Under the Microscope: Job Creation

Since I called out Obama for not knowing how to create jobs, I guess I should tackle this issue.

My main beef with Obama is that he's using fiscal stimulus to try and create jobs. The way he's spending just isn't working. The economy continues to suffer even as he's spending billions of dollars "creating jobs:"

What’s clear, however, is that the Obama Administration badly needs a re-start after a(nother) disastrous August that saw the president’s numbers drop to record lows and the country descend deeper into economic pessimism.

Assuming that the jobs report shows in the neighborhood of 60,000 jobs created, it would provide fodder to Obama’s Republican critics who have long argued that not only are his policies not working but that the administration has little idea what else to do to make things better.

Despite this, it seems that President Obama wants to do more of the same:

President Barack Obama signaled Monday he'll propose a major infrastructure program and an extension of a payroll tax break in the jobs speech he planned to deliver Thursday before a joint session of Congress.

While the state of this country's infrastructure is a topic for another day, at what point will Obama realize that "creating" construction jobs is creating work not jobs. Once these projects are completed, there's nothing left to do unless you spend more money on improving infrastructure. It's just a spending spiral that he's creating. You can't do that.

The GOP has not made job growth a priority:

But issuing a call for jobs isn't as simple as it may seem. While the new jobs numbers present the GOP with an obvious issue with which to hammer the president, Republicans in Congress and out on the campaign trail have spent much of the year focused on a different economic area: fiscal austerity and proposals to pare the big federal budget deficit.

However, it seems that it will become a more contested issue. Mitt Romney outlined his plan today:

Standing in front of a large banner that read “Day One, Job One,” Mr. Romney detailed the 10 actions he would take the first day of his presidency. Five of them are executive orders, and the other five are pieces of legislation that he would send to Congress and request action on within 30 days.

“The right course for America is to believe in growth,” Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, said at McCandless International Trucks. “Growing our economy is the way to get people to work and to balance our national budget.”

The way I see it, in terms of the difference to approaches, Romney is putting the money back into the households and to the businesses, while Obama is using that money to spend on creating jobs. Clearly it's more efficient Romney's way. I'm not convinced that how great an effect it will have.

Jon Huntsman had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning:

Our entrepreneurs are harmed as much by overregulation as by overtaxation.

I believe that this is more the way to go.

Henry R Nothhaft had this to say yesterday:

We know, for starters, that 100% of net job growth in the U.S. comes from entrepreneurial start-ups, as a Kauffman Foundation report documented in 2010. If you took start-ups out of the picture and looked only at large or incumbent businesses, job growth over the last 35 years would actually be negative. In the words of Kauffman's Tim Kane, "When it comes to U.S. job growth, start-up companies aren't everything. They're the only thing."

While big companies may have to hire or fire people from time to time, they're, for the most part, mature companies. They're not going to continue to grow. The new technologies that are born and the new jobs are spurred by small businesses:

As I noted in an article last year with retired chief judge Paul Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles patent appeals, simply clearing the patent backlog could create up to 2.25 million jobs by 2014. And it wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime, since the patent office is the only self-supporting agency of the federal government.

The problem with the current government is that they're not spending money right. I don't trust a government that is going to take tax payer money and misappropriate it in misguided band-aid programs.

While I'm not satisfied with the Republicans' plans thus far, I feel their plans will better alleviate the troubled economy because it will allow households and firms to choose where to spend that money. Deregulation has been mentioned by several candidates, but there hasn't been a specific plan laid out. Hopefully, as the election trail heats up, the candidates will be pushed to come up with specific ways to fix the economy and to create jobs.

Obama: The Failed Solar Promise

One of the cornerstone's of Obama's campaign was to invest in clean technology jobs. One of the companies that the government extended a loan to has filed for bankruptcy:

Despite receiving a $535 million federal loan and about $1 billion in venture capital, high-profile solar-panel maker Solyndra Inc. plans to file for bankruptcy protection, undermined by a weak global economy and competition from China.

Solyndra's failure has brought up bigger issues, like what justified the federal loan to begin with:

Lots of venture capital companies bought into the hype, investing in green technology to piggyback their own capital on federal favoritism. Solyndra's relationship with the White House came under special scrutiny because of Solyndra backer and Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser's history as an Obama fundraiser. In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu in February, the House Energy and Commerce Committee raised concerns about the loan, noting that the company had suffered "financial setbacks," and asking for information about "whether Solyndra was the right candidate" for the loan guarantee.

Zero Hedge called this the day before:

These points all lead me to wonder about a big company in this space, Solyndra. This is a private company. I don’t have any financials to look at as a result. Neither do you. But you should, this company is heavily indebted to Uncle Sam.

So what in God's name are they doing?

I don't want to get too much into chrony capitalism, using public funds to feed special interests or to benefit campaign financiers. There are better solar companies that are thriving. Why did Obama put it into that black box?

Clearly, there's bigger problems:

Arlington officials boast the project will save $14,000 in annual electricity costs, but the solar panels have a life span of no more than 10 to 15 years. So the feds spent $300,000 to shave at most $150,000 off the net present value of Arlington's electric bills. Some 3,000 counties across the country received federal funds for the same kind of negative-return energy conservation "investments." This is the kind of "clean energy" program the administration wants to expand.

He has no idea what he's doing. It makes no economic sense to put money into a technology that doesn't pay off. This is throwing money away. The construction jobs are temporary. This is wasted money. Without even getting into where the money is going, a rich county, it doesn't make sense to put solar panels on a roof when it doesn't make economical sense. That's not investing in clean technology. That's wasting money.

Investing in clean technology would mean growing the technology so that there are jobs to help advance the technology within the industry. Obama has been so out of touch with what really works and that's the problem. He keeps talking about stimulus and improving infrastructure, but all he's doing is creating temporary low-skill jobs. On top of that, when he's investing into new technologies, he's putting money into failing companies like Solyndra.

I think it's safe to say that Obama has not delivered on his promise to create clean technology jobs, but to go even further, I'm not sure he even knows what creating jobs is. The struggling economy and his failed policies only reinforce this belief.

Beware Buffett?

If you've been paying attention to the markets recently, you would know that Warren Buffett recently bought shares of the struggling Bank of America. While it makes sense in theory to follow the investments of a man who has been dubbed the Oracle of Omaha, it doesn't, however, seem like the best investment.

