romney still often finds RomneyCare being compared to ObamaCare.

            Before the GOP nomination was decided, Santorum blamed Governor Romney for ObamaCare in hopes people would steer clear of choosing Romney as the Republican nominee. Santorum stated the Massachusetts Healthcare Insurance Reform Law, better known as RomneyCare, was the precursor for the national healthcare bill. “The whole reason this issue is alive is because of the bill that you drafted in Massachusetts, RomneyCare, which was the model for ObamaCare and the government takeover of healthcare,” said Santorum to Romney during the Republican Debate. Romney responsed: “Let's point this out, our bill [RomneyCare] was 70 pages. His bill [ObamaCare] is 2700 pages.”

          Everything a politician says should be fact checked, so I thought I’d take the liberty for you: According to Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, Romney “is double-counting pages and adding things that had little to do with healthcare. The correct comparison is about 145 pages (RomneyCare) to 200 pages (ObamaCare).” Politico.com published an article in November 2009 stating, “In the Battle of the Health Bills, the Senate wins out, bulk-wise – weighing in at 2,074 pages…. The table of contents alone is 14 pages.” On The 187^th General Court of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts legislative website, one can print chapter 58 of the state’s Session Laws, “An Act Providing Access To Affordable, Quality, Accountable Heath Care.” This printout of RomneyCare is 68 pages long.

            The fact checking on the length of these two healthcare bills did not stop there: Igor Volsky of Think Progressive reported in June 2011, “Michael Cannon, director of health policy at the Cato Institute… estimated that the section of the national law that directly compares to Romney’s law is only about 200 pages of the 907-page version.” Five years earlier Boston Globe staff members Scott Helman and Liz Kowalczyk reported, “Before signing the bill yesterday, Romney vetoed eight provisions in the 145-page bill, including the business fee and an expansion of Medicaid benefits for certain recipients.” Kessler published an article in June 2011 which said, “The bills [the Senate version and the reconciled House version of ObamaCare] also included elements that had nothing to do with universal healthcare, such as an overhaul of student loans and new long-term care legislation.” When dealing with the fact that the RomneyCare and ObamaCare bills have been specified to be so many different lengths, Kessler said, “The number of pages depends not only on the words in the bill, but also the text size and even the page size.”

            Perhaps RomneyCare was the right choice for the state of Massachusetts, but not all of the U.S. is the same and therefore a one-size-fits-all concept doesn’t always work in this country. Pointing to states rights and allowing states to create healthcare bills which work best for each of their individual demographics might be the correct move for the American healthcare system, as it does not look like everyone is going to agree on a national healthcare bill any time soon; we cannot agree on the length of the bills, never mind the content. As for the fact checking on the length of ObamaCare versus RomneyCare, no one can come to a definitive conclusion as to how long each proposed bill or law was. Therefore, I say it is time to put political jargon aside and simply accept that RomneyCare was shorter than ObamaCare, at least that’s what all this fact checking seems to point out. However, take what that means with a grain of salt – it is time to move on.

Campaign Cash

            The campaign trail is a battle field – a battle for cash that is! Until Election Day when those at the forefront of the political race hope they’ve done enough wining and dining to get our votes, the drawn-out battle is focused on more than just candidates shaking hands and kissing babies. Like all marketing strategies, a political campaign needs the right fuel to keep the machine running. This particular fuel is green, and comes in the form of good-old American cash; personal checks, money orders and Super PAC donations are also acceptable, in case you were worried. Regardless of what form the money is in when it is donated, it is undeniable that money speaks volumes, especially when it comes to the presidential race. If money is any estimate as to how people feel, it has recently been telling us pretty loud and clear that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party is wanted by the American people. Politicians who change their views are often labeled as being flip-flippers. Well, it looks like the donors are the flip-floppers in this case, as a large number of donors have flip-flopped over the last four years. Back in 2008 many traditionally right-winged Wall Street-ers and Republicans joined President Obama’s bandwagon for ‘Change.’  The change these people were looking for appears to have never come through, as these folks have once again switched sides. Romney and The Republican National Committee have outraised Obama for the second month in a row. Team Romney has recently raised the stakes bringing in a whopping $106 million during the month of June compared to Team Obama’s $71 million. The power to bring in the big bucks from the once money magnet man Obama seems to be slipping as his cult of personality is taking a hit to the promises of deregulation and tax cuts by the GOP nominee.

