Home » Archive by category "Free Markets"

Eliminate the Corporate Tax

We received another disappointing jobs report Friday, which now continues an annual pattern of ‘jobs report’ disappointments in the beginning of Spring.  Some will blame the sequester, some will blame the tax increases, and some still will find a way to blame George Bush.  It is obvious, however, that four years into our “recovery” a different idea than government spending is needed to create jobs, and get the kind of growth in our economy that we used to get after recessions.  This is why the best jobs program would be to eliminate the tax on romney corpCorporations, and move to a simpler system where all taxes are paid at the individual income level.  This idea solves two problems with our tax code: a perception of fairness; and slow jobs & economic growth. 

Thanks to Warren Buffet and Democrats, there is a complete misunderstanding of why the individual capital gains and dividend rates are lower than those for regular earned income.  Those who understand that these earnings have already been taxed at the corporate level, and involve risk taking, have chosen not to explain it.  The President has used the fact that these rates are lower as a battering ram to mislead people into believing the system is set up against them and unfair.  Stories such as ‘Mitt Romney not paying as high a percentage as someone who works’, helped steer this perception.

The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at 35%.  Politicians have talked of corporate tax reform that would bring this rate down to 25%, while eliminating loopholes.  Even with this idea many countries will still be below ours, such as Ireland whose rate is 12%.  Going to zero would end the competition, since other countries could only match us.  There do need to be safeguards put in place so that C-Corporations are not individuals masquerading as a company (perhaps a 50 person minimum for a C-Corp).  The other types of companies (LLC’s, Sole Proprietor, Partnerships, and S-Corps) are already taxed as personal income.  The revenue loss would be made up by taxing dividends and capital gains at the individual earned income rates.  In other words, rather than having a different (lower) tax on these types of income, the rate would be the same regardless of how your income was earned.  Imagine the flood of companies that will want to relocate to the United States to get the zero rate, and the jobs that will accompany these moves.

When you hear people from all sides of the political spectrum playing the blame game for continued anemic growth and jobs creation, listen if anyone has a solution.  You will hear ideas from the administration with words like investment, infrastructure, education, etc.  Just remember that we have never had a recovery lead by government spending.  Since 1978 there was an understanding among the parties in Washington D.C. that a lower Capital Gains rate spurs investment, which helps the economy.  The current crop of Democrats led by the President would rather engage in class warfare than solve problems.  The idea of eliminating the corporate tax will spur growth, create jobs, and make sure that Warren Buffet the same percentage as his wealthy secretary.

What Cypress Portends for America

Cyprus is a small island country in the Mediterranean.  Their government did something last week that should be a wakeup call to all citizens of debtor nations.  In order to continue to receive support in the form of loans from the European Union, they agreed to tax 10% of all bank deposits.  They later withdrew this idea after public outcry, and it is not clear what their ultimate solution will be.  The reason it is important is that it shows what governments will do when they are desperate.  When the U.S. debt crisis comes, and there are no more buyers of our bonds, our government will take a similar step.

There are many particulars to the problem in Cyprus that are not the same as the United States’ debt problems.  The problem there was caused by the banking system making bad bets on Greek debt.  These differences are important, but it really doesn’t matter how a debt crisis begins they all lead to similar decisioATMns.  What is instrumental is that when confronted with a crisis, the first reaction was not to slash costs, cut employee benefits, or lay people off.  There are no calls to cut retirement programs, or shrink the government.  The reaction was to go get money from those who have it.

Those media outlets that chose to cover this story were quick to put analysts on the air to remark about how FDIC insurance and personal property rights in the Constitution would not allow this type of step to happen here.  FDIC deposit insurance is only a protection in the event that your bank becomes insolvent or declares bankruptcy.  There is nothing in our Constitution that prevents the implementation of an Asset tax.  The Congress can pass a law that grabs a certain % of all deposits in lieu of a later tax return (think withholding).  When the United States cannot sell bonds in order to borrow more than it spends every year, the budget will need to be balanced immediately.  The total assets of the United States amount to roughly $188 Trillion, is it so inconceivable that a future government faced with this situation will just tax assets 1% every year, thus solving their problem? (http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/total-assets-of-the-us-economy-188-trillion-134xgdp/)

How this look into the future relates to the current budget standstill is an interesting exercise.  Republicans are very concerned about the country’s current and mounting debt.  The recent budget put out by the Republican Party gets the budget to balance within ten years.  They also address the future drivers of our debt, namely the entitlement programs of Medicaid and Medicare.  Democrats are not all that concerned about the debt, and have put out a budget that proves this.  They are not that concerned about getting the budget to balance, nor do they choose to address any of the unsustainable entitlement spending.  In a recent interview with ABC news, the President said, “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance.”  Is it just a coincidence that the party which does not want to raise taxes makes hard decisions to bring the budget into balance, while the party that seems to relish raising taxes doesn’t think that balancing the books is all that important?

