We Can't Afford 4 more Years

I repeat myself in saying I've had doubts from the start that Mitt Romney could beat President Obama, but I'd do all I could to help him because our country can't afford 4 more Obama years.<br /> If Mitt has gotten his bad case of foot-in-the-mouth disease cured, maybe he can turn things around in the debates starting Wednesday night. It's going to be on domestic issues and that's where the election will be decided. In other words, this could be do or die for the presidency. A tie won't help. Romney needs to hit a grand slam.<br /> Not many voters are still on the fence. Polls say less than 10 percent haven't made up their minds. They also show Obama with leads of up to 10 percent in key battleground states, including those with Republican governors. That's hard to overcome, though it can be done.<br /> Here are some suggestions of points Romney could make to his advantage. The oath of office all presidents take at inauguration clearly says the president shall faithfully execute the laws. Laws and passed by the Congress. Before they take effect, the president has to sign them so he knows what they say. Even if he vetoes any and his vetoes are overridden by a super majority of Congress, they are law.<br /> Obama on numerous occasions has been unhappy with some laws even some Democratic lawmakers supplied the margins of victory. He instead has implemented what he wanted by executive order. This is not living up to his solemn oath.<br /> The principal duty of Congress is to pass a balanced budget by October 1. That means expenditures must equal income. Keep in mind, the figures in such a budget can include both borrowing and surpluses. The point is, regardless of using surpluses (we wish) or borrowing heavily (public debt), the law says the budget must be passed.<br /> Congress has not passed any budget at all in three years, including two years Democrats controlled both Houses. It has ignored the law. Obama thus has spent trillions of un-budgeted dollars, currently just north of $16 trillion. Obama has shown no inclination to try to force Congress to pass the law. He could use such pressure as keeping Congress in session even during holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas until they do, but hasn't. The president thus could use his powers to prod the lawmakers into doing what the law says they should and the president wouldn't be governing by unilateral executive actions. Such a law would help both parties equally. It wouldn't be an elephant versus a donkey.<br /> Romney could say he'll promote legislation that would stop the salary as of one minute after the September 30 midnight. That salary nor the benefits such as healthcare and retirement credits would not be repaid once a balanced budget is passed. It would be a permanent loss to the lawmakers.<br /> A president of either party has a built-in advantage. He has Air Force One at his disposal, though all incumbent presidents do repay a percentage of the operating cost relating to the non-official duty portion of the flight. There's a lot of grey areas and substantial leeway in figuring those percentages of what's campaigning and what's official duty.<br /> A lot of reasonable people on both sides disagree on what personal tax returns are presumed to reflect and how many should be disclosed. Obama has released 10, Romney the two most recent. Some controversy erupted when his accountants noted that while Romney actually had about $4 million of legitimate charitable deductions but deducted only about $2.5 million of that so his effective tax would be no less than 14 percent, a figure he pledged would be his minimum. Obama is making a big deal of this demanding more returns to see what other alleged shenanigans might have been. He's casting undeserved doubt without any evidence to suggest wrongdoing.<br /> Obama says the rich ought to pay a fairer (bigger) share of the income tax, rich being couples making more than $250,000 a year. Those earning at least that much already pay more than 90% of total income taxes while fully half pay no income taxes at all. Many, if not most, of those not paying income taxes do pay payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare. The rest could be retirees drawing their Social Security, etc. <br /> As a longtime enrolled professional tax preparer, believe me the highest audit rates are the most wealthy. If something were wrong with a return, you can bet IRS would be on it quickly. Too, there's nothing shady or illegal about taking advantage of the tax laws using them to reduce one's taxes. I suggest numbers of such actions to all my clients explaining fully the pros and cons. They have the last word. I go the way they say so long as it's not illegal.<br /> A staple Obama plan is the tax RATES ought to increase on those earning more than $250,000, etc. Study after study shows that actual tax receipts increase when rates go down. Even Democrat Bill Clinton, one of Obama's most effective surrogates, recognized that during his two-term presidency. The reason is simple though few people understand exactly why. Corporations deduct huge percentages of the corporate income taxes on their corporate returns. If they didn't, they'd be paying a lot more as Obama charges. As it is, they reinvest their tax savings creating new jobs and thus more taxpayers also resulting in fewer unemployment payments. It's like a chain of dominoes falling, all to the overall national economic good.<br /> One has to remember though, Obama's principal qualification for president was he was a community organizer. Not a practical businessman. He was and remains the most inexperienced and least qualified president in our nation's history. <br />

http://accesswdun.com/article/2012/9/253457