It does give a certain credibility to the stock and the company:

"This helps with the credibility gap that I think has existed in the minds of some shareholders. It reiterates the point that the balance sheet is healthy. They needed an endorsement in the market and they got it," said Jon Finger, managing partner of Finger Interests in Houston.

It does not hide the fact that the company is in some sort of trouble. People put money into these companies because of Buffett's track record and his name. However, you're not getting the same deal that Buffett is getting. Before we get into the actual deals, consider this; you're buying after Buffett buys, probably at a higher price than Buffett, and you're selling after Buffett sells, probably at a lower price than Buffet. This means you're getting lower returns to begin with.

Then you have the real reason Buffett is investing: he's getting a great deal on the investment:

Now Buffett is investing in beleaguered Bank of America. He invested $5 billion in a special preferred stock and will be getting a 6 percent dividend, while the regular stock you can buy pays less than 1 percent. Now I don’t know whether Bank of America is a good deal at current prices. Maybe it is. But the point is, if you buy now, you’re not getting the same terms as Buffett. You’re just pumping money into his dividend payment and hoping for the best.

And it's not the first time he's gotten this type of deal; he did it with Goldman:

But Buffett had more than $12,000 to invest. He had $5 billion. So he negotiated a much better deal. He bought preferred stock that came with a special dividend. Instead of 1 percent, he negotiated a 10 percent dividend. So now every year he receives a check for $500 million. Then, only after he gets paid, do common stockholders get their paltry 1 percent.

He did it with General Electric:

Buffett made a similar deal with General Electric. In 2008 he bought $3 billion in preferred shares with a 10 percent dividend. But you wouldn’t have done well to follow him. The stock was selling at around $21 a share in the fall of 2008. Now it’s running between $15 and $16, a loss of over 20 percent. But remember, unlike regular investors, Buffett’s been collecting that 10 percent dividend. He’s still ahead of the game.

Even when the stock was losing, Buffett was gaining. Does this sound like the kind of deal you want to get into?

Buying preferred shares is different from buying common stock. Investing in preferred stock has its advantages:

A class of ownership in a corporation that has a higher claim on the assets and earnings than common stock. Preferred stock generally has a dividend that must be paid out before dividends to common stockholders and the shares usually do not have voting rights.

The precise details as to the structure of preferred stock is specific to each corporation. However, the best way to think of preferred stock is as a financial instrument that has characteristics of both debt (fixed dividends) and equity (potential appreciation). Also known as "preferred shares".

Buffett is essentially getting a much better deal than those of us who invest in common stock.

Following Buffett might have its advantages. Bank of America shares surged on news that Buffett had invested in the company. However, you need to realize that you're investment returns will be different from Warren's and your needs might not be the same as a result. He has built in advantages which will enable him to make a lot of money. These advantages are not available to the general public. It's important to see through to the details before making an investment following someone like Warren Buffett.

I'm not saying following Warren Buffet is a bad idea. I just think its important to know what you're getting into and how your returns might not be what you expect. The most important thing in investing is information: make sure you know what's going on.

Tackling Taxes

With the pending debt crisis, the issue of taxes has become a much discussed issue. The biggest backlash in the debate seems to have been spurred by Warren Buffet, who says the ultra-rich should be paying more. A New York Post op-ed says that this is misguided:

Left unsaid is that much of that is taxed at 35 percent (via the corporate income tax) before he even gets his hands on it. So in effect, he’s paying taxes twice (that is, when his companies actually pay, anyway).

Counting both taxes, his effective rate would really be well north of 40 percent for a big chunk of his income.

In addition, Obama has propagated rhetoric against Corporate Jet Owners:
This, according to Republicans, has spurred a class warfare about who pays what taxes. The Daily Show pretty much explains it best:

The Daily Show - World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

This dialogue of shifting the burden of taxes from the rich to the poor has been a common thread from the Republican candidates. Fact of the matter is that the people who aren't paying taxes are amongst the poorest in our country. They live from pay check to pay check and can't afford to pay taxes without threatening their already low standard of living. Quite simply, it's a type of tactical rhetoric to enrage the contingency they're appealing to who tend to hate taxes and hate paying them. To these people, everyone should share the burden if there is a burden at all. Here's what Michelle Bachmann had to say:

"Part of the problem is today, only 53 percent pay any federal income tax at all; 47 percent pay nothing," said Bachmann. "We need to broaden the base so that everybody pays something, even if it's a dollar. Everyone should pay something, because we all benefit."

It's not just her saying this. Jon Huntsman is also in the we need more people paying taxes boat (8:11). I agree with Huntsman as saying we need people to have a stake in our spending. If you aren't paying taxes, what do you care how the government is spending those funds?

The problem though is that people are looking at it from a budgetary stand point. Taxing the poor shouldn't be seen as the way to increase tax revenues. It should be used more to make sure people have a shake in the government's spending. It should be to keep the government accountable.

But as I said before, these are the poorest of the poor:

Consider: Of those households that do not owe income taxes, about a third earn $10,000 a year and a slightly smaller share earn between $10,000 and $20,000. More than three-fourths earn $30,000 or less.

In addition, the notion that these households pay no taxes is flat-out wrong. They pay — leaving aside state and local sales, income and property taxes — federal gasoline and other excise taxes and, most significantly, payroll taxes on every dollar they earn. These taxes are regressive. Everyone pays the same share, regardless of income, so they hit the poor hardest, and they counterbalance the progressivity of the income tax code.

Let's not worry about taxes from a who pays stand point then. Let's worry about taxes from the stand point of the budget. Raising tax revenues is necessary in times where the budget is a concern. Deciding the budget isn't as simple as cutting spending and increasing taxes though. It is important to also consider the effect that these changes will have on the economy.

The economy is struggling.

We need policies that encourage economic growth. Let's start with Obama's plan to raise taxes and see if it would positively affect the economy. We'll look at the UK for evidence. The UK raised the top tax bracket to 50% for the wealthiest:

The new rate will affect the 300,000 highest earners in the UK, out of the 29 million people who pay income tax.
It will be levied on taxable incomes greater than £150,000 a year and aims to raise an extra £2.4bn by next year.

This is, in effect, similar to what Obama wants to do in taxing those making $250,000 or more. So did it work?

The most likely explanation is that higher income tax receipts partially represent the new 50p rate kicking in and rasing revenue. How else to explain the figures? Receipts are up way in advance of earnings or employment growth.

