And we have all heard "crony capitalism" come out of his mouth...
Also, which Republican party has the best shot to win against Obama?
I think the best shot would be Romney, but many disagree. Of course, I don't conceive of any of the Republicans actually succeeding...but Romney might be the best shot.
Here is what he is talking about:
ReplyDelete1. Threat to raise taxes on small business owners. Fact: I have 15 clients in Salt Lake County that have said, if "I'd like to hire 1-3 more people. I have to pay more in taxes (which I will if Obama gets his way), then I will not hire anyone else and use the saved funds instead to pay my higher taxes."
2. Health care reform bill. I'd like to get into those details, but for now I will just say, costs will go up for business owners to satisfy requirements of this bill. I have a client that makes $120k a year in profit from his business. He has 55 employees. His accountant estimated the increased cost for him to comply with the legislation to be $45k a year. His response, "the next two employees that leave for whatever reason, I won't replace them. I will use those funds to cover Health Care bill costs."
3. Increased regulation. I have a client that drills oil. New regulations from the EPA are estimated to cost him $137,000 over the next three years while he drills. He had a guy quit last month. He opted not to fill that position and instead funnel the saved salary dollars to pay for the increased EPA regulations.
We can debate the pros and cons of having the wealthy pay more in taxes, the health care reform bill, and the regulations from Washington. I do think there are pros and cons of all of those things. The fact of the matter is, if business owners were not faced with higher costs, I know many in Utah that I have spoken to would have hired more people by now but have chosen not to.
I think that is the basis of Romney's remarks. Among other things, Obama's three issues above have had a direct impact on the unemployment rate still being as high as it is. But for the above three issues, businesses in Utah would have hired more people.
But still...how is it worse bc of Obama? We were almost in a depression. I get your point about companies being more conservative...Bryson's company has hired more and more people, but has forgone some bonuses in order to play it safe. Does that childcare company not offer healthcare right now? Or do you know? I think that would be interesting to note, bc if the employies were without insurance, then I say "deal with it owner of childcare," bc I think it is highly unfair to not offer a form of healthcare coverage. Cobra is ridiculously expensive! At least it was when I was over human resources at Mervyn's and we got rid of insurance for employees other than management. It was an AWFUL idea! But they were obviously needing to do something bc they went under eventually---I think it was due more to being stale in progression in technology and in product. I do not think Obamacare as they call it, is the ideal...but it was progress.
ReplyDeleteHow much would the bonus' be for the employees? More or less then the $80/month we have been talking about? Phrased another way, if Bryon's employer is "playing it safe" then he/she is just like the businesses I referenced. Seems the fact that the tax situation for the small business owner, the increased regulation in Washington, and the pending costs of the health care reform bill could be effectively passing a substantial tax on to the middle class by way of foregone bonuses that the middle class would have other wise been getting. I'll make sure I put that in the letter we are drafting. I think you may have helped the Red Team find a dig at the Blue Team for the campaign trail. Let's get a picture of an employee of Bryson's company that would have normally gotten a bonus this year and put a caption on the TV that says, "My company stiffed me for my bonus this year. My boss says its because 'he is playing it safe.' Why does he have to play it 'safe'? Because of the uncertainty and increased costs of legislation/regulation coming out of Washington."
DeleteI like the sounds of that one! I will forward on to the Red team candidates for review!
Oops,I mis-spoke. Bryson's boss did not hold back bonuses, but claimed he held back on his own to give more to the new employees...but he has said this every year according to the employees. haha. So not sure if that is in-fact true. Bryson seems to believe that there is enough money going around for everyone.
DeleteI want to clarify, I get your argument about why it is worse according to Romney...but I just think it is an unfair and skewed statement.
ReplyDelete*employees.
Day care guy does not offer health insurance...that bastard! How dare he run his business in such a manner! And yes, he is "dealing" with it...he is going to cut his support staff employee that does janitorial work.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, that is what Romney is saying. Again, all the stuff Obama has done has had some pros to it as well. All Romney is saying is that American small businesses are being more conservative in their hiring practices because of the costs associated with the Obama legislation and regulations. That is how they are, as you say, "dealing with it."
