Investing legend Jim Rogers says it doesn't matter who wins Election 2012.
In his view, both President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney are equally bad.
"I repeat Shakespeare: A pox on both their houses as far as I'm concerned," Rogers said in a Breakout interview this week. "These are the guys who got us into this problem, so why does anybody think they will get us out?"
The "problem" to which Jim Rogers is referring to is the sluggish U.S. economy, dragged down by the huge $16 trillion federal debt and annual budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion.
Rogers predicted that regardless of who wins Election 2012, things won't get better.
"If Mr. Obama wins, his friends are gonna get more money. If Mr. Romney wins, his friends are gonna get more money. But you and I, and everybody watching this show are gonna be worse off because the debt's going to go higher, and the turmoil is gonna get worse."
Rogers blames both major parties for the nation's economic ills.
"All of them have gotten us into this situation," Rogers said. "Look at the last 50 years of American history. Republicans, Democrats, Republicans, Democrats .... It's not doing us any good. None of us are benefiting by what's been going on in Washington."
Jim Rogers is so down on U.S. politicians that he has absolutely no preference as to who wins the White House.
"I will vote the protest vote. I nearly always vote the protest vote," Rogers said without specifying which third-party might get his support.
In Rogers's view, a vote for either major party just perpetuates the problem.
"If they keep sending us turkeys, and we keep voting for turkeys, they'll send us more turkeys," he said.
2012 election
Article Index
Romney Tax Plan Details Still a Mystery Despite All the Talk
While GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has provided a bit more information on his tax plan, many key details are still missing - meaning it's tough to figure out exactly what you'd owe Uncle Sam if Romney wins Election 2012.
Romney and vice-presidential running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, have outlined several broad Romney tax plan goals: do not increase the deficit; do not raise taxes on middle income taxpayers; and do not reduce the share of taxes paid by higher-income Americans.
Romney also has repeatedly made it known he favors an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels.
Ryan has said a Romney administration would be able to work with Democrats in Congress to pass a tax re-write, which includes a 20% reduction in individual tax rates across the board, a 10% reduction for businesses and a 20% cut in the top tax rate from 35% to 28%. (President Barack Obama plans to raise that rate to 39.6%).
But neither Ryan nor Romney has yet to give full details on which tax breaks will be scaled back to avoid adding to the mushrooming federal deficit, which topped $1 trillion in 2012 for the fourth straight year.
The lack of Romney tax plan details prompted President Obama to call it "sketchy" at the second presidential debate.
"Governor Romney was a very successful investor," said the president. "If somebody came to you, governor, with a plan that said, here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion, and then we're going to pay for it, but we can't tell you until maybe after the election how we're going to do it, you wouldn't have taken such a sketchy deal and neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn't add up. We haven't heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding forPlannedParenthood in terms of how he pays for that."
Romney and vice-presidential running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, have outlined several broad Romney tax plan goals: do not increase the deficit; do not raise taxes on middle income taxpayers; and do not reduce the share of taxes paid by higher-income Americans.
Romney also has repeatedly made it known he favors an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels.
Ryan has said a Romney administration would be able to work with Democrats in Congress to pass a tax re-write, which includes a 20% reduction in individual tax rates across the board, a 10% reduction for businesses and a 20% cut in the top tax rate from 35% to 28%. (President Barack Obama plans to raise that rate to 39.6%).
But neither Ryan nor Romney has yet to give full details on which tax breaks will be scaled back to avoid adding to the mushrooming federal deficit, which topped $1 trillion in 2012 for the fourth straight year.
The lack of Romney tax plan details prompted President Obama to call it "sketchy" at the second presidential debate.
"Governor Romney was a very successful investor," said the president. "If somebody came to you, governor, with a plan that said, here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion, and then we're going to pay for it, but we can't tell you until maybe after the election how we're going to do it, you wouldn't have taken such a sketchy deal and neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn't add up. We haven't heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding forPlannedParenthood in terms of how he pays for that."
To continue reading, please click here...
Tonight's VP Debate: Can Ryan Counter-Punch Biden's Jabs?
If tonight's vice-presidential (VP) debate were a boxing match it would be expected to go all 12 rounds.
