While some in the media marveled at President Obama’s reaching out to the youth of Americaby slow-jamming the news on the Jimmy Fallon show, I could not shake a feeling of concern.  We have an education crisis, a fiscal crisis, anemic economic growth and countless other crises but he can find time for such.

(As an aside, it is amazing how small business owners and entrepreneurs – the actual job creators in this economy – have to work 16-hour days when they encounter monumental crises, then have to face demagoguery and higher taxes from leaders in our government – such as our President.  Meanwhile, when our highest leader in government faces his crises, he finds time to slow jam the news . . . but I digress.)

Obama supporters will tell you this is an innovative way to get his message out.  No doubt, this is a valid point and works well for the Obama reelection campaign.  Instead of the passive, marginal voter having to watch boring debates and research policy positions on news telecasts, he or she can now be entertained and do his or her civic duty by getting up to speed on critical current issues simultaneously.  Team Obama takes note of statistics like one-third of Americans under the age of 40 says satirical news-oriented television programs are taking the place of traditional news programs (per Rasmussen).  The problem with using platforms designed for entertainment to discuss policy is that the primary purpose of such programs IS to entertain, not inform.  Even Jon Stewart quipped that he is a “comedian first.”  When informing is secondary to entertaining, under-informing and spinning are probable.  Even though the mainstream media has a left-wing bias, it does function for the primary purpose of informing.  Dispensing information through an entertainment platform is similar to serving junk food that tastes attractively good but is over-processed for easy digestion and has tons of empty calories.  It appeals to the human desire to have fun (in lieu of being educated), allows for the propagation of simple yet unvetted policy positions that could not otherwise withstand significant scrutiny, and creates a class of voters that is hopelessly under-informed on critical issues and confuses celebrity obsession with the civic responsibility of being an informed voter.  To further the point, consider that when Newsweek administered its U.S. Citizenship Test, 29% of the participants could not name the vice-president and 44% could not define the Bill of Rights.  In this state, can we really afford for our citizens to gather critical public policy information from a comedian?

Turning back to Team Obama, we do not see such concern.  Unlike the former clothing retailer Syms’s motto:  “An educated consumer is our best customer”, it seems that Team Obama believes “An UNeducated citizen is the easiest voter – to attract”, providing a path of least resistance.  Hence, more and more, they look to promote their message through non-traditional medium that is “cool”, “trendy” and the like.  The consequence of this is under-information – good for a President that is personally popular with low approval ratings but bad for ensuring that the maximum number of people voting is adequately informed on the issues.

Let us look at some of the ways this is evident in recent political history:

• Presidential nominee Obama told naïve crowds in 2008 through traditional and      non-traditional media that he was going to close Guantanamo Bay within a year of being elected.  Many passive voters brought that it was possible without risking national security.  To this day Guantanamo Bay remains open.
• Barack Obama campaigned on renewable energy policy in which the government would support subsidies to entities with viable energy solutions instead of      political connections.  Peter Schweizer’s Throw Them All Out chronicles that the exact opposite has happened since Obama’s inauguration.
• A concept as simple as fairness – something children argue about on the      playground – is helping to determine tax policy for a federal government with a nearly $4 trillion budget.  As I laid out in my blog The Objective Citizen, under Regretfully Rich, Obama is willing to sacrifice tax revenue dollars and growth in order to be “fair”.  Many people do not understand the difference between increasing tax rates and maximizing tax revenue, which is fine with Team Obama since they can push “fairness” – a simpler concept to understand although it makes us all worse off (rich and poor).

I would like to close by revisiting the Jimmy Fallon show.  The crowd cheered while Obama explained he was going to hold Congress to task to get student-loan interest rates lowered.  Funny how the crowd did not boo since a) it was President Obama who signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law in the first place, which eliminated subsidization of interest rates on student loans and b) that very provision was allowed in order to give Obama an additional $400 billion (but up to a possible $2.4 trillion) of spending, given his history of spending on useless, crony-capitalism spending (see the Peter Schweizer link above, for example).  Then again, Jimmy Fallon could not get Obama back on the show if he discussed facts in the first place.

TOC first contributed the following for the website move-on-up.org on April 16, 2012 

Last week, GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney all but sewed up the GOP Presidential nomination after his biggest rival, Rick Santorum, suspended his campaign to become president.  With that decision, the nomination process was effectively ended as no other potential nominee had a delegate count remotely close to that of Romney’s.

