Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Why Romney Is Better for the Middle Class

Both sides may say that they want to help the poor and middle class, and both may mean it. But it is only through Romney’s sound business principles that it is actually possible, where Obama’s plan squeezes the middle class and further harms them as we have seen over the last few years.

Why? It is because Obama’s plan relies on spending massive amounts of money and using debt to grow entitlements. In Obama’s eyes, the reason we’ve had such a slow recovery is because he hasn’t thrown enough money at the problem, and he promises he’ll do better (by spending more).

The government only gets money from three places: by taking it from people who create it (taxes), through debt, and by printing it out of thin air. During a recession, tax revenue decreases because spending decreases. The only way to spend more and more money then is to take on more debt and/or print it, and in either case it causes inflation (money becomes worth even less, and it takes more money to buy things).

This affects the poor and middle class more adversely than it does the rich because the rich have the ability to invest extra money in assets that will hedge against inflation and grow as inflation grows.

As inflation grows, assets still have a certain value and therefore become worth more because money is worth less compared to the asset. But most things we have to spend money on depreciate over time, and only wealthy people have the ability to invest in real estate, mutual funds, and other assets that grow in value over time, hedging against inflation. This isn't possible for most middle class and poorer people, as they have a harder time saving extra money when everything costs more.

The more Obama gets to enact his plans of more debt and more spending, the more he hurts the middle-class and the people he says he’s trying to help.

Romney on the other hand wants to simplify and reduce tax burdens on everyone, reduce debt, and free up the money flow. This helps the middle-class better than anything. (See my previous article, “Why Romney Will SPEED Up the Recovery Better Than Obama.’)

President Obama’s approach is exacerbating problems, but at the same time he’s blaming the rich. Hopefully most people see his rhetoric as class warfare with its roots in coveting and envy.

It’s okay to want what others have, but the conservative mentality is contentment rather than envy.
Envy says, “I want what you have, and I don’t want you to have it.”  
Contentment says, “I too would like to be successful, but I will earn it rather than take it from someone else. Nevertheless, I’ll still be happy with whatever I have.”

Conservatives also understand that it’s people in the middle class who work hard and even start businesses that create the wealth needed to support the government. We find it confusing on one hand to see the government take on crushing debt and spend like crazy (putting that burden on us businesses and working people), and then on the other hand say that they’re doing it to help us.

You can’t run a business the way Obama is running the country, and it’s time for a change. It's time for someone to lead the country who really understands this and will help the middle-class.

The only way to a better and stronger country, economy, and government is to live better business principles of lower spending and less debt. This is especially true today and we are especially blessed and lucky as a nation to have Romney running in this election. Let’s vote for some real change for this country for the next four years.

Vote Romney, and until next time, America.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Why Romney Will SPEED Up the Recovery Better Than Obama

No matter what a President does, all recessions eventually end. However, the government can help by speeding up a recovery, or it can slow it down to a crawl, as we have seen over the past few years.

There are two schools of thought in what the government can do during a recession, and both are well intentioned. However, only one is helpful and the other is actually harmful and makes things worse.

The first school of thought, Obama’s plan, is for the government to inject huge amounts of money into the system to replace the lower spending usually done by businesses and individuals. Because spending is down, and therefore the taxes collected off spending are less, this extra money that needs to be injected comes from printing money and taking on more debt.

The second school of thought, Romney’s plan, is for the Government to reduce debt, live within a budget, and release the brakes that are holding back spending, by reducing and simplifying tax burdens for everyone.

Why is Romney’s plan better? It’s the difference between helping and enabling. Enabling may be well intentioned, but really it is defined as helping the wrong way, and makes the problem worse.

Romney’s plan actually works by making money stronger and it encourages growth in business. When businesses grow, they have more money, which they can either spend or save. And doing either is good for the economy.

A business can only spend money in so many ways: more jobs, more equipment, better salaries, more advertising, etc.  No matter what, the money continues to flow and get taxed. For instance, the employees who get paid spend their money at other businesses, the business’s suppliers spend money, and the faster that money flows, the more businesses are likely to expand and hire. Plus, the faster that money flows, the more that money is taxed at every step along the way.

