First Lady Michelle Obama Draws a “Dozen” to “Hundreds” of supporters In Springfield, MA – the Bluest City in the Bluest State

Springfield Residents Wait outside the Basketball Hall of Fame to catch a glimpse of the First Lady Michelle Obama - image WAMC.org

It is not often that a notable politician or U.S. Dignitary visits Western Massachustts for a political fundraiser, or rally, or event at one of the dozens of colleges and universities in the area. Springfield, which is the largest city in Western Massachustts, rarely is offered the opportunity to stand out, and line the streets to rally support or conversely “protest”, the appearance of a “notable”. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010) The City of Springfield is the largest city in Western Massachusetts, with 152,000 residents of which 22.3% are African American, and 38.8% are Hispanic or Latino, making Springfield the most diverse City in Western Massachusetts. . It is also has the largest voting bloc of registered Democrats. According to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Website Of the 91,780 registered voters in Springfield, 47,780 are registered Democrats.
Therefore the news accounts today of Michelle Obama’s visit to Springfield, even if it was only for a fundraiser, are mind-boggling:

From Mass Live (Springfield Republican)

A motorcade brought the first lady into the basement garage of the Hall of Fame. She was then to be brought to the MassMutual Room, where the fundraiser event was underway…
A number of people appeared to be just hanging around the Hall of Fame complex to try to get a look at Obama…
Onlookers, however, got no glimpse of the first lady. Her motorcade, preceded by state police motorcycles, was all business as it pulled into the front entrance of the Hall of Fame’s parking lot and down into the underground garage….

From WGGB (ABC /Fox)First Lady’s Stop to Springfield Brought a Big Crowd

Michelle Obama made a stop on Friday to the Basketball Hall of Fame to support her husband’s re-election campaign.
Hundreds gathered outside hoping to meet her because the last time a first lady came to this side of the Bay State was in 1994 when Hilary Clinton came to speak at Springfield College, so for people in the Pioneer Valley, this was an opportunity that doesn’t come often.
“I’m proud to be an Obama support and happy to be able to see Michelle Obama today,” said Nancy Tener of Newton.
Unfortunately, not everyone got that opportunity. The only one’s who did were the people who paid $1,000 for lunch or $2,500 for lunch and a photo.

(Note Newton is located approximately, 82 miles east of Springfield)

Finally, the big crowd reported by WGGB, according toMass Live, the Springfield Republican, was a “dozen” onlookers.

What one has is a visit by the First Lady, Michelle Obama, to a region of the Bluest State, with a population that is predominately Democrat, to raise funds for her husband, President Obama’s reelection campaign. This took place, in a State where the President’s, competition, Mitt Romney, not only resided, but was the Govenor. Additionally to all polls taken by the local Universities, the President should consider MA a fairly safe bet for reelection. Additionally with over 12% of the City officially unemployed, and the close proximity to major enclaves of Democrats from Holyoke to Northampton and beyond into the Hills – it begs the question: Why weren’t there thousands of people lining the streets to waive at the First Lady’s car as she arrived? The First Lady – a pretty big deal if one is a Democrat, Independent or none of the aforementioned.

A little background on visitors to Springfield or the area of note:

The last political notable to visit the City was former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, in 2008 as a then candidate Clinton who Clinton drew capacity crowds in Springfield, where 5,000 people turned out to hear her speak at Springfield College.. In fact, it was impossible to get near the event, as the traffic leading to the College was impossible a half hour before the event (blogger personal experience).

Heads of State, Religious Leaders: The Dalai Lama visited Northampton in 2007 where he drew a crowd similar in scope to Hillary Clinton (5,000) (Sun Journal Lewiston/Auburn)

The Press: The first notice came from Mass Live on on July 10, 2012 Channel 22, the local NBC Affiliate, also announced the visit, noting that a rare event would draw large crowds. On July 19 and July 20th, the Local CBS Affiliate mentioned the visit as the City of Springfield was fixing potholes ahead of the First Lady’s visit. On July 31st the ABC/Fox Affiliate announced that the “First Lady’s Visit was Just Days Away”, Mass Live announced the preparations for the First Ladies Visit on August 1st On August 2nd the NBC Affiliate offered a “First Lady Traffic Advisory” there may have been more, however, this is based on Google News results.