            However, the battle for cash isn’t an easy battle to win. Obama’s campaign strategy has largely been fueled by smaller donations with a grassroots-like support system. Though Romney was getting by with supporters giving the maximum amount they could, it appears this Republican is starting to cash in from smaller donations as well, an area where Obama has led the race from the beginning. The Democrats recently took to social media outlets like Facebook asking followers to “help close the gap by chipping in $3 now,” stating the Obama Campaign and Associated Committees are “building our campaign the right way – with small donations from grassroots supporters like you.” Regardless if the money comes from Average Joes or five-figure check-writing millionaires, money plays a large part in who comes out on top. Who says money can’t win you the race? Just ask New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg what it took to be elected in the five boroughs. Whether it is because of flip-flopping donors or the fact that Romney is a wealthier man than Mr. Obama, it is clear money is now pouring in at a much faster rate into the Romney Campaign. Even Obama, who has been noted by some to be the greatest fundraiser in political history, may find himself defeated in this battle for campaign cash. Perhaps Obama’s presidential honeymoon stage is coming to an end and his divorce from the Oval Office is unfolding before our eyes. We may not know until November if this is what is actually happening, but it looks like the American people are speaking and numbers don’t tend to lie.

Healthcare & Constitutionality

            Regardless of what Justice Roberts says, I’m not convinced the Affordable Care Act (also known as the Healthcare Bill and ObamaCare) is constitutional. It is not fair to force citizens to have healthcare and force employers to provide it. It sounds like socialism is starting to take over in this country; Big Brother is most definitely watching. The U.S. was supposedly founded principles where every person is to be free. The last time I checked the American way of doing things is to have a choice, to not be forced against one’s own will and to be free to make our own decisions. Once that freedom is taken away we might as well throw away the Constitution all together and just have one law: Let others decide for us.

Who is going to pay the estimated $940 billion this Healthcare Bill is going to cost? It looks like those with the money will once again be dishing out more cash. What happened to American principles? If you work hard you should get to keep what you make and reap the benefits of all the effort you put in. Apparently this no longer exists, as free handouts are seen as a solution to the problem. We’re digging ourselves a deeper hole; handouts may work in the short-run, but in the long-run we’re simply making the problem worse. The American Dream is dying! But don’t worry, under the new Healthcare Bill it can get all the care it needs. That is, if the care it needs is available, there aren’t too many people in line and the resources haven't completely used up.

Our unemployment rate has been hovering around 10% (give or take) for a while now. What’s the best way to get more people in the work force and bring down that unemployment rate? The answer is raising taxes, of course (sarcasm). If companies who haven’t been providing healthcare must now provide coverage money they will simply hire less people, or pay their employees less money and take the cost of healthcare out of their salary. Small businesses will go bankrupt and individuals who provide their own health insurance will be forced to put a large sum of their earnings towards their newly inquired and unwanted health bills. Any subsidies “promised” by the U.S. government have to come from somewhere if the budget is ever going to actually one day balance. Where, you might ask? I’ll give you one guess: taxes! America is in debt and we don’t have the money to fund this Healthcare escapade. Therefore the Medicare Payroll Tax will be increasing to include unearned income which will largely affect the upper middle class citizens of this country, and an Excise Tax will be added into the mix which will hurt insurance companies. And we thought it was hard to find decent insurance before the Healthcare Bill… think again.

I agree those without healthcare coverage should have coverage; one’s health is extremely important. But I do not agree with forcing people to do something they do not want to do. Also, if our citizens have healthcare it does not mean we will all the sudden be a healthier country. The Healthcare Bill is just another way for the rich to provide more handouts, for the unemployment rate to increase, for small businesses to suffer, for politicians to continue making false promises, for our right to decide for ourselves to be taken away and for taxes will go up. But don’t worry; it’s all Constitutional! At least that’s what we’re being told.