Independent Voter 2012 Presidential Endorsement

It’s time for this independent voter to cast a vote for president based on how the candidates stack up against the responsibilities of the office.
 
Commander-in-Chief:

Barack Obama has more experience leading a military already engaged in a conflict than Mitt Romney. Romney served as commander-in-chief of the Massachusetts National Guard as governor but that’s not quite the same.

Barack Obama ended the war with Iraq, the country that had nothing to do with the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. He increased troops in Afghanistan, the country from which the attacks were planned.

While efforts to keep the Taliban from controlling Afghanistan may have only tangential defensive benefits for the United States, under Barack Obama, the military killed more actual members of the organization that attacked the United States than they did under George W. Bush.

The decision to go into Libya represented an extra-Constitutional use of the military: one that goes beyond  the defense of the United States or its interests.

Romney’s positions during his debate with Obama were different from the positions stated during the primary debates and his writings. It’s impossible to tell how he would have acted if faced with the same challenges.

Given that Romney has several advisers who worked in the George W. Bush administration and were around for the invasion of Iraq, I’m giving Obama a slight edge here.

Optional Consideration:

The president doesn't have much authority outside of Commander-in-Chief but he does nominate judges and recommend people for certain vacancies.

Obama has nominated two Supreme Court judges that have been confirmed.

The four oldest judges are:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Clinton nominee
Antonin Scalia:    Reagan nominee
Anthony Kennedy: Reagan nominee
Stephen Breyer: Clinton nominee

Romney’s judiciary adviser is Robert Bork, a Reagan nominee who went unconfirmed by the senate.

Since the supreme court is leaning right at the moment and of the four eldest nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems frailer than Scalia or Kennedy, Barack Obama might have a slight edge at maintaining the status quo of the court.

Endorsement:

I voted for Barack Obama. Based on Romney's experience, he might be suited to a job finding efficiencies within various governmental agencies. As president, he would have no time to do that. Should he be elected, I wish him luck.

House and Senate Races:

Republicans have resisted revenue increases because they claim that any increased revenue will be eaten up by increased spending and will not reduce the deficit.

Democrats have resisted spending cuts unaccompanied by revenue increases because they claim that such cuts will not reduce the deficit because they will go to pay for tax cuts.

Health care is the fastest growing part of the federal budget and one of the first issues that the Obama administration addressed through the Affordable Care Act.

As an independent, I'm a little perturbed that the Republican party chose, as a strategy, to simply vote in unison against all of Obama's policies for the last four years, including policies that they previously supported.

Since budgetary matters will be front and center beginning November 7, here is a chart of how various administrations have contributed to the increase in the national debt.

Princeton Study Endorses Romney Tax Plan as "Not Mathematically Impossible"

When questioned about Romney's tax policy being revenue neutral by Norah O'Donnell on CBS "Face the Nation," Paul Ryan replied, "So one study from Princeton just said that we can accomplish exactly what we're saying... which is broaden the base, lower rates."

Henry S. Rosen's paper "Growth, Distribution, and Tax Reform" notes that "the Romney proposal is not fully articulated" and constructs a scenario based on a series of assumptions.

Under the 2012 tax baseline, assuming Romney's plan generates 3% greater growth, those earning $200,000 and above would pay "about $29 billion (or 6.5 percent of current revenues) more in taxes."

Under the 2013 numbers, assuming Romney's plan generated 5% greater growth, he states, "It seems fair to say that if the scheduled tax increases for 2013 actually went into effect and the definition of 'high income' excludes people with 6-digit incomes below $200,000, then under the Romney proposal, maintaining an approximately constant tax burden on high-income individuals would be more challenging. But I imagine that doing so would not be mathematically impossible."

Romney and Huntsman Face Off on Afghanistan

During the 11/22/2011 National Security Debate, Mitt Romney faced off against Jon Huntsman on troop levels and tactics in Afghanistan, which the US is currently funding to the tune of roughly $2 billion a week.

Jon Huntsman took the first stab at Afghanistan policy when a separate question arose about US-Pakistan relations.