If the business saves some of the money, it helps the business to be more stable (making them more likely to expand and hire people) and it helps banks (where they save the money) to be stronger, which in turn makes the banks more likely to lend out money. No matter what, every time that money flows around, it gets taxed again and again meaning that the government receives more tax revenue if money is flowing, and less tax revenue if money isn’t flowing.

Obama’s plan is to raise taxes to help make up the difference on those fewer people working, and Romney’s plan is to lower taxes and release the flow of money, which means receiving more taxes overall.

It’s as if the Government were a store in the mall and it were about to go out of business, the last thing they should do is raise their prices (raises taxes) because that would drive business away and dry up the flow of money.

On the other hand, by having a clearance sale and lowering prices on everything (like lowering taxes), they in turn make more money on the volume of sales (a larger money flow). However, just making more money isn’t all they need to do. They also need to reduce debts and balance its budget, and the same is true for the government.

Romney’s plan is better. Romney’s plan makes the economy better, strengthens everyone’s money, strengthens business and their ability to hire, and strengthens the Government’s debt position. Obama’s plan makes the economy worse, weakens everyone’s money, weakens businesses and their ability to hire, and weakens the Government’s debt position.

This is why when Obama supporters chant, “Four more years,” we respond with “Four more year of what?” What’s his plan except to do even more of the same? Obama admits that he hasn’t gone far enough, and wants to spend even more. He currently even refuses to put forth a budget, let alone balance it. Under President Obama, the US’s debt rating has dropped, and following his path will cause it to drop even more.

It’s okay to like the President and also realize that he’s done a terrible job of helping the recovery. If anything he’s harmed it and made it slower with his good intentions of overspending.

It’s time we let Romney lead our country, with his particular special set of skills of being a turn-around artist. He knows how to turn around failing companies, and if we vote right, he’ll be able to use those skills to turn around our anemic economy before it gets any worse.

Vote Romney, and until next time, America.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Voting Might Just Be Important After All

In a recent New York Times article, Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt expose how awfully stupid it is to vote. After all, the chance that you will cast the deciding ballot is so slim as to be almost nonexistent. And voting has a cost: your time and effort. As proof of their thesis, the authors relate a charming anecdote about two economists who run into each other at the polls. They're both embarrassed to be seen there, because economists know--even if you and I aren't smart enough to--that voting isn't worth it. Each was quick to point out his excuse: his wife made him come. They make a mutual agreement to keep each others' trip to the booth a secret, and part ways.

I found the article through friend's link on my Facebook feed. Accompanying the link was his provocative post: "Irony: although I get involved in political discussions online, there's a fairly high probability that I will not end up voting. We shall see." My friend is smart, he understands economics, and he had put that post together with that link. The implication was obvious--"if you were smart enough to understand economics the way I understand economics, you wouldn't vote either."

It might help a bit at this point to understand the basics of game theory: an "agent" (someone who "acts," i.e. a person) is said to be rational if, after a decision, his "utility" (the sum of "good" indicators in his state of being) is maximized. According to this point of view, voting isn't right or wrong, it's only rational or irrational. (Hint: it's irrational.)

There were several replies to my friend's post trying to get him to change his mind, but he held firm. Few of those replying probably read the article, and no one was taking into account the train of logic that led him to his decision, and they were therefore unable to refute it. His friends were all using the argument that voting is just the right thing to do, but to him, that was not only debatable, it was beside the point. He didn't want to vote, not because he opposed the practice, but because it just isn't worth it to spend so much effort to cast a single ballot. Now, this friend is an Obama supporter, and I didn't necessarily want Obama to have his vote, but on principle I wanted to defend at least the institution of voting. I mean, if he's right, no rational person would vote ever again. Then only irrational people would vote, and we'd either be taken over by idiots or elections would stop altogether. Either way, we'd want to pull the plug on the grand experiment of America as soon as possible to make way for the √úbermensch.