Or perhaps the lack of crowds was a result of the timing of the work day. That said, surely the Teachers Unions, retirees, and those who work Second Shifts make up a large enough percentage of the population to muster more than dozen supporters? – given the 47,000 registered Democrats in Springfield alone (and the import from Newton).

Or perhaps it is the lack of voter enthusiasm – or lack of enthusiasm due to high unemployment, or the traffic advisory, or the fact that, perhaps, just perhaps, the State of Massachustts is not quite as “blue” as the pollsters, pundits predict. Hypothetically, (based on those aforementioned polls), even if there are more Romney supporters in Massachusetts, coupled with less enthusiastic Democrats, the fact that a notable, someone as notable as the First Lady, Michelle Obama, visited and merely a dozen or even reports of “hundred” showed to rally or stand on the sides of streets. It is a missed opportunity for the Obama Campaign and a missed opportunity for the MA Democrat Party, that in an election year they did little to no advance work to pull crowds in the thousands in honor of the First Lady of the United States of America.

Final Local News Coverage

Video on visit by CBS Affiliate

CBS 3 Springfield - WSHM

2012 US Job’s Reports – July sluggish – again “unexpectedly” – Historical data suggests continued loss under Administration. - Economics Simplified

President Obama with Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE, a company that did not pay Federal Taxes and Shipped whole companies overseas - image buzzbox.com

A Primer on simple economics

Reuters: U.S.Non-Farm payrolls (i.e. private sector jobs) showed a gain of 100,000 in July, 20,000 more than in June – and this was “again unexpected”. One has to break this down in very simple terms - One: the government does not create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. Therefore if the private sector (those horrible rich people and corporations) are not hiring due to costly regulations, or uncertainty, specifically on tax issues, those lost jobs, are actually lost revenue for the government. Understanding that the government can only bring in income from those who pay taxes working for the private sector, is the key to understanding how the nation works – literally. Yes, the nation needs those who work to keep our government running, from clerical positions to law enforcement on the federal level, to the teachers, and municipal workers at the state and town level – but the distinction between a public employee and an employee at a private firm is this: those jobs created at the public level, do pay taxes, but their salaries are generated by the taxpayers – taxpayers who have private sector jobs. It is a fallacy to propagate the myth that by creating jobs in the public sector the economy would come roaring back – it would have been fair to say that if one had allowed the private sector a “tax holiday” or a corporate tax decrease, that money would have brought about hiring – those jobs, then created and filled would not only pay the government but supply the salaries of those teachers who rely on the government for their paycheck.

So much for the anti-trickle down argument – to recap: when corporations are taxed less, that money goes to hiring and research, those hired, pay taxes, which keeps the government running – the more small businesses are allowed to thrive in a lower tax environment – specifically the entrepreneurs – even more jobs are created, giving the government more money to hire more teachers, and SEIU members. (Who rail against the corporate machine as if it weren’t the real source of their income?)
The idea of giving tax cuts to those making under $250,000 maybe a great campaign speech, but, when one look at the fact that most individuals earning in the 30 to 40K range pay zero taxes (estimteed at half of the tax payers – half of the eligible tax payers – pay no taxes at all) – that leaves those making $250,000 or more left holding the bag for the “rest of the nation” and those are the “job creators”. Corporate tax rates are also more inviting in other nations, which leads large American Concerns to flee overseas and well, build and hire there – consider General Electric Corporation, whose CEO is an associate of the current administration. They have built factories in other nations due to our tax climate, and actually making billions in revenue paid no taxes to the U.S.

If one considers the brouhaha over Mitt Romney’s taxes – consider the following hypothesis while considering someone making 40,000 a year pays not one dime in taxes and may be eligible for further refunds under the current tax structure. If Mitt Romney paid 14% (the figure thrown about in the press) on $20,000,000 – that would be revenue to the government - in the amount to a payment to the Federal Government of 2.8 Million dollars. This would be enough to keep several SEIU executives on the payroll or a year! When viewing Romney on the wealth scale (for purposes other than divisive politics (see Obama Campaign class warfare). Forbes recent article on the “Richest Americans: (400 profiled) at here at “Forbes.com-400) includes the top earners in the nation - those with the most capital at hand, the last is one Dan Snyder, who earns 1.5 billion - (to those partisan’s -Romney is not on this list having that measly 20 million taxable dollars). It is not clear who pays taxes on the list - Warren Buffet does not - but one might hope that the other 399 might pay the same rate as say, Mitt Romney.