Squaring off at 9 p.m. EDT in Danville, Kentucky are Vice-President Joe Biden and vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, in their first and only debate.
After the shellacking Mitt Romney gave President Obama in the first presidential debate many political experts are expecting Biden to come out on the offensive in an attempt to regain some of the president's lost ground.
Paul Ryan, in his first national debate, knows that Biden is looking to attack where the president did not. As the Chair of the House Budget Committee, Ryan should be ready to defend his running mate and continue the attack on the president. Expect Ryan to focus on the economy, specifically federal debt, unemployment and job creation.
"I'd be surprised if there weren't far more fireworks in this debate than there were in the first presidential debate," University of Maine political science professor Mark Brewer told Reuters.
While the debate will focus on domestic and foreign policies, here are other things you should watch for.
Squaring off at 9 p.m. EDT in Danville, Kentucky are Vice-President Joe Biden and vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, in their first and only debate.
After the shellacking Mitt Romney gave President Obama in the first presidential debate many political experts are expecting Biden to come out on the offensive in an attempt to regain some of the president's lost ground.
Paul Ryan, in his first national debate, knows that Biden is looking to attack where the president did not. As the Chair of the House Budget Committee, Ryan should be ready to defend his running mate and continue the attack on the president. Expect Ryan to focus on the economy, specifically federal debt, unemployment and job creation.
"I'd be surprised if there weren't far more fireworks in this debate than there were in the first presidential debate," University of Maine political science professor Mark Brewer told Reuters.
While the debate will focus on domestic and foreign policies, here are other things you should watch for.
To continue reading, please click here...
Coal Stocks See Better Days Ahead If Romney Wins Election 2012
If Mitt Romney wins Election 2012, it'll be a rare piece of positive news for the coal industry, and a boost for beaten down coal stocks.
During last week's presidential debate, Romney called attention to the stark differences between himself and U.S. President Barack Obama on coal policy.
"By the way, I like coal," Romney said. "I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies."
That was enough to grab the attention of investors. Just about every coal stock went up at least 4% the day after the debate, and several were up more than 5%.
It was a much needed shot in the arm for a sector that had been down 29% on the year.
"It's amazing what 15 words about coal in a presidential debate can do for the stocks," Michael Dudas of Sterne Agee told Reuters. "These stocks have been volatile, but you can't discount what a man running for president said about coal. Call it the Romney rally."
Coal stocks reacted strongly to Romney's industry-friendly comments because President Obama's energy policies have been tough on a sector already under pressure from cheap natural gas prices.
That's why Romney, in his campaign speeches, frequently refers to these policies as a "war on coal."
During last week's presidential debate, Romney called attention to the stark differences between himself and U.S. President Barack Obama on coal policy.
"By the way, I like coal," Romney said. "I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies."
That was enough to grab the attention of investors. Just about every coal stock went up at least 4% the day after the debate, and several were up more than 5%.
It was a much needed shot in the arm for a sector that had been down 29% on the year.
"It's amazing what 15 words about coal in a presidential debate can do for the stocks," Michael Dudas of Sterne Agee told Reuters. "These stocks have been volatile, but you can't discount what a man running for president said about coal. Call it the Romney rally."
Coal stocks reacted strongly to Romney's industry-friendly comments because President Obama's energy policies have been tough on a sector already under pressure from cheap natural gas prices.
That's why Romney, in his campaign speeches, frequently refers to these policies as a "war on coal."
To continue reading, please click here...
Six Stocks You Should Own If Obama Wins Election 2012
Debates and attack ads aside, the U.S. presidential election remains too close to call -- all the more reason for investors to position themselves to profit whether Mitt Romney or President Barack Obama wins in November.
As we noted last month when we looked at stocks to own if Romney wins, certain industries tend to perform better under Republican policies, others under Democrats.
Here's a look at six stocks that would benefit if President Obama wins Election 2012.
Unless the Republicans sweep both houses of Congress and win the White House, Obamacare will remain the law of the land.
Large hospital chains benefit from the survival of Obamacare because it expands health coverage to millions of previously uninsured individuals, including those with pre-existing conditions. That will significantly reduce the burden on hospital emergency rooms, which must now treat these patients even if they can't pay.