Mustering my idealism, I came up with my own reply, which I hoped would make better headway against my smart friend's resistance: (emphasis added)
There are at least three good reasons for you* to vote in the upcoming election for President, even if the electoral votes of your state are not in question.
First: the popular vote, while not deciding the winner, can still decide the winner's mandate. A President who wins while losing the popular vote will have trouble accomplishing anything controversial, but a President who had a solid majority of both electoral and popular votes has earned tacit approval for his agenda.
Second: If you go to the polls in support of a Presidential candidate, you are more likely to vote for other members of his party for Congress and in local elections. This will make it more likely that your candidate can accomplish what you want him to.
Third: It is conceivable, though unlikely, that Obama could win the popular vote by a wide margin (in one scenario, as much as seven percent) while still losing the election. If this happens, he might call on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact** to cast their votes for him as winner of the popular vote rather than for Romney as winner of their states. Thus, your vote in Utah might end up affecting the electoral votes of states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or even Maine. This would obviously raise a host of Constitutional issues, but if history is any indication, Obama won't lose a moment of sleep over them. As disgusting as this prospect is to me, I thought it might interest you to be aware of it.
After writing this as a reply to my friend's post, I hesitated. I had at least made an attempt at giving him a reason why his vote would matter, but it seemed doubtful I would change his mind. His real problem was not that his vote wasn't counted, it was that his vote wasn't important. It wouldn't be him that got to choose the President. If he couldn't be like Kevin Costner in Swing Voter***, he wasn't playing. So I deleted what I had written. I felt a little guilty as I did; I mean, I think it would be a good thing if everyone voted. However, it's Obama's job to motivate his supporters to go to the polls. If he can't do it, I've certainly got other demographics I'll choose to mobilize first.

It was only after I had had several hours to think about this exchange that the real importance of what I had read dawned on me. In my reply, I hadn't included the most important refutation of the NYT article's point, because it's so much a part of my philosophy that I just figured it didn't need to be said. But, sadly, I guess it does. For any who are wondering, here it is:

When you are called upon to participate in your Democracy, it's not about you.

My friend saw only his immediate benefit in voting, weighed against the costs in time and effort, fortified by his opportunity to look smart and superior on Facebook. He didn't stop to consider that being a small cog in a huge machine is the very essence of government by the people. Throughout the days, weeks, months, and years between elections, we citizens store up experiences of coming into contact with our government, and our votes, informed by those experiences, are the biggest push for our government to evolve. Fewer informed citizens voting gives disproportionate influence to the very things most people decry about the electoral process: money in politics, eternal incumbency, voter fraud, ignorance, lawsuits, and corruption.

Once people start making calculations around the utility of voting, they've already missed the most important factor in the equation. Voting is about making our world better--slowly and imperfectly to be sure--but inexorably. It's not about you getting what you want right away, or being the deciding voter, or even getting a quantifiable reward of any kind.

It's not about you at all.

Thankfully, I see this viewpoint far more often in those on the Left. It seems people who think government should do more for us also have a greater tendency to think we should do less for it. Apparently, they eventually reach the point where they can hardly be troubled to vote at all. Rather than being discouraged, I find optimism in that prospect, both for this election, and for the future beyond it.

*Incidentally, it doesn't take a whole lot of thought to see how each of the reasons I gave him to vote for Obama can be just as easily applied to someone desiring to vote for Romney. There is an added bonus as well--he's a better candidate!

**A few words about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: It is a leftist consortium of states determined to end the electoral college through the back door. They have pledged to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the Popular Vote, once the number of electoral votes of states in the Compact reaches a majority (right now, there are only about eight or nine states in it). Obviously, it's doubtful if they will activate the Compact in the case of a Conservative winning the popular vote, so critics (including me) see it as a way to award the office of President to the Democrat no matter who wins the election. It's a deeply dishonest and cowardly way to subvert the electoral college rather than abolishing it outright, but if you watched how Obama, Reid, and Pelosi managed to push Obamacare through Congress, nothing could surprise you.

***It's not a bad movie; go see it.

Obama and the 2nd Amendment

Some gun owners mistakenly believe that Obama will be better for gun rights and the 2nd Amendment than Romney, saying that he hasn't done anything against gun owners. That is not true. Here’s some details to help you understand how dangerous Obama would be for gun owners and believers in the 2nd Amendment.

• By Executive order Obama stopped the importation of hundreds of thousands of American-made rifles back into the US.

• Obama blocked the normal reselling of millions of spent casings originally used by the military and sold to re-loaders to make ammo. This not only means that the military loses money, but it causes ammo to be more scarce and expensive for shooters.

• By Executive order and without going through Congress, Obama changed the requirements of buying firearms in many southern states (requirements which were already stringent and overseen by the FBI).

