Obama increases lead by 6 points-Romney drops 2 points

While the GOP convention did little for Mitt Romney—no doubt because neither he nor Paul Ryan had anything to say—it pushed Barack Obama to a new high of 52% to Romney’s 46% in a CNN/ORC poll.  The poll, taken Monday, shows who had the strongest convention, providing the most substance in what they plan to do for the country.  Obama was tied with Romney prior to the conventions. 

Obama also exceeded Romney in fundraising bringing in $114 million compared to $111 million in recent contributions.  Following the Republican convention, Romney’s favorable rating increased to 53%, dropping right after Charlotte to 48%.  51% of likely voters felt that Obama has the best outlook for running the country compared to Romney’s 41%.  There was a switch of who had the most targeted plan to help America; after Charlotte, Obama now 45%, Romney 39%.

OK, polls are like people, they are fickle as all get out.  But what I have heard from most political pundits is that at least they measure the pulse of the moment, and we are talking about a well-known pollster in CNN/ORC.  And the “moment” this poll recorded was how the American public felt after two conventions, each representing an opposite side of the political spectrum.  It would indicate that the voters, at least for the moment, think Obama is best for the country.

Just before the convention, Obama and Romney were tied at 48%.  That shows there was little enthusiasm for the GOP candidate following Tampa which would indicate to me that Romney and Ryan either didn’t get across their message or they conveyed the wrong message.  Either way, it means that Republicans are stumbling down the homestretch with a campaign that is beginning to sound like the shallow charade it is, particularly to Independents and undecideds.

As an example, all the way back to Paul Ryan’s dismantling of Medicare and a national budget that even George W. Bush said was irresponsible, to the current Medicare version from Romney that still throws Seniors under the bus, so many details are left out that most have no idea what he would really do.  It is that uncertainty that is driving many undecided voters over to the Democrats.  In President Obama’s case he would stick with the plan but with some revisions.

On the personal side, the Democrats in Charlotte tanked Romney’s gains from Tampa sending them from a post convention number of 53% to 48% after the end of the Dems convention.  Obama also came away with a better comfort zone on leading the country in the future with 51% compared to Romney’s 41%.  And men were more supportive of Democrats in the poll most likely due to the fact that Obama saved the auto industry and was responsible for bin Laden’s death.

The Bloomberg National Poll in June measured how the public feels Obama is doing in the running of the country.  45% said they were better off compared to 36% who said they were worse off.  The balance remained the same or were just undecided.  Just before President Obama was elected in 2008, 89% of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track compared to 62% today.  All these figures are a mandate for the job Barack Obama has done in office.

Back in July Romney said he would repeal Obama’s Affordable Care Act to make way for real healthcare reform.  Today the candidate says he would keep parts of “Obamacare.”  Yet more flip-flopping on healthcare dating back to his passage of a very similar law as Gov. of Massachusetts, then to the repeal of Obama’s Act, to now keeping certain provisions.  The man obviously has no idea what he really wants to do as President and it is beginning to show up more in the polls.

SPECIAL SATURDAY REPORT: Democratic National convention a series of high points



Presiden6t Obama



Let’s get the latest jobs report out of the way first.  Not the best but not the worst.  Only 96,000 jobs added in August compared to 150,000 needed.  Almost 400,000 people dropping out of the job market, mostly age 16 to 24, giving up looking for a job.  My question here is what percentage of this group stopped looking to go back to school?  The unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%, primarily attributed to the 400,000 dropouts.

But knowing just what percent of that figure was to return to school could tell us how much of that .02 drop is valid.  Even one point would show success.  And another positive in the report is the fact that the jobs market improved for workers age 25 to 55, the backbone of the economy.  The unemployment rate for that group fell from 7.2% to 7.1%, which is extremely encouraging news.  A better report would have been welcomed by Obama but he can live with what he got.

Michelle Obama

Now to the convention itself.  David Gergen said on CNN following the Julian Castro, Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton talks: “It is possible that the electorate is so severely polarized at the moment that even a smashing convention or a smashing first debate can't really move the needle.”  All three of the above were smashing-plus and the President did on Thursday night just what he had to do.  Rebecca Sinderbrand says Obama hit the marks he needed.

