Suppose for a moment that you own a business that sells a product.  Business is growing and you must hire a sales representative to sell your brand.  Of course, you interview a multitude of people and finally settle on someone who has a fantastic resume, education, and promises you the moon if hired.  Your newly hired sales rep hits the bricks with lofting goals of record sales, while you sit back and wait for the results, ready to count your money.

After a six month “breaking in” period, you do your due diligence and perform an employee evaluation.  During your investigation, you learn that your employee has done a lot of traveling and entertaining, but hasn’t closed much business.  During the evaluation, your employee states that “it’s tough out there,” and that the previous sales rep ruined many relationships with your clients before leaving the job.  As an employer, you consider your financial interests and after careful consideration, you decide to keep this promising sales rep because of the lofty promises to bring results.

A year goes by and you perform a second review of your hot-shot employee.  During this investigation, you learn that your sales rep has produced more results but at a less-than-favorable profit.  Furthermore, your employee has often been on vacation, as well as taking clients to dinners and golf outings.  These things cost your company precious resources that you can’t afford to waste.  Your employee justifies these events, saying, “things take time and more has to be done” to get the desired results you crave.  While your rep is producing better, you decide to wait and see.

Another year goes by and you learn that your clients are souring on your sales rep.  You find that your rep is often tardy or absent from scheduled meetings, as well as not delivering on promises made to them.  When you examine the results and compare them to the promises made to you, you clearly see that your sales rep has not fulfilled the necessary requirement for the job.  You have an employee who has over-promised but under-delivered, costing your company money.  You have an employee you can no longer justify or afford to keep.

We have all encountered this type of employee.  He or she brings a lot of promises to the table.  However, when the results are tabulated, we learn that he or she can’t bring the necessary results.  Does this remind you of anyone in the White House?

Currently, we have a president who is routinely absent, relying on speeches as a form of “leadership.”  When less than desired economic results occur, we have a president who passes the buck to Congress or blames the previous administration.  We have a president who plays golf and takes vacations instead of working to produce the results we require.  When all of his practices are considered, the President of the United States does not deserve to keep his job.  In fact, if our government were run like a business, Barack Obama would have been fired long ago.

President Obama: full of promises and full of crap.

Under the premise of protecting the Libyan people, Obama inserted the United States into a foreign civil war, costing taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars.  I believe that a flexing of American military muscle is needed from time to time because it keeps our enemies at bay. However, picking on a weak, third world country is simple bullying and Obama has a lot of explaining to do.  The reality is Libya poses posed zero threat to the United States. Additionally, our trading policy with them is extremely lopsided, as we import more than we export in monetary terms.  So what does the United States gain by toppling Gahdafi?  Will it force Libya to buy more American goods?  Probably not.  It simply appears Obama manufactured a way to appear strong militarily by pushing around a small fry in Africa, while ignoring real threats, such as North Korea, Iran, China, as well as feigning deaf to the veiled threats from the Soviet Union Russia.  So what happens now that Libyan rebels have captured Tripoli?  Who knows.

Since February, the message from the White House has been clear: Moammar Gadhafi had to go.  Now that the Libyan dictator has been removed, is the United States free to pack up and leave the region?  Does the United States turn its attention to Syria, or another Middle Eastern regime that is guilty of crimes against humanity?  Do we act on the behalf of the people of Bahrain?  Yemen?  Do we free the oppressed in Sudan?  These are valid questions given the reasons Obama stated for our intervention in Libya; one of which is his desire to bring democracy to that region.

I believe in the final analysis, our intervention in Libya will be proven to be a costly non-win for the United States because nothing will be gained in political or economic values.  What American intervention did prove is that Obama is quick to use military power to settle conflicts with weaker powers, but yet remains soft with powerful countries who threaten us and our interests.