HUNTSMAN: You've got a nation-state that is a candidate for failure. And I say it's a haven for bad behavior. It's a haven for training the people who seek to do us harm. And an expanded drone program is something that would serve our national interest.

I think it must be done. And I think it must be consistent with recognizing the reality on the ground of what we need out of Afghanistan: we don't need 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.

We don't need to nation-build in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built.

When making an independent appraisal of the region, it's useful to recall who we are fighting and why.

In Afghanistan, the US is primarily fighting the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan in 2001. They were given an ultimatum to turn over al Qaeda members who trained in their country. To this day, the Taliban is not classified as a terrorist organization by the state department. To be placed on that list, an organization has to be foreign, engage in terrorist activity, and threaten the security of the US or its citizens.

Nationality-wise, the 9/11 hijackers consisted of 15 Saudis, two UAE, one Lebanese and one Egyptian.

Romney justified his support of current troop levels in Afghanistan.

ROMNEY: We spent about $450 billion so far, 1,700 or so service men and women have lost their lives there, and many tens of thousands have been wounded. Our effort there is to keep Afghanistan from becoming a launching point for terror against the United States. We can't just write off a major part of the world.

He then segued to address our $4.5 billion annual investment in Pakistan.

ROMNEY: We can do a lot better directing that to encourage people to take advantage of the extraordinary opportunities of the West and freedom represent for their people.

HUNTSMAN: I totally disagree. I think we need to square with the American people about what we've achieved. We need an honest conversation in this country about the sacrifices that have been made over nearly 10 years. We have dismantled the Taliban. We've run them out of Kabul. We've had free elections in 2004. We've killed Osama bin Laden. We've upended, dismantled al Qaeda. We have achieved some very important goals for the United States of America.

Now, the fact that we have 100,000 troops nation-building in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built, when, on the ground, we do need intelligence gathering, no doubt about that. We need a strong Special Forces presence. We need a drone presence. And we need some ongoing training of the Afghan National Army.

But we haven't done a very good job defining and articulating what the end point is in Afghanistan. And I think the American people are getting very tired about where we find ourselves today.

ROMNEY: Are you suggesting, Governor, that we just take all our troops out next week or what's your proposal?

HUNTSMAN: Did you hear what I just said? I said we should draw down from 100,000. We don't need 100,000 troops. many of whom can't even cross the wire. We need a presence on the ground that is more akin to 10,000 or 15,000. That will serve our interests in terms of intelligence gathering and Special Forces response capability. And we need to prepare for a world, not just in South Asia, but, indeed, in every corner of the world in which counter-terror -- counter-terrorism is going to be in front of us for as far as the eye can see into the 21st century.

ROMNEY: And the commanders on the ground feel that we should bring down our surge troops by December of 2012 and bring down all of our troops, other than, perhaps, 10,000 or so, by the end of 2014. The decision to pull our troops out before that, they believe, would put at risk the extraordinary investment of treasure and blood which has been sacrificed by the American military.

To consider the varying costs between the approaches, the US is spending about $1 million per troop per year.

GOP Candidate Economic Plans and Income Inequality

Rick Perry's alternative 20% tax plan came out the same week as the Congressional Budget Office report "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007".

Of the three current top polling candidates, Cain's 9-9-9 plan does the most to accelerate income inequality. Mitt Romney was criticized by Newt Gingrich for capping capital gains tax exemptions. He responded that the middle-class has had a tough go of things under Barack Obama.

Inequality Chat

Paul Solmon, who I remember entertainingly explained the role arbitrage played in the 1987 Black Friday stock fall, followed his PBS NewsHour series with a Twitter chat on 10/28/11, which is re-organized and somewhat translated into English below. I apologize for deleting comments that Solman did not address but it was helpful for the sake of a coherent Q&A.

Without getting into arguments about whether or not the United States Government taxes too much or spends too little, this independent voter is primarily interested in two issues. How does income inequality affect the ability of the private sector to function?

Question: Why a series on economy inequality?
Solman: I think it's the most important economic issue of our time, has been for years. Can America Dream, US survive inequality like Gilded Age, '20s?