We have been given a look into how government leaders react to a debt crisis with the events in Cyprus.  They go after who has the money for immediate relief.  Why will our politicians be any different in a debt crisis?  When you need to balance the budget immediately, taxing assets will be sold as the only solution.  This is why Democrats don’t really care if the debt keeps going up, or if we ever solve the long term unfunded liabilities.  They look at America as one giant piggy bank, and when the crisis hits they will be all too happy to act as a hammer to crack it open.

The President Can’t Govern

The President’s history of negotiations with Republicans has led to the remarkable feet of making Washington DC even more dysfunctional.  The President has behaved as if the country is split roughly 80-20 in his favor.  Through his negotiations and public pronouncements he has exploited every opportunity where he has had even the slightest advantage.  This has led to the Republicans slowly but surely coming to the conclusion that they can’t trust him and almost can’t work with him.  This is the man we have just elected for 4 moreMy stapler years. 

Politics is like a sporting event, but governing is more like a business.  Much like sports, winning by 1 point (or getting 50.6% of the vote in the recent election) gets the victory.  After the campaign the dynamics change almost immediately.  The winner needs to start working with the party that he just defeated in order to govern.  The rare exception to this rule came in 2009 when Mr. Obama was working with a majority in the House, as well as a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate of his own party.  This allowed him to govern without regard to the Republican point of view.  This situation lasted for 2 years, and the country received Obamacare as a gift from one party rule.  The next election in 2010 was historic in sweeping Republicans back into power in the House, and restored the balance that requires governing like a business.

In a company there are always conflicts between competing ideas or departments.  It is through the negotiations over these competing ideas that people learn about their ability to deal with those who oppose them.  Does the person push every advantage they have or do they realize that a win-win on an idea will help the company?  Unless someone is fired over the disagreement, these two parties must figure out how to work with each other.  This is not that different from the negotiations that must take place in Washington over completely different ideas of how government should work.  This is not new, but the inability of the current President to seek win-win scenarios is.

A perfect example of this is the recent negotiations over the fiscal cliff, which occurred at the beginning of the year.  This was a scenario where the President had the most leverage, in that, if nothing was resolved every person who paid taxes was going to see an increase.  In the run-up to the final deal there were many ideas floated to cut spending.  Replacing the sequester with other cuts, changing the rate of increase for entitlements, means testing Medicare, or raising the eligibility age for Social Security were all possible.  The President, however, used the fact that he had all of the leverage, and allowed none of it.  He made the Republicans swallow hard on a deal that only contained tax increases, extending unemployment, and with zero cuts in spending.  He won.

There is a different dynamic now in place with the sequester.  If nothing is done, spending will be cut, so the leverage is now with the Republicans.  Has the President acknowledged that he needs to deal with the republicans, and been humbled by his lack of leverage?  No. He has decided that he likes it better when the negotiations are winner-take-all, like an election.  This is why in recent weeks, rather than negotiating, he has been campaigning.  These campaign stops have been just like an election with staged events, human props, and scare tactics.  He is doing this even though the most recent election results show that we are roughly a 50-50 country, and his opponents can’t be fired for nearly 2 years.

The President enjoys sports, and as proof we will soon be subjected to the Presidential Bracket with the start of the NCAA Basketball Tournament (a tradition he began).  He, however, has almost no experience dealing with coequals in business.  He was elected to govern, and he simply can’t do it.  To come to this conclusion a little over a month into his second four year term is a bit disconcerting.  Years from now, perhaps when the looming debt crisis is upon us, people will look back on this time and say that we should have solved the problem of our mounting debt.  Perhaps with the passage of time the people will finally point the finger at this President. 