The Congressional Black Caucus ignores the reality that the number of available jobs for people willing to work is staggeringly small by comparison.  They also ignore the political reality: government can’t create jobs.  The CBC can hold a thousand job fairs, if they wish, but a fact remains: employers aren’t hiring.  Until the CBC decides to end their objections to cutting business taxes and reducing redundant regulations, efforts such as these job fairs will be seen as simple grandstanding.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not anti-job fair.  I believe job fairs are useful; they highlight the problem of unemployment in America.  Coincidentally, a line of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people waiting to apply and interview for a few jobs demonstrates decades of political interfering in the affairs of private business and the economy.  If government truly wanted to “do something” about jobs, they could pass a Constitutional Amendment that separates private business from the state, allowing a truly free market to exit, though I wouldn’t hold your breath.

The Vogue article on Jon Huntsman is the most recent attempt by the media to pick the GOP candidate for conservative.  The 110% fluff piece is written by Jacob Weisberg, a writer for Newsweek and is editor-in-chief of The Washington Post’s Slate Group, and portrays the former Utah governor is a highly favorable light.  Normally, when a GOP candidate gets favorable press, conservative fall to their knees to thank God for the mana that has fallen from the heavens.  However, a liberal writing a fluff piece on a CINO (conservative in name only) draws a red flag and I am not falling for it.

Republicans have longed for a conservative candidate; a real conservative.  Not a campaign conservative.  Not a fiscal conservative, social moderate hybrid.  Republicans long for a new Reagan.  But is America going to find the next Ronald Reagan to undo the years of creeping liberalism?

Today, many conservatives believe that you must pass a litmus test to be a member of their club.  To most, a conservative candidate must support or defend one, a few, or ideally, all of these:

• Traditional marriage
• End abortions
• The right to own and bear arms
• Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and values
• Strong military and defense
• Support Israel
• Supply-side economics

Strangely, every most GOP candidates claim to support all of the above, so what is a conservative voter to do?  The dilemma facing voters is wading through the campaign rhetoric so each candidate’s record, history, leadership, and charisma can be fully examined.  Interestingly, you will not find a Ronald Reagan clone in the current crop of GOP candidates.

Ronald Reagan believed “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” As a presidential candidate, Reagan was not a practitioner of libertarian ideas, but he was an advocate for individual liberty.  Even as president, “Dutch” promoted individualism and personal responsibility.  And while the federal budget grew during his two terms, he often spoke out for a smaller role of government in the lives of Americans.  Now, after two and a half years of an extremely liberal Obama administration, the republican party is primed for a this type of conservative to lead them.

Today, every GOP candidate looks conservative when their records are stacked against President Obama’s White House record.  Is anyone in the GOP field a Reagan?  In my opinion, no, and that is OK.

For too long, conservatives have allowed the media to shape voter opinions of GOP candidates by examining which one is most like Reagan.  Typically, the media uses a litmus test to determine which candidate is most palatable to conservatives.  However, what if Gov. Rick Perry stated he no longer supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage, then do conservatives dismiss his candidacy because of it?  Or does one ask if Rick Perry’s change of heart is based on polling data, or did he realize that it isn’t the proper role of government to decide what a marriage is or isn’t?  If Michele Bachmann changed her religious affiliation next Sunday to practice Voodoo (extreme example, I know), should her supporters jump ship, even though she is the most vocal about repealing Obama care and controlling our national debt?  My point is all candidates have certain flaws to explain and overcome to earn the confidence of voters; none are perfect.

In reflection, Ronald Reagan wasn’t the perfect candidate, yet he became the perfect president for those times.  Similarly, we must let the next GOP presidential candidate stand on his or her own two feet.  Let that person elevate themselves based upon their own achievements as a candidate, independent from any type of litmus test or comparison because looking for the next Reagan will certainly end in disappointment; that candidate doesn’t exist.

After a town hall meeting in Iowa, the president missed a real opportunity to bridge a gap between liberals and conservatives.  Instead of engaging in an honest conversation regarding his administration’s characterization of the Tea Party as being terrorists, President Obama dodged the point and strangely tried to invoked sympathy.

