Will The Economy Improve If Romney Gets Elected?

That's the implied promise from the Romney campaign (and supporters) - or at least the hope - if the Mittster gets elected on November 6. However... hope can be a dangerous thing. Just look back four years, as Obama promised Americans "Hope and Change" if he was elected.

He got the "change" part right - federal debt, deficits and unemployment all changed for the worse. Ditto for individual liberties and freedoms. And there's no doubt that this administration is one of (if not the most) power-hungry and corrupt in American history. However... what is America being offered as the alternative?

A big-government, Rockefeller Republican who seems to be in almost perfect agreement with President Obama on a majority of issues - including the economic ones. He was in favor of TARP, the President's stimulus package... thinks Ben Bernanke is doing a great job as Fed Chairman... and doesn't think we should cut that much in defense or other spending.

If this is the case, then I don't think we have much "hope" of a better economy if Romney is elected. The problem with our economy is too much borrowing, spending and money creation by the Fed. The solution (albeit a painful one) will be to balance the budget as quickly as possible... stop expanding the money supply... and stop creating excess credit.

The 1000-pound elephant in the room that neither party wants to acknowledge is this: We can't continue borrowing and spending in excess like the "good old days" of decades past.

There will be short-term economic pain before we can see honest and sustainable economic growth again. Even if Romney gets elected and stays true (as much as a flip-flopper from Massachsetts can) to his principles of the past, I don't believe a Romney administration will make the tough economic choices - until we hit one or more "crisis walls" in America.

Does a 2nd Obama term concern me? Absolutely. Especially when it comes to individual liberties and freedoms - not to mention the economy. However... I'm not sold that the Republican alternative will be much better.

Watch what Alan Keyes says in just four minutes about Obama and Mitt Romney. He acknowledges the danger of Obama... but also of the possibility of Romney being elected, and implementing the very same policies as Obama - but getting a free pass from conservative Republicans because he's "our guy."

Or read Chuck Baldwin's column on Insanity - lot of good food for thought as well.

And to all the Romney supporters out there: Yes, for the 4,373,672 nd time - I know that Obama is a Socialist/Marxist and his Administration has been a disaster. However, I'm not sold that Mitt Romney is a true "limited-government" alternative. I'm not asking for an ideological purity test or the "perfect" candidate. I realize that in the world of politics, compromises have to be made and you won't get everything you want.

Having said that, the GOP Establishment didn't listen to the limited-government grass roots at all... and instead of a nominee that believes in less government, we got the corporatist, Rockefeller nominee - whether the grass roots liked it or not. It was the same story in 2008 with John McCain, even though the Republican nominee had a snowball's chance in hell of winning right after a real estate and stock market crash.

To answer the question I posed in my title: No, I don't believe the US economy will significantly improve if Romney is elected.

Based upon the massive amount of debt and money supply - and if our leaders do the right thing and balance the federal budget (which is highly unlikely) - it would still be at least several years in a best-case scenario before we would see a healthier economy.

Bureaucrats and politicians have promoted this myth that the Fed and government can "manage" the economy like a mechanic manages a car. Pull this lever... push that button... jigger that switch, and voila! These adjustments will have Ol' Betsy running as good as new. Unfortunately, economies are more like living organisms - not machines.

You can't keep giving them big doses of economic steroids without consequences. It's great in the short-term, but there are major longer-term "side effects." Namely - devaluation of your nation's currency, with a loss of purchasing power and wealth for its citizens. It's impossible to always have economic growth in any country or economy - no matter how "exceptional" it's been sold to be (i.e., America).

The laws of economics and finance still apply to the good ol' US of A. The consequences of decades of bad economic policies are showing up - and will continue to show up - in the economy, regardless of who is elected President on November 6.

SNL Obama-Hu skit speaks volumes about US debt problem

I was at a friend's house Saturday night, talking about business and life when SNL came on the TV. I don't watch much television, so we took a break from the conversation and watched one of the skits.

I remember SNL from the 70s and 80s when Bill Murray, John Belushi, Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy were cast members. Maybe it was because I was growing up and didn't pay that much attention to politics, but I never remembered SNL being really political.

However, I was taken aback when I saw this skit that showed Chinese Prime Minister Jintao Hu accusing President Obama of being a liar and trying to screw him and his country with the enormous debt that the United States owes China.

It was funny when the actor playing Prime Minister Hu said: "Why you not kiss me before you do sex to me?"

If Saturday Night Live realizes the American debt problem is this big and virtually unmanageable, I'm pretty sure that China and every other nation-state on the planet understands this as well. Under George W. Bush, it was apparent that the federal government had no intention of being fiscally responsible or getting close to a balanced budget.

Under President Obama, it's doubly apparent that the political inmates (Republican, Democrat and Tea Partiers alike) are running the asylum and want to do what's politically in their self-interest, instead of what's in the best interest of American citizens.

Even if Benny and the Feds don't "officially" implement QE3, it looks certain they'll continue to print large sums of money to try and inflate their way out of this debt problem and keep the economic party going as long as possible. Based on this SNL skit, it looks like the credit/debt/currency keg is just about dry - and the party's almost over.

Got gold and silver?

Will Obama Bring Real Economic "Change?"