• Obama told author and economist John Lott that no one should ever be allowed to have a gun. This is strange because as President he’s sworn to uphold the Constitution, yet he believes it is the Government's job to "allow" us to have this right.

• Obama put two anti-gun judges on the Supreme court who first swore they’d uphold gun rights, then voted against them. Obama also as put many other anti-gun judges in the lower Federal courts. These assignments last sometimes 40-50 years.

• Fast and Furious. How else can you explain it except seemingly an attempt to ban a huge segment of US made guns? It wasn't a botched gun-walking program, because unlike other past programs this one had no way to track where the guns went, no plans to follow them, and this was not done in cooperation with the Mexican government. So with no expectation of ever recovering them or the criminals, it seems the only expectation was to wait and find these US made guns at Mexican crime scenes where they could be held up to the cameras demanding more bans and restrictions to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

• Under the Fast and Furious investigation Congress wanted to know how high this scandal went. They found Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress for withholding 95% of the subpoenaed documents, but then Obama stepped in with an Executive Order to stop that.

• Obama has posted on his website and has stated in the debate that he wants more gun bans, growing that list to possibly include “cheap handguns.”

In his second term with no worries of re-election, Obama will do what he believes in strongly, and that means keeping his promises on banning huge segments of guns.

Obama has promised that he wants to ban more guns. Romney on the other hand has promised that he will not ban any guns. If you take both at their word, Romney is the only vote for gun owners and those that believe in the principles of self-reliance and self-defense.

Vote Romney, and until next time America.

– Bry Cox

Myths About Guns, Gun Owners, and Obama's Proposed Gun Bans

As a gun owner, competition shooter, and a believer in self-preservation, preparedness, and self-reliance, I see a lot of bad information out there about guns, particularly when it comes to the media, politics, and Obama's talks of banning a huge segment of firearms.

Here is some information to help and inform.

MYTH: Gun owners are odd, crazy, old-fashioned, and very rare.
TRUTH: Though that's how the media portrays gun owners, the truth is that there are more gun owners in America than doctors. There are more gun owners in America than golfers. In fact, there are more gun owners in America than doctors and golfers combined!

MYTH: "Gun-Free-Zones" stop and reduce crime. We need more of these zones.
TRUTH: Criminals are like bullies, they pick on the easy targets and avoid people that can fight back. People may be well intentioned by creating "Gun-Free-Zones," however, all it really means is that law-abiding citizens can't and won't be able to defend themselves in this area, and it therefore attracts crime and mass shootings.

Every mass shooting is in a "Gun-Free-Zone." No murderer who's bent on committing mass carnage ever shoots up a gun range or police precinct. Criminals are cowards and know that "Gun-Free-Zones" are the best place to commit their horrible deeds. The next mass shooting will be in a "Gun-Free Zone."

MYTH: We need to do something about guns because there are just too many accidents.
TRUTH: Most gun owners are very safe and thanks to the NRA and decades of safety training, today, even with millions more gun owners and guns in America, you are still more likely to be killed by a doctor or even struck by lightning.

MYTH: Bans on various types of guns stop crime.
TRUTH: Actually it’s the opposite. As gun sales have gone up and up over the past few decades, crime has actually gone down. In states where guns are banned or heavily restricted, crime is much higher per capita than in states where guns are more prevalent.

There are two great books written by economist, John Lott that analyze all the studies and numbers. “More Guns, Less Crime” and “The Bias Against Guns.”

MYTH: Guns cause violence, therefore a reduction in guns must mean a reduction in violence.
TRUTH: A reduction of guns has never shown a reduction in violence, but in fact a reduction in guns shows an increase in violence.

Secondly guns don't cause violence. Guns have no morals. Anything can be a weapon in the hands of somebody meaning harm. To quote Charlton Heston, “There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody — except bad people.”

Adding more difficulties in the ability to get guns only affects those people that obey the law, and means a reduction in good people being able to defend themselves against criminals.

MYTH: We need just a few more “sensible” gun bans and restrictions.
TRUTH: Gun-banners always use the word "sensible" or "common sense" when they talk of gun bans, because it appeals to gullible and ignorant people.