Name That Tax Increase

The weather channel made a unilateral decision this season to start naming winter storms.  The large snowstorms called Nemo and Plato are recent examples of this.  Their argument is that this is a better way to communicate about an upcoming storm and track the destruction, such as has been used for hurricanes for decades.  Some may think that this is silly and unnecessary.  If this helps communicate the impending doom and devastation of a Hurricane or Winter Storm then what is the harm?

obama whisperWe can take a lesson from this rather than scoff at it.  If naming dangerous devastating events is helpful from a communication standpoint, why can’t it be used to warn about the upcoming damage of a proposed tax increase?  Or track its devastation after the fact as we sort through the wreckage that raising taxes causes.  The estimated cost of Hurricane Sandy was over $50 billion.  The cost for Katrina was over $100 billion.  Meanwhile the devastating cost of the January Obama tax increase is $650 billion over the next ten years.  The cost to the economy is so harmful that it’s like a hurricane every year forever!  Since he is so proud of it, a good name for this demoralizing tax increase should be “Tax Storm Barack”.

The news media should track the destruction from “Tax Storm Barack”, much like they would a hurricane.  The tax increase primarily was directed at the wealthy, such as business owners.  These wealthy are similar to the people who live closest to the coast in a hurricane, in that, they are only the first hit by the storm.  Coverage of the effects could be interviews with unemployed people who remained unemployed, since businesses never hired them after the tax increase.  Maybe they could visit yacht manufacturers and talk about the reduction in orders, or turn cameras on a Mercedes showroom where a salesman is asked about his prospects of making his quota this month.  Maybe there is a pro golfer who has laid-off a secretary who can be interviewed.  There should be a large on-screen banner that is labeled “Tax Storm Barack Devastation!”.  They would also have to do follow-ups every month, because the damage keeps hitting as long as the tax increase is in place.

The President wants to increase taxes to avoid the March 1st sequester, so the media needs to start warning about the upcoming storm.  This naming idea needs to have a mechanism to warn about the impending doom.  Along the lines of naming a Tropical Depression, perhaps Tax Depression could be used.  This could also act as a warning that an actual Depression could ensue if the warnings are not heeded.  Since we need to use a different name for each Tax Storm, why not use Harry (for the Senate majority leader) for this one.  Stories could start to be written now about “Tax Depression Harry”, so the citizens could be mobilized to ward off the storm.  If the Republicans fail to hold the line, it will naturally turn into “Tax Storm Harry”.  Names should be simple enough to line up based on seniority in the Democratic leadership, so Nancy could be next.  Maybe there could be some honorary titles like Al or Bill, so older Democrats don’t miss out on the dishonor.  Democrats never run out of tax increase ideas, so there will be plenty of naming of Depressions and Storms opportunities to go around.

Don’t react to the naming of winter storms by thinking it is unnecessary or silly.  Learn from what it tells us about how to communicate to the American people.  This technique can be used to educate the public about the devastating ideas the Democratic Party has for our country.  If this technique can help explain that tax increases are bad, it will be a start. 

Smart Grid is Kinda Dumb

Smart Grid is one of those phrases that everyone likes the sound of, but know little about.  What is the Smart Grid?  On the surface it would seem it is like the electric grid we have now, only better.  Wikipedia says…”A smart grid is an electrical grid that uses information and communications technology to gather and act on information, such as information about the behaviors of suppliers and consumers, in an automated fashion to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid)  Wow, that sounds great when do we start? electrocuted man

Whenever “experts” are interviewed about this they concentrate on the supply chain “smartness”, but they rarely dwell on the demand solutions of the “Smart Grid”.  Supply chain changes are very good, in that they reroute supply of energy on the fly, to make sure the grid stays electrified.  The demand side is where manufacturers install devices on your appliances, so the Public Utility can control them.  This is said to be necessary if you as the consumer are using more than your fair share of electricity, and more is needed for high priority customers.  So the solution to not enough power, is to ration who gets the power.

An early sign that we are headed in this direction is PSE&G’s (NJ utility) Cool Customer Program.  There may be similar programs being rolled out throughout the country.  It is said to “Save energy…save money…and help the environment at the same time.  An easy, voluntary way to manage your home energy use in the summer…and all year round.”  This voluntary program gives you a setback thermostat, and a $50 credit on your bill.   This sounds like an awesome program, since the setback thermostat is worth over $200.  If you read more of the details, they let you know how you get to save the environment too.  On those particularly hot days when the utility does not have enough supply of electricity to satisfy their customers, THEY TURN OFF YOUR AIR CONDITIONING!  Just think how much energy you will save when they cycle off your air conditioning every 15 minutes.  They assure you that this will only happen on the hottest days of the year.

Why wait for manufacturers to install the monitoring devices on your dishwasher, when Air Conditioning is one of the heaviest uses of electricity.  It is not surprising that this is the earliest demand target.  If there are not enough volunteers, however, we can logically assume where this program goes next.  Phase two probably makes the set back thermostat required in order to receive power.  Phase three is when they just come and take away your air conditioner.  Phase four they have another family move into your house.  You are probably using more than your fair share of electricity anyway.

