2012 Presidential Debate: Educating Yourself On The Candidate's Economic Records

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into who you should vote for in November. Tonight's 2012 Presidential debate will focus on the economy. A few months ago, I wrote a series of blog articles analyzing various aspects of Mitt Romney's record which will help you educate yourself in preparation for tonight's debate. You can now read the entire series below: 

1. Getting To Know Mitt Romney's Record 
2. Mitt Romney's Faith & Economic Leadership
3. A Look At Mitt Romney's Business Career
4. Mitt Romney's Rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics 
5. How Mitt Romney Turned A $3 Billion Deficit Into A $2 Billion Surplus 
6. Govenor Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes And Fees 
7. RomneyCare 
8. Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation 
9. Mitt Romney's Leadership Style 
10. Concluding Thoughts About Mitt Romney's Record

In contrast, I have prepared a few articles which highlight's Obama's economic record. 

1. Obama's Economic Record: Hope Is Fading For Americans
2. Obama's Dismal Economic Record
3. Who Has A Better Economic Record: Obama Or Romney? 
4. President Obama Has Never Been Serious About Reducing The Deficit 
5. Obama Still Isn't Serious About the Economy
6. Obama Now Irrelevant On The Economy
7. David Axlerod Not Telling The Truth Mitt Romney's Economic Record
8. A Contrast In How Obama And Mitt Romney Have Handled A Down Grade In Credit Rating
9. Obama's Numerous Broken Promises To Focus on Jobs
10. Who Is Right: About What Is The Biggest Driver Of Our Deficit: Obama or The CBO?

Star Of Television Show Dirty Jobs Mike Rowe Posts An Open Letter To Mitt Romney

Mike Rowe, the funny but hard working host of the television show, Dirty Jobs has posted an open letter to Mitt Romney. Here's an excerpt from that letter: 

Though schizophrenic and void of any actual qualifications, my resume looks pretty impressive, and when our economy officially crapped the bed in 2008, I was perfectly positioned to weigh in on a variety of serious topics. A reporter from The Wall Street Journal called to ask what I thought about the “counter-intuitive correlation between rising unemployment and the growing shortage of skilled labor.” CNBC wanted my take on outsourcing. Fox News wanted my opinions on manufacturing and infrastructure. And CNN wanted to chat about currency valuations, free trade, and just about every other work-related problem under the sun.

In each case, I shared my theory that most of these “problems” were in fact symptoms of something more fundamental – a change in the way Americans viewed hard work and skilled labor. That’s the essence of what I’ve heard from the hundreds of men and women I’ve worked with on Dirty Jobs. Pig farmers, electricians, plumbers, bridge painters, jam makers, blacksmiths, brewers, coal miners, carpenters, crab fisherman, oil drillers…they all tell me the same thing over and over, again and again – our country has become emotionally disconnected from an essential part of our workforce.  We are no longer impressed with cheap electricity, paved roads, and indoor plumbing. We take our infrastructure for granted, and the people who build it.

Today, we can see the consequences of this disconnect in any number of areas, but none is more obvious than the growing skills gap. Even as unemployment remains sky high, a whole category of vital occupations has fallen out of favor, and companies struggle to find workers with the necessary skills. The causes seem clear. We have embraced a ridiculously narrow view of education. Any kind of training or study that does not come with a four-year degree is now deemed “alternative.” Many viable careers once aspired to are now seen as “vocational consolation prizes,” and many of the jobs this current administration has tried to “create” over the last four years are the same jobs that parents and teachers actively discourage kids from pursuing. (I always thought there something ill-fated about the promise of three million “shovel ready jobs” made to a society that no longer encourages people to pick up a shovel.)

You can read Mike Rowe's entire letter HERE.

Mike Rowe is absolutely correct. American used to be a country that made things. We used to be a country where hard work was done in the fields under a hot sun or in a factory where machines and men banged and clanged on wood, steel and other items.America valued farming, mining, manufacturing, cleaning, or drilling.  If America wants to get back on track, we need to encourage these industries to grow and expand. That means reducing burdensome regulations and lowering taxes so that business can hire workers to do these jobs. Quite frankly, we also need a national discussion on  private sector unions since they can also hinder productivity, competitiveness, job creation and profits.