What Happens when the top earners pay the Romney Tax Rate?

Which would mean that 400 plus individuals are supporting the government and those people who are supported by the government, either in entitlements or through payroll (including teachers, and clerical workers) – without those individuals, giving millions in taxes each year (compared to those who pay no taxes), these billionaires and millionaires should be touted as government hero’s!

The false logic that the government creates any jobs is just that false. The government creates debt – and that is all it can create – as it has no source of income of its own. Period.

The only way that a government can create jobs, is through incentives to businesses that will hire massive amount of employees in a relatively short period of time. In order for business to do so, they must feel conformable in the environment and know that there is going to be set of regulations and tax codes in place, that are not subject to ridiculous changes and additions as well as increases.

It is that simple. It is contrary to everything that the President believes. It is also contrary to everything that past President Jimmy Carter believed – both men are “progressives”. (A share the wealth attitude – unless one’s friends are wealthy). The historical fact beginning with the administration of John F. Kennedy and then followed by the Reagan Administration is that tax cuts to corporations produce the following: jobs and revenue for the government. The two Presidents were from two different political parties, and yet understood that “trickle down” is not a fallacious argument that Mitt Romney is making – it has sound historical economic footing. The Brookings Institute the Obama campaign is quoting may have missed the fact that what Romney is suggesting, although modified a bit, is a way to boost the economy, and – get this –create jobs. Romney’s plan is similar in structure to two past-Presidents who had great success with the process. While the current administration is parroting a progressive ideology that when put into practice has disastrous results – also backed by historical data.

There will always be ups and downs in an economy – weaknesses come from so many sources, there may, for example be a drought, there may be a spike in oil prices, there may be other natural disasters or terrorist attacks that costs the nation billions of dollars. These situation are beyond the control of the man in office, and do nothing to help the economy - but... with a pro-business , which is pro-labor policy in place – jobs, private firm, whether small or large, will be created, and the monies needed by the government to run, will be increased.

Additionally, one must consider management – if one is an experienced manager, and has been successful in that position, then one understand the moves necessary to keep a nation running, hiring the right advisers, for one, individuals whose areas of expertise actually fit the job description – they should be niether friends, nor political appointees – rather experts with a track record. (With the glaring exception of the V.P. choice, who may or may be a strategic political appointee, but in the case of Mitt Romney, one can bet the house there will be some sort of business background in his choice of V.P. Candidate).

Jobs numbers, again, reflect the fact that the private sector is concerned about increased taxes and burdensome regulations, so much so that any job growth is not likely as projected by numerous economists through 2014 – which begs the question: If the administration is bent on maintaining the “war on people who can create jobs”, then there is only one hope for the economy.

Chick-Fil-A Day – Lines Out the Door Across the U.S. In Support of First Amendment

Chick-Fil-A - Lining up for Chicken and Constitutional Rights - photo: urbangrounds.com

The politically embattled fast food chain, Chick-Fil-A, saw a massive increase in customers yesterday – the day dubbed by Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Presidential Candidate, Mike Huckabee called for a Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day via email and social media. Huckabee, according to the blog Gawker, saw 600,000 individuals sign-up for Huckabee’s event on Facebook alone. “A counter-protest called "National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A" was planned for this Friday, but the event's Facebook page appears to have been deleted.” (Gawker). Politicians across the nation, from Boston’s Mayor to the Mayor of Chicago and points in-between suggested that the firm be shunned (and denied access to build in these cities) because the CEO Dan Cathy expressed his view that he supported traditional marriage – to a Baptist press. The fact that the company operates on Christian principle, closing on Sundays, and treating customers as they would like to be treated, apparently did not factor into the CEO’s personal belief structure when it came to denouncing the chain as “anti-gay”. This set up both a religious backlash as well as a first amendment backlash – resulting in greater support for the food chain. The new mantra, which if one is “for traditional marriage” means that one is “anti-Gay” is generalizing to the extreme. One might even point out that Barney Frank, the retiring, openly gay Congressional Representative from the MA 4th District, got into a heated debate with MSBNC’s Chris Matthews, on the Democrat Party’s Platform inclusion of Gay Marriage as an issue:

