May 25, 2013

Who’s really got a “woman” problem?

It’s Orwellian, really. In a series of confusing contraditions, Obama’s White House and campaign are talking about helping women, but paying them less than men and attacking the ones who opt to raise their children at home.

That’s going to create a credibility problem for Barack Obama.

Democrats have been spinning the tale that Mitt Romney‘s got a woman problem. Women don’t, and won’t, vote for him, they say, because a perceived hostility to contraception, to abortion, to birth control, to equal pay for women…if you don’t believe me, go back and watch GOP debates where moderators threw in questions, much to the befuddlement of the candidates, asking why the GOP wants to limit contraception, something Republicans patently do not want to do.

It creates a false narrative, and it has played right into the hands Barack Obama’s advisers. Or perhaps the media was receiving the questions from the Obama campaign in the first place.

It turns out that it’s not Mitt Romney who has a “woman problem,” though. Evidence is that it’s Barack Obama with a woman problem

.

Exhibit A: women in the White House make less than men

Whatever happened to women breaking through the glass ceiling? This, from the Washington Free Beacon:

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Awkward, especially as the President has frequently criticized gender pay gaps and criticized Romney for not supporting a law (the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Restoration Act) that allowed law suits based on discrimination.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

Like I said, kind of awkward. And that’s just exhibit A. How about we look at Exhibit B?

BELMONT, MA - MARCH 06:  Republican presidenti...

BELMONT, MA - MARCH 06: Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (L) walks with his wife Ann Romney after voting at the Beech Street Senior Center on March 6, 2012 in Belmont, Massachusetts. Mitt Romney cast his ballot for the Super Tuesday primary in Massachusetts before attending his Super Tuesday gathering. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Exhibit B: feminist Democrats don’t like stay-at-home moms

Ok, maybe not all national Democrats, but there’s certainly a strain of liberals that struggle with traditional, conservative families where the father/husband works and the mother/wife stays in the home to raise the children.

Enter Hilary Rosen. Today, she made a frontal assault on the conservative beliefs of Ann and Mitt Romney, criticizing Ann for staying home with the Romney’s five boys.  The attack came just as Ann Romney joined Twitter.

Ann’s first tweet came just moments after Democratic strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen lobbed an insult at Ann Romney, suggesting that the 64-year-old mother of five and grandmother of 16 had never held a job.

“Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” said Rosen, who was being interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the “war on women.”

I know that social views in America have changed a lot over the last few decades, that more women are in the work place than ever, and I don’t have a problem with that. However, since when did choosing to live on one income and raise your children become a negative? Has our view of what a woman is been so distorted by extreme feminists that they no longer respect a woman’s right to make a career out of raising children?

It may be old-fashioned, but it’s still de rigueur for a large portion of America.  When possible the father provides economically while the mother is the primary caregiver in the home. While economic times have made it difficult for one parent to stay home while the other works to provide, many still hold the paradigm of the mother in the home as the standard.

It’s also how a lot of people were raised. My mother stayed home, my wife’s mother stayed home, and my wife in her turn has chosen to stay home with our children, as well, leaving her career to raise them when they joined us.  While we don’t have the money that Romney does, we feel no less about the impact that she has on our daughters by being a daily part of their lives.

That’s just not good enough for Rosen, though. She recognizes how powerful an asset Ann Romney is to Mitt in the contest for the White House.  She may be just a little jealous, too. Ann Romney is married to the wealthiest man to seek the White House, has five handsome sons, and stands a good chance to become the First Lady, too. All without having entered the workforce.  It’s a paradigm that Hilary Rosen just can’t understand. In her world, women are successful by the same measure as men–how the do in the workforce. It’s hard to believe that Americans might like Ann because she has put other things first–like her family and her husband.

This is just the beginning.

If this seems a galling example of the egregiousness of the liberal war on women and the Orwellian spin by the Obama campaign, just sit tight. With the first Mormon to carry the banner for a major party in the contest for the White House, we’re sure to see more attacks on the conservative, traditional, and religious. It’s going to be a long seven months to November.

McNaughton’s “One Nation Under Socialism” Harms Political Discourse

I’m embarrassed that the likes of Jon McNaughton are helping raise Utah‘s profile nationally.  Depicting Barack Obama in terms that are just short of demonic, McNaughton is harming more than hurting. Perhaps the purpose of art is to shock and persuade, but subtlety is lost on McNaughton as he uses art like a 2×4 to hit his viewers over the head with his opinions.  Playing on fears and anxieties that are real, McNaughton distracts from the important educational process that is necessary to create an informed public.  From the Washington Post.