So it has worked in raising revenues. The big question then becomes has it helped the economy? It seems not:

"We always said that recovering from the deepest recession that we've had for many decades, with the largest budget deficit that we've seen for a very long time was going to be choppy and I think probably the waters have been choppier than anyone expected. We've seen big headwinds in the global economy, rising oil prices, rising commodity prices. All those things have an impact on the British economy."

Those same variables would seemingly have the same effect on the US economy. Raising revenues won't be worth it if you have events like this going on:

A solution that also addresses the economy would be the best case scenario. So what other options are there? Michelle Bachmann has proposed that we cut taxes:

Representative Michele Bachmann promised Saturday that as president she would turn things around within one economic quarter, in part by cutting corporate taxes and eliminating capital gains and inheritance taxes. Painting President Obama as doggedly antibusiness, Mrs. Bachmann asked, “Why in the world wouldn’t we do what we know works to create jobs in this country?”

Why would we want to cut taxes when we need to raise revenues? This doesn't seem intuitive does it? Well, a lot of companies have a lot of cash on their balance sheets, but they aren't using it:

Tax policy is driving much of this trend. For multinational corporations, cash earned abroad cannot easily be remitted to the United States. If it is paid back to the United States, it is subject to a dividend tax that can rise to as much as 35 percent. Companies are loath to pay this tax because while they can offset it with taxes paid abroad, the companies still end up paying a relatively high tax rate.

However, lower taxes won't solve the problem completely:

Five companies alone — Pfizer, Merck, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson and I.B.M. — repatriated $88 billion, But the repatriation did not result in increased investment. Instead, companies largely repatriated the money and used their current United States holdings to pay out dividends or engage in share repurchases. This was contrary to what Congress had intended.

While the cash was not used for investment, this does not mean it did not have an overall positive effect on the American economy: shareholders went on to spend this cash. The study’s authors acknowledged this, stating that “presumably these shareholders either reinvested these funds or used them for consumption, thereby having indirect effects on firm investment, employment or spending.”

How can this be fixed?

A permanent tax reduction would not only cut taxes but actually raise revenue, allowing for Republicans to vote for it. And it should be a holiday without restrictions — trying to force companies to invest the money rather than pay dividends is a useless exercise that will create only more bureaucracy.

Even if the money were largely spent on buybacks and dividends and a large portion were kept abroad, it would still be reasonable to expect $300 billion to $600 billion to be repatriated. This money would flow into the economy, making the dividend tax cut a stimulus package that Democrats could support.

Lowering taxes isn't the complete solution, but there are ways to combat corporate loopholes and encourage the return of that money into the United States. Tax-friendly areas have been known to do well, as was chronicled in the WSJ documenting the success of the Swiss region Zug:

Developed nations from Japan to America are desperate for growth, but this tiny lake-filled Swiss canton is wrestling with a different problem: too much of it.

Zug's history of rock-bottom tax rates, for individuals and corporations alike, has brought it an A-list of multinational businesses. Luxury shops abound, government coffers are flush, and there are so many jobs that employers sometimes have a hard time finding people to fill them.

Zug provides an example where lower taxes has helped grow the economy and grow tax revenues. This is because as the economy has grown, there's been more wealth to kick back to the government. The government are getting lower percentages of incomes, but those incomes are growing because of the burgeoning economy.

We've actually seen this work in the United States before, when Reagan cut outrageous taxes leftover from the Carter administration. While this didn't rejuvenate the economy immediately, it helped the economy regain momentum through the 1990s, while the Clinton administration operated at a budget surplus.

Government officials need to take a hard look at this. The debt crisis is clearly an important issue. The solution, however, must make long-term sense. To me, this means that the government should encourage economic growth to raise in the future tax revenues. The shortfall from lowering taxes can be done by cutting spending.

The answer to our problems is addition by subtraction. The economy needs a boost. This is the way to do it.

Steve Jobs: An American Innovator

Steve Jobs resigned from Apple on Wednesday. I have a great deal of admiration for the man. My family's first computer was an old Apple Macintosh. It was small, cute, and different.

I don't really remember it that much, but it was my first exposure to computers. During the time I grew up, Apple was always the underdog. Microsoft and its PC allies seemed to have a dominating presence in the personal computer market.

If you look at Apple now, as the greatest company in the world, you have to wonder how they got to where they were. The answer to everything is Steve Jobs. He's been a visionary, he's been an innovator, he's been The Man.

His resignation has been like a worldwide eulogy:

His departure leaves an empty feeling because he has brought us so much.

The history of Apple of a company is very much intertwined with the life of Steve Jobs at Apple. The New York Times had a chronology of Jobs's career at Apple.

Obviously, one of the key moments for Apple was when Steve Jobs returned to the company after a ten year hiatus:

When Steve returned, Apple just took over the world. Those iMacs were fantastic and cool. I owned a special edition Graphite G3 iMac. I actually still have it in my room, even though I haven't used it in forever. I remember the first thing I did was watch the free "A Bug's Life" DVD that came with the computer, probably related to Steve's ownership of Pixar at the time.

The Wall Street Journal has him pegged:

His story isn't just the story of a person, but the combination of time, place and person, spawning a career in industrial design of awesome proportions. Mr. Jobs founded two pivotal companies in American history. Both happened to be named Apple. One was the Apple of the Macintosh, the other was the Apple of the iPhone.

We'll return to that article in a second, but his return's significance to the company is incomparable. You can see it in the stock price:
Over the last ten years, he has brought us a plethora of technological advancements with iPod and iTunes, the new mac computers and laptops and more recently the iPhone and iPad. These increased the influence of the company by diversifying its products in music as well as mobile devices. The iPod was the first of these new devices that really changed the game:

It throws up endless interesting juxtapositions: just now my iPod came up with Nick Cave, Judy Collins, Kasabian, Elvis Costello, Booker T, the Beatles, PJ Harvey, Arcade Fire and the Carpenters. It’s not perfect (why is it so determined to team Nick Lowe with Led Zeppelin?), but if you don’t like one of its choices you can just press fast-forward. Thanks to shuffle, you can create a radio station of a kind that died out when the broadcasters allowed niche playlisting to become a tyranny. And it doesn’t have any chit-chat or jingles or adverts. The music really is the thing.

Other companies came out with their own devices but the iPod was the iPod and iTunes was iTunes. He made it easy. You could get iTunes on any computer and it was a simple way of keeping track of your music. It linked to the iTunes Store as well as to your iPod when you downloaded new music. It just changed the music listening experience.