We currently have about 20,000 gun laws already. When you introduce new laws and restrictions, you only affect good people, law-abiding citizens and their ability to defend themselves. You do not affect criminals because by definition, criminals break laws.

MYTH: “Assault Rifles” are only for “assaulting” and of course should be banned.
TRUTH: First, what is an “Assault Rifle?” It’s not a specific gun but in fact it’s a vague and scary term created by anti-gun groups to label any gun they don’t like. There is nothing mechanically different from what they demonize as an “Assault Rifle” to any other hunting or competition gun used today or even 50 or 100 years ago.

Calling and categorizing a gun as an “Assault Rifle” is really a way for an anti-gun group to say that they don’t like the way a gun looks cosmetically, plus it helps their cause with ignorant people who are scared by the name “Assault” and feel that scary-looking guns should be banned.

If anti-gun groups can get people to agree that some guns should be banned for arbitrary reasons that are vague and ever growing, they can quickly ban literally millions of the most popular guns in America, and then continue from there, because honestly, which gun ISN'T made for "assault?"

MYTH: “Assault Rifle” is a gun term used by the gun industry to describe machine guns, particularly named “AR” as in the “AR-15.”
TRUTH: “AR” is short for the company that invented the rifle, Armalite. And these are NOT full-auto machine guns but rather semi-auto guns, just like most every other rifle made today as well as 100 years ago, despite the fact that CNN and other news agencies constantly show video of people shooting full-auto machine guns while talking about semi-auto civilian sporting rifles.

MYTH: No one NEEDS an Assault Rifle.”
TRUTH: How do you know what someone needs? Modern sporting rifles are used by millions of Americans to hunt, for sport, for competition, and to defend their homes. Yes, they are great for home defense as the rounds tend to stop in the body of the perpetrators or in the walls. Where other bullets tend to keep on going, a proper AR defense round is therefore safer for innocent people. Plus home invasions tend to be a group of people and not just one perpetrator, and no victim of a home-invasion ever wished they had fewer bullets on them.

MYTH: It’s okay to ban or restrict the ownership of bad guns, as long as we still allow people to own good guns.
TRUTH: What makes one gun bad and another gun good? As soon as you agree that there is a line that divides good guns from bad guns, then you open the door for every gun to fit in the “bad gun” category.

The rifle that President Roosevelt hunted with so long ago is exactly the same mechanically as what anti-gun groups consider an “Assault Rifle,” along with most pistols made and sold today.

Anti-gun groups have learned that you eat an elephant a bite at a time, and that if they can just restrict or ban one more thing, they can then move on to the next area.

MYTH: NO ONE should ever be able to own a gun that was “made for the battlefield.” (In the words of Obama.)
TRUTH: What gun then should you be able to own and who’s job is it to decide what YOU can own? The truth is that EVERY gun was first made for the battlefield. The fact that they work reliably and that fact that parts and ammo are cheaper and easier to get because the gun is popular, makes them more modular and great for everyone else who may customize them and use them for home defense, competition, hunting, and sporting uses.

MYTH: People only need guns for hunting and shouldn’t “need” guns for anything else.
TRUTH: The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It’s about people having the right to defend themselves and not have to wait on the Government to come save them when seconds matter, and also being able to enjoy guns and use them for good purposes.

Guns are used every single day by for good. They’re used in self-defense, competition, for recreation, for sport, and yes even for hunting. But the right to own a gun does not stop at hunting, nor does the type of gun you “should” be able to own stop at hunting.

MYTH: People should not be able to have “too many” bullets, at home, with them, or in their gun at any one time. We should restrict what people can buy or what magazines they can have.
TRUTH: This is the basically same argument that there is a line, and on one side are good guns, good magazines, and the minimum amount of bullets, and everything on the other side of this line is bad.

So where is this line? What is too many bullets? 30? 20? 10? 7? 3? 1?

For anti-gun groups the right amount of bullets is zero. They don't want anyone to have any guns or any bullets, but they won't always say that. Instead, they only say that "X is too many."

Nobody that’s been involved in a gunfight to save their life or their family’s lives ever said that they wish they had fewer bullets.

Next, restricting the number of bullets a gun can have in it will not stop evil men who already are breaking the law by trying to commit murder. The only thing that stops a bad guy or a group of bad guys with the intent to kill, is returning gunfire from a good person. And no one should restrict how many bullets a good person can have to defend themselves.

