Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Exactly What Is The Role Of A Moderator?

Posted on by

This story is based on two sources–a Mediaite article posted last night and a Breitbart.com article posted this morning.

Mediaite reports some comments made by Candy Crowley this morning:

“I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it,” said Crowley. “I knew that the president had said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand. Or, whatever the whole quote was.”

“Right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t,” Crowley added.

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.

Where were the corrections to the many falsehoods Obama told–domestic energy production, job creation, the budget deficit, etc.?

Breitbart reports:

Crowley made Lehrer look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

The article at Breitbart cites a number of incidents where Ms. Crowley did not act as a moderator, but took sides. It is unfortunate that the sponsors of the debates cannot find moderators who do not favor one candidate. I think of all the debates, Jim Lehrer has done the best job of all–he let the candidates state their cases without interference.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Doctor’s Comments on ObamaCare

Posted on by

Today’s New York Post posted an article today about a survey done among Doctors asking for their opinion of Obamacare.

These are some of the comments reported in the article:

Under ObamaCare, we’re being asked to provide the same high-tech service with more restrictions and regulations to more patients and to be paid less for doing so.

Do you honestly think that a cardiologist who is being paid $280 by Medicare for performing and interpreting the same echocardiogram he was paid $560 for two years ago is happy?

How do you think he will feel if the test he trained for many years to learn is suddenly ruled excessive by ObamaCare’s new Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board?

The article reports that 55 percent of doctors surveyed said they’d repeal and replace ObamaCare, as Romney says he would, compared to only 40 percent who said they’d implement and improve it.

I think we need to listen to the people who will be impacted by ObamaCare if it is not repealed, and we need to remember that we as patients will also be impacted in a negative way.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Did He Misspeak Or Was He Lying ?

Posted on by

CNS News posted a story today about a statement made by Vice-President Joe Biden in a speech at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse on Friday. The article reports that the Vice-President stated that Planned Parenthood “under law cannot perform any abortion.”

The article then states:

Planned Parenthood itself has published fact sheets indicating that it did 985,731 abortions in just the three years from 2008 through 2010. These included 324,008 abortion in 2008, 332,278 abortions in 2009, and 329,445 abortions in 2010.

Biden made his remark in response to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney position that he would defund Planned Parenthood.

“And now these guys pledge that they are going to defund Planned Parenthood, which under law cannot perform any abortion,” said Biden. “You heard it last night again.”

Facts are inconvenient things.

The article reports:

A Congressional Research Service report published on Aug. 28 said that the federal government gives Planned Parenthood about $66 million per year in Title X “family planning” grants. The law prohibits recipients from using Title X money for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

However, there is nothing in the law to prevent these funds from paying office expenses in offices that schedule and perform abortions. Planned Parenthood, along with Public Broadcasting are two examples of things that should be cut from the federal budget. They are not worth borrowing money from China to fund.


 

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Love Elmo, But This Is Ridiculous

Posted on by

Reuters reported on Friday that a “Million Muppet March” is being planned for November 3 at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The event is a response to Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney‘s statement that he loves Big Bird, but it is time to stop subsidizing PBS with taxpayer money. The implication is that it is time to kick Big Bird out of the public nest.

I like Big Bird too, but enough is enough. If Dora the Explorer can survive without public assistance, why can’t Big Bird? Do you know how many “Tickle-Me Elmo‘s” I have bought for my grandchildren? How many Sesame Street books? Sesame Street coloring books? I realize that Public Broadcasting is more than Sesame Street, but it seems that with an income generator like Sesame Street, it ought to be easy to make Public Broadcasting profitable. What about the fund raisers they do throughout the year? I understand that ‘they do not do commercials,’ but what about all the names mentioned of contributors in between shows?

Anyway, I hope those supporting Big Bird have a happy march. I also hope that someone comes up with a few ideas on some small places to cut the federal budget. If we can’t make little budget cuts, how will we ever make big ones?

Enhanced by Zemanta

What I Learned On The Radio This Morning

Posted on by

First of all, I would like to thank DaTechGuy for inviting me on his radio show. He blogs at DaTechGuyBlog.com and has been one of the few people who has been investigating the numbers behind the numbers in the Presidential polls.