He acknowledged that things aren’t “rosy.”  He didn’t say it but I will.  Barack Obama inherited the worst mess in the American economy and government since FDR’s Great Depression of 1932 and the New Deal.  Add to that the constant bickering and stonewalling of the President’s proposals by the GOP, with persistent refusals to this day to negotiate on most issues, once resulting in almost bringing down the U.S. economy.  Don’t forget this when you vote.



Bill Clinton



Obama had to look to the future and show us how his way would get us to our goals creating more jobs with overall economical improvements.  As an example of the things that can be done, he cited his rescue of the auto industry that has now saved 1.45 million jobs, and lowering taxes on the middle class to lift the burden they now face.  The Affordable Care Act, which will bring health care to 30 million Americans who desperately need it and free up emergency rooms.

In these cases, Mitt Romney would not have bailed out auto, would only lower taxes on the middle class with a huge decrease on the wealthy, and he and Ryan have  both vowed to repeal the health care bill.

The President told swing voters that he will work with Republicans in bipartisan efforts, reminding us that just last summer he negotiated with the GOP to cut $1 trillion in spending.  But he insisted it had to be a two-sided affair.  In the same vein he vowed not to approve new breaks for the wealthy, saying, “I refuse to go along with that. And as long as I'm President, I never will."  In a CBS/NYT poll recently, 65% of respondents said that the wealthy should be taxed more.

President Obama's full speech:

Michelle Obama talked about her husband’s personal side, painting a man who throughout all the trials and tribulations he has been put through, is the same strong person she knew in 2008, with the same goals and ideals for the country he had then.  During her speech, the President stayed home in Washington to see his daughters off on their first day of school.  If that picture of him with the girls watching Michelle doesn’t show family values, then nothing does.

V.P. Joe Biden

Vice President Joe Biden took us inside the White House saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm here to tell you what I think you already know, that, I watch it up close, bravery resides in the heart of Barack Obama and, time and time again, I witnessed him summon it.”  He added, "This man has courage in his soul, compassion in his heart and a spine of steel…”  Then the classic, "Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive!"

  

Of Bill Clinton’s talk, David Gergen said, “…he did what no other Democrat has done well: he saw the vulnerable holes in the Romney-Ryan budget plan and drove a Mack truck through them.”  CNN’s David Rothkopf said about Clinton, Obama “…is no doubt grateful for the brilliance with which Clinton defended his policies, the deftness with which he sliced up Mitt Romney with a razor made of finely honed, carefully forged praise for his Republican predecessors.”

In another article by Rebecca Sinderbrand, she commented on the 48 minute speech which some say was one-half ad-lib, saying it hit just about every item on the Obama “wish list.”  As an example:

• Appeal to the persuadable who cite bipartisanship as a key quality

• Re-frame Romney without alienating bipartisanship-worshipping swing voters

• Push back on the GOP's welfare attack

• Cast Obama as his ideological heir and most likely to bring back the Clinton boom years

You can read more about each in the above link.  Most interesting, I think, is how the legacy of the Clinton boom years was so carefully handed down to Obama, if the country re-elects him in November, and the GOP changes its policy of “no” to everything he proposes and begins to negotiate.  Also interesting will be the bump(s) the President gets from the convention.  One point, not a chance.

GOP Party Platform the height of arrogance on gun rights

When you think you have reached the epitome of gun rights demands by the gun nuts—they, along with the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), have gutted gun control laws for the last few years—here comes an election and the Republicans are demanding even broader gun rights.  I can’t imagine what is left to gain other than the possibility that we establish an open air market where anyone can go, 24/7, and purchase a gun, taking it anywhere they want to.

Romney VP, Paul Ryan "packing"

I can see it now.  On the front row of displays will be an assortment of assault weapons and magazine clips that hold 100 or more rounds.  Behind that an array of handguns designed to kill with just one shot.  All for self-defense, of course.  Gun vendors would exclaim how the NRA has finally won its battle for gun rights and from now on everyone from Paul Ryan to a James Holmes can own the weapon of his or her choice and do with it as they choose.  NRA Nirvana.

To hell with human life like the lives lost in gun carnage from Columbine to the Wisconsin Sikh Temple.  And these are just the ones that get the attention.  Look at Chicago recently; hardly a day goes by without multiple killings.  Since March I have documented shootings in the U.S. with results of 1,056 shootings leaving 432 dead; these figures are very conservative coming only from the media.  The CDC reports 31,347 gun deaths annually, 10.2 per 100,000 population.

