Need any help in deciding whether or not to re-elect Obama?

In the remote case that some of you reading this have departed from reality, have spent too much time reading Twilight and not enough time looking at the world, have indulged in Dancing with the Stars and other programs, instead of reading news reports–here’s how I would analyze whether or not anyone in their right mind would vote to retain Barack Obama as president.

First I would analyze his foreign policy. In order to do so, I’d look at our relations with other countries and see how they’ve progressed, regressed, or remained unchanged during the President’s term of office. Here’s a partial list of what has happened:

Israel: Regressed. With our strongest ally in the Middle-east, Obama has been a scolding stepfather, and has not supported them with rhetoric in any way, shape or form.

Saudi Arabia: Regressed. Though Obama bowed to a Saudi King, they don’t like the fact that we are doing nothing to dissuade Iran in its nuclear acquisition. The bowing itself was a sign of weakness and not respected by Muslims.

Russia: Regressed. Though Bush had a meager relationship with the Russians, their relationship with us has slipped during the Obama administration, causing them to form an alliance with China in the U.N. against us.

China: Regressed. Our relationship with China continues to deteriorate, largely because there are no talks between us and them.

Egypt: Regressed. Though Mubarak was a dictator who the citizens opposed, he kept the zealots in check. Now, under the Arab Spring--which Obama originally said nothing about, but only later when the Muslim Brotherhood appeared to be gaining the upper hand did he say anything in support of the movement--we have American hostages.

Iran: Regressed. Though Bush called them part of the “Axis of Evil”, the relationship has continued to deteriorate under the Great Uniter.

Pakistan: Regressed. Once tepid allies, Obama’s lack of skill in dealing with other nations has made a simmering cauldron heat up to the boiling point.

Afghanistan: Regressed. Obama’s policies have made the situation worse in that country, not better.

Venezuela: Progressed: Obama has said nice things about Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Cuba: Progressed: Obama has indicated a willingness to remove travel restrictions on many people who wish to travel to Cuba. His willingness to work with nightmarish regimes should be looked upon with a great degree of suspicion.

That’s just a small sampling of the many countries around the world. If I were to grade the man on his foreign policy decisions, he’d be pretty close to an F.
Now, let’s take a look at domestic issues.  The question one must always ask at election time, is the traditional “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” I think that most of us can breathe out a collective “No!” in response to that query.

Economics: Regressed. Though Obama inherited a recession, we are stuck in a quagmire, largely fueled by the Federal government’s overreach in regulations. Our economy is tanking, largely on the national debt which reached $15 trillion in November. The president has failed to provide leadership to get the government spending in check and to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. He has wasted billions in supporting green energy companies, singling them out for government aid, only to see them go bankrupt. He has failed to act positively in promoting energy in America, keeping the Keystone Pipeline from being built to please his left-wing base, thus keeping an estimated 20,000 new jobs from happening.

He's dedicated though.He has spent countless hours working on his golf game, or world traveling while millions of Americans are out of work and while Congress has failed to come to agreement on policies that would help. He has been out of the loop, decreeing this or that, issuing edicts because his power of working together to come to common agreement is nil. His way of reaching across the aisle, is to expect everyone to agree with him. He has been an ineffectual failure that has done more harm than perhaps any other president in U.S. history. He has alienated our allies, while strengthening our enemies. He has pushed through Obamacare when the majority of Americans were against it. He is an agenda driven idealogue who cares little for the desires of Americans, only enough that he’ll say what he needs to say to get elected. And then there's the little problem with following the Constitution. He hasn't seemed all that favorable towards doing so, and he will have the opportunity in his second term, should we be so stupid, to nominate as many as three Supreme Court Justices. Don't think he won't nominate more people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has no respect for the Constitution--at least the U.S. Constitution. Two peas in a pod--like Ginsburg, Obama doesn't have much respect for it either. (Note: I inadvertently on Facebook said that Ginsburg had be nominated by the second worst president ever, thinking that Jimmy Carter had been the one. I was in error--it was actually Clinton). Anyway, that’s my analysis. You can agree or not, it is after all, one man's opinion.