So let me ask you this question...as a day care owner, which option would you choose:
1. Keep my staff in tact, no lay offs, and take a $45,000 pay cut and now earn $55,000 a year (hardly makes owning your own business as financially worthwhile, don't you think?")
2. Embrace the health bill, pay the costs of it, and lay off a worker to enable you to still have the same return on your equity of your company you have been receiving ($120,000 a year)?
or
3. Embrace health care, pay the costs, don't lay off your staff, and instead raise the prices on the users of your day care service users to maintain your profit margin?
I would have to say he should weigh all options except for no healthcare. My best friend's husband is a lawyer and his employer will not offer healthcare and thereby my best friend has to work in order for them to pay for healthcare of her 2 kids (one on the way). I do not agree with business owners who do not try their hardest to make sure their employees have healthcare. Again, Bryson works for a small company and his employer bends over backwards to find the best and most affordable healthcare and in addition has been able to grow his company and hire many new employees last year. In addition, the numbers of unemployment from Bush's Presidency into Obama's first term do not side with Romney's claims. I am definitely hard on business owners who do not prepare themselves financially for healthcare of his employees...so saying "deal with it," is harsh...but only for that particular example you gave me. I do not mean it for all small businesses who may or may not be struggling but which provide healthcare to their employers. Medical costs are SOO extremely expensive...what were we ranked? #1 in the cost of medical practices globally? Maybe not #1, I can't remember, but at the top.
ReplyDeleteIf I were the employer, I would talk to my staff and be honest about the dilemma. Many would probably be excited about the potential of healthcare. I am all about honesty in small businesses! I thought I read that the healthcare can be denied by the employee, if they are covered through another provider and thereby the employer would save money? Is that not true? So I would take a vote, weigh their thoughts and ideas, but ultimately it would be my decision to make. To be direct: a combination of 2 and 3, bc #1 would not be worth sacrificing all that pay.
Republican’s believe the health care system needed reform. We realize that health care is expensive, and, even with reform, it will continue to be a costly component of every American’s annual budget. We believe housing is, and will continue, to also be a very expensive component of every American’s annual budget too. Both are necessary and fall on the foundational levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Republican’s do not believe is it in the Government’s legal capacity to place requirements on individuals to have insurance. Republican’s do not believe that it is an employer’s responsibility to provide health insurance to employees. It is unclear to us how health care becomes a requirement of employers while housing is not (little tongue in cheek). 401(k) is a benefit some employers offer their employees but it is not required by the Federal government. Republicans believe the free market will dictate what benefits an employer needs to offer in order to attract and retain qualified, talented employees. Both housing and medical costs are expensive personal needs. No employee would ever expect their employer to pay for housing but the equally, or perhaps even less expensive health care expense, is becoming more widely expected that employers will take responsibility for. It is unclear why medical care vs. housing and food has been selected as a benefit requirement. This is a far reaching step of the Government to require private companies do make this investment. Republicans believe employers have, in their arsenal, many benefits available to attract and retain their employees. It is, however, up to the employer which benefits to offer. It is up to the employee to choose if, given the benefits offered, if there is a more competitive employer to work for instead. We would say to the employee, “Vote with your feet by leaving your employer for another company who offers you a comprehensive benefits package that better fits your needs.” Every state requires auto insurance…will I begin to expect my employer to provide a subsidy for my auto insurance too? This is an example of regulation that Washington should stay out of the way. I do believe that if a company doesn’t want to offer insurance, then don’t. If they don’t want to offer a 401k, then don’t. If they don’t want to offer a pension, then don’t. There are a lot of things employees wish they could get from their employers. I am concerned that allowing Washington the authority to make requirements of employers to offer health insurance sets a precedent that will open a door for the Government to place other requirements on businesses…such as a required 401k for employees. I’d rather not let the government in. Let’s, instead, encourage businesses and employees the freedom to choose…employees may migrate to employers that offer health insurance resulting in employers wanting to become more competitive…thereby offering insurance. This is how capitalism works. As I have said before, its best to leave it to the private sector. Last point on this topic…requiring a company to offer health insurance is but a small step. It’s the subsidy that the employer pays for that makes insurance affordable or expensive. If I were to own a company and choose to offer health insurance to my employees but opted not to subsidize the cost of insurance with my money, will the Democrats be satisfied that my employees are being offered the coverage? Coverage is more expensive at KeyBank then when I worked at Wells…can I expect Washington to barge in and set regulations that will require KeyBank to become more competitive in their health coverage costs for employees? I sure hope not. It is not Washington’s place. Butt out.