Second of all, I would like to apologize for my Emily Latella moment (if you don’t understand that, google the name and you will find numerous video clips). I asked a candidate running for the U. S. House of Representatives about a state issue. Just for the record, the issue was forced unionization of family run daycare centers. This was on my mind because I had blogged about it earlier in the week (rightwinggranny.com).

Now to my point. One of the guests on DaTechGuyOnDaRadio this morning (if you missed the show, it will be up on DaTechGuy’s blog sometime this week) was Doctor Andrew Smith. Dr. Smith is the Director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which specializes in election polling. Dr. Smith has been involved in polling since the mid 1980’s.

Dr. Smith pointed out that a poll is simply a specialized conversation. His organization randomly selects the people that they poll. There are two main aspects to taking a poll. First, will people talk to you? This can depend on the political situation at the time. If the candidate a person supports is not doing well, that person may be reluctant to talk to a pollster. Second, is the person you are polling being completely honest? Are they simply giving the pollster answers in order to make themselves look good? In many cases if a person is asked if they are likely to vote, they will answer yes because voting is considered a good thing–not because they actually intend to vote.

In polling the public, a pollster needs to ask questions people might actually have the answers to. If a pollster is asking very specific questions about a piece of legislation, the person answering may simply give an answer in order to avoid appearing ignorant.

The key to a successful poll is a random sample and interviewers that exactly follow the script they are given. The wording of questions and the order of questions can determine the answers that will be given.

When evaluating a poll, find out who is doing it and why. It is probably not a good idea to take polls conducted by candidates too seriously.

Most of the time a random sample will be accurate. One reason polls get more accurate as the election nears is that people begin to pay attention. In some cases, voters are not focused on the election until the week before and will give an answer to a pollster a month before that may change when the voter starts paying attention.

Dr. Smith described polling as an art with a scientific method behind it. I think that is a very accurate description.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does Big Bird Need Taxpayer Money ?

Posted on by

As a grandmother who has purchased numerous ‘Tickle Me Elmo” stuffed animals, Big Bird Books, and various Bert and Ernie dolls, and watched numerous fund raisers on PBS (and occasionally donated), I wonder why Public Broadcasting still needs my tax money. Well, I may have found a clue in an old news article.

In March of 2011, Jim DeMint posted an article at Fox Nation detailing some of the financial information of the Public Broadcasting Network.

The article reports:

...The executives at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which distributes the taxpayer money allocated for public broadcasting to other stations, are also generously compensated. According to CPB’s 2009 tax forms, President and CEO Patricia de Stacy Harrison received $298,884 in reportable compensation and another $70,630 in other compensation from the organization and related organizations that year. That’s practically a pittance compared to Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, who received more than $1.2 million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit filed in 2009.

I will admit that normally I don’t care how much executives make–that’s between them and their stockholders–but this is a non-profit organization which receives large amounts of taxpayer money (much of which is borrowed from China and will eventually have to be paid back by the children watching Big Bird!). As taxpayers, we are funding this. Is this the best possible use of resources?

The article further points out:

 Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame Street make millions on their own. “Sesame Street,” for example, made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from 2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 in compensation in 2008. With earnings like that, Big Bird doesn’t need the taxpayers to help him compete against the Nickleodeon cable channel’s Dora the Explorer.

 I had not considered the fact that Dora does not receive taxpayer money, yet seems to be doing very well. I have seen numerous Dora the Explorer backpacks, coloring books, and other goodies among my grandchildren’s toys.

It truly is time to stop borrowing money from China to fund Big Bird.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Random Notes On Last Night’s Debate

Posted on by

Smart Politics posted an interesting article on the debate last night between President Obama and Governor Romney.

The article reported:

Obama spoke for 42 minutes and 40 seconds or 52.7 percent of the candidate-allotted speaking time.

And while Romney at times appeared to interrupt moderator Jim Lehrer, perhaps he did so for good reason.

A Smart Politics analysis finds that Mitt Romney spoke for 38 minutes and 14 seconds, or 47.3 percent of the candidate-allotted speaking time – a full four minutes and 26 seconds less than Barack Obama.

