No feel your pain from this guy.

Yes, Mr. Romney will get nailed on this one. He was in such a rush to establish his “Man of the People, I’m really a Centrist” bona fides that he forgot that he is also running for head of state. As the head of state, he would represent all Americans. Instead, he makes a statement that effectively brushes off a significant and growing sector of the population. His comments reflected poor wording in light of a widening wealth gap.

Just as important is what Mittens passed up; an opportunity to put into focus what the proper role of government is. Government should be about moving capital into the hands of those who want to put capital to productive use, whether they are very poor, middle class, or very rich.

In addition, are we saying that as long as the poor have their safety net, we need not concern ourselves with them any further? Not very uplifting, Mittens.

The main reason I didn’t take offense to the remark is simple. Black people have bigger fish to fry, especially those of us who do not equate black with entertainment. Rather than engage in a substantive discussion on the economy, jobs, or the role of government, she and Reverend Al Sharpton tag teamed a representative from a super political action committee that advocates for Dr. Gingrich. The discussion did not create any type of teachable moment, but instead fed into Reverend Sharpton’s passions while leaving the rest of us intellectually high and dry.

This election, given the change in the economy, high unemployment rate, and the continued erosion in home and business equity particularly amongst minorities, does not afford us time to debate over Dr. Gingrich’s admittedly silly statements. The last thing we need is to be egged on by a partisan who puts party and passion ahead of reason.

Granted the old man doesn’t have a chance, but the calls for getting rid of one of the biggest intrusive agencies, the Federal Reserve is a rational one. Let the market, the intersection of supply and demand for money, determine interest rates. Can we say that our financial system is sound when we push interest rates below their natural rates; when we bailout banks that failed to be responsible in their lending and investing?

He may not be the messenger we want to hear, but the message should be heard.

Entrepreneurship needs to be more than the word that conjures up a small office sitting in the back of a business school on a university’s campus. Given the state of the economy, where fewer jobs are available, citizens have to learn how to leverage their skills either into a primary source of income or to generate part-time income in order to make up for lost income.

Question is, will Mr. Romney simply relegate the concept to a talking point or will he build on it, explain it, and sell it. Can he close the deal?

Mr. Romney emphasized his business leadership as leader of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake and as governor of Massachusetts. According to Mr. Romney, his vision of government is to cut government spending and repeal Obamacare.

Cutting spending is a vision?

What Mr. Roemer failed to mention was that any president will also need freedom from their respective parties. Parties, while having seen a decline in their influence over elections, still provide an efficient mechanism for slating candidates and can leverage voter affiliation to get voters to the booth.

The problem is that party platforms may be out of sync with practicality. December 2010 saw Mr. Obama make a jagged move to the middle on tax cuts for small businesses when Democrats were hoping for a little more aggressive posture on jacking up taxes on rich people. Had Mr. Obama stayed left versus moving center, he may have found himself in a much tighter race with Messrs. Gingrich and Romney.

So how should a president free themselves from special interest money and party politics? How soon should they make a run for the middle once they become president?

• Financing investors willing to clear up the excess housing stock, especially in light of falling housing prices and increasing rental rates;
• Finalizing federal regulations for the housing market
• Reducing debt for troubled house owners

Question. Would it have been best for the Obama Administration to finance individuals and small companies that intend to clear excess inventory, turning them into rental properties?

President Obama’s home modification program targeted homeowners with the policy goal of keeping consumers in their homes. It’s questionable how much macroeconomic activity this policy has generated.

If, on the other hand, financing had gone to investors, individuals and entities with the resources to maintain distressed properties and rent them out, the renovations necessary for maintaining and preparing these properties for rent would have stimulated the ancillary activities we tend to find surrounding property, from landscaping to plumbing to electrical work.

The flow of capital and credit combined with a little job creation. Isn’t this what government should be about?

On the other hand, the social value spiel will sell in parts of central and all of north Florida. Mr. Gingrich, who is southern bred, is showing a penchant to connect to southerners in a way that would make Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan proud. He’ll thump the Bible without thumping it; talk about guns without having to show he ever shot one.

Mr. Santorum will get a polite welcome, but north Florida is the south for all intents and purposes; therefore, Mr. Santorum will be on the receiving end of a welcome deserved by your average carpetbagger.

Man, do I miss Tallahassee. May have to head down there to cover the Florida primary in person. I give the slight edge to Mr. Gingrich.

To get the reorganization going, Mr. Obama will ask Congress to grant him the authority to reorganize the agencies upon receiving permission from Congress on a simple up or down vote. This authority had been granted to presidents between 1932 and 1984.

While Congress ponders this request, Mr. Obama intends to lift the Small Business Administration to the level of a cabinet agency.

I think this is a good move in the right direction although I remain suspect as to whether the move is steeped solely in getting the biggest bang out of the taxpayer buck or a political move to put the GOP in the embarrassing position of not saving $ 3billion over the next ten years by downsizing government while reducing the deficit.

It’s bad enough that Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry couldn’t name the three he wanted to eliminate. At least the president is helping him out with one of them. It’s also bad that the GOP’s identity problem when it comes to free market capitalism (are we simple job creating communists or haters of capital formation or high returns fascists) is coming to the fore. As a political move, Mr. Obama’s timing, right before the 535 yahoos return from celebrating the winter solstice, is just about right.

“If the law is worth having, the law is worth enforcing”, said Governor Raskin. Specifically, Governor Raskin was addressing the enforcement of law against mortgage service and processing companies and how proper enforcement could help rein in bad behavior by processors. If not, we run the risk of these companies framing the intensity at which regulatory agencies go after them.

Governor Raskin also quipped that, “[A] failure by regulators to enforce the laws and regulations as strong antidotes to financial misconduct and unsafe and unsound practices by the institutions they regulate establishes de facto acquiescence to the dominant norms of the financial marketplace. At that point, our laws become the resting place for unfair practices and broad disrespect for the law generally.”

What concerned me were her observations at the end of her speech. “What’s more, financial institutions need to understand that they are responsible for assessing the effects their actions will have on consumers and the country as a whole, and factor those considerations into their business decisions.”

Talk about a dampening effect on business decision making. You may as well ask financial institutions to factor in the weight of the world when determining their pricing. Consideration equals delay. Delays equal higher costs of doing business, costs that may not be captured fully in interest rates and fees assessed on consumers.

The premise of this thinking obviously stems from the argument that at the heart of the recession and its slow recovery is bad behavior on the part of mortgage processors, servicers, and big banks, as well as the foreclosures resulting from their bad behavior. I can buy-off on the argument that decreased home values left little in the kitty for consumers to use to fund small business ideas, but I don’t give shrinking equity that much credit for the slow-down in private sector investment that lies at the heart of any economic downturn.