We also need to encourage society to value this kind of work and not disparage it. This kind of dirty work takes humility, strength, dedication and brains to do. It is not stupid work. Its common sense work. It is honorable work. It is American work. 

This is what made America strong and competitive. If we want to make America work again, we need to get America to work.

Newt Gingrich Flip Flops on Mitt Romney's Job Record

Before Newt Gingrich went nuclear on Mitt Romney time working in the private sector, he praised his impressive record of creating jobs in the private and public sector during the 2010 CPAC Convention:

The 53% of America Are Responding To The 99% Protesters

The Blaze had an article up that I want to repost in its entirety. Read it below: 

Meet The 53%. Who are they?  The term 53% refers to the people who are actually paying taxes for themselves and the rest of the country.

The 53% is a group of responsible young people organizing across the country. However, this group is not camping out in parks around the country and demanding the entire capitalist system be destroyed. These men and women have jobs (most of them work at more than one job in order to make ends meet), but they are talking about attending the Minneapolis Occupy Wall St. protest scheduled for today – Friday, October 7th.

Here’s a statement from their web page;

So, like, when you’re, like, community organizing for solidarity and stuff, it’s totally cool to have this little hashtaggy thingy when you’re on twitter, so other people, like, totally know what you’re talking about and stuff. So if you’re, like, totally gonna spread the word about being one of the 53% of people who actually, like, pay taxes in America and don’t just, like, hang out protesting stuff all day… like, here’s the hashtaggy thingy. See you at the protest!   #iamthe53

Filmmaker Mike Wilson (the man who gave us “Michael Moore Hates America“) maintains the page. We spoke with Wilson this morning and he explained that the 53% tumblr page came from his brain and the clever minds of his pals, Erick Erickson of Red State and Josh Trevino.

Reports out of Minneapolis say that a protest is expected today in front of the Government Plaza in downtown Minneapolis. The movement states they are going to try and reclaim and rename this area “The People’s Plaza.” Members of the 53% have mentioned that they will be in attendance to offer a counter opinion to the protest.

As we were talking, Wilson explained that he was loading up his camera and headed to the Minneapolis protest to capture it on video. The Blaze will link to Wilson’s coverage as it comes in.

Mike Wilson told us the group was in the very early stages of organizing, but it is happening online – mostly because they have jobs, families, and a sense of personal responsibility. And the 53% have responded to the people alleging to represent 99% of the country. Based on these photo messages, the 99% is patently wrong in their claim.

While the 99% protesters are angry at the 1% of Americans who have accumulated a lot of wealth through their own hard work, they forget about the 53% Americans (which includes the 1%) who pay taxes that pays for the government services that the 47% of Americans enjoy yet pay no taxes for. 

If there is any unfairness or inequality, its the fact that 47% feel that they have no obligation to pay taxes and feel that they are entitled to the benefits that the government provides that is paid for by the majority of people. 

What's worse is that they want more government services despite the fact that we can't afford it. And they want the 53% to pay more taxes to somehow cover up for the debt that is accumulating at the local, state and federal level. Not only that, but they want an increase in government control in every aspect of our lives and that the 53% happily accept the burden of more taxes in exchange for a reduction in our personal freedoms. 

The colonialist protested against England because they were getting taxed without having any voice in Parliament. Thus, the famous rallying cry, "no taxation without representation" helped launch the American Revolution. Yet, the "99% protesters" want representation without taxation. However, The 99% is really the 45% of America who do not pay taxes. Yet, they expect their demands to be heard and granted. 

This is unacceptable. It it is a perversion of the American way of governance.

The 53% expressed their anger and disgust in our government who have mismanaged the taxpayer's money to such an extent that we are massively in debt. That's what the TEA party was all about.

However, we need to make our voices heard again to remind the 45% that they do not represent America. Instead of occupying a plaza or park, lets liberate it this November 12th. 