The nominating process for the Republican Party has been a rather brutal one this year, with many pundits observing that the Republicans did more to hurt their cause than help it during the campaigning.  I will abstain from the natural (and justified) discussion around how the mainstream media has a left-wing bias.  While that may be the case and most media outlets did all they could to paint Republicans in a negative light (giving us Romney’s gaffes out-of-context, for instance), there are many repercussions of the prolonged process that were not fabricated by the media.  There were, and still are, a lot of hard feelings by many moderate conservatives, social conservatives, and Tea Party conservatives.

My view is that, although Romney may not represent the exact candidate that every faction in the Republican Party desires, the groups that make up the party – as well as the left – have a lot to gain by the process effectively ending.  Moderates and moderate conservatives (me included in the latter group) have a candidate that is pragmatic on a number of key issues.  Romney has shown willingness to compromise and work with differing parties to govern to the will of the people while at the same time exercising veto power to maintain certain standards.  Although I do not agree with Romney Care, I take comfort in the fact that it is not a violation of the 10^th amendment (implied powers are granted to the individual states) as the federal version – Obama Care – is.  Tea Party conservatives gained through Romney’s nomination as well, as their agenda was such a large part of the discussion during the nomination process.  Indeed, all candidates were forced to move to the right in order to cater to the Tea Party, as this faction has become a true force within the GOP.  Finally, even the left has a lot to gain by the ending of the GOP nomination process.  President Obama must give an account of his first 4 years of office.  He must explain to everyone why he believes his agenda is best for the nation.  While those of us to the right-of-center (including this blog’s author) may not believe Obama’s policies will ever work in the first place, ALL of us deserve and should want him to give an account as to why we have made no progress in closing the employment gap and the education gap felt by African Americans in this country or why true economic recovery has not taken place (yes unemployment is down, but the labor force participation rate has yet to recover – a link is provided here).

It always pains me to hear from liberals who wanted to see the Republicans continue to be weakened through the nomination process so that Obama would have an easy path to re-election.  We should all strive to make sure our elections give as much of an opportunity as possible to vet our candidates – these are not popularity contests.  We do not have the luxury, particularly in the African American community, of choosing someone because they can do renditions of Al Green songs.  We HAVE to have serious discussions about the problems our nation and our people struggle with daily and continue to threaten our future.

Now that Mitt Romney has the nomination, I hope that those conversations can begin.

 TOC first contributed the following for the website move-on-up.org for Black History Month, 2012

As Black History Month draws to a close, TOC wanted to take a moment and recognize people that are making history today.  Throughout this month, we hear of past heroes that changed our nation and world and fought for equality.  While those heroes deserve the attention they receive and so much more, we should also look to congratulate those of us who are making history today.  Today, there are five African-American CEOs of Fortune 500 companies in the US.  These five are the cream-of-the-crop in Corporate America, proving not only that Corporate America does not have to be at odds with Black America, but also that both Corporate America and Black America can thrive together.  These African-American CEOs show that we should reject the notion that government must be the provider for our people – a stereotype perpetuated by so many.  Instead, if we focus and face our headwinds, we can achieve monumental things working within the private sector and free markets to achieve great things.

Kenneth Frazier just took over the title of CEO, President and Chairman of the Board at Merck in January 2012.  He joined Merck in 1992 as a Vice President.  He climbed the ladder at Merck, taking a number of positions before being named Merck President in 2010.  Frazier graduated from Harvard Law School with a JD in 1978.  Merck reported sales in 2010 of $46 billion.

Kenneth Chenault, the CEO of American Express.  Chenault has held the position of CEO for over 10 years, beginning his reign in 2001.  In addition to guiding American Express through the rough waters of two recessions, Chenault also has been appointed to sit on President Obama’s jobs council.  Under his reign, American Express went from $22 billion in annual revenues (as of the end of 2000) to $30 billion.

Ursula Burns was named CEO of Xerox effective July 1, 2009.  She added the title Chairwoman of the Board in May 2010.  Burns is the first African American woman to lead a Fortune 500 company in history.  For the full year 2010, Xerox’s net income rose 25 percent to $606 million and revenue rose 43 percent to $21.6 billion. Additionally, like Chenault, Burns was appointed to serve on the President’s jobs council.