JRRuss67: What happened in mid-70s to cause the gap to widen so much?
Solman: Lots: Globalization (cheap labor) I. Deregulation. Diminished influence of unions. Big boost came from '80s with "tax reform."

Question: Why feature Libertarian Epstein? Don't they get enough air time?
Solman: Maybe, but not from us. I thought he made his case so blatantly, viewers could evaluate it for themselves. Disagree?

tniblett: How have we convinced ourselves that inequality is good for USA?
Solman: Because it's in the interest of the economy's winners to champion the notion that they deserve what they get?

tniblett: True, but why is it in the interest of economy's losers to believe it?
Solman: A puzzle why economy losers believe it. But polls now suggest we increasingly DON'T believe inequality is good for economy.

Question: Doesn't inequality always contribute to inequality or repression?
Solman: No, inequality doesn't ALWAYS contribute to political instability or repression. But it doesn't seem help either one & if wide enough.

tkmalone: How does concentrated wealth affect consumer spending? More money on fewer individual needs, food, houses, cars, etc.?
Solman: Concentrated wealth hurts consumer spending because wealthy save a higher percentage of their income. Much higher.

Question: Why not "income disparity" instead of "inequality," which implies something wrong, INequitable?
Solman: Because "inequality" is a clear and true description? Would you prefer "income asymmetry"? Folks would feel even better.

Question: It seems the corporations have written off consumer demand and are still making profits?
Solman: US corps are selling more and more abroad. That's presumably why the US market has gyrated so because of events in Europe, China.

norrisj: 12th grade economy class here. We are concerned about equal opportunity vs. equal result.
Solman: "Equal opportunity" sounds great. But if only some folks have marketable skills in this economy and others don't, then what? Can those of us with skills that aren't "marketable" opt out of this market in ignorance, deceit and obedience? Aside from unemployment? The grim truth is, choices are to opt out via downshifting (living with folks? At Zucotti Park?) or getting the skills. Opportunity inequality based on marketable ability. Needs to be role for folks with limited ability, be it factory or massage.

policylink: How do the coming racial demographic changes play into this debate? US will be majority people of color by 2042
Solman: I don't know. You'd think poorer minorities would vote for equality policies, wouldn't you?

AFWorkforce: People need choice. Many people feel like they are looking at glass ceiling and shackled to job
Solman: Yes, hard to move if you can't sell your house or are terrified that if you quit your job, you won't find another.

BerylSchewe: How do we widen the chances for equal opportunity without increasing entitlements?
Solman: Why "entitlements"? How about real jobs that need doing, done by sidelined Americans? CCC anyone?

norrisj: What would you propose for equality policy? Income cap? Tax the rich? confiscate?
Solman: Taxing the wealthy seems such an obvious starting point. Top tax rate under Wilson: 77%; FDR: 94%. Today: 35%!

mediacodex From London: Isn't raising opportunities for lower classes more important a focus than on lower inequality?
Solman: Yes, focus on job opportunities for the low downs but can it be done without investing in them? Who will invest but high ups?

bwmcr: How do we begin to showcase that economic policies that increase equality are not socialist, and gaining acceptance.
Solman: FDR was accused of being a socialist and, compared to what had preceded him, perhaps he was.

DgwilsonDave: What about putting fees on fossil fuels and emissions and rebating equally per person?
Solman: Charging the true cost of negative externalities like pollution is basic economics. But wouldn't do much to affect inequality.

bwmcr: How about tax breaks for companies that have more equal pay like Ben and Jerry's? Reward socially-mindedness.
Solman: It would be very difficult to legislate. Got to be easier to tax the wealthy. And if government owns, to pay top dogs less.

tsheely67 Why does such a high percent pay NO federal tax? Wouldn't more stakeholders insist on less waste?
Solman: Interesting point. Flat taxers say simple is better. But you can have simple and progressive both. Check out original tax form.

JohnMesserly: Paul, recall when you did your first story on it?
Solman: For PBS Boston, inequality stories in early '80s. For NewsHour, "Upstairs, Downstairs" in '87. Reported "Hourglass economics" in '89.