Mitt Romney Clobbers All Other Candidates In Michigan Straw Poll

Mitt Romney left all the other candidates in the dust in the Michigan straw poll taken at the 29th Biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference. He won the poll by a wide margin over other 2012 candidates:

Romney received 51 percent of the 681 votes cast, a whopping 34-percentage point victory over second-place Perry, who garnered 17 percent. It was the second straight defeat for Perry in a straw poll, after he finished second in another contest Saturday in Florida. The twin disappointments, along with weak debate performances, have raised questions about whether the Texas governor will remain the perceived front-runner in the GOP nomination fight.

Here's the breakdown of the polling: 

Mitt Romney 51%

Rick Perry 17%
Herman Cain 9%
Ron Paul 8%
Michele Bachmann 4%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Rick Santorum 3%
Jon Huntsman 2%

If you'd like an idea of what the voters who voted in the straw poll were like, read below:

The straw poll was conducted Friday and Saturday at the biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference. Nearly 700 people cast votes in a poll that was open to all voting-age conference attendees, most of whom were party activists and elected officials. The straw poll is not a scientific survey and it does not necessary reflect the attitudes of Michigan primary voters at large.

Questions exploring the activists' ideological views suggest that while the delegation was overwhelmingly conservative, a strain of pragmatism drove their decision-making. For instance, half said they would be willing to support a candidate who would get the economy moving, even if that candidate supported abortion rights and same sex marriage.

While 80 percent said the tea party will help the GOP in the 2012 elections, 17 percent said they fear the movement could alienate independent voters. Two out of every 10 straw ballot voters hold a negative view of the tea party.

The delegates were split almost evenly on the question of whether they value the qualities of electability or ideological agreement most in a candidate, with ideology getting 51 percent of the vote.

It appears that getting the economy back on track was the primary concern among the voters and were pragmatic in choosing who they would support as President. Voters overwhelmingly supported Mitt Romney which indicates they believe he is the best candidate who can get this economy back on its feet. 

Part VIII: Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation

Introduction

Mitt Romney's record on job growth in Massachusetts will be the subject of intense debate in this presidential race. Yet, if you look closely at his record, there's no debate that Mitt Romney's record is amazing.

A Look At Romney's Record of Creating Jobs In Massachusetts

Before Mitt Romney took office, not only was the state facing a major deficit, the unemployment situation in Massachusetts was very grim. The state was hemorrhaging jobs and it was losing more jobs than the rest of the country: 

“Massachusetts is number one in the nation in job losses, shedding 4.7 percent of all jobs over the last two years. The state has lost 71,000 manufacturing jobs, or 17 percent; 69,000, or nearly 14 percent, of all jobs in the professional and business services sector; and nearly 18 percent of all jobs in the information industry.”

We know that Massachusetts was in a bad place in terms of jobs before Mitt entered office and the current govenor, Deval Patrick, has not made job creation a priority in his administration. Mitt Romney makes that point himself when he explains his record as governor: “The governor before me lost jobs; the governor after me has lost jobs; we actually created jobs.”

What surprises me is that the issue of whether or not Mitt Romney left the state in better shape than he found it, is a matter of fierce debate. As I will show below, the facts clearly demonstrate Romney left the state in a much better shape than his predecessor or successor.

One of the common complaints about Mitt Romney's record of job creation is that at the end of Mitt Romney's first year of working as governor was that Massachusetts was number 50 out of 50 states in America for job growth and that by the time he left office, it was 47 out 50.

However, that claim is contradicted, or refuted, depending on how you look at it, when you look at the actual statistics provided by the Department of Labor's Bereau of Labor Statistics which you can see when you click on the linked footnotes below:

The unemployment rate had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003 when he took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping. ^[13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place his first year in office. ^[14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was the 11th best in the nation ^[15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

While jobs were shrinking by the thousands each month in Massachusetts when he took office ^[16], by the time he left office, "the state had attracted hundreds of new companies and added [a net total of] 60,000 new jobs." ^[17] It takes time for pro-growth policies to effect the economy, but before the end of his first year in office the job losses had stopped, and in his remaining time in office 81,000 new jobs were created.^[18]

Its clear that Mitt Romney improved the Bay State's unemployment ranking from 50th to 11th in the nation. Mitt Romney's record is eually impressive when look at his record from another perspective. A blogger explains that did better than most states did on average and was able to obtain full employment for his state: 