McNaughton, who is described by Salon as “the right’s Shepard Fairey”and who also creates Thomas Kinkade-esque landscapes and holiday paintings, has gained notoriety for some of his previous anti-Obama paintings: He has depicted the president trampling the Constitution andenslaving Americans in chains. In response to an article on the Blazeasking whether his work was free speech or offensive, McNaughton replied on his Facebook page, “I for one am deeply offended. I can’t believe I had to paint this in our own country. Stand up and be heard America!!”

Simply put, he creates a straw man out of Barack Obama and sets the straw man on fire.  What a way to put Utah on the map. Where Shepard Fairey channeled the hope  of  America (however misplaced those hopes were), McNaughton slaps people in the face with dark, ominous images of Barack Obama stomping on or burning the Constitution.  You might as well just depict the President in a mug shot wearing an orange jumpsuit. It couldn’t be a more damning depiction.

It does little to educate or inform. It appeals to our lowest, and least informed, qualities, pandering without raising our level of discourse. It obstructs any opportunity to form reasoned and educated opinions. And it makes it hard to meet our opponents on grounds where we can make a persuasive argument.

There’s a lot at stake. Our country is facing serious issue. We grapple with a health system that is expensive and wasteful, a government that costs more than it can afford, and an economy that is struggling to recover. Boiling that all down to the fault of one man, painting him in the most demonic of shades, and calling it “socialism” does little to move the American public to the qualities our country must readopt if we are to change.  As Charles Murray argued in last week’s Wall Street Journal, our country is facing a multitude of problems, none of which can be solved by a government program. Just as the solution cannot be the government, neither can the fault be laid solely at one man’s feet. Instead, we should be focused on shifting how Americans view government, understand their government, and the level to which they participate in government. If it matters, it merits the time to understand and learn how it works.

[Washington Post] [Salt Lake Tribune] [Wall Street Journal]

Manufacturing Bad Ideas

 [Benjamin Lusty is a lawyer and an occasional contributor to Publius Online]

______________________________________________________________

Presidential elections invariably turn out half-thought economic proposals.  One current hot policy ticket is lavish tax advantages for manufacturers, presumably in hope of priming employment growth (and votes).  President Obama, for example, proposes to reward manufacturing companies with a mix of tax credits and subsidized loans (i.e., politically directed credit).  On the other side, Rick Santorum would absolve manufacturers from federal income tax altogether (i.e., politically directed credit, but through the US Treasury’s back door).  Mitt Romney vows that “getting tough” on China will bring more work back to the shop floor (i.e., diplomatic bluster punctuated by a few WTO arbitrations).  Slick stuff.  But none of the contenders bother to articulate why singling out manufacturing for special treatment makes economic sense, especially for the rest of us.

Most of the political class uncritically assumes that jolting manufacturing is an unquestionable good.  But inconvenient questions arise:   Why does manufacturing merit the “remedial education” of protective tax advantages?  Why should tax policy favor a company that builds airplanes over a company that sells bird seed?  Does Boeing really need a leg up on the local pet shop?

Sweater subsidies under a Santorum Administration?

Some argue that manufacturing deserves special attention because it is in crisis, as evidenced by historical decline in assembly-line employment.  The pro-manufacturing faction asserts that the mere fact that fewer people work in factories than in the past proves that the sector is failing.  This argument has intuitive political appeal, but it confuses the overall health of manufacturing with the raw number of only one of its inputs—labor.

In truth, American manufacturing is not in crisis.  America is still the largest manufacturer in the world, out-producing China (yes, China) by some 40%, a major gulf considering the massive disparity between China’s and America’s respective working populations.  Further, American manufacturing output soared over the recent decades, more than doubling since 1975—even as employment in manufacturing fell.  Contrary to signaling decline, the fact that American manufacturers can make far more with far less is a sign of underlying strength, leading both to lower consumer prices (which expand the breadth of potential demand) and better investment of labor and capital.

Besides, in our modern innovative economy, manufacturing isn’t even where the money is anymore.  Indeed, it’s relatively worthless.  Consider the iPhone and iPad—among two of the most in-demand products on the market.  Research indicates that final assembly only accounts for 1.8% and 1.6% of the retail prices of these “iProducts,” respectively.  The value of design, marketing, and distribution, by contrast, equates to roughly 58% and 30% of their retail prices.  In other words, an iPhone’s design and marketing is 33 times more valuable than its assembly (at least as measured by the input cost).

Manufacturing is becoming even less valuable for more traditional and less technologically intensive products, such as automobiles.  French carmaker Renault posits that assembly only accounts for 15% of the value of their cars.  The money then, isn’t in twisting the steel that constructs these products, but in shaping the concepts that design them.  If that’s the case, why subsidize the worthless stuff?

