You can count me among the many shocked observers when I saw a headline today that proclaimed:
"Oprah confirms OWN layoffs necessary for 'long term' success".
Now, don't get me wrong - I have never been a customer of her very successful offerings, but I have always admired her as one of the greatest capitalists in the history of the United States and, to go further, even in the entire history of the world.
Here is a woman who emerged from a poor upbringing, both economic and socially, YET, she built a media empire on her keen business acumen as she figured out how to draw viewers to her programming and monetize it. It is a true Horatio Alger story. Anybody who does not admire her business success cannot be a believer in Free Market Capitalism.
Oprah is quoted in the story as stating: "It is difficult to make tough business decisions that affect people’s lives but the economics of a start-up cable network just don’t work with the cost structure that was in place." Like any CEO running a business, she understood the dynamics of the economic environment and made the tough decisions to ensure long term viability.
My shock derives from trying to reconcile her ability to navigate her personal business life and her undying support for Barack Obama. One could say that her endorsement of Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was the straw that broke Hillary's back and turned Oprah into the king maker. Now, if Oprah understands that tightening the belt and restructuring is necessary when the economics call for it, how can she still support a person who continues to spend, spend, spend to try to improve his business - the United States economy.
If Oprah were to be consistent, she would have tripled her workforce, not cut it. Barack Obama has already spent in 3 years, what George W Bush spent in 8 years, while his business has only worsened. Let's be clear - this is not an endorsement of W's spending. Meanwhile, Oprah continues to support the worst CEO to ever run the United States government.
Maybe the difference for Oprah is that she had no interest in pissing away her personal wealth, whereas, Obama is only pissing away our money, our children's money, our children's children's money and their children's money. Am I really shocked? Not really. For wealthy liberals, the historic myth of Barack Obama trumps any sane and objective idea of accountability.
The rest of us can eat cake. That is, until Michelle takes that away from us too!
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
"What Do We Do Now"?
As dismayed as I can be about much of the product that comes out of Hollywood, there are still classic movies which stand the test of time. Today, we can focus on "The Candidate" from 1972 which starred Robert Redford and Peter Boyle. After running a successful "against all odds" campaign for California Senate, the surprised winner, Bill McKay (Redford), turns to his campaign manager (Boyle) and utters the last line of the movie:
"What do we do now"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myEpap3TxVs
That dialogue was from 40 years ago and is a demonstration about how slick campaigning and imaging can elect a candidate who is not prepared for the next step: governing. There exists some difference between what McKay meant and how it applies to the empty suit currently residing in the White House, but we can draw some parallels. Whereas, McKay was searching for a plan on how to govern going forward, President Obama has no intention of actually governing in 2012. The President is focused upon the same thing he was focused upon in 2008 and since - winning a campaign.
The mounting evidence that Obama has been clueless about governing has accumulated over the past 3 years where GDP growth has been anemic, unemployment has been prolonged, deficits have grown by over one-third to $16T, Obamacare is now scored to cost twice as much as was initially promised by Democrats, the Energy department has pumped over $40B into alternative energy boondoggles where money is being kicked back to the DNC/"Obama 2012" and there has been no attempt to address the biggest issue facing the viability of the country: long term entitlement reform. No objective measurement has improved even though Obama has spent an additional $6T in taxpayer money. His team has been trying the weak unproveable narrative that the country was saved from worse. The message for 3 years has been to pass blame to his predecessor while giving speeches. Unfortunately for The One, he needed the country to stay asleep at the switch for one more year, but his administration failed to run out the clock.
The Obama team is asking: "What do we do now to win re-election"? Their answer would make Richard Nixon proud - divide the people by whatever means necessary to try to win the vote: 50% +1. Let's go down our list of boogeymen created by the Obama administration: Wall Street, Big Banks, Millionaires (actually anyone above $350K), Big Oil, Car Company Bondholders, Insurance Companies, Working Class White Males, Married Christians, FoxNews, Catholics, Talk Radio, Military Personnel, The Tea Party and Conservative Women. And this all comes from the guy who was depicted as the Great Uniter.
The most recent major issue about which the President is trying to appear to be doing something while twiddling his thumbs is Rising Gas Prices. This is a subject about which candidate Obama was highly critical of his predecessor, but now seems to believe that a President really has limited impact. Although the President tries to downplay his responsibility, he has proposed some great solutions: inflate your tires, tune up your car and develop pools of algae into an energy source to name a few. The importance of rising gas prices in that they amplify through the entire economy in the cost of goods which, in turn, stymies economic growth. Gas prices are a weekly reminder at the pump of the economy going in the wrong direction as voters disposable income is sapped. The President's lack of seriousness about the issue is driving his approval rating to new lows (41%).