When Tea Party activists asked about V.P. Joe Biden and Sec. Janet Napolitano calling the Tea Party members, “terrorists,” POTUS could have walked those comments back, or simply stated that his people were wrong to make such statements.  Strangely, the president brought up his own struggles of being treated “unfairly” by his opposition in the press and the GOP.  None of this is a surprise, considering the White House’s game plan has been to deny or blame for over two years.  But what struck me the most was how the president brushed aside the debate by telling Ryan Rhodes, an Iowa Tea Party organizer, that he isn’t interested in listening.  What in the world does the president think a town hall meeting is, a one-way conversation where he gets to talk and his subjects listen?

The truth of the matter is (POTUS’s favorite transitional statement) the president got his feathers ruffled when he was called out on the carpet and failed to act as a uniter.  Obama simply fell back on his partisan roots.  Observers called the exchange “over the top” and the Tea Partiers “rude.”  On the contrary.  The President of the United States should be engaged by the public in this manner.  Because Obama is not King or Emperor, the First Amendment is not suspended, nor are we obligated to speak to him in any particular tone of respect. Former White House press secretary, Dana Perino, was critical of the exchange, saying that the Tea Partiers should have extended a greater degree of respect to the president and the office.  While I understand her sentiment as a former employee of President Bush, she is missing the larger point, which is the president is our employee and when he screws up, the president deserves to hear our displeasure.

To be fair, I listened to the exchange a few times and feel the Tea Partiers did aggressively challenge the president’s answers.  Were they rude?  In my opinion, no.  Folks, the president is not above this type of conversation, nor is he allowed to give unchallenged mealy-mouthed answers.  While the mainstream media rarely challenges the president, perhaps it is time for us non-elites to do their job.

Still, there is a level of responsibility the president inherently holds but chooses to ignore. He is the president of the people, not just to elites, the media, or corporations who fund his campaign.  Does the president deserve a certain level of respect?  Sure he does, and in turn he should respect us.  And that is the truth of the matter.

Libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul is a one-trick-pony whose lack of substance and a plan to implement his ideas (some of which are good, by the way) were highlighted in the Iowa debate.  While followers of Ron Paul claim debate victory, they fail to say how or why. What did Ron Paul say or do that made him stand head and shoulders above everyone else on stage?  Objectively, Ron Paul stood out as the most uninspiring and un-presidential candidate on stage based solely upon his answers and how he answered the questions. The take away from Paul’s performance is that he explained to the GOP what America shouldn’t be doing domestically and in the world.  Re-watch his answers and one will discover that he falls back on the premise, “America shouldn’t be <insert domestic or foreign policy issue plaguing Obama>…” nearly every time.  Will someone please explain to the dear congressman that its a presidential race and not an ethics class.

To be clear, I am not a Ron Paul hater.  I happen to fully agree with ending the Federal Reserve and restoring the Gold Standard.  I simply find Ron Paul dull and repetitive, and based on what I have seen to date, I will not vote for him in my state’s primary.

Despite my perception of Ron Paul’s performance in the debate, I feel he will do well in Saturday’s Iowa Straw Poll and finish in the top 3 with Romney and Bachmann.  If he doesn’t, then Rep. Paul should stop moonlighting as a presidential candidate and keep fighting his fight in Congress.

(To to jingle of “The Jeffersons”) “G.E. is movin’ on up.  Movin’ on up.  To a deluxe apartment in Shanghai…”  Or so the song goes…well, kind of.

Growing up as a kid, I loved “The Jeffersons”; it ranks in my personal top 10 sit-coms of all-time.  However, G.E.’s X-Ray business moving to China isn’t funny, as it plans to invest nearly $2 billion dollars on foreign soil.  While G.E. certainly has the right to do what it wants, one must question the means and motivation to move money and jobs from the U.S. to China.

One only need look to President Obama’s chairman on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which is G.E.’s chairman and C.E.O., Jeffrey Immelt, and suddenly the picture becomes clear: President Obama is more concerned with global markets and securing favor with China than clearing the way for businesses to create jobs on U.S. soil. Ironically, the president’s ideas on job creation added thousands to the federal payroll, which incidentally costs taxpayers millions of dollars per year.  Meanwhile, the president’s own advisor, Jeffrey Immelt, creates private-sector jobs overseas.  The irony is telling and painful, while the president’s double standard is indefensible.