Rodney O’Neal is the CEO and President of Delphi Corporation, an international automotive parts supplier.  O’Neal’s tenure has seen a lot of headwinds.  He took over the company in the midst of bankruptcy.  He guided the company out of bankruptcy through a $530 million IPO.  Even more astonishing is the fact that the IPO took place in 2009, during the heart of the most recent financial crisis and a near-stagnant M&A market.  O’Neal’s time in the automotive industry began in 1971 while he was a student at GMI (currently Kettering).  He rose through the ranks at GM and became a part of Delphi while it was a part of GM in 1997.  Delphi reported $14 billion in sales in 2010.

Clarence Otis, Jr. is the lead of Darden Restaurants, Inc., the largest publicly traded casual dining restaurant company in the world, based on market share and revenues from company-owned restaurants. Darden employs nearly 170,000 people and serve more than 350 million meals annually at 1,700 restaurants in the US and Canada including Red Lobster, Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, The Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52.  Otis has been the head of Darden since November 2004 – successfully guiding the company through the heart of the recession in an industry that is very susceptible to economic downturns.  Darden reported $7.5 billion of revenue from June 2010 through May 2011.

These five leaders are collectively responsible for almost $111 billion in sales.  That exceeds the total GDP of Iraq or 156 other nations.  The critical message here is that, with perseverance and hard work, African Americans can do whatever we want.  We live in a time when the world believes all we can do is hoop and hip-hop.  Clearly, this is not true.

We cannot allow politicians to convince us that the free market is our enemy and not our opportunity.  Therein lies the challenge.  Only 1% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are African-American, but the potential is in so many more.

Let’s push to change the story.  Let’s push to tell the story of these five.  Let’s show our people that only through determination, self-reliance, and hard work can so many more join the heights of these five.

Over the last two weeks, we have witnessed a deep discussion around the rich.  The wealthy Mitt Romney, in a debate, seemed hesitant to discuss the release of his tax returns.  Afterwards, he said he is probably taxed around 15%.  In the meantime, President Obama prepped his annual State of the Union (SOTU) speech by inviting Warren Buffet’s secretary (TOC will also note that she is almost never addressed by name by Obama and that as an individual, her importance seems nonexistent) to sit in the House Chamber as a special guest of the President.  At about the same time, ABC News began asking the question, “What could we do with Romney’s $21.7M income?”  Romney would later say that he “is not worried about the very poor.”  Romney was trying to say that we have systems for ensuring that the poor have their needs met but inadequate focus on ensuring the middle class does not continue to shrink, the sound-bite made him sound insensitive and was leveraged by many media opportunists.

There is a lot of “anti-rich” sentiment, and Romney has appeared hesitant to “defend his richness.”  TOC will attempt to defend Romney by asking some critical questions.

First, many people feel that the rich do not pay enough taxes.  Obama gave his SOTU speech which included the argument that some of the ultra-rich (like Warren Buffet) pay less tax than most of the general public (like Warren Buffet’s Secretary).  A book can be written about the flaws in this argument, but below are some of the more critical points.  Buffet pays far more than his secretary in absolute dollars.  Indeed, Buffet’s $7 million tax bill is a larger amount paid in taxes than his secretary’s payment, although Buffet’s tax rate may be lower.  Plus, we need not forget that Buffet’s secretary is not like most secretaries.  Obama’s argument is supposed to have you focus on the word secretary, but as Paul Gregory argues in a Forbes article, Buffet’s secretary probably makes over $200,000 – hardly the salary of a typical secretary.  Most of Buffet’s income came from investment income.  The capital gains tax rate determines the taxation rate for investment gains.  What’s interesting about the capital gains tax rate is that, generally, an increase in the capital gains tax rate decreases the tax revenue realized (see the CBO study on revenue outlook and a debate in 2008 in which Obama was asked about this concept).    Quoting Obama himself, it would be fair to raise capital gains tax rates (most of the ultra rich get income from investments – as they have accumulated enough wealth to have their money work for them), but that may mean the government would collect less revenue with such a change.  Is the goal to be fair even if that means less tax revenue?  While it may or may not be fair for the ultra-rich to collect income on their “money that is working for them” (investment income) while the general public has to pay higher rates on their “hard-earned salaries,” the rich generally had to pay even higher taxes than those “normal” Americans.  Many rich individuals had to build their accumulated wealth; their salary income was taxed at much higher rates than most Americans – thanks to the graduated salary income tax structure in the US.