The above alone is reason enough to re-elect Barack Obama, even though he hasn’t come out forcefully enough for gun control, while at the same time knowing we will get nothing, zero, from the Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan gang.

Gun control advocates call it an “audacious” answer to those calling for more regulation after the mass shootings.  I call it pure disdain for those killed and wounded at the mercy of loose guns, and a highly insulting slap in the face to one of their own, Gabby Giffords, former U.S. Representative from Arizona who was severely wounded in the 2011 Tucson massacre where 6 died and 13 more injured.  By guns.  It is this kind of Bizarre thinking that kills Americans daily.

NY Sen. Chuck Schumer on Democrats and gun control:

Dan Gross, Pres. Of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence laments that by pushing this gun rights platform, The GOP have, "put themselves farther out of touch with their constituents."  In a Pew Research Poll following the Aurora, Colo. movie shooting, 47% of Americans favored more gun control compared to 46% who don’t.  With those figures, and considering the firearms bloodbaths in 2012 alone, any thinking individual knows that something must be done.

Does that mean the NRA and its members and supporters don’t think?  Their ability in this area is questionable, but the real reason is they just don’t care.  These gun fanatics value their arsenals over human life and this is despicable.

On July 24, 4 days after the Aurora, Colo. shooting, The White House hinted that President Obama might address the gun control issue.  His spokesman Jay Carney even recapped Obama’s support for an assault weapons ban.  But just 2 days before this Jay Carney was reported as saying the President doesn’t believe new gun control laws are needed.  And in a later statement in August, Carney insisted the problem isn’t guns, it’s violence.

Where the hell does Carney and the President think the violence comes from?  This bullshit about guns don’t kill, people do, is just that, bullshit.  It takes a person to pull the trigger and the reason there are so many triggers to pull is the GOP conservatives, prodded with money from the NRA, repeatedly loosen gun laws.

The Democratic convention started this week and the platform does have some mention of gun control, as follows: “Guns: We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms.”  See the whole platform here.

But a headline in the Charlotte Observer on Monday read, “Don’t wimp out on gun-control platform,” with a subhead of “Democrats, let’s see a platform that pushes for more limits.”  In other words, they didn’t do enough. 

The author questions why the NRA thinks the President is the “most anti-gun president in modern times,” followed by a quote from the article saying, “Obama hasn’t proposed any anti-gun legislation during his first term, and his talk about gun control has been almost non-existent these last four years.”  I think we would be elated to hear something from Obama on gun control in his address tonight.  But we all will be satisfied if he just does something about it in his 2^nd term.

Can we supplement Social Security with junk mail?

More on this concept later but it is important to note first that, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll on public attitudes about Social Security, “…53 percent of adults said they would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for future generations.”  Keep in mind that this is today’s adults thinking about their kids and grandchildren.  There are 36% that would cut benefits and most of us would agree that are the radical conservatives, including primarily the Tea Party.

To help balance the SS budget, another “…53 percent said they would raise the retirement age, while 35 percent said they would cut monthly payments.”  Because many low income seniors depend entirely on SS as their sole means of income, an across the board cut here would not be fair.  But Social Security is one of those American institutions that we have come to expect; sorta like setting a legal precedent that guides a court in their decisions.

Now the GOP would have us believe there are ways to play with SS and make it better.  Republican supposed genius, V.P. contender Paul Ryan, presented a plan in 2005 to privatize Social Security in a way that brought such a colossal price tag that even the Bush administration called it “irresponsible.”  Further, he wants to reduce the amount of money paid out overtime leaving seniors in the lurch when costs go up.  All because of a refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy.

47% said they trust President Obama to handle SS better than Mitt Romney at 44%.  Although Romney is against raising taxes on the higher incomes, he is for slowing the growth of benefits for those with higher incomes.  In 2008 Obama said he would raise the level on Social Security payroll tax from $110,100 to $250,000.  It is obvious that what is needed is a combination of increased taxes with program adjustments, and perhaps some limitation of benefits. 

The Young Turks on Social Security one year ago:

Only 20% of young adults (those under 35) think that SS will be there for them when they retire.  And this is where that wild idea of mind came into being some seven to eight years ago that we could supplement Social Security income in the future using some of the profits the junk mail list industry makes from the sale of your name and personal data.  I know this because I spent 35 years in junk mail selling you name and private information making a lot of money.

