At the conclusion of Newt Gingrich’s speech as CPAC a colleague and I discussed the Republican chances for the White House. That day we heard from Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt and we both agreed that winning in the fall should not be hard. But a couple of conditions had to be met.

The most important condition of all was that no matter who won the nomination, we all had to coalesce behind the nominee and fight hard to win. What that means is that Mitt and Newt have to stop the scorched earth personal attacks. So far, Santorum has avoided getting down in the mud, but with his new ascendancy, he will now be a prime target. Stop it and stop it now. It’s not about you. It’s about dislodging the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Tell us about your vision and stop hanging labels on each other. Forget the polls showing Obama beating all comers. In January 1980, Gallup had Carter beating Reagan 63% – 32%. This is how Time magazine saw it March of that year:

National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle. . .

Carter, for all his problems, has the power of incumbency. As President, he can react to challenges by changing the direction of the whole Government, which he has done recently by attempting to balance the budget in the coming fiscal year, a course urged by all Republican candidates. Carter is an undeniably deft—and extremely lucky—politician. He also is a relatively known quantity in the White House, whereas the inexperienced Reagan would require a definite leap of faith by voters supporting him. Says Northwestern University Political Scientist Louis Masotti: “There’s a variation on the old cliché: you don’t change horses’ asses in midstream. You’ve got one, and at least you know its contours.”

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich was on his game at CPAC. He clearly outlined what he would do, within hours, of taking the oath of office. It was vintage Newt. It was Contract with America stuff and the crowd ate it up. This is the good Newt, who is very good. Besides putting down the sword against Romney, Newt needs to clean out his closet. Whatever he did for Freddie Mac, whether good or bad, get it out there now. Just saying you were a consultant is not enough. You can bet the Democrats know what he did and if it looks bad they will protect it like it is gold in anticipation of Newt winning the nomination. Then they will devise a scheme, with their allies in the main stream media, to release it about two weeks before the general election so that it will have maximum negative impact against Gingrich and the Republicans.

If Gingrich can get any bad news out now it will die down and be old news by election day. There is a risk, that it may kill his chance at the nomination, but for the sake of the country, it is better sooner than later.

Rick Santorum

Santorum has done a good job of laying out the moral argument for his candidacy. He has to shift his focus more on where he wants to take America rather than in the dismal place we find ourselves. He has to take a cue from Reagan and Thatcher and express an optimism that will engage his fellow Americans.

He has to avoid joining the Romney – Gingrich food fight. So far he has stayed above the fray, but he is climbing in the polls and that makes him a prime target, particularly for the Romney attack machine. He has to stay clean and ride the wave of disgust that people are feeling for all the mud-slinging.

Mitt Romney

Romney has to stop the attacks. He seems to be the one to fire the first spit ball. In one of the debates, when Santorum called for a ceasefire, Gingrich seemed inclined to go along, but Mitt couldn’t resist one last shot, which Gingrich naturally could not leave alone and off we went. Negative campaigning does work up to the point where we become sick of it and then it is a pox upon all your houses.

Romney also has to loosen up and lose his perpetual sunny disposition, that seems somewhat manufactured. It would be refreshing to see him without the perpetual smile and see some genuine concern for his fellow Americans who are having a tough time. If he doesn’t connect with the common folks, he will never climb above the 25% or so that typically vote for him.

Coming Together and Being Gracious

To get everyone to close ranks behind the eventual winner, we need to care for the ultimate losers. Toward that end I would like to propose a fallback job for each of the four remaining candidates in the administration of the winner. Here they are.

For Ron Paul, I would suggest appointing him Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. He could then freely find out what the heck they are doing there and make recommendations up to and including ending the Fed. For Newt Gingrich, I would suggest appointing him UN Ambassador. What better way to follow up a speech by Ahmadinejad than a critique by Gingrich destroying everything the little weasel said? For Rick Santorum, Secretary of State. He seems to understand there is more to the world than just the Middle East and that we have some work to do in our own hemisphere. For Romney, I would suggest Secretary of the Treasury. Bain Capital was not Goldman Sachs. I think between his finance background and his government executive experience as governor of Massachusetts, he could greatly help get us on the right track.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich don’t like each other. Okay, okay, they hate each other at a visceral level. If our core goal is to replace Barack Obama, what are we to do?