The savvy person may counter-argue that there are rich people who find loopholes in the tax structure to pay less in salary income tax rates than “their fair share.”  A favorite target is the so-called “carried-interest” provision that allowed Mitt Romney and hedge fund managers to have salary income taxed like investment income.  TOC agrees, removing this provision is fair and increases revenue.  Why no mention of this in the SOTU?  Taxes make the heads of many spin if you go more in depth than “rich man pays lower tax rate than not-rich man.”  If Obama cannot score political points with a change in the tax code (regardless of whether that change is sound policy) he will not pursue it.  The so-called “Buffet Rule” may or may not bring in more revenue to the federal government, but it is easily digested by the public and gives Obama political points.

More questions to consider are why are we not celebrating Romney’s success and what can we learn from that success?  Per Rick Newman of USNews, Bain Capital made some key turnarounds while Romney was lead, saving companies like Staples, Pizza Hut, Dominos Pizza and the Sports Authority.  Some investments did not work, but that is not because healthy companies were turned sour to raid the assets.  A PE firm maximizes returns by turning around distressed companies, not killing healthy ones.  Would we not at least want to discuss how his experience could help in Washington?

There are more questions.  Why do we vilify rich financiers and bankers and not entertainers and sportspeople?  Prince Fielder just signed a contract with the Detroit Tigers for over $200 million to play baseball with no major backlash.  Which role creates jobs?  Which role can teach us something about economic growth?   Entertainers and sports athletes make money, but what roles create more value than a PE manager saving Pizza Hut or Goldman Sachs creating an investment group focused on sustainable investing?

Plus, why are we not angrier when members of Congress get rich from insider trading based on legislation they influence?  According to Peter Schweizer’s Throw Them All Out, members of Congress can profit from insider information, causing potential conflicts of interest and compromising the creation of policy based on value to society.

In closing, we go back to ABC.  In another blog post, TOC looked at the power of the media.  Couple that power with a President that wants to appear fair in order to get your vote (using emotion, not objectivity) and you see the trap created by vilifying success.  TOC would just challenge you to question before you take the bait . . .

The GOP candidates for President recently gathered for a debate to help South Carolina (as well as national) party members decide who to support for the Republican nomination for President.  On the day the nation celebrated the legacy and life of Martin Luther King, Jr., there were certain moments of the debate that seemed to have a racial tone.  To some, the GOP is just continuing its insensitive (or outright racist) tendencies; however, there is more to this subject that needs investigation.

The back-and-forth between Juan Williams and Newt Gingrich has drawn a lot of attention.  First, Gingrich doubled down on a previous stance that work is the answer to rising out of poverty.  He insisted that the focus should be on giving young people the opportunity to learn how to have a job and work hard.  He gave an example of giving a union janitorial job to young kids in school and claimed you could employ 30 kids with the pay given to one union janitor (thanks to the Chicago Sun-Times for posting the transcript).  Juan’s question and a lot of the post-debate response circles around the implication that blacks are where they are because they do not have solid work ethic.  Of course, this response ignores the fact that there are certain professional skills that are learned through having an entry-level job.  Considering that the hardest hit group by this recession is black youths (as of July, around 31% unemployment rate for black youths aged 16-24 compared to the general population unemployment rate of roughly 9% at the same time), there is little doubt that an entire generation of young blacks will be lacking in some of the professional skills of which Gingrich spoke.  Also, note that Gingrich proposed an out-of-the-box solution to get more black youths working.  His proposal of transferring jobs from high-paid union members to at-risk youth remains unaddressed by most of his media critics – he did not just flatly say get a job, he made a proposal of how policy could change to make that happen.  Do we not agree that we need out-of-the-box solutions to address lack of employment?  Do we not hear about social programs to teach youths about job skills (what to wear, importance of promptness, respect for authority, etc.)?  Why is it that a Republican – albeit with a high level of crassness – is criticized for saying basically the same thing?