In the old days, price would regulate the use of products such as electricity.  If you use more, you pay more.  Markets would lead us to the right balance between supply and demand.  As the price goes up, we find cheaper energy, or invent more efficient ways to use it.  This does not seem to be enough anymore.  ‘If we are to save the environment we must force people to behave a certain way’, seems to be the vision.  The standard solution to every problem out of government, or quasi-government such as public utilities, is more control and less freedom.    

Let’s Get China

The current administration has recently filed a complaint with the WTO (World Trade Organization) against China for unfair trade.  This relates to its subsidies and tariffs for its auto industry.  Due to the fact that it is China, and an election year there has been much political coverage on this story.  Michigan and Ohio, which have a high concentration of auto related jobs, are key states that are important in the election.  Mr. Romney has criticized the President about how we are not holding China accountable for their government involvement in what should be a free trade competitive industry.  This issue, and who appears to be stronger on it, could determine the next President.  Due to the political story, however, there has been little analysis of the specific issues of the case. 

Some of the recent steps of unprecedented government intervention in the local auto industry are as follows.  They invested over $30 billion into their top car manufacturer in the country, taking a majority share of ownership.  A government panel was appointed to come in and restructure the company.  This government run panel fired and replaced the CEO, closed dealerships to focus more on exports, and gave them unusually lucrative tax breaks. They even violated their own longstanding laws by shortchanging investors in favor of local workers.  They basically broke every rule in the book, and then burned the book.  The government still owns more than 25% of this company, and refuses to sell its shares.

The entity that I am describing in the details above, is in fact the United States government, not China.  These are the steps taken by the Obama administration in the auto market over the last 4 years.  If we add in the cash that the government has used to “invest” in GMAC and Chrysler, the amount is actually $38 billion.  The actual complaint filed with the WTO is that the Chinese government through subsidizes and tariffs has funded their auto industry to the tune of $4 billion.  They are being accused of doing 10.5% as much as we did.  Imagine working at the WTO, and seeing this complaint come across your desk.  Do they have an “Are You Nuts!” stamp? 

Americans have a general misunderstanding of the benefits of free trade to begin with, but our President should know better.  Politically it always seems to work well to target China for unfair trade.  Mr. Romney may want to also file absurd complaints about unfair trade, but we are only allowed one foolish President at a time.  There may be some legitimate cases, but this is not one of them.  Actually he should feel lucky that every foreign country that makes cars doesn’t file a claim against us.  Maybe we can make an unfair filing complaint for China subsidizing their solar industry next.  I hope the WTO hasn’t heard of stimulus or Solyndra.

Were We Going to Run Out of Cars?

It is obvious from the Democratic convention this week that the Obama campaign believes that their intervention in the failure of GM and Chrysler was a positive.  They seem to be making the case that without the administration making a deal while ignoring the rules of bankruptcy law, GM and Chrysler wouldn’t exist now.  All kinds of companies go in and out of bankruptcy without any interruption in service.  Just look at the airlines, at any point in time there is an airline reorganizing and coming out of Chapter 11.  American Airlines is involved in it right now.  More importantly these orderly bankruptcies are done without taxpayer money.  The issue isn’t one of saving jobs, it is the use of tax dollars and changing the rules everyone else must follow. 

A recent report to Congress from the administration has pegged the GM bailout at $25 Billion.  If you add this to the bailout of Chrysler, and Ally financial (the old GMAC), the total comes in around $38 billion. Even if liquidation was a possibility, and the government wanted to help those dislocated we could have gotten away much cheaper.  At 100,000 jobs (the true number at these companies) we could have closed the doors and given every employee a $100 grand stipend while they look for work, and saved $28 billion.  We then wouldn’t be stuck with the possible risk of having to bail them out again when they prove that they can’t seem to make cars that people want to buy while maintaining enough profit to stay in business. In fact this was Chrysler’s second time (1979 federal loan guarantee) at the taxpayer trough.   At least this time they got sold off to Fiat so the next time they screw up perhaps it will be Italy’s problem.