Jobs gave business an identity. He brought it to the 21st century:

“Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work,” Jobs said in a 2005 Stanford University commencement speech, which has been much quoted in recent days. “And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle.”

Here's the speech if you haven't seen it:
There are two other great Jobs speeches here.

He moved business forward. Technology is what drives innovation today. It is what makes our lives easier. Jobs has made a career of making products that people not only need, but are easy to use. I conceived the idea of the iPhone soon after the iPod, but I don't think I could have executed the product much better than Apple did.

That's been the story of Apple in recent year. I've questioned the need of some of their products, but the products they've brought forth have always been executed flawlessly. And people buy them like crazy. When I sit on the T and look around, everyone is on their iPads doing work or playing games. Apple has become a company that has a presence in every aspect of your life. That's a lot of what has made the company so great.

Going forward, it will be interesting to see how it goes. Jobs himself said that Apple will continue to innovate:

"I believe Apple's brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it," he said in his announcement this week, perhaps his one concession to ordinary sentimentality, for it seems impossible that Apple, or any company, could anticipate another run like Apple's in the 10 years since the iPod's introduction.

Going forward without Jobs is a scary prospect. It is something that is now a reality. Changes will be made:

Rather than acting as mere advisers to one of the world's great visionary leaders, the board may have to take more control, be less deferential to the new CEO Tim Cook than it was to Jobs, and meet more often.

Jobs is going to be the new chairman on a board that lacked a chairman before. This means that while he is no longer the CEO and won't be in charge of day to day operations, he will still have a strong say in the direction of the company. Despite his health worries, it's a good sign.

It's a good sign for everyone, the shareholders, the customers, but most importantly as a sign of Jobs's health. Steve Jobs has contributed so much to the world. He is an inspiring story for any American as a self-made man, as an innovator, an entrepreneur, as a cancer survivor and battler, and as an American. In the years to come, Jobs will be immortalized for his deeds. I have to say, it's been a pleasure to read about all the things he's done for Apple.

While this may be goodbye from running Apple, I hope it's not a goodbye forever.

For now, I want to thank Mr. Jobs.

The Patent War

The tech industry is at an interesting crossroads right now. While many of the largest companies have a plethora of cash at their disposal, rather than spending it on acquisitions, research and development, or stock buy backs, these companies are buying up patents to sure up their standing.

This patent purchases have been happening for some time but Google's recent purchase of Motorola has heightened the patent debate:

The costs of our broken patent system are often abstract, but this month Google put a price tag on the problem: $12.5 billion. That's what Google paid for Motorola's U.S. smartphone business and its 17,000 patents. This is $12.5 billion that one of America's most creative companies will not use to innovate, fund research or hire anyone beside patent lawyers.

Rather than using these patents to develop new products, these companies are using them to sure up their market position against their competitors and to start lawsuits. The war is taking place not in the sleek high tech buildings of Silicon Valley, but in the courtrooms.

The Google deal is the biggest in a line of purchases that has seen the biggest companies look to secure a competitive advantage:

Lacking its own trove of patents to vie with Apple, Microsoft and other companies, Google and its hardware partners were targeted by suits aimed at slowing the adoption of Android smartphones. Adding the 17,000 patents of Motorola Mobility, which has been inventing mobile-phone technology since the industry began, may help Google stanch the onslaught.

Google's Android technology has been under attack, so these purchases sure up their position against Apple and other competitors:

Apple stepped up the patent feud by suing Android manufacturers, claiming Google-powered devices copy the iPhone and iPad. Microsoft has sued Motorola Mobility and Barnes & Noble Inc., whose Nook reader runs Android software.

Already, there's a potential lawsuit from Microsoft:

“We have a responsibility to our employees, customers, partners and shareholders to safeguard our intellectual property,” David Howard, Microsoft’s corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for litigation, said in an e-mail. “Motorola is infringing our patents and we are confident that the ITC will rule in our favor.”

Besides the lawsuits, the purchase of Motorola Mobility puts a price on patents:

"There is clearly an upward sloping trend in patent value and patent value being recognized," said James Malackowski, chief executive of Ocean Tomo, an intellectual property advisory firm which values patent portfolios as part of its services. "As with any trend, it's never perfectly smooth, you see volatility in outlier transactions."

I think this best describes the situation:

"There are three textbook ways to value intellectual property, just as you would real estate -- the income approach, the cost approach, and the market approach," he said.

"If you are looking at an apartment building, the market approach says how much do other apartment buildings sell for? For the cost approach, you would ask what it would cost to build a like unit. The income approach says look at the present value of the rents -- or for patents, the present value of the expected earnings associated with owning the technology."

The question is: should these companies be spending their cash on patents? The answer isn't so simple:

Many venture capitalists and software entrepreneurs have warned that software is fundamentally different from other areas of innovation and that patents should be granted much more rarely than they are today. Software almost always builds on previous work, so patents rarely reflect the kind of original work that patent law is supposed to protect.

Part of the problem is that the law no longer distinguishes between how ideas become products and services differently in different industries. A good contrast to software is how advances are made in the pharmaceutical industry, which is made up of largely independent areas of research.

While these companies do deserve protection for their intellectual property, it is not good for the companies nor the technology sector for these companies to just duel over these patents. The cash that these companies have on their books would be better used for new innovation through R&D and to create new jobs. The posturing of these companies suggests more about patent law than anything else. There needs to be changes:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the exclusive forum for patent appeals, created in 1982 to keep the law consistent. But with consistency has come decisions upholding patents so broadly it’s hard to tell exactly what they cover.

The solution would be to have stricter standards:

A more reasonable approach would be stricter approval standards. The U.S. Supreme Court seemed to agree last year when it affirmed the rejection of a proposed business-method patent. The decision comes too late for companies that have shelled out for infringement fights. But it bodes well for those that would rather use patents to promote innovation than squelch it.

You cannot change what has already happened, but you can make the future more clear. The purchases of these patents have been made because of uncertainty over these patent laws. They don't know where they are protected and where they are vulnerable.

These companies can't move forward without ensuring that their present is stable. It is time to reconsider how patent law applies to technology. The US government must make a stronger push to ease these companies' worries and get them back to focusing on innovating the future.