While such major hospital operators as Tenet Healthcare Corp. (NYSE: THC) and Community Health Systems (NYSE: CYH) would get a lift from this, a better choice in this sector is:
A good bet in this category is:
As we noted last month when we looked at stocks to own if Romney wins, certain industries tend to perform better under Republican policies, others under Democrats.
Here's a look at six stocks that would benefit if President Obama wins Election 2012.
Health Care Stocks Helped by an Obama Win
No matter what, one of the top issues will continue to be health care, with a particular focus on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - otherwise known as "Obamacare."Unless the Republicans sweep both houses of Congress and win the White House, Obamacare will remain the law of the land.
Large hospital chains benefit from the survival of Obamacare because it expands health coverage to millions of previously uninsured individuals, including those with pre-existing conditions. That will significantly reduce the burden on hospital emergency rooms, which must now treat these patients even if they can't pay.
While such major hospital operators as Tenet Healthcare Corp. (NYSE: THC) and Community Health Systems (NYSE: CYH) would get a lift from this, a better choice in this sector is:
- Health Management Associates Inc. (NYSE: HMA), recent price $8.16 - HMA operates 66 hospitals with more than 10,300 beds, most of them located across the South and in Appalachia, where the current percentage of uninsured patients is among the highest in the country. Increased reimbursements under Obamacare could spark a turnaround in HMA revenues and earnings, which have fallen in four of the last five quarters, slipping from 20 cents a share in the second quarter of 2011 to just 16 cents in Q2 2012. The stock pays no dividend, but offers good growth potential since its current price is well off the five-year high of $11.32 set in April 2011.
A good bet in this category is:
To continue reading, please click here...
Tonight's Presidential Debate: Time to Talk Economics
Tonight's presidential debate will be the first time incumbent President Barack Obama squares off against GOP challenger Mitt Romney, in a race that's still too close to predict.
According to a trio of national polls published Monday, the two candidates are running neck-and-neck ahead of tonight's presidential debate. The results show just three percentage points separate the two.
This first of three sessions focuses on domestic policy. It's divided into six 15-minute segments; the first three focus on the economy, then healthcare, the role of government, and governing.
While many political analysts say Romney's chances hinge on his performance tonight, President Obama doesn't have enough of a lead to sit comfortably.
Following are some key issues that each much address and explain in the first debate of Election 2012.
According to a trio of national polls published Monday, the two candidates are running neck-and-neck ahead of tonight's presidential debate. The results show just three percentage points separate the two.
This first of three sessions focuses on domestic policy. It's divided into six 15-minute segments; the first three focus on the economy, then healthcare, the role of government, and governing.
While many political analysts say Romney's chances hinge on his performance tonight, President Obama doesn't have enough of a lead to sit comfortably.
Following are some key issues that each much address and explain in the first debate of Election 2012.
To continue reading, please click here...
Election 2012: Five Tough Questions That Need to be Asked at Tonight's Debate
I hate to break it to Ben Affleck, but he is wrong about the election. With just 34 days left until voters head to the polls, the election 2012 race is still completely up for grabs.
Even still, in a recent interview with the AP, Affleck lumped Romney comfortably in with the likes of such memorable losers as Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Bob Dole.
However, a recent a poll released by Rasmussen yesterday would seem to suggest this contest is far from over.
According to the survey, President Obama only leads Mitt Romney by a razor slim advantage of 48% to 47%--well within the margin of error.
That makes tonight's presidential debates in Denver all the more critical for both candidates-especially since they will be devoted primarily to the economy and domestic policy.
Of course, here at Money Morning we have our own ideas on how the economy ought to be run, and a few questions of our own for each of tonight's debaters.
But we'll bet most of the tough questions will be completely missed by the media, who have an altogether-too-exalted an idea of the candidates' competence.
With that in mind, here are five questions that should get asked at tonight's debate-but won't.
Five Questions About the Economy That Beg To Be Answered
Even still, in a recent interview with the AP, Affleck lumped Romney comfortably in with the likes of such memorable losers as Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Bob Dole.
However, a recent a poll released by Rasmussen yesterday would seem to suggest this contest is far from over.