The invalid conclusion that Romney-bashers hope you’ll buy into is that,  in terms of employment,  Massachusetts did poorly, compared to the other fifty states.  Unfortunately for them, that simply isn’t true! In fact, Massachusetts beat the national average for unemployment for three out of the four years that Romney was Governor. Take a look at these numbers, and let the 2002-2006 employment numbers for MA speak for themselves, or more accurately, speak for Gov. Romney. Mitt Romney assumed the office of Governor in Jan 2003 and left in Jan 2007:

Mo/Year	MA	USA
Jan 2003	5.6%	5.8%
Jun 2003	6.0%	6.3%
Jan 2004	5.6%	5.7%
Jun 2004	5.3%	5.6%
Jan 2005	4.9%	5.3%
Jun 2005	4.8%	5.0%
Jan 2006	4.8%	4.7%
Jun 2006	4.8%	4.6%

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Compare these numbers to the US unemployment rate of 7.8% when Barack Obama took office in January 2009.   By January 2010, it was up to an astounding 9.7%, and in January 2011, it was 9.0%.   Yet, in spite of these miserable numbers,  President Obama’s supporters have the chutzpah to criticize Mitt Romney for an average unemployment rate of 5.2%?

Most people may not be aware of this, but the United States Congress passed a law in 1946 called the Full Employment Act, which was later amended as part of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.  As part of this law, which is still on the books, the statutory definition of “full employment” was set as 4% unemployment for persons aged 16 or older.  In 1999, the U.S.  Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) updated and issued their definition of the “full-employment unemployment rate” as being between 4 to 6.4%.

In other words, according to congressional statute and the OECD, the state of Massachusetts was at or very near full employment during Governor Romney’s four years in office – a goal that the federal government has never even come close to accomplishing in the 65 years since the Full Employment Act of 1946 was made law.

Bottom line:  The Obama team will continue to toss out that “47th in jobs-growth” statistic, hoping you’ll buy into the false notion that the jobs picture in Massachusetts was a poor one.   When it came to unemployment, Massachusetts did better than the national average for 3 out of 4 years during Romney’s term, and achieved better than half the unemployment rate that the nation suffers under now. Instead of criticizing Romney’s jobs record, perhaps President Obama would be well-served to try and learn something from it.

No matter how you look at Mitt Romney's record, it is a record that is not very easy to criticize. Some people will point out that job growth in that state was not very consistent. However, that claim is not true.  According to factcheck.org, unemployment in Massachusetts hit hit its lowest point at the end of the first year of Mitt Romney's term but Mitt Romney was able to turn it around and that the number of jobs only declined in seven of the remaining 36 months of his term.

There are some additional facts about Mitt Romney's record of creating jobs that I'd like to share with you. First of all, not only did Mitt Romney was able to get full employment for his state, his economic policies created a surge in the development of businesses:   

"Under Ranch C. Kimball, who became Romney's secretary of economic development in 2004, the number of companies in the Massachusetts development pipeline jumped from 13 to 288 in three years."(Brian C. Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert and Scott Helman, "Ambitious Goals; Shifting Stances," The Boston Globe, 6/30/2007)

Anther important fact that makes Romney's record of job creation so impressive is that people's income rose substantially under his administration. The per capita income grew by 17% which out paced the per capita personal income growth for the entire United States:

In 2003, Massachusetts per capita personal income was $39,442 and rose to $45,877 in 2006.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, "State Annual Personal Income," www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007) 

In 2005, Massachusetts Had A Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Of $43,501. This PCPI Ranked 3rd In The United States And Was 126 Percent Of The National Average, $34,471.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, "State BEARFACTS 1995 – 2005: Massachusetts," www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007)

Conclusion

With unemployment as the number one concern for Americans, everyone ought to be taking a close look at each of the 2012 contenders job creation record.  People will find all kinds of ways to attack Mitt Romney's record on jobs but if you analyze the facts and look at it closely, you'll find that the criticism lacks merit because they do not match with the public record. 

As a result of looking closely at his record, it tells us a few important things. He knows how to create jobs. He knows how to get businesses growing. He knows how to create the right policies so that people are earning more income. This means he has the skills, knowledge and leadership capability of required for a national leader in helping to fix our nation's economic problems.  Those are the qualities that America needs and is looking for. Mitt Romney has it. That's why we need him in the White House in 2012. 