The Forgotten Son: Ron Paul

Ron Paul always seems to not be taken seriously. It's unfortunate. After all, he's the one who said governments should have less influence on people's lives. He campaigned hard on it in 2008. Now, it seems everyone else is capitalizing on his original message. He continues to be forgotten:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The media's ignoring of Ron Paul hasn't gone unnoticed in the mainstream media either:

By now, pretty much everyone agrees Ron Paul was ignored by the media following his second place finish in the Ames straw poll on Saturday. Whether or not the media blackout was justified due to his less-than-favorable campaign prospects is subject to debate.

So what are Paul's prospects? We can judge some of it by his ability to raise money right? Well, he's cash:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised $1.8 million in 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday, a major online "money bomb" timed to coincide with his 76th birthday. This is the fourth time Paul has raised more than $1 million in a day this campaign cycle, and a signal that he will have the money to compete as long as he wants for the Republican presidential nomination.

Paul is still behind Romney and Perry as far as raising money, but the man is raising more money than Michelle Bachmann at this point. He's not going away. And with all that money, he should not go away quietly.

He's also polling well in New Hampshire:

On the ballot Romney remains in a strong position. He leads all candidates with 36% of the vote. However, Perry, making his first appearance in the NH Journal poll, debuts with a strong 18%. Ron Paul continues to impress despite relatively little media attention with 14%. And Bachmann earns 10%. All other candidates were in single digits.

So despite the lack of media attention, Paul continues to raise money and do well in the polls. You've got to still wonder why no one's considering him a serious contender. Is the media attention the only thing keeping him from being a serious contender.

Yet we see all these other candidates that seemingly have no chance getting media attention. Rick Santorum continues to get attention, despite finishing a distant fourth place. Even Jon Huntsman is getting more attention than Ron Paul. What's the deal with that:

Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.

Even more worrying is the fact that not only is Paul getting outshined in media coverage by his fellow candidates, but also by the potential Presidential candidates.

The Tea Party is using a radio blitz for Sarah Palin. Everyone under the sun are waiting for a Paul Ryan or Chris Christie to throw their hat into the race.

It's unbelievable.

In many ways, by not giving Ron Paul fair time or attention, he is becoming a forgotten man in this race. However, the extent to which people are going to ignore him is ridiculous. Palin, Ryan, and Christie aren't even in the race, and attention should not focus on them until they decide they want to serve our country. Huntsman and Santorum are not campaigning nearly as well as Paul, yet they are both getting the mainstream treatment. Whether you like Ron Paul or not, you should agree his voice should at least be heard. The media blackout on Ron Paul is anti-American.

Let the man have a voice.

The Tea Party Candidate

One of the top challenges for any Republican candidate for President is to win the Tea Party vote.

The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that may or may not be misunderstood. When it first emerged, the protests seemed silly because there seemed to be racially motivated, particularly in the way they tried to convince the public that Barack Obama was born outside the United States:

It's been a very controversial movement:

"Given how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics," Campbell and Putnam write. "But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic."

In spite of this, it has continued to gain political influence amongst Republican presidential candidates.

Rather than discuss the movement, I would like to address in regards to their Tea Party politics.

Michelle Bachmann has been championing herself as a Tea Party Republican, particularly in highlighting her recent voting record in light of the debt crisis. However, she was burned in Friday's Wall Street Journal for some of her stances:

If Mrs. Bachmann is worried that Mr. Ryan's reforms would not address her concerns, then there are other approaches to choose from. But she has declined to offer or endorse any, expressing only vague support for a small increase in the retirement age and greater means testing—neither of which would make a real dent in Medicare's growth, since neither would reform the grossly inefficient payment system that causes costs to explode throughout the health sector. An asterisk is not enough.

The problem is that while the Tea Party has admirable political goals, its politicians may not have the spine to get things done. Providing concrete policies is an important factor:

A posture of bold fiscal conservatism is simply not compatible with timid evasions on Medicare reform. The combination may be politically convenient, but it is substantively incoherent. And it's not just Mrs. Bachmann who has done this—most of the GOP presidential candidates have as well. Virtually every speech they give is laced with promises to tame our deficit and debt, to scale back the size, scope, reach and cost of government. Yet they have little to say when it comes to fixing the fundamental structure of our health entitlements. They want to will the ends but not the means to those ends. And that just won't do.

You can't shy away from strength. By dodging concrete policies, you're building uncertainty for your campaign. One of the main criticisms of Obama was that he didn't provide concrete policies. I think a 2012 candidate will have to provide a much stronger stance on the issues.

Tea Party activists also have concerns about Rick Perry:

The activists and enthusiasts were much more likely to express doubts about a Perry candidacy. Many were dissatisfied with his time as governor and doubted the authenticity of his conservative credentials.

These are the two "front-runners." I discount Mitt Romney only because I think his religion will be an issue and his spotty record is something that he won't defend. Romney is a smart guy, but he's not charismatic and he's not outspoken. I think he genuinely wants to be President and probably would do a good job if elected. However, he lacks those two traits which are prime on the campaign trail. Oh, and he's definitely not a Tea Party favorite.

Interestingly, the two candidates that would probably most appeal to the Tea Party are not even in the race.

Chris Christie of New Jersey had this to say earlier this year:

And let me tell you what the truth is. What's the truth that no one is talking about-here is the truth that no one is talking about: you're going to have to raise the retirement age for social security. Oh I just said it and I'm still standing here! I did not vaporize into the carpeting and I said it! We have to reform Medicare because it costs too much and it is going to bankrupt us. Once again lightning did not come through the windows and strike me dead. And we have to fix Medicaid because it's not only bankrupting the federal government, it's bankrupting every state government. There you go. If we're not honest about these things, on the state level about pensions and benefits and on the federal level about social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we are on the path to ruin.

Christie is mulling a run as is Paul Ryan, who brought us the Path to Prosperity:

No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.

Both of these candidates fit the Tea Party agenda so far as cutting government spending and reducing taxes. More importantly, they have a strong record for entitlement reform. They have a strong stance against it and would provide the spine that the Republicans that the other candidates lack.

While the Bachmanns and the Perrys may have the charisma to appeal to the Tea Party supporters, they lack the record to bring about changes the Tea Party activiists can get behind. There's hope that one of these men will run for the presidency. However, until then, the Tea Party activists will have to settle for less.

What is Entitlement Reform?

On my Twitter, I tweeted that if there's anything you're unsure about or you want to learn about, you should let me know. A lot of my own posts start that way. I look at things that are in the news that I want to learn more about, so I research them. I try to apply it to what's going in the world, why it's important etc.