According to the survey, President Obama only leads Mitt Romney by a razor slim advantage of 48% to 47%--well within the margin of error.
That makes tonight's presidential debates in Denver all the more critical for both candidates-especially since they will be devoted primarily to the economy and domestic policy.
Of course, here at Money Morning we have our own ideas on how the economy ought to be run, and a few questions of our own for each of tonight's debaters.
But we'll bet most of the tough questions will be completely missed by the media, who have an altogether-too-exalted an idea of the candidates' competence.
With that in mind, here are five questions that should get asked at tonight's debate-but won't.
Five Questions About the Economy That Beg To Be Answered
- Mr. President, Governor, study after study has shown that the healthcare system in this country is absorbing a larger and larger share of our Gross Domestic Product, and will bankrupt us all by 2050. Yet neither of you has any reliable plans to deal with this. Mr. President, your Obamacare makes matters worse. Governor, your Romneycare in Massachusetts has also run wildly over budget and your Vice President's plan loads most medical cost increases onto individuals who get sick.
Other countries cope with medical cost inflation better than us; which of their schemes should we adopt?
To continue reading, please click here...
If Romney Wins Election, Make Sure You Own These Six Stocks
With U.S. President Barack Obama holding a narrow lead in the polls over Republican challenger Mitt Romney, investors need to be prepared for a win by either candidate.
Strangely enough, history has shown that the stock market actually does much better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones - three times better since 1913, according to The New York Times, and more than five times better since 1960.
Of course, that doesn't mean there won't still be plenty of stock market opportunities if Romney wins the election. It just means investors must be a bit more selective, targeting leading stocks in industries that have a history of prospering under GOP policies, especially those directly affected by planks in the Republican platform.
Sectors that fall into this category include certain health insurers, medical device makers, energy companies, domestic oil exploration outfits, utilities, transportation firms (especially railroads), and defense contractors.
Let's take a look.
Strangely enough, history has shown that the stock market actually does much better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones - three times better since 1913, according to The New York Times, and more than five times better since 1960.
Of course, that doesn't mean there won't still be plenty of stock market opportunities if Romney wins the election. It just means investors must be a bit more selective, targeting leading stocks in industries that have a history of prospering under GOP policies, especially those directly affected by planks in the Republican platform.
Sectors that fall into this category include certain health insurers, medical device makers, energy companies, domestic oil exploration outfits, utilities, transportation firms (especially railroads), and defense contractors.
Let's take a look.
To continue reading, please click here...
If President Obama Wins Election 2012, What's Next?
With nearly four years under President Barack Obama's reign, America's economic recovery is struggling to pick up speed and unemployment remains above an unhealthy 8%.
The Obama administration has repeatedly been harshly criticized for bailing out corporate businesses, for the massive national deficit and for the creation of the controversial healthcare bill dubbed Obamacare.
Yet, with just six weeks left before Americans head to the polls to cast their vote for the 45th president, President Obama has managed to eke out a slight lead.
In a mid-September interview with "60 Minutes," President Obama defended his term and said he and we need more time with him in office.
Here's what to expect if President Obama wins Election 2012.
The Obama administration has repeatedly been harshly criticized for bailing out corporate businesses, for the massive national deficit and for the creation of the controversial healthcare bill dubbed Obamacare.
Yet, with just six weeks left before Americans head to the polls to cast their vote for the 45th president, President Obama has managed to eke out a slight lead.
In a mid-September interview with "60 Minutes," President Obama defended his term and said he and we need more time with him in office.
Here's what to expect if President Obama wins Election 2012.
To continue reading, please click here...
If Romney Wins Election 2012, Here's What's In Store for America
While Mitt Romney's political plans are a stark difference from opponent President Barack Obama, they agree on one thing: When it comes to this year's election, "this is a very clear choice for the American people as to what America's future will look like."
They disagree, however, on what that "clear choice" is.
That's what Romney said in a "60 Minutes" interview with Scott Pelley that aired yesterday (Sunday), where he detailed his plans to restore America to fiscal health.
Romney explained he would shrink the size of the government, overhaul entitlement programs and implement individual and corporate tax breaks-all with the help of Congress.