Next, we will look at Mitt Romney's leadership style to see what makes him so successful in business and politics.

Mitt Romney Gives America A Sneak Peak Into His New Job Plan

Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed for USA Today giving us a sneak preview of his 59 specific proposals to create jobs for America that he will unveil tomorrow. A copy of his plan can also be found on his website. 

Here's what he had to say to the American people:

Barack Obama has had his turn at fixing the American economy. Millions of unemployed Americans can judge by their own experiences what he has done and failed to do.

For my part, I believe America can do better.

I have spent most of my career in the private sector starting new businesses and turning around ailing ones. Unlike career politicians who've never met a payroll, I know why jobs come and go.

Tomorrow, I will introduce a plan consisting of 59 specific proposals — including 10 concrete actions I will take on my first day in office — to turn around America's economy. Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.

Only the individual initiative of entrepreneurs, workers, investors and inventors enables companies, and our economy as a whole, to flourish. We must once again unleash the tremendous economic potential of the American people. The contrast between what the Obama administration has done and what I would do as president could not be starker.

First, President Obama has raised or threatened to raise taxes on both individuals and businesses. I would press hard in the opposite direction. Marginal income tax rates and tax rates on savings and investment must be kept low. Further, taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for middle-income taxpayers should be eliminated. Our corporate tax rate is among the world's highest. It leaves U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage and induces them to park their profits abroad, benefiting the rest of the world at our expense. I will fix these problems with permanent solutions. Ultimately, I will press for a total overhaul of our overly complex and inefficient system of taxation.

With scant regard for the costs imposed on consumers and businesses, President Obama has vastly expanded the regulatory reach of government. The federal government has estimated the price tag for its regulations at $1.75 trillion. I will pare back regulation, including eliminating "ObamaCare." I will direct every government agency to limit annual increases in regulatory costs to zero. The impact of any proposed new regulation must be offset by removing another regulation of equivalent cost. Every one of President Obama's regulations must be scrutinized, and those that unduly burden job creation must be axed.

Where President Obama left America's trade interests untended, I recognize the job-creating potential of international commerce. I will create the "Reagan Economic Zone," a partnership among countries committed to free enterprise and free trade. It will serve as a powerful engine for opening markets to our goods and services, and also a mechanism for confronting nations like China that violate trade rules while free-riding on the international system. I will not stand by while China pursues an economic development policy that relies on the unfair treatment of U.S. companies and the theft of their intellectual property. I have no interest in starting a trade war with China, but I cannot accept our current trade surrender.

The Obama administration has severely restricted domestic energy production. I will ensure we utilize to the fullest extent our nation's nuclear know-how and immense reserves in oil, gas and coal. By rationalizing and streamlining regulation, we will harness these resources everywhere it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns. A huge number of jobs is at stake. So, too, is the price of energy, which strongly influences economic growth. We are an energy-rich country that, thanks to environmental extremism, has chosen to live like an energy-poor country. That has to end.

Seeking to pay back political favors, President Obama has catered to the institutional interests of union bosses at the expense of both workers and businesses. I will fight against measures that deprive workers of basic rights, such as the secret ballot. And I will not tolerate federal intrusions of the kind that the National Labor Relations Board initiated when it filed suit against Boeing for opening a plant in a right-to-work state.

We also need a rational system for worker retraining, instead of the existing 47 separate programs run by nine federal agencies. America can have the world's most competitive workforce, and under my leadership, we will.

Finally, President Obama has engaged in a massive spending binge of choice. He threw dollars at every problem he encountered, running up the national debt and accomplishing worse than nothing in exchange. I will restore fiscal discipline by cutting the federal budget and placing an ironclad cap on spending. I will also press for a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Tellingly, while the private sector shed 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office, the federal workforce grew by 142,500, or almost 7%. A rollback is urgently required.

As this catalogue of differences makes clear, our country has arrived at a fork in the road. In one direction lies the heavy hand of the state, indebtedness and decline. In the other direction lies limited government, free enterprise and economic growth. I know which direction is the American way. And I know in which direction lie the millions of jobs we need.

- Mitt Romney