Rick Perry's "Cut, Balance and Grow Plan" Alternative 20 Percent Flat Tax

Rick Perry's "Cut, Balance and Grow Plan"

Rick Perry proposed an optional 20% flat tax that preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.

The Economist features a selection of evaluations.

An independent voter may agree with Reihan Salam's characterization in National Review that "Rick Perry’s proposal is not a flat tax. Rather, it is an alternative maximum tax or MAXTAX."

It would likely ease compliance costs for top earners but, as Len Burman writes in Forbes, "Millions of middle-income taxpayers will have to figure their taxes two ways to figure out which plan is better for them."

There are also the usual questions raised about how much revenue would be raised, what the deficit impact would be, and what would be cut in order to balance the budget.

Rick Perry, Flat Tax, and Inequality

Rick Perry's "Cut, Balance and Grow Plan"

Rick Perry proposed an optional 20% flat tax that preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.

The Economist features a selection of evaluations.

An independent voter may agree with Reihan Salam's characterization in National Review observation that "Rick Perry’s proposal is not a flat tax. Rather, it is an alternative maximum tax or MAXTAX."

It would likely ease compliance costs for top earners but, as Len Burman writes in Forbes, "Millions of middle-income taxpayers will have to figure their taxes two ways to figure out which plan is better for them."

There are also the usual questions raised about how much revenue would be raised, what the deficit impact would be, and what would be cut in order to balance the budget.

It's coincidental that Rick Perry's plan came out the same week as the Congressional Budget Office report "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007".

Of the three current top polling candidates, Cain's 9-9-9 plan does the most to accelerate income inequality. Mitt Romney was criticized by Newt Gingrich for capping capital gains tax exemptions.

Inequality Chat

As to the implications of inequality, Paul Solmon followed his PBS NewsHour series with a Twitter chat on 10/28/11, which is re-organized and somewhat translated into English below.

Without getting into arguments about whether or not the United States Government taxes too much or spends too little, this independent voter is primarily interested in two issues. How does income inequality affect the ability of the private sector to function?

Question: Why a series on economy inequality?
Solman: I think it's the most important economic issue of our time, has been for years. Can America Dream, US survive inequality like Gilded Age, '20s?

JRRuss67: What happened in mid-70s to cause the gap to widen so much?
Solman: Lots: Globalization (cheap labor) I. Deregulation. Diminished influence of unions. Big boost came from '80s with "tax reform."

Question: Why feature Libertarian Epstein? Don't they get enough air time?
Solman: Maybe, but not from us. I thought he made his case so blatantly, viewers could evaluate it for themselves. Disagree?

tniblett: How have we convinced ourselves that inequality is good for USA?
Solman: Because it's in the interest of the economy's winners to champion the notion that they deserve what they get?

tniblett: True, but why is it in the interest of economy's losers to believe it?
Solman: A puzzle why economy losers believe it. But polls now suggest we increasingly DON'T believe inequality is good for economy.

Question: Doesn't inequality always contribute to inequality or repression?
Solman: No, inequality doesn't ALWAYS contribute to political instability or repression. But it doesn't seem help either one & if wide enough.

tkmalone: How does concentrated wealth affect consumer spending? More money on fewer individual needs, food, houses, cars, etc.?
Solman: Concentrated wealth hurts consumer spending because wealthy save a higher percentage of their income. Much higher.

Question: Why not "income disparity" instead of "inequality," which implies something wrong, INequitable?
Solman: Because "inequality" is a clear and true description? Would you prefer "income asymmetry"? Folks would feel even better.

Question: It seems the corporations have written off consumer demand and are still making profits?
Solman: US corps are selling more and more abroad. That's presumably why the US market has gyrated so because of events in Europe, China.

norrisj: 12th grade economy class here. We are concerned about equal opportunity vs. equal result.
Solman: "Equal opportunity" sounds great. But if only some folks have marketable skills in this economy and others don't, then what? Can those of us with skills that aren't "marketable" opt out of this market in ignorance, deceit and obedience? Aside from unemployment? The grim truth is, choices are to opt out via downshifting (living with folks? At Zucotti Park?) or getting the skills. Opportunity inequality based on marketable ability. Needs to be role for folks with limited ability, be it factory or massage.

policylink: How do the coming racial demographic changes play into this debate? US will be majority people of color by 2042
Solman: I don't know. You'd think poorer minorities would vote for equality policies, wouldn't you?