Interesting.

I enjoyed the debate. I liked the format–it gave both candidates a chance to state their case and dispute any questionable facts given by the other candidate. I also liked the fact that the moderator kept a low profile and let the candidates talk.

The article further reports:

Lehrer, meanwhile, seemed to disappear and at times lose control of the debate – speaking significantly less than debate moderators from the GOP primaries this cycle.

Lehrer spoke for just 8 minutes and 10 seconds, or 9 percent of the total time between himself and the two nominees.

During the GOP presidential primary debates, moderators spoke for an average of twice that amount (19.8 percent) ranging from a high of 27 percent to a low of 14 percent.

The debate should be between the candidates–not a stage for the moderator. I liked the way Jim Lehrer moderated the debate.

One final thought:

“80 percent of success is just showing up”  — Woody Allen

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Watch For In The Presidential Debates

Posted on by

Hugh Hewitt (my favorite talk show host) posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about President Obama’s poker tells. I am not a poker player, but I understand the concept of watching your opponents’ actions in order to win a card game.

The article lists the ‘tells’:

First, the president begins a pattern of “ahs” and “uhmms” which are as embarrassing as they are revealing. The awkward pausing punctuated by these semi-stutters increases in frequency as the president senses his own flailing about.

Next, the president begins filibustering. His average length of answer in every press conference is already epic, but he has been getting worse as the presidency has dragged on.

…the president’s feigned outrage that anyone would interrupt or question him. When this happens, his countenance displays a disapproving sneer and his voice clouds with displeasure. It is practiced. It is also profoundly anti-democratic and arrogant, and if he plays this card on this stage, it will backfire.

Watch as well for nonresponsive self-pity, verbal essays on how difficult it was when he took over and how hard he has been working.

Finally, watch for the parade of straw men, the president’s favorite rhetorical trick.

Television has changed presidential debates–those who heard the Nixon-Kennedy debate of the radio declared Nixon the winner–those who watched it on television declared Kennedy the winner. I believe that Al Gore’s antics during the time that George W. Bush was speaking during their debate was one factor that cost him the election in 2000. President Obama needs to avoid falling into the same trap.


Enhanced by Zemanta

A New Low In Media Reporting

Posted on by

The Blaze posted two videos on Thursday of a Romney-Ryan rally in Ohio. The first video was played by MSNBC host Martin Bashir to illustrate his point that Paul Ryan was overshadowing Mitt Romney in the presidential campaign. A similar video had been played on “Morning Joe” the day before. I am not posting that video, if you would like to see it, follow the link to “The Blaze” above.

The unedited (untampered with) clip is at the bottom of the article at “The Blaze.” Here it is:

The article also provides an eyewitness account of the events. The eyewitness account and the unedited video clearly show that the crowd was not shouting “Ryan”–they were shouting “Romney,” and Mitt Romney encouraged them to change the shout to “Romney-Ryan.”  It is very discouraging to see videotape edited to fit the picture the mainstream media is trying to paint of this presidential campaign. This altered video clearly shows the reason we need the Internet as an alternative news source.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Paid Protesters

Posted on by

The video that went viral yesterday was the Obama Phone video, but there was another story at the Romney rally in Bedford, Ohio on Wednesday.

The Daily Caller posted a story yesterday reporting:

The amateur filmmaker who shot the footage (Obama Phone video)  also has released video revealing that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) paid protestors during a recent rally for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney .

I have shared this story before, but two years ago, when working on a campaign in Massachusetts, supporters of the Republican candidate were faced with paid protesters at a debate. There was a definite attempt by the union thugs to stir up an incident that would be reported by the press. No incident occurred, as most of the people attending the debate were mature enough to ignore the provocations. It was a lesson to me on how paid union protesters operate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Watch The Media Play Trivial Pursuit Today

Posted on by

Just in case you hadn’t noticed, there is a crisis in the Arab world. American Embassies are being attacked and American soldiers are dying. Because that crisis seems to be related to American foreign policy (and President Obama), the press would rather look the other way. So where are they looking? They are going after a presidential candidate who told the truth.

