Pro Choice

Ever notice that the only choice the progressives/liberals/Democrats are actually in favor of, is the woman's choice whether or not to let her baby live long enough to be born?  It is their body after all.  I plan to write in the next few days about the choices being taken away from us.  Yes, I know it has been nine months since my last post.  I've been busy, ok?  Actually, I think I fell victim to the Bill Belichick strategy being employed by our government.  When every day brings a new assault on our Constitution and our rights as individuals, just as the St. Louis Rams learned in the Super Bowl, eventually the officials (conservative Americans in this case) get overwhelmed.  Like I wrote about before, I need to square my shoulders and get back in the game.   So I am going to focus for a few posts on the choices we are losing.


First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year.  From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative.  They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party.  We would be given a true choice.  The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama.  The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president.  Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican.  All other candidates were radical, too far right.  They would never win the independent vote.  


So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012.  Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary.  The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid.  In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne.  What an idiot!  John Wayne was not born in Davenport.  His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth.  How embarrassing!   You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States.  Or how to pronounce corpsman.  She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer!  How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth?  Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance!  After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?  


Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs.  Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry.  Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas.  He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens.  But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition.  This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives.  In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it.  He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law.  But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses.  Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law.  Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point.  Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country.  Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies.  Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry.  And the whole stupid thing again.  Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent.  I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas.  No.  Better not do that!  Just trust the media.  Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose.  So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.  


Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain.  Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform.  Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media.  Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist.  Cain is black, just like Obama!  How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president?  All right, Cain has no government experience.  He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success.  WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!!  That's not even possible in Obama's world.  That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes.  So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain.  What to do?  What to do?  Conservatives stand on family values.  Let's find something in Cain's past personal life.  Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment.   Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined).  Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy.  Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared.   As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism.  How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations?  By white women!  That's why.  Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women!  They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface.  Better put your support behind Mitt Romney.  He's white.  If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama.  Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.


Next in line for the conservatives?  Well, they are desperate.  True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone.  Good lord, we don't want Romney!  Who is left?  Newt Gingrich!!!  Newt's smart.  He debates very well.  Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate.  And without a teleprompter.  Another plus for Gingrich?  He knows the media's game and will call them out on it.   In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president.  In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media.  To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive.  Newt's only problem?  Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government."  His  favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency?  Not George Washington.   Not Abraham Lincoln.  Not Dwight Eisenhower.  Not Ronald Reagan.  Not even either of the Bushes.  Newt's choice?  How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt!  You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR.  Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections.  And his support of cap and trade legislation.  He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi.  And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt.    He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is quick thinking.  Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots.  Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right?  Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller!  Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich.  If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.  


That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice.  The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul.  Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy.  Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy.  Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable.  Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate.  Rick Santorum.  The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support  of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate.  Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records.  Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable.  He has too much support.  The race is over, right?  Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media.  Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum.  New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney.  So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting.  Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us.  Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado.  The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus.  So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again.  Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  


Don't listen to the media again.  Don't let them take away our choice.  Again.  

Obama's Lemonade Stand

I remember a Dennis the Menace comic strip from my childhood.  It had Dennis at his lemonade stand, with a sign that advertised $5 a cup.  The caption said "I only need to sell one."

Price management is one of the most difficult and most important task of any business.  I've worked in the retail industry most of my career, so that's the example I'll use.  The business' number one task is to earn a profit for its shareholders.  It seems like a simple concept, sell your product for more than you paid for it.  The difficulty comes in trying to decide how much more.  At my book store, it was fairly simple.  I bought used books from customers for 25% of retail, and sold them for 50% of original retail.  It was a nice margin, and the store was in business for more than 25 years.

If you have read the Joseph Heller classic, Catch 22, you will remember the supply, clerk Milo, who bought cotton stock for 50c a share and sold it for 25c, "but we are making up for it in volume."

With the rental car company, I learned yield pricing management.  I had to look at reservation demand, car availability, and competition prices and set our prices to get the highest possible revenue from each rental, without running out of cars.  For example, on a Monday we would have high rates because that's the day most business travelers would arrive.  Tuesday's rates might be higher still because we would have fewer cars available, and so would our competition.  By Wednesday evening, rates would go down because we would have more cars returning than being rented.  By Friday, rates would be extremely low for cars that would be returned in time for the Sunday evening rush.  So, it's a little more complicated than "buy low, sell high."

In general, there's a curve graph of profitability.  Starting with a price of zero, where of course you lose money; to a price of, I guess, infinitely high, where you would still have a loss due to no sales.  Somewhere in between you have a maximum profit.  For example, at Stride Rite, a style might make the company a profit of $500,000 with a retail of $49.99.  Raise the retail price to $59.99 and you get more profit right?  No, because then the customer does not see the value of the shoe and chooses a cheaper competitor's merchandise.  So a higher retail price might earn a lower profit.

The same applies to our federal taxes.  Former Reagan adviser, Arthur Laffer devised the Laffer Curve.  His studies show an optimum tax rate, similar to the curve you see in retail pricing.  At its most basic, government provides services for a fee, your taxes.  While we still see some value in the service, Americans are willing to pay the fee, and revenues rise.  At some point, the fee becomes  too high for the perceived value and Americans become less productive, resulting in lower revenue.  For example during World War I, President Wilson's administration needed more and more revenue to fund the war and the explosion of federal programs instituted under Wilson.  They created more and higher taxes, targeting businesses and the wealthy.  The more taxes they imposed, the less revenue they collected.  So they raised and created taxes even more.  They peaked with an income tax of 77% on the wealthiest Americans.  And still revenue collected actually decreased.  It decreased because the wealth creators saw no value in the government's services.  They chose not to buy, or produce income that would only be taxed.  This led to a depression in 1920.  

Warren G. Harding became president in 1921 and one of his first and most important appointments went to Andrew Mellon as treasury secretary.  Mellon immediately proposed cuts to tax rates, especially Wilson's "excessive profit" taxes.  And like the Laffer Curve or retail pricing models show, revenues increased.  As Mellon said, "Any man of energy and initiative in this country can get what he wants out of life,” he wrote. “But when initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.”  

Seems pretty simple.  Who is going to work to their maximum capability when most of the rewards for their hard work is going to fund a federal government whose policies and practices they do not necessarily support?  As one scholar joked, "three presidents served under Mellon" during a prosperous time now celebrated as the "Roaring '20's." 

Here's a link to a history of income tax in the United States, that illustrates, albeit unintentionally, Laffer's Curve. Maybe our next president should have a business background, rather than a community organizing background.  Our present organizer-in-chief seems to have only learned economics from Dennis the Menace, and didn't even operate his own lemonade stand.