2012 Election

Just to get this out of the way, I'll be voting for Obama.

Here's a list of bad places to live in 2012.  Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania and the rest of the "battle ground states".  The sobriquet is now a cliche, but what a great descriptor it is.  In all these states somebody is destroying any joy that might be found in life by blasting away at their opponents with unending and I presume inescapable political ads.  In these political battles it is not a matter of damage collateral to some other target.  The very targets  are the innocent residents.  I'm so glad to be missing it.  It is nearly enough to make me like the Electoral College voting system.  Thanks founding fathers.

I watched the first debate last night.  According to the pundits Romney did pretty well. If going in you thought he was a halt-of-speech dope you found out differently.  He's obviously a smart guy, by now well versed in his message.  If you thought because Obama can write and deliver an inspiring speech, that he is a great extemporaneous speaker you must not have been listening to his unscripted talks with reporters.  He speaks slowly, thoughtfully and with pauses as he carefully chooses his words.  His normal speech does not flow smoothly.   I think if one were to read what was said by the debaters, instead of hear it, the impression of who offered the most compelling substance would be quite different.  Romney's main point, which he repeated many times, was that he wants to reduce unemployment (and just who doesn't) and in order to do so he would not increase taxes on small business owners.  It is true that increasing taxes is thought by economists to tend to constrain economic activity.  However by and large it is not the taxes on a relatively few business owners who, according to Romney for some reason would not engage in profitable activities because the government takes a larger share of their profits.  Taxes are considered constraining because they take purchasing power out of the hands of consumers.  Romney repeatedly claimed that taxes on profits resulted in less employment.  He never explained why this would be so. Twice he cited a study by some association of businessmen.  (Wow, what a surprise!Businessmen don't like taxes.)  If a business man has an opportunity to make a profit by adding workers, wouldn't he have the incentive to do so whether his tax rate was 35% or 40%.  Since with the latter rate the government is taking more of his income, maybe he has even more incentive to search hard for ways to increase his income through increased employment.  I'm sorry that Obama or Lehre did not say what I have just written, but what the President did say was look at the record of the past 20 years when Democratic policies have worked better than Republican policies.  Sorry, I can't recall the exact examples he gave, but his point seemed considerably more reliable to me.

Romney also said he would balance the budget by making unspecified cuts in programs and unspecified elimination of tax breaks.  He said he would delete Obama care, except for the parts that he would keep.  He said we need regulation of the economy, but without specifying which regulation is good and which is not. 

If you look at the substance, not the style, I think the Prez did all right.