Mitt Romney has been described as the establishment candidate. Until this past Tuesday, he finished first or second in every primary contest, but he hasn’t closed the deal with conservatives. He has been steady in the mid 20s percentage-wise but cannot seem to break out. He has pulled no punches in his attacks on Newt Gingrich and Gingrich has felt their sting. If Gingrich were to win the nomination I have my doubts that Romney or any hardcore Romney supporters would back Newt. That’s not good.

Newt Gingrich has made some bizarre attacks on Romney using terms like predatory capitalism and demonizing Romney on where he does his banking. This is pretty strange stuff for a conservative. The super pac that is behind Newt produced a film on Romney and Bain capital that was so full of distortions that even Gingrich in the middle of one of the debates said they should correct the errors or pull the film. If Romney were to win the nomination I don’t believe Gingrich or his supporters would work for Romney’s election. That’s not good.

Rick Santorum has stayed clear of the politics of personal destruction. In one of the recent debates he even called for a truce between Romney and Gingrich and the media’s blood-lust to egg them on. He praised both Gingrich and Romney for their accomplishments and then asked the moderator if the focus could be on national issues. That lasted about sixty seconds.

Santorum has won four out of the first seven contests and while the ones he took were not the big ones, he is also running on a shoestring budget. He has taken on RomenyCare beyond the individual mandate. When he runs a campaign appearance he doesn’t make a speech and dash off; he stays and answers questions.  He does not have the ego of a Gingrich who claimed, when his star was rising before Iowa, that he was essentially the nominee, nor has he asked anyone to drop out of the race to clear his way, as Gingrich asked Santorum to do.

Santorum does have to step up his economic game. He will not win on social issues alone. His tax plan calls for greater deductions for having children and zero taxes on manufacturers which smacks of picking winners and losers like the current administration.

This will be the most important election of our lifetime. We have to put winning above personal ambition. If we want a strong conservative who can win, Santorum deserves a closer look.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

If you ask conservatives what their number one priority is in the 2012 election, most will agree it is to unseat Barack Obama. Yet unless Rick Santorum can expand his base beyond social conservatives, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney may hand the election to Obama on a silver platter.

When Newt Gingrich is good, he is very, very good, but when he is bad he is awful. Romney has not won the hearts and minds of conservatives because of some of his past positions, his fumbling when he should strongly be defending himself, and his personal tar baby, RomneyCare. In the last debate Santorum almost pleaded for a focus on the national issues, but it only took a moment for Gingrich and Romney to roll back into the mud.

Romney has not been able to break out of the 25% neighborhood, but he hasn’t much fallen below it either. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich each have a win under their belts, but Romney has either been first or second in each contest, which the others can’t claim.

Gingrich can rightfully claim to have led the Republicans out of the wilderness that they languished in for forty years. He can rightly claim that he worked to reform welfare, balance the budget, cutting the capital gains tax, and has worked hard to strengthen conservative causes. He also has some good ideas on taxes. That is what he should run on.

On the flip side, he resigned from Congress when it was clear to him that his own party was not going to reelect him Speaker of the House. In 1997 there was an attempted “coup” where several Republican leaders told Gingrich to step down or be voted out. Newt stood firm and prevailed, but after the 1999 election it was clear that he would not retain the Speaker’s gavel and he resigned. At the time Gingrich said, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals.” On the one hand, Newt Gingrich through deft political skill got Bill Clinton to go along with welfare reform, balancing the budget and tax cuts which turned Clinton into a demigod among Democrats. On the other hand, his brinksmanship against Clinton, with the government shutdown and his handling of the impeachment, drove Republican approval ratings into the ground. Clinton was a masterful politician, so is Obama.

