If somebody ask me to describe this debate with a single word, I would really have a hard time choosing among the following terms: (i) frustrating, (ii) useless, and (iii) disrespectful. During the first part of this debate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was target of criticism from all contenders. Cain was accused of increasing taxes for the poor and middle class, as well as oversimplifying the economy. Bachmann was very energetic pointing out that Cain’s tax plan was deceiving because it would impose an added-value tax. Cain, although was hit hard by these attacks, did not suffer much damage by skillfully bringing on an apples and oranges metaphoric rhetoric. Definitely, It was not a good night for Cain, but most likely he mitigated the damage.
Rick Perry attempted to be more on the offensive this time, and probably went too far showing up arrogance against Anderson Cooper and talking over Mitt Romney. He was desperately looking for a bounce in the polls, that probably he did not obtain. Ron Paul was the candidate that was more precise answering questions and caring less about arguing with the other candidates. Bachmann did more of the same. She possibly had the best moment in the night trying to create empathy with moms encountering financial difficulties about to get their houses foreclosed. She played very well around this scenario without offering a single solution. We will need to wait to see if it has any impact in the polls. The indisputable winner of the night was Mitt Romney, who looked presidential and as the serious contender to beat Barack Obama. He was as dominant in the offense as he was dodging punches from all contenders, particularly from Perry. As a constructive critic, the moderator although very knowledgeable, did not have control at times during the discussions, providing more opportunities for candidates to engage in useless discussions and consequently not answering the questions.
This republican debate was satisfactory in terms that it helped confirm the identities of the true contestants in this Republican primary. It was evident that Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Rick Perry continue being the most likely presidential candidate picks. Among these three candidates, I think Herman Cain stands out with his 9-9-9 plan. It is impressive how this simple message has touched the Republican base, and Herman Cain, that at early stages of this journey was only known as the businessman from Godfather’s pizza is now a serious contender. Besides being a very charismatic individual, he is skillful using repetition of simple phrases to grab the attention of the audience. Mitt Romney once again proved that he is a well-educated candidate, eager to work towards improving the economy. Rick Perry did his worst performance so far in these debates, but it was still consistently been supported by the audience. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and John Huntsman played minor roles in the discussion, with Huntsman showing a few bright moments in the discussion. As mentioned before, it was Cain’s night!
The debate was mostly focused on taxes, healthcare (Obamacare), and jobs. As expected, all proposed ideas involve lower taxes for high-income earners. Even the 9-9-9 plan which sounds like a small number it does actually increase taxes for low-income earners, potentially further increasing income disparity. Tax proposals were just the same wrong recycled ideas that we have been listening for many years that coupled with deregulation brought us to the current financial crisis. In healthcare, Obamacare was again portrayed as the most evil and destructive bill ever passed on Congress. Michele Bachmann was very energetic on pointing at the need for repealing this bill, which was also supported by all contestants. Job growth was mentioned in multiple occasions, but no serious propositions were actually offered beyond some superficial discussion on tax policies and business lending. Overall, this was a very disappointing debate for Republicans. I think people are expecting more rationality and less insanity from this party. Based on this, even with the lackluster numbers in job approval ratings for President Obama, it will be very unlikely the republicans will win the presidency.
We have been almost four years in this economic crisis, and so far we have not created enough jobs and cut the deficit. Furthermore, our greatest problem seems to be the ideological battle that is going on between the legislative and executive government branches. The fact is that we need to cut some funding in entitlement programs but we need to invest money in areas that can bring long-term impact in job creation. This positive effect can be created by investing in infrastructure, development of new technologies, and tourism to name a few. Simultaneously, we need to provide tax breaks for those companies that do really take the risk to hire, instead of been arguing about other parts of the tax code. The reward for a business or a company has to be directly related to hiring new employees in order to be able to decrease unemployment significantly. Otherwise, companies will benefit of lower taxes and keep their money. We are in a situation where companies have a lot of cash in hand but they do not want to hire because of uncertainty. This is something that can only be resolved by putting numbers first, and forgetting about political ideologies.
I have been listening lately very frequently that regulations are job killers. Some politicians have even promised to eradicate some of the government agencies to eliminate what they understand are job-killing regulations. The questions to be answered here are the following:
- What evidence do these politicians have?
- What can be done to make sure all regulations are rational?
Having a strong technical background and working experience on private industry as well as government agencies, I have to disagree with this view. Actually, in most cases regulations are job creators. However, this does not mean that we should put irrational targets in regulations that are difficult to meet, and consequently reducing business profit margins significantly. Let’s take as an example the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a government agency that has been attacked several times. I would dare to say, that about half the jobs in the pharmaceutical industry are regulatory driven. Moreover, this seems to be increasing due to the adoption of guidelines and practices which involves quality monitoring at even earlier stages of development. Pharmaceutical industries have worked successfully in a highly regulated environment and they have prove to not be harmed by regulation, with the exception of a few cases. Moreover, this industry have proven to be practically immune to negative economic environments as we have experienced in the three to four years.
The reality is that most of the times a huge number of jobs are create since everybody needs to meet the demand of the regulations. So businesses need to become efficient on how to invest money in hiring and systems to meet these demand easier and effectively. I have seen industries readjusting completely successfully because of regulations. But I have also seen regulations that have come out with not enough supporting technology to meet the needs. When this happens, it becomes to costly for companies. That is the reason I stressed regulations need to be there as an assurance of safety and quality, but they have to be rational.
Evidently, the saying from politicians that regulations are job killers is a fallacy. There is no evidence to support reduction of hiring because of regulations. Open communication with businesses has to become an integral part before enacting a regulation.
Recent Comments