Home for Critical Thinking


Mitt Romney’s time as CEO of Bain Capital may be the bane of his goals for president.

Written By Kenneth Brooks on 07-17-2012 | in Political, Government, Ethics, Democracy, Critical Thinking, Economics,

President Barrack Obama is making Mitt Romney's time as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and president of Bain Capital, Inc. the bane of his goals to become U.S. president. Romney set the tone of the campaign by persistently criticizing the 8.2 percent unemployment rate under the Obama administration. He touted his success creating jobs at Bane Capital. Obama's team countered with reports that Bain Capital outsourced American jobs to foreign nations. Romney responded he left Bain Capital in 1999 before it started to send jobs out of the United States in 2001 and 2002.

I would expect that someone trying to seize power from any national leader would do so mindful the leader's past victories over opponents. Nevertheless, Romney ignored the need for defense as he moved on offense to paint Obama as a poor leader of the economy. People that concentrate on offense and ignore the need for defense often suffer defeat by knockout in real life conditions.

Obama's team showed 2000 to 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) documents signed by Romney that he was still CEO and president of Bain Capital. Obama's strategy forced Romney to answer if he was deceitful when he signed the SEC documents or deceitful now telling voters he left the corporation in 1999. Romney tried to avoid answering by making the issue Obama's lack of character for calling attention to Romney's conduct.

Romney appealed to voters' sense of fairness that Obama was not playing by the rules of civility, or playing by Romney rules. Next, he called for an apology for campaign advertisements suggesting that he committed a felony by signing the SEC papers. Recently Romney said in a nationally broadcast interview, "What does it say about a president whose record is so poor that all he can do in this campaign is attack me?'' Those remarks showed Romney's unwillingness to have voters decide accountability based on facts.

Some Republicans and members in the news media tried to explain away this gaffe by showing Romney took no active part running the corporation after 1999. This excuse damaged Romney's image as a responsible leaders more than accepting accountability for Bain Capital outsourcing of jobs would have done. The title CEO and president indicates the person named is responsible for running the corporation. Romney is accountable even if he did not take part in the decisions to outsource jobs. He selected the people that managed the organization in his name.

People with sound leadership ability always accept accountability even if not all their decisions bring ideal results. President Franklin D. Roosevelt displayed leadership traits by his response to the December 7, 1941 Japanese attack on the American fleet and naval base at Pearl Harbor. President Harry S. Truman displayed leadership traits when he issued an executive order that ended racial segregation in the U.S. Defense Department and in the Armed Forces. President George W. Bush showed leadership traits by fashioning a response to Al Qaida's 9/11 attacks on the homeland. President Barack H. Obama displayed the traits of leadership May 1, 2011. He successfully ended the hunt for al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden by sending U.S. Special Forces teams to a possible Bin Laden hiding place although the information was inconclusive that he was there.

Each president while handling crisis continued his duties in other areas as head of the Executive Branch of the federal government. In contrast, Romney while still listed as CEO of Bain Capital after 1999 denies accountability for its outsourcing of jobs, because he needed to concentrate all his efforts on saving the near bankrupt 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

The House of Representatives attack the Affordable Health Care Act 2010.

Written By Kenneth Brooks on 07-12-2012 | in Political, Government, Critical Thinking, Economics,

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 244-185 Wednesday to repeal in full the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The news media and many politicians label the House action as a vote to repeal President Obama's health care law or Obama Care. They try to make the vote a symbolic display of opposition to Obama's law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it. In fact, those 244 votes was another example of Congress failing its duty to provide for the general welfare of the people.

Political leaders and news media called the Affordable Care Act ObamaCare since Congress passed it in 2010. This personalized label for the law biased Americans' thinking about it. They also muddled Americans thinking about tax cuts and jobs by mislabeling the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 as (President George) Bush Tax Cuts.

President Obama may have introduced a national health care plan to Congress. Nevertheless, he lacked the authority to pass laws. Only Congress has constitutional authority to pass laws. Therefore, 539 members of Congress help to shape the final Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as they did the 2001 and 2003 tax relief laws. The restructured Health Care Act passed by Congress in 2010 was the people's law.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio said, "We are resolved to have this law go away, and we're going to do everything we can to stop it." Boehner blithely makes this remark as if his goal to destroy the people's Health Care Act is a noble goal. Instead, it was an ignoble failure by the House majority to consider the best interests of Americans. They have the duty to fix the health care plan, because adequate health care probably is fourth behind people's welfare concerns for food, shelter, and safety.

The House vote would have been reasonable if it settled a dispute over competing health care plans. Even Affordable Health Care Act supporters must recognize flaws in the law. Instead, House members voted to repeal the people's Affordable Health Care Act without a replacement. The House majority asserts that their opposition to the law centers on costs, especially costs to small and medium sized business owners. However, this reasoning is dishonest that selectively considers only one group's costs associated with health care and not another.

Healthcare costs affect workers and their families too. Perhaps workers could pay for health care or buy health insurance independent of employers' contribution if employers paid them adequate wages. Employers incur less labor costs by paying the reduced group rate for employees' health insurance than the costs of paying each employee a living wage. The Affordable Health Care Act makes health insurance for employees compulsory for employers to prevent those that provide it from suffering a competitive disadvantage with American competitors that do not provide it. Nevertheless, small and medium sized employers want to lessen labor costs by paying low wages and by not paying lower group-rate health insurance premiums for employees.

Small and medium-sized business owners may reason that no matter the low pay, the jobs they create is a better situation for workers than the condition of workers being unemployed. Perhaps this is true. However, business owners do not create jobs from selflessness. They employ workers for their labor that creates or that increases value in a product for profit making. Nevertheless, many business owners expect taxpayers and workers with health insurance to subsidize their labor costs and profits when hire workers at low pay and without health insurance coverage.

Employees that receive less than a living wage and without health insurance are one moderate-level illness or medical emergency of a family member away from devastating debt. They will use hospital emergency room service for primary care with or without the ability to pay for the service. Hospitals will spread the costs of unpaid bills for medical treatment to other patients that can pay, to people with health insurance or to government health care programs. Hospitals must do this or go bankrupt.

Millions of voters will cheer and gloat how Congress stuck it politically to Obama by repealing ObamaCare. Few of them will associate the loss of the people's Affordable Health Care Act with the increases they experience yearly in medical costs, health insurance premiums, and taxes that support health care for employees without health insurance.


<< month,year >>
SunMonTue WedThuFri Sat


RSS 2.0: Articles | Comments
ATOM 1.0: Articles | Comments