Next, Gingrich used a term, unapologetically, to describe Barack Obama.  He referred to Obama as a “food stamp President.”  On the surface, due to connotations of the term “food stamp,” it appears that Gingrich was attempting to insult blacks.  Consider, however, that Gingrich specifically stated his rationale for using that term was because more people – black and otherwise – are on food stamps under the Obama administration than any other President.  It is fair to debate if the blame should go to Obama; however, the connection of the statement with race lies solely with Gingrich’s accusers.  Gingrich was on NBC’s “Meet The Press” and host David Gregory asked if he thought that was a racist term.  At no point does Gingrich mention race.  If the term “food stamp” is to be connected with blacks, then that connection was made by Gregory.  Here lies the critical problem:  we fail to have real discussions on important issues because some choose to see everything through the prism of race.  TOC does admit that Gingrich would later connect food stamps and blacks in New Hampshire; however, he makes this comment after his Gregory interview.  Furthermore, Gingrich’s point made on Jan 6 in New Hampshire is simply that public assistance should be secondary to getting a job.  Would it have been more palatable for Newt to say blacks need a “hand-up” not a “hand-out?”  One is more politically correct than the other, but the point does not change.

To be fair, TOC has to consider the reality of the situation.  Both of the above examples, along with Santorum’s implication that lack of social values (see the transcript where Santorum alludes to childbirth out of wedlock as a driver of poverty) is critical in keeping blacks poor, are meant to be “tough love” solutions for a community that needs to “fix itself.”  The solution to problems in the black community will not be solved with just a “hand out,” but also cannot be solved with just “tough love” either.  A critical driver of disparity in the black community has always been and continues to be a lack of resources.  Pushing “tough love” solutions by itself is not racist, but it’s naïve to think that this approach is not meant to appease a subconsciously racist undertone among a few in the conservative right.  Newt Gingrich knew that the use of the term “food stamps” was politically risky; however, it was also calculated:  He was not going to be concerned with the appearance of political correctness, even if that meant he was going to be insensitive to a voting bloc.  While some choose to focus on this insensitivity and Gingrich’s desire to capture the vote of that xenophobic faction of Republicans, it does not change the fact that “tough love” is part of the solution.

It is important to remember that this is an emergency situation.  An entire generation of blacks will be affected long-term with the effects of this recession.  We do not have time to worry about connotations and innuendos and politically-charged accusations of racism.  The 2012 election should produce a national discussion around this issue.  Unfortunately, as I have said in an earlier post, when Democrats can take you for granted and Republicans can concede your vote to Democrats, your agenda does not make it into the mainstream discussion.

In November 2011, American citizens gathered at the White House to protest the Keystone XL pipeline project, which has been proposed to bring oil from Canadian tar sands through and to the United States.  At roughly $7 billion, this project is a massive undertaking.  Keystone is an interesting topic because it pits the needs of economic growth (during a recession) with the sensitivities of the environment.  TOC chose this particular topic to segue way into a discussion around the role of government in protecting our environment while maintaining the principles of free market capitalism.  There is no doubt that capitalism and free markets have performed better than other economic systems in terms of growing wealth and creating value.  There is no reason why a well-functioning system cannot do the same for the protection of the environment.  Often, we get trapped into believing free markets and environmental protection are in conflict.  TOC strongly disagrees with this notion and believes that a different paradigm is needed.

To be clear, a free market does not exist unless you eliminate market failures.  Government must be focused on eliminating the failures that cause environmental harm.  We can look at examples by using Wikipedia (please see the references provided at the bottom of the linked Wikipedia article, as TOC does not believe that Wikipedia itself is reliable but can be used as a link to reliable sources when provided).  The first market failure to consider is the existence of information asymmetries and externalities.  The second is the existence of oligopolies and the lack of substitutes, creating non-competitive markets.

Consider first externalities and information asymmetries.  When governments subsidize the true cost of using fossil fuels by failing to have suppliers or consumers pay for the external cost of carbon (more specifically, the consumption/destruction of carbon-free air) and by providing subsidies to the oil, coal and gas industries, the market fails to reveal to the consumer the true cost of a gallon of gas or a kWh of energy.  Subsidies are not just tax breaks, but are also the failure to enforce laws that allow externalities, such as protecting citizens of Appalachia from coal-mining by mountain-top blasting.  If I do not understand the true cost of energy as a consumer of energy, I am less likely to consider alternatives; however, I still pay an invisible cost of higher health care (borne by certain citizens and impacting me indirectly), higher tax burdens for other industries and individuals, and (allegedly) the indirect and direct costs of climate change.  Note that, even if you do not believe in climate change, you have to agree that there are other externalities caused by the usage of fossil-fuel based energy.  The invisibility of these costs is the information asymmetry that causes consumers (buyers) to have less incentive to seek alternatives.  There has to be a process of disclosing these hidden costs.