By my estimates—and this is because junk mailers refuse to release to the public just how much they make from what should be your personal property—the list industry grosses over $4 billion every year from you name and personal data.  I came up with a formula back in 2004 to determine what would happen if one-half of that $4 billion was placed in a simple interest-bearing account in the early stages of your working career that you could tap at age 65.

The outcome was that junk mail shoppers could supplement their retirement income by an average of $607 per month.  Since a majority of Americans do buy regularly through mail order, they would automatically enrolled in the program.  Plus, when the advantages of this program were noted by the balance of the population, junk mailers would naturally add new customers.  Those people remaining would then be more manageable for the feds.

In 2008, nearly 40% of retirees received their income from Social Security.  Maybe it is this group where junk mail supplement should be most applied, using some kind of formulation for fairness.  Another 19% have pensions and annuities, 23.7% from earnings, 15.4% from other assets such as IRAs.  However, in low-income households, 87.6 of their income came from Social Security, another profile the junk mail supplement should favor.

In all cases, high incomes and the wealthy would be eliminated from receiving the supplements.  These conditions combined would easily increase the $607 monthly figure for others.  

FDR signs SS Act in 1934

What we have agreed on here is the fact that we want to save Social Security and most of us prefer that it stays close to its current format.  Yes, we have to attack the two biggest drains on the economy, SS and Medicare, but we don’t have to take a scalpel to it as the GOP would have us do.  A junk mail supplement may be a far out answer to the problem but, then, Social Security was considered unparalleled when FDR signed the SS Act in 1934.

I want the next President to do something about gun violence

We all know that would not be Mitt Romney, particularly with Paul Ryan as his Vice President.  And President Barack Obama has been sorely lacking in his support for even banning assault rifles again along with high capacity magazines.  So what do we do?  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is this nation’s strongest advocate for gun control through his organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, but he already turned the job down in the past.

The NRA "elephant in the room"

I am a solid supporter of Barack Obama but if he doesn’t get the balls to come out of the closet for gun control after the recent mass shootings, I have to reassess my support.  Enough is enough and the President knows it but is afraid the NRA will doom his second term if he suddenly does what is right.  I did two posts on confirmed results that the NRA really cannot influence an election to the extent they claim.  You can see Part 1, Part 2.

Anyway there is additional evidence that the NRA myth isn’t true.  Gun control supporters from both parties have won Senate and House seats: 

Republicans include Sen. Mark Kirk in Illinois, Sen. Dan Coats in Indiana; these two even picked off Democratic seats.  For the Democrats, Senators Barbara Boxer in California; Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand from New York.  Ron Wyden in Oregon, Barbara Mikulski in Maryland and Daniel Inouye in Hawaii; Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Michael Bennet in Colorado and Chris Coons in Delaware.

Why Mitt Romney, especially Paul Ryan, must be defeated:

Erin Capuano in a Digital Journal op-ed asks how the 2^nd Amendment has been distorted to “commit crimes and make money for the gun lobbyists?”  And the answer to that I have been talking about for years is that the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) led by Wayne LaPierre has put the fear of God in Congress and the White House that they can be easily replaced if they don’t play wacky Wayne’s game. 

She claims that amid yearly increases in gun violence and homicides, “gun laws are stripped away state by state.”

Capuano reviews the arguments over the 2^nd Amendment and how the Bill of Rights was written at a time when a new democracy was being created and there were threats of tyrannical governments and military run states, all of which has long since vanished years ago.  But wacky Wayne has hung his hat on the 2^nd Amendment and will no doubt hold on until they take it from his cold dead hands.  Yes, Charlton Heston was just as looney as LaPierre is.

The op-ed writer says “The NRA has been the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing for generations…” talking about their support for the rights of gun owners in a crusade that has repeatedly placed the right to own a gun and take it anywhere over human life.  Just look at the figures she provides from the latest year broken down, 2008, of firearms murder victims:

·       Handguns – 6,755

·       Rifles - 375

·       Shotguns - 444

·       Other not specified or type unknown - 79

·       Firearms, type not stated – 1,831

Grand Total 2008 – 9,484 deaths by firearms.