The following quote from good reads applies to America today:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

The New York Times reported on a video clip of Governor Romney obtained by Mother Jones:

In one clip, Mr. Romney describes how his campaign would not try to appeal to “47 percent of the people” who will vote for Mr. Obama “no matter what.” They are, he says, “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.”

He says those people “pay no income tax,” and “so our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” Mr. Romney adds: “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

I am sorry the New York Times is so offended by this remark. I tend to agree with it. Everyone in America needs to pay income taxes. The free ride for those who pay no taxes and receive money from the government has to end. I think Mitt Romney told the truth. It is unfortunate that we have evidently reached the point in the presidential campaign where telling the truth is not a good idea.

As you listen to the news today, understand that the Romney story and the timing of the release of it is an October surprise designed to take attention away from the crisis in the Middle East. You have the choice of whether or not to be manipulated by the press.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is What Happens When People Not Familiar With The Military Try To Honor Our Military

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Navy Times posted a story about the tribute to veterans that took place at the Democratic National Convention. It seems that the patriotic display of military power taking place on the screen behind retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, as he spoke was of Russian ships. Oops.

The article reports:

“I was kind of in shock,” said Rob Barker, 38, a former electronics warfare technician who left the Navy in 2006. Having learned to visually identify foreign ships by their radars, Barker recognized the closest ship as the Kara-class cruiser Kerch.

“An immediate apology [from the committee] would be very nice,” Barker said. “Maybe acknowledge the fact that yes, they screwed up.”

The background — featured in the carefully choreographed hour leading up to the president’s Sept. 6 speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination — showed four ships with radar designs not used in the U.S. fleet.

A follow up article in the Navy Times today reports:

Democratic officials apologized Wednesday for mistakenly displaying an image of the Russian Navy during a tribute to America’s veterans at last week’s Democratic National Convention.

This is the text of the DNC statement:

“Due to vendor error, incorrect images appeared briefly on screen behind fifty-one veterans during the convention and the DNCC apologizes for this mistake,” the statement said. “This error should not distract from the words of Admiral Nathman and others who spoke to President Obama’s strong record on issues that impact those who have served our nation. We’re proud of the service and sacrifice of our veterans and military families, and while they were an important and active part our of convention, Mitt Romney failed to even mention them in his speech in Tampa.”

Notice that it was ‘ “vendor error.” They are not taking responsibility for the mistake. That is just too typical.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Behind The Numbers In The Ohio Poll

Posted on by

Ohio is a swing state that Governor Romney needs to win in order to defeat President Obama in November. A group called Public Policy Polling predicts a win by President Obama in Ohio by 5 points, but when you look closely at the poll, the numbers don’t add up.

This article is based on two sources–a post at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey and a post at DaTechGuyBlog by Pete DaTechGuy.

Pete reminds us that women are more likely to vote for President Obama. The poll sampled 54% women and 46% men. The poll also sampled 41% Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 22% Independents. Ed Morrissey points out that the 37% Republicans matches the Republican 2010 turnout, but that the Democrat turnout in the 2010 midterm election was 36%–not 41%.

Pete also posted the following numbers:

https://www.rightwinggranny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/crosstab-4-results.png

Pete describes the problem with these numbers:

Now that’s kind of odd isn’t it? this crosstab suggest that you have a 42% of the people in the poll self identifying themselves as conservative in a poll that is 37% Republican, yet only 28% call themselves liberal? Are we to believe that ALL of republicans are Conservatives with some spill over to the middle or is it more likely that our liberal friends, like their fellows in the media don’t see their own biases and believe themselves moderate?

The bottom line here is simple. Anyone can lie with statistics (or polls). All you have to do is carefully choose the people you poll. The only poll that really matters is the one on election day when voters vote. Until then, we need to ignore a lot of what the media tells us is true. The important thing is that everyone get out and vote ONCE on election day. I believe that Governor Romney will win an honest election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sharing The Cost Of Obamacare

Posted on by

One of the threats I am hearing from Democrats to the American people is that if Mitt Romney is elected, your children under 26 will no longer have health insurance. There is no mention of the fact that the Republicans are not stupid, and if they repeal Obamacare, there are certain provisions of it that they will quickly implement. However, in making these charges, the Democrats do tend to overlook some basic facts.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported yesterday that under Obamacare, the cost of health insurance for college students at the University of North Carolina will be increasing from $460 per semester to $709 per semester.