Today, let's talk about entitlement reform.

So what is it? Yahoo! Answers has this:

Entitlements are like government handouts..Welfare, Medicare, and social security are all considered entitlements. The entitlements make up about 56% of the federal budget, so most conservatives believe that they should be reformed.. like raising the age to claim Social security.

So as one would suspect, they have to do with spending initiatives.

With the deficit crisis, entitlement reform has been in the news a lot lately. The cost of a lot of these programs are spiraling out of control and making it hard to control the deficit. Some legislators believe that these costs must be controlled in order to give our country a chance at financial survival.

Let's start at the top with Obama:

"There have been times when our side, when Democrats aren’t always as flexible as we need to be," Obama said. "Sometimes I do get frustrated when I hear folks say, 'You can't make any changes to any government programs.' Well, that can't be right."

This isn't a soft issue. This is something that is going to challenge many people's political ideologies and go against what they stand for. Obama has been a champion of liberal doctrine, but he understands that this is a growing issue:

"We will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up," he said in late July. "I mean, it's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing."

You cannot keep raising taxes to make these things happen. You're taking away the competitiveness of the country if you're taking everything from people and giving it back in the form of entitlements.

These entitlements are a cost driver and are one of the main reasons that the US recently had it's credit downgraded:

"The key thing is, yes, entitlement reform is important because entitlements are the biggest component of spending, and the part of spending where the cost pressures are greatest," Beers said.

So the people responsible for downgrading our debt are cognizant of the fact that entitlements are going to continue to be an issue going forward.

So what's the significance of this?

Well, the debt crisis has created uncertainty and volatility in the markets. There are worries about a potential default in the future. Companies aren't hiring. Much of the problems associated with economic worry are tied to growing debt problems, so tackling and controlling entitlements are going to be one of the top issues of the next election. While the economy will most likely be the top issue, one of the paths to bettering the economy should come through reducing the deficit and reducing uncertainty.

Paul Ryan has been one of the most outspoken politicians on entitlement reform:

Ryan added that he's willing to discuss tax reforms in a way that would promote economic growth and job creation, including addressing "special interest-driven loopholes," but qualified any reforms by adding, "if you're just raising revenues to chase ever high spending, that's not good policy."

Ryan said ultimately the U.S. has to fix its entitlement system.

"The president just created two brand new health care entitlements, expanded Medicaid, a third, and then put this new rationing board in charge of Medicare," Ryan told "Fox News Sunday." "So they're unwilling to open up and restructure these entitlements, which according to S&P are the primary drivers of this debt."

Wall Street agrees:

Bill Miller of Legg Mason Capital Management, who appeared with Ryan, said the markets are looking to see a "reduction in uncertainty," which means both fundamental tax reform and changes to the entitlement structure.

"Discretionary spending doesn't matter at all in this thing except that it'll be a little bit of a drag on the economy. It's pro-growth policies and fundamental entitlement reform, especially on health care, that are the key things for to our long-term fiscal health and therefore the long-term confidence in the markets toward our country," Miller said.

The debt crisis is a top down concern for the markets and for the economy. If we address this debt crisis through entitlement reform, we can help ensure the fiscal safety of our country and work towards suring up our markets' confidence.

So while the election will focus on the economy, entitlement reform should come up. Ryan is one of the most outspoken politicians on entitlement reform and if he decides to run, I will surely profile him. Regardless, his Path to Prosperity will be a topic of discussion.

The question is whether the rest of the candidates take his cue and make it a primary talking point or they try to focus solely on the economy without tackling the debt issue, attacking each others' records and Obama's record. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if Obama follows through on what he has already said. If he does make the move and extend his hand to implement entitlement reform, will that give him a leg up in the race? These questions will be answered in the weeks or months to come.

India's Corruption Problem

India is corrupt. It's been that way for as long as I know. I didn't think that was ever going to change, and I was worried that it would stunt the country's growth. How can you change societal problem that is so widespread?

Wikipedia throws it down for us:

Political and bureaucratic corruption in India are major concerns. A 2005 study conducted by Transparency International in India found that more than 45% of Indians had first-hand experience of paying bribes or influence peddling to get jobs done in public offices successfully.

It's hard to trust a government that allows that much corruption without doing anything about it. It's bad for business. You can't trust anyone, whether they're working for you or whether they're a government official.

My grandfather and uncle run a coconut oil mill in India. They make the best coconut oil in the world. That's a fact. However, they have no desire to expand because any hint of success would lead to unwarranted government harassment. The other problem with expanding is that you can't trust a damn person, even family members. People are greedy and there's no accountability. It's an awful set of circumstances.

Finally, someone has decided to stand up against corruption:

Anna Hazare has quickly become a 21st century Mahatma Gandhi inspiration for millions of Indians fed up with rampant corruption, red tape and inadequate services provided by the state despite the country posting near-double digit economic growth for almost a decade.

Obviously, any Indian protester is going to instantly get compared to Gandhi just as any African-American Civil Rights activist would be compared to MLK or Malcolm X (or Rosa Parks).

Even prominent businessmen are behind this sentiment:

"Democracy means no voice, however small, must go unheard. The anti-corruption sentiment is not a whisper-it's a scream. Grave error to ignore it," Anand Mahindra, one of India's leading businessmen and managing director of conglomerate Mahindra Group, wrote on Twitter.

People are speaking out. It's about time. You can only push people so much until they are going to push back. Now is the time that people feel empowered to share their opinion. An attack on corruption can only help India grow as a nation.

If you're not familiar with Hazare, he was recently jailed and is now fasting:

Hazare, who has struck a nerve with millions of Indians by demanding tougher laws against rampant corruption, had insisted he wants the right to return to a city park where he had originally planned to publicly fast, before he leaves jail.

While some see Hazare as a hero, others see this movement as somewhat hypocritical.

This isn't just a public issue:

Indians have a deep and complicated relationship with corruption. As in any long marriage, it is not clear whether they are happily or unhappily married. The country’s economic system is fused with many strands of corruption and organized systems of tax evasion. The middle class is very much a part of this.

But it goes beyond that. Some of the primary supporters of Hazare were Bollywood stars. However, Bollywood has a shadiness to it as well:

One reason the mafia could get such a firm hold on the film industry in the 1990s was that it had established a business relationship with producers and actors and functioned as an efficient conduit for illicitly transferring their money to safe foreign havens.