"I'm going to win this thing," said Romney when asked if he could win the November presidential election. "Washington is broken and I think that flows from the President. I think ultimately that the buck stops with the President."
If Mitt Romney wins Election 2012, here's what he has planned for you.
They disagree, however, on what that "clear choice" is.
That's what Romney said in a "60 Minutes" interview with Scott Pelley that aired yesterday (Sunday), where he detailed his plans to restore America to fiscal health.
Romney explained he would shrink the size of the government, overhaul entitlement programs and implement individual and corporate tax breaks-all with the help of Congress.
"I'm going to win this thing," said Romney when asked if he could win the November presidential election. "Washington is broken and I think that flows from the President. I think ultimately that the buck stops with the President."
If Mitt Romney wins Election 2012, here's what he has planned for you.
To continue reading, please click here...
Election 2012: Forget Bailouts, We Need a Shakeout
The markets rallied Monday on news that global leaders favor additional stimulus. The hope is that additional spending will induce growth and put the world back on track.
Don't hold your breath.
Big government robs the economy of wealth, strips it of initiative and further undermines our recovery.
So why, then, do our leaders continue to throw good money after bad?
Try this on for size.
In 1958, a man named Cyril Northcote Parkinson published a series of essays in book form called Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress. In it, he postulated a mathematical equation that describes how bureaucracies expand over time and why.
I don't know if he had a wicked sense of humor or a dramatic flair for irony but the equation at the core of his argument relied on something he termed the "coefficient of inefficiency."
The coefficient of inefficiency says the size of a committee or government decision-making body is determined by the point at which it becomes completely inefficient or irrelevant. Or both - hence the name.
Parkinson determined that the minimal effective size for a decision-making body is about five people, and the optimal size is somewhere between three and 20.
Last time I checked, we had 548 people inside the beltway - 535 voting members of Congress, nine Supreme Court justices, one president, one vice president, one treasurer and one Fed chairman - who are responsible for making decisions on behalf of 330 million citizens.
Combine that with nearly 2.8 million total Federal employees (excluding our military) and we're waaaaay beyond anything even remotely resembling workable decision making.
Now here's the thing. Parkinson also observed that bureaucracies grew by about 5%-7% a year, "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done."
In other words, the larger bureaucracies become, the more ineffective they get even if additional people are hired to do work that doesn't exist.
And to think, all this time I thought our government ran on the Peter Principle!
Parkinson attributed this to two things:
Don't hold your breath.
Big government robs the economy of wealth, strips it of initiative and further undermines our recovery.
So why, then, do our leaders continue to throw good money after bad?
Try this on for size.
In 1958, a man named Cyril Northcote Parkinson published a series of essays in book form called Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress. In it, he postulated a mathematical equation that describes how bureaucracies expand over time and why.
I don't know if he had a wicked sense of humor or a dramatic flair for irony but the equation at the core of his argument relied on something he termed the "coefficient of inefficiency."
The coefficient of inefficiency says the size of a committee or government decision-making body is determined by the point at which it becomes completely inefficient or irrelevant. Or both - hence the name.
Parkinson determined that the minimal effective size for a decision-making body is about five people, and the optimal size is somewhere between three and 20.
Last time I checked, we had 548 people inside the beltway - 535 voting members of Congress, nine Supreme Court justices, one president, one vice president, one treasurer and one Fed chairman - who are responsible for making decisions on behalf of 330 million citizens.
Combine that with nearly 2.8 million total Federal employees (excluding our military) and we're waaaaay beyond anything even remotely resembling workable decision making.
Now here's the thing. Parkinson also observed that bureaucracies grew by about 5%-7% a year, "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done."
In other words, the larger bureaucracies become, the more ineffective they get even if additional people are hired to do work that doesn't exist.
And to think, all this time I thought our government ran on the Peter Principle!
Parkinson attributed this to two things:
To continue reading, please click here...
Romneynomics: What You Can Expect if Mitt Romney Wins the Election
Yesterday I wrote about what to expect if President Obama wins a second term in office. Today it's Mitt Romney's turn.
I'd like to look at Romneynomics - the policies that are likely headed down the pike if the underdog Mitt Romney wins in November.
As for the horserace, I think it is President Obama's to lose.