In truth, blue-collar boosting—touting plans to prop up manufacturing jobs–is better politics than it is sound economics.  Americans love manufacturing jobs, or at least the idea of manufacturing jobs.

But frankly, politicians need to lead past it.  Irrational attachment to factories, whether cynical or sentimental, only holds the country, and innovation, back.  Complicating the tax code to the marginal benefit of a few companies that happen to have Washington’s temporary approval is a shoddy excuse for an economic policy.  America needs manufacturing jobs no more than it needs any other job, and bending the economy to subsidize manufacturing will only cause real, long-term damage.

 

 

Predictions for Tonight?

What’s your prediction for your caucus meeting tonight?  Are you running for county or state delegate? Caucus leadership?

Do you expect a high turnout?  Will high turnout benefit candidates? Will naysayers change their minds about the caucus system if turnout is high?

Do you think that Senator Hatch or his challengers will be able  to stack the caucus?

Do you think it’ll be like 2010? or something entirely different?

What do you think will happen?

 

Will Utah Matter in the GOP Race for President?

[Posted today on KSL.com]

____________________________

According to a Deseret News/KSL poll Utahns believe Mitt Romney alone can beat Barack Obama in November (surprise!).  And yet, today, on Super Tuesday, as ten states hold primaries, Utah is not one of them. In fact,  Utah casts its vote for the Republican nominee dead last.  Even with a nomination battle likely to continue into the spring, the race may be over by then.

 Maybe.

Remember when there were eight candidates in the field?  Then Iowa and New Hampshire voted, and suddenly, with just forty delegate votes allocated (out of 1,144 necessary to win the nomination), Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Perry all dropped out. Herman Cain, marred by scandal, had left the campaign earlier. And then there were four: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Romney, and Rick Santorum.

In a country of 300 million, the only votes cast were in  Iowa (about 120,000 votes)  and New Hampshire (about 224,000 votes), yet candidates were dropping like flies.  How had so few narrowed down the field of choices so quickly?

We Vote for the Popular Candidate

If it seems unfair, then consider the Britney Effect. In a study published in Science 2006, researchers found that social popularity was a better indicator of how well a book or a song would sell than quality. In other words, if you see that others are reading and discussing Harry Potter, you’re more likely to pick it up yourself, regardless of quality.

So if you thought Bachmann had the answers for America, it didn’t matter. Her race was over as soon as the primary battle began. As soon as the results from Iowa, and then New Hampshire, were released, polls started showing bumps in popularity of the contest winners. Santorum, who spent months on the margins of debates practically whining he that he wasn’t getting the same amount of camera time that front-runners were, suddenly sprung to national attention as he eked out a win in Iowa.  If Iowans like Santorum, he must be electable, right?

Strange rational, and yet, it buoyed the former Senator to wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. From zero to hero, Santorum became the newest rendition of “not Romney” for Republicans unwilling to throw their support behind Romney.

Can you imagine how the results might be different if states across the country voted simultaneously?

Super Tuesday?

Today, March 6th, is Super Tuesday. Voters in Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia will vote for the last four remaining contenders. By this time four years ago, Romney had dropped out of the race, and John McCain was well on his way to the nomination.  Since then, the Republican National Committee has modified the rules to lengthen out the nomination process. That’s right: it isn’t by accident that the race isn’t over yet. As the Boston Globe reported, Republicans changed the rules to energize Republicans and take back the White House:

The rules, known as proportional representation, are patterned after the system long used by Democrats to award delegates in their primaries. Republicans looked at the prolonged 2008 Democratic primary between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and believed that, despite its occasional divisiveness, the battle helped excite Democrats and starve the Republican candidate, John McCain, of attention.

“McCain sat on the sidelines and couldn’t get a headline and was ignored,’’ said Paul Senft, a Republican National Committee member from Florida who helped draft the new rules.

Now, rather than making each contest a foregone conclusion in the favor of the front-runner, more states are in contention. Nate Silver predicts that Super Tuesday won’t see one winner, but will split between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (sorry, Paul). Gingrich will capture his home state of Georgia, while Romney will take Massachusetts, his home and where he served as Governor. Oklahoma and Wisconsin will swing to Santorum. Meanwhile, Ohio, where Santorum was polling in front as recently as a week ago, is starting to turn to Romney (see what wins in Michigan, Arizona, and Washington will do?).  As a swing state in the General Election, the spin-doctors (and the Obama campaign) will be watching the Buckeye state closely. And don’t forget Tennessee, where Gingrich seems to be surging in polls…

Wherefore, Utah? 