MYTH: The 2nd amendment is a “collective” right and not an “individual” right. That means we must all ask the Government’s permission, and it can restrict our rights at any time.
TRUTH: Are the other Bill of rights collective or individual? Do you need a government issued license to be allowed to speak your mind?

Though the Obama Administration and various parts of the Government argue that no one has a right to own a gun, and though the Government does infringe on individuals 2nd Amendment rights, particularly in liberal states, it’s not supposed to and those laws are being challenged in the courts systematically. Nevertheless, the whole point of the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald Decisions was that it is, and has been, an individual right.

If you agree with some bans, then you have to ask yourself who in the government gets to decide what guns get to be banned? Which un-elected group of bureaucrats get to decide the list? What makes some guns good and some guns bad? What if someone likes their guns, but they don’t like what you have?

MYTH: As Obama has stated, “we need to do something about these ‘cheap handguns’ that criminals are using.”
TRUTH: This is just another way of demonizing a segment of guns so that uneducated people will agree with more “sensible” gun bans. This statement supposes that crime comes from poor criminals that can only afford cheap handguns and that they are buying them legitimately. It suggests that if we were to make guns more expensive, only good citizens would be able to get them.

Fifty years ago or so, anti-gun groups called for a similar ban, calling evil guns, “Saturday night specials.” They suggested the same thing, that crime came from some guns being cheap. They attempted to ban a segment of guns that fit their criteria, which didn’t just include small inexpensive handguns, but also large pistols (some over a foot long) as well as the most popular and one of the most expensive guns available, the 1911.

Even if you agree to only ban cheap guns, you really are keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and not criminals. You are really saying that a poor, single mom that wants to defend herself, her child and her residence, is not able to do so.

MYTH: We need to close the Gun-Show “Loop-hole.”
TRUTH: First tell us what you mean by this so-called Gun-Show Loop-Hole because there is no black hole or area void of laws simply because you walk into a gun show. There are federal and state laws that apply everywhere, and walking into a building does not change any of those laws. All of the laws that apply outside the building apply inside as well.

Sow what is this mythical loop-hole? It’s really a way for anti-gun groups to stop the giving or selling of any gun privately. It means that you can’t give a gun to your kids when you die, or sell a gun privately without having the FBI involved in every single transaction.

Americans have the right to assemble and we also have the right to sell guns privately or give them to their children without involving the FBI. This closing of the so-called “loop-hole” really is about stopping family members from inheriting guns, family members from giving guns to another family member, and individuals from selling guns to another individual when they want.

MYTH: What does it hurt to have the Government involved in doing a background check on every single person and every single private gun sale?
TRUTH: First, more and more restrictions have not stopped crime, if anything you can show that crime goes up when you make it harder for good people to get guns.

Secondly, what happens if the FBI background system goes down, even for a few days or a few hours? There are literally thousands of transactions that happen every day, all over the country through licensed gun dealers. If you add to that doing checks on all private sales, gifts, and family transfers – and all of that would stop if the government system was down. In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr, “A right delayed is a right denied.”

MYTH: “Fast and Furious” was just Obama’s continuation of Bush’s own program.
TRUTH: There's a big difference between Obama's gun running and Bush's gun tracking programs:

(1) Unlike other past programs Obama's had no way to track where the guns went.
(2) Obama's program had no plans to follow the guns and arrest the criminals.
(3) Obama's program told ATF agents on scene to stand down and let the guns go.
(4) Obama's program was NOT done in cooperation with the Mexican government.
(5) It seems that Obama's program only expected to eventually find the guns at murder scenes, meaning that they expected murders.
(6) Obama used Executive Order to stop people from asking more questions about the program.

So unlike any past program with no expectation of ever recovering the guns or the criminals, it seems the only expectation was to wait and find these US made guns at Mexican crime scenes where they could be held up to the cameras asking for more bans. And then when Eric Holder was found in contempt for supplying only 5% of the subpoenaed documents to Congress so that they could see how far up the program went and what it was really intended for, Obama used Executive Order to stop that.

Summary: When it comes to guns, preserving the 2nd Amendment, and preserving American tradition, Romney is far better than Obama.

Vote Romney, and until next time, America.