ReplyDeleteA growing percentage of our federal budget is allocated toward federal and state entitlement programs. I believe Social Security and Medicare are programs that should provide benefits to its recipients in perpetuity. Republicans acknowledge that these programs costs are growing at an unsustainable pace. Our government has squandered Social Security trust funds for decades using I.O.U.’s that have become so sizable that it would be completely impossible to turn to the wealthy via increased taxes to fix this system that will be unable to sustain the payments past 27 years. While Republican’s are very hard pressed to support tax increases, even if Republican’s were to concede on this issue to raise taxes on the wealthy, the gap is far too great to place that responsibility only upon the shoulders of the wealthy. Many Republicans believe it is time now to reform the entitlement programs. I believe there are many Republicans and Democrats that are far too right or left leaning, respectively and unwilling to find, in good faith, an appropriate compromise. This is an issue I believe Republican’s should diverge from tradition by supporting a tax increase in the wealthy if the Democrats were to be willing to place such a holy carrot on the alter to fix once and for all. However, those under 50 need to realize the wealthy cannot take on this multi-trillion dollar issue on their own. Democrats need to be willing to change the benefits and/or retirement age for those under 50 today. These are both very sacred cows for each party but due to the impending shortage in the fund, both parties need to come together and negotiate this one out. That means the Tea Party needs to step aside. The far left Democrats need to join them in butting out. Let’s get this one done or else the entitlement programs as we know them will not be available for those under the age of 38 to utilize when they retire.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans are concerned about other entitlement programs, such as food assistance, that move beyond being a safety net, which we all support, and instead become a permanent hammock that recipients move into. We are often told it is too hard to regulate this process. Republicans would advocate tenure limits for recipients for unemployment, food stamps, etc. We would instead advocate tax incentives to Americans of all classes to contribute to local charities and food shelters. Again, we trust in the private sector to play a vital role in offering our communities assistance. We only regret the Federal government feels it necessary to take on the majority of the responsibility. Place the burden on the shoulders of many via incentives. If the government were to funnel the dollars for these types of programs to tax incentives, they will find the citizens will still get taken care of while allowing our communities to come together in a common goal. Writing out a check to Uncle Sam for Him to administer these programs omits the critical community component of this process.
Republicans believe the capitalistic system works. We believe it works best when Government stays out of the way. The capitalistic system is a system of choice. It is choice for consumers, buyers, sellers, suppliers, and companies. Economic motives can be powerful and are powerful when allowed to operate without distraction from the Government. Every consumer has a voice that expresses their choice. Economics can properly motivate businesses, employees, and consumers. We believe unions are an example of an overreaching government via laws that protect unions and require businesses to recognize unions in their facilities. If employees are unhappy at work, they need to join together in very costly union organizations that drive up the costs of products and services for consumers creating an effective pass-through tax for America’s product users.
Republicans are confused at the very existence of the estate tax, a tax that transfers wealth to the Government and the shear basis that a wealthy person passes away. Important to note is that these funds have already been subject to an income tax with rates as high at 35% of income followed by a 35% estate tax on the remaining funds. No government should ever get so large as to have an expense budget such that a 70% tax is necessary. If it takes 70% to make ends meet with the government, the government is way too big. It is time to cut programs and services. Side note: Obama is seeking to raise the estate tax to 45% bringing the total tax to 80% on estates. Again, republicans do not believe the answer to deficit spending is to raise taxes on anyone while the deficit spending continues. I know of no households in America that are able to utilize this same strategy as a long-term solution.