It is a misnomer that this intervention is called the auto bailout.  Ford, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes & VW did not need any government money.  It is also a mistake to compare this to the financial industry bailout.  There certainly were flaws there as well, but at least you could say that it was systemic problem.  In other words, most banks were affected by the downturn, which cannot be said for the automakers.  Lost in all of the analysis of this bailout was the most important question that was never asked.  Was there a risk we were going to run out of cars?  Is there any doubt that if GM or Chrysler had actually been wiped out that the other carmakers would have stepped up production to fill the void?  The market demands a certain number of cars.  These would likely have been produced in American plants since they all have plants here.  Perhaps this would have led to no net job losses.

We have two car makers who have proven that they cannot compete when times get tough.  The current administration believes that intervening in the market, playing favorites, changing the laws, and spending a fortune to save these failed companies is a good idea.  If a company can no longer provide for their customers, the market forces them to deal with that reality.  Intervening delays the inevitable, confuses others as to the rules they must follow, doesn’t save net jobs, and burdens taxpayers unnecessarily.  The fact that this act can be used as a positive for the President running for reelection is a testament to the lack of economic understanding in the electorate.

Bush Tax Cuts Caused the Recession?

The Democratic Party, led by President Obama, is making the argument that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused the recession of 2008.  Some campaign talking points are…“Driving us in a ditch…We’ve tried their way and it didn’t work…Tax cuts for the wealthy led to the recession…Returning to the failed policies of the past”.  The tax cuts were a provable overwhelming success in terms of the resulting economy.  They led to good sustainable growth, and a low unemployment rate.  Are we to believe that these cuts were some sort of Trojan horse that looked great for 5 years, but snuck up and bit us in year 6?  In fact the President extended them for 2 years in 2010, and is interested in extending them for 98% of Americans now.  Why would he allow such a destructive policy to continue if it caused a recession?  Why isn’t he asked this when he talks about the failed policies of the past?

The Bush Tax cuts had the same effect on the economy that the Reagan, Kennedy, and Harding/Coolidge tax cuts had. They created sustained economic growth and jobs. The facts are as follows…

Year                            GDP Growth Rate                              Unemployment Rate

2003                                        2.5%                                                    6.0%

2004                                        3.9%                                                    5.5%

2005                                        3.2%                                                    5.1%

2006                                        2.8%                                                    4.6%

2007                                        2.0%                                                    4.6%

These statistics are readily available at government websites, and could take as long as 10 minutes to research.  It is bad enough that the Democrats are trying to gain political advantage by ignoring facts.  It is, however, unacceptable that people in the media would propagate this falsehood when the facts are easily available.  The housing crisis caused the recession.  Unqualified people were able to get mortgages for little or no money down.  When the price of the house went down, the mortgage went underwater.  Banks packaged these mortgages in investments, and when people started defaulting on their loans it brought the financial system to the brink of collapse.  This failed policy of the past is still going on under this president.  The FHA still has its 3.5% down payment mortgages going out the door. 

The media and the democrats ignore these statistics so they can continue to deny the effectiveness of tax cuts, when it comes to economic growth and job creation.  Acknowledging these facts would also force us to look at the real reasons for the crisis.  Liberals in the press love to blame the banks for the housing crisis.  They were not without blame, but they just took a bad policy and accelerated it by creating investments that bet on these bad loans.  This is like blaming the driver of a car for an accident when the government mandates TNT be put in the gas tank.

The President wants to blame tax cuts for the recession when he and Democrats have not recommended any changes to the policy that was the root cause of the crisis.  At the same time he has endorsed almost completely, the tax cuts that he rails about.  The media has really dropped the ball in terms of pointing out the incoherence of these arguments.  It is left to the Romney campaign and outside groups to get this message out, so we don’t make the mistake of leaving the dipsticks in charge in Washington.

Romney Should Stop Running from his Wealth

Obama operatives and willing members of the media are making a big issue of the fact that Mitt Romney hasn’t made public more than his most recent tax returns.  This is pushing a campaign theme of theirs that Romney is super rich, with his offshore bank accounts and car elevators.  They are trying to portray the President as some working class guy who understands you, and Romney is some rich guy who can’t relate.  This argument should be revealed as the fraud that it is.

The President has an estimated net worth of roughly $10.5 million, while Mitt Romney’s wealth is over $200 million.  The administration puts out proposals which treat anyone who earns $250,000 is the same as Warren Buffet.  The same majority of Americans who lump these two groups together would probably consider both candidates rich.  This information needs to be part of the public debate.  The Obama campaign would be forced to argue that our guy is just rich, their guy is super rich.  This distinction without a difference, in the eyes of most voters, should be exploited by the Romney campaign.