Following Mr. Ramdev’s fast, when the government agreed to investigate Indian money hidden in foreign banks, The Times of India ran an intriguing essay that argued that the law should make a distinction between the “black money” of corrupt politicians, earned through kickbacks, and the “black money” of businessmen who had moved their cash abroad years ago to save themselves from unreasonably high tax rates in socialist India. The essay implied that corrupt politicians were the real evil and that the tax-evading businessmen were just smart.

So as you see, there's a dichotomy in views on corruption.

In a society like the United States, it seems like we have a lot less corruption in politics and much more in business. If you're in politics and you're corrupt, you get jail time. If you're a businessman and you avoid taxes, you get vilified.

In India, it's only the politicians that get vilified. This doesn't seem fair and may seem hypocritical. However, why should anyone trust a corrupt government? Why should a hardworking citizen give money to a government it doesn't trust? While I believe there needs to be a full termination of corruption in India, I believe that it will have to begin at the top. After that, you can go after the businessman and even the working man.

Once the government restores the people's faith in it, it can restore its faith in the people.

Flash Mobs: Taking Over

I think social media is a great development, particularly Twitter, but this is an example of it going wrong. I really can't say much more because I'm not these kids. I don't know why they did what they did. It's not something new. No one should ever feel unsafe, but these flash mobs certainly perpetuate a threat to society.

Rick Perry and the Aggie Complex

Is Rick Perry just another mediocre Aggie?

Stay with me here.

Rick Perry succeeded George W. Bush as Governor of Texas. Bush ended up serving two terms as President of the United States, while Perry is in the middle of his third term as Governor. Part of me wonders whether the Aggie complex, a constant jealousy of Texas, is the primary driver of Perry's Presidential hopes.

You probably want to stop me there. By some miracle, President Bush went to Yale. Yes, but his brother, Jed, went to Texas and so did his daughter, Jenna. The family has strong ties to the University.

So what's this Aggie complex about? Well, the University of Texas at Austin is the flagship university of the state of Texas. They were the big player in the Big XII and they've always watched out for Texas A&M. They've been more of a little brother to Texas than Michigan State has to Michigan, although the jealousy is very similar.

Recently, Texas announced that they're going to start their own television network.

This has further sparked A&M's envy so much so that they are trying to join the SEC:

In the eyes of most Aggies, moving to the SEC means they'll no longer have to operate in Texas' vast shadow.

Aggies fans overcome with excitement over a move to the SEC. There's also a pretty good explanation for the Aggie Complex in there:

"It’s really hard to watch a bigger school kind of bully their way around the conference and make the money they want to," Turner said. "So you have to do something, but I think a lot of fans are kind of uneasy about, 'Is this what we really want?'"

And more:

"We want to carve our own niche, and we don’t want to be the little brother, but you almost don’t want to leave big brother," Turner said.

They want out of Texas's shadow just as Perry seems to want to get out of Bush's shadow. What's more is the Aggies are trying to move to the SEC to be in a conference of schools in constituencies that Perry will appeal to in his own campaign.

However, the SEC appears to have rejected A&M's bid to join them, at least for the moment:

Southeastern Conference presidents and chancellors committee didn't reject Texas A&M in their meeting Sunday, they simply “reaffirmed (their) satisfaction with the present 12 institutional alignment.”

If Texas A&M joined the SEC, they would be amongst company that has attracted suspicion over the last few years. The SEC has been under scrutiny for a number of reasons, but amongst these is their lowered standards:

The SEC will push for the rest of the nation to adopt its oversigning rules. Thankfully, the SEC will not push its ban on the grad-student exception to the rest of the country. Hopefully, the SEC will remain the only league dumb enough to wipe from the books the only rule in the NCAA that actually provides a positive incentive for athletes.

The fact of the matter is that A&M is trading one problem for another. They have to prove to the rest of the country that they are hellbent on having rules that both preserve academic and NCAA integrity. If Perry is successful in his bid for Republican nomination, he too will be trading one problem for another. He will go from living in Bush's shadow in Texas to being plagued by his shadow on the national stage. Although the conservative southeast helped President Bush get in both 2004 and 2000:

There were cracks in that foundation for McCain because of Bush in 2008:

The question is whether Rick Perry can continue his strong start and consolidate the conservative base while appealing to skeptical northerners who might not take to another brash cowboy from Texas. At the end of Bush's term, he did not have a high approval rating:
The similarities will clearly be highlighted in the media and don't think 2.5 years of Obama has made people forget:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Rick Perry Announces His Candidacy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Perry will have to shake Bush's shadow in order to win the presidency. The problem is that he might not be able to do it. He has similar beliefs and ideologies, and he might not be able to get away from that. If he does, he might lose the bases that he needs to win. In the end though, I see him as being another failed Aggie with an Aggie Complex.

Ali Velshi on The Daily Show

Ali Velshi was on The Daily Show yesterday. He talks about the value of companies and the market as a measure of economic confidence as well as a way to reinvent our economy. Jon Stewart seems absolutely surprised by his honesty and saneness.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ali Velshi
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

I'll probably talk more about taxes at some point this week.

GOP Race Heats Up

Despite the departure of Tim Pawlenty, the GOP race is heating up. Over the weekend, Tim Pawlenty dropped out, Rick Perry dropped in, and Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll. Meanwhile, Obama is touring the midwest.

What's this all mean?

Questions.

Let's start with Rick Perry. First, fact checking his speech:

On a blended basis, we would rate this as a Two Pinocchio speech, similar to many of the other announcement speeches — a mishmash of high-flying rhetoric and facts sometimes tethered uncertainly to the truth. We look forward to rating more of the governor’s statements in the future.

There's some interesting stuff about his claims that low-taxes leading to the success he has had in Texas, including:

Texas, as a state rich in oil and national gas, has also benefited from increases in energy prices that have slowed the economy elsewhere in the country. Higher energy prices have meant more jobs in Texas. Though Perry proudly claims the job growth is the result of a low-tax, anti-regulatory environment, others have pointed to a big investment in education in the 1980s that, yes, was the result of a tax increase.

So let's address this point by point.

How does Texas's economy differ from the American economy:

“Because the Texas economy has been prosperous during his tenure as governor, he has not had to make the draconian choices that one would have to make in the White House,” said Bryan W. Brown, chairman of the Rice University economics department and a critic of Mr. Perry’s economic record. “We have no idea how he would perform when he has to make calls for the entire country.”