On taxing the "rich"

When I've posted links on Facebook, at least in the last several months, several of them have been about President Obama's plan to tax the "wealthiest" among us. Repeatedly in speeches, the president has made references to making sure that "millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share". Several of the links I've referenced to in my Facebook postings have been about how the wealthiest Americans are already paying the lion's share of taxes in America. Here's an example of one of those links: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039767/Obama-tax-increase-Do-wealthy-Americans-pay-middle-class.html
The answer is simple: those whom Obama considers rich, already pay more than the rest of us, both in total dollars, and in tax rates. But why should that matter? In this time of economic disaster, shouldn't they be asked to pay even more? The answer, again quite simply, is no. Here's why.

Those who earn over $200,000 per year, which seems to be the income level that Obama begins thinking of them as "millionaires", include the vast majority of employers. Entrepreneurs, most of whom are taxed at an individual rate, do most of the hiring in America. The question then becomes, will they still hire as many people if their bills (including taxes) are higher? It's a question that must be asked because it's highly relevant to the discussion. Let's take the average citizen as an example. Let's say Joe Johnson is humming along, happily earning $50,000 per year, buying things as needed, and sometimes as wanted. He's really got his eye on a nice fishing boat, selling for about $5000. Now Joe's a good saver, and has saved most of the money to purchase the boat, but then the unthinkable happens---he loses his job. Try as he might, he can't find a job that pays as well as the job he had before and he winds up at a job paying $42,000 per year. Suddenly the extra he had for paying off the rest of the boat is needed for basic necessities: food, house payment, gas for his car. He decides to put off buying the boat, although he really still wants it.

In the same way Joe has decided not to purchase the boat, employers must make decisions on whether or not to hire future employees. If their bills increase, they have less money with which to do this. At a time in which our unemployment rate is very high, to decide to increase taxes on those who do the hiring is foolish at best. Even President Obama has said this in the past. Obama says you don't raise taxes in a recession

Another reason for not raising taxes, on the rich or anyone else, is that it reduces the incentive to stop the outrageous spending. If I'm getting $1000 more per month, as an individual, am I going to be more likely to spend, or less? I think the answer is clear.  And that's even more problematic when the money you're receiving is a gift from someone else. Someone once said that it's always easy to spend someone else's money, and it is. Frankly, as a citizen, I don't trust my government to spend my money wisely. Remember, these are the same people who spent $400 for a hammer and something like $1000 for a toilet seat. Do we really want them collecting and spending more of our money for wasteful things like this? I'd rather stop the inflow and make them reduce the outflow.

All that being said, there's nothing wrong with asking those who have the means to contribute more. Warren Buffet and some others who have a lot of means have said that they don't pay enough in taxes. Fine. They can cut checks and send them in to pay more. It's easy to do. They should put their money where their collective mouths are. Frankly, I'd rather see them contributing to the Food Bank, or the homeless shelters, or any number of privately owned charities that actually do more with less money than our federal government. I'd rather see them going around helping individuals and families, than sending in more money to be squandered by government agencies.

The bottom line is, heaping more taxes on job providers doesn't help in an ailing economy. Cutting spending does. Asking people who have the means  to voluntarily help their neighbors goes much further than any increase in taxes ever could. Remember what Ronald Reagan once said: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". Think about it.

The rich and taxes

So the basic supply-side economist will say that if you raise taxes on the rich, they will create less jobs. The counterargument to that is that trickle-down approaches to the economy have never worked, and that the stinking, evil rich don't create jobs even when their taxes are lowered. They instead pocket the money and make themselves richer.
Don't buy it.
Take the case of the late Larry Miller,  former owner of the Utah Jazz. Before Miller owned the Jazz, he was a car dealer, with several dealerships. But he hadn't begun with several. He began with one. As he became more successful, he added dealerships, which added jobs. In time, he bought into the Utah Jazz, and eventually became full owner of the Jazz. Under his ownership, the Jazz became more successful, which created more wealthy for Miller, but also created more job opportunities.
Miller continued his holdings as he bought into other enterprises, like the Salt Lake Stingers (now the Bees), and the Larry Miller Sports Park. All of these created more jobs.
Now, some would say that he would have done the same, even if taxes were raised. Maybe. We don't know. What we do know is this: Larry Miller continued to create jobs instead of lining his own pockets as he grew richer. Yes, he became wealthier, but his wealth helped out normal people who needed work. This is the exact opposite of what the anti-supply-side supporters will tell you. They have argued with me that the rich don't create more jobs, they just line their pockets. Larry Miller is proof that they are wrong.