Next, there is the oligopolistic nature of energy, which drives the cost of almost everything consumers purchase.  While a lot of conservatives strongly disagree with the concept of governments investing in alternative energy due to the definition of a free market, they fail to realize that there is no free market when we consider energy.  We power most of our automobiles with gasoline or natural gas.  Most of the remaining vehicles are powered with a battery through hybrid technology (realistically, just a more efficient usage of fossil fuel) and plug-in electrical power.  A majority of power on the electrical grid is generated by fossil fuels in the US.  Consumers do not have relatively many sources of electrical power or gasoline (While it is true that consumers have many distributors of gasoline, they do not have many sources of gasoline, increasing the market price).  Furthermore, the lack of substitutes forces consumers to participate in the fossil-fuel-based energy market.  By providing subsidies that support a well-crafted comprehensive energy plan, government can be an investor into such a system and work to lessen this failure as long as the rationale behind such investments is objective and economical, not political.  The eventual growth in these investments will pay off in terms of the elimination of externalities and the growth of alternative industries.

TOC believes government has a role as the entity that can eliminate these inefficiencies.  This has to be an objective, not political, process.  Admittedly, this is an idealistic viewpoint that is virtually impossible in our world of polls, sound bites, politics and 24-hour news cycles; however, it is achievable if the citizenry takes responsibility for the environment, forcing governments to make decisions promoting disclosure in order to empower the public.  Maximizing disclosure allows the citizenry to take responsibility for the environment and seek and create less costly goods and services (in terms of true cost).

This is where conservatism comes in.  Some conservatives argue free markets must be free of government interference.  A true conservative believes in and wants to preserve free markets.  Free markets can only exist when there is an entity present that is strong enough to eliminate or limit market inefficiencies and failures.  This is why TOC touts conservatism and not an affiliation with a political party.  TOC believes we have a major confusion in this country between these two concepts.  Political parties exist to advance a political agenda through alliances and mutually beneficial pacts, not necessarily to advance a certain ideology.

In closing we return to the protestors and the pipeline.  TOC is not prepared to say if the pipeline project should be allowed or not. Indeed, an objective, informed discussion may reveal that the pipeline has environmental benefits, such as the reduction of truck traffic to haul crude to refining centers.  That is not the purpose of this blog post; instead what TOC wants is to make sure we address the larger issue – that there is a need for the pipeline in the first place – and ensure we are investigating realistic solutions to the same.

Herman Cain’s recent troubles with accusations of sexual impropriety have all but ended his campaign for President.  He has been accused by two . . . three . . . four . . . and now five women.  The press has been back and forth with trivialities around who these women are, what is proper for an anonymous accusation and what the difference is between a “settlement” and a “severance.”   First, TOC is dumbfounded with why the press and the public did not take this level of investigation and scrutiny on Cain’s 9-9-9 jingle.  In other words, where is the thorough investigation on 9-9-9’s tax revenue potential and whether it adds to the deficit, does it crowd out sales tax revenue in states that depend on sales taxes already (because we already know a federal sales tax is going to decrease consumption) and what will happen when these states creep towards bankruptcy and require bailouts.  Little discussion took place on these questions, but we got plenty of discussion on how the public is reacting to 9-9-9’s “simplicity” and how it is helping Cain in the polls.

The goal of this blog post is not to dissect the jingle that was being passed as a tax policy for a country of 309 million people with a federal budget of roughly $3.75 trillion.  Instead, TOC wants to go consider a troubling trend illustrated during the impropriety allegations and discuss something that is not being discussed in conservative or liberal media.  According to recent articles, the Cain campaign turned to racism as the basis for the “attacks” on Cain.  Worse, Cain himself stated that race is a driving factor (as if whites have never been accused of sexual harassment for political reasons) without any ability to give any proof.