Obama 2012 asks: "What do we do now"?
The goal for the campaign is to change the subject from gas prices to anything else. Magically, Sandra Fluke appeared on the scene to create a false narrative in front a false committee about how Republicans want to ban access to contraceptives. For those of you who are not politically savvy, this charade was orchestrated by the White House and the DNC along with their willing accomplices in the media in order to trick single women into thinking that the GOP will regulate their sex lives should they gain power. Think about the logical ridiculousness of that proposition. I realize this sounds like a sci-fi plot, but the Democrat party has been successful in targeting this part of the electorate with such ploys in the past. The Democrats know that if they lose this demo, they have no chance in November. Fortunately, for the country, the women in this country were not fooled this time. Recent polling by the Democrat friendly NY Times/CBS organizations, show that this issue backfired.
When asked "Should Health Insurance plans for all Employers be required to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should they be allowed to opt out for religious or moral grounds"?, women approved by 40% and disapproved 51%. When asked this same question about religious affiliated Employers, the numbers were even greater with an approval of 36% and disapproval of 57%. Clearly, women do not want insurance mandates forced upon Employers. Uh-oh!
So why did women respond this way? If we look at the poll a little deeper, when asked which issues were most important in the coming election, the respondents answered: Economy (26%), Jobs (25%), Politicians/Govt (6%) and Budget Deficit (5%). That is 62% for those issues. So where is the concern about contraception? Abortion was at 1%, so contraception must have been part of the Other (17%) category. Evidently, women, like men, are concerned about their economic futures, the economic futures of their families and the economic prospects for their children.
Although the main stream media is doing their very best to avoid showing the weakness of the Obama administration, the people out in the country are living this failure and they do not like it. There is panic in the White House as they try to determine their next demographic target of which they are running low in supply.
Make no mistake about it, unless there is some fantastic event between now and election day, Obama will be a one term President. He may still be popular in some blue states where he has worked his hardest to distribute goodies from the US Treasury, but the red and purple states are gearing up for an Anybody But Obama (ABO) election. Come November 7th, President Obama can then turn to David Axelrod and ask:
"What do we do now"?
The answer will be to continue to blame George W Bush and begin the re-writing of history in the great Democrat tradition.
The great tragedy of his tenure is that the wealth of the middle class was destroyed and distributed. The rich are still rich, more people are poor, the middle class has shrunk and the burden to pay for the sophistry of Barack Obama will fall to the next 3 or 4 generations. Normally, I would say "mission accomplished", but he would have needed another term to completely collapse the economy.
Viewing it from a more nostalgic angle, you can say that you lived through the worst Presidency in the history of the US.
"What do we do now"? Repeat after me, "ABO, ABO, ABO........"
"What do we do now"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myEpap3TxVs
That dialogue was from 40 years ago and is a demonstration about how slick campaigning and imaging can elect a candidate who is not prepared for the next step: governing. There exists some difference between what McKay meant and how it applies to the empty suit currently residing in the White House, but we can draw some parallels. Whereas, McKay was searching for a plan on how to govern going forward, President Obama has no intention of actually governing in 2012. The President is focused upon the same thing he was focused upon in 2008 and since - winning a campaign.
The mounting evidence that Obama has been clueless about governing has accumulated over the past 3 years where GDP growth has been anemic, unemployment has been prolonged, deficits have grown by over one-third to $16T, Obamacare is now scored to cost twice as much as was initially promised by Democrats, the Energy department has pumped over $40B into alternative energy boondoggles where money is being kicked back to the DNC/"Obama 2012" and there has been no attempt to address the biggest issue facing the viability of the country: long term entitlement reform. No objective measurement has improved even though Obama has spent an additional $6T in taxpayer money. His team has been trying the weak unproveable narrative that the country was saved from worse. The message for 3 years has been to pass blame to his predecessor while giving speeches. Unfortunately for The One, he needed the country to stay asleep at the switch for one more year, but his administration failed to run out the clock.
The Obama team is asking: "What do we do now to win re-election"? Their answer would make Richard Nixon proud - divide the people by whatever means necessary to try to win the vote: 50% +1. Let's go down our list of boogeymen created by the Obama administration: Wall Street, Big Banks, Millionaires (actually anyone above $350K), Big Oil, Car Company Bondholders, Insurance Companies, Working Class White Males, Married Christians, FoxNews, Catholics, Talk Radio, Military Personnel, The Tea Party and Conservative Women. And this all comes from the guy who was depicted as the Great Uniter.