So might it still matter when Utahns go to the polls on June 26th? For that matter, why isn’t Utah voting until the beginning of summer, anyway?

Due to the Military and Overseas Voter Act or “MOVE” Act, federal elections must give absentee voters overseas forty-five days to vote after the previous contest. In Utah’s case, that means that the earliest a primary can be held is forty-five days after the Republican or Democrat state party conventions in April. Despite efforts by the Romney campaign to talk Utah into moving the vote to earlier, the $2.5 million cost to move the primary away from the regularly scheduled date was too much for legislators to swallow.  Utah will vote last.

In the meantime, is there still a chance that Utah could play a deciding role in a race that has seen so many front-runners? Statistically speaking, it’s impossible for any of the candidates to get enough votes before April. With 1962 votes remaining, and Romney–currently the leader with 180 delegates–needing another 964 votes, the race could continue all the way through May, to say nothing of June.

Could Utah get its chance to vote for Romney when it still matters? Only time will tell.

Freedom Path’s “Outsourcing” Attack on Liljenquist Distorts Business Record

The latest mailer from Freedom Path falsifies Dan Liljenquist‘s business record. The shadowy group, organized legally as a political action committee, is running fast and loose with terms and smears Liljenquist with shoddy research, obscure sources, and false information. Frankly, it’s just dishonest.

Last week, I looked at the “Two Scoops” mailer sent out by the Freedom Path PAC (it’s also been called the “Double Dip” mailer). In that post, I found that the mailer was dishonest on all relevant facts, including flipping Dan Liljenquist and Chris Herrod’s record completely backward. Instead of noting that Liljenquist had passed groundbreaking pension reforms that made Utah a model for the nation, and that Herrod had supported and voted for those reforms, the mailer made it sound like Liljenquist and Herrod had tried to soften the reform.

Please check the post for the details, and please share it with those who may have received the mailers.

Today, we’re looking another mailer that attacks Liljenquist specifically. We could call it the “Outsourcing” mailer since it accuses Liljenquist of sending jobs to the Philippines at a time when the economy was at its lowest.

I found the mailer to be dishonest and to use several terms incorrectly.

Claims:

  1. Did Liljenquist “outsource” jobs overseas? Answer: No.The first claim the mailer makes is that Liljenquist is outsourcing American jobs. According to Wikipedia, “outsourcing” is the process of “contracting a business function to someone else.” For example, when I decide I don’t want to hire an in-house lawyer because the cost is too high, I call up Brown Law  and contract a lawyer to do the work. It costs me less because I don’t need to support the attorney on my payroll once the job is done, and it gets me a person who can do the job right. Businesses do this for printing (Kinkos, anyone?), deliveries (FedEx), data and office software (Google apps), and food (catering from any number of restaurants), just to name a few.  It’s a very common practice.  It saves company money, does not cut jobs from the economy, and allows specialized companies to provide services at a higher level of quality.In fact, Dan Liljenquist’s former business–Focus Services–was an outsourcing company. It was the company that other companies called when they wanted to hire call center to receive calls from customers. It saved American companies money and provided jobs here in Utah, as well as in other states. It was, and is, a successful company, by all reports, and is one of the top 100 privately held companies in America.

  2. Did Liljenquist’s company conduct “offshoring?  Answer: Not really.Wikipedia also  notes that “outsourcing” is often confused with “off-shoring,”  ”though a function may be outsourced without offshoring or vice versa.” The “outsourcing mailer” seems to indicate that Liljenquist sent jobs abroad.  I tried to check the sources cited by Freedom Path. The sources were so obscure as to be  impossible to find online, if they exist at all.  One quote they use in the mailer is taken so completely out of context as to mean something different than what it was used for in the article.

    So I called Liljenquist’s campaign to ask.

    “Does Dan Liljenquist’s companyoutsource or offshore jobs to the Philippines,” I asked.“No,” came the answer when I spoke with a top campaign official.

    While Focus Services does employ people abroad–specifically in the Philippines, they are not a replacement for positions here in the US. Rather, they are in addition to them. Because Focus Services is an international company and has international clients, the company needs to have call centers that can answer calls twenty-four hours a day. Got a client that has customer calling during day light hours in North America? They route to the North American call centers in Roy and Ogden, Utah, or  Dubuque or Clinton, Iowa. One of Focus Services 1,300 employees answers the phone. But if the client has customers in India? Or Japan? Saudi Arabia? Moscow? With days that start long before the sun comes up over the east coast of North America, the company needed someone to answer the calls of customers not in sync with North America. To that end, the company hired an additional  two hundred employees in the Philippines.