We do not know (nor should we really care) what really happened with these women.  We know that some amount of money was given to some women in order to settle a dispute and that the Georgia businesswoman had some relationship with Cain.  The rest is only a combination of conjecture and “he-said, she-said,” and the truth may never be revealed to the general public.  To inject race into the discussion, manipulating the pain that racism has caused all races in our society, just to ensure you remain at a certain point in the polls is despicable.  Cain’s willingness to manipulate racism and its emotional wounds says a lot about him.  As a black conservative, TOC was elated to see him run; however, TOC also wanted to OBJECTIVELY investigate his campaign and find a reason to ignore his lack of experience in public service.  The 9-9-9 catchphrase was enough to end TOC’s belief that Cain was the right choice; however, this last month has caused a loss of respect for Cain.  Black conservatives have claimed for years that Democrats manipulate race and play the race card to unfairly attack conservatives while lamenting the fact that conservatism is never given a fair chance in Black America.  We ask the question, when is “the dream” achieved and we judge people on their ideas and not the color of skin.  Then, Cain resorted to the same tactics in order to save his political life.

Cain is not alone in manipulating race in order to cover up otherwise embarrassing accusations.  Charley Rangel found trouble and conveniently realized that all accusations against him were racist and baseless – as if hiding assets for tax purposes and obtaining kickbacks such as vacations in the Caribbean are immaterial.  Maxine Waters also found race convenient when she was accused of ethics violations.  TOC thought that overseeing a minority bank being selected for receipt of TARP funds while a major shareholder of that bank is your husband could be considered as a potential conflict of interest; however, Maxine has redefined the definition of racism and included such an allegation within racism’s definition.

TOC would like to apologize to the likes of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Dubois and countless other Civil Rights Leaders that literally gave their lives to change the very world in which we live.  They worked so hard to eradicate racism and achieved so much.  It is shameful to see so-called black leaders come after them and their legacy and walk backwards.  They worked to rid our nation of racism, but now there are those acting in their own self-interest saying that we still are mired in that racism.  Did you all not have great accomplishments and bring the world so far ahead?  The answer is no, as long as racism is defined as a tool to distract people from their own shortcomings and lack of ethics.

Racism and its legacy still exist in America today.  The tragedy is that when we throw around baseless accusations of racism, we run the risk that the silent majority grows numb to the higher cause of addressing racism and its legacy and eradicating their effects from our society.

For those that disagree, ask yourself these questions:  Does racism and its legacy look like black kids born in single-parent poverty due to generational disadvantages, or does it look like a black CEO being asked normal questions during the very political process of selecting a Presidential nominee?  Does racism and its legacy look like blacks falling further and further behind in education and income in light of increased globalism with little reason to believe these gaps can be closed, or does it look like Charlie Rangel being asked tough questions when he says he is not responsible for accepting kickbacks and blaming it on his staff?  In asking these questions, we need to have laser-like focus on the real problems and denounce the distractions – else, racism’s legacy will doubtlessly continue.

What do the numbers 3, 0.5%, 8.6%, 200 and 1 billion all have in common?  They are at the heart of the recent Occupy Wall Street movement.  While liberals, conservatives and independents struggle to understand the rationale for the movement, its causes and what the outcomes will be, TOC would like to submit that its causes can be summarized in the above numbers . . .

First, let’s look at 3.  Those in the top 1% wage-earning bucket have seen their income grow 3 times from 1979 through today as the growth in all other income buckets is flat or declining.  This is not the fault of just Obama or Bush – this is due to an ongoing decline in the ability of this nation to create wealth.  We import more and more of our goods from overseas.  Simple math that most of us fail to consider – if you consume more than you make, you have to either give up wealth you have accumulated or promise wealth you will have in the future (borrow).  The fleeing of wealth from this country has been mostly caused by the rest of the world “catching up” and competing against us since the 1950s (when the US was virtually free of competition in the free world).   As the US has had to compete with these emerging economies and import an increasing portion of its energy and goods, wealth has been leaking out of the US.  According to the US Census office, the US has not had a trade surplus since 1975.  All of this has led to a situation in which the top 1% can take advantage of this globalism (including Wall Street, executive positions at corporations that profit through globalism and outsourcing, and the rich that have resources to invest into globalism) while most of the rest are not well positioned to compete in a now global marketplace.  So, how have we at least maintained a certain standard of living with the hemorrhaging of wealth to foreign nations?