The article reports:

In part, this was caused by the claims experience of Chartis over the last couple of years, which discovered that students on this plan accessed care more often than they initially predicted.  A significant part of the increase, however, comes from the requirements of comprehensive insurance coverage that will exacerbate those trends rather than limit cost increases.

We saw a similar thing happen in Massachusetts with insurance rates for all residents of the state. You can’t mandate ‘one size fits all’ insurance coverage for everyone and expect the rates to stay the same. People need the right to decide how much coverage they want. Logically you should decide whether you want a policy that covers every doctor’s visit or one that simply covers specialists and hospital visits. Obamacare takes this right away from you (as did Massachusetts healthcare reform).

Now before you say that Romneycare equals Obamacare, let me explain a few things about Romneycare. Governor Romney had no choice but to go along with the idea of state health insurance–Massachusetts is a one-party state, and the legislature was going to pass healthcare reform. As Governor, Mitt Romney tried to temper the ‘let the government do everything’ philosophy’ of the state legislature, but was unsuccessful. The bill that eventually passed in Massachusetts had little or no resemblance to what the Governor originally proposed. Under Governor Patrick, it has gotten even worse. At some point in the future, it will probably be defunded and killed. As a result of Romneycare, insurance premiums are growing faster than in other states, waits to see a doctor are longer, patients do not always have the freedom to choose what hospital they would like to go to, and emergency waiting rooms lines are still incredibly long. Progress has not been made. This is what we will see nationally when Obamacare is fully implemented (oddly enough, after the election).

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Contrast Is Obvious

Posted on by

I haven’t watched a lot of the Democratic convention–I have been tied up with more important family things, but I have seen the highlights. As you can assume from the name of this blog, I am a conservative, and I am not a young voter. I have watched a number of conventions over the years, and I am somewhat amazed at the direction of this year’s Democratic convention.

The opening video proclaimed, “The government is the only thing we all belong to.” I am more in line with Mitt Romney‘s tweet in response to that statement, “We don’t belong to the government, the government belongs to us.”

Think about that for a minute. If we belong to the government, the government is responsible for us–our successes, our failures, our prosperity, our poverty, our children’s behavior, etc. If the government belongs to us, we are responsible for the government and for ourselves. It seems to me that we have a choice to make here–are we going to grow up as a country and take responsibility for who we are (and what we need to do to make ourselves better) or are we going to sit back and wait for the government to do everything for us.

I have one more simple observation on the convention. There has been an awful lot of emphasis on the so-called ‘Republican war on women,’ and the Democrats seem to be trying to prove that their ideas are much better for women. Well, wait a minute. The convention has already honored Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton is the major speaker. How did these women treat the women in their lives? The Democrats seem to think that the essence of treating women well is defined as paying for them to kill their children and giving them free birth control (regardless of whether of not that is against their religion). There is more to woman than birth control. The women speaking at the Democratic convention are demanding things from the government–the women who spoke at the Republican convention were women of power. They had achieved success in their own lives–they were not taking from government–they were giving. Which image is more flattering to women?

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Can’t Win If You Are Not Willing To Fight !

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an editorial yesterday about the fight that went on at the Republican convention about rules changes the Romney campaign wanted to make.

The editorial points out:

Ginsberg’s (Romney campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg) rule change, launched without warning Friday morning, would have given the presidential campaigns the power to replace any of the delegates pledged to them, functionally giving them the power to select every state’s delegation. Many in the conservative movement saw this as a power grab by party insiders at the expense of grassroots conservatives, with the Paul threat serving merely as a bogeyman.

The article concludes:

…As they learned in the Bush era with the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, conservatives often achieve better results by holding a Republican president’s feet to the fire. In the event of a Romney administration, conservatives must learn from this small fight and keep up their efforts. We hope Romney learns from it, too.