George Jefferson wouldn’t accommodate a competitor so willingly as Obama does.  In fact, Mr. J. would never surrender his piece of the pie; he would drive competition out of business. Unfortunately, the president not only gives China a slice, he tops it with whipped cream and puts a $2 billion cherry on top.

Everyday, each of us is faced with the reality of existing in today’s terrible economic climate. The costs of living are increasing daily but the president appears not to notice or be affected by the general outcry coming from Americans.  Does the president live in the same reality we do, or exist in a bubble, oblivious to the many Americans treading water, as they to keep themselves afloat?

Has anyone filled their gas tank recently?  I have, albeit grudgingly.  But didn’t the president say that the release of oil reserves would suppress an increase in fuel costs?  On the contrary, gas prices increased.  As of this morning, my neighborhood gas station is posting $3.89 per gallon for unleaded, and it costs me over $85.00 to fill up.  When I purchased my vehicle in March of 2009, gas was $1.70ish per gallon, and “yes” I drive an SUV.

How much is your grocery bill today for the same number of comparable items you purchased two years ago?  Sadly, my family is buying a fewer number of goods for the same amount we spent when Obama took office.  In fact, the average cost to feed a family of four is around $775 a month, and rising.  Sure, prices are expected to increase each year. However, the rapid price increases for bread, milk, butter, eggs, and meat are mostly due to rising costs for fuel and feed.  Let’s face it, farming and transportation are extremely expensive endeavors.

Have you examined your energy bill lately?  Water, natural gas, and electricity costs continue to rise and there appears to be no end in sight.  Thanks to forces beyond our direct control, energy companies are passing developmental costs for “renewable” energy on to its customers.  Additionally, increased regulation costs are handed down to you and me through various fees and taxes that we find in our bills.  There simply is no way to escape feeding the monster that is Big Government.

So what are poor and middle class families to do?  Well, the president suggests that they tighten their belts and share in the common sacrifice.  Really?  That is the president’s answer to rising consumer costs?  Simply put, the ambitions of the middle class and poor have been neutered thanks to the Obama’s failed economic policies.

In the past, when money grew tight, mother or father would find a job or second job to earn much-needed extra money.  However, the prospect of landing a second job is near impossible in today’s job climate.  If you have a job in the first place, count yourself lucky.  9.2% unemployment means millions of people are out of work and looking, which equals a lot of competition for scarce jobs.

When one examines their costs of living, a sense of bewilderment builds, especially when the presidents asks us sacrifice.  With all due respect to the president, that type of suggestion is asinine because it does not solve the root of the problem.  His refusal to lead on many important issues that touch our daily lives of suggests that he is out of touch.  Furthermore, Obama blaming yesterday’s administration for the troubles of today is a cop-out and an indication of a lack of understanding of the dire economic plight we face.

If the economy was a ship, the president capsized it, thus plunging himself and the American people into the chilling waters.  Now swimming in water that’s way over his head, Obama could take the Cut, Cap, and Balance lifeline that’s been offered him, but instead, he would rather go his own way and tread water with the American people anchored to him.  Unfortunately for us, there is no land in sight.  So one must ask, “How long can we afford to tread water?”

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress hold that increasing taxes will solve the debt crisis and fix the economy.  However, gathering more and new revenues simply places a bucket underneath a broken pipe that is our economy.  Eventually, the bucket will overflow and the problem reappears.  What then?  Increase taxes again?