The Dark Side

In the nomination battle Gingrich has gone after Romney on some pretty bizarre points for a conservative. He has attacked him on being a free market capitalist. The super PAC that backs Gingrich put out a hit piece that was so full of errors, even Gingrich said it should be corrected or pulled. But is attacking free market capitalism conservative?

He attacked Romney for his investments and for having foreign bank accounts when he knew, or should have known that Romney’s investments were in a blind trust. For those who don’t know what a blind trust is, here’s a definition.

A financial arrangement in which a person, such as a high-ranking elected official, avoids possible conflict of interest by relegating his or her financial affairs to a fiduciary who has sole discretion as to their management. The person choosing the trust also gives up the right to information regarding the status of the assets.

The key point is that Romney “gives up the right to information regarding the status of the assets.” How can Newt attack him on his investments if Romney has no control or knowledge over them? So Newt either knew this and hoped no one would notice, or he didn’t bother to find out. Romney seems be more on top of his game, because in the debate when Newt attacked him on investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Romney shot right back that Newt had similar investments. Oops! Who would you rather have in the Oval Office, the guy who does his homework, or the guy who shoots from the hip?

The latest attack from Gingrich out today concerns Medicare fraud at a company called Damon Corporation. Damon was involved in Medicare fraud to the tune of about $25 million between 1988 and 1993. Bain Capital acquired Damon in 1989, while Romney was running Bain and he sat on the board of Damon. So according to the timeline Damon was already fraudulently filing Medicare claims before Bain bought them.

When tipped off by whistleblowers an investigation was started and Damon ultimately paid a fine of $116 million. Romney was never charged with any wrongdoing. So what is the point of Gingrich’s ad? Why are Democrats and unions running similar ads to Gingrich’s? This is not a new discovery. It was brought up when Romney ran for Governor in 2002 and a Google search finds a similar reference on a Huckabee blog in 2008. Romney said he learned of the issue and took steps to deal with it, prosecutors disagreed. More facts will certainly come out in the next few days, but it seems that Gingrich is writing Obama’s campaign playbook. It’s one thing for the Democrats to raise these petty issues, but it gives them a whiff of credibility if they can show clips of prominent Republicans mouthing the same charges.

The focus for both of them should be the guy in the White House. For Romney it’s about making the case that he is a reformed moderate and he has moved away from those positions and how he has to convince conservatives of that and of Republicans that he can beat Obama.

For Gingrich, he has to prove that he is not a flip-flopper between pro-free market or anti-free market; between government solutions or government being the problem; about creating an environment for success or demonizing success; about being pro-cap and trade or against the global warming hoax; about endorsing liberal Republican candidates because they can win or backing the most conservative, electable candidate.

I took up commenting on the political scene just before the last presidential election. I don’t want to try to survive another four years of Barack Obama. It will be no consolation to say,”Yeah, but do you remember how Gingrich ripped up John King of CNN?” Retiring Obama is job one.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As a conservative, I can’t help but admire Newt Gingrich’s performance in the Republican debates and lust for the opportunity to see him debate Barack Obama head to head. But then I have a nagging doubt that if Newt were to become the nominee, which Newt will show up?

On any given Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Sunday, Newt Gingrich will be a rock solid conservative that we can all get behind. However, on any give Tuesday, we will find him getting cozy on the couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk about fighting global warming. On any given Thursday, he will endorse a liberal Republican Congressional candidate like Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd district, against a conservative Doug Hoffman and an even more liberal Democrat. On any given Saturday, he will attack capitalism as being predatory and his supporters will back it up with a half hour documentary that the web site “Fact Checker” gives four Pinocchios.

A number of Republicans who worked with Gingrich when he was Speaker of the House, including Tom Coburn who garners a 95% conservative rating, say they will have a very hard time getting behind a Gingrich candidacy. What do they know that we don’t?