The bottom line here is simple. If the conservative wing of the Republican party intends to wrest control of the party from the establishment Republicans (who are not noticeably different from the Democrats on many issues), they need to increase their numbers in Congress and fight hard. We can win this battle without forming a third party–we just need to be willing to fight the battle.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The First Casualty Of An Election Campaign Is The Truth

Posted on by

The alternative headline for this article is “Do They Really Think We Are That Stupid?” I understand that the political debate can get pretty heated, but it’s time to back up, take a deep breath, and think about what we believe. If every American would do that, there would be no need for bogus campaign ads.

Speaking of bogus campaign ads…John Hinderaker at Power LIne posted an article today about a campaign ad done by the Obama Campaign. In the ad, a number of women claiming to be Republicans express their dislike for Mitt Romney. The video is called “Republican Women For Obama.” I have no problem believing the ‘for Obama’ part–it’s the ‘Republican Women’ part I have trouble with.

The article at Power Line reports:

...The ad is surprisingly ineffective, but it is also dishonest. At least one of the women who pose as “Republican women for Obama” is a long-time Democrat. Her name is Maria Ciano, and BuzzFeed finds that she has been a registered Democrat in Colorado at least since 2006.

The article then goes on to list some of the ‘likes’ the woman has listed on her Facebook page. Did they honestly think no one would check? Ms Ciano’s mother is also featured in the ad, and research on her indicates similar political views.

There may be some Republican women who support President Obama. I am not aware of any, but they may exist. It is a shame that the Obama campaign chose to use women who lied rather than searching for women who actually support them. There must be at least one out there.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rules For Thee, But Not For Me

Posted on by

National Review‘s The Corner posted an article yesterday about Gawker Media, a website that has been very free with its criticism of Mitt Romney‘s financial dealings.

The article reports:

The gossip site also has released some 950 pages of material related to Mitt Romney’s investments, mostly having to do with Bain Capital. In Gawker’s own words: “Together, they reveal the mind-numbing, maze-like, and deeply opaque complexity with which Romney has handled his $250 million fortune.”

There was nothing illegal (or even interesting) in the material released, but there is more to the story.

In December 2010, the New Yorker reported:

Gawker is organized like an international money-laundering operation. Much of its international revenues are directed through Hungary, where Denton’s mother hails from, and where some of the firm’s techies are located. But that is only part of it. Recently, Salmon reports, the various Gawker operations—Gawker Media LLC, Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology LLC, Gawker Sales LLC—have been restructured to bring them under control of a shell company based in the Cayman Islands, Gawker Media Group Inc.

Why would a relatively small media outfit based in Soho choose to incorporate itself in a Caribbean locale long favored by insider dealers, drug cartels, hedge funds, and other entities with lots of cash they don’t want to advertise? The question virtually answers itself, but for those unversed in the intricacies of international tax avoidance Salmon spells it out: “The result is a company where 130 U.S. employees eat up the lion’s share of the the U.S. revenues, resulting in little if any taxable income, while the international income, the franchise value of the brands, and the value of the technology all stays permanently overseas, untouched by the I.R.S.”

Maybe the real villain in this story is the IRS.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes The Solution Is Worse Than The Problem

Posted on by

On Monday, Forbes Magazine posted an article about the changes Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has made to the health care plan originally passed under Governor Mitt Romney. Because the costs of the original plan have spiraled out of control, Governor Patrick is working to slow the growth of the cost of medical care in Massachusetts. His heart may be in the right place, but his plan will do considerable damage to an already broken system.

The article reports:

Insurers and large hospitals in Massachusetts will also have to pay $225 million in surcharges over four years, starting in 2013. The measure’s backers project savings of $200 billion over 15 years.

Massachusetts State Rep. Steven Levy (R-Marlborough) has noted that the law contains no specifics as to how the savings it mandates will actually come into being. He’s also called the gross state product a “random” number with which to straitjacket the healthcare budget.

The article further explains that part of the changes to the law include the creation of two new state agencies–the Health Policy Commission and the Center for Health Information Analysis. How is it possible to save money when you have created two new agencies staffed with people who have to be paid, office space that has to be rented, and office supplies that have to be purchased?