We continue to hear from the left, “Soak the rich!”  To what end?  Who is considered rich?  Recently, the president has taken his argument to the American people and declared the rich must pay their fair share, which is to say, “Hey rich folks.  I gotta justify a tax increase, so I am going to vilify you and your wealthy lifestyle.  OK?  Great.  Thanks.”  Don’t believe it?  One only need listen to the president’s Saturday morning chit-chats where he admonishes “Corporate Fat Cats” and jet owners for…well…their individual achievements.  Coincidentally, government arbitrarily decided that Americans earning $250,000.00 are considered “rich.”  Seriously?  Is someone earning $250k really flying around in their own corporate jet?  Something in the president’s logic does not compute.

So what is a “fair share”?  Real statistics tell us that the rich already bear the largest tax burden and the poor pay very, very little.  In fact, the top 5% of earners pay over 50% of the income taxes in the United States.   So I ask again, “What is a fair share?”  Is it “fair” to increase taxes on the rich, as well as the middle class (yes, that will happen, too), so that their living standards equal those in the lower class?  How does government morally decide what is an ideal standard of living?  Furthermore, by what standard does government decide how much an individual is allowed to keep of their earned income?

Government could impose a tax of 90% on the wealthy in America but living standards would not equalize.  Furthermore, the debt crisis would not be solved, deficit spending would not end, nor social programs be fully funded forever.  It would simply mean less investments, reduced production, fewer jobs, increased prices for scarcer goods.  Asking the rich to pay their “fair share” stands on the premise that government is the best arbitrator of America’s earn income and therefore, allows it to hold a blank check.  Should Americans simply cancel out their individual liberties and surrender to the whims of government because politicians in Washington can’t manage a simple ledger sheet?  I hold that government has proven time and time again that its not a good steward of our taxpayer dollars, and the current debt crisis is proof of this.

No plumber would use a bucket to fix a leak, but instead, would replace the broken pipe.  Republicans in Congress are on the right path: cut spending and spending increases.  The sooner Democrats and the president realize this, the quicker our economy can recover and we all can prosper.  Let’s hope Speaker Boehner carries a large enough pipe wrench in his box of tools.

A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I visited our respective families in our home town as part of our summer vacation.  Both of our families come from conservative backgrounds and they are politically outspoken on many issues.  However, my mother-in-law made an interesting comment on the debt ceiling talks that made me take pause.

As Fox News broadcasted the latest news on the debt talks between both sides, my mother-in-law commented how she wished that Congress would do something to end the bickering because, “nothing is getting done.”  I paused for a moment, smiled, and asked, “What should Congress be doing?  Is there a particular law that you need passed?  Are you in need of more regulations and taxes that drive up the costs of goods and services?”  She looked at me, taken a back, and reiterated that Congress just needs to do something.  I felt bewildered at her frustration.

My mother-in-law, like so many who watch network and cable news, has fallen victim to the fallacies that Congress MUST act; that a debt deal MUST be reached and signed; and that Congress MUST stop arguing and get along.  On the contrary.  Gridlocks in Congress should be the norm.  Unlike the previous session of the democratic-controlled Congress, which wrote and passed bills as if they had a sixth sense about their job security, the 112th session of Congress moves comparably slower.  In political terms, slow is good for Americans.  Slow is good for the wallet.

Sure, the debt ceiling deal talks have creeped along, with each side expectantly jockeying for political position, hoping to get the most for their party and their constituents.  However, the pace of the debt talks pale in comparison to the whirlwind speed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was written, passed, and signed into law; a bill that virtually appeared overnight.  Similarly, we were told by politicians and the media that Congress must act to insure the health and care of every American and that Congress must act to fix a broken system.  The Left worked tirelessly to control the message but I remember the town meetings which were attended by outraged Americans.  Voters rejected the left’s message and things ultimately didn’t turn out well for Congressional democrats, as they took a hit in the polls and we already know the results of the November, 2010 elections.

Its my layman’s guess that the White House and the democrat leadership want a debt deal FAST so they can avoid the ire of constituents in town meetings during the next break.  They don’t want the media broadcasting the real feelings of Americans because so far, the left has relied on the president quoting sketchy polling numbers to support their cause.  I believe Speaker Boehner knows that if he calls the president’s bluff and the issue goes to the American people, then his hand wins the political pot and the democrats lose, and lose big.  Why does the president run to the news cameras after each meeting?  He knows he must control the narrative and shape public opinion on this issue, and so far that approach has worked; my conservative mother-in-law is an example of this.