But last Friday's weak employment report indicates again that the economy could slow enough to push Romney ahead.
As with an Obama victory, I think the election will be a close one even if Romney emerges the winner. That means the Republicans will not have an overwhelming majority in Congress.
On the other hand, the Republicans might just get the four seats they need to win the Senate; if Romney wins I assume they will accomplish this. That would give them theoretical control of both the presidency and Congress, but with only small majorities.
With Romney set to inhabit the White House, I expect the solution to this to involve genuine spending cuts--perhaps along the lines of the budget presented by Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-WI).
I'd like to look at Romneynomics - the policies that are likely headed down the pike if the underdog Mitt Romney wins in November.
As for the horserace, I think it is President Obama's to lose.
But last Friday's weak employment report indicates again that the economy could slow enough to push Romney ahead.
As with an Obama victory, I think the election will be a close one even if Romney emerges the winner. That means the Republicans will not have an overwhelming majority in Congress.
On the other hand, the Republicans might just get the four seats they need to win the Senate; if Romney wins I assume they will accomplish this. That would give them theoretical control of both the presidency and Congress, but with only small majorities.
The Top Priorities of Romneynomics
As with an Obama win, the first order of business will be to sort out the "fiscal cliff" that comes along with expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the automatic expenditure cuts that will also occur at the end of the year.With Romney set to inhabit the White House, I expect the solution to this to involve genuine spending cuts--perhaps along the lines of the budget presented by Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-WI).
To continue reading, please click here...
Obamanomics: What You Can Expect if President Obama Wins the Election
Now that we are left with a two-horse race for president, the markets are going to begin to handicap the November results.
However, when the markets begin to handicap the race it will be about a lot more than just picking the eventual winner.
Instead, everything will revolve around the policies and consequences that come along with the winner.
The difference in approach promises to be stark with "Obamanomics" on the left and "Romneynomics" on the right.
Each one comes with its own set of consequences, though.
Today I'm going to look at "Obamanomics II," or the policies we will get if President Obama is re-elected.
But those on the left shouldn't despair...In my next piece, it's Romney's turn.
As for the horserace itself, it's too close to call, with neither side having much chance of winning a big victory.
Yes, Republican Bob McDonnell did win the Virginia governorship handily in 2009, but he was a very good candidate. Moreover, turnout in gubernatorial elections is normally low. Thus I believe the latest polls showing Obama with a 7% lead in Virginia are accurate, and without Virginia Romney has a very difficult path to the presidency.
If we believe the presidential election will be close, then it follows that Congress and the Senate elections must be close, too.
If Obama wins in November, the most likely outcome must be that the Democrats will hang on to the Senate, while the Republican House majority survives, albeit much smaller than at present.
With this combination, the president's more extreme wishes (or those of his team) will be restrained. But as a newly re-elected figure he will nevertheless have more power to get what he wants than he does currently.
Whatever the congressional numbers may be, the president's first task will be to face the "fiscal cliff" of January 2013, when the Bush tax cuts and temporary payroll tax cuts expire and automatic spending "sequestration" comes into effect.
However, when the markets begin to handicap the race it will be about a lot more than just picking the eventual winner.
Instead, everything will revolve around the policies and consequences that come along with the winner.
The difference in approach promises to be stark with "Obamanomics" on the left and "Romneynomics" on the right.
Each one comes with its own set of consequences, though.
Today I'm going to look at "Obamanomics II," or the policies we will get if President Obama is re-elected.
But those on the left shouldn't despair...In my next piece, it's Romney's turn.
As for the horserace itself, it's too close to call, with neither side having much chance of winning a big victory.
President Obama Has the Edge
Even still at the moment, President Obama appears to be ahead. Apart from his modest lead in the polls, my former home state of Virginia appears to be swinging definitively toward the Democrats.Yes, Republican Bob McDonnell did win the Virginia governorship handily in 2009, but he was a very good candidate. Moreover, turnout in gubernatorial elections is normally low. Thus I believe the latest polls showing Obama with a 7% lead in Virginia are accurate, and without Virginia Romney has a very difficult path to the presidency.
If we believe the presidential election will be close, then it follows that Congress and the Senate elections must be close, too.