If someone could guarantee that the Newt that is on the debate stage, is the Newt that we will remain through election day, I could see myself supporting him. However, if he were to win the nomination and then have a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday moment, we could see Obama coast to a reelection victory and I cannot imagine American surviving another four years of Obama. I want to back the most conservative candidate that can get elected, and that is my dilemma.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

I find it extremely disappointing that so-called conservatives have jumped on Mitt Romney about a comment he made about firing people. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and some others took the comment entirely out of context to score some cheap political points. In their attack from the left they are writing the script for Obama, should Romney win the nomination. I can see Ronald Reagan shake his head and mutter, “Did I teach you nothing?”

If you listen to Romney’s comments in context, they are perfectly reasonable and I know of no reasonable person who would disagree with him. He was talking about a better way of delivering healthcare. Here is what he said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSddioKBp9o

How many of you are shocked and disgusted with those comments? Who wouldn’t want the ability to fire a service provider who is giving you lousy service? With ObamaCare, you will not have a choice. It will be government-run healthcare for all and we all know how hard it is to fire the government.

To turn these remarks into Rick Perry’s “vulture capitalism,” and Newt Gingrich’s “predatory capitalism,” is shameful. It’s about ObamaCare, stupid. I want to fire Obama and I would like to do so as soon as possible. If I could recall him along with the Chevy Volt he supported with our tax dollars and he was filmed driving, I would gladly do so.

I do not think Romney is a strong conservative and I am having a hard time liking him as the Republican nominee. But Gingrich has dropped the mask of the genial Uncle Newt and has revealed the Nasty Newt that so many who worked with him in Congress give as the reason they can’t back him. Perry has stumbled and fumbled his way to irrelevancy. He should pack up his tent and go back to Texas. With Republicans like this why have an election?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As if sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi talking about global warming wasn’t enough, Newt Gingrich seems to have taken a seat next to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to attack free market capitalism.

The positive, knowledgeable “Uncle Newt” has left the stage to be replaced by his alter ego, “Nasty Newt.” These two personalities seem to be behind the lack of support for his candidacy from those who have worked with him in the past.

Gingrich is now going after Romney on his track record at Bain Capital and like the Obama administration that likes to pick winners and losers, Gingrich has decided what it good capitalism and what is bad capitalism.

“If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism,” Mr. Gingrich said on NBC’s “Today” show.

I think what Gingrich is describing is robbery, not capitalism and he should call the police. How does someone come in and take all the money? You are either brought in by management or you buy your way in. In the former case you are a hired hand and you get paid a fee for your services, you don’t dip that hand into the till. If you buy your way in, you own the company and that includes the cash.

When you buy your way in you are putting your own capital at risk which includes losing it. If a company is in a turnaround situation it means there is a problem. If the problem isn’t fixed the company will probably go under and all jobs will be lost. In conducting a turnaround, yes some jobs are eliminated; uncompetitive plants are shut down; the resources consumed by those inefficient plants are put to better use elsewhere. That is capitalism. On balance it creates more jobs than it eliminates in the overall economy, because capital is free to move to where it is most productive. If Gingrich doesn’t like that, well, neither does Obama and we’re trying to get rid of Obama, not just change the name on the mailbox at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I Like to Fire People

That quote from Romney was taking out of context. The context being ObamaCare. Romney was saying that if our only provider of health services is ObamaCare, we have no choice and health care will not improve. He said if his health care provider was giving him lousy service he would fire them. He likes to fire people who give him lousy service. This is not about firing your own employees. That is always a difficult an unpleasant task. It is no wonder that Debbie Wasserman Schultz took that snippet and is making an ad to imply that Romney likes firing his employees. For proof of Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s intellectual dishonesty here in an appearance with Chris Wallace she tries to say that Romney is a bad guy because people lost their jobs at companies he invested in, but President Obama is not a bad guy for taking taxpayer dollars and investing in Solyndra which went bankrupt costing 1,000 jobs. At least Romney was not using our money for his investments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPAjxij9MZM

So the Democrats are attacking Romney because some people lost jobs in turnaround situations, and Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry are doing the same. Ron Paul is holding his fire.