The most recent major issue about which the President is trying to appear to be doing something while twiddling his thumbs is Rising Gas Prices. This is a subject about which candidate Obama was highly critical of his predecessor, but now seems to believe that a President really has limited impact. Although the President tries to downplay his responsibility, he has proposed some great solutions: inflate your tires, tune up your car and develop pools of algae into an energy source to name a few. The importance of rising gas prices in that they amplify through the entire economy in the cost of goods which, in turn, stymies economic growth. Gas prices are a weekly reminder at the pump of the economy going in the wrong direction as voters disposable income is sapped. The President's lack of seriousness about the issue is driving his approval rating to new lows (41%).
Obama 2012 asks: "What do we do now"?
The goal for the campaign is to change the subject from gas prices to anything else. Magically, Sandra Fluke appeared on the scene to create a false narrative in front a false committee about how Republicans want to ban access to contraceptives. For those of you who are not politically savvy, this charade was orchestrated by the White House and the DNC along with their willing accomplices in the media in order to trick single women into thinking that the GOP will regulate their sex lives should they gain power. Think about the logical ridiculousness of that proposition. I realize this sounds like a sci-fi plot, but the Democrat party has been successful in targeting this part of the electorate with such ploys in the past. The Democrats know that if they lose this demo, they have no chance in November. Fortunately, for the country, the women in this country were not fooled this time. Recent polling by the Democrat friendly NY Times/CBS organizations, show that this issue backfired.
When asked "Should Health Insurance plans for all Employers be required to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should they be allowed to opt out for religious or moral grounds"?, women approved by 40% and disapproved 51%. When asked this same question about religious affiliated Employers, the numbers were even greater with an approval of 36% and disapproval of 57%. Clearly, women do not want insurance mandates forced upon Employers. Uh-oh!
So why did women respond this way? If we look at the poll a little deeper, when asked which issues were most important in the coming election, the respondents answered: Economy (26%), Jobs (25%), Politicians/Govt (6%) and Budget Deficit (5%). That is 62% for those issues. So where is the concern about contraception? Abortion was at 1%, so contraception must have been part of the Other (17%) category. Evidently, women, like men, are concerned about their economic futures, the economic futures of their families and the economic prospects for their children.
Although the main stream media is doing their very best to avoid showing the weakness of the Obama administration, the people out in the country are living this failure and they do not like it. There is panic in the White House as they try to determine their next demographic target of which they are running low in supply.
Make no mistake about it, unless there is some fantastic event between now and election day, Obama will be a one term President. He may still be popular in some blue states where he has worked his hardest to distribute goodies from the US Treasury, but the red and purple states are gearing up for an Anybody But Obama (ABO) election. Come November 7th, President Obama can then turn to David Axelrod and ask:
"What do we do now"?
The answer will be to continue to blame George W Bush and begin the re-writing of history in the great Democrat tradition.
The great tragedy of his tenure is that the wealth of the middle class was destroyed and distributed. The rich are still rich, more people are poor, the middle class has shrunk and the burden to pay for the sophistry of Barack Obama will fall to the next 3 or 4 generations. Normally, I would say "mission accomplished", but he would have needed another term to completely collapse the economy.
Viewing it from a more nostalgic angle, you can say that you lived through the worst Presidency in the history of the US.
"What do we do now"? Repeat after me, "ABO, ABO, ABO........"