The drafting committee has said that it will include same-sex marriage in the party platform. Matthews wondered if it would support leaving the issue up to the states or creating a federal law to allow same-sex marriage.
He asked Frank, a member of the committee, if the Democratic Party’s platform would support such a law.
"I literally don't understand what that means," Frank answered. "There is a fundamental confusion here. There has never been a practical law saying that's what marriage is."
He say that Democrats' stance on gay marriage was already clear, especially in the recent vote on the Defense of Marriage Act. Frank went on to argue that even after the Civil Rights Act, there was never a federal law passed to allow interracial marriage.
"There are other precedents," Matthews argued. He said that the Civil Rights Act was a federal law that mandated access to public accommodations.
"It says nothing about marriage, Christopher!" Frank shouted. "You are wrong, you are wrong, Christopher!"

(Huffington Post)

More on the subject from Mediate suggests “Frank made it clear he opposes such a federal law and wants to leave the issue to the states” (Video on site). Frank’s views on the subject are more centrist, which is how one would imagine that the majority of the public might be.

The extreme over-reaction to an individual (who also happens to be a large and growing employer with restaurants across the country – that might lose business, and as a result cut or not create needed jobs, apparently did not enter into the equation, specifically since there have been no charges on record for bias by this company – had there been, that would have at least lent credence to the Politician’s stance. (Making it less politically opportunistic).

The backlash by politicians and the press over the rights of Dan Cathy to hold his religious beliefs and be public about those beliefs in an interview with a religious (Baptist) press service, was seen by those standing in long-lines and in 100 degree heat, as an attack on religious freedom and perhaps more so, freedom of speech. Huckabee’s involvement can be seen from both perspectives, given the fact that he was a Baptist Minister at one point in his multi-faceted career history.
How “successful” was the day for Chick-Fil-A? – Photo’s on Huckabee’s Facebook Page, with comments, suggest it might have been more than the company could handle – just about. From Huckabee’s Fan page at www.facebook.com/mikehuckabee, one finds that the general public ate a lot of chicken in places such as: St. Augustine FL, Boone, NC, North Palm Beach, FL, Pataskala, OH, Hamilton, OH, Albuquerque, NM (where it was.100 degrees with individuals standing in a long line outside of the building), Indianapolis, IN, San Marcos, CA, State College, PA, points in-between – especially interesting were the locations in Washington, DC and The Chick-Fil-A at the University of Minnesota – all with lines out the door. (One can view the photos by visiting the link provided to Mike Huckabee’s Fan Page).

The politicizing of this event, by both major political party’s (on the Democrat Side re: Gay Marriage and on the GOP side – Individual Rights) somehow does not begin to actually do justice to any side of the argument. For starters, both those who support Gay Marriage as well as those, who for Religious or traditional reasons (that being tradition of marriage – secular), both have a right to say, in this nation, what they choose. If either group cares to protest, there is that right to assemble. The “group identity”, which academics and politician’s neatly place one, in a category (Black, White, Gay, Straight, Woman, Asian, ad nauseum) may make those individuals who strongly believe in the Progressive “class system” (that of elites and then the masses), a bit horrified when one “group” (i.e. “right-wing-religious-zealots” (or to the point, those who, for reasons either First Amendment or Religious (both protected by the Constitution), stands up and protests. The act of buying chicken is not anti-anyone - t – the point is Freedom from Politician’s and over-reach by the Government (and possibly freedom from fund-raising off the issue by any politician regardless of Party) It also doubtful those who are firmly hold the belief that to disagree is to “hate”, will ever understand that there are issues that are multi-faceted, and related to personal liberty – including the rights of those who believe in Traditional Marriage, as well as those who believe in Gay Marriage. Both sides of the debate should be able to stand for and support – by protest, in print, or by what-ever means their point of view.