The article further reports:

Witness the impact that previous rounds of government-directed “reform” have already had. A study published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine noted that the Bay State’s 2006 health reform package had been associated with rapid new hiring in the Massachusetts health system.

That might sound like good news. But it wasn’t doctors or nurses getting hired. Rather, it was scores of administrative workers, who were needed to process all the new paperwork mandated by the reform effort.

I hate to be difficult, but is anyone concerned about the medical care for the patients in this scenario?

The article reports:

…The Massachusetts Medical Society has predicted that Gov. Patrick’s law will force many hospitals to cut staff and result in delayed care for some patients.

Bay Staters already have to wait 45 days on average for an appointment with a family medicine doctor, according to the Society. That’s a 50 percent jump in wait time since 2010.

If the Massachusetts heath care reform bill is the model for Obamacare, we need to pay attention as Massachusetts shows us why we need to end Obamacare!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Drums Of War Are Sounding

Posted on by

On Tuesday, the Times of Israel posted a story about some new military construction in Iran. According to the article, Iran has begun constructing a new state-of-the-art, anti-aircraft missile base near the city of Abadeh, in southern Iran.

The article states:

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said Iran will commission a new generation of fighter jets, missiles, unmanned drones and submarines by the Iranian New Year, which falls in March 2013.

Iran’s purported military advancements are impossible to independently verify because the country does not release technical details of its arsenals or rely on equipment from major international defense contractors.

Meanwhile, USA Today is reporting that Israel may not give the United States much advance notice if it attacks Iran.

The article reports:

The assumption is that U.S. warning of an Israeli attack would come “significantly less than an hour” before it began, said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “How much of that would come from Israeli notification and how much would come from sensors we have in the region, I don’t know.”

There is a difference of opinion between Israel and the United States as to when it will be appropriate to attack Iran. I think both countries agree that it should be before Iran uses its nuclear weapons against Israel–but that is probably the only point of agreement. Israel wants to attack as soon as Iran has all the makings of an atomic bomb and delivery system. President Obama seems to be leaning toward the idea that an attack is appropriate only after Iran has successfully assembled an atomic bomb. Israel thinks (probably correctly) that waiting that long will be signing their own death warrant. Meanwhile, Iran has threatened to target all American bases in the Middle East if it is attacked.

I am not optimistic about finding peace in the Middle East. I don’t think Israel will attack Iran before November unless they feel that President Obama is going to be re-elected. I think they would much rather have Mitt Romney in the White House when they attack. I am also not sure if Israel has the bunker busting bombs needed for a successful attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities. I suspect that the Romney Administration might be more willing to lend them these bombs than the Obama Administration.

I have no explanation for President Obama’s apparent lack of support for Israel. I do think that lack of support may become very obvious if Israel feels it needs to attack Iran before the November election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Impact Of Paul Ryan On The Presidential Campaign

Posted on by

Yesterday Fred Barnes posted an article at the Wall Street Journal explaining how Mitt Romney‘s choice of Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential running mate has impacted the presidential campaign.

The choice of Paul Ryan has moved the future of Medicare to the front of the debate.

The article states:

The economy remains a central issue, as do Mr. Obama’s overall record and Mr. Romney’s past one. But now the looming fiscal crisis, Medicare, and the size and role of government are front and center of the campaign. The presidential contest has been elevated into a clash of big ideas and fundamental differences. Neither presidential candidate, but especially Mr. Obama, could have imagined this. Credit Mr. Ryan.

This shift has been damaging to the president and helpful to Mr. Romney. The slogan of Mr. Obama’s campaign is “Forward,” but he’s become the status-quo candidate. Mr. Romney, having adopted slightly revised versions of Mr. Ryan’s bold plans for reducing spending and reforming Medicare, is now the candidate of change. This might have happened to some extent without Mr. Ryan in the race, but it certainly wasn’t inevitable.

There have been a lot of personal attacks on Mitt Romney from the Obama camp during this campaign. Mitt Romney has been accused of being responsible for the cancer death of someone’s wife, insinuations have been made that there is something unseemly about his wealth, and he has been accused of all sorts of nefarious things. The addition of Paul Ryan to the ticket will not only spread out the attack–it will change to debate to actual substance.