In 2010 there were 8,775 murders using guns and none of the above includes the wounded.  Take a look at my U.S. Shootings Report for July which started listing “woundings” in June, and also with links back to March.  There’s more in Capuano’s op-ed comparing gun homicides in the U.S. with those in Canada where the gun laws are much stronger. 

She closes with, “We can have stricter gun laws while still allowing people to own guns, we can limit the amount of guns that people own, the type of guns that they are able to own and where and when they are able to have those guns and use them.”  This statement should be an excellent place for the White House or someone in Congress to start the drive for more gun regulation. 

There has to be an American public now that sympathizes after the recent mass shootings.  If not, American gun deaths will continue to escalate.

Paul Ryan is the perfect vice president for President Obama

Think I’ve lost my mind?  A staunch liberal and progressive like me promoting a stalwart conservative, and Tea Party darling, like Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin for vice president has to have an underlying motive.  Well, of course I do, and of course I don’t mean Ryan as a running mate for Barack Obama, but rather for Mitt Romney who has just chosen Ryan to share the campaign trail with him.  In my opinion it basically cinches a win for Obama in November.



Paul Ryan helps another Senior Citizen

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said Romney’s V.P. decision is bad news for the middle class, a large voting bloc.  She says by adopting Ryan’s budget plan, Romney has thrown, “…seniors under the bus and undermined their health security by ending Medicare as we know it. It would increase health care cost for seniors, including those on fixed income, by thousands of dollars a year.”  Refusing to raise taxes, they have put ideology ahead of the general public.

Brazile thinks Romney has turned into, “…the most extreme conservative candidate we have had in generations.”  Good for the kooks on the severe right, including the Tea Party, but it will lose the Independents for the Bobbsey Twins, especially those in the swing states.  While Obama scored with moves to save the economy from depression like rescuing the auto industry, the health care bill, eliminating Osama bin Laden, Ryan was working with House Speaker John Boehner pushing America to the edge of financial disaster.

John King reporting on CNN says that Ryan’s latest budget plan would: “…curb growing deficits by slashing domestic programs and lowering tax rates for individuals and businesses. The Medicare eligibility age would rise from 65 to 67 and spending would be capped. Seniors could stay in the current fee-for-service model or opt to receive government assistance to purchase private health insurance plans.”  Ryan also favors privatizing Social Security.

Romney constantly harped on the President’s lack of business credentials until Obama turned Romney’s business affairs into question with his refusal to release more than two years of taxes, and the fact that Romney says he wasn’t in control of Bain Capital during the significant out-sourcing of jobs.  Senate leader Harry Reid announced a creditable source told him Romney didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.  On top of all this, Thomas M. Holbrook said, “His {Paul Ryan} working-class credentials include driving an Oscar Mayer weiner truck.”

Obama campaign comments on Paul Ryan choice:

Kevin Bohn on CNN quotes a statement from the Obama campaign: “The Republican ticket favors tax cuts for the wealthy while putting a greater burden on the middle class, it would gut Medicare and shift costs to the elderly, and it would make deep cuts in education.”  Continuing, "As a member of Congress, Ryan rubber-stamped the reckless Bush economic policies that exploded our deficit and crashed our economy.”  Do we really want more of the same?

The Ryan budget plan, fully backed by Romney, would repeal President Obama’s health care bill, and Medicaid would be turned over to the states with a $750 billion cut over 10 years.  Medicare would be designed to be run by private insurers and would cost seniors more or offer them less, while traditional Medicare would still remain an option, according to Richard Wolf on USA Today.  It is reported that the block grants to states would be a 33% cut by 2021.



Yeah...sure!

There is a good rendering of Paul Ryan’s array of budget plans since 2008 and leading up to 2012 on Wikipedia.  The amazing thing is that none of his plans fully passed through Congress, with even some Republicans opposing him.  The 2012 version was passed by the House but economist Paul Krugman said the plan didn’t even count tax cuts as revenue-negative.  Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Budget added, we may never balance the budget again, nor do we need to.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman summed it up for the right: over the period of a year, “…Ryan committed fiscal conservative apostasy on three high-profile votes: The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP (whereby the government purchased assets and equity from financial institutions), the auto-bailout (which essentially implied he agrees car companies – especially the ones with an auto plant in his district–are too big to fail), and for a confiscatory tax on CEO bonuses (which essentially says the government has the right to take away private property–if it doesn’t like you).”

Enough said.  See you in November.