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Newt's Contribution to The 2012 Cause
Newt Gingrich blasted his way to the top of the South Carolina GOP primary on Saturday. How did he accomplish this feat? What are the misconceptions about the victory? What does it really mean for 2012? The victory in SC was triggered when Newt turned a huge negative story about the breakup of his previous marriage, which nearly everyone concurs was a malicious hit piece, and turned it into a huge positive by pointing out that the media is not an honest broker. Voters were not necessarily agreeing with Newt on policy as much as they were sending a message that the double-standard of the main stream media with respect to how they deal with the two parties has reached the critical point. To demonstrate the two different standards, let's look at how the media broke the story of John Edwards cheating on his terminally ill wife during his presidential run in 2008. Oh, wait a minute, they ignored that story. Okay, it was probably just an oversight. Let's look at the story about the former student of Barack Obama's Constitutional Law class who had negative things to say about his former professor. Oh, wait a minute, we are not sure that such a former student exists because we have never had a reporter speak to a former student. Maybe there weren't any, but the media seems to have no interest either way. Apparently, there are no former girlfriends or former friends because we have no history other than a campaign of celebrities telling us about the brilliance of Barry Sotero (oh yeah, it's not as romantic, but that is his real name about which you probably have not heard any reporting on either). What I find interesting about this topic is that Democrats do not seem to agree that a bias in the media exists and they seem unwilling to consider the topic, yet some interesting polling data was released last week which shows that 40% of the American public identify themselves as Conservative. On the other hand, 21% identify themselves as Liberal. If this is the case, why does the media continue to frame the news where Conservatives are portrayed as a fringe and rabid minority? The Conservatives (do not read that as Republicans) understand this bias and Newt's combative approach with the media is serving him well. The real threat to the Democrats is if Newt is successful in, finally, highlighting this issue to the rest of non-Liberal, non-Conservative America (39%). If the independent/moderates begin to side with the Conservatives (79%) on this bias issue, the control of the debate will be wrestled away from the main stream media and we will be witness to a landslide election in Nov 2012. The misconception about Newt's win is that Conservatives agree with his attack on Bain capital and free enterprise or that they condone his personal behavior. His victory last night was a strident repudiation of the media, nothing more, nothing less. Lastly, the most overlooked story of this past week is that conventional wisdom by the "wizards of smart" in Wash, DC has been that the Tea Party has lost steam since the election of Nov 2010. Sarah Palin spoke on Tuesday and mentioned that she would vote for Newt if she were a South Carolina voter in the interest of keeping the debate of issues ongoing. It is no coincidence that Rick Perry made the decision to suspend his campaign no less than 24 hours later sending his voters to Newt. Newt went from trailing 29-21 to Romney, to winning 40-28. The huge turn around for Gingrich shows that the Tea Party is in the background and ready to pounce. Romney has been ignoring this group at his own peril believing that he can run a campaign of the past. In the end, if Newt does one thing well, it will be in turning the country against the media and its propping up of the current President. For now, Romney was unable to deliver the knock out punch in SC and we move on to Florida. As for which candidate will get the votes from the Conservatives, Tea Partiers and Republican Moderates in the general election - it has not changed: ABO - Anyone But Obama!!
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The Laffer Curve
My guess is that most people that have come of age since the 80's have heard of
the terms, "voodo economics" and "trickle down economics" because these are the
derogatory euphemisms that were used by Democrats and their willing accomplices
in the media to brand the economic policies of the Ronald Reagan
administration. Folks would have a challenge explaining what those terms mean
other that that they were a successful FALSE branding which lead the public to
believe that rich people were getting richer and the poor people were getting
poorer. (Funny, how these same lame unprovable charges are still being hurled
by the Left today). However, the real hero of the Reagan economic policy team was
Art Laffer, who was the genius behind the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve was the
graphical presentation of the economic analysis which proved how reductions in high income tax rates
would lead to higher tax revenue receipts due to increased overall economic
growth. In short, an earner paying 40% tax rate on $1M will pay $400K in tax. But, if you
lower his rate to 25%, this will spur that earner to grow and expand which will increase profits. The expansion allows for plowing some of those profits back into his/her business as investment where the earner could then make $2M and pay $500K in tax. The earner pocketed after tax an additional
$.9M ($1.5M vs $600K) and the government received an extra $100K. Everybody wins as long as the
government does not spend more than the extra $100K (oops!). Anyway, Mr Laffer has
written an op ed in the Wall St Journal today which, logically, tears apart the notion
that a surtax on the super rich (Buffett Rule) today will improve the economy.
Taxing the rich may appeal to some on an emotional level, but people
should understand that, by looking at the actual numbers, the less affluent are the one who get hurt in a slow
growth economy. Please check out the article in the attached link.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577138961587258988.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577138961587258988.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Horserace May be Entertaining, but....
The biggest surprise (too many) was that the 2008 Obama presidential campaign was successful in electing a person with no executive experience to the highest executive position in the world. Count me among the surprised. The campaign was executed to perfection with the assistance of big $$, intelligent marketing and a technologically savvy campaign team. Despite Obama's baggage of being a Saul Alinsky disciple who was educated by Marxists professors, the adoption of new media enabled his team to surpass traditional message distribution (TV, radio & print) to tap into previously unharvested demo of folks who have their heads buried in their phones and laptops (and other places, as well). The Obama branding superceded his actual background. Unfortunately, there are many successful capitalists here in the Silicon Valley who know Marketing and know Technology and marvel at how the campaign was run without comprehending the results of the policies being implemented since the victory. Hopefully, the coolness and smoothness of how a marketing campaign can be run has dissipated and the 2012 election will be seen as THE choice which it truly is: Will our children and grand children be able to enjoy economic freedom or will they be destined to live in a European socialist' type nanny state? Let stop admiring the process and realize what is at stake!
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)