If Obama wins in November, the most likely outcome must be that the Democrats will hang on to the Senate, while the Republican House majority survives, albeit much smaller than at present.
With this combination, the president's more extreme wishes (or those of his team) will be restrained. But as a newly re-elected figure he will nevertheless have more power to get what he wants than he does currently.
Whatever the congressional numbers may be, the president's first task will be to face the "fiscal cliff" of January 2013, when the Bush tax cuts and temporary payroll tax cuts expire and automatic spending "sequestration" comes into effect.
To continue reading, please click here...
Election 2012: President Obama Can't Solve High Oil Prices with Trading Regulations
The Obama administration lost its bid to get the Buffett Rule (which would have increased taxes for those earning $1 million or more) passed, so on Tuesday it shifted focus to another battle: Slowing the rise in oil prices.
U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed solution to painfully high prices is to limit speculation in oil markets.
The new bids that the president proposed seek more money ($52 million) for market enforcement and monitoring activities, call for loftier penalties for market manipulation, and require oil traders to put up more of their own cash for transactions.
At a White House press conference Tuesday President Obama said, "None of these will bring gas prices down overnight. But they will prevent market manipulation, and help protect consumers."
The move is in stark contrast with Republicans, who have been lobbying for more domestic drilling to help alleviate the near record-high gas prices. Paying more at the pump takes a bite out of consumer spending and has the potential to stall the slow-going economic recovery.
The maneuver, however, may be focused more on political strategy than consumer interest.
It is extremely doubtful that House Republicans will pass any measure that aims to implement more limits on Wall Street while the GOP looks to reduce regulation of the financial sector.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-OH, called it a political ploy and disparaged President Obama for not using the means already at his disposal to deal with the oil situation.
"The president has all the tools available to him if he believed that the oil market is being manipulated," Boehner said. "Where's his Federal Trade Commission? Where is the SEC? He's got agencies there. So instead of just another political gimmick, why doesn't he put his administration to work to get to the bottom of it?"
U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed solution to painfully high prices is to limit speculation in oil markets.
The new bids that the president proposed seek more money ($52 million) for market enforcement and monitoring activities, call for loftier penalties for market manipulation, and require oil traders to put up more of their own cash for transactions.
At a White House press conference Tuesday President Obama said, "None of these will bring gas prices down overnight. But they will prevent market manipulation, and help protect consumers."
The move is in stark contrast with Republicans, who have been lobbying for more domestic drilling to help alleviate the near record-high gas prices. Paying more at the pump takes a bite out of consumer spending and has the potential to stall the slow-going economic recovery.
The maneuver, however, may be focused more on political strategy than consumer interest.
It is extremely doubtful that House Republicans will pass any measure that aims to implement more limits on Wall Street while the GOP looks to reduce regulation of the financial sector.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-OH, called it a political ploy and disparaged President Obama for not using the means already at his disposal to deal with the oil situation.
"The president has all the tools available to him if he believed that the oil market is being manipulated," Boehner said. "Where's his Federal Trade Commission? Where is the SEC? He's got agencies there. So instead of just another political gimmick, why doesn't he put his administration to work to get to the bottom of it?"
To continue reading, please click here...
What Someone Needs to Ask the Presidential Candidates
Kent is in Europe this week, advising on oil supply concerns in cash-strapped nations.
And it's getting serious over there.
As he noted on Fox Business last week, Greece imports nearly 30% of its oil from Iran, and the country needs fuel in order to keep its economy moving in these uncertain times.
I don't think our leaders or media say this enough, but energy is the catalyst of economic growth and human progression. And a lack of reliable fuel sources will only make this teetering European economy even more susceptible to its ongoing debt woes.
The last 100 years of prosperity in the U.S. was not driven by abstract ideals like the "American spirit."
Cheap, efficient energy sources fueled our growing global economy. They were an underlying driver of a population boom and expansion across the continent. Without them, we wouldn't have our highways, sprawling suburbs, or supporting infrastructure that has made this country so unique.
But the days of cheap oil are fading fast. Production costs are rising as we shift toward unconventional oil fields and tight gas formations for our sources.
So, once again, we're looking to alternative forms of energy.