That's the question I hear being bantered about on talk radio and in everyday life. The answer is yes... no... and maybe. I'll explain my cryptic answer in the rest of this post.

Yes, you will see "change" because Team Obama has a somewhat different ideology than Team Bush. And the incoming President is a lot more articulate, and intellectually curious than the outgoing one (although I will give him credit for commuting the sentences of the two Border Patrol agents, Copean and Ramos). However, Team Obama seems to have more faith in the power of government, versus the power of free markets.

(Note: Our current economic and financial challenges are BECAUSE of government intervening in the mortgage, money and stock markets. I'll explain why in a few paragraphs).

The answer to this question is also NO, because the Bush Administration had its hand firmly in allowing financial and economic stupidity to occur. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to rock-bottom levels, causing the biggest misallocation of capital to occur in the history of the world.

The government turned a blind eye towards severely relaxed lending standards (and in fact encouraged sub-prime and other lending to folks who couldn't afford the homes they were buying), and the SEC allowed Wall Street investment banks to become overly leveraged to the tune of 40-to-1 (obligations to actual capital ratio). It wasn't a matter of IF this house of financial cards would come tumbling down, but WHEN.

Team Obama seems intent on expanding government even more than the Bush Administration did - and that's saying quite a bit, because the past 8 years have seen the biggest explosion of federal spending and debt in American history. The new Adminstration has a utopian, Keynsian economic view that government should determine where capital and spending should occur.

Bush was never a free-market capitalist of limited-government conservative, just another chip off the ol' Rockefeller Republican, country-club block - and not a very bright one at that. If anything, Obama seems intent on accelerating the intrusion of government into the average American's life (i.e., higher taxes, federal spending, and "voluntary service" in the private and military sectors) and taking us more towards being a socialist nation, instead of the one we've known that's grown and flourished based on free-market capitalism.

I'm not saying the US has been perfect throughout its history, not by a long-shot. But I'll gladly take my chances having more opportunities in a free-market system and nation, than under the false security of socialist rule where my options are limited.

And MAYBE we'll have change for the better in America, meaning a country where government spending and regulation are limited; and fewer bureaucracies are around to regulate what foods and drugs we take, how and where we educate our children, and how much of our paycheck we can take home.

Although it may take awhile, maybe several years and maybe in another presidential Administration... until enough people realize that government has been the cause of our economic and financial problems, and not the solution. That's my dream and hope for 2009 and beyond.

Obama, Hillary and the Stock Market

Conventional wisdom seems to say (if you watch CNBC and Larry Kudlow) that Wall Street prefers Miss Hillary to Obama as the Democratic nominee. That's scary to think that financial professionals prefer an avowed socialist/Marxist to another lesser-known socialist.

Especially when he has Paul Volcker as an economic advisor; and has everyone forgot the socialized health-care fiasco (also known as Hillarycare) she tried to foist on our economy back in 1993?

I guess people prefer the devil they know to the one they don't.

On the Republican side, John McCain is no picnic either. He's the co-architect of McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection - er, I mean, Campaign Reform Act. In my opinion, this automatically disqualifies him for higher office.

Talked with a friend of mine in Illinois who's not a political junkie, and even he can see that there's no real difference or choice between Obama, Hillary and McCain.

Like John Loeffler says, it's Socialist Party (R) vs. Socialist Party (D).

It's amazing that the President and Congressmen from both parties in Congress (with the exception of Ron Paul) don't seem to have a clue about what's going on with the skyrocketing prices of food and energy. The lack of understanding, vision and leadership with regards to energy, the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and resulting credit crunch is amazing.

On one hand, left-leaning folks in Congress admit that we need more domestically produced oil and gas to reduce our dependence on imported Middle Eastern oil; but we can't drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), because that would be too harmful to the environment and leave a bigger 'carbon footprint' on the earth.

What a bunch of BS - the only "footprint" should be on the backside of these idiots, kicking them out of Congress for such utter stupidity.

The Republicans don't get off easy, either. A lot of them believe we should "stay the course," "finish the job," and "win the war in Iraq." Never mind that after five years, Americans still haven't been told exactly what the job, mission or goal(s) are in Iraq.

And the US military is the largest American consumer of oil and gas. Why the hell are we still over there in this Forever War, when all Americans are getting squeezed every time they fill up their gas tanks and buy groceries?

I know that Republicans in Congress tell us over and over that because those darn Democrats are in control of Congress, that's why foreclosures, oil and gas prices have gone up and we aren't as well off economically. Well.... not exactly.

The Federal Reserve is the biggest culprit behind higher prices. This excess printing of money to pump up the economy, the stock market and bail out investment bankers is the biggest cause of higher prices. It's more money chasing the same number of goods.

Now didn't you so-called 'conservative Republicans' have six years control over Congress, and you basically fiddled while these problems were burning? Didn't you let these mortgage monkeys commit fraud, by lending to anyone could fog up a mirror... and sell these bogus loans to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Wall Street firms?

I could go on much longer, but I'll cut this rant short. The bottom line is that there's no real choice for President between McCain, Hillary and Obama. The lesser of two evils is still evil. No good is still no good.

I don't know what the solution to this political problem is. Probably a downturn in the economy that's sharp and painful enough to re-inject common sense into enough Americans. Wish I could see a better answer, but that's how I see it.