AFWorkforce: People need choice. Many people feel like they are looking at glass ceiling and shackled to job
Solman: Yes, hard to move if you can't sell your house or are terrified that if you quit your job, you won't find another.

BerylSchewe: How do we widen the chances for equal opportunity without increasing entitlements?
Solman: Why "entitlements"? How about real jobs that need doing, done by sidelined Americans? CCC anyone?

norrisj: What would you propose for equality policy? Income cap? Tax the rich? confiscate?
Solman: Taxing the wealthy seems such an obvious starting point. Top tax rate under Wilson: 77%; FDR: 94%. Today: 35%!

mediacodex From London: Isn't raising opportunities for lower classes more important a focus than on lower inequality?
Solman: Yes, focus on job opportunities for the low downs but can it be done without investing in them? Who will invest but high ups?

bwmcr: How do we begin to showcase that economic policies that increase equality are not socialist, and gaining acceptance.
Solman: FDR was accused of being a socialist and, compared to what had preceded him, perhaps he was.

DgwilsonDave: What about putting fees on fossil fuels and emissions and rebating equally per person?
Solman: Charging the true cost of negative externalities like pollution is basic economics. But wouldn't do much to affect inequality.

bwmcr: How about tax breaks for companies that have more equal pay like Ben and Jerry's? Reward socially-mindedness.
Solman: It would be very difficult to legislate. Got to be easier to tax the wealthy. And if government owns, to pay top dogs less.

tsheely67 Why does such a high percent pay NO federal tax? Wouldn't more stakeholders insist on less waste?
Solman: Interesting point. Flat taxers say simple is better. But you can have simple and progressive both. Check out original tax form.

JohnMesserly: Paul, recall when you did your first story on it?
Solman: For PBS Boston, inequality stories in early '80s. For NewsHour, "Upstairs, Downstairs" in '87. Reported "Hourglass economics" in '89.

Commander in Chief Reports on Libya and Iraq, Republicans and Two Democrats Vote Against Helping States Keep Teachers

Excerpts from Weekly Address:

This week, I was proud to announce that—as promised—the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of this year.

In Libya, the death of Moammar Qadhafi showed that our role in protecting the Libyan people, and helping them break free from a tyrant, was the right thing to do.

In Iraq, we’ve succeeded in our strategy to end the war. Last year, I announced the end of our combat mission in Iraq. We’ve already removed more than 100,000 troops, and Iraqi forces have taken full responsibility for the security of their own country. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the Iraqi people have the chance to forge their own future. And now the rest of our troops will be home for the holidays.

In Libya, our brave pilots and crews helped prevent a massacre, save countless lives, and give the Libyan people the chance to prevail. Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives. Soon, our NATO mission will come to a successful end even as we continue to support the Libyan people, and people across the Arab world, who seek a democratic future.

These successes are part of a larger story. After a decade of war, we’re turning the page and moving forward, with strength and confidence. The drawdown in Iraq allowed us to refocus on Afghanistan and achieve major victories against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. As we remove the last of our troops from Iraq, we’re beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

To put this in perspective, when I took office, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in these wars. By the end of this year that number will be cut in half, and an increasing number of our troops will continue to come home.

At Home:

On 10/20/2011, the Senate split 50-50 on a vote to debate the portion of Obama's Jobs Act to help the cash-strapped states hire teachers and first responders. The Republicans would have filibustered any vote short of 60 to debate the bill.

All 47 Republicans plus Democratic senators Ben Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Pryor (Arkansas), and Independent Joseph Lieberman (Delaware) decided that an additional 0.5% tax on earned income over $1 million was too great a price for helping the states stabilize their unemployment rates by keeping teachers, firefighters and policemen on the job.