Gridlock is a good thing, folks.  The Founding Fathers designed our bicameral system so legislation, good and bad, can’t be ramrodded down the throats of Americans.  Debate, no matter how contentious, is vital to our liberties and to government transparency.  Too bad Congress didn’t fall into gridlock over Obamacare but hindsight is always 20/20.

Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post writes a convoluted article where he rails against the concept of American Exceptionalism (you can find it here).  In it, Mr. Cohen suggests that America is in decline and that we should be a nation of compromise to fix our woes.  Why should America compromise?  I suggest that we are in decline because of a failure to stay true to our fundamentals: individual liberties, free markets, and small government.  Since the first Progressive Movement at the beginning of the 20th century, through the New Deal and the Great Society, and up to today, both Democrats and Republicans have altered, changed, and manipulated the American system with a hope to create a Utopia in the United States.  Has it worked?  The left’s answer is “more needs to be done!,” while the right’s answer is “haven’t you done enough already?!?!”

Through legislation and taxation, the government takes the wealth from the “haves” and gives it to the “have-nots.”  By sanctioning forced altruism, the federal government has created a dependency upon the state, and has taught the “have-nots” that they can get everything they want if they remain poor.  Mr. Cohen, as well as Progressives, suggests that American exceptionalism should be the government giving away money, goods, and services to the poor.  On the contrary.  American exceptionalism is grabbing hold of an opportunity, working hard, and seeing the fruits of your labor.  Ask for nothing.  Expect nothing.  Depend on nothing.  Simply be responsible for your own welfare.  If Mr. Cohen wants to call that American narcissism, then I will heartily embrace that moniker.

The term “Anti-Union” is being flung around the news rooms, blogs, and Internet forums as if it were radioactive dog doo doo (Yes, I just typed that).  If you don’t like the unions, then you’re <deep bellowing voice echoes from the mountains> ANTI-UNION! If you believe in right-to-work laws or a free and competitive business environment, then you’re anti-union.  Screw that!  I am simply for fairness across the board.  The argument paraded around by the left and unions is that these teachers earn less in order to get better benefits.  How is earning $100k a year “less”?  Less than what?  This is where the left polititians, media, unionized teachers, supporters, paid supporters, protesters, and paid protesters lose the rest of the so-called “anti-union” crowd.

The non unionized workforce in America lags far behind in both pay and benefits.  Unions have raised wages and fringe benefits 15-30% above comparable nonunion workers.  In addition, non unionized workers are contributing to our own retirement and paying a healthy percentage of our insurance benefits compared to many unions.  In the goods and services industries, that 15-30% benefit bump is a cost that is passed down to consumers – us!  In the case of the Wisconsin teachers, the Wisconsin taxpayers are footing the bill, as are other state taxpayers facing similar budget problems of their own.

My point is that non union employees and other Americans who don’t support the actions of the Wisconsin teachers aren’t necessarily anti-union, but rather are simply tired of paying more for products they buy.  They are tired of listening to unions complain about “the man” and “condititions in the workplace (code for so-called low pay and poor benefits).  They are tired of listening to a group of adults screaming like toddlers instead of having a civil debate.  Union voters had a chance to maintain the status quo last November but you failed.  You failed because the status quo can no longer be maintained and those ideas were voted down.  Government is a business, not a charitiy, which seems like a simple concept to a concerned many.  Unfortunately in the current climate, it is the few that are screaming the loudest.  “No longer,” I say.  No longer.

However, if the left is bent on calling those with opposing views “anti-union”, then I suggest turning the name-calling tables around and start using labels of your own when referring to left polititians, media, unions, union supporters, paid supporters, protesters, and paid protesters.

For you consideration:

Socialists
Anti Right-to-Work
Anti-Capitalists
Anti-Free Market

Be creative but keep it clean.