The term “firing” is completely different if shown in the full context. Many management books today say you should fire some customers. By that they mean that if a customer takes up more time and resources than they generate in revenue for you, let them go be someone else’s customer. Is that “firing” in the same sense of letting one of your employee’s go? No. Is firing the guy who cuts your lawn because he keeps running over your rose bushes  the same? No.

I am undecided on who I support for president. I have, at various times, considered Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. But if this line of attack is perceived as a winner by any Republican or conservative, it is more likely to push people into backing Romney. Capitalism is not always pretty, but if Americans want a shot at a better future, capitalism is the system that gives them the best long-term chance at it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by roberthufstutter

One of the knocks on Herman Cain is that he has never held political office and therefore he doesn’t have the necessary experience. I, for one, would like to see a lot more people who have met a payroll go into government, than be governed by those who have never done anything other than live off of a government paycheck. They have no concept of the real world, but love to write the rules the real world must live by.

We have been watching a number of debates among the Republican candidates and one thought that must be in the back of the minds of some, is how will this particular candidate perform in a debate against the charming Barack Obama? Will Barack Obama be able to talk himself back into the White House using his “gift“?

In the purely political realm there have been few who were as talented as Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton survived in 1996 because his primary goal in his life, in my humble opinion, was to be president. Ideology came second. So if remaining president meant pivoting, he pivoted. If remaining president meant working with Newt Gingrich to reform welfare, pass NAFTA, balance the budget, that was what he would do and then apply his political skills to make sure he got all the credit.

In 1994, when Bill and Hillary were trying to push their version of health care, there was a Town Hall meeting where one of the questioners was a fellow by the name of Herman Cain. Watch this exchange and then tell me how worried you would be if Herman Cain faced off in a debate one-on-one for the full two hours, with Barack Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WP5dYfBBzU

I think Herman Cain is very electable. He is the only candidate with a plan to fix Social Security. He has a concrete plan on taxes. You may not agree with him, but he has done his homework, and as you can see in  the video clip, when Herman does his homework, he knows what he is talking about and he doesn’t need a teleprompter to tell him what he is talking about.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

On the one side you have Barack Obama. On the other side you have a field of candidates who are fighting for the chance to take him on one to one. In that field of candidates there is a woman, with another in the wings, a black, and a number of white males with a great depth of experience. With Herman Cain saying, while embracing some Tea Party members, “To those who say the Tea Party is racist, eat your words.” The Democrats are desperate to find another way to create class warfare and divide and conquer. At the New Hampshire debate last night, they may have found their opening.

The moderator asked Herman Cain a question about a statement attributed to him that he would not hire any Muslims in his administration but, and here is the classic Democrat wedge, he would not apply any similar test to Christians or Jews. Cain, I believe, fumbled the question but he was picked up by Newt Gingrich who said, ““Now, I just want to go out on a limb here, I’m in favor of saying to people, ‘If you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period. ‘” He then went on to compare that to similar tests for Nazis and Communists in earlier times.

Why Only Muslims?

Where Herman Cain dropped the ball was in not turning the question around and asking, “What other religious groups have members who have pledged to kill Americans, or any group for that matter? If you can point that out, I will add them to the list that needs closer scrutiny before joining my administration.” To back up what Gingrich said I need only point to Major Nidal Hasan. As a member of the military he had to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Having taken that oath he later opened fire on his fellow Army personnel killing thirteen and wounding thirty others. On his business cards he had the abbreviation SoA, meaning soldier of Allah. His higher loyalty was to Allah and jihad, rather than to the Constitution of the United States.

This is what Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich were talking about. They would not want such an individual in their cabinet, and why would they? To be politically correct? To apply the one-size-fits-all idiocy of the current administration and those on the left? Do we want to have anti-American jihadists in the administration that could compromise national security, endanger CIA field officers, tip off battle plans in the war on terror? Of course not.