Mr. Romney has been running for president for 6 years, and the cat is out of the bag in terms of his wealth.  Having run for this long, he should also be prepared to release at least that many years of returns.  He should accompany this release of information with a speech that addresses the issue.  Leaking to the press what the speech is about should even get liberal media outlets to cover it.  MSNBC headline… “Up next…Mitt Romney comes clean on his wealth.”

During the speech he should confirm the rumor that he is rich.  He should repeatedly refer to the president and himself as “members of a fortunate group of Americans, part of the 1%, two of a kind, etc.”  He should make it clear that Americans like himself and the President, have a special obligation to give something back to the country that has made each of them members of the top 1%.  The speech should then be capped off by a promise that he will donate his entire salary when he becomes President to charity.  To go further, he should suggest that when he is convinced that taxpayer money is being spent wisely, and without waste, he will donate his salary to paying down the national debt.

This should accomplish a few things, all of them good.

-          It will take the issue of “what is Romney hiding” off the table.

-          Romney’s charitable donations of over $3 million per year will be highlighted.

-          It will help frame the President as also in the wealthy 1% category with Mr. Romney, neutralizing the issue.

-          It will generate a belief that the President is a hypocrite.

-          There may be some foolish media types who will try to explain how Mr. Obama’s $10 million is not rich.  This is a winning discussion for the Romney campaign.

-          It will generate questions for Mr. Obama about why he doesn’t donate his salary.

-          It will highlight the huge debt that the President has presided over.

-          It brings attention to government inefficiency, which plays into Romney as a “Mr. Fix-it” such as his work at Bain Capital, rescue of the Salt Lake City Olympics, etc.

It is proper to concentrate on the economy, but sidetrack issues must be addressed as well.  There are so many false and misleading statements that are put out by the Obama campaign, which are easy to turn against them.  For Mr. Romney to be successful he must respond, and turn these issues to his advantage.

Don’t Forget How Hard it Was

These are difficult times we are living through.  Unemployment is stubbornly high above 8%.  The country has produced less than 100,000 net jobs each of the last 3 months.  The growth rate is anemic at less than 2%.  The country’s huge debt is hanging over our heads, and Washington seems unable to address these or any other problems.  People are coming to terms with idea that there is a “new normal”, with experts telling us we must lower our expectations when it comes to the country’s and our own financial success.  We all need to start talking to our friends about how they must burn in their memory the difficulty of this moment in time.  This is the best way to combat the fact that the booming economy 1 year from now will look like it was so easy to achieve after about 6 months of a Romney presidency.

The current President has blamed everyone and everything for the weak economic recovery.  George W. Bush, tsunamis, earthquakes, the euro crisis, the debt ceiling negotiations, rich people, and greedy businesses headline his list of culprits.  The real fault lies in his failure to realize what most former presidents understood and Calvin Coolidge put this way, “The chief business of the American people is business.”  If you spend most of your presidency implementing new taxes, new regulations, new costs, and new obligations on business, they will become cautious.  When you run for reelection, and promise to double down on more of the same, they will almost completely stop hiring or investing.  This is what has led to the probability that Mitt Romney will be elected President of the United States.

Let’s track where we are headed in the next year.  This will be a very divisive campaign to endure.  With the amount of money being raised, and the incumbent becoming desperate it will get very ugly.  The economy, stock market, and attitude in the country will get worse before they get better.  The President will point to republicans, upcoming droughts, hurricanes, and perhaps locusts for the still stagnant economy.  There will be a moment, when the majority of people will believe that Romney will win.  The positive signs will start in the stock market before the actual election, and it should accelerate right after election day.  This rise will be improperly historically credited to President Obama, but it will be the first sign of optimism in the economy.  After Inauguration Mr. Romney will start tackling the hard problems before our country, but it will be the ending of attacks on business that will spur our economic growth.  The liberal media may be tempted to call business leaders racist for not taking risks under President Obama, but will probably just decide to report the narrative of how easy the recovery was.

The condition of our economy is pretty awful right now, and the President is blaming whoever or whatever he can think of.  The American people seem to realize that an excuse for failure is not the same as success and will vote accordingly.  Next year there will be hurricanes & floods, Greece or other countries may leave the Euro, and yet our economy will be humming due to leadership that understands how business works.  The turn will be very quick as confidence returns to the greatest economy ever.  Don’t let your friends forget what it was like a very short time ago.  When a Democrat tries to make the argument that it was easy to get the economy going, turn to them and say, “You’re right we just had to change Presidents.”

Hidden Secret Revealed A simple strategy to trade stocks is uncovered!