The more Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about issues, the more foolish the President’s minions look when they engage in personal attacks.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fact Checking Paul Ryan’s Plan For Medicare

Posted on by

Fox News posted a story today about the attacks by the Obama campaign against Paul Ryan‘s plan to reform Medicare. It seems as if the plan that the Obama campaign is criticizing is not the right plan!

The article reports:

The president’s accusations largely refer to Ryan’s 2011 plan, ignoring the fact that the House Budget Committee chairman rolled out a different version in 2012 — taking into account Democratic critiques. Though the 2012 plan is more moderate, Obama and his surrogates have all but ignored the newer version as they amp up their accusations against the Romney-Ryan ticket. 

Most glaringly, the campaign has omitted a key point. 

While Ryan’s 2011 plan proposes to give seniors a government payment to buy private insurance, his 2012 plan offers seniors a choice. 

Under the blueprint, seniors could use the payment to buy private insurance or stay in traditional Medicare. 

The bottom line here is simple–Medicare is going broke. Medicare needs to be reformed in order to survive. Taking over $700 billion out of Medicare to fund Obamacare does not help Medicare. We need a serious discussion of how to fix Medicare–not rob it blind to fund more government programs.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Real Cost Of Obamacare

Posted on by

Last week Fox Business posted a story about the cost of Obamacare to businesses. The CEO of Papa John’s Pizza has stated that the cost of Obamacare will be about 11 to 14 cents more per pizza. McDonald’s has stated that Obamacare will cost each of its restaurants between $10,000 and $30,000 depending on whether the employees work full or part-time.

The article reports:

Schnatter (John Schnatter, CEO of Papa John’s Pizza) has made no secret of who he supports for the 2012 election, and said he does not support the health-care overhaul. The pizza mogul hosted a fundraiser for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney at his Louisville, KY home in April. He acknowledged the cost would not impact him as badly as it stands to hurt his smaller counterparts. Papa John’s has a high volume of orders, so therefore it can distribute the costs among its clientele so they won’t feel such a hit.

The Obama Administration has not shown itself to be a friend of small business. The President’s statement of “You didn’t build that” is only one indication of the disdain he has for the entrepreneurs of America. President Obama does not understand that it is the entrepreneurs who have built America and kept it strong. It is time that he was sent out into the private sector to learn that lesson.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Speaking The Truth To The People Who Are Willing To Listen

Posted on by

A elderly friend of mine yesterday told me that Mitt Romney hates old people and that if Mitt Romney becomes President, he will end Medicare. She was not aware of the fact that President Obama has cut Medicare about $700 billion to fund Obamacare (nor was she interested in hearing that). Unfortunately, she will vote in November. But I am not sure she is typical. There were two other senior citizens sitting with us who immediately told her the truth. She didn’t listen, but at least she heard it. That means that three of the four of us knew the truth and will vote accordingly. At least that was good news.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article (and video) of Paul Ryan‘s visit to The Villages in Florida. He was accompanied by his mother, Betty Ryan Douglas.

Here is the video:

The story at Power Line includes a quote from a Power Line reader:

I was at The Villages today to hear Paul Ryan. While waiting for over 2 hours before he spoke, I was struck by conversations in the crowd. It was not about “Protecting and Strengthening Medicare.” In fact, (probably about 75% of the crowd were retirees) most of the conversations were centered on “Protecting and Strengthening America.”

People see this nation adrift! From the “You didn’t build that” comment by Obama to the recent silly Biden comments-this adds to the correct perception that the Obama Administration did not and does not have an answer to get us on the right track!

Senior citizens vote, and most have been around long enough to be able to distinguish truth from fiction. That is my hope for the 2012 election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Is A Time And A Place For Fun–This Is Not It !

Posted on by

This is a campaign ad from the Republican party. It is not a joke–the audio you hear is actually real. I have no problem with having fun and being lighthearted, but this is a presidential campaign that will decide the future of America and American small business. The bottom line here is, “How much freedom do you want as an American citizen?”

This is the video (now on YouTube):

Enhanced by Zemanta