So let’s nip this potential wildfire in the bud. Let’s not use the same stupid political correctness that performs body cavity searches on infants and gropes septuagenarian ladies at the airport, while skipping young men from the Middle East because the quota for scrutinizing young men from the Middle East has been reached. This is the thinking that will get Americans killed. But don’t look to the left to adopt policies that would put safety ahead of scoring political points.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Newt Gingrich may have just killed his presidential bid in less than a week after announcing it. Aside from his support of ethanol subsidies, the old commercial sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, he tops it off by attacking Paul Ryan’s budget that was approved by all but four Republican members of the House of Representatives.

He says the Ryan plan is too radical. Compared to what? ObamaCare?

While Medicare savings under the Democrats’ health care law and pending proposals would come mainly from reduced federal payments to doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, the budget put forth by House Republicans would cut spending by turning Medicare into a system of vouchers for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance, but in amounts that would not keep pace with the projected inflation of health costs.

The Democrats’ plan is to pay doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies less. How does that work in the real world? Doctors will refuse to accept more Medicare patients as will hospitals. So Medicare recipients may have coverage, but won’t have a doctor to serve them. You cannot bring down the cost of medical care by government fiat.

Ryan’s plan actually brings the free market into play by putting the decision making in the hands of the consumer. Of course, the Democrats say that amount Ryan proposes will not keep up with the rising costs of medical care. Aren’t these the same people who said if we did not spend nearly a trillion on the stimulus, unemployment would rise to 9%, wheras if we did, it would go no higher than 8%?

Paul Ryan showed the courage to tackle entitlements and with a credible plan. It may not be perfect, but it is a solid start. The Democrats’ “plan” is just more politbureau control from Washington dictating to the rest of us their failed solutions. It’s time for a change.

As for Newt, he can go back to the think tank, and re-think some of his positions.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The New Year has begun and hopefully, we haven’t broken all our New Year’s resolutions yet.  There is still a lot of talk about fairness and inequality.  It is the last best hope of a message for the progressives and it is time we did take a look at fairness.

Picture a wagon being pulled by a team of horses.  Following the wagon are a group of progressives who are helping people climb up onto the wagon.  The driver of the wagon is cracking his whip over the heads of the massive draft horses in the front of the team pulling the wagon.  He shouts, “C’mon, you’re not doing your fair share.  You’re strong, you’re powerful, now PULL!!!”  Meanwhile a couple of the progressive foot soldiers, unhook a smaller horse from the team, lead it to the back of the wagon and hoists it aboard.  The driver shouts, “PULL HARDER!!!”

Thus you have the model of progressive economics.  A small number of strong horses are pulling the load while the progressive increase the load.  If the wagon slows down, or the lead horses stop in protest, they must be punished.  For 2011, I have another idea.

How about we lighten the load and add more horses?  Let’s remember what the wagon was designed to carry:  our common defense, our interaction with foreign nations, and a basic framework of courts, money, postal services, and basic rights.  That seems like a pretty light wagon.  EVERYONE ELSE GET OUT!  It’s time to walk for yourself and carry your own belongings and if we hit a rough patch, the idea is not to get in the wagon, but to help push the wagon.

In an article in today’s New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff, writes a piece about inequality.  Predictably he advocates a dialog on how we can close the inequality gap.

 So as we debate national policy in 2011 — from the estate tax to unemployment insurance to early childhood education — let’s push to reduce the stunning levels of inequality in America today. These inequities seem profoundly unhealthy, for us and for our nation’s soul.

In other words, gosh darn it, how do we get more people in the wagon, so we can all travel at the same speed?  But a few paragraphs earlier, he let it slip that, “the gap between rich and poor fell during the Clinton administration.”  Yes it did, but the Clinton administration, in conjunction with the Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich, implemented welfare reform, tax cuts, and NAFTA.  In other words, it got more people out of the wagon, stopped abusing those draft horses, and created more opportunities. 

So the moral of the story is that if you want to close the income inequality gap, get off the wagon, and start your Pursuit of Happiness in full vigor.  This is the land of opportunity.  Don’t shackle yourself to a union, don’t be afraid to change jobs, get an education and bring value to the table.  In 2011 let’s build a nation of winners not whiners.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.