    Let me be clear: this is not outsourcing because Focus Services is not hiring an outside company to do what it could do itself. Nor is it off-shoring because it is not sending jobs abroad–Focus Services did not decrease the jobs when hiring in the Philippines, but rather expanded to compensate for the needs of international customers.

Should we be attacking a successful businessman for being a successful businessman?

At this point, I can’t help but ask: do we really want to support the message that a businessman should be limited from growing his company if it benefits people who don’t live in the United States? Are we so narrow and shortsighted that we cannot see that an American company that serves customers internationally is going to create more wealth and jobs  in the United States, as well?

I’m not the only one asking the question. Check this from a letter from Alan Mortensen of Bountiful that he wrote to the Standard-Examiner:

Focus Services ranks 23 on the top 100 private companies in Utah by the Utah Business Magazine. I have had the opportunity to visit Focus Services’ international headquarters in Roy, Utah, where Focus provides jobs to hundreds of Utahns, and encourages them to better themselves through education and community service.

I have been to Dan’s facility in Rock Falls, Illinois and met with several of the families his company employees in a town whose steel industry long ago disappeared. They are proud to work for Focus. I have met his manager in the Dubuque, Iowa, facility, who fought back tears because his family had health insurance through Focus when his wife gave birth to a premature baby.

Dan Liljenquist’s company gives hope to many Utah and American families, and his company has made the ultimate sacrifice when four Focus Service employees, all U.S. citizens, were killed in a business-sponsored service trip to Guatemala to build a school for the poor. Dan Liljenquist survived that crash with horrible orthopedic injuries, and yet he continues to give hope to those American families who lost their loved ones. Attacking Dan for having an international company is akin to attacking the Utah based LDS Church for being an international church with a presence in the Philippines.

Powerful stuff.

Conclusion: Freedom Path is lying…again.

If it’s not clear from what I’ve already said, let me say it again: the “outsourcing” mailer is flat-out lying that Liljenquist is outsourcing or off-shoring American jobs.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are we there yet? GOP Candidates Face-off for the Twentieth Time

With fingers crossed that this would be their last debate together, the final four Republican contenders for President faced off in Arizona on Wednesday night. The stakes were high—for some more than others. Without Governor Mitt Romney’s money, Senator Rick Santorum and Speaker Newt Gingrich knew that this might be their best chance to pick up undecided votes in the upcoming Super Tuesday primaries. For Romney, it was a chance to retake the lead in the race for President. Lest we forget, Ron Paul came along, too, but, despite a strong performance, is increasingly playing the role of side-kick to front-runner Romney.

So how did they do?

From right to left (as they sat on the stage):

Ron Paul: If Santorum expected punches from Romney, the Congressman Paul was ready to get in his hits, too . “He’s a fake,” Paul said of Santorum, wasting no time pointing out that Santorum was an insider and a part of what was wrong with Congress and Washington. With Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the news, Paul also took every opportunity to criticize America’s military adventures abroad. However his message appeals, it is unlikely it earned significantly more votes, except perhaps from Santorum’s “not Romney” voters. B

Rick Santorum: For a guy who spent the first fifteen debates complaining he wasn’t getting enough camera time, Santorum had his chance at the center next to longtime front-runner Mitt Romney. Although he had strong moments—especially in his closing statement, which dripped with red meat—both Paul and Romney took turns attacking Santorum for votes over sixteen years in Congress, including for No Child Left Behind and funding Planned Parenthood. At one point, Santorum was visibly red as he sputtered and responded to the attacks, repeatedly admitting to the votes. B –

Mitt Romney: As the presumptive nominee (at least according to the Obama for President reelection campaign), Romney stood to lose the most. He’s polling even with Santorum in Michigan—where Mitt grew up—and a poor performance could damage his lead in Arizona. However, Mitt successfully marshaled facts and points to repeatedly delivered successful attacks on Santorum and Gingrich. They are Washington insiders; he is the successful businessman and turnaround expert who wants to restore the country to prosperity. Despite an average closing statement, overall the debate was Romney’s. B+

Newt Gingrich: To paraphrase Allison Kraus, Newt says it best when he says nothing at all. Showing his penchant for sounding intelligent saying anything substantive, Gingrich put on a happy face, made obvious overtures to the other candidates—even telling Mitt “nice job” after the Governor received a longer set of applause—and called himself “cheerful.” However, voters view Gingrich as anything but, and while he was articulate in criticizing the media for double standards, Gingrich was unable to steal the spotlight from Romney and Santorum’s fist fight. C+

 

Related articles