It's easy to govern when things are going well. Obama inherited a nation underwater and has had to balance his campaign promises with balance to keep the country afloat. Perry's record in Texas might contrast with the needs of the nation:

“The Texas model can’t be the blueprint for the United States to successfully compete in the 21st century economy, where you need a well-educated work force,” said Dick Lavine, senior fiscal analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based liberal research group.

In Texas, Perry has been questioned by democrats for:

And if Mr. Perry were to win the Republican nomination, he would face critics, among them Democrats, who have long complained that the state’s economic health has come at a steep a price: a long-term hollowing out of the state’s prospects because of deep cuts to education spending, low rates of investment in research and development, and a disparity in the job market that confines many blacks and Hispanics to minimum-wage jobs without health insurance.

This does not sound like a recipe for growth.

On a national stage, this could be a huge issue. Education is probably the second largest point of debate coming into the 2012 election. As someone that is hellbent on improving America's future, this does not bode well for Perry. Considering that education is one of the things that has faced the most cuts over the last few years, and clearly, education has started to fall behind:
I'm a staunch believer in one of the few things that government should invest in is education. However, like all forms of government, you have to make sure it is running efficiently, and that is done through incentives. Massachusetts, probably the most liberal state in the union, understands this:

In Massachusetts, Mitchell Chester, state education commissioner of Massachusetts, said his state, which also posts higher than average scores on the national exam, created a plan to "aim high, make sure results count" by holding schools accountable for results and targeting support to help them succeed.

Seems a little bit off topic, but if we're going to make cuts, I expect education to be one of the victims, and without, a economy high in human capital, we're going to continue to struggle. All of these candidates want to lower taxes, and with the budget concerns, we're going to need to make cuts. It'll be interesting to see how these candidates outline their plans. For Rick Perry, you can't ignore the fact that an investment in education played a role in his success as governor, but that his cuts in education will inevitably be a drag in the future. Perry has benefited from rising oil prices, which is integral to the Texas economy. In a more complex national economy, he might struggle to have the same degree of success.

Furthermore, there are questions about whether Perry can win the middle:

The concern for Republicans, however, lies with those swing voters in the middle. Among independent voters, a slight majority of 50% said government should do more, while 44% said it should do less.

I find this very interesting, considering how many people have been critical of Obama. You have to wonder how polarizing an issue this is. It seems like government is taking adaptive measures, while people might want them to do less or more in regards to spending and taxes.

There are still a lot of questions regarding Perry's candidacy, but there's a belief that he can overtake Bachmann:

Logic says that Perry will eclipse Bachmann in Iowa because he’s as conservative but with the bonus of extensive executive experience. As a fiscal and social conservative who’s an evangelical with a background in agriculture, Perry seems a natural fit for the state.

The question is whether he can make the same connection with the voters that Bachmann seems to have done. Bachmann lacks executive experience and while she has won over a lot of supporters, I think her executive experience is going to be crucial in determining her fate. In many ways, she could be the conservative Obama. In the same way that liberals aren't happy with Obama, conservatives might not be happy with Bachmann.

Bachmann has to prove to conservatives she is not (did they steal my headline?):

Americans are already living with the consequences of electing a President who sounded good but had achieved little as a legislator and had no executive experience. Mrs. Bachmann will have to persuade voters she isn't the conservative version of Mr. Obama.

I don't believe she will. To me, she's a political chameleon, always painting herself in a way that will appeal to her desired constituency:

More substantively, her attempt to position herself at all times as the anti-establishment outsider has made her seem on occasion less principled than opportunistic. She quickly distanced herself from Paul Ryan's Medicare reform when it came under liberal fire, even as she purports to be the scourge of uncontrolled spending. Her recent opposition to the debt-ceiling deal on grounds that GOP leaders should have insisted on first passing a balanced budget amendment, while holding only the House, was a political fantasy.

She seems misguided and her candidacy for President of the United States of America seems like a political fantasy.

For the time being, she's up there with the top dogs, so let's not count her out yet. She's going to play a part in the race, stealing votes from the other two top dogs. I just don't think she can beat two candidates with executive experience. That's a big deal in this race.

My top dog in this race is Mitt Romney. I just worry about his electability. While religion is not an issue with me, it is with evangelical conservatives. Furthermore, I don't think he asserts himself well enough. A big thing he's going to have to do is differentiate himself from other candidates:

“I think understanding how the economy works by having worked in the real economy is finally essential for the White House, and I hope people recognize that,” Romney told reporters after touring and addressing employees at a small manufacturer.

“I respect the other people in this race, but I think the only other person that has that kind of extensive private sector experience, besides me, in the Republican race is Herman Cain. And I respect Herman Cain, but I also think it’s helpful to have had that government experience that I’ve had,” said Romney.

He has to be assertive. He has been riding too high on his qualifications. He has to make an earnest effort to reach out to the voters and take a stronger stance defending his record and his beliefs. People have questions about him regarding the policies that were passed when he was governor of Massachusetts and about his religion. He needs to defend these stronger. You have to convince conservatives that you have strong socially conservative beliefs.

The best candidate does not always win the nomination. Often times, it's about the best campaign. The best candidate, for me, is Mitt Romney. As of now, it appears Bachmann and Perry are running better campaigns. It will be interesting to see how things unravel as things develop.

The New Front-Runner?

As was widely confirmed, Rick Perry declared his candidacy for President of the United States of America.


With his speech, Perry juxtaposes himself as the business and private enterprise friendly candidate who will restore American pride. As I said before, he is in many ways the anti-Obama.

While I am wary of Perry's social stances in regards to abortion and gay marriage, I was impressed and even moved by his speech. I think he did a great job of appealing to Americans' patriotic values as well as outlining his plans to help America grow in the future.

I believe Perry has a much stronger understanding of what it will take for America to get back on its feet than the current administration. Some of the things that he wants to do is simplify the tax system, repeal ObamaCare, get our credit rating back to AAA, and create jobs - create, innovate, and succeed.

Listen, we're going to need someone who is going to encourage private enterprise. Recovery isn't going to happen through fiscal spending. While infrastructure improvements and updates are necessary, the real long term growth is going to come from a reassurance of our private sector and through the encouragement of innovation. We need a President that understands these needs. Rick Perry understands.

While I will not confirm that he's my favorite candidate, I will say he has catapulted himself to the front of the GOP race for the moment.