ReplyDeleteThe above constitutes a short list of views espoused by many republicans and is in answer to your request to better understand what the Red Team views.
As for Romney, many like Romney because he is slightly more moderate than his other Republican contenders. We have seen the paralyzing damage a far left or far right view has in Washington. We need more politicians who lean left or right but are able to compromise in an effort to keep this country moving in a direction vs. the stagnate 2 years we have seen with a Blue Senate and White House with a Red House. That can usually work well when all parties are willing and interested in compromise. I believe Romney is our best for being a strong compromiser.
In summary, we can do a better job caring for the poor, sick, and afflicted through the private sector vs. the government. The private sector is comprised of both for-profit and non-profit companies and individuals from every class. Let the government take a step to the right and left these capable entities and people lend a helping hand while enabling the government to extend lower taxes to all so people and businesses can send those resources to people in our communities that need help vs. oversized tax bills.
*************This should have been the first post in this series************************
ReplyDeleteWell, Emily, you seem like a nice girl so I will give you the treat you asked for…a better understanding of Republican view points and why many people are interested in Romney for President. Grab a blanket and nestle in because this will be impossible to do in 4000 characters or less.
Rich or poor, I am republican through and through. Here are my views and a few reasons for them:
In functions that can be handled by either government or the private sector, for-profit entities are more efficient because they possess a profit motive. While lacking a profit motive, non-profit entities are also more efficient then the government because their budgets have finite resources because they lack the ability to tax the public to raise revenues. Essentially, I would assert that the private sector can perform some government functions and better fulfill some economic objectives in a better, more efficient manner then federal or state governments can. In summary, Republican’s generally feel the federal government should relinquish its role when the output of the federal government is either more efficiently performed by the private sector or if the output is a “want” at a time when the federal tax base is insufficient to pay for it. An example I applaud is the privatization of the TSA. I suspect putting the airport security in the hands of profit motivated private companies will reduce our costs because the private company will have to price the contract in consideration of potential competition. Further, the quality will be greater again, because poor quality will risk the viability of the contract and subject the private company to greater competitive pressures. Federal subsidies for Amtrak is another example. If Amtrak is not providing enough value to the people of America, shut it down. The US Post Office has operated in the red for years. Stop financing it with tax dollars. Close the doors on Saturday’s, close underutilized offices. Do something, essentially. Smaller government is a better government. Those three examples are smart business. As you can see, a lack of a profit motive by the government leads to unwise, wasteful motives – Amtrak being a primary example of this wastefulness in action.
Republicans often feel a balanced budget is appropriate. When the budgeted expenses are in jeopardy of exceeding budgeted revenues, Republicans will usually believe expenses should be cut vs. requesting more revenue to be raised. I believe living with lofty expectations and projected services financed with tomorrow’s taxes is irresponsible. As we have seen for decades, tomorrow’s taxes will be needed for tomorrow’s budgeted expenses. I believe we should stop robbing Peter to pay for Paul’s federal budget. I will concede this is not a process that can occur overnight in which appropriate federal programs are transitioned to the private sector or eliminated. It’s a process that will take time but the process should be started right away.
Republicans believe that the blessings associated with American citizenship should be available to those who follow the law associated with immigration. I am a Republican who expects a ticket when I am pulled over, not a warning. The warning was the speed limit sign that I drove past and choose to ignore. I believe in immigration reform as a means to reward those families who are waiting through the legal process to come here appropriately. I believe American businesses should be responsible for verifying the legal status of potential new hires. I believe eligible employees must be citizens or those who are in the States with a work visa. Admittedly so, this is an area that I have not given as much detailed thought about it. I need some polishing here.