That brings us to our next set of numbers.  First is 0.5%, which is the growth in real wages from 1973 to 2006 while productivity rose 80%, according to economist Dean Baker of the Center of Economic and Policy Research.  Second is 8.6%, which is the average annual rate of increase of household debt from 1973 to 2011, according to the Saint Louis Federal Reserve Bank.  Productivity has outpaced real wage growth for the majority, which leads to the need for increased household debt.  This includes the growth in credit card, student loan and mortgage debt that has been witnessed over the same period.  Consider that we have seen this explosion in household debt coupled with the rapid growth in dual-income households (female participation rates in the US workforce have grown from 45% in 1974 to over 60% in 2010); this is the middle-class attempt to maintain a certain standard of living in light of anemic growth in real wages.  There are two important considerations here.  One is that governmental policy has done little to address it.  Second is that it appears the middle class is out of “bullets” to fight off this inevitable decline in living standard.  Houses are underwater, there is an ongoing credit crisis and a college education is no longer the differentiator for employment at all, much less a better employment situation.  The scary part is that the nation depends more and more on consumption as the way to come out of recessions.   Government, along with the fed, have boosted consumption with subsidies on gasoline, unemployment insurance and easy money.  Now, we are out of rugs under which to sweep our lack of real growth.

When will government focus on policies that increase real growth in income by choosing to invest in a smart, comprehensive energy policy and an education system that is competitive with the rest of the developed world?  When do we move from short-sighted to long-term focuses?  When do we address the lack of opportunities in the minority communities, which see the highest population growth rates in this country?  When do we stop limiting the power of the dollar and trying to print and borrow our way out of short-term recessions?  These are the steps to create real, well-distributed wealth.

Finally, we have $1 billion and 200.  The $1 billion figure is the amount President Obama’s re-election campaign has set as a target for fundraising and 200 is the estimated amount of OWS protestors in Zuccotti Park in NYC.  TOC believes that, after growing up in a world dominated by this erosion of wealth and power in the US middle class, this group is the first generation to fully bear the brunt of the massive shift from old to new in the US.  They saw many of the calamities take place while they were getting their degrees in college and preparing to get their share of the American Dream.  Now that they have worked within the political process and elected what they thought was the best hope of achieving real opportunity, they are disillusioned.  They believe the political process cannot produce the results they were promised; they are seeking to find change in other ways.

Note that this is not an attempt to blame Obama alone.  He inherited the problem from Republicans (the destruction of the housing market took place during Bush’s presidency while he funded illegal wars with debt and no chance to pay for them) and Democrats (the passing of Gramm-Leach-Bliley under Clinton, which helped to create the modern “too big to fail” bank; community reinvestment acts and forced reduction in underwriting standards under Clinton and Carter to increase minority home ownership in lieu of concentrating on wealth creation amongst those minorities so that they could afford said homes); however, he has only moved the ball backwards.  This is best epitomized by his unwillingness to appoint Elizabeth Warren.  Consider the article published by WXYZ.com in New York City regarding the decision not to appoint her to the new Consumer Protection Agency in conjunction with facts presented in Michael Moore’s Capitalism, A Love Story.  The Obama administration that decides not to fight the fight against unfair banking practices and hired Tim Geithner (an alleged part of the problem of lax oversight by the Fed), and Larry Summers, who was Clinton’s Secretary Treasurer and main proponent of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.  Maybe the President is cozy with the banking community, considering his record fundraising in 2008 and present fundraising activities, broken promises to avoid lobbyist money and decisions to line his administration with re-treads from the Clinton era instead of real reformers.  Now that Obama has to raise $1 billion to get re-elected, he clearly is not going to raise that money be giving $38,000 per-plate dinners in Zuccotti Park with the protestors.  He may give lip service to the OWS cause in public, but probably not during any private Wall Street fundraisers.

In closing, TOC believes there is a message here for conservatives and liberals.  You may believe in free markets and competition without the over-burdening of government with smart and light regulations.  You may believe in government controlling the means of economies due to unfair practices of big business.  None of us believes that government should be allowing businesses to write rules and to siphon off taxpayer money because of a strong lobbying force on K Street.  While Wall Street is an easy scapegoat, the root of the problem is the lack of integrity by those we pay and empower to guarantee a level playing field and fair opportunities.  As long as Washington continues to play lobbying favorites and sedate the masses with short-sighted policies to appease habits of overconsumption, we desperately need OWS – we just need to give them directions from Zuccotti Park to K Street in DC.